1 1 DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, STATE OF FLORIDA 2 SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE ) 3 OF FLORIDA; ROTH FARMS, INC.; and ) WEDGEWORTH FARMS, INC., ) 4 ) Petitioners, ) 5 ) vs. ) 6 ) SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT ) 7 DISTRICT, an agency of the State ) of Florida; et al., ) 8 ) Respondents. ) 9 ---------------------------------- ) ) 10 FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, INC. ) and UNITED STATES SUGAR ) 11 CORPORATION, ) ) 12 Petitioners, ) ) 13 vs. ) ) 14 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT ) DISTRICT, an agency of the State ) 15 of Florida; et al., ) ) 16 Respondents. ) ---------------------------------- ) 17 ) FLORIDA FRUIT AND VEGETABLE ) 18 ASSOCIATION; LEWIS POPE FARMS; ) W.E. SCHLECHTER & SONS, INC., ) 19 and HUNDLEY FARMS, INC., ) ) 20 Petitioners, ) ) 21 vs. ) SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT ) 22 DISTRICT, an agency of the State ) of Florida; et al., ) 23 ) Respondents. ) 24 ---------------------------------- ) 25 Hedquist & Associates Reporters, Inc. 2 1 Deposition of Richard Bonner, taken on behalf of 2 the Petitioner, pursuant to Notice of Taking 3 Deposition in the above-entitled action, on April 4, 4 1994, at 9:00 a.m., at 345 East Forsyth, 5 Jacksonville, Florida, before Allison B. Pauline, 6 Court Reporter, Notary Public in and for the State 7 of Florida at Large. 8 9 APPEARANCES: 10 JOHN D. BRADY, Esquire, Attorney for US Army Corps of Engineers. 11 STEPHEN M. MACFARLANE, Esquire, Attorney for 12 United States Department of Justice. 13 WILLIAM EARL, Esquire, Attorney for The Florida Sugar Cane League, Inc. 14 ALSO APPEARING: 15 KIM MCNALLY, Legal Assistant. 16 - - - 17 18 I N D E X 19 WITNESS 20 RICHARD E. BONNER 21 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. EARL.......... 3 22 E X H I B I T S 23 FOR IDENTIFICATION 24 PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1................. 38 25 PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 2................. 44 Hedquist & Associates Reporters, Inc. 3 1 S T I P U L A T I O N 2 It was stipulated and agreed by and between 3 counsel for the respective parties, and the witness, 4 that the reading and signing of the deposition by 5 the witness were not waived. 6 - - - 7 RICHARD E. BONNER, 8 having been produced and first duly sworn as a 9 witness, testified as follows: 10 DIRECT EXAMINATION 11 BY MR. EARL: 12 Q Would you state your full name please, sir? 13 A Richard Edward Bonner. 14 Q And by whom are you employed? 15 A US Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville 16 District. 17 Q And in what capacity, sir? 18 A I'm the deputy district engineer for 19 project management. 20 Q Would you generally describe your 21 responsibilities in that position? 22 A My primary function is to make sure that 23 the projects authorized or being studied by the 24 district are accomplished within a timely fashion 25 meeting the criteria and the policies of the Corps Hedquist & Associates Reporters, Inc. 4 1 of Engineers, and within the cost of their 2 estimation, and to deal with the various customers 3 and sponsors who work with us on those projects. 4 Q Local sponsors? 5 A Right. But in some cases it can be 6 agencies depending on the type of project, but in 7 most civil works projects it would be the local 8 sponsor. 9 Q Okay. Mr. Bonner, do you understand that 10 the proceedings you are being deposed in here 11 involves the Everglades SWIM plan, administrative 12 challenges to the plan? 13 A That's my understanding, yes, sir. 14 Q And have you been asked to provide 15 testimony in that case? 16 A Be prepared to provide testimony, yes. 17 Q Okay. Sir, in what areas have you been 18 asked to provide testimony on? 19 A My understanding is general policy of the 20 Corps of Engineers and activities of the 21 Jacksonville District in which I've been a party. 22 Q What activities relating to the Everglade 23 SWIM plan have you been a party to? 24 A Really have had very little activities 25 associated with the SWIM plan directly. Hedquist & Associates Reporters, Inc. 5 1 Q What have you had? What experience have 2 you had? 3 A I've read through it. 4 Q Okay. What is your relationship 5 reportingwise and otherwise to Mr. Vearil? 6 A Jim Vearil works in my engineering division 7 with the technical divisions and the separate 8 division than what I'm in, but I also serve as the 9 deputy, so I have two hats. I'm chief of the 10 program of project management division, and deputy 11 of project management, as I mentioned earlier. 12 So as deputy I participate in the technical 13 division activities of the district in their 14 interactions with sponsors primarily. 15 Q Do I understand that as a deputy district 16 engineer, are you the senior civilian? 17 A That's correct. 18 Q Okay. And you are GS-15, did I see that? 19 A That's correct. 20 Q And in the absence of the district engineer 21 you assume responsibility for the district? 22 A In many cases, yes, sir. We also have a 23 military deputy as well as a deputy in Puerto Rico 24 of the Antilles. So in most cases I would assume 25 that task when the military deputy is not there. Hedquist & Associates Reporters, Inc. 6 1 Q With regard to the Central and Southern 2 Florida project, what are your direct 3 responsibilities? 4 A Well, they are varied. There are many. It 5 depends on what phase of the activities are 6 associated. The Central/Southern Florida project is 7 an authorized project, but we have many pieces of 8 that project which have not yet been constructed. 9 In addition we have authorized studies 10 associated with the Central/Southern Florida 11 project, so it depends on which phase you are in as 12 to my interaction with those activities. Primarily, 13 as I said before, it is to take care of the funding, 14 the policy, the decisions, the schedule, and working 15 with the local sponsor on the project. 16 Q What, if any, role do you play or have you 17 played in the obtaining permits from the Florida 18 Department of Environmental Protection for the S-10, 19 S-11, and S-12 structures? 20 A I signed the document. 21 Q You signed it. Did you review it before 22 you signed it? 23 A Yes, sir. 24 Q You have overall responsibility for that 25 permit? Hedquist & Associates Reporters, Inc. 7 1 A That's correct. 2 Q What is the current status of that permit, 3 Mr. Bonner, as you understand it? 4 A I believe they've given notice of intent to 5 issue. I need to check that to verify that, but my 6 last reading on that was that they give us notice of 7 intent. I believe they had a couple of questions 8 that they wanted answered. I don't even remember 9 what they were. 10 Q When was that, sir? When was that notice 11 given? 12 A My memory is it was about two months ago, 13 but I certainly would need to look that up. I deal 14 with an awful lot of permits. 15 Q Wouldn't you consider that one a 16 significant one in terms of the Corps? 17 A Yeah. The agreement was that we would 18 apply for it. The significance was that applied. 19 Whether it is issued or not is -- well, that's the 20 process by which we would go through. So the 21 important date was the application for it. We made 22 that date. Subsequent to that we worked 18 months 23 or so in permit activities, so, you know, I don't 24 track them that close. I like to have a man that 25 I've assigned to do that. Hedquist & Associates Reporters, Inc. 8 1 Q Are you aware, in the South Atlantic 2 Division, of any other state water quality permits 3 the Corps has supplied for it for any of its 4 structures? 5 A Well, the construction of the permits many 6 many, yes. 7 Q Operations of existing structures? 8 A I'm not aware of any. 9 Q Is it fair to say that the decision to 10 question such a permit was the subject of some 11 controversey within -- between the federal agency? 12 A Yes, sir. 13 Q Are you familiar with the modified water 14 deliveries for Everglades National Park? 15 A Yes, sir. 16 Q And did you play -- what role, if any, did 17 you play in that process? 18 A Again, it's a responsible entity for 19 overall project management of that project. I have 20 interacted daily, weekly, monthly with the project 21 manager to be briefed in working on the various 22 decisions, scheduling, funding of that project. 23 Q And could you tell me where that project 24 stands, Mr. Bonner? 25 A The project is an authorized project of Hedquist & Associates Reporters, Inc. 9 1 which we are in the process of acquiring real 2 estate, and will soon be under construction with a 3 test field on 67 -- excuse me, not a test field, but 4 actual removal of structures, levies, and in the 5 process of negotiating a PCAA -- a Project Corps 6 Operation Agreement. It used to be LCA. Project 7 Corps Operation Agreement with a sponsor. 8 Q That would be the -- 9 A The South Florida Water Management 10 District. 11 Q How about the C-51 project modifications, 12 have you -- do you play or have you played a role in 13 that? 14 A I played a long role in that one. When I 15 was -- before I had my current job I worked with 16 that project, and I have continued to do -- the last 17 10 years of my career I have worked with C-51. We 18 have construction activities. We have some 19 replacement work on the lower end where we had some 20 minor construction failures that we are repairing. 21 And then we have the GRR that was under preparation 22 to provide for flood control. The west side of the 23 basin, which at the sponsor's request we stopped 24 working on. 25 Also we have discussed it with others about Hedquist & Associates Reporters, Inc. 10 1 using it for water supply for Palm Beach as well as 2 part of the mediated solution. I think it was a 3 part of that effort. 4 Q Where does that stand as you understand it 5 right now? 6 A The standing of it right now is the local 7 sponsor has requested us to go back and look at the 8 project, start our GRR process again, and the 9 Department of Interior has made a statement of the 10 secretary that he would like to see the C-51 go 11 forward. And he made that statement at the 12 Everglades Coalition meeting last -- what -- last 13 January. 14 Q And what is a GRR process? 15 A General Reevaluation Report. It is a 16 document which is prepared. It goes up to our high 17 headquarters that explains the changes that have 18 taken place since authorization, and lays out the 19 basis for the design documents. 20 Q And what is a GDM? 21 A GDM is a General Design Memorandum. That 22 was a GRR years ago. The name has changed. 23 Q So what used to be the GDM is now called 24 the GRR? 25 A Unless it is LRR, which is a Limited Hedquist & Associates Reporters, Inc. 11 1 Reevaluation Report, but they are the same 2 document. The general memorandum laid out the same 3 thing that I just mentioned earlier, the economics 4 and environmental, the social, and the changes that 5 have taken place in service and basis of the 6 design. If there had been minor changes or very 7 little time taken place, then you would do a limited 8 evaluation report. If it's been some significant 9 changes or major changes it would be a GRR, a larger 10 report. But both of those 10 years ago would have 11 been referred to as a GDM, sometimes a feature DM. 12 Q As you understand it, in your position with 13 the Jacksonville district, what is -- what is -- 14 with regard to the Central and Southern project, 15 what is the role of the effect of the house 16 documents, house documents 640- -- what is it, 3? 17 A 643? 643 is the original authorization? 18 Q Yes, sir. 19 A Basically it authorizes the works, the 20 basic works that make up the Central and Southern 21 Florida project that's been modified six, seven, 22 eight times with additional acts of Congress and 23 additional reports, but that formed the basis for 24 the original project. 25 Q When we say -- and there is subsequent Hedquist & Associates Reporters, Inc. 12 1 house documents as I understand it, correct? 2 A That's correct. 3 Q When they say, House document, are they 4 talking about the House of Representatives' 5 document? 6 A That's correct. It could also be a Senate 7 document. The way that works is a resolution or the 8 act that passes it, you know, the resolution would 9 come from the House or the Senate, that gives the 10 Corps of Engineers the authority to make a study. 11 When that report is completed it is bound together 12 as a House document, if it was a House authorization 13 or a Senate document it is a Senate resolution. 14 That's not always followed, but that's the general 15 rules that take place in Washington. That's why it 16 becomes a House document. 17 Q And then what is the effect in terms of 18 operating and constructing the project, is that a 19 guide book? Is that the basis for the project? 20 A That is the authority for it. Usually it's 21 referenced in a Water Resource Development Act. 22 Nowadays -- it used to be Rivers and Harbors Act, 23 Flood Control Acts where they authorize those 24 projects they will reference that House document or 25 the report of the Chief or Engineers or one of the Hedquist & Associates Reporters, Inc. 13 1 other ways to refer to that document. 2 That becomes the basis for authorization 3 and that -- and the GRR is prepared reflecting the 4 difference between the authorization and what the 5 design is and to give the specific detail, more 6 details. 7 Q And, Mr. Bonner, what is the -- do I 8 understand correctly there is a restudy of the 9 Central and Southern Florida project under way? 10 A That's correct. 11 Q Could you tell me what that is? 12 A Okay. The restudy is essentially the same 13 type of authorization that I talked about earlier 14 with the, you know, any other piece of a project. 15 They've asked us to reexamine the project for 16 various purposes. And that restudy will result 17 ultimately in one or more House documents or 18 documents which the Congress would then use to 19 authorize modifications of the original project. 20 Q And you are familiar, are you not, with a 21 document called the Science Subgroup Report? 22 A Yes, sir, I've read that. 23 Q And you have talked about that at 24 Everglades Coalition meetings and other meetings, 25 have you not? Hedquist & Associates Reporters, Inc. 14 1 A I don't remember talking about it 2 particularly, but I may have. 3 Q Okay. What is that Science Subgroup as far 4 as you understand it? 5 A This is a -- there is federal task force 6 established to look at restoration, efforts of the 7 Everglades. They have broken into two or three 8 committees. One of those committees is assigned 9 Subgroup, which prepared this document for the long 10 range plan to present alternatives and can be 11 considered in this study that we have underway. So 12 it's an array we of alternatives, is my 13 understanding of it. 14 Q Am I correct in understanding Corps' 15 representatives did not participate in that 16 Subgroup? 17 A I thought we had a representative, but 18 maybe not. 19 Q Okay. 20 A I just -- in my head I thought Dr. Bo Smith 21 was a member of that group, but he may not have 22 been. 23 Q Okay. 24 A Hanley Smith is his name, not Bo. 25 Q And you are familiar, are you not, with the Hedquist & Associates Reporters, Inc. 15 1 storm water treatment areas called for in the SWIM 2 plan? 3 A In a general sort of way. 4 Q Who at the district, would be most familiar 5 with that? 6 A Probably the three people who would know 7 the most, and, again, I think it is fairly limited 8 what they know is -- would be Lewis Hornin, Jim 9 Vearil, and possibly Dr. Smith, again, depending on 10 how much involvement they had with the committees he 11 served on. 12 Q Do you have a present understanding of how 13 those STA's will be operated in terms of bypass? 14 A In a general sort of way. I read the Civil 15 Engineering Magazine article, and it is the most 16 detailed version of that that I've ever seen. 17 Q And as the deputy district engineer, what 18 is your present understanding of bypass of the 19 STA's? 20 A My understanding of the STA's -- the 21 purpose of the STA's is to tag the water that is 22 passing slowly through the area allowing for a 23 nutrient uptake to take place. And that's just 24 about all I know about them. 25 Q Okay. What is your understanding of Hedquist & Associates Reporters, Inc. 16 1 whether or not bypass water is allowed in the event 2 of hydrologic conditions? 3 A You mean, if in time of a flood that you 4 would put it -- flow it through -- 5 Q Well, let's start out with flood control 6 purposes, yes. 7 A I really don't -- I don't know the capacity 8 and I don't know the design frequency, whether they 9 plan to run excess water through the area. I don't 10 know what the delay times are. I really don't know 11 enough about it to comment. 12 Q Are they still going to be required -- the 13 local sponsor be required to obtain an authorization 14 from the Corps to construct this? 15 A We would expect that they would need 16 probably two different actions by the Corps. One 17 would be the permitting under the 404, if the 18 wetlands are being filled. And secondly the 19 operation, if it modifies the operation of the Corps 20 project it would require a Corps involvement and 21 approval if it modifies the way we operate our 22 project. 23 Q What form does that take? 24 A The latter normally is a document that is 25 prepared and sent to Atlanta for approval. It Hedquist & Associates Reporters, Inc. 17 1 examines the economics, social, environmental 2 impacts of the activity. And it makes a 3 recommendation whether the operations of the project 4 should be modified accordingly. 5 Q Has that project been started with regard 6 to the STA's? 7 A No, it has not. 8 Q How long would that project normally take? 9 A Well, it depends on the degree of change. 10 So it is sort of hard to answer it. If it is just a 11 very minor change it could be done very rapidly, if 12 it requires an environmental impact statement or 13 more detailed data, it would take, you know, a year 14 or year-and-a-half. 15 Q Is it fair to say there has been some 16 concern at the Jacksonville District regarding the 17 effect the STA's will have on the operation of the 18 project? 19 A I'm not sure what you mean by, "concern," 20 has it been discussed; yes. 21 Q Has it been analyzed and determined? 22 A No. 23 Q Okay. And what is your understanding about 24 regulatory releases, will they be bypassed, allowed 25 to be bypassed as STA's? Hedquist & Associates Reporters, Inc. 18 1 A Again, regulatory releases that are made 2 are a part of this plan. If these STA's become a 3 part of the project they would like for us to 4 operate the project to work through the STA's, and 5 that would -- that modification would have to be 6 examined. If they can pass it without any impact, 7 no problem. If they have to pass that we would have 8 to exam that in the impact, so . . . 9 Q That hasn't been started -- the analysis of 10 that hasn't been started yet? 11 A No, it has not. 12 Q Now, you are aware, are you not, that in 13 1993 the -- at least an additional 900,000 acre feet 14 were sent, and regulatory release were sent south 15 through the water conservation area? 16 A The specific number I was not aware of, but 17 the additional waters were sent. I was aware of 18 that. 19 Q Okay. And did the Corps approve that? 20 A Yes, sir. 21 Q Mr. McVicker described that to me as a 22 permanent change in the operation of the project; is 23 that correct? 24 A I didn't think so. I thought we were 25 working a test release down into the park area, and Hedquist & Associates Reporters, Inc. 19 1 as this test is under way that it is not, you know, 2 has not been finalized. If the test was terminated 3 tomorrow we would go back to our original operating 4 procedures. So that's my feeling for that. 5 Q Do I understand correctly that that test 6 involves -- instead of sending water, regulatory 7 water out the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee would be 8 sent south? 9 A Our intent to send more to the south and to 10 Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie is the intent, whether 11 it happens or takes place is, you know, depends on 12 the flows. 13 Q Intent is to get it to the park? 14 A Primarily to the park and back into the 15 natural system of Everglades Agricultural Area or 16 the conservation areas of the park. 17 Q And what is your understanding of how much 18 water in the last three to four years the park has 19 been receiving on an average annual basis? 20 A It would be a guess. I have not bothered 21 to -- 22 Q Between 5- and 600,000 acres? 23 A I wouldn't even have a feel for it. 24 Q Okay. What is your understanding, if you 25 have any, of the additional water the park is Hedquist & Associates Reporters, Inc. 20 1 seeking in terms of modified deliveries, additional 2 quantities of water? 3 A I'm not sure I understand your question. 4 Q Is the park, to your knowledge, seeking 5 additional quantities of water over what they have 6 historically received or a guarantee? 7 A Well, it's hard to speak for the park, 8 but -- 9 Q What you know of the position. 10 A My understanding is that the intent is to 11 make it more of a natural process, and less water 12 should be lost to tide water, so in effect more 13 water would go to the park. 14 Q Am I correct in understanding that the park 15 seeks anywhere from 300,000 to 500,000 additional 16 acre feet over what they have historically been 17 receiving? 18 A My conversations with the park have been 19 more, again, put water back in a more natural 20 sense. And it has not been in terms of quantity 21 when they talked to me. They may well -- as you 22 heard a second ago, I'm not the guy to talk about 23 quantities with, so . . . 24 Q Okay. Who initiated the process to send -- 25 was it the Water Management District to send the Hedquist & Associates Reporters, Inc. 21 1 additional waters south? You said you didn't know 2 the quantity, but there had been an experiment you 3 understood. 4 A We've worked together with the Water 5 Management District in delivering the waters into 6 the park as a joint effort with them. 7 Q Do I understand correctly that these waters 8 first go through the water conservation areas? 9 A That's correct. 10 Q Did anyone at the Corps raise the issue or 11 analyze the impact of the additional phosphorus 12 loading, these additional discharges would have? 13 A Not to my knowledge. 14 Q Did anyone in the Federal Government to 15 your knowledge, object or complain? 16 A Not to my knowledge. 17 Q Did anyone in the interior department of 18 Fish and Wildlife service object or complain? 19 A Not to my knowledge. 20 Q Okay. Most of that type of correspondence 21 does cross your desk though? 22 A Yeah. 23 Q Okay. You haven't seen any that you 24 recall? 25 A That I recall. Hedquist & Associates Reporters, Inc. 22 1 Q Okay. 2 A I get about a foot-and-a-half of 3 correspondence a day, so -- this is prior to the 4 releases. 5 Q Pardon me? 6 A This is prior to the releases. Prior to 7 the increased level. 8 Q What is the prior to the increase fund? 9 A Your questions is dealing with anybody 10 raising the questions about it, was prior to the 11 releases; is that correct? 12 Q Well, prior during these increased 13 releases. 14 A Well, there certainly has been 15 correspondence, you know, subsequent to this, you 16 know. Once a release has been made about phosphorus 17 loading in the park -- that's been a concern, yes. 18 Q And where does that come from, the Park 19 Service? 20 A The Park Service, primarily the Park 21 Service. 22 Q And that correspondence has been direct 23 into -- 24 A Fish and Wildlife Service, excuse me Fish 25 and Wild- -- Department of Interior. Hedquist & Associates Reporters, Inc. 23 1 Q Both Fish and Wildlife, and the Park 2 Service? 3 A Correct. 4 Q Who would that be, Dr. McFaye or Mr. 5 Neely? 6 A Those are two of the individuals of Fish 7 and Wildlife, correct. 8 Q But are those the two that have been 9 objecting, do you recall? 10 A Right. There might have been some at the 11 Vero Beach office, but I don't remember it being 12 that way, but I do remember McFaye and Neely. 13 Q And that's in correspondence? 14 A I think. 15 Q Okay. 16 A Yeah, I'm -- yeah. 17 Q Now, is there a coordination process before 18 that operation was changed? In this experiment, was 19 there a coordination process with the Park Service 20 or Fish and Wildlife? 21 A In original releases the movement and 22 changes took place prior to my being in the job I am 23 in now. I was in Atlanta during the earliest part 24 of the those experimental releases, so -- but they 25 were -- there would be correspondence and Hedquist & Associates Reporters, Inc. 24 1 discussions between the Water Management District 2 and the Corps. 3 Q I'm talking about -- maybe we are talking 4 about two different things here. I was talking 5 about, Mr. Bonner, the releases in 1993 to send more 6 water to the south. 7 Are we talking about the same thing? Mr. 8 McVicker told me that as of April 1993 that there 9 were about, I think, it was about 933,000 acre feet, 10 additional acre feet of regulatory releases down 11 through the water conservation areas. 12 A Prior to 1993 there was correspondence. 13 There was concern about the phosphorus, yes, sir. I 14 was going back to the '80s time frame when the 15 testing first began to put waters into the park, 16 additional releases into the park, and modification 17 beyond that. So I was off on the wrong chain, and I 18 apologize. 19 Q Okay. Let's talk about 1993, the change 20 process, do you understand that to be an experiment 21 or change in operation? 22 A Again, it is working that test that's under 23 way is providing the water through the system to put 24 it into the park. So it was a part of the test that 25 was begun earlier. Hedquist & Associates Reporters, Inc. 25 1 Q Okay. I'll ask you the same questions. 2 Was there a concern expressed prior to this change 3 in operations in 1993? 4 A Yes, sir, there was. 5 Q And who was that by, the Park Service? 6 A By the Park Service and Fish and Wildlife. 7 Q And that was objecting to the additional 8 loading? 9 A It was concerned about the loading of the 10 water that was coming into the park. 11 Q Who made the decision to proceed with that, 12 those changes in 1993? 13 A There is a joint effort between the park, 14 the sponsor and the Water Management District and 15 Corps of Engineers. 16 Q So the park -- is it fair to say the Park 17 Service agreed to those releases? 18 A Yes, sir. 19 Q Despite the additional phosphorus? 20 A Yes, sir. 21 Q And the Water Management District did and 22 the Corps did? 23 A Yes, sir. 24 Q But I gather from your -- Fish and Wildlife 25 Service did not, correct? Hedquist & Associates Reporters, Inc. 26 1 A I don't think they specifically agreed to 2 it, and they were caveats in all of the agreement, 3 but they didn't specifically agree. 4 Q Now, is this -- is this documentation going 5 to be available in the response that we are looking 6 at today? Will that be in there? 7 A It will be the correspondence that will be 8 in there with -- between Jim Vearil's office and the 9 Park with all of the agreements that we've had and 10 the letters we've had. I would expect it would be 11 in their file, so . . . 12 Q What files would that be in? 13 A It would be in Mr. Vero's files, which I 14 believe you've, you know, having read the 15 documentation of what you requested it should have 16 been in there. I would expect it would be. 17 Q Okay. So as far as you know, are the 18 releases, regulatory releases, increased regulatory 19 releases to the south that were started in about 20 1993, are they going to continue provided adequate 21 water and the need for regulatory releases? 22 A Yes. 23 Q Okay. And that's being done 24 notwithstanding the additional phosphorus loading, 25 correct? Hedquist & Associates Reporters, Inc. 27 1 A That's correct. 2 Q In one of your statements or correspondence 3 I think I saw, Mr. Bonner, you had summarized the 4 total tax payer investment in the Central and 5 Southern Florida project. Have you ever used such a 6 number? 7 A I don't recall. 8 Q The number I saw you used was 1.4 billion, 9 the total tax payer investment in this project. 10 Does that sound about right? 11 A That would sound ball-parkish. That number 12 may have been provided to me and I could have quoted 13 it. 14 Q But as you sit here today, and in your 15 responsibility as deputy district engineer you're -- 16 would that be your best estimate of what the public 17 investment is in the Central and Southern Project? 18 A I guess I would say it sounds reasonable, 19 but I'd need to go and evaluate it and look in the 20 management resource office and substantiate that 21 number. 22 Q Have you ever received a February 4th, 1994 23 study by Burns and McDonald regarding options and 24 alternatives for sizing the store motor treatment 25 area? Hedquist & Associates Reporters, Inc. 28 1 A I have seen a report by Burns and McDonald, 2 whether that is the one or not, I don't know, but I 3 have seen the report by Burns and McDonald. 4 Q But you are not aware, are you, of the -- 5 which alternatives have been selected for that or 6 bypassing quantities and when bypasses will be 7 allowed and when they will not be? 8 A No, sir, I'm not. 9 Q Is the Corps going to get involved in that 10 project? 11 A Before it would take place we would have 12 to, yes, sir. 13 Q Now, you are aware that the United States 14 has identified you as an expert witness in this 15 case; is that correct? 16 A Yes, sir. 17 Q And among the topics they list you for are 18 the Corps of Engineers procedures and protocols. 19 What, if anything, will you be testifying about with 20 regard to Corps of Engineers procedures and 21 protocols? 22 A My understanding is I would be used as a 23 rebuttal witness to respond to specifics issues and 24 questions raised about that subject. 25 Q Who at the Jacksonville district at the Hedquist & Associates Reporters, Inc. 29 1 present time has the active duty personnel -- have 2 the civilian or military -- has the best 3 understanding of the history of the Central and 4 Southern Florida Project, it's authorization and 5 it's operation? 6 A -- Salt has excellent knowledge of the 7 overall project of the over. 8 Q Okay. Your commanding officer? 9 A Right. Jim Vearil, of course, has 10 excellent knowledge. Chris Smith works with Jim. 11 Lewis Hornin. 12 Q Yourself? 13 A I feel like myself. 14 Q They've also listed you to talk about the 15 economic implications of altering the Central and 16 South Florida Control Project. What are you going 17 to be testifying about that? 18 A Again, it would be rebuttal in terms of 19 evaluation procedures and methods that the Corps 20 would be associated with -- in response to a 21 question in that regard. 22 Q Mr. Bonner, at any time has the -- was the 23 Corps ever asked by the Fish and Wildlife Service, 24 the representatives of Everglades National Park or 25 the Park Service -- was the Corps ever asked, to Hedquist & Associates Reporters, Inc. 30 1 your knowledge, to develop best management practice 2 or procedures for reducing phosphorus loading to the 3 water conservation areas for the Everglades National 4 Park? 5 A Not to my knowledge. 6 Q You would have been aware of that if that 7 had been done, wouldn't you? 8 A I would think so. 9 Q Now, in your opinion if that had been made 10 a priority, that being the reduction operation of 11 the projects so as to reduce phosphorus loading to 12 given areas, water conservation areas of the park, 13 could such a program have been developed if you'd 14 been asked to do it? 15 A Generally speaking our construction 16 activities associated with water quality would not 17 be under our existing authorities to accomplish. 18 Operational changes which serve various purposes and 19 do not impact the project would be considered. That 20 would probably need to come more from the sponsor 21 than it would from the other federal agencies. 22 We try to operate our project to maximize 23 net benefits to all involved in terms of additional 24 expenditures and project works for improving the 25 water quality. I feel that they are probably Hedquist & Associates Reporters, Inc. 31 1 outside of our authority. 2 Q Outside of your authority, sir, but I guess 3 my question is focused more on -- if you'd been 4 asked to do that, is it based on your opinion and 5 understanding of the system, would that have -- 6 would the development of such a program, to reduce 7 phosphorus loading to given areas of the project, 8 would that have been possible? 9 A For the Corps to implement some activity to 10 do that, I just -- 11 Q For such a program to be developed? 12 A I don't know of any method of which you can 13 regulate stages that it would do so. 14 Q Okay. Apart from regulating stages. 15 A That would be the operational activity. I 16 don't know of any other operational activity to 17 accomplish this task. 18 Q You are not aware of alternative routings 19 of water, for example, which could maximize the 20 overland sheet flow versus canal flow? 21 A I don't know of any procedure which 22 could -- let's see how to answer that exactly. 23 Overland sheet flow should improve water quality. 24 Generally speaking other ways that could be done, 25 yes, so those operational changes and stages in Hedquist & Associates Reporters, Inc. 32 1 canals could take place that would allow the 2 sheet -- so there would be a way that could be 3 accomplished, yes. 4 Q Mr. Bonner, in any of the authorizations 5 for this project, to your knowledge, has there ever 6 been any direction as to the Corps' responsibilities 7 for water quality? 8 A The primary water quality associated with 9 this project was salt water intrusion, and that was 10 an authorized project purpose to reduce salt water 11 intrusion. 12 Q And apart from that, sir? 13 A Not specifically authorized in any of the 14 documents. 15 Q How about in 1970/'71, was there any 16 authorization document relating to the Corps water 17 quality responsibility? 18 A I do not remember any document. 19 Q You don't remember, okay. Apart from the 20 specific document, do you have any knowledge of any 21 direction to the Corps as to water quality 22 responsibilities on this project other than what you 23 have mentioned? 24 A The Corps of Engineers generally attempts 25 never to grade water quality associated with these Hedquist & Associates Reporters, Inc. 33 1 projects. The operation and the maintenance and the 2 construction of our projects, we tend not to grade 3 water quality. 4 Q My question is a little more specific, Mr. 5 Bonner, it is: Are you aware in the Central and 6 Southern Florida project history of any 7 authorizations dealing and/or directing the Corps to 8 take any water quality responsibilities other than 9 what you've mentioned? 10 A Not to my knowledge. 11 Q Okay. Do I understand your earlier 12 testimony, the economic implications of altering the 13 Central and Southern Florida project with these 14 STA's have not yet been considered? 15 A That's correct, by the Corps. 16 Q By the Corps. And they would have to be, 17 correct? 18 A That's correct, if they become a part of 19 the federal project that's paid for through the 20 Corps. If they become a part of a locally preferred 21 plan, then the economics would not have to be 22 examined in terms of expenditure and federal 23 knowledge. 24 So the answer is, yes, but there are ways 25 that it could be accomplished outside the project Hedquist & Associates Reporters, Inc. 34 1 scope, so to speak, and they would not be evaluated 2 by the Corps. 3 Q And is that your current understanding of 4 the approach that is being taken with the STA's, 5 they will not be part of the federal project? 6 A I don't think a decision has been made. I 7 don't think we are there yet to know whether they 8 will be part of a federal project or not. 9 Q When and how will that decision be made? 10 A Well, it is part of, say C-51, for example, 11 the GRR would address that. It's a part of the 12 larger restoration efforts of the larger study. It 13 would be determined during those phases of the 14 feasibility report that is being prepared. 15 Q How about the STA's specifically, when will 16 that be determined? 17 A Again, the STA's right now are not a part 18 of the federal project at this time. 19 Q Could that change? 20 A Sure. By the act of Congress and the 21 methods by which that would take place would be 22 either through the act of Congress and the study 23 phase or if the GRR identifies the need to 24 incorporate those features as part of the C-51 or 25 other authorized, but not yet constructed project Hedquist & Associates Reporters, Inc. 35 1 features. 2 Q Mr. Bonner, as deputy district engineer, 3 could you tell me what is your understanding of 4 whether an environmental impact statement or a 5 environmental assesment needs to be done on the 6 STA's? 7 A My knowledge of the STA's as they exist 8 have taken place in wetlands. They will require, at 9 least a permit from the Corps of Engineers, which is 10 defined in a federal action, which would require 11 environmental documentation. That would be my 12 interpretation of them at this time. 13 Q It would require at least an environmental 14 assessment, correct? 15 A Some environmental documentation, correct. 16 Q Well, what other documentation is there? 17 A Well, you have assessment and EIS and the 18 scope has to do with that, so . . . 19 Q And is it not your understanding that the 20 Federal Judge in Miami has ruled that subject to a 21 pending appeal that an EIS has to be done? 22 A Yes, sir. 23 Q Has anything been started in that regard? 24 A No, sir, not to my knowledge, by the Corps. 25 Q Has it been started by anybody else that Hedquist & Associates Reporters, Inc. 36 1 you know? 2 A Not to my knowledge at all, but the Corps 3 has not. 4 Q And were -- was the Corps instructed by 5 some other federal agency not to start that process? 6 A Not to my knowledge. I think it's just a 7 matter of not being well-defined yet. What it is is 8 that we'd examine -- and the concern that has been 9 expressed is: What do you write to EIS about? I 10 mean, what item is it that we examine for the 11 impact? At the time when the judge made that ruling 12 there was no STA's developed in any kind of form 13 that I know of at all. So there was no particular 14 plan for an environmental impact study, so that's, 15 you know, until that's sorted out I don't know what 16 you'd write about. 17 Q You're also listed to testify, Mr. Bonner, 18 about requirement demands of project flood control 19 and water supply. What's your testimony, as you 20 understand it, on that issue? 21 A Again, the same as before as a rebuttal and 22 to discuss various project purposes. 23 Q And the same thing would be true on 24 budgeting and scheduling? 25 A Yes, sir. Hedquist & Associates Reporters, Inc. 37 1 Q What is resource allocation within the 2 district and contracts? What is that? 3 A Your resource allocation is where you put 4 your manpower, how you work on a harbor project or 5 you work on a flood control project in Puerto Rico 6 or you work on -- it's allocating the resources we 7 have in the district. Whether you do it by contract 8 or whether you do it by hired labor, that sort of 9 thing. 10 Q What relationship does that have to the 11 case that we are talking about, the SWIM case? Why 12 would you be testifying about that? I'm trying to 13 understand. 14 A It has to do with scheduling and timing, 15 and how long it takes. 16 Q Okay. As we sit here today, have you come 17 to any conclusions or opinions regarding the 18 economic implications of altering the Central and 19 Southern Florida project in relation to the SWIM 20 plan? 21 A No, I have not. 22 Q Okay. Same question. Do you have any 23 opinions and conclusions as we sit here today 24 regarding the requirements and demands of the 25 project flood control and water supply needs as they Hedquist & Associates Reporters, Inc. 38 1 relate to the proposed SWIM plan? 2 A No conclusions. 3 Q Any opinions? 4 A Again, these are project purposes 5 authorized by Congress and we have to examine those 6 and look at them and determine the impacts. 7 Q And the same two questions: As we sit here 8 today, do you have conclusions and opinions relating 9 to the SWIM plan and budgeting and scheduling? 10 A No, sir. 11 Q Same question with regard to resource 12 allocation within the district? 13 A No, sir. 14 Q Okay. At any time you want to take a 15 break, you know, just ask me and we'll stop. 16 A Okay. 17 MR. EARL: Would you mark that, please, as 18 Exhibit Number 1? 19 (Petitioner's Exhibit 1 marked for 20 identification.) 21 BY MR. VERBIT: 22 Q Let me hand you now what the court reporter 23 has marked as Exhibit 1. It purports to be a letter 24 from you to Gary Goforth, South Florida Water 25 Management District. Hedquist & Associates Reporters, Inc. 39 1 Is this, in fact, the letter you sent to 2 Mr. Goforth? 3 A That's correct. 4 Q Okay. And do I understand correctly it's 5 the Corps' Jacksonville district's comments on the 6 draft feasibility reports for storm water treatment 7 areas? 8 A That's correct. 9 Q And this relates to the SWIM plan, correct? 10 A As I understand it, it does. 11 Q Now, this is a called a draft feasibility 12 report. 13 A This was prior to the SWIM plan, I believe, 14 though, is that not correct? 15 Q I don't know. 16 A Okay. 17 Q Has the feasibility report gone further? 18 Is there a subsequent feasibility report that has 19 been done after this? 20 A I really don't know, sir. 21 Q Who would know that, Mr. Green? 22 A Mr. Goforth would know or the people at the 23 Water Management District. 24 Q Okay. But who at the Corps would know 25 that, whether the Corps has done an analysis? Hedquist & Associates Reporters, Inc. 40 1 That's my question. Has the Corps done a 2 feasibility analysis? 3 A Oh, we have not done a feasibility 4 analysis. 5 Q So this is the last feasibility analysis 6 done on the STA's that you know about? 7 A These are comments on feasibility, not a 8 feasibility analysis by the Corps. 9 Q Okay. 10 A It's comments on their report. 11 Q You're right. Let me rephrase that then. 12 Subsequent to this -- well, we've identified that as 13 Exhibit 1. Has the Corps provided anymore comments 14 on the feasibility of the STA's that you know about? 15 A I really don't know. I don't remember them 16 myself. It could be a similar letter to this. 17 Q And, again, who knows that at the Corps Mr. 18 Vearil? 19 A He or Mr. Hornin. 20 Q Okay. In paragraph one of this, the second 21 page -- do you have that? Down at the bottom it's 22 marked 0903117. Paragraph one, do you see that? 23 A Yes, sir. 24 Q The second sentence states: Since the 25 period of record used in the analysis is only 10 Hedquist & Associates Reporters, Inc. 41 1 years it is likely that there will be major flood 2 events that would exceed the capacity of the STA's. 3 Therefore, it is anticipated that hydraulic bypass 4 for the STA's will be required during extreme flood 5 conditions in order to preserve the current level of 6 flood protection. 7 Do you know of anything that has changed 8 since the date of this letter which would change 9 that? 10 A No, sir. 11 Q Okay. Paragraph five, Mr. Bonner, states 12 the STA construction will require extensive 13 modification of CS&F project features. Do you know 14 of any changes that would offer that conclusion 15 since this was written on the date of this report? 16 A No, sir. 17 Q Okay. So as we sit here today, as you 18 understand it, the STA's will still require 19 extensive modifications of the project features? 20 A That's correct. 21 Q Okay. Has any modeling been done of the 22 hydraulic impact of the these STA's that you are 23 aware of by the district? 24 A I would think they are, but I couldn't 25 absolutely state that as a fact. Hedquist & Associates Reporters, Inc. 42 1 Q Okay. I'm talking about the Jacksonville 2 district. 3 A Oh, the Corps, I'm sorry. I thought you 4 meant the Water Management District. I do not think 5 we have. 6 Q Paragraph nine of this letter, sir, which 7 is page 0903118. It talks about the first priority 8 of regulatory releases from Lake Okeechobee is to 9 pump the maximum practical flows to the WCA's by the 10 agricultural canals. These flows are on a secondary 11 basis after a removal of local runoff. The 12 estimated maximum lake regulation capacity for each 13 canal is -- and then the comments have a CFS rating 14 for each canal, do you see that? 15 A Yes, sir. 16 Q Okay. The next sentence states: We are 17 concerned that the proposed plan will not maintain 18 this capacity, meaning the CFS capacity of the 19 primary canal as West Palm Beach, Hillsborough and 20 North New River, and Miami Canal. As we sit here 21 today, is that still a concern of the Jacksonville 22 district? 23 A Yes, sir. 24 Q Okay. 25 A The second attachment, was that a part of Hedquist & Associates Reporters, Inc. 43 1 the original letter? 2 Q I don't know. It was attached when we got 3 the file copy. It was attached -- comments from 4 DER. 5 A Right. 6 Q It doesn't appear to me to be generated by 7 the Corps. You are talking about pages 0903120 and 8 121, correct? 9 A Yes, sir. 10 Q I would -- is that what you are saying? 11 That's not part of the report. 12 A My memory of this I would not have sent 13 comments from DEP. Now, we probably received them 14 from it, put in the file and they may have bound 15 together in our file copy, but -- or maybe more 16 importantly in the Water Management District, I 17 guess is where this came from. I don't remember 18 that being attached and normally we would not send 19 that, so. . . 20 Q Okay. Let's have the record reflect then 21 that those pages 20 and 21 are not part of the 22 Corps, your comment letter. 23 A Yes, sir. 24 Q Okay. 25 A Do I reference them in there? If they are Hedquist & Associates Reporters, Inc. 44 1 referenced it could be, but normally we wouldn't 2 want to do that. 3 MR. EARL: Mark this as Number 2, please. 4 (Petitioner's Exhibit 2 marked for 5 identification.) 6 BY MR. EARL: 7 Q I hand you now Exhibit Number 2, Mr. 8 Bonner, which appears to me to be a draft of the 9 letter we just looked at, correct? 10 A It could be a draft or it could be the file 11 copy. 12 Q Okay. I notice there is some annotations 13 on the second page there, so I -- 14 A Referring to the question marks? 15 Q Question marks, and in paragraph one I see 16 a sentence. The second sentence in that paragraph 17 one was deleted from the letter that was sent down 18 to the district, and that sentence reads: The 19 intent of the STA design is to have little or no 20 hydraulic bypass. Do you see that? 21 A Yes, sir. 22 Q That was not in the letter that was 23 actually sent, correct? 24 A Correct, sir. 25 Q Why was that deleted? Do you recall? Hedquist & Associates Reporters, Inc. 45 1 A I have no idea. It would appear that -- 2 normally we wouldn't make a comment about the intent 3 of someone's other product, that is normally up to 4 then. Generally with technical comments we would 5 not provide comments about intent. 6 Whether that was the reason this was marked 7 out, I do not know. 8 Q Okay. What is the -- as you understand as 9 we sit here today, what is the -- is the STA 10 design -- does it have little or no hydraulic 11 bypass? 12 A I really don't know, sir. 13 Q Okay. Am I correct in understanding, Mr. 14 Bonner, that over the history of the Central and 15 Southern project no comprehensive environmental 16 impact statement has ever been done? 17 MR. BRADY: I'm going to object to the 18 form, but you can go ahead and answer. 19 MR. EARL: Grounds? Can you tell me -- 20 MR. BRADY: Terms, comprehensive, it's 21 vague. 22 A You know we've done an environmental impact 23 statement on C-111. We've done it on a number of 24 release that we've done, the modification of the 25 lake levels. Have we done one that took from one Hedquist & Associates Reporters, Inc. 46 1 end of the project to the other end in a single 2 document, no, sir. 3 Q Okay. And have you done an EIS on all 4 areas of the project? 5 A That have been constructed subsequent to 6 1969, yes, sir. 7 Q Whether or not they have been constructed 8 on the overall impact of the project, has an EIS 9 been done? 10 A The original works in '35 and some of the 11 other works there were no -- no environmental impact 12 statements prepared prior to. 13 Q Let's talk about starting in -- the work 14 that was started authorizing in '47 and '48. There 15 are parts of that that have never been analyzed, 16 correct? 17 A That's correct. 18 Q What parts are those? 19 A Any project features that were constructed 20 subsequent to -- prior to 1969 would not have had 21 environmental documentation in terms of EIS or EIA. 22 Q Am I correct in understanding that a 23 comprehensive environmental impact statement was at 24 one time proposed by the Corps and actually started, 25 the process was started on the whole project? Hedquist & Associates Reporters, Inc. 47 1 A There was discussion of that, yes, sir. 2 Q And there was actually some documentation, 3 wasn't there? 4 A There could have been. 5 Q Well, to your knowledge, was there a 6 draft? 7 A A draft started? I think we just began to 8 do some work on it. I was in planning during that 9 time frame, and the environmental section was under 10 my control and the need to do a full blown EIS we 11 thought was not necessary. We didn't know the 12 purpose of such documents. It was likened to cross 13 Florida, the Okeechobee Waterway, EIS, which we 14 didn't know what purpose it served other than 15 address to the requirement of Congress with some 16 work done on it possibly. 17 Q So the reason the overall EIS was not 18 pursued was what? 19 A Basically the purpose was the gain for the 20 dollars expended. We didn't see the gain. Any 21 modification of the project we would do an 22 environmental impact statement on that change. 23 Q Physical or operational change? 24 A Correct. 25 Q Do you know what the intermaxion (sic) plan Hedquist & Associates Reporters, Inc. 48 1 is, Mr. Bonner? 2 A Intermaxion plan. I've heard the term -- 3 I'm not sure exactly. 4 Q Do you remember about 1979, the district 5 started sending more water south -- 6 A That was the -- 7 Q -- instead of back pumping to the lake? 8 A That was the -- when they started the back 9 pump -- I am familiar in general terms. I was not 10 in Jacksonville at that time, but I am familiar with 11 it. 12 Q But from the history of the project you 13 remember they started sending more water south to 14 the conservation are, correct? 15 A That's correct. 16 Q To your knowledge, was any environmental 17 impact statement or environmental assessment done of 18 that? 19 A I do not know of one. 20 Q Okay. Do you know why one was not done? 21 A Well, if one was not done I would assume it 22 would be due to -- it was in response to regulatory 23 activity to the state of Florida pertaining to 24 degradation of water clogged in Lake Okeechobee. 25 Q To your knowledge, did any federal agencies Hedquist & Associates Reporters, Inc. 49 1 object to routing more water south? 2 A I really wasn't here, so I don't know, sir. 3 Q Am I correct in understanding that the 4 intermaxion planned change in flows continued? 5 A That's correct. 6 Q To your knowledge, has the Jacksonville 7 district authorized any funding to determine the 8 nutrient threshold in which there are adverse 9 impacts on the Everglades vegetation? 10 A No, sir. 11 Q Okay. And such a study was proposed at one 12 time, was it not? 13 A It may have been. 14 Q Do you know or not? 15 A I don't know. We have done research with 16 the Park Service and others dealing with works and 17 activities associated with water flows through the 18 park. Whether any pieces of those projects may have 19 included this type of activity I don't know. I do 20 not think it has. 21 Q Do you know what the memorandum of the 22 agreement is? 23 A Yes, sir. 24 Q What is the present status of that? Is 25 that still in force in effect? Hedquist & Associates Reporters, Inc. 50 1 A Yes, sir, we do have a memorandum agreement 2 with the park and the Water Management District. We 3 are in the process of examining that to see if it 4 needs to be changed. 5 Q What is the date of it currently? 6 A I'd have to look it up, sir. I don't know. 7 Q Well, was it within the last two or three 8 years or is it older than that? 9 A I don't even have a feel for that. 10 Q Okay. 11 A I would think so, but I'm not sure. It's 12 been two or three years. 13 Q Did that memorandum or agreement set levels 14 for nutrients going into Everglades National Park? 15 A No, it did not. It was not dealing with 16 nutrient levels from my memory. It was dealing with 17 the flows, the agreement to make flows go into the 18 Park. I do not remember setting any standards at 19 all. 20 Q Okay. No memorandum or agreement. Do you 21 recall any numeric numbers for nutrients going into 22 Everglades National Park? 23 A I do not recall that, no, sir. 24 Q You did play a role in the federal 25 litigation, did you not, when the -- were you the Hedquist & Associates Reporters, Inc. 51 1 Corps' representative, do I understand that 2 correctly? 3 A I really wasn't the Corps' representative, 4 but I played a role, yes, sir. 5 Q What was your role, sir? 6 A I participated in answering questions from 7 justice and others about the settlement. 8 MR. EARL: Why don't we take like a 10 9 minute break and I'll see if we can condense 10 what we have left here and maybe we can finish 11 up very shortly. 12 MR. BRADY: Okay. 13 (Off-the-record discussion.) 14 MR. Earl: Back on the record. 15 BY MR. EARL: 16 Q Mr. Bonner, is it your understanding that 17 the original design for the Central and Southern 18 project, the L-7 canal -- do you know what that is? 19 A No, sir. 20 Q Around the Loxahatchee? 21 A Not specifically. 22 Q Okay. Is it your understanding that the 23 original design included a levy on both sides of the 24 canal, so water would not flow into the interior of 25 the Loxahatchee? Hedquist & Associates Reporters, Inc. 52 1 A No, sir. I'm not aware of that. I'd be 2 surprised about that. 3 Q You'd be surprised about that. Was it your 4 understanding that the original design configuration 5 of Loxahatchee was otherwise different? 6 A Original configuration and design for 7 Loxahatchee conservation area -- it could have been 8 modified through the DM process, design and 9 memorandum process. I'm not aware of that. 10 Q You'd be surprised that another levy was -- 11 anterior levy was called for? You said -- 12 A Loxahatchee was originally designed to take 13 flood waters and to act as a conservation areas. As 14 of the others I would have to look at the design, 15 but, yeah, I would have been surprised. 16 MR. EARL: Okay. I don't have any further 17 questions for this witness. Would you read and 18 sign? You would have the right to read. 19 MR. BRADY: Yeah, we won't waive. We'll 20 read and sign and I have no questions. 21 MR. EARL: Okay. You're done. 22 (Witness excused.) 23 (Whereupon, at 11:27 a.m. the taking of the 24 deposition was concluded.) 25 - - - Hedquist & Associates Reporters, Inc. 53 1 2 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER 3 4 STATE OF FLORIDA) 5 COUNTY OF DUVAL ) 6 7 I, Allison B. Pauline, Notary Public in and 8 for the State of Florida at Large, do hereby certify 9 that the witness herein was duly sworn by me. 10 11 12 Allison B. Pauline 13 Notary Public State of Florida at Large 14 My commission expires: 06/29/97 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Hedquist & Associates Reporters, Inc. 54 1 AFFIDAVIT OF REPORTER 2 3 STATE OF FLORIDA) 4 COUNTY OF DUVAL ) 5 6 Before me personally appeared Allison B. 7 Pauline, who, being duly sworn, stated as follows: 8 The foregoing transcript is a true record 9 of the proceedings and/or testimony given by the 10 witness. 11 12 Allison B. Pauline 13 Affiant 14 15 16 The foregoing certificate was sworn to and 17 subscribed before me this day of , 18 1994, by the affiant, who is personally known to me. 19 20 21 Notary Public State of Florida at Large 22 My commission expires: 23 24 25 Hedquist & Associates Reporters, Inc. 55 1 E R R A T A S H E E T 2 STATE OF FLORIDA 3 COUNTY OF DUVAL 4 5 I, RICHARD BONNER, the undersigned 6 deponent, have this date read the foregoing pages of 7 my deposition, numbered 1 through 52, and with the 8 suggestions noted below, if any, these constitute a 9 true and accurate transcription of my deposition 10 given on the 4th day of April, 1994, at the time and 11 place stated therein. 12 13 PAGE NUMBER LINE NUMBER SUGGESTION/REASON 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 RICHARD BONNER Hedquist & Associates Reporters, Inc.