On the other hand, from my talking to many people from every state in the lower 48 plus AK (including Puerto Rico) over the last 15 years or so, I can't recall any that don't require Coliform, nitrate etc. tests when a house is purchased and then with any problems having been corrected prior to closing on the property.
And in today's economy, a $100-200 is a bit much for many people but you downplay spending others' money because you seem to have a lot of it, plus you're from California.
The discrepancy between Culligan and Kinetico is most likely due to Kinetico wanting to oversell but, if there is no slime in the toilet tank, there is no IRB problem except possibly in someone's imagination or fear based thinking. But, although it's not necessary, shocking the well would be a good idea simply due to it sitting unused for 2 years.
Because I am from California... huh??? Oh yeah, its called trolling.
Is testing water worth 100-200 prior to spending thousands on water treatment? A proper water test may save them far more than the cost of the test. A proper and thorough water test will allow the professional, qualified people to properly design a system that will correct the problems that do exist.
I'd think you'd want to ask the OPs that post here instead of me.
I suppose you are including those "Professionals" that don't have the Fleck tools to rebuild Fleck valves with and then have to have you teach them how to use them. But I don't know what you consider "qualified", although I think it might have something to do with WQA membership and a bunch of letters after their name to supposedly impress potential but uninformed customers with. Am I close?
Senility is a sad thing to have to witness first hand.
Even worse to experience first-hand.
Originally Posted by ditttohead