240 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 III 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 - - - Thursday January 21, 1993 22 319 Clematis Street, 5th Floor West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 23 9:10 a.m. - 12:12 p.m. - - - 241 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 - - - 242 1 - - - 2 I N D E X 3 - - - 4 5 WITNESS: DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS 6 John Dunckelman, Ph.D. 7 BY MR. NETTLETON 244 359 8 BY MR. ROSENBERG 298 243 1 E X H I B I T S 2 NUMBER PAGE 3 EXB. NO. 20 272 4 Letter from Dunckelman & Rosendahl 5 dated 9-16-91 to Izuno 6 EXB. NO. 21 298 7 Paper: Farmers' Alternative to State 8 Everglades Proposal 5-27-92 9 EXB. NO. 22 277 10 Economic Impact Statement for Chapter 11 40E-63: EAA Regulatory Program April 1992 12 EXB. NO. 23 277 13 Economic Impact Statement for Chapter 14 40E-63: Works of the District Oct. 1991 15 EXB. NO. 24 278 16 Presentation by Dr. Leo Polopolus 8-13-92 17 EXB. NO. 25 285 18 Proposal by Dr. Russell B. Rader 19 EXB. NO. 26 291 20 Duke University letter 8-28-90 21 EXB. NO. 27 362 22 Paper: Screening for and heritability of 23 flood-tolerance in the Florida (CP) sugar 24 cane breeding population 244 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. Good morning, Dr. Dunckelman. 6 A. Good morning. 7 Q. I'd like to go back to an area we discussed 8 yesterday and make sure that I have correctly 9 understood some of the opinions you have expressed. 10 If you can refer first to Exhibit Number 4, which is 11 the excerpt from the SWIM Plan and specifically pages 12 113 and 114 where the BMPs are listed. 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. For ease of reference I'm going to refer to 15 them by number. Am I correct that it is your opinion 16 that with regard to the BMPs numbered 1, 2, 3, 7 and 17 9 that, assuming those are properly implemented, that 18 there should be no adverse effect on crop yields, 19 crops, farming practice with regard to those 20 particular BMPs? 21 A. 1, 2, 3, 7 and 9, is that right? 22 Q. Right. 23 A. I'm looking at them. Yes. 24 Q. Okay. Am I also correct that it is your 25 opinion that with regard to BMPs 4, 5 and 6 that, 245 1 because those BMPs require the retention of water 2 on-farm, that this creates a risk of adverse effects 3 on crops or crop yields in the event of bad weather, 4 heavy rains which could raise the water level, water 5 table and even possibly create flooding? 6 A. Yes. I think that it increases the risk. 7 Q. Well, am I also correct that you have not 8 done any analysis to quantify the variability of the 9 risk? 10 A. No. I have not done that. 11 Q. Okay. Have you seen any research or 12 reports that have attempted to quantify this risk? 13 A. Not that I can recall right now. 14 Q. Are you aware of any research that's been 15 conducted or is going on or any analysis by anyone 16 who is attempting to quantify the risk attributable 17 to implementation of these water management BMPs, 4, 18 5 and 6? 19 A. I'm not personally aware of any research 20 ongoing right now that's looking at the effect of 21 elevated water table on sugar cane. I'm not 22 personally aware of any. 23 Q. Okay. Are you aware of any research, 24 whether going on now or previously done or analysis 25 that has been done by anyone concerning an attempt to 246 1 quantify, to give us some numbers of the amount of 2 risk that's involved with regard to the 3 implementation of these BMPs? 4 A. With regard to the implementation of these 5 BMPs in the Everglades Agricultural Area on muck 6 soils I'm not aware of any. 7 Q. Okay. Is it also -- am I correct that it 8 is your opinion that in the event of a heavy rain 9 situation where the implementation of these BMPs 4, 5 10 or 6, that the result could adversely affect crops or 11 crop yields and I believe you identified three ways, 12 if my notes are correct, adversely affecting 13 germination, decreasing the oxygen which could kill 14 shoots and increasing the ability of the pathogens to 15 attack the crops and I think you especially mentioned 16 the fungus. Is that correct? 17 A. That's correct. 18 Q. Are there any other ways other than those 19 three that were mentioned that you have an opinion 20 that elevated water level could adversely affect the 21 crops or crop yield? 22 A. Well, certainly it could possibly reduce 23 rooting volume -- root volume or the ability of the 24 plant to root. The plant will not root -- sugar cane 25 will not root into areas where there is no oxygen, so 247 1 if you elevate that water table, you would expect the 2 plant to have a somewhat shallower root system and 3 this could be injurious, especially from the 4 standpoint of harvesting. 5 Q. Okay. How is that injurious? 6 A. Well, if you have a reduced root volume 7 your plant is not going to be anchored as well and so 8 when you come into the field with machinery, there's 9 a possibility that you could uproot more of the 10 stubbles or ratoons that you need for the regrowth of 11 the ratoon crops, so that is a concern, I believe. 12 Q. As far as the reduction of the root volume 13 area is that, though, specifically related to 14 decrease in the oxygen that's available to the roots? 15 A. That's related to that, yes. 16 Q. Can you explain how the increased water 17 level or elevated water table adversely affects 18 germination? 19 A. Yes. Because what it causes is your -- is 20 a chance of having wetter conditions at germination, 21 especially during periods of rain, so plants need 22 water to germinate. They also need oxygen and if you 23 get flooding at germination for short periods of time 24 when the seed cane sets or the mother stalks that are 25 in the ground to give rise to the plant crop or the 248 1 first new crop from a planting, those are very 2 sensitive to flooding. So if you have cane that has 3 just sprouted and just germinated and the shoots are 4 very small and they are inundated it will kill them 5 in a relatively short period of time. So a risk of 6 flooding during the period when cane is being planted 7 is very serious. 8 Q. Okay. And is that, again, related to the 9 decrease in the oxygen? 10 A. Yes, decrease in oxygen. 11 Q. Can you explain how an elevated water table 12 increases the ability of the pathogens to attack the 13 crop? 14 A. Well, because many pathogens, especially 15 fungi, require wet conditions for spore germination. 16 It also affects soil temperatures. Wetness affects 17 temperature and temperature has a big effect on spore 18 germination in fungal pathogens. Some like cooler 19 temperatures. Some like warmer. Water definitely 20 has an effect on soil temperature. 21 Q. How does it affect the soil temperature? 22 A. Soils are generally going to stay cooler 23 longer if you have cool nights than dry soils would. 24 Q. And what particular fungi prefer cool soils 25 versus warm soils? Is there a break down? 249 1 A. The particular one we were discussing 2 yesterday, the pineapple disease pathogen, it likes 3 cool temperatures and most fungal pathogens like wet -- 4 wetness for spore germination, vast majority of them. 5 Q. Okay. I think you may have just done this. 6 I was going to ask you to explain how the decrease in 7 oxygen kills the shoots, but was that related, again, 8 to what you just described as far as the germination? 9 A. Yeah. I mean, you know, are you talking 10 about the germinating or are you talking about mature 11 stems? 12 Q. Well, does it affect both? 13 A. Well, especially if there's inundation of 14 very small shoots during the germination period, that 15 can be very serious. Larger stems that can keep 16 their canopy, the top growth out of water, they have 17 a much better chance of withstanding a flood than a 18 new planting that has just germinated. Then, again, 19 it depends on the depth of the flood and the duration 20 of that flood. 21 Q. Now, yesterday when we were discussing 22 these opinions, you identified a number of different 23 studies, but am I correct that you're basing your 24 opinions here today -- or you're not relying 25 specifically on any of those studies, but you are 250 1 relying on your own general knowledge, background and 2 experience in the field? 3 A. I'm relying on both. 4 Q. Okay. The specific -- you're also relying 5 upon the specific studies that we discussed 6 yesterday? 7 A. I'm relying partially on those, yes. 8 Q. Other than the research reflected in the 9 studies that we marked yesterday as Exhibits 2 and 3, 10 which you were a coauthor on, have you been 11 personally involved in any other research or studies 12 or author or coauthored any other papers which 13 concern the effects of elevated water table on 14 farming practices, crop yields or crops? 15 A. No, I have not. 16 Q. And, just for the record, other than the 17 two that we had marked, you had also identified a 18 report by Deren? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. And I would just like to ask you if -- I'm 21 going to read off of the bibliography here to just 22 see if this is the correct citation. It's a report 23 by Deren, Snyder, Miller and Porter 1991 entitled, 24 Screening for and heritability of flood-tolerance in 25 Florida (CP) sugar cane breeding population. Is that 251 1 the proper one? 2 A. From Euphytica. 3 Q. Okay. 4 A. Yes. That's it. 5 Q. This was published in the Netherlands? 6 A. Euphytica, I believe, is, yes. It's a 7 Dutch publication, Kluwer Publishers. 8 Q. Where was that research conducted? 9 A. It was conducted at Belle Glade, Florida. 10 Q. And I believe you also mentioned a study or 11 research that was done by Richard Raid at Belle 12 Glade. 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. He's with IFAS? 15 A. Yes. That's correct. 16 Q. And that had to do with the pineapple 17 fungus? 18 A. Pineapple disease, fungus. 19 Q. Do you know if there's an actual report 20 resulting from that research? 21 A. I'm not positive. I believe there is. 22 Q. Okay. What specifically have you seen that 23 you were relying upon? 24 A. I've heard Dr. Raid make a presentation on 25 his work concerning that pathogen before a group of 252 1 scientists. 2 Q. But you have not actually read a report? 3 A. No. I have not read his report, if there 4 is one. 5 Q. Where was this presentation made? 6 A. I believe, to the best of my recollection, 7 that it was made before the American Society of Sugar 8 Cane Technologists Florida Division meeting and it 9 was held at the Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative, 10 Florida. 11 Q. Do you recall when that was? 12 A. I believe it was 1991. 13 Q. Were there materials handed out at the 14 presentation? 15 A. I don't recall if he handed out materials 16 specifically about that experimentation. 17 Q. Were there -- was the data discussed? 18 A. The data was discussed in an oral 19 presentation that he gave with slides. 20 Q. To your knowledge, do you have copies of 21 any of this data or reports or anything else that 22 relates to this research? 23 A. No. I don't have any reprints of an 24 article that he may have published on it unless it's 25 in the proceedings of ASSCT. 253 1 Q. What is ASSCT? 2 A. The American Society of Sugar Cane 3 Technologists. 4 Q. I'd like to refer to Exhibit Number 2, 5 which is an article entitled, The Effect of Row 6 Spacing and Subsurface Drainage on Sugar Cane Yields. 7 And you are a coauthor of this? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Isn't it true that this report or analysis 10 in this report found that there was no effect on 11 plant cane or the first ratoon crop by the elevated 12 water levels? 13 A. There's no significant effect, that is 14 correct. No statistically significant effect in 15 plant crop or in the first ratoon crop on yield as 16 tons per hectare. 17 Q. Now, the report does find a statistically 18 significant difference with regard to the second 19 ratoon crop, is that right? 20 A. That's correct. A quite large one. 21 Q. Now, is this a statistical correlation as 22 opposed to an experiment to determine actual 23 causation? 24 A. I don't quite understand your question and 25 I have had some training in statistics and I'm not 254 1 sure you're phraseology there is correct. 2 Q. Okay. Well, let me try to correct it and 3 if I get it wrong again, you can tell me. 4 Does the statistical correlation that was 5 found with regard to the second ratoon crop here lead 6 to the conclusion that the elevated water levels were 7 the actual causal effect in the reduced yields? 8 A. We didn't use correlation analysis in this 9 experimentation. 10 Q. What did you do? 11 A. We used analysis of variants. 12 Q. Can you describe how that works? 13 A. Well, basically what you do is you design 14 the experiment, set up your hypothesis and then you 15 test the amount of measured variation among the 16 treatments against the error variation in the 17 experiment and if the treatment differences are 18 unexplainable simply by the error, then they're 19 declared to be significant at a certain F value which 20 is the ratio of the variants of error to the 21 treatment differences. 22 That's what we did here. We declared that 23 this difference in second ratoon was significant and 24 I think the important overriding fact to look at here 25 is that the -- in the combined analysis where we 255 1 combined the yields from all 38 different crops 2 together, that difference is significant. So what 3 this tells you is that in a normal cropping cycle you 4 can have a statistically significant difference, 5 therefore a important difference in the overall 6 productivity of that crop if you take it through the 7 whole cycle. 8 Q. Okay. Well, with regard to Exhibit Number 9 2, I don't believe there was any attempt, was there, 10 to combine the three crops? 11 A. Yes, there is. You'll notice underneath in 12 Table 1 where it says, "Average three year crop 13 cycle." We're on Exhibit 2. 14 Q. What page is that on? 15 A. I thought we were looking at Exhibit 2. 16 Q. You are right. 17 A. Here. Under the, "Average of the three 18 year crop cycle," you can see that in the first 19 column where we're comparing tons of cane per hectare 20 on the three year crop cycle there's a significant 21 difference in tonnage. 22 Q. Now, this research or study -- let me back 23 up to the significant difference that you found, in 24 your opinion, as a scientist. 25 Do you consider that as establishing that 256 1 the elevated water level was a causal effect? 2 A. Yes. That's what this experiment showed, 3 was that the drained versus the undrained treatment 4 was statistically significantly different over the 5 crop cycle for tons of cane per hectare. 6 Q. And, in your opinion, that equates with 7 determining causal effect? 8 A. That's exactly right. 9 Q. On page 5 of the study the last sentence 10 before the heading Spacing seems to indicate that 11 this was the first experiment of this nature which 12 collected data under these types of control 13 conditions. Is that correct, to the best of your 14 knowledge? 15 A. I participated in, as I recall, at least 16 two experiments that we did in these plots and there 17 may have been more before and after the ones that I 18 was involved in, so I can't tell you. If this 19 article publication says that this is the first 20 experiment then that's true. 21 Q. Do you feel that there was any possible 22 confounding effects of the results with regard to the 23 second ratoon crop created possibly by the means by 24 which the crop was harvested over the period of time 25 the three different crops were taken? 257 1 A. That's difficult to say. There's usually 2 some confounding effects in any experiment that you 3 do, especially in field experimentation, but the 4 whole point of experimentation and design of 5 experiments is to control the error, so we feel that 6 the treatment differences that we show between 7 drained and undrained are significant and that that 8 is the causal effect of the difference. 9 Q. Again, speaking of causal effect here, this 10 study did not seek to determine the actual condition 11 created by the elevated water level which caused the 12 reduction in yield, did it? 13 A. As I recall, we took quite a number of data 14 in this experiment including stalk diameters, stalk 15 lengths. We also measured redox potential in the 16 soil at different depths using electrical conductives 17 and electrodes buried at different depths. We also 18 looked at water table elevation effects very 19 carefully through the use of Penman chart recorders. 20 Q. Can you describe what redox is? 21 A. It's the oxidation reduction potential of 22 elements found in the soil including iron, aluminum 23 and other metallic elements which change according to 24 their oxygenation state. 25 Q. What does redox data show you? 258 1 A. I don't think we presented redox data in 2 this particular publication and I don't, you know, 3 have those data to go along with their experiment, 4 but basically what the redox data would tell you is 5 the state of oxygenation at any given level for 6 which -- in the soil profile for which we were 7 measuring it and that's directly related to the 8 deoxygenation as a cause of elevated water table. 9 Q. Okay. But in this study there's no attempt 10 to use the data concerning oxygen levels and to 11 correlate those to the decrease in crop yield. 12 A. You know, it's been awhile since I have 13 read it. As far as I recall, looking at publication 14 2 here, I don't think we have any of those. I don't 15 see any data presented in a table, so I assume you're 16 correct. 17 Q. I'd like to look at Exhibit Number 3, an 18 article entitled, Yield Response to Stalk Density and 19 Subsurface Drainage Treatments. 20 Again this is another article that you were 21 coauthor on, is that correct? 22 A. Yes, that's correct. 23 Q. Having reviewed this, it seems to me that 24 this appears to be a reanalysis of essentially the 25 same data that's discussed in Exhibit Number 2, is 259 1 that right? 2 A. Again, I'd to have to make a comparison 3 there and see when the plantings were made and so 4 forth. 5 Q. Could you do that just briefly? 6 A. Yes. 7 Yes, it does. 8 Q. And, again, the results of the analysis 9 suggest, with reference to page 175, with regard to 10 the plant crop, the finding is that the subsurface 11 drainage had no effect on stalk densities, cane yield 12 or sugar yield in the plant crop, is that correct? 13 A. That is the conclusion. 14 Q. And also with regard to the first ratoon 15 crop, other than an interaction with regard to one 16 particular plot, the conclusion is that the 17 subsurface drainage did not significantly affect 18 yields although there was a tendency for higher 19 yields from subsurface drained plots? 20 A. That's correct. We're basing that strictly 21 on a means because there is a difference there 22 between the mean numbers and that's why we said there 23 was a tendency for there to be a higher yield in the 24 drained than undrained plots. Because of the design 25 of the experiment being a split plot, we, you know, 260 1 lose a little bit of precision on the plots, which 2 were the drained versus undrained. At the design of 3 the experiment and the levels of those means, we 4 couldn't declare them statistically different. 5 Q. So it was not a significant difference? 6 A. It was not a statistically significant 7 difference. 8 Q. Is the data that's relied upon to determine 9 the density shown in the report? 10 A. Again, we relied strictly on the trends 11 that we saw in the means, the averages coming out of 12 the plots. 13 Q. Are those graphically displayed somewhere? 14 A. I don't see those anywhere on the back few 15 pages. We do have some numbers that might 16 demonstrate that, but not graphs. 17 Q. Now, with the exception that the first 18 ratoon concerned a single plot, am I correct that the 19 discussion on page 176 under Ratooning suggests 20 various confounding factors that may have adversely 21 affected that plot so that the data may have been 22 messed up in some regard? 23 A. Are you referring to a specific passage 24 from which you're drawing that conclusion? 25 Q. Starting with the first sentence under the 261 1 Ratooning heading on page 176 as well as the 2 remainder of that discussion, but throughout their 3 report here there seems to be a difference between 4 that one particular plot, the 0.6 meter V-furrow plot 5 which apparently was for some reason not consistent 6 with the other plots. 7 A. Let me explain that to you. What we were 8 looking at in this experiment was a split plot design 9 and we had drained versus undrained as the main plot 10 factor. And then within each of those drained or 11 undrained plots we split those plots and we applied 12 several other treatments. 13 The treatments we were looking to analyze 14 were row spacing and row configurations because in 15 Louisiana because of soil topography sugar cane is 16 grown on a raised bed and those beds are placed six 17 feet or 1.8 meters apart. So this was a treatment 18 where we were looking at three foot spacings and we 19 were planting not on a raised bed, but on the flat 20 ground. We were not raising a bed. The reason we 21 were not raising a bed is because with three foot 22 planting in sugar cane, it's very difficult with the 23 tools available to raise a bed at three feet apart, 24 whereas at six feet it's very easy. So we did not 25 have the elevation on those three foot beds that we 262 1 had on the conventional six foot spacings where we 2 had rowed up and created beds which is standard 3 practice in Louisiana. 4 So I would say, if anything, the flat 5 planting would be more akin to what we're doing here 6 in Florida. We do not raise beds here, Florida. 7 Q. That was going to be my next question. 8 What is the practice in Florida as far as beds? 9 A. The practice is to plant -- our lines are 10 drills of cane. The plantings themselves are spaced 11 five feet apart. They're not planted on raised beds. 12 The furrows are open and re-covered so you have a 13 flat surface to the field after the cane is planted. 14 Q. If beds were used in South Florida that 15 would, in fact, increase the effective depth of the 16 water table, wouldn't it? 17 A. I don't know. I'd have to give it some 18 thought. It possibly could. I'm not sure if it 19 would or not. 20 Q. Well, I mean by raising the seedling or the 21 crop up, wouldn't that necessarily increase the 22 distance to the water table? 23 A. The reason we raise beds in Louisiana was 24 to have a water furrow between those raised beds, but 25 you have to keep in mind that even though the top of 263 1 the row may be slightly higher, you are getting that 2 dirt from the water furrow, so I don't know exactly. 3 Even though you have a raised bed, that may be, in 4 Louisiana, for instance, 14 to 18" high, I don't know 5 how much the top of that bed is raised over the 6 original elevation of the flood field, so your 7 question is logical, but I'm not sure if I can answer 8 it without actually going out and making those 9 measurements. 10 Q. Well, assuming, though, that the bed 11 increased the elevation from the original level of 12 the ground, that would necessarily increase the 13 distance between the root system and the water table, 14 isn't that right? 15 A. Well, you're making an assumption there, 16 and, again, I'm not going to make -- I'm not going to 17 say your assumption is correct. It may very well be, 18 but -- 19 Q. Assume it's correct without holding me to 20 it. 21 A. Let me say we're not going to be able to 22 grow on raised beds in Florida with the type of 23 machinery we're going to for harvest. It's going to 24 be a problem. It's not a practical idea, but if you 25 had to pin me down and ask me for a yes or no on 264 1 that, I would say that, yes, it's possible that 2 that's correct. 3 Q. Doesn't the discussion on page 176 also -- 4 well, let me back up a second. I believe that is 5 consistent with the results of Exhibit Number 2, that 6 in Exhibit Number 3 the conclusion is also made that 7 there is a significant difference with regard to the 8 second ratoon crop between the drained and undrained 9 plots. Is that right? 10 A. That's right. That's what the data showed. 11 Q. Now, doesn't the discussion in this study, 12 specifically on page 176, indicate that there may be 13 various confounding factors such as the cane variety 14 may have had an impact on the ratooning? At the 15 bottom of page 176 it refers to the combine in 16 particular may have uprooted or damaged some stubbles 17 so that stalk density in subsequent crops were 18 significantly reduced. Aren't those all factors that 19 could have adversely or confounded the results of the 20 second ratoon data? 21 A. I would think that if they confounded the 22 second ratoon data that they very well could have 23 confounded the first ratoon data also and we, again, 24 feel that there was very good evidence that the 25 significant difference in tons of cane per hectare in 265 1 the second ratoon crop was caused by the fact -- by 2 the difference between drained and undrained and some 3 of those other differences, confounding differences 4 or factors that you may be asking about, may also be 5 directly caused by drained versus undrained. Like, 6 for instance, having a wetter harvest condition is 7 caused by the fact that it's undrained and that could 8 be a very important factor just how much damage you 9 do during the harvest -- 10 Q. Okay. 11 A. -- but that's directly related again to 12 wetness a lot of times. 13 Q. But there was no analysis done with regard 14 to this particular experiment to try to correlate 15 those items, was there? 16 A. We -- we did notice that in the wetter 17 plots where we had wetter plots that at times we did 18 have more difficulty harvesting, but -- 19 Q. Is that stated in the report anywhere? 20 A. As far as I know, it's not. We've -- I 21 think it's been stated. It has been stated in other 22 reports where we've looked at cane in these plots and 23 I may or may not have been involved in those 24 experiments. I was involved in this particular set. 25 I know for a fact there were other experiments done 266 1 in the plots. We looked at different varieties. 2 That's another thing you mentioned. That definitely 3 can be a confounding factor, because varieties do 4 react differently to having wet feet depending on 5 their genetics. Those types of confounding factors 6 or some of them are or can be explained by the error 7 variance in an experiment too. 8 Q. I also note on page 177 last full sentence 9 on that page also indicates that, "Sugar cane yields 10 in Louisiana normally decline in ratoon crops." Is 11 that accurate? 12 A. Yes. That's accurate. 13 Q. So there would be expected decline in the 14 yield regardless of whether you were controlling 15 water depth, isn't that right? 16 A. Ratoon crops in Louisiana do decline and 17 the standard rotation there is plant cane crop and 18 two ratoons. 19 But what we're showing in this experiment 20 is that your second ratoon crop is going to be much 21 less between drained and undrained. So if you 22 control drainage and you have proper drainage you can 23 expect to make a better second ratoon crop. That's 24 what the experiment shows. 25 Q. On page 176 under Subsurface Drainage 267 1 heading, it indicates, "Water itself does not 2 adversely affect plant roots but conditions caused by 3 the water do." 4 Now, again, it goes on to talk about 5 reduced oxygen and buildup of carbon dioxide. Is 6 that essentially what you previously testified? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Again, in this particular experiment, was 9 there any attempt made to correlate or to measure -- 10 first of all to measure the levels of oxygen, carbon 11 dioxide in the soils and correlate that to the 12 effects on the yields? 13 A. Other than looking at redox potential and 14 having the Penman chart recorders there, I don't know 15 of any. Although, I was not directly responsible for 16 that portion of the experiment, other than to go out 17 regularly and take the redox potential measurements 18 at the electrode sites. Mr. Carter and his aide did 19 the majority of the hydrologic work related to this 20 experiment and some of those data are not published 21 in this particular paper. They may be published 22 elsewhere. 23 Q. Were the crops that were harvested during 24 this experiment screened or checked for various 25 pathogen effects? 268 1 A. You know, as an agronomist going through 2 the plots and making the harvest, we're always 3 cognizant of problems that we might have with 4 pathogens or with damage from other factors or 5 anything, but as far as I know, we didn't have that 6 kind of damage in this experiment. We went in and 7 took growth measurements and took regular stalk 8 counts in experimentation, any of those sort of 9 damages would have been noted and they would be noted 10 in the experiment as confounding effects. 11 Q. Any effects that may have occurred through 12 pathogens or any kind of pests that may have attacked 13 or somehow affected the crop yield, would any of 14 those have been visible or discovered through the 15 system that was used to harvest these crops? 16 A. Sure. 17 Q. Okay. 18 A. Again, we were in the cane itself regularly 19 examining it and taking measurements so we would have 20 noticed those things. For instance, an insect 21 infestation, we would have noticed that and taken 22 care of it. 23 Q. If there had been an insect infestation and 24 you took care of it through whatever means, 25 pesticides or something like that, would that have 269 1 been set forth in the report? 2 A. Probably -- other than to say that it was 3 grown under standard commercial plantation practices, 4 probably not. Unless it was something that was 5 really outstanding. 6 Q. Well, do you recall any such-- 7 A. No. 8 Q. -- occurrences? 9 A. No, I do not. 10 Q. Figure 7 on page 177, can you tell me what 11 that graph is suppose to represent? 12 A. Figure 7? 13 Q. Right. 14 A. We spoke about this a little bit yesterday 15 and, again, this is -- was not my graph. This is a 16 graph that was done by the hydrologist who was 17 another of the authors on this paper. Basically what 18 he's saying SEW30 is the -- is an index of the water 19 table or the frequency that the water table went 20 above 30 centimeters during the crop year. I believe 21 that's the way he describes it. So what he's doing 22 here is he is regressing the yield of sugar cane on 23 SEW30 to see if there's a relationship between 24 elevation of the water table and the yield and tons 25 per hectare of cane. 270 1 Q. Am I correct that only eight data points 2 are used to establish this correlation? 3 A. Looks to me like those are the eight 4 averages of the drained versus undrained plots, so 5 those would be a average of the numbers taken at the 6 Penman recorders over a long period of time, so to 7 say that there are only eight observations is 8 incorrect. There's only eight means shown there 9 based on quite a number of observations. I don't 10 know exactly what the actual number of M or 11 observations of means is. This was a three year 12 experiment. We took them -- at least weekly the 13 charts were collected. 14 Q. Well, referring over to the first column on 15 that page, just above the equation, it indicates, 16 "Only eight data points were used in this 17 correlation, but they indicate the trend that exists 18 between SEW30 and cane yields." 19 A. Right. Again, this relates back to the 20 design of the experiment. We would like to have had 21 16 main plots. Unfortunately, we've only had four 22 replications because they were one acre in size and 23 they were very expensive to install. They had 24 subsurface drain lines in them. There was a 25 elaborate system of sumps and pumps to take water 271 1 drainage back from the plots and there was a large 2 cost in installing them and a lot of work, so we had 3 an eight acre experiment, which is a fairly large 4 field experiment, to harvest and weigh and we did 5 harvest and weigh the entire plots. So to have more 6 than that would have been impractical. 7 Q. Well, in your opinion as a scientist, do 8 you believe that these eight data points are 9 sufficient to establish any kind of a trend? 10 A. Yes. I feel that they are sufficient to 11 establish a trend. We would probably liked to have 12 had more to look at it from the statistical -- better 13 point of view -- statistically better point of view. 14 Q. What is the significance of the r2=.58 15 reflected on the chart? 16 A. That's the correlation coefficients and 17 what that is saying, that number can be expressed as 18 running from negative 1 to positive 1 with 0 being no 19 association and numbers from 0 up to 1 showing 20 positive association. So what this is saying is that 21 there's a 58 percent positive association between 22 tons of cane per hectare and the SEW30 numbers. 23 Q. Is there a specific number that is 24 generally understood in the scientific community for 25 the r2 before a reliance is given to a specific 272 1 correlation? 2 A. I'm sorry. I don't quite understand what 3 you are saying there. 4 Q. Is there any number that's generally 5 associated with the r2 such as a 90 percentile or 6 something like that which is generally looked at as 7 being required before any specific or significant 8 correlations can be drawn? 9 A. Correlations of 90 percent are rare in 10 agricultural experimentation. Generally you'll find 11 they run from 50 to 70 percent, in that range. 12 Generally that's considered a relatively fair to 13 strong correlation. 14 Q. Have you done any analysis in order to 15 formulate any opinions on what effect, if any, the 16 monitoring or compliance provisions of Rule 40E-63 17 will have on farming practices or crops or crop 18 yield? 19 A. No, I have not. 20 (The document was marked Exb. No. 20.) 21 BY MR. NETTLETON: 22 Q. Showing you what has been marked as Exhibit 23 Number 20, yesterday we had discussed briefly the 24 fact that the League had provided $30,000 to Izuno 25 and Bottcher for purposes of conducting their 273 1 research. 2 Does this exhibit, the letter and attached 3 copy of the check, reflect what you were testifying 4 about yesterday? 5 A. Yes, it does. 6 Q. Okay. The letter makes reference to the 7 fact that these moneys are an unrestricted gift, is 8 that right? 9 A. That's correct. 10 Q. What does an unrestricted gift mean? 11 A. That means we were attaching no 12 stipulations as to how it should be used. In other 13 words, there's an account at IFAS known as the SHARE 14 Account, S-H-A-R-E, which is an acronym for some sort 15 of program which indicates that the money can go into 16 what they call a SHARE Account and it can be used at 17 the scientist's own discretion as he sees fit. In 18 other words, it's not -- there's not a signed 19 contract saying this is what you have to do for this 20 money. That's what it means by unrestricted. 21 Q. Is this a normal practice that the League 22 engages in of giving these types of gifts in these 23 sorts of amounts to research? 24 A. We give some of our money -- at least the 25 agricultural research program that I oversee is given 274 1 to scientists as SHARE money to be used as an 2 unrestricted gift. Other money, depending on the 3 project and cost of experimentation, we've actually 4 done signed program agreements so we know 5 specifically and so the scientists involved know 6 specifically what we're seeking in the research and 7 so that we all agree on that. It depends. We do 8 both. 9 Q. Can you give me any examples other than 10 this one in the recent past where the League has 11 given such gifts to scientific institutions for 12 research? 13 A. Yes, I can. 14 Q. Tell me what they are. 15 A. We, for instance, gave Dr. Ron Cherry -- 16 he's an entomologist at the Belle Glade Experiment 17 Station -- $10,000 in a SHARE Account to use in his 18 entomological research program on sugar cane as he 19 see fits, how he chooses. We didn't say this is the 20 specific research we want you to accomplish. 21 Q. When was that done? 22 A. I think for the last two years now we've 23 given Dr. Cherry grants that have gone into his SHARE 24 Account. 25 Q. How do you spell his name? 275 1 A. C-h-e-r-r-y Ron Cherry. 2 Q. Is he with IFAS? 3 A. Yes, he is, Belle Glade. 4 Q. Any other examples? 5 A. There may be others, but, you know, I -- we 6 look at a number of proposals every year. For this 7 year we had over 20 and I don't know exactly, you 8 know, but we haven't actually let funding out for 9 this year. To go back and remember how the funding 10 was arranged on each of the projects we arranged last 11 year, I can't tell you that, except I know we did 12 Ron's that way. 13 Q. This is a document that you provided to me 14 yesterday and unfortunately I wrote on it, so I don't 15 want to mark it as an exhibit and I didn't make any 16 copies. But it's called -- entitled, Farmers' 17 Alternative to State Everglades Proposal Shorter 18 Version, dated May 27, 1992. And this appears to be 19 a transcript, if you will, or notes from an oral 20 presentation that was given. 21 Are you familiar with this? 22 A. Yes, I am, although I'd like to look at it 23 and make sure we're talking about the same thing. 24 You didn't show it to me. 25 MR. ROSENBERG: What's the date on it if I 276 1 can ask? 2 MR. NETTLETON: May 27, '92. 3 MR. ROSENBERG: Excuse me? 4 MR. NETTLETON: May 27, '92. 5 THE WITNESS: Yes. I'm familiar with it. 6 BY MR. NETTLETON: 7 Q. Who gave the presentation? 8 A. My boss Andy Rackley has given that 9 presentation and I have made presentations before 10 too. 11 Q. Essentially following this script here? 12 A. We've had a couple of different versions of 13 that. I believe that's the one that I followed. 14 Q. Who did you make the presentations to? 15 A. I've made it several times. The last that 16 I remember it was made to the Miami -- North Miami 17 Chamber of Commerce in Hialeah and I've also made it 18 to the Lake Worth -- I believe it was the Chamber of 19 Commerce and those are the only two that I recall. I 20 did make it to a rotary club too once. I don't 21 remember exactly where that rotary club was. 22 Q. What's -- what was the purpose behind 23 giving these presentations? 24 A. Well, the title is pretty much 25 self-explanatory. It explains the alternatives -- 277 1 our ideas for alternatives to the Stormwater 2 Treatment Areas that the District is proposing to 3 deal with in the SWIM Plan. 4 Q. Why were you going to these various 5 different entities making these presentations? 6 A. We were going to explain our position on it 7 because we felt that it was something that public and 8 business people needed to know about. 9 MR. NETTLETON: What I'd like to do is have 10 this marked after the deposition. I'll get a 11 clean copy of it and we can mark it as Exhibit 12 21. Set that aside. 13 (The documents were marked 14 Exb. Nos. 22-23.) 15 BY MR. NETTLETON: 16 Q. Marked as Exhibit Number 22 is a document 17 entitled, Economic Impact Statement for Chapter 18 40E-63 Everglades Agricultural Area Regulatory 19 Program dated April 1992. And marked as Exhibit 20 Number 23 is a document entitled, Economic Impact 21 Statement for Chapter 40E-63: Works of the District 22 within the Everglades dated October 1991. 23 I'd like to ask you concerning both of 24 these reports here -- ask you jointly to maybe save 25 some time and we can split them out if we need to -- 278 1 have you reviewed these reports in the past? 2 A. I have seen these reports. I have not 3 reviewed them. 4 Q. Have you done any type of analysis of the 5 conclusions or the contents of these reports? 6 A. I have not. 7 Q. Do you intend to offer any opinions at 8 final hearing in this matter concerning the reports 9 in any way? 10 A. I do not. 11 Q. That's all I have on that. 12 (The document was marked Exb. No. 24.) 13 BY MR. NETTLETON: 14 Q. Do you know who Dr. Leo Polopolus is? 15 A. Yes, I do. 16 Q. Who is he? 17 A. He's a scientist with the University of 18 Florida, an economist who has done work -- special 19 work in sugar cane; economic analysis in sugar 20 marketing. 21 Q. Are you aware whether he has been retained 22 as an expert witness in the present litigation by the 23 League? 24 A. I don't know that for sure. I am suspect 25 of that, but I don't know one way or another whether 279 1 he has or hasn't at this point. 2 Q. Are you aware of the fact that he is doing 3 research for the League relating to economic impact -- 4 A. Yes. I was aware of that. 5 Q. Let me finish my question. 6 -- economic impact of the SWIM Plan in the 7 Regulatory Program? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Have you had any discussions with 10 Dr. Polopolus relating to his economic analyses? 11 A. No, I have not. 12 Q. Was Dr. Polopolus involved in the meetings 13 of the economic people that we were discussing 14 yesterday between Lynch and Grace Johns and those 15 people? 16 A. I have personally never been to a meeting 17 where Dr. Polopolus was present, so I would not know 18 that. 19 Q. Have you ever had occasion to discuss with 20 Dr. Polopolus the quantification of the risk 21 variabilities to crop yields through implementation 22 of the BMPs? 23 A. No, I haven't. 24 Q. So have you ever provided him any 25 information relating to that? 280 1 A. No, I have not. 2 Q. Turn to page 24 on Exhibit Number 24. 3 A. 24? 4 Q. Right: On page 24 of this exhibit, 5 Dr. Polopolus has indicated that the Hazen & Sawyer 6 report is deficient in that it ignores the increased 7 risk to growers' yield caused by BMPs and he 8 suggested a better approach would be to include 9 consideration of an increase in yield risk 10 variability of 10 to 25 percent as impact to the 11 BMPs. 12 Do you see that there? 13 A. Yes, I do. 14 Q. Do you know what he's relying on to 15 calculate that 10 to 25 percent? 16 A. No, I don't. 17 Q. If you turn back to page 15 of the 18 document, Dr. Polopolus has some references to 19 constraints that were placed on Hazen & Sawyer and 20 the third one refers to public disclosure and 21 inability to protect confidential information. 22 Do you know what's being referred to there? 23 A. I believe what's being referred to here is 24 the fact that Dr. Johns could not guarantee 25 confidentiality of some of the data that we could 281 1 offer, so that stifled the production of that data 2 for her in her effort to finish her report. 3 Q. So it's your understanding that 4 Dr. Polopolus was of the opinion that the Hazen & 5 Sawyer report was some how deficient because it 6 didn't -- because Hazen & Sawyer didn't have access 7 to certain documents? 8 MR. STOTTS: Objection. You are asking for 9 his opinion of someone else's opinion. 10 MR. NETTLETON: I asked of his 11 understanding. A little different. 12 MR. STOTTS: Not much. You can answer if 13 you -- 14 THE WITNESS: Let me clear this up for you. 15 I think I can make it easy for you. 16 I only met Dr. Polopolus one time. I met 17 him as I was coming out of the elevator at South 18 Florida Water Management District and he was 19 going in and I shook his hand and told him, It 20 was very nice to meet you, sir. My name is John 21 Dunckelman. I'm with Florida Sugar Cane League. 22 We shook hands and that was the only occasion I 23 talked with Dr. Polopolus. I've never had a 24 phone conversation with him. That's the only 25 chance I've had to ever meet him personally. If 282 1 you are going to ask me questions about what I 2 know about what Dr. Polopolus and things, I've 3 never asked him what he thinks. 4 BY MR. NETTLETON: 5 Q. Have you seen what's been marked as Exhibit 6 24 before our deposition here? 7 A. Yes, I have. 8 Q. Have you had a chance to review that in the 9 past? 10 A. Only to peruse it. I didn't review it 11 because it's an economic analysis. It's his economic 12 analysis. I'm not an economist. I'm not even going 13 to try to review it. 14 Q. Were you present at any meetings where 15 Dr. Polopolus made this presentation? 16 A. No, I wasn't. I wanted to be and I was at 17 the District. The day he came there was when I met 18 him, he was making the presentation, but 19 unfortunately, I was at another meeting at the 20 District, I believe, of the -- one of the water 21 supply plan advisory committees so I could not see 22 his presentation. I have never seen him make this 23 presentation personally. 24 Q. What interactions, if any, do you have with 25 the scientists associated with the Duke Wetland 283 1 Center who are conducting research relating to the 2 Everglades? 3 A. I know them and I know that they have a 4 large project with the Environmental Protection 5 District to study the wetland ecology of the Water 6 Conservation Areas and I believe they would like to 7 study the Park too, but I don't know if they have 8 gotten into the Park yet. Other than to say that I 9 know them and I've spoken to them from time to time 10 briefly, I'm really not extremely familiar with the 11 work that they have done. 12 Q. Are you familiar with the research -- well, 13 let me ask you this. Are -- is the Duke Wetland 14 Center or anyone associated with that currently 15 conducting any research on behalf of the Florida 16 Sugar Cane League? 17 A. As far as I know they're not. At least 18 they're not doing it under my venue or jurisdiction. 19 I don't know of any. 20 Q. You mentioned that you are aware that 21 they're doing some research for the Environmental 22 Production District. 23 A. That's correct. 24 Q. Do you know precisely or specifically what 25 areas of research they are conducting for EPD? 284 1 A. No, not specifically and not precisely. 2 Only in general. 3 Q. Can you tell me what your general 4 understanding of that research is? 5 A. My general understanding is they are to 6 study the ecology of phosphorus dynamics and plant 7 communities and also the, you know, algae, macrophyte 8 effects from nutrient enrichment and so forth. 9 Q. Have you ever seen any of the reports that 10 they have issued to the EPD? 11 A. I may have seen one or two of them, yes. 12 Q. Do you have access to drafts of those 13 reports coming from Duke Wetland Center before 14 they're issued to EPD? 15 A. I've never been asked to review Curtis 16 Richardson's report to EPD, no. 17 Q. So you've never made any comments on any of 18 their reports prior to their submission? 19 A. Not on any of their EPD reports as far as I 20 know. 21 Q. Do you know whether anyone else associated 22 with the Florida Sugar Cane League or its members has 23 reviewed and made comments on preliminary drafts of 24 their reports before they are submitted to the EPD? 25 A. That I don't know. 285 1 Q. Do you know whether the Duke Wetland Center 2 or anyone associated with it has currently done or is 3 conducting any research for any other agricultural 4 interests in the EAA other than the EPD? 5 A. I have no knowledge of that. 6 Q. Do you have -- do you consider yourself as 7 having expertise in the areas of phosphorus effects 8 on periphyton? 9 A. Absolutely not. 10 Q. Phosphorus effects on dissolved oxygen? 11 A. No, I don't. 12 Q. Phosphorus effects on invertebrates? 13 A. No, I do not. 14 Q. The phosphorus storage efficiency of 15 wetlands in open water communities? 16 A. No, I do not. 17 Q. The community structure and function and 18 the ability of the wetlands to recover after 19 phosphorus additions? 20 A. No, I do not. 21 (The document was marked Exb. No. 25.) 22 BY MR. NETTLETON: 23 Q. We're showing you a document that's been 24 marked as Exhibit Number 25 which is entitled, 25 Influence of Soluble Reactive Phosphorus on Open 286 1 Water Communities, a proposal written by Dr. Russell 2 Rader and submitted to Dr. Curtis Richardson. And 3 there's a little note on the side. I assume that's -- 4 the John that's referring to is you, is that correct? 5 A. That's correct. 6 Q. Am I correct that this is a proposal to 7 determine the threshold concentrations of phosphorus 8 which will affect various parameters; periphyton, 9 invertebrates? 10 A. That's the way I see it, yes. 11 Q. Why was Dr. Rader sending this to you? 12 A. Well, again, I've said that, you know, I do 13 occasionally talk to them and I will occasionally 14 stop and see them when they're down here doing their 15 research just to ask them how things are going and 16 ask them if there are any developments and just to 17 kind of touch base in a friendly manner more than 18 anything else. And I believe that, you know, that I 19 stopped in at one point coming back from Palm Beach 20 and spoke to Richard and asked him what he had been 21 doing in the way of research and he told me that they 22 were, you know, working on certain issues related to 23 the ecology of the wetlands and I asked him if it 24 would be possible for me to come out and see what was 25 going on and this was probably part of his reply to 287 1 me, saying I thought you -- you know, you might be 2 interested in seeing what we're doing and he's given 3 me invitations to come out and visit the plots 4 before, which I haven't done but once and it was not 5 with Richard. 6 Q. Which plots did you go out to? 7 A. I went out to the plots that they had in 8 Water Conservation Area 2. 9 Q. 2A? 10 A. I don't remember whether it was A or B. It 11 was 2. That's all I remember. It's been a long time 12 ago. 13 Q. Who did you go out with? 14 A. I went out with Bob Johnson. 15 Q. What did you do when you were out there? 16 A. I just accompanied Bob on his normal round 17 to inspect the plots and to apply the fertilizer 18 nutrients that they were treating the plots with and 19 just for general knowledge and information. Just to 20 see the area. 21 Q. Did you understand what particular 22 experiment was being conducted? 23 A. As I recall, it was a fertilizer -- 24 fertilization experiment where they had some small 25 plots established that were bordered by fiberglass 288 1 sheeting and they were applying fertilizer nutrients 2 to see what happened to the ecology within those 3 plots. 4 Q. What was the purpose of you going out 5 there? 6 A. Just, again, just general information on my 7 part. I asked to go to see what was going on. 8 Curiosity. 9 Q. Would the date that this Exhibit Number 25 10 is stamped received, June 27, 1991, reflect when you 11 received this -- 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. -- approximately? 14 A. That's correct. 15 Q. Have you had any further involvement with 16 this specific proposal? 17 A. No, I have not. 18 Q. Has anyone at the League to your knowledge? 19 A. To my knowledge, no. You'll notice it 20 doesn't say it's submitted to the League. It says 21 it's submitted to Curtis Richardson. 22 Q. Did Dr. Rader ask you to provide any 23 comments concerning his proposal? 24 A. As far as I remember, he did not. 25 Q. Did you, in fact, provide any comments 289 1 concerning the proposal? 2 A. I don't think I did. I see a few notes 3 that I made. For instance, on page 3 I wrote arrow 4 weed over Sagittaria. That's because I didn't know 5 what it was. I wrote it there for my own edification 6 on the copy I was keeping. This was thrown back on 7 my credenza and that's where it stayed until it was 8 surrendered to you. I'm not really relying on this 9 document in any way. I didn't know it was 10 surrendered to you. 11 Q. There's references every once in a while on 12 the pages, "Do not copy." 13 A. That's not my handwriting. 14 Q. Do you know why that was written on there? 15 A. Well, I imagine because not too many people 16 had seen this and Richard probably didn't want it to 17 be generally distributed. I'm sure that's what his 18 concern was. It wasn't so much to be covert, he 19 didn't want it going out until there was some sort of 20 disposition assigned to it. 21 Q. Did you have any understanding that this 22 was a draft proposal or a final proposal? 23 A. I don't recall. I don't see any notation 24 on it either way and I don't know which it was. 25 Q. Do you know whether this proposal has ever 290 1 been accepted by any entity to fund the research? 2 A. Honestly, I don't remember. You know, 3 again it's been over a year probably since I've -- or 4 close to a year. Well, over a year since I've had 5 probably a chance look at it since I received it, 6 '91. I don't really remember what the content of it 7 is at this point, except, you know, in general that 8 it deals with phosphorus effects on the plant 9 community and animal community in the Water 10 Conservation Areas. 11 Q. With regard to the research that the Duke 12 Wetland Center is doing for the EPD has the EPD set 13 up any type of Technical Oversight Committee similar 14 to the committee we were talking about yesterday that 15 they did with regard to the IFAS research? 16 A. I have no knowledge of one. 17 Q. In the note on the first page of Exhibit 18 Number 25 there's also a reference, thanks you for 19 the Reddy and Koch reprints. What was being referred 20 to there? 21 A. I don't recall, but I'm sure it had to do 22 with scientific articles by Reddy, who's a scientist 23 at IFAS and Marguerite Koch who is on your staff of 24 the South Florida Water Management District and that 25 may be one article. It may be two. I didn't 291 1 remember. Evidently, it was an article that I had 2 that he was interested in and I sent him a copy of 3 it. 4 Q. You don't recall what those articles were? 5 A. No, I don't. 6 Q. Do you recall generally the subject matter? 7 A. I think it had to do with -- I mean it 8 dealt with wetlands and I think it may have dealt 9 with the same sort of general work in ecology that 10 Richard is dealing in. My guess is that somewhere in 11 our conversation, either personal or phone 12 conversation, I mentioned to him that I -- that I had 13 it and he mentioned, I don't have it; would you send 14 me a copy and I said sure. 15 Q. How often do you converse with the Duke 16 Wetland Center people? 17 A. Infrequently. 18 Q. Once a month? 19 A. No. Not that much. 20 (The document was marked Exb. No. 26.) 21 BY MR. NETTLETON: 22 Q. Dr. Dunckelman, we've handed you a document 23 that's marked as Exhibit Number 26, which consists of 24 a cover letter dated August 28, 1990 to Mr. Rackley 25 from Dr. Curtis Richardson and attached to that is 292 1 the enclosure entitled, Water Quality and the 2 Everglades: Options for the Future. Authored by 3 Curtis Richardson and Christopher Craft. 4 Have you seen the water quality document 5 that's attached to this cover letter before? 6 A. I don't recall ever having seen it, no. 7 Q. Did you ever have any conversations or 8 discussions with Dr. Curtis Richardson concerning the 9 contents of this particular document? 10 A. No. 11 Q. Have you ever had any conversations or 12 discussions with Dr. Richardson concerning the 13 potential adverse effects on crops or crop yields or 14 farming practices which would occur through 15 implementation of BMPs? 16 A. No. I've never had such conversation with 17 Dr. Richardson. 18 Q. The same with regard to Dr. Craft. Have 19 you had any such conversations? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Can you tell me what the Florida 22 Agricultural Information Retrieval System is? Do you 23 know what that is? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Can you tell me what it is? 293 1 A. It's a computer data base that IFAS 2 developed and I tend to look at it as being 3 information that the general public would want on 4 agricultural horticulture and they're -- it's on ROM 5 (sic) disks and you can either obtain the information 6 from those disks in a print out from a county agent's 7 office or you can actually buy the disks yourself to 8 retrieve the information. 9 Q. Is that available generally to the general 10 public? 11 A. I believe it is. 12 Q. Okay. Do you know what kind of information 13 is contained on the data base? 14 A. There's several different data bases for -- 15 that, you know, for different crops. 16 Q. What kind of information is contained 17 generally in the system? 18 A. Well, I've only seen, you know, parts of 19 the data base. I've seen it demonstrated at seminars 20 at the Belle Glade Experiment Station and it's mostly 21 just general information and it's all the time being 22 built on and improved, so I imagine that in the 23 future it will become more and more specific. 24 Q. Are you aware of whether the data base 25 currently contains any information concerning BMPs 294 1 for phosphorus reduction? 2 A. I don't know one way or another. 3 Q. Do you know whether the -- any of the data 4 bases in the system contain any economic information? 5 A. I'm not sure. 6 Q. Have you ever seen any? 7 A. Again, my exposure to FAIRS has been very 8 limited. Mostly what I have seen is information on 9 horticultural crops, foliage crops, a little bit on 10 sugar cane where they were doing demonstrations of 11 the system in seminar settings. 12 Q. Does the Sugar Cane League subscribe to the 13 system? Do you have access to it? 14 A. We have access to it through the -- through 15 IFAS, but we don't actually subscribe to it and have 16 the ROM disks themselves. 17 Q. Do you have any intention to do any 18 additional work with regard to formulating opinions 19 for purposes of testimony in this case after today? 20 A. Well, I'm constantly reading new 21 information as it comes along and I'm trying to 22 follow the research that IFAS is doing through the 23 EPD so, yes, I do. 24 Q. What specifically do you intend to be doing 25 other than just reading the information? 295 1 A. Well, I would like to visit the sites where 2 Forrest and Del are working now and I'd like to make 3 contact with them to find out what -- any 4 developments they're finding and keep up with their 5 reports through the EPD mainly. 6 Q. Do you have any idea of a timetable of when 7 any additional data would be available through IFAS' 8 work which you might be able to utilize to formulate 9 additional opinions? 10 A. There are timetables established, but to 11 recall those at this time, I just don't have that 12 knowledge at the tip of my tongue. 13 Q. Can you give me just a general idea? Are 14 we talking months or years or somewhere in between? 15 A. I think we'll probably have some usable 16 information within a year. And as the project goes 17 on -- it is a planned five year project -- I'm sure 18 that information will become more and more reliable. 19 Q. Have you been asked to do any further work 20 as far as formulating opinions for purposes of 21 testifying in this case? 22 A. Besides the -- being asked to testify on 23 general agronomy of the crop, agriculture of sugar 24 cane and the BMPs, no, I have not. Those are the 25 specific areas where I was asked to concentrate as 296 1 far as my opinion. 2 Q. Is there anything in the ongoing research 3 that IFAS is or that anyone else is doing that you're 4 aware of that in any way will create or do you think 5 will create areas of opinion other than what you have 6 expressed here during the deposition? 7 Let me rephrase the question. 8 A. Thank you. 9 Q. Other than your opinions concerning the 10 risks and potential adverse effects of implementation 11 of the BMPs, specifically water management BMPs on 12 crop yields and crops, is there any other area of 13 testimony that you have been advised or you expect 14 you will be testifying with regard to in this case? 15 MR. STOTTS: Did you understand the 16 question? It's kind of long. 17 THE WITNESS: It was a little convoluted. 18 I think I did, but if you would, one more time, 19 please. 20 MR. NETTLETON: Okay. 21 THE WITNESS: Try to shorten it a bit. 22 MR. NETTLETON: I'll try. 23 THE WITNESS: Okay. 24 BY MR. NETTLETON: 25 Q. You have testified during this deposition 297 1 concerning your opinions on the potential risks -- or 2 risks and potential adverse effects on crops, crop 3 yields, farming practices relating to implementation 4 of the BMPs which are set forth in the SWIM Plan, is 5 that correct? 6 A. That's correct. 7 Q. Do you have any intention or have you been 8 requested by anyone to do any additional research or 9 analysis to offer opinions in any other areas? 10 A. Other than general sugar cane agricultural 11 and BMPs, no, I have not been offered (sic) to give 12 opinions, but I would like to say that within the 13 scope of general agriculture of the crop, there is a 14 lot of room there for opinion because it's a big 15 subject area. 16 Q. What opinions concerning agriculture of the 17 crop are you intending to provide in the final 18 hearing in this case? 19 A. Well, I don't know exactly what opinions. 20 I'm just telling you that it's a large area. 21 Q. You have not formulated any specific 22 opinions at this time that you specifically intend to 23 give at the final hearing? 24 A. I have not been asked to do that. 25 MR. NETTLETON: I have no further 298 1 questions. 2 (Thereupon, a recess was taken.) 3 (The document was marked Exb. No. 21.) 4 CROSS (John Dunckelman, Ph.D.) 5 BY MR. ROSENBERG: 6 Q. Dr. Dunckelman, I'm Robert Rosenberg. I'm 7 an Assistant United States Attorney and I'm going to 8 ask you some questions. If you don't understand my 9 questions or they're poorly formed or spoken too 10 quickly or for some reason you can't answer the 11 question, please tell me and I'll try to reconstruct 12 the question. It's also my intention not to 13 duplicate what may have already been asked of you, 14 but I may ask some questions in the same area and 15 they may sound similar. I'll try and not duplicate, 16 however. 17 Sir, define an agronomist for me. 18 A. An agronomist is a scientist who deals with 19 the management and production of field crops. 20 Q. Now, you testified in response to some of 21 Mr. Nettleton's questions that you did not think the 22 research was completed for the BMP program to be 23 implemented. Am I correct? 24 A. Would you repeat that, please. I kind of 25 drifted for a minute. 299 1 Q. I thought you testified in response to some 2 of Mr. Nettleton's questions that the BMP research 3 had not been completed to your satisfaction in order 4 to implement a BMP program. 5 A. That's correct. It needs to be implemented 6 on a full scale field experiment, not just in small 7 plots. 8 Q. Okay. Is that -- if we look at the nine or 9 so BMPs that Bottcher and Izuno have suggested, is 10 that true for all nine? 11 A. I think, depending on which specific one 12 you're talking about, there may or may not be more 13 use of one than the other, so -- but in general there 14 probably needs to be more research on every one of 15 them. 16 Q. Is it your position, then, that BMP 17 programs should not be instituted until the research 18 is completed? 19 A. No. That's not my opinion. 20 Q. When would you institute a BMP program, 21 then? 22 A. The growers in the EAA are doing it now. 23 We've said publicly that we're going to do it because 24 we're wanting to reduce phosphorus coming off our 25 farms and so we're willing to take the risk of 300 1 instituting the IFAS BMPs and our own BMPs including 2 our pump BMP now to reduce phosphorus. We're willing 3 to take that risk. We would like to have had more 4 research, but we don't. 5 Q. That's my question. Which BMPs is there a 6 risk that you can define for me? 7 A. Well, again, the main one has to do with 8 water management on the farm. 9 Q. Other than the water management BMPs is 10 there any risk for non-water management BMPs for 11 implementing those immediately? 12 A. There may be some. But I think it's less 13 than for the water management BMP. 14 Q. When you say there may be some, can you 15 quantify or define what that is? 16 A. For -- again, when you look at banding 17 fertilizer, you've got to realize the whole objective 18 of doing that is to reduce the total amount of 19 fertilizer that you're putting out. So when you do 20 that, you are running a risk of making a mistake and 21 losing some yield without the proper research on 22 calibrating the soil tests and equating that to the 23 yield, final yield of the crop over a long cycle. 24 Q. Has the Sugar Cane League, to the best of 25 your knowledge, done any previous research on banding 301 1 prior to the BMP suggested by Bottcher and Izuno? 2 A. In the three years that I have been at the 3 League in the management of our Agricultural Research 4 Program, we have not done any experiments in banding 5 of fertilizers in sugar cane. 6 Q. Do you know if anybody else who's a member 7 of the League has done experiments in that area? 8 A. I don't know of any personally. 9 Q. Was this a new thought, as far as you're 10 concerned, or as far as your company is concerned? 11 A. No. Banding fertilizer is a very well 12 established practice in agriculture. 13 Q. So, despite the fact that it's a well 14 established practice, neither the League nor any of 15 its constituents has done any work in it, is that 16 true? 17 A. It's not -- it's a well established 18 practice in agriculture, meaning in general, not 19 necessarily in the EAA on sugar cane. I believe that 20 in the past the more common practice for sugar cane 21 was to broadcast fertilizers, not band them. Only 22 recently farmers have begun to change that. It 23 involves equipment changes too. A lot of 24 fertilization is not -- is custom applied. 25 Q. Sir, how long have you been in Florida? 302 1 A. I took this job in 1989. 2 Q. And so you moved to Florida in 1989? 3 A. Yes. I moved to Florida from Louisiana in 4 1989. 5 Q. Is that to Clewiston where you live now? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Your current employer is Florida Sugar Cane 8 League? 9 A. Yes, sir. 10 Q. And are you in the same job now that you 11 were in in 1989 with Florida Sugar Cane League? 12 A. My duties are essentially the same. My 13 title has changed. 14 Q. What are your duties? 15 A. My duties are to oversee our Agricultural 16 Research Program and to oversee the Florida Sugar 17 Cane League's effort in the cooperative sugar cane 18 plant breeding program that the USDA, IFAS and the 19 League share responsibilities in. 20 Q. Who is your supervisor? 21 A. Mr. Andy Rackley. 22 Q. What is his title, sir? 23 A. His title is Vice President and General 24 Manager. 25 Q. And do you have people that work under you? 303 1 A. Yes, I do. 2 Q. And how many people? 3 A. I have one agronomist, professional 4 agronomist that works under me, but I don't have 5 direct supervision -- I don't have direct day to day 6 supervision over him. 7 Q. Who does? 8 A. Dr. Jim Miller. 9 Q. Let me back up for a second. 10 Can you tell me what the Florida Sugar Cane 11 League is? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. What is it? 14 A. It's a not-for-profit trade association 15 that represents sugar cane growers and processors in 16 South Florida. 17 Q. How many employees does it have? 18 A. At present at Clewiston we have -- I'll 19 have to count. Let me think for a minute, please. 20 Seven employees at the Clewiston office and I believe 21 we have three others, plus six at Canal Point. 22 Q. I'm talking about the entire Florida Sugar 23 Cane League. Would that be only 16 employees? 24 A. Did you add the numbers that I just gave 25 you? That's correct, how many staff members the 304 1 Florida Sugar Cane League has. 2 Q. Is there a head or a president of the 3 League? 4 A. Yes, there is. 5 Q. Who is that? 6 A. But he's not a member of our staff. He's a 7 member of our Board of Directors. 8 Q. Who is that? 9 A. His name is Jose Pepe Fanjul. 10 Q. So the League has 16 staff members? 11 A. To the best of my knowledge right now with 12 the numbers that I just gave you, if that adds -- if 13 that's the addition product, that's correct. 14 Q. Under 20? 15 A. Yes, I would say. 16 Q. Would that be fair to say under 20 staff 17 members? 18 A. That's correct. 19 Q. Okay. And who belongs to the Florida Sugar 20 Cane League? 21 A. We have a membership that's composed of 22 growers and processors from both -- from different 23 corporations and independent growers. 24 Q. Talking about the Florida Sugar Cane 25 League, can you tell me who in the EAA belongs to the 305 1 Florida Sugar Cane League? 2 A. I can't provide you a list from my head 3 right now, no, I cannot. 4 Q. Do you know any of them? 5 A. Yes, I do. Of course. 6 Q. Who are they? 7 A. U.S. Sugar Corporation belongs to the 8 Florida Sugar Cane League. Flo-Sun Corporation 9 belongs to the Sugar Cane League. Those two 10 companies alone represent about 75 to 80 percent of 11 the acreage in the EAA -- 12 Q. Okay. 13 A. -- of sugar cane. 14 Q. Who's on the Board of Directors of the 15 Sugar Cane League? 16 A. We have a board composed, I believe, right 17 now of 16 members. 18 Q. Do you know any of them? 19 A. Yes. I know them. 20 Q. Who are they? 21 A. Nelson Fairbanks is Chief Executive Officer 22 of United States Sugar Corporation. Jose Pepe 23 Fanjul, Alex Fanjul, Andreis Fanjul, Mr. Frank 24 L. Polhill, Mr. Joe Marlin Hilliard. 25 Q. What are their affiliations? 306 1 A. Mr. Hilliard is independent grower. He 2 owns his own company. It's called Hilliard Brothers 3 of Florida. 4 Q. Mr. Polhill? 5 A. Mr. Polhill is Senior Vice President of 6 Agriculture for United States Sugar Corporation. 7 Q. Who else is on the board that you know of? 8 A. Mr. Robert Buker. I know them all. I'm 9 just having trouble recalling all of their names 10 right now. It's hard to do without a list of these 11 people. I'm sure that we could provide you a list if 12 that's required. 13 Q. How often does the board meet to the best 14 of your knowledge? 15 A. Our board right now is meeting quarterly. 16 Q. When is the last time the board met? 17 A. I don't remember the exact date. It's been 18 within the last -- I think it was this month early, 19 the first week of this month. 20 Q. Were you present at the meeting? 21 A. Yes, I was. 22 Q. Where did the meeting take place? 23 A. The meeting took place in the board room of 24 our -- of the Florida Sugar Cane League headquarters 25 at Clewiston. 307 1 Q. How long did the meeting take? What was 2 the duration of the meeting? 3 A. That particular meeting, I believe, was 4 recessed at lunch which was about noon or shortly 5 thereafter. 6 Q. Did it start at 9:00? 7 A. It started at -- I believe it started at 8 10:00 actually. 9 Q. Were there minutes taken of this meeting? 10 A. Yes, there were. 11 Q. And what was discussed at that meeting, if 12 you could tell me? 13 A. Well, in general, we have a -- 14 MR. STOTTS: Counsel, I'm going to object 15 to relevance here. This has nothing to do with 16 the testimony that Dr. Dunckelman's been offered 17 for. It has nothing to do with him as an 18 agronomist or as an expert on best management 19 practices and I don't understand the line of 20 questioning. 21 MR. ROSENBERG: Well, are you directing him 22 not to answer? 23 MR. STOTTS: Did you hear me do that? 24 MR. ROSENBERG: No, sir. 25 MR. STOTTS: All right. I'm not directing 308 1 him not to answer. I'm merely objecting. 2 You can answer if you can. 3 THE WITNESS: Would you repeat the 4 question, please. 5 BY MR. ROSENBERG: 6 Q. Subject matter of the meeting. 7 A. We discussed things that affect the sugar 8 cane industry. I mean there can be a list of those 9 and each -- each staff member who heads a department 10 like myself, gives a report on the status of their 11 department and what's going on with them and so I 12 give a set of what I generally refer to as ag 13 research notes. 14 Q. Are these reports in writing? 15 A. Yes. They are in writing. 16 Q. And earlier in response to a question that 17 counsel asked you you told us that $30,000 was paid 18 to IFAS in order to keep Forrest Izuno's research 19 unit going. Is that correct? 20 A. Yes. To keep it intact -- 21 Q. Okay. 22 A. -- because he was facing budget cuts. 23 Q. Okay. What where did that $30,000 come 24 from? 25 A. That came from the Florida Sugar Cane 309 1 League members. 2 Q. Okay. And was that an individual 3 assessment or was that from general funds if you 4 know? 5 A. I don't have direct authority and knowledge 6 over how those assessments are raised. I can only 7 tell you how assessments are raised within the 8 Agricultural Research Program. There are several 9 different methods of raising funds within the League 10 and I'm not familiar with all of them. 11 Q. Now, is it common for you to -- other than 12 the board meetings, to correspond with or communicate 13 with members of the board? 14 A. I do that to a limited extent. 15 Q. Did you communicate or discuss your 16 opinions or any of the testimony you have given here 17 today with any of the members of the board? 18 A. I don't recall having sat down ever for 19 that specific purpose with any members of our board. 20 Q. Did any of them call you regarding your 21 proposed testimony or your proposed opinions or your 22 participation in the lawsuit? 23 A. No, they have not. 24 Q. What's Mr. Rackley's role? 25 A. Mr. Rackley is vice president and general 310 1 manager, as I stated earlier, and in that capacity he 2 serves as the lead executive on the staff of the 3 Florida Sugar Cane League and he controls all our day 4 to day operations and he is the main interface 5 between our board of directors and staff. 6 Q. I believe counsel asked you whether you 7 ever had the opportunity to comment on any of Curtis 8 Richardson's reports or drafts or reports or drafts 9 generated by Curtis Richardson. Do you remember 10 that? 11 A. That's not the way I remember it being 12 asked. 13 Q. Well, let me ask that question. Did you 14 ever comment on any of the reports or drafts that 15 Curtis Richardson generated? 16 A. Yes. At one time I did. 17 Q. Okay. When was that? 18 A. That was when I first came on board in 1989 19 and Curtis, I believe at that time, was doing some 20 work specifically for the League. 21 Q. And what documents did you comment on? 22 A. I don't recall now because it's been so 23 long ago and those -- incidentally, at that time, it 24 was not my personal responsibility to oversee those 25 projects, so I was only given a copy of the report as 311 1 a courtesy. 2 Q. What projects were they, do you know? 3 A. I -- at this time, I can't recall 4 specifically what they were about. I do recall 5 having looked at one of Curtis' drafts a long time 6 ago and being offered a chance make comments and 7 review it. 8 Q. Does your role with the League contemplate 9 any liaison duties with Curtis Richardson and/or Duke 10 Wetland Center regarding any subject matter? 11 A. No, it does not. 12 Q. When is the last time you had conversation 13 with any of the Duke Wetland's people? 14 A. The last one of them I saw and had occasion 15 to speak to was Bob Johnson. It was only in passing 16 at some public meeting and I just remember telling 17 him hello. How are you? It's been about three 18 months ago and it may have been at the District. I 19 don't recall specifically where it was. 20 Q. And before that it was? 21 A. Before that, you know, I have occasionally, 22 as I've stated earlier, stopped at the Wetland Center 23 office on my way back from Palm Beach to say hello 24 and just visit briefly with Russell Rader. 25 Q. Do you furnish any information to the Duke 312 1 Wetland Center or route any of your documents to them 2 or through them? 3 A. Well, as was noted on one of the earlier 4 documents that we looked at, I have on occasion sent 5 Richard, for instance, that Reddy and Koch report, 6 but other than that, it's not a routine thing that I 7 do and I don't recall ever having sent any other than 8 that. 9 Q. Did you ever see a tape of Dr. Polopolus' 10 presentation? 11 A. No, I have not. 12 Q. Did you ever discuss Dr. Polopolus' 13 presentation with anybody who either witnessed the 14 presentation or who saw the tape? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Who was that? 17 A. That was Mr. Rackley my boss. 18 Q. And what was that conversation about? 19 A. Well, he just told me that Leo made the 20 presentation before the Funding Committee meeting at 21 the Dolly Hand Center in Belle Glade within the last 22 few months and he did a very good job, was his 23 comment; that he got up and he was very impressive. 24 Q. Regarding the subject of yield risk, did 25 you ever furnish any information or opinions or views 313 1 to anybody from the Peterson group? 2 A. Yes, I did. 3 Q. And when was that? 4 A. In the early stages of our conversations 5 with Dr. Johns at a meeting with her and Peterson 6 representatives I did make comments regarding that. 7 Q. And you don't have -- do you have a date on 8 that? 9 A. No, I don't. I don't have a specific date. 10 It would have been early on after our first meeting 11 with Dr. Johns. 12 Q. Do you recall what you said or what the 13 substance of the conversation was? 14 A. Yes, I do. I recall telling Dr. Johns, in 15 my opinion, it might be a good idea to factor in some 16 risk into the implementation of BMPs and I suggested 17 doing it as a number within a given range of 10 to 25 18 percent is what I think my suggestion was. It was 19 within that range. 20 Q. What was the basis of your 10 to 25 21 percent? 22 A. Strictly just my opinion from my experience 23 with the crop and from experimentation that I had 24 done with the risk of having elevated water tables 25 and I suggested that that may be a good thing for her 314 1 to do, to factor that in, so that if in deed the -- 2 there is a risk, that she can show if you have a 10 3 percent increased risk, this is what it does to the 4 economics of growing the crop. It was made as a 5 suggestion to her as a way to account for a possible 6 risk. 7 Q. Other than your suggestion of 10 to 25 8 percent, do you know of anybody else who supports 9 that figure? 10 A. There may be other people who support it, 11 although I've never discussed it in any kind of 12 detail with anyone. 13 Q. Do you know of anybody at the League that 14 supports that figure other than you? 15 A. Well, besides myself, there's only 16 Mr. Rackley who might have an opinion on that and I 17 don't know what his opinion is. 18 Q. But you're the one who generated the 10 to 19 25 percent? 20 A. I may have been the one. I did, in deed, 21 tell Dr. Johns at that meeting where I was present 22 that that was a suggestion that I made. Now, whether 23 or not that suggestion was made to her again by 24 anyone else or whether it was made to her prior to my 25 making it to her, I couldn't tell you. 315 1 Q. And your 10 to 25 percent is based on 2 Exhibits 2 and 3 that we've seen here? 3 A. Well, partially. 4 Q. What else is it based on? 5 A. It's also based on my experience as an 6 agronomist and having worked with this crop for close 7 to 15 years. 8 Q. Do you know of any other agronomist that 9 shares that same view, 10 to 25 percent yield risk? 10 A. I've never asked any agronomists that I 11 know what their view is on the specific amount of 12 risk involved in implementing these BMPs. 13 Q. How did you get to 10 to 25 percent as 14 opposed to 2 to 5 percent? 15 A. This was a range that's based on my -- my 16 estimate based on my own experience. 17 Q. Was there any follow up by either Peterson 18 or Grace Johns regarding that 10 to 25 percent 19 figure? 20 A. That I don't know because, quite frankly, I 21 did get a copy of Dr. Johns' final report. I don't 22 think she included it in the report, but I haven't 23 examined the report carefully enough to be able to 24 tell you definitely that it was not included or was 25 included. 316 1 Q. Did anybody else contact you, write you a 2 memo or any document saying where did you get the 3 figure from and how do you substantiate it? 4 A. To the best of my recall right now, I don't 5 think so. 6 Q. Did Dr. Polopolus ever contact you to 7 verify the 10 to 25 percent range figure? 8 A. No. Again, as I've stated earlier to 9 Mr. Nettleton, I've never had any conversations with 10 Dr. Polopolus other than to have met him in the 11 elevator at the District. 12 Q. But no written communication -- 13 A. No. None. 14 Q. -- from him or from anyone regarding this 15 figure? Anyone being any economist, any scientist, 16 meaning anyone. 17 A. To the best of my recall at this time, no. 18 Q. You testified in response to counsel's 19 question regarding correlation numbers and I believe 20 you said -- and tell me if I have it right. It's not 21 my intention to trick you, it's my intention to get 22 it right. You said, I believe, that correlation 23 numbers in research work between 50 to 70 percent is 24 strong. 25 A. I don't believe that's exactly what I said. 317 1 Q. Tell me what you said. 2 A. What he asked me, as I recall, was what do 3 you consider a strong correlation? Do you consider 4 90 or a .90 correlation strong? And what I believe I 5 told him was that point -- that 90 percent 6 correlation coefficients were rare in agricultural 7 field experimentation and that 50 to 75 percent was 8 considered fair to strong. 9 Q. What does that mean, fair to strong, when 10 you get that correlation of 50 to 70 percent? 11 A. That means that there's a good chance that 12 there is truly an association, a positive 13 association. 14 Q. Is that generally accepted throughout 15 science, that 50 to 70 percent correlation? The 16 formula you've just given me, is that generally 17 accepted throughout science? 18 A. Yes. I think it is. That's a good 19 question for a better statistician than I am, but 20 correlation coefficients of 50 to 75 generally show 21 there's a good association. 22 Q. You responded to a question and tell me if 23 I have it right again. You used the phrase, "wet 24 feet." 25 A. Yes. 318 1 Q. What did you mean by, "wet feet"? 2 A. Well, I was -- it's kind of a slang 3 acronym, but basically what I meant was a saturated 4 or overly wet root zone. 5 Q. For, in this case, a sugar cane plant? 6 A. Correct. 7 Q. Okay. Regarding a sugar cane plant in 8 general, or the plants that are grown in the EAA, how 9 deep are they rooted? 10 A. It depends on what we're talking about, on 11 what plant you are talking about. There's a lot of 12 different vegetables grown. Sugar cane is grown and 13 there's a lot of different varieties of sugar cane 14 that we grow. I'm sure if -- and I don't know if 15 they have been -- if the rooting characteristics of 16 the approximately 40 different varieties that we grow 17 were looked at, we probably have quite a bit of 18 variance in the root volume and the depth of rooting 19 among those varieties. 20 Q. Did they have quite a variety? Is there a 21 long range, short range to their roots? 22 A. Well, sugar cane roots on mineral soils 23 have been recorded as deep as say six feet. 24 Q. What about in muck soils? 25 A. On muck soils they tend to be more shallow 319 1 rooted and that's generally because you have higher 2 water tables. 3 Q. When you say shallow rooted what are we 4 talking about? 5 A. Again, I think that's a question to be 6 answered by actually doing some research and looking, 7 uprooting, digging plants up out of the ground, 8 measuring, weighing the root volume and actually 9 trying to determine the actual root depth by cutting 10 a profile into the soil and examining that. I'm not 11 aware of any research that's been done in that area 12 on muck soils. There may be some. I haven't done 13 any personally. 14 Q. Now, is there any depth that muck soils 15 must be in order to accommodate a sugar cane plant, 16 any minimum depth? 17 A. As far as I know, there's a great deal of 18 variability in that and I've seen places where sugar 19 cane is growing on very deep muck and where it's 20 growing on very shallow muck and the yields are good 21 in both places. 22 Q. When we talk about shallow muck, how deep 23 is that shallow muck? 24 A. I have seen mucks that are as shallow as 4 25 to 6" personally to rock. 320 1 Q. So would it be fair to say, then, sugar 2 cane could grow with a root system of 4 to 6" and 3 give a good yield? 4 A. Well -- 5 Q. Would that be fair? 6 A. No. It wouldn't be fair. Because there 7 were some overriding factors in the particular area 8 where I looked at this shallow muck cane. There was 9 a loose marl underlay and it was very possible and 10 probably probable that that cane had actually rooted 11 itself into that rock structure, into the marl. It 12 may have been rooted deeper than that top horizon of 13 muck. 14 Q. Is there any place where I could find the 15 answer to my question, that there's been experiments 16 on that or there's been test results or reports on 17 that? 18 A. Not that I know of. You know, there may be 19 some private research within the companies but, 20 again, I'm not privy to that and some of it may or 21 may not be published. I don't know how much has been 22 published. 23 Q. The depth of the roots and the minimum 24 depth of the soil in order to support a cane plant -- 25 A. Right. 321 1 Q. -- you are not familiar with that? 2 A. No. I have not seen any public agency 3 research on that issue. 4 Q. Okay. Sir, is there research or are you 5 familiar with research on flood tolerant sugar cane? 6 A. Yes. There is a small amount that I'm 7 familiar with. 8 Q. And -- 9 A. Let me -- may I rephrase that? When I say 10 a small amount, I'm saying that I think there is only 11 a small amount of research that's been done on that 12 actual problem in the EAA and I believe I'm familiar 13 with the majority of it that's been done recently. 14 Q. Could you tell me what that research is, 15 who did it? 16 A. Yes. We've discussed that earlier and 17 that's -- I'm referring to the research by Deren, 18 Porter, Snyder and Miller. 19 Q. Is that the only research that you know of 20 about flood tolerant sugar cane? 21 A. At this point, that's the only published 22 research work that I have in my possession concerning 23 the flood tolerance of the current germ plasm in the 24 EAA, the flooding. 25 Q. Is there an ongoing program at the League 322 1 regarding research or testing for flood tolerant 2 sugar cane? 3 A. We had research proposals presented along 4 those lines and right now we're looking at the effect 5 of flooding on germination of seed cane. 6 Q. But the answer to my question, is there -- 7 is there ongoing research right now at the League 8 regarding flood tolerant sugar cane? 9 A. It's being done by IFAS and it's sponsored 10 by the League. 11 Q. When did that research start, do you know? 12 A. That research, I believe, began in 1992 and 13 we don't have results of that work yet in writing. 14 Q. Was there any research prior to '92 that 15 the League or any of its constituents, constituent 16 entities were involved in? 17 A. There may be. I have not personally seen 18 it nor have I been personally associated with that 19 research. 20 Q. Does the League have any program going on 21 now regarding the control of phosphorus? Or when I 22 say control of phosphorus, the reduction of 23 phosphorus? 24 A. I'm not fully aware of exactly what we may 25 be doing in that area because, again, that's not my 323 1 area of responsibility. 2 Q. Who would know that? 3 A. At the present time, if Mr. Rackley -- 4 Mr. Rackley would be the only one that would probably 5 know it at the League staff and know it in full. 6 Q. That's something that's outside of your 7 bailiwick? 8 A. Yes. My responsibility is the Agricultural 9 Research Program, which is -- and that program has 10 been geared since its inception many years ago toward 11 a traditional, you know, crop protection, entomology, 12 plant pathology, plant breeding, those areas. We 13 haven't dealt with ecological or environmental issues 14 very much, although we realize that those things 15 could have an affect on us in the future. 16 Q. So your programs have dealt with rodent 17 control, pests, stem rot, rust, diseases? 18 A. That's correct. 19 Q. Matters like that? 20 A. Yes, sir. 21 Q. Been doing that for a number of years? 22 A. Yes, we have. 23 Q. But your program regarding the control of 24 phosphorus you don't know about? 25 A. No. At this particular time the 324 1 Agricultural Research Program that I oversee is not 2 doing any research in that area. 3 Q. Okay. Do you know how long phosphorus has 4 been used as a fertilizer in the EAA? 5 A. Oh, I'm not positive when it was first 6 applied. But I'm sure -- you know, they have been 7 farming in the EAA since the area was drained, so I'm 8 sure that shortly after the initial plantings of 9 sugar cane were made at the turn of the century, they 10 started fertilizing with phosphorus. 11 Q. Past several decades, would that be fair to 12 say? 13 A. Absolutely. 14 Q. Do you know how much phosphorus per year 15 say for 1990 or 1991 was used as fertilizer in the 16 EAA? 17 A. No, I don't. 18 Q. Who would know that? 19 A. I imagine that fertilizer distributors may 20 have an idea of their sales, but other than that, I 21 don't know. 22 Q. And do you know how much phosphorus was 23 taken up in the crops that were generated from the 24 EAA in any of those years? 25 A. I don't personally know those numbers, 325 1 although they have recently been calculated by 2 Dr. Izuno and IFAS in the work that he did for the 3 District and that can be calculated. 4 Q. You say Mr. Rackley would know about 5 specific programs to control or reduce phosphorus or 6 testing programs? 7 A. Mr. Rackley has complete oversight on all 8 budgetary matters at the League, so he would be aware 9 of any project we were funding because he would have 10 knowledge of funding in all areas of the League 11 budget. 12 Q. Are you familiar with any of the research 13 going on to increase milling efficiency? 14 A. No. We haven't done any of that in our 15 program, in the ag research program. 16 Q. Who would know about that? 17 A. I don't know. I think that would probably 18 be a company issue more than anything else. 19 Q. The League is not -- generally would not be 20 concerned about milling efficiency, plant -- 21 A. No. That's a very specialized area of 22 research and we don't have people on staff that deal 23 in that particular area of technology. 24 Q. What about increased sugar cane quality in 25 the sense that the plant would yield more sucrose or 326 1 yield more usable matter? 2 A. Yes. We're directly involved in that 3 through the ag research program in our association 4 with the Cooperative Plant Breeding Program. 5 Q. Is that in your bailiwick? 6 A. Yes, it is. 7 Q. And what is going on in that area now, do 8 you know? 9 A. Yes. There's a plant breeding effort, a 10 long term plant breeding effort that the United 11 States Department of Agriculture has had at Canal 12 Point, Florida. That station was established in 1919 13 and they have been hybridizing plants and looking for 14 increased yield, disease resistance and all the other 15 desirable factors that you want to select for in 16 sugar cane for many years and the majority of the 17 varieties of sugar cane cultivars or cultivated 18 varieties grown in the Everglades in the ag area come 19 from the work of that station. And that program is a 20 cooperative program that IFAS participates in and 21 that the Florida Sugar Cane League participates. 22 Q. In terms of plant yield -- 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. -- has there been a trend in the last five 25 years or so, do you know? 327 1 A. Five years is a short amount of time to 2 talk about trends in yield for sugar cane. 3 Q. Let's use a ten year period. 4 A. There's a ten year period from the time you 5 make a cross until you get a plant out of that cross, 6 so the generation from seed -- initial seed to the 7 final plant material and the final release of a 8 variety is a long period. So when you talk about 9 terms of increases through breeding within a five 10 year period, you are only talking about half the 11 generational cycle. So what we tend to look at in 12 trends in sugar cane is more like a decade or 15 13 years, say. 14 Q. Can we tell now whether a given acreage is 15 producing more plants and whether those plants are 16 producing more usable yield? 17 A. Well, as a plant breeder, I can tell you, 18 first of all, the genetics of sugar cane is very 19 complicated and sugar cane breeding is based on 20 producing a very large number of -- initial number of 21 plants in the first population. We start with 22 selection numbers that approach 100,000 individual 23 plants from many different crosses and then we go in 24 and look for -- look at those individuals and make a -- 25 say a 10 to 20 percent selection based on type and 328 1 plant those out and when you start actually -- when 2 you get it to the point where you're able to analyze 3 yield increases, you have to start vegetatively 4 propagating that plant and look at it in successively 5 larger plots and replicated tests. When we get to 6 the final replicated test field stage in sugar cane 7 variety development we're only looking at 10 to 12 8 varieties from that initial population of 100,000 9 plants. Progress is difficult to make and it's very 10 slow and we haven't been able to take advantage of 11 recent biotechnical advancements because of the 12 complicated genetic nature of the crop. We're still 13 having to rely on the traditional methods of plant 14 breeding to get there, so the progress is not as fast 15 as we would like it to be, but if you look back over 16 the hundred years that we've been, or close to a 17 hundred years that we've been growing sugar cane in 18 Florida, yes, we have had increases in yield. Most 19 plant breeders that I know and myself included will 20 tell you that because we've been relying on this 21 traditional method of plant breeding for over a 22 hundred years that we are starting to approach, we 23 think, a plateau in the amount of progress that we're 24 going to be able to make in a yield, especially of 25 tons of cane per hectare. 329 1 Q. But you are not familiar with any 2 information regarding a given acreage, how much more 3 it's producing in terms of plants and how much more 4 the plant is producing in terms of yield in the last 5 five or ten years? 6 A. I still don't quite follow your reasoning 7 or your question there. 8 Q. Let me back up. 9 You're not familiar with any numbers 10 regarding given acreages, the same plots, in that 11 those plots are producing more plants currently than 12 they were say five or ten years ago and those plants 13 have a greater yield than they did five or ten years 14 ago? You're not familiar with any of those numbers? 15 A. I don't think such numbers exist on a one 16 to one comparison basis looking at -- there's a lot 17 of variability there. We have, again, over 40 18 different clones or cultivars, cultivated varieties 19 that we can grow right now. 20 Q. But you are not familiar with any numbers 21 that would show a recent production, '90-'91 as 22 opposed to say '86-'85? 23 A. For individual parcels or plots of land 24 fields? 25 Q. That's right. 330 1 A. No. No. 2 Q. Okay. You don't know if such information 3 exists? 4 A. Not within Florida Sugar Cane League. 5 Q. In response to counsel's questions 6 yesterday you used the term, "prolonged flooding" 7 when you were talking about the flooding problems and 8 what they cause. What do you mean by, "prolonged 9 flooding"? 10 A. Well, I mean I was referring to the 11 duration of the time that the water is standing and 12 causing the effect. 13 Q. And is there any formula regarding how long 14 that duration would have to be before these bad 15 things happen? 16 A. On sugar cane right now we don't have a -- 17 any kind of specific formula to calculate that and, 18 again, the reason for that is there are just too many 19 variables involved. The major one being varieties. 20 Q. In response to counsel's questions 21 yesterday you responded -- and tell me if I have it 22 right again -- that regarding the BMPs you would in 23 effect pick and choose some, pick and choose others 24 and create a package because you couldn't do 25 everything at once? 331 1 A. That's correct. 2 Q. Okay. If you were asked to pick and choose 3 a package that you could do now, that would cause the 4 minimum disruption to the farmers or to the plants, 5 and yet produce the greatest chance to reduce 6 phosphorus, what would you have in that program? 7 A. Well -- 8 Q. Has anybody ever asked you to confront that 9 question? 10 A. No, they have not. 11 Q. Okay. 12 A. But right now the -- 13 MR. STOTTS: Counsel, are you asking him 14 whether there's been -- whether the League has 15 some recommended menu or are you asking him just 16 hypothetically what he might -- 17 MR. ROSENBERG: I'm not asking him anything 18 about the League having a recommended menu. He 19 responded yesterday that you couldn't have all 20 the BMPs at once. You'd have to pick and choose 21 different packages. Is that correct? 22 THE WITNESS: That's correct. 23 BY MR. ROSENBERG: 24 Q. I'm asking you to choose a package that 25 would do two things. It would have the greatest 332 1 chance of reducing phosphorus, but it would also have 2 the least harm caused because of water table or 3 whatever reason to the farmers. I wanted you to 4 produce that package for me. 5 A. Unless you tell me what the variables are I 6 can't tell you that. 7 Q. I'm telling you what the nine IFAS -- 8 A. See, you are not telling me -- 9 Are you growing vegetables? Are you 10 rotating rice? 11 Q. I'm talking about cane and if you wish you 12 can rotate rice in there. 13 A. But, again, if you're just talking about 14 cane, there's still too many variables involved for 15 me to tell you that because it depends on those 16 variables. Depends on the soil type. It depends on 17 how many pumps you've got on your canal structure; on 18 your particular operation as a farmer, how big it is, 19 how small it is, who you're next door to. There are 20 a lot of variables. For me to tell you what the best 21 thing to do for sugar cane, I can't tell you because 22 there are just too many variables involved. 23 Q. But each farmer would know what variables 24 confronts him? 25 A. Each farmer should know what variables or 333 1 have a good idea of what some of those variables are 2 that are important to his particular farm, yes. 3 Q. Would there be any need to wait for each 4 farm, once it knows its own variables, what to pick 5 off the menu here, what set of BMPs it would put in 6 place? 7 A. I think that's absolutely correct. 8 Q. My question was would there be a need? 9 A. I think -- you know, I'm not a farmer and 10 that's a difficult question for me to answer. If I 11 was a farmer I would definitely be looking at what my 12 particular circumstances were before I wrote which 13 BMPs I was going to implement on my farm to satisfy 14 the rule. 15 Q. Once you know that, is there any reason why 16 the farmer couldn't pick items off the menu now and 17 put them in place immediately? 18 A. I think farmers are doing that, to answer 19 your question. I mean they have had to resubmit a 20 permit that has a BMP plan in it. If they're not 21 going to implement those BMPs, then they're going to 22 be in violation of their permit. Growers are having 23 to do that is the answer to that question, I think. 24 Q. But it would be a combined -- a program 25 picking items off the menu would be singular to each 334 1 separate farm? 2 A. I haven't reviewed the permits to tell you 3 that. But my opinion is that they would be, yes. 4 They would be customized and individualized to that 5 particular farming operation. 6 Q. And if you or another expert were put on 7 that farm and given the variables could you construct 8 a program for each farm today? 9 A. Could I do it personally? 10 Q. Or some other expert who perhaps may have 11 greater expertise, could that be done today? 12 A. Well, I would think that -- again, first of 13 all, it has to be done. So obviously people are 14 doing it. So, to answer your question, could someone 15 do it? Yes, they could, because they are doing it. 16 Q. Earlier we talked about rice in open 17 response to counsel's questions and then your 18 suggestion here. Does using rice on fallow ground or 19 on an aquatic crop, does that have a beneficial 20 effect on the soil, do you know? 21 A. Yes, it does. 22 Q. What is that beneficial effect? 23 A. One of the biggest benefits that sugar cane 24 growers get from rotating into rice is they get the 25 benefit of the flood and that benefit has to do with 335 1 control of soil insects and weeds, mostly. 2 Q. So despite the fact that rice may be a 3 break even crop in the money sense -- 4 A. Right. 5 Q. -- it may be beneficial in a farming sense? 6 A. Yes. That's absolutely correct. 7 Q. Regarding Exhibit 4 -- 8 A. Okay. 9 Q. Let me go back to rice for a second. 10 A. Okay. 11 Q. About rice's beneficial effects, would it 12 be -- would you expect that using rice would have a 13 beneficial effect such that it would help yield risks -- 14 it would help diminish yield risk? 15 A. Well, it certainly is viewed as a 16 beneficial practice from the standpoint of being a 17 good rotational crop with sugar cane. Exactly what 18 it would do to the risk I haven't really considered 19 that. 20 Q. Do you know if anybody's done that 21 research? 22 A. None that I have seen in writing and, as 23 far as I know, I mean the companies may be looking at 24 this, but I have no knowledge of exactly what they're 25 doing. 336 1 Q. Page 113. The question is -- my question 2 is what the cost of each of these BMPs would be. For 3 example, BMP number 3, wouldn't BMP number 3 not have 4 an increased cost for farmers but, in fact, be a 5 benefit to them? 6 A. I think there is some increased costs 7 associated with it and the reason I say that is 8 because it could mean equipment modifications. 9 According to Del and Forrest's BMP guidebook, they 10 have zone fertilizer application equipment may need 11 to be modified. Exactly what those costs are, I 12 can't tell you. But certainly any way of reducing 13 phosphorus in our drainage water, considering the 14 current rule and so forth, is a benefit to growers. 15 Q. Well, BMP 3 is to prevent fertilizer spills 16 and really programs to prevent the over luxurious use 17 of fertilizer. If that could be done, wouldn't that 18 reduce fertilizing costs? 19 A. First of all, number 3 has nothing to do 20 with over fertilization. It has to do with 21 preventing spills of fertilizer into bodies of water. 22 Q. Okay. Wouldn't something that would 23 prevent that permit the farmer to use -- buy less 24 fertilizer and use less fertilizer? 25 A. Well, again, that's a very difficult thing 337 1 for me to assess. I don't know how much fertilizer 2 is being spilled in the water, but I can only tell 3 you that peoples' opinion is generally that a little 4 bit of fertilizer can make a big difference in the 5 concentration in, for instance, a field ditch or farm 6 canal because we're talking very low concentrations 7 and fertilizer is a concentrated product. 8 Q. Well, Bottcher and Izuno said it could 9 reduce phosphorus losses by 0 to 15 percent. Now, 10 tell me if there's a direct correlation here. If 11 they're half right, that is it only reduces it by 7 12 1/2 percent, wouldn't that mean that farmers would 13 buy 7 1/2 percent less fertilizer? 14 A. No. Not necessarily. I don't think that's 15 what it means at all. Because what they're referring 16 to here is P losses. They're talking about losses in 17 the drainage water. I don't necessarily think that 18 the amount of fertilizer applied is directly 19 correlated in every way to that. I'm not sure that's 20 what they're talking about. 21 Q. Talking about preventing spills? 22 A. That's correct. 23 Q. When you spill something -- I'm not trying 24 to argue with you -- 25 A. Yeah. 338 1 Q. -- but when you spill something, that's 2 useless, isn't it, in terms of fertilizing the 3 ground? That's something that's -- 4 A. I agree with that. 5 Q. If you could have a practice that would 6 eliminate spills, something you get no benefit from -- 7 A. Right. 8 Q. -- and if that benefit were quantified at 7 9 1/2 percent less fertilizer, it's not your statement 10 or it's your testimony that that doesn't mean the 11 farmer would buy 7 1/2 percent less fertilizer? 12 A. Well, I interpret that somewhat differently 13 because my logic and yours are slightly different on 14 this. 15 Q. Okay. 16 A. You're thinking that means there's going to 17 be -- of a total fertilizer applied, 7 1/2 percent of 18 it not spilled into the ditches. That's not what 19 this means. 20 Q. What's your understanding as to what that 21 means? 22 A. My understanding is that if you can prevent 23 spillage of fertilizer, you can cut back on the 24 amount of phosphorus leaving the soils of the 25 Everglades by as much as their range given here, 0 to 339 1 15 percent and I think what they're referring to is 2 concentration in water. And, again, fertilizer is a 3 concentrated product so if you put a little bit it 4 makes a big difference. 5 Q. Let me back up and ask a more general 6 question. 7 In terms of use of fertilizer, if these 8 practices say, one, two and three were used by the 9 farmer, would the net result of that be the farmer 10 would buy less fertilizer? 11 A. That's difficult for me to say. I've not 12 given any thought to actually trying to make those 13 calculations because, you know, I think what it would 14 mean is that there's going to be less -- less load or 15 less concentration in drainage water. 16 Q. I know that. But -- 17 A. As far as how it relates directly to the 18 amount of fertilizer bought, I can't -- I can't make 19 that association without giving it a lot more thought 20 and calculation and that's probably something that 21 you need to ask Izuno and Bottcher themselves. 22 Q. All right. Let me direct your attention to 23 Exhibit Number 9. 24 A. Okay. 25 Q. You testified, I believe, that there was a 340 1 pre-presentation program that you were at before this 2 was presented to the board or to the District, there 3 was a pre-presentation program. 4 A. Yes, I did. 5 Q. Who was there? 6 A. Myself, Mr. Rackley, different individuals 7 from several of our major companies, all of whom I 8 don't remember and I believe Mr. Buker was there and 9 that's all I recall specifically. 10 Q. Was it more than one pre-presentation 11 program that you know of? 12 A. Not that I know of. 13 Q. How long did this pre-presentation program 14 take, do you know? 15 A. Probably somewhere on the order of one half 16 hour to actually go through this presentation. 17 Q. Who made the presentation? 18 A. That I don't recall. 19 Q. Were there any changes made by the other 20 people who were there who said maybe you ought to 21 change this or change that; any alterations made to 22 the scheme presented by Exhibit 9? 23 A. The best I can remember at this time was 24 that we were -- you know, there were people there and 25 the whole purpose of it was to comment on here and 341 1 suggest changes, but I didn't pay enough attention to 2 early drafts and the final product to be able to 3 recall or to tell you with any degree of accuracy 4 what changes exactly were made. 5 Q. So there were earlier drafts of deposition 6 Exhibit 9 that were circulated? 7 A. Well -- 8 Q. Or aspects? 9 A.