Arizona republican., 1921-11-19
TELL ATTITUDE IF LOS A|VCELESON TIE
 COLORADO PROJECT

The attitude of Los Angeles in the proposed Boulder Canyon Colorado River power project was set forth by representatives of the southern California city yesterday at a con ference with Governor Thomas E. Campbell and other Arizona officials at the statehouse. The session lasted two and half hours.
 Those present at the meeting were Ralph Criswell, president of the Los Angeles city council; William Null holland, chief engineer of the Los An gees city water department; E. F.. Scattergood, chief electrical engineer for the city; Governor Campbell, Sims Ely, secretary of the Arizona resources board, and w. s. Norveil, state water commissioner.
 The Los Angeles representatives presented their side of the case in the following statement:
 Questions which should demand, at this time, the first and most earnest consideration of all interested com munities of the Southwest are those affecting the development of the proposed Boulder Canyon storage project by and under the control of the national government, for the pur- poses of flood protection, irrigation of additional lands and development of power.
 We of Los Angeles, in conformity with what we believe to be the sen- timent of the great majority of the people of the interested communities, feel that the complete direction and control of the construction and oper- ation of this Boulder Canyon storage project must be vested in some desig- mated agency of the federal govern ment in order that there may be mutual confidence and the united support of all interested communi- ties This would be true regardless of whether the necessary construc- ton funds are to be provided in whole by the federal government or in part, or as whole by such of the communities as are in a position to provide such funds.
 The designated governmental agen- cy should also have control over the apportionment of benefits, in order that all communities, regardless of size, may be secure in their rights and may benefit to the fullest poSSi- ble extent from the project.
 Furthermore, we of Los Angeles, again in conformity with what we believe to be the sentiment of the great majority of the people of the interested communities, are unalter- ably opposed to the Boulder Canyon project being other than a publicly owned project.
 The activities and experiences of Los Angeles, compared with those of other large cities of the Pacific coast. demonstrate conclusively that the public interest can best be served through public ownership and con- trol of such vitally- y-important utili- ties as water, hydro-elec power and harbor facilities.
 Capital invests in Los Angeles in- dustries in abundance because such utility service is furnished at from one half to two-thirds it's cost in most other cities of it's size and be- cause of the greater security against
 shortage of supply and sudden 1 changes of rates and conditions of the utility service.
 With a large block of hydro cleo tric power available at the switch board in Boulder Canyon at the ex- 1 tremely low cost which would result l from publicly project, in dustry in Arizona, Southern Nevada and Southern California would not only be stimulated because of flood protection and the irrigation o1 added areas through the storage o1 | the flood waters, but within a few 1 years the general industrial and commercial life would be stimulated I beyond all expectation as a result oi cheap power for irrigation pumping | for mining and for manufacturing l throughout these sections of the 1 Southwest, even as industrial devel-
 opment has progressed by leaps and 1 bounds in Los Angeles during the past three or four years on account of low industrial power rates. cheaI I water and ample harbor facilities. | Commercial and industrial activi- ties will be further stimulated throughout these communities be- cause of the establishment of more large factories near the Los Angeles harbor, thus affording a ready mar