DRAINAGE DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS. 41 
confer a benefit upon the railroad. If the water does not stand 
within 4 feet of the base of rail, the benefit from drainage is ap- 
preciably decreased. 
Decreasing the number or length of trestles and bridges. — When- 
ever such a benefit exists, it can be readily computed. The amount 
should be the capitalized annual savings in maintenance less the cost 
of making fills to replace the trestles or bridges. 
Care must be taken that the improvement has a capacity at least 
equal to that for which the railroad company would ordinarily make 
provision. Drainage ditches can seldom take care of the largest 
possible flood, but neither can railroad bridges. Cases will be found 
where the railroad company is maintaining a greater trestle opening 
than is needed under undrained conditions, and then, of course, the 
computation of savings to the railroad should be based on the open- 
ing required by the unimproved conditions rather than on the actual 
length of trestle or bridge. 
INCREASED EFFICIENCY. 
In addition to the effects already considered, drainage improve- 
ments may benefit the railroads by giving greater security to traffic 
and better train service because of decreased danger of derailments 
due to soft track. These benefits are indefinite as to amount and of 
much less importance than those directly decreasing maintenance 
costs. 
Of elements affecting both decreased maintenance costs and in- 
creased efficiency, the only ones which can be readily evaluated are 
flood protection and decreased length of trestles and bridges. There 
are few or no data in regard to the value of the other elements, and 
what there are would be valuable only in specific cases. Assessors 
whose duty it is to fix the amount of such benefits should make care- 
ful inspection of the railroad property affected and secure all evi- 
dence obtainable from the company's books, engineers, and section 
crews, as well as from others familiar with the conditions and should 
settle upon such an amount as the facts in the case render reasonable 
and just. In practice, the benefit assessment for all elements, except 
flood protection and decreased length of trestles and bridges, ranges 
from $100 to $1,000 per mile, not many exceeding $500. Since farm 
lands pay but a certain proportion of the full amount of the benefits 
they receive, the same proportion must be used in the case of railroad 
benefits. 
The question of railroad assessments is well summed up by the 
Supreme Court of Iowa in Chicago & North Western Railway Co. v. 
Board of Supervisors of Hamilton County, et al. 162 N. W. 868. The 
court said in part : 
It may be admitted that in dealing with a railroad right of way or other 
similar property, it is practically impossible for any assessing officer to analyze 
his estimate of values or benefits and name a specific sum of money as repre- 
senting the beneficial result of any one feature of the improvement, and this 
fact renders it a favorite topic for the purposes of cross-examination by coun- 
sel attacking such assessments. But the advantage so gained is apparent only. 
The assessment of benefits in such cases is but one of the frequent occasions 
in the administration of justice, where the jury or other body charged with the 
duty of estimating values is authorized to take into consideration all the facta 
and circumstances shown and make its own estimate, and the court will not 
overrule or interfere with it unless it be so plainly wit hour foundation or 
