Craig Diamond

Deposition from SWIM Challenges

Case No. 92-3038, 92-3039, and 92-3040


	STYLE: CASE: 92-3038, 92-3039, 92-3040 REPORTER: DATE: NAVIGATION:

Division of Administrative Hearings

Department of Administration, State of Florida

SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATION OF
FLORIDA, a Florida Agricultural Cooperative
Marketing Association, ROTH FARMS, INC. and
WEDGWORTH FARMS, INC.; FLORIDA SUGAR
CANE LEAGUE, INC.; UNITED STATES SUGAR
CORPORATION; and NEW HOPE SOUTH, INC.;
FLORIDA FRUIT AND VEGETABL
ASSOCIATION, LEWIS POPE FARMS, W.E.
SCHLECHTER & SONS, INC., and HUNDLEY
FARMS, INC.,

Petitioners,

vs.

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT
DISTRICT, an Agency of the State of Florida,
Respondent, and MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF
INDIANS OF FLORIDA, the UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, and FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, the FLORIDA
WILDLIFE FEDERATION, the FLORIDA
AUDUBON SOCIETY, and the SIERRA CLUB,

Intervernors

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

DOAH Case
No. 92-3038

DOAH Case
No. 92-3039

DOAH Case
No. 92-3040

VOLUME I
DEPOSITION OF CRAIG DIAMOND

TAKEN AT THE INSTANCE OF: The Petitioners
DATE: Monday, January 4, 1993
TIME: Commenced at 11:05 p.m.
Concluded at 3:30 p.m.
LOCATION: 123 South Calhoun Street
Tallahassee, FL

- - -

REPORTED BY: SANDI DIBENEDETTO-NARGIZ
Certificate of Merit
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC.
100 SALEM COURT
TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301

APPEARANCES:

On behalf of the Petitioners Florida Sugar
Cane League, Inc., United States Sugar Corp.,
and New South Hope, Inc.:
        Peeples, Earl & Blank, P.A.
        One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3636
        Two South Biscayne Boulevard
        Miami, Florida 33131
        By:    MARK T. KOBELINSKI, ESQUIRE

On behalf of the Respondent SFWMD:
        South Florida Water Management District
        3301 Gun Club Road
        West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680
        By:    JACQUELYN W. BIRCH, ESQUIRE

On behalf of Sugar Cane Growers:
Hopping, Boyd, Green & Sams
123 South Calhoun Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
By:    GARY V. PERKO, ESQUIRE

Also Present:    Morris Rosen
                        Andrew MacNeil

- - -

I N D E X

- - -

WITNESS:	DIRECT	CROSS	REDIRECT	RECROSS

	E X H I B I T S
NUMBER	PAGE	DESCRIPTION

University of Miami School of Law Library
Archives and Special Collections
1311 Miller Drive
Law Library, Room 489
Coral Gables, Florida 33146
Telephone: (305) 284-4093

1 APPEARANCES:

REPRESENTING THE PETITIONER:

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

REPRESENTING THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

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

2 INDEX

3 WITNESS PAGE

4 CRAIG DIAMOND

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

14 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER 103

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

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.

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?

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

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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?

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

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.)

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

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

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 --

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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

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

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

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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?

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?

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

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?

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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 --