00001

1 STATE OF FLORIDA

3 DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

5 SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE OF FLORIDA,

6 a Florida Agricultural Cooperative Marketing

7 Association, ROTH FARMS, INC., and WEDGWORTH

8 FARMS, INC.,

9 Vol. 1

10 and Case Nos:

11 92-3038

12 92-3039

13 92-3040

14 FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, INC.; UNITED

15 STATES SUGAR CORPORATION; and NEW HOPE SOUTH,

16 INC.,

18 and (Continued.)

19 ---------------------------------------/

20 DEPONENT: DR. ROBERT KADLEC

21 REPORTER: Amy C. Ardin, CSR/3593

22 DATE: Monday, March 22, 1993

23 TIME: 9:00 a.m.

24 LOCATION: 3200 Boardwalk

25 Ann Arbor, Michigan

00002

1 FLORIDA FRUIT AND VEGETABLE ASSOCIATION,

2 LEWIS POPE FARMS, W.E. SCHLECHTER & SONS, INC.,

3 and HUNDLEY FARMS, INC.,

5 Petitioners,

7 -vs-

9 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT,

10 an Agency of the State of Florida,

12 Respondent,

14 and

16 MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS OF FLORIDA,

17 The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and the

18 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL

19 REGULATION,

21 Intervenors,

22 ---------------------------------------------/

00003

1 APPEARANCES:

3 MR. GARY V. PERKO

4 Hopping, Boyd, Green & Sams

5 123 South Calhoun Street

6 Post Office Box 6526

7 Tallahassee, Florida 32314

8 (904) 222-7500

9 Appearing on behalf of

10 the Petitioners Sugar Cane

11 Growers Cooperative of Florida;

12 and Roth Farms, Inc.

14 MR. RICK J. BURGESS

15 Peeples, Earl & Blank

16 One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3636

17 Two South Biscayne Boulevard

18 Miami, Florida 33131

19 (305) 358-3000

20 Appearing on behalf of

21 the Petitioners Florida Sugar

22 Cane League, Inc.; New Hope

23 South, Inc.; and United States

24 Sugar Corporation.

25 (Appearances continued.)

00004

1 MR. DANIEL J. McGRATH

2 Popham, Haik, Schnobrich & Kaufman, Ltd.

3 4000 International Place

4 10 S.E. Second Street

5 Miami, Florida 33131

6 (305) 530-0050

7 Appearing on behalf of

8 the Respondent South Florida

9 Water Management District.

11 MR. GEOFFREY GARVER

12 US Department of Justice

13 Environmental & National Resources Division

14 General Litigation Section

15 PO Box 663

16 Washington, D.C. 20044

17 (202) 272-4692

18 Appearing on behalf of

19 the Intervenors United States

20 of America.

22 Also present: Mr. Curtis J. Richardson

00005

1 I N D E X

3 WITNESS PAGE

5 Dr. Robert Kadlec

7 Examination by Mr. Burgess 6

15 E X H I B I T S

17 NUMBER IDENTIFICATION PAGE

19 Ex. No. 1 Vitae 10

20 Ex. No. 2 Document 53

00006

1 Ann Arbor, Michigan

2 Monday, March 22, 1993

3 9:00 a.m.

4 * * *

5 D R. R O B E R T K A D L E C

6 was thereupon called as a witness herein, and after

7 having first been duly sworn to tell the truth, the

8 whole truth, and nothing but the truth, was examined

9 and testified as follows:

10 E X A M I N A T I O N

11 BY MR. BURGESS:

12 Q. Good morning, Dr. Kadlec.

13 A. Good morning.

14 Q. Could you state your full name and give us

15 your working address for the record, please.

16 A. Robert Henry Kadlec, my working address is

17 Department of Chemical Engineering, University of

18 Michigan.

19 Q. Dr. Kadlec, as you know, my name is Rick

20 Burgess, and I represent the Florida Sugar Cane

21 League, United States Sugar Corporation and New Hope

22 South in this matter.

23 I would like you to tell me when you

24 don't understand one of my questions so that I'll

25 have an opportunity to rephrase it; otherwise, I'll

00007

1 assume that you understood the question I asked,

2 okay? Fair enough?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Have you been deposed before, sir?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. How many times?

7 A. I believe it's three.

8 Q. Were those instances in Michigan?

9 A. They were.

10 Q. And were they trials or administrative

11 matters?

12 A. I'm not sure I understand the difference.

13 Q. Do you understand that the SWIM Plan

14 challenge that we're involved with here today is a

15 matter pending in a division of administrative

16 hearings in Florida?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Do you understand that to be different than

19 a state court or a federal court?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. That's the distinction I was attempting to

22 draw.

23 The three times that you had been

24 deposed, were those matters pending in an

25 administrative arena or in a court arena?

00008

1 A. In a court arena then.

2 Q. Approximately when was the last time you

3 were deposed?

4 A. Approximately 18 months ago.

5 Q. And what was the subject matter of the

6 action?

7 A. The subject matter of that action was the

8 fate of PCBs, polychlorinated biphenyl, in the

9 concrete of a building in New Jersey.

10 Q. And had that matter proceeded to trial?

11 A. I do not know.

12 Q. Were you deposed as an expert?

13 A. I was not.

14 Q. In what capacity were you deposed?

15 A. I was deposed because I had done

16 significant research for one of the litigants.

17 Q. As a consultant?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. You were not qualified then as an expert in

20 the matter?

21 A. I was not designated as an expert witness

22 in that matter.

23 Q. Did you understand yourself to be a fact

24 witness?

25 A. I wouldn't have known the distinction at

00009

1 that point.

2 Q. And you don't know whether you'd been

3 qualified -- I'm sorry, you don't know whether you'd

4 been designated as an expert in that matter?

5 A. I was not to my knowledge designated as an

6 expert.

7 Q. Tell me about the other two instances,

8 however it's easier for you. The more recent one

9 first, that will be fine.

10 A. Both instances were virtually identical.

11 Q. Both previous instances?

12 A. Yes. They both concerned the exposure of

13 telephone conduit sheaths to gasoline and utility

14 corridors. The testimony I gave related to the

15 impact of gasoline on those telephone cables.

16 Q. And where were those matters? I'm sorry,

17 strike that.

18 Were they the same case, was it the

19 same case?

20 A. It was not the same case. They were

21 similar cases. I had done work for Michigan Bell in

22 the laboratory and was deposed as to my findings.

23 Q. And did either of those matters proceed to

24 trial?

25 A. I'm unaware whether they did or not.

00010

1 Q. So you have not been qualified in a court

2 of law as an expert in any instance, is that --

3 MR. GARVER: Object to the form. I

4 just -- I think "qualify" is a vague word.

5 Q. Have you been tendered as an expert on any

6 subject in a court of law?

7 A. No.

8 Q. Other than the SWIM Plan that we are

9 concerned with, to your knowledge, are you designated

10 as a potential expert witness in any other matter?

11 A. No.

12 Q. Have you ever been a plaintiff or a

13 defendant in a lawsuit?

14 A. No.

15 Q. Those two instances with Michigan Bell,

16 those were depositions, is that correct?

17 A. That's correct.

18 Q. And was it -- I'm sorry, I can't tell from

19 my notes. Was it your testimony that those matters

20 did not proceed to trial?

21 A. I'm unaware if they proceeded to trial.

22 Q. I see.

23 (Deposition Exhibit No. 1

24 marked for identification.)

25 Q. Let me show you what we'll mark as Exhibit

00011

1 Number 1, Petitioners' No. 1, and ask you if that's

2 the most recent copy of your vitae?

3 A. No, I believe there has been an update to

4 this document dated March, 1993.

5 MR. BURGESS: Can we get a copy of

6 that, Geff?

7 MR. GARVER: Sure.

8 Q. Has it changed substantively?

9 A. It has not.

10 Q. What would be the nature of the update or

11 updates?

12 A. I would have updated such items as the

13 publications list, list of people I was doing

14 consulting with, and so forth.

15 Q. You're presently a professor in the

16 chemical engineering department at the University of

17 Michigan, is that correct?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And you received your appointment as

20 professor in 1970, is that correct?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. For the record, tell us where and when you

23 received your degrees.

24 A. I received my bachelor's degree in chemical

25 engineering at the University of Wisconsin in 1958; I

00012

1 received my master's in chemical engineering, 1959;

2 and my PhD in chemical engineering, University of

3 Michigan, 1962.

4 Q. Have you taught at the University of

5 Michigan since receiving your PhD?

6 A. I have.

7 Q. And has that teaching appointment been

8 continuous since that time?

9 A. It has.

10 Q. What courses are you presently teaching?

11 A. I'm teaching a course in mathematical

12 modeling.

13 Q. Any others?

14 A. No.

15 Q. Any labs?

16 A. No.

17 Q. Is that just this semester or this year

18 that you're teaching only mathematical modeling?

19 A. That is this semester and this year.

20 Q. How about last year, what courses did you

21 teach?

22 A. None.

23 Q. The year before?

24 A. I would have to think about that.

25 The year before would have been

00013

1 mathematical modeling, and I believe that may have

2 been all.

3 Q. Were you on sabbatical last year?

4 A. I was not.

5 Q. Why didn't you teach?

6 A. I had took a reduced appointment and also

7 engaged in significant research.

8 Q. And was that research involving the

9 Everglades?

10 A. The University research was not involving

11 the Everglades.

12 Q. What University research did you do during

13 the time that you were not teaching last year?

14 A. I need to clarify what you mean by year

15 because I don't know if you mean calendar year or

16 academic year.

17 Q. Okay. I'm going on the basis of academic

18 year because you told me last year you didn't teach,

19 I suppose, during the academic years. I'm trying to

20 find out what you did last year and what occupied

21 your time.

22 A. Okay. I have ongoing research at several

23 sites; the primary research in that year would have

24 been at the Des Plaines River wetland demonstration

25 site. The research was a USEPA project.

00014

1 Q. The Des Plaines USEPA or that's -- those

2 are two things?

3 A. Yes -- it's one thing.

4 Q. And how much of your time during last

5 academic year did you spend on your Des Plaines site?

6 How much research time?

7 A. We don't count hours or months.

8 Q. Percentage-wise?

9 MR. GARVER: And you're still talking

10 about the academic year from --

11 Q. It would have been the '91-'92 academic

12 year, right?

13 A. Correct.

14 That would have occupied something

15 like 15 percent of my time.

16 Q. Research time or all your time since you

17 weren't teaching?

18 A. Of all my time.

19 Q. And what percentage of all of your time did

20 Everglades issues involve during academic year

21 '91-'92?

22 A. I would --

23 MR. GARVER: Object to the form.

24 Q. You can answer.

25 MR. GARVER: I'm just -- your

00015

1 documents request, I think, led us to believe what is

2 related to Everglades is a very broad topic. I'm not

3 quite sure what you mean by that.

4 Q. Well, I'm just trying to get a general feel

5 for the last -- during the '91-'92 academic year when

6 you weren't teaching, how much of your time was spent

7 on Everglades-related issues.

8 MR. BURGESS: And I think the witness

9 understands what I mean by that.

10 MR. GARVER: Would that include the

11 Des Plaines research?

12 MR. BURGESS: It would.

13 A. I would have to ask for clarification

14 because if you're including a research project in

15 Illinois as part of Everglades-related work, then I'm

16 at a loss to determine what you mean by Everglades.

17 Q. We'll come back to it.

18 Let me ask you to flip over to page

19 two of your resume'. Item number 11 on page two

20 details the consulting work that you performed in the

21 past five years with an asterisk denoting current

22 work, is that correct?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Let me just ask you with respect to the

25 items that have the asterisk, and we'll just go down

00016

1 in columnar fashion, if you could tell me in very

2 general terms what issues your consulting work

3 addressed with respect to the current items?

4 A. What do you mean issues?

5 Q. Well, in lieu of asking you to go through

6 each of the items you've been involved in consulting

7 for the past five years and asking you detailed

8 questions with respect to the research that you

9 performed, the data that you reviewed, who your

10 clients were, et cetera, I'm trying to maybe save a

11 little time and get a feel or flavor for

12 professionally what you did on behalf of those

13 clients in your consulting endeavors.

14 So as far as issues are concerned, I

15 think I'm asking for what research, let's start with

16 that, what research was involved and what -- if there

17 was research involved, what research were you

18 conducting or directing? Does that help?

19 A. Well, some of -- some of the asterisk

20 consulting work involved research, but most of it did

21 not.

22 Q. Well, that can be another category, I

23 guess.

24 Let's start with HLSA. What does that

25 stand for or what is that?

00017

1 A. That stands for Houghton Lake Sewer

2 Authority.

3 Q. And is that your client in that matter?

4 A. It is.

5 Q. And in broad brush stroke fashion, what is

6 it that you're doing for or on behalf of the Houghton

7 Lake Sewer Authority?

8 A. Wetland research.

9 Q. And how long has that project been going

10 on?

11 A. Fifteen years.

12 Q. And what is it that your research during --

13 have you been doing research in that matter for 15

14 years?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And what is it that your research is

17 targeted to?

18 A. The research is targeted to assessing the

19 impacts of treated wastewater on natural wetlands and

20 also to the interpretation of the treatment potential

21 of natural wetlands.

22 Q. IES, what does that stand for? Or is that

23 IES Weyerhaeuser?

24 A. It is not, it is IES.

25 It stands for, I believe, Independent

00018

1 Echological Services.

2 Q. Is that a consulting firm?

3 A. That is a firm that provides a variety of

4 environmental services.

5 Q. And where are they located?

6 A. They're located in Olympia, Washington.

7 Q. And what is it that you are doing for them?

8 A. I'm providing advice on feasibility of

9 wetland treatment systems.

10 Q. In the State of Washington?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And the wetland treatment systems there,

13 are they natural or constructed?

14 A. If they are built, they will be

15 constructed.

16 Q. Are there nutrient -- are there primary

17 nutrients that you're concerned with in this IES

18 project?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And what are they?

21 A. It would be nitrogen.

22 Q. Do you have phosphorus as a limiting factor

23 in that scenario or that project?

24 A. Not in that project.

25 MR. GARVER: Object to the form.

00019

1 Q. And if they are constructed, how large

2 would they be?

3 A. That's not determined at this point.

4 Q. Is there a range under consideration?

5 A. A very rough idea might be 30 acres.

6 Q. For the United States Department of

7 Justice, what consulting work have you performed in

8 the last five years and are you currently performing?

9 A. I am currently performing work for the

10 Department of Justice and the work has been concerned

11 with the nutrients in wetlands in the Everglades.

12 Q. Any other work for the Department of

13 Justice in the last five years?

14 A. No.

15 Q. How about in your career, during your

16 career, have you worked for the Department of Justice

17 before?

18 A. No.

19 Q. Black & Veatch, is that a law firm or

20 consulting firm?

21 A. It's not, it's a consulting firm.

22 Q. Where are they located?

23 A. They have several offices around the

24 country.

25 Q. And what office are you primarily working

00020

1 with or for?

2 A. I'm working with -- in the last five years,

3 we're talking about asterisks, three offices.

4 Q. And what is the project concerned with?

5 A. There are three projects.

6 Q. And what are the three projects concerned

7 with?

8 A. The first was the determining of

9 feasibility of wetland treatment of a combined sewer

10 overflow in Portland, Oregon; the second is a

11 determination of the feasibility of the use of

12 constructed wetlands for wastewater polishing in

13 Manhattan, Kansas; and the third is a project, a

14 research project, for the Water Environment

15 Federation, which will be conducted at sites as yet

16 to be determined but located on the east coast.

17 Q. And is that a wetlands-related research

18 project?

19 A. It is.

20 Q. And are there nutrients of primary concern

21 with respect to that project, and if so, what are

22 they?

23 A. Yes, nitrogen and phosphorus.

24 Q. Do you know that project by any given name

25 or title?

00021

1 A. I cannot give you a specific title, the

2 sponsoring agency is the Water Environment Research

3 Foundation. I think the acronym is WERF.

4 Q. McCulley, Frick & Gilman, tell me about

5 that.

6 A. That project concerns the remediation of

7 drainage waters from a superfine site utilizing

8 constructed wetlands.

9 Q. And where is that located?

10 A. In Idaho.

11 Q. And what are the primary constituents

12 you're concerned with there?

13 A. In that particular project I have been

14 asked only about hydrology.

15 Q. Surface water -- surface flow, groundwater

16 flow, both?

17 A. I've been asked about the hydrology of

18 subsurface flow, constructed wetlands.

19 Q. Is that the effect of subsurface flow on

20 constructed wetlands, is that what you mean by that?

21 A. No, it is the movement of water in a

22 variety of constructed wetlands which operate in

23 subsurface flow.

24 Q. Does the project mostly involve toxics or

25 metals or hazardous waste as opposed to nutrients, or

00022

1 are both involved?

2 A. It would be the former.

3 Q. Former.

4 And how large -- are those wetlands

5 constructed?

6 A. I do not believe they have yet begun

7 construction, although it's imminent.

8 Q. Do you know how large they would be?

9 A. I can't give you a number without referring

10 to information I don't have here.

11 Q. That's ongoing work, in any event?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. USEPA, what are you working on for the

14 Environmental Protection Agency?

15 A. That is not consulting in the normal sense

16 of the word, but over the last several years I have

17 been asked to participate in several workshops

18 related to the effectiveness of constructed and

19 natural wetlands and water quality improvement.

20 Q. Have you actually consulted with or for the

21 EPA other than in the workshop environment?

22 A. No.

23 Q. And what is your role in the workshop

24 environment, are you an instructor?

25 A. Participant.

00023

1 Q. And how many such projects or workshops,

2 I'm sorry?

3 A. You'd have to specify, there's some period

4 of time.

5 Q. How about, let's start with the last five

6 years under paragraph number 11, and USEPA's asterisk

7 is denoting current work. And I'll just try and get

8 a feel for whether your current work is only

9 participating in workshops or whether there's -- in

10 addition to participating in workshops what you've

11 done with or for the EPA.

12 A. Well, the most recent workshop was one held

13 in New Orleans in the end of September, I believe, of

14 1992 which concerned subsurface flow wetlands.

15 In 1991 there were, I believe, two

16 workshops. One was an "Impacts of Storm Water on

17 Wetlands" workshop, that was held at Clearwater

18 Beach, and a second meeting of not only EPA but also

19 other federal agencies in Washington to determine

20 policy concerning constructed wetlands and water

21 quality. Those would be the three most recent.

22 Q. And do you attend these workshops as a

23 representative of EPA or at their invitation?

24 A. At their invitation.

25 Q. And who typically attend these workshops?

00024

1 Are these like professional seminars or conferences?

2 A. No, in each case these are workshops

3 designed to assist the federal agencies in

4 determination of policy.

5 Q. So these are not workshops that are either

6 open to the public or to industry to attend by

7 brochure and payment of a fee or something like that,

8 that's not --

9 A. They are not open.

10 Q. They are not, okay.

11 We have New Orleans, Clearwater Beach

12 and then was there a third I think you said. You

13 said three most recent?

14 A. Yes, it was in Washington, D.C. and that

15 was the one on -- multi-agency workshop.

16 Q. Metcalf & Eddy, what are you presently

17 doing for them?

18 A. I'm working with Metcalf & Eddy, we are

19 currently in the construction phase of a wetland

20 treatment project in Columbia, Missouri.

21 Q. How large is that?

22 A. In terms of acres?

23 Q. Constructed wetland, yes, sir.

24 A. It's a 100-acre wetland connected to an

25 approximately 1000-acre wetland.

00025

1 Q. 100-acre constructed connected to 1000-acre

2 constructed?

3 A. Correct.

4 Q. And what are your responsibilities with

5 respect to that project?

6 A. My responsibilities include design,

7 construction supervision, at least a partial role in

8 construction supervision, and also I will monitor

9 startup of the facility.

10 Q. When is that expected to happen?

11 A. This summer.

12 Q. What nutrients are a prime concern at that

13 site?

14 A. Well, it exists in two parts, the first

15 part does not -- the hundred acre part does not

16 involve nutrients; the second larger part is

17 concerned with both nitrogen and phosphorus.

18 Q. If you refer to item 11, and I'll just ask

19 you with respect to the asterisk items we've already

20 discussed, what of those projects, I guess obviously

21 other than the one you're doing for the Department of

22 Justice, involve flows from agricultural land into

23 the wetlands for treatment?

24 MR. GARVER: Do you mean flows

25 directly from agricultural land?

00026

1 MR. BURGESS: Well, primarily. I

2 think we can try to get a feel for it. I think

3 Dr. Kadlec understands. I'm trying to get a feel for

4 what other projects may have issues related from a

5 source flow standpoint to those we're facing here,

6 and I didn't -- I neglected to ask the question

7 specifically with respect to each one of the items.

8 A. Of those we have already talked about, none

9 involve agricultural run-off.

10 Q. And including Metcalf & Eddy?

11 A. That's correct.

12 Q. The next one, McNamee, Porter & Seeley,

13 what is involved there?

14 A. Well, that represents several projects.

15 The first project concerns potential impacts of

16 treated wastewater venting to a wetland in Washtenaw

17 County.

18 Q. Where we are today?

19 A. That's correct.

20 Q. Venting to what, I'm sorry?

21 A. Venting to natural wetland.

22 Q. Okay.

23 A. The second project is a similar one in

24 Livingston County.

25 The third project involves monitoring

00027

1 the startup of a mitigation wetland in Livingston

2 County.

3 Q. What is a mitigation wetland?

4 A. It's a wetland constructed to replace one

5 destroyed by human activity.

6 And a fourth project was the design

7 and construction of a wetland in Kalamazoo, Michigan.

8 Q. In terms of acreage, what is the largest of

9 those four?

10 A. The largest of those four? I think that

11 would be the one in Livingston County, Howell

12 Michigan, number two that I just referred to, which

13 would be on the order of 40 acres.

14 Q. Of constructed or natural?

15 A. No, that would be natural.

16 Q. And do any of those four involve

17 agricultural run-off?

18 A. Indirectly.

19 Q. Indirectly. Each of them?

20 A. All except the last.

21 Q. And they all involve phosphorus, I assume?

22 A. All except the last.

23 Q. Can you define in what way do they

24 indirectly involve agricultural run-off? Are there

25 upland farms or --

00028

1 A. They involve agricultural run-off because

2 of surrounding land uses so it would be a very minor

3 component of agricultural run-off.

4 Q. And are you familiar with water quality

5 phosphorus loadings for those first three projects?

6 A. For the first two of those.

7 Q. For the first two?

8 A. For the first two, yes.

9 Q. And what type of phosphorus concentrations

10 are you dealing with there?

11 A. In project number one, which would be -- we

12 could call it the Portage Lake project, the

13 phosphorus concentrations are on the order of 50 to

14 70 parts per billion in the wetland; and in number

15 two, which is a Livingston County project near

16 Howell, the concentrations would be, again, about 50

17 to 70 parts per billion.

18 Q. Those are the levels to which the waters

19 have been treated, is that what you're telling me?

20 A. In this case these are impact studies so

21 those are the levels of phosphorus in the current

22 unimpacted wetlands that are under study.

23 Q. And are you familiar with the phosphorus

24 loadings or concentrations that are entering those

25 wetlands upstream and what those readings are?

00029

1 A. I have to be a little lengthy in my reply.

2 Both of those projects involve

3 groundwater discharges. The groundwater is, in part,

4 contains waters that were discharged through rapid

5 infiltration basins from water treatment plants. At

6 the present time there is very low phosphorus level

7 in those venting groundwaters. It is perhaps on the

8 order of 10 to 30 parts per billion. The projects

9 are in place to assess potential future migration of

10 phosphorus from treatment plant waters to wetlands.

11 Q. So if I understand, the projects are in

12 place to monitor the flow of that 10 to 30 part per

13 billion groundwater containing phosphorus to the

14 wetland?

15 A. That's correct, with the possibility that

16 that level may increase at some future date.

17 Q. And what might cause it to increase?

18 A. The contribution coming from the waste

19 treatment plants.

20 Q. And so you're looking to see whether or not

21 those wetlands can kind of simulate higher levels of

22 phosphorus, is that a fair statement?

23 A. No.

24 Q. Let me ask it this way. What is your

25 research designed to do there?

00030

1 A. It's to ascertain impacts should an

2 increased level of phosphorus in those venting

3 groundwaters materialize.

4 Q. City of Portland, what are you doing for

5 the City of Portland?

6 A. I'm consulting with the City on the design

7 and construction of reconstructed wetlands in the

8 Fanno Creek Corridor.

9 Q. How do you spell Fanno?

10 A. F-a-n-n-o.

11 Q. In Fanno Creek -- is that in Oregon?

12 A. Yes, sir, it's in the City of Portland.

13 Q. What is a reconstructed wetland?

14 A. The Fanno Creek watershed has degraded

15 badly due to human activities. This project seeks to

16 reconstruct some of the original wetlands for

17 purposes of water quality improvement.

18 Q. Those are natural wetlands or formerly

19 natural wetlands or a combination?

20 A. They were wetlands of some character

21 historically in the watershed. There is very little

22 semblance of those original wetlands at this point in

23 time. It's probably accurate to characterize the

24 project as constructed wetlands.

25 Q. And what's the status of that

00031

1 reconstruction?

2 A. At the present time I believe there are

3 plans for four such wetlands and construction to

4 begin momentarily. There's some permitting

5 activities taking place at the moment.

6 Q. And again, in acreage, what would be the

7 largest of those four?

8 A. Approximately 15 acres, I believe.

9 Q. And again, what are the constituents of

10 prime concern there?

11 A. Phosphorus.

12 Q. Is there agricultural run-off in the upland

13 water?

14 A. There is not.

15 Q. What are you doing for or with Wetlands

16 Southwest?

17 A. Three projects at the moment in Berrien

18 County, Michigan is considering wetland treatment of

19 leachate waters; Bloomington, Indiana is considering

20 wetland treatment of landfill leachate waters; and

21 the town of Crystal Lake, Indiana, there is an egg

22 processing plant that is considering constructed

23 wetlands for treatment of their wastewaters.

24 Q. Did both the first two involve leachate

25 waters from landfills?

00032

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And these would all be constructed

3 wetlands?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. The largest of which would be?

6 A. Undetermined at this point.

7 Q. What is your constituent of primary concern

8 from the egg processing plant?

9 A. It would be a close call between BOD and

10 suspended solids with nitrogen in third place.

11 Q. Australian CRC, what's involved there?

12 A. There is a consortium of government and

13 private agencies in New South Whales, state of New

14 South Whales, which has engaged in a set of projects

15 involving research and design of constructed

16 wetlands, and I am serving as a technical advisor to

17 that consortium.

18 Q. Are any of those projects concerned with

19 agricultural run-off in need of a treatment by

20 constructed wetlands?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. How many? When you say set of projects,

23 how many are we dealing with here?

24 A. I'd have to go back and look at the full

25 suite that they had taken responsibility for, but it

00033

1 is on the order of four or five.

2 Q. And do all of them involve agricultural

3 run-off in a watershed?

4 A. They do not.

5 Q. How many of the four or five?

6 A. Principally, one.

7 Q. And what are the constituents of primary

8 concern in that --

9 A. Phosphorus.

10 Q. What type of farming activity is upland, do

11 you know?

12 A. Yeah, it's primarily sheep ranching, cattle

13 ranching.

14 Q. What stage are they in with respect to

15 R & D on any of the five? What's the most advanced?

16 A. I'm not sure I understand in terms of

17 reference for the question.

18 Q. With respect to research and design, what

19 stage of research and/or design are you in with the

20 one that's furthest along?

21 A. Well, the systems that I alluded to are all

22 operating and under research.

23 Q. They are functioning wetlands, is that

24 what --

25 A. That's correct.

00034

1 Q. And they were functioning before you got

2 there?

3 A. That's correct.

4 Q. And what were you called in to do? What

5 are you intending to help them with?

6 A. To assist in the design of research

7 programs and the interpretation of the results.

8 Q. I see.

9 How long have you been technical

10 advisor to this consortium?

11 A. Since November, 1992.

12 Q. With respect to any of the five projects,

13 have you recommended certain research programs to

14 them at this point?

15 A. Yes, I have.

16 Q. Incidentally, do you know, by the way,

17 whether any documents from that project were produced

18 along with your documents?

19 A. I don't believe any documents from that

20 project were produced.

21 Q. What is the largest in terms of acreage of

22 those four or five functioning wetlands?

23 A. Approximately 20 acres.

24 Q. Are they all constructed wetlands, all

25 five?

00035

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. What is your definition of -- or how do you

3 differentiate between a natural wetland and a

4 constructed wetland?

5 A. I'd ask you to clarify that a little bit.

6 Q. What is the distinction between -- I'm

7 asking you whether or not something is a constructed

8 wetland or a natural wetland, and I think I know why

9 you're answering how you are, but I'm trying to find

10 out what your definition is.

11 A. Well, a constructed wetland, in my

12 terminology, is a wetland that is there only because

13 of man's activity. In other words, it was not a

14 wetland before dikes and plumbing was put in place.

15 Q. And a natural wetland would be a wetland

16 performing a similar service but is not there as a

17 result of construction?

18 A. I wouldn't put the word "service" in. A

19 natural wetland exists because of nature's

20 arrangement of water supply and topography,

21 vegetation, soils.

22 Q. CH2M Hill, what are you presently working

23 on with them?

24 A. The CH2M Hill, at the moment there are two

25 projects and potential projects. First, there is a

00036

1 project at Lakeland, Florida; second, a project --

2 potential project at Madisonville, Kentucky; and I

3 most recently have assisted in the interview process

4 for a technology review which is going to be led by

5 the Electric Power Research Institute.

6 Q. What is the project in Lakeland?

7 A. The project in Lakeland concerns attempting

8 to repair a project intended to treat -- provide

9 advanced treatment for the City of Lakeland's

10 wastewater.

11 Q. Did you say advanced treatment?

12 A. I used the word advanced, yes.

13 Q. And what is advanced treatment, is that

14 tertiary or --

15 A. Well, those words are relative but advanced

16 means generally something better than secondary.

17 Q. And does Lakeland involve constructed

18 wetlands?

19 A. It does.

20 Q. And how large an area in terms of acreage?

21 A. 1200 acres.

22 Q. Does that project have a common name or

23 another name? How do you know the project?

24 A. Lakeland.

25 Q. And does the wetland have a name, the 1200

00037

1 acres?

2 A. No, I don't believe so, just -- it's

3 Lakeland, City of Lakeland Treatment Wetlands.

4 Q. And Madisonville, Kentucky, what are you

5 doing there?

6 A. That is a conceptual design and feasibility

7 study to utilize wetlands as an advanced treatment

8 component, municipal wastewater for Madisonville.

9 Q. And what exactly are you doing vis-a-vis

10 this technology review?

11 A. That is, again, simply participation in the

12 interview process to attempt to secure the contract

13 for the literature review.

14 Q. What type of technology are you reviewing?

15 A. Are you referring to --

16 Q. To number three, the technology review,

17 Electric Power Research Institute, I think you said.

18 A. Yes, correct.

19 They are requesting a complete

20 assembly and interpretation of all the literature

21 that can be found relating to potential application

22 of constructed wetlands in all aspects of the

23 electric power industry.

24 Q. Why is the electric power industry

25 concerned with constructed wetlands?

00038

1 A. For two primary reasons. First, they are

2 concerned with the rapidly expanding utilization of

3 constructed wetlands which now number in the several

4 hundreds in connection with coal mining activities

5 which are part of their purview; secondly, they wish

6 to assess the applicability of wetlands in other

7 aspects of the power business such as the control of

8 contaminants in fly ash ponds.

9 Q. With respect to Lakeland and Madisonville,

10 which I think both involve advanced treatment

11 components, is your primary concern there with the

12 receipt of a water that has already been treated to

13 one level and now you're consulting on the

14 introduction and use of the wetland to reach a

15 further reduction; is that a fair statement?

16 A. That is a fair statement for Madisonville

17 but not for Lakeland.

18 Q. And why isn't it a fair -- what is

19 happening in Lakeland that's different than as I

20 explained it?

21 A. The Lakeland project is utilizing the same

22 principles but my role in Lakeland is an attempt to

23 improve the degree of treatment after the fact.

24 Q. After the fact of secondary treatment?

25 A. Excuse me, after the fact of construction

00039

1 and some years of operation.

2 Q. I see.

3 And what fact or factors are you

4 considering with respect to -- or at Lakeland to

5 achieve that advanced treatment?

6 A. We are considering short term interim

7 measures to decrease algal growth in the final

8 treatment cells.

9 Q. And how would one go about accomplishing

10 that?

11 A. Through a variety of rather drastic

12 chemical treatments.

13 Q. What is the stage of your work or

14 recommendations in that regard?

15 A. The City of Lakeland is considering the

16 implementation of our findings.

17 Q. So you have made recommendations to the

18 City with respect to chemical treatment in third

19 treatment cells; is that a fair statement?

20 A. It's not the third treatment cell, but yes,

21 the rest of that is correct. I believe it's cell

22 number seven in the system.

23 Q. What type of chemicals have you recommended

24 they consider for chemical treatment?

25 A. A chemical that goes under the name of

00040

1 aquashade is one, alum is a second, and in some forms

2 of copper is a third.

3 Q. And what is the status of your work

4 regarding advanced -- the advanced treatment

5 component in the Madisonville project?

6 A. That project currently has produced a

7 report that is under consideration by various

8 Kentucky governmental agencies.

9 Q. And what, in general, have you recommended

10 with respect to advanced treatment in Madisonville?

11 A. We have indicated in that report that the

12 wetlands option appears to be a very useful one in

13 this instance.

14 Q. For advanced treatment?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. What size wetland have you recommended

17 there?

18 A. The project has not proceeded to that stage

19 at this point.

20 Q. Do you know whether or not your -- or any

21 papers or data referencing either the Lakeland or

22 Madisonville projects were produced along with your

23 other documents in the case?

24 A. There may have been some information on

25 Lakeland that was produced, not on Madisonville.

00041

1 Q. Do you know whether the Lakeland

2 information was -- it included your recommendations

3 to the City with respect to chemical treatments?

4 A. It would not have.

5 Q. When were those recommendations made to

6 Lakeland?

7 A. Approximately seven days ago.

8 Q. Do you know Chip Swindell?

9 A. I do.

10 Q. Do you know where he is?

11 A. I do not.

12 Q. Have you heard he's left the country?

13 A. I was unaware of that.

14 Q. D.L. Hey & Associates, what's involved in

15 that project?

16 A. That would have been an assessment of the

17 implementation of wetland treatment and the

18 reconstruction of river corridor wetlands for the

19 town of Decatur, Illinois.

20 Q. And have the wetlands with respect to that

21 project been constructed?

22 A. They have not.

23 Q. Are you advising D.L. Hey with respect to

24 the potential use of wetlands, of constructed

25 wetlands?

00042

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. What constituent or constituents are a

3 prime concern in that project?

4 A. There are many elements involved in that

5 project.

6 Q. Is this a wastewater project?

7 A. There's several wetland elements in the

8 entire recommendation package that was made to

9 Decatur. One was the use of wetlands to improve the

10 quality of combined sewer overflows from the City; a

11 second was to provide advanced treatment for their

12 wastewater treatment plant; third was the renovation

13 reconstruction of the river corridor itself.

14 Q. What is the stage of your research or

15 recommendations for this project?

16 A. The report has been forwarded to the City

17 of Decatur, and they have it under consideration.

18 Q. What size wetlands are you recommending?

19 A. Well, the sum total would be something on

20 the order of 1 to 200 acres, if I recall correctly.

21 Q. Do you have agricultural waters in the

22 watershed for this D.L. Hey & Associates project?

23 A. Yes, because the watershed on the same

24 river involves extensive agriculture.

25 Q. Are you concerned with the reduction of

00043

1 phosphorus from one level to another through the use

2 of constructed wetlands for Decatur?

3 A. Phosphorus is a nutrient of concern, but

4 the project has not proceeded to a stage where levels

5 or permit requirements are under discussion.

6 Q. Existing levels nor hoped for levels?

7 A. The project has been -- to this point has

8 considered the possibility of citing wetlands and the

9 general character of the functions they might

10 perform.

11 Q. Do you know what phosphorus concentrations

12 you're dealing with in this project upstream?

13 A. We have some information on that, but I

14 would have to go back and refer to the document to

15 give you precise numbers.

16 Q. SRI, what are you doing there?

17 A. SRI is an acronym for Scientific Resources,

18 Incorporated, and that is really not a new project

19 since they and Black & Veatch were the two

20 co-investigators of the City of Portland combined

21 sewer overflow project discussed earlier.

22 Q. So that's not a separate work element

23 separate and apart from what you've told us you're

24 doing with or for Black & Veatch?

25 A. That's correct.

00044

1 Q. Alan Plummer & Associates, who are they?

2 A. They are a consulting firm located in

3 Fortworth, Texas.

4 Q. And what are you doing with or for them?

5 A. I'm involved in three projects with them:

6 The first involves the construction of wetlands near

7 Lake Worth for water quality improvement; the second

8 involves the potential for converting a ranch to a

9 mitigation bank wetland; and the third is the

10 monitoring of results coming from a research project

11 put in place by Tarrant County, Texas.

12 MR. McGRATH: You said Lake Worth, do

13 you mean Fortworth?

14 THE WITNESS: No, I mean -- the

15 company is located in Fortworth with a separate

16 office in Arlington, Texas. The lake, which we are

17 trying to protect, is Lake Worth.

18 MR. McGRATH: Thank you.

19 Q. With respect to the first construction of

20 wetlands near Lake Worth for water improvement, what

21 are your nutrients of concern there?

22 A. It would be suspended solids, phosphorus

23 and nitrogen.

24 Q. Are you in a consulting phase on those or

25 have they started construction?

00045

1 A. No, those are in the very early stages, and

2 I would call it a design stage at this point.

3 Q. Are you looking at size or acreage at this

4 point?

5 A. That's undetermined at this point.

6 Q. Do you know, is the magnitude going to be

7 hundreds of acres versus thousands, or even that

8 differential hasn't been made yet?

9 A. It would not be thousands, but it may be

10 hundreds.

11 Q. Is there agricultural run-off in the

12 watershed?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Off of what type of agricultural-use lands,

15 do you know?

16 A. I could not characterize that watershed,

17 I'm not intimately familiar with land use patterns,

18 but from my drives through the area I would suspect

19 it's a combination of cattle ranching and cropping.

20 Q. The second one, converting a ranch to a

21 bank of wetlands, are you in a similar stage of

22 design and consultation as the first?

23 A. My role is fairly limited on that one. The

24 project concerns the construction of some thousands

25 of acres of wetlands for purposes of selling those

00046

1 acres to people who need to build wetlands to replace

2 those they have destroyed.

3 Q. Mitigation?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Mitigation effort.

6 When you say a bank of wetlands, how

7 many are involved in your term of bank?

8 A. The word "bank" in this context is an

9 analog to the financial meaning. The wetlands are

10 constructed to form a reserve of wetlands which those

11 in need of purchasing can draw. So the word "bank"

12 here is in a financial context.

13 Q. Is this actually a scenario where you may

14 have adversely impacted a wetland in one area and

15 under either state or federal law you can purchase a

16 constructed wetland in another area to meet your

17 mitigation requirement?

18 A. Correct.

19 Q. Is that a novel or a new concept?

20 A. It's new. Enough states are trying and

21 thinking about the concept that I don't call it novel

22 any longer.

23 Q. And so in this particular instance, there

24 is not a -- let me ask you this.

25 Is there a necessity --

00047

1 (Interruption.)

2 (Discussion off the record.)

3 Q. The third project you're working on with

4 Alan Plummer & Associates involves what? You said

5 monitoring the results of --

6 A. Yes, the project is a multiple wetland

7 pilot project to determine the design factors for

8 removal of phosphorus from the Trinity River.

9 Q. What type of phosphorus levels are you

10 faced with there?

11 A. Approximately one to two milligrams per

12 liter.

13 Q. Which is what in PPB?

14 A. 1000 to 2000 PPB.

15 Q. And is there a reduction target level for

16 phosphorus?

17 A. There is no explicit target level at this

18 point.

19 Q. Is it order of magnitude reductions you're

20 looking at there or --

21 A. Probably.

22 Q. So this particular project or phase is also

23 in the -- I'm sorry, strike that.

24 What phase of this project are you

25 presently in?

00048

1 A. Operational.

2 Q. What's the size of the wetlands?

3 A. The combined facility would be

4 approximately two to three acres.

5 Q. Homestead Development, what are you doing

6 with them?

7 A. The Homestead Development project concerns

8 the projection of impacts and treatment potential of

9 a treated wastewater on a natural wetland.

10 Q. What are the constituents of primary

11 concern there?

12 A. In terms of treatment it would be

13 phosphorus.

14 Q. How large is the natural wetland?

15 A. It has no specific boundary, but we're

16 talking about impacted areas of two separate areas;

17 one of approximately 15 acres and a second of

18 approximately 25 acres.

19 Q. And are these impacts which resulted from

20 already or partially treated wastewaters being

21 discharged into a natural environment?

22 A. They would be, but this is a pre-project

23 evaluation.

24 Q. What levels of phosphorus are you concerned

25 with?

00049

1 A. From about 50 to 100 parts per billion.

2 Q. That's the incoming concentration?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And --

5 A. Excuse me. It is currently the incoming

6 concentration. The treatment plant would produce an

7 effluent of better than 500 parts per billion.

8 Q. I'm trying to understand the difference

9 there.

10 You're saying the partially treated

11 wastewaters that are now entering the natural wetland

12 are 50 to 100 parts per billion, is that correct?

13 A. No, there is no project. This is a

14 projection of impacts. Current inputs to the wetland

15 are 50 to 100 parts per billion. If the plant is

16 built, it will contribute waters of better than 500

17 parts per billion, meaning less than.

18 Q. I see.

19 Kirkbride Associates?

20 A. That comprises three projects over the

21 asterisk period of five years that we're talking

22 about. The first was a pilot project for Lamb Weston

23 Company to provide wetland treatment of effluent

24 waters from a potato processing plant at Hermiston,

25 Oregon; the second project is a comparable project

00050

1 located at Connell, Washington; and the third is the

2 use of wetland plants to dewater potato sludge in the

3 town of Quincy, Washington. All three projects

4 connected with the Lam Weston Company.

5 Q. Your pilot projects meaning they're not yet

6 constructed, wetlands not yet constructed?

7 A. No, the Hermiston project was constructed,

8 operated for a period of approximately one and a half

9 years and discontinued.

10 Q. Why?

11 A. Because the state of Oregon Department of

12 Environmental Quality declined to impose the water

13 quality regulations on the company that would have

14 required further treatment.

15 Q. Was phosphorus an issue of concern there?

16 A. It was not.

17 Q. Connell, Washington, does that involve a

18 constructed and operating wetland?

19 A. The Connell facility is going to be an

20 expanded version of the Hermiston facility involving

21 more wetland components than Hermiston. It is under

22 design.

23 Q. What size wetland are you looking at in

24 Connell?

25 A. That's not finally determined, but since

00051

1 it's a pilot project it will probably be on the order

2 of five acres or thereabouts.

3 Q. How large was the number one?

4 A. Less than one acre.

5 Q. And what size wetland are you concerned

6 with in number three where you're going to use

7 different wetland plant species to dewater potato

8 sludge?

9 A. That's not determined at this point.

10 Q. Incidentally, did the Homestead Development

11 project involve agricultural waters in the upland

12 watershed? That was treated wastewater, I'm sorry.

13 A. It was, and there is very little left of

14 agriculture in that watershed. It's essentially

15 suburban.

16 Q. Gosling Czubak?

17 A. Yes, that project concerns an assessment of

18 the current impacts of leaking treatment lagoon

19 waters on a wetland and a projection of the impacts

20 of a repair of the wastewater treatment facility on

21 those same wetlands.

22 Q. A wastewater treatment lagoon?

23 A. Yes, it's located in the community of

24 Denton, Michigan. It has been leaking for the last

25 18 years.

00052

1 Q. When you say assessment of current impacts

2 of the leaking treatment lagoon, is that on

3 downstream wetlands or surrounding natural wetlands

4 or what?

5 A. It's an adjacent downstream wetland that is

6 being impacted.

7 Q. And you have devised research in that

8 downstream wetland to determine what and how it is

9 being impacted by --

10 A. That's correct.

11 Q. And what is it that is leaking or leaching

12 from the treatment lagoon, what constituent

13 primarily?

14 A. The usual wastewater nutrients, nitrogen

15 and phosphorus, are leaking from that lagoon.

16 Q. What is the area of impact in the

17 downstream wetland? Have you determined that?

18 A. There is more than one impact. The area of

19 nutrient impact is relatively small, measured in some

20 small number of acres. The area of hydrologic impact

21 is probably on the order of 30 acres because beavers

22 decided to dam the extra water.

23 Q. Where is this project -- I'm sorry, Denton,

24 Michigan.

25 Going quickly back to the USEPA

00053

1 consulting work, did any of those workshops involve

2 mercury cycling?

3 A. They did not.

4 MR. BURGESS: Thank you. I guess

5 we'll break until three.

6 (A break was taken at 11:00 a.m.;

7 the deposition was resumed at 3:30 p.m.)

8 (Deposition Exhibit No. 2

9 marked for identification.)

10 Q. Dr. Kadlec, the consulting work that we

11 discussed this morning with respect to item number 11

12 in Exhibit 1, did you perform that work in your

13 capacity as a private consultant or as a professor at

14 the University of Michigan or a combination of those

15 two?

16 A. The work under item 11 I separate out from

17 University work. Basically, the items in 11 do not

18 involve the University except in minor ways.

19 However, I wear more than one hat and so I am a

20 consultant and a professor at the University.

21 Q. Do you have a consulting company?

22 A. Yes, I do.

23 Q. And how large is that company?

24 A. The company consists of me and

25 subcontractors from time to time.

00054

1 Q. And is it a corporation or a partnership?

2 A. It is not, it is, I believe, generally

3 referred to as a "doing business as". It is a

4 registered business in Washtenaw County in Michigan.

5 Q. And what's the name of it?

6 A. Wetland Management Services.

7 Q. How long has that d/b/a existed?

8 A. For approximately 13, 14 years, I believe.

9 Q. And in general, what areas do you consult

10 in?

11 A. Matters relating to wetlands.

12 Q. Does the University of Michigan have a

13 policy with respect to the percentage of time that

14 professors can consult outside of their teaching

15 responsibilities?

16 A. They do.

17 Q. And what is that policy?

18 A. While on academic appointment in the

19 college of engineering we are permitted up to one day

20 a week.

21 Q. Not including weekends?

22 A. Not including weekends, I believe. Beyond

23 that, one is required to take a reduction in

24 appointment.

25 Q. You say while on academic appointment.

00055

1 Does that mean you have to have a present course that

2 you're teaching?

3 A. No, I meant by that statement that during

4 summer periods while not on appointment there are no

5 restrictions.

6 Q. And what is your summer period?

7 A. The summer period is basically June --

8 excuse me. Yeah, June, July and August.

9 Q. You can consult five or seven days a week,

10 if you wish?

11 A. That's correct.

12 Q. You mentioned this morning that you had

13 taken a leave of absence during -- was it school year

14 '91-'92?

15 A. I took a reduced appointment during

16 '91-'92.

17 Q. And what does that mean, reduced

18 appointment?

19 A. Well, a full-time appointment means that

20 you're devoting with the University 100 percent

21 effort. That does allow for the one day per week

22 consulting, but the rest of your time is to be

23 devoted to the University. And since my consulting

24 activities exceeded the one day per week, I consulted

25 with my department administration, college

00056

1 administration, and determined a fractional reduction

2 in appointment to permit me to carry out the

3 consulting duties.

4 Q. And that would have been from September of

5 '91 through May of '92?

6 A. That's the academic year '91-'92, yes.

7 Q. And that's the period of time you had this

8 reduced appointment?

9 A. No, the reduction took place in the winter

10 '92 portion of that academic year.

11 Q. And were you actually teaching any classes

12 during that winter portion?

13 A. I was not.

14 Q. And as a result of that, were you allowed

15 to consult during that winter portion in the same

16 manner as you attend during the summer; in other

17 words, five or seven days a week?

18 A. I was entitled then to consult by the

19 amount of my appointment reduction plus the

20 proportion normally allowed.

21 Q. So that would be one day plus how many?

22 A. I would have to go back and look at my

23 appointment, but I believe I took a 40 percent

24 reduction in appointment implying a commensurate

25 number of consulting days available.

00057

1 Q. That 40 percent would be of five days or

2 four days?

3 A. Of five.

4 Q. With reference to item 11 in Exhibit 1 I

5 notice that there was no mention of either the

6 Florida DER or the South Florida Water Management

7 District. Have you ever consulted for them?

8 A. I have not consulted for Florida DER, I

9 have consulted for the South Florida Water Management

10 District.

11 Q. Is there any reason why they are not listed

12 in item 11?

13 A. Well, consultation in the sense that in my

14 one contact with the South Florida Water Management

15 District was 1989 at which time they invited me to a

16 workshop related to the ENR project. So that as a

17 workshop, I guess my thinking was that that didn't

18 qualify under consulting.

19 Q. Is there a reason why the USEPA workshops

20 you testified to this morning did qualify under

21 consulting and the district did not?

22 A. No, none that I can think of.

23 Q. Was this invitation from the district to

24 you to participate in the ENR workshop made before or

25 after you'd been retained by the Department of

00058

1 Justice?

2 A. Before.

3 Q. Did you, in fact, attend that ENR workshop?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Who else was there?

6 A. Approximately 40 people, as I recall, and I

7 would be hard pressed to name all those participants.

8 Q. What was the purpose of the workshop in --

9 and I'm sorry, what was the purpose of the workshop?

10 A. The purpose of the workshop was to review

11 district alternatives for the implementation of the

12 ENR project.

13 Q. When in 1989 were you invited and when did

14 the workshop occur?

15 A. I think it was 1989. It would have been, I

16 believe, the first week of December, I think, of

17 1989. I was invited probably one month prior to

18 that. I am not sure of those dates any longer.

19 Q. Do you know whether there had been previous

20 public workshops regarding the ENR before this

21 December '89 workshop?

22 A. It's my impression there were not.

23 Q. So we can maybe set the date that way to

24 find out when the first ENR workshop was.

25 Who invited you to the workshop?

00059

1 A. Most of my communications were with Steve

2 Davis.

3 Q. Prior to your invitation in November or,

4 let's say, the fall of 1989, had you researched

5 Everglades issues in any capacity?

6 A. I had for --

7 MR. GARVER: Object to the form. I'm

8 not sure what Everglades issues. Sort of the same

9 objection as earlier today.

10 MR. BURGESS: Well, we all know we're

11 dealing with a pretty broad lawsuit so --

12 A. I had dealt with the district on what I

13 would call Everglades issues. For several years

14 prior to that the principal method would have been

15 through review of reports and papers for publication.

16 Q. When you say review of reports and papers,

17 were you peer reviewing district publications?

18 A. Correct.

19 Q. Were you doing that anonymously in all

20 instances?

21 A. No.

22 Q. In some instances?

23 A. To the best of my recollection, it was not

24 anonymous at any time.

25 Q. How many such reports and papers have you

00060

1 reviewed?

2 A. If my memory serves me correct, it would

3 have been, I think, three or four.

4 Q. And do you recall which ones they were?

5 A. I think that there were one or two that had

6 to do with hydrology modeling projects that the

7 district had ongoing; and a second, I believe, two

8 papers by -- the primary author was Steve Davis

9 concerning his research work in conservation area 2A.

10 Q. Do you recall who the principal

11 investigators or authors were with respect to the

12 hydrology modeling paper?

13 A. I can recall some of the authors. One was

14 Paul Trimble, another was Ron Miereau. I believe

15 those were two -- there may have been other authors,

16 I don't recall.

17 Q. Do you retain copies of your reviews of

18 either or all of those three or four cases?

19 A. I believe I have retained copies of my

20 comments on the Davis work, I'm not so sure about the

21 hydrology work.

22 Q. Do you know whether or not they were

23 provided as part of your documents for this

24 deposition?

25 A. I believe that those comments were provided

00061

1 in the documents.

2 Q. And it's your recollection that for how

3 many years previous to your contact in November of

4 '89 to participate at the ENR workshop were you

5 reviewing district publications?

6 A. To the best of my recollection, I think

7 that those contacts were initiated in 1986 at the

8 time of a technical meeting in Charleston at which

9 time Steve Davis and I compared notes on parallel

10 research.

11 Q. And did he subsequently invite you to

12 review other papers for the district?

13 A. The ones that I mentioned, yes.

14 Q. Have you, since the time that you were

15 primarily involved peer reviewing district

16 publications, reviewed other publications in addition

17 to those three or four authored in all or in part by

18 persons from the district?

19 A. Well, I would ask if that question is

20 intended to include documents that the district has

21 commissioned or just solely authored by the district.

22 Q. Let's divide it up into two categories, and

23 I'm talking about now pretension to perform this

24 review by the district on behalf of the district.

25 A. Well, I have reviewed documents in both

00062

1 those categories.

2 Q. In a peer review capacity?

3 A. No, I would characterize it as peer review

4 only in connection with some of the ENR planning

5 documents.

6 Q. Besides ENR planning documents, what

7 reports or papers have you reviewed for the district?

8 A. Well, in connection with ongoing

9 involvement in Everglades issues, I have from time to

10 time been given a variety of other documents that I

11 have read in different degrees of detail.

12 MR. GARVER: Are you only talking

13 about a subsection of reports in which he was doing

14 this on behalf of the district when you say for the

15 district?

16 MR. BURGESS: Yes. I'm trying to

17 close off a segment of questioning here. He's

18 testified he was retained by the district to peer

19 review district publications, and I'm trying to find

20 out what in addition to those three or four papers

21 he's identified he has reviewed on behalf of the

22 district.

23 MR. GARVER: Oh, I didn't understand.

24 I'm not sure that your question earlier had said on

25 behalf of the district.

00063

1 A. I'm sorry, I did not --

2 Q. That's okay. We'll get to the area you're

3 talking about now, but let's close off that.

4 On behalf of the district, have you

5 reviewed --

6 A. I have not been retained by the district to

7 review anything except some documents pertaining to

8 the 1989 ENR review meeting.

9 Q. Okay.

10 A. I have read and offered comments on the

11 three or four documents, Davis, Trimble, et al, and I

12 have read other district documents.

13 Q. So far you have identified for us

14 consulting, although it wasn't listed, I understand

15 that, that you performed for the district in the

16 nature of attendance at the ENR workshop and also

17 prior to that a peer review of district publications

18 that you performed. Were you paid by the district

19 for both your attendance at the workshop and your

20 peer reviews?

21 A. I was not paid for peer reviews. I was

22 paid for the ENR review in 1989.

23 Q. Did you become a chairperson or project

24 leader with respect to the ENR effort of the

25 district?

00064

1 A. I would ask you to elaborate.

2 Q. Did you have a title with respect to the

3 work you performed for the district relative to the

4 ENR project?

5 A. No.

6 Q. Were you a comment coordinator with respect

7 to the ENR project?

8 A. No, and I assume that your question refers

9 to the 1989 meeting.

10 Q. Okay. Fair enough.

11 Other than attending that one 1989

12 meeting, did you subsequently become involved in

13 ENR-related issues at a subsequent time?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And in what capacity?

16 A. In the capacity of -- again, as a reviewer

17 of plans for the ENR project.

18 Q. And were you paid for that effort and by

19 whom?

20 A. I was paid for that effort by the

21 Department of Justice.

22 Q. Did you have any written contracts with the

23 district for consulting services?

24 A. I would think there was some paperwork that

25 covered the 1989 meeting, yes.

00065

1 Q. Do you know whether that was produced among

2 your documents?

3 A. I would doubt that it was. It's possible

4 it was.

5 Q. Did you furnish any report to the district

6 relative to your attendance at the '89 meeting?

7 A. No.

8 Q. When were you first contacted relative to

9 Everglades issues by the Department of Justice?

10 A. I can't recall the exact date.

11 Q. With respect -- I'm sorry.

12 To digress back for a moment to the

13 ENR project, with respect to your attendance at the

14 ENR meeting, did you compile any summary comments on

15 the ENR project at that time?

16 A. If you're referring to the 1989 meeting,

17 no.

18 Q. Did you subsequently compile or summarize

19 comments relative to the ENR project, and if so,

20 when?

21 A. At the time -- at the second meeting.

22 Q. Do you know when that was?

23 A. Let me think a moment. It would have been

24 in November or December of 1991 at which time I did

25 compile comments.

00066

1 Q. And did you put together a final report?

2 A. I did.

3 Q. Did you take notes during your attendance

4 at the '89 workshop and do you know whether or not

5 those notes were produced among your documents?

6 A. I did take notes, and I believe all of

7 those notes were produced.

8 Q. Well, let's see if we can arrive at a date

9 that you were retained by the Department of Justice.

10 We have a December '89 meeting that

11 you attended relative to the ENR for the district and

12 a November '91 meeting that you attended on behalf of

13 the Department of Justice, is that correct?

14 A. I think that's correct.

15 Q. So we have a two-year period of time.

16 Were you first contacted by the

17 Department of Justice regarding Everglades issues

18 subsequent to December of '89?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Assume for purposes of my question that in

21 February of 1991 there was an action concerning

22 Everglades issues pending in United States District

23 Court and that during that month a stay of the

24 proceedings had been entered. Do you know whether or

25 not you were first contacted by the Department of

00067

1 Justice before or after there was a stay of those

2 federal proceedings?

3 A. It was before that.

4 Q. Given that, which, again, for purposes of

5 my question was February of '91, does that help your

6 recollection at all regarding when you may have been

7 contacted by Justice?

8 A. It's my impression that I think the first

9 meeting in connection with my work for the Department

10 of Justice would have been in very early January of

11 1991.

12 Q. Just before the stay then?

13 A. Well, I don't know the date of the stay

14 so --

15 Q. Do you recall how long you were involved

16 with Justice before there was a stay in the lawsuit?

17 That would have -- if what you say is correct, that

18 would have made it approximately a month. Do you

19 have any recollection along those lines?

20 A. It would have been some small number of

21 months.

22 Q. Who contacted you at that time?

23 A. I was first contacted by a paralegal, I

24 believe, whose name I cannot recall on behalf of

25 Suzanne Ponzoli.

00068

1 Q. Relative to being contacted, did you first

2 meet with Suzanne Ponzoli or any other representative

3 of the Department of Justice?

4 A. Well, the purpose of the first contact was

5 to arrange the first meeting. It would have been

6 some small number of weeks. I believe the Christmas

7 holiday season intervened in some way, so I can't

8 remember the exact number of weeks or days.

9 Q. Where was that meeting and who attended?

10 A. Well, the meeting was held at the

11 Everglades National Park Research Center, and it was

12 attended by some 20 or 30 people.

13 Q. Was that your first time at the research

14 center?

15 A. It was.

16 Q. What was the purpose of the meeting?

17 MR. GARVER: You can answer that in

18 very broad general terms, but I'll instruct the

19 witness not to reveal any -- since there were

20 attorneys present at that meeting, not to provide the

21 substance of the meeting or otherwise reveal

22 privileged information.

23 MR. BURGESS: Well, I don't think he

24 can make a decision as to what is and what is not

25 privileged, counsel. I think you have to make that

00069

1 determination.

2 MR. GARVER: Well, I'm not sure this

3 witness then can answer the question about what the

4 purpose of the meeting was without revealing

5 privileged information.

6 MR. BURGESS: Well, you need to tell

7 me whether you're instructing him not to answer. I'm

8 asking him what the purpose of the meeting was that

9 he attended at the Everglades National Park Research

10 Center sometime in early 1991.

11 MR. GARVER: The witness can answer if

12 he knows.

13 A. Well, I'm not sure I do know all the

14 purposes of the meeting. I can recall that a wide

15 ranging discussion of all issues relating to the

16 Everglades were discussed.

17 Q. Was it a workshop format?

18 A. At least partly.

19 Q. How many days did the meeting last?

20 A. I believe the meeting took two days.

21 Q. Did you at any time break into smaller

22 groups or subsets of the 20 to 30 people?

23 A. We did.

24 Q. And what were the purposes of the

25 discussions -- or what was discussed in the smaller

00070

1 groups?

2 MR. GARVER: I'll object and instruct

3 the witness not to answer the question.

4 Q. How many such smaller group meetings took

5 place that you attended?

6 A. I'm not sure I understand the question

7 because I could only attend one at a time.

8 Q. Okay. Given that one at a time and there

9 were two days, how many subgroups --

10 A. One.

11 Q. And who attended that meeting?

12 A. Are you referring to the total meeting?

13 Q. The subgroup meeting.

14 A. The subgroup meeting?

15 Q. Yes.

16 A. I cannot recall.

17 Q. You do not remember anybody?

18 A. Honestly, I do not.

19 MR. BURGESS: You're going to instruct

20 him not to answer what was discussed in that subgroup

21 meeting?

22 MR. GARVER: I think I already did.

23 Q. You can't tell me what was discussed and

24 you don't remember who was there, right?

25 A. My problem is not remembering some of the

00071

1 individuals at the total meeting, my problem is

2 remembering who broke up into the group that I was a

3 member of since the group meeting itself was fairly

4 brief.

5 Q. The large group, the 20 to 30 was fairly

6 brief and then the subgroup --

7 A. No, quite the opposite.

8 Q. The subgroup meeting was fairly brief?

9 A. (Nods head.)

10 Q. At the time that you attended this meeting,

11 did you have a written contract with the Department

12 of Justice?

13 A. It would have been approximately

14 contemporaneous, but I cannot remember which event

15 preceded. I would have to go back and look at dates

16 on contracts to determine that.

17 Q. So you do have a contract with Justice?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. A consulting contract in writing?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Do you have more than one with Justice

22 regarding Everglades issues?

23 A. No.

24 Q. Just one?

25 A. Yes.

00072

1 Q. Is it continuing in nature?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. What was the purpose of the subgroup

4 meeting?

5 MR. GARVER: I'll instruct the witness

6 not to answer.

7 Q. Other than attend this meeting at

8 Everglades National Park when you were first

9 contacted by the Department of Justice, what were you

10 asked to do?

11 A. In broad general terms I was expected to

12 provide consultation on matters pertaining to

13 wetlands, hydrology, nutrients, design of wetland

14 treatment systems.

15 Q. Prior to your meeting at Everglades

16 National Park, were you given any documents by the

17 Department of Justice to review relative to your

18 assignment?

19 A. I do not believe I was.

20 Q. Did you leave ENP with some documents to

21 review?

22 A. I can't recall any that I left with.

23 Q. What did you next do on behalf of the

24 Department of Justice after your retention in January

25 of '91?

00073

1 A. I assume you mean in connection with the

2 purpose for which I was hired?

3 Q. Yes, sir.

4 A. I would assume that the next thing would

5 have been a receipt of documents to review. To the

6 best of my recollection --

7 Q. Do you remember what you received?

8 A. One of those early documents surely would

9 have been a copy of the earliest version of the SWIM

10 Plan relating to the issues.

11 Q. Do you know whether that was the September

12 '90 draft of the SWIM Plan?

13 A. I believe so, but I'd have to check my

14 files to see the exact date.

15 Q. Do you know whether the version that you

16 reviewed had any components dealing with constructed

17 wetlands?

18 A. I don't recall any.

19 Q. Do you know whether or not you took notes

20 at the meeting you attended at Everglades National

21 Park and do you know whether those notes were

22 provided with your documents?

23 A. I don't believe that there were notes taken

24 at that meeting.

25 Q. Do you know whether you were told not to

00074

1 take notes?

2 A. I believe it was strongly suggested that

3 notes not be taken.

4 Q. After you received and reviewed certain

5 documents which contained an early version of the

6 SWIM Plan, what did you do next in connection with

7 your employment by the Department of Justice?

8 A. Well, I would think that perhaps the next

9 significant event would have been the stay that you

10 referred to earlier, so the next element of work

11 would have had to have dealt with what's generally

12 called the settlement negotiations.

13 Q. There has been some previous testimony from

14 deponents that there was a technical team which was

15 established and which met during the pendency of the

16 stay of the federal lawsuit. Were you a member of

17 that technical team?

18 A. I'm not sure I understand the verbiage of

19 the question. Would you rephrase it, please?

20 Q. Yes.

21 There have been some -- there has been

22 significant deposition testimony by other deponents

23 in this case, in the SWIM Plan challenge, relative to

24 the establishment of what has been called a technical

25 team in that there have been technical team meetings

00075

1 which occurred from the time of the stay through the

2 time of the settlement agreement.

3 A. So you're referring to a technical team in

4 the connection of the settlement negotiations?

5 Q. Yes.

6 A. Well, the words "team" are new to me. That

7 word was not used, but I think in point of fact there

8 was a group of people who did meet that could be

9 referred to as a team.

10 Q. And were you one of those people?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And how often did you meet?

13 A. I can't recall the exact dates of the

14 meetings. I did not attend all meetings, and I think

15 that my attendance would have been, oh, some four or

16 five times during the course of the negotiations.

17 Q. Who comprised the group of people who did

18 meet?

19 A. Are you referring to all the people who met

20 during the settlement negotiations or just the

21 federal --

22 Q. How about, the four or five times that you

23 participated in meetings, who met and what was

24 discussed?

25 MR. GARVER: You can answer who met.

00076

1 THE WITNESS: All right.

2 A. Well, the attendance, as I say, varied, but

3 when I was present typical other attendees would have

4 been Michael Soukup, Ron Jones, Dan Scheidt, William

5 Walker, Tom MacVicar, Tony Federico, Richard Harvey

6 and other individuals from time to time. I'm sure

7 I've not listed them all. People were invited in and

8 left again, some of these meetings.

9 Q. Was this particular group of persons that

10 you've identified, were they members of some group

11 that were charged with a particular responsibility or

12 responsibilities?

13 MR. GARVER: You may answer that yes

14 or no.

15 A. Restate the question, please.

16 Q. Why did that particular group get together?

17 What did they get together to discuss?

18 MR. GARVER: You can answer that in

19 very general terms of the subject matter, but beyond

20 that I instruct the witness not to answer.

21 MR. BURGESS: What's the basis for the

22 instruction?

23 MR. GARVER: I believe your inquiries

24 into the subject matter of the settlement negotiation

25 discussions has been deemed outside the scope of

00077

1 these proceedings.

2 MR. BURGESS: I think you're wrong, I

3 think you're dead wrong, and I think you're --

4 MR. GARVER: Well, you can take it up

5 again, Mr. Burgess. I'm not letting the witness

6 answer.

7 MR. BURGESS: Okay. We will. I think

8 there are other reasons we need to come back, but I

9 think you're creating another one. I don't think

10 that's anywhere near what the hearing officer ruled.

11 MR. McGRATH: Mr. Burgess, before you

12 continue, I'd ask the court reporter to read back the

13 list of names.

14 MR. BURGESS: How about if I just tell

15 you. She's going to have to go back.

16 Soukup, Jones, Scheidt, Walker,

17 MacVicar, Federico, Harvey and other individuals from

18 time to time.

19 MR. McGRATH: Thank you.

20 MR. BURGESS: I want to be sure we're

21 clear on what you're instructing him not to answer.

22 Q. Can you tell me what was discussed in all

23 or any of the four or five meetings that you

24 attended?

25 A. In general terms we discussed ways and

00078

1 means of resolving the federal lawsuit that had been

2 stayed.

3 Q. What particular ways and what particular

4 means were discussed?

5 MR. GARVER: You may answer with

6 respect to broad categories, the subject matter of

7 categories involving those discussions, but beyond

8 that I instruct the witness not to answer.

9 A. Well --

10 Q. Go ahead.

11 A. Well, much of the discussion revolved

12 around the concept of constructed wetlands.

13 Q. What particularly did you discuss regarding

14 constructed wetlands? I mean, we have four or five

15 meetings here that a lot of people attended, and I

16 want to know what was discussed in these meetings.

17 It doesn't surprise me that you discussed constructed

18 wetlands.

19 I'm going to get to some -- did you

20 make specific proposals, did other people make

21 specific proposals?

22 MR. GARVER: You may answer that

23 question yes or no.

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. What was proposed and by whom?

00079

1 MR. GARVER: I instruct the witness

2 not to answer.

3 Q. Were methods other than constructed

4 wetlands discussed with respect to nutrient

5 reductions in the EAA?

6 MR. GARVER: You may answer yes or no.

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. What additional remedies or alternatives

9 other than constructed wetlands were discussed?

10 MR. McGRATH: I'd just object to the

11 form of the question.

12 MR. GARVER: You may answer.

13 A. Well, several other concepts were

14 discussed. I'm not sure I can remember all of them.

15 I'm sure that high on the list was the concept of

16 what's usually called BMPs, best management

17 practices, within the EAA.

18 Q. What others?

19 MR. GARVER: You may answer. You may

20 provide the list that Mr. Burgess is asking for.

21 A. Well, the emphasis surely was on the two

22 items already mentioned. A number of other --

23 Q. Meaning what, I'm sorry?

24 A. Meaning constructed wetlands and BMPs.

25 Other measures that were discussed

00080

1 surely included water routing techniques. I believe

2 those would have been the principal alternatives

3 discussed.

4 Q. Water routing techniques?

5 A. Those three: constructed wetlands, BMPs and

6 water routing.

7 Q. Was chemical treatment discussed?

8 MR. GARVER: You may answer that yes

9 or no question.

10 A. I believe not.

11 Q. You said the emphasis was on BMPs and

12 constructed wetlands. Who was placing the emphasis

13 on those alternatives?

14 MR. GARVER: I'll instruct the witness

15 not to answer. Let's take a short break here,

16 Mr. Burgess.

17 (A break was taken.)

18 MR. BURGESS: Can I just ask for

19 clarification for the record what the basis of your

20 instruction is?

21 MR. GARVER: It's the position of the

22 United States that questions into the details and the

23 back and forth and the discussions -- the settlement

24 negotiations are not discoverable in this proceeding.

25 And I will do further checking on that, but I don't

00081

1 think I'll be moving off that position in this

2 deposition, if that helps you as your guidance.

3 Q. Dr. Kadlec, do you know whether or not some

4 form of BMPs and/or constructed wetlands were

5 ultimately a part of the settlement agreement entered

6 into that federal lawsuit?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Do you know whether some form of BMPs

9 and/or constructed wetlands were ultimately a

10 component of the SWIM Plan about which we're all here

11 in this deposition today?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. What particular alternatives to BMPs and

14 constructed wetlands other than water routing

15 techniques were discussed during any of your four or

16 five meetings that you attended?

17 MR. McGRATH: Let me object to the

18 form to the extent that that information wouldn't be

19 relevant to the matters that are presently pending.

20 MR. BURGESS: Well, I don't think

21 relevance is an objection in a deposition but --

22 Q. You may go ahead.

23 A. Well, I'm sure I could not reiterate a

24 list. From time to time mention was made of other

25 techniques such as chemical treatment.

00082

1 Q. During these meetings?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And you previously testified water routing

4 techniques.

5 What are water routing techniques --

6 or strike -- yes, what water routing techniques were

7 discussed?

8 A. Well, in the connection of where the park

9 got its water there were discussions of how water

10 could arrive at the park from sources of better

11 conditions than it currently was.

12 Q. How it could arrive or where it could

13 arrive from?

14 A. Would you restate your question?

15 Q. Yes.

16 I'm trying to understand your answer.

17 Did you say, in discussions regarding where the park

18 got its water we discussed water routing techniques

19 relative to, and is it relative to where they got

20 their water or in what condition they got their water

21 or both?

22 A. The water routing discussion concern both

23 quality and quantity of park -- water arriving at the

24 park.

25 Q. To the park or at the park?

00083

1 A. I'm not sure I understand the distinction.

2 Q. I'm trying to understand, and let me just

3 ask you, you used the terminology water routing

4 techniques and that was discussed in these meetings.

5 What water routing techniques were discussed in your

6 meetings?

7 MR. GARVER: You may answer the

8 question.

9 A. Well, by that I mean that there are a

10 variety of ways in which water moves south from the

11 vicinity of Lake Okeechobee to various points to the

12 south including lower east coast and the park. And

13 as part of those discussions, the movement and

14 quantities and quality of water through that system

15 were discussed.

16 Q. My notes reflect that before your break you

17 had said that chemical treatment was not discussed

18 and now I believe you just said chemical treatment

19 was discussed from time to time. Do you recall --

20 MR. GARVER: I object to the

21 characterization.

22 MR. BURGESS: Well, the record will

23 stand for itself, and I'm not implying anything. I'm

24 just saying maybe my notes are in error, but those

25 are my notes.

00084

1 Q. I'm just asking you whether you recall if

2 chemical treatment was discussed or not.

3 A. Well, to the best of my recollection the

4 discussion of other alternatives other than

5 constructed wetlands, BMPs, was not to anywhere near

6 the degree or magnitude as constructed wetlands and

7 BMPs. So from time to time I'm sure there was

8 discussion of things like liming that took place, if

9 you call that chemical treatment, and I guess I

10 would. Those discussions were minor.

11 Q. Did you have an understanding that -- well,

12 strike that.

13 What was your understanding with

14 regard to the deliverable or recommendation that this

15 committee was to make? Strike that.

16 What was the charge of this committee?

17 MR. GARVER: Are you talking about the

18 charge from the attorneys, Mr. Burgess?

19 Q. What were you supposed to do?

20 MR. GARVER: I think that is asking

21 for attorney-client communications. I'll instruct

22 the witness not to answer.

23 Q. Were settling rates discussed during your

24 meeting?

25 MR. GARVER: Object to the form, you

00085

1 can answer that yes or no.

2 A. I'd ask for clarification. What is a

3 settlement --

4 Q. Settling rate.

5 A. A settling rate. Yes, in some of those

6 meetings.

7 Q. Were phosphorus uptake rates?

8 MR. GARVER: You may answer yes or no.

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. What was the first rate that you heard

11 proposed or discussed during a meeting?

12 MR. GARVER: I'd instruct the witness

13 not to answer.

14 Q. Did the rate that was discussed change

15 during the course of your meeting?

16 MR. GARVER: I'd instruct the witness

17 not to answer.

18 MR. PERKO: Could you state the

19 grounds, counsel?

20 MR. GARVER: It's the same grounds.

21 Q. Were various sizes of these constructed

22 wetlands discussed during your meeting?

23 MR. GARVER: I'll instruct the witness

24 not to answer.

25 Q. What was the first acreage -- strike that.

00086

1 What was the first amount of acreage

2 which you heard discussed relative to the constructed

3 wetlands?

4 MR. GARVER: I'll instruct the witness

5 not to answer.

6 Q. Were phosphorus limits and/or levels for

7 the park or the refuge discussed?

8 MR. GARVER: You may answer that yes

9 or no question.

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. For both the park and the refuge?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. What numbers were initially proposed for

14 the park?

15 MR. GARVER: I'll instruct the witness

16 not to answer.

17 Q. What numbers were initially imposed for the

18 refuge?

19 MR. GARVER: I'll instruct the witness

20 not to answer.

21 Q. Did the numbers change from the first

22 proposal to the end numbers contained in the

23 settlement?

24 MR. GARVER: I'll instruct the witness

25 not to answer.

00087

1 Q. How do the numbers which were discussed for

2 phosphorus limits and levels compare to the numbers

3 which are in the SWIM Plan? In other words, were the

4 numbers first discussed larger or smaller for both

5 the park and the refuge than those contained in

6 the --

7 MR. GARVER: I'll instruct the witness

8 not to answer.

9 Q. Did you discuss sheet flow as a delivery

10 method for water to the park?

11 MR. GARVER: You may answer yes or no.

12 A. I'll ask you to explain what you mean by

13 sheet flow delivery to the park.

14 Q. Well, you talked about water routing

15 techniques, I think. Was sheet flow to the park

16 discussed as a water routing technique to enable the

17 park to get more or better quality water?

18 A. Not to the best of my recollection.

19 Q. Were new or additional sources of water

20 discussed for Everglades National Park?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. What new or different sources were

23 addressed?

24 MR. GARVER: I'll instruct the witness

25 not to answer.

00088

1 MR. BURGESS: Well, obviously I think

2 I'm entitled to these matters so we'll be bringing

3 these up at the hearing.

4 Q. Were point source or non-point sources of

5 water delivery discussed?

6 A. Well --

7 MR. GARVER: I object to the form of

8 that question.

9 Q. Do you understand it?

10 A. I was about to ask for clarification

11 because all water has got to be point or non-point,

12 so the answer would be yes on that basis.

13 Q. Let me go back for a moment to the topic we

14 were discussing earlier, the ENR meetings.

15 Do you recall when the second ENR

16 meeting was that you attended?

17 A. I believe that would have been in either

18 late November or early December 1991.

19 Q. And whom did you attend that meeting on

20 behalf of, the district or the Department of Justice?

21 A. The invitation was extended by the

22 district, and I attended under the sponsorship of the

23 Department of Justice.

24 Q. And so when you may have testified earlier

25 that you were originally contacted by the Department

00089

1 of Justice in January of 1991, would that testimony

2 have been in error?

3 A. I don't understand the question.

4 Q. Well, how did you come to be sponsored by

5 the Department of Justice to attend the ENR meeting?

6 A. Well, the ENR meeting was in either late

7 November or early December 1991, and I began with the

8 Department of Justice in January of 1991.

9 Q. Oh, I'm sorry, of January of '91.

10 Do you know whether you produced among

11 your documents your contract with the Department of

12 Justice?

13 A. I would have provided it to the Department

14 of Justice for production, and they would have made

15 the decision as to whether or not to produce it.

16 MR. BURGESS: Geff, do you know

17 whether or not it was produced or not?

18 MR. GARVER: I don't know off hand.

19 I'll have to check that out.

20 Q. Let me show you what we have marked as

21 Exhibit Number 2.

22 (Witness reviewing document.)

23 Q. Have you seen that document before and

24 specifically the wording that concerns you which

25 starts on page seven?

00090

1 A. Yes, I believe I have seen this document or

2 something very close to it before, yes, and

3 specifically the verbiage on pages seven, eight and

4 nine.

5 Q. Did you author that verbiage?

6 A. I did not.

7 Q. Did you approve it?

8 A. I did not.

9 Q. Were you asked to review it?

10 A. I very likely was, but I don't recall the

11 instance.

12 Q. You don't recall whether you provided

13 comment or changes?

14 A. I did not -- I did not provide any

15 suggestion for changes, I may have been asked to read

16 it prior to its issuance.

17 Q. On the bottom of page seven it says for

18 "Subject Matter of Expected Testimony", the

19 following: Wetland treatment systems and wetland

20 hydrology and also standing. Do you know whether any

21 of those items have been eliminated from your

22 probably subject matter of expert testimony?

23 MR. GARVER: Counsel, with respect to

24 the standing issue, we will only present evidence if

25 standing becomes an issue with Dr. Kadlec. At