Rumpzka v. Zubke, 2017 SD 49

The Zubkes (dominant estate) altered drainage on their land by building a dam, excavating a pit with a pump, and installing drain tile, which redirected additional water through an established watercourse onto the Rumpzas’ and Zubke Brothers LLC’s (servient estates) properties.
Historically drainage was seasonal: wet in spring and then dried, allowing farming across the watercourse; after modifications the course remained wet and areas became unfarmable.
Plaintiffs (Rumpzas and Brothers) sued for an injunction and damages, alleging the modifications increased the amount and changed the timing of flow, causing crop losses.
The circuit court enjoined operation of the pump and ordered removal of certain tile, and awarded damages: $12,465 to the Rumpzas and $16,173 to Brothers.
On appeal the Zubkes challenged (1) the issuance of the injunction and (2) sufficiency of evidence supporting the damages awards.
The Supreme Court affirmed the injunction and Brothers’ damages but reversed the Rumpzas’ damages award for lack of adequate proof of proper deduction of production costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether injunction was proper (did defendants unlawfully alter natural/established drainage?)	Zubke Brothers and Rumpzas: Zubkes’ changes increased and prolonged drainage onto servient land, rendering land untillable; injunction needed.	Zubkes: Modifications merely restored drainage over an obstructing silt high point on servient land; they were preserving their drainage rights; injunction would cause disproportionate hardship.	Court affirmed injunction: Zubkes’ system altered amount and timing of flow in an unnatural way; changes were willful and caused injury, so injunction not an abuse of discretion.
Whether damages awards were supported by sufficient evidence	Plaintiffs: Testimony and farmer calculations establish crop losses for 2013–2015.	Zubkes: Plaintiffs failed to prove damages with reasonable certainty or subtract appropriate production costs.	Mixed: Brothers’ testimony sufficed to support award; Rumpzas’ testimony lacked evidence they deducted necessary production costs—Rumpzas’ damages reversed.

Winterton v. Elverson, 389 N.W.2d 633 (S.D. 1986) (dominant owner may not alter drainage so surface water accumulates on lower land in an unusual/unnatural way causing untillable conditions)
Magner v. Brinkman, 883 N.W.2d 74 (S.D. 2016) (standard for injunction review and discussion of causation for drainage injury)
Feistner v. Swenson, 368 N.W.2d 621 (S.D. 1985) (dominant owner cannot gather surface water and cast it onto servient land such that it affects it differently than natural flow)
Hendrickson v. Wagners, Inc., 598 N.W.2d 507 (S.D. 1999) (statutory codification mirrors common-law drainage rules)
Foley v. City of Yankton, 230 N.W.2d 476 (S.D. 1975) (equity balancing not applied where defendant acted willfully with knowledge of consequences)
Swenson v. Chevron Chem. Co., 234 N.W.2d 38 (S.D. 1975) (damages need not be proven with absolute exactness; reasonable basis suffices)
Bruha v. Bochek, 74 N.W.2d 313 (S.D. 1955) (insufficient data to determine actual damage requires reversal)