SewerOwner

Root cutting

Using cutting equipment to clear root material from inside the line.

Roots in a line are a real and common observation. What they establish is narrower than the conclusions often drawn from them: they do not establish that the pipe is broken, they do not establish where roots entered, and they do not establish that replacement is required.

What this page cannot establish

  • SewerOwner cannot establish whether root cutting is appropriate for your property
  • this approach cannot establish that the pipe is damaged
  • this approach cannot establish where roots entered the line
  • this approach cannot establish that roots will not return
  • this approach cannot establish that replacement is required

What it attempts to do

Remove root material from the inside of the line so that flow is restored through the affected section.

When contractors may discuss it

These are circumstances in which the approach comes up, not a checklist that makes it correct. There is no situation in which one method is universally right.

  • when root material has been observed or recovered
  • where a line has a recurring history and roots have previously been identified

What has to be known before applicability can be judged

If a proposal for this work is priced without these, it is priced against assumptions. That is not necessarily wrong — but the assumptions should be written down.

  • whether roots were actually observed, and where
  • whether the entry point has been identified
  • the recurrence history

Access and site considerations

  • requires an access point suitable for the equipment
  • reach is limited by the equipment and the line

What to clarify in a proposal for this work

These are the details that most often differ between two proposals for what sounds like the same job.

  • whether a camera inspection follows the cutting
  • what the proposal says about recurrence
  • whether any statement about the entry point is an observation or an inference

What to keep afterwards

  • the invoice describing what was done
  • footage recorded after the work
  • the date, for the recurrence record

Alternatives worth asking about

Asking why one approach is proposed rather than another is a reasonable question, and the answer tells you what the contractor believes about your line.

Routine cleaning

Clearing the line with mechanical equipment to restore flow.

Restore flow by removing material from inside the line using equipment fed in from an access point.

Cannot establish: the condition of the line; that the underlying situation is resolved; that the problem will not recur; that repair is or is not needed.

Hydro jetting

Using high-pressure water to clear material from inside the line.

Clear material from the pipe wall and carry it out of the line using pressurised water delivered through a nozzle.

Cannot establish: the condition of the line; that the pipe is sound; that the result will persist.

Spot repair

Repairing a defined length of the line rather than the whole run.

Address a condition at one identified location, leaving the remainder of the line as it is.

Cannot establish: the condition of the rest of the line; that no further work will be needed; that the identified condition was the cause of a symptom.

What would change the answer

  • whether roots were actually observed, and where
  • whether the entry point has been identified
  • the recurrence history

What to do next

A root observation tied to a location is a fact you can act on; a verbal mention is not.

Ask what was observed, and where

If your situation is different

Related, and why