1 1 STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS 2 SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE OF ) 3 FLORIDA, INC., ROTH FARMS, INC., ) and WEDGWORTH FARMS, INC., ) 4 and ) FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, INC., ) 5 UNITED STATES SUGAR CORPORATION, ) and NEW HOPE SOUTH, INC., ) 6 and ) FLORIDA FRUIT AND VEGETABLE ) 7 ASSOCIATION, LEWIS POPE FARMS, ) W.E. SCHLECHTER & SONS, INC., and ) CASE NOs. 92-3038 8 HUNDLEY FARMS, INC., ) 92-3039 Petitioners, ) 9 v. ) SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT ) 10 DISTRICT, ) Respondent, ) 11 and ) MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS OF ) 12 FLORIDA, the UNITED STATES OF ) AMERICA, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT ) 13 OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, and ) FLORIDA WILDLIFE FEDERATION, ) 14 Intervenors. ) ------------------------------------) 15 DEPOSITION OF: GRACE JOHNS, Ph.D. 16 TAKEN: Pursuant to Notice Instance 17 of Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida, Inc., 18 Roth Farms, Inc., and Wedgworth Farms, Inc., 19 DATE: March 29, 1993 20 TIME: Commencing at 11:00 a.m. 21 PLACE: AA1 Parliamentary Reporting 22 3511 West Commercial Boulevard Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 23 BEFORE: ELLEN N. COHEN, RPR 24 Stenographic Court Reporter and Notary Public - State 25 of Florida at Large 2 1 APPEARANCES HOPPING BOYD GREEN & SAMS 2 123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 6526 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 BY: DONNA STINSON, ESQ. 4 -and- CAROLYN S. RAEPPLE, ESQ. 5 Attorney for Petitioners Sugar Cane 6 Growers Cooperative of Florida, Inc., Roth Farms, Inc., and Wedgworth Farms, Inc. 7 8 PEEPLES, EARL & BLANK One Biscayne Tower 9 Suite 3636 Two South Biscayne Boulevard 10 Miami, Florida 33131 BY: RICK J. BURGESS, ESQ. 11 Attorney for Petitioners Florida Sugar Cane 12 League, Inc., United States Sugar Corporation., and New Hope South, Inc. 13 14 POPHAM, HAIK, SCHNOBRICH & KAUFMAN 4000 International Place 15 100 S.E. Second Street Miami, Florida 33131 16 BY: PAUL L. NETTLETON, ESQ. 17 Attorneys for the Respondent 18 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 19 ENVIRONMENT & NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION GENERAL LITIGATION SECTION 20 P.O. Box 663 Washington, D.C. 20044-0663 21 BY: KEITH E. SAXE, ESQ. -and- 22 UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS OFFICE 155 Miami Avenue - Suite 600 23 Miami, Florida 33130 BY: ROBERT ROSENBERG, ESQ., 24 Assistant U.S. Attorney 25 Attorneys for Intervenor USA 3 1 A P P E A R A N C E S: (Continued) 2 STATE OF FLORIDA Department of Environment Regulation 3 Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 5 BY: KEITH C. HETRICK, ESQ., Assistant General Counsel 6 Attorney for Intervenor Florida Department 7 of Environmental Regulation 8 ALSO PRESENT: RONALD T. LUKE J.D., Ph.D. 9 ANDREW BERNSTEIN 10 11 INDEX 12 PAGE DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. STINSON..........4 13 14 15 EXHIBITS PAGE 16 JOHNS' EXHIBIT No. 1......................77 2......................81 17 3......................90 4......................96 18 5.....................105 6.....................108 19 7.....................112 8.....................118 20 9.....................119 10.....................119 21 11.....................121 12.....................123 22 13.....................127 14.....................128 23 15.....................130 o0o 24 25 4 1 GRACE JOHNS, Ph.D. 2 the Deponent herein, having been first duly sworn, was 3 examined and testified as follows: 4 DIRECT EXAMINATION 5 BY MS. STINSON: 6 Q. Would you please state your name and business 7 address. 8 A. Grace Johns, Hazen and Sawyer, 4000 Hollywood 9 Boulevard, Seventh Floor, North Tower, Hollywood, Florida, 10 33021. 11 Q. Ms. Johns, what is your occupation? 12 A. Principal economist. 13 Q. Have you ever had your deposition taken before? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. If there's anything I ask that you don't 16 understand, please feel free to tell me you don't 17 understand and ask me to ask a different question, or you 18 can say "I don't know" or "I don't understand" and that's 19 fine. I'm just here to try to get information. 20 Tell me what Hazen and Sawyer is. 21 A. They are an environmental engineering consulting 22 firm. They have engineers, scientists and economists. 23 Q. Where are they based? 24 A. Their corporate headquarters are in New York City. 25 Q. And how long have you been with Hazen and Sawyer? 5 1 A. Since June of 1990. 2 Q. Tell me, if you would, your educational background 3 starting with college. 4 A. I attended the University of Florida and got my -- 5 received my bachelor's degree there in agriculture with an 6 emphasis in food and resource economics. I graduated in 7 '81. 8 I then attended the University of California at 9 Berkeley in the Ph.D. program of the College of Natural 10 Resources, Department of Agricultural and Natural Resource 11 Economics. I received my Ph.D. there in 1987. 12 Q. You didn't have an intervening master's? 13 A. No. 14 Q. And subsequent to 1987, what has been your 15 professional -- well, let me back up. 16 Did you work as an economist or in related fields 17 while you were working on your degree? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Tell me what you did. 20 A. I worked at a consulting firm, economic consulting 21 firm called Minimax Research Corporation where I did, 22 performed consulting services for primarily EPRI and 23 Pacific Gas and Electric looking at energy use in 24 agriculture. 25 Q. And where was that? 6 1 A. Berkeley, California. 2 Q. In Berkeley. 3 How long did you work for Minimax Research? 4 A. Hum. I have to guess. Two years. I mean I could 5 tell you if you gave me a minute to think about it, but I 6 think it was about two years. 7 Q. And that was sometime between -- 8 A. '84, February of '84 to the end of '87. 9 Is that right? 10 No, no, I'm sorry. '86. End of '86. Something in 11 that area. 12 Q. Did you work anywhere else prior to receiving your 13 Ph.D.? 14 A. Yes. I worked as an independent consultant in 15 Berkeley and we completed a project for PG&E at that time 16 and we also began working on the economics of fisheries of 17 sport fishing in the San Francisco Bay area. 18 Q. Who was that for? 19 A. That was, we subcontracted with a company called 20 QED Research and that was a project for the Metropolitan 21 Water District of Southern California. 22 Q. You said you were a private consultant but 23 indicated that "we" worked on this project. Who was the 24 "we"? 25 A. Oh, Doug Winter. We shared an office. We worked 7 1 together in an office in Berkeley. 2 Q. And did the two of you work together on that 3 project? 4 A. On the fisheries one or the PG&E one? The PG&E 5 one, we worked together on. 6 Q. And the fisheries? 7 A. I worked on that on my own. 8 Q. What was the project for PG&E? 9 A. That was completing the use of energy by 10 agriculture in the Pacific Gas & Electric company service 11 area and we evaluated the energy savings from PG&E's energy 12 management program. 13 Q. Anywhere else prior to receiving your Ph.D., any 14 other jobs? 15 A. Not that I recall. 16 Q. And after receiving your Ph.D., what have you done? 17 A. Well, then I began working for QED Research. 18 Q. Okay. And where is that, is that in Berkeley? 19 A. That was in Palo Alto, California. 20 QED split into two companies and I began working 21 for Spectrum Economics, which is the same people as were 22 with QED Research, except one or two of the owners left 23 QED -- actually, they left and they kept the name QED, and 24 everybody else, which was the bulk of QED, became Spectrum 25 Economics. 8 1 Q. And you remained in Palo Alto? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And how long did you work there? 4 A. From 198 -- end of '87 to 19 -- to June of 1990. 5 Q. What projects did you work on when you were with 6 Spectrum? 7 A. Numerous projects. 8 Where do I begin? 9 Q. Tell me some of the significant projects. 10 A. Okay. There was work that we did for the 11 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California looking 12 at the value of recreation at the reservoirs in California. 13 Q. Okay. 14 A. We worked on some litigation -- consulting work for 15 a couple of farmers, one was the Siller Brothers 16 Corporation. 17 Q. What kind of work for the farmers? 18 A. Well, that was a divorce case where they were 19 trying to split up the assets of Siller company, the 20 corporation. 21 It was a very large agricultural corporation and it 22 was a divorce settlement that had turned into a lawsuit and 23 we were on the side of the husband. He was one of the 24 co-owners. 25 And we were trying to show what the firm, how the 9 1 firm would operate if its assets were split up; in other 2 words, if his wife received a portion of those assets, how 3 would that change the value of his corporation. 4 Q. Any other significant, projects you recall? 5 A. Yes. There was the -- 6 Well, we did quite a bit of recreation research. 7 We did quite a bit of agriculturalresearch. 8 Now, I could go through each and every project. 9 Q. Well, let me, maybe I can short-circuit it 10 somewhat. 11 Can you just tell me what you mean by "recreation 12 research"? 13 A. Okay. There's an issue regarding, as you change 14 the water levels in reservoirs and the river flows in the 15 rivers, how does that affect all the different types of 16 recreation. There's a lot of recreation activities that go 17 on at the rivers and reservoirs in California. 18 So we did quite a bit of looking at how recreation 19 changes when you change water flows and reservoir water 20 levels. 21 Q. And what do you mean by agriculture research? 22 A. Looking at how farm operations change when there is 23 a shock to that farm operation. 24 Like one of the projects we did was for a winery. 25 It was a vineyard and winery and the insurance, their 10 1 insurance company did something to them that interrupted 2 their operations, and so I looked at how that interruption 3 affected their business, and that was for a litigation 4 support. 5 Q. And you were working for the grower of, the winery? 6 A. Yes, the winery. 7 We did quite a few projects. Another one was 8 looking at water use in industry. 9 You know, there was a drought going on at that 10 time, so there was quite a bit of concern in all the 11 different economies within California and there was quite a 12 bit of concern about how water is used in California. So 13 our company was in quite a big demand and we looked at how 14 the economies change as water supplies change; agriculture, 15 recreation and tourism and sport fishing. So we did quite 16 a number of different projects in those areas. 17 Q. In those projects, did you do, what, valuation of 18 non-market resources, did you perform those? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. In doing the valuation of recreation of reservoirs, 21 would you consider that a valuation of a non-market 22 resource? 23 A. In recreation, yes, you could call it that. 24 Q. What was the methodology you used in doing that 25 study? 11 1 A. That was using a travel cost model. 2 Q. Did you do surveys in the area? 3 A. No. We -- 4 Q. What did you do? 5 A. That project was a long time ago. I'm going to 6 have to go back in the depths of my memory and remember 7 exactly how we did that. But it had to do with -- I don't 8 recall exactly what data we used in that project, that was 9 back in 1987, '86, and I'd have to go back over it again. 10 Now, that's a non-market good in the sense that 11 it's not exactly a non-market good because you do pay to 12 get into a recreation area, you do buy goods and services, 13 you buy gasoline to get there. So, it's not a well-defined 14 market, like if you go and buy a house and/or if you go and 15 buy groceries. 16 Q. In your work in California, did you do any 17 valuations of, I guess, pure non-market resources? 18 A. No, we -- 19 I use -- I say we. It really means I. I'm a 20 company person, I work for a company and whenever we refer 21 to what we do -- what I do, we always say we. It's one of 22 those corporate cultures. So I don't want you to think 23 that we -- we means I but I'm supported by a staff and I'm 24 supported by a company, so that that's why I often say we, 25 but you can use the two interchangeably, I and we, okay. 12 1 Just wanted to make that clear. 2 Could you repeat. 3 Q. It's a royal plural. 4 A. Could you repeat the question. 5 Oh, non-market goods you asked me. 6 Q. Yes. 7 A. Could you ask your question again so I know how to 8 answer. 9 Q. Did you do any analyses of what you call pure 10 non-market? 11 A. We used the results of other people's contingent 12 valuation studies, I've never conducted a contingent 13 valuation study, but they tend to be very useful when you 14 are doing analyses, so I've used them in my studies, in my 15 evaluations, used other people's. 16 I also participated as a support staff person in 17 reviewing a non-market valuation study conducted by a 18 non-economist during the San Francisco Bay Delta Hearings. 19 Q. What are the San Francisco Bay Delta Hearings? 20 A. That's where there's water that flows from the San 21 Joaquin and Sacramento Rivers flow into the San Francisco 22 Bay and delta, that's, to make a long story short, it was 23 allocating water in California. 24 Q. Okay. And you provided input into those hearings? 25 A. I just would -- yes. Yes. 13 1 Q. By reviewing contingent valuation studies done by a 2 non-economist? 3 A. Yes, for the California Department of Fish and 4 Game, I believe was the... 5 That was what the non-economist was working for, 6 was that entity. 7 Q. Now, then, in June of 1990 you left California and 8 moved to Florida; is that correct? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. And you've been with Hazen and Sawyer since that 11 time? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Other than the project which we're here on today 14 involving the Everglades, tell me what other projects you 15 have worked on, if any, at Hazen and Sawyer. 16 A. Well, there was the Broward County re-use 17 feasibility study. I was a key team member on that study. 18 Q. What is that study? 19 A. That was looking at the feasibility of re-using all 20 of the waste water in Broward County as a water supply for 21 irrigation and industrial uses. 22 And so I provided the, sort of the economics and 23 financial information, looking at how much do these systems 24 cost and what are the issues that you want to look at to 25 evaluate economic feasibility and how much -- you know, the 14 1 relative costs of the different types of water re-use. 2 Q. Anything else? 3 A. No -- you mean in projects? 4 Q. Yes. 5 A. Three solid waste financial studies for three 6 different city -- well, two counties and a city. 7 I did a full cost accounting. Looked at all their 8 costs, capital operating, and looked at user fees, variable 9 rate and fixed rate user fees to charge to cover the costs 10 of solid waste management. 11 I was a member of the team that designed the water 12 re-use system for south Broward County, costed it out, 13 looked at cost efficient transmission lines, where to put 14 them, who to be -- who should be served by the re-use 15 system. 16 Q. I asked you when we began if you had ever given a 17 deposition before and you said yes. Tell me what 18 depositions you have given and in what matters. 19 A. One deposition. 20 Q. Okay. 21 A. Siller versus Siller. 22 Q. That was the divorce in California? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Did you testify at trial or hearing in that matter? 25 A. Yes. 15 1 Q. Do you know whether you were qualified as an expert 2 witness in that proceeding? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. What were you qualified as an expert in, if you 5 recall? 6 A. Agricultural economics, agricultural policy. 7 Q. You were qualified both in agricultural economics 8 and agricultural policy? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Tell me what your experience is in terms of 11 agricultural policy. 12 A. During the trial I testified on the likely course 13 of U.S. government policy specifically related to the rice 14 program, if I recall correctly. That was many years ago, 15 what is it, '87, I believe, or '88, so I'm trying to 16 remember back that far. 17 And I don't remember my exact testimony in that 18 case regarding U.S. policy but it was a part of being able 19 to talk about the profitability of agriculture for this 20 particular grower. 21 Q. Have you ever worked on any matters involving bond 22 feasibility studies? 23 A. Could you be more specific. 24 Q. Has any of your work involved whether issuance of 25 bonds was feasible? 16 1 A. Not directly, no. 2 Q. Indirectly? 3 A. Well, indirectly, in terms of doing the financing 4 and the full cost accounting and estimating the costs and 5 looking at who pays what, but the ultimate decision on 6 whether to issue bonds, I have never made a recommendation. 7 Q. Essentially, the work that you would have done 8 that's indirectly related is just to determine whether a 9 project is feasible? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Have you, other than in the Siller case, have you 12 ever given testimony in a judicial proceeding? 13 A. No, not me, no. Not in person. 14 Q. The work that you did on financial feasibility, did 15 any of those projects culminate in issuance of bonds, to 16 your knowledge, for example for the Broward County water 17 re-use system or the solid waste proposals? 18 A. One of them did, the south Broward County job. 19 Q. The water re-use? 20 A. Yes. Our cost analysis ultimately led -- the 21 information was used when the bonds were written up and 22 issued. 23 Q. Have you worked on any other projects where your 24 analysis was used in a bond issuance? 25 A. I'm -- there might have been. I don't know. 17 1 Q. What about in developing a bond prospectus, has any 2 of the work you've done been used in issuing bond 3 prospectuses? 4 A. I don't know. 5 Q. In this proceeding today, if I refer to the 6 Everglades litigation, I will be referring to this 7 proceeding or more generically perhaps to the federal 8 lawsuit. 9 Are you familiar with the federal lawsuit and this 10 proceeding that you've been noticed for today? 11 A. I have enough familiarity to be deposed and show up 12 for trial. 13 Q. When did you first become involved or were you 14 first contacted with respect to the Everglades litigation 15 or any aspect of it? 16 MR. NETTLETON: Object to the form. 17 BY THE WITNESS: 18 A. You know, I don't really remember. 19 BY MS. STINSON: 20 Q. Do you remember how you first became involved or 21 how you were contacted? 22 A. I suppose when I was given a contract from the 23 District for litigation support, but I -- 24 Q. Perhaps you misunderstood. 25 When were you first contacted by or did you become 18 1 involved with the South Florida Water Management District 2 with respect to this Everglades SWIM Plan? 3 A. I don't really understand the question. 4 Q. It's real simple. I'm just trying to find out when 5 you and how you first became involved in doing an economic 6 impact assessment. 7 A. Okay, I can answer that. 8 Q. All right. 9 A. We received a RFP -- actually we found the ad of 10 the RFP in the newspaper and we answered the ad. 11 Q. "You" being Hazen and Sawyer? 12 A. Hazen and Sawyer. And we were selected by the 13 District and we began the study, the economic impact study. 14 Q. Do you recall when the ad was in the newspaper? 15 A. It might have -- late November. 16 Q. Of? 17 A. (Continuing) About. 18 Q. '91? 19 A. Of '91. That's an approximate time, date. 20 Q. Were you personally involved in responding to the 21 RFP; did you develop the proposal? 22 A. Yes. Yes. We developed the proposal and submitted 23 it. 24 I wrote the proposal, submitted it, put our 25 qualifications in a package and sent it off to the 19 1 District. 2 Q. You were the lead person in doing that? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. After you submitted your proposal, what happened, 5 just procedurally? Were you contacted by the District? 6 Did you have an interview? Did you provide additional 7 information? What happened? 8 A. We were contacted by the District and told that we 9 were selected to do the project, to perform the project. 10 Q. Was there no contact between the time you submitted 11 the proposal and you received notice that you had been 12 selected? 13 A. There was no verbal or written contact that I 14 recall. 15 Q. How were you told that you received the contract? 16 A. I was not in the office at the time. Pat Davis at 17 Hazen and Sawyer, who's a vice president, received a phone 18 call from the District saying that we were selected to 19 perform the study. 20 Q. And then what? 21 A. Then we received -- if I recall correctly, we 22 received a letter, formal letter from the District and then 23 we went into contract negotiations. 24 Q. Were you involved in the contract negotiations? 25 A. Yes. 20 1 Q. You, personally? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. With whom did you negotiate at the District, who 4 all was involved? 5 A. Rhonda Haag, Dick Rogers, Carl Woehelke. 6 Q. Are all these people with the District? 7 A. Yes. 8 I believe Paul Muncy was there. 9 It was in a room with a bunch of people around the 10 table, that's what I remember the most. 11 Q. And all your negotiation was done at this one 12 meeting? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Was anyone from Hazen and Sawyer there in addition 15 to yourself? 16 A. Soddie Shaboney (phonetic). 17 Q. And who is that? 18 A. An associate with Hazen and Sawyer. 19 Q. You called yourself a principal economist with 20 Hazen and Sawyer; what does that mean, are you a 21 shareholder, a partner? 22 A. I'm part of the bonus pool, from a financial 23 aspect. 24 Q. Do you recall when the negotiation meeting was? 25 A. It was probably in January. 21 1 Q. And what were the issues at that meeting, what did 2 you negotiate? 3 A. We went through the scope of work, each task in the 4 scope of work, and I gave them an explanation how we would 5 perform each task. Then we talked about how much it would 6 cost to perform each task. 7 Q. And did you negotiate on the cost? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And the result of that meeting, then, was a written 10 contract, I presume? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Who do you report to at the Water Management 13 District for this contract, the contract to do the economic 14 impact assessment, or who did you? 15 A. Currently I'm reporting to Sally Kennedy. 16 Q. And previously? 17 A. Peter Rhoades, and then before that Paul Muncy. 18 Q. Since when have you reported to Sally Kennedy? 19 A. About September of '92. 20 Q. And prior to that time it was Pete Rhoades? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. From when to when did you report to him? 23 A. About March through September, and then Sally would 24 have started October to the present. 25 Q. And Paul Muncy, from the beginning until March? 22 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Who do you report to internally at Hazen and 3 Sawyer, what are the lines of authority there? 4 A. Peter Robinson. 5 Q. Is he locally based? 6 A. He's in Hollywood. He's the senior vice president. 7 Q. What role has he played in this project? 8 A. I report to him on the progress of the project. 9 Q. Does he review your work? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Has he taken an active role in terms of 12 recommending changes or approaches? 13 A. No. 14 Q. And who at Hazen and Sawyer works with you on the 15 project, are there some other economists? 16 A. That have worked with me on this project? 17 Q. Yes. 18 A. There's Chris Meline, Norman Pearson. 19 Q. Are both of those people still working on the 20 project? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Is either of them? 23 A. No. 24 Q. For what period of time did Chris Meline work on 25 it? 23 1 A. From January through October -- through September, 2 and he provides some input and advice from time to time 3 since then. 4 Q. Okay. And Norman Pearson? 5 A. About June. From about -- 6 I'm sorry, I believe it was from like February 7 through July. 8 Q. Is he still with Hazen and Sawyer? 9 A. No, he was never with Hazen and Sawyer. We 10 subcontracted with him. 11 Q. Who was he with? 12 A. He was an independent consultant. 13 Q. An economist? 14 A. Yes, an agricultural economist. 15 Q. Did he have his own firm or -- 16 A. No. I don't know. 17 Q. How did you come to use Mr. Pearson? 18 A. I wanted a team member with direct experience in 19 implementing best management practices in agriculture and 20 he was referred to us. 21 I had actually met him before and had had some 22 verbal contact with him from time to time, and he had some 23 very good experience with working with BMPs and citrus and 24 drainage type issues, so I felt that he would be a good 25 team member. 24 1 Q. Who recommended him to you, was it someone at the 2 District, do you recall? 3 A. Somebody at the University of Florida recommended 4 him to me. I don't remember which professor did. 5 They were impressed with him. They had seen his 6 presentation on his thesis and they recommended him, which 7 was a coincidence because I also knew of him and knew 8 that -- of his background. 9 Q. Mr. Meline is with Hazen and Sawyer; is that 10 correct? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Is he still? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Did you use any other subcontractors on the 15 project? 16 A. We did hire a woman named Lisa Meday. We needed 17 some quick GIS work. 18 Q. GIS being? 19 A. Geographic information system work. And she 20 provided some limited consulting work in terms of making 21 pictures of the EAA in terms of where the production is in 22 the EAA from the computerized records of the Dade County -- 23 I'm sorry, the Palm Beach County property appraiser's 24 office. 25 Q. Was that essentially a data collection activity? 25 1 A. No, it was a data management activity. It was very 2 limited, but we did hire her as a subcontractor for a few 3 hours. I think it was 40 hours. 4 Q. What kind of quality review system is there at 5 Hazen and Sawyer that your work has been subject to? 6 A. We have a quality control system whereby one senior 7 officer reviews not just the end product, but is constantly 8 being updated about the progress, and that person in this 9 case was Peter Robinson. 10 Q. What is his background? 11 A. He is a civil engineer and has an MBA. He has 30 12 years of experience, most of it in south Florida in terms 13 of civil and environmental engineering and finance. 14 Q. What is his experience in finance? 15 A. He evaluates the cost of, for example, building 16 waste water treatment plants or closing landfills, opening 17 landfills, and has done a bit of work related to issuing 18 bonds and, I'm not familiar with every financial study that 19 he's done but he is a real world guy. I mean, this is how 20 much it costs, let's figure out who's going to pay for it 21 and how it's going to get paid for in looking at the 22 benefits and the costs. 23 He's a results kind of person. Let's figure out 24 how much it's going to cost and who's going to pay for it 25 and make sure it's equitable to everyone so everyone's 26 1 happy. 2 Q. Am I correct in assuming that Mr. Pearson was 3 retained to work on the cost and effect of BMPs? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Did he do anything outside of that area? 6 A. He did a little bit of work, just a very little bit 7 regarding the mills, raw sugar mills, very little, couple 8 hours of work, but all of it was related to BMPs, the vast 9 majority of it. 10 Q. Do you have any experience in the use of BMPs in 11 agriculture? 12 A. Yes. 13 Well, what do you mean by "BMPs" specifically? You 14 mean in general or specific BMPs? 15 Q. In general. 16 A. In general, yes. 17 Q. What is your experience? 18 A. Well, the experience is mostly related to 19 California agriculture. How to reduce the amount of 20 electricity used in agriculture and how to conserve water 21 in agriculture. 22 Q. The contract that you entered into subsequent to 23 your negotiation, your RFP and the response and the 24 negotiations that we've been talking about was a contract 25 to perform an economic impact assessment; is that correct? 27 1 A. It was to evaluate the economic impacts of the 2 Marjorie Stoneman Douglas Act and the Settlement Agreement 3 between the United States and the South Florida Water 4 Management District. 5 Q. At some point you were also retained, were you not, 6 to do a benefits study? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. The benefits of the Marjorie Stoneman Douglas Act 9 or what, what was it a benefits study of? 10 A. It was the benefits of preventing injuries to the 11 Everglades. We looked at three levels of injuries. 12 Q. That's low, medium and high basically? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. How did you come to be retained to do that study, 15 the process again? 16 A. Paul Muncy called me up, this was during the 17 project, I guess it was in February, mid-February perhaps 18 of '92. 19 Q. Okay. 20 A. (Continuing) He called me up and asked me about 21 evaluating the benefits. At that time he wanted -- was 22 asking me about evaluating the benefits of the act and 23 settlement agreement. And he asked me how much -- how long 24 it would take and how much it would cost to do something 25 like that. 28 1 Q. Did he say why it was he was checking, what 2 prompted him to find out? 3 A. No. 4 Not that I recall. 5 Q. I'm sorry, go on with your description. 6 A. Well, I answered him. I said it would take two 7 years and $2 million. 8 Q. And his response? 9 A. He says: Well, what can you do for $50,000 in four 10 months? 11 Q. And your response? 12 A. I told him about how, what is often done or what is 13 done frequently is you do an initial assessment of what the 14 value of the benefits are for a particular non-market 15 situation, you know, a situation where you have a problem 16 and you want to figure out, well, this is an environmental 17 problem, we want to save -- we want to fix the problem, 18 what are the benefits of fixing this problem. 19 You can do a full-blown study to estimate the 20 benefits and/or you can begin, at least begin with looking 21 at what other studies of other resources, other economic 22 values of other non-market goods. 23 So it's a matter of saying let's take a look at the 24 values that have been estimated for other similar, and I 25 use that loosely, natural resources, in terms of preventing 29 1 damages to those resources. 2 And so I told him that that is a possibility. If 3 they wanted to get started thinking about valuing the 4 benefits of restoring the Everglades, then an initial study 5 of the nature that we conducted would provide some insight 6 into the value of protecting the Everglades and also, in my 7 mind, start to educate the people of Florida regarding how 8 to provide a method of comparing the value of a natural 9 resource, a non-market natural resource to the value of 10 goods and services that we take for granted that we buy and 11 sell in marketplaces all the time. 12 Q. Tell me, after this conversation you had with 13 Mr. Muncy in approximately February, what happened 14 procedurally, did you enter into a contract, what occurred? 15 A. He asked me -- I was going to be giving a 16 presentation to the Everglades Funding Council in early 17 March, if I recall correctly. The date would have been in 18 about early March. I was to give a presentation to the 19 Everglades Funding Council regarding the progress of the 20 economic impact evaluation, which we already had a contract 21 for. 22 And he asked me, Paul asked me during that phone 23 conversation, it might have been that phone conversation or 24 subsequent one, to put together at the end, after I talk 25 about the progress of the economic evaluation, to talk 30 1 about valuing the Everglades. In other words, talk about 2 the process by which one would try to value the prevention 3 of injuries to the Everglades. 4 So I did that. And we did a flip chart 5 presentation. And I came to that part of the presentation 6 where we talked about looking at the benefits. And we went 7 through the whole thing, well, as much as we could in, I 8 don't know, 15 minutes or however long I took up there. 9 And at the end of the presentation -- 10 And I talked about doing the $2 million two-year 11 study, and I talked about doing the $50,000 four-month 12 study and they seemed to be very interested, they were 13 very, very interested. 14 Q. This is the Funding Council? 15 A. The Funding Council. 16 And so from that Funding Council, the Funding 17 Council decided to do the $50,000 four-month study. 18 Q. Was an RFP done for that study? Did they 19 advertise? 20 A. I don't know. 21 Q. You didn't respond with a proposal to an RFP; is 22 that correct? 23 A. Correct. If I recall correctly, yes. 24 Q. And ultimately you entered, by "you entered," Hazen 25 and Sawyer entered into a contract with the Water 31 1 Management District to do the benefits valuation; correct? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. The $50,000 four-month version of the benefit 4 study? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Who was the principal author of that study? 7 A. I don't understand the question. 8 Q. The benefit study, were you the principal author of 9 the benefits study? 10 MR. NETTLETON: Object to the form. 11 BY THE WITNESS: 12 A. I don't understand the question. 13 BY MS. STINSON: 14 Q. On the impact assessment, were you the principal 15 author of that document, the economic impact assessment 16 report? 17 MR. NETTLETON: Object to the form. 18 BY THE WITNESS: 19 A. Define author. 20 BY MS. STINSON: 21 Q. Okay, maybe that's the problem. 22 Did you actually write, either on a computer or 23 otherwise, the text that is in the impact assessment 24 report? 25 A. Yes. I wrote the vast majority, probably 99 32 1 percent -- well, let's say 95 percent of the economic -- 2 valuation of the economic impacts. 3 Q. And on the benefits side, who performed that 4 function; did you? 5 A. I performed editing but the text was written by the 6 sub -- our subconsultant, NRDA. 7 Q. What person with NRDA, do you know? 8 A. Richard Carson. 9 Q. And where is NRDA? 10 A. La Jolla, California. 11 Q. And what is it? 12 A. It's called Natural Resource Damage Assessment, 13 Inc. My understanding, I'm going to tell you what my 14 understanding is, because I haven't seen, you know, legal 15 proof of any of this, but my understanding is it's a 16 consortium of professors in the area of natural resource 17 economics and one of their, or maybe it's their main line 18 of business is estimating the value of natural resource 19 damages. 20 Q. Is Richard Carson a professor? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Where? 23 A. University of California, at La Jolla -- no, 24 San Diego, I'm sorry, UC, San Diego. 25 Q. How did you come to subcontract the work to this 33 1 organization or this person? 2 A. We were very -- our staff was very busy at that 3 time with many different projects and the District had 4 asked if they could have the report completed by, I don't 5 know, end of June or whenever it was, so I wanted to put a 6 team member on our team that was uniquely qualified to do 7 that type of an analysis and Richard Carson was by far the 8 best choice of anyone in the country to do this. 9 Q. Did you know him from California? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. What dealings had you had with him previously? 12 A. He was a graduate student at Cal Berkeley in the 13 same department that I was in, agricultural and natural 14 resource economics. 15 Q. So he got his Ph.D. in the same thing you got yours 16 in; is that correct? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Was it your own personal experience with Richard 19 Carson that caused you to call him and see if they would do 20 this work? 21 A. He wrote a book, him and the other author's name 22 escapes me at the moment, but, on valuing non-market goods. 23 Q. What book is that? 24 A. What's the title? 25 The exact title escapes me at this time of the 34 1 morning but it had to do with valuing non-market goods, 2 specifically using the contingent valuation method. 3 Q. You mentioned a minute ago that you felt he was 4 uniquely qualified to do this kind of study. Why did you 5 believe that? 6 A. Because he's done quite a bit of work in contingent 7 valuation in valuing non-market goods. I was familiar with 8 his work, I've read his work and I was impressed with it. 9 Q. Are there other people in the country who also do 10 that kind of work? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Is there anything that set him apart from other 13 people? 14 A. Well, I could have hired -- we could have asked 15 Michael Hanneman to help us or other people, other -- a few 16 other natural resource economists. 17 Q. Who is Michael Hanneman? 18 A. Actually my understanding is Michael Hanneman might 19 be one of the co-associates with NRDA but I don't know that 20 for a fact. 21 Actually he is. The NRDA is actually a consortium 22 of professors who do this kind of thing so we basically 23 hired NRDA, but I contacted Richard Carson because I knew 24 him. 25 Q. Why did you mention Michael Hanneman's name? 35 1 A. Well, he's also someone who's very experienced and 2 is also qualified to do such a study. 3 Q. Did you mention his name because he's a known 4 person in the field or just somebody you know? 5 A. He's a known person in the field and he's someone I 6 know. 7 Q. Other than the benefits study, the $50,000 8 four-month job, to your knowledge, has the South Florida 9 Water Management District done any additional work on the 10 benefits side? 11 A. Not to my knowledge. 12 Q. Do you know whether there's any agreement or 13 understanding to do additional work on the benefits side? 14 A. Not that I know of. 15 Q. Who, in addition to Mr. Carson, Professor Carson 16 and yourself as editor worked on the benefits report? 17 A. Nick Flores. 18 Q. And who is he? 19 A. He is with NRDA. 20 Q. Is he also a professor? 21 A. Not that I know of. 22 Q. Do you know what his background is? 23 A. I knew it at one time. 24 I don't recall it right now. 25 Q. What role did he play? 36 1 A. I spoke with him from time to time over the phone 2 regarding the study. His role -- well, he obviously must 3 have worked on the job because he knew so much about it. 4 You know, we talked a lot and we talked about what they 5 were doing and what I thought they ought to be doing, in 6 editing of the report. 7 Those are the two people I spoke with the most, 8 Richard Carson and Nick Flores over at NRDA, and I imagine 9 Nick did participate in working on the job, in this 10 particular job. 11 Q. Was it your understanding that he reported to 12 Richard Carson? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Was Richard Carson the person in charge of the 15 project for NRDA, to your knowledge? 16 A. Yes. Yes, he was. 17 Q. Do you recall approximately when you contracted 18 with the District to do the benefits side? 19 A. Do I remember when? 20 Q. Yes, approximately. 21 A. March maybe. I don't recall the exact date. 22 Q. After you entered into the contract for the impact 23 assessment, tell me what you first did in terms of 24 beginning to work on the project, what information you 25 gathered or people you talked to. 37 1 A. We began to compile a list of information sources, 2 potential information sources. We began to talk about our 3 relationship -- what type of relationship, if we should go 4 forward and communicate with the Florida Sugar Cane League 5 and the Florida Sugar Cane Cooperative. 6 Q. When you say "we began to talk," is that you and 7 the people at the District or you folks internally at Hazen 8 and Sawyer? 9 A. Internally at Hazen and Sawyer. How to move 10 forward on the project. 11 And so we then began to make contact with the 12 Florida Sugar Cane League and the cooperative and any other 13 grower in the EAA who was interested in talking to us. 14 Q. Did you speak with anyone else, any other possible 15 sources of information, experts in the field? 16 A. We talked to people at IFAS. We talked to people at 17 USDA. We talked to the Palm Beach County property 18 appraiser's office, the Hendry County property appraiser's 19 office. We talked to people at the Palm Beach County 20 Planning Department. We talked to someone at Donnelley 21 Marketing Information Services. 22 Q. Why did you talk to people at Donnelley Marketing? 23 A. At the beginning of a project you don't know -- you 24 have an idea of the quality of the data but what you do is 25 you try to get data from every possible information source 38 1 that you can, and that was one of the potential information 2 sources that we could use. 3 Actually it did turn out that we did get that 4 information, but Donnelley Marketing Information Service 5 collects information on businesses that they sell to 6 private people for marketing purposes primarily, and they 7 happen to have a pretty extensive data base of information 8 on individual businesses all over the country. In addition 9 to that they will provide summary statistics by zip code on 10 businesses and demographics. 11 Q. Who did you talk to at IFAS? 12 A. Jose Alvarez, Bill Boggess, Bob Emerson. 13 Q. Where is Mr. Emerson? 14 A. He's in Gainesville. 15 Q. Is he with the University of Florida? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Anyone else? 18 A. Oh, yes. I'm trying to remember them all. Tom 19 Scheuneman, David Mulkey, Del Botcher, John Holt, Leo 20 Polopolus, John Reynolds. 21 Q. Are these all people with IFAS or University of 22 Florida? 23 A. They're with both. 24 Q. Both. They're all with both? 25 A. Um hum. My understanding is if you work for IFAS you 39 1 work for UF. 2 Mr. Coale, C o a l e. 3 If I leave anybody out, they're in the report. In 4 the report we list everybody we talk to. 5 Q. Did you talk to all these people in the preliminary 6 stages just as source of information? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Did you talk to them individually or did you have 9 meetings with some or all of them? 10 A. We spoke with them individually. 11 We did give a presentation toward the end of the 12 project in about June to a group of the professors and a 13 couple of the graduate students in the Ag Econ department 14 at University of Florida. 15 Q. And you also spoke with people at USDA? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Do you recall who? 18 A. Ron Lord, Annette Clausen. That's all I remember at 19 this time. 20 Q. Then after you did this preliminary I guess contact of 21 potential sources, what was your next step in conducting 22 your analysis? 23 A. We started zeroing in on where the information was and 24 we began to collect the information. 25 Q. What types of information? 40 1 A. The USDA publication, "Sugar and Sweetener 2 Situation Outlook," I believe we relied on the March 1992 3 report. We received the statistical, is it called U.S. 4 Statistical Sugar Abstract. 5 So basically we began collecting data. Published 6 data. 7 We began asking people questions, mainly to make 8 sure that the data was what we thought it was representing, 9 you know. We talked to people who either compiled the data 10 themselves and to make sure we understood, you know, what 11 each of the costs represented, what the prices represented, 12 you know, what everything meant that was published and so 13 that's what we did there. 14 Q. At some point I presume you also had to decide what 15 methodology you would use to do this assessment; is that a 16 fair statement? 17 A. The methodology was already spelled out in the 18 statement of work. 19 Q. And that was something you put together to submit 20 the proposal? 21 A. Yes. 22 If you look at the RFP, the RFP was pretty well 23 written, the scope of work there, so we went by that. It 24 was a pretty good scope of work that was already written by 25 the District, so we went by that. 41 1 Q. Well, at the time you wrote the proposal did you 2 know or had you decided that you would use the FLIPSIM 3 model? 4 A. No. We only knew we were going to use model farms. 5 The statement of work that's in the contract, 6 that's a compilation of what the District had already 7 written in their RFP and then Hazen and Sawyer, expounding 8 on that and becoming more specific with how the study would 9 be done. 10 Now, exactly, you know, what kind of computer 11 spreadsheets or models would be used had not been 12 determined until after we -- as far as I can remember, it 13 was not until we began working on the project. 14 Q. But at the time you did the proposal you had 15 determined to do it by means of model farms; is that 16 correct? 17 A. We had in, yes, in our contract we had already 18 talked about model farms, if I recall correctly. 19 Q. When in the process did you decide then what 20 computer model to use to determine the effects? 21 A. Proposal early on in the project. I don't recall 22 whether we decided to use FLIPSIM but there was some 23 discussion between Chris and myself over what would be the 24 best thing to do, whether we should do our own spreadsheet 25 model or should we use a model that's already been 42 1 developed to -- and we had decided -- we ultimately 2 decided, or I ultimately decided to use the FLIPSIM model. 3 Q. How did you make that decision? 4 A. Well, it was based on, we didn't want to re-invent 5 the wheel. In other words, we wanted to spend a lot of 6 time talking to the growers, and we wanted to spend a lot 7 of time developing the baseline economic projections and we 8 wanted to spend time looking at the BMPs and we didn't want 9 to spend a lot of time making models. 10 So we decided, or at least I decided to go ahead and 11 use the FLIPSIM because it was already there, we wouldn't 12 have to do any programming, we would just use that. 13 Q. How did you even hear about it, I guess, and did 14 you discuss that particular model with anybody? 15 A. Yes. I was talking to Bill Boggess, he was one of 16 the people that we initially contacted, and I was talking 17 to him about my decision that I had to make, whether or not 18 we go ahead and just do the spreadsheet model and develop 19 that and spend time on that or if there was any models out 20 that, already out there that we could use, and he had 21 mentioned he has used the FLIPSIM model in his evaluation 22 of the impacts, the financial impacts to dairy farmers 23 north of Lake Okeechobee. 24 Q. Had you heard of FLIPSIM before he mentioned it? 25 A. No. 43 1 Q. Had you known Professor Boggess from the University 2 of Florida? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. The contract that you originally entered into 5 called for a 20-year study; did it not? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. And at some point that was modified to be a 10-year 8 study? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Why was that decision made, what led up to the 11 decision to change it from 20 to 10? 12 MR. NETTLETON: Object to the form. 13 BY MS. STINSON: 14 Q. You can answer. 15 MR. NETTLETON: You can answer, if you know. 16 BY MS. STINSON: 17 Q. If you understand the question, you can go ahead 18 and answer. 19 A. You want to know why it went from a 20-year to a 20 10-year? 21 Q. Right. You got it. 22 A. All right, during the project, I wanted to spend a 23 lot of time on the first 10 years and from an economist's 24 perspective, economists feel comfortable forecasting out 25 five years and 10 years. You know, after 10 years it's 44 1 like well, you know, you don't feel as confident because 2 there's a lot of things that can happen. There's a lot of 3 things that can happen in the first 10 years but there's 4 also a lot of things that can happen in the second 10 5 years. So I wanted to put something together that we felt 6 very, very comfortable about in terms of the economic facts 7 and I wanted to get it down from 20 to 10 years, I didn't 8 want to spend a lot of time on the second 10 years. 9 So I called Paul Muncy and I ran it by him. I 10 believe I spoke to him, and he said it was okay, he didn't 11 have a problem with that, so then they amended the contract 12 to go from 20 years to 10 years. 13 Q. Do you know whether he discussed that decision with 14 anybody else at the District or whether that was just his 15 decision? 16 A. I don't know. I don't recall. 17 Q. Were you aware at the time you discussed that that 18 potential financing plans for the project would last 20 19 years? 20 MR. NETTLETON: Object to the form. 21 BY THE WITNESS: 22 A. Now that's a potential financing plan borrowing the 23 money and paying it back over 20 years, but it's not the 24 only one, it's one of many different financing plans, so, 25 no, it really wasn't a consideration to me. 45 1 BY MS. STINSON: 2 Q. What was the original contract completion date for 3 the impact assessment? 4 A. I don't remember. I don't recall. It was four 5 months -- supposedly -- I think it was like four months 6 from January. Maybe it was due in May, May 31. 7 Q. And do you recall what the original -- 8 A. (Continuing) Or maybe it was April 31, I don't 9 remember. 10 Q. Do you remember what the original completion date 11 was for the benefits side? 12 A. No. I can only give you a guess, ballpark. Maybe 13 it was due June 31st -- 30th, rather. There is no 31st. 14 Q. Did you at some point seek and receive an extension 15 on the impact assessment? 16 A. The economic impact, yes. 17 Q. What led up to your decision to request an 18 extension? 19 A. We were trying to get information from the growers 20 and we were talking to them and that was taking up some 21 time, so that took up a lot more time than I wanted it to 22 but, you know, what can you do. 23 So I asked if we could have an extension so that we 24 could have time to incorporate the responses of the growers 25 in the EAA. 46 1 Q. And how many times was it extended, once or more, 2 do you recall? 3 A. It was more than once. Maybe it was twice. I 4 don't remember exactly. 5 Q. And when was the work under that contract 6 completed? 7 A. The entire contract was completed at the end of 8 September. 9 Q. Does that include for the benefits side as well? 10 A. That one was -- okay, we finished the bulk of our 11 contract by the time we had the governing board meeting in 12 August. The economic evaluation was completed. It was 13 completely finished. And so what we reported was the final 14 conclusions. 15 But then what happened was the District went 16 through each and every item in our contract to make sure 17 that we fulfilled everything in our contract and there were 18 some things that were not fulfilled and so we spent a 19 couple months finishing up what they thought we needed to 20 do to completely fulfill the agreement in the contract. So 21 you'll see a couple more chapters in the report from the 22 original, I think it was -- or the final report, there's 23 now a contract completion report and that has everything in 24 it. It represents, you know, the totality of the work that 25 was done from January through September. 47 1 Q. Is that true for both the benefits and the impact 2 portions? 3 A. Yes. Yes. 4 Q. What role did, if any, did Professor Lonnie Jones 5 play in your impact assessment? 6 A. About the -- I don't know when it was in this 7 project, but he began -- we met with him in a meeting, we 8 had a meeting with the Justice Department economists, the 9 Justice Department hired some economists. 10 Q. Who did you meet with? 11 A. Lonnie Jones and Ron Lacewell and someone else who 12 I don't recall at the moment his name, but I didn't 13 really -- I only met him once at one of the meetings. 14 Q. Was he someone from Texas A&M also? 15 A. No, he was from another university. 16 Q. Was it Dr. Bromley? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Do you recall when you met with those folks? 19 A. It was during the project. I don't know exactly 20 what month it was, to be honest with you. 21 Q. Why did that meeting happen? 22 A. The, I think it was Paul Muncy or Pete Rhoades, I 23 don't recall which one, I think it was Paul. See, he 24 wanted me to be open with all sides, you know. Like the 25 Justice Department and the growers, you know, we were 48 1 supposed to be very open and anybody who wanted to see what 2 we were doing was welcome to come and see what we were 3 doing. 4 And so the Justice Department, the economists hired 5 by the Justice Department came and met with us at our 6 office and we showed them what we were doing. 7 Q. Was that before you had a draft of the report? 8 A. I don't remember. It was when we had something 9 down on paper -- or maybe it wasn't -- 10 I don't remember exactly. I can only tell you that 11 we met with them on about two occasions. 12 Q. Did you also talk with some of them by telephone 13 throughout the process? 14 A. Lonnie would call me from time to time. 15 Q. A couple times a month or every week, do you 16 recall? 17 A. No, it wasn't that often. It was from time to 18 time. Not very frequently. 19 MS. STINSON: Why don't we have lunch and switch 20 gears. 21 (Whereupon, at 12:00 noon a luncheon recess was 22 taken.) 23 (Afternoon session continued on following page.) 24 25 49 1 A F T E R N O O N S E S S I O N 2 GRACE JOHNS, Ph.D. 3 the Deponent herein, having been previously duly sworn, was 4 examined and testified further as follows: 5 DIRECT EXAMINATION 6 BY MS. STINSON: (Continued) 7 Q. This is really switching gears for a little bit 8 here. You produced to us, you and your counsel, a number 9 of documents as well as 23 computer disks which contain 10 portions of your files, I presume. What I'm going to ask 11 you about right now are some questions regarding those 12 disks just for informational purposes so we can figure out 13 what's on there to look at them. 14 Do you know whether the files on those disks 15 contain only your latest version of the report or would 16 they also contain, you know, previous drafts of work? 17 A. To the best of my knowledge, those are every single 18 analysis we did from the beginning of the project. In 19 other words, it includes information that was -- it 20 includes spreadsheets and model runs that were done 21 throughout the project. 22 Q. Well, if something were revised, would you have 23 supplanted, would you have replaced the pre-existing 24 information or would there be a different version of it, do 25 you know? 50 1 A. There might be a little of both in there. I tried 2 to keep it as up -- I wanted it to reflect as much as 3 possible, you know, during the study, the final results. 4 So we tried to do that but I don't think we did -- we might 5 have old files in there that we started to use but we never 6 finished using or we didn't need them anymore and they 7 might still be in there. 8 Q. But if you had something that went through various 9 iterations, it would only be the last one that would be 10 contained on the disks? 11 A. The one with the most recent date on it, which 12 should be what's in the report. 13 Q. There are apparently four disks that are a backup 14 of files in one or more directories, in order to restore 15 those files we need to know the name of the directory. 16 A. Oh, really. 17 MR. NETTLETON: Object to the form if that's a 18 question. 19 MS. STINSON: The question isn't out yet. 20 BY MS. STINSON: 21 Q. The question is: What is the name of the directory 22 that these four are backup to or backup of files to; do you 23 know? 24 A. You'd have to show me the file names, the files. 25 Q. There are several files that have the same name 51 1 except for the extension, for example SOD11.FM3, SOD11.WK3, 2 et cetera. And SOD11.XLS. Does the XLS file contain the 3 same information as the Lotus 1-2-3 files? 4 MR. NETTLETON: Object to the form. 5 BY THE WITNESS: 6 A. I don't -- I don't know. It depends on the file. 7 BY MS. STINSON: 8 Q. Would it contain the same as the Excel file; do you 9 know? 10 A. Excel file was probably produced first and then it 11 was read into Lotus 1-2-3 and perhaps more things got done 12 to that file so it might be a little different than the XLS 13 file. 14 The WK3 file might be different than the XLS file 15 but it probably supersedes the XLS file. 16 The FMT file is the format file. If you want to 17 print it or anything, if you want to print it. My 18 understanding is it produces a FMT file, so that's just a 19 format file for the spreadsheet. 20 Q. What is the .ALL extension, do you know? 21 A. That sounds like it would -- we have a .ALL in 22 there. That's an extension for what, the alls subroutine, 23 .ALL? You'd have to show me the exact file name. Really, 24 from my knowledge of spreadsheets .ALL is an alls file 25 which is a format file. That's all I can tell you. 52 1 Q. I am going to show you what I believe contain 2 printouts of the directories of the four files that are the 3 backup files to see if that will help you tell me what 4 directory (handing). 5 A. Okay. So what I'm reading here is that there's a 6 file called BACKUP.004 and it's got about 343,000 bytes. I 7 do not recall a BACKUP.004. I do not recall a file that I 8 ever named or that Chris ever named called BACKUP.004. I 9 don't know where that came from. 10 Q. Okay. 11 A. Same with CONTROL.004. I've never seen it before. 12 I don't know what that is. I don't know what these two 13 files are, I've never seen them. 14 Q. There are four pages? 15 A. They're all the same. Never seen BACKUP.002 or 16 CONTROL.002. 17 Let me back up a minute. We provided you all with 18 models that we used or we didn't use, we just happen to 19 have had, collected during the project. Now those models 20 might have file names in them called BACKUP.002 or 21 CONTROL.002 and BACKUP.004 and CONTROL.004, in which case 22 may be relevant to what we had, but in which case I don't 23 know anything about them. 24 Q. Would there be any way for you to check? 25 A. Yes, all of these. 53 1 I could show them to Chris Meline, see if he knows 2 what they are. 3 Q. There are files of the same name such as 4 LETP1S1A.OUT and the same .XLS. Is the OUT file the 5 FLIPSIM output and is the XLS your summary in Excel? 6 A. That's close. The answer is no, not exactly. 7 The output file is probably from -- is the 8 FLIPSIM.OUT. The .OUT is from the FLIPSIM. The Excel file 9 probably read that output file into Excel. 10 Q. In the XLS? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. What is the AGSYS budget generator disk one? 13 Here's another page (handing). 14 A. This looks like it's the budget generator. That's 15 what it is. The AGSYS budget generator. Yes, that's what 16 this is, these are the files from those. 17 Q. What is that? 18 A. That is the vegetable budget generator. 19 Q. How does it need to be loaded into a computer, do 20 you need some kind of user's manual? 21 A. Yes. To the best of my knowledge. 22 In other words, you are trying to get it to run; 23 right? 24 Q. Right. 25 A. I don't know if we gave you enough for you to run 54 1 it. I thought we did. But apparently you all are having 2 trouble and I don't know if I can help you in this 3 deposition, tell you how to run it. 4 Q. Oh, no, I'm not asking you to do that. Who in your 5 shop actually runs? 6 A. Chris Meline was the one that loaded it up. So I 7 didn't load it up myself. 8 Q. And that's the budget generator for fruits and 9 vegetables? 10 A. That's my understanding AGSYS is the one. We do 11 have a budget generator for vegetables and I imagine this 12 is what it's called, AGSYS budget generator. 13 Q. Do you know what the AUTO123.WKS worksheet is? 14 A. This looks like the mechanical harvesting model 15 where it evaluates the cost of mechanical harvesting versus 16 hand- cut harvesting of sugar cane. 17 Q. Did you use the results of those? 18 A. We used this model. 19 Q. Where does it show up in your report? 20 A. When we talk about the hand-cutting versus 21 mechanically harvesting cane, in one of the chapters, 22 probably the baseline economic projections for sugar cane 23 chapter. 24 Q. What type of output does this spreadsheet generate, 25 what's the product? 55 1 A. The cost of mechanically harvesting sugar cane 2 versus the cost of hand-cutting sugar cane. 3 Q. Per ton or? 4 A. It could be -- yeah, it could be per ton, per acre. 5 Q. Back on the vegetable, the AGSYS budget generator, 6 where in your report is that used? 7 A. Where we talk about the vegetables in the report, 8 the baseline economic projections is where we use it. 9 Q. Do you recall what tables that, the AGSYS 10 information, is found in? 11 A. The tables that display the costs of growing 12 vegetables are in this in the report under -- I don't 13 exactly recall what page number it's in. 14 Q. And that's straight out of the AGSYS budget 15 generator? 16 A. Pretty much. We do quality control, make sure 17 everything makes sense. 18 Q. And are there any tables that the AUTO123.WKS 19 output is put into, the mechanical versus hand harvesting? 20 A. We didn't specifically put that in our tables. We 21 just evaluated it and found that there wasn't much 22 difference in the costs. 23 Q. Let me give you (handing) this, the READ ME 24 document has to do with the RIMS II program; does it not? 25 A. I don't recall. 56 1 Q. Did you run the RIMS II program? 2 A. I didn't. Chris Meline ran it. 3 Q. Did you in large part rely on Chris Meline to do 4 the computer operation and running of the programs? 5 A. For the RIMS II, I asked him to extract the 6 multipliers, the multipliers that we needed for the study. 7 Q. Did you tell him which multipliers to extract? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Do you know whether region one refers only to the 10 Palm Beach multipliers? 11 A. I don't recall. 12 Q. Did you obtain multipliers for any other regions or 13 counties other than Palm Beach? 14 A. For Florida. State of Florida multipliers. 15 Q. But no other individual counties? 16 A. No. 17 Q. How does the Modify program work, what does that 18 program do; is that -- 19 A. Which model are you talking about? 20 Q. I'm not sure. Did you use a program called Modify? 21 A. There's a lot of sub -- there's a lot of sub -- 22 Q. Let me show you? 23 A. -- files that are used automatically. 24 Is this in relation to RIMS? Yes, it looks like it 25 is. Is this, what you just have given me, in relation to 57 1 RIMS? 2 Q. It's my understanding it is. 3 A. I didn't specifically use Modify. 4 Q. Did somebody? Did Chris? 5 A. If it was necessary to use in order to extract the 6 multipliers for Palm Beach County, then he would have used 7 it. 8 Q. And you are not sure whether that was necessary or 9 not? 10 A. Correct. 11 Q. What software did you use to perform the RIMS 12 analysis? 13 A. I asked Chris to extract the multipliers and he 14 gave me those multipliers and then I put them into our 15 spreadsheet model. 16 Q. What computer files, whether output, Lotus or Excel 17 were created using RIMS data? 18 A. I can tell you which ones they are. There are two 19 of them. Let's see if I can remember the exact file names 20 of them. They're pretty easy to find I thought in the 21 disks. It's called like SUM ECON. 22 Q. Would it help, I believe these are the printouts of 23 the directories, would it help? 24 A. Sure, if you give them to me to look at I can help 25 you. 58 1 These files like 9910.XLS, they probably have the 2 population files. They have information on specific 3 properties in the EAA or specific businesses in the EAA. 4 You'll note them by the fact that they're so big. Like 5 this one has got 1.3 million bytes. 6 Okay. The file that has the summary for the EAA 7 area is SUM2ECON.WK3, to the best of my knowledge, at this 8 time. Let me find you the one for Florida. The one for 9 Florida has -- it's kind of just like SUM2ECON but it's got 10 FL in it and I can't find it. In fact, the SUM2ECON.WK3, 11 to the best of my knowledge, that's the one but it might be 12 slightly -- have a slightly different name than that, but 13 look there first. 14 What you are going to find is if you showed me the 15 report I could tell you how to find -- there are files that 16 look just like those detailed tables in the report, so if 17 you find those, and they have names like SUM2ECON.FL or 18 things like that, those are the ones that are the exact 19 replicas of the tables in the report. And on here I cannot 20 find the one that has FL in it of the Florida one, from 21 what you've given me. 22 Q. That's okay. 23 Which industry codes from the STUBS.PRN file of IO 24 industry classifications on the RIMS II disks did you use 25 for your analysis? 59 1 A. Repeat the beginning of that again. 2 Q. Which industry codes from the STUBS.PRN file? 3 A. Okay. Now, whether or not they were taken for this 4 particular STUBS file I do not know but I can tell you that 5 the multipliers that we used are in the report. We tell 6 you exactly which ones we used in the report. So if you 7 look in the report -- 8 Q. For example, RIMS code 11.0703, would that be -- 9 A. What crop name does that correspond to, does it say 10 there? 11 Q. New conservation and development facilities 12 construction. 13 A. Yes. That came from the RIMS information. 14 Q. And you are telling me that the industry codes are 15 found somewhere in your report; are they in a table? 16 A. The ones that we used. The industry codes should 17 be in there. 18 Q. Would they be listed in a table? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Or just sort of throughout -- 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. In a table? 23 A. Yes, in a table. 24 Q. There are some survey files I guess on your 25 disks. Is SURVEY-S.HWD for sugar cane? 60 1 A. Say the name of the file again. 2 Q. SURVEY-S.HWD then there's a V.HWD, a SD.HWD and 3 then there's also a SURVEY3.HWD? 4 A. .HWD, that sounds like something that would be a 5 WordPerfect file or something like that. We have the 6 survey results in a spreadsheet but I don't recall those 7 names. 8 Q. While he's looking let me ask you another one. 9 Are any of the spreadsheets linked, in other words, 10 LINKSTR.WK1? 11 A. To the best of my knowledge, the spreadsheets are 12 not linked. 13 Q. What is LINKSTR.WK1? 14 A. How big is it? Do you have the size of the file? 15 Q. Here's the survey ones, go back to that (handing). 16 A. Okay, those particular files, I don't know what 17 they are without looking at them. 18 Q. Is this something, again, Chris Meline would have 19 run? 20 A. I don't know. I'd have to look at what's inside 21 the files. 22 Q. Here's some more survey files. Can you tell us 23 what's in these? 24 A. I can answer these questions better if you showed 25 me what the files looked like in terms of a printout of 61 1 them. I'll do the best I can. 2 SURVEY.WK3 could be the results of the survey of 3 businesses in the EAA, but without actually looking at the 4 file itself I can't tell you for sure. Chances are that's 5 what it is. 6 Q. And do you not recall what the LINKSTR file is? 7 A. Like I said, if you showed me the file I could tell 8 you exactly what it was but trying to go from there, I can 9 only give you my best guess. 10 I don't see the file that you are referring to on 11 this list -- 12 Oh, I see it. 13 I would only be guessing. If you had even just a 14 printout of one page of it I could tell you what it was. 15 If you just printed out the first, you know, you know, A 1 16 through, you know, E 100, if you could just print that out 17 for me and you showed it to me, I could tell you exactly 18 what it is, but I can't for sure tell you what's in that 19 particular file. 20 Q. Maybe we'll try that for tomorrow. 21 Here's something I do have a printout of. What is 22 the origin of the file SUBSIDEN.WK3? 23 A. Oh, good, you gave me a printout. This is much 24 better now. 25 This is a model that tracks how thick the organic 62 1 soil is in certain areas of the EAA. 2 Q. Who developed the model? 3 A. I did. 4 Q. Based on? 5 A. The soil subsidence study, 1988 soil subsidence 6 study put out by the Palm Beach County Soil Conservation 7 Service and an IFAS publication authored by George Snyder, 8 soil scientist at IFAS in Belle Glade. 9 Q. I'll get into the substance of that after a bit. 10 Here, again, are printouts of two files, 11 SUCROSE.WK1 and SUGAR.WK1. Do those refer to sucrose and 12 sugar yields for sample parcels by yield belt that is 13 collected by the Palm Beach County appraiser? 14 A. This information is the sucrose content and yield 15 on fields in the EAA provided to me by the Florida Sugar 16 Cane League by yield belt. 17 Q. Not by the county property appraiser's office? 18 A. This was provided to us by the Sugar Cane League. 19 Q. What is the difference between the two files, 20 between the sugar file and the sucrose file? 21 A. The sucrose file is the percent of sugar -- sucrose 22 in the cane and the yield file is the tons per acre. 23 Q. So sucrose will tell us how much sucrose per ton of 24 cane, for example? 25 A. It will tell us the amount of sucrose in the 63 1 cane. 2 Q. Per ton or per acre or what's the measurement? 3 A. Oh, this measurement is, it's percent sucrose -- 4 Q. So it would have -- 5 A. -- in the cane. It's probably an average. 6 Q. Per amount of cane though, not per acre? 7 A. That was what was measured in the field -- not in 8 the field but -- 9 My understanding of these numbers as they were 10 communicated to me is this is percent sucrose in the cane 11 grown on a specific field in a specific year. 12 Q. And the sugar is the net tons of cane per acre? 13 A. The net -- it's the -- tons or the net tons, I 14 don't remember which, of sugar cane per acre. 15 MS. STINSON: Short break. 16 (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.) 17 (Discussion off the record.) 18 BY MS. STINSON: 19 Q. Switching gears again. 20 Somewhere somebody found this old document of 21 yours. I believe it's of yours. Something called A 22 Handbook for Economic Analysis of Coastal Recreation 23 Projects. Is that you who worked on it, Grace Jones, 24 listed as author? 25 A. Yes. 64 1 Q. When was that done? 2 A. That was done at the University of Florida in 3 1980, '81. 4 Q. Were you still a student at the time, an 5 undergrad? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. What was the project and how did you become 8 involved? 9 A. I was a research assistant with Dr. Milon and I 10 helped him work on the project. 11 Q. Other than that handbook, do you have any other 12 published documents, reports or articles? 13 A. Published, how do you mean? 14 Q. Well, let's cover all the bases here. 15 Have you given any professional papers at seminars 16 or symposia? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. What have you given? 19 A. You want to know the papers that I've presented? 20 Q. Right. 21 A. Okay. Well, there's a number of them, I'm just 22 trying to go through them in my hand. You want to know all 23 of them, okay. 24 There was a -- I don't know where to begin. 25 I've given a number of presentations regarding 65 1 solid waste management. 2 Q. And are these at professional symposia or seminars? 3 A. Are you talking about at like at the American 4 Agricultural Economics Association? 5 Q. Right. That sort of thing. 6 A. I gave a paper there regarding my dissertation, a 7 paper that I wrote off my dissertation at one of the 8 meetings around '86, I'm guessing as an approximate year, 9 at the American Agricultural Economics Association annual 10 meetings in August. 11 Q. What was the topic -- 12 A. It was -- 13 Q. -- of your paper? 14 A. -- a fisheries management paper. 15 Q. Okay. 16 A. That was one of them. 17 The other one was also at the AJAE, I'm sorry, the 18 other one was at the AAEA meetings, it was a student paper 19 back in 1981. 20 Q. Did that relate to your handbook that you just -- 21 A. No, that related to the spiney lobster industry 22 in the Florida Keys. 23 Q. Any other presentations, papers presented? 24 A. Presented at like the AAEA meetings. 25 Q. Right. Any kind of professional association. 66 1 A. There's the American Public Works Association 2 where I've given two presentations related to financing 3 solid waste management programs. Just recently one was last 4 June, the other one was the previous June. 5 Q. You say regarding financing solid waste? 6 A. Yes. It had to do with using variable rates, 7 having -- charging households by the can instead of by the 8 month for garbage pickup. And also looking at the varied 9 costs of different solid waste management programs. 10 Q. When you say "financing," you are not talking 11 about some kind of public financing bond for capital works 12 project but -- 13 A. We're talking about developing new methods of 14 financing solid waste management programs. In other words, 15 fees, what fees to charge. When you are costing out a 16 program, what costs should you include in order to make 17 management decisions. 18 Q. Any other papers that you can recall? 19 A. There was -- also gave a paper at the Department 20 of the Army recycling conference regarding financing solid 21 waste management programs. 22 Q. And when was that? 23 A. 1990. I think it was around September of 1990. 24 Then I gave another presentation at the -- Broward 25 County had a one-day recycling conference where I talked 67 1 about using the variable rates to finance solid waste 2 services. 3 Q. And again, date? 4 A. That was 1991, I think it was October '91. 5 That's all I can remember at the moment. 6 Q. Other than as compiled with the materials from 7 each of these seminars or meetings, were your papers 8 published in any other publication or distributed in any 9 other way? 10 A. One paper was published in the American Journal 11 of Agricultural Economics. 12 Q. Which paper was that? 13 A. It was, had to do with subsidizing water to 14 farmers in California. 15 Q. And when was that, do you recall? 16 A. Well, it was published in '86 and we worked on it 17 in '84. 18 Q. Any other publications? 19 A. A chapter in a book. 20 Q. What's that? 21 A. That was a chapter -- it was a condensation of my 22 dissertation thesis called Stochastic Models and Option 23 Prices. 24 Q. And what book, that's the name of the book? 25 A. That's the name of the book. 68 1 Q. What's the name of the publisher or editor? 2 A. I don't recall. It's on my resume that you have. 3 Q. Any other reports or monographs such as your 4 handbook that would have been presented or published for 5 distribution? 6 A. Yes. There's -- I need to get some clarity on 7 that. Every report that we -- that I have done has been 8 distributed in some form or another, whether it's been 9 distributed during the bay delta hearings or whether it was 10 presented to the Public Utilities Commission, so that type 11 of distribution, that pretty much applies to most of the 12 work that I've done. 13 Q. Let's say apart from that which was distributed 14 sort of as part of your work to your clients. 15 A. There was Cost of Industrial Water Shortages, I 16 believe that was circulated in many circles. 17 Q. When was that done? 18 A. That was completed in '91. 19 Q. For whom? 20 A. For the California Urban Water Agencies. 21 Q. And they printed it and published it? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Any other similar? 24 A. There was the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 25 Environmental Impact Study that was published in, it was 69 1 either '89 or '90 that it was published. 2 Q. On what? 3 A. Our specific role was looking at the impact of 4 reservoir water levels and stream flows on recreation. 5 Q. And how was that distributed? 6 A. That was distributed to -- you know, in a document 7 that was distributed throughout -- through interested 8 parties in California. This was when they were looking at 9 reallocating water supplies, so it was a pretty popular 10 publication, from my understanding. 11 Q. It was distributed but no movie yet? 12 A. What? 13 Q. I say but no movie yet? 14 A. No. 15 Q. It was distributed by the Bureau of Reclamation? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Any other similar? 18 A. Not that I recall at the moment. 19 Q. I show you a letter dated May 8 from you to 20 Professor Lonnie Jones in which you apparently transmit 21 some articles to him. Do you recall writing that letter? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. You indicate in that letter, do you not, that you 24 would like him to review those and discuss them with you? 25 A. That's what it says. 70 1 MR. BURGESS: Is there a Bates number on that 2 document, excuse me? 3 MS. STINSON: No, these are not fed documents. 4 BY MS. STINSON: 5 Q. Did you discuss those articles with Dr. Jones after 6 you sent them to him? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. First of all, tell me why you sent him these 9 articles and why you wanted to talk to him about them. 10 A. He called me up and he was trying to tell me 11 about the world sugar price was going to be some very low 12 number if there was no protected markets for sugar in the 13 world. And I was trying to explain to him that that wasn't 14 so. 15 So he asked me what I relied on to come up with 16 that opinion or why did I have that opinion. I said: 17 Well, look, take a look at these articles and if you want 18 to discuss it with me further, then fine. 19 And I don't recall the exact discussion that we had 20 after he received these nor if we discussed it at all, I 21 just don't even remember that. 22 I do remember that he backed off on that number 23 after -- or at least he didn't bring it up any more after 24 that. 25 Q. Do you recall what number he was suggesting? 71 1 A. No. I just remember it being very low. 2 Q. Did you have an opinion as to what that number, the 3 price of raw sugar, would be in the absence of price 4 supports? 5 A. To an extent. My opinion was that it wasn't ever 6 going to be that low. 7 Q. But you don't remember what number? 8 A. I don't remember the exact number at the time that 9 we were discussing. 10 Q. Did you develop any kind of document or calculation 11 which led you to a conclusion as to what the number would 12 be? 13 A. That is in the report. Yes, we do talk about that. 14 And we'd explained it very clearly, I believe, in the 15 report. 16 Q. And your opinion given in the report is based on 17 the documents listed there on that May 8 letter? 18 A. Yes. There may be more documents that we relied on 19 but these are some of them. 20 Q. Did Dr. Jones ever send you anything with his 21 analysis of what the price of raw sugar would be? 22 A. No, not that I remember. 23 Q. When you discussed with him or he discussed with 24 you what he thought the price would be, was there a 25 discussion of what difference that would make, why he 72 1 thought it was going to be low and how that would impact 2 your impact assessment? 3 MR. SAXE: Objection to form. 4 BY THE WITNESS: 5 A. No. 6 MR. SAXE: Compound. 7 BY MS. STINSON: 8 Q. You can answer. 9 A. He didn't -- we did not discuss the reason why, 10 that he -- 11 We did not discuss what impact that would have as 12 far as I can remember. 13 Q. Did you make any changes in your opinion with 14 respect to what the price of raw sugar would be in the 15 absence of price supports based on information given to you 16 by Dr. Jones or discussion with him? 17 A. It had no influence whatsoever. 18 Q. I show you a document that says it's a 4/7/92 19 meeting with G. Wedgworth, Bill Kramer, and there's one 20 particular -- 21 First of all, are those your notes, copies of your 22 notes, can you tell? 23 A. They look like my notes. Looks like my writing. 24 Q. On the second page there's a square with a couple 25 of stars by it, can you read that and tell me what it is 73 1 you are discussing, if you recall? 2 A. I don't recall exactly. I can give you my 3 impression but I don't recall exactly why I wrote that down 4 or what we were talking about on this particular issue. 5 Q. Give me your impression. 6 A. I asked them about the cost of expanding capacity. 7 Q. For? Their mills? 8 A. The mill. And this may have had to do with getting 9 a permit to expand the mill. 10 Q. Do you recall why you've got a couple of stars by 11 it, why you thought that was important? 12 MR. NETTLETON: Object to the form. 13 BY THE WITNESS: 14 A. I thought -- 15 BY MS. STINSON: 16 Q. Do you recall why you've got a couple of stars by 17 it? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Was that an important point to you at the time? 20 A. At that time I thought it was interesting, that's 21 all. And I thought just star it so I can find it next 22 time. If I'm going through the files again if I see it, 23 make sure I remember it, not necessarily for this project 24 but that it was an interesting concept about the 25 permitting. 74 1 Q. Did it bear any relationship to your study in any 2 way? 3 A. Not that I recall. 4 Q. Let me show you another set of handwritten notes 5 and ask you if those are your notes. 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. What was the event that they are notes of? 8 A. A meeting with Jack Malloy, A. Duda & Sons in 9 Melbourne, Florida. 10 Q. And when? 11 A. March 16, 1992. 12 Q. On the fourth page is a comment that says "Key 13 issue, what happens if growers don't pay assessment?"? 14 Can you look through those notes and tell me why, 15 what prompted that comment, if you can recall? 16 A. I don't remember. I don't remember why I wrote 17 this statement. 18 Q. Do you believe that the question of what happens if 19 growers don't pay the assessment is a key issue? 20 MR. NETTLETON: Object to the form. 21 BY THE WITNESS: 22 A. Say -- I don't understand the question. 23 BY MS. STINSON: 24 Q. Backing up, I guess one of the means to finance the 25 SWIM Plan is to place an assessment on the growers in the 75 1 EAA; correct? 2 MR. NETTLETON: Object to the form. 3 MR. SAXE: Object. 4 BY THE WITNESS: 5 A. (Indicating.) 6 BY MS. STINSON: 7 Q. You don't know whether that's correct or not? 8 A. Would you repeat the question one more time. 9 Q. Isn't it true that one of the means being looked at 10 for financing the projects in the Everglades SWIM Plan is 11 an assessment on the growers in the EAA? 12 A. I don't know. 13 Q. Well, isn't it true that your analysis looked at 14 the effect of such assessments? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And that the Water Management District asked you to 17 look at that? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. So wouldn't you assume that that was one of the 20 possibilities under consideration for financing the 21 projects in the SWIM Plan? 22 MR. NETTLETON: That sounds objectionable, so. You 23 can answer it. 24 BY THE WITNESS: 25 A. I -- I did what I was told. I didn't ask why they 76 1 wanted it done. 2 BY MS. STINSON: 3 Q. In determining the effect of the imposition of 4 those assessments, wouldn't you agree that a key issue is 5 what happens if the growers don't or cannot pay those 6 assessments? 7 MR. NETTLETON: Object to form. 8 BY THE WITNESS: 9 A. That's not a question, if I understand your 10 question correctly, that's not something we were asked to 11 look at. 12 That, that statement might have been written 13 because Malloy asked the question: What happens if they 14 don't pay the assessment? And so I must have written that 15 down to talk to the District to see if I needed to consider 16 that. And I was told I was not, I did not need to consider 17 that. 18 BY MS. STINSON: 19 Q. So in your analysis of the impact of the Marjorie 20 Stoneman Douglas Act and the Settlement Agreement, it was 21 not relevant -- that question was not relevant to you, what 22 happens if the growers don't pay the assessment? 23 A. See, the issue is, if they don't pay the 24 assessment, will the assessment get increased. 25 Q. On the remaining? 77 1 A. Right. And I was told not to do that at that time. 2 To just -- they can either pay it or can't pay it and 3 determine whatever the job impact may be and as acreage 4 leaves production, I don't up the assessment for the 5 remaining, I just keep it at 25 an acre or 100 an acre or 6 whatever I was looking at. 7 Q. Who instructed you to proceed along those lines? 8 A. I don't recall exactly. It was one of the project 9 managers for this project. Paul Muncy or Pete Rhoades. 10 Q. Let me show you another document and ask you if you 11 can identify that, we may want to mark this one. 12 A. Yes, these are my notes. 13 Q. Did those notes ever turn into part of your report? 14 A. I don't remember. We'd have to go to the report 15 and check it out and see if anything matches. 16 MS. STINSON: Let's have this marked as an exhibit 17 first. 18 (Whereupon, Johns' Exhibit No. 1 was marked for 19 identification by the Court Reporter.) 20 BY MS. STINSON: 21 Q. Can you tell me just generally what these notes 22 reflect and for what purpose you wrote them? 23 A. Okay, this was my opinion on 6/6/92 but my opinion 24 has changed probably a little bit from what this says. 25 Q. It was your opinion about what? 78 1 A. Oh. About what would happen to raw sugar prices 2 and what would happen to recovery rates and that's about it, 3 as far as I can see here. 4 Q. Tell me what opinions you have now that differ 5 from what is reflected in that document. 6 A. The opinions that I have are in the report, the 7 contract completion report, so -- 8 Q. Okay, well, how did and why did your opinions 9 change? 10 A. Just thinking about the issue a little more and 11 that's about it. 12 Q. Is there something in particular, some conclusion, 13 opinion that you changed? 14 A. I think where it says "Sugar recovery rates," we 15 ultimately did not hold them constant, we increased them 16 over time, because I thought it was just too pessimistic a 17 scenario to have them a constant especially when the data 18 did not reflect that. Then -- 19 Q. What -- 20 Go ahead. 21 A. (Continuing) And then the price of raw sugar or 22 the -- yes, price of raw sugar, I didn't do it exactly the 23 way that this describes in paragraph 2, as far as I can 24 tell from reading this at the moment. I have it jumping up 25 whereas in the final report we have it constant, the raw 79 1 sugar price. 2 Q. Was there anything in specific that caused you to 3 change your opinion about the recovery rate? 4 A. Well, writing all this down allowed me to think 5 about what I wrote and I must have just started then 6 looking more at sugar recovery rates and started looking 7 more at raw sugar prices and incorporating additional 8 information from the publications and the data into the 9 analysis. 10 Q. You can't recall anything in specific, a 11 conversation or a document or an article that -- 12 A. Well, the USDA, it might have been -- I looked at 13 the recovery rates in the U.S. statistical abstract, I 14 looked at -- 15 Q. For the record "recovery rate" means what? 16 A. Well, you can look at it in a couple different ways 17 but it's mostly the amount of sugar in the cane and you 18 could look at it in terms of the pounds of raw sugar in 19 terms of sugar cane, or you can look at it in terms of 20 pounds of raw sugar per acre of sugar cane, so that's what 21 I'm referring to. 22 Q. Do you recall why on 6/6/92 you felt that, that the 23 recovery rate should be held constant? 24 A. On that I was writing down what I had in my head at 25 that point and that's what I wrote down and I don't know 80 1 exactly what led me to write that down but that is what I 2 wrote down, but that wasn't my final opinion. 3 Q. A minute ago we were talking about whether it was 4 important to you what would happen if a grower could not 5 pay an assessment. 6 Did you make an assumption regarding whether 7 growers would continue to pay on an acre that was not in 8 production? If the land went out of production, according 9 to your analysis, did you make any assumptions as to 10 whether that land would continue to pay its assessment? 11 A. No. 12 Q. You made no assumptions? 13 A. We, if land goes out of production, we did not need 14 to look at whether or not whoever was left with the land 15 would continue to make an assessment -- pay the assessment, 16 no, we didn't consider that. It wasn't part of the 17 analysis. 18 Q. Back to recovery rates here. 19 I ask you if you can identify a document called 20 "Historical and Forecasted Sugar Recovery Rates," whether 21 that's something you generated? 22 A. Yes, that's something I generated. 23 Q. What does that document demonstrate or show; what's 24 on it? 25 A. It shows the actual recovery rates from 1930 to 81 1 1991 or '2, and then this is what it would look like -- 2 then we added a trend. We trended the recovery rates based 3 on data from 1977 and 1991 or '2, and then I looked at, 4 well, what would happen if that trend continued into the 5 future. 6 And then I looked at a maximum, okay, well, we 7 can't let it trend forever, it has to peak somewhere or the 8 rate, you know, reasonably could stop somewhere. So then 9 we came up with the maximum. And then I just drew a 10 picture of it. 11 Q. How did you decide what the maximum could be? 12 A. I talked to an agronomist at USDA in Canal Point. 13 Q. Do you recall who? 14 A. His name escapes me at the moment. 15 Q. Where is Canal Point? 16 A. It's on the eastern part of Lake Okeechobee above 17 Pahokee. 18 MS. STINSON: Let's have this one marked also. 19 (Whereupon, Johns' Exhibit No. 2 was marked for 20 identification by the Court Reporter.) 21 BY MS. STINSON: 22 Q. On Exhibit 2, can you tell me why you chose the 23 years you chose for doing the trend? 24 A. By 1977, all seven mills and only those seven mills 25 were in production, from '77 to the present. 82 1 Q. Do you know whether any modifications were made to 2 those mills subsequent to 1977? 3 A. According to USDA, some modifications have been 4 made, if I recall correctly. 5 Q. How did you do mathematically the trend, how did 6 you determine what the trend was? 7 A. We ran a statistical -- I ran a statistical 8 regression of the data and then used the estimated model to 9 forecast the future. 10 Q. You did a regression analysis of all the data from 11 nineteen seventy-, what, -seven, to 1991; is that correct? 12 A. That's about right. 13 Q. Through 1991, using '91? 14 A. Yes, the most recent year, it's '91 or '92, I don't 15 recall which was the end year. 16 Q. Are you still of the opinion that the trend line 17 you used was the correct trend for those years? 18 A. Well, I'm still looking at it for the 20-year 19 evaluation that we're doing. 20 Q. Well, no, I guess my question is: Just 21 mathematically looking at the years 1977 through 1991, are 22 you still of the opinion that what you calculated to be 23 that trend is correct? 24 A. Yes. 25 Now, that's not the way I calculated the trend in 83 1 the report, though. 2 Q. Okay. Tell me how you calculated the trend in the 3 report. 4 A. We trended off an average of the last five years. 5 Instead of using the equation. 6 Q. How did do you trend off an average? 7 A. Well, we calculated the trend and then, instead of 8 using the equation, we took or I took the average of the 9 last five years of recovery rates and then added the trend 10 to that. That's about what I did. 11 Q. Rather than trending -- 12 A. From the equation. 13 Q. Let me see if I understand this. You took the 14 average of the last five years and you got, let me just 15 guess a number, 220 pounds of sugar per net ton and then 16 you took the trend line from that and went up from there? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Rather than beginning the trend line in '77 or 19 whatever beginning date you used and going out? 20 A. Correct. 21 Q. So in fact, that would give you a higher number, 22 would it not, than beginning the trend in the year you 23 began the trend analysis? 24 A. No. 25 MR. SAXE: Objection. 84 1 BY THE WITNESS: 2 A. (Continuing) No, not necessarily, no. 3 Q. Do you know whether it did? 4 A. No. 5 Q. Why did you change your method? 6 A. Because I wanted to spend more time on the trend 7 issue and more time on the recovery rate issue, so that's 8 one of the areas of the report that we're improving on. 9 Q. For your 20-year analysis? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. We'll talk about that later then. 12 Even though you are still looking at it, can you 13 tell me why you changed just from Exhibit 2 to what you put 14 in your report, your 10-year report? 15 A. Well, overall I don't exactly remember the mind 16 thought that I had between why I wanted to start to spend 17 more time on that trend or at least on our use of the 18 recovery rates, but it had something to do with feeling 19 that we could improve on the recovery rate issue in terms 20 of our analysis. 21 Q. Well, so that led you to the change from using the 22 formula to beginning the trend with the average? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Other than doing a linear regression of the trend, 25 did you do any other types of analysis of the recovery 85 1 rate? 2 A. Not that I recall. 3 Q. Let me show you another document. Just take a look 4 at that. 5 MR. BURGESS: Excuse me, Donna, did we mark that 6 last one? 7 MS. STINSON: Yes, we did, Exhibit 2. 8 BY MS. STINSON: 9 Q. At some point did you have a discussion with Carl 10 Woehelke at the Water Management District about, I don't 11 know what term to use, the returns to land or the profits 12 per acre and the difference between what he figured it was 13 and what you put in your report? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Does the document I've just showed you reflect some 16 of that discussion? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And was Mr. Woehelke of the opinion that the 19 returns to land were higher than you had calculated? 20 MR. NETTLETON: Object to the form. 21 BY THE WITNESS: 22 A. He was just trying to do some calculations with the 23 data in the USDA and wanted to know why his average came 24 out different from my average. 25 BY MS. STINSON: 86 1 Q. Did you discuss that with him? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Did you figure out why his average came out 4 different from your average? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Why? 7 A. I'm trying to remember as best I can. But after 8 looking at his, what he did, and looking at what I did, I 9 came to the conclusion that what we did was the appropriate 10 way to do it. 11 In other words, the difference between the net 12 returns per acre between his and mine were due to some 13 factors that he didn't include in his calculations. For 14 example, one of them was -- well, to be honest with you I 15 don't remember what the differences were at the moment. 16 Q. But did you review those? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And did you determine that your analysis was 19 correct? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Was inflation one of those factors? 22 A. Yes, now that you mention it. 23 Q. That he failed to consider inflation in terms of 24 costs? 25 A. Yes. 87 1 Q. Were there other matters as well, you just don't 2 remember them at this point? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Let me show you a record of a telephone 5 conversation with Ron Lord. Are those your notes? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Do you recall the substance of that discussion with 8 Mr. Lord? 9 A. At the moment I don't recall exactly what this had 10 to do with the study, but I was trying to get some 11 information on the number 14 contract, what it represents. 12 Q. What is a number 14 contract? 13 A. It's the futures price of raw sugar in New York, 14 all duties and fees paid. Raw sugar delivered to New York. 15 Q. The date of that telephone conversation is February 16 of '93; correct? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. At that point you were working on your 20-year 19 analysis; is that correct? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Have you used any of the information that you 22 obtained from Ron Lord in developing any opinions or 23 conclusions for your 20-year report? 24 A. Not that I recall at the moment, no. 25 Q. Mr. Lord is with USDA; correct? 88 1 A. Yes. 2 MR. ROSENBERG: Is that a marked exhibit? 3 MS. STINSON: No. 4 BY MS. STINSON: 5 Q. Can you identify this document, it indicates it's 6 "Costs of Production continued," but I didn't see anything 7 called costs of productions. 8 Can you tell me why it says "continued" on the file 9 name? 10 A. No, it doesn't necessarily mean that because it was 11 in this file that it was really costs of production. 12 Q. Are those your notes? 13 A. Yes. These are mine. 14 Q. What do they reflect on them? 15 A. I think this first page is now irrelevant. 16 Q. What is the first page? 17 A. Causes of maximum -- 18 It had to do with what we used for the price 19 received by the raw sugar mill. 20 Q. What you used in your 10-year report? 21 A. Yes, but as it turns out this -- this was my notes 22 that reflected an issue I was concerned about, but I have 23 taken care of the concern so this page is irrelevant. 24 Q. Can you tell me what the issue was? 25 A. Now, this one is not. 89 1 Q. Back up. What was the issue you were concerned 2 about and how you resolved it? 3 A. Making sure that we properly and as best as 4 possible represented the price received by the mill, by the 5 raw sugar mill in the EAA, and I don't exactly remember 6 writing this first page, but it is my handwriting so this 7 was an issue I was concerned about and I addressed and -- 8 Q. You have resolved that issue; is that correct? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. You now feel you know what to use as the price of 11 raw sugar -- 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. -- to be received at the mill? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Why was there a question? What about that number 16 was not clear? 17 A. Well, Ron Lacewell had called me up and he had some 18 questions about how I decided what the Everglades FOB price 19 was, and I told him. And then he asked me a couple 20 questions that made me think, hum, maybe I should, you 21 know, recheck a few things just to make sure that we 22 calculated it properly. 23 Q. Would that conversation have been shortly before 24 the date on your notes? 25 A. Probably; I don't know. 90 1 MS. STINSON: Let's go ahead and get this one 2 marked. 3 THE WITNESS: Do you want to hear about the next 4 page. 5 MS. STINSON: Yes, but let's put a marker on it 6 first. 7 (Whereupon, Johns' Exhibit No. 3 was marked for 8 identification by the Court Reporter.) 9 BY MS. STINSON: 10 Q. Before you get to the next page or maybe on the 11 next page also it says "Causes of difference"; is that what 12 it says at the top? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Causes of what differences; differences between 15 what and what? 16 A. That, I don't know. I don't recall why I wrote 17 causes of differences. 18 Q. What does the second page reflect? 19 A. Oh. This causes of differences is when we were 20 going from the 10-year to the 20-year analysis, we looked 21 at, we evaluated some of the assumptions we made on the 22 10-year analysis, and on 3/2/93 I started writing down what 23 might be the causes of the differences between the 10-year 24 forecast and the 20-year forecast. 25 Q. On any assumption? 91 1 A. Well, on this case it was the price received by the 2 raw sugar mill and the second page is the yield per acre 3 for the model farms. 4 And so for the second page here, yield per acre, we 5 actually, when we received the individual field yield per 6 acre from the Florida Sugar Cane League, it was at that 7 point really too late to really look at the individual 8 yield belt data, so we took the average that the Palm Beach 9 County property appraiser's office had already calculated. 10 Q. This is your 10-year study? 11 A. Yes, this is when we were doing our 10-year 12 study. 13 When we got to the 20-year study I said, well, 14 okay, let's look at this individual field data of each 15 yield belt that the League provided us. And when I did 16 that I realized that in yield belt five that the property 17 appraiser was appraising all the fallow fields in with all 18 the regular fields. 19 Now, because there -- apparently because there was 20 a few more fallow belts in yield belt five than in yield 21 belt four, we found that yield belt five, when they're not 22 fallow, and we took out the fallow fields in our 23 calculations for yield belt four, we found that the average 24 yields were not different from each other, in yield belt 25 four and yield belt five. 92 1 Yield belt five actual yields actually went up per 2 acre, average yield per acre went up. When I took out all 3 the fallow fields in the data. 4 The data in the yield per acre is by yield belt and 5 oftentimes you'll get -- you won't always plant the field 6 back to sugar, you'll let it go to fallow for a while. 7 That was a zero in the data. 8 So for a certain year and a certain yield belt and 9 a certain plot, piece of data might be blank, and that's 10 supposed to indicate that the field was fallow. Then the 11 next year you might have a number for that field because it 12 was planted to sugar cane. 13 So you'll have a whole time series of numbers for a 14 particular field that has positive numbers for some years 15 and zero for other years. Actually the field is blank for 16 other years. 17 What the appraiser office apparently did was 18 average even the zeros, they called the blank zeros and 19 averaged that over all the years for each yield belt. 20 So if you happen to have a lot of fallow -- a lot 21 of high frequency of fallow fields in a yield belt relative 22 to another yield belt, you will actually get a lower yield 23 in one yield belt than another. 24 And this was the case between yield belt four and 25 yield belt five. When I took out the fallow observations, 93 1 the zero observations, and recalculated the average, the 2 averages were not too different from each other and the 3 average of yield belt five is now actually higher than what 4 we used in the report. 5 Q. Wouldn't it be true that if you took out the fallow 6 fields in each yield belt, each yield belt would be higher 7 because you are taking out the zeros; right? 8 A. The northern -- the other yield belts didn't have 9 as many fallow. I took out all the fallow and I 10 recalculated all the averages. It just so happens that 11 four and five have a higher frequency of fallow fields so 12 it made a bigger difference in yield belt four and five, 13 whereas yield belt one, two and three were okay. 14 Q. Do you know whether the fact that yield belts four 15 and five have more fallow fields is because the quality of 16 the soil requires it to be left fallow more often than in 17 the other yield belts? 18 A. I have to look into that, I don't know why that -- 19 why there's more fallow fields in that data. 20 Q. Is even taking out the fallow, is it true that 21 yield decreases from yield belts one through five? 22 A. When the fallow is taken out? 23 Q. Right. 24 A. Yes, it increases, yes. 25 Q. No, I think you misunderstand my question. 94 1 Is the yield per acre for yield belt one still, 2 even taking out the fallows, still greater than the yield 3 per acre in yield belt two which is still greater than et 4 cetera, et cetera, three, four and five? 5 A. Yes, yes, until you get to four and five. 6 Q. And four and five are similar? 7 A. Are similar. 8 Q. Does that document, Exhibit 3, discuss any other 9 differences in assumptions? 10 A. No. 11 MR. NETTLETON: Can we have a break for five 12 minutes. 13 MS. STINSON: Sure. 14 (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.) 15 (Whereupon, a discussion was held off the record.) 16 BY MS. STINSON: 17 Q. Miss Johns, you sent a letter, did you not, on 18 February 24 to Mr. Fred Hill requesting some information? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Have you received a response to that request? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Subsequent to that letter, did you have a telephone 23 conversation with Mr. Hill about some of the issues? 24 A. I tried to have a telephone conversation with 25 Mr. Hill. I only got as far as his secretary and she asked 95 1 me to put it in a letter and that's why we have the letter. 2 Q. Did someone give you the information that 25 3 percent of the sugar has gone to Texas and Louisiana, 50 4 percent to Savannah and 25 percent to New York and 5 Baltimore? 6 A. Yes, the percentages in the letter were something 7 that Ron Lord just suggested I try asking him. 8 Q. This was not information that Mr. Hill had given 9 you by telephone? 10 A. No. No, no. 11 MR. SAXE: Counselor, can I see that document. 12 MS. STINSON: Yes, just one second. Let me ask 13 one more. 14 BY MS. STINSON: 15 Q. There's a comment on here, if I can read it right, 16 it says 85 cents per pound freight estimate GT; is that 17 what that says? 18 A. GJ. 19 Q. GJ? 20 A. (Indicating.) 21 Q. That's your estimate? What is that figure? 22 A. That's an estimate I came up with based on 23 information in an USDA publication. 24 Q. And that, what does that figure represent, an 25 estimate of what? 96 1 A. The cost of freight to ship sugar from the EAA to 2 its markets. 3 Q. Is that your current opinion, current thinking as 4 to what that figure should be? 5 A. I don't recall. 6 MS. STINSON: Let's mark this one. 7 (Whereupon, Johns' Exhibit No. 4 was marked for 8 identification by the Court Reporter.) 9 BY MS. STINSON: 10 Q. Let me show you what's been marked as Exhibit 4 and 11 ask you to identify what that represents. 12 A. These are notes from a meeting with Barry Glaz at 13 Canal Point USDA. 14 Q. I'm sorry, with whom? 15 A. Barry Glaz. 16 Q. Who is he? 17 A. He is an agronomist with USDA in Canal Point. 18 Q. Why did you meet with him? 19 A. To understand the type of sugar cane varietal 20 research that is being done at USDA in Canal Point. 21 Q. Was anyone else at that meeting? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Help me understand your handwriting here. Can you 24 read the top of -- above the horizontal line there 25 (indicating). 97 1 A. I was trying to ask them if they had done specific 2 experiments to produce varieties that were more -- that 3 were easier to mechanically cut and successively replant 4 versus to let the land go fallow and hand cut. 5 In other words, if they were -- oh, moving, that's 6 what that word, moving from experiments where cane is 7 fallowed/hand cut to successive/mechanical cut. 8 Q. What was the response? 9 A. I don't recall on that one. I'm not sure if that 10 was an answer or a question. 11 Q. Did Mr. -- 12 A. Glaz. 13 Q. -- Glaz indicate to you that yield per acre will 14 never go up in Florida? 15 A. Their -- yes, only because of experimental, they're 16 not really -- the growers don't want necessarily an 17 increase in yield per acre, they want an increase in the 18 amount of sugar in the cane. 19 Q. When you say "yield per acre," you are talking 20 about cane, not sugar per acre; is that correct? 21 A. Correct. 22 (Whereupon, the pertinent portion of the Record was 23 read back by the Court Reporter.) 24 BY MS. STINSON: 25 Q. Did you speak with Mr. Glaz about whether the sugar 98 1 per acre would increase in Florida? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And do your notes reflect his comments on that 4 topic? 5 A. I can tell you what he said but I don't know if I 6 can back it up with the notes. 7 Q. Well, tell me what he said. 8 A. He said that they were trying to produce varieties 9 that had more sugar in them. 10 Q. Did he indicate to you what he thought the 11 prospects may be for that? 12 A. He thought they were good. 13 Q. Did he give you any kind of estimate of numbers, 14 recovery rate? 15 A. I tried to get his opinion. He gave me his best 16 opinion at the time. 17 Q. What was that? 18 A. That they would increase to a maximum. 19 Q. Did he give you the maximum? 20 A. I'm not sure if he did or not. 21 Q. Are you using any of the information you obtained 22 from him in your 20-year analysis? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. In what respect? 25 A. Just the respect at this point where they are 99 1 expending effort to produce sugar cane varieties with 2 higher sugar content in them. 3 Q. Did he give you anything more specific in terms of 4 time it will take to develop these or what the prospects 5 are for, a trend line or anything on that that you are 6 using in your 20-year analysis? 7 A. He didn't have a problem with us using a trend, he 8 was just trying to provide an opinion on the maximum and he 9 might not have completely finalized that during our 10 conversation. 11 Q. Has he, since that conversation, supplied you with 12 any specifics? 13 A. No. 14 Q. Have you spoken with Frank Coale regarding recovery 15 rate? 16 A. I don't remember. 17 Q. Look at Exhibit 4, there's a comment in the corner 18 here, it says "Yet to be released high sugar, freeze 19 tolerant, stands straight" and some other things. 20 Do you know what that refers to? 21 A. No. 22 Q. You don't recall? 23 A. No, don't recall. 24 Q. Did you discuss with Mr. Glaz the effect of higher 25 water tables on yield or the effect of -- 100 1 A. I may have. 2 Q. Did you discuss with him the effect of BMPs on 3 yield? 4 A. I don't remember. 5 Q. Did you discuss with him a lower use of phosphorus 6 on yield? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And did he have any opinions with regard to whether 9 decreasing the use of phosphorus would affect yield? 10 A. I don't remember. 11 Q. Did you discuss with him the possibility of sugar 12 production expanding acreage outside the EAA? 13 A. Talked about sand land but I don't remember that 14 specifically, no. 15 Q. Did you discuss with him whether there is potential 16 for increasing sugar production in Florida? 17 MR. NETTLETON: Object to the form. 18 BY THE WITNESS: 19 A. The question's not clear to me. 20 BY MS. STINSON: 21 Q. Did Mr. Glaz have any opinions with regard to 22 whether there was other acreage that could be used for 23 sugar production in Florida on a commercial basis? 24 A. I don't recall. 25 Could you repeat that question again, I'm not sure 101 1 if I answered it right. 2 (Whereupon, the pertinent portion of the Record was 3 read back by the Court Reporter.) 4 THE WITNESS: Okay. 5 BY MS. STINSON: 6 Q. Does your answer stand? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Did you discuss with Mr. Glaz whether there's a 9 difference in results whether cane is mechanically 10 harvested or harvested by hand? 11 A. I asked him if he had any -- if they had 12 specifically developed varieties in the past that made it 13 easier to use mechanical harvesters on. 14 Q. And what did he respond? 15 A. He said no, they didn't specifically do that; 16 however, they did happen to select for varieties that stood 17 straight up and that tended to help but they weren't 18 specifically thinking about mechanical harvesting. 19 Q. Now, Mr. Glaz gave you his opinion that yield per 20 acre, cane per acre would go down but that sugar per ton of 21 cane would -- could go up; is that correct? 22 MR. NETTLETON: Object to the form. 23 BY THE WITNESS: 24 A. No, that's not correct. 25 BY MS. STINSON: 102 1 Q. How was I wrong? 2 A. He was just saying that they weren't going to focus 3 on increasing tons per acre, they were going to focus on 4 increasing the amount of sugar in the cane. 5 Q. Did he indicate to you any opinion with regard to 6 whether yields per acre, cane per acre would go up or down? 7 A. No, he didn't say either way. 8 Q. Did he not indicate to you that the yield per acre 9 will, at best, stay the same and probably trend down 10 (handing Exhibit 4)? 11 A. Yes, maybe he did say that, since I have it in my 12 notes, but, see, when he said that, he wasn't real 13 committed to that. I mean, it was like we're not going to 14 go either way in terms of up or down. 15 The growers want it down a little bit -- 16 Well, this is by ratoon, so they want the first 17 ratoon higher and the second ratoon constant and the third 18 ratoon lower than it is now. 19 Q. What do you mean "they want" it? 20 A. Well, the growers tell the USDA what they want, in 21 terms of the type of cane they want, so there's a plant 22 cane and then there's ratoons, and so, they like it to be a 23 certain -- 24 My understanding that I recall is that they like it 25 to be a certain tons per acre for each, the plant and the 103 1 ratoon. So even though I do have this written, I don't -- 2 my impression was that it wouldn't trend down 3 significantly. 4 They -- what he communicated to me, Mr. Glaz, was 5 that they were going to concentrate on increasing the sugar 6 production but they were not going to concentrate on 7 changing the yield, either increasing or decreasing. 8 Q. Now, we've been discussing throughout this 9 deposition the fact that you are currently working on a 10 20-year study; correct? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. You finished your 10-year study in September or 13 thereabouts of '92; is that correct? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. How did it come to be that you are now doing a 16 20-year study? 17 A. The District called me up and asked me if I would 18 do -- if I would extend the analysis to 20 years, and I 19 said yes. 20 Q. When did you get that call? 21 A. I don't recall exactly when. 22 Q. Was it right after you turned in your 10-year 23 report or a few months later? 24 A. It was probably a month or so later. 25 Q. Had you had any contact with the district between 104 1 the time you turned in your contract completion report on 2 the 10-year and when you got the phone call for the 20? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. What contact? 5 A. I do recall they asked me to write a letter that 6 said, you know, what I thought should be done next in terms 7 of this evaluation, and I did jot down some things for them 8 in a letter and they -- that was about the only contact I 9 recall having. 10 Q. Well, after you got the phone call, then what? 11 A. I guess -- 12 Q. Did you get together and negotiate a new contract? 13 A. It was mostly done over the phone. 14 Q. Did you enter into a new contract or was it an 15 extension of the pre-existing contract; do you recall? 16 A. A new contract. 17 Q. And do you remember when that was executed? 18 A. No. 19 Q. When did you begin work on the 20-year evaluation? 20 A. About December. 21 Q. Are you working similarly on a 20-year look at 22 benefits? 23 A. No. 24 Q. Or in any way updating or changing the benefits 25 side? 105 1 A. No. 2 MS. STINSON: Let me have this marked. 3 (Whereupon, Johns' Exhibit No. 5 was marked for 4 identification by the Court Reporter.) 5 BY MS. STINSON: 6 Q. Would you identify what's been marked as Exhibit 5, 7 please. 8 A. (Reading.) 9 Q. Would you identify it for the record? 10 A. It's a letter from Pete Rhoades to me. 11 Q. What's the date of the letter? 12 A. May 22, 1992. 13 Q. At the time that letter was written, was he the 14 Water Management District person to whom you reported? 15 A. Probably, since Paul Muncy was departing that day. 16 Q. And he took over those responsibilities for Paul? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. In here it indicates that you recommended using a 19 10-year horizon rather than a 20-year horizon due to 20 problems in predicting domestic and international issues; 21 correct? 22 A. That's what, his interpretation of what I said. 23 Q. Tell me, is that not correct? 24 A. That wasn't the reason why I wanted to go from 20 25 to 10. 106 1 Q. What is the reason you wanted to? 2 A. To spend more time and effort on the 20 years 3 analysis and -- 4 Q. On the 20 years? 5 A. To spend more time on the first 10 years and spend 6 no time on the second 10-year period so that we could spend 7 more time on the first 10 years, so that we could feel 8 happy and comfortable and confident with our evaluation of 9 the first 10 years. 10 Q. Are you saying that, given the scope of your 11 contract, you didn't feel you had the time or the funds to 12 be able to do an adequate 20-year look? 13 MR. NETTLETON: Object to the form. 14 BY THE WITNESS: 15 A. Well, you might infer it from that, but I guess in 16 that time period that we had I wanted to spend more time on 17 the first 10 years and get that finished, completed first. 18 BY MS. STINSON: 19 Q. This letter also states you further indicated 20 support for the shorter horizon by the Justice review 21 group. Who is the Justice review group? 22 A. I imagine he was referring to the economists hired 23 by the Justice Department. 24 He had asked me when I talked to him over the 25 phone, either him or Paul Muncy, I don't remember which 107 1 one, they asked if -- what I thought about what the Justice 2 Department economists thought about it. And I told Paul or 3 Pete, one or the other, that they didn't have a problem 4 with going from 20 years to 10 years. 5 Q. Who with the Justice Review Group had you discussed 6 that issue with? 7 A. Ron Lacewell and Lonnie Jones. 8 Q. Had the Water District indicated to you that the 9 Justice Department economists should review what you did? 10 A. Could you say that one more time. 11 MR. NETTLETON: Object to the form. 12 MR. SAXE: Object to the form. Characterization. 13 They're not Justice Department economists. You are 14 mischaracterizing or misquoting the witness. 15 MR. NETTLETON: I just object to the form. 16 BY MS. STINSON: 17 Q. Rather than Justice Department economists, 18 economists retained by the Justice Department but the same 19 question. 20 MR. NETTLETON: Same objection too. 21 BY THE WITNESS: 22 A. The District -- all we were supposed to do for the 23 District, the economists hired by the District was to just 24 show them what we were doing. 25 BY MS. STINSON: 108 1 Q. Hired by the District? 2 A. I mean the Justice Department. Was to show them 3 what we were doing. They were not rubber stamp. They were 4 not a review committee that said good or bad. 5 In my mind we were just showing them what we were 6 doing. 7 MS. STINSON: Let's have this marked. 8 (Whereupon, Johns' Exhibit No. 6 was marked for 9 identification by the Court Reporter.) 10 BY MS. STINSON: 11 Q. Would you tell me what Exhibit 6 is, please? 12 A. This is the draft of the benefits report -- 13 Oh, wait a minute, I don't know what this is. Hold 14 on. I ought to look at it. 15 This is a memorandum updating the benefits report. 16 In other words, the progress report, progress for the 17 benefits report. 18 Q. It was sent to you by Richard Carson who was 19 working on it; is that correct? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Was it sent to you for your review? 22 A. Let me see the front page and see what it says. 23 (Perusing) Yes. 24 Q. In here it indicates that "our working assumption 25 is that a relatively healthy ecosystem will result if the 109 1 proposed PLAN is implemented along with the measures 2 currently being implemented by the Army Corps of 3 Engineers.". 4 Do you know how he arrived at that working 5 assumption? 6 A. I don't remember. 7 Q. Did you have discussions with him about that 8 assumption? 9 A. I don't remember. 10 Q. Do you know what he means by "the measures 11 currently being implemented by the Army Corps of 12 Engineers"? 13 A. I can only guess, I don't know. I do not know what 14 he was referring to there. 15 Q. Do you know where he would have gotten that 16 information? 17 A. No. 18 Q. Do you know whether anyone instructed him to make 19 that assumption, anyone from the District? 20 A. This was based on discussions between me and him 21 and perhaps Paul Muncy, maybe Pete Rhoades. 22 Ultimately what we decided to do, though, on this 23 was not to even relate the study to the plan. This was 24 sort of a working, you know, in the middle of the project 25 memo where we're discussing, you know, how to go about 110 1 performing on the project, estimating the benefits. 2 So at the beginning, we were actually going to try 3 to link the benefits to the SWIM Plan but it came real 4 clear that, you know, pretty quickly that we really 5 couldn't do that at this time, so we just decided with the 6 approval of Pete Rhoades to look at three levels of injury 7 prevention as opposed to trying to tie it to the SWIM Plan. 8 Q. Is that because in addition to the projects in 9 the SWIM Plan other things needed to be done to solve the 10 problems in the Everglades? 11 MR. SAXE: Objection to form. 12 What is the "that" you are referring to, Counsel? 13 BY THE WITNESS: 14 A. I don't know. 15 MS. STINSON: She said she didn't know anyway. 16 BY MS. STINSON: 17 Q. Then why did it become clear, what made it clear 18 that the benefits could not be or should not be linked to 19 the SWIM Plan as you just indicated? 20 A. Because there was no formal document that said 21 what the Everglades would look like if you implemented the 22 SWIM Plan. 23 Q. Do you know whether Richard Carson, in his work, 24 ever visited the Everglades? 25 A. I don't -- oh -- 111 1 I don't know. 2 Q. To your knowledge, did he come to Florida and 3 meet with you and -- 4 A. Not to my -- no, he did not come and meet with 5 me. 6 Q. Did he speak directly with people at the Water 7 Management District? 8 A. Yes, I believe so. 9 Q. Do you know who he dealt with there? 10 A. Well, Pete Rhoades was one of them. And I don't 11 remember who he talked to. 12 Q. You indicated that there was no formal document 13 that linked, I think you said what the Everglades would 14 look like with the SWIM Plan implemented; is that correct? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. In addition to there being no formal document, was 17 there any information upon which an economist could look at 18 the Everglades with and without the SWIM Plan? 19 A. There was not enough information at that time. 20 Q. Do you think there is, at this time? 21 A. I don't know. 22 Q. Let me show you another document and just ask if 23 those are your notes in the margins on sort of the back 24 pages. 25 A. What is the question? 112 1 Q. Are those your handwritten notes? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Is that your editing of Richard Carson's draft? 4 A. Yes. 5 MS. STINSON: Let's have this marked. 6 (Whereupon, Johns' Exhibit No. 7 was marked for 7 identification by the Court Reporter.) 8 BY MS. STINSON: 9 Q. Would you please identify for the record Exhibit 7. 10 The question pends, would you identify it for the record. 11 A. Yes, this is a letter I wrote to Richard Carson on 12 May 5, 1992. 13 Q. Does that letter discuss the reasons that the 14 benefit assessment should not be of the SWIM Plan that 15 we -- 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. -- discussed a few minutes ago? 18 A. Yes, that's one of the reasons. 19 Q. Let me ask you a couple of questions about that. 20 You indicate in here Mr. Muncy, that "he says it is 21 okay to evaluate the benefits of the Everglades as it 22 exists now versus a worthless, destroyed Everglades. The 23 United States Justice Department concurs." 24 A. Um hum. 25 Q. Did you discuss that with anyone at the U.S. 113 1 Justice Department? 2 A. Yes, the economists for the -- that were hired by 3 the Justice Department. 4 Q. Who, in particular? 5 A. Lonnie Jones and Ron Lacewell and Tio Assuno 6 (phonetic) was also at that meeting. 7 Q. You had an in-person meeting? 8 A. Yes, that's one of the things that they talked 9 about, we talked about. 10 Q. Was it important that the United States Justice 11 Department concur in that approach to the benefits study? 12 MR. SAXE: Objection. 13 MR. NETTLETON: Object to the form. 14 BY THE WITNESS: 15 A. You'll have to repeat the question because I don't 16 remember. 17 BY MS. STINSON: 18 Q. Did you feel it was important that the United 19 States Justice Department concur in that approach to the 20 benefits? 21 MR. NETTLETON: Same objection. 22 BY THE WITNESS: 23 A. I didn't have an opinion either way. 24 BY MS. STINSON: 25 Q. Did anyone at the District indicate to you that you 114 1 should find out whether the U.S. Justice Department 2 concurred? 3 A. Nobody told me that I should get concurrence from 4 the Justice Department. 5 MR. SAXE: I'd like to take a look at that exhibit 6 at some point, Counsel. 7 MS. STINSON: Certainly. 8 BY MS. STINSON: 9 Q. In here you indicate: "Despite what others may 10 believe, I would feel more comfortable taking this approach 11 only if the benefits are estimated in response to the 12 effective solution of problems a through e as described in 13 the SWIM Plan on page ii, which also includes the impacts 14 of the Settlement Agreement." 15 MR. SAXE: Are you reading from the document or 16 paraphrasing? 17 MS. STINSON: I'm reading. 18 THE WITNESS: This is it (indicating). 19 BY MS. STINSON: 20 Q. Did the problems, and I apologize I don't have the 21 SWIM Plan in front of me, but do you recall whether 22 problems a through e in the SWIM Plan include problems that 23 will not be solved by the SWIM Plan? 24 MR. NETTLETON: Object to the form. 25 BY MS. STINSON: 115 1 Q. Does that make any sense to you? 2 A. No. 3 Q. No. 4 Do you recall what problems a through e are? 5 A. No, I'd have to take a look at it, I don't 6 remember. 7 Q. Okay, we'll do that tomorrow when we get a copy 8 of it. 9 You indicate here too, and I'll read all the words, 10 "If we take this approach, the public will, no doubt, try 11 to compare the benefits we estimate with the economic 12 impact (costs) of the Settlement Agreement. This is not 13 appropriate unless we also consider the costs of solving 14 problems a, b, d and e.". 15 Was it your opinion at that time that it is not -- 16 that comparing the benefits to be determined in the 17 benefits report as opposed to the economic impacts in your 18 impact side of the report is like comparing apples and 19 oranges, they were measuring two different things? 20 A. I don't understand the question. 21 Q. Did the benefits report and the impact report 22 measure the benefits and impacts of the same thing? 23 A. No. 24 Q. So in your opinion, or is it true that in your 25 opinion it is not fair to compare the one against the 116 1 other? 2 MR. NETTLETON: Object to the form. 3 MR. SAXE: Objection to form. 4 BY THE WITNESS: 5 A. It's a confusing question. You've got the 6 economic -- the economic evaluation evaluates a specific 7 part of the SWIM Plan, whereas the benefits looks at the 8 value of preserving certain -- I'm sorry, the value of 9 preventing three different types of injuries to the 10 Everglades. Now, those injuries may or may not be related 11 to the SWIM Plan. 12 BY MS. STINSON: 13 Q. But there is nothing to link the two? 14 MR. NETTLETON: Object to the form. 15 BY THE WITNESS: 16 A. Not directly. 17 BY MS. STINSON: 18 Q. Do you know whether there was done, is being done 19 or will be done a benefits study to relate specifically to 20 that which the impact study measures? 21 A. I don't know. 22 Q. You know of none? 23 A. I know of none. 24 Q. Here where you say that "he," Mr. Muncy, "says it 25 is okay to evaluate the benefits of the Everglades as it 117 1 exists now versus the worthless, destroyed Everglades," do 2 you know whether there are any documents which would 3 indicate that without the SWIM Plan the Everglades would be 4 worthless and destroyed? 5 A. I have never seen any documents like that, that I 6 recall. 7 Now, the SWIM Plan might say that somewhere, but I 8 don't remember exactly. I've read the SWIM Plan but I 9 don't remember everything I've read in it. Just let me 10 qualify that answer. 11 Q. You wrote a letter at one point requesting 12 information on where the sugar cane and vegetable growers 13 and mills purchase their supplies and machines; did you not? 14 A. Yes, I did ask them. 15 Q. Did you ever get an answer? 16 A. No -- no, I did not. Not that I recall. 17 MR. NETTLETON: Can you identify that letter? 18 MS. STINSON: I'm not going to put it in. Just 19 wanted to refresh her recollection. 20 MR. NETTLETON: Just for the record, can you 21 identify who the letter was to? 22 BY MS. STINSON: 23 Q. If you like. 24 A. It's a letter to Andrew Bernstein from me dated 25 May 5, 1992. 118 1 MS. STINSON: Let's have this one marked as 8. 2 (Whereupon, Johns' Exhibit No. 8 was marked for 3 identification by the Court Reporter.) 4 BY MS. STINSON: 5 Q. Does Exhibit 8 reflect additional editing you did 6 of the NRDA benefits work? 7 A. Yes, the handwritten stuff is my edits, reflects my 8 edits. 9 Q. Do you know what the shaded portion represents? 10 A. I don't remember. 11 Q. You don't remember whether it was something -- 12 there's also underlined portions, is there not, or stricken 13 through portions? 14 A. Um hum. 15 Q. Do you know what each of those represents? 16 A. This may be how they changed it from one edit to 17 the next, what they added and what they deleted. 18 Q. A little bit ago we were talking about the 20-year 19 report and you said you had gotten a phone call and that 20 you had written a letter suggesting what should be done for 21 the 20-year study; is that correct? 22 A. No -- 23 Yes. Yes, that's correct. 24 MS. STINSON: Would you mark this. 25 Q. Well, let me ask you first, does what I'm showing 119 1 you represent what you suggested should be done for the 2 20-year look? 3 A. Yes, this looks right. 4 MS. STINSON: Let's go ahead and get it marked as 5 Exhibit 9. 6 (Whereupon, Johns' Exhibit No. 9 was marked for 7 identification by the Court Reporter.) 8 MS. STINSON: Let's mark this too. 9 (Whereupon, Johns' Exhibit No. 10 was marked for 10 identification by the Court Reporter.) 11 BY MS. STINSON: 12 Q. Tell me, if you would, please, what 10 is. 13 MR. SAXE: May I see Exhibit 9, please, Counsel. 14 MS. STINSON: Yes, I'm sorry. You wanted to see 15 8 too; didn't you? 16 MR. SAXE: Yes. 17 BY THE WITNESS: 18 A. This is a letter I wrote to Sally Mlecz at the 19 South Florida Water Management District on October 7, 20 1991 -- 1991? 1992. 21 BY MS. STINSON: 22 Q. Does it propose some additional work? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Was that work funded? 25 A. No. 120 1 Q. How did you come to propose that additional work? 2 A. I was asked to by, I believe it was by Sally, to 3 write up a proposal to do additional work. 4 Q. And the District determined not to do that; is 5 that correct? 6 A. It was not funded at that time, that's right. 7 Q. Has it ever been funded? 8 A. No, I guess not. Not in that form. 9 MR. BURGESS: What was the date? 10 MS. STINSON: October 7 of '92. 11 BY MS. STINSON: 12 Q. Is any of the work in Exhibit 10 reflected or is it 13 being done in your 20-year analysis? 14 A. That's -- I don't know, let me look at it again, if 15 you want me to answer it. 16 Q. Okay. 17 A. (Perusing exhibit 10) Well, the meeting at Hazen 18 and Sawyer's office with economists, that was done under 19 this newest contract. 20 The memorandum on sources and soundness of 21 differences, we've done that, I believe. 22 That's it. 23 Q. The memorandum on sources of differences, was that 24 that handwritten document we were looking at earlier? 25 A. No, it's -- it's either a letter or a memo written 121 1 to either Sally or Pete Rhoades. 2 Q. Was that letter written after a meeting with 3 economists in December; do you recall? 4 A. Yes. And there was also one written before then. 5 MS. STINSON: Number 11, would you mark that, 6 please. 7 (Whereupon, Johns' Exhibit No. 11 was marked for 8 identification by the Court Reporter.) 9 BY MS. STINSON: 10 Q. I believe you did mention earlier that you were 11 asked to give a letter to suggest additional issues that 12 could be addressed after you completed your 10-year report. 13 Does Exhibit 11 reflect your suggestions in that 14 regard? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And then does Exhibit 9 then reflect continuing 17 thinking about what should be done for a 20-year analysis? 18 MR. SAXE: Objection to form. 19 BY THE WITNESS: 20 A. Yes, I don't understand the question. 21 BY MS. STINSON: 22 Q. Well, Exhibit 11 precedes Exhibit 9; correct? 23 Exhibit 11 reflects what you think should be done; correct? 24 A. Is this -- yes, if this one is Exhibit 11, then 25 you are right, yes. 122 1 Q. Essentially is Exhibit 9 a follow-up to Exhibit 11? 2 A. No. Exhibit 9 is responding to a request from 3 Peter Rhoades at the South Florida Water Management 4 District. And so is Exhibit 11, but Exhibit 9 is a 5 proposal that's going to be funded whereas Exhibit 11 is 6 issues that the District might want to consider. 7 Q. Who is Jeffrey Morris, is he somebody -- 8 A. Jeffrey Morris, he was also somebody we 9 subcontracted with to help us complete the economic impact 10 evaluation. I forgot about him. 11 Q. Is he working on the 20-year analysis? 12 A. No. 13 Q. What was his role? 14 A. His role was to look at the different mitigation 15 methods used in other parts of the country. His work 16 corresponds to one of the chapters in the report, one of 17 those later chapters in the report about what other 18 agencies in the United States have done to mitigate the 19 economic impacts of environmental regulations. 20 Q. Are you not proposing to change that portion of 21 your analysis for the 20-year? 22 A. No, I'm not proposing to change that portion of the 23 analysis. 24 MR. SAXE: What is the spelling of the last name 25 on that person? 123 1 THE WITNESS: M o r r i s. 2 BY MS. STINSON: 3 Q. Norman Pearson was the guy who worked on BMPs; is 4 that correct? 5 A. Yes. 6 MS. STINSON: Would you mark that as 12. 7 (Whereupon, Johns' Exhibit No. 12 was marked for 8 identification by the Court Reporter.) 9 BY MS. STINSON: 10 Q. Before I get on to 12, let me ask you a backup 11 question. 12 Am I correct in understanding that NRDA was a 13 subcontractor to Hazen and Sawyer for the benefits report? 14 A. That's correct. 15 Q. Do you have copies of all of NRDA's working files 16 and data and information that they used in producing their 17 report? 18 A. No, they're in La Jolla. 19 MS. STINSON: Paul, do you know whether those 20 were produced? 21 MR. NETTLETON: We produced whatever we had. 22 MS. STINSON: Well, does that include the 23 subcontractors' documents? 24 MR. NETTLETON: I don't know. 25 MS. STINSON: How would I find that out? I mean 124 1 I think as, insofar as it was a subcontract, they 2 should have been included, and frankly, it didn't occur 3 to me but I think it's included in the request since 4 the request is directed to Dr. Johns. 5 Can you find out for me whether those were 6 produced? 7 MR. NETTLETON: Yes, I can find that out. 8 MS. STINSON: Thank you. 9 BY MS. STINSON: 10 Q. Would you identify Exhibit 12, please. 11 A. This is a memorandum from Jose Alvarez to me 12 dated February 2, 1993. 13 Q. Why was he sending you a memorandum, what is it 14 about? 15 A. I asked him, I had asked him to comment on our 16 report, to write an evaluation of our report, you know, 17 what he thought of it. 18 Q. Of your 10-year report? 19 A. Yes. 20 Let me make -- double check to make sure that 21 everything is what I said it was (perusing Exhibit 12). 22 Q. Point one, Mr. Alvarez indicates that maximum 23 prices per net ton, he says, "Perhaps I still don't 24 understand the reasons behind your methodology but they 25 seem too high.". 125 1 Are these your handwritten notes in the margin? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. There's a handwritten note that says "Maximum price 4 includes mill profit.". 5 Can you explain to me what that paragraph and your 6 comment are about? 7 A. Yes, he's referring to the maximum price that the 8 mill would pay the sugar cane grower for sugar cane and our 9 calculations, what it does is it allows all the profits to 10 sugar, raw sugar production and sugar -- sugar cane 11 production to go toward the bottom line, called residual 12 returns to land and risk. 13 And so you make the transfer of profit from the 14 mill to the sugar cane production enterprise using the 15 maximum price the mill would pay the grower for sugar cane 16 per ton of sugar care and he, at that time, did not 17 understand this. 18 Q. Have you subsequently discussed that issue with 19 him? 20 A. No. 21 Q. So you don't know whether he concurs or not with 22 your approach? 23 A. Correct. 24 Q. Point two, he asks "Why do you use the two ratoon 25 average in all of them," I believe that means in all yield 126 1 belts. 2 Did you have an explanation for that question? 3 A. Well, you have to point it out to me on this memo. 4 Q. It's point number two. 5 A. Oh. 6 Q. The second numbered paragraph. 7 A. What was your question, now that I've read it? 8 Q. Did you have an explanation for or an answer to his 9 question? 10 A. Okay. Well, our answer, the USDA cost data is 11 averaged for all of the EAA, but we may be able to 12 re-evaluate that here. 13 Q. Have you talked to Mr. Alvarez about that issue? 14 A. No. 15 Q. Have you, in fact, had any conversations with him 16 after you received that memo from him -- 17 A. No. 18 Q. -- about the issues in the memo? 19 A. No. 20 Q. Do you intend to? 21 A. Yes. 22 MR. BURGESS: What is the date of that? 23 MS. STINSON: February 2, '93. 24 BY MS. STINSON: 25 Q. Let me just ask you to look at this one and ask you 127 1 a question. 2 Have you suggested to the District that it would be 3 a good idea to develop models to make it easier to assess 4 alternative BMPs and other practices, other proposals in 5 the EAA? 6 MR. SAXE: Object to the form. 7 MR. NETTLETON: Object to the form. 8 BY THE WITNESS: 9 A. I put -- I actually talked about that a long time 10 ago before this happened, but Sally actually called and 11 asked me to write up a proposal for doing this. 12 BY MS. STINSON: 13 Q. Has that proposal been funded? Are you developing 14 a spreadsheet? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Has the District said yes, they'll pay you to do 17 that? 18 A. Yes. 19 MS. STINSON: Let's go ahead and mark this then. 20 THE WITNESS: (Continuing) Now, that stuff on the 21 back, I don't know what that is. 22 MS. STINSON: Okay, we'll take it off. 23 (Whereupon, Johns' Exhibit No. 13 was marked for 24 identification by the Court Reporter.) 25 BY MS. STINSON: 128 1 Q. What we just talked about with regard to 2 developing a spreadsheet is talked about in Exhibit 13, 3 just so the record is clear. 4 A. Are you waiting for me to answer? 5 Q. Yes. 6 A. What is the question? 7 Q. What we were just discussing with regard to 8 developing a spreadsheet is reflected in Exhibit 13; is 9 that correct? 10 A. Yes. 11 MR. SAXE: May I see this, please. 12 THE WITNESS: (Handing Exhibit 13.) 13 MS. STINSON: Would you go ahead and mark that 14 14. 15 (Whereupon, Johns' Exhibit No. 14 was marked for 16 identification by the Court Reporter.) 17 BY MS. STINSON: 18 Q. Tell me what Exhibit 14 is. 19 A. This is where I actually formally write up the 20 scope of work, it's related to the -- 21 Q. Exhibit 13? 22 A. -- Exhibit 13. 23 Q. And has your proposal, as reflected in Exhibit 14, 24 been funded? 25 A. Yes. I'm told. 129 1 Q. You have not yet received the written -- 2 A. I don't have a contract yet. 3 Q. Have you produced the model, the computer model 4 that's discussed in Exhibit 14? 5 A. No. 6 Q. Are you working on it? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Before I mark it, tell me what that document is. 9 A. This is some notes that I wrote up. 10 Q. When and why? 11 A. I wrote them up, I think I wrote them up during one 12 of the governing board workshops or meetings. 13 Q. While you were in the meeting? 14 A. Yes, in case I would have to speak before the 15 board, I would at least have in my head what I wanted to 16 say. 17 Q. Do you recall when? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Would it have been recently, I mean -- 20 A. No, a while ago. 21 Q. Before -- 22 A. (Continuing) Maybe -- it might, I'm trying to 23 think. 24 It might have been the day after I gave my 25 presentation regarding the economic impacts to the 130 1 governing board at the workshop. 2 Q. And when was that? 3 A. In August. 4 Q. August. 5 A. But I never gave it. Never got to give it. I 6 don't even know why I have it. 7 MS. STINSON: Let's get this one marked as Exhibit 8 15. 9 (Whereupon, Johns' Exhibit No. 15 was marked for 10 identification by the Court Reporter.) 11 BY MS. STINSON: 12 Q. Tell me what 15 is. Are those your notes? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And what are they? 15 A. This is a summary of the meetings that I had with 16 other people related to this project and the first page is 17 the list of Ag Economists who received a copy of the 18 report. 19 Q. When did you make up this list, do you recall? 20 A. Probably before the governing board meeting in 21 August. 22 Q. The first page is entitled "Peer reviewers"; 23 correct? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. And are those people to whom you sent the report to 131 1 receive comment from? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And that includes one of the economists retained by 4 the Justice Department, Lonnie Jones? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Does it contain, are there any names of any 7 economists representing agricultural interests? 8 A. No. 9 Well, what do you mean by that? I don't know 10 exactly what you mean "representing agricultural 11 interests." 12 Q. The league, Sugar Cane League, or the sugar co-op 13 or the Fruit and Vegetable Association? 14 MR. NETTLETON: Object. Object to the form. 15 BY THE WITNESS: 16 A. As far as I knew, there were no agricultural 17 economists on any of those. 18 BY MS. STINSON: 19 Q. How did you choose the peer reviewers? 20 MR. SAXE: Object to the form. 21 MR. NETTLETON: Same. 22 MR. SAXE: Assumes facts not in evidence. I didn't 23 hear the witness testify she had chosen the peer 24 reviewers. 25 BY MS. STINSON: 132 1 Q. Did you choose to whom you sent copies of the 2 report? 3 A. Some I did, some I didn't. 4 Q. The ones you didn't, how were they chosen? 5 A. The District asked me to send a copy to them. 6 Q. How was this list of peer reviewers determined 7 that's indicated -- 8 A. If you provide -- any Ag economist or anyone who 9 provided key information into -- that helped us with the 10 report, in other words, provided key information that we 11 used, it was sent to, and then the rest of them were sent 12 to them because we either wanted their opinion or we were 13 asked by the District to send it to them. 14 Q. With regard to Lonnie Jones, did he provide any 15 information to you that you used in the report? 16 A. Not that I recall. 17 Q. Why did you send him a copy? 18 A. I was asked to by the District. 19 Q. What about Ron Lacewell, did he provide you any 20 information? 21 A. Not that I recall. 22 Q. And why did you send him a copy? 23 A. Because I was -- the District asked me to. 24 Q. And what about Bill Boggess? 25 A. He was helpful throughout the project with 133 1 information, so I sent him one. 2 Q. Were you aware that he was retained by the U.S. 3 Department of Justice? 4 A. At the time I, no, I was not aware. My 5 understanding was that he wasn't retained until, you know, 6 August or something like that. 7 Q. Let me show you a record of a telephone 8 conversation apparently with George Snyder. 9 Did you speak with George Snyder on that day, on 10 February 24, that you recall? 11 A. Yes, I did speak to George Snyder. 12 Q. Did you discuss with him the issue of soil 13 subsidence? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Do those notes that I've shown you reflect your 16 conversation with him on that issue? 17 A. Yes, this all in all reflects what we talked about. 18 Q. Are you using information you have obtained from 19 him in your 20-year analysis? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Also, let me show you a telephone conversation note 22 with RL. Who is RL? 23 A. Ron Lord. 24 Q. Did you have a conversation with him on 25 February 23? 134 1 A. That's what it looks like. 2 Q. Do you recall what issues you discussed with him, 3 just generally, not in great detail? 4 A. I guess we were talking about acreage allotment. I 5 guess we were talking about potential acreage allotments. 6 Q. What do you mean "potential acreage allotments"? 7 A. Well, if the Florida -- I'm sorry, if -- we were 8 talking about the possibility or the probability of acreage 9 in sugar cane being restricted in the future. 10 Q. Are you using any of the information you obtained 11 from Ron Lord on that issue in your 20-year -- 12 A. Not at moment. 13 Q. -- study? 14 A. Not at the moment. 15 Q. It appears that your notes on Ron Lord continue for 16 some pages. Would you just take a brief look and let me 17 know if there were other issues you discussed with him 18 also. 19 What I'd like to know -- 20 A. It was a long conversation. 21 Q. -- what issues, just generally, you discussed and 22 whether he provided you with any information on those 23 issues that you are using in your 20-year study? 24 A. Okay. This conversation I'm looking at right now 25 was a year ago. 2/23 -- oh, wait a minute, it says '93. 135 1 Okay, never mind. 2 MR. BURGESS: That was last week but it seems 3 like a year ago. 4 MR. SAXE: Objection to comment. 5 BY THE WITNESS: 6 A. (Continuing) We were talking about, I guess, you 7 know, what the future of sugar prices would be, talked 8 about cost efficiencies, talked about the Farm Bill, talked 9 about NAFTA, talked about where the raw sugar mills might 10 actually be sending their raw sugar, talked about the 11 appropriate price to charge -- that mills receive for raw 12 sugar. That was it. 13 BY MS. STINSON: 14 Q. Did you receive any information from him on any of 15 those topics that you will be or are using or considering 16 in your 20-year analysis? 17 A. He is responsible for much of what goes into the 18 sugar and sweetener situation and outlook report. So to 19 that extent, yes, I do receive that type of information 20 from him. 21 Q. Here's something called a record of telephone 22 conversation, but I don't see a person or a time, so can 23 you tell me what that is. 24 A. I have no idea what this is. 25 Q. There's a comment on there saying "Jones found 136 1 upward bias in multipliers.". 2 Do you know what that refers to? 3 Well, first of all, is that your handwriting? 4 A. It appears to be. 5 I don't know what this piece of paper is. 6 Q. Tell me what this document is before I bother 7 marking it. 8 A. These are the survey results of businesses in the 9 Everglades agricultural area. 10 Q. What is the date associated with that? Was that 11 part of your 10-year report? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Will you be using those survey results also -- 14 Well, did you use the results of those in your 15 10-year report? 16 A. Some of them. 17 Q. Will you be using those in your 20-year analysis? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. What was the survey designed to do? 20 A. To determine where they purchased their materials 21 and equipment and where they purchased the things that they 22 used to supply their customers, whether it's labor or 23 materials. 24 Q. How did you use the results from that survey? 25 A. Actually -- in this survey -- I don't recall where 137 1 we used them, but one of the things we used was the origin 2 of the labor force, you know, where everybody lived who 3 worked in the EAA, where they lived. 4 Q. What information did you get from the survey that 5 told you about the labor force? 6 A. We asked them the number of employees that they 7 hired seasonally and we asked them where they lived. 8 Q. Did you use any information from that survey about 9 where people bought supplies and equipment? 10 A. I may have, I don't remember. 11 Q. Were there any general conclusions you could draw 12 from the survey with regard to where growers bought 13 equipment and supplies? 14 A. I don't remember. This was done so long ago, I 15 don't remember. 16 Q. Do you know whether any information regarding where 17 supplies are purchased will be used or is being used in 18 your 20-year analysis? 19 A. Not to -- 20 MR. SAXE: Objection, asked and answered. 21 BY MS. STINSON: 22 Q. Go ahead and answer. 23 A. I didn't understand the question. 24 Q. Do you plan to use any information, any of the 25 information that you obtained in the survey regarding where 138 1 supplies and equipment are purchased in your 20-year 2 analysis? 3 A. I don't know. 4 MS. STINSON: I think it's a good breaking point. 5 MR. HETRICK: I'm going to go ahead and order a 6 copy of the whole deposition of this witness, and an 7 ASCII disk, 3-1/2 inch. 8 (Whereupon, the depositions was adjourned at 5:20 9 p.m.) 10 o0o 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 139 1 C E R T I F I C A T E 2 3 STATE OF FLORIDA 4 COUNTY OF BROWARD 5 I, ELLEN N. COHEN, Registered Professional Reporter 6 of Parliamentary Reporting and Notary Public, State of 7 Florida at Large. 8 DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing deposition was 9 taken before me at the time and place stated herein; that I 10 administered unto the deponent their oath to testify to the 11 truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; that 12 said deponent was there and then orally examined and 13 testified as herein set forth; that I reported said 14 examination and testimony stenographically, and that this 15 transcript of deposition constitutes a true and correct 16 transcription of the shorthand report of said deposition. 17 I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am neither related to nor 18 employed by any counsel or party to the cause pending, nor 19 interested in the event thereof. 20 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my hand 21 and official seal this 5th day of April 1993, at Broward 22 County, Florida. 23 ______________________________ 24 ELLEN N. COHEN 25 Notary Public, State of Florida