1

 1           Division of Administrative Hearings
 2     Department of Administration, State of Florida

 3    SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE   	     )
      of FLORIDA; ROTH FARMS, INC.; and,     )
 4    WEDGEWORTH FARMS, INC.,                )
                 Petitioners,                )
 5       V                                   )   DOAH
      SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT	     ) Case 92-3038
 6    DISTRICT, an agency of the State	     )
      of Florida; et al., 		     )
 7              Respondents.		     )
      FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, INC.;	     )
 8    UNITED STATES SUGAR CORPORATION;       )
      and NEW HOPE SOUTH, INC.,              )
 9                Petitioners,               )
         V                                   )   DOAH
10    SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT         ) Case 92-3039
      DISTRICT, an agency of the State       )
11    of Florida; et al.,                    )
                Respondents.                 )
12    FLORIDA FRUIT and VEGETABLE            )
      ASSOCIATION; LEWIS POPE FARMS;         )
13    W.E. SCHLECHTER & SONS, INC.,          )
      and HUNDLEY FARMS, INC.,               )
14                Petitioners,               )
         V                                   )   DOAH
15    SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT         ) Case 92-3040
      DISTRICT, an agency of the State       )
16    of Florida; et al.,                    )
                Respondents.                 )
17 
                          Volume I
18        Deposition of John Dunckelman, Ph.D.
   
19             Taken before April Y. Sapp, Court Reporter
     and Notary Public in and for the State of Florida at
20   large, pursuant to notice of taking deposition filed
     by the Petitioners in the above cause.
21                           -  -  -
     Wednesday Januaary 20, 1993
22   319 Clematis Street, 5th Floor
     West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
23   10:15 - 11:55 a.m.
                             -  -  -

                                                 2

 1    APPEARANCES:
 2 
          On behalf of the Petitioners Florida Sugar
 3         Cane League, Inc., United State Sugar Corp.,
           and New South Hope, Inc.:
 4             Peeples, Earl & Blank, P.A.
               One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3636
 5             Two South Biscayne Boulevard
               Miami, Florida  33131
 6             By:  DENNIS M. STOTTS, ESQUIRE
   
 7        On behalf of the Respondent SFWMD:
               Popham, Haik, Schnobrich & Kaufman, Ltd.
 8             4000 International Place
               100 S.E. Second Street
 9             Miami, Florida  33131
               By:  PAUL NETTLETON, ESQUIRE
10 
          On behalf of the Intervenor United States of America:
11             Assistant United States Attorney
               Southern District of Florida
12             155 South Miami Avenue, Suite 627
               Miami, Florida  33130-1693
13             By:  ROBERT ROSENBERG, ESQUIRE
   
14 

                                                 3

 1                         -  -  -
 2                      I  N  D  E  X
 3                         -  -  -
 4 
 5  WITNESS:             DIRECT  CROSS  REDIRECT  RECROSS
 6  John Dunckelman, Ph.D.
 7 
    BY MR. NETTLETON       5

                                                 4

 1                         -  -  -
 2                     E X H I B I T S
 3                         -  -  -
 4 
 5  NUMBER                                      PAGE
 6  EXB. NO. 1                                   6
 7  Resume of witness
 8  EXB. NO. 2                                   13
 9  Article:  The effect of row spacing and
10  subsurface drainage treatments.
11  EXB. NO. 3                                   13
12  Article:  Yield response of sugar cane to
13  stalk density and subsurface drainage
14  treatments
15  EXB. NO. 4                                   37
16  Excerpt from SWIM Plan planning document
17  3-13-92
18  EXB. NO. 5                                   61
19  Chapter 40E-63 Everglades Regulatory  Program
20  EXB. NO. 6                                   65
21  Draft Technical Document 3-3-92
22  Re:  Chapter 40E-63
23 

                                                 5

 1                  P R O C E E D I N G S
 2                       -  -  -
 3   Thereupon,
 4                    John Dunckelman, Ph.D.
 5   being by the undersigned Notary Public first duly
 6   sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
 7              THE WITNESS:  I do.
 8                      DIRECT (John Dunckelman, Ph.D.)
 9   BY MR. NETTLETON:
10       Q.    Sir, could you state your name for the
11   record, please.
12       A.    My name is John Dunckelman.
13       Q.    And what is your current position?
14       A.    Vice President Agricultural Research for
15   Florida Sugar Cane League.
16       Q.    Is it Mr. or Dr. Dunckelman?
17       A.    It's Doctor.
18       Q.    Dr. Dunckelman, my name is Paul Nettleton.
19   I'm an attorney representing the South Florida Water
20   Management District in this litigation.  I'm going to
21   be asking you a series of questions.  If you don't
22   understand any question I ask, please let me know and
23   I'll attempt to rephrase it so that you're answering
24   the same question I'm asking.
25             Do you understand that?

                                                 6

 1       A.    Yes.
 2             MR. NETTLETON:  I'd like to start just by
 3        having your resume marked.
 4             (The document was marked Exb. No. 1.)
 5   BY MR. NETTLETON:
 6       Q.    Sir, if you could look at what's been
 7   marked as Exhibit 1.  Is this the most recent draft
 8   of your resume?
 9       A.    Yes.  This is the last resume I have.
10       Q.    When was this prepared?
11       A.    Oh, it was prepared three years ago prior
12   to being hired by the Florida Sugar Cane League.
13       Q.    So it would be about 1990?
14       A.    I believe it was '89.
15       Q.    Do you recall about what period in '89?
16       A.    I think it was near the end of the year.
17       Q.    Is this resume accurate up to that time,
18   the end of 1989?
19       A.    Yes.
20       Q.    Could you tell me what an agronomist is?
21       A.    Well, what an agronomist is is a person who
22   deals with extensively farmed crops like, you know,
23   large scale field crops; cotton, corn, sugar cane,
24   rice, those types of crops.
25       Q.    And I see from your resume you hold a

                                                 7

 1   bachelor's in animal science, is that correct?
 2       A.    Yes.  That's correct.
 3       Q.    And you have master's in agronomy?
 4       A.    Right.
 5       Q.    And a Ph.D. in agronomy?
 6       A.    Correct.
 7       Q.    Did you have to prepare a thesis for your
 8   master's?
 9       A.    No.  I did a non-thesis master's and I
10   prepared a dissertation.
11       Q.    What was the dissertation on?
12       A.    My dissertation was entitled, the Breeding
13   Behavior of Ratooning Ability in Sugar Cane.
14       Q.    Is that what you have listed under your
15   Ph.D. on your resume?
16       A.    Yes.
17       Q.    Did you prepare any other type of thesis
18   for your master's separate from that?
19       A.    No, I did not.
20       Q.    I see from your resume here that you were
21   employed by the USDA beginning in January 1981, is
22   that right?
23       A.    That's correct.
24       Q.    Prior to 1981 and from your graduation in
25   1976 from undergrad were you employed anywhere?

                                                 8

 1       A.    No.  Well, I had an assistantship at
 2   Louisiana State University to work on my master's and
 3   Ph.D. in agronomy.  From that standpoint, yes, I was
 4   employed by the university.
 5       Q.    What did that involve?
 6       A.    Well, it was simply an assistantship where
 7   in I was given a small stipend as a student and in
 8   return for that I merely had to, you know, work
 9   toward my Ph.D. and complete the research project
10   that I had chosen to do, which was this dissertation
11   in this experiment in sugar cane breeding.
12       Q.    Since you acquired your Ph.D. in 1982 have
13   you acquired any additional degrees or educational
14   certificates of any kind?
15       A.    None that I can think of right now.
16       Q.    How did you learn about the Florida Sugar
17   Cane League for purposes of sending your resume to
18   them?
19       A.    Well, I was employed as a plant breeder in
20   Louisiana by USDA I would come here on a yearly basis
21   in December to hybridize plants at our experiment
22   station at Canal Point and that's how I became aware
23   of this job.
24       Q.    And what position were you initially hired
25   into?

                                                 9

 1       A.    My title originally was Director of
 2   Agricultural Research.
 3       Q.    What did that involve as far as your duties
 4   and responsibilities?
 5       A.    Well, the Ag Research Department at the
 6   Florida Sugar Cane League, we have a Research Grants
 7   Program where we review -- where we solicit and
 8   review agricultural research proposals from
 9   scientists who are doing work in sugar cane research
10   and we fund those through a direct assessment to
11   growers and we also are involved in the cooperative
12   breeding effort between USDA, IFAS and the Florida
13   Sugar Cane League and for our part we help in
14   locating co-operators for the large scale field
15   trials of new sugar cane varieties and we also
16   increase the seed cane for distribution and sale of
17   new varieties.  Those are the main duties that we
18   perform.
19       Q.    Okay.  You were talking about the Research
20   Department in general, but what was your role as the
21   Director?
22       A.    Well, my role as Director was to oversee
23   that program.
24       Q.    What kind of things did you do on a day to
25   day basis as Director?

                                                 10

 1       A.    Can I -- can you be a little more specific?
 2   I mean that's a very general question.
 3       Q.    Was it primarily an administrative job that
 4   you were in?
 5       A.    Yes.
 6       Q.    And when did you become first employed with
 7   the Florida Sugar Cane League?
 8       A.    I believe it was March 1, 1990.
 9       Q.    How long did you stay in the position of
10   Director of Agricultural Research?
11       A.    I don't recall exactly.
12       Q.    Approximately.
13       A.    It's probably close to about half the time
14   I have been here.
15       Q.    And what position did you next move into?
16       A.    Well, I was promoted next to Vice President
17   Agricultural Research.
18       Q.    That's your present position?
19       A.    Yes, it is.
20       Q.    What is your current role as Vice
21   President?  What do you do?
22       A.    It hasn't changed any.  It's mostly a
23   change in title.
24       Q.    Did you have a supervisor when you were
25   Director?  Who was your direct supervisor?

                                                 11

 1       A.    Well, the direct supervisor of all the
 2   staff at the League is Andy Rackley who's the General
 3   Manager.
 4       Q.    That would be the same for your current
 5   position as Vice President?
 6       A.    Yes.
 7       Q.    Have you ever testified as an expert
 8   before?
 9       A.    No, I have not.
10       Q.    Have you ever testified as a fact witness
11   before?
12       A.    No, I haven't.
13       Q.    Have you ever been deposed?
14       A.    No, I have not.
15       Q.    Have you published any articles in the
16   field of agronomy?
17       A.    Yes.
18       Q.    Can you tell me how many and what the
19   titles are?
20       A.    I don't know exactly how many, but it's
21   probably somewhere around 20 and titles are going to
22   be difficult for me to remember.
23       Q.    Are these articles that you were the
24   principal author on or also including coauthor?
25       A.    Most of them were coauthored.

                                                 12

 1       Q.    Any specific articles that you've authored
 2   that relate to the subject matter of your proposed
 3   testimony in this case?
 4       A.    Not specifically to Florida, no.  I have
 5   not published since I've taken this job.  I don't
 6   think I've published anything.
 7       Q.    Any of the articles that you have
 8   published, authored or coauthored, do they concern
 9   implementation or use of best management practices?
10       A.    For best -- may I ask you when you are
11   speaking about best management practices?  Are you
12   talking specifically about best management practices
13   for phosphorous control in this case?
14       Q.    Let's start generally, just best management
15   practices for farm activity in general.
16       A.    Well, none of the articles that I've ever
17   been involved in actually used that terminology.
18       Q.    What does Best Management Practices mean do
19   you?  How do you define that?
20       A.    Well, I think from the standpoint of
21   farming it means a practice that, number 1, doesn't
22   reduce yield or your productivity and, number 2, it
23   works to either -- to some other advantage that you
24   may be seeking, be it phosphorus control, erosion
25   control or whatever.

                                                 13

 1       Q.    If a particular strategy worked to reduce
 2   yield to any extent would you consider that not a
 3   valid BMP?
 4       A.    I would consider that not a valid BMP, yes.
 5       Q.    Have you reviewed or relied upon any of the
 6   articles that you yourself have either authored or
 7   coauthored for purposes of preparing your testimony
 8   in this matter?
 9       A.    As a matter of fact, I did bring, I think,
10   two articles today that I was coauthor on that are
11   sitting there before you and I brought those to
12   demonstrate that I have done some research work
13   looking at the effect of water table elevation on the
14   yield of sugar cane crops.
15       Q.    Are these the two that you're referring to?
16       A.    Yes.  These are the two that I'm referring
17   to.
18       Q.    Okay.
19             MR. NETTLETON:  Can we go ahead and have
20        those marked as 2 and 3.
21             (The documents were marked Exb. Nos. 2-3.)
22   BY MR. NETTLETON:
23       Q.    Dr. Dunckelman, I assume you're aware that
24   the League as well as U.S. Sugar Corporation, New
25   Hope South and a number of other agricultural

                                                 14

 1   interests have filed petitions challenging the
 2   District's Everglades SWIM Plan.  Are you familiar
 3   with that litigation?
 4       A.    Only in general terms.  I know it exists.
 5             (Whereupon, Mr. Rosenberg entered.)
 6   BY MR. NETTLETON:
 7       Q.    Are you also aware that the League as well
 8   as U.S. Sugar Corporation, New Hope South and a
 9   number of other agricultural interests have filed
10   petitions challenging or disputing the permit that
11   the District has applied for with DER concerning
12   discharges into the Everglades Protection Area?
13       A.    No.  I'm not specifically aware of that.
14       Q.    Are you aware that the Florida Sugar Cane
15   League, U.S. Sugar Corporation, New Hope South have
16   identified you as an expert who will be testifying in
17   these cases?
18       A.    I -- no, I wasn't, actually.  Not New Hope
19   South.  That's news to me.  I really haven't -- you
20   know, I knew I was being identified, but specifically
21   by whom other than the League, I really hadn't paid
22   that much attention to that.
23       Q.    You were aware that the League had
24   identified you as a testifying expert in the case?
25       A.    Yes.

                                                 15

 1       Q.    Can you tell me how you got involved in the
 2   litigation aspect, who first approached you to
 3   discuss testifying in the case?
 4       A.    I don't specifically recall who it was.
 5       Q.    Was it someone from the League or someone
 6   from their outside attorney's office?
 7       A.    I don't really recall who it was.  I mean
 8   that's been awhile back.
 9       Q.    How far back was it when you were first
10   approached to discuss testifying in the case?
11       A.    I don't remember.
12       Q.    A year, two years?
13       A.    Yeah.  Something like that.  I mean I don't
14   know specifically.
15       Q.    What were you asked to do?
16       A.    Well, to the best of my recollection, I was
17   just asked, you know, to testify as an agronomist on
18   general agriculture.
19       Q.    Anything more specific than that?  Were you
20   asked to offer opinions in any specific areas?
21       A.    No.
22       Q.    Have you formulated any opinions in any
23   specific areas which you intend to testify to at the
24   final hearing in this matter?
25       A.    You know, other than opinions about the

                                                 16

 1   effect of BMPs on the crop, no.
 2       Q.    Well, let's talk about that.  What opinions
 3   do you have concerning the effects of BMPs on crops?
 4       A.    Well, you know, the IFAS BMPs call for, as
 5   well as some of the League BMPs, especially the pump
 6   BMP calls for elevation of water tables and it varies
 7   between sugar cane and vegetables, but in sugar cane,
 8   I think, you know, or in any crop, when you elevate
 9   the water table you run the risk of increased
10   flooding during periods of high rainfall and this
11   could be detrimental to the crop.
12       Q.    Is it your opinion, then, that by
13   implementing a BMP which requires elevating the water
14   table, that this could be adverse to the crop?
15       A.    I think there's a risk that it could be
16   adverse to the crop.
17       Q.    Have you quantified that risk?
18       A.    No, I have not.
19       Q.    And any other opinions concerning any of
20   the BMPs and their effects on crops?
21       A.    You know, I think that the final verdict on
22   those BMPs will only be known when the research is
23   completed.  We only have early, early indications on
24   some of those things.
25             MR. STOTTS:  Counsel, it might be helpful

                                                 17

 1        if we were able to identify what the BMPs are.
 2             MR. NETTLETON:  He's been identified as an
 3        expert in the case who is going to testify.  I
 4        assume coming in here he knew specifically what
 5        he was planning to testify.
 6             MR. STOTTS:  Your question is:  What are
 7        the effects of the BMPs?
 8             MR. NETTLETON:  I was using his words.
 9   BY MR. NETTLETON:
10       Q.    You referenced, I believe, the IFAS BMPs.
11   Is that what we're referring to?
12             MR. STOTTS:  I don't recall that reference,
13        but if so --
14             THE WITNESS:  Well, those are certainly
15        part of the BMPs.
16   BY MR. NETTLETON:
17       Q.    I believe you had indicated earlier that
18   one of the BMPs or a series of the BMPs that have
19   been recommended by IFAS included elevation of water
20   table, is that right?
21       A.    That's correct.
22       Q.    And I believe that you expressed the
23   opinion that this could have an adverse effect or
24   increases a risk of crop damage.
25       A.    That's correct.

                                                 18

 1       Q.    And I believe you also stated that, in your
 2   opinion, the final verdict on the effectiveness of
 3   the BMPs cannot be determined until all the research
 4   is completed.
 5       A.    That's right, because all we have to this
 6   point is research in small plots and we haven't
 7   really taken it out and gone into full scale
 8   implementation at farm level which is being done now
 9   by IFAS.
10       Q.    Do you believe that completing all the
11   research is necessary before any BMPs can be
12   implemented?
13       A.    I think that would be the intelligent thing
14   to do.
15       Q.    Do you believe there has not been
16   sufficient research at this particular time to begin
17   implementation of any particular BMPs?
18       A.    Well, at some point you do have to
19   implement them.  I think there's been sufficient
20   initial research to warrant further, you know,
21   looking at BMPs, to take the research further.
22       Q.    Have you prepared any types of reports or
23   memos concerning your proposed testimony in this
24   case?
25       A.    No, I haven't.

                                                 19

 1       Q.    Have you been asked to do that?
 2       A.    No, I haven't.
 3       Q.    Have you prepared any letters, summarizing
 4   your opinions to anybody with regard to what you plan
 5   to testify about in this case?
 6       A.    No.  Not any.
 7       Q.    Okay.  Other than the risk involved in
 8   elevating water tables and the -- your opinion that
 9   we should await further research to implement the
10   various BMPs, have you reached any opinions that you
11   intend to present at the final hearing other than
12   those two?
13       A.    I mean I haven't given it that much thought
14   and I guess if I was asked to formulate an opinion on
15   a specific BMP, perhaps I could do that, but the
16   question you are asking me is if I have formulated
17   any others.  At this point, no, I haven't.
18       Q.    Have you been asked to formulate any
19   opinions concerning any particular BMPs and their
20   effects on crops or farming practices?
21       A.    Have I been asked by whom?
22       Q.    By anyone.
23       A.    No, I haven't.
24       Q.    No one from the Sugar Cane League has asked
25   you to formulate those opinions?

                                                 20

 1       A.    No.  Not at this point.
 2       Q.    No one from the Sugar Cane League's legal
 3   counsel has asked you do that?
 4       A.    No.  Not at this point.
 5             MR. NETTLETON:  Are we here too early?
 6             MR. STOTTS:  That's one of the key issues
 7        in this case, and has been all along, is when is
 8        too early?
 9             MR. NETTLETON:  I'm a little concerned.  As
10        far as I know, Dr. Dunckelman has never been
11        identified as a person who is not ready to give
12        whatever opinions he was planning to present at
13        final hearing.  If he hasn't even been asked to
14        formulate any opinions, I'm a little concerned
15        what we're doing here.  I don't want to waste
16        everybody's time.  I mean I can obviously and
17        will go through the BMPs and everything that are
18        proposed.  If he hasn't been asked to formulate
19        opinions I suppose while we're here now I'm
20        going to get him to formulate his opinions at
21        this deposition.
22             MR. STOTTS:  Well, I suggest you go ahead
23        and proceed.
24   BY MR. NETTLETON:
25       Q.    Dr. Dunckelman, did you review any

                                                 21

 1   documents in order to prepare for your testimony here
 2   today?
 3       A.    Yes.
 4       Q.    What documents did you review?
 5       A.    Well, all those that have been sent to you
 6   and the ones that I brought here today.  That would
 7   be about it.
 8       Q.    What was the purpose of your review of
 9   those documents?
10       A.    The purpose of my review was to, you know,
11   to look at these documents again and to kind of look
12   at the research that's out there on BMPs and just to
13   kind of brush up.
14       Q.    Who gathered the original documents that
15   were sent to me that you referred to?
16       A.    I did and I think Richard Russell came and
17   he looked through our files and he brought them to
18   you, so myself and Russell.
19       Q.    Specifically, what documents were you
20   looking for when you were gathering the documents,
21   what types of documents?
22       A.    Mostly looking for documents that regarded
23   the BMP work that had been done by IFAS and documents
24   that deal with the crop in general and the effect of
25   those BMPs on sugar cane.

                                                 22

 1       Q.    And, to the best of your knowledge, have
 2   all such documents been produced?
 3       A.    Yes.
 4       Q.    How long did you spend reviewing the
 5   documents in order to prepare for your testimony
 6   today?
 7       A.    I guess probably no more than three to five
 8   days, working days total.
 9       Q.    What specifically were you doing, just
10   reading them?
11       A.    Just reading them and looking at
12   conclusions, executive summaries of Forrest's work
13   and so forth.
14       Q.    When you say three to five days, you were
15   spending the entire day?
16       A.    Yeah.  At some points I was and at some
17   points I wasn't.  I'm just saying that's probably
18   about what it was.  If you look at it on eight hour
19   days, probably three to five days, somewhere in that
20   range, total time spent reviewing.
21       Q.    When did you start reviewing these
22   documents?
23       A.    Oh, it's been, I guess, three, four weeks.
24       Q.    Prior to that, had you at any time gone
25   through and reviewed any documents or materials

                                                 23

 1   concerning BMPs for purposes of preparing any
 2   opinions to testify in the case?
 3       A.    Well, I've reviewed a lot of documents, but
 4   not specifically for purposes of testifying in this
 5   case, just mostly out of interest.
 6       Q.    By the way, there aren't a whole lot of
 7   those.
 8       A.    What's that?
 9       Q.    Documents concerning the implementation of
10   BMPs on muck soils for sugar cane.
11             Can you tell me what you base your opinion
12   with regard to the fact of your conclusion that
13   elevating water would potentially pose a risk to
14   sugar cane crop?
15       A.    Yes.  I base that on a limited amount of
16   research work that's been done on that specific
17   question.
18       Q.    What research are you referring to?
19       A.    Well, I submitted a paper by Deren that you
20   may want to look at; by Chris Deren, I think Snyder,
21   Steve Snyder and Porter also were authors on that
22   paper.
23             What they show in that paper is that when
24   you take a progeny of commercial sugar cane varieties
25   that we have here in Florida, place them under a

                                                 24

 1   flooded condition and stress them, that, number 1,
 2   you get greatly reduced yields, especially in the
 3   ratoons; number 2, some of them die outright; number
 4   3, some of them don't do that badly, but almost all
 5   of them on the average undergo a pretty severe
 6   decline in ratoon and I think that points to two
 7   things.  One, that there is some genetic variability
 8   within the germ plasm for sugar cane in elevated
 9   water tables and possibly to flooded conditions,
10   although these experiments were not done under
11   continually flooded conditions under a 12 month
12   period.  Second, I think it points out that we've got
13   a lot of work to do before we can say we can grow a
14   crop, have it flooded intermittently during the
15   growing period and still expect to make the kind of
16   yields that we're making now.
17       Q.    Can you describe to me what you mean by
18   ratoon?  What is ratooning?
19       A.    The ratoon is the regrowth crop.
20   Specifically, the definition will probably be most --
21   closest to sprout.  Comes from the Spanish word,
22   "rotonyo" which means sprout.  It's a regrowth, crops
23   that emanate from the stubbles or stubbles of the
24   cane that you leave in the ground after you cut and
25   remove the above ground portions of the stalk for the

                                                 25

 1   mill for grinding or planting.
 2       Q.    How often is the cane normally regrown in
 3   that fashion?
 4       A.    Well, it varies from farm to farm, but
 5   about 30 percent of our crop in any year is generally
 6   plant cane and about 70 percent of it is ratoon cane
 7   and among that, those ratoons, probably about 50
 8   percent of it first ratoon; another 25 percent of
 9   that is second and sometimes third ratoon.  Some
10   growers will grow four, but that's fairly rare.  So
11   probably the average is somewhere around three, two
12   to three, in that range.  Again, this varies from
13   farm to farm.  Varies depending on soil type.  Varies
14   depending on the harvest conditions.  Varies
15   depending on pestilence.  A lot of variables.  The
16   decision when to plow out and rotate into another
17   crop or to plow out and replant into cane is based on
18   the past history of those fields, what their
19   production is then and also on the condition of them
20   at regrowth.
21       Q.    Other than the research that you referred
22   to, the Deren paper, is there any other additional
23   research that you're relying on?
24       A.    Well, first of all, there's probably not
25   enough research done in that area and I think we,

                                                 26

 1   meaning the League and possibly IFAS, need to look at
 2   it further.  One problem with sugar cane varieties is
 3   that from the time you make a cross until the time
 4   you get varieties out of that set of seed, you are
 5   looking at a ten year development period, so we've
 6   looked at, at least initially, at the germ plasm that
 7   we have among the better commercial varieties, making
 8   crosses among those and looking at the response of
 9   the progeny to elevated water tables, but I think
10   probably we need more research in that area.
11             Did I answer your question?
12       Q.    Not directly.  Let me ask it again.
13             Is there anything other than the paper you
14   referred to by Deren, is there any additional
15   research or studies that you're aware of that you
16   have relied on?
17       A.    No.  None that I'm aware and none that I
18   have relied on except for these two that I gave you,
19   you know, because, again, these two experiments,
20   these experiments here were done in Louisiana,
21   conducted on mineral soil and so that may not be
22   directly applicable to what happens on muck.
23   However, the effect, I think, that we were looking
24   at, that is elevated water table, is the same.
25   Because what that does is it affects the rooting of

                                                 27

 1   the crop and the root zone of the crop.  When you get
 2   anaerobic conditions that crop is going to suffer a
 3   reduced root value and probably reduced yield.
 4   That's what we found in that experiment, when you
 5   flooded or elevated the water table, you got severely
 6   reduced yield, especially in the ratoon crops, the
 7   regrowth crops.
 8             MR. STOTTS:  For the record, Dr. Dunckelman
 9        is referring to exhibits marked 2 and 3.
10   BY MR. NETTLETON:
11       Q.    When you talk about elevated water levels
12   what are you referring to?  What level?  What level
13   does it have to get to before the risk of damage
14   occurs?
15       A.    Again, I think that's an unknown because
16   there hasn't been enough research done in that area.
17   Traditionally, growers have tried to maintain their
18   water table elevations at somewhere between two and
19   three feet.  What the IFAS BMPs are calling for is
20   elevated water table in the 18 to 24" range.  We're
21   not really positive if that's going to have a
22   negative or what degree of damage that is going to
23   incur.  We do think that it's going to -- to increase
24   the risk of flooding under heavy rain conditions and
25   flooding is definitely detrimental, especially

                                                 28

 1   prolonged flooding.
 2       Q.    Do you believe the research is sufficient
 3   at this time for you to reach the conclusion that as
 4   opposed to a risk that there will be actual damage to
 5   crops through elevated water levels suggested by
 6   IFAS?
 7       A.    Yeah.  Well, I don't know about, you know,
 8   suggested by IFAS.  But, from my experience, from
 9   having dealt with this crop for many years, I can
10   tell you that, you know, elevated water tables are
11   detrimental and that they can't have a positive
12   effect on the crop.  I think their effect is going to
13   be overall negative.  For instance, take germinating
14   cane.  We know that when cane is germinating it's
15   very sensitive to flood and every year we're -- we've
16   got, you know, 30 percent of our crop in plant cane
17   which means roughly that we're planting about 30
18   percent of the crop every year anew.  So, if you've
19   got these fields that are just germinating and you
20   get a flood, it's terrible.  It's devastating.  So
21   that's one factor that probably hasn't been
22   considered enough and that's one area that we're
23   looking at from the research standpoint now is the
24   effect of flooding on germination.
25       Q.    What about the IFAS proposal that you've

                                                 29

 1   referred to keeping the elevation to 18 to 24"?  Is
 2   there sufficient research at this time for you to
 3   conclude that that will, in fact, have an effect
 4   negative on the crops?
 5       A.    No.  I don't think so.  I don't think
 6   there's enough research to say that, but I would say
 7   that there's not enough research to say that it will
 8   not have a negative impact either.  What I'm saying
 9   is there's not enough research.  I mean there's a
10   hypothesis, but whether it's been rejected or
11   accepted, based on the data, there just isn't enough
12   data to say.
13       Q.    Obviously, you just brought in what has
14   been marked Exhibit 2 and 3 and I haven't
15   had a chance read those, yet, but can you very
16   briefly describe for me, start with Exhibit 2 and
17   describe for me what, in that particular article,
18   supports what you've been saying or you're relying
19   upon?
20       A.    If you look at the data table here that's
21   marked Table 1, which I'm going to pass to you, and
22   you look at the average three year cycle down at the
23   bottom, you are going to see that there was a
24   difference between drained and undrained plots and
25   that those differences are significant for yield of

                                                 30

 1   cane.  And I think if you read the conclusion or
 2   summary section there, it probably would tell you
 3   very succinctly what the --
 4             MR. ROSENBERG:  Do you have a second copy
 5        of that?
 6             THE WITNESS:  No, I don't.  I don't know if
 7        we do or not.
 8             (Thereupon, a recess was taken.)
 9   BY MR. NETTLETON:
10       Q.    Dr. Dunckelman, referring to Table 1 on
11   Exhibit 2, could you again explain to me how this
12   supports your opinion that elevated water levels will
13   have an adverse effect on crop yield?
14       A.    Sure.  Let me look at it.  You want me to
15   specifically speak from the table, I take it.
16       Q.    At this point, yes.
17       A.    Let's see here.  Spacings.  Look at -- in
18   the bottom of Column 1.
19       Q.    Uh huh.
20       A.    What you have there, if you look at the top
21   of that, it says gross cane, tons per hectare, and
22   when you look at the average three year cycle on
23   those, you had 79.1 tons in the drained plots as
24   opposed to 71.6 tons in undrained plots.  Now, that's
25   a three year crop average.  Those are significantly

                                                 31

 1   different.  So what that's telling you is that the
 2   tonnage has been lowered in the drained -- in the
 3   undrained plots as opposed to the drained plots.
 4   Again, this was not flooded conditions.  These were
 5   elevated water tables.  The water tables were
 6   elevated, but it was not flooded.  So what that's
 7   telling you is that there's an effect on the growth
 8   of the crop and it's probably related to, you know,
 9   anaerobic conditions in the root zone.  Because sugar
10   cane is a relatively deep rooted crop or can be.
11       Q.    What kind of elevated water levels are we
12   talking about here?
13       A.    Well, I don't know.  I'd have to go back
14   and look here.  During these experiments, what I
15   recall, we had Penman chart recorders on each plot
16   and those were charted over a long period of time and
17   it says -- let's see.  Let's see what it says about
18   drainage here.  It's been a very long time since I've
19   looked at these and I need to look at them a minute
20   before I can answer your question.
21             Here it is.  Says, "The sumps are --"
22       Q.    Where are you?
23       A.    I'm reading from the Materials and Methods
24   in the first paragraph.  It reads, "The sumps were
25   constructed so as to maintain water tables at 1.2

                                                 32

 1   meters in the drained treatment or near the soil
 2   surface in the undrained treatment."
 3       Q.    1.2 in drained treatment?
 4       A.    In the drained and near the soil surface in
 5   the undrained.  I don't know exactly how near near is
 6   because I don't have the charts right now to tell you
 7   that.  It varied depending on rainfall and on, you
 8   know, weather conditions.
 9       Q.    How does -- if you can convert metrics to
10   inches, what are we talking about as far as 1.2
11   meters?
12       A.    Well, let's see.  A meter is roughly three
13   feet, so we're talking about 2/10 of three feet.  It
14   would be something like, you know, 3'5" or 6",
15   something like that.
16       Q.    So about 41, 42"?
17       A.    Yeah.
18       Q.    Would you, from your memory of the actual
19   levels from the undrained plots, would that -- do you
20   believe that they were less than the 18 to 24" that
21   IFAS has recommended, when we say near the soil
22   surface?
23       A.    Well, you know, I think, again, it varied a
24   great deal by the year, depending on how much
25   rainfall we had and that sort of thing, but during

                                                 33

 1   the growing season I think they tended not to be as
 2   close to the surface as they were during the winter
 3   months when the crop had been removed and the ratoons
 4   or stubble pieces were sitting in the ground.  We
 5   were able to push that water table up higher than
 6   during the summer period when you had a lot -- a lot
 7   higher evapotranspiration.
 8       Q.    Is there any reference in the publication
 9   itself as to what ranges we're talking about as far
10   as the undrained plots?
11       A.    Again, it's been awhile.  Let me -- I'd
12   have to go back and look to see if those are
13   mentioned.  There's a discussion on page 173 of
14   Exhibit 3 and maybe we ought to read through that to
15   give you an idea of how it was calculated.
16       Q.    Which exhibit are you referring to?
17       A.    I'm looking at Number 3, Yield Response of
18   Sugar Cane to Stalk Density and Subsurface Drainage
19   Treatments.
20       Q.    Previously we were on Exhibit 2.
21       A.    Both of these --
22       Q.    Are these the same study?
23       A.    These were done in the same study area.
24   I'm not positive.  These probably are not the same
25   experiment.  There were two different experiments.

                                                 34

 1       Q.    Okay.
 2       A.    These plots that we experimented here were
 3   relatively large.  They were an acre each.  They were
 4   expensive to build so we used them and experimented
 5   with them a number of years.  Cade Carter, who was
 6   the lead on this is a hydrologist with USDA who is
 7   still there.  It says water level recorders were
 8   installed midway between drains in each plot which I
 9   told you.  And then he says he took the data from the
10   recorders, he plotted them on graphs, which I also
11   told you.  And it says after which the elevation and
12   duration of the water tables within 30 centimeters,
13   which is about 15" of soil surface were determined
14   for each plot.  And the data were summed to provide a
15   term SEW30 which indicated numerically the potential
16   of the water table for damaging the cane roots.  The
17   larger the number, the greater is the potential for
18   root damage.  SEW30 excess water within 30
19   centimeters of the soil surface and I don't see a
20   table here where he actually shows those SEW30
21   numbers, although there is a water table.  Yeah.  He
22   does show them, actually.  They're on page 176 and
23   there's also a plot at the bottom of the water table
24   elevation over Julian Days calendars, drained versus
25   undrained plots.  So that SEW number in the drained

                                                 35

 1   plots averaged 79, 74 and 29 in '80, '81, '82
 2   respectively as opposed to 202, 484, 1,204 for the
 3   undrained plots.  So you can see that we were
 4   maintaining a differential and we tried to maintain
 5   that differential in water tables over all three of
 6   those years to study the effect on the crop.  We were
 7   also looking at some other effects in these
 8   experiments.  The drainage was the main plot effect
 9   that we were looking at.
10       Q.    Okay.  What was your role in these
11   experiments?
12       A.    My role in those experiments was agronomist
13   and I was involved in planning the experiments,
14   taking a lot of the crop growth data in the
15   experiments, harvesting the tests, weighing the plots
16   and analyzing data points.  I shared in doing that,
17   in analyzing data.
18       Q.    Was any of these people that are listed as
19   authors the primary person responsible for preparing
20   the final analysis?
21       A.    Yes.  Cade Carter and Victor McDaniel was.
22   Victor now works at St. Johns Water Management
23   District.  All of us, you know, were involved in
24   preparing these manuscripts since we're all named as
25   authors.  We worked on them together.  We reviewed

                                                 36

 1   them and then sent them out for peer review within
 2   and among our peers.  That's generally -- that's the
 3   way things work in the government.  All the authors
 4   review it, write it and then pass it out for review.
 5       Q.    Other than the experiments referred to in
 6   Exhibits 2 and 3 have you personally been involved in
 7   any research experiments with regard to the
 8   effectiveness of BMPs to reduce phosphorus --
 9       A.    No.
10       Q.    -- and/or their effects?
11       A.    No, I have not.
12       Q.    I'm referring to a pleading that was filed
13   by the Florida Sugar Cane League, et al. in the DOAH
14   proceedings 92-3038 consolidated, which is simply the
15   expert and fact witness disclosure.  With regard to
16   Dr. Dunckelman it is indicated that the subject
17   matter was expected testimony as concerns BMPs and
18   SWIM Regulatory Program.
19             Is that your understanding of the subject
20   matter of your proposed testimony in this case?
21       A.    I -- I tended to see myself more as an
22   expert in agronomy and the effect of BMPs on our
23   crop.
24       Q.    Well, under the substance of expected
25   testimony, it is stated that you will be analyzing

                                                 37

 1   the impacts of BMPs and the District regulatory
 2   components on EAA farm practices.
 3             Is that accurate to what you understand
 4   you'll be testifying?
 5       A.    Yes.  I think that's accurate.
 6       Q.    Are you familiar with the SWIM Regulatory
 7   Program and the BMPs that are referred to in the
 8   disclosure?
 9       A.    Yes.
10             MR. NETTLETON:  Mark that.
11             (The document was marked Exb. No. 4.)
12   BY MR. NETTLETON:
13       Q.    Dr. Dunckelman, we just had marked as
14   Exhibit Number 4 an excerpt from the Surface Water
15   Improvement and Management Plan for the Everglades,
16   the planning document dated March 13, 1992 and
17   specifically I believe it contains the cover as well
18   as pages 110 through 117.  Is that accurate?
19       A.    Yes.
20       Q.    Beginning on page 110 under the heading EAA
21   Regulatory Program, is that the regulatory program
22   that we've been discussing as far as what your
23   proposed testimony concerns?
24       A.    Yes.
25       Q.    On page 113 of that document the second

                                                 38

 1   paragraph refers to a five year research project by
 2   Izuno and Bottcher 1991.  Are you familiar with that
 3   project?
 4       A.    Yes, I am.
 5       Q.    Are the BMPs that are listed and described
 6   on pages 113 and 114, enumerated there 1 through 9,
 7   are those developed or described out of the Izuno and
 8   Bottcher report?
 9       A.    Yes, they are.
10       Q.    Let's talk about each of these for a little
11   bit.  First, the first one refers to calibrated soil
12   test recommendations and indicates that that could
13   reduce phosphorous losses from 0 to 25 and 0 to 10
14   percent for vegetables and sugar cane respectively.
15             First of all, can you tell me what your
16   understanding is of how this BMP would work?
17       A.    Calibrated soil tests refers to relating or
18   correlating the analysis of the soil for nutrients to
19   the yield and production of the crop to get the
20   maximum yield with the minimum amount of fertilizer
21   needed to get there.  In other words, you want to
22   prevent luxurious fertilization.
23       Q.    Do you agree with the conclusion of Izuno?
24             Let me back up here a second.  Izuno and
25   Bottcher, are you familiar with where they are

                                                 39

 1   located?
 2       A.    Yes.
 3       Q.    And who they're associated with?
 4       A.    Yes, I am.
 5       Q.    What is that?
 6       A.    Forrest Izuno is a hydrologist.  He's
 7   located at Belle Glade Everglades Research and
 8   Education Center in Belle Glade, Florida and Bill
 9   Bottcher is an agricultural engineer who's located at
10   University of Florida, Gainesville.
11       Q.    Is this report essentially the IFAS report
12   that we've referred to earlier?
13       A.    Yes, it is.  I think it is.
14       Q.    Do you agree with the conclusion set forth
15   in that IFAS report regarding the potential
16   reductions in phosphorus from 0 to 25 and 0 to 10
17   percent that are stated in there?
18       A.    Would you repeat that question, please?
19   I'm not quite sure I understand what you are asking
20   me.
21       Q.    Well, do you agree with the conclusions
22   that were reached by Izuno and Bottcher in that IFAS
23   report that phosphorus reductions -- excuse me --
24   phosphorus losses or phosphorus leaving the EAA can
25   be reduced by 0 to 25 percent and 0 to 10 percent for

                                                 40

 1   sugar cane -- vegetables and sugar cane respectively
 2   through the implementation of this BMP?
 3       A.    That's the low end of their range that they
 4   gave.  What they said, the way I interpreted the data
 5   and as I recall their conclusions, it was that they
 6   could see a 20 to 60 percent reduction in phosphorus
 7   leaving the farms from the EAA by implementation of
 8   their BMPs.
 9       Q.    You are talking about all of the BMPs?
10       A.    Well, you can't implement them all at once.
11   At least that's what their research says.  You have
12   to choose a set.  Not all of them are always
13   compatible.  Some of them are exclusive, mutually
14   exclusive.
15       Q.    Okay.
16       A.    But given an optimum set of BMPs, what they
17   said is you could get 20 to 60 percent reduction in
18   phosphorus.  What you are asking me is:  Do I agree
19   with the low end of that?  I would say, yes, I do.
20       Q.    Well, maybe I misstated my question.  I
21   think I probably did.
22             Before we get to the 20 to 60 percent, the
23   percentages that are reflected in these various BMPs,
24   those are on a field or farm basis, is that correct,
25   on the BMPs listed under pages 113 to 114?

                                                 41

 1       A.    I don't think they give what basis they're
 2   on.  They're saying that in general these BMPs, if
 3   applied properly, can result in -- you know, for
 4   instance, when you look at calibrated soil tests,
 5   recommendations could reduce P losses from 0 to 10
 6   percent for sugar cane.  It doesn't say whether that
 7   means on small plots or on fields, but I'm --
 8   everyone has extrapolated this to mean for the whole
 9   EAA for farms out there.
10       Q.    Well, do you do agree with that conclusion
11   that they have --
12       A.    Yes.  Absolutely.
13       Q.    -- they have reached?
14       A.    I think Forrest and Del, as any good
15   scientist would, they are being very careful about
16   the conclusions they make or have made based on the
17   amount of work that they have done and that's why
18   it's given in ranges.  That's what they feel is the
19   best reflection of the research and the data that
20   they have now is that conclusion.  It could be more.
21   It could be less.  That's why it's given as a range.
22       Q.    Well, it can't be less than 0, can it?
23       A.    Well, I should hope not.  I mean it could
24   be less than 10.  It could be more than 10.
25       Q.    Moving to the second BMP that's listed on

                                                 42

 1   here, banding fertilizer for vegetable production
 2   instead of broadcasting it.
 3             Can you describe how that BMP works?
 4       A.    Essentially banding fertilizing involves
 5   placing the fertilizer below either the seed or the
 6   set, meaning the vegetative or transplant -- seedling
 7   transplant that you put out in the field.  The reason
 8   you want to do that is to locate the fertilizer as
 9   close to the root zone of the plant for ready uptake
10   as you can.  If you can accomplish that what you
11   effectively do is you reduce the need of having to
12   apply more fertilizer because of a dilution effect
13   that you get by spreading that fertilizer over a
14   larger area, which is unavailable to the plant until
15   it grows roots into that particular zone to utilize
16   those nutrients.  So if you put it where it's readily
17   available to the plant, meaning right beneath where
18   the plant is going to be rooting or right off to the
19   sides, in either one or two bands of where the plant
20   root zone is, then you can reduce the amount of
21   fertilizer that you put out in the field and you can
22   still provide all the nutrients that that plant needs
23   for maximum yield.  And this is something that's --
24   that's working very well for the vegetable interests
25   right now, to my knowledge.  They're talking about

                                                 43

 1   reductions in 50 percent of their phosphorus
 2   application rate.
 3       Q.    Does this apply to cane production?
 4       A.    Yes, it does, to an extent.  Not as much to
 5   cane production as it does to vegetable production,
 6   but is a practice that's being used in sugar cane
 7   production and probably will become more used in the
 8   future because it's a -- it's a good practice and it
 9   does reduce the amount of fertilizer that you need to
10   apply.
11             For instance, in the majority of our plant
12   cane now, I would suspect that -- that most of the
13   fertilizer is being banded, meaning as the field is
14   opened for planting, the fertilizer is placed in that
15   open furrow and then the seed is placed on top of
16   that and then closed back and covered.  In the ratoon
17   crops it's being done similarly, although the
18   fertilizer can't be applied subsurface.  It's
19   dribbled over the drill or planted row of cane.  For
20   many years the standard practice in the sugar cane
21   industry was to broadcast fertilizer, meaning you
22   went in with some sort of sling or drop spreader,
23   dropped the fertilizer over the entire area of the
24   field and then cut it in using a disk and then open
25   and plant.

                                                 44

 1       Q.    Do you agree with the conclusion that IFAS
 2   reached by moving to the banding versus broadcasting
 3   fertilizer that that could reduce phosphorus losses
 4   from 10 to 40 percent?
 5       A.    Yes.
 6       Q.    The next listed BMP refers to prevention of
 7   fertilizer spills and the direct spreading of
 8   fertilizer into drainage ditches.
 9             Just describe what is being discussed
10   there.
11       A.    What's being discussed there mostly is
12   modification through the machinery that we use to
13   apply fertilizer and more care being taken in the
14   transfer of fertilizer from the transport vehicles to
15   the spreaders so that we don't spill fertilizer into
16   any body of water.  Naturally, a small amount of
17   fertilizer in a ditch can make a big difference in
18   concentration of phosphorus when you are talking
19   about such low levels.
20       Q.    Do you agree with the IFAS conclusion there
21   that implementing that could possibly reduce
22   phosphorus by 0 to 15 percent?
23       A.    Yes, I do.
24       Q.    Moving to the fourth BMP, it refers to
25   minimizing water table fluctuations.

                                                 45

 1       A.    Uh huh.
 2       Q.    Can you describe to me how that BMP works?
 3       A.    Well, essentially, what is involved here is
 4   optimum maintenance of a stable water table as
 5   constant to a -- some established point as you can
 6   without fluctuating up or down from that point either
 7   way.
 8       Q.    Can you describe to me how that affects or
 9   how that reduces phosphorus losses by maintaining the
10   stability of the water level?
11       A.    Well, I would think that it probably works
12   in more than one way.  Number 1, by choosing an
13   optimum water table and maintaining that water table,
14   you prevent oxidation of the soil profile from
15   dropping it too low and you also prevent leaching of
16   phosphorus into the water table by pushing it up too
17   high in the oxidized zone where you are growing the
18   crop.  So if you can set it and maintain it at that
19   point, you eliminate a lot of phosphorus movement.
20             MR. ROSENBERG:  Could I ask you to have him
21        define leaching.
22   BY MR. NETTLETON:
23       Q.    How do you define leaching?
24       A.    Leaching means movement through the soil
25   profile of minerals by water movement.  They are

                                                 46

 1   carried with water movement downward.
 2       Q.    Does this particular BMP raise any concerns
 3   concerning the previous opinion you expressed about
 4   elevated water levels possibly having adverse effects
 5   on crops?
 6       A.    Yes, it does.
 7       Q.    How does it affect that or how does that
 8   come into play?
 9       A.    Well, again, it relates mostly to climatic
10   events, especially heavy rainfalls because in the
11   past it's probably been more of a common practice
12   when you anticipate heavy rain, to pump off and get
13   the water table lower so that as it rains, you have
14   that room to fill back up.  But now what they're
15   saying is that you're going to install a pump BMP, a
16   water management BMP that's going to disallow you to
17   pump down in anticipation of a rain or that you're
18   going to have to pump down on some more stringent
19   schedule than just pumping out.  What that's going to
20   do is it's going to increase your risk of flooding
21   during heavy rainfall.  And vegetable growers are
22   much more concerned with that particular issue than
23   sugar cane growers are because vegetables are very,
24   very sensitive to flooded conditions.  You are
25   talking about death within a few hours under flooded

                                                 47

 1   conditions for a crop like lettuce where sugar cane
 2   you've got a little more leeway.  So we think that
 3   this is probably the heart of the BMPs for sugar
 4   cane.
 5       Q.    Do you think this would be the most
 6   effective BMP to reduce phosphorus discharges, is
 7   that what you are saying, for sugar cane?
 8       A.    Well, I think probably among the IFAS BMPs,
 9   it's again the heart of the effort to reduce
10   phosphorus through a BMP program, but any BMP program
11   is going to involve more than just a pump BMP.  It
12   has to be a fully integrated program using as many
13   methods and means you have available to control
14   phosphorus.
15       Q.    Do you agree with the IFAS conclusion that
16   implementation of this BMP could reduce phosphorus
17   losses from 0 to 50 percent?
18       A.    Yes.
19       Q.    The next BMP, number 5, refers to retention
20   of on-farm drainage.
21       A.    Uh huh.
22       Q.    Can you describe how that BMP would work?
23       A.    Yes.  Now, when -- I think when we talk
24   about this BMP and we talk about retention, we're not
25   talking about building retention ponds.  What we're

                                                 48

 1   talking about here is on-farm movement and management
 2   of water on fallow grounds or on aquatic crops.  This
 3   has a potential for reducing phosphorus because it
 4   reduces off farm pumping.  Again, this is one that's
 5   probably easily and well integrated with the pump
 6   BMP.
 7       Q.    Do you agree with the IFAS conclusion that
 8   it could reduce phosphorus losses from 15 to 60
 9   percent?
10       A.    Yes.
11       Q.    Moving to page 114 in item number 6, the
12   sixth listed BMP refers to retention of vegetables
13   field drainage water in sugar cane or fallow lands.
14             Could you describe to me what that BMP
15   involves?
16       A.    Again, very similar to what we were just
17   talking about.  More or less the same BMP.
18       Q.    Well, it may be the way I'm reading these,
19   they appear to be similar in the sense that you're
20   moving water around.
21       A.    You are moving water and you are holding
22   water and in number 5 what he's talking about
23   specifically is holding more water in canals, the way
24   I read it, and moving from field to field.
25       Q.    Okay.

                                                 49

 1       A.    I guess, you know, it means moving
 2   irrigation water around and it means growing aquatic
 3   crops.  These water management BMPs that Forrest has
 4   put together with Del, I think they have really given
 5   it quite a lot of thought and they have a good idea
 6   of how to integrate them on a farm.  And there are a
 7   lot of different sets that could possibly be used and
 8   fitted together depending on a particular type of
 9   farm, what the crop and pattern was, what the soil
10   type was, how deep the muck is, so forth.
11       Q.    Okay.  Well, with regard to number 6, which
12   seems to be more directed toward using the water on --
13   either moving vegetable water into sugar cane fields
14   or to fallow lands --
15       A.    Right.
16       Q.    -- the conclusion reached there by IFAS was
17   it could reduce phosphorus losses from 20 to 90
18   percent.
19             Do you agree with that?
20       A.    Yeah.  I mean I have no reason to doubt
21   their work.  I've read it and I think it's good
22   research and I think their numbers are good and I
23   believe that they developed these ranges using their
24   best scientific effort and judgment.
25       Q.    Let's move to the seventh one, which refers

                                                 50

 1   to aquatic cover crops.
 2       A.    Uh huh.
 3       Q.    Can you describe for me what's meant by
 4   aquatic cover crops being used as a BMP?
 5       A.    Well, what they're mostly referring to here
 6   is rice.
 7       Q.    Okay.  And how would that work?  Rice would
 8   be planted as opposed to just leaving a field fallow
 9   or something?
10       A.    Correct.
11       Q.    Do you agree with the IFAS conclusion that
12   the use of an aquatic cover crop could reduce
13   phosphorus losses from 5 to 20 percent?
14       A.    Yes.
15       Q.    Any crops other than rice that might be
16   used?
17       A.    At this point, you know, I don't think
18   there are any that the growers are interested in
19   growing.  Whether there are some that may or may not
20   fit, I can't say one way or another.  There may be.
21   There may not.
22       Q.    Is -- would the planting of rice result in
23   economic recovery for the farmers as opposed to
24   leaving the fields fallow?
25       A.    Generally, rice is viewed as a break even

                                                 51

 1   proposition.  There's some benefits to it in land
 2   preparation and so forth, but other than that, it's
 3   break even, rice is.  It's not a high profit crop,
 4   from my understanding.
 5       Q.    All right.  Number 8 here refers to on-farm
 6   retention ponds utilized to store excess rainfall.
 7             Can you just describe to me how that BMP
 8   would be implemented and work?
 9       A.    Basically what they're saying here is you
10   either levee up a area of the farm and pump drainage
11   water into it and hold it there or you -- that you
12   actually build some sort of a retainment or retention
13   area to hold water that you would otherwise pump off
14   farm.
15       Q.    Does this BMP, is this specifically related
16   to rainfall, though, as opposed to any other water
17   on-farm?
18       A.    Yes.  I mean the retention pond would have
19   to be designed to, you know, to hold drainage water
20   from rainfall events.
21       Q.    If this BMP were implemented wouldn't it
22   eliminate the potential problem for flooding under
23   the previous water management ones that you're
24   concerned with?
25       A.    I think that would have to do with the size

                                                 52

 1   of the retention pond.
 2       Q.    Would --
 3       A.    Which I think is a problem with this one.
 4       Q.    The reference here indicates that IFAS
 5   found that such ponds would require about 5 to 10
 6   percent of the individual farm -- individual's farm
 7   land.
 8             Do you agree with that assessment?  Do you
 9   think that's high, low?
10       A.    I think that's fairly accurate.  Could be
11   low.  Again, I think it depends on to what extent you
12   want to design it.
13       Q.    What do you mean by that?
14       A.    I mean, you can design it small enough to
15   hold the majority of the drainage water or you can
16   design it big enough to hold all the drainage water
17   depending on the climate history, so there's
18   definitely a range of how big you would have to build
19   it to do -- you know, to fit what you're trying to
20   accomplish.
21       Q.    Are you familiar -- other than the IFAS
22   report and study, are you familiar with any other
23   research concerning construction of retention ponds
24   for this purpose?
25       A.    Yes.

                                                 53

 1       Q.    Can you describe what you're familiar with?
 2       A.    Well, I'm familiar with work that we've
 3   done within the League, looked at that specific
 4   issue.
 5       Q.    What have you done?
 6       A.    I haven't personally done anything.
 7       Q.    What has the League done?
 8       A.    The League has used various engineering
 9   firms to look at that issue.
10       Q.    Who have they used?
11       A.    Hutchon Engineers, H-u-t-c-h-o-n, (sic) I
12   believe.
13       Q.    Anybody else?
14       A.    Not that I know of.
15       Q.    Okay.  When did Hutcheon Engineers look at
16   this problem?
17       A.    It's been within the last two years at
18   least, I know, they have looked at it.
19       Q.    Were you involved in that at all?
20       A.    No, I was not.
21       Q.    Did they prepare any reports that you've
22   seen?
23       A.    Yes.
24       Q.    Did they reach any conclusions?
25       A.    You know, I don't -- I didn't keep those

                                                 54

 1   reports and -- but, of course, there were some
 2   conclusions reached.
 3       Q.    Do you recall what their conclusions were?
 4             MR. STOTTS:  Dr. Dunckelman, I would
 5        caution you that if those reports were prepared
 6        at the direction of counsel --
 7             THE WITNESS:  They were.
 8             MR. STOTTS:  -- then they are attorney work
 9        product.
10             THE WITNESS:  Uh huh.
11             MR. NETTLETON:  I mean if he's reviewed
12        them and he's testifying about BMPs and this is
13        one of the BMPs and it's specifically relevant
14        to his testimony, I think it can't be considered
15        work product.
16             MR. STOTTS:  He hasn't stated he's relying
17        on any of those documents.
18             MR. ROSENBERG:  He didn't say they were
19        prepared by counsel.  He said it was the
20        League's work.  That doesn't necessarily mean it
21        was counsel's work.  It was the League's work.
22             MR. STOTTS:  My caution was if they were
23        prepared at the direction of counsel.  I'm not
24        putting any words in his mouth.
25             THE WITNESS:  Those documents were prepared

                                                 55

 1        under direction of counsel.
 2   BY MR. NETTLETON:
 3       Q.    Which counsel?  What attorney directed
 4   those to be prepared?
 5       A.    Philip Parsons.
 6       Q.    Do you know why they were being prepared?
 7       A.    They were being prepared to study that
 8   issue.
 9       Q.    Was it for purposes of litigation or just
10   for scientific determinations?
11       A.    That I'm not sure of.
12       Q.    I would ask you again.  Do you recall what
13   the conclusions were that were reached by Hutcheon
14   Engineers?
15             MR. STOTTS:  You can answer whether you do
16        recall, but as to the substance of the
17        conclusions, those documents are obviously work
18        product.
19             THE WITNESS:  I recall some of the general
20        conclusions.
21   BY MR. NETTLETON:
22       Q.    Did the conclusions concern the sizing of
23   the retention ponds that would be necessary for
24   implementation of this type of a BMP?
25       A.    Yes.

                                                 56

 1       Q.    Well, I believe you've previously testified
 2   that sizing is a problem.  Was that in part based
 3   upon what you saw as far as the conclusions reached
 4   by Hutcheon Engineers?
 5       A.    Yes.
 6       Q.    Okay.  Can you tell me what conclusions
 7   they reached?
 8             MR. STOTTS:  With respect to the questions --
 9        line of questioning regarding the sizing, if you
10        have relied on that in part of your conclusions
11        here, you can testify about that.
12             THE WITNESS:  As I recall, Hutcheon's
13        conclusions were, you know, that in general to
14        retain the amount of water that would give you
15        the retention capacity for all but the highest
16        possible flows.  Under extreme conditions of
17        heavy rainfall, you would have to design ponds
18        that were somewhere on the order of 10 to 15
19        percent of the total land area of the farm.
20   BY MR. NETTLETON:
21       Q.    How deep would these retention ponds need
22   to be or could they be?
23       A.    I don't recall those numbers specifically.
24       Q.    I mean it would seem to me that if the
25   deeper the pond can be, the less area it has to cover

                                                 57

 1   on the surface.  Wouldn't that be correct?
 2       A.    Sounds right to me.
 3       Q.    Okay.  You don't recall what design
 4   parameters were considered by Hutcheon Engineers?
 5       A.    No.  Not specifically.
 6       Q.    Was there any consideration given to above
 7   ground retention ponds in the sense of actually
 8   building up the sides?
 9       A.    Yes.
10       Q.    Do you recall what the conclusion was with
11   regard to if that would work?
12       A.    No.  Not specifically.
13       Q.    Well, do you agree with the IFAS conclusion
14   that assuming this BMP were implemented and on-farm
15   retention ponds were utilized to store excess
16   rainfall, this would reduce phosphorus losses from 10
17   to 60 percent?
18       A.    I have no reason to disagree with that.
19       Q.    And you would agree that a sugar cane farm
20   would require a smaller pond than a vegetable farm?
21       A.    I haven't given that any thought.
22       Q.    In light of your previous testimony that
23   the sugar cane crop can withstand higher elevations
24   of water or flooding for longer periods, would that
25   appear to be an accurate assessment?

                                                 58

 1       A.    Well, I don't know if that's accurate or
 2   not.
 3       Q.    Moving to item number 9, it refers to
 4   coordinated farm cropping patterns.  Again, this does
 5   not appear to be a separate BMP.
 6             Is that your understanding in the sense
 7   that it would have an effect on reducing phosphorus
 8   in and of itself?
 9       A.    Well, it could.
10       Q.    Okay.  Tell me how you think that would
11   occur.
12       A.    Well, some farmers grow more than one crop.
13       Q.    Uh huh.
14       A.    For instance, a farmer may grow vegetables,
15   cane, rice and, depending on how he chooses to
16   coordinate the planting and the management and
17   placements of those crops on his particular parcels
18   of land, could have a big effect on his ability to
19   implement some of the other BMPs and especially the
20   ability to move water around and store water on rice
21   or fallow ground.  The ability to move water around
22   is related to the distance you have to move it and so
23   forth.
24       Q.    That refers back to the some of the other
25   BMPs discussed?

                                                 59

 1       A.    I think, again, Forrest and Bill gave a lot
 2   of thought to an integrated set of BMPs.  They're not
 3   necessarily stand alone single implementation BMPs.
 4       Q.    Then it's your understanding that this
 5   ninth listed item as far as coordinated farm cropping
 6   pattern is there to -- that is a BMP that should be
 7   implemented in order to take advantage of some of the
 8   other BMPs, is that correct?
 9       A.    It's a BMP that you could implement to help
10   you take advantage of some of the other BMPs.
11   Whether you should or not, I don't know.  It could
12   be.
13       Q.    On page 114 two paragraphs below item
14   number 9 it indicates that Izuno and Bottcher
15   estimated that the overall range of phosphorus
16   reduction that could be accomplished for the EAA
17   basin was between 20 and 60 percent.
18             Do you agree with that assessment?
19       A.    That's their opinion and I am really not,
20   you know -- I would say that the final verdict is not
21   in yet, but I have no strong reasons to doubt that
22   it's somewhere within that range.
23       Q.    Are you familiar with what the goal of the
24   regulatory program is as far as phosphorus reduction?
25       A.    To the best of my understanding, it's a

                                                 60

 1   reduction of 25 percent of phosphorus coming out of
 2   the EAA basin.
 3       Q.    Do you agree with the conclusion that
 4   implementation of these BMPs would reasonably result
 5   in a reduction of at least 25 percent of phosphorus
 6   leaving the EAA?
 7       A.    I think if -- you know, if the BMPs were
 8   implemented across the entire EAA that could probably
 9   easily be accomplished.
10       Q.    Do you think it could accomplish more than
11   a 25 percent reduction?
12       A.    I think that's possible and I don't
13   necessarily think that these are the only BMPs that
14   are possible in the future.  Obviously, scientists
15   are going to be looking at this and there could be
16   development for new and better and more BMPs.
17       Q.    But just so -- I understand that.
18             But just dealing with these specific BMPs
19   that are identified in the regulatory program set
20   forth in the SWIM Plan, just by implementing those,
21   assuming those BMPs were implemented, would you agree
22   that phosphorus reduction could be reduced by at
23   least 25 percent?
24       A.    They have never been implemented so I'm not
25   sure.  I don't think anybody is.

                                                 61

 1       Q.    Based upon the research, do you think
 2   that's a reasonable conclusion?
 3             MR. STOTTS:  Asked and answered.
 4   BY MR. NETTLETON:
 5       Q.    You can still answer it.
 6       A.    I'm sorry.  I didn't hear what you said.
 7             MR. NETTLETON:  It's an objection.
 8             MR. STOTTS:  I'm objecting because you've
 9        asked the question and he's answered it.  He
10        said he was he wasn't sure.
11   BY MR. NETTLETON:
12       Q.    Was that your answer?
13       A.    Yes.
14       Q.    Page 115, under the heading, Rulemaking
15   Required, it's stated that the program here will be
16   implemented by rules to be developed and adopted by
17   the District.
18             Are you familiar with the rules that have
19   been adopted implementing this regulatory program?
20       A.    I have looked at 40E-63.
21       Q.    Okay.
22             MR. NETTLETON:  Mark that.
23             (The document was marked Exb. No. 5.)
24   BY MR. NETTLETON:
25       Q.    Dr. Bottcher, (sic) I marked as Exhibit

                                                 62

 1   Number 5 is a copy of Chapter 40E-63.  Is this the
 2   rules that you've indicated that you have looked at?
 3       A.    Yes.
 4       Q.    Is it your understanding that these are the
 5   rules that implement the regulatory program that
 6   we've been discussing as set forth in the SWIM Plan?
 7       A.    Yes.
 8       Q.    Can you describe to me your understanding
 9   of how these rules implement the regulatory program?
10       A.    Well, basically, it requires that all the
11   growers have had to reapply for their water use
12   permits; they have had to implement a BMP plan;
13   submit a BMP plan for their farm as part of that
14   permit and they're going to be required to install
15   phosphorus and flow -- phosphorus concentration and
16   flow monitoring equipment on their pumping stations.
17       Q.    Referring specifically to section
18   40E-63.136, about two or three pages in at the bottom
19   of the page --
20       A.    Okay.
21       Q.    -- and under that, subpart 1(c) which is
22   the beginning of the next page --
23       A.    Okay.
24       Q.    -- is it your understanding that this is a
25   section that incorporates the BMPs that we've been

                                                 63

 1   discussing that are reflected in the SWIM Plan?
 2       A.    Yes.
 3       Q.    Is it your understanding that under this
 4   rule that those BMPs must be implemented on an
 5   individual farm basis?
 6       A.    You know, I haven't had to deal with that
 7   because I'm not a farmer, but I know they have to
 8   submit a plan for BMPs.  Exactly what particular set
 9   of those BMPs that they're required to put in place,
10   that's partly a decision for the -- whoever approves
11   the permit at the District was my understanding.
12       Q.    All right.  Well, is it your understanding,
13   then, that BMPs that we discussed, the eight or nine
14   of them that were listed in the SWIM Plan, that those
15   are not all required to be implemented by every
16   farmer in the EAA?
17       A.    That's correct.
18       Q.    Do you also understand that the Rule 40E-63
19   provides for alternatives to BMPs to be considered?
20       A.    Yes.
21       Q.    I refer you to specifically 40E-63.101 --
22       A.    Okay.
23       Q.    -- subpart 4 --
24       A.    Subpart 4.
25       Q.    -- second page.

                                                 64

 1       A.    Okay.
 2       Q.    Is that where your understanding comes
 3   from?
 4       A.    May I read this?
 5       Q.    Sure.  Sure.
 6       A.    Yes.
 7       Q.    And I'd like to refer you to section
 8   40E-63.145 subpart 5 which is on page 636-47.
 9       A.    636 -- okay.
10       Q.    Subpart 5 beginning at the end of the first
11   column.
12       A.    Okay.
13       Q.    First of all, have you read this provision
14   before?  Are you familiar with it?
15       A.    Well, I've -- you know, I've perused this
16   rule and scanned it.  I probably haven't read it as
17   thoroughly as I should have, but if you'll just allow
18   me to read this.
19       Q.    Sure.
20       A.    Would you repeat the question, please.
21       Q.    My question is:  Was -- first of all, had
22   you reviewed this provision before and are you
23   familiar with it?
24       A.    You know, I'm not that familiar with it.
25       Q.    Okay.  I am not going to ask you any

                                                 65

 1   questions about it.
 2             (The document was marked Exb. No. 6.)
 3   BY MR. NETTLETON:
 4       Q.    We've marked as Exhibit Number 6 a document
 5   entitled, Draft Technical Document in support of
 6   Chapter 40E-63 dated March 3, 1992.
 7             Are you familiar with this document?
 8       A.    This is the supporting document of the SWIM
 9   Plan, is it not?
10       Q.    I believe it refers to Chapter 40E-63.
11       A.    I don't specifically ever recall having
12   read this document.
13       Q.    Okay.  Well, let me refer you specifically
14   to pages 57 through 59.
15       A.    Okay.
16       Q.    And just ask you whether this discussion
17   contained in here -- and you can take a chance and
18   look through it -- whether it is your understanding,
19   after you have a chance review it, this is the same
20   discussion which essentially appears in the SWIM Plan
21   and refers to the IFAS report that we've previously
22   been referring to?
23       A.    It appears to be based on Forrest and Del's
24   work and the references are to them, so, yeah, I
25   would assume it's from them.

                                                 66

 1       Q.    Okay.  The BMPs listed on page 57 and 58,
 2   those are the same BMPs that we discussed earlier?
 3       A.    They appear to be, yes.
 4       Q.    I'm not going to have this marked.  I think
 5   you brought a set here today, but I want to show you
 6   a document that's entitled, Final Report:  The
 7   Effects of On-farm Agricultural Practices in the
 8   Organic Soils of the EAA on Nitrogen and Phosphorous
 9   Transport.  Subtitle, Screening BMPs for Phosphorus
10   Loading and Concentration Reductions.  Submitted by
11   F.T. Izuno and A.B. Bottcher, a number of
12   contributing authorities.  It's dated August 30,
13   1991.
14             Have you seen that document before?
15       A.    Yes, I have.
16       Q.    Is that the IFAS report that we've been
17   referring to?
18       A.    Yes.
19       Q.    Is that the IFAS report that's referred to
20   in the SWIM Plan and in the technical document in
21   support of the rule that we just looked at?
22       A.    Yes, it is.
23       Q.    Are you familiar with the -- what is called
24   the Early Baseline Option under Rule 40E-63?
25       A.    You know, I've heard that term, but to be

                                                 67

 1   able to sit here and describe exactly to you what it
 2   is, I don't think I can do that.
 3       Q.    Okay.  Have you been involved in reviewing,
 4   preparing or looking over any permit applications --
 5       A.    No.  I have not been involved in that.
 6       Q.    Let me finish my question.
 7             -- with regard to any of the EAA farmers?
 8       A.    No, I have not.
 9       Q.    Have you, not having reviewed them, but
10   have you seen any permit applications that have been
11   submitted by any of the EAA agricultural interests
12   under the Rule 40E-63?
13       A.    No.  I have not seen any of the permits or
14   permit applications as you referred to them.
15       Q.    Have such permit applications been
16   discussed with you as far as the applications
17   concerning BMPs that are being set forth in those
18   permit applications?
19       A.    The only discussion I've ever participated
20   in about permit applications would be where the
21   District sent representatives to the Everglades to
22   speak with the growers about those permits and about
23   filling them out and I believe the meeting that I
24   attended it was Dick Rogers and Donovan, Bill Donovan
25   were the representatives where we discussed that

                                                 68

 1   filling out of permits.
 2       Q.    Okay.  Were you present at that meeting?
 3       A.    I went just for general information to hear
 4   what was being asked of farmers.
 5       Q.    Are you generally familiar with what BMP
 6   plans have been submitted by, say, the U.S. Sugar
 7   Corporation?
 8       A.    No, I'm not.
 9       Q.    What about any of the other agricultural
10   interests?
11       A.    No, I am not.
12       Q.    Are you familiar with any of the monitoring
13   plans that may have been submitted?
14       A.    No, I am not.
15             MR. NETTLETON:  This may be a good time to
16        break for lunch.
17             MR. STOTTS:  Is that all right for you?
18             THE WITNESS:  It's fine with me.  I don't
19        care either way.  I can continue or we can
20        break, whatever you would like.
21             MR. NETTLETON:  I'd prefer to break.
22             MR. STOTTS:  All right.
23             (Thereupon, a recess was taken.)

                                                 69

 1           Division of Administrative Hearings
 2     Department of Administration, State of Florida
 3    SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE         )
      of FLORIDA; ROTH FARMS, INC.; and,     )
 4    WEDGEWORTH FARMS, INC.,                )
                 Petitioners,                )
 5       V                                   )   DOAH
      SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT         ) Case 92-3038
 6    DISTRICT, an agency of the State       )
      of Florida; et al.,                    )
 7              Respondents.                 )
      FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, INC.;       )
 8    UNITED STATES SUGAR CORPORATION;       )
      and NEW HOPE SOUTH, INC.,              )
 9                Petitioners,               )
         V                                   )   DOAH
10    SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT         ) Case 92-3039
      DISTRICT, an agency of the State       )
11    of Florida; et al.,                    )
                Respondents.                 )
12    FLORIDA FRUIT and VEGETABLE            )
      ASSOCIATION; LEWIS POPE FARMS;         )
13    W.E. SCHLECHTER & SONS, INC.,          )
      and HUNDLEY FARMS, INC.,               )
14                Petitioners,               )
         V                                   )   DOAH
15    SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT         ) Case 92-3040
      DISTRICT, an agency of the State       )
16    of Florida; et al.,                    )
                Respondents.                 )
17 
                          Volume II
18        Deposition of John Dunckelman, Ph.D.
   
19             Taken before April Y. Sapp, Court Reporter
     and Notary Public in and for the State of Florida at
20   large, pursuant to notice of taking deposition filed
     by the Petitioners in the above cause.
21                           -  -  -
     Wednesday January 20, 1993
22   319 Clematis Street, 5th Floor
     West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
23   1:12 - 5:45 p.m.
                             -  -  -

                                                 70

 1    APPEARANCES:
 2 
          On behalf of the Petitioners Florida Sugar
 3         Cane League, Inc., United State Sugar Corp.,
           and New South Hope, Inc.:
 4             Peeples, Earl & Blank, P.A.
               One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3636
 5             Two South Biscayne Boulevard
               Miami, Florida  33131
 6             By:  DENNIS M. STOTTS, ESQUIRE
   
 7        On behalf of the Respondent SFWMD:
               Popham, Haik, Schnobrich, Ltd.
 8             4000 International Place
               100 S.E. Second Street
 9             Miami, Florida  33131
               By:  PAUL NETTLETON, ESQUIRE
10 
          On behalf of the Intervenor United States of America:
11             Assistant United States Attorney
               Southern District of Florida
12             155 South Miami Avenue, Suite 627
               Miami, Florida  33130-1693
13             By:  ROBERT ROSENBERG, ESQUIRE
   
14 
                           -  -  -

                                                 71

 1                         -  -  -
 2                      I  N  D  E  X
 3                         -  -  -
 4 
 5  WITNESS:             DIRECT  CROSS  REDIRECT  RECROSS
 6  John Dunckelman, Ph.D.
 7 
    BY MR. NETTLETON       74
 8 

                                                 72

 1                         -  -  -
 2                     E X H I B I T S
 3                         -  -  -
 4 
 5  NUMBER                                  PAGE
 6  EXB. NO. 7                               95
 7  BMPs for the EAA by Bottcher
 8  EXB. NO. 8                               99
 9  4-23-92 John Dunckelman note head
10  EXB. NO. 9                               101
11  Fla. Sugar Cane League:  A Strategy to
12  Revitalize the Everglades and Preserve
13  Farming
14  EXB. NO. 10                              168
15  IFAS letter 7-24-90
16  EXB. NO. 11                              171
17  IFAS letter 7-25-91
18  EXB. NO. 12                              172
19  Procedural Guide July 1992 BMPs in the EAA
20  EXB. NO. 13                              191
21  IFAS BMP meeting 2-27-92
22  EXB. NO. 14                              199
23  Letter from Schoech 5-12-92
24  EXB. NO. 15                              201
25  Letter from Schoech 5-19-92

                                                 73

 1                         -  -  -
 2                     E X H I B I T S
 3                         -  -  -
 4  NUMBER                                   PAGE
 5 
 6  EXB. NO. 16                               206
 7  Status Report Re:  BMPs July 1992
 8  EXB. NO. 17                               208
 9  EPD/BMP Tech. Comm. 10-16-92
10  notes and report
11  EXB. NO. 18                               217
12  Handwritten notes
13  EXB. NO. 19                               227
14  Handwritten notes 4-22-92

                                                 74

 1                  P R O C E E D I N G S
 2                       -  -  -
 3           CONTINUED DIRECT (John Dunckelman, Ph.D.)
 4   BY MR. NETTLETON:
 5       Q.    Dr. Dunckelman, earlier we had talked about
 6   any research that you might have been involved in
 7   relating to BMPs.  What I want to ask you now is have
 8   you worked up any computer programs or computer
 9   analyses of potential BMPs and their effects as far
10   as reducing phosphorus and effects on crops?
11       A.    No, I have not.
12       Q.    I'd like to return to the -- I believe it's
13   Exhibit Number 4, which is a copy of the excerpt from
14   the SWIM Plan and to the BMPs that are listed in
15   there for a moment.
16       A.    Okay.
17       Q.    First, with regard to the calibrated soil
18   test recommendation, do you know whether that has
19   been implemented to any extent already in the
20   Everglades Agricultural Area?
21       A.    Yes.  It has been implemented.
22       Q.    Do you know the extent of implementation?
23       A.    No.  Not specifically.  Not the exact
24   number.
25       Q.    Do you have any general idea of what

                                                 75

 1   percentage of the area is presently utilizing that
 2   BMP?
 3       A.    I would say the majority.
 4       Q.    So over 50 percent?
 5       A.    I think so.
 6       Q.    Can you be any more specific or is that --
 7       A.    No.  I think that's as close as I can get.
 8       Q.    Are there net -- any negative implications
 9   from implementation of this BMP?
10       A.    When you --
11       Q.    Let me clarify.
12             Negative in the sense of adverse effects on
13   crops or yields.
14       A.    If the soil tests are properly calibrated,
15   there should not be.
16       Q.    Regarding the second BMP, the banding
17   versus broadcast fertilizing, again, has that been
18   implemented, to your knowledge, to any extent in the
19   EAA?
20       A.    Yes.  I mean it's been implemented to some
21   extent.  Exactly how much, I don't know.
22       Q.    Do you have a rough idea of what percentage
23   of the EAA is currently utilizing that?
24       A.    Not the exact percentage, no.
25       Q.    Would you say more than 50 percent or less

                                                 76

 1   than 50?
 2       A.    I would say more than 50 percent on the
 3   plant cane.
 4       Q.    What about vegetable?
 5       A.    I'm not familiar with what the vegetable
 6   growers are doing.
 7       Q.    I believe you earlier indicated that plant
 8   cane makes up about 30 percent of the crop each year.
 9       A.    That's correct.
10       Q.    Are there any negative implications or
11   adverse effects from banding fertilizer to crops and
12   crop yields as opposed to broadcast fertilizing?
13       A.    I think at least for sugar cane, no.
14       Q.    What about for other crops?
15       A.    I wouldn't be familiar with, again, what
16   people are doing specifically in vegetable crops, for
17   instance.
18       Q.    Regardless of your unfamiliarity with the
19   area, have you heard of any negative or adverse
20   effects on yields of vegetable crops from banding
21   versus broadcast fertilizing?
22       A.    No, I have not.
23       Q.    And I would ask the same thing with regard
24   to number 3, which is the prevention of spills and
25   application to open waters.

                                                 77

 1       A.    Uh huh.
 2       Q.    Has that been implemented in the EAA to
 3   your knowledge?
 4       A.    Well, we tend to look at these things as
 5   being common sense, so, you know, if they haven't
 6   been, they should have been and if they -- I mean
 7   maybe this is -- or at least it should make people
 8   more aware of a potential problem and they should be
 9   taking extra care.  Everyone is aware that this is
10   one of the BMPs they should be doing.
11       Q.    As far as preventing spills which would
12   normally come with carelessness or something like
13   that, but what about the applications to water?  I
14   believe I've seen references to altering means of
15   spreading the fertilizer to avoid those open waters.
16   Have those types of techniques been implemented?
17       A.    My understanding is that many of the
18   companies are looking at that and it's going to
19   require some changes in the fertilizer application
20   equipment and I don't know just to what extent that's
21   being done, but I know it's being considered.
22       Q.    Okay.  But you don't know whether it's
23   been -- it's currently being used at this point?
24       A.    No.  I wouldn't know that exactly.
25       Q.    Is it fair to say that all of your

                                                 78

 1   testimony here is related to sugar cane as opposed to
 2   vegetable crops?  I mean do you have enough -- from
 3   what we've been talking about here?
 4       A.    Yes.  It's fair to say.  I can't speak for
 5   the vegetable industry.
 6       Q.    We talked a little bit about this before,
 7   number 4, minimizing water table fluctuations.
 8             Could you again describe to me what you
 9   consider to be the potential adverse effects on plant
10   yield and crops that implementation of this BMP could
11   result in?
12       A.    Well, again, if you anticipate heavy
13   weather, big rains, it would probably behoove you to
14   pump down to a low volume in your canals so you could
15   hold that extra runoff on your farm and be prepared
16   for it.  Whereas if you want to minimize the water
17   table fluctuation and you don't pump down in event or
18   anticipation of a big rain, then you stand the chance
19   if you do get a large rain, having greater flooding
20   potential.
21       Q.    Okay.  And how does -- that relates to what
22   we discussed earlier as far as --
23       A.    Right.
24       Q.    -- if you have elevated water levels that
25   can affect the anaerobic conditions I believe you

                                                 79

 1   said.
 2       A.    That's correct.  It can affect the soil
 3   oxidation and oxygenation.
 4       Q.    What you've relied upon with regard to that
 5   is the one study you referenced before and, I
 6   unfortunately did not locate it, plus the two reports
 7   that were marked as Number 2 and 3?
 8       A.    In part and just my experience and training
 9   as an agronomist.
10       Q.    What other, if there are any other adverse
11   effects from this particular BMP being implemented,
12   would there be other than what you just described,
13   anticipating rainfall and pumping or results of that?
14       A.    Well, we did talk about the possible
15   negative effects on germination you might recall and
16   that's an important one.
17       Q.    Could you please repeat that?
18       A.    What I'm telling you is that if you make a
19   new planting and you have vegetative sets buried in
20   the ground, seed cane, as we call it, the germination
21   of that cane can be affected very greatly by flooded
22   or wet conditions.
23       Q.    What's the result?  I mean how does it
24   affect it?
25       A.    Well, it affects it mainly through two

                                                 80

 1   routes.  One would be that flooded conditions
 2   decrease oxygen content so those young shoots would
 3   be killed when they were inundated.  Another would be
 4   that it raises the propensity for soil born plant
 5   pathogens, fungi especially, and their affect on
 6   germinating seed cane.  These are two very serious
 7   effects.
 8       Q.    What specifically are you relying on or
 9   what have you seen which supports that conclusion?
10       A.    Well, I'm relying, again, on my general
11   training as a sugar cane agronomist, my pathology
12   training, the knowledge I have from the crop from
13   having grown it and worked in that crop for over ten
14   years.  You know, just my general knowledge of the
15   disease spectrum that we have and the problems that
16   are associated with soil born pathogens.
17       Q.    Are you aware of any specific studies or
18   research directed to address that specific issue?
19       A.    Yes.
20       Q.    Okay.  Are they in the documents that
21   you've produced?
22       A.    I don't think there are any specific to
23   that.
24       Q.    Do you have possession of any of those
25   studies?

                                                 81

 1       A.    I -- I'm not sure.
 2       Q.    Is there a vast amount of literature out
 3   there about this or are we talking about a few
 4   isolated studies?
 5       A.    There's a vast amount of literature about
 6   sugar cane pathogens and about soil born diseases in
 7   sugar cane, yes, a vast amount.
 8       Q.    And aside from those general subject
 9   matters, though, about the effects of elevated water
10   and how that results in the pathologies and as far as
11   affecting germination and affecting the other stuff
12   that we talked about which I'm skipping?
13       A.    I would say there's probably a vast amount
14   of research work that's directly applicable to that
15   question.
16       Q.    While we're sitting here can you think of
17   any specific study, recent study that's been done?
18       A.    Yeah.  Dr. Richard Raid recently did a
19   study at the Belle Glade Experiment Station where he
20   looked at the effect on sugar cane germination with
21   respect to pineapple disease which is a soil born
22   fungal disease and it's very much related to wet
23   conditions.
24       Q.    That was the conclusion of that study?
25       A.    That's one of the conclusions, but I mean I

                                                 82

 1   think that was known ahead of time.  It's obvious
 2   from the study that that's true.
 3       Q.    What was his name again, Richard?
 4       A.    Richard Raid, R-a-i-d.
 5       Q.    Who's he associated with?
 6       A.    He's with the University of Florida at the
 7   Belle Glade Experiment Station, plant pathologist.
 8       Q.    The effect on germination, again, that
 9   would -- if we backed that up, it's the same
10   causative effect of the inability to pump down in
11   anticipation of rain and the possible flooding and
12   that's the result of that?
13       A.    That's correct.
14       Q.    Okay.  Is there any negative or adverse
15   effects on crop yields other than eliminating the
16   ability of the agricultural interests to pump down in
17   anticipation of heavy rains?
18       A.    I --
19       Q.    Did you understand that?
20       A.    It was a long question.  I sort of lost
21   you.  If you would, try to repeat it, please.
22       Q.    If this BMP were implemented, I understand
23   what you've described is it prevents the farmers from
24   pumping down the water level in anticipation of the
25   heavy rain.

                                                 83

 1       A.    That's correct.
 2       Q.    Is there any -- and because of that if
 3   there is a heavy rain it can increase the water
 4   levels to the extent that it causes these problems
 5   that you've discussed.
 6       A.    Right.
 7       Q.    My question, then, is there any other
 8   problem with implementation of this BMP or potential
 9   problem other than restricting the ability of the
10   farmer to drain down the water in anticipation of
11   heavier rains?
12       A.    Well, I think, yes, that there probably are
13   some potential problems, other potential problems.
14       Q.    Can you tell me what they are?
15       A.    Well, one might be with getting machinery
16   and cultivation equipment into and out of the field
17   because it's going to make the conditions wetter.
18   There's a chance that it will.
19       Q.    Well, again, this relates to -- you're
20   assuming, then, that the heavy rains come and create
21   the elevated water levels.  I guess maybe my question
22   isn't phrased very well.
23             Is there any adverse effect on crops or
24   crop yield that results from the maintaining or even
25   minimizing the water table fluctuation in and of

                                                 84

 1   itself?
 2       A.    I don't know that.
 3       Q.    Did you understand my question?
 4       A.    Yeah.  I think I understand your question
 5   and I don't think so because -- you are asking
 6   specifically about fluctuation?
 7       Q.    Right.
 8             In other words, if -- I mean do the plants
 9   or crops respond better to the fact that the water
10   does fluctuate over time for whatever reason as
11   opposed to maintaining steady, assuming we don't have
12   the heavy rains coming in?
13       A.    I don't have data, you know, to answer
14   that.  I don't know the answer to that.
15       Q.    The studies that you've referenced with
16   regard to the effects on germination, you indicated
17   there was a vast amount of literature concerning --
18   maybe I didn't get this clearly.  What was it
19   concerning, the increased ability of the pathogens to
20   get to the seedlings or is it due to the decrease in
21   O2 which can kill the shoots or both or --
22       A.    I don't remember your original question to
23   answer that.
24       Q.    Well, let me ask it.
25             The Richard Raid report that you referenced --

                                                 85

 1       A.    Right.
 2       Q.    -- you indicated that supported the
 3   conclusion that the elevated or wet -- elevated water
 4   level or wet conditions can have an adverse effect on
 5   germination, specifically, I believe, the pathogens
 6   attacking the cane.
 7       A.    That's correct.
 8       Q.    Okay.  Would that report also support the
 9   proposition that the wet conditions decrease the O2,
10   the oxygen level?
11       A.    I don't know if it would support it or not.
12   I've never actually read the paper.  I've only heard
13   Richard make a presentation on it.
14       Q.    Is there a substantial amount of literature
15   concerning this specific issue which would link the
16   wet conditions to the decrease in oxygen affecting
17   the shoots?
18       A.    I think there would be a substantial
19   amount, yes.
20       Q.    Are you familiar with any specific study
21   that you could refer me to, recent study?
22       A.    No.  Not right offhand.
23       Q.    Are you aware if there was any such study
24   in the documents you provided?
25       A.    Actually, I am.  I want to recant that and

                                                 86

 1   say that I am familiar with at least one.
 2       Q.    Can you tell me what that was?
 3       A.    That was the Deren study and I think I
 4   mentioned it to you, but I haven't seen it, taken it
 5   out and looked at it, produced it.
 6       Q.    Do you how spell Deren?
 7       A.    D-e-r-e-n.
 8       Q.    All right.  Any other adverse effects from
 9   the potential elevated water from the rainstorm other
10   than what you've mentioned so far?
11       A.    There may be others.  I don't know of any
12   right offhand.
13       Q.    Number 5 of the BMPs is the retention of
14   on-farm drainage.  Again, we discussed this for
15   awhile.  I believe this is the way it's phrased here
16   is moving the water around in the various fields.
17       A.    Uh huh.
18       Q.    What, if any, are the adverse effects of
19   implementation of this BMP on crop yields or crops?
20       A.    Well, again, I think what he's talking
21   about here is keeping more water on the farm than you
22   might normally under past operating conditions.  So
23   if you're retaining more water, you're elevating the
24   water tables and you're running the chance of
25   increasing your risk of flood and --

                                                 87

 1       Q.    So it would be the same concerns with
 2   regard to the other BMPs?
 3       A.    Sure.
 4       Q.    What about number 6, where we're talking
 5   about moving vegetable field drainage water into
 6   sugar cane or fallow lands?  Would that involve the
 7   same concerns again?
 8       A.    Yes.
 9       Q.    Any additional concerns other than what
10   we've already talked about?
11       A.    With number 6 specifically?
12       Q.    Right.  Or number 5 if we haven't
13   previously mentioned it.
14       A.    Well, I think in number 6 we're making an
15   assumption we're going to be able to use all of the
16   water, for instance, that we remove from vegetable
17   fields, that we'll be able to use it all on cane and
18   we probably would be able to do that.
19       Q.    Would be able to do that?
20       A.    I think so.  I mean it's going -- a lot is
21   going to depend on the variables that are involved.
22   Weather is probably the most important.
23       Q.    Okay.  Let's look at BMP number 7 which is
24   the aquatic cover crop.  What, if any, adverse
25   effects on crop yields would implementation of that

                                                 88

 1   BMP have?
 2       A.    Well, this is something that's being done
 3   now and, as far as I know, there are no adverse
 4   effects on sugar cane from growing a rice crop.
 5       Q.    Do you know what percentage of the EAA is
 6   currently implementing this particular BMP?
 7       A.    We're talking about aquatic crops here?
 8       Q.    Right.
 9       A.    I can't give it to you percentage wise.  I
10   know we have about somewhere on the order of 24,000
11   acres of rice this past year, I believe.
12       Q.    Are there any adverse effects on the soil
13   itself from planting the aquatic cover crop, the rice
14   as opposed to leaving the field fallow?
15       A.    No, there are not.
16       Q.    Between -- do you know what the total
17   acreage in the EAA is that is devoted to sugar cane?
18       A.    Yes.
19       Q.    What is that?
20       A.    It's approximately 440,000 acres.
21       Q.    Okay.  And of that 440,000 acres, do you
22   know how much in a given growing season is not
23   devoted to growing cane during that time period?
24       A.    Well, it depends on a farmer's rotation and
25   how much fallow land he chooses to keep.  But it's

                                                 89

 1   usually somewhere on any given farm between 10 and 20
 2   percent of the land is either in rotation, fallow or,
 3   you know, in another crop.  In rotation or fallow, 10
 4   to 20 percent, somewhere in that range.
 5       Q.    Do you know currently how much -- when you
 6   mention the 24,000 acres of rice that is currently
 7   planted, is that the entire EAA?
 8       A.    Yes.
 9       Q.    Do you know how many acres of the EAA are
10   currently, on a given growing season, left fallow?
11       A.    No.  No, I don't.
12       Q.    Do you know if that information is
13   available anywhere?
14       A.    No, I don't.  I imagine it would probably
15   be, you know, known by each company individually, but
16   I don't know if anybody has a compile (sic) for the
17   entire EAA.
18       Q.    Do you have any feeling for the general
19   break down?  You have said 10 to 20 percent is either
20   in rotation or fallow generally.
21       A.    Right.
22       Q.    Of that 10 to 20 percent, do you have any
23   estimation of how much of that would be fallow versus
24   in rotation?
25       A.    No.  I don't have the exact numbers and I

                                                 90

 1   wouldn't want to guess at that.
 2       Q.    I'd like to back up a second to number 4,
 3   the minimizing the water table fluctuations.
 4       A.    Okay.
 5       Q.    Do you know if that BMP has been
 6   implemented to any extent in the EAA?
 7       A.    I don't know to what extent it's been
 8   implemented.  I believe that a lot of growers are
 9   doing this and that it's probably going to be an
10   important part of their BMP plans that they're
11   submitting in their permits.  Because, again, I feel
12   like this is a very important BMP.
13       Q.    When you say it's important, what do you
14   mean by important?
15       A.    Well, what I mean is that it has a P
16   reduction potential here, according to this, to
17   reduce phosphorous losses by up to 50 percent, so
18   it's a significant BMP.
19       Q.    Okay.  So when you say important, you mean
20   in the sense that this is a high potential for
21   reduction of phosphorus?
22       A.    That's correct.  And I think it's
23   implemental by most growers.
24       Q.    What about -- I think we can talk about
25   these together -- number 5 and number 6?  Do you know

                                                 91

 1   if those are currently being implemented?
 2       A.    Yeah.  My belief is that those are being
 3   implemented where they can be.
 4       Q.    Do you have any information as to the
 5   quantity?
 6       A.    No.  You know, I've never tried to quantify
 7   how much of it is being done.  I know some of it is
 8   being done here and there.
 9       Q.    Okay.  And then number 8, the on-farm
10   retention ponds --
11       A.    Uh huh.
12       Q.    -- we discussed that previously before?
13       A.    Right.
14       Q.    Do you know whether that is being
15   implemented to any extent within the EAA?
16       A.    Within the EAA, no, not to any appreciable
17   extent.
18       Q.    Are you aware of it being implemented
19   somewhere else?
20       A.    I think outside the EAA right now,
21   especially in the citrus industry, it's being
22   implemented on a pretty grand scale.
23       Q.    What locations?
24       A.    Well, I mean citrus has moved down to
25   southwest Florida and growers I've seen in that area

                                                 92

 1   almost invariably have some sort of a retention pond.
 2       Q.    Are you aware of any studies that have been
 3   looking into the effects or the data that's been
 4   collected through the citrus growers' use of those
 5   retention ponds?
 6       A.    Yes.
 7       Q.    Who's doing that research?
 8       A.    IFAS is doing it in cooperation with the
 9   South Florida Water Management District.
10       Q.    Do you know what the status of that is?
11       A.    Actually, at this particular time, I
12   haven't checked on the status of it in well over six
13   months.  I have been meaning to touch base with the
14   people who are doing it and to have a look at what's
15   going on.  I don't know if the re -- what reports
16   have been produced to this point.
17       Q.    The last time you checked in on it had any
18   conclusions or anything been reached at that point?
19       A.    Again, it's been a long while back, but, as
20   I recall, they were starting to put the data together
21   and they indicated that it wouldn't be long until
22   they had some conclusions to put forth.
23       Q.    All right.  But you are not aware of any
24   conclusions that may have been reached?
25       A.    I haven't seen anything in print from it.

                                                 93

 1       Q.    Can you tell me what the adverse effects on
 2   plant yields or crops that would occur through
 3   implementation of the on-farm retention ponds?
 4       A.    No.  I've never discussed that particular
 5   issue with anyone, but, obviously, we couldn't grow a
 6   crop in the retention pond, so --
 7       Q.    So it takes land out of available --
 8       A.    Production, sure.
 9       Q.    Anything else that you're aware of?
10       A.    No.
11       Q.    Okay.  Finally, number 9 deals with
12   coordinating the farm cropping patterns.
13             Do you have any knowledge as to whether
14   that has been or is being implemented currently in
15   the EAA?
16       A.    I think growers who have diversified
17   farming, meaning they're growing vegetables and cane
18   among other crops, are taking a strong look at this
19   and, yes, they are implementing it.
20       Q.    Is it your understanding that this
21   particular BMP relates to a farm basis as opposed to
22   a farm to farm basis?  Do you understand what I'm
23   saying?
24       A.    Well, I think I understand you.  Maybe
25   rephrase it if you would, please.

                                                 94

 1       Q.    Okay.  Do you understand this BMP to refer
 2   to crop -- to coordinating crop patterns on a single
 3   farm versus coordinating crop patterns in the EAA
 4   generally?
 5       A.    I think it refers to both.
 6       Q.    Are you aware of any adverse effects
 7   implementation of coordinating these crop patterns
 8   would have on crop yields?
 9       A.    No.  I haven't given it much thought and
10   I'm not aware of any particular problems that have
11   arisen as a result of that BMP at this point.
12       Q.    You had mentioned that you believe that
13   some of the farmers who have multiple crops are
14   looking at this very closely.  Is that right?
15       A.    Yes.  That's correct.
16       Q.    Are you aware of any activity or
17   discussions amongst the various farmers as far as
18   implementing a coordinating cropping pattern on the
19   adjacent farms to take -- make use of these various
20   BMPs?
21       A.    My belief is farmers are probably doing
22   that, but I've never been privy to such discussions.
23       Q.    Are you aware of if -- or whether or not
24   any master permits have been applied for under the
25   40E-63 rule?

                                                 95

 1       A.    I'm not sure.
 2       Q.    Have you heard that there might have been?
 3       A.    You know, I've heard -- I've heard the
 4   term, "master permits," so I imagine it was
 5   considered at some point by growers.
 6       Q.    But you have not been involved at all in
 7   that?
 8       A.    I have not been involved in the actual
 9   permit procession or advising growers on how they
10   should write their permits.
11       Q.    Is there someone at the League who is
12   handling something like that or advising its members
13   on permitting conditions?
14       A.    Within the staff of the League, is that
15   what you're referring to?
16       Q.    Yes.
17       A.    No.  Not right now.
18             (The document was marked Exb. No. 7.)
19   BY MR. NETTLETON:
20       Q.    Exhibit Number 7 has been handed to you.
21   Are you familiar with that document?
22       A.    May I peruse it momentarily?
23       Q.    Uh huh.
24       A.    It seems like I may have seen this, yes.
25       Q.    Do you recall how it came into your

                                                 96

 1   possession?
 2       A.    No, I don't.  But I do recall, I think,
 3   having seen it at some point.
 4       Q.    Do you know the purpose for which this
 5   document was created?
 6       A.    I'd have to look at it again real quickly,
 7   but --
 8       Q.    Why don't you go ahead and do that and
 9   maybe it will jog your memory.
10       A.    Okay.
11       Q.    Do you recall --
12       A.    Here's the problem is that, you know, I've
13   seen so many documents like this that it's really
14   hard for me to recall having sat down and read this
15   particular document.  I think I've seen it, but,
16   again, I mean I've seen these BMPs that are listed
17   here on page 3, the IFAS BMPs listed in 50 different
18   documents, so to swear that I read this and when I
19   read it, I -- I couldn't tell you when or where or
20   for sure but I think I've seen it.
21       Q.    Do you know where this came from?
22       A.    No, I don't.  I see Del Bottcher's name on
23   it.
24       Q.    Do you know why this document was created?
25       A.    I have no idea.

                                                 97

 1       Q.    Do you recall when you may have received
 2   it?
 3       A.    No.  Again, you know, it's just sometimes
 4   my life seems like a blur of documents to me,
 5   honestly.
 6       Q.    I don't think you're alone with that one.
 7             Would you turn to page 5 of that document,
 8   Exhibit Number 7.
 9       A.    You are talking about this document?
10       Q.    Yes.  Exhibit Number 7.
11       A.    I have page 5, but I don't see -- I'm
12   sorry.
13       Q.    This is Exhibit 7.
14       A.    I was confused.  Pardon me.
15       Q.    There's a reference in this first paragraph
16   here to Del Bottcher's conclusion that, "BMPs can
17   only impact regional water supply if they increase
18   evapotranspiration from the farm."
19             Do you agree with that?
20       A.    Let me read it again, please.
21             Where are you reading specifically?
22       Q.    (Indicates.)
23       A.    Okay.  You're asking me if I agree with --
24   with that specific sentence?
25       Q.    Right.

                                                 98

 1       A.    Well, I'd have to say that's probably true.
 2   You know, Del's making some assumptions here.  I'd
 3   have to think about it some more to give you a fully
 4   definitive answer, but it seems like a logical, you
 5   know, logical thought on his part.
 6       Q.    Okay.  The next sentence indicates that,
 7   "ET is not expected to increase significantly for any
 8   of the proposed BMPs."
 9       A.    Right.  That's the assumption that he's
10   making that I'm talking about.
11       Q.    Okay.  Do you have -- do you disagree with
12   that assumption?
13       A.    I don't disagree or agree with it.  I
14   haven't given it enough thought.  The calculation of
15   evapotranspiration is very complicated.  There are
16   different methods and means of doing it.  Del being a
17   hydrologist, this is his area of expertise, not mine.
18   I'm not going to speculate on that.
19       Q.    Okay.  All right.  The remainder of this
20   paragraph poses the rhetorical question and then
21   answers it that, "Where is the water that is no
22   longer being pumped?"  And answers, "It is in Lake
23   Okeechobee."  Due to the reduced drainage through
24   implementation of BMPs there's not as much need to
25   import the water from the lake for irrigation

                                                 99

 1   purposes.
 2             Do you agree with that?
 3       A.    Again, it seems logical.
 4             (The document was marked Exb. No. 8.)
 5   BY MR. NETTLETON:
 6       Q.    Exhibit Number 8 purports to be a
 7   memorandum with your note head and attached to it is
 8   a -- some documents entitled, A Strategy to
 9   Revitalize the Everglades and Preserve Farming.
10             First, I'd just like to ask you on the
11   cover memo, who the individuals are that this was
12   addressed to?
13       A.    Are you saying these two documents -- this
14   and this document are related?
15       Q.    That's the way I received them.  Are you
16   saying they're not related?
17       A.    I'm not sure.  Looking at my note I would
18   say no.
19       Q.    Okay.  Why do you say that?
20       A.    Well, it says Lynch Report Draft.
21       Q.    Who is Lynch?
22       A.    He's an IFAS scientist.
23       Q.    Do you recall any draft report by Lynch
24   that you might have been referring to?
25       A.    Yes.

                                                 100

 1       Q.    What report would that be?
 2       A.    He did an early report on the -- I believe
 3   it was the economic cost of implementing BMPs, the
 4   IFAS BMPs and -- yeah.
 5       Q.    Okay.  All right.  So you don't think this
 6   memorandum goes along with the attachment?
 7       A.    That's correct.
 8       Q.    Okay.
 9             MR. ROSENBERG:  Is your question still on
10        the table as to who these people are?  Is that
11        still pending?
12             MR. NETTLETON:  It's coming back on the
13        table.
14   BY MR. NETTLETON:
15       Q.    Can you just identify for me who the
16   individuals are that this memo is addressed to?
17       A.    Yes.  Hank Andreis is Vice President --
18   Senior Vice President in charge of research for
19   United States Sugar Corporation.  Raul Perdomo is
20   Director of Agricultural Research for Okeelanta
21   Corporation.  Mark Howell is -- actually, I'm not
22   sure what his title is, but he's with A Duda & Sons,
23   Incorporated at their Belle Glade facility.  Modesto
24   Ulloa is an agronomist with the Osceola company,
25   although I think he may be with New Hope now.  And

                                                 101

 1   Ellen Wine is with South Bay Growers, Incorporated.
 2       Q.    Do you know what her position is there?
 3       A.    No.  I may have at one point, but I can't
 4   recall now what her position is.
 5             MR. NETTLETON:  What I'd like to do, since
 6        you indicated that Exhibit Number 8 at least,
 7        which we've marked the cover memo is not related
 8        to the underlying, I'd like to remove it and
 9        we'll mark the underlying document as Exhibit
10        Number 9.
11             (The document was marked Exb. No. 9.)
12   BY MR. NETTLETON:
13       Q.    Okay.  Now marked as Exhibit Number 9 is a
14   document entitled, A Strategy to Revitalize the
15   Everglades and Preserve Farming.
16             Are you familiar with this document?
17       A.    Yes, I am.
18       Q.    Do you recall when this presentation was
19   made to the District, South Florida Water Management
20   District?
21       A.    I don't recall the exact date.  I remember
22   it was made somewhere probably within the last 12
23   months.
24       Q.    Do you recall whether this was before or
25   after the District approved the SWIM Plan?

                                                 102

 1       A.    I would be guessing.  I don't remember
 2       Q.    Would the reference that the SWIM Plan --
 3       A.    I would believe it's probably before,
 4   though.
 5       Q.    You believe it was before --
 6       A.    Yeah.
 7       Q.    -- March 13, 1992?
 8       A.    Again, I'm not positive.
 9       Q.    Okay.  What involvement, if any, did you
10   have in preparing this presentation of the program?
11       A.    I did not prepare this presentation.
12       Q.    What involvement did you have, if any?
13       A.    You know, I heard this presentation pre.
14       Q.    Pre-presentation?
15       A.    Yeah.  Before it was presented at the
16   District and I guess I had a chance to comment on it,
17   but I don't recall having made any comments.
18       Q.    Okay.  Did you have any substantive input
19   into the contents of this program?
20       A.    No.  No, I did not.
21       Q.    Do you recall how long before it was
22   presented to the District that you saw it presented?
23       A.    No.  Not specifically.  You know, you're
24   asking me to nail things down to days and hours and I
25   can't do this on this.

                                                 103

 1       Q.    I'm asking your best estimate.  Are you
 2   talking about a month before it was presented or
 3   couple days?
 4       A.    Again, I'd be guessing.  I don't remember.
 5       Q.    What was the purpose of your being present
 6   when this was presented prior to it being presented
 7   to the District?
 8       A.    Well, as a staff member of the League, I'm
 9   often present and invited to all our meetings, so I'm
10   thereto listen.  I'm there to make comment if I feel
11   it's appropriate and I'm there for edification.
12       Q.    Who else was present at this presentation
13   that you attended?
14       A.    You know, I can't even tell you if there
15   was just one.  There may have been more.  To name
16   people, again, I'd be -- you know, it's like asking
17   me to try to compress something that's very large and
18   spread out over a long period of time.  It's
19   difficult for me to do that.  My memory is not that
20   wonderful.
21       Q.    Well, do you think you attended more than
22   one presentation of this program?
23       A.    You know, I think over the development --
24   over the time we took developing this plan, there
25   were many meetings involved.

                                                 104

 1       Q.    Okay.
 2       A.    I was at some of them and some of them I
 3   was not at.  When it finally came together as this
 4   presentation I do remember seeing it.  I don't
 5   remember if I saw it once or twice or three times or
 6   however many before it was presented to the Governing
 7   Board of the District.  I do recall having been there
 8   for that presentation to the Governing Board.
 9       Q.    Do you recall how long this thing was in
10   the works before it was presented?
11       A.    Well, you know, if you back up and say,
12   look at Phase I of this plan, we even have the IFAS
13   recommendations in there as part of this plan, so
14   when you talk about the development of this plan, it
15   goes back a long way, because it incorporates
16   research that was started five and six years ago, so --
17       Q.    Okay.
18       A.    -- it's been an ongoing process.
19       Q.    What were the purposes of the presentations
20   that were given in-house?  Would that be the correct
21   term?  What were the purposes of those?
22       A.    The purposes of it was to discuss the ideas
23   among ourselves that we had, the evidence and
24   research that backs up those ideas; to discuss
25   whether or not we wanted to disclose certain other

                                                 105

 1   ideas that we may have had at the time or not and,
 2   you know, to go over it and to make sure that it made
 3   sense to us and that it was a good reflection of all
 4   the thought we had put into it over time before we
 5   brought it out into the public and presented it to
 6   the Governing Board as an alternative to building the
 7   STAs.  We wanted it to be well thought out.
 8       Q.    You mention to -- one of the reasons was to
 9   discuss whether to disclose certain ideas.  Why would
10   you not disclose a particular idea?
11       A.    Well, we've looked at a lot of different
12   alternatives.  We've, you know, never refused to look
13   at any possible means or method that may be available
14   to reduce phosphorus on our farms ourselves.  But,
15   n