Shortly after, a re-evaluation of costs once again brought into question the city's policy. The city announced on May 1, 1975, that Black and Veatch was re-examining the projected operating costs of the six million dollar recalcining plant. The original estimate had figured the costs of natural gas at 39 cents per thousand cubic feet (mcf) while recent prices approached two dollars per mcf. This and other cost increases in construction, as well as the price for lime, weakened the city's position. A few months later, the revised estimate set the price at eight million dollars, up from $2.3 million in 1969. The city manager recommended on September 24, 1975, that the City Commission delete allocations for the plant design.

A slurry pipeline to a lagoon, costing $279,988 a year, and hauling to a sanitary landfill, for $361,440, were the only options remaining. The manager recommended another consultant's study.

The following Tuesday, September 29, the commission acted upon the recommendations and abandoned the recalcining plant, but unanimously deferred definitive action. Vice-Mayor John Stevens attempted to reintroduce the deep well method, but his motion failed without a second. The inaction by the commission prompted Wynkoop to say, "Lime sludge dumping into the Arkansas River could stop in six months if the City Commission thought that method of disposal was environmentally or aesthetically harmful." According to the Eagle's analysis on October 1, 1975, the commission apparently did not believe action was required.

Months passed and still nothing was done. On April 23, 1976, the City Commission officially cancelled the contract with Halliburton for the deep well, and no other solutions replaced it. On April 26,1976, the Eagle addressed the stagnant decision-making, "Murky lime sludge wastes from the city water treatment plant are still polluting the Arkansas River through the center of Wichita--eight years after city officials first decided something had to be done about it. A solution to the problem has eluded policymakers. It has become lost in a maize of political indecision, federal inaction, and escalating costs..."

Yet, the city continued to consider alternatives. On August 24, 1976, City Manager E.H. Denton presented a proposal to acquire land near West Street and 29th Street North to develop a disposal lagoon, arguing it was the least expensive of several alternatives. The project would initially cost $3.2 million and $100,000 yearly. The July 1, 1977, deadline grew more important. The commission deferred a decision on the proposal for two weeks to allow a public hearing on the issue.

On September 7, the issue was again discussed and this time the commission approved the project. The city had an option to purchase an 80-acre site at the corner of 29th and West for $160,000. An underground pipeline would be laid from the treatment plant to the lagoon, mostly on existing city rights-of-way, for $209,000. Equipment for operation of the lagoon and pumping would add an additional $216,000, and the thickening and collection basin had been built the year before for $800,000. Plans were to dig a five-acre pit, 30 feet deep, with another one dug when the first became full. Although Wynkoop estimated it would be twelve months before the equipment could be purchased or the pit dug, authorization was granted.

Many conflicts arose after the land was purchased. County Commissioner Earl Rush claimed, in an Eagle story of November 18, 1976, that the county could use the lime sludge as a base on roads under asphalt. He said he offered the city free land to dump the sludge if the county could use it. However, Denton questioned the seriousness of the offer since it was not officially submitted and because Rush was a lame-duck commissioner, having lost in the August primary. In addition, the city did not believe the lime would be useful on roads unless it first was recalcined. No action was taken as a result of the conflict, but it did gain the media's attention.

While efforts continued on the project, a new item delayed the lagoon's construction. Since January 1976, the city of Wichita had discussed the possibility of a coal gasification plant in Wichita with the Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Company. The prospect had developed because Panhandle's need for the plant corresponded well with Wichita's unique characteristics. According to the Eagle on December 1, 1976, "Panhandle needed a site with water, a coal supply, a local market for part of the plant's output, a legal basis for arranging industrial revenue bond financing, a site close to its existing pipeline, a labor force, and a community with growth aspirations." Panhandle's pipeline, which supplied the mideastern states with natural gas, came within 35 miles of the city, near Haven, and a proposed coal slurry pipeline or rail transportation could carry the coal from Wyoming to Kansas. Finally the Wichita Gas Utility, formed to handle emergency energy industrial needs, and run by the Water Department, gave the city legal experience in energy partnership with private enterprise. On December 3, the city officially announced its plans to investigate, with Panhandle, the feasibility of a coal gasification plant which would be the largest in the nation, satisfying the region's energy needs into the next century. The formal agreement approved the following Tuesday by the commission called for a 12-month study, at which time the two parties would decide whether to continue with the project. At least two years of study would be required to fully prepare the $1.25 billion project.

The proposed plant was of great interest to the Water Department, especially since it would use one billion gallons of pure water a year. During initial planning, the city took no further action on the sludge disposal. As a result, the EPA announced on July 27, 1977, that the city was in technical violation of a 1972 clean water law, for failing to keep lime sludge out of the Arkansas River. The deadline for compliance with the law had been July 1, 1977, and the city had failed to meet it. Wynkoop explained that the lagoon project was delayed until the use of lime sludge in the proposed coal gasification plant could be determined. New alternatives for sludge disposal were investigated and the city continued to dump sludge into the river, as it had since 1940.

The EPA announced that the Wichita City Commission could be held liable for its failure to stop the dumping, although the spokesman, Cal Walter, chief of the permit and compliance branch, admitted the possibility of any legal action was unlikely. Due to money and personnel shortages, cities with water treatment plants, like Wichita, were low on the enforcement list.

Authority over water clean-up efforts resided in the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE), which could impose fines of up to $10,000 per day for violations. Again, action against the city was unlikely. A member of the department's Wichita office, Mike Capsey, reported, "If a city has shown good faith that they are working on correcting the problem, nothing will happen." (Eagle, 7/28/77).

Questions about sludge continued until the following year. Controversy over the coal gasification plant arose in the city and in a referendum on the project on March 28, 1978, the voters rejected the plant. Wynkoop later told the Beacon that departmental studies prior to the vote had indicated the sludge could not be used by the plant, and the decision had been made to continue with the slurry pipeline project.

On April 7, bids totalling $85,000 for pumps and piping for the project were approved by the City Commission.

One final hurdle remained. Land had been purchased, and the pipeline began, but actual city approval to build the lagoons had not been obtained. On July 25, 1978, the City Commission granted a special permit to allow the land which the department had bought two years earlier to be used for disposal. The permission stirred some controversy. The previous month the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission (MAPC) had voted 3 to 2 to recommend denial. One planning commissioner, Dave Bayouth, said he voted no, according to the Beacon, "to spite city commissioners who had tried earlier, in his view, to horn in on the Planning Commission's authority." Another planning commissioner, Victor Eisenring, who owned land near the site of the lagoons, told commissioners he voted no out of fear of underground pollution. The