A well-written sharing agreement is like any other contract. It should allow the parties to clearly understand their water rights and facility rights for the well and their obligations under the agreement. Ideally, the agreement will avoid any misunderstanding between the parties, as there is no confusion about the definitions, use, maintenance and repair of the well. If the parties register the agreement, future disputes can be avoided.  With good preparation, parties considering a collective agreement can avoid many common problems. With cooperation and shared responsibility, it can be advantageous to own a home with a common well. If you want more information HUD publishes guidelines for common wells, and here at Skillings `Sounds`, we`re always happy with information when we can. If you have any questions about the common well, please call us. If we don`t know the answer, we`ll let you know someone who will! On the other hand, the terms of the agreement are sometimes not written. The sale of neighbouring land served by a common well or the subdivision of real estate and the provision of well water by pipeline may create an unwritten agreement on well sharing. In the event of a dispute, the parties may take legal action to establish the agreement as tacit relief or an irrevocable license. Since the parties must define the terms of unwritten relief through costly litigation, parties who share a well should consider drafting a written agreement instead of “handshake agreements.” We discussed these kinds of agreements in a free webiner here.
Unregistered agreements undermine applicability, as successors are unlikely to be aware of the common well agreement. This was the case at Koelker v. Turnbull. At Koelker, the seller imposed a guarantee obligation on the purchaser, but did not disclose the existence of a third-party interest in the property under an unregant shared Well agreement.  When third parties attempted to exercise their water interest in the buyer`s well, the buyer sued the tacit ownership and the seller`s violation of an explicit guarantee of right.  The buyer obtained a default judgment against the third parties and the seller.  The seller appealed and the court found that the seller had violated the express guarantee of the right and that the amount of damages suffered by the buyer was his legal fees.  Competent written agreements may be challenged.