1 1 STATE OF FLORIDA 2 DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS 3 4 AUTHORIZATION NO. 10988 5 6 Case Nos. 92-3038, 92-3039, 92-3040 7 8 SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE ) OF FLORIDA, a Florida Agricultural ) 9 Cooperative Marketing Association, ) ROTH FARMS, INC., AND ) 10 WEDGWORTH FARMS, INC., ) ) 11 and ) ) 12 FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, INC., ) UNITED STATES SUGAR CORPORATION; ) 13 and NEW HOPE SOUTH, INC., ) ) 14 and ) ) 15 FLORIDA FRUIT AND VEGETABLE ) ASSOCIATION, LEWIS POPE FARMS, ) 16 W.E. SCHLECHTER & SONS, INC., and ) HUNDLEY FARMS, INC., ) 17 ) Petitioners, ) 18 vs. ) ) 19 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT ) DISTRICT, an Agency of the State ) 20 of Florida. ) Respondent, ) 21 and ) ) 22 MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS OF ) FLORIDA, the UNITED STATES OF ) 23 AMERICA, and FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ) ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, and the ) 24 FLORIDA WILDLIFE FEDERATION, and ) the FLORIDA AUDUBON SOCIETY, and ) 25 SIERRA CLUB, ) Intervenors. ) JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 A P P E A R A N C E S 7 GEOFFREY GARVER, Esquire 8 Assistant U.S. Attorney 155 S. Miami Avenue, 6th Floor 9 Miami, Florida 33130 10 PATRICK S. COUSINS, Esquire 11 Popham & Haik 4000 International Place 12 Miami, Florida 33131 13 JONATHAN L. GAINES, Equire 14 Peeples, Earl & Blank, P.A. One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3636 15 Two South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 16 17 MORRIS ROSEN, Staff Planner South Florida Water Management District 18 West Palm Beach, Florida 19 20 DEPOSITION OF DAVID L. ANDERSON, Ph.D., taken on behalf of the Intervenors, on the 21 17th day of February, 1993, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in the 22 offices at 250 N. Australian Avenue, 14th Floor, West Palm Beach, Florida before me, 23 Phil Berglan, a Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of Florida. 24 25 JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 3 1 DAVID L. ANDERSON, Ph.D., 2 a witness being produced, sworn and examined 3 on behalf of the Intervenors does hereby 4 deposeth and saith as follows: 5 DIRECT EXAMINATION 6 BY MR. GARVER: 7 Q. Doctor Anderson, we will move right 8 along with the documents we were working on 9 yesterday. I would like you to turn now to 10 Anderson Exhibit No. 3. If you could briefly 11 identify that exhibit. 12 A. Technical Summary, August, 1991, 13 entitled, "Reduction of Phosphorous Loading in 14 the EAA Through Control of Sediments and 15 Suspended Solids in Drainage Water." 16 Q. Do you know who wrote this document? 17 A. It was a combined document prepared 18 by Hutcheon Engineers and myself. 19 Q. Can you tell me what portion of this 20 document you wrote. 21 A. Parts of this has been extracted 22 from other writings of mine. To be very 23 specific, Figure 1-1 is my figure, Pages 9 24 through 10.....it's hard for me to exactly 25 tell which parts have been extracted as far as JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 4 1 of the overall text. 2 But the overall document was formed 3 and put together by the staff at Hutcheon 4 Engineers. 5 Q. Did you then draft intermittant 6 sections in this report? 7 A. It looks like it, yes. 8 Q. Can you tell me why this report was 9 written. 10 A. At the time, we were asked to give a 11 summary of our current information that was 12 generated since the May presentation to the 13 Technical Oversight Committee, or to SAGE, and 14 this document was put together to expand on 15 the information base that we had generated at 16 that time. 17 Q. What new information had been 18 generated in connection with the chemical 19 treatment and sediment control proposed since 20 May of 1992, that were reported in this 21 report? 22 A. Well, the document information 23 listed in Pages 9 through 10 is a very brief 24 summary of the overall effort since May. It 25 does not contain any specific raw data other JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 5 1 than the data summarized from district data in 2 Table 1 of Page 10. 3 It contains really a summary of the 4 overall operation of our research program at 5 that time. 6 Q. What additional research had you 7 done between May, 1992, and August, 1992? 8 A. Actually between May and June, other 9 than support occasionally in the field with 10 Hutcheon Engineers, we were getting equipment 11 together, laboratory procedures together, 12 formulating and trying to get the right 13 personnel put together. 14 In July, we completed all of our 15 personnel in the laboratory and at our 16 facility. And at that time in July, we 17 started a lot of our jar work, our jar testing 18 work, and our laboratory studies which was 19 reported in the November report, 92-11. 20 Q. By August, had those jar tests been 21 completed? 22 A. No, not to the degree that the 23 report 92-11 explains, no. 24 Q. Does the August, 1992 report provide 25 information on data other than South Florida JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 6 1 Water Management District data? 2 A. No, it does not. It basically 3 outlines the importance of sediments in the 4 EAA and our concerns with the sediment 5 transport and the quantification of what 6 sediments we had reserved largely from the 7 Hutcheon Engineers collection standpoint. 8 Q. What are you referring to? 9 MR. GAINES: Ask him to take a look 10 at Table 1 here, just to verify that's 11 District data. I don't know whether it is or 12 not. I don't know if that's what you are 13 referring to. 14 A. Well, to refer you to Page 11, 15 entitled, "Canal Systems, Farm Canal Water 16 Quality," 3.1, second paragraph. "An 17 experiment was developed to determine actual 18 amounts of sediments transported during the 19 pumping event. On May 29th, 1992, water 20 quality samples were collected at locations 21 approximately 200 feet upstream at three 22 separate farm stations. See Appendix A." 23 That is the stations that are 24 reported there in the next table, Table 1 on 25 Page 12. JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 7 1 Q. (BY MR. GARVER) Who did this 2 sampling that is referred to in the paragraph 3 you were just reading from? 4 A. Hutcheon Engineers. 5 Q. Is that the same data that is 6 reported on Page 27 of this August, 1992 7 report entitled, "Sediment Transport Study"? 8 MR. GAINES: Page 27? 9 MR. GARVER: It's not numbered. 10 It's the page after Page 26. It's actually 11 the two pages following Page 26. 12 A. Yes, that's their data that they 13 generated, that's correct. 14 Q. (BY MR. GARVER) I would like to you 15 turn to Page 9 of Exhibit No. 3. In the last 16 full paragraph on Page 9, the last sentence 17 reads: "Additional field samplings have been 18 made to ascertain the variability of the water 19 in the EAA and to determine the parameters 20 influencing coagulation and sedimentation." 21 What field sampling is being 22 referred to in that sentence? 23 A. That is field samples that were 24 reported in report 92-11. But before that 25 time, we had made random samples of water JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 8 1 samples throughout the EAA on a random basis 2 just trying to find out what the variability, 3 initial variability, falls from, basically a 4 benchmark characteristic that we needed to 5 take a look at. 6 Those have not been reported in any 7 of our reports. Based on those very 8 preliminary results in our laboratory trying 9 to get our benchmark levels or concentrations, 10 we initiated EPD samples that were reported in 11 the report in 92-11. 12 Q. Why were the randomly selected 13 samples never reported? 14 A. There wasn't any particular 15 direction that we wanted to keep the data and 16 turned the data strictly within in-house 17 laboratory trying to make sure that we might 18 have an understanding of what waters we were 19 working with, just an in-house check. 20 Q. What was the purpose of obtaining 21 that data? 22 A. To establish some variabilities, so 23 we had a handle on what kind of variabilities 24 we could expect when we start a formal 25 program. These were preliminary samples JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 9 1 before we started officially, to start 2 something on a more formal basis. 3 Q. How were sites, these random sites, 4 selected for the random sampling that you just 5 described? 6 A. We stayed within the district canals 7 -- not on anybody's property. We stayed 8 entirely in the district canals, driving on 9 roads and looking at the main canals. 10 Q. How many different sampling sites 11 were included in this initial random sampling? 12 A. I don't recll how many, off-hand. 13 It would have been a dozen, twenty. 14 Q. What were the results of that random 15 sampling effort? 16 A. I don't recall exactly. 17 I may want to clarify something here 18 just for your benefit. 19 Q. Okay. 20 A. Really, based on the data that I 21 received regarding the district data on the 22 basin work on Table 1, Page 10, that basically 23 allowed us to -- encouraged us to look at the 24 variabilities of water, not to assume that we 25 had one constant variability. JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 10 1 I think the general observation from 2 people looking at our work was we'll establish 3 a dosing level and establish a chemical for us 4 and give us a recipe. And obviously our water 5 quality was dramatically changing from time to 6 time or from sample to sample. 7 We could not do that with any degree 8 of certainty and the determination of some 9 kind of variability feeling of what we were 10 working with was essential. And this initial 11 data from the district which was data received 12 from the district was a basis for us to start 13 looking at the variability question. 14 And it wasn't until formally where 15 we looked at sampling at the stations in the 16 EPD that we could actually say, "This is our 17 program, here is our variability." 18 Q. Was there any particular parameter 19 or parameters as to which you were interested 20 in finding more about the variabilities? 21 A. Well, initially, of course, the most 22 important, total phosphorus and soluble 23 phosphorus, but we were looking -- interested 24 in looking at pH and conductivity and various 25 other parameters that could have been employed JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 11 1 at that time before our full knowledge of what 2 was important. 3 So we were taking a very broad 4 approach and looking at a broad range of 5 characteristics. 6 Q. What was the purpose of the Sediment 7 Transport Study that is discussed on Pages 11 8 and 12? 9 A. The basis of interest in sediments 10 stems from how sampling is done of waters in 11 the EAA for total phosphorus. Total 12 phosphorus consists of particulate insoluble 13 fractions and the determination of the 14 particulate load is also very variable but 15 obviously that has a very important aspect to 16 the total phosphorus. 17 That being the case, there is 18 interest to know if these particulate 19 fractions in the water, whether or not it can 20 set sediment and sediment actually can fall 21 and collect on the bottom of the canals. At 22 what rate does -- the deposition rate, what 23 rate does it -- how much is disturbed, how 24 much is compacted, what are the concentrations 25 of phosphorus in those sediments if they are JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 12 1 redisturbed and redistributed. 2 If your flows are very high, you 3 obviously have scalping of the bottom 4 sediments whether it be next to a pump or 5 downstream, that any disturbance of that 6 bottom sediment load would introduce an 7 additional factor that would increase the 8 total phosphorus loading. 9 Whether or not it came from a farm 10 or not, it could have been sediment in the 11 works of the district at a high flow time that 12 could have redistributed in the water and 13 penalized anybody because it was a residual 14 that historically has been there. 15 So an understanding of the sediment 16 loading is probably critical for us to 17 understand how sediments are resuspended and 18 redistributed, how it might even go further as 19 the chemical process reduction, the potential 20 process where phosphorus is actually released 21 into a soluble form from the sediments, is 22 important for us to understand in the future. 23 That was the intent of the 24 interest. That was why an interest in the 25 sediment control was started, because of a JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 13 1 particular knowledge that particular loading 2 was very important. 3 Q. To what extent did the sediment 4 transfer study that is reported in the August, 5 1992 report assist you in providing answers to 6 the objectives you were interested in? 7 A. Well, I believe the Florida Sugar 8 Cane League was asked to present some 9 documentation to the SAGE Committee regarding 10 why or what direction they wanted to travel, 11 what was important. This information was 12 presented to emphasize the importance of 13 sediment control. 14 I think that was the intent of 15 producing it before SAGE, was to give SAGE 16 Committee members some information to think 17 about that might have not been apparent 18 previously to that point or to inform them 19 that, yes, the industry was knowledgeable 20 about it or thinking about it. 21 This certainly was not an all 22 conclusive study report, but more, I would 23 imagine, an educational attempt just to inform 24 the SAGE Committee and to start on an honest 25 basis of starting to look at this in a JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 14 1 positive way. 2 So I think that was the intent of 3 this report, to give some basic information 4 with some, at least some, elementary attempt 5 at getting some information that might be used 6 as a basis of starting something else. 7 Q. Would it be correct to say then that 8 reporting on this sediment transport study was 9 intended to indicate that the particulate 10 fraction of the total phosphorus load was high 11 enough that sediment control should be 12 considered as an option for reducing 13 phosphorus in the drainage? 14 A. That's correct. That is a correct 15 assumption. 16 Q. I would like you to turn to Page 13 17 of Exhibit No. 3. And actually, the next set 18 of questions I have will deal with the section 19 entitled, "Farm Scale Demonstration 20 Projects" -- 21 A. Okay. 22 Q. -- which goes from Page 13 to Page 23 20. Did you prepare any of this section 24 entitled, "Farm Scale Demonstration Projects"? 25 A. No, that was a response -- JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 15 1 preparation responsibility was Hutcheon 2 Engineers. They were acting cooperators with 3 our group. 4 Q. Did you assist at all in the 5 preparation of these sections? 6 A. Yes, we had numerous meetings during 7 the summer to discuss the concepts and the 8 direction that we thought might be viable. 9 Q. The concepts from the farm scale 10 demonstration project? 11 A. That's correct. 12 Q. The rock pits that are described on 13 Pages 13 and 14, are those the rock pit 14 concepts that we were discussing yesterday 15 that's primarily a sedimentation process? 16 A. That's correct. 17 Q. Who developed Figure 3-1 on Page 14? 18 A. Hutcheon Engineers. 19 Q. Did you assist in the preparation of 20 that? 21 A. We discussed it previously to their 22 design and their drawing of this drawing. 23 Their responsibility in this overall project 24 was to do the engineering design or 25 construction if we moved in that direction, JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 16 1 which included some of the planning and some 2 of the figures related to engineering design. 3 Q. Did you make any suggestions or 4 recommendations on how to present or prepare 5 the proposal for rock pits that is included in 6 this report? 7 A. Well, the concept itself was 8 discussed by Florida Atlantic University in a 9 report that they had previously. I don't 10 remember exactly what year that was published 11 but there was a report, I believe, funded -- 12 it might have been by the district also at one 13 time. 14 And we had taken a look at that, 15 discussed it in an open meeting and nothing in 16 writing, and Hutcheon Engineers was then 17 instructed to develop a preliminary plan for 18 doing it based on our verbal discussion. 19 Q. Are you aware of any examples of the 20 use of rock pits as a means for controlling 21 sedimentation? 22 A. No, not actually, no. Our concepts 23 really were developed from a basis of knowing 24 we needed a sedimentation basin large enough 25 and a flow small enough so that the JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 17 1 sedimentation process would occur. Rock pit 2 fits the general category for the flows that 3 we were looking at to be very successful in 4 doing that. 5 Also the fact that Florida Atlantic 6 University's report from years previous 7 indicated very, very small levels of 8 phosphorus, total phosphorus, in those pits, 9 and we were interested in the general 10 chemistry of a rock pit and its impact on 11 water, drainage water, that would flow through 12 it and exit through it at some point which is 13 demonstrated in Figure 3-1 on Page 14. 14 Q. Are you aware of any disadvantage to 15 using rock pits as a means for expelling 16 phosphorus? 17 A. None other than these rock pits 18 generally are not used for anything except for 19 water storage, that after their construction 20 and use, they essentially are no longer used, 21 that they are a low impact or a low impact 22 zone that could be used or utilized. There 23 are quite a few rock pits in the EAA. I don't 24 know the exact number, but there is quite a 25 few. JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 18 1 Some of them are in construction and 2 others are abandoned and have not been used 3 after they have been finished. This 4 particular rock pit was on Okeelanta 5 (phonetic) property down on the north New 6 River Canal, and it more or less fit our 7 desires to take a look at a fairly large 8 acreage of drainage, diversion of water 9 drainage, that could be diverted through the 10 rock pit structure with basically minimal 11 construction costs, and looked to be very 12 feasible and usable. 13 Especially in the view that total 14 phosphorus is a particulate that needs to drop 15 out as a sediment, this looked like a very 16 good site to both study the sediment design 17 and controls as well as to look at chemical 18 dosing and collection of residues, should we 19 have gone to that site. 20 Q. What is -- has a demonstration 21 project using rock pits been initiated? 22 A. No, it was not initiated. Our group 23 had sampled the waters coming off this area 24 and the concentrations of phosphorus were well 25 below 60 -- very low concentrations of total JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 19 1 phosphorus. And for the investment of money 2 that we were going to invest on this, we 3 decided, or it was decided for us, that this 4 was not a suitable site because loading was 5 essentially very low to begin with. 6 Q. Were any other rock pits in the EAA 7 considered? 8 A. We considered using various ones but 9 this one was the one that we wanted to focus 10 on because it was available. The company was 11 interested in cooperating and developing it. 12 Basically time has been so short, this being 13 between July or August to this period of time, 14 that very few alternatives have been seriously 15 considered because money has to be up front 16 before we initiated some of these things. 17 An initial survey of existing water 18 quality must be done. We have not proceeded 19 with this basically because we did not have 20 funding support to continue a project that 21 would have some start and some finish. 22 Q. In your opinion, how much of the EAA 23 phosphorus load could be removed using the 24 rock pit technology? 25 A. I am not sure if I know the facts JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 20 1 and figures for that. I certainly haven't 2 calculated them myself but probably a very 3 substantial amount of flow could be diverted 4 to rock pits of this caliber. Certainly there 5 is some percentage but I can't -- I am not 6 going to guess on the percentage. 7 Q. In your opinion, can rock pits alone 8 reduce phosphorus, long term average 9 phosphorus concentrations in the EAA 50 parts 10 per billion? 11 A. In my opinion, it will contribute to 12 lowering it, but it may not be a total 13 solution by itself. 14 Q. In your opinion, is it possible that 15 it could be a total solution by itself? 16 A. In my opinion, I don't think it 17 would be a total solution by itself. 18 Q. Do you know how many total acres of 19 rock pits there are in the EAA? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Do you know anyone who might know 22 that? 23 A. Palm Beach County planners probably, 24 since each of these rock pits have to be 25 permitted. JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 21 1 Q. Do you know how many of the rock 2 pits in the EAA, existing rock pits in the 3 EAA, would be available for use to reduce 4 phosphorus loads and concentrations? 5 A. I don't know the number of rock 6 pits. The location of those rock pits on 7 different properties and to allow a diversion 8 of acreage or water, whether it be a section 9 of land or 4,000 acres of land, a section 10 being 600 and some acres, would depend largely 11 on where that rock pit was located, whether it 12 was close to existing works of the district, 13 or whether it was internal, several miles 14 within property lines. 15 It is feasible -- it is possible. I 16 would likely assume that the engineers that 17 controlled the private property in that area 18 would be the best source of information as to 19 whether or not this would be likely, you know, 20 they could divert enough water through the 21 existing rock pits. 22 It would have to be a rock pit -- 23 each site would have to be looked at by itself 24 and evaluated. 25 MR. GAINES: Your question is about JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 22 1 physically available as opposed to whatever 2 legal or economic or private property, those 3 kinds of issues? I mean, you are asking him 4 which would be or how many would be suitable 5 for this technology or how many would be -- 6 MR. GARVER: I was not calling it 7 available. Just a general question 8 MR. GAINES: I would object to those 9 parts of the question that he would have no 10 basis to answer, but I think he answered from 11 a physically available viewpoint anyway. 12 Q. (BY MR. GARVER) Is that where -- 13 you answered my question in terms of 14 physically available suitability as opposed to 15 legal availability? 16 A. No, I was answering in terms of how 17 many physically were available. I don't know 18 the number. Whether they are suitable to be 19 used, I don't really rightly know. I think 20 each rock pit would have to be considered by a 21 case by case situation. 22 But yes, we have discussed in our 23 meetings, you know, in general meetings, 24 whether or not rock pits could be utilized. 25 And the general opinion is, yes, there is a JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 23 1 possibility that rock pits can be utilized for 2 diversion and for basin sediment controls. 3 Q. Are the rock pits in the EAA 4 concentrated in a particular area or are they 5 scattered about the entire EAA? 6 A. Generally, the rock pits are along 7 Highway 27, as well as a new highway. In fact 8 DOT owns -- Department of Transportation, owns 9 several rock pits or borrow pits along New 10 Highway 80 going out into the Everglades. 11 They are basically lined up along major 12 roadways. 13 Now, you are asking questions that 14 we have been asking ourselves in the past. 15 You know, the same questions you have asked 16 are no different than what we have asked in 17 the past so -- 18 Q. In your opinion, what additional 19 work would be required to determine whether, 20 and the extent to which, rock pits would be 21 used to remove phosphorus from agricultural 22 discharges in the EAA? 23 A. Essentially following these types of 24 plans that are outlined here is really all it 25 would take. The most simplest evaluation, JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 24 1 which is the cheapest evaluation, is merely to 2 measure water quality before and after it 3 leaves. More intensive studies could also be 4 done to look at the deposition rates if it was 5 interested. 6 Basically you would take a look at 7 water quality before and after and determine 8 how much particulate loading has been 9 reduced. That would be the basic study, a 10 very inexpensive study, that can then be done. 11 More intensive studies obviously would also 12 have to be looked at to quantify materials, 13 but I think if preliminary information is 14 desired, it probably is not a radical thing to 15 set up a research program that would determine 16 some suitablilty to preliminary data. 17 Q. To your knowledge, has such a 18 research program been developed? 19 A. Well, we were hoping to do it but we 20 have not. Primarily, again, because the 21 funding was not secured. 22 Q. To your knowledge, were rock pits 23 considered a low priority in terms of 24 funding? 25 MR. GAINES: Object to the form. By JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 25 1 who? Don't answer it until he clears it up. 2 By who? 3 MR. GARVER: By whoever is making 4 the funding decision. 5 MR. GAINES: Wait a minute. I think 6 that is potentially -- a question that 7 potentially gets into the privileged areas. 8 Unless you can clarify who you are asking 9 about, who is making decisions, I will 10 instruct him not an answer. 11 MR. GARVER: What kind of 12 privilege? 13 MR. GAINES: Attorney/client 14 privilege. 15 MR. GARVER: That's interesting. 16 MR. GAINES: In other words, you can 17 ask him about his own priorities or his own 18 research but, you know, I think you see the 19 problem with the question. 20 MR. GARVER: Not exactly. I mean, 21 does the Florida Sugar Cane League make its 22 funding decisions based on conversations with 23 its lawyers, Mr. Gaines? 24 MR. GAINES: I am not being 25 deposed. I mean, your question is what, is JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 26 1 funding considered a high priority or 2 something along those lines. If you are 3 asking to him, then he can answer the 4 question. 5 A. It's my opinion that this is 6 something that should be pursued, correct. It 7 should be pursued. It has some viability to 8 it. The quantification of numbers need to be 9 obtained. 10 Q. (BY MR. GARVER) I would like to 11 turn now to Pages 15, 16 and 17 of Exhibit 12 No. 3. 13 A. Figure 3-2? 14 Q. Yes, right. Page 15 and Figure 3-2 15 III-2 and Figure III-3, is this another 16 section that Hutcheon Engineers wrote or 17 prepared? 18 A. This is a conceptual plan of a 19 possible design that we may want to consider. 20 These are not designed or engineering plans 21 for construction. They are conceptual plans 22 so that a visualization can be made and 23 discussed as to whether or not they wanted to 24 pursue it. 25 That was also one of the projects JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 27 1 that we had considered as an expanded canal 2 site to look at widening, increasing the 3 surface areas of the canal slowing down flows 4 so that particulate settling can be done at 5 appropriate times whether or not we are dosing 6 wih chemicals and trying to remove sediment 7 and residue together, or without dosing and 8 strictly wanted to look at sediment. 9 There are two aspects to the 10 chemical dosing that are important to relate 11 back to sediment control. No. 1, you must 12 have a handle or some degree of knowledge or 13 control over removals of residues if you are 14 going to use rack gravitation for removal. 15 No. 1, your flows -- your particles 16 must coagulate, be heavy enough so that they 17 are able to settle to the bottom of a canal. 18 No. 2, in order for that to happen 19 and encourage that to happen and slow down 20 flows, one of the ways of doing that is not 21 deepening a canal, but widening out a canal 22 and bringing up the surface area. 23 The canal expansion, expanded canal 24 concept, was to do exactly that. It was to 25 open up and increase the width of the canal, JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 28 1 drop your flows down that would encourage 2 sedimentation. 3 For chemical dosing, we had 4 discussed concepts of how to collect residue 5 using such constructed canals, expanding 6 canals or to construct along with it 7 simultaneously traps which are essentially 8 pockets in the bottom of the canals to deflect 9 residue and moving bedloads -- we call them 10 bedloads. 11 The other aspect to this is 12 sediment. Some sediments are immobile, they 13 are compacted. They stay on the bottom unless 14 they are physically scaled down by high 15 velocity water moving at a large pump rate. 16 In other cases, there is a more 17 diffuse particles that are toward the bottom 18 but mobile, and when there is flow that goes 19 -- particles which are -- it's hard to 20 describe, but there is a lot of particulate 21 loading close to the bottom which moves also 22 with the flow. 23 The only way to keep this bedload 24 from traveling to a pump and then being 25 registered as a total phosphorus as part of JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 29 1 the contribution of this total phosphorus to a 2 particulate, that needs to be intercepted. 3 And this particular project was conceived to 4 intercept that bedload whether it be from a 5 residue from chemical dosing or the bedload 6 that is in the mobile phase in the canal. 7 And in relation to what you were 8 asking about diversion previously, it was 9 surmised that we would divert large amounts of 10 drainage through that existing modified canal 11 section so that we had a control of where that 12 drainage water went and where it exited. That 13 was the plan, this was a concept plan. 14 Again, we did not proceed with that 15 due to nonfunding, and it still is a viable 16 concept just like the rock pit concept. We 17 certainly do need to verify this through 18 collection of data eventually. And the 19 principal expense, of course, is the private 20 landowner to bring this equipment, heavy 21 equipment, in there, and do the physical work. 22 And that is not a small amount of 23 money. We are talking about $50,000 or 24 $100,000. That is a lot of money even for a 25 large farm. So unless there is a clear JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 30 1 direction, I think, in support, whoever is 2 funding this, I believe that's probably what 3 probably hindered us to proceed, is a 4 nondefinitive direction that we were going. 5 Q. Has there been a demonstration 6 project of the expanded canal? 7 A. Just in plan only. We had sampled 8 some locations that we wanted to take a look 9 at. We looked at the water quality from those 10 locations but we have not proceeded with that. 11 Q. I would like you to turn to Page 24. 12 Who collected the primary canal sediment core 13 data that is discussed on Page 24? 14 A. Hutcheon Engineers. 15 Q. Was this sampling done in connection 16 with the sediment transport study that we 17 discussed earlier? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. What was the purpose of the sediment 20 core data collection? 21 A. It was to -- basically the cores 22 were to look at how deep were some of these -- 23 the depth, how deep or how variable was the 24 depth of sediment involved in these canals, 25 and looking at the total phosphorus that was JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 31 1 present in the sediments as a possible 2 contributor ultimately to the collected water 3 samples which would contribute to the total 4 phosphorus discharge. 5 If those sediments were not there, 6 obviously they would not contribute to total 7 phosphorus if it was collected or 8 redistributed. What we were interested in was 9 looking at the distribution or the depth of 10 sediment accumulation in some existing canals, 11 and the canals we were looking at and what was 12 the total phosphorus content. One core sample 13 is listed in report 92-11. 14 Q. Who did the analysis of the core 15 data? 16 A. That was contracted out. I am not 17 sure who did this. You would have to check 18 with Hutcheon Engineers. They had their own 19 private consulting company. 20 Q. Is this something that Dave Stewart 21 could answer? 22 A. Dave Stewart should be able to 23 answer, yes. 24 MR. GARVER: Off the record for a 25 second. JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 32 1 (A brief off-the-record discussion 2 was here had). 3 MR. GARVER: I would like to get 4 this next one marked as Exhibit No. 6. 5 (Deposition Exhibit No. 6 was here 6 marked for identification purposes by the 7 court reporter). 8 Q. (BY MR. GARVER) Doctor Anderson, I 9 am handing you what has been marked as 10 Anderson Exhibit No. 6. Can you identify this 11 exhibit? 12 A. It's an updated report dated 13 November 19th, 1992, report 92-11 entitled, 14 "Reduction of Phosphorus Concentrations in 15 Agricultural Drainage of the EAA by 16 Participation, Coagulation, and 17 Sedimentation." 18 Q. Who prepared this report? 19 A. I prepared it. 20 Q. Did anybody assist you in preparing 21 this report? 22 A. My staff assisted me in putting this 23 together. Staff's name on, I guess, the Page 24 I, single I. 25 Q. On the second page of this exhibit, JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 33 1 can you identify what this page is. 2 A. This is a letter written to Doctor 3 Peter Rosendahl, the Florida Sugar Cane 4 League. This is the letter you are referring 5 to? 6 Q. Yes. It's a letter you wrote? 7 A. It's a letter I wrote basically as 8 an introduction letter to the report giving an 9 updated report to the project. 10 Q. The second sentence of the first 11 paragraph reads, "Although you nor the FSCL 12 have requested this report, we are at the 13 stage in our research whereby this report was 14 essential." What did you mean by saying that 15 this report was essential at this time? 16 A. For us, we needed to stop at the 17 time of -- we had been, first of all, very 18 busy with a lot of the work. Not just busy 19 work but producing a lot of information that 20 needed to be digested. We needed to stop, 21 formulate what we saw, what direction we 22 wanted to go. 23 This essentially would be internally 24 an essential step to any research program. 25 Not just to collect data for data's sake, but JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 34 1 to look at the data, find out what it means, 2 see what needs to be reevaluated or 3 reassessed, whether the data is good, bad or 4 indifferent, just for our internal assessment 5 of the research program, to look at it 6 honestly. 7 I think every research program must 8 stop at a certain period of time and evaluate 9 their data, must evaluate their database, and 10 this report reflects that moment in which we 11 have stopped and reassessed what we were 12 doing. And we felt the results were important 13 enough to update the research committee that 14 was responsible for funding the direction -- 15 or funding, not the directing, but funding 16 this research program. 17 Really, at no time were we asked to 18 produce any data for a certain objective 19 outside our group. We were pretty much 20 independent of what we could or could not do. 21 This report was not requested by the industry. 22 I submitted it, really, apart from 23 any request and the intent was to just clarify 24 the information and make sure people 25 understood where we were going and where we JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 35 1 were coming from. 2 Q. Who was on the research committee 3 that you just mentioned? 4 A. The copies of this letter, Andy 5 Rackely, Robert Buker, Hank Andries, Dennis 6 Stott, Bill Tarr, Mr. Parsons, Bello Wade and 7 Van Waddill was the director of the REC. He 8 was my director. 9 Q. Doctor Rosendahl, was he also on the 10 research committee? 11 A. Doctor Rosendahl was in charge of 12 the research committe and acted as project 13 coordinator for the Florida Sugar Cane League. 14 Q. To your knowledge, is this committee 15 still in existence? 16 A. To my knowledge, it is. Although 17 you are aware the Florida Sugar Cane League 18 has had changes. Doctor Rosendahl no longer 19 works for the Florida Sugar Cane League. 20 Q. Is Doctor Rosendahl still on this 21 research committee? 22 A. I can't answer that. I don't know. 23 Q. I would like you to turn to Page i. 24 And the first sentence in the text of this 25 page says, "The problem with chemical dosing JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 36 1 for the remediation of natural surface waters 2 (ie.,, phosphorus removal) is that there is an 3 uncertain water quality that changes with 4 time, location and environmental conditions." 5 When you use the phrase, "uncertain 6 water quality," in that sentence, is that 7 referring to variability in water quality 8 parameters that we have been discussing? 9 A. Which I use the term, "uncertain," I 10 refer to whether or not it can be predicted or 11 not predicted, whether the water quality at 12 one point in time can be predictably a certain 13 concentration or certain value. It cannot. 14 There is no certainty of predicting that 15 concentration because there are other factors 16 affecting the conditions. 17 Q. At the bottom of Page i, there are a 18 list of bullets relating to questions that 19 have arisen at that point. Some of those 20 refer to sediment and some of those refer to 21 residue. Can you just clarify for me what the 22 difference between sediment and residue is as 23 used in this, on this page. 24 A. Residue -- well, sediment is any 25 accumulation of any solid matter on the bottom JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 37 1 of a canal. Residue is what is the direct 2 product of precipitation from a chemical 3 dosing. 4 In a natural canal system or a 5 natural water, service water system, you have 6 a combination when dosing with a residue plus 7 the sediment, which really becomes the 8 sediment, also -- or we were just referring to 9 that ultimately as a residue. 10 That residue would contain the 11 sediment, either buoyant particles that did 12 not settle or a combination of those particles 13 that would settle without dosing. 14 Q. Just going through these bullets, 15 what questions had arisen with respect to 16 sediment characterization? 17 A. Do you want me to go down each one? 18 Q. Yes, that's what I was meaning for 19 you to do. 20 A. Our questions on sediment 21 characterization realizes at the time that we 22 did this, we were approximately six months 23 into our work, our funded work, the questions 24 we had about sediment characterization was 25 what were the concentrations we had -- excuse JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 38 1 me, let me go back. 2 Some data on Page 8 of the report, 3 Table 2.3.3, we had done some sediment work at 4 two sites and had done some initial, very 5 basic work on calculating the percentage 6 solids, it's ash content, percent nitrogen, 7 carbon, and phosphorus. From that 8 information, we knew that it's going to be 9 likely that in the future we will have to 10 characterize or work in a canal system and 11 dose in a canal system. We needed to have a 12 good characterization of that sediment before 13 dosing. 14 That's something that we needed more 15 work done. That was one of the things we were 16 pointing out. No. 2, sediment phosphorus 17 releases removal and redistribution. So much 18 -- some amount of phosphorus when it goes 19 anerobic without oxygen on the bottom of a 20 canal, will release phosphorus in time. We 21 don't know specifically how much phosphorus is 22 released from the bottom sediments into a 23 soluble form. 24 We don't know exactly how much of 25 this bedload, this sediment load, is also JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 39 1 redistributed. And we don't know how it's 2 redistributed after it's resuspended. Those 3 are some things that we don't know, was not 4 really in the scope of this project, but came 5 out as being very important for us to 6 determine, because ultimately chemical dosing 7 would -- you would have to have some knowledge 8 of the ultimate fate of this particulate 9 fraction with time. 10 Q. Before you continue, the problem of 11 having anerobic conditions, is that greater 12 the deeper the water is, in general? 13 A. It might be with greater sediment if 14 the sediment is deeper. Even though your 15 water has oxygen in it and it is freshly 16 pumped, below the sediment it may be 17 anerobic. The oxygen may not be one inch, two 18 inches, three inches below that sediment. 19 It may be anerobic, and most likely 20 would be. Therefore, what happens, how does 21 phosphorus redistribute through the sediment 22 as a soluble fraction, be reintroduced or 23 released into the water, is a question that 24 needs to be answered. 25 There has been some work done by JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 40 1 other researchers around the world on this 2 question but it's -- and some modeling, some 3 computer modeling, has been done. But we have 4 not, to my knowledge, done any work in South 5 Florida in the the EAA to model it under our 6 conditions. So that is an unknown. 7 Q. Would the problem of sediment 8 phosphorus release, removal and redistribution 9 also be a question that would need to be 10 resolved with respect to sediments accumulated 11 in rock pits if that technology were to be 12 used? 13 A. Yes, obviously, that's correct. 14 Q. Continue. 15 A. The third bullet to this residue 16 characterization, again, within the time frame 17 of the year that we have this funded project, 18 it is in the realm of what we would like to 19 accomplish. 20 We may not be able to accomplish all 21 of this this year, in our first year, but the 22 residue, what the product of the chemical 23 dosing is, what it precipitates and coagulates 24 as, we must have a full understanding of its 25 residue characteristics under different JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 41 1 conditions, under different water quality 2 conditions. 3 We don't know the exact ratio of 4 phosphorus to iron, for example, in our 5 residues which is likely to change greatly 6 because we have different carbon -- the amount 7 of carbon, all the carbon comes out with the 8 product. 9 We have different hardnesses and 10 alkalinities that effect the final residue 11 product. But we need to have a good 12 understanding of what that residue is so that 13 it can be used later on for the fourth bullet, 14 residue land application. Whether or not we 15 can utilize that, we need to know how stable 16 these different products are. 17 Because what chemical is used, for 18 example, iron chloride or iron sulfate, 19 whether it be in a ferrous or ferrate form, 20 will have slightly different characteristics 21 apart from each other. Some characteristics, 22 when they go anerobic, are different than 23 others, some are more stable than others. 24 Q. When you say, "stable," what do you 25 mean? JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 42 1 A. Stable meaning it's the second, 2 second bullet point, that how stable is 3 phosphorus when it goes anerobic/aerobic in 4 the sediment loads, bedloads. If it's stable, 5 that means we can accumulate a residue for 6 x-amount of time and clean it out only when we 7 fill the capacity of the trap or the canal or 8 the device that we are using for collecting 9 the residue in the canals. 10 If it's not stable, that is, 11 releases phosphorus or breaks down, then we 12 have to have a more active removal program. 13 Not necessarily does it preclude use of it, 14 but it just means we have to have a more 15 active removal of that sediment in time 16 instead of allowing it to accumulate. 17 And that is important if we are 18 using a rock pit versus a canal. A rock pit 19 has a large capacity probably for holding a 20 lot of materials whereas a canal does not. 21 It's likely that a maintenance program in a 22 rock pit will be very low. It's likely that a 23 maintenance in removal of sediments built up, 24 or residues built up, in a canal, would be 25 very high in comparison. So the residue JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 43 1 stability is important to understand and to 2 know. 3 Q. Are there any other characteristics 4 of the residue as to which you would like to 5 develop more information? 6 A. We wanted to really find out -- I 7 think I would like to find out the nature of 8 the iron bonding to the hydroxyl units, how 9 phosphorus or other components are actually 10 absorbing onto the surfaces, the charge 11 characteristics of it, the material. 12 There might be a number of other 13 characteristics important but that would 14 probably involve other colleagues at some time 15 in the future that would assist me in 16 determining those characteristics. 17 Q. Why are you interested in 18 determining or getting more information on the 19 phosphorus to iron ratio? 20 A. In textbooks, standard textbooks, on 21 this type of chemical dosing for wastewater 22 cleaning, very often textbooks quote an iron 23 to phosphorus ratio that needs to be 24 maintained to have good precipitation and 25 coagulation. These ratios might be 1 to 2, 1 JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 44 1 to 1.8, et cetera, et cetera. 2 What we have seen thus far is that 3 these ratios do not hold in our water quality 4 conditions, it might be one to a hundred or 5 one to ten, and largely because of the amount 6 of dissolved organic carbon, the color that's 7 in the water, the hardness and the alkalinity 8 differences. The quality differences that 9 consumes the chemical also react with the 10 reactions. 11 It does not allow this to make this 12 a hard and fast rule over ratio between iron 13 and phosphorus which typically, in most 14 textbooks, you see those ratios quoted but 15 they are not applicable for our conditions 16 because we have seen the ratios change 17 dramatically. This departs a little bit from 18 what is current knowledge. 19 Q. We can continue on with the rest of 20 the bullets. 21 A. The residue application. We need to 22 know whether or not it can be used, whether we 23 can pump the residues as a viscous amorphous 24 mass onto land and dispose of it that way, 25 whether or not there is any toxicity problem. JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 45 1 My expert opinion, my opinion, is that this is 2 not going to be a problem but certainly needs 3 to be addressed since this is -- we are -- if 4 we do this in a very large way, there will be 5 a large amount of mass produced, residue mass. 6 This is something that will have to be taken a 7 look at. 8 The second to the last bullet is 9 identification of on-farm and basin nutrient 10 budgets. Basically, if we do a dosing scheme, 11 we want to find out what the actual loading 12 was before we dosed and what the loading 13 leaving the farm is, and we need to have a 14 mass balance of the amount of phosphorus that 15 does or does not move off the farm or onto the 16 basins with this chemical process intact. We 17 don't have that information. 18 And the other information we do not 19 have is exactly what kind of projection of 20 sizing of facility is needed. We have 21 discussed sizing, very small pilot studies to 22 take care of small field problems to regional 23 facilities. 24 Those facilities or those plans and 25 projections have not been made as of this JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 46 1 moment, and maybe could not be done until 2 small pilot studies are done, or until all 3 parties get together and decide whether or not 4 this was economically affordable or suitable 5 for a solution. 6 Q. Since writing this November 19th, 7 1992 report, have you made any progress in 8 resolving any of the issues or questions that 9 you have identified with respect to these six 10 bullets on Page i? 11 A. No, we have not, not significantly. 12 Q. On the next page, Page ii -- 13 A. Let me clarify also here before we 14 get into detail of this report, if I may, we 15 are revising this report right now for 16 release. We have been asked to release this 17 report next week in a draft form. And we are 18 just currently trying to get copies that would 19 be released with all the corrections, verbal 20 or verbage corrections, or any other problems 21 that we might have seen. So by next week on 22 the 24th, we are expecting to release this 23 formally to the district. 24 MR. GARVER: Mr. Gaines, we would 25 like a copy of that as soon as it's available, JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 47 1 and we may have additional questions, I would 2 think, on that -- on the revised report. 3 MR. GAINES: That's fine. My 4 understanding is that just editorial revisions 5 of the -- 6 THE WITNESS: Yes, we are not 7 changing any numbers or anything like that. 8 We are just in the process of verbally going 9 through it and editing it. Some of the 10 language might have changed just to make sure 11 it's clear. So it's environmentally -- we are 12 environmentally sensitive, you know. Those 13 kinds of things, we want to make sure it's 14 language is very clear. 15 MR. GAINES: In other words, I am 16 not volunteering him for a second deposition 17 on this report but if there is some specific 18 change that emerges then you can make a case 19 and we can take it up. 20 MR. GARVER: Right, sure. I am just 21 going to reserve our right to do that if it's 22 appropriate. 23 Q. (BY MR. GARVER) On Page ii, the 24 executive summary table, towards the bottom of 25 this page there is a row labeled residual iron JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 48 1 concentration and under two of the columns 2 there is a notation, "Opt. Condition"; is that 3 optimum? 4 A. Optimum, yes. 5 Q. What is meant by optimum condition? 6 A. Chemical dosing cannot -- must be 7 done under certain water conditions. In some 8 cases, a certain pH is optimized, must be 9 optimized, to get optimum coagulation 10 properties. It might precipitate. It might 11 stay in a fog in small particles, but if it 12 doesn't -- isn't under the right water 13 conditions, it will not coagulate, come 14 together in sediment and fall out. So there 15 has to be optimal conditions met. 16 Q. I believe you stated in this case 17 it's primarily the pH condition that would 18 determine the outcome? 19 A. The pH is usually a way of adjusting 20 it. You restore it with variable charges 21 between solution and the particulate charge it 22 has on it. And pH allows you to have that 23 variable charge changed so that they attract 24 to each other instead of repel each other. 25 And a pH adjustment is used and is used in our JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 49 1 case, you know, to adjust to a more favorable 2 coagulation condition. 3 Often times, if you give time, a 4 longer residence time for the chemical to 5 react, it eventually does coagulate and fall 6 out, but if you are trying to optimize the 7 shortest time interval between dosing and 8 removal, then you have to optimize the water 9 conditions which refers to possible secondary 10 treatment or dosing or tertiary dosing to 11 recondition water. 12 Q. If, staying with this row entitled, 13 "Residual Iron Concentration," does this table 14 indicate that if you are not under optimum 15 conditions, then using ferric chloride or 16 ferric sulphate, will result in iron 17 concentrations in the water that are higher 18 than -- 19 A. Well, that's true with every one of 20 these chemicals, and especially true with 21 ferrous materials. We will probably change 22 part of this table to reflect that it's 23 possible under poor conditions you can always 24 get more iron in solution, or left in 25 solution, regardless of, you know, what JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 50 1 chemical is used, because always must you have 2 a good handle on the water quality before and 3 afterwards. 4 And the chemical process, again, 5 must match the engineering design for that 6 process so that if you are too low of a pH or 7 to high of a pH, that you don't -- again, of 8 one recipe is not going to be suitable if you 9 have a high variability of water conditions 10 entering a process. 11 So yes, under all -- for each one of 12 these chemicals, you can exceed that iron 13 residue concentration if you fall outside of 14 optimum conditions for those reactions. 15 Q. What frequency of monitoring in your 16 opinion would be necessary in a chemical 17 treatment program for the EAA? 18 A. Well, I believe we have got to start 19 with the maximum amount of monitoring, hourly 20 monitoring. I mean if we were to have a pilot 21 plant, I would not want to sequentially 22 monitor every hour or during the process, the 23 entire process, every 15 minutes. 24 MR. GAINES: Wait a minute. You are 25 asking him about a pilot program or if it was JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 51 1 applied to the EAA in practice? 2 MR. GARVER: I was asking very 3 generally. I think Doctor Anderson started by 4 saying at the beginning. 5 MR. GAINES: I want you to make sure 6 you are answering what he is asking you 7 there. 8 A. I think typically I would desire -- 9 my opinion is that we would have to have 10 optimal and have as many samples as possible 11 up front to make sure that we are -- the 12 process is correct. And as we get more 13 experience, that the process can be modeled or 14 predicted with reasonable certainties, then we 15 can drop away from that. 16 Typically a wastewater treatment 17 facility might be monitoring every hour, at 18 least every day. And that means that you have 19 to have fairly quick turn-around time, you 20 know, in your laboratory, that certain 21 analysis obviously couldn't be done if you 22 lack some facilities, but minimum monitoring 23 might be pH in line with the stream of water 24 or flow of water. It might be the color, it 25 might be the alkalinity. JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 52 1 We have also looked at doing buffer 2 pH, looking at the nitratable acidities. 3 Those kinds of things can be probably modeled 4 in the future to help the maintenance and 5 operation of such a facility if it should so 6 occur. 7 And after we have some knowledge 8 about that variability, then we can drop back 9 to begin where we have predictability or 10 certainty of things and back away from that. 11 Q. The next column down from iron -- 12 residual iron concentration or the next row, 13 excuse me, is labeled, "Sludge Quality," and 14 three of those columns has the notation, "Must 15 be removed"; can you explain what "Must be 16 removed" indicates in those columns? 17 A. Well, actually and there is some -- 18 probably I would rephrase the third column 19 which is iron chloride 2, probably is no 20 problem. The exception to all the iron 2 -- 21 again, remember that this was a preliminary 22 draft, an updated report, not for general 23 consumption, but when we release this part, 24 there might be some changes. But let me 25 explain the changes so you understand it. JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 53 1 Generally the iron 2 compounds 2 kinetically do not react very well. The iron 3 stays in solution for a long period of time 4 and if you want your reaction process to occur 5 very rapidly, the iron 3 or the ferric 6 chloride and ferric, first two columns of the 7 chemicals that you would want to choose. 8 If you have a very large residence 9 time, I mean the water is staying in a given 10 area for days or many hours at a time, it is 11 possible that ferric -- or ferrous chloride 12 and ferrous sulphate can be utilized. In 13 fact, we believe it can be very effectively. 14 Now, regarding to no problem and 15 must be removed, if a residue builds up on the 16 bottom as a sediment, if sediment plus the 17 residue occurs and we have anerobic 18 conditions, there is sulphur reducing bacteria 19 that reduce the sulphur -- sulphate to a 20 sulphur form, and change the characteristics 21 of that residue such that phosphorus is 22 rereleased into a soluble fraction, under 23 anerobic conditions. 24 It takes time, but if you were to 25 leave a sulphate residue, for example, on the JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 54 1 bottom of a sediment, I would assure -- have 2 great assurance that eventually those anerobic 3 bacteria would affect that residue stability 4 and make it instable such that you have 5 reintroduction of a certain portion of that 6 soluble fraction of phosphorus. That is not 7 something we want to happen. 8 Unless we remove that system 9 immediately, I would avoid using a sulphate. 10 Now, the ferric chlorides form a very stable 11 complex that is not effected by anerobic 12 conditions. And in that case, we can probably 13 use something like that in a rock pit and not 14 worry about a breakdown over a year, or two 15 years, three years, four years. It's stable. 16 It's not affected by the anerobic bacteria. 17 That is the implication. 18 There are certain conditions, but I 19 believe we have four chemicals that under 20 different site specific conditions each one 21 could be used. If we were to look at one 22 chemical that could be used in all conditions, 23 I would probably choose ferric chloride. But 24 based on cost and other considerations, we 25 could, depending on where we use it, use any JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 55 1 one of these other three. 2 Q. Moving down to the next row, that 3 row is labeled, "Reliability of Process." 4 What is meant by the term, "reliability," what 5 are the criteria that are built into that 6 term? 7 A. That's probably a good question. We 8 are predicting that we can dose and 9 precipitate and coagulate; how reliable is 10 that process in that order. And sediment, you 11 know, there is a sediment process. That's 12 what is meant by reliable, how reliable is 13 that process going to occur with each one of 14 these chemicals. 15 We have moderate reliability really 16 with the ferrous materials because it's in an 17 iron 2 form. It must be reduced to the iron 3 18 form to be able to be insoluble and convert to 19 the insoluble fraction of iron hydroxide. 20 We are already in iron 3 and when we 21 add iron 3, ferric forms. So it's fairly 22 reliable that we are going to have a fairly 23 quick conversion to a ferric hydroxide. 24 There are other parameters that 25 relate to the coagulation. Once we get a JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 56 1 precipitation, that's one stage of the 2 process. The other is the attraction of those 3 particles. That is a different question, but 4 reliability is high with the ferric. It is 5 moderate or low with the ferrous materials. 6 Q. In the last row there, it's labeled, 7 "Other Environmental Effects," and all of 8 those columns indicate either an increase or 9 lowering of hardness. What is the 10 significance with either of these or lowering 11 of hardness? 12 A. Well, really this is something 13 that's probably going to go out on the next -- 14 it's not going to even be in this next report, 15 only because we don't have -- there is a 16 little bit of confusion that was noted by some 17 of the other people reading it. 18 It's not an environmental problem 19 but what we have seen is some hardness changes 20 as we add chemicals, either increasing or 21 decreasing. I don't believe our data base is 22 strong enough right now to really say whether 23 or not we have a strong solid increase or a 24 decrease. 25 And I am going to be probably JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 57 1 omitting these comments entirely into the next 2 draft form because it's -- I don't believe 3 it's a significant effect right now for us to 4 comment on. It's not a problem. Hardness is 5 already high in water, meaning a lot of 6 calcium and magnesium in our waters in the EAA 7 is very high. 8 Whether they go -- increase or 9 decrease really has no significant -- does not 10 go as a significant problem or change. We 11 just don't have enough data to make a good 12 solid -- make a good solid case on whether or 13 not it is significant or not. So that will 14 probably be changed in the next draft. 15 Q. In the change from the ferrous to 16 the ferric form, is that a reduction process 17 or an oxidation process? 18 A. Well, it's a reduction process. And 19 they -- it takes time for it to undergo those 20 changes. Under anerobic conditions, the 21 iron 3 can be converted into an iron 2 form 22 and by vice-versa, going in the opposite 23 direction. 24 But basically, the ferrous materials 25 are fairly stable in water in solution and JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 58 1 ferric remains fairly insoluble. They 2 precipitate out very rapidly. 3 Q. I would like you to turn to Page 2 4 of this report. And the section labeled, 5 "Water Quality within the EAA: Environmental 6 Protection District/South Florida Water 7 Management District Data." Who did the 8 sampling for the Environmental Protection 9 District that is reflected in this report? 10 A. The Environmental Protection 11 District, I believe, contracted Hutcheon 12 Engineers to head a team of their workers 13 sampling 19 stations. There might be 16 14 stations now, but at the initial time, there 15 were 19. 16 And we made an agreement with that 17 group of workers to collect grab samples at 18 the time that they sampled their composite 19 samples in the field, out of their sampler 20 units. 21 Q. The sampling stations were -- well, 22 on Page 2 it states that the stations may be 23 grouped into three main types and then it 24 lists one, secondary canals, and then two and 25 three are different kind of primary canals. JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 59 1 Were there any patterns in the Environmental 2 Protection District data that fell along the 3 lines of these groups? 4 A. No, we have not looked at the data 5 regarding whether or not they could group up 6 or correlate to these different 7 classifications. We basically have data base 8 of collection of information which is 9 presented here from since September. It is 10 now February so we have this many months of 11 information. 12 We have not gotten into a rainy 13 period yet where -- you know, until June or 14 July, so we just don't know what that pattern 15 might be. I mean we certainly could look at 16 the data but I wouldn't have a great deal of 17 certainty whether it would mean something 18 until we had a significant amount of 19 information through our whole year. 20 Q. On Page 5 of this report, the last 21 section, the last sentence of the first 22 paragraph after the table there states, 23 "Unfortunately, further qualifying data, ie., 24 pH, TOC, hardness, et cetera, are not 25 available to develop correlational databases JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 60 1 of use to the study." 2 What is meant by correlational data 3 bases? 4 A. I have been trying to get ahold of 5 district data that -- other than just total 6 phosphorus and soluble phosphorus from the 7 district since I started this work and I just 8 have not been able to get my hands on data 9 that would be of use that would include pH, 10 carbon content, chloride hardness and other 11 parameters. If we had some of the information 12 that I believe is available from the district, 13 we could probably look at correlating its 14 effect to flow. 15 We are asking ourself what is the 16 variability of this water, and we need to know 17 -- and you are asking under what conditions 18 were these characteristics correlated. If we 19 had full data from the district that has the 20 large data base, then we could take a look at 21 how it relates to flow, how does it relate to 22 different characteristics in the basin. 23 I just have not been able to get my 24 hands on the data as of yet. Van Kugler 25 (phonetic) out of engineering has helped me JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 61 1 occasionally, you know, get at least focused 2 in where some of the data is but as of yet, I 3 have not an been able to get something that is 4 manageable or workable other than total 5 phosphorus and other than soluble phosphorus. 6 Q. Has Van Kugler expressed to you 7 concerns about whether the storm water 8 treatment areas will work? 9 A. I think everyone in the district 10 that I have known has expressed concern about 11 that, especially anyone who wants to put their 12 name onto something. 13 I think there is enough either 14 circumstantial evidence or discussion or there 15 is reasonable doubt to whether the storm water 16 treatment area is going to be successful, that 17 it's a watch, and wait and see opinion, I 18 think, from many people that I know in the 19 district. 20 I think there is great expectations. 21 A lot of good work has been done by the 22 district and by the consultants, but we still 23 have not proved whether or not it's going to 24 be viable or not. There is still some 25 reasonable doubts. JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 62 1 Q. Who else at the district has 2 expressed concern to you about the STA? 3 A. I can't put a name behind an exact 4 the comment but over the years since that 5 concept has been put together I have heard it 6 many times by many people. 7 Q. Over -- did you say the year? 8 A. Over the time since that -- the 9 STA's has been proposed as a viable option for 10 controlling phosphorus concentrations in 11 surface drainage water. I have heard that 12 comment from several -- you know, from various 13 people in the district and outside. 14 Q. To your knowledge, when were STA's 15 or similar technologies proposed? 16 MR. GAINES: Object to the form. 17 A. I just saw publications out there 18 this morning. I was looking through my books 19 at the office. I don't remember exactly when 20 the date was. I can't recall the exact date. 21 I have the publications in my office. 22 I mean, in 1989, the SWIM bill, the 23 various drafts were written, and STAs were 24 included in that as an option for control. 25 December, 1992 -- in January, the report on JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 63 1 calculations how to design an STA were made. 2 I mean, there has been discussion 3 for a long time about STAs, and even now, just 4 now, is some of the assessments even by 5 private consultants still are coming in. I 6 mean, that's -- that's not a -- I can't answer 7 that specifically. 8 It's been a concept that's been 9 around for a long time, even before the 10 district has used it in writing. I mean, it's 11 been used in conceptual form by many other 12 people. 13 Q. (BY MR. GARVER) On Page 5, 14 continuing over to Page 6, there is a list of 15 critical factors dealing with variability and 16 total phosphorus concentration; is that 17 correct? 18 A. What page was this? 19 Q. Page 5, leading over to Page 6. 20 A. Would you repeat your question. 21 Q. The lead into that list of bullets 22 there, is total phosphorus concentration, 23 quantities and variability and drainage or 24 flow-through water as it related to a number 25 of critical factors which include, but are not JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 64 1 limited to, and then it lists a series of 2 factors. 3 A. Sure, but not limited to these. 4 Q. And then following that list there 5 is a statement, "These factors have not been 6 qualified by the agricultural EAA, the South 7 Florida Water Management District, nor the 8 University of Florida. Although not easily 9 controlled in time, these factors must be 10 understood to affectively monitor and control 11 water quality data." 12 To your knowledge, is there any work 13 going on at this time to increase 14 understanding relating to those factors? 15 A. It's my understanding that the 16 district is interested in modeling the EAA and 17 control of the water quality, and monitoring, 18 you know, in terms of predictable -- making a 19 predictable model and I am sure, I know that a 20 lot of these factors will probably be included 21 into those models. I am not a modeler in that 22 regard, so I can't comment on that. 23 Q. In your opinion, is greater 24 understanding of this list of factors required 25 before chemical treatment can be used to be JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 65 1 implemented on a basin wide scale to reduce 2 phosphorus? 3 A. I don't believe so. It may take 4 hundreds of years before we are completely 5 able to model what is happening in the EAA. 6 It may take a long time, who knows, but 7 certainly we should not wait for that to take 8 place before we do something else. 9 Q. I like to refer you to now to Page 7 10 and Table 2.3.2. And specifically, I would 11 like to refer you to row 15 and the column 12 labeled, "Minimum," under there which 13 indicates a total phosphorus concentration of 14 one part per million; is that correct? 15 A. That's correct. 16 Q. Was the analysis of this data done 17 with a technique that can detect total 18 phosphorus down to one part per billion? 19 A. Well, in the case of soluble cases, 20 we have a reliability within one to two parts 21 per billion, using our anion chromatograph. 22 But this is, again, one of the things that we 23 have gone through, our staff and I have gone 24 through. It is probably what our next draft 25 is going to do is going to state the critical JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 66 1 detection levels. 2 In this case, one really represents 3 below the critical detection level for total 4 phosphorus which is a digested sample, an 5 unfiltered digested sample, analyzed with flow 6 chemistry equipment, which is detection with a 7 limit. I can't recall the exact, somewhere 8 between ten and 20 parts per billion. 9 So when you do view the next draft, 10 we are probably going to have an asterisk and 11 that will be referred to as below 12 concentration detection limits. But in 13 referred to soluble phosphorus, yes, we can 14 get to those levels with our anion 15 chromatograph. 16 Q. Just for clarification, the 17 technique you are using for total phosphorus 18 has a detection limit of 10 to 20 parts per 19 billion; is that correct? 20 A. That's correct. One of the dilemmas 21 in the laboratory for any chemist today versus 22 10 or 15 years ago is that the concentration 23 compliance levels that have been stated in the 24 past, all the way from 50 down to seven parts 25 per billion, make it kind of a laughable or JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 67 1 difficult task for the chemist to do, 2 especially if it's recalling to total 3 phosphorus levels to seven parts per billion. 4 Only unless you get into very 5 specific chemistry can you get those low 6 detection limits to a reliable level, detected 7 to a reliable level. So that has meant that 8 most laboratories in the last five years have 9 had to upgrade their laboratory and their 10 quality controls and quality assurances of the 11 entire program to be very strict: 12 Because very small levels of 13 phosphorus may be very difficult to determine 14 through typical techniques used in the past or 15 equipment used in the past. That has been 16 primarily our biggest emphasis over the last 17 year is making sure that we, you know, are 18 able to do it: 19 Which includes buying the proper 20 equipment, you know, that currently can 21 guarantee those kinds of results, but most 22 labs are having difficulty assuring those low 23 concentration levels generally. That would be 24 true for me as well as for the district, as 25 well as for anybody else. JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 68 1 Q. When you do a statistical analysis 2 using data that's below a detection level, how 3 do you treat such data and statistical 4 analysis? 5 A. Specifically what is the number that 6 I use? 7 Q. Yes. 8 A. I use the number that is the 9 detection limit on the bottom of the limit and 10 that is what is used. 11 Q. I would like you to turn now to Page 12 18 of this report. On this page, in the 13 second paragraph, the first sentence, there is 14 a reference to three farm scale demonstration 15 projects; are those the three farm scale 16 demonstration projects that were indicated in 17 the August, 1992 report? 18 A. Those are the ones that we discussed 19 last hour. 20 Q. So those were just to review rock 21 pits, expanded canals and maintenance? 22 A. Dredging. 23 Q. Is that's correct? 24 A. That is correct. 25 Q. And what was the maintenance JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 69 1 dredging, if you could just briefly describe 2 that. 3 A. Very briefly, it was a canal section 4 that had not been cleaned out in many, many 5 years or never had since its construction, was 6 filled with a lot of sediments, very thick or 7 very thin. And our plans were to completely 8 clean that canal, set up some sediment traps 9 and measure the bedload movement and see if 10 that had an effect on reduced concentrations 11 of phosphorus leaving the farm. 12 Q. And at this point none of those farm 13 scale demonstration projects have been begun; 14 is that correct? 15 A. Have not been completed, that is 16 correct. 17 Q. Have not been completed, have they 18 been initiated? 19 A. The maintenance dredging project was 20 initiated. Whether -- I don't believe that 21 has been completed meaning that the private 22 landowner has not completed his cleaning of 23 the canal nor have we, as a research group, 24 been -- you know, completely funded to go 25 ahead and proceed with that. JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 70 1 So we are lacking focus from our 2 research committee who is funding the work to 3 complete it but the landowner has gone and 4 done so much into preparing the cleaning of 5 the canal for the project. 6 Q. What have you done to date on that 7 project? 8 A. We have monitored water quality from 9 time to time. We have stopped monitoring the 10 water quality from that canal currently 11 because the project has been stopped. But we 12 have measured some sediments which is reported 13 -- is in this report in one of the tables from 14 that location. We monitored the water quality 15 when we had samples from that location. 16 Q. Why was the maintenance dredging 17 project stopped? 18 A. Lack of funding. 19 Q. On that same page, Page 18, there is 20 a list of objectives near the top of the page, 21 1 through 5. No. 4 states, "Demonstrate the 22 effectiveness of the design criteria for 23 residue sediments"; can you just clarify what 24 that means. 25 A. Okay. Field scale test sites, JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 71 1 first, is -- okay, let me go on. 2 We had three sites that were in the 3 process of being selected and the engineers 4 responsible for the design of each of those 5 locations for modifications, in either the 6 canal or construction of facilities or 7 modification of those canals: 8 We were going to monitor the 9 effectiveness of that particular modification, 10 engineering modification, on the deposition of 11 the residue and the effect of the residue and 12 the sediment deposition after dosing. 13 Q. Okay. 14 A. Design criteria refers to the 15 engineering modifications. 16 Q. Okay. Doctor Anderson, still 17 working off of Page 18, Exhibit No. 6, I would 18 like to refer you to the fifth objective at 19 the top of the exhibit lists at the top of the 20 page which states, "Develop reliable criteria 21 and data for use in predicting capital 22 operating costs of full-scale facilities." 23 What is meant by the term, 24 "full-scale facilities," in that sentence? 25 A. Should we desire to construct JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 72 1 full-scale facilities, whether it be for an 2 on-farm or whether it be for regional 3 approach, we wanted to have reliable 4 information and data that could help predict 5 those capital outlying costs and maintenance 6 and operation costs. 7 I essentially have not been 8 responsible for that. That's generally been 9 the engineering consulting firm that is 10 responsible for developing those economic 11 statements. But the data that would come from 12 preliminary jar testing, obviously, is still 13 in the laboratory and it's not in the field, 14 would be preliminary, and the criteria would 15 be reliable only in the sense that it's a jar 16 test data. 17 Q. What is the status of work being 18 done to fulfill this objective No. 5 that I 19 just read? 20 A. We have not been funded after April, 21 so far, any assurances of continuing our work. 22 We don't have assurances of that. Therefore 23 -- and Hutcheon Engineers have not been 24 working with us since this last fall on any 25 construction. JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 73 1 We have not looked at those three 2 sites that were described as rock pit, canal 3 widening or canal cleaning. So I would say, 4 at this point in time, it's undetermined what 5 the status is right now. 6 Q. Do you know when a decision will be 7 made regarding funding? 8 A. No, I do not. 9 Q. What is the status of the other four 10 objectives, work being done to fulfill the 11 other four objectives listed on Page 18? 12 A. No. 1, demonstrate the effectiveness 13 -- as jar testing goes forward, the report 14 demonstrates that we can take water that is 15 loaded with so many parts per billion or 16 million phosphorus and reduce it below the 50 17 part per billion concentration level. 18 No. 2, establish effectiveness of 19 design criteria for determining precipitation 20 and dosing rates, mixing energies and mixing 21 times. We have established, under various 22 conditions, a range of dosing rates that 23 appear to be very effective. 24 We have not looked very carefully at 25 this point in time -- I don't mean very JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 74 1 carefully -- we haven't done extensive work on 2 mixing energies up to this time. That takes 3 more elaborate work. 4 But as far as mixing times, we have 5 established basic information regarding how 6 much flash mixing or slow mixing needs to be 7 done. 8 No. B, residue sediment settling 9 rate for various combinations of compounds. 10 We have basically made visual observations at 11 this point in time of the settling rates under 12 different conditions and established visual 13 observations as to the quality of the 14 coagulated material using either the chlorate 15 or sulfate iron compounds. We have made those 16 observations and recorded those. 17 No. C, residue sediment 18 characteristics. That is yet to be done. 19 Should we be continuing our funding, and all 20 that, we expect a full-sized characterization 21 to be done. We have some arrangements right 22 now within the next two months to do some 23 small amount of characterization but not to 24 the extent of characterization which we think 25 is going to be necessary. JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 75 1 No. D, coagulant-sludge settling 2 trap for removing solids. it was our hope 3 with the field designs, the preliminary 4 fieldwork that we were going to do, we would 5 have some kind of estimate of how effective 6 sediment traps in the canals would be for 7 collecting the bedloads or the residue loads 8 that would be loaded in the canals. 9 Since we have not proceeded -- 10 industry has not proceeded with the field 11 testing, there is no way we can actually make 12 any conclusions about that at this point in 13 time. 14 Three, demonstrate the effectiveness 15 of treatment process tested by laboratory 16 results in phase one of phosphorus reduction. 17 Demonstrate is defined as being in the field 18 to demonstrate. Since we have not proceeded 19 yet with the field studies, we could not 20 demonstrate, so this objective cannot be met 21 at this point in time. 22 No. 4, demonstrate the effectiveness 23 of design criteria for residue sediments. 24 Again, demonstrate means field demonstrations, 25 and we have not gone to the field yet to JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 76 1 demonstrate what laboratory jar tests have 2 indicated. 3 Q. How much time would you estimate 4 would be necessary to fulfill these five 5 objectives? 6 A. That depends entirely on the 7 engineering and the rate of progress in the 8 field of constructing the facilities. 9 Q. Constructing which facilities? 10 A. The field locations. 11 Q. The field demonstration project? 12 A. Would you repeat the question? 13 Q. How much time would you estimate 14 would be required to fulfill these objectives 15 and to -- 16 A. Completely? 17 Q. Completely, yes. 18 A. You are asking a researcher this? 19 Q. I am asking you, Doctor Anderson. 20 A. For site specific, for the site that 21 we listed here, we were hoping to be able to 22 fulfill those within one to two years. We 23 were hoping to fulfill that. 24 We were hoping to have field studies 25 running by late spring but we have not had a JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 77 1 go ahead on continuing that work. 2 With observations that the Sugar 3 Cane League has directed it's own organization 4 since we started the project, the uncertainty 5 of the funding agency and the direction of who 6 is directing, as a research director from the 7 funding agency to the research being 8 performed, it's still unclear how far in the 9 future we are going to be continuing. Do you 10 understand what I am saying? 11 So we were hoping to have a lot of 12 this done this year, at least started. Full 13 characterization of residues and effectiveness 14 of design would have continued an additional 15 year beyond this. 16 At this point in time, I can't 17 predict how long it might take. It's 18 subjective and what we thought was going to be 19 accomplished right now has not been 20 accomplished, not largely because of us but 21 because of changes in the industry. 22 Q. What changes in the industry are you 23 talking about? 24 MR. GAINES: Wait a minute....wait a 25 minute. I think we are getting into an JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 78 1 ambiguous area here, possibly, infringing on 2 product type issues. 3 I think your question was how long 4 would this work take, assuming that it is 5 going to go forward, and not getting into 6 funding decisions and directions of the sugar 7 cane industry, or things like that. 8 I don't think that's really within 9 his province in this lawsuit and I think it 10 calls for some potential work product or 11 attorney/client issues. I object to that and 12 I will ask you to stay away from that kind of 13 thing. 14 Q. (BY MR. GARVER) The other question 15 I was going to ask you was what -- do I 16 understand you correctly to be saying that if 17 you did have funding, it would take one to two 18 years to completely satisfy the objectives on 19 Page 18; is that correct? 20 A. Yes, I believe so. You know, with 21 unlimited support, you can probably do a lot. 22 But we are not talking about unlimited support 23 here. There is a finite amount of resources 24 available, finite number of hours in the day, 25 a finite number of people that you can work JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 79 1 and still pay. You can only do so much work. 2 If you are looking for a basic 3 skeleton of information to prove or disprove 4 things, you probably can do some very basic 5 work very quickly to prove concepts out that 6 there is justification. 7 The full depth of understanding of 8 all of these factors may take years to do. 9 But within a scope of having a facility, and 10 monitoring a facility, and its effectiveness, 11 probably could be done in a one to two year 12 period of time and get a very skeleton 13 understanding of what is happening. 14 Q. The other -- 15 A. It's not indefinite. I mean, we 16 know the effectiveness can be done. But the 17 whole in-depth understanding behind it, it 18 takes time. I mean, there are consultants 19 today out there that say they can do it now. 20 But they don't -- they are operating from a 21 black box. 22 They can't answer all of the 23 detailed questions because either they don't 24 have the resources or they don't understand 25 them. JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 80 1 But ultimately they know what goes 2 in changes and what comes out is better. And 3 that's basically all they care about. 4 But we are asking for very detailed 5 answers to questions that we don't know how to 6 answer yet and that does take time. And it 7 may take a collaboration of other researchers 8 with other talents or other agencies with 9 other capabilities to help achieve that in a 10 faster period of time, which we are hoping 11 would occur at some point in time. 12 Obviously, I don't think our 13 research group can do everything. We are 14 dependent on engineers for designing. We will 15 be dependent on certain analysis that we are 16 not capable of doing at this time because of 17 money or lack of facilities or lack of people 18 to do it with us in collaboration. 19 Some of those answers will have to 20 come through collaboration with other people 21 and groups. 22 Q. You mentioned, a couple of answers 23 ago, observations of redirection in the 24 organization of the Florida Sugar Cane League; 25 can you explain what you meant by that. JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 81 1 MR. GAINES: Wait a minute....wait a 2 minute. I have the same objection on that. I 3 am just going to instruct him not to answer. 4 It doesn't have anything to do with his 5 testimony in this case. I think it's calling 6 for a work product. 7 He is an expert witness who is 8 testifying about chemical treatment 9 alternatives, not about the structure of the 10 Florida Sugar Cane League. 11 You have numerous Sugar Cane League 12 people that are being deposed in the case and 13 you can ask them. 14 MR. GARVER: Are you instructing 15 this witness not to answer on the basis that 16 he is an expert witness, Mr. Gaines? 17 MR. GAINES: No, on the basis that I 18 stated. I think you are getting into 19 potential work product in the attorney/client 20 privilege area that has absolutely nothing to 21 do with the substance of his research and his 22 testimony. 23 MR. GARVER: Well, you can't 24 instruct him not to answer based on the fact 25 that it goes outside of the scope of his JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 82 1 expertise. 2 MR. GAINES: I am instructing him 3 not to answer because I think it's potentially 4 work product and privileged, and I am 5 explaining that I think it also has nothing at 6 all to do with his testimony in this case so 7 there is no relevance to it. 8 In other words, this expert is not 9 going to sit here and give whatever opinions 10 or observations he has made about the 11 structure of the Florida Sugar Cane League. 12 There is no point to it and it's potentially 13 privileged. 14 MR. GARVER: How can this witness' 15 observations of the organization or 16 redirection of the Florida Sugar Cane League 17 amount to work product, Mr. Gaines? 18 MR. GAINES: How can they? 19 MR. GARVER: Yes. 20 MR. GAINES: How can they amount to 21 work product? Because it could have some 22 bearing on preparation, trial preparation, for 23 this proceeding that we are in. I don't have 24 any idea what he knows or doesn't know about 25 the Florida Sugar Cane League. JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 83 1 But I think your questions invites 2 entry into that area and it's privileged and I 3 am instructing him not to answer. 4 MR. GARVER: Okay. 5 Q. (BY MR. GARVER) Doctor Anderson, 6 are you unable to answer my question based on 7 Mr. Gaines' instructions? 8 MR. GAINES: Yes. What do you mean? 9 THE WITNESS: I guess so. I am not 10 an expert in that area. 11 MR. GAINES: I mean, you know, just 12 so we are clear, you can sit and ask questions 13 all day of people actually connected with the 14 Sugar Cane League but I think it's just an 15 unnecessary and inappropriate road to start 16 going down in this witness' deposition. 17 MR. GARVER: This witness' 18 observations, I have a very hard time seeing 19 as how they would be privileged. I will move 20 on and take it up at an appropriate time. I 21 have serious doubts as to whether that's an 22 appropriate objection, Mr. Gaines, and more 23 important is whether it's an appropriate 24 instruction not to answer it. 25 Q. (BY MR. GARVER) I would like you to JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 84 1 turn to Page 29, Doctor Anderson. In the 2 first paragraph under the section entitled, 3 "Removal of TP, SIP and TOC," the second 4 sentence states, "Some of the water that was 5 analyzed -- " well, I will start from the 6 beginning. 7 "Drainage water TP and SIP 8 concentrations have varied from 7 to 3530 9 parts per billion, and from 1 to 3274 parts 10 per billion respectively. Some of the water 11 that was analyzed had a very high percentage 12 of particulate phosphorus (up to 99.9 percent) 13 which means that the suspended particulate 14 material represents the main source of 15 phosphorus in EAA drainage waters." 16 I don't -- the last sentence I just 17 read, I have a hard time seeing how the second 18 part of that sentence follows from the first 19 part of the sentence. I was wondering if you 20 could explain that. 21 A. I think a good editor in any 22 magazine or journal would probably ask the 23 same question, after I read this, too, with 24 you. So I am not going to disagree with you. 25 It probably needs to be edited carefully and JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 85 1 described, which probably will come out in the 2 next draft. 3 I think the main point to this 4 paragraph was to indicate that particulate 5 phosphorus was of particular note in the data, 6 that it was high, and that it represents a 7 large or significant portion of the total 8 phosphorus measured from the EPD samples. 9 That being the case, the data just 10 substantiates the observations previously made 11 with the district data, which particulate 12 loading was, at the end of the basins, it was 13 around 49 and some percent of the total 14 phosphorus. 15 So I will take your editorial 16 comment and write it down here and make sure 17 it's clear. 18 Q. What additional work did you 19 actually do between August, 1992, and 20 November, 1992? 21 A. We did an extensive number of jar 22 tests. And I think this next page and Page 23 30, outlines almost a daily blow-by-blow type 24 of test. You may not be able to read it. 25 Readability of that table is JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 86 1 probably important so we will have to try to 2 make sure it's clarified in the next addition. 3 But we took a look at dosing rates, 4 different compounds, mixing times, duration of 5 the mix, whether it was a rapid mix or a long 6 rapid mix. We had various objectives to take 7 a look at, various parameters. 8 And, also, with each objective, 9 taking a look at the varying water qualities, 10 meaning taking a look at that objective under 11 a broad range of conditions. 12 Between July through November, this 13 represents the bulk of actual jar testing days 14 that we looked at. And the report with the 15 data represents some of the observations that 16 we made. 17 That table represents everything 18 that we have done up to that point and to the 19 point of this report. And I didn't want to 20 leave anything out and I think this is very 21 complete. 22 What I might say is that any 23 researcher that has a grant with any agency, 24 whether it be the Federal Government or in 25 industry or whoever, normally makes update JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 87 1 reports into informing the person granting the 2 grant to keep them assessed of the progress of 3 the work. 4 And basically that's what this 5 report was all about, was to update the client 6 or the person who is granting this work, an 7 idea of how much we have done, to assure them 8 them that we are not sitting and just playing 9 on a computer or doing something else. 10 Q. Staying on Page 29, the last 11 sentence before section 5.2.2 states, "Highly 12 turbid waters with high TP concentrations can 13 be treated to achieve final TP concentrations 14 less than 50 parts per billion." 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Does that sentence describe a worst 17 case? 18 A. Probably a worst case scenario, that 19 is correct. In some cases where you have a 20 very high rainfall event, whatever that might 21 be, you know, a large pumping occurring in 22 some of the on-farm locations, you have 23 scalping of the bottom, resuspension of 24 sediments, and your waters are turbid. 25 There is a lot of resuspended JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES 88 1 particulate and that may represent almost all 2 of the load right there, and it may be highly 3 turbid. What we found was, even with those 4 waters, our dosing rates could -- we could, 5 with our chemical dosing, remove it 6 effectively. We could get good coagulation 7 and remove it through that sedimentary means. 8 Without it, normally, a lot of the 9 very fine particulates may stay buoyant or in 10 suspension for a long time and never be 11 removed out of the system between the farm and 12 leaving the basin. 13 I mean, between the distance of the 14 lake, say, farm pumping near lake Okeechobee 15 to, let's say, Twenty Mile Bend, what is 16 suspended here or coming in from the lake 17 suspended, may never settle out by the time it 18 reaches the end of the basin. 19 It may. A certain porportion does 20 but a lot it may not. 21 Q. Are there particular problems that 22 would exist in high flow situations as far as 23 chemical treatment is concerned in the EAA? 24 MR. GAINES: Object to the form on