Print edition: 
The 15 percent water rate increase city officials say is suddenly needed to shore up the utility's financial woes could be followed by a 16 to 20 percent hike next year, according to e-mails obtained by The Eagle through a Kansas Open Records Act request.
But City Manager Robert Layton said that whether a second increase ultimately happens depends on a consultant's report and how the City Council approaches the issue.
"There's a lot of analysis between now and when we make a recommendation," he said.
That report is due out in May.
Meanwhile, the e-mails provide some insight into a three-month debate among top city officials as they sought to keep the problem quiet while they tried to figure out how bad the situation had become and how it might be fixed.
Messages also show that the city began considering the consequences of an abrupt shutdown of construction on its nationally recognized aquifer recharge project that is seen as key to the city's future.
Meanwhile, David Warren, the utility director who abruptly quit earlier this month as news of the financial problems emerged, adamantly defended the aquifer project in e-mails to his boss and even suggested a 1-cent sales tax to keep it on track.
When Warren was asked in January to analyze the impact of delaying the third phase of the aquifer project, he responded by saying the aquifer project is essential and has huge implications.
"With all due respect, Bob (Layton), I believe I have a professional, moral responsibility to insure that Wichita does not end up in such a situation. I will not make it easy for the City Council to just put off the development of the future water supply," he wrote.
Layton said the city also has the responsibility of giving elected leaders accurate analysis and to "find a justification of the rate increase that resonates with them," according to a Jan. 19 e-mail exchange.
Layton will not comment on why Warren left, saying it is a personnel matter. Warren has also declined to elaborate on his resignation or the utility's financial problems.
The city withheld some e-mails because it deemed them "personnel information" not subject to open records law.
But the city did release Warren's March 6 resignation letter, in which he said he was leaving for a new opportunity.
"Although I had planned a later retirement date, I had never planned to stop working," he wrote. "Recent opportunities have presented themselves which I feel I must pursue or the opportunities will be lost."
The letter asked that "no public attention or notice be given to my departure."
Aquifer project
The Equus Beds Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project is a $550 million plan that kicked off in 2000.
The idea is to take excess water from the Little Arkansas River, treat it and pump it back into the Equus Beds Aquifer north of Wichita.
The aquifer is one of the city's two main sources of water.
Water levels around the city's wells have dropped through the years.
Another part of the aquifer is polluted with saltwater left from decades of drilling for oil. The saltwater is slowly moving toward the city's water wells and threatens to make the water unfit to drink.
Recharging the aquifer will push the saltwater pollution away and provide additional water that the city can pump out of the aquifer in the future.
The project is now in the second — and largest — of four phases.
On Jan. 15, Warren was asked to examine the impact of slowing the project because it was putting too much financial strain on city coffers.
Warren responded with a study from 2009 that said delaying the project would put the city water supply at more risk in droughts.
On Jan. 28, Warren sent an e-mail to a consultant and finance officials telling them to not take bids for construction on more aquifer projects until further notice.
On Feb. 3, Warren forwarded a report by consultant R.W. Beck showing an abrupt shutdown could cost the city $30 million to $40 million.
A week later, Warren suggested the city consider a 1-cent sales tax that could pay for the $250 million second phase as originally planned or borrow money from the city retirement fund.
Layton apparently did not respond.
The city soon began crafting background materials to give to consultants who might make proposals to examine the aquifer project and financing.
Information control
The building financial controversy began to spill out in early March.
Warren alerted Layton and Assistant City Manager Cathy Holdeman that he planned to send letters to contractors "as we are starting to get lots of inquiries."
"It is possible that City Council members may hear from contractors locally as many of them are counting on this work," Warren wrote. "It is also possible that the news media will pick up on this as well."
Layton told Warren not to send the letters.
"We need to finalize all of the work on this issue and determine the media strategy," he responded. "I want to be proactive on this story, not reactive."
Layton said he heard some officials were talking about the issue publicly.
"Needless to say, this is very disappointing," he wrote.
Warren asked who was talking. "I am very unhappy about that," he wrote.
If Layton responded, it was not among e-mails provided to The Eagle.
Layton defended the secrecy in an interview, saying he wasn't certain of the magnitude of the problem until a week before his March 11 news conference.
"My biggest concern is that some people had some inaccurate information," he said. "I wanted to make sure we had everything and that it was accurate."
