The Oskaloosa herald., 1911-08-03
DRAINAGE CASE AGAIN
Another Hearing Before the Board
of Supervisors.

The drainage district No. 2, or more
Familiarity known as the Nelson
drainage ditch" case, came up before
the board of supervisors again Satur-
day morning. Time does not seem to
have mellowed the shell any, and the
nut seems to be about as hard to
crack as it was when the controversy
was first started in 1908.
AS will be remembered, H. B. Mel
son and others asked for the estab-
lishment of drainage ditch in west
Garfield and East Des Moines town
ships. Objections were raised at the
time, but the board finally accepted
the petition and established Drainage
District No. 2. The case was appeal
ed to the district court, and after two
hearings there, one before Judge
Clements and one before Judge Pres
ton, an appeal was made to the SUI
preme court. Judge Preston over-rul-
ed the action of the board and the SUI.
preme court sustained Judge Preston,
remanding the matter to the board.
1t seems that the civil engineer en-
ployed recommended that the ditch
should have an outlet to the Des
MOines river, or at least said he would
not recommend ditch that did not
extend to some natural water course.
The ditch established by the board
did not extend to the river, and it
was on this ground that the case was
reversed by the courts. The decision
of the supreme court was rendered
this spring, and at the June meeting
of the board of supervisors the petit
TONERS were allowed to amend their
original petition and the board order
ed that the engineer make a new sur
vey. The board then set the time for
hearing at the September meeting.
Later, however, the board agreed to
hear the case at the adjourned SEES.
sion of the June meeting, which was
reCOnvened on Thursday.
In the trial of the case now on, Lis.
ton McMillen is representing the orig.
inal petitioners, and he aske that the
board proceed on their first motion
and carry the matter over to the Sep
TENDER meeting, holding also that
the amended petition is valid, and
that the board has the right to estab-
fish the ditch as will be recommended
by the engineer. S. V. Reynolds is
representing the DIRECTORS, and holds
that the board can do nothing else
under the decision of the supreme
court, except dismiss the case, and if
drainage ditch is desired to have
it established under a new petition,
Other interested parties in the case
are represented by Jas. A. Dewitt and
Jno. o. Malcolm. Major Lacey APP.
pears for himself, as he is the owner
of some land in the district, and Cour-
ty Attorney Patterson is looking after
the cOunty's interests.
The district established originally
by the board includes about 700 acres
of land. Some of the directors find
fault with the ditch because it would
damage their property, but others be-
cause the ditch is not large enough
In scope. There is a general feeling
that If the petition covered from / 500
TO 1000 acres, much of the objection
now raised would be removed. Much
hinges on the decision of the present
case, as the costs are no small item
and neither side would relish being
responsible therefor Where bitches
are established and built the cost is
assessed up against abutting proper
ty owners.