Posted by vaughn on June 29, 2010, 6:38 pm
Not an issue here. Mine happens to be a legal, permitted well. Household wells
are common in this area for yard watering. I have never had the water tested,
but it draws from the same aquifer the utility is using.
We have an annual fight with our water utility, which has been filing
unconciousable rate increases every year since they changed ownership about 5
years ago. We always fight them, and their full request is always shot down by
the state, but they always win SOMETHING. My water bill has increased from an
average of $.00 to an average of $0.00/month even though I have installed
water saving fixtures and the sprinkler well. There is no end to the rate
increases in sight!
Posted by wmbjkREMOVE on June 29, 2010, 6:50 pm
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:38:30 -0400, "vaughn"
I think it's more often an issue of private wells drawing on aquifers
allocated to the public, and too many wells near too many septic tanks
etc. Plus, now that we've gotten to the point where so few are willing
to take personal responsibility, and instead expect the state to pay
for every problem, it's more cost-effective for the state to adopt a
one size fits all strategy.
Nor will there ever be. Our demand to be protected from every
boogeyman has led to some costly regulation. For example, around here
commercial wells aren't allowed to use any galvanized components.
Shallower and lower flow wells can get away with sc.120 PVC. On deeper
wells, some outfits can afford stainless, while others must go back to
frequent replacement of black pipe. Ironically, it seems that few
consumers are willing to drink tap water anyway unless somebody has
bottled it for them and put a picture of a glacier on the label. :-)
Posted by Ron Rosenfeld on June 29, 2010, 8:41 pm
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 11:43:13 -0700, wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net wrote:
Here in Downeast Maine, the cost for grid extension for me would have
been $.25/ft for lines on poles and $/ft for underground lines after
*I* prepared the trench and conduit. And if the underground portion
was over a certain distance, and additional $400-$800 for
transformers at each end.
Being 7000' from the powerline, with 2,000' of that to be underground,
it was very obvious that an off-grid solution would be less expensive
from day 1.
Posted by wmbjkREMOVE on June 30, 2010, 2:42 pm
Just out of curiosity, did you consider any otherwise similar
properties that were easier to connect to the grid? If so, could you
put a number on the difference in price?
Posted by Ron Rosenfeld on June 30, 2010, 3:51 pm
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 07:42:42 -0700, wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net wrote:
Nothing really comparable at the time in this area. There were some
smaller lots with less desireable water frontage and footprints that
were a about 25-30% more expensive, but I don't really have data to do
a good comparison.