Because of the action, considered by Howse as a "breach of trust," it commission voted to cease negotiations with the representatives, and listed its course of action on the Equus Beds. (Howse, 1962). Finally, the recommendation was made to continue negotiations with individuals or with a new group, with Howse to meet with Judge T.G. Somers. The Wichita supporters, including the newspapers, strongly condemned Speir's action, but, by most accounts, the Equus Beds people were supportive because it strengthened their bargaining position.

At the same meeting that cut off negotiations, the city also learned that on August 18 the Bureau of Reclamation would begin site testing for the proposed reservoir.

While matters with the new supply were up in the air, the question of ownership of the system surfaced again in the City Commission meeting on August 16. Upon receiving a report from Howse that private ownership of the entire system could raise rates 50 percent, the commission voted to take steps which would lead to city purchase. The financial consultants were told: 1) to hold preliminary conferences to determine if the purchase prices stated by Howse were correct ($15.5 million to buy out the city and $20 million for the company); and 2) to see if the company would be willing to take a management contract in running the system should the city purchase it. The city was awaiting a response from the company by November 1, but Howse encouraged the commission to act first.

On August 25, the City Commission met with a group opposing the Cheney project, the North Fork of the Ninnescah Association, to provide information to the public about the project. Those attending were not in favor of it, but would make no attempts to halt the project, although they did want to be informed of its progress.

At the same time, pressure also began building from the Kansas State Board of Health concerning the city's pollution problems. In its August 30, 1955, report, the city was designated as the principal polluter of the most polluted area in the state, the Little Arkansas River basin, from Hutchinson to Wichita. After a public hearing held in Wichita by the board on October 5, the City Commission received a report from Howse and subsequently voted to cooperate with the state by holding a special municipal election in 1956 to gain electoral approval of new sewage treatment facilities. On November 12, the Kansas State Board of Health adopted a policy on pollution abatement in the Wichita area and directed the city to add to its primary facilities built in 1931 and to construct a new secondary sewage treatment facility.

At the same meeting, a status report was given by the Bureau of Reclamation on the Cheney project. The commission approved spending up to an additional $10,000 for the preparation of a formal project feasibility report which would be unnecessary if the Water Company purchased the property. In a preliminary study on October 25, 1955, Black and Veatch reported several alternatives on financing the Wichita water system, concluding the lowest cost would come from municipal ownership of the entire system. Soon after, on the 31st, the Water Company presented its proposal which had been requested earlier. It formally offered to lease the municipally-owned portion of the water system in the Equus Beds, to purchase it if necessary, and to develop an $18 million program for increased supply. The proposition included building two small reservoirs in the Equus Beds. The company proposition also included the comment that the American Water Works Company would be an unwilling seller. Upon receiving the proposal, the city began investigating its validity with The Investment Group, Black and Veatch, and various state agencies. On November 15, 1955, The Investment Group filed an initial report against the company buying the system, describing the leasing method as a feasible plan and total city ownership in the best public interest.

The Investment Group submitted its full recommendations on December 6, concluding unanimously that municipal ownership, with or without company management, offered the best possible solution and recommending municipal ownership with company management.

Upon hearing The Investment Group's conclusion, the City Commission asked the city attorney to investigate the acquisition options, including the stock purchase option granted in 1942. The city manager was instructed to work towards a municipal election on acquiring the property. The feelings in the commission were by no means unanimous, however. Commissioner E.E. Baird came out strongly against such a purchase by the city, arguing in a prepared statement, "Personally, I have never favored a Ninnescah Reservoir because it could not be relied upon in periods of extreme drought when most needed. Furthermore, it involves costs which are too great for such an unreliable and inconsistent supply." (Eagle, 12/6/55; Howse, 1962). He went on to state support for the Wichita Water Company plan. For the next month, the commission met with representatives from business, state and federal officials, and the consulting firms, as well as the public.

On December 13, 1955, the city manager reported the receipt of letters from various state agencies including the Kansas State Board of Health, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the State Board of Agriculture, opposing various aspects of the Water Company's plan. A public hearing was held on the 14th, and a report by Black and Veatch was discussed which disagreed with the Water Company's plan, claiming the Cheney project as the best choice for the city.

Various opinions were presented that the Cheney project would not provide a guaranteed supply, with some claiming that the drought in the state would have dried up the reservoir if it would have been built in the early 1950's. However, Black and Veatch reported, based on a review of Bureau of Reclamation data, that the rumors were not correct and the reservoir could provide an adequate supply to survive a drought. The Bureau of Reclamation, in fact, had started the rumors with its claim on October 7 that, had the reservoir been built in 1951, it would have been unstable as a water supply source by 1955. Now the bureau supported the dam, believing that, even with a drought, rain in 1955 and 1956 could replenish the supply, even though its estimate of the yield did not agree with that of Black and Veatch.

On January 10, The Investment Group analyzed the Black and Veatch report, and agreed that public ownership was the best option. The City Commission appointed Baird and Howse to negotiate the value with the Water Company.

In a final attack on the Water Company's plan, the chief engineer of the Water Resource Division of the Board of Agriculture, Robert V. Smrha, opposed the proposal on January 14, 1956. He claimed the division would require so much water from the Equus Beds and the Arkansas River that it would not be feasible to implement, and could be illegal or impossible as a result of state licensing laws granting rights-of-way, including a section referring to beneficial use of water in the public interest. Smrha also claimed that he would not approve the company's reservoir plans as a result of those factors, leading the paper to report he had dealt them "death blows." (Eagle, 1/14/56).

With all of the opposition to the Water Company, except for Baird, its proposal seemed in doubt. When combined with the lawsuits delaying access to the Equus Beds, the Cheney project became more and more appealing. On January 17, 1956, the City Commission passed a resolution made by Howse which "put their official stamp on the Cheney Reservoir as a source of primary water supply." In making the motion, Howse commented on other possibilities, including the Little Arkansas River and water southeast of Wichita which Boeing had investigated and found to be of good quality. The Beacon said on January 17 that, although in the future the areas might be needed as supplements, "a study of all the facts disclosed that neither the Little Arkansas River, nor the water discovered southeast of the city is of sufficient quantity to make development feasible at this time." (Beacon, 1/17/56).

The resolution passed unanimously, including the reluctant vote of Commissioner Baird. It had nine major points: 1) the Ninnescah project was reaffirmed as the city's principal long-range source of water supply; 2) the city would no longer proceed with developing either the Little