## Facts

- Sugar Creek flowed through agricultural land in Missouri owned in alternating stretches by Albert and Darrell Ripka (plaintiffs) and Lawrence and John Wansing (defendants), with the Wansings’ land situated between the Ripkas’ two tracts.
- The Ripkas operated a cattle business on their tracts and relied on Sugar Creek as a water source for their livestock.
- The Wansings farmed crops (including corn and hay/alfalfa) on their tracts and installed irrigation equipment drawing from Sugar Creek.
- When rainfall was insufficient, the Wansings pumped water from the creek to irrigate their crops for one to three hours, twice per day, using equipment calculated to pump about 280 gallons per minute.
- The Ripkas sued to enjoin the pumping, alleging it had caused (or would cause) the creek’s water level on their land to drop by at least one-third (about ten inches), potentially drying the creek and injuring their cattle operation.
- The Wansings and other witnesses testified the pumping had no noticeable effect on the flow across the Ripkas’ land, and that sufficient water for cattle remained available at least in pools.
- At trial, the Ripkas did not present evidence that their cattle business had been damaged.
- The trial court denied injunctive relief on the ground that the Ripkas had not shown specific injury, and the Ripkas appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by admitting evidence that the Ripkas’ cattle operation suffered no actual losses, where the Ripkas argued the controlling question was unreasonable interference with riparian rights rather than proof of economic damage.
2. Whether the trial court committed reversible error by admitting testimony about statements allegedly made by Albert Ripka during claimed settlement discussions.
3. Whether the trial court erred in denying an injunction by applying the wrong standard, or by finding the Wansings’ irrigation pumping did not unreasonably interfere with the Ripkas’ riparian rights through a substantial reduction of the creek’s natural flow.

## Decision

- The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment denying the injunction.
- Evidence that the Ripkas had not suffered actual damage to their cattle operation was admissible because it bore on whether the Wansings’ pumping materially interfered with the Ripkas’ use of the creek and whether equitable relief was warranted.
- The challenged settlement-related testimony did not require reversal (either because it was not inadmissible compromise evidence on this record or because any error was not prejudicial).
- On the merits, the Ripkas did not meet their burden to show that the Wansings’ pumping caused a substantial diminution of flow or material injury to the Ripkas’ reasonable use of Sugar Creek; the evidence supported the finding that enough water remained for cattle at least in pools and that any effect on flow across the Ripkas’ land was not shown to be substantial.

## Legal Principles

- Missouri riparian rights follow a correlative reasonable-use approach: each riparian owner may make beneficial use of stream water, including irrigation, so long as the use does not unreasonably interfere with other riparian owners’ reasonable use.
- A plaintiff seeking an injunction in a riparian dispute must prove more than speculation about possible harm; the plaintiff must show a substantial interference with rights—commonly reflected in a substantial reduction of natural flow that materially affects the plaintiff’s use.
- In deciding whether an alleged interference is unreasonable and whether equitable relief should issue, the court may consider evidence of actual injury (or the absence of injury) to the complaining riparian owner’s use or business.
- Evidence concerning settlement negotiations is generally inadmissible to prove liability, but admission will not justify reversal absent prejudice affecting the outcome.
- Appellate review respects the trial court’s resolution of conflicts in testimony and credibility assessments, particularly where the decision turns on disputed facts about stream conditions and the effects of pumping.

## Conclusion

Ripka v. Wansing affirmed denial of an injunction against downstream irrigation pumping from Sugar Creek because the upstream cattle owners failed to prove that the pumping substantially reduced the creek’s natural flow across their land or caused material, specific injury warranting equitable relief, and the trial court properly considered evidence that sufficient water remained available for the cattle.


Ripka v. Wansing, 589 S.W.2d 333 (1979)