As climate change amplifies more volatile weather patterns, water utilities face increasing difficulty in simultaneously ensuring revenue feasibility, promoting water conservation, and protecting low-income consumers. This paper tests and concludes that price alone cannot achieve these competing policy goals under different weather patterns. Using granular household data from Austin, TX, and a structural demand model enhanced with satellite imagery-derived vegetation index, I find that because high-water users exist across all income levels, traditional tiered pricing doesn’t work as intended. Furthermore, higher-income households—who are both weather-sensitive and surprisingly price-elastic—complicate the utility's ability to achieve its distributional objectives while meeting the conservation target. When high-demand conditions (e.g., drought) make conservation measures necessary, low-income families experience an average welfare loss of $74 per month. This highlights the necessity of complementary policies to achieve distributional goals when demand increases. For example, a program encouraging households to convert 30% of their lawns to water-saving landscapes (zeroscaping/xeriscaping) could generate approximately $70 per month in welfare for the lowest-income families, nearly offsetting the financial burden imposed by conservation policies during droughts.