|
|||||||
Deposition from SWIM Challenges Case No. 92-3038, 92-3039, and 92-3040 |
|||||||
|
|||||||
| |
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
Deposition from SWIM Challenges Case No. 92-3038, 92-3039, and 92-3040 |
|||||||
|
|||||||
| |
|||||||
|
|||||||
2
1 APPEARANCES:
2
REPRESENTING THE PETITIONER:
3
DONNA STINSON, ESQUIRE
4 HOPPING, BOYD & SAMS
127 SOUTH CALHOUN STREET
5 TALLAHASSEE, FL 32301
6 RICK BURGESS, ESQUIRE
PEEPLES, EARL & BLANK, P.A.
7 ONE BISCAYNE TOWER, SUITE 3636
TWO SOUTH BISCAYNE BLVD.
8 MIAMI, FL 33131
9
REPRESENTING THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
10
ROBERT A. ROSENBERG, ESQUIRE
11 ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
155 SOUTH MIAMI AVENUE
12 MIAMI, FL 33130
13 REPRESENTING THE SIERRA CLUB:
14 DAVID G. GUEST, ESQUIRE
SIERRA CLUB LEGAL DEFENSE FUND
15 III S. MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. BLVD.
TALLAHASSEE, FL 32302
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
1
2 INDEX
3 WITNESS PAGE
4 CRAIG DIAMOND
5
Direct Examination by Ms. Stinson 4
6 Cross Examination by Mr. Burgess 79
7 INDEX OF EXHIBITS
8 NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGE
9 1 Draft H&S Report 15
2 Analysis of Public Subsidies
10 and Externalities 24
3 Appendices 36
11 4 79
12
13
14 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER 103
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4
1 STIPULATIONS
2 The following deposition of CRAIG DIAMOND was taken
3 on oral examination, pursuant to notice, for purposes of
4 discovery, and for use as evidence, and for other uses and
5 purposes as may be permitted by the applicable and governing
6 rules. All objections, except as to the form of the
7 question, are reserved until final hearing in this cause;
8 and reading and signing is not waived.
9 * * *
10 Thereupon,
11 CRAIG DIAMOND
12 was called as a witness, having been first duly sworn, was
13 examined and testified as follows:
14 MS. STINSON: David, off the record we were just
15 saying that we'll do what we can today, given the fact
16 that the documents have been produced this morning,
17 given the holidays and everything, and then reschedule
18 it at a convenient time to do whatever we need to do on
19 the documents that we won't have time to digest today
20 and any additional documents he may come up with when
21 he has time to look a little further.
22 MR. GUEST: Sure, that's fine. It's been short
23 notice, and that's the basic problem; but we'll
24 cooperate whatever way we need to.
25 Let me say for the record, though, we have a
5
1 standing objection to the whole deposition, everything
2 you ask in it, because it's our continuing contention
3 that we assert that economics are not material to any
4 questions in the SWIM case.
5 So this deposition is subject to a standing
6 objection to the materiality of any of this and we do
7 not want the fact we are making this witness available
8 to be used as an admission of any kind that any of this
9 is material.
10 MS. STINSON: Okay.
11 MR. ROSENBERG: I concur.
12 DIRECT EXAMINATION
13 BY MS. STINSON:
14 Q Let's start with your name.
15 A Craig Diamond.
16 Q And what is your business address, Mr. Diamond?
17 A My current business address is with the Northwest
18 Florida Water Management District. And I am sorry, I forget
19 their P.O. number.
20 Q Midway, Florida?
21 A Midway, Florida, will do fine. I think it's P.O.
22 Box 3000, but I am not sure.
23 Q What is your position there?
24 A I am there as the assistant water resources
25 planner.
6
1 Q What do you do as assistant water resource
2 planner?
3 A To date, I have been working on water quality
4 studies of Lake Jackson, stage elevation or water elevation
5 studies of Lake Jackson, as well as developing some
6 materials for potential designation of the Apalachicola as a
7 natural estuarine project or program.
8 Q How long have you been with the Northwest Florida
9 Water Management District?
10 A Second week of November I began.
11 Q And prior to that?
12 A Prior to that, I was community program
13 administrator with the Florida Communities Trust.
14 Q Tell me what that is.
15 A That is a state agency receiving -- currently
16 receiving monies primarily from the P2000 Bond Program to
17 assist local governments in buying up properties to help
18 implement the conservation and recreational elements of
19 their comprehensive receive plans.
20 Q Is that within the Department of Community
21 Affairs?
22 A Yes, a staffer housed with the Department of
23 Community Affairs.
24 Q And what was your position -- what were your
25 duties with the Florida Communities Trust?
7
1 A To help implement their initial program for
2 distributing the bond monies, which is an application
3 program from local governments; part of my responsibilities
4 were to help local governments in fulfilling the
5 application, assist in the review of applications and the
6 like.
7 Q So the communities would apply to this trust for
8 funds to help them purchase recreation and conservation
9 land?
10 A In general, yes.
11 Q You would review those applications?
12 A Uh-hum (affirmative response.)
13 Q Did you have staff people under you who did those
14 reviews?
15 A No. I was in charge of the project design and
16 land acquisition section within the trust. I assisted and
17 provided comments on some of the reviews. But my section
18 didn't actually handle the reviews. There was one woman who
19 worked under me who was responsible for the administering of
20 the paperwork associated with the use of state monies for
21 buying local properties and working with the Department of
22 Natural Resources, coordinating things like appraisals,
23 property surveys and the like. They are all part of the
24 acquisition package.
25 Q Okay. I am a little confused as to what your
8
1 function was. And if you didn't review the applications or
2 make recommendations --
3 A I did make some recommendations, but that was
4 only as part of a team. I was not part of the official
5 review staff.
6 Q So what was your function?
7 A I was primarily liaison with local governments.
8 Q I see. How many of those applications did you
9 work with?
10 A I believe there were 54 applications or 53, I
11 forget.
12 Q How long were you there?
13 A Nine months.
14 Q Was that a temporary position?
15 A No. That was a full-time position.
16 Q It was not an OPS type position?
17 A No.
18 Q Have you been replaced in that position?
19 A I believe they since hired someone.
20 Q Do you know who?
21 A No.
22 Q Why did you leave that position?
23 A I had differences with the director of the
24 program.
25 Q When did you leave?
9
1 A Third week of June.
2 Q Who is the director?
3 A Executive director is Anne Peery, P-E-E-R-Y.
4 Q I notice on your vitae that it said you had that
5 position until present. I presume this is a somewhat
6 outdated vitae?
7 A Yes, I have not troubled to update it since.
8 Q Okay.
9 A Although you got this one underneath dated
10 August.
11 Q Okay. Prior to working with the Florida
12 Communities Trust, am I correct that you were at FAU?
13 A Correct.
14 Q And were you down in South Florida at that time?
15 A Yes, I was there six years.
16 Q Tell me exactly what adjunct faculties means?
17 A It's not a full-time faculty position. These
18 were OPS positions.
19 Q Approximately how much -- did you teach?
20 A Yes, I did.
21 Q Did you teach every semester for that six years?
22 A No. My position with the FAU/FIU Joint Center
23 was as a full-time research faculty. The university title
24 was associate and research. In addition to that, I had
25 several adjunct faculty appointments.
10
1 Q So concurrently, you were a research faculty
2 member?
3 A Correct.
4 Q And how was your research funded?
5 A Primarily through grants and contracts.
6 Q You indicate on your CV that you were the
7 principal investigator for research in more than 30 projects
8 addressing environmental issues. Were those all of similar
9 types, or is it a variety of types of projects?
10 A There were a variety of projects.
11 Q Can you tell me some within that range?
12 A I worked on, for instance, the economic analysis
13 of water allocation in South Florida. I conducted a study
14 for the Environmental Protection Agency on the greenhouse
15 effect and its impact on the hydrology in South Florida. I
16 worked on things as remote as land use planning for a state
17 hospital in South Florida.
18 Q The first one you mentioned was an economic
19 analysis of water usage? Remind me.
20 A You have got a copy here with the exact title.
21 The gray cover is the report.
22 Q An Analysis of Public Subsidies and Externalities
23 Affecting Water Use in South Florida?
24 A Right.
25 Q That you did while you were at FAU?
11
1 A Correct.
2 Q Who funded that analysis?
3 A The Wilderness Society funded it.
4 Q They, what, contracted or gave a grant to the
5 university which paid for your work?
6 A It was a contract. It did not pay for my work.
7 My salary at the university, at least for the last two and a
8 half years that I was there, was a line item with the
9 university. So I was not in any way dependent upon grants
10 and contracts myself for my own income. The monies went to
11 support other OPS staff and expenses associated with the
12 research center.
13 Q How many people worked on that analysis?
14 A Three Joint Center staff persons and two outside
15 consultants.
16 Q Those were funded by the grant or the contract
17 with the Wilderness Society?
18 A Correct.
19 Q What about the work you did on the greenhouse
20 effect of the hydrology of South Florida?
21 A Similarly. I don't remember how many staff --
22 there were fewer staff persons on that particular project.
23 Q Actually my question was who funded that?
24 A That was the Environmental Protection Agency. I
25 am sorry.
12
1 Q And the land use for the state hospital was for
2 HRS or some state agency?
3 A No, it was a direct legislative appropriation.
4 Q Were there any other projects that you worked on
5 during that time directly related to the Everglades?
6 A Is it a problem for me to take a look at my
7 vitae?
8 Q Certainly not.
9 A (Examining document.)
10 Q This is not a memory test.
11 A Yes, I worked on a project for the Department of
12 Natural Resources. It was an economic impact statement for
13 Chapter 120 rule making dealing with melaleuca infestation.
14 Q Did DNR fund that?
15 A Yes. I had written a chapter in a book as yet
16 unpublished on wetlands and ecology of South Florida.
17 Q You did that while you were at FAU?
18 A Yes.
19 Q Who funded that?
20 A There was no funding attached to that.
21 Q Okay. Is that something that you brought today?
22 A No. As a matter of fact, I didn't. Are you only
23 interested in funded research?
24 Q No, all research that you --
25 A Okay.
13
1 Q -- did relating to the Everglades.
2 A I had done an evaluation of the relationships
3 among various federal subsidies affecting or taking place
4 within the Everglades, the ecosystem in general. And that
5 was funded by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. And I had
6 also written two papers while I was at FAU dealing with
7 relationship of water use, energy resources and agricultural
8 production in South Florida. Neither of those were funded.
9 Q I notice that since 1985, that you have
10 concurrently with these other positions been a private
11 consultant?
12 A Yes.
13 Q All your positions have allowed you to do that?
14 A Yes.
15 Q How much of your work over the last -- let me
16 divide that up. How much of your work while you were at FAU
17 was work you did on your own as a private consultant?
18 A In terms of income?
19 Q Well, tell me income and then tell me time.
20 A Maybe --
21 Q If it differs.
22 A No, it's probably 5 percent of my time and
23 probably only 5 percent or less additional income.
24 Q What about while you were with Community Affairs?
25 A I had only conducted one project while I was
14
1 there, and that was looking at the implications of the
2 adopted comprehensive plans among the communities and along
3 the cross water Florida barge canal and how those related to
4 that new project.
5 Q You did that on your own, you say, as a private
6 consultant?
7 A Yes.
8 Q Who was your client?
9 A I was paid by the Joint Center.
10 Q What's the Joint Center?
11 A The FAU/FIU Joint Center who had been my employer
12 previous to that period.
13 Q Were they funded by someone?
14 A I believe their funding came from the Department
15 of Natural Resources. They were subcontractors with the
16 University of Florida.
17 Q Okay. And subsequent to leaving Community
18 Affairs, what work have you done as a private consultant?
19 A I am beginning to conduct some work with the firm
20 of Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan on assisting local
21 governments with their MPDES permits as well as the
22 development of stormwater utilities for stormwater
23 management. I have not received any funds or payment for
24 that work yet.
25 Q Do you have particular clients?
15
1 A That's to be determined.
2 Q When did this relationship begin?
3 A Back in October.
4 Q Do you get paid a retainer?
5 A No.
6 Q Anything else?
7 A I am trying to remember. No.
8 Q Other than I presume what you are doing here
9 today is in your position as a private consultant?
10 A I did conduct one piece of work Mr. Burgess is
11 reviewing, which was for the National Audubon Society. They
12 wanted some review and comment on at that point what was the
13 draft Hazen and Sawyer report released in the middle of
14 July, I guess.
15 Q Just to make this clean, let me show you what you
16 were looking at when you said that.
17 A This is it.
18 MS. STINSON: Let's have that marked as
19 Exhibit 1.
20 (Exhibit 1 marked for identification.)
21 BY MS. STINSON:
22 Q The work you were just talking about was --
23 is entitled Comment on the Draft Final Report, Evaluation of
24 the Economic Impact of Implementing the Margery Stoneman
25 Douglas Restoration Act and U.S. versus SFWMD Settlement
16
1 Agreement; is that correct?
2 A That's correct.
3 Q And your client in that was the Audubon Society?
4 A National Audubon Society.
5 Q How much time did you spend on that project?
6 A It was a matter of hours over a period of a
7 couple of days.
8 Q Okay. What did you do?
9 A I reviewed both -- again, the draft final report
10 as stated in the title, as well as this copy that you have
11 indicated you had a copy of, the work done for Hazen and
12 Sawyer by Natural Resource Damage Assessment, Inc. and I was
13 reviewing it for its content, its fairness, its accuracy,
14 its applicability.
15 Q You are referring to both the draft final of the
16 economic benefits and that of the economic impact?
17 A Correct.
18 Q So your report actually considers both of those
19 documents?
20 A Yes, there are roughly two pages of text devoted
21 to each one.
22 Q Who was your client in this instant matter for
23 whom you are testifying today?
24 MR. GUEST: Could we go off the record.
25 (Discussion off the record.)
17
1 BY MS. STINSON:
2 Q Can you tell me who your clients are?
3 A Clients would consist of the Florida Audubon
4 Society, Sierra Club, Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc.,
5 Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida --
6 MR. GUEST: Back off the record.
7 (Discussion off the record.)
8 MS. STINSON: Read how far he got.
9 (Requested portion was read back.)
10 THE WITNESS: Delete the Miccosukee Tribe, if we
11 can.
12 BY MS. STINSON:
13 Q We don't want to delete the tribe but your
14 involvement.
15 A Good point.
16 Q How long have you been retained by those clients
17 for this project?
18 A I guess that I was first contacted maybe two
19 months ago.
20 Q And what is it you were asked or have been asked
21 to do?
22 A To address primarily two questions; one was
23 whether or not the Hazen and Sawyer study was a fair report
24 in its assessment of the economic impacts; and also to look
25 at what might some of the economic consequences be of
18
1 failing to implement the SWIM Plan. Those are really the
2 only two issues that I have been asked to examine or
3 review.
4 Q I haven't yet asked you about your educational
5 background. Can you tell me what it is, please.
6 A I have a Master's in science and environmental
7 engineering sciences and an undergraduate degree in
8 mathematics.
9 Q Over what period of time were you working on your
10 Master's?
11 A I began my graduate program in September of 1981,
12 completed all of my work and thesis by August of 1984.
13 Q What was your thesis?
14 A My thesis dealt with the energy basis of the
15 Mississippi River watershed.
16 Q What do you mean by energy basis?
17 A It was an analysis of all of the energy resources
18 that go into making the watershed work, which also included
19 a full analysis of the topology of the watershed, where
20 water resources were available and not available, and how
21 those interrelate with fossil fuel resources in the
22 communities.
23 Q Tell me what types of course work is required for
24 environmental engineering sciences.
25 A The program that I took on was centered at the
19
1 Center for Wetlands, courses in wetlands ecology. I had a
2 couple of courses in water resource economics, courses in
3 groundwater hydrology, general ecology, community ecology.
4 Q What's community ecology?
5 A Well, ecosystems can be broken down at various
6 levels from populations of individuals up to communities
7 which are groupings of species as well as the entire
8 ecosystem level where you are looking at, both the abiotic
9 and biotic components of an ecosystem or region.
10 Q Okay.
11 A They are disciplines that look at each level
12 alone.
13 Q Any other topics?
14 A Several courses linking energy and economics.
15 Q When you were working on your Master's, did you
16 have any involvement with the Everglades?
17 A I don't believe so.
18 Q Other than the courses linking energy and
19 economics, was there any particular emphasis or focus on
20 economic analyses?
21 A In the context of larger energy based analyses,
22 yes. And in addition, I had introductory courses in
23 economics.
24 Q Tell me what you mean by in the larger context of
25 --
20
1 A The two courses that I had mentioned previously
2 were oriented towards looking at all of the energy resources
3 that go into operating any particular system, and economics
4 was an important factor within, but it was considered to be
5 a single component in one of those analyses.
6 The purpose of those sorts of approaches was to
7 make sure that fair due or some recognition of the energy
8 inputs from natural resources that don't necessarily have
9 market values is included in any particular analysis.
10 Q And other than that, the only economics courses
11 you had were basically introductory economics?
12 A One introductory course and I guess it was
13 agricultural resource economics, and one undergraduate
14 course in ag resource economics as well as one graduate
15 course on the same subject.
16 Q Was your undergraduate degree related in any way
17 to environmental issues?
18 A No, other than providing analytical tools for the
19 type of research that I did later.
20 Q While you were working on your Master's, you were
21 a graduate research assistant; is that correct?
22 A Correct.
23 Q Prior to beginning the Master's program, you were
24 employed as a planner; is that correct?
25 A Correct.
21
1 Q Tell me where that was and what you did?
2 A I was employed by the firm of
3 Schimpeler-Corredino which was based in Kentucky but they
4 had offices in Miami and Coral Gables, Florida. They were
5 part of the private sector joint venture component in
6 planning and implementing the Miami metro rail project.
7 Q Where were you located?
8 A I was located in Miami.
9 Q Exclusively?
10 A Yes.
11 Q And what did you do?
12 A I worked extensively with the computer modeling
13 programs for estimating patronage on that particular transit
14 system under a variety of scenarios, looking at different
15 locations for stations and making recommendations on parking
16 requirements, and the like.
17 Q There was nothing environmentally related to that
18 work?
19 A No.
20 Q Prior to that, what did you do?
21 A I had worked for the City of Miami on a variety
22 of survey crews.
23 Q Nothing particularly environmentally related
24 about that position either?
25 A Other than the sites worked within, no.
22
1 Q You have listed on the vita that I have a copy of
2 lectures and public appearances. And in August of 1991, you
3 gave a presentation on restoring the Everglades. Do you
4 have any outline or documents of that talk?
5 A Yes. I believe I probably still have that, an
6 outline of that talk, that talk and a couple of the others
7 affiliated with it with the Unitarian Church. The talks
8 were highly similar, but I believe I actually have the
9 outlines for the speeches given at each one.
10 Q Okay. One to the Southeast Florida Geological
11 Society, future allocation of water in South Florida, do you
12 have --
13 A I probably still have notes to that as well.
14 Q You indicate you were a panel member, the Sixth
15 Annual Everglades Coalition Conference in Miami. Did you
16 make a presentation?
17 A I made a presentation, but I don't think I had
18 anything but some handwritten notes about that panel. It
19 was not a speech or a formal presentation in that sense. It
20 was more of a discussion with other panel members.
21 Q What was the subject of your presentation?
22 A The discussion in general dealt with effectively
23 failing to implement the SWIM Plan, although it wasn't in
24 that context at the time because the SWIM Plan wasn't that
25 far along.
23
1 It was looking at what South Florida might be
2 like if the Everglades were not there, or were in some
3 degenerated condition. I have no idea whether or not the
4 coalition taped that or would have any written record of the
5 outcome of the panel or any key themes presented.
6 Q Who put on that conference?
7 A The Everglades Coalition.
8 Q Do you know where they are based?
9 A They are now administratively housed with the
10 National Audubon Society in Washington, D.C.
11 Q How long have you been in South Florida or --
12 A My family moved there in 1970.
13 Q You lived there prior to going to college?
14 A Yes.
15 Q Did you return then to Florida after college?
16 A Yes.
17 Q Here's another presentation, Evaluation of
18 Everglades Restoration and Everglades Subsidies for the
19 Center for Wetlands in Gainesville. Do you have an outline?
20 A I might. I am not sure. I gave two talks to
21 them roughly on the same issue.
22 Q Can you tell me the substance of that talk?
23 A The first time I spoke to them was to provide
24 some interim results for this particular study for the
25 Wilderness Society.
24
1 Q When you say this particular society, you mean --
2 A The Analysis of Subsidies and Externalities; and
3 the second time, which was this past October, related more
4 closely to an as-yet unpublished study on the economics of
5 the EAA as they relate to water and peat storages there.
6 Q An unpublished study?
7 A Yes, it's a manuscript that I will be submitting
8 for publication.
9 Q What's the title of that?
10 A I don't know if I gave it a title yet.
11 Q Tell me again the topic.
12 A The topic was an analysis of -- relationship
13 between economic reviews of the EAA as well as energetic or
14 energy-based reviews of the EAA, especially in the context
15 of changes in the hydrology and peat content of that region.
16 Q A moment ago you referred to work you did I guess
17 while you were at FAU funded by the Wilderness Society.
18 MS. STINSON: For the record, let's make that a
19 part of this deposition, an Analysis of Public
20 Subsidies and Externalities Affecting Water Use in
21 South Florida.
22 (Exhibit 2 marked for identification.)
23 MR. ROSENBERG: Is there a date on that
24 document?
25 MS. STINSON: December '90.
25
1 BY MS. STINSON:
2 Q A couple of presentations on the TV, I guess,
3 South Florida Environmental Problems, Channel 2, Miami,
4 October of '89. Would you have any written documentation of
5 that?
6 A No. Those were just -- all the TV appearances
7 were just simply questions from whoever the host of the show
8 was. One of them dealt extensively with the drought, I
9 remember. Which other ones did you have there?
10 Q South Florida's Water Shortage?
11 A Obviously that would have been it.
12 Q Then there is one on landfill -- this is not a TV
13 one -- Landfill Siting and South Florida Hydrology to the
14 Timber Creek Homeowners Association, would you have any
15 documentary --
16 A No.
17 Q -- information on that? Can you tell me the
18 substance of that talk?
19 A The homeowners association had concerns about
20 what the water quality impacts might have been if a landfill
21 were to be placed between their properties and the
22 Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge, as I remember.
23 Q What was your discussion?
24 A Had to do with the overall hydrology of South
25 Florida and where water comes from and where it flows to and
26
1 what the risks would be associated with their own
2 properties.
3 Q Did you draw any conclusions as to what effect a
4 landfill would have?
5 A Well, I don't remember what the conclusions were,
6 to tell you the truth. I am trying to remember whether they
7 were concerned about their own property; there was concern
8 over odors and the like, but I was really only asked to
9 speak about the hydrological issues.
10 I gather there was some interest as well as on
11 what the impact would be on the refuge. And based on the
12 overall flow in that part of the state, that part of South
13 Florida, that the refuge was unlikely be seriously impacted
14 because the flow tended to be from the interior of the
15 peninsula towards the coast.
16 Q This development was towards the coast?
17 A Well, it was eastward of the conservation areas.
18 MS. STINSON: Off record.
19 (Discussion off record.)
20 BY MS. STINSON:
21 Q Mr. Diamond, have you performed -- I believe you
22 said you have -- environmental impact statements relating to
23 ecological issues?
24 A Economic impact statements relating to
25 environmental ecological issues, yes.
27
1 Q Can you tell me what you have done and for whom?
2 A To the best of my knowledge, all of the work has
3 been done through the Department of Natural Resources. I
4 don't have an exact count, but I believe that I have done
5 13, 14, or 15 economic impact statements specifically for
6 the implementation of coastal construction control lines.
7 I had done an economic impact statement for a
8 draft sea turtle protection rule which has not been
9 implemented.
10 I had also developed the primary document for the
11 series of 13 manatee protection rules and was involved with
12 the final product on a couple of the early ones of those.
13 Those are just now coming into their final form. Thirteen
14 drafts were produced under my management. And as the rules
15 became finalized for each individual county, I am still
16 called on for advice by the Joint Center which has had the
17 contract to finish that work.
18 As I mentioned earlier, I had done an economic
19 impact statement for a rule, a rule amendment dealing with
20 the addition of melaleuca on the prohibited aquatic plant
21 list.
22 Q That was also for DNR?
23 A Yes. DNR paid for all of those.
24 Q Did DNR have an ongoing contract with the Joint
25 Center to do economic impact statements?
28
1 A No. It was an ongoing relationship that had been
2 in place for probably a decade or so at least with regard to
3 the coastal control lines. The center had been doing work
4 for the department probably since 1979. I know that the
5 department had contracted out with the University of Florida
6 I believe for one particular EIS. And they preferred the
7 work done by the Joint Center at the time and went back to
8 them.
9 Q With regard to the coastal construction control
10 lines, what did your analysis consider?
11 A The purpose of those documents was to examine
12 what the implications might be for homeowners and local
13 governments in terms of coping with the requirement, the
14 higher construction standards associated with the coastal
15 control line rule. There was also a review of the probable
16 benefits associated with protecting the beach-dune system.
17 Q The expenses of stringent construction
18 requirements?
19 A Correct. These include higher standards for wind
20 as well as higher first floor elevations for homes and
21 buildings.
22 Q And in terms of benefits, what benefits did you
23 determine there would be from such --
24 A The bulk of the benefits as well as the bulk of
25 the review dealt with recreational issues as well as
29
1 benefits to homeowners in terms of reduced damage from
2 storms.
3 Q How did you determine the benefits with regard to
4 recreation?
5 A Particular beaches, public beaches, as well as
6 private ones where any existed, the patronage for those
7 sites was examined, the overall contribution of recreation
8 to that particular county; each of the EIS's was on a county
9 by county basis. The contribution of recreational tourism
10 was reviewed to their contribution to the local economy.
11 And statements were made regarding those as upper bounds for
12 the value of beaches.
13 Q And the 13 to 15 that you did were essentially
14 the same just for different counties with different data
15 input?
16 A No. That was more the case for the manatees;
17 when I said there was a primary document that was used as a
18 model on which to base the other ones. I will say that the
19 control line economic impact statements are quite similar.
20 However, it was truly an evolving document.
21 Again, I did my first one I guess in either the
22 end of 1985 or the final document might have been the first
23 couple of months in 1986, and did one every few months while
24 I was there at the Joint Center. And certainly the later
25 documents are vastly different from the first few that were
30
1 done. And much more information was put in, much more
2 analysis was attached to the data that was acquired.
3 Q That was a function of you just learning the more
4 you do?
5 A Yes, as well as review of -- not reports on how
6 to do EIS's but reports and journal articles and the like on
7 economic analysis of natural resources.
8 Q What about the manatee rules? What did you look
9 at in terms of impacts and benefits?
10 A We certainly again looked at the costs to
11 communities and the state for protecting manatees and
12 regulating those bodies of water and estimates with regards
13 to even things like putting signs in the water and
14 educational displays; in terms of benefits again, on a
15 county by county basis, information was gathered from
16 sources such as marinas, sources such as FPL where they had
17 manatee sighting stations or even TECCO I guess had manatee
18 sighting stations and campgrounds and the like, for
19 information about the characteristics of their patrons in
20 terms of viewing manatees and making estimates as to how
21 much money was spent in each community according to those
22 patrons for specifically the purpose of manatee sighting.
23 Q What was your benefit analysis?
24 A Reduction in aquatic weed, management needs in
25 those communities that had freshwater populations of
31
1 manatees as opposed to more estuarine ones. There were
2 other benefits cited as well. Again, the larger share of it
3 dealt with the recreation and tourism benefits to those
4 communities for having populations of manatees to see.
5 Q On any of these EIS's that you did for DNR, do
6 you know whether any of those rules were challenged?
7 A Only one has been challenged, and that was the
8 rule for manatees in Volusia County.
9 Q Do you know whether there was a challenge to the
10 validity of the economic impact statement?
11 A There was.
12 Q And has that --
13 A The hearing officer determined that it was a
14 valid EIS.
15 Q Did you testify in that proceeding?
16 A Yes, I did.
17 Q Who was your client?
18 A DNR.
19 Q Who challenged the rules?
20 A I am not sure of the exact name, but there was a
21 boaters association in Volusia County that had brought the
22 challenge. I believe I still have the paperwork associated
23 with that at home.
24 Q Who at DNR did you or have you worked with most
25 closely on the EIS?
32
1 A With regard to the coastal control line, the EIS
2 was Mr. Harold Bean, who is the head of their bureau, Bureau
3 of Coastal Data Acquisition. And on the manatee rules, Ms.
4 Dona Bentzien and Dr. Pat Rose over in their office of
5 protected species. I worked with Mr. Don Schmitz on the
6 melaleuca EIS.
7 Q When was that work done?
8 A The one --
9 Q The melaleuca?
10 A The date is on the list of publications. I
11 believe it was in '89. You want me to find that in a hurry?
12 Q Sure.
13 A I can't find it.
14 Q I think it's on there because I think I saw it.
15 A There was a slightly modified version of the
16 study done for DNR which was submitted to a symposium on
17 exotic pest plants, which is recorded here as 1991; but
18 again, I believe that the actual work done for DNR was
19 probably in '89. In fact, it looks like here there might be
20 a page missing. I have to go back and check.
21 Q Okay.
22 A That might explain it.
23 Q In looking at the melaleuca issue, you did an EIS
24 statement, you say?
25 A Correct.
33
1 Q For the rule that made it a noxious weed, or what
2 was the rule?
3 A It was added to the prohibited plants list as
4 officially phrased by DNR.
5 Q That is what you did the EIS for?
6 A Right.
7 Q What was the costs and benefits you looked at in
8 that?
9 A Costs associated with the increased management of
10 the species in South Florida, both in private and public
11 sector, primarily public; costs to businesses that still
12 might market melaleuca as an ornamental; relationship
13 between that species and a number of communities that
14 already had it on their own prohibited list in a sense; and
15 that for new development, they were no longer allowing those
16 species to be planted, and if it was present, they were
17 required to be hauled off.
18 The benefits examined dealt with some of the
19 impacts or relationship between melaleuca and water supply
20 in South Florida, as I believe the impact on the integrity
21 of the ecosystems that were being affected and potential
22 losses to recreation and tourism resulting from that.
23 There was also a review of the impact on the
24 eradication of the species on the bee, honey industry in
25 South Florida and Florida as a whole.
34
1 Q You provided to us what we marked as Exhibit 1,
2 your comments on -- I will call it Hazen and Sawyer
3 reports. Subsequent to the work that you did at that time,
4 which was last summer sometime; is that correct?
5 A First week of August.
6 Q First week of August. Have you done any
7 additional analysis of the Hazen and Sawyer report?
8 A Not a detailed analysis. I did review the final
9 document relative to the draft for any key differences and
10 didn't find any substantial ones. Some missing tables were
11 finally put in and the like.
12 So no, for the purposes of -- the draft report
13 served as the basis for any scribblings analysis I done
14 since that time. Again, I have only received the final
15 report within the last couple of weeks, at latest.
16 Q Now, what you brought here is what's called a
17 final report dated July 31, '92, of the economic impact. Is
18 that the final report you are speaking of?
19 A Yes.
20 Q Have you received a final report of the economic
21 benefits --
22 A Have not.
23 Q -- portion? And although the impact final report
24 is dated July 1, you indicated you only recently obtained a
25 copy of that?
35
1 A Uh-hum (affirmative response.)
2 Q When did you obtain a copy of that?
3 A Within the last couple of weeks, as I said.
4 Q Okay.
5 A It was only in conjunction with preparation for
6 this deposition.
7 Q Now you also indicated another -- well, that you
8 were planning to testify in two areas, one I believe on the
9 report done by Hazen and Sawyer?
10 A Correct.
11 Q And secondly, on the effects of failing to
12 implement the SWIM Plan; is that a fair summary?
13 A Uh-hum (affirmative response.)
14 Q What work have you done with respect to assessing
15 failure to implement the SWIM Plan?
16 A I had reviewed the work done by the NRDA and
17 subcontractors, Hazen and Sawyer; and I have reviewed my own
18 work, primarily that which was centered on the study done
19 for the Wilderness Society, since it was a fairly extensive
20 review of the impacts to recreation, changes in ecosystem
21 content, and a lot of data that had been assembled for
22 recreation and tourism associated with that study.
23 Q That study being Exhibit 2?
24 A Correct.
25 Q Okay.
36
1 A The appendices are the blue covered copy and
2 consist of the data.
3 MS. STINSON: Okay. Let's mark that as Exhibit
4 3.
5 (Exhibit 3 marked for identification.)
6 BY MS. STINSON:
7 Q Exhibits 2 and 3 are a package?
8 A Yes, for those that want to read the entire
9 thing.
10 Q I am sorry, I interrupted you I believe.
11 A Could you call on the question again.
12 (The requested portion was read back.)
13 Q The question originally was what have you done to
14 analyze the failure to implement the SWIM Plan. And I don't
15 know if that was a complete response or there was more?
16 A No. I had put the answer to that question in
17 three categories: Purely ecological impacts, purely
18 hydrological impacts, and those which are more on the realm
19 of economics.
20 I have made notes to myself on the ecological and
21 hydrological impacts, not being here as an expert in those
22 two subjects but only as they relate to potential changes in
23 the economic picture of South Florida.
24 Q You indicated that you had testified for DNR on
25 one of the manatee rules. Do you recall what you were
37
1 qualified as an expert in?
2 A I was not qualified as an expert witness in that
3 particular case.
4 Q You were just a fact witness?
5 A Yes.
6 Q Have you testified previously as an expert in any
7 area either at the Division of Administrative Hearings or in
8 any court?
9 A I have testified in one other proceeding and have
10 not been admitted as an expert, because it has not gotten
11 that far yet, in a lawsuit filed by the Florida Audubon
12 Society against the U.S. Treasury Department with regards to
13 the implementation of a policy related to tax credits for
14 ethanol production. And my task there was to review the
15 environmental and ecological impacts of expanded sugar
16 production in South Florida.
17 Q Your client in that case is?
18 A Florida Audubon Society.
19 Q You say you have testified but not been
20 qualified. What do you mean? You testified in a
21 deposition?
22 A I testified in deposition only. It has not gone
23 any further than that yet.
24 Q When was your deposition taken in that case?
25 A I believe it was just shy of two years ago. I
38
1 don't remember the date. I would have to check.
2 Q Is that in Federal Court; do you know?
3 A Well, yes, I believe so.
4 Q The proceeding is in Federal Court?
5 A I believe so.
6 Q Do you know what the position of the Florida
7 Audubon Society is in that proceeding?
8 A The position being that expanded sugar production
9 would have negative consequences for the overall ecological
10 integrity of the Everglades.
11 Q How does that relate to text credits for ethanol?
12 A The presumption was -- I was not being asked to
13 look at the relationship between the tax credits and any
14 changes in acreage harvested or planted. Again, my role was
15 only to look if those changes occurred, what the ecological
16 implications might be.
17 But the presumption was that tax credits would
18 serve as encouragement for increased sugar production since
19 sugar would be -- sugar cane would be a likely crop to serve
20 as ethanol feed stock or feed stock for ethanol production.
21 Q Do you have a copy of the transcript of that
22 deposition?
23 A I would have it at home. I would have to track
24 it down. I believe I can pull that out.
25 Q Before we got off on where you have testified
39
1 before, you had indicated that there were three areas of
2 impacts, I guess, that you have looked at in this
3 proceeding; ecological, hydrological and the economic.
4 Have you assessed the ecological or hydrological
5 impacts or have you relied on the work of others in those
6 assessments?
7 A Well, I would say both. I certainly used other
8 data since I have not conducted any original field research
9 in the Everglades. So I make use of documents produced by
10 the Water Management District, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
11 Services and other related agencies in coming to any
12 conclusions that I make.
13 (Luncheon recess.)
14 BY MS. STINSON:
15 Q Mr. Diamond, before we broke for lunch, I was
16 asking you what work you had done really on the subject of
17 what the effect would be if the SWIM Plan were not
18 implemented. As I recall, you had indicated there were
19 three components: Ecological impact, hydrological impact,
20 and economic impact; is that right?
21 A Right. They are linked. I want to emphasize
22 that issues developed under the ecological-hydrological
23 categories obviously have economic components to them --
24 actually economic ramifications. So the only reason why I
25 set those aside was to go ahead and map out a little bit
40
1 more of the universe of where economic impacts might be tied
2 to or derived from --
3 Q Let's go --
4 A -- in light of my role here in these proceedings.
5 Q Okay. Let's go through those and you tell me
6 what you have done and what you have and what opinions you
7 have formed specifically with respect to these proceedings.
8 Let's start with the ecological, if you had them divided up
9 that way.
10 A Yes, five points I made to myself. Briefly, that
11 there is a presence of cattails and degraded ecological
12 communities, certainly sawcross in WCA1 as well as parts of
13 WCA2; that there have been documented changes in the
14 periphyton community, and that there have been some changes
15 both to the algal and macrophyte communities, and those
16 necessarily have some ramifications in terms of the
17 community of primary and secondary consumers; that there is
18 presence of melaleuca and it does continue to spread. I
19 have not made any estimates as to rates or anything like
20 that.
21 And that all of these together may result in
22 declines of selected species, including endangered animals,
23 endangered and threatened species.
24 Under the hydrological realm, there has been a
25 loss of water storage due to changes in depth of peat.
41
1 There may be a second -- there might be a reduced base flow,
2 seepage flow, from the Everglades ag areas into the water
3 conservation areas; that in the event of any continued
4 dry-down, that may, in fact, stimulate the spread of
5 melaleuca; that the above changes in hydroperiod are likely
6 to require more intensive management both of Lake Okeechobee
7 and the water conservation areas to assure continued water
8 supply for all users of South Florida.
9 That's what I scribbled down to myself as a basis
10 for thinking about what some of the economic ramifications
11 might be.
12 Q Go through the economic ramifications, if you
13 would, then I want to jump back and ask you some questions
14 about what you mentioned so far.
15 A I had just made some rough notes, and these are
16 preliminary. That there may be recreational impacts, and
17 these would include camping, recreational hunting, boating
18 and canoeing, birding and noncommercial fishing; that there
19 may be some commercial fishing impacts; impacts to trapping
20 of alligators. And two larger categories that I have not
21 invested much time in exploring is what the economic
22 consequences would be -- these deal with water supplies for
23 urban South Florida, as well as even climate modifications
24 throughout the --
25 MR. ROSENBERG: What was the last one?
42
1 A -- water supply and climate modification in the
2 lower peninsula.
3 BY MS. STINSON:
4 Q Okay. You are considering under economic
5 ramifications?
6 A Yes.
7 Q Okay. Have you looked at the flip side of the
8 coin, the benefits; or are you pretty much going through
9 ramifications?
10 A Well, I am looking at the benefits in terms of
11 avoided impacts.
12 Q Okay. So recreation, primarily water supply for
13 urban areas and climate modifications. Anything else?
14 A No, not to this point. Just to be clear, in the
15 instance of recreation, let's say that the benefit would be
16 the maintenance of recreation at a particular level, and
17 that that might be impacted negatively as a consequence of
18 continued EAA practices or changes in EAA practices.
19 Q Let me go back. Is there anything else then on
20 the economic ramifications?
21 A Not right now.
22 Q Let me back up and pursue some of this.
23 The ecological ramifications, you indicated there
24 is the presence of cattails. For that conclusion, what are
25 you relying on?
43
1 A Primarily worked done by U.S. Fish and Wildlife
2 Service.
3 Q A particular document or what specifically?
4 A Well, I know there was also a Water Management
5 District document, if I may see this.
6 Q Sure.
7 A A report entitled Evaluation of Refuge Habitat in
8 Relationship To Water Quality, Quantity and Hydroperiod.
9 Q That's a report of U.S. --
10 A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service research unit
11 based at the University of Florida.
12 Q Okay.
13 A As I remember, that report linked the water
14 quality at numerous stations throughout water conservation
15 area one, the Loxahatchee Refuge, and the intensity and
16 breadth of cattail infestation.
17 Q Okay. Have you done any independent research on
18 the presence or extent of cattail?
19 A Other than limited personal observation, no, not
20 really research of any sort.
21 Q Okay. The second component, as I recall, was
22 documented changes in the periphyton communities?
23 A A number of documents, mostly from the Water
24 Management District. If I could see that again.
25 Q Specifically if you can identify what you are
44
1 relying on.
2 A Okay. I believe there were studies that were
3 written by Dave Swift of the district. And there was also
4 work done by Dewey Worth with the Water Management District,
5 Environmental Response of Water Conservation Area 2A, the
6 reduction in regulation, schedule and marsh drawdown. I'd
7 have to go back and check the resource for the reference to
8 that done by Swift. It might not have been used for this
9 study, but it might have been used for other work. Those
10 two come to mind.
11 Q The alga and macrophyte communities?
12 A Well, the algal community refers to the second
13 periphyton community and macrophyton obviously in reference
14 to the cattail community. That is just my opinion with
15 regard to its impact on the ecological or food chain of that
16 region as a whole.
17 Q What is that opinion?
18 A That changes in the base of the food chain will
19 have some consequences for higher level consumers in terms
20 of the makeup of those animal communities and the
21 distribution or frequencies of the species which are
22 present.
23 Q Have you done any independent research to
24 determine what changes in those communities -- how it will
25 specifically affect what parts of the food chain?
45
1 A No, I have not in terms of assessments on
2 particular species. I am basing that on established
3 ecological principles.
4 Q Basically being if you affect the bottom level of
5 the food chain, it will have effect on the chain?
6 A That's true. That's all I was trying to indicate
7 by that. And again, in terms of the economic aspects of it,
8 people -- recreationists, fishermen and the like -- tend to
9 interplay or interact more with primary and secondary
10 consumers than they do with the basic food chain.
11 Q They don't go out to catch periphytes?
12 A Not intentionally. I guess they do it for
13 research.
14 Q And the melaleuca, you indicated it was also the
15 presence and spread of melaleuca?
16 A Right. I am basing that in part on a lot of the
17 material that was developed for the economic impact
18 statement, where there was an assessment of recreational and
19 tourist impacts as a function of not controlling melaleuca
20 in South Florida, and what the consequences might be if it
21 extended a number of times beyond its current degree of
22 infestation.
23 Q The economic impact statement is the one you
24 referred to earlier that you did for the DNR rule?
25 A Correct.
46
1 Q Are you aware of any documents which indicate the
2 extent of the presence of melaleuca in any of the Everglades
3 protection area?
4 A Yes, I am.
5 Q What documents?
6 A I am hard-pressed to remember the exact titles.
7 I know there were aerial surveys. I am aware of work done
8 by Dr. Myers at UF as well as work done by the coop unit
9 down in South Florida, IFAS Coop. Again, all the references
10 were contained in that EIS. That would probably be the best
11 source for the material that I was basing that information
12 on.
13 Q Okay.
14 A Again, to put that in context here, the issue was
15 that if that community were spread, then the resultant
16 ecological community tends to be relatively depauperat and
17 species of interest to recreationists. That was reasonably
18 well documented I believe in terms of actual surveys of the
19 types and numbers of animals that use melaleuca dominated
20 systems as opposed to native ecosystems in South Florida.
21 Q Have you done any independent research or
22 analysis of the extent of the melaleuca problem in South
23 Florida?
24 A No, I was making use of other published data.
25 Q Okay. That covered the effects, the ecological
47
1 effects you had indicated; does it not?
2 A Right.
3 Q The hydrological effects, loss of water storage
4 due to changes in the peat?
5 A Correct.
6 Q What documents have you relied on or what
7 information have you relied on?
8 A If I could see the publications list. I have
9 written two technical documents, one published in the
10 Proceedings for Environmentally Sound Agriculture.
11 Q Could you give me the title?
12 A The title of the article was Water Energy and
13 Agriculture in South Florida. And this was written for
14 Proceedings for the Environmentally Sound Agriculture
15 Conference which took place in April of '91.
16 And then more recently, an article entitled
17 Sustainable Agricultural Yield in the Everglades, Florida,
18 which was included in the Proceedings of the 36th Annual
19 Meeting of the International Society for System Sciences.
20 Q Okay.
21 A In both of those documents, I included references
22 to the changes in peat elevation throughout the EAA and in
23 conjunction with data reported back as far as 1946 on the
24 relative masses of water and sewage in the EAA, I had made a
25 number of calculations as to the changes in water storage in
48
1 South Florida as a result of declining land surfaces.
2 Q Did you, other than compiling data collected by
3 others and calculating changes, did you do any field work or
4 research on that?
5 A No, I have not.
6 Q Have there been studies which indicate the amount
7 of water that can be stored in peat?
8 A For example, that early study dealt with taking
9 peat cores and draining water and looking at the relative
10 weight of each.
11 Q That will be referenced in those articles?
12 A Yes. That was a DNR Geologic Survey article by I
13 believe J. C. Davis.
14 Q Then you indicated there may be some reduced
15 seepage flow which may stimulate the spread of melaleuca.
16 First of all, explain that to me.
17 A I conducted hydrological modeling as part of the
18 study performed for the Environmental Protection Agency,
19 which was based in large part on district data dealing with
20 flows between the various hydrological units of South
21 Florida, such as the individual water conservation areas,
22 the EAA as a hydrological unit, et cetera; made use of the
23 data associated with the district routing model and also
24 based it on conversations and written communication between
25 the district on regulated flows as well as unregulated
49
1 flows, information on seepage under particular levees and
2 the like; and included all that information in the
3 hydrological model.
4 When simulations were conducted, I kept tallies
5 on average annual as well as peak seasonal or seasonal rates
6 of movement of water from one sector to another, including
7 the flows from the EAA to the water conservation areas.
8 As the storage declines, there is simply less
9 water to flow. If there were no water, let's say, left in
10 the EAA, there would be very little opportunity for water to
11 flow from the EAA to the water conservation areas. It's
12 hydrologically a down gradient. As long as there is water
13 stored in the soils there, there is some seepage under the
14 dikes and through the soils themselves.
15 Q That is directly related to the changes in the
16 peat, reduction of peat?
17 A Yes.
18 Q Okay. You said you did the hydrological modeling
19 for an EPA study. Tell me again what study that was.
20 A That was the study looking at the implications of
21 the greenhouse effect in South Florida.
22 Q Okay. And there is an article or a paper that
23 you have written on that?
24 A Yes.
25 Q You said there has been a district study, and
50
1 there is a district routing model. Tell me what --
2 A District routing model is their computer model
3 for management purposes as well as estimating the background
4 or base flows among the various compartments of South
5 Florida.
6 Q You just had access to that computer program?
7 A No, I did not use the program. I used some of
8 its output. I had written an independent program.
9 Q Your modeling program?
10 A (Nods affirmatively.)
11 Q You mentioned also a district study. Is that
12 something different from the routing model?
13 A Was it a particular study I referenced?
14 Q No.
15 A There are data within the district, and I am not
16 sure again of the source. I would have to check back on it
17 -- estimates of flows between compartments as a function of
18 seepage and the like. So I had communicated with the
19 district for the rates at specific locations between water
20 conservation areas in and around the perimeter of EAA, all
21 as part of the modeling effort.
22 Q All of that would be again referenced in that
23 study?
24 A I believe so.
25 Q And the impact of the reduced seepage flow you
51
1 indicated would be to promote the spread of melaleuca?
2 A May be to promote the spread of melaleuca, since
3 it does not seed well under saturated conditions; it
4 requires more frequent drawdowns to take root. And that
5 once given a chance, then it will go ahead and establish
6 itself.
7 Q Okay.
8 A Barring any other types of intensive management,
9 if it were just simply a function of reduced water flows in
10 the interior South Florida, that would just simply serve as
11 encouragement for expansion of the species.
12 Q Any other adverse effects of the reduced seepage
13 flows that you are looking at?
14 A Yes. I believe that reduction in available
15 storage and reduction in background flows will necessitate
16 more intensive management of the water conservation areas
17 and perhaps Lake Okeechobee as well to fulfill the water
18 management district's obligations for providing urban water
19 supply as well as agricultural supply, and its increasing
20 responsibility is to guarantee appropriate base flows for
21 the Everglades themselves.
22 If there is simply less water to work with, if
23 the pie is smaller, it just requires more effort to do
24 intelligent management. That will definitely have a dollar
25 cost associated with it.
52
1 Q On the economic ramifications, have you assigned
2 any dollar values to any of these items as of yet?
3 A Yes, I had started on the recreational aspects.
4 Q Tell me what you have done.
5 A Well, in the previous report, I had made some
6 estimates as to what the average annual cost would be for
7 reduced recreational usage as a function of continued
8 degradation of the water conservation areas, including the
9 Loxahatchee Refuge.
10 Q The previous study being --
11 A I am sorry, the study done for the Wilderness
12 Society, the public subsidies and externalities report.
13 Q Exhibit 2?
14 A Exhibit 2.
15 Q Okay.
16 A I had looked at fishing, camping, boating and
17 canoeing, birding and the like, information for a variety of
18 parks and recreational sites throughout the area that's
19 affected by the water management in South Florida, and made
20 estimates as to the change or reduction in recreational
21 usage as a result of the loss of certain types of ecosystems
22 that were there, native ecosystems.
23 Q How did you tie a loss of recreation, say
24 camping, to loss of native ecosystems?
25 A I had mapped out what the expenditures were or
53
1 certainly a range of expenditures for those types of
2 activities. And I looked at the change in available
3 ecosystems for those types of uses.
4 At that time, the estimate of cattail infestation
5 was on the order I believe of about 26,000 acres. This was
6 I guess as of 1989. And the estimate by the Fish and
7 Wildlife Service was on the order of 1200 to maybe 2,000
8 acres additionally a year. So I had made projections out
9 for a period of 30 years.
10 The assumption stated in that report was that
11 recreational use would be cut in half for those properties
12 which were affected, in contrast to, say, the work that was
13 done by the Hazen and Sawyer subcontractors that presumed
14 complete loss of all recreational use based upon loss of one
15 ecosystem or change in one ecosystem for another, I simply
16 assumed that it was half, and then made the calculations
17 from there on out.
18 So looking at the percentage that
19 cattail-dominated communities represented of the entire
20 freshwater and estuarine marsh complexes in South Florida, I
21 looked at that as a percentage of recreational and tourist
22 expenditures, and then in turn, cut that in half again just
23 to provide a more conservative estimate as to what the scale
24 of impacts would be for changes in ecosystems on those uses.
25 Q You assumed that for each of the uses -- the
54
1 camping, hunting, boating, birding, et cetera?
2 A (Nods affirmatively.)
3 Q Did you quantify the water supply for urban
4 areas, the economic ramifications there?
5 A I quantified certain components of it. I had
6 looked at what the costs were for new conservation programs
7 that were being undertaken. And I had looked at the costs
8 for siting new urban wellfields in that study as well. And
9 I don't believe the report suggested that those costs that
10 were being incurred by the urban community were a direct
11 result of land and water management practices in the
12 interior South Florida, but they were a linkage between
13 them. And I did not apportion the costs beyond that.
14 So I was simply looking at what some of the outer
15 bounds were of the impacts of land and water management
16 practices -- primarily for the benefit of the EAA -- were on
17 the urban community in South Florida.
18 Q Did you make some assumptions or have you made
19 some assumptions as to what will be needed with regard to
20 urban water supply if the SWIM Plan is not implemented?
21 A No, I have not looked at that in detail at this
22 time.
23 Q Okay. Climate modification.
24 A I made some extremely rough calculations based on
25 what the energy attributes are of climate in South Florida.
55
1 Q You've got to start at ground zero in explaining
2 that to me.
3 A It will be a long story. I will try to make it
4 as short as I can.
5 Operating under the assumption that there has
6 been a measurable decline in annual rainfall in South
7 Florida, and this is not attributing it entirely to EAA
8 itself but in general to an overall drydown in South
9 Florida, and there might well be some linkage between
10 rainfall on the coast and surface water availability in the
11 interior of Florida.
12 There is a budget of energy driven by solar
13 resources that provides climate to South Florida. As an
14 extremely course rule of thumb, it is suggested that the
15 energy from the natural environment constitutes something on
16 the order of about a third of the energy represented by the
17 economy -- let me get this straight again -- of the sum of
18 the energy represented by the influx of fossil fuels, social
19 security payments, goods and services and the like, imports
20 into South Florida; and the water and solar energy resources
21 which were there, the natural or solar-based resources
22 constitute roughly a third of that total flow on an annual
23 basis, when they are all put in common terms.
24 The methodology for conducting that type of an
25 assessment is not widely understood. Again, I had just
56
1 wanted to look at it as a potential component of the
2 picture, or to the issues that I was asked to talk about. I
3 had thought this might be something worth exploring. I made
4 some rough calculations the other night and came up with a
5 figure of about 1.3 billion dollars as the value of climate
6 in South Florida. That is a course estimate.
7 Q Is there a name to this methodology?
8 A Energy analysis or energetics.
9 Q I haven't heard about this analysis.
10 A Had down at the University of Florida, taken a
11 bunch of courses.
12 Q There is nothing I can read without checking in.
13 MR. GUEST: There is a scientific American Journal
14 article about it about a year ago.
15 A For better or for worse, I am well schooled in
16 the methodology. And I don't know if I have been able to
17 make it clear at all, but the premise underlying the
18 methodology is that all forms of inputs to a region, a
19 community, say South Florida, can be put in common terms for
20 argument's sake translated into solar energy equivalents as
21 they are referred to; so you can convert the electricity
22 that's brought down from Georgia, you can convert the energy
23 content of all the oil that comes into Port Everglades, you
24 can convert the dollars that come from tourists and social
25 security expenditures from the federal government all in
57
1 somewhat common terms and then start to look at what the
2 relative contributions are of these various resources for
3 making South Florida work, or work the way in which it
4 does.
5 Q Have you made any assumptions or conclusions with
6 regard to the effect of the EAA or the contribution of the
7 EAA, this 1.3 billion dollar figure?
8 A I have not isolated that at all. I was only
9 trying to think of some extremely course avenues by which to
10 come up with dollar figures, and EAA individually has not
11 been separated out. I was thinking about land and water
12 management in South Florida as a whole without separating
13 out those expenditures specifically for the benefit of the
14 EAA.
15 Q Now in looking at these three categories --
16 ecological, hydrological and economics -- are your
17 conclusions predicated upon the assumption that the SWIM
18 Plan will fix these problems?
19 A The calculations I have made so far, yes. I
20 would say is predicated at least that it would ameliorate
21 the impacts to a substantial degree. Everything is looked
22 at in those terms; that if the SWIM Plan is implemented,
23 yes, these benefits are expected to accrue.
24 Q You have not, I assume, done any independent
25 verification that the SWIM Plan will, in fact, cure or
58
1 significantly ameliorate these problems? You are just using
2 that as a basis for your work?
3 A That's correct. I haven't been asked to go ahead
4 and make that evaluation either.
5 Q Approximately how much time have you spent to
6 date in preparing for your testimony and the opinions you
7 plan to give in this case?
8 A I would say that's honestly very hard to
9 estimate. I have in a sense been working in and around
10 these issues off and on on specific projects as a volunteer
11 and the like for about seven years, certainly six years, and
12 certainly since the work on reports, for instance, done
13 through the university; all are strong components of the
14 database I keep in mind as well as opinions and principles
15 that work towards developing certain responses.
16 I would have to throw them all in there
17 together. If you meant specifically just for coming here
18 today to respond to a few questions, that's only probably no
19 more than 20 hours.
20 But again, since I have been strongly involved
21 full-time for many months at a time at several times
22 throughout the past few years, I feel hard pressed to
23 discount that contribution. And I really have got no handy
24 way of tallying up all that time.
25 Q You just mentioned your time involved in
59
1 Everglades issues includes that which you have done as a
2 volunteer. For whom and what kind of volunteer work have
3 you done?
4 A I have served as the Everglades chair and
5 co-chair of the Florida chapter of the Sierra Club for four
6 years.
7 Q And apart from the work and research that you
8 have done that you already told us about with the university
9 and the clients you have had, has there been any additional
10 work, study, et cetera, that you have done in your capacity
11 as chair of the Everglades committee of the Sierra Club?
12 A No, other than remaining abreast of information
13 as it evolves through proceedings such as this and others
14 over the past few years. No. It was only from personal
15 interest in these particular issues and wanting to stay as
16 reasonably current as I could, given time and budget
17 constraints.
18 Q I believe you indicated earlier that on the first
19 of the two issues you were retained for, that is to look at
20 the Hazen and Sawyer reports, the work you did on that is
21 pretty much indicated in Exhibit 1; is that correct?
22 A Yes.
23 Q Have you formed any opinions -- let me preface
24 this by saying I have not had an opportunity to review this
25 in any substance. Have you formed any opinions with regard
60
1 to the Hazen and Sawyer analysis?
2 A I think that is a fair document and that the
3 estimates provided with regards to loss of employment and
4 losses in sales as a result of indirect and induced effects
5 of implementing the SWIM Plan are reasonable.
6 No one knows if they are, in fact, right because
7 the plan has not been implemented yet. But I think as
8 educated guesses, that they are good.
9 Q That's the estimates of both the benefits and the
10 effects?
11 A Yes. The benefits, you are referring to the work
12 done by NRDA or the benefits associated --
13 Q Benefits, I refer to the smaller of the two Hazen
14 and Sawyer reports.
15 A I haven't seen the final version of the work done
16 by NRDA. And I don't really look upon that report as
17 indicative of the benefits.
18 I think part of the benefits that I was referring
19 to a second ago in the context of purely Hazen and Sawyer's
20 work was the inclusion of the benefits associated with the
21 construction and operation and maintenance of the NRDA's
22 over time, that that has economic consequences in terms of
23 positive dollar flows instead of losses to the regional
24 economy. I just wanted to indicate that those estimates I
25 think are reasonable.
61
1 Q Okay. I believe I asked you earlier whether
2 Exhibit 1 reviews both of the Hazen and Sawyer reports, the
3 one entitled Evaluation of Economic Benefits, et cetera, and
4 the other entitled Evaluation of the Economic Impact; is
5 that true?
6 A It's true. There are two separate pieces of
7 Exhibit 1, each dealing with either of those documents.
8 Q But your opinion that the estimates of costs and
9 benefits are reasonable is limited only to the report
10 entitled Evaluation of the Economic Impact?
11 A For the time being, until I have time to review
12 the final report of NRDA. I see yours is also a draft
13 final; so you don't have a copy of the final report either.
14 Is that xeroxed from today?
15 Q No. This is my own copy.
16 A Okay. I don't know if there are any substantive
17 revisions in their final report that might make me think any
18 differently. The comments contained in Exhibit 1 only refer
19 to the draft, just to be clear about that, while the
20 comments that I had made about the thicker Hazen and Sawyer
21 document, I think those still apply, having seen both the
22 draft and the final.
23 Q If there is no substantive difference between the
24 draft final and the final final of the benefits side, do you
25 have an opinion as to the conclusions in that Hazen and
62
1 Sawyer NRDA report?
2 A I believe that the benefits established in that
3 report are somewhat overestimated. They are overestimated.
4 Q Let me start with the impact side of it, the fat
5 report. What did you do to determine that or to conclude
6 that the estimates and the analysis in that report are in
7 your opinion reasonable?
8 A I had looked throughout the entire report
9 page-by-page, the entire database used as well as the
10 methodologies, and thought that they were appropriate tools
11 for making those estimates about changes in employment,
12 recognizing that some of the data is based on industry's own
13 reports, in terms of numbers of employees, expenditures for
14 labor and the like, and that it's not simply -- it's not
15 borrowed wholesale from outside sources so that it had some
16 bases in actual industry practice.
17 Q Upon what background or knowledge that you
18 possess are these opinions based, that the loss of jobs
19 estimate is reasonable and that the methodology is a
20 reasonable methodology?
21 A I have worked previously with RIMS procedures
22 for calculating or estimating the impacts of changes in one
23 sector of the economy on other sectors of the economy.
24 Q What projects have you used that on?
25 A That was used in the Exhibit 2. That work was
63
1 performed by Dr. Tim Lynch, who is now with the Florida
2 State University, in a subcontract for our report, but we
3 had negotiations about the data to be used and how the
4 results of his particular analysis were to be coordinated
5 with the remainder of that document.
6 Q So your experience with RIMS is with respect to
7 your work as shown in Exhibit 2?
8 A Uh-hum (affirmative response.)
9 Q Okay.
10 A It specifically looked at the employment basis
11 for the EAA as well as other agriculture in South Florida as
12 I remember, but I have to go check the appendices to see
13 exactly what that included.
14 Q And the types of analyses used in the Hazen and
15 Sawyer impact report, were you familiar with those types of
16 analyses?
17 A Uh-hum, through review of standard economics
18 texts as well as other literature in the field.
19 Q Did you make an independent assessment that all
20 the appropriate assumptions were made in pursuing those
21 methodologies?
22 A I am aware of Dr. Polopolus's critique of that
23 report, and in particular his critique of certain
24 assumptions about the nature of the farms that were used or
25 the characteristics of model farms that were used for the
64
1 Hazen and Sawyer report.
2 And I just felt that they would not be likely to
3 result in significant differences, for argument's sake on
4 the order of more than 50 percent of Hazen and Sawyer
5 results if other more complicated or more rigorous
6 procedures were adhered to. Of course, the results could
7 just as easily go the other way.
8 The methodology taken was a reasonable
9 methodology. There are other methodologies that could have
10 been used for estimating the impacts to the particular farm
11 belts that were evaluated in the Hazen and Sawyer report.
12 But again, there are benefits for choosing either. And I
13 don't know the rationale for why the approach taken was
14 taken. But I don't find excessive fault with it.
15 Q Did you have Dr. Polopolus's report at the time
16 you wrote the comments in Exhibit 1?
17 A No. The comments were written I believe on the
18 4th and 5th of August in preparation for a National Audubon
19 Society staff person to present to the governing board of
20 the district. Obviously these were probably prepared
21 concurrently without knowledge of the other.
22 MR. ROSENBERG: What Dr. Polopolus report are
23 you talking about?
24 THE WITNESS: I don't know if it's a report.
25 MR. ROSENBERG: That's a submission to the
65
1 governing board, but is there a report beyond this?
2 THE WITNESS: I was making reference only to that
3 present compilation or presentation materials. No, I
4 have not seen a report in toto from which that may have
5 been derived or there might not be any report
6 whatsoever.
7 MR. ROSENBERG: This is entitled Presentation of
8 Dr. Leo Polopolus of the South Florida Water Management
9 District Funding Council, August 7, 1992. That's what
10 you are calling a report?
11 THE WITNESS: That's what I referred to as the
12 report.
13 MR. ROSENBERG: Nothing beyond that?
14 THE WITNESS: That's right.
15 MR. ROSENBERG: I am sorry.
16 THE WITNESS: Thank you for pointing that out.
17 BY MS. STINSON:
18 Q Looking through briefly Exhibit 1, you indicate
19 the data on production costs are consistent with your
20 previous estimates of '90 costs based on '83 data. Were
21 those previous estimates part of your work in Exhibit 2?
22 A Yes. There is information related to production
23 costs for sugar in South Florida based on slightly older
24 USDA publications about the industry nationwide. I have
25 since seen more recent information based on '90-'91 data.
66
1 Q What data is that?
2 A I believe it's in here, but it might have been
3 another document. No, this would be including that data I
4 was just referring to. This is USDA Economic Research
5 Service, June '92 Sugar and Sweetener Situation and Outlook
6 yearbook.
7 Q Okay. And that's the data you just mentioned?
8 A Yes. And what I referred to earlier in Exhibit 1
9 was a similar report, obviously several years older, which
10 provided some data for Exhibit 2.
11 Q Okay. You indicated a minute ago that the Hazen
12 and Sawyer NRDA draft final report in your opinion
13 overestimates the benefits indicated in that report. Can
14 you tell me in what regard you had concern?
15 A Partly I had some concerns over the applicability
16 of the use of data from wetlands and impacts on wetlands
17 quite far removed from South Florida. And again, that
18 report was more -- seemed to be more oriented towards
19 mapping out the outer bounds of what impacts or loss of the
20 Everglade's ecosystems might be to South Florida's economy.
21 There were suppositions made as to the quantity of impact,
22 total acres lost, and as I mentioned earlier, the
23 supposition that an acre which has changed its macrophyte
24 community for argument's sake has necessarily lost all
25 recreational value. I thought that might result in
67
1 overestimates of what the true economic impact might be.
2 Q Have you done your own estimate of what the
3 economic benefits might be?
4 A Yes, part of that again related to the results of
5 Exhibit 2 as well as some additional estimates that I had
6 made.
7 Q Tell me those, what evaluation you have done of
8 the benefits.
9 A Again, these are benefits in terms of avoided
10 losses; that if the system were working fine or not becoming
11 degraded, that South Florida could expect to maintain dollar
12 flows of certain proportions.
13 I had made an estimate in the earlier report that
14 there was a total recreational value of something like 62
15 million dollars per year, exclusive of fishing on Lake
16 Okeechobee and exclusive of offshore commercial fishing and
17 recreational fishing. This was limited to the freshwater
18 wetlands of South Florida from the lake south.
19 I felt that's a reasonable estimate based on
20 other data that's been done both in Florida as well as
21 nationwide on the dollar spent per person per trip for
22 various recreational uses. And I had made an estimate that
23 of the roughly one point six million dollar -- one point six
24 million visits to South Florida interior ecosystems were all
25 from tourists, then the value of those visits would be on
68
1 the order of 688 million dollars.
2 Based on an estimate of about 430 dollars per
3 person per trip, those numbers derived from work provided
4 through the Florida Department of Commerce on the cost for
5 travel both in state and from out of state and average
6 length of stay and the types of expenditures that people
7 normally incur when traveling, to as little as I guess 27
8 million dollars if all of those individuals were, in fact,
9 local residents based on a cost of about 17 dollars per
10 person per trip; that estimate of 17 dollars derives from
11 studies I believe done primarily by Florida Game and Fish or
12 contracted by Florida Game and Fish for recreational and
13 fishing expenditures on Kissimmee River.
14 I don't remember offhand if that had any other
15 attachment closer to South Florida than that. So I felt
16 that the estimate that I come up with, using a different
17 database, is certainly within that range. In fact,
18 information from the park service and some other sources
19 indicates that roughly 20 percent of the visits to the park
20 and Loxahatchee Refuge are tourists as opposed to local
21 residents.
22 And using those numbers I stated a minute ago of
23 17 dollars per person per trip for residents, 430 dollars
24 per person per trip for tourists, that would indicate that
25 the value of recreation in and around South Florida wetland
69
1 ecosystem is on the order of 186 million dollars.
2 I want to emphasize with regard to the tourist
3 contribution of that, that certainly not all of that 430
4 dollars should be attributed to South Florida wetlands
5 recreation. People come down from Europe, let's say, they
6 might want to go visit the Everglades but they also might
7 spend five days on Miami Beach. I don't have any
8 information on what share of their total trip expenditures
9 is allocated purely for traveling over from the beach for
10 argument's sake to go visit the refuge or the park and then
11 go back.
12 So again, I was trying to map out what some of
13 the boundaries might be for the recreational components of
14 South Florida's economy, which is in some part, in some way,
15 dependent on the integrity of the South Florida wetlands or
16 at least the type of flora and fauna that they now currently
17 provide.
18 Q Let me ask you on the numbers you have thrown at
19 me here. I think you said 1.6 million visitors?
20 A Yes.
21 Q What's that figure from?
22 A I have got the sources of information in the
23 appendices to Exhibit 2.
24 Q Which is Exhibit 3?
25 A I am sorry. Yes, that's in Appendix H, if I am
70
1 not mistaken. Those are recorded gate figures for the park
2 and Loxahatchee Refuge as well as I guess -- it's not Game
3 and Fish. I am trying to think -- the water management
4 district as well as a private concession area that operates
5 a marina on the edge of one of the water conservation
6 areas. And in addition to Game and Fish figures for the
7 Corbett Wildlife Refuge, which isn't directly affected by
8 all this but provided some supplemental information on the
9 types of activities, the distribution of visitors for
10 different purposes.
11 Q The figures that you have talked about in the
12 last few minutes are referenced in Exhibit 3 and the sources
13 of those; is that correct?
14 A I believe that the summation of the -- the
15 visitor information is in Exhibit 3, and I believe that the
16 expenditure information is actually reported in Exhibit 2 in
17 chapter four.
18 Q Okay. You were describing to me your methodology
19 for determining the benefits in terms of avoided losses to
20 recreation. And then you assumed that degradation of the
21 environment will result in half as much use, recreational
22 use?
23 A That was the assumption made for that study.
24 Q Okay. And does that continue to be your
25 assumption for these proceedings?
71
1 A I haven't thought whether or not to go ahead and
2 alter that. Again, as I indicated before, I had concerns
3 with the assumption that a change in ecosystem character
4 will result in 100 percent loss of recreational attributes.
5 At the same time, I don't think it has no impact.
6 So I wanted to pick a value in the middle and
7 certainly would like to start at that point. If I spend
8 time doing some additional research and have cause to go
9 ahead and revise that or refine that estimate, I would
10 certainly go ahead and do so. But for the time being, I
11 will let those estimates stand.
12 Q At this point, other than the fact you don't
13 think it will be 100 percent and you don't think it will be
14 zero percent, you don't have any additional actual data or
15 studies to show what percentage of recreational loss would
16 occur?
17 A No. The only additional information I have is on
18 changes in recreational uses of the water conservation areas
19 as a whole exclusive of the Loxahatchee Refuge in the
20 context of population growth in South Florida. This
21 information is discussed in appendix -- I mean in Exhibit 2
22 as well -- that there has had actually a recorded decrease
23 over a period of more than 15 years in estimated
24 recreational usage of the water conservation areas at the
25 same time that population had probably doubled -- or not
72
1 doubled but certainly increased.
2 The assumption that I had made would be that
3 recreational usage should at least increase, not necessarily
4 linearly, but would increase in some proportion to
5 population. In fact, there has been a tailing off of usage
6 by people of those ecosystems.
7 Q But you don't --
8 A That may well be in part due to loss of
9 environmental attributes. But I have not conducted a survey
10 nor do I know of one which would confirm that.
11 Q That answered my question. You mentioned a
12 little earlier the climate modification figure you had
13 arrived at. Did you have a figure or a methodology -- I
14 think you indicated a methodology, but you haven't
15 quantified in any way the water supply for urban areas
16 benefit.
17 A In dollars, no. I had made some rough
18 calculations that base flow is on the order of about 900
19 MGD, millions of gallons per day, and just wanted to
20 recognize that in contrast to --
21 Q Base flow of what?
22 A This is the seepage originating from the EAA out
23 through the water conservation areas and on in support of
24 the lower east coast urban area supply. That figure is not
25 cast in stone. It's a rough estimate but I believe it's
73
1 near there.
2 Q What is that estimate based on, or can you cite
3 me a source?
4 A It's based on the results from my hydrological
5 modeling which is tied into seepage rates and recorded flows
6 provided through water management district data and earlier
7 reports.
8 Q When we see your EPA report, we'll see all of
9 that?
10 A That should be in there, certainly.
11 Q Okay.
12 A I just wanted to point out that estimate of about
13 900 million gallons per day is in contrast to existing lower
14 east coast urban water use for I would say 600 MGDs per
15 day. So it's greater than that even as a course estimate.
16 And if there were significant changes to that
17 base flow, that the ramifications for assuring water supply
18 to the lower east coast could be significant in terms of
19 dollars. I have not explored that any further than that,
20 just the idea if it were small, it wouldn't be as worthy of
21 further consideration.
22 But since that flow is quite large relative to
23 the use that's there, if there were significant changes to
24 water supply from the EAA to points south, then the dollars
25 associated with management or development of alternative
74
1 supplies to compensate for changes in that flow would be
2 significant.
3 Q Again, you are basing your work on the assumption
4 that the projects proposed in the SWIM Plan will alleviate
5 this problem?
6 A Or contribute to it. On the water supply issue,
7 I hadn't thought about it in that light. And I am not
8 really sure at this point how to square that up. It was --
9 on the other issues, I was agreeing to that.
10 Q But you are not sure that the projects proposed
11 in the SWIM Plan will improve or have an adverse impact on
12 the seepage flow?
13 A I haven't looked at it in detail, not at this
14 point.
15 Q Is that something you intend to look at?
16 A I probably will.
17 Q Let me go through a list of documents I think
18 that have been noted or identified here I would like to get
19 copies of.
20 MR. GUEST: If you have those, if they are all off
21 of the resume --
22 MS. STINSON: I am just -- they are not all.
23 Some of them are. Some are ones he mentioned that
24 aren't on here. Maybe you can get Sandi to type up
25 this page or two.
75
1 BY MS. STINSON:
2 Q Any outline of your testimony in 19 -- I don't
3 know when it was -- testimony before the U.S. Department of
4 Justice regarding environmental impacts of ethanol tax
5 credits; any outlines, notes, et cetera, of your
6 presentation on restoring the Everglades to the Unitarian --
7 A There are a total of three speeches.
8 Q Future allocation of water in South Florida to
9 the Southeast Florida Geological Survey.
10 A I want to emphasize, I think on that one, I am
11 not sure if I actually had much in the way of notes as
12 opposed to a series of overheads, and I expounded on
13 whatever was up in front of the wall for everyone. But
14 there may have been some supplemental notes. I will see
15 what I can find.
16 But the speeches to the Unitarians I know I do
17 still have some -- two or perhaps all three of the outlines
18 for those talks.
19 Q Evaluation of Everglades Restoration and
20 Everglades Subsidies, Center for Wetlands.
21 MR. GUEST: You have that.
22 MS. STINSON: Is that in here?
23 THE WITNESS: No, sir. Those were two Center for
24 Wetlands speeches. Those I indicated I was not sure if
25 I still had any notes for my presentation.
76
1 BY MS. STINSON:
2 Q The chapter or article on sustainable
3 agricultural yield in the Everglades.
4 A That I can have xeroxed.
5 Q Article or chapter on wetlands and the ecology of
6 South Florida?
7 A Uh-hum (affirmative response.)
8 Q Publication on water energy and agriculture in
9 South Florida. And the proceedings for the Environmentally
10 Sound Agriculture Conference; article on Federal Subsidies
11 Affecting the Everglades FAU/FIU Joint Center. Any
12 information you may have with respect to your work for the
13 manatee rule, the one that was challenged that you testified
14 in.
15 A I might have a final copy of perhaps -- well, I
16 will have a copy of the materials associated with the EIS
17 which was challenged; but in all likelihood, notes and
18 technical reports and the like that were all used in
19 preparation of the EIS I left at the Joint Center -- that
20 research was staying on after I left -- to complete the
21 remainder of that contract.
22 Q Whatever you may have on that.
23 A Okay.
24 Q There were some projects you referred to while
25 you were at FAU, and I don't know if these are the same as
77
1 what we just went through, but something on wetlands and
2 economics. That's my own notes. Those were projects that
3 you did with FAU; then something you indicated --
4 relationship among subsidies?
5 A That was the federal subsidies paper you just
6 asked about.
7 Q And the water use in agriculture, you said there
8 were a couple of different --
9 A You referred to two recent technical articles as
10 well.
11 Q You don't know what I am talking about --
12 wetlands --
13 A The chapter on wetlands ecology, not the
14 economics thereof. You already identified that.
15 Q The manuscript on the relationship between
16 economic reviews -- this is something you said you don't
17 even have a title for yet -- and energy reviews of the EAA
18 with regard to hydrology in peat?
19 A That has a title. It's still in -- it's not been
20 submitted to a publisher yet but --
21 Q Is that a document that's available?
22 A I would be happy to provide it to you. Again,
23 it's not been reviewed. I would suggest that the article
24 that was published in the proceedings in the International
25 Society for System Sciences is in large part akin to the one
78
1 you were just referring to. There was some differences, but
2 --
3 Q If you have a problem with releasing this --
4 A No, I don't have one, if you really want that.
5 Q We promise we won't sell it.
6 MR. GUEST: You are going to be cautioned so it
7 doesn't get stolen or published by someone else.
8 MS. STINSON: Certainly.
9 BY MS. STINSON:
10 Q You thought there might be a page of your CV
11 missing. If you could double check that.
12 A I will. There was one report you forgot about;
13 that was the EPA study.
14 Q I definitely want your EPA study. Your
15 deposition transcript.
16 A Yes.
17 Q In that U.S. Florida Audubon --
18 MR. ROSENBERG: That's the same as your
19 testimony?
20 THE WITNESS: No, these are two different cases;
21 one federal and one Florida administrative.
22 MS. STINSON: That covers the documents I heard
23 him mention today we would like to get copies of. With
24 that and with the caveat I have not seen those or had
25 an opportunity to review what was produced today, I am
79
1 finished with my questions for today.
2 MR. GUEST: Off the record.
3 (Discussion off the record.)
4 MR. BURGESS: I would like this marked as number
5 4.
6 (Exhibit 4 marked for identification.)
7 CROSS EXAMINATION
8 BY MR. ROSENBERG:
9 Q I am Rick Burgess, and I represent the Florida
10 Sugar Cane League, New Hope South and United States Sugar in
11 the administrative proceeding. I have some questions for
12 you based upon some of the documents that Ms. Stinson asked
13 you questions about. And then pursuant to agreement with
14 counsel, we are going to adjourn the deposition and come
15 back to inquire at a future date with respect to some of the
16 other documents that you have brought with you today.
17 A Understood.
18 Q These questions will be in the nature of
19 clarifying testimony you gave this morning and this
20 afternoon.
21 With respect to one of the Hazen and Sawyer
22 documents, and I believe it's number -- let me refer to the
23 economic benefits draft final report then for purposes of
24 this question.
25 Who is the National Resource Damage Assessment,
80
1 Inc., I am sorry, Natural Resource Damage Assessment, Inc.?
2 A To the best of my understanding, it's a firm in
3 California. I did speak with one of their researchers on
4 two or three occasions when they were conducting the study.
5 I am under the impression that Dr. Johns at Hazen
6 and Sawyer had either academic or professional affiliations
7 with one of the principals of that firm, and they thought
8 that they could do an effective job; and therefore, they
9 were subcontracted to do that portion of their contract for
10 the water management district.
11 Q Do you remember who you talked to?
12 A I believe I have his name in my Rolodex, but I
13 don't remember the name offhand.
14 Q Was it the same --
15 A It comes to me now. Nick Floures,
16 F-L-O-U-R-E-S. Amazing how the brain works sometimes.
17 Q Do you know where in California?
18 A La Jolla.
19 Q In answering some of the questions this afternoon
20 with respect to that document, I believe that you testified
21 that you reviewed documents or papers of the NRDA. Is there
22 anything other than what you brought with you here today
23 that you reviewed in connection with your review of the
24 economic benefits analysis?
25 A No, just their draft final report.
81
1 Q With respect to your testimony on educational
2 background, I want to be sure that my notes correctly
3 reflect your testimony. You said you had one course in
4 agricultural resource economics; is that correct?
5 A Yes, introductory undergraduate class.
6 Q And one course in general water resource
7 economics?
8 A Uh-hum (affirmative response.)
9 Q Was that undergraduate or graduate?
10 A One undergraduate course in resource economics as
11 well as one graduate course, an extension of the same theme.
12 Q Do you acknowledge any authority in either
13 agricultural resource economics or general water resource
14 economics as authoritative on this subject?
15 A No. I intend to use any and all texts and
16 professional papers and reports as source material for
17 whatever needs there are in terms of methodology and data
18 analysis.
19 Q With respect to the manuscript that you are going
20 to be submitting for publication on the relationship between
21 economics in the EAA and energy in the EAA, was that paper
22 co-authored?
23 A No.
24 Q Do you know what journal you were going to submit
25 it to?
82
1 A The plan was to submit it to the Journal for
2 Ecological Economics.
3 Q Do you know when you are going to be doing that?
4 A No, I don't.
5 Q The paper hasn't been peer reviewed?
6 A No, it would be as part of the process after
7 submission.
8 Q Is there a hypothesis contained in your
9 manuscript?
10 A Hypothesis being that the energy value of peat
11 and water lost over time in the EAA is probably the most
12 significant resource in South Florida.
13 Q Other than that hypothesis and your statement,
14 are there any other conclusions contained?
15 A Yes, the issue resolved or revolved around the
16 sustainability of agricultural enterprises in the EAA; and
17 that depending upon how the changes in peat storage and
18 related water storage are reviewed, depending on approaches
19 used to assess them, the EAA becomes a sustainable
20 enterprise or sugar industry and related enterprises become
21 unsustainable.
22 And the tenor of the report recommends changes in
23 land and water management in South Florida to assure
24 continued agricultural production from the EAA;
25 specifically, efforts towards reversing the trend in loss of
83
1 peat content and several different avenues mapped out to
2 accomplish that.
3 Q Including BMP, discussion of BMPs?
4 A As a matter of fact, no. The BMP issue, I don't
5 remember it being really embraced by any of those documents.
6 Q Does the paper recommend adoption and
7 implementation of the SWIM Plan?
8 A No, it does not address the SWIM Plan, other than
9 referencing the fact that it is the policy, expected policy
10 of the district to go ahead and implement it and what that
11 might mean in terms of models for marsh restoration and the
12 like with the EAA.
13 Q What are some of the recommended changes?
14 A Higher water stages, aggressive use of urban
15 waste for the creation and augmentation of traditional
16 peat. Really the articles focused more on the energy
17 counting of those scenarios more than trying to promulgate
18 any particular solutions.
19 Q With respect to Deposition Exhibit Number 1 which
20 contain your comments on the draft final report of Hazen and
21 Sawyer, entitled Evaluation of Economic Impact of
22 implementing the MSDS under the USDS settlement agreement,
23 and specifically with reference to the second paragraph
24 which contains the statement: A linear approach to the
25 problem would suggest that 412 of the 6,200 domestic
84
1 agricultural jobs in the EAA would be lost.
2 Do you have an opinion as to whether or not the
3 use of such a linear approach to estimate job loss would be
4 an economically sound use of that approach?
5 A No, it was not proffered as an economically sound
6 alternative approach. What we were just trying to do was
7 simply look at how much of the EAA is being proposed to be
8 taken out of production and how does that relate, if at all,
9 to the estimate provided by Hazen and Sawyer.
10 It's clear -- and, of course, that would only
11 relate to direct job losses, not include indirect or induced
12 job losses, which certainly is outlined fully in their
13 study.
14 If you took X-number of acres out of production,
15 assuming an equal effort of farming throughout the EAA, what
16 will that mean in terms of lost jobs; just to see what it
17 was, nothing more than that. So it was not being offered as
18 an alternative. It was just simply being used as something
19 with which to test Hazen and Sawyer's estimates against and
20 just to simply think about what the differences were and
21 why.
22 Q In the third paragraph, you reference earlier
23 studies sponsored by the EAA, paren, E.G. Mulkey and
24 Clouser, close paren, use larger multipliers associated with
25 refined sugar which yielded correspondingly larger estimates
85
1 of the economic impact of sugar on the regional economy.
2 Do you remember what multipliers Mulkey and
3 Clouser used as opposed to what Grace Johns used?
4 A The specific numbers themselves? I don't
5 remember the specific numbers. I do remember seeing the
6 list from which their multipliers were taken and my feeling
7 that they used the inappropriate multiplier. They were
8 looking at that which would be associated with refined sugar
9 product, of which only a small fraction of refined sugar
10 comes from the EAA; most of it is exported as raw and
11 refined out of state.
12 I thought that Dr. Johns had used the appropriate
13 one for the study. The multiplier for refined sugar was, in
14 fact, higher. Again the differences were -- may have been
15 the number 10 to 20 percent higher, but whatever it was it
16 created an overstatement rather than a more appropriate
17 estimate.
18 Q In paragraph 4 of the same exhibit, quote: It
19 may be inferred that the average maximum price would be
20 greater than $35.94, (e.g., at least $38), close paren,
21 period.
22 Do you have any independent knowledge,
23 independent of your review of the Grace Johns report, which
24 would support the $35.94 as the average maximum price per
25 net ton from producer to grower?
86
1 A No. I was basing that comment purely on the data
2 and methodology presented in their report, and that I
3 thought that the information should have all been converted
4 to current dollars at that time, in 1992, rather than
5 leaving them in the raw data in which they were to give a
6 better indication as to what the market price would be in a
7 current year.
8 And that doing so would necessarily cause the
9 dollar value in each preceding year to go up, reflective of
10 inflation, which would have changed the average value which
11 Hazen and Sawyer reported.
12 Q But do you have an opinion on that average value
13 that they reported, which opinion is supported by any
14 independent research that you have done?
15 A No. No. Again, it was only a comment on the
16 methodology which they themselves used. And if the
17 methodology were to be done consistently, it would have
18 required converting to constant dollars. Nothing more than
19 that.
20 Q You conducted this review in August of 1982; is
21 that correct?
22 A 1992.
23 Q 1992. I am sorry. Are you familiar with GATT or
24 NAFTA?
25 A I know what the acronyms stand for.
87
1 Q Do you have any opinions with respect to what the
2 likely effect on the average price per net ton returned to
3 grower will be as a result of implementation of either GATT
4 or NAFTA?
5 A I have not been asked to consider that.
6 Q Other than being asked to consider it, do you
7 have any opinion as to what the likely effect would be?
8 A No. I would need some additional information to
9 make any conjecture on that subject or on that relationship.
10 Q You stated at the beginning of your testimony in
11 response to Ms. Stinson's questions that, in your opinion,
12 the Hazen and Sawyer economic impact study was a fair
13 report.
14 Do you believe that Hazen and Sawyer should
15 include a discussion concerning the likely effects of GATT
16 and NAFTA?
17 A It is my understanding that NAFTA had not been
18 signed prior to the completion of Hazen and Sawyer's
19 report. That at its own time frame -- and the universe has
20 changed since then. If you are asking me do I think that
21 the water management district should go ahead and recontract
22 with them or some other consultant to recouch their findings
23 in light of global agreements on trade and the like, it's
24 always better to do a complete and current job. But that
25 was not part of the picture at that time.
88
1 Q Assume for the purpose of my question that the
2 district has an open contract at the present time with Grace
3 Johns; do you believe it would be prudent for her to
4 consider the effects or likely effects of GATT and NAFTA on
5 sugar prices?
6 A I would see no harm in having someone expand the
7 content of the report to look at what the international
8 economic scene, what changes the international economic
9 scene would bear on the situation in South Florida in terms
10 of employment and production. Whether it's significant or
11 not, I don't know.
12 I guess that's something that the consultant
13 could test. As a researcher and academic, I am always in
14 support of more research and academic effort.
15 Q The sixth part on the second page of the exhibit
16 provides, "The study appropriately includes the economic
17 benefits associated with the construction and operation of
18 the and the adoption of the BMPs which I believe have been
19 completely ignored by EAA sponsored studies."
20 What studies were you referring to there?
21 A If I may look at that again. I imagine I was
22 referring to the Mulkey and Clouser reports dealing with the
23 contribution of the sugar industry to South Florida's
24 economy or to Florida's economy.
25 Q I believe that same paragraph also refers to the
89
1 fact that the district is investing over 215 million in
2 construction labor alone and long-term O&M labor for the
3 STAs will be at least 2.5 million per year. Do you know
4 where you got those from?
5 A Those are directly from Hazen and Sawyer's
6 report. Of course, all that data was contingent on the SWIM
7 Plan itself at the time it was submitted. I don't know
8 about any other changes that the district might be proposing
9 that would alter the scale of construction or the level of
10 commitment in terms of long-term operation and maintenance
11 and the like. But the data that you are referring to were
12 taken directly from the H&S report.
13 Q And the next paragraph, you are refer to the fact
14 that assessments have -- I am sorry, strike that.
15 In the next paragraph on the same exhibit, you
16 refer to possible $25 and $100 assessments, and you make an
17 analogy to impact fees for residential and commercial
18 development.
19 And your next sentence provides, "These
20 assessments have had no lasting effects on land value as the
21 costs are generally passed onto the consumer."
22 Do you have any opinion as to whether or not
23 costs associated with $25 or $100 assessments to the farmers
24 in the EAA can be passed onto the consumer?
25 A No, I don't. I would have to think further about
90
1 that.
2 Q Your next sentence provides, "In fact, the
3 assessments represent additional investment, the necessary
4 infrastructure without which, paren, in this case, close
5 paren, production will be impermissible."
6 What are you referring to there with the phrase
7 "production will be impermissible?"
8 A That if the assessments for the clean up of EAA
9 discharges were not put in place, it is possible that the
10 industry would necessarily shut down, further production
11 might not be permissible because they might not get any
12 permits; or at least production will be significantly
13 curtailed in light of the need to keep all water on site if
14 discharge permits were not allowed.
15 So "impermissible" might have been an
16 overstatement, but impacts would certainly be there.
17 Q Your next sentence provides, "thus the assessment
18 to assure continued value of the crop," I assume you mean
19 there that the property would somehow be in compliance with
20 the regulations and, therefore, more valuable than if it
21 wasn't --
22 A Yes. Or if production were not allowed or had
23 been significantly curtailed, the value of agriculture land
24 I believe would be seriously diminished. So having put the
25 infrastructure which allows discharges to continue allows
91
1 production to continue as well; and therefore, the value of
2 the ag land, while it might be altered to some degree, it
3 will at least be continued as opposed to dissipate.
4 Q Your next sentence provides, "Further, at $25,
5 the increase in costs is less than a third of a cent per
6 pound of raw sugar. At $100, it would be roughly one point
7 two cents per pound." Where did you get those figures from?
8 A That's based on average yield from I believe
9 Sugar Cane League documents. So if the 25 or $100 were
10 added to the total production in processing costs for on a
11 per acre basis -- I am sorry, on a per pound basis -- that's
12 what it would come out to be roughly.
13 Q Did you talk to Grace Johns about her report
14 prior to the time that you drafted your comments on either
15 of her final reports?
16 A No. No. I've only spoken to her with regard to
17 other employment opportunities long before they were
18 contracted to do the study. And I had no discussions with
19 her while they were doing the study.
20 Q How about with Carl Wilkey from the district?
21 A I have not.
22 Q About the subject matter of the two reports?
23 A No conversations with him.
24 Q You testified earlier today with respect to the
25 ecological and hydrological and economic ramifications of
92
1 the SWIM Plan. And with respect to economic, I believe you
2 listed three separate areas: The first concerning
3 recreational impacts, the second concerning water supply and
4 the third concerning climate modification.
5 A That is not to be an exhaustive list, just to be
6 clear on that.
7 Q Are there others that come to mind at the moment?
8 A At the moment, no.
9 Q Other than your review of the Hazen and Sawyer
10 economic impact study, have you looked at the loss of jobs
11 or loss of sales associated with implementation of the SWIM
12 Plan and how that might affect the Florida economy?
13 A No.
14 Q Do you have any plans to do that between now and
15 the time of the hearing in this case?
16 A I am not sure. I will think about whether or not
17 it would yield any useful information for me.
18 Q Have you been asked to do it?
19 A No, I have not.
20 Q Concerning your testimony regarding climate
21 modification, I believe you said that with respect to the
22 decline in rainfall assumption that you are making, you are
23 also assuming that the EAA may be partly responsible for
24 that phenomenon.
25 And my question to you is: What is the process
93
1 by which the EAA may be partly responsible for a decline in
2 rainfall?
3 A I don't want to put the onus entirely on the
4 EAA. The burden goes to the management of both land and
5 water in South Florida. But in recognition of, my
6 recognition that a vast portion of the Central and South
7 Florida flood control project is devoted to making
8 agricultural within the EAA possible by maintaining water
9 levels in that portion of the state low enough to support
10 crops.
11 And that has had perhaps unintended consequences
12 elsewhere or within the water conservation areas and perhaps
13 even extended to the park in terms of the overall water
14 content of the interior of the peninsula; and that overall,
15 it has contributed to a recognizable drawdown over time of
16 stormwaters and surface water coverage of the wetlands of
17 South Florida.
18 Again just to be clear, that is not entirely put
19 upon the EAA. It's land and water management in general of
20 which a significant portion of it has been devoted to
21 guaranteeing certain water level conditions that make year
22 round growth possible within the EAA.
23 In the study listed as Exhibit 2, I have made
24 some preliminary estimates that I have not changed since on
25 the relative portions of the expenditures for the central
94
1 and South Florida flood control project as well as the water
2 management district's responsibilities for operations as
3 well as the Corps of Engineers responsibilities for
4 operations, the share of all the above as relates to
5 agricultural production versus other end users of those
6 services in Florida from protecting the park to guaranteeing
7 or providing reliable urban water supply; but I have not
8 brought any of that information further into my assessment
9 of the SWIM Plan, at least as of yet.
10 Q Is there something scientifically which occurs as
11 a result of these land management practices which causes it
12 to rain less?
13 I understand that you empirically are looking at
14 a drawdown in water storage over time. But with respect to
15 the phenomenon of a decline in rainfall, do you have a
16 hypothesis as to what the management practices are which
17 could be leading to the decline in rainfall?
18 A Management practices would be keeping certainly
19 the EAA surface area dry for a larger portion of the year.
20 I am a proponent of the rainfall, of the rain machine
21 theory, and all that entails. And that because of the
22 traditional patterns and sources of rainfall in Florida,
23 that they are in large part derived from evaporation of
24 interior waters. If those waters are not available, you
25 will get less rainfall over the coast.
95
1 I recognize that is not a universally accepted
2 theory. But my understanding of meteorology and my
3 understanding of surface water hydrology leads me to support
4 that conclusion.
5 Q Have you brought any articles with you today
6 concerning this climate modification?
7 A No, I haven't.
8 Q Do you have any?
9 A I am not even sure if I do. I would have to
10 check. I am sorry.
11 MR. BURGESS: If counsel wants to provide us with
12 the Scientific American article --
13 MR. GUEST: No.
14 THE WITNESS: That's a different subject.
15 MR. GUEST: That's just on the energy view of
16 economics.
17 THE WITNESS: Do you know who wrote that,
18 offhand?
19 (Discussion off the record.)
20 BY MR. BURGESS:
21 Q You testified during your direct testimony that
22 you have worked previously with RIMS procedures to analyze
23 the effects of one aspect of an economy on another aspect of
24 the economy. Have you worked before with the FLP-SIM model
25 to analyze farm level impacts?
96
1 A No, I have not.
2 Q Again, referring to your direct testimony, you
3 said you were aware of Dr. Polopolus's comments with respect
4 to the Grace Johns report, but that you felt they were not
5 likely to result in significant changes, which you said were
6 more than 50 percent, to Grace Johns conclusions.
7 What did you consider to reach the conclusion
8 that implementation of Dr. Polopolus's assumptions wouldn't
9 change Grace Johns figures by more than 50 percent?
10 A Again, those comments were based only on the
11 content of the presentation by Dr. Polopolus to the funding
12 council and out of context of any large report, and dealt
13 more specifically with his critique of the methodology and
14 restricted time line and funding that Hazen and Sawyer had
15 with which to do the study.
16 And I believe that, yes, if you did have more
17 time and more money to go through all the research, you
18 would end up with a more refined set of numbers and perhaps
19 more defensible, but I don't know whether they would buy you
20 significant improvements in terms of the estimates.
21 If spending a lot of time and effort to change
22 and enhance figures on the order of just a few percent for
23 the purposes of implementing the SWIM Plan, I personally
24 don't think that that means a whole lot. If the figures
25 were off substantially, on the order of magnitude or
97
1 greater, well then it is certainly well worth the time and
2 money expended to find that out.
3 But the type of criticism that he leveled with
4 regard to the effort expended on methodology, data
5 collection, and assessment overall I thought was
6 inappropriate. And again, as I said, I thought it was a
7 fair document, certainly given the time and circumstances
8 under which it was conducted. And I don't think that
9 greatly expanded effort along the lines proposed would yield
10 dramatically different results.
11 Q So you did not consider Dr. Polopolus's comments
12 with respect to Dr. Johns's failure to consider items such
13 as debt or income tax or price per yield risk in her model?
14 A I would have to go back and check but I was under
15 the impression that income tax was included, but that was
16 just my impression. The other two components, I don't
17 remember whether they were, in fact, evaluated in the report
18 or not.
19 Q You have --
20 A You are indicating they are not, but I would have
21 to check that for my own sense of security.
22 Q You haven't made any independent determination
23 with respect to how Grace John's numbers might change how
24 her model considered things like debt, income tax and yield
25 risk if, in fact, it had not?
98
1 A No, if it had not, I have not done that.
2 Q I believe with respect to Exhibit Number 1, you
3 testified that that was prepared by you in early August in
4 preparation for delivery by another national Audubon member.
5 Was this prepared for Dr. Parks?
6 A No. And he is not an employee of the National
7 Audubon Society.
8 Q Do you know who this was prepared for?
9 A I believe it was faxed to Dr. Wayne Hoffman who
10 is with the Audubon Society's Marathon office. But I am not
11 sure who would have delivered it, if anyone delivered it.
12 Q Who asked you to prepare Exhibit 1?
13 A National Audubon Society. I just have a note to
14 myself here. You just mentioned the debt issue.
15 Q Yes.
16 A I got a note to myself with regard to Dr.
17 Polopolus's comments about the Hazen and Sawyer report that
18 the existence of long and intermediate debt is ignored, and
19 I had a handwritten comment that it was, in fact, explained
20 in H&S. I must have backtracked.
21 Q The fact it was ignored was explained or --
22 A No. Either it was explained with justification
23 or it was, in fact, there and not ignored. And I don't know
24 which, without going back into it at this time. But the
25 issue of debt surfaced in the report somewhere.
99
1 I am not testifying to how it was handled, but
2 that it was not there whatsoever. And we'll recognize that
3 economists and researchers in general often will examine an
4 issue in a very cursory fashion to see whether or not it is
5 worth much more investment of their time and energy among
6 the plate of issues they got to resolve. And they will
7 decide with justification whether or not to include it or
8 spend more time on it.
9 Q It's safe to say as you sit here today that you
10 don't recall how Grace Johns treated debt in her report?
11 A Without going back in and looking at it again, I
12 don't remember.
13 Q Okay.
14 A I believe I remember seeing it listed as a line
15 item on the costs for production among their table of data.
16 I assume there was real numbers included for debt. Whether
17 they are accurate or not, I cannot testify to.
18 Q With respect to your direct testimony on the
19 second part of the Hazen and Sawyer economic effort, the
20 economic benefit study, you stated that you would have
21 expected an increase in the usage of the park and refuge,
22 given the increase in population. But instead, the data
23 shows a tailing off of usage which in your opinion might be
24 because of environmental impacts?
25 A Might be.
100
1 Q Are you doing any independent research to confirm
2 whether or not it might be as a result of environmental
3 impacts?
4 A No, I would like to.
5 Q Are you aware of anyone else that's doing any
6 independent research in that regard?
7 A Offhand, no.
8 Q Do you know whether the Natural Resource Damage
9 Assessments, Inc., is doing any further work?
10 A I doubt it.
11 Q Do you know whether Dr. Johns is?
12 A I have no idea.
13 Q Do you know whether, in fact, that report, her
14 economic benefit report, has ever been finalized?
15 A As I stated, no.
16 Q Let me refer you to a report you brought with you
17 today, Deposition Exhibit Number 2, and ask you whether you
18 can, in referring to the table of contents, tell us what
19 chapters, or if it's more convenient for you, what sections
20 within which chapters in your opinion you would classify
21 yourself as the principal author or scribe?
22 A I am the principal author of the whole thing.
23 Q So that is it your testimony that you wrote the
24 entire report?
25 A In large part, yes. There was laterally
101
1 something on the order of paragraphs which were drafted by
2 research assistants, which I went over myself and made
3 modifications to. But I was responsible for the drafting of
4 the language for at least 90 percent of this in toto and
5 certainly for the review and editing of any remaining
6 portions.
7 Q For purposes of assisting us to make your
8 deposition go quicker when we reconvene, can you go through
9 that table of contents and tell us, if you can easily, what
10 perhaps 10 percent you did not author?
11 MR. GUEST: I object to the characterization.
12 A I will tell you what was not authored. I had the
13 research assistants working with me on this project at the
14 Joint Center have the responsibility for the production of
15 some of the tables in terms of the actual final report
16 tables and the assembly of the appendices into more
17 comprehensible formats, like the data might not have been in
18 that sort of form before.
19 But with regard to the text, again, there were --
20 I believe I had one assistant look at the tax issue, tax
21 benefits accruing to the EAA. This was a section on pages
22 30 and 31 only that I remember that I didn't at least write
23 the original draft and then bump around ourselves to
24 finalize later -- the section on industry loan savings.
25 That was about it.
102
1 Just flipping pages, I remember writing probably
2 all of it. The primary responsibilities of the assistants
3 was to collect data and assemble it for me.
4 MR. BURGESS: Pending my review of the documents
5 that I have marked for copying with red sticky notes
6 and also my review of Exhibits 2 and 3, I have no
7 further questions at this time.
8 MR. GUEST: I will reserve cross until you all
9 are done.
10 MR. ROSENBERG: I have no questions at this
11 time.
12 (Proceedings recessed at 3:30 p.m.)
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
103
1 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
2 STATE OF FLORIDA:
3 COUNTY OF LEON:
4 I, SANDI DiBENEDETTO-NARGIZ, Registered
5 Professional Reporter and Notary Public in and for the
6 State of Florida at Large:
7 DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings
8 were taken before me at the time and place therein
9 designated; that before testimony was taken, the witness was
10 duly sworn; that my shorthand notes were thereafter
11 transcribed under my supervision; and the foregoing pages
12 numbered 1 through 103 are a true and correct record of the
13 aforesaid proceedings.
14 I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am not a relative,
15 employee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor
16 relative or employee of such attorney or counsel, or
17 financially interested in the foregoing action.
18 WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL this, the 7TH day of
19 JANUARY, 1993, IN THE CITY OF TALLAHASSEE, COUNTY OF LEON,
20 STATE OF FLORIDA.
21 ________________________
SANDI DiBENEDETTO-NARGIZ
22 CP, RPR, CCR, CM
100 Salem Court
23 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
(904) 878-2221
24
My Commission Expires: March 3, 1994.
25
1