1 DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
2 STATE OF FLORIDA
3
CASE 92-3038, 92-3039, 92-3040
4
5
SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE OF )
6 FLORIDA, et al. )
)
7 PETITIONERS, ) VOLUME I OF II
)
8 v. )
)
9 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT )
DISTRICT, an Agency of the State )
10 of Florida, )
)
11 RESPONDENT. )
)
12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
13
150 West Flagler Street
14 Miami, Florida
October 15, 1992
15 10:00 a.m.
16
17 DEPOSITION OF PAUL LARSEN
18
19 Taken before JACKIE JOHNSON, Professional
20 Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of
21 Florida at Large, pursuant to Notice of Taking
22 Deposition filed in the above cause.
23 - - - - - - -
24
25
Page 1
1 APPEARANCES
2
ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS
3
PEEPLES, EARL & BLANK
4 One Biscayne Tower
Two South Biscayne Boulevard
5 Miami, Florida 33131
BY: Mark Kobelinkski, ESQ.
6
ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
7
US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
8 ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION
GENERAL LITIGATION SECTION
9 P.O. BOX 663
Washington, DC 20044
10 BY: Geoffrey Garver, ESQ.
11 INDEX
Witness Direct Cross Redirect Recross
12 PAUL LARSEN
By Mr. Garver 3
13
14
15
16
17
Page 2
1 Thereupon --
2 PAUL LARSEN,
3 was called as a witness and, having been first duly
4 sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
5 MR. GARVER: This is a case in the Division
6 of Administrative Hearings, Case No. 92-3038
7 which is consolidated with cases 92-3039 and
8 92-3040.
9 My name is Geoffrey Garver with the United
10 States Department of Justice. I am representing
11 the United states in these proceedings.
12 With me in the room are Mark Kobelinkski of
13 the Law Firm of Peeples, Earl & Blank and the
14 deponent, Paul Larsen.
15 DIRECT EXAMINATION
16 BY MR. GARVER:
17 Q. Mr. Larsen, could you please state your
18 name and address for the Record?
19 A. My name is Paul Larsen, spelled
20 L-A-R-S-E-N, and my home address is 2779 Southwest
21 22nd Avenue, Miami Florida 33133.
22 MR. GARVER: Mr. Larsen, I am going to be
23 asking you a number of questions, and I'd like
24 you to listen to my questions carefully and give
25 full and honest answers to each one of my
Page 3
1 questions.
2 If you don't understand a question that I
3 ask, please let me know, and I will try to
4 rephrase it. I'd also ask that you speak
5 clearly and slow enough that the court reporter
6 can get down your testimony accurately.
7 BY MR. GARVER:
8 Q. Mr. Larsen, have you ever had your
9 deposition taken before?
10 A. Yes, I have.
11 Q. Have you read the notice for this
12 deposition?
13 A. I believe I have, yes.
14 Q. Have you produced all the documents that
15 are covered by categories 4 and 10 on the list that's
16 attached to the notice of deposition?
17 A. I'd have to review that.
18 Q. I am handing you a copy of the deposition
19 notice.
20 A. On Item 4, I brought some additional
21 documents with me.
22 Q. And category number 10?
23 A. If the 10 relates to 4, I have some
24 additional documents with me.
25 MR. GARVER: Can we go Off the Record for a
Page 4
1 second.
2 (Discussion off the record.)
3 BY MR. GARVER:
4 Q. Mr. Larsen, you have just produced a number
5 of additional materials in response to categories 4
6 and 10 on the deposition notice.
7 Have you now produced all documents
8 responsive to the notice of deposition?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. In those categories numbers 4 and 10?
11 MR. KOBELINKSKI: I would object to the
12 extent he has produced all non privileged
13 documents in response to those categories.
14 BY MR. GARVER:
15 Q. Mr. Larsen, how long have you lived in
16 Florida?
17 A. Since 1968.
18 Q. Where have you lived in Florida?
19 A. I have lived in Jacksonville from when I
20 was in the Service, from 1966 to 1968, I believe, but
21 I was stationed in Jacksonville when I was in the
22 Service. I moved to Miami to come here to go to
23 school in 1968 after I got out of the Service to go
24 to the Rosendale School.
25 Q. And have you lived in Miami since you moved
Page 5
1 here in 1968?
2 A. I lived in Miami continuously since 1968.
3 Q. How are you employed?
4 A. At present?
5 Q. Yes.
6 A. I work for myself. I have a firm by the
7 name of Larsen & Associates. The corporate structure
8 is -- the name of the corporation is Paul W. Larsen,
9 Inc., and it goes by the fictitious name of Larsen &
10 Associates, and I'm employed by that firm, but I also
11 own it.
12 Q. Are there any other employees in the firm?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. How many other employees?
15 A. Six.
16 Q. How long have you been self-employed with
17 Larsen & Associates?
18 A. Since 1977.
19 But Larsen & Associates changed from a sole
20 proprietorship to a corporation about two years ago.
21 Q. What is your post high school education?
22 A. I have a degree in civil engineering from
23 the University of Illinois. That degree was granted
24 in 1963, and I have a Masters degree in ocean
25 engineering from the University of Miami, and that
Page 6
1 degree was granted in 1971.
2 Q. Mr. Kobelinski referred to you as Doctor
3 Larsen in a recent letter.
4 You are not a doctor, are you, Mr. Larsen?
5 A. No, I am not.
6 MR. GARVER: I may have additional
7 questions about your education and employment
8 when we reconvene after you have finalized your
9 expect opinions, but for now, I think we will
10 move on.
11 BY MR. GARVER:
12 Q. Are you familiar with the phrase Everglades
13 Protection Area, as used in the SWIM Plan?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. What do you understand that term,
16 Everglades Protection Area, to mean?
17 A. The Water Conservation Areas, Conservation
18 Areas 1, 2 and 3.
19 Q. And also Everglades National Park?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Have you ever visited any parts of the
22 Everglades Protection Area?
23 A. Yes, I have.
24 Q. What parts have you been to in the
25 Everglades Protection Area?
Page 7
1 A. I think that except for major portions of
2 Everglades National Park which are inaccessible, I
3 have visited most of the areas in Conservation Areas
4 2 and 3, and I have been made limited visits around
5 the periphery of Conservation Area 1.
6 Q. When you say the periphery of Conservation
7 Area 1, what are you referring to?
8 A. I have been in the canal that surrounds
9 Conservation Area 1.
10 Q. Have you ever been in the interior marsh in
11 Water Conservation Area 1?
12 A. Not physically, no. I have been in
13 airplanes flying over it, helicopters flying over it,
14 but never in it.
15 Q. Do you know how many times you have flown
16 over Conservation Area 1?
17 A. I would estimate five or six times.
18 Q. How often have you been in the canals or
19 periphery of Water Conservation Area 1?
20 A. Just once, that I can remember.
21 Q. And when was that visit to Water
22 Conservation Area 1?
23 A. I believe it was approximately a year ago.
24 Q. What was the nature and purpose of that
25 visit?
Page 8
1 A. To view the Conservation Area from points
2 accessible by outboard motorboat as much as possible
3 that an outboard motorboat can go along the canals,
4 given that the boat was launched at the Fish and
5 Wildlife Service launching ramp on the east side of
6 Conservation Area 1.
7 Q. Did you encircle the entire Refuge?
8 A. It was impossible.
9 Q. How much of the canal were you able to
10 travel along?
11 A. I would estimate that we were able to go
12 about five or six miles south of the launching ramp
13 and maybe three or four miles north. Beyond that
14 point, the canal was blocked by vegetation.
15 Q. What kind of vegetation was it blocked by?
16 A. It was floating emergent vegetation, water
17 lilies, water lettuce and so forth.
18 Q. And that emergent vegetation made it
19 impossible for the motorboat you were in to proceed?
20 A. It was too thick to go through.
21 Q. What did you observe during your trip to
22 the canal in Water Conservation Area 1?
23 A. Levees on one side of the canal to the
24 middle and then the marsh on the opposite side from
25 the levee.
Page 9
1 Q. Were you looking for anything in particular
2 in the interior marsh?
3 A. No. I would classify it as a
4 reconnaissance trip.
5 Q. Did you observe the nature of the
6 vegetation in the interior marsh?
7 A. Only what could be observed from the canal
8 itself, which was limited, because you can't see more
9 than a few feet into the marsh from the canal.
10 Q. How many feet do you think you can see in
11 from the canal into the marsh?
12 A. Ten or fifteen feet.
13 Q. And what was the nature of the vegetation
14 you could observe within that ten or fifteen feet?
15 A. I don't recall the specific species, but it
16 was the type of vegetation you would expect. There
17 were some reeds, some sawgrass, some shrubs, but I
18 didn't keep any notes of my observations, and I just
19 recall that it seemed to be what I would expect to
20 see growing along a canal. There may have been some
21 cattails.
22 Q. What would you expect to see growing along
23 a canal in the Everglades?
24 A. Just that. I mean, I wasn't surprised by
25 what I saw.
Page 10
1 Q. What other parts of the Everglades
2 Protection Area have you visited? I am sorry. I
3 have already asked you that.
4 You said you had visited Water Conservation
5 Area 2, I believe?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. How often have you visited Water
8 Conservation Area 2?
9 A. I would estimate 20 or 30 times.
10 Q. When was the first time you visited Water
11 Conservation Area 2?
12 A. I recall that it was in 1989, but I don't
13 remember the date.
14 Q. And when was the most recent time you
15 visited Water Conservation Area 2?
16 A. Possibly two weeks ago. Again, I don't
17 remember the exact date, but it was quite recent.
18 Q. What parts of Water Conservation Area 2
19 have you visited?
20 A. I would say that I have covered essentially
21 the entirety of Conservation Area 2, both by airboat
22 and helicopter.
23 Q. How many times have you visited Water
24 Conservation Area 2 by airboat?
25 A. Again, 20 or 30 times.
Page 11
1 Q. And how many times have you flown over it
2 in a helicopter?
3 A. Again, I would estimate five or six times.
4 Q. Did the helicopter ever land within Water
5 Conservation Area 2 during your overflights?
6 A. Yes, it did.
7 Q. What were the nature and purposes of your
8 visits to Water Conservation Area 2?
9 MR. KOBELINKSKI: I will object and
10 instruct the witness to the extent the question
11 is asking for him to reveal privileged
12 information, I would instruct him not to respond
13 in regard to privileged information. Otherwise,
14 he may respond.
15 MR. GARVER: What type of privileged
16 information are you referring to,
17 Mr. Kobelinkski?
18 Mr. Kobelinkski, to the extent that
19 Mr. Larsen is an expert witness who is retained
20 with regard to this action. He is not being
21 deposed with regard to his expert opinion today
22 or the work he has done in preparation for
23 coming to an expert opinion. That is not a
24 subject of this deposition, and it is work
25 product until such time as he comes to his
Page 12
1 conclusion and testifies with regard to that.
2 So we are here to talk about the Federal
3 Project, the history of the Federal Project. I
4 understand you're exploring his visits there,
5 but to the extent you're asking him to testify
6 with regard to any type of testing, etcetera
7 that he has done or is going to be doing with
8 regard to this action, I would object to that at
9 this point in time.
10 BY MR. GARVER:
11 Q. Mr. Larsen, do you remember my question
12 still?
13 A. Could you repeat it, please.
14 Q. I asked what the nature and purposes of
15 your visits to Water Conservation Area 2 were?
16 A. I understand that the purpose of my visits
17 is covered by the privileged category that
18 Mr. Kobelinkski mentioned.
19 Q. Have you conducted any experiments in Water
20 Conservation Area 2?
21 MR. KOBELINKSKI: Again, with the exception
22 of responding with a yes or no answer, I would
23 object to revealing any privileged information
24 at this time.
25 This deposition, by agreement, has been
Page 13
1 limited to factual testimony with regard to the
2 structure of the Federal Project and the history
3 of the Federal Project. So with other than a
4 yes or no response, I would object to any
5 further information being revealed that is
6 privileged in nature.
7 THE WITNESS: The answer is yes.
8 BY MR. GARVER:
9 Q. What types of experiments have you
10 conducted in Water Conservation Area 2?
11 MR. KOBELINKSKI: I will raise the same
12 objection.
13 Perhaps I will, to make things a little bit
14 easier, we have in our disclosure provided in
15 this action revealed that Mr. Larsen has been
16 retained with regard to DO, dissolved oxygen
17 samplings. Again, going beyond what we have
18 revealed is not what this deposition is for, and
19 I would object to revealing priviledged
20 information, other than the fact that Mr. Larsen
21 has done some dissolved oxygen testing.
22 BY MR. GARVER:
23 Q. Mr. Larsen, you may answer the question.
24 A. Could you repeat it again.
25 Q. I asked you what types of experiments you
Page 14
1 conducted in Water Conservation Area 2?
2 MR. KOBELINKSKI: Other than -- same
3 objection, same instruction, as not to respond,
4 other than revealing what has already been
5 revealed by the hearing officer.
6 THE WITNESS: Given that statement, I am
7 not aware of what the hearing officer has said.
8 MR. KOBELINKSKI: I am just stating that
9 when we revealed in regard to your testimony --
10 as I said, you have done some DO sampling and,
11 also, if I recall correctly, with regard to
12 topographic and water level analyses.
13 Mr. Larsen is not here today to be deposed
14 with regard to his expert opinions, nor is he
15 here today then to be deposed with regard to
16 everything he has done in reaching those
17 opinions, particularly since he has not come to
18 his final opinions.
19 He is here today to testify by agreement of
20 the parties with regard to the Federal Project
21 and the history of the Federal Project.
22 I will let this go a little bit further,
23 but he is not here today to be deposed with
24 regard to what he has done to reach a final
25 opinion at all.
Page 15
1 MR. GARVER: I am trying to limit my
2 questions to factual matters, Mr. Kobelinkski.
3 I don't believe I have crossed that line yet.
4 MR. KOBELINKSKI: Well, as I said, I
5 instruct the witness that other than what was
6 revealed to all parties in our disclosure with
7 regard to Mr. Larsen, I would instruct him not
8 to reveal privileged information.
9 He is here merely as a fact witness, not to
10 go ahead and testify as to what he has done as
11 an expert for the Petitioners.
12 MR. GARVER: Well, maybe if Mr. Larsen can
13 just answer this question, we can move on.
14 BY MR. GARVER:
15 Q. Mr. Larsen, do you remember the question
16 still?
17 A. No, I don't.
18 Q. I asked you what types of experiments you
19 have conducted in the Water Conservation Area 2,
20 subject to Mr. Kobelinkski's objection?
21 MR. KOBELINKSKI: And I instruct you not to
22 go beyond the revelation made by the Petitioners
23 in this action.
24 THE WITNESS: I conducted measurements of
25 dissolved oxygen, mapping of vegetation. I have
Page 16
1 begun a topographic analysis and water level
2 analysis, and I am familiar, by way of maps and
3 photographs, of geographic features of
4 Conservation Area 2.
5 BY MR. GARVER:
6 Q. Have any of the experiments that you have
7 conducted in Water Conservation Area 2A been
8 completed?
9 MR. KOBELINKSKI: I am instructing the
10 witness not to respond to that. That is
11 privileged information. Again, he is not here
12 to be deposed with regard to his privileged --
13 with regard to his expert opinion or the
14 experiments he has done in coming to an expert
15 opinion. That was the agreement of the parties.
16 I will not let it go beyond that, and I will not
17 waive that agreement. So I will instruct the
18 witness not to respond to that question.
19 MR. GARVER: You are not calling that --I
20 am not asking for his expert opinion on whether
21 they are completed or not.
22 MR. KOBELINKSKI: I understand that,
23 Counsel. My point is that in this instance, the
24 parties have come to an agreement limiting what
25 this gentleman is testifying about today. To
Page 17
1 the extent I allow you to go beyond that, you
2 can claim a waiver of that agreement, and I am
3 not waiving that agreement.
4 This gentleman was produced here today by
5 agreement of the parties solely as to factual
6 matters with regard to construction and history
7 of the Federal Project.
8 What testing he has done, for instance,
9 with regard to Water Conservation Area 2 has
10 nothing to do with that, and you know that it's
11 part of his expert testimony. I am not waiving
12 the agreement of the parties, and as a result, I
13 instruct him not to respond. I will not be
14 caught in a position of waiving our agreement.
15 MR. GARVER: Let's move on.
16 BY MR. GARVER:
17 Q. Since the first visit you made to Water
18 Conservation Area 2A in 1989, have you observed any
19 changes in the nature of the vegetation in the
20 interior marsh in Water Conservation Area 2?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. What is the nature of the changes you have
23 observed with respect to the vegetation in Water
24 Conservation Area 2?
25 A. On my first visit, it was during a period
Page 18
1 when the area was substantially dried out and the
2 vegetation was somewhat dominated by a plant called
3 pigweed and other species that were, as I understand
4 it, upland in character.
5 Since then, it's become vastly more wet,
6 and the pigweed has died out and the species that
7 remain are those associated with wetter conditions,
8 sawgrass, cattails, water lettuce and other
9 vegetation associated with sloughs and the
10 surrounding areas.
11 Q. Are the vegetation patterns and changes
12 that you have just described true with respect to all
13 parts of the marsh that you have observed since 1989
14 in Water Conservation Area 2A or Water Conservation
15 Area 2? Excuse me.
16 A. Yes. The Conservation Area 2 has changed
17 significantly since the first time I was there when
18 conditions were dry to present conditions which are
19 very wet.
20 Q. And in terms of the vegetation that you
21 have observed in Conservation Area 2, is the
22 vegetation that you have mentioned you have seen
23 since the return of wet conditions been distributed
24 evenly in the portions of Water Conservation Area 2
25 you have visited?
Page 19
1 A. I don't understand the question.
2 Q. You testified that there were certain types
3 of vegetation that you associated with the return of
4 wetter conditions to Conservation Area 2; is that
5 correct?
6 A. That's correct.
7 Q. Has the distribution of that wetter
8 condition vegetation within Water Conservation Area 2
9 been even throughout the areas in Conservation Area 2
10 that you visited?
11 A. The reason that's a difficult question to
12 answer is because there are different areas of
13 vegetation in Conservation Area 2 and, for example,
14 there are sawgrass areas and sloughs.
15 The sawgrass areas have changed in that the
16 pigweed has died out. Sawgrass is now dominant. The
17 sloughs have changed, basically, from bare dry ground
18 to an open water system with emergent vegetation.
19 Therefore, saying that the vegetation
20 changes are even or uniform throughout is impossible.
21 Vegetation changes are significant everywhere, but
22 they are related to the various types of areas within
23 Conservation Area 2A.
24 Q. Where have you observed cattails in
25 Conservation Area 2?
Page 20
1 MR. KOBELINKSKI: I will interject an
2 objection.
3 Again, I will let -- I assume you're going
4 to be finishing up this area of questioning
5 shortly. I am holding back from instructing
6 this witness not to respond because, again, he
7 has been produced for a limited purpose, and you
8 have yet to ask one question as to what the
9 parties agreed to depose him on.
10 First we were doing DO testing. Now we're
11 getting into vegetative changes, and we have yet
12 to hear one question as to the Federal Project.
13 To the extent that you're just doing some
14 background information, if that is what you're
15 doing, I will allow it to go a couple of
16 questions further, but we're deposing him
17 pursuant to the agreement of the parties as to a
18 limited factual area and no further.
19 MR. GARVER: I understand the agreement,
20 Mr. Kobelinkski. I read the history of the
21 Federal Project maybe a little more broadly than
22 you do. Certainly any changes that have
23 happened in Water Conservation Area 2A in the
24 past -- well, since the history of the project
25 are included. I am only asking factual
Page 21
1 questions. I think that's apparent.
2 MR. KOBELINKSKI: If your statement is that
3 the changes in 2A are as a result of the project
4 and you're exploring that, because your position
5 is that the changes in vegetation in 2A are as a
6 direct result of the Federal Project, then to a
7 certain extent, I see what your question is, but
8 I will assume that the changes in 2A are as a
9 direct result of the Federal Project, and on
10 that basis, I will let you go forward.
11 MR. GARVER: You can assume whatever you
12 want.
13 MR. KOBELINKSKI: We can go ahead. If we
14 don't go ahead with the agreement, I will
15 convene the deposition if you keep asking these
16 questions, and we can reach the hearing officer
17 on the phone, because there's an agreement of
18 the parties, and it's in writing, and you have
19 yet to ask him one question based on the
20 agreement.
21 He is here to tell you about the history of
22 the Federal Project and construction of that
23 project. That's all. I have yet to hear one
24 question about that. You have asked about DO
25 testing and vegetative changes.
Page 22
1 MR. GARVER: Mr. Kobelinkski, you can
2 constrain the very broad agreement that we have
3 however you'd like. I am certainly not bound by
4 any conditions you want to put on your
5 interpretation of what the history of the
6 Federal Project is. None of the correspondence
7 or other agreements we have made with respect to
8 this deposition, for example, have restricted or
9 in any way limited this deposition to issues
10 relating to construction of the Federal Project.
11 I will repeat that I am limiting my
12 questions to factual matters relating to
13 Mr. Larsen's observations within the Water
14 Conversation Areas in the course of the history
15 of the project.
16 MR. KOBELINKSKI: Counsel, with that
17 definition you just stated, you should be able
18 to ask this gentleman about dissolved oxygen on
19 a daily basis since the project was created,
20 since that's a change, as you are putting it.
21 That's part of the history of the Federal
22 Project. You should be able to ask this
23 gentleman, basically, about any single item any
24 expert in this entire proceeding has testified
25 about, because they are all testifying about the
Page 23
1 EPA, which is part of the Federal Project, and
2 that is not the factual testimony.
3 This man came here -- you're restricted to
4 the factual testimony on the history and
5 structures of the Federal Project that the
6 Petitioners intend to put Mr. Larsen on at the
7 final hearing in this matter to define that as
8 including all manner of dissolved oxygen,
9 vegetative changes.
10 You could be going into periphyton,
11 macrophytes, as you now are, and never get to
12 his factual testimony with regard to the Federal
13 Project and the history of the Federal Project.
14 I can't accept your definition. I know
15 what we offered him for and what the agreement
16 is, because we're the ones who made the offer.
17 So as I said, I can only allow him to testify as
18 to what the agreement is. I am not going to let
19 you go through every expert area with regard to
20 Mr. Larsen during this deposition.
21 MR. GARVER: Well, I'd rather listen to
22 Mr. Larsen than you. So maybe we can move this
23 along.
24 BY MR. GARVER:
25 Q. Mr. Larsen, have you undertaken any studies
Page 24
1 or investigations of the history of the Central and
2 Southern Florida Project for flood control, water
3 supply and allied purposes?
4 A. Yes, I have.
5 Q. What is the nature of the studies and
6 investigations you have undertaken with regard to
7 that history?
8 A. To attempt to understand the sequence of
9 alterations to the system before there were any
10 alterations, to understand the general effect of
11 those, and then to understand how different the
12 system that is in place, how operations have affected
13 the water levels within the system.
14 Q. Do I understand you correctly that your
15 studies and investigations have examined only effects
16 of alterations on water levels?
17 A. To this point, yes.
18 Q. Your studies and investigations of the
19 history of the project is ongoing then; is that
20 correct?
21 A. That's correct.
22 Q. Do you have any intention, within
23 conducting this study or investigation, to look at
24 the effects of alterations of the system on anything
25 other than water levels?
Page 25
1 MR. KOBELINKSKI: Objection, to the extent
2 that that's a revelation of privileged
3 information with regard to what his expert
4 witness testimony will be. Other than providing
5 information about what that expert opinion
6 testimony will be, I will allow you to respond.
7 THE WITNESS: It's possible.
8 BY MR. GARVER:
9 Q. What materials have you reviewed in
10 conducting your study or investigation of the history
11 of the Central and Southern Florida Project?
12 A. Several historical documents, including
13 early accounts of visits to the Everglades by people
14 who were there before the system was altered,
15 accounts and investigations of the system and
16 evaluations of the system by Garald Parker in his
17 book Water Resources of Southeastern Florida,
18 Congressional documents, various books and references
19 dealing with the Everglades and their history.
20 I have reviewed Corps of Engineers'
21 documents about the construction and design of the
22 system and even some recent documents which proposed
23 changes to the system. So I think that I have
24 reviewed all the documents I have been able to
25 assemble thus far, and will we see additional
Page 26
1 documents that I am able to find that deal with the
2 history and evolution of the system.
3 Q. The documents and other materials that you
4 have already reviewed, are those all included in the
5 documents that you have produced in connection with
6 this deposition?
7 A. That's correct.
8 Q. Have you conducted any personal interviews
9 in conducting your study or investigation of the
10 Central and Southern Florida Project?
11 A. Yes, I have.
12 Q. Who have you interviewed?
13 A. Richard Slyfield, and he is the only one I
14 can think of at the moment.
15 Q. And who is Richard Slyfield?
16 A. He is the former operating engineer of the
17 system who ran the system for about 20 years, from
18 approximately 1970 to 1990.
19 Q. Is there anything else on which you base
20 your factual knowledge or beliefs with regard to the
21 history of the Central and Southern Florida Project?
22 A. The various maps and photographs that I
23 have been able to review.
24 Q. And have those maps and photographs been
25 produced in connection with this deposition?
Page 27
1 A. No. They are library materials.
2 You have to understand, there's a wide body
3 of information that I have reviewed.
4 Another item, which is both a description
5 and a map which has been produced, I believe, is the
6 1948 Soil Conversation Service Report and maps which
7 deal with the Everglades Protection Area and the
8 Everglades Agricultural Area, basically, everything
9 from Lake Okeechobee south.
10 Q. I am sorry.
11 What was the date on that report?
12 A. 1948.
13 Q. How long has your study or investigation of
14 the history of the Central and Southern Florida
15 Project been going on?
16 A. Really, since 1989.
17 I have a great interest in this issue and
18 in the changes, and so I have been reading as much as
19 I can on the Everglades since I became involved, you
20 know, with this effort in about 1989. I would say
21 that my research has accelerated in the last two or
22 three months.
23 Q. Do you have a copy of the Everglades SWIM
24 Plan with you?
25 A. Not with me, no.
Page 28
1 Q. Mr. Larsen, I am handing you a copy of the
2 Volume 19 Plan document of the March 13, 1992 SWIM
3 Plan that was attached as Exhibit A to the
4 Petitioners, Florida Sugar Cane League et al's First
5 Amended Petition in this proceeding.
6 Mr. Kobelinkski, I have a copy for you,
7 too.
8 MR. GARVER: I'd like you to turn to Page 3
9 of that Planning Document, Mr. Larsen, and
10 please read to yourself the paragraph at the
11 bottom of that page entitled Existing
12 Conditions.
13 BY MR. GARVER:
14 Q. Have you completed reading that section?
15 A. I have read it, yes.
16 Q. Based on your factual knowledge or beliefs
17 regarding the history of the Federal Project, is
18 there anything in the language I just asked you to
19 read that you consider to be inaccurate or
20 incomplete?
21 A. Well, let me state that when I normally
22 review information, I do so beyond the duress of
23 deposition, and on first and preliminary reading, I
24 didn't see things that I thought were in error.
25 However, I would normally review something such as
Page 29
1 this in the privacy of my office and by myself, and
2 so I wouldn't want in the future anyone to say,
3 "Well, you agreed with this paragraph on October
4 15th, and now you're disagreeing with it," because I
5 would reserve the right to review it carefully and
6 closely and beyond the atmosphere of a deposition.
7 MR. GARVER: I certainly don't want this to
8 be a stressful situation, and we are going to be
9 doing a number of -- we are going to actually be
10 going though the SWIM Plan in some detail. So I
11 understand what you're saying.
12 I would point out that I invite you to read
13 anything I ask you to read with whatever time
14 you feel is necessary, given whatever
15 constraints you feel are present here, and if
16 you need a break at any time, please let us
17 know, and I will be happy to accomdate that
18 wish, also.
19 THE WITNESS: Well, that's fine. But
20 again, I would reserve my right to reflect upon
21 this beyond the atmosphere of a deposition, and
22 it would be the sort of thing that if you wanted
23 me to comment on in some sort of a final manner,
24 that I would want a matter of a couple of weeks
25 to review this information so that I could have
Page 30
1 a chance to think about it and then reach
2 conclusions associated with it.
3 MR. GARSON: Well, in fact, we will be
4 reconvening at some point, Mr. Larsen, and that
5 may be an opportunity to follow-up on some of
6 this.
7 BY MR. GARVER:
8 Q. Incidentally, have you ever provided
9 written comments to the South Florida Water
10 Management District on any version or draft of the
11 Everglades SWIM Plan?
12 A. I don't recall that I have provided them to
13 the Water Management District. I may have provided
14 comment to attorneys who were subsequently commenting --
15 MR. KOBELINKSKI: I instruct the witness
16 not to reveal any communications with Counsel.
17 Just respond to the question being asked.
18 BY MR. GARVER:
19 Q. Have any of the comments that you have made
20 regarding any version or draft of the SWIM Plan
21 pertained to statements in the SWIM Plan regarding
22 the history of the Central and Southern Florida
23 Project?
24 MR. KOBELINKSKI: I will object to the
25 witness revealing privileged attorney
Page 31
1 communications, work product, and I instruct him
2 not to respond to that question, since he stated
3 the only people he has spoken with are counsel.
4 BY MR. GARVER:
5 Q. Would any comments that you may have made
6 regarding the history of the Central and Southern
7 Florida Project be included in comments that the
8 Petitioners, Florida Sugar Cane League, and the other
9 associated Petitioners submitted to the South Florida
10 Water Management District?
11 MR. KOBELINKSKI: Again, I will instruct
12 the witness -- he has stated he has only spoken
13 with counsel, and I will instruct him not to
14 reveral communications with counsel.
15 BY MR. GARVER:
16 Q. All right. Mr. Larsen, going back to the
17 language I asked you to read on Page 3 of the March
18 13, 1992 Everglades SWIM Plan Planning Document.
19 With the caveat you mentioned earlier, you
20 stated you at the present time find nothing to be
21 inaccurate or incomplete with that paragraph; is that
22 correct?
23 MR. KOBELINKSKI: I will object to the form
24 of the question. I believe it mischaracterizes
25 his testimony, and I guess, also, Counsel, I am
Page 32
1 confused by what you mean by complete. This
2 paragraph, which is about 15 sentences
3 summarizes the project history from the 1930's
4 through 1992. If that's complete in 15
5 sentences, if that's your question, I don't
6 really understand what you mean by complete.
7 BY MR. GARVER:
8 Q. Mr. Larsen, I'd like you to refer to Page 5
9 of the Planning Document, and at the beginning of the
10 second full paragraph there, the sentence reads, "The
11 EPA contains unique natural resources, plant and
12 animal communities and is threatened by a complex
13 array of water management and water quality
14 conditions. These threats have occurred due to the
15 rapid and extensive urban and agricultural
16 development that has occurred in South Florida during
17 the past century."
18 Is there anything about that sentence that
19 you find to be inaccurate or incomplete, based on
20 your factual knowledge and beliefs regarding the
21 history of the Federal Project?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And what do you consider to be factually
24 inaccurate or incomplete?
25 A. This sentence does not contain a complete
Page 33
1 description of the process under which the water
2 management system evolved. This is the nature of a
3 one-liner dealing with a very complex subject, and I
4 don't believe that this one, two sentences fully
5 covered the topic.
6 Q. To the extent that sentence does -- as far
7 as that sentence does go, is there anything about it
8 that you find to be inaccurate?
9 MR. KOBELINKSKI: I will object to the form
10 of the question.
11 THE WITNESS: The probable way that we
12 should deal with this is to dissect the
13 question, look at every statement that's in
14 here, and discuss the sentence, you know, idea
15 by idea, because there's an awful lot in this
16 sentence, and I don't want to provide a blanket
17 statement that I agree or disagree with this
18 statement or these two sentences, in that I
19 think that that could be misunderstood.
20 BY MR. GARVER:
21 Q. Well, we are here for you to discuss any
22 inaccuracies you find in there as much as you'd like.
23 A. Is that a question?
24 Q. Well, I'd like you to explain any
25 inaccuracies you find in those two sentences that I
Page 34
1 just read on Page 5.
2 A. Well, I would agree that the EPA contains
3 unique natural resources, and that it contains plant
4 and animal communities. I don't know if I agree with
5 the word threatened. I agree that there's a complex
6 array of water management structures and attendant
7 operational considerations associated with those
8 structures in the vicinity and surrounding and within
9 the EPA and that those structures and operational use
10 of those structures has an effect on water quality.
11 Then that's the end of the first sentence.
12 The second sentence says that these threats --
13 and again, I don't know if I agree with the word
14 threats, and then it says have occurred due to the
15 rapid and extensive. That indicates that these
16 threats are all recent in nature. I don't agree with
17 that.
18 I believe that impacts to the EPA have
19 begun back when man first started to alter the system
20 in approximately 1880 and so, therefore, I would
21 disagree with the concept embodied in this sentence,
22 that problems are of recent origin, recent nature. I
23 think that the process has been going on for more
24 than a century. So I think I can sense from that
25 that I don't necessarily agree with this statement.
Page 35
1 Q. Why, based on your factual knowledge and
2 beliefs of the history of the Federal Project, do you
3 believe it might be inaccurate to use the word
4 threatened or to refer to threats in the language
5 that you described?
6 MR. KOBELINKSKI: Let me just state an
7 objection, and I don't know where you're going
8 just by couching everything, "Based on your
9 factual understanding of the Federal Project,
10 what is your opinion as to threats and the word
11 threatened that are found in the SWIM Plan?"
12 That does not turn this into a factual
13 question. You're asking his opinion as to
14 threats with regard to that which are stated or
15 found by the District in the SWIM Plan and the
16 statements in the SWIM Plan, and you're asking
17 for opinion testimony as to what his opinion is
18 with regard to threats and what has caused
19 threats.
20 This is a factual deposition. You keep
21 trying to turn this into some means of finding
22 out about his opinions as to the findings of the
23 SWIM Plan. We are not here for his opinions.
24 We are here with regard to the factual history
25 of the Federal Project.
Page 36
1 BY MR. GARVER:
2 Q. You may answer the question.
3 MR. KOBELINKSKI: What was the question?
4 (The question referred to was
5 thereupon read by the reporter as
6 above recorded.)
7 THE WITNESS: Well, I have a problem with
8 the word threatened in that it indicates that
9 something that is presently okay is in danger.
10 I find that the system has been substantially
11 impacted by -- it's been substantially impacted
12 already. So I think we have to be very careful
13 to sort out an emotional term like threatened
14 and define what it means, a threat of what, and
15 to sort out changes that have occurred in the
16 past from those that may occur in the future.
17 So that's the nature of my problem with the word
18 threatened and threats. I believe that it is an
19 inappropriate term to use in describing the
20 Everglades.
21 I believe that the Everglades have
22 undergone change and that they will probably
23 continue to undergo change, but I personally
24 would not use the word threatened or threat to
25 describe those changes.
Page 37
1 BY MR. GARVER:
2 Q. I'd like to refer you to Page 23 of the
3 Planning Document, and I'd like you to read to
4 yourself at the bottom of the page the paragraph
5 under the heading Nature of the Everglades Hydrologic
6 System, and please let me know when you have
7 completed reading that.
8 Mr. Larsen, based on your factual knowledge
9 and beliefs of the history of the Federal Project,
10 are you aware of any -- do you have any factual
11 knowledge or beliefs that are inconsistent with the
12 language I just asked you to read on Page 23 of the
13 Planning Document?
14 A. Yes, I do.
15 Q. What do you find to be inconsistent?
16 A. Again, as I mentioned before, this is
17 analogous to a one-liner. It's an oversimplistic
18 description.
19 Q. What is oversimplistic about it,
20 Mr. Larsen?
21 MR. KOBELINKSKI: I will object to the
22 extent you're calling for a narrative answer.
23 You had him read the nature of the Everglades
24 hydrologic system, and six and-a-half lines
25 describe the entire hydrologic system of the
Page 38
1 Everglades. You have asked him now to tell us
2 what is simplistic.
3 There are entire books written on the
4 Everglades hydrologic system. I am not going to
5 allow a narrative answer for three or four days
6 to respond to that question.
7 BY MR. GARVER:
8 Q. Mr. Larsen, what facts or knowledge do you
9 have with regard to the Federal Project and the
10 history of the Federal Project that is inconsistent
11 with the language I just asked you to read on Page
12 23?
13 A. For example, it says, "historically, water
14 flowed slowly through the marshes of the system to
15 Florida Bay," but it doesn't say how much water, and
16 it doesn't say for what duration. It doesn't define
17 what the Everglades system is. I find that that
18 sentence, by itself, is a gross oversimplification
19 and possibly a misstatement of the hydrologic regime
20 of the Everglades.
21 Q. What facts or knowledge with regard to the
22 history of the Federal Project specifically lead you
23 to the conclusion that that may be a misstatement?
24 MR. KOBELINKSKI: I will object to the form
25 of the question in that this gentleman is saying
Page 39
1 oversimplification. You're characterizing his
2 statement as a misstatement.
3 The man has repeated it twice. You're
4 characterizing his testimony as saying it's a
5 misstatement.
6 MR. GARVER: I'm sorry, Mr. Kobelinkski. I
7 am using Mr. Larsen's own term.
8 I will have the court reporter read it
9 back.
10 (The question referred to was
11 thereupon read by the reporter as
12 above recorded.)
13 THE WITNESS: What's the question?
14 BY MR. GARVER:
15 Q. I asked you what factual knowledge or
16 beliefs you have with regard to the history of the
17 Federal Project that make you believe that that first
18 sentence and the language I asked you to read on Page
19 23 may be a misstatement?
20 A. Information on rainfall, information on
21 evapotranspiration, information which leads to a
22 conclusion about the extent of the Everglades system.
23 Q. What information on rainfall and
24 evapotranspiration are you referring to?
25 A. Information that is contained in Water
Page 40
1 Management District publications, information that is
2 contained in the SWIM Plan itself, information
3 contained in Parker's book on the Everglades, and
4 information contained in other documents that I have
5 reviewed, the source of which could be some here,
6 some there. Various of these documents have been
7 produced.
8 Q. What type of information on rainfall and
9 evapotranspiration are you referring to?
10 A. Information that quantifies rainfall and
11 quantifies evapotranspiration.
12 Q. We are still talking about the first
13 sentence in the language I asked you to read on Page
14 23; is that correct?
15 A. That's correct.
16 Q. With which part of that sentence do you
17 find rainfall and evapotranspiration quantity
18 information to be inconsistent?
19 A. Well, for example, it states that the
20 marshes of the Everglades system in that sentence,
21 which would indicate to me that the writer perceived
22 that the Everglades system was entirely a marsh.
23 That's not my understanding.
24 The Everglades system included other areas
25 which were contributory, and that the rainfall and ET
Page 41
1 regime over the entire drainage basin of the
2 Everglades needs to be considered.
3 So I basically find that this first
4 sentence is inaccurate and an oversimplification.
5 Q. By ET, you mean evapotranspiration; is that
6 correct?
7 A. That's correct.
8 Q. Well, let's look at the remainder of the
9 language I asked you to read on Page 23.
10 Do you have any factual knowledge or
11 beliefs regarding the history of the Federal Project
12 that is inconsistent with the remainder of the
13 language on Page 23 that I asked you to read?
14 A. Well, I would prefer to deal with this
15 sentence by sentence.
16 Q. That's fine.
17 A. The next sentence states that, "Rainfall
18 was the primary source of the inflow water to the
19 system," and I agree with that sentence.
20 I agree that, "Annual variation and
21 seasonal variation in precipitation caused
22 alternating periods of rising and falling water
23 levels."
24 However, I would add to that sentence, and
25 I guess if I think about it, it's something that
Page 42
1 makes me disagree with the sentence, actually,
2 because there were annual and seasonal variations in
3 evapotranspiration, as well as annual and seasonal
4 variations in precipitation, and that the alternating
5 periods of rising and falling water levels were
6 impacted by, both, surface and groundwater outflow
7 from the system.
8 So upon reflection, then, that third
9 sentence is one that I find that is an
10 oversimplification and inaccurate, because the
11 alternating periods of rising and falling water
12 levels are caused by many other factors besides
13 precipitation.
14 The next sentence says, "Fire was also an
15 important natural phenomenon in the Everglades
16 ecosystem." I agree with that sentence.
17 "The diverse natural habitats that were
18 characteristic of the historic Everglades system have
19 adapted to the regime of periodic water level
20 fluctuations, fire, flooding by hurricane, and
21 occasional drought."
22 I think that those systems, in addition to
23 those factors, have adapted to other factors such as
24 water flow, seasonal temperature variations and
25 possibly other factors that I can't think of at the
Page 43
1 moment.
2 Q. I'd like you to turn to Page 24 of the
3 Planning Document and please read to yourself the
4 paragraph entitled Nature of Hydrologic Change to the
5 System, and let me know when you have finished.
6 Mr. Larsen, is there anything in the
7 language I just asked you to read -- let me start
8 over.
9 Do you have any factual knowledge or
10 beliefs based on your studies and investigation of
11 the history of the Federal Project that are
12 inconsistent with anything the language I just asked
13 you to read?
14 A. Can I ask you a question?
15 Are we going to do this --
16 MR. GARVER: Let's go off the Record.
17 (Discussion off the record.)
18 BY MR. GARVER:
19 Q. Do you remember my question, Mr. Larsen?
20 A. No, I don't.
21 Q. I asked you whether, based on your studies
22 and investigation of the history of the Federal
23 Project, there's anything in the language I just
24 asked you to read on Page 24 of the Planning
25 Document, whether you have any factual knowledge or
Page 44
1 beliefs that are inconsistent with the language I
2 just asked you to read on Page 24?
3 A. As I have stated before, I believe that
4 this paragraph is an oversimplification of the nature
5 of the hydrologic changes to the system and that an
6 adequate description of those changes would be much
7 longer.
8 However, I think that the appropriate way
9 to go through this would be to do it sentence by
10 sentence and to see if I agree with the individual
11 sentences within this paragraph.
12 So, therefore, taking -- if that is
13 acceptable. Taking the first sentence.
14 Q. That's fine.
15 A. It states that, "In the late nineteenth and
16 early twentieth centuries, private interests, in
17 conjunction with the state, constructed canals
18 through the Everglades."
19 In general, that is a true statement.
20 However, the canal system that was constructed and
21 when it was constructed and how it was constructed is
22 of interest, but the statement is generally true.
23 "These early canals were designed to drain
24 water out of inland marshes, past coastal
25 communities, to tidewater, and to provide
Page 45
1 navigational access to Lake Okeechobee."
2 I think that we need to differentiate the
3 various canals that we're discussing. There were
4 some canals that impacted the system, such as the
5 Caloosahatchee, the canal that allowed navigational
6 access to Fort Myers that is of interest but,
7 generally, that statement is true.
8 "During periods of low rainfall, these
9 canals created problems of overdrainage of interior
10 wetlands, causing extensive fires as well as
11 contributing to saltwater intrusion along the coast."
12 That statement, as it is, is true.
13 However, it's incomplete in that the canals also
14 caused subsidence of soils in the vicinity during dry
15 periods -- in the vicinity of the canals during dry
16 periods, which is likely a significant factor not
17 mentioned here.
18 "In the mid-20th century, the Federal
19 Central and Southern Florida Project for flood
20 control and other purposes was constructed to improve
21 flood control and water supply within the region,
22 correct hydrologic deficiencies, protect remaining
23 wetlands and reduce saltwater intrusion."
24 That statement is inaccurate, in that a
25 major purpose of the project was to create
Page 46
1 agricultural in the EAA and, in fact, the cost
2 benefit justification for the project was based on
3 those agricultural lands. The project did improve
4 flood control and water supply. I am not certain
5 what they mean by correct hydrologic deficiencies.
6 Although, I could surmise that they had to do with
7 the overdrainage of certain areas.
8 To protect remaining wetlands is probably
9 incomplete as an idea, in that the remaining wetlands
10 were also used as a water storage reservoir, and so
11 there may be conflict between the concept of
12 protecting wetlands and storing water. I agree with
13 the idea that the project did reduce saltwater
14 intrusion.
15 The final sentence states that, "Further
16 refinements of the C&SF Project resulted in a highly
17 managed, artificial system of canals, impounded
18 marshes, levees, pumps and water control structures."
19 I think I would quarrel with the word
20 artificial. It is a changed system, but I don't
21 think that there's anything artificial about it.
22 And so given that sentence-by-sentence
23 analysis, I don't believe that I can agree with this
24 paragraph.
25 Q. You mentioned subsidence in the vicinity of
Page 47
1 canals.
2 What do you base your factual knowledge or
3 beliefs regarding subsidence in the canals on?
4 A. I stated subsidence in the vicinity of
5 canals.
6 Q. Right, subsidence in the vicinity of
7 canals. I am sorry if I didn't state that.
8 What documents or materials do you base
9 your knowledge or beliefs that there was subsidence
10 in the vicinity of canals?
11 A. Statements that appear in Parker's book,
12 and a general knowledge of the effects of drying of
13 certain peat soils in the Everglades area which are
14 contained in the 1948 Soil Conservation Service
15 Report. Thus, during drought periods, these canals
16 caused adjoining lands to dry out, and when those
17 lands dry out, they subside.
18 I believe that I recall that the 1948
19 Report indicates that Loxahatchee peat, for example,
20 shrinks to approximately one-quarter of its original
21 size in volume when it dries out. Thus, for example,
22 a canal that traverses a Loxahatchee peat is likely
23 to damage the soils on either side of that canal due
24 to subsidence.
25 Q. I believe you also stated that the major
Page 48
1 purpose of the Federal Project was to create
2 agricultural lands; is that correct?
3 A. That's correct.
4 Q. And what factual knowledge or beliefs do
5 you have to support that conclusion?
6 A. This is based on recollection, but I
7 believe that that is spelled out in the 1948 House
8 document that describes the system.
9 Q. You also mentioned that there may be
10 conflicts between water storage and protection of
11 remaining wetlands; is that correct?
12 A. That's correct.
13 Q. What conflict might exist between water
14 storage and protection of remaining wetlands?
15 MR. KOBELINKSKI: I will object to the
16 question to the extent, again, you're starting
17 to go into testimony that really has nothing to
18 do with -- you're asking for expert opinions as
19 to what conflicts are between water storage and
20 maintaining wetlands, but again, to the extent
21 you're tying into this paragraph, I guess he can
22 go ahead and respond.
23 MR. GARVER: This is going to be a little
24 difficult, Mr. Kobelinkski, if I am not able to
25 follow-up on the answers that I receive here.
Page 49
1 THE WITNESS: The use of an area as a
2 reservoir would mean that the hydroperiod would
3 be changed from what it might have been if it
4 were not used as a reservoir. Changes in the
5 hydroperiod, especially flooding changes such
6 that areas are not given an opportunity to dry
7 out, could seriously affect the vegetation.
8 BY MR. GARVER:
9 Q. What do you mean when you say hydroperiod?
10 A. The duration that the lands is flooded and
11 the depth to which it's flooded.
12 Q. Mr. Larsen, I'd like you to read on the
13 same page, Page 24 of the Planning Document under the
14 heading Regional Management Issues, the beginning of
15 that paragraph down about three-quarters of the way,
16 the sentence which ends with the word Everglades, and
17 the following sentence, which I am not asking you to
18 read, begins the 1991 Marjory Stoneman Douglas.
19 Please read that.
20 Mr. Larsen, based on your studies and
21 investigation of the history of the Federal Project,
22 do you have any factual knowledge or beliefs that are
23 inconsistent with the language I just asked you to
24 read on Page 24 of the Planning Document?
25 A. As I mentioned before, this is an
Page 50
1 oversimplification of a topic that could probably, by
2 itself, fill books, and also, as I mentioned before,
3 the only appropriate way to review this is sentence
4 by sentence.
5 Again, my comments as I mentioned before
6 are preliminary in nature. It's not typical for me
7 to evaluate these things in the context of a
8 deposition, and so any statements or comments that I
9 may give to these questions at this time may need
10 amplification in the future, I think, of additional
11 factors.
12 So given that, starting with the first
13 sentence, it states that, "Regional issues are
14 related to providing adequate water supplies and
15 maintaining flood control in the northern Everglades
16 for agriculture and the increased water use demands
17 of urban growth along the Lower East Coast service
18 areas."
19 Regional issues are additionally related to
20 providing water to Everglades National Park.
21 Regional issues are related to maintaining flood
22 control in the urban areas and related to the essence
23 of providing these services in the context of both
24 flood and drought. So it states that maintaining
25 flood control in the northern Everglades is one of
Page 51
1 the regional issues. There are many additional
2 regional issues that are not included in this
3 sentence.
4 The next sentence states that, "Operation
5 of the Central and South Florida Project to meet the
6 flood control and water supply needs of the region
7 have altered the distribution, timing and volume of
8 freshwater flows into the Water Conservation Areas,
9 Everglades National Park and Florida Bay."
10 This sentence is difficult to answer,
11 because it doesn't say altered it compared to what.
12 Earlier comments that we looked at indicated that
13 this document uses as a baseline approximately 1930
14 and talks about changes over a period of time that
15 may be since then or it may relate to changes since
16 1880. I am not sure what this sentence means.
17 "Future land use and water use demands, if
18 left unchecked, will continue to alter the
19 distribution and volume of water that are available
20 to the ecosystem."
21 Again, that sentence is an
22 oversimplification. I am not sure I know what it
23 means when it states land use, if left unchecked,
24 doesn't necessarily make any sense. Water use
25 demands will continue to alter the distribution and
Page 52
1 volume of water; that's not necessarily true. It's
2 possible that urban areas could carry out certain
3 changes which would allow them to contribute instead
4 of to detract from the urban system or from the EPA
5 areas, Water Conservation Areas.
6 "Manipulation of water levels and
7 deliveries to the northern Everglades is further
8 constrained by the multipurpose uses of the Water
9 Conservation Area, water supply and flood control
10 requirements of the growing urban areas on the Lower
11 East Coast and the agricultural industries."
12 Again, that is generally true, but it
13 describes a very complex situation.
14 "Operation of the Central and South Florida
15 Flood -- C&SF Project requires daily decisions by the
16 District and the USCOE regarding the quantity and
17 timing of water releases from Lake Okeechobee to the
18 EAA, from the EAA to the WCA's, and from the WCA's to
19 ENP or coastal waters to meet the flood control and
20 water supply needs of the region."
21 Again, that sentence is an
22 oversimplification of a very complex process and a
23 complex decision making process which has to weigh in
24 balance a number of factors. The sentence is
25 generally correct, but like I said, it describes a
Page 53
1 very complex operational system.
2 Next sentence is, "Quantity, distribution
3 and timing of water flow to the EPA must be
4 sufficient for maintaining and restoring the full
5 abundance and diversity of native floral and faunal
6 communities throughout the Everglades." That states
7 a goal.
8 Q. Mr. Larsen, if I might, I think that wasn't
9 in the area that -- I may have asked you to go one
10 sentence too far. I don't think you need to address
11 that question, unless you'd like to.
12 A. No.
13 Q. In your answer, you mentioned changes in
14 urban areas that might be possible or that might in
15 some manner alleviate water quantity problems in the
16 Water Conservations Areas.
17 Am I accurately summarizing your testimony?
18 A. I mentioned that possibility.
19 MR. KOBELINKSKI: I would object to the
20 characterization of the witness' testimony.
21 BY MR. GARVER:
22 Q. What possible changes in the urban areas
23 are you referring to?
24 A. The drainage system which makes the urban
25 areas habitable results in the discharge of enormous
Page 54
1 quantities of freshwater to the ocean. That water is
2 essentially wasted. The urban drainage system is
3 largely located in areas that were part of the former
4 Everglades system. Historically, those areas
5 contributed to the Everglades water flow to the west.
6 Now the system has reversed those historical flows
7 and flows to the east, and the water is not
8 contributing to the Everglades system. It's
9 basically wasted to the ocean.
10 Urban areas also, in addition to storm
11 drainage, use enormous quantities of potable water
12 that are withdrawn from well fields, and that potable
13 water is by and large either treated and discharged
14 to the ocean or it is injected into deep wells.
15 Those waters could, instead of being wasted
16 to the ocean, be returned either to the Conservation
17 Areas or to areas adjacent to the Conservation Areas
18 where they could either serve to create a backflow to
19 the Everglades or serve to reduce the quantity of
20 water that is required by urban areas, which is
21 presently withdrawing from the Conservation Areas for
22 urban purposes.
23 It's conceivable that the urban areas could
24 become self-sufficient in water supply, thereby
25 reducing the amount of water that is required from
Page 55
1 the Conservation Areas to supply and maintain the
2 urban areas.
3 Q. Are you aware, from your studies and
4 investigation of the history of the Federal Project,
5 whether any of the changes in the urban areas you
6 just discussed have been considered by any
7 governmental agencies or entities?
8 A. There have been in the past. It was called --
9 one that I am aware of was called the Area B Plan,
10 which was a plan for backpumping into the
11 Conservation Areas from urban areas. But I am not
12 aware of plans to basically make the urban areas
13 self-sufficient so that they don't require water from
14 the Conservation Areas.
15 I believe I read in the paper that the
16 Water Management District has given a grant to
17 Broward County to investigate the possibility of
18 aquifer storage and recovery, but other than that
19 particular one, the idea of conserving water in urban
20 areas to benefit -- for the purpose of benefitting
21 the Everglades has not been generally considered.
22 Q. Mr. Larsen, I'd like to refer you to Page
23 25 of the Planning Document. Would you please read
24 to yourself the paragraph at the top of the page
25 entitled Reduction of Inflows.
Page 56
1 A. I have read it.
2 Q. Is there anything in the language I just
3 asked you to read to which you have factual knowledge
4 or beliefs that are -- let me start over.
5 Do you have any factual knowledge or
6 beliefs that are inconsistent with the language I
7 just asked you to read on Page 25?
8 MR. KOBELINKSKI: I will object to the
9 extent you're asking for -- you said factual
10 knowledge and beliefs. To the extent you're
11 asking for expert opinions, I would object to
12 the question for reasons previously stated.
13 THE WITNESS: This, again, is a sentence or
14 paragraph that is a great oversimplification of
15 the situation, and I would say that the only
16 appropriate way for me to deal with evaluating
17 this paragraph is sentence by sentence.
18 Therefore, taking the first sentence,
19 "Construction of coastal canals has lowered
20 water levels throughout the system resulting in
21 overdrainage of some areas during low rainfall
22 periods."
23 I am not sure I understand that sentence,
24 construction of coastal canals has lowered water
25 throughout the system. It may have an effect,
Page 57
1 but it may have nothing to do with, for example,
2 water levels in the EAA. I am not sure I know
3 what they mean by system.
4 The sentence does not indicate which areas
5 are subject to overdrainage. So I don't know if
6 I agree with that statement or not. It could be
7 contributory, but again, the sentence does not
8 define its terms, and I have difficulty
9 understanding exactly what it means.
10 It says, "Conversion of peripheral wetlands
11 to other lands uses such as agricultural and
12 urban development has also reduced potential
13 sources of groundwater recharge and storage."
14 It doesn't state which peripheral wetlands,
15 and it doesn't state which agricultural areas,
16 but I would indicate that my understanding is
17 that certain agricultural development results in
18 increased supply of water rather than decreased
19 supply.
20 It states that, "Continued urban
21 development along the Everglades urban
22 interface, including the location of new
23 municipal wellfields in western suburbs Miami
24 and Fort Lauderdale, exacerbates drying of the
25 Everglades by further increasing differences in
Page 58
1 groundwater levels between the coastal basins
2 and the WCA's."
3 It doesn't state which urban areas or which
4 wellfields or what lands are included in that
5 statement, and it also doesn't introduce the
6 idea that the area, the so-called Everglades
7 urban interface, could be used in a positive
8 way, instead of a negative way to benefit the
9 Everglades.
10 The last sentence states that, "Reduced
11 freshwater inflows also affect the salinity
12 balance of estuaries in and adjacent to Florida
13 Bay and promote further saltwater intrusion into
14 coastal freshwater marshes."
15 It seems to lay the blame for reduced flows
16 to Florida Bay strictly on coastal canals
17 mentioned in the first sentence, and it's very
18 possible that there are many other factors
19 involved in reducing freshwater flows to Florida
20 Bay.
21 Again, I just have to state that based on
22 my sentence-by-sentence analysis, I generally
23 disagree with this paragraph and point out that
24 it's, you know, it's an oversimplification of a
25 very complex issue in a very complex system.
Page 59
1 BY MR. GARVER:
2 Q. I'd like you to read the next paragraph now
3 entitled Impacts of Construction of Canals, Levees
4 and Impoundments, and let me know when you're
5 finished, please.
6 A. I have read it.
7 Q. Based on your studies and investigations of
8 the history of the Federal Project, do you have any
9 factual knowledge or beliefs that are inconsistent
10 with the language I just asked you to read on Page
11 25?
12 A. I would state that this paragraph is,
13 again, an oversimplification of a complex topic, and
14 the only appropriate way to respond is sentence by
15 sentence.
16 Giving that, taking the first sentence,
17 "The Everglades has a relatively flat landscape."
18 That's, I guess, generally true. However, it really
19 doesn't list the amount of relief associated with the
20 Everglades, either along the Everglades or in a
21 cross-sectional view of the Everglades, which I think
22 would be appropriate to describe what they mean by
23 flat landscape.
24 It says, "As the northern part of the
25 Everglades system was developed to support
Page 60
1 agricultural interests and protect the Lower East
2 Coast urban areas from flooding."
3 That would lead me -- that sentence would
4 lead me to believe that the flooding of the Lower
5 East Coast urban areas is impacted and requires
6 agricultural development in the northern portion of
7 the Everglades, which I am assuming means areas south
8 of Lake Okeechobee, meaning the EAA. In other words,
9 it states that the EAA is required to protect the
10 Lower East Coast urban areas from flooding. I, quite
11 honestly, don't think that is necessarily true.
12 It states that, "A complex system of
13 canals, levees and impoundments was built to control
14 and regulate water levels and flows."
15 Again, it's true it's an exceedingly
16 complex system that was built, and that the
17 impoundments serve to control and regulate water
18 levels and flows. However, it's a very complex
19 operational process.
20 "The internal levees and canals have
21 altered the natural movement of surface and
22 groundwater flows across the study area."
23 I am assuming that that natural movement
24 relates to the movement of surface and groundwater
25 flows prior to 1880 and prior to any alterations to
Page 61
1 the system, but it's not really stated whether that's
2 the case or not, and it simply uses the word altered.
3 It doesn't state whether that alteration is a big
4 alteration or a little alteration. So therefore,
5 that sentence is probably just incomplete or not
6 specific.
7 It states that, "Interruption of the
8 natural surface sheet flows has caused ponding of
9 water behind levees while also encouraging
10 overdrainage and subsidence in marsh areas and other
11 areas by cutting off areas or diverting inflows that
12 historically originated in the upper watershed."
13 The statement is generally true. However,
14 the location of the upper watershed is not defined.
15 By some peoples' definition, the upper watershed for
16 the Everglades is the area north of Lake Okeechobee.
17 I would say that the paragraph is poorly written and,
18 again, as I mentioned, an oversimplification of a
19 complex topic. Given my sentence-by-sentence
20 analysis, then I would have to generally disagree
21 with the paragraph.
22 Q. Mr. Larsen, you testified with regard to
23 the sentence that read, "The internal levees and
24 canals, however, have altered the natural movement of
25 surface and groundwater flows across a study area."
Page 62
1 You were assuming natural movement referred
2 to movement prior to 1880; is that correct?
3 A. That's correct.
4 Q. Given that assumption, and based on your
5 studies and investigations of the history of the
6 Federal Project, do you have any knowledge or facts
7 that are inconsistent with that sentence, assuming
8 that altered could be either large or small
9 alterations?
10 MR. KOBELINKSKI: I will object to the
11 question to the extent that study area is not
12 defined. So I will object to the form of the
13 question.
14 MR. GARVER: You may still answer the
15 question.
16 MR. KOBELINKSKI: Yeah, I am sorry.
17 THE WITNESS: I generally agree that the
18 system has altered the flow of surface and
19 groundwater, and if I might, I would define the
20 study area as, say, the EPA.
21 BY MR. GARVER:
22 Q. What is the, based on your studies and
23 investigations of the history of the Federal Project,
24 the nature of the alteration that has occurred to the
25 natural movement of surface and water flows across
Page 63
1 the study area, as you have just defined it?
2 A. The natural or historical movement of
3 groundwater had a velocity, had a depth. It had a
4 duration. It had changes to velocity and depth,
5 which were seasonal. It also had a direction. The
6 creation of the reservoirs which comprised the
7 impoundment of the WCA's has resulted in major
8 changes to those components of water movement.
9 My basis for that response is as an
10 engineer and is based on professional judgment.
11 MR. KOBELINKSKI: Objection, to the extent
12 you are attempting to give an expert opinion, as
13 opposed to responding to the question.
14 Answer the question being asked.
15 THE WITNESS: Repeat the question, please.
16 (The question referred to was
17 thereupon read by the reporter as
18 above recorded.)
19 THE WITNESS: The nature of the changes is
20 in the components that I mentioned earlier,
21 which has to do with the depth, the duration,
22 the velocity, the direction of the water.
23 BY MR. GARVER:
24 Q. Are those changes reflected in the
25 documents and materials you referenced earlier as
Page 64
1 being the basis for your knowledge of the history of
2 the Federal Project?
3 A. They are, to the extent that some documents
4 indicate the nature of historical flows, and other
5 documents indicate correct flows, so comparing the
6 two results in the evaluation of change.
7 Q. Mr. Larsen, I'd like you to read the next
8 paragraph on Page 25 entitled Regulation Schedules in
9 Everglades Water Resources.
10 Let me know when you're finished.
11 A. I have read it.
12 Q. Based on your studies and investigations of
13 the history of the Federal Project, do you have
14 factual knowledge or beliefs that are inconsistent
15 with anything that's contained in the language I just
16 asked you to read?
17 A. This paragraph is a great simplification of
18 a complex process, and the appropriate way to analyze
19 it is sentence by sentence, and I would, again, point
20 out that this analysis is done in the context of a
21 deposition, and that normally I would provide such an
22 analysis over a longer period of time, allowing a
23 greater reflection of the issues. But with that, I
24 would suggest that the appropriate way to deal with
25 this is sentence by sentence.
Page 65
1 Taking the first sentence, it states that,
2 "The WCA's were created to provide water supply and
3 flood protection for agricultural and urban areas as
4 well as for the protection of enviromental
5 resources."
6 That sentence does not state which
7 environmental resources, whether they are
8 environmental resources within the agricultural and
9 urban areas, whether they are environmental resources
10 within the Water Conservation Area, whether they are
11 environmental resources in Everglades National Park
12 or elsewhere.
13 The next sentence states that, "Regulation
14 schedules for the WCA's were developed to control and
15 contain Everglades flood waters and to store water
16 for later use during the dry season."
17 I believe that the term Everglades flood
18 waters is inappropriate in that the WCA's were
19 developed to control and contain surplus water, among
20 other things, resulting from agricultural activities
21 in the EAA, for example, and that those waters
22 derived from the EAA are not necessarily flood
23 waters. I agree that a purpose of the regulation
24 schedules is to store water for later use.
25 I'm going on to the next sentence. "These
Page 66
1 schedules have a profound impact on the amount of
2 water that is allowed to pass through the WCA into
3 ENP."
4 I would say that the schedules have a
5 profound impact, but that the system itself also has
6 a profound impact, and this does not sort out the
7 impacts of the system from the schedules. So that
8 while the schedules may have a profound impact, they
9 may not be the only impact.
10 "Increased demand for water during the dry
11 season has resulted in greater pressure to capture
12 and store more of the available wet season runoff,
13 thereby causing unnatural fluctuations in water
14 levels and flow within these areas."
15 It doesn't state how that relates to
16 regulation schedules. It just states pressure, but
17 it doesn't indicate if that pressure has resulted in
18 changing the schedules. So I don't really understand
19 that sentence in the context of this paragraph, and
20 it seems to indicate, though, that the unnatural
21 fluctuations in water levels and flow within these
22 areas is solely a result of regulation schedules,
23 whereas regulation schedules may contribute to that,
24 but they may not and probably are not the only
25 factor.
Page 67
1 So given that sentence-by-sentence
2 analysis, I would say that I have to disagree with
3 this paragraph.
4 Q. Let's go back to the first sentence of that
5 paragraph.
6 Is there a way that the term environmental
7 resources could be defined or interpreted so that it
8 would be consistent with your factual knowledge and
9 beliefs regarding the history of the Federal Project?
10 MR. KOBELINKSKI: I will object to the form
11 of the question. I think that someone would
12 have to specify which environmental resources
13 before I could define environmental resources.
14 BY MR. GARVER:
15 Q. Assuming that environmental resources means
16 any environmental resources at all, is that sentence
17 consistent with your factual knowledge and beliefs of
18 the history of the Federal Project?
19 MR. KOBELINKSKI: I will object to the form
20 of the question.
21 THE WITNESS: Well, to be perfectly honest,
22 I would categorize the human population of the
23 urban area as an environmental resource, and so
24 if I make that definition, water supply and
25 flood protection for agriculture and urban
Page 68
1 areas, then the concept of environmental
2 resources is redundant. So I believe I have
3 difficulty responding to your question.
4 BY MR. GARVER:
5 Q. Assuming that environmental resources means
6 components of the ecosystem in the Everglades
7 Protection Area, do you have any factual knowledge or
8 beliefs, based on your study of the history of the
9 Federal Project, that would be inconsistent with that
10 first sentence?
11 MR. KOBELINKSKI: I will object to the form
12 of the question.
13 THE WITNESS: Based on my review of
14 documents, I believe that protection of
15 vegetation and soils and animals is one of the --
16 and let me qualify. This is vegetation and
17 soils and animals within EPA is one of the goals
18 of, both, the construction and the operation of
19 the system.
20 BY MR. GARVER:
21 Q. With regards to the sentence in that
22 paragraph that says, "These schedules have a profound
23 impact on the amount of water that is allowed to pass
24 through the WCA's into ENP," I believe you testified
25 that there are other factors that also impact the
Page 69
1 amount of water that is allowed to pass from the
2 WCA's into ENP; is that correct?
3 A. That's correct.
4 Q. What other impacts were you referring to?
5 A. The structural features, as well as the
6 schedules.
7 Q. The structure features of the Federal
8 Project?
9 A. Of the system, the weather, the rainfall,
10 the ET. A number of factors impact the amount of
11 water that goes through the Conservation Areas into
12 ENP. So the schedule, itself, is only one factor.
13 Q. I believe you had a similar problem with
14 the final paragraph -- the final sentence in that
15 paragraph with regard to factors causing unnatural
16 fluctations in water levels and flow within the Water
17 Conservation Areas; is that correct?
18 MR. KOBELINKSKI: I will object to the form
19 of the question and the characterization of the
20 witness' testimony.
21 THE WITNESS: My comments on the final
22 sentence were that there is no link between the
23 increased demand which is stated in the last
24 sentence and the topic of the paragraph, which
25 is the regulation schedules themselves. So I am
Page 70
1 not sure that I can answer your question, in
2 that that sentence seems to be out of place.
3 BY MR. GARVER:
4 Q. Assuming that the final sentence in that
5 paragraph does not refer or pertain to regulation
6 schedules in whole or in part, based on your study of
7 the history of the Federal Project, do you have
8 factual knowledge or beliefs that are inconsistent
9 with that sentence?
10 MR. KOBELINKSKI: I will object to the form
11 of the question.
12 THE WITNESS: This sentence is very
13 difficult to respond to, because it doesn't say
14 increase the demand by how much or by what, and
15 so I can -- and I am not certain if they are
16 talking here -- since this sentence seems to be
17 unrelated to this paragraph, since they are
18 talking about the storage of water in the
19 Conservation Areas or in Lake Okeechobee.
20 It states that -- if I read the sentence
21 carefully, that only the increased demand for
22 water during the dry season resulting in greater
23 pressure to capture and store more of the
24 available wet season runoff has caused unnatural
25 fluctuations in water levels and flow, and there
Page 71
1 are many, many factors that have resulted in
2 fluctuations -- unnatural fluctuations in water
3 levels and flow.
4 Again, we have to compare that -- we have
5 to define what we are comparing it to, and if
6 we're talking about, you know, the natural
7 system, that's one thing. If it's indicating a
8 substantial change or if we're talking about ten
9 years ago, that's a different question.
10 BY MR. GARVER:
11 Q. What other factors are you referring to?
12 A. I don't understand your question.
13 Q. Well, you just mentioned that there were
14 other factors that caused unnatural fluctuations in
15 water levels.
16 A. The regulation schedules are a factor. The
17 system is a factor. The way the system is operated
18 is a factor. The rainfall is a factor. The ET is a
19 factor. So my comment is simply that there are many
20 things that cause unnatural fluctuations in water
21 levels and flow, besides increased demand, and that's
22 it.
23 Q. When you say the system is a factor, what
24 system are you referring to?
25 A. The Central and South Florida flood control
Page 72
1 system of levees, canals, pumps and structures.
2 MR. GARVER: Okay. Why don't we break for
3 lunch.
4 MR. KOBELINKSKI: Let me list what we have
5 brought.
6 The Everglades River Grass by Marjory
7 Stoneman Douglas Revised Edition.
8 The Forgotten Frontier by Arva Moore Parks.
9 Water Resources of Southern Florida. It's
10 the Geological Survey Water Supply Paper Number
11 1255. I believe that's by Garald Parker.
12 Environments of South Florida Present and
13 Past II by the Miami Geological Society of 1984.
14 In addition, these are documents that we
15 were asked to provide and bring the hard copies
16 with.
17 In addition, Mr. Larsen has also produced
18 Water Resources Atlas of Florida edited by
19 Edward Fernald. It's a Florida State University
20 Publication reprinted 1985.
21 The Geologic Survey of South Florida Land
22 from the Sea by Mr. Hoffmeister, copyright 1974.
23 Blake's Land Into Water, Water Into Land,
24 University of Florida Press 1980, Florida
25 Experience Land and Water Policy copyright 1980.
Page 73
1 The Florida Experience by Luther Carter
2 copyright 1974, and Beyond the Fourth Generation
3 by Lamar Johnson University of Florida
4 publication, copyright 1974.
5 (Thereupon, a brief recess was taken,
6 after which the following proceedings
7 were had:)
8 BY MR. GARVER:
9 Q. Mr. Larsen, I'd like you to read the
10 paragraph on Page 25 of the Planning Document of the
11 March 13, 1992 Everglades SWIM Plan and the paragraph
12 entitled Urban Area Backpumping and Storm Water
13 Management, please, and let me know when you're
14 finished.
15 A. I have read it.
16 Q. First of all, just let me ask you: Have
17 you read the March 13, 1992 Everglades SWIM Plan
18 before today?
19 A. I have read through it, but I mean, it was
20 probably two or three months ago. So, yes, I have
21 read it, but the answer is yes.
22 Q. Have you read all of the volumes of it?
23 A. I have read earlier versions
24 cover-to-cover, and I think that I have scanned this
25 particular version.
Page 74
1 Q. Which prior versions of the Everglades SWIM
2 Plan have you read?
3 A. I don't recall specifically.
4 Q. Do you know if you have read any of the
5 versions that were produced since August of 1991?
6 A. I honestly don't recall.
7 Q. Do you recall reading a version that was
8 distributed by the District on January 2, 1992 of the
9 SWIM Plan?
10 A. Again, I don't specifically recall.
11 Q. Do you recall reading a version of the
12 Everglades SWIM Plan that was produced in September
13 of 1991?
14 A. I know that I have read various versions at
15 various times and various portions, but I can't
16 remember the dates of the documents that I reviewed.
17 Q. Going back to the language I just asked you
18 to read on Page 25.
19 Based on your studies and investigation of
20 the history of the Federal Project, do you have any
21 factual knowledge or beliefs that are inconsistent
22 with anything in that section I just asked you to
23 read?
24 A. This paragraph is an oversimplication of a
25 very complex issue. It consists of, as I count them,
Page 75
1 four sentences that deal with primarily back pumping
2 and storm water management.
3 Those four sentences are not necessarily in
4 error, and I have some specific comments on sentence
5 three, I believe it is, and four, but it's a very
6 simple explanation of what is a very complex issue.
7 This paragraph is not necessarily wrong.
8 Q. What specific comments do you have with
9 respect to the third and fourth sentences in that
10 paragraph?
11 A. The third sentence states that, "Surplus
12 runoff is frequently most available during periods
13 when the Everglades are least able to assimilate this
14 water." That is in the wet season.
15 The various backpumping proposals have not
16 looked at the possibility of using those areas along
17 the levee system as storage areas. So they haven't
18 looked at a full range of backpumping possibilities,
19 and those additional backpumping possibilities would
20 alleviate some of the problems mentioned here in
21 sentences three and four.
22 Sentence four states that backpumping could
23 create water quality problems and produce a ripple
24 effect of hydroperiod impacts downstream, but it
25 doesn't consider as backpumping a possibility of
Page 76
1 simply backpumping water to a storage area located
2 along the levees, which would not necessarily require
3 that the water go into the Conservation Areas
4 themselves. It doesn't address the possibility that
5 water could be treated in the area along the levees
6 and after treatment then could be discharged to the
7 Water Conservation Areas.
8 Q. Based on your studies and investigation of
9 the history of the Federal Project, what treatment
10 options might be available for backpumped urban
11 water?
12 A. There's been some studies that I have
13 reviewed and, by the way, I have, in the course of
14 the last three years, reviewed probably a library
15 full of different materials, and it's possible that
16 some of those haven't been listed here. You know,
17 for example, I have reviewed these SWIM Plans, you
18 know, as documents I am reading all the time. So
19 it's possible that in response to your questions, I
20 will indicate some documents that haven't been listed
21 simply as a matter of oversight.
22 MR. KOBELINKSKI: Let me interject so there
23 is no misunderstanding here.
24 You have produced the documents that are
25 still in your possession; is that correct?
Page 77
1 THE WITNESS: That's correct.
2 MR. KOBELINKSKI: I just didn't want you to
3 start thinking that he was holding back
4 documents.
5 I think what he is talking about, there are
6 documents he has reviewed that he doesn't have
7 in his possession. I don't want you to start
8 doing motions to compel to me or to him. He has
9 produced everything that he has still in his
10 possession. I know that. That's why I did want
11 to interject.
12 THE WITNESS: There are indications that
13 rockpits result in a clean-up function of water.
14 For example, in this one study that I
15 recall reading, a quarry lake was used to
16 receive sewer plant discharges, and there was a
17 monitor well on the upstream side of the lake
18 and on the downstream side of the lake, and the
19 water quality was actually better in the
20 downstream monitor well than in the upstream
21 monitor well.
22 So there's a possibility that correlates
23 itself through chemical, as well as biological
24 process. As a result, cleaning up water could
25 result in improving the quality of backpumped
Page 78
1 water such that it would be appropriate to put
2 it in the Conservation Areas.
3 BY MR. GARVER:
4 Q. Do you recall what report it was that you
5 read that referred to the quarry lakes treatment
6 option?
7 A. I didn't hear the end of your question.
8 Q. Do you recall what publication contained or
9 discussed the quarry lake used to treat sewage water?
10 A. Yes. It was a publication by Florida
11 Atlantic University, and it was quite recent, 1991, I
12 believe.
13 Q. Do you know who authored that report?
14 A. I can't remember the name.
15 Q. Mr. Larsen, I'd like you to read the
16 paragraph that begins on Page 25 of the Planning
17 Document entitled Minimum Deliveries, Rainfall Plans,
18 and Base Flow Requirements, and let me know when you
19 finish it. I am sorry.
20 When you get on Page 26 to the end of the
21 first full sentence on that page that ends with the
22 phrase rainfall driven models, that's as far as I'd
23 like you to read at this point.
24 A. Read through the sentence that says
25 rainfall driven models?
Page 79
1 Q. That's right.
2 A. I have read the material.
3 Q. Based on your studies and investigation of
4 the history of the Federal Project, do you have any
5 factual knowledge or beliefs that are inconsistent
6 with anything that's in the language I just asked you
7 to read?
8 A. Yeah. This is, I believe, a five sentence
9 paragraph or portion of a paragraph that describes a
10 very complex thing, and it is, thus, a simplification
11 of a complex topic.
12 However, in reading this material, I don't
13 see anything wrong with this as a simplification.
14 Q. I'd like to refer you to Page 27 of the
15 Planning Document. Please read the paragraph that
16 begins with Conservation Area 2, and let me know when
17 you have completed that paragraph.
18 A. I have read it.
19 Q. Based on your studies and investigation of
20 the history of the Federal Project, do you have any
21 factual knowledge or beliefs that are inconsistent
22 with anything in the paragraph I just asked you to
23 read?
24 A. I have reviewed this paragraph and find it
25 to be an oversimplification of a complex issue, and I
Page 80
1 also find certain statements in here to be contrary
2 to my understanding of Conservation Area 2, but with
3 those limited problems with those certain sentences,
4 the paragraph is not wrong, but it is a
5 simplification.
6 Q. Which statements in that paragraph are
7 contrary to your understanding?
8 A. The second sentence states that, "The only
9 wetlands that were impacted by flooding were the
10 central and southern parts of Conservation Area 2A."
11 It is my understanding that wetlands in the
12 northern portion of Conservation Area 2A were also
13 affected.
14 Q. Are there any other statements in that
15 paragraph that are contrary to your understanding?
16 A. No.
17 It's an oversimplification, but it's not
18 wrong.
19 Q. What is the basis for your belief that
20 wetlands in the northern section of Water
21 Conservation Area 2 were also flooded for extended
22 periods?
23 A. I have spent time in airboats and in
24 helicopters over the entire area, and I have reviewed
25 aerial photos indicating that tree islands and other
Page 81
1 features in the northern portion of the Conservation
2 Area 2 have been affected by water. The water levels
3 had been maintained too deep.
4 Q. I'd like you to read the paragraph on Page
5 27 entitled Water Conservation Area 3A, and let me
6 know when you're finished.
7 A. I have read the paragraph.
8 Q. Based on your studies and investigation of
9 the history of the Federal Project, do you have any
10 factual knowledge or beliefs that are inconsistent
11 with anything in that paragraph I just asked you to
12 read?
13 A. This paragraph is an oversimplification of
14 a complex issue of changes to Conservation Area 3A
15 and the causes. However, as a ten sentence
16 paragraph, it is not necessarily wrong.
17 Q. Are there any specific statements in that
18 paragraph that are contrary to your understanding of
19 the history of the Federal Project?
20 A. Again, there's nothing specific that is
21 included here that's wrong, but again, it is an
22 oversimplification. It's only ten sentences long
23 attempting to describe a very complex area.
24 Q. I'd like to refer you now to Page 28 of the
25 Planning Document under the heading C111 Basin East
Page 82
1 Everglades and Barnes Sound. The second sentence
2 reads, "Historically the East Everglades region was
3 an integral part of Shark River Slough which provides
4 sheet flow to the interior wetlands of ENP," followed
5 by the next sentence, "Recent federal legislation has
6 mandated that much of the East Everglades be acquired
7 and incorporated into ENP."
8 Based on your studies and investigation of
9 the history of the Federal Project, do you have any
10 factual knowledge or beliefs that are inconsistent or
11 contrary with those two sentences that I just read?
12 A. Given the first sentence there that defines
13 the East Everglades area as those that lie east of
14 Everglades Park, west of the L31 levee system, I am
15 presuming that it also means those that are south of
16 Tamiami Trail.
17 Given that as the definition of the East
18 Everglades system, within the two sentences that you
19 read, I don't disagree with those statements.
20 Q. I'd like you to turn now to Page 30 of the
21 Planning Document.
22 Under the section entitled Discussion, the
23 second sentence reads, "Urban and agricultural areas
24 historically have had first priority for water
25 management during flood or drought conditions."
Page 83
1 Based on your studies and investigation of
2 the Federal Project, do you have any factual
3 knowledge or beliefs that are contrary or
4 inconsistent to that sentence?
5 A. I would have to qualify that as to what
6 historically means, and if we qualify historically as
7 meaning from the period of 1950 through 1980, I would
8 say that that statement is generally true.
9 Q. With regard to the period from 1980 to the
10 present, do you regard that sentence to be true?
11 A. Well, in the period 1980 to the present,
12 there has been a gradual shift in priorities such
13 that it's not necessarily clear where the priorities
14 are.
15 Q. What types of changes have occurred since
16 1980 that lead you to the conclusion that there have
17 been shifts in priorities?
18 A. A major shift has been the implementation
19 of the Interim Action Plan and then the Rainfall Plan
20 and other changes that have been made in that time
21 period.
22 Q. How did implementation of the Interim
23 Action Plan result in a shift of priorities?
24 A. There's been a general change in emphasis
25 of the operation of the system over that period of
Page 84
1 time. The Interim Action Plan has resulted in
2 additional water going into the Conservation Areas,
3 and the adoption of the Rainfall Driven Plan and
4 others is an indication that the priorities are
5 changing.
6 Q. What other priorities do you understand are
7 involved in the shift in priorities you have referred
8 to?
9 A. Well, if you want to, again, dissect the
10 sentence, it says that, "Urban and agriculture areas
11 have had first priority for water management."
12 It's not entirely clear what water
13 management means during flood and drought conditions.
14 So my only point is that I think the system was run,
15 up until approximately 1990, with major emphasis on
16 providing flood control and water supply for urban
17 and agricultural areas, and there's been a general
18 shift in those.
19 Whether or not water management for
20 agricultural areas and urban areas is still the first
21 priority or not, I don't know.
22 Q. How did the Rainfall Plan that you referred
23 to result in a shift in priorities?
24 A. It indicates a growing awareness of the
25 need to incorporate the water management system to
Page 85
1 accommodate hydroperiod considerations for the water
2 management areas in Everglades National Park.
3 Q. What type of hydroperiod considerations are
4 you referring to?
5 A. Attempting not to flood for extended
6 periods of time, for example, the Conservation Areas
7 or attempting not to have them dry out more than they
8 need to.
9 Q. How do you define the Interim Action Plan?
10 A. Interim Action Plan resulted in decreased
11 pumping to Lake Okeechobee and increased pumping to
12 the Conservation Areas.
13 Q. And based on your studies and investigation
14 of the history of the Federal Project, do you have an
15 understanding as to what the purposes of the Interim
16 Action Plan were?
17 A. Basically, to focus on water quality in
18 Lake Okeechobee.
19 Q. In what way did the Interim Action Plan
20 focus on water quality in Lake Okeechobee?
21 A. In the sense that they were attempting to
22 reduce phosphorus inputs into the lake.
23 Q. And what is your understanding as to how
24 the Interim Action Plan would reduce phosphorus
25 loading into Lake Okeechobee?
Page 86
1 A. The discharge --
2 MR. KOBELINKSKI: I will object to the
3 question to the extent that you are asking for
4 an expert opinion.
5 MR. GARVER: I'm not asking for an expert
6 opinion. I am asking for your understanding
7 based on your studies and investigation of the
8 history of the Federal Project.
9 MR. KOBELINKSKI: Go ahead.
10 THE WITNESS: The discharges were directed
11 to the Water Conservation Areas