According to Wynkoop, the principal issue at the meeting was the intrastate transfer of water from one basin to another. Cities located along the Kansas River, and using it for a water supply, feared that if the proposed central Kansas water district did form and withdrew water, the stream flow and water quality of the river would be lost. The cities had organized to form the Kansas River Alliance to protect their interests and support their position that water in the basin should be kept in reserve to meet their future demands. Part of their argument was based on the fact that population projections, which had been made by the state, indicated that growth in Kansas would mainly occur in the northeast, not Wichita. Therefore, they wanted to maintain control of the water.

The legality of intrastate transfers had been addressed previously. The Kansas Water Resources Board had contracted with John C. Peck, a Kansas University law professor, to study such transfers. It was part of a study of the six-state high plains Ogallala Aquifer area, contracted by the U.S. Department of Commerce on September 22, 1978.

Peck completed his analysis in June, 1980, titled Existing Legal, Regulatory, or Other Institutional Constraints in Development and Use of Intrastate Sources of Water Supply in Kansas Other than the Ogallala Aquifer: Transferring Water from Eastern Kansas to Western Kansas. The study looked at the legal problems under Kansas law of obtaining water at the source, transporting it, and using it at the destination. Despite the many difficulties which would be encountered, the lengthy report generally concluded that in Kansas law, "There is nothing to prevent the intrastate transfer of water from one basin to another." Wynkoop was still concerned about future efforts to change that. "My personal evaluation is that, although present law does not prohibit our effort to transfer water from Milford Reservoir to Wichita, legislation could be introduced at a later date to block our plans," he said. He added, however, that, "The committee hopefully will provide us with a means to prevent or reduce such a conflict." (Water Department Files).

Tuttle Creek was discussed as another potential water source. It was a flood control project of the Corps of Engineers built in the 1950's, located near Manhattan on the Big Blue River with nearly the same capacity as Milford. The central Kansas water district could negotiate with the corps for water, but only with Congressional action to reallocate use of the water. Like Kanopolis, it was not a water supply, but was dedicated to navigation and flood control. The Corps of Engineers would examine Tuttle Creek and Kanopolis to determine if they could be reallocated for municipal and industrial use, as well as determine the effect of withdrawals from the area. The state would develop a broad range of alternatives while identifying the water needs in the study area. The cities would provide plans and concepts regarding their future water needs and sources of supply. The area under study consisted of an east-west corridor from Russell to Wyandotte counties, and a north-south corridor reaching to Sedgwick County, including Wichita.

The study indicated the type of problems that could occur in the Milford project. It also demonstrated that a variety of possibilities existed, such as Kanopolis or Tuttle Creek. The most significant fact was that the committee was formed with representatives from both sides of the question, those wanting the water, as well as those at the source, plus those from state and federal governments. The initial planning appeared to be well established by heading off opposition at the beginning rather than waiting until a decision was ready to be made. A significant factor was the involvement of the Corps of Engineers. As with Cheney, the competition for funds was intense at the federal level. In the same way, the Bureau of Reclamation (formerly the Water and Power Resources Service) continued to push Corbin. In this case the Corps of Engineers was studying the Milford pipeline proposal as well as the Kansas and Osage aquifers. Therefore, it was able to bring representatives from the two basins together in the proposed transfer. Only time will tell what steps will be taken in these projects, but the planning continues.

While these surface-water projects were being evaluated, another project began in the Equus Beds to study the feasibility of artificially replenishing the underground reservoir. In October 1981, a pilot project began to pump water from a settling basin to a recharge basin at the bottom of a sandpit. There the water would filter down to the beds instead of evaporating. Tom Bell, manager of the Equus Beds Management District, told the Eagle-Beacon for an October 20, 1981, article, that the project was needed to determine "if it would be feasible to recharge the Equus Beds on a meaningful scale." The cost to recharge the 100 acre-feet of water, or 32.6 million gallons, was estimated to be $39,000 with the state paying 80 percent and the remaining 20 percent coming from the district.

By the first week of January, 1982, results were seen from the project, which was 95 percent complete. Heavy rainwater in the fall had percolated through the experimental collection ponds to recharge the aquifer with 3.6 million gallons of water. The Eagle-Beacon on January 10 reported Bell as saying that, although the goal of 100 acre-feet was a small amount compared to the annual water usage, "The early success of the project indicates it may be possible to replenish the beds with