The evening times. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1906-1914, 1906-01-11

subject of assessments careful consil-
are all that can be now offered, though
the subject is large one and merits
a full discussion by every drainage or
ganization. &.
There is a marked difference be-
tween drainage and other laws in the
method of taxation for raising funds
to defray the expense Of the improve.
ment. Ordinarily property is taxed
In proportion to It's assessed value,
that Is, the most valuable property
pays the highest tax. In assessment
for drainage work the reverse is true
The property having the lowest actual
value ts usually assessed the highest
on the ground that 1t will receive the
greatest benefit from the construction
of the work. The drainage law of this
state specifies that II the work petit
toned for be found conclusive to the
public health, convenience, or welfare
the petition may be- granted. When
the drainage project has been estab-
lished on these grounds the public
health, convenience, or welfare virtual.
ly disappear and it directed that the
work shall be paid for by special tax
assessed upon individual property In
proportion to the benefits 1t will re-
3ceive by reason of the execution of the
work petitioned for 1t does not re-
quire. legal mind to discover the IL
logical gap here exposed which the
courts have obligingly closed by rul-
ing that work Of this character, per-
formed by individuals for private gain
and paid for by a special tax, is con-
dusive to the public welfare. This
view of the casesis now so well estab-
ltshed that 1t not considered necessary
for legislatures to be empowered by
constitutional amendment to enact
drainage laws, though it is admitted
by jurists that these statutes would be
more logical and direct were this done.
An important question arising in
this connection is what constitute as
sessible benefits. Land is entitled to
such drainage as nature has provided
such as streams, bitches opened by ma
tural washing, the undulating surface
OF the land, and any natural under
drainage which It may posses. If such
water channels are made by straight
,ening without making better outlets,
the benefit is one of convenience In the
management of the land. II ditch
provides an outlet for tract of land
which under natural conditions has
none the land nearest the ditch should
be assessed the highest, the ratio, Of
such assessment to decrease as the
distance from the ditch Increases, pro-
.vided the general character and con
dition OF the land are the same. II
however, aicomplete outlet be provided
for the land farthest away from the
ditch, then the reverse is true ON the
'groundethat the land more distant from
the outlet :is prop0rtionately more ,ex-
fpensive to drain than the nearer land,
that e, It's natural drainage advantages
ARE less. 2 On the assumption that, all
OF the land affected by q system re-
iIquires equal drainage and that the pro-
posed system will affect all portions
equEilyy then every acre should bear
an equal shar6iof the cost of the Inn
provement. This condition prevails in
q levee district where the levee which
prOlecs the area and the interior
drainage OF the same affects all por-
tons OF the tract alike. but is not the
case In q ditch district where natural
DRAINAGE. advantages must be allowed
for and credited to each landowner,
In the case Of the main, of a stream
which receives the drainage OF a large
area Of comparatively high land which
itself is provided with natural chan
nels having their discharge into the i'm
proved STREAM, the question arises as
70 what assessments should be levied
upon the higher lands. The low lands
OF the valley and those which are bene-
ftted BY the improvement of the stream
either directly or by reason of outlet
rights are easily within the range Of
assessment. The higher outlying lands
which already have laterals provided
by nature Of sufficient depth and ca
pacity tolreceive the drainage of adjoin-
ing farms may be said to be independ-
ent OF the Improvement of the main
stream and In a legal sense be said
to receive no benefit from such Inn
provement. Another view Of the case
10 that artificial drainage Of the higher
farms K mobiles the natural flow from
the upper lands, increases It at times,
and renders the lower lands more SUBJ
Ject to injury than they otherwise
would be In q state of nature and
,hencs should be taxed in some degree
for the Improvement of the main
looks plausible the plan cannot be logi-
cally carried out. should q tax be i'm
posed 1t would not be for benefits re-
ceived, but because Of injury done to
the lands organized for drainage i'm
prOvement. II the principle were fol-
lowed out 1t would include upper lands
far remote which are obviously outside
the jurisdiction OF local drainage pro-
jects. As far as the writer is acduaint-
ed with the decisions of courts upon
this subject a benefit must be con-
ferred by reason of the construction
Of the work either by additional and
more complete outlet privileges, great
er convenience In operating the prop
erty, OF actual drainage provided.
y The question also arises, Are there
benefits other than the advantages af- 3
forded by providing additional facili-
,tiea-for relieving the land of water,
which are properly assessable. The re-
clamatiOn or partial improvement Of
land by drainage increases the value
q taxable property and this diminishes
the tar upon surrounding property and
thus adds value to adjoining
farm lands which are not directly az
fected BY the drainage work. In some
instances the healthfulness Of the re-
gfon Is improved ID short, there is e
general financial benefit conferred up-
on every property owner within the
limits OF a drainage district BY reason
OF the construction or every substan-
'tial1 drainage Improvement, May not
property receiving such bene1t be as
sessed In some degree? Judges of law
and the courts seem to think It can 4
not. The law makes the reason for
the blfshment OF the work rest up-;
on the fact of Its being conclusive to
the public health convenience, or well
fare, yet 6tiDulat0g that The navn1ant 4