Peck said the city's verbal commitment would not need to be met with a monetary commitment for several years. But, he said, of course, without Wichita's support it would not even be authorized.

Opponents were also at the meeting in force, including environmentalists and residents of the proposed site, attacking the project on environmental, economic, social, and moral grounds. Tom Kneil of the Kansas Sierra Club said, "We oppose the project. We are for the river. We are for the people who live there. We are for the recreationists who use the river and all the people who will benefit from food production when times get tough in a few tough decades." (Eagle, 12/9/81).

At the meeting the following night held at Caldwell, Kansas, the audience was more lopsided. A packed high school auditorium yielded a number of speakers, all against the project. Some argued that Wichita had abandoned the project because of cost, but that the Bureau of Reclamation supported it to justify its own existence. The Wellington Daily News, on December 10, quoted Eric Stough from Drury as saying, "Somebody might notice they don't have anything to do anymore." Officials from Blackwell, Oklahoma, even spoke in opposition to the project, refusing to acknowledge the flood control benefits, and arguing they feared the downstream flow from the river would not satisfy their needs.

Plans called for the results of the hearings to be considered in the final environmental statement which then would be presented to Secretary of Interior James Watt for approval. Then it would need the approval of the president and Congress.

After the hearing, the city of Wellington, which would also receive Corbin water, wrote a letter to the bureau. Dated December 21, the letter, signed by City Manager Arthur B. Preston, emphasized the need of the city to protect its water rights on the Chikaskia River. While the river was not good in the summer when it was needed most, nearby well fields supplemented the supply. Preston emphasized the heavy local opposition to the project, "Largely because of the land acquisition in Sumner County to furnish water to the city of Wichita. Vocal opponents included the Regional Planning Commission, the city of Caldwell, and the Sumner County Landowners Association." He added, "While the city of Wellington has not taken a stand, because of the necessity to protect its water rights, there is much opposition to the taking of such a great amount of land." Finally, Preston argued that Wellington could not wait long to alleviate its water problems. But Wichita, on the other hand, was believed to have "no intention of making a decision on the reservoir until such a time as it can show a need for the water. We believe this is a decision it won't make until many years in the future. At the same time, the Chikaskia project may be an obstacle to Wellington meeting its needs now." The letter concluded, "If Wichita can't, or won't, make a decision in the near future, it may be necessary for Wellington to move in another direction, if possible. The city has forestalled solutions for over 15 years already because of the Chikaskia project." (Water Department Files).

Preston sent a similar letter, although much less harsh, to Denton on January 19, 1982. Despite the plea, Wichita refused to adopt any firmer measures on Corbin, but instead kept it only as an option.

In the meantime, another element intervened with the power to kill the project regardless of Wichita's position. On April 19, 1982, Kansas Governor John Carlin said he could not support the proposed reservoir, but asked federal officials to give the State Water Authority, less than a year old, time to study it. The secretary of interior would use the feasibility report, the environmental statement, the results of the public hearings, and the federally required statements of the governors of Kansas and Oklahoma, before the decision was made to recommend the project to the President for implementation. Carlin's rejection would virtually kill it, according to federal officials. Glen Kirk said, "We'll stop processing if the governor doesn't support it." (Eagle, 4/20/82).

Carlin had received the DES for review in 1981. Commissioner of Reclamation Robert N. Broadbent granted Corbin a 90-day extension to March 31, 1982, to consider the statement. Broadbent's letter on January 25, 1982, said the extension had been granted to allow the newly appointed Kansas Water Office director time to do the necessary study. It also warned Carlin that, at the present rate of inflation, the cost of the project was increasing $1.5 million each month.

Carlin's April letter asked for another extension, although his feelings on the matter were clear, stating, "The benefits to be gained by the proposed project do not outweigh the negative impacts on Sumner County." He also concluded that it "would be irresponsible" to reject the project before the Water Authority completed its study. "As governor, I cannot, in good conscience, deny the authority the opportunity to study the Chikaskia project," Carlin said. So he asked the federal officials to grant the necessary time to finish the work in the fall. (Eagle, 4/20/82).

During this time the city of Wichita maintained its policy of trying to keep Corbin open as an option. The Eagle on April 20 said, "The city has not supported the project unequivocally." Wynkoop said that Wichita supported the plan "as a possible long-term solution to our water needs, but only as an option. We are looking at several possibilities." Patrick Regan, chairman of the Water Authority, agreed with that position. By this time, preparations were underway for the 1982 gubernatorial elections and consequently the likelihood of a commitment from Carlin was small.

By mid-1982, Corbin remained an option, but an unlikely possibility. An aggressive federal bureaucracy had kept the project alive in the face of intense area opposition, lukewarm reception from local officials, non-