On May 27, 1978, Schneider issued an opinion agreeing with Dekker that the phrase "without a binding vote of the people" carried no legal weight since Kansas statutes did not provide for holding an election on the question of fluoridation. He also concluded that, if the ordinance was adopted, "The prohibition against fluoridation remains valid and binding, in my opinion." (Eagle, 2/28/78).

Based on the ruling, Wichita appeared to have two choices. The ordinance prohibiting fluoride could be approved until the April, 1979, city election to appeal or amend the ban. If the ordinance was rejected, a special election would have to be held by May 31, 110 days after the petition was certified by Elections Commissioner Genevieve Wilbur. Following Schneider's opinion, the commission refused to pass the ordinance, but instead voted to hold a referendum at the November 7 general election, after separate special votes held on the coal gasification proposal and the gay rights ordinance.

The fluoridation opponents wanted the election to be held sooner and on March 23, 1978, a class action suit was filed with the Kansas Supreme Court to require the election before June 1. The petition, filed by Wichita attorney Lyle W. Britt, claimed the voting delay caused Wichitans to be "denied the right to timely vote" on the issue. (Eagle, 3/25/78). State law required that if an ordinance brought up by a petition was not passed within 20 days by the City Commission, an election would have to be held within 90 days, or 110 days from the date of certification. The law actually required the city to "forthwith call a special election" unless a general election would be held within 90 days. The 110-day period expired June 1. Schneider's earlier opinion supported the 110-day requirement, although he also wrote, "it may be argued that the City Commission must only call the election forthwith, but that the election need not be held forthwith, and may be held at any fixed date which the commission chooses, even the next regular city election more than one year in the future." He argued, however, that the "clear legislative concern" was for prompt and specific action in obtaining a popular vote, with the 110-day limit applicable to the election itself. (City Manager's Files). Since the city would appeal any lower court rulings, the petitioners went directly to the Supreme Court to avoid delay. The Supreme Court did not hear the case, however, and the city chose to have the election as scheduled.

With the election date set, campaigning renewed, much in the same manner as it had before. Letters to the editor, ads, speeches, and editorials were in abundance. The pro-fluoride side was pleased with the appearance of additional support, including a New England Journal of Medicine publication of a new federal study of 46 cities, including Wichita, which concluded that fluoridating water to prevent tooth decay had no adverse effect on health.

On October 22, 1978, with the referendum approaching in Wichita and several other cities, U.S. Surgeon General Julius Richmond offered strong support for fluoridation, urging its passage in referendum. He said, "Extensive scientific research has uncovered no valid evidence that any health problem is caused or aggravated by drinking optimally fluoridated water. More than 30 years of research and community experience have demonstrated the benefits and safety of fluoridation. Tooth decay, the leading chronic disease in children, can be reduced by as much as two thirds in children who drink fluoridated water from birth. Many of these children can be completely free of dental decay." The pro-fluoride group claimed the statements proved its point. Dr. Farha said he hoped it would give the pro-fluoride side a boost. "It certainly comes from a good source. It's the same things we've been saying over and over again. There's not any real controversy about it," Farha said. (Eagle, 10/23/78).

As expected, the anti-fluoride forces disagreed. Richmond's report was refuted by Frances Meyers, president of the opposing Safe Water Foundation. Referring to Richmond, she said, "I'm wondering if he has any real authority, or if it's just bureaucratic authority." (Eagle, 10/23/78).

With the election date nearing, campaigning became more intense. The local newspapers carried long articles detailing the issues and explaining studies on both sides. In addition, editorials appeared favoring fluoridation. The controversy was exacerbated by the ballot's wording, since a no vote meant yes (in favor of fluoridation), and a yes vote meant no (opposed to fluoridation). The anti-fluoride groups took advantage of it by trying to make an issue of the right to vote. The Safe Water Foundation circulated petitions claiming a vote for their side, a yes vote, was a vote for a right to vote and for freedom of choice. Meyers said, "I feel it's immoral to take away the individual rights of people." To this, Dr. Farha responded, "They make it seem like you're against democracy if you're for fluoride. You can be for fluoride and still be for democracy." (Eagle, 10/22/78). On November 6, Dr. Cleaver urged a no vote, supporting fluoridation, claiming, "Opponents of fluoridated drinking water are like persons who believe the earth is flat." Appeals by the fluoridation supporters were made to the Board of Health and the City Commission to clarify the wording, but the confusing wording remained. (Beacon, 11/6/78).

The vote came November 7, 1978. Once again the anti-fluoride supporters were victorious, 45,301 to 38,733. Soon after the results were in, fluoridation supporters claimed they would push for another vote, this time with clearer language. Because the ordinance prohibiting fluoridation had passed in a referendum, the City Commission could not repeal it, or implement fluoridation for ten years, but a public vote could be taken at any time.

Assistant Kansas Attorney General John Martin said there was no time limit for a new election. Despite the supporters' drive for a new petition, it was unnecessary. Martin said, "The City Commission could, by resolution, call an election to be held on the question, 'Shall the water of Wichita be fluoridated?'" But whatever would happen in the future, at this time, Wichita still did not have controlled fluoridation of its water. The Eagle summed it up in its 1977 historical overview of the fight, "Today in Kansas, people in more than 155 communities are drinking fluoridated water. The largest city in the state is still not one of them. Of course, Wichita hasn't gone communist either...and our babies' ears are not falling off." (Eagle, 5/15/77).

Most of the history of the water and sewer systems in Wichita coincides with the growth of the city itself. As the Wichita metropolitan area expanded, and Wichita gained full control of its water system, the issue of expansion outside the city limits became very relevant.

Until 1940, the Wichita Water Company dealt with the few out-of-city customers as normal business expansions. But the city gained additional control when the soft water supply network was constructed. An ordinance adopted by the City Commission on August 19, 1940, called for the Water Company to collect, beginning October 1, a 15 percent surcharge on all water bills of consumers within the city and all industrial consumers, and a 30 percent surcharge from customers outside the city. Decisions to expand rested with the company, even though the city could order extensions. By the time the city purchased the company, nine out of the fifteen largest water consumers were located beyond the city limits. When total control was gained, the city had to face the question of a policy for selling water outside the city.

The sewer system was, of course, always owned and operated by the city, so decisions to extend beyond the city limits had rested entirely with city government. Contracts to extend sewage service outside Wichita dated back to December 21, 1908, when the Cudahy Packing Company agreed to a plant expansion if Wichita would extend a water line, furnish sewer facilities (sanitary sewer 20), maintain a fire station close to the plant, and agree not to annex without Cudahy's consent prior to January 1, 1924. Another agreement was made in 1918 with regards to the same sewer when Cudahy, the Wichita Union Stockyards Company, and Jacob Dold Packing Company agreed to pay $40,000 for the expansions of the