That's really unlikely. The cost of putting a pump that can lift 240' of water
would far exceed the cost of a storage tank. We have about 8 wells that vary
from 240 to 500 feet. Replacing a 240' one runs about $2000. Now they are great
pumps (variable speed motors), but I wouldn't use the well bore for storage.
Yep. The county here has issued a letter stating that up to 10% of the homes in
this area are served by failed or underperforming wells and have water trucked
in. The reason they issued that letter is to assure lenders that a lack of water
is "normal" for this area. A one off dry well wouldn't get that treatment.
bob haller posted for all of us...
And I know how to SNIP
Let the fire company figure it out. It doesn't sound like this area uses
private holding tanks like in another thread. This area is most likely a
class 8 ISO rating.
To the OP I haven't read all the posts. Get a price for the drilling of a
reliable well and negotiate the price with the bank. It sounds like you
really like the place but get a GOOD inspection done to find the faults. Ask
the neighbors if there has been a common problem between units. Watch the TV
show flip or flop as this guy goes blindly from house to house. Of course
one can't tell what went on behind the scenes.
Ralph Mowery posted for all of us...
And I know how to SNIP
do 500 per minute, larger go to 750 or 1000 per minute. Tanks are usually
500-750 gallons depending on chassis.
They don't. Fire Dept's are rated by the insurance services office (ISO).
This is how the insurance Co's have a standard comparison between vendors.
If the fire co upgrades equipment or a myriad other factors (like response
times) the the rating can go up. 1 being best & 8 being worst. The fire co
must request the re rating. Watch out because it can also be de-rated. The
rating most affects commercial property. The insurance information should
show the rating class.
The driller didn't check out the topography for the water bearing
bedrock. I believe it's even accessible on-line.
Going deeper doesn't mean you will get what you want. If the topography
is known, you _may_ hit an adequate supply of water by drilling on the
other side of the house.
Stormin Mormon wrote, on Mon, 04 Aug 2014 19:48:01 -0400:
Hey Stormin! I learned something looking that up to answer
Here is the "Santa Clara County Defensible Space Chipping Program:
It says (verbatim) "SCFSC will chip brush that has been cleared 100’
from permanent structures and/or 30’ from any roadside or driveway
used for evacuation purposes."
Up until this very moment, I hadn't known they'll chip within 30
feet of the driveway and roadway "used for evacuation" purposes
(which pretty much is *every* driveway and roadway around here
(since it's an extreme fire hazard area, the highest hazard level
that California uses).
In theory, they leave the chips but in practice, they take 'em
away. I just called them at 408-975-9591 to ask how much they
think it reduces the risk of fire damage to structures, but had
to leave a message.
However the FAQ says they're supposed to protect the homes from
Pete C. wrote, on Mon, 04 Aug 2014 07:04:45 -0500:
You're probably right as I have never been able to figure out how
water flows through the ground to the well, and how it replenishes
when we're on a hill so I can't understand why it doesn't just flow
out the hill from the sides (which it does, as springs, but they
mostly flow only during the winter rainy season).
I watched this 10-minute video on how a well works, which was pretty
good, but didn't really answer all the questions I have in my mind:
It's interesting that you're suggesting a lower yield will run longer.
Is there a way to tell the pump to slow down (i.e., go lower on the
Stormin Mormon wrote, on Tue, 05 Aug 2014 08:33:21 -0400:
They send out leaflets every year and I see piles of
chips alongside some driveways (but many can be up near
the houses where I can't see them).
They try to do them all at the same time, so, I'd
say one out of every twenty homes does it (roughly).
It's not many, and they don't have to do it every year.
so joe X buys a home with poor well water production and cant afford a new
well. the home cant really be lived in so joe moves out and defaults on th
the lender is now stuck with another foreclosure.....
today lenders try to prevent things like this by often requiring a home ins
pection. that covers a multitude of issues.
another related topic, homeowners insurance companies have gotten very fuss
y about writing policies. high wind insurance for homes along coasts, prohi
bitions on new policies for homes with fuses, knob and tube wiring, bad roo
fs, cracked and broken sidewalks, and lots of other possible risks. sometim
es insurance is still avaiable at dramatically higher costs.
On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 10:02:13 PM UTC-4, bob haller wrote:
w well. the home cant really be lived in so joe moves out and defaults on
So far it sounds like the house has new wells capable of producing 1/2
to 1.25 GPM. IDK why that can't be lived in. It justs requires the
proper system, with about a 1000 gal tank. We've had Danny talking
about the many systems in his neighborhood that have tanks that are
5,000 or 10,000 gallons. So, a 1000 gal tank to solve this doesn't
sound way out there or expensive.
nspection. that covers a multitude of issues.
ssy about writing policies. high wind insurance for homes along coasts, pro
hibitions on new policies for homes with fuses, knob and tube wiring, bad r
oofs, cracked and broken sidewalks, and lots of other possible risks. somet
imes insurance is still avaiable at dramatically higher costs.
I've heard of an insurance company denying coverage based on some of
the above, because it relates to insurance risk. I've never heard of
an insurance company denying coverage based on the flow rate of a private w
which AFAIK, has nothing to do with risk.
Probably won't get a COA if needed.
You won't get an FHA Mortgage:
Pump test indicating a flow of at least 3-5
gallons per minute supply for an existing
well, and 5 gallons per minute for a new well
Nor will it meet many state codes:
The Water Well Board and the New Hampshire Water Well Association, a
group of private professionals associated with the well water industry,
both recommend a flow rate of 4 gallons per minute for a 4 hour period.
That’s equivalent to 960 gallons of water flowing steadily for 4 hours.
These groups agree these results will ensure optimum water supply for
home use and a modest amount of outdoor use.
On Thursday, August 7, 2014 2:22:03 PM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
new well. the home cant really be lived in so joe moves out and defaults
on the loan....
What's a COA? You mean a CO? You'd get one in NJ.
Apparently, per the FHA, that went out the window in 2005:
FHA no longer mandates automatic inspections for the following items and/or
conditions in existing properties:
Wood Destroying Insects/Organisms: inspection required only if evidence of
active infestation, mandated by the state or local jurisdiction, if custom
ary to area, or at lender's discretion
Well (individual water system): test or inspection required if mandated by
state or local jurisdiction; if there is knowledge that well water may be
contaminated; when the water supply relies upon a water purification system
due to presence of contaminants; or when there is evidence of:
Corrosion of pipes (plumbing)
Areas of intensive agriculture within 1/4 mile
Coal mining or gas drilling operations within 1/4 mile
Dump, junkyard, landfill, factory, gas station, or dry cleaning operation w
ithin 1/4 mile
Unusually objectionable taste, smell or appearance of well water
(superceding the guidance in Mortgagee Letter 95-34 that requires well wate
r testing in the absence of local or state regulations)"
As I said before, here, NJ, the state requires a water quality test,
but no flow rate test. By my reading of the above, here you'd have to
have the water quality tested because it's a state requirement. There
is no reqt for a flow test.
NJ doesn't require a min flow rate. So far, I haven't seen anything
that says OH does either. I googled and it sure looks like they are
similar to NJ, ie concerned about water quality, you have to test that
to get a CO, but not flow rate.
And there are plenty of other mortgage sources other than FHA.
This reminds me on my mother telling me a story about what happened when
they were having a house built in the 50s. She went to the site one
day to find that the plumber had installed the toilet a few inches out
from the wall. When she asked what was up with that, he told her that
is the FHA standard. She told him they didn't have an FHA mortgage
and to move the toilet. If the OP wants to buy the house, the first
place I'd look for a mortgage is the folks who foreclosed on the loan.
I think you're confusing actual codes with recommendations. The above
clearly says "recommended". I'm not saying there isn't a potential
problem somewhere, with some agency. There are also plenty of places
where you still don't even need a CO period.
the ultimate question.........
Is OP prepared to do whatever is necessary if / when the existing poor production wells dry up altogether?
this would require having water hauled in or a brand new well, probably futher from the home.
as long as the OP is willing to do whatever is necessary and can afford it then the home is probably a good deal.
OP might look into having the existing low production well exploded .
they send a explosive charge down, to try and crack the surrounding rock in the hopes it opens up and water production increases.
most commonly done on gas and oil wells, but it can be done for water wells too.
the hazard is it might collapse the existing wells since they are so close....
Along similar lines, here's a well being drilled just about 50 feet
from a neighboring well on the next property (which I'm standing on).
This drill seems to be going straight down though (you can see a tall
white tower hidden mostly by the trees). They went 520 feet deep.
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.