Deposition from SWIM Challenges

Case No. 92-3038, 92-3039, and 92-3040
 
  STYLE:         SCGCF v. SFWMD
                         FSCL v. SFWMD
                         FFVA v. SFWMD
  CASE:             92-3038, 92-3039, 92-3040
  REPORTER: Rachel W. Bridge
  DATE:           January 7, 1992

  NAVIGATION:
                      Index
                      Appearances
                      Exhibits
                      Proceeding
                      Page: 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
                      Reporter Certificate (page 174)
                      Deponant Certificate (page 175)

 

Return to Top                                                                                                                                     1

Division of Administrative Hearings

Department of Administration, State of Florida

 

SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE
of FLORIDA; ROTH FARMS, INC.; and
WEDGWORTH FRMS, Inc.,

Petitioners,

     V

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT
DISTRICT, an agency of the State
of Florida; et al.,

Respondents.


FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, INC.;
UNITED STATES SUGAR CORPORATION;
and NEW HOPE SOUTH, INC.,

Petitioners,

     V

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT
DISTRICT, an agency of the State
of Florida; et al.,

Respondents.


FLORIDA FRUIT and VEGETABLE
ASSOCIATION; LEWIS POPE FARMS;
W.E. SCHLECHTER & SONS, INC.,
and HUNDLEY FARMS, INC.,

Petitioners,

     V

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT
DISTRICT, an agency of the State
of Florida; et al.,

Respondents.


)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

DOAH Case
No. 92-3038

DOAH Case
No. 92-3039

        

DOAH Case
No. 92-3040      

 

VOLUME I
DEPOSITION OF WOSSENU ABTEW, Ph.D.

 

      Taken before Rachel W. Bridge, Professional
Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of
Florida at large, pursuant to notice of taking
deposition filed by the Plaintiffs in the above
cause.

- - -

Thursday, January 7, 1992
319 Clematis Street, Suite 500
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
10:00 a.m. - 5:05 p.m.

 


Return to Top                                                                                                                                     2

APPEARANCES:

On behalf of the Petitioners Florida Sugar
Cane League, Inc., United States Sugar Corp.,
and New South Hope, Inc.:
        Peeples, Earl & Blank, P.A.
        One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3636
        Two South Biscayne Boulevard
        Miami, Florida 33131
        By:    MARK T. KOBELINSKI, ESQUIRE

On behalf of the Respondent SFWMD:
        South Florida Water Management District
        3301 Gun Club Road
        West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680
        By:    JACQUELYN W. BIRCH, ESQUIRE

On behalf of Sugar Cane Growers:
Hopping, Boyd, Green & Sams
123 South Calhoun Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
By:    GARY V. PERKO, ESQUIRE

Also Present:    Morris Rosen
                        Andrew MacNeil

- - -

I N D E X

- - -

 

WITNESS: DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS
WOSSENU ABTEW, Ph.D.

 

BY MR.PERKO 4
BY MR. KOBELINSKI 70

Return to Top                                                                                                                                     3

 

E X H I B I T S

 

NUMBER

 

PAGE

 

DESCRIPTION

 

 

ABTEW EXHIBIT    1

 

5

 

Resume of Wossenu Abtew, Ph.D.

 

ABTEW EXHIBIT    2

 

21

 

Draft of EAA Water Budget Analysis
1979 - 1990

 

ABTEW EXHIBIT    3

 

23

 

Draft of EAA Water Budget Analysis

 

ABTEW EXHIBIT    4

 

32

 

Evapotranspiration Estimation
Method for South Florida

 

ABTEW EXHIBIT    5

 

51

 

Draft of Everglades Research Plan
7-10-92

 

ABTEW EXHIBIT    6

 

53

 

Statistical Analysis of Drainage
Generation from the EAA

 

ABTEW EXHIBIT    7

 

59

 

Memo of 10-26-92 from Ray Santee
and others to Leslie Wedderburn

 

ABTEW EXHIBIT    8

 

61

 

Memo of 9-30-92 from L. Wedderburn
to Distribution List

 

ABTEW EXHIBIT    9

 

62

 

Memo of 10-6-92 from J. Mulliken
to Kenneth G. Ammon

 

ABTEW EXHIBIT  10

 

66

 

May 1992 Draft of Water Budget
Analysis for the Holey Land

 

ABTEW EXHIBIT  11

 

149

 

Memo of 8-16-91 from Todd Tisdale
to Shawn P. Sculley

 

ABTEW EXHIBIT  12

 

165

 

Memo of 8-27-91 from J. Obeysekera
to Tony Federico

 


Return to Top                                                                                                                                     4

P R O C E E D I N G S

- - -

Thereupon,

Wossenu Abtew, Ph.D.,

being by the undersigned Notary Public first duly

sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

THE WITNESS: I do.

DIRECT (Wossenu Abtew, Ph.D.)

BY MR. PERKO:

Q.     Sir, could you please state your name, full

name for the record?

A.    Wossenu Abtew.

MR. KOBELINSKI: Can I just intervene for

one moment to make a quick statement?

There was a discussion of counsel prior to

going on the record, and for the sake of

expediency, counsel for the petitioners,

Mr. Perko, Sugar Cane Co-op will be doing the

initial questioning for expediency and I will be

following up with whatever additional questions

I have.

Thank you.

BY MR. PERKO:

Q.    Dr. Abtew, my name is Gary Perko. I'm an

attorney with the law firm of Hopping, Boyd, Green &


Return to Top                                                                                                                                   5

 

Sams. We represent the Sugar Cane Cooperative of

Florida and two of its members, Wedgworth Farms, Inc.

and Roth Farms, Inc., in the administrative

proceedings involving the Everglades land.

Have you ever been deposed before, sir?

A.    No, this is my first time.

Q.    Basically what's going to happen here today

is I'm going to ask you a series of questions. If

you don't understand my questions, which is a

distinct possibility, please ask me to rephrase them.

A.    Okay.

Q.   And if you don't know the answer to the

question, just tell me. I don't want you to guess or

anything. I'm not trying to trick you.

And with that -- and if you ever need a

break, please let me know, a cup of coffee or

anything.

A.    Okay.

MR. PERKO: Dr. Abtew, I'm going to show

you what I'll ask the court reporter to mark as

Exhibit Number 1.

(The document was marked

Abtew Exb. No. 1.)

BY MR. PERKO:

Q.   Dr. Abtew, could you review that document

 


6

 

and tell me if you recognize it?

A.    Yes, this is my resume.

Q.   Is that a current copy of your resume?

A.    Yes, this is a current copy.

Q.   Are you aware of any changes that you might

make to update it since it was originally drafted?

A.    No.

Q.   Okay. I'm going to ask you first a couple

of questions about your educational background.

I see here that you received a Bachelor of

Science degree in agricultural engineering from

Haille Sellassie University in Ethiopia in 1973.

A.    Uh huh.

Q.   Did you specialize in any particular area

of agricultural engineering at that time?

A.    Well, general program.

Q.   Okay. And from 1973 through '79 you worked

with the Department of Land and Agriculture of

Ethiopia; is that correct?

A.    Uh huh.

Q.   What were your duties at that time?

A.    Well, I had different positions, starting

with Agricultural Extension Supervisor and Soil and

Water Conservation Engineer.

Q.   Let's start with the position Agricultural

 


7

 

Extension Supervisor.

A.    Uh huh.

Q.   What were your duties in that position?

A.    I was a supervising an agricultural

program. We introduced fertilizers and new tools and

new agricultural practices to small farmers.

Q.   What were your duties in that capacity?

A.    I was responsible for a certain region,

which is about -- it's a certain region. I have

various, about five, six stations, and we have

extension agents in those stations, the agricultural

program throughout the region. Supervisor extension

agent basically.

Q.   What kind of agriculture was going on at

that time?

A.    Most of it was small scale ownership with

ox and plow, not mechanized, but we had mechanized ag

in my region.

Q.   What kinds of crops?

A.    Most of the crops were sorghum, corn. You

know, the region grows sorghum.

Q.   Your next position was Soil and Water

Conservation Engineer; is that correct?

A.    Yes.

Q.   What were your duties in that capacity?

 


8

 

A.    Well, it's the same thing. Supervise

different government work such as soil conservation,

building of terraces to conserve soil, protect soil

from erosion, and in some cases we were to supervise

rural road construction.

And in one instance I had to supervise

building of dikes or earth dams to collect runoff

water.

Q.   When you say supervised, does that mean you

had general oversight of the project to make sure

that everything was going as scheduled?

A.    Well, I had to, a lot of people working

under me and followed up that things are done under

specification and the program scheduled, so both

technical and administrative supervision of the

programs.

Q.   What do you mean by technical supervision

generally?

A.    Make sure that it is being built as it is

designed.

Q.   Okay. Then your next position was Officer

in charge of Agricultural Research Center; is that

correct?

A.    Well, that was what my extension was. We

had one research station and I had to supervise that

 


9

 

on the side.

It was such that we had a variety of crop

variety selection, select the best type of, variety

of crops for the area. Basically that was the main

research.

And there was some fertilizer application

rights, so it was a station in the area where I was

supervising, and I had the second responsibility of

following up that program with the administrative,

check it that it was going as designed.

Q.   Was any of the research designed to analyze

agricultural runoff?

A.    No. We don't have, there was no problem at

that time. At least there is no chemical application

at all.

In fact, there is very limited pesticide or

fertilizer application. We are trying to introduce

that into the area, so that there was not any runoff

problem or anything such as that at the time.

Q.   And you left the Department of Land and

Agriculture in Ethiopia in 1979; is that correct?

A.    Yes.

Q.   Where did you go after that?

A.    Well, I left the country and moved around

for about six months until I get to the Sudan, where

 


10

 

I became a refugee, political asylum, and stayed

there for one year, September of 1982 from '81, and I

came to the United States September '82 on political

asylum was my status.

And since then, the rest, if you want to

know --

Q.   What was your first job in the United

States?

A.    My first job was in the store. I came

without any papers and I finished college. I worked

in the area, I worked in stores first as cashiers and

as managers.

In the meantime, I took preparations to go

to graduate school. It took three years and some

months.

Q.   I see here that you were a research

associate at the University of Florida?

A.    Yes.

Q.   When did you begin in that capacity?

A.    In 1989, October to 1990, October. I came

in 1990, October, to the District.

Q.   What was the focus of your research at the

University of Florida?

A.    University of Florida was doing research

from contract from South Florida Water Management

 


11

 

District on the problem of phosphorus movement from

the dairies to Lake Okeechobee. That was a problem.

The name of the project is cited there in my resume.

That's how it is exactly worded.

Q.   Biochemical behavior?

A.    Biogeochemical behavior of phosphorus

movement.

Q.   You are referring to Biogeochemical

Behavior and Transport of Phosphorus in Lake

Okeechobee Basin, page 2?

A.    Yes, that was the project I worked on.

Q.   What was the purpose of that research?

A.    Well, the purpose of the research, to my

understanding, was to quantify how much phosphorus

was moving from the dairy sites to the streams and to

the lake, and at the same time evaluate the new

control programs, which was the detention of dairy

waste water and then spraying it on agricultural

land.

So most of the time I collected data from

the detention ponds and from the agricultural field

which the waste water was spread on and evaluated how

that system is working in cutting down the phosphorus

levels that lifts from the dairy farms. And I have a

cite there which you see.

 


12

 

Q.   Your resume indicates that your work at the

University of Florida included modeling of water and

nutrient movement in sandy, high water table soils.

A.    Yes.

Q.   Could you explain that briefly?

A.    Well, this is part of the contract work and

I was part of the whole program, so I was a director

related to developing the model.

Q.   You were not directly --

A.    The model was under somebody's

responsibility, but supplying the data and helping in

analysis of the data, because the same data, we have

the water quality of the spread water and we have the

drainage water quality, and someone does the actual

modeling of how it is removed from the soil, but the

collection and part of the analysis and part and

discussions, I had some contribution to the work.

Q.   Was your contribution limited mainly to

review of the data?

A.    Analysis of the data, collection of the

data, data collection, design and participation in

discussions of how the model could be developed,

although someone else is doing the modeling work

itself.

Q.   Your resume indicates that you left the

 


13

 

University of Florida in 1990; is that correct?

A.    Yes.

Q.   Where did you go after that?

A.    Came to the District, South Florida Water

Management District.

Q.   I'm sorry, I need to back up a little bit.

You did your graduate studies at the Texas

Tech University in Lubbock; is that correct?

A.    That's correct.

Q.   Beginning in 1985?

A.    Yes, beginning in 1985.

Q.   What was the focus of your studies at Texas

Tech?

A.     My first study was agricultural engineering

program, and I got Master's in agricultural

engineering.

Q.   Was there any particular aspect of

agricultural engineering that you specialized in?

A.    The area was soil and water.

Q.   And what did your research and other

studies, how did it involve soil and water?

A.    Well, with the soil part, the area, Lubbock

area has high winds and wind erosion problem, so

because of that, the region's interest, I had to do

wind erosion problem, which became the soil problem.

 


14

 

And later on my Ph.D. I studied civil

engineering and agricultural engineering and did the

research in both disciplines, which was sizing

storage capacity for municipal waste water.

The title, the specific title is in the

resume, if you want.

Q.   Is that the title of your Ph.D.

dissertation on page 1?

A.    Yes, page 1.

Q.   Methodology for the Sizing of Storage

Requirements of Slowrate Land Treatment Systems Using

Various Management Options?

A.    That's right.

Q.   Okay. What is meant here by slowrate land

treatment systems?

A.    This is a system where you apply municipal

waste water on agricultural land to grow crop and

take out the nutrients out of the waste water.

So the system operates that way.

Q.   Essentially using municipal waste water for

irrigation purposes?

A.    Yes, and for the purpose of removing the

nutrient out of the waste water.

Q.   What is meant by sizing of storage

requirements?

 


15

 

A.    Well, you have to do water by land and come

up with a chemical size of storage. When it is

raining you cannot -- you have to store it.

And it needs some figuring out how to size

the chemical size of reservoir for the rest of the

water that you can't apply when it is raining or when

the crop is not needing the water.

Q.   So you are sizing the reservoir?

A.    Well, the storage ponds, very large storage

ponds.

Q.   Did any of your work at Texas Tech involve

wetland treatment systems?

A.    No, there is no wetlands. It is a dry

area, so we don't have wetlands.

Q.   Okay. Did your graduate research involve

the study of water chemistry?

A.    Yes, I did a study of water chemistry,

analysis of pollutants in water. I did a lot of

work, and yes, I did study.

Q.   Did you have any course work in water

chemistry?

A.    Pollution. It is not called water

chemistry, but I did water chemistry, laboratory

analysis of all the pollutant components.

Q.   I'm going to go back -- or forward, rather,

 


16

 

to where we were previously.

After you left the University of Florida,

you took a job with the South Florida Water

Management District; is that correct?

A.    Yes.

Q.   When did you begin your employment at the

District?

A.    In 1990, October 18.

Q.   And what was your first position at the

District?

A.    My first position, Water Resource Engineer,

and later it was changed to Civil Engineer. The name

of the position was changed to Civil Engineer. I

stayed for eight months on that position.

Q.   Now is this a title change?

A.    Yes, it was a title change, but it's the

same.

Q.   What were your duties in that capacity?

A.    Well, I was in Water Resources Division,

where basically water resource problems were handled.

And during the first year of my work I

wrote a storm report for the January 1991 storm over

South Florida, which most of was in the ag area.

Q.   What was the purpose of that report?

A.    That report was to analyze and document the

 


17

 

storm event, document the amount of rainfall over the

area and the flows that were passing through the area

and the flood factor on the area.

Q.    What do you mean by the area?

A.    Well, the area which was affected by that,

by the storm of January 1991. Most of it was EAA,

and the map of the affected area is shown in the

report, but certain of the ag area was part of that

storm event.

Q.    The title of that report is Storm Event of

January 15-17, 1991; is that correct?

A.    Yes.

Q.    And that was prepared in March of 1991?

A.    Yes, that's right.

Q.    Let me ask you in your position as Water

Resources Engineer/Civil Engineer, who was your

supervisor at that time?

A.    First it was -- he has left the District --

Monina Medardo, Dr. Medardo, Monina.

MS. BIRCH: Medar?

THE WITNESS: Medardo, M-e-d-a-r-d-o,

M-o-n-i-n-a. I'm not certain about the

spelling, but that's his name. And later it was

Shawn Sculley.

 


18

 

BY MR. PERKO:

Q.    Is Mr. Sculley -- or is it Dr. Sculley?

A.    Mr.

Q.    Is he still at the District?

A.    No, he is not.

Q.    Do you know where he is currently employed?

A.    With certain engineering concern here in

West Palm Beach. I don't know what.

Q.    What positions did Mr. Sculley hold when he

was your supervisor, do you recall?

A.    Yes, division director.

Q.    What were some of your other duties as the

Water Resources Engineer/Civil Engineer? You

mentioned the storm report.

A.    Yes, I wrote An Atlas of the Lower

Kissimmee River and Lake Istokpoga Surface Water

Management Basins.

Q.    Let me ask you just generally, did your

work involve the entire area of the District or did

you specialize in any particular geographical area?

A.    No. When I started, not, but I was

assigned most of the lake and later south of the

lake.

Q.    So your supervisor would assign you

projects?

 


19

 

A.    Yes, that's right.

Q.    Do you recall any other projects you worked

on at that time?

A.    Well, at what time? Before I became senior

civil engineer?

Q.    In your first position.

A.    In my first position? These are the two

that I remember.

Q.    Okay. How long did you hold that position?

A.    Eight months.

Q.    Beginning in October of 1990?

A.    Yes, until June 30.

Q.    What was your position beginning June 1991?

A.    Senior Civil Engineer.

Q.    Is that your current position?

A.    Yes, that's my current position.

Q.    And who have your supervisors been in that

capacity?

A.    The first one is Shawn Sculley.

Q.    Okay.

A.    And later Jayantha Obeysekera.

Q.    Is it Dr. Obeysekera?

A.    Yes, Dr. Obeysekera.

Q.    Is he the current division director for

water resources?


Return to Top                                                                                                                                20

 

A.    No, he is in another division right now,

since January '92, I guess.

Q.    What division is that?

A.    This is Everglades System Research

Division.

Q.    Is Dr. Obeysekera the division director for

that division?

A.    No, he is not.

Q.    Who is division director?

A.    Dr. Thomas Fontaine.

Q.    So Dr. Obeysekera reports to Dr. Fontaine?

A.    Yes.

Q.    Is it correct that your work at this time

is focused in the Everglades system?

A.    Yes. I started before coming to this

division, I worked on the water budget for the

Everglades Agricultural Area before coming to this

division.

Q.    Was the EAA water budget your first project

as Senior Civil Engineer?

A.    I have many pieces of things that I did

that I don't remember.

Q.    Let me focus on the EAA water budget at

this time.

Who asked you to prepare that water budget?


Return to Top                                                                                                                                21

 

A.    Division, my supervisor.

Q.    That was Mr. Sculley?

A.    Yes, Mr. Sculley.

Q.    Did he assist you in that project?

A.    Yes.

Q.    Anyone else assist you?

A.    The co-auther of budget, Mr. Nagendra

Khanal.

MR. PERKO: Doctor, I'm going to show you

what I'll ask the court reporter to mark as

Exhibit Number 2.

(The document was marked

Abtew Exh. No. 2.)

BY MR. PERKO:

Q.    Do you recognize this document?

A.    Yes.

Q.    And it's entitled Water Budget Analysis For

The Everglades Agricultural Area (1979-1990),

correct?

A.    Yes.

Q.    Did you author this draft report?

A.    Yes, I did.

Q.    Along with Dr. Khanal?

A.    Yes, Mr. Khanal.

Q.    Mr. Khanal?

 


22

 

A.    Yes.

Q.    Does this indicate the results of the work

you did on the EAA water budget?

A.    This is a draft of the work I did on the

EAA water budget.

Q.    Have you finalized this report?

A.    Not yet. It's being reviewed right now.

Q.    Could you tell me, is it undergoing the

District's standard peer review processes?

A.    Yes, it has gone through one peer review,

and I have to look at the peer reviews and come up

with the next draft, which probably will go for a

second peer review.

Q.    Do you know who is on the peer review

committee?

A.    Well, from the other book, you can tell who

reviewed from different departments.

Q.    Those are the documents you just referred

to, all those have been produced?

A.    Yes, those are the ones which have been

produced.

MR. PERKO: I'll show you another document

here that I'll ask the court reporter to mark as

Exhibit Number 3 entitled Water Budget Analysis

for the Everglades Agricultural Area, an Organic


Return to Top                                                                                                                                23

 

Soil Drainage Basin, To Be Submitted To Water

Resources Bulletin.

(The document was marked

Abtew Exb. No. 3.)

BY MR. PERKO:

Q.    Do you recognize this document?

A.    Yes, I wrote this with Mr. Khanal.

Q.    Which did you prepare first, Exhibit Number

2 or Exhibit Number 3?

A.    Number 2.

Q.    Exhibit 3 --

A.    The period is January '73 to '91.

Q.    Let me direct your attention then to

Exhibit Number 2, since you prepared that one first.

Could you tell me what the purpose of this

report was or why you were asked to perform the

analysis reflected in this report?

A.    I don't know the reason, but the water

resource documentation, that's what I think.

Q.    What was your goal, what was the goal of

your analysis?

A.    Well, the goal of the analysis, to my

understanding, is documentation of hydrologic data in

South Florida which is under the District

responsibilities.

 


24

 

Q.    What aspects of hydrology of the EAA did

you examine?

A.    Everything, rainfall, evapotranspiration

and the flows into the ag area, water flows, and

water flows out of the ag area.

Q.    Did you address seepage in this analysis?

A.    I think we have mentioned somewhere in the

document that we estimated the seepage into and out

of the ag area to be zero, because of lack of data

and considering the flatness of the region. And

using our engineering judgment, we estimated it as

zero for this report.

Q.    Other than lack of data, what was the basis

for estimating that seepage was zero?

A.    Judgment.

Q.    Why in your judgment did you conclude that

seepage was zero?

A.    Well, there is no significant gradient of

water that is clear moving in one direction, as from

outside to the ag area or from the ag area to the

surrounding area in high volume that would offset our

study.

So as long as there is no supporting data

to conclude that significant volume of water is

moving on ground floor in ag area or into ag area,

 


25

 

the best estimate was to put that to zero and

consider the bigger factors which affected the water

of the area.

Q.    Maybe I got a little bit ahead of myself

here, but could you explain for me what is meant by

the term seepage?

A.    The term seepage is water that passes

beneath the face of the ground and leaves into or out

of a region.

Underground movement of water, that might

explain it.

Q.    And that movement could be either into the

EAA or out of the EAA?

A.    Yes, or on different sides it could be a

different picture, but we balance that out, estimate

whichever is leaking out or leaking in from all

sides. It can be estimated that zero with the

information we have.

Q.    Are you aware of any studies that have been

done to analyze seepage into and/or out of the EAA?

A.    Not that I remember.

Q.    Are you aware of any ongoing studies to

address seepage?

A.    I don't know one.

Q.    If such a study were being undertaken, who

 


26

 

would be the appropriate person at the District to

ask about whether such a study has been undertaken?

A.    I don't know.

Q.    Dr. Abtew, you mentioned that another

hydrologic aspect of the EPA that you addressed in

this report is evapotranspiration.

A.    Uh huh.

Q.    That's generally known as ET, correct?

A.    Yes.

Q.    From now on when I say ET, I'll mean

evapotranspiration.

A.    Uh huh.

Q.    Can you describe for me how you estimated

ET in your report, in your analysis?

A.    Well, in our analysis what we did is

everything else is measured, and the balance

remaining is calculated as ET. That is reported in

the document. The inflow, flow out, rainfall is

measured, and the remaining part is calculated as ET.

That's reported in the document.

On the other side, what could it be

theoretically if there is, if that estimate or

computed value is close to the statistical, I did the

report and reported that on the side of the report.

So whoever is using it can choose or relate

 


27

 

what it means. So both are reported in the document.

Q.    Am I understanding you correctly to say

that you essentially took two approaches to

estimating ET?

A.    Two approaches, yes.

Q.    One was what I'll term a water balance

approach?

A.    Yes.

Q.    Where you looked at flows into the system?

A.    Yes, and out of the system.

Q.    Through the canals, for example?

A.    And rainfall.

Q.    And flows out of the system through --

A.    The canals.

Q.    The canals. And the balance was estimated

to be ET; is that correct?

A.    Yes.

Q.    And the other approach was the theoretical

approach?

A.    Theoretical approach.

Q.    Could you explain in more detail what the

theoretical approach entailed?

A.    Theoretical approach, you have measures

using temperature, relative humidity, sunshine hours

and wind speed data and pond evaporation data.

 


28

 

There is an FAO-24 method, which the method

is called FAO-24 --

Q.    FAO --

A.    24.

Q.    FAO-24?

A.    Yes, Blaney-Criddle,

So I selected or I did the work on it

separately, which is a different document. You have

a copy, I think. It's a different document. And

hat document is cited in the water budget.

So ET was not estimated theoretically in

the water budget. That one is -- here.

Q.    Let me make sure I understand correctly.

You estimated ET in connection with another paper?

A.    Yes.

Q.    And those results were incorporated into

this report?

A.    That's right.

Q.    Okay. Is the report you are referring to

entitled Evapotranspiration Estimation Method for

South Florida?

A.    That's right.

Q.    (The Everglades Agricultural Area), by

W. Abtew and S.P. Sculley; is that correct?

A.    Yes.

 


29

 

Q.    And that was a paper presented at the 51st

Annual Meeting of the Soil and Crop Science Society

of Florida?

A.    Yes.

Q.    Dr. Abtew, let me ask you to refer to your

report and show me where your discussion of the

theoretical method is, in Exhibit Number 2.

A.    Show you?

Q.    Yes. What page is that discussion?

A.    It's on page 55. The title is Basin

Consumptive Use. It starts on page 55, but it

continues up to page 57, 55 to 57.

Q.    This discusses the results of the

theoretical approach; is that correct?

A.    The differences, results of the theoretical

approach.

Q.    Dr. Abtew, let me refer you to page 25 and

page 26 where you discuss the evapotranspiration

model.

A.    Yes. It's cited here, too.

Q.    Is this a further explanation of the

theoretical approach to estimating ET?

A.    Yes, this is also another place where it is

cited.

Q.    Okay.

 


30

 

A.    Page 26.

Q.    Let me ask you a couple of background

questions on this.

On page 26 you list three equations,

equation numbers 45, 46 and 47.

A.    Yes.

Q.    The first equation, which is labeled number

45, states ET crop equals Kc times ET zero.

A.    Sub zero.

Q.    What is meant by ET crop?

A.    That's the crop evapotranspiration.

Q.    Okay. What does that represent?

A.    That's evapotranspiration from a crop, what

the crop is. In that case it will be for that crop,

for that specific crop.

Q.    So there is a different value for different

crops?

A.    Yes. On page 27 I think that is shown,

different values for each type of crop and for each

month.

Q.    What is meant by the term Kc?

A.    That's control crop. That's called crop

coefficient.

Q.    What does that represent?

A.    That's the factor for each type of crop,

 


31

 

which is clearly shown on -- well, it's defined here

at the end as crop coefficient.

Q.    That's explained in your previous study?

A.    Yes, it's more clear in that document how

this thing is developed.

MS. BIRCH: How it is developed?

THE WITNESS: The details are in the other

document. If you want, I can go through and go

through the details.

MR. KOBELINSKI: Could I ask a quick

question that will save some confusion on my

part?

Is there a way to convert -- I guess this

is by inches to acre feet? Because some charts

on some studies are in acre feet and the other

ones are in inches.

Is there a way of converting it, or not

really?

THE WITNESS: There is a way. One inch

means one inch of water over an acre area, an

inch depth of water. One acre, there is 12

inches of water on one acre. So if you divide

the acre feet by 12, you get inch.

MR. KOBELINSKI: Thank you.

MR. PERKO: Dr. Abtew, I'm going to show


Return to Top                                                                                                                                32

 

you another document here which I'll ask the

court reporter to mark as Exhibit Number 4.

(The document was marked

Abtew Exh. No. 4.)

BY MR. PERKO:

Q.    Do you recognize this document?

A.    Yes, that is a document I wrote with

Mr. Sculley.

Q.    Is this the document you referred to before

which describes the method of estimating

evapotranspiration?

A.    Well, it is reported here in parallel with

the water budget.

Q.    And this report explains how you derived

the crop coefficient or Kc --

A.    Kp.

Kc is --

Q.    I'm sorry, I'm getting ahead of myself

here.

A.    It's crop dependent. How Kc is developed

is in this document on page 26.

Q.    This document, you are referring to Exhibit

Number 2?

A.    Exhibit Number 2, yes. How Kc is

developed, it is mentioned on page 26 on Exhibit

 


33

 

Number 2.

How Kp is developed, it is stated in

Exhibit Number 4.

Q.    How Kp is developed is explained in Exhibit

Number 4?

A.    Yes.

Q.    I guess I'm a little bit confused here.

On page 26 of Exhibit Number 2 you indicate

that Kc equals the crop coefficient?

A.    Yes.

Q.    Could you explain for me how you derived

the crop coefficient or Kc?

A.    It is stated here, it is derived using crop

growth information from the EAA, the state of the

crop at different times each month, and then there

are references in FAO-24 document for each stage of

crop. There are case estimates which are widely

used, and for the reference, it is cited here.

MR. PERKO: Why don't we take a break.

(Thereupon, a recess was taken.)

BY MR. PERKO:

Q.    Dr. Abtew, I'm going to ask you a couple

more questions about Kc or crop coefficient.

Are there any specific equations used to

get the Kc or did you use any equations to derive the

 


34

 

Kc values or did you simply obtain them from a table

in another reference?

A.    I think it is clearly stated on Exhibit 2,

page 26.

Q.    I'm still a little bit confused.

Did you use an equation to develop the Kc?

A.    No, I didn't use any equation.

Q.    How did you derive Kc?

A.    Using information from that crop growing

part on the EAA and the crop coefficient estimates in

the FAO-24 document.

Q.    Okay. Let me ask you about Kp, potential

evapotranspiration coefficient.

How did you derive Kp?

A.    It's shown in Exhibit 4. It's a long

process. It is shown in Exhibit 4 how Kp is derived.

Q.    Specifically are you referring to page nine

of Exhibit 4?

A.    Page 27, the last values are shown on page

27.

Q.    So page 27 --

A.    Is the result.

Q.    The result?

A.    Yes.

Q.    The actual numbers derived?

 


35

 

A.    The whole document has to be read to see

how those coefficients were derived.

Q.    Could I refer you to page 9 of Exhibit 4?

A.    Okay.

Q.    Is that the equation used to derive Kp?

A.    That's right.

Q.    Dr. Abtew, how do these parameters, Kc and

Kp, take into consideration such factors as growing

seasons, crop burning, water tables or crop

rotations?

Do they take into consideration those

factors?

A.    No.

Q.    Referring back to the equations set forth

on page 26 of Exhibit 2, equations 45, 46 and 47,

were these equations that were calibrated to actual

ET crop values?

A.    There is no data to calibrate, actual data

to calibrate the values.

Q.    Dr. Abtew, what was the result of the

theoretical approach explained in Exhibit Number 2?

A.    The result, the evapotranspiration as

calculated by the theoretical approach was a little

higher than the water balance approach. It is in the

document.

 


36

 

Q.    I just want to make sure I understand.

That's why I'm asking the questions.

So am I understanding correctly that the

water balance approach comparing inflows and outflows

to derive ET resulted in a lower number --

A.    Lower number.

Q.    -- than the theoretical approach?

A.    Yes.

Q.    Okay. Why do you think the theoretical

approach resulted in a higher number?

A.    Well, it's mentioned in the document. The

theoretical approach might not be well suited for the

area or there could be other reasons which we don't

know.

Q.    Which you don't know?

A.    Which I don't know.

Q.    Why might the theoretical approach not be

well suited for the area?

A.    Because it is theoretical. You have to

estimate coefficients and theoretical methods to know

all the actual result.

Q.    Is it your opinion that the water balance

approach to estimating ET is more accurate than the

theoretical approach?

A.    I don't level it that way. That needs

 


37

 

further work to conclude one way or the other.

Q.    Are you currently performing any additional

work to try to get an answer to that question?

A.    Yes. I am studying evaporation study of

wetland plants and that might help calibrate

equations and see what actually is going up into the

air from the plant surface.

Q.    I'll ask you some questions about that in a

little bit.

Let me refer you back to Exhibit Number 3.

Exhibit Number 3 is the later report which you

developed in connection with this study?

A.    Yes.

Q.    And you stated that you used a different

period of record; is that correct?

A.    Yes.

Q.    Why did you use a different period of

record?

A.    Well, this time the study was extended to

cover longer period than the previous one.

Q.    And what was the period of record it

covered?

A.    This one is from '73 to '91. The previous

one was from '79 to '90. So this is longer, 18 years

or so and 11 years.

 


38

 

Q.    And is it correct to say that you basically

used the same approach to estimating ET in this

report as you did in Exhibit 2?

A.    Let me check. Well, I have to read the

document if I have used the same approach or just

reported here on page 16, I have reported the water

budget ET.

Q.    And the discussion on page 16 referred to,

is that to the Consumptive Use section?

A.    Uh huh.

Q.    Dr. Abtew, let me ask you some questions

now about the work you are currently doing involving

wetland plants.

Could you explain to me what that project

involves?

A.    It's part of the Everglades Nutrient

Removal Project.

Q.    By Everglades Nutrient Removal Project, do

you mean what's typically referred to as the ENR

Project?

A.    Yes, ENR Project.

Q.    What is the purpose of your work?

A.    The purpose of my work is to quantify the

amount of water that is lost by evapotranspiration

from wetland plants.

 


39

 

Q.    Are you looking at specific wetland plants?

A.    I haven't decided that yet.

Q.    When do you believe that you will decide?

A.    Next week.

Q.    Why are you looking at wetland plants and

not agricultural plants?

A.    Part of the ENR work, so we want to do the

water budget of the site. For that purpose, we need

to measure the wetland plant evapotranspiration.

Q.    What is the current status of that work?

A.    I don't know. That's not under my

supervision.

Q.    No, I mean your part of the work, the

estimation of the ET issue with wetland plants.

A.    The equipment is bought and the design work

is done. Installation will be done the initial time.

So installing it on the site is what is remaining,

and then we start measuring, everything is read.

Q.    How do you plan to go about quantifying the

ET associated with these wetland plants?

A.    Measure as the residue out of the water

budget. The lysimeter is a control. You have a big

tank, 2,000-gallon tank, over 2,000-gallon capacity

tank where there is a lysimeter.

And you pretty much control the inflow and


Return to Top                                                                                                                                40

 

outflow with pumps and flow meters, and remaining

should be quantified as ET. That's standard method

of measuring evapotranspiration.

Q.    Essentially that's a laboratory test?

A.    No, it's not laboratory. It is field test.

Q.    Field test?

A.    Yes, right at the marsh site. It's a long --

the detail is a lot.

Q.    So you will be using the lysimeter, is that

how you say it?

A.    Yes.

MR. KOBELINSKI: How do you spell that?

THE WITNESS: L-y-s-i-m-e-t-e-r.

BY MR. PERKO:

Q.    And essentially that's a 2,000-gallon tank?

A.    A little over 2,000.

Q.    And you will be growing different types of

wetland plants --

A.    Yes.

Q.    -- to determine the ET associated with

those different species; is that correct?

A.    Yes, uh huh.

Q.    Is there any deadline for your work to be

completed?

MS. BIRCH: Object to the relevancy of this

 


41

 

work on the ENR project, as his expertise will

be in developing the results of the water budget

for the EAA.

BY MR. PERKO:

Q.    Dr. Abtew, do you intend to rely on the

work you are doing on wetland plants that we have

been discussing in developing any expert testimony in

the pending SWIM Plan challenge?

A.    This work is not yet started, so I can't

tell whether I will use it or not.

Q.    How long do you anticipate this program to

last?

MS. BIRCH: Object to the relevancy.

BY MR. PERKO:

Q.    You can answer the question.

A.    For a long time, an indefinite time. I

can't tell.

Q.    A period of years?

MS. BIRCH: Objection, calls for

speculation.

MR. PERKO: You can answer the question.

MS. BIRCH: If you know.

BY MR. PERKO:

Q.    If you know.

A.    I don't know how long it's going to take.

 


42

 

Q.    Dr. Abtew, is this work that we have been

discussing involving wetland plants and the ET, is

that described in any written documents?

MS. BIRCH: Objection to relevancy.

THE WITNESS: Yes, it is described in the

design manual, design papers which I designed.

BY MR. PERKO:

Q.    Did you produce those in response to the

notice of duces tecum?

MS. BIRCH: Objection to relevancy, lack of

foundation.

THE WITNESS: What's a duces tecum?

MS. BIRCH: The witness has not testified

that he has relied upon that for any use in the

development of the EAA water budget.

MR. PERKO: I understand that. I'm simply

asking him if he produced those documents in

response to the notice of duces tecum that was

served upon him.

MS. BIRCH: Why would he produce them

unless there has been established that he has

used those?

MR. PERKO: I'm asking him if he produced

them.

 


43

 

BY MR. PERKO:

Q.    Did you produce those documents in response

to the duces tecum?

A.    No.

Q.    Is there a project code for this work?

MS. BIRCH: Objection to the relevancy.

THE WITNESS: No. I don't know of a

project code.

BY MR. PERKO:

Q.    Dr. Abtew, in the course of this project

involving wetland plants, are you going to be testing

natural marsh fauna?

MS. BIRCH: Objection to the relevancy;

objection, it calls for speculation, and lack of

foundation.

I would also, I object to this line of

questioning. I mean Dr. Abtew has been listed

by the District as an expert in the area of

developing the results of the EAA water budget.

If you want to ask him -- I mean now you

are asking him about work that he clearly has

stated has no relevancy to this --

MR. PERKO: I don't think he has clearly

stated it has no relevancy. He said he doesn't

know at this time.

 


44

 

MS. BIRCH: From his opinion, he said he

has not relied upon it. He has told you that he

has no idea of when this work may or may not be

done, and you have not established through any

previous testimony that it has any relevancy to

anything related to the EAA, development of the

water budget.

MR. PERKO: Clearly relevant to the

development of evapotranspiration that he has --

he has not indicated that he will not under any

circumstances be relying upon this at trial.

If there is any chance he will be relying

upon this at trial, I need to know about it.

And I'm not intending to explore this ad

nauseam. I just want to ask him a few simple

questions about the scope of this work.

MS. BIRCH: I understand your statement and

where you are going, but I just want to make it

clear that from his previous testimony, he has

not made any indication that he is in any way

going to rely upon that work.

MR. KOBELINSKI: Do you mind if I voir dire

for a second so we can get by the relevancy

objection?

MS. BIRCH: Go ahead, counselor.

 


45

 

MR. KOBELINSKI: Okay.

VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    Dr. Abtew, the ENR project, where is that

located?

A.    It's located in, west of Water Conservation

Area 1.

Q.    Within the EAA?

A.    Right at the edge of the EAA, but it's no

more part of the EAA, I guess.

Q.    It is your understanding it's not part of

the EAA any longer?

A.    It is being changed to wetlands rather than

agricultural area.

Q.    But is it within the physical geographical

boundary?

A.    Yes, at the edge.

Q.    Approximately how many acres are comprised

of the ENR project?

A.    I don't know exactly how much there is.

Q.    Is the ENR project similar at all to the

Stormwater Treatment Areas that are being

contemplated by the Stormwater Treatment Plan?

MS. BIRCH: Objection to the relevancy.

MR. KOBELINSKI: I'm just voir diring.

 


46

 

MS. BIRCH: I object to the relevance of

the nature of this voir dire as to foundation,

as to relevancy to the EAA.

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    Is the ENR a precursor project or similar

nature to the Stormwater Treatment Areas contemplated

by the SWIM Plan?

A.    I'm not in a position to decide or

determine what the project is going to be with regard

to SWIM Plan.

Q.    Is it your understanding that Stormwater

Treatment Areas will be artificial wetlands marshes?

A.    I beg your pardon?

Q.    Is it your understanding that Stormwater

Treatment Areas will be comprised of predominantly

artificial wetlands marshes?

A.    I don't know.

Q.    You don't know?

A.    No.

Q.    Do you know what the approximate area of

the Stormwater Treatment Areas are?

A.    In the SWIM document it is stated about

36,000 acres.

Q.    And that 36,000 acres is contemplated to be

part of the geographic EAA; is that correct?

 


47

 

A.    I'm not sure where it is going to be

located.

Q.    If it was part of the geographic Everglades

Agricultural Area, would the coefficient for those

marsh lands have an impact on the ET in the

Everglades Agricultural Area?

MS. BIRCH: Objection, it calls for

speculation again. I see no relevance or

foundation.

MR. KOBELINSKI: He is an expert. I'm

asking an expert opinion as to whether or not

36,000 of wetlands marsh would impact the

coefficient of ET in the EAA.

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    Would that impact the --

A.    ET is calculated for each crop. If you

change the crop to anything else, the values will

change.

Q.    If the ET value changes for the EAA as a

result of the STAs, would that impact the water

budget for the EAA?

A.    Whenever you change the crop type, the

coefficient changes.

So I haven't done for wetlands theoretical

ET calculation. I can't tell you which way it is

 


48

 

going to change or how much, how much the coefficient

is going to change.

Q.    I understand you can't tell the degree of

change, but it would impact the water budget itself;

is that correct?

A.    Yes, it would impact the water budget

itself.

MR. KOBELINSKI: I think we have enough

relevancy as to why his testing of the

artificial wetlands marsh within the EAA will

impact the water budget.

MS. BIRCH: Same objection, relevancy and

foundation.

CONTINUED DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. PERKO:

Q.    Dr. Abtew, as part of this work with

wetland plants, are you going to be testing natural

marsh fauna?

A.    Yes, natural marsh plants.

Q.    By natural marsh fauna, I mean the types of

fauna that are found in the water conservation areas.

A.    Well, the type of plants to be tested is

not determined. I have to consult the people for

various information.

So that's not yet determined what kinds of

 


49

 

plants are going to be put in.

Q.    Who will you be consulting in determining

what kinds of plants are going to be tested?

A.    Dr. Sue Newman.

Q.    Anyone else?

A.    That's all.

Q.    Dr. Abtew, have you ever estimated ET for

the water conservation areas?

A.    I don't think so. I don't remember that.

Q.    Are you aware of any studies or analyses

performed by the District to estimate ET in water

conservation areas?

A.    I think there are some works which are --

I'm not certain, I can't remember documents, but I'm

sure there are some.

Q.    Who at the District, if you know, would be

most knowledgeable about any estimations of ET in the

water conservation areas?

A.    I don't know.

Q.    Dr. Abtew, are you familiar with the water

balance analysis of the EAA performed by CH2 Mill

Hill?

A.    Yes, I have seen the document. I have read

it sometime, a long time back.

Q.    What is your general opinion of that

 


50

 

analysis?

A.    I don't remember the results and I couldn't

say anything now.

Q.    Okay. Do you recall what methodology was

used in that study to determine ET?

A.    I don't recall now.

Q.    Dr. Abtew, do you know if anyone at the

District has been asked to prepare a water budget for

the STAs proposed in the SWIM Plan?

MS. BIRCH: Objection to relevancy.

MR. PERKO: Just asking if he knows. It's

clearly relevant to the subject matter of this

case.

MS. BIRCH: Of this case, but not this

witness.

MR. PERKO: I'm asking if he knows.

THE WITNESS: I don't remember if I have

done this kind of work.

BY MR. PERKO:

Q.    Do you know if anyone else has been asked

to perform a water budget?

MS. BIRCH: Same objection.

THE WITNESS: I don't remember.

BY MR. PERKO:

Q.    Dr. Abtew, have you had any involvement in


Return to Top                                                                                                                                51

 

the design of the STAs proposed in the Everglades

SWIM Plan?

A.    No, I don't have any involvement in the

design.

Q.    Have you had any involvement in the sizing

of the STAs?

MS. BIRCH: Objection to relevancy.

THE WITNESS: No, I didn't have

involvement.

MR. PERKO: Dr. Abtew, I'd like to show you

what I'll ask the court reporter to mark as

Exhibit Number 5.

(The document was marked

Abtew Exh. No. 5.)

BY MR. PERKO:

Q.    Do you recognize this document?

A.    Yes.

Q.    What is this document?

A.    This is Everglades Research Plan.

Q.    Did you help draft that document?

A.    Yes.

Q.    Could you point out to me the specific

portions that you were involved in drafting?

MS. BIRCH: While Dr. Abtew is looking

through this document, I'm going to object to

 


52

 

the relevancy of the Everglades Research Plan as

to Dr. Abtew's expertise in the area of

development results of the EAA water budget.

THE WITNESS: I developed the projects

2.A.2 and project 2.B.2.

MR. KOBELINSKI: Dr. Abtew, I believe if we

are all using the same copy, on the lower

right-hand corner are Bates numbers.

Could you identify by page number for the

record?

THE WITNESS: These are cited on page B-6.

MR. KOBELINSKI: Bates number 0946793.

THE WITNESS: 0946793.

BY MR. PERKO:

Q.    Dr. Abtew, you mentioned that you helped

draft the section labeled 2.A.2.

What does that research program involve?

A.    This is developing nutrient method and

chemical budget from the major sub-systems of the

EPA.

Q.    Are you going to be involved in that

program or are you involved in that program?

A.    I am not certain in the -- I am not sure.

Q.    Okay. Has the development of those budgets

begun at this time?


Return to Top                                                                                                                                53

 

A.    Not yet, not according to this plan.

Q.    At 2.B.2 the project objective is listed as

"Investigate the phosphorus removal effectiveness of

BMPs in the EAA."

Will you be involved in that program?

A.    Yes, I will be directing the program.

Q.    You will be directing the program?

A.    Yes, right.

Q.    And what is the status of that program?

Has it begun at this time?

A.    Not yet. The research plan is being

reviewed. It's not started yet. Application has

started.

MR. PERKO: Dr. Abtew, I'd like to show you

what I'll ask the court reporter to mark as

Exhibit 6.

(The document was marked

Abtew Exh. No. 6.)

BY MR. PERKO:

Q.    Do you recognize this document?

A.    Yes.

Q.    What is that document?

A.    This is a paper I wrote with

Dr. Obeysekera.

Q.    It's entitled Statistical Analysis of

 


54

 

Drainage Generation From the Everglades Agricultural

Area; is that right?

A.    That's right.

Q.    What was the purpose of this report?

A.    It's written in the document itself. The

purpose is to get more understanding of the EAA

runoff system, to get more information, more

knowledge of the system.

Q.    And what did you look at in trying to

obtain more knowledge of the system?

A.    We analyzed synthetic runoff data and came

up with the frequency of how much runoff can come

from the EAA.

Q.    What do you mean by synthetic data?

A.    Well, we used synthetic rainfall data,

which means general rainfall data for 100 years, as

is stated in the document. This is to see the

different sequences of daily rainfall, how much rain

can come out. And the detail is in the paper.

Q.    What data did you rely upon in developing

the synthetic rainfall data? What actual data?

A.    We depended on the actual rainfall data

basically and actual flow data based on the

statistics of the actual rainfall in Florida and we

generated synthetic data.

 


55

 

Q.    What was the period of record for the

actual data that you used?

A.    I think '73 to '91. Yes, '73 to '91.

Q.    Do you have any computer disks that contain

the data that you used in connection with this

report, the actual data?

A.    Yes, in the office. Yes, I have the data.

Q.    Do you also have the data that you used in

connection with Exhibit Numbers 2 and 3, the EAA

water budget?

A.    Yes, it is in the database of the District

mainly.

Q.    Do you have in your possession computer

disks with the data that you actually used?

A.    Yes, I have a lot of District database data

on my computer disk, and I'm sure the parts I used

for all these documents would be there, too.

Q.    Okay.

MR. KOBELINSKI: Did you use the entire

District database or just the rainfall data for

the EAA?

THE WITNESS: The flow rainfall.

MR. KOBELINSKI: That's what I'm saying.

We just, for instance, with Dr. Waller, he has

turned over an incredible number of computer

 


56

 

data, because that's what he bases his opinion

on.

He gave the underlying data, because

without the underlying data, the report says

this is the data, this is what we came up with.

We don't have the data.

MS. BIRCH: In Dr. Abtew's case, my

understanding, going through his records and

talking with him about the data, the data that

he used is listed in the reports. He does not --

and you can voir dire him about this. He says

that he does not have the data on a disk.

You would have to go to the District

database and recreate actually what he did, and

that would take him six to eight months to go

back to the District databases and look at each

station and each parameter as to what he

reviewed.

MR. KOBELINSKI: Again, the point is

without the data, all he has is conclusions from

the data.

For instance, again, using Mr. Waller,

since his production was just a day or two ago,

as an example, he is using all District and all

USGS and government data, but he is basing his

 


57

 

opinions on that data. It's reams of data, but

without it, you can't get to how he provided the

opinion.

MS. BIRCH: When you say he provided the

data, I'm not sure how that was provided.

MR. KOBELINSKI: Hard copy computer.

MS. BIRCH: Dr. Abtew, do you have the

underlying data in hard copy?

THE WITNESS: Not to my memory, but I have

on hard disk computer. I don't remember making

it, making hard copy of the disk. Whatever I

have is submitted with the hard copy.

MR. KOBELINSKI: We can get it on a disk.

That's fine with us. Doesn't really matter. We

have other people producing it on disk. It

doesn't have to be hard copy. We can make our

own hard copy.

MS. BIRCH: If he can retrieve it on disk

without taking six to eight months to retrieve

it, the District can provide that.

MR. KOBELINSKI: How long do you think it

would take for you to get the copy of the data

you relied upon on disks?

THE WITNESS: Well, it depends. How far do

you want?

 


58

 

MR. KOBELINSKI: Just what you relied upon

and considered.

THE WITNESS: Well, who is going to do it

is a question. I have a lot of assignments.

The District should tell the time how long it is

going to take, because that's not part of my

work to pull this data.

MS. BIRCH: Well, it seems --

MR. KOBELINSKI: Why don't we discuss it

after lunch? We can discuss it after lunch.

BY MR. PERKO:

Q.    Dr. Abtew, let me refer you to page 7 of

Exhibit Number 5.

The last paragraph -- I'm sorry, Exhibit

Number 6, page 7. The very last paragraph of that

states that, the very last sentence of that last

paragraph, "While the results of this study can be

used to estimate the bimonthly expected occurrences

of the hydrologic parameters of the EAA, detail land

use, water management, evapotranspiration data and

further analysis is required to attach confidence

levels on the simulation results."

Have you conducted any of this further

analysis that you referenced here?

A.    Not yet. I might do further analysis and


Return to Top                                                                                                                                59

 

release the result, but that's not yet decided,

depending on the time I have, the time slot I have.

Q.    Do you have any idea when you will know

whether or not you will conduct that analysis?

A.    I don't know that at this time.

MR. PERKO: Dr. Abtew, I would like to show

you what I'll ask the court reporter to mark as

Exhibit Number 7. It's a memorandum from Ray

Santee, Paul Trimble and Cal Neidrauer to Leslie

Wedderburn dated October 26, 1992.

(The document was marked

Abtew Exh. No. 7.)

BY MR. PERKO:

Q.    Do you recognize this memorandum?

A.    Yes.

Q.    I'd like to refer your attention to

number -- are these some of the comments you received

in connection with the peer review of your water

budget that you referred to earlier?

A.    Yes.

Q.    I'd like to refer you to page 4, the third

paragraph from the bottom. It states that "Since ET

was computed by three different methods, it was not

clear from the report which ET was recommended as the

ET for the water budget. It makes sense that the ET


Return to Top                                                                                                                                  60

 

computed using the water balance equation (equation

44) best represents the actual ET, but this is not

clear from the report."

This states that there were three different

methods of estimating ET; is that correct?

A.    Not to my knowledge, not to my report.

Q.    Just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing

something.

Is it true as it is stated here that, or as

it is implied here that the report did not recommend

which method of computing ET should be used for the

water budget?

A.    I have to check the document.

Q.    Do you have an opinion as to which method

of ET that you used as the appropriate method for

estimating ET?

MS. BIRCH: Object to the form of the

question.

THE WITNESS: I haven't concluded. I

haven't read, incorporated the reviews into my

draft. All the reviews together I will go

through and things that I think should be

included in the final report of the water

budget. This is a draft, so before working

through these reviews, I can't say this is what


Return to Top                                                                                                                                61

 

should be or not.

BY MR. PERKO:

Q.    So is it fair to say that the report

explains two methods for estimating ET, but does not

state a recommendation as to which method should be

used?

A.    Well, it is not stated in my document.

Q.    When do you plan to consider the comments

you suggested and revise your report?

A.    It depends on my time schedule. I don't

know when it is going to be.

Q.    Do you anticipate it being a matter of

months?

A.    I don't know that.

MR. PERKO: Dr. Abtew, I would like to show

you a document that I'll ask the court reporter

to label as Exhibit Number 8.

(The document was marked

Abtew Exh. No. 8.)

BY MR. PERKO:

Q.    This is a memorandum from Leslie Wedderburn

to Distribution List dated September 30, 1992,

regarding your water budget analysis for the

Everglades Agricultural Area.

Do you recognize this document?


Return to Top                                                                                                                                62

 

A.    Yes, I do.

Q.    Does this also indicate some of the

comments that you received in connection with the

peer review of your water budget, EAA water budget?

A.    Yes.

MR. PERKO: Dr. Abtew, I'd like to show you

what I'll ask the court reporter to label

Exhibit Number 9.

(The document was marked

Abtew Exh. No. 9.)

BY MR. PERKO:

Q.    This appears to be a copy of a file labeled

EAA water budget. Would you take a look at that

group of documents, please?

Do you recognize these documents?

A.    Yes.

Q.    Is this also some of the comments you

received in connection with the peer review of your

EAA water budget?

A.    Yes, the first two pages. The rest of it

is my own notes. The first two pages is the review.

Q.    These were some of the documents that were

produced to us.

Is this, this grouping of documents

contained in one separate file?

 


63

 

A.    No. This is different things together in

this one.

This is the review. The rest of it is

different papers in my file or notes and different

things together.

Q.    Okay. That's just how we received it.

A.    All right.

Q.    So just to clarify, the two-page memorandum

from John Mulliken to Kenneth Ammon regarding EAA

water budget dated October 6, 1992, that represents

the comments that you received?

A.    Yes.

Q.    The rest are just contents of your files?

A.    Yes, contents of my files.

MR. PERKO: Jackie, this might be an

appropriate time to take a lunch break.

MS. BIRCH: I think you are right. It's

12:00.

(Thereupon, a luncheon recess was taken.)

BY MR. PERKO:

Q.    Dr. Abtew, I'd like to direct your

attention to Exhibit 9, particularly the memorandum

from John Mulliken to Kenneth G. Ammon.

The third paragraph down speaks about some

inconsistencies with the EAA water budget, between

 


64

 

the EAA water budget and some of the other documents

prepared by the District. In particular, it mentions

a difference in the total amount of EAA runoff

backpumped to Lake Okeechobee.

Could you explain why there was a

difference or why this difference occurred?

A.    I haven't seen the other documents, so --

Q.    Well, do you know what is meant by the

statement in the, I guess it's the fourth paragraph

down, "The difference appears to be in part due to

the fact that we define ET as an outflow and they do

not"?

A.    I haven't seen the other documents, so I

don't know how to calculate it.

Q.    Have you made any effort as of yet to

reconcile these inconsistencies?

MS. BIRCH: Object to the form.

THE WITNESS: Not yet.

BY MR. PERKO:

Q.    Dr. Abtew, when we were discussing the EAA

water budget previously, I believe you previously

testified that based on lack of data and your

professional judgment, you concluded that seepage was

negligible; is that correct?

A.    Yes.

 


65

 

Q.    If seepage was not negligible, how would

that affect the ET value?

MS. BIRCH: Objection, calls for

speculation.

THE WITNESS: It's negligence, that's it.

BY MR. PERKO:

Q.    Well, my question is if it were not

negligible, how would it affect ET, if at all?

MS. BIRCH: Same objection.

THE WITNESS: Depends on the magnitude. If

it is too high --

BY MR. PERKO:

Q.    If it was higher, what effect would that

have on ET?

A.    Depends which direction it is flowing.

Q.    If it was flowing in the direction into the

EAA.

A.    Then the ET would be higher than what's

calculated by the --

Q.    And if it was flowing out, it would be

lower; is that correct?

A.    That's right.

MR. PERKO: Dr. Abtew, I'd like to show you

what I'll ask the court reporter to mark as

Exhibit Number 10.


Return to Top                                                                                                                                66

 

(The document was marked

Abtew Exh. No. 10.)

BY MR. PERKO:

Q.    Are you familiar with this document?

A.    Yes.

Q.    And what is that document?

A.    Water Budget Analysis for the Holey Land.

Q.    Did you prepare this report?

A.    Yes.

Q.    And this copy indicates that it is a draft

report.

Has this been finalized as of yet?

A.    I think this is finalized. It's finalized.

Q.    Do you know when it was finalized? This is

dated May 1992. Is there an updated version?

A.    I think it is May 1992 was when the final

copy was produced.

Q.    Do you know if there are any significant

changes made from this to the final report?

MS. BIRCH: Objection to relevancy and

object to the form.

THE WITNESS: The final document is

different from this one. I know that.

BY MR. PERKO:

Q.    Were the differences substantive in nature?

 


67

 

A.    I don't remember. One of the graphs is

different, so the final is different.

Q.    Which graph are you referring to?

A.    The map, Figure 1.

Q.    I'm sorry?

A.    Figure 1, page 14, is different than the

final copy, so I can't tell if this is the draft.

Q.    How is it different?

MS. BIRCH: Object to relevancy.

THE WITNESS: It is different. I can't

tell you the difference.

BY MR. PERKO:

Q.    Dr. Abtew, I'd like to refer your attention

to page five of this report, Exhibit 10.

At the very bottom of the page, turning

over on page 6 it states, "A simulation model was

developed to estimate seepage losses in the four

directions and calculate stage and change in

storage."

Could you tell me why seepage is considered

in this report and not in the EAA water budget?

A.    This is impoundment type of environment

where you raise the water level in an area surrounded

by levee. And apparently it raises the water level

from the outside land, and it is clear that seepage

 


68

 

would be important under that circumstance.

Q.    Dr. Abtew, are you generally familiar with

the water chemistry in the EAA canals?

A.    No, I am not.

MR. KOBELINSKI: Could you repeat the

question and answer?

(Thereupon, a portion of the record

was read by the reporter.)

BY MR. PERKO:

Q.    Let me ask you this. If you know, if

chloride concentrations in EAA discharges were higher

than chloride concentrations in the EAA inflows,

would that be an indicator of seepage?

MS. BIRCH: Objection to the speculation,

lack of foundation.

MR. PERKO: If you know.

THE WITNESS: Repeat the question.

(Thereupon, a portion of the record

was read by the reporter.)

THE WITNESS: I don't know.

BY MR. PERKO:

Q.    Dr. Abtew, you previously discussed how you

derived the Kc values in connection with your EAA

water budget analysis.

And I believe you testified that you

 


69

 

derived those from a table out of the reference that

you cited in that report; is that correct? I'm

referring to Exhibit Number 2.

A.    As stated on page 26, yes.

Q.    Are you referring to the sentence in the

bottom paragraph where you state that "Crop

coefficients (Kc) for the crops grown in the EAA were

developed using crop growth information on the EAA

and crop coefficient estimates from FAO-24"?

A.    That's right.

Q.    So you derived, you obtained the crop

coefficient estimates from FAO-24; is that correct?

A.    As stated in the document.

Q.    I'm trying to understand exactly how you

derived the crop coefficient estimates.

What did you obtain from FAO-24?

A.    Ranges of estimates.

Q.    Ranges of estimates?

A.    For different crops, different areas,

different crops.

Q.    Okay. Are those estimates identified for

individual crops, say sugar cane, or types of crops?

A.    For individual crops.

Q.    And then you adjusted it, is it correct to

say that you adjusted the coefficient estimates that


Return to Top                                                                                                                                70

 

you obtained from FAO-24 based on crop growth

information in the EAA?

A.    Well, just as it's stated over here, crop

coefficients where they were using the monthly crop

growth stage in the EAA, plus information from

FAO-24. Both information were used to develop the

coefficient estimate.

Q.    I understand what you used to develop the

crop coefficient for the Kc coefficient.

I'm trying to determine how you used that

information in developing the crop coefficient of Kc.

A.    I don't understand the question.

Q.    Let me ask you another question.

Do you have a list of each crop coefficient

or Kc for each crop type?

A.    Yes. Page 27 is derived from the crop

coefficients and Kp.

MR. PERKO: I have no further questions.

CROSS (Wossenu Abtew, Ph.D.)

By MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    Good afternoon, Dr. Abtew. My name is Mark

Kobelinski. I represent the Florida Sugar Cane

League, New South Hope, Incorporated and United

States Sugar Corporation. We are also petitioners in

the SWIM Plan proceedings. And as Mr. Perko did this

 


71

 

morning and part of this afternoon, I'll be asking

you questions.

You are still under oath, and the purpose

of the questions is to find out what facts you may

have regarding the issues in this case and also what

opinions you may hold, since you have been listed as

an expert witness.

Do you understand you have been listed as

an expert witness?

A.    I beg your pardon?

Q.    Do you understand that you have been listed

as an expert witness in the SWIM proceedings?

A.    Yes.

Q.    A number of documents were produced upon

which you have relied upon in basing your expert

opinion.

Is there one document which reflects

essentially what your expert opinion testimony will

be at trial?

A.    No.

Q.    Is such a document in the process of being

prepared?

A.    Being prepared for what?

Q.    Are you preparing a document, a report that

will essentially have the majority or all of your

 


72

expert opinion?

A.    No, I haven't prepared any document for the

purpose of the expert witness on the subject.

Q.    Do you intend to do so?

A.    I don't know. I don't know if I need it or

not right now.

Q.    I have a few questions to follow up on

Mr. Perko's with regard to Exhibit 2 and the crop

coefficients that you were referring to a few moments

ago, and I would refer you then to Exhibit 2 at pages

26 and 27, which also bear Bates numbers 0900268 and

269.

A few moments ago you indicated that the

chart on page 27 was derived from FAO-24; is that

correct?

A.    Yes, part of it, part of the information

was from FAO-24.

Q.    What part would be from FAO-24?

A.    You can't divide the values by Kp to get

Kc.

This table divided by Kp will give you the

crop options, and those crop options were derived as

stated on page 26 of Exhibit 2.

Q.    FAO-24, is that a book or a report or

something?

 


73

 

A.    It's a document for calculating crop

evapotranspiration all over the world.

Q.    Do you have a copy of it?

A.    Yes, I have a copy of it.

Q.    Did you produce it with the documents that

you produced?

A.    This is published material over here, so --

Q.    I appreciate that. My question is did you

produce it, sir?

A.    No, I didn't produce it.

Q.    Are you relying upon the information for

the chart that's on 27?

A.    To develop that table in 27?

Q.    Yes.

A.    Yes.

Q.    Are you relying upon it to develop your ET

estimates?

A.    In reference to this document, yes.

Q.    Is there any other place I can look for in

the documents that you have produced that would

provide the information that you have derived from

FAO-24?

A.    If it is sought, I have referenced it. It

is in my documents. Whatever references I used are

in the reference section of each document.

 


74

 

Q.    I appreciate that. My question is is there

any place in the documents themselves where I can go

and find the information that is contained in FAO-24

that you relied upon?

A.    You have to read FAO-24 document to get all

the information that I used to develop the

coefficients.

MR. KOBELINSKI: Counsel, we didn't receive

that.

MS. BIRCH: Just for clarification, are you

saying that -- is a pattern going to be when a

witness produces documents that they have relied

upon that a listing of reference of those

documents are insufficient?

Are you saying that every time an expert

witness comes to testify and provide documents,

that everything that they ever relied upon, even

though it's listed, that they are to provide it

at depositions? Because if that is the case --

MR. KOBELINSKI: First of all, that has

been done, number one, but in this case one of

the witness' primary opinions is an estimate of

ET in the EAA, and he has specifically testified

that he relied upon that document in determining

the coefficient to calculate ET.

 


75

 

I have no way of questioning this table

here without FAO-24, and I don't have a copy of

FAO-24.

MS. BIRCH: Well, as he has testified, the

FAO-24 is a document that's readily available,

and he has listed that in his references.

MR. KOBELINSKI: Well, until I get to the

deposition to find out what it was that he

relied upon by questioning him --

MS. BIRCH: He has listed in his references

what he has relied upon.

MR. KOBELINSKI: But he hasn't produced it.

MS. BIRCH: He has produced the document

along with the reference, and in my estimation

he has produced it. If that's the contention

that all the parties are going to agree to, that

everything that is cited in a reference document

that a witness has used or relied upon, that

they are going to produce it, then that needs to

be an established rule that will apply to all

witnesses.

MR. KOBELINSKI: Thus far, I have seen with

the experts that has been done. I have yet to

see a case where they have not produced the

documents they are relying upon.

 


76

 

MS. BIRCH: Well, that has not been my

understanding of what has been occurring.

If Dr. Abtew has that particular

document --

MR. KOBELINSKI: He has stated he does.

MS. BIRCH: -- then that's something that

I have to take up later to determine whether or

not the District is going to be producing all

reference documents that a witness may have used

in producing a document.

MR. KOBELINSKI: Well, it's not a question

of producing a document. This is, his opinion

is on ET.

MS. BIRCH: His opinion is not on ET.

I understand that's what you are talking

about now.

MR. KOBELINSKI: Let me perhaps clarify it.

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    Dr. Abtew, is the EAA ET part of the EAA

water budget?

A.    It's part of the reference. It is there as

a reference. It doesn't determine the, didn't

determine the output.

Q.    Is ET not an integral part of the EAA water

budget?

 


77

 

A.    Yes, it is.

MR. KOBELINSKI: This is not a peripheral

matter. I don't want to sound nit-picking. ET

is the one question that no one really knows

very well.

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    With regard to Table 9 on page 27, which

bears Bates number 0900269 of Exhibit 2, drawing your

attention to the first box there underneath sugar

cane, January, it says .68.

Could you just walk me through how you

would have determined .68? Do you recall?

A.    I have to read the FAO-24 manual to get

back the memory, everything that was used to develop

that coefficient.

Q.    Well, just in general terms, if I had

FAO-24, was there a chapter or section on

specifically sugar cane?

A.    There is sugar cane as a crop cited in

estimate of coefficient as suggested by FAO-24 in

that specific document.

Q.    Is that coefficient that's suggested a

range or just one specific number?

A.    I don't remember for each specific crop

whether it's a specific value or a range.

 


78

 

Q.    I'm just talking about sugar cane still.

A.    I don't remember that.

Q.    Do you recall whether or not that

coefficient change is based upon a season, January

through December, et cetera?

A.    Yes, it does change with the current

season.

Q.    Does the coefficient change based upon the

geographic area?

A.    I have to read the document to see all

that.

Q.    Do you recall generally whether or not the

FAO-24 is set up that way, though, if not

specifically with sugar cane, then with other crop

types?

A.    I don't remember. The document has a lot

of information.

Q.    Do you recall whether or not FAO-24, the

coefficient changes or they have various coefficients

based upon the soil type?

A.    I don't remember.

Q.    With regard to the soil type, the peat that

we have in the EAA, is that type of soil type located

anywhere else in the United States that you are aware

of?

 


79

 

A.    I don't know.

Q.    Is the soil type at all a factor in

estimating ET?

A.    I don't know where soil as a factor is

included in ET calculation. I don't know any

incidence of anything that I read on that.

Q.    There is a reference, and I will look for

it quickly, in one of the documents we have marked as

an exhibit of a test done of sandy soil in Fort

Lauderdale, which indicated that when the water table

was held one foot below the surface level, the ET was

literally the exact same as in open water.

Do you recall that?

A.    Yes.

Q.    Do you know whether or not if the water

table was held at one foot underneath the surface

level for peat whether the same evapotranspiration

would occur?

A.    That's the water table with regard to the

soil, not the soil as a factor.

Q.    I recognize that, but does the soil there,

in combination with the water table, result in

different ETs, the soil type?

A.    That's possible, yes.

Q.    Is that something that the FAO-24 takes


Return to Top                                                                                                                                 80

 

into consideration?

A.    I don't remember.

Q.    Is that something that you took into

consideration?

A.    I have referenced whatever it is applicable

in my work.

Q.    I appreciate that, sir.

Is the soil type something that you took

into consideration in determining ET?

A.    The water table, both water and soil, I

have to take into consideration.

Q.    I understand you took the water table.

Again, we just went through a series of

questions with regard to soil type.

My question is did you take the soil type,

since we discussed the soil type can have an impact

in combination with the water table, did you take the

soil type into consideration?

A.    The soil type with the water table, because

it makes sense with water together, you know.

Q.    You recall the study that I had mentioned a

few moments ago in Fort Lauderdale with sandy soil?

Do you recall whether or not peat has the

same ET as the sandy soil would?

A.    It is a crop which is doing the

 


81

 

evapotranspiration, and if the water table is within

the reach of the root zone of the crop, then what

kind of soil, how deep is the water table would be

important.

Q.    In the EAA does the water table reach the

root zone?

A.    Yes, most of the time it is a high water

table area.

Q.    Then if I understand what you just said,

the soil type is an important factor; is that right?

A.    With the water table.

Q.    My question is how does peat compare to

other soil types for evapotranspiration or

evaporation purposes in combination with the soil

type or water table?

A.    If the water table is high in the EAA, it

is within reach of the crop.

Q.    Would evapotranspiration be different in

the EAA if it was just a pure sand soil?

A.    Depends how high the water table is

maintained.

Q.    With the same water table, exact same.

Would changing from peat to sand have any

impact on evapotranspiration?

A.    With regard to the water table --

 


82

 

Q.    Again, we are keeping the water table as a

constant, exact complete constant, laboratory

conditions.

Would changing the peat to sand have an

impact upon ET?

A.    It depends on the water table and the type

of crop you have on it. All these factors together

will make a difference.

Q.    Keeping the exact same crop, keeping the

exact same water table, if you changed the peat to

sand, would there be a difference in ET?

MS. BIRCH: Object, argumentative, asked

and answered.

THE WITNESS: Depends on the water table.

If it is too low, crop will be dry, if it is

very low.

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    What is the water table in the EAA? I

believe you answered it touches the root zone?

A.    Yes, on the average, 18 inches from the

surface of the ground.

Q.    If you keep it at the average 18 inches

from the surface of the crop and you keep the exact

same crop and you change the peat to sand, would

there be a difference in ET?

 


83

 

MS. BIRCH: Objection, asked and answered.

THE WITNESS: It still depends on the

rainfall, which means unsaturated zone will get

water or not.

Second, it depends on the type of crop and

the variety and how deep the roots go down, in

both cases.

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    Dr. Abtew, I'm not explaining myself very

well.

What I'm saying is you don't change

anything about the EAA.    You keep the exact same

crops. You keep the exact same rainfall. You keep

the exact same water table. You keep the exact same

inflows, exact same outflows. Everything in the EAA

stays the same.

But if the peat was sand, would it change

the evapotranspiration? So rainfall is the same,

every single factor is the same.

MS. BIRCH: Objection, asked and answered.

Dr. Abtew is not a soil scientist.

MR. KOBELINSKI: I'm not asking a soil

question. I'm asking whether or not soil type

makes a difference in ET.

MS. BIRCH: He has answered that.

 


84

 

MR. KOBELINSKI: No, he keeps saying there

are other factors. I'm saying keep all the

factors the same.

MS. BIRCH: He said it makes a difference.

I believe that was the response.

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    Is it correct that if you would change it

to sand, it would have a difference on ET?

A.    Depending on the status of water in the

saturated and unsaturated zone.

Q.    If that was the same, sir. Again, we are

keeping all other factors the exact same.

MS. BIRCH: Object, asked and answered,

becoming argumentative.

MR. KOBELINSKI: I'm not, counsel. I'm

saying keep the factors the same. I just want a

yes or no answer and I want to --

MS. BIRCH: Maybe he can't give a yes or no

answer. It's not required to give a yes or no

answer.

MR. KOBELINSKI: I appreciate that.

MS. BIRCH: His response has been --

MR. KOBELINSKI: It depends on other

factors. And I keep adding the other factors

in.

 


85

 

THE WITNESS: If it's unsaturated zone and

it gets enough water, you want to know the

difference, because in both cases the root can

get enough water.

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    So there would be no difference?

A.    You have to get the specific condition into

detail.

Q.    Do you have that specific information with

regard to the EAA currently?

A.    What kind of specific information?

Q.    The information you were just talking about

as to whether or not the roots are reaching the water

table.

A.    The roots are reaching the water table and

are producing good yield, which is a sign that the

crop is getting enough water.

Q.    Given those conditions then, so we know the

roots are reaching the water table, would the soil

type -- and again using the example of sand -- make a

difference in ET?

A.    Depends on the status of the unsaturated

zone.

Q.    And what is it about the status of the

unsaturated zone that would make the difference?

 


86

 

A.    If it is dry, sand holds less water than

the peat. So if the water table is deep in the sand,

it could decrease ET than the other one, which has

more water-holding capacity.

Q.    So for instance, if the water table was 18

inches below peat, the surface of the level of peat,

and if it was 18 inches below the surface level of

the sand, there would be then a difference in the ET?

A.    Depends how deep the roots go in both case.

How far does it go down?

Q.    Well, evapotranspiration, what are the

factors that are combined to create

evapotranspiration?

A.    Energy from the sun, wind and vapor

pressure gradient, measured as relative humidity.

Q.    In a typical agricultural field, is water

released from the plant biomass itself, for instance,

the leaves?

MS. BIRCH: Objection to the form.

THE WITNESS: Yes, from the leaves and from

the wet soil underneath.

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    So there is water released from the soil?

A.    If it is wet.

Q.    And that water that's released from the

 


87

 

soil, is that independent of the water that's

released from the plant?

A.    Yes. The plant is by itself.

Evapotranspiration is the sum of the two, the wet

soil release and the crop loss from the field.

Q.    With regard to the water released from the

soil, does it matter how deep the roots are as far as

that water release?

A.    That's independent of the roots.

Q.    Back to my earlier question, if you had a

water table at 18 inches below the surface for peat

and 18 inches below the surface for sand, would there

be a difference in the water release for the two

situations?

A.    I think you can refer to the

evapotranspiration paper. I can check which document

it is on this matter. Exhibit 4, I think there is

something to that reference.

On page 10, paragraph -- I don't know how

much it satisfies your answer, but there is a

paragraph three, some reference on different soils.

Q.    Well, have you reviewed that paragraph,

sir?

A.    You can get some information from the

reference, I hope. I don't remember what exactly,

 


88

 

what difference is cited in that document. I have to

read it again.

Q.    Please read it, because I could not --

A.    The Stephens and Weaver 1960 document which

is on the reference.

Q.    Just so I understand, I'm asking in my

prior question, where I asked you if the soil type

changed, if you had the water table 18 inches below

the soil type and one was peat and one was sand, you

don't know whether or not there would be a difference

in ET?

A.    Depends on the depth of the root zone.

Q.    Let's start back there again.

I'm not talking about the water released

from the plant. I'm talking about the water released

from the soil only.

A.    From the soil --

Q.    The soil portion of the evapotranspiration,

the water that's released from the soil.

MS. BIRCH: What's the question?

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    Would there be a difference -- I'll ask the

question again.

A.    On soil type, soil type is a factor in

water growth, subsurface water loss by transpiration.

 


89

 

Q.    Thank you.

Now does FAO-24 take into consideration the

unique peat soils that are contained in the EAA?

A.    I don't remember the details.

Q.    Do you recall whether you took that into

consideration in deriving that coefficient that you

used on page 27 of Exhibit 2?

A.    Yes.

Q.    How did you do so?

A.    Accessibility, availability of water to the

plants, regardless of what soil you have is a factor

which was considered.

In the EAA case, water is available for the

plants.

Q.    With regard to water being available to the

plants, you are talking about the portion of the

evapotranspiration where water is released by the

plant biomass; is that correct?

A.    If no irrigation is available for the

plants --

Q.    I'm talking about the water released from

the plant itself.

When you are referring to whether or not

there is water available to the roots, you are again

talking about that portion of evapotranspiration that

 


90

 

the plant, the water that the plant releases; is that

correct?

A.    That's not what I am saying.

Q.    Perhaps I misunderstand you. Could you

explain to me?

A.    The plants get enough water in the EAA from

rainfall and irrigation. That factor is considered

in developing this coefficient.

Q.    Where then in this paper do you take into

consideration the soil type?

A.    If there is a shortage of water and if the

plants had to strain to pull water through the soil,

factors affecting soil moisture, water movement

through the soil, I would have considered it.

Q.    A few moments ago you had explained to me

that evapotranspiration is a combination of water

being released from the plants and water being

released from the soil; is that correct?

A.    Yes.

Q.    And you are telling me that the

coefficients contained on page 27 of Exhibit 2 take

into consideration the water being released from the

plant; is that correct?

A.    From the whole system.

Q.    Excuse me?

 


91

 

A.    From the whole system.

Q.    Would that include then the water being

released from the soil, this coefficient?

A.    Evapotranspiration by definition includes

the soil.

Q.    Okay. So this --

A.    Not only plants.

Q.    I understand that, but with regard to this

table here on page 27 of Exhibit 2, does this

coefficient here also include the water released from

the soil?

A.    Yes.

Q.    And I had asked before whether or not

FAO-24 took into consideration the peat soils that

are located in the EAA, which I think everyone

recognizes are unique, and you had stated you didn't

recall; is that correct?

A.    That's right.

Q.    Do you recall whether you, independent of

FAO-24, took into consideration the peat soils?

A.    The factor that water is available for

evapotranspiration is considered.

Q.    How?

A.    By the rainfall and irrigation water used,

indicates that crops get enough water to transpire

 


92

 

and grow to give a good yield.

Q.    And when you --

A.    That's enough indication.

Q.    When you say transpire, we are talking

about the release of water from plants, right?

A.    Both from plants and wet soil, from the

soil.

Q.    Soil transpires also?

A.    Evapotranspiration is a combination of the

two.

Q.    Is evapotranspiration -- I always

understood it to sort of be a shortening of

evaporation and transpiration.

A.    That's correct.

Q.    Looking at it solely, does that refer

solely to water released by the plants?

A.    Yes. I didn't do that work. That's a

separate work.

Q.    I understand that. The evaporation portion

would be the portion that's released by standing

water or soil?

A.    Wet soil standing from the farm as a whole.

Q.    Other than plants?

A.    Evapotranspiration is a combination of all

that.

 


93

 

Q.    I'm not talking about evapotranspiration.

I'm talking about evaporation.

A.    Evaporation is normally from some other

surface than the plants.

Q.    My question is with regard to the table on

page 27 of Exhibit 2, draft number 27, page 27, does

this coefficient here take into consideration both

the transpiration, the water released from the plant,

and the evaporation, the water released from the soil

or whatever else?

A.    Yes.

Q.    And my question is if FAO-24 does not

consider the peat soils that are found in EAA, did

you consider that independent of that in coming up

with a coefficient found on this page?

A.    In calculating evapotranspiration, you

don't separate the soil and the crop. That's not the

way it's calculated.

Q.    Are you aware that sugar cane is grown in

Hawaii?

A.    Yes, I am aware.

Q.    Would you anticipate that the

evapotranspiration of sugar cane in Hawaii would be

different than the evapotranspiration of sugar cane

in the EAA?

 


94

 

A.    It could be. Depends on where you are

located with regard to the latitude and all other

parameters.

Q.    What are the factors --

A.    And the variety of crop, the length of the

growing season were the factors as to the amount that

you are trying to get. Wind, humidity level,

temperature, all those factors result in

evapotranspiration.

Q.    Okay. Variety of crop, did you take into

consideration the variety of crops that are grown in

the EAA?

A.    Yes.

Q.    And do you consider, take into

consideration the different varieties --

A.    Variety in a sense the length of the -- the

maturation period is one indication for sugar cane in

a 12-month, 14-month or a 24-month type of

characterization and distinguish by that.

Q.    Does FAO-24 take into consideration the

different varieties of sugar cane?

A.    The two growing periods, the 24 months and

the shorter period.

Q.    Just so I understand, because I'm going to

have to look back at the FAO-24, does it distinguish

 


95

 

by growing periods or does it distinguish by --

A.    By growing periods.

Q.    You have to let me finish; otherwise, the

transcript reads sort of funny.

By growing period or by crop type, say a

particular genus of sugar cane?

A.    By growing period.

Q.    What is the growing period for sugar cane

in the EAA?

A.    12 to 14 months.

Q.    Where did you obtain that information?

A.    Either from -- I don't remember, either

from -- I don't remember.

Q.    Is that the growing period that you used in

coming up with a coefficient in FAO-24?

A.    Yes, that's the growing period I used.

Q.    Stepping back for a moment, we were talking

about Hawaii and how Hawaii grows sugar cane.

Are you aware that in Hawaii you have

primarily volcanic soils?

A.    I don't know that.

Q.    You listed a number of factors that had to

be taken into consideration for evapotranspiration

coefficients between sugar cane grown in Hawaii and

sugar cane grown in the EAA; is that correct?

 


96

 

You had listed some earlier, wind,

humidity, sunlight, time of year, crop type.

Are there any other factors?

A.    Latitude.

Q.    Anything else?

A.    That's all what I remember.

Q.    Soil type then in your opinion would not be

a factor?

A.    If water is available, I won't consider

soil type. If there is available water throughout

the system for growing the crop, soil type doesn't

become important.

Q.    Okay. Are you familiar with the BMPs, the

best management practices that are going to be

instituted and implemented in the EAA as part of the

SWIM proceedings?

MS. BIRCH: Objection to the relevancy.

THE WITNESS: I work in that area.

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    What is it that you do in that area?

A.    I have a research plan to evaluate the

effectiveness of the best management practices in the

agricultural area.

Q.    And what exactly is your role in this

research plan for BMPs?

 


97

 

And when I say BMPs, I'm referring to best

management practices; and in particular, I'm

referring to the best management practices that are

discussed and contemplated within the SWIM Plan.

A.    My role will be to do research and evaluate

if they are any good or working as suggested, if they

are effective, to evaluate if they are effective.

Q.    Have you already started this work?

MS. BIRCH: Objection, relevancy.

THE WITNESS: I have the research plan

completed.

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    Who else is working with you on this?

A.    Myself right now.

Q.    Do you know of anyone else in the District

that is working on research into the effectiveness of

BMPs?

A.    I don't know.

MS. BIRCH: Objection to the relevancy.

THE WITNESS: I don't know anyone.

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    Are one of the BMPs that you are looking at

or contained in your plan pumping practices?

A.    That would be one.

Q.    And what exactly is a pumping practice?

 


98

 

What is the pumping BMP?

MS. BIRCH: Objection to relevancy.

THE WITNESS: I have to read the final BMPs

design and criteria that is going to be limited

to start my evaluation. Before I get the design

of the pumping or any other BMP, I can't tell

you what is going to be, because --

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    Do you understand that generally, with

regard to the pumping BMP, the water tables will be

raised above what has historically been the water

table level in the EAA?

A.    I have to see the design document. I can't

comment before I get all the full information on the

specific BMP.

Q.    You have not seen the design document yet?

A.    I have seen parts and initial suggestions

or past experiments done on that area, but the final

BMP with regard to the EAA we have to evaluate, and

until it is so, I don't know which BMP is doing what.

Q.    I guess my question is far more general

than the specifics of the design. Let me ask it a

different way.

Is the pumping BMP intended to have the

farmers pump off more water and to lower the water

 


99

 

tables on their farms?

MS. BIRCH: Objection, relevancy and

foundation.

THE WITNESS: I have no --

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    You have no idea about the pumping BMP?

A.    I have to get the full information to see

how it works.

Q.    I'm not asking how it works. I'm not

talking about specifics here, doctor. I'm just

talking about is the pumping BMP intended to increase

the water table on the farms or decrease the water

table? I'm not even asking by how much. Is it

intended to increase or decrease the water table?

A.    This is going to be provided by the BMP

implementals and designs. We have to design it. I

can't tell you ahead of time whether it is going to

be raised or not.

Q.    You have no idea at this point?

A.    I don't have idea about the last version of

the pump BMP that I am going to evaluate.

Q.    Well, have you seen any preliminary

versions?

A.    I have seen different versions.

Q.    In those versions were the water tables


Return to Top                                                                                                                                 100

 

raised or lowered by the pumping practices?

A.    I don't remember the details.

Q.    Again, I'm not asking for details,

percentages. I'm just asking for generally.

Under the prior ones you have seen, have

they been raised or lowered, water table?

A.    I don't remember. I have to see the

documents, refer to the documents.

Q.    Are you aware that under the BMPs that they

are designed or one of them is designed to go ahead

and result in the farmers holding back more of their

water and decreasing the runoff?

MS. BIRCH: Objection to the relevancy,

outside the expertise of Dr. Abtew.

MR. KOBELINSKI: Before you answer that,

I'll withdraw the question.

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    Dr. Abtew, you had stated that to your

knowledge, you are the only one that's going to be

researching the efficacy, the effectiveness of these

BMPs.

Will you be researching the effectiveness

of the pumping BMP?

A.    If it is going to be implemented by the

farmers, yes.

 


101

 

Q.    Does the District, in assigning you that

task, is it contemplated that you have the knowledge

or skill to test the effectiveness of that BMP?

A.    Yes, sir.

Q.    Going back then to the question, are you

aware that one of the BMPs is designed with the

intent to have the farmers hold more water within the

farms and to decrease the runoff?

MS. BIRCH: Objection to the relevancy and

objection, beyond the expertise that Dr. Abtew

is stated to be testifying about.

THE WITNESS: Until I get the BMPs that are

actually going to be designed in the design

criteria, what's going to be held out or be

pumped out, I can't comment this is this BMP or

this is that BMP. It wouldn't be professional

to do that.

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    Have you ever heard of the BMP rule?

MS. BIRCH: Objection to relevancy. He is

not listed as a witness regarding the BMP rule.

His expertise is in the area of the EAA water

budget.

MR. KOBELINSKI: I think we are talking

about water here. I haven't asked about any

 


102

 

other BMPs but water.

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    Have you ever heard of the BMP rule?

A.    Which rule are you talking about?

Q.    Okay. Are you familiar with a rule that

was adopted by the District in March of '92, 40E-63?

A.    Yes, I am familiar.

Q.    What does that rule deal with?

MS. BIRCH: Objection, way beyond the

expertise of this witness.

THE WITNESS: I don't remember the details

to give details.

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    Generally what's that rule deal with that?

MS. BIRCH: Same objection.

THE WITNESS: The rule is with regard to

implementation of the EAA settlement document,

settlement agreement, as a result of the

settlement agreement.

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    How is the 40E-63 the result of the

settlement agreement?

MS. BIRCH: Objection, it's way beyond the

expertise of Dr. Abtew, way beyond the

relevancy.

 


103

 

THE WITNESS: With regard to the settlement

argument. I just repeated the same thing I said

earlier.

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    Was the settlement agreement you are

referring to the settlement agreement between the

United States and the South Florida Water Management

District that resulted from a lawsuit brought by the

United States in the Southern District Court?

A.    Yes.

Q.    How did that settlement agreement or how

has does that settlement agreement relate to 40E-63?

MS. BIRCH: Objection, no foundation.

THE WITNESS: I don't know other than what

I told you.

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    Did someone tell you that 40E-63 is related

to the settlement agreement?

MS. BIRCH: Objection, relevancy.

THE WITNESS: If I am not mistaken, there

is reference in the document about the

settlement.

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    Referenced in the settlement agreement to

what, sir?

 


104

 

A.    No, in the Chapter 40 document information.

Q.    Is it your understanding that 40E-63 was

required by the settlement agreement?

MS. BIRCH: Objection, relevancy.

THE WITNESS: I don't have detailed

information.

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    Going back to an earlier question,

generally do you know what 40E-63 is regarding?

MS. BIRCH: Objection, relevancy.

THE WITNESS: I don't know. It's not in my

work area to definitely --

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    Do you know if it's related to the

Everglades Agricultural Area at all?

A.    Yes, I know it is related with the EAA.

Q.    Do you know if it's related to BMPs at all?

MS. BIRCH: Objection, relevancy.

Counselor, why don't we move on to an area

that Dr. Abtew has some knowledge about, which

is the EAA water budget and its development?

MR. KOBELINSKI: We will be there.

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    There is a question pending still.

A.    I have to refer to the document to tell you

 


105

 

the details, to answer your question.

Q.    I'm not asking you a detailed question,

doctor. I guess I didn't phrase myself correctly.

Generally is 40E-63 related to BMPs or the

EAA?

MS. BIRCH: Objection, asked and answered

and relevancy.

THE WITNESS: I have to read the document.

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    You don't know?

A.    I have to read the document to be certain

in my answers.

Q.    Well, do you know right now without

reference to the document as to whether or not 40E-63

is related to BMPs in the EAA?

MS. BIRCH: Objection, asked and answered

and relevancy.

THE WITNESS: I have to read the document,

I have to refer to the document.

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    Without the document, you don't know?

MS. BIRCH: Asked and answered at least

four times. This is getting us nowhere,

Mr. Kobelinski.

THE WITNESS: I have to refer to the

 


106

 

document to say for certain what the contents

are.

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    Would a BMP that required greater retention

of water on the agricultural fields impact the water

budget that you prepared?

A.    I haven't studied that yet.

Q.    I'm sorry, I didn't ask whether you studied

it.

My question is would a BMP which requires

greater retention of water on the agricultural fields

result in a change in your water budget?

MS. BIRCH: Objection, calls for a

conclusion and speculation.

THE WITNESS: I have to study.

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    You don't know?

MS. BIRCH: Objection, asked and answered.

THE WITNESS: I have to study before I

answer this kind of technical question.

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    Is storage, the storage in the agricultural

fields part of your water budget equation?

A.    It was not considered, storage is not

considered in the water budget document.

 


107

 

Q.    You make reference in your water budget in

describing the system to lateral canals or the

irrigation canals in the EAA; is that correct?

A.    I didn't understand the question.

Q.    You make reference in your water budget to

lateral canals or irrigation canals, farm canals in

the EAA.

MS. BIRCH: Objection, a statement, not a

question.

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    Is that correct?

A.    You have to refer to which document? Which

document is the reference?

Q.    Are there irrigation canals in the EAA?

A.    Yes, there are irrigation canals.

Q.    And what is the purpose of those irrigation

canals?

A.    Supply water to the farms and take out the

runoff when it is in the drainage mode.

Q.    With regard to sugar cane EAA, how do you

irrigate sugar cane or how do they do so in the EAA?

A.    Subsurface irrigation.

Q.    And how do they apply the water to the

roots or how do they get the water for subsurface

irrigation?

 


108

 

A.    That's what subsurface irrigation is.

Q.    How do they do that?

MS. BIRCH: Are you asking him if he knows

or are you asking him to guess how they do it?

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    Do you know how they do it, sir?

A.    It's subsurface irrigation system.

Q.    And how does it work?

A.    The irrigation water seeps through the soil

to the crop from the nearby canals.

Q.    The nearby canal, you are referring to the

four major canals, the Miami, the Hillsboro, the

North New River Canal and the --

A.    The farm ditch.

Q.    The West Palm Beach Canal?

A.    The farm ditch.

Q.    The Palm Beach Canal?

A.    The farm ditch.

Q.    Farm gauge?

A.    Farm ditch.

Q.    Do they get the water from those four

primary canals?

A.    I don't understand the question.

Q.    Where do they get the water that goes to

the farm ditches, where do they get the water to put

 


109

 

in the farm ditches?

A.    From the primary canals.

Q.    The four that I mentioned a few moments

ago?

A.    Yes, the four.

Q.    Now with subsurface irrigation, is that

essentially irrigating the plants by raising and

lowering the water table underneath the surface of

the soil?

A.    When you raise the water in the canal,

water seeps from the higher state to the soil.

When you drain, you lower that one down,

the canal level is gone down and water moves from the

soil to the canal.

Q.    In your water budget, did you estimate an

average water table level for the EAA?

A.    On yearly cycle the water level comes back

to what it was, and on a yearly basis the net change

can be assumed to be zero.

Q.    Would a change in the average depth of the

water table on an annual basis where on an annual

basis you had, for instance, approximately a one foot

rise in the water table have any impact upon your

water budget?

MS. BIRCH: Would you read the question

 


110

 

back for me, please?

(Thereupon, a portion of the record

was read by the reporter.)

THE WITNESS: I have to calculate how much

it is.

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    How would you do that?

A.    With a calculator.

Q.    What would you need to know to do the

calculation?

A.    You give me the area.

Q.    Assuming we use the area that was used in

Exhibit 2, study area, what else do you need to know?

A.    That's it. A calculator and some time.

Q.    What exactly is the calculation that you

would do, sir?

A.    I would compute how much it is that you

want to know with the hypothetical case.

Q.    If it was one foot, would you multiply --

what would you multiply one foot by to determine the

impact upon the water budget?

A.    I would multiply one foot by .2. The muck

soil is estimated to hold two-tenths of a foot of

water for every foot of soil.

And the rising water table of one foot will

 


111

 

bring a net water, will take a net water of .2 inch

in depth of the whole area.

That multiplied by the whole area, divided

by 12, if it is a foot, you just multiply .2 by the

whole area, less amount of water that is needed to

raise it by one foot.

Q.    Now given that calculation, how would that

affect your water budget?

A.    It wouldn't affect my water budget. That's

not the case in the EAA.    Usually some kind of

agricultural practice goes on, so it repeats the

cycle.

So my water budget will be the same,

because this is the case as stated in the water

budget.

Q.    Your water budget would not be affected at

all if you raised the water level?

A.    If you raise, it will be affected, but

that's not the case in the EAA, so my water

predictions stay the same.

Q.    So I understand you, if you did raise the

water table, it would affect the water budget?

A.    For the time you raised it, it will affect.

When you release it, when you lower it, it is going

to go out.

 


112

 

Q.    What if you didn't lower it?

A.    If you keep it at that level, that net

increase will be stored there forever until you lower

it down.

Q.    And how would that impact the water budget?

A.    What do you mean how it will impact the

water budget?

Q.    Will it impact the water budget?

A.    It won't, if there is going to be

agriculture, you can't raise it one foot and keep it

there for very long.

Q.    Well, let's not use the example of raising

it a foot. Let's say if we raised it to

approximately one foot below the surface level. Make

that the average.

Assuming that the average currently is 18

inches below the surface level, would that affect the

water budget?

A.    Not very much, 50, 60,000 acre feet, 60,000

acre feet, because it is a small amount, my rough

calculation.

Q.    Would it affect the evapotranspiration,

since your water table is now closer to the surface

of the soil?

A.    I don't think so. The crop was getting

 


113

 

enough water already with the existing practice and

wouldn't get to that level, I don't think.

Q.    What about the soil?

A.    I don't think there will be change in

evapotranspiration raising it six inches upward.

Q.    How would you go about determining that?

Would there be a means of doing so?

A.    What do you mean?

Q.    Well, how would you determine whether or

not there would be a change in the ET?

A.    The theoretical analysis will help you find

the maximum it can go. There is a certain limit

based on the energy that you can pass whether you

have water on the surface or above the surface.

There is only limited amount of water that

can go up as evapotranspiration, so there is an upper

limit number anyway for evapotranspiration.

Q.    Is the EAA at the upper limit now?

A.    I can assume crops are transpiring at the

full rate.

Q.    What about the soil?

A.    The soil is also kept wet to control soil

subsidence. It is stated in the, some of the

documents.

Q.    Is it your opinion then that the soil is at

 


114

 

its maximum limit for evaporation?

A.    Can say evapotranspiration as a whole from

the EAA is at its full rate.

Q.    It's hit the maximum limit?

A.    I can't say the maximum. We can say it is

at full rate.

Q.    What's the difference between full rate and

maximum?

A.    Well, for practical purposes, the crops are

transpiring at as much as they require to do so to

produce good yield, and there is no shortage of

water.

Q.    What about the soil?

A.    The soil is moist, too.

Q.    So is the soil also at its maximum?

A.    I don't want to put it that way. I have to

study the difference that all this can make, the

hypothetical case.

Q.    Does the District intend to study the

impact of the BMPs on the water budget?

A.    I don't know right now.

Q.    Has it been discussed?

A.    Well, the water budget I know will be done

regularly or routinely, and whatever there is in the

EAA is going to be, of course, part of the total

 


115

 

budget.

Q.    Have you ever discussed with anyone whether

or not the proposed BMPs will have any impact upon

the water budget, EAA water budget?

A.    Not that I remember.

MR. PERKO: Can we take a break?

MR. KOBELINSKI: Sure.

(Thereupon, a recess was taken.)

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    Dr. Abtew, drawing your attention back to

Exhibit Number 2 that's been marked in this

deposition and page 27, which bears Bates number

0900269, in the right-hand corner of that Table 9

there it states weighted average.

What exactly is that, sir?

A.    That's area weighted average for each crop,

for all the crops.

Q.    Where do you have the information as to the

area for each crop per month?

Is that a different table?

A.    Page 16, Table 6.

Q.    I note that on Table 6 the table is by

year, where on Table 9 it is by month.

Did you keep the acreage for, for instance,

sugar cane constant throughout the year in Table 9?

 


116

 

A.    These are average values, average for the

whole period, average values.

Q.    Was that average then, just so I understand

it, was that average for the period 1980 through

1990?

A.    Yes, 1980 to 1990.

Q.    Based upon your review of Table 6, which is

at Bates page number 0900258, is your understanding

that there has been a general increase in the

percentage of land used in the EAA during that

period?

MS. BIRCH: What period are you referring

to?

MR. KOBELINSKI: From 1980 to 1990. That's

on Table 6, counsel.

THE WITNESS: Well, it has decreased the

following year in some cases, but generally from

'80 to '90 there is increase.

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    And on the same table, drawing your

attention to the second column, second row from the

bottom, fallow land, is there generally a decrease in

the amount of fallow land during that period of time?

A.    According to the data, yes.

Q.    Did you take into consideration the ET for

 


117

 

fallow land in your estimation of ET?

A.    Fallow land is small in relation to the

total area, so the theoretical ET was calculated for

the major crops.

And on the fallow land rice is also grown

on the specified acreage for each year. The fallow

land is used for rice crop.

Q.    Drawing your attention to Table 6, is it

your understanding that the row which is four from

the bottom entitled rice is rice that's actually

grown -- for instance, in 1980, it lists rice as

10,000 acres; is that correct?

A.    That's right.

Q.    And it lists fallow land as 90,097 acres;

is that correct?

A.    When?

Q.    It lists, 1980, same year --

A.    Yes, 90,097, yes.

Q.    Is it your understanding that the 10,000

acres of rice is actually 10,000 acres of rice that

is included in that 90,097 figure?

A.    That's right. It is shown at the bottom,

with the asterisk, rice is grown on the fallow sugar

cane land. It should be part of that.

Q.    Could you assist me for a moment? I'm

 


118

 

looking at a subtotal. I'm looking at 1980. It says

a subtotal there of 502,863 acres.

What is that a subtotal of?

A.    Of the previous rows, the rows, crop types.

Everything else above that line, all the rows that

are mentioned other than those, that are mentioned

other than agricultural area have been added.

Q.    Okay. And that subtotal is 502,000?

A.    Yes.

Q.    And then fallow land is added; is that

correct?

A.    Fallow land is added, yes.

Q.    Coming up with a total area of 592,000?

A.    The total area is 592,960.

Q.    Given that, does it appear that the 10,000

acres of rice is actually in addition to the fallow

land?

A.    No. If you added already, you don't have

to add it. If you didn't add it to the previous one,

you have to --

Q.    Is rice contained in the subtotal, since

you said it was everything above subtotal?

A.    You have to add these numbers.

Q.    Do you recall?

A.    No, I don't recall how I computed those

 


119

 

values.

Q.    With rice, do you actually have open,

standing water?

A.    Yes -- well, pretty much wet condition with

rice growing.

Q.    Is the ET for a fallow field different than

the ET for a field growing rice?

A.    The rice coefficients are bigger than the

other crops, as you see on page 0900269. The fact

that rice is under water and it is a water-consuming

crop, it has higher coefficient.

Q.    And that rice that you have there is

essentially weighted by the total of the column --

excuse me, the row entitled rice that's in Table 6;

is that correct?

A.    The rice control is by itself.

Q.    But where did you get the figure to weight

that? Because you have a weighted average in the

final right-hand column of Table 9.

A.    I don't remember. I'm sure sugar cane,

vegetable and sod, which are almost all the crop

area, is weighted. I'm not sure if the rice is

included in that weight.

Q.    Drawing your attention then to 1980 where

you have sugar cane with 306,815 acres and you have


Return to Top                                                                                                                                 120

 

fallow land of 90,097 acres, roughly 30 percent, give

or take a few percentage points, would you consider

that a large percentage that should have been taken

into consideration for ET?

A.    I have to see the document, the area which

is used for ET computation. Somewhere it is

mentioned how much of the whole area is considered

for evapotranspiration calculation. So that's

where --

Q.    If you could look through to find that for

me, please.

A.    I didn't use these coefficients to

calculate volume of water that left the EAA.

Q.    I'm sorry, my question was directed towards

ET.

Did you consider the ET coming off the

fallow land?

A.    I don't remember.

Q.    Is there any way to tell from your

document?

A.    Need some time to go through the document.

Q.    Well, ignoring the document, with regard to

your expert testimony, have you considered fallow

land in determining what the ET is for the EAA?

A.    If the fallow land is not irrigated, if

 


121

 

your interest is a crop, calculation of specific

crop, sugar cane, vegetated land, sod ET, there is no

need, that you can consider only those areas and come

up with inch of water loss per acre, which is

independent of the area covered by fallow land or any

other area. That doesn't come to the computation at

all.

Q.    Have you ever seen a fallow field in the

EAA visibly?

Have you ever literally, have you

personally ever seen a fallow field?

A.    No, I haven't seen personally -- well, I

haven't been in the area, so there is no chance to

see if there was fallow land other than information

supplied by the information assigned to the document.

Q.    Are you aware that fallow fields are

typically kept with the water table either at or

sometimes above the soil surface?

A.    Yes, there is a reference in the document

on that point.

Q.    Given that and, for instance, in 1980 with

90,000 acres of fallow land, that would not have an

impact on ET?

A.    It will have impact on ET.

Q.    Where do you take that into consideration?

 


122

 

A.    I didn't calculate the volume of water

going from the EAA.    The computation was for the crop

for the specific area.

Q.    I understand that, sir.

My question is were you calculating ET by

the tables and the computations contained at

approximately page 26 and 27 of Exhibit 2?

A.    Uh huh.

Q.    And that was computation of ET for the EAA

area that is in this, described in this document,

Exhibit 2; is that correct?

A.    Yes.

Q.    Does Table 6, which is contained on page

16, show that -- for instance, during 1980, which is

the one we are discussing of the study area, 90,000

acres were kept as fallow land.

Wouldn't that impact the total ET for the

EAA study area?

A.    There would be ET from the fallow land, but

I don't think it will change .72 coefficient that was

developed for the whole area.

Q.    Why not?

A.    Fallow land is under, part of the fallow

land is under rice, as mentioned earlier. And most

of the area, I think the rest of the area is pretty

 


123

 

large, and putting fallow land ET into the

computation will not alter the theoretical estimation

very much. That's the reason.

Q.    For instance, we can go year by year, but

using 1980, which is the first year, you have

vegetable and sweet corn, which is your second column

on Table 9.

Referring to Table 6 in 1980, vegetable and

sweet corn had 46,000 acres; is that correct,

approximately?

A.    Yes.

Q.    And that year fallow land was 90,000 acres,

so why include vegetables if they are literally less

than half or approximately half of what fallow land

is and not include fallow land?

A.    The crop consumptive use is of interest to

know. That's one thing, why all the crops in the

area are included. That's one reason.

The second reason, this ET is not used in

the water budget analysis. It is there for

theoretical comparison only. Nothing is determined

with this theoretical approach. No water is, no

runoff or no irrigation water is calculated using

this theoretical approach.

It is on the side as a theoretical estimate

 


124

 

of what could be the ET from the ag area and put in

parallel with the other work for reference for people

who want to see the theoretical part of the budget,

but the actual volume of water that flows to the EAA

used for agriculture purpose or left from the area as

runoff is not affected when this whole table was

decided until now. That's how the document is set

up.

Q.    Why did you do it? Why did you calculate

the theoretical?

MS. BIRCH: Asked and answered.

THE WITNESS: Because to see how the

measured values come close to our theoretical

estimation.

If it is way apart, then we have to go back

and see what the problem is. If it is

reasonably close, then we are satisfied with the

water budget. It is as a check for the water

budget analysis that you use the theoretical

approach.

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    And as a check, was it your intent to make

it as accurate as possible, given the data that you

had?

A.    What's the question?

 


125

 

Q.    Since you are using a theoretical ET as a

check, was it your intent to make that theoretical ET

as accurate as possible, given the information you

had?

A.    Well, as much as, it certainly will be more

refined by including every piece of land, the

familiar low land or any other land. And doing that

in detail might improve the curiosity, but as a

whole, the value will not change that much. It won't

change it very much.

So it could be refined with including all

pieces of land separately. It can be refined.

Q.    It's your belief that including the fallow

land then would have no impact?

A.    Not substantial impact to change the

number.

Q.    My recollection from your testimony earlier

this morning or earlier this afternoon in response to

Mr. Perko's questions was that there was a difference

between the theoretical ET estimate and the ET

calculation based upon actual data. Is that correct?

A.    Yes, there is difference. It is documented

in there.

Q.    Did you ever determine what caused the

difference?

 


126

 

A.    I have said this morning it could be from

the theoretical method might not be fit for that

specific area or, as any theoretical approach is, all

the reasons we don't know. It is written in the

document.

So that could be the reasons. You have to

measure it to find out which one is very close to

reality. We have to measure actual

evapotranspiration for a type to know how much water

is going out from the area.

Q.    When you determined that there was a

difference between the theoretical and the actual,

did you go back to attempt to establish what the

causes could be?

A.    No, it was not assigned, nor, it was not

part of this assignment to see if theoretical and ET,

to verify or to do research on this matter.

Q.    You weren't assigned the task of finding

out why there was a difference; is that what you are

saying, sir?

A.    Yes, doing the research and finding out

which one was close to the actual value.

Q.    Given all the research you have now done on

ET in the EAA, are you aware of a better method of

doing a theoretical ET calculation?

 


127

 

A.    Not yet tested. I haven't seen a method

tested for the EAA that could give a better result,

not yet.

Q.    Just so I understand your answer, is it

that you have yet to see one tested or is it that you

have yet to see a method that could be used that

would result in a better figure?

A.    I have yet to see a method being tested and

working well for the area.

Q.    Could the crop coefficient for the EAA for

the various crops be different from the crop

coefficient found in FAO-24 given the particular

circumstances found in the EAA?

A.    Well, it's theoretical question.

To my judgment, those values are present

values for the area, those values which I have

published in the document.

Q.    So in your judgment, that is not where

there is a problem with the theoretical approach?

A.    It could be in that or the other

coefficient or in the whole approach itself, the

basic equation how to estimate ET. It could be in

the plan of operation data. It can be not having the

present plan of operation for the whole area. There

are a variety of possible sources of discrepancies

 


128

 

that could result in different values.

So without doing the test, really it's

better to pinpoint from Kc or Kp or from one of the

pans we used. There are a lot of possibilities.

Q.    Drawing your attention to what's been

marked as Exhibit 3 to this deposition, sir, a

document entitled Water Budget Analysis for the

Everglades Agricultural Area, An Organic Soil

Drainage Basin, by my notes I don't show that the

question was asked as to when this document was

prepared.

I might be wrong, but do you know when this

document was prepared?

A.    July 1992.

Q.    Has it been subsequently revised?

A.    It is in the process of being reviewed to

be published in Water Resource Bulletin or any other

journal.

Q.    Is it submitted for peer review within the

District?

A.    Yes.

Q.    Has it been submitted for peer review

outside the District as yet?

A.    Not yet.

Q.    Who is reviewing it within the District?

 


129

 

A.    I don't know. I have submitted it to the

division for review.

I had one reverse comment back which I have

not yet incorporated, and I don't know the rest of

the people, if there are any who reviewed the

document.

Q.    What review was that?

A.    Who reviewed it?

Q.    The one that you received back.

A.    Who the person is?

Q.    Yes.

A.    Joel Van Arman.

Q.    Have his comments been marked as an exhibit

to the deposition as yet?

A.    I received it after I turned these papers

in. He does editorial reviews. It is not a

technical review.

Basically there is no changes. The numbers

are in the conclusions.

Q.    When do you anticipate receiving reviews

from the technical referees?

A.    I don't know when I am getting it.

Q.    Drawing your attention, sir, to the first

paragraph, the second sentence states, "At present,

approximately 84 percent of the agricultural

 


130

 

production area is under sugar cane production."

Is it your understanding that that's a

year-round figure?

A.    Well, I don't understand your question.

Q.    Is it your understanding that at any given

point during the year, approximately 84 percent of

the EAA is under sugar cane production or growth?

A.    Well, during the cutting time it will be

reduced, but this is the average value for the

production year. If you say a specific time, during

the cutting time sugar cane area will decrease

apparently. And this is average for the production

year.

Q.    Are you aware of a trend over the past ten

years, in particular the past five years, I guess,

where during the off season sugar cane fields are

used for vegetable growth such as corn?

A.    The land use of the EAA, to the best of my

knowledge, is shown in Exhibit 2, page 16, in

Table 6.

Q.    Where did you obtain that information?

A.    It is cited in the document. Planning

Department report on water demand projection for Palm

Beach County. That is the source of the land use

data.

 


131

 

Q.    Is that the source of the crop agricultural

production data?

A.    Yes, land use, types of crops grown. The

second document is EAA Draft Study. This is the

first study we did from '86 to '90 or '87 to '90.

And we dropped that and went to this larger study.

So it's mentioned in the other one. I'm

sure the area extension worker is cited as a

reference for those numbers.

Q.    Do you know whether or not the numbers

reflect the use of the cane fields for winter corn?

A.    It is cited winter corn in the document, I

think.

Q.    I understand it's discussed.

My question is do you know whether or not

those figures include that?

A.    Winter corn as a crop is not included in

the ET calculation, because I didn't think it covered

large area enough to offset the theoretical estimate

of ET.

Q.    Are you aware of what area it does cover?

A.    No, I am not, except to the smaller.

Q.    Approximately how many acres would be

necessary to offset or have an impact upon the ET

calculation?

 


132

 

A.    Well, you have for a yearly estimate, the

growing season is a year. If it grows the whole year

and covers the ground, that's a judgment question,

what you see as a land use.

Q.    My question, though, is how would you

determine whether or not it would have an impact or

not?

How large would it have to be to have an

impact?

A.    It depends how it could differ from the

rest of the crops which cover the larger area.

When you are doing theoretical estimate,

you can include that and take more time in processing

the data and might not come with very much different

coefficient.

So that is a judgment question with the

things overall that you have. There is no specific

answer how much acre you are supposed to cover.

Q.    Is it your understanding that that portion

of the EAA that is being used for winter crops is

increasing on a yearly basis?

A.    I haven't studied the data in that regard,

so I don't know.

Q.    Drawing your attention back to Exhibit

Number 3, in the third full paragraph it starts by

 


133

 

stating, "Water budget analysis of such an area is

essential for water management and environmental

enhancement."

Why is water budget analysis essential for

water management? What role does it play?

A.    You have to know how much you have and how

much you need with regard to water resource. That's

important.

Q.    Who did the water budget at the EAA prior

to your study?

A.    I haven't seen one as a document. If I am

not mistaken, I haven't seen one.

Q.    Are you aware of whether or not there was a

water budget done in -- you have to wait until I

finish, I'm sorry -- are you aware of whether or not

there was a water budget at the EAA done prior to

your study?

A.    I have seen documents with regard to

discharge analysis from the EAA and irrigation water

use in the EAA.

Q.    Have you seen a water budget?

A.    I haven't seen water budget as detailed as

this one.

Q.    Have you seen ones that are less detailed?

A.    I don't remember the title. Maybe the CH2

 


134

 

Mill Hill study could be water budget of the EAA.

Q.    Do you know who contracted for the CH2 Mill

Hill study that you are referring to?

A.    I don't know.

Q.    Do you know who at the District?

A.    I don't know.

Q.    In that same paragraph the third sentence

says "Rainfall analysis shows a general trend in

decline in the wet season rainfall on the EAA."

MS. BIRCH: Where are you, Mark?

MR. KOBELINSKI: I'm sorry, the same

paragraph I was at, two sentences down, third

full paragraph on Exhibit 3, first page.

MS. BIRCH: Thank you.

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    And it states "Rainfall analysis shows a

general trend from decline in the wet season rainfall

on the EAA."

Is that during the '73 to '91 period, sir?

A.    Yes -- wait, I'm not sure. Should be

longer. I have not -- I have analyzed a longer

period. Let me see. I have to read the document.

I have analyzed data since 1929, so I have

to see which conclusions come -- I have to go through

the document.

 


135

 

Q.    Feel free.

A.    It's for the study period.

Q.    For the study period?

A.    That's what I think.

Q.    Were the eighties generally considered

drought or low rainfall years?

A.    Well, rainfall data on page 23, you can

make your judgment. You have the values for the

1980s.

Q.    Well, I mean your statement on the first

page of this document which I had read shows that you

refer to a general trend decline in the wet season of

rainfall during the study period.

Does that general trend impact your study?

A.    Well, this is a report of the fact that it

has happened, so it doesn't have any effect on the

study. This is a document that's documenting what

has happened.

So it is stated as a document --

Q.    What is the purpose of the report then?

A.    The purpose of the report is to document

hydrology, historical hydrology period data for the

area.

Q.    Is it again for use in water management?

A.    For use in water management and environment

 


136

 

enhancement, as stated in the objective of study.

Q.    Would the declining rainfall that you

reference in the first page have an impact on water

management in the future?

MS. BIRCH: Objection to relevancy.

THE WITNESS: That has to be studied

separately, if it's effective.

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    Have you studied it?

A.    Not yet.

Q.    Do you intend to?

A.    I don't know if I have time or not.

Q.    Have you been assigned that task?

A.    I haven't been assigned that specific task

of analyzing the effect of the rainfall decrease.

Q.    Do you know if anyone else has?

A.    I don't know.

Q.    Drawing your attention to the same

paragraph, the second, third to last sentence states

"Lake Okeechobee was the source of 90.4 percent of

the inflow to the EAA and it received 15.4 percent of

the outflow from the EAA," is that correct?

A.    That's right.

Q.    That 90.4 percent of the inflow, that

includes water that was both supplemental water as

 


137

 

you referred to water used by the EAA agricultural

area and also flow-through; is that correct?

A.    Yes, that's correct.

Q.    And flow-through being the water that flows

through the agricultural area for the purpose of

water conservation areas, the lower east coast and

canal maintenance; is that correct?

A.    That's correct.

Q.    Drawing your attention to page 12, and at

the bottom of the page there, third line from the

bottom where it says "3.2 percent from Hendry County

through structures G-88 and G136," that's referring

to inflow, correct?

A.    Yes.

Q.    All right, "and 1.7 percent from the water

conservation areas," is that correct?

A.    That's right.

Q.    All right. Given that 1.7 percent of the

inflow to the EAA from the water conservation areas,

is it your understanding that the water being held in

the water conservation areas is not primarily for the

purpose of irrigation in the EAA?

A.    I don't know the purpose.

Q.    Well, is it your understanding that one of

the purposes of storing water in the water

 


138

 

conservation areas is for water supply?

A.    I don't know really.

Q.    Are you aware that water is stored within

the water conservation areas?

A.    Yes.

Q.    Do you know whether or not water is

released from the water conservation areas?

A.    Water is released from the water

conservation areas, I know that.

Q.    Do you know for what purposes, what various

purposes?

MS. BIRCH: Objection, this is beyond the

scope of this witness' expertise.

THE WITNESS: For water supply, for water

control and environmental purpose.

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    What supply for whom?

A.    In this case for the Everglades

Agricultural Area.

Q.    And during the period of 19-year study 1.4

percent of the Everglades Agricultural Area inflows;

is that correct?

A.    Yes. 1.7.

Q.    I'm sorry, okay. 1.7.

Given the calculations you did, do you

 


139

 

consider the WCAs a primary source of water for

irrigation purposes in the EAA?

A.    No, it's not a primary source.

Q.    What would the primary source be?

A.    Lake Okeechobee is the primary source.

Q.    Would you consider the WCAs a negligible

source of water irrigation for the EAA?

A.    1.7 percent, it's very small amount in

relation to Lake Okeechobee source.

Q.    Is it your opinion that it would be

negligible?

MS. BIRCH: Asked and answered.

THE WITNESS: Irrigation water could be

critical if you need that much to grow the crop.

It could die off without percentage of supply,

so it depends for how critical time you need

that water.

So we can't put the negligible status with

that, without knowing when do you need that

water.

MS. BIRCH: Would you read that back for

me?

(Thereupon, a portion of the record

was read by the reporter.)


Return to Top                                                                                                                                140

 

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    With regard to ET as discussed in this

report, or in the various reports that were marked as

exhibits today, how is it considered in the

calculation the impact of burning of cane?

A.    It's not considered in the computation of

theoretical ET.

Q.    Could you just very generally, perhaps the

best starting place to shorten this deposition, walk

me how you did the second method, not the

theoretical?

How would you refer to the second method,

historical?

A.    Water budget.

Q.    Okay, how did you do the water budget? If

you could walk me through step by step.

A.    Annual rain flow plus annual irrigation

applied, minus the runoff pumped out of the area

should give you the ET.

I'll check it in the document.

Q.    I'm sorry, doctor. Let me back up a

moment, because I believe I probably misstated my

question based upon your answer.

My question is not how to calculate ET, but

how did you -- just walk me through the water budget,

 


141

 

the entire water budget, if you could explain how you

did it.

A.    I think we have to go through the document,

how it is calculated.

Q.    Okay. Which document would we refer to?

Which is the best document of the ones that are

marked as exhibits?

A.    This is it.

Q.    Which document are you referring to, sir?

A.    Exhibit 2.

Q.    Okay. And is this the best document we can

go through, marked or unmarked?

Is there another document I perhaps should

be looking for, or is this it?

A.    This should have most of the important

things.

Q.    All right.

A.    Page 0900265 has equations that were used

to calculate irrigation water used, flow-through,

inflow to the EAA, outflow from the EAA, and on the

next page the remaining equations are given.

Q.    You have three cases there.

What is the difference between the three

cases?

A.    The first case is on daily basis, the

 


142

 

inflow from Lake Okeechobee side on each major canal.

These are called to the outflow on the south end of

the same canal. In that case nothing is taken out of

the canals or nothing is put into the canals.

Q.    It evens out is what you are saying?

A.    Yes, an equal amount is taken out from the

north side and somebody else has put in the same

amount, as much as someone has taken for irrigation

somewhere else, so it balances out for daily basis.

Q.    I understand.

A.    And the other case is where your outflow

from the south side is bigger than the inflow from

the lake side, including Hendry County from the west

side.

Q.    That's case two?

A.    Case two, yes. In this case we have

flow-through has a difference of inflow minus

supplemental water used.

The third case is where inflow is bigger

than what's left on the other end. That's the third

case.

Q.    Okay. Let me try it a different way.

As I understand you did the water budget

from reviewing this, you calculated rain for any

given period.

 


143

 

During the same period you determined what

water flowed into the EAA and what water flowed out

of the EAA; is that correct?

A.    Yes.

Q.    What else did you do, or is that

essentially it?

A.    That's it.

Q.    With regard to this document, just -- it

might be a typo, but it's a little confusing for me.

On Exhibit 2, the executive summary, that first

sentence there, the executive summary is on the

second page, refers to a period from November 1979

through October 1980.

Is that October 1990?

A.    That's October 1990.

Q.    Okay.

A.    Should be corrected to '90.

Q.    I'm sure Mr. Van Arman caught that one.

A.    On the final it will be corrected.

Q.    Drawing your attention to that same page,

the last paragraph, the first sentence which states

"Eleven years of water budget analysis shows a

declining trend in the annual rainfall for the area,"

now given the repeat of that and from the prior

document, how will that decline impact water

 


144

 

management decisions, if at all?

A.    I'm not in the area of water supply

planning, and I can't tell the effect of what's going

to be.

Q.    Okay. With regard to water budgets, if the

decline continues, would it impact the amount of, I

believe you refer to it as yield coming from the EAA;

in other words, the surplus water?

Will that impact the yield?

A.    It depends on the distribution of the

water, the rainfall you get.

Q.    How so?

A.    Well, if you get rainfall fitting your

demands, the crop demand, it's well distributed

throughout the year for the crop demands, then there

won't be, the yield won't be affected very much.

If it all comes at one time when the

farmers don't need it, they will pump it out anyway.

You will get the same amount of yield, depending on

how it comes throughout the year.

Q.    Based upon your study of rainfall patterns,

which in this report I believe was 11 years, but in

another report I recall it being approximately 63

years or 62 years, which pattern is the more likely?

MS. BIRCH: Would you read that question

 


145

 

back for me?

(Thereupon, a portion of the record

was read by the reporter.)

THE WITNESS: I can't tell just from this

study what is going to be the pattern in the

coming year.

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    All right. Where were the rainfall data

collected for this study obtained?

A.    The Exhibit 2 study has a map on page

0900255, and the rainfall stations are shown on a

circle.

Q.    How many rainfall stations were used?

A.    Nine rainfall stations.

Q.    Is there a place in the document where it

shows me exactly where they are so I can circle them

on this map? Because the map is a little difficult

to read due to the photocopy.

A.    Yes, the circles, mark the circles. If you

don't come up with nine --

Q.    Unfortunately, I can't. Let me show you

which ones I have come up with.

I come up with a circle on the West Palm

Beach Canal, I come up with a circle underneath the

S-2, I come up with a circle underneath S-3, and I

 


146

 

come up with a circle in Hendry County.

A.    S-8.

Q.    There is one down at the southwest corner

of the Holey Land. There is one at the corner of S-8

and there is one at the corner of S-6 and S-5A, and

finally, there is one on the Hillsboro Canal

approximately halfway the distance between the cross

canal and the lake.

A.    In Belle Glade.

Q.    Thank you, sir.

Given the distribution of those rainfall

gauges, did that provide you a sufficient data to

estimate the rainfall in the region?

A.    That was the best we can do.

Q.    I understand that's the only data

available, but was it sufficient to provide you with

an estimate of rainfall in the EAA?

A.    Yes, that was the best we can do.

How good it is at representative area, nobody really

knows, to my knowledge.

Q.    What confidence level do you put on the

estimate of rainfall for the EAA in this report?

A.    I can't put any number without further

study.

Q.    What further study would you need to do?

 


147

 

A.    When there are more stations in the future

and more data is collected from the area and see the

result from that dense network and compare it

backward to this relatively light density of rain

gauges, that's the only way I can tell how much it

was at the present.

Q.    Were there any gaps in the data on the

rainfall gauges?

A.    There were gaps in the data.

Q.    Is there a chart or somewhere in the

document which shows where the gaps in the data were?

A.    On, starting from page 0900310 and the

following page, you can see monthly missing rainfall

data.

MR. PERKO: For purposes of the record, is

that Appendix A?

THE WITNESS: Appendix A.

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    Dr. Abtew, it refers to in the body of the

document the fact that you estimated missing data; is

that correct?

A.    That's right. It is stated in the missing

data section.

If it is few days of missing data for each

station, rainfall a month was estimated and the gap

 


148

 

was filled, but for longer periods, we left it as it

is and the month shows as missing for that station.

But I believe the method how many days was

the cutoff, it is on page 0900247. It shows how

missing rainfall data was estimated.

Q.    And I draw your attention to the following

page at subparagraph i; is that correct?

A.    That's correct.

MS. BIRCH: Is that draft page six you are

looking at where i is?

MR. KOBELINSKI: Draft page six,

subparagraph i, yes.

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    That states "If a rain gauge station had

more than a week of continuous missing record, then

drop the station from area rainfall analysis for that

period."

Does the Appendix A that you referred to a

few moments ago, which is in the same exhibit Bates

number 0900310 through 0900314, then contain some

estimated data?

A.    Yes.

Q.    Is there any way to determine how much

estimated data?

A.    Unless you go back to the database and we


Return to Top                                                                                                                                149

 

recount the number of dates that we have estimated.

Q.    Do you recall whether that was a

substantial amount of data?

A.    I don't remember how much missing data was

there.

MR. KOBELINSKI: Okay, why don't we take a

quick break.

(Thereupon, a recess was taken.)

MR. KOBELINSKI: Back on the record.

Could you mark that as 11?

(The document was marked

Abtew Exh. No. 11.)

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    Dr. Abtew, I'm showing you what's been

marked as Exhibit Number 11 to this deposition. I

ask you to take a look at that document and tell me

whether you have ever seen that document before.

A.    Apparently I have seen it, but I don't

remember the contents.

Q.    Please go ahead and review it then.

A.    I have read it.

Q.    What is the Regional Modeling Group?

A.    This was a meeting of individuals who were

involved in modeling work in the District.

Q.    Is that a modeling group still in existence

 


150

 

today?

A.    I don't think so. I haven't attended a

meeting for awhile.

Q.    Do you recall whether it was disbanded or

has it just not met in awhile, to the best of your

knowledge?

A.    It was not a formally formed part of the

organization of the institution. It was modeling

individuals getting together and discussing modeling.

I think it has disbanded by itself or they didn't

call a meeting for a long time.

Q.    Is this more of an informal group of

scientists from the District?

A.    Yes.

Q.    There is reference in the LEC Water Budget

paragraph on the first page to, and it just uses

initials, it says the SFWMM.

What is that? Do you see that, sir?

A.    Yes. South Florida Water Management Model.

Q.    What does that model do?

MS. BIRCH: Objection to relevancy.

THE WITNESS: I haven't used it, so I

rather don't explain what it does. I haven't

used it.

 


151

 

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    To your knowledge, reading that sentence in

that paragraph, "The SFWMM would be used to simulate

water budgets for proposed water management

scenarios," is it a management tool for determining

potential water budgets under different management

scenarios?

MS. BIRCH: Object.

THE WITNESS: I haven't used that model and

I really can't tell.

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    Has the District ever used that model to

prepare a water budget for the EAA?

A.    I have seen one.

Q.    When was that, sir?

A.    I don't know when it was. Sometime back.

There was a document produced by the planning

department to that effect.

Q.    Would that have been within the last five

years?

A.    I have been here only two years, so --

Q.    Would it have been within the last three

years then?

A.    Within the last three years.

Q.    Did you see it perhaps during 1992?

 


152

 

A.    I can't say exactly when it was written.

Q.    Drawing your attention to the paragraph at

the bottom of the page where it says EAA Water

Budget, on the first page, the second sentence there

states, "The analysis was based on historic rainfall,

pan evaporation and structure discharge data

collected for the period 1987 through 1990."

Is the water budget analysis that's

referenced there, has that been one of the ones we

have been looking at today?

A.    No, it's not the one.

Q.    Which one is that?

A.    I think it was submitted. It's a water

budget from 1987 to 1990.

Q.    Is it one of the exhibits we have today?

A.    No, not yet, but you should have the copy.

Q.    What was the purpose of that water budget

that's referenced in this Exhibit 11, sir?

A.    It's the primary attempt to develop the

water budget. Later on it was dropped and the data

was extended to '79, so the final draft is the one

which is shown on Exhibit 2.

Q.    Why was it dropped?

A.    Because the period of interest of analysis

was extended back to 1979.

 


153

 

Q.    Why?

A.    That was assignment that was given.

Q.    Did you have any input in that decision?

A.    To extend it back?

Q.    Yes.

A.    For the analysis, we preferred longer

period --

Q.    Why?

A.    -- than shorter period, because your

analysis will be better when the period of record is

long.

For that reason, we recommended it should

be extended.

Q.    The following sentence states "Wossenu

stated that much of their effort was spent filling

data gaps in the historic data and that

evapotranspiration (ET) data was determined using two

different approaches."

What were the data gaps in historic record

that you were filling at that time?

A.    Missing data, one is missing rainfall or

flow or evaporation data.

The other estimation that was involved is

evaporation data on the, over the weekends. On the

weekends employees do not service the pond the three

 


154

 

days. When you come on Monday, we have to go back

and spread that through the three days throughout the

record.

And in some cases the rainfall have also

been the same way. There were a few days where

rainfall accumulated over fewer days and you have to

spread that back using references from other stations

and all judgment how that should be distributed

between the days. So that took time.

Q.    With regard to the data, the pan

evaporation data, is that something that you have in

your computer?

A.    Yes.

Q.    Were there any gaps in the pan evaporation

data such that you would drop them from consideration

similar to what you did with the rainfall data?

MS. BIRCH: Objection to the form of the

question.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    And where would we be able to find that

out? And perhaps it's Appendix C to Exhibit 2, which

is at Bates number 0900321 through 323.

A.    Appendix B? 0900316 to, it goes to

0900320.

 


155

 

Q.    Could you on that Appendix B, the first

page there, 0900316 of Appendix 2, can you take me

through the rows? Obviously year and month I

understand.

What does EVP 220 stand for, sir?

A.    That's plan of operation station 220.

Q.    And where was that one located, sir?

A.    Go back to the map on page 0900255.

MS. BIRCH: Is that 0900245?

THE WITNESS: 255.

MR. PERKO: Is that labeled Figure 2?

THE WITNESS: Yes, Figure 2. 220 is on

the, by S-5 south, you can see DVP 220 on the

eastern side.

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    Okay. DVP 99, sir?

A.    In the southeast side.

Q.    Down by S-7?

A.    Yes, by S-7.

Q.    And DVP 619?

A.    Belle Glade, the City of Belle Glade.

Q.    Okay. And DVP 639?

A.    It's at Clewiston, where Clewiston is.

Q.    Okay. And that's all of them; is that

correct, sir?

 


156

 

A.    That's all of them.

Q.    All right. Was DVP 99 only put in service

in 1986?

A.    Let me check in the document.

Q.    All right.

A.    I can't tell from the report when it really

started work.

Q.    Do you recall exactly how much missing data

there was on the pan evaporation data?

A.    I don't know exactly how much, how many

days were missing. I don't remember. Have to go and

count.

Q.    Drawing your attention, sir, to the second

page of Exhibit 11, the memorandum to Shawn Sculley

and Tony Federico from Todd Tisdale, the first full

sentence states "ET values computed from the FAO

Blaney-Criddle method were greater than residual

values, and Wossenu attributed this to, one, basing

residual calculations on a short period of historic

record; and two, the fact that precipitation data was

obtained from recording stations located outside of

the EAA."

Which pumping stations were you referring

to there, sir?

MS. BIRCH: Object to the form.

 


157

 

THE WITNESS: This was opinion based on

that short period study.

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    I'm sorry, let me rephrase the question.

The statement is that there are two causes.

One is the short period of historic record; and two

is, quote, the fact that precipitation data was

obtained from recording stations located outside the

EAA.

Which recording stations were you referring

to there, sir?

MS. BIRCH: Object to the form of the

question.

THE WITNESS: All the three statements go

together, and after that short study, these were

few of the possible reasons for the difference

between the historical and theoretical data.

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    I understand that, sir, but you make

reference to precipitation recording stations outside

of the EAA.    I'm just wondering which recording

stations were you referring to?

MS. BIRCH: Object to the form. I believe

this is not, this was a representation by

another District employee as to what Dr. Abtew

 


158

 

stated.

THE WITNESS: I don't remember the whole

contents of the statement at the time.

To my recollection, all the three are

suggested as a possible discrepancy between

theoretical and actual.

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    Do you recall what precipitation recording

stations you used for your studies?

A.    The same nine stations.

Q.    Which of those are located outside the EAA?

A.    You can see on Figure 2, Exhibit 2, MRF182

is outside, as an example.

Q.    Any others?

A.    The rest are on the, close to the perimeter

of the ag area.

Q.    Close to the outside level, is that what

you are saying?

A.    Close to the perimeter.

Q.    The perimeter?

A.    Yes.

Q.    Drawing your attention back to Abtew

Exhibit 11, the final sentence of that paragraph

states, "He also stated that the pumping of water out

of the EAA may have actually been greater than was

 


159

 

recorded."

Do you recall that, sir?

A.    I don't recall that exact statement, but to

get your ET balance with theoretical, the outflow has

to be smaller. The inflow has to increase to match

the theoretical and the calculated values.

This is one of the possible reasons why the

two can differ. Another possible reason is your

outflow.

Q.    Was it your belief at the time that the

discharge records may have been inaccurate?

MS. BIRCH: Object to the form of the

question.

THE WITNESS: No, I don't believe they were

inaccurate. From 40 years of study, that was

preliminary study and possible reasons for the

difference as suggested here.

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    What discharge records did you use for the

purpose of your study which is reflected in

Exhibit 2?

A.    It is listed in Exhibit 2, page 0900250,

Table 7. This has the flow structures.

Q.    What page was that?

A.    Page 0900250.


Return to Top                                                                                                                                 160

 

Q.    250?

A.    Is this 260?

MS. BIRCH: Draft page 18.

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    0900260. It's a little bit difficult to

read.

A.    Okay, 60.

Q.    All right. Is that the South Florida Water

Management District's database?

A.    Yes. That's South Florida Water Management

District's database.

Q.    Were there any gaps in the database with

regard to discharge figures?

A.    Yes, there were gaps.

Q.    Do you recall approximately how many gaps?

A.    I don't recall how many gaps there were.

Q.    What did you do to fill in the gaps?

A.    Estimated the missing gaps and filled them

with estimated data.

Q.    Is there anything that shows where the gaps

were or what gaps there were on the data?

A.    Well, the original data and the data from

which we worked, we can then compare. It can be

located where the missing gap was from the database.

Q.    Do you have any document or computer file

 


161

 

showing exactly what your estimates for the missing

data were?

A.    Well, by comparing the data we used for the

study in the original database data, it is possible

to.

Q.    Is there an appendix that has the data you

used for the study?

A.    We have monthly data that summarized

monthly for page 0900327 up to 0900337.

Q.    And the way to determine which of these

figures contain estimated data would be by comparing

this table to the South Florida Water Management

District's data on discharges?

A.    Yes, the original database.

MR. PERKO: Dr. Abtew, just for the record,

could you identify what appendix you are

referring to?

THE WITNESS: Appendix D and E.

MR. PERKO: Thank you.

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    That's Exhibit 2.

What confidence level do you have in the

discharge flow data?

A.    I'm not involved in the ratings, the

structures, how good they measure, so I can't put any

 


162

 

confidence level on how good this data is.

Q.    Are you aware that the United States

Geologic Survey recordings of the discharges differ

from the Water Management District's for the same

structures?

MS. BIRCH: Object to the form and

argumentative.

MR. KOBELINSKI: Asking if he is aware.

THE WITNESS: Yes, I am aware there are

discrepancies of flow measurement at certain

structures, which I can't recall exactly.

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    How did you make the determination as to

which data set to use?

A.    Determination was made if there is USGS

data available, USGS data was used. And in the

absence of USGS data, we used District data.

Q.    Have you ever inquired as to what the cause

was for the difference?

A.    Well, I am not in that department and there

is no answer there. It needs checking, measuring

flow in some of those structures and rating them and

checking them, and then I think one can tell how good

the data is that have been collected.

Q.    How did you make the determination as to

 


163

 

which set of data to use?

MS. BIRCH: Objection, asked and answered.

I thought he testified that if USGS data was

available, he used it; and if not --

MR. KOBELINSKI: Let me rephrase the

question in case the doctor doesn't understand.

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    From your testimony, you made the

determination to use USGS data if it was available;

if not, to use the District data.

How did you make the determination to use

the USGS data as opposed to the District data if both

were available?

What went into that decision?

A.    USGS publishes their data on an annual

basis, and those published data get priority to any

other data.

Basically it is a published data by

institution that has been measuring data for a long

time. That's the reason we --

Q.    Was it your judgment then that their data

was more accurate?

MS. BIRCH: Object to form.

THE WITNESS: I can't answer that without

comparing, without checking the actual flow

 


164

 

values for each structure.

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    Well, did you use the USGS data because you

believed it was more accurate than the District data?

A.    It was published, and for the reason I

explained earlier, that's why we used the USGS data.

Q.    I apologize, this may draw an asked and

answered, but what was the reason?

A.    USGS flow data is published annually and

USGS has been in data collection longer, is more

experienced. So whenever it is available, I selected

that data.

That doesn't mean for the specific

structure this is better than the other one. Without

checking, you can't say that.

Q.    Did you then do anything to check which one

was the more accurate data?

A.    Well, it takes a lot of work to check and

it was not in my area of assignment, so I haven't

checked which data is accurate or how close they are.

Q.    Does that mean you did not check?

A.    No, it needs a lot of manpower, equipment

and a lot of work to verify flow through the

structure.

Q.    I think we are through with Number 11. You


Return to Top                                                                                                                                165

 

can set that aside.

MR. KOBELINSKI: Number 12.

(The document was marked

Abtew Exh. No. 12.)

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    Dr. Abtew, I'm showing you what has been

marked as Exhibit Number 12 to this deposition. It

is a three-page memorandum from Jayantha Obeysekera

and Todd Tisdale to Tony Federico and Shawn Sculley

dated August 27, 1991, Bates number 0906153 through

0906155, and I would ask whether or not you have ever

seen this document before.

A.    I have seen this document before.

Q.    There is reference made here to the

recalibration of the South Florida Water Management

Model.

What was that recalibration about?

MS. BIRCH: Objection, outside of the

expertise of Dr. Abtew. No foundation.

THE WITNESS: This is a document that was

copied to me, so apparently I was not involved

with South Florida Water Management in model

running and South Florida Water Management

District recalibration.

 


166

 

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    Were you aware the recalibration was being

done?

A.    Yes, I was aware.

Q.    What was the purpose of the recalibration?

MS. BIRCH: Objection to relevancy and

outside the scope of Dr. Abtew's expertise.

THE WITNESS: I don't know the details of

the model's capacity or how it is run, but I

know there was the model recalibration, which

means the output from the model and actual data

was being compared.

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    Is that essentially a fine-tuning process?

MS. BIRCH: Object to form.

THE WITNESS: It was a process where model

results were compared to actual historical data.

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    Is something done with the model itself?

I mean in other words, is the model changed

or is it just literally comparing model results with

the actual historic data?

MS. BIRCH: Objection, Dr. Abtew has

testified that he is not a modeler, he does not

know what they were doing with the model.

 


167

 

I think I heard him testify that he was

aware that there was a recalibration of the

model. He is not being offered as an expert

related to modeling, but if he knows, he can

answer, but I instruct him not to guess.

THE WITNESS: I didn't work with this

specific model.

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    You are a modeler?

A.    Yes, that's my --

MS. BIRCH: That has not been in evidence

and he is not being offered as a water modeler.

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    Are you a modeler, sir?

MS. BIRCH: Objection to relevance.

THE WITNESS: The group I'm in is a

modeling group.

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    Is that because you are a modeler?

MS. BIRCH: Objection to relevancy.

THE WITNESS: I do modeling work.

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    When you recalibrate a model, what do you

do to it generally, just generically? Let me back

up.

 


168

 

Have you ever heard the term recalibration

used in terms of a model?

MS. BIRCH: Objection, relevancy.

THE WITNESS: It depends on what is a model

and who is doing it. There is no specific for

recalibration.

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    My question is have you ever heard it used

in reference to modeling?

A.    Yes.

Q.    And in what context have you heard it used?

A.    As I said, only model output and actual

data are compared, and the process of getting the

results closer is called recalibration or

calibration.

Q.    Okay.

MR. KOBELINSKI: Off the record.

(Discussion held off the record.)

MR. KOBELINSKI: Back on the record.

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    Drawing your attention, doctor, to what has

been marked as Abtew Exhibit Number 12, the second

page of that exhibit, under what is labeled as SFWMM

Recalibration, and the second paragraph from the

bottom states, "Comparisons of simulated and observed

 


169

 

stages at a carefully selected set of moniitoring

points and canals were presented for all geographical

areas. In most cases the simulated stages mimicked

the observed stages reasonably well. In EAA, the

seasonal and annual simulated flows as computed by

the model were compared to the corresponding observed

flows. Differences found in certain years were

attributed primarily to inadequate rainfall input in

EAA and the assumptions used for spatial aggregation

of rainfall data in the model. This was identified

as an issue which requires further attention in the

future."

Did you in your preparation of Exhibit 2

and your study of the water budget likewise run into

a problem of inadequate rainfall input for the EAA?

A.    No.

Q.    Did you have access to rainfall input other

than what the modeling group working on the

recalibration of the SFWMM had?

MS. BIRCH: Objection, lack of foundation.

There has been no evidence or testimony from

Dr. Abtew as to his knowledge or lack of

knowledge as to what modeling information or

water quality data or rainfall data was

available to the Regional Modeling Group

 


170

 

meeting.

MR. KOBELINSKI: Let me withdraw and

rephrase the question then.

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    Was the data you used for rainfall in the

EAA from the District database?

A.    Yes.

Q.    Is that District database available to the

members of the modeling group, to the best of your

knowledge?

A.    I don't know if they have used the same

data.

Q.    My question was not whether they used it.

My question was did they have access to it?

A.    Yes, it's public access to anyone.

Q.    Given that, did they have access to the

same data that you used in your study?

A.    Everybody can access it.

Q.    So the answer is yes, they did?

A.    Access in a sense, physical, they have

access, but if the model uses the same stations, I

don't know what the specifics is, but the database

has all the specifications.

Q.    Do you know why then they had inadequate

rainfall data for their model while you had adequate

 


171

 

rainfall data for your study?

MS. BIRCH: Objection, calls for a

conclusion and speculation.

THE WITNESS: I don't know how many

stations they used or what frequency of data

they used, so without knowing which stations,

which data they used, I can't tell.

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    We will be asking them that. However, if

they used the same data, is there a particular reason

why they would find it inadequate and it would be

adequate for your purposes?

MS. BIRCH: Object to the form, and also

object to it calls for speculation.

THE WITNESS: You have to ask them why it

is inadequate or not.

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    I will be. I'm asking your opinion why it

would be inadequate for one purpose, but adequate for

your purpose.

A.    In my documents it is stated that this was

the best set of data to do water budget analysis for

the EAA.

Q.    Did you make a determination in your water

budget analysis as to whether or not that database

 


172

 

was adequate?

MS. BIRCH: Object to form, already asked

and answered.

THE WITNESS: From what is available,

that's the best set of data if you have to do

water budget for the EAA.

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    Dr. Abtew, I recognize that's all that was

available.

My question is did you make a determination

as to whether or not that data was adequate for the

purpose of the budget --

MS. BIRCH: Objection.

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    -- for the purpose of an accurate budget?

MS. BIRCH: Objection, asked and answered.

Object to the form.

THE WITNESS: From the available data, that

is the best you can do to calculate water

budget, but I have written in my resume that I

did do network, rainfall network, and apparently

expanding the network could yield more rainfall

information, but until you have that kind of

network, this is the best you can do.

 


173

 

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    Is there a means for you to put a level of

confidence on what is marked as Exhibit 2, your water

budget?

MS. BIRCH: Object to form.

THE WITNESS: I don't have anything to

measure it against to put a confidence level on.

BY MR. KOBELINSKI:

Q.    Without having anything to measure it

against, you have no way of providing a confidence

level; is that correct?

A.    That's right.

MS. BIRCH: Mark, it's 5:00.

MR. KOBELINSKI: So it is.

(Discussion held off the record.)

(Witness excused.)

(Thereupon, at 5:05 p.m.,

the deposition was adjourned.)


Return to Top                                                                                                                               174

 

C E R T I F I C A T E

 

The State of Florida          )
County of Palm Beach.     )

 

            I, Rachel W. Bridge, Registered
Professional Reporter and Notary Public, State of
Florida at large, do hereby certify that WOSSENU
ABTEW, Ph.D. was by me first duly sworn to testify
the whole truth; that I was authorized to and did
report said deposition in stenotype; and that the
foregoing pages, numbered from 1 to 173, inclusive,
are a true and correct transcription of my shorthand
notes of said deposition.

            I further certify that the said deposition
was taken at the time and place hereinabove set forth
and that the taking of said deposition was commenced
and completed as hereinabove set out.


            I further certify that I am not attorney or
counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or
employee of any attorney or counsel or party
connected with the action, nor am I financially
interested in the action.

            The foregoing certification of this
transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the
same by any means unless under the direct control
and/or direction of the certifying reporter.

            In witness whereof I have hereunto set my
hand and seal this ____ day of_____________ 1993.

 

 

______________________________
Rachel W. Bridge, RPR, CP, CM
Notary Public, State of Florida
at large. My commission expires
January 15, 1995.


Return to Top                                                                                                                                175

 

C E R T I F I C A T E

- - -

 

The State of Florida,         )
County of Palm Beach.     )

 

 

I hereby certify that I have read the

foregoing deposition by me given, and that the

statements contained therein are true and correct to

the best of my knowledge and belief.

 

Dated this ____ day of______________ 1993.

 

 

 

_________________________

Wossenu Abtew, Ph.D.

 

 
University of Miami School of Law Library
Archives and Special Collections
1311 Miller Drive
Law Library, Room 489
Coral Gables, Florida 33146
Telephone: (305) 284-4093
Copyright, 1997 University of Miami. All Rights Reserved.
Requests for information.
Send comments / technical feedback.