Porter moved to follow their recommendation and pursue the Bluff Street sewer, saying there was no other choice. Other commissioners disagreed and it died for lack of a second.

Discussion from the public ensued. Residents along the Bluff Street route spoke out against taking that action, and a petition was filed in opposition to it, arguing instead that Dry Creek was the best choice. But individuals also came out against the Dry Creek option. Keith Sanborn, president of the Dry Creek Residents Association, argued the cost figures were wrong, saying the EPA put the figures in the April 1980 report at $921,227 for Bluff Street and $735,682 for Dry Creek, significantly different from the staff's figures. Wynkoop acknowledged he had updated the Bluff Street figures to $1.3 million, but not Dry Creek because he considered it a "moot point." (Eagle, 6/4/80).

The commissioners debated the issue, with Casado and Brown agreeing with Bluff Street residents that the cheapest route should be followed whether it was paid by federal or city money, since, "It's our money--all of it." In addition, the commission resented the EPA telling the city where to put sewers, believing it to be a local decision. Finally, on a motion by Casado, the commission voted 3 to 2 to pursue the Dry Creek route, and to use all possible means to obtain federal financial support. In the Eagle's coverage of the action on June 4, the headline read "City Takes On EPA Over Dry Creek," and the commission was described as "voting to tilt their lances" at the federal government. (Eagle, 6/4/80).

Denton reported the commission's position in a letter dated June 9 to Camin. In the letter, he provided updated cost figures for both alternatives, taking into account inflation and required improvements of the EIS, resulting in $883,445 for Dry Creek and $1,510,270 for Bluff Street. "It is the opinion of Wichita City Commission that during these days of continued inflation and a growing recession, every public dollar be spent wisely," Denton said. "With this in mind, it seems improper for us to favorably consider the much more costly Bluff Street gravity project, even with a federal grant. The public dollar, whether or not it is labeled local or federal, is still the public dollar," he wrote. (City Manager's Files.)

The letter went on to address the content of the public testimony, concluding that, after listening to the speakers, "The city is of the further opinion that the damage to the residents along the Bluff Street route, in terms of public safety and inconvenience, outweigh any negative environmental impact along Dry Creek." A tape of the public hearing was enclosed with attention drawn to one speaker, Reverend Jeffrey Black, who was described as "most illuminating," along with pictures of the erosion in Dry Creek. (City Manager's Files).

The letter concluded by informing Camin of the city's decision to pursue Dry Creek as "the most desirable route," regardless of a federal grant, and requested that the "EPA reconsider funding the Dry Creek project as they had previously agreed to in 1977." (City Manager's Files).

Denton followed up with another letter on August 6 after failing to get a reply, reiterating the June 9th request. Camin finally responded in a letter dated September 5, 1980, stating that the tapes and the cost estimates had been reviewed.

The letter emphatically rejected the city's plea, "The reasons for our decision that the EPA would only fund the Bluff Street gravity interceptor alternative were stated in the summary of the final EIS. The major long-term disturbance of the Dry Creek wooded area was balanced with the increased cost and non-monetary considerations of public inconvenience, public safety, and minor woodland disturbances associated with the Bluff Street gravity alternative. Since the impacts associated with the Bluff Street gravity alternative are of limited duration and mitigative measures are available, the effects will be short term only." It went on to say, "For these reasons, our decision remains the same as stated in the final EIS. We will participate in funding the implementation of the Bluff Street gravity alternative. We will not participate in funding the construction of a sewer down Dry Creek." (City Manager's Files).

The City Commission was informed of the EPA's refusal at the September 23rd meeting. Once again the city staff recommended that the Bluff Street alternative be accepted. The newspapers gave the matter publicity including a story on September 21, with the heading, "Wichita's Sewer Dilemma: Federal Aid vs. Local Clout," and an editorial on September 12 called for the commission to give up the fight against the EPA and accept the Bluff Street money. The City Commission refused.

Four alternatives were presented to the commission: 1) to accept the EPA's offer and build on Bluff Street; 2) to build the Dry Creek interceptor, all out of city funds; 3) to appeal the decision of the regional EPA to the national office; and 4) to do nothing, which would mean to wait for the collapse of the sewer. Denton stressed that the staff supported the Dry Creek option as best, but because of delays recommended taking the first alternative. Despite staff recommendations, Wynkoop's appraisal that an appeal "probably would take forever," and citizens' opposition to the Dry Creek proposal, the commission voted 3 to 2 to appeal the EPA regional office's decision to Washington. Casado made the motion and Brown and Knight supported it, while Porter and Connie Peters Kennard voted against continuing the battle. The federal government's position was "outrageous and arrogant", Knight claimed. The majority favored the appeal and all were committed to fight all the way.

As per instructions, the city initiated the appeal. Mayor Knight signed a letter dated October 1, 1980, to Camin which served as a "notice of an intent to appeal." "Specifically," the letter stated, "the city of Wichita is appealing from the decision reached in the final EIS and affirmed by you that, in order to receive federal funds, the EPA would require the city of Wichita to amend its grant application for the Dry Creek alternative to the Bluff Street gravity alternative." It went on to state the text of Wichita's case, "It is the contention of the city of Wichita that in making its decision, the EPA has erroneously applied criteria in determining that non-monetary considerations outweigh monetary considerations in the selection of the preferred alternative for this project. It is the city's contention that a review of the relevant evidence and proper application of the criteria will support the proposal for the Dry Creek project." Finally, City Attorney John Dekker was designated to represent Wichita in the proceedings. The city also formally filed with the EPA Board of Assistance Appeals on the same day. (City Manager's Files).