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