For all in excess in any one month, 2 cents per kilowatt-hour.

For furnishing electric current for combination domestic lighting, cooking, and heating purposes under the foregoing schedule, a minimum charge of 55 cents per month per kilowatt, or fraction thereof, of active connected load shall be made: Provided, That the minimum charge in any case shall not be less than $3: Provided further, That the minimum monthly charge shall be based upon the active connected load measured by the sum of the rated capacity of all energy consuming devices installed which can be simultaneously used.

The above rate is applicable only to individual apartments and to domestic consumers having installed cooking, heating, or water-heating appliances (other than lamp-socket devices) of 1 kilowatt capacity or more. Single-phase motors of 3 horsepower or less will be permitted in addition thereto and rated at 1 kilowatt for each horsepower of installed capacity.

That the said resolution be further amended as follows, to wit: Section 9 to read as follows:

SEC. 9. That the time and manner of payments of the aforesaid rates prescribed in sections 2, 2a, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 hereof, and all matters of service shall be in accordance with such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the board of public service commissioners from time to time; provided, however, that all electrical energy shall be metered. Bills for the furnishing of same shall be rendered monthly and shall be due and payable when rendered, such bills becoming delinquent within 15 days after the rendering thereof, and if not paid, the service of such electrical energy may be discontinued without further notice, and; provided, further, in the event of any dispute as to the rate to be paid by the consumer of electrical energy, said board reserves the right to determine which of said rates is applicable to the

case.

That a certified copy of this resolution be forthwith laid before the honorable council for its action thereon, in pursuance of the provisions of the city charter.

Which resolution was adopted by the following vote:

Ayes-Messrs. Bartlett, Haynes, Robinson, Young, and President del Valle. Noes-None.

I hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the board of public service commissioners of the city of Los Angeles at its meeting of December 22, 1922.

JAMES P. VROMAN, Secretary.

SEC. 2. That all ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict therewith be, and the same are hereby repealed.

SEC. 3. The city clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance by the following vote, to wit, ayes--Allan, Conaway, Langdon, Mallard, Mushet, Sanborn, Sparks, Wheeler, and Criswell (9), and cause the same to be published three times in The Los Angeles Daily Journal.

I hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was introduced at the meeting of the council of the city of Los Angeles. December 29, 1922, and was passed by members at its meeting on January 2, 1923, nine members of said council being present and voting thereon.

Approved this 4th day of January, 1923.

ROBT. DOMINGUEZ, City Clerk.
GEO. E. CRYER, Mayor.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. That is very important. I happen to know of a city that charges 3 cents for lighting and 9 mills for cooking, and when you strike an average you might find that you have not such a favorable rate at all.

Mr. CRISWELL. I know of a city that charges 33 cents for lighting and it charges 9 mills for cooking and heating; it is a publicly owned plant in the city of Winnepeg.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. I was just going to call attention to that, that they charge 3 cents for lighting and 9 mills for cooking.

Mr. CRISWELL. I think it is 33 cents for lighting.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. They must have raised it recently, then.
Mr. CRISWELL. And 9 mills for cooking and heating.

Now, the city of Los Angeles has filings for additional power development at various places in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Those are what you might term at our back door and also at the back door of the cities in the northern part of the State. Los Angeles would probably relinquish-I think in all probability it would relinquish-its holdings there in case we could get power from the Colorado River, and allow that power to be turned north. Development of those sites would cost us more than development of the same amount of power on the Colorado River; and yet it would be cheaper development than we are now having to pay the Edison Co.

And it seems to me now, this is a surmise on my part from talking with various people-that the power companies would like to see the city of Los Angeles load itself up with some of this higherpriced development before the cheaper development on the Colorado River comes in, and allow them to pick that up; that is, to allow the power companies to have the cheaper development on the Colorado River, and load the city up with the higher-priced development from these smaller places.

Mr. RAKER. Did you find any activity on the part of the power companies to get the Colorado River?

Mr. CRISWELL. Well, I have talked with Mr. R. H. Ballard, vice president and general manager of the Southern California Edison Co. He has told me that, as he views it, there is no possibility of the city obtaining any power from the Colorado River; that his company has filings upon all the available power sites on the river, and that they are ready and will finance the building of dams and plants upon the river.

Mr. RAKER. How is he able to figure out that there is no chance for Los Angeles or those other communities of California and Nevada, as compared with his company?

Mr. CRISWELL. Well, his argument is that Congress will not appropriate money to build a dam upon the Colorado River when there is a private company willing to put up the money and build the dam without expense to the Government at all. That is what he hangs his argument upon in talking with me.

Mr. RAKER. Are they maintaining any activity relative to urging their interests ahead of those of the Government in the construction of a dam in the Colorado River?

Mr. CRISWELL. Well, just how much activity they are carrying on I can not say positively; but they are carrying on more or less activity at various points on the Colorado River.

For instance, the other day I heard Mr. LaRue, of one of the bureaus of the Interior Department-the Geological Survey, I believe-in describing a trip which he recently made down the Colorado River, say that only one of the boats that was used by his party belonged to the Government, and that the other boats which were used were boats that belonged to the Southern California Edison Co., which he found at Lees Ferry and obtained permission to use. So that would indicate to me that the Edison Co. had been doing something around Lees Ferry.

92265-24-pt 2————6

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Did he tell you how many members of the party were railroad men who were figuring on questions of transportation of material, and so on?

Mr. CRISWELL. He did not.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Do you know?

Mr. CRISWELL. I do not.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. There were a good many more railroad men than there were power men in that expedition, were there not? Mr. CRISWELL. I am sure I do not know.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. That was on Mr. LaRue's recent expedition! Mr. CRISWELL. I am perfectly willing to take your word for it. Mr. LEATHERWOOD. I have not any word to give, but I was wondering if you knew about that.

Mr. CRISWELL. No; I do not.

Now, I would like just to mention the water needs of the city.

Mr. RAKER. Before you pass from that, is it your view, from your observation, that these power companies would therefore be interested in preventing legislation to the end that the Government should construct a dam on the Colorado River near Boulder Canyon or Black Canyon?

Mr. CRISWELL. Why, Mr. Ballard has told me that they were op posed to such legislation-I will say his company.

Mr. RAKER. Upon the theory that they should do it rather than that the Government should do it?

Mr. CRISWELL. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. That is a perfectly consistent attitude for them to take?

Mr. CRISWELL. I think so.

Mr. RAKER. I am not questioning his attitude: I am just getting at the facts.

The CHAIRMAN. He is in the business of manufacturing electric power.

Mr. CRISWELL. I have always found Mr. Ballard very frank and very fair with me in any of his statements. And I will say this for him, that I figure that if I were in Mr. Ballard's position I would probably take the same attitude that he takes.

Mr. ALLGOOD. It is just a question of business competition?

Mr. CRISWELL. That is all it is. The city of Los Angeles is a good customer. As I said previously, we are paying them an average of about $160,000 per month, and no electric concern wants to lose a customer that is paying them $160,000, with a growing demand.

Mr. HUDSPETH. Do you know whether or not they have sent any representative here to Washington to oppose this measure?

Mr. CRISWELL. I do not. The only man I know here whom I believe to be connected with the Edison Co. is Mr. Hoxie, who has been present at all of these meetings. Now, as to the water needs of the city:

In 1905 the city of Los Angeles looked out for an additional supply of water

Mr. RAKER. Before you go further let me say this: I am assuming. and I think my assumption is right-there is no criticism against Mr. Ballard or anybody else and I am assuming him to be an estimable gentleman. But this goes a little further than competition in busi

ness, does it not? This property belongs to the United States and to all the people, and the effort being put forward in almost all of these cases is to take that which belongs to the American people at a very small consideration, if any at all, and then charge large prices and accumulate large fortunes out of what belongs to the people; is that not correct?

Mr. CRISWELL. Why, assuredly, that attitude is correct. The reSources of the Colorado River, in my mind, belong to all the people. The Southern California Edison Co. would like to secure those resources for their benefit-for the benefit of the stockholders of the Southern California Edison Co. The city of Los Angeles is endeavoring to secure control of a portion of those resources for the benefit of the people of the city of Los Angeles.

Mr. RAKER. There is quite a distinction there, is there not?
Mr. CRISWELL. Yes.

Mr. RAKER. One is seeking a benefit for its private individual gain?

Mr. CRISWELL. Yes.

Mr. RAKER. That is for the general benefit of the American people?

Mr. CRISWELL. To spread it over as large an area as possible. Mr. ALLGOOD. Not only Los Angeles, but all of southern California?

Mr. CRISWELL. All of southern California; yes. Of course, I was talking particularly of Los Angeles. But this benefit would apply not only to Los Angeles, but to all the municipalities and

divisions and farm bureaus of California, Arizona, and Nevada. Mr. ALLGOOD. I am not trying to make your speech for you; but you are trying to get for your people some of the benefits of the natural resources of that section, so that they can have cheaper living costs?

Mr. CRISWELL. That is it. I would say this: As I said in the beginning, I have been elected to the city council of Los Angeles four times; and each time I was elected upon the platform of public ownership. I believe in public ownership, and I was elected as an advocate of public ownership.

Mr. ALLGOOD. From the fact that it gave cheaper costs?

Mr. CRISWELL. Cheaper costs and better service to the public. Mr. SWING. Right there while you are on that point: Although the bond issue that you referred to a few moments ago failed to receive the two-thirds vote required for it to pass, at that same election there were elected virtually a complete set of city officers, were there not?

Mr. CRISWELL. Nearly an entire set.

Mr. SWING. How many of those officers were pledged to the Boulder Dam development?

Mr. CRISWELL. Let me make this distinction? The bond issue was voted upon at our primary election in May. At the primary election, there were sifted out 18 candidates for the city council, out of about 60 who had filed petitions. I do not remember how many who believed in this development were in the 18. But of the

9 who were elected at the June election, the first 5 on the list were advocates of the city's participation in this project, and were elected upon that issue-5 of them.

Then trailing about 6,000 votes behind the fifth came the first man who was opposed to the project. Then there was another candidate elected who said he was in favor of public ownershipand by the way, he is not working for it by any of his votes since his election. Then there was a public ownership man elected; and then the last man, the ninth man, who had a plurality of about 250 over the next man below him-the ninth man was not an advocate of public ownership, while the two men next below him were. And they were very close to him.

So that there were really six out-and-out advocates of public ownership who were elected. There were two who were opposed to public ownership elected; and there was one who had said he was for public ownership, and in that was secured his election.

Mr. SWING. And the mayor.

Mr. CRISWELL. And the mayor was an out-and-out advocate of this project and was elected at the primary election: he had a larger vote than all the other candidates combined.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. I take it, Mr. Criswell, that the paramount need of Los Angeles and the section around Los Angeles is power? Mr. CRISWELL. The paramount need?

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. That is the thing you are most concerned with, as I understand you?

Mr. CRISWELL. No; I should say the paramount need was water in a semiarid country such as you and I live in, Mr. Leatherwood: I think we will agree on that, that the water is the paramount need in such a country.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Well, what do you class, and what do you want us to understand, is the paramount need in your city?

Mr. CRISWELL. The paramount need?

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Yes.

Mr. CRISWELL. If we did not have water in Los Angeles we would not have any city.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. So far as the Colorado River development is concerned, what is your paramount interest in it?

Mr. CRISWELL. Both water and power.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Which is first?

Mr. CRISWELL. Water would come first.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. That is, you need water worse than power? Mr. CRISWELL. Well, water is more essential than power.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Well, you are here speaking for a great city. Now, are you more interested in getting power from the Colorado River than you are water, or are you more interested in getting water than you are power?

Mr. CRISWELL. Well, to begin with, they go hand-in-hand, we can not get the water without power.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. How are you going to get the water?

Mr. CRISWELL. How?

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Yes.

Mr. CRISWELL. Well, take it out of the river.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. And out of the basin where it belongs?

Mr. CRISWELL. Absolutely, just the same as you do in your Strawberry project in Utah.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. And you think that is more essential to the welfare of your city than the development of the power would be?