30 BULLETIN 1207, V. s. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 
any change in the improvement will usually disturb the balance 
between benefits and assessments on various' traets in the distriet. 
An example is found in State ex rel. Marshall v. Bugg, 1*23 S. W. 
8:27, where the court held, as given in the syllabus: 
tJnder the statute, the county court, for the purpose of altering, deepening, 
Dr widening ditches previously constructed, and which comprised a drainage 
district, could organize another drainage district out of the same territory 
embraced in the former one, if sufficient reason existed : the question of the 
public utility of such second drain, as well as the question whether the land- 
owners would be benefited by it. or should be assessed for its construction, 
being questions of fact for determination by the court. 
Another case in point is Sharp et al v. Easton et al.: 94 N. E. 
753, where the Indiana Supreme Court said, in part : 
The contention of the appellants that, because of the fact that they had 
been before assessed for drainage work in the attempt to give the basin in- 
closed within the watersheds named adequate drainage as an entirety, and 
that this prior work had given them complete drainage facilities, they can QOl 
again be compelled to contribute to the common enterprise is inequitable and 
not sustained by authority. The drainage of wet and overflowed lands is a 
matter of public concern, as well as a matter of benefit, to individuals, and 
the power to drain any particular district is not exhausted by one effort. It 
has been repeatedly held that a drain may be established over the line of an 
existing one, and therefore assessments made a second time, if benefits accrue. 
ASSESSMENTS AGAINST INCORPORATED TOWNS. 
The drainage laws of many States provide that incorporated 
towns shall be assessed for the benefits they receive from drainage 
works. In other States incorporated towns can not be assessed for 
drainage benefits on the theory that the corporation has jurisdiction 
over drainage in its territory and, therefore, no other authority can 
assume such responsibility. 
Ee States where a municipal corporation can be assessed for drain- 
age benefits it is not unusual to find the corporation assessed a lump 
sum for the benefit it receives as a municipality and at the same 
time certain lots within the corporate limits may be so peculiarity 
benefited that assesments may be levied against them as in the case 
of farm lands. It is not necessary that both benefits be present to 
validate the use of either. 
The benefits which usually accrue to an incorporated town are 
better drainage for streets and alleys and better health conditions. 
Sometimes there are special benefits due to an improved outlet for 
surface drainage or sewage or protection from overflow. Any 
benefit which adds to the attractiveness of a city as a place to live is 
sufficient. These benefits art 1 difficult to evaluate because a city haS 
no market value either before or after the construction of the im- 
provement, and, therefore, their amount must be a matter for the 
judgment of the assessors. Some benefits, like better street drainage 
can be evaluated, but most of them are somewhat intangible and 
their value will vary with conditions. 
In most States when special benefits arc 1 conferred upon certain 
lots in an incorporated town such benefits can be evaluated and 
assessed. The different elements of benefit affect the value of city 
lots and farm property in a different degree; health and accessibility 
factors have more 1 weight and improved agricultural conditions les^. 
