Some students of metropolitan problems have suggested that the granting of extraterritorial powers to municipalities by state legislatures may provide a temporary integration of governmental agencies within a metropolitan region. Inevitably, however, the development of such powers in any extensive fashion must lead to additional confusion in the already tangled web of jurisdictions. The problems of relationship of governmental units are simply multiplied. This is illustrated by the experience of cities in California. A wide range of power has been given by the state constitution and general laws whereby the cities may undertake public utility projects within and without their municipal boundaries as deemed necessary. The courts, for the most part, have been liberal in interpreting extramural powers of cities undertaken both (a) as municipal corporations providing service, and (b) as governing units exercising the police powers. A significant addition to municipal powers has been made by interpretation of the constitutional provision that cities shall have exclusive jurisdiction in “municipal affairs.” In an early case that established a controlling doctrine, the court said: “The supplying of water to outside territory, being necessarily a matter incidental to the main purpose of supplying water to its own inhabitants, is as much a municipal affair … as is the main purpose, which is conceded to be such, and therefore charter provisions relating thereto prevail over general laws, if inconsistent therewith.” In similar matters, the cities become free agents under freeholder charters except as they encounter the jurisdiction or interest of other cities.