00312
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. 3
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: Wednesday, March 24, 1993
23 TIME: 9:00 a.m.
24 LOCATION: 3200 Boardwalk
25 Ann Arbor, Michigan
00313
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
00314
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.)
00315
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 Mr. Carlos Marin
24
25
00316
1 I N D E X
2
3 WITNESS PAGE
4
5 Dr. Robert Kadlec
6
7 Examination by Mr. Burgess 317
8
9
10
11 E X H I B I T S
12
13 NUMBER IDENTIFICATION PAGE
14
15 Ex. No. 6 Time Averaged, Spatially 317
16 Variable Mass Balances
17 Ex. No. 7 Hydrological Design 339
18 Ex. No. 8 Everglades Protectoin 393
19 Ex. No. 9 Comments of Davis Report 408
20
21
22
23
24
25
00317
1 Ann Arbor, Michigan
2 Wednesday, March 24, 1993
3 9:00 a.m.
4 * * *
5 (Deposition Exhibit No. 6
6 marked for identification.)
7 (The Witness, having been previously
8 sworn, testified as follows:)
9 E X A M I N A T I O N
10 BY MR. BURGESS:
11 Q. Dr. Kadlec, let me show you what's been
12 marked as Exhibit 6 and ask you if you can identify
13 that document?
14 MR. GARVER: Mr. Burgess, we have a
15 new person in the room. Could you put that on the
16 record?
17 MR. BURGESS: Yes. For the record,
18 this is Carlos Marin, consultant to the Florida Sugar
19 Cane League and the US Sugar Corporation.
20 MR. GARVER: How do you spell that?
21 MR. BURGESS: M-a-r-i-n.
22 A. Yes, I recognize this document.
23 Q. What is that?
24 A. It is a mathematical modeling document that
25 details calculations for mass balances for phosphorus
00318
1 and water in wetlands.
2 Q. Who is that prepared for?
3 A. For the Department of Justice.
4 Q. And when was it prepared?
5 A. The date on this document is December 20th
6 and the preparation would have been in the week or so
7 preceding.
8 Q. Is this the document you testified, I
9 believe, either yesterday or the day before that you
10 delivered to Galan Miller of Burns and McDonnell?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Who else was the document given to?
13 A. The Department of Justice.
14 Q. Why was it prepared?
15 A. It was prepared at the request for
16 assistance of Galan Miller.
17 Q. Did the Department of Justice ask you to
18 prepare it to assist Galan Miller?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. What did he need assistance with as far as
21 you understood?
22 A. I understood that he wished to be apprised
23 of the most recent, most detailed mass balancing
24 procedures that were being used by the Department of
25 Justice in the analysis of 2A data.
00319
1 Q. Who at the Department of Justice was
2 utilizing these mass balance equations for the
3 analysis of 2A data?
4 A. Among others, myself and Dr. Walker.
5 Q. Any others?
6 A. There may have been others, but those would
7 be the two principal persons.
8 Q. Had you provided the equations in Exhibit 6
9 to Dr. Walker prior to the time that you delivered
10 them to Galan Miller in December of '92?
11 A. I quite probably did. I work with
12 Dr. Walker, and we, from time to time, exchange
13 information.
14 Q. Did you author Exhibit 6?
15 A. I did.
16 Q. Were you assisted by anyone?
17 A. Only in the sense of review.
18 Q. Who reviewed the equations?
19 A. Dr. Walker.
20 Q. The first sentence of the first paragraph
21 states, "This development sets forth the water and
22 phosphorus mass balances for a wetland of variable
23 width and spatially variable water flow". What do
24 you mean by "spatially variable water flow" in the
25 context of that sentence?
00320
1 A. In the context of that sentence that means
2 that as the water proceeds through the wetland, it is
3 subject to atmospheric augmentation.
4 Q. What does atmospheric augmentation mean?
5 A. That means there may be additions due to
6 rainfall or depletions due to evapotranspiration.
7 Q. What is plug flow?
8 A. Plug flow is a term used to describe liquid
9 movement in which a segment or unit of water moves
10 through a system without mixing with preceding,
11 succeeding or adjacent parcels of water or fluid,
12 liquid.
13 Q. And what is it that you attempt to do in
14 the first portion of that paper titled "The Plug Flow
15 Case"?
16 A. Could you specify what you mean by the
17 first portion?
18 Q. What are you attempting to convey in that
19 portion of the paper?
20 A. Are we referring to the first page?
21 Q. Yes, sir. I see "The Plug Flow Case". I
22 assume that's a title for a portion of the paper?
23 A. That's a subtitle, yes, and the first page
24 sets forth a sketch of a cross section of a wetland.
25 Q. And that sketch depicts what?
00321
1 A. That sketch depicts a cross section of a
2 wetland experiencing flow coming in from the left.
3 Q. Does it depict plug flow?
4 A. One cannot tell from a sketch what the
5 mixing pattern is.
6 Q. Let me ask you this. On the top of page
7 two it says, "The sketch in Figure 1 shows the water
8 flows associated with an element of the water column
9 to be lateral flows in and out, rain and
10 evapotranspiration". Is that your understanding as
11 to what that sketch shows?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Turn to page three. Item 11 towards the
14 bottom is an equation. What does that equation
15 describe relative to concentration?
16 A. That equation describes the concentration
17 in the water in the wetland.
18 Q. I'm sorry, describes what?
19 A. Equation 11 provides a calculation of the
20 concentration in the water in the wetland.
21 Q. At any certain distance?
22 A. At a distance representable by a certain
23 area upstream of that concentration.
24 Q. Does that equation include a parameter for
25 variability?
00322
1 A. I don't understand what you mean by the
2 word "variability" in this context.
3 Q. Well, my understanding is, the equation
4 sets forth water and phosphorus mass balances for
5 wetland and variable width and spatially variable
6 water flow. Is there a portion of that equation that
7 addresses spatial variability?
8 A. There is.
9 Q. What portion?
10 A. It is the term the on right-hand side of
11 equation 11 which contains the area upstream of that
12 concentration designated by capital "A".
13 Q. Can you read into the record what portion
14 of the equation that is? Is it the far right or --
15 A. It is the term which reads as follows:
16 parenthesis; capital "C"; sub zero hat; minus; lower
17 case "r"; capital "C"; subscript capital "R"; over
18 hat; close parenthesis. Start parenthesis; 1 plus
19 lower case "a"; capital "A"; close parenthesis.
20 Exponentiation; negative; parenthesis. 1 plus lower
21 case "k"; subscripted lower case "e" slash
22 parenthesis; "R" over bar -- capital "R" over bar,
23 excuse me, minus capital "ET" over bar; close
24 parenthesis; close parenthesis.
25 Q. Does that equation describe transverse
00323
1 variation in the concentration?
2 A. It does.
3 Q. Does it describe a transverse variation
4 perpendicular to the direction of flow?
5 A. It does not.
6 Q. So does it describe transverse variation of
7 the direction of flow?
8 A. I would ask you to explain what you mean by
9 transverse direction of flow.
10 Q. Does the equation describe longitudinal
11 variability?
12 MR. GARVER: Object to the form.
13 A. What do you mean by longitudinal?
14 Q. Change in distance.
15 MR. GARVER: Object to the form.
16 A. Well --
17 MR. BURGESS: You object to my
18 answering his question on a description?
19 MR. GARVER: I'm making a form of
20 objection, Mr. Burgess.
21 MR. BURGESS: What's the form of the
22 objection? He asked me a question to clarify my
23 question; I gave him my definition and you're
24 objecting to it?
25 MR. GARVER: I don't think your
00324
1 definition was clear.
2 MR. BURGESS: Oh, okay.
3 A. Well, I am having difficulty understanding
4 your meanings of the words longitudinal and
5 transverse.
6 Q. Okay. How do you use the term longitudinal
7 variability?
8 A. I would normally use that term to imply
9 longitudinal in the direction of flow in a
10 one-dimensional flow situation, a one-directional
11 flow situation.
12 Q. And how would you describe the term
13 longitudinal variability?
14 A. In the context of concentration, it would
15 be the variability of concentration in that
16 direction.
17 Q. Does equation number 11 describe the
18 variability of concentration in the direction of the
19 flow?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And does it describe variability in
22 concentration in the direction of the flow
23 perpendicular to the longitudinal variability?
24 A. It does not describe variability
25 perpendicular to the direction of flow.
00325
1 Q. Turn to page four of the document. Three
2 quarters of the way down there's a paragraph that
3 begins, "In the foregoing, it has been assumed that
4 the wetland does not go dry during the period of
5 averaging, and thus all averages are wet time
6 averages. If dry out occurs, then the rate constant
7 must be multiplied by the fraction of the averaging
8 period which is wet".
9 What does the term "dry out" mean in
10 the context that you've used it here?
11 A. It means a condition of no standing surface
12 water.
13 Q. And how do you define the term "Fw"?
14 A. That is defined as the number of days out
15 of a given time period that the wetland is dry
16 divided by the total number of days in that time
17 period.
18 Q. Have you ever determined that time period
19 for Water Conservation Area 2A?
20 A. I have some preliminary determinations.
21 Q. And what are those determinations?
22 A. I can't answer precisely without referring
23 to my calculations.
24 Q. What would you need?
25 A. I would need for -- the most recent
00326
1 information that I received, I believe, was a
2 document from the South Florida Water Management
3 District representing the field notes on the
4 condition of the wetland on sampling visits; I would
5 need prior to that -- similar information had been
6 provided earlier.
7 Q. As you sit here today, Dr. Kadlec, do you
8 anticipate at the time of trial that you will be
9 rendering opinions which include opinions with
10 respect to the period that Water Conservation Area 2A
11 is dry versus the period that it is wet?
12 A. I believe so.
13 Q. But you can't tell us what those opinions
14 are now?
15 A. In general terms, it's my opinion that
16 during the recent years Water Conservation Area 2A
17 has experienced periods of dryness.
18 Q. What do you base that on?
19 A. I base that on information provided by the
20 South Florida Water Management District.
21 Q. For purposes of your or any mass balance
22 equation that you might utilize, you can't tell us
23 today what that period of time is, what that
24 component of your equation would be, is that correct?
25 A. This document was prepared to assist
00327
1 Burns-McDonnell and Mr. Miller in computations
2 regarding the STAs. Those STAs as currently
3 conceptually designed do not contain periods of dry
4 out.
5 Q. Yes, sir.
6 And without respect it the document
7 but just with respect to what opinions you might
8 render at the time of trial with respect to 2A, I'm
9 asking you whether you know what period of time 2A
10 has remained dry over the period of years that you
11 might include in your calculations?
12 A. As I indicated, I have the information on
13 that subject provided to me by the South Florida
14 Water Management District.
15 Q. But you would need it in front of you to
16 answer my question, is that correct?
17 A. To give you a precise number for any
18 particular time period, I would need that information
19 in front of me.
20 Q. Can you give me a range of numbers?
21 A. The range is large. In some years it did
22 not dry out, in other years there was a significant
23 fraction of time that it was dry.
24 Q. Do you know where or how the South Florida
25 Water Management District determines periods of
00328
1 wetness or dryness for Water Conservation Area 2A?
2 A. The information is provided in two ways:
3 One is, the absence of the ability to take samples on
4 their visits to the transect sections within 2A, and
5 that is supplemented by the field notes that indicate
6 the condition of standing water or no standing water
7 accompanying those missing entries.
8 Q. Are those readings or observations taken on
9 a daily basis?
10 A. They are not.
11 Q. Do you know how often they are taken?
12 A. I can't answer for the exact frequency, but
13 it's, I believe, approximately a biweekly or weekly
14 basis. In some time period it has varied
15 historically.
16 Q. Are there water level gages that are read
17 by these people that go out into the field in 2A?
18 A. No, not at all stations.
19 Q. Are there some?
20 A. Well, I do not know if the people who do
21 the transects also read the one gage I do know that
22 exists, which is the so-called 217 gage. I suspect
23 they do not.
24 Q. Have you ever been to the 217 gage?
25 A. I have not.
00329
1 Q. Do you know how often that gage is read for
2 water level data?
3 MR. GARVER: Object to the form. You
4 mean by the district, you mean by anybody?
5 MR. BURGESS: By the district.
6 A. Well, I'm not entirely sure. It's my
7 impression that that gage is read daily.
8 Q. I'm sorry, did I ask you whether you've
9 ever been to the 217?
10 A. You did.
11 Q. You have not?
12 A. I have not.
13 Q. How do the South Florida Water Management
14 District people that sample along the transects
15 arrive at those transects? Is it by airboat or by
16 foot or by air, or do you know?
17 MR. GARVER: Object to the form. I'm
18 not sure what transects you're talking about.
19 MR. BURGESS: I'm talking about the
20 ones that he testified to a moment ago, Mr. Garver.
21 MR. GARVER: I still object to the
22 form.
23 MR. BURGESS: The objection, as all
24 the rest of them, is noted on the record.
25 A. I'm unaware of the details of the
00330
1 district's sampling along transects.
2 Q. When you talk about the absence of their
3 ability to take samples on their visits to their
4 transects, as you testified to a moment ago, what
5 makes it impossible for them to take those samples?
6 MR. GARVER: Object to the form.
7 A. I don't believe I said there was an absence
8 of their ability, I may have said something similar.
9 The impression I meant to give is that there would be
10 an absence of data accompanied by field notes
11 reflecting the ability to take samples. And there
12 are two reasons that samples might not have been
13 taken. One is, if for some reason the expedition did
14 not take place; the second reason is that there was
15 no water to sample.
16 Q. Do you have any opinion as to what depth of
17 water is needed for an airboat to traverse WCA 2A
18 south of the 10 structures?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Do you know whether or not the inability of
21 the district to collect samples on their transects
22 south of the 10 structures in 2A simply means that
23 they may not have been able to get to each station in
24 an airboat?
25 A. I'm sorry, repeat the question.
00331
1 Q. Do you know whether the inability, which I
2 believe the record will show that you did testify to,
3 the inability to take samples by personnel of the
4 district may simply be occasioned by their inability
5 to arrive at those sampling stations by airboat?
6 A. The information that I had requested from
7 the district and received was in response to the
8 question as to whether or not the expedition had
9 taken place so that the manner of travel is unknown
10 to me.
11 Q. Have you ever used the 217 gage information
12 to estimate the parameter Fw?
13 A. That's one of the methods I have used.
14 Q. What other methods have you used?
15 A. The procedure just alluded to; namely, the
16 sampling -- the frequency with which samples could
17 not be taken because of dryness at other stations.
18 Q. What documents detail those two methods?
19 What of your documents detail those two --
20 A. It would be notes.
21 Q. And how would I locate those notes among
22 the documents that you've provided in response to our
23 request for production?
24 A. My notes on that subject would be kept in
25 possibly more than one place. I believe the most
00332
1 likely place for those notes and the most of those
2 notes would appear in a segment related to an
3 analysis of work for the presentation to the SAGE
4 Committee.
5 Q. Have you prepared any publications or
6 reports which detail the conclusions you've reached
7 with respect to the period of wetland period of dry
8 arrived at by either of the two methods that you just
9 testified you utilized?
10 A. I have not.
11 Q. Over what period of time have you analyzed
12 data from the 217 gage in order to determine periods
13 of wet and dry?
14 MR. GARVER: Object to form. I'm not
15 sure you're asking about what period of data covered
16 or what period of time he actually did his analysis.
17 Q. Well, why don't you answer both of
18 Mr. Garver's questions.
19 A. Would you repeat the question, please?
20 Q. Over what period of time have you analyzed
21 the data from the 217 gage in order to determine
22 periods of wet and periods of dry? And my question
23 with Mr. Garver's clarification asks you to also tell
24 me when you did that.
25 A. Well, first, my reliance on the information
00333
1 217 gage is based on the analysis of Dr. Walker, as
2 well as myself, and consequently several different
3 periods have been looked at.
4 Q. Did you include in your presentation to
5 SAGE any conclusions with respect to periods of wet
6 and periods of dry in Water Conservation Area 2A?
7 A. I believe so.
8 Q. And what period of time or period of record
9 did you utilize to reach your conclusions on that
10 subject given to SAGE?
11 A. I don't recall at this time. There was --
12 I believe it would have been -- not certain, but I
13 believe it would have been the period from the
14 present to 14 years before present.
15 Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether or not
16 the 217 gage is representative of the water depth
17 over the entire WCA 2A marsh?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And what is that opinion?
20 A. That the 217 gage is representative of the
21 depth at that location.
22 Q. At what location, sir?
23 A. At the location of the 217 gage.
24 Q. And in your opinion, is that depth which is
25 read at the location of the 217 gage representative
00334
1 of the water depth over the entire WCA 2A?
2 A. It is not.
3 Q. Why not?
4 A. Because conservation area 2A has a slope to
5 it, gage 217 is midway -- approximately midway down
6 that slope, and so depths would be expected to vary
7 and have been reported to vary along that slope.
8 Q. In your opinion, does the water depth at
9 the 217 gage represent the water depth in any other
10 areas of Water Conservation Area 2A other than the
11 depth at the 217 gage?
12 A. In general terms, since it's at a low
13 position compared to the upstream areas of 2A, I
14 believe it represents in many instances an upper
15 bound on depths upstream.
16 Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether when
17 it is dry at the 217 gage it is also dry along the
18 entire lengths of the district transects emanating
19 from the DCA or E structures?
20 MR. GARVER: That's S 10 DCE or A
21 structures?
22 A. Well, it is my general impression that
23 under many circumstances when the 217 gage is dry,
24 stations upstream of the 217 gage are also dry.
25 Q. And that would include any stations along
00335
1 any of those transects emanating south from the L-39
2 levy?
3 A. That would apply, in my opinion, to those
4 stations upstream of the 217 or north of the 217
5 gage.
6 Q. How is the term "dry" defined for purposes
7 of the 217 gage?
8 A. I have made no such definition personally.
9 Q. Do you know how the district defines "dry"
10 at the 217 gage?
11 A. I do not.
12 Q. What is the basis for your testimony that
13 217 is located midway down a slope and that depths
14 vary along that slope?
15 A. The location of the 217 gage, as presented
16 to me in various documents, is in the central
17 portions of conservation area 2A; in general terms,
18 central portion, so that's where my conclusion that
19 it is centrally located comes from. The conclusion
20 on depth variability comes from the depths reported
21 by the South Florida Water Management District along
22 those transects on their expeditions.
23 Q. In what documents are those depths
24 reported?
25 A. Those depths are reported in a table of
00336
1 data prepared by the South Florida Water Management
2 District.
3 Q. What table of data?
4 A. The South Florida Water Management District
5 has prepared a summary table of data taken along
6 transects in Water Conservation Area 2A. That's the
7 document to which I refer.
8 Q. And have you provided us with a copy of
9 that document?
10 A. I have provided those documents to the
11 Department of Justice for production.
12 Q. Have you seen any topographic maps which
13 detail this slope that you've testified to in Water
14 Conservation Area 2A?
15 A. No.
16 Q. So the basis for your opinion that 2A is
17 midway down a slope and that the depth varies along
18 that slope are documents provided to you from the
19 South Florida Water Management District which contain
20 depth data at district stations located on the
21 district transects south of the 10 structures, is
22 that correct?
23 A. Not that alone.
24 Q. What else?
25 A. I've been provided with the surveyed
00337
1 elevations on a line traversing Water Conservation
2 Area 2A from north to south.
3 Q. Who performed that survey?
4 A. I have no direct knowledge.
5 Q. When did you get the survey elevations?
6 A. I can't pinpoint it in time, but in general
7 terms I received that information fall of 1992.
8 Q. Who gave it to you?
9 A. I believe Dr. Mark Maffei.
10 Q. When was the survey taken?
11 A. I don't know.
12 Q. What areas were surveyed?
13 A. It was the route of a proposed canal, I
14 believe, across conservation area 2A.
15 Q. Does the proposed canal have a name or a
16 title?
17 A. I believe it has a letter number
18 designation, as with the rest of the canals in the
19 area, but I don't know it at this point in time.
20 Q. Did you get a copy of an actual survey or
21 just surveyed elevations?
22 A. The latter.
23 Q. And did you provide that with your
24 documents in response to our notice?
25 A. I provided that.
00338
1 Q. And how would I identify that as,
2 handwritten notes or --
3 A. It's a single xeroxed sheet that would be
4 in my files.
5 Q. Any particular file that you might look at
6 first in attempt to locate that?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Which one?
9 A. It would be a file pertaining to one of the
10 two SAGE meetings in the fall of 1992.
11 Q. And have you formed an opinion that those
12 surveyed elevations confirm that the 217 gage is
13 located midway down a slope in Water Conservation
14 Area 2A?
15 A. In general terms, yes.
16 Q. Turn to equation 23 on page six.
17 What does that equation describe
18 relative to concentration?
19 A. Equation 23 describes the concentration
20 that would leave a unit of a wetland which operated
21 under conditions of complete internal mixing.
22 Q. And does that equation describe variability
23 in the direction of flow?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Does it describe variability in the
00339
1 direction -- I'm sorry, does it describe variability
2 perpendicular to the direction of flow?
3 A. A completely mixed model possesses no
4 direction of variability.
5 Q. If you could turn to equation 27 in Exhibit
6 6, what does that equation describe relative to
7 concentration?
8 A. It describes the effluent concentration
9 from one of a series of well-mixed wetland units.
10 Q. What do you mean by well-mixed?
11 A. As in the connection of the preceding
12 questions, all of the water internal to that segment
13 is presumed to be completely mixed and of the same
14 concentration.
15 Q. Does that model describe longitudinal
16 variability in the direction of flow?
17 MR. GARVER: Object to the form.
18 A. The model described by equation 27 does
19 describe concentration variability in the direction
20 of flow.
21 Q. Does it describe concentration variability
22 perpendicular to the direction of flow?
23 A. The model presumes no such variability.
24 (Deposition Exhibit No. 7
25 marked for identification.)
00340
1 Q. Let me show you what's been marked as
2 Exhibit 7 and ask you if you can identify that
3 document?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. What is that paper?
6 A. It's a paper in press from the Pensacola
7 International Wetland Conference entitled
8 "Hydrological Design of Free Water Surface Treatment
9 Wetlands".
10 Q. Did you prepare that paper?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Did you deliver it at the Pensacola wetland
13 conference?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. When was that conference?
16 A. In the fall of 1991.
17 Q. And when was the paper prepared?
18 A. It would have been prepared in the fall of
19 1991.
20 Q. Is this paper the same paper as that
21 detailed as item number 56 on Exhibit Number 1?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And you've previously testified, have you
24 not, that you intend to rely upon that paper for
25 purposes of your testimony concerning mass balance
00341
1 modeling?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. I'll refer you to the last sentence in the
4 first paragraph which reads, "Attempts to correlate
5 wetland performance for pollutant reduction with very
6 simple design variables, such as hydraulic loading
7 rate, detention time and pollutant loading rate, have
8 all failed to produce satisfying results".
9 Was that a true statement when you
10 made it in the fall of '91?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Do you consider it to be a true statement
13 still today?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Next sentence in the first paragraph, "It
16 is widely presumed that simple first order chemical
17 rate laws apply for pollutant reduction, and that
18 constructed wetlands are approximately plug flow in
19 their internal hydrology".
20 Was that a widely held presumption in
21 your view in the fall of 1991?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And do you still think it's a widely held
24 presumption today?
25 A. Yes.
00342
1 Q. Next paragraph, "It is the purpose of this
2 paper to show that the second of these presumptions
3 is incorrect and that the design equations based upon
4 it are therefore also incorrect".
5 Dr. Kadlec, was it the purpose of this
6 paper to show that the presumption constructed
7 wetlands are approximately plug flow in their
8 internal hydrology was an incorrect presumption?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And was it also a purpose of this paper to
11 show that design equations based upon plug flow are
12 incorrect?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. If I can refer you down to the next to last
15 paragraph on that page and the next to last sentence,
16 "Ignoring this factor can lead to gross errors in
17 design", what factor were you referring to? And I
18 understand if you need to read the paragraph to get
19 the context.
20 MR. GARVER: I'm sorry, which
21 paragraph is that, counsel?
22 MR. BURGESS: Yes. It's the last full
23 paragraph on the first page.
24 MR. GARVER: Okay, I found it.
25 A. I believe the phraseology in question is a
00343
1 quotation from a textbook by Levenspiel.
2 Q. And what factor was Levenspiel referring to
3 that you're then apparently saying ignoring it can
4 lead to gross errors?
5 A. I believe Levenspiel was lumping phenomena
6 referred to as channeling, stagnation and recycling
7 in his meaning of the words "this factor". That's
8 what I take that to mean.
9 Q. Ignoring those factors in your opinion can
10 lead to gross errors in design?
11 A. No, that's a quotation from Levenspiel.
12 Q. Do you agree with that quotation?
13 A. Basically I agree with that.
14 Q. Let me refer you to the next page of that
15 document and the last -- I'm sorry, in the first
16 sentence in the bottom paragraph beginning "More", do
17 you see that?
18 A. I'm sorry, say it again.
19 Q. Below the chart.
20 A. Below the chart, yes.
21 Q. Sentence beginning, "More complicated
22 reactors in general, and wetlands in particular, may
23 be characterized by series and parallel combinations
24 of PFR and CSTR portions". What do PFR and CSTR
25 refer to?
00344
1 A. PFR refers to plug flow reactor; CSTR
2 refers to continuous stirred tank reactor.
3 Q. And in your opinion, was that a true
4 statement when you made it in the fall of 1991?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And do you agree with it today?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And I refer you to page five.
9 In Figure 5 on that page,
10 Dr. Kadlec, what does that show?
11 A. Figure 5 shows the results of dye tracer
12 studies at a wetland in Benton, Kentucky.
13 Q. And what is the significance of that chart
14 or graph?
15 A. The chart shows that the tracer response at
16 different points within the wetland is different.
17 Q. The second paragraph below Figure 5,
18 there's a two-sentence paragraph that reads, "The
19 wrong flow model also leads to errors in the
20 determination of the rate constant".
21 Do you agree that an incorrect flow
22 model leads to errors in determining rate constant?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. If I can refer you to page nine, the
25 paragraph under "Conclusions" begins, "Flow and
00345
1 mixing in FWS", and what does FWS stand for,
2 Dr. Kadlec?
3 A. Free water surface.
4 Q. "The flow and mixing in free water surface
5 wetlands follows a pattern describable by a small
6 number of series and parallel CSTRs and PFRs".
7 Was that a true statement when you
8 made it in 1991?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Do you agree with it today?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Next sentence, "The flow distribution is
13 not uniform from side to side in wetlands", was that
14 a true statement in 1991?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. You agree with it today?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. "Benton and Listowel both show large
19 differences. A single PFR does not adequately
20 describe many systems."
21 Was the sentence beginning "A single
22 PFR does not adequately describe many systems", was
23 that sentence true in 1991?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And is it true today?
00346
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. The sentence speaking to the flow of
3 distribution not being uniform from side to side,
4 what does that mean, Dr. Kadlec?
5 A. It means that if one were to traverse the
6 wetland more or less in the direction perpendicular
7 to flow that one would measure from point to point
8 across such a transversed transect differences in the
9 flow rate as you proceeded across the wetland.
10 Q. Does the sentence also mean that there is
11 lateral variability in wetlands?
12 MR. GARVER: Object to the form.
13 MR. BURGESS: What's the basis for
14 your objection?
15 MR. GARVER: You haven't defined what
16 kind of lateral variability you're referring to.
17 MR. BURGESS: Variation in the
18 direction.
19 MR. GARVER: Variation in what, amount
20 of birds flying overhead?
21 MR. BURGESS: Direct to a flow.
22 A. Would you repeat the question?
23 Q. Let me ask you, is there lateral
24 variability in wetlands, Dr. Kadlec?
25 MR. GARVER: Object to the form.
00347
1 A. I would have to know what you mean by the
2 words "lateral" and what it is you're considering to
3 be variable.
4 Q. Flow, the direction of flow. How do you
5 define a lateral variability?
6 A. Well, my definition would normally mean the
7 direction perpendicular to flow. As I understand
8 your question, is there variability perpendicular to
9 flow of the direction of flow, there's local
10 variability across the direction of flow; but in
11 general terms, the average flow in the direction of
12 flow is, of course, just that.
13 Q. Is there variability perpendicular to the
14 direction of flow in wetlands?
15 MR. GARVER: Object to the form.
16 A. I'm sorry, repeat the question.
17 Q. If I understand your definition, as you've
18 given it to us, of lateral variability, you mean
19 variability in the direction of flow perpendicular to
20 the direction of flow, is that correct?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Okay. Can you give us your definition of
23 lateral variability?
24 MR. GARVER: Asked and answered.
25 MR. BURGESS: He can give it again.
00348
1 A. The word "lateral" to me in this context
2 means perpendicular to the direction of flow. The
3 word "variability" must have a reference as to
4 variability of what, and so I don't understand the
5 question.
6 Q. Am I asking you for a definition you don't
7 understand, or you don't understand the other --
8 A. No, you're asking me about variability of
9 something, and I don't understand what the something
10 is.
11 Q. The something is magnitude of flow.
12 A. I believe that the magnitude of the flow
13 varies in the direction -- in the lateral direction
14 perpendicular to flow.
15 Q. In wetlands?
16 A. We are talking in the wetland context, I
17 presume, yes.
18 Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether or not
19 a single plug flow model will accurately describe the
20 lateral variability of wetlands as you've described
21 lateral and variability?
22 A. I would ask you what you mean by single
23 plug flow model.
24 Q. Well, how about start with plug flow --
25 mass balance plug flow model.
00349
1 A. That term is ambiguous in my view. I'd ask
2 you to rephrase your question.
3 Q. Does the plug flow mass balance model that
4 you detail in your Exhibit Number 6, in your opinion,
5 would that plug flow model accurately describe the
6 lateral variability of wetlands?
7 A. It would not.
8 Q. Under "Conclusions", number one on page
9 nine of Exhibit 7, it reads, "Assumption: Plug flow
10 properly approximates the flow pattern in free water
11 surface wetlands. Conclusion: it doesn't".
12 Do you agree, Dr. Kadlec, with your
13 conclusion today that you made in 1991?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. The next sentence in that paragraph, "Pulse
16 tracer tests should produce a sharp concentration
17 peak at the wetland outlet after one normal" -- I'm
18 sorry, "after one nominal detention time".
19 Do you know of any pulse tracer tests
20 that have been done in Water Conservation Area 2A?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Paragraph number two under assumptions --
23 or I'm sorry, it says, "Assumption. Even if the
24 wetland is not plug flow, we can still approximate
25 performance that way. It won't make much difference
00350
1 in the determination of rate constants, or
2 conversely, in design. Conclusion: It does make a
3 significant difference. Rate constants can be in
4 error by as much as a factor of four".
5 Was that assumption and conclusion
6 true in your opinion in 1991?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And as you sit here today, do you agree
9 with your conclusion as contained in paragraph number
10 two?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Dr. Kadlec, in your opinion, is it
13 important to characterize the flow patterns of a
14 wetland in order to determine the rate constants and
15 design?
16 A. Not necessarily.
17 Q. Why not?
18 A. Because in the absence of flow pattern
19 information, it is still possible to place bounds on
20 design and to explore such potential flow patterns
21 through sensitivity analysis.
22 Q. How do you place bounds on the design?
23 A. The bounds on design can be placed by using
24 the extremes of the mixing models that may be
25 applicable.
00351
1 Q. And do you know of any effort ongoing today
2 with respect to Water Conservation Area 2A?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And who is attempting to do that?
5 A. Excuse me, I may have misanswered the
6 question. Would you repeat the previous question?
7 (Record was repeated by the reporter.)
8 A. And the answer was incorrect because of the
9 word "ongoing".
10 Q. Can we change the question to read ongoing
11 or completed?
12 A. Could you then rephrase the question,
13 restate the question?
14 MR. BURGESS: Could you go back and
15 read the question and substitute -- we'll substitute
16 ongoing or completed.
17 MR. GARVER: Do you need the question
18 read back?
19 THE WITNESS: Yes, I was hoping to
20 have the question read back.
21 (Record was repeated by the reporter.)
22 Q. You had trouble with the word "ongoing",
23 and I guess I'm trying to --
24 A. Ongoing or completed I understand, and now
25 your referent for the word "effort" was what?
00352
1 Q. I think you -- it was your testimony with
2 respect to placing bounds on the flow design in the
3 absence of flow patterns.
4 A. Okay. The answer is yes, there has been
5 such an effort.
6 Q. And who has performed that effort?
7 A. Myself and also, I believe, Dr. Walker.
8 Q. And where are the results of that effort,
9 are they contained in any documentation?
10 A. They would be contained -- my efforts would
11 be contained in some of my older notes, I believe.
12 Q. Older notes with respect to Water
13 Conservation Area 2A?
14 A. Yes, in the analysis of data, and that
15 would be in connection more specifically with the
16 preparation of information for the Kadlec-Newman
17 document.
18 Q. And how about the efforts of Dr. Walker,
19 where would those be detailed?
20 A. You would have to ask Dr. Walker.
21 Q. Where have you seen them detailed?
22 A. I have had discussions with Dr. Walker on
23 this subject.
24 Q. What do you understand Dr. Walker was
25 attempting to do?
00353
1 A. I don't understand what you mean by --
2 Q. You said both you and Dr. Walker have
3 attempted to place bounds on flow design in the
4 absence of flow patterns, and I'm asking you what
5 your understanding is of his effort.
6 A. Well, the efforts in this case simply mean
7 consideration of the interpretation of data from 2A
8 using different presumptions of the degree of mixing,
9 and I can't speak for Dr. Walker's efforts.
10 Q. I'll refer you back to "Assumption" and
11 "Conclusion" in paragraph number two. Let's see if I
12 understand your answer with respect to my follow-up
13 question.
14 Dr. Kadlec, does it make a significant
15 difference to you in your opinion that one must
16 characterize the flow patterns of a wetland in order
17 to determine rate constants and design for that
18 wetland?
19 MR. GARVER: Object to the form.
20 A. The most precise design would involve
21 knowledge of the flow of mixing patterns in the
22 wetland; however, bounds, conservative bounds for
23 design can be established in the absence of that
24 knowledge.
25 Q. And you would attempt to establish those
00354
1 conservative bounds how?
2 A. In the context of wetland design. In
3 interpreting data from an existing wetland, one would
4 use the presumption of mixing, which led to the most
5 conservative estimate of an uptake parameter, and
6 that conservative limit is the plug flow limit of
7 possible mixing regimes.
8 Q. When you refer to the term mixing, do you
9 mean mixing in the longitudinal or in the lateral
10 direction or both?
11 A. I'm referring to either, depends on the
12 type of model that's being considered.
13 Q. Dr. Kadlec, if there is side-to-side
14 variation in flow distribution in wetlands, does that
15 also mean that the volume of water passing over
16 points on each side can vary?
17 A. I'd ask you what you mean by points on each
18 side.
19 Q. Well, areas on each -- you talk in terms of
20 side-to-side variation in the second sentence under
21 "Conclusion" where you say "the flow distribution is
22 not uniform from side to side in wetlands". So if
23 there is this side-to-side variation in flow
24 distribution, does that also mean that the volume of
25 water passing over different points on each side can
00355
1 vary?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And, in your opinion, can the phosphorus
4 loadings at those various points on each side also
5 vary laterally?
6 A. I would ask you what you mean by phosphorus
7 loading, which -- we've discussed flow. Loading is
8 flow concentration and area combined.
9 Q. Right, okay.
10 With respect to the definition for
11 phosphorus loadings, how about, determined by
12 loadings to the soil at these points on each side of
13 the wetland?
14 A. Well, I cannot conclude from flow
15 variability, because it does involve also
16 concentration, I cannot conclude from flow
17 variability alone anything particular about loading
18 variability.
19 Q. How about concentrations in the surface
20 water?
21 MR. GARVER: Object to the form.
22 A. You say how about concentration of surface
23 water, I don't know what you mean by that question.
24 Q. I think we have established through your
25 testimony that in your opinion there can be
00356
1 differences in the volume of water passing over
2 points on each side of a wetland, correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And I'm asking you whether phosphorus
5 loadings to each side of that wetland may vary given
6 the fact that there is variation in flow
7 distribution?
8 A. There could be differences in
9 concentrations from point to point within the
10 wetland, but I -- it is not necessarily a cause and
11 effect related to the flow variability.
12 Q. But there could be?
13 A. It's possible.
14 Q. Do you have any opinions as to whether or
15 not the concentrations vary in that way in Water
16 Conservation Area 2A?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And what is that opinion?
19 A. It's my opinion that there is not a large
20 lateral variability in Water Conservation Area 2A.
21 Q. And how do you define not a large?
22 A. I have not attempted to quantify lateral
23 variability.
24 Q. In Water Conservation Area 2A?
25 A. Yes.
00357
1 Q. Has anyone to your knowledge?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Is that work ongoing by anyone to your
4 knowledge?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Who is doing that?
7 A. That would be a work element of mine.
8 Q. What stage of that work element are you in?
9 A. Preliminary.
10 Q. And what are you attempting to do?
11 A. I'll be attempting to compare differences
12 on parallel transects and soil phosphorus accretion
13 rates as determined by Duke University.
14 Q. What data are you examining and for what
15 period of record?
16 A. I'm examining the data provided in the Duke
17 Wetland Center reports on this subject.
18 Q. Have you established a period of record for
19 that data?
20 A. Well, the data has been taken by Duke
21 University --
22 Q. Are you using a subset or are you using the
23 entire data? That's what I'm trying to find out,
24 what period of record you're going to be
25 investigating.
00358
1 A. Well, I think you have to specify a little
2 bit more so I can answer the question.
3 First of all, the soil accretion data
4 was acquired over a period of approximately three to
5 four years, I believe, by Duke University.
6 Q. So it's that data over that entire three to
7 four years?
8 A. Whatever has been represented in those
9 reports.
10 Q. And are you going to look at anything other
11 than soil accretion data?
12 A. I may.
13 Q. What else are you considering looking at?
14 A. I'm considering looking at the information
15 on pore water phosphorus and soil phosphorus.
16 Q. Again, is that the Duke data you're going
17 to be looking at?
18 A. Partly.
19 Q. What other source of data are you going to
20 be looking at?
21 A. The Reddy date.
22 Q. And what portions of his data are you going
23 to look at?
24 A. Well, I'll surely look at that information
25 that has been provided by Dr. Reddy at the SAGE
00359
1 meeting and in his reports, and subsequently, as
2 amended by, perhaps, differences in the locations of
3 his sample points.
4 Q. When do you anticipate your work effort in
5 this regard will be completed?
6 A. I would imagine it would be completed
7 within some weeks after receipt of the accurately
8 placed sample stations. That information.
9 Q. You're awaiting that information from the
10 South Florida Water Management District?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Do you anticipate that you'll testify at
13 the time of final hearing with regard to your work
14 effort in comparing differences on parallel transects
15 in soil phosphorus accretion rates?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Any other data other than Duke University
18 and the Reddy data that you'll be examining to
19 support your opinion that there is not a large
20 lateral variability in Water Conservation Area 2A?
21 A. None that I can think of at this time.
22 Q. What is the basis for your opinion or your
23 preliminary opinion in this regard?
24 A. To which preliminary opinion do you refer?
25 Q. That there's not a large lateral
00360
1 variability in 2A.
2 A. I base that opinion in part on the contours
3 of pore water and soil phosphorus presented by
4 Dr. Reddy.
5 Q. Are you or anyone else going to collect
6 field data of any kind for review to support your
7 opinion in this regard?
8 A. I do not intend to take field data.
9 Q. Do you know if anybody else is going to
10 take field data that you're going to consider or may
11 consider?
12 A. I am unaware of any such plans.
13 Q. I believe in response to my question
14 concerning your use of the term mixing and whether
15 you meant in the longitudinal or latitudinal
16 direction or both, you responded that you may be
17 referring to either, it depends on the type of model
18 being considered; is that correct?
19 A. Yes, that's correct.
20 Q. If there is flow variability -- strike
21 that.
22 Dr. Kadlec, if there is flow
23 variability in the flow, the concentration or the
24 settling rates in the lateral direction, in your
25 opinion, is the plug flow model the most conservative
00361
1 model assumption you can make for design?
2 MR. GARVER: Object to the form.
3 A. The plug flow model is not the conservative
4 model for design.
5 Q. Given that scenario?
6 A. The plug flow model is the conservative
7 model for parameter estimation.
8 Q. Do you have an opinion as to what would be
9 the conservative model for design?
10 A. It's my opinion that a design calculation
11 should include sensitivity to the state of mixing.
12 MR. BURGESS: I'm sorry, could you
13 read that back?
14 (Record was repeated by the reporter.)
15 MR. BURGESS: Can you read back his
16 answer to the previous question?
17 (Record was repeated by the reporter.)
18 Q. Dr. Kadlec, I want to go back to your
19 discussion a moment ago with respect to side-to-side
20 variation in flow distribution. I want to make sure
21 I understand your response.
22 Are we agreed that there can be
23 side-to-side variation in flow distribution in
24 wetlands?
25 A. Yes.
00362
1 Q. And are we agreed that that may also mean
2 the volume of water passing over points on each side
3 may vary?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And do you have an opinion, sir, as to
6 whether or not phosphorus loads would also vary given
7 those two previous variations?
8 MR. GARVER: Object to the form.
9 A. As I think I stated earlier, I do believe
10 that there can be variations in the amount of
11 phosphorus from side to side as well, but I do not
12 necessarily agree with the causal relation implied by
13 the question.
14 MR. BURGESS: Can we take a break?
15 (A break was taken.)
16 Q. Dr. Kadlec, with respect to Exhibit Number
17 7 and specifically the "Conclusion", page nine, that
18 we were on before the long break, can you tell me
19 whether the error that you refer to in the last
20 sentence "by as much as a factor of four", do you
21 mean your error can be higher or lower?
22 MR. GARVER: You're talking about
23 assumption number two and the conclusion in that
24 paragraph?
25 MR. BURGESS: Yes.
00363
1 A. The meaning of that sentence is that errors
2 can be as large as four, which would mean that the
3 range would be up to four.
4 Q. So in your opinion, the error would be on
5 the more conservative or the less conservative side?
6 MR. GARVER: Object to the form.
7 Q. Do you understand what I'm asking?
8 A. I'm having trouble with the context of the
9 question. I would have to ask you conservative with
10 respect to what?
11 Q. But you said -- you used the term this
12 morning in response to a question on rate constant on
13 this error.
14 Well, let's start from the beginning.
15 The significant difference that you refer to in your
16 conclusion is what?
17 A. If we are talking about item number two,
18 the significant difference I'm referring to is the
19 difference in the value of a rate constant estimated
20 from data depending on the nature of the assumption
21 one makes about the degree of mixing.
22 Q. And the error in that rate constant when
23 you say "by as much as a factor of four", do you mean
24 that it can be higher or lower by a factor of up to
25 four?
00364
1 A. The plug flow assumption typically leads to
2 a rate constant which is lower than other mixing
3 assumptions.
4 Q. That doesn't answer my question.
5 A. I'm sorry then, please repeat the question
6 or rephrase it. I thought I had.
7 Q. You make the statement that rate constant
8 can be in error "by as much as a factor of four" and
9 then you said it can be up to four. And I'm saying,
10 can your error be up to four on the higher side or on
11 the lower side with respect to your rate constant?
12 A. It is a factor of four. I believe I
13 answered that the error in a rate constant derived
14 under the improper mixing assumption could contain an
15 error and that error could be anywhere from very
16 small to as much as a factor of four.
17 Q. And can your rate constant be in error by
18 as much as a factor of four making the rate constant
19 larger by a factor of four or smaller by a factor of
20 four or both?
21 A. I believe I've just answered you. I'm
22 trying to restate my answer, and that is, that the
23 plug flow assumption leads to the low end, the small
24 number end estimate of the rate constant from a given
25 data set under the possibility of different mixing
00365
1 assumptions.
2 Q. In your opinion, can the rate constant
3 sometimes be higher?
4 MR. GARVER: Object to the form.
5 A. I would have to ask higher than what?
6 Q. Can the estimated rate constant under
7 the -- estimated under the wrong assumptions be lower
8 than the true value?
9 MR. GARVER: Object to the form.
10 A. Well, item number two refers to errors that
11 may occur in the determination of rate constants from
12 data under the plug flow assumption. Among the
13 different mixing assumptions one can make about a
14 specific wetland from which you're attempting to
15 estimate a rate constant, the plug flow assumption
16 for the first order processes discussed in this paper
17 leads to the low end of the range of rate constants
18 one could obtain.
19 Q. And that rate constant is a number, is it
20 not?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And you're saying, I believe, in that
23 statement that using the wrong model can make a
24 significant difference and that number can be in
25 error by as much as a factor of four, is that
00366
1 correct?
2 A. That's correct.
3 Q. And my question to you, sir, is, compared
4 to the true value, the non-error number, if you will,
5 is the number that you might get by using the wrong
6 model, can that be in error by as much as a factor of
7 four as a higher rate constant than the true value
8 and/or as a lower rate constant than the true value?
9 A. For a given data set which is taken from a
10 real wetland with an unknown degree of mixing, the
11 plug flow assumption leads to the smallest value of
12 the rate constant.
13 Q. I think I understand that, but, again, I
14 don't think that that answers the question. I mean,
15 is the question not capable of a yes or no answer?
16 MR. GARVER: You didn't ask a yes or
17 no question for one thing, Mr. Burgess.
18 MR. BURGESS: Yes, I did.
19 MR. GARVER: You said is it higher or
20 is it lower or is it both. If you can answer that
21 yes or no -- I don't believe Dr. Kadlec can, and I
22 believe he's given you the answer to this series of
23 questions which you're now beginning to repeat.
24 MR. BURGESS: Yes, well, maybe you
25 want to answer the question, Mr. Garver. I don't
00367
1 think he's given me the answer. I think he knows
2 what the answer is, but I don't think he's given it
3 to me.
4 MR. GARVER: I believe he has.
5 MR. BURGESS: Maybe he's given it to
6 me in a way that he doesn't understand, but I'm
7 entitled to understand his answer. So we are going
8 to try it again.
9 MR. GARVER: You can't just keep
10 asking the same questions.
11 MR. BURGESS: Yes, I can. Yes, I can.
12 I can keep asking the question until I get the
13 witness to answer the question. I'm entitled to do
14 that and that's what I'm trying to do.
15 MR. GARVER: He has answered the
16 question, Mr. Burgess.
17 MR. BURGESS: Well, maybe to your
18 satisfaction, Mr. Garver, but not to mine, so we are
19 going to try it again.
20 Can you read back his answer?
21 (Record was repeated by the reporter.)
22 Q. Sir, with respect to that wetland that you
23 just described in the answer that was read back to
24 us, which I belief was, for a given data set the plug
25 flow assumption leads to the smallest value of the
00368
1 rate constant, in your opinion, is that always the
2 case regardless of the degree or extent of
3 variability that you might have inflow concentration
4 or accumulation rates in the direction perpendicular
5 to flow?
6 MR. GARVER: Object to the form.
7 MR. BURGESS: What's wrong with the
8 form?
9 MR. GARVER: Accumulation rates of
10 what?
11 MR. BURGESS: I think the witness
12 knows.
13 MR. GARVER: I don't know if he knows.
14 MR. BURGESS: We are here talking
15 about phosphorus in the Everglades, Mr. Garver.
16 MR. GARVER: Every one of your
17 questions stands on its own, Mr. Burgess, and as long
18 as they're objectionable, I'll object.
19 MR. BURGESS: Well, they're not
20 objectionable and you object anyway. That's what's
21 delaying the process for the last three days.
22 MR. GARVER: That's a laughable
23 assertion.
24 A. Well, some time has intervened, could you
25 please repeat the question?
00369
1 MR. BURGESS: See, that's what I mean
2 by delaying the process.
3 Can you read the question back?
4 (Record was repeated by the reporter.)
5 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
6 A. The paper that we are discussing is a paper
7 written in the context of general wetlands, not
8 phosphorus, in the Everglades, but is applicable to
9 phosphorus in the Everglades. It does not address
10 time variability, it addresses the degree of mixing
11 in a given wetland.
12 It is my opinion that the answer to
13 your question as to whether it always, in that
14 context, leads to the lowest value is, yes, that is
15 my opinion.
16 Q. What's the basis for your opinion?
17 A. The basis for my opinion is the information
18 in several textbooks which address the subject of
19 mixing and reaction.
20 Q. Which include?
21 A. Which would include a textbook by
22 Levenspiel; a textbook by Fogler, for instance.
23 Q. So would it be your testimony that you
24 cannot envision a flow situation where the rate
25 constant might be higher?
00370
1 MR. GARVER: Object to the form.
2 MR. BURGESS: I want to make sure I
3 understood his testimony.
4 A. Well, let me be sure I understand what you
5 mean by higher. And again, higher than what? Are we
6 referring to the hypothetical example of a moment
7 ago?
8 Q. Yes.
9 A. In that hypothetical example there was a
10 indeterminate degree of mixing and the system had
11 generated the data, plug flow assumption was used in
12 deriving the rate constant, and it is my opinion that
13 that rate constant is always lower than any other
14 rate constant determined from some other degree of
15 mixing assumption.
16 Q. The equations that are set forth in Exhibit
17 6, can those be used to estimate or calculate rate
18 constant?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And have you done so with respect to 2A?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Has anyone?
23 A. I believe so.
24 Q. Who?
25 A. Dr. Walker.
00371
1 Q. Anyone else?
2 A. Not to my knowledge.
3 Q. Do you know whether he has tried to
4 estimate rate constants with one or more of the
5 equations in Exhibit 6?
6 A. I think I just said he --
7 Q. With one or more, sir?
8 A. With one or more, yes.
9 Q. With all three?
10 A. I don't know.
11 Q. Which one are you aware of or more than
12 one, if you're aware of more than one?
13 A. The one that I am aware of would be in his
14 notation, a varient on equation 10 or 11, which are
15 simply different groupings of the same equation.
16 Q. Do you know how he varied equation 10 or 11
17 to calculate a rate constant?
18 A. In general terms, yes.
19 Q. How did he do that in general terms?
20 A. In general terms I believe that he used
21 information on all of the quantities in that equation
22 except for the rate constant and used regression
23 techniques to determine the rate constant.
24 Q. And do you know what rate constant he got?
25 A. I believe I have draft documents that
00372
1 contain some of his work on that subject, but I don't
2 recall the exact numbers.
3 Q. Did he get a range of numbers or different
4 numbers?
5 A. I believe that he would have varied some of
6 the information in the equation in order to attempt
7 to reproduce what uncertainties that might lead to,
8 so I believe he does have a sensitivity analysis
9 related to this.
10 Q. So is it your testimony that the draft
11 documents that you have of his contain more than one
12 possible rate constant?
13 A. They contain, in the normal statistical
14 processing of the information that went into the
15 equation, at a minimum, they contain things like the
16 uncertainty that propagates through that equation
17 from the data. I don't know if you'd call that a
18 range or not.
19 Q. What parameters did he examine for
20 variation?
21 A. I would have to look at the draft document
22 to refresh my memory on that.
23 Q. What is a sensitivity analysis?
24 A. What is a sensitivity analysis?
25 Q. Yes.
00373
1 A. It is the calculation under different
2 constants of a particular equation or quantity. It
3 simply varies one of the variables in the equation up
4 and down to determine the effect on the outcome
5 calculation.
6 Q. And is it your testimony that you're unsure
7 of what variable or variables he varied up or down in
8 your equation?
9 A. Without referring to Dr. Walker's draft
10 document, I cannot recall which quantities would have
11 been in such an analysis. It would have been several
12 of the quantities, however, in those equations.
13 Q. Do you anticipate that you'll offer
14 testimony at the time of trial with respect to
15 Dr. Walker's calculation of the settling rate
16 constant?
17 A. I would expect Dr. Walker to represent his
18 own information at trial.
19 Q. So at the moment, you don't have any
20 intention of testifying in support of his
21 calculations of the settling rate constant?
22 MR. GARVER: I don't believe that's
23 what Dr. Kadlec just stated.
24 A. I would anticipate discussing not only
25 Dr. Walker's estimations of settling rate constants,
00374
1 but also my own, and not only from area 2A but other
2 systems. So in a general context, I could not rule
3 out mentioning his values.
4 Q. What estimations of settling rate constants
5 do you have of your own for 2A?
6 A. Well, I have, from time to time, using
7 earlier data sets which are part of the current set
8 of available information, extracted estimates of the
9 settling rate constant. I believe I've done so
10 several times, and they exist in my notes and, also,
11 I believe in some of the documents I produced.
12 Q. Do you recall what your values were of the
13 estimated settling rate constant for 2A?
14 A. They fall in a range, depending on which
15 investigator's set of data at which point in time was
16 being analyzed, and I could not, without referring to
17 all my notes, give you the absolute lower number and
18 the absolute upper number. The range is centered
19 around numbers between eight and ten meters per year.
20 Q. As you sit here today, Dr. Kadlec, do you
21 have an opinion as to what the settling rate constant
22 is for Water Conservation Area 2A?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And what is that opinion?
25 A. It is my opinion, based on information that
00375
1 I've analyzed to date and the reports of others on
2 this subject, that the settling rate in Water
3 Conservation Area 2A is close to ten meters per year.
4 Q. And what data have you reviewed or relied
5 upon in support of that opinion?
6 A. I've reviewed information and was relying
7 on information in support of that opinion from Water
8 Conservation Area 2A and a large number of sites
9 elsewhere in Florida, North America and perhaps, if
10 it becomes available, other countries.
11 Q. Yes, sir. I'd completely expect you to
12 rely on Water Conservation Area 2A data, but whose
13 data and what data? What parameters for what period
14 of record are you reviewing or relying on in support
15 of your opinion?
16 MR. GARVER: In Water Conservation
17 Area 2A?
18 MR. BURGESS: Yes.
19 A. In Water Conservation Area 2A the data sets
20 that I'll be relying on include data generated by
21 South Florida Water Management District, which is
22 primarily surface water concentrations, flows,
23 meteorological data which expands a period of 14
24 years before present, and for some variables, I
25 believe, such as flow, it may go earlier than that.
00376
1 That's the predominant period.
2 I'm relying on data generated by
3 Dr. Reddy on soil phosphorus and other phosphorus
4 parameters in Water Conservation Area 2A; accretion
5 rates of Dr. Reddy; I'm relying on the several data
6 sets of Duke University. Both of those latter two
7 studies have been conducted over a more recent span
8 of time, roughly two to four years before present.
9 Q. What model did you utilize to arrive at
10 your settling rate constant?
11 A. I have, over the course of the past months,
12 used several different models on several different
13 data sets, and I have read the work of others in this
14 regard so there is not a single model.
15 Q. Have you utilized a model yourself which
16 has given you the settling rate of "close to ten
17 meters per year"?
18 MR. BURGESS: And I'd like "close to
19 ten meters per year" to be in quotes because that's
20 the witness's testimony.
21 A. I believe, but without referring to my
22 documents I cannot absolutely confirm, that some of
23 my more recent calculations are in that vicinity.
24 Q. Have you provided those calculations to us
25 in response to our document request?
00377
1 A. I believe I have provided those to the
2 Department of Justice for production.
3 Q. What file or files might they be in that
4 would help us identify the calculations?
5 A. The more recent information would have been
6 contained in a file that is in support of a draft
7 document which we have discussed which relates to --
8 relates to averaging spatially -- excuse me, temporal
9 averaging and other issues. I don't know the title
10 of that draft document since it is a draft document.
11 Q. Are your calculations handwritten
12 calculations?
13 A. Partly. Some of them have been typed on a
14 PC in that drafting operation of that document.
15 Q. Do any of the disks that you've made
16 available to the Department of Justice, which have
17 not yet been made available to us, contain any of
18 these calculations?
19 A. They would contain, if any, only small
20 portions.
21 Q. What portions?
22 A. I'm not sure they contain any, and I would
23 have to take a close examination to see if any of
24 those calculations were on those disks. So I don't
25 know what portions might be there.
00378
1 Q. Do you know whether you utilized any of the
2 three equations in Exhibit 6 in support of your
3 calculation of the settling rate constant "close to
4 ten meters per year"?
5 A. I believe my calculations pre-date the
6 refinements in Exhibit 6, and so I believe the answer
7 is no.
8 Q. So if I understand your testimony to date,
9 the only calculation of the settling rate constant
10 that you're aware of using any of the calculations in
11 Exhibit 6 would be the calculations done by
12 Dr. Walker utilizing equations 10 -- or his variation
13 of your equations 10 or 11, is that correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Are you aware of whether Dr. Walker has
16 attempted to determine the required acreage to meet
17 the goals of the SWIM Plan with the settling rate
18 constant that he has calculated using your equation?
19 A. I'm not aware of what Dr. Walker has done
20 in that regard.
21 Q. Have you attempted to determine the
22 acreage?
23 A. I have not.
24 Q. Do you know whether anyone has?
25 A. I can't say with certainty that anyone has
00379
1 at this point. It's possible that -- probable, I
2 believe, that Burns and McDonnell are engaged in such
3 calculations at the moment.
4 Q. Do you understand, Dr. Kadlec -- or, is it
5 your understanding, Dr. Kadlec, that the SWIM Plan
6 requires outflow discharge concentrations of total
7 phosphorus at 50 parts per billion?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Do you have an opinion as you sit here
10 today as to what amount of acreage would be required
11 to achieve reductions to the 50 parts per billion
12 level utilizing the settling rate constant that you
13 have arrived at of "close to ten meters per year"?
14 A. Repeat the question.
15 MR. BURGESS: Read it back.
16 (Record was repeated by the reporter.)
17 MR. GARVER: Object to the form.
18 MR. BURGESS: What's wrong with the
19 form?
20 MR. GARVER: I think there's a lot of
21 assumptions that are built into that question
22 regarding what amount of water is treated and other
23 things that are left unclear.
24 MR. BURGESS: I didn't talk about what
25 amount of water was treated. That's not an
00380
1 assumption in my question. The witness has testified
2 he understands the SWIM Plan calls for 50 part per
3 billion outflow reduction of total phosphorus from
4 the stormwater treatment areas, he's calculated the
5 settling rate, eight to ten meters of -- "close to
6 ten meters a year". I'm simply asking him whether he
7 has an opinion or not as to what size acreage might
8 be required.
9 MR. GARVER: That necessarily depends
10 on how much water you put into it, Mr. Burgess, and,
11 therefore, I object to the form. Take it or leave
12 it, I'm not going to withdraw the objection.
13 MR. BURGESS: Obviously the question
14 doesn't need to be restated so it stands.
15 A. I think my best answer is that I am in the
16 process of forming such opinions, but since there are
17 a significant number of unresolved variables involved
18 in that calculation, such as the amount of water to
19 be treated, such opinions are not final at this
20 point.
21 Q. What other significant variables are there
22 in the equation that prevents you from finalizing
23 your opinion in this regard?
24 A. Well, I don't believe that there has, in my
25 mind, been a finalization of the quantity of water
00381
1 that is likely to arrive at the systems, nor
2 necessarily the concentrations of phosphorus. So the
3 acreage determination requires the settling rate
4 constant as well as other design parameters in order
5 to make the calculation of an area.
6 Q. We've mentioned now twice quality of the
7 water and you've also added the incoming
8 concentrations of phosphorus. Are there any other
9 design parameters that you need in order to finalize
10 your calculations in this regard?
11 A. There needs to be -- there needs to be some
12 information on the nature -- or excuse me, not
13 nature, the mechanism or process by which the number
14 50 parts per billion is calculated.
15 Q. In your opinion, do you need to know the
16 incoming concentration of phosphorus in order to
17 determine the area or acreage required?
18 A. You do need the incoming concentration of
19 phosphorus.
20 Q. Where do you anticipate you'll get that
21 from?
22 A. At the moment, I anticipate that the method
23 which has been used in all calculations to date will
24 continue, which is to use information from the
25 so-called ten-year period of record, and reduce the
00382
1 amount of phosphorus by 25 percent due to BMPs and
2 the amount of water by 20 percent due to those same
3 BMPs.
4 Q. What is the ten-year period of record?
5 A. It's actually a 9.75 year period spanning
6 the, I believe, 1979 to 1988 period, if I'm not
7 mistaken.
8 Q. So if I want to understand your testimony,
9 why wouldn't you not already know those
10 concentrations if they're for a ten-year period of
11 record from 1979 to 1988?
12 A. Because the South Florida Water Management
13 District, which provides some of that information,
14 has refined their records or presentation of
15 information over the past months, and I am fairly
16 confident I do not have the most recent information
17 on that period of record.
18 Q. When do you anticipate you'll have that?
19 A. I can't say at the moment, I don't know.
20 Q. Do you know how or why they're revising it?
21 A. No, I can't speak to that.
22 Q. Neither how nor why, just that they're
23 doing it?
24 A. I know from discussions with others that
25 revisions are made to that data set from time to
00383
1 time. I am not acquainted with the how or why; and
2 it's my general impression, I do not have the most
3 current information.
4 Q. Nor do you know when you're going to get
5 it?
6 A. That's correct.
7 Q. In your opinion, do you also need to know
8 the type of phosphorus, for instance, organic versus
9 orthophosphorus, in order to calculate that acreage
10 or area?
11 A. It's my opinion that I do not need to know
12 that.
13 Q. What do you base that opinion on?
14 A. I base that opinion on information from
15 other wetland treatment projects.
16 Q. Including ones in the North American
17 database?
18 A. Partly.
19 Q. Do you anticipate you'll be relying on
20 those other wetland treatment projects or data from
21 those other wetland treatment projects?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And are some of them listed in the
24 Kadlec-Newman report of July 1992?
25 A. Yes.
00384
1 Q. Is the ten meter per year rate constant
2 that you calculated based upon flow weighting of the
3 concentration data?
4 A. Well, the ten meter per year number is,
5 again, representative of the work of Dr. Walker. It
6 is my understanding that his work includes flow
7 weighting, yes.
8 Q. Does it also include adjustment for dry
9 periods?
10 A. Yes, that's my understanding.
11 Q. Does it also include or provide for forcing
12 the regression of sedimentation versus concentration
13 to go through the origin?
14 MR. GARVER: Object to the form.
15 MR. BURGESS: What's wrong with the
16 form?
17 MR. GARVER: Your use of the term
18 "forcing".
19 Q. Do you know what I mean by forcing, the
20 line through zero?
21 A. Well, Dr. Walker is not using that
22 particular technique. That is a low level technique
23 that can be used when you have just two variables.
24 When more variables are involved and a more complex
25 model than just a simple linear regression, other
00385
1 procedures are used. But those procedures, it's my
2 belief, do have the effect that you allude to.
3 Q. Of forcing the redirection of sedimentation
4 versus concentration to go through the origin?
5 MR. GARVER: Object to the form.
6 MR. BURGESS: You just don't
7 understand some of the words or what's the problem?
8 MR. GARVER: I don't think Dr. Kadlec
9 has adopted your meaning of "forcing", however you're
10 meaning it.
11 Q. Dr. Kadlec, you made some presentations at
12 the SAGE Committee meetings where you have supported
13 the forcing of the regression of sedimentation versus
14 concentration to go through zero.
15 A. I made presentations in which I have
16 indicated that the zero -- so-called zero intercept
17 model is the one that needs to be used, yes.
18 Q. That is in the context -- that is the
19 context in which I use forcing here.
20 A. Yes. And what my answer was, in the
21 character of saying that it was not a simple linear
22 regression on a graph that was used, it was a more
23 sophisticated technique, but the effect was the same.
24 That was my answer.
25 Q. Thank you.
00386
1 Have you, in your mind, finalized the
2 choice of model that you will use to estimate Ke?
3 A. Well, the answer is yes with the proviso
4 that you use the singular of the word model, and I
5 would anticipate that I might consider more than one
6 model.
7 Q. What type of model have you decided to use
8 or will you consider what the stage of your decision
9 is on that?
10 A. Well, the word "model", there's several
11 ingredients that go into a model, and our discussion
12 earlier today centered on such things as the number
13 of well-mixed units that might be used to represent a
14 hypothetical degree of mixing. So a model includes
15 many ingredients, and I have not finalized all the
16 ingredients that might go into models that I use to
17 form my opinions.
18 Q. Do you know whether it's going to be a plug
19 flow model?
20 A. I would expect to give consideration to
21 several degrees of mixing.
22 Q. So are you considering a plug flow with
23 CSTR component?
24 A. At the present time, I do not have work in
25 progress, so I'm not, at the moment, considering any
00387
1 particular model.
2 Q. Do you anticipate -- do you anticipate at
3 the time of the hearing in this matter that you're
4 going to testify in support of a particular Ke value?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Do you anticipate between now and the time
7 of trial that you're going to select a model that
8 will be used to estimate Ke?
9 A. I will probably use one -- I will probably
10 use the plug flow model as the principal model, but
11 may use others to explore sensitivity of Ke.
12 Q. And do you know whether those others would
13 include parallel series CSTRs, for instance?
14 A. They would.
15 Q. Any other options that you might consider?
16 A. There are.
17 Q. What are they?
18 A. There need not be a mechanistic or
19 sectioning approach to describing an imperfect degree
20 of mixing. Other models that are available for use
21 in this regard include models which would presume the
22 residence time distribution within the wetland, for
23 instance.
24 Q. What model or models would predict
25 residence time distribution within the wetland?
00388
1 A. There are many. One of my recent doctoral
2 students made a compilation dating back now three
3 years ago, and I believe he identified 38 different
4 ways of modeling non-ideal mixing situations from the
5 literature.
6 Q. You said earlier that this wasn't work in
7 progress, but I think you also said that you
8 anticipate you would be testifying in support of a
9 particular Ke at the time of trial. Do you have any
10 idea as to when you're going to start and/or complete
11 this effort?
12 A. Well, efforts in this direction are going
13 to be subject to the available information that we
14 have discussed as well as the availability of time to
15 execute some of these tasks and prioritization tasks.
16 Q. So you're not sure when you might begin or
17 end the effort?
18 A. It is contingent on the factors I just
19 mentioned.
20 Q. With respect to the 50 part per billion
21 number and your contemplated calculation of Ke, do
22 you need to know whether compliance with that limit
23 is going to be based upon time or flow weighting of
24 the resulting concentration?
25 A. With respect to the projected value of Ke,
00389
1 I would not need to know items regarding compliance
2 of the STAs.
3 Q. Would you need to know that with regard to
4 calculating the size of the areas to achieve
5 compliance?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And do you know whether or not the permit
8 which you've testified you have at least reviewed is
9 going to require time or flow weighting?
10 A. To the best of my recollection, the permit
11 mentions neither of those.
12 Q. Do you know how compliance is going to be
13 determined, 50 parts per billion?
14 A. I have a -- I do not know.
15 Q. What is your impression or understanding as
16 you sit here today?
17 A. My impression, as I sit here today, is that
18 the conditions in the permit will be met which call
19 for the South Florida Water Management District to
20 work with DER and others to determine compliance
21 conditions.
22 Q. So compliance as -- compliance conditions
23 are as of yet undetermined?
24 A. To the best of my knowledge.
25 Q. Have you reviewed Dr. Walker's effort
00390
1 wherein he arrived at the ten meter per year rate
2 constant?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Do you agree with his decision to flow
5 weight the concentration data?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Do you agree with the adjustments or
8 adjustment that he made for dry periods?
9 A. I think it would be an adjustment not to
10 exclude dry periods.
11 Q. And why do you feel that way?
12 A. Because a rate law which purports to
13 describe the process of phosphorus removal from water
14 and the deposition of sediments of necessity require
15 water to be present when it is operative.
16 Q. I know I asked you before whether
17 Dr. Walker, to your understanding, forced the
18 regression to go through the origin, and I think you
19 said that what he did had the effect of doing that,
20 is that correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. What did he do that had the effect of doing
23 that?
24 A. Well, it's a minor distinction, but the
25 equation that he uses in his analysis, as we
00391
1 indicated earlier, is close to the forms represented
2 by 10 and 11 on page three of Exhibit 6. One cannot
3 draw a line for an equation containing so many
4 variables, so it's not possible to talk about a line
5 going through the origin. But the form of the rate
6 law that goes in here of necessity says that the rate
7 of deposition goes to zero when the concentration or
8 amount of phosphorus in the water goes to zero.
9 Q. And do you agree with that adjustment that
10 Dr. Walker made?
11 A. I don't believe that's an adjustment, I
12 believe that's a reflection of the fact that a rate
13 law which purports to remove phosphorus from water
14 cannot remove phosphorus from water which contains no
15 phosphorus, which would mean a removal at zero
16 concentration; or in terms of the regression, a
17 non-zero intercept.
18 Q. With respect to Dr. Walker's flow weighting
19 of the concentration data, is it your opinion that
20 Dr. Walker had sufficient data to calculate his flow
21 weights?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Do you know what data he had?
24 A. I believe he had available to him daily
25 flows at the S 10 structures together with
00392
1 concentrations measured at some lesser frequency at
2 the S 10 structures in order to flow rate, for
3 instance, the incoming concentration of phosphorus.
4 Q. Do you know whether Dr. Walker is working
5 on a chloride budget?
6 A. I know that Dr. Walker has in the past done
7 some work on a chloride budget.
8 Q. Do you know whether he's attempting to
9 close a chloride budget as work in progress?
10 MR. GARVER: Object to the form. You
11 mean in Water Conservation Area 2A?
12 MR. BURGESS: Yes.
13 A. Well, I can't speak for what Dr. Walker is
14 doing at the moment --
15 Q. I understand that, I'm only asking for your
16 understanding of what work in progress he might have
17 and whether that includes an effort to attempt to
18 close a chloride budget in 2A.
19 A. It's my belief that he would intend to
20 complete that work.
21 Q. Do you have any idea as to when that might
22 be completed?
23 A. I can't say precisely, but I do believe
24 Dr. Walker is awaiting the same information that I am
25 on the proper location and confirmation of stations
00393
1 within area 2A as well as the availability of time on
2 his part to complete that work effort.
3 Q. And at least so far as the availability of
4 data is concerned, that's something you're both
5 waiting for from the district, correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 (Deposition Exhibit No. 8
8 marked for identification.)
9 Q. Dr. Kadlec, can you identify Exhibit Number
10 Number 8 for us?
11 A. It's a copy of a document prepared by
12 myself and Dr. Susan Newman.
13 Q. And who is that prepared for?
14 A. It was prepared for the Department of
15 Justice in the South Florida Water Management
16 District.
17 Q. I note on the cover page under your name it
18 has "Wetlands Ecosystem Research Group, The
19 University of Michigan". What's the Wetlands
20 Ecosystem Research Group?
21 A. That is a designation of the informal
22 association; myself, graduate students and
23 undergraduate students and, from time to time,
24 professional colleagues who work on wetland projects
25 through the University of Michigan.
00394
1 Q. Does the Wetlands Ecosystem Research Group
2 have a relationship also with the Department of
3 Justice?
4 A. They do not.
5 Q. You obviously do?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And is your contract with the Department of
8 Justice in your capacity as a private consultant or
9 in your capacity as a member of the Wetlands
10 Ecosystem Research Group at the University of
11 Michigan?
12 A. As a private consultant.
13 Q. Is the University of Michigan sponsoring
14 any of the work or research you're doing for the
15 Department of Justice?
16 A. They are not.
17 MR. GARVER: Mr. Burgess, before you
18 go into the details on this document, it seems -- I
19 know in the past with respect to exhibits you've
20 produced, if you weren't going to provide copies you
21 provided a list of the documents. Do you have a new
22 practice that you're initiating here?
23 MR. BURGESS: No, it's just that we
24 got your documents so late we weren't able to go
25 through and decide what we were going to do and use
00395
1 until literally we brought them up here ourselves.
2 So I wasn't able to make copies.
3 MR. GARVER: Wasn't this document
4 provided to you two weeks ago at least?
5 MR. BURGESS: I don't know,
6 Mr. Garver, but I've been very busy. If I would have
7 gotten my documents three weeks before the deposition
8 and the privileges the week before, I may have been
9 able to detail all the documents that I knew that I
10 was going to ask the witness about. But I wasn't
11 able to do that because I didn't have the documents.
12 MR. GARVER: But this is the first
13 time that you haven't provided something, isn't it?
14 MR. BURGESS: No. In fact, I was the
15 only one doing that for quite some period of time and
16 since nobody returns the favor, I'm not sure how much
17 longer I'm going to do it.
18 Q. Dr. Kadlec, by placing the University of
19 Michigan on the front of this document, did you mean
20 to portray that the University of Michigan was in any
21 way supporting research and work contained within the
22 document?
23 A. No, I rather suspect I used that because
24 when it came time to finalize this document I was
25 under severe time constraints, as usual, and I
00396
1 probably cut, on the computer, cut out this address,
2 which is one of my addresses, and pasted it onto the
3 cover of this document without much thought as to
4 which address -- since that and Wetland Management
5 Services are both operative addresses for me.
6 Q. So that we're clear, it's your testimony
7 that all of the work that you're doing for the
8 Department of Justice is through your consulting firm
9 and not through the University of Michigan?
10 A. That's correct.
11 Q. Why was this document prepared?
12 A. This document was prepared because of a
13 perceived need on the part of several interested
14 parties to set down in one place some sort of summary
15 of information that bore on the subject of phosphorus
16 removal in the proposed STAs.
17 Q. Can you distinguish between what you did
18 versus what Dr. Newman did in preparation of the
19 document?
20 A. In a general way. The table of contents is
21 the best way to characterize that.
22 Sections one through four were
23 predominantly my work, if not exclusively; section
24 five was predominantly Dr. Newman's work, if not
25 exclusively; section six was a joint effort; section
00397
1 seven was a joint effort; section eight, I believe I
2 did the drafting but had numerous conversations with
3 Dr. Newman; section nine was my work; section ten was
4 a joint effort; and the appendices were constructed
5 by myself.
6 Q. And are these the appendices that you
7 referred to in your first day of testimony as
8 containing the candidates for other wetlands that may
9 support the opinions you're going to give at the time
10 of hearing in this matter?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Would you turn to page 3-6 for us?
13 What does that figure show?
14 A. This shows the phosphorus loading coming
15 out of the systems listed in North American Database
16 versus the phosphorus load introduced into those
17 systems together with information on the Eastern
18 Service Area and Iron Bridge designated separately.
19 Q. Does this figure contain the data for the
20 137 sites from the North American Database that you
21 testified to the other day had been entered into the
22 database up until this point in time?
23 A. I believe so, yes.
24 Q. Are the majority of the North American
25 treatment wetlands depicted in figure 3-1
00398
1 agricultural-based or wastewater-based wetlands?
2 A. Wastewater-based wetlands.
3 Q. And are the majority of those wetlands
4 depicted in figure 3-1 on P-based soils or on mineral
5 soils?
6 A. In order to make the distinction between
7 majority and minority, I think I would have to go
8 back and review information in the database in
9 attempt to make that calculation.
10 Q. So in your opinion, it may be close to 50
11 percent?
12 A. It may be close to 50 percent.
13 Q. Do you know what the average annual loading
14 rates to the water conservation areas are from the
15 EAA?
16 A. Phosphorus loading rates, sir?
17 Q. Yes.
18 A. The water conservation areas, I believe --
19 Q. I think if you turn to table 6.1, --
20 A. Yes, I thought it was in here.
21 Q. -- it might help.
22 MR. McGRATH: What page is that on?
23 MR. BURGESS: 6-2.
24 A. I have table 6-1 in front of me.
25 Q. Does that help you in answering the
00399
1 question as to what the loading for the WCAs --
2 A. Yes, the table 6-1 lists the 1978 to 1988
3 mass loadings to the entirety of the three water
4 conservation areas.
5 Q. And in grams per meter squared per year
6 does it come out to average about .2 -- well, do they
7 range from .13 to .25?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Would these figures be your understanding
10 as to what those average annual loadings are?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. What is on the Y axis and what is on the X
13 axis in the figure 3.1?
14 A. As I indicated a moment ago, the Y axis is
15 the outlet phosphorus loading rate in grams per meter
16 squared per year and the X axis is the inlet