I am selling my home and the buyers had the sewer line scoped. The line was replaced approximately 5 to 7 years ago. The scope indicates some standing water in the line from the clean out for about 15 feet. At that point the water resumes normal flow. I have never had any problems with back up or anything else since the line was replaced. Is this condition critical to repair. If so what are my options.

The standing water's caused by a small amount of back fall. Unless you have solids building up in the line it would appear the sewer's operating normally . However, if the buyers pushed the issue and made repairing the line a condition of the sale you could be forced to dig up the line and correct the backfall. Let's hope they let it slide. Good luck, Tom

Did the scope show the standing water depth slowly decreased over that 15'? Did it suddenly stop and then start a good flow which would indicate a minor blockage sitting on the bottom of the line?

To quote the inspector "Main holding too much water. Sags. Could not see all of line. Water stops holding at approximately 12 feet from clean out and flows okay.

"Sags" pretty much confirms Tom's read on th problem. This is the first time I have heard of a prospective buyer going to the expense of a SeeSnake. Bet that buyer will find additional "issues" to help him bargain down your price. Good luck, Bob

Standing water is more critical if the drain carries solids than if it only carries liquids.
Try rodding from an inspection chamber upstream and get someone to check if any solids are pushed to the next inspection chamber downstream, is so remove it. There is little to worry about if only liquid appears. Note the quantity and type of any solids appearing.
Explain your findings to the prospective purchaser and cross your fingers.
Good luck.

Timtinker,
The homeowner already said the line was operating normally,

Quote:

---

I have never had any problems with back up or anything else since the line was replaced.

---

It's already been established that the line has a bell so why go through proving something we already know? Regards, tom