|
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 &
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?
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?
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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
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?
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.
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
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
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
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
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.)
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
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.
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
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.)
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.
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.
|
