The entire project was estimated at $1,000,000 with half of that going for labor, an important factor during the economic depression. John Kirkwood, former president of the Chamber of Commerce, and an outspoken advocate of the plan, pushed for soft water from the beginning. He estimated that the average water bill would rise only $5 (1930 figures), while soap costs would decline as much as $14 because of the softness, according to a study performed in Columbia, Missouri. In addition to Kirkwood's support, large ads were placed in the papers explaining the facts about soft water, and were often signed by key community figures, such as Bert Wells, Sylvester Long, or A.E. Watkins, the president of the Chamber of Commerce. Along with official support, both the Eagle and the Beacon clearly supported the plan, as demonstrated in their editorials, as well as the city's medical fraternity, and a variety of civic organizations such as the Cooperative Club and the Metro Club.

Wells, in an extensive Eagle article, gave a detailed explanation of the plan which was published on August 9, 1931. R.B. Campbell, a former water and sewer commissioner, was reported on the 16th as saying, "I am personally convinced that after some 20 years of studying the thing, this is the most feasible, satisfactory, and economic plan to give Wichita a splendid supply of pure, soft water at a minimum of costs." Further assurances appeared in later editions of the papers, many of the statements signed by the city manager. With all of this activity, Wells was correct when he said that for the first time in 20 years all bodies and organizations in Wichita were in agreement on "an efficient, economical, and desirable plan of securing soft water." (Eagle, 8/6/30). Ironically, this outpouring of support was for the same plan which had been attacked and soundly defeated six years earlier.

The unusual unanimity throughout the city culminated on August 20, with a 7,044 to 4,118 victory for the plan. More people voted on the proposition than had voted in the city election held earlier in the year, with more than half of the water users participating. The City Commission regarded the decision as final. Under the plan, as passed, a softening plant would be built at Sullivan's dam with the city's water supply coming from the Little Arkansas River. The Water Company would bear the expense but would raise rates by an estimated 40 percent to offset its increased investment.

The next step was to prepare a contract between the city and the Water Company which, once accepted and cost estimates approved, would be followed by the plant's construction. The Eagle concluded on August 21 by saying, "If no lengthy negotiations ensue, there is hope work on the plant can get underway this fall in time to aid the employment situation this winter."

It was just not to be, however. After finally reaching a point where a solution was in sight, the agreement with the company collapsed. In a session with the City Commission on September 23, 1931, the American Waterworks and Electric Company, the parent firm of the Wichita Water Company, demanded a 20-year franchise from the city prior to the construction of a softening plant and pipeline to Sullivan's dam, which the commission refused.

The city had drawn up a tentative contract providing for the company to secure soft water from the Little Arkansas River north of the city and to construct a plant for further softening and purification. Water Company officials, with Earle Evans acting as legal counsel, came to Wichita to confer with the commission once the contract was submitted.

The conference was held on Wednesday night, September 23, at a City Commission meeting. Speaking for the Company, E.S. Thompson, treasurer, argued that the company would have difficulty selling the proposed bond issue of $1,000,000 or more for the soft water plant if the company's franchise had only a few years left. He said that the water bonds were purchased mainly by trust and savings banks in the New England states with many having statutes setting a minimum time on the length of a franchise. Finding a buyer without sacrificing price was difficult with a short franchise, Thompson concluded. The Wichita franchise ran only until 1942, with two years required before the plan could be operational and the bonds legally sold, leaving nine years for the franchise to run.

The City Commission acted surprised about the request for a new franchise. This was in spite of the fact that, according to the Eagle, it had on several occasions recently published the fact that the Water Company would ask for a new franchise from the city before investing in a $1,000,000 soft water plant.

Following Thompson's presentation, the commission discussed the possibilities. In general, commissioners opposed such action without a public demand in favor. A number of citizens at the meeting pushed for the city to purchase and operate the water plant. This prompted the mayor, Frank Nighswonger, to state that a new franchise could not be voted on in such short notice but would require a full evaluation. After a lengthy debate from the floor, the company officials were asked to leave. More discussion commenced, with citizens speaking against the new franchise and in favor of municipal ownership. This preceded an executive session with only the city officials present, and no hidden microphones.

The Water Company was soon invited back in and informed that the new franchise would not be granted, although the city expressed the hope that negotiations could continue under the 20-year franchise granted to the company in 1922. Upon hearing the denial, the company officials reported their need to contact the national office before proceeding further, and they reiterated that a new franchise was a fundamental factor in their negotiations.

The following day, Wells met with Biggs and Thompson, both from New York; Kelley, the local manager; and with Evans. After the meeting, Wells said, "It looks like we've got to take a new start and a different plan on the soft water proposition for Wichita," although he refused to elaborate. The conference had been held after a telegram was received by Thompson from the president of the New York company, responding to the City Commission’s action. It read in full, "Regret impossibility economically financing soft water project on basis 10-year franchise. Fail to understand city's attitude in declining to extend franchise for 20 years in view of fact that under such franchise property can be bought at any time and rates are annually adjusted." (City Commission Minutes).

Thompson reported after the meeting, "The telegram is self-explanatory. I have no further comment to make." Both he and Biggs left for New York that afternoon and the matter seemed to be closed.

At the demise of the soft water plan, work began on the alternatives. An Eagle editorial on September 25 outlined four options which the city was studying to develop a soft water supply after it learned of the company's refusal to act. The first plan was to meet the demands of the company and extend the franchise to 20 years. It wouldn't be adopted unless the public demanded it, however, and since it had already been turned down by the commission, its implementation was unlikely. The second idea called for the city to buy the distribution plant and to build a softening plant at Sullivan's dam, meaning municipal ownership of the system. It would require a large bond issue but the newspaper gave it some chance of adoption, especially with the prevailing attitude toward the company. The third proposal was for the city to build and operate the soft water plant and pipeline, with the company buying its supply from the city and handling distribution.

Ironically, considering the action the city would eventually take, the third option was seen as undesirable because, "Plan Number 3 means dual responsibility, officials say, with nobody directly responsible. With the city furnishing the soft water to the distribution company, any objection to service or supply would find the water company pointing to the city as the culprit and the city in turn, laying the blame onto the water company." (Eagle, 9/25/31).

The fourth idea was for the city to build the new plant and lease it to the Water Company for operation. This was considered the most attractive and likely possibility. To build the plant the city would sell one million dollars in bonds with consumers paying for the cost of operation along with the 4% interest on the bonds. They could then be reissued rather than retired upon maturity to keep the price to the consumer lower. Overall, the proposal was cheaper than if the company built the plant, since 8% return on investment plus 1% depreciation allowance would result in a 9% rate the customers would have to pay rather than 4%. Another possibility was to follow this same plan but to still charge the 9%, thereby providing capital to purchase the softening plant and eventually the entire system outright.

With all of the controversy, the issue certainly did not die. Facts about the available options were presented to the commission at its September