Call Our Bay Area Office: 408-261-4252

Rossi, Hamberslough, Reischl & Chuck A professional law corporation

408-261-4252

Devoted to helping individuals and businesses with all real estate and business concerns in California

Discerning The “POOP” In C.A.R.’s Two New Septic And Well Forms

By David Hamerslough and Victoria B. Naidorf

C.A.R.’s June 2026 forms release included, among others, two new forms relating to septic systems, wells, propane tanks, and property boundaries. One of these forms (SWPI-C) is an addendum that (1) allocates the cost of inspections for any of these systems/components and (2) requires the seller, if they have agreed to do so, to deliver any report or other identified document to the buyer and complete any of the work they have agreed to perform on these systems/components. The second form (SWPI-Q) is a questionnaire that the seller fills out relating to the septic system, well, and propane tank. This form does not have any questions regarding property boundaries, presumably since there is a question in the SPQ on this topic (12A). 

buyers who have no experience with these types of systems/components should consider the pros and cons of purchasing a property with these features. Buyers are encouraged to learn, among other things, (1) whether the septic system is a conventional one or an engineered one, (2) how these features function, (3) what issues they may encounter in the future regarding them, (4) costs that may be associated with a home serviced by these systems, and (5) any history/documentation that exists regarding them. Literature that discusses septic systems and wells is available at, among others, the following sites: https://www.epa.gov/septic/new-homebuyers-brochure-and-guide-septic-systems and (for groundwater and wells) http://water.ca.gov/groundwater/wells/. The first two websites are identified in ¶¶ 1 and 2 of the SWPI-C addendum. Please note that when we attempted to open the second link provided by C.A.R., an alert came up indicating that the page had changed. We were able to locate another page from this second site, https://water.ca.gov/Water-Basics, and a publication issued by the California State Water Resources Control Board as of June 2025, entitled “A Guide For Private Domestic Well Owners” (https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/gama/docs/wellowner_guide.pdf), which provides an introductory discussion regarding domestic wells. 

Please note that there is no reference in the SWPI-Q to these sites or any other source for additional information regarding these systems/components. Paragraph 1 of the SWPI-Q concludes with a statement that sellers or buyers seeking legal advice should consult with a qualified California real estate attorney. While there are certainly potential legal issues that may arise from the existence of these systems (for example, agreements relating to the shared use of these systems/components) we would like to remind sellers and buyers that advice from qualified licensed professionals experienced with the uses and maintenance of these systems/components is important, especially for a buyer with no prior experience with them. There are a range of professionals who may or may not be qualified to conduct inspections, complete repairs, and/or install new systems. Septic engineers, as distinguished from installers and/or pumpers, are available to conduct inspections. In some counties, these engineers previously worked in the environmental health department, and that may provide local knowledge on the issues, such as, whether the existing septic system is large enough for the buyer’s intended uses and/or whether the septic system can be expanded for a proposed remodel of the property. With regard to wells, consultants can range from well drillers to hydrogeologists, and buyers need these professionals to advise them on both the output of the well and the quality of the water, taking into account existing and future uses. 

buyers should also consider having a qualified professional contact the local jurisdiction to learn, among other things, any history regarding these systems/components, whether any certifications/clearances are either a point-of-sale requirement or a requirement that may be triggered by pulling a permit for an addition, under what circumstances the septic system and/or well can be repaired vs. having to be replaced, etc. Each local jurisdiction that regulates these systems/components has its own regulatory system, and the regulations will vary. Buyers should recognize that they are often regulated by the environmental health department of the local jurisdiction as well as state and federal regulations. 

This article provides just some of our preliminary observations regarding these two new forms. The forms should assist sellers in making their disclosures and providing buyers with information and documentation that they can use to investigate and evaluate the systems/components. Questions of this nature already exist in the PRDS Supplemental seller’s Checklist and Well/Private Water System Checklist. The latter is a supplement to the SSC. 

Some Issues That buyers And sellers Should Consider With Respect To The Two New Forms

  • Neither of these forms contains a definition of the term “septic system” or “well.” A definition would likely assist a seller in properly responding to questions regarding these systems/components as well as a buyer in investigating/evaluating them. C.A.R.’s Statewide buyers And sellers Advisory (SBSA) contains a definition of a septic system in ¶ A(8). In addition, an explanation of the component parts of a septic system and well/wastewater system can be found in the literature published by the State of California, which is identified in ¶¶ 1 and 2 of the SWPI-C. Paragraph A(8) defines a septic system as potentially consisting of a “septic tank, cesspool, pits, leach lines, or a combination of such mechanisms.” The state literature also references, for a conventional septic system, distribution boxes, drain fields, etc. Other terminology may include leach fields, valves, and drainage pipes. Paragraph A(12) of the SBSA, which discusses wells and water systems, does not provide any definition of those terms. A definition that sellers and buyers might want to consider when using these new forms is that the term “well” includes the well, well water, pump, casing, meters, filtration system, storage tank, pressure tank, and electric or plumbing lines.
  • The SWPI-Q (¶ 2) instructs the seller that they are to explain any “yes” answer and “attach additional comments and documents.” This instruction is not highlighted or emphasized in any way. There are several specific questions (3L, 5A(1)(E)) that instruct the seller to provide any documents that are in their possession. However, there are a number of other questions in the form that may best be responded to by providing reports, documents, agreements, etc., Sadly, several of the questions do not specifically remind the seller to produce those documents if they are in their possession. We would prefer to have the explanation section contain a note, similar to that in ¶ 5 of the SPQ, that tells sellers to produce any reports or other documents in their possession. We recognize that this instruction is included in ¶ 2 of the SWPI-Q, but we are concerned that the seller may not see and/or appreciate that instruction. 
  • Documents that buyers are to be provided, pursuant to the SWPI-Q, should be identified and provided pursuant to ¶ 5 of the C.A.R. Seller Property Questionnaire (SPQ). Hopefully, in the next revision, C.A.R. will include a cross-reference in the SWPI-Q and/or the SWPI-C to the SPQ. 
  • Buyers and sellers should consider whether any report, agreement, and/or document can be used or has been identified as a “Substituted Disclosure” under Section 1 of the Transfer Disclosure Statement (TDS). 
  • Buyers should be encouraged to compare any information that is provided in the SWPI-Q with the information that the seller provides (if any) in response to questions 2A and 2B of the TDS. These questions refer to the septic and well systems and components. For example, question 3B asks for information on work, modifications, and/or repairs to the septic system, and question 4F asks whether the pump on the well is “working.” Question 2A of the TDS asks the seller to identify whether any of the systems/components that are identified are “not in operating condition.” Question 2B asks the seller to identify “any significant defects/malfunctions” in any such system that is identified. No definitions are provided for any of these terms. Some people consider those terms to mean that the system/component is functioning for its intended purpose. The issue for the buyer to ask about is, to what degree is it functioning or what is the standard test? Some people interpret question 2B in the TDS to include historical information regarding significant defects/malfunctions and any work that has been done to them. These are some issues for sellers to consider when filling out these two forms. 
  • C.A.R.’s June 2026 revised SPQ now contains a new question (8C), which asks the seller to identify whether there is a septic system, well, or propane tank on the property and, if so, provide the SWPI-Q. Buyers need to make sure that if the seller has identified that a any of these systems/components exist, then the seller must fully complete and provide the buyer the new SWPI-Q, and, if needed, the parties should reach an agreement regarding inspections and costs.
  • Paragraph 3A states that if there are multiple septic systems on the property, the seller is to fill out a separate SWPI-Q for each such system and identify which septic system is referred to in the remaining questions. No such requirement is stated in ¶ 4 regarding wells. If there is more than one well servicing the property, a separate response as to each well may be appropriate. The parties should also consider whether any well servicing the subject property is located on an adjoining property (see SWPI-Q ¶ 4A) and whether the well is providing domestic water or water for landscaping/agricultural purposes only (SWPI-Q ¶ 4P refers to agricultural purposes but not landscaping). 
  • Please recognize that the questions on the SWPI-Q are in the disjunctive or include multiple subjects separated by slashes or parentheticals. This means that there are effectively multiple sub-questions within such a question, which may make it difficult for sellers to properly respond and for buyers to learn important information about the property. There is a catch-all question at the end of each section asking the seller if there are any other “material facts” (a term that is not defined in the form) related to the septic system (3O), the well (4V), and the propane tank (5G). 
  • C.A.R.’s purchase agreement (RPA) has been revised to include a reference to these two new forms in ¶ 3Q(16), which contains a box to be checked if there is a septic system, well, propane tank, and/or property boundary cost allocation issue, and then there is a reference to the SWPI-C. Paragraph 11O has been added to the RPA, which now requires the seller, within the time specified in ¶ 3N(1), to deliver the SWPI-Q to the buyer. This is a mandatory requirement, although the RPA does allow for the parties to agree to another comparable form. One comment about the language of ¶ 11O – it refers to a SWPI-Q being provided “for properties with any septic tank system(s), or well(s), or propane tank(s).” The term “properties” is not capitalized and therefore may not refer solely to the subject property as defined in ¶ 1B. What is important for the parties to recognize is that if there are any systems/components that are on an adjoining property (or elsewhere) but service the subject property, the information provided by sellers in the questionnaire needs to include/cover those off-site systems/components. Buyers should investigate any off-site systems/components. 
  • The SWPI-C establishes which parties are to pay for the various inspections and repairs but only if the boxes are checked identifying not only the activity to be undertaken but also who will be paying. Please note that if a box is not checked, there is either no designation of that activity or allocation of cost related thereto. Buyers should be aware of the potential costs of any such activity, especially if the seller has not provided any current reports or other documentation regarding that activity or the condition of the septic system and/or well. Buyers should also be aware that there is no separate investigation contingency in the RPA for these issues. Unless otherwise agreed in writing, any investigation falls under the general investigation contingency. This may be important under several circumstances. 
      • First, once the buyer has waived their investigation contingency, unless there is some other written agreement between the parties, the costs of investigating any of these issues and the risks associated with them is assumed by the buyer in the absence of some other contractual, statutory, and/or common-law obligation on the part of the seller. 
      • Second, while the seller is to deliver reports and other documentation as specified in the SWPI-C, buyers need to remember that pursuant to ¶ 14.B.3 of the C.A.R. RPA, when delivery of any required document occurs after a contractual contingency pertaining to that document has been waived or removed, then “late” delivery of the document does not revive the contingency. 
      • Third, for septic systems, if certification/clearance has either been agreed to between the parties or is required by local jurisdiction, the default language of the SWPI-C is that if there are “additional costs” that are needed to achieve this certification/clearance, further written agreement between the parties is required if the parties do not otherwise reach an agreement prior to removing the investigation contingency. If no such agreement is reached, then either party may cancel the agreement. Similar language exists with respect to the well. However, that language does not appear to be limited to work necessary to bring the well into compliance (as with the septic system) with applicable law. Rather, the language provides that if “additional costs” are needed to “repair the well or otherwise bring it into compliance,” the parties need to reach an agreement before removing the investigation contingency. If no such agreement is reached, either party can cancel. From our perspective, this language appears to be broader and arguably could extend to any repairs that are identified in any report or required by a local agency and is not just limited to repairs associated with bringing the well into compliance with applicable law. 
  • An agreement allocating costs of not only inspections but also work or repairs assumes that the parties have an informed understanding of those costs and repairs at the time that the SWPI-C is signed. This may explain the use of the phrase “additional costs” in Sections 1 and 2 of the SWPI-C discussed in the preceding bullet point. Even if existing reports and cost estimates exist, the parties may want to consider placing caps and/or limits on those costs in the event that unanticipated conditions exist that will result in more extensive costs. We have dealt with several transactions where there are abandoned septic tanks and systems. The costs related to repairing, relocating, and/or removing them, as well as costs involved in connecting to a public sewer system if the septic system fails and cannot be repaired and/or the local jurisdiction requires that connection, can be significant. We recommend that the parties agree on caps and/or limits on inspection and/or repair costs when no reports and/or repair estimates exist. Without a cap or limit, the buyer or seller is leaving themselves open to potentially significant and unanticipated costs, particularly if a replacement system is one that needs to be engineered because of soil conditions, high water table, lot size, etc.
  • Consider the relationship of the boxes that are checked in ¶ 3Q(5) and (6) regarding government-required point-of-sale inspections and reports and corrective/remedial actions and the cost allocation that is selected in the SWPI-C on these potential subjects. Are the cost allocations consistent? If not, which one controls? What are the implications of the answers to these two questions in relationship to the issues we’ve identified with respect to investigating these conditions and removing contingencies? 
  • There are a number of issues for the parties to consider in the disclosures made and/or received with respect to these systems/components. For example, buyers should understand that there are not only issues relating to the capacity and/or output of a well (including how that is tested) but also regarding water potability and quality. Section 2 of the SWPI-Q has three separate categories for productivity, bacteria, and chemical/radiological testing. Buyers should also understand the scope of any bacterial and/or chemical/radiological testing.

Please note that this article does not discuss the sections of the SWPI-C relating to propane tanks or property monuments, nor has it discussed the section in the SWPI-Q relating to propane tanks. Buyers and sellers should familiarize themselves with all issues relating to all of these systems/components.

The foregoing is a general discussion of C.A.R.’s two new forms and some of the issues relating to the investigation/evaluation of septic system and wells servicing a property. This article is intended to assist buyers and sellers in dealing with the identified issues; it is not intended as a warning that the forms should be dumped. On the contrary, we believe that C.A.R. can easily remedy the noted problems in these forms to better help everyone in a real estate transaction that has a septic, well, propane or boundary issue.