1      DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
         DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, STATE OF FLORIDA
 2 
   
 3 
                  CASE NOS. 92-3038
 4                          92-3039
                            92-3040
 5 
     SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE OF  	)
 6   FLORIDA, et al.,                   	)
                                        	)
 7                    Petitioners,      	)
                                       		)
 8        v.                            	)
                                        	)
 9   SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT     	)
     DISTRICT,                          	)
10                    Respondent,       	)
                                        	)
11   and                                	)
                                        	)
12   THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al	)
                                        	)
13                    Intervenors.      	)
     - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
14 
   
15                       One Clearlake Center
                           West Palm Beach, Florida
16                       February 16, 1993
                           9:00 a.m.
17 
               DEPOSITION OF DOCTOR DAVID ANDERSON
18 
   
19             Taken before JACKIE JOHNSON, Professional
20   Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of
21   Florida at Large, pursuant to Notice of Taking
22   Deposition filed in the above cause.
23                      - - - - - - -
24 
25 

                                                 Page 1

 1                    APPEARANCES
   
 2 
      ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS
 3 
           PEEPLES, EARL & BLANK
 4         One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3636
           Two South Biscayne Boulevard
 5         Miami, Florida  33131
           BY:  Jonathan L. Gaines, ESQ.
 6 
      ON BEHALF OF THE INTERVENORS UNITED STATES
 7 
           U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
 8        P.O. Box  663
           Washington, D.C.  20044
 9        BY:  Geoffrey Garver, ESQ.
   
10    ON BEHALF OF THE INTERVENORS SFWMD
   
11       POPHAM HAIK
           100 S.E. Second Street
12       P.O. Box  019101
           Miami, Florida  33131
13       BY:  Patrick S. Cousins
   
14 
   
15 
   
16                      	EXHIBITS
                      		NUMBER       	PAGE
17                      		1          	 21
                        		2          	154
18                      		3          	155
                        		4          	178
19                      		5          	179
   
20 
   


                                                 Page 2
 1  Thereupon --
 2                    DOCTOR DAVID ANDERSON,
 3   was called as a witness and, having been first duly
 4   sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
 5                   DIRECT EXAMINATION
 6 BY MR. GARVER:
 7       Q.    Please state your name and address.
 8       A.    David Anderson.  I live at 700 Saganow
 9   Avenue, Clewiston, Florida.
10             MR. GARVER:  Doctor Anderson, my name is
11        Geoff Garver.  I am an attorney with the United
12        States in these administrative proceedings, and
13        you have been designated as an expert witness by
14        the Florida Sugar Cane League, U.S. Sugar
15        Corporation and New Hope South on alternatives
16        to storm water treatment areas, water quality,
17        soil chemistry and chemical treatment of
18        phosphorus; is that consistent with your
19        understanding?
20             THE WITNESS:  Yes.
21             MR. GARVER:  Your lawyer has indicated to
22        me that your testimony will be primarily limited
23        to chemical treatment as an alternative to storm
24        water treatment areas; is that correct?
25             THE WITNESS:  Well, as far as I have been


                                                 Page 3
 1        asked so far, that's all I know of that's going
 2        to be asked, that's correct.
 3 BY MR. GARVER:
 4       Q.    Other than chemical treatment as a means
 5   for removing phosphorus from water, are there any
 6   other areas as to which you anticipate providing
 7   testimony in these proceedings?
 8       A.    It's hard to tell.
 9             My experience is fairly broad working with
10   soil remediation techniques, also, in the dairy soils
11   and dairy areas up north of the lake.
12       Q.    Do you anticipate providing testimony with
13   regards to soil remediation techniques as applied to
14   soils in the Everglades Agriculture Area?
15       A.    That's correct.
16             My field of endeavor is, I am so-called --
17   at least I have no anticipation for this.  I expect
18   to be, I guess, giving testimony regarding the
19   chemical treatment of waters, but should I be called
20   upon, I suppose I will.
21             MR. GAINES:  Geoff, maybe I should just
22        state what I told you before the depo.
23             For the Record, there's some other subject
24        matters listed in the witness disclosure besides
25        chemical treatment, and I was working to see if


                                                 Page 4
 1        that could be eliminated or not, and the
 2        decision that we came to is that since those are
 3        all tied to the chemical treatment area anyway,
 4        we weren't comfortable eliminating any of those
 5        areas, but we think his primary focus is his
 6        work he is doing on chemical treatment.
 7 BY MR. GARVER:
 8       Q.    Doctor Anderson, have you ever been deposed
 9   before?
10       A.    No, I have not.
11       Q.    Have you ever given sworn testimony before
12   in a legal proceeding?
13       A.    No, I have not.
14       Q.    Have you ever served as an expert
15   consultant in a legal proceeding?
16       A.    No.
17             MR. GARVER:  I will just briefly explain
18        what goes on here.  Then I will be asking you a
19        series of questions related to your knowledge
20        and expert opinions relating to matters that are
21        at issue in this proceeding.
22             You should give me your complete and honest
23        answers to my questions, and you must answer my
24        questions, unless your attorney instructs you
25        not to.

                                                 Page 5

 1             If I ask a question that you don't
 2        understand or I phrase something in a way that
 3        you don't understand, which given the nature of
 4        the issues here, is not at all unprobable,
 5        please let me know, and I will try to rephrase
 6        the question.
 7             If at any time you'd like to take a break,
 8        just let me know, and we will just take a little
 9        breather and get back on track then.
10             The first thing I'd like to do is just
11        review some of the documents we asked for in the
12        deposition notice.
13 BY MR. GARVER:
14       Q.    Did you read the deposition notice for this
15   deposition?
16       A.    I sure did.
17       Q.    I believe the last question I asked you was
18   whether you have read the deposition notice for this
19   deposition, and you said that you had, right?
20       A.    Yes.
21       Q.    I just want to go through the categories of
22   documents we asked for and just have you tell me
23   generally what documents you have produced responsive
24   to each of those categories.
25             The first category was any and all


                                                 Page 6

 1   documents that you created or relied upon in
 2   preparing, formulating, developing, authoring,
 3   co-authoring, reviewing or organizing anticipated
 4   expert testimony in this action, including any such
 5   documents relating to any work in progress.
 6             Can you tell me generally what you produced
 7   under that category.
 8       A.    Well, basically you already have all the
 9   information based upon your document.  I didn't go to
10   any extra work to give anybody any extra documents
11   other than what John had given you, I guess that has
12   to do with the research documents, reports, from this
13   last year.
14       Q.    Research reports relating to chemical
15   treatment?
16       A.    Chemical treatment.
17             You have a listing of all the other
18   literature that I have been involved with writing.
19   So I didn't supply any other information other than
20   what was in the depo.
21             MR. GAINES:  Maybe I can help.  I think
22        what he is saying is he hasn't created any
23        documents specifically for his testimony in this
24        case, and I think what you're asking him to do
25        is categorize the documents that we have


                                                 Page 7

 1        provided into these various categories; is that
 2        right?
 3             MR. GARVER:  Right.
 4             If you haven't created or relied upon a
 5        document, then I am not -- these lists weren't
 6        asking you to create anything.  They were just
 7        asking what you had created or relied on and
 8        then what you had turned over to us through your
 9        attorney.
10 BY MR. GARVER:
11       Q.    I understand the first category you have
12   indicated that you have turned over some research
13   reports that you prepared during the last year
14   relating to chemical treatment processes; is that
15   correct.
16       A.    That's correct.
17       Q.    I have three such reports, one from May
18   1992, one from August 1992 and one from November
19   1992.
20       A.    That would be the primary three, that's
21   correct.
22       Q.    The second category is any and all
23   documents that you created or relied upon in
24   preparing, formulating, developing, authoring,
25   co-authoring, reviewing or organizing anticipated


                                                 Page 8

 1   expert testimony relating to alternatives proposed in
 2   the Everglades SWIM Plan.
 3       A.    I did not go to any effort of preparing at
 4   all for this testimony for being an expert witness;
 5   is that what you're asking?
 6             Did I create anything for this period of
 7   time for anticipating expert testimony?  No, I did
 8   not.
 9       Q.    Well, you have been listed as an expert
10   witness who is anticipated to testify at the final
11   hearing in this proceeding; is that correct?
12       A.    I believe so.
13             MR. GAINES:  Let me just -- I don't want to
14        interrupt.
15             THE WITNESS:  I'm a little unclear about
16        your questions.
17             MR. GAINES:  I think one of the problems
18        here is that I am not so sure that his documents
19        can be clearly compartmentalized by these
20        categories the way they are in this depo notice.
21             For example, three reports that he just
22        mentioned from May, August and November of '92
23        probably have some relationship to four or five
24        of these categories.  But I think, again, Doctor
25        Anderson what he is just asking you is you have


                                                 Page 9

 1        given us a stack of documents, and really that
 2        was done through our office, but you're asking
 3        him to say which documents relate to which
 4        categories, is that right; is that what you're
 5        trying to get him to tell you?
 6             MR. GARVER:  Yes.
 7             THE WITNESS:  Maybe you ought to outline
 8        the categories you're interested in.
 9             MR. GARVER:  Well, I did that in this
10        deposition notice.  That's why I am going
11        through here.  There may be some other
12        terminology in here that's confusing to you.
13             MR. COUSINS:  What if we give him the
14        documents and have him take a few minutes to
15        figure out where they all go.
16             THE WITNESS:  I have been involved in such
17        a broad range of activities over the past years,
18        that it's difficult for me to really pinpoint
19        exactly what you're talking about, unless you
20        specifically point to a document.
21 BY MR. GARVER:
22       Q.    After you read this or were given this
23   deposition notice, did you then give documents to the
24   attorneys?
25       A.    I was called in, and in the case of the


                                                 Page 10

 1   three documents that you were asked about or say that
 2   you have, May, August and November, I actually did
 3   not have my original copies.  So he got those from
 4   other originals and got copies.  Everything else was
 5   not asked for.  I don't think anything else was asked
 6   for, 'cause they had already -- they had these
 7   documents already in their possession.
 8             If you want to go back to trying to
 9   categorize.
10             As I read this in here relating to
11   alternatives, what documents would be related to the
12   STA's; is that correct?
13       Q.    Right.
14       A.    I believe those three research documents
15   would be related to the STA alternatives.  There's
16   another document that's in international print right
17   now in Journal Science regarding phosphorus
18   mineralization would be another one.  There's some
19   other documents also related to South Florida Water
20   Management's contract that we did in 1988, '89 and
21   '90.   Report 4.3.1.2.3 regarding the use of soil
22   amendments to reduce phosphorus mobility and
23   transport in soils ordered with animal waste.  That's
24   the ones in Lake Okeechobee.
25             There were a number of other documents that


                                                 Page 11

 1   were published in Southeast Dairy Review on best
 2   management practices on reducing, I guess, storm
 3   water drainage and runoff, and I believe there's two
 4   articles related to that.  Those should be listed in
 5   my publication listing under contracts and
 6   publications.
 7       Q.    In the report you did on soil amendments in
 8   Lake Okeechobee, how does that relate to alternatives
 9   to storm water treatment areas?
10       A.    There's several things we did.  I'd say
11   another document would have been probably a thesis by
12   Orlando Diaz.  I have done a number of things since
13   that period of time related to phosphorus retention
14   under modification of soil in the EAA, and we have
15   seen that especially related to the influence of the
16   bed rock and the carbonates, that this has a very
17   positive influence of retaining phosphates.
18             In our work in Okeechobee, we looked at
19   various chemical alternatives to amend those soils in
20   order to slow down the phosphorus coming off the
21   drainage waters.
22             So indirectly those soils can't be compared
23   to what's happening in the EAA, but directly the
24   chemisty and the principals are very similar and have
25   yet been applied, but should be in the future.


                                                 Page 12

 1       Q.    In the Lake Okeechobee soil amendment
 2   situation, did that involve adding chemicals to the
 3   soil itself?
 4       A.    Right, exactly.
 5             We were interested in measuring the
 6   drainage from those soils after they have been
 7   chemically altered.
 8       Q.    And in the case of the chemical treatment
 9   alternatives you have been investigating for the EAA
10   drainage waters, that involves adding similar
11   chemicals directly to the water; is that right?
12       A.    Not similar chemicals, but just alterations
13   of the water chemistry in order to precipitate and
14   coagulate out minerals and nutrients.
15       Q.    Is it then the same physical chemical
16   processes that are at work in the case of the soil
17   amendments in Lake Okeechobee soils and chemical
18   treatment water in the EAA drainage waters?
19       A.    No.  They are slightly different.  You're
20   dealing with different processes that are occurring.
21             In the water, you're working with basically
22   waste water treatment type processes that are fairly
23   well known and delineated, with the exception that we
24   have very unusual waters, very unusual in the sense
25   of its chemical properties are very different from


                                                 Page 13

 1   anywhere else in the country.  The soil has a much
 2   more dynamic environment, so to speak.  It's got an
 3   environmental, biological and chemical interactions
 4   that are important.  So that's just a little bit
 5   different than the reactions that we're taking a look
 6   at, waters which are very, very quick.  Whereas in
 7   the soil, it may take a period of a couple of months.
 8       Q.    What is unique about the water that you are
 9   dealing with in the Everglades Agricultural Area?
10       A.    Unique as to the rest of the world?
11       Q.    Yes.
12       A.    As to anywhere else in the world, we have
13   hardnesses that are extremely high.  You have
14   dissolved carbon or organic materials, dissolved
15   organic carbons that are very high.  Although
16   variable, the particulate phases in there can range
17   from very low to very high.
18             Just generally speaking, you have a
19   substance that can behave like a weak acid.  This
20   water has a very high bufferihg capacity and,
21   frankly, from the experiences, both here in the
22   United States and in Europe, this makes it a very
23   difficult water for chemical treatment, very unique
24   in a sense, because it's from an organic soil.
25       Q.    In what respect do the properties of the


                                                 Page 14

 1   EAA drainage water make it difficult to treat?
 2       A.    I can't answer that without getting into
 3   some of the direct reasons why we're treating it.
 4             Your chemical treatment of water is done to
 5   precipitate soluble compounds that are in the water.
 6   Those soluble compounds, which would include
 7   phosphorus, is probably a secondary reaction of the
 8   process.  The primary reaction will be the conversion
 9   of the dosing chemical into an insoluble form which
10   reacts with the soluble carbon and precipitates the
11   carbon materials out, which also then precipitates
12   out or retains or absorbs also the phosphorus and
13   other elements.
14             Chemical dosing is really something which
15   phosphorus is just one of those things that are
16   captured by it.  It wasn't specifically keynoted for
17   its reaction just for phosphorus.
18             What we are looking at is, basically, iron
19   compounds at this point and the formation of iron
20   oxides which are insoluable.  They have a charge.
21   Because they have a charge, they coagulate.
22             As time progresses in that coagulation
23   process, the materials are very active in the water,
24   and it absorbs phosphorus, absorbs other metals.  If
25   there are heavy metals in the water, the metals would


                                                 Page 15

 1   be absorbed.  Basically, everything is taken out,
 2   including the color that is seen in the water.
 3             From the start, you have a material that
 4   looks very colored, like a weak tea, and when we
 5   finish, the desirable end product of the water, it's
 6   fairly clear water.  Those constituents in there make
 7   it unique, because it consumes those chemicals in a
 8   high rate.
 9             If we had lower carbons, you would have
10   less chemicals used.  If you had lower hardnesses,
11   you'd have better control over the coagulation
12   process.  So these properties make it unique in terms
13   of experience elsewhere in the country.
14       Q.    Then is it a fact that generally you would
15   have to use a lot of treatment chemicals, that makes
16   this water difficult to treat?
17       A.    Makes it difficult to treat because it
18   consumes more chemical than is traditionally what
19   would be in New York or let's say in good water
20   quality, treating of good water quality.
21             This water quality, naturally, is of a
22   different nature.  So it consumes more chemical, and
23   the variability of the water quality changes
24   throughout the year.
25             I mean, we have a semi-tropical climate,


                                                 Page 16

 1   which means during the Summer, temperatures increase.
 2   You have more biological activities during the Summer
 3   than in the Winter.  You have diurnal fluctuations
 4   that also influences the ability to treat these
 5   waters, as compared to something that might have just
 6   a couple of biological peaks.  We have many of them
 7   that occur throughout the year.
 8       Q.    Going back to the document list here.
 9             I think so far what we have covered are the
10   research reports that you provided, the 1992 research
11   reports.  You have also identified some publications.
12             In connection with work that will
13   potentially relate to your expert testimony, have you
14   produced any raw data?
15       A.    You mean anything scientific is raw data?
16   What precisely do you mean?
17             My whole life is -- in my professional
18   life, I produce raw data.  I mean, what exactly do
19   you mean?
20       Q.    In performing investigations of the
21   applicability of chemical treatment to remove
22   phosphorus, specifically in looking at chemical
23   treatment as an alternatives to STA's, have you
24   produced any raw data?
25       A.    Oh, certainly.


                                                 Page 17

 1       Q.    And have you made that available to your
 2   attorney to turn over to us?
 3       A.    Yes.  The Report 11-92 really is a
 4   collection of all the data produced up to that point.
 5       Q.    Is the November 1992 report a synthesis of
 6   that data?
 7       A.    It's a collection of all the data.  Of
 8   course, it's processed data, basically in charts and
 9   tables, figures.
10             MR. COUSINS:  I hate to interject.
11             Where is that one?
12             MR. GAINES:  It's actually '92-11.
13 BY MR. GARVER:
14       Q.    In doing your investigations of the
15   chemical treatment as an alternative to STA's, did
16   you generate any handwritten laboratory notes or
17   field notes?
18       A.    Well, our entire laboratory is set up for
19   quality assurance and quality control, and every
20   sample that comes in is processed, is logged in, is
21   logged out.  Every time we move a sample or change a
22   sample or do something to it, we have it logged.
23   Everything that comes in from the laboratory goes
24   directly onto a computer.  So the answer would be
25   obviously yes.  There's notes, both, computer form as


                                                 Page 18

 1   well as controlled laboratory procedures that are in
 2   the note form.  All those are with the QAQC plan that
 3   we established last year also with the project.
 4       Q.    Did you produce any of the computer files
 5   or other compilations of data that you just described
 6   to your attorneys to turn over to us?
 7       A.    No, I did not.
 8             MR. GARVER:  Mr. Gaines, I believe that
 9        that information, those compilations of data
10        would be responsive to our document request.
11             MR. GAINES:  What compilations are you
12        talking about specifically?
13             THE WITNESS:  You sure you want them all?
14             MR. GAINES:  I mean, I just want to
15        understand what it is you're looking for.
16             MR. GARVER:  Computer compilations of data
17        used in investigations with any chemical
18        treatment.  Whether or not we do want these at
19        this point, I can't say right now, but I would
20        identify those as responsive documents that have
21        not been produced.
22             MR. GAINES:  Well, I don't know if those
23        are responsive or not, but let me know if you
24        are looking for them, and then I will get
25        together with him and see what's out there.


                                                 Page 19

 1             THE WITNESS:  There's certainly nothing
 2        secretive that wants to be hidden, but there's a
 3        lot of a background information.
 4 BY MR. GARVER:
 5       Q.    What other kind of background information
 6   is there?
 7       A.    Well, you're asking -- the reports consist
 8   of all the data in a compiled format.  So everything
 9   that you see in that report is essentially the data
10   base.  I am not sure exactly what you would want, but
11   if you want the whole nine yards, it would fill a few
12   boxes, perhaps.
13             MR. GARVER:  We'll let you know about that.
14        I just want to figure out the universe of
15        documents.
16             THE WITNESS:  I don't look forward to
17        gathering all that, either.
18             MR. GAINES:  Just so I am clear, we're
19        talking about this Report 92-11 and the tables
20        and data that are reflected in here.  You're
21        talking about the computer printouts that went
22        into putting these tables together?
23             MR. GARVER:  Right, the raw data from which
24        those charts and graphs were generated.
25             MR. GARVER:  I'd like to turn now to your


                                                 Page 20

 1        resume, Doctor Anderson.
 2             Can we get this marked as Doctor Anderson
 3        1.
 4                  (The document referred to was
 5                  thereupon marked Anderson Exhibit
 6                  No. 1 for Identification.)
 7 BY MR. GARVER:
 8       Q.    Doctor Anderson, I am handing you what's
 9   been marked as Anderson Exhibit No. 1.
10       A.    It is my resume.
11       Q.    Is this your most recent resume?
12       A.    Yes, it is.
13       Q.    Is this a resume you recently updated?
14       A.    I just keep a resume updated.  I write a
15   lot of materials, and every time I complete
16   something, I just update it.  It's just my working
17   file of what I do.  It was not -- you know, this
18   resume wasn't prepared specifically for you, no.
19   This is something I have had for years.
20       Q.    Can you briefly describe your educational
21   background?
22       A.    Sure.  I received my Ph.D. in Soil
23   Chemistry and Water Chemistry at the University of
24   Wisconsin, Madison 1981, my Masters degree in Soil
25   Science and Statistics from N.C. State University at


                                                 Page 21

 1   Raleigh in 1978.  I had a BS degree in Natural
 2   Resources from the University of Wisconsin, actually,
 3   at Stevens Point in 1973.
 4       Q.    Can you briefly describe to me the degree
 5   requirements for a BS in natural resources?
 6       A.    I don't remember the specific requirements,
 7   but a lot of chemistry science.  It has to be a lot
 8   of science, which includes the biological sciences
 9   and chemistry.  We covered in that degree forestry,
10   wildlife, water, soils, chemistry labs related to
11   each of those disciplines, humanities, social
12   sciences, psychology, English composition, ROTC, I
13   think, one year.
14       Q.    And for your Masters in soil science and
15   statistics, what were the requirements that you had
16   to meet to obtain that degree?
17       A.    There were so many credit hours for the
18   whole degree, but basically you have a fairly strong
19   emphasis in soil chemistry, chemistry, as well as
20   statistics.  There's four or five different
21   statistics courses that you have to fulfill to go
22   through a minor in statistics.
23       Q.    What courses that you took in obtaining
24   your Masters related to chemical treatment of
25   phosphorus as you are employing it?


                                                 Page 22

 1       A.    Not as phosphorus.  My particular thesis
 2   was regarding liming reactions of soils that were in
 3   the mountain soils in North Carolina, and in that
 4   line, I spent a lot of work in laboratories as well
 5   as taking courses such as soil physics, soil
 6   chemistry that related to that thesis and that area
 7   of study.
 8       Q.    Can you describe to me in a little more
 9   detail your thesis, your Masters thesis?
10       A.    Sure.
11             You're referring to the thesis here?
12       Q.    Yes.
13       A.    We were looking at different factors, soil
14   chemical factors that actually affected the liming
15   requirements of soils that were originated in the
16   mountain areas of North Carolina.  These are soils
17   that would be typical of soils in North Carolina,
18   Virginia, parts of Tennessee.  We looked at how the
19   requirements were derived and what factors are
20   actually influencing the lime requirements.  Lime
21   requirements meaning how much lime was required to
22   alter the PH, alter the soil chemistry of those
23   soils.
24       Q.    What was the lime requirements for?  I
25   mean, why would you be altering the PH or the


                                                 Page 23

 1   chemistry of the soils?
 2       A.    In many of those areas, those soils are
 3   very acid and very unsuitable for land development,
 4   whether it be for forest production or whether it
 5   would be tobacco or other crops like corn or cotton.
 6   In some of those cases, some of those areas have very
 7   documented forms of metals such as maganese, and
 8   liming reduces those acidity products such that those
 9   products can grow at a suitable rate and without any
10   toxicity.
11             In some of those cases, some of those soils
12   have been stripped because of erosion, and some soils
13   are very raw in acid, very difficult to retain, and
14   they use lime to remediate those soils.
15       Q.    When you were obtaining your Masters, did
16   you take any or do any course work in wetlands
17   ecology?
18       A.    No, I did not.
19       Q.    Did you do any course work related to
20   wetlands water quality?
21       A.    No, I did not.
22       Q.    Did you do any course work, organize
23   research related to oligotrophic systems?
24       A.    In my Masters, I did not.
25       Q.    Did you do any course work related to


                                                 Page 24

 1   phosphorus cycling?
 2       A.    In my Masters, actually the first year of
 3   my Masters, I was in the Tropical Soils Program, and
 4   at that time we were going to be doing our research
 5   in Costa Rica and Turrialba, and the specific topic
 6   was phosphorus and intercropping in that area in
 7   Central America.  That project was with USAID.
 8   Support was dropped.  There were some political
 9   problems at the time, and at that moment, I switched
10   my Masters thesis to the one that I completed.  So I
11   had to reverse my entire thesis.  So I spent
12   approximately one year preparing for the Central
13   America research program, which was phosphorus and
14   intercropping.  So, yes, I guess the answer would be
15   yes, and that's specifically what I did.
16       Q.    What is phosphorus and intercropping?
17       A.    Phosphorus fertilization of crops that were
18   growing simultaneously under a tropical environment.
19             Previous to my doing my Masters, I worked
20   in the Amazon Basin area which we looked at slash and
21   burn techniques in the Amazon.  We were trying to
22   find ways of reducing the population or keeping the
23   population from cutting more forest down by keeping
24   them indignly local to the area that they had cleared
25   out.


                                                 Page 25

 1             Under normal or natural conditions, after
 2   three years of tropical climate, they have to move
 3   into the forest, cut new forest down, because the
 4   soils had been depleted because of high rainfall for
 5   soil conditions.  They can't grow good crops.  They
 6   can't survive.  So they cut more down.
 7             Our work in the Amazon was to specifically
 8   research not only intercropping, but what techniques
 9   that they could use to maintain that lands without
10   cutting down more forest.  The work that was to be
11   done in Turrialba was to be done in the same type of
12   light, trying to look at the growth of several new
13   crops simultaneously under fertility regime, and my
14   particular area was to be working with phosphorus.
15       Q.    In obtaining your Masters, did you do any
16   course work, organize, conduct any research relating
17   to chemical treatment of waste waters?
18       A.    I did not.
19             My only experience up to that time on
20   wetlands was when I worked with the Soils Science
21   Department that year, previous to that, in the
22   Organic Tide Water Areas, and these are organic soils
23   located in Plymouth, North Carolina, Eastern North
24   Carolina.
25       Q.    What time period are you referring to now?


                                                 Page 26

 1       A.    1974, '75.
 2       Q.    This was prior to your returning back --
 3       A.    Back to school.
 4       Q.    Can you describe in more detail what work
 5   you were conducting between completion of your
 6   Bachelors and beginning your Masters work?
 7       A.    After I finished my Bachelors degree, I
 8   went into U.S. Peace Corps and spent approximately
 9   one year in Arequipa, Peru, which was working in the
10   soil and water laboratory, and there I was supposed
11   to teach soil and water techniques in the laboratory.
12   I also did some extension related activities of
13   promoting laboratories and the use of the
14   laboratories in Southern Peru, both on the coast and
15   in the interior.
16             After that, I joined N.C. State's team
17   working in the Amazon that following year.  Returning
18   from Peace Corps, I worked one year at the Tide Water
19   Research Station as a research technician, and that
20   area is basically organic histosols, working on
21   development of those soils and those wetlands into
22   agriculture production areas before returning back to
23   my Masters.
24       Q.    During the time you were with the Tide
25   Water Research Station --


                                                 Page 27

 1       A.    Yes.
 2       Q.    -- were you involved in chemical treatment
 3   of drainage waters?
 4       A.    No, I wasn't.
 5       Q.    Can you describe to me the work you did in
 6   order to obtain your Ph.D. at the University of
 7   Wisconsin?
 8       A.    Sure.
 9             I took numerous courses in the Chemistry
10   Department, soil chemistry, soil mineralogy, soil
11   fertility, the general requirements for that degree
12   in the Department of Soil Science as well as
13   fulfilled the requirements in the Department of Water
14   Science and Water Chemistry and Water Science.
15             My thesis was working at modeling phosphate
16   dissolution in soils, looking at rock phosphates from
17   different types of rock phosphates and modeling their
18   chemical reactions in the soil, developing a chemical
19   or excuse me an interactive computer model that
20   produced the solubility rates and dissolution rates
21   of rock phosphates in soil.  So it was both a
22   computer based study as well as a greenhouse and
23   growth room studies looking at specific chemistry --
24   soil chemistry reactions to dissolution process.
25       Q.    Did you have any teaching or research


                                                 Page 28

 1   assistantships in obtaining your Ph.D.?
 2       A.    Yes.  I taught a few semesters assisting as
 3   a teaching professor while I was there.  That's part
 4   of the requirements of the university.
 5       Q.    In obtaining your Ph.D., did you do any
 6   course work or research related to wetlands ecology?
 7       A.    Not specifically, other than what was in
 8   course work that I covered, both, in the Soils
 9   Department as well as in the Water Science
10   Department, just covering what studies had been done
11   in the past as a student.  I didn't do any research
12   in wetlands ecology.
13       Q.    What types of studies relating to wetlands
14   ecology were involved in the course that you just
15   described?
16       A.    Well, in the study of water chemistry, you
17   have to study certain case histories, whether it be
18   different lakes have been treated or ecologically
19   studied, and in that course work we were studying
20   under people who are currently doing that type of
21   work.  So obviously we knew what they were doing.
22             They informed us what their background was
23   and how it related to the course work, but that's
24   really the limit of my ecological training, other
25   than in my BS training in which we did water surveys


                                                 Page 29

 1   and ecological surveys for my bachelors degree.  We
 2   did that during a summer course that we had to take
 3   mandatory at a forestry camp.  We had to enter the
 4   forestry camp for the Summer.  At that time we did
 5   the biological field studies.
 6       Q.    Did any of the course work you did in
 7   obtaining your Ph.D. relate to the Everglades?
 8       A.    My Ph.D.?
 9       Q.    Yes.
10       A.    No.
11       Q.    Did any of the course work you did in
12   obtaining your Bachelors or Masters degrees relate to
13   the Everglades?
14       A.    No.
15       Q.    Did you do any course work or research in
16   obtaining your Ph.D. related to chemical treatment of
17   waste waters, including agriculture drainage waters?
18       A.    Soil or water remediation, no.
19       Q.    What did you do after obtaining your Ph.D.?
20       A.    Took a job with USDA in the ARS, worked one
21   year as a post-doc at Auburn University.
22       Q.    What is the ARS?
23       A.    Agriculture Research Service with the
24   U.S. Department of Agricultural, and my position was
25   a soil chemist.


                                                 Page 30

 1       Q.    And after working at Auburn University,
 2   what did you do?
 3       A.    Took a job with the University of Florida
 4   in my current position.
 5       Q.    What is your current position?
 6       A.    My current position is located -- I work at
 7   the Everglades Research and Education Center.  I am a
 8   soil water chemist working also with sugar cane
 9   nutrition, working with the industry on agricultural
10   crops as well as the work on issues that relate
11   therein.  There's a fairly broad mission of
12   responsibilities associated with each of those
13   positions.
14             I have been with the University of Florida
15   for 11 years, initially, by doing a lot of studies
16   regarding fertilizer requirements with sugar cane
17   production, working with some other crops, biomass
18   crops for alcohol production as well.  Initially, I
19   worked pretty strongly with the fertilizer industry,
20   fertilizer and chemical industries during that period
21   of time in the early years.  I have continued to work
22   with those studies, published a lot of different
23   works on space and soils chemistry as well as soil
24   fertility, both being applied in basic nature.
25       Q.    What exactly is the Everglades Research and


                                                 Page 31

 1   Education Center?
 2       A.    It's one of the -- I am not sure exactly
 3   how many we have in the state.  I think there's 15
 4   centers in the State of Florida that belong to the
 5   Institute of Food and Agricultural Science called
 6   IFAS, but the University of Florida, it's one of the
 7   stations in the state.
 8             We have, I guess, on record 19
 9   Ph.D. positions that are designated for that station
10   with, I think, close to 65 support personnel there.
11   That station was one of the first stations in
12   Florida.  I think that was established in 1918 or
13   1922.  So it's been in that area or that region for a
14   long time.
15       Q.    And how is the EREC; is that how it's
16   referred to?
17       A.    Uh-huh.
18       Q.    How is the EREC funded?
19       A.    State of Florida with the budget
20   constraints that we have had, as has everybody,
21   including yourselves.  I am sure we have depended
22   fairly heavily on getting support from industry as
23   well as from government outside agencies through
24   research grants.
25       Q.    What industries have provided research


                                                 Page 32

 1   grants?
 2       A.    Besides the Florida Sugar Cane League, we
 3   have got vegetable industry people who are vegetable
 4   producers that give money, chemical industry,
 5   fertilizer industry, South Florida Water Management
 6   District, and there are probably other grants
 7   associated with the Caribbean Initiative.  I mean,
 8   over the year, it's pretty broad based, both from
 9   industry and from government.
10       Q.    Do you have any teaching responsibilities
11   in your position at EREC?
12       A.    No, I have not.
13       Q.    Have you ever had any teaching
14   responsibilities?
15       A.    No.
16             This is a 100-percent research position.
17       Q.    Do you work with degree candidates?
18       A.    I have been associated with several, but my
19   official students, I only had one student in 11
20   years.  His name was Orlando Diaz.
21       Q.    Were you his main professor, so to speak,
22   in getting him to complete his degree requirements?
23       A.    There had to be two professors.  I was one
24   of them.  The other one was in Gainesville.  In order
25   to complete his degree, he had to have a professor up


                                                 Page 33

 1   in Gainesville.  So there were two of us, one down
 2   here, one up at the Gainesville campus.
 3       Q.    Has Mr. Diaz obtained his Ph.D.?
 4       A.    Yes, he has.
 5       Q.    In your work at EREC, have you been
 6   involved in any work relating to treatment of
 7   agricultural drainage waters?
 8       A.    Yes, I have.
 9       Q.    And what work have you done in that area?
10       A.    The work that was, I guess, essentially
11   started in 1991, December of 1991, shown in the
12   report of May of '92, also shown in the report of
13   August and November of '92.
14       Q.    And that's work relating to chemical
15   treatment of agricultural drainage waters?
16       A.    Directly the chemical treatment of
17   agricultural drainage waters.
18       Q.    Prior to the work you commenced in December
19   1991, have you done any other work relating to
20   treatment of agricultural drainage waters?
21       A.    I have been associated in working as
22   project leader for soil remediation with the soil
23   aspects with the District grants, taking a look at
24   the transport of phosphorus in the Okeechobee
25   Drainage Basin which is in Okeechobee County.


                                                 Page 34

 1             There are a number of my colleagues who are
 2   involved in similar locations, but we were looking at
 3   the soil drainage waters and reactions after we had
 4   remediated those soils.  We have looked at drainage
 5   waters off of those.  So we had done column studies
 6   off of those and been fairly successful at it.
 7             I just might add, the other study was a
 8   grant, also, with DER that I had last year, and that
 9   was related to the treatment of dairy soils that were
10   heavily loaded with manure with gypsum stack
11   material, which is called desulphurization gympsum
12   that was in conjunction with Tampa Electric
13   Authority.
14             MR. COUSINS:  Do you have a paper?
15             THE WITNESS:  We have got a paper regarding
16        that work in review right now.  It's Number 6 on
17        Page 10, Nutrient Release and Bacterial
18        Enumeration in Soil After Gypsum Application.
19 BY MR. GARVER:
20       Q.    Did I understand you correctly that that's
21   been primarily a laboratory research operation?
22       A.    Yes, it was.
23             Some of the work we had done regarding
24   gypsum materials was also done with the District
25   project, and with that District project, we had done


                                                 Page 35

 1   both laboratory and some field studies, and some of
 2   the data that we found that was very favorable
 3   regarding gypsum treatment at that time we enumerated
 4   into this study and did it a second, third or fourth
 5   time.  So this was under DER grant.
 6       Q.    When you say the District study, that was
 7   the study related to soil amendments in Lake
 8   Okeechobee soils?
 9       A.    Yes.
10       Q.    During the time you have been at the EREC,
11   have you conducted any research or investigations in
12   the Water Conversation Areas themselves?
13       A.    Such as best management practices, by
14   chance?  What exactly do you mean?
15             MR. GAINES:  He is asking in the WCA's, not
16        in the EAA.
17 BY MR. GARVER:
18       Q.    In the Water Conservation Areas?
19       A.    No, we have not.
20             We have attempted to do some studies in the
21   Everglades National Park last year, but we could
22   never get the funds for the permission to work in the
23   Park.  That was in conjunction with the Soil
24   Conservation Service.  The last Soil survey of the
25   Park was done, I think, in the 1920's by Mary Collins

                                                 Page 36

 1   out of Gainesville, and the SCS personnel down here
 2   have an interest in renewing those studies in order
 3   to establish some baselines which appear not to be
 4   there.
 5       Q.    What is SCS?
 6       A.    Soil Conservation Service.
 7       Q.    Are you referring to --
 8       A.    I would say we were working through the
 9   State Conservationist, would be Wade Hurt in
10   Gainesville.
11       Q.    Is that H-U-R-T?
12       A.    H-U-R-T, yes, that's correct, and Doctor
13   Mary Collins in Gainesville.
14       Q.    Were there any federal employees involved
15   in that project?
16       A.    No.
17             We just tried to pursue it trying to do
18   some of the work down there because of our interest
19   in the EAA, and we talked to some of the personnel
20   people in the Everglades National Park about their
21   interest, and they appeared -- basically, they had a
22   little interest in participating, but we could never
23   find the grant funds to proceed with it.
24       Q.    Who at Everglades National Park did you
25   discuss this project with?


                                                 Page 37

 1       A.    Michael Zukoff.
 2             We went so far as getting SCS to submit to
 3   us a proposal of the cost incurred if they would
 4   participate.  So we went so far as getting some
 5   preliminary proposals together.
 6       Q.    Why were you interested in updating the
 7   soil survey in Everglades National Park?
 8       A.    Many of the soils in the Park are related
 9   to soils in the Everglades Agricultural Area, and I
10   have been interested in classification and the nature
11   of those soils, basically, in South Florida.  So I
12   have been involved for the last 11 some years in
13   these soils.  We have an interest in them.
14       Q.    Was there any industry involvement in that
15   proposal?
16       A.    No, there was not.  This was an academic
17   venture for our own sake.
18       Q.    And I believe you stated you couldn't get
19   permission to conduct that research; is that correct?
20       A.    It wasn't so much the permission.
21             In order to do work in the Everglades
22   National Park, particularly in the interior, you must
23   involve helicopters, the right time of the year, just
24   to get into the areas that you have to get into.  In
25   order to do that, you have to have funding to support


                                                 Page 38

 1   both the personnel in the park as well as the SCS
 2   personnel.
 3             The Soil Conversation Service cannot just
 4   randomly do studies without additional or outside
 5   support.  So it was necessary to get grant funds.
 6       Q.    I still don't understand how permission
 7   from and from whom was involved in that project?
 8       A.    Permission probably would have come from
 9   Mike Zukoff or whoever is in charge at Everglades
10   National Park and, partially, whether or not they are
11   interested in pursuing those activities.
12             We never had any clearcut message from Mike
13   whether or not he was interested or not.  It was kind
14   of a reserved, well, maybe, combined with the fact
15   that we couldn't get the full grant support.  That
16   sort of settled our abilities of getting into the
17   Park and doing the work.
18       Q.    Were you ever denied permission from Mike
19   Zukoff or anyone else at the Park to do the research?
20       A.    No, not at all.  I have always found him
21   very cooperative.  I have never had any problems with
22   him.
23             MR. GARVER:  Mr. Gaines, there are several
24        publications, and I am finally getting back to
25        you on this, that were listed in Doctor


                                                 Page 39

 1        Anderson's resume that we would like copies of.
 2             MR. GAINES:  Okay.
 3             MR. GARVER:  And we can do that in a break,
 4        if you'd like.  We can go over those.  So we
 5        don't have to do that on the Record.
 6             THE WITNESS:  Tell me --
 7             MR. GAINES:  Well, obviously we are not
 8        going to have those copies for you today.
 9             MR. GARVER:  Sure.
10             MR. GAINES:  When would you want to obtain
11        the copies?  Do you know if you're going to be
12        going into tomorrow or not?  Is that what you
13        had in mind, to try to get him over and just to
14        get them after the deposition or what?
15             MR. GARVER:  Yeah.  At this point, I wasn't
16        asking for them necessarily at the conclusion of
17        the depo.
18             MR. GAINES:  Well, tell us which ones you
19        would like, and I don't know if they are all
20        available, if he has copies of everything or
21        not.  Some of them are out of print.  But
22        whatever we have --
23             MR. GARVER:  I think just for time sake,
24        let's do it off the Record.
25             MR. GAINES:  Okay.


                                                 Page 40

 1 BY MR. GARVER:
 2       Q.    Referring back to your resume, Doctor
 3   Anderson, on Page 2 under Duties and Responsibilities
 4   of your work at the EREC.
 5             I notice you have duties and
 6   responsibilities in the area of the environmental
 7   improvement.  Can you describe what those duties and
 8   responsibilities are?
 9       A.    The reason why we have this station is
10   basically to serve the area in whether it be
11   production area, areas of production that are needed
12   to be done or agriculture production or environmental
13   problems that are impacting an area.  It's basically
14   our responsibility to get involved in those type of
15   studies and that kind of work.  That experiment
16   station really exists as a mission from the State of
17   Florida to the region.  It's not specifically to
18   serve necessarily sugar cane interests, but to serve
19   the whole area, whatever those interests might be,
20   and that includes environmental improvement.  I am
21   obviously doing some environmental work in
22   accomplishing those duties.
23       Q.    Specifically what environmental work are
24   you doing?
25       A.    We have been working on the effects of


                                                 Page 41

 1   water table, not specifically in the EAA, but outside
 2   the EAA in Hendry County taking a look at the effects
 3   of water table on water quality, the effects of water
 4   table on sugar cane production and other parameters.
 5             Also, as an interest in the past -- let me
 6   just get myself together here, specifically myself.
 7             Besides some water remediation work I have
 8   been doing, I have also been involved with optimizing
 9   fertilizer materials to the sugar cane crop, and
10   that, in particular, is optimizing their most
11   sufficient usage as that fits in as the best
12   management practices.  Both the industry and the
13   government are very concerned about people not over
14   fertilizing and pushing nutrients into drainage
15   waters.  That's basically it.
16       Q.    What specifically have you done in
17   connection with the optimization of fertilization
18   requirements?
19       A.    When I first arrived here 11 years ago, I
20   initiated phosphorus studies looking at fertilizer
21   phosphorus application to the sugar cane crop to try
22   to determine their optimum levels and the uses of
23   them based on soil tests, monitoring, tissue plant,
24   tissue monitoring and yield measurements, and those
25   have continued for the past ten years.  We have done


                                                 Page 42

 1   quite a few studies.  I can't tell you exact numbers
 2   of sites, but we probably have maybe 60 to 70 site
 3   years of data collected on that.
 4             Currently, I have a man on sabbatical from
 5   Brazil that is focusing particularly on that issue,
 6   and his job this year will be to collectively gather
 7   that data base together and determine the optimum
 8   usage of phosphorus fertilizer on sugar cane.
 9       Q.    To date, have you made any recommendations,
10   published any recommendations regarding optimum
11   phosphorus fertilization?
12       A.    No.
13             Of course we have, of course, reported in
14   some of our annual meetings some of our results in
15   the past years, and they vary based on those site
16   specific activities, but we have not published a
17   recommendation or revision of the current
18   recommendation.
19             I have been involved in development of a
20   new chemistry chemical test on soils on acid
21   extraction that we're hoping will do a better job
22   than the past historical procedures have done, but up
23   to this time, no recommendations have been made until
24   we finalize our data base and include it.
25             I think what you're going to find out is


                                                 Page 43

 1   IFAS or the University of Florida will revise any
 2   recommendation with the data substantiated revision,
 3   and we are trying to establish some strict guidelines
 4   for that so that we don't have individuals making
 5   their own recommendations apart from what is the
 6   University or IFAS' recommendation.
 7             In this last year, we have made some
 8   attempts or the University of Florida has made some
 9   attempts to unify that process, and we will probably
10   follow the same process.
11       Q.    What is the current recommendation relating
12   to phosphorus fertilization?
13       A.    It depends on a soil test that they use as
14   a tool to tell them basically how much phosphorus is
15   existing in the fertility of that soil is existing at
16   the time.
17             Actually, the recommendations can be from
18   zero to seventy pounds of P205 per acre.  That would
19   be on a plant crop of sugar cane.  The routine crop
20   is generally a standard 40 pounds of P205 per acres
21   is taken as the recommendation that's in the EAA.
22   The source of materials generally is using triple
23   super phosphate.  That's basically the phosphorus
24   material that is used as the source material.
25       Q.    You stated you're doing work now relating


                                                 Page 44

 1   to updated soil tests to be used in conjunction with
 2   the phosphorus fertilization?
 3       A.    Yes, that's correct.
 4       Q.    What were the limitations I believe you
 5   mentioned earlier regarding existing soil tests?
 6       A.    Well, initially, historically we have to go
 7   back to historical record, particularly for
 8   phosphorus.  They used a water retractable phosphorus
 9   for that test.  That test was generally correlated to
10   vegetable crops which grow on a very short term.  The
11   water extraction is very variable.  You could get --
12   let's give it a soil test unit of two coming out of a
13   test, just for sake of discussion.
14             You could take two different soil samples,
15   both having a value of two coming out of that lab,
16   but if you take a look at a more rigorous extraction
17   technique for phosphorus, one you might find equal to
18   ten and the other equal to 120.  Obviously, the one
19   that extracts 120, there's more in the bank than is
20   recognized by the water extractable phosphorus.
21             When I first arrived probably a year after
22   I started working at the center, I started working on
23   other extraction techniques to recognize and to be
24   able to help our calibration of fertilizer of
25   nutrients in that region.  That water extractable


                                                 Page 45

 1   phosphorus test appears to be good with some
 2   vegetable crops.  But again on a long-term crop, such
 3   as sugar cane which utilizes nutrients all year long,
 4   it appears to be a very poor indicator for fertilizer
 5   needs.  In fact, the past published recommendations,
 6   using their techniques, probably the science behind
 7   it is not very strong, not strongly supporting its
 8   recommendation for correlations statistically.
 9             I have been working for the last years to
10   hopefully improve that correlation and that ability
11   of predicting true needs using other extraction
12   techniques.
13       Q.    How does the lack of a reliable soil test
14   for sugar cane affect the use of phosphorus
15   fertilizers on sugar cane?
16       A.    Well, if you were a farmer, if you were a
17   farmer and trying to manage 1000 acres, you would
18   want to be able to know how to have a uniform crop.
19   You would want to produce a uniform crop, and if you
20   did not get the right fertilizer recommendations
21   based on that soil test because it was unreliable,
22   you may have a very irregular production over those
23   thousand acres which would be very difficult for you
24   as a manager of that acreage to manage well and be
25   able to understand what was happening either to


                                                 Page 46

 1   adjust, increase or decrease the fertilizer amounts.
 2             Under fertilizing is not good, and
 3   obviously over fertilizing will not be good.
 4   Fertilization depends on both the quality of the crop
 5   and the quantity of the crop produced, and you have
 6   to optimize those levels.
 7             So the broad based objective of this would
 8   be obviously to have a technique that you could use
 9   as a tool that would be very helpful instead of
10   useless.
11       Q.    Again, returning back to your resume under
12   your duties and responsibilities, what duties and
13   responsibilities do you have with regard to
14   conservation of organic/mineral soils?
15       A.    We have studies that, I think, go back to
16   1948 to more recently in 1988 that have studied the
17   fact of subsidence oxidation of those soils as being
18   an important criteria.  Basically, those studies took
19   place at that experiment stations.  So the
20   conservation of these soils, whether it be to modify
21   the water table or to be conscious of what other
22   techniques that need to be followed through
23   environmental protection of that area is our
24   responsibility to perform research.
25             In the past years, we have collaberated


                                                 Page 47

 1   with both -- not myself necessarily -- but other
 2   people on that station have collaberated with the
 3   Soil Conservation Service.  We have done studies
 4   regarding the disappearance or the subsidence of
 5   these soils over the past 50 years, and that's pretty
 6   much -- again, we exist at that station to serve that
 7   area and not to be blind about the conditions, but to
 8   treat them in a scientific manner when we're called
 9   upon.
10             Many times we're called on by press or
11   visitors or people, and we naturally know about the
12   process and discuss it and know about it.
13       Q.    What is your understanding of what causes
14   subsidence in soils in the EAA?
15       A.    Well, you have a soil that was developed
16   basically underwater without oxygen.  The accumulated --
17   those materials accumulated without oxygen.  When the
18   State of Florida decided, I think it was in 1902, to
19   start draining some of these soils around the lake,
20   and later on the Federal Government in the '40's and
21   early '50's completed those plans, basically those
22   plans were done to protect the region from floods,
23   hurricanes that are associated with those floods as
24   well as shortage of water to control water both from
25   flooding and from drought.


                                                 Page 48

 1             The consequence of drainage subsidence and
 2   protecting area, which means protecting the coastal
 3   areas by giving them enough water use because of a
 4   growing population or prospecting water tables in the
 5   park result really in the drainage of these whole
 6   areas resulting in oxygen getting into those soils,
 7   which are basically all organic in nature to start
 8   oxidizing, and that oxidation process results in a
 9   slow depletion of the material.
10             The only way to reverse that, of course, is
11   to take every canal that drains in South Florida and
12   block it up and reflood the whole area.  That would
13   be the only way, should you have enough water to do
14   it.  But typically, South Florida is plagued by both
15   extremes in water and drought, which you see the
16   result of fires nearly every Spring.  So subsidence
17   is a result of drainage.
18       Q.    So the only way to stop subsidence would be
19   to stop up all the canals and take out all the water?
20       A.    Completely take every canal apart and stop
21   it up.  That would include Port Saint Lucie Canal,
22   which is a shipping lane, as well as going out to the
23   Calooshatchee, because a major amount of natural
24   drainage, natural seepage of water is irreverently
25   changed as a result of people being in South Florida.


                                                 Page 49

 1   It's my opinion that nothing could be done to stop
 2   this process.
 3             You know, certainly in 200 years we can
 4   have a crop of people in South Florida, a lot more
 5   than we have now, which will demand water, and one of
 6   the key problems of keeping water probably now in the
 7   EAA is the fact that the usage of ground water on the
 8   coast essentially allows saltwater intrusion also to
 9   infect this area.  So there has got to be a hydraulic
10   buffer now of water, which means the only way we can
11   do that is to divert water from the interior to
12   conservation areas or lakes like this and keep a
13   hydraulic head of water stopping the saltwater
14   intrusion.  Saltwater intrusion don't reserve itself.
15   Once it's intruded into an aquifer, it's permanent.
16             So in my opinion, probably subsidence is
17   something that we really can't do too much to change
18   it right now.
19       Q.    Can you describe to me, in general, and
20   then in more detail, the Lake Okeechobee Soil
21   Amendments Project that you conducted?
22       A.    Basically, it's in three parts.  The first
23   phase was to take a look at various soil amendments
24   that could be applied in bench scale type studies,
25   take a look at those different amendments which


                                                 Page 50

 1   included calcium carbonates, gypsum, iron compounds,
 2   aluminum compounds and even sludges and see if the
 3   addition or disposal of those materials in mixing of
 4   those soils would control the release of phosphorus.
 5             It was recognized in Florida, in general,
 6   but particularly in the Okeechobee area region, this
 7   phosphorus actually very rapidly goes into a drainage
 8   water, because the soils themself do not retain
 9   phosphorus very well.
10             See, our job, our overall objective was to
11   determine what soil chemical amendments could be
12   added to those soils to increase its retention of
13   phosphorus.
14             The second phase we took a look at intact
15   soil column profiles from that area and amended those
16   soils under, both, flooded and drained conditions.
17   We took a look at the mobility of phosphorus from
18   those soils from the surface down through the profile
19   and took a look at the drainages off of those columns
20   to see if our amendment strategies determined in
21   phase one were actually working and for how long
22   would they work.
23             Those studies were done for a good 12
24   months, 13 months.  We monitored phosphate and
25   nitrates, sulfates, you know, various things, PH,


                                                 Page 51

 1   redox potentials of those soils, those columns.
 2             The third phase is, we took this to the
 3   field and into some dairy fields that we knew were
 4   heavily loaded due to this activity in cattle and
 5   dairy and applied what we thought would be one of the
 6   optimum treatments and monitored that for roughly
 7   about one year, and at the end of three years, our
 8   contract with the District terminated.  Basically,
 9   you know, it was a three year study.
10       Q.    What treatment did you end up using on the
11   field scale?
12       A.    Well, it's not particularly a treatment,
13   what recipe, but basically what conditions did we
14   need to monitor and change.
15             In some cases, we had to be a little more
16   intelligent than just adding a recipe to the soil.
17   We wanted to control soil PH and basically
18   controlling that soil PH to a PH of 7.  Then because
19   these soils are very low in calcium, we increased
20   calcium content also through the addition of gypsum
21   materials and also added ferrous sulfate or ferrous
22   chloride materials to increase its retention, because
23   iron is a very important component in retention of
24   phosphorus.
25       Q.    What did you do to control the soil PH?


                                                 Page 52

 1       A.    Added limestone.
 2       Q.    Did you reach any conclusions as a result
 3   of your studies?
 4       A.    Well, we concluded that this wasn't a
 5   one-shot deal.  Our remediation process did work.  It
 6   did show effectiveness.
 7             Again, probably the best place to look at
 8   the documentation of that is the article that's in
 9   review right now with the Journal of Environmental
10   Quality on Gypsum Materials.  We were able to reduce
11   the phosphate leaching of phosphorus by between 40
12   and 60 percent.
13             Our carbon levels of soluble organic
14   carbons were also reduced around 43.  I don't
15   remember the figures exactly, but we were able to
16   reduce the soluble organic phosphorus coming off,
17   which is the color, which was also contains
18   phosphorus, and we also did control some of the
19   nitrates coming off of that.  Again, that paper we
20   have under review documents that more formally.
21       Q.    Has the use of soil amendments or the
22   processes you're investigating in your study of soil
23   amendments in Lake Okeechobee, have they been applied
24   and practiced in the drainage basin?
25       A.    I don't think in a broad based way.  It


                                                 Page 53

 1   hasn't been done yet.
 2             Sonny Williamson, one of the Board members
 3   in the District was aware of it, and we have had
 4   various seminars with the South Florida Water
 5   Management District and with the dairy and we
 6   discussed it and had several meetings talking about
 7   it and documenting it.
 8             As of yet, we have not had a full fledged
 9   support for it, and I am not sure exactly why, except
10   information gets out very slowly.  But we have had
11   people recognize the efforts.
12       Q.    Are the soil amendment processes that you
13   were investigating in the Lake Okeechobee Basin,
14   would they be transferable or applicable in the EAA,
15   as well?
16       A.    Again, I have to look at the economics
17   behind it.
18             I have done some other studies looking at
19   limestone remediation of some of the organics in the
20   EAA, and indeed it does retain phosphorus.  We can
21   change the whole dynamics of phosphorus by adding
22   limestone.  Those studies were done primarily to take
23   a look at the effect of high PH by adding those
24   carbonates to products, because we don't want to
25   destroy products, but also to take a look at the


                                                 Page 54

 1   broader effects.
 2             Many of these soils are above a bedrock, a
 3   calcium carbonate bedrock.  So when a road comes in
 4   or a canal is dug, these materials are brought to the
 5   edge or the perimeter of these fields, and the
 6   question is what the effect of that mixing of those
 7   carbonate materials of those roadways have upon the
 8   phosphorus of those soils moving eventually into the
 9   water.
10             We have not published -- we presented the
11   data at one of our national meetings, but we have
12   taken a look at that and seen that retention of
13   phosphorus can be done very well with carbonates.
14   Unfortunately, the organic soils are highly buffered.
15   They resist changing in PH.  So in order to have a
16   very good effect, oftentimes, application of 20 to
17   maybe 60 tons of lime are necessary to change it to
18   see the effect that we want.
19             We have been interested in looking at
20   gypsum materials because we have been effective in
21   using disposable gypsum materials in the dairy areas
22   on those soils and seen very good effects upon
23   soluble carbon, upon nitrogen and phosphorus.  We
24   have not proceeded yet to do any studies in the EAA
25   as of this point.


                                                 Page 55

 1             Also, the residue materials that we're
 2   working with currently in our water remediation
 3   project, which are basically iron residues that
 4   precipitate out, look to be very favorable also for
 5   land application in the area, which essentially would
 6   be a windwood scenario for anybody using these
 7   residuals.  They actually do tie up phosphorus more
 8   strongly in soil, thus liming the amount of
 9   phosphorus that would go in the drainage waters.
10             So there looks like there's opportunities
11   of applying different strategies.  So right now all
12   the research has not either been done or been
13   concluded at this point in time, but yes there looks
14   like there are some opportunities in applying these
15   same practices.
16       Q.    What are some of the economic constraints
17   you're dealing with in terms of applying these
18   technologies in the EAA?
19       A.    In the EAA, if it comes down to limestone
20   and actually saying apply limestone to reduce
21   phosphorus losses, applying 30 tons, for example --
22   let's take a figure of 30 tons of limestone per acre
23   is obviously not an economic venture.  Transporting
24   and bringing that much material over a half a million
25   acres is not going to be economical, but if it comes


                                                 Page 56

 1   down to maybe recommending or recognizing that when
 2   the District or private industry cleans this canal or
 3   road base materials are put out, that there's a
 4   chemical buffering effect that those residue
 5   materials from those ditches have upon soil.
 6             I think there would probably be some more
 7   astute practice of where you put these materials,
 8   maybe alternating when they clean ditches,
 9   alternating -- instead of basically when they clean a
10   canal, it all goes to one side.  A drag line operator
11   goes to one side, and he moves around -- turns around
12   to the opposite field and goes on that side and then
13   goes on the outside and zigzags.
14             So just having records that would identify
15   where modifications could be made, I think, is
16   probably a management practice that should be a
17   little bit well-known.  Obviously, it's going to have
18   to be of assistance to growers and people that are
19   controlling these properties to do.
20             MR. GARVER:  Why don't we take a little
21        break.  I am about to shift topics here.
22                  (Thereupon, a brief recess was taken,
23                  after which the following proceedings
24                  were had:)
25 BY MR. GARVER:


                                                 Page 57

 1       Q.    Doctor Anderson, I believe you testified
 2   earlier that starting in December 199l you started
 3   work on a project related to chemical treatment of
 4   agricultural drainage waters in the EAA; is that
 5   correct?
 6       A.    Yes.
 7       Q.    How did you come to start working on that
 8   project relating to chemical treatment?
 9       A.    Well, I had been working on another project
10   which I mentioned before with DER looking at fluid
11   desulphurization gypsum stack materials.  What we
12   noticed is drainage waters coming from those soils
13   are increasingly clear with our chemical treatments.
14   I guess that was a time that a few of the industry
15   people knew what we were doing and took a look at it
16   and expressed an interest in whether or not we could
17   treat water in the same effect and clean it up, and
18   at that period in time I started looking at various
19   alternatives either from literature in the waste
20   water treatment area or other possibilities, and we
21   started screening different types of chemical
22   processes that could or could not be viable.  We took
23   a look at calcium compounds, took a look at calcium
24   compound injection, various avenues.
25             We excluded some treatments because of the


                                                 Page 58

 1   implied biological toxicity problems that would be
 2   associated with it, which would include the use of
 3   aluminum compounds, like alum.  Basically, we did not
 4   want to take a look at that, because I felt that with
 5   an environmental agenda, that we would be looked at
 6   very critically if something like this was
 7   conversional, and use of aluminum is conversional.
 8   Even in the science community, there's a lot of
 9   questions in whether residual aluminum in water is
10   biologically safe.
11             There's a real question in drinking water
12   whether aluminum is still safe, even though it's an
13   accepted waste water treatment chemical.  We kind of
14   avoided that.
15             Also, the other factors that we looked at
16   is what kind of residuals or byproducts would be
17   produced, either toxic or not, and we wanted to take
18   a look at those compounds or residuals that could be
19   easily land applied instead of disposed of in a
20   disposal area.  We definitely don't want to have a
21   disposal problem.
22             So the use of aluminum and some of the high
23   PH calcium compounds were quickly assessed to be
24   probably not viable from a sense of either aluminum
25   left in water and being possibly conversional as far


                                                 Page 59

 1   as toxicity and the materials of the byproduct or the
 2   residual byproducts being a very high PH byproduct,
 3   which is hard to manage or high in aluminum, which
 4   again is a biological problem, because these
 5   materials must be land applied without any biological
 6   toxicity to be viable.
 7             So with that screening, we eventually came
 8   into evaluating the iron compounds, the use of
 9   different iron compounds, and that's really where our
10   studies have led us right now, is to determine which
11   iron compounds are viable under different
12   circumstances.
13             I hope that gives you kind of a background
14   where it led from Point A to Point B, but it was kind
15   of a logical progression to what we are doing right
16   now.
17       Q.    Going back to the beginning.
18             I believe you said the first thing you did
19   was a literature search or one of the first things
20   you did was a literature search; is that correct?
21       A.    Well, we have been doing literature
22   searches all the time.  From our previous work with
23   soil remediation, we noticed very quickly that we had
24   good control over what was drained.  The drainage
25   materials, the water coming from these soils were


                                                 Page 60

 1   lower in phosphorus, lower in nitrates, lower in
 2   organic dissolved organic carbons.  With that, our
 3   progression of thoughts were, let's see if we can go
 4   ahead and do some treatment techniques.  Without
 5   going all over it again, that's basically how we
 6   derived with it.
 7             The aluminum compounds, I think I mentioned
 8   had some controversial edges to it, and we're
 9   avoiding some of those because of the obvious
10   pitfalls in adapting or adoption of these practices.
11       Q.    What literature did you rely on to try and
12   develop or refine this project as you moved along?
13       A.    I have got a bookcase full of literature
14   from liminology textbooks, to waste water treatment
15   authorities, which include EPA documents.  I mean, I
16   have got reams of material that we have looked over
17   and read, from textbooks to EPA reports.
18             The technology of water treatment is not a
19   new technology.  It's a fairly well documented
20   technology.  The adoption into the natural system,
21   into the natural water system is what makes it very
22   different.
23             Water treatment in the urban setting was
24   done because, essentially, governments said cities
25   had to comply with cleaning up their water or there


                                                 Page 61

 1   was a need to have clean drinking water.  As
 2   population centers grew, so did these waste water and
 3   treatment drinking water centers in urban areas grow.
 4   Essentially, these plants were developed in small
 5   acreage areas where they didn't have a lot of space.
 6   They essentially were in an urban situation.  So the
 7   engineering behind a water treatment is pretty much
 8   confined to an urban setting.
 9             Now, when we're treating water for a
10   natural system, especially in the Everglades
11   Agriculture Area, we essentially have a lot of space
12   to work with.  The treatment, while being very
13   similar in chemistry, how we treated the residuals or
14   what's precipitated out, we have more flexibility.
15             Residues are removed in water treatment
16   facilities through either sand filters or centrifugal
17   pumps or other methods, rarely by gravitation.
18   Primarily, it's because they don't have the large
19   space to work with.  The residence time of the amount
20   of water they treat is limited.  They just don't have
21   the space.  They may have ten acres of city property,
22   and in that piece of property, they have to do their
23   whole chemical process and design.
24             In the EAA, we have some very -- or in the
25   natural water system, it's very different.  Number 1,


                                                 Page 62

 1   I think some of the rules that we established for our
 2   research, number one, our residuals had to be
 3   compatible for land application, our byproduct.
 4             Number two, you have to abide to Class III
 5   DER legal standards for water affluents, which means
 6   that chlorides can't be too high.  PH to has to be in
 7   this area, you know, the various standards for Class
 8   III waters.  You're working, also, with a biological
 9   system where you might have fish or other benthic
10   organisms on the bottom.  Your processes can't impact
11   those negatively.
12             So when you take a look at the process in a
13   natural system, we can immediately exclude certain
14   practices or common treatment engineering designs as
15   incompatible.
16             Alum is not compatible.  The use of high PH
17   calcium compounds for precipitation is not
18   compatible.  So that limited us very quickly to the
19   use of iron compounds, and you have got several
20   different scenarios to those, also, which limit or
21   narrow their use, depending upon them.  There's four
22   different iron compounds.
23       Q.    Let me try and go back before we get into
24   the details of what you have done.
25             Are you doing this work relating to


                                                 Page 63

 1   chemical treatment in the EAA pursuant to some kind
 2   of a contractual arrangement?
 3       A.    We have a grant right now with the Florida
 4   Sugar Cane League currently that expires at the end
 5   of April.
 6       Q.    How much was that grant for?
 7       A.    $185,000.
 8       Q.    For your three year study on soil elements
 9   that you did for the South Florida Water Management
10   District, how much was that grant for?
11       A.    110,000.  It might have been a little bit
12   more, somewhere in that neighborhood.
13       Q.    In order to get the grant from the Florida
14   Sugar Cane league, did you have to do a proposal?
15       A.    Yes.
16       Q.    Was that a written proposal?
17       A.    Yes, it was.
18       Q.    Did you include that in the documents which
19   were requested?
20       A.    Yes, in Report 92-11.  Those proposals, I
21   believe, are in the back, in the appendices.
22       Q.    I guess I'd just like to pinpoint now the
23   chronology of, I guess what you did over the last
24   year a little bit.
25             What was the first thing you did, starting


                                                 Page 64

 1   in December 1991, that started to initiate this
 2   process?
 3       A.    We started screening, basically, what
 4   alternatives there are in chemical treatment, what
 5   could possibly be used.  You're looking at,
 6   basically, calcium compounds, looking at
 7   precipitation techniques, very similar to what our
 8   soil remediation work would have looked at, very
 9   similar process.
10       Q.    And how long did this screening process
11   take?
12       A.    Probably till the end of May.
13             We had a very short period of time to
14   produce what we have done right now.  So probably
15   about the end of May.  Then we had pretty much looked
16   at some of the other alternatives and started to
17   focus more on some specific ones that we're working
18   on right now.
19       Q.    What was the result of that screening
20   process that ended in May of 1992?
21       A.    Well, it didn't really end.  I am just
22   saying chronologically roughly around May we knew
23   another direction.  We are going now from Point A to
24   Point B to now Point c.
25             We knew that the use of calcium compounds


                                                 Page 65

 1   to precipitate phosphorus was not dependable, didn't
 2   always work.  We found out that the waters that we
 3   were working with in the EAA were like weak acids.
 4   They had hydration impoundments.  They were heavily
 5   buffered, that under anaerobic or aerobic conditions,
 6   we would be unlikely to have reliable results, and
 7   that basically going to calcium routes was not going
 8   to be viable.  Then moving from that point, we took a
 9   look at some of the metals through the use of iron
10   compounds.
11       Q.    So roughly speaking, around May 1992, you
12   shifted emphasis from a broad range of including
13   calcium compounds and shifted more towards iron
14   compounds?
15       A.    Right.
16             My former students had also worked, I
17   think, on a District contract.  The District gave
18   money to Ramesh Redy out of Gainesville and my former
19   student who took a look at calcium compounds and its
20   effects with varying PH's.  Basically, I think they
21   found out the same thing as we did.
22       Q.    Did you say your former student?
23       A.    Yes.
24       Q.    Who was that?
25       A.    Orlando Diaz.


                                                 Page 66

 1       Q.    He is now or subsequent to working with you
 2   is working with Ramesh Redy?
 3       A.    He is still working with Ramesh.
 4       Q.    And after May 1992, what kind of work were
 5   you doing on this project?
 6       A.    Well, beginning in May, we finally got our
 7   grant approved with the Sugar Cane League, and I
 8   proceeded to find the staff that I needed to do the
 9   work that was being asked to be done up to this point
10   in time, which was essentially to go from jar test
11   methodology to hopefully get into pilot or field
12   studies that would investigate the use of the field
13   study.
14             I hired in July a water environmental
15   engineer, also two other lab technicians and chemists
16   at that period of time.  So basically our grant was
17   probably close to 50-percent was to -- quite a bit of
18   the money was put up for initial investment in the
19   laboratory and in people and in equipment.
20       Q.    Who was the environmental engineer?
21       A.    It's a woman named Asha Ceric, and she is
22   listed in that report in my resume from 92-11.  In
23   fact, all the names of the people involved with that
24   are listed in that report.
25       Q.    In general, since May of 1992, what


                                                 Page 67

 1   research have you actually conducted?
 2       A.    Previous to 1992, no.
 3       Q.    No.  Since May 1992.
 4             Well, let's start at the beginning.  I'd
 5   like to sort of keep with the chronology.
 6             What research projects have you conducted
 7   or laboratory or field?
 8       A.    What other projects, in general?
 9       Q.    No.
10             MR. GAINES:  You mean relating to this
11        92-11?
12 BY MR. GARVER:
13       Q.    Right.
14       A.    Since the report?
15       Q.    No.  Since the beginning.  I just want to
16   get a chronology of your actual research projects.
17       A.    Okay.  I got you.
18             We were working in conjunction with one of
19   the consulting engineering companies that was under
20   contract with the Sugar Cane League, Hutcheons
21   Engineers, and their responsibility was to do the
22   engineering behind any future pilot plants or to
23   request of us any specific engineering design
24   criteria that needed to be determined in our jar test
25   or bench scale testing.


                                                 Page 68

 1             So, essentially our group, whether it be at
 2   the beginning or whether it be with a pilot plant, is
 3   essential to the whole process, because what we
 4   determine is the criteria for the level of dosing,
 5   the rates, the levels of concentration needed, what
 6   materials are needed, determining what the residue
 7   makeup is, the rate of deposition of materials, the
 8   times required, the chemical windows or the chemical
 9   criteria that needed to be stayed within to monitor
10   the variability of water that comes into a treatment
11   area.
12             So in this time, we took a look at data
13   water samples that came from the Environmental
14   Protection District beginning in September of '92.
15   At that period of time, every week we took a look at
16   19 field site stations with the EPD and ran
17   approximately 23 different water criteria on each
18   sample as they came into the lab, and those criteria
19   are listed in the report.
20             Our interest in that was to determine how
21   variable water was in the EAA.  If we were to receive
22   water at a treatment facility for chemical dosing,
23   it's essential to know what kind of variability you
24   would expect, whether this variability will effect
25   the rate of dosing to keep high efficiency of


                                                 Page 69

 1   treatment.  Essentially, we have been continuing to
 2   monitor that even to this day, that information.
 3             The other thing that I did, I was able to
 4   get ahold of some South Florida Water Management
 5   District Basin water quality data, and we took a look
 6   at the data coming from the District regarding total
 7   phosphorus, soluble phosphorus, and also taking a
 8   look then at its particulate loading and determining
 9   what that variability was and how variable it was.
10             Again, for the same reasons.  It's to see
11   at the end of the treatment at the end of the EAA how
12   does that water compare with the EPD samples which
13   are essentially close to the lake, and our interest
14   in that was to use that information in what we are
15   doing to develop a good sense of direction, you know,
16   for example, how much carbon was effecting our
17   system, how much hardness in alkalinity of the waters
18   were affecting our dosing conditions.
19             You just want to know about this particular
20   project?  That's basically the venues that we have
21   been following since then.
22       Q.    What have the EPD data indicated with
23   respect to variablity of water quality in the
24   inflows?
25       A.    There's extremes in variability, and the


                                                 Page 70

 1   data, again, is in that report.  It's summarized in
 2   that report in one of the tables.
 3             There's another -- we did some sediment
 4   work, also, just a little bit of sediment work.  Out
 5   of this, what I determined, at least my determination
 6   is from the District data at well as EDP data was
 7   that the particulate loading, the amount of suspended
 8   solids in our EAA waters is probably the number one
 9   problem of the ultimate phosphorus loading of these
10   waters.  The variability could be as low as close to
11   zero percent particulate to as high as ninety some
12   percent particulate.
13             I think the average particulate loading
14   from EPD was in the neighborhood of 80.4 of the total
15   phosphorus was in particulate form, whereas the
16   average data from the end of the basin from the
17   District indicated it was just around 49.8 percent
18   particulate, the total phosphorus, which means that
19   between areas along the lake, EPD sampling to the
20   areas just outside of the EAA where the District
21   basin end, that you have really a drop out of
22   approximately 30-percent of the phosphorus in the
23   particulate form between that.
24             I know that's just a short amount of data
25   base, but it said to me, again, that the particulate


                                                 Page 71

 1   loading was by far one of the important aspects that
 2   we're working with.  The sediments ultimately is
 3   going to be the most important of our considerations.
 4             One of the advantages of dosing is that
 5   when you precipitate this iron hydroxide compounds in
 6   water, it becomes a cloud immediately.  When you
 7   dose, that little cloud comes together.  Those
 8   particles come together and make a larger particle
 9   when they get bigger.  They get heavy and they fall
10   out and they settle out.  In that whole process,
11   suspended particles also have a charge to them.  They
12   have a positive or negative charge.  The balance
13   between what is in solution with the anions and
14   cations and what is in particulate form has a lot to
15   do with the rate of coagulation of these materials
16   and ultimately their sedimentation down.
17             If you have a very high level of
18   particulate, the dosing also has not only a favorable
19   aspect on precipitating the soluble fraction, but
20   takes out either the biological detritus or the
21   suspended particles.  It has a two-edged sword.  It
22   takes out both the suspended and the soluble
23   fractions.
24             In my association with people from the
25   Netherlands who I have been working with, they


                                                 Page 72

 1   essentially do the same thing.  They will take --
 2   they will treat fairly large lake areas that had very
 3   high chlorophyl content, very high algae content,
 4   treat it with ferrous sulfate, and the ferrous
 5   sulfate takes out the algae that is suspended and
 6   takes that out, and that's sort of their primary
 7   treatment before it comes in for the final polshing.
 8             That's basically what I found, you know,
 9   comparing the data bases for the EPD and then the
10   District.  It proved to me that the particulate phase
11   is something that we have to pay careful attention
12   to.
13             There's some ramifications of that.  It
14   means that if, for example, the District as well as
15   growers are pumping at a very high rate, that that
16   water velocity will scalp the bottom, resuspend
17   particules, any construction going on in a canal, you
18   know, resuspended particles will obviously just
19   introduce a new load, nutrient load.
20             Obviously, if none of the canals were
21   cleaned out, you have a potential of resuspending a
22   lot of sediments that could be potentially harmful to
23   complying with very low water quality standards, both
24   on the industry standpoint and on the government
25   standpoint or the workings of the District that could


                                                 Page 73

 1   have implications on both sides.
 2             Maybe I should just stop there and let you
 3   ask questions.  You asked me about the variability of
 4   the EPD samples.
 5       Q.    And I got a long answer.
 6       A.    You got a long answer, but to me, there was
 7   a lot of real meat that we found out from that.
 8       Q.    Just in general, how does what you learned
 9   with respect to variabilty of drainage waters in the
10   EAA, how has that impacted your research or the
11   conducting of your project as to chemical treatment
12   alternatives?
13       A.    Well, at the end of April, it may not
14   matter if we don't get continued funding, but if
15   supposing that we continue with chemical dosing, this
16   is going to continue to be a viable alternative in
17   the future for continuing this work.
18             We essentially need a laboratory team of
19   people to monitor variability.  That would be monitor
20   the variability of the water received at any one
21   given point to be able to adjust the dosing rates and
22   to make sure that if we're doing a dosing chemical
23   treatment, that we have optimum efficiency at removal
24   of nutrients.  Without it, you can't give any one
25   person a recipe, you know.  You can't take our


                                                 Page 74

 1   research and say okay at 60 parts per million, you
 2   add this compound and this and this and this, and we
 3   don't need you anymore.  That's not really true.
 4             If you have any knowledge of waste water
 5   treatment at all, you will know that every city, City
 6   of Palm Beach or City of Tampa, have directly
 7   associated with it a laboratory of jar testers and
 8   chemists that continually work on a daily or hourly
 9   basis monitoring the flow of water into their
10   facility to make sure that there aren't problems that
11   impact the efficiency of that plant.
12             You know, we're dealing with natural water
13   treatment, and I think it's probably just as
14   important for us to make sure that we have -- if we
15   do chemical dosing, that the only problems could be
16   as alluring efficiency.  The variability of the EPD
17   samples told me that phosphorus could range from --
18   there's some lows and highs -- but from well below 50
19   parts per billion phosphorus to as high as maybe 500
20   or 600 parts per bill phosphorus.
21             There's some times when you don't have to
22   chemically treat water.  Sometimes you do.  If the
23   concentration goes up, oftentimes, those rates of
24   chemical dosing have to be altered.  That has to do
25   with -- the levels of carbon or other constituents


                                                 Page 75

 1   which effect the efficiency of chemical dosing also
 2   change with time.
 3             Although I don't have a whole year or two
 4   years or several years of data base with me, I would
 5   expect that what happens during the Summer with heavy
 6   rains is much different than occasional rains during
 7   Winter, that when algae grows real strongly in the
 8   Summer, that's going to be different than with the
 9   particular type of loading that you see in the
10   Wintertime or the Spring or the Fall.
11       Q.    What specific things would you need to
12   monitor?
13       A.    We still have to do more work to give you
14   definitive answers to that, but all I can give you is
15   my gut feeling reactions that we feel that hardness
16   is important.  Hardness is the calcium magnesium
17   content of the water.
18             We feel that the alkalinity is important.
19   Alkalinity is expressed in terms of calcium carbonate
20   per milligram per liter.
21             We feel that the amount of dissolved
22   organic carbon is important.
23             We also feel that the particulate content
24   is important, how much particulate mass is actually
25   in the water or suspended, and all those factors


                                                 Page 76

 1   appear to change quite radically, probably less
 2   hardness.  Because we're working with calcium
 3   carbonate bedrocks very close to the surface, that
 4   has a tendency of changing less than the other
 5   factors, but it's still very important.
 6       Q.    What about PH?
 7       A.    PH is also -- I didn't mean to exclude it,
 8   but PH is fundamentally the most important.
 9       Q.    And I suppose you'd want to know the amount
10   of phosphorus, also?
11       A.    Well, our different compounds precipitate
12   and coagulate best under given PH regimes.  The DER
13   requirements for Class III drainage waters state that
14   those drainage waters should be between a PH of 6 and
15   8.5.  There's cases where our natural waters are both
16   higher and lower than that standard, naturally.
17             When waste waters are flooded in a
18   marshland or wetland situation, you have PH's that
19   exceed a PH of 9 largely related to the buildup of
20   CO2 in this water that turns to bicarbonate, and that
21   raises the PH high.
22             Now, freshly drained water in the EAA,
23   especially in the 20 Mile Bend area where the soils
24   have a PH of 3.8 or 4 or 4.5, drainage waters have
25   considerably a PH of less than 6.  So that


                                                 Page 77

 1   fundamentally is important for us to know in having a
 2   good treatment efficiency, and that does change,
 3   depending on where you're receiving your water,
 4   whether it be 20 Mile Bend or down the Miami Canal.
 5       Q.    I want to go through the list of parameters
 6   you gave me.
 7             Why is hardness important to monitor?
 8       A.    It gets down to the balance you have in the
 9   water.  You have an equal amount of anions and
10   cations, which means the anions have a negative
11   charge.  The cations have a positive charge.  If
12   there are ten positively charged anions, you have to
13   have an equivalent amount of negative charges.
14             Some organic compounds may have associated
15   some negative charges in one molecule, but basically
16   there has to be a charge balance, plus the minus is
17   equal to a zero charge.
18             When you put particulates in -- suspended
19   solids have a charge also they have a surface charge.
20   When you start precipitating the calcium and some of
21   the anions that were insoluble fractions to a soluble
22   fraction, they can either stay apart or they can
23   attract, and they fall out and grow bigger, and they
24   fall out.
25             If you have a lot of calcium, for example,


                                                 Page 78

 1   a lot of magnesium, which are positive cations, you
 2   must have a balance of negative charges, both in
 3   solid solution and in regular liquid solution to be
 4   able to have a coagulation process, an attraction
 5   process.  So if you have a hardness that is very
 6   high, that means that the amount of negative charges
 7   somewhere has also got to be very, very high, and if
 8   it fluctuates a lot, that changes the whole ballpark.
 9             Adjusting PH has to do with the variable
10   charges that occur in water.  Sometimes very little
11   adjustment of PH is necessary for good recoagulation.
12             Let's just think of you adding Pine Sol to
13   a bucket of water, and you take this clear Pine Sol,
14   put it in a bucket of water, and it turns white.
15   Something happens there.  Well, you add the chemical.
16   It precipitates.  It gets into mass is where it
17   finally settles out.  It stays in suspension.
18             Your charge balance has everything to do
19   with whether or not it will precipitate and then
20   coagulate.  There's two processes, and all those
21   factors have a lot to do with good coagulation
22   processes.
23             Sometimes a coagulate aid is used.  They
24   add a synthetic or natural organic compound which has
25   another charge to it to balance out that calcium in


                                                Page 79

 1   order for it to precipitate out.
 2             I don't know where you're from.  Did you
 3   ever see a pond form in Georgia or New York that's
 4   full of clay?  It's just a murky pond.  What they do
 5   to clean the pond is add lime, and all of a sudden,
 6   after a day it's clear.  You can see the bottom.
 7             You add Calgon to your dishwasher because
 8   you're adding something that will precipitate instead
 9   of keep it suspended, and it helps to clear out your
10   suspended particles.  It's the same process in water.
11   Your charge balance is extremely essential.
12             Probably the best person that has done work
13   on it in the world right now, literature wise, is a
14   man out of Germany, and his name is Haire Burnhardt,
15   and some of his articles -- I have talked with him
16   before, and some of his work really has defined a lot
17   of these processes.  Some of these are textbook
18   explanations that I am giving you.
19       Q.    In determination of the waters you're
20   dealing with in the EAA, is there a desirable level
21   of hardness in terms of ease of employment of the
22   kind of chemicals you would be using?
23       A.    The hardness factor you can't really
24   control.  In fact, water that's pumped from 1000 feet
25   has a very high hardness, because it's pumping


                                                 Page 80

 1   through bedrock calcium carbonate.
 2             In cases where there is no bedrock
 3   influences, the hardnesses are a lot lower, but
 4   generally that's a fact.
 5             We're probably in the neighborhood of ten
 6   times higher than elsewhere in the world or more so
 7   if we have a hardness of 800 parts per million.
 8   Typically, elsewhere in the world, it's 80, 50, 40.
 9   The same with organic carbon.  Typically we're 10 to
10   20 times higher or more or 100 times higher.  Excuse
11   me.
12             In Europe, I have seen data they are
13   working with one part per million dissolved organic
14   carbon.  We're talking with 200, 300 parts per
15   million carbon.
16       Q.    So hardness, is that something that you
17   don't see that much variability then in the EAA?
18       A.    That is probably the factor that stays the
19   most stabler of any of them, although it does vary.
20             Drainage water coming from 20 Mile Bend,
21   which are soils over sand, don't have the same
22   hardness of those soils over calcium carbonate.
23       Q.    How about alkalinity, is that quite
24   variable in the waters in the EAA?
25       A.    That is quite variable.  That is typically


                                                 Page 81

 1   two-thirds the concentration as hardness typically,
 2   and that is extremely variable.  The alkalinity
 3   depends on whether or not the water is frequently
 4   pumped or whether it's been sitting in a field
 5   gathering CO2 and bicarbonate.  That's observed
 6   through a titration, its buffering capacity.  It's
 7   tritration ability, that can vary widely, and I
 8   believe there's publication in my reports in May
 9   about that.
10       Q.    How would you treat water with high
11   alkalinity in the EAA different than water with low
12   alkalinity?
13       A.    Basically, as the hardness increases, the
14   alkalinity increases.  The carbon increases.  So does
15   the rate of dosing.  It consumes more chemical.
16       Q.    Would there ever be circumstances where you
17   would have to use a different chemical for treatment,
18   depending on the alkalinity?
19       A.    Possible.
20             There's really four different chemicals
21   that fit in an alternative for treatment.  The iron
22   two compounds, which are very soluble, they are
23   called iron sulfate, ferrous sulfate and ferrous
24   chloride.
25             Then you have the other compounds called


                                                 Page 82

 1   ferric sulfate and ferric chloride.  These are the
 2   iron three compounds.
 3             There's really a viable usage for all four
 4   compounds, depending on where it's used and how it's
 5   used.  I don't know if you want those described to
 6   you.
 7       Q.    Why don't we go through that.
 8             When would each of those different
 9   compounds be suitable?
10       A.    Again, let's go back to why we're treating
11   natural water systems.
12             Ultimately, we still have to comply with
13   our regulation of Class III drainage waters, correct,
14   which means that iron has to stay below one part per
15   million in concentration.  If we're working with iron
16   compounds, we need to make sure that we have tables
17   of low iron and keep low iron in a solution.  The
18   ferrous materials stay in solution readily.  It takes
19   time before they are conversed into an iron three.
20             Iron three are very unstable.  They
21   precipitate rapidly, and they come out of solution.
22   Conceivably, after adding ferric compounds, you could
23   have a lower concentration of iron then when you
24   started with no iron added at all.  You could have a
25   half a part per million iron naturally, and after you


                                                 Page 83

 1   add your ferric, you could reduce it to a tenth of
 2   that, because iron is very reactive and it affects
 3   the chemistry of that water.  So you can not directly
 4   say by adding iron you're going to exceed a standard,
 5   because it's just not the way it works.  There's
 6   precipitations reactions.
 7             The iron two compounds take time, and
 8   because they take time, typically, immediately after
 9   adding a ferrous compound, you have very high levels
10   of iron in solution.  It kinetically takes time for
11   them to be converted to iron three compounds or let's
12   say a ferric hydroxide, because that's what we're
13   converting ultimately from an iron sulfate or iron
14   chloride to a ferric hydroxide material, and that
15   ferric hydroxide material is extremely variable, its
16   molecular size.  They call it islands of hydroxy.
17   They grow.  They get bigger.  You can't say there is
18   a chemical formula for one, because they grow and
19   they have different states in time.
20             If you have a drainage field which you knew
21   you were going to flood and keep flooded let's say
22   for one month or one week, very conceivably a ferrous
23   material could be added to that ponded situation, and
24   it conceivably could be enough time for it to
25   precipitate out in a week's time or month's time.  So


                                                 Page 84

 1   conceivably the ferrous materials would be a viable
 2   alternative.
 3             If you have anaerobic conditions, meaning
 4   oxygen depletion, and you're using an iron sulfate,
 5   you may have problems, because the sulfate
 6   precipitates the product, the hydroxide and the
 7   sulfate in mass residue precipated on a sediment when
 8   it becomes anaerobic will go under aerobic
 9   decomposition, and you have anaerobic sulfer reducing
10   bacteria which will take that sulfate, reduce it to
11   sulfer and release phosphorus and everything else
12   back into a soluble form again.
13             So under anaerobic conditions, the sulfate
14   forms of ferric hydroxide in sulfate forms are not
15   viable if you're to leave that sediment go into an
16   anaerobic state, but if you're to recover the
17   residue, then conceivably you can use the sulfate
18   materials.
19             Now, if you're in a situation in a canal,
20   you want immediate results within five minutes, then
21   you go to the ferric compounds, either the ferric
22   chlorides or the ferric sulfates.
23             Ferric sulfates, as I said before, if you
24   build up a residue or sediment with time, and it
25   becomes anaerobic, you may have release of


                                                 Page 85

 1   phosphorus, reintroduction of phosphorus, and other
 2   compounds will be released.
 3             If you have a ferric chloride, the chloride
 4   is very stable.  It goes to a ferric hydroxide which
 5   does not incur an anaerobic conversion.  Those
 6   sediments stay very stable and are really the best.
 7             So if you don't have time and you are not
 8   going to recover the residues, you go with ferric
 9   chloride.  If you don't have time and you're going to
10   recover those residues actively, you can use ferric
11   chloride or ferric sulfate.
12             If you have a lot of time, a marsh, another
13   iron bridge literally, and you wanted to precipitate
14   it out with the cheapest materials available, go with
15   the ferrous materials, because you probably have time
16   to kinetically change it to iron free, making sure
17   that ultimately your waters coming off of it are low
18   in iron.
19             But there's always a risk, when applying a
20   ferrous material, of having a water that is high in
21   iron, meaning exceeding the one part per million.
22             Now, I have to say that the regulations
23   with DER are not always correct.  They assume broad
24   State of Florida, covering a broad range of
25   conditions, many times unnatural conditions.


                                                 Page 86

 1             You have iron contents well exceeding the
 2   standard for Class III waters naturally, and that's
 3   been recorded in the laws and under the literature
 4   search that the State has.  You can get five, six,
 5   ten parts per million iron in a natural situation.
 6   So there's always a dubiousness of whether or not the
 7   one part per million is a real critical point for
 8   legislation.  It seems to have done very well across
 9   the states or across the United, as a general rule,
10   but there are always excesses to that rule that are
11   always broken.
12             MR. COUSINS:  You mean billion?
13             THE WITNESS:  One part per million is equal
14        to one thousand parts per million.  So if I say
15        five hundred parts per million, that's half a
16        part per million.
17             MR. COUSINS:  I have a non scientific mind.
18             THE WITNESS:  That's okay.
19             The difference between 20 years ago and
20        today is that we're working with parts per
21        billion.  They worked with parts per billion.
22             All the water quality standards from the
23        Great Lakes to the Chesapeake to Europe were
24        established as a one part per million standard
25        for affluent waters in waste treatment.  All of


                                                 Page 87

 1        them exist today in Europe.  They are going to,
 2        I believe, go to 150 parts per million standard
 3        in so many years.
 4             Chesapeake is the lowest standards that I
 5        know of right now that has affluent standard,
 6        even for Class III drainage of 150 parts per
 7        million.  Generally, it's been 180 to 300.3
 8        parts per million.
 9             Here is the only place that I know of that
10        we're holding oligotrophic conditions to a
11        drainage situation of less than 50 parts per
12        billion, and that actually is going to be very
13        hard to maintain or accomplish consistently in
14        the natural situation that we have.
15             I mean, there's water coming from Lake
16        Okeechobee through the Saint Lucie Canal that's
17        already close to 150 parts per billion
18        phosphorus before it even gets into the EAA.
19             So the question is always going to be how
20        you can make those standards.  It appears, at
21        least to myself, that if all else fails, our
22        dosing will do an admirable job.
23 BY MR. GARVER:
24       Q.    I was asking you about how variability
25   would affect -- how the water would affect different


                                                 Page 88

 1   treatment options, and when you would want to use one
 2   chemical treatment as opposed to another chemical
 3   treatment.
 4             Am I correct in understanding that on one
 5   hand, your choice of chemical would be based on
 6   variability on the input, and on the other hand, it's
 7   related to what you want to achieve on the output; is
 8   that correct?
 9       A.    You're right.
10             If, for example, we wanted to treat water
11   and have an immediate affect, we're designing a plant
12   or a facility to treat waters, I would probably
13   select ferric chloride to be my source.
14             Now, if I had a very active design in which
15   there's an active collection of the residue
16   materials, then I have flexibility existing with the
17   chloride or the sulfate materials.
18             Now, remember that the residues, these
19   precipitants, one of the criteria that we're looking
20   at in making sure that they are compatible, that they
21   are not toxic to land application, they are not going
22   to be a biological hazard or a food hazard, and our
23   work thus far has not led us to conclude that.
24             In fact, in Holland, they dispose of it in
25   vegetable fields and grow vegetation on top of it.


                                                 Page 89

 1             Right now, the City of Tampa is selling its
 2   iron residue as a fertilizer material.  They call it
 3   an iron humate, and it's registered by the Florida
 4   Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.
 5             So I think what we are doing with the
 6   selection that we have got so far, we're meeting the
 7   criteria of something that is going to be land
 8   disposed of, instead of a hole being dug and it being
 9   disposed of through other means.  We want to avoid
10   that.  We pick our scenario where we want to have it.
11             Our design is figured.  The only thing that
12   is not figured is the rate of application.  We select
13   chemicals for the situation that we're in.
14             The thing that changes our rate of
15   application is the variability question that you are
16   asking.  We have a lot of variability.  Then we may
17   be moving from 30 parts per million or 20 parts per
18   million iron all the way up to maybe 80 parts per
19   million iron, and that's where that variability
20   question comes in.
21       Q.    Variability on the inputs?
22       A.    On the input of the rate of application.
23   So if you were to model this in a scenario where
24   you're selecting -- first of all, you select the
25   situation that you are in.  You select your chemical


                                                Page 90

 1   and engineering design process.  After that, you have
 2   to monitor variability, because variability has to do
 3   with the rate of application.
 4       Q.    How often would you have to do monitoring
 5   in the scenario you just described?
 6       A.    Well, it's a good question, 'cause I don't
 7   know if I know the answer.  All I can tell you is
 8   that the variability is high, that in a municipal
 9   water system, they have an hourly monitoring of
10   conditions, which means that that laboratory is tied
11   into the process as a quality control.  By law,
12   that's required.
13             In agricultural waters, if we want to
14   simplify the system, which we can most likely over
15   design the process to go at a higher rate of
16   application.  So conceivably, you monitor once a day
17   or once every twelve hours.
18       Q.    With a chemical treatment facility designed
19   to treat EAA waters, would you anticipate that that
20   would have to have a laboratory on hand?
21       A.    Oh, it's a must.  It's not something you
22   ship out the sample and hopefully in 48 hours you get
23   the results back, which would be a short period of
24   time, 48 hours.  You need the results back
25   immediately, you know, within the hour.  So I


                                                 Page 91

 1   anticipate that kind of system you have to tie a
 2   laboratory into the whole process to safeguard, you
 3   know, the efficiency of what you're doing.
 4             As far as the engineering design, I'd have
 5   to say you'd have to consult an engineer that designs
 6   all this, and that's why we hired -- at least I hired
 7   Asha Ceric, our engineering process.  So basically
 8   our team is doing that.
 9             I have got an engineer.  I have got
10   chemists and myself, and things that we have written
11   in the report is really a combination of the
12   different skills and input.
13       Q.    Would the question relating to the
14   frequency of monitoring of the amount of the chemical
15   you would add, would those be balanced and determined
16   ultimately on the basis of economics?
17       A.    What we have found thus far can really
18   basically tell us that our jar test, our chemistry
19   lab bench tests -- as pointy headed as it might
20   sound, the University of Florida is doing these very
21   narrow tests -- is telling us what that what we are
22   doing is feasable.
23             Ultimately, when you place the chemical
24   process with the engineering design, you have to have
25   a merging and a matching of the two, which means that


                                                 Page 92

 1   you may have to modify the chemical process or modify
 2   the engineering design to fit each other.
 3             I anticipate that if we are going to
 4   continue, that hopefully there's a joining of the
 5   right engineers and right chemists and the right
 6   individuals to make sure we have a good match of the
 7   processes being designed.
 8             I'm not an expert to build a waste water or
 9   a treatment plant.  I mean, I have an expertise that
10   is focused, but it's going to take an engineering,
11   you know, expertise also to match what we have found
12   out as being feasible.  We know it's feasible.  It's
13   not ironclad.
14       Q.    So to speak.
15       A.    Right.
16             What we have discussed, I guess right now,
17   is we're hoping remediation will draw the District,
18   our group, and perhaps some engineering groups
19   together to work on this problem instead of two
20   people with glass houses throwing stones at each
21   other.  We hope that they form a company and walk
22   forward and solve some of the problems that may be in
23   the minds of one and not the other.
24             I guess the direction that we're hoping to
25   go right now is to join the research groups together


                                                 Page 93

 1   so that we have some of the engineer technical
 2   problems that have been stated and so some of the
 3   questions on the chemical process that have been
 4   stated figured out in the shortest period of time.
 5       Q.    What questions have come up on that the
 6   chemical process?
 7       A.    Well, the unknowns -- you have to say what
 8   are the unknowns.  The unknowns are -- and you asked
 9   me about PH or how does it all match in.
10             We really need to know the modeling.  We
11   need to know how each of these parameters are modeled
12   ultimately to the dosing of these waters for optimum
13   efficiency, and we don't know the answer to that yet.
14   I mean, that's an open-ended question that I think
15   research and development has to determine.  It's
16   going to take some time.
17       Q.    Other than trying to define the
18   relationships between parameters that you would
19   monitor and the amount of dosing you would need of
20   various chemicals, are there any other questions that
21   have come up regarding chemical treatment?
22       A.    Some basic questions, and it would be
23   regarding the residues, really, what are the
24   residues?  What's the characteristics of them?  How
25   do they decompose in time?  Do they stabilize in


                                                 Page 94

 1   time?  We know that -- at least I have got experience
 2   from the Tampa facility that uses ferric sulfates
 3   that they have a colloidal mass, and when it dries
 4   out, it becomes insoluble, and that material has some
 5   promise of being a good soil amendment for
 6   remediation of soils.  So there's a win, win
 7   situation for us.
 8             Whether we can use those residues once they
 9   are dried down or dehydrated or incorporated, they
10   can positively have an impact environmentally by
11   retaining more phosphorus in that soil environment
12   where they have applied.  So that's what I look at is
13   a win, win situation, but we need to find that out.
14   We need time to make sure that's correct.  That's my
15   hypothesis.  That's what we are supposing is going to
16   be the case, but we don't have raw data.  We don't
17   have a data base.  That takes time.
18       Q.    So at this point, whether or not residues
19   from chemical treatment would be suitable for land
20   application is still unknown?
21       A.    We believe it is based on -- I believe it
22   is based on what I see the use in Tampa residues
23   being used and being authorized by the Florida
24   Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.  In
25   fact, they are authorizing this as an iron humate


                                                 Page 95

 1   sold now to various agriculture concerns.
 2             I know from my experience in Europe where I
 3   have seen these residues land applied successfully,
 4   that you have to monitor use of these iron compounds
 5   in making sure you have clean iron compounds, that
 6   you are not getting a pickle-licker.  That's called a
 7   pickle-licker in industry.  It comes from some
 8   byproduct process, and in that, there's all kinds of
 9   heavy elements and toxic elements.  That's why the
10   American Society of Waste Water certifies compounds
11   used in municipal waste water.  All those compounds
12   are certified that they are low in metal content.
13             As long as we have that security, security
14   that we are not getting contamination introduced to
15   the chemical, we have really a viable option.
16       Q.    Is there a possibility in the EAA that
17   there wouldn't be that security?
18       A.    No, not really.
19             If we go with this kind of treatment, it's
20   a given, from my standpoint, that we will produce our
21   own raw materials.  To get the raw materials, for
22   example, to produce ferric chloride, it's fairly
23   simple.  We can construct a portable plant, and
24   produce materials for the process and any other
25   municipality as another side venture very easily, and


                                                 Page 96

 1   that would ensure that our quality control is very
 2   high.  In fact, any high volume chemical treatment
 3   facility is already doing the same thing, and that's
 4   a given.
 5             A difference in cost of raw materials could
 6   be as high as let's say from 84 cents a gallon to 12
 7   cents a gallon if you make it.  It's very cheap.  So
 8   obviously for quality control and for reducing costs,
 9   you produce a raw material yourself.
10             I have been in contact with people who have
11   already assured me that it can be done.
12       Q.    When you're talking about the raw material,
13   you're talking about the ferric --
14       A.    It means we ship in ferrous sulfate or
15   ferrous chloride from Europe in raw material form to
16   the Port of Everglades, bring it in and produce our
17   own ferric chloride or our own ferric sulfate and
18   make our own materials.  It doesn't take a large
19   facility to do that.  That's more or less
20   confidential information, but --
21             MR. GAINES:  Not anymore.
22             THE WITNESS:  Not anymore.
23             But what I am saying is that if you're
24        talking about quality assurance, where you get
25        quality assurance is, you make the material


                                                 Page 97

 1        yourself.
 2             Now, if you ask, why do you make it
 3        yourself, this is another loop of why do you
 4        want to entangle yourself with that?
 5             Well it's a very simple process to do, and
 6        the incentive is reducing costs of the
 7        operation.  You can reduce your cost from 60 to
 8        80 some cents a gallon down to 10 to 20 cents a
 9        gallon.
10             You have got -- obviously if there is a
11        plant in Bartow that makes this material, they'd
12        rather sell that material they make over there
13        to us at 68 cents or 75 cents a gallon.  But to
14        make sure we have quality assurance, you asked
15        me about unknowns, and how do you solve those
16        unknowns?  The solution is, you make your own
17        material, and the win to it is it's much cheaper
18        in the long run.  It's certainly feasible.
19 BY MR. GARVER:
20       Q.    So to that extent, then, you can control
21   the quality of the chemical and additives you're
22   putting into the water; is that correct?
23       A.    Yes.
24       Q.    Is there anything about the nature of the
25   waters in the EAA drainage basin that might affect


                                                 Page 98

 1   the nature of the residue that would come out after
 2   treatment?
 3       A.    Well, we're just about really officially
 4   not even a year old in our project.  So we have done
 5   a lot of work already, but the thing that we need to
 6   be doing in the future is characterizing the residue
 7   material to see if the quality or the characteristics
 8   of the residue has changed based on water quality.
 9             I don't have an exact answer for you.  All
10   I can say is that I think that we have a variability
11   of the residue that, following that, it captures out
12   biological detritus, particulates.  That's basically
13   a ferric hydroxide material that has captivated the
14   phosphorus.  Any probable pesticides are gone,
15   because it's a very attractive molecule.
16   Essentially, everything in that water, all the dirt
17   is entrapped in that residue.  So if it's cleaned one
18   day and dirtied the next, you're going to have a
19   different quality of the residue, and we have seen it
20   in our jar test where the characteristics of our
21   residue is different with the quality of our drainage
22   water, but I don't know the range.
23       Q.    In your analysis of the residues you
24   retained in your jar test, have you observed any
25   residues that you would consider toxic?


                                                 Page 99
 1       A.    No.
 2       Q.    Have you observed any residues that you
 3   have determined would be unsuitable for land
 4   application?
 5       A.    That's a better question, no.
 6             I mean, if you're asking me whether it was
 7   toxic, I don't have raw data to tell you it's not
 8   toxic, but by whose standards?  There are various
 9   standards.
10             It's my best -- my educated opinion is that
11   no, they are not, and I would say that that needs to
12   be determined either by myself or other people.
13   That's why I would hope that sooner or later we have
14   more than one individual, several individuals working
15   on this to determine those things.  But it's my
16   educated opinion that, no, they are not toxic, based
17   on what I have seen other municipalities -- how they
18   are disposing of it and other experiences that I have
19   seen in Europe.  Nothing has been toxic thus far.
20   We're talking about a very stable compound.
21       Q.    What criteria do you consider in
22   determining whether a residue is suitable for land
23   application?
24       A.    That's a good question.
25             I think the criteria would have to be in


                                                 Page 100

 1   how sludges right now are defined, waste sludges.  I
 2   don't have the new ruling on it.
 3             There's been a new ruling out of EPA on
 4   waste sludges, and I don't have a copy of that yet,
 5   but I imagine the criteria would have to follow those
 6   guidelines, would have to follow the EPA guidelines
 7   on sludge management.
 8             The outside thing is, first of all, does it
 9   radically change the soil PH?  Does it release toxic
10   elements harmful for biological systems, both plants
11   and animal and bacterial?  Those are the questions I
12   would probably ask.
13             The sludge management basically goes on
14   criteria of how much metal, let's say lead or
15   mercury, how much mercury is applied per aerial load
16   per year.  They have limitations on sludges.  Sludges
17   have other limitations.  Whether the E-coli has a
18   certain level, whether they are active sludges from
19   waste water have to be deactivated with calcium
20   hydroxide and calcium oxide materials.  They
21   basically have standards for that.  We don't have to
22   worry about.
23             I would think the only standard that we
24   would have to worry about is the total number of
25   toxic metal of a loading per area.  It might be that


                                                 Page 101

 1   if we determine that there's a particular element
 2   there, that it will only take five pounds per acre
 3   for year.  That would be a limitation for land
 4   application.  It's probably not going to be because
 5   we're putting too much iron in, because the iron will
 6   ultimately increase probably the retention of
 7   phosphorus on that land, which is a positive thing we
 8   want to do.  It might be a slow release fertilizer
 9   form ultimately which we would have interest of
10   doing, in following through on, but I'd have to refer
11   you to the EPA's current recent release on sludge
12   management on that.  I am kind of getting -- is it a
13   toxic metal application is a key question that you
14   have to ask.
15       Q.    So without having reviewed the EPA
16   criteria, is it impossible to determine whether the
17   residues from the chemical treatments would be
18   suitable for land application?
19       A.    At this time, yeah, under our conditions,
20   because if this is a viable alternative, then we'd
21   have to investigate particularly for the EAA, I would
22   say yes, which I don't know that yet.  Then you bring
23   in your own experts or bring in people that are used
24   to it, and let them determine that.
25             MR. GAINES:  You're asking him if it's


                                                 Page 102

 1        impossible to determine it with regards to the
 2        EPA guidelines or any criteria?
 3             MR. GARVER:  Yeah.
 4             MR. GAINES:  Do you understand his
 5        question?
 6             THE WITNESS:  I think so.
 7             MR. GARVER:  He already answered my
 8        question.
 9             THE WITNESS:  It's not impossible to
10        determine, but we have not determined it as of
11        this point.
12 BY MR. GARVER:
13       Q.    I know you have probably gone over this
14   before, but I have this outline here, and I haven't
15   asked you this specific question yet.
16             Can you just describe to me generally how
17   the chemical treatment process that you have been
18   researching for EAA drainage waters will work?
19       A.    Soluble iron is added to the water at a
20   certain concentration of iron to so many parts per
21   million of water.  The iron precipitates into an iron
22   hydroxide form.  It's changed.  It eventually
23   coagulates.  It collects suspended particles
24   coagulate with suspended particles and precipitates
25   out the other soluble portions, which includes


                                                Page 103

 1   phosphorus.  It comes together.  They coagulate.
 2   They drop out as a sediment or residue.  That's
 3   basically the process.
 4       Q.    During that process, in general, what is
 5   removed from the treated water?
 6       A.    Carbon is removed.  Phosphorus is removed.
 7   Any metals are removed.  We have not done any
 8   characterization exactly of the bonding natures yet
 9   of the residue, but that's one of our next steps in
10   time, and this year's step, if we're continuing with
11   our funding, will continue that venture.
12             Basically, any of the inorganic
13   constituents are going to be precipitated, which
14   includes phosphorus, carbon, particulates, any
15   biological detritus like algae eventually come
16   together, are trapped out with it.  Essentially, it
17   takes out a lot of trash, you know, very fine
18   particulate material.
19       Q.    Minerals, would they be removed?
20       A.    Like calcium or magnesium.  We have not
21   seen any significant effect on hardness, for example,
22   on calcium or magnesium.  Iron is, generally if we're
23   doing it right, is going to be at a very low level.
24   So iron actually if it starts at 800 parts per
25   billion, may go down to 10 parts per billion, if


                                                 Page 104

 1   we're doing it right, if we're setting our criteria
 2   up correctly.
 3       Q.    What about molibinum?
 4       A.    Actually, molibinum is generally found in
 5   calcium carbonate materials, and the reason it is is
 6   because carbonate material is precipitated out very
 7   rapidly.  It's a trace element, and those trace
 8   elements are likely to be all trapped out.
 9       Q.    What about silicates?
10       A.    Silicate in the EAA is low, to begin with.
11   In fact, we have silicate or silicon deficiencies all
12   throughout South Florida and Central Florida.
13   Silicate is already very low, and these are likely to
14   be trapped out.  Base arsenic, silicone and
15   phosphorus have very similar facilities.
16       Q.    What about nitrate compounds, what happens
17   when the chemical treatment process is being
18   investigated?
19       A.    I don't have anything definitive.  Nitrates
20   are a soluble form, but if you're talking about
21   organic nitrate form, which is the soluble organics,
22   these organic compounds consist of carbon, oxygen,
23   nitrogen, phosphorus, and when they are trapped out,
24   precipitated out, they structurally come out also,
25   but the nitrates itself are virtually unaffected.  We


                                                 Page 105

 1   are not really affecting the nitrates.
 2       Q.    Have you done any tests to determine how
 3   much of the nitrogen in the EAA waters are in the
 4   form of nitrates as compared to organic forms of
 5   nitrogen?
 6       A.    Yes, we have, and my report has all that.
 7             I routinely run nitrates and total nitrogen
 8   in our labs, and we have data on that.
 9       Q.    And then you show the percentage?
10       A.    Which I would call the difference might be
11   particulate or organic nitrates.  Yeah, we have a
12   difference.
13             Generally, there's a particulate nitrogen
14   also reported in our reports of EPE samples, and that
15   comes from the determination of total nitrogen over
16   an unfiltered sample versus the nitrates determined
17   from a filtered sample.
18       Q.    Would chemical treatment change the
19   nitrogen to phosphorus ratio in the water?
20       A.    I am sure it would.
21       Q.    Can you say generally what would happen to
22   the nitrogen and phosphorus ratio?
23       A.    The nitrogen phosphorus ratio changes
24   radically, anyway.  Nitrogen denitrofies easily,
25   anyway.  In surface water, we're generally not


                                                 Page 106

 1   concerned with nitrogen, because nitrogen does
 2   convert and go into and N02 gas quickly.  The levels
 3   of nitrate in standing water might be negligible, and
 4   the same water frequently pumped may be high.
 5             The difference between ammonia nitrates and
 6   N02, it's a flux.  It settles into the atmosphere,
 7   which means that the ratio between nitrogen and
 8   phosphorus is meaningly less, because we're dealing
 9   with surface water.
10             If we're dealing with water table, deep
11   down groundwater, nitrogen doesn't escape the
12   groundwater.  It's captivated.  Then nitrates are
13   important, but in surface water we are not interested
14   in nitrates, because it's only surface -- I am not
15   sure where you're leading me on the question to say
16   whether that ratio changes.  Regardless whether we
17   dose or not is going to change radically.
18             Phosphorus does not.  In a closed system,
19   phosphorus stays physically in the system, and that's
20   the difference.  Phosphorus goes into a sediment, and
21   it stays as a sediment or building up of soil.  It's
22   fine, but if it's resuspended, it can be biologically
23   activated.  Again, it can go into a form that's
24   released, but it cannot escape the system like
25   nitrogen does.


                                                 Page 107

 1       Q.    Do denitrification processes depend on the
 2   presence of phosphorus compounds?
 3       A.    No.  It largely depends on the amount of
 4   oxygen present in the system.  It occurs because
 5   there's a biological oxidation process.  Bacteria
 6   would normally take oxygen if it's really available,
 7   but NO3 has oxygen associated with it.  That bacteria
 8   will take that oxygen from the NO3 and convert it to
 9   NO2 and take that NO2 and convert it to an NH4 or
10   NH2, and it leaves.
11             So generally the flux of the cycle is
12   dependant on aerobic and anaerobic fluxs which occur.
13   You may have a bottom sediment that is anaerobic, no
14   nitrates.  You may have a very frequently pumped
15   water system with high nitrates, but that same water
16   can change very quickly if it's let into a field and
17   it sits there for three months.
18             If you go into a rice field, there is no
19   nitrates.  That water is standing there flooded for a
20   month.  There is no nitrates.  There might be
21   ammonia, but there's no nitrates.
22       Q.    In the chemical treatment processes you
23   have investigated, would any of them require
24   secondary treatment prior to discharge into the Water
25   Conservation Areas?


                                                 Page 108

 1       A.    You want to repeat that again?
 2       Q.    Would you anticipate that any of the
 3   chemical treatment processes you have investigated
 4   requires secondary treatment beyond the addition of
 5   the primary chemical prior to discharge into the
 6   Water Conservation Areas?
 7       A.    Well, we have surmised that that might be
 8   necessary as a post treatment or a secondary
 9   treatment.  In fact, I think I have written it down
10   somewhere in some of our discussions.
11             That would be basically to make sure that
12   we complied to whatever existing Class III standards
13   might exist.
14             For example, on PH, if we start with a PH
15   of 6.5, and we dose and that chemical that we're
16   dosing with is acidic and it drops the PH to 5, we
17   may have to have some secondary treatment maybe
18   through a carbonate sludge applied to elevate that PH
19   before it's released.  That's conceivable, but again
20   that's why it's important to match the engineering
21   designs with the chemical treatment, because it is
22   likely that some of those questions, after we design
23   these, will come up and have to be tackled then.  So
24   the answer is, yes, perhaps not.
25       Q.    Other than --


                                                 Page 109

 1       A.    And really, the waste treatment process is
 2   that variable.  That may limit secondary treatment if
 3   the process has a different water quality coming in.
 4             If we're treating water that's been sitting
 5   in a marsh and very hot, full of high alkalinity PH,
 6   average 85.9, it's unlikely that we are going to have
 7   to do a secondary treatment.
 8             If PH is a problem, there's a possibility
 9   of maybe a post treatment.  You may have three
10   treatments that are necessary.  It's not strictly
11   just iron.  It may be pre conditioning the water to a
12   certain PH and then realtering that PH before it's
13   released.
14       Q.    Other than PH, what other water parameters
15   might need adjustments, either in pre treatment or
16   post secondary tertiary treatment?
17       A.    Very possibly a coagulant aid, and
18   coagulant aids are something like starch or synthetic
19   polymers.  These are degradable.  They have been used
20   by various engineering designs to aid coagulation.
21   We have looked at those very, very briefly.
22   Basically, avoiding those because of the time
23   restraints we have had on just getting some research
24   of other nature going.  Those are generally, I would
25   say, are not desirable, because they add more cost to


                                                 Page 110

 1   the process, although they could be needed under
 2   certain conditions.  When we have tested them, they
 3   basically have not aided at all in the process.
 4             The reason to that, again, is we're working
 5   with very high hardnesses, very high levels of
 6   calcium and magnesium in the water already, and
 7   basically those are very cationic or very anionic in
 8   nature.
 9             If we're basically dealing with a cationic
10   system, a lot of charge in a system, I guess it's not
11   going to be necessary, because what we're forming is
12   an anionic substance that has a negative charge.
13       Q.    So the addition of a coagulant agent would
14   be a pre treatment?
15       A.    Possibly or it could be a base treatment
16   just to get the PH in the right line.  What I am
17   talking about is an engineering design fitting and
18   conforming to the chemical process.
19       Q.    Other than readjustment of PH, would there
20   be any other post treatments that might be necessary?
21       A.    Possibly, as I said before, and I think I
22   have drawn some figures on that, possibly liquid lime
23   being slurried into the water immediately downstream,
24   and the reason we look at calcium carbonates slurries
25   is they will modify the PH no further than a PH2.


                                                 Page 111

 1   They keep it within regulation.
 2       Q.    Is it possible that the residue that
 3   precipitates during treatment would need to be
 4   treated prior to land application?
 5       A.    I don't think so.  The materials are more
 6   siskin of a gel material that lacks structure, lacks
 7   anything.  It's sorts of like a muddy mass.  If it's
 8   spread out on a land surface and it dehydrates, it
 9   becomes insoluble, irreversibly insoluble.
10             No, I don't believe it needs any pre
11   treatment.  It doesn't have a PH problem.  It doesn't
12   have a solubility toxicity problem.  That, by the
13   way, that can be confirmed in other sites that are
14   currently using the materials.  There's documentation
15   on that.
16       Q.    In your opinion, can a chemical treatment
17   process that you have investigated be scaled up to
18   treat all of the water discharges from the EAA to the
19   Water Conservation Areas?
20       A.    Conceivably.
21       Q.    Conceivably?
22       A.    Well, let's just put -- let's just give you
23   a scale to think about.  Let's suppose you chose a
24   real small pump, 1000 gallons per minute pump.
25   That's a small pump in the EAA, very small.  It might


                                                 Page 112

 1   have an eight-inch pipe on it.  1000 gallons per
 2   minute in one day will be producing or pumping
 3   1,440,000 gallons per day.  That's about the size
 4   treatment of a small municipality, very small town
 5   like Clewiston or Belle Glade.
 6             You put a 20,000 gallon per minute pump,
 7   which is more like the reasonable pump system, that
 8   pumps a section or a half section of land in the EAA,
 9   and that per day is 20 times higher than that, which
10   is 11,440,000 gallons, 11.4 million gallons per day,
11   and that's about the size of a moderate city.  Tampa,
12   City of Tampa, Miami are in the neighborhood of 70 to
13   100 million gallons per day in their treatment.
14             You have two ways of thinking about this.
15   You asked the question:  What is the aerial loading
16   requirements?  How many pounds of phosphorus or tons
17   of phosphorus do you want limited to go into the
18   STA's or to the back.  We can say, yes, we will
19   coagulate and trap out X number of tons that equate
20   to so many tons of phosphorus, and we will stop --
21   that's one way of thinking about it.  We can do the
22   requirements.  We can budget what we have, what it
23   will cost to do 200 tons.
24             On the other hand, if you want to say, I
25   want a water quality standard, which is really kind


                                                 Page 113

 1   of stupid, because you can have a cow at the end of
 2   the field emitting some very high water quality just
 3   out of its butt end, but it's not very much.  The
 4   quantity of water is what you're treating.
 5             If you have to treat all the water, we are
 6   talking about how many two million acre feet of
 7   water, something in that neighborhood, maybe 4
 8   million acre feet of water times 320 something
 9   thousand gallons per acre foot.  That's a lot of
10   water.  That's a couple hundred billion gallons of
11   water.  That's a lot of water.  Conceivably, it can
12   be done, yeah, but it will come at a fairly large
13   cost.  Essentially what you can do then is create
14   your own water utility.
15       Q.    What kind of cost do you think we're
16   talking about?
17       A.    Well, I don't know those things.  I know
18   Braun & Caldwell gave a report or talked last week at
19   the District about it, and I will know next week when
20   I get the report in my hands, but they have from --
21   this is just hearsay -- that they have said that the
22   cost is substantially less than an STA if they
23   treated the water.  That's based on conservative
24   estimates, conservative meaning that if you
25   overdesign the system, which is what you have to do,


                                                 Page 114

 1   you have to oversize it first to make sure that you
 2   are within allowable specifications.  That's the only
 3   information I have, you know.
 4             I know basic chemical costs, but that's not
 5   the whole picture.  There's M and O.  There's
 6   maintenance and operation costs.  There's initial
 7   startup courses, although I have no real reasonable
 8   handle on it.
 9       Q.    You haven't done any work and tried to
10   develop a plan?
11       A.    Our work has pointed out that the chemical
12   treatment is feasible, nothing more, nothing less.
13   We have had less than a year to work on it, budgetary
14   wise, and I think we have produced an enormous amount
15   of data with the short amount of time that we have
16   had.  It's going to take a lot more finesse and
17   development with other people, as well, to get all
18   those things tweaked out, all those things figured
19   out.  I think Braun & Caldwell's report is probably
20   your best estimate.
21       Q.    You mentioned earlier that you were under
22   some time constraints; what constraints are those?
23       A.    You hire somebody, and you can only promise
24   employment for one year, and we have got to produce
25   so much information in a short period of time, no


                                                 Page 115

 1   assurances of continuation with a budget.  So there's
 2   time constraints.  You have got to produce the
 3   material.  You have got to verify it.  Everything has
 4   got to be managed pretty tightly.
 5       Q.    Where are these time constraints coming
 6   from?
 7       A.    Primarily from me.
 8             I mean, if you're going to be successful at
 9   doing a project, you know, you have to produce some
10   results.  If you want to be a productive scientist
11   and continue hopefully with future funding, you
12   better produce something so that whoever is funding
13   you is happy with your funding.  Actually, the
14   District has given us those constraints.  I am just
15   joking.
16       Q.    How much additional time do you think you
17   need to do the studies that would be required to
18   build this chemical treatment concept?
19       A.    We're already in the process of getting
20   small design facilities together with one of the
21   companies, not something as elaborate as treating
22   canals, but it's treating small field scale
23   experiments, to do things properly.  I think
24   according to a protocol that's accepted by
25   engineering and science, I think we need at least two


                                                 Page 116

 1   more years to not only confirm, but to verify what we
 2   are saying is going to be viable, and viable from a
 3   standpoint of handling residues, at least getting
 4   some idea how to handle residues, how to handle the
 5   quantity of water, depending on where you're going
 6   with it, whether it's going to be a regional
 7   treatment or field treatment or whether you're going
 8   to put it at a sugar cane mill.  It takes time for
 9   the engineering work to conform with the chemical
10   process work which we say is viable.
11             I think two more years is probably what we
12   are looking at, and that would be sufficient time
13   probably for everybody throwing stones to throw their
14   final stones and start work, throw them all and get
15   to work.
16             The stone throwing is helpful, actually,
17   'cause you know what problem might be out there.
18   Nobody throws stones who can't critique your work.
19   So that's on a positive note.  It's probably helpful
20   to get those people throwing stones involved in the
21   work.
22             MR. GARVER:  It's about 12:30.  This might
23        be a good time to take a lunch break.
24                  (Thereupon, a brief recess was taken,
25                  after which the following proceedings


                                                 Page 117

 1                  were had:)
 2 BY MR. GARVER:
 3       Q.    Doctor Anderson, I believe you stated
 4   earlier that you have been collaberating with
 5   Hutcheon Engineers -- is it Hutcheons Engineering --
 6   on the chemical treatment processes we have been
 7   discussing; is that correct?
 8       A.    That's correct.
 9       Q.    Who have you been working with at
10   Hutcheons?
11       A.    David Stewart.
12             John Potts was also listed in the original
13   proposal, but we had virtually no contact with him.
14       Q.    And what has David Stewart been doing in
15   connection with the chemical treatment?
16       A.    Actually, they really did very little other
17   than develop the original proposals.
18             They were intended to be the engineering
19   expertise to help develop the physical design
20   specifications.  We just have not gotten that far
21   yet.
22       Q.    Are they still involved in chemical
23   treatment projects?
24       A.    Not that I am aware of.
25       Q.    When was the last time they were involved


                                                 Page 118

 1   in the project?
 2       A.    Probably the last interaction was September
 3   of last year.
 4       Q.    Were they involved from the beginning in
 5   December 1991?
 6       A.    Yes.
 7       Q.    Do you anticipate that they would get
 8   involved, again, if you got funding to continue your
 9   work?
10       A.    That I am not sure of.  Of course, that
11   depends on who funds them.  It might be competitive
12   bids.
13             Currently we're trying to develop a
14   proposal with Metcalf & Eddie, and I don't know the
15   status of that yet.  I have given over some of my
16   materials over to Metcalf & Eddie, and then we may be
17   developing something.  We may not.  It all depends on
18   which direction our works goes.
19             I think currently there's been some
20   discussion to join in with the District and join in
21   with other consulting engineers.  I don't know if
22   that has anything to do with the remediation process
23   or collaberating or whether giving over the data is
24   what we are intending to do, but we have discussed
25   it.


                                                 Page 119

 1             I have had discussions with people at the
 2   District for the past year about possibly doing just
 3   that, collaberation, and I think it's a reasonable
 4   thing to happen.
 5       Q.    Who at the District have you been
 6   discussing collaberation with?
 7       A.    Zan Kugler.
 8             Of course, his staff has come to me with
 9   questions, and I have pretty much answered any
10   questions that they have had, and it's been just a
11   fairly free conversation.  I haven't gotten any
12   information from any of those people that have asked
13   us about it.
14             I am trying to remember who else, primarily
15   Zan Kugler, maybe Pete Rhoads.  Pete Rhoads on a
16   different agends, though.
17       Q.    What agenda have you had discussions with
18   Pete Rhoads on?
19       A.    Well, I brought in a man from Holland.  His
20   name is Pierre Restrolin, in September and organized
21   with his staff person, Mary Beth Buta, just organized
22   a seminar at the District to open up conversations of
23   what people in Holland -- how the water control
24   managers and pollution control authorities are
25   managing water in Holland.


                                                 Page 120

 1             I just asked him to present basically what
 2   they are doing and open up discussions, and
 3   consequent to his visit, we got a delegation in
 4   another month and-a-half coming over from Holland to
 5   exchange with the Board members here and with the
 6   Saint Johns Water Management District, and Pete's
 7   involved in that process.
 8             So that all has to do with the chemical
 9   dosing also, because I have been over to Holland to
10   observe their work and collect information, both
11   there in Holland and in Germany.
12       Q.    What about the nature of the discussions
13   you had with Zan Kugler, specifically?
14       A.    It's been pretty light.  They initially
15   approached me to ask me what the support information
16   data was to dosing.
17             They were interested in who our group was,
18   what our facilities looked like, questions whether or
19   not I had personal thoughts of other alternatives to
20   STA's, what my feelings were, what the problems were,
21   and I pretty much openly discussed that with him.  I
22   think it was August of last year.
23             Him and his staff spent approximately one
24   day in our laboratory facility and office discussing
25   those things.  I pretty much opened up any of the


                                                 Page 121

 1   books that we had and shared them with him.
 2       Q.    Have you had discussions with either Zan
 3   Kugler or Pete Rhoads regarding the viability of
 4   STA's?
 5       A.    Not Pete.
 6             I have been asked my opinion by Zan Kugler,
 7   and I more or less told him of my opinion.
 8       Q.    What was your opinion?
 9       A.    That STA's are -- basically, they are
10   unproven, and it's my guess, my educated guess, as
11   well as some of the information that we have
12   generated through research, that it probably wouldn't
13   work.
14             There's certain limitations that a
15   treatment area has, and the examples of it is
16   probably more famous out of Orlando, the Iron Bridge,
17   a place called Iron Bridge out of Orlando.  Today
18   it's a non effective treatment area.  It had what
19   they figure was a small period of time of
20   effectiveness, and right now basically what goes in
21   is still coming out at the same time.  The loading
22   that's actually coming out is higher.
23             We have also, with the graduate student
24   that I mentioned before, Orlando Diaz, have done
25   flooded and drained column studies looking at


                                                 Page 122

 1   mineralization, the release of phosphorus, and have
 2   determined that under a frequently flooded drained
 3   situation, which is essentially what our natural
 4   system will be out here with the varying hydroperiod,
 5   that you have a tremendous release of phosphorus out
 6   of these soils.
 7             Unless they figured the hydroperiod 12
 8   months out of the year, it's likely that phosphorus
 9   release out of a storm water treatment area is going
10   to be extremely variable, and it may be higher.
11   That's excluding any biological activity or
12   biocycling or manipulation within that STA.
13             What I mean by that is when it's first
14   constructed, it's not going to react the same way
15   three years from now.  You will have a stabilized
16   hydroperiod, supposing that it is stable.  Even if
17   there's drought, they'll pump the water.  To maintain
18   that water in that system, you will have a tremendous
19   biological activity.
20             I pulled some some information that I have
21   collected from Holland.  You're going to be
22   introducing a phosphorus recycling into the system
23   that might relate in higher levels of phosphorus
24   leaving the STA than enters.  That in some way is the
25   same experience that rice or flooded fields in the


                                                 Page 123

 1   EAA have right now.  They will flood the lands right
 2   after vegetable production at the end of the Summer,
 3   leave it flooded for two to four months.
 4             At the end of four months, phosphorus
 5   levels are very high largely because there's a lot of
 6   biological activities.  There's a lot of birds out
 7   there.  They just flooded into that area.  There's an
 8   abundance of food.  As food increases, so does the
 9   activities.
10             So there's several factors that really go
11   against the concepts of the STA's.  I feel that
12   number one is that there's not a real solid basis for
13   it, from a basis of the Florida experience, and they
14   have used -- Iron Bridge has been looked at as a
15   serious attempt to use STA's to control phosphorus
16   levels.
17             What's been disappointing to me, as well as
18   to other people, is that it has been very successful
19   in the Lake Apopka area.  I don't have any direct
20   data from them, but it's my understanding from the
21   Saint Johns Water Management District, there's been
22   some flood experiment treatment areas that have been
23   flooded, also, that have had problems with
24   maintaining low levels, you know, water leaving those
25   areas.  That's also the experience, from my


                                                 Page 124

 1   understanding, in the Saints Johns Water Management
 2   District.  Some of those opinions they asked me in
 3   essentially a little bit lengthy discussion.  That's
 4   basically what we have discussed.
 5       Q.    When did you review the Iron Bridge system?
 6       A.    Last year sometime.  I think the South
 7   Florida Water Management District had some of the
 8   published data, if I remember.  I am not sure.  I
 9   can't put my hand on it right now, but I remember
10   reading it, seeing some of the charts.
11       Q.    What are the observations that you told me
12   that you made with respect to Iron Bridge that
13   specifically is no longer working; on what
14   information is that based?
15       A.    Well, until I can put my hand on it, I
16   can't tell you.  I remember reading it and seeing it
17   and studying it at the time.  I had it, but I don't
18   recall where I had that information.
19       Q.    Was it a specific report or was it a series
20   of reports?
21       A.    A specific report on Iron Bridge.
22       Q.    Was it a published report?
23       A.    I believe so, but I am not very clear on
24   where I saw that.  In fact, it may have been a
25   misnomer to even mention it, but I will have to look


                                                 Page 125

 1   through some of my publications and see if I can find
 2   it.  I don't recall offhand, but I know it's been
 3   discussed among other people, also.  So it might be a
 4   rumor, but I remember seeing and reading about it.
 5       Q.    In the studies or the experience you just
 6   told me about relating to rice fields, on what
 7   specific information did you base your comments on
 8   rice fields?
 9       A.    It's my experience with running water
10   quality samples in the area.
11       Q.    Running water quality samples on rice field
12   affluents?
13       A.    Yeah, in general, looking at water quality
14   off the flooded fields over the last year, year
15   and-a-half.
16       Q.    Have you provided any reports that document
17   your observations with respect to the water quality
18   in rice fields?
19       A.    No, I have not.
20       Q.    Has anyone at EREC published any reports on
21   water quality off rice fields?
22       A.    I believe Forest Izuno has done some report
23   on that.  I might be able to find some information
24   from Izuno and Voucher.
25       Q.    I believe you mentioned earlier that you


                                                 Page 126

 1   are in the process of working up a proposal with
 2   Metcalf & Eddie; is that correct?
 3       A.    Uh-huh.
 4       Q.    And what specifically is that proposal?
 5       A.    We're intending to try to get a proposal to
 6   go to develop a pilot facility, provided we find
 7   funding.
 8       Q.    Do you have plans to give this proposal to
 9   anyone in particular?
10       A.    I have been told most of this information
11   is proprietary; is that correct?
12             MR. GAINES:  What work you have in progress
13        or a proposal?
14             THE WITNESS:  Uh-huh.
15             MR. GAINES:  Without getting into the
16        specifics of it, I think you can tell us
17        generally what you're working on.
18             THE WITNESS:  The person that has been
19        generally -- I don't mean to be hiding anything,
20        but I have just been told very specifically to
21        keep it to myself.  That's why I am asking.
22             Metcalf & Eddie, under Pete Rosenthal on
23        flow side, we have been talking about a proposal
24        possibly for the EPD, Environmental Protection
25        District, which essentially will continue our


                                                 Page 127

 1        studies from the status that they are right now
 2        and carrying them on to the next phase.
 3             It's a little bit like saying you have got
 4        something without giving substantiation for the
 5        results.
 6 BY MR. GARVER:
 7       Q.    You actually started to put together this
 8   proposal?
 9       A.    Yes.  We have already put one draft
10   together.
11             MR. GARVER:  Mr. Gaines, is that something
12        you're withholding on the basis --
13             THE WITNESS:  I don't think he knows about
14        it.  I don't think he knows about it.
15             MR. GAINES:  I am not specifically
16        withholding it, but I don't think that that
17        would be produceable.
18             THE WITNESS:  It's not.  It's not really
19        substantial enough to even probably discuss
20        right now.
21             We are going into second draft right now
22        under the assumption that there needs to be more
23        detail in the proposal.
24 BY MR. GARVER:
25       Q.    Does the proposal relate to chemical


                                                 Page 128

 1   treatment or any other alternative to STA's?
 2       A.    Chemical treatments.
 3       Q.    Who at Metcalf & Eddie are you working
 4   with?
 5       A.    Paul Bowman out of Atlanta and Don Humman
 6   out of Plantation.
 7             MR. COUSINS:  Broward County?
 8             THE WITNESS:  Uh-huh.
 9 BY MR. GARVER:
10       Q.    Why are you doing this work with Metcalf &
11   Eddie as opposed to Hutcheons Engineers?
12       A.    Well, basically, I think we are trying to
13   look at the very best engineering firm that has the
14   best experience in developing of similar facilities
15   or municipal waste treatment plants that has the
16   basic experience and a team of people to collaberate
17   with.  It could be Braun & Caldwell.  It could be
18   maybe half a dozen engineering firms.  But Metcalf &
19   Eddie is extremely well known in the industry.  They
20   have got a large book they published that's very
21   famous on waste treatment.
22             I think it was our suggestion that we look
23   at the very best people, not only for credibility,
24   but for sake of time.  No need to reinvent the wheel
25   in developing facilities that have already been


                                                 Page 129

 1   developed, facilities that have already been thought
 2   out very well.
 3       Q.    What kind of schedule are you proposing for
 4   developing the pilot facility for chemical treatment
 5   with Metcalf & Eddie?
 6       A.    Pilot might be just a scale model that is
 7   put on a trailer in which we change the design
 8   specifications and run ten gallons a minute through.
 9   It could be that small.
10             I think the time schedule is largely
11   affected by the lawsuit, trying to get some data and
12   some things at least in a preliminary form that
13   substantiate that there's viability in the system.
14   It could be October.  I don't have a date really set.
15             I think the industry, if they wanted it or
16   the District wanted it, they'd want it yesterday.
17   It's just a matter sometimes of how much money can be
18   pumped in, but generally with as little time as we
19   have left, it's going to take a little bit of time to
20   develop.  Sorry.  I can't answer it any more
21   specifically than that.
22       Q.    Have you done any work in your professional
23   life involving wetland treatment systems?
24       A.    No, I have not.
25             Part of my expertise, however, is organic


                                                 Page 130

 1   soils, histosols, in particular.  That, in itself,
 2   may not be a wetland, although I would assume that my
 3   expertise does cover the area within the EAA quite
 4   considerably.
 5       Q.    Have you done any review or studies of data
 6   that has been collected in Water Conservation Area
 7   2A?
 8       A.    Uh-huh, yes, I have.
 9       Q.    And what have those studies involved?
10       A.    Studies by Ramesh Redy and his group of
11   people.  I know them quite well.  We have worked
12   together.  I basically have read those reports, both,
13   out of the District and heard him give them at
14   national meetings.  My former student is working for
15   him.  So we talk.  I basically know all the people in
16   that area.
17       Q.    Beyond reviewing Doctor Redy's reports,
18   have you done any other work?
19       A.    No, I have not not in those areas.
20       Q.    Not in Area 2A?
21       A.    No.
22       Q.    Do you generally agree with the conclusions
23   that Doctor Redy has reached with respect to these --
24             MR. GAINES:  Let me object to the form of
25        the question.  Without you identifing the report


                                                 Page 131

 1        and talking about it or what conclusions you're
 2        talking about, I object to the form, "Do you
 3        generally agree with Doctor Redy's work?"
 4             MR. GARVER:  I didn't finish my question.
 5             MR. GAINES:  Go ahead and finish your
 6        question.
 7 BY MR. GARVER:
 8       Q.    My question was:  Do you generally agree
 9   with the conclusions that Doctor Redy has drawn from
10   his analysis of data in Water Conservation Area 2A?
11       A.    Yes.
12             MR. GAINES:  Same objection.  Without you
13        specifying what conclusions you're talking
14        about, I object to the form of the question.
15             MR. COUSINS:  But the witness has said he
16        has read the Redy report.
17             MR. GAINES:  I don't know what report he
18        has read or hasn't read.  He said reports, I
19        think, plural.  In other words, the form of the
20        question is objectionable if what you're asking
21        him is:  Do you agree with Doctor Redy's
22        conclusions, without being more specific than
23        that.  Also, I think it goes outside his
24        expertise here.
25             MR. GARVER:  Well, I guess we have


                                                 Page 132

 1        eliminated a little bit of time.
 2             MR. GAINES:  He said he hasn't done any
 3        work in 2A.
 4             MR. COUSINS:  But the question is, the
 5        witness just testified that he read Doctor
 6        Redy's report on H2O conversion in Area 2A, and
 7        then the question is:  Does he agree with Doctor
 8        Redy's conclusions or however it was phrased,
 9        and he said yes, and you're objecting.
10             MR. GAINES:  I don't think he said yes, but
11        I was objecting in the middle of the question.
12             If that's your question, and you're happy
13        with that question, I am not going to instruct
14        him not to answer, but I don't think it's a
15        meaningful question, without identifying what
16        report or what conclusions you're talking about.
17             If you have a report that has one
18        conclusion, I don't know what your question
19        means.  I don't know what you mean by
20        conclusions which report, and I think it's
21        objectionable on the form of the question.
22 BY MR. GARVER:
23       Q.    Can you answer the question?
24       A.    Let me clarify.
25             MR. GAINES:  I wish somebody would.


                                                 Page 133

 1             THE WITNESS:  Ramesh and I get along very
 2        well, and we're friends, and I don't object or
 3        have any major objections to the way he does
 4        research or work.  I think he does very good
 5        work.  He has a very good staff of people,
 6        students working with him that is of very good
 7        quality.  I don't have any objections to his
 8        work.
 9             There's maybe some minor point on
10        methodology that I may not agree with him, but
11        generally I accept his conclusions as if they
12        would come from another colleague of mine from
13        the University of Florida.  I have not disagreed
14        with him really on anything major, no big deal.
15             MR. COUSINS:  I don't know what the report
16        is myself, but just going back and forth here, I
17        figure if you read it and you're comfortable
18        with answering it, I don't understand the
19        objection, but I understand what you're getting
20        at, also.
21             THE WITNESS:  He has some interpretations
22        in the results, especially where he has mapped
23        out the phosphorus in that zone and provided a
24        topol map of concentrations.
25 BY MR. GARVER:


                                                 Page 134

 1       Q.    This is the zone in the --
 2             MR. GAINES:  Part of Conservation Area 2A
 3             THE WITNESS:  Right.
 4             I don't necessarily agree with his
 5        conclusions or some of the interpretations of
 6        his conclusions.  I think Ramesh is very careful
 7        in not concluding anything that is not
 8        specifically taken from data.
 9             I think some people have concluded
10        erroneously some conclusions with the data.
11             You can always take this data and look at
12        it several different ways, and I don't think all
13        the avenues or all the right conclusions have
14        been put forward, but his work is really, I
15        consider, impeccable and good information, good
16        work, reliable.
17 BY MR. GARVER:
18       Q.    What specific interpretations from Doctor
19   Redy's work do you have disagreement with?
20       A.    Well, I am not sure if it's his
21   interpretation right now.
22             If you get the document out in front of me,
23   I can take a look at it, but I think what I am
24   repeating is more hearsay right now at this point
25   than actually fact.


                                                 Page 135

 1       Q.    Well, can you recall any specific
 2   interpretations from his work that you can recall
 3   right now, not having seen the report?
 4             MR. GAINES:  Let me just reassert my
 5        objection here.  We are going down a road here
 6        that I don't think has any real meaning for
 7        Doctor Anderson's deposition, asking him in a
 8        vaccum about Doctor Redy's work and what do you
 9        agree with and what do you disagree with.  I
10        don't think this is within any area that he is
11        going to be testifying about and, you know, I
12        think it's objectionable.
13             MR. GARVER:  Well, I mean, you haven't
14        really limited, beyond soil chemistry, what
15        Doctor Anderson is going to be testifying about,
16        Mr. Gaines.  Any interpretation you can give me
17        I am happy with it.
18             MR. GAINES:  I would invite you to look at
19        his description of his testimony within the
20        witness disclosure.
21             MR. GARVER:  Soil chemistry.
22             MR. GAINES:  No, I don't think so.  Let me
23        see, alternatives to STA's, water quality, soil
24        chemistry, chemical treatment of phosphorus.
25             MR. GARVER:  It's consistent with my


                                                 Page 136

 1        recollection.
 2 BY MR. GARVER:
 3       Q.    Doctor Anderson, in conducting your work
 4   relating to chemical treatment in the EAA, did you
 5   rely on or do any review of such a system in Germany
 6   at the Wahnbach Estuary?
 7       A.    Yes.
 8       Q.    Can you describe the system that's in place
 9   at the Wahnbach Estuary?
10       A.    Yeah.  I have been there.  It's basically a
11   very narrow basin, small treatment area that 100
12   percent is taken over through traditional waste water
13   treatment techniques, cleaned and put into a dammed
14   reservoir, that water.
15             The project actually was initiated in 1978.
16   Within two, three years after completion, results
17   were very favorable.  The water is very, very clean.
18   It used to be very atrophic -- no, it's oligotrophic.
19             They have an oxygenated system where they
20   pump air into the reservoir at 60, 80 feet deep.  It
21   would be akin to a reservoir or a dammed area in
22   Tennessee.  So there's a backup.  There's a dam, and
23   then there's a back up of water that goes several
24   miles backward, and the supply waters are all
25   treated.  Burnhardt has basically spent his entire


                                                 Page 137

 1   life doing this work and has done a very good job.
 2       Q.    What is the source of water that enters the
 3   treatment facility in the Wahnbach Estuary?
 4       A.    It's a treatment -- it's a river.  It's a
 5   drainage basin river water source.  It's been
 6   polluted.  It's very high in algae and E-coli.  You
 7   know, it's basically a very polluted water.  One
 8   hundred percent of it's treated.
 9       Q.    Are you familiar with any of the pollution
10   sources in that treatment system?
11       A.    That area consists of dairy farms, animal
12   farms, pig farms.  Seaborg is a small municipality in
13   that general area.  There's a lot of small
14   communities.  It's very hilly area.  So there's some
15   erosion.  There's some recent erosion that comes from
16   animals on pastures.
17             They have gone so far as developing small
18   clean-up systems for those small streams that enter
19   into the reservoir.  It's a very well managed system.
20   They have got a full-time liminologist working there
21   named Claussen.  They have done just a very, very
22   good job.
23       Q.    Are you familiar with the uses to which the
24   water from this reservoir is put to use?
25       A.    It is a private utility.  It's managed as a


                                                 Page 138

 1   private utility.  They sell water in that part of
 2   Germany.  It's a network of water systems that's
 3   piped out, sold to municipalities for profit.  It's a
 4   private utility that is non profit that's been built
 5   into provide a continuing supply of water in that
 6   region.
 7       Q.    For municipal water supply?
 8       A.    Municipal and industrial water supply.
 9       Q.    Are you familiar with any chemical
10   treatment systems that are used to treat water prior
11   to its discharge, a wetland ecosystem?
12       A.    Yes.
13             Well, let me just -- I don't remember all
14   the names.  Again, in Europe my last experience this
15   last year was to basically collect information on
16   precisely that point.  Lake Naardimeer, which is
17   located in Central Holland, they essentially treat
18   all the drainage waters that enter into a wildlife
19   reserve.  It's a wildlife reserve, and it's
20   essentially a very famous area that all throughout
21   Europe is being hailed as one of the models that's
22   been held up to example quite a bit.
23             I don't remember all the other lakes in the
24   Province of Reinland also in Holland.  I don't
25   remember the lake offhand.  I have got the


                                                 Page 139

 1   information in my office.  But they also directly
 2   treat waters going in through canals and dosed into
 3   the canal, allow the residues to build up in the
 4   canal, periodically clean it out, but all those
 5   waters go directly into the lake.
 6             There's other systems over there in
 7   Holland.  I mention Holland quite a bit because they
 8   have been very progressive in this area.  These areas
 9   are basically organic soil areas, very similar to
10   this region.  They are faced with phosphorus enriched
11   cost problems that will cost several million dollars.
12             I should be back there this next week, week
13   and-a-half seeing some other facilities, both, in
14   Germany and Holland.
15       Q.    Are you familiar with any chemical
16   treatment systems which treat water prior to
17   discharge into a subtropical wetland ecosystem?
18       A.    Not that I am aware of.  That doesn't mean
19   there isn't.  Just not that I am aware of.
20             It seems to me Lynn Schuler is one of the
21   EPA coordinators in Chesapeake.  I talked to him this
22   last fall.  He said that they are in the process of
23   treating some of their trepidaries they run through
24   the Chesapeake Basin.  They are also interested in
25   chemical treatment, but that's more on the basis of

                                                 Page 140

 1   municipal and water shed treatment on a formal basis.
 2             What makes us a little bit unique -- again,
 3   going back to the uniqueness of this region -- is
 4   that we have thousands of miles of canal systems
 5   which lends itself very well for collection of bottom
 6   sediments or residues instead of being retained out
 7   of filters, centrifuge filters.  So our treatment
 8   capabilities could be done very simply if we take
 9   advantage of it, probably.  I am going to say
10   probably very effectively, because we have not done
11   the engineering design valdations yet on it, but
12   probably the primary settling through gravitation is
13   probably a very good technique to use when we have
14   miles of canals to use to retain the water after its
15   precipitated -- things are precipitated and
16   coagulated out.  So we have the capability with our
17   canal systems to do something that nowhere else in
18   the world is capable of doing.
19       Q.    Let me turn now to some of the other
20   alternatives to STA's that have been discussed in the
21   last year or so.
22             Have you been involved in investigating or
23   reviewing the use of limerock absorption?
24       A.    Uh-huh.
25       Q.    What has been your involvement in looking


                                                 Page 141

 1   at limerock absorption as an alternative to STA's?
 2       A.    Probably four or five years ago we talked
 3   about it with our Okeechobee Project.  Ramesh Redy
 4   was involved with that, along with Don Grats, Bob
 5   Mansel, and a few others and probably came a little
 6   bit to this part with my work with limestone and
 7   liming in that area to control some of the problems,
 8   but my involvement is, and this is minimal, I have
 9   listened to the presentation that Patrick has given.
10   I don't have -- I have not seen any of the data.  I
11   have not seen any data either in raw form or in table
12   form or figures regarding whether it's effective or
13   not.  I have surmised that it has probably poor
14   effectiveness, but I don't have any verification for
15   that.
16       Q.    Did you say poor?
17       A.    Poor.  There are circumstances where it
18   will not do well.
19       Q.    Under what circumstances wouldn't it do
20   well?
21       A.    These waters in the EAA are highly
22   buffered, and they do behave as complex as organic
23   acids.  They have several titration points.  That
24   being the case, if your PH is not adequate, meaning
25   very low, that will be dissolving your rock.


                                                 Page 142

 1             There's a resistence for precipitation
 2   which occurs at PH 8, 8.2, 8.5, and if these waters
 3   are highly buffered, then you start eating the rock
 4   up instead of precipitating it.  So there are,
 5   because of the changing conditions of these waters,
 6   probably conditions where it will not work well.
 7       Q.    Do you anticipate providing any testimony
 8   in the hearing in this matter regarding limerock
 9   absorption?
10       A.    No.  It's not my work.
11       Q.    Are there any circumstances or situations
12   in the EAA in which you believe limerock absorption
13   will work as an alternative to STA's?
14             MR. GAINES:  Wait a minute, you know.  I
15        don't know how many of these are going to be
16        done, but he just said he doesn't anticipate
17        testifying on this.  It's not his area of
18        expertise.  He hasn't seen any data.  His only
19        involvement has been basically hearing somebody
20        else's report.  So I mean, I just kind of -- let
21        me just object, generally.  We're getting into
22        areas that don't have any meaning for this
23        witness, and it seems like a waste of time.
24             MR. GARVER:  I don't intend to go very far
25        into this.


                                                 Page 143

 1 BY MR. GARVER:
 2       Q.    You can answer the question.
 3       A.    Well, it's subjective, you know.  My answer
 4   would be subjective.  I don't have any raw figures or
 5   data to answer that question.
 6       Q.    Have you been involved in investigating or
 7   reviewing the application of algal surf scrubbers as
 8   an alternative to STA's?
 9       A.    I have seen it.  I have listened to the
10   presentation, yes.
11       Q.    And just generally, do you have an opinion
12   as to the application of algal surf scrubbers?
13       A.    It's a new technology.  It does hold some
14   promise, especially for polishing water down to low
15   concentrations.  There are obviously some problems
16   associated with it, and I don't know the answers to
17   how they can solve some of the problems.
18       Q.    What are the obvious problems?
19       A.    How many billion acres or billion gallons
20   do we need to treat, and how fast do we need to treat
21   it.  There's no answers that technology, but it has
22   shown promise, and at least some of the data looks
23   promising.  There might be application, you know, in
24   some areas for it.
25       Q.    Do you anticipate providing any testimony


                                                 Page 144

 1   regarding algal surf scrubbers at the final hearing
 2   in this matter?
 3       A.    No.
 4       Q.    Have you been involved in investigating and
 5   reviewing sediment dredging to reduce phosphorus as
 6   an alternative to STA's?
 7       A.    Yeah.
 8       Q.    What has been your involvement in looking
 9   at sediment dredging?
10       A.    Basically, I guess I recommended it before
11   the group.
12       Q.    Before what group?
13       A.    Well, before the industry group, you know,
14   I have been recommending it.  That's something that
15   we have been needing to take a look at for quite a
16   while.
17             We have done some preliminary work.
18   Hutcheons Engineers, I believe, has also done some
19   work, and I believe the information is in one of
20   those reports from last year that I gave you.
21             MR. GAINES:  You're talking about one of
22        the SAGE reports?
23             THE WITNESS:  Yeah.
24             We had preliminary proposals -- actually to
25        develop two proposals at two sites to take a


                                                 Page 145

 1        look specifically at that.  One proposal might
 2        be entitled Canal Cleaning and Cleaning Canals
 3        and to Observe Effects on Final Concentrations
 4        of Phosphorus.
 5             The other one was a Canal Widening or
 6        Modification of a Canal, and again that should
 7        in published records, our proposal along with
 8        Hutcheons was included in that list of work.
 9             Basically, we were looking at trying to
10        modify a canal to increase the sedimentation
11        rates and stop a bed load, which would include
12        using sediment traps.
13             As I said previously this morning, that
14        probably the number one problem is controlling
15        suspended particulates, which can be from the
16        bed or it can be from eroded banks, but if you
17        have an unclean canal, basically you have a
18        jeopardy there of residues because of sediments,
19        which ultimately when sampled, contributes to
20        the ultimate phosphorus loading.
21             So we haven't done any specific work yet in
22        that area.  It's still been in proposal.  We had
23        preliminary data.  Again, that's in Report
24        92-11.  There's some sediment data from our
25        location in there.


                                                 Page 146

 1 BY MR. GARVER:
 2       Q.    Is sediment dredging a one-shot kind of
 3   proposal or is it something that would need to be
 4   done regularly to remove phosphorus?
 5       A.    Canals have to be periodically cleaned or
 6   you have to establish a way of trapping out what is
 7   called the bed load.
 8             Some suspended particles will actually
 9   filter down or fall down on to the bed well after it
10   passes a filter, a trap which is essentially a trap
11   at one point in the canal which sediments build up in
12   that.  In time, every canal will develop a sediment,
13   whether it be half an inch or six feet.  You know,
14   the problem is ultimately probably the same.
15             In other places in the world, cleaning
16   canals is part of a regulatory action where they
17   require sediments to be cleaned on a regular basis,
18   you know, out of canals.  As opposed to this area,
19   basically the only people that clean canals are
20   private land owners.  To my knowledge, there's been
21   very little cleaning in the works at the District.
22       Q.    Do you anticipate providing testimony with
23   respect to sediment dredging at the final hearing in
24   this matter?
25       A.    Possibly.  I don't know.  That's part of


                                                 Page 147

 1   our proposal title.  If you read the proposal title,
 2   sedimentation is part of it.
 3             If we're doing chemical dosing, we're also
 4   working with sediments, the residues, and making sure
 5   sediments are trapped out and removed.  So the
 6   sedimentation process is really tied into the
 7   proposal.
 8       Q.    So sedimentation, am I correct in
 9   understanding that that's something that can be done
10   with or without chemical dosing and still be used to
11   remove phosphorus?
12       A.    Correct.
13       Q.    You have been involved in investigating and
14   reviewing farm interconnects as an alternative to
15   STA's?
16       A.    I have been in discussions when they were
17   discussed.  My work is not personally involved in it.
18       Q.    Do you anticipate providing any testimony
19   with regards to farm interconnects as an alternative
20   to STA's?
21       A.    I don't believe so.
22       Q.    Have you been involved in investigating and
23   reviewing aquifer storage and recovery wells as an
24   alternative to STA's?
25       A.    No.


                                                 Page 148

 1       Q.    Have you been involved in investigating and
 2   reviewing the use of rockpits as an alternative to
 3   STA's?
 4       A.    Yes.
 5       Q.    What has been your involvement in studying
 6   rockpits?
 7       A.    Well, as one of the chief investigators,
 8   although we have had a list of proposals to do work,
 9   actually, it was discussed by other groups of people.
10   We have not proceeded with the rockpit
11   investigations, primarily because the phosphorus
12   loading at the site that we were looking at was very
13   low and rockpit use with a rockpit in conjunction
14   with controlling sediments and controlling in dealing
15   with the residues from chemical dosing is a very good
16   conjuncture, very good mate, and there's some very
17   good possibilities of doing some very good work with
18   that.
19             I have to say it's all on standby, because
20   a lot of this we have discussed, but we have not yet
21   investigated either, because we have not the funds to
22   proceed with it or there hasn't been time.
23             Some of these suggestions have been since
24   maybe August or September, and we are only talking
25   what six, seven months ago.  It's a very short period


                                                 Page 149

 1   of time, but yes I have been involved in discussions.
 2       Q.    Have you described to me generally how
 3   rockpits can be used to remove phosphorus?
 4       A.    Will I?
 5       Q.    Please do.
 6       A.    Actually, there's two things that rockpits
 7   provide, a very good opportunity, and rockpits all
 8   throughout the region are used by DOT and private
 9   coring operations.
10       Q.    By DOT, Department of Transportation?
11       A.    Yes, road base materials, materials coming
12   out of these rockpits are being used for road base
13   materials privately or through conjuncture with the
14   Department of Transportation, whoever owns it.
15             Rerouting waters through these rockpits
16   provides a storage or a trap mechanism to possibly
17   trap out particulate materials.
18             Our concept of using rockpits was to use
19   this in conjuncture with chemical dosing as a means
20   of storing residue materials precipitated from the
21   chemical process.  It would be a way of safely and
22   over a long period of time be able to build up a load
23   of materials.  They actually become a very good
24   sedimentation basin, because you're coming out of a
25   canal and widening out in a large volume and area and


                                                 Page 150

 1   very slow -- the water slows down quite a bit.  The
 2   particles drop out very rapidly, and it's just --
 3   although we have not investigated or proceeded with
 4   it, as I said before, the loads appear to be very
 5   small for us to make it viable.
 6             Right now, the opportunity of using
 7   rockpits for that purpose is excellent.  It's just
 8   another direction that we have felt to be a very
 9   viable alternative of using those properties, and
10   there's quite a few rockpits, also, in the EAA.
11       Q.    That was my next question.
12       A.    I could read it off your face.
13       Q.    And why have you stopped looking at
14   rockpits for the time being?
15       A.    Well, I have only had so much funding, and
16   the funding has been primarily to establish whether
17   or not chemical dosing can be done effectively by
18   using jar test methodology.  That's basically what we
19   were funded to do.
20             We have been discussing future endeavors
21   should be done hereafter which includes the rockpits,
22   which included looking at canal sedimentation, which
23   included maybe the other alternatives that you have
24   been talking about, suggestions.  It's included all
25   that.


                                                 Page 151

 1             Until we come to the point of directing our
 2   research with the money to support our endeavors, I
 3   am not proceeding any further.  Really, all my staff
 4   right now is completely grant funded, which means if
 5   our grant goes, so do our people.
 6       Q.    Other than acting as a sediment trap and
 7   facilitating sedimentation, are there any other
 8   chemical or physical processes at work in rockpits
 9   that make them effective to remove phosphorus?
10       A.    No.
11             I think we're primarily looking at the
12   sedimentation characteristics when it reaches that
13   rock bed.  It's like a trap on your sink.
14       Q.    Have you been involved in investigating and
15   reviewing water quality supplied diversions as an
16   alternative to STA's?
17       A.    Cleaning up a portion of the treatment and
18   diluting the rest; is that what you're saying?
19       Q.    I am working off a list of alternatives to
20   STA's, and this one is listed as water quality/supply
21   diversions.  I believe that refers to diverting water
22   away from the Everglades, rerouting waters?
23       A.    No, the answer is no.
24       Q.    Now, have you made any presentations to the
25   so-called SAGE or Scientific Advisory Group for the


                                                 Page 152

 1   Everglades Committee?
 2       A.    Yes, I have.
 3       Q.    When did you make such presentations?
 4       A.    Do you have my resume?
 5       Q.    Did you make one such presentation or more
 6   than one?
 7       A.    I have given several.  In May, I gave one.
 8   Unfortunately, I didn't write them down here.  I
 9   usually do.  Also, in August I gave a presentation.
10   Those are the two times.
11       Q.    Let's start with the presentation.
12             What was the purpose of that presentation?
13       A.    Let me just think and make sure I have got
14   my recollection right.
15             Do you have a copy of that report?
16             MR. GAINES:  Somewhere among the documents
17        that were produced.
18             You want to see your May 92 report to SAGE?
19             THE WITNESS:  Yes.
20             You don't mind, do you?
21             MR. GARVER:  No.
22             THE WITNESS:  Some of this may blur after a
23        time.
24             MR. GARVER:  Sure.  I will be going through
25        those reports.


                                                 Page 153

 1 BY MR. GARVER:
 2       Q.    Your attorney has just handed you a
 3   document; can you just describe it?
 4       A.    This is a technical summary dated August
 5   1992 entitled Reduction of Phosphorus Loading in the
 6   EAA Through Control of Sediments and Suspended Solids
 7   and Drainage Water Sediment Control.
 8             MR. GAINES:  You have got the May one?
 9             MR. GARVER:  Yes.
10 BY MR. GARVER:
11       Q.    I have just handed you a document; what is
12   that one?
13       A.    This is entitled Introduction and Program
14   Description for Reduction of Phosphorus
15   Concentrations in Agricultural Drainage by
16   Preciptation Coagulation and Sedimentation dated
17   April 1992 revised May 12, 1992.
18             MR. GARVER:  So that you don't have to do
19        that again, why don't we mark that as an exhibit
20        now.
21             THE WITNESS:  You want me to answer the
22        question now?
23             MR. GARVER:  Why don't we get these marked?
24             MR. GAINES:  Here's the May one.
25                  (The document referred to was


                                                 Page 154

 1                  thereupon marked Exhibit No. 2 for
 2                  Identification.)
 3             MR. GARVER:  The May one is Anderson No. 2.
 4             Then we will mark the August one Anderson
 5        No. 3.
 6                  (The document referred to was
 7                  thereupon marked Exhibit No. 3 for
 8                  Identification.)
 9 BY MR. GARVER:
10       Q.    I asked you generally what the purpose was
11   for the presentation you made to the SAGE in May of
12   1992?
13       A.    I think the objective was to present the
14   concepts of chemical dosing to the SAGE Committee for
15   consideration.
16       Q.    Could you just describe generally just at
17   this point what you discussed at the May
18   presentation?  I will go into more detail later.  I
19   just want to know generally what was discussed there.
20       A.    I think there's an individual videotape, if
21   you want to check that and look at that, I think, on
22   that day.  We presented -- both Hutcheon Engineers
23   and myself presented this document orally to the SAGE
24   Committee.
25             I believe at that time I also did a little


                                                 Page 155

 1   Mr. Wizard type demonstration of a chemical dosing
 2   procedure and how it works basically trying to
 3   describe the chemistry to the group of people and why
 4   we were taking a look at it.
 5       Q.    Do you recall a discussion during your May
 6   1992 presentation regarding measuring of soluble
 7   inorganic phosphorus in the supernatant water as
 8   opposed to sampling total phosphorus?
 9       A.    Uh-huh.
10       Q.    And can you just describe what that
11   discussion was about?
12       A.    Well, there's a number of confused
13   individuals who didn't understand what the difference
14   between, I think, total phosphorus and total soluble
15   phosphorus was, and I spent some time to describe the
16   fractionation of phosphorus, you know, basically what
17   it is chemically in the laboratory, and questions
18   were particularly related to some of the data
19   presented on total soluble phosphorus and a question
20   of why we measured that instead of total phosphorus.
21             I had a discussion after that to describe
22   exactly why we measured total soluble phosphorus
23   instead of total phosphorus.
24       Q.    And why did you measure soluble, total
25   soluble phosphorus rather than total phosphorus?


                                                 Page 156

 1       A.    Total soluble phosphorus was the fraction
 2   that we were more concerned about when we go through
 3   chemical dosing, removing the soluble fraction of
 4   phosphorus loading and removing it out of a soluble
 5   fraction in a particulate fraction.
 6             The particulate fraction we know we can we
 7   move through other procedures, whether it be a sand
 8   filter or through gravitation.  We wanted to present
 9   why chemical dosing moves at soluble fraction and
10   precipitates it.  So that's why we presented the
11   total soluble fraction instead of the total
12   phosphorus.  Total phosphorus would have said there
13   is no change, 'cause it measures both.  It doesn't
14   differentiate which fraction it's in, and I
15   demonstrated or tried to show information showing how
16   chemical dosing moves soluble to the insoluble one.
17   It's in a particulate fraction, and we have other
18   techniques of dealing with it through sedimentation
19   or coagulation.
20       Q.    Isn't coagulation and sedimentation part of
21   the whole treatment scheme that is involved for -- if
22   we're removing phosphorus in the EAA waters?
23             MR. GAINES:  You mean part of the chemical
24        treatment?
25             THE WITNESS:  Coagulation involves a


                                                 Page 157

 1        growing of the particulate phase to a more
 2        substantial size.  So there's sedimentation.
 3        They are different.
 4             No, it's not involved directly in the EAA.
 5        It's strictly sedimentation, which means that
 6        without coagulation, you may have suspended
 7        particles that will never fall out, never by
 8        gravity become a sediment, because they are
 9        buoyant.  They float in the water column.
10        Unless there's a coagulation process which joins
11        these very buoyant particles making them
12        heavier, they are never going to flock out.
13        They are never going to in the EAA without
14        anything.  They only involve sedimentation.
15        Chemical dosing involves a coagulation step; is
16        that clear?
17 BY MR. GARVER:
18       Q.    My question was:  In the chemical treatment
19   scheme that would be used to treat EAA waters to try
20   and remove phosphorus, isn't it coagulation and then
21   settling out or sedimentation of those coagulant part
22   of the entire scheme that's invovled?
23       A.    That's right.  That's part of the process.
24       Q.    In other words, if you just ended up with
25   suspended particulates, you wouldn't have done the


                                                 Page 158

 1   job; is that correct?
 2       A.    No.
 3             Like I made the example of Pine Sol put
 4   into a bucket.  It turns white.  You don't just want
 5   it to turn into fine particles and go down.  You
 6   haven't changed the phosphorus, because you have
 7   grabbed the sample.  You want it to fall out before
 8   you take that sample, and in order for that to
 9   happen, you have to have coagulation.  You have to
10   have these particles bump into each other, grab each
11   other, actually grow and get heavy and fall out or be
12   able to be filtered out.
13       Q.    When you did measurements of the soluble
14   dissolved phosphorus, did you do those measurements
15   prior to the settling part of the treatment scheme?
16       A.    Yes.
17             Essentially take a sample, which whether
18   it's settling or not contains particulate fractions
19   along with the soluble, filter it and remove the
20   particulate and just measure the soluble.
21       Q.    Did you subsequently do additional tests of
22   the total phosphorus after the settling or
23   sedimentation phase?
24       A.    At the May meeting, we were essentially
25   unfunded for all that work that we put together.  I


                                                 Page 159

 1   had no money whatsoever to do the work.  So it was
 2   out-of-pocket, so to speak.  We did not at that time
 3   have full capability -- laboratory capabilities at
 4   that time to fulfill everything that we needed to do,
 5   such as determine the particulate fraction.
 6             After that period of time in May, April, we
 7   were able to do that, and so we had the whole scheme,
 8   the whole fraction that we were able to determine,
 9   but at that time we only measured the soluble
10   fraction.  We were only interested in conversion of
11   soluble to particulate phase, and really that was the
12   most significant measurement to be made and verify
13   that the treatment process was successful, but it did
14   not show the success of sedimentation or coagulation.
15       Q.    Have you subsequently done work that has
16   shown the success of the coagulation sedimentation?
17       A.    Yes.
18       Q.    Which report reflect the results?
19       A.    92-11, Exhibit No. 4.
20       Q.    I'm not sure that that's an exhibit yet at
21   this point.  I don't think we have a number on that
22   exhibit, but it's a report that you did in November
23   1992; is that correct?
24       A.    Yes, that's correct.
25       Q.    Did you make a proposal in August of 1989


                                                 Page 160

 1   entitled the Knights Farm Entry Study?
 2       A.    Uh-huh.
 3       Q.    What was that proposal?
 4       A.    That proposal was to do the work for the
 5   Knights Lands Project for the District.  We didn't
 6   get funded for it.
 7       Q.    You did not?
 8       A.    Our proposal was not accepted.
 9       Q.    Was a different proposal accepted?
10       A.    Uh-huh.  As far as I know, ours wasn't
11   accepted.  That's all I know.
12       Q.    What was the nature of this study you were
13   proposing to do for the Knights Farm Nutrient Study?
14       A.    Gee, in 1989 I am sure I have it on the
15   computer.
16             We were, I think, proposing -- there were
17   three people involved, Charlie Sanchez and Doctor
18   Sanchez, Doctor Porter and myself, and we had
19   proposed to look at, I guess, a very broad base of
20   objectives that the District had on their request for
21   proposals to address, which includes, I think,
22   release, you know, mobility of phosphorus under
23   flooded conditions, just a number of other things.  I
24   don't remember the exact nature of it.  It's been a
25   little while.  I am surprised you mentioned it,

                                                 Page 161

 1   actually.
 2       Q.    Was that study designed to determine
 3   methods for improving the performance of wetland
 4   treatment systems?
 5       A.    It basically was a wetlands proposal, yes.
 6       Q.    What do you mean when you say wetlands
 7   proposal?
 8       A.    Well, the Knights Lands Project was to take
 9   agricultural lands in the EAA and reflood it and use
10   it as a storm water area for treating storm water
11   runoff.  So essentially it was being converted back
12   into a wetland.  It was a wetlands proposal.
13       Q.    And just generally do you recall what some
14   of the studies you were proposing to conduct were?
15       A.    I'd have to look back.  There were a lot of
16   them.  There were a lot of sub tasks that we had
17   decided we were going to do, and I don't remember
18   exactly.
19             Do you have a copy of that document?
20       Q.    I am trying to decide how far we need to go
21   into this, but I mean later we may be dealing with
22   that in detail.  I'm just asking you in general right
23   now.
24       A.    I think if I had it before me, I could
25   address it a little bit more clearly to you.


                                                 Page 162

 1       Q.    Do you anticipate providing any testimony
 2   regarding that proposal or any studies that were done
 3   on the Knights Farm in this proceeding?
 4       A.    Until now, no.
 5             Since we did not do the work, all I could
 6   comment on is our capability, which we didn't do, our
 7   capabilities maybe of doing it and debating whether
 8   or not we should have gotten it or shouldn't have
 9   gotten it, but I don't see how that's going to add
10   anything to the testimony.
11       Q.    Are you familiar with a March 1992
12   Everglades SWIM Plan?
13       A.    Uh-huh.
14       Q.    That was yes?
15       A.    Yes.
16       Q.    What is your understanding of the purpose
17   of the Everglades SWIM Plan?
18             MR. GAINES:  To the extent that this asks
19        for a legal conclusion, I would object.
20             MR. GARVER:  I'm just asking for his
21        understanding.
22             MR. GAINES:  That's fine.
23             THE WITNESS:  I have been listening to all
24        kinds of versions of that.  There's been many
25        versions of that document.  Surface water


                                                 Page 163

 1        improvement and management amounts of the EAA
 2        was intended to address conditions in the
 3        Everglades Agricultural Area and to improve the
 4        surface water quality of water through
 5        management practices, environmental management
 6        practices on the level of the industry as well
 7        as on the level of the District's
 8        responsibilities.
 9 BY MR. GARVER:
10       Q.    Have you read the March 1992 Everglades
11   SWIM Plan?
12       A.    Not cover to cover.  I have gone through
13   it.
14             Like I said, the first edition was it 1990,
15   1989?  I don't remember which ones.  There's been
16   many versions, and the earlier versions I read in
17   greater detail, but the last one I basically thumbed
18   through not bothering with detail any longer.
19             MR. GAINES:  You missed all the changes.
20             THE WITNESS:  There were a lot of changes.
21        It was a different proposal.  It was a different
22        document.
23 BY MR. GARVER:
24       Q.    The earlier versions that you reviewed,
25   were you doing that for your own interests?


                                                 Page 164

 1       A.    Yeah, basically.
 2             I think between 1985 through 1990, I went
 3   to as many meetings as I could with my time.  I
 4   listened to LOTAC meetings or meetings regarding the
 5   area, just to gain information for ourselves.
 6       Q.    Have you ever provided written comments to
 7   the District on any of the SWIM Plan drafts, the
 8   Everglades SWIM Plan?
 9       A.    That's a good question.  I don't remember
10   if I ever verbalized them in writing.  Unless you can
11   provide something for me, I don't remember if I did
12   or not.  It's likely that I could have.
13       Q.    I don't have a document I am going to whip
14   in front of you.
15       A.    I have no clue.  It's likely that I could
16   have, because a number of people in the District that
17   I know, you know, over the years have asked me about
18   it.
19             I am sure I have commented, you know, to
20   them either verbally or in writing, but I don't
21   offhand remember every letter I have written or not
22   written.  It's hard to piece that together.
23       Q.    Have you ever made any oral comments at a
24   District board meeting on the Everglades SWIM Plan?
25       A.    I guess I have made a few comments from


                                                 Page 165

 1   here to there.  Generally, I keep my mouth shut and
 2   just listen, but there's been a couple of files where
 3   I have probably made some comments.
 4       Q.    Do you recall specifically what comments
 5   you made?
 6       A.    One in which we presented our views to
 7   LOTAC.  I don't remember the date to that, but that
 8   was a formal meeting in which I gave a formal
 9   presentation to LOTAC.  The Board was present then.
10   Another time was a small meeting in one of their
11   conference rooms.  It may have been video'd or not,
12   but I made comments after seeing so many errors in
13   their first few revisions of the SWIM document.
14             I do remember making a verbal comment that
15   they needed to be peer reviewed before they were sent
16   to the general public and would have probably avoided
17   some of the controversial things that were errors in
18   text or errors in judgment or errors in quoting or
19   whatever.  I made a comment to that effect at that
20   time.
21       Q.    Do you recall any of the errors that you
22   identified?
23       A.    There were a lot of them.  There were a lot
24   of bad errors.
25       Q.    I don't expect you to make a comprehensive


                                                Page 166

 1   list, but do you recall any specific errors you
 2   noted?
 3       A.    There were errors there -- basically, just
 4   for example, the amount of nutrients used by Sugar
 5   Cane, for example, which I knew very well what the
 6   actual figures would have been -- 300, I think, if I
 7   am quoting it right, 300 pounds of nitrogen used in
 8   the EAA for Sugar Cane, which is just absurd, because
 9   no nitrogen is used, things like that that were in
10   the documents, then bracketed IFAS private
11   communication.  I remember making a comment that in
12   the future putting a name behind the comment, it
13   would probably stop some of the comments and make it
14   correct.
15             There were a number of things like that
16   that were just bad facts, bad numbers.  They could
17   have been errors on the judgment of the writer, but
18   the comment I made specifically at that time was they
19   should peer review the document first, even if it was
20   a paid review, and it would have avoided a lot of the
21   legal discussion or anger, you know, frustration on
22   industry and the District part, 'cause at that time I
23   think the District was sometimes getting wet faced
24   because some of the people representing the District
25   at public meetings, I think, were embarrassed

                                                 Page 167

 1   sometimes with the errors, because they have to trust
 2   and work with their group of people.  So the comment
 3   was strictly a recommendation to peer review future
 4   materials.
 5       Q.    Did you point out specific errors to the
 6   District, also?
 7       A.    Yeah.  At the time I am sure I did, yeah.
 8       Q.    Do you recall any of the errors?
 9       A.    I have never been asked to peer review any
10   of the documents.  So I haven't responded
11   specifically.
12       Q.    Have any of the errors that you have
13   pointed out to the District been corrected in
14   subsequent drafts of the SWIM Plan?
15       A.    I believe that particular issue of
16   nitrogen, I remember it was corrected.  I think the
17   document we have right now is an improved document.
18   It may not be perfect, but it's much improved.
19       Q.    Are you familiar with the STA's proposed in
20   the SWIM Plan -- with the proposal for STA's in the
21   SWIM Plan?
22       A.    Uh-huh.
23       Q.    That was also a yes?
24       A.    Yes.
25       Q.    What is your understanding of the STA


                                                 Page 168

 1   proposal?
 2             MR. GAINES:  You mean what is his
 3        understanding of the entire proposal, how big it
 4        is, where they go, how they work, all that kind
 5        of stuff?
 6 BY MR. GARVER:
 7       Q.    Just generally what is your understanding
 8   of the STA proposal?
 9       A.    Generally, water that is coming off of
10   farms that are conveyed through the waters of the
11   District are diverted into storm water treatment
12   areas which are marsh situations with a fixed
13   hydroperiod, and the end result will be essentially a
14   filtration or a cleaning up of the water quality when
15   it leaves that retention area.  My understanding is
16   that it's being treated as a retention area before
17   final release of those waters.
18       Q.    Have you done any reviews or investigations
19   or other studies of the STA proposal?
20       A.    No, I have not.
21       Q.    Do you anticipate providing testimony at a
22   final hearing in this matter on your opinions
23   regarding the STA proposal?
24       A.    Not unless it refers to any of the
25   literature we have published regarding the phosphorus


                                                 Page 169

 1   mineralization under flood conditions.  I do believe
 2   it has relevance to the issue.
 3       Q.    Are these publications that are listed in
 4   your resume?
 5       A.    Yes.
 6       Q.    Why don't we turn back to your resume and
 7   just identify which ones.
 8       A.    Page 8, number 27.
 9       Q.    Any others?
10       A.    Well, there's a sister article in
11   preparation right now, Page 10, number 7.
12       Q.    Is that number 7 on the top?
13       A.    Yes, 7 on the top.
14       Q.    Nitrogen Mineralization of Selected
15   Histosols?
16       A.    Right.  That's a sister article of the one
17   I just mentioned previously.
18       Q.    Do you have draft manuscripts or drafts of
19   these or full copies of these documents available
20   that you could bring here tomorrow?
21       A.    The phosphorus one, I can run a copy off
22   probably.  The nitrogen one is a little bit
23   premature, and I don't have the recent updates to
24   that.
25       Q.    I think the phosphorus one would be the


                                                 Page 170

 1   main one.
 2       A.    I think so.
 3       Q.    Are there any other documents in here in
 4   your resume that relate to opinions you may have
 5   regarding the STA proposal?
 6       A.    I don't think so.
 7       Q.    Could you describe to me how this document
 8   entitled Phosphorus Mineralization from Histosols of
 9   the Everglades Agricultural Area relates to the STA
10   proposal?
11       A.    The soils -- this was a part of a Ph.D
12   thesis by Orlando Diaz.  The soils that we used were
13   soils that are indicative of over 90-percent of the
14   area in the EAA.  The soils were packed in columns to
15   take a look at the amount of phosphorus that
16   mineralized over a period of one year.  They were
17   either infrequently or cyclically flooded and drained
18   or completely drained and leached.  The data
19   indicated the difference is that that phosphorus
20   mineralization did occur, so much phosphorus coming
21   off these soils over so much period of time, and
22   probably the fact is the worse scenario is when you
23   flood the soil and then drain it periodically.
24   Basically, periodic flooding is a harmful management.
25             So as it relates to the STA or possible


                                                 Page 171

 1   STA, an obvious recommendation is that a hydroperiod
 2   would have to be maintained.
 3             In order for this data not to apply, if at
 4   any time these STA's are allowed to drain, you know,
 5   hold back oxygen without oxygen going back and forth,
 6   then you're only opening up to a scenario of
 7   increased phosphorus leaving those STA's.  So it's a
 8   soil problem.  It's no longer just a flood control
 9   problem of water coming in, but then it also becomes
10   a soil problem.
11       Q.    Does the stduy in the phosphorus
12   mineralization article apply to agricultural soils in
13   the Everglades or would it also apply to soils in the
14   marsh?
15       A.    Well, the STA's are soils that are -- that
16   were formally in agriculture production.  They are
17   not "virgin" soils.  They have been touched.  They
18   have been cultivated, fertilized, crops haven't grown
19   on them.  Therefore, they are not true wetland soils
20   any longer.  They are modified.  They have been
21   altered.
22             If you went into the Conservation Areas,
23   you have really quite different chemical
24   characteristics as a result of undisturbed organic
25   soils.


                                                 Page 172

 1       Q.    Are you aware of any studies similar to the
 2   one reflected in the phosphorus mineralization
 3   article we discussed that have been done for
 4   undisturbed Everglades soils in Water Conservation
 5   Areas?
 6       A.    We also used undisturbed soils from the EAA
 7   that have never been cultivated.  We also had virgin
 8   soils included in that study, same studies, but used
 9   over a much shorter time period than we studied here
10   and under strictly a drained condition was done by
11   Ramesh Redy.  I don't remember the exact date,
12   sometime in the '90.  It was published in '83, '84.
13       Q.    And his report dealt with soils in the
14   Water Conservation Areas; is that right?
15       A.    No.  That was soils out of Lake Apopka.
16       Q.    Were the same results obtained for the
17   uncultivated soils as were obtained for the
18   cultivated soils in this 1993 study?
19       A.    No.
20             The release of phosphorus was a magnitude --
21   probably on a magnitude of more or less.
22       Q.    In the undisturbed soils?
23       A.    Yes, uncultivated soils.
24       Q.    When you referred to periodic flooding in
25   this study, what period of wetness and what period of


                                                 Page 173

 1   dryness are you referring to?
 2       A.    A 30-day flooding period followed by a very
 3   rapid drainage and then a flooding again, essentially
 4   draining within a period of one day and then
 5   reflooding.  So flooding was a consistent 30-day
 6   drainage period within a day and reflooded again.
 7       Q.    And when were measurements made in that
 8   sequence of the phosphorus?
 9       A.    As we were collecting the runoff from the
10   soils.
11       Q.    Just so I understand.
12             You're measuring STA continuous flow system
13   where you can measure the runoff during the 30-day
14   flooding period or do you flood it for 30 days and
15   then sample during the drainage period?
16       A.    After 30 days, you drain it and you leach
17   it and leach out the available nutrients of the --
18   the water soluble nutrients.  After that is finished,
19   within a day's period, it's reflooded.
20       Q.    And then is there another --
21       A.    Another 30-day period, and that was
22   continued for a year, for 12 months.
23       Q.    Just so I understand it.
24             You also have samples that were never
25   drained?


                                                 Page 174

 1       A.    Yes, we did.  No, we did not.  We did not
 2   have samples that were continually flooded without
 3   ever a drainage cycle, no.
 4       Q.    What other sets of data did you have other
 5   than this 30-day flooding followed by drainage
 6   sequence?
 7       A.    I don't understand your question.
 8       Q.    Other than your periodic flooding group of
 9   samples, what other groups of samples did you have?
10       A.    Oh, we had a continually draining system as
11   if it would be under sugar cane or some crop
12   condition.  So there's only basically two lark
13   conditions that were set continously, drained with a
14   set moisture content or flooded and periodically
15   drained upon the leaching.
16       Q.    And were they continuously drained samples?
17   Were those also measured every 30 days?
18       A.    Yes, same time period.
19             MR. GARVER:  Why don't we take a break now.
20                  (Thereupon, a brief recess was taken,
21                  after which the following proceedings
22                  were had:)
23 BY MR. GARVER:
24       Q.    Doctor Anderson, have you ever been in the
25   Water Conservation Areas?


                                                 Page 175

 1       A.    No, I haven't, just on the peripheral up on
 2   the levee looking in.  That's it.
 3       Q.    And have you ever been in Everglades
 4   National Park?
 5       A.    Uh-huh.
 6       Q.    And when have you been in Everglades
 7   National Park?
 8       A.    Just visiting the Visitor Center with Mike
 9   Zukoff, general facilities over there, just a couple
10   of times.  I have not been into the trails, have not
11   been airboats, have not visited in the interior
12   Everglades.
13       Q.    How often have you visited the Research
14   Center?
15       A.    Twice.
16             MR. GAINES:  Was it the Research or the
17        Visitors Center?
18             THE WITNESS:  Research.
19             MR. GAINES:  I am sorry.
20 BY MR. GARVER:
21       Q.    And do you recall when those visits were?
22       A.    No, not exactly, no, several years ago,
23   within the last two years.
24       Q.    Do you recall the purpose of those visits
25   to the Research Center?


                                                 Page 176

 1       A.    To discuss with Mike possible projects with
 2   the Soil Conservation Service to characterize
 3   benchmark soils within the Park.
 4       Q.    And we have already discussed that
 5   proposal, correct?
 6       A.    Yeah.
 7       Q.    Do you know what the basis for the 378 acre
 8   figure is, as used in connection with this water
 9   treatment plan?
10       A.    I did not calculate the acreage.  Hutcheon
11   Engineers did, as design engineers for a
12   sedimentation basin that would be in line with the
13   chemical dosing station, I believe, that the amount
14   of acreage that they felt was necessary to settle out
15   the amount of residue from treatment of water along
16   the New River Canal, North New River Canal.
17       Q.    Do you know whether this water treatment
18   area was intended to treat the same amount of water
19   as is proposed for treatment in Storm Water Treatment
20   Area No. 3?
21       A.    No, I don't know for sure.
22       Q.    Is Dave Stewart at Hutcheon Engineers a
23   person to ask these questions?
24       A.    Yes.
25                  (Discussion off the record.)


                                                 Page 177

 1             MR. GARVER:  Doctor Anderson, we are just
 2        going to try and just summarize some testimony
 3        that was missed here.
 4             MR. GAINES:  Let just state, there was a
 5        momentary malfunction of the court reporter's
 6        machine here, and we have to just sort of go
 7        back and recreate what we just did.  We missed
 8        about maybe one or two minutes of questions and
 9        answers here.
10             MR. GARVER:  Right.
11                  (The document referred to was
12                  thereupon marked Anderson Exhibit
13                  No. 4 for Identification.)
14 BY MR. GARVER:
15       Q.    We had marked Anderson Exhibit No. 4, and
16   you testified that you did not prepare this exhibit;
17   is that correct?
18       A.    I did not prepare this particular exhibit.
19       Q.    And you don't recall or don't know who
20   prepared the first page of this exhibit; is that
21   right?
22       A.    No, I do not.
23       Q.    And the second page of this exhibit I
24   believe you testified is derived from a page in
25   Anderson Exhibit No. 2 marked as Bates number page


                                                 Page 178

 1   0930266; is that correct?
 2       A.    That's correct.
 3                  (The document referred to was
 4                  thereupon marked Exhibit No. 5 for
 5                  Identification.)
 6 BY MR. GARVER:
 7       Q.    Doctor Anderson, you have been handed
 8   what's been marked as Anderson Exhibit No. 5.
 9             Can you identify this document?
10       A.    Yes.  That's the proposal we discussed for
11   the Knights Farm Nutrient Study RFP No. C89-0377.
12       Q.    I'd like you to turn to Page 4 of this
13   exhibit, please.  The first indented paragraph on
14   that page states, "Studies are currently in progress
15   regarding the rate of nutrient release and
16   variability of soil chemical characteristics from EAA
17   soils and should be completed in 1989."
18             Are those the studies that you mentioned
19   earlier in your resume as relating to your opinions
20   regarding the STA proposal?
21       A.    No.
22             These are different documents which are
23   published, and it's listed on Page 8 of my resume
24   which is Anderson No. 1, Page 8, Number 24.  It also
25   relates to the Ph.D thesis of Diaz, which is not in


                                                 Page 179

 1   the resume.
 2       Q.    I'd like you to turn to Page 7 of this
 3   exhibit, please, and I'd like to refer you to the
 4   beginning, to the paragraph, the last paragraph that
 5   begins at the bottom of the page which states in the
 6   first sentence, "The use of management wetlands to
 7   control P depends on biological immobilization, as
 8   well as physio-chemical soil absorption."
 9             Did you write that sentence?
10       A.    I believe I did, although it could have
11   been either one of my other colleagues, but I put the
12   document together for a group of us.
13       Q.    Do you know what the basis for that
14   statement is?
15       A.    Sure, yes.
16       Q.    What is it?
17       A.    Biological immobilization is referring to
18   plant uptake and retention of phosphorus, in
19   particular, phosphorus as well as any roots that are
20   immobilizing nutrients from water or from the soil as
21   well as any other biological animals that would be
22   tying up the physical phosphorus within their bodies
23   and be retained in the wetlands; that's referred to
24   as the biological immobilization of phosphorus.
25       Q.    What about the physio-chemical soil


                                                 Page 180

 1   absorption?
 2       A.    Physio-chemical soil absorption of
 3   phosphorus refers to the soil characteristics that
 4   affect phosphorus retention specifically in the soil.
 5   Those are related to, both, chemical and physical
 6   aspects.
 7       Q.    When you prepared this report or this
 8   proposal in 1989, what experience had you had with
 9   managed wetlands?
10       A.    I have not worked with managed wetlands.
11             If I could rephrase.  The wetland EAA is a
12   managed wetland or formally was a wetland, the same
13   as in North Carolina, the same as anywhere else where
14   organic soils have been used for some other land use,
15   other than strictly for wildlife.
16       Q.    On Page 8 of this document, the first full
17   paragraph begins, "Although P cycling in histosols is
18   very complex, it is likely that P levels can be
19   managed effectively with a strategy that considers
20   relatively few soil chemical and environmental
21   factors."
22             Can you explain what that sentence means?
23       A.    Well, continued, "Most important of these
24   are the inorganic soil constituents that have a major
25   influence on the behavior of mineralized phosphorus."


                                                 Page 181

 1             If you want to complete the rest of the
 2   sentence, it more or less explains that paragraph.
 3             "Soils low in iron and aluminum sequioxides
 4   and free calcium carbonate tend to retain phosphorus
 5   poorly, while soils high in these constituents leach
 6   relatively little phosphorus from the system.
 7   Retention of phosphorus is also influenced by changes
 8   in soil moisture affecting redox chemical conditions.
 9   Phosphorus retention may vary considerably within the
10   EAA because of difference in soil chemical
11   properties, and changes in seasonal rainfall and
12   irrigation practices."
13       Q.    I believe you testified earlier that you
14   never actually conducted this study; is that correct?
15       A.    That was a proposal in response to the
16   request for proposals by the District at that time in
17   expectations of getting grants, money to do the work.
18       Q.    Have you reviewed any of the nutrient
19   removal studies that have been conducted on the
20   Knights Farm site subsequent to your writing this
21   proposal?
22       A.    No, I haven't.  I am not sure if the
23   Knight's Land Project is even operational yet.
24       Q.    Have you reviewed any of the studies that
25   have been conducated as part of the Everglades


                                                 Page 182

 1   Nutrient Removal Project?
 2       A.    I have not reviewed any materials, no.
 3       Q.    I'd like to refer back now to Exhibit
 4   No. 2, which is your May 1992 report.  I'd like you
 5   to turn to Page 1 of that report.  The second
 6   paragraph in that statement, the last sentence of
 7   that paragraph reads, "This proposal provides a
 8   description of technological development for a
 9   natural systems reduction of phosphorus from
10   agricultural class waters."
11             I guess first I should ask you:  Did you
12   write --
13       A.    I prepared this.
14       Q.    -- this document?
15       A.    I prepared this, yes.
16       Q.    In the sentence I just read to you, what is
17   referred to by the phrase unnatural systems reduction
18   of phosphorus?
19       A.    Our intention of this project isn't as it's
20   described in this document is to treat agricultural
21   waters in the existing canal systems, in the existing
22   systems, without modification of a particular waste
23   treatment facility.  It's to utilize the natural
24   environment as part of the aid for coagulation and
25   removal of phosphorus with chemical dosing.  So we're


                                                 Page 183

 1   looking at natural waters being treated and released
 2   for agriculture drainage which is as agricultural
 3   drainage class waters.
 4       Q.    When you say natural waters, are you
 5   referring to the agricultural drainage waters?
 6       A.    That's correct.
 7       Q.    It could be argued that those are really
 8   natural waters, couldn't it?
 9             MR. GAINES:  Objection, argumentative, but
10        you can answer the question.
11             THE WITNESS:  We could argue.
12 BY MR. GARVER:
13       Q.    I'd like you to turn to Page 2, and I refer
14   you to the third sentence on that page which reads,
15   "The compound and resultant precipitate must be
16   evironmentally compatible with the natural system."
17             What is meant by the term environmentally
18   compatible with the natural system in that sentence?
19       A.    I am sure it could be said many different
20   ways, but essentially it cannot be toxic to a
21   biological system.
22             In like a waste water treatment facility
23   which does not deal with living organisms within the
24   treatment plants, we're treating in the natural
25   system, in the system in agriculture drainage waters


                                                 Page 184

 1   in the canals in existing water works which there's
 2   biological activities.  Whatever we add, the
 3   compounds and precipitates or the residues have to be
 4   non toxic and must be environmentally compatible with
 5   any kind of agricultural class drainage rulings.
 6       Q.    So environmentally compatible, do you mean
 7   not toxic as one criteria, and also they must be --
 8   they must meet water quality standards applicable to
 9   agricultural drainage waters?
10       A.    What I perceive your question is, is that
11   the difference between a municipal water plant and
12   treatment of agriculture drainage waters in the EAA,
13   according to our proposal, is that in a water
14   treatment plant at a municipal plant, you have a
15   contained facility in which water is -- water is
16   released.  Before they are released, they are
17   completely entrenched in the facility.
18             Water treated as our proposal states has to
19   be compatible with biological processes that occur in
20   canals in the natural system, which means that
21   sediments or residues precipitated to the bottom of a
22   canal cannot be benthic to any organic residues that
23   are pumped out into adjacent fields and disposed of
24   have to be compatible.  Ultimate water quality must
25   be in compliance to agriculture Class III drainage


                                                 Page 185

 1   criteria.
 2             Also, there's a big difference between what
 3   is classically done as waste water treatment and what
 4   we would call as treatment in a natural system.
 5   Treatment in a natural system in Holland might be
 6   dosing a canal that naturally runs into a lake.
 7   That's natural water treatment.
 8             If you have a facility, then it's already a
 9   closed system, and you release the water only when it
10   meets a certain qualified standard.
11             Here in your work, in a natural system, you
12   must be compatible essentially with a lot of
13   different criteria in order for it to be in the
14   natural system.  It's already open.
15             I am not perceiving that you are
16   understanding the difference between the two.
17             MR. GAINES:  If he doesn't understand, he
18        will ask another question.
19 BY MR. GARVER:
20       Q.    When you say Class III agriculture waters,
21   what are you referring to?
22       A.    The State of Florida classes different
23   water releases in the state according to difference,
24   and they have requirements for the water quality of
25   every class water, the agricultural drainage.  Those


                                                 Page 186

 1   qualifications must meet what is called a Class III
 2   drainage.
 3       Q.    So does the phrase environmentally
 4   compatible with the natural system, did you intend
 5   that to mean environmentally compatible with the
 6   natural system in the Water Conservation Areas to the
 7   receiving waters?
 8       A.    Could you ask me again that question?  I am
 9   not sure I understand your question.
10       Q.    When you use the phrase environmentally
11   compatible with the natural system, did part of what
12   that phrase is referring to include environmental
13   compatibility of the chemically treated water with
14   the water that it is ultimately discharged to?
15       A.    Water is ultimately discharged into a
16   Conservation Area, possibly or discharged into the
17   works of the District.
18       Q.    So in other words, environmental
19   compatibility is determined by the receiving body?
20       A.    Environmental compatibility meaning that in
21   no step in the process of treatment is there a
22   toxicity problem, is there an incompatibility with
23   whatever environmental regulation might occur, in no
24   part of the process is there.
25       Q.    In considering chemical treatment as an


                                                 Page 187

 1   alternative to STA's, have you considered the effect
 2   of that chemically treated agricultural waters on the
 3   marsh ecosystem in the Water Conservation Areas?
 4       A.    No, we have not.
 5       Q.    At the bottom of Page 2, the last sentence
 6   on that page that carries over to the next page
 7   states, "The treatment process has a documented
 8   history of removing phosphorus and particulant matter
 9   from both large and small flows."
10             Does that sentence include removal or
11   include reference to removal of phosphorus and
12   particulant matter from agricultural flows?
13       A.    Yes.
14       Q.    And can you give me some examples of where
15   it's been used with agricultural flows?
16       A.    Lake Naardimeer in Holland is one example.
17             MR. GAINES:  I'd say there's an example in
18        the next sentence, Wahnbach Estuary Reserve.
19 BY MR. GARVER:
20       Q.    The Wahnbach Estuary Reserve has a
21   agricultural drainage water?
22       A.    Yes.
23       Q.    What is the lake that you mentioned in
24   Holland; what is that called again?
25       A.    Naadimeer.


                                                 Page 188

 1       Q.    Can you describe that chemical treatment
 2   system to me, please.
 3       A.    The treatment facility was built with funds
 4   that were received from the area from a railroad
 5   being built adjacent to the wildlife reserve.
 6   Before, that existing land use was primarily
 7   agricultural.  It surrounded the Reserve.  The
 8   decision was made to treat the water and to purchase
 9   land adjacent to the Reserve, and that treatment
10   plan, with funds from the railroad, was built to
11   handle all the agricultural water draining naturally
12   into that lake.
13             Today it's being maintained as a wildlife
14   reserve area with continued maintenance of the plant
15   water treatment facility.
16       Q.    Is the Lake Naardimeer system in an area
17   that has organic soils?
18       A.    Yes.
19       Q.    Are those soils similar to the histosols of
20   the Everglades Agricultural Area?
21       A.    As similar as you are going to get anywhere
22   else in the world, yes.
23             That particular area has been a freshwater
24   marsh area for quite some time, although some of the
25   organims are saltwater marsh, tidal water marsh area.


                                                 Page 189

 1   So there are some differences, but there's a lot of
 2   similarities.
 3             MR. GAINES:  How do you spell the name of
 4        that lake?
 5             THE WITNESS:  N-A-A-R-D-I-M-E-E-R, I am
 6        pretty sure.
 7 BY MR. GARVER:
 8       Q.    In the last sentence in that same paragraph
 9   on Page 3, that sentence states, "In future
10   developments, objectives will be to reduce phosphorus
11   in the natural system, under economical and
12   environmentally sound technology."
13             Again, when you use the phrase
14   environmentally sound there, what criteria are you
15   taking into account?
16       A.    Well, I will repeat.  To meet the standards
17   based on EPA or DER for agricultural drainage waters
18   and compatibility with organisms that are in the
19   natural system, making sure that there's no toxicity
20   problems.
21             It was primarily written in there to make
22   sure that if we desire to have aluminum products like
23   alum being used or, as I mentioned before, high PH
24   calcium products like calcium hydroxide or calcium
25   oxide, those have some incompatibility with the


                                                 Page 190

 1   natural system, that is, them being toxic to
 2   organisms.
 3       Q.    Does environmentally sound in that sentence
 4   include compatibility with water quality standards or
 5   regulations that apply to the Water Conservation
 6   Areas?
 7       A.    I think that's a leading question.  I think
 8   the only thing that can be said is that it will meet
 9   agricultural class standards, and it probably exceeds
10   any other standard that you have for waters in the
11   natural environment.
12       Q.    By natural environment, in that case, you
13   mean Water Conservation Areas; is that correct?
14       A.    That is 50 parts per billion standard that
15   has been set as a minimum compliance.
16       Q.    What did you mean when you said natural
17   environment?
18       A.    EAA drainage waters.  It could be the
19   Conservation Areas.
20             Maybe you could ask me directly what you're
21   intending to ask.
22       Q.    You used the words natural environment in
23   your answer, and I just was unclear what you were
24   referring to.
25       A.    When I refer to a natural system's water


                                                 Page 191

 1   clean-up or water remediation, natural systems
 2   meaning in a farm environment, you know, in a
 3   wildlife environment, in a system that is non rural
 4   or non urban setting that is not constructed with
 5   concrete bunkers and contained facilities.  It's in
 6   the natural environment.  There's fish.  There's
 7   bottom dwelling organisms.  There may be plants.  So
 8   that is a natural system.
 9       Q.    I guess I am just still confused whether
10   the future objectives with respect to this
11   technology, as you are explaining it in this report,
12   would include compatibility with water quality laws
13   or regulations or requirements in the Water
14   Conservation Areas?
15       A.    You just said it.
16             MR. GAINES:  Before you answer, let me
17        object to the extent you're calling upon
18        knowledge of water quality laws and standards in
19        WCA's.  I think that's a legal area.  He may
20        have expertise in that, but I don't think you
21        have established a predicate for that.  So I
22        object to the question.
23 BY MR. GARVER:
24       Q.    You can answer my question.
25       A.    I think you're trying to wrangle some


                                                 Page 192

 1   answer out of me that I am not sure that you really
 2   want.  Maybe I didn't use the right words.  We'll,
 3   put it here as an editorial problem.
 4             But just to explain it very directly to you
 5   is, whatever we do, we wanted to make sure that it
 6   complies to a water quality standard that meets and
 7   complies to regulations in the EAA.  That's our
 8   minimum.  That's our minumum standard that we have to
 9   abide to.  Our minimum standard is 50 parts per
10   billion phosphorus.  We may do much better than that.
11             Historically, from other individuals, other
12   locations that have used this technology, they do
13   much better than that, but all I can say is that the
14   objective is to meet the compliance of what is being
15   asked of the EAA for drainage waters.
16             Saying anything more than that is, I think,
17   foolish.  I mean, that's the objective.
18             MR. GARVER:  Can we take a one minute
19                  (Thereupon, a brief recess was taken,
20                  after which the following proceedings
21                  were had:)
22 BY MR. GARVER:
23       Q.    Did part of what you meant when you wrote
24   environmentally sound technology include meeting the
25   50 parts per billion phosphorus level that's being


                                                 Page 193

 1   asked of in the EAA; am I understanding that
 2   correctly?
 3       A.    That's correct, including the 50 parts per
 4   billion standard.
 5             MR. GAINES:  I think what he is -- I am not
 6        putting words in his mouth.  I think what he is
 7        saying is it would include, but not be limited
 8        to that.  That would be the minimum he would
 9        hope to accomplish; is that what you're saying?
10             THE WITNESS:  There's certain water quality
11        standards that you have to meet.  I mean, like I
12        said, you can't release waters that have a PH
13        exceeding whatever units.  You can't exceed
14        chloride concentrations by 50 percent or 10
15        percent.
16             MR. GAINES:  So there's other parameters?
17             THE WITNESS:  There's other parameters out
18        there that are listed and known and, obviously,
19        if you add something, you better make sure you
20        comply to overall standards, not only the
21        phosphorus, but other quality standards.
22             The question has been in the past whatever
23        chloride -- if you add ferric chlorides, do
24        chlorides exceed the limits allowable by law?
25        The answer is, no.  The answer is, we can't use


                                                 Page 194

 1        things that will exceed any limitations that the
 2        law requires us to follow.  It's got to be
 3        environmentally compatible with those laws.
 4        Okay?  I hope that's clear.
 5 BY MR. GARVER:
 6       Q.    Are you familiar with the so-called
 7   narrative nutrient standard?  Have you heard of that
 8   phrase?
 9       A.    Out of the Florida statutes?
10       Q.    Under Florida law, yes.
11       A.    Yes, I have got a copy of them in my
12   office.
13       Q.    What is your understanding of what the
14   narrative -- your understanding now, you know, I'm
15   not going to tie you to this, but your understanding
16   of what the narrative nutrient understanding is.
17       A.    It's a list of water quality requirements
18   for the different class waters that are specified,
19   what those limitations should be under law, and
20   there's a varied number of criteria.  Some of them
21   are synthetic chemicals, polyphenal carbons,
22   whatever.  It's a whole long list of things that are
23   in that particular listing.
24       Q.    Are you familiar with the standard that
25   says that nutrients should not be present in waters


                                                 Page 195

 1   to the extent that it causes -- and this is my own
 2   paraphrase -- that to the extent that it causes an
 3   imbalance in the native flora and fauna?
 4       A.    I have read something to that effect
 5   before, yes.
 6       Q.    In considering chemical treatment
 7   technology you have been looking into and considering
 8   future developments of that technology, have you
 9   given consideration to meeting the water quality
10   standard that's designed to prevent imbalances in
11   native flora and fauna?
12       A.    Would you define imbalance?
13       Q.    Regardless of my understanding of
14   imbalance, it really doesn't matter in the way I am
15   asking the question.
16       A.    Would the question be:  Does distilled
17   water change the flora of a marsh system or does
18   ultra pure water or very clean water change the
19   flora?
20             I have no idea, except in the examples that
21   I know of and I have given, there's not an imbalance
22   of flora, you know, in that area.  There's a healthy
23   outlook in those areas that I have listed where
24   chemical dosing has been used.
25       Q.    Which examples now are you referring to?


                                                 Page 196

 1       A.    Lake Naadameir, the Wahnbach area, those
 2   two examples in particular.
 3             I wish I wasn't on Record.
 4             MR. GAINES:  You are.
 5 BY MR. GARVER:
 6       Q.    Are you finished?
 7       A.    Uh-huh.
 8       Q.    On Page 4 of this Exhibit, the first
 9   paragraph in the middle of that paragraph in the
10   sentence, "Three phases of research are proposed,
11   bench scale testing, model scale testing and field
12   scale testing."
13             Is that the research that you testified to
14   earlier you believed would require two more years to
15   complete?
16       A.    If I recall the question, just make sure I
17   am recalling your question from this morning.  You
18   asked me previously how long would it take to get
19   pilot facilities; is that correct?
20             Can you rephrase your question from this
21   morning?
22       Q.    I am fairly sure I can't.
23             What time frame did you have in mind for
24   the research that's proposed here in this May 1992
25   report involving bench scale testing, model scale


                                                 Page 197

 1   testing and field scale testing?
 2       A.    This report was May 1992, and we were
 3   attempting to have a pilot running sometime in '93.
 4   So far, we have only funded -- the industry has
 5   funded bench scale testing.  We have not done model
 6   scale testing, which is an engineering scale model,
 7   nor have we done field scale testing at this
 8   particular time.  So the time intervals that were set
 9   in May 1992 obviously have not been met yet.
10       Q.    Are the model, scale testing and field
11   scale testing that you are referring to in this
12   sentence, are those a part of the work you're
13   proprose to do with Metcalf & Eddie?
14       A.    Very similar, that's correct.
15             The engineering phase and the engineering
16   consultants would be constructing the model scale
17   testing and the field scale testing with our group as
18   a support chemistry group behind the pilot.
19       Q.    I'd like you to turn now to Page 7 of this
20   report.  Near the bottom of that page there are three
21   bullets, and I am not going to ask you with respect
22   to the second one, 'cause I think we have covered it.
23   But with respect to the third bullet, "Resultant
24   sludges must be compatible for land application,"
25   what criteria did you have in mind there for


                                                 Page 198

 1   compatibility with lands application?
 2       A.    We did not want to have any resultant
 3   sludges or residues or sediments that would have to
 4   be disposed of in a land fill.  We wanted to make
 5   sure that these sludges could be utilized on adjacent
 6   lands for agricultural application, land application.
 7       Q.    And what criteria would determine whether
 8   the resultant sludges would have to be put into a
 9   landfill, as opposed to put in use for land
10   application?
11       A.    If there was a toxicity problem, than a
12   landfill would be an alternative.  If there was a
13   toxicity problem where it could not be land applied,
14   you'd put it into a landfill or maybe a matter of
15   convenience you would put it into a landfill.
16   However in this region, in this area, it's not of
17   convenience for desirability to put a landfill in.
18       Q.    At this point, is it an open question
19   whether the resultant sludges would be compatible for
20   land application?
21       A.    Yes.  There is no solid data to
22   substantiate in the EAA that we can proceed with that
23   until we do it until the research verifies that it's
24   correct.
25       Q.    And the final sentence on that page says,


                                                 Page 199

 1   "All compounds used at effective rates of dosing must
 2   be cost-effective."
 3             What criteria did you have in mind in terms
 4   of whether the compounds would be cost-effective?
 5       A.    Well, in terms of what can be used and what
 6   can't be used in we wanted to do with an iron 6
 7   compound, which I think they call ferrate materials.
 8   The price of that is extremely high, perhaps good for
 9   treating uranium polluted waters, but certainly not
10   phosphorus treated waters.  That's not going to be
11   cost-effective, although it might be very chemically
12   suitable.  So cost-effective, if you have options
13   between two chemicals.  Obviously you pick the lower
14   priced chemical.
15       Q.    In determining whether it's cost-effective,
16   would that involve balancing performance and the cost
17   of the chemical, basically?
18       A.    I was not responsible -- our group was not
19   responsible for determining the economic feasibility.
20   That was left up to the engineering consultants.
21   Ultimately, that's where it needs to stay, because
22   the question and maintenance of the facility, the
23   construction and all that are also part of the
24   cost-effectiveness of the system.  It may be found in
25   Caldwell's report issued next week.  That may be the


                                                 Page 200

 1   best research at this point.
 2       Q.    Have you been in contact with Braun &
 3   Caldwell towards preparing this report that will come
 4   out next?
 5       A.    They have contacted me several times.  I am
 6   trying to remember their names, Mr. Nissan.  I don't
 7   remember all their names exactly.  It may be found in
 8   Braun & Caldwell's report that will be out next week.
 9             I don't remember offhand.  Jim Nissan was
10   one of the individuals and a few others have talked
11   to me from their, both, California and Atlantic and
12   Orlando location regarding literature, regarding
13   Wahnbach and other examples that we have talked about
14   in previous meetings.
15             I have shared with them some of the
16   information, given them the names, addresses and
17   phone numbers for them to follow-up, and I believe
18   they have.
19       Q.    I'd like you to turn to Page 8 of this
20   exhibit, the second paragraph referring to mixing
21   energies and the need for mixing.
22             In the middle of that paragraph is a
23   sentence that states, "Energy requirements on farm
24   lands have some him limitations, although regional
25   treatment facilities will not have the same


                                                 Page 201

 1   limitations."
 2             What limitations were you referring to in
 3   that sentence?
 4       A.    If you have requirements for electrical
 5   power, there's not a pole in every location at a
 6   farm, whereas if you have a regional facility, you
 7   definitely can have a pole in every region.  There's
 8   obviously some limitations with being in the rural
 9   area that can't be reached by a normal power
10   requirement that may be for engines or motors.
11       Q.    Are those the only limitations you had in
12   mind in that sentence?
13       A.    At the moment, yes.
14       Q.    On Page 14, I'd like to refer you to the
15   second full paragraph on that page dealing with a
16   farm sized facility.  In the middle of that paragraph
17   is a sentence that reads, "Water level in this
18   section of canal will need to be maintained above the
19   surrounding ground water to prevent infiltration."
20             In your opinion, would that constraint,
21   meaning the need to maintain the treated water above
22   the surrounding groundwater, would that apply to a
23   full scale facility, as well?
24       A.    You can see David -- contact David Stewart
25   for that.  This particular comment is coming from


                                                 Page 202

 1   Hutcheon Engineers.
 2       Q.    On Page 20, did you write this page
 3   regarding the jar testing methodology?
 4       A.    Yes.
 5       Q.    In the jar testing that you performed, is
 6   there any flow component in the jar tests?
 7       A.    No, other than a mixing energy,
 8   no flow mixing energy, yes.
 9       Q.    Can you briefly describe to me how the jar
10   test was conducted?
11       A.    Approximately a quantity of one to two
12   liters of irrigation water or drainage water is
13   utilized.  There's paddles that are connected to a
14   rotating paddle and chemicals are added.  You have
15   agitation, depending on how long you want your energy
16   mixing to be, whether it be one second or thirty
17   minutes.  You take your water samples thereafter in
18   those vessels.  This is jar test methodology that is
19   used and accepted by the waste water treatment
20   industry.
21       Q.    In the third paragraph on Page 20, you list
22   parameters in the supernatant.
23             What is a supernatant in this case?
24       A.    That's the resulting water after treatment.
25       Q.    And the parameters you measured were PH


                                                 Page 203

 1   turbidity, phosphorus as phosphates and iron
 2   concentrations; is that correct?
 3       A.    That's corrrect.
 4       Q.    Is the phosphorus as phosphate, is that the
 5   same as the soluble inorganic phosphorus?
 6       A.    Yes, SIP.
 7       Q.    And why in those didn't you measure total
 8   phosphorus?
 9       A.    At the time this report was made before we
10   had any funding whatsoever, we did not have the
11   personnel for all the equipment, nor money to perform
12   all the necessary test requirements.  In order to do
13   it, you have to be fairly well set up.
14       Q.    Since you conducted the tests that were
15   reported in the May 1992 report, have you done
16   similar tests in which you did tests for total
17   phosphorus?
18       A.    Absolutely.
19       Q.    And are those results reported in your
20   November 1992 report?
21       A.    Yes, they are.
22             MR. GARVER:  Why don't we break here.
23          (Thereupon the deposition was adjourned)

                                                 Page 204

 1                    CERTIFICATE
 2 
 3   STATE OF  FLORIDA:
                      : SS.
 4   COUNTY OF BROWARD:
 5 
 6             I, JACKIE JOHNSON, being a Professional
     Reporter and Notary Public for the State of Florida
 7   at Large, do hereby certify that I was authorized to
     and did report the deposition of Doctor Anderson in
 8   stenotype; that the said witness was by me first duly
     sworn to testify the whole truth; that the reading
 9   and subscribing of the deposition were waived by said
     witness and by counsel; and that the foregoing pages,
10   numbered from 1 to 216, inclusive, constitute a true
     and correct transcription of my shorthand notes of
11   the deposition by said witness.
12             I further certify that the said deposition
     was taken at the time and place hereinabove set forth
13   and that the taking of said deposition was commenced
     and completed as hereinabove set out.
14 
               I further certify that I am not an attorney
15   or counsel of any of the parties, nor a relative or
     employee of any attorney or counsel connected with
16   the action, nor financially interested in the action.
17             The foregoing certification of this
     transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the
18   same by any means unless under the direct control
     and/or direction of the certifying reporter.
19 
               WITNESS my hand and official seal in the
20   City of Ft. Lauderdale, County of Broward, State of
     Florida, this 20th day of March, 1993.
21 
22 
23                        ____________________________
                          JACKIE JOHNSON, NOTARY
24                        PUBLIC AT LARGE.
                          MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:
25                        MAY 22, 1995


                                                 Page 205
 1 
 2 
 3 
 4 
 5 
 6 
 7 
 8 
 9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 


                                                 Page 206