DRAINAGE DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS. 39 
trict and over the drainage ditches, and are huilt and maintained by the drain- 
age district. 
An interesting ease which shows the necessity of proper methods, 
is found in Oregon-Washington Railroad & Navigation Co. v. 
Board of Commissioners of Yakima County, et al.. 175 V-\c 37. In 
this case a drainage district was organized to drain away surplus 
water from lands which had become alkaline because of such excess 
water. The total cost of the drainage work was $15,415, and of 
this amount $490 was assessed against the railroad company. There 
were 4 miles of right of way in the district, with an area of 53.1 
acres, as compared with the total acreage of 8,000 for the entire 
district. The court said, in part : 
Figured as acreage, the assessment of appellant's right of way is about five 
time* greater than the assessment of adjoining property. It is admitted that 
the land of the railroad company is the same as other land in the community, 
and that the commissioners had a very definite idea that ont of the whole cost 
of the improvement appellant should pay about the sum of $500. The ass 
ment is justified by counsel, although it is questionable whether the com- 
missioners had all that is now advanced in mind, for they frankly admit that 
before proceeding to the levy an arbitrary sum was agreed upon to be assessed 
against the appellant. But. if an assessment can be sustained in reason, we 
take it that it will not be rejected for this account. It is now said that the 
commissioners found that the drainage tended to lower the general water level 
in the drainage district and in the vicinity of appellant's road, thus contributing 
to the solidity and safety of the roadbed and the effective life of the ties, thus 
lessening the cost of maintenance : that it protected the road in a material 
degree from damage by floods and high water, which were likely to occur ; that 
it dried up and made passable the county roads in the vicinity of appellant's 
line, thus making it more accessible to patrons of its road ; and that it re- 
claimed much agricultural land in the vicinity of the road, which but for the 
drainage would have remained fallow, thus contributing to the benefit of the 
road by an increase of its business. But these reasons are not enough to 
sustain an assessment of the property of the appellant over that of other lands 
and other business within the limits of the district. While we recognize that 
some property may be benefited to a greater extent than other property, the 
benefit must be sustained upon reasonable grounds. 
Some of the reasons urged for sustaining the greater assessment of ap- 
pellant's property may be called special benefits, while others are as clearly 
general benefits. One of the things urged as a special benefit is that the drain- 
age will contribute to the solidity and safety of the road, and add to the life 
of the ties, and lessen the cost of maintenance : but. if the commission has 
acted upon that assumption, it is hardly borne out by the record, for the road 
is upon a grade elevated above the surface of the surrounding country, has 
been in no way impaired by existing conditions, and the greater preponderance 
of the testimony is that there has been no extra expense of maintenance by 
reason of the need of drainage to the adjacent agricultural lands, which have 
been alkalied by reason of the raising of the water table in that vicinity. In the 
light of the testimony, this condition ceases to be a reason, and becomes only an 
unsustained theory. That the drainage would protect the road in a material 
degree from damage by floods and high water is called a special benefit, bur 
this is a benefit common to all the property in the district. We may grant that 
an assessment should he sustained upon this benefit, but it does not follow that 
it should he laid with heavier hand upon appellant's property than upon other 
property. 
The other reasons urged, that the drainage will dry up and make the country 
roads in the vicinity more accessible, so that the patrons of appellant's road 
may more conveniently patronize it. is a general, and not a special benefit: for. 
if the drainage will make the roads more accessible, so that more business will 
follow, it will make the roads more available to the patrons of the road, and 
make it possible for them to haul their products more cheaply and conveniently 
than they would be able to do if ihe work were left undone. * * * 
We think, therefore, that the only special benefits are as noted, and that 
they are the same in kind as the special benefits occurring to the other prop- 
erty. * * * It can not be denied that there is a benefit to all of the property 
