Citation Numbers: 188 Iowa 1289
Judges: Evans, Preston, Salinger, Weaver
Filed Date: 2/16/1920
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/24/2022
The proposed drainage district is known in the record as East Nodaway Drainage District No. 2. Its purpose is to straighten a section of the East Nodaway River. It comprises about 4,000 acres of land, nearly all of which is subject to the periodical overflow of such river. The petition therefor was signed by nearly all the landowners therein, including the plaintiff. Sometime prior to the filing of this petition, East Nodaway Drainage
First. The objectors state that said ditch, on the route recommended by said engineer, will not be a public utility.
Second. The cost of construction of the ditch, upon the route proposed by said engineer’s report, would be excessive, and would be a greater burden than should be borne by the land proposed to be benefited by said improvement.
Notwithstanding this election of appellant to stand upon these original objections, he has argued in his brief some other contentions as to the procedure of the board, on the theory that they go to the jurisdiction of the board. If these questions could properly now be raised, we are clear that we should have to find against the appellant on the merit thereof, and on the facts upon which they are predicated. We shall not, therefore, pass upon the question as to whether appellant is entitled to be heard as to these. On the broad question of public utility and of proportion
If it could be said that there was substantial conflict in the testimony of the engineers, we should have to deem the circumstances shown strojigiy corroborative of the contention of the defendants.
It would seem to a nonexpert highly probable that water could be delivered between two points more rapidly over a 6-mile course than it could through the curves of a 14-mile course, it appearing, indeed, that the total curvature of this latter course describes a circle 37.times between such two points.
The engineer who testified on behalf of the appellant was Ballard. He was the official engineer of a railroad company whose line of road ran along the course of this stream. He testified as follows:
. “The present channel does not take care of all of the ordinary, heavy rains. Something must be done there. The necessity for this drainage district is apparent. The only
As an engineer, he contended only for a slight change of location of the ditch from that recommended by the other engineer, Price. The variance between the two plans was less than 100 feet in distance, and none in cost. It is shown that the land in the válley is in the main level. The overflow spreads out to a width of three quarters of a mile. Manifestly, therefore, more than one line of location for the ditch might plausibly be selected. That a cut-off ditch of some kind, located on some line between the two points in question, should be established, is virtually conceded, upon the record. The fact that one line of location would better suit the convenience of one landowner, and that another line would better suit the convenience of another, is an unavoidable incident of such an improvement.
We are very clear that the evidence in this record would not justify our interference with the finding of the district court, confirming the action of the board. The order entered below is, therefore, — Affirmed.