DRAINAGE DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS. 27 
Sou. 375. that the cost to be assessed is the total cost of the combined 
system, and the commissioners are not required to ascertain what 
ditches drain each particular tract and assess each tract with only 
the cost of such ditches. 
The following extract from Monson v. Board of Supervisors of 
Boone and Story Counties, et al.. 167 Iowa. 473. 149 X. W. 624, shows 
how the Supreme Court of Iowa views this question: 
Thar part of the main drain extending from the month to the '"junction" 
point was excavated to a considerable depth. It was 6 feet deeper than would 
have been necessary for the use of the greater part of the district. But there 
were certain lands quite remote from the main drain, the elevation of which 
was so low that they could not be successfully drained without giving this ex- 
traordinary depth to the main. Necessarily the greatest depth of the main is 
through the highest ground which has least need of it. 
The main drain in this case was 15 feet deep in some places. The trial 
court awarded some relief to the owners of lands in sections 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 
and 21, all of which were located near the main drain where there were no 
branches. The benefit of the main drain to these lands was that of outlet 
only. The elevation of these lands was such that they had no need of the 
extraordinary depth of the main drain. This fact was taken into consideration 
by the trial court in awarding relief. It is urged that this was not warranted 
by the statute. We think that this also was not necessarily inconsistent with 
the provisions of the statute. It does not follow, however, that, because the 
extraordinary depth was required for the drainage of particular lands of 
low elevation within the district, the extra cost of such extraordinary depth 
should all be borne by such lands. 
Various considerations enter here. The owners of the lands of lower eleva- 
tion were entitled to a scheme or plan which would give them some drainage 
before they could be charged at all with contribution toward the completed 
enterprise. But the fact remains that if their problem of drainage was clearly 
greater, and its solution through a public drain clearly involved extraordinary 
expense, not beneficial to the rest of the district, such fact could properly re- 
ceive consideration by the appraising board in arriving at an equitable ap- 
portionment. 
For instance, suppose the main drain had been constructed to a shallower 
depth, and that such depth was insufficient to furnish complete drainage to 
those areas of lowest elevation, but was sufficient for all other areas of the 
district. It is manifest that the lessened benefit accruing by such construction 
to such lands of low elevation would be a proper consideration in assessing 
benefits against the owners, and that it would tend to reduce such assessment. 
notwithstanding the classification of such lands as "low,'' "wet." or "swampy." 
It would snem to follow logically that, if the deepening of such main drain 
t<» an extraordinary depth would confer no benefit on certain lands of high 
elevation, such fact would likewise be a proper, though not a controlling, con- 
sideration in assessing benefits against such land of higher elevation notwith- 
standing the classification of such land as '"low," "wet," or ••swampy." 
The basic rules which should be followed in all cases are that the 
assessments must be proportional to the resulting benefits and the 
ratio of assessments to benefits must be the same throughout the dis- 
trict. The assessments are not to be based upon the cost of any part 
of the work but upon the benefits resulting from such work. Now, 
if the conditions on one branch or lateral drain are such that the 
cost per acre to the lands benefited is larger than on other branches, 
or. if part of the lands are so low that an extraordinarily deep ditch 
is required to drain them. or. if part of the lands in the district are 
cut off from the outlet by a rock ledge, thus requiring very expensive 
work for their sole benefit, the fact that it costs more to drain such 
lands than it does to drain others in the district is proof that such 
lands have smaller natural advantages with regard to drainage than 
other more fortunately situated lands. This being true, their an- 
