Finally, at the July 31 meeting of the council, Ordinance 510 was presented, outlining the boundary of Sewer District 1. According to the Eagle's account on August 1, the outline of the district was as follows: "Commencing at Harry and Water Streets, north to Douglas, west to Waco Avenue, north to 17th, east to Main Street, north to 21st Street, east to Topeka, south to 17th, east to Washington, south to Douglas, east to Ida, south to Harry, and west on Harry to Water, the place of the beginning." The ordinance passed unanimously after the city engineer was instructed to divide the general district into the various sub-districts.

Two weeks later on August 13, the sewer plans were considered. Healy reported that over 1,000 rights-of-way had been obtained for a one dollar fee per signed contract. Lengthy debate followed on what to do next. English called for providing help to the committee to speed up the process, but Buckridge objected, claiming the members should earn the $50 a year paid to them. The infighting failed to gain results and Mulvey subsequently presented his completed plans and specifications for the sewer district. A 5 to 4 vote caused the report to be read at the meeting, which, according to the article in the Eagle on the following day, "Was a bad setback to English who fought the idea of having the report read. When defeated he prepared a fresh cigar and leaned back against the wall and seemed to get his sole consolation from that." The article stated, "The reading of the report took precisely one hour. It may have been very interesting, but the gentlemen of the lobby, and in fact not all of the councilmen, seemed to have much interest in the document."

After the reading, the council discussed contract requirements, with Buckridge arguing against a contractor who would not hire Wichita labor. Deciding that the question would regulate itself, the council required all bricks used in the project to be taken from Sedgwick County, over the objections of the city engineer.

Mulvey reported that 60 miles of sewer pipe would cost $346,000 to install, and the pumping station would add an additional $15,000. These figures became important when the mayor interjected a recent communication to Wichita from the Pacific Sewer Company, which had earlier offered to sewer the city. The company said it would agree to sewer the city for $375,000 and would operate the system for $7,000 a year. The sewer and all machines would be kept in repair for ten years without cost to the city, and satisfactory bonds would be provided through state and Wichita national banks.

The offer raised new questions. English wondered why the 60 miles planned by Mulvey cost $350,000 while 84 miles from Pacific, at a better grade and with a guarantee, was priced at $375,000. To this, Healy responded that he thought the communication almost silly, seeing nothing of merit in it. Before more discussion could occur, Buckridge moved to file the Pacific Sewer Company's communication and to adopt Mulvey's specifications, authorizing the city clerk to advertise for bids. It passed, with English and Johnson, who wanted more time, voting no. After the engineer was asked to prepare estimates of the cost of using water from the Water Company for flushing instead of the pumping station, the council moved on to other business.

The decision to follow the engineer's plans and forego the proposition of the sewer company developed into a major controversy between the Eagle and Mulvey. On August 15, an editorial appeared criticizing the action of the council, claiming that a 7-foot fall was better than a 4 1/2-foot fall and that $375,000 for a guaranteed system of 84 miles was better than $360,000 for 60 miles of a doubtful system. The paper referred the readers back to the Herring report which had raised cost as the only objection to a pumping system. And now a contract was offered which would actually be cheaper, with the company handling operation of the system instead of having to buy water from the Water Company for flushing. The question of whether Pacific Sewer could afford it was irrelevant, it argued, since the contract would commit it and the guarantee of repair for ten years was a sound investment for the city. Neither system accommodated storm water, it said. The Eagle concluded by urging "upon the City Council, the city engineer, and all concerned, the necessity of procuring for the city the best system, especially if it should prove the cheapest."

The next day a rejoinder from Mulvey was published. He contested much of what the editorial had reported, arguing that the "Pacific Sewerage Company, West Sewerage Company, Pumping Sewerage Company, or whatever they may style themselves" had never actually submitted plans for sewering the city or shown whether their proposition was at all feasible. They only wrote a letter to the city offering their service, and according to Mulvey, "The slightest reflection of any candid person will suffice that such propositions are not worthy of consideration." The engineer then attacked the experience and information the company had presented to justify its case. He said he had documents to prove that the company had distorted the truth in a pamphlet saying they had put in the system at Pullman, Illinois, and at Boston, both "the barest sort of falsehoods." (Eagle, 8/16/1888).

Mulvey also contended the comparisons to his plans were misleading. Instead of a fall of 4 1/2 feet, it actually had a fall of 51/2 feet in the mains and up to 21 feet for the laterals, compared to seven feet for the West System. The "pumping" label of Pacific’s system was also denied by Mulvey. Rather than pumping the sewage through the system, or using water to flush the mains, it only pumped the sewage from a cistern filled by gravity into the river. Finally, he defended his own work, protesting the Eagle's claim that neither system took in storm water. Instead his plans actually included 19 storm water inlets. He went on to argue that the Topeka Avenue sewer, put in under his supervision, was working well, with a good flow and was free from deposits. He concluded that "The system as here prepared, with the mains well flushed, if faithfully carried out, will give us one of the very best sewered cities in the United States."

The Eagle could not let the Mulvey letter go by without a response and so followed it up with an editorial comment. Although admitting that they knew little about Pacific Sewer, they argued that the ten year guarantee was the important fact. It did not matter what the company had done in the past so long as the contract guaranteed it would install and operate the system. Mulvey's proposal, on the other hand, had no such guarantee. In addition, the Eagle said that no specific plans were needed from the company since it would use the survey of Rosewater and Christie with more miles for less dollars than the city's, and with a good bond approved by two of Wichita’s largest banks.

As might be expected, the controversy also extended beyond the press. A council meeting was held on the 16th in which little substantive action was taken, although it did agree to add two blocks on the west side of Waco Street, between 9th and 11th Streets, to the sewer district. Upon adjournment, a large crowd, which had gathered to watch the proceedings, began discussing the issues. According to the Eagle, "a crowd of sewer agitators" collected to give their opinions to the council but only a few of the council members seemed interested. And when the citizens offered suggestions, they "apparently were not taken in the best of spirit." (Eagle, 8/16/1888).