Since the value had been set as of December 1, 1917, all earnings of the plant past that date were subject to interest charged against the city. Once these figures were calculated, the judgment was entered in District Court establishing the amount the city owed at $1,999,066.71.

Neither side really wanted that result. Both parties appealed again, with the question again arising over whether the city had actually agreed to purchase the plant. In April 1922, the Appellate Court upheld the city's position, stating that the city had only intended to present a price to the voters for approval by passing the ordinance on November 7, 1917. Therefore, there was no contract and the city did not have to purchase the Water Company. After years of haggling, the company had again avoided selling its property and was granted a new franchise on August 22, 1922.

While the court case was in progress, the city had been faced with many problems as a result of water shortages. During 1921, climaxing in May, the city had been faced with continued low pressure and shortages. A proclamation was issued by Mayor Wallace Kemp on May 31,1921, to limit water sprinkling in the city to the hours between 6 and 7 p.m. for 30 days. An ordinance was passed soon after to enforce it. On May 22, 1921, City Manager Clapp sent a telegram to the Wichita Water Company in New York stating, "Practical failure of water supply here, commencing first week and daily growing worse. No water on second floors in most of the city and none on first floors in some parts. Toilets locked in city building and other buildings and homes, on account of no water for flushing. Have reliable information many wells of little service and some entirely dead. Emergency and serious fire peril exists. Immediate action for relief must be had." (Eagle, 5/22/21).

At the May 17 City Commission meeting, the company had signed an agreement to sink two additional wells and make service extensions to areas of the city with new structures, spending some $50,000, but more was needed. Clapp claimed that the company was neglecting the supply problem and instead of spending earnings for improvements the money was diverted to pay dividends.

Clapp's telegram brought a quick response from the company on May 23 from New York: "Your telegram regarding water supply conditions received. Are ordering material for earliest possible shipment and will use every effort to have same installed without delay. Counting on good faith of city, are proceeding without waiting for Judge Pollock formal signing of ordinance." (Eagle, 5/24/21). The company agreed to meet the need by July 1, 1921.

The problem originally surfaced during the court case. The water officials agreed that, since the city owned the plants, according to court decisions, the company could not justify spending additional funds for expansion. The city countered with the argument that the issue was being appealed and that the water utility had an obligation to continue service. The compromise got the company to expand but the city still desired more.

The need for expanded service and a possibility of a future demand for soft water also helped in the development of the new franchise.

Through negotiations the city and company finally came to agreement. The terms of the new franchise were for 20 years, with the company agreeing to expend at least $100,000 in improvements within two years of the effective date. The city retained its option to buy the company at any time, paying the valuation as of December 1, 1917, plus additional investments, while the company would receive eight percent of the invested cost from the gross receipts as profit. In addition, Clause 7 provided that if the city developed a softer water supply the company would distribute the water. This clause would become very important in the future.

A new ordinance, 7744, outlined the meter rates and repealed the original Ordinance 266, including the clause that allowed the city to declare the contract null and void if the company failed to comply with its terms. The controversy, at least for a time, was over.

Throughout the history of the relationship between the company and city, many issues were repeated, and often handled in contradictory fashion. When the issue of city ownership came up again in the 1950s, the Eagle would observe that, not only were the issues repeated, but the same solutions were offered. This was, in large part, due to changing and complex conditions, but it was also a result of changing administrations. Every few years, new commissioners were elected, with different opinions, perspectives, and experience, making long-term planning difficult, an inevitable feature of representative government. This was especially evident following the passage of the franchise, when work continued into finding a softer supply of water.

Agitation over the soft water question was initiated early in the 1920's. William (Billy) L. Ainsworth, a Wichita geologist, instigated an early campaign to obtain soft water from the Equus Beds in northern Sedgwick and southern Harvey counties. Later he would be called a "one-man