The city of Wichita also was becoming annoyed by the wait. Wynkoop wrote a letter to Peck on June 20, 1979, noting that the city had supported the bureau's effort on the Chikaskia since 1967, and emphasizing the water needs of Wichita and Sedgwick County for a major raw water supply by the year 2000.

In early 1980, a reorganization at the federal level changed the name of the Bureau of Reclamation to the Water and Power Resources Service, although it maintained much of its original functions. By May of that year, the revised Feasibility Report and Draft Environmental Statement on the Chikaskia Project had been completed and sent to the office of Federal Commissioner of Reclamation Keith Higginson for review and approval. The secretary of interior had to approve the report before it could be distributed for further public review. A discussion meeting was held in Wichita, attended by local, state, and federal officials, which gave Wichita a chance to see the findings.

The updated report shocked Wichita. The new cost was estimated at $237 million, 50 percent more than the previous figure. It could, according to Wynkoop, cause a "doubling of water rates." The Eagle published the price in a story on July 11, 1980, and quoted Wynkoop as saying that, while Corbin would eventually get built, it might be delayed because of the cost.

Despite the cost question, the city still desired the final report before making a decision. Wynkoop met with state and federal officials on October 21, 1980, about the possible completion and release date of the report. Although the commissioner of reclamation set a completion date in February, Wynkoop told Denton on October 22, "I'm not that optimistic." (Water Department Files).

Later that year, the newly-formed Water and Power Resources Service requested an update of the city's letter of interest to include in the final report. The last official correspondence from the city had been in 1976, so, on December 23, 1980, the City Commission authorized Mayor Robert G. Knight to sign a letter, dated December 15, to be sent to the agency. It read in part, "This is to inform you that the governing body of the city of Wichita remains vitally interested in the completion of the feasibility report on the Chikaskia project. As you know, the city considers the proposed Corbin Reservoir as one of the most viable alternatives to meet the future water demands of our growing community." (Water Department Files).

On December 31, 1980, Knight and Denton told reporters that in 1981 the most important decision facing city officials would be planning for a water supply for Wichita, stating that 20 years lead time was necessary to complete a project such as Cheney. "So next year," Denton said, "is critical to making a decision on how to proceed in order to assure the city will have enough water by the year 2000." In spite of the recent letter showing support for the Corbin project, Knight said the likelihood of constructing it, because of the cost, was at best "fifty-fifty." (Eagle- Beacon, 1/1/81).

During most of 1981 internal review of the feasibility report continued. Delay occurred as federal officials waited to see what direction newly-elected President Ronald Reagan would take. On July 29, 1981, Peck announced that the Corbin project had been "taken off the back burner" by the Reagan Administration, to speed up the studies of such projects to allow for public comment before funding decisions were made. The process required the Interior Department, upon completion of the review, to officially file the feasibility report and the draft environmental statement (DES) with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

At that point they would be released to involved agencies and governments for a formal 90-day review period. To this Wynkoop remarked, "That thing's been in a 90-day review ever since I can recall." Forty-five days after filing field hearings could be held to receive statements on the project, the results of which would be made a part of the DES. Then a final environmental statement (FES) would be filed with the EPA. Finally, the secretary of the interior could forward the feasibility report and the FES to the president, through the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), for further review before being sent to Congress for authorization. (Eagle, 7/30/81).

After authorization, a definite plan report, including financial and design information would be prepared, and then construction could begin. According to regional director of the bureau, Robert H. Weimer, in a letter to the Wichita Chamber of Commerce on July 31, 1981, reaching the initial construction start would take five years, and another five years to complete it.

While the federal policies were changing, the estimated price tag for Corbin increased, to $281 million. Wynkoop called that figure unrealistic because, by the time the dam was built, costs would again increase. Wynkoop, whom the Eagle called a "long-time critic of the Corbin dam project" in a July 30, 1981, article, also said the 81 cents per 1000 gallons for untreated water to be carried through the 40 miles of pipelines would make the other alternatives much more feasible.

In the first week of October, 1981, the Interior Department officially approved the Corbin study recommending that Wichita build the dam. The study set the price at $246 million with Wichita to repay $240 million, over a 50-year period, at 7.21 percent interest, around $19.8 million annually. The report recommended the dam be 91 feet high, to form a 12,600-acre reservoir. The feasibility report was approved as well as the DES, which needed public scrutiny.

Public hearings were scheduled for December on the project, but Wynkoop insisted Wichita was not likely to buy it. "I think Corbin is a good reservoir site," he said. "The thing that prevents us from considering it at this time is the cost of the project and the cost of borrowing money." Wynkoop also said an additional source would not be needed until 2000, while the bureau's study assumed it would be necessary in the 1990's. So while the process was finally moving again, the prospect for implementation appeared unlikely. (Water Department Files).

With the Interior Department's approval, the plan was now available for review by other agencies. As often seems to happen with government, local officials endorsed the project as a viable alternative, but refrained from actually becoming committed to it.

Planning director Lakin presented a memo to MAPC on November 9, 1981, which reaffirmed Wichita's need for a third major water source, stating that the negative impacts if Wichita failed to secure a third source outweighed the environmental impacts, and concluded, "Corbin Reservoir remains a pre-eminent option for meeting the future water needs of the Wichita area." In response to his recommendation, the MAPC unanimously endorsed continuing consideration of Corbin at a November 19, 1981, meeting. Chairman of the commission, James Gardner II, was authorized to forward a statement to the bureau, which he did on November 23. It concurred with Lakin's conclusions on the need for the water and feasibility of Corbin, claiming, "Therefore, the Corbin Reservoir remains an option for consideration for meeting the future water needs of the Wichita area." (Planning Department Files).

On December 2, 1981, the Sedgwick County Commission approved, 3 to 0, Chairman Don Gragg's signature on a letter to the bureau, which reached similar conclusions. "In the face of future water supply needs," it read, "the proposed Chikaskia project represents a viable source of water for Sedgwick County residents and businesses during the latter part of this century and into the next century. The Board of Sedgwick County Commissioners recommends that the United States Department of the Interior continue consideration of the Chikaskia project as a potential future water supply alternative for Sedgwick County, Kansas." (Water Department Files).

Finally, on December 8, the city of Wichita sent a letter on the project to the bureau, signed by Mayor Robert C. Brown. The letter followed a similar pattern of supporting the study without making a commitment.

The public hearings on the DES were held in Wichita on December 8 and 9. At the first meeting, the speakers were divided. On the side in favor of the project were representatives of government agencies, including the city of Wichita, the County Commission, MAPC, the Central Plains Tri-County Planning Commission, and the Wichita Area Chamber of Commerce.

Dr. Douglas R. Hahn, director of the Sedgwick County Department of Environmental Resources, said, "One of the things that's important about the Chikaskia project is that it's most up to date and most closely