in the activities of the Boulder Dam Association and the Colorado River Acqueduct Association. Through our law department we participated in farming and introducing a bill in the State legislature contemplating the creation of a metropolitan water district designed to include, on a fair basis of representation, all cities desiring Colorado River water in this section. The proposed act contemplated an organization capable of financing and administering a conduit bringing water to its component cities on a wholesale basis. Unfortunately, and we feel through political manipulation, the bill, although passed in the senate, was defeated in the assembly. Since that time the people of the city of Los Angeles, in no uncertain manner, have indicated that their representatives who voted against the bill were not acting in accordance with the desires of the people, and we have no doubt but that at the next session of the legislature an act will be adopted authorizing the incorporation of the contemplated district. While I am supposed to speak only as a representative of Pasadena at this time, may I not say, as president of the Colorado River Aqueduct Association, that water situations similar to ours exist in many other cities in southern California.

I may summarize the attitude of the city of Pasadena by stating that we earnestly urge the favorable consideration by this committee and the Congress of the United States of the Swing-Johnson bill, or legislation which will serve a like purpose, for developing the Colorado River under the direct control the the Federal Government, for the benefit of the Southwest. To permit this, one of our greatest natural resources, to pass into private control would, we feel, be a great error. We have no quarrel with private capital but are convinced that the best interest of the people and the State can be served most advantageously by permitting public, as well as private corporations, to participate in the labor and the benefits involved. To this end we urge your active cooperation.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Mr. Wadsworth, you have just stated that what you have given us in respect of Pasadena applies to all the other towns and cities around there?

Mr. WADSWORTH. That is my opinion in regard to the water supply; that that is the condition in general. Of course, there are exceptions.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. It is not for my benefit, for I happen to be more or less familiar with the situation, but for other members of the committee, I ask these questions.

Mr. WADSWORTH. I know that in the organization of this Colorado River Aqueduct Association we had delegates present from 39 different cities and towns, which showed their evident interest in the matter.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. You mentioned, and I again direct your attention to the San Gabriel enterprise. While that might afford some relief by way of additional supply, it, of course, is not adequate to meet the present or future demands.

Mr. WADSWORTH. I would say, Senator, from our point of view, that we are adopting this method simply as a makeshift, until such time as the Colorado River water can be brought in.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. The county has voted some twenty-odd million dollars has it not, to build a dam in the San Gabriel?

Mr. WADSWORTH. Yes, for the building of the dam there. I think they figure $25,000,000 on the San Gabriel dam; the $35,000,000 bond issue to be used in different places.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. You know of no other adequate supply than the Colorado River, do you?

Mr. WADSWORTH. I know of no other adequate supply than the Colorado River. The board of directors of the city of Pasadena has made careful investigations in all dir etions and have not been able to find anything, even for our city. Under our present zoning ordinance, our city planners inform me that the total population of our city can be expected to amount to 265,000 people eventually. We have at the present time probably 70,000 in the city proper, and, as I have stated, 130,000 drawing from the Pasadena Basin.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. But in order for that large population to remain there, they have got to have more water?

Mr. WADSWORTH. They have got to have it.

Senator ODDIE. What is your idea of the effect of the forest fires of this whole southern California area on the cover of the watersheds?

Mr. WADSWORTH. The danger, it seems to me, from forest fires— although I am not a student of them-is that in the burning off of the brush-most of the covering of our mountains is brush h re, especially on the southern slopes-in burning it off, it leads to disintegration of the soil, the washing down of the soil, and consequently a quicker passing off of the rain. I think the brush on the mountains hold back the rains as they fall and allow them to sink into the ground and be conserved.

Senator ODDIE. Already have forest fires done considerable damage in this southern California area?

Mr. WADSWORTH. There is no question about that.

Senator ODDIE. Is there a constant menace from forest fires in the future?

Mr. WADSWORTH. I think there is, just as long as people are allowed to go into the mountains.

Senator ODDIE. Is there a possibility that under certain conditions several fires at once or larger fires than heretofore might destroy a very much larger area than has been destroyed?

Mr. WADSWORTH. I think there have been numerous instances where we have had several fires in the southern California mountains all at the same time.

Senator ODDIE. Do you believe this condition is an added argument for bringing more water into this section?

Mr. WADSWORTH. Why, I don't see how you could get away from the fact.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. I suppose it is a fact, isn't it, that barren mountains means sterile valleys?

Mr. WADSWORTH. Undoubtedly, as the water cannot be conserved. Senator SHORTRIDGE. And the forest growth would prevent these disastrous washes?

Mr. WADSWORTH. One would have to go into the mountains and see where the soil has been carried down.

Senator ODDIE. In places of this kind, where the rains have washed the soil away as a result of forest fires, do you understand that it will take a long time to build up that surface covering again?

Mr. WADSWORTH. It is a question whether it could be built up in the next hundred years.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Wadsworth. Mr. Stone, city manager of Glendale. Give your name and official position.

STATEMENT OF H. B. STONE, CITY MANAGER OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE

Mr. STONE. I am city manager of the city of Glendale. Glendale is a city of approximately 20 square miles in area, with a population of more than 60,000, lying in the valley and foothills adjoining Los Angeles on the north.

Glendale's water problems are similar to those of the city of Los Angeles; quite different from those of Pasadena, which adjoins Glendale on the east; identical with those of Burbank, which city adjoins Glendale on the west; and inseparable from those of the La Crescenta Valley, an area of approximately 30 square miles which adjoins Glendale on the north.

I might state for the record that in some respects I speak for Burbank and La Crescenta Valleys.

The conditions which I will point out to you as affecting Glendale you might take as typical of the whole area from the San Fernando Valley to Pasadena and from the Los Angeles River to the mountains, an area of about 100 spuare miles.

Glendale owns a municipal water system and a municipal distributing system for electricity. Part of our water is obtained from wells along the Los Angeles River at the mouth of the San Fernando Valley. The balance of our water comes from the Verdugo Valley from wells and running streams. The city purchases electricity from the Southern California Edison Company and distributes it in the city and in some contiguous territory.

We are pumping water from the gravels of the Los Angeles River just above elaborate infiltration works and pumping stations of the city of Los Angeles. Just above our wells the city of Burbank is pumping from the same source, while above Burbank the city of Los Angeles is making elaborate preparations for pumping from

the same sands.

Above the Verdugo Valley region of our water supply individuals and water companies are pumping more and more water from the same gravels further up the same source. Throughout this whole area there is a very active development, indicating that it will all be brought to subburban residential uses, there is an increasing demand for water, an increasing rate of run-off, and therefore a decreasing storage in the underground gravels.

As a result of the unprecedented growth and development taking place in this area, it is evident that other sources of water must be provided and the only known source is the Colorado River. To illustrate this growth, I submit the following:

The population of Glendale January 1, 1910, according to the United States census was 2,742. On January 1, 1920, the census report showed a population of 13,356, an increase of 387 per cent, the greatest percentage gain of any city in America. Estimating

our growth from 1920 to the present time, I submit a comparison of the number of electric meters connected.

On January 1, 1920 we had 4,282 meters connected.

On October 1, 1925, we had 15,908 meters connected, indicating an increase of nearly 400 per cent.

Our building permits issued since January 1, 1920, total $42,187,976.00 to date.

Our assessed valuation for taxation purposes is $52,520,720.00 Our bonded indebtedness paid from taxation is only $1,817,750.00 and our taxes rate thereon only .106 cents per hundred dollars. We are in a position to take care of our share of the cost of a high dam at Boulder Canyon through paying for water and electricity derived therefrom.

Our interest in the electrical energy from the Boulder Canyon Dam is one of economy. We believe from data we have considered and which has been filed with your honorable body that we will be able to purchase our share of electricity at rates materially below what we now pay and expect to be able to serve our people at lower rates and at a satisfactory profit to the taxpayers. We expect to file our request for an amount sufficient to take care of the requirements of a population of at least 300,000 people, by the time the dam could be completed.

I might mention there that will roughly be 75,000,000 kilowatts per year, and that we are using at the present time within the city limits better than 1,600,000 kilowatts.

Enemies of the Boulder Canyon Dam project have tried to scare the smaller communities of Southern California by picturing Los Angeles as the great octopus, intending to grab advantage from this great project. I want to nail that propaganda before it is considered by your honorable body.

In the deliberations that were necessary in drafting the metropolitan water bill, when I proposed curbing the number of directors from the larger cities and giving each municipality only one director, Los Angeles did not object, and the amendment was adopted without a dissenting voice.

Los Angeles has never sought annexation of additional territory since the building of the aqueduct and the annexation of the San Fernando Valley. On account of local conditions, citizens of various communities have circulated petitions and annexed themselves to Los Angeles. We of the foothill country look upon Los Angeles as the mother in our community family and have found her fair and square and sympathetic in dealing with us. At this time Glendale is building 9.21 miles of 48-inch sewer over rights of way obtained by Glendale in the city of Los Angeles at a cost of $1,247,784 to be used by Glendale as an outlet for our sewage through the Los Angeles outfall sewer to the sea, an example of cooperation between the two cities arrived at by the representatives of the people through contract and ordinances of both councils.

We stand shoulder to shoulder with Los Angeles, Pasadena, Long Beach, San Diego, Riverside, and the other communities of southern California in this fight for an abundant source of water and electrical energy at a lower rate.

Those who have the responsibility of providing water for the municipalities of southern California are looking ahead, preparing

for the development and growth that is sure to come. We see several years of water from present sources; but unless we have your aid in bringing water from the Colorado River, within 15 years we see individuals and cities flying at each other's throats in the courts over water and water rights like vultures fighting over a corpse.

We come, not hat in hand, as supplicants asking charity of the Government, but as the directors of a great corporation, successful, of unlimited resources, and with ample security, asking a loan, saying frankly we need your help. In that light we are proud to ask it and we feel confident we shall receive it.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you this question: You hope to supply the additional water you need from the Colorado River by an aqueduct to Los Angeles?

Mr. STONE. Yes, sir; as in the metropolitan water bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Has your city a financial interest in the cost of constructing the aqueduct?

Mr. STONE. We would naturally be as voters of bonds of paying our part of the cost of the aqueduct. We have been represented at all of the meetings, and are familiar with all of the data presented by the engineers in regard to that.

The CHAIRMAN. Has your city made a separate investigation for the water supply?

Mr. STONE. In regard to the Colorado River project? Not a separate investigation.

The CHAIRMAN. Or from any other source from which a supply can be had?

Mr. STONE. Only as interested in the Boulder Dam Association. The CHAIRMAN. Where do you get your water now?

Mr. STONE. As explained in my report, from the lower gravels of the Los Angeles River and the Verdugo Canyon.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you use all of the available water for domestic purposes?

Mr. STONE. We are not using all. We see several odd years, at the outside, possibly five years, from these sources.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Speaking for your city, Glendale favors what we may call the Los Angeles-Colorado River Water Aqueduct? Mr. STONE. It has been indorsed.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. It has been formally indorsed, has it not? Mr. STONE. By organizations and by the city counsel of the city. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Is Mr. Walter G. Clark present?. Mr. Clark left with me, which may be inserted in the record, a statement on this subject. He was not in the city and is unable to attend the meetings. He made the request that the statement be inserted in the record. That may be done.

STATEMENT OF WALTER G. CLARK, CONSULTING ENGINEER, LOS ANGELES, CALIF.

Mr. CLARK. I am a consulating engineer, specializing in hydroelectric development and engineering for financing; licensed by the board of regents of the University of New York and fellow or member of the principal engineering associations of America. I have been engaged in engineering since 1897. From 1897 to 1901 my headquarters were in San Francisco. From this point I handled