I used to think having creek frontage was a major selling point — water on the property, riparian habitat, the whole picture. When I was helping a friend evaluate a 40-acre parcel in the eastern Ozarks a few years back, that frontage was the first thing we celebrated. Big mistake. We didn't walk upstream far enough. Turns out two properties up, someone was running a cattle operation directly into that drainage — no buffers, no setbacks, chronic bank erosion, and visible nutrient loading every rain event. The water on that parcel was functionally degraded and would stay that way regardless of what my friend did with her land. I've seen this pattern repeat. People assess what their land looks like in isolation, but riparian systems are connected by definition. What happens upstream defines what you're actually buying. Before you put any weight on creek frontage as a value factor, I'd argue you're obligated to walk or drive the watershed above you. Has anyone here walked away from a purchase specifically because of upstream land use problems?