One of the options available to the parties to a sharing agreement is to continue the implementation of the agreement. However, litigation can cost several times the cost of a well repair and take too long to get water for morning coffee. For this reason, the parties may include a mediation or arbitration clause. Arbitration procedures are generally more favourable than disputes and are binding on the parties. Ensure that there are call and response communications and performance rules that require communication between the parties and measures to ensure timely dispute resolution. The termination of a well-sharing contract should not terminate the debts or obligations incurred by a party on the date or date of termination. As a general rule, the resilient party pays for the cost of separating its water from the common system, as well as any damage it may cause to another person`s property or water distribution system. Finally, changes in the percentage of shared liability of the remaining parties should be adjusted by a provision inserted at the conclusion of the contract when a party withdraws from the agreement. Emergencies are dangerous situations for health and safety, but a definition of “emergency” should be explicitly stated in the agreement. In an emergency, a good agreement allows each party to make the necessary repairs without notifying other users if the consent of the other parties is impossible or ine practical. It can determine what steps can be taken to immediately mitigate the emergency. 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. In the absence of a sharing authorization, problems often arise when real estate that was formerly owned by family members or friends is sold and new owners have differing views on the system. For example, the land containing the well is not required to supply the second property with water without any water law agreement or established facilities. 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.  In addition, lenders may require specific provisions for shared water agreements to guarantee their investment in mortgaged real estate.