No. 4.] DRAINAGE PROJECTS. 107 



that little attention apparently was given to these constitu- 

 tional requirements, and therefore the laws were frequently 

 declared invalid. Through the many decisions rendered by 

 both the State and Federal courts the principles entering into 

 sound drainage legislation have become quite well defined, and 

 we now find statutes in many of the States which permit the 

 prosecution of drainage projects along sound economic lines. 

 Generally speaking five essential provisions enter into every 

 drainage law, viz.: 1, proper jurisdiction; 2, full notice and 

 ample hearing; 3, right of appeal; 4, assessment of costs 

 according to benefits conferred; 5, provision for sound admin- 

 istration, power of eminent domain and right to issue bonds. 

 It is not to be understood that the five essentials just enumer- 

 ated form the outline of a drainage law, though about them 

 center all the provisions which should be embodied in a law, 

 but they are so vitally important that a failure to give proper 

 consideration to any of them may result in the law being 

 unworkable, and even being declared invalid by the courts. 



By "proper jurisdiction" we mean the placing of the pro- 

 ceedings in connection with the organization of a drainage dis- 

 trict before a proper public official. In some States this juris- 

 diction is lodged in the board of county supervisors; in others 

 in the county court; and in still others in circuit courts. To 

 expedite organization care should be taken to lodge jurisdic- 

 tion in an official body or court which meets frequently'', so that 

 unnecessary delays may be avoided. 



"Full notice and ample hearing" must be given to everj^ one 

 whose lands will be affected by the construction of the improve- 

 ments. Great caution must be exercised in serving notice, so 

 that all legal requirements may be observed. Coupled with 

 full notice of what it is proposed to do and ample opportunity 

 for hearing before the ofiicial having jurisdiction must be the 

 "right of appeal" to a higher court as permitted by the State 

 Constitution. This does not mean that the right of appeal to 

 the highest tribunal in the State must always be granted, for 

 in many jurisdictions the Legislature has the right to say in 

 what court certain proceedings shall be final, and to avoid 

 endless litigation such a provision is highly desirable if not in 

 conflict with constitutional rights. The point to be observed 



