DRAINAGE DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS. 13 
the rnaim?r of improvement, the protection furnished, or the source 
of the surplus waters, the increased production made possible by 
drainage works is usually the largest item of benefit received from 
drainage of agricultural lands. Of course, in computing the amount 
of such benefits, due consideration must be given to all of the natural 
and artificial advantages or disadvantages affecting the lands. 
The courts have not defined all of the ways in vrhich land may 
be made better for agriculture by drainage, because such benefits 
vary with the conditions in each case, but there are decisions which 
point out some benefits. The Iowa Supreme Court in Schropfer v. 
Hamilton County. 125 X. TV. 992, said, in effect (following the syl- 
labus of the case) : 
That it would be necessary to lay more drains to render lands tillable, did 
not exempt the landowner from paying for the benefit arising from the drains 
laid : it not appearing that his assessments were proportionately higher than 
those of other landowners. 
The same court in Christianson v. Hamilton County. 16 s X. W, 
114 held, in effect: 
Where a tile drain passed over the land of a party assessed for the cost 
and so furnished an outlet for lateral tile which was more accessible than it 
would have been had it not touched the premises, the drain was of some value 
thereto, though the blue clay covering the tile was impervious to water. 
The same court in Munn v. Board of Supervisors, 161 Iowa 34, 
said in part : 
The only direct benefit to plaintiff's 40 acres is that the construction of this 
drain would furnish a tile outlet instead of the swale or ditch into which it 
now empties. This is of some advantage, depending somewhat on the lay of 
the land, the character of the soil, the size and grade of the main drain, 
and the amount of water coming into it from above. If an adequate drain, 
no argument is required to show that it will carry the water from the lateral 
more efficiently than would a ditch or swale. Moreover, the seepage back into 
plaintiff's land, of the water emptied at the boundary, which is unavoidable 
when a tile drain runs into a ditch or swale, is entirely obviated by discharging 
into an adequate tile drain. Besides this, there is a benefit in having the 
adjoining lowlands reclaimed and thereby avoiding the natural seepage or. 
water therefrom * * * Another possible incidental benefit is the furnish- 
ing to the owner of the land to the west an outlet through which he can, by 
laying lateral drains, drain his lands so that the water therefrom will not 
overflow on plaintiff's lands. Such benefit is somewhat remote, but if appre- 
ciable is to be considered in ascertaining the benefits derivable from the estab- 
lishment of the system. 
The benefit to the health of the owner and his family is a special 
benefit, although it may differ only in degree from the health benefit 
enjoyed by the public at large. The Georgia Supreme Court in 
Crump v. Knox.. 69 S. E. 586, said: 
It is not necessary that the land to be benefited shall itself be wet or swampy 
land, or subject to overflow ; it need only be benefited to some degree by the 
construction of the proposed ditch or ditches. * * * Nor was there any 
error in submitting to the jury the question of the benefit to health which might 
result from the execution of the drainage plan as affecting lands in "(Mass 
E." as the purpose of the drainage law, as stated in the caption of the act, 
is "to promote the public health, convenience, and welfare." 
Referring again to Culbertson v. Knight 152 Ind., 121, 52 X. E. 
700, we" read: 
Public health, public convenience, and public utility are fundamental con- 
siderations; and these, with all other subjects that affect the value of land, 
must be counted upon by the viewers in determining the question of benefit s . 
