Lobbying efforts began when Tom Bell, Equus Beds Groundwater Management district manager, advised the Colwich City Commission on November 26 that the district did not want to start any anti-Wichita sentiment, but argued that Wichita's expansion into the Equus Beds would endanger the rest of the district. The commission voted to support the district and send a resolution to concerned organizations.

The district approached the Wichita City Commission directly on December 7, 1976, asking its support in urging the Bureau of Reclamation to investigate thoroughly all potential Wichita water sources. Gary Base, district president, said the district's efforts were toward the bureau and not the city, and that a complete study would show that the Equus Beds were not the best source. While no official stance was taken by the commission, Denton assured the district that future water plans would be discussed with them. But, he cautioned, Wichita's first priority was to provide a major new source of water which was needed, according to planners, by 1990.

Kansas Governor Robert Bennett was in Newton for a town hall meeting on December 9, and the Equus Beds Management District did not miss its opportunity. Bell was present and told the governor that Kansas could face serious water shortages in the next 20 years, and that increasing demands on the Equus Beds could outstrip its supply. "We don't want to call the fire department after the house has burned down," Bell said. "We want to head off the problems before they arrive." Bennett agreed to work with the problem, asking for more information, and stated he would direct various state agencies responsible for water programs to coordinate their efforts. The meeting came after an announcement earlier in the week of an eight million dollar federally funded six-state study to find regional solutions to water shortages. The proposed High Plains Study Council would cover Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, and Nebraska, and would work to determine alternative water sources for agriculture and industry. Bennett said of the project, "Because the problem is common to the several midwest states, it is hoped this council can develop a plan to mitigate the frightening consequences of what could become a dry and parched agricultural heartland." (Eagle, 12/10/76).

With attention now focused on Wichita and the Equus Beds study, the city attempted to reduce concern over its goals. The Beacon published an editorial on December 13, 1976, proclaiming that Wichita was not going to act without concern for the area. "It is true studies are underway," it read, "but John Wynkoop, head of Wichita's Water Department, says this is necessary because every alternative must be explored before approval of the Corbin Reservoir project in Sumner County can be sought. It is the Corbin Reservoir that most interests Wichita officials as a source of water to meet future needs. There is no reason for our neighbors to panic. The city of Wichita will not act irresponsibly. All data will be carefully studied and nothing will be done to endanger the usefulness of this great natural gift." (Beacon, 12/13/76).

As the editorial stated, Wichita still considered Corbin the prime prospect. On November 4, 1976, Mayor Donnell sent a letter to the Kansas Water Resources Board asked it to exclude the proposed Corbin Reservoir from the state water plan so that, if appropriate, Wichita could contract with the Bureau of Reclamation to construct the reservoir, in an approach similar to the Cheney Reservoir agreement.

On December 14, the City Commission unanimously passed a resolution on which supported a detailed study of the effects of taking water from the Equus Beds, proposing that a study by the bureau "should be done in detail so that the existing water supplies would not be jeopardized, damaged, or destroyed." The resolution expressed Wichita's "concern about the effects of large withdrawals from the beds on area residents, farmers, municipalities, and industries-that have no alternate water supplies," the Eagle stated on December 15.

The action by the city was a response to the growing public criticism. The night before, a crowd of 800 had gathered in Halstead to discuss the water problem, attended by "farmers, politicians, urban planners, and environmentalists," according to the Eagle's account on December 14. At a public information session scheduled by the groundwater management district, the Bureau of Reclamation officials explained their options, leading to objections from both sides. Mayor Diehl of McPherson "expressed the sentiment of the crowd best" when he said, "This is a source we can't replace and we all depend on it. By gosh, we want to keep this water here for ourselves, and Wichita can find theirs somewhere else." Robert (Shorty) Schmidt, president of the Chikaskia Land Owners Association had a different view, "You people are worried about losing your water, but we are worried about losing our land. There are just a lot of things you people don't understand." The Wichita City Commission could not avoid the opposition. Its action the next day attempted to reduce criticism and to display concern for the interests of the Equus Beds. But as Schmidt indicated, when the commission acted to lessen the attacks from the Equus Beds interests, renewed opposition would arise from the opponents of Corbin Reservoir. (Eagle, 12/14/76).

The following month, the Kansas Forestry, Fish and Game Commission came out with a strongly worded statement on Corbin, indicating strong displeasure with the plan. In the unanimously passed statement approved on January 13, 1977, the commission expressed three basic positions. First, it stressed "the need to resolve the population projection disagreements and the adoption of figures that are based on the best available and defendable methodology," after it claimed that some population projections denied a need for a new reservoir. Second, it emphasized "the need to fully evaluate alternatives to Corbin Reservoir" and opposed "large scale exploitation of water from the Chikaskia River for municipal and industrial users, when little or no consideration is given to water conservation practices." (Water Department Files). This position followed the commission's statement that "according to Bureau of Reclamation planners, the projected consumption rate (in Wichita) is at a level high enough to give users a feeling that they can consume as much water for any purposes at any time without fear of running short. This type of philosophy is anti-resource-conservation in an era when public officials should be oriented more towards 'wise use' than exploitation." The final position stated that, if Corbin was built, "Sponsors of the project are responsible for damages incurred to fish and wildlife habitat." This responsibility included an "adequate terrestrial wildlife habitat mitigation" and a provision "to guarantee, for the life of the project, that downstream flows will be maintained at a minimal equivalent of 10,000 acre-feet per year," or about 1/6 of the reservoir's total yield. (Water Department Files).

Stockwell forwarded a memo refuting the charges of the commission on February 4, 1977. He stated in the memo, "My concern is that the staff at the Kansas Forestry Fish and Game Commission saw fit to draft and circulate such a statement without obtaining or reviewing any of the documents they oppose; without informing our department of their intended action; without inviting any comment or defense prior to their action; and by wording their statement in a biased and misleading manner." It was clear that conflicts over the best alternative would not be solved easily, even among government officials. (Planning Department Files).

As the March, 1977, deadline came and passed, the study by the bureau continued, delayed as a result of the new Equus Beds investigations. In July, 1977, the MAPD released a Comprehensive Water Plan to the Year 2000, which had been under study for three years. The MAPD approved it after a public hearing on July 28. The new plan predicted that the 138 million gallons a day available to Wichita from Cheney and the Equus Beds would cover the maximum-day demand until 1993. The current daily reserve supply would reach zero by 1996. At this time, the July, 1974, maximum-day record of 74.5 million gallons still stood, but the report estimated that, by the year 2000, the maximum-day demand would be 157 million gallons, based on projections of future expansion of the city's system and a population in Sedgwick County of 450,900. The plan concluded that a new water reservoir would be the best source to develop for a long-term supply after considering conservation, recycling, the Equus Beds, and the Little Arkansas River. Although the plan recommended that Wichita seek an additional 25,000 more acre-feet per year in water rights for short term needs, it stated that a large expansion in the Equus Beds "may be impractical because of the uncertainties and problems associated with this source." (Eagle, 7/25/77).

With any alternative, the plan claimed that to maintain the maximum-day capacity plus a reserve, more water might be needed as soon as 1985. Action would be needed soon, since lead time was 15 to 20 years for a reservoir, and only 18 years remained before the 1996 reserve-depletion date. The Equus Beds farmers were, of course, pleased with the city's water plan, since it shifted the attention to Corbin Reservoir. The following month, the bureau released its study on the Equus Beds and reached similar conclusions, thus dismissing the Equus Beds alternative.

The report, which was released August 18, 1977, was to determine what the long-term safe yield from the Equus Beds could be. It concluded that Wichita's projected water needs could not be met from that supply without endangering the flow and quality of the Little Arkansas River.