Am building a house that shares a well with two other lots. The shared
well is located approximately 350-450 feet from the three building
sites. The original plan was to run a separate supply line from the
boost pump/tank located near the well to each house. Due to a screwup
by the now ex site supervisor, only a single 2" line was run under
the road before the trench was filled and the road paved.

The owners told the developer that a single 2" line would not be able
to supply pressurized water to three houses. Wishing to avoid digging
up the road, the developer was able to run a second 1 1/2" line
through the conduit, but there was not enough room to run three
separate lines as originally planned.

There were two options for managing the water lines after the run
under the road (you'll need to view this message in a fixed font to
get the picture):

Option A

|P| | |---------150'-----1 1/2"--| |
|u|===| | | |---300'---------House 1
|m| | |=========150'=====2"======| |---200'---------House 2
|p| | | | |---200'---------House 3

Option B

|P| | |---------150'-----1 1/2"--------300'---------House 1
|u|===| | | |
|m| | |=========150'=====2"======| |---200'---------House 2
|p| | |


Option A was to use a manifold that combined both supply lines after
the road, then split off three house supplies from that manifold.
Option B used the smaller supply line to supply the house farthest
from the well exclusively, and then a splitter off the larger line to
supply the two closer houses.

We ended up going with Option B, but I really can't see that either
option was preferred, given that there is a single boost pump
supplying both lines and the fitting on the pump is smaller than the
larger line.

Thoughts?

wrote:
Am building a house that shares a well with two other lots. The shared
well is located approximately 350-450 feet from the three building
sites. The original plan was to run a separate supply line from the
boost pump/tank located near the well to each house. Due to a screwup
by the now ex site supervisor, only a single 2" line was run under
the road before the trench was filled and the road paved.

The owners told the developer that a single 2" line would not be able
to supply pressurized water to three houses. Wishing to avoid digging
up the road, the developer was able to run a second 1 1/2" line
through the conduit, but there was not enough room to run three
separate lines as originally planned.

There were two options for managing the water lines after the run
under the road (you'll need to view this message in a fixed font to
get the picture):

Option A

|P| | |---------150'-----1 1/2"--| |
|u|===| | | |---300'---------House 1
|m| | |=========150'=====2"======| |---200'---------House 2
|p| | | | |---200'---------House 3

Option B

|P| | |---------150'-----1 1/2"--------300'---------House 1
|u|===| | | |
|m| | |=========150'=====2"======| |---200'---------House 2
|p| | |


Option A was to use a manifold that combined both supply lines after
the road, then split off three house supplies from that manifold.
Option B used the smaller supply line to supply the house farthest
from the well exclusively, and then a splitter off the larger line to
supply the two closer houses.

We ended up going with Option B, but I really can't see that either
option was preferred, given that there is a single boost pump
supplying both lines and the fitting on the pump is smaller than the
larger line.


A chain is no stronger than it's weakest link. Similarly, the minimum
single point restriction is the limiting factor here.

I predict this will be unsatisfactory in the long run as depending on
usage, somebody will be low on flow/pressure.

The answer should have been "none of the above" and the trouble to run a
larger line to a sizable storage/booster tank run. Failing that, one
could get by by rejoining the two feeders into a common header and using
that to feed a communal larger supply reservoir so the upstream pump
limitation is compensated by a larger reservoir.

--

Why can't he run another pipe under the road. Utilities do it all the time
without damaging the road.


wrote in message
ups.com...
Am building a house that shares a well with two other lots. The shared
well is located approximately 350-450 feet from the three building
sites. The original plan was to run a separate supply line from the
boost pump/tank located near the well to each house. Due to a screwup
by the now ex site supervisor, only a single 2" line was run under
the road before the trench was filled and the road paved.

The owners told the developer that a single 2" line would not be able
to supply pressurized water to three houses. Wishing to avoid digging
up the road, the developer was able to run a second 1 1/2" line
through the conduit, but there was not enough room to run three
separate lines as originally planned.

There were two options for managing the water lines after the run
under the road (you'll need to view this message in a fixed font to
get the picture):

Option A

|P| | |---------150'-----1 1/2"--| |
|u|===| | | |---300'---------House 1
|m| | |=========150'=====2"======| |---200'---------House 2
|p| | | | |---200'---------House 3

Option B

|P| | |---------150'-----1 1/2"--------300'---------House 1
|u|===| | | |
|m| | |=========150'=====2"======| |---200'---------House 2
|p| | |


Option A was to use a manifold that combined both supply lines after
the road, then split off three house supplies from that manifold.
Option B used the smaller supply line to supply the house farthest
from the well exclusively, and then a splitter off the larger line to
supply the two closer houses.

We ended up going with Option B, but I really can't see that either
option was preferred, given that there is a single boost pump
supplying both lines and the fitting on the pump is smaller than the
larger line.

Thoughts?

wrote:

Option A

|P| | |---------150'-----1 1/2"--| |
|u|===| | | |---300'---------House 1
|m| | |=========150'=====2"======| |---200'---------House 2
|p| | | | |---200'---------House 3

Option B

|P| | |---------150'-----1 1/2"--------300'---------House 1
|u|===| | | |
|m| | |=========150'=====2"======| |---200'---------House 2
|p| | |

With option C:

|P| | |---------150'-----1 1/2"--| |---300'---------House 1
|u|===| | | |
|m| | |=========150'=====2"======| |---200'---------House 2
|p| | |

Houses 2 and 3 can get more water from the 1.5" line if House 1
isn't using any water...

Nick

Local gas utilities and water departments run either plastic lines or copper
lines with either a horizontal drill or an air powered torpedo that will run
under the road without digging, even where there is no road it is cheaper to
use than to dig up the whole line.

"Art" wrote in message
ink.net...
Why can't he run another pipe under the road. Utilities do it all the
time without damaging the road.


wrote in message
ups.com...
Am building a house that shares a well with two other lots. The shared
well is located approximately 350-450 feet from the three building
sites. The original plan was to run a separate supply line from the
boost pump/tank located near the well to each house. Due to a screwup
by the now ex site supervisor, only a single 2" line was run under
the road before the trench was filled and the road paved.

The owners told the developer that a single 2" line would not be able
to supply pressurized water to three houses. Wishing to avoid digging
up the road, the developer was able to run a second 1 1/2" line
through the conduit, but there was not enough room to run three
separate lines as originally planned.

There were two options for managing the water lines after the run
under the road (you'll need to view this message in a fixed font to
get the picture):

Option A

|P| | |---------150'-----1 1/2"--| |
|u|===| | | |---300'---------House 1
|m| | |=========150'=====2"======| |---200'---------House 2
|p| | | | |---200'---------House 3

Option B

|P| | |---------150'-----1 1/2"--------300'---------House 1
|u|===| | | |
|m| | |=========150'=====2"======| |---200'---------House 2
|p| | |


Option A was to use a manifold that combined both supply lines after
the road, then split off three house supplies from that manifold.
Option B used the smaller supply line to supply the house farthest
from the well exclusively, and then a splitter off the larger line to
supply the two closer houses.

We ended up going with Option B, but I really can't see that either
option was preferred, given that there is a single boost pump
supplying both lines and the fitting on the pump is smaller than the
larger line.

Thoughts?

"Art" wrote:

Why can't he run another pipe under the road. Utilities do it all the time
without damaging the road.

Don't know for sure - that was my first thought as well. The road is cut into a
rock mountain, so they would have had to dig up the original trench to avoid
cutting more rock, but that shouldn't be that big a deal.

--
"Tell me what I should do, Annie."
"Stay. Here. Forever." - Life On Mars

"EXT" wrote:

Local gas utilities and water departments run either plastic lines or copper
lines with either a horizontal drill or an air powered torpedo that will run
under the road without digging, even where there is no road it is cheaper to
use than to dig up the whole line.

Unfortunately, this road is cut into a granite mountain side, so that type of
installation isn't an option.

--
"Tell me what I should do, Annie."
"Stay. Here. Forever." - Life On Mars

wrote:

With option C:

|P| | |---------150'-----1 1/2"--| |---300'---------House 1
|u|===| | | |
|m| | |=========150'=====2"======| |---200'---------House 2
|p| | |

Houses 2 and 3 can get more water from the 1.5" line if House 1
isn't using any water...

Hmmm... Not sure I follow your drawing. It seems to be missing house 3.

--
"Tell me what I should do, Annie."
"Stay. Here. Forever." - Life On Mars

Chris Hill wrote:

The owners were full of it. We have five houses run off a single
pressurized 2-inch line. Of course it is county water, but it works
fine and we never notice any pressure drops.

Well, then it shouldn't matter. There is a couple of hundred feet of lift
involved in addition to the run length, so it will be interesting to see if the
boost pump is sized properly.

--
"Tell me what I should do, Annie."
"Stay. Here. Forever." - Life On Mars

Houses are expensive. A civil engineer can answer this question. The
developer needs to hire an engineer or dig up the road. Digging up the paved
road to install new pipe is a common occurrence and not a huge expense. If
the developer tries to put a "band-aid" on this problem you need to get out
now.

Dave M.

wrote:

Am building a house that shares a well with two other lots. The shared
well is located approximately 350-450 feet from the three building
sites. The original plan was to run a separate supply line from the
boost pump/tank located near the well to each house. Due to a screwup
by the now ex site supervisor, only a single 2" line was run under
the road before the trench was filled and the road paved.
....
Option A

|P| | |---------150'-----1 1/2"--| |
|u|===| | | |---300'---------House 1
|m| | |=========150'=====2"======| |---200'---------House 2
|p| | | | |---200'---------House 3

Option B

|P| | |---------150'-----1 1/2"--------300'---------House 1
|u|===| | | |
|m| | |=========150'=====2"======| |---200'---------House 2
|p| | |

....

I assume that you meant to also include house 3 on option B.
No one seemed to ask:
1) what is the expected flow rate of the pump? (at the anticipated pressure)
2) are the houses at the same elevation? If not, you are going to have far
more problem from that than from any slightly undersized pipe.
3) What do you expect the demand from the houses to be?
4) Is the entire 150' distance under the road. If not, you could
replace/augment the portion that is not under the road.

The combination of a 1.5" and a 2" pipe as in option A is
equivalent to just slightly under a 1.5" pipe for each house.
That is probably more than enough for most domestic uses unless you have
fire sprinklers or plan to do high volume outdoor irrigation.

If the houses are not at the same elevation, you may want to
consider either pressure regulators, or secondary pumps and/or
tanks at the houses.

P.S. My preference would be option A. Unless all three houses are
simultaneously using large volumes of water, it will give superior
performance.

M Q wrote:

I assume that you meant to also include house 3 on option B.
No one seemed to ask:

Whoops. Yep - you are correct.

1) what is the expected flow rate of the pump? (at the anticipated pressure)

That I will have to see next time I climb down into the well house. That's
really the key question.

2) are the houses at the same elevation? If not, you are going to have far
more problem from that than from any slightly undersized pipe.

Yes, they are all approximately the same elevation.

3) What do you expect the demand from the houses to be?

There's little to no outdoor irrigation allowed, so it's household use only.
Worse case would be less than 10gpm per house I should think. The houses do have
active fire supression (sprinklers), though one wouldn't suspect more than one
house would be using them at a time.

4) Is the entire 150' distance under the road. If not, you could
replace/augment the portion that is not under the road.


The road is only 30' across. The developer and his well company were OK with the
single line servering 3 houses and someone else here suggested that 5 could be
served off a 2" line if the pump would support it.

The combination of a 1.5" and a 2" pipe as in option A is
equivalent to just slightly under a 1.5" pipe for each house.
That is probably more than enough for most domestic uses unless you have
fire sprinklers or plan to do high volume outdoor irrigation.


We'll do some performance testing before accepting the house. It may be years
before the other two houses get built and we can deal with any problems then.

--
"Tell me what I should do, Annie."
"Stay. Here. Forever." - Life On Mars

wrote in message
ups.com...
Am building a house that shares a well with two other lots. The shared
well is located approximately 350-450 feet from the three building
sites. The original plan was to run a separate supply line from the
boost pump/tank located near the well to each house. Due to a screwup
by the now ex site supervisor, only a single 2" line was run under
the road before the trench was filled and the road paved.

Thoughts?


Only one thought. You need an engineer to do the calculations to see
exactly what you need. IMO, you have plenty of capacity to supply another
three houses too. Be sure you have the right pump setup. It is far cheaper
to pay an engineer a few hundred bucks now rather than have to re-do a
faulty system a few months from now.

Harry K wrote:

Ah! Some real reasoning. Yes a 2" line is adequate for 3 houses.
They now have the equivalent of about a 3 1/4" line. The size of the
pump outlet does not play in the problem. The pump feeds the pressure
tank which feeds the houses. Only if the total draw exceeds pump
capacity is there a problem.

In this particular application there is no pressure tank. The well pump fills a
1500 gallon storage tank and is controlled by a float valve. A booster pump
draws water from the storage tank and supplies water directly to the houses.

It would be hard to imagine the houses drawing more than 30gpm combined at any
one time and that number seems well within the capacity of a boost pump.

--
"Tell me what I should do, Annie."
"Stay. Here. Forever." - Life On Mars

"Rick Blaine" wrote in message
...
"Art" wrote:

Why can't he run another pipe under the road. Utilities do it all
the time
without damaging the road.

Don't know for sure - that was my first thought as well. The road is
cut into a
rock mountain, so they would have had to dig up the original trench
to avoid
cutting more rock, but that shouldn't be that big a deal.

Except for the digging up the road part.

"Rick Blaine" wrote in message
...
Harry K wrote:

Ah! Some real reasoning. Yes a 2" line is adequate for 3 houses.
They now have the equivalent of about a 3 1/4" line. The size of
the
pump outlet does not play in the problem. The pump feeds the
pressure
tank which feeds the houses. Only if the total draw exceeds pump
capacity is there a problem.

In this particular application there is no pressure tank. The well
pump fills a
1500 gallon storage tank and is controlled by a float valve. A
booster pump
draws water from the storage tank and supplies water directly to the
houses.

It would be hard to imagine the houses drawing more than 30gpm
combined at any
one time and that number seems well within the capacity of a boost
pump.


My hose faucet running full blast puts out about 15 gal/minute.

No pressure tank? Does the pump run full time?

Connecting the 2 pipes together before splitting to go 3 ways would
help assure that noone gets short-changed on water.

If there is a problem, increasing the pump pressure should solve it.
(Bigger pump) I wouldn't expect it. Without watering usage, high
demands should be short lived. A pressure tank at your house could
solve that.

Bob

"Bob F" wrote:

My hose faucet running full blast puts out about 15 gal/minute.


Well, the houses will have outdoor taps, but are prohibited from doing any
irrigation. I suppose washing a vehicle could draw the amount you indicated.

No pressure tank? Does the pump run full time?


When water is being demanded, yes. Thought that was a little unusual but the
other houses in the development use the same arrangement with no problems.

Connecting the 2 pipes together before splitting to go 3 ways would
help assure that noone gets short-changed on water.


That was my first reaction, but now I'm not so sure.

If there is a problem, increasing the pump pressure should solve it.
(Bigger pump) I wouldn't expect it. Without watering usage, high
demands should be short lived. A pressure tank at your house could
solve that.

That's my backup plan if there's an issue. I'll just put a 1500 gal storage tank
near the house and draw from that.

--
"Tell me what I should do, Annie."
"Stay. Here. Forever." - Life On Mars

Rick Blaine wrote:

.....
There's little to no outdoor irrigation allowed, so it's household use only.
Worse case would be less than 10gpm per house I should think. The houses do have
active fire supression (sprinklers), though one wouldn't suspect more than one
house would be using them at a time.
....

With sprinklers (I assume required by building code), the fire codes
and local fire authorities are going to tell you what size pipe
you need, what flow rate, and whether you need to sustain
that rate for just one or all three houses.

M Q wrote:

With sprinklers (I assume required by building code), the fire codes
and local fire authorities are going to tell you what size pipe
you need, what flow rate, and whether you need to sustain
that rate for just one or all three houses.

That was my thought also. I can't recall what the rule was right now, but I know
the code inspectors are pretty strict around here.

--
"Tell me what I should do, Annie."
"Stay. Here. Forever." - Life On Mars

Rick Blaine wrote:
M Q wrote:

I assume that you meant to also include house 3 on option B.
No one seemed to ask:

Whoops. Yep - you are correct.

1) what is the expected flow rate of the pump? (at the anticipated pressure)

That I will have to see next time I climb down into the well house. That's
really the key question.

2) are the houses at the same elevation? If not, you are going to have far
more problem from that than from any slightly undersized pipe.

Yes, they are all approximately the same elevation.

3) What do you expect the demand from the houses to be?

There's little to no outdoor irrigation allowed, so it's household use only.
Worse case would be less than 10gpm per house I should think. The houses do have
active fire supression (sprinklers), though one wouldn't suspect more than one
house would be using them at a time.

4) Is the entire 150' distance under the road. If not, you could
replace/augment the portion that is not under the road.


The road is only 30' across. The developer and his well company were OK with the
single line servering 3 houses and someone else here suggested that 5 could be
served off a 2" line if the pump would support it.

The combination of a 1.5" and a 2" pipe as in option A is
equivalent to just slightly under a 1.5" pipe for each house.
That is probably more than enough for most domestic uses unless you have
fire sprinklers or plan to do high volume outdoor irrigation.


We'll do some performance testing before accepting the house. It may be years
before the other two houses get built and we can deal with any problems then.


"...given that there is a single boost[er] pump supplying both lines and
the fitting on the pump is smaller than the larger line."

If I interpret this correctly, the system still has a single-point choke
point. Downstream of that increasing the line size or number of lines
can't help w/ what is an upstream restriction. Am I wrong?

The tank at the service end resolves the problem in that manner as long
as the total demand isn't greater than the tank capacity. Only place
that should be a problem would be perhaps in the event of the sprinklers
being in play, I would think.

--

dpb wrote:

"...given that there is a single boost[er] pump supplying both lines and
the fitting on the pump is smaller than the larger line."

If I interpret this correctly, the system still has a single-point choke
point. Downstream of that increasing the line size or number of lines
can't help w/ what is an upstream restriction. Am I wrong?


Right... That's what I was trying to say. The fitting on the booster pump looks
to be around 1 inch, maybe 1.5". It goes through an adapter to a pipe that acts
like a manifold with the 1.5" and 2" lines tapped off. So my assumption is that
as long as the pump can provide the pressure over the rise and distance and
supply the demand, it doesn't make any difference if they are tied together and
then split at the midpoint or run as separate lines.

The tank at the service end resolves the problem in that manner as long
as the total demand isn't greater than the tank capacity. Only place
that should be a problem would be perhaps in the event of the sprinklers
being in play, I would think.

Yep. I need to check the rating on the boost pump...

--
"Tell me what I should do, Annie."
"Stay. Here. Forever." - Life On Mars

Rick Blaine wrote:
dpb wrote:

"...given that there is a single boost[er] pump supplying both lines and
the fitting on the pump is smaller than the larger line."

If I interpret this correctly, the system still has a single-point choke
point. Downstream of that increasing the line size or number of lines
can't help w/ what is an upstream restriction. Am I wrong?


Right... That's what I was trying to say. The fitting on the booster pump looks
to be around 1 inch, maybe 1.5". It goes through an adapter to a pipe that acts
like a manifold with the 1.5" and 2" lines tapped off. So my assumption is that
as long as the pump can provide the pressure over the rise and distance and
supply the demand, it doesn't make any difference if they are tied together and
then split at the midpoint or run as separate lines.

Well, sorta'...would have to look at specifics more to fully evaluate,
but the manifold volume really doesn't help -- the total maximum flow is
restricted to what the pump can put through that single small
connection. After that, you "cain't put no more 'taters in a 5-lb tote"
as Dolly once said (in regards to something other than water, but you
probably get my drift... ).


The tank at the service end resolves the problem in that manner as long
as the total demand isn't greater than the tank capacity. Only place
that should be a problem would be perhaps in the event of the sprinklers
being in play, I would think.

Yep. I need to check the rating on the boost pump...

--
"Tell me what I should do, Annie."
"Stay. Here. Forever." - Life On Mars

"Rick Blaine" wrote in message
...
dpb wrote:

"...given that there is a single boost[er] pump supplying both lines
and
the fitting on the pump is smaller than the larger line."

If I interpret this correctly, the system still has a single-point
choke
point. Downstream of that increasing the line size or number of
lines
can't help w/ what is an upstream restriction. Am I wrong?


Right... That's what I was trying to say. The fitting on the booster
pump looks
to be around 1 inch, maybe 1.5". It goes through an adapter to a
pipe that acts
like a manifold with the 1.5" and 2" lines tapped off. So my
assumption is that
as long as the pump can provide the pressure over the rise and
distance and
supply the demand, it doesn't make any difference if they are tied
together and
then split at the midpoint or run as separate lines.

Bigger pipes lessen the pressure loss in the pipe, no matter what size
of pipe the source is. If the pipes are big enough, their length makes
less difference to the pressure and volume available at the end. There
is just less pressure drop.

Having both pipes available to both houses just lessens the
opportunities for line pressure drop to make a difference between what
pressure is available in any house.


The tank at the service end resolves the problem in that manner as
long
as the total demand isn't greater than the tank capacity. Only
place
that should be a problem would be perhaps in the event of the
sprinklers
being in play, I would think.

Yep. I need to check the rating on the boost pump...

Fire Sprinklers are probably the defining parameter here, and the
codes concerning this will probably assure that other problem won't
occur. Just make sure the sprinkler demands are met.

Bob

"Rick Blaine" wrote in message
...
"Bob F" wrote:

My hose faucet running full blast puts out about 15 gal/minute.


Well, the houses will have outdoor taps, but are prohibited from
doing any
irrigation. I suppose washing a vehicle could draw the amount you
indicated.

So you can't even grow vegetables?


No pressure tank? Does the pump run full time?


When water is being demanded, yes. Thought that was a little unusual
but the
other houses in the development use the same arrangement with no
problems.

There must be some kind of reservoir to maintain pipe pressure until
water demand occurs. Or does the pump run continously if a faucet is
dripping slightly.


Connecting the 2 pipes together before splitting to go 3 ways would
help assure that noone gets short-changed on water.


That was my first reaction, but now I'm not so sure.

If there is a problem, increasing the pump pressure should solve it.
(Bigger pump) I wouldn't expect it. Without watering usage, high
demands should be short lived. A pressure tank at your house could
solve that.

That's my backup plan if there's an issue. I'll just put a 1500 gal
storage tank
near the house and draw from that.

That should almost never be necessary. This is of course dependent on
the "booster pump" at the source being strong enough. You could put a
booster pump at your end with a pressure switch to turn on only when
the supply pressure gets too low. The storage tank at your end
(storage? not pressure, right?) will mean you have to supply all the
electricity to pressurize your water - another expense.

You could increase the pipe size from the road to the houses, cutting
losses through the pipes, effectively making them "appear" shorter to
the pump, increasing the capacity of the system.

The fire sprinklers are probably the determining factor.

Bob

If they can find the trench underneath the road, all you do is keep hitting
a metal pipe until it goes all the way thru. Irrigation companies go under
driveways all the time doing it that way.


"Bob F" wrote in message
. ..

"Rick Blaine" wrote in message
...
"Art" wrote:

Why can't he run another pipe under the road. Utilities do it all the
time
without damaging the road.

Don't know for sure - that was my first thought as well. The road is cut
into a
rock mountain, so they would have had to dig up the original trench to
avoid
cutting more rock, but that shouldn't be that big a deal.

Except for the digging up the road part.

About 20 years ago my father ran a 2 inch water line from city water
about 1.5 miles to their subdivision. Their house and 5 others are
served by it. Water pressure and flow can be a little slow at peak
times, however they have never had a problem. A 2 inch line carries a
lot of water. I would be more concerned with the 1.5 inch line and
pressure pump.

1) Rather than a 2" and a 1-1/2" line, why didn't "someone" just pull the
2" and run a 3" or as large as you can get under the road? When you have
two different sized pipes in "parallel" the small pipe usually doesn't make
much difference. You could bring TWO 2" pipes to the conduit, transition to
ONE 3" (plus) and at the other side have separate 2" pipes to the individual
homes.

2) As another poster said, in any case a 2" pipe can carry a heck of a lot
of water.

3) I don't quite understand your system but if possible you should have a
pressure tank near the wellhead and the pressure should be set on the high
side (cut in 50, cut out 70). If you have pressure regulators at each home
set at, say, 30 psi you will never "sense" when your neighbors are using
water.


wrote in message
ups.com...
Am building a house that shares a well with two other lots. The shared
well is located approximately 350-450 feet from the three building
sites. The original plan was to run a separate supply line from the
boost pump/tank located near the well to each house. Due to a screwup
by the now ex site supervisor, only a single 2" line was run under
the road before the trench was filled and the road paved.

The owners told the developer that a single 2" line would not be able
to supply pressurized water to three houses. Wishing to avoid digging
up the road, the developer was able to run a second 1 1/2" line
through the conduit, but there was not enough room to run three
separate lines as originally planned.

There were two options for managing the water lines after the run
under the road (you'll need to view this message in a fixed font to
get the picture):

Option A

|P| | |---------150'-----1 1/2"--| |
|u|===| | | |---300'---------House 1
|m| | |=========150'=====2"======| |---200'---------House 2
|p| | | | |---200'---------House 3

Option B

|P| | |---------150'-----1 1/2"--------300'---------House 1
|u|===| | | |
|m| | |=========150'=====2"======| |---200'---------House 2
|p| | |


Option A was to use a manifold that combined both supply lines after
the road, then split off three house supplies from that manifold.
Option B used the smaller supply line to supply the house farthest
from the well exclusively, and then a splitter off the larger line to
supply the two closer houses.

We ended up going with Option B, but I really can't see that either
option was preferred, given that there is a single boost pump
supplying both lines and the fitting on the pump is smaller than the
larger line.

Thoughts?

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 13:44:56 -0700, someone wrote:

.....only a single 2" line was run under
the road before the trench was filled and the road paved.

The owners told the developer that a single 2" line would not be able
to supply pressurized water to three houses.

How do the Owners know this? A 2" water supply line is pretty big if
not being used for fire hydrants or irrigation. I have seen camp
colonies that ran far more than only three houses off 2" water lines.

If everyone wants to stick to their guns, if there were documents
(plans, specs) that said there were supposed to be three separate
lines and a fixed price to do it, then tough **** on the contractor,
they can cut the road lay the lines then patch the road.

But if you are all paying time & materials anyway, then try it as-is
and see. I don't see that it is so obvious that a 2" line can't do
it. What does an actual engineer's analysis say?


Reply to NG only - this e.mail address goes to a kill file.