1 1 Division of Administrative Hearings 2 Department of Administration, State of Florida 3 SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE ) 4 of FLORIDA; ROTH FARMS, INC.; and ) WEDGWORTH FARMS, Inc., ) 5 Petitioners ) ) V ) DOAH Case 6 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT ) No. 92-3038 DISTRICT, an agency of the State ) 7 of Florida; et al., ) Respondents. ) 8 ) FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, INC.; ) 9 UNITED STATES SUGAR CORPORATION; ) and NEW HOPE SOUTH, INC., ) 10 Petitioners, ) ) V ) DOAH Case ) 11 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT ) No. 92-3039 DISTRICT, an agency of the State ) 12 of Florida; et al., ) Respondents. ) 13 ) FLORIDA FRUIT and VEGETABLE ) 14 ASSOCIATION; LEWIS POPE FARMS; ) W. E. SCHLECHTER & SONS, INC., ) 15 and HUNDLEY FARMS, INC., ) Petitioners, ) ) 16 V ) DOAH Case ) SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT ) No. 92-3040 17 DISTRICT, an agency of the State ) of Florida; et al., ) 18 Respondents. ) 19 VOLUME I 20 DEPOSITION OF WOSSENU ABTEW, Ph.D. 21 Taken before Rachel W. Bridge, Professional Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of 22 Florida at large, pursuant to notice of taking deposition filed by the Plaintiffs in the above 23 cause. - - - 24 Thursday, January 7, 1992 319 Clematis Street, Suite 500 25 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 10:00 a.m. - 5:05 p.m. 2 1 APPEARANCES: 2 On behalf of the Petitioners Florida Sugar 3 Cane League, Inc., United States Sugar Corp., and New South Hope, Inc.: 4 Peeples, Earl & Blank, P.A. One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3636 5 Two South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 6 By: MARK T. KOBELINSKI, ESQUIRE 7 On behalf of the Respondent SFWMD: South Florida Water Management District 8 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680 9 By: JACQUELYN W. BIRCH, ESQUIRE 10 On behalf of Sugar Cane Growers: Hopping, Boyd, Green & Sams 11 123 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 12 By: GARY V. PERKO, ESQUIRE 13 Also Present: Morris Rosen Andrew MacNeil 14 - - - 15 I N D E X 16 - - - 17 WITNESS: DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS 18 WOSSENU ABTEW, Ph.D. 19 BY MR. PERKO 4 20 BY MR. KOBELINSKI 70 3 1 E X H I B I T S 2 NUMBER PAGE DESCRIPTION 3 ABTEW EXHIBIT 1 5 Resume of Wossenu Abtew, Ph.D. 4 ABTEW EXHIBIT 2 21 Draft of EAA Water Budget Analysis 1979 - 1990 5 ABTEW EXHIBIT 3 23 Draft of EAA Water Budget Analysis 6 ABTEW EXHIBIT 4 32 Evapotranspiration Estimation 7 Method for South Florida 8 ABTEW EXHIBIT 5 51 Draft of Everglades Research Plan 7-10-92 9 ABTEW EXHIBIT 6 53 Statistical Analysis of Drainage 10 Generation from the EAA 11 ABTEW EXHIBIT 7 59 Memo of 10-26-92 from Ray Santee and others to Leslie Wedderburn 12 ABTEW EXHIBIT 8 61 Memo of 9-30-92 from L. Wedderburn 13 to Distribution List 14 ABTEW EXHIBIT 9 62 Memo of 10-6-92 from J. Mulliken to Kenneth G. Ammon 15 ABTEW EXHIBIT 10 66 May 1992 Draft of Water Budget 16 Analysis for the Holey Land 17 ABTEW EXHIBIT 11 149 Memo of 8-16-91 from Todd Tisdale to Shawn P. Sculley 18 ABTEW EXHIBIT 12 165 Memo of 8-27-91 from J. Obeysekera 19 to Tony Federico 4 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 - - - 3 Thereupon, 4 Wossenu Abtew, Ph.D., 5 being by the undersigned Notary Public first duly 6 sworn, was examined and testified as follows: 7 THE WITNESS: I do. 8 DIRECT (Wossenu Abtew, Ph.D.) 9 BY MR. PERKO: 10 Q. Sir, could you please state your name, full 11 name for the record? 12 A. Wossenu Abtew. 13 MR. KOBELINSKI: Can I just intervene for 14 one moment to make a quick statement? 15 There was a discussion of counsel prior to 16 going on the record, and for the sake of 17 expediency, counsel for the petitioners, 18 Mr. Perko, Sugar Cane Co-op will be doing the 19 initial questioning for expediency and I will be 20 following up with whatever additional questions 21 I have. 22 Thank you. 23 BY MR. PERKO: 24 Q. Dr. Abtew, my name is Gary Perko. I'm an 25 attorney with the law firm of Hopping, Boyd, Green & 5 1 Sams. We represent the Sugar Cane Cooperative of 2 Florida and two of its members, Wedgworth Farms, Inc. 3 and Roth Farms, Inc., in the administrative 4 proceedings involving the Everglades land. 5 Have you ever been deposed before, sir? 6 A. No, this is my first time. 7 Q. Basically what's going to happen here today 8 is I'm going to ask you a series of questions. If 9 you don't understand my questions, which is a 10 distinct possibility, please ask me to rephrase them. 11 A. Okay. 12 Q. And if you don't know the answer to the 13 question, just tell me. I don't want you to guess or 14 anything. I'm not trying to trick you. 15 And with that -- and if you ever need a 16 break, please let me know, a cup of coffee or 17 anything. 18 A. Okay. 19 MR. PERKO: Dr. Abtew, I'm going to show 20 you what I'll ask the court reporter to mark as 21 Exhibit Number 1. 22 (The document was marked 23 Abtew Exb. No. 1.) 24 BY MR. PERKO: 25 Q. Dr. Abtew, could you review that document 6 1 and tell me if you recognize it? 2 A. Yes, this is my resume. 3 Q. Is that a current copy of your resume? 4 A. Yes, this is a current copy. 5 Q. Are you aware of any changes that you might 6 make to update it since it was originally drafted? 7 A. No. 8 Q. Okay. I'm going to ask you first a couple 9 of questions about your educational background. 10 I see here that you received a Bachelor of 11 Science degree in agricultural engineering from 12 Haille Sellassie University in Ethiopia in 1973. 13 A. Uh huh. 14 Q. Did you specialize in any particular area 15 of agricultural engineering at that time? 16 A. Well, general program. 17 Q. Okay. And from 1973 through '79 you worked 18 with the Department of Land and Agriculture of 19 Ethiopia; is that correct? 20 A. Uh huh. 21 Q. What were your duties at that time? 22 A. Well, I had different positions, starting 23 with Agricultural Extension Supervisor and Soil and 24 Water Conservation Engineer. 25 Q. Let's start with the position Agricultural 7 1 Extension Supervisor. 2 A. Uh huh. 3 Q. What were your duties in that position? 4 A. I was a supervising an agricultural 5 program. We introduced fertilizers and new tools and 6 new agricultural practices to small farmers. 7 Q. What were your duties in that capacity? 8 A. I was responsible for a certain region, 9 which is about -- it's a certain region. I have 10 various, about five, six stations, and we have 11 extension agents in those stations, the agricultural 12 program throughout the region. Supervisor extension 13 agent basically. 14 Q. What kind of agriculture was going on at 15 that time? 16 A. Most of it was small scale ownership with 17 ox and plow, not mechanized, but we had mechanized ag 18 in my region. 19 Q. What kinds of crops? 20 A. Most of the crops were sorghum, corn. You 21 know, the region grows sorghum. 22 Q. Your next position was Soil and Water 23 Conservation Engineer; is that correct? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. What were your duties in that capacity? 8 1 A. Well, it's the same thing. Supervise 2 different government work such as soil conservation, 3 building of terraces to conserve soil, protect soil 4 from erosion, and in some cases we were to supervise 5 rural road construction. 6 And in one instance I had to supervise 7 building of dikes or earth dams to collect runoff 8 water. 9 Q. When you say supervised, does that mean you 10 had general oversight of the project to make sure 11 that everything was going as scheduled? 12 A. Well, I had to, a lot of people working 13 under me and followed up that things are done under 14 specification and the program scheduled, so both 15 technical and administrative supervision of the 16 programs. 17 Q. What do you mean by technical supervision 18 generally? 19 A. Make sure that it is being built as it is 20 designed. 21 Q. Okay. Then your next position was Officer 22 in charge of Agricultural Research Center; is that 23 correct? 24 A. Well, that was what my extension was. We 25 had one research station and I had to supervise that 9 1 on the side. 2 It was such that we had a variety of crop 3 variety selection, select the best type of, variety 4 of crops for the area. Basically that was the main 5 research. 6 And there was some fertilizer application 7 rights, so it was a station in the area where I was 8 supervising, and I had the second responsibility of 9 following up that program with the administrative, 10 check it that it was going as designed. 11 Q. Was any of the research designed to analyze 12 agricultural runoff? 13 A. No. We don't have, there was no problem at 14 that time. At least there is no chemical application 15 at all. 16 In fact, there is very limited pesticide or 17 fertilizer application. We are trying to introduce 18 that into the area, so that there was not any runoff 19 problem or anything such as that at the time. 20 Q. And you left the Department of Land and 21 Agriculture in Ethiopia in 1979; is that correct? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Where did you go after that? 24 A. Well, I left the country and moved around 25 for about six months until I get to the Sudan, where 10 1 I became a refugee, political asylum, and stayed 2 there for one year, September of 1982 from '81, and I 3 came to the United States September '82 on political 4 asylum was my status. 5 And since then, the rest, if you want to 6 know -- 7 Q. What was your first job in the United 8 States? 9 A. My first job was in the store. I came 10 without any papers and I finished college. I worked 11 in the area, I worked in stores first as cashiers and 12 as managers. 13 In the meantime, I took preparations to go 14 to graduate school. It took three years and some 15 months. 16 Q. I see here that you were a research 17 associate at the University of Florida? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. When did you begin in that capacity? 20 A. In 1989, October to 1990, October. I came 21 in 1990, October, to the District. 22 Q. What was the focus of your research at the 23 University of Florida? 24 A. University of Florida was doing research 25 from contract from South Florida Water Management 11 1 District on the problem of phosphorus movement from 2 the dairies to Lake Okeechobee. That was a problem. 3 The name of the project is cited there in my resume. 4 That's how it is exactly worded. 5 Q. Biochemical behavior? 6 A. Biogeochemical behavior of phosphorus 7 movement. 8 Q. You are referring to Biogeochemical 9 Behavior and Transport of Phosphorus in Lake 10 Okeechobee Basin, page 2? 11 A. Yes, that was the project I worked on. 12 Q. What was the purpose of that research? 13 A. Well, the purpose of the research, to my 14 understanding, was to quantify how much phosphorus 15 was moving from the dairy sites to the streams and to 16 the lake, and at the same time evaluate the new 17 control programs, which was the detention of dairy 18 waste water and then spraying it on agricultural 19 land. 20 So most of the time I collected data from 21 the detention ponds and from the agricultural field 22 which the waste water was spread on and evaluated how 23 that system is working in cutting down the phosphorus 24 levels that lifts from the dairy farms. And I have a 25 cite there which you see. 12 1 Q. Your resume indicates that your work at the 2 University of Florida included modeling of water and 3 nutrient movement in sandy, high water table soils. 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Could you explain that briefly? 6 A. Well, this is part of the contract work and 7 I was part of the whole program, so I was a director 8 related to developing the model. 9 Q. You were not directly -- 10 A. The model was under somebody's 11 responsibility, but supplying the data and helping in 12 analysis of the data, because the same data, we have 13 the water quality of the spread water and we have the 14 drainage water quality, and someone does the actual 15 modeling of how it is removed from the soil, but the 16 collection and part of the analysis and part and 17 discussions, I had some contribution to the work. 18 Q. Was your contribution limited mainly to 19 review of the data? 20 A. Analysis of the data, collection of the 21 data, data collection, design and participation in 22 discussions of how the model could be developed, 23 although someone else is doing the modeling work 24 itself. 25 Q. Your resume indicates that you left the 13 1 University of Florida in 1990; is that correct? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Where did you go after that? 4 A. Came to the District, South Florida Water 5 Management District. 6 Q. I'm sorry, I need to back up a little bit. 7 You did your graduate studies at the Texas 8 Tech University in Lubbock; is that correct? 9 A. That's correct. 10 Q. Beginning in 1985? 11 A. Yes, beginning in 1985. 12 Q. What was the focus of your studies at Texas 13 Tech? 14 A. My first study was agricultural engineering 15 program, and I got Master's in agricultural 16 engineering. 17 Q. Was there any particular aspect of 18 agricultural engineering that you specialized in? 19 A. The area was soil and water. 20 Q. And what did your research and other 21 studies, how did it involve soil and water? 22 A. Well, with the soil part, the area, Lubbock 23 area has high winds and wind erosion problem, so 24 because of that, the region's interest, I had to do 25 wind erosion problem, which became the soil problem. 14 1 And later on my Ph.D. I studied civil 2 engineering and agricultural engineering and did the 3 research in both disciplines, which was sizing 4 storage capacity for municipal waste water. 5 The title, the specific title is in the 6 resume, if you want. 7 Q. Is that the title of your Ph.D. 8 dissertation on page 1? 9 A. Yes, page 1. 10 Q. Methodology for the Sizing of Storage 11 Requirements of Slowrate Land Treatment Systems Using 12 Various Management Options? 13 A. That's right. 14 Q. Okay. What is meant here by slowrate land 15 treatment systems? 16 A. This is a system where you apply municipal 17 waste water on agricultural land to grow crop and 18 take out the nutrients out of the waste water. 19 So the system operates that way. 20 Q. Essentially using municipal waste water for 21 irrigation purposes? 22 A. Yes, and for the purpose of removing the 23 nutrient out of the waste water. 24 Q. What is meant by sizing of storage 25 requirements? 15 1 A. Well, you have to do water by land and come 2 up with a chemical size of storage. When it is 3 raining you cannot -- you have to store it. 4 And it needs some figuring out how to size 5 the chemical size of reservoir for the rest of the 6 water that you can't apply when it is raining or when 7 the crop is not needing the water. 8 Q. So you are sizing the reservoir? 9 A. Well, the storage ponds, very large storage 10 ponds. 11 Q. Did any of your work at Texas Tech involve 12 wetland treatment systems? 13 A. No, there is no wetlands. It is a dry 14 area, so we don't have wetlands. 15 Q. Okay. Did your graduate research involve 16 the study of water chemistry? 17 A. Yes, I did a study of water chemistry, 18 analysis of pollutants in water. I did a lot of 19 work, and yes, I did study. 20 Q. Did you have any course work in water 21 chemistry? 22 A. Pollution. It is not called water 23 chemistry, but I did water chemistry, laboratory 24 analysis of all the pollutant components. 25 Q. I'm going to go back -- or forward, rather, 16 1 to where we were previously. 2 After you left the University of Florida, 3 you took a job with the South Florida Water 4 Management District; is that correct? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. When did you begin your employment at the 7 District? 8 A. In 1990, October 18. 9 Q. And what was your first position at the 10 District? 11 A. My first position, Water Resource Engineer, 12 and later it was changed to Civil Engineer. The name 13 of the position was changed to Civil Engineer. I 14 stayed for eight months on that position. 15 Q. Now is this a title change? 16 A. Yes, it was a title change, but it's the 17 same. 18 Q. What were your duties in that capacity? 19 A. Well, I was in Water Resources Division, 20 where basically water resource problems were handled. 21 And during the first year of my work I 22 wrote a storm report for the January 1991 storm over 23 South Florida, which most of was in the ag area. 24 Q. What was the purpose of that report? 25 A. That report was to analyze and document the 17 1 storm event, document the amount of rainfall over the 2 area and the flows that were passing through the area 3 and the flood factor on the area. 4 Q. What do you mean by the area? 5 A. Well, the area which was affected by that, 6 by the storm of January 1991. Most of it was EAA, 7 and the map of the affected area is shown in the 8 report, but certain of the ag area was part of that 9 storm event. 10 Q. The title of that report is Storm Event of 11 January 15-17, 1991; is that correct? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. And that was prepared in March of 1991? 14 A. Yes, that's right. 15 Q. Let me ask you in your position as Water 16 Resources Engineer/Civil Engineer, who was your 17 supervisor at that time? 18 A. First it was -- he has left the District -- 19 Monina Medardo, Dr. Medardo, Monina. 20 MS. BIRCH: Medar? 21 THE WITNESS: Medardo, M-e-d-a-r-d-o, 22 M-o-n-i-n-a. I'm not certain about the 23 spelling, but that's his name. And later it was 24 Shawn Sculley. 18 1 BY MR. PERKO: 2 Q. Is Mr. Sculley -- or is it Dr. Sculley? 3 A. Mr. 4 Q. Is he still at the District? 5 A. No, he is not. 6 Q. Do you know where he is currently employed? 7 A. With certain engineering concern here in 8 West Palm Beach. I don't know what. 9 Q. What positions did Mr. Sculley hold when he 10 was your supervisor, do you recall? 11 A. Yes, division director. 12 Q. What were some of your other duties as the 13 Water Resources Engineer/Civil Engineer? You 14 mentioned the storm report. 15 A. Yes, I wrote An Atlas of the Lower 16 Kissimmee River and Lake Istokpoga Surface Water 17 Management Basins. 18 Q. Let me ask you just generally, did your 19 work involve the entire area of the District or did 20 you specialize in any particular geographical area? 21 A. No. When I started, not, but I was 22 assigned most of the lake and later south of the 23 lake. 24 Q. So your supervisor would assign you 25 projects? 19 1 A. Yes, that's right. 2 Q. Do you recall any other projects you worked 3 on at that time? 4 A. Well, at what time? Before I became senior 5 civil engineer? 6 Q. In your first position. 7 A. In my first position? These are the two 8 that I remember. 9 Q. Okay. How long did you hold that position? 10 A. Eight months. 11 Q. Beginning in October of 1990? 12 A. Yes, until June 30. 13 Q. What was your position beginning June 1991? 14 A. Senior Civil Engineer. 15 Q. Is that your current position? 16 A. Yes, that's my current position. 17 Q. And who have your supervisors been in that 18 capacity? 19 A. The first one is Shawn Sculley. 20 Q. Okay. 21 A. And later Jayantha Obeysekera. 22 Q. Is it Dr. Obeysekera? 23 A. Yes, Dr. Obeysekera. 24 Q. Is he the current division director for 25 water resources? 20 1 A. No, he is in another division right now, 2 since January '92, I guess. 3 Q. What division is that? 4 A. This is Everglades System Research 5 Division. 6 Q. Is Dr. Obeysekera the division director for 7 that division? 8 A. No, he is not. 9 Q. Who is division director? 10 A. Dr. Thomas Fontaine. 11 Q. So Dr. Obeysekera reports to Dr. Fontaine? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Is it correct that your work at this time 14 is focused in the Everglades system? 15 A. Yes. I started before coming to this 16 division, I worked on the water budget for the 17 Everglades Agricultural Area before coming to this 18 division. 19 Q. Was the EAA water budget your first project 20 as Senior Civil Engineer? 21 A. I have many pieces of things that I did 22 that I don't remember. 23 Q. Let me focus on the EAA water budget at 24 this time. 25 Who asked you to prepare that water budget? 21 1 A. Division, my supervisor. 2 Q. That was Mr. Sculley? 3 A. Yes, Mr. Sculley. 4 Q. Did he assist you in that project? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Anyone else assist you? 7 A. The co-auther of budget, Mr. Nagendra 8 Khanal. 9 MR. PERKO: Doctor, I'm going to show you 10 what I'll ask the court reporter to mark as 11 Exhibit Number 2. 12 (The document was marked 13 Abtew Exh. No. 2.) 14 BY MR. PERKO: 15 Q. Do you recognize this document? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. And it's entitled Water Budget Analysis For 18 The Everglades Agricultural Area (1979-1990), 19 correct? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Did you author this draft report? 22 A. Yes, I did. 23 Q. Along with Dr. Khanal? 24 A. Yes, Mr. Khanal. 25 Q. Mr. Khanal? 22 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Does this indicate the results of the work 3 you did on the EAA water budget? 4 A. This is a draft of the work I did on the 5 EAA water budget. 6 Q. Have you finalized this report? 7 A. Not yet. It's being reviewed right now. 8 Q. Could you tell me, is it undergoing the 9 District's standard peer review processes? 10 A. Yes, it has gone through one peer review, 11 and I have to look at the peer reviews and come up 12 with the next draft, which probably will go for a 13 second peer review. 14 Q. Do you know who is on the peer review 15 committee? 16 A. Well, from the other book, you can tell who 17 reviewed from different departments. 18 Q. Those are the documents you just referred 19 to, all those have been produced? 20 A. Yes, those are the ones which have been 21 produced. 22 MR. PERKO: I'll show you another document 23 here that I'll ask the court reporter to mark as 24 Exhibit Number 3 entitled Water Budget Analysis 25 for the Everglades Agricultural Area, an Organic 23 1 Soil Drainage Basin, To Be Submitted To Water 2 Resources Bulletin. 3 (The document was marked 4 Abtew Exb. No. 3.) 5 BY MR. PERKO: 6 Q. Do you recognize this document? 7 A. Yes, I wrote this with Mr. Khanal. 8 Q. Which did you prepare first, Exhibit Number 9 2 or Exhibit Number 3? 10 A. Number 2. 11 Q. Exhibit 3 -- 12 A. The period is January '73 to '91. 13 Q. Let me direct your attention then to 14 Exhibit Number 2, since you prepared that one first. 15 Could you tell me what the purpose of this 16 report was or why you were asked to perform the 17 analysis reflected in this report? 18 A. I don't know the reason, but the water 19 resource documentation, that's what I think. 20 Q. What was your goal, what was the goal of 21 your analysis? 22 A. Well, the goal of the analysis, to my 23 understanding, is documentation of hydrologic data in 24 South Florida which is under the District 25 responsibilities. 24 1 Q. What aspects of hydrology of the EAA did 2 you examine? 3 A. Everything, rainfall, evapotranspiration 4 and the flows into the ag area, water flows, and 5 water flows out of the ag area. 6 Q. Did you address seepage in this analysis? 7 A. I think we have mentioned somewhere in the 8 document that we estimated the seepage into and out 9 of the ag area to be zero, because of lack of data 10 and considering the flatness of the region. And 11 using our engineering judgment, we estimated it as 12 zero for this report. 13 Q. Other than lack of data, what was the basis 14 for estimating that seepage was zero? 15 A. Judgment. 16 Q. Why in your judgment did you conclude that 17 seepage was zero? 18 A. Well, there is no significant gradient of 19 water that is clear moving in one direction, as from 20 outside to the ag area or from the ag area to the 21 surrounding area in high volume that would offset our 22 study. 23 So as long as there is no supporting data 24 to conclude that significant volume of water is 25 moving on ground floor in ag area or into ag area, 25 1 the best estimate was to put that to zero and 2 consider the bigger factors which affected the water 3 of the area. 4 Q. Maybe I got a little bit ahead of myself 5 here, but could you explain for me what is meant by 6 the term seepage? 7 A. The term seepage is water that passes 8 beneath the face of the ground and leaves into or out 9 of a region. 10 Underground movement of water, that might 11 explain it. 12 Q. And that movement could be either into the 13 EAA or out of the EAA? 14 A. Yes, or on different sides it could be a 15 different picture, but we balance that out, estimate 16 whichever is leaking out or leaking in from all 17 sides. It can be estimated that zero with the 18 information we have. 19 Q. Are you aware of any studies that have been 20 done to analyze seepage into and/or out of the EAA? 21 A. Not that I remember. 22 Q. Are you aware of any ongoing studies to 23 address seepage? 24 A. I don't know one. 25 Q. If such a study were being undertaken, who 26 1 would be the appropriate person at the District to 2 ask about whether such a study has been undertaken? 3 A. I don't know. 4 Q. Dr. Abtew, you mentioned that another 5 hydrologic aspect of the EPA that you addressed in 6 this report is evapotranspiration. 7 A. Uh huh. 8 Q. That's generally known as ET, correct? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. From now on when I say ET, I'll mean 11 evapotranspiration. 12 A. Uh huh. 13 Q. Can you describe for me how you estimated 14 ET in your report, in your analysis? 15 A. Well, in our analysis what we did is 16 everything else is measured, and the balance 17 remaining is calculated as ET. That is reported in 18 the document. The inflow, flow out, rainfall is 19 measured, and the remaining part is calculated as ET. 20 That's reported in the document. 21 On the other side, what could it be 22 theoretically if there is, if that estimate or 23 computed value is close to the statistical, I did the 24 report and reported that on the side of the report. 25 So whoever is using it can choose or relate 27 1 what it means. So both are reported in the document. 2 Q. Am I understanding you correctly to say 3 that you essentially took two approaches to 4 estimating ET? 5 A. Two approaches, yes. 6 Q. One was what I'll term a water balance 7 approach? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Where you looked at flows into the system? 10 A. Yes, and out of the system. 11 Q. Through the canals, for example? 12 A. And rainfall. 13 Q. And flows out of the system through -- 14 A. The canals. 15 Q. The canals. And the balance was estimated 16 to be ET; is that correct? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And the other approach was the theoretical 19 approach? 20 A. Theoretical approach. 21 Q. Could you explain in more detail what the 22 theoretical approach entailed? 23 A. Theoretical approach, you have measures 24 using temperature, relative humidity, sunshine hours 25 and wind speed data and pond evaporation data. 28 1 There is an FAO-24 method, which the method 2 is called FAO-24 -- 3 Q. FAO -- 4 A. 24. 5 Q. FAO-24? 6 A. Yes, Blaney-Criddle, 7 So I selected or I did the work on it 8 separately, which is a different document. You have 9 a copy, I think. It's a different document. And 10 that document is cited in the water budget. 11 So ET was not estimated theoretically in 12 the water budget. That one is -- here. 13 Q. Let me make sure I understand correctly. 14 You estimated ET in connection with another paper? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And those results were incorporated into 17 this report? 18 A. That's right. 19 Q. Okay. Is the report you are referring to 20 entitled Evapotranspiration Estimation Method for 21 South Florida? 22 A. That's right. 23 Q. (The Everglades Agricultural Area), by 24 W. Abtew and S.P. Sculley; is that correct? 25 A. Yes. 29 1 Q. And that was a paper presented at the 51st 2 Annual Meeting of the Soil and Crop Science Society 3 of Florida? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Dr. Abtew, let me ask you to refer to your 6 report and show me where your discussion of the 7 theoretical method is, in Exhibit Number 2. 8 A. Show you? 9 Q. Yes. What page is that discussion? 10 A. It's on page 55. The title is Basin 11 Consumptive Use. It starts on page 55, but it 12 continues up to page 57, 55 to 57. 13 Q. This discusses the results of the 14 theoretical approach; is that correct? 15 A. The differences, results of the theoretical 16 approach. 17 Q. Dr. Abtew, let me refer you to page 25 and 18 page 26 where you discuss the evapotranspiration 19 model. 20 A. Yes. It's cited here, too. 21 Q. Is this a further explanation of the 22 theoretical approach to estimating ET? 23 A. Yes, this is also another place where it is 24 cited. 25 Q. Okay. 30 1 A. Page 26. 2 Q. Let me ask you a couple of background 3 questions on this. 4 On page 26 you list three equations, 5 equation numbers 45, 46 and 47. 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. The first equation, which is labeled number 8 45, states ET crop equals Kc times ET zero. 9 A. Sub zero. 10 Q. What is meant by ET crop? 11 A. That's the crop evapotranspiration. 12 Q. Okay. What does that represent? 13 A. That's evapotranspiration from a crop, what 14 the crop is. In that case it will be for that crop, 15 for that specific crop. 16 Q. So there is a different value for different 17 crops? 18 A. Yes. On page 27 I think that is shown, 19 different values for each type of crop and for each 20 month. 21 Q. What is meant by the term Kc? 22 A. That's control crop. That's called crop 23 coefficient. 24 Q. What does that represent? 25 A. That's the factor for each type of crop, 31 1 which is clearly shown on -- well, it's defined here 2 at the end as crop coefficient. 3 Q. That's explained in your previous study? 4 A. Yes, it's more clear in that document how 5 this thing is developed. 6 MS. BIRCH: How it is developed? 7 THE WITNESS: The details are in the other 8 document. If you want, I can go through and go 9 through the details. 10 MR. KOBELINSKI: Could I ask a quick 11 question that will save some confusion on my 12 part? 13 Is there a way to convert -- I guess this 14 is by inches to acre feet? Because some charts 15 on some studies are in acre feet and the other 16 ones are in inches. 17 Is there a way of converting it, or not 18 really? 19 THE WITNESS: There is a way. One inch 20 means one inch of water over an acre area, an 21 inch depth of water. One acre, there is 12 22 inches of water on one acre. So if you divide 23 the acre feet by 12, you get inch. 24 MR. KOBELINSKI: Thank you. 25 MR. PERKO: Dr. Abtew, I'm going to show 32 1 you another document here which I'll ask the 2 court reporter to mark as Exhibit Number 4. 3 (The document was marked 4 Abtew Exh. No. 4.) 5 BY MR. PERKO: 6 Q. Do you recognize this document? 7 A. Yes, that is a document I wrote with 8 Mr. Sculley. 9 Q. Is this the document you referred to before 10 which describes the method of estimating 11 evapotranspiration? 12 A. Well, it is reported here in parallel with 13 the water budget. 14 Q. And this report explains how you derived 15 the crop coefficient or Kc -- 16 A. Kp. 17 Kc is -- 18 Q. I'm sorry, I'm getting ahead of myself 19 here. 20 A. It's crop dependent. How Kc is developed 21 is in this document on page 26. 22 Q. This document, you are referring to Exhibit 23 Number 2? 24 A. Exhibit Number 2, yes. How Kc is 25 developed, it is mentioned on page 26 on Exhibit 33 1 Number 2. 2 How Kp is developed, it is stated in 3 Exhibit Number 4. 4 Q. How Kp is developed is explained in Exhibit 5 Number 4? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. I guess I'm a little bit confused here. 8 On page 26 of Exhibit Number 2 you indicate 9 that Kc equals the crop coefficient? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Could you explain for me how you derived 12 the crop coefficient or Kc? 13 A. It is stated here, it is derived using crop 14 growth information from the EAA, the state of the 15 crop at different times each month, and then there 16 are references in FAO-24 document for each stage of 17 crop. There are case estimates which are widely 18 used, and for the reference, it is cited here. 19 MR. PERKO: Why don't we take a break. 20 (Thereupon, a recess was taken.) 21 BY MR. PERKO: 22 Q. Dr. Abtew, I'm going to ask you a couple 23 more questions about Kc or crop coefficient. 24 Are there any specific equations used to 25 get the Kc or did you use any equations to derive the 34 1 Kc values or did you simply obtain them from a table 2 in another reference? 3 A. I think it is clearly stated on Exhibit 2, 4 page 26. 5 Q. I'm still a little bit confused. 6 Did you use an equation to develop the Kc? 7 A. No, I didn't use any equation. 8 Q. How did you derive Kc? 9 A. Using information from that crop growing 10 part on the EAA and the crop coefficient estimates in 11 the FAO-24 document. 12 Q. Okay. Let me ask you about Kp, potential 13 evapotranspiration coefficient. 14 How did you derive Kp? 15 A. It's shown in Exhibit 4. It's a long 16 process. It is shown in Exhibit 4 how Kp is derived. 17 Q. Specifically are you referring to page nine 18 of Exhibit 4? 19 A. Page 27, the last values are shown on page 20 27. 21 Q. So page 27 -- 22 A. Is the result. 23 Q. The result? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. The actual numbers derived? 35 1 A. The whole document has to be read to see 2 how those coefficients were derived. 3 Q. Could I refer you to page 9 of Exhibit 4? 4 A. Okay. 5 Q. Is that the equation used to derive Kp? 6 A. That's right. 7 Q. Dr. Abtew, how do these parameters, Kc and 8 Kp, take into consideration such factors as growing 9 seasons, crop burning, water tables or crop 10 rotations? 11 Do they take into consideration those 12 factors? 13 A. No. 14 Q. Referring back to the equations set forth 15 on page 26 of Exhibit 2, equations 45, 46 and 47, 16 were these equations that were calibrated to actual 17 ET crop values? 18 A. There is no data to calibrate, actual data 19 to calibrate the values. 20 Q. Dr. Abtew, what was the result of the 21 theoretical approach explained in Exhibit Number 2? 22 A. The result, the evapotranspiration as 23 calculated by the theoretical approach was a little 24 higher than the water balance approach. It is in the 25 document. 36 1 Q. I just want to make sure I understand. 2 That's why I'm asking the questions. 3 So am I understanding correctly that the 4 water balance approach comparing inflows and outflows 5 to derive ET resulted in a lower number -- 6 A. Lower number. 7 Q. -- than the theoretical approach? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Okay. Why do you think the theoretical 10 approach resulted in a higher number? 11 A. Well, it's mentioned in the document. The 12 theoretical approach might not be well suited for the 13 area or there could be other reasons which we don't 14 know. 15 Q. Which you don't know? 16 A. Which I don't know. 17 Q. Why might the theoretical approach not be 18 well suited for the area? 19 A. Because it is theoretical. You have to 20 estimate coefficients and theoretical methods to know 21 all the actual result. 22 Q. Is it your opinion that the water balance 23 approach to estimating ET is more accurate than the 24 theoretical approach? 25 A. I don't level it that way. That needs 37 1 further work to conclude one way or the other. 2 Q. Are you currently performing any additional 3 work to try to get an answer to that question? 4 A. Yes. I am studying evaporation study of 5 wetland plants and that might help calibrate 6 equations and see what actually is going up into the 7 air from the plant surface. 8 Q. I'll ask you some questions about that in a 9 little bit. 10 Let me refer you back to Exhibit Number 3. 11 Exhibit Number 3 is the later report which you 12 developed in connection with this study? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And you stated that you used a different 15 period of record; is that correct? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Why did you use a different period of 18 record? 19 A. Well, this time the study was extended to 20 cover longer period than the previous one. 21 Q. And what was the period of record it 22 covered? 23 A. This one is from '73 to '91. The previous 24 one was from '79 to '90. So this is longer, 18 years 25 or so and 11 years. 38 1 Q. And is it correct to say that you basically 2 used the same approach to estimating ET in this 3 report as you did in Exhibit 2? 4 A. Let me check. Well, I have to read the 5 document if I have used the same approach or just 6 reported here on page 16, I have reported the water 7 budget ET. 8 Q. And the discussion on page 16 referred to, 9 is that to the Consumptive Use section? 10 A. Uh huh. 11 Q. Dr. Abtew, let me ask you some questions 12 now about the work you are currently doing involving 13 wetland plants. 14 Could you explain to me what that project 15 involves? 16 A. It's part of the Everglades Nutrient 17 Removal Project. 18 Q. By Everglades Nutrient Removal Project, do 19 you mean what's typically referred to as the ENR 20 Project? 21 A. Yes, ENR Project. 22 Q. What is the purpose of your work? 23 A. The purpose of my work is to quantify the 24 amount of water that is lost by evapotranspiration 25 from wetland plants. 39 1 Q. Are you looking at specific wetland plants? 2 A. I haven't decided that yet. 3 Q. When do you believe that you will decide? 4 A. Next week. 5 Q. Why are you looking at wetland plants and 6 not agricultural plants? 7 A. Part of the ENR work, so we want to do the 8 water budget of the site. For that purpose, we need 9 to measure the wetland plant evapotranspiration. 10 Q. What is the current status of that work? 11 A. I don't know. That's not under my 12 supervision. 13 Q. No, I mean your part of the work, the 14 estimation of the ET issue with wetland plants. 15 A. The equipment is bought and the design work 16 is done. Installation will be done the initial time. 17 So installing it on the site is what is remaining, 18 and then we start measuring, everything is read. 19 Q. How do you plan to go about quantifying the 20 ET associated with these wetland plants? 21 A. Measure as the residue out of the water 22 budget. The lysimeter is a control. You have a big 23 tank, 2,000-gallon tank, over 2,000-gallon capacity 24 tank where there is a lysimeter. 25 And you pretty much control the inflow and 40 1 outflow with pumps and flow meters, and remaining 2 should be quantified as ET. That's standard method 3 of measuring evapotranspiration. 4 Q. Essentially that's a laboratory test? 5 A. No, it's not laboratory. It is field test. 6 Q. Field test? 7 A. Yes, right at the marsh site. It's a long -- 8 the detail is a lot. 9 Q. So you will be using the lysimeter, is that 10 how you say it? 11 A. Yes. 12 MR. KOBELINSKI: How do you spell that? 13 THE WITNESS: L-y-s-i-m-e-t-e-r. 14 BY MR. PERKO: 15 Q. And essentially that's a 2,000-gallon tank? 16 A. A little over 2,000. 17 Q. And you will be growing different types of 18 wetland plants -- 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. -- to determine the ET associated with 21 those different species; is that correct? 22 A. Yes, uh huh. 23 Q. Is there any deadline for your work to be 24 completed? 25 MS. BIRCH: Object to the relevancy of this 41 1 work on the ENR project, as his expertise will 2 be in developing the results of the water budget 3 for the EAA. 4 BY MR. PERKO: 5 Q. Dr. Abtew, do you intend to rely on the 6 work you are doing on wetland plants that we have 7 been discussing in developing any expert testimony in 8 the pending SWIM Plan challenge? 9 A. This work is not yet started, so I can't 10 tell whether I will use it or not. 11 Q. How long do you anticipate this program to 12 last? 13 MS. BIRCH: Object to the relevancy. 14 BY MR. PERKO: 15 Q. You can answer the question. 16 A. For a long time, an indefinite time. I 17 can't tell. 18 Q. A period of years? 19 MS. BIRCH: Objection, calls for 20 speculation. 21 MR. PERKO: You can answer the question. 22 MS. BIRCH: If you know. 23 BY MR. PERKO: 24 Q. If you know. 25 A. I don't know how long it's going to take. 42 1 Q. Dr. Abtew, is this work that we have been 2 discussing involving wetland plants and the ET, is 3 that described in any written documents? 4 MS. BIRCH: Objection to relevancy. 5 THE WITNESS: Yes, it is described in the 6 design manual, design papers which I designed. 7 BY MR. PERKO: 8 Q. Did you produce those in response to the 9 notice of duces tecum? 10 MS. BIRCH: Objection to relevancy, lack of 11 foundation. 12 THE WITNESS: What's a duces tecum? 13 MS. BIRCH: The witness has not testified 14 that he has relied upon that for any use in the 15 development of the EAA water budget. 16 MR. PERKO: I understand that. I'm simply 17 asking him if he produced those documents in 18 response to the notice of duces tecum that was 19 served upon him. 20 MS. BIRCH: Why would he produce them 21 unless there has been established that he has 22 used those? 23 MR. PERKO: I'm asking him if he produced 24 them. 43 1 BY MR. PERKO: 2 Q. Did you produce those documents in response 3 to the duces tecum? 4 A. No. 5 Q. Is there a project code for this work? 6 MS. BIRCH: Objection to the relevancy. 7 THE WITNESS: No. I don't know of a 8 project code. 9 BY MR. PERKO: 10 Q. Dr. Abtew, in the course of this project 11 involving wetland plants, are you going to be testing 12 natural marsh fauna? 13 MS. BIRCH: Objection to the relevancy; 14 objection, it calls for speculation, and lack of 15 foundation. 16 I would also, I object to this line of 17 questioning. I mean Dr. Abtew has been listed 18 by the District as an expert in the area of 19 developing the results of the EAA water budget. 20 If you want to ask him -- I mean now you 21 are asking him about work that he clearly has 22 stated has no relevancy to this -- 23 MR. PERKO: I don't think he has clearly 24 stated it has no relevancy. He said he doesn't 25 know at this time. 44 1 MS. BIRCH: From his opinion, he said he 2 has not relied upon it. He has told you that he 3 has no idea of when this work may or may not be 4 done, and you have not established through any 5 previous testimony that it has any relevancy to 6 anything related to the EAA, development of the 7 water budget. 8 MR. PERKO: Clearly relevant to the 9 development of evapotranspiration that he has -- 10 he has not indicated that he will not under any 11 circumstances be relying upon this at trial. 12 If there is any chance he will be relying 13 upon this at trial, I need to know about it. 14 And I'm not intending to explore this ad 15 nauseam. I just want to ask him a few simple 16 questions about the scope of this work. 17 MS. BIRCH: I understand your statement and 18 where you are going, but I just want to make it 19 clear that from his previous testimony, he has 20 not made any indication that he is in any way 21 going to rely upon that work. 22 MR. KOBELINSKI: Do you mind if I voir dire 23 for a second so we can get by the relevancy 24 objection? 25 MS. BIRCH: Go ahead, counselor. 45 1 MR. KOBELINSKI: Okay. 2 VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION 3 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 4 Q. Dr. Abtew, the ENR project, where is that 5 located? 6 A. It's located in, west of Water Conservation 7 Area 1. 8 Q. Within the EAA? 9 A. Right at the edge of the EAA, but it's no 10 more part of the EAA, I guess. 11 Q. It is your understanding it's not part of 12 the EAA any longer? 13 A. It is being changed to wetlands rather than 14 agricultural area. 15 Q. But is it within the physical geographical 16 boundary? 17 A. Yes, at the edge. 18 Q. Approximately how many acres are comprised 19 of the ENR project? 20 A. I don't know exactly how much there is. 21 Q. Is the ENR project similar at all to the 22 Stormwater Treatment Areas that are being 23 contemplated by the Stormwater Treatment Plan? 24 MS. BIRCH: Objection to the relevancy. 25 MR. KOBELINSKI: I'm just voir diring. 46 1 MS. BIRCH: I object to the relevance of 2 the nature of this voir dire as to foundation, 3 as to relevancy to the EAA. 4 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 5 Q. Is the ENR a precursor project or similar 6 nature to the Stormwater Treatment Areas contemplated 7 by the SWIM Plan? 8 A. I'm not in a position to decide or 9 determine what the project is going to be with regard 10 to SWIM Plan. 11 Q. Is it your understanding that Stormwater 12 Treatment Areas will be artificial wetlands marshes? 13 A. I beg your pardon? 14 Q. Is it your understanding that Stormwater 15 Treatment Areas will be comprised of predominantly 16 artificial wetlands marshes? 17 A. I don't know. 18 Q. You don't know? 19 A. No. 20 Q. Do you know what the approximate area of 21 the Stormwater Treatment Areas are? 22 A. In the SWIM document it is stated about 23 36,000 acres. 24 Q. And that 36,000 acres is contemplated to be 25 part of the geographic EAA; is that correct? 47 1 A. I'm not sure where it is going to be 2 located. 3 Q. If it was part of the geographic Everglades 4 Agricultural Area, would the coefficient for those 5 marsh lands have an impact on the ET in the 6 Everglades Agricultural Area? 7 MS. BIRCH: Objection, it calls for 8 speculation again. I see no relevance or 9 foundation. 10 MR. KOBELINSKI: He is an expert. I'm 11 asking an expert opinion as to whether or not 12 36,000 of wetlands marsh would impact the 13 coefficient of ET in the EAA. 14 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 15 Q. Would that impact the -- 16 A. ET is calculated for each crop. If you 17 change the crop to anything else, the values will 18 change. 19 Q. If the ET value changes for the EAA as a 20 result of the STAs, would that impact the water 21 budget for the EAA? 22 A. Whenever you change the crop type, the 23 coefficient changes. 24 So I haven't done for wetlands theoretical 25 ET calculation. I can't tell you which way it is 48 1 going to change or how much, how much the coefficient 2 is going to change. 3 Q. I understand you can't tell the degree of 4 change, but it would impact the water budget itself; 5 is that correct? 6 A. Yes, it would impact the water budget 7 itself. 8 MR. KOBELINSKI: I think we have enough 9 relevancy as to why his testing of the 10 artificial wetlands marsh within the EAA will 11 impact the water budget. 12 MS. BIRCH: Same objection, relevancy and 13 foundation. 14 CONTINUED DIRECT EXAMINATION 15 BY MR. PERKO: 16 Q. Dr. Abtew, as part of this work with 17 wetland plants, are you going to be testing natural 18 marsh fauna? 19 A. Yes, natural marsh plants. 20 Q. By natural marsh fauna, I mean the types of 21 fauna that are found in the water conservation areas. 22 A. Well, the type of plants to be tested is 23 not determined. I have to consult the people for 24 various information. 25 So that's not yet determined what kinds of 49 1 plants are going to be put in. 2 Q. Who will you be consulting in determining 3 what kinds of plants are going to be tested? 4 A. Dr. Sue Newman. 5 Q. Anyone else? 6 A. That's all. 7 Q. Dr. Abtew, have you ever estimated ET for 8 the water conservation areas? 9 A. I don't think so. I don't remember that. 10 Q. Are you aware of any studies or analyses 11 performed by the District to estimate ET in water 12 conservation areas? 13 A. I think there are some works which are -- 14 I'm not certain, I can't remember documents, but I'm 15 sure there are some. 16 Q. Who at the District, if you know, would be 17 most knowledgeable about any estimations of ET in the 18 water conservation areas? 19 A. I don't know. 20 Q. Dr. Abtew, are you familiar with the water 21 balance analysis of the EAA performed by CH2 Mill 22 Hill? 23 A. Yes, I have seen the document. I have read 24 it sometime, a long time back. 25 Q. What is your general opinion of that 50 1 analysis? 2 A. I don't remember the results and I couldn't 3 say anything now. 4 Q. Okay. Do you recall what methodology was 5 used in that study to determine ET? 6 A. I don't recall now. 7 Q. Dr. Abtew, do you know if anyone at the 8 District has been asked to prepare a water budget for 9 the STAs proposed in the SWIM Plan? 10 MS. BIRCH: Objection to relevancy. 11 MR. PERKO: Just asking if he knows. It's 12 clearly relevant to the subject matter of this 13 case. 14 MS. BIRCH: Of this case, but not this 15 witness. 16 MR. PERKO: I'm asking if he knows. 17 THE WITNESS: I don't remember if I have 18 done this kind of work. 19 BY MR. PERKO: 20 Q. Do you know if anyone else has been asked 21 to perform a water budget? 22 MS. BIRCH: Same objection. 23 THE WITNESS: I don't remember. 24 BY MR. PERKO: 25 Q. Dr. Abtew, have you had any involvement in 51 1 the design of the STAs proposed in the Everglades 2 SWIM Plan? 3 A. No, I don't have any involvement in the 4 design. 5 Q. Have you had any involvement in the sizing 6 of the STAs? 7 MS. BIRCH: Objection to relevancy. 8 THE WITNESS: No, I didn't have 9 involvement. 10 MR. PERKO: Dr. Abtew, I'd like to show you 11 what I'll ask the court reporter to mark as 12 Exhibit Number 5. 13 (The document was marked 14 Abtew Exh. No. 5.) 15 BY MR. PERKO: 16 Q. Do you recognize this document? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. What is this document? 19 A. This is Everglades Research Plan. 20 Q. Did you help draft that document? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Could you point out to me the specific 23 portions that you were involved in drafting? 24 MS. BIRCH: While Dr. Abtew is looking 25 through this document, I'm going to object to 52 1 the relevancy of the Everglades Research Plan as 2 to Dr. Abtew's expertise in the area of 3 development results of the EAA water budget. 4 THE WITNESS: I developed the projects 5 2.A.2 and project 2.B.2. 6 MR. KOBELINSKI: Dr. Abtew, I believe if we 7 are all using the same copy, on the lower 8 right-hand corner are Bates numbers. 9 Could you identify by page number for the 10 record? 11 THE WITNESS: These are cited on page B-6. 12 MR. KOBELINSKI: Bates number 0946793. 13 THE WITNESS: 0946793. 14 BY MR. PERKO: 15 Q. Dr. Abtew, you mentioned that you helped 16 draft the section labeled 2.A.2. 17 What does that research program involve? 18 A. This is developing nutrient method and 19 chemical budget from the major sub-systems of the 20 EPA. 21 Q. Are you going to be involved in that 22 program or are you involved in that program? 23 A. I am not certain in the -- I am not sure. 24 Q. Okay. Has the development of those budgets 25 begun at this time? 53 1 A. Not yet, not according to this plan. 2 Q. At 2.B.2 the project objective is listed as 3 "Investigate the phosphorus removal effectiveness of 4 BMPs in the EAA." 5 Will you be involved in that program? 6 A. Yes, I will be directing the program. 7 Q. You will be directing the program? 8 A. Yes, right. 9 Q. And what is the status of that program? 10 Has it begun at this time? 11 A. Not yet. The research plan is being 12 reviewed. It's not started yet. Application has 13 started. 14 MR. PERKO: Dr. Abtew, I'd like to show you 15 what I'll ask the court reporter to mark as 16 Exhibit 6. 17 (The document was marked 18 Abtew Exh. No. 6.) 19 BY MR. PERKO: 20 Q. Do you recognize this document? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. What is that document? 23 A. This is a paper I wrote with 24 Dr. Obeysekera. 25 Q. It's entitled Statistical Analysis of 54 1 Drainage Generation From the Everglades Agricultural 2 Area; is that right? 3 A. That's right. 4 Q. What was the purpose of this report? 5 A. It's written in the document itself. The 6 purpose is to get more understanding of the EAA 7 runoff system, to get more information, more 8 knowledge of the system. 9 Q. And what did you look at in trying to 10 obtain more knowledge of the system? 11 A. We analyzed synthetic runoff data and came 12 up with the frequency of how much runoff can come 13 from the EAA. 14 Q. What do you mean by synthetic data? 15 A. Well, we used synthetic rainfall data, 16 which means general rainfall data for 100 years, as 17 is stated in the document. This is to see the 18 different sequences of daily rainfall, how much rain 19 can come out. And the detail is in the paper. 20 Q. What data did you rely upon in developing 21 the synthetic rainfall data? What actual data? 22 A. We depended on the actual rainfall data 23 basically and actual flow data based on the 24 statistics of the actual rainfall in Florida and we 25 generated synthetic data. 55 1 Q. What was the period of record for the 2 actual data that you used? 3 A. I think '73 to '91. Yes, '73 to '91. 4 Q. Do you have any computer disks that contain 5 the data that you used in connection with this 6 report, the actual data? 7 A. Yes, in the office. Yes, I have the data. 8 Q. Do you also have the data that you used in 9 connection with Exhibit Numbers 2 and 3, the EAA 10 water budget? 11 A. Yes, it is in the database of the District 12 mainly. 13 Q. Do you have in your possession computer 14 disks with the data that you actually used? 15 A. Yes, I have a lot of District database data 16 on my computer disk, and I'm sure the parts I used 17 for all these documents would be there, too. 18 Q. Okay. 19 MR. KOBELINSKI: Did you use the entire 20 District database or just the rainfall data for 21 the EAA? 22 THE WITNESS: The flow rainfall. 23 MR. KOBELINSKI: That's what I'm saying. 24 We just, for instance, with Dr. Waller, he has 25 turned over an incredible number of computer 56 1 data, because that's what he bases his opinion 2 on. 3 He gave the underlying data, because 4 without the underlying data, the report says 5 this is the data, this is what we came up with. 6 We don't have the data. 7 MS. BIRCH: In Dr. Abtew's case, my 8 understanding, going through his records and 9 talking with him about the data, the data that 10 he used is listed in the reports. He does not -- 11 and you can voir dire him about this. He says 12 that he does not have the data on a disk. 13 You would have to go to the District 14 database and recreate actually what he did, and 15 that would take him six to eight months to go 16 back to the District databases and look at each 17 station and each parameter as to what he 18 reviewed. 19 MR. KOBELINSKI: Again, the point is 20 without the data, all he has is conclusions from 21 the data. 22 For instance, again, using Mr. Waller, 23 since his production was just a day or two ago, 24 as an example, he is using all District and all 25 USGS and government data, but he is basing his 57 1 opinions on that data. It's reams of data, but 2 without it, you can't get to how he provided the 3 opinion. 4 MS. BIRCH: When you say he provided the 5 data, I'm not sure how that was provided. 6 MR. KOBELINSKI: Hard copy computer. 7 MS. BIRCH: Dr. Abtew, do you have the 8 underlying data in hard copy? 9 THE WITNESS: Not to my memory, but I have 10 on hard disk computer. I don't remember making 11 it, making hard copy of the disk. Whatever I 12 have is submitted with the hard copy. 13 MR. KOBELINSKI: We can get it on a disk. 14 That's fine with us. Doesn't really matter. We 15 have other people producing it on disk. It 16 doesn't have to be hard copy. We can make our 17 own hard copy. 18 MS. BIRCH: If he can retrieve it on disk 19 without taking six to eight months to retrieve 20 it, the District can provide that. 21 MR. KOBELINSKI: How long do you think it 22 would take for you to get the copy of the data 23 you relied upon on disks? 24 THE WITNESS: Well, it depends. How far do 25 you want? 58 1 MR. KOBELINSKI: Just what you relied upon 2 and considered. 3 THE WITNESS: Well, who is going to do it 4 is a question. I have a lot of assignments. 5 The District should tell the time how long it is 6 going to take, because that's not part of my 7 work to pull this data. 8 MS. BIRCH: Well, it seems -- 9 MR. KOBELINSKI: Why don't we discuss it 10 after lunch? We can discuss it after lunch. 11 BY MR. PERKO: 12 Q. Dr. Abtew, let me refer you to page 7 of 13 Exhibit Number 5. 14 The last paragraph -- I'm sorry, Exhibit 15 Number 6, page 7. The very last paragraph of that 16 states that, the very last sentence of that last 17 paragraph, "While the results of this study can be 18 used to estimate the bimonthly expected occurrences 19 of the hydrologic parameters of the EAA, detail land 20 use, water management, evapotranspiration data and 21 further analysis is required to attach confidence 22 levels on the simulation results." 23 Have you conducted any of this further 24 analysis that you referenced here? 25 A. Not yet. I might do further analysis and 59 1 release the result, but that's not yet decided, 2 depending on the time I have, the time slot I have. 3 Q. Do you have any idea when you will know 4 whether or not you will conduct that analysis? 5 A. I don't know that at this time. 6 MR. PERKO: Dr. Abtew, I would like to show 7 you what I'll ask the court reporter to mark as 8 Exhibit Number 7. It's a memorandum from Ray 9 Santee, Paul Trimble and Cal Neidrauer to Leslie 10 Wedderburn dated October 26, 1992. 11 (The document was marked 12 Abtew Exh. No. 7.) 13 BY MR. PERKO: 14 Q. Do you recognize this memorandum? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. I'd like to refer your attention to 17 number -- are these some of the comments you received 18 in connection with the peer review of your water 19 budget that you referred to earlier? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. I'd like to refer you to page 4, the third 22 paragraph from the bottom. It states that "Since ET 23 was computed by three different methods, it was not 24 clear from the report which ET was recommended as the 25 ET for the water budget. It makes sense that the ET 60 1 computed using the water balance equation (equation 2 44) best represents the actual ET, but this is not 3 clear from the report." 4 This states that there were three different 5 methods of estimating ET; is that correct? 6 A. Not to my knowledge, not to my report. 7 Q. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing 8 something. 9 Is it true as it is stated here that, or as 10 it is implied here that the report did not recommend 11 which method of computing ET should be used for the 12 water budget? 13 A. I have to check the document. 14 Q. Do you have an opinion as to which method 15 of ET that you used as the appropriate method for 16 estimating ET? 17 MS. BIRCH: Object to the form of the 18 question. 19 THE WITNESS: I haven't concluded. I 20 haven't read, incorporated the reviews into my 21 draft. All the reviews together I will go 22 through and things that I think should be 23 included in the final report of the water 24 budget. This is a draft, so before working 25 through these reviews, I can't say this is what 61 1 should be or not. 2 BY MR. PERKO: 3 Q. So is it fair to say that the report 4 explains two methods for estimating ET, but does not 5 state a recommendation as to which method should be 6 used? 7 A. Well, it is not stated in my document. 8 Q. When do you plan to consider the comments 9 you suggested and revise your report? 10 A. It depends on my time schedule. I don't 11 know when it is going to be. 12 Q. Do you anticipate it being a matter of 13 months? 14 A. I don't know that. 15 MR. PERKO: Dr. Abtew, I would like to show 16 you a document that I'll ask the court reporter 17 to label as Exhibit Number 8. 18 (The document was marked 19 Abtew Exh. No. 8.) 20 BY MR. PERKO: 21 Q. This is a memorandum from Leslie Wedderburn 22 to Distribution List dated September 30, 1992, 23 regarding your water budget analysis for the 24 Everglades Agricultural Area. 25 Do you recognize this document? 62 1 A. Yes, I do. 2 Q. Does this also indicate some of the 3 comments that you received in connection with the 4 peer review of your water budget, EAA water budget? 5 A. Yes. 6 MR. PERKO: Dr. Abtew, I'd like to show you 7 what I'll ask the court reporter to label 8 Exhibit Number 9. 9 (The document was marked 10 Abtew Exh. No. 9.) 11 BY MR. PERKO: 12 Q. This appears to be a copy of a file labeled 13 EAA water budget. Would you take a look at that 14 group of documents, please? 15 Do you recognize these documents? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Is this also some of the comments you 18 received in connection with the peer review of your 19 EAA water budget? 20 A. Yes, the first two pages. The rest of it 21 is my own notes. The first two pages is the review. 22 Q. These were some of the documents that were 23 produced to us. 24 Is this, this grouping of documents 25 contained in one separate file? 63 1 A. No. This is different things together in 2 this one. 3 This is the review. The rest of it is 4 different papers in my file or notes and different 5 things together. 6 Q. Okay. That's just how we received it. 7 A. All right. 8 Q. So just to clarify, the two-page memorandum 9 from John Mulliken to Kenneth Ammon regarding EAA 10 water budget dated October 6, 1992, that represents 11 the comments that you received? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. The rest are just contents of your files? 14 A. Yes, contents of my files. 15 MR. PERKO: Jackie, this might be an 16 appropriate time to take a lunch break. 17 MS. BIRCH: I think you are right. It's 18 12:00. 19 (Thereupon, a luncheon recess was taken.) 20 BY MR. PERKO: 21 Q. Dr. Abtew, I'd like to direct your 22 attention to Exhibit 9, particularly the memorandum 23 from John Mulliken to Kenneth G. Ammon. 24 The third paragraph down speaks about some 25 inconsistencies with the EAA water budget, between 64 1 the EAA water budget and some of the other documents 2 prepared by the District. In particular, it mentions 3 a difference in the total amount of EAA runoff 4 backpumped to Lake Okeechobee. 5 Could you explain why there was a 6 difference or why this difference occurred? 7 A. I haven't seen the other documents, so -- 8 Q. Well, do you know what is meant by the 9 statement in the, I guess it's the fourth paragraph 10 down, "The difference appears to be in part due to 11 the fact that we define ET as an outflow and they do 12 not"? 13 A. I haven't seen the other documents, so I 14 don't know how to calculate it. 15 Q. Have you made any effort as of yet to 16 reconcile these inconsistencies? 17 MS. BIRCH: Object to the form. 18 THE WITNESS: Not yet. 19 BY MR. PERKO: 20 Q. Dr. Abtew, when we were discussing the EAA 21 water budget previously, I believe you previously 22 testified that based on lack of data and your 23 professional judgment, you concluded that seepage was 24 negligible; is that correct? 25 A. Yes. 65 1 Q. If seepage was not negligible, how would 2 that affect the ET value? 3 MS. BIRCH: Objection, calls for 4 speculation. 5 THE WITNESS: It's negligence, that's it. 6 BY MR. PERKO: 7 Q. Well, my question is if it were not 8 negligible, how would it affect ET, if at all? 9 MS. BIRCH: Same objection. 10 THE WITNESS: Depends on the magnitude. If 11 it is too high -- 12 BY MR. PERKO: 13 Q. If it was higher, what effect would that 14 have on ET? 15 A. Depends which direction it is flowing. 16 Q. If it was flowing in the direction into the 17 EAA. 18 A. Then the ET would be higher than what's 19 calculated by the -- 20 Q. And if it was flowing out, it would be 21 lower; is that correct? 22 A. That's right. 23 MR. PERKO: Dr. Abtew, I'd like to show you 24 what I'll ask the court reporter to mark as 25 Exhibit Number 10. 66 1 (The document was marked 2 Abtew Exh. No. 10.) 3 BY MR. PERKO: 4 Q. Are you familiar with this document? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. And what is that document? 7 A. Water Budget Analysis for the Holey Land. 8 Q. Did you prepare this report? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. And this copy indicates that it is a draft 11 report. 12 Has this been finalized as of yet? 13 A. I think this is finalized. It's finalized. 14 Q. Do you know when it was finalized? This is 15 dated May 1992. Is there an updated version? 16 A. I think it is May 1992 was when the final 17 copy was produced. 18 Q. Do you know if there are any significant 19 changes made from this to the final report? 20 MS. BIRCH: Objection to relevancy and 21 object to the form. 22 THE WITNESS: The final document is 23 different from this one. I know that. 24 BY MR. PERKO: 25 Q. Were the differences substantive in nature? 67 1 A. I don't remember. One of the graphs is 2 different, so the final is different. 3 Q. Which graph are you referring to? 4 A. The map, Figure 1. 5 Q. I'm sorry? 6 A. Figure 1, page 14, is different than the 7 final copy, so I can't tell if this is the draft. 8 Q. How is it different? 9 MS. BIRCH: Object to relevancy. 10 THE WITNESS: It is different. I can't 11 tell you the difference. 12 BY MR. PERKO: 13 Q. Dr. Abtew, I'd like to refer your attention 14 to page five of this report, Exhibit 10. 15 At the very bottom of the page, turning 16 over on page 6 it states, "A simulation model was 17 developed to estimate seepage losses in the four 18 directions and calculate stage and change in 19 storage." 20 Could you tell me why seepage is considered 21 in this report and not in the EAA water budget? 22 A. This is impoundment type of environment 23 where you raise the water level in an area surrounded 24 by levee. And apparently it raises the water level 25 from the outside land, and it is clear that seepage 68 1 would be important under that circumstance. 2 Q. Dr. Abtew, are you generally familiar with 3 the water chemistry in the EAA canals? 4 A. No, I am not. 5 MR. KOBELINSKI: Could you repeat the 6 question and answer? 7 (Thereupon, a portion of the record 8 was read by the reporter.) 9 BY MR. PERKO: 10 Q. Let me ask you this. If you know, if 11 chloride concentrations in EAA discharges were higher 12 than chloride concentrations in the EAA inflows, 13 would that be an indicator of seepage? 14 MS. BIRCH: Objection to the speculation, 15 lack of foundation. 16 MR. PERKO: If you know. 17 THE WITNESS: Repeat the question. 18 (Thereupon, a portion of the record 19 was read by the reporter.) 20 THE WITNESS: I don't know. 21 BY MR. PERKO: 22 Q. Dr. Abtew, you previously discussed how you 23 derived the Kc values in connection with your EAA 24 water budget analysis. 25 And I believe you testified that you 69 1 derived those from a table out of the reference that 2 you cited in that report; is that correct? I'm 3 referring to Exhibit Number 2. 4 A. As stated on page 26, yes. 5 Q. Are you referring to the sentence in the 6 bottom paragraph where you state that "Crop 7 coefficients (Kc) for the crops grown in the EAA were 8 developed using crop growth information on the EAA 9 and crop coefficient estimates from FAO-24"? 10 A. That's right. 11 Q. So you derived, you obtained the crop 12 coefficient estimates from FAO-24; is that correct? 13 A. As stated in the document. 14 Q. I'm trying to understand exactly how you 15 derived the crop coefficient estimates. 16 What did you obtain from FAO-24? 17 A. Ranges of estimates. 18 Q. Ranges of estimates? 19 A. For different crops, different areas, 20 different crops. 21 Q. Okay. Are those estimates identified for 22 individual crops, say sugar cane, or types of crops? 23 A. For individual crops. 24 Q. And then you adjusted it, is it correct to 25 say that you adjusted the coefficient estimates that 70 1 you obtained from FAO-24 based on crop growth 2 information in the EAA? 3 A. Well, just as it's stated over here, crop 4 coefficients where they were using the monthly crop 5 growth stage in the EAA, plus information from 6 FAO-24. Both information were used to develop the 7 coefficient estimate. 8 Q. I understand what you used to develop the 9 crop coefficient for the Kc coefficient. 10 I'm trying to determine how you used that 11 information in developing the crop coefficient of Kc. 12 A. I don't understand the question. 13 Q. Let me ask you another question. 14 Do you have a list of each crop coefficient 15 or Kc for each crop type? 16 A. Yes. Page 27 is derived from the crop 17 coefficients and Kp. 18 MR. PERKO: I have no further questions. 19 CROSS (Wossenu Abtew, Ph.D.) 20 By MR. KOBELINSKI: 21 Q. Good afternoon, Dr. Abtew. My name is Mark 22 Kobelinski. I represent the Florida Sugar Cane 23 League, New South Hope, Incorporated and United 24 States Sugar Corporation. We are also petitioners in 25 the SWIM Plan proceedings. And as Mr. Perko did this 71 1 morning and part of this afternoon, I'll be asking 2 you questions. 3 You are still under oath, and the purpose 4 of the questions is to find out what facts you may 5 have regarding the issues in this case and also what 6 opinions you may hold, since you have been listed as 7 an expert witness. 8 Do you understand you have been listed as 9 an expert witness? 10 A. I beg your pardon? 11 Q. Do you understand that you have been listed 12 as an expert witness in the SWIM proceedings? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. A number of documents were produced upon 15 which you have relied upon in basing your expert 16 opinion. 17 Is there one document which reflects 18 essentially what your expert opinion testimony will 19 be at trial? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Is such a document in the process of being 22 prepared? 23 A. Being prepared for what? 24 Q. Are you preparing a document, a report that 25 will essentially have the majority or all of your 72 1 expert opinion? 2 A. No, I haven't prepared any document for the 3 purpose of the expert witness on the subject. 4 Q. Do you intend to do so? 5 A. I don't know. I don't know if I need it or 6 not right now. 7 Q. I have a few questions to follow up on 8 Mr. Perko's with regard to Exhibit 2 and the crop 9 coefficients that you were referring to a few moments 10 ago, and I would refer you then to Exhibit 2 at pages 11 26 and 27, which also bear Bates numbers 0900268 and 12 269. 13 A few moments ago you indicated that the 14 chart on page 27 was derived from FAO-24; is that 15 correct? 16 A. Yes, part of it, part of the information 17 was from FAO-24. 18 Q. What part would be from FAO-24? 19 A. You can't divide the values by Kp to get 20 Kc. 21 This table divided by Kp will give you the 22 crop options, and those crop options were derived as 23 stated on page 26 of Exhibit 2. 24 Q. FAO-24, is that a book or a report or 25 something? 73 1 A. It's a document for calculating crop 2 evapotranspiration all over the world. 3 Q. Do you have a copy of it? 4 A. Yes, I have a copy of it. 5 Q. Did you produce it with the documents that 6 you produced? 7 A. This is published material over here, so -- 8 Q. I appreciate that. My question is did you 9 produce it, sir? 10 A. No, I didn't produce it. 11 Q. Are you relying upon the information for 12 the chart that's on 27? 13 A. To develop that table in 27? 14 Q. Yes. 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Are you relying upon it to develop your ET 17 estimates? 18 A. In reference to this document, yes. 19 Q. Is there any other place I can look for in 20 the documents that you have produced that would 21 provide the information that you have derived from 22 FAO-24? 23 A. If it is sought, I have referenced it. It 24 is in my documents. Whatever references I used are 25 in the reference section of each document. 74 1 Q. I appreciate that. My question is is there 2 any place in the documents themselves where I can go 3 and find the information that is contained in FAO-24 4 that you relied upon? 5 A. You have to read FAO-24 document to get all 6 the information that I used to develop the 7 coefficients. 8 MR. KOBELINSKI: Counsel, we didn't receive 9 that. 10 MS. BIRCH: Just for clarification, are you 11 saying that -- is a pattern going to be when a 12 witness produces documents that they have relied 13 upon that a listing of reference of those 14 documents are insufficient? 15 Are you saying that every time an expert 16 witness comes to testify and provide documents, 17 that everything that they ever relied upon, even 18 though it's listed, that they are to provide it 19 at depositions? Because if that is the case -- 20 MR. KOBELINSKI: First of all, that has 21 been done, number one, but in this case one of 22 the witness' primary opinions is an estimate of 23 ET in the EAA, and he has specifically testified 24 that he relied upon that document in determining 25 the coefficient to calculate ET. 75 1 I have no way of questioning this table 2 here without FAO-24, and I don't have a copy of 3 FAO-24. 4 MS. BIRCH: Well, as he has testified, the 5 FAO-24 is a document that's readily available, 6 and he has listed that in his references. 7 MR. KOBELINSKI: Well, until I get to the 8 deposition to find out what it was that he 9 relied upon by questioning him -- 10 MS. BIRCH: He has listed in his references 11 what he has relied upon. 12 MR. KOBELINSKI: But he hasn't produced it. 13 MS. BIRCH: He has produced the document 14 along with the reference, and in my estimation 15 he has produced it. If that's the contention 16 that all the parties are going to agree to, that 17 everything that is cited in a reference document 18 that a witness has used or relied upon, that 19 they are going to produce it, then that needs to 20 be an established rule that will apply to all 21 witnesses. 22 MR. KOBELINSKI: Thus far, I have seen with 23 the experts that has been done. I have yet to 24 see a case where they have not produced the 25 documents they are relying upon. 76 1 MS. BIRCH: Well, that has not been my 2 understanding of what has been occurring. 3 If Dr. Abtew has that particular 4 document -- 5 MR. KOBELINSKI: He has stated he does. 6 MS. BIRCH: -- then that's something that 7 I have to take up later to determine whether or 8 not the District is going to be producing all 9 reference documents that a witness may have used 10 in producing a document. 11 MR. KOBELINSKI: Well, it's not a question 12 of producing a document. This is, his opinion 13 is on ET. 14 MS. BIRCH: His opinion is not on ET. 15 I understand that's what you are talking 16 about now. 17 MR. KOBELINSKI: Let me perhaps clarify it. 18 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 19 Q. Dr. Abtew, is the EAA ET part of the EAA 20 water budget? 21 A. It's part of the reference. It is there as 22 a reference. It doesn't determine the, didn't 23 determine the output. 24 Q. Is ET not an integral part of the EAA water 25 budget? 77 1 A. Yes, it is. 2 MR. KOBELINSKI: This is not a peripheral 3 matter. I don't want to sound nit-picking. ET 4 is the one question that no one really knows 5 very well. 6 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 7 Q. With regard to Table 9 on page 27, which 8 bears Bates number 0900269 of Exhibit 2, drawing your 9 attention to the first box there underneath sugar 10 cane, January, it says .68. 11 Could you just walk me through how you 12 would have determined .68? Do you recall? 13 A. I have to read the FAO-24 manual to get 14 back the memory, everything that was used to develop 15 that coefficient. 16 Q. Well, just in general terms, if I had 17 FAO-24, was there a chapter or section on 18 specifically sugar cane? 19 A. There is sugar cane as a crop cited in 20 estimate of coefficient as suggested by FAO-24 in 21 that specific document. 22 Q. Is that coefficient that's suggested a 23 range or just one specific number? 24 A. I don't remember for each specific crop 25 whether it's a specific value or a range. 78 1 Q. I'm just talking about sugar cane still. 2 A. I don't remember that. 3 Q. Do you recall whether or not that 4 coefficient change is based upon a season, January 5 through December, et cetera? 6 A. Yes, it does change with the current 7 season. 8 Q. Does the coefficient change based upon the 9 geographic area? 10 A. I have to read the document to see all 11 that. 12 Q. Do you recall generally whether or not the 13 FAO-24 is set up that way, though, if not 14 specifically with sugar cane, then with other crop 15 types? 16 A. I don't remember. The document has a lot 17 of information. 18 Q. Do you recall whether or not FAO-24, the 19 coefficient changes or they have various coefficients 20 based upon the soil type? 21 A. I don't remember. 22 Q. With regard to the soil type, the peat that 23 we have in the EAA, is that type of soil type located 24 anywhere else in the United States that you are aware 25 of? 79 1 A. I don't know. 2 Q. Is the soil type at all a factor in 3 estimating ET? 4 A. I don't know where soil as a factor is 5 included in ET calculation. I don't know any 6 incidence of anything that I read on that. 7 Q. There is a reference, and I will look for 8 it quickly, in one of the documents we have marked as 9 an exhibit of a test done of sandy soil in Fort 10 Lauderdale, which indicated that when the water table 11 was held one foot below the surface level, the ET was 12 literally the exact same as in open water. 13 Do you recall that? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Do you know whether or not if the water 16 table was held at one foot underneath the surface 17 level for peat whether the same evapotranspiration 18 would occur? 19 A. That's the water table with regard to the 20 soil, not the soil as a factor. 21 Q. I recognize that, but does the soil there, 22 in combination with the water table, result in 23 different ETs, the soil type? 24 A. That's possible, yes. 25 Q. Is that something that the FAO-24 takes 80 1 into consideration? 2 A. I don't remember. 3 Q. Is that something that you took into 4 consideration? 5 A. I have referenced whatever it is applicable 6 in my work. 7 Q. I appreciate that, sir. 8 Is the soil type something that you took 9 into consideration in determining ET? 10 A. The water table, both water and soil, I 11 have to take into consideration. 12 Q. I understand you took the water table. 13 Again, we just went through a series of 14 questions with regard to soil type. 15 My question is did you take the soil type, 16 since we discussed the soil type can have an impact 17 in combination with the water table, did you take the 18 soil type into consideration? 19 A. The soil type with the water table, because 20 it makes sense with water together, you know. 21 Q. You recall the study that I had mentioned a 22 few moments ago in Fort Lauderdale with sandy soil? 23 Do you recall whether or not peat has the 24 same ET as the sandy soil would? 25 A. It is a crop which is doing the 81 1 evapotranspiration, and if the water table is within 2 the reach of the root zone of the crop, then what 3 kind of soil, how deep is the water table would be 4 important. 5 Q. In the EAA does the water table reach the 6 root zone? 7 A. Yes, most of the time it is a high water 8 table area. 9 Q. Then if I understand what you just said, 10 the soil type is an important factor; is that right? 11 A. With the water table. 12 Q. My question is how does peat compare to 13 other soil types for evapotranspiration or 14 evaporation purposes in combination with the soil 15 type or water table? 16 A. If the water table is high in the EAA, it 17 is within reach of the crop. 18 Q. Would evapotranspiration be different in 19 the EAA if it was just a pure sand soil? 20 A. Depends how high the water table is 21 maintained. 22 Q. With the same water table, exact same. 23 Would changing from peat to sand have any 24 impact on evapotranspiration? 25 A. With regard to the water table -- 82 1 Q. Again, we are keeping the water table as a 2 constant, exact complete constant, laboratory 3 conditions. 4 Would changing the peat to sand have an 5 impact upon ET? 6 A. It depends on the water table and the type 7 of crop you have on it. All these factors together 8 will make a difference. 9 Q. Keeping the exact same crop, keeping the 10 exact same water table, if you changed the peat to 11 sand, would there be a difference in ET? 12 MS. BIRCH: Object, argumentative, asked 13 and answered. 14 THE WITNESS: Depends on the water table. 15 If it is too low, crop will be dry, if it is 16 very low. 17 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 18 Q. What is the water table in the EAA? I 19 believe you answered it touches the root zone? 20 A. Yes, on the average, 18 inches from the 21 surface of the ground. 22 Q. If you keep it at the average 18 inches 23 from the surface of the crop and you keep the exact 24 same crop and you change the peat to sand, would 25 there be a difference in ET? 83 1 MS. BIRCH: Objection, asked and answered. 2 THE WITNESS: It still depends on the 3 rainfall, which means unsaturated zone will get 4 water or not. 5 Second, it depends on the type of crop and 6 the variety and how deep the roots go down, in 7 both cases. 8 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 9 Q. Dr. Abtew, I'm not explaining myself very 10 well. 11 What I'm saying is you don't change 12 anything about the EAA. You keep the exact same 13 crops. You keep the exact same rainfall. You keep 14 the exact same water table. You keep the exact same 15 inflows, exact same outflows. Everything in the EAA 16 stays the same. 17 But if the peat was sand, would it change 18 the evapotranspiration? So rainfall is the same, 19 every single factor is the same. 20 MS. BIRCH: Objection, asked and answered. 21 Dr. Abtew is not a soil scientist. 22 MR. KOBELINSKI: I'm not asking a soil 23 question. I'm asking whether or not soil type 24 makes a difference in ET. 25 MS. BIRCH: He has answered that. 84 1 MR. KOBELINSKI: No, he keeps saying there 2 are other factors. I'm saying keep all the 3 factors the same. 4 MS. BIRCH: He said it makes a difference. 5 I believe that was the response. 6 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 7 Q. Is it correct that if you would change it 8 to sand, it would have a difference on ET? 9 A. Depending on the status of water in the 10 saturated and unsaturated zone. 11 Q. If that was the same, sir. Again, we are 12 keeping all other factors the exact same. 13 MS. BIRCH: Object, asked and answered, 14 becoming argumentative. 15 MR. KOBELINSKI: I'm not, counsel. I'm 16 saying keep the factors the same. I just want a 17 yes or no answer and I want to -- 18 MS. BIRCH: Maybe he can't give a yes or no 19 answer. It's not required to give a yes or no 20 answer. 21 MR. KOBELINSKI: I appreciate that. 22 MS. BIRCH: His response has been -- 23 MR. KOBELINSKI: It depends on other 24 factors. And I keep adding the other factors 25 in. 85 1 THE WITNESS: If it's unsaturated zone and 2 it gets enough water, you want to know the 3 difference, because in both cases the root can 4 get enough water. 5 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 6 Q. So there would be no difference? 7 A. You have to get the specific condition into 8 detail. 9 Q. Do you have that specific information with 10 regard to the EAA currently? 11 A. What kind of specific information? 12 Q. The information you were just talking about 13 as to whether or not the roots are reaching the water 14 table. 15 A. The roots are reaching the water table and 16 are producing good yield, which is a sign that the 17 crop is getting enough water. 18 Q. Given those conditions then, so we know the 19 roots are reaching the water table, would the soil 20 type -- and again using the example of sand -- make a 21 difference in ET? 22 A. Depends on the status of the unsaturated 23 zone. 24 Q. And what is it about the status of the 25 unsaturated zone that would make the difference? 86 1 A. If it is dry, sand holds less water than 2 the peat. So if the water table is deep in the sand, 3 it could decrease ET than the other one, which has 4 more water-holding capacity. 5 Q. So for instance, if the water table was 18 6 inches below peat, the surface of the level of peat, 7 and if it was 18 inches below the surface level of 8 the sand, there would be then a difference in the ET? 9 A. Depends how deep the roots go in both case. 10 How far does it go down? 11 Q. Well, evapotranspiration, what are the 12 factors that are combined to create 13 evapotranspiration? 14 A. Energy from the sun, wind and vapor 15 pressure gradient, measured as relative humidity. 16 Q. In a typical agricultural field, is water 17 released from the plant biomass itself, for instance, 18 the leaves? 19 MS. BIRCH: Objection to the form. 20 THE WITNESS: Yes, from the leaves and from 21 the wet soil underneath. 22 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 23 Q. So there is water released from the soil? 24 A. If it is wet. 25 Q. And that water that's released from the 87 1 soil, is that independent of the water that's 2 released from the plant? 3 A. Yes. The plant is by itself. 4 Evapotranspiration is the sum of the two, the wet 5 soil release and the crop loss from the field. 6 Q. With regard to the water released from the 7 soil, does it matter how deep the roots are as far as 8 that water release? 9 A. That's independent of the roots. 10 Q. Back to my earlier question, if you had a 11 water table at 18 inches below the surface for peat 12 and 18 inches below the surface for sand, would there 13 be a difference in the water release for the two 14 situations? 15 A. I think you can refer to the 16 evapotranspiration paper. I can check which document 17 it is on this matter. Exhibit 4, I think there is 18 something to that reference. 19 On page 10, paragraph -- I don't know how 20 much it satisfies your answer, but there is a 21 paragraph three, some reference on different soils. 22 Q. Well, have you reviewed that paragraph, 23 sir? 24 A. You can get some information from the 25 reference, I hope. I don't remember what exactly, 88 1 what difference is cited in that document. I have to 2 read it again. 3 Q. Please read it, because I could not -- 4 A. The Stephens and Weaver 1960 document which 5 is on the reference. 6 Q. Just so I understand, I'm asking in my 7 prior question, where I asked you if the soil type 8 changed, if you had the water table 18 inches below 9 the soil type and one was peat and one was sand, you 10 don't know whether or not there would be a difference 11 in ET? 12 A. Depends on the depth of the root zone. 13 Q. Let's start back there again. 14 I'm not talking about the water released 15 from the plant. I'm talking about the water released 16 from the soil only. 17 A. From the soil -- 18 Q. The soil portion of the evapotranspiration, 19 the water that's released from the soil. 20 MS. BIRCH: What's the question? 21 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 22 Q. Would there be a difference -- I'll ask the 23 question again. 24 A. On soil type, soil type is a factor in 25 water growth, subsurface water loss by transpiration. 89 1 Q. Thank you. 2 Now does FAO-24 take into consideration the 3 unique peat soils that are contained in the EAA? 4 A. I don't remember the details. 5 Q. Do you recall whether you took that into 6 consideration in deriving that coefficient that you 7 used on page 27 of Exhibit 2? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. How did you do so? 10 A. Accessibility, availability of water to the 11 plants, regardless of what soil you have is a factor 12 which was considered. 13 In the EAA case, water is available for the 14 plants. 15 Q. With regard to water being available to the 16 plants, you are talking about the portion of the 17 evapotranspiration where water is released by the 18 plant biomass; is that correct? 19 A. If no irrigation is available for the 20 plants -- 21 Q. I'm talking about the water released from 22 the plant itself. 23 When you are referring to whether or not 24 there is water available to the roots, you are again 25 talking about that portion of evapotranspiration that 90 1 the plant, the water that the plant releases; is that 2 correct? 3 A. That's not what I am saying. 4 Q. Perhaps I misunderstand you. Could you 5 explain to me? 6 A. The plants get enough water in the EAA from 7 rainfall and irrigation. That factor is considered 8 in developing this coefficient. 9 Q. Where then in this paper do you take into 10 consideration the soil type? 11 A. If there is a shortage of water and if the 12 plants had to strain to pull water through the soil, 13 factors affecting soil moisture, water movement 14 through the soil, I would have considered it. 15 Q. A few moments ago you had explained to me 16 that evapotranspiration is a combination of water 17 being released from the plants and water being 18 released from the soil; is that correct? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. And you are telling me that the 21 coefficients contained on page 27 of Exhibit 2 take 22 into consideration the water being released from the 23 plant; is that correct? 24 A. From the whole system. 25 Q. Excuse me? 91 1 A. From the whole system. 2 Q. Would that include then the water being 3 released from the soil, this coefficient? 4 A. Evapotranspiration by definition includes 5 the soil. 6 Q. Okay. So this -- 7 A. Not only plants. 8 Q. I understand that, but with regard to this 9 table here on page 27 of Exhibit 2, does this 10 coefficient here also include the water released from 11 the soil? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. And I had asked before whether or not 14 FAO-24 took into consideration the peat soils that 15 are located in the EAA, which I think everyone 16 recognizes are unique, and you had stated you didn't 17 recall; is that correct? 18 A. That's right. 19 Q. Do you recall whether you, independent of 20 FAO-24, took into consideration the peat soils? 21 A. The factor that water is available for 22 evapotranspiration is considered. 23 Q. How? 24 A. By the rainfall and irrigation water used, 25 indicates that crops get enough water to transpire 92 1 and grow to give a good yield. 2 Q. And when you -- 3 A. That's enough indication. 4 Q. When you say transpire, we are talking 5 about the release of water from plants, right? 6 A. Both from plants and wet soil, from the 7 soil. 8 Q. Soil transpires also? 9 A. Evapotranspiration is a combination of the 10 two. 11 Q. Is evapotranspiration -- I always 12 understood it to sort of be a shortening of 13 evaporation and transpiration. 14 A. That's correct. 15 Q. Looking at it solely, does that refer 16 solely to water released by the plants? 17 A. Yes. I didn't do that work. That's a 18 separate work. 19 Q. I understand that. The evaporation portion 20 would be the portion that's released by standing 21 water or soil? 22 A. Wet soil standing from the farm as a whole. 23 Q. Other than plants? 24 A. Evapotranspiration is a combination of all 25 that. 93 1 Q. I'm not talking about evapotranspiration. 2 I'm talking about evaporation. 3 A. Evaporation is normally from some other 4 surface than the plants. 5 Q. My question is with regard to the table on 6 page 27 of Exhibit 2, draft number 27, page 27, does 7 this coefficient here take into consideration both 8 the transpiration, the water released from the plant, 9 and the evaporation, the water released from the soil 10 or whatever else? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. And my question is if FAO-24 does not 13 consider the peat soils that are found in EAA, did 14 you consider that independent of that in coming up 15 with a coefficient found on this page? 16 A. In calculating evapotranspiration, you 17 don't separate the soil and the crop. That's not the 18 way it's calculated. 19 Q. Are you aware that sugar cane is grown in 20 Hawaii? 21 A. Yes, I am aware. 22 Q. Would you anticipate that the 23 evapotranspiration of sugar cane in Hawaii would be 24 different than the evapotranspiration of sugar cane 25 in the EAA? 94 1 A. It could be. Depends on where you are 2 located with regard to the latitude and all other 3 parameters. 4 Q. What are the factors -- 5 A. And the variety of crop, the length of the 6 growing season were the factors as to the amount that 7 you are trying to get. Wind, humidity level, 8 temperature, all those factors result in 9 evapotranspiration. 10 Q. Okay. Variety of crop, did you take into 11 consideration the variety of crops that are grown in 12 the EAA? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And do you consider, take into 15 consideration the different varieties -- 16 A. Variety in a sense the length of the -- the 17 maturation period is one indication for sugar cane in 18 a 12-month, 14-month or a 24-month type of 19 characterization and distinguish by that. 20 Q. Does FAO-24 take into consideration the 21 different varieties of sugar cane? 22 A. The two growing periods, the 24 months and 23 the shorter period. 24 Q. Just so I understand, because I'm going to 25 have to look back at the FAO-24, does it distinguish 95 1 by growing periods or does it distinguish by -- 2 A. By growing periods. 3 Q. You have to let me finish; otherwise, the 4 transcript reads sort of funny. 5 By growing period or by crop type, say a 6 particular genus of sugar cane? 7 A. By growing period. 8 Q. What is the growing period for sugar cane 9 in the EAA? 10 A. 12 to 14 months. 11 Q. Where did you obtain that information? 12 A. Either from -- I don't remember, either 13 from -- I don't remember. 14 Q. Is that the growing period that you used in 15 coming up with a coefficient in FAO-24? 16 A. Yes, that's the growing period I used. 17 Q. Stepping back for a moment, we were talking 18 about Hawaii and how Hawaii grows sugar cane. 19 Are you aware that in Hawaii you have 20 primarily volcanic soils? 21 A. I don't know that. 22 Q. You listed a number of factors that had to 23 be taken into consideration for evapotranspiration 24 coefficients between sugar cane grown in Hawaii and 25 sugar cane grown in the EAA; is that correct? 96 1 You had listed some earlier, wind, 2 humidity, sunlight, time of year, crop type. 3 Are there any other factors? 4 A. Latitude. 5 Q. Anything else? 6 A. That's all what I remember. 7 Q. Soil type then in your opinion would not be 8 a factor? 9 A. If water is available, I won't consider 10 soil type. If there is available water throughout 11 the system for growing the crop, soil type doesn't 12 become important. 13 Q. Okay. Are you familiar with the BMPs, the 14 best management practices that are going to be 15 instituted and implemented in the EAA as part of the 16 SWIM proceedings? 17 MS. BIRCH: Objection to the relevancy. 18 THE WITNESS: I work in that area. 19 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 20 Q. What is it that you do in that area? 21 A. I have a research plan to evaluate the 22 effectiveness of the best management practices in the 23 agricultural area. 24 Q. And what exactly is your role in this 25 research plan for BMPs? 97 1 And when I say BMPs, I'm referring to best 2 management practices; and in particular, I'm 3 referring to the best management practices that are 4 discussed and contemplated within the SWIM Plan. 5 A. My role will be to do research and evaluate 6 if they are any good or working as suggested, if they 7 are effective, to evaluate if they are effective. 8 Q. Have you already started this work? 9 MS. BIRCH: Objection, relevancy. 10 THE WITNESS: I have the research plan 11 completed. 12 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 13 Q. Who else is working with you on this? 14 A. Myself right now. 15 Q. Do you know of anyone else in the District 16 that is working on research into the effectiveness of 17 BMPs? 18 A. I don't know. 19 MS. BIRCH: Objection to the relevancy. 20 THE WITNESS: I don't know anyone. 21 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 22 Q. Are one of the BMPs that you are looking at 23 or contained in your plan pumping practices? 24 A. That would be one. 25 Q. And what exactly is a pumping practice? 98 1 What is the pumping BMP? 2 MS. BIRCH: Objection to relevancy. 3 THE WITNESS: I have to read the final BMPs 4 design and criteria that is going to be limited 5 to start my evaluation. Before I get the design 6 of the pumping or any other BMP, I can't tell 7 you what is going to be, because -- 8 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 9 Q. Do you understand that generally, with 10 regard to the pumping BMP, the water tables will be 11 raised above what has historically been the water 12 table level in the EAA? 13 A. I have to see the design document. I can't 14 comment before I get all the full information on the 15 specific BMP. 16 Q. You have not seen the design document yet? 17 A. I have seen parts and initial suggestions 18 or past experiments done on that area, but the final 19 BMP with regard to the EAA we have to evaluate, and 20 until it is so, I don't know which BMP is doing what. 21 Q. I guess my question is far more general 22 than the specifics of the design. Let me ask it a 23 different way. 24 Is the pumping BMP intended to have the 25 farmers pump off more water and to lower the water 99 1 tables on their farms? 2 MS. BIRCH: Objection, relevancy and 3 foundation. 4 THE WITNESS: I have no -- 5 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 6 Q. You have no idea about the pumping BMP? 7 A. I have to get the full information to see 8 how it works. 9 Q. I'm not asking how it works. I'm not 10 talking about specifics here, doctor. I'm just 11 talking about is the pumping BMP intended to increase 12 the water table on the farms or decrease the water 13 table? I'm not even asking by how much. Is it 14 intended to increase or decrease the water table? 15 A. This is going to be provided by the BMP 16 implementals and designs. We have to design it. I 17 can't tell you ahead of time whether it is going to 18 be raised or not. 19 Q. You have no idea at this point? 20 A. I don't have idea about the last version of 21 the pump BMP that I am going to evaluate. 22 Q. Well, have you seen any preliminary 23 versions? 24 A. I have seen different versions. 25 Q. In those versions were the water tables 100 1 raised or lowered by the pumping practices? 2 A. I don't remember the details. 3 Q. Again, I'm not asking for details, 4 percentages. I'm just asking for generally. 5 Under the prior ones you have seen, have 6 they been raised or lowered, water table? 7 A. I don't remember. I have to see the 8 documents, refer to the documents. 9 Q. Are you aware that under the BMPs that they 10 are designed or one of them is designed to go ahead 11 and result in the farmers holding back more of their 12 water and decreasing the runoff? 13 MS. BIRCH: Objection to the relevancy, 14 outside the expertise of Dr. Abtew. 15 MR. KOBELINSKI: Before you answer that, 16 I'll withdraw the question. 17 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 18 Q. Dr. Abtew, you had stated that to your 19 knowledge, you are the only one that's going to be 20 researching the efficacy, the effectiveness of these 21 BMPs. 22 Will you be researching the effectiveness 23 of the pumping BMP? 24 A. If it is going to be implemented by the 25 farmers, yes. 101 1 Q. Does the District, in assigning you that 2 task, is it contemplated that you have the knowledge 3 or skill to test the effectiveness of that BMP? 4 A. Yes, sir. 5 Q. Going back then to the question, are you 6 aware that one of the BMPs is designed with the 7 intent to have the farmers hold more water within the 8 farms and to decrease the runoff? 9 MS. BIRCH: Objection to the relevancy and 10 objection, beyond the expertise that Dr. Abtew 11 is stated to be testifying about. 12 THE WITNESS: Until I get the BMPs that are 13 actually going to be designed in the design 14 criteria, what's going to be held out or be 15 pumped out, I can't comment this is this BMP or 16 this is that BMP. It wouldn't be professional 17 to do that. 18 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 19 Q. Have you ever heard of the BMP rule? 20 MS. BIRCH: Objection to relevancy. He is 21 not listed as a witness regarding the BMP rule. 22 His expertise is in the area of the EAA water 23 budget. 24 MR. KOBELINSKI: I think we are talking 25 about water here. I haven't asked about any 102 1 other BMPs but water. 2 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 3 Q. Have you ever heard of the BMP rule? 4 A. Which rule are you talking about? 5 Q. Okay. Are you familiar with a rule that 6 was adopted by the District in March of '92, 40E-63? 7 A. Yes, I am familiar. 8 Q. What does that rule deal with? 9 MS. BIRCH: Objection, way beyond the 10 expertise of this witness. 11 THE WITNESS: I don't remember the details 12 to give details. 13 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 14 Q. Generally what's that rule deal with that? 15 MS. BIRCH: Same objection. 16 THE WITNESS: The rule is with regard to 17 implementation of the EAA settlement document, 18 settlement agreement, as a result of the 19 settlement agreement. 20 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 21 Q. How is the 40E-63 the result of the 22 settlement agreement? 23 MS. BIRCH: Objection, it's way beyond the 24 expertise of Dr. Abtew, way beyond the 25 relevancy. 103 1 THE WITNESS: With regard to the settlement 2 argument. I just repeated the same thing I said 3 earlier. 4 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 5 Q. Was the settlement agreement you are 6 referring to the settlement agreement between the 7 United States and the South Florida Water Management 8 District that resulted from a lawsuit brought by the 9 United States in the Southern District Court? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. How did that settlement agreement or how 12 has does that settlement agreement relate to 40E-63? 13 MS. BIRCH: Objection, no foundation. 14 THE WITNESS: I don't know other than what 15 I told you. 16 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 17 Q. Did someone tell you that 40E-63 is related 18 to the settlement agreement? 19 MS. BIRCH: Objection, relevancy. 20 THE WITNESS: If I am not mistaken, there 21 is reference in the document about the 22 settlement. 23 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 24 Q. Referenced in the settlement agreement to 25 what, sir? 104 1 A. No, in the Chapter 40 document information. 2 Q. Is it your understanding that 40E-63 was 3 required by the settlement agreement? 4 MS. BIRCH: Objection, relevancy. 5 THE WITNESS: I don't have detailed 6 information. 7 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 8 Q. Going back to an earlier question, 9 generally do you know what 40E-63 is regarding? 10 MS. BIRCH: Objection, relevancy. 11 THE WITNESS: I don't know. It's not in my 12 work area to definitely -- 13 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 14 Q. Do you know if it's related to the 15 Everglades Agricultural Area at all? 16 A. Yes, I know it is related with the EAA. 17 Q. Do you know if it's related to BMPs at all? 18 MS. BIRCH: Objection, relevancy. 19 Counselor, why don't we move on to an area 20 that Dr. Abtew has some knowledge about, which 21 is the EAA water budget and its development? 22 MR. KOBELINSKI: We will be there. 23 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 24 Q. There is a question pending still. 25 A. I have to refer to the document to tell you 105 1 the details, to answer your question. 2 Q. I'm not asking you a detailed question, 3 doctor. I guess I didn't phrase myself correctly. 4 Generally is 40E-63 related to BMPs or the 5 EAA? 6 MS. BIRCH: Objection, asked and answered 7 and relevancy. 8 THE WITNESS: I have to read the document. 9 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 10 Q. You don't know? 11 A. I have to read the document to be certain 12 in my answers. 13 Q. Well, do you know right now without 14 reference to the document as to whether or not 40E-63 15 is related to BMPs in the EAA? 16 MS. BIRCH: Objection, asked and answered 17 and relevancy. 18 THE WITNESS: I have to read the document, 19 I have to refer to the document. 20 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 21 Q. Without the document, you don't know? 22 MS. BIRCH: Asked and answered at least 23 four times. This is getting us nowhere, 24 Mr. Kobelinski. 25 THE WITNESS: I have to refer to the 106 1 document to say for certain what the contents 2 are. 3 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 4 Q. Would a BMP that required greater retention 5 of water on the agricultural fields impact the water 6 budget that you prepared? 7 A. I haven't studied that yet. 8 Q. I'm sorry, I didn't ask whether you studied 9 it. 10 My question is would a BMP which requires 11 greater retention of water on the agricultural fields 12 result in a change in your water budget? 13 MS. BIRCH: Objection, calls for a 14 conclusion and speculation. 15 THE WITNESS: I have to study. 16 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 17 Q. You don't know? 18 MS. BIRCH: Objection, asked and answered. 19 THE WITNESS: I have to study before I 20 answer this kind of technical question. 21 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 22 Q. Is storage, the storage in the agricultural 23 fields part of your water budget equation? 24 A. It was not considered, storage is not 25 considered in the water budget document. 107 1 Q. You make reference in your water budget in 2 describing the system to lateral canals or the 3 irrigation canals in the EAA; is that correct? 4 A. I didn't understand the question. 5 Q. You make reference in your water budget to 6 lateral canals or irrigation canals, farm canals in 7 the EAA. 8 MS. BIRCH: Objection, a statement, not a 9 question. 10 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 11 Q. Is that correct? 12 A. You have to refer to which document? Which 13 document is the reference? 14 Q. Are there irrigation canals in the EAA? 15 A. Yes, there are irrigation canals. 16 Q. And what is the purpose of those irrigation 17 canals? 18 A. Supply water to the farms and take out the 19 runoff when it is in the drainage mode. 20 Q. With regard to sugar cane EAA, how do you 21 irrigate sugar cane or how do they do so in the EAA? 22 A. Subsurface irrigation. 23 Q. And how do they apply the water to the 24 roots or how do they get the water for subsurface 25 irrigation? 108 1 A. That's what subsurface irrigation is. 2 Q. How do they do that? 3 MS. BIRCH: Are you asking him if he knows 4 or are you asking him to guess how they do it? 5 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 6 Q. Do you know how they do it, sir? 7 A. It's subsurface irrigation system. 8 Q. And how does it work? 9 A. The irrigation water seeps through the soil 10 to the crop from the nearby canals. 11 Q. The nearby canal, you are referring to the 12 four major canals, the Miami, the Hillsboro, the 13 North New River Canal and the -- 14 A. The farm ditch. 15 Q. The West Palm Beach Canal? 16 A. The farm ditch. 17 Q. The Palm Beach Canal? 18 A. The farm ditch. 19 Q. Farm gauge? 20 A. Farm ditch. 21 Q. Do they get the water from those four 22 primary canals? 23 A. I don't understand the question. 24 Q. Where do they get the water that goes to 25 the farm ditches, where do they get the water to put 109 1 in the farm ditches? 2 A. From the primary canals. 3 Q. The four that I mentioned a few moments 4 ago? 5 A. Yes, the four. 6 Q. Now with subsurface irrigation, is that 7 essentially irrigating the plants by raising and 8 lowering the water table underneath the surface of 9 the soil? 10 A. When you raise the water in the canal, 11 water seeps from the higher state to the soil. 12 When you drain, you lower that one down, 13 the canal level is gone down and water moves from the 14 soil to the canal. 15 Q. In your water budget, did you estimate an 16 average water table level for the EAA? 17 A. On yearly cycle the water level comes back 18 to what it was, and on a yearly basis the net change 19 can be assumed to be zero. 20 Q. Would a change in the average depth of the 21 water table on an annual basis where on an annual 22 basis you had, for instance, approximately a one foot 23 rise in the water table have any impact upon your 24 water budget? 25 MS. BIRCH: Would you read the question 110 1 back for me, please? 2 (Thereupon, a portion of the record 3 was read by the reporter.) 4 THE WITNESS: I have to calculate how much 5 it is. 6 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 7 Q. How would you do that? 8 A. With a calculator. 9 Q. What would you need to know to do the 10 calculation? 11 A. You give me the area. 12 Q. Assuming we use the area that was used in 13 Exhibit 2, study area, what else do you need to know? 14 A. That's it. A calculator and some time. 15 Q. What exactly is the calculation that you 16 would do, sir? 17 A. I would compute how much it is that you 18 want to know with the hypothetical case. 19 Q. If it was one foot, would you multiply -- 20 what would you multiply one foot by to determine the 21 impact upon the water budget? 22 A. I would multiply one foot by .2. The muck 23 soil is estimated to hold two-tenths of a foot of 24 water for every foot of soil. 25 And the rising water table of one foot will 111 1 bring a net water, will take a net water of .2 inch 2 in depth of the whole area. 3 That multiplied by the whole area, divided 4 by 12, if it is a foot, you just multiply .2 by the 5 whole area, less amount of water that is needed to 6 raise it by one foot. 7 Q. Now given that calculation, how would that 8 affect your water budget? 9 A. It wouldn't affect my water budget. That's 10 not the case in the EAA. Usually some kind of 11 agricultural practice goes on, so it repeats the 12 cycle. 13 So my water budget will be the same, 14 because this is the case as stated in the water 15 budget. 16 Q. Your water budget would not be affected at 17 all if you raised the water level? 18 A. If you raise, it will be affected, but 19 that's not the case in the EAA, so my water 20 predictions stay the same. 21 Q. So I understand you, if you did raise the 22 water table, it would affect the water budget? 23 A. For the time you raised it, it will affect. 24 When you release it, when you lower it, it is going 25 to go out. 112 1 Q. What if you didn't lower it? 2 A. If you keep it at that level, that net 3 increase will be stored there forever until you lower 4 it down. 5 Q. And how would that impact the water budget? 6 A. What do you mean how it will impact the 7 water budget? 8 Q. Will it impact the water budget? 9 A. It won't, if there is going to be 10 agriculture, you can't raise it one foot and keep it 11 there for very long. 12 Q. Well, let's not use the example of raising 13 it a foot. Let's say if we raised it to 14 approximately one foot below the surface level. Make 15 that the average. 16 Assuming that the average currently is 18 17 inches below the surface level, would that affect the 18 water budget? 19 A. Not very much, 50, 60,000 acre feet, 60,000 20 acre feet, because it is a small amount, my rough 21 calculation. 22 Q. Would it affect the evapotranspiration, 23 since your water table is now closer to the surface 24 of the soil? 25 A. I don't think so. The crop was getting 113 1 enough water already with the existing practice and 2 wouldn't get to that level, I don't think. 3 Q. What about the soil? 4 A. I don't think there will be change in 5 evapotranspiration raising it six inches upward. 6 Q. How would you go about determining that? 7 Would there be a means of doing so? 8 A. What do you mean? 9 Q. Well, how would you determine whether or 10 not there would be a change in the ET? 11 A. The theoretical analysis will help you find 12 the maximum it can go. There is a certain limit 13 based on the energy that you can pass whether you 14 have water on the surface or above the surface. 15 There is only limited amount of water that 16 can go up as evapotranspiration, so there is an upper 17 limit number anyway for evapotranspiration. 18 Q. Is the EAA at the upper limit now? 19 A. I can assume crops are transpiring at the 20 full rate. 21 Q. What about the soil? 22 A. The soil is also kept wet to control soil 23 subsidence. It is stated in the, some of the 24 documents. 25 Q. Is it your opinion then that the soil is at 114 1 its maximum limit for evaporation? 2 A. Can say evapotranspiration as a whole from 3 the EAA is at its full rate. 4 Q. It's hit the maximum limit? 5 A. I can't say the maximum. We can say it is 6 at full rate. 7 Q. What's the difference between full rate and 8 maximum? 9 A. Well, for practical purposes, the crops are 10 transpiring at as much as they require to do so to 11 produce good yield, and there is no shortage of 12 water. 13 Q. What about the soil? 14 A. The soil is moist, too. 15 Q. So is the soil also at its maximum? 16 A. I don't want to put it that way. I have to 17 study the difference that all this can make, the 18 hypothetical case. 19 Q. Does the District intend to study the 20 impact of the BMPs on the water budget? 21 A. I don't know right now. 22 Q. Has it been discussed? 23 A. Well, the water budget I know will be done 24 regularly or routinely, and whatever there is in the 25 EAA is going to be, of course, part of the total 115 1 budget. 2 Q. Have you ever discussed with anyone whether 3 or not the proposed BMPs will have any impact upon 4 the water budget, EAA water budget? 5 A. Not that I remember. 6 MR. PERKO: Can we take a break? 7 MR. KOBELINSKI: Sure. 8 (Thereupon, a recess was taken.) 9 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 10 Q. Dr. Abtew, drawing your attention back to 11 Exhibit Number 2 that's been marked in this 12 deposition and page 27, which bears Bates number 13 0900269, in the right-hand corner of that Table 9 14 there it states weighted average. 15 What exactly is that, sir? 16 A. That's area weighted average for each crop, 17 for all the crops. 18 Q. Where do you have the information as to the 19 area for each crop per month? 20 Is that a different table? 21 A. Page 16, Table 6. 22 Q. I note that on Table 6 the table is by 23 year, where on Table 9 it is by month. 24 Did you keep the acreage for, for instance, 25 sugar cane constant throughout the year in Table 9? 116 1 A. These are average values, average for the 2 whole period, average values. 3 Q. Was that average then, just so I understand 4 it, was that average for the period 1980 through 5 1990? 6 A. Yes, 1980 to 1990. 7 Q. Based upon your review of Table 6, which is 8 at Bates page number 0900258, is your understanding 9 that there has been a general increase in the 10 percentage of land used in the EAA during that 11 period? 12 MS. BIRCH: What period are you referring 13 to? 14 MR. KOBELINSKI: From 1980 to 1990. That's 15 on Table 6, counsel. 16 THE WITNESS: Well, it has decreased the 17 following year in some cases, but generally from 18 '80 to '90 there is increase. 19 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 20 Q. And on the same table, drawing your 21 attention to the second column, second row from the 22 bottom, fallow land, is there generally a decrease in 23 the amount of fallow land during that period of time? 24 A. According to the data, yes. 25 Q. Did you take into consideration the ET for 117 1 fallow land in your estimation of ET? 2 A. Fallow land is small in relation to the 3 total area, so the theoretical ET was calculated for 4 the major crops. 5 And on the fallow land rice is also grown 6 on the specified acreage for each year. The fallow 7 land is used for rice crop. 8 Q. Drawing your attention to Table 6, is it 9 your understanding that the row which is four from 10 the bottom entitled rice is rice that's actually 11 grown -- for instance, in 1980, it lists rice as 12 10,000 acres; is that correct? 13 A. That's right. 14 Q. And it lists fallow land as 90,097 acres; 15 is that correct? 16 A. When? 17 Q. It lists, 1980, same year -- 18 A. Yes, 90,097, yes. 19 Q. Is it your understanding that the 10,000 20 acres of rice is actually 10,000 acres of rice that 21 is included in that 90,097 figure? 22 A. That's right. It is shown at the bottom, 23 with the asterisk, rice is grown on the fallow sugar 24 cane land. It should be part of that. 25 Q. Could you assist me for a moment? I'm 118 1 looking at a subtotal. I'm looking at 1980. It says 2 a subtotal there of 502,863 acres. 3 What is that a subtotal of? 4 A. Of the previous rows, the rows, crop types. 5 Everything else above that line, all the rows that 6 are mentioned other than those, that are mentioned 7 other than agricultural area have been added. 8 Q. Okay. And that subtotal is 502,000? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. And then fallow land is added; is that 11 correct? 12 A. Fallow land is added, yes. 13 Q. Coming up with a total area of 592,000? 14 A. The total area is 592,960. 15 Q. Given that, does it appear that the 10,000 16 acres of rice is actually in addition to the fallow 17 land? 18 A. No. If you added already, you don't have 19 to add it. If you didn't add it to the previous one, 20 you have to -- 21 Q. Is rice contained in the subtotal, since 22 you said it was everything above subtotal? 23 A. You have to add these numbers. 24 Q. Do you recall? 25 A. No, I don't recall how I computed those 119 1 values. 2 Q. With rice, do you actually have open, 3 standing water? 4 A. Yes -- well, pretty much wet condition with 5 rice growing. 6 Q. Is the ET for a fallow field different than 7 the ET for a field growing rice? 8 A. The rice coefficients are bigger than the 9 other crops, as you see on page 0900269. The fact 10 that rice is under water and it is a water-consuming 11 crop, it has higher coefficient. 12 Q. And that rice that you have there is 13 essentially weighted by the total of the column -- 14 excuse me, the row entitled rice that's in Table 6; 15 is that correct? 16 A. The rice control is by itself. 17 Q. But where did you get the figure to weight 18 that? Because you have a weighted average in the 19 final right-hand column of Table 9. 20 A. I don't remember. I'm sure sugar cane, 21 vegetable and sod, which are almost all the crop 22 area, is weighted. I'm not sure if the rice is 23 included in that weight. 24 Q. Drawing your attention then to 1980 where 25 you have sugar cane with 306,815 acres and you have 120 1 fallow land of 90,097 acres, roughly 30 percent, give 2 or take a few percentage points, would you consider 3 that a large percentage that should have been taken 4 into consideration for ET? 5 A. I have to see the document, the area which 6 is used for ET computation. Somewhere it is 7 mentioned how much of the whole area is considered 8 for evapotranspiration calculation. So that's 9 where -- 10 Q. If you could look through to find that for 11 me, please. 12 A. I didn't use these coefficients to 13 calculate volume of water that left the EAA. 14 Q. I'm sorry, my question was directed towards 15 ET. 16 Did you consider the ET coming off the 17 fallow land? 18 A. I don't remember. 19 Q. Is there any way to tell from your 20 document? 21 A. Need some time to go through the document. 22 Q. Well, ignoring the document, with regard to 23 your expert testimony, have you considered fallow 24 land in determining what the ET is for the EAA? 25 A. If the fallow land is not irrigated, if 121 1 your interest is a crop, calculation of specific 2 crop, sugar cane, vegetated land, sod ET, there is no 3 need, that you can consider only those areas and come 4 up with inch of water loss per acre, which is 5 independent of the area covered by fallow land or any 6 other area. That doesn't come to the computation at 7 all. 8 Q. Have you ever seen a fallow field in the 9 EAA visibly? 10 Have you ever literally, have you 11 personally ever seen a fallow field? 12 A. No, I haven't seen personally -- well, I 13 haven't been in the area, so there is no chance to 14 see if there was fallow land other than information 15 supplied by the information assigned to the document. 16 Q. Are you aware that fallow fields are 17 typically kept with the water table either at or 18 sometimes above the soil surface? 19 A. Yes, there is a reference in the document 20 on that point. 21 Q. Given that and, for instance, in 1980 with 22 90,000 acres of fallow land, that would not have an 23 impact on ET? 24 A. It will have impact on ET. 25 Q. Where do you take that into consideration? 122 1 A. I didn't calculate the volume of water 2 going from the EAA. The computation was for the crop 3 for the specific area. 4 Q. I understand that, sir. 5 My question is were you calculating ET by 6 the tables and the computations contained at 7 approximately page 26 and 27 of Exhibit 2? 8 A. Uh huh. 9 Q. And that was computation of ET for the EAA 10 area that is in this, described in this document, 11 Exhibit 2; is that correct? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Does Table 6, which is contained on page 14 16, show that -- for instance, during 1980, which is 15 the one we are discussing of the study area, 90,000 16 acres were kept as fallow land. 17 Wouldn't that impact the total ET for the 18 EAA study area? 19 A. There would be ET from the fallow land, but 20 I don't think it will change .72 coefficient that was 21 developed for the whole area. 22 Q. Why not? 23 A. Fallow land is under, part of the fallow 24 land is under rice, as mentioned earlier. And most 25 of the area, I think the rest of the area is pretty 123 1 large, and putting fallow land ET into the 2 computation will not alter the theoretical estimation 3 very much. That's the reason. 4 Q. For instance, we can go year by year, but 5 using 1980, which is the first year, you have 6 vegetable and sweet corn, which is your second column 7 on Table 9. 8 Referring to Table 6 in 1980, vegetable and 9 sweet corn had 46,000 acres; is that correct, 10 approximately? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. And that year fallow land was 90,000 acres, 13 so why include vegetables if they are literally less 14 than half or approximately half of what fallow land 15 is and not include fallow land? 16 A. The crop consumptive use is of interest to 17 know. That's one thing, why all the crops in the 18 area are included. That's one reason. 19 The second reason, this ET is not used in 20 the water budget analysis. It is there for 21 theoretical comparison only. Nothing is determined 22 with this theoretical approach. No water is, no 23 runoff or no irrigation water is calculated using 24 this theoretical approach. 25 It is on the side as a theoretical estimate 124 1 of what could be the ET from the ag area and put in 2 parallel with the other work for reference for people 3 who want to see the theoretical part of the budget, 4 but the actual volume of water that flows to the EAA 5 used for agriculture purpose or left from the area as 6 runoff is not affected when this whole table was 7 decided until now. That's how the document is set 8 up. 9 Q. Why did you do it? Why did you calculate 10 the theoretical? 11 MS. BIRCH: Asked and answered. 12 THE WITNESS: Because to see how the 13 measured values come close to our theoretical 14 estimation. 15 If it is way apart, then we have to go back 16 and see what the problem is. If it is 17 reasonably close, then we are satisfied with the 18 water budget. It is as a check for the water 19 budget analysis that you use the theoretical 20 approach. 21 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 22 Q. And as a check, was it your intent to make 23 it as accurate as possible, given the data that you 24 had? 25 A. What's the question? 125 1 Q. Since you are using a theoretical ET as a 2 check, was it your intent to make that theoretical ET 3 as accurate as possible, given the information you 4 had? 5 A. Well, as much as, it certainly will be more 6 refined by including every piece of land, the 7 familiar low land or any other land. And doing that 8 in detail might improve the curiosity, but as a 9 whole, the value will not change that much. It won't 10 change it very much. 11 So it could be refined with including all 12 pieces of land separately. It can be refined. 13 Q. It's your belief that including the fallow 14 land then would have no impact? 15 A. Not substantial impact to change the 16 number. 17 Q. My recollection from your testimony earlier 18 this morning or earlier this afternoon in response to 19 Mr. Perko's questions was that there was a difference 20 between the theoretical ET estimate and the ET 21 calculation based upon actual data. Is that correct? 22 A. Yes, there is difference. It is documented 23 in there. 24 Q. Did you ever determine what caused the 25 difference? 126 1 A. I have said this morning it could be from 2 the theoretical method might not be fit for that 3 specific area or, as any theoretical approach is, all 4 the reasons we don't know. It is written in the 5 document. 6 So that could be the reasons. You have to 7 measure it to find out which one is very close to 8 reality. We have to measure actual 9 evapotranspiration for a type to know how much water 10 is going out from the area. 11 Q. When you determined that there was a 12 difference between the theoretical and the actual, 13 did you go back to attempt to establish what the 14 causes could be? 15 A. No, it was not assigned, nor, it was not 16 part of this assignment to see if theoretical and ET, 17 to verify or to do research on this matter. 18 Q. You weren't assigned the task of finding 19 out why there was a difference; is that what you are 20 saying, sir? 21 A. Yes, doing the research and finding out 22 which one was close to the actual value. 23 Q. Given all the research you have now done on 24 ET in the EAA, are you aware of a better method of 25 doing a theoretical ET calculation? 127 1 A. Not yet tested. I haven't seen a method 2 tested for the EAA that could give a better result, 3 not yet. 4 Q. Just so I understand your answer, is it 5 that you have yet to see one tested or is it that you 6 have yet to see a method that could be used that 7 would result in a better figure? 8 A. I have yet to see a method being tested and 9 working well for the area. 10 Q. Could the crop coefficient for the EAA for 11 the various crops be different from the crop 12 coefficient found in FAO-24 given the particular 13 circumstances found in the EAA? 14 A. Well, it's theoretical question. 15 To my judgment, those values are present 16 values for the area, those values which I have 17 published in the document. 18 Q. So in your judgment, that is not where 19 there is a problem with the theoretical approach? 20 A. It could be in that or the other 21 coefficient or in the whole approach itself, the 22 basic equation how to estimate ET. It could be in 23 the plan of operation data. It can be not having the 24 present plan of operation for the whole area. There 25 are a variety of possible sources of discrepancies 128 1 that could result in different values. 2 So without doing the test, really it's 3 better to pinpoint from Kc or Kp or from one of the 4 pans we used. There are a lot of possibilities. 5 Q. Drawing your attention to what's been 6 marked as Exhibit 3 to this deposition, sir, a 7 document entitled Water Budget Analysis for the 8 Everglades Agricultural Area, An Organic Soil 9 Drainage Basin, by my notes I don't show that the 10 question was asked as to when this document was 11 prepared. 12 I might be wrong, but do you know when this 13 document was prepared? 14 A. July 1992. 15 Q. Has it been subsequently revised? 16 A. It is in the process of being reviewed to 17 be published in Water Resource Bulletin or any other 18 journal. 19 Q. Is it submitted for peer review within the 20 District? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Has it been submitted for peer review 23 outside the District as yet? 24 A. Not yet. 25 Q. Who is reviewing it within the District? 129 1 A. I don't know. I have submitted it to the 2 division for review. 3 I had one reverse comment back which I have 4 not yet incorporated, and I don't know the rest of 5 the people, if there are any who reviewed the 6 document. 7 Q. What review was that? 8 A. Who reviewed it? 9 Q. The one that you received back. 10 A. Who the person is? 11 Q. Yes. 12 A. Joel Van Arman. 13 Q. Have his comments been marked as an exhibit 14 to the deposition as yet? 15 A. I received it after I turned these papers 16 in. He does editorial reviews. It is not a 17 technical review. 18 Basically there is no changes. The numbers 19 are in the conclusions. 20 Q. When do you anticipate receiving reviews 21 from the technical referees? 22 A. I don't know when I am getting it. 23 Q. Drawing your attention, sir, to the first 24 paragraph, the second sentence states, "At present, 25 approximately 84 percent of the agricultural 130 1 production area is under sugar cane production." 2 Is it your understanding that that's a 3 year-round figure? 4 A. Well, I don't understand your question. 5 Q. Is it your understanding that at any given 6 point during the year, approximately 84 percent of 7 the EAA is under sugar cane production or growth? 8 A. Well, during the cutting time it will be 9 reduced, but this is the average value for the 10 production year. If you say a specific time, during 11 the cutting time sugar cane area will decrease 12 apparently. And this is average for the production 13 year. 14 Q. Are you aware of a trend over the past ten 15 years, in particular the past five years, I guess, 16 where during the off season sugar cane fields are 17 used for vegetable growth such as corn? 18 A. The land use of the EAA, to the best of my 19 knowledge, is shown in Exhibit 2, page 16, in 20 Table 6. 21 Q. Where did you obtain that information? 22 A. It is cited in the document. Planning 23 Department report on water demand projection for Palm 24 Beach County. That is the source of the land use 25 data. 131 1 Q. Is that the source of the crop agricultural 2 production data? 3 A. Yes, land use, types of crops grown. The 4 second document is EAA Draft Study. This is the 5 first study we did from '86 to '90 or '87 to '90. 6 And we dropped that and went to this larger study. 7 So it's mentioned in the other one. I'm 8 sure the area extension worker is cited as a 9 reference for those numbers. 10 Q. Do you know whether or not the numbers 11 reflect the use of the cane fields for winter corn? 12 A. It is cited winter corn in the document, I 13 think. 14 Q. I understand it's discussed. 15 My question is do you know whether or not 16 those figures include that? 17 A. Winter corn as a crop is not included in 18 the ET calculation, because I didn't think it covered 19 large area enough to offset the theoretical estimate 20 of ET. 21 Q. Are you aware of what area it does cover? 22 A. No, I am not, except to the smaller. 23 Q. Approximately how many acres would be 24 necessary to offset or have an impact upon the ET 25 calculation? 132 1 A. Well, you have for a yearly estimate, the 2 growing season is a year. If it grows the whole year 3 and covers the ground, that's a judgment question, 4 what you see as a land use. 5 Q. My question, though, is how would you 6 determine whether or not it would have an impact or 7 not? 8 How large would it have to be to have an 9 impact? 10 A. It depends how it could differ from the 11 rest of the crops which cover the larger area. 12 When you are doing theoretical estimate, 13 you can include that and take more time in processing 14 the data and might not come with very much different 15 coefficient. 16 So that is a judgment question with the 17 things overall that you have. There is no specific 18 answer how much acre you are supposed to cover. 19 Q. Is it your understanding that that portion 20 of the EAA that is being used for winter crops is 21 increasing on a yearly basis? 22 A. I haven't studied the data in that regard, 23 so I don't know. 24 Q. Drawing your attention back to Exhibit 25 Number 3, in the third full paragraph it starts by 133 1 stating, "Water budget analysis of such an area is 2 essential for water management and environmental 3 enhancement." 4 Why is water budget analysis essential for 5 water management? What role does it play? 6 A. You have to know how much you have and how 7 much you need with regard to water resource. That's 8 important. 9 Q. Who did the water budget at the EAA prior 10 to your study? 11 A. I haven't seen one as a document. If I am 12 not mistaken, I haven't seen one. 13 Q. Are you aware of whether or not there was a 14 water budget done in -- you have to wait until I 15 finish, I'm sorry -- are you aware of whether or not 16 there was a water budget at the EAA done prior to 17 your study? 18 A. I have seen documents with regard to 19 discharge analysis from the EAA and irrigation water 20 use in the EAA. 21 Q. Have you seen a water budget? 22 A. I haven't seen water budget as detailed as 23 this one. 24 Q. Have you seen ones that are less detailed? 25 A. I don't remember the title. Maybe the CH2 134 1 Mill Hill study could be water budget of the EAA. 2 Q. Do you know who contracted for the CH2 Mill 3 Hill study that you are referring to? 4 A. I don't know. 5 Q. Do you know who at the District? 6 A. I don't know. 7 Q. In that same paragraph the third sentence 8 says "Rainfall analysis shows a general trend in 9 decline in the wet season rainfall on the EAA." 10 MS. BIRCH: Where are you, Mark? 11 MR. KOBELINSKI: I'm sorry, the same 12 paragraph I was at, two sentences down, third 13 full paragraph on Exhibit 3, first page. 14 MS. BIRCH: Thank you. 15 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 16 Q. And it states "Rainfall analysis shows a 17 general trend from decline in the wet season rainfall 18 on the EAA." 19 Is that during the '73 to '91 period, sir? 20 A. Yes -- wait, I'm not sure. Should be 21 longer. I have not -- I have analyzed a longer 22 period. Let me see. I have to read the document. 23 I have analyzed data since 1929, so I have 24 to see which conclusions come -- I have to go through 25 the document. 135 1 Q. Feel free. 2 A. It's for the study period. 3 Q. For the study period? 4 A. That's what I think. 5 Q. Were the eighties generally considered 6 drought or low rainfall years? 7 A. Well, rainfall data on page 23, you can 8 make your judgment. You have the values for the 9 1980s. 10 Q. Well, I mean your statement on the first 11 page of this document which I had read shows that you 12 refer to a general trend decline in the wet season of 13 rainfall during the study period. 14 Does that general trend impact your study? 15 A. Well, this is a report of the fact that it 16 has happened, so it doesn't have any effect on the 17 study. This is a document that's documenting what 18 has happened. 19 So it is stated as a document -- 20 Q. What is the purpose of the report then? 21 A. The purpose of the report is to document 22 hydrology, historical hydrology period data for the 23 area. 24 Q. Is it again for use in water management? 25 A. For use in water management and environment 136 1 enhancement, as stated in the objective of study. 2 Q. Would the declining rainfall that you 3 reference in the first page have an impact on water 4 management in the future? 5 MS. BIRCH: Objection to relevancy. 6 THE WITNESS: That has to be studied 7 separately, if it's effective. 8 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 9 Q. Have you studied it? 10 A. Not yet. 11 Q. Do you intend to? 12 A. I don't know if I have time or not. 13 Q. Have you been assigned that task? 14 A. I haven't been assigned that specific task 15 of analyzing the effect of the rainfall decrease. 16 Q. Do you know if anyone else has? 17 A. I don't know. 18 Q. Drawing your attention to the same 19 paragraph, the second, third to last sentence states 20 "Lake Okeechobee was the source of 90.4 percent of 21 the inflow to the EAA and it received 15.4 percent of 22 the outflow from the EAA," is that correct? 23 A. That's right. 24 Q. That 90.4 percent of the inflow, that 25 includes water that was both supplemental water as 137 1 you referred to water used by the EAA agricultural 2 area and also flow-through; is that correct? 3 A. Yes, that's correct. 4 Q. And flow-through being the water that flows 5 through the agricultural area for the purpose of 6 water conservation areas, the lower east coast and 7 canal maintenance; is that correct? 8 A. That's correct. 9 Q. Drawing your attention to page 12, and at 10 the bottom of the page there, third line from the 11 bottom where it says "3.2 percent from Hendry County 12 through structures G-88 and G136," that's referring 13 to inflow, correct? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. All right, "and 1.7 percent from the water 16 conservation areas," is that correct? 17 A. That's right. 18 Q. All right. Given that 1.7 percent of the 19 inflow to the EAA from the water conservation areas, 20 is it your understanding that the water being held in 21 the water conservation areas is not primarily for the 22 purpose of irrigation in the EAA? 23 A. I don't know the purpose. 24 Q. Well, is it your understanding that one of 25 the purposes of storing water in the water 138 1 conservation areas is for water supply? 2 A. I don't know really. 3 Q. Are you aware that water is stored within 4 the water conservation areas? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Do you know whether or not water is 7 released from the water conservation areas? 8 A. Water is released from the water 9 conservation areas, I know that. 10 Q. Do you know for what purposes, what various 11 purposes? 12 MS. BIRCH: Objection, this is beyond the 13 scope of this witness' expertise. 14 THE WITNESS: For water supply, for water 15 control and environmental purpose. 16 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 17 Q. What supply for whom? 18 A. In this case for the Everglades 19 Agricultural Area. 20 Q. And during the period of 19-year study 1.4 21 percent of the Everglades Agricultural Area inflows; 22 is that correct? 23 A. Yes. 1.7. 24 Q. I'm sorry, okay. 1.7. 25 Given the calculations you did, do you 139 1 consider the WCAs a primary source of water for 2 irrigation purposes in the EAA? 3 A. No, it's not a primary source. 4 Q. What would the primary source be? 5 A. Lake Okeechobee is the primary source. 6 Q. Would you consider the WCAs a negligible 7 source of water irrigation for the EAA? 8 A. 1.7 percent, it's very small amount in 9 relation to Lake Okeechobee source. 10 Q. Is it your opinion that it would be 11 negligible? 12 MS. BIRCH: Asked and answered. 13 THE WITNESS: Irrigation water could be 14 critical if you need that much to grow the crop. 15 It could die off without percentage of supply, 16 so it depends for how critical time you need 17 that water. 18 So we can't put the negligible status with 19 that, without knowing when do you need that 20 water. 21 MS. BIRCH: Would you read that back for 22 me? 23 (Thereupon, a portion of the record 24 was read by the reporter.) 140 1 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 2 Q. With regard to ET as discussed in this 3 report, or in the various reports that were marked as 4 exhibits today, how is it considered in the 5 calculation the impact of burning of cane? 6 A. It's not considered in the computation of 7 theoretical ET. 8 Q. Could you just very generally, perhaps the 9 best starting place to shorten this deposition, walk 10 me how you did the second method, not the 11 theoretical? 12 How would you refer to the second method, 13 historical? 14 A. Water budget. 15 Q. Okay, how did you do the water budget? If 16 you could walk me through step by step. 17 A. Annual rain flow plus annual irrigation 18 applied, minus the runoff pumped out of the area 19 should give you the ET. 20 I'll check it in the document. 21 Q. I'm sorry, doctor. Let me back up a 22 moment, because I believe I probably misstated my 23 question based upon your answer. 24 My question is not how to calculate ET, but 25 how did you -- just walk me through the water budget, 141 1 the entire water budget, if you could explain how you 2 did it. 3 A. I think we have to go through the document, 4 how it is calculated. 5 Q. Okay. Which document would we refer to? 6 Which is the best document of the ones that are 7 marked as exhibits? 8 A. This is it. 9 Q. Which document are you referring to, sir? 10 A. Exhibit 2. 11 Q. Okay. And is this the best document we can 12 go through, marked or unmarked? 13 Is there another document I perhaps should 14 be looking for, or is this it? 15 A. This should have most of the important 16 things. 17 Q. All right. 18 A. Page 0900265 has equations that were used 19 to calculate irrigation water used, flow-through, 20 inflow to the EAA, outflow from the EAA, and on the 21 next page the remaining equations are given. 22 Q. You have three cases there. 23 What is the difference between the three 24 cases? 25 A. The first case is on daily basis, the 142 1 inflow from Lake Okeechobee side on each major canal. 2 These are called to the outflow on the south end of 3 the same canal. In that case nothing is taken out of 4 the canals or nothing is put into the canals. 5 Q. It evens out is what you are saying? 6 A. Yes, an equal amount is taken out from the 7 north side and somebody else has put in the same 8 amount, as much as someone has taken for irrigation 9 somewhere else, so it balances out for daily basis. 10 Q. I understand. 11 A. And the other case is where your outflow 12 from the south side is bigger than the inflow from 13 the lake side, including Hendry County from the west 14 side. 15 Q. That's case two? 16 A. Case two, yes. In this case we have 17 flow-through has a difference of inflow minus 18 supplemental water used. 19 The third case is where inflow is bigger 20 than what's left on the other end. That's the third 21 case. 22 Q. Okay. Let me try it a different way. 23 As I understand you did the water budget 24 from reviewing this, you calculated rain for any 25 given period. 143 1 During the same period you determined what 2 water flowed into the EAA and what water flowed out 3 of the EAA; is that correct? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. What else did you do, or is that 6 essentially it? 7 A. That's it. 8 Q. With regard to this document, just -- it 9 might be a typo, but it's a little confusing for me. 10 On Exhibit 2, the executive summary, that first 11 sentence there, the executive summary is on the 12 second page, refers to a period from November 1979 13 through October 1980. 14 Is that October 1990? 15 A. That's October 1990. 16 Q. Okay. 17 A. Should be corrected to '90. 18 Q. I'm sure Mr. Van Arman caught that one. 19 A. On the final it will be corrected. 20 Q. Drawing your attention to that same page, 21 the last paragraph, the first sentence which states 22 "Eleven years of water budget analysis shows a 23 declining trend in the annual rainfall for the area," 24 now given the repeat of that and from the prior 25 document, how will that decline impact water 144 1 management decisions, if at all? 2 A. I'm not in the area of water supply 3 planning, and I can't tell the effect of what's going 4 to be. 5 Q. Okay. With regard to water budgets, if the 6 decline continues, would it impact the amount of, I 7 believe you refer to it as yield coming from the EAA; 8 in other words, the surplus water? 9 Will that impact the yield? 10 A. It depends on the distribution of the 11 water, the rainfall you get. 12 Q. How so? 13 A. Well, if you get rainfall fitting your 14 demands, the crop demand, it's well distributed 15 throughout the year for the crop demands, then there 16 won't be, the yield won't be affected very much. 17 If it all comes at one time when the 18 farmers don't need it, they will pump it out anyway. 19 You will get the same amount of yield, depending on 20 how it comes throughout the year. 21 Q. Based upon your study of rainfall patterns, 22 which in this report I believe was 11 years, but in 23 another report I recall it being approximately 63 24 years or 62 years, which pattern is the more likely? 25 MS. BIRCH: Would you read that question 145 1 back for me? 2 (Thereupon, a portion of the record 3 was read by the reporter.) 4 THE WITNESS: I can't tell just from this 5 study what is going to be the pattern in the 6 coming year. 7 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 8 Q. All right. Where were the rainfall data 9 collected for this study obtained? 10 A. The Exhibit 2 study has a map on page 11 0900255, and the rainfall stations are shown on a 12 circle. 13 Q. How many rainfall stations were used? 14 A. Nine rainfall stations. 15 Q. Is there a place in the document where it 16 shows me exactly where they are so I can circle them 17 on this map? Because the map is a little difficult 18 to read due to the photocopy. 19 A. Yes, the circles, mark the circles. If you 20 don't come up with nine -- 21 Q. Unfortunately, I can't. Let me show you 22 which ones I have come up with. 23 I come up with a circle on the West Palm 24 Beach Canal, I come up with a circle underneath the 25 S-2, I come up with a circle underneath S-3, and I 146 1 come up with a circle in Hendry County. 2 A. S-8. 3 Q. There is one down at the southwest corner 4 of the Holey Land. There is one at the corner of S-8 5 and there is one at the corner of S-6 and S-5A, and 6 finally, there is one on the Hillsboro Canal 7 approximately halfway the distance between the cross 8 canal and the lake. 9 A. In Belle Glade. 10 Q. Thank you, sir. 11 Given the distribution of those rainfall 12 gauges, did that provide you a sufficient data to 13 estimate the rainfall in the region? 14 A. That was the best we can do. 15 Q. I understand that's the only data 16 available, but was it sufficient to provide you with 17 an estimate of rainfall in the EAA? 18 A. Yes, that was the best we can do. 19 How good it is at representative area, nobody really 20 knows, to my knowledge. 21 Q. What confidence level do you put on the 22 estimate of rainfall for the EAA in this report? 23 A. I can't put any number without further 24 study. 25 Q. What further study would you need to do? 147 1 A. When there are more stations in the future 2 and more data is collected from the area and see the 3 result from that dense network and compare it 4 backward to this relatively light density of rain 5 gauges, that's the only way I can tell how much it 6 was at the present. 7 Q. Were there any gaps in the data on the 8 rainfall gauges? 9 A. There were gaps in the data. 10 Q. Is there a chart or somewhere in the 11 document which shows where the gaps in the data were? 12 A. On, starting from page 0900310 and the 13 following page, you can see monthly missing rainfall 14 data. 15 MR. PERKO: For purposes of the record, is 16 that Appendix A? 17 THE WITNESS: Appendix A. 18 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 19 Q. Dr. Abtew, it refers to in the body of the 20 document the fact that you estimated missing data; is 21 that correct? 22 A. That's right. It is stated in the missing 23 data section. 24 If it is few days of missing data for each 25 station, rainfall a month was estimated and the gap 148 1 was filled, but for longer periods, we left it as it 2 is and the month shows as missing for that station. 3 But I believe the method how many days was 4 the cutoff, it is on page 0900247. It shows how 5 missing rainfall data was estimated. 6 Q. And I draw your attention to the following 7 page at subparagraph i; is that correct? 8 A. That's correct. 9 MS. BIRCH: Is that draft page six you are 10 looking at where i is? 11 MR. KOBELINSKI: Draft page six, 12 subparagraph i, yes. 13 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 14 Q. That states "If a rain gauge station had 15 more than a week of continuous missing record, then 16 drop the station from area rainfall analysis for that 17 period." 18 Does the Appendix A that you referred to a 19 few moments ago, which is in the same exhibit Bates 20 number 0900310 through 0900314, then contain some 21 estimated data? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Is there any way to determine how much 24 estimated data? 25 A. Unless you go back to the database and we 149 1 recount the number of dates that we have estimated. 2 Q. Do you recall whether that was a 3 substantial amount of data? 4 A. I don't remember how much missing data was 5 there. 6 MR. KOBELINSKI: Okay, why don't we take a 7 quick break. 8 (Thereupon, a recess was taken.) 9 MR. KOBELINSKI: Back on the record. 10 Could you mark that as 11? 11 (The document was marked 12 Abtew Exh. No. 11.) 13 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 14 Q. Dr. Abtew, I'm showing you what's been 15 marked as Exhibit Number 11 to this deposition. I 16 ask you to take a look at that document and tell me 17 whether you have ever seen that document before. 18 A. Apparently I have seen it, but I don't 19 remember the contents. 20 Q. Please go ahead and review it then. 21 A. I have read it. 22 Q. What is the Regional Modeling Group? 23 A. This was a meeting of individuals who were 24 involved in modeling work in the District. 25 Q. Is that a modeling group still in existence 150 1 today? 2 A. I don't think so. I haven't attended a 3 meeting for awhile. 4 Q. Do you recall whether it was disbanded or 5 has it just not met in awhile, to the best of your 6 knowledge? 7 A. It was not a formally formed part of the 8 organization of the institution. It was modeling 9 individuals getting together and discussing modeling. 10 I think it has disbanded by itself or they didn't 11 call a meeting for a long time. 12 Q. Is this more of an informal group of 13 scientists from the District? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. There is reference in the LEC Water Budget 16 paragraph on the first page to, and it just uses 17 initials, it says the SFWMM. 18 What is that? Do you see that, sir? 19 A. Yes. South Florida Water Management Model. 20 Q. What does that model do? 21 MS. BIRCH: Objection to relevancy. 22 THE WITNESS: I haven't used it, so I 23 rather don't explain what it does. I haven't 24 used it. 151 1 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 2 Q. To your knowledge, reading that sentence in 3 that paragraph, "The SFWMM would be used to simulate 4 water budgets for proposed water management 5 scenarios," is it a management tool for determining 6 potential water budgets under different management 7 scenarios? 8 MS. BIRCH: Object. 9 THE WITNESS: I haven't used that model and 10 I really can't tell. 11 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 12 Q. Has the District ever used that model to 13 prepare a water budget for the EAA? 14 A. I have seen one. 15 Q. When was that, sir? 16 A. I don't know when it was. Sometime back. 17 There was a document produced by the planning 18 department to that effect. 19 Q. Would that have been within the last five 20 years? 21 A. I have been here only two years, so -- 22 Q. Would it have been within the last three 23 years then? 24 A. Within the last three years. 25 Q. Did you see it perhaps during 1992? 152 1 A. I can't say exactly when it was written. 2 Q. Drawing your attention to the paragraph at 3 the bottom of the page where it says EAA Water 4 Budget, on the first page, the second sentence there 5 states, "The analysis was based on historic rainfall, 6 pan evaporation and structure discharge data 7 collected for the period 1987 through 1990." 8 Is the water budget analysis that's 9 referenced there, has that been one of the ones we 10 have been looking at today? 11 A. No, it's not the one. 12 Q. Which one is that? 13 A. I think it was submitted. It's a water 14 budget from 1987 to 1990. 15 Q. Is it one of the exhibits we have today? 16 A. No, not yet, but you should have the copy. 17 Q. What was the purpose of that water budget 18 that's referenced in this Exhibit 11, sir? 19 A. It's the primary attempt to develop the 20 water budget. Later on it was dropped and the data 21 was extended to '79, so the final draft is the one 22 which is shown on Exhibit 2. 23 Q. Why was it dropped? 24 A. Because the period of interest of analysis 25 was extended back to 1979. 153 1 Q. Why? 2 A. That was assignment that was given. 3 Q. Did you have any input in that decision? 4 A. To extend it back? 5 Q. Yes. 6 A. For the analysis, we preferred longer 7 period -- 8 Q. Why? 9 A. -- than shorter period, because your 10 analysis will be better when the period of record is 11 long. 12 For that reason, we recommended it should 13 be extended. 14 Q. The following sentence states "Wossenu 15 stated that much of their effort was spent filling 16 data gaps in the historic data and that 17 evapotranspiration (ET) data was determined using two 18 different approaches." 19 What were the data gaps in historic record 20 that you were filling at that time? 21 A. Missing data, one is missing rainfall or 22 flow or evaporation data. 23 The other estimation that was involved is 24 evaporation data on the, over the weekends. On the 25 weekends employees do not service the pond the three 154 1 days. When you come on Monday, we have to go back 2 and spread that through the three days throughout the 3 record. 4 And in some cases the rainfall have also 5 been the same way. There were a few days where 6 rainfall accumulated over fewer days and you have to 7 spread that back using references from other stations 8 and all judgment how that should be distributed 9 between the days. So that took time. 10 Q. With regard to the data, the pan 11 evaporation data, is that something that you have in 12 your computer? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Were there any gaps in the pan evaporation 15 data such that you would drop them from consideration 16 similar to what you did with the rainfall data? 17 MS. BIRCH: Objection to the form of the 18 question. 19 THE WITNESS: Yes. 20 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 21 Q. And where would we be able to find that 22 out? And perhaps it's Appendix C to Exhibit 2, which 23 is at Bates number 0900321 through 323. 24 A. Appendix B? 0900316 to, it goes to 25 0900320. 155 1 Q. Could you on that Appendix B, the first 2 page there, 0900316 of Appendix 2, can you take me 3 through the rows? Obviously year and month I 4 understand. 5 What does EVP 220 stand for, sir? 6 A. That's plan of operation station 220. 7 Q. And where was that one located, sir? 8 A. Go back to the map on page 0900255. 9 MS. BIRCH: Is that 0900245? 10 THE WITNESS: 255. 11 MR. PERKO: Is that labeled Figure 2? 12 THE WITNESS: Yes, Figure 2. 220 is on 13 the, by S-5 south, you can see DVP 220 on the 14 eastern side. 15 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 16 Q. Okay. DVP 99, sir? 17 A. In the southeast side. 18 Q. Down by S-7? 19 A. Yes, by S-7. 20 Q. And DVP 619? 21 A. Belle Glade, the City of Belle Glade. 22 Q. Okay. And DVP 639? 23 A. It's at Clewiston, where Clewiston is. 24 Q. Okay. And that's all of them; is that 25 correct, sir? 156 1 A. That's all of them. 2 Q. All right. Was DVP 99 only put in service 3 in 1986? 4 A. Let me check in the document. 5 Q. All right. 6 A. I can't tell from the report when it really 7 started work. 8 Q. Do you recall exactly how much missing data 9 there was on the pan evaporation data? 10 A. I don't know exactly how much, how many 11 days were missing. I don't remember. Have to go and 12 count. 13 Q. Drawing your attention, sir, to the second 14 page of Exhibit 11, the memorandum to Shawn Sculley 15 and Tony Federico from Todd Tisdale, the first full 16 sentence states "ET values computed from the FAO 17 Blaney-Criddle method were greater than residual 18 values, and Wossenu attributed this to, one, basing 19 residual calculations on a short period of historic 20 record; and two, the fact that precipitation data was 21 obtained from recording stations located outside of 22 the EAA." 23 Which pumping stations were you referring 24 to there, sir? 25 MS. BIRCH: Object to the form. 157 1 THE WITNESS: This was opinion based on 2 that short period study. 3 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 4 Q. I'm sorry, let me rephrase the question. 5 The statement is that there are two causes. 6 One is the short period of historic record; and two 7 is, quote, the fact that precipitation data was 8 obtained from recording stations located outside the 9 EAA. 10 Which recording stations were you referring 11 to there, sir? 12 MS. BIRCH: Object to the form of the 13 question. 14 THE WITNESS: All the three statements go 15 together, and after that short study, these were 16 few of the possible reasons for the difference 17 between the historical and theoretical data. 18 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 19 Q. I understand that, sir, but you make 20 reference to precipitation recording stations outside 21 of the EAA. I'm just wondering which recording 22 stations were you referring to? 23 MS. BIRCH: Object to the form. I believe 24 this is not, this was a representation by 25 another District employee as to what Dr. Abtew 158 1 stated. 2 THE WITNESS: I don't remember the whole 3 contents of the statement at the time. 4 To my recollection, all the three are 5 suggested as a possible discrepancy between 6 theoretical and actual. 7 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 8 Q. Do you recall what precipitation recording 9 stations you used for your studies? 10 A. The same nine stations. 11 Q. Which of those are located outside the EAA? 12 A. You can see on Figure 2, Exhibit 2, MRF182 13 is outside, as an example. 14 Q. Any others? 15 A. The rest are on the, close to the perimeter 16 of the ag area. 17 Q. Close to the outside level, is that what 18 you are saying? 19 A. Close to the perimeter. 20 Q. The perimeter? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Drawing your attention back to Abtew 23 Exhibit 11, the final sentence of that paragraph 24 states, "He also stated that the pumping of water out 25 of the EAA may have actually been greater than was 159 1 recorded." 2 Do you recall that, sir? 3 A. I don't recall that exact statement, but to 4 get your ET balance with theoretical, the outflow has 5 to be smaller. The inflow has to increase to match 6 the theoretical and the calculated values. 7 This is one of the possible reasons why the 8 two can differ. Another possible reason is your 9 outflow. 10 Q. Was it your belief at the time that the 11 discharge records may have been inaccurate? 12 MS. BIRCH: Object to the form of the 13 question. 14 THE WITNESS: No, I don't believe they were 15 inaccurate. From 40 years of study, that was 16 preliminary study and possible reasons for the 17 difference as suggested here. 18 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 19 Q. What discharge records did you use for the 20 purpose of your study which is reflected in 21 Exhibit 2? 22 A. It is listed in Exhibit 2, page 0900250, 23 Table 7. This has the flow structures. 24 Q. What page was that? 25 A. Page 0900250. 160 1 Q. 250? 2 A. Is this 260? 3 MS. BIRCH: Draft page 18. 4 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 5 Q. 0900260. It's a little bit difficult to 6 read. 7 A. Okay, 60. 8 Q. All right. Is that the South Florida Water 9 Management District's database? 10 A. Yes. That's South Florida Water Management 11 District's database. 12 Q. Were there any gaps in the database with 13 regard to discharge figures? 14 A. Yes, there were gaps. 15 Q. Do you recall approximately how many gaps? 16 A. I don't recall how many gaps there were. 17 Q. What did you do to fill in the gaps? 18 A. Estimated the missing gaps and filled them 19 with estimated data. 20 Q. Is there anything that shows where the gaps 21 were or what gaps there were on the data? 22 A. Well, the original data and the data from 23 which we worked, we can then compare. It can be 24 located where the missing gap was from the database. 25 Q. Do you have any document or computer file 161 1 showing exactly what your estimates for the missing 2 data were? 3 A. Well, by comparing the data we used for the 4 study in the original database data, it is possible 5 to. 6 Q. Is there an appendix that has the data you 7 used for the study? 8 A. We have monthly data that summarized 9 monthly for page 0900327 up to 0900337. 10 Q. And the way to determine which of these 11 figures contain estimated data would be by comparing 12 this table to the South Florida Water Management 13 District's data on discharges? 14 A. Yes, the original database. 15 MR. PERKO: Dr. Abtew, just for the record, 16 could you identify what appendix you are 17 referring to? 18 THE WITNESS: Appendix D and E. 19 MR. PERKO: Thank you. 20 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 21 Q. That's Exhibit 2. 22 What confidence level do you have in the 23 discharge flow data? 24 A. I'm not involved in the ratings, the 25 structures, how good they measure, so I can't put any 162 1 confidence level on how good this data is. 2 Q. Are you aware that the United States 3 Geologic Survey recordings of the discharges differ 4 from the Water Management District's for the same 5 structures? 6 MS. BIRCH: Object to the form and 7 argumentative. 8 MR. KOBELINSKI: Asking if he is aware. 9 THE WITNESS: Yes, I am aware there are 10 discrepancies of flow measurement at certain 11 structures, which I can't recall exactly. 12 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 13 Q. How did you make the determination as to 14 which data set to use? 15 A. Determination was made if there is USGS 16 data available, USGS data was used. And in the 17 absence of USGS data, we used District data. 18 Q. Have you ever inquired as to what the cause 19 was for the difference? 20 A. Well, I am not in that department and there 21 is no answer there. It needs checking, measuring 22 flow in some of those structures and rating them and 23 checking them, and then I think one can tell how good 24 the data is that have been collected. 25 Q. How did you make the determination as to 163 1 which set of data to use? 2 MS. BIRCH: Objection, asked and answered. 3 I thought he testified that if USGS data was 4 available, he used it; and if not -- 5 MR. KOBELINSKI: Let me rephrase the 6 question in case the doctor doesn't understand. 7 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 8 Q. From your testimony, you made the 9 determination to use USGS data if it was available; 10 if not, to use the District data. 11 How did you make the determination to use 12 the USGS data as opposed to the District data if both 13 were available? 14 What went into that decision? 15 A. USGS publishes their data on an annual 16 basis, and those published data get priority to any 17 other data. 18 Basically it is a published data by 19 institution that has been measuring data for a long 20 time. That's the reason we -- 21 Q. Was it your judgment then that their data 22 was more accurate? 23 MS. BIRCH: Object to form. 24 THE WITNESS: I can't answer that without 25 comparing, without checking the actual flow 164 1 values for each structure. 2 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 3 Q. Well, did you use the USGS data because you 4 believed it was more accurate than the District data? 5 A. It was published, and for the reason I 6 explained earlier, that's why we used the USGS data. 7 Q. I apologize, this may draw an asked and 8 answered, but what was the reason? 9 A. USGS flow data is published annually and 10 USGS has been in data collection longer, is more 11 experienced. So whenever it is available, I selected 12 that data. 13 That doesn't mean for the specific 14 structure this is better than the other one. Without 15 checking, you can't say that. 16 Q. Did you then do anything to check which one 17 was the more accurate data? 18 A. Well, it takes a lot of work to check and 19 it was not in my area of assignment, so I haven't 20 checked which data is accurate or how close they are. 21 Q. Does that mean you did not check? 22 A. No, it needs a lot of manpower, equipment 23 and a lot of work to verify flow through the 24 structure. 25 Q. I think we are through with Number 11. You 165 1 can set that aside. 2 MR. KOBELINSKI: Number 12. 3 (The document was marked 4 Abtew Exh. No. 12.) 5 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 6 Q. Dr. Abtew, I'm showing you what has been 7 marked as Exhibit Number 12 to this deposition. It 8 is a three-page memorandum from Jayantha Obeysekera 9 and Todd Tisdale to Tony Federico and Shawn Sculley 10 dated August 27, 1991, Bates number 0906153 through 11 0906155, and I would ask whether or not you have ever 12 seen this document before. 13 A. I have seen this document before. 14 Q. There is reference made here to the 15 recalibration of the South Florida Water Management 16 Model. 17 What was that recalibration about? 18 MS. BIRCH: Objection, outside of the 19 expertise of Dr. Abtew. No foundation. 20 THE WITNESS: This is a document that was 21 copied to me, so apparently I was not involved 22 with South Florida Water Management in model 23 running and South Florida Water Management 24 District recalibration. 166 1 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 2 Q. Were you aware the recalibration was being 3 done? 4 A. Yes, I was aware. 5 Q. What was the purpose of the recalibration? 6 MS. BIRCH: Objection to relevancy and 7 outside the scope of Dr. Abtew's expertise. 8 THE WITNESS: I don't know the details of 9 the model's capacity or how it is run, but I 10 know there was the model recalibration, which 11 means the output from the model and actual data 12 was being compared. 13 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 14 Q. Is that essentially a fine-tuning process? 15 MS. BIRCH: Object to form. 16 THE WITNESS: It was a process where model 17 results were compared to actual historical data. 18 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 19 Q. Is something done with the model itself? 20 I mean in other words, is the model changed 21 or is it just literally comparing model results with 22 the actual historic data? 23 MS. BIRCH: Objection, Dr. Abtew has 24 testified that he is not a modeler, he does not 25 know what they were doing with the model. 167 1 I think I heard him testify that he was 2 aware that there was a recalibration of the 3 model. He is not being offered as an expert 4 related to modeling, but if he knows, he can 5 answer, but I instruct him not to guess. 6 THE WITNESS: I didn't work with this 7 specific model. 8 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 9 Q. You are a modeler? 10 A. Yes, that's my -- 11 MS. BIRCH: That has not been in evidence 12 and he is not being offered as a water modeler. 13 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 14 Q. Are you a modeler, sir? 15 MS. BIRCH: Objection to relevance. 16 THE WITNESS: The group I'm in is a 17 modeling group. 18 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 19 Q. Is that because you are a modeler? 20 MS. BIRCH: Objection to relevancy. 21 THE WITNESS: I do modeling work. 22 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 23 Q. When you recalibrate a model, what do you 24 do to it generally, just generically? Let me back 25 up. 168 1 Have you ever heard the term recalibration 2 used in terms of a model? 3 MS. BIRCH: Objection, relevancy. 4 THE WITNESS: It depends on what is a model 5 and who is doing it. There is no specific for 6 recalibration. 7 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 8 Q. My question is have you ever heard it used 9 in reference to modeling? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. And in what context have you heard it used? 12 A. As I said, only model output and actual 13 data are compared, and the process of getting the 14 results closer is called recalibration or 15 calibration. 16 Q. Okay. 17 MR. KOBELINSKI: Off the record. 18 (Discussion held off the record.) 19 MR. KOBELINSKI: Back on the record. 20 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 21 Q. Drawing your attention, doctor, to what has 22 been marked as Abtew Exhibit Number 12, the second 23 page of that exhibit, under what is labeled as SFWMM 24 Recalibration, and the second paragraph from the 25 bottom states, "Comparisons of simulated and observed 169 1 stages at a carefully selected set of moniitoring 2 points and canals were presented for all geographical 3 areas. In most cases the simulated stages mimicked 4 the observed stages reasonably well. In EAA, the 5 seasonal and annual simulated flows as computed by 6 the model were compared to the corresponding observed 7 flows. Differences found in certain years were 8 attributed primarily to inadequate rainfall input in 9 EAA and the assumptions used for spatial aggregation 10 of rainfall data in the model. This was identified 11 as an issue which requires further attention in the 12 future." 13 Did you in your preparation of Exhibit 2 14 and your study of the water budget likewise run into 15 a problem of inadequate rainfall input for the EAA? 16 A. No. 17 Q. Did you have access to rainfall input other 18 than what the modeling group working on the 19 recalibration of the SFWMM had? 20 MS. BIRCH: Objection, lack of foundation. 21 There has been no evidence or testimony from 22 Dr. Abtew as to his knowledge or lack of 23 knowledge as to what modeling information or 24 water quality data or rainfall data was 25 available to the Regional Modeling Group 170 1 meeting. 2 MR. KOBELINSKI: Let me withdraw and 3 rephrase the question then. 4 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 5 Q. Was the data you used for rainfall in the 6 EAA from the District database? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Is that District database available to the 9 members of the modeling group, to the best of your 10 knowledge? 11 A. I don't know if they have used the same 12 data. 13 Q. My question was not whether they used it. 14 My question was did they have access to it? 15 A. Yes, it's public access to anyone. 16 Q. Given that, did they have access to the 17 same data that you used in your study? 18 A. Everybody can access it. 19 Q. So the answer is yes, they did? 20 A. Access in a sense, physical, they have 21 access, but if the model uses the same stations, I 22 don't know what the specifics is, but the database 23 has all the specifications. 24 Q. Do you know why then they had inadequate 25 rainfall data for their model while you had adequate 171 1 rainfall data for your study? 2 MS. BIRCH: Objection, calls for a 3 conclusion and speculation. 4 THE WITNESS: I don't know how many 5 stations they used or what frequency of data 6 they used, so without knowing which stations, 7 which data they used, I can't tell. 8 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 9 Q. We will be asking them that. However, if 10 they used the same data, is there a particular reason 11 why they would find it inadequate and it would be 12 adequate for your purposes? 13 MS. BIRCH: Object to the form, and also 14 object to it calls for speculation. 15 THE WITNESS: You have to ask them why it 16 is inadequate or not. 17 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 18 Q. I will be. I'm asking your opinion why it 19 would be inadequate for one purpose, but adequate for 20 your purpose. 21 A. In my documents it is stated that this was 22 the best set of data to do water budget analysis for 23 the EAA. 24 Q. Did you make a determination in your water 25 budget analysis as to whether or not that database 172 1 was adequate? 2 MS. BIRCH: Object to form, already asked 3 and answered. 4 THE WITNESS: From what is available, 5 that's the best set of data if you have to do 6 water budget for the EAA. 7 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 8 Q. Dr. Abtew, I recognize that's all that was 9 available. 10 My question is did you make a determination 11 as to whether or not that data was adequate for the 12 purpose of the budget -- 13 MS. BIRCH: Objection. 14 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 15 Q. -- for the purpose of an accurate budget? 16 MS. BIRCH: Objection, asked and answered. 17 Object to the form. 18 THE WITNESS: From the available data, that 19 is the best you can do to calculate water 20 budget, but I have written in my resume that I 21 did do network, rainfall network, and apparently 22 expanding the network could yield more rainfall 23 information, but until you have that kind of 24 network, this is the best you can do. 173 1 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 2 Q. Is there a means for you to put a level of 3 confidence on what is marked as Exhibit 2, your water 4 budget? 5 MS. BIRCH: Object to form. 6 THE WITNESS: I don't have anything to 7 measure it against to put a confidence level on. 8 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 9 Q. Without having anything to measure it 10 against, you have no way of providing a confidence 11 level; is that correct? 12 A. That's right. 13 MS. BIRCH: Mark, it's 5:00. 14 MR. KOBELINSKI: So it is. 15 (Discussion held off the record.) 16 (Witness excused.) 17 (Thereupon, at 5:05 p.m., 18 the deposition was adjourned.) 174 1 C E R T I F I C A T E 2 The State of Florida ) 3 County of Palm Beach. ) 4 I, Rachel W. Bridge, Registered 5 Professional Reporter and Notary Public, State of Florida at large, do hereby certify that WOSSENU 6 ABTEW, Ph.D. was by me first duly sworn to testify the whole truth; that I was authorized to and did 7 report said deposition in stenotype; and that the foregoing pages, numbered from 1 to 173, inclusive, 8 are a true and correct transcription of my shorthand notes of said deposition. 9 I further certify that the said deposition 10 was taken at the time and place hereinabove set forth and that the taking of said deposition was commenced 11 and completed as hereinabove set out. 12 I further certify that I am not attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or 13 employee of any attorney or counsel or party connected with the action, nor am I financially 14 interested in the action. 15 The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the 16 same by any means unless under the direct control and/or direction of the certifying reporter. 17 In witness whereof I have hereunto set my 18 hand and seal this ____ day of_____________ 1993. 19 20 _______________________________ 21 Rachel W. Bridge, RPR, CP, CM Notary Public, State of Florida 22 at large. My commission expires January 15, 1995. 175 1 C E R T I F I C A T E 2 - - - 3 4 The State of Florida, ) 5 County of Palm Beach. ) 6 7 8 I hereby certify that I have read the 9 foregoing deposition by me given, and that the 10 statements contained therein are true and correct to 11 the best of my knowledge and belief. 12 13 Dated this ____ day of______________ 1993. 14 15 16 17 18 _________________________ 19 Wossenu Abtew, Ph.D. 20 21 22 23 24 25 ?