Ironically, the Lincoln Street dam, which had instigated the search in 1968, had been abandoned after the inflatable fabric collapsed just months after it was built in 1970. On April 4, 1978, the commission approved a bid of $1.9 million to construct a steel gate dam to replace the original. By the time it was finished, the sludge was already being pumped to the lagoon.

By December, 1979, sludge was pouring into the first lagoon, estimated to hold sludge about 50 years, which would later be covered with topsoil and used for other purposes. After years of conflict and controversy, the problem had been solved, at least for half a century.

Another controversy, which touched the Water Department obliquely, was fluoridation. Many cities around the country already added fluoride to drinking water in order to improve dental care. Characteristically, the community debated the issue not once but several times.

Fluoridation first appeared as an issue in Kansas in the early 1950's, when it was endorsed by the State Board of Health. In July 1951, the Sedgwick County Medical Society did the same, with the Dental Society following on December 12, 1955, and the Medical Society reaffirming its support in December 1957. In the mid-1950's, fluoridation had actually been included in the budget for over three years but, according to the Eagle, on May 15, 1956, "The project has been held up while Wichita doctors and dentists decide upon it." By 1956, 25 Kansas communities and 1,169 throughout the U.S. had fluoridation. Although both Wichita and Topeka were considering it, the item eventually was dropped from Wichita's budget to avoid the conflicts.

The Community Planning Council again endorsed fluoridation in 1960 and by that time, 37 Kansas communities had fluoridated water. Various organizations urged the commission to act, and by 1962 the MAPC had recommended that the commission order fluoridation. However, Mayor James Gardner, arguing that he didn't want health to become a political issue in the upcoming city election, convinced the MAPC to withdraw its recommendation. The city soon found it was impossible to make fluoride a non-political consideration.

After more pressure from public groups, including the news media, the commission finally acted in 1964. Pro-fluoride groups were more active in the initial stage, seeking endorsements, and circulating petitions, while the opponents organized only after it had been approved.

The issue was brought up "at a stormy five-hour hearing," on April 17, 1964, as recounted by the Eagle on November 15, 1977, where arguments for and against fluoridation were presented along with pro-fluoride petitions with 7,000 signatures. Representatives of the Junior Chamber of Commerce led the charge, as well as the Wichita Fluoridation Committee, which was formed to push for its passage.

Hess reported that Wichita water naturally contained 0.33 milligrams of fluoride per liter although a total of one milligram was needed for a fluoridation program. He told reporters that people could not drink enough fluoridated water in a year to even come close to a dangerous level, and added, "Scientists have had 50 to 100 years of case studies by reviewing these areas (with more than 1 milligram of fluoride in the water supply). The results in these areas revealed no effect other than protecting teeth and preventing dental decay." (Eagle, 3/30/64). Fluoridation would cost the city about $8,500 annually for the chemical, 3.7 cents per person, and would require an initial $25,000 investment for equipment.

These and other facts were presented by the proponents, while opponents objected to compulsory new medication for a non-communicable disease, claimed fluoride was dangerous, and attacked it as socialistic. Some cited it as a communist plot.

On April 7, 1964, the commission voted 4 to 1 to fluoridate the water supply, with Gerald Byrd, Carl Bell, Bill Tarrant, and Vincent Bogart voting yes, and John Stevens voting no. Opponents were outraged, but the commission reminded them that a referendum petition could rescind the vote and that only 25 percent of the voters in the last election, or 10,632 registered voters, needed to sign the petition. In a historical view of the fluoride movement in Wichita, the Eagle wrote that, "City hall observers didn't give such a movement much chance of success." (Eagle, 5/15/77).

Apparently, the "city hall observers" underestimated the opposition. The Wichita Referendum Committee was formed, temporarily chaired by Ed Saxton, and the needed signatures were collected in two months. On June 16, 1964, Virgil McNeil, chairman of the committee, presented petitions with 19,276 signatures to the City Commissioners, asking that the issue be placed on the August 4 primary ballot for a referendum vote. Daniel E. Foley, a committee member, spoke, saying, "Many Americans still are devoted to American liberty, and moral dimensions of life. (They) resist oppressive action of government." (City Commission Minutes). The commission gave initial approval for an ordinance placing the issue on the ballot, and after a sufficient number of the signatures were validated, it was officially passed.

As described in the Eagle on May 15, 1977, "The battle lines were drawn. It was a classic confrontation--a huge, disciplined force of organizations and experts on one side, a ragtag army banding together under one banner on the other." The groups supporting fluoridation were led by the Junior Chamber of Commerce which included the medical, dental, and osteopathic organizations, Wichita Academy of Pharmacists, Board of Health, Wichita Labor Federation, Board of Education, Parent Teachers Association, National Association for Advancement of Colored People, and the Junior League. The opposition banded together as the Wichita Fluoridation Referendum Committee. Cartoon character mascots were adopted by both sides with a smiling male tooth named Flory representing the pro-fluoride group and Flinkie Fluoride, a scowling female tooth, serving for the opposition. "In less than two months," according to the paper's story, "the two opposing armies mounted campaigns the likes of which Wichita had never seen."

Widely publicized debates, editorials, press conferences, and letters to the editor abounded with each side accusing the other of "misrepresentation, lies, and emotionalism." Although many prominent individuals became involved in the controversy, two dentists became the chief spokesmen for their respective sides. Dr. Tonk Mills presented the facts that fluoride had been proven to reduce tooth decay 50 to 60 percent, with no ill effects in cities where it had been put into the water supply. The main issue, according to Mills, was whether to believe "a community's doctors and dentists or its extremists and food fadists." As to the argument that fluoride was a deadly poison, Mills said that almost anything, including aspirin, was poisonous if too much was taken. An entire year's supply of fluoride would have to be put into one day's water supply to make it toxic. (Eagle, 5/15/77).

In spite of this, six out of 140 Wichita dentists opposed fluoridation, which, Mills said, was not surprising considering that in the course of a generation there would be 50 percent fewer cavities to treat. One of the six, Dr. George Cox, led the opposition forces. He claimed that fluoridation of the water supply was mass medication for a non-communicable disease, violating the first and fourteenth amendments to the constitution. He also argued the chemical was one of the deadliest poisons, and that no responsible body could promote putting it in the water.

Aside from the questions of health and individual choice, another issue came up, which the Eagle described as "The John Birch Society vs. The Communist Menace." (Eagle, 5/15/77). In a television debate, Mills said that Cox's views were identical to the Birchers and asked if he was a member. Cox replied, "I do happen to be, but that is not germane to the question." Many saw the battle as one in which, as one letter to the editor stated, "The John Birch Society is using this public health measure as a political football for a show of power." (Eagle, 7/28/64).

The matter was complicated by a pamphlet widely distributed throughout the city, titled Fluoridation: A Tool of the Communists. It carried the name of the Wichita Fluoridation Referendum Committee and claimed that a small amount of fluoride in the water could kill weak people, but that communist agents could add large amounts to kill everyone. The brochure asked, "Shall we give the communists the machinery and the materials to destroy us by simply opening a valve in our water supply?" (Eagle, 5/15/77).

Jaycee President Robert Howell attacked the brochure at a press conference. Referendum Committee members denied any participation in the brochure. Cox exclaimed, "They should keep the basic issue--that of individual liberty--in front of them, and not be disturbed by noisy side issues." To this, Robert T. Cornwell, a local attorney, retorted, "It is utterly ridiculous to say that the thousands of underprivileged children of this city should be given the freedom of choosing between fluoridation and non-fluoridation. They have no choice. They simply have toothaches and missing teeth." (Eagle, 5/15/77).

The intensity increased as the election approached. The July 23, 1964, edition of the Eagle carried a story with the headline, "Director Blasts Fluoride Falsities." Hess attacked the anti-fluoride groups, branding their arguments as "ridiculous," and said that fluoride in the water would have no harmful effects on people or the water system. "This thing has become emotional, and I don't know why...People are making their decisions on fluoridation on the basis of emotions," he said.

The Eagle gave full support to the pro-fluoride forces, publishing numerous editorials calling for rejection of the referendum. As the ballot was worded, a yes vote would oppose fluoridation and a no vote would favor it. Despite the confusion, each side worked hard to get its message across.