DRAINAGE DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS. 45 
Commission, 197 U. S. 453; Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad 
Co. v. Board of Supervisors Appanoose County, Iowa, 104 C. C. V 
573; 182 Fed. Rep. 291. 
When a drain is so located that it does not follow the natural chan- 
nel where it is crossed by a railroad some decisions hold that the cost 
of the new bridge should be borne by the drainage district. See 
Indian Creek Drainage District No. 2. v. Chicago, Baltimore and 
Ohio Railroad Co., 295 111. 339; 129 K E. 105. But the Supreme 
Court of the United States in Lake Shore & Michigan Southern 
Railroad Co. v. Clough, 242 U. S. 375, held that where the Little 
Calumet River was diverted from its natural channel and carried 
through a ridge into Lake Michigan, the railroads which were located 
on the ridge must pay the cost of the new bridges. Under this deci- 
sion the responsibility of railroads for the costs of bridges over 
ditches not in the natural watercourse seems to depend upon the terms 
of the charters under which the railroads are operating. 
In case water is diverted from other watersheds into a natural 
watercourse, thus placing an additional burden on the railroad com- 
pany for bridging, there is ground for belief that the railroad com- 
pany can not be compelled to enlarge or lengthen its bridges to ac- 
commodate such increased flow without compensation. See People 
■v. Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad Co. 262 111. 492, 104 1ST. E. 
831. It is probable that the rights of the railroads in such cases de- 
pend on the provisions of their charters as in the preceding discus- 
sion. 
Concerning the second item of damages — damage due to opening 
bridges and tracks to allow the passage of dredge boats or to other- 
wise facilitate the work of constructing the drainage improvement — 
authorities generally agree that such costs should be paid by the 
drainage district, and the laws of most of the States so provide. The 
amount of such damage is usually the actual cost of opening the 
tracks or other work, determined after the event. Such damages 
are usually paid in cash. 
The third item, the construction of the drainage channel across 
the right of way which some States require shall be done by the rail- 
road company, is not open to much question. Where the statute re- 
quires the railroad company to do this work it generally specifies 
that the amount to be paid is the actual cost to the district of doing 
the same amount of work. 
In some jurisdictions the courts have held that the railroad is en- 
titled to damages for the use of its right of way for district use 
where such drains or ditches do not follow a natural watercourse. 
There seems to be little question as to the power of the drainage 
district to condemn such portions of the right of way when the 
drains or ditches will not interfere with the use of the right of way 
for railroad purposes, either present or future. In Steele /-. Empsen, 
41 X. E. 822, the Supreme Court of Indiana said, in part : 
It is claimed by appellant tbar the ditch is partly located on the righl of waj 
of the Ohio & Mississippi Railway Co., and that such location is not authorized, 
for the reason that property once taken and appropriated to one public use can 
not again be appropriated to another public use, citing City of Valparaiso r. 
Chicago & Grand Trunk Railway Co., 123 Ind. 407, 24 N. B. 249. The rule 
urged by appellant only applies when the second public use would naturally 
injure or destroy the uses for which such right of way was employed, and when 
the same could not exist without impairing the first uses. 
