00001
 1                        STATE OF FLORIDA
 2       
 3                DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
 4       
 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.,
17       
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.,
 4            
 5                      Petitioners,
 6       
 7            -vs-
 8       
 9           SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT,
10           an Agency of the State of Florida,
11                 
12                      Respondent,
13       
14           and
15       
16           MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS OF FLORIDA,
17           The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and the 
18           FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL 
19           REGULATION, 
20       
21                      Intervenors,
22       ---------------------------------------------/
23       
24       
25       
00003
 1            APPEARANCES:
 2                 
 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.
13       
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.
10       
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.
21       
22                 Also present:  Mr. Curtis J. Richardson
23       
24       
25
00005
 1                        I   N   D   E   X
 2       
 3            WITNESS                                     PAGE
 4       
 5                 Dr. Robert Kadlec
 6       
 7            Examination by Mr. Burgess                    6
 8       
 9            
10       
11       
12       
13       
14       
15                   E   X   H   I   B   I   T   S
16       
17            NUMBER         IDENTIFICATION               PAGE
18       
19            Ex. No. 1          Vitae                     10
20            Ex. No. 2          Document                  53
21       
22       
23       
24
25
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 this 
00091
 1       point we have not developed any specific testimony 
 2       that Dr. Kadlec will be providing with respect to 
 3       standing.
 4            Q.   Is that your understanding?
 5            A.   I'm sorry, repeat the question.
 6            Q.   Do you anticipate providing any opinion 
 7       testimony with respect to standing issues as related 
 8       there on the bottom of page seven?
 9            A.   I'm not sure I fully appreciate the meaning 
10       of the word "standing" in the legal context.
11            Q.   Let me ask you this.  On what subject 
12       matters do you anticipate offering expert opinion at 
13       the hearing of this matter?
14            A.   Well, on page seven those two items, 
15       wetland treatment systems and wetland hydrology.
16            Q.   Any others?  Any other subject matter that 
17       you believe you'll be offering expert opinion on?
18            A.   No, not to my knowledge.
19            Q.   What opinions have you formulated for this 
20       matter relative to wetland treatment systems and 
21       wetland hydrology?  And if you want to take them 
22       separately that's -- in general at this point --
23                      MR. GARVER:  Are you looking for just 
24       a comprehensive list of his opinions?
25                      MR. BURGESS:  No, I'm looking -- I 
00092
 1       anticipate he's developed either preliminary or final 
 2       opinions with respect to the subject matter of his 
 3       respective testimony, and I'm asking him to outline 
 4       for me for purposes of further questioning the 
 5       opinions that he's reached with respect to those two 
 6       topics that he's listed as providing testimony.
 7                      MR. GARVER:  The witness may be able 
 8       to provide you an outline; I think to ask for all of 
 9       his opinions is a little bit broad.  You're asking 
10       for a long narrative answer.  I'll object.
11                      MR. BURGESS:  Well, I'm trying to 
12       focus the discovery in the remainder of my questions.  
13       I obviously -- I'm asking him what his opinions are; 
14       I can't ask him anything else.  I can't ask him about 
15       those opinions unless I know what they are.  So he 
16       needs to start somewhere, and, I guess, in general 
17       tell me what opinions he anticipates offering at the 
18       time of the hearing regarding wetland treatment 
19       systems.
20                      MR. GARVER:  Well, I think there's 
21       other ways to get at his opinions, Mr. Burgess, 
22       but -- I object to your question, I think it asks for 
23       a narrative answer.
24                      MR. BURGESS:  Well --
25            Q.   Have you discussed your likely testimony at 
00093
 1       the hearing with counsel for the Department of 
 2       Justice?
 3            A.   In broad general terms.
 4            Q.   Have you finalized opinions that you're 
 5       going to offer at the time of the hearing?
 6            A.   I'm not sure I understand what the meaning 
 7       of finalized is in that question.
 8            Q.   Do you have opinions that you anticipate 
 9       you'll offer at the time of hearing regarding wetland 
10       treatment systems?
11            A.   I will have opinions at the time of 
12       hearings, yes.
13            Q.   And the same with wetland hydrology?
14            A.   Yes.
15            Q.   Let's go over the substance of expected 
16       testimony.  
17                      What final opinions do you anticipate 
18       rendering at the time of hearing with respect to the 
19       design, construction and operation of wetland 
20       treatment systems for nutrient removal nationwide?
21                      MR. GARVER:  Again, I object to the 
22       question in that it asks for a narrative answer.  The 
23       witness can provide a broad outline to that question.
24                      MR. BURGESS:  Well, this is a question 
25       and answer exercise and whether or not it requires a 
00094
 1       narrative answer or any other kind of answer, I think 
 2       he has to give it.  He's been described as and listed 
 3       as a testifying expert witness in this matter.  I'm 
 4       asking him what his opinions are with respect to 
 5       areas of testimony that you, sir, have listed him as 
 6       an expert witness, and you're not allowing him to 
 7       give me the general nature of his opinions.
 8                      MR. GARVER:  Well, I am allowing him 
 9       to give you an outline of his opinions.  Counsel for 
10       the league in the past has objected to questions 
11       asking for narrative answers.  I'm surprised to hear 
12       you objecting to that objection.  I just don't want 
13       you to -- I don't think you can expect a witness 
14       testifying on this broad subject matter to give you a 
15       comprehensive list of specific opinions so -- 
16                      MR. BURGESS:  Well, he's the expert, 
17       I'm the attorney.  I'm asking the questions, so he 
18       can answer them.
19                      MR. GARVER:  You're asking questions 
20       that he couldn't possibly be expected to answer.  
21                      MR. BURGESS:  Well, I don't understand 
22       what your objection is, sir.  There are two areas now 
23       that he's listed as an expert witness in, wetland 
24       treatment systems and wetland hydrology.  The most 
25       basic question that I've ever learned to ask an 
00095
 1       expert opinion are, what final opinions have you 
 2       reached with respect to the subject matters as your 
 3       counsel has listed you as a witness on.  That's what 
 4       I'm asking him, and you're not letting him answer, is 
 5       that correct?
 6                      MR. GARVER:  No, I am letting him 
 7       answer, I'm just objecting to your request for a 
 8       narrative answer.  I said he can give you a general 
 9       broad outline.
10                      MR. BURGESS:  He can give me a general 
11       broad outline, but I want to know what his opinions 
12       are.  That's why I traveled however many miles I 
13       traveled to get here.
14            Q.   I'd like to know what final opinions, sir, 
15       you've developed with respect to wetland treatment 
16       systems and wetland hydrology that you anticipate 
17       giving in the matter?
18                      MR. GARVER:  My objection is noted.  
19       You may answer the question.
20            A.   All right.  Would you repeat the question 
21       at this point?
22            Q.   Sure.  
23                      What final opinions have you developed 
24       which you anticipate giving at the hearing of this 
25       matter with respect to the subject matter of expected 
00096
 1       testimony that your counsel has listed you as likely 
 2       to testify?  And that's beginning on page seven, 
 3       wetland treatment systems and wetland hydrology.
 4                      MR. GARVER:  Same objection.
 5            A.   I'm sorry, I am under a misapprehension.  I 
 6       thought the previous question had been directed 
 7       toward design, construction and operation on the top 
 8       of page eight.  Am I incorrect?
 9            Q.   Okay.  We can start there or we can 
10       start -- I thought your counsel was instructing you 
11       not to answer my previous question.  Now he's saying 
12       he's not.
13                      MR. GARVER:  I never instructed him 
14       not to answer, Mr. Burgess.  That's quite an 
15       accusation.
16            Q.   Let's start at the beginning where counsel 
17       listed you and your subject matter of expected 
18       testimony.  
19                      What final opinions have you rendered 
20       that you anticipate giving at the time of trial with 
21       respect to wetland treatment systems and wetland 
22       hydrology?  And if you want to divide those up into 
23       two separate subjects, that's fine.
24            A.   Well, I'm at a loss as to know where to 
25       start even if we divide the question, but let me 
00097
 1       offer a few comments.  
 2                      First, regarding wetland treatment 
 3       systems --
 4            Q.   Let me ask you this before -- I don't mean 
 5       to interrupt you, but do you have final opinions?
 6            A.   I do, but the question involves such a 
 7       large number of issues and systems and considerations 
 8       that I'm having difficulty phrasing a reasonably 
 9       concise answer.  But I will attempt to do so.
10            Q.   Okay.
11            A.   The subject matter of expected testimony 
12       concerning wetland treatment systems will be that 
13       wetland treatment systems have been built and 
14       operated successfully to remove nutrients from 
15       waters.  The substance of -- the subject matter, 
16       rather, of expected testimony on wetland hydrology is 
17       that water -- the movement of water through wetland 
18       treatment systems can be described by existing 
19       techniques.
20            Q.   Okay.  
21                      On the next page, "Substance of 
22       Expected Testimony", design, construction and 
23       operation of wetland treatment systems for nutrient 
24       removal nationwide including south Florida, what do 
25       you anticipate the substance of your testimony 
00098
 1       regarding that subject is going to be?
 2                      MR. GARVER:  The same objection as 
 3       before.
 4            A.   Well, again, let me attempt to provide --
 5            Q.   I didn't write this, sir, your counsel 
 6       wrote it.  This is what he said the substance of your 
 7       expected testimony is going to be, and I'm trying to 
 8       find out what the substance of that testimony is on 
 9       that particular subject.  And we are going to take 
10       them one by one.
11                      MR. GARVER:  I mean, that question 
12       could be interpreted to ask him to go on for however 
13       long he's going to be on the witness stand saying 
14       what he's going to say and that's the objection I 
15       have to your question.  
16                      I know you know.  Mr. Burgess, that 
17       there are other ways to get at Dr. Kadlec's opinions.
18                      MR. BURGESS:  And I anticipate over 
19       the next few days that we're going to be doing that, 
20       but I'm trying to have the witness narrow down for 
21       me, since only he and you know, because you authored 
22       this, and he's the one who is going to testify what 
23       it is concerning these items he's going to testify 
24       about and what it is he has final opinions.  And 
25       where he doesn't have final opinions he can identify 
00099
 1       that for me.
 2                      MR. GARVER:  Same objection.  
 3                      You may answer the question.
 4            A.   Well, among other things, the substance of 
 5       testimony on design would be that wetland treatment 
 6       systems have been successfully designed for nutrient 
 7       removal.  With respect to construction, the wetland 
 8       treatment systems have been constructed successfully 
 9       for nutrient removal.  With respect to operation, the 
10       wetland treatment systems have been operated 
11       successfully for nutrient removal.  And that does 
12       include systems operating across North America as 
13       well as those in south Florida.
14            Q.   Are these systems that you designed, 
15       constructed and/or operated?
16            A.   Some are.
17            Q.   How many?
18            A.   I'm sorry, I don't know the reference for 
19       how many.
20            Q.   Do you anticipate testifying about systems 
21       that have been successfully designed, constructed and 
22       operated?
23            A.   Yes.
24            Q.   And how many of the ones that you have 
25       designed, constructed and operated do you anticipate 
00100
 1       testifying about?
 2            A.   I'm not sure at this time.
 3            Q.   And what is the basis for your not being 
 4       sure?
 5            A.   Because I have not completed the review of 
 6       systems and information in connection with developing 
 7       final testimony, final opinions.
 8            Q.   When do you anticipate you'll complete that 
 9       review?
10            A.   Well, I should imagine I'll be working on 
11       that the balance of the spring and early summer.
12            Q.   Do you have a target date by which you 
13       anticipate having your final opinions in that regard?
14            A.   I'm sorry, what does "in that regard" mean?
15            Q.   The review of your systems and information.
16            A.   I'm going to ask one more clarification.  
17       "Those systems", I've lost track whether we are 
18       talking about all systems nationwide, those that I 
19       have designed --
20            Q.   What ones are you going to testify about, 
21       do you know?
22            A.   I would plan to include in the basis of my 
23       opinions in my testimony systems from a wide ranging 
24       set of geographical locations.
25            Q.   Are these systems that are in the North 
00101
 1       American data base?
 2            A.   Some are and some are not.
 3            Q.   How many are in that data base?
 4                      MR. GARVER:  Object to the form.
 5            A.   I need clarification of the word "how 
 6       many".  Do you mean how many systems are in the data 
 7       base?
 8            Q.   Yes.
 9            A.   We have identified at this point 
10       approximately 300 systems, and I believe we have 
11       entered data at this point for 137.
12            Q.   Did you say 137?
13            A.   137.
14            Q.   Do you have data from the remaining 
15       systems?
16            A.   I personally have data on some of the 
17       remaining systems; other co-workers have data on some 
18       of the other remaining systems.
19            Q.   And what co-workers are these?
20            A.   Well, at the moment the contract is in a 
21       limbo period.  We expect the start button to be 
22       pushed momentarily.  If and when it is, the 
23       co-workers will include Sherwood Reed and Robert 
24       Knight.
25            Q.   And who are Sherwood Reed and Robert 
00102
 1       Knight?
 2            A.   What do you mean by who are they?  Do you 
 3       mean where do they work?
 4            Q.   Yes. 
 5            A.   Sherwood Reed is located in Vermont or New 
 6       Hampshire.  He's right close to the border.  He's a 
 7       private consultant.  
 8                      Robert Knight is located in 
 9       Gainesville and is currently on leave from CH2M Hill, 
10       partial leave.
11            Q.   Who is the contract that is in limbo with?
12            A.   In essence, with USEPA; however, they 
13       routinely use mission contractors to manage such 
14       projects.  That mission contractor would be 
15       Montgomery Engineers. 
16                      MR. PERKO:  Excuse me, did you say 
17       mission?
18                      THE WITNESS:  Yes.
19            Q.   What do you mean by mission?
20            A.   Well, USEPA does not have the staff to 
21       manage all the projects they would like to have 
22       conducted under their auspices so they contract the 
23       management of projects to other contractors. 
24                      MR. PERKO:  Could I get you to repeat 
25       the mission contractors?
00103
 1                      MR. BURGESS:  What do you want? 
 2                      MR. PERKO:  Mission contractors for 
 3       this one.
 4                      THE WITNESS:  The name?  Montgomery 
 5       Engineers. 
 6                      MR. PERKO:  Thank you.
 7            Q.   Based where?
 8            A.   Since I am not conducting negotiations, I'm 
 9       afraid I cannot tell you where they're based.
10            Q.   Do you know who is negotiating --
11            A.   Well, the three individuals