508 IOWA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



drain for the removal of a surface water may be the subject of a special as- 

 sessment." In section 23 of the act it is provided that the owner of any 

 land, lot or premises that have been assessed for the payment of the cost of 

 the construction of the drain, shall have the right to use the ditch, drain, 

 or water course as an outlet for the lateral drains from his land or premises. 

 It will often happen that a tract of land in a drainage district may have 

 ponds upon it, which, until laterals are constructed, will have no connec- 

 tion with the original drain or ditch, and it has been objected that such 

 land is in no manner connected with the original drain, and as in order to 

 get to the drain with the laterals, it may afterwards be necessary to cross 

 the land of others, the land so situated receives no direct benefit and can not 

 be assessed for benefits. It has been held, however, in Mason vs. City of 

 Chicago, 53 N. E. Rep., 354, that property not contiguous to the main- 

 sewer may be assessed for its construction if it is in the same drainage dis- 

 trict, and provision is made for the establishment of such sewer ultimately 

 as an outlet for sewerage of the property. In McKee Land and & Improve- 

 fne7it Co. vs. Swikard, 51 N. Y. Sup. , it is said, "A sewer assessment which 

 apportions upon the territory that has immediate need of the sewer and can 

 make use of it at once, a sum sufficient to pay for a sewer for its own 

 use, and upon more remote territory such a sum as would pay for the en- 

 largement of the sewer made necessary to meet its requirements, is fair and 

 conducive to equity of apportionment." 



Long after the establishment of a drainage district it will frequently hap. 

 pen that one owning land separated from the main drain by the land of 

 another, may desire to tile across the land of such other into the main drain 

 or ditch. The question then arises whether such tiling would be obnoxious 

 to the Constitution in taking private property for a private purpose. The 

 drainage district was established to promote a public purpose and every part 

 and parcel of the land within the district, on the establishment of the district, 

 came within the scope of that purpose; and it was within the contemplation 

 of the authorities establishing the district that all persons owning land within 

 the district should receive benefit therefrom, and to this end assessments 

 were made against such persons. In other words, future drainage of their 

 lands inhered in the public purpose to subserve which the district was estab- 

 lished. It is, therefore, provided in section 24 of the act as follows: ''If 

 any person who owns land within the drainage district which has been 

 assessed for benefits and which is separated from the ditch, drain or water 

 course for which it has been assessed, by the land of another or others, shall 

 desire to ditch or drain his said land across the land of such other or others 

 into such ditch, drain or water course and shall be unable to agree with such 

 other or others on the terms and conditions on which he may enter upon 

 their lands and construct such drain or ditch, he may proceed in the manner 

 in this section provided, and the ditch or drain which he shall construct, or 

 cause to be constructed, shall be considered to be conducive to the public 

 health, welfare, convenience and utility to promote which said drainage 

 district was established." 



I have confidence to believe that this section of the statute obviates the 

 objection urged on the ground of unconstitutionality of such drainage. 



After the amount to be assessed has been ascertained, the board proceeds 

 in either of two ways. It issues certificates similar to those issued in cases 



