I got 3 bids for replacing my old broken clay 4" (?) drainage lateral,
and I went with the first bid. They did the snake camera thing and
didn't charge me and their bid was much lower than the other two ($4,200
vs. over $6000 for the other two).

Today, they arrived to do the work. They said they'd do the trenchless
replacement tomorrow and dug the holes today (7 holes in all, I
believe). They had to use a jackhammer in several places to remove
concrete.

They roused me from inside the house several times for one reason or
another, but one time it was to show me that the old galvanized water
main pipe had a major leak (it was spraying water pretty fast). They
said (I think!) that it was 1/2" pipe! They said I must have had
elevated water bills and I said my water usage had actually been very
small (less than $5/month before all the water treatment and sewage
charges, etc. etc.). They then said it had been a slow leak but the
disturbance they'd made had increased it. They told one of the guys to
run and shut off the main.

I'd presumed that the guy who'd worked up my bid when he came around
later in the day would discuss fixing this or replacing it, since it's a
pretty major thing, but he didn't mention it. Still, I assumed he had
some ideas concerning this, and I'd hear about it later. I had other
fish to fry with him because I have an upstairs tub drain that's clogged
(all my efforts and those of another guy have failed), and there's the
matter of wetness under my downstairs bathroom. He said since I was
doing a $4000 job with them, he'd send a guy out for free who would try
to snake out the tub drain. If that didn't work, there would be charges
to do whatever is necessary if I agreed to the work. That might (worst
case) involve replacing the tub drain, which goes through the walls of
the first and second story (rather involved!).

The wetness under the downstairs bathroom he said they'd know more about
later in the day.

So, the bidder/foreman leaves and his workers put a temporary clamp on
the pipe that slows the leak to the point where they can turn on the
water main again. Then one guy takes me aside (a latino guy) and tells
me he can replace the water main pipe in his spare time ("Saturday") and
will charge me a good price - $3000. He says to sound out the foreman
what he would charge and not tell him about our side thing and then
decide if I want him to do it. A little later he rouses me and says he
has a friend who will do it cheaper - $2000 or $1800 depending on the
length of the pipe, evidently. They tell me it's around 80 to 90 feet.
The house is almost 100 years old and the meter is at the sidewalk and
the only shutoff is right at the meter. He has me talk right to his
latino "friend" on his cell phone. They inform me afterward that this
guy is one of their foremen and quite experienced. I was told by one of
the women in their office that their crews (13 guys in all) have all
been together at least 6 years.

This guy proposes to use either 3/4" or 1" copper pipe, probably 1" and
he said he already has the pipe. They all encourage me to go ahead and
see what the company would charge for replacing the water main pipe and
then decide if I want this guy to do it instead of the company.

I'm unclear where they are with the wetness under the downstairs
bathroom (their English is pretty fractured) -- they found bamboo roots
thickly around where the galvanized drains meet the clay lateral pipes.

I'm wondering a number of things. Firstly, if this is going to be
outside the law -- IOW, is a permit required to replace the water main
pipe and if so, are they going to comply with the permit process.
Indeed, my contract with the plumbing company to replace my sewer
lateral ("approximately 90 feet") says that their bid doesn't include
permit fees, and I have no information from anyone concerning permits,
if they have pulled them and what the fees are going to be.

I called mid-afternoon and asked to talk to the foreman/bidder and was
told he would call me back probably in a minute or two. He didn't call
me. So, I have nothing to compare bids with... yet, and won't at least
until the crew comes to complete the drainage repairs tomorrow.

I am thinking maybe I should get some more bids, not just this plumbing
company and one of it's foremen working on his own (although they told
me that 2 of the 3 on the crew today would help this guy). I figure I
can say "give me a phone number and I'll call you if I decide to have
you do it." However, I'm kind of worried about the present water leak. I
already have a bunch of sink holes and a seriously depressed section of
driveway out there from the bad drainage system, and possibly also due
to that break in the water main (and maybe other breaks). So, I figure
whatever I do, I should do it quick.

Truly, this is only the second time I have ever dealt with home repair
contractors, and I'm less than confident. I'm almost in my mid-60's, but
am in pretty good shape, so doing my own repair work isn't out of the
question here. However, I don't know how long I can live without running
water!! I guess maybe I should field a number of bids.

Is copper best or should I consider plastic? If copper, L or is K OK?
1"?

Thanks for sage and considered advice!

Dan

Dan_Musicant wrote:

I got 3 bids for replacing my old broken clay 4" (?) drainage lateral,
and I went with the first bid. They did the snake camera thing and
didn't charge me and their bid was much lower than the other two ($4,200
vs. over $6000 for the other two).

Today, they arrived to do the work. They said they'd do the trenchless
replacement tomorrow and dug the holes today (7 holes in all, I
believe). They had to use a jackhammer in several places to remove
concrete.

They roused me from inside the house several times for one reason or
another, but one time it was to show me that the old galvanized water
main pipe had a major leak (it was spraying water pretty fast). They
said (I think!) that it was 1/2" pipe! They said I must have had
elevated water bills and I said my water usage had actually been very
small (less than $5/month before all the water treatment and sewage
charges, etc. etc.). They then said it had been a slow leak but the
disturbance they'd made had increased it. They told one of the guys to
run and shut off the main.

I'd presumed that the guy who'd worked up my bid when he came around
later in the day would discuss fixing this or replacing it, since it's a
pretty major thing, but he didn't mention it. Still, I assumed he had
some ideas concerning this, and I'd hear about it later. I had other
fish to fry with him because I have an upstairs tub drain that's clogged
(all my efforts and those of another guy have failed), and there's the
matter of wetness under my downstairs bathroom. He said since I was
doing a $4000 job with them, he'd send a guy out for free who would try
to snake out the tub drain. If that didn't work, there would be charges
to do whatever is necessary if I agreed to the work. That might (worst
case) involve replacing the tub drain, which goes through the walls of
the first and second story (rather involved!).

The wetness under the downstairs bathroom he said they'd know more about
later in the day.

So, the bidder/foreman leaves and his workers put a temporary clamp on
the pipe that slows the leak to the point where they can turn on the
water main again. Then one guy takes me aside (a latino guy) and tells
me he can replace the water main pipe in his spare time ("Saturday") and
will charge me a good price - $3000. He says to sound out the foreman
what he would charge and not tell him about our side thing and then
decide if I want him to do it. A little later he rouses me and says he
has a friend who will do it cheaper - $2000 or $1800 depending on the
length of the pipe, evidently. They tell me it's around 80 to 90 feet.
The house is almost 100 years old and the meter is at the sidewalk and
the only shutoff is right at the meter. He has me talk right to his
latino "friend" on his cell phone. They inform me afterward that this
guy is one of their foremen and quite experienced. I was told by one of
the women in their office that their crews (13 guys in all) have all
been together at least 6 years.

This guy proposes to use either 3/4" or 1" copper pipe, probably 1" and
he said he already has the pipe. They all encourage me to go ahead and
see what the company would charge for replacing the water main pipe and
then decide if I want this guy to do it instead of the company.

I'm unclear where they are with the wetness under the downstairs
bathroom (their English is pretty fractured) -- they found bamboo roots
thickly around where the galvanized drains meet the clay lateral pipes.

I'm wondering a number of things. Firstly, if this is going to be
outside the law -- IOW, is a permit required to replace the water main
pipe and if so, are they going to comply with the permit process.
Indeed, my contract with the plumbing company to replace my sewer
lateral ("approximately 90 feet") says that their bid doesn't include
permit fees, and I have no information from anyone concerning permits,
if they have pulled them and what the fees are going to be.

I called mid-afternoon and asked to talk to the foreman/bidder and was
told he would call me back probably in a minute or two. He didn't call
me. So, I have nothing to compare bids with... yet, and won't at least
until the crew comes to complete the drainage repairs tomorrow.

I am thinking maybe I should get some more bids, not just this plumbing
company and one of it's foremen working on his own (although they told
me that 2 of the 3 on the crew today would help this guy). I figure I
can say "give me a phone number and I'll call you if I decide to have
you do it." However, I'm kind of worried about the present water leak. I
already have a bunch of sink holes and a seriously depressed section of
driveway out there from the bad drainage system, and possibly also due
to that break in the water main (and maybe other breaks). So, I figure
whatever I do, I should do it quick.

Truly, this is only the second time I have ever dealt with home repair
contractors, and I'm less than confident. I'm almost in my mid-60's, but
am in pretty good shape, so doing my own repair work isn't out of the
question here. However, I don't know how long I can live without running
water!! I guess maybe I should field a number of bids.

Is copper best or should I consider plastic? If copper, L or is K OK?
1"?

Thanks for sage and considered advice!

Dan



Running the new water service would almost certainly require
a permit. And authorization from the utility.

But at this point in the game.........

If you were even able to get the permit, the inspector
would see the recent sewer work and have a fit.

I don't have a good answer for that unless the guys you talked
to can simply go ahead and do it.

Only Type K copper is used where copper is used for service lines.

Be sure to see that electrical bonding jumpers are installed
around the meter and inside the house.

If you do go with plastic, you will have additional grounding
problems to solve. No biggie but must be considered.

Good luck.

Jim

On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 04:51:46 GMT, Speedy Jim wrote:

: Running the new water service would almost certainly require
:a permit. And authorization from the utility.
:
: But at this point in the game.........
:
: If you were even able to get the permit, the inspector
:would see the recent sewer work and have a fit.
:
: I don't have a good answer for that unless the guys you talked
:to can simply go ahead and do it.
:
: Only Type K copper is used where copper is used for service lines.
:
: Be sure to see that electrical bonding jumpers are installed
:around the meter and inside the house.
:
: If you do go with plastic, you will have additional grounding
roblems to solve. No biggie but must be considered.
:
:Good luck.
:
:Jim

Thanks. Well, I don't really know if these guys have gone into a permit
process for my drainage. They are a very old established plumbing and
heating company, and they come recommended, so I just assumed that they
have me covered there. The contract said that their bid did not include
costs of permits. That didn't mean they weren't going to add the cost of
permits. I should have asked them about permits, but didn't. Isn't it
standard for a contractor to do that? I'm going to ask them first thing
in the morning about that. If it was on me to get the permit, they
should have told me so, right? Anyway, it seems to me that at THIS
point it's not too late to have an inspection and be permitted.
Everything is open and visible, they've done no work. The plastic pipe
is out there ready for installation.

I assume you are referring to electrical bonding jumpers in regards to
copper water main installation. Where I am, I don't think they use water
pipes for grounds. However, you may be speaking of them in terms of
preventing electrolysis induced metal decay. So I'll talk to whoever
does the water main replacement about that if they use copper.

My thinking now is to solicit a few bids. Weather is going to be OK the
next week and things are slow here for contractors because it's THAT
time of year. It might help me get some low bids, I'm told by a
contractor friend of mine.

If water pipes aren't used for grounds here I presume that using plastic
isn't problematical from that aspect.

Dan

PS If the inspector has a fit, I think I have a good case for
innosence. It really never occured to me that I'd screwed up there.
Anyway, I'm going to try to make sure I'm OK with that. I'm sure this
plumbing company is fully aware that in my town they now require
certification for the drainage to put a house on the market. Those ducks
have to be in order.

my 60 ft water line to the main was one inch copper for $5,000. and
worth every penny. i should have let them pave the 2 included concrete
in the driveway, my wife grumbles regularly. i thought i would let
things settle and pave the driveway a year later. oops.
i didn't consider replacing the old sewer line because of the rocky
layout.
have company #1 owner and your town inspector agree with you on all
your work. even with a written contract the homeowner pays for the
permits.
[or else what would your recourse be if the water line freezes next
year?]
your wetness and old broken water line are both your problems, fix
them.
then read up on building science at:
http://www.buildingscience.com/resources/homeowner.htm

Dan_Musicant wrote:
I got 3 bids for replacing my old broken clay 4" (?) drainage lateral,
and I went with the first bid. They did the snake camera thing and
didn't charge me and their bid was much lower than the other two ($4,200
vs. over $6000 for the other two).

Today, they arrived to do the work. They said they'd do the trenchless
replacement tomorrow and dug the holes today (7 holes in all, I
believe). They had to use a jackhammer in several places to remove
concrete.

They roused me from inside the house several times for one reason or
another, but one time it was to show me that the old galvanized water
main pipe had a major leak (it was spraying water pretty fast). They
said (I think!) that it was 1/2" pipe! They said I must have had
elevated water bills and I said my water usage had actually been very
small (less than $5/month before all the water treatment and sewage
charges, etc. etc.). They then said it had been a slow leak but the
disturbance they'd made had increased it. They told one of the guys to
run and shut off the main.

I'd presumed that the guy who'd worked up my bid when he came around
later in the day would discuss fixing this or replacing it, since it's a
pretty major thing, but he didn't mention it. Still, I assumed he had
some ideas concerning this, and I'd hear about it later. I had other
fish to fry with him because I have an upstairs tub drain that's clogged
(all my efforts and those of another guy have failed), and there's the
matter of wetness under my downstairs bathroom. He said since I was
doing a $4000 job with them, he'd send a guy out for free who would try
to snake out the tub drain. If that didn't work, there would be charges
to do whatever is necessary if I agreed to the work. That might (worst
case) involve replacing the tub drain, which goes through the walls of
the first and second story (rather involved!).

The wetness under the downstairs bathroom he said they'd know more about
later in the day.

So, the bidder/foreman leaves and his workers put a temporary clamp on
the pipe that slows the leak to the point where they can turn on the
water main again. Then one guy takes me aside (a latino guy) and tells
me he can replace the water main pipe in his spare time ("Saturday") and
will charge me a good price - $3000. He says to sound out the foreman
what he would charge and not tell him about our side thing and then
decide if I want him to do it. A little later he rouses me and says he
has a friend who will do it cheaper - $2000 or $1800 depending on the
length of the pipe, evidently. They tell me it's around 80 to 90 feet.
The house is almost 100 years old and the meter is at the sidewalk and
the only shutoff is right at the meter. He has me talk right to his
latino "friend" on his cell phone. They inform me afterward that this
guy is one of their foremen and quite experienced. I was told by one of
the women in their office that their crews (13 guys in all) have all
been together at least 6 years.

This guy proposes to use either 3/4" or 1" copper pipe, probably 1" and
he said he already has the pipe. They all encourage me to go ahead and
see what the company would charge for replacing the water main pipe and
then decide if I want this guy to do it instead of the company.

I'm unclear where they are with the wetness under the downstairs
bathroom (their English is pretty fractured) -- they found bamboo roots
thickly around where the galvanized drains meet the clay lateral pipes.

I'm wondering a number of things. Firstly, if this is going to be
outside the law -- IOW, is a permit required to replace the water main
pipe and if so, are they going to comply with the permit process.
Indeed, my contract with the plumbing company to replace my sewer
lateral ("approximately 90 feet") says that their bid doesn't include
permit fees, and I have no information from anyone concerning permits,
if they have pulled them and what the fees are going to be.

I called mid-afternoon and asked to talk to the foreman/bidder and was
told he would call me back probably in a minute or two. He didn't call
me. So, I have nothing to compare bids with... yet, and won't at least
until the crew comes to complete the drainage repairs tomorrow.

I am thinking maybe I should get some more bids, not just this plumbing
company and one of it's foremen working on his own (although they told
me that 2 of the 3 on the crew today would help this guy). I figure I
can say "give me a phone number and I'll call you if I decide to have
you do it." However, I'm kind of worried about the present water leak. I
already have a bunch of sink holes and a seriously depressed section of
driveway out there from the bad drainage system, and possibly also due
to that break in the water main (and maybe other breaks). So, I figure
whatever I do, I should do it quick.

Truly, this is only the second time I have ever dealt with home repair
contractors, and I'm less than confident. I'm almost in my mid-60's, but
am in pretty good shape, so doing my own repair work isn't out of the
question here. However, I don't know how long I can live without running
water!! I guess maybe I should field a number of bids.

Is copper best or should I consider plastic? If copper, L or is K OK?
1"?

Thanks for sage and considered advice!

Dan

On 28 Dec 2006 00:50:22 -0800, "buffalobill"
wrote:

:my 60 ft water line to the main was one inch copper for $5,000. and
:worth every penny. i should have let them pave the 2 included concrete
:in the driveway, my wife grumbles regularly. i thought i would let
:things settle and pave the driveway a year later. oops.
:i didn't consider replacing the old sewer line because of the rocky
:layout.
:have company #1 owner and your town inspector agree with you on all
:your work. even with a written contract the homeowner pays for the
ermits.
:[or else what would your recourse be if the water line freezes next
:year?]
:your wetness and old broken water line are both your problems, fix
:them.
:then read up on building science at:
:http://www.buildingscience.com/resources/homeowner.htm

Thanks. Where I live (Berkeley, CA) it's really a practical
impossibility for my water main to freeze. On the rarest occasions an
exposed water line might freeze. In 1990 we had a low of 27 degrees
overnight, and that was the coldest it's been in probably well over 30
years.

Thanks for the comments. I'll check out that site. I've been there
before but only looked over foundation issues.

Dan

On 2006-12-28, Dan_Musicant wrote:

Thanks. Well, I don't really know if these guys have gone into a
permit process for my drainage. They are a very old established
plumbing and heating company, and they come recommended, so I just
assumed that they have me covered there. The contract said that
their bid did not include costs of permits.

My understanding on permits: the homeowner has the ultimate
responsibility to see that permits are taken out. Now the contractor
has responsibility too, but the homeowner's responsibility is greater.
You should read the contract language to mean "we aren't going to deal
with permits." If you had a permit, you'd know it, since part of the
permit process is positing a copy in your window.

BTW, the Berkeley permit office is closed until Tuesday, January 2nd.

Anyway, it seems to me that at THIS point it's not too late to have
an inspection and be permitted. Everything is open and visible,
they've done no work. The plastic pipe is out there ready for
installation.

Right, from the point of view of pulling a permit, nobody comes to the
site until the first inspection, so if you haven't covered up any work
that needs to be inspected, there's no issue.

I assume you are referring to electrical bonding jumpers in regards
to copper water main installation. Where I am, I don't think they
use water pipes for grounds.

Water service pipes are not relied on as the primary ground, because
the water service can be plastic. But if the water pipes are metal
then they do provide a good ground. So I encourage you to go with a
copper service lateral, it will be the best ground you have until you
replace the foundation and have a Ufer ground.

BTW, I'm surprised at how high the quotes are for replacing the
service lateral are, although I've never bid the work. 60 ft of 1"
Type K soft copper can be had locally for $260 + tax. Beyond that
it's a matter of trenching between the meter and the house shut off
valve, laying the pipe on a bed of sand and making two connections. I
guess the difficult parts would be getting through the foundation and
unrolling the pipe to be nice and straight.

Good luck.

Cheers, Wayne

On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 15:50:43 GMT, Wayne Whitney
wrote:

:On 2006-12-28, Dan_Musicant wrote:
:
: Thanks. Well, I don't really know if these guys have gone into a
: permit process for my drainage. They are a very old established
: plumbing and heating company, and they come recommended, so I just
: assumed that they have me covered there. The contract said that
: their bid did not include costs of permits.
:
:My understanding on permits: the homeowner has the ultimate
:responsibility to see that permits are taken out. Now the contractor
:has responsibility too, but the homeowner's responsibility is greater.
:You should read the contract language to mean "we aren't going to deal
:with permits." If you had a permit, you'd know it, since part of the
ermit process is positing a copy in your window.

Thanks, Wayne. I've been looking for just that information and not found
it. My George Nash book "Renovating Old Houses" has no entry in the
index for "permit" and skimming the book I see no real mention!

When I had my roof replaced a year ago I don't believe there was ANY
indication of a permit until the inspector showed up when it was
virtually done if not actually done. He signed off on it and that was
it. The roofing company had evidently filed for the permit and payed the
fee (I certainly didn't). So, this being my second contract ever I
simply assumed (maybe foolishly!) that it was a similar if not same
circumstance and that the plumbing company was taking care of it. I'm
about to call them and ask them about it. In addition, I'll ask to talk
to the bidder/foreman again about the broken water pipe. A person I
talked to at East Bay MUD this morning told me I can assume these guys
actually broke the pipe! Maybe the company will give me a decent price
to replace it. That's my hope. Meantime, I suppose I should think about
or actually call some other plumbers in the region and get some bids.
EBMUD tells me I have a 5/8" line leading up to my meter at the
sidewalk. There is no shutoff valve after the one that's adjacent to
said meter!

I don't know about that potential problem of running pipe through the
foundation into the house. I presume that in replacing the water main
pipe they can add a shutoff.
:
:BTW, the Berkeley permit office is closed until Tuesday, January 2nd.

That's a potential problem. Yes, everything is open and emminently
inspectable at the moment, but the crew is due back in a matter of
minutes to finish the sewer lateral trenchless installation and it will
all be closed up again including replacing the concrete where they jack
hammered it out yesterday.

:
: Anyway, it seems to me that at THIS point it's not too late to have
: an inspection and be permitted. Everything is open and visible,
: they've done no work. The plastic pipe is out there ready for
: installation.
:
:Right, from the point of view of pulling a permit, nobody comes to the
:site until the first inspection, so if you haven't covered up any work
:that needs to be inspected, there's no issue.

It may not be practical to wait until after Jan. 2 for an inspection.
Maybe the plumbing company wouldn't mind, I don't know. No rain is
expected until almost New Years, but I wouldn't want to bet about after
that. Maybe the prospect of rain isn't serious, I don't know.
:
: I assume you are referring to electrical bonding jumpers in regards
: to copper water main installation. Where I am, I don't think they
: use water pipes for grounds.
:
:Water service pipes are not relied on as the primary ground, because
:the water service can be plastic. But if the water pipes are metal
:then they do provide a good ground. So I encourage you to go with a
:copper service lateral, it will be the best ground you have until you
:replace the foundation and have a Ufer ground.

I had George Walton come over again a couple of weeks ago and he told me
he thought that unless I plan to live here a LONG time, he thinks it's
impractical for me to completely fix up the house. He said he would
charge ~$130,000 for just the foundation and residing work (which I
suppose would include rebuilding the porch). He said it all could add up
to $500,000 and what could I then get for the house? $700,000? By this
reckoning I would have more money in my pocket if I just sold the house
now (more or less)!

I do have a bid from Sept. 2005 to do the siding and foundation for
$64,000, so I'll contemplate that, but even so I think George's
imprecations are probably sensible.
:
:BTW, I'm surprised at how high the quotes are for replacing the
:service lateral are, although I've never bid the work. 60 ft of 1"
:Type K soft copper can be had locally for $260 + tax. Beyond that
:it's a matter of trenching between the meter and the house shut off
:valve, laying the pipe on a bed of sand and making two connections. I
:guess the difficult parts would be getting through the foundation and
:unrolling the pipe to be nice and straight.

I figured about the same for the cost of the copper piping. I'm afraid
to use these fly-by-night plumbers by virtue of licensing, insurance and
bonding issues. And, I assume I can't get references from them. I'd only
be relying on their assurances. Those assurances sound reasonable, but
if there are any difficulties they won't count for anything.

:Good luck.

Thanks!

:Cheers, Wayne
:

Thanks and HNY!

On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 15:50:43 GMT, Wayne Whitney
wrote:

:BTW, the Berkeley permit office is closed until Tuesday, January 2nd.

I just called the bidder/foreman of the plumbing company and he said
they did pull the permit. That's a relief.

So, Berkeley's inspector will come after they are done with the work and
inspect. Funny, because at that point what the devil will the man see?

Anyway, he acknowledges that they MAY have broken it. Well, he didn't
deny it when I said that... instead he said that they may have worsened
an already existing leak. I'd conceded that the existing water main was
undoubtedly in a quite fragile state. He said they are sending over one
of their plumbers today to check out the situation and I will get a bid
then to replace the water main line. The current one runs under one of
the driveway slabs, so I think the replacement line would be just
outside that slab and therefore 1' closer to the house itself. That
seemed to be the thinking of the workers yesterday. Hopefully, that's
acceptable in terms of code requirements. I'll ask the guy this morning.

If they quote me anything over $2000 (or even $1500) I'll have to at
least consider getting competing bids.

Dan

On 2006-12-28, Dan_Musicant wrote:

Anyway, he acknowledges that they MAY have broken it. Well, he didn't
deny it when I said that... instead he said that they may have worsened
an already existing leak. I'd conceded that the existing water main was
undoubtedly in a quite fragile state.

Tell them that replacing the service lateral with 1" copper K is about
a $1000 job, and that since they are at least partially responsible
you'd like them to do the job for half that, $500. If they squawk,
offer to add a $100 for installing a house shut off where the new
service connects to the existing house plumbing. If the house
plumbing is galvanized, make sure a 6" long brass nipple is used to
connect the new copper to the old galvanized.

Cheers, Wayne

On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 17:19:51 GMT, Wayne Whitney
wrote:

:On 2006-12-28, Dan_Musicant wrote:
:
: Anyway, he acknowledges that they MAY have broken it. Well, he didn't
: deny it when I said that... instead he said that they may have worsened
: an already existing leak. I'd conceded that the existing water main was
: undoubtedly in a quite fragile state.
:
:Tell them that replacing the service lateral with 1" copper K is about
:a $1000 job, and that since they are at least partially responsible
:you'd like them to do the job for half that, $500. If they squawk,
ffer to add a $100 for installing a house shut off where the new
:service connects to the existing house plumbing. If the house
lumbing is galvanized, make sure a 6" long brass nipple is used to
:connect the new copper to the old galvanized.
:
:Cheers, Wayne

Thanks. Those negotiating tips may help. Their estimator hasn't shown up
yet, so that issue is in limbo. One of the guys lobbied me again to use
his man, who I'm told is a foreman for them, and that he would start
working at 4:00 this afternoon and work until 7:00 and finish tomorrow.
I was, of course, noncommital. He knows I'm going to check out the offer
from the company first at the very least. Meantime, the pipe is leaking
around (estimate here) 1/2 cup/minute, possibly more. They had broken
the sewer line adjacent to the break so that the escaping water would
mostly flow into the sewer system. However, they've finished pulling the
new sewer lateral (trenchless method), so none of the leak is reaching
the sewers now. They are going to connect the pulled line to the house
drains this afternoon.

Dan

- Posted and emailed -

On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 17:19:51 GMT, Wayne Whitney
wrote:

:On 2006-12-28, Dan_Musicant wrote:
:
: Anyway, he acknowledges that they MAY have broken it. Well, he didn't
: deny it when I said that... instead he said that they may have worsened
: an already existing leak. I'd conceded that the existing water main was
: undoubtedly in a quite fragile state.
:
:Tell them that replacing the service lateral with 1" copper K is about
:a $1000 job, and that since they are at least partially responsible
:you'd like them to do the job for half that, $500. If they squawk,
ffer to add a $100 for installing a house shut off where the new
:service connects to the existing house plumbing. If the house
lumbing is galvanized, make sure a 6" long brass nipple is used to
:connect the new copper to the old galvanized.
:
:Cheers, Wayne

The estimator wouldn't hear of them having responsibility for the pipe
breaking, it being so old. He said they could do it for $2500 and I
bargained them down to $2300. He said I could try to get better bids but
he told me it is impossible. I accepted.

His idea is to run a new 3/4" copper L line under the sidewalk after
going laterally to escape most of the affects of the roots of the large
tree which is right next to the meter. Then, under the sidewalk, through
the lawn (trench), and then UNDER the house (running 3/4" M copper at
this point) by virtue of going up and into a vent. I didn't like the
vent idea and asked if he could make a hole or go under the porch
foundation and he didn't like that, saying an earthquake could break my
water main in that case.

He also wants to put my outside front hose in front instead of at the
side like it is now. I don't like that either.

One of the crew says that they would trench on the side of the house
instead of going under, and I do like that. It's more work, but you
wouldn't see the water pipe entering the house from the front and the
hose spigot would be on the side. Also, they would beat the company's
price by $400-500, hopefully.

So, I'll cancel the contract I just signed (I believe I have 72 hours to
do that, however he said they'd start tomorrow, so I'll call today) and
I'll call the guy they tell me will foreman the crew who does it the way
I like it. Well, I guess that's the plan.

Dan

I've made a deal to have my water main pipe replaced and the guy said
he'd do either 3/4" or 1" copper, and pretty much left it up to me. He
said he'd test the water pressure and if it was over 65 lb. he'd install
3/4", otherwise 1". But he said he'd do 1" in any case if I request it.

The run appears to be around 60' from the meter out front to the point
in the house where the water currently enters. Interior piping is all
1/2" galvanized, and most of it pretty old (1914-ish house), and pretty
corroded inside, although pressure seems good when no other water is
being used. Typically, if you're taking a shower you better hope noone
flushes a toilet!

The utility company tells me that the meter out front is fed by a 5/8"
line from the main street-water-supply.

I have two bathrooms.

Should I ask for 1" copper for the water main line (presumably L, since
it will run underground) or is this really overkill? TIA.

Dan

Should I ask for 1" copper for the water main line (presumably L, since
it will run underground) or is this really overkill? TIA.

Never be afraid to overkill, better to have it and not need it than
vice versa.

1"

--
Steve Barker



"Dan_Musicant" wrote in message
...
I've made a deal to have my water main pipe replaced and the guy said
he'd do either 3/4" or 1" copper, and pretty much left it up to me. He
said he'd test the water pressure and if it was over 65 lb. he'd install
3/4", otherwise 1". But he said he'd do 1" in any case if I request it.

The run appears to be around 60' from the meter out front to the point
in the house where the water currently enters. Interior piping is all
1/2" galvanized, and most of it pretty old (1914-ish house), and pretty
corroded inside, although pressure seems good when no other water is
being used. Typically, if you're taking a shower you better hope noone
flushes a toilet!

The utility company tells me that the meter out front is fed by a 5/8"
line from the main street-water-supply.

I have two bathrooms.

Should I ask for 1" copper for the water main line (presumably L, since
it will run underground) or is this really overkill? TIA.

Dan

Dan_Musicant wrote:
- Posted and emailed -

On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 17:19:51 GMT, Wayne Whitney
wrote:

:On 2006-12-28, Dan_Musicant wrote:
:
: Anyway, he acknowledges that they MAY have broken it. Well, he didn't
: deny it when I said that... instead he said that they may have worsened
: an already existing leak. I'd conceded that the existing water main was
: undoubtedly in a quite fragile state.
:
:Tell them that replacing the service lateral with 1" copper K is about
:a $1000 job, and that since they are at least partially responsible
:you'd like them to do the job for half that, $500. If they squawk,
ffer to add a $100 for installing a house shut off where the new
:service connects to the existing house plumbing. If the house
lumbing is galvanized, make sure a 6" long brass nipple is used to
:connect the new copper to the old galvanized.
:
:Cheers, Wayne

The estimator wouldn't hear of them having responsibility for the pipe
breaking, it being so old. He said they could do it for $2500 and I
bargained them down to $2300. He said I could try to get better bids but
he told me it is impossible. I accepted.

His idea is to run a new 3/4" copper L line under the sidewalk after
going laterally to escape most of the affects of the roots of the large
tree which is right next to the meter. Then, under the sidewalk, through
the lawn (trench), and then UNDER the house (running 3/4" M copper at
this point) by virtue of going up and into a vent. I didn't like the
vent idea and asked if he could make a hole or go under the porch
foundation and he didn't like that, saying an earthquake could break my
water main in that case.

He also wants to put my outside front hose in front instead of at the
side like it is now. I don't like that either.

One of the crew says that they would trench on the side of the house
instead of going under, and I do like that. It's more work, but you
wouldn't see the water pipe entering the house from the front and the
hose spigot would be on the side. Also, they would beat the company's
price by $400-500, hopefully.

So, I'll cancel the contract I just signed (I believe I have 72 hours to
do that, however he said they'd start tomorrow, so I'll call today) and
I'll call the guy they tell me will foreman the crew who does it the way
I like it. Well, I guess that's the plan.

Dan

And did the crewman tell you that what he proposes is illegal in
California? Any work of this sort that is over $500 REQUIRES a licensed
contractor. So you have a guy who is doing the work illegally, not
insured, not bonded, certainly won't handle the permit if required, and
you will not get the one year labor guarantee that is required for
contractors in Calif. to give. OH yeah, for good measure, he is also
stealing work from his boss!

Please see www.cslb.ca.gov and learn how everything you have done in
hiring a contravor is wrong! I get a funny feeling this company is
playing games with you. The fact that these workers seem to have a
racket going offering to steal work from their boss and haven't been
caught and fired yet, makes me suspicious the company is breaking this
stuff on purpose and having these guys offer the low price as a con
game.

--
John

Steve Barker LT wrote:
1"

--
Steve Barker YEP ONE INCH!

??

--
Steve Barker


wrote in message
ps.com...

Steve Barker LT wrote:
1"

--
Steve Barker YEP ONE INCH!

Unless it is a really smal house with no yard, then 1" is your
friend.



On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 04:29:34 GMT, Dan_Musicant
wrote:

I've made a deal to have my water main pipe replaced and the guy said
he'd do either 3/4" or 1" copper, and pretty much left it up to me. He
said he'd test the water pressure and if it was over 65 lb. he'd install
3/4", otherwise 1". But he said he'd do 1" in any case if I request it.

The run appears to be around 60' from the meter out front to the point
in the house where the water currently enters. Interior piping is all
1/2" galvanized, and most of it pretty old (1914-ish house), and pretty
corroded inside, although pressure seems good when no other water is
being used. Typically, if you're taking a shower you better hope noone
flushes a toilet!

The utility company tells me that the meter out front is fed by a 5/8"
line from the main street-water-supply.

I have two bathrooms.

Should I ask for 1" copper for the water main line (presumably L, since
it will run underground) or is this really overkill? TIA.

Dan

It's unanimous. 1" it will be. Thanks!

On 29 Dec 2006 04:22:25 -0800, "John Ross" wrote:

:And did the crewman tell you that what he proposes is illegal in
:California? Any work of this sort that is over $500 REQUIRES a licensed
:contractor. So you have a guy who is doing the work illegally, not
:insured, not bonded, certainly won't handle the permit if required, and
:you will not get the one year labor guarantee that is required for
:contractors in Calif. to give. OH yeah, for good measure, he is also
:stealing work from his boss!
:
:Please see www.cslb.ca.gov and learn how everything you have done in
:hiring a contravor is wrong! I get a funny feeling this company is
laying games with you. The fact that these workers seem to have a
:racket going offering to steal work from their boss and haven't been
:caught and fired yet, makes me suspicious the company is breaking this
:stuff on purpose and having these guys offer the low price as a con
:game.
:
:--
:John

Your points are all valid. You might be right about the con game, maybe
not. There might have been a leak and their work made it bigger, like
they claim. Or, they might have caused the leak. Really, the pipe looks
to my inexperienced eye to be in bad shape. It's not a nice round pipe -
it's very rusted on the outside. It's not hard to imagine this thing
sprining a serious leak at the slightest provocation, judging by its
appearance.

Even if it's not an outright con game, I think the company has some
funny gaming going on - that is, the workers hustle the company's
customers for side work and the company sort of turns the other way
preferring to not notice. It's not really a good situation. I can still
back out of it -- the guys are supposed to come over this afternoon
after their regular day's work for the company and start my water main
replacement job, finishing it tomorrow, and I'd pay them cash. It's kind
of a husle, I know, but it's not horrible. Yes, he's probably not a
licensed contractor. Maybe I should get other bids. In the mean time I
have a cup a minute (guesstimate) leak.

Dan

Dan_Musicant wrote:
I've made a deal to have my water main pipe replaced and the guy said
he'd do either 3/4" or 1" copper, and pretty much left it up to me. He
said he'd test the water pressure and if it was over 65 lb. he'd install
3/4", otherwise 1". But he said he'd do 1" in any case if I request it.

The run appears to be around 60' from the meter out front to the point
in the house where the water currently enters. Interior piping is all
1/2" galvanized, and most of it pretty old (1914-ish house), and pretty
corroded inside, although pressure seems good when no other water is
being used. Typically, if you're taking a shower you better hope noone
flushes a toilet!

The utility company tells me that the meter out front is fed by a 5/8"
line from the main street-water-supply.

I have two bathrooms.

Should I ask for 1" copper for the water main line (presumably L, since
it will run underground) or is this really overkill? TIA.

Dan


Dan-

I had a main line repipe done about 25 years ago in a very similar
situation.... 3/4" galv from 1930

I had it replaced with 1" copper, I've got a 3/4" meter & about 50'
from street to house

water flow & pressure is great..can run the lawn sprinklers AND take a
shower (or use a single fixture in the house) since the house is only
partially re-piped I still have flow problems internal to the house.

Go with 1", you'll be happier & you'll never reason have to question
your choice

btw I had to talk my neighbor out of using 1.25" for his main line

cheers
Bob

On 29 Dec 2006 04:22:25 -0800, "John Ross" wrote:

:So you have a guy who is doing the work illegally, not
:insured, not bonded, certainly won't handle the permit if required, and
:you will not get the one year labor guarantee that is required for
:contractors in Calif.

One reason I decided to cut loose the company and go with these guys is
that the estimator for the company told me he would not pull a permit.
He said if I want a permit, it would be on me to set that up and pay for
it (the permit fee). He said there are two downsides to it:

1. The fee

2. They envisioned starting the water line replacement today and there
would be a trench in the middle of my lawn and the sod they'd pull back
would have to remain back until the inspector comes around next week to
inspect the work. The inspectors are off until Jan. 2 (Tuesday), so that
means minimum of 4 days. So, the grass would die.

He said it was up to me, and I asked him about the negative aspects of
not having the job permited. His answer was that it wasn't really
important, and I signed the contract with the thought I'd ignore the
permitting process for the water main replacement.


This kind of thing isn't new for these guys - they have been together as
crew for this company for 6+ years, I am told, and I am assured that
they do side work. I'm new to this stuff. Yes, I'm being hustled, but
not at all sure that I'm being taken advantage of or bamboozled. Maybe I
should get some more bids.

Dan

On 29 Dec 2006 04:22:25 -0800, "John Ross" wrote:

:And did the crewman tell you that what he proposes is illegal in
:California? Any work of this sort that is over $500 REQUIRES a licensed
:contractor. So you have a guy who is doing the work illegally, not
:insured, not bonded, certainly won't handle the permit if required, and
:you will not get the one year labor guarantee that is required for
:contractors in Calif. to give. OH yeah, for good measure, he is also
:stealing work from his boss!
:
:Please see www.cslb.ca.gov and learn how everything you have done in
:hiring a contravor is wrong! I get a funny feeling this company is
laying games with you. The fact that these workers seem to have a
:racket going offering to steal work from their boss and haven't been
:caught and fired yet, makes me suspicious the company is breaking this
:stuff on purpose and having these guys offer the low price as a con
:game.
:
:--
:John

I like the workers and don't think I was being scammed. Yes, I was being
hustled. But they don't seem at all dishonest. In any case I don't feel
comfortable in this situation. I like the company as well and must say
they've treated me well. They did a camera inspection of my sewer
laterals and didn't charge me. They underbid the two other companies by
over 40%. They work they've done so far seems adequate (the open pits
are awaiting inspection). Will see how they deal with the cleanouts. On
top of all this, they cleared a tough and persistent tub drain that's
vexed me for months and for free!

I have another bid from a good small contractor and it's a bit under the
company's to fix my water main, and I'm leaning to letting him do the
work. I don't believe anybody busted my main on purpose. In truth I'm
not happy with any decision. All these guys want the job. It's a small
job and everybody tells me I'm better off sticking with a licensed
contractor, so that's what I figure I'll do. Meantime, I've got water by
virtue of friendly nextdoor neighbors who let me hook up a hose to their
house. Should have my service back up by the end of next week.

Dan

btw I had to talk my neighbor out of using 1.25" for his main line

cheers
Bob

Why? 3" would be ok if cost was no object. While it will still only
flow to the limit of the smallest restriction, the volume of water
"stored" in the big pipe would still help.

Eric in North TX wrote:
btw I had to talk my neighbor out of using 1.25" for his main line

cheers
Bob

Why? 3" would be ok if cost was no object. While it will still only
flow to the limit of the smallest restriction, the volume of water
"stored" in the big pipe would still help.


Well cost is nearly always a factor. Plus my neighbor & I help each
other out on projects & although we tend towards overkill we balance
each other out. & hopefully minimize our desire for "wasted" overkill.

For a 75' x 150' lot & a 1" meter ....a 1" line is right
size.....1.25" is unnecessary as is 3".

IMHO a bigger line won't buy very much (almost none) improvement in
performance.......water is not very compressible & the concept of water
"stored" requires some sort of accumulator (LARGE flexible lines, or a
piston or bladder style accumulator) just adding large metal lin won't
do much.

Incompressibles (water, hydraulic fluid, etc) need to be delivered on a
real time basis;

instantaneous supply must equal instantaneous

or a system accumulator must be present. to supply instantaneous peak
(short term) demands & buffer instantaneous peak supply (the cause of
water hammer)

So a large line isn't going to "store" much if any extra water but it
will have less head loss that a smaller line.

another mis-conception about water flow / hydraulics is

"....... it will still only flow to the limit of the smallest
restriction......"

that is not entirely true....hydraulic supplies suffer head loss
through the lines, fittings, valves, & other restrictions...the cool
thing about analyzing the system is that the "head loss" (pressure
loss) due to each item can be expressed in equivalent length of
straight pipe

so a valve (depending on style) might add a between 1' & 10' of
"extra" pipe length....an elbow maybe 4'.

Yeah putting a 1" valve in a 3" line is REALLY gonna add some large
loss (a rather unrealistic example) but the system will still preform
better than a completely plumbed 3/4" system

Well......we might get enough losses in the transition from 1" up to 3"
& back to 1" overwhelm the postive effect of the 3" . Plus analyzing
a mixed size system (by hand) gets to be a real PITA.

In any case the way a complete hydraulic system performs is a function
of layout, pipe sizes & fittings...combined with the demand...ie flow
velocities, since head loss is a dependent on flow velocity.

Sorry about the long winded post...I guess I got overcome by Nick's
evil influence.........

cheers
Bob

OI missed the first part of this thread, but if this is just an
average home, 3/4" in the norm, from the meter into the house. One
inch is common from the water main (in the street) into the home and
up tp the meter.


On 5 Jan 2007 10:16:25 -0800, "Eric in North TX"
wrote:

btw I had to talk my neighbor out of using 1.25" for his main line

cheers
Bob

Why? 3" would be ok if cost was no object. While it will still only
flow to the limit of the smallest restriction, the volume of water
"stored" in the big pipe would still help.

On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 03:17:41 -0600, wrote:

:OI missed the first part of this thread, but if this is just an
:average home, 3/4" in the norm, from the meter into the house. One
:inch is common from the water main (in the street) into the home and
:up tp the meter.

Average house = ? Maybe min'e pretty average (I'm the OP). The house is
1925 square feet, with 2 baths, a laundry room and average sized yard.
I'm sure 3/4" is fine for me, but whoever moves in after me, who knows?
Maybe 3/4" from meter to house plumbing is perfectly adequate. In terms
of flow, I suppose it is. I figure the interior cross section is 2.25
times that of 1/2" pipe, and on top of that the previous 1/2" pipe is
undoubtely quite corroded on the interior. Yes, some of that will have
sloughed off but I'm guessing that the resistance to flow is greater
than for new galvanized 1/2" pipe.

I figure probably the best argument for 1" would be that the water flow
would be slower and thus the noise of the water flow would be reduced
over 3/4". So I'm told. To me, it's theoretical at this point, but I'm
still in a position to ask for 1" over 3/4". The work isn't to begin
until at least tomorrow.

Dan

:On 5 Jan 2007 10:16:25 -0800, "Eric in North TX"
:wrote:
:
: btw I had to talk my neighbor out of using 1.25" for his main line
:
: cheers
: Bob
:
:Why? 3" would be ok if cost was no object. While it will still only
:flow to the limit of the smallest restriction, the volume of water
:"stored" in the big pipe would still help.

Dan_Musicant wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 03:17:41 -0600, wrote:

:OI missed the first part of this thread, but if this is just an
:average home, 3/4" in the norm, from the meter into the house. One
:inch is common from the water main (in the street) into the home and
:up tp the meter.

Average house = ? Maybe min'e pretty average (I'm the OP). The house is
1925 square feet, with 2 baths, a laundry room and average sized yard.
I'm sure 3/4" is fine for me, but whoever moves in after me, who knows?
Maybe 3/4" from meter to house plumbing is perfectly adequate. In terms
of flow, I suppose it is. I figure the interior cross section is 2.25
times that of 1/2" pipe, and on top of that the previous 1/2" pipe is
undoubtely quite corroded on the interior. Yes, some of that will have
sloughed off but I'm guessing that the resistance to flow is greater
than for new galvanized 1/2" pipe.

I figure probably the best argument for 1" would be that the water flow
would be slower and thus the noise of the water flow would be reduced
over 3/4". So I'm told. To me, it's theoretical at this point, but I'm
still in a position to ask for 1" over 3/4". The work isn't to begin
until at least tomorrow.

Dan

:On 5 Jan 2007 10:16:25 -0800, "Eric in North TX"
:wrote:
:
: btw I had to talk my neighbor out of using 1.25" for his main line
:
: cheers
: Bob
:
:Why? 3" would be ok if cost was no object. While it will still only
:flow to the limit of the smallest restriction, the volume of water
:"stored" in the big pipe would still help.

Bigger is always better, on round stuff the actual flow area goes up
dramatically with even a small diameter increase.

Dan_Musicant wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 03:17:41 -0600, wrote:

:OI missed the first part of this thread, but if this is just an
:average home, 3/4" in the norm, from the meter into the house. One
:inch is common from the water main (in the street) into the home and
:up tp the meter.

Average house = ? Maybe min'e pretty average (I'm the OP). The house is
1925 square feet, with 2 baths, a laundry room and average sized yard.
I'm sure 3/4" is fine for me, but whoever moves in after me, who knows?
Maybe 3/4" from meter to house plumbing is perfectly adequate. In terms
of flow, I suppose it is. I figure the interior cross section is 2.25
times that of 1/2" pipe, and on top of that the previous 1/2" pipe is
undoubtely quite corroded on the interior. Yes, some of that will have
sloughed off but I'm guessing that the resistance to flow is greater
than for new galvanized 1/2" pipe.

I figure probably the best argument for 1" would be that the water flow
would be slower and thus the noise of the water flow would be reduced
over 3/4". So I'm told. To me, it's theoretical at this point, but I'm
still in a position to ask for 1" over 3/4". The work isn't to begin
until at least tomorrow.

Dan

:On 5 Jan 2007 10:16:25 -0800, "Eric in North TX"
:wrote:
:
: btw I had to talk my neighbor out of using 1.25" for his main line
:
: cheers
: Bob
:
:Why? 3" would be ok if cost was no object. While it will still only
:flow to the limit of the smallest restriction, the volume of water
:"stored" in the big pipe would still help.

Dan-

Choose 1", you'll be be happy & never have an issue with it.

Type L minimum, (Type K is better but probably un-necessary overkill)

My 1" Type L main line has been in the ground in Orange county CA since
1980; great flow, no issues.


Cheers
Bob

"BobK207" writes:
Dan_Musicant wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 03:17:41 -0600, wrote:
:"Eric in North TX" wrote:
: btw I had to talk my neighbor out of using 1.25" for his main line
:
: cheers
: Bob
:
:Why? 3" would be ok if cost was no object. While it will still only
:flow to the limit of the smallest restriction, the volume of water
:"stored" in the big pipe would still help.

:OI missed the first part of this thread, but if this is just an
:average home, 3/4" in the norm, from the meter into the house. One
:inch is common from the water main (in the street) into the home and
:up tp the meter.

Average house = ? Maybe min'e pretty average (I'm the OP). The house is
1925 square feet, with 2 baths, a laundry room and average sized yard.
I'm sure 3/4" is fine for me, but whoever moves in after me, who knows?
Maybe 3/4" from meter to house plumbing is perfectly adequate. In terms
of flow, I suppose it is. I figure the interior cross section is 2.25
times that of 1/2" pipe, and on top of that the previous 1/2" pipe is
undoubtely quite corroded on the interior. Yes, some of that will have
sloughed off but I'm guessing that the resistance to flow is greater
than for new galvanized 1/2" pipe.

I figure probably the best argument for 1" would be that the water flow
would be slower and thus the noise of the water flow would be reduced
over 3/4". So I'm told. To me, it's theoretical at this point, but I'm
still in a position to ask for 1" over 3/4". The work isn't to begin
until at least tomorrow.

Choose 1", you'll be be happy & never have an issue with it.

Type L minimum, (Type K is better but probably un-necessary overkill)

My 1" Type L main line has been in the ground in Orange county CA since
1980; great flow, no issues.

Cheers
Bob

I haven't looked at prices, but the difference in cost
between 1" and 3/4" is probably minimal. Who knows if
some day someone will want the higher flow? It's far
cheaper to install the larger line now that it will be
to dig it up and increase the size.

BTW: Is PVC a desired/allowed alternative?

On Mon, 8 Jan 2007 08:13:49 PST,
(Everett M. Greene) wrote:

:"BobK207" writes:
: Dan_Musicant wrote:
: On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 03:17:41 -0600, wrote:
: :"Eric in North TX" wrote:
: : btw I had to talk my neighbor out of using 1.25" for his main line
: :
: : cheers
: : Bob
: :
: :Why? 3" would be ok if cost was no object. While it will still only
: :flow to the limit of the smallest restriction, the volume of water
: :"stored" in the big pipe would still help.
:
: :OI missed the first part of this thread, but if this is just an
: :average home, 3/4" in the norm, from the meter into the house. One
: :inch is common from the water main (in the street) into the home and
: :up tp the meter.
:
: Average house = ? Maybe min'e pretty average (I'm the OP). The house is
: 1925 square feet, with 2 baths, a laundry room and average sized yard.
: I'm sure 3/4" is fine for me, but whoever moves in after me, who knows?
: Maybe 3/4" from meter to house plumbing is perfectly adequate. In terms
: of flow, I suppose it is. I figure the interior cross section is 2.25
: times that of 1/2" pipe, and on top of that the previous 1/2" pipe is
: undoubtely quite corroded on the interior. Yes, some of that will have
: sloughed off but I'm guessing that the resistance to flow is greater
: than for new galvanized 1/2" pipe.
:
: I figure probably the best argument for 1" would be that the water flow
: would be slower and thus the noise of the water flow would be reduced
: over 3/4". So I'm told. To me, it's theoretical at this point, but I'm
: still in a position to ask for 1" over 3/4". The work isn't to begin
: until at least tomorrow.
:
: Choose 1", you'll be be happy & never have an issue with it.
:
: Type L minimum, (Type K is better but probably un-necessary overkill)
:
: My 1" Type L main line has been in the ground in Orange county CA since
: 1980; great flow, no issues.
:
: Cheers
: Bob
:
:I haven't looked at prices, but the difference in cost
:between 1" and 3/4" is probably minimal. Who knows if
:some day someone will want the higher flow? It's far
:cheaper to install the larger line now that it will be
:to dig it up and increase the size.
:
:BTW: Is PVC a desired/allowed alternative?

The supervisor, when I asked him how much more 1" would cost than 3/4"
today said over $600! Hardly minimal. Maybe after they'd started the job
they figured they had me if I wanted to upgrade materials. At that
point, they could have gone 1" without losing any work:

They did the job today. I tried to get ahold of the supervisor before
they did any installation, but he didn't return my call. I had an
explicit understanding with him that they were to install 3/4" L both
underground and under the house. I talked with the foreman of the crew
and he wasn't aware of that, but I told him I had a clear understanding
with the supervisor. I also asked him about a bonding jumper at the
meter and he seemed to whiff on that one - didn't know what it was or
something. He talked about water heater! The supervisor didn't call me
back and after a while I go under the house and see that they installed
3/4" M under the house, counter to my agreement. I tell the foreman and
he says he's aware that he has to "rip it out." Why this has happened is
beyond me.

I hear him talking to the supervisor on his cell phone and ask to talk
to him. This is the same guy who the office was to have call me earlier.
I try to ask him how much more it will cost to install 1" than 3/4",
both would be L thickness. At this point, they were going to have to rip
out the hard copper under the house and hadn't installed any soft copper
outside, so there was no reason they couldn't do 1" instead. In either
case, they were going to have to wait for a truck to deliver the copper
they'd install. The supervisor said it would be over $600 extra! I asked
him why and he said the materials cost that much more. I said screw
that, basically. I call the office again (I'm not privy to the
supervisor's cell number), and he calls me right back and affirms that
1" costs that much more for materials and I say I don't want that and
they finish the installation this evening in the dark.

I have an idea that they never installed the bonding jumper, which I'm
going to try to check out tomorrow when it's light. I don't know what it
would look like. Would that be a strap between the copper pipe coming
into the meter and the pipe leaving it and going to the house?

Dan

Dan_Musicant wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jan 2007 08:13:49 PST,
(Everett M. Greene) wrote:

:"BobK207" writes:
: Dan_Musicant wrote:
: On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 03:17:41 -0600, wrote:
: :"Eric in North TX" wrote:
: : btw I had to talk my neighbor out of using 1.25" for his main line
: :
: : cheers
: : Bob
: :
: :Why? 3" would be ok if cost was no object. While it will still only
: :flow to the limit of the smallest restriction, the volume of water
: :"stored" in the big pipe would still help.
:
: :OI missed the first part of this thread, but if this is just an
: :average home, 3/4" in the norm, from the meter into the house. One
: :inch is common from the water main (in the street) into the home and
: :up tp the meter.
:
: Average house = ? Maybe min'e pretty average (I'm the OP). The house is
: 1925 square feet, with 2 baths, a laundry room and average sized yard.
: I'm sure 3/4" is fine for me, but whoever moves in after me, who knows?
: Maybe 3/4" from meter to house plumbing is perfectly adequate. In terms
: of flow, I suppose it is. I figure the interior cross section is 2.25
: times that of 1/2" pipe, and on top of that the previous 1/2" pipe is
: undoubtely quite corroded on the interior. Yes, some of that will have
: sloughed off but I'm guessing that the resistance to flow is greater
: than for new galvanized 1/2" pipe.
:
: I figure probably the best argument for 1" would be that the water flow
: would be slower and thus the noise of the water flow would be reduced
: over 3/4". So I'm told. To me, it's theoretical at this point, but I'm
: still in a position to ask for 1" over 3/4". The work isn't to begin
: until at least tomorrow.
:
: Choose 1", you'll be be happy & never have an issue with it.
:
: Type L minimum, (Type K is better but probably un-necessary overkill)
:
: My 1" Type L main line has been in the ground in Orange county CA since
: 1980; great flow, no issues.
:
: Cheers
: Bob
:
:I haven't looked at prices, but the difference in cost
:between 1" and 3/4" is probably minimal. Who knows if
:some day someone will want the higher flow? It's far
:cheaper to install the larger line now that it will be
:to dig it up and increase the size.
:
:BTW: Is PVC a desired/allowed alternative?

The supervisor, when I asked him how much more 1" would cost than 3/4"
today said over $600! Hardly minimal. Maybe after they'd started the job
they figured they had me if I wanted to upgrade materials. At that
point, they could have gone 1" without losing any work:

They did the job today. I tried to get ahold of the supervisor before
they did any installation, but he didn't return my call. I had an
explicit understanding with him that they were to install 3/4" L both
underground and under the house. I talked with the foreman of the crew
and he wasn't aware of that, but I told him I had a clear understanding
with the supervisor. I also asked him about a bonding jumper at the
meter and he seemed to whiff on that one - didn't know what it was or
something. He talked about water heater! The supervisor didn't call me
back and after a while I go under the house and see that they installed
3/4" M under the house, counter to my agreement. I tell the foreman and
he says he's aware that he has to "rip it out." Why this has happened is
beyond me.

I hear him talking to the supervisor on his cell phone and ask to talk
to him. This is the same guy who the office was to have call me earlier.
I try to ask him how much more it will cost to install 1" than 3/4",
both would be L thickness. At this point, they were going to have to rip
out the hard copper under the house and hadn't installed any soft copper
outside, so there was no reason they couldn't do 1" instead. In either
case, they were going to have to wait for a truck to deliver the copper
they'd install. The supervisor said it would be over $600 extra! I asked
him why and he said the materials cost that much more. I said screw
that, basically. I call the office again (I'm not privy to the
supervisor's cell number), and he calls me right back and affirms that
1" costs that much more for materials and I say I don't want that and
they finish the installation this evening in the dark.

I have an idea that they never installed the bonding jumper, which I'm
going to try to check out tomorrow when it's light. I don't know what it
would look like. Would that be a strap between the copper pipe coming
into the meter and the pipe leaving it and going to the house?

Dan

I beg to differ....that supervisor (or his company) is either a thief
or stupid (in either case he is wrong) .... the increase in material
would be less than $100 closer to $50

cheers
Bob

On 8 Jan 2007 23:38:37 -0800, "BobK207" wrote:

:
an_Musicant wrote:
: On Mon, 8 Jan 2007 08:13:49 PST,
: (Everett M. Greene) wrote:
:
: :"BobK207" writes:
: : Dan_Musicant wrote:
: : On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 03:17:41 -0600, wrote:
: : :"Eric in North TX" wrote:
: : : btw I had to talk my neighbor out of using 1.25" for his main line
: : :
: : : cheers
: : : Bob
: : :
: : :Why? 3" would be ok if cost was no object. While it will still only
: : :flow to the limit of the smallest restriction, the volume of water
: : :"stored" in the big pipe would still help.
: :
: : :OI missed the first part of this thread, but if this is just an
: : :average home, 3/4" in the norm, from the meter into the house. One
: : :inch is common from the water main (in the street) into the home and
: : :up tp the meter.
: :
: : Average house = ? Maybe min'e pretty average (I'm the OP). The house is
: : 1925 square feet, with 2 baths, a laundry room and average sized yard.
: : I'm sure 3/4" is fine for me, but whoever moves in after me, who knows?
: : Maybe 3/4" from meter to house plumbing is perfectly adequate. In terms
: : of flow, I suppose it is. I figure the interior cross section is 2.25
: : times that of 1/2" pipe, and on top of that the previous 1/2" pipe is
: : undoubtely quite corroded on the interior. Yes, some of that will have
: : sloughed off but I'm guessing that the resistance to flow is greater
: : than for new galvanized 1/2" pipe.
: :
: : I figure probably the best argument for 1" would be that the water flow
: : would be slower and thus the noise of the water flow would be reduced
: : over 3/4". So I'm told. To me, it's theoretical at this point, but I'm
: : still in a position to ask for 1" over 3/4". The work isn't to begin
: : until at least tomorrow.
: :
: : Choose 1", you'll be be happy & never have an issue with it.
: :
: : Type L minimum, (Type K is better but probably un-necessary overkill)
: :
: : My 1" Type L main line has been in the ground in Orange county CA since
: : 1980; great flow, no issues.
: :
: : Cheers
: : Bob
: :
: :I haven't looked at prices, but the difference in cost
: :between 1" and 3/4" is probably minimal. Who knows if
: :some day someone will want the higher flow? It's far
: :cheaper to install the larger line now that it will be
: :to dig it up and increase the size.
: :
: :BTW: Is PVC a desired/allowed alternative?
:
: The supervisor, when I asked him how much more 1" would cost than 3/4"
: today said over $600! Hardly minimal. Maybe after they'd started the job
: they figured they had me if I wanted to upgrade materials. At that
: point, they could have gone 1" without losing any work:
:
: They did the job today. I tried to get ahold of the supervisor before
: they did any installation, but he didn't return my call. I had an
: explicit understanding with him that they were to install 3/4" L both
: underground and under the house. I talked with the foreman of the crew
: and he wasn't aware of that, but I told him I had a clear understanding
: with the supervisor. I also asked him about a bonding jumper at the
: meter and he seemed to whiff on that one - didn't know what it was or
: something. He talked about water heater! The supervisor didn't call me
: back and after a while I go under the house and see that they installed
: 3/4" M under the house, counter to my agreement. I tell the foreman and
: he says he's aware that he has to "rip it out." Why this has happened is
: beyond me.
:
: I hear him talking to the supervisor on his cell phone and ask to talk
: to him. This is the same guy who the office was to have call me earlier.
: I try to ask him how much more it will cost to install 1" than 3/4",
: both would be L thickness. At this point, they were going to have to rip
: out the hard copper under the house and hadn't installed any soft copper
: outside, so there was no reason they couldn't do 1" instead. In either
: case, they were going to have to wait for a truck to deliver the copper
: they'd install. The supervisor said it would be over $600 extra! I asked
: him why and he said the materials cost that much more. I said screw
: that, basically. I call the office again (I'm not privy to the
: supervisor's cell number), and he calls me right back and affirms that
: 1" costs that much more for materials and I say I don't want that and
: they finish the installation this evening in the dark.
:
: I have an idea that they never installed the bonding jumper, which I'm
: going to try to check out tomorrow when it's light. I don't know what it
: would look like. Would that be a strap between the copper pipe coming
: into the meter and the pipe leaving it and going to the house?
:
: Dan
:
:I beg to differ....that supervisor (or his company) is either a thief
r stupid (in either case he is wrong) .... the increase in material
:would be less than $100 closer to $50
:
:cheers
:Bob

Yeah, I told him on the phone the exact same thing except I didn't
mention the $50. I gotta think they were just trying to see if they
could squeeze a bunch out of me with that line. I don't think I'll use
them again. Not unless I can see something to justify that $600 charge
(which I declined, of course). I honestly think he might be stupid. Just
don't know. How could he be THAT stupid?

Dan

Dan_Musicant wrote:
On 8 Jan 2007 23:38:37 -0800, "BobK207" wrote:

:
an_Musicant wrote:
: On Mon, 8 Jan 2007 08:13:49 PST,
: (Everett M. Greene) wrote:
:
: :"BobK207" writes:
: : Dan_Musicant wrote:
: : On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 03:17:41 -0600, wrote:
: : :"Eric in North TX" wrote:
: : : btw I had to talk my neighbor out of using 1.25" for his main line
: : :
: : : cheers
: : : Bob
: : :
: : :Why? 3" would be ok if cost was no object. While it will still only
: : :flow to the limit of the smallest restriction, the volume of water
: : :"stored" in the big pipe would still help.
: :
: : :OI missed the first part of this thread, but if this is just an
: : :average home, 3/4" in the norm, from the meter into the house. One
: : :inch is common from the water main (in the street) into the home and
: : :up tp the meter.
: :
: : Average house = ? Maybe min'e pretty average (I'm the OP). The house is
: : 1925 square feet, with 2 baths, a laundry room and average sized yard.
: : I'm sure 3/4" is fine for me, but whoever moves in after me, who knows?
: : Maybe 3/4" from meter to house plumbing is perfectly adequate. In terms
: : of flow, I suppose it is. I figure the interior cross section is 2.25
: : times that of 1/2" pipe, and on top of that the previous 1/2" pipe is
: : undoubtely quite corroded on the interior. Yes, some of that will have
: : sloughed off but I'm guessing that the resistance to flow is greater
: : than for new galvanized 1/2" pipe.
: :
: : I figure probably the best argument for 1" would be that the water flow
: : would be slower and thus the noise of the water flow would be reduced
: : over 3/4". So I'm told. To me, it's theoretical at this point, but I'm
: : still in a position to ask for 1" over 3/4". The work isn't to begin
: : until at least tomorrow.
: :
: : Choose 1", you'll be be happy & never have an issue with it.
: :
: : Type L minimum, (Type K is better but probably un-necessary overkill)
: :
: : My 1" Type L main line has been in the ground in Orange county CA since
: : 1980; great flow, no issues.
: :
: : Cheers
: : Bob
: :
: :I haven't looked at prices, but the difference in cost
: :between 1" and 3/4" is probably minimal. Who knows if
: :some day someone will want the higher flow? It's far
: :cheaper to install the larger line now that it will be
: :to dig it up and increase the size.
: :
: :BTW: Is PVC a desired/allowed alternative?
:
: The supervisor, when I asked him how much more 1" would cost than 3/4"
: today said over $600! Hardly minimal. Maybe after they'd started the job
: they figured they had me if I wanted to upgrade materials. At that
: point, they could have gone 1" without losing any work:
:
: They did the job today. I tried to get ahold of the supervisor before
: they did any installation, but he didn't return my call. I had an
: explicit understanding with him that they were to install 3/4" L both
: underground and under the house. I talked with the foreman of the crew
: and he wasn't aware of that, but I told him I had a clear understanding
: with the supervisor. I also asked him about a bonding jumper at the
: meter and he seemed to whiff on that one - didn't know what it was or
: something. He talked about water heater! The supervisor didn't call me
: back and after a while I go under the house and see that they installed
: 3/4" M under the house, counter to my agreement. I tell the foreman and
: he says he's aware that he has to "rip it out." Why this has happened is
: beyond me.
:
: I hear him talking to the supervisor on his cell phone and ask to talk
: to him. This is the same guy who the office was to have call me earlier.
: I try to ask him how much more it will cost to install 1" than 3/4",
: both would be L thickness. At this point, they were going to have to rip
: out the hard copper under the house and hadn't installed any soft copper
: outside, so there was no reason they couldn't do 1" instead. In either
: case, they were going to have to wait for a truck to deliver the copper
: they'd install. The supervisor said it would be over $600 extra! I asked
: him why and he said the materials cost that much more. I said screw
: that, basically. I call the office again (I'm not privy to the
: supervisor's cell number), and he calls me right back and affirms that
: 1" costs that much more for materials and I say I don't want that and
: they finish the installation this evening in the dark.
:
: I have an idea that they never installed the bonding jumper, which I'm
: going to try to check out tomorrow when it's light. I don't know what it
: would look like. Would that be a strap between the copper pipe coming
: into the meter and the pipe leaving it and going to the house?
:
: Dan
:
:I beg to differ....that supervisor (or his company) is either a thief
r stupid (in either case he is wrong) .... the increase in material
:would be less than $100 closer to $50
:
:cheers
:Bob

Yeah, I told him on the phone the exact same thing except I didn't
mention the $50. I gotta think they were just trying to see if they
could squeeze a bunch out of me with that line. I don't think I'll use
them again. Not unless I can see something to justify that $600 charge
(which I declined, of course). I honestly think he might be stupid. Just
don't know. How could he be THAT stupid?

Dan

You might go down to Lowes and check the
difference in price between 3/4" and 1" price.
don't think it would take much of a length to
exceed a difference of $50.

OTOH. Was using the black plastic pipe a no go
for the supply? Don't remember the schedule
number but the 105 PSI or 120 PSI plastic pipe is
what should be used. That's relatively cheap and
and it is a standard replacement around here in
areas where the soil eats hole in copper.

I use a piece as a supply pipe from the pressure
irrigation supply (about 60 psi) that goes in an L
about 50 one way and 25 feet another way and just
lies on top of the ground. It is under pressure
about 6 months of the year and has shown no
adverse effects over the past 15 years. Should
last forever underground.

"Dan_Musicant" wrote in message
:
:I beg to differ....that supervisor (or his company) is either a thief
r stupid (in either case he is wrong) .... the increase in material
:would be less than $100 closer to $50
:
:cheers
:Bob

Yeah, I told him on the phone the exact same thing except I didn't
mention the $50. I gotta think they were just trying to see if they
could squeeze a bunch out of me with that line. I don't think I'll use
them again. Not unless I can see something to justify that $600 charge
(which I declined, of course). I honestly think he might be stupid. Just
don't know. How could he be THAT stupid?

I just checked one source and the difference is $2.00 a foot at that place.
I don't know if that is good or bad in the scheme of things and your local
plumbing supply, but I do know that copper is very expensive these days.
$600 seems high, but $50 seems very low. How long of a run is it?

On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 20:49:50 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski"
wrote:

:
:"Dan_Musicant" wrote in message
: :
: :I beg to differ....that supervisor (or his company) is either a thief
: r stupid (in either case he is wrong) .... the increase in material
: :would be less than $100 closer to $50
: :
: :cheers
: :Bob
:
: Yeah, I told him on the phone the exact same thing except I didn't
: mention the $50. I gotta think they were just trying to see if they
: could squeeze a bunch out of me with that line. I don't think I'll use
: them again. Not unless I can see something to justify that $600 charge
: (which I declined, of course). I honestly think he might be stupid. Just
: don't know. How could he be THAT stupid?
:
:I just checked one source and the difference is $2.00 a foot at that place.
:I don't know if that is good or bad in the scheme of things and your local
lumbing supply, but I do know that copper is very expensive these days.
:$600 seems high, but $50 seems very low. How long of a run is it?
:
The run is approximately this:

30' or less of soft copper (i.e. underground from meter to the house).
That's not counting a piece that's about 7' or so that they sledge
hammered under the sidewalk. That was, of course, hard straight copper.

About 35' of hard copper under the house. I did check Home Depot's
prices for 10' lengths of hard copper a couple of weeks ago or so:

10' of 1" L copper tubing at Home Depot is $36
10' of 3/4" L copper tubing at Home Depot is $25

So, the under the house run price increase should be something like
under $50 at those rates. I don't know what the difference would be for
soft copper. It's hard for me to imagine that it would be several
hundred dollars on 30'.

George E. Cawthon wrote:
Dan_Musicant wrote:
On 8 Jan 2007 23:38:37 -0800, "BobK207" wrote:

:
an_Musicant wrote:
: On Mon, 8 Jan 2007 08:13:49 PST,
: (Everett M. Greene) wrote:
:
: :"BobK207" writes:
: : Dan_Musicant wrote:
: : On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 03:17:41 -0600, wrote:
: : :"Eric in North TX" wrote:
: : : btw I had to talk my neighbor out of using 1.25" for his main line
: : :
: : : cheers
: : : Bob
: : :
: : :Why? 3" would be ok if cost was no object. While it will still only
: : :flow to the limit of the smallest restriction, the volume of water
: : :stored" in the big pipe would still help.
: :
: : :OI missed the first part of this thread, but if this is just an
: : :average home, 3/4" in the norm, from the meter into the house. One
: : :inch is common from the water main (in the street) into the home and
: : :up tp the meter.
: :
: : Average house = ? Maybe min'e pretty average (I'm the OP). The house is
: : 1925 square feet, with 2 baths, a laundry room and average sized yard.
: : I'm sure 3/4" is fine for me, but whoever moves in after me, who knows?
: : Maybe 3/4" from meter to house plumbing is perfectly adequate. In terms
: : of flow, I suppose it is. I figure the interior cross section is 2.25
: : times that of 1/2" pipe, and on top of that the previous 1/2" pipe is
: : undoubtely quite corroded on the interior. Yes, some of that will have
: : sloughed off but I'm guessing that the resistance to flow is greater
: : than for new galvanized 1/2" pipe.
: :
: : I figure probably the best argument for 1" would be that the water flow
: : would be slower and thus the noise of the water flow would be reduced
: : over 3/4". So I'm told. To me, it's theoretical at this point, but I'm
: : still in a position to ask for 1" over 3/4". The work isn't to begin
: : until at least tomorrow.
: :
: : Choose 1", you'll be be happy & never have an issue with it.
: :
: : Type L minimum, (Type K is better but probably un-necessary overkill)
: :
: : My 1" Type L main line has been in the ground in Orange county CA since
: : 1980; great flow, no issues.
: :
: : Cheers
: : Bob
: :
: :I haven't looked at prices, but the difference in cost
: :between 1" and 3/4" is probably minimal. Who knows if
: :some day someone will want the higher flow? It's far
: :cheaper to install the larger line now that it will be
: :to dig it up and increase the size.
: :
: :BTW: Is PVC a desired/allowed alternative?
:
: The supervisor, when I asked him how much more 1" would cost than 3/4"
: today said over $600! Hardly minimal. Maybe after they'd started the job
: they figured they had me if I wanted to upgrade materials. At that
: point, they could have gone 1" without losing any work:
:
: They did the job today. I tried to get ahold of the supervisor before
: they did any installation, but he didn't return my call. I had an
: explicit understanding with him that they were to install 3/4" L both
: underground and under the house. I talked with the foreman of the crew
: and he wasn't aware of that, but I told him I had a clear understanding
: with the supervisor. I also asked him about a bonding jumper at the
: meter and he seemed to whiff on that one - didn't know what it was or
: something. He talked about water heater! The supervisor didn't call me
: back and after a while I go under the house and see that they installed
: 3/4" M under the house, counter to my agreement. I tell the foreman and
: he says he's aware that he has to "rip it out." Why this has happened is
: beyond me.
:
: I hear him talking to the supervisor on his cell phone and ask to talk
: to him. This is the same guy who the office was to have call me earlier.
: I try to ask him how much more it will cost to install 1" than 3/4",
: both would be L thickness. At this point, they were going to have to rip
: out the hard copper under the house and hadn't installed any soft copper
: outside, so there was no reason they couldn't do 1" instead. In either
: case, they were going to have to wait for a truck to deliver the copper
: they'd install. The supervisor said it would be over $600 extra! I asked
: him why and he said the materials cost that much more. I said screw
: that, basically. I call the office again (I'm not privy to the
: supervisor's cell number), and he calls me right back and affirms that
: 1" costs that much more for materials and I say I don't want that and
: they finish the installation this evening in the dark.
:
: I have an idea that they never installed the bonding jumper, which I'm
: going to try to check out tomorrow when it's light. I don't know what it
: would look like. Would that be a strap between the copper pipe coming
: into the meter and the pipe leaving it and going to the house?
:
: Dan
:
:I beg to differ....that supervisor (or his company) is either a thief
r stupid (in either case he is wrong) .... the increase in material
:would be less than $100 closer to $50
:
:cheers
:Bob

Yeah, I told him on the phone the exact same thing except I didn't
mention the $50. I gotta think they were just trying to see if they
could squeeze a bunch out of me with that line. I don't think I'll use
them again. Not unless I can see something to justify that $600 charge
(which I declined, of course). I honestly think he might be stupid. Just
don't know. How could he be THAT stupid?

Dan

You might go down to Lowes and check the
difference in price between 3/4" and 1" price.
don't think it would take much of a length to
exceed a difference of $50.

OTOH. Was using the black plastic pipe a no go
for the supply? Don't remember the schedule
number but the 105 PSI or 120 PSI plastic pipe is
what should be used. That's relatively cheap and
and it is a standard replacement around here in
areas where the soil eats hole in copper.

I use a piece as a supply pipe from the pressure
irrigation supply (about 60 psi) that goes in an L
about 50 one way and 25 feet another way and just
lies on top of the ground. It is under pressure
about 6 months of the year and has shown no
adverse effects over the past 15 years. Should
last forever underground.


DoIt Center in Mammoth Lakes, CA (not exactly the cheapest place)

Type L 3/4" $36 / 10ft
Type L 1" $46 / 10 ft

I assume Dan had about a 50ft run last night when I SWAG'd the cost
delta

I didn't look back in the thread to determine the run length

Looks like the delta from 3/4" to 1" should be in th $1/ft range not
$10/ft

cheers
Bob

On 9 Jan 2007 19:35:51 -0800, "BobK207" wrote:

oIt Center in Mammoth Lakes, CA (not exactly the cheapest place)
:
:Type L 3/4" $36 / 10ft
:Type L 1" $46 / 10 ft
:
:I assume Dan had about a 50ft run last night when I SWAG'd the cost
:delta
:
:I didn't look back in the thread to determine the run length
:
:Looks like the delta from 3/4" to 1" should be in th $1/ft range not
:$10/ft
:
:cheers
:Bob
Yes, I had the impression that the price difference was about that -
~$1/foot. That was for hard copper piping. Soft, I don't know about, but
I don't think it's way different.

After the 3/4" water main was installed I am finding that my water
pressure is very much improved. I don't notice it so much when using a
tap or whatever. What I'm noticing is when I use more than one thing.
For instance, I can flush the toilet and not have my shower lose 2/3 of
its flow! It's a major improvement. The interior piping is still very
old 1/2" galvanized almost entirely, but it appears that the old 1/2"
galvanized water main was severely corroded, both on the interior and
exterior. Well, whether it was interior or exterior, combined they were
enough to make the pipe so fragile as to break in the first place,
leading to the necessary replacement.

Dan

Dan_Musicant wrote:
After the 3/4" water main was installed I am finding that my water
pressure is very much improved. I don't notice it so much when using a
tap or whatever. What I'm noticing is when I use more than one thing.
For instance, I can flush the toilet and not have my shower lose 2/3 of
its flow! It's a major improvement. The interior piping is still very
old 1/2" galvanized almost entirely, but it appears that the old 1/2"
galvanized water main was severely corroded, both on the interior and
exterior. Well, whether it was interior or exterior, combined they were
enough to make the pipe so fragile as to break in the first place,
leading to the necessary replacement.

Dan

time to replace the remainder before it leaks and does damage

the improved pressure and flow may lead to other faster failures