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

engineering matters in California, Central America, and the Hawaiian Islands. In 1900 I moved to Seattle, Wash., and became chief engineer and vice president of the Kilbourne-Clark Co., of that city, engaged in engineering and construction. In 1904 I resigned to direct the electrical engineering and management of the Ansonia Brass & Copper Co., of Ansonia, Conn., and New York. At the end of 1906 I resigned to take up research work at Columbia University; at this time I opened engineering offices in New York and have since 1907 operated from New York. I have acted as chief engineer or consulting engineer on a number of projects in America and abroad, among them the Victoria Falls and Transvaal Power Development, South Africa; the S. F. Pierson Development at Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; the Pierson Necaxia Development, Yukon Territory; the Canadian Klondike Mining & Dredging Co., of Canada; the transmission system of the Mysore Development in India; supervision of engineering Texas Railway & Electric Co., Sherman to Waco, Texas. I now have offices in New York and Los Angeles, Calif. I have studied the question of development of water and power on the Colorado River for a number of years-more than 20 years.

It has been a matter of keen interest to me, and for more than 17 years I devoted my spare time to studies and investigations on the Colorado River. During the past two and one-half years I have devoted my time almost exclusively to the acquisition of and preparation of engineering data on this stream. For over 17 years I spent my spare time on the river and on studies connected therewith, and I paid out of my own funds for such assistance as I required. During the past two and one-half years Mr. G. Henry Stetson, of Philadelphia, has provided the actual cost of the field work necessary in order to complete the engineering studies and reports, but I have contributed my own time without compensation. Gen. George W. Goethals, of New York, and Mr. Louis C. Hill, of Los Angeles, Calif., were retained as consulting engineers so that I might have the benefit of their experience and advice. The retainers to these gentlemen-were paid by Mr. Stetson. It is a great engineering project, and I hope to be connected with and at least assist in directing the development, and the knowledge and experience gained will be of value in connection therewith, as will the engineering data, studies, and plans which have been prepared. These studies and plans have made it possible to determine the cost and will provide the basis on which to set up a plan for financing. Mr. Stetson and I have assumed that this data will be worth at least its cost and will make it possible to proceed with the development with less delay. These charges if paid in full will represent but an exceedingly small per cent of the engineering charge on the cost of the development.

The development by the city of Los Angeles of water and power on the Colorado River would involve the expenditure of a large sum of money for which the citizens of Los Angeles would be responsible. The project would lie entirely outside the State of California, and I am informed that the constitution of the State of California would have to be amended to permit this investment. I am also informed that it would be necessary to amend the charter of the city of Los Angeles to permit the expenditure of municipal

funds outside of the state. The development would lie between the States of Arizona and Nevada, so it would be necessary to secure at least permission from these states before a California municipality could proceed with the development. These conditions and the large amount of money required to finance the project and assure the necessary water storage in connection with the power development, appear to me to present almost insurmountable difficulties for a municipality.

am informed that the State of Arizona has proposed a development further up the river with a view to delivering a large part of the water of the Colorado River through what they termed a high line canal to irrigate a large area of land in Arizona, and from my own observations in the territory I stated two and a half years ago that the plan was not feasible on account of excessive cost. The proposal has since been examined by engineers acting under an appropriation made by the State of Arizona. These engineers have now reported that the project is not feasible on account of excessive

cost.

I am in favor of the installation of a dam at Boulder Canyon on account of the natural advantages. The formation here is a very hard granite, and due to the quantity and quality of material available in the side walls of the canyon above the dam site at this location, I have recommended that a rock-fill dam be constructed here with adequate spillway facilities so that flood waters could not at any time overtop the dam, but would be divested through the natural rock around the dam into the channel below. I favor constructing a dam of greater height of a rock-fill type than I would be willing to recommend if the dam were to be constructed of concrete, and a rock-fill dam constructed as I propose would withstand an eathquake shock with a far greater degree of saftey than would a dam constructed of either concrete or masonry.

I am in favor of a high dam on account of the necessity of settling and holding in storage the silt carried by the waters of the Colorado, which at this point amounts to from 80,000 to 100,000 acre feet per year. If this silt is allowed to flow down the river, it will continue to build up the river bed and fill the irrigating canals and ditches, imposing an excessive burden of cost on those who use the waters of the river for irrigation and make it more difficult to use the water for domestic purposes where clear water is essential. The dam which I propose will create a reservoir of such capacity that it will provide a settling basin for all of the silt carried by the river at this point for a period of 500 years and will deliver clear water for domestic purposes and irrigation. It will also provide a greater storage capacity to insure the domestic water supply and the demands of agriculture against prolonged periods of drought. The water delivered to the power-generating stations will be delivered under a greater head which will permit the generation of more power than would be possible with a lower dam and a reservoir of less capacity.

The dam and reservoirs as I have proposed will consolidate in this one development the developments of possible sites immediately above Boulder Canyon, including the Diamond Creek location. It will not reduce the total amount of storage or power available, but will, on the contrary, produce a greater amount of power at a lower