12 BULLETIN 1207, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 
dug two ditches by which the channels of the Nemaha River and 
Linn Creek were straightened at points within the district subse-! 
quentlv organized by the plaintiffs. The plaintiff district inaugurated 1 
B general system of drainage, which consisted in straightening the 
channels of the two streams from points above to points below the 
ditches dug by defendants, thereby appropriating the same and mak- 
ing them a part of its general system of drainage. The following 
is quoted from the syllabus of the case just referred to: 
That defendant is entitled to set-off, against the special benefits which it 
has derived from the entire scheme of drainage, that portion of such benefits 
as was caused by the work which it had itself done in producing those benefits; 
and that the rule for determining th«> amount of such offset is the sum which it 
would have cost plaintiff to dig those portions of its general drainage ditches 
which the defendant had previously dug. 
It would seem that the rule here adopted by the court is not 
entirely correct, for the railroad company was entitled to offset 
against its benefits not the cost of the work which it did nor the 
cost of that work if dom> by the drainage district, but an amount 
equal to the benefit secured to its property by the work which it had 
done. The assessment levied by the district should have been based 
on benefits derived by the railroad company from the new construc- 
tion only. 
One tract of land may be able to secure complete drainage more 
readily and less expensively than another because of its loose, porous 
soil. Some land may require lateral drains placed close to each 
other, while other land with more porous soil will be equally well 
drained by laterals spaced farther apart. If complete drainage is 
to be provided by the district this soil property must b? taken into 
consideration except where the benefits are measured by the in- 
creased value of the land, as it concerns one of the natural properties 
pertaining to the land. 
Some statutes require that the fertility of the soil be taken into 
consideration on the assumption that it is of more benefit to drain 
rich land than poor. It seems, however, that the fertility of the 
soil is one of the advantages of the property for which the owner 
has already paid. 
The above are but a few instances of cases to be found in almost 
every district where the principles of special benefits are not fully 
realized. Their rightful determination is essential to the equity of 
any assessment. 
Elements of special benefits. — It has been held that — 
whatever will come to the land from the drain, to make it more valuable for 
tillage, or more desirable as a place of residence, or more valuable in the 
general market, should be reckoned as benefits. (Culbertson v. Knight, 52 
N. E. 700.) 
It is impossible to give a complete list of the elements of drainage 
benefit, as they depend on the circumstances in each particular case. 
The main element is that benefit which results from making the 
land more productive. This result may be accomplished by partial 
or by complete drainage, by protection from overflow, or by the 
provision of an outlet without actually draining the land. In some 
cases the benefit may result from the intercepting of seepage water 
from higher lands, flood channels, or irrigation ditches. Whatever 
