property with "no" water

Page 3 of 5  
Pete C. wrote, on Sun, 03 Aug 2014 17:42:52 -0500:

My well, is 400 feet deep (another one is less than that but doesn't produce much) and it gets about 5 gallons a minute when it can, but it runs out of water every few minutes.
Once it runs out, it shuts off for half an hour, and then it turns on again, for about 10 to 15 minutes, and then runs out of water and the cycle renews.
In the other thread titled: How to truck 1,000 gallons of potable water to a residence I shut the well pump for a few hours, and it went for about 20 minutes before running out of water, averaging about 4 gallons a minute (more in the beginning, less in the end).
The 300 foot shallow well shut off in less than two minutes, so, I'm not counting its output.
This is Silicon Valley.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That is NOT Silicon Valley. The water table in the valley is relatively shallow and there is plenty of water (due to recharge and imported water).
You are up in the hills, at about 1800+ feet. Whole different ballgame.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Guess it really depends on where you are at. I am on the east coast in NC and sofar around here we usually have plenty of water within a few miles in moat places in the area I am in.
I have never been to CA, but from what I understand there is always a water shortage, or atleast almost every year so I can undestand the problem and differant rules.
There was a fire in the county that needed lots of water so the fire department put out a drop tank and several tanker trucks would go to pick up water and go to the fire and dump it in a tank where a pumper truck would put th ewater on the fire.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

True -- but since he calls himself "Ohioguy" I'd say Ohio is a good bet.

Not here in the Midwest, it's not.

Which is one of the many reasons that Midwesterners think anyone would have to be nuts to want to live in Kalifornia... :-)

While this might be reasonable advice for a Kalifornia property, anywhere in the Midwest it's just crazy talk.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nor would you see a bank perform a home inspection. But you would see any commercial entity that finances a house require an inspection and that would include testing the well.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, August 3, 2014 9:52:43 PM UTC-4, Arthur Conan Doyle wrote:

What exactly is a bank if not a commercial entity? Maybe others here can report if their mortgage source, either a bank or other lender, required testing a well. The ones I've been involved with never tested a well. A CO was good enough. And around here to get a CO, all that is required for a well is to have a sample of the water tested. There is no min flow requirement and no one checks it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/04/2014 7:49 AM, trader_4 wrote: ...

Have you actually had occasion for a property that had its own water source in an area that had any issues regarding adequate water, though?
I can't imagine that any COO wouldn't have a check that there is an adequate water source verified in some manner whether it's an actual well test or some other means; it just makes no sense to overlook such a basic requirement/need. OTOH, I've not ever lived in a location that had a specific COO requirement and in TN/VA there were municipal or cooperative water systems and here on the farm in KS where we're on our well there's no COO required and water is plentiful (so far altho it's being depleted rapidly by the excessive irrigation).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, August 4, 2014 10:03:01 AM UTC-4, dpb wrote:

There is always the possibility of inadequate water from a failing well. Just because the guy across the street's well is working, doesn't say anything about my well, it's depth, what acquifer it's in, etc.

They don't look at a lot of stuff. The main things are the obvious visual stuff that they can see walking through. Last house I got a CO for all they were interested in was smoke detectors, making sure bannisters/railings were installed on stairs/decks, and taking that water sample. That consisted of running some water in the bath and putting a sample in the bottle. I guess if you had leaking pipes or faucets that were obvious, they would flag that. If you have a septic system, they require proof that it was pumped out recently. But they don't go climbing into attics, roofs, crawl spaces, etc. They didn't even look at the electric panel.
Here's a current guide for a typical township in NJ. It's a rural area that has wells:
http://monroetownshipnj.org/construction-office-forms/COCecklist.pdf
OTOH, I've not ever lived in a location that

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/04/2014 11:09 AM, trader_4 wrote:

Surely doesn't read like rural area based on the first two bullets...
"1. House numbers 4”in height. 2. Electric, gas, and water must be turned on at time of inspection. ..."
No numbers on houses around here and 99% of farm houses aren't positioned where could read a house number from the road, anyway. There is now a county-installed 911-system number on a road sign on the main road that's the mileage marker at the driveway in whole numbers represented mileage from west/south edge of county to the thousandths of a mile (5 ft).
2. Surely written as though they expect you just call the utility company and have service started, not that there is water on the place itself...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, August 4, 2014 1:52:45 PM UTC-4, dpb wrote:

Good grief. Believe whatever you want. It's a rural section of suburban NJ not remote woods. Like most parts of central NJ, while part of the township is still rural with farms, etc, there are also new sub-divisions going in. Many of the older homes there have wells. If anything, that it's partly developed and in NJ makes my case better. If they were going to test wells for output for a CO, where exactly do you think it's more likely to be done? A rural, suburban township in NJ, where wells still exist? Or someplace where you live, wher e no CO is required at all? It's a curious position you have. You live were no CO is required, you have no experience in getting one, yet you want to argue about what they look at? Do you see well output or anything similar on that list?

None of which has anything to do with wells. I said it was rural NJ, not the dark side of the moon.

Nothing there that says or implies that. Still don't believe me? Here's a current real estate listing for a home in Monroe Twp with a well:
http://www.coldwellbankermoves.com/property/details/3848014/MLS-6344734/253 -Deans-Rhode-Hall-Road-Monroe-Township-NJ-08831.aspx?SearchID6530622&Ro wNum=1&StateID6&RegionID=0&IsRegularPS=True&IsSoldlse
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/05/2014 8:29 AM, trader_4 wrote: ...
Chill dood!!! :)
Was just expressing my amazement that it wouldn't be a priority item on such...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/05/2014 8:34 AM, dpb wrote:

With some other anecdotal comparison to more rural area (which we don't think is really all that "rural" any more :) ).
I still think it's somewhat incongruous that the first point is the size of the house sign number and one could fail on them being only 3-1/2" tall instead of 4" and have virtually no water. Just seems grossly misplaced priorities--but, that's just me.
--



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 10:42:46 AM UTC-4, dpb wrote:

I think the key there is they focus on safety. In my first post I cited examples of smoke detectors. Now they require CO detectors and a fire extinguisher in the kitchen that's out in the open too. The 4" numbers are obviously so police/fire can find the house. They look at missing railings on decks, stairs. So, in the context of the well, if the well flows at 1/2 gpm or 30 gpm, it's not a safety issue. If it's contaminated with fecal coliform, it is. That's likely whey they care about the water quality test and are not interested in the flow rate. The last CO inspection I had took all of about 10 mins.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/05/2014 9:57 AM, trader_4 wrote:

NJ doesn't have GPS? Even here in the wilderness the County has every taxable property/residence in a database for 911 dispatch w/ mapping software...

I'd think both would be of interest in at least assuring an adequate supply, but then again, that's just me...and I wasn't on the committee that drafted the rules. But it is called "occupancy" after all and an inadequate water supply would seem limiting...again it's not the well rate I'm saying is _necessarily_ the limiting factor as that can be solved but there ought to be a checkbox im(ns)ho that says the issue is taken care of satisfactorily, however that may be if they're going to go to the bother of doing it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ralph Mowery wrote, on Sun, 03 Aug 2014 20:50:32 -0400:

It sure is different here.
I'd bet, for example, in North Carolina, only a few houses burn at a time, whereas, out here, from hundreds to thousands burn up at the same time.
I'm not sure why that's the case, but that's what happens.
It's weird.
Have you ever had five hundred houses burn there in NC for example, in a single fire?
The Oakland fire of 1991 burned 3,354 single-family dwellings and 437 apartments for example.
I'm not sure "why" California is so different than anywhere else. Where else, in the US, do three thousand separate homes burn in a single fire?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Danny D. posted for all of us...
And I know how to SNIP

Don't know. It's environmental conditions - wind and brush, building codes, etc.
In the East the firewalls were not required to go through the roof and it would communicate through the attic. This would cause blocks of houses to burn. Older garden style apartments were the same. If they burn now they are required to rebuild to modern code.
--
Tekkie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Pico Rico wrote, on Sun, 03 Aug 2014 17:45:05 -0700:

You are correct. I'm a couple miles *from* the valley, but up in the hills.
I've never heard anyone *not* call it Silicon Valley though, but, from a water perspective, it's hill and not valley floor.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
> I've never heard anyone *not* call it Silicon Valley though, but, from a > water perspective, it's hill and not valley floor.
Perhaps you can coin a new term: "Silicon Ridge"?
>You didn't mention where you live, but there is a chance you can >just go deeper, but, it costs about $100 a foot to drill, so, you're >looking at doubling the price of the property (although $64K is >practically free as property prices go. Just the yearly tax alone on a >typical Silicon Valley California property in a few years equals that >much).
SW Ohio. Based on the geology maps of the area, it does NOT make sense to go deeper, unless you are just drilling a deep cylinder to act as a water reservoir. The geology maps show that there does not tend to be water bearing rock down under 80 feet in this area. The porous, water bearing rock/sandy layer tends to be in the first 50 feet around here normally.
While I'll agree that $64k is probably a good price for the place, I certainly don't consider it "free". I consider farmland to be worth about $8,000 an acre.
My grandfather (a farmer who had more than 300 acres) took me aside one day and gave me two pieces of advice when I was becoming a young man, probably back in the mid 1980's:
A) keep your thing in your pants
&
B) don't EVER pay more than $2,000 an acre for good farmland
Well, allowing for inflation and greater farm profits over the past few years, that $2k he mentioned is probably closer to $8k or so now. This is for typical Ohio farmland, not something next to the Interstate that is likely to be turned into restaurants.
Also, I consider property taxes to be designed to bring in 100% of a property's value over 50 years, or pretty much the lifetime of a typical owner. Anything that asks more than 2% of the value of the place per year is highway robbery. So says my other grandfather, who is 92 years old this year. He pays about the same on his ~80 acres as we do on our current TWO TENTHS of an acre.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/04/2014 8:26 AM, Ohioguy wrote: ...

Which makes drilling two that deep even harder to understand...iirc you mentioned 5" casing so neglecting the space taken by the well outlet pipe not knowing what was used and being optimistic, 150' from the 50-ft assumed water table level to 200 is about a 150 gal reservoir. At 1 gpm you've got an hour+ pumping w/ minimal reflow rate...
Again, my main concern here isn't so much the rate but the "why" and the "if" going forward. _SOMETHING_ had to be behind the situation as it is even if it turns out to be sheer folly and ignorance it would seem imperative to me to know that going in.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yep, that's what happens when you live in a desert.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.