28 BULLETIN 1207. r. S. DKJ'ART.MF.XT ()F AGRICULTURE. 
drained value would be less than the value of the other lands in the 
district. When such disadvantages are removed by the construction 
of the drainage improvement all lands in the district would be 
equally valuable if all other things were equal, and consequently the 
benefits received by the lands which were at a disadvantage will be 
greater than those of the more fortunately situated lands. So, 
wherever the statutes and the courts do not forbid such action, a 
district whose several parts are distinguished by topographical fea- 
tures clearly affecting the cost of the work may well be divided into 
subdistricts for assessment purposes. 
ASSESSMENTS IN TWO DISTRICTS. 
Land is subject to assessment by two or more drainage districts if 
special benefits accrue to it from improvements made by each of such 
districts. First, when a drainage district organized adjacent to an 
older district has its improvements so designed as to improve the 
drainage provided by the older district: second, when a district is 
organized within an existing district for the purpose of securing 
more complete drainage ; and, third, when a new district is organized 
covering all of the territory in an old district, possibly annexing 
other lands, and enlarging or improving the drainage system. 
In the first case there are two rules in regard to the parties against 
whom the assessment for the new benefits is levied. In some States 
the assessment is levied against the older district as a whole, while in 
others the assessments are levied directly against the lands benefited. 
The Wisconsin drainage law provides that the boundaries of a 
drainage district shall not encroach on those of another district 
above or below it, and if through the construction of a ditch, drain, 
or levee increased cost shall entail upon the lower district in pro- 
viding means to carry off water or remove sediment flowing from 
the higher district the higher district shall be liable for such in- 
creased cost. In Rattlesnake Drainage District v. Koshkonong Mud 
Creek Drainage District, 136 N. W. 631, the Wisconsin Supreme 
Court held that the fact that only part of the lands in a drainage 
district is benefited by an improvement made by another district 
does not affect the validity of an assessment of benefits against 
the first district, it being presumed that the assessment will be fairly 
apportioned upon the lands receiving the benefit by the authorities 
of the first district. As the Rattlesnake district had not provided 
complete drainage because of the insufficiency of the outlet, the 
lower district was entitled to a percentage of the benefit assess- 
ments made by the Rattlesnake district depending on the amount 
of drainage which was furnished by the improved outlet: the Kosh- 
konong commissioners measured the depth of water in the ditches 
at each tract of land in the Rattlesnake district and compared it 
with what it would be after the outlet had been improved by their 
district, and the total benefits so found were assessed in a lump sum 
against the Rattlesnake district. 
On the other hand, the statutes and decisions of Arkansas, Mis- 
souri, Iowa, and Nebraska provide that assessments shall be levied 
against all benefited lands whether or not some such lands be in 
other drainage districts. There are court decisions in each of these 
