This paper uses three case studies of urban water conflict in the United States in order to identify and compare solutions. Coupling qualitative data with a unique index of municipal water conservation policy, I examine the different approaches that these three cities adopted in the face of water stress and conflict, as well as the relative strength each approach brought to water conservation. Based on 31 qualitative interviews with water stakeholders in three selected cities (Phoenix, San Antonio, Tampa) and qualitative comparative case histories drawn from newspaper accounts and secondary sources, I find that entrenched conflict over local water resources usually requires action from a higher governing authority, in accordance with theories of multilevel governance. However, multilevel governance is not sufficient to produce strong urban water conservation policies. It is also critical that policy be targeted to meet specific minimum environmental indicators to prevent continued resource depletion. Moreover, a breach of that environmental indicator must trigger some penalty for noncompliance to sustain the resource into the future.