293 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 CONTINUED 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 31, 1993 20 TIME: Commencing at 9:15 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 294 1 A P P E A R A N C E S 2 HOPPING BOYD GREEN & SAMS 123 South Calhoun Street 3 Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 4 BY: DONNA STINSON, ESQ. 5 -and- CAROLYN S. RAEPPLE, ESQ. 6 Attorney for Petitioners Sugar Cane 7 Growers Cooperative of Florida, Inc., Roth Farms, Inc., and Wedgworth Farms, Inc. 8 9 PEEPLES, EARL & BLANK One Biscayne Tower 10 Suite 3636 Two South Biscayne Boulevard 11 Miami, Florida 33131 12 BY: RICK J. BURGESS, ESQ. 13 Attorney for Petitioners Florida Sugar Cane League, Inc., United States Sugar 14 Corporation, and New Hope South, Inc. 15 POPHAM, HAIK, SCHNOBRICH & KAUFMAN 16 4000 International Place 100 S.E. Second Street 17 Miami, Florida 33131 18 BY: PAUL L. NETTLETON, ESQ. 19 Attorneys for the Respondent 20 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 21 ENVIRONMENT & NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION GENERAL LITIGATION SECTION 22 P.O. Box 663 Washington, D.C. 20044-0663 23 BY: KEITH E. SAXE, ESQ. 24 (Appearances continued on following page.) 25 295 1 A P P E A R A N C E S (Continued) 2 -and- 3 UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS OFFICE 155 Miami Avenue - Suite 600 4 Miami, Florida 33130 5 BY: ROBERT ROSENBERG, ESQ., Assistant U.S. Attorney 6 Attorneys for Intervenor USA 7 8 INDEX DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. STINSON...............296 9 CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. BURGESS................315 10 EXHIBITS 11 JOHNS' EXHIBIT No. 20..........................315 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 296 1 GRACE JOHNS, Ph.D. 2 the Deponent herein, having been previously duly sworn, was 3 examined and testified further as follows: 4 DIRECT EXAMINATION 5 BY MS. STINSON: 6 Q. Ms. Johns, yesterday or the day before we spoke 7 about Exhibit 12 which is a memo to you from Jose Alvarez. 8 Would you read into the record the last comment on 9 the page, I believe it's number 5. 10 A. On the first page? 11 Q. Yes. 12 A. "One interesting point you should check because of 13 its potential implications for the future of the EAA, I 14 understand that most, if not all, vegetable growers are 15 also cane growers. The sugar program provides a steady 16 income that allows them to survive in bad years while 17 waiting for more favorable market conditions for 18 vegetables.". 19 Q. Do you have a handwritten comment beside that? 20 A. Yes, I do. 21 Q. What is that? 22 A. "Take this into consideration.". 23 Q. Are you planning to take that into consideration in 24 your 20-year analysis? 25 A. Yes. 297 1 Q. How? 2 A. I haven't completely thought it through yet so I 3 can't tell you exactly how I would do it. 4 Q. Give me some ideas about how you might do it, the 5 possibilities. 6 A. At the minimum, we would verbally discuss it when 7 talking about the effects to vegetable growers. 8 Q. You mean just in a narrative part of your report? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. In what other ways might you handle that issue? 11 A. I don't know yet. 12 Q. In looking at land going out of production for 13 vegetables, will you take into consideration yield risk? 14 MR. NETTLETON: Objection. Asked and answered. 15 BY THE WITNESS: 16 A. Yes. 17 BY MS. STINSON: 18 Q. How? 19 A. Looking at or using the data from the previous five 20 years on yield per acre, taking into account the percent of 21 planting acres harvested. 22 Q. You are going to have to continue that thought. 23 Explain to me how that takes into consideration yield risk. 24 A. Yield risk would be embedded in percent of planted 25 acres harvested and the average yield over the five-year 298 1 period for the purposes of evaluating changes in land use. 2 Q. If the yield in, say, a five-year time period 3 ranges vastly from a very small yield to a very big yield, 4 is it reasonable to simply consider the average yield for 5 those five years? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. If in that five-year period the average yield may 8 produce a positive return but say two or three of the five 9 years produce a negative return, would you have to or do 10 you intend to make an allowance for the cost of borrowing 11 working capital for the losing years? 12 MR. NETTLETON: Object to the form. 13 BY THE WITNESS: 14 A. It might be something necessary to do. 15 BY MS. STINSON: 16 Q. Do you plan to do that? 17 A. If it's necessary. 18 Q. You haven't made that determination yet? 19 A. For the 20-year forecast, no. 20 Q. Did you do that in the 10-year forecast? 21 A. Okay. Would you repeat the question. 22 (Whereupon, the pertinent portion of the Record was 23 read back by the Court Reporter.) 24 MR. NETTLETON: Object to the form. 25 BY THE WITNESS: 299 1 A. (Continuing) I would have to say no. 2 BY MS. STINSON: 3 Q. If land goes out of production under your analysis 4 for vegetables, what happens to it? 5 A. You're referring to the 10-year study we did? 6 Q. First let's talk about the 10-year, yes. 7 A. If vegetable land goes out of production, assumed 8 in the report was that it stayed idle, indirectly assumed 9 that. 10 Q. What will you do with it in the 20-year study? 11 A. I don't know yet. 12 Q. What are the possibilities for your assumptions 13 regarding what happens to land that goes out of production 14 for vegetables for your 20-year study? 15 A. It depends on why it goes out of production. If it 16 goes out -- if vegetables go out of production because it's 17 no longer profitable, the land could get planted into sugar 18 cane if that is profitable, and if neither one of those are 19 profitable then it would go into another use, if that use 20 were profitable or if the land can support that use. 21 Q. But you did not do that analysis for the 10-year 22 forecast? 23 A. For the 10-year forecast for vegetables, the only 24 possible land use I can think of at the moment is 25 converting it to sugar cane land. But we did not do that 300 1 in the 10-year study. That would have only applied to, I 2 believe, celery acreage going out of production later in 3 the forecast period. 4 Q. Why did you not do it in the 10-year but you might 5 do it in the 20-year? 6 A. Under the 20-year, land may go out of production 7 during the second 10-year period because of a thinner soil; 8 however, it may be possible to use the land for cow-calf 9 operations. 10 Q. Let me stop you there for a minute. 11 Under the scenario where land goes out of 12 production due to it no longer being profitable to produce 13 celery or corn or whatever, a vegetable, in the 10-year 14 analysis you had that land remain idle; right? 15 A. It wasn't a lot of land but it was the celery land 16 later in the forecast period and we did not look at what 17 would happen to the land if it went out of celery 18 production for that relatively small amount of acreage. 19 Q. But for the 20-year study you are telling me that 20 if land goes out of production for vegetables due to it no 21 longer being profitable to produce vegetables, you may look 22 at the possibility of that land being used for another crop 23 or another purpose; correct? 24 MR. SAXE: Objection to form. 25 BY THE WITNESS: 301 1 A. Yes. 2 BY MS. STINSON: 3 Q. And my question is why might you do it for the 4 20-year period when you didn't do it for the 10-year 5 period? 6 MR. NETTLETON: Objection. Asked and answered. 7 MR. SAXE: Objection. Asked and answered. 8 BY THE WITNESS: 9 A. We did do it for the 10-year period when we were 10 looking at sugar cane. That land, when that land went out 11 of production we looked at other possible uses, okay, and 12 that's described in the report. 13 BY MS. STINSON: 14 Q. My specific question is, though, vegetable land. 15 A. You are referring specifically to vegetables. 16 Q. Right. 17 A. Okay. The celery land, we did not look at the 18 positive impacts of that land in an alternate use but that 19 would only be -- the only possible alternate use I can 20 think of at the moment is to plant it into sugar cane. 21 Q. I understand that, and I understand you didn't do 22 it in the 10-year study. You told me you might look at 23 those alternate uses, the alternate use of sugar cane in 24 your 20-year study and I'm only trying to figure out why 25 now you may do it. 302 1 MR. NETTLETON: Object to the form. 2 BY THE WITNESS: 3 A. In the study we were looking at all the different 4 possible impacts from the Act and Settlement Agreement and 5 we concentrated on many issues. That particular issue in 6 terms of celery when it is -- was forecasted to go out of 7 production under the baseline and what would happen to that 8 particular land was not addressed in the study. 9 BY MS. STINSON: 10 Q. I'm sorry, I still don't have an answer that I 11 understand to the question: Why did you not look at 12 alternate uses in the 10-year study of vegetable land that 13 goes out of production due to it no longer being profitable 14 but you do plan to do that in the 20-year study? 15 MR. SAXE: Objection to form. 16 MR. NETTLETON: Object to the form. 17 MR. SAXE: Mischaracterizing. 18 MR. NETTLETON: She's already answered the first 19 part of that question and the second part of the 20 question she's repeated and says she doesn't know if 21 she's going to do it or not, and you're asking her why 22 she might do something. It's very speculative. 23 BY THE WITNESS: 24 A. We will look at it in the 20-year evaluation. 25 BY MS. STINSON: 303 1 Q. What difference is there between the 20-year and 2 the 10-year evaluation that makes you look at that question 3 again about whether you should consider alternate uses of 4 vegetable land that goes out of production due to it no 5 longer being profitable? 6 MR. NETTLETON: Object to the form. 7 BY THE WITNESS: 8 A. That issue during the 10-year study has a 9 relatively minor effect on the impacts, so we didn't spend 10 a lot of time looking at it. In the 20-year evaluation, 11 that may very well become a larger issue that needs to be 12 addressed. 13 BY MS. STINSON: 14 Q. In performing economic impact assessments, are 15 there techniques which should be used in order to analyze 16 uncertainty in the future scenarios? 17 A. Could you repeat the question one more time. 18 (Whereupon, the pertinent portion of the Record was 19 read back by the Court Reporter.) 20 BY THE WITNESS: 21 A. Yes. 22 MR. SAXE: Objection to form. 23 A. If you are doing an economic impact assessment on 24 an individual farm, the economic impact that you are 25 looking at is the impact to that individual farm owner, the 304 1 owner of that farm. And in that case you would want to 2 incorporate uncertainty via -- I think I know what you are 3 getting at -- via a stochastic analysis. But when you are 4 looking at changes in land use, you do not have to do a 5 stochastic analysis. 6 BY MS. STINSON: 7 Q. Well, I think my question is broader than that. 8 If, in looking at whether land will stay in production, you 9 are not sure about, say, the price supports or changes that 10 may occur, are there certain techniques that you, as an 11 economist, will use to make your projections in light of 12 that uncertainty? 13 MR. SAXE: Objection to form. Vague. 14 Do you want an answer specifically about 15 uncertainties in a federal price support program? 16 MS. STINSON: No. 17 MR. SAXE: Or any kind of uncertainty? 18 MS. STINSON: That's just an example. 19 MR. NETTLETON: Read back the question, please. 20 (Whereupon, the pertinent portion of the Record was 21 read back by the Court Reporter.) 22 BY THE WITNESS: 23 A. In the 10-year analysis, what the grower -- what we 24 have, whoever owns the land at the time is doing is -- 25 Okay, there's an issue regarding whether or not 305 1 land -- 2 I'm sorry, I just don't understand the question. I 3 just can't respond to it very well the way it's worded. 4 BY MS. STINSON: 5 Q. In your 20-year analysis, are you making any 6 assumptions with respect to whether BMPs will decrease 7 yield of either sugar, vegetables or sod? 8 MR. NETTLETON: Objection. Asked and answered. 9 BY THE WITNESS: 10 A. Just for clarity, could you repeat the question. 11 (Whereupon, the pertinent portion of the Record was 12 read back by the Court Reporter.) 13 A. Not at this time. 14 BY MS. STINSON: 15 Q. Might you make such assumptions and you just don't 16 know yet? 17 MR. NETTLETON: Objection. Calls for 18 speculation. 19 BY THE WITNESS: 20 A. I just don't know yet. It's hard to tell you 21 what I'm going to do on the 20-year analysis when we 22 haven't completed the 20-year analysis. 23 BY MS. STINSON: 24 Q. Well, part of my questioning is to try to figure 25 out what part of your 20-year analysis you may have made 306 1 decisions on so far, so if it's something that you are 2 still considering but just haven't decided yet, you know, 3 just tell me that, that's fine. 4 Have you made any assumptions with respect to 5 whether BMPs will cause an increase in yield risk? 6 A. We have not made any assumptions at this time. 7 Q. Is that something, again, that you are looking at 8 but just haven't come to a conclusion yet? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Have you at this point determined what effect or 11 role rice production will have in your analysis? 12 MR. NETTLETON: Object to the form. 13 BY THE WITNESS: 14 A. Which analysis? 15 BY MS. STINSON: 16 Q. (Continuing) Your 20-year analysis. 17 A. That will be a BMP that we consider, that we 18 incorporate into the analysis just as we did in the 10-year 19 analysis. 20 Q. Can you tell me specifically how it will be 21 incorporated? 22 A. Very similarly to what we did in the 10-year 23 analysis. 24 Q. In your 20-year analysis is it true that you intend 25 to make a projection of the number of acres of land going 307 1 out of production by crop by yield belt? 2 A. For sugar cane, yes. 3 Q. What about for vegetables? 4 A. Vegetables are not stratified by yield belt. 5 Q. Will you make a determination for vegetables by 6 crop and by soil type? 7 A. We intend to. 8 Q. And you currently have data on how much sugar cane 9 is grown per yield belt; correct? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. And you currently have data on what types of 12 vegetables are grown by soil type; is that correct? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. But it's true that you have not yet made the 15 calculations of how much sugar is grown per yield belt; is 16 that correct? 17 A. Did you say calculations? 18 Q. Right. 19 A. In belt five we have made such calculations. 20 Q. Is that the only belt in which you have? 21 A. Yes. As far as I can recall. 22 Q. For vegetables, have you made any calculations to 23 determine how many acres of what vegetables are grown per 24 soil type? 25 A. No. 308 1 Q. Is that something you will need to do to come to 2 your conclusions in your 20-year study? 3 A. At this time, yes. 4 Q. In your 20-year study you plan to make projections 5 based on two different assumptions with respect to the 6 depth of soil necessary to grow sugar cane; correct? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Do you plan to make two different assumptions with 9 respect to the soil depth necessary to grow vegetables? 10 A. I don't know if we will use two, but yes, we have 11 to -- we will be looking at that. 12 Q. Well, it's my understanding that, specifically for 13 sugar, that you are going to use two different depths; is 14 that correct? 15 A. At this time, yes. 16 Q. Are you telling me that you don't know for 17 vegetables whether you plan to use two different depths? 18 A. Correct. I don't know for sure yet. 19 Q. What about sod, do you plan to use two different 20 depths of soil for sod? 21 A. I don't know yet. 22 Q. And for the sugar, you don't know what two depths 23 you are going to use; correct? 24 A. Correct. 25 MR. SAXE: Objection. Asked and answered. 309 1 BY MS. STINSON: 2 Q. For your 20-year projection you plan to use either 3 two or three different assumptions with respect to future 4 sugar prices; correct? 5 A. Correct. 6 Q. One being a constant and then one or both of either 7 a higher or lower number? 8 A. As we sit here, that's what we're thinking of 9 doing, but we may not do it. 10 Q. You may not even do two, is that what you are 11 saying? 12 A. We will probably do two. 13 Q. And at this time you have not yet decided, other 14 than constant, what other sugar price or prices you may use 15 in your 20-year study? 16 A. That's correct. 17 Q. Do you plan to use two or more different scenarios 18 regarding future vegetable prices? 19 A. I don't know. 20 Q. With respect to soil depth, in addition to 21 determining or selecting two different depths at which land 22 will go out of production for sugar, you intend to consider 23 increased cost of production at some soil depth; correct? 24 A. Correct. 25 Q. Will you do that at two different soil depths or 310 1 one; do you know? 2 A. I don't know. 3 Q. And am I correct that you also don't know what 4 additional costs you will be using? 5 A. I don't know. 6 Q. In your 20-year analysis, do you know what 7 assumption you will be making with respect to a 8 productivity increase for sugar? 9 A. I don't know what the specific assumption would be. 10 Q. Do you know whether you will be using some sort of 11 increasing trend in productivity? 12 A. We might, if it's -- if we feel it's appropriate. 13 Q. But you don't at this point know whether you will? 14 A. Correct. 15 Q. With respect to the yield per acre of sugar cane, 16 tons per acre, do you know what assumption you will be 17 using for your 20-year projections? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Do you know at this point what assumptions you will 20 use to project the costs of production and processing 21 sugar? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Do you know whether you will be using an inflation 24 rate per component of cost or you will simply be doing some 25 sort of general trend based on past overall costs? 311 1 MR. NETTLETON: Object to the form. 2 BY THE WITNESS: 3 A. We don't know. I don't know yet. 4 BY MS. STINSON: 5 Q. With respect to vegetables, do you know what 6 assumptions you will be using with respect to productivity, 7 whether it will decrease, increase or stay the same? 8 A. You are referring to the 20-year evaluation -- 9 Q. Right. 10 A. -- that we haven't completed yet? 11 Q. Correct. 12 A. I don't know. 13 Q. Do you know what assumptions you will be using with 14 respect to the future cost of producing vegetables for your 15 20-year study? 16 A. No, we haven't made a final decision. 17 Q. Have you made a decision regarding what assumptions 18 you will make with respect to the future price of 19 vegetables in your 20-year study? 20 A. We haven't finalized that either. 21 Q. In your 20-year study, you are looking at the 22 possibility of sugar cane land being converted to cow-calf 23 operations on land that goes out of production due to soil 24 depth; correct? 25 A. We're looking at that possibility. 312 1 Q. Have you yet made a decision on how to use that 2 possibility? 3 A. No. 4 Q. Have you completed any portion of your 20-year 5 study? 6 MR. NETTLETON: Object to the form. 7 BY THE WITNESS: 8 A. I don't understand the question. I don't know what 9 you mean by "portion." 10 BY MS. STINSON: 11 Q. Have you completed any tables you intend to use in 12 your 20-year study? 13 A. No. 14 Q. Have you completed any narrative portion of your 15 20-year study? 16 A. No. 17 Q. Well, who in addition to yourself personally will 18 be working on completing the 20-year study? 19 MR. NETTLETON: Asked and answered. 20 BY THE WITNESS: 21 A. No one else. 22 Chris Meline is available if I need any minor 23 things completed, but I'm going to be responsible for doing 24 the study. 25 BY MS. STINSON: 313 1 Q. Can you list for me what tasks you must complete to 2 finish your 20-year study? 3 MR. NETTLETON: Object to the form. 4 BY THE WITNESS: 5 A. Completing the modeling, finalizing the projections 6 and the assumptions used and the data used, determining the 7 job -- determining the change in production, the change in 8 jobs, earnings, sales and taxes, and reporting the results. 9 BY MS. STINSON: 10 Q. Tell me what you mean by "completing the modeling." 11 A. Well, if you remember from the other day, there is 12 a -- we got -- we received a request to link all the tables 13 in the contract completion report within the Lotus 1-2-3 14 spreadsheet so that you can change assumptions relatively 15 easily and the calculations would allow one to -- you can 16 quickly calculate the impacts more quickly than currently 17 exists. 18 Q. Are you personally doing the modeling, working on 19 the computer model? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. How much time do you anticipate it will take to 22 complete the modeling? 23 A. Three or four days maybe. 24 Q. Is there additional data that you need to gather to 25 complete your 20-year study that you have not yet compiled? 314 1 A. There may be a little bit of data regarding the 2 cost of managing soil subsidence. 3 Q. Where do you plan to get that data? 4 MR. SAXE: Objection to form. 5 A. At this time I'm searching for a company that would 6 rent out services to dig canals through the rocks. 7 Q. Any other source? 8 A. Not at this time, no. 9 Q. Any other data that you still need to compile? 10 A. Not at this time. 11 Q. Are you saying there might be but you just don't 12 know yet? 13 MR. SAXE: Objection to form. 14 BY THE WITNESS: 15 A. I'm saying at this time that's all the data we need 16 to collect. 17 BY MS. STINSON: 18 Q. Well, when you say "this time," are you 19 qualifying that by saying you might need to get more data 20 but you are just not sure? 21 MR. SAXE: Objection to form. 22 BY THE WITNESS: 23 A. I'm saying that at this time we have practically 24 all the data we need. Now, if tomorrow or the next day 25 something comes up and we feel we need to collect 315 1 additional data, then we will. 2 MS. STINSON: I don't have any other questions. 3 Can we go off the record, though? 4 MR. NETTLETON: Sure. 5 (Whereupon, a discussion was held off the record.) 6 (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.) 7 CROSS EXAMINATION 8 BY MR. BURGESS: 9 MR. BURGESS: Mark this, please, as Exhibit 20. 10 (Whereupon, Johns Exhibit No. 20 was marked for 11 identification by the Court Reporter.) 12 Q. Dr. Johns, for the record, I represent the Florida 13 Sugar Cane League, Inc., United States Sugar Corporation 14 and New Hope South, Inc., and, similar to Donna Stinson, if 15 you don't understand any of my questions, I'd ask you to 16 ask me to rephrase so I have the opportunity to do that, 17 otherwise I'll assume that you understood the question I 18 asked; okay? 19 A. Yes, okay. 20 Q. Let me show you what we've marked as Exhibit 20 for 21 identification and ask you if you can identify that 22 document. 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. What is it? 25 A. It's a memorandum from me to Sally Kennedy dated 316 1 December 24, 1992. 2 Q. Could you turn to page 3 of that document. 3 Paragraph 3 starting with "Debt:" is where I'm referring 4 you to; okay. 5 What assumption with respect to long-term debt did 6 you make in your 10-year study? 7 A. Could you define "long-term debt"? 8 Q. Debt on land. 9 A. We didn't need to make any assumptions on debt on 10 land. 11 Q. Do you anticipate making any assumptions concerning 12 debt on land for your 20-year study? 13 A. No. 14 Q. The last sentence in paragraph 3 says, "Public 15 information on farm debt in the EAA is not available at 16 this time." 17 What would you do with that information if it was 18 available? 19 A. We would try to say something about the likelihood 20 of one owner selling his land to someone else. 21 Q. Would knowledge of long-term debt in the EAA have 22 any effect on your conclusions with respect to when your 23 model farms exit production? 24 A. It would not make a difference. 25 Q. And the reason it would not make a difference is 317 1 what? 2 A. Because if a particular owner of a farm could not 3 pay the long-term debt, that would not necessarily cause 4 land to leave production. 5 Q. Did I ask you what you would do with long-term debt 6 information if you had it for your 20-year study? Did I 7 ask you that, do you recall? 8 A. I don't recall. 9 Q. Assume for the purposes of this question that you 10 had knowledge with respect to a range of long-term debt of 11 the farmers in the EAA, what would you do with that 12 information in your 20-year analysis? 13 MR. NETTLETON: Object to the form. 14 BY THE WITNESS: 15 A. Probably nothing. 16 BY MR. BURGESS: 17 Q. Again, because in your opinion it's not important 18 for determining when land leaves production? 19 A. Correct, if you are talking about land debt, yes. 20 Q. It makes no difference as to when your model farms 21 exit production? 22 A. Correct. 23 Q. The next paragraph on Exhibit 20 titled "Income 24 Taxes," in the response portion you begin "We agree that 25 income taxes are a significant element in the accumulation 318 1 of cash over time," and the last sentence says "The 2 inclusion of income taxes in our analysis would not change 3 the results." 4 What are your plans with respect to including or 5 not including income taxes in your 20-year analysis? 6 A. Income taxes, the consideration of income taxes has 7 always been included in our analysis and they will be 8 included in the 20-year analysis just as they have been 9 included in the 10-year analysis. 10 Q. How did you include them in your 10-year analysis? 11 A. They are included as a cost of production. 12 Q. What did you mean by the last sentence in paragraph 13 4, "The inclusion of income taxes in our analysis would not 14 change the results"? 15 A. There I'm inferring to the fact that we didn't 16 specifically subtract it from our spreadsheets in the 17 appendices. 18 Q. Do you anticipate that you will subtract them from 19 your spreadsheet in the appendices in your 20-year study? 20 A. I don't know. 21 Q. Are you considering that issue for the 20-year 22 study? 23 A. Yes. But it would not nec -- it's not going to 24 change the results whether I subtract them out or not. 25 Q. The next page, page 4 under item number 6, "Price 319 1 Policy." Under response there's a sentence which reads, 2 "However, recent progress on the NAFTA and the potential 3 for it to affect future prices will be evaluated during the 4 20-year forecast." 5 How are you evaluating that in the 20-year 6 forecast? 7 A. At the time this memo was written was 8 December 24, and any progress that had been made in the 9 NAFTA agreement would be considered in the analysis. So we 10 have looked at the current agreement that they have with 11 NAFTA that isn't final yet and we have looked at it and we 12 will make a decision whether or not it has the potential to 13 affect future prices. 14 Q. So the consideration of NAFTA in the 20-year study 15 will be reflected in your pricing scenarios? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Will it be reflected in any other way? 18 A. Not that I can think of at the moment. 19 Q. The pricing scenarios that you've testified you are 20 considering, will you apply those pricing scenarios across 21 the entire 20-year study time period or only to the second 22 10 years of the 20-year period? 23 A. I don't know yet. 24 Q. Is it, therefore, conceivable that, with respect to 25 your 20-year study, you may maintain the pricing 320 1 assumptions from your first 10-year study and only apply 2 these new pricing assumptions to the second 10-year period? 3 MR. NETTLETON: Object to the form. 4 BY THE WITNESS: 5 A. I don't know if that's a possibility or not, I 6 can't tell you. 7 BY MR. BURGESS: 8 Q. In any event, you'll make that decision before 9 April 15? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Number 7 titled "Price Level" talks in terms of 12 integration of mills and growers and in your response, the 13 next to the last sentence reads, "We do not intend to 14 change our methodology on this issue." 15 Does "this issue" refer to integration of mills and 16 growers? 17 A. No, the issue refers to the calculation of maximum 18 sugar cane price. 19 Q. Do you intend to calculate maximum sugar cane price 20 for your 20-year study in the same way as it was calculated 21 in the 10-year study? 22 A. We intend to use the concept of maximum sugar cane 23 price but I can't tell you at this time exactly how we're 24 going to calculate it. 25 Q. Do you intend to calculate a maximum sugar cane 321 1 price only for the second 10-year period or do you intend 2 to calculate an applicable price for a 20-year time price? 3 A. I can't tell you. 4 Q. You calculated in your 10-year study a maximum 5 sugar cane price; is that correct? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Do you know whether you intend to use that same 8 price for your 20-year study? 9 A. I don't know. 10 Q. Do you know whether the price that you may 11 calculate for your 20-year study will be a price that you 12 apply to the entire 20-year horizon or just to the second 13 10 years of the 20-year study? 14 MR. NETTLETON: Object to the form. By "price" 15 you mean their maximum price? 16 MR. BURGESS: Yes, the maximum sugar cane price. 17 BY THE WITNESS: 18 A. I'm sorry, I don't understand the question. You 19 need to be more specific. 20 BY MR. BURGESS: 21 Q. Well, it really has to do I guess more with 22 conceptually the 20-year study versus the 10-year study. 23 Are you revisiting the entirety of your 10-year study? 24 A. We're revisiting certain -- yes, I guess you could 25 say that. 322 1 Q. Have you made any decisions as you sit here today 2 with respect to what portions of the 10-year study will 3 remain exactly as they are and which ones might change? 4 A. We haven't made that decision. 5 Q. With respect to your calculation of a maximum sugar 6 cane price, you do intend to calculate one for the 20-year 7 study? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And it might be the same one as in your 10-year 10 study? 11 A. You mean one or ones? You mean the concept, the 12 methodology? 13 Q. Yes. 14 A. We intend to calculate that in the 20-year study. 15 Q. Do you intend to apply the results of that 16 calculation to the 20-year time period or just to the 17 second 10-year time period for which it has not yet been 18 calculated? 19 MR. NETTLETON: Object to the form. 20 BY THE WITNESS: 21 A. I don't know. 22 BY MR. BURGESS: 23 Q. Did you understand the question? 24 A. I'm not sure. 25 Q. Paragraph 7 also talks about integration of mills 323 1 and growers. Do you anticipate that your assumptions with 2 respect to integration of mills and growers made in your 3 10-year study will carry over and be the same assumptions 4 in your 20-year study? 5 A. Your question is very broad but I'll go ahead and 6 answer it. 7 We don't intend to change anything regarding what 8 we did with regard to integration of mills. 9 Q. Except you do intend to apply the results of the 10 integration of the mills and growers over a 20-year time 11 period; is that correct? 12 MR. NETTLETON: Object to the form. 13 BY THE WITNESS: 14 A. I don't understand the question. 15 BY MR. BURGESS: 16 Q. You do intend to examine the returns to mills, or, 17 I'm sorry, the returns to growers over a 20-year time 18 period; do you not? 19 A. We do intend to examine the residual returns to 20 land and risk over the 20-year period. 21 Q. And you intend to apply the same assumptions with 22 respect to vertical integration of mills and growers to 23 that examination over a 20-year period that you applied to 24 a 10-year period; is that your testimony? 25 MR. NETTLETON: Object to the form. 324 1 BY THE WITNESS: 2 A. The Hazen and Sawyer analysis does not rest on 3 whether the mills -- whether or not the mills are 4 integrated, that's on page 4 of this memo. 5 BY MR. BURGESS: 6 Q. I understand that that's your opinion but I'm 7 asking you whether or not you intend to make the same 8 assumptions in your 20-year study with respect to whether 9 or not the mills are integrated -- 10 MR. SAXE: Objection. Asked and answered. 11 Q. -- in your 10-year study? 12 BY THE WITNESS: 13 A. I don't need to make that assumption, it's 14 irrelevant. 15 BY MR. BURGESS: 16 Q. Do you assume any level of integration between 17 mills and growers in your 10-year study? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Number 8 refers to mill efficiency, bottom of page 20 4. And the top of page 5 in your response, second line 21 starts "However," or a sentence in the second line begins 22 "However, the way in which mill efficiency is expected to 23 increase in the future, the impact on milling costs and 24 increases in the cost-efficiency of milling and sugar cane 25 production deserves further evaluation." 325 1 Are you evaluating those items with respect to your 2 20-year analysis? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Have you reached any preliminary or final 5 conclusions with respect to how you are going to treat them 6 in your 20-year analysis? 7 A. No. 8 Q. The last sentence says, "The issue of changes in 9 mill efficiency and changes in costs of milling and 10 production will be addressed more thoroughly in the 20-year 11 analysis of economic impacts." 12 Do you have any preliminary opinions with respect 13 to those changes? 14 A. The only preliminary work -- 15 I don't have any final conclusions or opinions. 16 We've been looking at the information and examining it. 17 Q. Are you examining that with respect to the entire 18 20-year period or only the second 10 years of the 20-year 19 period? 20 A. We've been looking at it with a possi -- 21 We've been looking at the information with respect 22 to how to forecast it during the entire 20-year period. 23 Q. Is it possible that conclusions in your 10-year 24 report with respect to mill efficiency may change in this 25 20-year analysis as a result of your looking at the entire 326 1 period? 2 A. It may change. 3 Q. For that initial 10-year period? 4 A. Correct. 5 It might. 6 Q. How did you calculate mill efficiency trend? 7 A. Okay, to the best of my recollection, we took the 8 pounds of raw sugar per ton of sugar cane, a time series of 9 that, and we calculated the percent change in that from 10 year to year. Then we averaged that and got an average of 11 2 percent increase in efficiency. 12 Q. With respect to your time series, do you recall 13 what time series you used? 14 A. The beginning point was probably '64 to the 15 present. 16 Q. And at that time when you calculated that time 17 series, did you examine alternate time series, an alternate 18 period of record, if you will? 19 A. Not that I recall. 20 Q. And have you since examined an alternate period of 21 record? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. And is that the '77 and '92 you testified about 24 yesterday? 25 A. Yes. 327 1 Q. Other than those two periods of record, have you 2 done the calculation using other periods of record? 3 A. Not that I recall. 4 Q. Have you decided whether you are going to use the 5 '64 to '92 or the 1977 to 1992 period of record in your 6 20-year analysis? 7 A. The only reason I picked that first date was 8 because I wanted all the mills to be in place as they 9 currently are and apparently I must have thought that 10 occurred in 1964, but since then I have information that 11 says that it occurred in '77, so we're going to continue 12 using the '77 to '92. 13 Q. Okay, which is different than what's in your 14 10-year period, 10-year report? 15 A. Correct. As far as I can remember. 16 Q. Have you quantified the change in the trend 17 resulting from the different periods of record? 18 A. I'm sorry, would you -- I don't understand the 19 question. 20 Q. Have you determined what change, if any, there is 21 in mill efficiency trends between using the period of 22 record 1964 to 1992 and 1977 to 1992? 23 A. No, I never calculated that. 24 Q. Well, how, if at all, will using the '77 to '92 25 time period change the results from the 10-year study? 328 1 A. I don't know. 2 Q. Are you examining whether it might? 3 A. I haven't cared about it, but I'm sure that 4 ultimately when we do the entire study, if there's a 5 change, we'll note that change in the results. 6 Q. Your next paragraph, number 9, under "Farm 7 Management," and your response, second sentence, "Their 8 most useful observation was the approach of replacing 10 9 percent of the machinery per year instead of our method 10 which assumes that all machinery is purchased at the 11 beginning of the forecast period. This change will have 12 little, if any, effect on our results." 13 Have you evaluated whether changing their approach 14 of replacing 10 percent of this machinery per year instead 15 of your method will have little, if any, effect over the 16 20-year period? 17 A. No, I have not. 18 Q. Are you going to do that? 19 A. I don't know. 20 Q. What assumptions will you make for your 20-year 21 study concerning replacement of machinery? 22 A. I don't know. 23 Q. What are you considering? 24 A. Lately, throughout the 20-year evaluation -- at 25 this time we have not changed what we did in the 20-year -- 329 1 in the 10-year evaluation. 2 Q. With respect to the machinery compliment? 3 A. The depreciation of farm machinery. 4 Q. Is that something you are considering as you do 5 this 20-year study? 6 A. We haven't considered it yet -- I mean -- 7 I'm sorry, I don't understand the question. 8 Q. Have you made a decision that with respect to your 9 20-year analysis you will use the same approach with 10 respect to the machinery compliment that you utilized for 11 the 10-year study? 12 A. We haven't made that decision yet. 13 Q. Number 10, "Model Farms." The last two sentences 14 under your response say, "This information was not 15 available during our study. We intend to use this 16 information in the 20-year forecast." 17 What information are you referring to there? 18 A. At the time of the meeting we had with Jim 19 Richardson, he informed us that the USDA had recently 20 available data on the cost of production by farm size in 21 the Everglades agricultural area, so we, during when I 22 wrote this letter, I meant that if we could get such 23 information, we would use it in the 20-year forecast. 24 Q. Were you able to get such information? 25 A. No, we were not. 330 1 Q. Did you try? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. What did you do? 4 A. I called USDA and talked to Annette Clausen and she 5 told me that that data was not available. 6 Q. Number 11 addresses the issue of BMPs and under 7 your response you say, "We will consider any additional 8 information on BMPs that was not available during the study 9 when we evaluate the impacts of the 20-year period." 10 I believe yesterday you testified that, with 11 respect to BMPs, you would consider the Brown & Caldwell 12 report; is that correct? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. In your reexamination of BMPs, are you going to 15 re-examine costs for BMPs for the entire 20-year horizon or 16 only the second 10 years of the 20-year period? 17 A. We would consider it for the entire 20-year 18 horizon, and the only reason why we're doing this 19 reconsideration of the first 10 years is to be consistent 20 with the first and the second 10-year period. 21 Q. And is it your testimony that you intend to use the 22 cost figures from the Brown & Caldwell report? 23 A. At this time, yes. 24 Q. Are you aware of whether or not the growers in the 25 EAA dispute the cost figures in the Brown & Caldwell 331 1 report? 2 A. I'm not specifically aware of it, no. 3 Q. Yesterday I believe you testified that you do not 4 intend to talk to the growers with respect to cost figures 5 for BMPs. Assuming that several, if not all, growers in 6 the EAA dispute the cost figures in the Brown & Caldwell 7 report, would you consider changing your decision not to 8 talk to them? 9 MR. NETTLETON: Object to the form. 10 MR. SAXE: Objection to form. 11 BY THE WITNESS: 12 A. Could you restate the question more specifically? 13 BY MR. BURGESS: 14 Q. Do you recall your testimony yesterday that you do 15 not intend to talk to the growers about the cost figures in 16 the Brown & Caldwell report? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Assuming that growers in the EAA dispute the cost 19 figures in the Brown & Caldwell report, which you've 20 testified to, you were not aware that they did or didn't, 21 but assuming for purposes of my question that they did, 22 would you reconsider your decision not to talk to them 23 about BMP costs in the Brown & Caldwell report? 24 MR. NETTLETON: Object to the form. 25 BY THE WITNESS: 332 1 A. Yes, I could reconsider. 2 BY MR. BURGESS: 3 Q. Do you know how the cost figures for the BMPs 4 contained in the Brown & Caldwell report compare to those 5 that you assumed for your 10-year report? 6 A. For the sugar cane the costs are pretty consistent 7 when you look at Brown & Caldwell's 45 percent reduction in 8 phosphorus, so we're consistent with that there as far as I 9 can tell from reading the report. 10 Q. Are you -- 11 A. (Continuing) For -- 12 Q. I'm sorry? 13 A. For vegetables, we appear to be consistent for the 14 45 percent reduction except our banding costs are higher 15 than theirs, and sod, we were told by the District that 16 they probably wouldn't need to implement the BMPs, so we do 17 not have costs of sod production -- I mean, I'm sorry, the 18 costs of BMPs in sod production in the 10-year report. 19 Q. Do you know how your numbers compare with Brown & 20 Caldwell's for any of the other scenarios besides the 45 21 percent reduction? 22 A. In the 10-year report we looked at the growers 23 implementing the cell of BMPs that matches -- that pretty 24 closest matches, as far as I can understand from the 25 report, the 45 percent reduction in phosphorus. 333 1 Q. For your 20-year forecast, are you re-evaluating 2 both the price received for raw sugar by the mill and the 3 price received by the model farms in your 10-year report? 4 A. Are we re-evaluating it? 5 Q. Are you evaluating it for your 20-year study? 6 A. I don't understand the question. 7 Q. In your 10-year report did you consider prices 8 received for raw sugar by the mill? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. And are you going to consider prices received by 11 the mill for your 20-year study? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Do you know how, if at all, the prices in your 14 10-year study will differ from those for your 20-year 15 study? 16 A. I don't know. 17 Q. Are you considering changing the price contained in 18 your 10-year report for the first 10 years of your 20-year 19 analysis? 20 A. I'm evaluating whether it should be changed, if at 21 all. 22 Q. Is that something you'll decide on finally by April 23 15? 24 A. Yes, I believe so. 25 Q. You testified, I believe it was on Monday, with 334 1 respect to transmittal of draft copies of your 10-year 2 analysis and you said, I believe, anyone who provided key 3 information was sent a draft of the report. 4 Were you speaking in terms of the draft that was 5 made public two weeks before the final edition of the 6 10-year report or were you testifying concerning a draft of 7 the draft? 8 Do you recall that testimony at all? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Do you know whether you were testifying about the 11 draft that was made public two weeks before the final or 12 was it an earlier edition or version of the draft? 13 A. I believe I was referring to the final report and 14 the contract completion report and perhaps, but I don't 15 remember, the draft report. 16 Q. There was a draft edition of the 10-year study that 17 was made public approximately two weeks before it became 18 final; is that correct? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Do you know whether that draft, before it became 21 public, was sent to anyone for review and comment? 22 MR. SAXE: Objetion to form. 23 Counsel, what do you mean "before it became 24 public"? 25 MR. BURGESS: Before it was released to the South 335 1 Florida Water Management District in draft form two 2 weeks before it was final. 3 MR. SAXE: Objection to form. 4 BY THE WITNESS: 5 A. As far as I remember, I submitted it to the 6 District before I submitted it to anyone else. 7 BY MR. BURGESS: 8 Q. I believe you also testified on Monday with respect 9 to survey results of businesses in the EAA and, if I recall 10 your testimony, you said that you would be using these 11 survey results of businesses in your 20-year analysis. 12 Have you, in fact, sent out surveys to suppliers 13 with respect to your 20-year study? 14 MR. NETTLETON: Object to the form. 15 BY THE WITNESS: 16 A. I don't understand the question. 17 BY MR. BURGESS: 18 Q. Do you recall testifying about surveys that were 19 sent to businesses in the EAA? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Did you, in fact, do that for your 10-year study? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Have you made an additional effort to send out 24 additional surveys with respect to your 20-year study? 25 A. No. 336 1 Q. Did you incorporate the results of the surveys in 2 your 10-year study? 3 MR. BURGESS: Let me withdraw the question. 4 Q. Did you consider the results from the surveys for 5 your 10-year study? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. And are you doing anything with those same survey 8 results in connection with your 20-year study? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. What are you doing? 11 A. The same that we did in the 10-year report. 12 Q. How are you considering them? 13 A. In the 10-year report we used the information 14 specifically to determine the origin of, or the living -- 15 where the employees live. 16 Q. And that is the same or similar information that 17 you are going to consider in your 20-year report? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. And you are not using those in any other manner for 20 your 20-year report? 21 A. Not that I know of at the moment. 22 Q. With respect to supplies or labor or materials or 23 any conclusions? 24 A. Not at the moment, not as I sit here, but it could 25 change. 337 1 Q. I believe also on Monday you testified that you did 2 not consider time series of vegetable costs of production 3 in the 10-year study. Do you know whether you are going to 4 consider that in your 20-year study? 5 A. Yes, we are considering it. 6 Q. And are you examining that for the entire 20-year 7 period? 8 A. I don't understand the question. 9 Q. Your testimony is that you didn't consider time 10 series of vegetable cost of production for the initial 11 10-year study, and I'm asking you: With respect to the 12 20-year study, you are only going to examine that for the 13 second 10 years of the entire 20-year study or for the 14 entire 20-year horizon? 15 A. We will be looking at it in terms of making 16 decisions regarding how costs change over the entire 17 20-year horizon. 18 Q. Do you have any preliminary or final opinions with 19 respect to how those costs change over the 20-year horizon? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Why didn't you consider that in your 10-year study? 22 A. I was not aware of, at the time, that there was a 23 consistent time series of costs of production and... 24 Q. When did you become aware and do you have the data 25 now? 338 1 A. I have the data now. I began -- 2 When did I become aware? Probably a month or so 3 ago, that it was a consistent time series. 4 Q. Where did you get the data from? 5 A. IFAS. 6 Q. How will looking at vegetable costs of production 7 in this time series manner affect any conclusions regarding 8 vegetables contained in your 10-year report? 9 A. In my 10 -- you mean in relationship to the 10-year 10 report? 11 Q. Yes. 12 A. It will either justify our assumptions of how costs 13 increase over time or it won't. 14 Q. What information did you ask Ellen Wine to supply 15 to you in connection with your 20-year study on vegetables? 16 A. I asked her to review the contract completion 17 report, which is the 10-year evaluation, to review what we 18 did in terms of vegetable production. I asked her to 19 review that, provide comments to me, provide alternate 20 information that we could use, and I also asked her to 21 provide me with some more detail on the table of revenues 22 and costs that she provided the Everglades Funding Council. 23 Q. When did you ask her for this? 24 A. A month and a half ago maybe. I'm estimating. 25 Q. Have you had any conversations with her in those 339 1 six weeks? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And what were the substance of those conversations? 4 A. First I called to ask if she received the package, 5 and then we talked about that she said she would look at 6 the report and she would provide me with the backup 7 information for the cost and revenue table she gave us. 8 And we agreed on a date when she would provide that 9 information to me. 10 Q. What was that date? 11 A. I think it was like a week and a half after she 12 received it, maybe two weeks after she received the request 13 from me, at least. 14 Q. Did you receive anything from her? 15 A. No. 16 Q. Have you talked to her again to follow up to your 17 request? 18 A. No. 19 Q. You testified on Tuesday that you did not analyze 20 the economic impact of changes in land ownership for your 21 10-year study. Are there, in your opinion, any economic 22 impacts associated with changes in land ownership? 23 MR. NETTLETON: Object to form. 24 BY THE WITNESS: 25 A. To the owner there is or to the bank or whoever 340 1 is left with the land. To an individual person. 2 BY MR. BURGESS: 3 Q. What are those economic impacts? 4 MR. NETTLETON: Object to the form. 5 BY THE WITNESS: 6 A. In the report we talk about the income lost by 7 growers in the Everglades agricultural area because of the 8 certain aspects of the Act and Settlement Agreement, so to 9 that extent we've considered the economic impacts to the 10 owners. 11 BY MR. BURGESS: 12 Q. Do you quantify that lost income? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Any other impact associated with changes of 15 ownership? 16 A. No, not that I recall at the moment. 17 Q. Again, on Tuesday you testified with respect to 18 your 10-year study that it did not include seasonal farm 19 workers or H2A workers which harvest vegetables, rice or 20 sod. Why weren't those workers considered in the 10-year 21 study? 22 A. Would you repeat the question, the beginning of it 23 especially. 24 Q. My recollection is -- 25 Let me start from the beginning. 341 1 Did you include seasonal farm workers or H2A 2 workers that harvest vegetables, rice or sod in your 3 10-year study? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. You included those numbers as -- 6 A. The full-time equivalent jobs include those 7 employees. 8 Q. What assumptions, if any, will change from your 9 10-year study to your 20-year consideration relative to 10 seasonal farm workers or H2A workers? 11 A. I don't know. 12 Q. What is under consideration? 13 A. Nothing at the moment. 14 Q. Do you anticipate utilizing FTEs in your 20-year 15 study as you did in your 10-year study? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. I believe you also testified on Tuesday that 18 towards the end of your 10-year analysis, completion of 19 your 10-year analysis, you received field data for 140 20 plots but that you didn't have a chance to look at it at 21 that time. Who did you get that information from? 22 A. I believe it was Peterson Consulting. 23 Q. Are you considering that information relative to 24 your 20-year study? 25 A. Yes. 342 1 Q. How are you considering it? 2 A. I'm looking at the actual data determining yield 3 per acre and fallow land. 4 Q. Do you know how, if at all, you'll incorporate that 5 information into your 20-year study? 6 A. No. 7 Q. Assume for purposes of my question that growers in 8 the EAA were subject to ad valorem taxation in addition to 9 the 25, 50 or $100 per acre assessment scenario. Would 10 that fact have any effects on your conclusions relative to 11 when land leaves production? 12 A. Could you repeat the question again. 13 MR. BURGESS: Can you read it back. 14 (Whereupon, the pertinent portion of the Record was 15 read back by the Court Reporter.) 16 BY THE WITNESS: 17 A. (Continuing) I don't understand the question. 18 BY MR. BURGESS: 19 Q. You testified earlier this week that you didn't 20 analyze a possible increase in ad valorem taxation on the 21 EAA; is that correct? 22 A. Correct. We did not analyze an increase in ad 23 valorem. 24 Q. Right. 25 A. If it increased. We looked at the current tax rate 343 1 on property. 2 Q. What effect would an increase in ad valorem 3 taxation have on the conclusions contained in your 10-year 4 analysis? 5 A. It would increase the costs of production depending 6 on -- no, it wouldn't necessarily -- yes, it would. It 7 would increase the costs higher than they are now because 8 the tax rate would go up so -- but, I don't know, it may 9 not have an impact. I don't know. I'd have to think -- 10 I'd really have to think about that. It's a very open 11 question. 12 I don't know if they would go up or not. 13 Q. If what would go up; costs of production? 14 A. Right. 15 Q. Do you have any opinions -- 16 A. (Continuing) They may not have any effect and it 17 may, I'd have to think it through. We weren't asked to 18 look at an increase in ad valorem taxes. 19 Q. I understand that. 20 I'm asking you to consider for purposes of my 21 question, in other words, assume an increase in ad valorem 22 taxation. Do you have any opinions as to whether any 23 conclusions reached in your 10-year report will change as a 24 result of that assumption? 25 A. I don't know if the results would change or not, 344 1 you need to be more specific, that's a very broad question 2 you've asked. 3 Q. Let me try and do that for you. 4 Assuming a scenario where there was an increase in 5 ad valorem taxation in addition to your 25, 50 and $100 6 assessments, do you have any opinions as to whether or not 7 more jobs would be lost than the amount of jobs that you 8 calculated for your 10-year study? 9 A. As I sit here thinking about it, I don't think it 10 would have an effect at this time. 11 Q. With respect to jobs or with respect to any 12 conclusions in your report? 13 A. With respect to any conclusions in the report. 14 Q. What is the basis for that opinion? 15 A. Because the taxes paid are based on the value of -- 16 I'm sorry, are based on the calculated net returns to land 17 that the Palm Beach County property appraiser makes. When 18 he deducts that assessment or whatever costs of production 19 that those growers face, that lowers the assessed value of 20 the land, so it may not matter what that -- in fact, it 21 doesn't sound to me like it would matter what that property 22 tax rate was because the taxes would adjust in response to 23 the lower net income of the farm. 24 Q. Do you know whether the contract you entered into 25 with the District for litigation support was included among 345 1 the documents that you provided in response to 2 Miss Stinson's notice of production? 3 A. I don't believe it was. I don't know. 4 MR. BURGESS: Do you know whether it was withheld 5 or just not -- 6 MR. NETTLETON: It wasn't produced because it 7 wasn't requested. It's not being withheld under any 8 privilege or anything. I would imagine you may already 9 have it anyway through your other production avenues. 10 BY MR. BURGESS: 11 Q. I recall testimony yesterday where you said that 12 you were re-evaluating some assumptions in the 10-year 13 study based upon information received since the first 14 report. You have just identified this morning one of those 15 instances, I think, which dealt with information you 16 received for 140 or so plots in the EAA. 17 My question is: What other information have you 18 received since the first report and what assumptions are 19 you re-evaluating in light of that information? 20 MR. NETTLETON: Object to the form. 21 BY THE WITNESS: 22 A. The March or -- I'm sorry, the June 1992 Sugar and 23 Sweetener Situation and Outlook Yearbook, the data in there 24 and the information in there. 25 We're re-evaluating more closely the issue of soil 346 1 subsidence using the reports that we already did have 2 in-house and also interviews with George Snyder at IFAS. 3 BY MR. BURGESS: 4 Q. Were those reports you had in-house but hadn't 5 considered? 6 A. We had considered them for the 10-year and now 7 we're reconsidering them for the 20-year. 8 There's a FAPRI report that was provided to us by 9 Jim Richardson that has some data in it that we may use. 10 Could you repeat the question again to make sure 11 I'm complete. 12 Q. Yes. I recall your testimony that you're 13 re-evaluating some assumptions in your 10-year study based 14 upon information that you have received since the first 15 report. 16 So my question is really two questions, and that is: 17 What information have you received since the first report 18 and what assumptions are you re-evaluating in light of that 19 information? 20 MR. SAXE: Objection to form. 21 MR. BURGESS: Compound; right? 22 MR. SAXE: Yes, how did you guess? 23 BY THE WITNESS: 24 A. There's the data from IFAS, the reports from IFAS 25 that report the costs of vegetable production in the EAA 347 1 each year. There's a couple of reports on cow-calf 2 operations in Florida. 3 That's the meat of it that I can come up with that 4 we collected since then. 5 Q. What assumptions in your 10-year study are you 6 reassessing in light of the sugar and sweetener outlook 7 report? 8 A. Changes in the cost of milling and producing sugar 9 cane and raw sugar over time. I think that's about it. 10 Q. Are you reexamining those costs for the entire 11 20-year period? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. I think we've discussed soil subsidence. 14 The FAPRI, what does FAPRI stand for? 15 A. Can I have a pen so I can write it out so I can get 16 the words in right order. 17 I believe it stands for Food and Agricultural 18 Policy Research Institute. 19 Q. What results from your 10-year study are you 20 reassessing in view of that report? 21 A. The price of raw sugar. The forecast. They 22 forecast the price of raw sugar, I think it was over the 23 next 10 years. 24 Q. Do you know how their forecast compares to your 25 forecast contained in your first 10-year report? 348 1 A. I don't remember. I mean I don't know. 2 Q. What assumptions from your 10-year study are you 3 re-evaluating in view of the IFAS vegetable reports? 4 A. The cost of producing vegetables in the EAA, how 5 they change over time. 6 Q. What assumptions are you reconsidering in view of 7 the cow-calf reports? 8 A. As the soil gets thinner and thinner so that you 9 can't grow vegetables or sugar cane, cow-calf operation may 10 be a viable alternate use of the land, so we're trying to 11 evaluate whether or not it is a viable alternate use of the 12 land. 13 Q. And that is only with respect to lands on which you 14 cannot grow sugar cane? 15 A. And vegetables, yes. 16 Q. And vegetables. 17 Do you know whether those reports were produced? 18 A. Yes, they were. 19 Q. Are there any assumptions in your 10-year study 20 which you are reassessing or re-evaluating irrespective of 21 information that has been received since the first report? 22 A. I don't believe so, no, as far as I can recall. 23 Q. Will your examination of these various pricing 24 assumptions and cost assumptions include an examination of 25 your final conclusions in your 10-year report with respect 349 1 to changes in jobs, sales, earnings and land leaving 2 production? 3 A. I need you to either repeat the question, I don't 4 understand it. 5 Q. Assuming that there are changes in your 10-year 6 assumptions regarding costs of producing and milling raw 7 sugar, and the price of raw sugar over time, and the costs 8 of producing vegetables that you've just testified to, 9 assuming that there are changes in those -- 10 A. Okay. 11 Q. -- will those changes carry through to the results 12 which you reported in your 10-year analysis with respect to 13 jobs, sales, earnings and acreages out of production in the 14 EAA? 15 MR. SAXE: Object to form. 16 MR. NETTLETON: Same objection. 17 BY THE WITNESS: 18 A. I don't understand the question. 19 MR. NETTLETON: Are you asking her whether she's 20 going to go back and amend her 10-year report? 21 BY MR. BURGESS: 22 Q. What effect, what effects do you anticipate from 23 this reexamination -- from the reexamination of these 24 various assumptions? 25 A. You want to know if I think the economic impacts 350 1 will change due to this? 2 Q. Yes. 3 A. Is that what you are asking me. 4 Q. Right. 5 A. I don't know if they will or not. 6 Q. From your 10-year study? 7 A. Exactly, from the first 10 years. 8 Q. When will you reach that decision? 9 A. By April 31st -- 30th. April 30th. It's an 10 approximate date. I may reach it sooner. 11 Q. You've testified with respect to soil subsidence 12 and potential effects on yields and cost of production. 13 Have you evaluated the effects of soil subsidence, if any, 14 on the market value of the land? 15 A. Your question is: Have I evaluated the impact of 16 soil subsidence on the market value of the land? 17 Q. Yes. 18 A. No, I have not. 19 Q. Will you do that in connection with your 20-year 20 study? 21 A. I don't know. 22 Q. What assumptions, if any, have you made with 23 respect to mechanization for your 20-year analysis, harvest 24 mechanization? 25 A. They haven't changed from the 10-year evaluation. 351 1 Q. Do you anticipate that they will remain the same 2 for the 20-year analysis? 3 A. I anticipate that it will remain the same at this 4 time. 5 Q. Are you examining whether any relationships exist 6 between mechanization and soil subsidence? 7 A. Not at the moment. 8 Q. Do you plan to for the 20-year study? 9 A. I don't know. 10 Q. Do you have any opinions as to whether harvest 11 methods and soil subsidence relate at all to sugar cane 12 yield? 13 MR. SAXE: Objection to form. 14 BY THE WITNESS: 15 A. (No response.) 16 BY MR. BURGESS: 17 Q. Let me ask it this way: Your discussions earlier, 18 your testimony earlier with respect to soil subsidence 19 talked in terms of the land becoming too thin to grow sugar 20 cane, and my question is whether it matters at all whether 21 you harvest that cane by hand or machine as to whether or 22 not it's too thin to grow sugar cane? 23 A. Matter in what sense? 24 Q. In the sense whether you could conceivably, you 25 could plant and grow cane on a certain depth of soil if you 352 1 are going to harvest it by hand but you couldn't do that if 2 you are going to harvest it by machine. 3 MR. NETTLETON: I'll just object generally to the 4 subject matter. She's not being offered in this area 5 of expertise. I mean I can let her answer to the 6 extent she understands the question. 7 MR. BURGESS: She's testified she's going to 8 continue her assumptions in her 20-year study with 9 respect to the assumptions she's made in the 10-year 10 study, and she's also testified in her 20-year study 11 that she may be having land go out of production 12 because it reached a certain depth of soil. 13 I'm asking her whether she's examined any 14 relationships or interrelationships between depth of 15 soil and method of harvesting and whether she plans to. 16 BY THE WITNESS: 17 A. I have not looked at it and I don't know if I will 18 or not. 19 BY MR. BURGESS: 20 Q. Have you attempted to talk to any representatives 21 from industry with respect to soil subsidence? 22 A. If someone will talk to me, I'll be happy to 23 listen. 24 Q. Have you attempted to contact anyone from any other 25 growers to discuss soil subsidence issues? 353 1 A. We did contact them -- 2 Q. Who did -- 3 A. -- during the 10-year evaluation. 4 Q. Who did you contact and when? 5 A. Representatives of the Sugar Cane League, the 6 cooperative, South Bay Growers. That was an issue that we 7 asked about. 8 Q. Since your completion of your 10-year report and 9 your decision to examine the issue of soil subsidence over 10 a 20-year horizon, have you attempted to contact anyone 11 from industry on this subject? 12 A. No. 13 I'm happy for them to call me if they want to talk 14 about it. 15 MR. BURGESS: Off the record. 16 (Whereupon, a discussion was held off the record.) 17 MS. STINSON: I'm ordering a copy of the 18 deposition, the three days. And an ASCII disks. 19 (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.) 20 BY MR. BURGESS: 21 Q. With respect to your contract completion report in 22 October of 1992, various of the tables contained in chapter 23 5 on vegetables cite to data sources as including the 24 Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences Production 25 Costs for Collected Florida Vegetables, 1991 to 1992. I 354 1 show you the document, although it's not an exhibit, and 2 I've tabbed chapter 5. 3 My question is simply whether you've had 4 discussions with anyone at IFAS since the completion report 5 regarding your use of their information and the conclusions 6 which you've drawn from it? 7 MR. SAXE: Excuse me, what page of the document 8 are you on? 9 MR. BURGESS: It's chapter 5. 10 MR. NETTLETON: Tables. 11 MR. BURGESS: Various tables in chapter 5. 12 A. I don't recall that we had anyone at IFAS 13 specifically look at these two tables. 14 Q. Has anyone from IFAS commented to you since the 15 publication of either your final report or your completion 16 report? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And have they commented to you -- let's start with 19 who has commented to you? 20 A. Tom Scheuneman, Del Botcher and Bill Boggess, 21 that I recall, and, oh, Jose Alvarez, that I recall. 22 Q. Have any of those gentlemen commented along the 23 lines of the fact that their or IFAS' data was either used 24 inappropriately or invalid conclusions were drawn from it? 25 A. Would you repeat the question one more time, make 355 1 sure I answer it right. 2 MR. BURGESS: Could you. 3 (Whereupon, the pertinent portion of the Record was 4 read back by the Court Reporter.) 5 MR. NETTLETON: I'll object to the form, just 6 the use of the word "fact." 7 BY THE WITNESS: 8 A. (Continuing) None of them said that we used this 9 data in the wrong way or got the wrong conclusions. 10 BY MR. BURGESS: 11 Q. What were the substance of the comments from these 12 individuals? 13 A. Overall they concurred with the report and how we 14 used the information. 15 Q. Has anyone from IFAS not concurred with the report 16 or how you used the information with respect to vegetables? 17 MR. SAXE: Object to the form. 18 MR. NETTLETON: Object to the form. 19 BY THE WITNESS: 20 A. If you could repeat it again I'll make sure I 21 answer it correctly. 22 (Whereupon, the pertinent portion of the Record was 23 read back by the Court Reporter.) 24 BY MR. BURGESS: 25 Q. Let me just amend it to be concurred with the 356 1 conclusions in the report. 2 MR. NETTLETON: Same objection. 3 MR. SAXE: Same objection. 4 BY THE WITNESS: 5 A. Could you just, like, redo the question. 6 BY MR. BURGESS: 7 Q. I was just using your answer. You said that none 8 of them disagreed with the conclusions in the report or the 9 way that you used data and my question simply is with 10 regard to the vegetable data provided by IFAS and referred 11 to in chapter 5 of the completion report, has anyone from 12 IFAS commented to you with respect to the conclusions 13 reached in the report and whether or not that IFAS data 14 supports or does not support the conclusions that you 15 reached? 16 A. Could you restate the question so it doesn't run on 17 as long. 18 Q. Has anyone from IFAS disagreed with your 19 conclusions relative to vegetables? 20 MR. SAXE: Objection to form. 21 I assume you are asking to the witness' knowledge 22 whether she's heard of any disagreements. 23 BY MR. BURGESS: 24 Q. Always to your knowledge. Can't tell me what you 25 don't know. 357 1 A. To my knowledge, no one has disagreed at IFAS 2 with how we used the numbers. 3 Q. And when you say "the numbers," we're referring to 4 the data from IFAS on vegetables? 5 A. Correct. 6 Q. Let me show you what's been marked as Exhibit 11, 7 previously marked as Exhibit 11, and ask you if you can 8 turn to page 4 of 5 of that exhibit and with respect to 9 number 6 on that page, the last sentence in the first 10 paragraph reads, "Before increased rice production in the 11 EAA becomes a formal goal of the District, the economic and 12 environmental feasibility of increased rice production 13 should be evaluated." 14 My question is: Are you, in connection with your 15 20-year analysis, investigating the economic and 16 environmental feasibility of increased rice production? 17 MR. NETTLETON: Can you just tell me where you 18 are reading from. 19 MR. BURGESS: The last sentence in number 6, first 20 paragraph. 21 BY THE WITNESS: 22 A. We're looking at whether or not it's profitable for 23 the growers to grow rice, and that assumes that there are 24 markets for rice. We are not evaluating the environmental 25 feasibility of rice production. 358 1 BY MR. BURGESS: 2 Q. How will assumptions change, if at all, in your 3 20-year analysis from your 10-year analysis regarding rice? 4 A. They will probably remain the same. 5 Q. In the third paragraph of that same number 6, third 6 sentence reads, "The economic feasibility of the area to 7 expand rice production is tied to the success in developing 8 new markets for rice and the cost of building new rice 9 milling capacity.". 10 Are you evaluating the economic cost of building 11 new rice milling capacity in connection with your 20-year 12 study? 13 A. No. 14 Q. And are you making any assumptions with respect to 15 new markets for rice? 16 A. We're not making any new assumptions that would be 17 any different from the 10-year evaluation. 18 Q. Number 7, second sentence. "The economic impact of 19 yield risk can be evaluated when more specific and detailed 20 information regarding BMP implementation is developed.". 21 My question is: With respect to the 20-year 22 analysis, what economic impact of yield risk or how, I'm 23 sorry, how are you evaluating the economic impact of yield 24 risk in your 20-year study? 25 A. You mean related to BMPs? 359 1 Q. Yes. 2 A. It will be very similar to the -- I expect it will 3 be very similar to the 10-year study; however, any 4 information that would be useful from the Brown & Caldwell 5 study of the management -- of the best management practices 6 may be incorporated. 7 Q. Are you aware of any impacts on yield which any 8 growers in the EAA have experienced as a result of the, or 9 their use of the BMPs contained in the Swim Plan? 10 A. Could you repeat the question. 11 Q. Are you aware of any impacts that growers in the 12 EAA have experienced with respect to yield, impacts on 13 yield? 14 A. Only that which is contained in the report 15 completed by IFAS and the report completed by Brown & 16 Caldwell. 17 Q. What IFAS report are you referring to? 18 A. The -- I don't remember the exact title. I believe 19 Del Botcher was the lead on that one. 20 Q. That was the report that was in existence when you 21 did your 10-year study? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. You are not aware of any yield impacts suffered by 24 any growers in the last six months from institution of any 25 of the BMPs contained in the Swim Plan; are you? 360 1 A. I'm not aware at this time. 2 Q. Number 8 in the same exhibit talks about the 3 economic impact model. Is this the model you testified to 4 this morning you are working on and expect to complete by 5 April 15? 6 MR. SAXE: Objection to form. Complete by 7 April 15? 8 MR. BURGESS: I think that's what she said. 9 BY THE WITNESS: 10 A. This paragraph number 8 represents the spirit of 11 the current, or I should say the additional work that we 12 intend to do for the District. 13 BY MR. BURGESS: 14 Q. And what is your due date for completion of that 15 intended work? 16 A. My verbal understanding with the District is the 17 end of April. 18 Q. What is the stage of completion of that model? 19 A. We have begun making the necessary programming for 20 the model. 21 Q. Who is working with you on that? 22 A. No one. 23 Q. Is it going to be a spreadsheet-based model? 24 A. Yes. As far as I can tell at the time, that's what 25 we're working on. 361 1 Q. Were any of the programming contained on any of the 2 disks which you made available in your document production? 3 A. Yes, the tables that are in the report, many of 4 them are on spreadsheets and we provided that to you and 5 there are files on that -- on the disks that we gave you 6 that we will be using. 7 Q. Do you anticipate using the model to reach any of 8 the conclusions that you might make in the 20-year 9 analysis? 10 A. Yes. I just want to clarify what you mean by 11 model. 12 Yes, the model that we're currently developing, 13 yes. 14 Q. What do you call the model? 15 A. I haven't called it anything yet. 16 Q. With respect to your 20-year analysis, do you 17 anticipate that you will maintain the eight model farms and 18 the same sizes that you used in your 10-year study? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. And will those model farms be identified by ag belt 21 as done in the 10-year study? 22 A. Yes, we expect to it be. 23 Q. Conceptually what is the 20-year report going to 24 look like, and by that I mean do you anticipate it will 25 resemble the contract completion report? 362 1 A. From what I expect as of today, it will be an 2 update of the contract completion report and this update 3 will supersede the current contract completion report. 4 That is the way I see it now. 5 Q. So you do not intend to attach the contract 6 completion report, as an exhibit for instance, to your 7 20-year report? 8 A. I may. I don't know yet. 9 Q. What do you mean by your 20-year analysis will 10 supersede the contract completion report? 11 A. The information in the 20-year report. In other 12 words, if you have -- this is the way I think it will go. 13 If you have that 20-year contract completion report -- 14 Q. That document. 15 A. -- you won't need the current contract completion 16 report. This is the way I see it personally, the way I'm 17 looking at it. 18 Q. Will you identify in your 20-year analysis areas 19 where you have changed the assumptions from your previous 20 10-year analysis? 21 A. I don't know. 22 Q. What assumptions or considerations are you giving 23 to the concept of new and improved technology and its 24 effect on the average cost per unit for growers and mills 25 for the 20-year report? 363 1 A. Could you be more specific? 2 Q. Are you considering any additional assumptions with 3 respect to the effect of technology on increases in yield 4 in your 20-year analysis compared to your 10-year analysis? 5 A. We are considering it. 6 Q. What additional items or aspects of technology are 7 you considering? 8 A. Well, we are considering the fact that changes in 9 the costs of production over time may be influenced by more 10 efficient technological or organizational ways of producing 11 crops and producing commodities in the EAA. We haven't 12 looked at any specific type of technology. 13 Q. Do you anticipate looking at any specific type of 14 technology before you complete your 20-year analysis? 15 A. We -- 16 THE WITNESS: Could you repeat the question one 17 more time. 18 BY MR. BURGESS: 19 Q. You said you haven't looked at any specific 20 technology or technologies, and I'm asking whether you 21 anticipate you will do so before your 20-year analysis is 22 done. 23 A. We may, I don't know. 24 (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.) 25 BY MR. BURGESS: 364 1 Q. Yesterday you testified that you were conducting 2 further evaluation with respect to the price of raw sugar 3 received by the mills in the EAA and you testified 4 extensively concerning your conversations with Ron Lord. I 5 don't want to go back over that. 6 What I would like to know, though, is: What, from 7 this point forward until you issue your 20-year analysis, 8 do you intend to examine, look at and who do you intend to 9 talk to relative to determining the price of raw sugar 10 received by the mill? 11 A. Well, I really haven't intended to talk to anyone 12 else, any more people at this time. 13 Q. Have you reached a final opinion as to what price 14 or prices for raw sugar received by the mill you'll use in 15 your 20-year analysis? 16 A. I can tell you about the constant price that FAPRI 17 reports. I intend to use that. 18 As far as the other ones, no, I haven't finalized 19 it because when I do I've got to write down exactly why I'm 20 doing it and I haven't done that yet. 21 Q. And could that price change from the price reported 22 in your 10-year analysis? 23 A. Well, we did two raw sugar prices. It could 24 change. Either. Either/or both. 25 Q. You also said yesterday that in your 10-year study 365 1 it appeared that you subtracted transportation costs out 2 twice and then you said you weren't sure about whether you 3 did that or not. 4 Have you thought about that any further and do you 5 know whether you did or didn't subtract transportation 6 costs out twice in your 10-year study? 7 A. It depends which transportation costs you are 8 talking about. If you are talking about the cost of 9 transporting sugar from the EAA to its own markets, okay, 10 that was subtracted out of our study and that's fine. 11 There's another transportation cost that we 12 deducted from the raw sugar price to get an estimate of the 13 Everglades FOB price, you know, the price received by the 14 mills in the Everglades. 15 It's that number that I was looking at, I've been 16 looking at, to decide if that's the appropriate way to go, 17 because the mills in the EAA, we asked them if they would 18 provide some information to help us along and they have 19 not. They did not provide that information to us and we 20 asked for it about a year, you know, a year ago. So we 21 have to make the determination of the price that they 22 receive from the refineries on our own. 23 Q. Have you more recently reasked anyone from the 24 industry to provide that information? 25 A. If -- I consider that I am an open line. The 366 1 questions that we asked them still stand, they're written 2 on paper, they're in formal letters, there was a formal 3 request. They are free to contact me at any time to 4 provide me with any of the information that we asked for. 5 Q. What response, if any, have you received from Fred 6 Hill to your February inquiry? 7 A. I received a letter from him recently. 8 MR. SAXE: Excuse me, off the record. 9 (Whereupon, a discussion was held off the record.) 10 BY MR. BURGESS: 11 Q. Dr. Johns, you testified earlier that you made 12 inquiry of Fred Hill concerning certain aspects of 13 transportation costs for raw sugar and I'm simply trying to 14 find out if he responded, and if he did respond, what he 15 told you, and whether there are still any other outstanding 16 requests of him. 17 A. He did respond recently via letter. I did read the 18 letter but I need to go back through the letter and look at 19 it more thoroughly. 20 Q. To see if he's answered all of your questions? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. So in connection with the 20-year study, is it a 23 fair statement to say that you are reexamining the subject 24 matter of transportation costs relative to the raw sugar 25 price received by the mills? 367 1 A. We're reexamining the price received by raw sugar 2 mills in the EAA. That's what we're reexamining. 3 Q. And do you expect to reach an opinion or conclusion 4 as to what that price should be and what price should be 5 used in your 20-year study? 6 A. We are reexamining the price to use in the 20-year 7 study. 8 Q. Does that price, the price received for