Wilson and Company offered to help the cities (the Ad Hoc Central Kansas Planning Group) determine what steps were necessary to form a district. The need for new supplies was emphasized in the report. "Recent projections by the Kansas Water Resources Board estimate that 25 percent of the Kansas water systems will experience water supply shortages and 20 percent will develop water quality problems in the 1980's," it said. It pointed out, "it is imperative that adequate planning, institutional commitment, investment management, and operation be provided to assure reliable water supplies and delivery systems. The lack of initiative on the part of local units of government will surely result in the inability to meet user needs under stress conditions." (Central Kansas Long Range Water Supply Considerations).

After analyzing the basic conditions in the state, the report took a look at the water supply alternatives. Conservation was considered effective during short term emergency periods, but over a long period the effects would be minimal in comparison to total water usage. Expanding wellfields in groundwater aquifers was viewed as possible, but much of it was used, and, as it became subject to stricter requirements, financial burdens would increase. Local surface supply sources were also a possibility, although somewhat limited because of the few existing surface supplies available in Kansas. New reservoirs could be constructed, but, again, requiring significant expenditures. Wastewater recycling was also discussed with the conclusion that "Until such time as the general public recognizes wastewater as an acceptable available water supply and is able to dispel the negative aesthetics that now persist, this alternative is not expected to receive wide-spread support." (Central Kansas Long Range Water Supply Considerations).

Finally it reviewed inter-basin transfers within the state, sending water from places where it was available to places where it was not. During the 1960's and 70's, inter-basin transfers of water had become necessary in California, Arizona, and Oregon. Similar projects had begun in Oklahoma, with other states considering the possibility. In Kansas, the Kansas City area studied the transfer of water from the Missouri River to the Kansas River basin to supplement sources, and communities and rural water districts banded together in regional water supply districts, based on the 1977 Wholesale Water Supply District legislation.

The rationale for such a district was explained by the report, "Many communities and water users in central Kansas are being confronted with water supply concerns. The ability of existing supply and delivery systems in meeting increasing needs and demands are threatened. For various reasons the quality of water from existing supplies is deteriorating. There is increased competition for the locally available water supplies. Each water user must review their position under these changing conditions and develop appropriate courses of action. In some cases it may be expedient for several entities to group together to seek a mutual solution to their short and long term water supplies." (Central Kansas Long Range Water Supply Considerations).

The report concluded by outlining the procedures necessary for taking such action. This included recommending the formation of a Central Kansas Water Supply Agency, which would be a "...loose knit coalition of interested water users which could monitor on-going activities," collect the necessary information, and "develop strategies for short and long range water supply systems for the central Kansas area." After its implementation, the agency could then become a free-standing organization, operating on its own revenue to supply water to its customers. The first step was to form a steering committee to establish goals and activities. (Central Kansas Long Range Water Supply Considerations).

The February meeting was an informal gathering to test the feasibility of forming a group, and no concrete decisions were made. As the possibility grew for the development of the agency, private firms began to inquire and offer advice. Major projects could be available from the agency, and the companies wanted to be at the right point at the right time. An example was Wilson and Company's willingness to offer an analysis without first receiving a contractual agreement.

A letter dated May 8, 1981, sent to Wynkoop from Stern Brothers and Company, a Kansas City investment firm, explained the details of the Wholesale Water Supply District Act under which the water supply agency or district would be formed. The main function of the act had been to allow smaller rural water districts to combine into larger entities in order to gain the assets and customer base necessary for supporting the debt service required in major water projects. The act was written broadly enough to also allow projects involving cities, such as the Milford pipeline proposal.

Ike Parsons, assistant vice-president of Stern Brothers, classified the proposed district's capabilities. Once formed, the district, as a quasi-municipal corporation, would be subject to the Kansas budgetary and cash-basis laws, could issue warrants, notes, or revenue bonds (all refundable) and have eminent domain powers. Overall, it could jointly exercise the powers and privileges of any public agency of Kansas relating to water supplies with any other Kansas public agency, or the federal government.

Tax monies could not be used to fund the district's obligations. Parsons concluded, "This information should be sufficient to enable you to proceed with forming a district, but should not be taken to be all-encompassing. Some legal problems or need for interpretations could present themselves during this process." (Water Department Files).

The group of interested cities met again on May 28, 1981, for further discussion on the proposed Central Kansas Wholesale Water District. Representatives of Abilene, Salina, Lindsborg, Moundridge, McPherson, Hesston, Wichita, Bel Aire, the Equus Beds Management District, and Hutchinson were present in McPherson for the afternoon meeting, with Gerard serving as acting chairman. Rick Hines, an attorney from Erie, Kansas, who had been active in the formation of two wholesale water districts in southeast Kansas, reviewed the concepts of such a district. He recommended the first step should be setting up a steering committee with one representative from each interested city. It would obtain the initial engineering study and other pertinent information which was necessary to form a district. At the same time, the committee would develop the financial requirements to fund the studies. The meeting generally served for informational purposes once again. Gerard described the situation, "I feel a little like the Continental Congress not knowing where to begin. But the greatest risk to all of us is if we do nothing." (Eagle, 5/29/81).

Whatever was done would not be done quickly. "This is a very revolutionary idea," Hines said. "Probably none of you can accomplish this on your own, but together this is very viable, very feasible. Your major problem, I think, is going to be obtaining land. For a 50 or 60-inch pipeline, you're going to have to buy land. It may require condemnation. You're going to have to get title searches on all of this. It's going to take a long time." (Eagle, 5/29/81).

Before the work could be initiated, Hines suggested the need for an environmental impact study, an archeological study, and an investigation of bond rates.

After a lengthy discussion of the situation, the meeting adjourned, with the consensus to call another meeting in a few months to officially form a steering committee. No other action was taken. A matter involving multiple governments inevitably takes time and the Milford project was no exception. (Eagle-Beacon, 5/29/81).

Over the next few months informal communication between participants continued. Various private companies continued to show great interest in serving as engineering consultants, or investment brokers for the proposed agency. Therefore, obtaining the necessary information was not difficult.

By the end of the summer, the cities were ready for further action. Gerard sent a letter to Withrow, Wichita's representative at the meeting, on September 22, 1981, stating that a point had been reached where "Most members feel that the district should move ahead to a status of formal recognition." In the letter, Gerard proposed a structure for the steering committee, which would organize the proposal, and eventually