Democratic Sentinel, Volume 18, Number 15, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 27 April 1894 — IROQUOIS DITCH. [ARTICLE]

IROQUOIS DITCH.

Mr. Editor: —Those owning land tributary to the Iroquois above the foot of the rapids are summoned for April 30th, 1894. It is incumbent on each land boluei to give the matter the b?st thought he can. The viewers' res port is on fi e and the Board of Commissioners meet to ine1, Whether due notice has been given. 2. To ascertain whether the up portioument is fair a id just Any persoi who receives notice may file exceptions to tne apportionment of benefits or damages by seating frrth his grievances in writing and filing a bond con ditional to pay costs if the exceptions are overruled. This right is common, the petitioners and others stand exactly on an equality in this regard. The statute authorizes benefits to be assessed for proposed direct drainage and the vaiue of a more convenient outlet. This outlet has been adj udged suf ficient and this judgment is our protection. -

The route of the drains was des termined before the viewers commenced the investigations neces» sary to make the report now up ior hearing. As I understand tlx.-i report the viewers anportioned to each one whose land is traversed by the ditch a portion for construction on such laud. That portion of the work below the mouth of Lateral 26 is estimated separately. 1 would like to see this improvement made on a just and a fair basis. The ditches should have such a grade of bottom, slope of sides, smoothness of water perimeter, depth and capacity as will make it permanent and effective. They should be made at the least possible expense and hat expense as fairly adjusted as is practicable. This wirk can only be done bv a public proceeding. Ditching under nublic law naturally awakens in our minds theories of justice that will tax the other fellow and leave us out. Who among us but would be willing to deal with benefits so that to him that hath shall be given 9 Some of jus owning lands in the regions remote from the common outlet have almost persuaded ourselves that wc have a right to spill our surplus waters upon a Irwer surface and that such rights “none dare to dispute Courts and legislatures living in the hill countries where every rill, rivulet, stream, brook an-1 river ruus like i torr-.nt,, make laws ta the effect that water has a right to run.

This rale where the current is swift ma’ work little hardship, for the additional capacity will c -rue by attrition. A swamp lying as oars do can not be redeemed on the line of sack a water maxim. Confiscation would not excavate the capacity needed in the. lower part of an artificial channel in a level country. The courts and legislatures of this country lay down a ru’.e which we all ought to try to understand and apply each fairly to his own environment before .warming up to fightmgjheat and getting involved in a law suit. I quote the exact language of our supreme coart in Lipes vs. Hand 104 Ind.; 503-507: ‘-Whatever gives more value to the parcel of land is a special benefit * .** * * Suppose * * • * the person assessed, owns a tract of land situated on a knoll and well drained in every part, but that on all sides of it are * * • * ponds rendering access difficult and isolating from highways. The drainage of the ponds would benefit the land owner although it might not carry any water at all from his lat d, and such benefit would be a special one. W here a land owner obtains an outlet for the lateral ditches constructed for the drainage of his lands * * * he receives a special benefit. There may be a benefit to a.tract of land altho’ its drainage facilities may not be increased.”

Under the existing condition of affairs we can lead our ditches into worthless lower swamps and ponds without appreciable benefit The mam channel below lateral 26 is estimated to cost $50,000, and the view rs think |my lands situated above should pay SI,OOO of this fiity, and he only question is whether my special benefits are too high. Th 3 word benefits mean increase of market value. The same influence as to drainage or the light of outlet per acre varies according to the market value of

the land before and after. The quality, its nearness to market, are matters to be considered. Tht lands near 'he channel, draining directly, should pay dollars while those more remote pay cents Those lands which are rich and fat and capable of becoming worth $75 dollars per acre oho’d pay five Vines as much asthoe? ’n like situation which can not be made to be worth more than fifteen dollars

per acre. A greater fall in any latter 1 carries more silt into the new channel, and ‘he lands tnbu> tary to the lateral, whether made or to be made, should contribute to keep the main channel open and in good repair. These benefits, like boils, are more agreeable on some one else. While 4 he owners of the marshes upon which the surplus water from my lands is now discharged are in the notion of draining, and admit a benefit of ten dollars per acre, I concede that I should pay something as my share toward the one common ob - ject. The viewers an 1 the Bo %rd are tnbu ials under the law to investigate and report, and it seems to me we ought to confine our attention to the land, its relation to the improvement, its present va’ue, what it would be worth if the improvement was completed, and that difference is the measure of each one’s just contribution. It may not be practicable to do exact justice, but I, for the present as in the past, will stand firm for the improvement of my home, my town, my to vnship and county, and for a fair adjustment of the expenses there f, looking to all the elements of benefit touching an increase of market value. Would it not be better to coolly talk this whole matter over between ourselves in a spirit of fairness and try our best to cheapen the work by having it let at the lowest possible price. In case of grossjinjustice let one more fortunate assume a part of the less fortunate, and he’p the Board to make a just decision as cheaply and quickly as practicable. Simon P. Thompson.

Mr. Editor: The comments of the Republican of last week seem to call ior a few farther remarks on land and water rights. The question of whether the lower land is bound to receive water from the uppei, has vexed neighbors, lawyers, and courts ever since the dawn of civilization. The Supreme Court of this State have tried to define and adjust these rights. If the hi her land hath an out let by a well defined natural water course with a sufficient channel and banks to protect the lower from overflow, or the upper hath procured the right to keep a chan-> nel op m by purchase, by ditch proceedings, or by long usage on a claim of right, then the lower must take the water. See Reed vs Cheney lii Ind. 387. The upper owner can not gather the water from iris land into ditches and discharge it upon lands without aeons tract or a dit< h proceeding. See Weddell et>d vs Hapner 124 i_nd. 315.

A ditch improvement settles the vexed question. Is it not better to ditch than to law? An / man may, iu the absence of a right secured by purchase or gift, erect on his own land such barriers as he pleases to ward off the surface water and floods. The object and purj ose of making a public ditch is to settle cheaply the rights of land owners touching drainage and a direct outlet. Above the rapids it is questionble whether the Iroquois hath had a l«gal channel. Above Alter’s mill it is an artificial ditch. Above the Groom’s bridge there was no chan - nel before the mill dam was removed. The law of 1891 required the court to find a sufficient outlet. The judgment of the court will protect land owners. The payment of any sum however small fixes one’s rights to use the ditches constructed from the nearest available poi nt to the outlet. The costs of locatibn have been incurred; the ditches described; the whole cost ba? been estimated; the land owners havi b?en notified, and they have a right to be heaid and be bound by the court’s decision. It seems to methatnowistbeacoei ted time to order the work done. Each should pay prorata for the {irobable effect on the value of his and. The county commissioners

have decreed that the improvement ought to be made. I believe that > each mrmber of that court desires ■ that justice be metrd to each of us. I The levels show that my land in tojvnship 30, rapge 7 west is on a much higher plain thanltbe Loughridge marsh in township 29,(range 6. My land has been adjusted to artificial pitches. lam willing to pay my share toward th i construction of the one common outlet. We are at the cross roads. If the improvement is made the rich, deep soil along thelpwer Iroquois