bay region. When once started, the bigness of the American people will make its water knowledge grow with the problem, and the district is going to grow so as to take in the entire transbay country as well as the peninsula country. I think the scheme of having your various sections act separately gives great hope for the project to be a success. I hope it will go through. (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: Will any one else continue the discussion? I see a young man from Berkeley over there, who is old in experience. Mr. Burlingame has made a long study to my knowledge of this water problem, and I should be much interested in hearing from Mr. Burlingame.

Remarks by George E. Burlingame

MR. BURLINGAME: I did not expect to be called upon this evening, or I would have sat with my back to the chairman. I have been interested in a very superficial way in the water problem of the east bay cities for some time. Our problem has been a very practical one. We have been trying for some time to put over a water district whereby we could approach the water supply question of the east bay cities with something more tangible than we are approaching it here this evening.

I imagine that most of us here know as much about the condition of the supply on the east side of the bay as the people who live there know about it. Very few people know that the east side of the bay is consum ing less water per capita than any other similar community in the United States, that it is paying a higher rate per thousand gallons than any other similar community, that it has a distributing system with a larger percent of small mains-its percentage of mains that are suitable for fire protection is less than half that of the average of all the cities in the country-and that the provision for the future is not to be compared at all with that of any other similar community in the United States.

At the present time we are trying very hard to create some public interest in the Breed public utilities district law that was passed by the last Legislature and which was initiated to cover some defects that were thought to exist in the bill that was framed by Mr. Dockweiler and his associates. We tried to interest the community in Mr. Dockweiler's measure but did not succeed. The "Breed" law was formulated by those who were chiefly instrumental in the defeat of that undertaking and is generally conceded to take care of most of the things that were objected to in the other law.

We tried some six or eight months ago to have an election under the Breed law called by the city councils forming a district of Oakland, Berkeley, Alameda and Piedmont; we failed, however, to secure their coöperation. The councils of Berkeley and Piedmont passed resolu

tions of intention signifying their willingness to coöperate if the other two city councils took a similar action, but we were unable to get Oakland and Alameda into line. The matter has remained at that stage until recently, when we have again undertaken to revive it.

We feel that it is our problem to form this east bay district, if possible, and solve as far as we can the immediate problem of that community. Then we hope that we will be in a position to join with San Francisco in the solution of the larger problem. (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Sturgeon, couldn't you add something to this argument?

Remarks by George B. Sturgeon

MR. STURGEON: The resolution prepared by the committee formulates a very atractive plan, and personally I would like to see the bay communities act on some such plan, but as Mr. Burlingame says, we have a problem on the east side of the bay which is a situation that perhaps needs a little explanation. We tried very hard two and a half years ago to form a water district under the law of 1911, and failed on account of the very active campaign of the Public Utilities League, which objected to that law because a majority of the directors under that law were appointive and therefore not subject to the recall. They defeated that district and went before the legislature and secured the passage of a law known as the Public Utilities act, under which all the directors are elective, and therefore subject to the recall, and we have that situation before us today.

Those of us who campaigned for the water district under the act of 1911 are now coöperating with the people who defeated that water district formerly, and we realize the fact that the new law, the Public Utilities act, represents the frame of mind of a majority of the people on the east side of the bay; and what I fear is that however much we might like to join with San Francisco and all the cities around the bay region, it is impractical to do so, due to the existence of that same frame of mind, at the present time. I feel if we should institute a movement on the other side of the bay under the proposed plan that we will get the very active opposition of the people who defeated the water district in 1911. I do feel, with Mr. Dockweiler, that with their coöperation we can form a public utilities district of the east bay region. And in the meantime San Francisco may be doing the same thing in the west. bay region. And when the east and the west bay communities have each got their own special problems off the boards, we may very well get together under some such plan as outlined by the committee here this evening.

THE PRESIDENT: I have just been calling names in the absence of volunteers. May we hear from some one else?

Remarks by Carl J. Rhodin

MR. RHODIN: I have been attending the meetings of the committee from time to time and I think the work that has been done by the chairman and the committee may be of great value, particularly in regard to San Francisco and the peninsula.

It is evident that something ought to be done for the communities on the peninsula when San Francisco takes care of its water supply. I have felt with Mr. Dockweiler and others that it is doubtful if San Francisco can expect joint action from Oakland and that side of the bay. Joint action might be desirable; ultimately I think it will come to one large water supply district. In the immediate future I doubt if this will happen.

However, if this bill should enable San Francisco and the peninsula to satisfactorily solve their problems and take care of that large growing suburban country south of San Francisco, I think the bill has done well, and we could be very well satisfied. If the bill also opens a way to an ultimate connection and an ultimate formation of a large district, it is an ideal bill, and it should receive solid support. We may not get full, broad action right away. It takes time to educate the people, but if we have provided the means so that when they do see the light, they can take the right action, I think we have then done all we can do in the matter. (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: Has any member any objection to this bill which could be stated, because while there has been very little objection developed here, it would be very marvelous if a proposition like this could go to the people without much opposition? There may be some man who can point out objections and some of the difficulties might be overcome in this proposed bill.

Remarks by Frank V. Cornish

MR. CORNISH: I objected a little at the opening here, and my objection has been touched upon. I do not know whether it has been clearly brought out, but perhaps the reading of the proposed bill will explain one of the difficulties which I think is before us on the east side of the bay, to wit, the acquisition of the People's Water company, which has the distributing system for all of the east bay cities. As I understand the presentation here, the machinery is not provided by which that distributing system could be acquired by the east bay cities. It seems to me that we have a practical problem here to deal with that the

engineers can hardly be expected to solve, perhaps the lawyers cannot do it; perhaps the so-called politicians might be able to suggest a method.

I had a little experience a short time ago in connection with the administration of municipal affairs in Berkeley. The man who is now the ex-mayor was recently complimented at a public meeting for having the nerve to demand of the street car company that they pave the streets or give up their franchises. In answer to this compliment he himself said that he had noticed they had to date done neither.

Now, the position is this: we have come to the point in the handling of these public utilities-first, we are going to regulate their income; second, we have perhaps unfairly insisted that there shall be a maximum of income and we have not provided for the losses, nor is there any provision for making up losses when they occur. The result is, as Mr. Schussler has said, that these public utilities are not good investments, because the man with capital is usually looking for something better than a guaranteed income. He wants to invest where there is a chance to speculate and so there is difficulty in getting capital, and there will continue to be that difficulty.

But to return to the practical question in Alameda county. We have there the distributing system which is a unit, and it seems to me it can be best acquired, more intelligently and satisfactorily, by that community than it would be by this community coöperating; the same thing applies to this side of the bay. You have here a far better understanding of what the Spring Valley value is in this community, and how to deal with it, than we have on the other side of the bay. It stands to reason that the people of this community cannot be as well informed as to the value of the People's Water Company as is the east bay, and when you come to bringing these two problems into one water district, the water district acting as one community is going to be in great danger of failing for lack of intelligent action. The conclusion follows: is it not going to be more practical and public ownership more likely to be accomplished, to take up the acquisition of the distributing system of the People's Water Company on that side of the bay by itself by that community, and the acquisition on this side of the bay of the Spring Valley Water Company by this community and then, having your distributing systems, be prepared to deal in water at wholesale? Is such a procedure not going to be more likely to be successful? I should be very glad if that question could be brought up and discussed by the committee here tonight, if it is not too late.

THE PRESIDENT: I was going to ask if there were any other members wished to speak. I am going to ask the Chairman to close with a

reply. Mr. Sturgeon suggested that he thought that the general sentiment across the bay was for the organization of a public utilities district. That might be a matter which the committee would want to consider. Now, does any one else want to contribute?

Remarks by C. C. Boynton

MR. BOYNTON: The consensus of opinion here I think has been foreseen by the committee in providing Group A, which takes in the communities on this side of the bay, and it looks as if the progress and development of this scheme would be the formation of a district including communities on this side of the bay and the development of a public utilities district on the other side of the bay. The district then that will be incorporated under this proposed bill at the outset or at first will be a district taking in these communities on this side of the bay. I would like to address the attention of the committee to this question: Will the people of the community on this side of the bay consent that Oakland appoint a commission to control their water affairs? Now, is that practical? Will they do it? Will they surrender that power to the chief executive of the state? Is that the trend of thought? Is that the direction in which we are tending in our practical affairs in the municipality? I myself have serious doubts if that idea would take.

Remarks by Edward Rainey

MR. RAINEY: I have had that same idea of Mr. Boynton's in mind, and it would apply in this way: that by the time this bill could be sufficiently gone over and modified in the various ways necessary to make it a law, San Francisco will have spent a very large amount of money on its water system. Eventually, with the acquisition of the Spring Valley system, will have a very large amount of capital invested.

I wanted to ask Mr. Galloway if any provision is made in his proposed bill for dealing with such a situation. Could San Francisco secure a return of this capital? Also, is there any provision for negotiation by communities prior to the election which will take place on consolidation? I have some knowledge of the work of the advisory water committee here which did reach a conclusion on the valuation to be placed on the Spring Valley property prior to the last election, and know there was an immense amount of work involved. Any one who stops to think would know that a very large amount of work will be necessary between communities in order to arrive at the basis upon which they will consolidate, and I wanted to ask Mr. Galloway, and do that now, if there is any such machinery in his proposed bill?