The election was for the purpose of approving the bonds for a new soft water plant. Both the principal and interest would be paid back through water rates, not increased taxes, a point emphasized by Wells. In addition Wells displayed charts to demonstrate that the city's plan for the $1,000,000 plant was $300,000 cheaper than the company's proposal. Over a 20-year period the city would pay, for principal, interest, and operation expenses, between $95,000 and $185,000 a year, while the company's estimate was $256,000. And after 20 years under its plan, the company would still own the plant. Finally, Wells spoke of the need for jobs in the city and the cost savings to consumers from soft water.

Article 7 of the franchise, which gave the city the right to undertake a joint venture, read: "Should the city of Wichita hereafter elect to develop a softer or more satisfactory water supply, and to pipe the same to the plant of the grantee, than the grantee shall distribute said supply of water thus furnished by the city of Wichita, reserving so much of its present well system for emergency use as may be advisable and necessary." (Franchise). A tribunal (the City Commission) was authorized to decide upon any disputes in arranging implementation of the clause. If the voters approved, enactment of the provision could begin.

Wells's detailed presentation was only the start of the city's community-wide effort to pass the issue. City officials and interested citizens developed a pamphlet which was passed throughout the city to inform and sway voters. It told of the failed efforts to persuade the water company to build a plant and its refusal to compromise on certain issues in its franchise. The pamphlet stated that the only alternative left for obtaining soft water for the city was to implement Article 7 of the franchise, and have the city provide the supply and the company the distribution. Speakers addressed clubs and other informative meetings throughout Wichita to explain the proposition, all part of the publicity campaign to pass the bonds.

According to the proposition, a 35 percent increase in water bills would be required initially, gradually diminishing to 17 percent after 20 years as the bonds were paid off. Overall, the average water bill would be increased by 50 cents per month. The city officials also promised to employ local labor only and to lay the whole pipeline by hand instead of machine.

Not all of the groups were in favor, however. Parties which had supported soft water were reluctant to back city ownership for a number of reasons, including the threat of communism. To that argument, Wells said he did not know what that meant unless it was to send the company's eight percent profit to New York instead of keeping it at home. The Chamber of Commerce, which had been a big factor in pushing for soft water in the past, opposed the new plan, although it didn’t actively campaign against it. It supported extending the franchise and allowing the company to obtain soft water. Commissioner Horn, who had also previously supported soft water, made what the Eagle termed "an eleventh-hour change' and came out against it. (Eagle, 12/4/31). Opponents of the proposal tried to get the election ruled illegal when they found out that some precincts had more than 800 qualified voters in them, which was more than allowed by state law. Two weeks before the election, Attorney General Roland Boynton ruled the problem an irregularity which would not change the outcome of the election and therefore it was still valid.

The opinion was followed by a final two weeks of intense campaigning. The newspapers helped the city by publishing numerous articles explaining the city's views, with headlines such as, "Say City's Soft Water Plan Will Save $2 Million," (Eagle 12/1/31), and, "Soft Water Plan Safe, Says Mayor." (Eagle, 12/4/31). All of the work culminated in the election on December 8, resulting once again in resounding defeat.

In the election, 10,928 people voted, less than had voted in the post card campaign, and the issue lost 8,406 to 2,465. The paper explained the vote by saying the public had simply not wanted to spend public money on any public improvements, or to pay higher rates for any purpose. Bond issues in Oklahoma City and Newton for similar improvements had been voted down a few weeks earlier, indicating according to the Eagle on December 9, 1931, "that the public mind is firmly against any increase in public expenditure or in taxation." The headline read "Economy Defeats Project," and in the subheading the paper clearly indicated its feeling on the result. "Although Plan Would Have Meant Savings, Bond Issue is Unpopular." The depression had a hand in defeating the issue and put off for nearly another decade the advent of a quality supply of water in Wichita.

The overwhelming defeat of the proposal, along with the commissioners' refusal to extend the franchise, was interpreted by the Eagle to "mean undoubtedly that the city will not obtain a soft water supply for a least another decade." After years of work, study, and alternatives presented from a variety of sources, the water supply was still from the original source in Wichita.