To Test or Not to Test? UNDERGROUND PLUMBING
There are so many emotions at play during a real estate transaction, and there’s no wonder. The buyer/seller often has strong ties and memories tied to their home and this alone is quite emotional. Adding to that, this kind of transaction is often accompanied by a significant life event, e.g., job change, retirement, marriage /divorce, death, downsizing / up-sizing. Further, there is the financial component. From a macro view, a home can be one of the biggest assets in an individual’s portfolio, at least a significant one; and from an operational view, the closing costs and maintenance costs can be the source of much angst.
Zooming in on just one of the concerns in valuing this strategic asset is the underground plumbing. And in the minds of many, underground plumbing is tightly linked to foundation, especially in the Houston area. How does one even assess the condition of it? Welcome to the controversial question about testing the underground plumbing: the hydro-static test. This test is of considerable interest in older homes, built before 1970s, for many reasons. The age, the materials (concrete / cast-iron), and the fact that pipes are not easily inspected….after all, they are buried underground!
Even though the topic is controversial, it seems to me that the prevailing opinion / conventional wisdom is that a hydro-static test is mandatory (links below) and not doing so is negligent. Since leaks can cause foundation problems, why wouldn’t you? I come across that view often. But recently, I’ve learned about the counter point from Mike Williams, founder and president of Vortex Technologies, Inc. He presents a convincing case in his article Plumb Crazy, published in Texas Realtor Magazine. At the very least, it might cause you to pause before you perform a hydro-static test.
His first point is that leaks do not cause foundation problems, overwhelmingly so. Rather, previous foundation repairs cause further foundation problems. He quotes both the Wall Street Journal and a professor of civil engineering at Texas Tech; he explains how this is disproven in research papers by leading geotechnical engineers. This erroneous link was created in the 1990s when a jury of everyday citizens in an insurance legal dispute—not experts with knowledge of soil mechanics or structural engineering—ruled on a case, with long-term consequences on insurance coverage. Read the details in the article (link below). Fascinating.
Another point he makes which challenges the quick decision to test: does the tunnel you dig to explore the problem, which is potentially non-existent, actually cause the very problem you are trying to detect? Will the tunnel itself allow more water under the foundation than any small leak ever would? He recommends skepticism when reading a plumbing report which say it’s best to replace cast-iron. Again, will the tunnel itself disturb a solid foundational base, eroding the support? Can the workers who dug the tunnel replace the compact soils in such a way that retains its support? Or would that require a compacting / pounding machine which far exceeds the strength of human capacity?
Be informed…explore both sides of the issue first before deciding what is right for you. What do you think? Please share your opinions here. Tell us your experiences.