The neighbors, who recently ran out of water, just drilled a new
well of 520 feet, which is getting 18 gallons per minute, and which
hit water at 300 feet initially.
They said it cost over 50K to drill, and that's not even counting
the new tanks they had to put in to meet the new code.
bob haller wrote, on Sat, 12 Jul 2014 09:38:37 -0700:
This is California, Silicon Valley, one of the most expensive
places in the country, where I was quoted $4,200 just to fill
my pool with water.
My neighbors, who drilled a 520 foot well, said it cost them over
fifty thousand dollars, so, that's about $100 a foot.
They had initially hit water at 300 feet, but at 520 feet,
they're getting 18 gallons a minute, and the code is that they
must also have 15,000 gallons of tank, where the rules are such
that each tank will be 5,000 gallons (because of platform
requirements if it's over 5,000 gallons).
10,000 gallons must be reserved for fire suppression alone, so
only 5,000 gallons is for the homeowner.
Everything costs (far) more in California, but, googling,
I see this listing today:
Which is $4K for a used 1,000 gallon water hauling trailer,
shop made, sold in Illinois, by Jed Weber, at 309-526-3636.
Here's a new 1,000 gallon water hauling trailer for $12K:
Here's a nearby Craigslist ad for 500 gallons at $8,500:
Seems to me this is a good DIY project, to build our own.
Seems all we'd need are:
1. Cylindrical tank strapped to a ...
2. Standard trailer, and a few ...
3. Pump & hoses & fittings
On Sat, 28 Jun 2014 16:20:28 +0000 (UTC), "DannyD."
You get very little of it back. Drive any car with a continuous
mileage readout and you'll be astounded how low the uphill mileage is.
You might be lucky to get 1/10 uphill as on a level. Of course it
depends on the slope.
In your case, you are hauling a lot of weight uphill and not taking it
back down, so there's no chance at all the reclaim the energy you put
into raising the weight.
Even without that, most of the energy you gain going downhill goes
into heating the brakes and the air, depending on slope, speed limit,
On Mon, 4 Aug 2014 00:12:12 +0000 (UTC), "Danny D."
I thought Prop-13 passed in the mid 1970s limited property taxes to 1%
of the owner's purchase price with a *very small* increase allowed
every year? Did that change or did the politicos find a way around
Web based forums are like subscribing to 10 different newspapers
and having to visit 10 different news stands to pickup each one.
Maximum of 2% per year increase.
This would be pretty fair, and would provide sufficient revenue, if it
applied to one, primary, non-commercial, owner-occupied, residence, with
no exceptions. Unfortunately there are loads of exceptions. So with so
many people able to pay far less than their fair share, the property
taxes need to be supplemented with parcel taxes.
Additional parcel taxes can be passed with a 2/3 vote. School taxes in
areas with good schools always seem to pass. With good reason because
houses in areas with good schools increase in value and are fairly
immune to housing bubbles. A 1960's era, 1500-2000 square foot, tract
home, on a 6000 square foot lot, in a neighborhood with good schools, is
around $1.5 million. Property taxes would be about $20K per year.
Housing and college tuition are what are the biggest expenses in
California. Other expenses are not really greater than a lot of other
states. Food is cheap.
What California does, is raise the price of the property up to 2% every
year (invariably), & they constantly add additional "assessments",
which all seem to past the ballot procedure out here (Californians
don't seem to feel that they're taxed enough yet).
They have Measure A, Measure B, Measure C.... Measure F, etc. all of
which are assessments such as the most recent $17/100,000 of assessment
just for the open space that you don't even live on.
All of which pass.
In addition to that, they add cleverly crafted "fees" (which aren't
taxes but in all ways, are exactly like taxes, down to the fact they
can take away your house if you don't pay them), which only need a
50% majority (instead of a super majority) to pass.
What irks me is how much they lie to the people, and the Californians
don't even realize it. If California had folks from the east, they'd
never put up with the shenanigans they pull out here. < / rant >
The 2% limit is a good thing! Prior to that they were basing the
property tax on the actual value, not the the purchase price plus a
maximum of 2% per year.
But Prop 13 should have applied to one, owner-occupied, residential
property, not to commercial property or rental property.
Our schools must have the most amazing restrooms since every parcel tax
for schools seems to mention "provide safe, clean, restrooms."
True. But here's why I kind of like the fees and parcel taxes. There's a
great many people making high incomes that are paying extremely low
property taxes either because of the loopholes in Prop 13, or because
they are living in their parent's house, or because they have turned a
former personal residence into an income property. They can't escape the
parcel taxes and fees and as these become a larger percentage of the
total tax burden it becomes fairer.
For example, on the street next to me, one family is living in the
wife's parent's house. They are probably paying about $1000 per year in
property taxes. If the house was taxed at the assessed value it would
bring in about $18,000 per year. If it were assessed at the value when
they moved in, plus 2% annual increases, it would probably be taxed at
$6000-7000. They send their kids to the same public schools as the kids
of parents paying $8000-16,000 in property taxes. They are free-loading.
These taxes and fees usually have an exemption for seniors (but
ironically seniors still get to vote to impose them) so the argument of
"taxing seniors out their homes" doesn't work.
Stormin Mormon wrote, on Sun, 03 Aug 2014 20:23:16 -0400:
Heh heh... I didn't ask, but, here's a picture of the
well drillers doing their thing. Notice what looks like
"snow" on the ground is some kind of foam...
But there is a big big problem, it turns out.
The well, which is 520 feet, is NOT delivering the 18 gpm that
I was initially told. It's more like 2.5 gpm, and much much
worse than that, it has been flushing for a week now, and the
water is still a turbid GRAY color!
It's not sediment, they told me, because it doesn't settle out.
They told me that the wells usually clear out the turbidity
within a week, but this one isn't doing anything.
So, they've been pumping water, for an entire week, into the
ground from under the ground, and the entire area is gray.
I don't know what's in gray water, but, it's odd to see it
coming out of the ground (they wouldn't let me take any pictures
so I had to sneak that picture from across the yard of the
Stormin Mormon wrote, on Sun, 03 Aug 2014 20:28:16 -0400:
Funny you should mention that.
Two women, one divorced, the other whose husband recently died
shared the original well, and the divorced one (with the more
money) decided to drill her own 520 foot well last week.
I snapped a picture of the drillers drilling from the other
side, and posted it here:
The woman with the original old well, whom I know better, asked me
help her with a flat tire and to check her pump because they had no
water, so, I stopped by, and noticed the drillers were still there,
a full week later.
I walked over and they were a bit tight lipped (and wouldn't let
me take pictures), but, they have been pumping water out of that
new well at about 2.5 gallons per minute and the water is absolutely
*gray*. They called it "turbid". It looked horrid.
They were pumping it into buckets also, which, they said, would
never settle out, as the gray is part of the water and not
sediment. The driller said he's never seen a well take a full
week and still be gray, so, the water just might not be usable.
We'll see, but, back to the original well tanks, I noticed the
pump never turned on, so, I flipped these breakers:
The bad news is that someone must have cut the copper wire on the
middle two (why would they do that?) but the good news is that
this started the well pumping again:
Looking inside the tank, I couldn't see well as I didn't have
artificial light, but, the water looked slightly gray. So, I
wonder if this water is tainted somehow? The two wells are only
about 40 or 50 feet apart, so, the water is similar (although
the depths are almost certainly different).
BTW, there was a really small fire about a mile away today,
so I stopped by the firetruck to ask some questions.
That truck is 500 gallons, and it has a 4-inch, 2-1/2 inch, and
1-1/2 inch connector on the sides (the four inch is on the other
side of the truck).
The guys told me they generally abhor the wharf hydrants that
are in everyone's property (so why do we have them?) because
the flow is so bad. They pump in from one side and out the other,
as you can see in the middle of the truck.
They also pump out the front of the truck, and the back, from
the tank, but they only use the sides to pump from a pool or
The four inch connector (in the driver's side) is for pumping
out of ponds and pools, while the 2-1/2 is on both sides and
it's for the hydrants.
Just FYI ...
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.