Another provision required communities to "establish criteria against which to determine the adequacy of charges imposed on classes and categories of users reflecting all factors that influence the cost of waste treatment, including strength, volume, and delivery flow rate characteristics of waste." (U.S. Statutes, 1972).

Once PL 92-500 passed, Wichita reacted quickly to meet those specifications, otherwise none of the other work could be accomplished, since federal money would not be available. Black and Veatch, consulting engineers, were retained on September 19, 1972, to conduct an in-depth study of Wichita's sewer service charge rate structure and to design an equitable charge structure which would meet the criteria established by PL 92-500. They presented the Report on Sewage Service Charges for Wichita, Kansas to the City Commission in October.

Because of the complexity of the law and the unique charges required, the commission established an ad hoc sewer rate study committee on February 5, 1974, comprised of twelve community people, including John D. Wynkoop, who had succeeded Hess as director of Water and Water Pollution Control in 1973, to review the report and make recommendations.

Black and Veatch had originally been requested by the City Commission to establish a sewer rate schedule to meet three criteria: first, to be equitable and suitable; second, to provide sufficient revenues to meet needs until 1978; and, third, to meet the requirements of PL 92-500.

After meeting eight times beginning on March 4, 1974, the committee submitted its final report to the City Commission with a cover letter from Chairman C.W. Nieuwhof, dated June 27. The recommendations included a rate schedule setting minimum fees and subsequent charges per cubic foot which diminished as quantity increased. A 100 percent surcharge for customers outside the city was recommended, compared to a 7 percent surcharge proposed by Black and Veatch. Extra strength charges developed by the firm, which would establish higher rates for companies which discharged substances difficult to treat, such as grease and metals, as required by PL 92-500, were supported. In addition, the committee recommended that the city work to repeal the industrial cost recovery (ICR) provision of PL 92-500. ICR called for industries to pay back the portion of a federal grant which benefited industrial users. It was opposed since industries also had to help pay off bonds through normal user charges. (On October 22, 1980, President Ronald Reagan signed into law a bill repealing the ICR provisions of the Clean Water Act.) In addition to the main report, two minority reports were also presented which took a different position toward industries and how high bills should be.

The committee's cover letter noted the difference of opinion, "It must be pointed out that it was not possible to achieve consensus on all aspects of the report. Its recommendations represent the best compromise that could be reached. The divergence of points of view represented in the committee is demonstrated by the two minority reports which are attached also." The commission generally accepted the majority report of the committee and ordered an ordinance prepared, which was adopted and submitted to the EPA in April 1975. (Water Department Files).

After it was presented, a long wait was in store for Wichita. Although meetings between city and federal officials were held, it was not until July 25, 1977, that Wichita received the first written notification on the proposed sewer charges.

A letter from Paul Walker, chief of engineering of the EPA water division, to Wynkoop, dealt primarily with the surcharge on rates for customers outside the city. The EPA felt that, "Doubling the charge for customers outside the city limits does not meet the proportionality requirements of the regulations." Otherwise, the proposed code was generally acceptable to EPA. (Water Department Files).

Wynkoop responded in a letter dated August 26, 1977, which incorporated changes to meet the EPA's suggestions. If the changes were approved by the EPA, they would then be forwarded to the City Commission for adoption, allowing the city to meet the federal regulations.

The EPA did not respond until 1978. This time the EPA had a new objection, not previously addressed, as Walker acknowledged. The complaints dealt with the outdated data upon which the rate ordinance was based. The city's proposed sewer rate schedule was not acceptable since it resulted from data collected in 1973. EPA required the rates to be updated. Ironically, EPA's rejection of Wichita's proposal resulted from EPA's own delays.

The city had little recourse, since it needed EPA approval. Therefore, on February 13, Denton requested that the City Commission authorize him to negotiate with Black and Veatch to update the 1973 report.

This study was eligible for 75 percent federal funding and the city applied for a grant. In so doing, the contract also had to be approved by the EPA, Wynkoop sent it to Walker for review on May 25, 1978. The EPA responded three months later, with various suggestions which were incorporated.

By early 1979, the review and update by Black and Veatch were completed and submitted to the EPA for approval. On April 26, 1979, the EPA accepted the new proposal with few suggestions. The new ordinance was finally ready for adoption by August, and the City Commission considered it on August 21.

In the interim, the facilities plan and infiltration study had been completed, with plans for $87.33 million in sewer system construction during the succeeding five years, mostly to meet EPA requirements. The new sewer rates had to provide the revenue for such improvements, while the EPA also specified that the rates must pay for operation, maintenance, and replacement, and be equitable at the same time. This meant that industries would have significantly higher rates compared to the past, when they had been subsidized by residential customers. The highest consumers, with more than three million cubic feet of sewage a month, would notice an increase of over 300 percent. The new ordinance also provided for the payment of higher fees for putting hard-to-treat sewage in the system, and lowered the out-of-city surcharge from 100 percent to 50 percent. Water rates were also increased.

Commissioner Garry Porter attempted to keep the surcharge for residences at 100 percent and raise it to 100 percent for industries, but only Commissioner Connie Peters agreed, resulting in a 3 to 2 defeat. The plan, which included a two-year schedule of rate changes, with some increases on January 1, 1980, and more on January 1, 1981, was finally placed on first reading 4 to 1 (Porter opposed). It would raise total sewer revenue by 59.1 percent by the end of 1981, to $3.39 million.

The following week, on August 28, the commission was to place the ordinance on second reading, obtaining final approval. Ken Brasted, president of the Chamber of Commerce, asked for a delay to allow the chamber more time to study the ordinance. Although it had not come out against the new rates, the chamber expressed concern over the 307 percent increase for large industrial users. The commission granted the delay.

Four votes were necessary to approve the rate increases for water and sewer, but Peters was absent due to illness. Therefore, when the matter was discussed on September 18, only tentative approval was given since Porter supported a 100 percent surcharge. The matter was brought up again October 2, with all five commissioners present; however, it was difficult to obtain the four votes, since Peters supported Porter, while the other three, Bob Knight, Mayor Tony Casado, and Bob Brown, supported the staff's proposal of 50 percent.

Brown initially moved to accept the staff recommendation, but Porter made a substitute motion to charge 75 percent. Porter argued that the high surcharge could encourage acceptance of annexation. "Let's serve the constituency that elected us," he pleaded. "We owe our loyalty to Wichita." Knight opposed using the fee to force annexation and subsequent higher tax receipts, and Brown thought the 50 percent figure was already "pretty doggoned stiff." The substitute motion failed 2 to 3, with Knight, Casado, and Brown against. Then the original motion failed 3 to 2, with Porter and Peters in opposition. Casado next tried a