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 instead of the 12 Lake. 13 BY MR. GARVER: 14 Q. Which discharges are you referring to? 15 A. From the Everglades Agricultural Area. 16 Q. And based on your studies and investigation 17 of the history of the Federal Project, did the 18 Interim Action Plan result in a reduction of 19 phosphorus loadings to the Lake? 20 A. To the extent that it resulted in the 21 reduction in volume, it resulted in a reduction in 22 phosphorus. 23 Q. I'd like to refer you now to Page 31 of the 24 Planning Document. Starting at the bottom of Page 31 25 and going over to 32, those two sentences read, "The Page 87 1 present level of water supply for the EAA should be 2 examined closely to determine if water use has been 3 excessive. This area has historically been protected 4 from any adverse impact or economic loss due to 5 drought conditions." 6 Based on your studies and investigation of 7 the history of the Federal Project, do you have any 8 factual knowledge or beliefs that are inconsistent or 9 contrary to those two sentences? 10 A. Well, the first sentence is a question or 11 it proposes a plan of action. The second sentence 12 makes a statement that the area has historically been 13 protected from any adverse impacts or economic loss 14 due to drought conditions. 15 That sentence, it would indicate that there 16 have never been any adverse impacts or economic loss 17 in the EAA due to drought conditions, and I think 18 that's incorrect. 19 Q. What is your basis for saying that this 20 sentence is incorrect? 21 A. It's my understanding that there have been 22 times when drought conditions have caused less than 23 optimal crop yields in the EAA. 24 Q. What is the basis for your understanding 25 that there have been less than optimal crop yields in Page 88 1 the EAA during drought conditions? 2 A. It would have been from conversations with 3 farmers, and it may have been as a result of 4 documents that I have read. 5 Q. Do you recall specifically any 6 conversations with particular farmers? 7 A. No, I don't. 8 Q. And do you recall any specific document 9 that supports your understanding regarding adverse 10 impacts? 11 A. No, I don't. 12 Q. Based on your studies and investigation of 13 the history of the Federal Project, have you ever 14 seen references to 1989 and 1990 as being drought 15 years? 16 A. I may have reviewed rainfall data that 17 would indicate that it was less than normal, but that 18 would be the extent of it. 19 Q. Given your understanding of the history of 20 the Federal Project, were 1989 and 1990 drought 21 years? 22 A. I'd have to review the data. 23 Q. What data would you review to determine 24 that? 25 A. Rainfall data. Page 89 1 Q. I'd like you to turn now to Page 40 in the 2 Planning Document. I'd like you to read the first 3 paragraph under the subheading Introduction in the 4 bottom half of that page, and let me know when you're 5 finished. 6 A. Are you asking me to read both paragraphs? 7 Q. No. Just the first paragraph. 8 A. I have read it. 9 Q. Based on your studies and investigation of 10 the history of the Federal Project, do you have any 11 factual knowledge or beliefs that are contrary or 12 inconsistent with the paragraph I just asked you to 13 read? 14 A. This paragraph is a gross 15 oversimplification of the Everglades ecosystem. It's 16 four sentences long and attempts to describe the 17 entire ecosystem, but given that, even though it's an 18 oversimplification, I don't see anything wrong with 19 it. 20 Q. On Page 41, I'd like you to read the first 21 two paragraphs under the heading Fire, and let me 22 know when you have finished. 23 A. I have read the first two paragraphs. 24 Q. Based on your studies and investigation of 25 the history of the Federal Project, do you have any Page 90 1 factual knowledge or beliefs that are contrary or 2 inconsistent with the two paragraphs I just asked you 3 to read? 4 A. These two paragraphs are somewhat of a 5 simplification of the issue of fire, but I generally 6 agree with these paragraphs. 7 Q. Are there any specific statements that are 8 contrary to your understanding of the history of the 9 Federal Project? 10 A. Over than the fact that this is a 11 simplification, I don't see any statements in here 12 that are wrong, based on my understanding of the 13 Everglades system and the project. 14 Q. I'd like you to turn to Page 42. Read the 15 paragraph entitled Loss of Habitat, and let me know 16 when you're finished, please. 17 A. I have read the paragraph. 18 Q. Based on your studies and investigation of 19 the history of the Federal Project, do you have any 20 factual knowledge or beliefs that are contrary or 21 inconsistent with anything in the language I just 22 asked you to read? 23 A. This paragraph is an -- it has to be five 24 or six sentences long. It's somewhat of a 25 simplification of the issue of loss of habitat, but I Page 91 1 don't see anything in the paragraph that is wrong. 2 Q. I'd like you to turn now to Page 44 of the 3 Planning Document, and I'd like you to read the 4 second full paragraph under the heading Regional 5 Flood Control, and let me know when you're finished. 6 A. I have read the paragraph. 7 Q. Based on your studies and investigation of 8 the history of the Federal Project, do you have any 9 factual knowledge or beliefs that are inconsistent or 10 contrary to anything in the paragraph I just asked 11 you to read? 12 A. I have read this paragraph, and I believe 13 that I need to respond on a sentence-by-sentence 14 basis, in that it is an oversimplification, but there 15 are certain things in this paragraph that I believe 16 are unclear or incomplete. 17 Therefore, taking the first sentence it 18 says, "During normal years, local drainage and flood 19 control needs are met by maintaining lower water 20 levels in canals and reservoirs during the wet 21 season." 22 I am not sure I understand what they mean. 23 The question is, basically, lower than what? 24 Second sentence it says, "Towards the end 25 of the wet season, these flood preventative measures Page 92 1 compete with the water supply function of the 2 system." 3 That, I believe, is a management question. 4 That is one that is, without seeing exactly what 5 they're talking about, is difficult to respond to. 6 Then the third sentence, "If sufficient 7 water is available, water stages in canals and 8 reservoirs may be increased during the dry season in 9 providing increased water supply and groundwater 10 recharge and prevent saltwater intrusion." 11 I am assuming that they mean that if a 12 winter cold front goes through, that they can then 13 capture some of that water and save it, and I would 14 agree with that. 15 Q. I'd like you to read now on Page 45 of the 16 Planning Document the two paragraphs under the 17 heading Land Development, and let me know when you're 18 finished. 19 A. I have read those two paragraphs. 20 Q. Based on your studies and investigation of 21 the history of the Federal Project, do you have any 22 factual knowledge or beliefs that are inconsistent or 23 contrary to the two paragraphs I just asked you to 24 read? 25 A. These paragraphs are an oversimplification, Page 93 1 and even with the fact that they are an 2 oversimplification, I disagree with their 3 conclusions. 4 Q. What specifically do you disagree with in 5 those two paragraphs? 6 A. These paragraphs indicate that urban 7 development necessarily results in need for increased 8 flood protection. 9 In my experience, modern urban development 10 requires a storm water plan that results in no change 11 in the runoff characteristics of the project. 12 Therefore, with appropriate storm water design, 13 there's not necessarily a relationship between urban 14 development and increased flooding or increased storm 15 water. 16 Q. I'd like you to turn now to Page 46. Read 17 the paragraph in the middle of the page entitled 18 Everglades National Park and Florida Bay, and let me 19 know when you're finished. 20 A. I have read the paragraph. 21 Q. Based on your studies and investigation of 22 the history of the Federal Project, do you have any 23 factual knowledge or beliefs that are contrary or 24 inconsistent with the paragraph I just asked you to 25 read? Page 94 1 A. This paragraph is an oversimplification of 2 a complex topic. It's approximately three sentences 3 long. However, I have read the paragraph, and as a 4 simplification, I don't think that it's wrong. 5 MR. GARVER: Can we go off the Record. 6 (Thereupon, a brief recess was taken, 7 after which the following proceedings 8 were had:) 9 BY MR. GARVER: 10 Q. Mr. Larsen, I am handing you the Supporting 11 Information Document Volume of the March 13, 1992 12 Everglades SWIM Plan. 13 Mr. Larsen, I'd like you to turn to Page 6 14 of that document. I'd like to refer you to under the 15 document entitled Notes, the tenth box down which 16 begins with the words recognizes ENP, and that box 17 states, "Recognizes ENP and acknowledges that not all 18 aspects of Park were examined, because Park was just 19 recently established. Views Project and Park plans 20 as complimentary features of Federal activity," and 21 that sentence is made in connection with the 22 Comprehensive Report on Central and Southern Florida, 23 Comprehensive Report on Central and Southern Florida 24 For Flood Control and other purposes House Document 25 Number 643. Page 95 1 Based on your studies and investigation of 2 the history of the Federal Project, is there anything 3 in the box that I just read under the Notes column 4 that is contrary or inconsistent with your factual 5 understanding of the history of the Federal Project? 6 A. I recall that House Document Number 643 is 7 approximately one hundred pages long, and it includes 8 a substantial body of information, and the two 9 sentences that you quoted are an inadequate summary 10 of the entire document. 11 However, in general, I recall reading 12 material in that document that generally comports 13 with those two sentences, and so I don't see anything 14 wrong with those two sentences. 15 Q. I'd like to refer you now to Page 8 of the 16 Supporting Information Document. I'd like you to 17 read the first four sentences of the paragraph at the 18 bottom of the page entitled Central and Southern 19 Florida Project For Flood Control and Other Purposes, 20 and let me know when you have completed it. 21 A. Excuse me. How far down? 22 Q. The first four sentences. The fourth 23 sentence is the one that ends with the parenthetical 24 United States Congress 1949. 25 A. I have read those four sentences. Page 96 1 Q. Based on your studies and investigation of 2 the history of the Federal Project, do you have any 3 factual knowledge or beliefs that are contrary or 4 inconsistent with the language I just asked you to 5 read? 6 A. This is an oversimplification of the body 7 of information. However, I don't see anything wrong 8 with these four sentences. 9 Q. I'd like you to turn now to Page 16 of the 10 Supporting Information Document. I'd like you to 11 read the first three full paragraphs on Page 16, and 12 let me know when you have completed it. 13 A. I have read those three paragraphs. 14 Q. Based on your studies and investigation of 15 the history of the Federal Project, do you have any 16 factual knowledge or beliefs that are inconsistent or 17 contrary with the language that I just asked you to 18 read? 19 A. While I have read the subject documents. 20 It has been some time since I've read them, and I 21 cannot confirm that those documents say what it is 22 purported they say here, which is a simplification. 23 For example, under Paragraph 1, it states 24 that 643, it states that, "Its coverage of water 25 quality is limited to providing relief from the Page 97 1 effects of flooding upon septic and sewer systems." 2 That may or may not be true. I can't confirm that. 3 I don't remember. 4 Likewise, House Document Number 186, it 5 states here in the second paragraph that it provides 6 very little coverage of water quality. 7 Again, it's been a while since I read that 8 document, and I can't state for sure that I agree 9 that that is an accurate summary of what is stated in 10 that document, and likewise, for House Document 11 Number 369. 12 Q. Did I understand your testimony earlier 13 today to be that -- did I understand correctly your 14 testimony earlier to be that one or more of these 15 documents referenced in those paragraphs, either 16 House Document Number 643, House Document Number 186 17 or House Document Number 369 form the basis for your 18 understanding that the creation of agriculture lands 19 in the Everglades was the major purpose of the 20 Federal Project? 21 A. I didn't limit my assessment to these -- 22 you know, it's not based necessarily on these three 23 documents. It's based on these documents and other 24 documents that I have looked at. So I honestly can't 25 remember if these three documents formed the basis of Page 98 1 that conclusion. 2 Q. You did state that conclusion, though; is 3 that correct? 4 MR. KOBELINKSKI: Object to the 5 mischaracterization of his prior testimony. 6 THE WITNESS: I would have to review the 7 specific language that I used before, before I 8 would confirm that. 9 BY MR. GARVER: 10 Q. Is it your understanding, based on your 11 factual knowledge or beliefs of the history of the 12 Federal Project, that creation of agricultural lands 13 was the major purpose of the Federal Project? 14 A. I believe I stated that it was one of the 15 purposes, and that that agricultural land was 16 included in the cost benefit analysis used to justify 17 the project. 18 Q. I'd like you to turn now to Page 19 of the 19 SWIM document. Please read the paragraph at the 20 bottom of the page entitled House Document Number 643 21 and 369, and let me know when you have finished that 22 paragraph. 23 A. Did you say to limit what I read to the 24 last paragraph on Page 19? 25 Q. Yes. Page 99 1 A. I have read that. 2 Q. Based on your studies and investigation of 3 the history of the Federal Project, is there anything 4 in that paragrap