On 8/2/2014 6:01 PM, Ohioguy wrote:
My wife and I have been searching on and off for a place with several
acres but in the same general area. Fairly recently, I saw a place with
4 acres and we went to view the interior. To our surprise, the inside
is pretty much move in ready. It has an old fuel oil furnace that would
need to be updated. House size is a bit small at 1,200 square feet for
our family, but we could easily add a second toilet,
bedroom and living room on to the east side.

Anyway, I wanted to find out why this bank owned property, which is
in a great neighboring school district, was only being listed for about
$64k. It turns out that as far as the realtors was concerned, it had
"no water". The bank has recently dropped the asking price from the
original price by about $3k or so. I was able to find that the bank
obtained the property for under $50k, supposedly.

I decided to do more digging, since my Dad and I had seen what looked
like 2 fairly new well caps. I read over the well reports, and they
reported between 1/2 and 3/4 gallon per minute flow rate for both of the
wells, which were each sunk over 200 feet deep within 40 feet or so from
the house. Well, that's not "no" water, but it doesn't compare
favorably to the average of 8 gallons per minute in the surrounding
area. The former owner spent nearly $20,000 drilling those 2 wells.

Speaking of that, all of the surrounding wells struck water at an
average depth of 45 feet, and the neighbors I interviewed said they had
no problems with well water ever running out.

Looking over our water bills from the past few years, I figured out
that our family uses an average of 135 gallons of water per day. (not
including water for the garden, which we could get from house rainwater
runoff) This means that just 1 of the wells could be pumped for 5 hours
a day and give us enough water to use.

The driller didn't check out the topography for the water bearing
bedrock. I believe it's even accessible on-line.

Going deeper doesn't mean you will get what you want. If the topography
is known, you _may_ hit an adequate supply of water by drilling on the
other side of the house.

Stormin Mormon wrote, on Mon, 04 Aug 2014 19:48:01 -0400:

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?

Hey Stormin! I learned something looking that up to answer
your question!

Here is the "Santa Clara County Defensible Space Chipping Program:
http://sccfiresafe.org/2011-10-12-03...ipping-program

It says (verbatim) "SCFSC will chip brush that has been cleared 100
from permanent structures and/or 30 from any roadside or driveway
used for evacuation purposes."

Up until this very moment, I hadn't known they'll chip within 30
feet of the driveway and roadway "used for evacuation" purposes
(which pretty much is *every* driveway and roadway around here
(since it's an extreme fire hazard area, the highest hazard level
that California uses).

In theory, they leave the chips but in practice, they take 'em
away. I just called them at 408-975-9591 to ask how much they
think it reduces the risk of fire damage to structures, but had
to leave a message.

However the FAQ says they're supposed to protect the homes from
wildfires:
http://sccfiresafe.org/santa-clara-c...sked-questions

Pete C. wrote, on Mon, 04 Aug 2014 07:04:45 -0500:

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.

Hi Pete,

You're probably right as I have never been able to figure out how
water flows through the ground to the well, and how it replenishes
when we're on a hill so I can't understand why it doesn't just flow
out the hill from the sides (which it does, as springs, but they
mostly flow only during the winter rainy season).

I watched this 10-minute video on how a well works, which was pretty
good, but didn't really answer all the questions I have in my mind:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8K6V450StO4

It's interesting that you're suggesting a lower yield will run longer.
Is there a way to tell the pump to slow down (i.e., go lower on the
yield)?

On 8/4/2014 9:11 PM, Danny D. wrote:
Hey Stormin! I learned something looking that up to answer
your question!

Here is the "Santa Clara County Defensible Space Chipping Program:
http://sccfiresafe.org/2011-10-12-03...ipping-program

It says (verbatim) "SCFSC will chip brush that has been cleared 100
from permanent structures and/or 30 from any roadside or driveway
used for evacuation purposes."

Up until this very moment, I hadn't known they'll chip within 30
feet of the driveway and roadway "used for evacuation" purposes
(which pretty much is *every* driveway and roadway around here
(since it's an extreme fire hazard area, the highest hazard level
that California uses).

In theory, they leave the chips but in practice, they take 'em
away. I just called them at 408-975-9591 to ask how much they
think it reduces the risk of fire damage to structures, but had
to leave a message.

However the FAQ says they're supposed to protect the homes from
wildfires:
http://sccfiresafe.org/santa-clara-c...sked-questions


Well, that's got to help a bit, I'd think.
Wonder how many people take advantage of
that program?

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

On Monday, August 4, 2014 1:52:45 PM UTC-4, dpb wrote:
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.

..."



Good grief. Believe whatever you want. It's a rural section of suburban
NJ not remote woods. Like most parts of central NJ, while part of the
township is still rural with farms, etc, there are also new sub-divisions
going in. Many of the older homes there have wells. If anything, that
it's partly developed and in NJ makes my
case better. If they were going to test wells for output for a CO,
where exactly do you think it's more likely to be done? A rural, suburban township in NJ, where wells still exist? Or someplace where you live, where no CO is required at all? It's a curious position you have. You live
were no CO is required, you have no experience in getting one, yet you
want to argue about what they look at? Do you see well output or anything
similar on that list?





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).



None of which has anything to do with wells. I said it was rural NJ, not
the dark side of the moon.



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...



--

Nothing there that says or implies that. Still don't believe me?
Here's a current real estate listing for a home in Monroe Twp with a
well:

http://www.coldwellbankermoves.com/p...e&IsSold=False

On Monday, August 4, 2014 8:30:18 PM UTC-4, Arthur Conan Doyle wrote:
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.

Yep to what? That they test the well output in your area as a requirement
for a CO?

On 08/05/2014 8:29 AM, trader_4 wrote:
....

Chill dood!!!

Was just expressing my amazement that it wouldn't be a priority item on
such...

--

On 08/05/2014 8:34 AM, dpb wrote:
On 08/05/2014 8:29 AM, trader_4 wrote:
...

Chill dood!!!

Was just expressing my amazement that it wouldn't be a priority item on
such...

With some other anecdotal comparison to more rural area (which we don't
think is really all that "rural" any more ).

I still think it's somewhat incongruous that the first point is the size
of the house sign number and one could fail on them being only 3-1/2"
tall instead of 4" and have virtually no water. Just seems grossly
misplaced priorities--but, that's just me.

--

On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 10:42:46 AM UTC-4, dpb wrote:
On 08/05/2014 8:34 AM, dpb wrote:

On 08/05/2014 8:29 AM, trader_4 wrote:

...



Chill dood!!!



Was just expressing my amazement that it wouldn't be a priority item on

such...



With some other anecdotal comparison to more rural area (which we don't

think is really all that "rural" any more ).



I still think it's somewhat incongruous that the first point is the size

of the house sign number and one could fail on them being only 3-1/2"

tall instead of 4" and have virtually no water. Just seems grossly

misplaced priorities--but, that's just me.



--


I think the key there is they focus on safety. In my first post I
cited examples of smoke detectors. Now they require CO detectors and
a fire extinguisher in the kitchen that's out in the open too. The 4"
numbers are obviously so police/fire can find the house. They look
at missing railings on decks, stairs. So, in the context of the well,
if the well flows at 1/2 gpm or 30 gpm, it's not a safety issue. If
it's contaminated with fecal coliform, it is. That's likely whey they
care about the water quality test and are not interested in the flow rate.
The last CO inspection I had took all of about 10 mins.

Stormin Mormon wrote, on Tue, 05 Aug 2014 08:33:21 -0400:

Well, that's got to help a bit, I'd think.
Wonder how many people take advantage of
that program?

They send out leaflets every year and I see piles of
chips alongside some driveways (but many can be up near
the houses where I can't see them).

They try to do them all at the same time, so, I'd
say one out of every twenty homes does it (roughly).

It's not many, and they don't have to do it every year.

On 08/05/2014 9:57 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 10:42:46 AM UTC-4, dpb wrote:
....

I still think it's somewhat incongruous that the first point is the size
of the house sign number and one could fail on them being only 3-1/2"
tall instead of 4" and have virtually no water. Just seems grossly
misplaced priorities--but, that's just me.

....

... The 4" numbers are obviously so police/fire can find the house...

NJ doesn't have GPS? Even here in the wilderness the County has every
taxable property/residence in a database for 911 dispatch w/ mapping
software...

if the well flows at 1/2 gpm or 30 gpm, it's not a safety issue. If
it's contaminated with fecal coliform, it is. That's likely whey they
care about the water quality test and are not interested in the flow rate.
....

I'd think both would be of interest in at least assuring an adequate
supply, but then again, that's just me...and I wasn't on the committee
that drafted the rules. But it is called "occupancy" after all and an
inadequate water supply would seem limiting...again it's not the well
rate I'm saying is _necessarily_ the limiting factor as that can be
solved but there ought to be a checkbox im(ns)ho that says the issue is
taken care of satisfactorily, however that may be if they're going to go
to the bother of doing it.

--

so joe X buys a home with poor well water production and cant afford a new well. the home cant really be lived in so joe moves out and defaults on the loan....

the lender is now stuck with another foreclosure.....

today lenders try to prevent things like this by often requiring a home inspection. that covers a multitude of issues.

another related topic, homeowners insurance companies have gotten very fussy about writing policies. high wind insurance for homes along coasts, prohibitions on new policies for homes with fuses, knob and tube wiring, bad roofs, cracked and broken sidewalks, and lots of other possible risks. sometimes insurance is still avaiable at dramatically higher costs.

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


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.

Simple, slant drill in their direction.

If they catch you, ask them why they are leaning so far over? Are they
drunk? Be sure to be leaning over when you ask this, the same amount as
your drill.

micky wrote, on Thu, 07 Aug 2014 02:00:33 -0400:

Simple, slant drill in their direction.

If they catch you, ask them why they are leaning so far over? Are they
drunk? Be sure to be leaning over when you ask this, the same amount as
your drill.

Along similar lines, here's a well being drilled just about 50 feet
from a neighboring well on the next property (which I'm standing on).

This drill seems to be going straight down though (you can see a tall
white tower hidden mostly by the trees). They went 520 feet deep.

https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3913/1...0a11eb8f_b.jpg

On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 10:02:13 PM UTC-4, bob haller wrote:
so joe X buys a home with poor well water production and cant afford a new well. the home cant really be lived in so joe moves out and defaults on the loan....



So far it sounds like the house has new wells capable of producing 1/2
to 1.25 GPM. IDK why that can't be lived in. It justs requires the
proper system, with about a 1000 gal tank. We've had Danny talking
about the many systems in his neighborhood that have tanks that are
5,000 or 10,000 gallons. So, a 1000 gal tank to solve this doesn't
sound way out there or expensive.




the lender is now stuck with another foreclosure.....



today lenders try to prevent things like this by often requiring a home inspection. that covers a multitude of issues.



another related topic, homeowners insurance companies have gotten very fussy about writing policies. high wind insurance for homes along coasts, prohibitions on new policies for homes with fuses, knob and tube wiring, bad roofs, cracked and broken sidewalks, and lots of other possible risks. sometimes insurance is still avaiable at dramatically higher costs.

I've heard of an insurance company denying coverage based on some of
the above, because it relates to insurance risk. I've never heard of
an insurance company denying coverage based on the flow rate of a private well,
which AFAIK, has nothing to do with risk.

On 8/7/2014 9:56 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 10:02:13 PM UTC-4, bob haller wrote:
so joe X buys a home with poor well water production and cant afford a new well. the home cant really be lived in so joe moves out and defaults on the loan....



So far it sounds like the house has new wells capable of producing 1/2
to 1.25 GPM. IDK why that can't be lived in. It justs requires the
proper system, with about a 1000 gal tank. We've had Danny talking
about the many systems in his neighborhood that have tanks that are
5,000 or 10,000 gallons. So, a 1000 gal tank to solve this doesn't
sound way out there or expensive.


Probably won't get a COA if needed.

You won't get an FHA Mortgage:
http://www.hud.gov/offices/adm/hudcl...1502c3HSGH.pdf
Pump test indicating a flow of at least 3-5
gallons per minute supply for an existing
well, and 5 gallons per minute for a new well

Nor will it meet many state codes:
The Water Well Board and the New Hampshire Water Well Association, a
group of private professionals associated with the well water industry,
both recommend a flow rate of 4 gallons per minute for a 4 hour period.
That’s equivalent to 960 gallons of water flowing steadily for 4 hours.
These groups agree these results will ensure optimum water supply for
home use and a modest amount of outdoor use.

On Thursday, August 7, 2014 2:22:03 PM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 8/7/2014 9:56 AM, trader_4 wrote:

On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 10:02:13 PM UTC-4, bob haller wrote:

so joe X buys a home with poor well water production and cant afford a new well. the home cant really be lived in so joe moves out and defaults on the loan....







So far it sounds like the house has new wells capable of producing 1/2

to 1.25 GPM. IDK why that can't be lived in. It justs requires the

proper system, with about a 1000 gal tank. We've had Danny talking

about the many systems in his neighborhood that have tanks that are

5,000 or 10,000 gallons. So, a 1000 gal tank to solve this doesn't

sound way out there or expensive.





Probably won't get a COA if needed.



What's a COA? You mean a CO? You'd get one in NJ.




You won't get an FHA Mortgage:

http://www.hud.gov/offices/adm/hudcl...502c3HSGH..pdf

Pump test indicating a flow of at least 3-5

gallons per minute supply for an existing

well, and 5 gallons per minute for a new well


Apparently, per the FHA, that went out the window in 2005:

http://inspectapedia.com/water/FHAMortgageeLetter.htm

"Inspection Requirements

FHA no longer mandates automatic inspections for the following items and/or conditions in existing properties:

Wood Destroying Insects/Organisms: inspection required only if evidence of active infestation, mandated by the state or local jurisdiction, if customary to area, or at lender's discretion

Well (individual water system): test or inspection required if mandated by state or local jurisdiction; if there is knowledge that well water may be contaminated; when the water supply relies upon a water purification system due to presence of contaminants; or when there is evidence of:

Corrosion of pipes (plumbing)
Areas of intensive agriculture within 1/4 mile
Coal mining or gas drilling operations within 1/4 mile
Dump, junkyard, landfill, factory, gas station, or dry cleaning operation within 1/4 mile
Unusually objectionable taste, smell or appearance of well water
(superceding the guidance in Mortgagee Letter 95-34 that requires well water testing in the absence of local or state regulations)"

As I said before, here, NJ, the state requires a water quality test,
but no flow rate test. By my reading of the above, here you'd have to
have the water quality tested because it's a state requirement. There
is no reqt for a flow test.

NJ doesn't require a min flow rate. So far, I haven't seen anything
that says OH does either. I googled and it sure looks like they are
similar to NJ, ie concerned about water quality, you have to test that
to get a CO, but not flow rate.

And there are plenty of other mortgage sources other than FHA.
This reminds me on my mother telling me a story about what happened when
they were having a house built in the 50s. She went to the site one
day to find that the plumber had installed the toilet a few inches out
from the wall. When she asked what was up with that, he told her that
is the FHA standard. She told him they didn't have an FHA mortgage
and to move the toilet. If the OP wants to buy the house, the first
place I'd look for a mortgage is the folks who foreclosed on the loan.




Nor will it meet many state codes:

The Water Well Board and the New Hampshire Water Well Association, a

group of private professionals associated with the well water industry,

both recommend a flow rate of 4 gallons per minute for a 4 hour period.

Thatï¿ 1/2 s equivalent to 960 gallons of water flowing steadily for 4 hours.

These groups agree these results will ensure optimum water supply for

home use and a modest amount of outdoor use.

I think you're confusing actual codes with recommendations. The above
clearly says "recommended". I'm not saying there isn't a potential
problem somewhere, with some agency. There are also plenty of places
where you still don't even need a CO period.

the ultimate question.........

Is OP prepared to do whatever is necessary if / when the existing poor production wells dry up altogether?

this would require having water hauled in or a brand new well, probably futher from the home.

as long as the OP is willing to do whatever is necessary and can afford it then the home is probably a good deal.

OP might look into having the existing low production well exploded .

they send a explosive charge down, to try and crack the surrounding rock in the hopes it opens up and water production increases.

most commonly done on gas and oil wells, but it can be done for water wells too.

the hazard is it might collapse the existing wells since they are so close....