48 BULLETIN 1207. r. s. DEPAKTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 
court decisions bearing on this point, but they are not all of the same 
tenor. The common-law rule was that "ordinarily it was the duty 
of the county to erect and repair bridges, but where a highway was 
crossed or cut for any purpose by other than highway authorities 
it was the duty of those interfering with the road to restore the 
same.'' This rule seems to have been quite generally followed by our 
courts, especially where the crossing was not over a natural water- 
course. As in all other disputed points, each district must be guided 
in this matter by the advice of its attorneys. 
ASSESSMENT OF IRRIGATION CANALS. 
Irrigation enterprises are of many kinds and the nature of the 
proprietorship is so varied that the application of the basic principles 
must be worked out for each case. In general the fundamental 
factors of special benefits, relief from responsibility, increased effi- 
ciency and decreased maintenance will apply. 
ASSESSMENTS WITHOUT USUAL BENEFITS. 
There are some cases in which assessments not based upon actual 
benefits as ordinarily understood can be levied. 
One of these is where the organization of a proposed drainage 
district is abandoned. In some States the expenses so incurred may 
be prorated against all of the lands in the district, while in other 
States such expenses are paid by the petitioners. Also, a preliminary 
tax levied by a drainage district for the purpose of paying the ex- 
penses of ascertaining the best methods of reclamation need not be 
based on special benefits accruing from the completed work. 
DAMAGES TO AGRICULTURAL LANDS. 
If the drainage district authorities, in exercising the power of 
eminent domain in the discharge of the duties imposed upon them, 
injure any property, through necessity and not negligence, the prop- 
erty owners affected are entitled to adequate compensation for such 
injury or taking of property. Such compensation must come from 
the drainage district, but if the injury arises from negligence on the 
part of the drainage officials, they and not the district, are re- 
sponsible. However, when the police power is being used and certain 
damages are inflicted, the courts of some States have held that the 
district, or it agents, is not responsible. This is because the public 
good secured through the exercise of the police power by a govern- 
mental agency is considered to be paramount to any injury to in- 
dividuals caused by the improvement. This discussion is limited 
to those damages which, generally, must be considered in organizing 
a district and which are generally held to fall under the power of 
eminent domain. 
All States have made provision for the determination and payment 
of such damages. The usual practice is for the property owner to 
claim such damages as he thinks he is entitled to. and this claim is 
acted upon by a board, usually the same board which ass< -<■- 
the benefits. This board fixes the amount of damages which 
3eems just and reports its findings to the proper authority by whom 
the report is subject to review. In appeals from the award of 
