The entire sewage treatment controversy was a long and political process, but, as always, the work was eventually completed. During the implementation of the various decisions, the process became an integral part of the complicated water situation.

Even after the purchase of the Water Company, many actions were necessary before the Cheney project would become a reality. The feud within the City Commission continued during much of the time.

On November 12, 1957, the City Commission officially approved five contracts for pipeline extensions and well installations for the 20 new wells in the Equus Beds, following approval of the September 30 bids by the Housing and Home Finance Agency. The remaining bids which had been put off for readvertisement, and to allow Layne-Western Company to make its bid, were taken the following week. Also, on the 19th, the city received for its records all of the deeds, instruments of conveyance, bills of sale, rights-of-way contracts, and all other documents pertaining to municipal acquisition of water utility properties. A few final arrangements were also necessary for the sale. On February 4, 1958, the City Commission approved (3 to 2) a tender of $120,029.54 in final settlement to the American Water Works Company, based on an audit showing the final sum required for the company. On March 11, 1958, the director of finance reported that the total cost for the company and for retiring the notes was $41,183,444, leaving a balance of $641,556 which the commission used to retire other revenue bonds.

Tempers continued to flare in the City Commission. It reached the point that, on April 1, Commissioner Stevens pushed Howse clear off the platform where the commissioners were seated. But despite a few flurries, which had led the commission meetings to be called "The Tuesday Night Fights" by the news media, Stevens and Madden became almost a permanent minority. Baird, who at the outset had sided with them, joined Gardner and Howse on the Water Company purchase as well as the Cheney project, allowing a 3 to 2 vote to carry when it was necessary.

The conflicts slowed action on the Cheney project as a result of a reluctance by federal officials to react in light of the city's controversy. The City Commission formally notified the federal commissioner of reclamation about the municipal ownership of the water system on May 1, 1958, and one of the major obstacles at the federal level was removed.

On May 21, 1958, another major hurdle was jumped when Secretary of Interior Fred Seaton approved the reservoir project. Two important factors were part of his approval: the city's passage in the 1956 election of its financial obligation in the project, and the purchase of the Wichita Water Company, avoiding the objection to the use of federal funds in supplying water to a private utility for distribution at a profit. Seaton's report listed the total cost at $15,692,000 with the city paying $6,169,000. The federal government would pay the remainder with $4,527,000 allocated for flood control benefits, $4,692,000 for fish and wildlife benefits, and $307,000 for recreation. His approval followed that of Robert W. Jennings, regional director of the Bureau of Reclamation, W.A. Dexheimer, Washington Bureau of Reclamation commissioner, and Fred G. Aandahl, assistant secretary of the Department of Interior.

After Seaton's approval, federal law required the concurrence of the states of Kansas, Colorado, Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Arkansas, because whatever happened to the flow of water on the Arkansas, White, Red, and Ninnescah rivers directly affected these six states. In addition, approval from various agencies was needed. A considerable period of time was taken awaiting these endorsements.

Another controversy arose in the City Commission when a letter was received on June 8 by Mayor Gardner from Kansas Senators Andrew F. Schoeppel and Frank Carlson, dated May 29, 1958. The letter outlined the progress of the Cheney project and what was left to do. With Secretary Seaton's approval, the Federal Flood Control Act and other federal agreements required the matter to be referred to the various states and federal departments for comment. Then the revised report would be sent to the Bureau of the Budget for administrative approval, which would then send it to Congress for project authorization and fund appropriation. The letter claimed that much progress had been made during the 85th congress after the City Commission unanimously reaffirmed the Ninnescah project on August 6, 1957. It went on to emphasize that intensive effort would be required in the future. The letter specified that no further action would be taken until the commission gave further assurance of its support for the reservoir.

The letter then scolded the commission for its past actions, "Action was delayed at the federal level last year, because of the public differences among members of the City Commission and the resulting protests against the project which were voiced to members of the congressional delegation. This lack of unity, coupled with the reluctance of the City Commission to carry out its contractual obligations in purchasing the distribution system of the Wichita Water Company as an integral step in the long-range solution to your water problem, is a matter of record known to many members of the Congress and raises some questions as to the wishes of the people of Wichita and its governing body." (Howse, 1962).

It went on to ask for support from the city. "The purpose of this letter is to advise that if the citizens want the Ninnescah Reservoir and if we can assure members of Congress that the City Commission will proceed to discharge obligations to the federal government as these obligations may arise in the normal course of events, we are prepared to use our best offices to secure favorable legislation at the earliest possible date. Accordingly, we ask the Board of Wichita City Commissioners for its formal assurance with respect to its wishes concerning the proposed Ninnescah Reservoir. Pending receipt of your reply no further action will be taken." (Eagle, 6/9/58).

The commission reacted promptly to the letter on June 10, but not without internal squabbles. When the matter was brought up for discussion, Madden asked where the senators got their information, claiming, "not from me." He then added, "Commissioner Howse was in Washington recently and as usual he's made representations to the senators." Baird subsequently called Madden out of order when Howse raised a point of order against him. Madden spoke on the subject, arguing that he had always favored the Ninnescah project, but that his vote against the bid on the revenue bonds for the purchase of the company was because the interest was too high. "Despite the flare-up at the meeting, the board went ahead to vote, 4 to 0, to reaffirm its intent to do all necessary to foster the Ninnescah project and meet any obligations occurring." (Eagle, 6/10/58). Stevens was out of the city on business.

Madden's request to have a letter explaining his view sent to the senator, along with the resolution reaffirming the city's position, was denied by the three remaining commissioners and the resolution was sent along.

A few weeks later the issue came up again with Stevens present. According to the Beacon's report of the June 1 incident, "The commission's action followed charges by Commissioner John Stevens that a 'certain city hall reporter and a 'certain member' of the City Commission had made a cowardly and unwarranted attack upon himself and Commissioner John Madden by implying they were opposed to the reservoir." (Beacon, 7/1/58). Stevens claimed that the Kansas Congressional delegation had been misinformed that he and Madden were against the project. He made a motion that either of the two should serve with Howse on water problems, and after his charges, called for a vote.

Madden refused it, however, saying, "Under no circumstance will I serve with Commissioner Howse on this or any other committee to which he may be appointed." Stevens then consented to a substitute motion that he serve with Howse, "in the interest of furthering this project." It was all for naught as the motion failed 3 to 2, leaving Howse as the official City Commission representative. (City Commission Minutes).

When Gardner asked Stevens to withdraw his motion temporarily to allow for a reaffirmation of the Cheney project, he did, and the commission again unanimously supported it in a resolution which was also sent to the senators. The resolution pledged the commission to supporting the project and agreed to enter into a contract with the federal government to repay the city's portion. This was one of the few items where full agreement existed, however.

Howse's October 1, 1957, report on the trip he and Madden took to Washington appeared when Madden argued that it was inaccurate, presenting only the "opinions and conclusions of Howse." This led to Howse's defense, described earlier, when he asked Madden to write out his objections, which Madden said was unnecessary and suggested asking the senators. Later Howse said, "It's no wonder Madden can't remember what happened in Washington. He was gone half the time and asked me to cover for him." (Eagle, 7/1/58).

Another issue arose when Madden objected to Gardner's claim that Howse, as a one-member committee, could take other city employees with him to Washington to insure adequate representation. As a result, City Attorney Aley was asked to examine the October 1, 1957, commission action to see if it was legal. According to commission minutes, the motion, made by Madden interestingly enough, was that the commission should "authorize Commissioner Howse to act as the representative for the Board of Commissioners of the city of Wichita and to take whatever action is necessary including trips and expenses and the taking of whatever commissioners or staff members and individuals to bring these matters on the Ninnescah project to their conclusion." It had passed 4 to 1, with Stevens in opposition. (Eagle, 7/1/58).

Following all of the arguing, Madden and Stevens pushed to have a transcript of the meeting sent to the Kansas Congressional delegation, but