1 STATE OF FLORIDA

2 DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

4 AUTHORIZATION NO. 10988

6 Case Nos. 92-3038, 92-3039, 92-3040

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

6 A P P E A R A N C E S

GEOFFREY GARVER, Esquire

8 Assistant U.S. Attorney

155 S. Miami Avenue, 6th Floor

9 Miami, Florida 33130

PATRICK S. COUSINS, Esquire

11 Popham & Haik

4000 International Place

12 Miami, Florida 33131

JONATHAN L. GAINES, Equire

14 Peeples, Earl & Blank, P.A.

One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3636

15 Two South Biscayne Boulevard

Miami, Florida 33131

17 MORRIS ROSEN, Staff Planner

South Florida Water Management District

18 West Palm Beach, Florida

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.

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

25 the definition of the term, "high flow." I

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

1 mean -- you can answer it if it has meaning to

2 you.

3 A. Generally speaking, if you have a

4 lot of water and you have a lot of pumping

5 occurring after a large storm event, it is

6 conceivable that that is a situation that may

7 not be able to be treated because your first

8 priority is to safeguard land and property and

9 people and be able to have control over the

10 water.

11 It might be a control that the

12 district sets, based on their pumping

13 schedules or policy, or based on the need to

14 remove water from a farm. I mean, the flow

15 rates can be very, very large each day. It

16 could be -- one pump could be removing 10 to

17 20 million gallons per day.

18 That is a lot to treat if you want

19 to treat it in a very short period of time,

20 and you may not be able to treat that in a

21 very, very short period of time when you are

22 under emergency pump conditions.

23 I would expect, it's my expert

24 opinion, that under emergency conditions,

25 there is little anyone might do to not have

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

1 sediments redistributed without either having

2 great damage to property or to endangering

3 human life by flooding areas of the coast or

4 elsewhere.

5 So there are certain emergency

6 conditions that probably you have to have

7 certain expectations or compliances.

8 Q. (BY MR. GARVER) When you did your

9 jar tests, did you do any tests of the removal

10 from the water of trace elements such as trace

11 metals?

12 A. Apart from iron?

13 Q. Apart from iron, yes.

14 A. I am going to say we had to have the

15 capability. Again, this all depends on our

16 funding level. We could do an infinitum

17 amount of analysis on it and we have the

18 capabilities, probably, of doing it. No, we

19 weren't interested in copper, molybdenum or

20 some of these other trace metals.

21 Conceivably, those in the future, we

22 would be wanting to do but they weren't within

23 the terms of reference for completing this

24 work and therefore we did not do them.

25 Q. I would like you to turn now to Page

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

1 63. And I would like you to refer now to the

2 top paragraph entitled, "Environmental

3 Effects."

4 Does this paragraph indicate that

5 the water quality standards and regulations

6 that apply to Class IV agricultural water

7 supplies are guiding -- are part of the

8 performance criteria as to which chemical

9 treatment will be used?

10 A. I believe I referred yesterday to

11 Class III. It should be Class IV. But they

12 are among some of the quality characteristics

13 criteria that we should be following, yes.

14 Q. Do you know when you would use Class

15 IV criteria and when you would use Class III

16 criteria?

17 A. I would have to refer to the ruling,

18 I guess. I don't know off-hand, unless you

19 can help me here. Class III is referred to as

20 recreational fish and wildlife. Class III

21 marine, also. And Class IV is agricultural

22 water supplies.

23 I guess you and the legal beagles

24 are going to have to tell us when you classify

25 it as recreational water or wildlife water or

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

1 whether it's agricultural drainage. At some

2 point there is a line there but it looks very

3 gray to me.

4 Q. In other words, is it correct to say

5 that whatever water quality criteria apply,

6 those would be incorporated into the

7 environmental --

8 A. Well, what it seems to me, and you

9 may not want to hear this, but it seems to me

10 you are asking for agricultural areas to

11 comply to maybe Class III standards or Class

12 II standards or another class standard that

13 may be apart from agricultural standards.

14 MR. GAINES: He is only asking you

15 what is applicable to your work.

16 A. I have taken a look at the standards

17 for Class IV agricultural water supplies, and

18 just trying to keep informed to make sure that

19 whatever the resulting water quality comes

20 from whatever modification or remediation

21 efforts on our part that we have compliance,

22 at least, to those standards as well.

23 Is there something there that is

24 unclear?

25 Q. (BY MR. GARVER) No, the last

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

1 sentence --

2 A. Just for my benefit.

3 Q. We will move on. The last sentence

4 in that paragraph reads: "The final report

5 will discuss these issues in detail." Is that

6 the final report that you expect to come out

7 in a week or so?

8 A. No, our final report would be June

9 or July -- excuse me -- May or June, when we

10 finish the project funding here.

11 Q. Will that go beyond just editorial

12 changes?

13 A. I hope so. It will be an expansion

14 of this report.

15 MR. GARVER: That's another report

16 we will want when it comes out, Mr. Gaines.

17 Q. (BY MR. GARVER) I would like you to

18 refer now to the appendix and Page A-2 in

19 particular, which states on the top of the

20 page, "Outline and Program Description for

21 Phosphorus Reduction of Agricultural Drainage

22 by Chemical Dosing, Coagulation and

23 Sedimentation, Proposal to the Florida Sugar

24 Cane League."

25 Can you tell me when this appendix

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

1 was written.

2 A. I am not sure exactly when I started

3 working with it. It was probably somewhere in

4 the neighborhood of March 18th, 1992.

5 Q. I notice on the top left-hand corner

6 of the page it states, "November, 1992." Does

7 that indicate the data when it was written?

8 A. No, it does not.

9 Q. This was the proposal you referred

10 to yesterday as one of the appendices that was

11 in the November, 1992 report?

12 MR. GAINES: Just for the record, it

13 says November, 1992 -- it's on every page in

14 the report.

15 THE WITNESS: That was just a header

16 along with the appendix.

17 Q. (BY MR. GARVER) At the bottom of

18 Page A-2, this sentence reads: "This scheme

19 and process will be developed for both farm

20 and regional-scale installations and each

21 scale with and without resevoirs."

22 Does this indicate that resevoirs

23 may be be used in conjunction with a chemical

24 treatment technology in the EAA?

25 A. Well, at the time that we wrote this

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

1 proposal, it was discussed as a possible

2 alternative for some farms to have their own

3 treatment or storm water treatment areas.

4 The district has requested some

5 growers outside the EAA, one in particular

6 that I know of, that requested or said that he

7 had to have his own STA on his farm.

8 And at the time of the discussions

9 of this, I included it in the verbage as more

10 of covering the correct conditions at the time

11 of our proposal. It may or may not be

12 applicable to today.

13 Q. Is the reservoir, does that mean --

14 is that the same as storm water treatment

15 areas?

16 A. Yes, correct. This is something

17 that won't be changed in our draft copy.

18 Regardless of any errors that might be in

19 here, this is what was done historically as a

20 proposal and won't change.

21 Q. Would either hourly or daily

22 monitoring of water quality parameters in

23 conjunction with a chemical treatment system,

24 would that require automated monitoring?

25 A. Both. I would expect there would be

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

1 some in-stream automated monitoring, as well

2 as a minimum maintenance operational staff to

3 make sure things are running correctly.

4 Q. What would you use automated

5 monitoring for?

6 A. Perhaps to monitor pH or

7 conductivity or color or turbidity. Some

8 things can't be monitored or automated. Total

9 phosphorus would be very, very difficult to

10 monitor in this way.

11 But there are some tests that can be

12 done that I mentioned. Most of those

13 automated monitoring devices indicate to the

14 operator or the person observing the

15 information of radical changes in your

16 influent water, waters coming into a facility,

17 and raise a flag, so to speak, of changes in

18 water quality that you might need to be more

19 attentive to.

20 (Anderson Exhibits 7 and 8 were here

21 marked for identification purposes by the

22 court reporter).

23 Q. (BY MR. GARVER) Doctor Anderson, I

24 am handing you what has been marked as

25 Anderson No. 7. Can you identify that

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

1 document.

2 A. This is a draft manuscript that will

3 be published this year in the Journal of Soil

4 Science entitled, "Phosphorus Mineralization

5 from Histosols of the Everglades Agricultural

6 Area." The author's names are O.A. Diaz, D.L.

7 Anderson and E.A. Hanlon.

8 Q. Is this a document that you

9 described yesterday as forming part of your

10 basis for your opinions regarding the

11 performance of --

12 A. Flooded systems.

13 Q. -- flooded systems in the STA

14 proposal in particular?

15 A. That's correct.

16 Q. I am handing you now what's been

17 marked as Anderson Exhibit No. 8. Can you

18 identify this exhibit.

19 A. This is a manuscript in print

20 entitled, "Soil Nutrient Variability and Soil

21 Sampling in the Everglades Agricultural Area,"

22 published 1992, in Communications of Soil

23 Science and Plant Analysis.

24 Q. Does this article form the basis of

25 any of your anticipated expert testimony in

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

1 this case?

2 A. I am not sure.

3 Q. Can you briefly explain what is

4 reported in this article.

5 A. This is a result of a Ph.D. thesis

6 by O.A. Diaz which is the first author of the

7 paper. In his field work that is described in

8 the paper, he describes the variability of

9 different soil chemical characteristics and

10 related fields that are associated with the

11 agricultural area in the Everglades, the EAA.

12 Q. I just have one more. Doctor

13 Anderson, I am handing you what has been

14 marked as Anderson Exhibit No. 9. Can you

15 identify that document?

16 A. Before me is a document written by

17 Brown and Caldwell Consultants in association

18 with Mock, Roos & Associates, entitled,

19 "Draft Report, Everglades Protection Project,

20 Contract C-3051, Amendment 2, Phase I,

21 Evaluation of Alternative Treatment

22 Technologies," which was submitted October

23 2nd, 1992.

24 Q. Have you seen this document before?

25 A. Yes, I have.

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

1 Q. I would like you to turn to Page 3-2

2 of this document which is a page that states

3 -- it's entitled, "Chemical Treatment," at the

4 top of the page.

5 A. Okay.

6 Q. The last paragraph on that page

7 states, "Doctor Anderson is in the process of

8 developing a program of field scale testing of

9 the technology in the EAA. Based on the

10 results of the bench scale tests and

11 experience from other operating plants, the

12 process train proposed for treating EAA

13 drainage water is precipitation of phosphorus

14 by ferric salts, floculation with the aid of a

15 polymer, and solid separation by gravity

16 sedimentation. The field testing project is

17 still in the planning stage and continuous

18 flow test data are not yet available."

19 Is the paragraph that I just read

20 accurate, in your opinion?

21 A. I believe so.

22 Q. Is there any updated information

23 that would change any of the information in

24 that paragraph?

25 A. No.

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

100

1 Q. I would like you to turn now to Page

2 3-3 of Exhibit No. 9, and the fourth paragraph

3 on that page states, "To utilize the

4 information presented on Figure 2-1 in Chapter

5 2 to assist in the development of the design

6 flow capacities for chemical treatment units,

7 it was necessary to establish a projected

8 effluent, TP concentrations, for the

9 technology as currently proposed.

10 "The results of Doctor Anderson's

11 laboratory experiments indicate that very low

12 effluent TP concentrations, on the order of

13 0.01 milligrams per liter are possible.

14 "However, it is questionable how the

15 technology will perform when applied in

16 canals. It is possible that performance could

17 suffer dramatically during high flow periods

18 and that effluent TP concentrations can

19 greatly exceed the 0.05 milligrams per liter

20 objective at times.

21 "Overall, an effluent TP

22 concentration of 0.04 milligrams per liter was

23 felt to represent the proper balance between

24 the performance capability of the technology

25 under highly controlled conditions and the

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

101

1 uncertainty over how performance would be

2 affected by field conditions."

3 In your opinion, is the information

4 in that paragraph accurate?

5 A. Somewhat, yes.

6 Q. In what way is it not accurate?

7 A. Well, it's subjective. Brown and

8 Caldwell's experience -- I think the last

9 comments of .04 milligrams per liter could be

10 a proper value, but it does not represent any

11 substantiated information either on our side

12 nor on theirs.

13 Other operational plants in Holland

14 or in Germany have maintained operating

15 facilities between 20 and 30 parts per billion

16 phosphorus. I think those remarks need to be

17 limited, probably, in stating actual

18 concentrations. But, generally, I agree with

19 their comments.

20 Q. Were there any other specific things

21 in that paragraph I just read which you find

22 to be inaccurate?

23 A. No, I do not.

24 Q. I would like you to turn now to Page

25 3-9 of Exhibit No. 9, and referring you

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

102

1 specifically to the last full paragraph on the

2 page which reads as follows:

3 "In addition to the removal of the

4 phosphorus, the chemical precipitation,

5 coagulation and sedimentation treatment

6 processes have the potential to remove many

7 other constituents, including trace elements

8 such as metals, which are necessary to support

9 biological communities in the Everglades.

10 "It is possible that addition of

11 chemicals in large dosages to achieve very low

12 phosphorus concentrations would adversely

13 affect the chemistry of the water leaving the

14 treatment system from the standpoint of

15 benefit to the Everglades.

16 "This potential impact would also

17 affect the permittability of the chemical

18 treatment technology at the larger scales of

19 application."

20 In your opinion, is the paragraph

21 that I just read accurate?

22 A. In my opinion, again, I think it's a

23 very subjective comment that's not based on

24 any documentation of Brown and Caldwell. I

25 certainly wouldn't make this kind of comment

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

103

1 unless I had substantiated information to

2 state this.

3 And to me, it's my opinion that this

4 comment has been led -- they led this comment

5 on to some other ulterior motive. Based on

6 the information that I have received out of

7 Europe, this is not a correct statement, that

8 there is not adverse affects on any plant

9 ecosystem or biological ecosystem as a result

10 of chemical treatment.

11 Therefore, I would conclude after

12 reading this, I myself, personally, that Brown

13 and Caldwell is in error of sticking their

14 neck out, so to speak, a little bit farther

15 than they should before substantiation of any

16 results. They are too biased, and they are

17 biasing themselves in an area that there is

18 not any way of substantiation of those

19 comments.

20 Q. I believe in your answer you

21 referred to a possible ulterior motive?

22 A. I have heard these comments come

23 before Brown and Caldwell stated them. And

24 this is a paraphrase of what I have heard in

25 meetings from other individuals in the

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

104

1 environmental community and this comment, in

2 fact, was not verbatim but paraphrased, was

3 asked in a question by the -- not the 9 TOC,

4 but the SAGE Committee at one of our

5 meetings.

6 This also was asked when Pierre

7 Verstraelen came and presented his seminar at

8 the district in September. Another individual

9 who was also -- I believe, who was in DER, but

10 there were other comments very similar to

11 this.

12 So we answered it -- Pierre

13 Verstraelen from Holland, for example,

14 answered it, and more or less stated that we

15 have not seen any, no adverse effects of

16 chemical treatment for remediation of water

17 upon a biological system or a wetland system,

18 none.

19 And that question was asked, I

20 think, at least three times in meetings that I

21 know of. So I see this and I read this right

22 now in Brown and Caldwell and I know that they

23 are not dumb, but it seems to me a

24 patronization on their part to lead somebody

25 on as if there is a problem.

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

105

1 I wouldn't, myself, make this kind

2 of comment without some substantiation of

3 these comments, because knowing that the

4 comment has come up before, I would be very

5 careful. I think they have not been careful

6 in their comment. I think they have stuck

7 themselves on one side without substantiating

8 their comments.

9 And in a report like this, we need

10 to document things. As in everything, I think

11 there needs to be some documentation.

12 Q. Doctor Anderson, in your expert

13 opinion, can chemical treatment technology

14 that we have been discussing today and

15 yesterday reduce the need for storm water

16 treatment areas in the Everglades Agricultural

17 Area.

18 MR. GAINES: Let me object to the

19 form.

20 MR. GARVER: What is your problem

21 with the form?

22 MR. GAINES: There has been nothing

23 to establish there is any need for storm water

24 treatment areas and he has already testified

25 that he doesn't think they would work.

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

106

1 So I don't know if this technology,

2 if it works as well as you would want it to,

3 would have any impact on a, quote, "need," for

4 storm water treatment areas, which he has

5 already said he doesn't think would work

6 anyway.

7 If you want to ask whether --

8 MR. GARVER: I will come up with

9 another question.

10 MR. GAINES: Okay.

11 THE WITNESS: What you are asking

12 is --

13 MR. GAINES: Wait a minute, no, no,

14 there is no pending question. He has said he

15 will come up with a question and you will be

16 answering it and everybody will do their job.

17 THE WITNESS: Just in general terms,

18 you are asking for opinions which have no

19 relevance on reality like when you gave me

20 that button yesterday. I think the time for

21 reality to come into this picture is now.

22 MR. GAINES: No, now is the time for

23 him to ask a question and you to answer it.

24 If you want to make a speech about reality, we

25 will do it after the deposition, unless he

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

107

1 asks you --

2 (Laughter).

3 Q. (BY MR. GARVER) Are you familiar

4 with the objectives that the STA proposal

5 presented in the Everglades SWIM plan is

6 intended to achieve?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. In your opinion, can the chemical

9 treatment systems and technologies that we

10 have been discussing today and yesterday

11 achieve those objectives?

12 A. In combination, you said?

13 MR. GAINES: Let me object as being

14 asked and answered earlier today. You may

15 answer it again, sir.

16 THE WITNESS: Just restate your

17 question. I want to make sure I answer it

18 correctly.

19 Q. (BY MR. GARVER) Can chemical

20 treatment systems and technologies that we

21 have been discussing today and yesterday

22 acheive those objectives presented in the STA

23 proposal?

24 MR. GAINES: Let me just interject

25 again. When you are talking about objectives,

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

108

1 you are talking about the water quality

2 phosphorus level objectives?

3 MR. GARVER: He said he is familiar

4 with the objectives, so it's the ones that he

5 testified he is familiar with.

6 MR. GAINES: Okay. I will go into

7 that on cross, I guess. I think there could

8 be many objectives to the STA Program. So I

9 am just trying to ask: Are you focusing on

10 the stated water quality objectives?

11 THE WITNESS: No comment.

12 Q. (BY MR. GARVER) Doctor Anderson,

13 are you familiar with the water quality

14 objectives that the STA proposal included in

15 the Everglades SWIM Plan --

16 A. The objectives are --

17 Q. -- or that the objectives are

18 intended to achieve?

19 A. Yes, 50 parts per billion phosphorus

20 concentrations.

21 Q. Can the chemical treatment systems

22 and technologies we have discussed yesterday

23 and today, in your opinion, achieve those

24 water quality objectives?

25 A. Yes.

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

109

1 Q. Can the chemical treatment systems

2 and technologies we have been discussing

3 achieve those water quality objectives without

4 any other supplemental technologies?

5 A. Possibly. It's my opinion that no

6 one technology is sufficient to handle every

7 conceivable problem that exists here, that a

8 number of solutions may be required for

9 overall compliance or to meet objectives.

10 In principle, philosophically, I

11 don't believe any one solution is going to be

12 sufficient to meet the overall objectives.

13 Q. In your opinion, what scale of

14 application of chemical treatment technology

15 we have been discussing is most viable, a

16 farm-based scale or a regional-based scale?

17 A. In principle, we believe that

18 probably a regionally-based facility is more

19 economical and more feasible, although a

20 farm-based scale can be effected, it's cost of

21 implementation and effectiveness would only

22 treat, as an individual farm, one farm. The

23 farm-by-farm would only individually take only

24 a small percentage of the total.

25 It's my opinion that probably spot

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

110

1 treatment in certain areas or regional

2 facilities would be the only viable,

3 economically viable, approach to take.

4 That's making an opinion without any

5 substantiation of numbers. That certainly

6 would take other people, other experts and

7 engineers, to determine whether this opinion

8 is a correct opinion.

9 Q. What do you base that opinion on?

10 A. Under the assumption that the

11 release on a farm scale -- you may have 100 to

12 200 releases into the works of the district,

13 and that even if the water coming from a farm

14 is distilled water, that possible resuspension

15 of existing sediments in the works of the

16 district would indicate that there was no

17 effectiveness at all in the treatment on any

18 particular farm.

19 And the lack of -- since you cannot

20 guarantee the effectiveness of one farm

21 system, the expense of one farm system among

22 many having any visible effect downstream at

23 the end of the basin, it's probably a

24 financial risk that would not be a viable

25 alternative.

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

111

1 Judging that water quality

2 necessarily coming from any one farm may not

3 be the total problem, that sediments are

4 indeed alone in the works of the district, in

5 the existing canals of the district, or the

6 state, may have sufficient sediments or

7 release of phosphorus within that canal to

8 contribute to something that cannot be

9 measured in effectiveness by one farm

10 treatment system.

11 Q. In your opinion, would chemical

12 treatment systems be most effective if they

13 were situated immediately prior to discharge

14 into the water conservation areas?

15 A. Ultimately that is what the state is

16 requiring, or the federal Government is

17 requiring, whoever is requiring this, whatever

18 the regulation is, water quality before it

19 leaves the area and meets a certain

20 requirement.

21 I believe there are two questions:

22 Can the region reduce an area load, so many

23 tons of phosphorus per year, or can you meet a

24 compliance, a consistent compliance of a water

25 quality compliance, regardless of the quality

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

112

1 and quantity.

2 Those two questions maybe are not

3 relevant or equitable. If one was to say, "I

4 want to remove 200 tons of phosphorus per year

5 out of the EAA," technically we can remove 200

6 tons of phosphorus from our residue through

7 chemical treatment and stop.

8 And we can treat a portion of the

9 total sucessfully. I believe that. But if we

10 were to treat 100 percent of the flow,

11 regardless if the phosphorus is contributed

12 from farms, the lake, sediments, rainfall or

13 whatever, then the only alternative would be a

14 regional plant to treat 100 percent of the

15 water.

16 But, again, that goes to what are

17 the objectives here, to treat all water or

18 just to reduce the area loading out of the EAA

19 and reduce the amount of phosphorus going out.

20 And that's not my decision. That's

21 a regulatory decision depending on what has to

22 be done. Is that clear enough? That's it.

23 MR. GARVER: I just want your

24 complete and honest answer, that's all. At

25 this point, I have no further questions. I am

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

113

1 just reserving the right to reconvene this

2 deposition at an appropriate time based on

3 issues that have come up during the course of

4 the deposition and any work or issues that the

5 Sugar Cane League or U.S. Sugar may identify

6 that Doctor Anderson will testify to.

7 MR. GAINES: We are not stipulating

8 to a follow-up depo at this time, but we will

9 take it up if and when the issue arises.

10 CROSS-EXAMINATION

11 BY MR. COUSINS:

12 Q. Doctor Anderson, my name is Patrick

13 St. George Cousins. I am going to be asking

14 you a few questions. We have been here a day

15 and a half now and we gone through, quite

16 clearly, your opinions and the basis for those

17 opinions.

18 I have been sitting here taking down

19 notes and a few questions came up during that

20 process. I want to first refer back to your

21 curriculum vitae, which you went through

22 pretty thoroughly yesterday. I have a few

23 questions on that.

24 I just want to make sure that I

25 understand that -- the document, for instance,

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

114

1 starts off on Page 6 Looking at Contracts and

2 Grants, and Page 9, Contractual Reports, and

3 on Page 8 -- it starts on Page 7 -- Referred

4 Publications, Page 10, Nonreferred

5 Publications which goes to Page 11, and Page

6 13, Abstracts and Written Presentations, goes

7 to Page 14, and then Page 15, Honors and

8 Invited Lectures.

9 I am going to ask you -- I have

10 checked off every single place that I have

11 seen the word, "phosphorus," and I want to

12 make sure that the items that I read to you

13 where you referred to it, whether or not you

14 have relied on those --

15 I know you have gone through them

16 and specifically brought our attention to

17 certain reports -- but I want to make sure

18 that when you have an opportunity later on

19 that you may testify in response to a hearing

20 on this matter that we have all the documents

21 or we will get all the documents that you will

22 be relying on.

23 If you will look at Page 6, the

24 first document, Contracts and Grants under

25 1990, South Florida Water District.

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

115

1 Biogeochemical behavior of soils in the Lake

2 Okeechobee water basin. Investigations on the

3 use of soil amendments to increase P retention

4 in soils loaded with animal wastes.

5 Doctor Anderson, we discussed that

6 during your testimony. Do you have anything

7 further to add to the discussion that we had

8 before regarding that particular grant?

9 MR. GAINES: Wait a minute. I kind

10 of object to the form of that question asking

11 if -- I don't specifically recall what the

12 discussion was. I don't know if the Doctor

13 does or not.

14 If we discussed it earlier in the

15 deposition, do you have anything to add -- I

16 don't know if that's a fair question.

17 Q. (BY MR. COUSINS) Why don't I do

18 this: Doctor, do you recall us discussing

19 this particular grant?

20 A. Briefly, yes, of course, we briefly

21 discussed it.

22 Q. Through the discussion that we had,

23 is it your belief that you gave us all of the

24 different factors and basis for whatever

25 opinions that you rendered regarding this

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

116

1 grant?

2 A. Well, I am not sure what will be

3 significant to you. Maybe many things are not

4 significant to this case or to you. But,

5 basically, the project was a soil remediation

6 project to control the release of phosphorus

7 from those areas into the water systems.

8 I was one component in that

9 research, really the primary investigator for

10 the soil amendment portion. There were other

11 people that were also working on that project,

12 the overall project.

13 It was a large project with five or

14 more hundred other principal investigators.

15 Those names of those investigators are

16 Romesh Reddy, Don Gratz, Robert Mandell, (all

17 names phonetic) and some other people which

18 included people who did economic and

19 phosphorus budgeting of the region in and

20 around the lake.

21 Q. To go down that list, 1989 to 1990,

22 South Florida Water Management District,

23 biogeochemical behavior of soil in the Lake

24 Okeechobee water basin, investigation on the

25 use of soil amendments to increase phosphorus

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

117

1 retention in soils loaded with animal wastes.

2 Doctor Anderson, do you recall

3 discussing the results or the sections of the

4 results?

5 A. Yes, we briefly went through the

6 three phases that this work encompasses.

7 Q. Do you have anything else to add to

8 that?

9 A. No.

10 Q. 1987 to 1990, South Florida Water

11 Management District, $110,000 grant, or

12 potential for soil amendments to minimize

13 phosphorus loss from native and

14 anthropogenically affected soils, subcontract

15 biogeochemical behavior and transport of

16 phosphorus into the Lake Okeechobee basin,

17 grant $1.2 million, project involving the UF

18 Soil Science, English, Engineering, Agronomy

19 and Economics Department.

20 Have you discussed the results of

21 that in this deposition?

22 A. We have briefly gone over the basic

23 objectives of the project, yes, we have.

24 Q. Do you have anything to add that

25 would serve as a basis for any opinions that

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

118

1 you might render regarding the chemical --

2 A. Not unless -- no, I don't, unless

3 you have questions specifically about specific

4 points.

5 Q. Page 8, No. 27, Diaz, Anderson and

6 Hanlon, 1993, phosphorus mineralization from

7 histosols of the Everglades Agricultural Area.

8 Do you recall discussing that recently?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Do you have anything else to add

11 that might serve as a basis for your opinion?

12 A. No, I do not.

13 MR. GAINES: That one is an exhibit

14 to the depo.

15 MR. GARVER: That's Exhibit No. 7, I

16 believe; is that correct?

17 THE WITNESS: Yes, that's Exhibit 7.

18 Q. (BY MR. COUSINS) Page 9 under

19 contractual reports, No. 4, if you could read

20 that, Doctor Anderson, and tell me after you

21 read whether or not you discussed it.

22 A. It's a contractual report dated

23 1989, by Anderson, Ostrokolski and Faber,

24 biogeochemical behavior and transport of

25 phosphorus in the Lake Okeechobee basin,

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

119

1 evaluations of the effect of soil amendments

2 and phosphorus mobility using soil column

3 leaching studies. Final report, task 1.4.2,

4 South Florida Water Management District, West

5 Palm Beach, Florida, 129 pages.

6 Q. Have we discussed that in your

7 deposition?

8 A. I have briefly gone over the basic

9 objectives of that.

10 Q. Do you have anything else to add to

11 that?

12 A. Not unless you have further

13 questions.

14 Q. So you have basically, then, if you

15 are saying, "unless I have further questions,"

16 you have nothing else to add and you have

17 given us everything that you are going to use

18 as a basis for your opinion later on?

19 A. I assume that you have the documents

20 and the document forms the basis of my

21 experiences and opinions. Unless you have got

22 specific questions regarding that document, I

23 don't have any further comments.

24 Q. No. 5, will you read that for me.

25 A. 1989 report -- No. 5?

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

120

1 Q. Right.

2 A. By Anderson and Faber, entitled,

3 "Biogeochemical Behavior and Transport of

4 Phosphorus in the Lake Okeechobee Basin,

5 effect of soil amendment and P retention

6 capacity. Final report, task 1.4.1, South

7 Florida Water Management District, West Palm

8 Beach, Florida, 128 printed pages."

9 Q. So I don't sound like a broken

10 record, I am going to be asking you the same

11 question if your attorney will allow me not to

12 keep asking you the same question.

13 MR. GAINES: Why don't you -- yes, I

14 take it your question is: "Do you have

15 anything else, any other comments on these

16 various reports that forms some essential

17 basis of his expert testimony that we haven't

18 talked about"?

19 MR. COUSINS: Well, it's two parts.

20 One is whether or not -- I don't know if we

21 have discussed all the ones I have checked.

22 Doctor Anderson has told me he alluded to some

23 of them, and if there are any reports that he

24 hasn't alluded to, whether or not he is going

25 to be using them later.

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

121

1 THE WITNESS: Go ahead.

2 MR. GAINES: Well, I think --

3 MR. COUSINS: Do you understand?

4 MR. GAINES: I do understand. I

5 just don't know if we have totally cured my

6 original objection. These are reports that

7 have been produced -- when we are talking

8 about, for example, an 128 page report, if he

9 gets on the stand at the trial and wants to

10 make some reference to something in that

11 report that comes up, you know, I don't think

12 it's a fair objection to say:

13 "Well, you had a chance to give any

14 other comments on that report and you didn't

15 mention this finding on such and such a page

16 when you were given this sort of generic

17 chance to talk about that report."

18 So, I mean, if that's the purpose of

19 this line of questioning, I kind of object to

20 that. I don't think that that's appropriate.

21 We have produced the reports and he has

22 answered, I guess, some questions about them

23 already and they reflect the work he has done

24 and the expertise that he has.

25 But I don't think you can eliminate

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

122

1 all portions of those reports that haven't

2 been specifically testified to in this

3 deposition by asking him kind of a broad

4 question like that.

5 MR. GARVER: Just to recapture the

6 manner in which these reports have been

7 produced, it's my recollection that there were

8 discussions between you and me, Mr. Gaines.

9 You indicated that any additional materials

10 other than the records you actually produced

11 the copies of to me that might form the basis

12 of Doctor Anderson's opinions in this

13 proceeding would be included in the list of

14 documents, reports, and his resume'; is that

15 correct? Am I correct in understanding that?

16 MR. GAINES: Well, I think what I

17 said is, first of all, these reports that we

18 are talking about now, I think we have

19 produced. But what I said is, his resume'

20 lists a lot of publications, not all of which

21 I think are germane or responsive to what you

22 requested:

23 But that if there were specific ones

24 that he was pointing to that form the basis of

25 his expert opinion or that are germane to this

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

123

1 case, and you don't already have them, we will

2 make them available to you.

3 (Question directed to the witness)

4 I think that is kind of what you said, right?

5 (Question directed to Mr. Garver)

6 Are we on the same wavelength here?

7 MR. GARVER: Yes, except for -- I

8 think also you stated that aside from the ones

9 that you actually did produce and the ones

10 that you did not produce that might be on the

11 list and Doctor Anderson resume', there were

12 no other documents that would form the basis

13 of his opinion.

14 MR. GAINES: That's correct. Yes,

15 that's correct. I mean, we were responsive to

16 your production request to the extent that all

17 of the responsive documents have either been

18 produced to you, physically, or would be

19 listed on the resume' here.

20 MR. GARVER: Okay. I think we are

21 together then.

22 MR. GAINES: I think that -- is that

23 correct, Doctor, as far as you know?

24 THE WITNESS: Here is the basis for

25 my opinions.

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

124

1 MR. GAINES: And you are holding up

2 the resume'?

3 THE WITNESS: Yes, and if there are

4 further documents that you need to question me

5 on, I think you can refer to the documents

6 within the resume'. Not knowing exactly what

7 you are interested in --

8 MR. GARVER: I think what

9 Mr. Cousins is after is your specific

10 identification of any additional documents

11 that might form the basis of your expert

12 opinions in this matter, rather than just

13 holding up --

14 THE WITNESS: I understand.

15 MR. GARVER: -- your entire resume'

16 and I think that's a fair --

17 THE WITNESS: Every place that it

18 mentions phosphorus, we can go through and if

19 it's germane, I will say "yay" or "nay."

20 MR. GAINES: Right. And I don't

21 have any problem with that. What I do have a

22 problem with is taking a document and then

23 saying, "Here is a 128 page report. Now is

24 your chance to tell me anything out of this

25 that you want to be able to use or else it's

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

125

1 it's gone forever."

2 Because you have the report and, you

3 know, it's not his job to come up with

4 questions that may or may not be issues in the

5 case. That is my problem.

6 MR. GARVER: I don't want to

7 restrict in any way what Mr. Cousins is going

8 to ask about here.

9 MR. COUSINS: I am not trying to

10 have Geoffrey do my job either, but what I do

11 want is not to read the items and documents

12 that were prepared because Doctor Anderson is

13 well-learned and it has nothing to do with the

14 opinions he is going to present if he had an

15 opportunity to present it at the final

16 hearing.

17 So I probably checked off here,

18 maybe 20 documents or contracts, and reports

19 and studies, and I just want to know whether

20 or not these particular items are relied upon.

21 Again, Doctor Anderson did hold up --

22 MR. GAINES: I understand. The only

23 part of the whole question that I have a

24 problem with, and maybe it's not really a

25 problem, is when you say, "Is there anything

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

126

1 else that you want to talk about on that

2 report that we haven't talked about already?"

3 To me that implies that you are

4 trying to form a precedent for some objection

5 at a later date that, "You didn't tell me this

6 information when you had the chance to."

7 I don't think -- I think if you want

8 specific page-by-page information, you have to

9 come up with a question and not just put the

10 onus on him, "Tell me everything about these

11 20 reports in the world or else they are

12 barred from use," or something like that.

13 MR. COUSINS: Not to keep going tit

14 for tat, we don't have all of the documents or

15 grants or whatever in front of us, they

16 weren't all produced to us and so, I mean, I

17 don't know how else to ask him other than if

18 he says that --

19 THE WITNESS: Unless you want them.

20 Why don't you just go through this -- let's

21 cut through the mess here and if you have got

22 a question about anything specific in this

23 publication, then let's just ask me.

24 MR. GAINES: I mean, in my mind, for

25 example, I think Nos. 4 and 5 that you just

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

127

1 asked about, those were produced, I believe

2 that's correct. Copies of those have been

3 produced and they are reports to the district

4 in any case.

5 Maybe we are just -- you know, it's

6 a tempest in a teapot. I just don't want to

7 hear, "You are not allowed to testify about a

8 certain topic because it's discussed in this

9 report and you didn't discuss it at your depo

10 when Mr. Cousins gave you a chance to talk

11 about it," or some open-ended question like:

12 "Is there anything else you want to say about

13 that report."

14 Q. (BY MR. COUSINS) Why don't I ask

15 him whether or not, after he takes a look at

16 the various documents, and he can point out

17 whether are not they are germane to his

18 opinion, if they are, and he can say yes.

19 MR. GAINES: That's fine.

20 MR. COUSINS: So we can just do the

21 same thing, I don't have to say anything other

22 than I can just call out the numbers and he

23 can tell me yes or no.

24 MR. GAINES: Just with this

25 understanding that, I mean, germane in his

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

128

1 opinion, it covers a fairly broad background

2 area on chemistry and soil types and

3 phosphorus and the EAA and all that.

4 And, you know, I guess some are more

5 germane than others.

6 MR. COUSINS: There has to be --

7 obviously there are a certain amount of

8 reports that Doctor Anderson has relied on as

9 the core of materials that forms the basis of

10 his opinion.

11 And, obviously, everything from his

12 calculus class up, you know, are going to

13 relate and I think we all know that's not what

14 I am looking for.

15 MR. GAINES: Okay.

16 MR. COUSINS: I just want to know if

17 it's easier -- "These are the nine places --

18 or these are the 11, whatever, this is what I

19 am going to go with, roughly," and then you

20 have got the reserves, or whatever, but I

21 don't think every single one of these items in

22 here he is going to sit down and rely on.

23 MR. GAINES: Okay. I think we are

24 probably belaboring this. But I think the

25 main reports are the three 1992 reports that

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

129

1 we went through in detail, and some of these

2 other matters are in the nature of background

3 or other work that supports that work.

4 But you can ask him and he can tell

5 you and I think that resolves it.

6 Q. (BY MR. COUSINS) Doctor, why don't

7 I do this -- what are we up to, six?

8 MR. GAINES: Yes.

9 Q. (BY MR. COUSINS) Contractal

10 Reports, this is four, five, seven, ten and

11 eleven. Tell me whether or not those are

12 germane to you as a basis for your opinions?

13 A. Do you want me to just state the

14 report?

15 Q. Sure.

16 A. What numbers?

17 Q. Four, five, six, eight, ten and

18 eleven.

19 A. No. 9 also was mentioned yesterday.

20 And in that particular one, again, we are

21 looking at soil water or phosphorus release

22 out of soils based on soil remediation

23 efforts.

24 I have nothing more to add unless

25 you have specific questions on those

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

130

1 contractual reports.

2 Q. But these items that you have

3 listed, this also forms the basis of your

4 report?

5 A. Yes -- forms the basis of my

6 background and comments.

7 MR. GAINES: Ten and eleven are two

8 of the exhibits we have talked about.

9 MR. COUSINS: Right.

10 Q. (BY MR. COUSINS) Manuscripts in

11 Preparation/Review which -- still looking on

12 Page 10, there is three, four, five, six, and

13 seven --

14 A. Six and seven?

15 Q. Three through seven....three through

16 seven. And you have some in parentheses here,

17 it says they are in preparation.

18 A. These are basically manuscripts.

19 Just to go over what they are, they are

20 manuscripts that have been partially written

21 or completely written in an author's review

22 before submission to a journal.

23 Numbers three, four and five is work

24 on dissolution chemistry, soil chemistry,

25 position papers describing chemical mottling

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

131

1 in the soil, looking at phosphate rock

2 dissolution and it's reporting a mechanistic

3 model that was constructed.

4 No. 6 is basically the article

5 written that's in review in the Journal of

6 Environmental Quality. It does talk about

7 phosphorus. It does talk about nitrates and

8 carbon releases after remediation of the

9 soil.

10 No. 7 is an author's review. That's

11 the sister article to No. 27.

12 MR. GARVER: Did you testify that

13 those were all germane? I am not following

14 this, I guess.

15 THE WITNESS: What do you define as

16 germane and not germane, I guess, is the

17 question. If it relates directly, very

18 narrowly to water dosing, is it germane?

19 Sometimes the chemistry of some kind

20 of fringe onto it, whether it be sediment

21 release or the uses of residues, there might

22 be variations of what we have done in some of

23 this other work that is germane.

24 But if you are talking about

25 specific, very narrowing water chemistry

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

132

1 reactions, we can say it's not germane. It

2 depends on your question.

3 MR. GARVER: I was just trying to

4 clarify the record as to whether you were

5 answering as to whether or not they were

6 germane.

7 THE WITNESS: I apologize for not

8 being specific.

9 MR. COUSINS: No, don't apologize. I

10 just went through -- myself and your attorney

11 went back and forth and you might have lost

12 what the purpose of me asking you these

13 questions are.

14 Q. (BY MR. COUSINS) Let's go back for

15 a second: You said that you had three

16 reports, the May, August and November, 1992

17 reports, and those are basically the three

18 reports we went over --

19 A. And the chemical dosing.

20 Q. Right. Now, chemical dosing appears

21 to be from the past two days of your

22 deposition and that was the main area, to my

23 understanding, as to what you are going to be

24 generating an opinion on at the final hearing,

25 if, in fact, you do have an opinion; is that

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

133

1 so?

2 A. Well, I haven't been asked other

3 questions regarding soil chemistry or soil

4 fertility or plant nutrition or other areas.

5 We haven't been asked or been critical about

6 that. So I assume that this is the limit of

7 your interest.

8 Q. Let me back all the way up then.

9 Let's go from the beginning: Who first

10 engaged your services regarding you

11 potentially providing an opinion at the final

12 hearing in this matter?

13 A. When? Two weeks ago?

14 Q. I don't know when. I mean, was the

15 first time that you were contacted by anyone,

16 say, regarding this deposition?

17 A. Unofficially, I think I was

18 contacted in December regarding whether or not

19 the information regarding the chemical

20 treatment, if I could be deposed on the

21 information. I said, "Well, sure, send me a

22 letter or when you have something specific,

23 let me know."

24 Q. Who contacted you?

25 A. John, maybe it was a secretary,

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

134

1 might have been a secretary.

2 Q. John who?

3 A. John Gaines.

4 MR. GAINES: Excuse me -- he is

5 allowed to ask you these things, but I don't

6 want you to get into any substance of

7 communications between you and the attorney in

8 the case.

9 THE WITNESS: That's fine.

10 A. I was only told recently.

11 Q. (BY MR. COUSINS) So what was your

12 task?

13 A. To be available, no special

14 preparation.

15 Q. So sometime in December you had a

16 phone call from Mr. Gaines and he told you

17 that your task was to be available?

18 A. Approximately, to be available and

19 in this time, and I said I had openings and I

20 said yes.

21 Q. What were you going to be doing?

22 A. The word used was "deposition."

23 Q. Did he tell you what the subject of

24 that deposition was?

25 MR. GAINES: Wait a minute. I mean,

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

135

1 I think you are getting into an

2 attorney/client work product area here, what

3 my conversations were.

4 MR. COUSINS: I don't need to know

5 specifically what the conversation was, but

6 obviously before December, 1992, he didn't

7 know he was going to be involved in any of

8 this, and something caused him to be here

9 today and he has a purpose for being here.

10 MR. GAINES: Well, if you are

11 looking -- I mean, the scope of what has been

12 listed for is in the witness disclosure.

13 MR. COUSINS: Right. I know that.

14 MR. GAINES: I mean, that -- you

15 know, I tried to limit that reasonably at the

16 beginning of the deposition by saying that his

17 primary area of focus here is the chemical

18 treatment of phosphorus and what we have been

19 talking about primarily.

20 But the way it was listed in the

21 witness disclosure, it might read a little

22 broader than that. I had tried to look and

23 see if we could eliminate some of those areas

24 and my conclusion was that we might be cutting

25 off areas that support the chemical treatment

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

136

1 testimony when it's not necessary to do so.

2 You know, I mean, I don't know if

3 that helps you out. His focus here is on the

4 chemical treatment.

5 MR. COUSINS: I want to know what he

6 was asked to do. That is what I want to

7 know.

8 A. I was asked to be available to

9 answer questions. And frankly, very frankly,

10 if there are questions regarding the soil

11 chemistry or the nature of the EAA in the

12 areas that my resume' and publication

13 background are essential, I was asked to be

14 available on a broad basis.

15 I did not believe it was just

16 chemical dosing, since my background is

17 broader than that.

18 Q. (BY MR. COUSINS) Now, you may have

19 answered it before, but did you know that you

20 are designated as an expert?

21 A. Yes, I was told I was an expert

22 witness when I received a paper in my hand

23 that said I was an expert witness.

24 Q. Which paper was that?

25 A. That was a fax copy of a letter and

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

137

1 that I received a day later, in the mail,

2 deposing me as an expert witness. I may have

3 a date if I could look at a calendar, but at

4 that point in time, it was submitted before

5 the university the documentation that I was

6 deposed as an expert witness.

7 Q. So there is no task other than

8 coming here and answering questions regarding

9 the matter that you have been answering?

10 A. I have spent no extra time preparing

11 any of the information or prepping really on

12 questions.

13 Q. Are you being compensated for your

14 time here today?

15 A. Yes, I am.

16 Q. How much are you being compensated

17 and by whom?

18 THE WITNESS: Is that essential?

19 MR. GAINES: He can ask that.

20 A. I am being compensated by the law

21 firm of Peeples, Earl & Blank at $100 an

22 hour.

23 Q. (BY MR. COUSINS) So since you have

24 -- you say you have had no preparation time,

25 so the hundred dollar clock started to run

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

138

1 yesterday morning?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. I don't want to beat this curriculum

4 vitae thing to death so I am going to put it

5 aside and just note to the Doctor that if you

6 will make available, as I know we have

7 discussed earlier, any of these documents that

8 we desire that's on your CV.

9 A. Sure, should they be in print. Some

10 of these are --

11 MR. GAINES: I think anything that he

12 has --

13 THE WITNESS: Some of the old ones,

14 I don't know where a recent copy may be. I

15 should have most of them in my file.

16 Q. (BY MR. COUSINS) I am going to go

17 through some questions that are going to jump

18 from place to place because Attorney Garver

19 did a pretty thorough job of questioning you

20 and I just had a few questions regarding the

21 same things that you might be able to clarify.

22 The first question I have is: How

23 was the work done in Okeechobee County with

24 dairy farm waste related to sugar cane and

25 vegetable waste? Is there a correlation

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

139

1 there?

2 A. Well, the relationship that it's the

3 same state agency that is in the business or

4 has the responsibility of regulating water

5 quality. The land use is different, the soils

6 are different, and water quality standards

7 were used for a basis of regulation of the

8 dairy and beef and other agriculturally based

9 industries in the Okeechobee region.

10 In principle, some of the same

11 problems apply whether it be fertilizer or

12 management practices that affect runoff, how

13 water is managed and controlled have similar,

14 either positive or negative, effects in both

15 regions.

16 Some of the solutions, it's my

17 observation, is that probably the SWIM

18 legislation in the EAA has a higher degree of

19 forte' being put to it, more effort is

20 probably put into correcting mistakes or

21 providing for solutions than in the Okeechobee

22 area.

23 Basically, what I have seen in the

24 Okeechobee region is that there was a

25 requirement for certain water quality

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

140

1 standards without any efforts being made to

2 tell land owners how to correct it, and in

3 some cases, it's difficult or it's not

4 possible to correct the water quality

5 problems.

6 And that has to do with the large

7 lakes because of the magnitude of

8 concentration problems were much more, much

9 greater than in the EAA. They might have had

10 a 1.2 parts per million phosphorus standard in

11 a dairy role, and I think it's .32 or .34 in

12 the beef area use, and then it drops down to

13 .05 parts per million in the sugar cane and in

14 the EAA.

15 So they started with some very high

16 standards for one land use and now got the

17 EAA, which is very, very low. So in a way,

18 the quantity of the problem is much less, but

19 the problem is actually much greater in

20 magnitude because it's more difficult to

21 control at very low levels.

22 There are similar problems,

23 different land use, different soils, different

24 opportunities to control those problems.

25 Q. I am trying to be specific about

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

141

1 certain areas regarding the difference in the

2 soil between the farm land and the organic

3 soil in the EAA. Let's discuss the phosphorus

4 retention. Is there a different phosphorus

5 retention from dairy land versus the land in

6 the EAA?

7 A. Yes, there is.

8 Q. Now, have we discussed that?

9 A. No, we have not.

10 Q. I don't want to say briefly, but can

11 you --

12 A. Concisely?

13 Q. Yes.

14 A. I will try. Basically, hopefully,

15 in layman's language, with a little technical

16 language, in the EAA -- excuse me -- in the

17 Okeechobee area, which is in the central --

18 south central part of Florida, including the

19 coastal areas, soils are very sandy.

20 Essentially Okeechobee County, which

21 was where the first efforts were made to

22 reduce phosphorus movement into the Lake

23 Okeechobee -- these soils are what are called

24 spodosols. Those spodosols are very sandy,

25 very little clay content, very little organic

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

142

1 matter.

2 Essentially a fertilizer put on in

3 this land or manure that mineralizes and

4 releases soluble phosphorus moves very quickly

5 through the soil to the water table into a

6 culvert or water control ditch.

7 And, therefore, the little that is

8 put on this land quickly goes off. The

9 retention capacity may be zero or that of

10 release or extremely very low.

11 In fact, in terms of description of

12 those soils, these sandy soils, retention is

13 not the word that is used to describe this but

14 phosphorus release is usually the term that is

15 used because the retention is negligable or

16 nonexistent.

17 In the EAA we have organic soils,

18 which is called, "histosols." These are

19 basically one hundred percent organic matter.

20 Along the lake there are several different

21 types of soils. The soils on the lake are

22 called torrey (phonetic) soils, formerly

23 called apple custard muck.

24 These soils have a fairly high

25 mineral content, over 40 percent mineral

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

143

1 content, normally clay. And clay is the

2 component that detains -- it has a very high

3 retention for phosphorus. Am I cooking?

4 Q. Yes.

5 A. The other soils that are in the EAA

6 are called -- there are various names for

7 them, Pahokee, Terracia, Ahokee, Lauderhill,

8 Dania Muck (all names phonetic). These are

9 classified according to how thick they are

10 over the bedrock material.

11 The thickest of these soils are

12 called the Terracia soils. Originally, these

13 organics were built from generally reed grass

14 or sawgrass materials in a marshland

15 situation. It's been carbon dated that

16 generally these soils are in excess of 9,000

17 years old in origin.

18 When they are drained, they oxidize

19 and this oxidation is then what occurs in

20 subsidence. We briefly covered subsidence

21 yesterday. But subsidence is generally -- 70

22 or 80 percent of that is biological oxidation

23 through bacterial or fungal means.

24 Another part of subsidence is an

25 actually compression of the soil through

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

144

1 implements or working the land because these

2 are very light soils to begin with and when

3 they oxidize they are compressed, because they

4 have equipment also on them or there might be

5 erosion. So subsidence is a combination, not

6 only of the oxidation, but land use.

7 The other soils that are also in the

8 EAA are Okeechobee, Okeelanta, and other

9 variants of sandy soils which have a very

10 thick or moderately thick organic horizon, and

11 those are usually organic profiles, over sand

12 profiles.

13 The reason why that is important is

14 along the lake you have soils that retain very

15 high amounts of phosphorus. And the latter

16 soils I described have a very poor retention

17 of phosphorus.

18 Not all of organics in the EAA

19 behave in a similar manner. You can class

20 them or proof certain regions that are more

21 susceptible for phosphorus loss than others.

22 Some can be managed more intensively than

23 others. Others use less management than

24 others.

25 Q. Are your studies taking all this

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

145

1 into account, the difference between the soils

2 in the Okeechobee farmland that you discussed

3 versus the soil quality in the EAA?

4 A. Well, hopefully, it will in the

5 future. We went through some things in our

6 report 92-11 discussing those factors. I

7 responded that at some time someone might want

8 to make a predictive model.

9 And, obviously, we have certain

10 parts of the EAA that have more potential

11 problems for phosphorus retainage than others.

12 That, to my knowledge, has not been discussed

13 by the district except through informal

14 meetings perhaps.

15 And that certainly is the case

16 because there are certain areas that are more

17 susceptible to losses than others, and where

18 the organic carbon and hardnesses and the

19 amount of total phosphorus may be different

20 because of the geographical arrangement within

21 the EAA related to soil differences.

22 Q. So it's my understanding that your

23 research has taken this into account or has

24 not?

25 A. Research in a broad way?

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

146

1 Q. Well, specifically regarding

2 chemical dosing.

3 A. Chemical dosing -- chemical dosing,

4 I don't think, has to worry about that

5 particular aspect right now.

6 If it comes down to putting a plant

7 in certain areas, treatment facilities in

8 certain areas, we certainly need to know the

9 water quality variability, depending on

10 rainfall and drainage in that particular soil

11 or region is going to affect the ultimate

12 responsiveness of our chemical dosing.

13 Yes, that eventually should be taken

14 into account.

15 Q. Why don't you think it's necessary

16 right now?

17 A. Because we are creating the

18 foundations or the feasibilities, providing

19 evidence for the feasibilities of using this

20 system for possible treatment on a broad or

21 narrow scale.

22 We have to admit that this is soil

23 research at the beginning stages. There are

24 still questions to be answered that haven't

25 been answered yet.

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

147

1 Q. You discussed in your report, 92-11

2 -- we went through that pretty thoroughly, I

3 gather, for the time we got to look at it --

4 for the samples that you collected, how many

5 replications of each sample were collected and

6 analyzed at different sites, do you have that

7 data?

8 A. There were bulk samples taken from

9 each area, approximately half a liter from

10 each site of the EPD. You are talking about

11 the EPD samples?

12 Q. Right.

13 A. The only replications that we had

14 other than the laboratory, in-house

15 replication on data, was that one grab sample

16 each week. Replication was a time series

17 replication only.

18 So the sample data from that

19 particular time at that particular station is

20 indicative only of that sample, that grab

21 sample, a single grab sample. It was not a

22 composite sample.

23 It was a sample that was taken

24 without acidification, without any -- taken at

25 that period of time, at that moment in time.

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

148

1 Q. You might have testified to this

2 earlier, but who specifically did that grab

3 sample?

4 A. The people that were hired by the

5 Environmental Protection District to monitor

6 those stations, which I think under contract

7 was Hutcheon Engineers.

8 Q. We made formal arrangements with the

9 EPD to request a grab sample be taken by that

10 team that was contracted to do the sampling

11 work, and the sample was made through the

12 instrumentation that was set up at each of

13 those stations.

14 Q. How were the sites selected, do you

15 have any idea?

16 A. I don't know what was the objectives

17 for those sites.

18 Q. Was there any statistical knowledge

19 that was gained by the data that came out of

20 the grab samples?

21 A. In the report, the only information

22 that we have made thus far is the simple

23 statistics of a minimal nature. There have

24 been no trend analyses, at this point, made.

25 Q. What type of sample was used?

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

149

1 A. I believe -- you can't quote me for

2 this, but I believe there that was Esco

3 samplers. That should be public record to

4 what the Environmental Protection District

5 has.

6 I believe those were set up as Esco

7 samplers, composite or -- I think those were

8 composite sampler units with the large jars.

9 They had an acidified sample that was

10 collected over a period of time.

11 After those samplers were unloaded

12 using the -- and flushing the hoses, they

13 resampled directly from the canals.

14 Q. A follow-up question: Was that done

15 by core samples or was that done by dredging?

16 A. Pardon?

17 Q. Was it done by core sampling or was

18 it done by dredging?

19 A. Corp samplers?

20 Q. No, core.

21 MR. GAINES: Do you understand the

22 question?

23 THE WITNESS: No, I don't. Morris,

24 these were the samplers with the big plastic

25 with the triple jars in it.

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

150

1 MR. GAINES: Wait a minute. I

2 understand that Mr. Rosen is here for his

3 expertise, but I don't think it is going to

4 help the record for the witness and

5 Mr. Rosen to have a conversation on the

6 record.

7 MR. COUSINS: I have the answer.

8 Q. (BY MR. COUSINS) You were talking a

9 little bit, Doctor Anderson, about sediments.

10 You went through and talked about it in some

11 detail. You talked about water velocities and

12 lots of different things that were going on

13 that made up the data you compiled.

14 Is there a particular water velocity

15 that is required to scour the sediments from

16 the bottom of the canal?

17 A. I am sure there is, but I don't

18 recall or I am not sure what that particular

19 velocity might be. There are particular

20 velocities that will have a tendency to move

21 sediments of a particularly compacted nature.

22 I can't tell you what they are.

23 Q. You were discussing Calgon

24 yesterday?

25 A. Okay.

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

151

1 Q. Is Calgon a sodium

2 hexametaphosphate?

3 A. You looked that one up.

4 (Laughter).

5 Q. (BY MR. COUSINS) Is it?

6 A. Well, Calgon sure is a calcium

7 compound, but it may have phosphates in it.

8 Most of these detergents are coagulant aids

9 and detergents have a lot of phosphates in

10 them.

11 Q. Following up on that, is sodium

12 hexametaphosphate a coagulant or a

13 disbursement?

14 A. Sodium is a disbursement. But if it

15 has calcium in there, it's a coagulant.

16 Q. So the answer to my question is, is

17 it a coagulant?

18 A. The sodium?

19 Q. The sodium hexametaphosphate.

20 A. That's probably a leading question

21 or something, but it's a disbursement.

22 MR. GAINES: What is Calgon?

23 THE WITNESS: You use it in the

24 dishwater to take away the spots. Basically,

25 when you are talking about a sodium-based

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

152

1 component such as that, you are talking about

2 a disbursement, which is opposite of

3 coagulation.

4 Q. (BY MR. COUSINS) Actually, talking

5 about the chemical compound again, what

6 by-product would be produced by an on-site

7 ferric chloride production in the EAA?

8 A. Say that again, please.

9 Q. What by-products would be produced

10 by an on-site ferric chloride production in

11 the EAA? I don't know if you recall, you were

12 discussing the feasibility and economics of

13 having it done on-site versus, I guess, having

14 it brought in.

15 A. What is the difference between

16 residues produced outside versus inside, is

17 that is your leading question?

18 Q. I am not trying to lead you.

19 MR. GAINES: Wait a minute. He is

20 asking -- are you talking about manufacturing

21 the dosing chemical on site? Do you

22 understand that that is his question?

23 THE WITNESS: No, no, I don't.

24 MR. GAINES: That is your question,

25 right?

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

153

1 MR. COUSINS: Right.

2 MR. GAINES: What by-products would

3 be produced by an on-site ferric chloride

4 production in the EAA?

5 THE WITNESS: What by-products -- if

6 we produced ferric chloride on site -- okay.

7 I understand.

8 Q. (BY MR. COUSINS) You can answer the

9 other one, too.

10 A. I was not thinking that, but I

11 understand your question now. I don't know

12 the entire process yet as to what

13 by-products. I can't answer that completely

14 to you. I will by Friday, because I have got

15 people I am talking to on Friday about it

16 but --

17 MR. GAINES: Just keeping thinking

18 of the question until Friday.

19 A. But, essentially, what is brought in

20 is a ferrous sulfate material, and it can be

21 brought in as a liquid or a solid material.

22 It is chlorinated and the chlorination process

23is using chlorine gas.

24 Particularly by-products, there is

25 none. Essentially, the reaction or the

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

154

1 reactor is the product. I am not going to --

2 I am going to defer and say I don't know

3 instead of I don't recall, because I really

4 don't know specifically.

5 But those are good questions that

6 should be known and we will be knowing it

7 shortly.

8 Q. (BY MR. COUSINS) So when you do

9 find these things out, are we going to

10 have --

11 A. Will you be the first to know?

12 (Laughter).

13 Q. (BY MR. COUSINS) Again, we are

14 reserving the right to redepose you, because

15 we are not, as of today --

16 MR. GAINES: The issue of a

17 follow-up deposition is long and twisted in

18 this case.

19 MR. COUSINS: We need to be --

20 MR. GAINES: We are not stipulating

21 to any follow-up depos here on the record. We

22 will take the issue up if and when it arises.

23 MR. COUSINS: How else will we get

24 to find out what he knows?

25 MR. GAINES: Send us an

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

155

1 interrogatory. It's not an issue to be

2 determined one way or the other on this

3 record.

4 Q. (BY MR. COUSINS) What happens to

5 the sulfates?

6 A. To what -- to the sulfates in what?

7 I think I understand the question, but I want

8 to make sure I don't answer another question.

9 Q. (BY MR. COUSINS) Okay. In the

10 manufacturing of the ferric chloride?

11 A. I am not -- I can't answer that

12 right now. But one process that we have

13 discussed, more or less, is the use of a

14 ferric chloride sulfate material.

15 In fact, that particular by-product

16 is produced by Kronos (phonetic) of Germany

17 right now, and it appears to be the most

18 economical product to use if it's suitable to

19 use in our chemical dosing scheme in our

20 chemical process, and in the engineering

21 design, it may.

22 And if that be the case, the

23 sulfates and the chlorides together would be

24 the make-up of the dosing compound. You are

25 asking some manufacturing questions which I

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

156

1 don't know specifically right now, but those

2 are good questions.

3 MR. GAINES: Doctor, notwithstanding

4 your refreshing disdain for the formalities

5 here, please direct your responses to

6 Mr. Cousins, not to Mr. Rosen.

7 Q. (BY MR. COUSINS) Doctor Anderson,

8 is it your opinion that the rock pit solution

9 regarding the phosphorus problem is likely to

10 be more efficient than the STA solution

11 regarding the phosphorus problem?

12 A. I think the question was a little

13 bit like Geoffrey's was earlier this morning.

14 Q. Probably almost exactly the same

15 question.

16 A. I can't quantify it. And unless I

17 can quantify it -- if I some quantification

18 information, I would tell you.

19 MR. GAINES: Can I hear the question

20 back? I am sorry.

21 (The requested material was here

22 read back by the court reporter as recorded).

23 MR. GAINES: Let me just, hopefully

24 without belaboring it, the same objection I

25 made the first time the question or a similar

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

157

1 question was asked, and that is that he has

2 already testified that he doesn't believe STA

3 will work, or would work.

4 So I will object to the form of the

5 question.

6 Q. (BY MR. COUSINS) Have you testified

7 that you don't think STAs would work?

8 A. No.

9 THE WITNESS: You are putting some

10 words in my mouth.

11 MR. COUSINS: Your lawyer is putting

12 worth in your mouth.

13 A. I think that my answer to that,

14 about the STAs, is that there are some

15 problems to the STAs which have not been

16 documented, their effectiveness has not been

17 actually proven, and that there are some

18 reasons to believe that certain aspects of an

19 STA will not work properly.

20 To answer, specifically, your first

21 question just a minute ago: I don't believe a

22 rock pit will do the same thing as an STA if

23 an STA releases phosphorus. A rock pit will

24 not release phosphorus.

25 It doesn't have the capability of

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

158

1 releasing phosphorus in the same way as an STA

2 could, meaning it does not shallow, it does

3 not have wading birds, it doesn't have

4 resuspended sediments that may occur, it

5 doesn't have a declining fluctuating water

6 table that oxidizes something that may flush

7 out phosphorus from the soil.

8 It's a different system, so it

9 doesn't have the capability of responding as

10 an STA. But whether or not it would be

11 effective, the objectives of using a rock pit

12 are to be used as a sedimentary basin.

13 The question of whether or not the

14 chemistry is suitable to precipitate, by

15 itself, out phosphorus and other nutrients, is

16 another question that has not been resolved.

17 The study by Florida Atlantic

18 University was not an open system that had

19 effluents coming in at a certain flowage rate

20 and then leaving. It was not the same. And

21 it essentially looked at the chemistry that

22 resulted.

23 So it's not comparable and it's not

24 handling the same flows as what we have

25 discussed.....I am sorry.

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

159

1 Q. (BY MR. COUSINS) No, no, don't be

2 sorry. So you think that STAs may work?

3 A. There are some reasons to believe

4 that STAs have some effectiveness under

5 certain conditions, and those conditions have

6 been documented by the district fairly well.

7 What the documents, I believe, do

8 not discuss is the failings of a system should

9 those failings occur and what the risks are if

10 they do fail. Those conditions might be

11 entering into a drought year where there is

12 not enough water to maintain a storm water

13 treatment area such as a fixed hydroperiod.

14 The problems of what happens if

15 major mercuries are established in the area

16 which could be likely because it's a nutrient

17 loading area. The questions of when the

18 capacity of the nutrients that may be retained

19 in storm water treatment, is there a time when

20 the cup is full and can't retain any longer,

21 how long does it take before it retains.

22 The other question is whether the

23 STAs here in the EAA are similar to what is

24 happening in Iron Bridge or other experiences

25 in Florida and in other areas or outside of

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

160

1 Florida has not really been adequately

2 documented.

3 But there are some reasons to

4 believe that the concept, in principle, has

5 some merit.

6 Q. Doctor Anderson, your concept with

7 the chemical dosing, that's a concept in

8 principle of your belief that is some merit?

9 A. Yes. The other -- one of the

10 objectives, also, of the STA, which is a

11 reasonable objective with a reasonable answer

12 to meeting that objective, of the STAs being

13 used as a filtering marsh to take out the

14 particulate fraction.

15 That is a reasonable objective that

16 can be met with a filter marsh or a storm

17 water treatment area. But, again, you have

18 certain risks and when you have certain

19 failures in the system, then you have some

20 other problems and I think that is what has

21 not been delineated fully or understood fully.

22 Maybe it can't be. Maybe it's

23 something that has to be built and watched.

24 Q. In your Exhibit No. 3 here,

25 Technical Summary, reduction of phosphorus

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

161

1 loading in the EAA, looking through it, maybe

2 you can show me where it might be -- I didn't

3 see any results of the chemical dosing. Is

4 that the August?

5 A. Right. There were no results to the

6 chemical dosing. That report was basically

7 designed to inform the SAGE Committee of the

8 intentions of the research that were to be

9 pursued.

10 No preliminary results were really

11 given by myself to indicate feasibility, other

12 than I think there might have been one

13 figure.

14 I believe the district at the time

15 the SAGE Committee, hearsay, had requested the

16 Florida Sugar Cane League to present basically

17 their intent and objectives of doing work that

18 might be feasible as an alternative, and this

19 document work was put together to outline that

20 approach.

21 Q. So at that time you hadn't had any

22 results?

23 A. No.

24 Q. Should the hydroperiods in rice

25 fields be different than the hydroperiods in

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

162

1 an STA?

2 A. It could be. Normally, the level of

3 flood in a rice field is four to six inches

4 and maintained at that level. And if it

5 exceeds it, it kills the plants, and if it

6 dries up to soon, there are other production

7 problems.

8 So a rice field's hydroperiod for

9 two or three months of its growth is very

10 carefully controlled. On the other hand, a

11 storm water treatment area could be two feet

12 or one foot or eighteen inches, depending on

13 the species that they wanted to promote or

14 keep in that area and the decision on which

15 species, whether it be cattail, sawgrass or

16 whatever.

17 Q. Referring you to the Naadamier

18 (phonetic) project in Holland, are the

19 biological update rates in Holland slower than

20 in the Everglades?

21 A. Yes, they are.

22 Q. You would rely -- I am gathering you

23 discussed the wildlife research and the

24 maintenance of it over in Naadamier and you

25 are making, I believe, some correlation to

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

163

1 those results on what you could, I guess,

2 expect to find in the Everglades. Tell me if

3 I characterized that incorrectly.

4 A. What have I done?

5 Q. Okay. Do you feel, referring to the

6 Naadamier project --

7 A. Yes?

8 Q. Why did you make reference to that

9 project in your deposition?

10 A. Essentially in September, at the

11 time, I had been in contact with a number of

12 individuals in Europe.

13 One of those individuals, Pierre

14 Verstraelen, made a visit to Florida in

15 September and he also had the opportunity to

16 present a seminar at the district to present

17 -- he works for the Water Pollution Control

18 Authority, which would be the equivalent to

19 the South Florida Water Management District in

20 Holland.

21 They are the control agency and the

22 agency in charge of doing research development

23 and water control, et cetera.

24 Q. I hate to cut you off, but just so

25 you understand what I getting at is you had

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

164

1 stated this system in Holland was probably as

2 close as you could get to the Everglades.

3 If biological update rates are

4 slower in Holland than they are here, I don't

5 see how you can make that statement, or what

6 is that statement based on?

7 MR. GAINES: Let me object to the

8 form. I don't know that he did make that

9 statement.

10 Q. (BY MR. COUSINS) Okay. Let me ask

11 you: Did you make that statement,

12 specifically that Naadamier Holland wildlife

13 reserve area you made reference to was as

14 close as you could get to the Everglades?

15 A. Very similar, yes. It's very

16 similar in the regions in Holland --

17 Q. Okay. Not to cut you off, but, yes,

18 you made the statement or --

19 A. You paraphrased the statement.

20 Q. Okay. But the essence --

21 A. The essence of the statement -- I

22 will repeat the statement.

23 Q. Okay. Great. Repeat the

24 statement.

25 A. The statement is that areas like

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

165

1 Nottamier, there are a number of areas in

2 Holland that have very similar problems and

3 are of a similar nature to areas in Florida.

4 There are differences, of course,

5 but they are very similar and they are dealing

6 with drainage waters that are very high in

7 phosphorus and they are dealing with

8 eutrophication of very shallow lakes and

9 marshland situations and they are dealing with

10 conservation of wildlife in these areas that

11 may be endangered by activities on organic

12 soils.

13 And to those extents, Holland is

14 very similar. There are differences though.

15 Q. Did you rely on the Naadamier

16 Holland report as the basis of any opinions

17 that you stated in your deposition testimony?

18 A. We are using documentation from

19 Naadamier and other places to substantiate

20 what we are doing as a feasibility on a basis

21 that chemical treatment is used elsewhere as a

22 viable alternative to control phosphorus

23 concentrations in drainage waters.

24 Q. In light of the fact that you said

25 there are similarities, but there are

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

166

1 differences, did your study take into

2 consideration the differences between

3 Naadamier and the Everglades?

4 A. I think they will, yes.

5 Q. Presently, has anything that has

6 been produced or written taken that into

7 consideration, the differences between the

8 Naadamier project and the Everglades?

9 A. I don't believe that's relevant at

10 this point in time.

11 Q. Why don't you believe it's relevant?

12 A. We are still at the beginnings of

13 our research, at a beginning point. When such

14 relevance comes into play, I think we might

15 discuss that. I don't see a relevance at this

16 point.

17 Q. So when you say you are at the

18 beginning of your research, you are at the

19 beginning of your chemical dosages, that is

20 the research that you are referring to?

21 A. Correct. There were questions last

22 year that was this was a new thing and others

23 said, "No, it's not a new thing. We treat

24 waste in urban areas all the time."

25 But the other question, statements

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

167

1 saying that this is not being done elsewhere,

2 and the reason for me bringing up the Holland

3 experience or German experience is to correct

4 that misconception that, yes, it is being

5 done, even though there are differences, we

6 need to understand what those similarities are

7 for possible applications.

8 Q. Earlier today you were talking about

9 sediment phosphorus release, removal and

10 redistribution. Specifically you were

11 discussing residue characterizations, and you

12 were talking about different ratios had come

13 up and you used the word, "textbook," there

14 was a textbook ratio, but yet that textbook

15 ratio was not the proper ratio in actual

16 application.

17 Do you recall making that statement

18 or something similar to that?

19 A. As a general rule, there are certain

20 iron to phosphorus ratios that are followed in

21 the wastewater treatment industry as a general

22 rule. But because our water quality is so

23 radically different than the general rule, our

24 ratios between iron and phosphorus change and

25 they can have a tenfold or more change between

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

168

1 how much iron is added for every phosphorus or

2 how many pounds of iron to every phosphorus to

3 precipitate.

4 So those general rules that are in

5 textbooks, generally for wastewater treatment,

6 do not apply.

7 Q. Do you know when the information was

8 gathered for those general rules if they don't

9 apply to the system given?

10 A. I think I can find them, yes. I

11 think they exist in many different sources.

12 Q. I guess I was really trying to

13 figure out where the information for those

14 ratios came from, not necessarily the --

15 A. Well, if you have an understanding,

16 first of all, of why I am saying what I am

17 saying, of course, maybe you will understand

18 why it's not a good ratio to -- assuming that

19 I am correct, that I am telling you the

20 truth.

21 What makes the water different and

22 what makes those ratios change is, again, if

23 you have several reacting constituents in the

24 water that react with our dosing compound, you

25 are going to consume more chemical.

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

169

1 If you are only worried about

2 phosphorus and you have no carbon, very low

3 hardness and low alkalinities, then you can

4 say the iron is basically reacting primarily

5 with phosphorus, or whatever component you

6 have.

7 But if you have more of those other

8 constituents that also is reacting with the

9 built-in compound, then you are consuming more

10 chemical and the ratio changes.

11 Typically alum is used as a

12 treatment process for a storm water treatment

13 period in urban areas that collect runoff from

14 streets.

15 The situation with those are much

16 different than here because street runoff has

17 very little alkalinity, has very little

18 hardness. It is much different. There is

19 very little carbon. Basically it is runoff

20 that is fairly clear in color.

21 So it's a different situation than

22 if you are running through an organic soil

23 that is oxidizing and a lake that is partially

24 atrophic.

25 Q. So then you are not saying that

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

170

1 besides there being a textbook -- besides

2 there being a given ratio that deals

3 specifically with the environment, it is

4 similar to the Everglades?

5 A. The rule of thumb that for every

6 pound of iron or for every pound of phosphorus

7 removed, you add two pounds of iron is not a

8 correct assumption in our case.

9 Q. We were talking about STAs a couple

10 of hours ago and you said that everyone from

11 the district is uneasy about STAs, and then

12 you went through some testimony and you didn't

13 really tell us who it was.

14 I am not going to ask you who

15 specifically it was, but then you also said

16 that STAs have been used conceptually by --

17 you said several people or several groups.

18 We didn't really get into a listing.

19 Who has conceptually used STAs?

20 MR. GAINES: I object to the form. I

21 don't understand what you mean by "used

22 conceptually."

23 MR. COUSINS: Those are his words.

24 He said that STAs are used conceptually.

25 MR. GAINES: I don't recall that.

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

171

1 MR. COUSINS: Well, I wrote it down.

2 Well, the record will speak for itself. I

3 wrote it down as a quote.

4 THE WITNESS: Let's not dispute

5 that.

6 MR. GAINES: That is my objection.

7 I don't understand the term.

8 MR. COUSINS: Oh, that's fine. I am

9 not one to throw terms up in the air.

10 Q. (BY MR. COUSINS) Can you answer

11 that?

12 A. Well, the concept of an STA or a

13 storm water treatment area did not originate

14 from the South Florida Water Management

15 District. They have got very qualified people

16 who have wetlands' training and ecological

17 training, but this not a term that is

18 originating with the South Florida Water

19 Management District.

20 It's a technology that has been used

21 in other places and it is being used here.

22 But that was the intent of my comment this

23 morning.

24 Q. Does that include references to Iron

25 Bridge that you spoke of?

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

172

1 A. Correct.

2 Q. You also said that there was a farm

3 that was presently using an STA. Let me back

4 up so I don't get an objection. Did you say

5 earlier in your testimony that there was a

6 farm that was presently using an STA other

7 than the Iron Bridge?

8 A. Currently there is data being

9 collected in the Lake Apopka area of the

10 St. Johns Water Management District that is

11 moving water from -- on farms -- from

12 vegetable farms and putting it into a

13 treatment area, a marshland -- filter marsh

14 storm water treatment area.

15 Currently they are having

16 difficulties with that system trying to

17 maintain low levels of phosphorus and they are

18 not understanding exactly what is going on.

19 They believe it to be a soil drainage problem

20 within the storm water treatment area.

21 Q. Do you have any idea why the

22 St. Johns Water Management District decided to

23 undertake that project?

24 A. I am sure in hopes that it would be

25 a result of solving the problem of the high

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

173

1 particulate loading in the Lake Apopka area.

2 MR. GAINES: Don't guess a factual

3 question. I mean, if you know, it will be

4 self-evident, but --

5 A. I don't know.

6 Q. (BY MR. COUSINS) Okay. I think

7 it's maybe self-evident. Is your knowledge on

8 the St. Johns Water Management District

9 first-hand knowledge from conversations with

10 anyone at St. Johns?

11 A. Yes, it is.

12 Q. Who did you speak to regarding that?

13 A. David Steitz (phonetic).

14 Q. What is his position there?

15 A. I don't know specifically.

16 Q. How did you come about having a

17 conversation with him about the STAs?

18 A. We happen to be on right now,

19 currently, the scientific selection committee

20 for a conference next year being held in

21 Europe, so we are working together on that.

22 We have been just briefly associated since

23 last year and gotten to know each other

24 through mutual contacts.

25 Q. Is he aware of your studies that you

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

174

1 are doing with the chemical dosing?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Have you guys had any discussions

4 about the application?

5 A. Yes, we have.

6 MR. COUSINS: I don't have any

7 further questions at this time. But,

8 obviously, if the documents that we start to

9 go through on his curriculum vitae that he may

10 or may not rely on in general, every expert

11 presents with a warehouse of knowledge that is

12 accumulated over time, but the specific

13 documents that he is going to rely on that I

14 consider make up the core of his testimony,

15 specifically the chemical dosing:

16 If there is something else that

17 comes up regarding new data, you have also

18 described to us that you have work in

19 progress, whatever it is that might assist or

20 that you would use as a basis for your

21 opinion, we would like to have a copy of that

22 and we may very well follow up with a request

23 for production or whatever other form of

24 discovery necessary to obtain these

25 documents.

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

175

1 MR. GAINES: Just so we are clear,

2 if there is a specific report or documents

3 that he intends to rely upon that you don't

4 already have, we will produce it to you.

5 I am not aware of any documents that

6 fit that description at this time.

7 MR. COUSINS: Okay. So are you --

8 we have talked about this about six times

9 already. Are you saying everything that he

10 stated -- and if we read these transcripts

11 that he says he relied on, and the fact that

12 he held his curriculum vitae up and said,

13 "This is the basis of my knowledge," we have

14 it.

15 MR. GAINES: I said I am not aware

16 of any specific documents other than what you

17 have that is going to be the basis of his

18 testimony. But if it comes to light that

19 there is one or one is generated, you will

20 have it.

21 Additionally, I think we had a

22 further discussion about there might be some

23 follow-up documents, publications listed here

24 that you guys might want to ask for. And if

25 that's the case, we will make an effort to get

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

176

1 those to you.

2 Do you have anything further?

3 MR. GARVER: I have a couple of

4 clarifying questions. Well, why don't you go

5 and if have any more, I will go after you.

6 CROSS-EXAMINATION

7 BY MR. GAINES:

8 Q. Just a couple of questions, Doctor.

9 Earlier yesterday in your depo in response to

10 some questions -- well, I can't find them --

11 in response to some questioning about the time

12 constraints on your work, you made a statement

13 about your budgeting and the time frame for

14 your work and you said something along the

15 lines of needing to show the people who are

16 funding you something that will make them

17 happy or something along those lines.

18 I think I know what you were

19 intending to say there, but I want to have a

20 clear record. Do you recall that question and

21 answer from yesterday?

22 A. Well, I hope I didn't say that. If

23 I said that, that certainly is not correct. I

24 think I said something to clarify that this

25 morning.

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

177

1 Essentially, every research proposal

2 and every piece of research that is funded by

3 any agency, whether it be the Federal

4 Government or international agencies, or

5 whatever, you need to show a document or proof

6 that you are doing the work that you set out

7 to do.

8 And whether it be to their liking or

9 not, that's basically what we have done is

10 trying to document in our report of 92-11 is

11 just basically where we were with trying to

12 achieve the objectives that we had written out

13 in the original proposal and showing the

14 information, good, bad or indifferent, where

15 it stood.

16 And, in many cases, you create more

17 questions after you get data than you started

18 with. And that may be the case with some of

19 our work.

20 Q. In the work that you have done to

21 date on this project, specifically the

22 chemical treatment project, have you in any

23 way predetermined or slanted or adjusted the

24 outcome of your research to try to please

25 whoever is funding you or to get some

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

178

1 predetermined results?

2 A. No, no, we haven't.

3 Q. The only other item, there were some

4 discussions yesterday on -- I think you said

5 you had seen a report from your colleague,

6 Doctor Ramesh Reddy, and made some comments

7 about that.

8 With regard to that report we were

9 talking about, did you ever do any kind of

10 formal analysis of that report or the data,

11 any peer review or analysis of the conditions

12 of that report you were talking about?

13 A. No, I have not.

14 MR. GAINES: That's all I have.

15 RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION

16 BY MR. GARVER:

17 Q. I just have a couple of questions.

18 Doctor Anderson. Without getting into the

19 substance of any discussions, did you discuss

20 with Mr. Gaines any of the questions he just

21 asked you in his cross-examination?

22 A. We discussed them in the hallway. I

23 didn't prepare my response for him, no.

24 Q. Have you reached your final opinions

25 for the final hearing in this proceeding?

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

179

1 A. For the deposition?

2 Q. For the hearing.

3 A. I imagine not. We are continuing to

4 do research, and I guess until we stop

5 researcing this, the final straw will not be

6 finished, the final comments.

7 MR. GAINES: Is that it?

8 MR. GARVER: Well, yes. I guess I

9 just have the same reservations I had before.

10 What Doctor Anderson just said

11 clarifies that he still is doing research and

12 there may be some changes to his final

13 opinions.

14 If that takes place, we, of course,

15 reserve the right to continue the deposition.

16 MR. GAINES: We have discussed that.

17 We will read.

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

180

______________________________

5 David L. Anderson, Ph.D.

STATE OF FLORIDA )

8 ) ss.

COUNTY OF __________ )

11 Subscribed and sworn to before me

12 this______day of______________, 1993.

14 _________________________________

Notary Public, State of Florida

My commission expires_____________.

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES

181

1 C E R T I F I C A T E

State of Florida )

2 ) ss.

County of Dade )

I, Phil Berglan, a Notary Public

4 within and for the State of Florida, do

certify that there came before me, David L.

5 Anderson, Ph.D., persuant to notice and the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure at 250 N.

6 Australian Avenue, 14th Floor, West Palm

Beach, Florida, that he was examined and his

7 examination reduced to writing in stenotypy

and that such examination has been correctly

8 transcribed under my supervision by computer,

and is fully and accurately set forth in the

9 preceding pages; and that said statement was

taken on the day and at the place in that

10 behalf aforesaid.

And said deposition is herewith

12 returned.

I do further certify that I am not

14 counsel, attorney or relative of either party,

or clerk or stenographer of either party or of

15 the attorney of either party, or likewise

interested in the event of this suit.

17 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereinto

set my hand and affixed my seal at my office

18 in Miami, Florida, Dade County, Florida, this

24th day of February, 1993.

Notary Public, State of Florida

21 My commission expires 11-7-93

JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES