44 BULLETIN 1207, U. B. DEPABTMENT OF A( ill [CULTURE. 
Considering the L915 flood, with the present elevation of track 
2.4] miles of track would have been submerged as against 6.69, a 
reduction of L28 miles, or 64 per cent. This percentage applied to 
flood damages for the years L907 and 191s reduces the total from 
$7,470 to $2,689.20, and the average yearly damage to $224.10; capi- 
talizing this amount at 5 per cent would give £4.482 as the proper 
-inent on the basis oi complete protection for the railroad, as 
compared with one made by the district engineer of $72,552. 
RAILROAD DAMAGES. 
A railroad company, should its property be injured, is entitled to 
damages in the amount of the injury the same as any other land 
owner. The several State drainage laws specify who shall determine 
damages, and the same body generally lixes the amount of damages 
suffered by all kinds of property. The usual damages claimed by a 
railroad company are those incurred in rebuilding old bridges or in 
building new ones, the costs of opening bridges and tracks to allow 
the construction of the improvement, and the cost of enlarging the 
channel of a stream or building drains across the right of way, if that 
work is done by the railroad company. There may be other items 
of damage, especially in districts where the improvements include 
channel rectification or levee construction. 
Concerning the first item, that of damages due to building or re- 
building bridges over drainage district ditches, there is a marked dif- 
ference in the various State laws. Some States (California, Colo- 
rado. Mississippi (Alcorn Act), Nebraska, Montana, Utah, Virginia, 
Wisconsin, and Wyoming) specify that the expense of adapting 
railroad bridges to the improvement shall be borne by the drainage 
district; but other States specify that such necessary expenses shall 
be borne by the railroad company and shall not be considered as an. 
item of damage. The drainage law of Alabama says that where the 
bridge opening is over a natural watercourse the expense shall be 
borne by the railroad company, but where the opening required is not 
over a natural watercourse the drainage district shall pay the costs. 
The Michigan drainage law requires that the railroads make and 
maintain accessary openings in the roadbed required by drainage 
improvements, and build and maintain suitable culverts upon the 
serving of a prescribed notice. In passing upon this requirement the 
Michigan Supreme Court in Chicago & Grand Trunk Railroad r. 
Chappel, 124 Mich. 72, held that this section of the law manifested 
an intent of the legislature to require the railroad company to make 
such improvements without compensation, and that therefore this 
sect ion of the law was unconst it ut ional. This decision was confirmed 
in Pere Marquette Railway Co. '•. Weilman, L57 Mich. 7<>:>. 
The weight of judicial authority seems to require that the railroads 
build and maintain suitable openings over natural watercourses to 
keep pace with the drainage developmenl of the country in the same 
way thai they are required to build street and road crossings when 
the commercial development of the community makes such crossings 
necessary. There are many couri decisions supporting this proposi- 
tion of which the following are often cited: Chicago. Burlington & 
Quincy Railroad Co. v. The People. 212, 111. L03, and 200 I . S. 585; 
Lake Erie & Western Railroad Co. v. Smith, til Fed. Rep. 885; Cooke 
/■. Railroad. L33 Mass. 185; New Orleans (Jas Light Co. v. Drainage 
