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.

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? 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?)

Both my wife and I liked the property and the house, despite it being
on the small side. We were truly surprised at the general good
condition of the interior, given the price. Everyone else is fearful
because of the water situation. I am sensing that the bank may continue
to lower the price of the place over the next few months before finding
someone willing to risk buying a house with "no water".

We are tempted to make an offer on the place, but I'd like to hear
from someone who has dealt with a similar situation before deciding
whether we should go ahead.

On 08/02/2014 5:01 PM, Ohioguy wrote:
....

Lots of things are "possible"; whether they make sense or not is another
question...

I'd start with the driller and discuss why this seems so different than
the (at least anecdotal) results in nearby areas. Is there any
possibility of additional property or another well somewhere on the
property that taps into a better formation?

How long have these wells produced; is there really any confidence they
will continue even at these low rates? That would be my main concern in
committing to using them as only source going forward; the storage could
be solved altho that's far from an ideal situation going forward.

Also, I suppose you've checked but will the local authority if there is
one issue a "certificate of occupancy" if such is required in the
locality given the shortness of supply? That might end up being a
'gotcha!'.

All in all, my guess would be that you may well spend at least the
difference you're saving solving the problem (or worse yet, attempting
to but not being successful for long).

I'd not say "never" but I'd surely be reluctant and hope to have more
solid answers on the actual water supply itself than just a hope the
current trickle will continue indefinitely.

--

On Saturday, August 2, 2014 7:00:23 PM UTC-4, dpb wrote:
On 08/02/2014 5:01 PM, Ohioguy wrote:

...



Lots of things are "possible"; whether they make sense or not is another

question...



I'd start with the driller and discuss why this seems so different than

the (at least anecdotal) results in nearby areas.

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.




Is there any

possibility of additional property or another well somewhere on the

property that taps into a better formation?




He has 4 acres, so possibly a well could be drilled somewhere at a
distance from the house where the chances might be better.





How long have these wells produced; is there really any confidence they

will continue even at these low rates? That would be my main concern in

committing to using them as only source going forward; the storage could

be solved altho that's far from an ideal situation going forward.



+1


Also, I suppose you've checked but will the local authority if there is

one issue a "certificate of occupancy" if such is required in the

locality given the shortness of supply? That might end up being a

'gotcha!'.



Excellent point.



All in all, my guess would be that you may well spend at least the

difference you're saving solving the problem (or worse yet, attempting

to but not being successful for long).



For sure I'd play hardball on price with the bank, if I were to
proceed at all. Sometimes a bargain isn't worth it.




I'd not say "never" but I'd surely be reluctant and hope to have more

solid answers on the actual water supply itself than just a hope the

current trickle will continue indefinitely.



--

And it really is just a trickle, 1/2 gpm.

Another factor. He said the other wells in the area were at 45 feet.
I wonder if part of the problem could be that is where the easy water
is, but it may no longer be legal for a potable well to be at that
shallow a depth? Here NJ, you could do that for an irrigation well,
but I believe the min depth for a potable well is 2x that.

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 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 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 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.

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.

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

"Ohioguy" wrote in message
...
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.


how far away are these surrounding wells? Seems odd the big difference.
You might go speak with the well driller for his thoughts.

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.

check with local drillers. There may be a layer of permable soil. drill too deep all the water runs out

of course resale value of a home without enough water will be impacted. thats good now for negoiations

Its possible to buy a deeprock DIY well drilling machine and do it yourself Last time I checked they cost under 5 grand, so buy it, drill your well, then sell the machine if you care too. or keep it and drill wells for others $$$

"bob haller" wrote in message
...
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.

good points, but fire departments only care that there is a supply of X
gallons of water for fire purposes. They don't care where it came from.
So, buy one or more tanks dedicated to fire purposes, and fill them up.
Hire a water truck, run your 1/2 gpm well for a month if needed, get your
beer buddies to all **** in the tank - it matters not.

In article ,
"Pico Rico" wrote:

"bob haller" wrote in message
...
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.

good points, but fire departments only care that there is a supply of X
gallons of water for fire purposes. They don't care where it came from.
So, buy one or more tanks dedicated to fire purposes, and fill them up.
Hire a water truck, run your 1/2 gpm well for a month if needed, get your
beer buddies to all **** in the tank - it matters not.

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)
--
³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.²
‹ Aaron Levenstein

On Sunday, August 3, 2014 11:15:27 AM UTC-7, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"Pico Rico" wrote:

"bob haller" wrote in message
...
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

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)

Correct. I have heard of areas that require huge water tanks be installed just for fire protection though. Can't recall where I saw that.

It doesn't matter how good a well is, the pumps installed are not capable of pumping enough volume/pressure to do much good fighting fire. Now agricultural places running those huge sprinkler systems might be able to install a hydrant.

Our local volunteer fire departments all have tanker trucks as well as the assorted fire/rescue/ladder types and still rely in the local fertilizer plant tankers to assist.

Harry K

"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.

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.

If there isn't a fire hydrant within 200', or a suitably large pond that
is consistently full, then rates will be a bit higher, but you will
still get insurance generally. In the case of a pond it is common to
pre-install a suction pipe into the middle of the pond at an appropriate
depth with a standpipe and fitting at the edge of the pond for ready
connection to the pumper truck.

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

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

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

"Ohioguy" wrote in message

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.

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? 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?)

Both my wife and I liked the property and the house, despite it being
on the small side. We were truly surprised at the general good
condition of the interior, given the price. Everyone else is fearful
because of the water situation. I am sensing that the bank may continue
to lower the price of the place over the next few months before finding
someone willing to risk buying a house with "no water".

We are tempted to make an offer on the place, but I'd like to hear
from someone who has dealt with a similar situation before deciding
whether we should go ahead.

What you propose is commonly done in many countries.

When I lived in Veracruz, Mexico every house had a sub-surface concrete
cistern of about 1000 gallons---they looked about the same as a septic
tank. They had it because there was close to zero head on the municipal
water supply; consequently, it was trickled into the cistern, flow being
controlled by a simple float valve (same as in a toilet tank).

There was still no head so water from the cistern was pumped to another
concrete tank on the roof; it held about 500 gallons and - again - flow to
it was controlled by a float valve. In your case, you'd just use a
pressure tank with the secondary pump from the storage tank.


--

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

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

I would call that a very precarious and uncertain water supply
situation. Slightly over a gallon/min for the two wells is very low.
If you had a guarantee that you could get that flow 24/7 and it would
*never* drop lower, you could install a 10k gal cistern and get by,
but I would not risk it myself. There are no guarantees like that.
--
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 Sunday, August 3, 2014 8:03:42 AM UTC-4, CRNG wrote:
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



I would call that a very precarious and uncertain water supply

situation. Slightly over a gallon/min for the two wells is very low.

If you had a guarantee that you could get that flow 24/7 and it would

*never* drop lower, you could install a 10k gal cistern and get by,

but I would not risk it myself. There are no guarantees like that.


Why would he need a 10K cistern to get by? He only needs a buffer big
enough to handle worst case usage. Seems to me ~1000 gal is enough,
unless he's going to want to water a lawn.



--

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.

CRNG wrote:

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

I would call that a very precarious and uncertain water supply
situation. Slightly over a gallon/min for the two wells is very low.
If you had a guarantee that you could get that flow 24/7 and it would
*never* drop lower, you could install a 10k gal cistern and get by,
but I would not risk it myself. There are no guarantees like that.

There are 1,440 minutes in a day so you could expect between 1,440 and
2,160 gal available per use per day. My water bill here (co-op water)
for two people, laundry, some lawn watering, etc. ranges from
2,500-4,500 gal / month, or an average of 150 gal / day. I would not be
at all worried about wells that can produce at least 1,440 gal / day as
long as they are reliable. Low production isn't an issue with a large
cistern and appropriate pump controllers.

On 08/03/2014 10:22 AM, Pete C. wrote:

CRNG wrote:

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

I would call that a very precarious and uncertain water supply
situation. Slightly over a gallon/min for the two wells is very low.
If you had a guarantee that you could get that flow 24/7 and it would
*never* drop lower, you could install a 10k gal cistern and get by,
but I would not risk it myself. There are no guarantees like that.

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

I don't think it is at all clear one _could_ expect that for the
indefinite future from the limited information provided, particularly
since apparently both are quite close to each other, one may well pump
down the other as well. OTOH, it's quite possible they are both capable
of pumping that for quite some period of time.

A lot depends on what the water source they're tapping into really is;
in some places it's renewable from surface water in short time frames,
in others as here it's a nonrenewable source (estimates are 0.1"/yr
recovery rates) so depending on where the water table is relative to the
well casing depth and pump set depth and how far down the water-bearing
formation goes, there may be quite a bit or only a small amount available.

Need a lot more history and other data than what is available so far to
have any idea whatever imo, but I'd definitely be leery going in.

--

On Sun, 03 Aug 2014 11:10:22 -0500, dpb wrote in


On 08/03/2014 10:22 AM, Pete C. wrote:

CRNG wrote:

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

I would call that a very precarious and uncertain water supply
situation. Slightly over a gallon/min for the two wells is very low.
If you had a guarantee that you could get that flow 24/7 and it would
*never* drop lower, you could install a 10k gal cistern and get by,
but I would not risk it myself. There are no guarantees like that.

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

I don't think it is at all clear one _could_ expect that for the
indefinite future from the limited information provided, particularly
since apparently both are quite close to each other, one may well pump
down the other as well. OTOH, it's quite possible they are both capable
of pumping that for quite some period of time.

Exactly. If they can average 1gpm 24/7 for the next x-years, they'll
be fine and will have gotten a great bargain. If not, they will be in
trouble.
--
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.

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?

On Sunday, August 3, 2014 11:22:23 AM UTC-4, Pete C. wrote:
CRNG wrote:



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



I would call that a very precarious and uncertain water supply

situation. Slightly over a gallon/min for the two wells is very low.

If you had a guarantee that you could get that flow 24/7 and it would

*never* drop lower, you could install a 10k gal cistern and get by,

but I would not risk it myself. There are no guarantees like that.



There are 1,440 minutes in a day so you could expect between 1,440 and

2,160 gal available per use per day. My water bill here (co-op water)

for two people, laundry, some lawn watering, etc. ranges from

2,500-4,500 gal / month, or an average of 150 gal / day. I would not be

at all worried about wells that can produce at least 1,440 gal / day as

long as they are reliable. Low production isn't an issue with a large

cistern and appropriate pump controllers.

theres no guarantee that any well will not run dry. so you cant just multiply minutes in a day times well production in gallon per hour.....

On 8/2/2014 5:01 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.

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? 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?)

Both my wife and I liked the property and the house, despite it being
on the small side. We were truly surprised at the general good
condition of the interior, given the price. Everyone else is fearful
because of the water situation. I am sensing that the bank may continue
to lower the price of the place over the next few months before finding
someone willing to risk buying a house with "no water".

We are tempted to make an offer on the place, but I'd like to hear
from someone who has dealt with a similar situation before deciding
whether we should go ahead.
I looked at a property one time that really had no water. The
previous owners had a tank in the garage that they filled by
hauling in water from some place else. It was a nice enough
house but the lack of water was a big problem.

Bill

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.

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? 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?)

Both my wife and I liked the property and the house, despite it being
on the small side. We were truly surprised at the general good
condition of the interior, given the price. Everyone else is fearful
because of the water situation. I am sensing that the bank may continue
to lower the price of the place over the next few months before finding
someone willing to risk buying a house with "no water".

We are tempted to make an offer on the place, but I'd like to hear
from someone who has dealt with a similar situation before deciding
whether we should go ahead.

In some areas low producing wells are common. As long as the total
production per day of the well(s) is a reasonable amount, it's a simple
matter of installing a 1,000-2,000 gal cistern, a pump to pump from the
cistern to a normal pressure tank for household use, and a controller
for the well pumps. The controller runs the well pump or pumps (might
need two controllers) until either the cistern is full or the well is
dry (detects the pump running dry and shuts it off for a period of
time). The cistern is plenty big to meet normal household demand peaks,
and the wells keep up with refilling the cistern at a slower rate.
Nothing exotic or to be afraid of as long as the wells are reliable if
slow.

On Sunday, August 3, 2014 11:17:22 AM UTC-4, Pete C. wrote:
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.



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? 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?)



Both my wife and I liked the property and the house, despite it being

on the small side. We were truly surprised at the general good

condition of the interior, given the price. Everyone else is fearful

because of the water situation. I am sensing that the bank may continue

to lower the price of the place over the next few months before finding

someone willing to risk buying a house with "no water".



We are tempted to make an offer on the place, but I'd like to hear

from someone who has dealt with a similar situation before deciding

whether we should go ahead.



In some areas low producing wells are common. As long as the total

production per day of the well(s) is a reasonable amount, it's a simple

matter of installing a 1,000-2,000 gal cistern, a pump to pump from the

cistern to a normal pressure tank for household use, and a controller

for the well pumps. The controller runs the well pump or pumps (might

need two controllers) until either the cistern is full or the well is

dry (detects the pump running dry and shuts it off for a period of

time). The cistern is plenty big to meet normal household demand peaks,

and the wells keep up with refilling the cistern at a slower rate.

Nothing exotic or to be afraid of as long as the wells are reliable if

slow.

I guess the big question is how can one determine if the wells are
reliable, long term? Besides asking well drillers, neighbors, anything
else one can do? I would think one good thing may be that the wells are
deep. If it was a 50ft well, I would think it would be more likely that
the water level could decline due to changing conditions.

On 08/03/2014 10:50 AM, trader_4 wrote:
....

I guess the big question is how can one determine if the wells are
reliable, long term? Besides asking well drillers, neighbors, anything
else one can do? I would think one good thing may be that the wells are
deep. If it was a 50ft well, I would think it would be more likely that
the water level could decline due to changing conditions.

The State water folks, whoever they are in OH will undoubtedly have
quite a lot of data and knowledge as well as just the locals.

It depends a lot (actually, almost entirely) on what the water source is
as I just finished noting in another response...

--

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.

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.

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.

On 08/03/2014 5:42 PM, Pete C. wrote:
....

... They are rarely ever a
problem as long as the wells are reliable.

And there's the kicker -- in an area w/ generally almost an order of
magnitude higher yield according to the OP, would one consider these
wells likely to be reliable for the long haul?

I'd worry just on that grounds alone...

--

dpb wrote:

On 08/03/2014 5:42 PM, Pete C. wrote:
...

... They are rarely ever a
problem as long as the wells are reliable.

And there's the kicker -- in an area w/ generally almost an order of
magnitude higher yield according to the OP, would one consider these
wells likely to be reliable for the long haul?

I'd worry just on that grounds alone...

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'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.

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.

"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.

Pico Rico wrote, on Sun, 03 Aug 2014 17:45:05 -0700:

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.

You are correct. I'm a couple miles *from* the valley, but up in the hills.

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