Eventually the facts concerned city officials, who began viewing the problem as a serious issue. Predictions of consumption patterns continued to fall by the wayside. In May 1950, studies for a future water supply began. On May 3, city officials admitted that Wichita's water supply, which once had been considered almost indefinite, could fall well short of the demands of a growing community in a matter of years if the consumption increases continued. The Beacon reported on May 5, 1950, "Three years ago it was anticipated that the Harvey County water would last a minimum of 25 years, but water consumption has increased greatly since then and it is so much greater that officials are anxious to find a new supply and earmark it for future use."

With approval by City Manager Monty Jones, an investigation of a new supply was initiated when Hess and E.N. Smith, director of services, considered using Lake Kanopolis, 67 miles northwest of the city. Even though the engineering difficulties of the long distances could be handled, according to the officials, other factors diminished the likelihood of using the lake. Hess reported after visiting the site that the "quality of the Kanopolis water is not as good as we had hoped." The quantity was there, however, as Smith indicated, "We could take all the water we need and it wouldn't even be missed from the lake." (Beacon, 5/5/50). The city made no decisions on the future use of Kanopolis, which would continue to be an option in the controversial years to come. The search for a new supply had begun.

Among the questions concerning the supply, an old concept reared its head once more in 1950. On June 27, City Commissioner L.A. Donnell suggested that the city take over the Wichita Water Company. It came during an intense discussion of a water shortage the city was experiencing due to high consumption and inadequate mains. Just the week before, the commission had adopted an emergency ordinance to restrict water usage in Wichita allowing individuals to sprinkle lawns only on alternate days, and no sprinkling between 5 and 10 p.m. Lloyd and L.S. Mullins, owners of a lawn service in Wichita, complained of potential huge losses if they could not sprinkle new lawns daily. Following a discussion of the request, the commission amended the ordinance to allow sprinkling when a livelihood depended upon it. Commissioner Floyd Amsden voted against the amendment, feeling it was a privilege others might also want and suggested the Mullins brothers sue the company and the city for their losses. Conflict also developed because the Water Company had wanted to raise rates, causing heated debates which intensified as the commissioners warmed to the subject.

Mayor Earl K. Duke revealed that he had urged the Water Company officials to increase the laying of mains for some time, and called it ridiculous for them to lay mains one at a time. He also said he supported additional crews even if it meant more contractors had to be hired. The debate continued with Amsden adding, "The Water Company has a contract to furnish water to the city. (They) have violated that contract. They've known the situation for several years. On top of that they had the temerity to come in and ask for a raise in rates. The company has a wonderful deal--it gets six percent on the investment under the franchise with the city...(They) should be told to forget the rate increase." (Eagle, 6/27/50).

Amsden then urged the city to bring suit against the company. Donnell joined in, arguing to make the contract stronger, and soon after suggested the city take over. The Assistant City Attorney Lawrence Curfman told the commissioners, after requested by Donnell, that it was too late to place the issue of buying the company on the August 1 primary ballot. It could, however, be ready for the November election. No action was taken, but the mood was dark. The commissioners instructed the legal department to report on various damage claims made against the Water Company. Donnell then moved to amend the motion to say that the payment of damages should be enforced by the city, forcing the company into bankruptcy, thereby exercising the city's right to buy the property. Again, no direct action was taken on the amendment, but the stage had been set again for battle. And in the years ahead, it would become a big one.

The new controversy had developed in the early months of 1950. According to Water Company records, it had failed to achieve either a $225,000 profit or a six percent return on its investment, as called for in the franchise, leaving it $90,000 short annually. To cover the shortage the company filed for a rate increase of 39.5 percent. The commission hired an independent consulting firm, Burns and McDonnell of Kansas City, Missouri, on June 1, to survey the company's request. The firm released its report on August 23, 1950, concluding that a rate increase was indeed necessary. The recommendations called for rates to be raised 29.4 percent to 35.5 percent, depending on increases in gross revenue taxes and an allowance for possible future wage increases, in order to meet the franchise provisions. Despite the negative feeling from the commissioners, with L.A. Donnell and Floyd Amsden wanting to deny the request, the city had little choice in the matter, and on September 5 approved the increase. The Beacon reported that the vote ended "a verbal battle of many weeks between the commission and the Water Company."

The increase went into effect on October 1, raising the average Wichitan's home water bill from $14.91 to $20.20. The surcharge, which had been raised to 25 percent earlier, was continued, and the franchise tax was increased from one percent to four percent. Millar commended the action, saying it would allow the firm to borrow $3.0 million, of which $1.3 million would be earmarked for a large expansion program,