1

1 Division of Administrative Hearings

2 Department of Administration, State of Florida

SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE )

4 of FLORIDA; ROTH FARMS, INC.; and )

WEDGWORTH FARMS, Inc., )

5 Petitioners )

V ) DOAH Case

6 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT ) No. 92-3038

DISTRICT, an agency of the State )

7 of Florida; et al., )

Respondents. )

FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, INC.; )

9 UNITED STATES SUGAR CORPORATION; )

and NEW HOPE SOUTH, INC., )

10 Petitioners, )

V ) DOAH Case

11 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT ) No. 92-3039

DISTRICT, an agency of the State )

12 of Florida; et al., )

Respondents. )

FLORIDA FRUIT and VEGETABLE )

14 ASSOCIATION; LEWIS POPE FARMS; )

W. E. SCHLECHTER & SONS, INC., )

15 and HUNDLEY FARMS, INC., )

Petitioners, )

16 V ) DOAH Case

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT ) No. 92-3040

17 DISTRICT, an agency of the State )

of Florida; et al., )

18 Respondents. )

Deposition of Eric Flaig

Taken before Elaine V. Williams,

21 Professional Reporter and Notary Public in and for

the State of Florida at large, pursuant to notice of

22 taking deposition filed by the Plaintiffs Sugar Cane

League, U. S. Sugar and New Hope South in the above

23 cause.

- - -

24 Wednesday, February 24, 1992

319 Clematis Street, Suite 500

25 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401

9:00 a.m. - 3:20 p.m.

1 APPEARANCES:

On behalf of the Petitioners Florida Sugar

3 Cane League, Inc., United States 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: ROBERT H. BLANK ESQUIRE

7 On behalf of the Respondent SFWMD:

Popham, Haik, Schnobrich & Kaufman, Ltd.

8 4000 International Place

100 Southeast Second Street

9 Miami, Florida 33131

By: PATRICK COUSINS, ESQUIRE

On behalf of the Intervenor, United States of America:

11 Department of Justice

155 South Miami Avenue, Suite 627

12 Miami, Florida 33130-1693

BY: ROBERT ROSENBERG, ESQUIRE

14 - - -

1 - - -

2 I N D E X

3 - - -

5 WITNESS: DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS

6 Eric Flaig

BY MR. BLANK: 4

9 - - -

10 E X H I B I T S

11 - - -

13 NUMBER PAGE NO. DESCRIPTION

14 EXB. NO. 1 5 CV

EXB. NO. 2 56 phosphorous budget

15 EXB. NO. 3 115 draft graphic

EXB. NO. 4 117 graphic

16 EXB. NO. 5 122 pgs 33, 38 1992 SWIM

Planning Document

17 EXB. NO. 6 132 draft Evaluation of EAA

phosphorous reduction

18 alternatives

1 P R O C E E D I N G S

2 - - -

3 Thereupon,

4 Eric Flaig,

5 being by the undersigned Notary Public first duly

6 sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

7 THE WITNESS: I do.

8 DIRECT (Eric Flaig)

9 BY MR. BLANK:

10 Q. For the record, sir, would you state your

11 name and address?

12 A. My name is Eric George Flaig. I live at

13 131 Eider Court, Royal Palm Beach, Florida.

14 Q. My name is Robert Blank. I am an attorney

15 for U.S. Sugar Corporation, the Florida Sugar Cane

16 League, and New Hope South and am taking your

17 deposition in the context of the SWIM plan

18 administrative challenge. If I ask you any questions

19 that you don't understand, would you please indicate

20 that to me, and I'll attempt to rephrase the

21 question.

22 A. Yes, sir.

23 Q. Okay. Where are you presently employed?

24 A. South Florida Water Management District.

25 Q. And what is your position with the

1 District?

2 A. I'm a senior civil engineer.

3 Q. Are you assigned to a particular

4 department?

5 A. I am in the Kissimmee and Okeechobee

6 Systems Research Division of the Research Department.

7 Q. And when you say Kissimmee and Okeechobee,

8 what geographic area does that include?

9 A. That geographic area includes the upper

10 east coast, the lower west coast, Kissimmee River

11 Valley and Lake Okeechobee.

12 Q. Does it include regions south of Lake

13 Okeechobee?

14 A. It does not include the EPA or the EAA or

15 those areas south of that. I believe it includes

16 some parts of the lower east coast, which are,

17 latitudewise, south of Okeechobee.

18 Q. I show you a document which we will mark as

19 Flaig Number 1.

20 (The document was marked

21 Flaig Exb. No. 1.)

22 BY MR. BLANK:

23 Q. Can you identify that document, sir?

24 A. That is my Curriculum Vitae.

25 Q. Is this the most recent Curriculum Vitae

1 that you have?

2 A. Yes, sir.

3 Q. Under the first item on that document

4 marked 1992, which I would assume means 1992 to

5 present; is that correct?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. That's a reflection of your current

8 position with the District?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. The first item there, Developed GIS data

11 base for dairy region --

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. -- can you tell me what you did in that

14 regard?

15 A. That is converting the design plans and the

16 site plans for the dairies and adjacent lands into a

17 digital data base to be used for analysis and

18 interpretation of water quality and data.

19 Q. What is a GIS data base?

20 A. GIS is Geographic Information System. A

21 way to relate spacial data with tabular information

22 for analysis and interpretation.

23 Q. And is that work complete?

24 A. At this time it is ongoing.

25 Q. When do you anticipate it will be complete?

1 A. The major components of it should be

2 complete by June. The remainder we would hope would

3 be complete by mid '94. However, with any geographic

4 information system, it is continually updated and

5 improved.

6 Q. And the next line item there, provide

7 direction for activities of several research and

8 planning contracts, does that item also refer to

9 matters involving the Lake Okeechobee and Kissimmee

10 basins?

11 A. Yes, sir.

12 Q. And what type of research and planning

13 contracts were you involved in?

14 A. Fate and transport of phosphorus and

15 regional analysis of best management practices.

16 Q. What sources of phosphorus were you

17 concerned with in that regard?

18 A. We are concerned with all imports of

19 phosphorus into the Okeechobee basin and particularly

20 those sources used for animal feed and fertilizer.

21 Q. This did not relate to sources of

22 phosphorus relating to sugar cane, farming or farming

23 south of Lake Okeechobee?

24 A. Not at this stage.

25 Q. What about sources of phosphorous with

1 regard to mineralization or oxidation of soils? Was

2 that involved in this project?

3 A. There was some work done in these projects

4 on mineralization.

5 Q. Can you describe that work?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Would you do so?

8 A. Yes. Ramesh Reddy of the University of

9 Florida is on contract with us to look at rates of

10 phosphorus absorption and participation, and as

11 necessary, ambient levels of mineralization firm

12 organic matter in streams and wetlands in the

13 Okeechobee basin. As such, he's looking at

14 mineralization; however, he is not looking at

15 mineralization of organic soils per se, as would be

16 found in the EAA under the contracts that I manage.

17 I believe he is doing so under other contracts that I

18 am not familiar with.

19 MR. COUSINS: Can I just interrupt one

20 second off the record?

21 (Discussion held off the record.)

22 BY MR. BLANK:

23 Q. You said that Dr. Ramesh Reddy was involved

24 in other contracts relating to mineralization of muck

25 soil similar to ones found in the EAA; is that

1 correct?

2 A. I believe so.

3 Q. Do you know who would be administering

4 those contracts?

5 A. I'm not sure.

6 Q. It would be somebody with the District,

7 though, that would be supervising that work?

8 A. Yes, sir.

9 Q. Who is your immediate supervisor? Let me

10 rephrase. Maybe you can just explain briefly the

11 hierarchy of your department. Who do you report to

12 and who reports to you?

13 A. Briefly, huh? Depending on the assignment,

14 I report to either engineering supervisor Dr. Todd

15 Tisdale, division director Nick Ammon, or department

16 director Tony Federico.

17 Q. Who reports to you?

18 A. Nobody.

19 Q. Do you have any other staff that work with

20 you on various projects that you're involved in?

21 A. Depending on the assignment and the nature

22 of the data I require to complete the work, I

23 interact with many people in many departments.

24 Q. Have you interacted with anybody, any

25 people involved with projects located in the EAA?

1 A. Currently I make every effort not to be

2 involved in Everglades issues.

3 Q. Have you been successful in that effort?

4 A. Not by my presence here today. For those

5 who may read this later, my activities in the basins

6 north of the lake are a full-time job plus.

7 Q. What have been your activities in the EAA?

8 What projects have you been involved in in the EAA?

9 A. From what point in time?

10 Q. From the start of your employment with the

11 District to date.

12 A. Okay. From approximately the time I was

13 employed with the District, I was assigned the

14 responsibility for managing what we refer to as the

15 EAA BMP contract with Forest Izuno and Del Botcher of

16 the University of Florida. I worked on that project

17 for approximately five years, ending one year short

18 of completion of that work effort. I worked on the

19 first draft of the Everglades SWIM Plan, which was

20 completed in 1989. Pursuant to that, I worked on

21 developing literature review on soil phosphorus

22 behavior and phosphorus budgets for the EAA.

23 As part of the EAA BMP contract I, worked

24 with the University of Florida on delineating

25 information relative to best management practices.

1 All of my work in the Everglades region has been

2 limited to the EAA.

3 Q. The last item you mentioned, work with the

4 University of Florida on a BMP contract -- did I get

5 that correctly?

6 A. Yes, sir.

7 Q. How does that differ from the first item

8 you mentioned, which was the EAA BMP analysis?

9 A. Only in the sense that there were two

10 things I did: One was the EAA BMP contract, and the

11 other was back-up information for the SWIM plan. And

12 under the heading of back-up information for the SWIM

13 plan, there were three activities; soil phosphorus,

14 phosphorus budgets, and best management practices.

15 So that is a subtitle underneath that. One is review

16 of BMPs and the other is contract management. And in

17 review of data sets.

18 Q. All right. I missed the third item you

19 mentioned. Soil phosphorus, phosphorus budget and --

20 A. Best management practices. BMPs.

21 So I believe your question is how does 1

22 differ from 2C, as it were?

23 Q. Yes.

24 A. 1 is contract management and review of data

25 sets, and 2C was review of BMPs as best available

1 information. And that all pertains only to the 1989

2 draft of the Everglades SWIM Plan.

3 Q. What was your involvement in the current

4 Everglades SWIM Plan, the 1992 SWIM plan?

5 A. I have had no direct involvement and I do

6 not know how much of materials I developed previously

7 were used. I have not read the '92 SWIM plan.

8 Q. Were you involved in the formulation of the

9 District BMP rule?

10 A. I believe I was.

11 Q. What was your involvement in that?

12 A. Beginning in June of 1991, I participated

13 in discussions with the Federal Government and the

14 District in defining what components ought to be

15 included in the -- what do we call it -- the BMP

16 rule.

17 Q. That's what I call it, yes.

18 A. Okay. I think it would work for the

19 District. The Everglades Rule. I'm not sure. Okay.

20 Either way.

21 My discussions at that point continued for

22 a couple of months with various individuals in

23 defining what kind of components ought to be in the

24 rule, what kind of policy instruments, and my

25 participation ended somewhere around October of '91.

1 However, the rule was completely adopted considerably

2 later, and I am not sure how much of the

3 communications I was involved in were directly used

4 in the rule, as opposed to developed from other

5 sources or modified after my discussions with the

6 feds.

7 Q. You said in discussions with the feds. Can

8 you identify who was involved in those discussions?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Who?

11 A. Myself, Dick Rogers, John Burt and Dan

12 Scheidt.

13 Q. Who is John Burt?

14 A. John Burt is a program administrator with

15 SCS USDA.

16 Q. And who is Dick Rogers?

17 A. Dick Rogers at the time was director of the

18 Planning Department.

19 Q. Of?

20 A. South Florida Water Management District.

21 Q. Is he still there?

22 A. He is still at the District.

23 Q. Why were discussions held with federal

24 employees concerning the components of the BMP rule?

25 A. I don't know.

1 Q. Who arranged for these discussions?

2 A. I don't know.

3 Q. What concerns were expressed by either Mr.

4 Burt or Mr. Scheidt concerning the necessary

5 components of the BMP rule?

6 MR. COUSINS: Object to the form.

7 Go ahead and answer it.

8 I guess when you say what concerns were

9 expressed, there is no record that any concerns

10 were necessarily expressed.

11 BY MR. BLANK:

12 Q. You understand the question?

13 A. I believe I do. I do not recall specific

14 concerns in the sense of a list of this, this, this

15 and this. The general concerns, of course, from Dan

16 Scheidt, who represented the Park, were protection of

17 the downstream system and long-term protection. The

18 concern of John Burt, in general, was, of course,

19 protection of the downstream environment, but also

20 protection of agricultural production systems in the

21 EAA. He did not wish to see a rule adopted that

22 would unnecessarily limit ag production.

23 Q. Did Mr. Scheidt share that concern, to your

24 knowledge?

25 A. I do not remember him expressing such a

1 concern.

2 Q. Did these discussions that you had result

3 in a definition or a delineation of the components to

4 be included in the BMP rule?

5 A. At that time we completed the meeting with

6 a list of policy instruments that ought to be

7 considered in the development of a successful rule.

8 Q. Can you tell me what those were?

9 MR. COUSINS: Can I just state, to the end

10 we are getting involved in any kind of

11 settlement negotiations or discussion, just a

12 general objection as to the relevancy of this

13 presently in this particular action. I am not

14 going to stop you from asking questions, but I

15 just want to make that note on the record.

16 MR. BLANK: All right. I would also like

17 to note for the record I don't think we are

18 talking about settlement discussions at this

19 point in time.

20 BY MR. BLANK:

21 Q. You can correct me if I am wrong, but these

22 discussions were not part of a general settlement

23 discussions with regard to the federal lawsuit, were

24 they?

25 A. I believe that was the intent of the

1 discussions.

2 Q. Oh, okay.

3 MR. ROSENBERG: I concur in the objection.

4 BY MR. BLANK:

5 Q. What components did you arrive at?

6 A. As I said, we came up with a list of

7 components that ought to be considered in the

8 development of a rule. What in the end was included

9 in the rule involves further discussions much later,

10 of which I was only partially involved.

11 The component that we discussed there --

12 and I don't remember all of the components, and I

13 have not had time to review the documents completely --

14 is we wanted to make sure there was education and

15 training of both ag managers and field staff, we

16 wanted monitoring of BMP implementation, on-site

17 water quality monitoring of some reliability, and, of

18 course, basin spill monitoring, essential for

19 determining inflows into the EPA. There should be

20 some form of staged incentives for quick development

21 of BMP technology. There should be some staged

22 penalties for significantly penalizing those who

23 would not participate to the best of their ability,

24 in development and implementation of a BMP program.

25 Q. These various components were directed at

1 reducing phosphorus loads from the EAA; is that

2 correct?

3 A. Yes, sir.

4 Q. Did you establish any goal with regard to

5 the amount of reduction that could be achieved by

6 implementing these components?

7 A. I don't remember that. There was

8 considerable mixed feelings as to how much phosphorus

9 load reduction could be achieved by BMPs, and the

10 numbers that various people considered had

11 considerable disagreement on what the load reductions

12 could be, so I don't believe we focused on what

13 phosphorus load or concentration reduction goals

14 ought to be considered in the rule.

15 Q. And you did not participate in drafting of

16 the final rule; is that correct?

17 A. I participated in some of the early drafts,

18 but I was not involved in the final drafts.

19 Q. Did any of the drafts that you participated

20 in have a phosphorus reduction goal?

21 A. I don't recall. My intent was to make sure

22 that a broad spectrum -- there were broad spectrums

23 of policies that would help encourage the

24 implementation of practices to reduce phosphorus

25 loads. I was not particularly concerned with the

1 target goals that the District or anyone else wanted

2 to see developed in the rule because that involved

3 targets set for EPA, targets set for the STAs, of

4 which I was not knowledgeable. So I could not

5 discuss the question of what load reductions were

6 necessary or required.

7 Q. When you say targets set for EPA, are you

8 referring to the Everglades Protection Area --

9 A. Yes, sir.

10 Q. -- when you say EPA?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Did you analyze the various components that

13 you have just described to determine what type of

14 reduction in phosphorus load would be achievable if

15 these components were implemented?

16 A. No.

17 Q. Did you ever reach any opinion concerning

18 the amount of phosphorus reduction that would be

19 possible if these components were implemented?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. What was that?

22 A. I believe if all components of the rule

23 were developed to completion, we should see 60, 70

24 percent reduction in load, and I have stated that in

25 public forum to our Board.

1 Q. Can you give me a breakout of the various

2 components that would lead to that type of a

3 reduction?

4 A. Could you restate that?

5 Q. Yeah. What components of BMP, best

6 management practices, if implemented, would result in

7 that type of a reduction?

8 A. Can you re-read the question?

9 (Thereupon, a portion of the record

10 was read by the reporter.)

11 THE WITNESS: The components of BMPs and

12 how much load reduction they would achieve is,

13 of course, separate from implementation of these

14 various other policies, because BMP

15 implementation is only one of the policies that

16 were being considered at the time. Of the BMPs

17 that you could recommend for the Everglades

18 Agricultural Area, there are several BMPs that

19 have been recommended, which, depending on the

20 site and the soil and the crop type, could

21 achieve phosphorus load reductions. Primary

22 among these are more careful fertilization.

23 BY MR. BLANK:

24 Q. Let's take these one at a time because I

25 want to get into some detail with them.

1 When you say more careful fertilization,

2 can you describe that a little more specifically?

3 A. That's where I was going with it. Within

4 fertilization, first would be soil testing to

5 determine the appropriate fertilization rates that

6 are specific to the field that is being fertilized.

7 That's one component.

8 A second component is where --

9 Q. Hold on that just a minute. When you say

10 soil testing to determine the appropriate

11 fertilization rates --

12 A. Right.

13 Q. -- how would the soil testing tell you what

14 fertilization rates to utilize?

15 A. Soil testing would tell us about the

16 availability of the phosphorus already in the soil

17 and how much we expected was available for crop

18 uptake and for sufficient yield from that field to

19 meet production goals.

20 Q. Is phosphorus the only element that we are

21 concerned with when we talk about fertilization?

22 A. No.

23 Q. What other aspect, what other chemical

24 components of fertilizer, are we concerned with here?

25 A. All of them.

1 Q. Which are?

2 A. Depending on the crop and the soil, other

3 macro micronutrients and trace metals.

4 Q. Can you describe those?

5 A. Not in detail. Overall, nitrogen,

6 potassium phosphorus, your macronutrients, other

7 components of fertilization. They are concerned with

8 boron, copper, zinc, calcium silica, manganese in

9 some locations. I don't recall the full list from

10 there.

11 Q. Would there be any other components of

12 fertilizer other than phosphorus that would create a

13 concern to downstream ecosystems?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Which would those be?

16 A. I'm not really in a position to give you a

17 comprehensive list. The list goes in a couple

18 different directions. First of all, those components

19 of a standard fertilizer that affect phosphorus

20 uptake will affect the phosphorus loss and in

21 loadings downstream, and that's the most obvious.

22 I think your real question is, do the other

23 metals in the fertilizer affect downstream metal

24 loads to EPA? I'm not an expert in that area, so I

25 can't answer that.

1 Q. Do you know of anyone that has expressed a

2 concern with regard to those other metals and their

3 effect downstream?

4 A. I don't know of anybody who has expressed a

5 concern other than the general concern over mercury,

6 and I know of no analysis that has been done relative

7 to fertilizer imports on mercury fate.

8 MR. BLANK: Could you read back the last

9 part of his answer?

10 (Thereupon, a portion of the record

11 was read by the reporter.)

12 BY MR. BLANK:

13 Q. Is mercury normally a component of

14 fertilizer used in the EAA?

15 A. I would believe, as with most fertilizers,

16 it is at least a trace contaminant. On the more

17 obvious layman interpretation, I doubt that they

18 include mercury for fertilization.

19 Q. Why do you feel it would be a trace

20 contaminant in fertilizer?

21 A. Because most fertilizer materials come from

22 impure processing of mineral materials, of which it

23 is nearly impossible to remove trace metals; so

24 consequently, from the rock phosphate and other

25 materials going into it, there will be a trace of

1 other associated elements that it is not economical

2 to remove from the material.

3 Q. Are you aware of any studies that have

4 analyzed fertilizer used in the EAA to determine

5 mercury contents?

6 A. I'm not aware of any.

7 Q. All right. That was the first item you

8 mentioned; more careful fertilization as a BMP

9 practice.

10 A. That was part of that answer.

11 Q. Was there more to the answer?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. What is that?

14 A. Briefly, application methodology and

15 handling of materials.

16 Q. What do you mean by application

17 methodology?

18 A. One instance of that would be band

19 fertilization of row crops versus -- particularly

20 vegetables -- versus broadcast application. And

21 other techniques may include, depending on crop and

22 soil type, immediate incorporation versus surface

23 application, liquid application versus solid

24 materials.

25 Q. Is this a BMP practice related primarily to

1 vegetable production?

2 A. The primary application would be

3 vegetables. It is possible that these techniques

4 could also be adapted for sugar cane. At what

5 expense, I'm not sure.

6 Q. All right. Are there any other components

7 to the category of more careful fertilization?

8 A. None that I can think of at this moment.

9 Q. When you say handling methodology, are you

10 referring there to prevention of spills?

11 A. Right. And wastage of materials and clean-

12 up of handling equipment, containment of spills.

13 Q. Do you have any opinion with regard to the

14 percentage of phosphorus reduction that may be

15 achievable by soil testing and the application of

16 fertilizer based on that testing?

17 MR. COUSINS: Are you asking him the

18 percentage of the 60 percent or --

19 MR. BLANK: Yes.

20 MR. COUSINS: Do you understand the

21 question?

22 THE WITNESS: Yes. It can range between 5

23 and 25 percent, depending on soil crop

24 combinations as well as what we believe is going

25 on regionally in the EAA.

1 BY MR. BLANK:

2 Q. What do you mean by what you believe is

3 going on regionally in the EAA?

4 A. Well, from a small sampling of observations

5 of handling of materials and the kinds of practices

6 we believe the growers are using, it is possible we

7 could get upwards of 15 percent reduction from these

8 BMPs. However, if we find that our observations

9 represent the poorest handling techniques, then the

10 reductions may only be as much as 5 percent.

11 Q. Well, the first category that we have kinds

12 of labeled soil testing would seem to be directed at

13 the prevention of overfertilization; is that correct?

14 A. Overfertilization plus spills and handling

15 errors associated with that additional unnecessary

16 phosphorus.

17 Q. Well, I have that under my category of

18 application methodology as distinguished from soil

19 testing --

20 A. Right.

21 Q. -- and what I was trying to get at you is

22 an opinion with regard to percentage of reduction via

23 soil testing and then via application methodology.

24 And you gave me a figure of five to 25 percent. Did

25 that encompass both categories?

1 A. I really don't feel comfortable giving a

2 percentage of reduction for each of the three

3 subcategories under fertilization methods.

4 Q. Are you aware of any testing that has been

5 done or research that has been done with regard to

6 these three categories and the possible phosphorus

7 reductions that could be achieved?

8 A. I believe the University of Florida

9 experiment station at Belle Glade has been looking at

10 the ramifications of each of these techniques. How

11 far they have gone in the analysis and

12 interpretation, I'm not sure.

13 Q. This work that you referred to by the

14 University of Florida at Belle Glade, was that work a

15 part of the EAA BMP contract that you administered

16 for five years?

17 A. Only one part of it was. And that was

18 considering comparing banding versus broadcasting of

19 fertilizer on cabbage.

20 Q. What individuals were responsible for that

21 research work from the University of Florida?

22 A. Del Botcher and Forest Izuno.

23 Q. All right. Is there anything else under

24 the general category of fertilization practices that

25 would result in a more -- let me restate the

1 question. Are there any other categories under the

2 more fertilization discussion that we have been

3 having that would be part of the BMP program?

4 A. I believe, in a general sense, that covers

5 it.

6 Q. All right. What other aspect of BMP

7 program were you concerned with?

8 A. Pump rate reductions.

9 Q. And what is involved in that category?

10 A. Reducing off site pumpage from the farms

11 into the primary canal system in response to

12 potential flooding. The intent was to come up with a

13 new point system for determining when the growers

14 pump to reduce pumping poor water quality into our

15 system.

16 Q. When you say "our" system, what do you

17 mean?

18 A. The District -- well, it is not the

19 District. The Corps of Engineers, I guess.

20 Q. Is this the same thing as not overdraining

21 and keeping the water table at an optimum level?

22 A. That's one component of the pumping. In a

23 sense, I guess that could be developed into a

24 separate category. That would then result in this --

25 the whole category would be improved water

1 management, of which there would be three categories.

2 One would be reduce off-site pumping, another --

3 Q. What do you mean by off-site pumping?

4 A. Well, that's what we were discussing about

5 pump rates. Pumping from the farm off site into the

6 primary canal system.

7 Q. As contrasted to pumping within the farm

8 system itself?

9 A. Right.

10 A second component of water management

11 would be improved on-farm pumping of water from

12 sensitive crops to areas not as drastically affected.

13 And then the third area would be water

14 table management/irrigation. And that could also

15 include, in a general sense, water conservation.

16 Q. What would be involved in determining an

17 opinion at the water table that would trigger pumping

18 off site?

19 A. I'm sorry; could you repeat the question?

20 Q. Yeah. You had previously indicated that

21 one of the goals here was to determine a point at

22 which -- or some method for the farmers to determine

23 when to pump and when not to pump --

24 A. Right.

25 Q. -- which, I assume, means the level of the

1 water table; is that a correct assumption?

2 A. That's a partially correct assumption?

3 Q. What else would be involved other than a

4 water table level?

5 A. Anticipated rainfall.

6 Q. That, in turn, would relate to the existing

7 water table, though, wouldn't it?

8 A. No.

9 Q. Why not?

10 A. If you were in the wet season and you get a

11 heavy rain at a given water table, you're much more

12 concerned with consequences of another significant

13 rain occurring on subsequent days; whereas if you're

14 in the dry season and you receive -- at a given water

15 table -- and you anticipate a given rainfall, you may

16 not have the expectation of additional severe weather

17 in the accompanying following days, and consequently

18 your concerns about off-site pumping are lower.

19 Depending on the season and the crop, you may or may

20 not be concerned about pumping at all.

21 Obviously, if the land is fallow, you

22 couldn't care, as long as it does not endanger your

23 equipment or your facilities. On the other hand, of

24 course, if you're in the middle of a very sensitive

25 cropping season, where you're in the water table, the

1 amount of rain you expect will significantly impact

2 your decision when you need to pump. So it is not

3 single factor. Soil type, crop type, season, water

4 level, as well as your drainage capacity on site all

5 affect off-site pumpage.

6 If one wants to go further, you're also

7 concerned about what your neighbors are doing,

8 because if everybody pumps at once, there is no

9 capacity in the system, and the water is going to end

10 up flowing back onto your property.

11 Q. Is seepage a concern here with regard to

12 pumping from your neighbors?

13 A. I don't know at what degree it is a

14 concern. I mean, if you're doing a mass balance on

15 water movement, it has to be considered in the

16 equation. How significant it is, I am not sure. And

17 again, it depends on where your property is in the

18 EAA, soil type, rock type and canal structuring.

19 Q. Has anyone, to your knowledge, developed a

20 set of guidelines that would be useful for farmers

21 within the EAA to determine when to pump and when not

22 to pump?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Who has done that?

25 A. The EAAEPD.

1 Q. What is the EAAEPD?

2 A. The Everglades Agricultural Area

3 Environmental Protection District.

4 Q. EPD?

5 A. EPD. Sorry.

6 Q. Okay. Have you reviewed those guidelines?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Did you agree with them?

9 A. I found at the time there was insufficient

10 information to agree or disagree with them.

11 Q. When was your review conducted?

12 A. In 1990 and '91.

13 Q. Do you know if anyone else has conducted a

14 review of those guidelines?

15 A. I believe several people have looked at

16 those guidelines.

17 Q. Who else has looked at them? I am

18 concerned here with the District or consultants

19 employed by the District.

20 A. Oh, in a broader sense?

21 Q. Yeah.

22 A. There were several individuals involved in

23 our review of those guidelines, and I believe that

24 they have been reviewed subsequent to our review as

25 applicable to the entire EAA, but I was not involved

1 in that activity, so I'm not sure who looked at them

2 then. As for specific individuals, I can't remember

3 names right now.

4 Q. Do you know if the District retained a

5 consultant to review these guidelines?

6 A. At the time I reviewed them, no, we had

7 not. Subsequent to that, I believe they have, but

8 I'm not sure who.

9 Q. Can you give me a range of phosphorus

10 reduction that might be achievable by pump practices,

11 pump rate reductions?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. What do you think that range would be?

14 A. 10 to 40 percent.

15 Q. Does that range vary with crop type?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. What type of crops do you think would

18 achieve the most reduction in phosphorus loading by

19 improved water management?

20 A. Sugar cane.

21 Q. Why is that?

22 A. Largest acreage involved.

23 Q. Can the sugar cane farms retain more water

24 without the possibility of crop damage than perhaps

25 other farming types?

1 MR. COUSINS: I object to the form of that

2 question. When you say other farming types, are

3 you talking about other crops?

4 MR. BLANK: Other types of crops, yes.

5 THE WITNESS: In general, yes. However,

6 when one reviews the pumpage rate BMP, it is not

7 simply a question of crop type, it is also

8 involves soils, cropping sequences, adjacent

9 fields, internal canal structure.

10 BY MR. BLANK:

11 Q. So could you explain each of those items a

12 little bit more specifically? How does it involve

13 soils?

14 A. Only in general terms, because the answer

15 becomes site specific, and since the analysis of site

16 specific information has not been done, to my

17 knowledge, to make general statements about which

18 crop would be more affected or where this pump BMP

19 would result in greatest load reductions, conclusions

20 cannot be drawn, or I cannot draw conclusions on that

21 at this time.

22 Soil type matters in terms of how deep the

23 soil is and what its water holding capacity is, so

24 that gives you information on how much storage

25 capacity there is on a given farm, and how much

1 flexibility the grower has in terms of how much he

2 can vary the water table. Obviously, crops grown on

3 very shallow or very thin organic matter are not

4 going to have the holding capacities or flexibilities

5 of management that those grown in a deep muck soil

6 will have.

7 Q. What types of different soil depths are we

8 dealing with in the EAA? What is the range of soil

9 depth?

10 A. I believe the range is from almost no muck

11 to four meters.

12 Q. What areas would have almost no muck?

13 A. The south end of the EAA.

14 Q. And what type of crops are grown in this

15 area?

16 A. I'm not sure what the current distribution

17 is. Historically, I believe there is a lot of

18 pasture and cane in the south end.

19 Q. And generally, as you get closer to the

20 lake, your muck depth increases?

21 A. Yes, sir.

22 Q. Is that correct?

23 You also mentioned that cropping was a

24 factor in terms of the ability to implement better

25 pumping practices.

1 A. Correct.

2 Q. Could you explain that a little bit?

3 A. In general, many vegetables are extremely

4 sensitive to variations in water table depth. Cane

5 crops generally are less sensitive in terms of yield,

6 but it depends also on what period in the -- what

7 stage of the crop growth the crop is in, and that

8 varies across the EAA, depending on planting time and

9 ratoon. And of course, at the farthest extreme, if

10 you're doing aquatic cropping, either aquatic crops

11 specifically, or rice, they are much less sensitive

12 to changes in the water table, particularly on the

13 getting wetter side, and that, in turn, of course,

14 affects the distribution of crops the farmer is

15 likely to select from; and that, in turn, affects the

16 markets that are being exploited.

17 Q. All right. Within this broad category of

18 improved water management, would you include within

19 that category retention of on-farm drainage?

20 A. Yes, sir.

21 Q. Could you explain a little bit what that

22 practice would involve?

23 A. It depends on how it is implemented, but

24 generally it means having a canal structure internal

25 pumping capacity to move water from sensitive crops --

1 which are likely to be vegetables, where you're

2 highly fertilizing -- to other areas of your farm

3 property with either less sensitive crops or fallow

4 areas, and hold the poor water quality on site. Poor

5 quality water on site.

6 Q. This practice would involve moving water

7 continuously from field to field within the farm,

8 would it not?

9 A. It depends.

10 Q. That would be one aspect of retaining

11 drainage. That would be one mechanism to retain

12 on-farm drainage.

13 A. I object to the "continuous". There will

14 be periods where you have to move the water on farm,

15 but I don't see it as a continuous process.

16 Q. Periodic?

17 A. Periodic. Thank you.

18 Q. Now, would these improved water management

19 techniques result in a reduced volume of water being

20 discharged from farms in the EAA?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Do you have any opinion with regard to the

23 amount of flow that would be reduced by implementing

24 improved water management techniques?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. What is that?

2 A. It could be large or small, depending on

3 how implemented and what operation it was implemented

4 on.

5 Q. What type of range would we be talking

6 about?

7 A. I don't remember enough of the details.

8 Q. Are you aware of anyone that has done an

9 analysis on anticipated flow reductions by

10 implementation of BMPs?

11 A. I believe the EPD produced information in

12 their first report on the amount of flow reductions

13 that would occur to achieve the load reduction is

14 they were looking at, and I do not remember the

15 details.

16 Q. Do you know if anyone at the District has

17 calculated the amount of flow reduction likely to

18 result from BMPs?

19 A. I am unaware of any analysis.

20 MR. COUSINS: Just note for the record;

21 Mr. Flaig has been designated to testify on

22 phosphorus budget, and to the extent that any of

23 these questions that are being asked are

24 relating to that, that's fine, but I think it is

25 a little difficult for him to answer questions

1 at the realm of his designation because that's

2 all he's really prepared for.

3 BY MR. BLANK:

4 Q. As part of your BMP analysis, did you

5 consider utilization of on-farm retention ponds as a

6 BMP practice?

7 A. It was introduced as one method of

8 achieving the water conservation, but I have not

9 participated in any analysis of the impact of

10 implementing that practice.

11 Q. What about retention of vegetable field

12 drainage water and sugar cane or fallow lands? Was

13 that a BMP considered?

14 A. It was considered. No specific analysis

15 was done.

16 A. Again, much of the analysis there would be

17 site specific.

18 Q. Were there any other BMP practices that you

19 considered that we haven't discussed?

20 A. I don't recall any.

21 Q. We kind of got off base from your

22 Curriculum Vitae. I might go back to that a minute

23 and keep in some sequence here.

24 The next item under 1990 to '91, senior

25 civil engineer, do you see that item?

1 A. Yes, sir.

2 Q. Did this work involve the preparation of

3 the lake SWIM plan?

4 A. No.

5 Q. What was involved there?

6 A. Working on preparation of the update to the

7 SWIM plan.

8 Q. Again we are talking about the lake?

9 A. Lake Okeechobee Interim SWIM Plan.

10 Q. And who were the complex research contracts

11 with, mentioned under that item?

12 A. Well, one of them was this EAA BMP

13 contract, a second one was the soil phosphorus

14 contract for the areas north of the lake.

15 Q. Any others?

16 A. The Class I and III analysis for

17 tributaries draining to Lake Okeechobee, development

18 of the Lake Okeechobee Agricultural Decision Support

19 System.

20 Q. I'm sorry. You said Lake Okeechobee

21 Agricultural Support?

22 A. Decision Support System.

23 Q. What was that?

24 A. A GIS regional planning tool.

25 Q. And attended for what purpose?

1 A. Evaluate the impact of alternative

2 phosphorus management strategies for the basins

3 draining into Lake Okeechobee. In laymen's terms,

4 what would be the impact of implementing a specific

5 set of BMPs for given land uses or given basins or

6 other kinds of incentives for reductions of

7 phosphorus loads to the lake? Give the managers a

8 big picture view of the implementation strategies.

9 Q. When you say impact, what type of impact

10 are you referring to?

11 A. Phosphorus loads and economics.

12 Q. To your knowledge, has a similar system

13 been constructed for the BMP practices in the EAA?

14 A. No.

15 Q. Why not?

16 A. I don't know.

17 Q. The next item on your resume' under the

18 category '89 to '90, do you see that item?

19 A. Yes, sir.

20 Q. The last -- well, actually three sentences

21 of that item, first one, negotiated and managed

22 complex research contracts, are we referring to the

23 same contracts you have previously mentioned?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And the next item, performed water quality

1 data interpretation --

2 A. Yes?

3 Q. -- what did that involve?

4 A. Evaluating tributary water quality draining

5 to Lake Okeechobee.

6 Q. What water quality parameters were you

7 looking at?

8 A. Primarily phosphorus, but also nitrogen.

9 Q. And what type of interpretation did you

10 make of the data?

11 A. Statistical.

12 Q. Could you explain that a little bit

13 further, please?

14 A. The intent here was to evaluate the

15 geographic distribution of BMP implementation in the

16 basins draining to Lake Okeechobee and determine if

17 there was a statistically significant trend in

18 phosphorus load reduction. This is a problem because

19 of the high variability of hydrologic conditions and

20 considerable variability in distribution of

21 implementation.

22 Q. And what was the results of that work?

23 A. That BMPs are effective for reducing

24 phosphorus loads to Lake Okeechobee.

25 Q. You did find a decreasing trend?

1 A. A significantly decreasing trend.

2 Q. How significant?

3 A. Alpha less than point zero zero zero zero

4 one.

5 Q. That's very significant, is it not?

6 A. It is. Highly significant.

7 Q. What type of -- just in layman's terms,

8 what type of reductions were we talking about that

9 resulted from your interpretation of the data?

10 A. None.

11 Q. None?

12 A. No phosphorus load reductions occurred as

13 an effect of my interpretation of the data.

14 Q. No. But your interpretation of the data

15 revealed a reduction, did it not?

16 A. Yes. Sorry. A 20 percent load reduction.

17 Q. What types of just range of concentrations

18 of phosphorus are we dealing with in terms of water

19 draining into Lake Okeechobee?

20 A. It ranges from point 2 milligrams per liter

21 to slightly over one milligram per liter.

22 Q. Slightly over one point zero?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And what about phosphorus concentrations in

25 the lake water itself? What are the ranges that we

1 are looking at there?

2 A. Point zero five to point zero nine

3 milligrams per liter.

4 Q. Did you participate at all in what is

5 generally referred to as the Interim Action Plan and

6 the formulation of that plan?

7 A. No.

8 Q. The last item on that category on your

9 Curriculum Vitae says, "Develop strategy for field

10 standard operating procedures". Are we referring to

11 BMPs --

12 A. No.

13 Q. -- by that?

14 A. No, sir.

15 Q. What are you referring to there?

16 A. Sampling protocols for collecting water

17 quality and hydrologic data.

18 Q. And were you responsible for developing

19 those protocols?

20 A. No.

21 Q. Who was?

22 A. I don't believe anybody was specifically

23 assigned the task of developing those protocols.

24 Q. They were developed, were they not?

25 A. They have never been published as such.

1 Q. But were they developed?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Were they implemented?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Who participated in the development of the

6 protocols?

7 A. Many individuals of staff; of District

8 staff.

9 Q. Any outside consultants?

10 A. Not that I am aware of. The development of

11 the standard protocols is an ongoing effort that

12 depends on our monitoring strategy as well as

13 equipment. It also depends on what regional area and

14 what projects are included. There is generally a

15 project specific standard operating protocol, and I

16 was involved with those associated with monitoring

17 dairies and the basins north of Lake Okeechobee.

18 Q. Okay. The next item on your CV, '86 to

19 '89, perform water quality data interpretation, is

20 that the same item we just discussed?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And design and develop comprehensive water

23 quality monitoring program, what was that program?

24 A. That was the expansion of our monitoring

25 program in the basins north of Lake Okeechobee from

1 an ad hoc monitoring of ambient water quality to a

2 program designed to elucidate the impacts of

3 implementation of BMPs on dairies and beef pastures.

4 Q. And none of this work involved anything

5 south of Lake Okeechobee then?

6 A. No. I have not been involved in any

7 monitoring program designed south of the lake.

8 Q. Have you been involved in the

9 interpretation of any water quality data south of the

10 lake?

11 A. Only as it was directly related to the work

12 of Forest Izuno and Del Botcher.r. They had field

13 projects on four sites, and I looked at their data

14 fairly closely. But in terms of looking at ambient

15 measures throughout the basin, I did not interpret

16 work on interpreting that data in a general sense.

17 Q. When you say "in a general sense", that

18 leads me to believe that you did do something there.

19 Can you tell me what you did?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Please do so.

22 A. I did not do an analysis of water quality

23 on a basin scale, as I did north of the lake.

24 However, in development of the phosphorus budgets for

25 the EAA, I looked at the data to try to determine

1 concentrations and loads in the system from published

2 information. In short, I reviewed the data with a

3 very specific goal.

4 Q. Which was to develop a phosphorus budget

5 for the EAA?

6 A. Right.

7 Q. Did you actually prepare a phosphorus

8 budget for the EAA?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. What was the purpose of that budget?

11 A. The intent of that budget stems from a

12 mandate given to us by Lake Okeechobee Technical

13 Advisory Committee to identify sources and source

14 areas of phosphorus draining to Lake Okeechobee. And

15 at that time, the northern half of the EAA was

16 considered part of the Okeechobee basin, and thus,

17 part of the Okeechobee SWIM planning effort, so the

18 intent of the budget was to identify probable sources

19 pursuant to identifying methods for reducing those

20 sources.

21 Q. Did the budget encompass the entire EAA or

22 only those portions draining to Lake Okeechobee?

23 A. We built the budget to incorporate the

24 entire basin because it was a basin scale analysis

25 and we lacked sufficient specific information to

1 construct budgets for specific sub-basins within the

2 EAA.

3 Q. So am I correct in assuming then that the

4 EAA budget that you prepared was not based on each

5 individual sub-basin?

6 A. Correct.

7 Q. It was just for the entirety of the EAA?

8 A. Yes, sir.

9 Q. And when did you prepare the budget, the

10 EAA budget?

11 A. Spring of 1989.

12 Q. Have you worked on it since that date?

13 A. Only minor work.

14 Q. When?

15 A. Periodically it becomes interesting, and

16 periodically I do additional analysis.

17 Q. At whose direction?

18 A. No specific direction. Various managers or

19 other people express interest in interpreting the

20 budget, and I do some additional work effort on

21 trying to specify certain parts of it in more detail;

22 however, it does not come as an assignment.

23 Q. Was the budget ever finalized; your EAA

24 budget? Did you ever finalize it?

25 A. No, I have not.

1 Q. What additional work needs to be done on

2 it?

3 A. I am not -- well, "finalized", to my

4 expectations, means producing a refereed journal

5 article publication describing the budget; and as

6 such, I want to reduce the uncertainty about some of

7 the estimates and do another review of available

8 information to ascertain that I have got the best

9 available information in the analysis.

10 Q. Was the EAA budget you prepared published

11 in any format?

12 A. No.

13 Q. To your knowledge, was it a part of the

14 1992 SWIM plan?

15 A. Not that I know of.

16 Q. Was it used, to your knowledge, in

17 fashioning any of the remedies contained in the SWIM

18 plan?

19 A. I do not know.

20 MR. BLANK: Maybe it would be appropriate

21 to take a five-minute break.

22 (Thereupon, a recess was taken.)

23 BY MR. BLANK:

24 Q. You indicated that there was some

25 additional work that you wanted to do with regard to

1 the phosphorus budgets regarding uncertainties about

2 some estimates. Can you identify which estimates you

3 are referring to there that are related to

4 uncertainties?

5 A. Well, in a general sense, I'd like to go

6 back and review all the data that had been used to

7 develop the budget and just do a recheck of all the

8 different data sets.

9 Q. And what data was used to develop the

10 budget?

11 A. Well, as you probably already know by

12 looking at the different materials on it, I used

13 information from many sources to develop the budget.

14 Q. Can you just in general describe those

15 sources?

16 A. Fertilizer sales records from TVA.

17 Q. From who?

18 A. Tennessee Valley Authority. The

19 International Fertilization Laboratory and Research

20 Center.

21 Q. These fertilizer sales records, did they

22 maintain records specifically related to farms within

23 the EAA?

24 A. No, sir.

25 Q. Why did you review those records?

1 A. Those records are based on sales of all

2 formulations of fertilizers sold by county within all

3 states. Of course, the stuff I was interested in

4 were the counties surrounding Lake Okeechobee. This

5 information was developed in response to developing

6 phosphorus budgets for the basins, for Lake

7 Okeechobee. As the EAA was a sub-set of those of

8 particular interest, and because we were stuck with

9 the quandary of how to separate out those portions of

10 the basins draining to the lake from the total EAA,

11 one of the concerns we had was to first build a

12 budget for the EAA. As we built the budget for the

13 EAA, it became its own analysis because there was the

14 interest in knowing what the budget was for; the EAA

15 specifically. And in the end, if I remember

16 correctly, we simply took an aerial fraction of that

17 for what goes back to Lake Okeechobee. And since the

18 analysis for Lake Okeechobee has focused on what is

19 going on north of the lake, we haven't gone back and

20 reviewed, trying to split out specific basins.

21 It would be an interesting analysis, but

22 first they have to complete development of the

23 geographic information data base that includes

24 wetlands use, historical patterns of cropping

25 rotation on sugar cane fertilization practices,

1 et cetera.

2 The data we used from TVA was for one year;

3 1987. I want to go back and look at least at the

4 last ten years of data to see what the trends in

5 usage of fertilizer are. I suspect that they have

6 not been constant. This is a farming area that has

7 varied considerably over time, and some major jumps

8 in programs occurred in the '60's and the '70's and

9 the '80's, so it is likely that the phosphorus budget

10 could be dynamic in nature.

11 Q. How did you take the sales records,

12 fertilizer sales records, and determine an amount of

13 fertilizer that was used within the EAA?

14 A. That's an involved process. I don't

15 remember the exact details. I'd have to read through

16 exactly how we did it, which is in there, in writing.

17 But generally, we went, we looked at the amount of

18 land use in specific crops, we looked at the

19 recommendations of fertilizer for those specific

20 crops, and estimated how much phosphorus fertilizer

21 was used, based on the cropping times, the number of

22 acres in that crop on the average, over a five-year

23 period for which it had taken SCS and the District to

24 accumulate land use information. We subtracted away

25 from the fertilizer purchases the amount of

1 fertilizer used for lawns, the amount of fertilizer

2 used in the agricultural areas not in the basin,

3 probably contribution of fertilizer purchases in

4 Hendry County and surrounding counties, and compared

5 that to the amount of fertilizer that was estimated

6 to be used based on cropping and recommendations, and

7 found a very close approximation between the two

8 different sets of data. And we used that for our

9 estimate.

10 Q. Did you obtain any information or records

11 from farmers within the EAA in terms of fertilizer

12 usage?

13 A. Not directly. We obtained indirect

14 information in terms of did they follow

15 recommendations, did they have their own set of

16 recommendations, did they do it like grandpappy and

17 pappy did before them, and checked to see if that

18 anecdotal information conflicted or confirmed our

19 previous interpretation of land use and cropping

20 practices and fertilizer usage, and we found it

21 pretty much went in the same line.

22 Q. All right. Are there any other estimates

23 contained in the budget that you think need

24 refinement?

25 A. Or at least verification. Refinement, I

1 don't expect that many of the numbers that we used

2 are going to change grossly. What we want to do is

3 when we verify the numbers, determine how certain

4 they are on the limited data that can be made

5 available and how variable the estimates are likely

6 to be through time. We don't expect that the gross

7 numbers will change. Another set of data that we

8 would like to verify is transport of phosphorus in

9 ash from both field burning of cane and from the

10 mills.

11 Q. Does your budget, right now, or the budget

12 you prepared, contain estimates for transport of

13 phosphorus in ash?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And how did you arrive at that number?

16 A. Those two numbers? The one from -- there

17 are two numbers. One is the composite of the mills

18 and refineries. It is my understanding that all of

19 the cane materials that arrive at the mills are

20 burned in the processing of sugar. At least raw

21 sugar. And of that, it is all converted to an ash.

22 And their system for ash recovery is required to

23 recover 95 percent of the ash; and, therefore, the

24 estimate of how much phosphorus leaves the mill would

25 be five percent of all the phosphorus that comes into

1 the mill.

2 Q. And that would leave the mill in ash; is

3 that what you're saying?

4 A. Yes, sir.

5 Q. In other words, it would be airborne?

6 A. Right.

7 Q. Did you do any studies or how did you

8 determine what happened to that airborne ash?

9 A. I cannot remember at this point how we

10 handled those numbers. I haven't had a chance to

11 review that analysis. I believe we assumed a certain

12 percent would be, and a small percent would be

13 dropped locally, but most of it would be carried out

14 of the EAA on whatever the local wind patterns were

15 that day either to the east coast or over Lake

16 Okeechobee or out to the EPA. I believe there exists

17 data that the farmers are required to collect to

18 determine the ash contents in the air for EPA

19 standards, but I have not seen those data sets.

20 Q. This would be data on the ash leaving the

21 mills or refineries?

22 A. Right. And it is my understanding that

23 there are a handful of EPA required sampling stations

24 in the EAA to evaluate the amount of ash that is

25 being distributed primarily for health reasons.

1 Q. You say EPA again. Did you mean --

2 A. Now I mean the Environmental Protection

3 Agency requirements.

4 Q. Okay. Have you reviewed any data from any

5 of the EPA stations?

6 A. No, I have not. Unfortunately, I have not

7 had the opportunity to hunt that data down. I have

8 only heard of rumors that it exists.

9 Q. Do you know where the stations are located?

10 A. No, sir. That information will be used in

11 a peripheral sense to confirm the distribution of ash

12 from the mills. It cannot directly confirm or deny

13 the generation of phosphorus and ash from the mills

14 because it is not likely that those sampling stations

15 will collect a representative amount of the ash that

16 falls or is produced from the mills. So it can only

17 define one category of ash fall-out.

18 Q. Would you, from that data, anticipate you

19 would be able to distinguish ash leaving the mill

20 from ash resulting from the burning of cane fields?

21 A. I'm not sure. The characteristics of the

22 ash should be different because the material in the

23 field will be differed from the material burned at

24 the mills, and the degree of completeness of

25 combustion should be different. It depends on the

1 construction of the sampling device and when it

2 samples and how. It is possible to separate it. I

3 don't know if the data will be good enough to do

4 that. It depends what parameters they measure from

5 the data from the samples collected.

6 Q. All right, sir. Are there other areas of

7 uncertainty that you can identify at this time?

8 A. Well, as I say, every one of the numbers

9 used in the analysis has an uncertainty associated

10 with it, and they all should be quantified.

11 Q. Let me show you a document that we will

12 mark as Number 2.

13 (The document was marked

14 Flaig Exb. No. 2.)

15 BY MR. BLANK:

16 Q. Can you identify this document?

17 A. This is a summary of the phosphorus budget

18 that I prepared for the 1989 Everglades SWIM Plan.

19 The intent was to produce a very brief analysis of

20 the fate of phosphorus.

21 Q. Now, on the first page of this document,

22 the last sentence that starts with, "The list of

23 exports attempts to account for marketable goods and

24 waster material", there is a paren; "ask Eric". Do

25 you know who actually wrote that sentence?

1 A. I believe these are edits that were made by

2 Dave Swift.

3 Q. What were you referring to or was

4 Mr. Swift, if you know, referring to in terms of

5 marketable goods? Is that the agricultural product

6 itself?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. So that would be sugar or vegetables or

9 some commodity?

10 A. Or sod or furfural.

11 Q. And what about waster material? What would

12 that refer to?

13 A. Well, I suspect he meant to say waste.

14 Waste materials would be the ash, sludge from the

15 mills, poor quality water coming from other areas, as

16 well as for the vegetables. The trimmings before the

17 vegetable is sent to market, such as with carrots,

18 you are going to -- you may or may not cut off the

19 tops and, therefore, where does this pile of tops go?

20 And in the specific case of rice, the chafe from the

21 rice may or may not be a marketable good and it may

22 or may not be a waste product, depending on the

23 market. And, of course, all this material, it may or

24 may not leave the EAA once you account for the

25 phosphorus that's in it.

1 Q. So that is another area of uncertainty in

2 terms of what actually happens to that waste material

3 and whether it is exported from the EAA in some

4 fashion; is that correct?

5 A. That becomes a part of the uncertainty

6 involved in estimating exports.

7 Q. The next sentence, "The summation of

8 sources and sinks does not represent a mass balance,"

9 is that a correct statement?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Why doesn't it represent a mass balance?

12 A. Without being able to do a complete

13 tracking of imports of all transformations of

14 phosphorus, it is not clear that we have been able to

15 obtain all the measures. When one wants to claim a

16 mass balance, they have been able to track all

17 particles of phosphorus coming in and all particles

18 of phosphorus leaving and account for the storage.

19 In this analysis, we were able to track the

20 things that are commonly measurable and have been

21 reported in some form or another. We cannot take

22 account for the things that are unmeasurable or

23 processes we are unfamiliar with. And I believe

24 that's what it says in the following sentence.

25 Q. Would that primarily relate to the export

1 aspect of your budget or are there uncertainties also

2 with regard to the import?

3 A. Well, again, the definition of uncertainty

4 is a statistical definition of how well do we trust

5 any of our data? And in any global form of analysis,

6 there is going to be where you're taking sub-samples

7 to quantify those global mass transfers, there is

8 going to be uncertainty, just in the statistical

9 nature of the data, the distributions of the data.

10 We can speculate with each one of the sources that we

11 were looking at -- imports, exports, transport out of

12 waste materials -- that there are probable sources of

13 uncertainty, and these we don't know about, which are

14 the most important. We wouldn't know until we know a

15 total mass budget. And, of course, I'm not sure if

16 that's even possible; to completely know where the

17 mass has been.

18 There is some concern that the waste

19 products from the vegetables and where they are

20 deposited and where they enter either the flow stream

21 or the soil could represent a significant

22 uncertainty. On the other hand, we may find that

23 really there is very little phosphorus in those

24 materials. The amount of materials is small, it

25 remains in the field, and, therefore, it becomes part

1 of one of the other pools of stored phosphorus, and

2 it is very small, say, compared to mineralization

3 rates. So once again, when we go and we look for

4 sources and sinks, we start with no influence as to

5 the relative magnitude.

6 Q. Is there anyone with the District that is

7 attempting to answer some of these questions that you

8 have just outlined?

9 A. I don't know.

10 Q. All right. Under the category of sources,

11 the first sentence there has some strikethroughs

12 after saying that, "Fertilizer is the single greatest

13 import source of phosphorus to the EAA". Do you know

14 why that sentence -- or actually the next two

15 sentences -- were struck?

16 A. I have no idea why Dave Swift was editing

17 this in this fashion.

18 Q. The numbers that were contained in the

19 strikethrough sentences, do they represent correct

20 numbers, as far as you know?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Did you arrive at an estimate in terms of

23 preparing the budget of the amount of fertilizer

24 applied per acre for sugar cane fields?

25 A. Could you restate that question?

1 Q. Yeah. Well, let me -- the next sentence

2 after the strike-through says, "In Hendry County

3 approximately 525 Tons phosphorus were used on sugar

4 cane in the EAA" and then there is a strike-through

5 for what appears to be "60,000 acres at 17.5 pounds

6 per acre". What I am wondering is whether that

7 pounds per acre figure was derived also for other

8 areas than Hendry County.

9 A. Well, in the following sentence it shows

10 the same strike-through relative to Palm Beach

11 County.

12 Q. Yeah. With the same number in terms of

13 pounds per acre; is that correct?

14 A. Correct. So the question is did we do the

15 analysis from the perspective of pounds per acre

16 recommended?

17 Q. Yes.

18 A. That was one form by which we estimated how

19 much phosphorus was used.

20 Q. Did you attempt to verify that pounds per

21 acre figure with any of the farmers within the EAA?

22 A. Indirectly. Again, given the acreage of

23 sugar cane farmed in the EAA and the number of

24 individuals involved in farming and, of course, the

25 variations in their rotational characteristics and,

1 therefore, how much phosphorus they would use on the

2 planted crop versus the various ratoons and soil

3 type, et cetera, et cetera, individual anecdotal

4 information from specific farmers would neither --

5 would not be useful for confirming a basin average

6 value.

7 We did check with various principals and

8 various corporations, as well as knowledgeable

9 experts at the Belle Glade experiment station, as to

10 whether these were reasonable numbers to use, and at

11 the time they seemed reasonable and acceptable, but

12 there was a very large variation in what's actually

13 been done. Some people don't fertilize at all,

14 either by soil test or by instinct, some people

15 fertilize a lot, either by soil test or that's the

16 way it's done, and there is no specific rule. It

17 depends also on the cropping sequences. If they do

18 it after a certain vegetable crop, they will or they

19 won't.

20 So, although we made an effort to

21 confirm -- Do you put on 200? No. Do you put on

22 zero all the time? No. -- and then narrow it in

23 from there as to what was a reasonable estimate, it

24 would be useful to have specific fertilizer usage

25 data. There was some question as to whether even the

1 best growers had the specific year-to-year

2 information of what they specifically used on their

3 ownership.

4 Q. These numbers that are contained in this

5 paragraph are annual numbers, are they not? This is

6 an estimate of annual usage?

7 A. Correct.

8 Q. Did you specifically contact, for example,

9 U. S. Sugar Corporation and ask them if they had

10 records concerning fertilizer use?

11 A. No, we did not, because at the time it was

12 indicated that we would not get any sort of

13 reasonable response.

14 Q. Who indicated that to you?

15 A. Everyone we inquired that of. We talked to

16 people that were knowledgeable about what U. S. Sugar

17 does; in particular, the experts at the University of

18 Florida. And Carolyn Fonyo, who was on contract with

19 us, to help us develop the budgets for the whole Lake

20 Okeechobee basin, also inquired of the people that

21 she knew. But, at the time we were developing this

22 budget, it was considered fruitless to try to get

23 specific numbers. We did ask specifically of

24 representatives from the Florida Sugar Cane League if

25 we could get such numbers. They said, "Oh, yes, of

1 course", and we didn't receive any numbers.

2 Q. So if numbers that we have in here -- let

3 me see if I understand exactly how your numbers were

4 derived. Did you work backwards from a recommended

5 application rate per acre and multiply that number

6 times the entire acreage to get to your total of

7 fertilizer used in the EAA?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Okay. And then what did you do to attempt

10 to verify that total number?

11 A. Well, we compared that against actual

12 purchases to see if they were reasonable, and they

13 appeared to be in the same degree of uncertainty.

14 Q. And the data that you got on actual

15 purchases, was that on a per-farm basis?

16 A. No, sir. That was on a county basis. And

17 then we had to derive from that the probable usage

18 within the EAA.

19 Q. So you received a number of the total

20 pounds of phosphorus sold within a given county?

21 A. Broken out by fertilizer formulation.

22 There's something like 200 formulations used in this

23 county. Some of those are quite clearly used for

24 lawns, some are quite clearly used for various

25 vegetables crops, and there are some that are quite

1 clearly used for sugar cane.

2 Q. Okay. How did you know that fertilizer

3 sold within a particular county, let's say Palm Beach

4 County, was actually used within Palm Beach County?

5 A. There is no proof from looking at the

6 specific data. One has to look at the surrounding

7 county data in terms of looking at Broward County and

8 Hendry County and Martin County and Okeechobee

9 County. There is still the possibility that some

10 fertilizer mill in the Glades could be purchasing and

11 could be manufacturing and directly delivering to a

12 grower in Palm Beach County and we would not be able

13 to account for that. However, indirectly, by looking

14 at the usages in counties, and specifically that the

15 other surrounding counties do not have the crop types

16 that Palm Beach County and the eastern parts of

17 Hendry County have, it was fairly clear that those

18 fertilizer purchases were not ending up in the EAA;

19 that the fertilizer use in the EAA was primarily

20 restricted to purchases in Hendry County and Palm

21 Beach County. As such, though, it would be useful

22 and appropriate to go back through the whole list of

23 formulations, across a series of years, and compare

24 directly between the formulations and the acreage of

25 crops, and come up with a tighter correlation between

1 purchases and usages.

2 At one time it was possible to work with

3 fertilizer manufacturers and confirm with them where

4 the purchases from their various offices or mills was

5 being used, and at one point in 1988 International

6 Minerals Corporation, for instance, was quite happy

7 to sit down with us and talk to us about where the

8 purchases of fertilizer from their groups ended up.

9 Now, I don't know how specific that information would

10 have gotten, and we were unable to follow up on it,

11 so I'm not sure how much we would have gotten,

12 because in some sense this is proprietary

13 information, and I'm not sure how much of it would

14 have been shared with us in the end.

15 Q. What about the University of Florida people

16 you were working with; in particular, IFAS? Did they

17 have more accurate records in terms of actual usage

18 on a per-farm basis?

19 A. Well, that's where the primary information

20 we got came from. Carolyn Fonyo, again, was on

21 contract with us to develop the budget, and she

22 interviewed farmers, county extension agents, various

23 growers, as well as the research experts within the

24 University of Florida, both in Gainesville and at the

25 experiment stations. She confirmed, to the best of

1 her ability, what the usages were.

2 Q. Okay. So you feel fairly comfortable that

3 your 5600 tons of phosphorus per year was an accurate

4 number at the time you prepared your phosphorus

5 budget?

6 A. I believe two things of the data; best

7 available information, and within the order of

8 magnitude it's correct.

9 Q. Within what order of magnitude?

10 A. It could be, in a sense you know, 6,000.

11 It could be, in a sense, 5200; but I think 5600 is a

12 good number.

13 Q. So you think you're within 10 percent?

14 A. I believe so.

15 Q. The next paragraph, "Phosphorus found in

16 precipitation is an important import source". Do you

17 concur with that statement?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. How did you measure phosphorus in

20 precipitation? How did you derive your numbers for

21 the budget?

22 A. With this I have to refer to work that was

23 completed by Jim Grimshaw at the District. There has

24 been considerable argument and discussion over what

25 are reasonable phosphorus concentrations in rainfall,

1 and I asked him to provide me with what he thought

2 was the best estimate, and I simply multiplied that

3 by the volume of rain that lands on the acreage of

4 the EAA to arrive at a loading. Specifically,

5 though, I did not investigate the various means by

6 which the precipitation were collected and analyzed.

7 Q. And you didn't do the analysis yourself?

8 A. No, sir.

9 Q. The next sentence reads, "Bulk

10 precipitation, both-dry fall and rainfall, has been

11 collected for a 14-year period for the EAA". Do you

12 know who collected that data?

13 A. I think it came from various sources. At

14 this point, I don't specifically remember.

15 Q. Would that be data actually collected by

16 the District?

17 A. I believe it would include District data,

18 University of Florida data, I think there is a NOAA

19 station involved. I don't remember.

20 Q. And what about USGS? Would they have --

21 A. They may have been involved at that stage.

22 Various players have been involved in that. Again, I

23 would have to defer to Jim.

24 Q. The next sentence, "The average of the

25 annual phosphorus load is 102 tons per year for the

1 532,000 acres of permitted agricultural land"; was

2 that a figure that was derived by Mr. Grimshaw?

3 A. Which figure?

4 Q. The 102 tons per year.

5 A. No.

6 Q. Is that your number?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. How did you calculate that number?

9 A. The average rainfall times the average

10 amount of land times the average concentration.

11 Q. Okay. And what did you mean by "permitted

12 agricultural lands"?

13 A. We use the acreage of land that has water

14 use permits with the District for agricultural

15 activity.

16 Q. And that is the difference between that and

17 the next number, the number in the next sentence, the

18 632,000 acres just described as total muck lands.

19 A. Right. I don't remember specifically, but

20 I believe it also includes the Holey Land the

21 Rotenberger tract and other areas that are not

22 permitted for agricultural use. Areas around the

23 various towns, various out-acreages that were not

24 being farmed.

25 Q. Can you tell me why the average annual

1 phosphorus load would increase as the area increased?

2 A. I believe that's simply a function of as

3 you increase area, you increase the amount of

4 precipitation that has occurred within.

5 Q. Okay. So it is just a straight calculation

6 based upon an average --

7 A. Right.

8 Q. -- number times acres?

9 A. Right. There is no other relationship.

10 Q. Do you have any idea of how many sampling

11 stations were located within the EAA to measure

12 rainfall and analyze the phosphorus contents of it?

13 A. I don't recall.

14 Q. And there is, at the end of that, the last

15 sentence of that paragraph, there are two words; "per

16 acre", with a question mark. Do you know what that

17 refers to?

18 A. Well, again, Dave Swift was editing this

19 section to match with the editorial style of the rest

20 of the SWIM plan, and the only thing I can guess is

21 he wanted certain things on a per-acre basis, as

22 opposed to a general basis. Since this data, the

23 primary data used in this was average for the basin,

24 it is really not proper to report it as per acre.

25 Q. Okay. Do you recall what the average

1 concentration of phosphorus and rainfall was that was

2 utilized for these calculations?

3 A. No, I don't. It is in a different

4 document.

5 Q. The next paragraph refers to, "Water

6 withdrawn from Lake Okeechobee for irrigation

7 contains phosphorus load". Did you make any estimate

8 on the total load that would be imported into the EAA

9 based upon withdrawals from Lake Okeechobee?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Is that the 32 ton figure that's contained

12 in that paragraph?

13 A. Yes. Let me correctly define that. The

14 load estimate is for the structures on Lake

15 Okeechobee for the EAA. The loadings are calculated

16 by a different group. I accepted their numbers.

17 Q. Okay. What group made those calculations?

18 A. That would be on your data management or

19 water quality analysis group.

20 Q. Who would be in charge of those groups?

21 A. Currently?

22 Q. Uh-huh.

23 A. Dr. Leslie Wedderburn.

24 Q. Do you know who within those groups

25 actually provided you with the information?

1 A. Personnel have changed quite a bit. I'm

2 not sure exactly who was responsible for the

3 calculations. These were data that were being

4 prepared for the '89 SWIM plan, and as the data

5 became available, I simply adopted the commonly

6 accepted data for consistency.

7 Q. Do you recall whether your budget was

8 contained in the '89 plan?

9 A. I don't remember. I don't believe it was.

10 Q. With regard to withdrawals or water from

11 Lake Okeechobee entering the EAA, did the 32 ton

12 number relate exclusively to irrigation withdrawals

13 as contrasted to pass-throughs from Lake Okeechobee?

14 A. To best answer that question, I would want

15 to back up and mention that I believe the actual

16 numbers we were working with is -- there were 52 tons

17 leaving the lake going south each year, and there

18 were, over that 14-year period, an average of 20 tons

19 being back-pumped to the lake for flood control.

20 Now, we know the 20 tons going back to the lake was

21 for flood control, but, of the 52 that came south at

22 that time, there was not a clear analysis of how much

23 was used for irritation versus pass-through to the

24 areas south. And in that light, I'm not sure if I

25 would want to directly subtract the 20 off of the 52

1 and then say well, 32 should be the ones analyzed for

2 going south versus internal consumption. I realize

3 that's not a direct answer to your question.

4 Q. No. I am just wondering whether there is a

5 way to get a better handle on the number that is

6 actually used for irrigation versus what was

7 pass-through water.

8 A. Right. Well, there is, and it is my

9 understanding that some attempt at that analysis has

10 been made since I prepared this. One can look at the

11 distributions of releases from the lake relative to

12 pumping on the south end of the EAA. Since all water

13 leaving the EAA has to be pumped out, one could do an

14 analysis to show when it was released versus when it

15 was pumped and fairly accurately define how much was

16 passed through, as opposed to internal use.

17 Q. All right. And your tonnage figure for

18 phosphorus coming from the lake, was that based upon

19 the volume of water times average concentration of

20 phosphorus?

21 A. I do not remember the exact formulation of

22 the calculations, but I have believe that the way

23 they were calculated is they took the biweekly or

24 monthly sampling. Actually, I should say I don't

25 know. I speculate that we have autosamplers at each

1 of the pumps, as well as doing monthly or biweekly

2 sampling, and those data were used to estimate loads

3 based on pumping rates over those short periods of

4 time to estimate the loads coming there. So it was

5 using the specific data, as opposed to average

6 values. One could pose that they used average lake

7 concentrations and total pumpage and estimated the

8 loads. They did not do that. They used more

9 specific data. The actual formulation of those load

10 calculations I am unfamiliar with.

11 Q. Do you know what period of record was used

12 for the calculation on the load from Lake Okeechobee?

13 A. I believe it was the same 14-year period

14 that was used as the base period for the SWIM plan.

15 Q. Did the District have autosamplers back in

16 1973?

17 A. I don't know.

18 Q. When you say "autosampler", can you

19 describe what that is?

20 A. An automated water sampling device of

21 several configurations basically set to take samples

22 either based on a time increment or on a pumpage

23 increment, and I cannot say that I have a record, I

24 am knowledgeable about what protocols were used at

25 those pump stations.

1 Q. Is this also what is commonly referred to

2 as a composite sample?

3 A. They would be composite samples.

4 Q. As contrasted to a grab sample?

5 A. Correct.

6 Q. You said that the autosamplers were

7 designed to sample based upon either a time increment

8 or a flow increment.

9 A. That's generally how they are configured.

10 Q. Do you know, with regard to the ones

11 measuring water out of Lake Okeechobee, whether those

12 were based upon a time interval or a flow interval?

13 A. I don't have personal knowledge of how they

14 have been configured over the period of record.

15 Q. Well, if they were based on a volume of

16 flow, how often would you obtain a sample from the

17 autosampler?

18 A. Still, again, depends on how they were

19 configured. Several ways they could be configured;

20 depending on the amount of water they were willing to

21 capture and the device they were using. Better off

22 to talk to the person who is responsible for that.

23 Q. Yeah. Well, he's not here right now. What

24 I am wondering about is how frequently would a sample

25 be taken? Daily, weekly?

1 A. I'm not sure. I would assume it would be --

2 MR. COUSINS: Don't assume. If you're not

3 sure --

4 THE WITNESS: I don't know.

5 BY MR. BLANK:

6 Q. Okay. What about in the instance of grab

7 samples? Do you know how frequently they were taken?

8 A. Our general pattern is either biweekly or

9 monthly, but I don't know the schedule for those

10 stations.

11 Q. Do you have any idea how, if you had

12 bimonthly samples -- let's say two samples a month on

13 water flowing from Lake Okeechobee and those samples

14 contained different concentrations, let's say one was

15 at 100 and the other one was at 150 -- am I correct

16 that you also had daily flow records --

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. -- Okay.-- how would one have made an

19 interpretation of daily flow records, versus

20 bimonthly water quality calculations, to determine

21 total load for the month?

22 A. Again, I do not know how it was

23 specifically calculated for that. And that's been

24 published in other areas. I simply accepted the data

25 that they had developed.

1 Q. Okay. Were there other sources of

2 phosphorus as a part of your budget that aren't

3 contained in this summary? We went through Lake

4 Okeechobee precipitation and fertilizer.

5 A. I don't believe so.

6 Q. What about seepage?

7 A. It was not included.

8 Q. Is there a reason why it wasn't included?

9 A. We had no quantifiable numbers.

10 Q. Do you know of anyone that has measured the

11 amount of seepage entering the EAA?

12 A. No, I have no one who has measured seepage.

13 Q. And the next category, "Internal sources",

14 this relates to oxidation of muck soil; is that

15 correct?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And there is a number there which says what

18 60 pounds of phosphorus per acre per year?

19 A. Yes, sir.

20 Q. How was that number derived?

21 A. I have not reviewed the direct

22 calculations, but I believe that's an average value

23 for oxidation for the entire EAA.

24 Q. Who performed those calculations?

25 A. Well, there's two parts: The last part in

1 terms of -- those are estimates that were derived

2 from research conducted by the University of Florida,

3 where they estimated the rate, the average rate, of

4 oxidation, times the amount of phosphorus that

5 occurred in a given volume of soil to estimate what

6 the average release of phosphorus would be on a per

7 acre basis.

8 Q. Were these actual field experiments that

9 were conducted in terms of oxidation rates?

10 A. They were field measurements taken. I

11 don't recall if specific long-term experiments were

12 conducted to specifically define local oxidation

13 rates.

14 Q. Do you know if the measurements were taken

15 on fertilized versus unfertilized fields?

16 A. No.

17 Q. You do not know?

18 A. I do not know.

19 Q. Now, how does oxidation of muck soil differ

20 from mineralization of the muck?

21 A. It depends on your definition. Oxidation

22 generally refers to the overall subsidence, which

23 would include a physical component as well as a

24 mineralization component. The oxidation is just the

25 decrease in volume of the muck, whereas

1 mineralization is more specifically defined toward

2 the behavior of phosphorus within the muck.

3 Q. Are we talking about two different rates of

4 phosphorus release or source here; one for oxidation

5 and a different one for mineralization?

6 A. No. We are -- oxidation is primarily a

7 description of the change of the muck soil itself,

8 and mineralization is the more specific change of

9 phosphorus within that muck.

10 Q. And can you tell me how the figure of

11 19,500 tons of phosphorus per year was derived at

12 relative to mineralization?

13 A. Again, it is the amount of phosphorus

14 released through oxidation times the number of acres

15 affected.

16 Q. Through oxidation?

17 A. Right. Oxidation is the process of change

18 of the muck soil, and mineralization would be the

19 release of phosphorus during oxidation.

20 Q. Okay. And the next sentence, "However, the

21 mineralized phosphorus is likely to be absorbed to

22 the soil or immobilized by soil microbes," what was

23 the basis of that statement?

24 A. A general understanding of soil processes.

25 Q. Is that a statement that you wrote?

1 A. Correct.

2 Q. Okay. And can you describe that soil

3 process that would result in immobilization or

4 absorption?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Please do so.

7 A. The mineralization process would be the

8 breakdown of the organic matter in the soil, and it

9 is presumed that the primary product would be a

10 single phosphorus molecule as it mineralizes and

11 breaks down. However, the whole 19,000 tons of

12 phosphorus does not occur as phosphorus molecules

13 available for transport because the oxidation process

14 is primarily microbially mediated release of

15 phosphorus and the phosphorus is incorporated into

16 the microbes, as they eat the soil, as it were. So a

17 large portion of the phosphorus is just converted

18 into microbial biomass, and as the microbes die, it

19 is released to the soil as an organic form, which

20 either can absorb physically to the particles or

21 simply exist in the soils as an organic phosphorus

22 molecule. The phosphorus that's released by the

23 microbes, but not incorporated, will absorb to the

24 soil particles directly. In either case, a majority

25 of the phosphorus simply combines in soil particles

1 in a different form, but remains in the soil profile.

2 There is some evidence from specific field

3 studies that during oxidation, under fertilized and

4 unfertilized fields, the phosphorus, as determined by

5 fractionation procedures in laboratories, converts

6 from an organic form to an inorganic form through

7 subsidence and mineralization, and reaccumulates in

8 the soil profile. So as the depths of the soil

9 decreases with oxidation, the phosphorus converts

10 from an organic form to an inorganic form, and it may

11 move in the profile -- the profile of the soil simply

12 being the depth of the soil -- it may move from an

13 upper to a lower strata, but simply remains in the

14 soil. And that's a general view of the processes

15 involved.

16 Q. In its inorganic form, is it available for

17 uptake by vegetation?

18 A. It may be or it may not be, because in the

19 mineral form, it may form a precipitate that's

20 unavailable, just like rock phosphate, or it may be

21 simply absorbed in the soil particles, in which it is

22 highly labile.

23 Q. You mentioned some actual field experiments

24 or studies that were conducted with regard to this

25 phenomenon. Who was it that conducted those studies?

1 A. Various researchers had conducted them. I

2 don't remember whether I have cited any in this

3 paper. Well, one individual who did some

4 tractionation was Ian Nicholson, which is cited in

5 the back of this write-up. I don't remember other

6 names directly.

7 Q. What about Reddy; did he do any? Ramesh

8 Reddy.

9 A. I don't remember reviewing any of his work

10 specific to this area at the time.

11 Q. I am just looking at your references, and

12 about halfway down on the first page there is a --

13 A. Two Rameshes.

14 Q. Yeah. One of them dealing with soluble

15 phosphorus released from organic soils.

16 A. I believe those are more generic

17 discussions.

18 Q. Okay.

19 A. And they are not based on specific data

20 from the EAA.

21 Q. And were you able to come up with any

22 accurate estimate of the amount of phosphorus due to

23 oxidation or mineralization that was actually

24 released to surface waters?

25 A. Could you restate the question?

1 (Thereupon, a portion of the record

2 was read by the reporter.)

3 THE WITNESS: I developed an estimate of

4 phosphorus released to surface waters; however,

5 there is no detailed experimental data, or I

6 reviewed no detailed experimental data that

7 showed that it resulted directly from oxidation

8 or mineralization.

9 BY MR. BLANK:

10 Q. How did you arrive at your estimate?

11 A. My estimates were based on field data

12 collected by CH2MHill in their 1977, 1978 work. I

13 don't recall if I used other information or not, but

14 I specifically remember theirs.

15 Q. Do you recall what that number was?

16 A. The number that sticks in my mind right now

17 is 600 tons.

18 Q. And this figure would be for the entire

19 EAA?

20 A. Yes, sir.

21 Q. And is this a number that would relate to

22 fertilized as well as unfertilized fields?

23 A. It would be a combination of all fields.

24 Q. Is the last sentence of that paragraph,

25 "Accurate estimates of the contribution of oxidation

1 to phosphorus loss are not available" still a correct

2 statement?

3 A. Well, I think I prefer the word "good"

4 estimate. The question of accurate simply infers an

5 acceptable, yet unidentified, level of uncertainty.

6 Everything is accurate within a measure of some

7 measure of uncertainty. But in the sense that there

8 are estimates available now that are more accurate

9 than the ones I used, I believe other data have been

10 developed since then, but I have not seen the data

11 sets.

12 Q. Are you aware of any data that has been

13 developed concerning phosphorus losses due to

14 oxidation from fertilized fields versus unfertilized

15 fields?

16 A. I'm not aware of any specific data sets.

17 It would be embarrassing to the scientific community

18 if such data sets had not been developed in the last

19 few years.

20 Q. All right. Are there any other internal

21 sources that you are aware of that we haven't

22 discussed?

23 A. Yes, there are.

24 Q. And what would they be?

25 A. They are not presented here in such a way,

1 but the mill water and residues from the mill would,

2 in a sense, represent an internal source, although

3 they could also be interpreted as the final outcome

4 of an import.

5 Q. Is that covered under the category of

6 exports? I see a heading there under cane mills.

7 A. Yeah. Perhaps that's included there. It

8 is a definition of what internal sources are. I

9 guess the only internal source would be the soil

10 itself and the others are represented under exports.

11 Although, if one was tracking individual particles of

12 phosphorus, there could be a mix. Anyway, they are

13 included under exports.

14 Q. All right. Under the export category there

15 is the distinction made between point sources and

16 non-point sources; is that correct?

17 A. Correct.

18 Q. Let's see. The third sentence of that

19 paragraph says, "Phosphorus losses from each field

20 consist of crop exports, leaching losses, and surface

21 runoff". Do you see that sentence?

22 A. Yes, sir.

23 Q. Okay. When you refer to crop exports,

24 you're talking about actually harvesting of the crop

25 and exporting the crop from the field or the EAA; is

1 that correct?

2 A. From the field.

3 Q. Okay. And what are you referring to by

4 "leaching"; the term "leaching losses"?

5 A. Those would be losses that would result in

6 sub-surface transport of phosphorus that would

7 probably not be measurable in local field ditches.

8 As you track the water, you can either measure it

9 coming off in the surface water either at the edge of

10 the field or the edge of the farm, but leaching

11 losses would be those that would be recovered

12 elsewhere; deep seepage that might show up at our

13 pump station in a large canal, but would not be

14 measurable as surface runoff.

15 Q. Do you have any estimate of the amount of

16 phosphorus that would be exported through leaching

17 losses?

18 A. Not specifically.

19 Q. When you say "not specifically", that

20 would, to me, indicate you do have some feel there,

21 but can you tell me what that would be?

22 A. The reason why I say "not specifically" is

23 the statement here about phosphorus losses from each

24 field is meant to be a general statement about mass

25 balances, and in trying to quantify a budget, what

1 kind of numbers you want to be able to elucidate, we

2 have some numbers for looking at large movements of

3 phosphorus and we have some specific field data that

4 shows leaching losses from that specific field, but

5 we do not have experimental data or field

6 observations that track the leaching losses from the

7 field and out from the EAA, so we have parts of the

8 picture, but not something that directly links.

9 Q. So you haven't been able to come up with

10 any sort of a good or accurate estimate of the amount

11 of phosphorus that would be exported through the

12 leaching mechanism?

13 A. Not specifically.

14 Q. Are we talking here about leaching losses,

15 are we talking about ground water movement?

16 A. That would be the end result. Right. It

17 wouldn't be ground water leaching, but in the end, it

18 would be the ground water transport of the

19 phosphorus.

20 Q. Which could potentially be collected by one

21 of the District canals, but be flowing below the

22 field drainage canal?

23 A. Exactly. Probably collected by our primary

24 canals. So in a sense, it will still be quantified

25 as the complete loss from the basin, but trying to

1 identify those losses relative to a specific field

2 would be difficult.

3 Q. Do you have any idea of -- assuming that we

4 are losing phosphorus through this leaching mechanism

5 and there is a percentage of it that's traveling

6 through ground water, would that movement through

7 ground water have an effect on the phosphorus content

8 of the water? Would it reduce the amount of

9 phosphorus from the point of time it left the field

10 until it entered a District canal?

11 A. It should.

12 Q. By virtue of the fact that it is traveling

13 through lime rock?

14 A. Calcareous rock with a potential sorptive

15 capacity for phosphorus.

16 Q. On the next page under the heading "sugar

17 cane", the second sentence says, "Approximately 60

18 tons per acre --

19 A. Correct.

20 Q. -- "total annual biomass are grown, and

21 34.2 tons cane per acre per year are processed".

22 Where was that information derived?

23 A. From those two data sources.

24 Q. From the Sugar Cane League and Gasho and

25 Shih?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Who are -- who is Gasho?

3 A. A graduate student, I expect, but it could

4 be -- I'm not sure.

5 Q. This is one of the reference items

6 contained --

7 A. Yes, sir.

8 Q. -- in the back of your report?

9 A. Yes, sir.

10 Q. And the next sentence, "Phosphorus uptake

11 is estimated at 16 to 22," what does "lbsp" mean?

12 A. It means a typo.

13 Q. Oh.

14 A. "Pounds phosphorus per acre" is what the

15 whole thing says, but the P has kind of wandered over

16 from the H.

17 Q. And this uptake that you are referring to

18 is phosphorus that is assimilated into the plan

19 itself as part of the growth cycle?

20 A. Correct.

21 Q. And further down there is a statement,

22 "Approximately 5 tons of ash per acre are released

23 into the atmosphere." Do you see that statement?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Where did that number come from?