DRAINAGE DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS. 21 
the property ; what the property is now fairly worth in the market, and what 
will be its value when the improvement is made. 
In Riverdale Reclamation District No. 805. v. Shimmin et al., 
141 Pac. 1070, the court quotes with approval the rule contended 
for tty the appellants, as follows : 
Undoubtedly the simplest, fairest, and most just rule and one which con- 
forms to the underlying theory of local assessments is that the existence and 
amount of special benefits is to be determined by the effect of the improvement 
upon the market value of the property which it is claimed is benefited by such 
improvement. If the construction of such improvement increases the market 
value of such property, such property receives a benefit, and the amount of such 
benefit is measured by the amount of such increase. 
The court said further : 
Of course the consideration of market value is a matter largely of opinion, 
as is the question of benefits ; but it is impossible to determine the latter apart 
from the former, and no better test can be suggested or applied to the problem 
than the increased price that the land would probably bring in the market 
after the improvement is completed. Indeed, bearing in mind the fact that 
the benefit to the land is to be estimated by a pecuniary standard, it seems 
hard to conceive how any conclusion could be reached, without considering 
the probable increase in the market value. The proper course is manifestly 
as we have suggested ; the commissioners applying their own knowledge of 
values, and supplementing this, if necessary, by information obtained from 
others. Substantially this course should be adopted, although there may be 
no conscious recognition of each definite step in the process. 
This principle holds equally well in irrigated drainage districts 
with respect to lands in need of actual reclamation and also covers 
the factor of responsibility, since responsibility is an element of 
predrainage value and relief from such responsibility is an element 
of the increased value due to drainage. 
In the case of lands requiring protection only, the measure of the 
benefit is the amount of loss prevented by the drainage. 
THE RELATION BETWEEN BENEFITS AND ASSESSMENTS. 
Almost all of the State drainage laws provide that the assess- 
ments shall be proportional to the benefits ; that is to say, the assess- 
ment on each tract of land shall bear the same ratio to the individual 
benefits as the total cost bears to the total benefits. As a general thing 
the State drainage laws provide that no improvement may be made 
unless the prospective benefits exceed the costs. Likewise, individual 
benefits must exceed individual assessments, for the courts generally 
agree that every assessment which exceeds in amount the value of 
the benefits, actual or potential, is void to the extent of such excess. 
The United States Supreme Court in Norwood v. Baker, 172 IT. S. 
269, has held that assessment in substantial excess of the special bene- 
fits is a taking of private property for public use without compensa- 
tion. 
METHODS OF APPORTIONMENT. 
Practice with regard to methods of apportionment diverges into 
two distinct lines. In one group of States the method is to evaluate 
the benefits received by the several tracts in dollars and cents and ap- 
portion costs according to the respective benefits. The practice in the 
second group does not determine directly the value of the individual 
or total benefits, but estimates the separate factors in percentages or 
