STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE ) OF FLORIDA, A Florida Agricultural) Cooperative Marketing Association,) ROTH FARMS, INC., AND WEDGWORTH ) FARMS, INC., ) ) and ) ) FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, INC.; ) Case Nos. 92-3038 UNITED STATES SUGAR CORPORATION; ) 92-3039 and NEW HOPE SOUTH, INC., ) 92-3040 ) and ) ) FLORIDA FRUIT AND VEGETABLE ) ASSOCIATION, LEWIS POPE FARMS, ) W.E. SCHLECHTER & SONS, INC., and ) HUNDLEY FARMS, INC., ) ) Petitioners, ) ) vs. ) ) SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT ) DISTRICT, an Agency of the State ) of Florida, ) ) Respondent, ) ) and ) ) MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS OF ) FLORIDA THE UNITED STATES OF ) AMERICA, AND FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF) ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, and the ) FLORIDA WILDLIFE FEDERATION, ) ) Intervenors. ) ----------------------------------) DEPOSITION OF LLOYD E. HORVATH, P.E. 2 1 2 3 Clearlake Center 4 250 Australian Avenue South West Palm Beach, Fl 33401 5 October 5,1992 9:00 a.m. 6 7 APPEARANCES: 8 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 9 BY: THOMAS A.W. FITZGERALD, A.U.S.A., appearing on behalf of the United States. 10 HOPPING BOYD, GREEN & SAMS, 11 BY: GARY V. PERKO, ESQUIRE appearing on behalf of the Sugar Cane Growers. 12 PEEPLES, EARL & BLANK, 13 BY: RICHARD A. RUSSELL, ESQUIRE appearing on behalf of Florida Sugar Cane 14 League. 15 HYDROLOGIC ASSOCIATES U.S.A.,INC. BY: BRADLEY G. WALLER, PRINCIPAL HYDROLOGIST, 16 appearing on behalf of Florida Sugar Cane League. 17 EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK 18 BY: BOB JOHNSON appearing on behalf of Everglades National Park. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 The deposition of LLOYD E. HORVATH, P.E., a 2 witness of lawful age, taken for the purpose of discovery 3 as evidence in the above-styled cause, pending in the 4 United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, 5 pursuant to notice, before Brenda Weinerth, Notary Public 6 in and for the State of Florida at Large, at the time and 7 place aforesaid. 8 -------------------- 9 I N D E X 10 WITNESS 11 LLOYD E. HORVATH, P.E. 12 Direct Examination by Mr. Fitzgerald 3 13 14 E X H I B I T S 15 PLAINTIFFS FOR INDENTIFICATION 16 NO. PAGE 17 1 4 2 4 18 3 4 4 16 19 5 17 6 18 20 7 23 8 82 21 9 123 10 131 22 23 24 25 4 1 THEREUPON: 2 LLOYD E. HORVATH, P.E., 3 was called as a witness by the Plaintiff having been first 4 duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: 5 DIRECT EXAMINATION 6 BY MR. FITZGERALD: 7 Q Thomas Fitzgerald from U.S. Attorney's Office 8 and here with a Bob Johnson who will be assisting me. 9 First, I would like to show you what was marked as Exhibit 10 1 the notice of this deposition and accompanying request 11 for documents. Did you have an opportunity to go over that 12 with your attorney? 13 (Whereupon, Exhibit No. 1, 2, and 3 were 14 marked for Identification by the Court Reporter.) 15 A Yes. 16 Q And did you have an opportunity to go through 17 with your attorney the list Attachment A delineating the 18 documents that should be produced in response to the 19 notice? 20 A Yes. 21 Q Now, at your office you produced for 22 examination, two boxes of files plus a small additional 23 stack; is that correct? 24 A Correct. 25 Q And had you personally secured those from 5 1 whatever file cabinets they would normally be kept in? 2 A For the most part, no. They were done by 3 others. 4 Q Was it done under your direction? 5 A Yes. 6 Q So, do you have reasonable assurance that 7 everything that was called for in the notice is in fact 8 produced for inspection? 9 A Yes. 10 Q Additionally, some days prior to that by 11 Fed-X, documents were provided which included a report and 12 investigation of subsurface flow -- the title goes on and 13 on. Did you also assist in securing that set of documents 14 and providing them in response to the notice? 15 A Yes. 16 Q Are there any other documents right now that 17 you are aware of that were not produced in response to the 18 notice that appeared to fall within the documents 19 requested? 20 A No. 21 Q Now, prior to the provision of the documents 22 that were discussion amongst counsel and it was indicated 23 that you or your firm might have other clients within the 24 Everglades Agricultural Area you provided service for. 25 Were there or are there any other such documents for which 6 1 the contracts and description of work or files were not 2 produced? 3 A Our firm, I'm aware of has two other jobs 4 within EAA. 5 Q Without specifying the precise nature of work, 6 can you tell me who the clients are in those two? 7 A No, I can't. Well, actually they're law 8 firms -- they're from law firms, it's confidential. 9 Q Is the work that you are doing related to the 10 issues in the challenge to the Everglades SWIM Plan which 11 is the reason we are here? 12 A No. 13 Q Is the work related to the potential challenge 14 to the Everglades Agricultural Area Regulatory Rule of 15 Chapter 40-E Administrative Code? 16 A No. 17 Q Are you familiar with that code the BMP Rule? 18 A I'm vaguely familiar with it. 19 Q Sufficiently the work is unrelated to that? 20 A Right. 21 Q Do you know whom you stated that the clients 22 in that are two law firms or two law firms that retained 23 you? 24 A That's correct. 25 Q Do you know who their client is that you're 7 1 doing the work? 2 A In one case, no. In the other case, I believe 3 I know. I'm not at all involved in the project. 4 Q To the extent that you believe you know who 5 the actual client of the firm may be, is it anyone or any 6 entity that's a party to the SWIM Challenge? 7 MR. PERKO: I am going to object to the 8 question. He already indicated he was not at 9 liberty to reveal that information. 10 MR. FITZGERALD: You can go ahead and answer 11 unless you're directing him not to. 12 THE WITNESS: I'm not at liberty to reveal 13 that information. 14 MR. FITZGERALD: I didn't ask for the name 15 yet. I requested you, if you know, whether or not 16 this particular person or entity is a party to the 17 SWIM Challenge? 18 MR. PERKO: I am going to object. We can play 19 20 questions all day long and eventually get to the 20 name that is clearly what you're trying to do. He 21 already said -- 22 MR. FITZGERALD: Put the basis of your 23 objection on the record. 24 MR. PERKO: It's privileged information. 25 MR. FITZGERALD: You are directing him not to 8 1 answer. Let me explain where I am going with this, 2 if it turns out that was a multi-million dollar 3 contract and somebody involved in this case both 4 Mr. Horvath and Missimer or your superior - he has 5 got the lead name on the firm, he is also designated 6 by your client as a witness in this case. They are 7 certainly subject to impeachment based on whatever 8 the value of that work may be to them and I think 9 that was a legitimate area. 10 MR. PERKO: He may alleviate it if I could ask 11 him a couple questions. 12 MR. FITZGERALD: You can when I'm done. 13 MR. PERKO: All right. I guess we can 14 proceed. 15 MR. FITZGERALD: Your witness has a puzzled 16 look. You're not directing him not to answer. 17 MR. PERKO: This work was not performed on 18 behalf of my client. 19 MR. FITZGERALD: I understand that. 20 MR. PERKO: And it's my understanding that 21 Mr. Horvath is not at liberty to reveal that 22 information. I don't know that I can object on his 23 behalf and instruct him not to answer that 24 information, because it's Mr. Horvath who is raising 25 the privilege not my client. 9 1 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, without belaboring the 2 record with objections, it is not his to raise it is 3 his clients. How do you deem it to be privileged 4 information whether or not a possible client of a 5 law firm is involved in the Everglades SWIM Plan 6 Challenge? 7 MR. PERKO: Mr. Horvath has stated that the 8 information is subject to a confidentiality 9 agreement. He is not at liberty to state that 10 information without the consent of his client. He 11 has not received that consent and to the extent you 12 are questioning Mr. Horvath to proceed in seeking 13 that information. I think your harassing the 14 witness. He said he is not gonna answer that 15 question. 16 MR. FITZGERALD: I have not heard your witness 17 say that on the record that he is refusing to answer 18 and I haven't asked him the name of the individual. 19 MR. PERKO: You're clearly asking questions to 20 reveal that information. 21 MR. FITZGERALD: If we get to that. If you 22 want to direct him not to answer, we can get the 23 hearing officer on the phone and resolve the matter. 24 MR. PERKO: I'm telling Mr. Horvath he does 25 not have to answer that question if he does not feel 10 1 it's appropriate. 2 MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Horvath, your attorney 3 can explain to you the options if you refuse to 4 answer a question which we otherwise feel is 5 legitimate. You, of course, are the reason of this 6 proceeding, if this disrupts the deposition I don't 7 believe you have a claim of privilege. I ask you to 8 direct your client to answer the question or tell 9 him not to answer the question. 10 MR. PERKO: I'm not representing Mr. Horvath, 11 I'm representing my clients. 12 MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Horvath, there is a 13 method to compel that was produced for a witness 14 that is refusing to answer an appropriate question. 15 Since your attorney here is representing you on your 16 behalf and directed you not to answer, but I simply 17 ask that you respond to the question. Do you 18 remember the question? 19 THE WITNESS: Would you like to restate it? 20 Q (By Mr. Fitzgerald) Without revealing the 21 name of this possible client of the law firm, do you know 22 if -- do you know whether or not that particular individual 23 is involved in the SWIM Plan Challenge? 24 A Yes. 25 Q Yes, you know? 11 1 A Yes, I know. 2 Q Is it that entity or individual involved in 3 the SWIM Plan Challenge? 4 A Yes. 5 Q What is the dollar value of the contract under 6 which your firm is currently providing service through a 7 law firm, if you know? 8 A I don't know the dollar value of the contract 9 it is certainly not multi-million dollars. 10 Q Who was the engineer or hydrologist or 11 individual at your firm that is the lead or would be most 12 knowledgeable regarding that? 13 A I'm really not aware of who that is. 14 Q Would Mr. Missimer know that? 15 A Yeah, Tom may know. 16 Q With regard to the second law firm's related 17 work, the one where you were unaware of the identity or 18 even possible identity of the client, who would be most 19 knowledgeable about that particular project? 20 A Perhaps Tom O'Donnell. 21 Q What is his position at Missimer & Associates? 22 A Vice president of Environmental Division. 23 Q Now, in reviewing the documents that you were 24 provided at your firm, I noticed that there were a number 25 of those that related to relatively small projects within 12 1 the Everglades Agricultural Area referring to the mediation 2 efforts that removed the old fuel tanks and that sort of 3 thing; is that correct? 4 A Correct. 5 Q Does your firm do a lot of that sort of work 6 around the state? 7 A Yes. 8 Q And within the EAA, do you have any idea who 9 referred that work to you? 10 A No. 11 Q Have you been personally involved in any of 12 that work? 13 A No. 14 Q So, the files reflect that mediation efforts 15 were simply because of where they were and not that you had 16 personally worked on them? 17 A That's correct. 18 Q And many of the files too reflected that 19 either you or the firm do some work for municipalities 20 related to assessment of the effect of percolation ponds? 21 A Correct. 22 Q Did you personally do that? 23 A Yes. 24 MR. FITZGERALD: Somebody is going to be 25 joining us in a minute. 13 1 MR. WALLER: For the record, I'm Brad Waller. 2 Q (By Mr. Fitzgerald) I'm not sure if you 3 already answered that. I already lost the answer. You do 4 work at the municipality percolation ponds? 5 A Yes. 6 Q That's essentially Missimer & Associates; is 7 it not? 8 A Most of the time, yes. 9 Q And can you just tell us which of those 10 projects you have been involved in over the last few years? 11 A Several. City of Fort Myers Beach, some in La 12 Belle area -- I can't remember who the client was -- Marco 13 Island Utilities. 14 Q How about Jamaican Bay West? 15 A Jamaican Bay West. 16 Q You do some work for Deltona? 17 A Deltona, yes. 18 Q You have done work for Roth Farms as well in 19 the EAA at the 20 mile bend and Anderson? 20 A Our company I believe has, yes. 21 Q What types of -- 22 A Underground tank job, I think. 23 Q Were you involved in that personally? 24 A No. 25 Q Do you know who did handle that tank removal 14 1 effort? 2 A Jim Anderson. 3 Q Were you involved in providing to U.S. Sugar 4 Corporation a proposal related to act for storage in the 5 reservoir program? 6 A Yes. 7 Q What was your involvement in that particular 8 program? 9 A I prepared the proposal, at least the first 10 addition of it, and I don't remember whether I participated 11 in the second one or not. 12 Q When was the first addition? 13 A About a year and a half ago. 14 Q And was that solicited or was it an effort to 15 sort of generate business on the part of the association? 16 A Probably a combination of the two. I believe 17 that in this case U.S. Sugar came to us. 18 Q Have you been involved previously in the EAA 19 with programs? 20 A No. 21 Q Had your firm? 22 A No. 23 Q Had your firm had any involvement with the 24 Injection Well Project of some of the municipalities in the 25 EAA? 15 1 A No. 2 Q Do you know who did, what firm? 3 A Which firms have? 4 Q Yes. 5 A I believe Gardy & Miller (phonetic) did a well 6 for what was once called Quaker Oats in the vicinity. They 7 may have done another one for -- oh, I forget which city. 8 Q There was a file with a file or client number 9 of CH-130 related to U.S. Sugar Corporation Unit 2 test 10 wells? 11 A Okay. 12 Q Is that a project on which you worked? 13 A Yes, I am on that one. 14 Q What does that project entail? 15 A That was conversion of some property which is 16 pasture and sugarcane. I believe they were turning it into 17 citrus and they required a study of the water resources to 18 determine how they were gonna develop irrigation water for 19 the citrus growers. 20 Q And when was that project -- 21 A Sounds like a 1990 project on the basis of the 22 number. 23 Q So, as far you know that is closed? 24 A It was finished. 25 Q On the ASR Program is that also a closed? 16 1 A No, that's ongoing. 2 Q When does that -- When does your firm 3 anticipate that project will be done? 4 A It's a long term project. We are right now in 5 the process of evaluating bids for construction of the 6 first test well. 7 Q Where will that well be located? 8 A I'm not exactly sure where that property is. 9 Q Who's leading that project at your firm? 10 A Dr. Walker. 11 Q And you have brought that file with you today? 12 A Yes. 13 MR. FITZGERALD: I would like to mark the file 14 as an Exhibit. Counsel doesn't have copies of it, 15 but under the circumstances of which I examined them 16 it was not real convenient to make copies at the 17 firm. We will make copies here today for everyone. 18 If you can pass that file to the court reporter. 19 (Whereupon, Exhibit No. 4 was marked for 20 Identification by the Court Reporter.) 21 Q (By Mr. Fitzgerald) Take a quick look at 22 Number 5 there (indicating) that is the project related to 23 the Tamiami Aquifier obtaining the irrigation that you are 24 referring to? 25 A Yes. 17 1 Q Who's Dr. Durbin Tabb, are you familiar with 2 him? 3 A Yeah, he is -- I know him. He is a biologist 4 consultant for many years. Has worked in South Florida and 5 sorted projects related to development and other 6 environmental issues of concern. 7 Q Is he a consultant to your firm or he is in 8 the business? 9 A He is in the business. 10 Q Has he worked on any projects with you? 11 A Several. 12 Q What projects has he assisted you in? 13 A Primarily projects on the West Coast of 14 Florida related to development of lands. He is concerned 15 with biological aspects of wet lands and areas of 16 preservation. 17 Q Did you work on the Tropical Bio Industries 18 Everglades case file or your project number 87-7? 19 A No. 20 Q The firm then? 21 A Oh, yeah. 22 Q Take a quick look at the next file. That file 23 reflects Dr. Tabb's participation with your firm in a 24 particular project, Tropical Bio Project? 25 A Correct. 18 1 Q I guess that's Tropical Bio Industry -- I 2 think I mispronounced it as well. If we could mark that 3 Exhibit 6. 4 (Whereupon, Exhibit No. 6 was marked for 5 Identification by the Court Reporter.) 6 For the record, I have marked Exhibit 2 a 7 resume' provided for Mr. Horvath. Can I have you take a 8 look at it and you are probably familiar with it. Clarify 9 that that is the entire thing. We didn't lose a page in 10 transmissions or anything like that. 11 A Looks like the entire. 12 Q Is it current, Mr. Horvath, or are there any 13 supplemental publications or experiences that you would 14 list; education, anything like that? I know these things 15 have a habit of becoming outdated. 16 A It's probably fairly current. It looks like a 17 slightly different version of one that has been going 18 around, but it looks like it's fairly up-to-date. 19 Q Was this one prepared under your supervision 20 for purposes of providing it in this case? 21 A I don't believe so or it was probably 22 submitted in regards to request rather rapidly. So, I 23 don't think it's tailored for the case. 24 Q You're still vice president of the hydrology 25 services division? 19 1 A We kind of changed the title to vice president 2 of water resource. 3 Q Has your education changed? You have a 4 Masters in Civil Engineering from Ohio University? 5 A Same. 6 Q And except for the change in your title, the 7 rest of it would be, to the best of your knowledge, 8 accurate? 9 A Yes. 10 Q With regard to your publications, can we go 11 through and can you briefly give me an idea of what they 12 related -- probably it would be easier if I give you the 13 title, 1978 publication on aquifer test of Tamiami Aquifer 14 System-Zone II in Lee County? 15 A That relates to a study we did for development 16 of a wellfield and analysis of the aquifer testing - the 17 techniques and results. 18 Q Did your firm actually do the aquifer test in 19 that test? 20 A Yes. 21 Q How long did that take? 22 A Well, the study took a period of months. 23 There is -- Several test wells were drilled and a series of 24 tests were conducted so, you know, it's a couple months of 25 drilling and testing and analysis of data. 20 1 Q What was the purpose of the analysis? What 2 was the project trying to determine? 3 A Well, to determine the coefficients that 4 describe how groundwater flows in that particular aquifer 5 and zones above it, and to ultimately design a wellfield 6 and predict the impacts of withdrawals. 7 Q This was for irrigation purposes or drinking 8 water purposes? 9 A For public supply, wellfield. 10 Q The 1981 publication and evaluation of 11 groundwater quality changes and supply to reverse osmosis, 12 do you recall that? 13 A Yes. 14 Q What was that? 15 A That was presentation of a technique in by 16 which we predict how brackish water quality would change 17 with time by resulting from pumpage. I think that was on 18 the Island of Sanibel. 19 Q On the West Coast of Florida? 20 A Right, west Coast of Florida. 21 Q The next was a 1981 study on pumping-induced 22 salinity changes in a leaky, artesian coastal aquifer 23 system? 24 A Similar - similar topic to the last one. 25 Q Also involved in Sanibel? 21 1 A That involved Sanibel too, I believe. 2 Q What was the leaking artesian aquifer system? 3 A The aquifer system on the coast of artesian 4 being a confined -- which was not totally confined -- it 5 leaks water from, in this case, below and it's more 6 brackish water then the water that was being pumped, and 7 therefore, it deteriorates the quality of the zone you are 8 pumping. You're mining the fresher water out. 9 Q 1988 publication on Modeling of 10 pumping-induced groundwater quality changes at the Dare 11 County, North Carolina Wellfield? 12 A That's a very similar analysis technique. 13 Again, applied to a wellfield in North Carolina for pumpage 14 and for a reverse osmosis plan. 15 Q That was a coastal? 16 A That's coastal. 17 Q Only two more. Last year, Alternative design 18 to replace conventional surface-water intakes for membrane 19 treatment facilities? 20 A Yes. There was a presentation of techniques 21 for extracting groundwater or seawater, essentially, using 22 subsurface filters. 23 Q And then finally and undated, Planning and 24 design of reverse osmosis plant using a deteriorating water 25 supply? 22 1 A That was a study done or prepared or done to 2 the AWWA last year. It dealt with Marco Island Utilities 3 pumping from a leak at the artesian aquifer or rating of 4 change in water quality as a result of that pumping. 5 Q In these public studies, were the techniques 6 used in the necessary measurings or is supporting data 7 similar to those you used in producing the investigation 8 beneath property adjacent to Loxahatchee Conservation Area? 9 A Some of the techniques are similar. The 10 pumping test analysis has a lot of similar characteristics. 11 The rate of movement of water is, you know, the physics 12 driving water movement are the same regardless of where 13 you're taking your water. So, obviously, the equations on 14 which those are based are the same. 15 Q Your practical experience indicated in your 16 resume'. Do you feel that that qualifies you as an expert 17 in the field of hydrology? 18 A Yes, groundwater hydrology. 19 Q Have you conducted any detailed study of the 20 hydrology of the EAA? 21 A It's certainly nothing beyond the areas which 22 were reported in the document that you have. 23 Q Have you ever done a seepage test in the EAA 24 with the exception of the one report I gave you title to a 25 moment ago? 23 1 A No. 2 Q For sake of care, why don't we mark that as an 3 exhibit. 4 (Whereupon, Exhibit No. 7 was marked for 5 Identification by the Court Reporter.) 6 MR. FITZGERALD: Is this one marked up? 7 MR. PERKO: No. 8 Q (By Mr. Fitzgerald) Let me show you a copy of 9 that report. Do you recognize that report? 10 A Yes. 11 Q Is that in fact, the report that you produced 12 with regard to a seepage test conducted adjacent to 13 Loxahatchee Conservation Refuge? 14 A Yes. 15 Q Let me show you Exhibit 3. Do you recognize 16 that? 17 A Yes. 18 Q Did you recognize, either from the handwriting 19 or whatever, that you provided that to us through your 20 counsel? 21 A I recognize the titles and I recognize a 22 project number, so I would say it looks very similar. 23 Q Did you, in reviewing Exhibit 1 which was the 24 request for documents accompanying your notice, recognize 25 that you were required to provide as part of the deposition 24 1 your computer files or data related to this particular 2 project? 3 A Yes. 4 Q And did you, in fact, copy that on a disk to 5 be provided to us? 6 A Yes. 7 Q The disk I showed you, does that reflect the 8 project number and appear to be the disk that you provided? 9 A Yes, that's correct. 10 Q Did you delete any data from your magnetic 11 storage media before providing that disk? 12 A Not to my knowledge. I never looked at the 13 data on this disk. It was provided to me by someone else 14 that has the data stored. 15 Q Who would physically carry out that task? 16 A Suzanne Bernadini. 17 Q What was her position at the firm? 18 A She's a hydrogeologist. 19 Q Did she also participate in this test? 20 A Yes. 21 Q Who explained to her what was required to be 22 provided to her in a way of magnetic stored data? 23 A I did. 24 Q After your discussions with your counsel? 25 A Correct. 25 1 Q Now, on that disk, except for the 2 representation you can call it, there appears to be one 3 portion that indicates that it relates to segment 2 of your 4 report, the conclusions portion, but none of the other 5 tasks of the report appears on there. Do you know where 6 that would have been kept? 7 A It would be probably split between two 8 offices, most likely in the Palm Beach office. 9 Q When you say Palm Beach, is that the actual 10 address of that office? 11 A That's on Sandtree Boulevard in -- I forget 12 the name of the city now they have changed the name. 13 Q Sandtree Boulevard is enough for 14 identification? 15 A Okay. 16 Q The files that we discussed earlier in running 17 down some of the files provided at your office regarding 18 EAA in regard to mediation, to your knowledge, did any of 19 those projects involve seepage tests conducted at those 20 sites? 21 A To the best of my knowledge, they did not. 22 Q Have you ever been asked at your firm to 23 evaluate any general seepage data or literature seepage 24 data regarding the EAA. 25 A Yes. 26 1 Q What was that? 2 A I would say about two years ago I was looking 3 for information regarding seepage in the area of the EAA 4 and I reviewed the USGS publication that dealt with seepage 5 around Lake Okeechobee. 6 Q Do you remember the title of that publication? 7 A No. 8 Q Or its date of publication? Is it recent? 9 A It's not recent, it's quite awhile. 10 Q Did you review any army corps of engineers 11 data regarding the seepage calculations or experiences with 12 the Central and South Florida Flood Control Project? 13 A Some of that data may have been in the report. 14 It may have been acclimation of both army corps and USGS 15 data. 16 Q What area of Lake Okeechobee did that deal 17 with? 18 A The south - south shore and possibly around 19 the southeast side. I think it went from Moore Haven to 20 Pahokee. Is that on the east shore? 21 Q What was your purpose for seeking out that 22 information two years ago? 23 A To get a general understanding of what the 24 hydrogeological nature of shallow subsurface is there and 25 address, you know, seepage. 27 1 Q Had you been approached by a client 2 specifically or was this just self-gratification? 3 A No. We were asked by Kimley-Horn to look into 4 the subject of seepage related to impounding water in that 5 particular area. 6 Q What precise geographical area did they want 7 you to examine? 8 A They didn't have one. They were representing 9 several clients and several areas and they wanted sort of a 10 synopsis of the things that a person might be concerned 11 about if they wanted to address storing water behind an 12 impoundment. 13 Q Did they specify the type of soils or the 14 geological subterrain that would be involved? 15 A More or less they asked us to look at the type 16 of soils that might be expected there and make some 17 predictions. 18 Q In addition to the USGS data, where else did 19 you search for information on the subject? 20 A I'm not sure how extensive our search was. I 21 know we didn't come up with anything. 22 Q Who else in the firm worked on the project? 23 A Just me and Brian Peck, who's our computer 24 modeler. 25 Q Did you produce a computer model or did 28 1 Kimley-Horn? 2 A We produced some results. 3 Q In what form? 4 A Ultimately, it came out in a letter. I may 5 have sent them some pronounced, I'm not sure. I possibly 6 did which addressed, you know, basically seepage into 7 ditches. 8 Q Did you become aware of the identity of the 9 clients of the firm that had contacted you? 10 A No. I wasn't aware of any one client. They 11 allegedly represent several or a large group out there, and 12 we never talked about how many specifically. I got the 13 feeling it was many people whom may be faced with that. 14 Q So, to the best of your recollection the only 15 report, if any that you prepared, was a letter? 16 A Yes. 17 Q Have you provided that to us? 18 A I believe I did. 19 Q We will perhaps mark that later. Prior to 20 that event, two years ago, had you done any research or 21 fieldwork in the Everglades Agricultural Area related to 22 seepage measurements? 23 A No. 24 Q Is part of that project -- Did you do any 25 fieldwork? 29 1 A No. 2 Q Strictly literature? 3 A Literature. 4 Q Did you feel that your literature search was 5 exhausted with sort of dirty and quick references? 6 A Quick and dirty references, perfectly stated. 7 Q That was not a long-term project? 8 A No. 9 Q And when were you first approached to conduct 10 the seepage tests adjacent to Loxahatchee that are a 11 subject of the report that has been identified? 12 A Probably, around mid-May. 13 Q Okay, and when? 14 A Of '92. 15 Q Of this year. And what was -- When was the 16 report actually produced, the work completed? 17 A It's dated July of '92. I know it was about a 18 one month effort. I'm not exactly sure of the date. 19 Q So, one month to do from first approach to the 20 end of the fieldwork and rough draft or -- 21 A Yes, about that. 22 Q And then it takes the usual several months to 23 get everybody to read the thing, I understand? 24 A Yes. 25 Q Who actually approached your firm to conduct 30 1 that test? 2 A I believe it was Kurt Pulman, I think, made 3 the first contact. Is that his name with KBN? 4 Q KBN is what? 5 A Engineers. 6 Q Consultants? 7 A Consulting firm. 8 Q And had you known Dr. Pulman prior to this 9 particular approach being made? 10 A No. 11 Q Do you know if Mr. Missimer knew him in 12 advance? 13 A No, he didn't. 14 Q And what information did Mr. Pulman provide 15 you to indicate what type of work he wanted do? 16 A We had a general, basically, a telephone 17 conversation with a follow-up meeting in which we discussed 18 the, you know, the issue of seepage in that particular 19 area. 20 Q And what did he tell you the issue was? 21 A Well, the issue was a proposed BMP in which 22 apparently the qualification of the amounts of water to be 23 retained on a particular farmer's property were based on a 24 number of factors which didn't appear to contain seepage. 25 And so the question of how significant is the seepage issue 31 1 came up and so this was to get an answer. 2 Q Did he indicate to you what his interest was 3 in this particular as a consultant? 4 A No, not really. 5 Q Did he tell you who his clients were? 6 A Yes. 7 Q And who are his clients? 8 A Well, I believe his clients were the law firm 9 Hopping, Boyd, Green & Sams. 10 Q That explains why your title page says the 11 report was prepared for the law firm then? 12 A That's correct. 13 Q Did you have -- The meeting that you had with 14 Dr. Pulman, who else was present? 15 A A hydrogeologist named John Good who worked 16 with KBN. 17 Q Yourself? 18 A And myself. 19 Q Anyone else from your firm? 20 A No. 21 Q Did you keep any minutes or notes of that 22 meeting? 23 A Obviously, I made some sort of notes so, yes. 24 Q At that meeting, did you discuss site 25 selection for the seepage test he was proposing that you 32 1 conducted for him? 2 A Yes, the property -- at least, the site was 3 sort of what we determined from a field visit. 4 Q When I say site, then you take a special 5 condemnation to that to be a specific location, test dwell? 6 A Correct. 7 Q Let's talk about fields then. Did he identify 8 for you at that meeting in early May of 1992 what fields he 9 wanted tested? 10 A Well, no, we did that within a few days later, 11 actually via site visit. 12 Q Was that on foot or air? 13 A By car and truck or whatever it took to get 14 around the site. 15 Q And ultimately, you selected two sites 16 adjacent to the L-7 Canal -- the Loxahatchee or is it -- Is 17 L-7 the other side? 18 A I'm not sure about the L-7 Canal but we were 19 definitely on the left side of the conservation area. 20 Q How many farms did you visit before you 21 settled on the one that you employed? 22 A We only visited it. 23 Q So, what you refer in your report as the 24 Gilmore and Hillsborough, those are the only two sites you 25 visited? 33 1 A Yes. 2 Q Did Dr. Pulman accompany you? 3 A No, he didn't. 4 Q Did anybody from KBN? 5 A John Good. 6 Q Did anyone else accompany you? 7 A Jeff Ward. 8 Q And who's Jeff Ward? 9 A With the Sugar Growers. He is the attorney 10 for the Sugar Growers Co-op. 11 Q What did you understand his presence was in 12 aide of? 13 A I believed neither John or I have ever been to 14 the site, and he was the expert on showing us where the 15 properties were. 16 Q Did he tell you who the owners of the property 17 were? 18 A Yes. 19 Q And who was that? 20 A That is the Sugar Growers Co-op, I believe. 21 Q Did you understand him to tell you that the 22 Sugar Growers Co-op, in itself, owned those two crops? 23 A That's my understanding. 24 Q That's what you said in your report? 25 A I think so. 34 1 Q So, you had no independent knowledge of whose 2 function -- 3 A No. 4 Q Did Mr. Ward tell you why he selected those 5 two sites to be tested? 6 A No, other than I think that simply because 7 those happened to be there, the two farms that they had 8 control and access to and easy sites to test. 9 Q Now, the Hillsborough Farm, what is between 10 the Hillsborough Farm and Loxahatchee Conservation Area? 11 A There were some -- There are more farm fields 12 and I don't -- 13 Q Well, don't -- 14 A I don't know specifically. 15 Q If you can look at Figure 1, doesn't 16 Hillsborough Farm, in fact, extend abutting Loxahatchee 17 Wildlife Refuge all the way over to the Hillsborough Canal? 18 A That is the way we show it there. I mean, 19 that is my understanding. 20 Q Okay. When you conducted your fieldwork on 21 the Hillsborough Farm, that was essentially in the eastern 22 portion of it, your test sites? 23 A Yes. 24 Q With regard to the Gilmore land that also 25 abuts, if you will, Loxahatchee Conservation Area as it's 35 1 described in the report? 2 A Correct. 3 Q What do the symbols on the chart in Figure 1 4 indicate, the crosshatching, where just above it says L-7 5 Canal and it makes the end (indicating). 6 A That's correct. 7 Q Is there a levy of any sort between the 8 Gilmore land and the canal? 9 A Yes, there is. 10 Q And is there a levy on the other side of the 11 canal between the canal property and the general area of 12 Loxahatchee Conservation Area, if you recall? 13 A My understanding there is a levy and the canal 14 is inside the levy and then the conservation area is within 15 there as well. 16 Q Do you recall if there is any physical barrier 17 or berm or levy between the canal and adjacent conservation 18 area as you go east? 19 A Moving east from -- Explain again. Starting 20 where? 21 Q You got your farmland, levy, canal, and we're 22 going eastward? 23 A Conservation area. 24 Q In other words, is the canal levy on either 25 side? 36 1 A I'm not really sure what is -- I'm not sure of 2 what was on the other side of the levy. We were not able 3 to access that. 4 Q On the farm side, both for Hillsborough and 5 Gilmore, were there field ditches or canals? 6 A Yes. 7 Q What do you understand by field ditch? 8 A Field ditch, in my terms, is an interior ditch 9 for primarily draining or irrigating, you know, moving 10 water on and off of the property that's being irrigated or 11 farmed, I guess. 12 Q The field or farm ditches on Gilmore and 13 Hillsborough adjacent to the levy, do they run north/south 14 or were there cross canal ditches running east/west as 15 well, do you recall? 16 A The farm ditches are running north and south 17 and there are some east/west interconnects as well. 18 Q Was there water in those canals when you 19 visited the sites of those ditches? 20 A Yes. 21 Q I also assume that there was water in the L-7 22 Canal? 23 A I assume so. 24 Q Are there pumping facilities on those two 25 farms? 37 1 A Yes. 2 Q Did you visit and examine those pumping 3 facilities? 4 A Yes. 5 Q Did you secure their records of pumping 6 activity? 7 A I didn't personally. John Good was doing that 8 and that was one of his charges. 9 Q Did he ever provide those to you to use in 10 assisting you in producing your study? 11 A No, we were working independently. Really, he 12 was looking at quantitative and the amounts of water that 13 were being pumped and we were working from what I 14 understand to be two different directions to see, you know, 15 how seepage might impair. 16 Q Did he ever provide to you the results of his 17 part of the work? 18 A No. 19 Q Do you know during what period of time he 20 conducted that work? 21 A I believe it was in May. 22 Q Have you discussed it with him since? 23 A No. 24 Q Have you seen him since? 25 A No, actually -- 38 1 Q The date that you visited, did your field 2 visit in early May, were the pumps running? 3 A Some pumps were running and some were not. 4 Q Were they irrigating or were they discharging? 5 A They were discharging, I believe. They were 6 definitely not irrigating. 7 Q Where are the discharge points for those 8 points? Do they discharge to the east or west? 9 A Well, the ones that I was observing on the 10 Gilmore property were discharging immediately south. 11 Q Into the L-7? 12 A No. They were discharging into a canal, an 13 east/west canal that runs along the south property line of 14 the Gilmore land. 15 Q Did you notice whether that east/west field 16 ditch was connected to the - primarily to the L-7? 17 A I don't believe it's connected to the L-7. I 18 believe that the water moves to the west. 19 Q Towards the Hillsborough Canal? 20 A Towards the Hillsborough Canal. 21 Q How about on the Hillsborough Farm itself, 22 were they conducting pumping operations at all? 23 A I think the pump was undergoing maintenance at 24 the time. 25 Q Were you able to ascertain how long the pump 39 1 had been out of service? 2 A I don't believe it was very long. They were 3 working on it while I was there. 4 Q Did any farm management personnel meet with 5 you to discuss their operations and explain their problems? 6 A Yes. 7 Q And where was that, which farm? 8 A We really had a farm manager with us at both 9 sites so we would get to meet the fellow whom would be in 10 there next week with a drilling rig so we could coordinate 11 the efforts. 12 Q Was this the same man? 13 A There were two individuals. 14 Q Do you remember their names? 15 A I don't. 16 Q Had Mr. Ward had them meet you there? 17 A Yes. 18 Q What did the manager, with regard to Gilmore 19 lands, what did he tell you about their particular 20 situation? 21 A He told me that they were basically - they 22 always pumped from that property regardless of whether it 23 was wet or dry season to keep the water levels down so they 24 could farm. It was pretty much the same story at 25 Hillsborough. 40 1 Q Did you ever examine their pumping records and 2 compare it to rainfall data. For example, to ascertain how 3 severe their problem was, if any? 4 A No. 5 Q After hearing that information, what did you 6 do in terms of assessing sites for seepage tests? 7 A We drilled some wells to describe the geology 8 on the basis of what the geology looked like. We designed 9 a test pumping program which entailed drilling, and test 10 production wells for pumping, and a series of monitor wells 11 for observing how the water levels reacted to pumping, and 12 we set up some recorders and started pumping and recording 13 data. 14 Q On the date of your initial field visit, did 15 you select sites for these various types of equipment then? 16 A Yes. 17 Q So, you already had in mind the scope of the 18 test you were going to conduct? 19 A I'm not sure. The first field visit actually 20 fine tuned to the sites. It was just more to determine the 21 access to the sites and be able to describe to the drilling 22 company what the conditions were like so they could tell us 23 how much it was gonna cost us to get equipment out there 24 and work. 25 Q Then your firm or you can arrange for drilling 41 1 or the drilling contractor to come in? 2 A Yes. 3 Q Did you discuss with the farm management 4 personnel, who met you out there, whether they had 5 historically done the irrigation, you know, extreme drought 6 situations? 7 A Yes, I did. And the answer was that the 8 fellow, I don't know which one whoever it was that spoke 9 most about it, said that as long as he had been there, 10 which was a number of years but not more than I don't think 11 five or six, in his period of time they never required 12 irrigation. 13 Q I'm sorry, how many years? 14 A I'm thinking five or six years. It may have 15 been -- I'm not sure that the Co-op owned the Gilmore 16 property prior to that that may have had something to do 17 with that. 18 Q You indicated in Section 1.1, the background 19 of your report, this property differs from others elsewhere 20 in the EAA and in that it does not require irrigation 21 essentially. What you just said was, it is your 22 understanding then and now that this is very uncommon in 23 the EAA? 24 A No, I don't think it's uncommon in that area. 25 Q You stated that a preliminary evaluation 42 1 indicated subsurface seepage from Loxahatchee was the 2 reason for the high water table at the time of your 3 initial evaluation, was what led you to that conclusion? 4 A In one of the canals you could actually 5 observe what appeared to be discharge and almost as though 6 it was like a spring flowing in one of the drainage 7 ditches. We could see water pumping up and running along 8 this path. Obviously, seepage, the source, you know, 9 appeared to be from what I knew of the area would appear to 10 be the Loxahatchee. 11 Q Loxahatchee or the L-7 Canal? 12 A Well, I interpreted them to be the same thing. 13 The L-7 Canal is, you know, inside of the berm that I could 14 see in the distance. 15 Q Did you observe at that time any differential 16 inland elevation on the farm side opposed to Loxahatchee 17 side of the -- 18 A Land elevations? 19 Q Yes. 20 A It's pretty hard to observe land elevation 21 differences. Out there everything looks flat. 22 Q How about hydraulic heads? 23 A No, I certainly didn't observe it. I had 24 heard that, you know, that heads were higher inside the 25 Loxahatchee. 43 1 Q What led you to focus the bulk of your 2 attention on the Gilmore site and, essentially, do only 3 cursory testing of the Hillsborough Farm? 4 A Well, one was we didn't have a lot of time and 5 we didn't have a lot of money so we selected one site to 6 focus on, it was purely random. The Gilmore was possibly 7 closer to where we could come into the property, just a 8 matter of convenience. 9 Q Who had set parameters for the scope of the 10 project in terms of the amount of money that could be 11 allocated to it? 12 A In our initial discussion, we - I pretty much 13 threw out a number and that was generally accepted as the 14 cost range of what the project would be. 15 Q And you tossed out that number. About what 16 was it? 17 A It was about twenty thousand dollars. 18 Q And what did the project ultimately run? 19 A It was a little more than drilling. It was a 20 little bit more expensive and surveying was more expensive. 21 Q Who specified the amount of time to conduct 22 that? What was the sense of urgency originating? 23 A I had the feeling that the results needed to 24 be generated within about a month in regard to some action 25 that was being taken regarding this BMP. 44 1 Q You mentioned the BMP that Dr. Pulman 2 discussed them at your meeting in your office, were you 3 ever provided a copy of that Rule from the Florida 4 Administrative Code? 5 A Not really. 6 Q You never really reviewed it in detail 7 yourself? 8 A No. 9 Q Did you ever review the history of the 10 development of the Rule? 11 A No. 12 Q So, you essentially relied on Dr. Pulman in 13 what you needed to know regarding that? 14 A Right. 15 Q Do you know if your report, other than being 16 provided to us in this notice, was ever distracted 17 elsewhere by your firm or Dr. Pulman? 18 A I know it went to Gary's firm and to the Sugar 19 Co-op. 20 Q Have you ever been asked to make presentation 21 on this to the South Florida Water Management District or 22 the Department of Environmental Regulation? 23 A No. 24 Q This is the first time you have ever - were 25 sort of called out in public to talk about it? 45 1 A Right. 2 Q Did you make the selection of Gilmore as being 3 the easiest to handle or was it consensus? 4 A Yes. 5 Q It was your choice, okay. I should have 6 mentioned this at the outset, if you ever do not understand 7 my question, it is a distinct possibility the way I ask 8 them, just tell me and I will be happy to rephrase it in 9 English. Also, if you get tired or you need a pit stop, 10 let me know. I noticed it's getting to be about 10:00. 11 Another half hour or so, tell me if you would like to take 12 a break. 13 You mentioned in your conclusion section that 14 there was seepage from the main drainage conveyance canals. 15 What did you mean by main drainage conveyance canals? 16 A Those are the canals the water is pumped into. 17 What I see there are the ditches that are interior to the 18 farm which in these purposes pieces of property seem to be 19 used for drainage almost exclusively. So, they are pumped 20 out of those and into some considerably larger canals to 21 carry the water away. 22 Q These are not canals of the Central and South 23 Florida Flood Control Project? 24 A I'm not sure who owns the canals. I don't 25 really have any knowledge of that. 46 1 Q Are they perimeter canals to the farm 2 properties? 3 A Yeah. Well, they're certainly -- No, that's 4 not true. One of them runs down the middle of the 5 Hillsborough property. Let me look. 6 Q On figure 1? 7 A Figure 1. 8 Q That's the Hillsborough Farm? 9 A Right. Are you asking me a question? 10 Q On the Hillsborough Farm, you say it runs down 11 the center, you mean north/south or east/west? 12 A If you were referring to Figure 4, it's east. 13 Want me to explain? 14 Q Yes. 15 A And on those canals it shows an east/west 16 canal which runs actually right down the middle of the 17 Hillsborough property. It also happens to have a perimeter 18 canal which I believe is separate from the interior 19 conveyance canal. 20 Q And the drainage conveyance canal and property 21 boundary that runs along the basis of that east/west then 22 makes a turn and runs north/south? 23 A Correct. 24 Q That is not the L-7 Canal, is it? 25 A No, no. 47 1 Q And then the blank area between that line and 2 the crosshatch Loxahatchee Conservation Area, where would 3 the L-7 Canal be in this chart? 4 A It would be inside of the area of the 5 crosshatch area. 6 Q So, all right. So, when you said conveyance 7 canal, you meant something bigger than a field drainage 8 ditch, but less than the main canals that were part of the 9 Flood Control Project? 10 A Right. 11 Q Were you able at your initial visits to 12 determine how much of any shallow lateral flow that might 13 occur would be intercepted by the drainage ditches? 14 A Well, I didn't try to quantify anything in and 15 so, no. That was one question I had: How much of it is 16 being intercepted by the ditches? 17 Q What in your test design was calculated to 18 answer that question for you? 19 A That was an important question. One was in 20 order to determine whether or not, you know, water was 21 actually flowing up. We constructed wells of various 22 depths right beside one another. They were both -- And we 23 observed water levels in those wells to determine if there 24 was truly a driving head forcing the water up on the, you 25 know, in directions that are across a canal. So, if you 48 1 have that sort of a condition and the canal doesn't appear 2 to be alleviated, that water can flow beneath the canal. 3 Q During the period of your testing, was there 4 any rain in the EAA? 5 A No. 6 Q No rain at all on those farms? 7 A I don't believe there was. 8 Q What steps if any did you determine then? 9 A We would have observed it. It was during the 10 dry period of the year, so you know, we would have made 11 efforts to record it. I am sure there is a record of it. 12 If there was, that would have been an issue of concern. 13 Q You pointed out it was during the dry period. 14 You evaluated flow only for that brief period of May; 15 correct? 16 A Correct. 17 Q You did examine the pumping records to see 18 what, if any, flow situations they had faced for balance of 19 the hydrologic year? 20 A No. 21 Q What's your understanding of the seasonal 22 fluctuations in the EAA? 23 A Well, I believe that the water levels are 24 probably generally lower during that time of the year. 25 Really, what our target of our work was, or what the goal 49 1 was, was to determine what the hydrogeological conditions 2 are and to evaluate certain parameters, hydraulic permeable 3 matters of the soil, rock, strata down there, and on the 4 basis of those parameters be able to address any questions 5 regarding whatever sort of water level situations you wish 6 to look at. You've had the parameters which were - would 7 allow you to develop a model of the system. 8 Q You state in your conclusions that the flow, 9 and this was the seepage flow you were discussing, I 10 believe, depends on L-7 or the Loxahatchee water level and 11 the level of water on the farm? 12 A Yes. 13 Q From that, would it be correct to say that if 14 one were at a height of rainy season when water levels 15 might be appreciably higher in the farm or north of the 16 farm, you expect to see less seepage from the Loxahatchee 17 L-7 area? 18 A Not really. I would say for one thing, the 19 water level they want to keep in the farm is consistent. 20 Especially, if they're pumping it down in the dry season, 21 they're only pumping it down, you know, to the maximum 22 level it can be and still grow a crop. So, that level is 23 ideally fixed and then whatever happens in the rainy season 24 would be going on outside of the fields theoretically, and 25 I believe, the driving heads would be higher in the L-7 or 50 1 the conservation area. So, theoretically, there would be 2 more seepage during that period of time. 3 Q What would be the effect, if any, if the high 4 water levels were determined to be 12 or 13 inches higher? 5 Does more water on the table diminish the seepage? 6 A If you didn't have higher heads outside, so 7 you know, if it came up 18 inches inside the field and 18 8 inches outside then everything would be the same, because 9 all the gradients and driving heads would be the same. 10 Unfortunately, the farmers tell me these fields are such 11 that they are as well as they can tolerate during the dry 12 season. So, they really don't really want them to be 18 13 inches higher. 14 Q What technique would you recommend to 15 intercept seepage water to keep it off the field itself? 16 A Well, the technique they're using is fine if 17 you wanted. So, pumping is one. Somewhere you have to be 18 pumping, you could dig a deep - very, deep canal and 19 intercept that water, and obviously you have to pump it 20 somewhere or otherwise convey it. 21 Q How deep is an intercept canal or ditch? 22 Let's call it a ditch. 23 A It would have to get down to the transmissent 24 (phonetic) unit and that's down -- I'm roughly stating 25 something in the neighborhood of 20 feet. 51 1 Q With regard to the Hillsborough Farm, how many 2 test sites, monitoring wells, and gauges did you install in 3 that location? 4 A I see two. So, yes, two wells. 5 Q Since you indicated that you had selected 6 Gilmore to your primary focus, what was the purpose of that 7 level of effort at Hillsborough? 8 A Basically, it was to determine if the geology 9 was approximately similar and to get some level of 10 measurement of the hydraulic permeability factor just to 11 see if there was any similarity between the two sites. 12 Q Now, the two wells you drilled there was one 13 monitor well and one pumping? 14 A No, one was a -- They were both basically 15 monitor wells right beside one another. One was in a very 16 shallow depth and the other was down into the next lower 17 geologic unit. 18 Q What test, if any, did you conduct at that 19 site? 20 A Slug test for making permeability 21 measurements. 22 Q Would you just describe for us, so we have it 23 in the record, what a slug test is? 24 A A slug test is a method for evaluating 25 permeability where you add or remove a slug of water to a 52 1 well and monitor how the water level changes with time or 2 how the pressure changes with time. In response to the 3 addition of the slug, the slug is sometimes a slug of water 4 it can also be a body of something of known size. Drop a 5 piece of metal that is known to be a cubic foot or 6 something into the well and it displaces water and then the 7 situation equilibrates and you observe how it equilibrates. 8 Q How many of those tests did you run at the 9 Hillsborough site? 10 A I'm not sure. 11 Q Can you refer to your report and answer that 12 for us. 13 A It implies that a slug test was performed. 14 Now, that may have been one that may have been a series of 15 tests which are just described as a slug test. I wasn't 16 there when that went on, so I don't know. 17 Q Does that appear in your data analysis? Is 18 there anything which you can determine? 19 A It would probably be. It's not easy for me to 20 determine and I would ask Suzanne Bernadini, who did the 21 test, who makes that determination. 22 Q Were you in the field during the conducting of 23 these tests? 24 A No. 25 Q And Suzanne Bernadini is with your firm? Did 53 1 you tell us what her position is? 2 A Hydrogeologist. 3 Q Is she the staff geologist referred in the 4 report as having examined the tailings of the drilling as 5 well as to determine the nature of the soil which the drill 6 head was passing? 7 A Yes. 8 Q Did she prepare any independent reports from 9 this work that you had provided us? 10 A No, you've seen it all. 11 Q In reviewing the documentation you provided at 12 your firm, I notice your firm is employed in the past as an 13 independent lab to conduct detailed analysis of the 14 tailings from a drill site for a composition. Why was that 15 not done in this case? 16 A I don't believe that we normally do that, you 17 know, we have numerous geologists in our firm who we think 18 are more qualified to describe cuttings then are some 19 remote labs so I'm surprised that you found reference to 20 such a thing. 21 Q It's amazing what you find if you read the 22 records. Now, according to your report here Field 23 Investigation at 3.1, Page 3, if you want to follow. It 24 indicates that the wells were installed on May 11th and 25 12th, and would that be accurate to the best of your 54 1 recollection? 2 A Yes. 3 Q And that the drill cuttings were directed 4 every five feet or lithology changes that would be 5 something that you know from Ms. Bernadini? 6 A I might add that the first well I was there 7 for the drilling of that well in which, you know, we 8 observed the cuttings and really designed our program on 9 the basis of what we found. 10 Q That first well was at which site? 11 A On the Gilmore site. 12 Q How did you determine the elevation of the 13 wells? 14 A We hired a surveyor. 15 Q And who's? 16 A I want to say Pedro Gonzalez. 17 Q PAG Surveyors of Belle Glade? 18 A That's right. 19 Q Have they worked for you in the past? 20 A No, they haven't. 21 Q How did you happen to select that firm? 22 A They had done previous work for the Co-op and 23 they had possibly done some early boundary surveying of the 24 property and I felt they had the best chance of maybe 25 having background data on the site which is quite remote. 55 1 Q Did you discuss it with him personally? 2 A Yes. 3 Q Did he in fact have background data? 4 A He was familiar with the site and he said he 5 would look for background data. 6 Q Did he ever provide you with any? 7 A He did the survey, but he basically didn't 8 have any elevation surveys of that property. So, he had to 9 kind of start from zero. 10 Q Now, in the appendices to the report, Appendix 11 A, there are two pages that appear to be signed by Pedro 12 Gonzalez with a Florida certificate number 2287. Were 13 those his elevation data reports to you that you employed 14 in your analysis? 15 A Yes. 16 Q Bench Mark referred to "31 BRP 1969" on the 17 northwest wing wall of concrete bridge over the 18 Hillsborough Canal and it goes on. Do you know where 19 precisely that's really located? 20 A No, I don't. 21 Q Do you know how far that is from the test 22 sites? 23 A I don't know that. 24 Q In your first chart figure, Figure Number 1, 25 which shows the canals and the two farm locations. The 56 1 general area of the Hillsborough Canal is on Figure 1 to 2 the left side, correct? 3 A Correct. 4 Q The sections with small squares into which the 5 farming areas are blocked, do you know how large those are? 6 A Well, they're supposed to be approximately a 7 mile square. 8 Q So, as best you can tell from your figure, 9 approximately how far is the Gilmore land from the 10 Hillsborough Canal, the nearest point on the Hillsborough 11 Canal? 12 A It looks to be roughly four miles. 13 Q And there is mention in Mr. Gonzalez's 14 documents provided to you about floating the figures. What 15 did you understand that to mean? 16 A Well, what he basically based his elevations 17 on was water surface elevations. He said he would try to 18 use waters which were not flowing, and therefore, the 19 elevation at one point could theoretically be tied to 20 elevation quite a distance away without having to actually 21 run the entire transect, and the purpose of that, was to 22 get the elevations quickly and theoretically completed. 23 Q So, it was your understanding that the 24 elevation on top of the well pipes, as shown by this sketch 25 and the data which you relied, were not certified USGS 57 1 data? 2 A No. 3 Q What effect if any does it have on your 4 analysis if, in fact, these floating numbers are not 5 accurate? 6 A Well, I suppose it would depend on how 7 inaccurate they are. If they are off by several feet, 8 obviously, my analysis is off by a considerable percentage. 9 Q How about if they're off by a couple of 10 inches? 11 A A couple inches, no, it wouldn't make any 12 difference. 13 Q No difference at all? 14 A See a lot of the calculations are based on 15 relative numbers, at least the site work, okay. If you 16 notice in the calculations that the elevation in the 17 Loxahatchee or L-7 was about seven feet higher than the 18 elevation that they want to keep in the farms so -- 19 Q Where did you come up with the elevations for 20 Loxahatchee? 21 A Suzanne Bernadini obtained them through the 22 Water Management District. 23 Q So, you got your stage values by contacting 24 the management district and that's reflected also in 25 Appendices A after Mr. Gonzalez, that is the letter of June 58 1 4th? 2 A Yes. 3 Q And you used the May average numbers for the 4 dry season minimum and maximum? 5 A I think what we used was actually May. If I 6 made my calculations from May 15th, then that is the number 7 that I would have used in my analysis. 8 Q How many days did the actual field test take? 9 A Well, it went -- The work went on for more 10 than a week. 11 Q You installed it on the 11th and 12th you 12 said, right? 13 A Yes. 14 Q The well installation on Page 3 under Monitor 15 Well Construction about six lines down, Wells were 16 installed on May 11th and 12th? 17 A Yes. 18 Q And then you pumped and surged to develop the 19 wells? 20 A Yes. 21 Q How long does that take? 22 A Well, an hour. It depends, you know, until 23 the well is developed. You can pump and surge for days 24 some wells don't get developed. Theoretically, not that 25 long. 59 1 Q And then you installed staff gauges and the 2 elevation was surveyed, okay. On May 15th, if you look 3 under Testing on Page 4, the pumping test was done at 4 Gilmore and a slug test on the Hillsborough Farm, second 5 paragraph. 6 A Okay. 7 Q Now, you just referred to Appendices A, the 8 June 4th, 1990 management district letter, look at the 9 recorded stage elevation from May 15, 1992 at 7:05 a.m. 10 being 14.42? 11 A Okay. 12 Q Would you determine from that or would you 13 agree that the pumping test was completed on May 15th in 14 one day and that's the day's data you used for the stage 15 elevation you used out at Loxahatchee? 16 A Yes, I would conclude that. 17 Q Is there anything else that you are aware that 18 would suggest that pumping tests or slug tests went on 19 after May 15th? 20 A I think that we had some questions about some 21 data and went back. I know they made several trips back to 22 the site to collect some additional information. 23 Q What additional information do you need? What 24 was the data problem? 25 A There was an initial -- There was a water 60 1 level measurement that didn't seem to make sense to me and 2 I can't remember which way it was and which wells it 3 involved, but I said you need to go back and check those 4 and they went back and checked them. It may have been 5 staged data or water levels in wells and so some 6 information was gathered on more than one date, that's what 7 I'm getting at. 8 Q Is that reflected in the report anywhere that 9 you had to go back and check that Data 1 test? 10 A That's pretty typical to occur in any 11 investigation. 12 Q The last paragraph on Page 4, slug test was 13 conducted on monitor well 5M at the Hillsborough Farm site, 14 that's where the slug test was? 15 A Yes. 16 Q That was implied that that single test was 17 done at that site? 18 A Yes. 19 Q In designing your test program, why are there 20 no test wells or monitoring sites on the west side of the 21 properties or on the north side of the properties? 22 A On the west side of the properties, I think it 23 just has to do with how many wells, you know, we could put 24 in our budget and, you know, that is probably pretty much 25 it, the amount of time we were allotted. I would have 61 1 liked to have studied everything. 2 Q Were tests conducted on all - at all of the 3 wells that were drilled? Were they all employed or did you 4 select from the drill sites just a limited number of them? 5 A Yeah, I don't believe that that testing was 6 done on each and every well, you know, the program was 7 designed to provide, you know, certain tests from certain 8 wells. 9 Q How did you determine the site geology? 10 Referring to Section 4.1 of your report. 11 A What happens is a driller sets up on the site 12 and begins to advance his borehole or the geologist then 13 collects the cuttings of what's washing up from a borehole 14 and bags them and puts them in boxes or whatever and those 15 are then analyzed to describe what the formation is that 16 they are cutting. 17 Q Monitoring well 1D was back-filled from 50 18 feet to 35 feet, do you know what they back-filled it with? 19 A Probably formation material that was washed 20 up. 21 Q Did you yourself ever examine the drill 22 cuttings? 23 A Yes. I was there for drilling monitor well 24 1D. 25 Q Why did you go 50 feet with that one? 62 1 A Well, to determine really what the nature of 2 the materials were there or in any place that you terminate 3 your borehole you don't know what's beneath you. So, we 4 decided prior to the starting of the drilling, we were 5 going to drill 50 feet with at least one hole to know 6 what's down there and we happened to have 50 feet of drill 7 rods with us so that pretty much determined it. 8 Q The basic thrust of your testing was to 9 measure hydraulic conductivity in the area tested, correct? 10 A Yes, and water levels too. 11 Q The water levels were determined directly -- I 12 mean you drill a hole, you wait till the water seeps in or 13 reaches its natural level, you shoot your elevations; 14 hopefully, they're accurate, and you directly determine the 15 water levels, correct? 16 A Correct. 17 Q Your hydraulic conductivity, would it be fair 18 to characterize that as indirectly developed? 19 A Well, I don't know if I call it indirectly you 20 have to -- it involves some computation in inducing some 21 stress on the system. 22 Q Don't your computations involve employing 23 quite a number of assumptions about the geology and physics 24 of water movement? 25 A Yes. 63 1 Q I don't want to challenge physics it's a 2 little to involved, but it would be fair to say, that any 3 of the mechanisms that one could choose to conduct and 4 evaluate conductivity, could have shortcomings because of 5 the assumption you have to engage they don't reflect 6 perfectly reality? 7 A Well, I would say that they can have 8 shortcomings, I mean, there are situations where they don't 9 have shortcomings. 10 Q Would you agree that the more plentiful the 11 data and fieldwork, the more you can circumscribe the 12 shortcomings and increase the liability and the confidence 13 level of levels of the results? 14 A Yes. 15 Q Your test in this instance, would you agree, 16 was quite an abbreviated field test? 17 A I would say it was fairly extensive in the 18 area that we looked at. I mean, you see six or seven 19 monitor wells there so within that particular site I'd say 20 we did a good job in assessing the hydraulic parameters. 21 Q Are you saying that with respect to the 22 Gilmore site or both sites? 23 A Gilmore site. 24 Q You would not say that with respect to the 25 Hillsborough site? 64 1 A No. The Hillsborough site was much more 2 abbreviated as you said. 3 Q What geographic area would you say that 4 encompasses all the test sites at Gilmore? 5 A What area would be represented by it? 6 Probably -- 7 Q Yes. 8 A Probably not more than a thousand feet or so 9 on the basis of the - of the amount of water we pumped and 10 duration of the pumpings. So, you really couldn't look at 11 that data and absent anything. Apply it now, if you found 12 similar geology in another area, if the geology is 13 described the same way. It wouldn't be difficult to say 14 expand the areas. 15 Q Based on Figure 1, the dimension of both Farms 16 are considerably greater than a thousand feet from the test 17 sites, would you be uncomfortable trying to extrapolate 18 your results to the entire farm absent further testing? 19 A Not really -- I mean I don't feel that at 20 least the shallow formations, the geology, doesn't appear 21 to be varied greatly. I mean, just by visual observations 22 you can look at the basis of the drainage canals and see 23 that many, you know, geologically, at least the upper five 24 or eight feet are similar. So, I have no reason to think 25 that things are drastically different deeper. 65 1 Q As your report describes the upper 5 to 8 2 feet, is it fair to say that you're taking several feet of 3 limestone and kind of mixed marl? 4 A Right. 5 Q How deep are these field ditches that you 6 represented helped to determine the upper layers? 7 A They are not -- They're basically about 5 or 6 8 feet that's what I seem to remember, perhaps, not even that 9 deep. 10 Q So, they do not get into the second layer of 11 the lower permeability there? 12 A No. 13 Q They do not get into the higher conductivity 14 layer that you identified from - at least in that area of 15 the Gilmore Farm from your testing? 16 A Right. 17 Q If the high permeable area in fact permeates 18 for whatever reasons, plays out, you would not expect the 19 same conditions to extend beyond your limitations of 20 extrapolation? 21 A No. 22 Q If the pump tests and slug tests were not 23 adequately performed would that flaw your data analysis? 24 A Certainly that would flaw the data and 25 obviously the analysis. 66 1 Q It would be fair to say, those are the basis 2 for your follow-up estimates of seepage rates? 3 A Yes. 4 Q Or hydraulic conductivity? 5 A Right. 6 Q Did you have any other water level information 7 for those study sites other than what you developed by 8 drilling the test dwells and shooting the elevations? 9 A No. 10 Q The farm wasn't able to provide you anything 11 with their water? 12 A Well, I will say this, I didn't ask for any. 13 Q Did you notice in your original kind of walk 14 around out there if there were staff gauges in place on the 15 farms to assist them in the pumping regime? 16 A I looked for them and I didn't see any. 17 Q Did you ask the farm manager if they had any? 18 A No. 19 Q In conducting your analysis you used two 20 analytical methods. Did you not use the Boulton 21 curve-fitting and the Jacob distance draw down? 22 A Yes. 23 Q Which did you use on which site? 24 A They were -- All of that work was done at the 25 Gilmore site regarding the pumping test itself. 67 1 Q What technique or analysis did you use on the 2 Hillsborough site? 3 A The Hillsborough site was based on a slug test 4 analysis. 5 Q What are those two methods? Are they both 6 based, are they not, on the Theis method? 7 A The Theis method was put forth many, many 8 years ago as a classic way to analyze either a confined 9 effort or a pure, what we call, confined. The pure is when 10 you start talking about a leaking aquifer you have gone 11 kind of beyond Theis into other analytical techniques. 12 Jacobs would apply to a Theis method and that would be 13 appropriate. Boulton is more - deals with leakier 14 unsemiconfined (phonetic) or unsemiconfined systems. 15 Q Why did you choose those methods? 16 A Because they were appropriate for the data 17 that we had to work with. 18 Q What are the assumptions on which those are 19 based? 20 A Well, you know, they are based on the aquifer 21 being homogeneous, infinite aerial extent you might say, 22 but that only applies to the area affected by your pumpage. 23 Q Does it assume that the aquifer is isotropic, 24 that the hydraulic conductivity is independent in the 25 direction of flow? 68 1 A Yes. 2 Q How about the thickness of the aquifer? 3 A You're assuming that your wells are 4 theoretically fully penetrating. The significance of that 5 varies depending on how penetrating they are and how far 6 they are from the wells, and you know how the permeability 7 may vary vertically within the zoning. 8 Q What's the effect of the wells not fully 9 opened to the aquifer? 10 A You will get -- If the well is not fully 11 opened to the aquifer and it's not or if perhaps it's too 12 close to the well being pumped, then you will get a 13 variation from, you know, in terms of the aquifer response 14 and the accurate equations that are used in this analysis. 15 Q Does the -- Do these two methods assume that 16 your water table has horizontal surface? 17 A Yes. 18 Q What's the effect if it's not? 19 A If it's not? If it's in the case of this 20 analysis, it would be almost no effect whatsoever. It had 21 to be drastically different for test ware. You have got 22 the production wells and the monitor wells at such a close 23 radius for all practical purposes as long as the water 24 levels are static during the - prior to and after the test. 25 During this period, the minor slopes might occur in the 69 1 water table. In this event, it wouldn't matter. 2 Q Is it fair to say each of those two methods 3 tries to take into account a situation where all those 4 assumptions are not in fact correct? 5 A Say that again. 6 Q The Boulton method checks for the presence of 7 multiple layers in the aquifer, correct? 8 A Yes. 9 Q And the Jacob method checks for the 10 penetration of a pumping well? 11 A Not really. Jacob, really is a straight line 12 analysis technique. It doesn't really take into account 13 partial penetration at all. 14 Q Both of those assume, do they not, and do not 15 attempt to account for a nonlinear flow in a less infinite 16 aquifer. In other words, they both assume that all 17 particles of water, if you will, arrive at the well site if 18 they travel the same distance. In other words, the 19 velocity is constant? 20 A Yeah. I would say it assumes that the 21 velocity is constant in all the directions at least 22 laterally. 23 Q So, they assume that not only is water 24 arriving on scene from due east of the well site, but 25 arriving from due west at the same velocity if it travels 70 1 the same distance? 2 A What you're saying is true. 3 Q That being the case under the model or the 4 equation that you developed and which you employed, what 5 was the effect of all the manmade obstructions in the 6 vicinity of your test wells on those assumptions? 7 A Almost none for this situation because the 8 stresses we were inducing by pumping are so drastic to 9 what's compared going on naturally as a result of drainage. 10 You have got water moving in ground, and we're putting, you 11 know, putting the power to it with a pumping test located 12 at one very specific source. 13 All of the pressure changes that we induce, we 14 were seeing so rapid. We were monitoring what happens now 15 in tenths of a second or hundredths of a second. The data 16 that we were collecting is so strongly influenced by our 17 testing. 18 Q Did you use any image wells? 19 A No. 20 Q Did you attempt any superposition techniques 21 to take into account the existence of boundary canals and 22 ditches? 23 A No. 24 Q It's your opinion based in your report, that 25 primarily hydraulic factors in this area is the pressure 71 1 head from Loxahatchee? 2 A That's certainly a major driving force. You 3 know, I'm not saying it's the primary factor with regard to 4 the analysis of pumping test data or in the static 5 conditions -- What's your question? 6 Q The pumping test data? 7 A No, the primary factor during the pumping test 8 is our pumping. 9 Q And from that you derive conductivity 10 determinations which would apply in the static condition? 11 A Yes. 12 Q And in the static condition what was the 13 primary factor hydraulically in that area in your opinion? 14 A In the static condition, I am not sure to be 15 honest with you. It maybe the Loxahatchee, it maybe some 16 of the drainage canals, it maybe -- it's probably a 17 combination of both. 18 Q When you stress that locale by your pumping 19 test, don't you in fact cause water particles to move much 20 more rapidly from the aquifer boundary which exists as a 21 result of the L-7 Canal? 22 A Well, I would like to think so, but the L-7 23 Canal is so far away and our pumping test is so short 24 relative to groundwater travel times and further 25 complicated by the effect that our pumping rate is not that 72 1 high relative to the distance that the L-7 Canal is away, 2 that I don't believe is the case. 3 Q Can I refer you to Table 2. No page number? 4 A No. 5 Q You would agree, would you not, that the water 6 level of elevations across 1 through 1-8C, the number down 7 on the left side, vary considerably? 8 A Yes. 9 Q They go from a low of let's see 6.58 to a high 10 of 14.2? 11 A Yes. 12 Q Does that not defeat the assumption of 13 horizontal water table conditions at the beginning of your 14 test? 15 A No. First of all, this is surface water 16 elevations so that reflects the upper zone. But, if you 17 were to look at just the area around our test you would 18 probably find that the slopes or the water levels among our 19 monitor wells are probably no more than a hundredth of a 20 foot difference within the zones they were testing. 21 So, I mean basically we have got a horizontal 22 level service for all practical purposes in the area in 23 conducting our test. 24 Q Solely over the immediate vicinity of your 25 test sites? 73 1 A Right. 2 Q At a Gilmore pump test site, how far apart are 3 the drainage ditches - the field ditches? 4 A I have to look at that map perhaps they were 5 probably -- may not even be in there -- Oh, they were - 6 they look to be, you know, thousand feet or more. 7 Q And how about the field ditches, if you will, 8 the smaller complex ditches? 9 A I think those are the spacings of the field 10 ditches. 11 Q You're referring to the east/west? 12 A There may be intermediate ditches. I have to 13 review that again, I'm not sure right now. 14 Q How far apart were your pumping wells in 15 observation in the apparent set on Gilmore? 16 A I can see that there is something that should 17 have been entered in there. The distances here were left 18 off. The figures, they were rather close, you know, what I 19 want to say is something like 10 to 15 feet between. If 20 you are looking at Figure 3 -- I'm not happy with the way 21 these pages were numbered. 22 If you look between the well two series and 23 well three series those are something like 10 to 15 feet 24 apart and the distance between three and four are probably 25 something like 30 feet. 74 1 Q What was the purpose of four? 2 A Just to have a more distant well. 3 Q And the suffixes of S, M, D? 4 A S, is shallow; M, is medium or intermediate; 5 and D is deep. 6 Q What actual depths would you equate with 7 those? 8 A What was our primary production zone? I want 9 to say thirty feet. We could refer -- I'm sure they're 10 reported in here, but roughly in the thirty foot depth 11 screen from 20 to 35. 12 Q Can you tell us from looking at Figure 2 or 3, 13 how far your test wells were from the L-7 levys? 14 A They're probably in the range of 12 hundred 15 feet something like that. 16 Q And how far from the actual canal itself the 17 L-7 Canal? 18 A It's inside of the levy. I'm not sure where 19 the canal is, but I don't know how close it is to the edge. 20 My feeling is it's very closely to the edge because they 21 probably use that material for building the levy. 22 Q From Figure 2, it appears at Gilmore that the 23 clump of wells between three and four are immediately 24 adjacent to both drainage ditch and drainage conveyance 25 canal? 75 1 A Correct. 2 Q I realize you have got to be able to fit the 3 point on the map or the chart? 4 A Right. 5 Q How close are they respectfully to the 6 drainage ditch and drainage conveyance canal? 7 A They're probably within about 8 to 10 feet 8 from the interior drainage ditch. 9 Q That is the east/west ditch to the south of 10 it? 11 A Yes. 12 Q They're to the north? 13 A Right. 14 Q And how about the drainage conveyance canal? 15 A Probably 12 hundred to 15 hundred feet, 16 something like that. 17 Q Did you see the scale on the lower right-hand 18 side of Figure 2, is that accurate? 19 A It looks like one inch -- Does that not look 20 like an inch and a half. 21 Q You're looking at L-7, I'm sorry, I may have 22 not made it clear. There is a north/south dotted line 23 there and east/west. Those are on the north/south canal 24 which is a drainage ditch. The Number 3 sits right on an 25 east/west drainage ditch? 76 1 A Okay. 2 Q I had first been asking how far north of the 3 east/west ditch. Now, I want to know how far east of the 4 north/south ditch? 5 A I think they're probably about 15 feet because 6 we have to stay out of the road. So, probably about 15 7 feet from the north/south drainage ditch. 8 Q Well, how far would you estimate the marks at 9 1 and 2 down there near the Gilmore land which is located 10 immediately south of them? 11 A Well, marks 1 and 2 are now supposed to be 12 surface water stations. So, those are obviously -- 13 Q Those are staff gauges? 14 A Staff gauges in the canal. 15 Q I'm using those stakes for locating the two 16 wells? 17 A The two wells are on the road which is -- I 18 don't know five feet from the interior drainage ditch and 19 maybe ten feet from the exterior drainage conveyance canal. 20 Q They're actually drilled on the road itself? 21 A Right on the edge of the road. 22 Q Where are the agricultural pumps located that 23 provide drainage from the Gilmore Farm? 24 A They were located a bit, I believe, a bit west 25 of the property which you see here on Figure 2. They 77 1 probably would be off the scale. 2 Q On the south? 3 A On the south side and pumped into the drainage 4 conveyance canal. I'm not sure if there was one located on 5 this north/south drainage conveyance canal -- 6 Q Drainage ditch you mean? 7 A Drainage ditch, I mean, in the middle. 8 Q You were not on site on the 15th when the 9 tests were conducted, correct? 10 A That's correct. 11 Q Did you ever ask Ms. Bernadini if those farm 12 pumps were running? 13 A Yes. I don't remember her response right now. 14 I know suffice to say there was really no flow going on in 15 - particularly in the ditch with the staff gauge Number 3. 16 Basically, these were ditches that were not deep enough. 17 The water level was low enough that it wasn't intercepting 18 anything and there was no continuous flow out from this 19 ditch. 20 Q We can go back to Table 2. Can you tell from 21 that date or calculate for us what the hydraulic gradient 22 was in the adjacent drainage ditches and drainage 23 conveyance canals? 24 A I mean you could. I would have to refer back 25 to the other figure, but -- 78 1 Q What's the typical hydraulic gradient in that 2 area of Florida? 3 A Well, within the -- It varies of course 4 depending on whether you're talking about the subsurface or 5 the shallow zones. The shallow zones are so affected by 6 drainage that it's very hard to make a determination or say 7 anything typical about them. 8 Q What type of gradient is suggested by the 9 differences between Site 4 or Number 4 and Number 2? 10 Number 2 being the canal north side of Gilmore Road and 11 Number 4 being Gilmore Farm being the east boundary? 12 A That's happening here. Their pumping has 13 elevated the canal and the south side of Gilmore Road water 14 is going into that canal and therefore the water level is 15 elevated. 16 Q How do you know that when you didn't review 17 the pumping data? 18 A Well, I mean you can tell. It's a canal 19 dedicated to receiving water and anybody, not even the 20 Gilmore property owners, anywhere adjacent to that canal 21 pump into that. I believe, it's routed down to the 22 Hillsborough Canal which was quite a bit away. 23 Q So, from the fact that the gradient is so 24 excessive you deduce from that they have been pumping? 25 A Yeah, I would. You have to assume that there 79 1 is got to be a reason for the water levels being that 2 different. 3 Q And the two canals adjacent to the Gilmore 4 Road that you have noted there, Number 1 and 2, they have 5 an even larger grading? 6 A They have north side and south side which 7 is -- north side is an interior drainage canal. The south 8 side is an exterior conveyance canal to take it away. 9 Q Given that those gradients are excessive by 10 Central Florida and South Florida depending how you 11 geograph your standards. How did you take those gradients 12 into account estimating the conductivity? 13 A Well, if you look basically at what we did, 14 was try to will get our self locating as far away from that 15 area to conduct our pumping test. That is why instead of 16 conducting our pumping tests next to that particular - 17 those particular wells 1 and 2 which would have happened 18 because they were nearby, we decided to go 12 hundred feet 19 at least north to an area where, you know, the grading is 20 much flatter. 21 Q Mr. Horvath, you said that the -- If I 22 understand your description of distances on those test 23 wells that some of them were -- I since lost that page -- 24 approximately 15 feet. Look at Figure 2, roughly 15 feet 25 from drainage ditches. This is near the Numbers 3 and 4 on 80 1 Figure 2? 2 A Yes, possibly even closer. I know you have to 3 get a vehicle between. 4 Q And would it be fair to say, would it not, 5 based on your understanding with your information departed 6 to you in your filed observations that those drainage 7 ditches employed by the farm management personnel to drain 8 the farm of excess water? 9 A Correct. 10 Q Assume as part of this test, did you not in 11 design of the test, that the drainage ditches that in fact 12 effectively drain water protect farming there? 13 A That's correct.