The new commission elected in April inherited the water problem, as the company was able to apply its own pressure. City Treasurer G.E. Harris said in his annual report on April 12, 1909, "The urgent necessity of water main extensions to outlying residential districts is a matter of serious moment. A number of extensions have been ordered but the recent water agitation seems to have delayed the work."

A Special Citizen Committee was set up by the City Commission, with five members each from the Chamber of Commerce, the Commercial Club and the West Side League, to study and report on the water situation. On February 1, 1910, the commission hired the J.S. Worley Company to recheck Phillips' 1908 appraisal and to update the valuation. His report was submitted on May 21, 1910, with an appraisement completed as of February 1, 1910. According to Worley, the report, in which "The officers and employees of the Wichita Water Company assisted and cheerfully gave such help and information as was requested," found that Phillips' analysis was approximately correct. His updated valuation for the plant was $815,537.67. (Worley, 1910).

During this time, negotiations with the Water Company resulted in an agreement signed on January 17, 1910, to purchase the plant. Because of Worley's work, the committee rejected the company offer of $1,202,000 as too high. "Negotiations, as on previous occasions, for the purchase of the property were futile," Worley reported in a later update. (Worley, 1911).

For the next year little else was accomplished, although study continued. The Water Company continually succeeded in putting off the efforts to buy it. Corbin explained what happened, "Throughout the entire period of negotiations, up to the time of the purchase by the city, the Water Company's actions were dominated by their very real interest in retaining a valuable asset. The strategy was always the same -- make a counter proposal to gain time in order to find some means of overcoming the threatened purchase. The apparent advantage enjoyed by the private company in this controversy resulted from the fact that its interest was specific and unvarying while the city's interest--though real--was general and difficult to specify, thereby leading to diverse and contradictory solutions." (Corbin, 1972).

By the summer of 1911, the question of the purchase of the company again became an issue in the city. On June 19, the commission instructed City Attorney Blake to begin working on condemnation of the Water Company, with a view toward buying it. In the meantime, the Worley Company was hired by the City Commission again to update the valuation of the Water Company. At the same time, the Water Company had decided to initiate its own independent inventory by Burns and McDonnell, consulting engineers of Kansas City, Missouri, which was completed on August 17, 1911. The two inventories were compared, with only minor differences. Worley's new valuation found a reproduction cost for physical property, less depreciation, of $941,308.41, with an intangible element of $230,946.66, to give a total of $1,171,655.07. The report was finished in September, 1911, and officially presented to the city on October 20.

It was also during this period that efforts were made to evaluate the quality of the water supply. The Real Estate Dealers Association of Wichita actively supported a soft water supply, under the direction of President A.C. Dickson. F.W. Bruckmiller of the State Board of Health was obtained to examine and test ten water samples from the area, both from within the city's supply and from wells near Sedgwick and Valley Center. In a letter to Dickson, dated August 30, 1911, Bruckmiller reported he found the latter samples "not objectionable as a supply," with the best sample taken from one-half mile west of Valley Center. In contrast, the samples of city water were "no good for city use" and "not fit for city supply." As a result of these findings, the committee, according to the Eagle on August 14, 1952, "reported what everyone knew--that the water wasn't fit to drink." Bruckmiller's report "began a long history of warnings, directions and orders which emanated from the Kansas State Board of Health on Wichita water matters until 1960." (Howse, 1962).

With the updated appraisal and an evaluation of the water, another election was scheduled with a resolution passed by the City Commission on November 20, 1911. As was often the case, the impetus for action came from private groups.

After receiving Bruckmiller's report, the Real Estate Dealers Association adopted a report on November 12, which called for the city to secure a soft water supply and, because of the problems with buying the Water Company, to construct an entirely new water system to be owned and operated by the city.

The Real Estate Dealers Association had presented their recommendations to the commission on the 13th. Dickson also tied in the request with the Light Company, saying the question (of the municipal light plant) was closely allied to that of a municipal water plant. He said, "It is not a question of spending more taxes, it is simply a question of spending our own money instead of giving to the water and light companies to spend and pay them well for spending it." Therefore, Dickson encouraged the commission to support the construction of a new water and light plant. (Eagle, 11/14/11).

When this move was passed on the 20th, a motion by Mayor Walter Minnick was supported by the commission to allow the citizens a voice in the matter.

The vote called for a special election to be held on December 12,1911, to submit various propositions to voters for the purpose of gaining their opinions, and not for specific actions. The proposition included the questions (1) should the city build a new water plant for no more than $1,000,000? (2) should the city buy the Wichita Water Company property for no more than $900,000? (3) should the Wichita Water Company simply be regulated by the city? and (4) should a lighting plant be erected in connection with the water plant for no more than $200,000?

Since the purpose of the election was to gain input, no effort was made to publicize the issues, or to support any side of the questions. On the day of the election, December 12, the Eagle reported, "The special election is one of the most unusual in the city's history. It has come upon the voters almost silently, almost without agitation, and practically without campaigning. There has been very little partisanship and not much taking of sides. Rarely has there been an election with less politics in it." Despite this, the Eagle articles stated that state fire protection officials and the National Board of Fire Underwriters claimed the water system to be inadequate to protect the city from large fires. In addition, it also carried the reports by the Wichita Real Estate Dealers Association supporting a large supply of water and also the obtainability of soft water.

Results of the vote showed 1,690 in favor of the new plant, 160 for buying the old one and 1,608 for regulating, instead of either of the first two. The lighting plant lost 790 to 2345.

Despite the Eagle's headlines claiming victory for the new million-dollar plant, no clear picture was given to council, since the vote was so close. The election did seem to clearly indicate that support for buying the plant was dying out.

The council took no direct action as a result of the vote. Only a few weeks afterwards, attention riveted on a critical budgetary crisis as expenses exceeded the city's income. And while mention was made