In the early 1900's citizens were not satisfied with either the quality of the water or the Water Company's service. These and other factors contributed to a long-term fight for control. Historian Harry Corbin later credited much of the action to the prevalent political philosophy, "With progressionism the order of the day, at the turn of the century, the central theme became the public interest as distinguished from private gain. One of the outgrowths of this movement was support of municipal ownership of utilities. The influence of the progressive era first precipitated a drive in Wichita for purchase of the properties of the water utility in 1903, and started a long and involved struggle which lasted more than half a century. Throughout, the points of contention included franchise legalities, purchase prices, and conflicting economic and political interest. These disagreements, coupled with the sometimes understandably confused electorate, prolonged negotiations until the late 1950's when Wichita finally purchased the water utility." (Corbin, 1972).

Municipal ownership, of course, had been discussed as an alternative from the very beginning. The original franchise acknowledged the concern by allowing for city purchase, subject to certain requirements. Agreement had to be reached on a price, or else a long court case would ensue, resulting in a forced compromise.

The company's promise to change to cast iron mains had not eliminated complaints. Consequently, the City Council passed a resolution on September 14, 1903, calling for the conversion to be completed, or else the city would refuse to pay hydrant rental. The city attorney, Earl Blake, was also instructed to notify the Water Company of the city's desire to purchase the plant, with the city engineer to prepare plans for re-doing the system. The council followed this up on October 5, 1903, with the passage of Ordinance 2097, which officially declared the intent of the city to purchase the Water Company property, as required by the franchise, for $500,000. The rules were suspended to allow the ordinance to be passed on first reading and it was signed by Mayor B.F. McLean. On October 9, the council moved to allow no more bills from the company until a main was extended to Cleveland Street. Negotiations began but the company fought against the purchase for a prolonged period, and negotiations finally collapsed. The company did attempt to satisfy the city during the interim, making some main extensions and reductions in hydrant charges. In a letter from the vice-president, G.E. Hoffmaster, dated November 13, 1905, the Water Company agreed to rebate $4,000 annually to the city for hydrant rental and extend some mains in an effort to reduce the city's costs. Similar rebates had occurred in the past when the company saw a need to improve the relationship with the city. For example, on September 14, 1892, the council had approved $1,500 annual rebates from the company for the same reasons. The council accepted Hoffmaster’s proposition on November 20, 1903, but in 1906 the issue of ownership resurfaced.

A petition from a group of citizens on September 17, 1906, requested Mayor Finlay Ross and the council to submit, at the November general election, a question of issuing $500,000 in bonds for constructing or purchasing a waterworks system, and proposed rules of operation for a city-run system. The council, on September 24, 1906, unanimously passed Ordinances 2617 and 2618, granting the petitions.

After favorable coverage was presented by the newspapers and the government on the subject, the citizens voted on November 6, 1906, 3512 to 1171 in favor of the bond and 3207 to 937 in favor of the rules and regulations.

The vote was the first concrete step to be taken in the dispute, marking "the beginning of a turbulent relationship between the city and the company which was to come close to the breaking point several times in the years to follow," according to a history of the period by the Eagle on August 19, 1952. The election only allowed the city to issue bonds if it desired, but agreement had to be reached on the price. The council, on November 19, 1906, set up a committee to confer with company officials on a settlement concerning city purchase of the waterworks. After a conference the following month, the Water Company responded by presenting two propositions to the city on January 7, 1907. The first proposal called for an appraisal of the value of the Water Company by three disinterested appraisers, as the franchise called for, one chosen by the city, one by the company, and a third chosen by the first two. The city would have an option to buy the company debt free for one year from the date of the appraisal, with the company operating without interference in the interim. The second proposal would allow the company to continue operating the system and allow it to earn enough to pay all operating expenses, an additional 8% per year of the value of the property, and 2% for depreciation. The same rate would apply for all future extensions, as well, with any earnings above the specified amounts going to the city. The council did not accept either proposition, but instead authorized the Fire and Water Committee to correspond with experts to see what it would cost to appraise the waterworks system. W.M. Paugh, chairman of the committee, reported on March 18 that an engineer had been found to make both the appraisal of the old plant and specifications for a new