DRAINAGE DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS. d 
with the conditions surrounding each case, but, in general, they will 
include (1) the need of drainage or wetness of the land, (2) the 
amount of drainage or protection furnished, (3) increased healthful- 
ness. (4) increased accessibility, (5) the use which is being made of 
the property. The courts have generally held that the best measure 
of the benefit is the increased value of the property. 
The field investigations which form the basis of this bulletin 
showed a very evident lack of appreciation of the principles of assess- 
ments on the part of lawmakers, engineers, and assessors. Three 
general methods of determining assessments are in use. The first is 
called the percentage method, the second the classification method, 
and the third the "actual value of the benefits " method. 
The percentage method is not required by the statutes of any State, 
but is extensively used in Iowa and in some other Middle Western 
States. According to this method, each factor that affects the 
physical conditions surrounding a tract and its drainage is given a 
separate value in percentage and from these combined percentages 
the relative benefit is finally determined. The equity of assessments 
made by this method depends wholly upon the correctness of the 
values assigned to the various factors and on the accuracy of the 
assumed effect of the several factors upon the resulting benefit. The 
field investigations showed that these values are arbitrarily assigned, 
being without foundation in fact, and that the same values are used, 
almost without exception, over wide areas and under widely different 
conditions. 
The percentage method is complicated, so much so that it is con- 
fusing to both assessors and landowners. The assessors can have but 
a vague idea of the money significance of their acts. It does not give 
the landowner complete information as to the amount of his assess- 
ment until it is too late for him to object to his assessment. It never 
does give him an estimate of the benefits he may reasonably expect, 
and so deprives him of that full knowledge of the costs and benefits 
of the proposed improvement to which he is entitled. The investiga- 
tion failed to develop any features in the percentage method that can 
be commended. Judging from the number of appeals from assess- 
ments which have been carried to the higher courts in States using 
this method (although it is admitted that this kind of comparison is 
not entirely accurate), assessments so determined have not given as 
much satisfaction as have the methods in use in other States. 
The classification method is prescribed by statute in North Caro- 
lina and in several Southern States which have followed North 
Carolina^ general drainage law. These statutes provide that the 
lands shall be divided for assessment into five classes, and that the 
ratio of assessments between the five classes shall be 5, 4. 3, 2, and 1. 
It is a very difficult matter to make equitable assessments by this 
method, as it is almost, if not entirely, impossible to divide the 
lands of any district into five classes so that the benefit between the 
classes shall be in the ratio fixed by law. This method is far too 
inflexible to allow the fixing of equitable assessments. Furthermore 
it is confusing to the viewers and gives the landowner no definite 
information as to the amount of his assessment and no information 
whatever as to his probable benefits. 
The third method, which estimates the actual value of the benefits 
conferred and apportions the assessments accordingly, is required to 
