212

 

 

 

1

2 STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

3

SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE

4 OF FLORIDA, a Florida Agricultural CASE NOS. 92-3038

Cooperative Marketing Association; 92-3039

5 ROTH FARMS, INC.; and WEDGWORTH 92-3040

FARMS, INC.,

6 and

FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, INC.;

7 UNITED STATES SUGAR CORPORATION;

and NEW HOPE SOUTH, INC.,

8 and

FLORIDA FRUIT AND VEGETABLE

9 ASSOCIATION; LEWIS POPE FARMS;

W.E. SCHLECHTER & SONS, INC.;

10 and HUNDLEY FARMS, INC.,

11 Petitioners,

12 vs.

13 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT

DISTRICT, an Agency of the State

14 of Florida,

15 Respondent,

16 and

17 MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS OF

FLORIDA; the UNITED STATES OF

18 AMERICA; and FLORIDA DEPARTMENT VOLUME 2

OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, and PAGES 212 - 399

19 the FLORIDA WILDLIFE FEDERATION,

20 Intervenors.

__________________________________/

21

22 DEPOSITION OF RONALD T. LUKE, PhD

23

24 ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC.

100 Salem Court

25 Tallahassee, Florida 32301

904/878-2221

 

213

 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

___________________________________________________________

7

DEPOSITION OF: RONALD T. LUKE, PhD

8

9 TAKEN AT THE INSTANCE OF: Intervenor USA

10

DATE: Friday, March 12, 1993

11

12 TIME: Commenced at 8:00 a.m.

Concluded at 4:00 p.m.

13

14 LOCATION: Accurate Stenotype Reporters

100 Salem Court

15 Tallahassee, Florida

16

REPORTED BY: TERRY WILHELMI, CSR

17 Notary Public in and for the

State of Florida at Large

18 ___________________________________________________________

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

 

214

 

 

 

1

2 APPEARANCES:

3

REPRESENTING THE FLORIDA SUGAR CANE GROWERS

4 COOPERATIVE OF FLORIDA:

5 DONNA H. STINSON, ESQUIRE

CAROLYN S. RAEPPLE, ESQUIRE

6 Hopping, Boyd, Green & Sams

123 South Calhoun

7 Tallahassee, Florida 32301

8

REPRESENTING THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER

9 MANAGEMENT DISTRICT:

10 PATRICK S. COUSINS, ESQUIRE

Popham, Haik, Schnobrich & Kaufman, Ltd.

11 4100 One Centrust Financial Center

100 S.E. Second Street

12 P.O. Box 019101

Miami, Florida 33l3l

13

14 REPRESENTING THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

15 KEITH E. SAXE, ESQUIRE

U.S. Department of Justice

16 60l Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.

Room 879

17 Washington, D.C. 20004

18

ALSO APPEARING: Professor Lonnie Jones

19

20

* * * * *

21

22

23

24

25

 

215

 

 

 

1 I N D E X

2 WITNESS PAGE

3 RONALD T. LUKE, PhD

4 Continued Direct Examination by Mr. Saxe 216

5

6

7

8

9 E X H I B I T S

10

NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGE

11

Luke Exhibit 4 Memo to File from Tomlinson 3/3/93 269

12 Luke Exhibit 5 Memo 274

Luke Exhibit 6 Letter from Tomlinson 2/23/93 276

13 Luke Exhibit 7 Letter from Leistritz 10/9/92 279

Luke Exhibit 8 Memo from Leistritz 10/20/92 290

14 Luke Exhibit 9 Memo from Luke 11/5/92 294

Luke Exhibit 10 Letter from Green 11/9/92 296

15 Luke Exhibit 11 Letter from Luke 11/16/92 297

Luke Exhibit 12 Letter from Wedgworth 11/18/92 300

16 Luke Exhibit 13 Memo from Luke 11/25/92 312

Luke Exhibit 14 Key for Equations by Schubert 332

17 Luke Exhibit 15 Memo to File from Schubert 2/15/93 341

Luke Exhibit 16 Call report 2/18/93 345

18 Luke Exhibit 17 Memo to File from Schubert 3/1/93 351

Luke Exhibit 18 Memo to File from Luke 2/11/93 353

19 Luke Exhibit 19 Economic Impacts 20 Year Analysis 359

Luke Exhibit 20 Effects of Prior Rice Culture 364

20 Luke Exhibit 21 Memo from Leistritz 2/16/93 367

Luke Exhibit 22 Response to Hazen and Sawyer report 374

21 Luke Exhibit 23 EEA area definitions 380

22

23

24

25

CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER 399

 

216

 

 

 

1 VOLUME 2

2 STIPULATIONS

3 The following deposition of RONALD T. LUKE, PhD,

4 was taken on oral examination, pursuant to notice, for

5 purposes of discovery, and for use as evidence, and for

6 other uses and purposes as may be permitted by the

7 applicable and governing rules. All objections, except as

8 to the form of the question, are reserved until final

9 hearing in this cause; and reading and signing is not

10 waived.

11 * * *

12 Thereupon,

13 RONALD T. LUKE, PhD

14 was called as a witness, having been previously duly sworn,

15 was examined and testified as follows:

16 CONTINUED DIRECT EXAMINATION

17 BY MR. SAXE:

18 Q Good morning, Dr. Luke. I would like to start

19 out this morning by taking a look at the Hazen and Sawyer

20 contract completion report for their economic impact

21 analysis one more time. In the forward of the document,

22 Hazen and Sawyer reported, "This evaluation focused on the

23 potential change in land use likely to occur under the

24 STA's, the BMP's, and the assessments, given the available

25 information from public and private sources." I'll show

 

217

 

 

 

1 you that statement, it's the statement that I put a number

2 1 next to.

3 In your opinion, was it a sound approach for

4 Hazen and Sawyer to focus on changes in land use?

5 A That's certainly one variable to focus on.

6 Q What would other variables be?

7 A I think we have listed a number in our

8 conversation yesterday. The impacts that flow from that. I

9 do think the change in ownership structure is something

10 that deserves to be addressed.

11 Q So change in ownership structure would be

12 relevant then in an economic impact analysis, independent

13 of any associated change in land use?

14 A That's right.

15 Q Is that the same for a socioeconomic impact

16 analysis?

17 A Yes.

18 Q Would you give me a comparitive definition of

19 economic impact analysis and socioeconomic impact analysis?

20 A I think both terms can be used in various

21 contexts.

22 An economic impact analysis, in my experience,

23 can be used to study the possible economic effects of a

24 change, such as a project, such as some other proposed

25 action. Economic impact analysis is also used to describe

 

218

 

 

 

1 a study that looks at, for lack of a better term, the

2 contribution that an industry or an activity is making to

3 an area. For instance, there is a series of reports that

4 IFAS does called the economic impact of the blank

5 agricultural industry on an area. There is no change

6 proposed there, but that they are attempting to measure

7 what the contribution -- economic contribution gives to the

8 economy, so there are at least two kinds of economic impact

9 analysis. A socioeconomic -- an economic impact analysis

10 typically focuses on output, employment, may focus on the

11 structural change in the sectors, number of establishments,

12 that kind of thing. Again, depending upon its purpose, it

13 may get into greater detail on various issues.

14 Socioeconomic analysis, in addition to looking

15 at economics, would also look at -- I say would, but could

16 look at demographic, labor market, public facilities and

17 service, land use, housing, fiscal and social variables and

18 dynamics that might flow from a proposed project. I

19 suppose it's possible one could do a full blown

20 socioeconomic impact analysis of an existing industry. I

21 don't know that I have ever really seen one, but

22 conceptually there is no reason you couldn't.

23 Q You included in your list of relevant topics for

24 socioeconomic impact analysis, land use, is that in some

25 way distinguishable from the relevance of land use to an

 

219

 

 

 

1 economic impact analysis?

2 A It is. One of the things that has been

3 sensitive in some areas is that if you have let's say

4 development of a new large factory that brings a lot of

5 people into the area, that you will have then a demand for

6 addition housing and retail and commercial studies which

7 may result in conversion of land from say an existing

8 agricultural use, and if this is an area that has prime

9 farmland, that may be a policy issue for some folks.

10 Q When you mentioned earlier that land use is one

11 variable in response to this statement in the forward of

12 the Hazen and Sawyer report, in deriving direct and

13 secondary economic impacts, are there any other variables,

14 if you will, that can cause such impacts, other than the

15 change in ownership structure that you have mentioned?

16 A Sure. If you change the production function by

17 changing the inputs, cost of inputs, and where the money

18 that the enterprise takes in is spent, you can certainly

19 change the impacts if you change the revenues of the

20 enterprise. Either through changes in its productivity or

21 changes in the price it receives for its product, you would

22 also change the economic impacts.

23 Q What is the relationship between the change in

24 production function and a change in ownership structure?

25 A Well, there might or might not be one.

 

220

 

 

 

1 Q Can you give me an example of a change in

2 production function that might be applicable in the EAA?

3 A The BMP's are a change in the production

4 function and the money that previously was -- let's just

5 assume for the sake of this example that we're talking

6 about BMP's which increase operating costs in ways that are

7 not generating additional revenue, in other words, it

8 doesn't generate an increase in productivity, then that's

9 money that otherwise would have been available to the owner

10 of the enterprise, and as to how that would affect the

11 multipliers, we would need to know where the money that was

12 spent on those BMP's was spent. Was it to buy a piece of

13 equipment from Ohio that then was installed on the farm or

14 was it spent on additional labor in the local study area,

15 for a more labor intensive production process. We would

16 need to know kind of where the -- what the feedback now is

17 of kind of the payments to the owners, to know whether on

18 net we had any significant change in the multipliers and,

19 if so, whether they went up or down.

20 Q If one is using an existing multiplier, rather

21 than generating one from raw data, if you select the

22 multiplier that's applicable to the particular industry,

23 would that multiplier still be applicable despite a

24 production -- a change in a production function like you

25 just mentioned of BMP implementation?

 

221

 

 

 

1 A It's an empirical question. It would depend

2 upon, first of all, how broad the sector definition is that

3 you're using as a multiplier for that sector. It may very

4 well be that it's already averaging a lot of fairly

5 different activities in there and even if you had very

6 precise information on the changes in the EAA, it wouldn't

7 move that multiplier very much. On the other hand, if you

8 had a fairly specific multiplier and you were dealing with

9 fairly major changes in the production function, then it

10 might become undescriptive.

11 An example would be that if you were dealing

12 with a steel manufacturing sector and you went from old

13 technologies to one of the new mini-mill technologies, you

14 may have a very different production function and hence a

15 very different multiplier.

16 Q In the example that you used earlier of BMP's in

17 the EAA, if one were using the RIMS multiplier applicable

18 to the sugar cane industry or sugar production and the

19 relevant jurisdiction, would a change in production

20 function entailed by BMP implementation, cause that

21 multiplier to be no longer applicable?

22 A Well, your phrase no longer applicable, I don't

23 think is appropriate here. Any multiplier that you would

24 use out of a RIMS model and apply it to a very specific

25 activity in the county, it does not precisely describe that

 

222

 

 

 

1 activity. I mean, because it is inherently an average

2 across a range of activities that are grouped into that

3 sector, okay. So there's nothing to say that you could not

4 continue to use it, what you would be looking at would be,

5 you know, is it a less precise estimate than it was before

6 of what the multiplier effects would be, because all you

7 can possibly get out of RIMS for a specific activity in a

8 county, a specific business, is an estimate, because the

9 multipliers are average relationships, not precise to the

10 ABC Hardware Store.

11 Q In your opinion, is the use of multipliers such

12 as the RIMS multipliers, less desirable in doing economic

13 or socioeconomic impact analysis than creating multipliers

14 from raw data?

15 A It depends. There is no universal answer to

16 that question.

17 Q In a situation where there may be changes in

18 production functions as a result of the proposed action,

19 would it be the case, in your opinion, that the study

20 should be based on a generated multiplier from raw data

21 rather than a multiplier such as RIMS?

22 A I don't think that I really have an opinion on

23 that, because I haven't studied the impact of BMP's or the

24 other proposed actions on the production function of the

25 enterprise enough to form an opinion on whether there would

 

223

 

 

 

1 be a significant enough change in the cost structure to

2 make one want to go do that.

3 I think on the multipliers, the big issue to me

4 is whether we're going to use multipliers that are

5 appropriate to the economy of the EAA versus multipliers

6 that are appropriate to the economy of Palm Beach County

7 taken as a whole.

8 Q In RPC's discussions with the Co-op thus far

9 about the work RPC might do in preparation for this case,

10 have you proposed to build a multiplier from raw data?

11 A No. That's sometimes referred to as a primary

12 data I.O. model, I have done that, but I have not proposed

13 it here. What has been proposed is to select or create an

14 appropriate multiplier for the EAA, using some combination

15 of the available published secondary data I.O. tables'

16 knowledge about the area and the professional judgment of

17 Larry Leistritz and others.

18 Q In selecting a representative multiplier, could

19 Hazen and Sawyer's use of the Palm Beach sugar multiplier

20 be better than your agricultural multiplier from Okeechobee

21 County?

22 A Could it be better, do you want to define

23 better?

24 Q More accurate in providing an estimate of

25 indirect and induced impacts from the relevant direct

 

224

 

 

 

1 economic impacts in the area.

2 A I'm not prepared to tell you that it couldn't

3 be. I would tell you that Dr. Leistritz had those both

4 available and based upon his review of the situation and

5 his knowledge of input/output analysis, he felt like of

6 those two alternatives, that he was more comfortable in

7 that October estimate using the Okeechobee County

8 multiplier and, I mean, I defer to his judgment on that.

9 Q You describe some differences between economic

10 impact assessment and socioeconomic impact assessment,

11 would it be correct to say that what Hazen and Sawyer has

12 undertaken in the 10 year study is not a socioeconomic

13 impact assessment?

14 A It would be correct to say it is not a complete

15 socioeconomic impact assessment. What it has undertaken by

16 subject matter certainly would be part of a socioeconomic

17 impact assessment.

18 Q Did Hazen and Sawyer analyze demographic

19 impacts?

20 A Not really. There may be some descriptive

21 information in there about the size of the populations, but

22 there's no demographic forecast.

23 Q As you use public service impacts in your

24 description of socioeconomic impact analysis, did Hazen and

25 Sawyer undertake a public service impact assessment as part

 

225

 

 

 

1 of this project?

2 A No, I don't think so. There is a little

3 discussion about job training programs, at least in the

4 draft final, but not any kind of comprehensive review.

5 Q As use the term social impacts in describing

6 what distinguishes a socioeconomic impact analysis from

7 economic impact analysis, did Hazen and Sawyer undertake to

8 analyze the social impacts in this project?

9 A I don't think they did, no.

10 Q As you use the term land use effects as

11 distinguishable in a socioeconomic impact analysis from its

12 use in an economic impact analysis, did Hazen and Sawyer

13 undertake to analyze those effects in this project?

14 A Apart from the direct land use effects, I don't

15 think they did. I would add that in this particular case,

16 since we are dealing with more an economic shrinkage than

17 an economic expansion, I personally would not have gone

18 into any great detail on secondary land use impacts,

19 because I wouldn't really expect to find any. That's

20 typically something we have done more in economic growth,

21 economic development scenarios.

22 Q So then would I be correct in understanding you

23 to say that of your list of types of impacts or effects

24 that are analyzed in a socioeconomic impact analysis but

25 generally not in an economic impact analysis, Hazen and

 

226

 

 

 

1 Sawyer made no significant analysis of any of those

2 elements in this project?

3 A I'm not sure I can diagram that sentence very

4 well.

5 Q I'll restate it. Would I be correct in

6 restating or summarizing your testimony this morning that

7 none of the elements that distinguishes socioeconomic

8 impact analysis from an economic impact analysis, have been

9 analyzed in any depth in the Hazen and Sawyer 10 year

10 project?

11 A I could agree to that.

12 Q You testified earlier that this Hazen and Sawyer

13 work could be called an incomplete economic impact analysis

14 and this morning you are indicating it could be called an

15 incomplete socioeconomic impact analysis as well?

16 A I don't think I'm saying that. I think it's --

17 there is a difference. I mean, when I say it's an

18 incomplete economic analysis, I'm saying there are things

19 that one should have done, even if one limits one's scope

20 to economic analysis, that they didn't do. I mean, the

21 total absence of most of the other elements of

22 socioeconomic impact analysis, it's like taking a hubcap

23 and saying it's an incomplete car, I mean, it's not a

24 useful description.

25 Q Well, to use your analogy -- strike that.

 

227

 

 

 

1 In your opinion, was the omission of analysis on

2 the elements that distinguish a socioeconomic impact

3 analysis from an economic impact analysis, a defect in

4 Hazen and Sawyer's work product?

5 A Well, that would depend upon what Hazen and

6 Sawyer was asked to do. I think that the lack of, for a

7 project of this magnitude, the lack of -- a project and

8 program of this magnitude -- the lack of a socioeconomic

9 impact analysis is a deficiency in the District's decision

10 making process.

11 Q So if I understand you correctly, the District

12 should have requested a socioeconomic impact analysis as

13 opposed to an economic impact analysis that omits analysis

14 of demographic impacts, labor impacts, public service

15 impacts, fiscal impacts, social impacts, and secondary land

16 use impacts?

17 A That's right, if they are going to have a sound

18 basis for their decision about adoption of the SWIM plan.

19 Q In your discussions with the Cooperative thus

20 far about the work RPC might do in preparing for this

21 trial, have you proposed that a socioeconomic impact

22 analysis, including the missing elements in the Hazen and

23 Sawyer work, be undertaken?

24 A We have had a discussion with them about that.

25 The time limitations that I understand exist prior to this

 

228

 

 

 

1 make me doubt that one could do a complete study in that

2 time and so I really, because of that, have not proposed to

3 them that it be as complete as I think it would be if it

4 were to be made in the proper sequence in the planning

5 process.

6 Q Have you offered to prepare an analysis for this

7 case for the Cooperative, that includes demographic, public

8 service, fiscal and social effects of the SWIM plan?

9 A That includes some of them, yes, subject to time

10 limitations.

11 Q Does RPC have a publication or document

12 describing what constitutes a complete economic or

13 socioeconomic impact statement?

14 A We have a, I guess, a series of methodology

15 papers that have been done in the course of projects for

16 clients in the past, where it was important to them to

17 prepare a written methodology and circulate it for comment,

18 and I would point to those as kind of the best statement of

19 what our methodology has been in the past. Dr. Leistritz,

20 of course has, as you have seen, a fairly extensive

21 bibliography on socioeconomic impact assessment

22 methodology.

23 One of the things that is important is what is

24 called scoping, which is kind of a recognized part of

25 impact assessment and that means that after doing some

 

229

 

 

 

1 preliminary work, that one attempts to get agreement from

2 the relevant parties on what issues, what study area, so

3 forth, are significant in the specific instance. So I

4 would tell you that those reports and the methodologies

5 recommended or proposed in those reports are specific to

6 those projects and in some cases on other projects you

7 might do more in an area, in other cases you might do less,

8 because of what you had learned in the scoping process.

9 So I would stand behind those for the projects

10 that we were being asked to assess there, but I would tell

11 you that those are not immutable, they are project

12 specific.

13 Q The guidelines that you referred to that RPC

14 has, have you produced a copy of those with your document

15 production?

16 A I'm sure we haven't, because they concern past

17 projects. They are not anything that was done for this

18 enterprise.

19 Q As I understand it, those guidelines fairly

20 accurately reflect your views on what constitutes a proper

21 or complete socioeconomic impact analysis?

22 A I must not have spoken clearly if that's what

23 you understood.

24 Q I may have misunderstood you.

25 A I said they were for the projects for which they

 

230

 

 

 

1 were developed, but that you really have to scope each

2 project separately as to what's required to address the

3 relevant issues, but not waste time on things that really

4 are not matters of concern with that specific project.

5 MR. SAXE: Counsel, it sounds to me like the

6 guidelines Dr. Luke is describing are within the

7 request for production that accompanied our notice of

8 deposition. I understand that you raised objections

9 to the request for material that pertained to previous

10 projects. I believe they were based primarily on

11 grounds of burden, because of over-breadth, and

12 without waiving any objection to that objection, I

13 would like to request that this specific set of

14 documents be produced as responsive documents.

15 MS. STINSON: Let me talk to Dr. Luke off the

16 record and see if I can get a better feel for actually

17 what we're talking about.

18 (Brief recess taken.)

19 MS. STINSON: On the record, I have discussed

20 the documents with Dr. Luke and as I understand them,

21 they are sort of -- they are project specific

22 guidelines as to what's going to be looked at in that

23 project. They are not in any particular format, it

24 varies by project, but he indicates that those are

25 available so, again, as discussed yesterday, if you

 

231

 

 

 

1 could put that request in a letter or something, we

2 will respond.

3 A Just for clarification, there have been certain

4 projects that were major enough that there are methodology

5 papers that address the various aspects of that specific

6 study and that's what I'm thinking of. I'm not

7 representing to you that a formal methodology paper has

8 been prepared every time we have been asked to do a

9 project, so my intention would be to, as I understand your

10 request now, would be to look through our library of past

11 reports for projects where we have done those types of

12 methodology papers and to provide you with copies, but that

13 you shouldn't expect that there will be one for every last

14 project that RPC has ever done, because in many cases no

15 such paper was created.

16 BY MR. SAXE:

17 Q When you say major projects, we discussed

18 yesterday about nine or so projects that you identified for

19 me from your curriculum vitae that had to do with economic

20 impacts or socioeconomic impacts of actions proposed to

21 remedy environmental problems. There was the Browning-

22 Ferris waste disposal project, the Department of Energy

23 nuclear waste project, Louisiana natural gas project, I can

24 enumerate them, but would you characterize those as major

25 projects for which there might be such methodology papers?

 

232

 

 

 

1 A It might come as no surprise to you that some

2 are, some aren't.

3 Q Well, perhaps we can -- we may be able to

4 identify sufficiently a large set from this set to make it

5 a reasonable request that you can comply with.

6 A The other thing is that you seem to be trying to

7 draw a distinction between how one would do a socioeconomic

8 impact assessment of an environmental protection project

9 versus a new mine or new power plant and there is no

10 distinction. I suppose the most complete set of

11 methodology papers concerns a surface mining project in

12 Wisconsin and also concerns a project in Texas, so those

13 were among the ones that I had in mind to produce.

14 Q Thank you, I'll correspond through counsel and

15 we can work that out.

16 You referred to the publications that Dr.

17 Leistritz provided as describing a set of criteria for

18 constructing a complete socioeconomic impact analysis?

19 A No, I didn't.

20 Q Okay, what would be the basis in publication for

21 your opinions concerning what would be a complete

22 socioeconomic impact analysis in any given instance?

23 A What I told you was that his bibliography

24 includes a number of publications that address the issue of

25 methodology in socioeconomic assessments, okay, and what I

 

233

 

 

 

1 have also told you is that the way you determine the scope

2 of a socioeconomic assessment is through a scoping process,

3 which gives both professionals, policy makers, and the

4 general public, an opportunity to raise issues with which

5 they are concerned.

6 Q When you do scoping, are there criteria that you

7 apply to determine whether or not a given element should be

8 included in a complete socioeconomic impact analysis?

9 A There is some guidance. I don't want to give

10 you the impression that there is some sort of bright line

11 yes/no test.

12 Q What is the basis of the judgments that you as

13 an economist make when you are determining in a scoping

14 analysis, whether or not an element needs to be included?

15 A Well, there are some, I think, fairly basic

16 elements that there would be a general consensus among

17 people that do this kind of work that if you were going to

18 have a complete one you would presume are going to be in

19 there and then what you are looking for are things that are

20 unique to a specific project, that may generate impacts

21 that would be special to that project.

22 For instance, in the high level radioactive

23 waste repository, the impact of transportation of the waste

24 to the site along rail or road corridors was of interest,

25 because of the possible perception that could cause that to

 

234

 

 

 

1 affect property values, could cause it to have some impact,

2 and that would not normally be something you would worry

3 about if you were transporting -- if you had an automobile

4 factory and you were transporting auto parts to and from a

5 plant.

6 Q But nevertheless, would the criteria for

7 determining that in that instance those effects would be

8 relevant for a socioeconomic impact analysis, would those

9 criteria be described anywhere in any publication or any

10 scholarly literature or textbook or paper?

11 A I'm not going to tell you they aren't, I'm going

12 to tell you that there is some literature about what

13 constitutes an adequate scoping process.

14 Q What literature would that be?

15 A I know that the Corps and the other federal

16 agencies have some guidance on that. I know there have

17 been some court cases on it. I would strongly suspect that

18 there is some scholarly literature that springs out of

19 that.

20 Q Would that be the literature upon which you

21 would be relying in formulating opinions about whether or

22 not elements had to be included in a complete socioeconomic

23 impact analysis for the Everglades?

24 A I think that literature would be helpful. I

25 think I have done enough of these that I have sort of

 

235

 

 

 

1 internalized how you carry out a scoping process.

2 Q But you would say that you have internalized it

3 from this basic set of literature?

4 A No, I wouldn't say that. I would say that I

5 guess I have been doing these since about 1976 and I have

6 sat through an awful lot of public hearings and gone

7 through review of methodology papers and --

8 Q Dr. Luke, I'm asking a pretty straightforward

9 question, I'm asking --

10 A No, you are interrupting my answer and I would

11 appreciate it if you wouldn't.

12 -- and I think in that course of time I have

13 accumulated some experience. Over those years I have

14 probably looked at a part of that literature, but I do not

15 want to tell you today that I would necessarily be relying

16 upon it.

17 Q What literature supports the judgment you would

18 exercise in determining whether elements needed to be

19 included in the complete socioeconomic impact analysis for

20 the Everglades?

21 A I can't answer your question.

22 Q There's no particular publications that contain

23 what you describe as the fairly basic elements that there

24 is consensus about in doing socioeconomic impact analysis?

25 A Again, I have done it enough that I don't know

 

236

 

 

 

1 that -- I could go find you some literature that would

2 support it, but it's not like that given this project, I

3 would sort of have to go to a book first before I would

4 know what I wanted to do.

5 Q I'm not asking you if you would have to have

6 recourse to it first, I'm asking what literature would

7 describe these fairly basic elements?

8 A I can't, sitting here, cite you to a book.

9 There are certainly some methodology documents in

10 Leistritz' literature that I would think would be

11 consistent with my judgment.

12 Q Well, since we don't all have the benefit of the

13 20 years of experience you do to have internalized, as you

14 put it, this set of criteria, do you think you could look

15 through your library and identify that literature which

16 would describe the fairly basic elements regarding which

17 there is consensus in performing scoping analyses for

18 socioeconomic impact assessments, and provide us with a

19 list of those publications so that we can request them as

20 part of the request for production?

21 A If counsel instructs me to, I'll do that.

22 Certainly in Dr. Jones you have someone with a similar

23 length of experience that would already be familiar with

24 those documents.

25 Q I'm not interested in Dr. Jones' opinions about

 

237

 

 

 

1 the fairly basic elements, at this time and in this

2 context, I'm trying to discover your opinions.

3 MR. SAXE: Yes, Counsel, we would ask that --

4 MS. STINSON: I have to object to that request.

5 I think you have asked him what he has relied upon or

6 what he is relying on and he has indicated to you that

7 there is no particular literature that he is relying

8 on. To ask him what he may have, in his educational

9 process over the last 20 years, reviewed, I don't

10 think is an appropriate discovery request.

11 MR. SAXE: I asked him what he had internalized,

12 effectively.

13 MS. STINSON: I take that to mean what have you

14 learned in educating yourself and doing work over the

15 last 20 years.

16 MR. SAXE: It's a proper request, Counsel, I am

17 entitled to an identification of publications that

18 describe the basis for the views that the expert is

19 presenting in a case.

20 MS. STINSON: You are entitled to them if he is

21 relying on them. I don't think you are entitled to

22 ask him to do research.

23 MR. SAXE: I'm not asking him to do research,

24 I'm asking him to identify those publications of which

25 he is aware that describe the fairly basic elements

 

238

 

 

 

1 regarding which there is consensus.

2 MS. STINSON: Well, you have asked him and he

3 has indicated that he can't tell you the names. I

4 don't think it's appropriate to ask him to go through

5 the library and find some that might support what he

6 has said and I would have to object, I think, to that

7 discovery request.

8 MR. SAXE: All right, we will take it up in the

9 course of discovery.

10 BY MR. SAXE:

11 Q Dr. Luke, going back for a minute to the issue

12 of the modifying multipliers, in general would you prefer a

13 multiplier from the county and for the sector for which the

14 underlying economic impacts, direct economic impacts

15 pertained, or from another county and another sector?

16 A I really think it's a case specific sort of

17 determination. You're looking for the multiplier you think

18 will best describe the impacts -- in this case I'm looking

19 for the multiplier that will best describe the impacts on

20 the other businesses and households in the EAA and it

21 wouldn't necessarily be one or the other in all cases.

22 Q The second sentence that I have highlighted in

23 the paragraph in the Hazen and Sawyer report, says, "A

24 change in land ownership does not necessarily imply a

25 change in land use or a change in sales and employment in

 

239

 

 

 

1 the EAA."

2 Would you agree with that statement?

3 A Yes, I would.

4 Q As I understand your testimony, in your opinion,

5 a change in land ownership might imply a change in land

6 use?

7 A Yes.

8 Q Dr. Luke, as I understand it, in Hazen and

9 Sawyer's methodology in the 10 year economic impact

10 assessment that we have been discussing, Hazen and Sawyer

11 followed the criteria for determining impacts such that if

12 a farm fails but land remains productive in the sense that

13 returns to lands exceed zero, the land stays in production,

14 there are no direct impacts and no secondary impacts, is

15 that correct, as you understand Hazen and Sawyer's

16 methodology?

17 A I think that's what they did.

18 Q We talked yesterday about what I believe you

19 referred to as economic friction, in that view would it be

20 correct to say that if a farm fails but the land remains

21 productive in the sense that returns to land exceed zero,

22 there might nevertheless be circumstances in which

23 perceived risk exceeds the perceived benefit of keeping the

24 land in production and that would be loosely referred to as

25 economic friction and it could cause the land to go out of

 

240

 

 

 

1 production and it could cause corresponding direct impacts

2 and consequent secondary impacts, would that be correct?

3 A I think that's a possibility.

4 Q This economic friction, would it be correct to

5 call it a theory?

6 A Theory? It would be --

7 Q How should I refer to it?

8 A It's a concept, I mean, the notion of friction

9 as a difference between what theoretically should happen in

10 a market and what does happen is, I think, a pretty common

11 economic concept.

12 Q The concept then of economic friction in the

13 context of economic or socioeconomic impact analysis, is

14 this a firm specific phenomenon?

15 A I don't understand the question.

16 Q Is this something that can be generalized,

17 averaged for an entire industry, or is it something that

18 has to be calculated on a firm specific basis?

19 A I don't know about a firm specific basis in this

20 case where you're dealing with acreage, I would more look

21 at it across a sector as to what the conditions are likely

22 to be.

23 Q Sector by sector, you mean?

24 A For the farm sector in the EAA, I would look at

25 it for this specific set of circumstances.

 

241

 

 

 

1 Q Can you elaborate what set of circumstances

2 would define an identifiable group of similarly situated

3 farms, if you will?

4 A I mean, in this case I would be looking at

5 things like would there be any -- where would the needs for

6 additional infusion of capital occur, what would be the

7 perceived risks, who would be likely to end up as the owner

8 or as -- and as possible operators, and I might find that

9 this was a significant concern, I might find on

10 investigation that it was not a significant concern.

11 Q So then would it be correct to say it's not

12 constant across firms within an industry?

13 A Right, it would. I also think it's situational

14 in terms of where things are in the banking and credit

15 system and it's who the -- it is the ownership structure of

16 the remaining firms in the industry and what their sources

17 of capital are. I mean, it's a very situation specific

18 thing and it's a concept that ought to be looked at and one

19 make a decision about whether it appears to be material in

20 the analysis of this situation or not.

21 Q Would it be the same for owner operators versus

22 corporations?

23 A I don't understand the question.

24 Q Would the ownership structure be relevant, one

25 of the relevant circumstances in determining whether or not

 

242

 

 

 

1 economic friction applied in a given instance?

2 A I think the ownership structure of the remaining

3 firms in the area and the ownership structure of whoever

4 would end up owning the land if existing operations failed,

5 would both be relevant.

6 Q So whether the land was owned or leased, would

7 that be relevant?

8 A I'm sorry?

9 Q Whether the land was owned or leased, would that

10 be relevant?

11 A Are you talking about the land where the

12 enterprise fails?

13 Q Yes.

14 A Yes, that would be relevant.

15 Q What other land would it be relevant to talk

16 about in this context?

17 A The remaining firms that stay in operation in

18 the area. I'm just trying to clarify your question.

19 Q Can you give me a list of, to the best of your

20 ability now extemporaneously to do so, of what the relevant

21 factors or elements would be, data elements if you were, in

22 analyzing the applicability of economic friction in any

23 given instance?

24 A Do you mean whether it would exist or what its

25 impacts would be if it did exist?

 

243

 

 

 

1 Q Whether it would exist and quantifying it.

2 A I would be concerned here with the difference

3 between some costs and needs for new investment. If the

4 operations can proceed and the land can be kept in

5 production over a period of time with no new capital

6 investments, operating off the costs or the capital already

7 invested, that would tell me that it was less likely to be

8 a problem. Converse, if at a point where significant

9 additional investment is required, then what we have to

10 look at is where would the funds for that investment come

11 from, what is likely to be the perceived risks, how sunk is

12 that investment versus portability or reusability somewhere

13 else in terms of the risks, and what are the sources of

14 credit or of capital that the operators might draw upon,

15 and what are the restrictions upon those capital sources

16 as, for instance, criterion for which the bank can make a

17 loan.

18 Out of that I would think we would be able to

19 reach a judgment about whether or not that was likely to be

20 an important element in explaining the likely response in

21 the EAA to specific farms going out of business.

22 Q Any others?

23 A Not that I think of right now.

24 Q Did historic events like bankruptcies, farm

25 failures, average expansion -- or rather, acreage expansion

 

244

 

 

 

1 or contraction, have any role in that determination?

2 A I would say that would be useful to look at and

3 what I think you would have to do to factor those in, would

4 be to say okay, what were the economic conditions in terms

5 of risk, profitability, availability of capital, when those

6 historical events occurred, and how does that differ either

7 because of the proposed SWIM plan or because of external

8 factors that may be changing in the future, but those could

9 be useful guides to making an analysis.

10 Q Are there any others that you can think of that

11 would be useful in making such an analysis?

12 A Not at this time.

13 Q During Dr. Leistritz' deposition, he gave some

14 testimony concerning the likely events when there's

15 succession of ownership because of a failure of the

16 previous farm owner. He referred to the farm crisis period

17 in the midwest and some others historically that he used

18 for purposes of illustration. He testified, as I

19 understood it, that a new owner usually gets a certain

20 advantage in buying the failed farm, the advantage is

21 usually in the form of reduced land prices and cheaper

22 equipment as that machinery is sold from the failed farm

23 operation. Generally, do you agree with that position?

24 A I think that's what happened in the upper

25 midwest.

 

245

 

 

 

1 Q Would you call it a general rule or rule that's

2 generally applicable when there is a succession of

3 ownership from farm failure?

4 A I'm sure not prepared to say that that would

5 occur in every case. I can certainly see that it would be

6 one scenario. You could have a farm failure because -- in

7 that case you had a situation where you had a fairly

8 substantial drop in property values that was a drop in

9 collateral that caused a whole bunch of loans to be called

10 and the value of the land had indeed declined. I can

11 envision farm failures that were not based on general

12 declines in property value and collateral value, but were

13 based upon bankruptcy of an enterprise because they made

14 some bad stock market investments --

15 Q Would the latter be relevant for purposes of

16 economic impact analysis?

17 A Again, if you wouldn't mind me finishing my

18 answer.

19 -- and in that case there wouldn't be any reason

20 to think that the land value in the next owner's hands

21 would be any less than it was before.

22 Q So the latter set of circumstances are, so to

23 speak, idiosyncratic farm failures as opposed to farm

24 failures because of generalizable conditions in an industry

25 and an area?

 

246

 

 

 

1 A I don't know about idiosyncratic, but would not

2 be related to the -- let's say are not related to the

3 economics of the farm itself, but more to the economics of

4 the owner.

5 Q When you might look at, attempt to analyze the

6 role of economic friction in the economic impacts of the

7 implementation of the SWIM plan, would you be concerned

8 with the former set of circumstances or the latter or both?

9 A I think I would be concerned primarily with the

10 former.

11 Q So in the context of the former as it would be

12 relevant to the analysis of economic friction in the EAA,

13 would it then be safe to say that as a general rule it

14 would be more likely than not that the successive owners

15 would enjoy the advantage of cheaper land and cheaper

16 equipment?

17 A I would think that the land value is definitely

18 going down as a result of the SWIM plan, so I would say

19 yes. As to the equipment, you know, less certain, but

20 probably if it's bought as used equipment and the current

21 owner bought it as new equipment, then the new owner's cost

22 basis in it is going to be less.

23 Q Do you know how the machinery and equipment of a

24 failed farm enterprise generally is disposed?

25 A Well, in the upper midwest, you basically had

 

247

 

 

 

1 the bank auctioning things off and I don't know that that's

2 universal or would apply here.

3 Q Do you have any reason to believe that's not

4 what would happen in the EAA?

5 A In this case, we're not talking about a

6 foreclosure action, we're talking about people deciding to

7 exit, so I think that you would be much more likely to have

8 privately negotiated sales than sort of courthouse square

9 auctions like in a lot of cases.

10 Q As a general phenomenon, as an industry-wide

11 phenomenon, if that were to take place, these people

12 electing to leave production, would that more likely than

13 not be associated with some diminution in the market value

14 of the used machinery and equipment that those owners were

15 putting on the market?

16 A I don't understand the question.

17 Q Would you expect that the prices of machinery

18 and equipment would drop if there were an industry-wide

19 trend in the EAA of owners wanting to get out and sell?

20 A To some extent, yes.

21 Q At this point do you have any estimate of what

22 the friction factor might be in the EAA, quantification of

23 it?

24 A No.

25 Q Roughly, ball park?

 

248

 

 

 

1 A No.

2 Q It would, if I understand it correctly, though,

3 have the effect of bumping up the value of returns to land,

4 the minimum returns to land that would be required for an

5 owner to elect to continue in production? Do you

6 understand that question or should I rephrase it?

7 A Maybe you should try again.

8 Q Okay. Hazen and Sawyer assumed that land would

9 stay in production if returns to land exceeded zero, would

10 the effect of economic friction be to raise that number, by

11 your criteria, by some fixed dollar amount, so that it

12 would be meaningful to say that the land would stay in

13 production if returns to land exceeded zero plus X, where X

14 was the friction factor?

15 A Yeah, I think that's what it would do.

16 Q At the risk of returning to a type of question

17 that we had some difficulty with before, can you point me

18 to any publications that describe the role of this economic

19 friction in an economic or socioeconomic impact analysis?

20 A No, not from memory.

21 Q Are there any economic impact analyses or

22 socioeconomic impact analyses that you have performed that

23 have analyzed economic friction?

24 A No, none of the cases have addressed this

25 particular kind of failing firm issue that I have done.

 

249

 

 

 

1 Q Are you aware of any that you haven't done that

2 have addressed the economic friction factor in an economic

3 impact analysis or socioeconomic impact analysis?

4 A No.

5 Q What kind of -- strike that.

6 Earlier you explained to me that in explaining a

7 likely response to economic friction in the context of SWIM

8 plan implementation, you would be looking at the relevance

9 of some costs versus the need for new investment;

10 specifically what kinds of data elements would be relevant

11 in such an analysis?

12 A You would want to know kind of the extent to

13 which there was existing capacity in the cultivation

14 equipment, the useful life left in structures, to where one

15 can proceed without making a new capital investment and how

16 long you could without making a new capital investment.

17 Q If we could take them one at a time, I think it

18 would be easier. What kind of data would you seek in

19 attempting to analyze that element in this context?

20 A You know, I would want to know something about

21 the average useful life of the equipment and the average

22 age of the existing equipment that's out there and also

23 whether there is excess capacity or, under-utilization is

24 probably the wrong term, but whether in effect you could

25 use other equipment. Let's say an existing operator took

 

250

 

 

 

1 over a piece of land and he has three machines and there's

2 one machine that comes with the land. Is there reserve

3 capacity, so to speak, in the three machines, such that

4 even if the one machine that's on the land goes obsolete or

5 wears out, that he can continue to cultivate that land with

6 his three machines.

7 MR. COUSINS: Could I interject, what factors

8 are we discussing now? I sort of got off track. Are

9 we discussing friction factor factors?

10 BY MR. SAXE:

11 Q Dr. Luke, which factors are we discussing right

12 now?

13 A I believe your question was what kinds of data

14 would I try to look at in order to decide if I thought that

15 land might go out of production because of economic

16 friction. That's what I think I'm talking about.

17 MR. COUSINS: Okay, thanks.

18 BY MR. SAXE:

19 Q These elements, the average useful life, the

20 average age and excess capacity or reserve capacity, these

21 are relevant to the issue of is there existing capacity in

22 equipment and structures. What I need to know is where

23 would you go to get that information, from whom would you

24 seek it?

25 A I would talk to the agricultural extension

 

251

 

 

 

1 agents, I would interview probably some of the agricultural

2 interests, I might talk to the equipment dealers, might

3 talk to the bankers, might look at some appraisal district

4 data.

5 Q What data specifically would you be looking at

6 in those sources?

7 A I paused. I might also look at USDA data.

8 The information that we just talked about,

9 whatever those sources could tell me about the factors that

10 we just discussed.

11 Q What information on average useful life of

12 equipment and structures, average age or excess capacity,

13 do you believe the agricultural extension agents would be

14 able to provide?

15 A They would be able to provide both specific and

16 general information on conditions in the EAA.

17 Q In what form?

18 A Verbal.

19 Q Based on?

20 A Their experience.

21 Q Collecting data from whom? Maybe you don't

22 understand. I'm asking for specific data sources and

23 specific data elements. I appreciate we are narrowing the

24 focus, but in the interest of saving time, since you

25 understand what it is, I think, that I'm asking, perhaps

 

252

 

 

 

1 you can just answer that question.

2 A Well, I'm doing the best I can. I would go and

3 interview them, tell them the kind of concern that I had,

4 talk to them about what they knew about the situation in

5 the field, and try to make a judgment about whether or not

6 this is a significant issue.

7 Q So you would be, if I understand it correctly,

8 you would be just relying on anecdotal reports that

9 agricultural extension agents, based on their generalized

10 feeling or experience about what the average useful life

11 and age of equipment was?

12 A I don't know that I would characterize it as

13 anecdotal.

14 Q How would you characterize it?

15 A I would characterize it as practical field

16 experience, folks that are out there talking to the farmers

17 and looking at the land on a long term, continuous basis.

18 Alvarez and Schunamen have been around here quite awhile.

19 Q So it would be based on conversations with

20 farmers by people like Alvarez and Schunamen over time, not

21 data collection in any methodological or formal sense?

22 A If they have some quantitative data, I would be

23 real interested in it, but I certainly wouldn't limit

24 myself to quantitative data in trying to assess the

25 importance of the issue.

 

253

 

 

 

1 Q Do you understand that they do have quantified

2 data?

3 A I don't have knowledge about whether they do or

4 not.

5 Q In your opinion, this information based on

6 conversations by Alvarez and Schunamen would be a

7 sufficient source of data for your analysis of the existing

8 capacity in equipment and structures?

9 A I didn't say that. I said they would be one of

10 the sources.

11 Q The other sources you mentioned were the owners,

12 equipment dealers, bankers and USDA. Go through each one

13 of those for me, if you would, and tell me specifically

14 what the sources of data would be and what the form of the

15 data would be that you would need to be able to analyze the

16 existing capacity in equipment and structures?

17 A I think that it would be very similar to the

18 answers I have given to you for the extension folks. If

19 they have quantitative data, that's very desirable; if not,

20 I would be interested in their qualitative data, in their

21 opinions and their judgments as to what would happen if

22 certain enterprises were to fail.

23 Q Would you say that the -- you don't like the

24 word anecdotal, I'm sorry, what term did you use to refer

25 to the kinds of data you would get from conversations with

 

254

 

 

 

1 Alvarez and Schunamen? I'm looking for a shorthand way of

2 referring to it just to save time, verbal, did you say

3 verbal data?

4 A Verbal sounds good, let's do that.

5 Q Okay, verbal data. Would this verbal data that

6 -- strike that.

7 In your opinion, if you were able to obtain only

8 such verbal data from the sources you have mentioned here,

9 would you be able to reliably estimate the role of existing

10 capacity in equipment and structures and the effects of

11 economic friction in implementing the SWIM plan?

12 A I think I would be able to come up with a

13 reasonable estimate that I would be comfortable in having

14 people rely upon.

15 Q Would the verbal data that you have received

16 from the sources in turn -- strike that.

17 What would you expect the verbal data that you

18 might receive from these sources to be based on by the

19 sources from whom you had received it?

20 A I think in some cases it would be their personal

21 observations and other cases it would be information that

22 they had either collected or had been allowed access to.

23 In other cases it would be their knowledge of the

24 specifications of useful life of various equipment.

25 Q When you said information that they had access

 

255

 

 

 

1 to, would that be published information?

2 A In some cases yes, in some cases no.

3 Q Would it be publicly available information?

4 A I would think in some cases yes, in some cases

5 no.

6 Q If it were published and publicly available,

7 would you seek recourse to it yourself, rather than relying

8 on the verbal data from, for instance, Alvarez and

9 Schunamen?

10 A In some cases yes and some cases no, depending

11 on how difficult it would be to access and how important it

12 was to the overall analysis.

13 Q Do you believe that Alvarez and Schunamen have

14 had access to unpublished, non-publicly available

15 information in forming the verbal data that you would seek

16 from them?

17 A Probably.

18 Q Would that be the case for the owners that you

19 would interview? I guess that's a self evident

20 proposition. Would the owners have access to unpublished,

21 non-publicly available information about their own

22 operations?

23 A Probably.

24 Q How about the equipment dealers?

25 A Yes.

 

256

 

 

 

1 Q And the bankers?

2 A Yes.

3 Q And USDA?

4 A Yes.

5 Q So then as I understand it, the verbal data that

6 you might rely upon solely if you had no access to other

7 published, publicly available information about existing

8 capacity in equipment and structure, would likely to some

9 extent be informed by the unpublished, non-publicly

10 available information that these respective sources had

11 access to?

12 A Right, because in turn, some of the information

13 would be their conversations with other knowledgeable

14 people in the area. I mean, for instance, the equipment

15 dealer trying to sell the farmer a new piece of gear and

16 the farmer saying, no, I think I can use this one three or

17 four more years, it's only X-years old. I'm not suggesting

18 that there is some spread sheet or data sheet that they are

19 accessing, I'm talking about their knowledge of the

20 business and the industry, which is typically the kind of

21 interview information that you rely upon in trying to get a

22 feel for the behavioral dynamics of the business.

23 MR. SAXE: Would you mark that section of the

24 tape?

25 THE REPORTER: Yes.

 

257

 

 

 

1 BY MR. SAXE:

2 Q Thank you, Dr. Luke.

3 Dr. Luke, returning for a moment to what I

4 believe was Exhibit 3 yesterday -- no, excuse me, it was

5 Exhibit 2. Would you look at Bates page 185?

6 A Okay.

7 Q Before I ask that brief set of questions, I do

8 have one additional question on the topic we were just on,

9 again on economic friction, I'm sorry. How would economic

10 friction be expressed in terms of units of measure, would

11 it be dollars and cents, dollars per acre, dollars per

12 pound of sugar, how?

13 A I guess there are different ways one could

14 express it. I think that your earlier question about would

15 it raise the threshold return at which people would

16 continue the enterprise above zero, might be a useful way

17 to look at what's the threshold return which you would have

18 to have before you would make new investments in the

19 operation.

20 Q So it would be returns to land and dollars per

21 acre?

22 A I would think it would be a return on --

23 expressed as return on investment, because that's the

24 issue. If you don't have to invest anything additional in

25 it, unless we're talking about just really trivial returns,

 

258

 

 

 

1 then I would think that you would wouldn't experience a

2 friction.

3 Q That would be in what units of measure?

4 A It's usually expressed as a percentage.

5 Q Okay, back to the Bates page 185, the last full

6 paragraph on that page, the second sentence says, "Recent

7 research on farms experiencing economic stress in both the

8 upper midwest region and Texas has indicated that debt

9 level was the major determining factor farm financial

10 viability."

11 Do the farmers in the upper midwest region and

12 Texas have the same debt level as farmers in the EAA, as

13 far as you know?

14 A I don't know.

15 Q In addition to the -- strike that.

16 Talking about farm financial viability and its

17 relevance in the socioeconomic impact analysis as you

18 believe it should be performed in this context, you have

19 spoken about the phenomenon -- or excuse me, the concept of

20 economic friction where although land remains productive in

21 the sense that returns to land exceed zero, the land

22 nevertheless goes out of production because of economic

23 friction. Dr. Leistritz, in his deposition, spoke about

24 what I believe was another effect where a farm fails and

25 land remains productive in the sense of returns to land

 

259

 

 

 

1 exceeding zero, I believe it was a different one that you

2 have described today and yesterday concerning economic

3 friction. As I understood Dr. Leistritz' testimony, he was

4 talking about a set of circumstances in which a farm fails,

5 land remains productive, the land stays in production and

6 there are no direct impacts, but because of production

7 organizational changes, there are nevertheless secondary

8 impacts. Would you agree with that view of possible

9 secondary impacts in implementing the SWIM plan?

10 A I would have to review the testimony you're

11 referring to before I could answer that question.

12 Q Okay, let's take a quick look at the testimony.

13 Why don't you take a look at these two pages, it shouldn't

14 take but a minute or so.

15 MS. STINSON: On the record, Dr. Luke is looking

16 at pages 66 and the next couple of pages in Dr.

17 Leistritz' deposition.

18 A Okay, I have reviewed those two pages and I

19 agree with what he says on those two pages.

20 BY MR. SAXE:

21 Q Let me see if I understand what it is that you

22 are agreeing with.

23 A I'm agreeing with every word on the page, sir.

24 Q Let me see if I can understand what that

25 imports. Do you understand that Dr. Leistritz testified

 

260

 

 

 

1 effectively that where a farm fails and land remains

2 productive in the sense that returns to land exceed zero,

3 the land might stay in production, but because of

4 production organizational changes, there might nevertheless

5 be secondary impacts from that farm failure?

6 MS. STINSON: Object to form.

7 MR. SAXE: Grounds?

8 MS. STINSON: I don't think it's appropriate to

9 ask what he understands somebody else to have said.

10 MR. SAXE: All right, I'll rephrase the

11 question.

12 BY MR. SAXE:

13 Q Dr. Luke, in your opinion, where a farm fails

14 and land stays productive in the sense that returns to land

15 exceed zero, might there nevertheless be secondary impacts

16 if there are production organizational changes entailed in

17 the succession of ownership?

18 A Certainly possible.

19 Q Are these secondary impacts the same secondary

20 impacts that we discussed earlier in the context of

21 economic friction?

22 A No.

23 Q In this case, is it correct that land would stay

24 in production, but there would nevertheless be impacts,

25 whereas in economic friction cases, the land would go out

 

261

 

 

 

1 of production and there would be secondary impacts?

2 A Well, in the hypothetical you were asking about,

3 you assumed the land would stay in production, so I don't

4 understand your question.

5 Q Isn't it true that secondary impacts result in

6 the case of economic friction where land goes out of

7 production, but in the case of production organizational

8 changes, secondary impacts result without land going out of

9 production?

10 A Well, if the land stays in production and there

11 are secondary impacts, that must be true.

12 Q To analyze -- strike that.

13 Is there a shorthand we can use that you are

14 comfortable with to refer to the phenomenon of land staying

15 in production, but there being production organizational

16 changes from a succession of ownership and the resulting

17 secondary impact, would this be called farm financial

18 viability or how could we describe this accurately?

19 A As I read Dr. Leistritz' testimony, he is saying

20 that if you had a change in the production function under

21 the new operator or if you had a change in the geographic

22 pattern of the purchases under the new operator, that that

23 would be the source of the secondary impacts attributable

24 to the change in management.

25 Q Are those both production organizational

 

262

 

 

 

1 changes?

2 A You know, I don't know that there is any label

3 that you can apply to it. It's changes in production

4 function or changes in the geographic pattern of purchases.

5 Q That's a mouthful, let me write it down so we

6 know what we are referring to whenever I ask you a

7 question. Changes in production function or changes in

8 geographical?

9 A Pattern of purchases.

10 Q What kind of data would one need to analyze to

11 evaluate the effect of changes in production function or

12 changes in geographical pattern of purchase?

13 A Well, I suppose you would need to look at the

14 way the hypothetical new operator did business versus the

15 way the hypothetical old operator did business.

16 Q And what data would one look at to make that

17 determination?

18 A You would look at where they buy certain inputs

19 from.

20 Q Where would you go to get that information?

21 A You could either go to the purchasers or the

22 sellers.

23 Q Interviews?

24 A Yes.

25 Q Is that what you would propose to do in

 

263

 

 

 

1 analyzing this in a socioeconomic impact analysis

2 concerning the implementation of the SWIM plan?

3 A If I thought it was a significant issue.

4 Q Do you think it is a significant issue?

5 A I don't know.

6 Q How would you make that determination?

7 A Probably through some initial interviews.

8 Q With?

9 A With farmers and with dealers of agricultural

10 inputs.

11 Q Are you planning on conducting such interviews?

12 A Right now I don't have any such plans.

13 Q If the Cooperative elects to go forward with

14 what you have proposed to do in preparation for this trial,

15 would you conduct such interviews?

16 A That's not an explicit part of any current

17 proposal that we have before you.

18 Q Would you expect to be analyzing the effects of

19 changes in production function or changes in geographical

20 pattern of purchase?

21 A Again, it's kind of a scoping issue. I might do

22 some -- assuming I was doing the direct farm impacts

23 analysis, I might ask about that and see if there was any

24 reason to think that it was a material factor.

25 Q Up to this point, has RPC undertaken to get

 

264

 

 

 

1 access to any data that would be relevant to analyzing

2 changes in production function or changes in geographical

3 pattern of purchase?

4 A Not to my knowledge.

5 Q I believe you testified earlier that you agreed

6 with every word on those two pages?

7 A Dr. Leistritz' words. I wasn't necessarily

8 adopting yours.

9 Q Dr. Luke, if you would review pages 86 and 87

10 from the transcript of the deposition of Dr. Larry

11 Leistritz on February 8, 1993.

12 A All right, I have read it.

13 Q May I have the transcript back?

14 A Um-hum.

15 Q Has RPC endeavored to collect data on

16 expenditure patterns or labor use or basic production

17 practices that would be relevant to analyzing the effects

18 of changes in production function or changes in

19 geographical pattern of purchase?

20 A We have collected data such as the IFAS budgets

21 and this sort of thing that generally describe current

22 production practices. We have not collected any such

23 information from individual farms or farmers.

24 Q Is the IFAS information collected from

25 individual farms or farmers?

 

265

 

 

 

1 A That's my understanding.

2 Q To analyze the differences in ways of doing

3 business, as you testified earlier, where they buy, what

4 other elements would be analyzed to determine the impacts

5 of changes in production function or changes in

6 geographical pattern of purchase?

7 A I don't understand the question.

8 Q To analyze the effects of changes in production

9 function or changes in geographical pattern of purchase,

10 you testified earlier you'd be concerned with or interested

11 in differences in the ways of doing business between

12 previous and successive owners. You indicated you would be

13 interested in where they bought, that you would interview

14 farmers and sellers to get that information, if it were

15 deemed relevant to the analysis. I'm asking what other

16 data you would seek to quantify the impacts of changes in

17 production function or changes in geographic pattern of

18 purchase?

19 A I don't know of any other that I would seek.

20 Q Could you be more specific about those that are

21 relevant to assessing the differences in ways of doing

22 business?

23 A No.

24 Q Would hiring changes be relevant?

25 A I don't understand what you're asking me.

 

266

 

 

 

1 Q What business practices besides buying practices

2 would be relevant changes in production function or changes

3 in the geographical pattern of purchase?

4 A An example would be the extent of mechanical

5 versus hand harvesting that a given operator employed.

6 Q Any others?

7 A I am not sure that I could -- I mean, that's one

8 I have heard about, there may be other alternative

9 cultivation or processing techniques that I'm not familiar

10 with, but that are recognized as sort of management,

11 reasonable management choices that some operators go one

12 way, some the other, but I couldn't enumerate or list them

13 for you.

14 Q Would local versus out of area hiring be a

15 relevant change in the way of doing business, relevant to a

16 change in production function or geographical pattern of

17 purchase?

18 A Other than that that's a component of mechanical

19 versus hand harvesting, I really am not sure why there

20 would -- what the opportunities for non-local hiring would

21 be. I don't understand that there is a management option

22 there.

23 Q In analyzing the effects of change in production

24 function or change in geographical pattern of purchase,

25 would it be relevant to analyze differences in ownership

 

267

 

 

 

1 structure?

2 A Maybe you could tell me what you mean by

3 ownership structure.

4 Q What does it mean to you?

5 A Sir, you asked me a question, I asked you to

6 define a term in the question, it's your question, what are

7 you asking me?

8 Q Dr. Luke, what does ownership structure mean to

9 you, if anything?

10 A I have heard it used to mean different degrees

11 of integration. I have heard it used to mean sole

12 proprietorship versus partnership versus corporation. I

13 suppose there are probably some other dimensions as well

14 that that could be used to refer to.

15 Q Any others that come to mind?

16 A No.

17 Q Would changes in organizational structure and

18 succession of ownership in terms of the degree of

19 integration, sole proprietorships versus corporate versus

20 other forms of ownership, have relevance in quantifying the

21 impacts of the changes in production function or changes in

22 geographical pattern of purchase?

23 A I don't know that the legal form of organization

24 would in and of itself have any relevance. The size and

25 degree of integration could.

 

268

 

 

 

1 Q How would one go about collecting data on the

2 size and degree of integration?

3 A I would think one would do it through

4 interviews, through a review of the USDA data on number of

5 operations and their relative size. Some of that

6 information is available by looking at appraisal records to

7 get a feel for size. A number of different sources could

8 be consulted.

9 Q Have you consulted, or RPC, have you or RPC

10 consulted any of those sources for data on the size and

11 degree of integration thus far?

12 A Yes, I would say so.

13 Q Which data have you consulted?

14 A Certainly there have been some interviews. I

15 believe some of the USDA data looks at size of operations.

16 Some of the appraisal district data, some of the Hazen and

17 Sawyer looks at size of operations. There may be some

18 reference as to that in some of the IFAS publications and

19 the USDA publications on the Florida sugar industry.

20 Q Is this information, other than the interviews,

21 published, publicly available information?

22 A Yes.

23 Q Who has been interviewed for information on data

24 -- excuse me, information on size and degree of

25 integration?

 

269

 

 

 

1 A I have had conversations with George Wedgworth,

2 Jeff Ward, the Cooperative's marketing person whose name

3 I'm sorry I can't recall. I have had conversations with

4 Tom Schunamen. Some of my staff may have talked to other

5 people and their conversations touched on this issue, but

6 I'm not aware of it.

7 Q With respect, though, jumping back to our

8 earlier question about purchasing, interviews with farmers

9 and sellers, there have been no such interviews?

10 A Not that I'm aware of.

11 MR. SAXE: This is a good place for a break.

12 (Brief recess taken.)

13 (Luke Exhibit 4 marked for identification.)

14 BY MR. SAXE:

15 Q Dr. Luke, do you recognize this document?

16 A Only in the sense that I glanced at it in going

17 through the supplemental production that we did.

18 Q Can you identify it for me?

19 A It appears to be a memo to file that one of my

20 staff members, Jeff Tomlinson, wrote based upon a telephone

21 conversation he had.

22 Q What does this document concern, the telephone

23 conversation, what -- strike that.

24 What did the telephone conversation pertain to?

25 A It appears he was asking about the relationship

 

270

 

 

 

1 between yield belts, yield, and assessments, and data that

2 the appraisal district had collected on that topic.

3 Q Is this data that RPC has sought from the

4 appraiser's office?

5 A We have asked them for it. It was information

6 that was referenced by Grace Johns that she had and was

7 using to analyze yields and so forth, and when I heard

8 about it at the meeting, I thought that we probably ought

9 to get a set of that data as well.

10 Q So then you were only looking for the exact same

11 data that Hazen and Sawyer had analyzed?

12 A The category of data. I hesitate to tell you I

13 know precisely what they have got or what the appraisal

14 district would supply.

15 Q If you would turn your attention to the second

16 block paragraph for me and read those first three

17 sentences. I'll read them into the record. "Approximately

18 120, forty plus acre sample blocks are evaluated each year

19 for assessment purposes. Data regarding tons of sugar or

20 sucrose is recorded for each block. The data for all

21 blocks in a yield belt is then averaged."

22 Do you know whether RPC was interested in the

23 average values or the individual data collected for the

24 120, forty plus acre sample blocks?

25 A I was interested in having the data on hand so

 

271

 

 

 

1 that when I saw what use Grace made of it, I would be able

2 to, if I chose, conduct an independent analysis of the

3 data. I don't know -- I don't really know much more about

4 it, so I'm just simply trying to shorten my response time

5 once I see her report.

6 Q Do you know whether Hazen and Sawyer used

7 average values or whether they used the individual data

8 values for the 120 sample blocks?

9 A No, I don't know.

10 Q A little bit further down under the section

11 titled Obtaining Sample Data, it says, "The survey has the

12 following information: one, Plantation I.D."

13 Do you know what that plantation I.D. would be?

14 A Some identification of the location, you know,

15 that's all I would know about it.

16 Q A little bit further down, the block after the

17 indented material, it says, "The data received by the

18 appraiser's office is considered confidential."

19 Do you understand this to be correct?

20 A I understand it to be -- it depends on who you

21 ask. For some reason the appraisal office considers it

22 confidential. I asked Rick Burgess about it and he says as

23 far as he is concerned, his opinion is that it's public, so

24 it depends who you ask.

25 Q Did you request the information from the

 

272

 

 

 

1 appraiser's office?

2 A I believe Jeff Tomlinson did, yes.

3 Q When I say you, I'm referring to you or RPC,

4 somebody in RPC in that instance.

5 A Okay.

6 Q The next sentence, "It is provided by the

7 Florida Sugar Cane League, and can only be provided to

8 other parties with the written approval of the vice

9 president and general manager, Andy Rackley, of the

10 League."

11 Based on your previous testimony, am I correct

12 that you believe this is subject to debate?

13 A The League's attorney tells me that he doesn't

14 believe that it's subject to any privilege under the,

15 whatever Florida calls an Open Records Act, and that the

16 appraisal district people are in error in treating it as

17 confidential data.

18 Q At the bottom of the document it says, "I will

19 fax a letter with specifications to Jeff Ward of the Co-op

20 to request the data and approval from the League."

21 So far as you know, was a request made to the

22 League to authorize release of the data, by Jeff Tomlinson

23 or somebody else in RPC?

24 A I know that we did send a letter to Jeff Ward.

25 Whether he forwarded it on to anybody at the League, I

 

273

 

 

 

1 don't know.

2 Q When did this letter go to Jeff Ward, do you

3 recall?

4 A Sometime on or after March 3, 1993.

5 Q Who sent that letter, when you say we?

6 A Jeff Tomlinson.

7 Q Do you know whether, if the letter has not been

8 sent or forwarded or a request based on the letter

9 forwarded to the League, do you know whether -- excuse me,

10 by the League to the appraiser's office, do you know

11 whether they intend to do so?

12 A No.

13 Q Do you know whether they intend to authorize the

14 release of the data?

15 A No.

16 Q Has anyone in RPC or on behalf of the Co-op had

17 discussions of which you are aware, after this date,

18 concerning this issue?

19 A I just told you I talked to Rick Burgess.

20 Q Other than that conversation?

21 A Not to my knowledge.

22 Q Did Rick Burgess indicate that the League would

23 take any follow up action on the request for authorization?

24 A He may have indicated that he would be talking

25 with Andy Rackley but, I mean, it was a passing

 

274

 

 

 

1 conversation and, you know, I didn't try to pin him down.

2 (Luke Exhibit 5 marked for identification.)

3 BY MR. SAXE:

4 Q Dr. Luke, this is possibly another page of this

5 same document or a loose page, do you recognize it?

6 A Not specifically.

7 Q Can you identify it?

8 A In what way?

9 Q Who wrote it, when, what context?

10 A My speculation is that it's a continuation of

11 Jeff's conversation on this issue, so that probably Jeff

12 wrote it, Jeff Tomlinson.

13 Q For the record, on this exhibit there is a

14 yellow highlighting mark on the text that is not part of

15 the original document, I added that mark.

16 Dr. Luke, the paragraph concludes, "The data

17 cannot be released because of confidentiality unless okayed

18 by the League. I will forward a list of data

19 specifications to Jeff, who will intervene on our behalf to

20 the League. We will follow up on Friday."

21 Do you know what basis there might have been for

22 the representation that Jeff will intervene on our behalf

23 to the League?

24 A I can only speculate there had been some

25 telephone conversation.

 

275

 

 

 

1 Q Have you had any conversations with Jeff

2 Tomlinson about this matter?

3 A Well, yes, but not that would add additional

4 information to what you have got in these two documents.

5 Q What did Jeff tell you about Jeff Ward's

6 willingness to intervene?

7 A I haven't -- I don't recall speaking with him

8 about that. The conversations we had were pretty much a

9 verbal communication of the information that's on the table

10 in these two exhibits.

11 Q The final sentence, "We will follow up on

12 Firday," do you know what that relates to?

13 A No.

14 Q Do you know what Friday that might refer to?

15 A No.

16 Q Were any meetings scheduled between League staff

17 and RPC staff on a Friday after March 3rd, to your

18 knowledge?

19 A Not to my knowledge.

20 Q Were any conversations scheduled, as far as you

21 are aware?

22 A No.

23 Q So it's basically your testimony that you really

24 have no idea what this sentence is in reference to when it

25 says, "We will follow up on Friday."?

 

276

 

 

 

1 A That's right, I don't.

2 (Luke Exhibit 6 marked for identification.)

3 BY MR. SAXE:

4 Q Dr. Luke, do you recognize that document that

5 has been marked for identification as Exhibit 6?

6 A Let's see, generally it would appear to be the

7 letter that Jeff Tomlinson said that he was going to write

8 to Jeff Ward.

9 Q So this is a draft of that letter, I take it?

10 A I don't know if it's the draft or the final

11 form.

12 Q Under Data Specifications, it says, "RPC

13 requests data for the 120 sample blocks for by year for as

14 many years as possible. The data, if available, should

15 include: Number one, Plantation I.D. (used to track block

16 over time, information is not requested to identify any

17 individual block)."

18 Can you explain that to me?

19 A No.

20 Q Do you have any understanding of what the author

21 meant when he said, "Information is not requested to

22 identify any individual block?"

23 A I can speculate, do you want me to speculate?

24 Q No, I don't want you to speculate.

25 A Okay.

 

277

 

 

 

1 Q Have you had any conversations with Jeff Ward

2 concerning the purpose of the information request?

3 A No, I haven't.

4 Q What is Jeff Ward's role with respect to this

5 correspondence in the project?

6 A Jeff is the in-house counsel for the Sugar

7 Growers Cooperative and he has been one of our contact

8 folks on various data requests and interfacing with the

9 League.

10 Q What's Jeff Tomlinson's role with respect to

11 this correspondence and the project?

12 A Well, he wrote it.

13 Q Does this forward then a general area of the

14 project that Jeff Tomlinson is responsible for?

15 A As I think I told you yesterday, he is in a

16 project management, project coordination role, in addition

17 to doing some analysis and I guess this particular request

18 that I made, he decided to keep and do himself.

19 Q I'm sorry, request that you made?

20 A Remember, I told you I came back from the

21 meeting with Grace Johns and she indicated that she had

22 obtained this information from the appraisal district and I

23 asked him to get the data files for us so that if we wanted

24 to analyze them, we would have them.

25 Q Is anybody supervising Jeff Tomlinson's work on

 

278

 

 

 

1 this project?

2 A I am.

3 Q Is Jeff Tomlinson making any other

4 determinations independently, of what data to collect for

5 purposes of the project?

6 A I'm sure he is.

7 Q Do you have any idea what data he might be

8 seeking that we have not discussed so far in your

9 testimony?

10 A No. In answering your previous question, what

11 I'm trying to convey to you is I consider him to be a

12 professional and my directions to him are of a general

13 rather than a detail nature in some cases and I rely on his

14 professional experience as to how he carries out some of

15 those requests.

16 Q Do you know why he might have indicated that the

17 information is not requested to identify any individual

18 block?

19 A Not specifically.

20 Q Can you speculate?

21 A I can.

22 Q Would you, please?

23 A Sure. That we were -- if he is saying that he

24 is not trying to tie a block back to a spot on the map, but

25 just to look at variation within a block over time, that

 

279

 

 

 

1 would be a reason to say that.

2 Q Why would he not be looking to tie data back to

3 a particular block?

4 A If he was operating under the impression in his

5 memo that this is somehow confidential data, he might be

6 trying to frame the request in a way that would reduce the

7 sensitivity of it.

8 Q As you understand this data element plantation

9 I.D., would this enable the data to be linked with a

10 specific farm?

11 A I don't know that it does, but it certainly may

12 be a parcel number type that could be related to a map and

13 hence to a farm.

14 (Luke Exhibit 7 marked for identification.)

15 BY MR. SAXE:

16 Q Dr. Luke, do you recognize that document?

17 A It appears to be a letter -- or memo, I should

18 say, to me from Larry Leistritz.

19 Q Dated October 9, 1992?

20 A Yes.

21 Q The second paragraph, the second sentence says,

22 "Annette explained how the data were collected (in Florida,

23 the USDA accountant has gone directly to the books of the

24 growers and processors to extract the data)." Further

25 down in the third paragraph, the second sentence says, "On

 

280

 

 

 

1 October 7th, I talked with Ms. Clauson again to explore the

2 possibility of her group providing some summary data on

3 costs by size and balance sheet ratios by size. She was

4 not interested in providing this type of data (or any

5 information that they have not formally published)."

6 So far as you are aware, is this data linked to

7 individual farms?

8 A What data?

9 Q The data that's being referred to in the

10 sentences I have just read.

11 A Are you speaking of the data that USDA collected

12 or are you speaking of the data summaries that we were

13 requesting?

14 Q Why don't you tell me about both.

15 A Well, the data that USDA collected was collected

16 from individual farms. We were not requesting data that

17 could be tied to individual farms, we were requesting

18 summaries that would be -- could be released without

19 violating the confidentiality provisions of the study that

20 USDA conducted.

21 Q Can you tell me something about your efforts to

22 obtain that summarized data, starting with your initial

23 efforts and taking us through the present, what did you do

24 first to obtain this information?

25 A There have been -- in terms of chronology, I

 

281

 

 

 

1 don't represent that I can present you with an accurate

2 chronology. There were a series of conversations that were

3 held with Annette Clauson and other folks such as Leistritz

4 references here in Deposition Exhibit 7, to determine what

5 USDA had. Then once we had determined that, there were

6 discussions about their willingness to produce it and what

7 they would do in order to produce the summaries or

8 determine their willingness to produce the summaries.

9 Q What would the summaries be used for?

10 A If we wanted to look at the economies of scale

11 issue, they would be helpful for that purpose. If we

12 wanted to look at the balance sheet, representative balance

13 sheets or range of balance sheets, they would be useful for

14 that purpose.

15 Q You say if we wanted to, in your opinion, will

16 it be necessary to look at economies of scale issues and

17 balance sheet issues in order to perform the socioeconomic

18 impact analysis of SWIM implementation?

19 A Both of those are relevant to some of the direct

20 impacts and those have been raised as issues, I know, by

21 Polopolus and Richardson, and they may well be matters that

22 would be useful to look at.

23 Q Would they be relevant to quantifying economic

24 friction?

25 A I don't know directly that they would be. The

 

282

 

 

 

1 economy of scale material could be relevant to determining

2 what kind of a return a different operator or larger

3 operator might expect to get from a certain parcel of land

4 compared to an existing operator.

5 Q Would they be relevant to quantifying the

6 effects of changes in the production function or changes in

7 the geographical pattern of purchase?

8 A Could be helpful on some of those questions,

9 yes.

10 Q Would this be among those data that you

11 testified earlier might be obtained from the USDA as

12 relevant to determining existing capacity in equipment and

13 structures?

14 A I don't know that their data questionnaires, as

15 I have seen them, provide much information on that through

16 this survey. I don't have a good recall of every last item

17 on that questionnaire, but I'm thinking this is more

18 financial data is what we were after here.

19 Q Is the balance sheet information relevant to

20 economic friction?

21 A It would be relevant to farms going out of

22 business, going bankrupt perhaps, so that in that sense it

23 would be relevant to the question of those enterprises

24 which have a change in ownership and that would feed into

25 the economic friction discussion, but I think that would be

 

283

 

 

 

1 relevance.

2 Q Would it be relevant to the issues of farm firm

3 survivability?

4 A I think it would have some relevance there, yes.

5 Q Would it be relevant to economic impact

6 analysis? I believe you testified earlier it's relevant to

7 direct impact, so presumably it's relevant to the economic

8 impact analysis in the larger sense?

9 A Presumably.

10 Q Would you agree with that proposition that it's

11 relevant to the economic impact analysis of the SWIM

12 implementation?

13 A It is relevant to certain issues that are part

14 or should be part of the economic analysis, yes.

15 Q Will RPC be able to evaluate farm firm

16 survivability without balance sheet information such as

17 this?

18 A I think that if you approach it in the method

19 that FLIPSIM does where you're using sort of a Monte Carlo

20 simulation, that you have to make some assumptions about

21 the debt levels and debt service levels of the enterprises

22 that you are modeling. This type of -- this would be one

23 source of information that would be useful in making

24 assumptions.

25 Q What other sources of information would be

 

284

 

 

 

1 useful in making such assumptions?

2 A Well, any other source that would give you some

3 sense about the shape of the balance sheets of enterprises

4 in the area, which could come from bankers, could come from

5 other studies that had access to such data.

6 Q Are there any such sources that you are aware

7 of?

8 A Well, there's a new round of USDA studies that

9 are going on now that will produce published data on some

10 of the balance sheet issues.

11 Q Can you be more specific?

12 A No.

13 Q When will this information be published? What

14 will be published? You can answer when first.

15 A Thank you. My understanding is this fall.

16 Q What specifically will this involve?

17 A I don't understand the question.

18 Q What specific information is USDA going to

19 include in this new round of data?

20 A I have glanced briefly at the questionnaire and

21 my understanding is that they are now looking at the

22 Florida sugar cane industry and collecting data that will

23 enable them to publish statistics that are similar to those

24 they publish on other agricultural sectors, which would

25 include some of the economy of scale and balance sheet

 

285

 

 

 

1 profile data.

2 Q Are there presently any published sources of

3 balance sheet information?

4 A Published sources?

5 Q Yes. Well, let me strike the question and

6 reframe it.

7 Presently are there any published, publicly

8 available sources of this balance sheet type information?

9 A I'm not aware of any that would contain the same

10 data that's available here that are published, no.

11 Q Are you aware of any that contain other balance

12 sheet information sufficient to enable one to address the

13 issue of farm financial viability from SWIM implementation?

14 A Oh, I think there is information, again, whether

15 it's published or whether it's interview data, about what

16 the top side limits on lending are, the underwriting

17 criteria that the banks use, that would give you a sense

18 about what the maximum extent of debt is likely to be, and

19 I think that one can get a pretty good feel from

20 interviewing the IFAS and the USDA folks about what kind of

21 range.

22 Q Again, is that verbal data, as you referred to

23 it earlier?

24 A Right.

25 Q This data on the maximum extent of debt, would

 

286

 

 

 

1 that be sufficient balance sheet information to permit a

2 quantification of the farm financial viability effects of

3 implementing the SWIM plan?

4 A I think you could use that as a basis for

5 arriving at assumptions on the balance sheets of these

6 enterprises. One of the things you need to understand is

7 that this is not a fixed set of data, because you have

8 changes as normal market transactions occur, you have

9 changes as you have inter-generational transfers of

10 operations, and so it's not like this is a constant.

11 Production functions are unlikely to change radically,

12 whereas the balance sheet of any individual enterprise from

13 year to year can change very radically.

14 Q If the Cooperative elects to proceed with a

15 socioeconomic impact analysis and requests RPC to do that

16 analysis and there's no other publicly available, published

17 balance sheet data, will you rely solely on the interview

18 data that you have described in your testimony?

19 A I will rely on the best data that is available

20 to me, whatever that happens to be.

21 Q Well, that's what I'm trying to determine. You

22 said, if I recall, that you weren't aware of other publicly

23 available, published balance sheet data, that the USDA may

24 be coming out with some this fall, that one could rely on

25 interview data with certain knowledgeable individuals

 

287

 

 

 

1 concerning the industry, and what I'm asking is if there

2 are no other publicly available, published sources of such

3 balance sheet data, before the USDA release their data this

4 fall, if they do, will you rely solely on the interview

5 data that you have described?

6 A The other thing that your question does not

7 cover are unpublished, but publicly available data, and I

8 might seek further access to such data if I was not

9 comfortable with the interview data or what I was otherwise

10 able to obtain.

11 Q If it's not published, but it's publicly

12 available, is it not interview data?

13 A No.

14 Q What other forms of data would that include

15 then?

16 A Well, the data we're talking about here off of

17 the last USDA survey is an unpublished, but in my view

18 publicly available data.

19 Q You're talking -- I'm not sure I am following

20 just what it is that you are referring to. Are you

21 referring to the data referenced in this memo?

22 A That's correct.

23 Q Data collected by USDA accountants going

24 directly to the books of growers and processors?

25 A Right.

 

288

 

 

 

1 Q There is such data from last year?

2 A No, from this study, which as I recall is a

3 1986, '87 study.

4 Q So are we back to seeking this data from USDA,

5 is that what you're saying, rather than relying exclusively

6 on the interview data, you would seek to supplement it by

7 securing the release from the USDA of the data referenced

8 in this memorandum?

9 A Summaries of the data, data summaries that would

10 not violate the confidentiality provisions of the study I

11 might, yes.

12 Q If you are unable to get those data summaries,

13 will you rely solely on the interview data?

14 A I will rely on the best available data that is

15 available to me and I am unable to sit here and predict

16 with precision what the extent of that data will be. It

17 would be at least the interview data.

18 Q Do you have any tentative opinion now whether

19 the interview data would be sufficient from a scientific

20 standpoint?

21 A I don't know what body of science you are

22 referring to. I believe it would be sufficient to make as

23 a basis for reasonable assumptions for use in this type of

24 economic analysis.

25 Q As an economist?

 

289

 

 

 

1 A Yes, I think so. And I am protected by the fact

2 that if other parties in this litigation believe those

3 assumptions to be unreasonable, then they can suggest the

4 range of reason they believe is there and we and others

5 would probably perform sensitivity analysis to see if there

6 were different effects based upon where in that range you

7 believe things really are.

8 Q Getting back to the effort to secure the summary

9 data from USDA, were any efforts made at any point to

10 secure unsummarized data?

11 A Never.

12 Q Who made the decision to pursue the summarized

13 data?

14 A I suppose I did.

15 Q And what was your rationale for pursuing the

16 summarized data?

17 A That it would be helpful in making the

18 assumptions necessary for a farm local impact study.

19 Q Did you decide not to pursue the individual data

20 from which the summaries might be generated?

21 A You need to understand, the individual data is

22 protected by federal law from disclosure. Nobody ever

23 believed that that data was going to be released by USDA,

24 nor should have been.

25 Q Okay, thank you. Dr. Luke, would the USDA

 

290

 

 

 

1 summarized data show where farmers purchase inputs?

2 A I don't think so. I don't have any expectation

3 that it would.

4 Q What, if anything, would it show that would be

5 relevant to changes in the production function?

6 A Well, to the extent it provided some grouping by

7 size and that we would see the pattern of expenditures and

8 the margins of larger versus smaller operations, that in

9 effect would indicate some changes in production function

10 that might occur as a result of consolidations.

11 Q What information might it include that would be

12 relevant, if any, to the changes in the geographical

13 pattern of purchasing?

14 A I would not expect it would include anything

15 useful there.

16 (Luke Exhibit 8 marked for identification.)

17 BY MR. SAXE:

18 Q Dr. Luke, do you recognize that document?

19 A Yes. This is a memorandum that I wrote to Larry

20 Leistritz in October concerning an information request to

21 Annette Clauson.

22 Q If you would turn, please, to Bates page 70.

23 A Okay.

24 Q Is this a letter you sent?

25 A A letter -- either this letter or an evolution

 

291

 

 

 

1 from this letter I believe was eventually sent to Ms.

2 Clauson.

3 Q So you are not sure that this specific draft is

4 the one that went to Ms. Clauson, but some draft of this

5 letter went to Ms. Clauson, is that correct?

6 A I believe so.

7 Q The letter states, "Dear Ms. Clauson: This

8 letter will confirm our telephone conversation. I would

9 appreciate receiving the following information from your

10 office regarding your 1988 and 1983 surveys of South

11 Florida sugar cane growers and sugar cane mills:", then

12 there are a number of dot points after the colon. If you

13 would go to the second dot point, it reads, "A tabulation

14 of all production, revenue, expense, asset and liability

15 data from each survey for all respondents."

16 What is a tabulation as you were using it in

17 this sentence?

18 A A summation.

19 Q A summary?

20 A Yes.

21 Q So this would not be then an itemization of all

22 production, revenue, expense, asset and liability data from

23 each survey for all respondents?

24 A If you're asking me was I asking her for the

25 data on the individual farms, no, I was not.

 

292

 

 

 

1 Q Why did you say from each survey?

2 A Because we were talking about two different

3 surveys, the 1988 and the 1983 surveys.

4 Q In the second section of the letter, the

5 sentence reads, "Assuming your office would be willing to

6 make a special tabulation of the data from one or both

7 surveys of growers by size of farm in acres, please provide

8 the following information:", would this special tabulation

9 be something that's not generally publicly available?

10 A I would like to distinguish between published

11 and publicly available. There is a good deal of data

12 compiled by federal agencies that they have not published

13 the specific table, but they are either prepared to make

14 special tabulations or to otherwise be helpful to folks

15 that need that data and it is available upon request to

16 members of the public.

17 Q The third dot point underneath this heading

18 sentence says, "Could tabulations of each group be provided

19 without violating any confidentiality rules or statutes?

20 If not, how could the groupings be redefined to prevent any

21 violation?"

22 Did you receive an answer to either of those

23 questions?

24 A I think that the answer that I received in a

25 subsequent conversation was that those groupings would not

 

293

 

 

 

1 violate confidentiality, meaning that there are enough

2 observations in each of those groupings that it would

3 protect the confidentiality of any individual enterprise.

4 Q Is that true, not only of the groupings, but of

5 the tabulations?

6 A Pardon me?

7 Q Are the tabulations and the groupings the same

8 thing?

9 A What you do is you tabulate a grouping.

10 Q By tabulating a grouping, do you mean that you

11 collect individual data values and report them separately

12 by groups?

13 A What I mean is that we have outlined three size

14 groups. Let's take less than 2,000 acres, let's say that

15 they found, in looking back, that they had observations on

16 10 enterprises that were less than 2,000 acres. We would

17 be asking them to take those 10 questionnaires and total or

18 average them, depending upon the type of statistic, and

19 provide us with that printout.

20 Q That total or average, depending on the type of

21 statistic, is that what you mean by tabulation?

22 A Right.

23 Q Does tabulation have any other meaning that you

24 are aware of generally in social science when one is

25 dealing with data?

 

294

 

 

 

1 A Gosh, I guess we could get a dictionary and

2 check it out. I know how I'm using it here.

3 Q Generally when you use tabulation, you mean

4 summaries averaging -- totalling or averaging, depending on

5 type of statistic?

6 A That's correct.

7 (Luke Exhibit 9 marked for identification.)

8 BY MR. SAXE:

9 Q Dr. Luke, I'm handing you a document marked for

10 identification as Exhibit Number 9, do you recognize this

11 document?

12 A It looks like a memorandum from me to Bill Green

13 on the possibility of an FOIA, Freedom of Information Act,

14 request to Annette Clauson.

15 Q The second page, if you will turn to Bates page

16 1026, could you identify that attachment for me?

17 A It's a letter from Annette Clauson to me.

18 Q Was that letter in response to a FOIA request?

19 A No.

20 Q What did it respond to, if anything?

21 A I asked her to provide me with copies of the

22 blank forms that they had used in collecting the data.

23 Q Did you discuss with her making -- the prospect

24 of making a FOIA request for information?

25 A Yes.

 

295

 

 

 

1 Q What information was that?

2 A Well, part of the reason for getting the forms

3 was so that we could phrase the correct -- the request

4 correctly. The general answer to your question would be

5 information for the purposes that are, the type of

6 information that's indicated in your Bates page 70.

7 Q That would be in Exhibit 8?

8 A Yes.

9 Q So it's your testimony that the type of data you

10 were considering seeking through a FOIA request at this

11 time was the totalled or averaged, depending on type of

12 statistic information, that we discussed in the context of

13 Exhibit 8?

14 A That's correct.

15 Q I'm sorry, I don't recall whether you testified

16 to this issue, has a FOIA request been made?

17 A No.

18 Q Do you presently plan to make a FOIA request?

19 A I don't know.

20 Q You don't know whether you presently plan to

21 make a FOIA request?

22 A Right.

23 Q Does that mean you may make a FOIA request and

24 you have not decided whether you will?

25 A That's a fact.

 

296

 

 

 

1 Q If you secure this data by a FOIA request, would

2 this be the type of process that you would, as an

3 economist, consider applicable to receive publicly

4 available information?

5 A Pardon me, I don't understand your question.

6 Q If you do make a FOIA request for this

7 information -- strike that.

8 Would making a FOIA request for this information

9 be the type of method that you would consider appropriate,

10 as an economist, for seeking publicly available

11 information?

12 A Yes.

13 Q Is it standard practice, as far as you know,

14 when gathering information for economic impact analyses, to

15 utilize FOIA requests?

16 A Where you have a government agency that wants

17 you to make the request in that way, yes.

18 (Luke Exhibit 10 marked for identification.)

19 BY MR. SAXE:

20 Q Dr. Luke, I'm handing you Exhibit 10, do you

21 recognize that document?

22 A Yes. This is a letter from Bill Green to me

23 responding to my memorandum and providing me with the form

24 in which to use in drafting a FOIA request.

25 Q This would be the same FOIA request we discussed

 

297

 

 

 

1 just a moment ago, I take it?

2 A Yes.

3 (Luke Exhibit 11 marked for identification.)

4 BY MR. SAXE:

5 Q Dr. Luke, I'm handing you Exhibit 11, do you

6 recognize this document?

7 A Yes. This is a letter that I wrote to Annette

8 Clauson.

9 Q What was the purpose for this letter to Annette

10 Clauson?

11 A I think the letter speaks for itself.

12 Q Well, if you would like to read it before

13 answering the question, you may do so, but I would like an

14 answer to the question.

15 A The answer is the letter requests information

16 from her prior to framing the FOIA request.

17 Q In the second sentence in the letter it says,

18 "Having reviewed the five exhibits you sent me, I need to

19 ask a few questions before framing my information request."

20 There are some attachments to this document, i

21 think they may be over-inclusive, are these the five

22 exhibits you are referring to?

23 A Yes.

24 Q If you would turn please to Bates page 994,

25 going back to the letter, paragraph number 9, "Concerning

 

298

 

 

 

1 respondents who are growers only, for which rows do you

2 believe release of aggregated data would violate a federal

3 confidentiality statute or a federal rule published in the

4 Federal Register."

5 Can you explain this to me?

6 A Explain what?

7 Q What you meant with this question.

8 A If there are some items for which only a limited

9 number of folks filled out the questionnaire, it might be

10 that that particular statistic would have too few -- would

11 have so few observations in it, that release of that number

12 would violate a confidentiality statute, even though others

13 would not, other numbers could be released without

14 violating the confidentiality statute, and so that I do not

15 inadvertently ask for data that is protected as

16 confidential by the privacy regulations, I asked her to

17 identify those.

18 Q How would release of data for which too few

19 respondents responded violate the confidentiality

20 requirements?

21 A On economic surveys, there is a rule and it

22 varies from survey to survey, about how many observations

23 you have to have before aggregating them provides

24 sufficient protection of privacy for each of the individual

25 respondents and if they don't have that many observations,

 

299

 

 

 

1 then either they don't release information or they

2 aggregate it into a broader category where they do have

3 sufficient numbers of respondents.

4 Q What's the source of that rule, do you know?

5 A It varies by survey, but it is -- there are some

6 federal privacy acts and some of those are in statute

7 summary rule. It's really the same as census data. If you

8 had too few respondents in a category in the census block,

9 they might aggregate the data or not make a separate

10 release of it.

11 Q Are the identities of respondents released when

12 the data is released, not necessarily tied to individual

13 values, but just a list of respondents?

14 A I don't know whether that is obtainable or not,

15 but it is -- because I haven't requested it, but I have not

16 seen that published in any of their published statistics.

17 Q How would the release of data aggregated from a

18 few respondents violate an interest in confidentiality, if

19 the identities of the respondents were not released along

20 with that aggregated data?

21 A Whether it would or not, I'm not offering you an

22 opinion, I'm telling you that's the federal confidentiality

23 law.

24 Q Do you have any understanding of how that might

25 violate a confidentiality interest?

 

300

 

 

 

1 A I suppose it would be that through detailed

2 knowledge of the respondents in a geographic area and maybe

3 informal knowledge about who was and who wasn't surveyed,

4 that a competitor could, by knowing their own data, then

5 back that out and have a pretty good idea of information

6 about a specific respondent. I couldn't, but a competitor

7 that had access to their own data might be able to do that.

8 Q In this sentence it says, "Considering

9 respondents who are growers only, for which rows do you

10 believe," had Annette Clauson indicated to you that she

11 believed release of certain data might violate

12 confidentiality statutes or rules?

13 A I think at that point she was saying that since

14 parts of the exhibits had been filled out for all

15 respondents and parts of the exhibits had been filled out

16 only for some respondents, that the possibility existed,

17 but I do not believe she had gone back into the data at

18 that point and had been able to say, you know, row 7 has a

19 problem.

20 (Luke Exhibit 12 marked for identification.)

21 BY MR. SAXE:

22 Q Dr. Luke, I'm showing you a document that's been

23 marked as Exhibit 12, do you recognize this document?

24 A This appears to be a letter written by George

25 Wedgworth to his congressman, advising him of the

 

301

 

 

 

1 information request that we might be making to USDA and

2 soliciting his assistance in getting to a constructive

3 working relationship.

4 Q Do you know anything about the genesis of this

5 letter?

6 A I think Mr. Wedgworth thought it might be a

7 helpful thing to do in getting the information.

8 Q Did you have any conversations with either Mr.

9 Wedgworth or anybody else in the Cooperative or on behalf

10 of the Cooperative concerning this issue before the letter

11 was sent?

12 A I believe that in a conversation that he

13 indicated he was going to send it, that I was party to that

14 conversation.

15 Q When did that conversation take place?

16 A Sometime before November 18th.

17 Q Was it at any meeting that you had with --

18 A I recall it being a telephone conversation. I'm

19 not saying there wasn't a meeting at which the subject

20 could have come up, but I recall this being a telephone

21 conversation.

22 Q A telephone conversation between you and Mr.

23 Wedgworth?

24 A I believe that, yes, although I think there may

25 have been other people on the line, perhaps including Mr.

 

302

 

 

 

1 Green.

2 Q A conference call perhaps?

3 A Yes.

4 Q You don't recall when that call took place,

5 except before November 18th?

6 A Not precisely.

7 Q Was it a month before November 18th?

8 A Probably not.

9 Q What was the purpose of the conference call?

10 MS. STINSON: Object and instruct the witness

11 not to answer anything that may relate to

12 attorney-client privilege or trial strategy.

13 BY MR. SAXE:

14 Q Was any part of the purpose of the conference

15 call, as you understood it, pertaining to your provision of

16 expert testimony in this case?

17 A That's pretty broad.

18 MS. STINSON: Objection, same response, without

19 revealing any attorney-client or privileged

20 information, he can answer.

21 MR. SAXE: Well, Counsel, the fact that Dr. Luke

22 has a law degree is immaterial to the conduct of this

23 deposition. He is not in a position to determine what

24 material is attorney-client privileged and what

25 material is work product, for him not to answer. I'm

 

303

 

 

 

1 trying to frame a question that excludes by its nature

2 any privileged information and I think that's the way

3 we have to proceed. If we can't get it to a point

4 that I can ask a question that you don't object to,

5 then we have a problem.

6 MS. STINSON: I don't think the question you

7 asked is exclusive of anything that counsel may have

8 indicated, so I would continue my objection.

9 MR. SAXE: Let me try to restate it, reframe the

10 question.

11 BY MR. SAXE:

12 Q Dr. Luke, do you know why -- do you have an

13 understanding of why you were included in this telephone

14 call?

15 A I think probably I initiated the call to report

16 on our discussions with Ms. Clauson and to get the input of

17 the group on where they wanted to go from there.

18 Q Returning to the letter for a moment, on Bates

19 page 988 --

20 A Yes.

21 Q -- starting at the top, the first full sentence,

22 "The information for this study was voluntarily provided by

23 EAA mills and growers to USDA staff. Some detailed

24 information on revenues and expenses has not been published

25 and none of the aggregated data on assets and liabilities

 

304

 

 

 

1 has been published. We are seeking access to the entire

2 data base, in aggregated form, for use by our economic

3 consultants in preparation for the April administrative

4 hearing."

5 Dr. Luke, did you have any involvement in the

6 drafting of this letter?

7 A Involvement is pretty broad. I did not, to my

8 recollection, provide any preliminary draft but, I mean,

9 this is part of the subject matter that I discussed with

10 George Wedgworth in this call and probably several other

11 occasions.

12 Q Did you propose the language in the last

13 sentence in this paragraph, namely "We are seeking access

14 to the entire data base, in aggregated form, for use by our

15 economic consultants in preparation for the April

16 administrative hearing."?

17 A I don't recall providing those exact words but,

18 I mean, that's the sense of what we had been discussing all

19 along.

20 Q Did the data exist in the data base in

21 aggregated form?

22 A Well, by its nature, assuming that this was in

23 some sort of a spread sheet or other data file, there are

24 going to be individual records that correspond to

25 individual --

 

305

 

 

 

1 Q Respondents?

2 A -- questionnaires. That's why we said in

3 aggregated form, so it's clear we are not asking for the

4 individual records, but for totals, averages, as I said

5 before.

6 Q So effectively what you were asking for is for

7 USDA, specifically the specialty agriculture branch of the

8 economic research service, to aggregate the data and then

9 provide it to you?

10 A That's correct.

11 Q So when it says, "We are seeking access to the

12 entire data base, in aggregated form," the data base, as

13 you understand it, wasn't in aggregated form?

14 A The term entire refers to the asset and

15 liability portions, which had not previously been published

16 and also refers to the subtotals by size of operation that

17 are discussed in some of the previous exhibits.

18 Q In the third paragraph on this page it says, "We

19 understand the Department's reasons for not publishing data

20 for use by the general public which does not meet their

21 statistical standards."

22 What does that mean? Excuse me, let me clarify

23 that. What does it mean, "reasons for not publishing data

24 for use by the general public which does not meet their

25 statistical standards?"

 

306

 

 

 

1 A One of the problems that Annette Clauson had

2 indicated with release of the data, and this is in the

3 letter from her to me, October 23rd, which was attached, in

4 the third paragraph on the first page of her letter, on

5 your Bates page 990, has to do with their standards for

6 publication of a statistic as sample data and she explains,

7 and I believe the explanation continues over into the next

8 page, that the reason, one reason anyway, they had not

9 published this data was because they did not feel that they

10 had in some cases a sufficient number of observations to

11 meet their public release standards. Then coming back to

12 the George Wedgworth letter, what he is expressing is the

13 statement that while no quarrel with the sort of general

14 publication, that the use that we had in mind, which was to

15 provide further input to enable us to make a reasonable

16 range of assumptions about debt structure, that that was

17 probably not a reason under federal Freedom of Information

18 Acts to refuse to do a release.

19 Q The next sentence says, "However, we do not

20 believe the USDA's opinion that aggregated data is not

21 suitable for publication should be grounds to withhold data

22 from us and our economic consultants who understand the

23 limitations of the data USDA does not want to release."

24 How does releasing confidential information to

25 economists who understand the limitations of the data,

 

307

 

 

 

1 address the confidentiality interests or concerns that

2 Annette Clauson raised?

3 MS. STINSON: Objection to form.

4 MR. SAXE: Grounds?

5 MS. STINSON: If your question is referring to

6 what you just read, I did not hear any discussion of

7 confidentiality.

8 BY MR. SAXE:

9 Q Dr. Luke, did I understand you to be testifying

10 that the department's reasons for not publishing data for

11 use by the general public which does not meet their

12 statistical standards pertains to the concern that data,

13 aggregated data collected from a set of too few respondents

14 would violate confidentiality requirements if released?

15 A I don't know what you understood, but that was

16 not my testimony.

17 Q I'm sorry.

18 A There are two separate issues here. One is that

19 you could have a set of data that had so few observations

20 in it that it would violate confidentiality regulations. I

21 don't think there is any confusion between me and Ms.

22 Clauson or anyone else, we are well aware of that and there

23 has never been any request or suggestion of a request that

24 they make any release of data in violation of

25 confidentiality regulations.

 

308

 

 

 

1 There is an entirely separate set of concerns

2 that she has expressed and I pointed you to the paragraphs

3 in her letter where she expresses them, which says that

4 even for data over which no confidential -- aggregations of

5 data over which no confidentiality issue exists, they have

6 a separate concern about publishing data which they feel

7 doesn't meet certain standards of statistical reliability

8 to make it suitable for use by the general public. What is

9 being expressed in Mr. Wedgworth's letter, as I understand

10 it, is that that may be a perfectly good reason for not

11 publishing it, but that is not necessarily a sufficient

12 reason not to release it in response to a request.

13 Q Dr. Luke, I think you referred to Annette

14 Clauson's October 23rd letter?

15 A Yes.

16 MS. STINSON: It's attached to Exhibit 12.

17 MR. SAXE: Thank you.

18 BY MR. SAXE:

19 Q That would be Bates pages 990 through 992?

20 A Yes.

21 Q The final paragraph in this letter on page 998?

22 A Pardon me?

23 Q The final paragraph in the letter to Congressman

24 Lewis from George Wedgworth, on page 988?

25 A All right.

 

309

 

 

 

1 Q The paragraph reads, "We are seeking your

2 assistance in helping us and USDA arrive at a constructive

3 working relationship on this data. While we could proceed

4 slowly through a Freedom of Information Act request, this

5 is undesirable. Until we know more about the data, it will

6 be difficult to make precisely the right FOIA request."

7 Do you agree with the statement that until we

8 know more about the data, it will be difficult to make

9 precisely the right FOIA request?

10 A Yes. That's why I had written the letter asking

11 her to clarify the definitions of some of the terms in my

12 letter of November 16th.

13 Q The next sentence, "There may be some requests

14 for aggregated data which would require USDA staff to make

15 new calculations with unaggregated data and reaggregate

16 it."

17 Do you agree with that statement?

18 A Yes.

19 Q In your understanding, is a data collection

20 process in which a federal agency is requested through a

21 FOIA request to reaggregate unpublished data, is that the

22 kind of method that is generally used to seek what you

23 would consider to be publicly available information?

24 A If the agency -- agencies often, in matters that

25 are subjects of controversy, do not want to appear to be

 

310

 

 

 

1 siding with any interests and I have in many occasions run

2 into situations where an agency basically takes the

3 position and says look, I need for you to make a formal

4 request for this and I can then respond to that. At the

5 state level sometimes it's called an Open Records Act; at

6 the federal level it's called FOIA. I don't consider it to

7 be a nuclear option, I consider it to be a method in making

8 a formal request on an agency and if that's the way the

9 agency wants to proceed because of whatever they feel the

10 circumstances are, I have no problem with it. It's not an

11 unusual request.

12 Q In your opinion, is information that has to be

13 calculated specially by a public agency at the specific

14 request of a private party, publicly available information?

15 A Yes. The federal government, the last time I

16 checked, exists to serve its citizens, who are the public.

17 Asking them to provide information that has been collected

18 at the taxpayer's expense, falls within the range of

19 publicly available information.

20 Q Do you know whether information that has to be

21 specially calculated by a federal agency upon receipt of a

22 FOIA request from a private party, is considered publicly

23 available information?

24 A By who?

25 Q By you, would you consider that publicly

 

311

 

 

 

1 available information?

2 A Yes, I do.

3 To give you another example, the RIMS numbers

4 are calculated specially by the BEA every time you make a

5 request, because they are constantly updating the data

6 base, they are not numbers that are sitting there that they

7 just make a Xerox, they have to run a calculation. That's

8 why typically it takes several weeks to get a new number,

9 it did in the case of our request for the Florida counties.

10 Q That calculated information is sought and

11 received by FOIA request?

12 A That is a kind of a routine recalculation that

13 they -- there is no controversy with that data and they

14 don't require a FOIA request.

15 Q So it's not generally sought and received by a

16 FOIA request?

17 A Not a RIMS multiplier, no.

18 Q Do you know whether information that has to be

19 specially calculated by the federal agency and is not

20 generally calculated in such form in the ordinary course of

21 that agency's business, is available under a FOIA request?

22 A I think that I would defer to Mr. Green on that.

23 That's why I asked him for how exactly to frame it. The

24 agency may have some discretion in how far they have to go.

25 Q But you do believe it's "publicly available"

 

312

 

 

 

1 information, from your standpoint as an economist?

2 A That's correct.

3 Q And you believe it's publicly available

4 information, even when it has to be sought through a FOIA

5 request?

6 A That's correct.

7 Q When you testified earlier in this case at a

8 hearing, an administrative hearing in this case, that the

9 economic impact analysis could be done using macro regional

10 data available to the public, is this the kind of

11 information that you meant?

12 A This would be one of many data elements that

13 would be behind that statement, yes.

14 (Luke Exhibit 13 marked for identification.)

15 BY MR. SAXE:

16 Q Dr. Luke, I'm showing you Exhibit Number 13, do

17 you recognize this document?

18 A Yes. This is a November 25th memo from me to

19 several folks, concerning a refined request to Annette

20 Clauson.

21 Q Was this -- strike that.

22 Do you know whether this request or some form of

23 it was subsequently made to Annette Clauson?

24 A Yes, I believe it was.

25 Q Can you tell me approximately when?

 

313

 

 

 

1 A I would assume pretty contemporaneously with

2 this, so late November, early December.

3 Q Who was the request made by?

4 A Pardon me?

5 Q By whom was the request made?

6 A The request to Annette Clauson?

7 Q Yes.

8 A It was made by me.

9 Q In what form?

10 A In what form?

11 Q Did you send a letter, did you make a telephone

12 call, did you use a FOIA request?

13 A I believe that this letter or one very much like

14 it probably was faxed to Ms. Clauson and there may or may

15 not have been a telephone call that was made

16 contemporaneously to confirm receipt or to discuss it.

17 Q The letter attached to your memo, Bates pages

18 981 to 982, says Draft on both pages, it's not a signed

19 copy. Is it your testimony that there was a signed copy of

20 this letter that was sent?

21 A I don't know whether there would be a signed

22 copy or not. If it was faxed, there's one way we would

23 have faxed it and it might not have been signed.

24 Q I'm not trying to be cute, I did not notice

25 another version of this letter in the documents that were

 

314

 

 

 

1 produced for you that didn't say Draft, so if you can take

2 a look at this and tell me whether this is in the same form

3 as the letter that was faxed to Annette Clauson?

4 A I'm not real sure what you mean by same form.

5 Q Let me clarify it. Was the letter that was

6 faxed to Annette Clauson different in any respect to this

7 draft, except for the presentation of the word Draft on the

8 top of the pages?

9 A Mr. Saxe, I can't tell you that there were no

10 editorial changes in it. I think substantially it was the

11 same.

12 Q Have you reviewed the draft for me right now,

13 just quickly take a look at it?

14 A I have.

15 Q You don't see anything that you remember either

16 eliminating or modifying in the final version of this

17 letter?

18 A No, I don't.

19 Q You don't recall any specific additions that you

20 made to the letter?

21 A No, I don't.

22 Q That's fine.

23 Turning to the letter for a minute, starting

24 from the beginning of the letter, "As we discussed in our

25 telephone conversation of November 20th, this letter will

 

315

 

 

 

1 restate the data we are requesting from your most recent

2 survey of Florida sugar cane growers in terms of the

3 variables used in the FLIPSIM model. I have listed the

4 variables below." There follows a list of variables.

5 Taking the first variable listed, "Book value of

6 owned land," what form of data was being requested with

7 this element?

8 A Pardon me?

9 Q What form of data was being requested?

10 A I don't understand your question.

11 Q Were you requesting summarized aggregated data

12 of the book value of owned land?

13 A Yes.

14 Q Where would that data exist and in what form?

15 A All of this data exists in USDA files related to

16 the surveys that they did.

17 Q These would be the annual updates of the five

18 year audited surveys?

19 A I believe that the reference here was to

20 something they did in '86-'87.

21 Q Is that specified in the letter?

22 A No. It's in the previous correspondence. I

23 think by this point we had talked about it enough that

24 there was an understanding of which survey we were

25 discussing.

 

316

 

 

 

1 Q Was that the audited grower information from

2 growers' books collected by USDA accountants?

3 A Right.

4 Q Does that exist in aggregated form at USDA?

5 A I don't know whether the sum is something that

6 they would have to compute or whether they already have it

7 in a form where it's in a spread sheet and here is the

8 total column.

9 Q Were you asking for one lump sum aggregated

10 total for the entire EAA of the book value of owned land?

11 A Yes.

12 Q Were you asking for any breakdown of that

13 information?

14 A Not in this letter.

15 Q Have you asked for any such breakdown hence?

16 A Hence, no.

17 Q Previously?

18 A You will recall we had talked about getting a

19 subtotal by size of operation, in one of the earlier

20 letters.

21 Q But this does not seek any allocation or

22 subtotalling of data by any particular classification?

23 A I think the letter speaks for itself and, no, it

24 doesn't.

25 Q So number one, if I understand it correctly, you

 

317

 

 

 

1 were seeking one value, the book value of all owned land

2 from the Florida sugar cane growers survey of '86-'87, one

3 figure, one number?

4 A That's correct.

5 Q Would that also be true for the second data

6 element?

7 A It's true for all of them.

8 Q At the bottom of the second paragraph, after

9 the indented list of data elements, variables, the last

10 sentence in that paragraph says, "For each data item

11 provided, please indicate the number of observations and

12 the acreage or milling capacity covered by the data point."

13 Does this refer only to the mill data that's

14 being addressed in that second paragraph or to all the

15 data?

16 A All 16.

17 Q So to go back to item number one then, when it

18 says, "Book value of owned land," you are asking for one

19 dollar figure, plus a number representing the number of

20 observations and then another number for the acreage it

21 pertained to or the milling capacity covered by that data

22 point?

23 A In this case it would be the acreage that it

24 pertained to.

25 Q So there would be three values reported for each

 

318

 

 

 

1 one of these?

2 A Well, there would be one value for a variable,

3 but there would be three variables reported, yes.

4 Q For each one of the elements in this list of 16?

5 A That's right.

6 Q The next paragraph says, "Once your colleague

7 has an opportunity to review the raw data, I would like the

8 opportunity to discuss what descriptive statistics can be

9 made available without violating the confidentiality of

10 individual respondents."

11 What did you mean by a colleague having an

12 opportunity to review the raw data?

13 A There's a fellow that actually did the survey

14 and I'm sorry I don't remember his name, he is either an

15 accountant or accounting type person who had retired from

16 USDA, and Ms. Clauson indicated that he was going to -- I

17 think it became pretty clear that she was not -- didn't

18 have hands-on knowledge of this data, I think she

19 administers a number of surveys. This gentleman is the one

20 that had actually collected most of the data or had worked

21 most closely with the data and that he was going to be in

22 in late December or early January for some period on a

23 contract basis and that she would have him look at it and

24 that he was actually going to be the person that was going

25 to be assisting her in responding to our request.

 

319

 

 

 

1 Q So this colleague would have been the person who

2 would have reviewed the raw data and then done the

3 summation or aggregation to provide you the one total

4 dollar amount that you were seeking for each of the

5 elements?

6 A You know, I suppose so.

7 Q What did you mean by descriptive statistics?

8 A Any other kinds of means, medians, standard

9 deviations, ranges that might be able to be computed

10 without violation of confidentiality.

11 Q Did you get a response to this letter?

12 A I think there was a response and I don't

13 remember the date, but I think there was a response.

14 Q Can you tell me more about it?

15 A To the best of my recollection, this sort of

16 came after the colleague had been in and, as I recall, the

17 substance of it was that Ms. Clauson had decided that she

18 didn't want to provide anything and went back to, I think

19 specifically their notion of standards for publication as

20 the justification for that.

21 Q So I take it that no data has been provided in

22 response to this request?

23 A That's correct.

24 Q Are there presently any plans to pursue this

25 data further, this data request further?

 

320

 

 

 

1 A I would say that the request has been suspended

2 at this point.

3 Q You testified earlier that no FOIA request has

4 been sent as far as you are aware?

5 A Not by me anyway.

6 Q Has any FOIA request been sent as far as you are

7 aware?

8 A I am not aware of one.

9 Q Has anybody told you whether a FOIA request has

10 been sent?

11 A I guess if they had, I would be aware of it,

12 wouldn't I? No, they haven't told me.

13 Q Thank you. Do you know what the reason is why

14 the request for information from USDA is on hold, as you

15 put it, presently?

16 A Because in part we are waiting to see the

17 revised district report, to determine whether it's worth

18 the effort to pursue the request.

19 MR. SAXE: Why don't we break for lunch.

20 (Luncheon recess taken.)

21 BY MR. SAXE:

22 Q Dr. Luke, if you would please refer to Exhibit 2

23 on Bates page 186.

24 A Okay.

25 Q The section entitled Seasonal and Temporary

 

321

 

 

 

1 Populations, this document again, if I recall your

2 testimony, includes or contains the comments that were

3 transmitted initially concerning the Hazen and Sawyer 10

4 year draft final report. The sentence in the first

5 paragraph, "If out of area contractors are awarded the

6 bids, most of the skilled workers, supervisors, managers

7 and professionals may reside outside the area."

8 Do you have an opinion as to how much STA

9 construction work would be likely awarded to out of area

10 contractors?

11 A I suppose, first of all, we have to define

12 area. I'm not aware that there are any contractors in the

13 EAA that are capable of doing the work and I have not

14 looked at whether there are any in Palm Beach County, so I

15 don't have a way to give you a probability on that.

16 Q As you use the word area in this sentence, how

17 did you mean it?

18 A I'm using it to mean EAA.

19 Q The preceding -- maybe it would be helpful if we

20 put this in context. The preceding two sentences say, "The

21 construction of STA's will involve a large temporary work

22 force. Many of these workers are unlikely to move to the

23 EAA or even to Palm Beach County with their families. If

24 out of area contractors are awarded the bids, most of the

25 skilled workers, supervisors, managers and professionals

 

322

 

 

 

1 may reside outside the area."

2 By out of area contractors then, were you

3 referring to those that were not in either the EAA or Palm

4 Beach County and would therefore have to move to those

5 locations?

6 A I stand by my earlier answer, when I talk about

7 the area, I'm talking about the EAA.

8 Q Do you know what Hazen and Sawyer did in the

9 local/non-local split with workers and materials?

10 A I could probably look it up for you, I don't

11 have it by memory.

12 Q Do you know whether there are suitable

13 contractors for STA construction located within Palm Beach

14 County?

15 A I said a couple of minutes ago, sir, that I did

16 not.

17 Q I'm sorry, I thought you were referring to the

18 EAA.

19 Going down to the next paragraph, "Neither the

20 impact of these populations nor the impact of the plan and

21 agreement on these populations is specifically addressed in

22 the economic impacts report. There is no analysis of the

23 seasonal agricultural population. The analysis of the

24 construction phase population assumes all workers and their

25 families are permanent residents of the study area for

 

323

 

 

 

1 purposes of computing multiplier effects."

2 Is there any evidence that STA construction

3 workers and their families would not be permanent residents

4 of the study area?

5 A It's not a question about which you could have

6 evidence at this point. You would have to make an

7 assumption one way or the other.

8 Q Do you have any basis for believing that STA

9 construction workers and their families would not be

10 permanent residents of the study area?

11 A Yes.

12 Q What would that be?

13 A These things have to be put out for public bid.

14 It's not at all uncommon for out of area contractors to bid

15 on these types of jobs and come in with a low bid.

16 Further, if you define the area, as I am, as the EAA, you

17 are talking about a whole bunch of skilled trades and heavy

18 equipment operators for which I am not aware that you have

19 any current employment, so it would be kind of unlikely to

20 find them as residents of the EAA. If they were to say

21 live in West Palm Beach or live in Broward, I doubt they

22 would relocate their residence for purposes of working on

23 this project.

24 Q If the contractors and their families did reside

25 within Palm Beach County, outside of the EAA, would the

 

324

 

 

 

1 award of contracts to such contractors involve a shift of

2 economic activity outside of what you would consider to be

3 the local area?

4 A I don't understand your question.

5 Q Let me see if I can rephrase it.

6 Assuming there are contractors in the Palm Beach

7 County area and they are awarded a significant percentage

8 of the contracts for STA construction, would those awards

9 entail a shift of economic activity outside of what you

10 would consider the local area?

11 A Well, that would depend upon, when you talk

12 about a shift, that would be additional economic activity

13 and I suspect much of it would occur outside the local

14 area. Whether it would shift would depend upon whether

15 there was a decrease in agricultural activity as a result

16 of the project. I guess we know that there will be 35,000

17 acres worth and so to the extent that would decrease

18 agricultural jobs, I suppose you could refer to it as a

19 shift.

20 Q Shift out of the local area, okay.

21 Do you know who has the construction contract

22 for the Everglades nutrient removal project?

23 A No.

24 Q If you would turn to the next page, Bates page

25 187, the top sentence, "The mitigation analysis should also

 

325

 

 

 

1 provide a labor market analysis of the EAA and Palm Beach

2 County."

3 Have you conducted a labor market analysis of

4 the EAA and Palm Beach County?

5 A Portions of one.

6 Q Can you tell me what portions of one you have

7 conducted?

8 A I have assembled some data from the census and

9 from the job service and the Chamber of Commerce on

10 employee/employment characteristics. I guess there are

11 probably some other incidental sources that we have. I

12 have looked at the economic development plan that Palm

13 Beach County Chamber of Commerce has prepared, spoken with

14 some of their staff, spoken with people at the Belle Glade

15 Chamber. Jean Werner has done some analysis of the

16 seasonal patterns of employment of residents of the EAA.

17 Q At this time do you have any sense of what the

18 annual net change in employment is in Palm Beach County?

19 A The annual net change of employment, I don't

20 understand.

21 Q Growth, shrinkage on a net basis in the county

22 in terms of the number of jobs?

23 A Well, as a matter of fact I do, let's see. In

24 terms of employment in Palm Beach County as a whole, the

25 latest data that I have is 1991, I have several years

 

326

 

 

 

1 before that, round numbers there are about 400,000 jobs in

2 the types of employment covered by these statistics in Palm

3 Beach County. From 1990 to 1991, there was a shrinkage of

4 about 6,000 jobs.

5 Q How far back does the data that you are looking

6 at now go?

7 A This particular table goes back to 1987.

8 Q May I see that, please?

9 A Sure. These were previously produced to you.

10 Q Thank you, Dr. Luke.

11 A Sure.

12 Q Dr. Luke, over the period of record in the data

13 that you have just referred to, can you tell me what the

14 change in employment is from the start to the end of the

15 period?

16 A For Palm Beach County?

17 Q Yes.

18 A This shows it as having gone from 370,000, round

19 numbers in 1987, to 396,000 in 1991.

20 Q How many of the years in the period of record

21 show a decrease in the number of employed civilians?

22 A The last year is the one that shows the

23 decrease. In effect, it went up to about 300 -- another

24 way to look at this data is that from '87 to '89 it went up

25 from 370,000 to 396,000 and it's been essentially stagnant

 

327

 

 

 

1 there from 1989 through 1991.

2 Q Thank you. If you would turn to page Bates page

3 189 in Exhibit 2.

4 A Okay.

5 Q The section entitled Conclusion, this paragraph

6 begins, "These comments assume there is no disagreement

7 over the many assumptions regarding crop prices, yields,

8 expenses and other factors which Hazen and Sawyer has made

9 in its studies. Brief discussions with representatives of

10 the Cooperative suggest there are in fact many questions

11 and disagreements regarding these assumptions which must be

12 addressed."

13 Can you tell me which assumptions there are

14 questions and disagreements about?

15 A Crop yields -- crop prices, yields, expenses,

16 costs of the BMP's. I mean, there were questions raised, I

17 know, about a number of factors after this document was

18 prepared. Polopolus and Richardson I know questioned some.

19 There have been others that there have been questions. I

20 have a little trouble separating in my memory which I knew

21 about at the time this was drafted and which I have since

22 heard about, so probably your safest bet is to assume that

23 the items I have listed there are the main ones that I knew

24 about at the time this was written.

25 Q The sentence also refers to brief discussions

 

328

 

 

 

1 with representatives of the Cooperative as the basis for

2 your observation. Can you tell me with whom these brief

3 discussions occurred?

4 A Probably George Wedgworth, Jeff Ward, and the

5 marketing person for the Cooperative.

6 Q Can you tell me what some of the disagreements

7 are concerning crop prices?

8 A I believe the feeling at that time was that the

9 price that was reflected for payments to growers in the

10 Hazen and Sawyer report was too high.

11 Q Was any elaboration given in these brief

12 discussions about the basis for that conclusion?

13 A I believe it related to their personal

14 experience.

15 Q So in other words, the Co-op representatives you

16 spoke with said things to the effect that those prices were

17 more than they as growers received for their cane?

18 A Well, I think that was part of it, but remember

19 also, since they are a mill, they are making payments to

20 growers, so I think it reflected knowledge of both sides of

21 that transaction.

22 Q So that would mean that they would also have

23 indicated that the Hazen and Sawyer prize reflected more

24 than they as mill owners and cooperative paid themselves as

25 growers?

 

329

 

 

 

1 A Or and paid other folks for whom they did

2 milling. Again, I was not at that point trying to do an

3 alternative analysis, I was just trying to identify the

4 fact that in this conclusion that most of what has been

5 pointed out here are what I would consider methodological

6 problems and what I'm trying to say here is that I am not

7 accepting the assumptions that have been input into the

8 methodology and I know that there is a range of opinion

9 regarding some of those assumptions.

10 Q Were there any other significant disagreements

11 you recall concerning crop prices?

12 A I think what I have already told you describes

13 the issue.

14 Q How about yields, what were the disagreements

15 concerning yields?

16 A It seems to me that there is a projection of an

17 upward trend in at least yields of sugar per acre and that

18 there was some question as to whether that really existed.

19 Q Have you done any follow up on that controversy,

20 investigating any other sources of data and analyzing it to

21 determine whether there is in fact a trend as Hazen and

22 Sawyer determined?

23 A No, I haven't.

24 Q The next element, expenses, do you recall what

25 the disagreements concerning expenses was?

 

330

 

 

 

1 A I think in some cases that they had questions

2 about the validity of some of the numbers that were shown

3 as expense numbers in the report. I'm pretty sure there

4 were, at that time, disagreements expressed with the cost

5 of BMP estimates that were used in the report.

6 Q Was there any indication what those

7 disagreements were based upon with respect to the cost of

8 BMP's?

9 A It seems to me that some of the implementation

10 of BMP's had already begun at that time and so they were

11 actually in the process of trying to do some of these

12 things and so it reflected personal experience.

13 Q Were their positions generally that the costs

14 reported by Hazen and Sawyer or the costs utilized by Hazen

15 and Sawyer were too low?

16 A I think that was the general thrust of it. I'm

17 not saying that there weren't some where maybe the real

18 costs were lower than what was used, but the general thrust

19 was that the numbers that Hazen and Sawyer was using

20 understated the costs.

21 Q Which BMP's were being implemented at that time?

22 A I really don't remember.

23 Q The next paragraph on this page, the third

24 sentence reads, "The SFWMD's next step should be to have

25 Hazen and Sawyer make all work papers, computer programs,

 

331

 

 

 

1 data files and spread sheets available for public

2 inspection."

3 Do you know whether Hazen and Sawyer was asked

4 to make any of these materials available for inspection?

5 A By the District?

6 Q No, by anyone.

7 A Well, I think in the discovery request pursuant

8 to Grace Johns' deposition, they have been asked to.

9 Q Any other requests that you are aware of?

10 A Not that I'm personally aware of, no.

11 Q Had the discovery request concerning Grace

12 Johns' deposition been made at the point in time when you

13 prepared these comments?

14 A I don't believe so.

15 Q So as far as you know, at that time there had

16 been no request by any member of the Cooperative or people

17 working for the Cooperative, to have access to these

18 materials?

19 A I'm not aware of any.

20 Q Have you or RPC ever done work under contract

21 similar to that done by Hazen and Sawyer in this context?

22 A Yes.

23 Q Do you recall, did you make all work papers,

24 computer programs, data files and spread sheets available

25 for public inspection when you worked on similar contracts?

 

332

 

 

 

1 A We were required to.

2 Q Were you requested to?

3 A Pardon?

4 Q When you say you were required to, can you

5 elaborate?

6 A It was a term of the contract that we would.

7 Q And were those contracts with government

8 entities?

9 A Yes.

10 Q I would like to move on to another document --

11 well, one follow up question. Do you know whether this was

12 a term of Hazen and Sawyer's contract?

13 A I have not seen their contract.

14 (Luke Exhibit 14 marked for identification.)

15 BY MR. SAXE:

16 Q Dr. Luke, I'm showing you a document that's been

17 marked as Exhibit 14, do you recognize this document?

18 A Generally, yes.

19 Q Could you explain to me generally what this

20 document is?

21 A Um-hum. I asked my staff to in effect prepare a

22 spread sheet model that could replicate the tables in the

23 Hazen and Sawyer report and this is part of the

24 documentation or it may be all the documentation of that

25 model.

 

333

 

 

 

1 Q What is the RPC sugar cane model?

2 A It is a spread sheet model that replicates the

3 tables in the Hazen and Sawyer report.

4 Q Why have you created a model to replicate those

5 tables?

6 A We were interested in testing whether we could

7 replicate it or if there were any discrepancies in the

8 report that we needed to tie down. We were interested in

9 being able to, at the appropriate time, do some sensitivity

10 analysis. We were also interested in deciding whether or

11 not if we were to do a direct farm impacts report that was

12 not looking at changes in farm ownership, that we would

13 need to use FLIPSIM or whether we would be able to proceed

14 with a spread sheet model.

15 Q Did you make such a determination?

16 A We did.

17 Q What was it?

18 A Based on our current level of understanding, if

19 we are not interested in the financial viability of

20 individual farms, then we would not have any particular

21 need to use FLIPSIM.

22 Q If you were interested in the financial

23 viability of individual farms, what would be the outcome of

24 the determination concerning the decision to use FLIPSIM or

25 the decision to use another spread sheet or other product?

 

334

 

 

 

1 A I don't know that we had made that

2 determination. My sense is that on the financial viability

3 of individual farms, probably the most efficient way to do

4 that would be to use FLIPSIM. There are certainly other

5 simulation products out there but, I mean, I don't know of

6 any reason that I would want to duplicate the work that

7 Richardson has already done.

8 Q The purpose of the RPC sugar cane model was

9 solely to attempt to replicate the Hazen and Sawyer direct

10 farm analysis?

11 A I think I outlined two or three different

12 purposes, so the answer to that question would be no.

13 Q The other purposes would be if you made a

14 decision to adopt that methodology and not do a farm

15 survival analysis, to use it for a socio -- the economic

16 impact portion of the socioeconomic analysis?

17 A That's one.

18 Q What was the third one?

19 A The third one was to give us a way to do some

20 sensitivity analysis, if we chose to do that.

21 Q Could you elaborate on the purpose of doing the

22 sensitivity analysis?

23 A Well, the purpose of doing a sensitivity

24 analysis would be if somebody said, gee, I think the

25 expenses ought to be 10 percent higher, to be able to plug

 

335

 

 

 

1 that in and see what effect that had on other variables.

2 Q The equations that are described in this

3 document, as far as you are aware, reflect Hazen and

4 Sawyer's methodology?

5 A No, sir, I can't say that, because they used

6 FLIPSIM.

7 Q Let's take an example of the first equation, net

8 tons per gross acre of sugar cane land, regardless of the

9 computer tool that was used, would this reflect the

10 equation that you understand Hazen and Sawyer used to

11 derive net tons per gross acre of sugar cane land?

12 A I'm not prepared to say that we have replicated

13 their equations. I'm prepared to say that we have

14 replicated their results. I do not know, of my own

15 knowledge, if in replicating those results, my staff may

16 have written the equations in a different fashion.

17 Q In order to replicate the results, is it true

18 then you would have to follow Hazen and Sawyer's

19 assumptions exactly?

20 A No.

21 Q Would it be merely fortuitous if you succeeded

22 in replicating the results without following their

23 assumptions exactly?

24 A No.

25 Q How would you replicate their results without

 

336

 

 

 

1 following their assumptions?

2 A Some of their assumptions may not tie directly

3 into their quantitative results.

4 Q In the equation that I just referred to, what's

5 the difference between the element yield belt productivity

6 and yield loss resulting from soil subsidence?

7 A One of those I believe to be a current figure

8 and the other I believe to be a vector that changes over

9 time.

10 Q Do you understand that Hazen and Sawyer

11 projected a yield loss resulting from soil subsidence over

12 time, in the 10 year analysis?

13 A I don't recall whether they did or not.

14 Q What was the basis for the selection of this

15 variable, yield loss resulting from soil subsidence?

16 A There are two possibilities, either because it

17 was mentioned in the Hazen and Sawyer report or because my

18 staff person thought it would be a good one to put in.

19 Q Do you agree with the propriety of these

20 equations for the purposes of the RPC sugar cane model?

21 A I have not reviewed them or attempted to

22 validate them. I asked a person to who is a staff worker.

23 Q Did you re-estimate Hazen and Sawyer's

24 estimates?

25 A Excuse me?

 

337

 

 

 

1 Q Did you re-calculate or re-estimate Hazen and

2 Sawyer's estimates?

3 A I don't know what you're asking me.

4 Q Did you re-run this model to get a comparitive

5 estimate to the Hazen and Sawyer results?

6 A It's my understanding that this has been

7 compared to their results and that it can replicate the

8 tables that are in the report.

9 Q When you say it can replicate the tables that

10 are in the report, am I to understand that it was run and

11 did succeed at replicating those tables?

12 A That's what I have been told.

13 Q So as you understand it, the estimates from that

14 run or the output from those runs were the same effectively

15 as the Hazen and Sawyer results?

16 A Yes. I'm not going to say how many decimal

17 places, but as far as there weren't any material

18 differences.

19 Q Under equation number 2, the value P (sc), price

20 of raw sugar, can you tell me what the source of this data

21 element would be?

22 A It looks to me like it would be the 1990 Farm

23 Bill.

24 Q Is the price specified in the 1990 Farm Bill, as

25 far as you know?

 

338

 

 

 

1 A I don't know.

2 Q So do you know where the number would be

3 obtained to plug into this value in running the model?

4 A Judging from the data sources listed on the

5 second page, it would be the IFAS publication by Alvarez

6 and Schunamen.

7 Q Do you know whether this would use an average

8 value?

9 A No, I don't.

10 Q Do you know whether it would be trended?

11 A No, I don't.

12 Q For the next variable, Q (rs), quantity of raw

13 sugar milled per net ton of sugar cane, do you know what

14 the source of this variable would be, the source of data

15 for this variable?

16 A If you look on the next page, it identifies the

17 data source as the IFAS publication and I would assume that

18 that is true for all the variables that are on here.

19 Q Do you know whether this is an average value?

20 A No.

21 Q Or whether it's trended?

22 A No.

23 Q Do you know whether you or Dr. Leistritz would

24 be testifying as to the construction of this model, the

25 sources of each of the variables in the equations, whether

 

339

 

 

 

1 they are average variables -- or rather average values or

2 not, whether they are trended, and those related questions

3 about the calculation of results with the model?

4 A One of us would, I don't know which one.

5 Q We may not want to linger too much on this

6 document, but let me ask just a couple of questions. On

7 this same element where it says, "Recovery rate of sucrose

8 from sugar cane adjusted for assumed productivity

9 increase."

10 A Where are you?

11 Q Okay, on Q (rs), the same value -- the same

12 variable, "Quantity of raw sugar milled per net ton of

13 sugar cane."

14 A Right.

15 Q The following text, there is a statement, one of

16 the subvariables, "Recovery rate of sucrose from sugar cane

17 adjusted for assumed productivity increase."

18 Do you know what that means?

19 A Yes.

20 Q What does that mean?

21 A There is an assumption in the Hazen and Sawyer

22 report concerning a productivity increase in the milling of

23 sugar cane and in replicating their results, that that same

24 productivity increase would be factored in in this

25 variable.

 

340

 

 

 

1 Q Is this the same as a yield trend?

2 A Could be, as long as the yield you are talking

3 about is sugar per acre and not cane per acre.

4 Q Is it your understanding that this productivity

5 increase was assumed by Hazen and Sawyer?

6 A Yes.

7 Q Do you know what Hazen and Sawyer's basis for

8 that assumption was?

9 A I believe they had looked at some data and done

10 some linear regression analysis that convinced them that

11 there was such a trend.

12 Q Do you know if the Alvarez and Schunamen

13 publication out of IFAS was the source of data for each of

14 these variables in Hazen and Sawyer's analysis?

15 A Not without reviewing their report, I don't.

16 Q Would you have any explanation for why the

17 results of the attempts to replicate the Hazen and Sawyer

18 values would have been successful, if different sources of

19 data were used?

20 A Sometimes you have got two different

21 publications that go back to the same primary data.

22 Q On the next page under Notes, the last sentence

23 says, "The inflation rate for milling costs was 2.8

24 percent."

25 Is that correct as you understand it?

 

341

 

 

 

1 A I have no independent knowledge of what was

2 used.

3 Q Under the next block of Notes, it says, "Costs

4 of production are inflated based on the cost of production

5 indices as reported in the USDA's Agricultural Prices

6 publication."

7 Do you know whether those are national values or

8 values for Florida or what area they are derived for?

9 A No, I don't.

10 Q If they are national values, do you know how

11 they might relate to the EAA?

12 A No.

13 Q Dr. Luke, who would be the appropriate person

14 to direct these questions to on the present project

15 effort?

16 A Well, the person that did the work is Eric

17 Schubert.

18 Q Dr. Luke, referring to the last page of this

19 document, there is a table titled "Itemized Receipts and

20 Costs: Sugar Cane Production, Dollars per Gross Acre in

21 1994, Scenario One." Do you know whether each of these

22 variables was trended independently in the replication

23 effort using the RPC sugar cane model?

24 A No.

25 (Luke Exhibit 15 marked for identification.)

 

342

 

 

 

1 BY MR. SAXE:

2 Q Dr. Luke, I'm showing you Exhibit 15, do you

3 recognize that document?

4 A I have seen that, yes.

5 Q Could you identify it for me, please?

6 A It's a memorandum that Eric Schubert prepared in

7 response to a request that I made that he determine the

8 feasibility of using the LOTUS spread sheet model instead

9 of FLIPSIM in doing direct farm analysis.

10 Q And it's dated February 15, 1993?

11 A That's correct.

12 Q On the second page, the first paragraph under

13 the heading starting with Feasibility, the paragraph reads,

14 "FLIPSIM is a tool that does not exactly fit the needs of

15 the sugar cane analysis. The model has more breadth and

16 features than we need because of its focus of the economic

17 viability of farms as opposed to the viability of keeping

18 farmland in production without regard to the land's

19 ownership. In addition, the RPC analysis will require none

20 of the programming functions or the stochastic simulations

21 available in FLIPSIM."

22 Do you agree with these statements?

23 A Not necessarily. The instructions that I gave

24 him were, assuming that we were only interested in if the

25 land stayed in production, but weren't interested in farm

 

343

 

 

 

1 ownership, what would be our need for FLIPSIM, and he has

2 given me the analysis that I asked for there. Some of his

3 statements sort of go beyond his knowledge of the broader

4 issues in the case.

5 Q The last sentence, "In addition, the RPC

6 analysis will require none of the programming functions or

7 the stochastic simulations available in FLIPSIM."

8 With respect to the stochastic simulations

9 available in FLIPSIM, would you agree that even if farm

10 financial viability is an issue that you will be analyzing,

11 you would not require the stochastic simulations available

12 in FLIPSIM?

13 A No, I wouldn't agree with that.

14 Q Would you say at this time that there is a

15 possibility you will use FLIPSIM in a stochastic mode, if

16 you undertake to analyze farm financial viability in the

17 context of a socioeconomic impact assessment for the SWIM

18 plan?

19 A Yes.

20 Q Are there other tools that you might use?

21 A Do you mean other computer programs?

22 Q Any other methods, whether computer or

23 otherwise.

24 A It's conceivable that if we needed to do any

25 substantial modifications, that we might find it more

 

344

 

 

 

1 efficient to use either a spread sheet or a data base type

2 program rather than trying to modify the FORTRAN code in

3 FLIPSIM.

4 Q At this juncture would you say that it's most

5 likely that you will use FLIPSIM in the stochastic mode,

6 should you undertake to analyze farm financial viability?

7 A Knowing what I know now, I guess I could answer

8 your question yes, but I really would regard that as a very

9 preliminary answer.

10 Q The next paragraph, "The alternative - spread

11 sheet analysis using LOTUS 1-2-3 3.1 - appears workable,"

12 and the sentence continues. Would you agree with that

13 portion of the sentence?

14 A As it applies to the type of analysis that Eric

15 is discussing here, yes, and again, I'm relying upon his

16 analysis, I haven't done an independent one, but nobody has

17 shown me any problem with doing it.

18 Q Is it your opinion that you could use LOTUS

19 1-2-3 3.1, even if you elected to analyze farm financial

20 viability as an alternative to FLIPSIM in a stochastic

21 mode?

22 A It could probably be done. I'm not certain that

23 it would be a very efficient way to do it if you are going

24 to run a hundred innerations on a Monte Carlo type

25 simulation and I kind of doubt that I would choose to do it

 

345

 

 

 

1 with LOTUS.

2 Q Is the RPC analysis that's referenced in this

3 document the same analysis at issue in the previous

4 document, namely Exhibit 14?

5 A I would read that as an analysis which may be

6 performed by RPC. There is no current analysis that's

7 sitting out there that's been done.

8 Q You're talking about Exhibit 15, the analysis

9 referenced in Exhibit 15?

10 A Right.

11 Q Besides the difference of one having been done

12 and one not having been done, would they be for the same

13 purpose?

14 A I don't understand the question.

15 Q What would be the purpose of the analysis

16 referenced in Exhibit 15?

17 A To look at the amount of farmland that would be

18 likely to be withdrawn from production under various

19 scenarios.

20 Q Direct economic impacts only?

21 A Well, that would be part of it. I mean, we

22 would also be looking maybe at several baseline or no-

23 action scenarios to see what the future of farmland is in

24 the EAA, even if the SWIM plan went away.

25 (Luke Exhibit 16 marked for identification.)

 

346

 

 

 

1 BY MR. SAXE:

2 Q Dr. Luke, I'm showing you Exhibit Number 16,

3 have you seen that document before?

4 A Yes.

5 Q Can you identify it for me, please?

6 A It is a memorandum, I believe it was prepared by

7 Jeff Tomlinson, that reports the results of a telephone

8 interview that he had with Jose Alvarez.

9 Q The first paragraph or the paragraph numbered 1,

10 "Professor Alvarez doesn't know the relationship between

11 soil subsidence/oxidation and sugar cane yield. No

12 experiments have been successfully completed on the issue."

13 Do you have any other information concerning the

14 relationship between soil subsidence and oxidation and

15 sugar cane yield?

16 A No.

17 Q As far as you are aware, is there any other

18 information available?

19 A I understand from the meeting that Grace Johns

20 held a few weeks ago, that Dr. Snyder, who is mentioned

21 here, may have some information, but I have not seen it.

22 Q Would that be George Snyder, an economist at the

23 Belle Glade Research Station?

24 A Could be, I don't know that it's George Snyder.

25 Q Are you contemplating analyzing a scenario in

 

347

 

 

 

1 which yield per acre is a function of soil subsidence?

2 A No. I'm contemplating finding out whether or

3 not there is any basis for believing that it might be.

4 Q Would that apply also to depth of soil?

5 A Would what apply to depth of soil?

6 Q That you are contemplating analyzing whether it

7 would be meaningful to run a scenario in which yield per

8 acre is a function of depth of soil.

9 A That's sort of another way of saying the same

10 thing, since the way depth of soil seems to change in the

11 EAA is through this oxidation process.

12 Q Paragraph number 2, the statement, "The sandy

13 soil farmland is too far away for the mills to expand

14 production."

15 Do you agree with that statement?

16 A I have no independent basis for an opinion.

17 That's why we called Alvarez, because we wanted to get some

18 information.

19 Q Paragraph number 3 -- well, strike that.

20 As you understand it, this statement merely

21 reports Professor Alvarez' statement in the conversation?

22 A Yes.

23 Q So it doesn't represent the opinion of Jeff

24 Tomlinson?

25 A I sure hope not.

 

348

 

 

 

1 Q Paragraph 3, the statement, "Some recent

2 increase in harvested acreage has come from farmers not

3 leaving as much land fallow (successive planting)."

4 Do you have any opinion concerning future

5 practices as regards successive planting?

6 A No.

7 Q Are you aware of the present percentage of

8 harvested to planted acres in the EAA for sugar cane?

9 A I have seen the number in some publications, I

10 certainly don't have it from memory.

11 Q Do you know how far sandy soils, sandy soiled

12 lands are from the nearest mill in the EAA?

13 A You mean that have not already been planted?

14 Q Yes.

15 A No.

16 Q Paragraph 4, subpoint (b) states, "Recovery

17 rates of sugar from sugar cane have increased, but

18 Professor Alvarez can't project future trends."

19 Have you or RPC done any analysis of the future

20 trends and recovery rates of sugar from sugar cane?

21 A No.

22 Q Have you looked at any of the data

23 independently? I believe you mentioned earlier reviewing

24 the Hazen and Sawyer methodology of establishing a trend,

25 but have you or RPC done any work?

 

349

 

 

 

1 A We haven't attempted to validate that

2 information in the Hazen and Sawyer report.

3 Q Have you attempted to estimate any trends on

4 your own?

5 A No.

6 Q Are you going to use any such trend in your

7 analysis?

8 A I think that that's the kind of thing where you

9 would want to utilize it in some scenarios and not in

10 others. It's more of a sensitivity analysis issue. I

11 mean, even if there were very strong past trends, that

12 would be no guarantee of a continuation of that trend 20

13 years into the future.

14 Q Generally speaking, how does one project future

15 events in an instance where there has been a statistically

16 significant trend for the historic period?

17 A Well, one way is certainly to continue that

18 trend. Another way -- another thing, though, is that to

19 the best of my knowledge, no trend goes on forever and so

20 one would -- if this were important to the analysis, one

21 would typically want to look at the information available

22 concerning the reasons for that trend and see whether it

23 appeared that they would be sustained or whether they were

24 dampening out or, gosh, perhaps accelerated, and out of

25 that, you have to come up with a range of reasonable

 

350

 

 

 

1 projections about how such trends might go in the future.

2 Q Where decision makers have an interest in

3 predicting whether a trend is going to continue or not and

4 there is a trend -- statistically significant trend for the

5 historical period, is there a general rule what the better

6 prediction is, that the trend will continue or that it

7 won't?

8 A No. Look on any stock market ad and mutual

9 funds and they will say that past performance is no

10 guarantee of the future performance and the same is true

11 for any other statistical trend.

12 Q Well, I didn't ask about a guarantee, I asked

13 about whether there was a best guess?

14 A There is no mathematical or statistical basis

15 for calling that a best guess, without looking at the

16 underlying factors that account for the trend to date and

17 in analyzing what the state of those factors is likely to

18 be in the future.

19 Q Have you looked at any sugar cane breeding

20 research?

21 A No.

22 Q Will you or RPC look at any sugar cane breeding

23 research if a socioeconomic impact analysis is performed?

24 A It's possible.

25 Q Do you have any plans to do so?

 

351

 

 

 

1 A No specific plans.

2 Q The paragraph numbered 7, the statement, "The

3 overall acreage for planting sugar cane can't increase."

4 Do you agree with that statement?

5 A I have no independent knowledge. I understand

6 that to be Dr. Alvarez' opinion.

7 Q Do you know what the minimum muck depth is for

8 growing cane?

9 A Gosh, I heard it at the meeting Grace Johns held

10 and I don't recall what it was.

11 (Luke Exhibit 17 marked for identification.)

12 BY MR. SAXE:

13 Q Dr. Luke, I'm showing you Exhibit 17, have you

14 seen that document before?

15 A Yes.

16 Q Can you identify it for me, please?

17 A Appears to be a deposition summary of Bruce

18 Gardner's deposition, which Eric Schubert prepared.

19 Q At the bottom of the first page, the last

20 paragraph, it says, "While the sugar industry faces some

21 uncertainties about NAFTA's effect on current U.S. farm

22 programs, increased imports of sugar from Mexico that might

23 arise from NAFTA can be offset by reduced quotas from other

24 countries."

25 Do you agree with that statement?

 

352

 

 

 

1 A It seems to me to be a plausible statement. I

2 haven't researched it to see whether it is accurate or not.

3 Q The next page, the first full sentence, "For

4 Mexico to export much more sugar to the U.S. through NAFTA

5 provisions, Mexico must show that it possesses a

6 comparitive advantage in growing sugar cane."

7 Do you have an opinion about whether Mexico is

8 likely to become a net exporter of sugar in the next 10

9 years?

10 A I have seen statements that it is plausible that

11 they could do so. I have seen other statements that it is

12 not. I don't think that is something that is knowable. I

13 think that if it is -- the question is how does that

14 reflect in the analysis and would it affect either acreage

15 or price of sugar in the EAA. I think that the way that I

16 intend to deal with that is to factor that into definition

17 of scenarios and this is just one of several things that

18 might affect price or acreage, so it will kind of be

19 subsumed in the definition of scenarios on those factors.

20 Q If Mexico were to become a net exporter of sugar

21 and quotas for the importation of Mexican sugar were to be

22 substantially dropped or reduced, would other sugar

23 producing regions of the United States likely absorb

24 impacts before the EAA industry did?

25 A I think if we get into something like that where

 

353

 

 

 

1 it results in a lower price, that there are areas of the

2 United States that are considerably higher cost producers

3 per ton of raw sugar than the EAA and to the extent that

4 the price was driven down far enough, certainly I would

5 expect some of those folks to be knocked out of the sugar

6 beat business or the sugar cane business before production

7 became unprofitable in the EAA, but to the extent what

8 we're talking about is a decrease in price, then it would

9 affect sort of all producers sort of the same dollar loss

10 of revenue per ton of sugar and the effect would be

11 simultaneous.

12 Q The next sentence, "He believes that NAFTA will

13 not have a significant effect on the sugar cane industry in

14 Florida or on the U.S. sugar program of tariffs, import

15 quotas, and price supports."

16 Do you agree with that statement?

17 A Do I agree he believes that?

18 Q No. Do you agree with the underlying position

19 that NAFTA will not have a significant effect on the sugar

20 cane industry in Florida or on the U.S. sugar program of

21 tariffs, import quotas, and price supports?

22 A I don't have an opinion.

23 (Luke Exhibit 18 marked for identification.)

24 BY MR. SAXE:

25 Q Dr. Luke, I have handed you Exhibit 18, have you

 

354

 

 

 

1 seen that document before?

2 A Yes.

3 Q Would you identify it for me, please?

4 A Yes. This is a memo to file that I prepared

5 summarizing the meeting of economsts that Grace Johns

6 convened.

7 Q The statement at the bottom of the page, "More

8 than six inches soil depth required for sugar and

9 vegetables. Six inches okay for sod. Alvarez says one

10 vegetable farm converted to sod about 10 years ago at eight

11 inches and still in business."

12 Do you agree that more than six inches of soil

13 depth is required for sugar and vegetables?

14 A I have no opinion.

15 Q Do you expect to be developing an opinion on

16 that for purposes of your analysis?

17 A I think on a 20 year analysis that includes

18 potential effects of subsidence, one will have to plug in a

19 number as to where cane and vegetable production would

20 cease, yes.

21 Q With respect to the statement, "Six inches okay

22 for sod," do you agree with that?

23 A I have no opinion.

24 Q Again, do you expect to formulate an opinion for

25 purposes of conducting a socioeconomic analysis, should you

 

355

 

 

 

1 undertake one?

2 A I think that will be necessary for the same

3 reasons, yes.

4 Q Do you know what alternative crops might be

5 grown at depths of less than six to eight inches of muck

6 soil?

7 A The discussion that I heard at that meeting was

8 that there really were not a lot of economic alternatives.

9 Somebody mentioned cow/calf operations, which would mean

10 that you would just be using the land for pasture, and

11 there was some question about given the cattle removal up

12 in Okeechobee, whether that was going to be environmentally

13 -- consistent with environmental regulations.

14 Q Do you have an opinion how cow/calf operations

15 compare on a per acre basis to dairy operations with

16 respect to nutrient loads?

17 A My sense is they would be less intensive, but I

18 have not studied Florida cow/calf operations, so maybe they

19 use more of a feed lock approach than I am used to seeing

20 in Texas.

21 Q At the top of the second page, the statement,

22 "Limestone underlying EAA can't be "plowed" or farmed on."

23 Do you agree with that statement?

24 A That's what was said, I have no independent

25 knowledge.

 

356

 

 

 

1 Q Further down, about six blocks down, there is a

2 statement, "Luke: Since no one knows about subsidence (one

3 inch per year) need two scenarios even in baseline."

4 What scenarios would those be?

5 A One in which you have this one inch per year

6 subsidence and that you check that in terms of land going

7 out of production or changing crops. And another one in

8 which you use some other what I'll call more optimistic

9 scenario about possibly a diminishing rate of subsidence as

10 the non-organic percentage of the soil material increases.

11 Q Would a no subsidence alternative be an

12 appropriate scenario to run in the baseline?

13 A Not on the basis of the information that I have

14 seen so far, however, in effect you would have a no

15 subsidence alternative if you had scientific data that said

16 that the rate of subsidence was going to taper off to zero

17 at depths which were in excess of what you needed for cane

18 and vegetables and if there were scientific evidence to

19 suggest that there was no decrease from yield at that

20 stabilizing level. I haven't seen that, but I have

21 certainly heard growers discuss that they believe this sort

22 of diminishing subsidence phenomenon is there.

23 Q If all the variables you have just mentioned

24 were satisfied except the scientific evidence of no

25 diminution in yield at that depth, would it still be

 

357

 

 

 

1 appropriate to run a baseline scenario under those

2 assumptions, in other words, you had --

3 A What kind of baseline scenario?

4 Q A scenario in which you had subsidence, but the

5 rate of subsidence was tapering off toward zero, that that

6 rate of tapering resulted in an effective stop of

7 subsidence above the minimum threshold depth of soil to

8 grow cane, but there was some loss in yield at that depth

9 of soil. That's my set of values and I'm asking you if --

10 A I think there you would still need to have a

11 separate scenario to capture that.

12 Q Several blocks down it says, "Richardson: GATT

13 study says 14 to 22 percent potential drop in domestic

14 sugar price," and the sentence continues. Do you agree

15 with that statement?

16 A I agree that he said it.

17 Q No, excuse me. Do you agree with the underlying

18 proposition that a 14 to 22 percent potential drop in

19 domestic sugar price would result from GATT implementation?

20 A I don't agree or disagree, I simply note that

21 there appears to be some evidence out there which would

22 make it reasonable to run a scenario in which such price

23 decreases occurred.

24 Q Would you expect to be forming an opinion one

25 way or the other on that or are you going to handle that in

 

358

 

 

 

1 the sensitivity analysis fashion of multiple scenarios?

2 A At this point, I don't know whether my client

3 will ask me to develop an opinion on that or perhaps

4 whether other people might testify to that. I would

5 certainly expect that in any study that was done, that

6 there would be a low price and a high price baseline

7 scenario.

8 Q Do you know what the aggregate measure of

9 support stands for with respect to GATT?

10 A Pardon me?

11 Q Do you know what the aggregate measure of

12 support stands for with respect to GATT?

13 A Not particularly, no.

14 Q Neither do I. On the next page --

15 MS. STINSON: Apparently Dr. Jones does.

16 BY MR. SAXE:

17 Q Next page, the fourth statement down, "ERS has

18 some write-ups as effect of GATT and NAFTA on vegetables -

19 says no impact."

20 Do you have an opinion concerning the underlying

21 position that GATT and NAFTA will have no impact on

22 vegetables?

23 A I have not seen those papers, just noted that

24 somebody said they existed, I suspect Gardner or

25 Richardson, but I haven't looked at them.

 

359

 

 

 

1 Q Would you be treating the effects of GATT and

2 NAFTA on vegetables similarly methodologically to the way

3 you would be treating it for sugar cane?

4 A I so far haven't seen anybody say that they will

5 have an impact, so absent that, there wouldn't be a need

6 for two scenarios.

7 Q The last statement on this page, "Assumptions on

8 financing would cow/calf be assessed."

9 Do you have an opinion whether cow/calf is an

10 alternative enterprise to sugar cane in the EAA?

11 A No. All I know is that somebody said that that

12 might be, if all of the cultivation were to stop.

13 (Luke Exhibit 19 marked for identification.)

14 BY MR. SAXE:

15 Q Dr. Luke, I'm handing you Exhibit 19, do you

16 recognize that document?

17 A Yes. This appears to be -- the basic documents

18 are Grace's view graphs from her presentation and this

19 appears to be a copy on which I have made some notes. It's

20 probably the copy I had in front of me at the meeting.

21 Q On the sixth physical page, there are some

22 handwritten notes at the bottom, could you just read those

23 into the record for me, I'm not able to read them?

24 A Let's see, "Don't have to cover each year except

25 interest on operating capital." It's a bad copy, but of

 

360

 

 

 

1 something covered over time.

2 Q Is that word, "is best covered over time," is

3 that what that says, "is best covered over time"?

4 A I think it looks more like if something.

5 Q Do you remember what you meant by this when you

6 wrote it?

7 A I think I'm writing down here the point she was

8 making, which was that the only -- that you don't have to

9 cover your depreciation, it's a non-cash item, year by

10 year, that you do have to cover your interest on

11 operations. This is her talking about how she is treating

12 different production costs in her revised study.

13 Q Does this implicate the lumpiness problem you

14 testified to earlier?

15 A Does it what?

16 Q Does it implicate the lumpiness problem, does

17 this involve the same variables and treatment that the

18 lumpiness problem does?

19 A I haven't seen how she is going to treat it, but

20 this is where that problem can come up, yes.

21 Q As you understood her presentation and as

22 reflected in the handwritten notes, did you agree with the

23 way she was proposing to handle these elements?

24 A Her discussion of it, as you can see, she went

25 through a pretty large amount of material, was not so

 

361

 

 

 

1 precise that I really know whether I agree or not. I just

2 marked it as something that I would want to come back and

3 look at when I saw the study that she put out.

4 Q Would an example of the treatment of

5 depreciation returns to non-land capital be where the bank

6 accepts interest and renews a note?

7 A Might be the case of that, yeah.

8 Q On the next page, again the sentence handwritten

9 at the bottom, not the correction on the typo above.

10 A Um-hum.

11 Q Would you read that, please?

12 A "Don't have to cover each year, but have to over

13 time to replace equipment."

14 Q Can you tell me what that means?

15 A She again was discussing -- this is on

16 processing costs, so this is on mill costs -- how she was

17 handling depreciation and I frankly don't remember whether

18 the note here is a point she made or whether it was

19 something that was a comment of mine. I agree with the

20 point that I have written down here, I just don't recall

21 whether it's mine or her's.

22 Q A couple of pages further into the document, a

23 page headed with the heading Soil Subsidence.

24 A Right.

25 Q The secondhand written comment, would you read

 

362

 

 

 

1 that for me, please?

2 A "P.B. appraisal district data."

3 Q What does that mean?

4 A This is where she talked about having gotten

5 data from the Palm Beach appraisal district from these

6 plots that they have been monitoring over the years. We

7 talked about this earlier.

8 Q Do you know what form she received the data in?

9 A My impression was she had gotten it in some --

10 on some magnetic medium.

11 Q Other than the medium, was the data raw data

12 from the 120 data sets or had it been processed in some

13 way?

14 A My impression was she had gotten something that

15 was either raw data or real close to raw data, but I'm not

16 telling you I can quote what she said.

17 Q On the next page, the handwritten comments at

18 the bottom, would you read the one to the left, please?

19 A "Examples of additional costs per Snyder, but no

20 budgets."

21 Q Could you explain that?

22 A Yes. She was talking about the fact that on

23 this subsidence issue, she had had conversations with this

24 fellow Snyder, I believe you said it was George Snyder, and

25 that he had given her these examples of how as you got

 

363

 

 

 

1 further down closer to the limestone, that your cost of

2 production would increase and, someone, it might have been

3 me, asked her did he have any estimate of how much. Her

4 answer, as I recall it, was no, that these were just sort

5 of a listing of factors that could be expected to increase,

6 but he didn't have any numbers.

7 Q How would you handle this in your socioeconomic

8 analysis, should you do one?

9 A Well, it goes back to this subsidence analysis

10 and I would have to go out hunting for some assumptions or

11 some actual experience that would tell us how some of these

12 things would go up if we are expecting the subsidence to

13 proceed that far.

14 Q The handwritten comment to the right of that,

15 would you read that for me?

16 A "Need soil maps by type and depth of muck."

17 Q Would this be some of the information you have

18 to go out hunting for to address the --

19 A I think that she said that either Snyder or the

20 district's land department had such maps so, I mean, I

21 think I am making myself a note here that such maps already

22 exist.

23 Q When you say need soil maps by type and depth of

24 muck, why are they needed?

25 A I would think that if we were going to do a

 

364

 

 

 

1 direct farm impacts analysis, that we would want to know

2 that.

3 Q The next page, would you read your handwritten

4 comment, please?

5 A It says "George Snyder".

6 (Luke Exhibit 20 marked for identification.)

7 BY MR. SAXE:

8 Q Dr. Luke, I'm showing you Luke Exhibit 20, do

9 you recognize that document?

10 A Yes.

11 Q Can you identify it for me?

12 A Yes. This is a document out of our files, the

13 first sheet on here is a Xerox of the file folder.

14 Q Absent the file folder cover page, could you

15 identify the main document?

16 A Sure. It's a -- it looks like an article or a

17 reprint of an article from Field Crops Research, called

18 Effect of Prior Rice Culture on Sugar Cane Yields in

19 Florida, by Jose Alvarez and George Snyder.

20 Q Would you turn to the last page, please. The

21 last paragraph reads, "The cultivation of rice on land that

22 would otherwise be fallowed in the EAA had a positive

23 effect on the subsequent yield of the sugar cane plant

24 crop. This effect could be of major economic importance to

25 the sugar cane industry in south Florida and possibly in

 

365

 

 

 

1 other areas of the world where rice can be grown in

2 rotation with sugar cane."

3 This statement, "This effect could be of major

4 economic importance to the sugar can industry in south

5 Florida," do you agree with that?

6 A I have no independent opinion on it.

7 Q How do you plan to address this effect, if at

8 all, in your socioeconomic analysis, should you do one?

9 A Well, I know that rice cultivation is one of the

10 BMP's that has been proposed and I know that there is some

11 controversy about the economic feasibility of that

12 activity. If in an overall cycle there would be different

13 productivity on the cane from a rice interval on the land,

14 then certainly I would think that should be incorporated.

15 Q How would you go about making that evaluation?

16 A I don't know what they say the difference is,

17 but if you think about a cycle of three or four year's

18 worth of cane and then a fallow period where you put in

19 rice, I would think that you would have to show a yield

20 increase factor for that cropping pattern versus one that

21 was just a straight sugar cane with a true fallow period in

22 there.

23 It sounds like you have got two or three

24 possibilities. One is the successive planning, one is the

25 more traditional fallow, and then there is using the rice

 

366

 

 

 

1 as a fallow crop, if that's not a contradiction. Using it

2 in rotation, I guess that's more correct.

3 Q Do you know whether rice may be an alternative

4 crop for sugar cane land?

5 A My understanding is that there are things about

6 the agricultural support program for rice that at least

7 some folks think makes it uneconomical as a straight

8 production crop.

9 Q Does that have something to do with an acreage

10 limitation?

11 A No. I understand from the limited information

12 that I have got right now, that it has to do with the fact

13 that you have got to do it for several years before you can

14 get the support price and get it into the program and that

15 you would incur substantial losses in that entry period.

16 Q Do you know whether rice might be a crop

17 suitable for culture on muck soils of less than six inches

18 depth in the EAA?

19 A That I don't know.

20 Q Do you plan on doing any -- undertaking any

21 further analysis of the economics of rice and the

22 suitability of rice for the EAA, should you undertake a

23 socioeconomic analysis?

24 A It's possible. I think that it depends in part

25 on whether that appears to be a proposed BMP or if we get

 

367

 

 

 

1 into a subsidence alternative whereas you suggest it may be

2 an alternative. I know at that meeting when this came up,

3 nobody at that table seemed to be advancing the proposition

4 that rice would be an economical substitute crop.

5 Q Thank you, Doctor.

6 MR. SAXE: We can take a few minutes break now,

7 if you want.

8 (Brief recess taken.)

9 (Luke Exhibit 21 marked for identification.)

10 BY MR. SAXE:

11 Q Dr. Luke, I'm showing you Exhibit 21. Other

12 than the file folder marking on the cover page, if you turn

13 to the second page, can you identify this document for me?

14 A Yes. This is a document from Larry Leistritz to

15 me concerning a work plan on the EAA study.

16 Q The first sentence says, "Attached is my first

17 cut at a work plan for the next few months."

18 What was this a work plan for specifically?

19 A This would be a work plan for a direct farm

20 impacts and a community impacts study.

21 Q Would you define community impacts study for me?

22 A Well, it would sort of be the rest of the

23 socioeconomic study as we have scoped it for this project,

24 after you get through with the direct farm impacts.

25 Q Which EAA study are you referring to?

 

368

 

 

 

1 A I don't know what you mean.

2 Q I think you said the EAA study, you mean the

3 implementation of the SWIM plan?

4 A Yes.

5 Q The reference to work plan for the next few

6 months, this is a January 6, 1993 memo, when did the

7 project get put on hold, as I think you described it

8 earlier?

9 A After the meeting with Grace Johns.

10 Q That was early February, I believe?

11 A Yes.

12 Q Just briefly, could you tell me a little bit

13 more about the mechanics of the decision to put the project

14 on hold, who made that decision?

15 A Donna Stinson.

16 Q The next sentence, "Let me know what needs to be

17 added, expanded or changed."

18 Did you respond to this inquiry?

19 A I think that there were some other documents we

20 produced to you that address kind of the evolution of this

21 work plan.

22 Q That would have been in the supplemental

23 production made within the last several days?

24 A Probably. Could have been -- some of it could

25 have been in the original.

 

369

 

 

 

1 Q To the best of your recollection, have we

2 reviewed any of those documents during the course of this

3 deposition?

4 A No.

5 Q Do you remember whether you, in your responses

6 to this proposed work plan, did you propose any changes or

7 expansions or additions?

8 A Yes. There was some reordering of tasks in

9 terms of just sort of the project management level. The

10 question of whether we were going to use the FLIPSIM or

11 LOTUS model on the direct impacts came up. There were a

12 number of different things that I would say were modified.

13 Q At the time, had there been an understanding

14 concerning whether you would be including farm financial

15 viability or farm financial survival analysis as part of

16 your direct economic impact analysis?

17 A Really at this stage since we were talking about

18 using FLIPSIM, we assumed we would be looking at both.

19 Q So would it be correct that you were planning on

20 using FLIPSIM in the stochastic mode?

21 A Yes.

22 Q On the next page, on the point labeled Table 1,

23 about the middle of the page, it says, "What has been

24 fueling the population growth in Hendry and Glades

25 Counties? One possibility is retirees."

 

370

 

 

 

1 Do you have any opinions about what has been

2 fueling the population growth in Hendry and Glades Counties

3 at this point?

4 A No.

5 Q Do you know whether any member of the RPC staff

6 working on this project has developed a tentative opinion

7 on that issue?

8 A No.

9 Q I believe you testified earlier that the EAA is

10 a one industry region, something to that effect, referring

11 to agricultural production?

12 A Yes.

13 Q Do you think that the in-migration of retirees

14 might form a significant component of the economic activity

15 in the EAA?

16 A No. I don't believe there was any thought that

17 this -- that the population growth in Hendry or Glades was

18 occurring in portions of those counties that we had

19 designated as lying in the EAA.

20 Q Might fishing, recreational or commercial,

21 comprise some significant degree of economic activity in

22 the EAA?

23 A At the present time it would be my opinion it

24 does not.

25 Q Would the same be true for tourism?

 

371

 

 

 

1 A It would be my opinion it does not.

2 Q On the next page, there's a clause in the middle

3 of that top paragraph that says, "We need to determine the

4 likely effects of NAFTA on sugar and vegetables."

5 What's the status presently of this issue?

6 A Of our work on the issue?

7 Q Yes, that's fine.

8 A Really haven't done anything with it.

9 Q Have you reached any tentative conclusions on

10 the issue?

11 A The conclusion is that it is uncertain enough

12 that we need to handle it through a scenario analysis,

13 rather than trying to make a single assumption about that.

14 Q Moving down to the paragraph numbered 2, it

15 says, "Immigrant cane cutters -- it appears that we should

16 assume a phase-out of these workers under either scenario."

17 In your opinion, would such a phase-out have a

18 tendency to reduce the overall economic impacts of the SWIM

19 implementation, other things being equal?

20 A I don't know that it would. It would change who

21 was impacted, but my understanding is that the cost of

22 mechanical harvesting and of the hand harvesting that uses

23 these migrant cane cutters is similar, so that I don't know

24 that it would make a difference.

25 Q If there isn't a periodic in-migration of

 

372

 

 

 

1 immigrant cane cutters, wouldn't that remove a significant

2 chunk of the possible demographic impacts that would result

3 from implementation -- might result from implementation of

4 the SWIM plan?

5 A My understanding is that the cane cutters are

6 these folks that come in from the Caribbean for a certain

7 number of months a year, live in barracks and leave. I

8 don't really think they are counted in the base population

9 of the EAA.

10 Q That would be the case for the measurement of

11 all aspects of economic impact from the SWIM plan? I

12 believe I mentioned demographic, would that also be the

13 case for employment impacts directly, indirect and induced

14 employment impacts?

15 A The shift is to this mechanical harvesting,

16 which uses less labor, more machines, the workers that are

17 involved are somewhat higher paid. I think the question

18 you asked is one that is worth looking at, but since the

19 baseline data already includes a fairly substantial part of

20 that transition to mechanical harvesting, I don't know how

21 significant the rest of this will be. I mean, we have

22 identified it here as something that we need to take a look

23 at.

24 Q Do you know if they were included in Hazen and

25 Sawyer's baseline?

 

373

 

 

 

1 A Included as population?

2 Q Yes.

3 A Given the years of data that Hazen and Sawyer

4 used, they would be included to probably a greater extent

5 than they would be if the study were done now.

6 Q Were they included in Polopolus' and

7 Richardson's estimates?

8 A I don't know.

9 Q Were they reflected in the baseline of the

10 analysis that you and RPC performed last year based on the

11 Hazen and Sawyer and direct economic impact figures in the

12 Polopolus-Richardson suggested corrections?

13 A You kind of lost me there, I don't know what

14 you're talking about.

15 Q Going back to the document, the following

16 sentence says, "This may require adjustments in our

17 population and employment projections (but we need to check

18 to make sure how these people are reflected in our baseline

19 figures)."

20 What I'm asking you is how were these people

21 reflected in the baseline figures of what Dr. Leistritz

22 referred to as phase one analysis or analysis that was done

23 last year before any decisions were made to suggest

24 supplementation with a more expansive socioeconomic impact

25 analysis?

 

374

 

 

 

1 A I believe what he is referring to are the tables

2 that I have used to refresh my memory a couple of times

3 during the deposition and that is census data and I read

4 this that he is saying we need to check and see if these

5 folks would have been picked up in the census counts in

6 that area, because that's what would be in baseline

7 population figures for the current time, not for forecasts.

8 Q Let's move from this document for a moment.

9 (Luke Exhibit 22 marked for identification.)

10 BY MR. SAXE:

11 Q Dr. Luke, I'm showing you Exhibit Number 22, can

12 you identify that document for me?

13 A I'm not sure I can.

14 Q You're not sure whether you have ever seen this

15 before?

16 A Well, I may have seen it before.

17 Q The document describes a significant work effort

18 in some detail, it appears to be correlated with a good

19 number of tables and other data, other result reports that

20 were produced as part of yours and Dr. Leistritz'

21 production. Dr. Leistritz, I believe, indicated that this

22 was either the report on the phase one work or some work

23 done immediately subsequent, but I got the impression that

24 it was the major portion of whatever independent economic

25 analysis RPC has undertaken thus far in preparing for the

 

375

 

 

 

1 case.

2 If you don't recognize the specific draft of the

3 document, but you recognize the statements and the subject

4 matter and the rest of it, then maybe we will just move

5 into the body of the document, because I do have a

6 significant number of questions I want to ask you about

7 this work.

8 A Okay, I'm not the author of the document. It

9 looks like something that RPC produced. As to when it was

10 produced, I don't know, it doesn't appear to be dated, but

11 it does look like something that we corporately produced.

12 Q Looking at the beginning of the document, Roman

13 Numeral I, about six lines down, part of the sentence

14 reads, "No analysis of community impacts was undertaken by

15 Hazen and Sawyer." Do you see where I'm referring to?

16 A Yes.

17 Q Is that statement correct so far as you know?

18 A As far as I know.

19 Q And that community impact, as you explained

20 earlier, that would be the portion of a socioeconomic

21 impact analysis that picks up where an economic impact

22 analysis -- no, where the direct economic impacts leave off

23 or would it be where the economic impact analysis leaves

24 off?

25 A I think that the statements here are saying that

 

376

 

 

 

1 even if we're going to limit this to an economic impact

2 analysis, that the study area that they have defined to

3 look at the economic impacts is too broad for the primary

4 area, so this is not the boundary of economic versus

5 boundary of socioeconomic question. This is saying even if

6 you want to define this as a pure economic impact analysis,

7 that it needs to look at the impacts on the EAA and the

8 communities that make up the EAA.

9 Q Does a community impact analysis imply an

10 analysis including public service impacts, demographic

11 impacts, fiscal impacts, social impacts?

12 A Not necessarily. I have used it in working on

13 this project to distinguish direct farm impacts from

14 impacts on the communities in the study area. I don't

15 think that is a standard term in the literature, it's just

16 something I have used as a shorthand to distinguish what I

17 consider the two main pieces of this effort.

18 Q As you have used it then, in a socioeconomic

19 impact analysis, if one were going to identify the

20 community impact component, it would be everything except

21 the direct on farm impacts?

22 A Yes. It would be that whether you were doing an

23 economic or a socioeconomic analysis.

24 Q Okay. The next sentence, "We contend that it is

25 grossly deficient for an economic impact assessment to

 

377

 

 

 

1 disregard the consequences of an economic shock to a region

2 on that region's communities. In support of our position,

3 we have undertaken a preliminary analysis of the economic

4 impacts of the Surface Water Improvement and Management

5 plan that considers the community impacts associated with

6 the SWIM plan."

7 Do you know what that analysis of economic

8 impacts that has been undertaken by RPC refers to?

9 A The material that's reported in this document, I

10 assume.

11 Q And nothing more?

12 A There would be, I would assume, some

13 calculations and things that would have gone into the

14 preparation of this document.

15 Q Dr. Luke, referring back to the chronology that

16 you helped to outline in the beginning of your testimony

17 yesterday, was there a work effort that was undertaken

18 early on in RPC's involvement in this case, taking direct

19 economic impact values from the Hazen and Sawyer 10 year

20 study and from suggested adjustments made by Polopolus and

21 Richardson in public presentations, and then attempting to

22 derive additional secondary impact information from them,

23 including any or all of the ones you have discussed over

24 the last two days, public service, fiscal, demographic, et

25 cetera?

 

378

 

 

 

1 A There was some analysis done prior to October

2 23rd.

3 Q I believe that's what Dr. Leistritz was

4 referring to as phase one. If that's not a handy

5 shorthand, I would happily find another one, but were

6 written results produced showing -- quantifying secondary

7 economic impacts from that work effort?

8 A Dr. Leistritz drafted that and did that work in

9 North Dakota. I saw the text that he forwarded to me for

10 inclusion, but in terms of, you know, any supporting

11 documentation that he had for that, I don't recall seeing

12 it.

13 Q When you say inclusion, would that be inclusion

14 in your recommended comments on the Hazen and Sawyer 10

15 year draft that were sent through counsel and publicly

16 delivered?

17 A No. I mean the October 23rd document that we

18 prepared in the belief that it was necessary to make a

19 preliminary statement of opinions.

20 Q Have we reviewed that October 23rd document

21 during the course of this deposition?

22 A No.

23 Q Do you understand that that document was

24 reviewed during the course of Dr. Leistritz' deposition?

25 A Yes.

 

379

 

 

 

1 Q The last sentence in this paragraph says, "This

2 analysis includes use of the baseline and policy scenarios

3 described in the Hazen and Sawyer final report, as well as

4 adjustments to the scenarios proposed by Richardson and

5 Polopolus."

6 Do you know what the policy scenarios are?

7 A Yes. It refers to the four scenarios used by

8 Hazen and Sawyer in their report.

9 Q Those four scenarios would be the baseline, the

10 STA removal, the BMP implementation, and then which of the

11 three levels of per acre assessment, I'm not sure, I don't

12 count four?

13 A If you look on the second page, your Bates 64,

14 under 1 (a), I think we have a definition of scenarios.

15 Q Those would be the policy scenarios, except for

16 the baseline scenario, or would they all be the policy

17 scenarios?

18 A No. I think you have got the baseline there and

19 four policy scenarios.

20 Q Okay, thank you.

21 The statement that I read a moment ago back

22 on the first page refers to the adjustments to the

23 scenarios proposed by Richardson and Polopolus, you

24 understand those to be the corrections so-called

25 presented by Dr. Polopolus in public presentations

 

380

 

 

 

1 concerning under-estimation -- alleged under-estimation

2 of impacts by Hazen and Sawyer?

3 A Right, and specifically those that they

4 presented on August 7th. I think they have subsequently

5 presented others.

6 Q Do you have an opinion about whether those

7 adjustments were correct?

8 A No, I haven't reviewed them. We simply have

9 treated them as a range of impact scenarios, direct farm

10 impact scenarios.

11 Q The next paragraph says, "In addition, our

12 preliminary findings are based in part on a re-definition

13 of the EAA study area that includes the municipalities of

14 Moore Haven, Clewiston, Belle Glade, Pahokee, and South

15 Bay."

16 Can you tell me more precisely what the

17 boundaries of the redefined EAA study area were?

18 A I can. Why don't I just give you this as an

19 answer to your question (indicating).

20 Q Thank you.

21 (Luke Exhibit 23 marked for identification.)

22 MR. SAXE: Let the record reflect that Exhibit

23 23 memorializes Dr. Luke's response to the question of

24 the re-definition of the boundaries of the EAA study

25 area.

 

381

 

 

 

1 BY MR. SAXE:

2 Q Can you explain to me how those boundaries were

3 determined?

4 A Yes. By map analysis and comparing census tract

5 maps to various maps showing the cane production areas, the

6 EAA as it's defined as a regulated area, and coming up with

7 what we felt was a reasonable set of census tracts that

8 cover Clewiston.

9 Q When you've referred to the regulated area, you

10 have, I think, referred to the sugar cane production area;

11 relating it to the Hazen and Sawyer study area, is it the

12 same regulated area that Hazen and Sawyer assumed?

13 A It include -- well, they didn't assume it. The

14 regulated area is a legal definition and these census

15 tracts include that regulated area. They also include some

16 areas that are integrally related to the EAA, such as the

17 city of Clewiston, but which I believe are not, technically

18 speaking, in the regulated area.

19 Q Were they excluded by Hazen and Sawyer from the

20 study area?

21 A Clewiston is actually in Hendry County, if I'm

22 not mistaken, so that it would not be part of Palm Beach

23 County and I believe they looked at a three county area in

24 some of their analysis. There are different areas on

25 different pieces of their analysis and I don't think there

 

382

 

 

 

1 is any disagreement that Clewiston's economic future would

2 be affected by what happens to agriculture in the EAA.

3 Q So what criteria were used, as far as you know,

4 to select those census tracts that lie outside the

5 regulated area that would be included within the study

6 area, redefined study area?

7 A It would be areas of cane production that go to

8 the mills and it would be areas in which mills are located

9 or like city of Clewiston, in which EAA cane is milled.

10 Q So only cities outside of cane production area

11 -- only cities containing mills would be included in the

12 redefined study area?

13 A Yeah. I would have to look to know if there is

14 actually a mill in Clewiston city limits, but we included

15 Clewiston because of its rather obvious ties to the economy

16 of the EAA.

17 Q The next sentence says, "Demographic projections

18 for the redefined study area were used as inputs for the

19 fiscal model used to estimate the impacts of the baseline

20 and four policy scenarios."

21 Could you explain that briefly to me?

22 A Yes. I believe that using the BEBR county level

23 models, that there was some rather simple demographic

24 projections that were made and these were used in the

25 looking at the tax and public facility and service demands.

 

383

 

 

 

1 Q Was West Palm Beach included in the redefined

2 study area?

3 A No.

4 Q What would be the basis for including Clewiston,

5 but excluding West Palm Beach from the redefined study

6 area?

7 A Well, it's a concept of dependencies. If we

8 wipe out agriculture in the EAA, my sense is that that will

9 have a very devastating effect on Clewiston. I don't think

10 that it would have a particularly devastating effect on

11 West Palm Beach.

12 Q Do you know where the Cooperative's headquarters

13 are located?

14 A They have a small office with, I think, one

15 full-time employee in West Palm Beach that I have been to.

16 I think for practical purposes their headquarters are at

17 the mill in Belle Glade.

18 Q And how about U.S. Sugar Corporation?

19 A Clewiston. Not to say that they don't have an

20 office in West Palm but, I mean, their headquarters is in

21 Clewiston.

22 Q The next section down, Roman Numeral II,

23 subsection 1, Direct Farm Level Impacts, the second or

24 third, however you count, third line down, the sentence

25 begins, "The RIMS model was used to estimate indirect and

 

384

 

 

 

1 induced impacts based on direct farm level impact estimates

2 for the scenarios used by Hazen and Sawyer and the

3 corrections recommended by Richardson and Polopolus. The

4 Hazen and Sawyer study under-estimated every measure of

5 economic impact (i.e., acreage in production, employment,

6 sales, and job income) by a factor of three to four, when

7 compared against the corrected model and assumptions

8 suggested by Polopolus."

9 I believe you testified earlier that the use of

10 the words corrected model and assumption suggested by

11 Polopolus is not a characterization that you would adopt?

12 A I -- yeah, I mean, if you wanted to say

13 alternate, I believe he in some of the view graphs and all,

14 it's styled as a corrected, but it's an alternate model and

15 assumptions.

16 Q So the previous statement that Hazen and Sawyer

17 under-estimated every measure of economic impact, is only a

18 statement comparing the estimates to those suggested by

19 Polopolus, but not expressing an opinion that objectively

20 speaking they were under-estimated?

21 A I think the sentence says when compared and I

22 have not made any independent direct farm impacts analysis,

23 so that I can't really tell you which one is the more

24 correct.

25 Q When RPC applied RIMS to the Hazen and Sawyer

 

385

 

 

 

1 scenarios without adjusting Hazen and Sawyer's direct

2 impact as suggested by Richardson and Polopolus, do you

3 know how the results compared with Hazen and Sawyer's?

4 A When we did what?

5 Q When you applied RIMS to the Hazen and Sawyer's

6 scenarios without adjusting the direct economic impact

7 quantifications as suggested by Polopolus and Richardson,

8 how did the results compare with Hazen and Sawyer's in

9 terms of induced and indirect impacts?

10 A As you can tell here, we used a scaled down set

11 of multipliers, that would mean that the total indirect and

12 induced impacts would be less in absolute terms, however,

13 when applied against the total economy of the EAA as the

14 denominator, the percentage impact would be much greater.

15 Q Why was the scaling undertaken?

16 A We had this discussion earlier. That the size

17 of the EAA economy is such that you would not expect the

18 multipliers to be as large as they would be for the Palm

19 Beach County economy.

20 Q How was this scaling accomplished?

21 MS. STINSON: Objection, asked and answered.

22 MR. SAXE: I believe that testimony was given

23 concerning the use of an Okeechobee County multiplier,

24 not involving sugar production and I don't believe

25 that a significant amount of elaboration was given,

 

386

 

 

 

1 I'm asking now for some elaboration.

2 A Dr. Leistritz did it and I have not reviewed the

3 exact computations that he went through.

4 BY MR. SAXE:

5 Q Dr. Luke, in the output from this work effort,

6 there were, I believe, four Hazen and Sawyer -- there were

7 four output runs based on the Hazen and Sawyer policy

8 scenarios using an adjusted RIMS multiplier and there were

9 two pertaining to the adjusted Hazen and Sawyer direct

10 economic impact numbers using an adjusted RIMS multiplier.

11 Was there anywhere where the comparison was made between

12 the output of the adjusted run on the Hazen and Sawyer

13 numbers versus the Hazen and Sawyer RIMS output?

14 A I don't know that there would have been. I

15 don't know why we would have done that.

16 Q How did you determine that the results were

17 lower and the degree to which they were lower?

18 A Well, if you hold the direct farm impacts

19 constant and you use smaller multipliers and you multiply

20 them, then the result is going to be smaller.

21 Q Okay, I understand. Would you turn to the next

22 page, Bates page 64.

23 A Okay.

24 Q About four lines down a sentence begins, from

25 the top of the page, "In terms of the numbers of businesses

 

387

 

 

 

1 estimated to be lost under the study scenarios, the

2 estimates range from seven businesses lost under the

3 baseline to 112 business lost under the scenario that

4 considers development of the STA's, implementation of

5 BMP's, and a $100 per acre assessment, with adjustments

6 made as suggested by Polopolus."

7 Do you know what the estimated business loss was

8 when Hazen and Sawyer's estimates of direct impacts were

9 used without adjustments as suggested by Polopolus and

10 Richardson?

11 A I think it's whatever is in their report.

12 Q Their report refers to whose report, Hazen and

13 Sawyer's report?

14 A Yes. I think this paragraph is just summarizing

15 the range of projections that are in the Hazen and Sawyer

16 and Polopolus materials. I don't think it reflects any

17 additional analysis on RPC's part.

18 Q It does not reflect the effect of the adjusted

19 multipliers?

20 A I don't think so.

21 Q Dr. Luke, if I could refer you back to Exhibit

22 21.

23 A Okay.

24 Q Dr. Luke, on page 2 of this document, the page

25 numbered 2 at the bottom, paragraph number 3 reads, "Loss

 

388

 

 

 

1 of agricultural land due to oxidation -- need to check with

2 Jeff Ward re. appropriate assumptions."

3 I believe we discussed this earlier, if I recall

4 your testimony, you would propose to handle this in any

5 socioeconomic impact analysis you did using a number of

6 different assumptions -- rather a number of different

7 scenarios based on different assumptions about oxidation,

8 is that correct?

9 A Yes.

10 Q So that's the status presently of the decision

11 on how to proceed with this issue?

12 A Yes.

13 Q The next numbered paragraph, the sentence

14 starts, "What indicators do we need to project?"

15 What is the status of your deliberations

16 concerning the appropriate indicators to be projected in a

17 socioeconomic impact analysis for the SWIM plan

18 implementation?

19 A Well --

20 Q Let me clarify. Have you reached any

21 conclusions about what indicators need to be projected?

22 A I think that certainly the ones listed here

23 would be there, also the school age population, local

24 government costs and revenues. I think there would

25 certainly be some separate analysis of the seasonal and

 

389

 

 

 

1 migrant population. I think there would be some separate

2 assessment of the changes in ownership that would be

3 expected. Some of the population projections would be some

4 age and sex, some employment, some sectoral, rather than

5 just a total population number. Probably some projections

6 on retail and service businesses. I mean, there's some

7 other things that come up that you project as intermediate

8 results in order to get to one of your major indicators.

9 Q In terms of your ultimate indicators, are there

10 any others that come to mind?

11 A Income would be one, output in terms of sales or

12 revenues for the businesses in the area.

13 Q How about vulnerable populations, as you put it

14 earlier, going beyond those that you have mentioned just

15 now in terms of migrant workers and I believe a few others

16 that you mentioned?

17 A I don't know of a particular indicator that we

18 would be projecting. It seems to me that that's more

19 taking the numbers we project and then trying to do some

20 logical analysis on what that would mean for those

21 vulnerable populations.

22 Q The paragraph immediately following the indented

23 items, "To support projections of agricultural land use, we

24 should probably prepare a table showing current and recent

25 past agricultural land use in the study area counties."

 

390

 

 

 

1 What is meant by projections of agricultural

2 land use?

3 A Well, acres by crop.

4 Q Acreage going out of production or is this

5 referring to a change in crop mix in the EAA, I'm not sure

6 I'm following you?

7 A Could be either, but what this is saying is in

8 order to have a starting point, we need to assemble that

9 information as it currently is and has been over the last

10 few years.

11 Q So is it contemplated that as part of the

12 analysis that would be done, there would be projections of

13 changing crop mixes in the EAA?

14 A Yes. It says that right up there, "EAA

15 agricultural land use (acres by crop)."

16 Q What's been done thus far on that aspect of the

17 analysis?

18 A We have obtained the appraisal tapes for the

19 three counties and it's my understanding that there is

20 information on those appraisal tapes that will let us

21 assemble that information.

22 Q Two paragraphs down it reads, "My thought

23 regarding total employment and total population is to use

24 the BEBR projections as a point of departure."

25 Do you know what that refers to, BEBR

 

391

 

 

 

1 projections?

2 A Sure. Those are the official state population

3 projections for Florida.

4 Q What is BEBR an acronym for?

5 A Bureau of Economic and Business Research.

6 Q The bottom of this page says, "The basic

7 procedure will be to use the FLIPSIM model to analyze the

8 farm level or direct impacts of various alternatives

9 (STA's, assessment levels, BMP's) and then use the RIMS

10 model to analyze secondary economic impacts."

11 Does that include the use of FLIPSIM to analyze

12 farm financial survival?

13 A Yes.

14 Q Number 2 beneath that, "Determine how we plug

15 FLIPSIM output into RIMS."

16 Do you know whether any determination has been

17 made on that issue?

18 A Really nothing particular I can tell you.

19 Q Do you know what gets plugged into RIMS, what

20 output from FLIPSIM gets plugged into RIMS?

21 A It's the value output of the farm enterprises.

22 Q Point number 4, "Determine how to handle the

23 sugar mills. What is the effect on their employment, et

24 cetera, of a drop in sugar acres?"

25 What is the status of this issue, the work on

 

392

 

 

 

1 this issue?

2 A I don't know that Larry has done anything on

3 that.

4 Q Do you know whether anything is contemplated if

5 the analysis should go forward?

6 A Well, I think one question is whether one just

7 goes with the multiplier analysis in RIMS, which you could

8 get an indication of employment drop on that. I would

9 think that one would want to sort of field check that with

10 some of the mill operators to see how in fact they do

11 respond to a lower run of sugar.

12 Q Would that methodology apply also to the

13 refineries and the port facility?

14 A I think you would take a little more direct

15 interviewing in order to get that because, as I said, I

16 think those are -- certainly a port facility is lumped in

17 with a lot of other things and so I don't think that I

18 would be comfortable relying solely on a RIMS analysis to

19 look at change in employment there.

20 Q How about the refineries?

21 A I don't recall which sector they are in and it

22 would be a matter of whether that sector were specific

23 enough to them to feel like you could rely on it. It would

24 also be a matter of whether the drop in output was so great

25 that you wouldn't expect a linear response. There would be

 

393

 

 

 

1 some sort of interviewing with the refinery operators, in

2 any event. I don't know how much you could rely on RIMS

3 and how much you would have to do a more detailed analysis.

4 Q Would you expect them to be in a different

5 sector than the mills?

6 A Yes.

7 Q Point 5 (b), "Evaluate likely percentage of

8 construction workers that might be hired locally,

9 percentage of materials purchased within EAA, et cetera."

10 Can you tell me what the status of work on this

11 issue is?

12 A We haven't done anything with it.

13 Q The next point, 6, "Determine how to convert FTE

14 employment to number of people (how did Polopolus and

15 Richardson do it?)."

16 Can you tell me why there would be an interest

17 in converting FTE employment to number of people?

18 A Sure. As we have discussed, there are an awful

19 lot of seasonal and migrant workers, agricultural workers

20 in the EAA. From interviews that I have done, I know that

21 the employment on a lot of those people in sugar runs maybe

22 four to six months a year and then they migrate out of the

23 area to do agricultural work during other portions of the

24 year and then show back up in the summer and a lot of them

25 draw unemployment for a couple of months, so that county

 

394

 

 

 

1 FTE's here is going to be misleading in terms of the number

2 of individuals, households affected on those agricultural

3 workers. One of the things I talked to you about a little

4 bit yesterday was the idea that if you take away the sugar

5 job, it sort of cuts these people adrift, in that this is

6 their base, which they then supplement with migrant labor,

7 so it will have a much greater impact. This is not true

8 of, you know, necessarily that it matters whether you use

9 FTE's or people if we are talking about local government

10 employees or utility company employees, but in this

11 agricultural worker area, it appears to be a significant

12 issue.

13 Q How do you keep this consistent with income and

14 output multipliers?

15 A Well, I think that what one would look at here

16 is that you have got income sort of proportionate to -- if

17 the income for an FTE would serve the same as 12 months a

18 year employment, let's say that we determine it's six month

19 per year jobs, so you say one FTE equals two jobs. I think

20 you would also say the income to one FTE is divided in two

21 and is received by the two different workers.

22 Q Do input/output models assume FTE's?

23 A Generally they do and generally in most sectors

24 that's not a bad assumption.

25 Q How would the conversions you are describing be

 

395

 

 

 

1 handled in the analysis?

2 A I think that it would just have to be a series

3 of equations or steps in the analysis where for employees

4 and income in certain sectors, that that was converted into

5 jobs or into people.

6 Q Point number 8 says, "Determine how far we need

7 to go in projecting changes in population, school

8 enrollment, other demands on public services, et cetera."

9 What was meant by how far we need to go?

10 A How much detail, which public facilities and

11 services do we think might be affected enough to go in and

12 make a projection.

13 Q Dr. Polopolus, turning for a minute to --

14 A No, I'm Luke.

15 Q Excuse me, Dr. Luke, I'm sorry.

16 Turning a minute to the 20 year Hazen and Sawyer

17 economic impact study, will you be reviewing that study?

18 A I think so.

19 Q Have you been asked to review it when it's

20 completed?

21 A Yes.

22 Q Have you been asked to advise the Cooperative

23 about the accuracy and correctness of the results of the

24 study?

25 A I think the instruction has been a little more

 

396

 

 

 

1 general than that. To take a look at it, analyze it, and

2 then discuss it with him to determine sort of where we go

3 from there.

4 Q Will you be giving input to the Cooperative that

5 they will be using to determine whether or not to, as you

6 put it, take the project off hold or commission a more full

7 blown socioeconomic analysis?

8 A Yes.

9 Q It's true, isn't it, that RPC is in a position

10 to do the socioeconomic analysis that the Co-op might elect

11 to request based on their evaluation of the Hazen and

12 Sawyer 20 year study?

13 A When you say in a position, I don't understand.

14 Q That you have proposed, either formally or

15 informally, to undertake that socioeconomic analysis for

16 the Cooperative?

17 A RPC and its subcontractors would have the

18 capability to do that, yes.

19 Q Are there subcontractors that we haven't

20 discussed during the course of these last two days?

21 A Well, Leistritz is a subcontractor.

22 Q If your evaluation of the 20 year study

23 determines that there are defects in that study and you

24 advise the Co-op of those opinions and the Co-op elects to

25 proceed with the socioeconomic impact analysis that you are

 

397

 

 

 

1 presently contemplating, in such circumstances, do you have

2 any estimate of how many person hours of work would be

3 required to complete that analysis?

4 A Well, as your question suggests, part of this is

5 dependent upon how much of the Hazen and Sawyer analysis we

6 are comfortable in relying upon. I would say it also

7 depend in part on what role the League chooses to take in

8 this aspect of the case, which is something I don't know.

9 Q Have you prepared any estimates of project

10 costs, the costs for your services to the Co-op for the

11 various different levels of socio and economic impact

12 analysis that might be undertaken after the 20 year study

13 comes out?

14 A Yes.

15 Q Can you give me some ranges of costs for the

16 services that you would provide for the socioeconomic

17 impact analysis from the most expansive, namely a full

18 analysis, using none of Hazen and Sawyer's results,

19 including their direct economic impact, down to the more

20 limited projects using bigger pieces of the Hazen and

21 Sawyer analysis?

22 A Assuming that their community as opposed to

23 their farm impacts aren't any different than they were in

24 the first report, so that we would have to do pretty much a

25 complete community impact analysis, my estimate of that is

 

398

 

 

 

1 it's in the $50,000 to $80,000 range; and my estimate on

2 the direct farm level, if we have to do that and are not

3 able to just take their scenarios and plug them in, is a

4 similar range.

5 MS. STINSON: Keith --

6 MR. SAXE: I just have one or two more questions

7 on this.

8 THE WITNESS: No, I'm out of here.

9 MS. STINSON: There isn't any leeway on it.

10 MR. SAXE: For the record before we adjourn, the

11 deposition is not concluded, it is a continuing

12 deposition and the United States reserves its right to

13 conclude the deposition on a date scheduled in the

14 future.

15 (Deposition adjourned at 4:00 p.m.)

16 * * * * *

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

 

399

 

 

 

1 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER

2 STATE OF FLORIDA:

3 COUNTY OF LEON:

4 I, TERRY WILHELMI, Certified Shorthand Reporter

5 and Notary Public in and for the State of Florida at Large:

6 DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings

7 were taken before me at the time and place therein

8 designated; that before testimony was taken, the witness

9 was duly sworn; that my shorthand notes were thereafter

10 transcribed under my supervision; and the foregoing pages

11 numbered _______through _______are a true and correct

12 record of the aforesaid proceedings.

13 I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am not a relative,

14 employee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor

15 relative or employee of such attorney or counsel, or

16 financially interested in the foregoing action.

17 WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL this, the _____day of

18 _________, 1993, IN THE CITY OF TALLAHASSEE, COUNTY OF

19 LEON, STATE OF FLORIDA.

20

21 ________________________

TERRY WILHELMI, CSR

22 100 Salem Court

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

23 (904) 878-2221

24

My Commission Expires: June 13, 1994

25