DRAINAGE DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS. 11 
at large in the improving of the highways by the drainage of adja- 
cent lands is sufficient to establish the necessary public interest in the 
improvement, and Cooley on Taxation, chapter 20. third edition, 
says : 
But where any considerable tract of land, owned by different persons, is in 
a condition precluding cultivation, by reason otf excessive moisture which drains 
would relieve, it may well be said that the public have such an interest in the 
improvement and the consequent advancement of the general interest of the 
locality as will justify the levy of assessments upon the owners for drainage 
purposes. 
Speaking of the power to condemn and thus take property without 
the consent of the owner for the purpose of reclaiming lands by a 
system of drainage and making assessments for that purpose the 
United States Supreme Court in Fallbrook Irrigation District v. 
Bradley, 164 U. S. 163; 17 Sup. Ct. 56, says: 
The power does not rest simply upon the ground that the reclamation must 
be necessary for the public health. That, indeed, is one ground for interposi- 
tion by the State, but not the only one. Statutes authorizing drainage of 
swamp lands have frequently been upheld independently of any effect upon 
the public health, as reasonable regulations for the general advantage of those 
who are treated for this purpose as owners of a common property. If it be 
essential or material for the prosperity of the community, and if the improve- 
ment be one in which all landowners have, to a certain extent, a common 
interest, and the improvement can not be accomplished without the concurrence 
of all or nearly all of such owners by reason of the peculiar natural condition 
of the tract sought to be reclaimed, then such reclamation may be made and 
the land rendered useful to all and at their joint expense. 
SPECIAL BENEFITS. 
Many special benefits may accrue from drainage improvements. 
Just what they will be depends on the circumstances in each case, 
3'et they all have certain characteristics and limitations. 
In the first place, it must be certain that special benefits will ac- 
crue. It is not enough that special benefits may develop. Xo 
benefits should be considered that can not be reasonably expected or 
that can not be defended in court by credible evidence. 
A special benefit need not be direct ; it may be indirect or collateral, 
and it need not be immediate, for a future benefit which will develop 
within a reasonable time may be considered. 
Only special benefits due primarily to the improvement can be 
entertained. In practice, however, it is a common thing to find this 
principle violated. These failures are usually the result of neglect 
on the part of the assessors to give the landowner due credit for 
natural or artificial advantages which pertain to and are a part of 
his property. If a piece of land is high and well drained the owner 
can not be forced to pay for drainage work unless it gives him some 
benefit other than drainage or relieves him of a burden, for good 
drainage is one of the advantages which was paid for when the land 
was purchased. Likewise, if such advantage has been secured artifi- 
cially by the construction of ditches or drains, full credit must be 
given the owner for the benefit derived from such works. This 
benefit is not the cost of such work, but the capitalized annual profit 
resulting from it. An interesting case is Drainage District No. 1, 
Pawnee Co.. v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R. Co.. 146 \. W. 
1055. The defendant railroad, for the protection of its property. 
