On 8/4/2014 2:00 AM, Danny D. wrote:
It sure is different here.

I'd bet, for example, in North Carolina, only a few houses burn at a time,
whereas, out here, from hundreds to thousands burn up at the same time.

I'm not sure why that's the case, but that's what happens.

It's weird.

Have you ever had five hundred houses burn there in NC for example, in
a single fire?

The Oakland fire of 1991 burned 3,354 single-family dwellings and 437 apartments
for example.

I'm not sure "why" California is so different than anywhere else.
Where else, in the US, do three thousand separate homes burn in a single fire?


Cedar shake shingles.
Wood siding.
Dry Santa Ana winds.
Lack of water for fire fighting.
Dry trees that release millions of "fire brands" into the wind.
Condemnation from God for sodomy and fornication.
Condemnation from God for liberalism.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

Pico Rico wrote:

"Danny D." wrote in message
...
Pete C. wrote, on Sun, 03 Aug 2014 17:42:52 -0500:

There are plenty of places were low yield wells are common and pretty
much every house has one and a cistern system. They are rarely ever a
problem as long as the wells are reliable.

My well, is 400 feet deep (another one is less than that but
doesn't produce much) and it gets about 5 gallons a minute when
it can, but it runs out of water every few minutes.

Once it runs out, it shuts off for half an hour, and then it turns
on again, for about 10 to 15 minutes, and then runs out of water and the
cycle renews.

In the other thread titled:
How to truck 1,000 gallons of potable water to a residence
I shut the well pump for a few hours, and it went for about 20 minutes
before running out of water, averaging about 4 gallons a minute (more
in the beginning, less in the end).

The 300 foot shallow well shut off in less than two minutes, so, I'm
not counting its output.

This is Silicon Valley.


That is NOT Silicon Valley. The water table in the valley is relatively
shallow and there is plenty of water (due to recharge and imported water).

You are up in the hills, at about 1800+ feet. Whole different ballgame.

The noted 400' well does not "shut off" in a few minutes. What happens
is that you a drawing down the standing water in the well casing in a
few minutes and then waiting for the well to refill. This is a low yield
well being pumped with a high flow pump, if you pumped at the well's
actual yield rate it would pump continuously. Per your numbers it is
producing ~50 gal in 40 min or about 1.25 gal / min consistently. That
equates to 1,800 gal / day which is more than enough when coupled with a
1,500-2,000 gal cistern and proper pump controls.

Good idea. I'd also go to neighbors, find out who drilled their
wells, go talk to those drillers too. Or failing that, other drillers
in the area. Along those lines, how did this come to be? Presumably
they had water at the house previously? When were the two wells there
drilled? The well drillers are the ones who will know at what leve
the acquifers are, if this is a common problem, etc.

I did go around and speak with 7 or 8 of the closest neighbors, as
well as looking at the well drill reports of all of the wells in the
area. My findings:

1) None of the other neighbors (several are less than 500 feet away,
right across the road) have reported any water issues. The one to the
south has lived there over 50 years. The neighbor right across the road
that I spoke to mentioned that the farmhouse just to the north of this
property had a well that ran dry in summer drought conditions a couple
of years back. However, that was a TRULY old and shallow well - only 28
feet deep, so I'm not sure if I would count that. They had to dig a new
well of a more standard depth - 80 feet, and struck water at 50 feet
with around 7 gallons per minute flow rate. This place is about 1,300
feet north of the house we were looking at.

2) Looking at the actual well reports from all of the neighboring wells,
flow rates averaged something like 8 or 9 gallons per minute, with a
couple of wells being as low as 5 or 6, and a couple being as high as
15. The average depth at which they reported hitting water was 45 feet.
I'm thinking that the reason they dug down so very far at this place
was so that the well bore could act as water storage. I imagine that a
cylinder around 240 feet deep and 5" in diameter can hold a decent
number of gallons of water!

In any case, the former owner, having sunk nearly $20,000 into those
two wells (which were drilled far too close together by the house, in my
opinion) was also dealing with a messy divorce, and he ended up giving
up on the place and losing it to the bank back in 2013. The place is
far out in the country, so there is no chance that it would ever get
water service from the nearest town.

On Sunday, August 3, 2014 9:52:43 PM UTC-4, Arthur Conan Doyle wrote:
trader_4 wrote:



I've bought and sold quite a few houses and I've never seen a bank

come test a well.



Nor would you see a bank perform a home inspection. But you would see any

commercial entity that finances a house require an inspection and that would

include testing the well.

What exactly is a bank if not a commercial entity? Maybe others here can
report if their mortgage source, either a bank or other lender, required
testing a well. The ones I've been involved with never tested a well.
A CO was good enough. And around here to get a CO, all that is required
for a well is to have a sample of the water tested. There is no min
flow requirement and no one checks it.

On Sunday, August 3, 2014 8:06:27 PM UTC-4, Danny D. wrote:
Ohioguy wrote, on Sat, 02 Aug 2014 18:01:41 -0400:



Would it be possible to get a large poly tank - say 2,000 gallon, and

have a small pump trickle the water up into that so that we would always

have a week or more of water stored up for future use?



Out here, in Northern California, where it won't rain for 9 or so months

out of the year, we all have wells that are, on average four to five

hundred feet deep - and the code is that we need 15,000 gallons of

tank water, 10,000 of which is reserved for fire suppression.



One of my neighbors, who recently ran out of water, just drilled a new

well of 520 feet, which is getting 18 gallons per minute, and which hit

water at 300 feet initially.



You didn't mention where you live, but there is a chance you can

just go deeper, but, it costs about $100 a foot to drill, so, you're

looking at doubling the price of the property (although $64K is practically

free as property prices go. Just the yearly tax alone on a typical

Silicon Valley California property in a few years equals that much).



Is it particularly hard to drill there because of rock or something?
Around here, NJ, which ain't cheap, you can put in a well for less than
half that, ie 100ft, is ~$3500. It's a half day's work. If it's not
hard to drill, you're probably all just getting screwed by everything
in silicon valley being expensive.

There are 1,440 minutes in a day so you could expect between 1,440 and
2,160 gal available per use per day. ...

Regarding the fire issue, I think a small holding pond or cistern
capturing the runoff from the house, garage and the (probable) barn that
I would build would suffice for that, and also as a water source for
watering the garden, etc. (a large garden and small orchard can easily
use up as much water as the family does inside)

I've heard that there are low volume "membrane" style pumps that are
designed for situations like this, where you need to pump up a very
small volume of water over a very long time. Other people have
mentioned putting a regular pump on a timer, so that it only pumps for a
short period every couple of hours. If I was just filling up a large
poly tank, I guess a floater hooked up to a switch would work, coupled
with a timer. If the poly tank was full, no pumping would take place.
However, if the tank was not full, then the timer could kick on at
regular intervals. I wonder if that would work?

In article ,
"Ralph Mowery" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...
Unless there is city water, insurance companies look more to the
tankers, etc, of the local FD than water on the property. I doubt even
the ones that have good pressure have any hydrants or other readily
available supply (with the possible exception of a pond)
--

Unless it is something very unusual, there is no way a normal home well can
supply a fire truck with anywhere enough water. The well pipe will not
handle hardly any of the volume of water the pumper is goung to use. They
pump out 500 gallons in just a couple of minuits.

I doubt that the inusrance companies even care about water in the home well
when it comes to fire protection.

Nah they don't. Having worked fire investigation in a rural county
(albeit about 30 years ago, but keeping up with my reading), they only
care about what the FD can bring with them. They can give discounts if
you have a big enough pond, live on a lake, have a deep river nearby, or
other very close by water source. That is obviously fairly rare.
--
³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.²
‹ Aaron Levenstein

In article ,
"Danny D." wrote:

Ra
I'm not sure "why" California is so different than anywhere else.
Where else, in the US, do three thousand separate homes burn in a single
fire?

Where else are they dumb enough to build that many houses in an area
that is prone to such fires??? (grin).
--
€œStatistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.€�
€” Aaron Levenstein

I'd ten to not worry on those grounds. If the wells in the immediate
vicinity are higher yield, I'd expect this low yield well is being fed
from the same source, but via cracks in the rocks thus the lower yield.
Certainly there should be hydrology reports for the area that can give
more information.

I was joking with my Dad - too bad they didn't drill down at an
extreme angle - maybe they could have drilled over towards the neighbor
to the south who has good water flow, and get some of THAT water.


I am really left wondering, however, why didn't they locate one or
both of the wells farther from the house (and each other)? If the goal
is to increase the chance of finding good water flow, and each well
costs about $10,000 to complete, then I surely would have tried to
locate them on different parts of the property, to maximize my chances.
I am assuming that they drilled these two wells in 2012 because an old
and shallow well failed, similar to the property just to the north that
had the ~ 28' old farm well.

With 4 acres, the place has quite a bit of land to the east and
south. They could have easily drilled for water 100-500 feet to the
east, and anywhere up to about 120 feet to the south along that path as
well. Instead, both wells were within about 40 feet of the house. Is
it really that expensive to dig a 6 foot trench and lay poly pipe
between the well and the house? I can't imagine it is that expensive
compared to drilling the $10,000 well in the first place.

In article 0e3tt9p8jrjlrqtusbekcejvss6lt0770e@None,
Arthur Conan Doyle wrote:

Ohioguy wrote:

Would it be possible to get a large poly tank - say 2,000 gallon, and
have a small pump trickle the water up into that so that we would always
have a week or more of water stored up for future use?

Technically? Sure. You could also look into having water delivered.

Would something
like that be as simple as adding the tank and running a pipe over to it
from the well, then adding a pump in the tank for the house? (or are
there a bunch of inspections and permits that would be required for
something like this?)

Inspections and permits would be required in most locations, especially if a
mortgage on the property is involved. But that brings up a potential issue
you
may not have considered. Getting a mortgage on such a property will be
difficult
to impossible.

If you are able to purchase for cash or finance privately, you also need to
consider the salability of the property in the future, which is likely to be
very difficult.

I would point to places such as No Name Key in the FL Keys. There are no
water utilities there (yet, but that is another thread altogether-grin).
You have houses that are bought and sold all the time with cisterns,
solar or generators, (I am not sure what they do with waste water).
All you would need to do is show that you have an adequate supply.
You might lose a few potential buyers who don't want to mess with
cisterns and pumps, but I'll lose a few potential buyers when I sell
because they don't want to mess with the swimming pool.
--
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital."
-- Aaron Levenstein

I've never heard anyone *not* call it Silicon Valley though, but, from a
water perspective, it's hill and not valley floor.

Perhaps you can coin a new term: "Silicon Ridge"?



You didn't mention where you live, but there is a chance you can
just go deeper, but, it costs about $100 a foot to drill, so, you're
looking at doubling the price of the property (although $64K is
practically free as property prices go. Just the yearly tax alone on a
typical Silicon Valley California property in a few years equals that
much).

SW Ohio. Based on the geology maps of the area, it does NOT make
sense to go deeper, unless you are just drilling a deep cylinder to act
as a water reservoir. The geology maps show that there does not tend to
be water bearing rock down under 80 feet in this area. The porous,
water bearing rock/sandy layer tends to be in the first 50 feet around
here normally.

While I'll agree that $64k is probably a good price for the place, I
certainly don't consider it "free". I consider farmland to be worth
about $8,000 an acre.

My grandfather (a farmer who had more than 300 acres) took me aside
one day and gave me two pieces of advice when I was becoming a young
man, probably back in the mid 1980's:

A) keep your thing in your pants

&

B) don't EVER pay more than $2,000 an acre for good farmland


Well, allowing for inflation and greater farm profits over the past
few years, that $2k he mentioned is probably closer to $8k or so now.
This is for typical Ohio farmland, not something next to the Interstate
that is likely to be turned into restaurants.

Also, I consider property taxes to be designed to bring in 100% of a
property's value over 50 years, or pretty much the lifetime of a typical
owner. Anything that asks more than 2% of the value of the place per
year is highway robbery. So says my other grandfather, who is 92 years
old this year. He pays about the same on his ~80 acres as we do on our
current TWO TENTHS of an acre.

On 08/04/2014 7:47 AM, Ohioguy wrote:
....

2) Looking at the actual well reports from all of the neighboring wells,
flow rates averaged something like 8 or 9 gallons per minute, with a
couple of wells being as low as 5 or 6, and a couple being as high as
15. The average depth at which they reported hitting water was 45 feet.
I'm thinking that the reason they dug down so very far at this place was
so that the well bore could act as water storage. I imagine that a
cylinder around 240 feet deep and 5" in diameter can hold a decent
number of gallons of water!
....

That still begs the question of why _these_ two wells can't produce
anything of any magnitude. If there really were a water table of
roughly 50 ft or so and the casing were perforated at that producing
zone, _then_ it should fill, yes, and you should have water in
abundance. That you have such a trickle means either they didn't
perforate there and there isn't water in the hole to anything like that
or if they did there just happens to not be water at that level right
where these wells happen to be (and stuff like that does happen) or the
last possibility is there's just some miniscule little solar-powered
pump installed or the like for some reason that is the limiting factor,
_not_ a water limitation itself. The latter makes no sense; if that
were the case why in the world would they have drilled a second hole?

I still say that with that information you really need to talk to either
the former owner directly and find out what/why this is the way it is
and I'd still say need to talk to this driller also and find out all the
details of "who, why, how?".

It really makes no sense from the pieces heard so far.

BTW, the hole won't fill to some level higher than the producing zone
unless there's a hydraulic path by which that pressure level can
equalize--even if there is a static water level at 100-ft, say and the
hole is 200, as noted unless it's perforated or there's a conduit path
for that water to flow from outside the casing to the bottom and then
rise to equilibrium, it's not going to be there.

I don't suppose you know the level in either of these at this point, do
you? Could, in worst case, get to an area on this property that is in
reasonable proximity to one of these other areas that has a known good
well? If could do that, it would allay my concern a little, but I'd be
holding the cost of a new well and running this line in an escrow fund
on the presumption yet another well is in the cards here sooner rather
than later unless you can find the magic answer as to the "why" as
outlined above.

Again, it's likely one will be able to limp along for a while but I
suspect always being limited will become more and more of an issue the
longer you're in the location and will make the bargain seem less and
less of one the more you run into the lack as you want to do things that
it becomes limiting for. And, as another noted, don't forget about the
potential resale value unless you're positive this is retirement village
kind of place.

$0.02, imo, ymmv, etc., etc., ...

(One whose well started pumping air just this summer as water tables
have now dropped...fortunately, at this time we can still just go
deeper, but at some point this area is going to be w/o out water and
that will be sooner rather than later if all the irrigation isn't scaled
back significantly. This operation, btw, is all dryland, not
irrigated; this is only domestic and animal use...)

--

On 08/04/2014 8:01 AM, Ohioguy wrote:
There are 1,440 minutes in a day so you could expect between 1,440 and
2,160 gal available per use per day. ...

Regarding the fire issue, I think a small holding pond or cistern
capturing the runoff from the house, garage and the (probable) barn that
I would build would suffice for that, and also as a water source for
watering the garden, etc. (a large garden and small orchard can easily
use up as much water as the family does inside)

That of course presumes an adequate rainfall which one there normally
gets I presume. Excepting of course, in periods of drought when one
needs the extra most is when there isn't much refill. How often that
occurs where you are I don't know; out here it's often and we're in
midst of another severe 3-yr and counting cycle at the moment...

I've heard that there are low volume "membrane" style pumps that are
designed for situations like this, where you need to pump up a very
small volume of water over a very long time. Other people have mentioned
putting a regular pump on a timer, so that it only pumps for a short
period every couple of hours. If I was just filling up a large poly
tank, I guess a floater hooked up to a switch would work, coupled with a
timer. If the poly tank was full, no pumping would take place. However,
if the tank was not full, then the timer could kick on at regular
intervals. I wonder if that would work?

All depends on how the well actually produces...only having more
information and conducting actual tests will answer those questions.
See more extension comments elsewhere in thread....

--

Ohioguy wrote:

There are 1,440 minutes in a day so you could expect between 1,440 and
2,160 gal available per use per day. ...

Regarding the fire issue, I think a small holding pond or cistern
capturing the runoff from the house, garage and the (probable) barn that
I would build would suffice for that, and also as a water source for
watering the garden, etc. (a large garden and small orchard can easily
use up as much water as the family does inside)

I've heard that there are low volume "membrane" style pumps that are
designed for situations like this, where you need to pump up a very
small volume of water over a very long time. Other people have
mentioned putting a regular pump on a timer, so that it only pumps for a
short period every couple of hours. If I was just filling up a large
poly tank, I guess a floater hooked up to a switch would work, coupled
with a timer. If the poly tank was full, no pumping would take place.
However, if the tank was not full, then the timer could kick on at
regular intervals. I wonder if that would work?

Pump controllers are common for exactly this low yield well condition.
They work by detecting when the pump runs dry based on current draw and
then shutting it off for an adjustable time period (adjust based on well
recovery rate), or of course they turn the pump off when the float
switch in the cistern indicates it is full. The cistern feeds a second
pump that feeds a normal pressure tank and is controlled by a regular
pressure switch. Simple system, long tested, works great as long as the
well is able to keep up with the total water demands overall.

On 08/04/2014 8:11 AM, Ohioguy wrote:
....

With 4 acres, the place has quite a bit of land to the east and south.
They could have easily drilled for water 100-500 feet to the east, and
anywhere up to about 120 feet to the south along that path as well.
Instead, both wells were within about 40 feet of the house. Is it really
that expensive to dig a 6 foot trench and lay poly pipe between the well
and the house? I can't imagine it is that expensive compared to drilling
the $10,000 well in the first place.

No, it's not and that's a goodly part of what doesn't make any sense at
all from what's been recounted so far...it was simply stupid to drill a
second hole (almost) on top of an already (essentially) dry hole.

--

Ohioguy wrote:

I'd ten to not worry on those grounds. If the wells in the immediate
vicinity are higher yield, I'd expect this low yield well is being fed
from the same source, but via cracks in the rocks thus the lower yield.
Certainly there should be hydrology reports for the area that can give
more information.

I was joking with my Dad - too bad they didn't drill down at an
extreme angle - maybe they could have drilled over towards the neighbor
to the south who has good water flow, and get some of THAT water.

I am really left wondering, however, why didn't they locate one or
both of the wells farther from the house (and each other)? If the goal
is to increase the chance of finding good water flow, and each well
costs about $10,000 to complete, then I surely would have tried to
locate them on different parts of the property, to maximize my chances.
I am assuming that they drilled these two wells in 2012 because an old
and shallow well failed, similar to the property just to the north that
had the ~ 28' old farm well.

With 4 acres, the place has quite a bit of land to the east and
south. They could have easily drilled for water 100-500 feet to the
east, and anywhere up to about 120 feet to the south along that path as
well. Instead, both wells were within about 40 feet of the house. Is
it really that expensive to dig a 6 foot trench and lay poly pipe
between the well and the house? I can't imagine it is that expensive
compared to drilling the $10,000 well in the first place.

Certainly there was no reason not to drill the first well a modest
distance from the house. For the second it could have been laziness to
not fully breakdown the drill truck and instead just move it a short
distance to try again.

Ohioguy wrote:

I've never heard anyone *not* call it Silicon Valley though, but, from a
water perspective, it's hill and not valley floor.

Perhaps you can coin a new term: "Silicon Ridge"?

You didn't mention where you live, but there is a chance you can
just go deeper, but, it costs about $100 a foot to drill, so, you're
looking at doubling the price of the property (although $64K is
practically free as property prices go. Just the yearly tax alone on a
typical Silicon Valley California property in a few years equals that
much).

SW Ohio. Based on the geology maps of the area, it does NOT make
sense to go deeper, unless you are just drilling a deep cylinder to act
as a water reservoir. The geology maps show that there does not tend to
be water bearing rock down under 80 feet in this area. The porous,
water bearing rock/sandy layer tends to be in the first 50 feet around
here normally.

While I'll agree that $64k is probably a good price for the place, I
certainly don't consider it "free". I consider farmland to be worth
about $8,000 an acre.

My grandfather (a farmer who had more than 300 acres) took me aside
one day and gave me two pieces of advice when I was becoming a young
man, probably back in the mid 1980's:

A) keep your thing in your pants

&

B) don't EVER pay more than $2,000 an acre for good farmland

Well, allowing for inflation and greater farm profits over the past
few years, that $2k he mentioned is probably closer to $8k or so now.
This is for typical Ohio farmland, not something next to the Interstate
that is likely to be turned into restaurants.

Also, I consider property taxes to be designed to bring in 100% of a
property's value over 50 years, or pretty much the lifetime of a typical
owner. Anything that asks more than 2% of the value of the place per
year is highway robbery. So says my other grandfather, who is 92 years
old this year. He pays about the same on his ~80 acres as we do on our
current TWO TENTHS of an acre.

Forget the place with the questionable water supply, just buy your
grandfather's 80ac and never look back. Nobody ever complains about
having too much land, and in farm/ranch country you can just lease
whatever portion of the property you aren't currently using to someone
else for farming or grazing.

On 08/04/2014 7:49 AM, trader_4 wrote:
....

What exactly is a bank if not a commercial entity? Maybe others here can
report if their mortgage source, either a bank or other lender, required
testing a well. The ones I've been involved with never tested a well.
A CO was good enough. And around here to get a CO, all that is required
for a well is to have a sample of the water tested. There is no min
flow requirement and no one checks it.

Have you actually had occasion for a property that had its own water
source in an area that had any issues regarding adequate water, though?

I can't imagine that any COO wouldn't have a check that there is an
adequate water source verified in some manner whether it's an actual
well test or some other means; it just makes no sense to overlook such a
basic requirement/need. OTOH, I've not ever lived in a location that
had a specific COO requirement and in TN/VA there were municipal or
cooperative water systems and here on the farm in KS where we're on our
well there's no COO required and water is plentiful (so far altho it's
being depleted rapidly by the excessive irrigation).

--

On Monday, August 4, 2014 9:51:59 AM UTC-4, dpb wrote:
On 08/04/2014 7:47 AM, Ohioguy wrote:

...



2) Looking at the actual well reports from all of the neighboring wells,

flow rates averaged something like 8 or 9 gallons per minute, with a

couple of wells being as low as 5 or 6, and a couple being as high as

15. The average depth at which they reported hitting water was 45 feet.

I'm thinking that the reason they dug down so very far at this place was

so that the well bore could act as water storage. I imagine that a

cylinder around 240 feet deep and 5" in diameter can hold a decent

number of gallons of water!

...


The water isn't going to fill the whole casing, it's going to stay at
some natural level. With a 240 ft well, I'd suspect that the majority
of that is air. And a well driller stops when they find suitable water
or reach some depth beyond which they believe going deeper isn't going
to result in more usable water. Drilling a well deeper to hold water
doesn't compute.




That still begs the question of why _these_ two wells can't produce

anything of any magnitude. If there really were a water table of

roughly 50 ft or so and the casing were perforated at that producing

zone, _then_ it should fill, yes, and you should have water in

abundance.

And they would have stopped at 50ft. As I posted previously, the problem
could be that there is indeed adequate water at 50ft, but a well that
shallow is no longer legal. I know 50ft isn't legal for potable water here
in NJ. I think ~100 is the min now.



That you have such a trickle means either they didn't

perforate there and there isn't water in the hole to anything like that

or if they did there just happens to not be water at that level right

where these wells happen to be (and stuff like that does happen) or the

last possibility is there's just some miniscule little solar-powered

pump installed or the like for some reason that is the limiting factor,

_not_ a water limitation itself. The latter makes no sense; if that

were the case why in the world would they have drilled a second hole?



+1

It's also curious that they drilled the second hole relatively close to
the first. If it were me, I'd have gone 100 ft away in the hopes it
might be better.




I still say that with that information you really need to talk to either

the former owner directly and find out what/why this is the way it is

and I'd still say need to talk to this driller also and find out all the

details of "who, why, how?".



+1




It really makes no sense from the pieces heard so far.



BTW, the hole won't fill to some level higher than the producing zone

unless there's a hydraulic path by which that pressure level can

equalize--even if there is a static water level at 100-ft, say and the

hole is 200, as noted unless it's perforated or there's a conduit path

for that water to flow from outside the casing to the bottom and then

rise to equilibrium, it's not going to be there.




+1

On Monday, August 4, 2014 10:32:27 AM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
It's also curious that they drilled the second hole relatively close to

the first. If it were me, I'd have gone 100 ft away in the hopes it

might be better.

I can guess.

They could have looked at a hydrology map, or they could have made a guess based on the topography.

But they didn't. they used a dowser.

On Monday, August 4, 2014 10:03:01 AM UTC-4, dpb wrote:
On 08/04/2014 7:49 AM, trader_4 wrote:

...



What exactly is a bank if not a commercial entity? Maybe others here can

report if their mortgage source, either a bank or other lender, required

testing a well. The ones I've been involved with never tested a well.

A CO was good enough. And around here to get a CO, all that is required

for a well is to have a sample of the water tested. There is no min

flow requirement and no one checks it.



Have you actually had occasion for a property that had its own water

source in an area that had any issues regarding adequate water, though?



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




I can't imagine that any COO wouldn't have a check that there is an

adequate water source verified in some manner whether it's an actual

well test or some other means; it just makes no sense to overlook such a

basic requirement/need.

They don't look at a lot of stuff. The main things are the obvious visual
stuff that they can see walking through. Last house I got a CO for all
they were interested in was smoke detectors, making sure bannisters/railings
were installed on stairs/decks, and taking that water sample. That consisted
of running some water in the bath and putting a sample in the bottle. I
guess if you had leaking pipes or faucets that were obvious, they would
flag that. If you have a septic system, they require proof that it was pumped out recently. But they don't go climbing into attics, roofs, crawl spaces,
etc. They didn't even look at the electric panel.

Here's a current guide for a typical township in NJ. It's a rural area
that has wells:

http://monroetownshipnj.org/construc...COCecklist.pdf




OTOH, I've not ever lived in a location that

had a specific COO requirement and in TN/VA there were municipal or

cooperative water systems and here on the farm in KS where we're on our

well there's no COO required and water is plentiful (so far altho it's

being depleted rapidly by the excessive irrigation).



--

On 08/04/2014 8:57 AM, dpb wrote:
On 08/04/2014 8:11 AM, Ohioguy wrote:
...

With 4 acres, the place has quite a bit of land to the east and south.
They could have easily drilled for water 100-500 feet to the east, and
anywhere up to about 120 feet to the south along that path as well.
Instead, both wells were within about 40 feet of the house. Is it really
that expensive to dig a 6 foot trench and lay poly pipe between the well
and the house? I can't imagine it is that expensive compared to drilling
the $10,000 well in the first place.

No, it's not and that's a goodly part of what doesn't make any sense at
all from what's been recounted so far...it was simply stupid to drill a
second hole (almost) on top of an already (essentially) dry hole.
....

And that seems excessively expensive well cost here -- as noted
elsewhere, we're expecting to drill new one probably this fall.
Indications from driller were to expect about $5k for 400 ft or thereabouts.

--

On Mon, 04 Aug 2014 08:47:59 -0400, Ohioguy wrote in


I'm thinking that the reason they dug down so very far at this place
was so that the well bore could act as water storage. I imagine that a
cylinder around 240 feet deep and 5" in diameter can hold a decent
number of gallons of water!

That 240' will only hold about 240 gals of water

240' * 3.14 * (2.5/12)**2 * 7.5 = 240 gals

but cost maybe $20k to drill? A 1000 gal underground cistern would be
a lot cheaper.
--
Web based forums are like subscribing to 10 different newspapers
and having to visit 10 different news stands to pickup each one.
Email list-server groups and USENET are like having all of those
newspapers delivered to your door every morning.

On 08/04/2014 8:26 AM, Ohioguy wrote:
....

SW Ohio. Based on the geology maps of the area, it does NOT make sense
to go deeper, unless you are just drilling a deep cylinder to act as a
water reservoir. The geology maps show that there does not tend to be
water bearing rock down under 80 feet in this area. The porous, water
bearing rock/sandy layer tends to be in the first 50 feet around here
normally.

Which makes drilling two that deep even harder to understand...iirc you
mentioned 5" casing so neglecting the space taken by the well outlet
pipe not knowing what was used and being optimistic, 150' from the 50-ft
assumed water table level to 200 is about a 150 gal reservoir. At 1 gpm
you've got an hour+ pumping w/ minimal reflow rate...

Again, my main concern here isn't so much the rate but the "why" and the
"if" going forward. _SOMETHING_ had to be behind the situation as it is
even if it turns out to be sheer folly and ignorance it would seem
imperative to me to know that going in.

--

Ohioguy wrote in :

SW Ohio. Based on the geology maps of the area, it does NOT make
sense to go deeper, unless you are just drilling a deep cylinder to act
as a water reservoir.

That doesn't make sense either. A 5" diameter pipe will hold approximately one gallon per
foot of length. If you want to store a hundred gallons of water, it's *far* cheaper to buy a 100-
gallon tank than to drill 100 feet of well.

The geology maps show that there does not tend to
be water bearing rock down under 80 feet in this area. The porous,
water bearing rock/sandy layer tends to be in the first 50 feet around
here normally.

So the well drillers were idiots.

On 08/04/2014 11:09 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Monday, August 4, 2014 10:03:01 AM UTC-4, dpb wrote:
....

I can't imagine that any COO wouldn't have a check that there is an
adequate water source verified in some manner whether it's an actual
well test or some other means; it just makes no sense to overlook such a
basic requirement/need.

They don't look at a lot of stuff. The main things are the obvious visual
stuff that they can see walking through. ...

Here's a current guide for a typical township in NJ. It's a rural area
that has wells:

http://monroetownshipnj.org/construc...COCecklist.pdf
....

Surely doesn't read like rural area based on the first two bullets...

"1. House numbers 4”in height.
2. Electric, gas, and water must be turned on at time of inspection.
..."

No numbers on houses around here and 99% of farm houses aren't
positioned where could read a house number from the road, anyway. There
is now a county-installed 911-system number on a road sign on the main
road that's the mileage marker at the driveway in whole numbers
represented mileage from west/south edge of county to the thousandths of
a mile (5 ft).

2. Surely written as though they expect you just call the utility
company and have service started, not that there is water on the place
itself...

--

On 08/04/2014 12:45 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
wrote in :
....

The geology maps show that there does not tend to
be water bearing rock down under 80 feet in this area. The porous,
water bearing rock/sandy layer tends to be in the first 50 feet around
here normally.

So the well drillers were idiots.

Or the homeowner who told them what to do, more likely was the idiot and
they just took advantage to get a check???

--

"dpb" wrote in message ...
On 08/04/2014 12:45 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
wrote in
:
...

The geology maps show that there does not tend to
be water bearing rock down under 80 feet in this area. The porous,
water bearing rock/sandy layer tends to be in the first 50 feet around
here normally.

So the well drillers were idiots.

Or the homeowner who told them what to do, more likely was the idiot and
they just took advantage to get a check???


or the well drillers decided, oh what the heck, let me comply with today's
laws and seal the first 75 feet of the well, rather than loose my license
and be fined.

"dpb" wrote in message
On 08/04/2014 12:45 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
wrote in
: ...

The geology maps show that there does not tend to
be water bearing rock down under 80 feet in this area. The porous,
water bearing rock/sandy layer tends to be in the first 50 feet
around
here normally.

So the well drillers were idiots.

Or the homeowner who told them what to do, more likely was the idiot and
they just took advantage to get a check???

I liked the dowser idea. I am constantly amazed at the people who
actually think someone can find water with a forked stick. Or bent coat
hanger or other things of similar ilk.

--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

"dadiOH" wrote in message
...
"dpb" wrote in message
On 08/04/2014 12:45 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
wrote in
: ...

The geology maps show that there does not tend to
be water bearing rock down under 80 feet in this area. The porous,
water bearing rock/sandy layer tends to be in the first 50 feet
around
here normally.

So the well drillers were idiots.

Or the homeowner who told them what to do, more likely was the idiot and
they just took advantage to get a check???

I liked the dowser idea. I am constantly amazed at the people who
actually think someone can find water with a forked stick. Or bent coat
hanger or other things of similar ilk.


I was at one such dowsing. I know the area, and there is water everywhere.
The dowser went back and forth, to and fro. Then he made an X in the dirt
with his foot and said "drill here!". I pointed out that the County Code
requires a 50 foot setback from roads and property lines, so the took his
stick and without even looking said "well drill it over there".

Doug Miller wrote, on Mon, 04 Aug 2014 11:08:52 +0000:

from clearing brush around their property because it might damage the habitat of some
mouse... never mind the fire risk to *human* habitat.

While you'll rarely find me defending the California nanny naturalists,
they do require us to clear all brush within 100 feet of our homes.

We can get fined if we don't, and the insurance company requires it
also.

We often get so much wood out of the deal that the county comes yearly
to chip it for us.

trader_4 wrote, on Mon, 04 Aug 2014 05:53:42 -0700:

Is it particularly hard to drill there because of rock or something?

Here, in "Silicon Ridge", the rock isn't all that hard to drill, I
would think.

It's Franciscan sediments. From fifty miles out in the ocean plastered
against the continent, mixed in with granitic Salinian sediments from
the southern Sierra Nevada mountains near Los Angeles carried north by
the inexorable San Andreas right-slip fault movement.

Around here, NJ, which ain't cheap, you can put in a well for less than
half that, ie 100ft, is ~$3500. It's a half day's work. If it's not
hard to drill, you're probably all just getting screwed by everything
in silicon valley being expensive.

Your medium pizza, which is darn good, costs, what? Maybe $15 right?
Ours, out here, which stinks compared to yours, often costs over $30
for the same thing.

I have never figured this out yet. You never pay what *you* think it's
worth; you pay what everyone *else* thinks it's worth.

Pete C. wrote, on Mon, 04 Aug 2014 08:55:52 -0500:

Pump controllers are common for exactly this low yield well condition.
They work by detecting when the pump runs dry based on current draw and
then shutting it off for an adjustable time period (adjust based on well
recovery rate), or of course they turn the pump off when the float
switch in the cistern indicates it is full. The cistern feeds a second
pump that feeds a normal pressure tank and is controlled by a regular
pressure switch. Simple system, long tested, works great as long as the
well is able to keep up with the total water demands overall.

That's exactly how mine works.

If the well has water, it pumps forever, until the water tanks indicate
they are full (which would take 3 or 4 days to fill at 5 gallons a minute).

If the well can't produce the water, it runs until it runs dry, and then
it shuts off for a settable prescribed time (usually 20 to 30 minutes).

In another recent thread, I shut off my wells for a few hours, and then
turned them on individually. The "bad" well went dry in a minute while
the good well went for about 20 minutes, at a bit more than 5 gallons
per minute at the start and a bit less than 4 gallons per minute by
the time it shut off with a precipitous drop in flow.

I only ran a couple of tests though, so, that's all the data I have.

On 8/4/2014 7:17 PM, Danny D. wrote:
Doug Miller wrote, on Mon, 04 Aug 2014 11:08:52 +0000:

from clearing brush around their property because it might damage the habitat of some
mouse... never mind the fire risk to *human* habitat.

While you'll rarely find me defending the California nanny naturalists,
they do require us to clear all brush within 100 feet of our homes.

We can get fined if we don't, and the insurance company requires it
also.

We often get so much wood out of the deal that the county comes yearly
to chip it for us.


Does that help reduce the risk of fire
damage?

--
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Danny D." wrote in message
...
trader_4 wrote, on Mon, 04 Aug 2014 05:53:42 -0700:

Is it particularly hard to drill there because of rock or something?

Here, in "Silicon Ridge", the rock isn't all that hard to drill, I
would think.

It's Franciscan sediments. From fifty miles out in the ocean plastered
against the continent, mixed in with granitic Salinian sediments from
the southern Sierra Nevada mountains near Los Angeles carried north by
the inexorable San Andreas right-slip fault movement.

Around here, NJ, which ain't cheap, you can put in a well for less than
half that, ie 100ft, is ~$3500. It's a half day's work. If it's not
hard to drill, you're probably all just getting screwed by everything
in silicon valley being expensive.

Your medium pizza, which is darn good, costs, what? Maybe $15 right?
Ours, out here, which stinks compared to yours, often costs over $30
for the same thing.

I have never figured this out yet. You never pay what *you* think it's
worth; you pay what everyone *else* thinks it's worth.

you always pay what you think it is worth, or you wouldn't pay it.

Ohioguy wrote:

I'm thinking that the reason they dug down so very far at this place
was so that the well bore could act as water storage. I imagine that a
cylinder around 240 feet deep and 5" in diameter can hold a decent
number of gallons of water!

That's really unlikely. The cost of putting a pump that can lift 240' of water
would far exceed the cost of a storage tank. We have about 8 wells that vary
from 240 to 500 feet. Replacing a 240' one runs about $2000. Now they are great
pumps (variable speed motors), but I wouldn't use the well bore for storage.

dpb wrote:

I can't imagine that any COO wouldn't have a check that there is an
adequate water source verified in some manner whether it's an actual
well test or some other means; it just makes no sense to overlook such a
basic requirement/need. OTOH, I've not ever lived in a location that
had a specific COO requirement and in TN/VA there were municipal or
cooperative water systems and here on the farm in KS where we're on our
well there's no COO required and water is plentiful (so far altho it's
being depleted rapidly by the excessive irrigation).

Yep. The county here has issued a letter stating that up to 10% of the homes in
this area are served by failed or underperforming wells and have water trucked
in. The reason they issued that letter is to assure lenders that a lack of water
is "normal" for this area. A one off dry well wouldn't get that treatment.

bob haller posted for all of us...

And I know how to SNIP

It may not be possible to obtain a mortage on a home without adquate water. one reason is that in case of fire there may not be enough water to put out a fire

even if you pay cash you may not be able to get homeowners insurance. again the fire issue.


Let the fire company figure it out. It doesn't sound like this area uses
private holding tanks like in another thread. This area is most likely a
class 8 ISO rating.

To the OP I haven't read all the posts. Get a price for the drilling of a
reliable well and negotiate the price with the bank. It sounds like you
really like the place but get a GOOD inspection done to find the faults. Ask
the neighbors if there has been a common problem between units. Watch the TV
show flip or flop as this guy goes blindly from house to house. Of course
one can't tell what went on behind the scenes.

--
Tekkie

Ralph Mowery posted for all of us...

And I know how to SNIP


Unless it is something very unusual, there is no way a normal home well can
supply a fire truck with anywhere enough water. The well pipe will not
handle hardly any of the volume of water the pumper is goung to use. They
pump out 500 gallons in just a couple of minuits. A small pump can usually
do 500 per minute, larger go to 750 or 1000 per minute. Tanks are usually
500-750 gallons depending on chassis.

I doubt that the inusrance companies even care about water in the home well
when it comes to fire protection.
They don't. Fire Dept's are rated by the insurance services office (ISO).
This is how the insurance Co's have a standard comparison between vendors.
If the fire co upgrades equipment or a myriad other factors (like response
times) the the rating can go up. 1 being best & 8 being worst. The fire co
must request the re rating. Watch out because it can also be de-rated. The
rating most affects commercial property. The insurance information should
show the rating class.



--
Tekkie

Danny D. posted for all of us...

And I know how to SNIP

Where else, in the US, do three thousand separate homes burn in a single fire?


Don't know. It's environmental conditions - wind and brush, building codes,
etc.

In the East the firewalls were not required to go through the roof and it
would communicate through the attic. This would cause blocks of houses to
burn. Older garden style apartments were the same. If they burn now they are
required to rebuild to modern code.

--
Tekkie