As the costs and delays increased, Wichita began to look elsewhere for alternatives with lower costs and fewer opponents. On January 23, 1980, Wichita took an important step toward finding such a solution when it filed for water rights at two existing reservoirs. The city sought 60,000 acre-feet annually (53 million gallons daily) from Milford Reservoir, near Junction City, and 50,000 acre-feet (46 million gallons daily) from Kanopolis. The applications were accepted by the Kansas Water Resources Board, which gave Wichita the right to negotiate for water when it was necessary, although it was not actually guaranteed the water. Instead, Wichita was now capable of buying water in the future, although those higher on the list would receive priority in negotiating with the state.

Wichita was seventh out of eight on the list for Milford water, behind Abilene, Kansas Power and Light Company of Topeka, Fort Riley, Junction City, Salina, and McPherson, and ahead of the Equus Beds Groundwater Management District. It was fourth out of five for Kanopolis water, behind McPherson, Post Rock Rural Water District, and Salina, and ahead of the Kansas Power and Light Company. Both reservoirs were federally owned, but the state had contracted with the federal government to buy Milford water for resale to users. Kanopolis water was not yet available, since the state had no contract and most of it was designated for irrigation use.

None of the applicants had negotiated for water from the reservoirs, but total requests exceeded the available supply. For Milford, the requests were 131.668 millions daily with only 128.62 available, and in Kanopolis the requests totaled 11 7.724 million gallons daily compared to a capacity of 48.837. Negotiations would determine the amount of water that would be taken, since the applications only set the maximum quantity for which the users could contract. The state would then sell the water to the users at a set rate, which in early 1980 was 7.402 cents per 1,000 gallons.

Neither of the reservoirs offered immediate solutions, but the step was taken to allow Wichita to be ready when needed. Wynkoop told the Eagle for a January 25 article that they were only options which would probably not be implemented until the turn of the century.

In the letter submitting the applications to the state on January 21, Wynkoop acknowledged that irrigation had top priority for Kanopolis, but asked that, if an irrigation district failed to materialize, cities requesting water be given priority for obtaining use of its supply. He also revealed a concept, innovative and expansive in scope, which offered a potential plan of action for water-short years of the future. "Wichita and several other cities," Wynkoop noted," are examining the possibility of jointly financing and constructing a water transmission line from either one or both of the two reservoirs. Such a project would satisfy our local needs well past the year 2000." (Water Department Files).

The Kanopolis Reservoir option remained in limbo while the questions over the Irrigation District were considered. After the Board of Directors had voted to disband in 1979, a year of waiting was required. The Water Resources Board conducted a public hearing on June 17, 1980, to consider a petition for dissolution of the district, as two of the three board members requested, and as was required by law. The chief engineer of the State Water Resources Division on July 25, 1980, subsequently ordered the Board of Directors to allow 90 days for owners of irrigable land to file petitions for either extending the district's borders, or to exclude their land from the district. At the end of that time, the board requested the Water and Power Resources Service to evaluate whether a new irrigation district was feasible. The delay on a final decision continued and, as a result, Kanopolis remained much as Corbin: a possibility, but without any clear idea of when it could be implemented.

In a September 15, 1980, letter to Don Pray of the Mid-Arkansas Valley Development Association, John A. Henderson, staff member of Water Resources Board, stated, "There has been no action to get Congress to change the project to one supplying municipal and industrial (M&I) water only. No such attempt will be made until the status of Kanopolis Irrigation District is resolved. Without the irrigation district, a new feasibility study may be required to develop Kanopolis as an M & I project. As you are aware, these studies take a great deal of time." (Water Department Files).

With Kanopolis on hold, and Corbin a matter of great controversy, attention turned toward Milford. In an article in the Eagle on July 11, 1980, about the high cost of Corbin, Wynkoop said Milford held the most promise for Wichita since action by Congress was not required as it would be for Corbin or Kanopolis. In addition, with state approval of water rights, Wichita could condemn a pipeline route through the power of eminent domain.

Because of the interest in the Milford Reservoir from a number of Kansas cities, the Corps of Engineers began studying the feasibility of constructing a large pipeline to Milford to serve a number of cities as part of an overall study on water supply problems in the Kansas and Osage rivers. An official of the corps, Phil Rotert, announced on October 28, 1980, that rough estimates indicated the project to bring water to areas including Wichita would cost about $150 million. Wichita and McPherson were the most interested in the study, because, Rotert said, "They have the biggest, most pressing need for water on the horizon. In addition, Salina, Abilene, and Junction City, among others, could tap into the pipeline. But financing would have to be worked out." Rotert noted, "Right now the corps does not have the authority to construct a line, so unless the law changes, Wichita and whatever other users there are would have to figure out how to finance it. Wichita is going to be the biggest user, so they're going to have to pick up most of the cost." (Eagle, 10/29/80).

Milford had been constructed with enough reserve capacity to serve as a water supply for eastern Kansas cities, even though it had not yet been used. Its 400,000 acre feet of water made it the largest water impoundment in Kansas. The 125 miles to Wichita would make it a major task, but not impossible, and the study, requested by the Kansas Water Resources Board for the corps, was focusing attention on such a project as a major solution for water shortage in the entire area.

In early 1981, steps were taken toward making Milford more than a possibility. Eight central Kansas cities began planning the formation of a wholesale water supply district, with an initial goal of developing a water distribution system from Milford west and south to Wichita. A 1977 state law allowed for wholesale water supply districts to be formed between public agencies in order to issue revenue bonds and no-fund warrants for financing water projects jointly. Five such districts already existed or were in the process of being formed in Kansas by that time.

Representatives from Abilene, Hesston, Hutchinson, McPherson, Moundridge, Newton, Salina, and Wichita attended a meeting in McPherson on February 19, 1981, all expressing an interest in forming a water supply agency to procure water from available sources, and sell it to member cities. Gerard, the general manager of the McPherson Board of Public Utilities, which hosted the meeting, said, "We're looking at a wholesale water district that would not carry the name of any of us here, but each city would be a member of it." He added that the water district would obtain its supply from the reserved water rights of its members, and, "There is no single entity here except Wichita that can afford to go into Milford and get this water." (Eagle, 2/20/81).

Dwight F. Metzler, chief engineer of the State Department of Health and Environment's Bureau of Water Supply, supported the initiative of the cities in forming what would be the largest Kansas water district. "If you want to do anything about water, pull up your socks and do it," he said, "Don't wait for the federal government to do it. It is going to be cheaper to do it under Kansas law." (Eagle, 2/20/81).

The necessity for cities to look toward surface water for future supplies grew as all of the underground water rights became allocated. According to Metzler, the size of the district might create political opposition when seeking legislative approval for a water purchase contract from the state. Even though it was in compliance with state law, the number of cities involved made it revolutionary.

Wilson and Company presented an outline of a proposal for the project at the meeting. Milford was considered as the source of supply, although the report by Robert E. Crawford of Wilson and Company