The major provisions of the 40-year contract required Wichita's approval before water service was provided to customers outside of Benton's city limits, specified the maximum volume of water to be delivered each year (19,000,000 gallons in 1976, -- 33,000,000 gallons in 2016), and held Benton responsible for all operation and maintenance beyond the metering point. Benton would pay the same rate as the rural water districts. A special election in Benton on March 16, 1976, approved $169,000 in general obligation bonds and a maximum of $75,000 in water revenue bonds to pay for the construction of the transmission line.

Wichita concluded a similar contract a few years later with Rose Hill, a town in western Butler County. Rose Hill Superintendent of Water Richard Boswell approached the Wichita City Commission on June 26, 1979. The commission voted to have the city staff study the proposal to see, according to Commissioner Porter, "whether or not it's a good deal for the citizens we serve." (Beacon, 6/26/79). No official action was taken until March 1981, when Rose Hill again investigated new water supplies.

On April 28, 1981, the Wichita City Commission approved the sale of water to Rose Hill and authorized the city manager to negotiate a contract. Supporting the sale of water to Rose Hill, Wynkoop mentioned important benefits from the agreement. "Further regionalization of the Wichita water system will lessen potential future competition for sources of water, and result in more efficient use of resources involved in supply, treatment, and distribution of water," he wrote. "It will help the city of Wichita to exert a beneficial influence on development and character of surrounding areas. Further, it will extend the basis for goodwill and cooperation between governmental units of the two cities." (Water Department Files). The contract was officially approved by the City Commission on July 7, 1981, and all of the necessary signatures attached by July 10.

The implementation of the contracts with Andover, Benton, and Rose Hill established a general policy for Wichita. In order to be a "good neighbor" as well as to increase its regional influence, Wichita would, whenever possible, provide water services to area residents. Denton emphasized that policy on March 30,1981, "in recent weeks, the city of El Dorado has imposed rationing because of drought conditions. I have personally contacted the city manager to offer assistance on a mutual aid basis. I will confirm our willingness to be of assistance in writing as a continuation of our 'good neighbor' policy toward surrounding towns and cities." (Water Department Files).

When the Water Company owned the water system, it operated under business principles, expanding wherever and whenever profitable. After the city took over operation of the utility, political considerations intervened forcefully. Concerns about annexation, neighborliness, and regionalization supplanted the bottom line. In general, City Commissioners supported expansion, even though disagreements arose. However, in 1978, commissioners began reconsidering the out-of-city water and sewer service policies.

By October, a report had been presented to the City Commissioners comparing the restrictions which Wichita placed on out-of-city services to those of other cities. The report, surveying fifteen cities in seven states, concluded that "Wichita places more limitations on its service than to other cities." (Water Department Files).

Renewed concern developed as a permanent water connection to Oaklawn and other areas was discussed. On November 7, 1978, the commissioners raised the policy question of whether water or sewer service out of the city should continue during the consideration of extending water to The Trees addition, a 16-acre housing development east of Wichita.

On November 14, the issue was considered by the City Commission in conjunction with projected water supplies and needs through the year 2000. No new policy was adopted, but four of the five City Commissioners supported an annexation requirement. Commissioner Shanahan expressed the majority opinion, supported by Porter, Casado, and Donnell with Mayor Connie Peters not expressing an opinion. "We're providing a lot of services to people who are not residents or taxpayers of the city. If they can escape 25 to 30 percent of the tax burden, why, that's quite a savings," Shanahan said. "I think there is a deliberate policy by developers to get as far away as possible (from the city limits) to prolong the possibility of annexation." The city attorney added fuel to the fire when he told the commission that many of the previous annexation agreements were not enforceable. (Eagle, 11/8/78).

City Manager Denton was directed to report on options for a new policy, including: continuing to provide water if the areas agreed not to oppose annexation; requiring annexation prior to getting city water; allowing the Water Department to operate as a metropolitan service, accepting all customers whether in the city or not; and declaring a moratorium on annexations and new water hookups outside the city. Planning Director Lakin reminded the commission that when the city had frozen annexation in the 1950s, water improvement districts were formed by the outlying areas which continued to develop, and, when they eventually were annexed, the city inherited substandard facilities.

The developers were understandably concerned about the commission's actions, but all they could do was wait. At the following meeting, on the 2lst, only three commissioners were present and although Peters and Casado voted yes and Donnell no, three affirmative votes were necessary, so the decision was again deferred. The full commission did not deal with the issue until after the new year.

At the January 2, 1979, meeting the commission considered recommendations which called for water to be provided outside the city when the area was immediately annexable by statute, the county concurred in island annexation, or formal annexation agreements existed. The recommendations also included continuation of the rural water district policy, adoption of territorial growth limits, holding developers responsible for all costs of extending water service; and reaffirmation of the 50 percent surcharge on out-of-city water rates.

Comments from the Environmental Resources Advisory Board (ERAB) and the MAPC were requested by February 6. To prevent what Porter feared would be a "run on applications for water service under the old policy while the new policy is being formed", the commission ordered