The bureau had originally expected to complete its investigation by March, 1976, but as the time approached and passed, much study continued. An information booklet released in March on the Chikaskia project discussed the need for a new water source, claiming the chief problems to be solved involved providing water for Wichita and Wellington, flood control for Blackwell, and subsidiary problems such as environmental quality, recreation, and fish and wildlife.

The importance to the entire economy of the area in having a sufficient water supply was also stressed, "it would be beneficial to Wichita and its metropolitan area to maintain a viable economy to provide a suitable quality of life for its residents. Without an adequate water supply, this area could become stagnant and lose its economic and social vitality, which in turn could affect its total social and economic structure." (Chikaskia Project Plan of Study).

Three plans were considered to solve the problems. The first called for no federal action but instead to have the cities curtail their growth or find other supplies. This was rejected as unrealistic, especially considering that flooding in Oklahoma would continue. The second idea was to increase development of the Equus Beds, which was also eliminated because of its uncertain consequences. The third plan called for the development of surface water for Wichita, with the Chikaskia River selected as the logical choice because of its high water quality and close proximity to the areas in need. This plan was picked as the best to pursue.

Attention began to focus on the project, as the federal government, state authorities, and local officials all supported Corbin. As the support grew, so, too, did the opposition. The Eagle and Beacon described the struggle over Corbin on July 4, 1976, "The emerging battle over the Chikaskia's water involves planners, farmers, environmentalists, and others, all of whom view the river's worth in different ways." The confrontation gained regional repute. Paul Wehr of the University of Colorado employed it as a case study to help develop methods for settling water disputes. "The Chikaskia conflict is a near-classic dispute between the forces of urban growth searching for land and water resources to enable and support that growth, and agricultural communities seeking to protect their members' land, water, and personal economic and social investments from the urban growth impetus. Economic interests, strongly held social values, and disagreement over 'the facts' characterizing the problem are all facts around which the controversy is being generated," he wrote. (Adelman, et al, 1979).

In reviewing the entire problem, Wehr noted the far-reaching issues which were involved: "While the sharpest conflict centers around the future decision to approve or disapprove the construction of the Corbin Reservoir on the Chikaskia and whether that project is feasible and advisable, the larger controversy concerns the future water needs of metropolitan Wichita and by what means those needs should be met." (Adelman, et al, 1979).

A leading opponent was the Chikaskia Landowners Association, which argued that Wichita's gain would mean loss in Sumner County, where Corbin was located, due to inundated farm land and the displacement of more than 50 families. Environmentalists also came out strongly against the plan, claiming that construction of the reservoir would do "vast damage to one of the Kansas's richest natural sanctuaries for fish and wildlife." (Eagle, 7/6/76). The opinions came not only from private groups, such as the Sierra Club, but also government agencies. The Kansas Park and Resources Authority believed the reservoir would damage one of the state's few remaining free flowing, and one of its most scenic, rivers. Staff of the Kansas Forestry, Fish, and Game Commission said the destruction of the natural habitat in a riparian stream situation would be impossible to replace. The Fish and Wildlife Service of the U.S. Department of Interior also agreed with the negative assessments. An April 11, 1975, memo from the service to the Bureau of Reclamation expressed, "Any reservoir alternative would result in the irretrievable commitment of natural resources. Adverse environmental impacts from a reservoir would include the loss of free-flowing streams, loss of wildlife habitat, and subsequent reduction of fish and wildlife populations and recreational opportunities." (Water Department Files).

Among the objections were arguments that alternatives existed. Defenders of the plan did not agree, however. Stockwell said, "What we've found is that all the other possibilities are either too far, too small, lacking in quality--and I think the question of cost-benefit has entered the picture each time." William H. Ward, lawyer for the Chikaskia Landowners Association, claimed that even with the city's projected needs, there were "...a lot of things the city could do for water" besides Corbin. These included using more water from Cheney by mixing it in an