Morgan County Democrat. (McConnelsville, Ohio) 1886-1943, 1939-04-20
SUIT TO RESTRAIN FLOOD
TAX ASSESSMENTS

ty treasurer, w. ". Llttlch, 4. y
Haley and Newton Mansfield; as al a..
ancv District, in which plaintiff
asks that the county auditor an.s
treasurer be restrained from col
lecting flood assessment levy of the
Muskingum Watershed Conserv
ancy district.
Because of the wide spread inter
est in the matter we publish mucf
of the petition as filed by Attorney
A. b. Mercer, as follows:
that he brings this action on behalf
of himself, and many others, who
have a common interest with plain
tiff herein and could rightfully be
Joined with plaintiff herein. anc
are similarly situated with him IL
the subject of the action.
Plaintiff says that on the 22nd
day of June, 1898, the board OF di-
rectors of said district passed res
cIution to provide for levy or AS
sessment upon the taxable property
OF said district, and certified said
levy to the auditor Of Morgan coun-
ty: that said levy was made upon
the property Of this plaintiff and
upon the property of other taxpayers
in said county and district; thai
said assessment was leyies upon the
the property SO levied upon; that
said benefit was deemed to have
been conferred upon said property
when the flood control and flood
prevention program of the district
was completed.
Plaintiff AYERS that assessment by
said board is illegal, because no
conferred Plaintiff says that said
district was created for the purpose
of providing flood control and flood
prevention in the Muskingum Wa
tershed Conservancy district. And
that in November, 1884, an official
plan was adopted by said district
which was designed to give complete
flood protection and flood control
throughout the Muskingum river
has not been executed or completed
and that said flood control and
food prevention project is not now
in operation and cannot now be
placed in operation due to the fact
that said district has not acquired
lands or easements and does not
own said lands or easements behind
the dams necessary for the opera
tion of said plan of flood control,
and has no lawful right in the event
of floods to close the gates of said
dams or give protection to the prop
erty upon which assessments for
benefits have been levied. Plaintiff
further AYERS that said district to
give flood protection and to benefit
the assessed must acquire lands and
easements of the estimated value OF
$1,500,000.
Plaintiff also says that levy of as
sessments is illegal because said
levy is for the payment of a portion
only of the improvements con-
templated in the official plan of the
project since the levy does not pro-
vide for the acquisition of lands and
easements necessary to the actual
ect and plan, and the failure of said
district to acquire said lands and
easements, renders the plan and
project incomplete, and plaintiff and
other taxpayers similarly situated
are being levied upon to pay por-
tion only of said Improvement with
out receiving the benefit of food
control or food prevention.
Plaintiff charges that the levy Is
illegal for the reason that there
have been material changes in the
official plan since it's commence
ment; that a fewer number of dams,
POOLS and reservoirs have been con-
structed than is provided in the OF
fetal plan: that the cost OF the in
estimated and authorized costs OF
the entire project; that new and
additional projects have been III
Guided in the actual construction
undertaken which were not included
III the original plan and in conse-
quence the burden to the taxpayer
of the district has been increased
over that contemplated and pfovid-
ed for in the original plans and
project.
Plaintiff says that levy is illegal
because it is unjust, unreasonable
grossly in excess of the benefits con-
ferred, and greatly in excess of the
requirement Of the district for 1899,
and it constitutes an abuse OF dis
cretion by the board of directors OF
said district Plaintiff AYERS that
the said levy for 1888 is estimated
by said board to produce the sum
OF 9,244 03: that said board ac-
tually requires for bonds and main
tenance and all other obligations OF
the district not more than $IO0,-
coo, and that a levy of not more
than $4,000 can lawfully be made
by said board by virtue Of the Gen
eral Code; that on March 21. 1889,
said board passed a resolution
stating that the levy could be re-
duced so percent and that all the
requirements Of the district could
be met if the levy were reduced SO
percent. Plaintiff AYERS that said
assessment is illegal because the
benefit appraisement exceeds 33 ID
of the actual value of plaintiffs
property, and plaintiff AYERS that
the said benefit assessment as ap-
praised and assessed and the levy
as made by the board Of directors OF
said district is confiscatory and con
stitutes the taking of his property
without due process of law by rea-
son of the fact that said levy is more
than three times the amount re-
quired for bonds and maintenance
OF said district for 1899.
Plaintiff says that he will suffer
damage by reason of said assess
ment and that he has no adequate
remedy at law Wherefor he prays
that a temporary restraining order
be issued restraining the county
auditor said l.. G.. Roberts as treas
urer from collecting said assessment
levy of the Muskingum Watershed
Conservancy District, or any por-
quirements of said district for 1889.
and that upon a final hearing said
order may be made perpetual.
Judge Riecker Grants Restraining
Order
At a hearing Saturday morning,
before Judge c. NJ Riecker, the
court granted a temporary order
restraining the county treasurer
from collecting said assessments;
said restraining order to be in eff
feet until August 15, 1889, or until
a further hearing be had upon the
merits of said cause.
TOM McGOVERN IN ACCIDENT
Tom McGovern, of Cincinnati,