The municipal wastewater could be treated for use, but at a high cost. Wilson and Company, consulting engineers, developed a report on the possibility in 1973. A total of 39,000 acre-feet a year, nearly the amount Wichita would receive from Corbin, was discharged into the city sewers, treated, and released into the Arkansas River. Wilson and Company concluded, "Water of virtually any desired quality can be produced at costs which are greater than present costs of the potable water supply, but are not exorbitant." The raw water costs would be 80 cents per 1,000 gallons, compared to six cents for Cheney and Equus Beds raw water, and 41 cents at the time of the study for delivered water.

The MAPD recommended "...a project...that would demonstrate the beneficial use of recycled sewage effluent," but Stockwell said the expense of recycling and the lack of public acceptance would make the use of treated wastewater as a drinking supply very unlikely. V.W. Pickering, water pollution control superintendent, added, "The biggest barrier to water reuse is the psychological effect. If all we have to do is catch the water and store it as it goes through Kansas, why reuse sewage at a higher cost?" (Eagle, 7/7/76).

Another possible large contributor to Wichita's supply, not requiring extensive increases in treatment, was the Equus Beds, where irrigators competed with Wichita for the high-quality water. Since 1950 irrigation usage had risen sharply, allowing farmers to gain a higher return by farming corn instead of wheat. If Wichita was allocated water used by the irrigators, the need for the new reservoir would be eliminated, but the farmers' economic situation would change severely. In addition, questions remained about the future yields of the Equus Beds. The Kansas Water Resources Board warned that if trends of the last 20 years continued, "Water levels in the Equus Beds will steadily decline and eventually it will become uneconomical to pump ground water for irrigation." (Eagle, 7/7/76). Saltwater intrusion could also result from excessive withdrawals. In an effort to conserve the supply, the Equus Beds Groundwater Management District was formed in 1975 to manage the area and to insure that sufficient recharging would continue. The fear of destroying the beds was mitigated.

Wichita could obtain more water from the beds by either negotiating with irrigation farmers to buy their water rights, or through the power of condemnation, as granted to municipalities by state law. Guy E. Gibson, chief engineer for the Water Resources Division of the Department of Agriculture, explained in an Eagle July 7, 1976, article, that Wichita could "condemn the land in order to establish water rights or it could go up and condemn the water rights and a small portion of a tract of land, buy the rights, and have it changed for municipal use by the city of Wichita." But the high financial and political costs made it very unfeasible. Withrow, of the Water Department and a member of the management district's board of directors, saw the Chikaskia as an unused supply of top quality water flowing out of Kansas, and believed it was more logical to build Corbin Reservoir while continuing to irrigate in the Equus Beds.

The opposition did not influence the planning of Corbin as much as the cost. During meetings on August 31 and September 1, 1976, of the Chikaskia Plan Formulation Committee formed by the Bureau of Reclamation, a progress report defined the characteristics of the proposed reservoir including, for the first time, the cost, which was much higher than anticipated. The total estimated construction cost of the reservoir and dam was $160.5 million. If the reservoir was built according to the bureau's plan, it would have to be authorized and funded by Congress, with Wichita and Wellington repaying 85 percent of the total. Tentatively, Wellington would buy ten percent of the water, Wichita the remainder.

The preliminary estimates indicated the cost of raw water at Corbin would be 40 cents per 1,000 gallons, compared to Cheney's cost of three cents. The cost of delivering the untreated water the 45 miles to the northeast would raise the overall figure to 70 cents per 1,000 gallons, just slightly less than the 80 cents estimated for recycled wastewater.

John D. Wynkoop, director of water and water pollution control, 1973-

Wynkoop stressed at the time that, despite the shock of the high figures, "We still feel that Corbin is one of the most viable potential supplies we have in the immediate area." (Eagle, 9/2/76).

Studies on Corbin continued, and soon after the price figures were released, the bureau asked Wichita to indicate its continued interest in the project. A September 27, 1976, memo from Grover E. McKee, director of economic development, to Denton said that such an indication was necessary in relation to a proposed recreation complex which would tie in to Corbin Reservoir. A new binding letter of intent was subsequently approved and signed by Mayor James M. Donnell, stating, "The city of Wichita hereby expresses its intention to enter into a contract, at the appropriate time and assuming project development, to assume reimbursable recreation construction costs and to operate and maintain the recreation function of Corbin project under the provisions of Public Law 89-72 and the project authorizing act." (Water Department Files).

Although the increased cost did not inhibit work on Corbin, it did intensify the search for alternatives.

A policy meeting of the Sedgwick County Farm Bureau Association on September 16, 1976, initiated the Equus Beds battle as the farmers of the area indicated they would fight to keep their water from Wichita. It was reminiscent of the legal battles which had marked the 1950's.

By November, the conflict intensified as a re-evaluation of the Equus Beds alternative was made. On November 4,1976, Jerry Wright, assistant planning officer for the Oklahoma City office of the Bureau of Reclamation announced that the federal agency was intensifying its study of the Equus Beds to determine if it would be more feasible than Corbin. The plan included the location of an additional Wichita well field and its pumpage rate, the environmental and social consequences, and the legal difficulties.

The following Monday, November 8, the Central Plains Tri-County Planning Committee was presented with a status report on the water problem in Wichita by Director Robert Lakin, and James Looney of the Wichita MAPD. Lakin stated, "Wherever Wichita and other communities in south central Kansas seek additional water supplies, there will be vested interests fighting to protect land or water rights." (Eagle, 11/9/76). Therefore, the most feasible source had to be chosen.

Looney reported on the bureau's Equus Beds study. Although the high cost of Corbin was an instigating factor in the study, Looney said that the Equus Beds could also be expensive, estimating that developing the Equus Beds to produce the same volume as Corbin could cost $236 million, because of legal conflicts. He also commented on the development of a Sedgwick County comprehensive water plan which would review several potential water sources, including reservoirs at Corbin, Murdock, Towanda, El Dorado (already under construction) and Douglass.

Two days later officials of the Equus Beds Groundwater Management District requested City and County commissions in the area to oppose extensive further development of the Equus Beds as a water supply for Wichita. The district cited a 1975 report by the Kansas Water Resources Board which recommended that Wichita "consider acquiring water supplies from an additional reservoir or reservoirs." The report emphasized that while the beds were recharged by rainfall, "They are not inexhaustible," and added, "It is very likely that the next 25 years will see groundwater levels declining at an alarming rate unless measures are taken." (Eagle, 11/11/76).

As soon as the bureau's renewed interest in the Equus Beds was announced, reactions began among the area communities making use of that supply. An editorial appeared in the McPherson Sentinel on November 4, 1976, the day Wright reported the bureau's study, to denounce the investigation and to gain support. The editorial announced Wichita's plans to build a new reservoir in Sumner County. "All well and good," it stated, "with no attempt to take water from our Equus Beds until a federal bureau stuck its nose into the affair and told Wichita that it should not build a reservoir, but take all it wanted from the Equus Beds." It continued by attacking the fact that the needs of those depending upon the beds as their only source received no consideration. "So the fat is in the fire once again...So now we once again are confronted with the threat of bigger Wichita raids upon the Equus Beds. This must be fought by all users of this source with all possible power. Only then will saner heads in Wichita realize our desperate situation and go to a new reservoir rather than drain our only source of water away from us."