Joining water wells???

A question came up today about wells that I've never heard of, and I don't like the sound of it.

There is a five-acre property that has been divided (not recently) into three single-home properties (all mobile homes).

My friend's Property A has a good well, pump and pressure. Property B has an older well and 30-yr-old industrial(?) pump, rather poor water pressure. Property C's well/pump only produces water in wet winters; he has a buried garden hose running to Property B as the only source of water -- for nearly ten years. (B & C are both owned by the same family.)

The suggestion has come up that all three homes join their wells together.

I have heard of communal wells, but never joining multiple wells together. Without more info, it sounds to me like it would/could create more problems than it would solve.

The owners of B and C prefer to spend their money on anything but home maintenance, hence the jury-rigged water system of C. I am of the opinion that B and C want to join wells with A just so they won't have to deal with their own well problems, now (C) or in the future (B).

So, does anyone know of any reason to join well pump systems?

Is it even legal?

Do any of you have any firm reasons why this should NOT be done?

My friend is leaning away from the idea, but would like to have more concrete arguments than her current "it just doesn't sound like a good idea to me".

Any info is very welcome.

Sue

My three neighbors have a shared well and pump. The loser is the person with the well on their property.

They all purchased their homes with the arrangement already in place from the previous owners and the original builder.

The arrangement was especially problematic and expensive for the person with the well on their property. They got stuck with all the expenses and then had to collect from everyone else when repairs had to be made. One neighbor refused to pay for their share of major repairs that benefitted them. Attorneys are involved. It is still a mess.

Whoever has the well on their property will also be using more electricity to move the water to your neighbors house. There needs to be some kind of an agreement in place to cover these incremental costs, which will add up over time.

The person with the well on their property also gets the call from their neighbor at 2AM when the water stops flowing.

I would not recommend this type of an arrangement.

Best of luck

Gary

BTW, your I believe your assessment of B & C's motives are spot-on.

If the B and C properties are owned by the same family it stands to reason they could connect to B's old well and use a cistern/holding tank system to improve water pressure. As these are all mobile homes I don't see the need for large amounts of water (i lived in camper/trailer etc a good part of my life). If freezing occurs or somethings springs a leak and causes damage who would be liable for the damage? Who would be responsible for maintenance? If A is providing the power to the pump how would B and C reimburse A? Is A's pump up to providing water to all 3, and if it was found out after the fact who would have to pay for an upgrade?

It sounds like they could solve their own problems with a little effort and expense but are only to happy to get someone else to shoulder the burden.

Pumping water for 3 homes instead of just one, the well may not last due to the heavy use. And when "A's" well runs low then what?
If it was I no way.

The only reason the other two wish to do this is to save the expense of drilling new wells.

If I owned lot A, I wouldn't allow the others to tap the line without some sort of payment. If all 3 families are attempting use water from the well at the same time, there will be a noticeable pressure drop.

I owned a country property years ago and had a lot for trouble finding water and keeping the water drinkable (beavers kept flooding the well).

I ended up using a well on a unopened Municipal road allowance between the 2 lots I owned and it was a problem because I did not actually own the land the well was on.

When I went to the Bank to get a mortgage I had to prove both, that I had legal access to the well and that the water was drinkable. This involved an easesment from the local Municipality (they owned the Road Allowance), fixing the beaver problem and water testing by the local Health Unit. It was the same hassle when I sold the property as I had to prove to the buyer that the residence had a reliable, safe supply of water.

In your case if I was Property Owner A, I would politely tell the two other property owners that they needed to drill wells on their own land.

My .02 cents.

Mike

You don't mention whether or not your friend has a mortgage on Property A. If so, the lender would object because, in lender-lingo, a three-way split of Property A's well/water rights would "impair" the lender's collateral.

From a property-value perspective, your friend's property would decrease in value once a community-well arrangement was consummated. Conversely, B & C would increase in value thanks to the agreement.

Were I your friend, I wouldn't entertain B & C's proposal under any circumstances. Owners B & C bring nothing to the table, yet have everything to gain. OTOH, your friend gains nothing, yet gives up something of considerable value.

B & C have demonstrated that they have neither the money nor the willingness to maintain their already-existing wells. Think we can predict how they'd handle the shared responsibility of maintaining your friend's well and paying for their monthly water usage.

The money it would cost B & C to: 1) pay your friend a lump sum up front to compensate for lost property-value; 2) pay all attorney fees for having a lawyer (who specializes in such matters) research applicable laws and draw up a proper agreement; and, 3) pay the cost of materials/labor ... would probably cover the expense of bringing their existing wells up to speed.

In summary, bad idea!

A relative of mine had a similar sounding situation a few years ago. She had land up in the mountains, and her neighbors, while personally nice enough, were always wanting to borrow from her, power, water, firewood, etc. She finally had to put her foot down, and tell them to improve their own places as she had done, and not continually try to leech off her.

I think xbanker has it exactly right, letting B and C connect to property A's water would reduce your friend's property value. The owners of properties B and C have had plenty of time to remedy things by drilling deeper on C, better pump for B, etc. They just want to literally leech off your friend. I would also beware of any temporary arrangement, as continued long enough, B and C might find a lawyer that would claim your friend had granted them a permanent water claim or easement. I've seen similar things tried to gain title to a shared driveway. In both of the above cases, the ultimate solution was to sell and move. I hope your friend doesn't have to do the same.

Marantz makes an excellent point ... "implied easement by prior use" and "easement by necessity" might be claimed, legitimate or not ... once people gain even a temporary foothold, they're often reluctant to relinquish without a fight.

My parents are in the same situation. Their house in the valley with a spring up on the mountian south of their house. My uncle wanted a house there too so he asked my grandfather about splitting water rights and he agreed so my parents had to let them hook up to their spring and holding tank. every summer we would run out of water watching them fill their pools or kids running through sprinklers, water slides or whatever. Then their kids grew up and one pulled a trailer in and hooked it up too so mow my parnets have a pump in the creek for washing and buy botteled water for drinking as there is never any water in the spring. My parnets do all the maintenance on the spring and tank and never get help from the uncle. Once they are gone and I inherit the land I don't know what I'm going to do with it. i'd sell the house and south side of the farm since its just some trees and nothing really there but would run into the issue of showing a good water supply as well.

Susan,

All of the previous posts were spot-on, but your friend should consult an attorney to see what the law is in her state/locality (i.e. regarding wells, easements, and riparian rights). She definitely should NOT agree to anything until or unless she has a good idea of what potential long-term consequences there are for her, because she will be the one holding the bag. Of course, this assumes that she's game after fully understanding what rights she would have, and what rights she would not have.

Something else your friend might want to check with the local municipality they are in. It may not be legal to share water with out at least meeting water quality guidelines. Which would require periodic testing, filing the test reports with the state or local government. And even if it is not it might be a good excuse for your friend to use. "I called the county and they said that a plumbing permit would be required and it cost $$$, there will also be monthly testing which cost $$$, and they said that the fine for not following local laws would be $$$$ per day. And I didn't tell the county that you are sharing water now, I wouldn't want you to get in trouble with the law." If your friend's neighbors are to lazy to keep their property maintained they will be to lazy to call and check the law for themselves. Or just tell them NO and leave it at that.

When we bought our home in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada Mtns of CA five or so years ago, it shared a well with the neighbor, a nice older widow lady. There used to be two wells on our property, don't have a clue why they were abandoned and the joint well thing was started. We have a legal easement onto her property were the line (1 3/4" PVC) runs. We didn't really like that idea, but liked the idea of paying about $10k to hook into the municipal water system, so we still do it. We pay her a very fair $25 a month for our share of the electricity to run the pump, and we share any maintenance costs (just happened for the first time). There is a pressure tank attached, so even tho we are about 80 ft higher in elevation, and a couple hundred feet away, we have good pressure. We would still prefer to have our "own" water system, but in this case it works. Our biggest worry is that she dies, and the house sets vacant for a while, with the utilities turned off. We are not sure we would be able to have electricity turned back on to a home we do not own. So every day we wish her a long and healty life...

Susan, I've quickly scanned the other posts and I hope I'm not just repeating what someone else said: IMHO the two biggest problems with wells are (1) flow rate or capacity, and (2) contamination. Joining all three wells together might improve flow rate for the two bad wells, but will almost certainly do nothing good for the good well. Also, if one of the three owners allows contamination (example: well cover comes loose and family pet's feces wash into the well during a storm), it could affect the other two wells.

I wouldn't do it, and I wouldn't expect anyone else to do it for me.

Frank2135

I'll agree with most if not all the others; property A's well should not be shared with properties B & C. That would be a really bad deal for property A. If asked my response would be, "No, how 'bout them Seattle Mariners?".

Simply stated: this is a can of worms.

The person with the good well is almost guaranteed to end up with the short end of the stick.

Perhaps a good excuse would be "the local municipality won't allow it because of the risk of cross-contamination" or "my insurance company won't permit it due to liability reasons" will blow off the would-be moochers without creating undue hostility.

The person with the good well could still offer to fill a tank now and again to water gardens etc., to keep the good neighbour routine going.

Anyway, the best advice is: run, run away from this deal.

Thanks, guys! I knew you would know about things like this.

This was a totally new concept to both of us, and you know how you listen to something and have a hunch that its a totally BAD idea, but you don't have anything to back it up?

And you've offered some good, non-hostility-inducing excuses for her. I've forwarded the lot to her.

Thanks again!

Sue

Firm reason number 1: it may create a legal right in the two properties which don't have the quality water systems, and put the 'good' property under an easement, which is a legal liability. Your friend's gut is telling him the right thing. To sort out the property rights, the neighbors would each need to hire a lawyer (one lawyer should not represent the three, as there are conflicts of interest among the parties) to haggle out the privileges and liabilities of each owner as to the water and wells. Joining the wells involves rights and obligatons in real estate that would pass to each successive owner and encumber each property. There should be a recorded instrument which alerts potential buyers of the easement, and existing title policies might be affected. The property values of all three parcels may be affected, and there might should be some compensation due one or more parcel owners as a result.

Firm reason number 2: it may be that there are costs to "join" the wells and pumps and there will be ongoing maintenance costs, and the parties need a written agreement to take into account who is obligated for what costs or compensations for what benefits. Each should have his or her own lawyer, as there are conflicts of interest. The agreement should provide whether each person funds his or her share in advance, what happens if someone fails to fund a share; or whether costs will be paid as the project goes forward, again with provisions for failure by some party. There are ongoing costs, which should be provided for in the agreement, along with provisions for failures on the parts of the parties.

Your friend should talk to a lawyer who specializes in real estate law, especially in easements, and who knows about local water rights. Different regions in the US have different laws on water rights, depending on historical scarcity.

Thanks, Philip. I'm passing it on.

Sue

The Best Joining, -if Aggreeable to all Parties, -would be from Well A as the Source, -but "Post-Well". This means simply a Common Surface Water System using Well A as the Initial Source. A Ground Based, rather than a Subsurface based, Solution. If by "Joining the Wells", -you had been Thinking of some kind of Subsurface Joining.

I don't know much about wells, easements, or legal agreements, but a lot of practical experience tells me this shared well project is a very bad idea! No way would I get involved with neighbors in this kind of arrangement. Finding a good fencing contractor and erecting a nice high privacy fence on the property line seems like a better idea.