Union Pacific Railroad Company and Midwestern Railroad Properties v. Drainage District 67 Board of Trustees, Gary Rabe, in His Capacity as a Member of the Board of Trustees, Keith Helving, in His Capacity as a Member of the Board of Trustees, Dennis Prochaska, in His Capacity as a Member of the Board of Trustees, 20-0814

Drainage District No. 67 built a tile drainage system in early 1900s; Union Pacific/Midwestern Railroad was originally assessed 5.81% of the benefit and cost for the installation.
In 2018 an inspection showed the century-old tile needed substantial repair; an engineer concluded the main tile had exceeded its useful life and risked collapse.
Repair bids totaled $200,891; about $98,343 (~49%) was for work and materials required to meet federal railroad safety regulations at the rail crossing, nearly doubling project cost.
A reclassification commission concluded regulatory-compliance costs conferred a "special benefit" to the Railroad and recommended allocating one-half of total repair cost to the Railroad (treating the regulated portion as 100% Railroad benefit).
The Board adopted the reclassification over the Railroad’s objection; the Railroad sued, both sides moved for summary judgment, the district court ruled for the Railroad, the court of appeals affirmed, and the Iowa Supreme Court granted further review.
The Supreme Court affirmed: it held the commission improperly based reclassification on repair costs/ regulatory compliance (costs) rather than on benefits, vacated the reapportionment, reinstated the prior 5.81% assessment, and narrowly limited the injunction to bar reliance on the flawed reclassification process.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether increased repair cost from federal railroad regulations can be treated as a “special benefit” on reclassification	Railroad: Reclassification conflates costs with benefits; regulatory-compliance costs are not benefits and cannot justify increased assessment	Drainage Dist.: Iowa law permits equitable reclassification; regulatory-driven added cost can be apportioned to Railroad as a special benefit	Held: No — costs of regulatory compliance are not a "special benefit"; commission improperly based reclassification on costs rather than benefits; assessment reversed
Proper remedy and scope of injunction	Railroad: Void the reclassification, enjoin assessments based on it, reinstate original 5.81%	Drainage Dist.: District court injunction was overly broad and could bar lawful future reclassification	Held: Affirm judgment for Railroad and reinstated 5.81%; injunction narrowly construed to bar reliance on this flawed reclassification but does not prohibit future reclassification consistent with chapter 468

Pollock v. Board of Supervisors, 138 N.W. 415 (Iowa 1912) (cost of construction across particular land is not the measure of benefit)
United States R.R. Admin. v. Board of Supervisors, 194 N.W. 365 (Iowa 1923) (construction required by improvement is a necessary incident, not a new benefit)
Chicago & North Western Ry. v. Board of Supervisors (The Hamilton County Case), 153 N.W. 110 (Iowa 1915) (benefits measured by savings in maintenance and other advantages afforded by drainage)
Chicago & N.W. Ry. v. Dreessen, 52 N.W.2d 34 (Iowa 1952) (benefit consideration may include past flood damage and anticipated costs without improvement)
Hardin County Drainage Dist. 55 v. Union Pacific R.R., 826 N.W.2d 507 (Iowa 2013) (overview of Iowa Code chapter 468 statutory framework for drainage districts)
Fulton v. Sherman, 238 N.W. 88 (Iowa 1931) (tract receiving greatest benefit bears heaviest cost assessment)