People's Pilot, Volume 3, Number 44, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 20 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 30, 1894. It is incumbent on each land owner to give the matter the best thought he can. The viewers’ report is on file and .the Board of Commissioners meet to determine: Ist. Whether due notice has been given; 2nd. To ascertain whether the apportionment is fair and just. Any person who receives notice may file exceptions to the apportionment of benefits or damages by setting forth his grievances in writing and filing a bond conditioned 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 value of a more convenient outlet. The route of the drains was determined before the viewers commenced the investigations necessary to make the report now up for hearing. As I understand the viewers apportioned to each one whose land is traversed by the ditch a portion for construction on such land. That portion of the work below the mouth of Lateral 26 is estimated separately. I would like to see this improvement made on a just and 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 that expense as fairly adjusted as is practicable. This work can only be done by a public proceeding. Ditching under public law naturally awakens in our minds theories of justice that will tax the other and leave us out. Who among us but would be willing to deal with benefits so that to him that hath shall be given? Some of us owning lands in the regions remote from the common outlet have almost pursuadedourselves that we have a right to spill our surplus waters upon a lower surface and that such right “none dare to dispute.” Courts and legislatures living in the hill countries, where every rill, rivulet. stream, brook and river auns like a torrent, make laws to the effect that water has a right to run. This rule where the current is swift may work little hardship for the additional capacity will come by attrition. A swamp lying as ours does cannot be redeemed on the line of such watermaxim. 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 state lay down a rule which we all ought to try to understand and apply each fairly to his own environment before warming up to fighting heat and getting involved in a law suit. I quote the exact language of our supreme court in Lipes V. Hand 104 Ind. 503,507: “Whatever gives more value to the pareel 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 land and such benefit would be a special one. Where 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 although 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 injury but as soon as the lower swamps are to be drained we no longer have such right and to secure such right is a special benefit. »The main channel below lateral 26 is estimated to cost *50,000, and the viewers think my lands situated above should pay SI,OOO, of this fifty and the only question is whether my special benefits are too high. The word benefits means increase of market value. The same influence as to drainage or the right 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. The lands near the channel draining directly should pay dollars while those more remote pay cents. Those lands which are rich and fat and capable of becoming worth seventy-five dollars per acre should pay five times as much as those in like situation which cannot be made to be worth more than fifteen dollars per acre. A greater fall in my lateral carries more silt into the new’ channel and the lands tributary 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 someone else. While the owners of the marshes upon which the surplus water from my land is now discharged are in the notion of draining and admit a benefit of ten dollars per acre I must concede that I should pay something as my share toward the one common object. The viewers and the Boaj-d are tribunals under the law to investigate and report and it seems to me we ought to confine our attention to the land and its relation to the improvement, its present value, what would it 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 township and county, and for a fair adjustment, of the expenses thereof, 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 low’est possible price. In case of gross injustice let one more fortunate assume a part of the less fortunate, and help the Board to make a just decision as cheaply and quickly as practicable. Simon P. Thompson.