Irrigation Wells

I am looking for advice on the drilling of private wells to provide irrigation. Our 60-acre complex has extensive lawns and irrigates them with municipal water. Our water bills are relatively modest, working out to $35 per month for each of 55 homes. We have normal watering restrictions (certain hours and days) but our Board sometimes violates them. Occasional pressure changes mean that water sometimes may not reach the very last head on a sprinkler line, but that is not a major issue. Two Board members have grandiose, self-dealing plans to install seven figures worth of new plantings. They have no intention to seek a community vote on the plantings or wells.

The wells have been touted as “free water,” but we would have to drill three of them at a current cost of $200K+. We would need state and municipal permits and either entity would have ultimate control over the wells’ operation, meaning they could be shut down at any time. The wells would have to be sunk below the drinking water aquifer and we would have to seal them and provide assurances that there would be no intrusion into the drinking supply.

Our Board is not very competent, would do little to no research before acting and doesn’t feel the need to get the community’s permission. Our management company is useless. So here are my questions:

Is the $200K realistic for three wells?
What would be the cost of piping from wells to the sprinkler system?
Could the new pumps create such pressure that the piping in the entire (30-year-old) irrigation system would have to be changed?
How long do pumps last, what repairs might be needed and what does it cost to replace them?
How much electricity do the pumps use (we live in a high-cost power area)?
The wells would be about a mile from a large body of salt water. Would we need to worry about salt water intrusion?
The quality of the pumped water is unknown. What could be the effect on lawns, plantings, siding, car finishes, driveways, etc.? Would we need filters or other extra equipment?
Is all this new infrastructure a major added burden to future Boards when the current one has trouble running the existing complex properly?

I realize not all these questions can be answered specifically, but any information would be helpful. Some of us in the community believe this would become a financial and managerial quagmire, and would only enrich our landscape and irrigation contractors. The Board is relying solely on the advice of these contractors. Thanks!

DavidF22, I think your questions are better suited for an online forum about wells. Try:

https://permies.com/f/164/wells-springs

Thanks to all for sound advice, especially for Jack for trying to take a stab at some answers. Our larger problem is that our community is thoroughly dysfunctional, with the vast majority of homeowners apathetic and the management of the place inept at best and corrupt at worst. It's clear we need to fix that before getting into any discussion of wells or other ill-conceived projects.

Oops on me. DavidF22 posted:

$35 x 12 x 55 = annual HOA cost of about $23,000 per year for city water

JackJ9 observed that his HOA was paying "a couple thousand" per year for maintenance of his HOA's four wells. Let's figure $1500 per year for DavidF22's proposed three wells.

From the net, assume life expectancy of well pumps is 10 to 15 years. Pumps cost from $400 to $2000, depending.

Unforeseen problems will cost _____?

I'd say that, on paper, the wells are worth it, paying for themselves after say 10 to 15 years.

I personally would not want to add the headaches of well maintenance to the plates of volunteer directors. JackJ9 undoubtedly can comment on whether the latter concern is mis-placed. I hope he will.

Thanks for your comments.

Our annual municipal water bill is about $23,000, or $35 per home per month (about 3% of the overall monthly charges), and no one in the community is concerned with it. Wells are being pushed by some self-dealers on the Board who want to spend seven figures on over-the-top, lush plantings without the homeowners' consent and realize they must use additional water and extend the irrigation system to do so. They are telling the homeowners nothing and their principal advisors are the longtime landscape and irrigation contractors, both of whom stand to profit mightily. Most homeowners have no clue and many won't want to know until they are suddenly shocked by huge bills for the wells and plantings. Then they'll come crying to the minority who currently see what a scam this is.

At the urging of the minority, the Board commissioned the first reserve study last year in the 30-year history of the community. They used one of the recognized companies. The problem is that the study engineers in the report explicitly disavowed any recommendations regarding landscaping or wells and noted that those items had been inserted solely by the Board, contractors and/or management company. So even the study was compromised over these self-dealing issues. In the Board-inserted information on the wells, we were told that three would initially cost a little more than $100K, which, as you know, is a gross underestimation of the actual costs of installation and maintenance. This is how our current Board rolls. And, unfortunately, it is intellectually incapable of performing the sound due diligence that you and others so wisely recommend.

I realize we should be planning for the future, but a 10-15 year payback on the wells won't garner much support from a population that is largely older and likely won't be here to reap the benefits. Furthermore, our aging roads, curbs and recreational amenities -- and not any wells -- were the primary concerns of the engineers in the reserve study, and as expected, they provided schedules of the costs and how we would accumulate and apply reserves to these higher-priority projects. Our Board has not addressed these at all, instead focusing on the wells as the pet project of the self-dealers. Some directors even said they thought the reserve study was a waste of time and want to discard it, probably because they couldn't get the engineers to endorse the wells and landscaping. This is what we are up against.

FWIW I think the typical HOA/COA director does not understand reserve studies. It's higher math (for them). They often are inclined to ignore the reserve studies. Instead, they win re-election by claiming they are going to keep the members' assessments as low as possible. Read: Infrastructure is neglected, causing failure of xyz sooner rather than later, causing the need for a large special assessment. Enough problems may ultimately lead to receivership.

I agree about how the focus should be on existing infrastructure needs. Throw the bums out at the next annual meeting and annual election. Put in new directors whose response to well questions is: "No, we're not going to do this. Next question."

Thanks for the laugh, AugustinD. I needed that (although you're making our Board out to be far more intelligent than it actually is).

We are already paying a $4320 assessment this year, with the Board not saying specifically how it will be applied and it is not directly tied to any of the spending schedules in the study. I believe homeowners view it as the price they pay to avoid Board service. We have been paying assessments of $2850 to $4320 a year for the eight years I've been here because earlier Boards never set aside reserves needed primarily to replace roofs.

The self-dealing arises because no one in the community wants or even cares about lavish landscaping except for two Board members. One of them has actually said he believes the fees should be raised much higher than necessary because larger dues and assessments lend an aura of luxury to the place and will help to increase property values. One Board member told a neighbor that "we can do anything we want" and if you read the governing documents, they are pretty much right. You can't make this stuff up.

JackJ9, FWIW; depending on the specific proposed "new" capital asset; and given how technological advances are inevitable and may make certain infrastructure obsolete; I think there is often a question as to whether a "new item" is something that goes beyond what the governing documents permit, or is in fact covered under, for one, what is called the "business judgment" rule for boards.

KerryL1 pointed out recently that much infrastructure simply is not explicitly mentioned in many HOAs/COAs governing documents. She is right. Interestingly, KerryL1 is a director on the board of a CIC (common interest community hoa/coa yada) that, under a 2012 California statute, now pretty much // has // to provide electric vehicle charging stations for the parking space of any owner who requests it. Yes, the owner has to pay her or his share, but the practical realities cause this to alter the common area significantly. To me, her board is 'stuck' with the reality of technological advances and legislative orders, regardless of what her CIC's covenants state.

I was thinking about this for the wells in this thread. I think DavidF22's HOA's contracted reserve study engineers did right in arguing with the board about the inclusion of the wells. In other words, the reserve study company and I agree the Board is freakin' out of line.

I won't get into any more detail, although I have served on my Board as president, but let's just say your scolding would sound extraordinarily naive to the enlightened and informed people in our community. Your place sounds relatively normal and you should be thankful for that. Also, when one Board member plans to use over $1.5 million of community money for a personal landscaping project that no one else asked for -- without providing details, having discussions or asking permission from the people who are paying -- that's self-dealing.

Nationwide, it's rare that covenants permit the membership to reject a budget and tie the hands of the board as you propose. I particularly doubt New York HOA/COA covenants have such a provision. I would bet New York HOA/COA statutes do not.

By my reading over the years, New York is really sh-tty when it comes to its HOA/COA statutes.

No, not in theory.

Do your own covenants give the membership the power to reject a budget?

Your own Oregon statutes state that the Board adopts the budget.

If a HOA/COA membership does not like a Board's budget, it can recall the Board or install new directors at the next election.

Are you aware that assessments of a well-run HOA are always set higher than the projected annual operating expenses? Why is this? It's because of the need to pay not just the expected annual operating expenses, but also to save money every year via a reserve fund. A reserve fund spreads the costs of major infrastructure over as many owners over the years as possible, in the name of fairness.

I do not consider this a sitcom. I think it's the members doing as you suggested: They'd rather pay extra than serve on the board. The Board may be out of line, but this is because the members choose a board (or exercise their right to be apathetic and so "vote" for the status quo) that is out of line.

Approving budgets/dues increases. Our Covenants allow the BOD to increase our dues as much as the BOD wants to. There are procedures:

1. The upcoming Years Budget (showing the increase) must be submitted to owners on or before 01/01 to become effective on 01/01.

2. The owners have until 01/31 to call a Special Meeting at which 51% OF ALL OWNERS must vote to reject the new budget.

3. If the new budget is rejected, there is an automatic 5% dues increase and the association must operate under that budget.

Thus our owners do not get to approve a new budget, but they do get to reject it.

We have absolutely no provision to reject a budget except to throw out the Board, and install a new one with a better budget. We went through a review of this a few years ago when some of us realized our governing documents contain absolutely no spending limits on the Board. Besides, in 2017, a new Board promising better management and more efficiency proceeded to go $125,000 over budget for the year by dipping into the aforementioned reserves. They stayed on for the following year without consequences until they decided to quit. So even if the budget is acceptable to the community, a free-spending, opaque Board can easily exceed it by thousands of dollars and no one would know until the following year’s audited financials are published. By then, the money’s been spent. It’s too late to reject anything.

I got ahead of myself:

1. The upcoming Years Budget (showing the increase) must be submitted to owners on or before 12/01 to become effective on 01/01.

2. The owners have until 12/31 to call a Special Meeting at which 51% OF ALL OWNERS must vote to reject the new budget.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but if only one Board member wants to do something, why will it be done? Wouldn’t the entire Board have to have a vote on something this large of an expense? Dos the Board have monthly meetings which are open to the HO members who could object (or approve) plans or expenses? Just my opinion.

William and Jack make excellent points that would apply to a normal community. We are currently down to three board members, each of whom would vote for the wells without doing thorough research. We don’t know if and when they will tell the community that a fourth director has resigned. (They never filled the vacancy of a fifth seat.) If they did solicit for candidates, no one would apply and any applicants could be rejected if they didn’t agree with the Board and its secrecy. Individuals who go to a board meeting to object to wells may not get all services due them or get their normal complaints and issues addressed. If people refuse to pay, the board can impose mounting late fees leading to foreclosure, and a judge will back them up because they are seated board members and have the authority to loot reserves to pay for wells.

The sane minority will likely have to organize and write a letter to the community outlining all the hidden costs of wells. Some of the sheep may then come out of the woodwork and state their opposition. That could cause the board to back off. This method has worked before with their outrageous overcharges for fees. Of course, the letter-writers could then be targeted to receive fewer services. That has happened before, too.