Water Wells and Water Witches

[ASRG]

We used to have an old boy in our area who was unreal at witching water wells. He died a few years ago. About ten years ago I went on a little "water well drilling frenzy" (there was a special government program). I got three wells drilled. 160 feet/12 gpm.
140 ft/8gpm. 50 ft./50 gpm(actually couldn't bail it fast enough to measure).
I seldom water any cows out of any of them as I have natural flowing springs that never freeze up. The best one is 68 gpm.

[dluther]

You are a very lucky person we have one well that give trouble the end of Jan. but we got it fixed . No fun working with that stuff when it's cold. Now we have trouble with calves with a fast cold or what ever.

[ALLFARMER]

Some companies offer geophysical science based
methods for searching for water quality and
quantity. Lots of wells here have too much iron. I
asked Alberta environment how close to a creek I
could drill a water well, their answer.....no
regulation/laws against drilling even in a creek. I
may drill on high ground one day that the creek
loops around. Should be IMO clean plentiful
water.

[ASRG]

Old Jim was really good. Most people around here got him out to witch their wells. A lot of the water well drillers reccomended him. He even flew out to Manitoba once to witch a well for some big food company.
The guy was deadly....he told you how deep and how many gpm. He was sometimes a little out there....claimed he could tell the sex of a calf by putting his hand on the cows stomach! I don't know about that....but a local dairy farmer told me he could do it!
I knew a guy who could follow a water/gas line with coathanger....better than the "first call" guys with a metal detector. He tried to show me how, but I had absolutely no talent at it.
Also knew an oil field driller who told me his company found an old drunk in Saskatchewan who could witch oil! He witched five wells and they all came in like gangbusters! Unfortunately shortly after this he went on a spree and got run over and killed!

[oneoff]

Where's the science in palm readng; horoscopes and water or oil well witching.

And then those same believers always get all excited about "science based" being applied to everything else.

How do your brains handle that dilema; unless everything is actually "non based".

[ASRG]

Oneoff: No science. If it works you use it.

[wilagro]

There is nothing more futile than a "discussion" with a believer in dowsing as their logic can't be questioned without a huge kerfuffle and hard feelings. I don't believe for one minute in the witching process as it involves a lot of hokum and bunkum.

[ASRG]

wilagro: Sort of like religion? You either believe.... or you don't. Can't prove either one, but it is always your choice?

[oneoff]

Not so ASRG. If water well drilling were a profession; dowswers would be considered "Quacks".
But water well drilling is a trade; in Western provinces of Alberta and Sask (at least) it either voluntary or even more so regulated. As such; drillers reports are submitted and Elogs run as a matter of course. Improvements in that data would certainly be welcomed; but there is much data available for free that spans over a hundred years of searching for adequate water supplies.

As has been pointed out; it is futile to even debate this topic of dowsing. The dowswers will drag you down to their level; wear you out and beat you with their experience.
Suffice it to say that usable aquifers almost always lie in beds or some sort of formation with porosity; and have sufficient permeability to deliver fluids to the well bore in quantities sufficient for your intended use.
Now you can say that some people can put a pair of coathangers in their hands and receive a broadcast of AM radio stations through the fillings in their teeth. And someone else will testify that they have direct contact with aliens or even God.

But can those broadcasts be duplicated by two seperate "believers" (of your choice); independently and at the same time. Dowsing is dangerous nonsense when the public so easily believes it to contain facts that can be relied upon.

Now there are written water well driller sample reports; and Elogs of natural voltages produced by the borehole drilling fluids in contact with the relatively consistant formation beds that have been lain down over millions of years. Differring doses of Gamma rays are emmitted from sands and gravels as compared to clays (for instance) and those are also useful in documenting an areas water prospects. And single point resistance logs are commonly recorded to add information concerning more resistive sands and gravels as compared to clays which have a high porosity; but little effective permeability. And productive wells have been drilled, punched, dug,, bored and screwed for centuries. A good part of those efforts is recorded and available.

With such information from many wells; and productive (and non-productive) well data; a careful observer (and even an intelligent dowser) could easily give some educated guesses as to the chances and depth of potential aquifers. Which is still how the decision on new well location should be based.

On the other hand; I have never seen one shred of useful data recorded on any dowsers findings. If there were anything worth writing down that should have been submitted as data for all future water survey investigations and water wells that will be needed for future drill sites.

Do all the dowsing for wish for your entertainment; and don't be fooled by someone's with a piece of iron or wood dangling from their body.
If you want water that is 50 feet away from a power line; sufficently away from septic and animal fecal matter to minimize the chance of contamination; convenient to tying into existing pipelines and pressure tanks etc. etc. etc. then do a site survey to plan these considerations in conjunction with mapped and known aquifers in the vicinity.

Some areas will have near zero chance of success; while others will aprroach 100% in possibly your choice of several aquifers. Some drillers actually might have a 90% "success" rate; even when willingly taking on any problem sites that have had multiple "dryholes". And some sites still remain with no productive wells despite everyone's best efforts (and no doubt multiple dowsers as well).

And the doswer won't improve your chances by anything more than chance. Your choice of a reputable driller will be much more important in your success.

If you can't agree with any of the above; then it is a simple matter of contracting the drilling with the dowser who will with 100% certainty get exactly what he has you so firmly believing in.

DOWSERS WILL NOT IMPROVE THE OVERALL SUCCESS RATE of getting a "good" well. It's but a sad commentary on what faith can do.

But you'd be very wise to choose a driller familiar with local formations; drilling techniques and having thoroughly looked at all the data available. It's the driller who will confim your faith in that undeserving "dowser".

[oneoff]

Not so ASRG. If water well drilling were a profession; dowswers would be considered "Quacks".
But water well drilling is a trade; in Western provinces of Alberta and Sask (at least) it either voluntary or even more so regulated. As such; drillers reports are submitted and Elogs run as a matter of course. Improvements in that data would certainly be welcomed; but there is much data available for free that spans over a hundred years of searching for adequate water supplies.

As has been pointed out; it is futile to even debate this topic of dowsing. The dowswers will drag you down to their level; wear you out and beat you with their experience.
Suffice it to say that usable aquifers almost always lie in beds or some sort of formation with porosity; and have sufficient permeability to deliver fluids to the well bore in quantities sufficient for your intended use.
Now you can say that some people can put a pair of coathangers in their hands and receive a broadcast of AM radio stations through the fillings in their teeth. And someone else will testify that they have direct contact with aliens or even God.

But can those broadcasts be duplicated by two seperate "believers" (of your choice); independently and at the same time. Dowsing is dangerous nonsense when the public so easily believes it to contain facts that can be relied upon.

Now there are written water well driller sample reports; and Elogs of natural voltages produced by the borehole drilling fluids in contact with the relatively consistant formation beds that have been lain down over millions of years. Differring doses of Gamma rays are emmitted from sands and gravels as compared to clays (for instance) and those are also useful in documenting an areas water prospects. And single point resistance logs are commonly recorded to add information concerning more resistive sands and gravels as compared to clays which have a high porosity; but little effective permeability. And productive wells have been drilled, punched, dug,, bored and screwed for centuries. A good part of those efforts is recorded and available.

With such information from many wells; and productive (and non-productive) well data; a careful observer (and even an intelligent dowser) could easily give some educated guesses as to the chances and depth of potential aquifers. Which is still how the decision on new well location should be based.

On the other hand; I have never seen one shred of useful data recorded on any dowsers findings. If there were anything worth writing down that should have been submitted as data for all future water survey investigations and water wells that will be needed for future drill sites.

Do all the dowsing for wish for your entertainment; and don't be fooled by someone's with a piece of iron or wood dangling from their body.
If you want water that is 50 feet away from a power line; sufficently away from septic and animal fecal matter to minimize the chance of contamination; convenient to tying into existing pipelines and pressure tanks etc. etc. etc. then do a site survey to plan these considerations in conjunction with mapped and known aquifers in the vicinity.

Some areas will have near zero chance of success; while others will aprroach 100% in possibly your choice of several aquifers. Some drillers actually might have a 90% "success" rate; even when willingly taking on any problem sites that have had multiple "dryholes". And some sites still remain with no productive wells despite everyone's best efforts (and no doubt multiple dowsers as well).

And the doswer won't improve your chances by anything more than chance. Your choice of a reputable driller will be much more important in your success.

If you can't agree with any of the above; then it is a simple matter of contracting the drilling with the dowser who will with 100% certainty get exactly what he has you so firmly believing in.

DOWSERS WILL NOT IMPROVE THE OVERALL SUCCESS RATE of getting a "good" well. It's but a sad commentary on what faith can do.

But you'd be very wise to choose a driller familiar with local formations; drilling techniques and having thoroughly looked at all the data available. It's the driller who will confim your faith in that undeserving "dowser".