176

 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 II
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   	Friday, January 8, 1992
     	319 Clematis Street, Suite 500
25   	West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
     	9:15 a.m.  - 2:20  P.m.


                                                 177

 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:   Andrew MacNeil
   


                                                 178

 1                         -  -  -
   
 2                      I  N  D  E  X
   
 3                         -  -  -
   
 4  WITNESS:             	DIRECT  CROSS  REDIRECT  RECROSS
   
 5  WOSSENU ABTEW, Ph.D.
   
 6  BY MR. KOBELINSKI              	179
    BY MR. PERKO                           	320
 7 
   
 8 
   
 9                         -  -  -
   
10                     E X H I B I T S
   
11                         -  -  -
   
12  NUMBER             	PAGE     	DESCRIPTION
   
13     ABTEW EXHIBIT  13   198     	Figure 2, Study area
14                              				flow control structures
   
15  ABTEW EXHIBIT  14   287     		Memo of 10-24-91 from
                                				J. Obeysekera to Tony Federico
16 


                                                 179

 1                  P R O C E E D I N G S
 2                           -  -  -
 3                 CONTINUED CROSS (Wossenu Abtew, Ph.D.)
 4   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
 5       Q.    Good morning, Dr. Abtew.  This is a
 6   continuation of your deposition we commenced
 7   yesterday.
 8             I would remind you that you are still under
 9   oath and we will be following the same procedure
10   where I will be asking you questions to find out
11   essentially what information you have, all right?
12       A.    All right.
13       Q.    If we could, just a couple of quick
14   clean-up items.
15             If I could draw your attention to what was
16   marked as Exhibit 5 to your deposition yesterday,
17   which is the Draft Everglades Research Plan, which
18   has various Bates numbers, but commencing at 0946742.
19             In particular, I believe you had identified
20   at Bates page 0946793 two projects that you had --
21   I'm not sure if the term is designed or developed.
22   If you could perhaps turn to that and refresh my
23   recollection in that regard, and those were 2.A.2 13
24   and 2.B.2 21.
25             Do you recall that?


                                                 180

 1       A.    Yes.  Developed.
 2       Q.    When you say developed, does that mean you
 3   did the design program for it or what exactly does
 4   developed mean in this context?
 5       A.    Developed plan for these projects.
 6       Q.    The research plan?
 7       A.    Yes.
 8       Q.    Okay.  With regard to project number 2.A.2
 9   13, what does that 13 refer to?  And I'm referring to
10   that second row where it says Project
11   Number/Priority.
12       A.    I don't know.  I didn't put this document
13   together.  Maybe it is a reference to a page or
14   something.
15       Q.    Drawing your attention to page B-22, which
16   I believe in the final row on the page we were
17   looking for is the reference page for project 2.A.2,
18   and that page bears Bates number 0946809, and that
19   page is entitled Chemical Mass Balance --
20             MS. BIRCH:  Note my objection as to
21        relevancy related to the Everglades Research
22        Plan.
23             MR. KOBELINSKI:  Okay.
24   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
25       Q.    Is this one of the plans that you have


                                                 181

 1   developed the plan for?
 2       A.    Yes.
 3       Q.    Is this an ongoing study that's already
 4   taken place?
 5       A.    It's not yet started.
 6       Q.    Drawing your attention to approximately the
 7   middle of that page where it says Task Description,
 8   and to the right there is essentially a flow chart
 9   showing what tasks are to be completed and conducted
10   during what years, the first task mentioned is
11   assemble data.
12             Has that already commenced?
13       A.    No.
14       Q.    Is this chart incorrect then?
15             MS. BIRCH:  Objection to relevancy.
16             I'd like to have a standing objection to
17        relevancy related to this testimony about the
18        Everglades Research Plan.
19             THE WITNESS:  It didn't go according to the
20        plan.
21   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
22       Q.    Has any data been assembled as yet?
23       A.    Not to my knowledge.
24       Q.    So there has been no data collection or
25   analysis of data at this point in time?


                                                 182

 1       A.    With regard to this project, yes.
 2       Q.    Okay.  The third task is develop water
 3   budgets.
 4             What water budgets would be referred to in
 5   that particular task?
 6       A.    The water budget is a reference to the area
 7   covered by EPA, Everglades Protection Area.
 8       Q.    And have any of those water budgets been
 9   commenced?
10       A.    Not with regard to this project.
11       Q.    To your knowledge, have any water budgets
12   been done for the EPA by the District?
13       A.    For the EAA, I know I have done one.
14       Q.    And we discussed that yesterday.
15             To your knowledge, have any water budgets
16   been done for the EPA?
17       A.    Not that I can recall.
18       Q.    Okay.  The next task is develop nutrient
19   budgets.
20             Have any nutrient budgets been prepared for
21   the EPA?
22       A.    Not according to this project.
23       Q.    When you say not according to this project,
24   are there going to be, are there separate nutrient
25   budgets prepared for each individual project or does


                                                 183

 1   the District prepare one budget and use it for its
 2   various research projects?
 3       A.    I don't know what the District's plan, what
 4   are the plans in the District with regard to the EPA.
 5             With regard to the project I have
 6   developed, nothing yet has been done.
 7       Q.    Okay.  Under Contracts there, do you see
 8   that in approximately the middle of the page?
 9       A.    Yes.
10       Q.    What is FTEs under that?  What does FTE
11   stand for?
12       A.    Full-time employee.
13       Q.    And what do the Es indicate to the right of
14   FTE after Professor .60, et cetera?
15       A.    Stands for existing employee.
16       Q.    In other words, no new employees are
17   intended to be hired for this plan?
18       A.    That's right.
19       Q.    Do you know when this plan is supposed to
20   be commenced?
21       A.    I don't know exactly when it's going to be
22   started.
23       Q.    Did you develop the flow chart as far as
24   the timing for the tasks that you see, for year
25   91-92, for year 92-93, with the bars showing when the


                                                 184

 1   task is to be complete?
 2       A.    Yes.
 3       Q.    Have you revised that?
 4       A.    I have revised both projects, but I can't
 5   tell you what changes I have made.
 6       Q.    When did you prepare this flow chart?
 7       A.    Before July 10, 1992.  I don't remember the
 8   specific date.
 9       Q.    Was it during 1992?
10       A.    During 1992.
11       Q.    Well, given that it was during 1992, your
12   flow chart shows the task had commenced in '91.
13       A.    I don't remember exactly when I put this
14   chart together.
15       Q.    Do you believe it was prior to July of
16   1991?
17       A.    I don't want to make a guess.  I have to
18   refer to my schedule or documents to see when exactly
19   this chart was made.
20       Q.    Does this help refresh your recollection
21   that you did not do this in 1992?
22       A.    I don't remember when it was put together.
23   I don't remember the exact date.
24       Q.    I understand you don't remember the exact
25   date.  A few minutes ago you testified it was during


                                                 185

 1   1992.
 2             Is it still your testimony it was during
 3   1992?
 4       A.    No, I would not like to speculate that way.
 5   I don't remember exactly when it was put together.
 6       Q.    Do you recall when you were given the task
 7   of putting together the draft research plans for the
 8   Draft Everglades Research Plan?
 9             When was this document which is marked as
10   Exhibit 5, when did they start working on this?
11       A.    I don't remember the exact date when.
12       Q.    I'm not looking for an exact date.  Just
13   generally.
14       A.    I don't remember the month either.
15       Q.    Do you remember what year they started
16   working on it?
17       A.    I'm not sure.  Could be end of '91 or the
18   beginning of '92.  I'm not certain.
19       Q.    But it would have been either the end of
20   '91 or the beginning of '92?
21             MS. BIRCH:  Objection, argumentative.
22             THE WITNESS:  I don't want to make a guess.
23             MR. KOBELINSKI:  Could you read back his
24        prior answer?


                                                 186

 1             (Thereupon, a portion of the record
 2              was read by the reporter.)
 3   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
 4       Q.    Is that statement correct?
 5       A.    That's correct.
 6       Q.    All right.  What information did you base
 7   this bar chart on that's on page 0946809?
 8       A.    I don't understand your question.
 9       Q.    When does the bar chart show that the
10   assembled data task would commence?
11             MS. BIRCH:  Objection, relevancy.
12             THE WITNESS:  I don't understand the
13        question.
14   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
15       Q.    I'm just asking you to read the chart, sir,
16   for me.
17             When does the assembled data task, when is
18   it scheduled to commence in the document that you
19   prepared?
20       A.    According to the chart, it will be in 1993.
21       Q.    The assembled data task?
22       A.    There will be documents of the events.
23       Q.    I'm asking about the first task, assemble
24   data, sir.
25       A.    By 1992.


                                                 187

 1       Q.    It starts in 1992?
 2       A.    It starts at, it starts 1991.  According on
 3   the chart, that's what it shows.
 4       Q.    When in 1991?
 5       A.    There is no specific month specified in the
 6   chart.
 7       Q.    Is the chart divided by quarters or halves?
 8       A.    It's divided by number.  I can't tell from
 9   this chart the number of divisions in the year.
10       Q.    Well, does the chart have heavy black lines
11   and then lighter black lines in between?
12       A.    No.  It's just one line.
13       Q.    I'm referring, sir, to the vertical lines.
14             Are there heavy, light, light light, heavy,
15   light, light, light, heavy, light light light, heavy?
16       A.    Yes.
17       Q.    Would that be divided into four
18   corresponding quarters for each year?
19       A.    I have to check with my original draft.
20       Q.    You can't tell from this whatsoever?
21       A.    I can't tell from here.  This is edited by
22   someone else, so I have to check with my draft to see
23   what --
24       Q.    Do you believe someone changed the dates
25   that you had listed for the tasks to be commenced?


                                                 188

 1       A.    I'm not saying that.
 2       Q.    Is it your belief that someone has?
 3       A.    I didn't say that.
 4       Q.    I'm not asking if that's what you said.
 5   I'm asking is it your belief that someone has?
 6       A.    I didn't say that.
 7       Q.    Sir, I know you didn't say that.  I'm
 8   asking you.
 9             Is it your belief that someone has changed
10   the dates for the starting or commencement of those
11   tasks?
12       A.    There is no reason to believe that way.
13       Q.    Okay.  If those are divided up into four
14   equal quarters, does that show that the assembled
15   data task was supposed to start in the second quarter
16   or the end of the first quarter of year '91?
17             MS. BIRCH:  Objection, asked and answered.
18             THE WITNESS:  I have to check my original
19        document.
20   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
21       Q.    Do you have your original document in that
22   regard?
23       A.    I have to check.
24       Q.    Sorry, just so I understand, you have to
25   check to see if you still retain the original; is


                                                 189

 1   that what you are saying, sir?
 2       A.    I have to take my time and remember what I
 3   did when I designed the research plan.
 4       Q.    How would you go about doing that?
 5             MS. BIRCH:  Continuing objection to the
 6        relevancy of the Everglades Research Plan.
 7             Dr. Abtew is designated as an expert
 8        witness as to the EAA water budget, not the
 9        research plan.
10             THE WITNESS:  I have to go back and take my
11        time and see all of the reference so I can
12        recollect how I set up the project.
13   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
14       Q.    What is the purpose of the project?
15             It says under Objective "develop nutrient
16   budgets for the major subsystems of the EPA."
17             Is that to develop an historical nutrient
18   budget?
19       A.    It's objective, as stated in the document,
20   develop nutrient budgets for the major subsystems of
21   the EPA.
22       Q.    Is that an historical nutrient budget?
23       A.    Current and historical.  It's not
24   specified.
25       Q.    You developed the plan, though; is that


                                                 190

 1   correct?
 2       A.    That's right.
 3       Q.    So you would know whether it's historic or
 4   a model for developing hypothetical or a model that
 5   could be used for a management alternative; is that
 6   correct?
 7       A.    The plan has shown that to be the current,
 8   but if you need the historical to make conclusions
 9   with regard to the current results, then you will do
10   the historical analysis, too.
11       Q.    Does the District currently have a nutrient
12   budget for the EPA?
13             MS. BIRCH:  Objection, asked and answered,
14        objection to relevancy.
15             THE WITNESS:  I don't know.
16   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
17       Q.    Is that something you looked into when you
18   were developing your research plan?
19       A.    I don't have control of the District, every
20   department's plans or what's being done.
21       Q.    Does this research plan, is it a
22   multi-departmental or is it just within one
23   particular division or department of the District?
24       A.    One division of the District.
25       Q.    And when the division -- well, which


                                                 191

 1   division is that?
 2       A.    Everglades Systems Research Division.
 3       Q.    And these are all research projects that
 4   will be undertaken by the Everglades Systems Research
 5   Division?
 6       A.    That's right.
 7       Q.    In developing the research plans, are those
 8   to address research needs of the division?
 9       A.    Will you repeat your question?
10       Q.    Perhaps I'll rephrase it.
11             When the division goes ahead and prepares a
12   research plan, is it to address issues or research
13   that they see are required, are necessary?
14       A.    I am not in that capacity to answer for the
15   division.  The division director is the one who knows
16   what the reasons are.
17       Q.    What is your understanding of it?
18             MS. BIRCH:  Understanding of what?
19             THE WITNESS:  Understanding of what?
20   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
21       Q.    What is your understanding of what research
22   or why the Everglades System Research Division
23   develops a research plan?
24             MS. BIRCH:  Objection.
25             THE WITNESS:  The reasons are explained in


                                                 192

 1        the document itself.  You can refer to the
 2        sections why such plan is developed.
 3   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
 4       Q.    Is it generally to address research that's
 5   needed within the area covered by the Everglades
 6   System Research Division?
 7       A.    My answer is again the objectives for the
 8   research are stated in the document itself.
 9       Q.    I'm asking for your understanding of it,
10   sir.
11             MS. BIRCH:  Objection, assumes he has an
12        understanding on the research plan.
13   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
14       Q.    Do you have any understanding of why the
15   division prepares a research plan?
16       A.    It is stated in the research plan and I can
17   get to the page and read for you.
18       Q.    Okay, if you could identify that for me,
19   please.
20       A.    Starting from page 0946748 to page 0946776.
21       Q.    Essentially the entire document less its
22   appendices; is that correct?
23       A.    Yes, you have to read that to get the
24   objectives and the details why the project is in the
25   research plan.


                                                 193

 1       Q.    I'm sorry, perhaps you misunderstood my
 2   question.
 3             My question is not why each particular
 4   project is in the research plan.  I'm asking a
 5   general question.
 6             Are projects planned by the Everglades
 7   System Research Division of the South Florida Water
 8   Management District, the research plan, to address
 9   areas that they have recognized require additional
10   research?
11             MS. BIRCH:  Objection, asked and answered.
12             MR. KOBELINSKI:  I agree it's been asked.
13        I'm not sure if it's been answered.
14             MS. BIRCH:  You might not like the answer,
15        but he has answered.
16             THE WITNESS:  In the pages I already
17        stated, the objectives and the details of why
18        this research is done is documented.
19   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
20       Q.    And what is your understanding of what
21   those pages state?
22             MS. BIRCH:  Objection, assumes facts not in
23        evidence.
24             MR. KOBELINSKI:  The witness can tell me he
25        has absolutely no understanding of how he


                                                 194

 1        planned the research.
 2             MS. BIRCH:  He hasn't.  That wasn't the
 3        question.
 4   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
 5       Q.    Do you have any understanding of why the
 6   research plan was prepared?
 7       A.    Yes, as it is stated in those pages.  I can
 8   read it for you.
 9       Q.    Without reading it, do you have any
10   understanding?
11       A.    Understanding of what?
12       Q.    Of why the division prepared a research
13   plan.
14       A.    It is stated in the pages that I already
15   mentioned for you.
16       Q.    I understand that, and I'm saying without
17   reading it, do you have any understanding of why the
18   research plan was prepared?
19       A.    As it is stated in the document, I
20   understand it that way.
21       Q.    And what does the document say?
22             Could you summarize that for me, sir?
23             MS. BIRCH:  Objection, argumentative.  It's
24        not relevant to Dr. Abtew's designated area of
25        expertise.


                                                 195

 1             Dr. Abtew, if you have a general
 2        understanding of the purpose of the research
 3        plan, you can answer, but if you don't --
 4             THE WITNESS:  I can read it, the objective,
 5        from the document for you.
 6   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
 7       Q.    Again, sir, I'm not asking for a verbatim
 8   reading of the objectives.  I'm just asking do you or
 9   don't you have a general understanding of why a
10   research plan was prepared?
11       A.    As it is stated in the document in the page
12   I already mentioned for you.
13       Q.    Okay.  Now have you read those pages?
14       A.    I have read those pages.
15       Q.    Okay.  And are you capable of generally
16   summarizing then the purpose for the research plan?
17       A.    I would rather read the objective to
18   represent it as it is than give my basis of
19   recollection of what I read.
20       Q.    Let's set this aside for a moment, doctor.
21             Was the Holey Land included in your study
22   area for the draft water budget for the EAA which has
23   been marked as Exhibit Number 2 to your deposition?
24       A.    No, it was not included.
25       Q.    And why not?


                                                 196

 1       A.    It is a separate basin by itself, leveed
 2   around and separate from the ag area.
 3       Q.    Is it geographically part of the Everglades
 4   Agricultural Area?
 5       A.    Geographically it is at the corner of the
 6   ag area, but it is not agricultural land.
 7       Q.    What other portions of the geographic
 8   Everglades Agricultural Area were not included in
 9   your study which is Exhibit 2 to the deposition?
10       A.    What do you mean was not included?
11       Q.    Were there any other geographic portions of
12   the Everglades Agricultural Area that you did not
13   include in your study area for the water budget
14   analysis of the Everglades Agricultural Area?
15       A.    It is included in the study.  There is a
16   map which shows that the Holey Land is part of the
17   study, but it is not considered as agricultural land.
18       Q.    Is there a specific study area that was
19   studied for Exhibit 2, the water budget analysis for
20   the Everglades Agricultural Area?
21       A.    On page 0900255, and the Holey Land is
22   included in the study area, but not as agricultural
23   land, as wetland, impoundment.
24       Q.    Did you then include the rainfall data,
25   evapotranspiration and all the other data from the


                                                 197

 1   Holey Land in preparing the water budget that is
 2   reflected in Exhibit 2?
 3       A.    You didn't understand how it is calculated.
 4   There is no water getting into -- you have to read
 5   the whole document to find out what exactly is, how
 6   the water budget is computed.
 7       Q.    I'm not really asking how the water budget,
 8   the entire document explains the water budget.
 9             My question is I'm attempting to determine
10   what the study area was that is reflected in
11   Exhibit 2, your water budget for the EAA.
12             Were the Holey Land and the Rotenberger
13   land tracts, were they included in the study area?
14       A.    Yes, they are in the study area.
15       Q.    Did you, for instance, when you were
16   collecting rainfall data and conducting your analysis
17   with the, I believe it's called Thiessen weighted
18   averages, did you include that area in calculating
19   the rainfall for the EAA?
20       A.    Yes, because it is in the study area.
21       Q.    Did you include that area for
22   evapotranspiration?
23       A.    Let me check.
24             Yes, it was included.
25       Q.    Okay.


                                                 198

 1             MR. KOBELINSKI:  Could you mark that as an
 2        exhibit?
 3             (The document was marked
 4             Abtew Exh. No. 13.)
 5   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
 6       Q.    Dr. Abtew, I'm showing you what's been
 7   marked as Exhibit Number 13 to your deposition, which
 8   is draft page 13 of what's previously been marked as
 9   Exhibit 2 to your deposition, so it likewise bears
10   Bates number 0900255, and of course it's a two-sided
11   document, so the back page is 0900256.
12             Could you explain to me how do you prepare
13   or how is it you go about doing Thiessen weighted
14   averages for rainfall given the nine stations'
15   rainfall gauges you had in the EAA?
16       A.    It is stated in the document in detail.  I
17   can refer you to the page where it is mentioned.
18       Q.    Please do.
19       A.    From Exhibit 2, page 0900252 to page
20   0900254.
21       Q.    In preparing a Thiessen average, is it
22   necessary to draw a diagram using the rain gauges to
23   determine the areas that will be averaged?
24       A.    Not always.
25       Q.    In what circumstances don't you have to?


                                                 199

 1       A.    You can use a computer program which can
 2   take all that into account and compute the weights,
 3   like which is done in this document.
 4       Q.    So in this document, which is Exhibit 2,
 5   and the reference pages you provided, 0900252 through
 6   254, you used a computer program to prepare the
 7   Thiessen areas in the weighted averages where you
 8   calculated?
 9       A.    Yes.
10       Q.    What computer program was that?
11       A.    It's referenced on page 0900253 at the last
12   paragraph.
13       Q.    And that's the Shih and Hamrick's model?
14       A.    That's right.
15       Q.    When you are using that model, does it
16   actually show you the areas that each gauge covers?
17   Does it graphically -- are you able to see that?
18       A.    No, you don't see it graphically.  You get
19   the proportion of the area covered by each station.
20   You don't see it graphically.
21       Q.    And is there somewhere in the document
22   which indicates the area covered by each station?
23       A.    On page 0900254, Table 4.
24       Q.    How would I go about figuring out what area
25   was covered by each station using that table?


                                                 200

 1       A.    You can multiply the whole area by each
 2   coefficient.  Then you find out how much area offhand
 3   is covered by each station.
 4       Q.    In doing so, to the right of the station
 5   there is a title Computed Weight, and then there are
 6   three rows, all stations, station dropped and station
 7   dropped.
 8             Could you explain to me what those three
 9   rows are and how they would affect the area covered
10   by each station?
11       A.    The first column, all stations, those are
12   the proportions that each station covers if all the
13   stations have data.
14             Second column is station MRF182, doesn't
15   have data for some time, and it is dropped.
16             Then the remaining eight stations shares
17   and covers that area, so we have a new set of
18   coefficients.
19       Q.    And I would only use those coefficients
20   whenever I came across MRF182 with missing, with an
21   entire month of missing data; is that correct?
22       A.    When you get missing data for that station,
23   use those coefficients for that period.
24       Q.    And likewise, I would use the right-hand
25   column only when I have missing data for MRF98?


                                                 201

 1       A.    Yes.
 2       Q.    With regard to the five new stations that
 3   is referenced in the bottom of that page 0900254 of
 4   Exhibit 2, when have those stations been installed,
 5   or have they as yet?
 6       A.    I don't know when they are installed and
 7   how many of them are installed, but the
 8   responsibility was another division which is not
 9   where I am.
10       Q.    Was it your understanding when you drafted
11   this that five new stations would be installed?
12       A.    Yes, and I think some of them for sure are
13   installed.  I'm not sure when and if all of them are
14   installed right now.
15       Q.    Do you know approximately where they were
16   intended to be installed or are installed?
17       A.    Have to see the map where they are actually
18   designed to be before estimating where they are.
19       Q.    Have you ever seen that map before?
20       A.    I am the one who designed the network.
21       Q.    Given the fact that you designed the
22   network, would you be able to tell just generally
23   where they are?
24             Are they on the perimeter as the other
25   gauges are?


                                                 202

 1             Are they on the interior?
 2       A.    They are on the interior.
 3       Q.    Are they along the major canals?
 4       A.    Yes.
 5       Q.    Are all of them along the major canals?
 6       A.    Yes.
 7       Q.    Which canals are they along, all four major
 8   canals?
 9       A.    Yes, four major canals I think have one
10   station close to one of them along the route.
11       Q.    Do you recall at all generally where,
12   approximately in the middle or the north or south
13   ends of, for instance, the Miami Canal?
14       A.    Generally they are located in the middle of
15   the EAA all the way from the west to the east, but I
16   can't tell exactly where each one is.
17       Q.    Given your reference to five stations and
18   then there are four major canals, does one canal have
19   two new gauges or was there a fifth gauge placed away
20   from a canal zone?
21             (Thereupon, Mr. MacNeil left the
22   deposition.)
23             THE WITNESS:  I have to see the map to
24        exactly locate those stations.


                                                 203

 1   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
 2       Q.    I'm not looking for a map.  I'm just trying
 3   to get a general idea where they are.
 4       A.    That's all I can tell you right now.
 5       Q.    Do you recall when you designed this
 6   network and designed where these new stations will
 7   go?
 8       A.    I don't remember the date.
 9       Q.    I'm not looking for a date.  Generally.
10       A.    I don't remember.  Within the last two
11   years.  I'm certain it was within the last two years.
12       Q.    Okay.  Do you recall whether it was in
13   1992?
14       A.    I don't remember the exact date, no.
15       Q.    Have you seen any data from any of the new
16   rainfall gauges?
17       A.    I haven't seen any data yet.
18       Q.    Are you still reviewing data from the
19   existing rainfall gauges, rainfall for the EAA?
20       A.    Yes, I have been reviewing, I have been
21   dealing with that from the stations.
22       Q.    For what purpose?
23       A.    Update my files and in some instances for
24   U.S. Sugar Cane's request, had to update our rainfall
25   data.


                                                 204

 1       Q.    You stated update your files.
 2             Do you actually keep in your files, your
 3   computer files the rainfall data from these nine
 4   gauges?
 5       A.    Just put them in on a diskette and I think
 6   give it to legal.
 7       Q.    Is that something you have already done?  I
 8   sort of lost track of where that came from.
 9             MS. BIRCH:  I think what he said, he is
10        updating his files, and could provide them to
11        legal at the League's request.
12   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
13       Q.    Do you have in your files a complete set of
14   the rainfall data that's reflected in Exhibit 2?
15       A.    It's in the District database, the one
16   official data which is in, the appendix is in the
17   District database.
18       Q.    Do you also have it in your database?
19       A.    I could have it on my hard drive, too.  I
20   have to check.
21       Q.    When preparing this study, did you use the
22   data that you had recorded onto your hard drive from
23   the District database?
24       A.    Yes.
25       Q.    Do your computer records on your hard drive


                                                 205

 1   reflect all of the adjustments you made for missing
 2   data?
 3       A.    I don't think so.
 4       Q.    Have you kept that in hard copy?
 5       A.    Not to my memory.
 6       Q.    Have you kept any type of working papers on
 7   that?
 8       A.    How it is filled is documented in
 9   Exhibit 2, how those numbers are estimated.
10       Q.    I know the exhibit tells me how you did it.
11   I'm asking did you keep your working papers on the
12   actual calculations for estimating?
13       A.    No.  I don't think so.
14       Q.    In reference to the -- if you could keep
15   Exhibit 2 in front of you, but in reference to the
16   Holey Land analysis which is contained in Exhibit 10,
17   did this analysis include the Rotenberger tract or is
18   this solely of the Holey Land?
19       A.    It's only of the Holey Land.
20       Q.    There is reference in Exhibit 10 to seepage
21   from the Holey Land.
22             In what directions did seepage take place?
23             MS. BIRCH:  Objection to relevancy.
24             THE WITNESS:  For the time of the study,
25        the direction is shown in Exhibit 10, page


                                                 206

 1        0957263.
 2   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
 3       Q.    Is that Table 4 you are referring to?
 4       A.    Yes, Table 4.
 5       Q.    All those numbers are shown as negative.
 6   Why is that?
 7       A.    Negative indicates flow from the Holey Land
 8   to outside.
 9       Q.    Given the fact that the Holey Land was part
10   of the water budget study which is contained in
11   Exhibit 2, flow going east, west and north would have
12   just merely flowed right back into the study area
13   from the study area; is that correct?
14             MS. BIRCH:  Object to form.
15             MR. KOBELINSKI:  Would you like me to
16        rephrase that?
17             THE WITNESS:  All right.
18   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
19       Q.    As I understand your prior testimony, the
20   Holey Land is part of the EAA study area which is
21   reflected in Exhibit 2; is that correct?
22       A.    Yes.
23       Q.    All right.  And we are discussing seepage
24   now, which is reflected in Exhibit 10, Table 4, at
25   page 0957263 of Exhibit 10.


                                                 207

 1             And my question is since the Holey Land is
 2   part of the study area for the EAA water budget, the
 3   fact that there is seepage from the Holey Land into
 4   other portions of the EAA, i.e., to the east, west
 5   and north of the Holey Land, would have no impact on
 6   that water budget, would it?
 7       A.    As long as it is part of the study area, it
 8   won't affect the water budget.
 9             What happens inside does not affect water
10   budget.
11       Q.    Does seepage to the south affect the water
12   budget?
13       A.    Seepage to the south can affect the water
14   budget if the flow is not through the controlled
15   structures.
16       Q.    Does Table 4 in Exhibit 10, which is
17   referred to as seepage, reflect flow through control
18   structures?
19       A.    Once it seeps out of the Holey Land, it
20   doesn't show control structures.
21       Q.    So then does seepage to the south from the
22   Holey Land impact the water budget?
23       A.    It's a very small number.  It won't make a
24   significant change in the water budget.
25       Q.    That's given the fact that, for instance,


                                                 208

 1   on this study here in Table 4, there is only 6,201
 2   acre feet; is that correct?
 3       A.    Yes.
 4       Q.    And given the other numbers involved,
 5   that's a small number?
 6       A.    That's a very small number.
 7       Q.    Okay.  Yesterday you were referring to
 8   seepage into the water conservation areas as also an
 9   unimportant number.  I forget the term that was used.
10             Is seepage into the water conservation
11   areas -- excuse me, seepage into the EAA from the
12   water conservation areas an important factor in the
13   water budget?
14       A.    I was not asked that question yesterday.
15       Q.    Okay, then I'll ask it.
16             Is seepage from the water conservation
17   areas into the EAA a factor in the water budget?
18       A.    It was estimated to be negligible when
19   every seepage in and out through the perimeter of the
20   ag area is considered.
21             MR. PERKO:  Excuse me, could you read back
22        that answer, please?
23             (Thereupon, a portion of the record
24              was read by the reporter.)


                                                 209

 1   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
 2       Q.    In what areas of the EAA would you
 3   anticipate that there would be seepage out of the EAA
 4   into, for instance, the water conservation areas
 5   other than the Holey Land which we have discussed?
 6       A.    I haven't studied that.
 7       Q.    In what areas of the water conservation
 8   areas would there be seepage into the Everglades
 9   Agricultural Area?
10       A.    I haven't studied that either.
11       Q.    Then how were you able to estimate that the
12   two balanced out?
13       A.    This was general knowledge of the area.
14       Q.    Is there a head differential between Water
15   Conservation Area 1 and the EAA?
16       A.    It depends what the time period is and what
17   the condition is.
18       Q.    Given the general knowledge of the area you
19   just referred to, is there normally on almost a
20   year-round basis a head differential between Water
21   Conservation Area 1 and the Everglades Agricultural
22   Area?
23       A.    I have to see the data.
24       Q.    I'm referring to the general knowledge that
25   you referred to a moment ago.


                                                 210

 1       A.    The general knowledge is there is no
 2   massive flow of water through seepage in or out of
 3   the ag area as a whole.
 4       Q.    Did you review the data on head
 5   differential from Water Conservation Area 1 to the
 6   EAA?
 7       A.    I have reviewed the stage data, but I don't
 8   remember what the numbers were.
 9       Q.    Did you review that head differential in
10   making the determination that there was no seepage or
11   it was equaled with any seepage out of the EAA when
12   preparing the water budget?
13       A.    I didn't say there was no seepage in any
14   direction.
15             What I said is overall, seepage in or out
16   of the EAA can be stated as zero to do water budget
17   study of this level.
18       Q.    All right.  Could you indicate for me on
19   Exhibit Number 13 perhaps with this green marker
20   anywhere that you believe that there is, on an annual
21   basis you would experience a head differential where
22   there would be a higher water level in the EAA than
23   in the surrounding areas?
24             MS. BIRCH:  I'm going to object to the
25        extent that it calls for the witness to draw


                                                 211

 1        conclusions or speculation without having a
 2        sufficient documentation that's already been
 3        presented during the deposition.
 4             If there is a map to indicate that, then
 5        the witness can direct us to that.  If not, what
 6        he believes is not relevant.  Giving an opinion
 7        based upon facts that he has testified to is.
 8             MR. KOBELINSKI:  Counsel, he made a
 9        judgment that seepage is not a factor in the
10        water budget.  His actual testimony is on the
11        water budget.  I'm just trying to determine how
12        he made that judgment call.
13             MS. BIRCH:  You are asking him to indicate
14        what he believed.  If he has something to base
15        that belief on and can testify to that, I have
16        no objection to that, but for him to speculate --
17        I mean he can give an opinion, but you are
18        asking him to guess.
19             MR. KOBELINSKI:  No, counsel, he stated he
20        did this not based upon review of the data, but
21        on his general knowledge of the area.  He stated
22        he made his estimate that there is a balancing
23        of seepage in and seepage out.  Since he did not
24        review specific data, I'm reviewing that general
25        knowledge of the area.


                                                 212

 1   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
 2       Q.    Dr. Abtew, on Exhibit 13 could you state
 3   for me where you would expect to experience a head
 4   differential where you would have higher water
 5   elevations within the EAA than in any of the
 6   surrounding areas?
 7       A.    I have to see the data of stage at the site
 8   which changes with time and make conclusions based on
 9   that temporal scale.  It depends on the time.
10       Q.    Did you do that in preparing your water
11   budget?
12       A.    I have inspected the stage data records.  I
13   don't remember what the numbers are inside or outside
14   the EAA.
15       Q.    Did you review stage records in preparing
16   the water budget?
17       A.    I have reviewed the stage records.
18       Q.    I understand, sir, that you reviewed stage
19   records while you have been at the District.
20             My question is have you reviewed stage
21   records in preparing this water budget which is
22   reflected in Exhibit 2?
23             Is that some of the data that you have
24   reviewed in preparing Exhibit 2?
25       A.    I don't remember that I exactly used it for


                                                 213

 1   doing the writing, but through my studies of the EAA,
 2   I have reviewed the stage data, and I don't remember
 3   at what period of time what the stage is anywhere
 4   around there.
 5       Q.    Can you tell me exactly what process you
 6   used to make the judgment that seepage in and out of
 7   the EAA balances out and need not be considered in
 8   the water budget which is Exhibit 2?
 9             What data did you review for what period of
10   time?
11             MS. BIRCH:  Objection to the
12        mischaracterization of his testimony.
13             THE WITNESS:  I can't specify the exact
14        data.  It is a combination of general knowledge
15        that is obtained through reading the different
16        documents on the EAA and different data,
17        conversation with different people.
18             All that combination resulted in the
19        conclusion that there is no massive seepage out
20        or in to affect the water budget analysis that
21        was reached.
22   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
23       Q.    What people did you have these discussions
24   with?
25       A.    I don't remember, I don't remember the


                                                 214

 1   people that I discussed.
 2       Q.    And what data was it that you just referred
 3   to?
 4       A.    The District database on stage flow, stage
 5   data.
 6       Q.    You said stage flow.  What exactly are you
 7   referring to there, sir?
 8       A.    Flow is flow, flow through the District
 9   canals and stage data in the canals, outside the
10   canals and all the stage data.
11       Q.    Okay.  During what period of time did you
12   research the study that's reflected in Exhibit 2?
13   Not the study period.
14             During what time did you actually spend
15   conducting this research and drafting the report?
16       A.    How long did it take?
17       Q.    How long did it take?  When did you start?
18   I realize you are still in the process, because it's
19   a draft.
20       A.    I am not certain, but probably started a
21   year and a half ago.
22       Q.    Approximately July of 1991?
23       A.    Earlier, a little earlier.
24       Q.    Sometime during 1991?
25       A.    Sometime during 1991.


                                                 215

 1       Q.    Okay.  From that period forward, have you
 2   reviewed the stage or head differential between the
 3   water conservation areas and the EAA?
 4       A.    Not recently.
 5             (Discussion held off the record.)
 6             (Thereupon, a recess was taken.)
 7   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
 8       Q.    Doctor, drawing your attention back to the
 9   questions we were just discussing, a few moments ago
10   you had stated that you had commenced the study which
11   is reflected in Exhibit 2 approximately sometime in
12   early or mid 1991.
13             And my question is have you reviewed
14   subsequent to early or mid 1991 any data on the stage
15   or head differential between the water conservation
16   areas and the Everglades Agricultural Area?
17       A.    Not recently.
18       Q.    Doctor, I'm afraid I really just don't
19   understand your answer, because I was asking about a
20   particular period and you are saying not recently.
21             Does that not recently mean the entire
22   period?
23       A.    On the process of the study, there are
24   times where stage data were reviewed, which is quite
25   sometime back.


                                                 216

 1       Q.    But you have reviewed then stage data from
 2   approximately early '91 through today's date in
 3   reference to this study which is Exhibit 2?
 4       A.    No, during the period of the study, the
 5   stage data during the period of study, which is '79
 6   to '90.  That's what I reviewed.
 7       Q.    I appreciate -- I'm not asking what the
 8   period of the stage data covered.  I'm asking whether
 9   or not you reviewed stage data during the time you
10   were researching and preparing this document, which
11   is Exhibit 2.
12             In other words, have you reviewed stage
13   data since early 1991 through today's date in
14   reference or in preparation of this study, Exhibit 2?
15       A.    I have been exposed to stage data in and
16   around the EAA.  I can't remember the time and how
17   much I have used to make conclusions, how much of
18   that data was used to make my conclusion.
19       Q.    Is there any way for you to identify the
20   stage data that you reviewed in determining that
21   seepage was not a factor or not an important factor
22   to be considered in the water budget?
23       A.    I don't remember.
24       Q.    Well, what data would you look at now to go
25   about making that determination?


                                                 217

 1             If I had to do it, how would I go about
 2   determining whether or not seepage would be an
 3   important factor?
 4       A.    Have to go back and see the database, there
 5   are a lot of stage readings, and select which one I
 6   was looking at, so it will be a process that will
 7   take time.  Have to study the database in the whole
 8   area.
 9       Q.    What would you be studying?  What would you
10   look for to make a determination about seepage?
11       A.    I haven't planned how to do that kind of
12   test or research, and I can't tell you exactly what I
13   will do to test if there is seepage through the
14   levees.
15       Q.    Well, you already did something to make the
16   determination that you have in this Exhibit 2, which
17   is that seepage is not an important factor.
18             What was that?  Walk me through -- what
19   should I do to recreate and make a determination or
20   analyze that judgment?  What data do I look at?
21       A.    I told you it's based on general knowledge
22   and general information, which is a combination of
23   conversations with individuals who have knowledge of
24   the area and review of stage data in the area, which
25   I don't remember which stage stations were, and the


                                                 218

 1   general topography of the area.
 2             So a combination of a lot of factors
 3   determine to make a conclusion that seepage, the net
 4   seepage was not a big factor in the water budget of
 5   the Everglades Agricultural Area.
 6       Q.    Why was seepage included in the water
 7   budget of the Holey Land?
 8             MS. BIRCH:  Asked and answered.
 9             THE WITNESS:  The head differential is
10        considerable.  It is an impoundment.
11   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
12       Q.    Is the Water Conservation Area 1 an
13   impoundment?
14       A.    Yes, it is an impoundment.
15       Q.    Is there a considerable head differential
16   between Water Conservation Area 1 and the EAA?
17       A.    I have to see the data for different
18   periods of time and make comparison of the stage at
19   various points to make that conclusion.  I didn't
20   study that for seepage purpose.
21       Q.    In preparing Exhibit 2, you did not study
22   that?
23       A.    I made a general conclusion that seepage
24   was not very important and didn't make detailed study
25   on how much was coming, leaving the EAA through


                                                 219

 1   seepage.
 2             MR. KOBELINSKI:  Could you go back?  I need
 3        an answer approximately two questions ago.
 4        Could you read back the answer two answers back?
 5             (Thereupon, a portion of the record
 6              was read by the reporter.)
 7   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
 8       Q.    If the head differential between WCA-1 and
 9   EAA on an annual basis is the same as the head
10   differential between the Holey Land and the
11   surrounding areas, would that be indicative to you
12   that there would be seepage?
13       A.    Have to study the area in general to
14   determine if there will be seepage, if seepage will
15   be important.
16       Q.    I'm not asking whether it will be important
17   seepage.  I'm asking if the head differential was the
18   same or greater between Water Conservation Area 1 and
19   the EAA as the head differential between the Holey
20   Land and the EAA, would there be seepage?
21       A.    That's a hypothetical question, but I have
22   to study the topography of the area and the boundary
23   between impoundment and the EAA, how long it is, and
24   the soil and the levees between the EAA and the Water
25   Conservation Area.


                                                 220

 1             So I have to study a lot of things if you
 2   want to calculate how much seepage is coming out.
 3       Q.    How does the topography impact seepage?
 4       A.    If there is a levee between the areas,
 5   seepage will be small.  If the levee is compacted or
 6   if it is just the natural system, it will be
 7   different.
 8       Q.    You had mentioned three factors to be
 9   considered, topography, levee and soil under the
10   levee, other than the head differential which we have
11   been discussing.
12             And I understand the levee, which we will
13   be getting to in a moment, but how does topography,
14   how is that a factor in seepage?
15       A.    I already answered the question.
16       Q.    And you had made mention to the levee.
17             With regard to levee, how is the levee a
18   factor?
19       A.    Levee puts resistance.  The compacted
20   levee, you will have more resistance for seepage.
21       Q.    Is there a difference between the factor
22   that you have listed as topography and the factor
23   that you have listed as levee?
24       A.    As part of the topographical feature of the
25   area, whatever there is on the land.


                                                 221

 1       Q.    But other than a levee then, is there
 2   anything about the topography that's a factor in
 3   seepage?
 4       A.    The gradient, the position of the areas
 5   with respect to each other.
 6       Q.    Based upon the general knowledge and
 7   information you had made reference to, what's your
 8   understanding of the gradient between EAA and Water
 9   Conservation Area 1?
10       A.    I have to look at the data, at the maps and
11   features at different times of water stage to
12   determine which direction seepage is going or what
13   feature will affect seepage.
14       Q.    But referring now just to topography, are
15   you talking about the land surface when you mentioned
16   topography?
17       A.    Yes.
18       Q.    Well, the head differential or the water
19   stage doesn't impact what the ground elevation is,
20   does it?
21       A.    Well, the ground elevation determines the
22   water stage, too.
23       Q.    It's a factor in it, but the ground
24   elevation does not change just because water stage
25   changes, does it?


                                                 222

 1       A.    No.
 2       Q.    As far as, within a five-year period, for
 3   instance, essentially the ground elevation, is it
 4   constant?
 5       A.    I can't say that.  Depends on deposition on
 6   what you already have on the bottom, what's building
 7   up in the reservoir.
 8       Q.    Is it your understanding that the area
 9   within the EAA is generally flat?
10       A.    Yes, generally flat.
11       Q.    Is it your understanding that the area
12   within the WCA-1 is generally flat?
13       A.    There is a slope, gentle slope to the
14   south.
15       Q.    Is there any type of slope in the EAA?
16       A.    It is, the EAA is divided into sub-basins
17   and you have to have a specific area and request.
18   Just can't make that statement.
19       Q.    What about the sub-basin that is adjacent
20   to WCA-1 of the EAA?
21       A.    I have to look at a topograph map to tell
22   you exactly what the gradient is and which way it is
23   going.
24       Q.    Whatever that gradient would be, it's not
25   any type of a high or great degree of gradient, is


                                                 223

 1   there, if there is one at all?
 2       A.    No, it won't be high.
 3       Q.    Do you have any general information or
 4   knowledge as to whether or not the ground elevation
 5   on one side of the levee that's on the EAA and the
 6   other side of the levee that's on Water Conservation
 7   Area 1, as to whether there is a difference in the
 8   soil elevation on either side of the area there?
 9       A.    Have to refer to topographic map before I
10   answer the question.
11       Q.    Did you do so in making the determination
12   about seepage?
13       A.    I told you I didn't do detailed study of
14   the area to calculate seepage.
15       Q.    But you based it upon your general
16   knowledge; is that correct?
17       A.    I have answered this question before.
18       Q.    Given that general knowledge, is it your
19   understanding that there is a difference in the
20   ground elevation on one side of the levee which is in
21   WCA-1 and the other side of the levee, which is in
22   the EAA?
23       A.    I have to see the topographic map of the
24   area to answer this question.
25       Q.    You have no knowledge of it without looking


                                                 224

 1   at a topographic map, no general knowledge
 2   whatsoever?
 3       A.    I have to refer to topographic map.
 4       Q.    My question is do you have any general
 5   knowledge with regard to that whatsoever?
 6       A.    With regard to what?
 7       Q.    Whether or not there is a difference,
 8   substantial, minimal or otherwise, between the ground
 9   elevation on the EAA side of the levee and the ground
10   elevation on the Water Conservation Area 1 side of
11   the levee.
12       A.    I have to refer to topographic map to
13   answer this question.
14       Q.    So you do not have general knowledge on
15   that topic; is that correct?
16             MS. BIRCH:  Objection, argumentative, asked
17        and answered.
18             THE WITNESS:  I don't have specific
19        knowledge on the specific question.
20   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
21       Q.    I'm not asking for specific knowledge.  I'm
22   asking for general knowledge.  You have stated you
23   made a judgment based upon your general knowledge.
24   I'm trying to understand what your general knowledge
25   is.


                                                 225

 1             Do you have general knowledge on that?
 2       A.    I have to refer to topographic map to
 3   answer that specific question.
 4       Q.    Let me make the question more general.
 5             Absent a levee, would there be a slope
 6   between Water Conservation Area 1 and the EAA?
 7       A.    I have to look to topographic map to answer
 8   that question.
 9       Q.    You do not have any general knowledge in
10   that regard?
11       A.    That's your opinion.
12       Q.    I'm asking a question, sir.
13             Do you have general knowledge in that
14   regard, any general knowledge in that regard?
15       A.    To the specific question, I don't have
16   specific knowledge.
17       Q.    Do you have any knowledge whatsoever of
18   slopes or ground elevations, not specific to mean sea
19   level, not to within a foot, not to within a yard, do
20   you have any general knowledge on the slopes between
21   or the EAA and Water Conservation Area 1, general
22   knowledge?
23             MS. BIRCH:  Objection, asked and answered.
24             THE WITNESS:  I don't have specific
25        knowledge of the difference in elevation between


                                                 226

 1        the two.
 2   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
 3       Q.    I'm not asking for specific knowledge.
 4   General knowledge.
 5       A.    I don't have the specific knowledge of --
 6       Q.    I'm not asking about specific knowledge,
 7   sir.  General knowledge.
 8             Do you have any general knowledge?
 9       A.    What is the meaning of general knowledge?
10       Q.    Sir, you have described you made a judgment
11   call based upon your general knowledge.
12             What do you consider general knowledge?
13       A.    I have already answered that question what
14   information I have based in making the decision that
15   seepage will not be a factor in the water budget.
16       Q.    I wasn't asking about seepage.
17             What do you consider general knowledge?
18       A.    It depends on what subject you are asking
19   on.
20       Q.    What do you consider general knowledge
21   regarding seepage?
22             Would general knowledge regarding seepage
23   be about the four factors you stated are important
24   for seepage, head differential, topography and soil
25   under levee?


                                                 227

 1       A.    General knowledge is information you have
 2   gathered through time, through reading, through
 3   conversation with people who know about the area and
 4   various sources that you can't recall where you get a
 5   piece of information to conclude that there is no
 6   massive flow of water in or out of the ag area to
 7   imbalance the water budget.
 8             That's what general knowledge is.
 9       Q.    Okay.  Now, given that definition, do you
10   have any information gathered through time, through
11   reading, through conversations with other people or
12   from various sources that you can't recall
13   specifically where, what the topography or whether
14   there is any substantial difference between the
15   ground elevation in the EAA on one side of the levee
16   and Water Conservation Area 1 on the other side of
17   the exact same levee?
18       A.    I can't quantify that.
19       Q.    I'm not asking you to quantify it.
20             Do you have any knowledge of it?
21       A.    I don't have that specific knowledge.
22       Q.    Not specific.  Do you have any knowledge,
23   given the four factors you just gave me, general
24   knowledge?
25       A.    I can't recall all the specific information


                                                 228

 1   that I have gathered to come to a conclusion that
 2   there is no massive seepage in or out from the ag
 3   area to any of the directions.
 4       Q.    Sir, my question is not with regard to
 5   whether you recall specific information on seepage.
 6             My question is given your definition of
 7   what general knowledge is, do you recall any general
 8   knowledge on ground elevations between Water
 9   Conservation Area 1 on one side of the levee and the
10   EAA on the other side of the levee?
11             MS. BIRCH:  Counsel, we are getting to the
12        point where you are badgering the witness.  You
13        have asked a question, he has given an answer.
14        It may not be the answer you like, but you are
15        entitled to an answer.
16             MR. KOBELINSKI:  He is answering a question
17        I haven't asked.
18             MS. BIRCH:  You are becoming argumentative.
19        We have been on this at least five minutes and
20        it's not getting us anywhere.
21             I would suggest that we move on to an area
22        where Dr. Abtew can answer questions about his
23        expertise on the EAA water budget.
24             MR. KOBELINSKI:  This is a factor in the
25        water budget.


                                                 229

 1             Well, I'll move over it for a moment.
 2   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
 3       Q.    Dr. Abtew, did you consider the four
 4   factors, the head differential, the topography, the
 5   levee and the soil under the levee for the seepage
 6   calculation in the Holey Land?
 7       A.    The head difference is in the equation and
 8   the characteristic of the water movement through the
 9   levees is in the equation and the topography is
10   reflected in the stage data.
11       Q.    How is the ground elevation reflected in
12   the stage data?
13       A.    Well, determines the depth of water.
14       Q.    Doesn't flow in and flow out upon an area
15   determine the depth of water?
16       A.    The stage region depends how high the
17   ground is underneath it or how low it is underneath
18   it.  So it's considered.
19       Q.    For seepage -- what did you look at then to
20   determine whether or not there was a difference in
21   topography between the Holey Land and the surrounding
22   EAA?
23       A.    This question is answered in Exhibit 10,
24   page 0957260 to page 0957263.
25       Q.    And where specifically is it considered in


                                                 230

 1   those two pages?
 2       A.    You have to read the whole thing to
 3   understand how it's computed.
 4       Q.    Drawing your attention to 0957261, the top
 5   of the page where you state, "With the available
 6   limited data, seepage was estimated in the four
 7   directions assuming that the gradient is the same in
 8   one direction (east, west, north and south)."
 9             Did you just assume that the gradient was
10   the same for this seepage study?
11       A.    In one, in east, west, north or south
12   direction, yes.
13       Q.    Well, was there a particular direction you
14   assumed it was not the same?
15       A.    There is not.
16       Q.    I didn't understand the answer, sir.  Maybe
17   I missed it.
18       A.    In east, west, north and south direction,
19   in one specific direction, in a single day the
20   seepage is assumed to be one way rather than along
21   the north going in and out from one end to the other
22   end, which is a reasonable assumption.
23       Q.    When you refer to gradient there, what
24   gradient are you talking about?
25       A.    The gradient of the land surface in one of


                                                 231

 1   those directions.
 2       Q.    Well, the gradient of the land surface
 3   doesn't change each day, does it?
 4       A.    It doesn't change each day, but it can
 5   change from one corner of the east side to the other
 6   corner of the east side.
 7       Q.    And in this instance you just assumed that
 8   the gradient was the same?
 9       A.    Yes, either it is one way or the other way
10   in the four directions.
11       Q.    Okay.  And did you determine what the
12   gradient was?
13       A.    The head differential, the stage of water
14   outside and inside the Holey Land shows that gradient
15   at the measurement point.
16       Q.    You can calculate the ground elevation from
17   the stage elevation?
18       A.    Well, the water surface elevation is
19   measured at certain points on both sides and that
20   difference shows the gradient of whichever direction
21   it's going to be.
22       Q.    That's the gradient of the water; is that
23   correct?
24       A.    Yes.
25       Q.    I'm talking about the gradient of the soil.


                                                 232

 1   I'm just trying to determine if that is an important
 2   factor here.
 3       A.    Well, it is considered when you measure the
 4   water depth, automatically the ground level is
 5   incorporated with it, because it is designed with the
 6   water.
 7       Q.    Are these measurements to mean sea level or
 8   are they measurements to the soil level?
 9       A.    The data is referred to mean sea level in
10   the database.
11       Q.    So whether or not the soil was one foot
12   higher on one side or the other, as long as there was
13   a head differential in the water level, you would
14   still have seepage; is that correct?
15       A.    That's right.
16       Q.    All right.  So I'm just trying to
17   understand then how you took into consideration the
18   soil level gradient, if any.
19       A.    If you have a levee with topographic
20   features to block, depending on what you put inside
21   the levee.
22       Q.    So the levee then is the important factor
23   that should be considered, not topography?
24       A.    Well, levee is part of the topography.
25       Q.    Other than the levee, is there any other


                                                 233

 1   feature of the topography I need to be considering?
 2       A.    Maybe some topographic features.
 3       Q.    Any that you are aware of in the EAA that I
 4   need to be considering?
 5       A.    For seepage calculation, it is stated in
 6   those pages, what is used and what is not used.
 7       Q.    And in these calculations could you point
 8   out to me where soil elevation is included in the
 9   calculation?
10             Would that be in 8, 9, 10 or 11, which are
11   on Exhibit 10, Bates number 0957261?  Those are
12   numbered equations.
13       A.    I didn't say soil elevation would be
14   included in the equation.
15       Q.    Is elevation then not a factor that you
16   considered in determining the seepage out of the
17   Holey Land?
18       A.    The water surface elevation is what is
19   considered.
20       Q.    But not the soil surface elevation?
21       A.    It is inside, when you measure the water
22   surface elevation, it automatically is in the bottom,
23   so it comes into play how high it is or how low it
24   is.
25       Q.    Okay.  Now with regard to the levee, what


                                                 234

 1   studies, if any, did you do on the levee surrounding
 2   the Holey Land?
 3       A.    I covered, it is covered on this previous
 4   page.
 5       Q.    What page would that be, sir?
 6       A.    That would be page 0957260 to page 0957263
 7   in Exhibit 10.
 8       Q.    And what are the features of the levee that
 9   you considered or studied?
10       A.    The details are shown on those pages.
11       Q.    Could you point out to me what details you
12   are referring to?
13       A.    I have to read from page 0957260 up to page
14   0957263
15       Q.    Please walk me through those pages
16   indicating where the levee or the type of levee it
17   was, the soil under the levee were considered in
18   making the seepage calculation.
19             MS. BIRCH:  What was the question?
20             (Thereupon, a portion of the record
21              was read by the reporter.)
22             THE WITNESS:  On page 0957260 subtitled
23        Simulation Model, line number three, "The
24        seepage losses were calculated using an equation
25        developed from a seepage study data of 1975."


                                                 235

 1        You have to read that document which is in the
 2        reference to see how the soil comes into play
 3        with regard to seepage.
 4   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
 5       Q.    Did you read that to determine how the soil
 6   and the levee was constructed and what features of
 7   the levee there were?
 8       A.    You have to read that document to see how
 9   soil factors are considered in calculating seepage
10   rate of the area.
11       Q.    Did you read that document to determine
12   whether or not the features of the levee were
13   considered?
14       A.    I read that document.
15       Q.    Were the features, the construction and
16   type of levee and soil under the levee considered in
17   that document?
18       A.    I don't remember the details, but it is a
19   detailed seepage rate study in the area.
20       Q.    The report was dated 1975; is that correct?
21       A.    That's right.
22       Q.    Were all the levees that you did the
23   seepage calculation on constructed as of 1975?
24       A.    I don't remember when they were
25   constructed.


                                                 236

 1       Q.    Would you be able to use that same study
 2   and the same calculation to determine seepage between
 3   WCA-1 and the EAA?
 4       A.    I have to study that.
 5       Q.    Well, in what circumstances wouldn't you be
 6   able to use that same equation?
 7       A.    I have to study the problem first.
 8       Q.    I'm just asking you what possible factors
 9   would result in your not being able to use the
10   equation?
11       A.    I have to read that document, read the
12   document and see its application.
13             Without reading it, I can't say anything.
14       Q.    Well, the document just provides you with
15   this factor; is that correct, the .746?
16       A.    And details of where it was tested, how it
17   was tested, and it's one report.  You have to read it
18   all before you determine where to use it.
19       Q.    In doing the Holey Land seepage between, in
20   the southern direction, that's between the Holey Land
21   and Water Conservation Area 3, there is a levee there
22   dividing the two; is that correct?
23       A.    Yes.
24       Q.    And I draw your attention to what's been
25   marked as Exhibit 13.


                                                 237

 1       A.    Yes, there is levee.
 2       Q.    Is it the exact same lineal levee that
 3   divides, if you follow it along up to the east, water
 4   Conservation Area 1 from the EAA?
 5       A.    Yes.
 6       Q.    Do you know if there is a difference
 7   between the manner of construction of the levee that
 8   divides Water Conservation Area 1 from the EAA and
 9   the Holey Land from Water Conservation Area 3?
10       A.    I don't know.  I haven't studied that.
11       Q.    When did you make the conclusion that it
12   was appropriate to use the seepage calculation
13   referred to in Exhibit 10 for the Holey Land water
14   budget?
15       A.    Before May 1992, sometime before May 1992.
16       Q.    Did you make that determination before or
17   after you made the determination that seepage within
18   the EAA was not a factor to be, important factor to
19   be considered in the EAA water budget?
20       A.    After I made that conclusion.
21       Q.    Did you revisit that conclusion with regard
22   to the EAA water budget after studying the Holey
23   Land?
24       A.    I haven't revisited it, since this is a
25   draft document.  If there is enough technical


                                                 238

 1   information that convinces me to see if seepage is,
 2   if seepage doesn't fit the water budget of the EAA, I
 3   will look at that.
 4       Q.    Is there any information that you don't
 5   have comparable to the information you had when doing
 6   the Holey Land water budget regarding seepage?
 7       A.    I didn't study.  I don't try to compute
 8   seepage from the EAA, so I can't say how much
 9   information is there if I want to calculate.
10       Q.    You said if you had sufficient information,
11   you would study it to see if it is an important
12   factor.  You would revisit it if necessary.
13             What information do you need to revisit it?
14       A.    First information is to, if it is
15   worthwhile doing the study, if you try to change the
16   water budget, if there is significant amount of water
17   coming in and leaving the area.
18       Q.    How would you go about making that
19   determination?
20       A.    I could say right now there is no massive
21   movement, so unless someone comes up with convincing
22   idea or just for interest of doing the study.  There
23   is no reason to go back and do this kind of study
24   right now.
25       Q.    Well, how did you make the determination


                                                 239

 1   that seepage had to be considered in the Holey Land?
 2       A.    Because the data is available.
 3       Q.    Is the same data available for the EAA?
 4       A.    I am not sure.
 5       Q.    Well, I go back to what data do you need to
 6   make the determination?
 7             MS. BIRCH:  Objection, asked and answered.
 8             THE WITNESS:  First I have to be convinced
 9        that I have to do this work.
10   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
11       Q.    Well, how did you get convinced that you
12   had to do the Holey Land work?  You said it was just
13   because the data was available.
14             Is that all that convinced you to do the
15   work?
16       A.    And it was an impoundment.  I have stated
17   that.
18       Q.    But you have already testified that there
19   are impoundments surrounding the EAA; is that
20   correct?
21       A.    Yes.
22       Q.    So you know that there are impoundments,
23   and the question is do you have the same comparable
24   data available?
25       A.    You have to look at how much data is


                                                 240

 1   available to, if you have to quantify seepage or
 2   whatever the amount is.
 3       Q.    If the data is available, is that
 4   sufficient then to warrant a study of seepage?
 5             MS. BIRCH:  Objection to form.
 6             THE WITNESS:  It depends on your objective.
 7   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
 8       Q.    If your objective was a water budget?
 9       A.    It doesn't affect significantly the water
10   budget of the EAA whether to include that seepage
11   that may be left right now.
12       Q.    Did seepage affect significantly the water
13   budget of the Holey Land?
14       A.    The Holey Land is a completely different
15   environment than the Everglades Agricultural Area,
16   and the seepage that was calculated is given on page
17   0957263.
18       Q.    All right.  Was it significant in the Holey
19   Land?
20       A.    Yes, it is significant.  It is a reasonably
21   high number.
22             (Thereupon, a recess was taken.)
23   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
24       Q.    Dr. Abtew, with regard to the structures,
25   the water control structures that separate or


                                                 241

 1   connect, whichever you would like to view it as, the
 2   EAA and Water Conservation Area 1, are you familiar
 3   at all with those structures?
 4       A.    Which structures are they?
 5       Q.    That would be the S-5, the various
 6   structures there.
 7       A.    Yes.
 8       Q.    When water is moved from the EAA into Water
 9   Conservation Area 1, how is that done?
10       A.    It's written in the document.
11       Q.    Is it pumped?
12       A.    Will you repeat the question?
13       Q.    Is the water pumped from the EAA into Water
14   Conservation Area 1?
15       A.    Yes, there is pump station two.
16       Q.    Is there any type of a gravity flow
17   structure for water to flow out of the EAA into Water
18   Conservation Area 1?
19       A.    Yes, there is a gravity structure.
20       Q.    Is that for water to flow from the EAA into
21   Water Conservation Area 1?
22       A.    Sometimes it has happened.  It is not
23   frequent.  Sometimes water flows by gravity from the
24   EAA to Water Conservation Area 1.
25       Q.    Did it happen at any time during your study


                                                 242

 1   area, study period from 1979 to 1990 that there was
 2   gravity flow through the S-5 structures there from
 3   the EAA into Water Conservation Area 1?
 4       A.    I am not sure if it is for that period or
 5   from 1973 to 1991.  There are periods where water
 6   flows through gravity from the EAA to Water
 7   Conservation Area 1.
 8       Q.    Would you say that happened 50 percent of
 9   the time?
10       A.    A few times.
11       Q.    A few times over a span of approximately 18
12   years?
13       A.    I don't remember the exact number of days
14   or months.  I know it is a few times.
15       Q.    Of the flows between Water Conservation
16   Area 1 and the EAA, approximately what percentage,
17   just rough approximation, what percentage would have
18   been gravity flow from the EAA into Water
19   Conservation Area 1?
20       A.    I don't have enough information to put any
21   approximate number on the proper --
22       Q.    Given the fact you said it happened a few
23   times over an 18-year span, would you say that it was
24   greater than 30 percent, less than 30 percent?
25       A.    I have to check District database how many


                                                 243

 1   times it flowed in that direction, so I don't want to
 2   put any number without checking the database.
 3       Q.    Do you know how many times or whether the
 4   majority of the times it was pumped from the EAA into
 5   Water Conservation Area 1?
 6       A.    Most of the time it was pumped.
 7       Q.    Is there any type of a pump structure which
 8   would allow water to be pumped from Water
 9   Conservation Area 1 into the EAA, or is that merely a
10   gravity structure, gravity flow?
11       A.    I have to check.
12       Q.    Do you know?
13       A.    I have to check if there were instances, if
14   there was back-pump.
15       Q.    You are saying using the same pumps to
16   back-pump, is that what you are referring to?
17       A.    Yes.  I have to check if that has occurred.
18       Q.    Do you recall in your research any instance
19   of that occurring?
20       A.    Not that I remember.
21       Q.    Have you spoken with any of the
22   agricultural interests that border Water Conservation
23   Area 1 to determine whether or not any of their
24   pumping practices are instigated or influenced by any
25   type of seepage from Water Conservation Area 1?


                                                 244

 1       A.    No, I haven't done any study with regard to
 2   seepage.
 3       Q.    I'm not referring to a study.  I'm just
 4   talking about conversations with people.
 5             Have you spoken with anyone with any
 6   agricultural interests or anyone else from the
 7   District with regard to whether or not pumping on the
 8   agricultural fields bordering Water Conservation
 9   Area 1 is influenced by seepage?
10       A.    I haven't talked to the ag people on how
11   seepage influences their pumping practice.
12       Q.    Have you talked to anyone in the District
13   about that?
14       A.    I don't have the specific knowledge.
15       Q.    I'm just trying to understand, doctor.
16   Sometimes you refer to specific knowledge.  Sometimes
17   you refer to general, and I'm not sure if you are
18   just using the terms for no particular purpose or if
19   you are saying you don't have specific knowledge,
20   which means you do have some general knowledge.
21             In this instance do you have any
22   recollection or just no specific recollection?
23       A.    Repeat the question, please.
24       Q.    The question was do you recall speaking
25   with anyone at the District about whether or not the


                                                 245

 1   seepage from Water Conservation Area 1 into the EAA
 2   impacts the pumping practices of the agricultural
 3   interests bordering that area.
 4       A.    I don't remember.
 5       Q.    Do you recall speaking to anyone as to
 6   whether or not the seepage from Lake Okeechobee into
 7   the agricultural areas surrounding Lake Okeechobee in
 8   the EAA influences their pumping practices?
 9       A.    I don't remember.
10       Q.    Have you ever looked at the stage
11   differential between Lake Okeechobee and the waters
12   within the EAA?
13       A.    I don't remember that specific comparison
14   of those two stages.
15       Q.    Do you recall a general comparison?  I'm
16   just trying to understand, because again, you use
17   from time to time the term specific.
18             Do you recall just generally a comparison
19   of the stage elevations or the head differential
20   between Lake Okeechobee and the EAA?
21       A.    Since those things are dependent on time,
22   it's very hard to say that I came up with some data
23   which shows this way or that way.  Just depends on
24   the period where you are comparing stages.
25       Q.    Well, is there data showing on a daily


                                                 246

 1   basis what the elevation of Lake Okeechobee is?
 2       A.    Yes, there is data in the District
 3   database, but I don't work with that data.
 4       Q.    That was my question.
 5             Have you ever looked at that data or talked
 6   to anyone about that data to make a determination
 7   whether there is normally a head differential between
 8   the EAA and Lake Okeechobee?
 9       A.    I haven't studied that.
10       Q.    I recognize you haven't studied it.  Have
11   you talked to anyone about it?
12       A.    I don't remember.
13       Q.    Okay.  Dr. Abtew, yesterday you mentioned
14   that you will be using a, I believe it was called a
15   lysimeter to be studying evapotranspiration within
16   the ENR project; is that correct?
17       A.    That's correct
18       Q.    Could you describe for me essentially what
19   are the components of a lysimeter?
20       A.    It's a plastic tank --
21             MR. PERKO:  Could you spell lysimeter?
22             THE WITNESS:  L-y-s-i-m-e-t-e-r.
23             MR. PERKO:  Thank you.
24   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
25       Q.    Plastic tank of approximately what


                                                 247

 1   capacity?
 2       A.    A little over 2,000 gallons.  Pumps, water
 3   level recorders, data recorders, weather station,
 4   evaporation pan, generally those are the instruments
 5   which will be in and around the lysimeter.
 6       Q.    The lysimeter itself, the plastic tank, is
 7   that just sitting on the ground or is it partially
 8   submerged?  How does it functionally work?
 9       A.    Submerged in the water.  It will be under
10   water.  Most of it will be under water.
11       Q.    And is the concept that you control the
12   flows, inflows of water and outflows of water?
13       A.    Yes.
14       Q.    Is the inside of the tank, is part of it
15   filled with, in this instance I guess would be muck
16   soils or peat?
17       A.    Yes, soils from the surrounding --
18       Q.    Do you know whether or not you will be also
19   attempting to determine the evapotranspiration of the
20   vegetation that will be used in what is referred to
21   as the polishing cells of the ENR project?
22       A.    I don't know what types of vegetation we
23   are going to put in it yet.
24       Q.    Have you had any discussions about the
25   types of vegetation?


                                                 248

 1       A.    Yes.
 2       Q.    What are the types of vegetation you have
 3   discussed?
 4       A.    Cattails and the rest of wetlands
 5   vegetation which exists around there.  I don't
 6   remember the names.
 7       Q.    Was there any discussion of using the
 8   lysimeter with just a predominantly algae community?
 9       A.    I haven't heard that.
10       Q.    Sir, drawing your attention to what's been
11   marked as Abtew Exhibit Number 3, which is a document
12   titled Draft, title is Water Budget Analysis For The
13   Everglades Agricultural Area, An Organic Soil
14   Drainage Basin, and drawing your attention to the
15   second page of that document, which is in fact
16   labeled one at the bottom of the page, the third
17   sentence therein states, "The EAA is a highly
18   productive high water table organic soil irrigation/
19   drainage basin with water quality problems."
20             Is it your understanding that there are
21   water quality problems within the EAA?
22       A.    Will you repeat the question?
23       Q.    Is it your understanding that there are
24   water quality problems within the EAA?
25       A.    Yes.


                                                 249

 1       Q.    Where are the water quality problems?
 2       A.    It's referenced in a document which I
 3   cited, and you can read from there.
 4       Q.    What document is that, sir?
 5       A.    On page four, second paragraph, "The
 6   phosphorus in the drainage water has resulted in
 7   accelerated eutrophication of Lake Okeechobee and in
 8   the degradation of the Everglades ecosystem."
 9             This is a paper written by Izuno, 1991, and
10   is referenced in the end.
11       Q.    Is Lake Okeechobee part of the EAA?
12       A.    What kind of question -- its geographic
13   location?
14       Q.    Yes.  Is Lake Okeechobee part of the EAA?
15       A.    Lake Okeechobee is on the north side of the
16   area.
17       Q.    Is it within the EAA?
18       A.    Not the definition that I know.
19       Q.    With regard to the Everglades ecosystem
20   referenced by Izuno, is that within the EAA or is he
21   referring to the conservation areas in the Everglades
22   National Park?
23       A.    He is referring to the drainage areas that
24   leaves agricultural area and it's pumped to Lake
25   Okeechobee and to the south to the Everglades


                                                 250

 1   ecosystem, which includes water conservation areas.
 2   That is his reference.
 3       Q.    My question to you, sir, is are you aware
 4   of whether there are water quality violations within
 5   the geographic EAA?  Not within the EPA, not within
 6   Lake Okeechobee.
 7             Are there water quality violations within
 8   the EAA?
 9             MS. BIRCH:  Objection, this witness is not
10        competent to testify as to what violations are
11        in the EAA.  That's a legal determination,
12        counsel.  You know that.
13             MR. KOBELINSKI:  Makes reference to water
14        quality in his document, violation of the EAA.
15        I would like to know whether that's his belief
16        and what his basis is.
17             MS. BIRCH:  He cited to you where he found
18        that statement.
19             THE WITNESS:  I cited the reference where
20        it is stated there is problems with the water in
21        the agricultural area.
22   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
23       Q.    Is it your understanding there are
24   violations of the water quality in the EAA?
25       A.    I don't use the term violation or


                                                 251

 1   non-violation, but the term I used is there is water
 2   quality problem with water quality degradation which
 3   is cited in that scientific study.
 4       Q.    On the second page of that Exhibit 3 --
 5   again, the bottom of the page is listed actually as
 6   one -- it says, "During dry periods supplemental
 7   water is used for irrigation and in rainy periods --"
 8       A.    Which part?
 9       Q.    I'm reading the following sentence to the
10   one I read before.
11       A.    Okay.
12       Q.    "During dry periods supplemental water is
13   used for irrigation and in rainy periods excess water
14   with phosphorus content has to be pumped out off the
15   basin to the environmentally sensitive Everglades
16   ecosystem."
17             First of all, you make reference that it
18   has to be pumped out.
19             Can it be gravity flows out of the EAA?
20       A.    Yes, it could be gravity flow.
21       Q.    In your study period were there any gravity
22   flows out of the EAA during the rainy season?
23       A.    I don't remember that detail.
24       Q.    This states that the water has to be pumped
25   out to the environmentally sensitive Everglades


                                                 252

 1   ecosystem.
 2             Can't the water be pumped into the West
 3   Palm Beach Canal and down to the, out to the urban
 4   communities?
 5             MS. BIRCH:  Objection, lack of foundation.
 6        This witness isn't competent based on the
 7        testimony previously given as to the operation
 8        of pumps.
 9             MR. KOBELINSKI:  Counsel, the document
10        states it has to be pumped in a certain
11        direction.  I'm trying to explore why the
12        witness has that statement in his own work.
13             MS. BIRCH:  That wasn't the question.  So
14        what's the pending question?
15             THE WITNESS:  What is the question?
16             MR. KOBELINSKI:  Please read it back.
17             (Thereupon, a portion of the record
18              was read by the reporter.)
19             THE WITNESS:  Which way the water is
20        flowing I think refers to the later sections of
21        the report, if it is relating to different
22        direction.
23   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
24       Q.    My question, doctor, is does the water have
25   to be pumped into the water conservation areas?


                                                 253

 1       A.    You can see on reference figure the
 2   distribution of outflows from the Everglades
 3   Agricultural Area.  This is the figure which is
 4   labeled as figure 3B, percentage distribution of
 5   canal outflows from Everglades Agricultural Area from
 6   1973 to 1991.
 7       Q.    I understand that's the percentage for the
 8   study period.
 9             My question is in reference to your
10   statement in the report that the water has to be
11   pumped into the Everglades, does the water have to be
12   pumped into the Water Conservation Areas?
13             Is that the only option?
14       A.    That's where it is pumped to.
15       Q.    Does it have to be pumped there, as the
16   document states?
17       A.    The pumps do not pump to West Palm Beach
18   Canal.
19       Q.    Which pumps don't pump to the West Palm
20   Beach Canal?
21       A.    All the pumps which are at the perimeter of
22   the Everglades Agricultural Area.
23       Q.    But those pumps don't need to be turned on
24   either, do they?
25       A.    Not to West Palm Beach Canal.


                                                 254

 1       Q.    My question is can water be diverted to the
 2   West Palm Beach Canal as opposed to the Water
 3   Conservation Areas?
 4       A.    Yes, water can be diverted to West Palm
 5   Beach Canal.
 6       Q.    Do you recall, doctor, whether the study
 7   area for Exhibit 3 is the same study area for
 8   Exhibit 2?
 9       A.    Yes, it is the same.
10       Q.    I draw your attention then, continuing on
11   with Exhibit 3, at the introduction section, which is
12   the third page of the document but on the bottom it
13   states page 2, the second sentence states, "The basin
14   area is over 1100 square miles lying in western Palm
15   Beach, eastern Hendry and western Broward Counties.
16   The area in this study includes the sub-basins S-2,
17   S-3, S-5A, S-6, S-7 and S-8, which cover 926.5 square
18   miles."
19             Is the entire EAA covered by this study
20   area?
21       A.    The area covered is stated as sub-basins
22   S-2, S-3, S-5A, S-6, S-7 and S-8.
23       Q.    What portion of the EAA was not covered by
24   the study?
25       A.    The rest of the portions of the EAA are not


                                                 255

 1   covered.
 2       Q.    I draw your attention to Exhibit 13.
 3             Can you indicate for me what portions are
 4   not covered?
 5       A.    I know the L-8 basin and --
 6       Q.    Where is that L-8 basin, sir?
 7       A.    Anything out of this thick line is not
 8   included.
 9       Q.    Well, what portion of the EAA is outside of
10   that thick line, if you could just indicate it for
11   me?
12       A.    I can't tell from this map.
13       Q.    Is there another map within the exhibits we
14   have marked where you would be able to identify that?
15       A.    I don't remember.
16       Q.    Other than the L-8, is there any other
17   portion of the EAA that's not covered by the study?
18       A.    The area on the northwest side of the
19   conservation area and the other basins, the basins on
20   the northwest side of the study area are not included
21   in the study.
22       Q.    Why were those excluded from the study
23   area?
24       A.    I don't remember how the area of study was
25   determined for us to do the study.  That was the area


                                                 256

 1   of study given for me to do the study.
 2       Q.    You weren't involved in the decision
 3   regarding the study area?
 4       A.    I haven't decided to leave out any of the
 5   area.
 6       Q.    Do you know who did make that decision?
 7       A.    I don't remember who did.
 8       Q.    Do you know why the decision, why the
 9   decision was made to leave out portions of the EAA
10   from the study area?
11       A.    I don't know.  The area I studied is shown
12   on the map.
13       Q.    Drawing your attention to page 4 of the
14   Exhibit 3, which on the bottom of the page is stated
15   page 3 --
16             MS. BIRCH:  Is it 3 or 4?
17             MR. KOBELINSKI:  Actual page 4, but for the
18        record, on the bottom of the page it's listed as
19        3.  It's actually the fourth page of the
20        exhibit, though.
21             MS. BIRCH:  I see.
22   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
23       Q.    In that first full paragraph the final
24   sentence says, "The primary system is designed to
25   remove .75 inches of excess water per day from the


                                                 257

 1   service area."
 2             Are you referring to all pumps including
 3   the pumps that pump into Lake Okeechobee in that
 4   reference, or just the pumps on the southern and
 5   southeastern side of the EAA?
 6       A.    This is referenced from the original design
 7   of the primary canals.  That was the capacity to
 8   remove three quarters of an inch of runoff from the
 9   service area.
10       Q.    That would include pumping into Lake
11   Okeechobee?
12       A.    I know it is the capacity of the canals,
13   but I am not sure if it included the pump station
14   capacity on both ends.  I have to check on that.
15       Q.    Is that the capacity on both ends?
16       A.    Primarily it is the canal capacity.  I'm
17   not sure if the pump capacity is included in this
18   design.
19       Q.    Dr. Abtew, what was the entire database for
20   rainfall in the District's computers?
21             MS. BIRCH:  Asking him to his knowledge?
22             MR. KOBELINSKI:  Yes, and if it shows
23        within this document.
24   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
25       Q.    Perhaps I would refer you to page 6 of the


                                                 258

 1   document, which on the bottom of the page is
 2   indicated as page 5.  The second to last sentence
 3   says, "The average historical (1929-1990) annual
 4   rainfall for the EAA is 52.33 inches."
 5             Did you obtain that from the District's
 6   database?
 7       A.    The data from 1929 to 1972 is referenced on
 8   page 21, Table 1, a document written by Sculley,
 9   1986, which is in the reference.
10             The data from '73 to 1991 is from the
11   District database.
12       Q.    Do you know where Sculley obtained his
13   information?
14       A.    I presume it is from the District database,
15   but you can refer to that document to find out where.
16       Q.    How did you make the determination to do a
17   study period from 1973 through 1991 as opposed to the
18   entire database or from 1929 through 1991?
19       A.    There was flow data available from '73 to
20   '91.  That's one reason, flow data from the area.
21             And second, for many reasons, it was
22   determined 1973 was referred and was a starting point
23   to study that area.  So you can say flow data
24   availability.
25       Q.    Is there flow data availability prior to


                                                 259

 1   1973?
 2       A.    There could be.
 3       Q.    Does the District have flow data prior to
 4   1973?
 5       A.    Yes.
 6       Q.    Does the USGS, United States Geological
 7   Society have flow data prior to 1973?
 8       A.    Yes.
 9       Q.    Is there a difference in the availability
10   prior to '73 than there is subsequent to '73 of flow
11   data?
12       A.    I have to check the specific date.
13       Q.    Would the period of record that the study
14   encompasses, did using a cut-off from 1973 to 1991
15   have any impact upon the results?
16       A.    I don't understand the question.
17       Q.    Okay.  With regard to your final study
18   which we have been discussing off and on, Exhibit 2,
19   the study area is 1979 to 1990; is that correct?
20       A.    That's right.
21       Q.    All right.  And we have in that same report
22   and in various of your reports you have made
23   reference to the fact that the eighties were
24   generally a lower rainfall period; is that correct?
25       A.    That's right.


                                                 260

 1       Q.    Okay.  Did the fact that your study, the
 2   predominant number of years in your study were a low
 3   rainfall period, did that have any impact upon the
 4   results of the study?
 5       A.    There is no results of study.  There is
 6   documentation in Exhibit 2 for that period.  The flow
 7   rainfall and other hydrologic parameters are
 8   documented.
 9       Q.    But within Exhibit 2, your study, you do
10   then calculate average rainfall and average yields,
11   which I believe is what you refer to as the net
12   amount of water that's discharged from the EAA as
13   opposed to the net, as compared to what has inflowed
14   into the EAA.
15             You do prepare averages over the period of
16   study; is that correct?
17       A.    Yes.
18       Q.    Does the period of study selected impact
19   those averages?
20       A.    When you change the period of record, the
21   numbers change, but I haven't done a comparison of
22   the '73 to 1990 study and the 1979 to 1990 study to
23   see the magnitude of change because of the changing
24   period of record.  I didn't do that comparison.
25       Q.    Would you anticipate that the averages for


                                                 261

 1   the 1979 to 1990 period, given the fact that you
 2   recognize that they are generally dryer years, would
 3   have resulted in lower averages of rainfall and lower
 4   averages of what you refer to as yield from the EAA?
 5       A.    I have to compare the numbers to make
 6   conclusions.
 7       Q.    You wouldn't be able to make that
 8   conclusion without specifically comparing all the
 9   numbers?
10       A.    I can't make that conclusion without
11   comparing the numbers.
12       Q.    Is the yield generally rainfall driven?
13       A.    The yield is the net runoff from the ag
14   area, which is the difference between the total
15   runoff minus the irrigation water they pulled off of
16   the canals.
17             That difference is the net runoff of the
18   water generated from the area, which the source is
19   rainfall.
20       Q.    So in a dryer year then, would the yield be
21   less because there is less rainfall?
22       A.    Depends on the distribution of the
23   rainfall.
24       Q.    Given what you have seen of the general
25   rainfall patterns, would the yield be generally less


                                                 262

 1   in a lower rainfall year?
 2       A.    Yes, those are the indications observed in
 3   general.
 4       Q.    Dr. Abtew, in your research with regard to
 5   the water budget of the EAA study area, you have
 6   listed a number of inflow points or stations, water
 7   management structures.
 8             Are there other water management structures
 9   which add water into the EAA that were excluded as a
10   result of the, not including the entire geographic
11   EAA in the study area?
12             MS. BIRCH:  Would you read that question
13        back for me?
14             (Thereupon, a portion of the record
15              was read by the reporter.)
16             THE WITNESS:  Not that I know of.
17   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
18       Q.    Drawing your attention to Exhibit Number 3,
19   page 14, which again at the bottom would be listed as
20   number 13, the first paragraph there of that page
21   refers to the phosphorus loads from different sources
22   of water; is that correct?
23       A.    Yes.
24       Q.    What does the phosphorus loads of the water
25   have to do with the water budget?


                                                 263

 1       A.    Reference of water quality is pertinent in
 2   water resource studies.
 3       Q.    Well, does the quality of the water impact
 4   the water budget?
 5       A.    The answer is, again, water quality
 6   features of water resource studies can be included in
 7   water budget.  It is at the discretion of the author.
 8       Q.    Why did you include it?
 9       A.    Because it makes, it explains the system
10   better with water quality.
11       Q.    To what purpose?  Does it benefit, for
12   instance, use as a management tool in some fashion?
13       A.    Water resource management part is water
14   quality and the other one is water quantity.
15       Q.    Did you conduct any study of water quality?
16       A.    Yes, I have referenced where I have
17   conducted study, read documents to get this
18   information.
19       Q.    But did you yourself conduct any research
20   or studies other than just where the document is
21   referenced?
22       A.    No, I don't have to do that to make that
23   statement.
24       Q.    Why did you only reference phosphorus and
25   not any other water quality parameters?


                                                 264

 1       A.    Because that is the interest mentioned most
 2   in the literature I read.
 3       Q.    What literature?
 4       A.    The literature cited earlier by Izuno and
 5   literature cited here, which is a Draft Technical
 6   Document in Support of Chapter 40E-63, F.A.C., South
 7   Florida Water Management District, March 3, 1992
 8   document.
 9       Q.    What is that Draft Technical Document that
10   you just referred to about?
11       A.    It has a section on the amount of
12   phosphorus that leaves or gets into the Everglades
13   Agricultural Area.  That's where this is referenced
14   from.
15       Q.    When you were given the assignment of
16   preparing the water budget, was providing also the
17   phosphorus loads within the basin and out of the
18   basin also one of the assignments that is to be part
19   of the water budget?
20       A.    It was not my assignment.
21       Q.    Whose assignment was it?
22       A.    I am not sure who started or finished up
23   that whole document.
24       Q.    No, I'm asking were you instructed to add
25   this section to the water budget?


                                                 265

 1             MS. BIRCH:  Object to form.
 2             THE WITNESS:  I am the author of the
 3        document and I am the one who selects what
 4        sections make sense in my article.  And it is my
 5        decision that referring water quality will give
 6        meaning to my paper, for it is an important
 7        issue for that area.
 8   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
 9       Q.    Are there any other water quality
10   parameters that are important to the area?
11       A.    There could be, but I didn't, it was not
12   cited as primary in those documents.
13       Q.    Those documents as being the Izuno and this
14   Draft Technical Document you referred to?
15       A.    Yes, I read those documents.
16       Q.    Have you read the SWIM Plan?
17       A.    I haven't read the SWIM Plan, but I have
18   gone through sections of interest.
19       Q.    What would those sections be?
20       A.    I glanced through the material, and I
21   haven't made a thorough reading to refer to it.  And
22   maybe it is referenced in here that I can check and
23   tell you what section I have referenced in this
24   document.
25             Yes, it is referenced in here and you can


                                                 266

 1   go to the section and see which part I concentrated
 2   on.  It is referenced in the document.  Apparently
 3   there is a section where it is mentioned.
 4       Q.    Do the phosphorus loads and the phosphorus
 5   percentages have any impact upon the water budget?
 6             MS. BIRCH:  Asked and answered.
 7             THE WITNESS:  For what time period?
 8   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
 9       Q.    For the time period of your study.
10       A.    On page 14 as it is labeled here, page 14,
11   on the last paragraph the SWIM Plan is cited as a
12   reference where water quality has forced the decrease
13   of pumping to the lake through the Interim Action
14   Plan.  So you can see water quality has at least
15   influenced the movement, the direction of water flow.
16       Q.    Is that the SWIM Plan that --
17       A.    That's the SWIM Plan.
18       Q.    Is the Interim Action Plan part of the SWIM
19   Plan?
20       A.    No, that reference is from the SWIM Plan.
21       Q.    Could you indicate to me what reference you
22   are referring to, sir?
23       A.    Page 14 as it is labeled.
24       Q.    Yes.
25       A.    "There has been a significant decrease in


                                                 267

 1   the percent of outflows to Lake Okeechobee since the
 2   implementation of the Interim Action Plan in 1979
 3   which was designed to minimize drainage backpump to
 4   the lake."
 5             This is cited in the SWIM Plan, which is
 6   referenced here as South Florida Water Management
 7   District, a 1989 document, which is, at the end you
 8   can see is the SWIM Plan.  On page 20, the 1989
 9   document is the SWIM Plan.
10       Q.    Is that the SWIM Plan for the Everglades or
11   SWIM Plan for Lake Okeechobee?
12       A.    For Lake Okeechobee, sorry.
13       Q.    Okay.  Drawing your attention to Exhibit 3,
14   page 17, which is labeled as 16 under the section
15   Consumptive Use, which is at the bottom of the page,
16   the first sentence says, "Consumptive use of the
17   basin which is mainly from evapotranspiration of
18   agricultural crops can be estimated as the sum of
19   available rainfall and supplemental water use."
20             I draw your attention, sir, to the
21   statement that "Consumptive use of the basin which is
22   mainly from evapotranspiration."
23             What else is consumptive use from?
24       A.    Well, evapotranspiration can be from either
25   agricultural plants --


                                                 268

 1       Q.    I'm asking what other consumptive use is
 2   there other than evapotranspiration?
 3       A.    Evaporation losses from plants on fallow
 4   land.
 5       Q.    Wouldn't that still be evapotranspiration?
 6       A.    But most of it is from agricultural crops
 7   which cover most of the area.  That's what is meant.
 8       Q.    So other than evapotranspiration, there is
 9   no consumptive use within the EAA?
10       A.    There is consumptive use of water within
11   the EAA, meaning the use of water, industrial, some
12   industrial water used and some municipal water used.
13       Q.    And how much industrial and municipal water
14   use is there?
15       A.    Well, the water that leaves the area, usage
16   is not significant.  In the basin, waste water is
17   back in the basin itself after it is used.
18       Q.    Well, how is the determination made what
19   the urban and industrial water use is within the
20   study area?
21       A.    There is a very small urbanization and the
22   water which is used in the basin didn't leave the
23   basin.  The sewage water comes up into the system.
24   And the decrease from the water used is very small in
25   that case.


                                                 269

 1             In the industrial water used, the water
 2   that evaporates in the system is the one which is the
 3   net loss.  The rest, it flows back through the
 4   treatment process, mechanisms, gets back into the
 5   same area.
 6             So evapotranspiration is the net loss from
 7   the region.  And if you have to compute industrial
 8   water net losses and urban water net losses, the
 9   District wasn't doing that study, because it wouldn't
10   affect the amount of water that leaves the basin
11   because of those uses.
12       Q.    Drawing your attention, sir, for a moment
13   to Exhibit 4, which was marked as an exhibit to your
14   deposition yesterday, reference is made at the bottom
15   of the exhibit at the first page that this paper was
16   presented at a 51st Annual Meeting of Soil and Crop
17   Science Society of Florida, September 25 to 27, 1991.
18             Is 1991 correct or would that be 1992?
19       A.    I don't remember.  That's '91, that's
20   right.
21       Q.    I'm sorry?
22       A.    1991, as it is written.
23       Q.    Then drawing your attention to page 13 of
24   this document and the first full paragraph, is there
25   a typographical error on the final citation of that


                                                 270

 1   paragraph to a 1992 paper?  And the same citation is
 2   also on page 14 to 1992 paper.
 3       A.    What has happened is this was used in the
 4   early draft of the study, but this document came out
 5   in 1992 as the draft.
 6             So the evapotranspiration was done first
 7   and the study was done and then applied for a
 8   budget -- let me see.
 9             This document came out in 1990.  It was a
10   draft.
11       Q.    You are just referencing a draft document?
12       A.    Yes.
13       Q.    Which you are saying it will be published
14   in '92 is all you are saying?
15       A.    That's it.  This was done before the water
16   budget.
17       Q.    Okay, I just wanted to make sure -- that's
18   fine.  I just want to make sure there wasn't a typo
19   as to when it was presented, that's all.
20             Drawing your attention to Exhibit 6 which
21   was marked at your deposition yesterday, and in
22   particular I draw your attention to page 7, which is
23   entitled Results and Conclusions, and the last
24   sentence of that first paragraph states, "The actual
25   area that generates runoff is estimated as the total


                                                 271

 1   basin area for the historical period to the end of
 2   1986 and since 1987, the area of the Holey Land, a
 3   35,000 acre impoundment, was subtracted out."
 4             Why was the Holey Land subtracted out?
 5       A.    Because it became an impoundment and was
 6   separated from the general area with a levee and was
 7   holding water.
 8       Q.    I wasn't able to tell, was it separated out
 9   in your draft study which is labeled as Exhibit 2 to
10   the deposition as of 1987?
11       A.    It's part of the study, but it is taken as
12   one basin for runoff calculation, because water
13   doesn't flow on the surface and get to the EAA or to
14   the canals.  It is taken out to calculate runoff in
15   terms of inch per acre.
16             The runoff that left the ag area in terms
17   of acre feet is the same in terms of acre feet, in
18   terms of volume is always the same, but if you have
19   to compare it as amount of inch on each piece of land
20   when you try to convert to depth, then there is
21   interest of getting the actual land which was
22   involved in generating that runoff, so that you have
23   a depth measurement which is second expression for
24   the volume measurement depth that we have.
25             So the volume number stays the same, but if


                                                 272

 1   you have to put it in terms of how much inch per acre
 2   as came out as runoff, then you need to know the
 3   actual area that was involved in the runoff.
 4             For that reason, after the impoundment is
 5   created, it should be taken out to convert runoff
 6   into inch for that period.
 7       Q.    Just so I understand what you are saying,
 8   if you don't mind, I'm going to try to put it in my
 9   own words, and if I'm wrong, please tell me.
10             What you are saying is the Holey Land was
11   never subtracted when calculating the outflows from
12   the EAA, but the Holey Land within the study for
13   determining what runoff from the ag lands of the EAA
14   was subtracted for the purposes of determining a
15   runoff figure?
16       A.    In terms of depth of water, runoff in terms
17   of depth of water over the surface.
18       Q.    Okay.  Well, was the Rotenberger tract
19   subtracted?
20       A.    The Rotenberger tract is not subtracted.
21       Q.    But it's not an ag land, is it?
22       A.    It's not an ag land, but it is connected
23   with the rest of the area.
24       Q.    Okay.  The Holey Land gets its water from
25   rainfall and from the Miami Canal; is that correct?


                                                 273

 1       A.    Yes.
 2       Q.    Your study does not record the inflows into
 3   the Holey Land from the Miami Canal, does it?
 4       A.    Which study?
 5       Q.    This, the final one, Exhibit 2.
 6       A.    It doesn't include, because it didn't leave
 7   the study area.
 8       Q.    Okay.  And just so I understand, from
 9   yesterday's testimony, as I understand it, this
10   Exhibit 2 is a document that incorporates your expert
11   opinion; is that correct?
12       A.    I think we can say all the documents are
13   relevant.
14             MR. KOBELINSKI:  Off the record.
15             (Discussion held off the record.)
16   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
17       Q.    Dr. Abtew, do you intend to present your
18   theoretical ET model as expert testimony at the final
19   hearing?
20       A.    I will refer to anything that I did that I
21   think is relevant to my testimony.
22             MR. KOBELINSKI:  Could you read that back?
23             (Thereupon, a portion of the record
24              was read by the reporter.)


                                                 274

 1   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
 2       Q.    What will your testimony be at trial, sir?
 3   What is your expert opinion?
 4       A.    The subject of my testimony will be the
 5   water budget of the Everglades Agricultural Area.
 6       Q.    I understand what the subject is and that
 7   was disclosed in October.
 8             What is your expert opinion?  What is your
 9   expert testimony?
10       A.    On what?
11       Q.    On that subject.
12       A.    I need a specific question.
13       Q.    What is your expert opinion on the water
14   budget?
15       A.    That's a general area which is, the numbers
16   and the detail is expressed in the documents which
17   you have.
18       Q.    Could you identify which of these documents
19   contain your expert opinion that you will be
20   presenting at the final hearing?
21       A.    The major documents can be cited as
22   Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3, but I do not rule out in
23   referring to any other document.
24       Q.    Well, what documents have you relied upon
25   in preparing Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3?


                                                 275

 1       A.    I have cited at the end of the document as
 2   reference what I have used for doing the study.
 3       Q.    Do you intend to present a theoretical ET
 4   model as your expert opinion at the final hearing?
 5       A.    I don't know what kinds of questions I am
 6   going to get and I don't know what kind of reference
 7   I am going to use.
 8       Q.    You are aware that you will be providing
 9   expert opinion at the final hearing?
10       A.    Yes.
11       Q.    Have you reached that expert opinion?
12       A.    I told you these two documents have the
13   major information on the water budget of the EAA.
14       Q.    My question, though, is have you reached
15   your final expert opinion?
16       A.    I'm not clear with that question.
17       Q.    All right.  Are you aware of what it is you
18   are supposed to testify about at the final hearing?
19       A.    Matters concerning EAA water budget.
20       Q.    What matters?
21       A.    Details of the hydrology, in the case of
22   the hydrology of the area.
23       Q.    Will you be providing expert opinion on
24   evapotranspiration?
25       A.    I don't think the theoretical


                                                 276

 1   evapotranspiration will be the area that I am going
 2   to be witness on.
 3       Q.    Okay.  Do you intend to rely upon the
 4   lysimeter study results in preparing your expert
 5   opinion?
 6       A.    No.
 7       Q.    After 1987 does the Holey Land still
 8   produce runoff?
 9       A.    It's an impoundment.
10       Q.    Isn't the entire EAA an impoundment?
11       A.    The runoff is pumped out from the EAA, and
12   from the Holey Land there is no pump that's removing
13   runoff.
14       Q.    What is your definition of impoundment?
15       A.    A water-holding area.
16       Q.    Okay.  Is the EAA a water-holding area?
17       A.    No, it is not an impoundment.
18       Q.    Is it surrounded by levees?
19       A.    Surrounded by levees, but it's managed as
20   an agricultural area, not like a reservoir.
21       Q.    But it does still hold water, doesn't it?
22       A.    It's not a water storage area.
23       Q.    Can a water storage area produce runoff?
24       A.    Through holding the water, that's the
25   definition of runoff changes.  If it is a


                                                 277

 1   water-holding impoundment, the rain will be held in
 2   there.  It is not running off anywhere.
 3       Q.    But in the Holey Land are there structures
 4   that essentially have boards stopping the water flow,
 5   but once the water reached a particular level, it
 6   runs over the boards?
 7       A.    We don't call that runoff by definition.
 8       Q.    What is that?
 9       A.    That's water released from the impoundment.
10       Q.    Is the difference that one is water that's
11   pumped and one is the water that's released, pumped
12   out?  One is pumped out and one is just released?
13       A.    The difference is impoundment holds the
14   rainfall.  That's what it is.
15       Q.    Until it's released; is that correct?
16       A.    Until it's released.
17       Q.    Doesn't the EAA hold its rainfall in until
18   it's released?
19       A.    It's a different system.  There is
20   agricultural area where you have to get rid of that
21   water in most cases quickly, and you can tell what is
22   runoff and what is not.
23             And the impoundment water is accumulated
24   and released to a certain program, which the
25   definition of runoff changes.


                                                 278

 1       Q.    The Rotenberger tract, though, was used in
 2   determining the calculation of runoff; is that
 3   correct?
 4       A.    I don't know that.
 5       Q.    Well, can you make reference to your study
 6   to make the determination?
 7       A.    I didn't calculate runoff for the
 8   Rotenberger or the Holey Land.
 9       Q.    I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.
10       A.    I didn't calculate runoff for the
11   Rotenberger.
12       Q.    Why not?  Is it an impoundment?
13       A.    No, it is not.
14       Q.    Is it part of the EAA?
15       A.    That's how it is with the rest of the EAA.
16       Q.    Is there a water runoff from the
17   Rotenberger tract that is pumped out into the Water
18   Conservation Areas?
19       A.    Not to my -- from the Rotenberger?
20       Q.    Yes.
21       A.    Repeat the question.
22       Q.    Is there water runoff from the Rotenberger
23   tract that is ultimately pumped out into the Water
24   Conservation Areas?
25       A.    I have never attempted to see which area of


                                                 279

 1   the EAA is generating the runoff for which specific
 2   area.
 3       Q.    How do you determine what the runoff is per
 4   inch or by inch measurement?
 5       A.    That's another way of expressing the
 6   volumetric runoff data.  And as I said earlier, you
 7   can group the whole area that contributed to the
 8   runoff and then get an average depth of water you are
 9   holding.
10       Q.    And you are able to exclude the Holey Land
11   because it's leveed off; is that correct?
12       A.    Separate basin.
13       Q.    Except for the seepage which you have shown
14   coming out which is substantially giving the area of
15   the Holey Land; is that correct?
16       A.    The seepage that comes out from the Holey
17   Land was substantial with regard to the Holey Land.
18       Q.    Right.  But you can't exclude the
19   Rotenberger tract, because it's not leveed off; is
20   that correct?
21       A.    That's my understanding.
22       Q.    So when you are calculating runoff on a per
23   inch basis, what area do you use to divide the water
24   by?
25       A.    Everything except the Holey Land.


                                                 280

 1       Q.    So now I go back to my original question.
 2   Is the Rotenberger tract used to determine the per
 3   inch basis of runoff?
 4       A.    The per inch basis of runoff calculation is
 5   an option to express in terms of inch, but the actual
 6   volume runoff from the EAA still stays the same.
 7       Q.    Right, I appreciate that.
 8       A.    In that analysis, the Rotenberger was
 9   included as part of the whole area that contributes
10   to the runoff, and that area is also included to
11   convert runoff into inches in one of the studies.
12       Q.    Understood.  And in fact, the water that
13   runs off the Rotenberger tract is part of the water
14   that's pumped off into the Water Conservation Areas?
15       A.    That's what I understand.
16       Q.    Drawing your attention, sir, to Exhibit
17   Number 6, and on that same page number 7, which is
18   entitled Results and Conclusions, the final sentence
19   says, "While the results of this study can be used to
20   estimate the bimonthly expected occurrences of the
21   hydrologic parameters of the EAA, detail land use,
22   water management, evapotranspiration data and further
23   analysis is required to attach confidence levels on
24   the simulation results."
25             Has that been done?


                                                 281

 1       A.    It's not done.
 2       Q.    Are you doing it right now?
 3       A.    I haven't decided when to do it.  If there
 4   is an available time, I would like to do that study.
 5       Q.    Have you done any of the research necessary
 6   to go ahead and attach confidence levels to your
 7   water budget as yet?
 8       A.    To which document are you referring?
 9       Q.    To any of the documents that we have
10   discussed over the past day and a half.
11       A.    What do you mean by confidence level?
12       Q.    Okay, let me go back to Exhibit 10 at page
13   seven.  What do you mean by confidence levels on page
14   7 in the last sentence we just read?
15       A.    Exhibit 10?
16       Q.    I'm sorry, Exhibit 6, I apologize, page 7,
17   Results and Conclusions, final sentence.
18             What did you mean by confidence levels?
19       A.    That is confidence level as it is defined
20   in statistics.
21       Q.    What is your understanding of that?
22       A.    The statistical level of confidence you put
23   on certain simulation results, the chance that you
24   expect it to happen is more or less, that's the
25   definition of confidence level.  When you do


                                                 282

 1   synthetic studies, you usually come up with some
 2   percentage of confidence level that this could happen
 3   or not.
 4       Q.    When you do an historical study or model
 5   where you have missing data and there must be
 6   estimation of data and you don't know all of the
 7   inputs, for instance, evapotranspiration, rainfall,
 8   do you also in that instance calculate confidence
 9   levels?
10       A.    No, I don't put confidence level in that
11   kind of study normally.
12       Q.    Why not?
13       A.    If you have a better study, you will use
14   that.  If you don't have it -- if you have it, if you
15   have a better study, you use the other one.
16             If you don't have it, you use this one,
17   because it is historical-based study.  There is no
18   confidence level attached to it.
19       Q.    Okay.  Would you be able to, drawing your
20   attention to Exhibit 2, would you be able to put a
21   confidence level on Exhibit 2?
22       A.    As I said, I can't put a confidence level
23   on that historical study unless there is some
24   reference to compare to.  This is statistics.  That
25   is statistical procedure for the synthetic data that


                                                 283

 1   can be applied and the confidence level can be
 2   different.
 3       Q.    Drawing your attention if I could to
 4   Exhibit 7 which was marked yesterday to your
 5   deposition, on page 4 of that document, which is
 6   entitled Part 2, Comments On The Draft Report By
 7   Abtew and Khanal, the second sentence of the first
 8   paragraph says, "More detailed comments have been
 9   written in two copies of the draft report and have
10   been submitted to Ginger Brooks."
11             Do you have the more detailed comments on
12   the draft report?
13       A.    I think I submitted to you.
14             (Discussion held off the record.)
15             (Thereupon, a recess was taken.)
16   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
17       Q.    Dr. Abtew, do you recall whether or not you
18   still have the two copies of the draft report with
19   more detailed comments?
20       A.    I have to check.
21       Q.    Reference is made in this Exhibit 7 in the
22   first page to a comparison of the water budget for
23   the EAA that you prepared and the water budget for
24   the EAA developed by the, using the South Florida
25   Water Management Model.


                                                 284

 1             Have you ever seen the water budget
 2   prepared by the South Florida Water Management Model?
 3       A.    Yes.
 4       Q.    Have you ever compared it to your water
 5   budget?
 6       A.    It came out after I did my water budget.
 7       Q.    Did you ever compare it to your water
 8   budget?
 9       A.    Yes, I did compare it with my water budget.
10       Q.    How did it compare?
11       A.    I don't remember.
12       Q.    Did you make any notes or memo regarding
13   that comparison?
14       A.    No.
15       Q.    Do you still have a copy of that water
16   budget?
17       A.    I don't know.
18       Q.    Well, when did you see the water budget
19   last that was prepared using the South Florida Water
20   Management Model?
21       A.    It's a brief, has a table or graphics which
22   summarizes.
23       Q.    Whichever form.
24       A.    And the thick document, I don't remember a
25   thick document.  This is a result of model run.  Mine


                                                 285

 1   is a summary of historical data.
 2             So it is not an equal for comparison, so it
 3   was not of great concern for me to compare the two.
 4       Q.    My question was when did you last see the
 5   water budget prepared using the South Florida Water
 6   Management Model?
 7       A.    I don't remember, but a long time back.
 8       Q.    A long time back would mean approximately
 9   how long ago?
10       A.    Well, maybe a year.
11       Q.    Did you see it after it was recalibrated?
12       A.    I don't remember if it was after
13   recalibration.
14       Q.    Perhaps we can read back your testimony,
15   but it was my understanding you had said you saw the
16   budget prepared using the South Florida Water
17   Management Model after you had completed your budget;
18   is that correct?
19       A.    That's right.
20       Q.    When did you complete your budget?
21       A.    I don't remember when it was completed.  I
22   don't remember when the first draft came out.
23       Q.    You are referring to the first draft then?
24       A.    That's right.
25       Q.    Having reviewed the South Florida Water


                                                 286

 1   Management Model budget while you were still in the
 2   stages of preparing the or revising drafts of your
 3   budget, did you make any changes as a result of that
 4   review?
 5       A.    Not at all.
 6       Q.    Why not?
 7       A.    Because there is no reason to.
 8       Q.    You made reference that yours is an
 9   historical water budget; is that correct?
10       A.    That's right.
11       Q.    Is it your understanding that the South
12   Florida Water Management Model is something other
13   than an historical budget?
14       A.    I haven't run the model, so I can't label
15   it except as a result of model run I can't categorize
16   it as historical or not historical.
17       Q.    Well, you had said there was no means of
18   comparison since it was not an historical model.
19             Is it your understanding now that you
20   really don't know whether it's an historical model?
21       A.    I don't know, I have to look for the data
22   that was used for the model run and the whole details
23   to make comparison with my water budget.
24             MR. KOBELINSKI:  Will you mark that?


                                                 287

 1             (The document was marked
 2             Abtew Exh. No. 14.)
 3   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
 4       Q.    Dr. Abtew, I'm showing you what's been
 5   marked as Exhibit 14 to your deposition, which is a
 6   document, the first page which is a memorandum from
 7   Jayantha Okeysekera and Cal Neidrauer to Tony
 8   Federico dated October 24, 1991, Bates number 0932181
 9   through 0932210.
10             Have you ever seen this document before,
11   doctor?
12       A.    I have seen this document.
13       Q.    Drawing your attention to the first page of
14   the document -- excuse me, the second page of the
15   document, which is Bates number 0932182, in the first
16   paragraph under Introduction, the second to last
17   sentence states, "Water budgets are typically
18   developed for both average conditions and for a
19   particular time window such as a drought period."
20             Is that essentially what you did for your
21   water budget?
22       A.    I don't understand that statement.
23       Q.    Well, are water budgets typically developed
24   for average conditions?
25       A.    For all conditions, water budgets are


                                                 288

 1   developed for all conditions.
 2       Q.    In preparing a water budget, do you
 3   typically also prepare a budget for a particular time
 4   window such as a drought period?
 5       A.    If you are interested in a certain period.
 6       Q.    Is that typical?
 7             MS. BIRCH:  Object to form.
 8             THE WITNESS:  It depends on the user.  You
 9        can prepare it for a flood period, you can
10        prepare it for a dry period or for your
11        historical period.  So it depends on the
12        objective.
13   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
14       Q.    So essentially, as the document says, water
15   budgets are typically developed for both average
16   conditions and for a particular time window?
17       A.    I can say for all periods.
18       Q.    I don't know what you mean by all periods.
19       A.    It depends on the interest of the person
20   who is developing it.
21       Q.    As to whether they want a particular time
22   period or an average budget?
23       A.    Or a dry period or a wet period.
24       Q.    But a dry period would be a particular time
25   period, wouldn't it?


                                                 289

 1       A.    As a time period, it could be a particular
 2   period of interest.
 3       Q.    As could a flood period?
 4       A.    That is also one period.
 5       Q.    I'm trying to understand what is it you
 6   disagree or don't understand about the sentence then,
 7   doctor?
 8       A.    Well, this is not complete.
 9       Q.    What should it state to make it complete?
10       A.    I can't suggest for them.  That's
11   somebody's statement.
12       Q.    In your opinion, what would you add to make
13   it complete?
14       A.    Water budget is prepared for all scenarios,
15   all periods, historical periods, dry periods, wet
16   periods, short periods, long periods, all periods of
17   interest.  It's not only the average in the dry.
18       Q.    I'm not sure --
19       A.    That's a difficult statement.
20       Q.    I think you are just reading it with a very
21   narrow -- it says "for a particular time window such
22   as a drought period."  It does not say a drought
23   period.  It just says such as.  It's using an example
24   period.
25       A.    That would have been more explanatory.


                                                 290

 1       Q.    Now in the following paragraph it goes on
 2   to state, "For planning purposes, two types of water
 3   budgets can be defined:  (A) Historical water
 4   budgets; and (B), simulated water budgets."
 5             Is that correct?
 6       A.    I didn't write this document and I don't
 7   recall -- well, I have to read the document and
 8   refresh my memory to comment on every line.
 9       Q.    I'm just asking generally for planning
10   purposes whether water budgets can be defined as
11   historical water budgets and simulated water budgets,
12   whether that's correct.
13             MS. BIRCH:  I object on the ground that
14        this witness isn't competent to testify as to
15        the planning purposes.  He is not in the
16        planning department.
17   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
18       Q.    What other types of water budgets are there
19   other than historical and simulated?
20       A.    You can go maybe theoretical water budgets
21   can be included as one.  In some cases it can be
22   similar to the water budget, depending on what you
23   are doing.
24       Q.    What would be the difference between a
25   simulated and a theoretical water budget?


                                                 291

 1       A.    It would depend on how you generate your
 2   data.  Based on historical data, you can simulate
 3   many areas of data, or if you don't have any
 4   hydrology data for an area, you can start from
 5   theoretical grounds and make up a theoretical, take a
 6   theoretical approach to get your data.
 7       Q.    Drawing your attention to Bates page
 8   0932185 of this Exhibit 14, and the second paragraph
 9   in the Results section, the third sentence states,
10   "It can also be used to make relative comparisons,"
11   it referring to the model water budget, "can also be
12   used to make relative comparisons between the
13   regional and sub-regional water supply plans.  For
14   this purpose, a simulated water budget would have to
15   be developed for a selected structural and
16   operational alternative as opposed to the historical
17   water budget reported here."
18             Does that refresh your recollection as to
19   whether the water budget prepared using the South
20   Florida Water Management Model was an historical
21   water budget as opposed to a simulated water budget?
22       A.    I have to read the whole document.
23       Q.    Please feel free to do so.
24             (Discussion held off the record.)
25             THE WITNESS:  What was the question?


                                                 292

 1             MR. KOBELINSKI:  Could you read back the
 2        question, please?
 3             (Thereupon, a portion of the record
 4              was read by the reporter.)
 5             THE WITNESS:  I can't label it as
 6        historical water budget.
 7   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
 8       Q.    Why not?
 9       A.    Because that's what is cited in the
10   document on page 0932185, the first paragraph, "The
11   ET computed by the South Florida Water Management
12   Model and reported here does not include this
13   supplemental water use, and therefore it is likely
14   smaller than the actual evapotranspiration from the
15   selected urban areas.  If an adjustment to ET is made
16   to account for the supplemental use, the well field
17   pumpage figures as produced in the water budget must
18   also be adjusted.  It is noted that the model
19   simulates pumpage only from the major utility well
20   fields and the remaining withdrawals."
21             And on page 0932184, "The components of
22   evapotranspiration, surface water inflow and
23   outflow --"
24       Q.    Pardon me, doctor, you have got to identify
25   where it is you are reading, because I'm trying to


                                                 293

 1   follow, but I can't even find it.
 2       A.    The paragraph which starts, the second
 3   paragraph, "For each --"
 4       Q.    Thank you.
 5       A.    "The components of evapotranspiration,
 6   surface water inflow and outflow, ground water inflow
 7   and outflow (including levee seepage), and both
 8   surface and ground water storage changes were
 9   estimated from the model."
10             So a simulation based on historical data is
11   not the same level of historical data as the other
12   document which didn't involve all these things as
13   estimated.
14       Q.    Page 0932185, and that's regarding well
15   fields, isn't that discussing the model's water
16   budget for the urban area on the lower east coast and
17   doesn't have to do with the EAA?
18       A.    That's right, but that's how it functioned.
19       Q.    I was referring to the model's EAA budget.
20       A.    The whole model is run through the whole
21   region and the results are computed for each
22   sub-region.
23       Q.    Is it your understanding then that they did
24   not add in the structure inflow data into the model?
25             That wasn't historic data for the EAA I'm


                                                 294

 1   referring to now.
 2       A.    Let me get to the EAA section.
 3       Q.    I believe you will find it at Bates page
 4   0932191.
 5       A.    On that page the EAA that was used in this
 6   study was a different size area than the one which
 7   was used in document two.
 8       Q.    Did they use different structural inflows?
 9       A.    Different area.
10       Q.    I understand that.
11       A.    The area is different.
12       Q.    I understand that.  Do they use different
13   structural inflows?
14             MS. BIRCH:  Objection, lack of foundation.
15             THE WITNESS:  I have to study the data they
16        used to determine if it was the same data that
17        they have used.
18   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
19       Q.    Well, what other data could they have used?
20       A.    I don't know.
21       Q.    Well, do you know what data is available
22   for, for instance, S-352?
23       A.    I have to study what data they used and how
24   they run the model and what the model does and how
25   these numbers are generated to comment on those


                                                 295

 1   numbers.
 2       Q.    I'm not asking you to comment on the
 3   numbers.  I'm asking what data sets are available for
 4   inflows at S-352?
 5       A.    For what period?
 6       Q.    For the period from 1979 through 1990.
 7       A.    This data should be available in the
 8   database, the District database.
 9       Q.    What other data is available?
10       A.    I don't know.
11       Q.    Do you know whether the USGS has reported
12   data for S-352?
13       A.    I don't remember how many sets of data
14   there are for that structure.
15       Q.    Do you recall whether anyone else has a
16   data set for that structure?
17       A.    I don't recall.
18       Q.    How many data sets are available for S-5,
19   the S-5 structures?
20       A.    I can't tell.
21       Q.    Do you recall any?
22       A.    I can't tell how many records is there for
23   each structure without seeing the database.
24       Q.    That's what I'm asking, sir.  How many
25   databases are there for the S-5 structures?


                                                 296

 1       A.    There is only one database in the District.
 2       Q.    Is there any other database for the S-5
 3   structures other than the District?
 4       A.    I don't know.  USGS has data.
 5       Q.    In fact, you used some of the USGS data for
 6   the S-5; is that correct?
 7       A.    Yes.
 8       Q.    So that's one other data set.
 9             Does the Corps have a data set for the S-5
10   structure?
11       A.    I don't know.
12       Q.    Is there anyone else you know besides USGS
13   and the District?
14       A.    I don't know.
15       Q.    What about for the S-6?  Who has data sets
16   for the S-6 that you are aware of?
17       A.    I don't know, except the District database.
18       Q.    What about USGS?
19       A.    I have to check.
20       Q.    Did you use any USGS data for S-6?
21       A.    I have to check in the document or in the
22   database to see if there are USGS stations.
23       Q.    Is there any place you can check within the
24   document to determine that?
25       A.    I don't think it is labeled as USGS and


                                                 297

 1   District in my document.
 2             MS. BIRCH:  What was the last response?
 3             (Thereupon, a portion of the record
 4              was read by the reporter.)
 5             THE WITNESS:  I have to go to database to
 6        see how many of the structures have USGS label
 7        on the data and District label.
 8   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
 9       Q.    Would that be true of all the structures?
10       A.    Yes, I have to check with all the
11   structures.
12       Q.    Do you know what data was used for the
13   South Florida Water Management Model for structure
14   outflows?
15       A.    I don't remember exactly what data was
16   used.
17       Q.    If they used the same data, should they
18   have come out with the same figures you have?
19             MS. BIRCH:  Objection, calls for
20        speculation and conclusion.
21             THE WITNESS:  I don't know the data they
22        used and how the model operates and the
23        coefficients and all the assumptions they used.
24   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
25       Q.    What coefficients would you need to use to


                                                 298

 1   determine what outflows were given the database?
 2       A.    You have to know how they compute water
 3   through the system and everything that is quoted as
 4   assumption or as algorithm to say something on the
 5   results.
 6       Q.    Did you use some sort of coefficient to
 7   determine what the outflows were?
 8       A.    Not the outflows.  With regard to the
 9   outflows, you have to know how the model uses the
10   historical data with regard to flows and how does it
11   compute evapotranspiration, how does it compute
12   changing ground water state?  Because I think it is
13   part of the model operation.
14             So you have to have the detail how it is
15   run to comment on if these results are anything when
16   compared to the historical data.
17       Q.    All right.  If the SFWMM, South Florida
18   Water Management Model merely reports what the
19   structural outflows were without making any
20   coefficients or algorithms with it, should their data
21   match up with your data on what the, just the
22   discharges from the structures were?
23             MS. BIRCH:  Objection to relevancy and
24        objection to the witness not being competent to
25        testify as to the planning department's water


                                                 299

 1        budgets and also the conclusions that you are
 2        asking him to draw.
 3             THE WITNESS:  The period of record is not
 4        the same.  And what data they have used and what
 5        they did with the missing data, I don't know.
 6        So I'm not the one to ask these questions,
 7        because I didn't write this document.
 8   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
 9       Q.    So manipulation of missing data could have
10   an impact on what the outflows were from the
11   structures?
12       A.    It could, depending on how many missing
13   data for that specific period.
14       Q.    What data set did you use for the S-8
15   structure?
16       A.    It's in Exhibit 2 in my case.
17       Q.    Do you recall whether that was all District
18   data or did it include USGS data?
19       A.    I don't recall.  On page 0900260, Table 7
20   shows the number of data sources or DBKeys that were
21   used for S-8.
22       Q.    Would those be DBKeys for retrieving data
23   from the South Florida Water Management District?
24       A.    That's right.
25       Q.    Is there anywhere in your document that you


                                                 300

 1   reference use of the USGS flow structure data?
 2       A.    It's not referenced for every structure.
 3       Q.    Is it referenced for any structure?
 4       A.    The District database has both sources,
 5   both District data and USGS data, so you pull it out
 6   actually from the District database, whatever it is.
 7       Q.    And would these DBKeys be the ones you need
 8   to pull up both the District and the USGS data?
 9       A.    Yes, some of the DBKeys are USGS and some
10   are District in terms of --
11       Q.    Is there a way to distinguish which is
12   which?
13       A.    I can't tell without seeing the document.
14       Q.    How do you calculate net yield?
15       A.    The equations in, it is calculated as the
16   difference between runoff and supplemental water.
17       Q.    Where would I find that, sir?
18       A.    On page 0900289 in Exhibit 2.
19             MR. PERKO:  Could you refer to the draft
20        page?
21             THE WITNESS:  Draft page number 46.
22             MR. PERKO:  Thank you.
23   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
24       Q.    With regard to that on that page, draft
25   page 46, Bates number 0900289 on Exhibit 2, just


                                                 301

 1   reading the first three sentences of that paragraph
 2   under Net Yield states, "Net yield is the volume of
 3   water that is contributed to the EAA to the region's
 4   surface water."
 5       A.    By the EAA.
 6       Q.    Sorry, "by the EAA to the region's surface
 7   water.  The source of this water is the excess
 8   rainfall."
 9             And it goes on to state that "This water
10   yield is calculated as the difference between runoff
11   and supplemental water or as the positive difference
12   between outflows and inflows."
13             What outflows and inflows are referenced in
14   that second portion of the calculation?
15       A.    The daily outflows are the outflows which
16   leave the agricultural area, and the daily inflows
17   are the inflows which come into the ag area.
18       Q.    And that would be in reference to the
19   structures we were just discussing, which I believe
20   you had referenced were on, for instance, page 18,
21   Bates page 0900260?
22       A.    Yes, from the structures.
23       Q.    And drawing your attention to draft page
24   43, Table 14, which is at Bates page 0900286 of the
25   same Exhibit Number 2, how is the net yield


                                                 302

 1   calculated there, in the same manner?
 2       A.    Yes, as a difference between runoff and
 3   irrigation water used or supplemental water used.
 4       Q.    Would there be any difference between
 5   calculating net yield as the difference between
 6   runoff and supplemental water use as opposed to
 7   calculating net yield as the difference between
 8   outflows and inflows?
 9       A.    There would not be difference.
10       Q.    Now in this Table 14 the first column or
11   water year, what is the water year you are referring
12   to?
13             Is that as referenced on draft page
14   0900244, which states, "The water year is defined to
15   be that period beginning with November 1 and ending
16   on October 31 of each year"?
17             MS. BIRCH:  What page are you referring to
18        again?
19             MR. KOBELINSKI:  Draft page 2.
20             MS. BIRCH:  He hasn't gotten there yet.
21             THE WITNESS:  Yes, that's the period.
22   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
23       Q.    Okay.  Now 1989 and 1990 on Table 14 show a
24   zero net yield.
25             Do you know why?  Were there any factors


                                                 303

 1   that resulted in a zero net yield?
 2       A.    Those were dry years.  That's why there was
 3   no net yield.
 4       Q.    Am I correct that you just made reference
 5   to a Table 11 on draft page 34 bearing Bates number
 6   0900277?
 7       A.    That's right.
 8       Q.    With regard to that Table 11, what are
 9   estimated return periods?
10       A.    This is the probability of getting that
11   size of rainfall.  Every ten years you get -- when
12   you get it once every 10 years, the return period is
13   called 10-year rain return period.
14             MR. KOBELINSKI:  Let's take a five-minute
15        break.
16             (Thereupon, a recess was taken.)
17   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
18       Q.    Dr. Abtew, I draw your attention to Exhibit
19   Number 7, page 4 of that exhibit.
20             Approximately the third paragraph from the
21   bottom states, this is comments on your report,
22   "Since ET was computed by three different methods, it
23   was not clear from the report which ET was
24   recommended as the ET for the water budget.  It makes
25   sense that the ET computed using the water balance


                                                 304

 1   equation (Equation 44) best represents the actual ET,
 2   but this is not clear from the report."
 3             In your opinion, which is the best method
 4   for calculating ET given the methods referenced in
 5   your report?
 6       A.    I haven't considered all the reverse
 7   opinions on the report yet.
 8       Q.    I wasn't asking you for other opinions.
 9             In your opinion, which of the -- well, how
10   many different methods did you use to calculate ET?
11       A.    Just two.
12       Q.    One being the theoretical?
13       A.    Yes.
14       Q.    What would you refer to the other one as?
15       A.    Water budget ET.
16       Q.    Would you refer to both those estimates or
17   calculations?  What's the more accurate term?
18       A.    Both are estimates.
19       Q.    Okay.  Which of those two estimates in your
20   opinion is the more accurate?
21             MS. BIRCH:  Object to form.
22             THE WITNESS:  It's complementary, both are
23        complementary.
24             The theoretical is a check, if you are out
25        of the bounds of what could be theoretically,


                                                 305

 1        and the actual ET has possible errors in your
 2        rainfall estimation, outflow measurements, has
 3        possible error.  Theoretical is a reference.
 4        Until you have measured ET, the theoretical is
 5        used as a reference, to estimate what is
 6        expected in theoretical.
 7   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
 8       Q.    Well, have you now measured ET?
 9       A.    Not yet.
10       Q.    When you are referring to measuring ET, are
11   you referring to, for instance, the use of a
12   lysimeter?
13       A.    That's right.
14       Q.    Do you intend to use the lysimeter to
15   measure the ET in the EAA other than for marsh
16   plants?
17       A.    I would recommend so, but I don't have the
18   plan to do that.
19       Q.    Which estimate of ET that you have done,
20   the theoretical and the water budget, do you have the
21   greater degree of confidence?
22             MS. BIRCH:  Objection to the assumptions
23        that the question requires him to make.
24             THE WITNESS:  I have used the theoretical
25        ET to calculate water budget for the Holey Land,


                                                 306

 1        and so I don't see any reason to put confidence
 2        level with just one piece of study out of one
 3        unit of study.
 4   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
 5       Q.    Does the theoretical ET estimate match the
 6   water budget ET estimate for the Everglades
 7   Agricultural Area?
 8       A.    It's fairly close.
 9       Q.    Where would I be able to compare, how would
10   I compare the two using your report, Exhibit
11   Number 2?
12       A.    On page, draft page number 56, which is
13   0900299, and in the last paragraph, the fifth line
14   from the bottom.
15       Q.    And are you referring to the portion of the
16   paragraph that reads --
17       A.    "The average consumptive use to pan
18   evaporation ratio for the study period was .60.  The
19   ratio of water balance consumptive use to pan
20   evaporation is lower than the ratio of theoretical
21   evapotranspiration to pan evaporation which is .72."
22       Q.    For the water budget ET estimate, was pan
23   evaporation used as the method of calculating ET?
24       A.    For the theoretical?
25       Q.    No, for the water budget estimate.


                                                 307

 1       A.    No, just flow of water.
 2       Q.    Well, the .60 as compared to .72 that you
 3   are referring to, isn't the .60 the comparison or the
 4   ratio of area's consumptive use to pan evaporation
 5   ratio?
 6       A.    Yes, so the difference is one tenth.  In
 7   the coefficient it is about one-tenth.
 8       Q.    Okay.  What is pan evaporation used for, in
 9   which estimate?
10       A.    In the theoretical evapotranspiration.
11       Q.    In the reference there to the sentence
12   above the .60 it states "the average consumptive use
13   to pan evaporation ratio."
14             What does average consumptive use refer to
15   there?  Is that the water budget ET estimate?
16       A.    Yes, that's correct.
17       Q.    Up above in Table 18 you have in the first
18   column Water Year and the second column Water Balance
19   ET.
20             That's the consumptive use table?
21       A.    Yes.
22       Q.    And ultimately the average of that is
23   compared to the pan evaporation which is in the next
24   column is where you get the .60; is that correct?
25       A.    Yes.


                                                 308

 1       Q.    Is there a like table which provides the
 2   .72 figure?
 3       A.    In Table 9, draft page 27.  On the last
 4   column, the last number is .72.  That's the average
 5   for all the crops, area weighted average that you
 6   have, you have to multiply the pan data with.
 7             MR. KOBELINSKI:  Off the record.
 8             (Discussion held off the record.)
 9   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
10       Q.    Dr. Abtew, Table 18, water balance ET in
11   inches is 39.29; is that correct?
12       A.    That's my estimate.
13       Q.    Okay.  And now Table 9 does not have the
14   same inch calculation, but to back into that inch
15   calculation, would you take the .72, which is the
16   weighted average, and multiply that times the average
17   pan evaporation, which is 65.60?
18       A.    That's right.
19       Q.    Which is 47.232, the difference being 7.942
20   inches; is that correct?
21       A.    Yes.
22             MS. BIRCH:  Where do you see those figures?
23             MR. KOBELINSKI:  We had to back into that.
24             Would you like me to go through it again?
25             MS. BIRCH:  I just was looking on a


                                                 309

 1        document.  It's not on a document?
 2             MR. KOBELINSKI:  No, the two tables are
 3        reported differently.  One is in inches one is
 4        in weighted averages.
 5             MS. BIRCH:  So you are using your
 6        calculator?
 7             MR. KOBELINSKI:  Yes, backing into it in
 8        the manner which Dr. Abtew has agreed with.
 9   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
10       Q.    Is that correct?
11       A.    Yes.  One thing that we have to know is
12   like the runoff, the volume of water was distributed
13   to a certain area to get this water budget ET.
14             Again, to estimate the actual crop land or
15   area that was evapotranspiring, it was subjective
16   judgment.  I had to estimate actually every day how
17   much of the area was doing evapotranspiration.
18             So when you convert from acre feet to inch,
19   the same problem like in the runoff arises here, too.
20   You have to make judgment how much a rise actual acre
21   is evapotranspiring, so that determines the amount
22   you are going to get in inch.
23             But if we go back to the acre feet or
24   volumetric data, it stays the same.  It doesn't
25   change, because it is computed out of historical flow


                                                 310

 1   data.  So this is a subjective number.  It's not
 2   absolute.
 3       Q.    Well, taking the difference between the two
 4   estimates, one averages 39.29, which is the water
 5   budget estimate; is that correct?
 6       A.    That's right.
 7       Q.    And the other estimate is 47.232, which is
 8   the theoretical estimate?
 9       A.    Yes.
10       Q.    Which that difference is 7.942 inches.
11       A.    Uh huh.
12       Q.    Okay.  Taking that, if I want to convert
13   that to acre feet, as I understand from what you were
14   telling me yesterday, I divide that by 12, which is
15   equal to 0.66183333333.
16       A.    Feet.
17       Q.    Feet.  And then I would multiply that by
18   the study area; is that correct, in acres?
19       A.    If you think the whole study area
20   evaporated your water.
21             One thing, when you do the inch
22   calculation, it's very tricky.  The rainfall has to
23   be computed in a certain area that is connected, and
24   the area that is evaporating has to be determined.
25   So it's not simple.


                                                 311

 1       Q.    In Table 14, which is on draft page 43,
 2   Bates number 0900286, where you are comparing net
 3   yield to rainfall, that net yield was for the entire
 4   basin, study basin, right, the 592,000 acres?
 5       A.    Up to 1987.  And the Holey Land is taken
 6   out.  It doesn't matter, because if you did it with
 7   acre feet, it doesn't matter, because it is a volume
 8   of water from where it comes.  It doesn't matter.
 9   The whole trick is when you convert this volume water
10   into depth of an area.
11       Q.    Going back to Table 18 then, the first
12   column says Water Balance ET in inches.
13             How do I know how many acres those inches
14   would cover or evapotranspire from?
15       A.    You just mix subjective calculation of the
16   area.  The actual volume of the water in acre feet is
17   computed by equation 44 on page, draft page 25.
18       Q.    And that says ET is equal to rain plus
19   canal inflow minus canal outflow?
20       A.    Yes.
21       Q.    The rain that is referenced in equation 44
22   is the rain on the entire study area, isn't it?
23       A.    Yes.
24       Q.    Then why would you decrease the area for
25   determining what to multiply the second column of


                                                 312

 1   Table 18 by to determine acre feet?
 2       A.    If you want to calculate average ET from
 3   the whole area, you don't have to change any area.
 4   You can divide it by the whole area.
 5       Q.    So I can use the 592,000 figure to find the
 6   average acre feet of ET?
 7       A.    From the whole area?
 8       Q.    From the whole area.
 9       A.    Yes, that should give that.
10       Q.    And that entire area is 592,960; is that
11   correct?
12       A.    Yes.
13       Q.    So going back to where we were before, the
14   ET by the water balance method resulted in an average
15   of 39.29 inches of ET, and the ET by the theoretical
16   method was 47.232 inches of ET.
17             And subtracting one from the other results
18   in a difference of 7.942 inches, which we have
19   divided by 12, which gave us our figure of
20   0.66183333333.
21             Now multiply that by the 592,960 acres to
22   determine the difference in acre feet; is that
23   correct?
24       A.    Yes.
25       Q.    Which would be 392,448 acre feet difference


                                                 313

 1   between the two ET estimates.
 2             Is that a large difference, roughly 392,000
 3   acre feet?
 4       A.    It's a lot of water.
 5       Q.    Given that difference with your
 6   calculations, the difference between the average ET
 7   balance by acre feet, which do you feel is the more
 8   accurate estimate?
 9             MS. BIRCH:  Objection, asked and answered.
10             I also object to the form on the assumption
11        that one is more accurate than the other.
12             THE WITNESS:  Both are presented for
13        reference in this document, and the actual value
14        could be in between, and until it is measured, I
15        think both are present to produce a background
16        with the perspective being theoretical and one
17        being product of water budget study.
18   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
19       Q.    One is clearly, though, more accurate than
20   the other by necessity, right, unless ET happens to
21   be right smack in the middle, which would be
22   approximately 181,000 acre feet over and above the
23   water budget ET?
24             MS. BIRCH:  Object to form.


                                                 314

 1   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
 2       Q.    Is that correct?
 3       A.    Again, as I said, the actual historical
 4   data from the whole area can be computed from
 5   equation 44, the rainfall, converted into acre feet
 6   of rainfall.  Then you would have a volume of water
 7   that has evaporated directly in acre feet from the
 8   whole area.
 9       Q.    Let me ask you this question then.
10             In equation 44, which is the means of
11   determining the water budget estimate, that is, if I
12   recall correctly, rain plus structure inflow, less
13   structure outflow; is that correct?
14       A.    Yes.
15       Q.    Now the rain that you used in equation 44,
16   did you use the same estimate for rain in determining
17   the theoretical ET?
18       A.    No, the rainfall is not part of the
19   theoretical estimate.
20       Q.    Instead, that's what we went through
21   yesterday with all the coefficients; is that correct?
22       A.    Yes, uh huh.
23       Q.    Dr. Abtew, with regard to negative flows
24   from the S-5A and S-5AW structures, how did you
25   determine what the source of the flows were and


                                                 315

 1   whether or not the flows went into the EAA as opposed
 2   to into the West Palm Beach Canal?
 3       A.    Which structures specifically?
 4       Q.    The ones at the head of the Water
 5   Conservation Area 1, S-5A and S-5AW, I believe it is.
 6       A.    In the District database there is a data
 7   for both S-5A pump station and S-5AW culvert.
 8             If the daily data is positive, it means
 9   water is leaving the ag area.  If it is negative, it
10   means it's coming to the ag area.
11       Q.    But how would you determine the source of
12   the water, whether it was by L-8, C-51 or WCA-1?
13       A.    For this study, I didn't have to determine
14   that, because all my interest was how much
15   came into the EAA.
16       Q.    Well, if you recall, yesterday we were
17   talking about your calculations of what percentage of
18   the water that came into the EAA was from the WCAs,
19   and you had calculated it as 1.7 percent; is that
20   correct?
21       A.    Yes.
22       Q.    How did you determine whether or not water
23   was coming out of WCA-1 in calculating that 1.7
24   percent?
25       A.    In that study it is mentioned only the


                                                 316

 1   Conservation Area 2 flows through structures S-6,
 2   S-7, S-8 and S-150 without including the S-5A
 3   complex.
 4       Q.    The structures that allow inflow from the
 5   Lake Okeechobee into the agricultural areas are
 6   hurricane gates; is that correct?
 7       A.    Yes.
 8       Q.    How accurate do you believe the recorded or
 9   reported flows for those gates are?
10       A.    I don't know.
11       Q.    Did you do anything to determine the
12   accuracy?
13       A.    I haven't done anything to determine how
14   accurate the data is.
15       Q.    With regard to the pump stations, various
16   pump stations with discharge and inflow data you
17   used, did you ever check the pump ratings used by the
18   agencies to calculate the discharge?
19       A.    I haven't checked the accuracy of the
20   operation of the structures.
21       Q.    Dr. Abtew, with regard to your expected
22   expert testimony at trial, is your testimony limited
23   to presenting the water budget or will you be
24   actually using the water budget in analysis of any
25   other feature or issue involved in this action?


                                                 317

 1       A.    I don't understand the question.
 2       Q.    You have prepared a water budget for the
 3   EAA; is that correct?
 4       A.    That's right.
 5       Q.    Do you intend to use that water budget for
 6   the purposes of conducting any additional research or
 7   for coming to any additional expert opinion?
 8       A.    I don't know.
 9       Q.    Well, have you been told that you are to do
10   or testify as regarding additional matters?
11       A.    Right now the only expert testimony I am
12   going to provide is on EAA water budget.
13             I don't know in the future what area I am
14   going to be expert witness on.
15       Q.    Will you be providing expert testimony on
16   the phosphorus loads from the EAA or going into the
17   EAA?
18       A.    I'm not asked, I am not scheduled for that.
19       Q.    Will you be giving an expert opinion as to
20   the impacts, if any, of BMPs upon the EAA water
21   budget?
22       A.    I don't know.
23       Q.    Have you prepared an expert opinion as to
24   that as of this time?
25       A.    I am not asked to give expert opinion on


                                                 318

 1   that subject until now.
 2       Q.    Do you have an expert opinion as to the
 3   impact, if any, of BMPs upon the EAA water budget at
 4   this time?
 5       A.    I don't want to determine any subject that
 6   I am able to be expert, give expert testimony on
 7   without clearly reading the area that I have to
 8   testify on.  So I can't rule out any subject right
 9   now.
10       Q.    No, I'm not asking you to rule out a
11   subject.
12             My question is do you currently right now
13   as you sit at this table have an expert opinion as to
14   what impact, if any, the BMPs that are proposed in
15   40E-63 will have upon the EAA water budget?
16       A.    I haven't studied that problem.  I haven't
17   determined, I haven't determined my opinions.
18       Q.    Do you have an opinion as to the
19   effectiveness of the BMPs that are referred to in
20   40E-63?
21       A.    I don't remember what are mentioned in
22   there.
23       Q.    So you have no expert opinion on the
24   effectiveness of those BMPs at this time?
25       A.    What I said is I haven't prepared my


                                                 319

 1   opinions on that subject yet, but if I am called to,
 2   I have the potential to be expert witness in that
 3   area.
 4       Q.    Do you currently have an expert opinion as
 5   to what impact, if any, the Stormwater Treatment
 6   Areas referred to in the SWIM Plan would have upon
 7   the EAA water budget?
 8       A.    Repeat the question.
 9             (Thereupon, a portion of the record
10              was read by the reporter.)
11             THE WITNESS:  It might increase
12        evapotranspiration than what it used to be
13        before the development of the STAs are in place.
14   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
15       Q.    On what do you base that opinion?
16       A.    On the work I did on evapotranspiration, I
17   estimate that wetland systems and wetland vegetation
18   could transpire more than agricultural crops.
19       Q.    Do you have any opinion as to what the
20   difference in ET would be?
21       A.    I can't quantify the numbers now.
22       Q.    Do you have an opinion as to whether there
23   would be any other impact besides an impact upon ET
24   resulting from the STAs referred to in the SWIM Plan?
25   I'm referring to any impact upon the EAA water


                                                 320

 1   budget.
 2       A.    I haven't studied that area.
 3       Q.    Do you have any other expert opinions that
 4   you will be testifying about that we have yet to
 5   discuss?
 6       A.    Not that I know of.
 7             MR. KOBELINSKI:  Okay, I have no further
 8        questions.
 9             MR. PERKO:  Just a couple of follow-ups.
10                         REDIRECT (Wossenu Abtew, Ph.D.)
11   BY MR. PERKO:
12       Q.    I'm a bit confused about the discussion you
13   just had with Mr. Kobelinski.
14             Is it your understanding that your expert
15   testimony at the final hearing will include an
16   analysis of evapotranspiration of wetland plants?
17       A.    I am not scheduled for that.
18       Q.    You have been listed as an expert witness
19   in the area, and I'll quote from the District's
20   witness list, method of developing and results of EAA
21   water budget.
22       A.    Yes.
23       Q.    Could you explain to me what is meant by
24   the term EAA water budget?  Let me rephrase that.
25             Will you testify about historical water


                                                 321

 1   budget, or will it be a projected water budget,
 2   taking into consideration the effects of the STAs?
 3       A.    I haven't been asked to determine whether
 4   it is historical or future, but I can give my opinion
 5   on historical and what it could be under different
 6   circumstances.
 7       Q.    So are you saying that you may provide
 8   testimony about projected water budgets, but you
 9   don't know at this time?
10             MS. BIRCH:  Object to the form.
11             THE WITNESS:  I have done studies on
12        historical data, and I expect the testimony to
13        be on that, on my work, but as an opinion, I
14        just couldn't rule out expressing an opinion on
15        what could happen if certain things are
16        changing.
17             MR. PERKO:  Okay, no further questions.
18             (Discussion held off the record.)
19             MS. BIRCH:  I should put on the record
20        regarding our conversation yesterday about
21        Dr. Abtew's data, I did talk to Dr. Abtew about
22        that data and also talked with District staff to
23        make a determination of whether, one, it could
24        be retrieved; and two, if it had been produced.
25             I have been advised by my staff that they


                                                 322

 1        believe all of his data has been produced.
 2             If it has not, after making a thorough
 3        check this afternoon and probably Monday, if it
 4        has not been produced, I'll produce that, but I
 5        believe from what I have been told and has been
 6        indicated to me that the District has already
 7        produced that data.
 8             MR. KOBELINSKI:  When would the District
 9        have produced that data?
10             MS. BIRCH:  I don't want to speculate on a
11        date.  I have been told that it was produced a
12        certain date earlier in '92, but I don't want to
13        make that statement until I can confirm that
14        that's true.  It would have happened in 1992.
15             MR. KOBELINSKI:  And it would have been in
16        response to a request for production in the SWIM
17        proceedings?
18             MS. BIRCH:  Yes, or it might have, in fact,
19        it could have been a public records request.
20             I know that we have been asked by the
21        League and I was told that data was, if this is
22        the correct data we are thinking of and it's
23        indicated that it was the EAA water budget that
24        was developed by Dr. Abtew, that it was also
25        produced to the Co-Op, but I'll check.  And if


                                                 323

 1        it has not been produced, we'll provide that to
 2        you.
 3             MR. PERKO:  We need to check to make sure
 4        that it was produced both to the Co-Op and the
 5        League, because we don't necessarily get all the
 6        information that the League gets in the public
 7        records request.  That's been an ongoing problem
 8        that we have had.
 9             MS. BIRCH:  As I indicated, I said I would
10        provide it to both parties, and if it hasn't
11        already been produced, when we provide it, I'll
12        call you both, Mr. Perko and Mr. Kobelinski, and
13        advise you of the cost involved in producing
14        that.
15             MR. KOBELINSKI:  Just out of curiosity, why
16        would you be advising me as to the cost of
17        producing that?
18             MS. BIRCH:  Because there might be a cost
19        for the disk.  It may involve a number of hours.
20        Like if it hasn't been produced, then I'm told
21        it could be days to obtain the document.
22             MR. KOBELINSKI:  So counsel is aware, we
23        are producing numerous disks for our response
24        and have in the past and will be in the future;
25        and thus far, no one has attempted to pass on


                                                 324

 1        expense to the other part, but you can raise
 2        that if you would like to.  It could be
 3        addressed to the hearing officer.
 4             MS. BIRCH:  The cost involved if it were
 5        made pursuant to the public records request, you
 6        guys have been paid for that.  So depending on
 7        how it has been produced and if we need to
 8        update that, I'm just covering all bases so you
 9        make sure there will be no surprises.
10             MR. KOBELINSKI:  I understand.  I believe
11        the record clearly reflects what difficulty we
12        have had with regard to not having the data at
13        the deposition.
14             At this point in time, not having the data,
15        I cannot make an estimate as to whether or not
16        that will result in the need for a continuation
17        or for an additional deposition, but again, I
18        guess that can be addressed once the
19        determination is made as to what exact data the
20        witness has relied upon for his reports.
21             MR. PERKO:  In addition, I would add to
22        that that there may be a need to redepose
23        Dr. Abtew if indeed he formulates opinions or
24        intends to provide opinions at the final hearing
25        regarding the effects of the STAs or BMPs on the


                                                 325

 1        EAA water budget.
 2             MS. BIRCH:  Well, the District would, when
 3        the time occurs and if that will occur, the
 4        District will strenuously oppose any
 5        redeposition or continuing deposition of
 6        Dr. Abtew.
 7             MR. KOBELINSKI:  Thank you.
 8              (Witness excused.)
 9              (Thereupon, at 2:20 p.m.,
10               the deposition was concluded.)


                                                 326

 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 176 to 325, 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.


                                                 327

 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 ?