599 1 STATE OF FLORIDA 2 DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS 3 ---------------------------------------------------------- 4 SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE OF ) 5 FLORIDA, et al., ) 6 and ) Nos. 92-3038 7 FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, INC; et al., ) 92-3039 8 and ) 92-3040 9 FLORIDA FRUIT AND VEGETABLE ASSOCIATION,) 92-6796 10 LEWIS POPE FARMS, et al., ) 92-6797 11 Petitioners, ) 92-6799 12 vs. ) 92-6800 13 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT,) 14 Respondent, ) 15 and ) 16 MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS, the UNITED ) 17 STATES OF AMERICA, et al., ) 18 Intervenors. ) 19 ---------------------------------------------------------- 20 Deposition Upon Oral Examination Of 21 DENNIS P. LETTENMAIER 22 Volume 6, Pages 599 - 746 23 Taken at 1325 4th Avenue, Suite 1740, Seattle, WA 24 DATE: March 31 and April 1, 1994 25 REPORTED BY: Toni L. Christy, RPR, CSR CHRISTL408NM LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 600 1 APPEARANCES: 2 For S. Florida JOSE A. LOREDO, ESQ. 3 Water: Popham Haik 4 100 SE Second Street 5 P.O. Box 019101 6 Miami, Florida 33131 7 For the United THOMAS A.W. FITZGERALD, ESQ. 8 States: Assistant U.S. Attorney 9 Southern District of Florida 10 99 NE 4th Street 11 Miami, Florida 33132 12 For Florida Sugar SCOTT D. LIEBERMAN, ESQ. 13 Cane League & US Earl, Blank, Kavanaugh & Stolts 14 Sugar Corp: One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3636 15 2 South Biscayne Boulevard 16 Miami, Florida 33131 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 601 1 E X H I B I T S 2 NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE 3 (None) 4 5 6 7 E X A M I N A T I O N 8 BY PAGES 9 MR. LOREDO 601 - 685 10 MR. FITZGERALD 685 - 744 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 602 1 Seattle, Washington; Thursday, March 31, 1994 2 7:00 P.M. 3 -------------------------- 4 DENNIS P. LETTENMAIER, witness herein, having been 5 duly sworn by the Notary, 6 testified as follows: 7 E X A M I N A T I O N 8 BY MR. LOREDO: 9 Q. Good evening, Doctor, Jose Loredo on behalf 10 of the South Florida Water Management District. Thank 11 you for coming to see us so we can complete our 12 depositions. Have you formulated final opinions from 13 which you're going to testify at the hearing sometime 14 in April 25th of this year? 15 A. I think you need to be a little more 16 specific. 17 Q. I understand that. Why don't I do it this 18 way, Doctor. Why don't you tell me what you've done 19 since the last deposition, February, I believe. 20 Actually we deposed you on March 2nd through the 4th. 21 A. No, not me. 22 Q. March 2nd, 1994 is when we last met, Doctor. 23 A. Time flies when you're having fun. Okay. 24 Q. Let me start with have you received district 25 data and had an opportunity to analyze the district LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 603 1 data that you had stated before that you needed to 2 complete your analysis? 3 A. Which district data are those? The district 4 takes incredible amounts of data. 5 Q. You were waiting for some data with respect 6 to completing some analysis and some of the analysis 7 you were going to try to complete was STA sensitivity, 8 load uncertainty, phosphorus load uncertainty, and you 9 were saying you were waiting for some data, you didn't 10 say what data, and you were going to complete a trend 11 analysis with respect to Everglades National Park, all 12 those things which you stated in your deposition were 13 all pending district data? 14 A. I don't believe that's correct, but the 15 answer with respect to ENP is that I am not certain 16 that I have received all of the data but I have 17 received additional data, yes. 18 Q. What don't you tell me what kind of data you 19 received. 20 A. I received total phosphorus concentrations 21 and discharges on the days on which samples were taken 22 at the 12 structures, possibly S-333, but I'd have to 23 verify that but definitely the 12 structures. 24 Q. Up to what time frame? 25 A. Sometime in 1993. LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 604 1 MR. LIEBERMAN: I will object to form so we 2 can clarify what data. 3 MR. LOREDO: I'm trying to figure out what 4 data. 5 Q. You stated now total phosphorus concentration 6 discharge and the other data with respect to the 7 Everglades National Park -- 8 A. The data files consist of total phosphorus 9 concentration discharge and the date on which it was 10 collected for a period of time from the end of William 11 Walker's previous report and analysis, which we were 12 provided copies of, through sometime in 1993, I do not 13 remember precisely, it is mid-1993, I believe. 14 Q. Have you received data from anywhere else, 15 ES&P? 16 A. No, I am sorry, I did not receive the data 17 directly from the district, they are district data, is 18 my knowledge. 19 Q. And I guess with that preface, you're telling 20 me that the data was received through ES&P and then you 21 received it from -- 22 MR. LIEBERMAN: Can we clarify for the record 23 what ES&P stands for? 24 Q. ES&P, Environmental Services and Permitting, 25 Gainesville. LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 605 1 Did you talk to anyone there, Mr. John Davis? 2 A. I'm quite certain I talked to John Davis or 3 one of his employees. 4 Q. Did he have any comments regarding the data? 5 A. I believe the comments were limited to the 6 form of the computer files. 7 Q. Did you receive this in sketch, the data? 8 A. 3 1/2 inch DOS disks. 9 Q. How many disks? 10 A. You ask difficult questions. Now, I think it 11 was all on one. 12 Q. That's a difficult question? 13 Have you received any reports since your 14 deposition back on March 4th of '94 from any 15 consultants or anyone working in the Everglade 16 litigation? 17 MR. LIEBERMAN: Object to form. 18 A. I guess I'd like some definition as to what 19 constitutes a report. Are we talking about a bound 20 document, for instance, which is what I would commonly 21 consider a report to be? 22 Q. What I'm trying to ascertain is I basically 23 want to take you from March 4th to today and see what 24 you've received and used for your opinion, what you 25 relied on or what you reviewed, and I hope to see what LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 606 1 you've been able to do in the last month and what kind 2 of work you've done. 3 A. Sure, sure, I understand. 4 Q. So in terms of reports or documents if you 5 can kind of take me through what you received. 6 A. I certainly don't want to mislead you and 7 have somebody come back and say later on, "But, yes, 8 you were sent this, this and this and you said you 9 didn't receive any," and so on. I know for a fact 10 right now there are two unopened Fed Ex packages on my 11 desk. One is from, I believe, Earl & Blank and the 12 other is from ES&P and I didn't have a chance to open 13 them. 14 MR. FITZGERALD: You understand that counsel 15 is probably going to tell you not to open those and not 16 to rely on those because since we're concluding your 17 deposition you're not allowed to form any more 18 opinions? 19 MR. LIEBERMAN: For the record, counsel will 20 not remotely stipulate to that. 21 A. That being the case and with the 22 understanding that these are bound reports, I'm not 23 aware of any that I've received, that I have received 24 and opened or are even aware of what they might be. 25 Q. How about any documents or letters? LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 607 1 A. Oh, letters, I mean, I have a letter 2 announcing this deposition. 3 Q. That's a good start. 4 A. However, I received no notice of deposition, 5 I might point out. 6 Q. I'm sure your counsel did. 7 A. Perhaps they did, I mean, I received a note 8 from them as to where it would be. 9 Q. Anything else you can recollect that you 10 received? 11 A. Are we talking anything I received having to 12 do with -- 13 Q. The Everglades. 14 A. All with the Everglades? 15 Q. I'm just asking you to go from March. 16 A. I received from Steve Millard a thick stack 17 of papers. 18 Q. Do you know what those thick stack of papers 19 are? 20 A. I don't know in detail what's in them. I 21 know what the general content and purpose of them was. 22 Q. Have you had an opportunity to review them? 23 A. No. 24 Q. Do you intend to review them? 25 A. No. LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 608 1 Q. Is that because you don't merit -- don't 2 think the work merits your review? 3 A. No. 4 Q. Is there any reason why you don't have an 5 intention to review it? 6 A. I have a lot of other things to do, and those 7 papers were for the express purpose of going for 8 outside review to a qualified statistician. I didn't 9 see, given the demands of my time, there would be a 10 point to spending my time reviewing thick volumes of 11 material that was going to be reviewed by somebody else 12 with that expertise anyway. 13 Q. Who was that someone else? 14 A. Dr. Paul Switzer, Stanford University. 15 Q. From Mr. Millard you received a stack of 16 papers. Did you receive any disks, also? 17 A. To my knowledge, no, during the specified 18 time period. Again, I would not guarantee that but I 19 cannot recollect at this time that I received any 20 magnetic media from Dr. Millard since March 2nd. 21 Q. So from your recollection all we're talking 22 about is a stack of papers which represents his report 23 in some fashion? 24 A. Apparently. Again, I did not look at it. 25 Q. Was there a -- LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 609 1 A. There was a cover letter which indicated it 2 was review materials being sent to Dr. Switzer. I 3 could not see, given the volume of stuff there, that I 4 would be able to or that it would be a good use of my 5 time at this point to review that myself. 6 Q. Did you read the letter? 7 A. Glanced at it. I wouldn't be able to recall 8 the exact contents, but I think it was very short of 9 "here are the materials we discussed," or something 10 along those lines. 11 Q. Do you know how Dr. Paul Switzer was chosen 12 to review this work, did you have any input there? 13 MR. LIEBERMAN: Object to form. 14 A. I may have, I do not recall exactly. 15 Q. When you say you may have, do you know Dr. 16 Paul Switzer? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. How do you know him? 19 A. I've met him at a conference a number of 20 times some years ago, and I continue to bump into him 21 at conferences here and there. 22 Q. Is he a statistician? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Do you know what the purpose of sending Dr. 25 Millard's work to Mr. Switzer for his review is? LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 610 1 A. I expect it was to have an independent peer 2 review of the work. 3 Q. Did you think about using Dr. Hughes? 4 A. Did I? 5 Q. Yes. 6 A. I don't understand the question. 7 Q. Well, I'm wondering whether or not Dr. Hughes 8 came into your mind as someone that could give an 9 independent review of Dr. Millard's work? 10 A. You're somehow implying that I was picking 11 reviewers. 12 Q. I understand what you're saying. Did you at 13 any point advise Mr. Millard to use Mr. Hughes or give 14 any advice to use Mr. Hughes as a peer reviewer or 15 reviewer of the work? 16 A. I don't believe so. 17 Q. I guess this goes back, you don't recollect 18 whether you were the person that decided to use Paul 19 Switzer, you don't recollect whether or not you told 20 Millard to use Mr. Switzer or not? 21 A. I don't recall that. 22 Q. Is it possible that you told Dr. Millard to 23 use Dr. Switzer? 24 A. I'm absolutely certain that I didn't tell Dr. 25 Millard anything of that nature. LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 611 1 Q. I guess what I get from this is you might 2 have mentioned to Dr. Millard in some of your 3 discussions that Dr. Switzer could be someone to review 4 anything down the line. I'm trying to see what the 5 connection is or if there was a possibility of Dr. 6 Millard getting Dr. Switzer's name from you or if he 7 independently got it from himself? 8 A. Dr. Switzer is a leading name in the field 9 and any competent statistician would recognize that 10 name. It certainly would not be left to me to call to 11 their attention to the credentials of Paul Switzer. 12 Q. Have you talked to Dr. Switzer in the last 13 month? 14 A. No. 15 Q. In the last year? 16 MR. LIEBERMAN: Are you asking just generally 17 has he spoken with him? 18 MR. LOREDO: Yes. 19 A. Any contact with him, no. 20 Q. Have you sent anything to Dr. Millard to 21 review in the last month? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Have you received Dr. Marin's work regarding 24 the STA analysis? 25 A. No. LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 612 1 Q. Do you still intend to review Dr. Marin's 2 work and offer an opinion as to that? 3 A. That is a decision that is up to counsel. 4 MR. LIEBERMAN: Can I just state, are you 5 talking only within the last month? Because Dr. 6 Lettenmaier has in the past reviewed things that he has 7 commented on. 8 THE WITNESS: But that in fact is in the 9 transcription of the other testimony. 10 MR. LOREDO: You weren't at the last 11 deposition, Scott, and during the last deposition Dr. 12 Lettenmaier had reviewed some of Dr. Marin's work. He 13 also said in the deposition that he could possibly be 14 reviewing his work as to the STA sensitivity. 15 Q. Which is work that you also performed that 16 you prepared a report on, also, and I guess you were 17 going to compare work and also just offer a review 18 analysis of that work. 19 A. That's correct. 20 Q. While we're talking about the STA analysis 21 sensitivity, have you done any further work with 22 respect to that? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Just to cover all bases, have you had 25 discussions with any consultants or other parties, LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 613 1 other than your attorneys in this matter, since March, 2 regarding this litigation? And what I'm trying to find 3 out is everyone you talked to. 4 MR. LIEBERMAN: Object to form. You can 5 answer, if you understand. 6 A. You're asking if I've had any discussions 7 with any other consultants about the case since -- yes. 8 Q. Since March? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. You've told me about John Davis, possibly 11 maybe someone else at the ES&P. Have you talked to Dr. 12 Millard? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And what were the substance of those 15 discussions? 16 A. Since March, I believe the discussions have 17 been limited to issues having to do with data transfer. 18 Q. What do you mean by "data transfer"? 19 A. I believe we discussed at the last deposition 20 his use of some of the krigging bathymetry and soil 21 phosphorus data. 22 Q. When you say "data transfer," you mean you 23 provided him your krigging work so he can -- 24 A. Indirectly the data went to ES&P. 25 Q. Are we talking about the output from the LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 614 1 krigging work? 2 A. The output, the results of our analysis. 3 Q. So you've provided the results of the 4 krigging analysis to John Davis at ES&P? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. And you believe that work was then provided 7 to Dr. Millard? 8 A. I believe so. 9 Q. And you had a discussion with Dr. Millard 10 regarding that work? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Do you know if Dr. Millard was going to try 13 to use that work as analysis with cattails? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Can you tell me what your discussions were 16 with Dr. Millard regarding this issue? 17 A. I think we discussed some of these before. 18 MR. LIEBERMAN: I just want to object to the 19 point that counsel may want to envoke privilege over 20 certain communications between consultants if they were 21 in the presence of attorneys because you're talking 22 very generally and not discussing which meeting or 23 which conversation you're talking about, so I want to 24 remind you -- 25 MR. FITZGERALD: Counsel, are you asserting a LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 615 1 privilege for every communication between the 2 consultants just because an attorney happened to be 3 there? 4 MR. LIEBERMAN: No, that's why I stated 5 that. But if there were an attorney present regarding 6 trial preparation at the direction of counsel, those we 7 would maintain a privilege over where counsel was 8 present, meetings directed by counsel, for counsel and 9 other -- 10 THE WITNESS: These were not in the presence 11 of counsel regarding the data. 12 MR. LOREDO: We don't have to address 13 counsel's argument now but we may later. 14 Q. Let me just cut to the chase here. We 15 deposed Dr. Millard yesterday, and I believe he's 16 dropped his analysis regarding cattails and the use of 17 the krigging work to try to develop any relationship 18 between cattails, water depth and soil phosphorus. Do 19 you know that to be true? 20 A. Sounds like you have more recent and better 21 information than I do since he and you were in Miami 22 yesterday and I was here. 23 Q. Well, did you have any discussions with Dr. 24 Millard to that respect? 25 A. No. LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 616 1 Q. You don't know, then, that Dr. Millard 2 doesn't plan to do further work into that area? 3 A. I am not aware of whether he does or does 4 not. 5 Q. Do you know what he wanted your analysis for, 6 the krigging work, what the purpose of it was, what he 7 was going to do? Do you know what Dr. Millard's 8 intentions were with the use of your krigging analysis 9 of WCA-2A? 10 A. I know in a general sense. 11 Q. Tell us your understanding. 12 A. In a general sense, the phosphorus data were 13 to be used in a comparison of vegetation phosphorus and 14 certain characteristics of hydroperiod. 15 Q. Do you know what problems he ran into, did he 16 discuss any problems with you? 17 A. No. 18 Q. Will you try to continue analysis of using 19 your krigging work and join in with the vegetation 20 analysis and cattails? 21 A. I doubt it, given the time constraints, but I 22 couldn't commit to that absolutely. 23 Q. I guess you're saying if counsel asks you to? 24 A. Perhaps you have information that is more 25 current than mine. LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 617 1 Q. You didn't have an opportunity to speak to 2 Dr. Millard in the last few days? 3 A. No, he's been in Miami, and I said hello to 4 him. 5 Q. You guys have figured us out. If you talk to 6 someone, we're going to make you tell us. 7 A. That's usually not been a problem for me. 8 Q. Maybe you can educate me, what use is your 9 krigging work in WCA-2A other than telling us what the 10 spatial interpolation of the phosphorus within the 11 WCA-2A -- well, you made a face, let me back up. 12 You've done a krigging analysis which is 13 basically a spatial interpolation which shows the grid 14 of the phosphorus contents within WCA-2A. Is that a 15 correct statement? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. What are you going to do with that now? Do 18 you have any intentions of doing further work with 19 that? 20 MR. LIEBERMAN: Object to form. 21 A. I do not have current plans or have not been 22 asked to carry out additional analyses, that was 23 essentially a derived product that we were asked to 24 produce. 25 Q. Dry product? LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 618 1 A. Derived product from the raw samples. 2 Q. What do you mean by "derived product"? 3 What's the significance of that terminology? 4 A. I think we discussed the nature of krigging 5 at some length in the previous deposition, that it's a 6 spatial interpolator, so that you've mentioned values 7 being produced on a grid of some spacing, that the raw 8 data are clearly collected at some finite notch points 9 as a derived product that is a spatial field that is 10 interpolated from the raw data. 11 Q. Does that support any opinions you have for 12 this case? I'm trying to figure out the next step. 13 What kind of testimony from that analysis -- other than 14 showing a grid of the phosphorus within the WCA-2A, is 15 there anything else to that? Do you understand my 16 question? 17 A. That I've been asked to prepare? 18 Q. Asked to prepare or -- yes. 19 A. You have the earlier reports that show the 20 extent of the area enclosed within certain contours. 21 Q. And that's basically what it stands for 22 then? I'm trying to figure out if there's anything 23 else to it that you're trying to prove. 24 A. I've indicated that you have a derived data 25 product which essentially are spatial maps of LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 619 1 phosphorus, and particularly all this discussion has 2 been implicitly about 10 centimeter core data because 3 there were other data that we talked about at the 4 previous deposition, so one aspect is the spatial field 5 itself, then in the reports you have and that we 6 discussed at the previous deposition there were some 7 interpretations of that. 8 Q. At this point in time do you plan to update 9 your analysis with respect to the krigging of the 10 phosphorus within the WCA-2A? 11 A. Not unless we were provided more data or data 12 of which I'm unaware were to somehow become available. 13 Q. Have you talked to any other consultants or 14 parties involved in this case other than counsel since 15 your deposition on March 4th regarding the case? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Who else? 18 A. Curtis Richardson. 19 Q. And can you tell me what the substance of 20 those conversations or conversation was? 21 A. One of the aspects was regarding one of the 22 issues that had been left unresolved at the previous 23 deposition having to do with the bulk density in the 10 24 centimeter core data. 25 Q. Your last deposition you indicated that John LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 620 1 Davis was going to try to find out why we had these 2 inconsistent bulk density estimates. Were you able to 3 resolve that? 4 A. Yes, I believe so. 5 Q. Tell us how it was resolved. 6 A. Through discussions with John and with Curtis 7 Richardson. 8 Q. And what was the outcome? 9 A. It's my -- it's now my opinion that the 10 10 centimeter data set shouldn't be compared directly and 11 shouldn't be pooled. 12 Q. Shouldn't be pooled with Dr. Reddy's data? 13 A. There are at least three sources of which I'm 14 aware of 10 centimeter or nearly 10 centimeter total 15 phosphorus data for WCA-2A. 16 Q. And who are they? 17 A. Reddy, Richardson and Patrick. 18 Q. So now you're of the opinion that you should 19 not pool those data? 20 A. That's correct. 21 Q. And I think -- I'm going to show you 22 Exhibit-6 which was marked in your previous deposition. 23 You said once you had resolved the inconsistency 24 between the bulk density estimates you would redo the 25 analysis which has been marked as Exhibit-6 entitled LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 621 1 "Estimation of WCA-2A Sediment Phosphorus Deposition." 2 Have you redone the analysis? 3 A. I'm not sure "redone" is the appropriate 4 word. 5 Q. Modified? 6 A. I'm not sure that's true, either. Let me 7 clarify. There are several sets of krigging estimates 8 that have been done, either with pooled data or 9 without, with the Reddy data alone. 10 Whether or not the Reddy data alone had been 11 done prior to that comment in that report, and I 12 believe they had, I'm not absolutely certain. I 13 believe the comment you have referred to perhaps 14 anticipated that if the inconsistency were revolved 15 that it might be appropriate to then pool the data. 16 We've since decided, as I've indicated, that I in 17 particular do not believe that's appropriate. 18 Q. Why not? 19 A. Because there is an uncertainty as to the 20 measurement of the phosphorus core depth and an 21 apparent inconsistency in that measurement between the 22 different investigators, and it is not now clear that 23 there is a definitive way of resolving that so that the 24 samples might be adjusted. 25 Q. So it's a comparability issue? LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 622 1 A. Absolutely. 2 Q. Does that change your opinion in any way in 3 not pooling the data? 4 A. I don't believe so. It provides -- it simply 5 identifies which of the several spatial interpolated 6 fields or derived fields that we believe are the most 7 appropriate use. 8 Q. And which is the most appropriate to use? 9 A. I believe the most appropriate one to use is 10 the one based on Dr. Reddy's data, the reason not 11 necessarily having to do with any particulars of his 12 sampling analysis being better or worse than the 13 others, which is not mine to conclude, but based on the 14 fact that his grid covered a larger area than the other 15 ones, hence, results in better spatial estimates. 16 Q. He had more sampling sites? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Now, if I recall, krigging should only be 19 used if you have at least 30, at least that's what you 20 testified to in your deposition, 30 sampling sites? 21 A. That is a very rough rule of thumb. 22 Q. If you don't pool the data are you running 23 awry or having problems with that rule of thumb? 24 A. No. 25 Q. Because you have 30 sampling sites by using LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 623 1 Richardson's data? 2 A. No, that's not what I said. 3 Q. I don't want to put words in your mouth but 4 I'm trying to back up now. 5 A. Please don't. 6 Q. Yes, we went through this last time. You 7 feel most comfortable with Reddy's data because he's 8 got more data, is that what it really came down to when 9 you started looking at -- 10 A. The issue is not solely more. That's one 11 aspect. 12 Q. What are the other aspects? 13 A. The Reddy data were collected on a relatively 14 uniform grid throughout the WCA-2A. 15 Q. Whereas the Richardson or Patrick was not? 16 A. They were collected generally along transects 17 in one specific area. 18 Q. Any other issues? We've talked about more 19 data, uniform grid. Is there any other reason you 20 believe that the Reddy data set is more appropriate for 21 the krigging work that you did versus looking at the 22 Richardson and the Patrick? 23 A. No, I think I indicated the reason for the 24 preference has to do with relative uniformity of the 25 spatial grid and number of samples. LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 624 1 Q. So do we have three or you have three 2 krigging maps now developed, a grid map for Reddy's 3 data, one for Patrick and one for Richardson? 4 A. Which phosphorus data are we talking about? 5 Q. Soil phosphorus. 6 A. I understand that but there are several soil 7 phosphorus data sets in addition to being labeled by an 8 investigator. 9 Q. Are you talking about the entry and access 10 data with the ES&P? 11 A. No. 12 Q. Can you help me out, what distinctions are 13 you trying to draw here? 14 A. Our discussion has been totally limited to 15 near 10 centimeters and not at all to the dated core 16 data. 17 (Brief recess.) 18 MR. LOREDO: Back on the record. 19 Q. Talking about the krigging work you did, I 20 guess where I have some confusion, Doctor, is now 21 you're not pooling some data. Has that caused any 22 issues with respect to the rule of thumb of using 30 23 sampling sites when looking at the Richardson and 24 Patrick data? 25 A. No. LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 625 1 Q. Why not? 2 A. Because we're not using the Richardson or 3 Patrick data. 4 Q. Okay. Doctor, when you say you're not 5 looking at the Richardson or Patrick data, we're 6 talking about the 10 centimeter, though? 7 A. That's correct. 8 Q. What about the dated core data? 9 A. That is a completely separate issue. 10 Q. Tell me with respect to the dated core data 11 what changes, if any, in your analysis are there, or is 12 there any, are we still pooling data? 13 A. Yes. My opinion is that it is defensible to 14 pool the data, the dated core data, with respect to 15 mass, to a specified point in the core, specifically 16 1964 or various interpolations thereof. 17 Q. So you're not having the same uniform grid 18 problem as with the 10 centimeter data? 19 A. No, that isn't what I said. 20 Q. No, no, I'm trying now to compare, I don't 21 know if even possible, with the 10 centimeter data and 22 using the dated core data, those two separate data 23 analyses, whether there are similar problems with the 24 analyse and I'm taking it there is not, that we're 25 talking about two separate animals? LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 626 1 A. The nature of the issue as regards bulk 2 density, which is why this all started, is completely 3 different to the two. 4 Q. The bulk density relates to the 10 centimeter 5 data set? 6 A. No. 7 Q. You've got me lost now. 8 A. The nature of the issue regarding bulk 9 density is completely different for the 10 centimeter 10 data than it is for the 10 centimeter core data. 11 Q. Tell me how the issue with respect to the 12 dated core data and the 10 centimeter data is -- 13 A. Yes, the issue is the same as before, that 14 the issue of compaction has apparently not been handled 15 consistently due to differences in the time of 16 inundation or lack thereof or related variables when 17 the cores were collected, so there is a potential 18 inconsistency in any measurements having to do with 19 depth of core. 20 Q. And how is that resolved, or is it resolved? 21 A. Well, it can be resolved with respect to the 22 dated core data if the variable that is used is 23 phosphorus mass, which does not depend on the depth of 24 core. 25 Q. And how do you know it's not dependent on the LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 627 1 depth of core? 2 A. Well, because the procedure used to determine 3 total phosphorus is a digression procedure. Whether or 4 not the core would stay compacted prior to the 5 laboratory analysis wouldn't make any difference to the 6 result. 7 Q. So compression of the sample is not a problem 8 when working from the C-137 peak? 9 A. I didn't say that. 10 Q. Well, do you agree with that statement? 11 A. No. 12 Q. Why not? 13 A. You would need to qualify it to say with 14 respect to mass. 15 Q. Okay, if I say with respect to mass. 16 A. With respect to mass, that's correct. 17 Q. So have you pooled the Reddy, Richardson and 18 Patrick data, core data and that is the analysis that's 19 in Exhibit-6, or actually not Exhibit-6 -- 20 A. I'm not sure which analysis is in Exhibit-6. 21 Q. I believe it was Exhibit-8, if you'll take a 22 quick look at Exhibit-8 from your previous deposition, 23 March of 1994, March 2nd through March 4th of 1994, 24 that analysis, is that unchanged, then? 25 A. Those analyses that are for phosphorus mass LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 628 1 would be unchanged, yes. That is about half of what is 2 in here. 3 Q. Okay. Is the other half about water depth? 4 A. No. 5 Q. Okay. I guess part of it's the 10 centimeter 6 phosphorus data? 7 A. Well, there may be some of that in there but 8 that's not the issue. 9 Q. When you say "half," can you tell me what the 10 other half is? 11 A. The issue we've been discussing for the last 12 15 or 20 minutes has to do with the appropriateness of 13 comparison of different sources of core data with 14 respect to concentration and mass, which are basically 15 the two candidate variables. I've argued that for the 16 dated core data, for the reasons I've indicated, that 17 comparison or pooling of samples for mass shouldn't 18 cause a problem. 19 For concentration, however, it would, because 20 now depth is a variable and we have potential 21 inconsistencies in the data sources. 22 Q. How do you account for the potential of 23 phosphorus diffusion in the data core mass calculation? 24 A. I don't think I understand that question. 25 Q. Okay, I'll repeat it and let me see if I can LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 629 1 break it down. Can you or have you accounted for 2 phosphorus diffusion in the data core mass calculation? 3 A. I guess I'd have to say again, I don't 4 understand what one would mean by "diffusion in the 5 core." 6 Q. I know where the question comes from and I 7 guess the best thing to do here -- 8 MR. FITZGERALD: Is wait until my turn? 9 A. I think you want another witness to answer 10 your question. 11 Q. Let me ask you this, and I think I'll be able 12 to work it this way: At your last deposition back in 13 March, you had been given Dr. Reddy's 1994 report? 14 A. 1994. 15 Q. If you reviewed your transcript, you may 16 recall there were really two reports that we were 17 talking about and you had just received one and one was 18 with regard to -- 19 A. The only issue there had to do with the 20 krigging software that he'd used as we discussed, as I 21 recall. 22 Q. Dr. Reddy's? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. So you didn't have an opportunity to see his 25 analysis with respect to diffusion of the phosphorus, LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 630 1 either up or down, within the core? 2 A. I have not read that, but diffusion is not 3 going to be an issue for total mass. 4 Q. Why do you say that? 5 A. Well, whether or not the stuff moves up or 6 down in the core -- well, I'm sorry, one could imagine 7 it being potentially an issue if it went above or below 8 the critical line for the date, I guess. Other than 9 that, if it moved up or down in the core and you're 10 doing total mass, the stuff is still going to be there. 11 Q. And you're concerned if it goes below the 12 1964 -- 13 A. Again, I don't want to get beyond -- I have 14 not reviewed that part of the report, and I think your 15 question is getting a bit afield from the particular 16 issues of what we have done, and when you get down to 17 particular issues of the suitability or the 18 representativeness of what is in, say, the core of some 19 particular phenomenon, as opposed to the comparability 20 of two different samples, then you're into something 21 that is getting past my area of expertise. 22 Q. You did look at the krigging analysis of Dr. 23 Reddy's? 24 A. The only thing I looked at there was to see 25 or try to determine what algorithm he had used, and I LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 631 1 think we discussed this in the last deposition. 2 Q. I went over your transcript and I think we 3 stopped when we talked about Dr. Reddy's report because 4 you hadn't really looked at it, so if you can just -- 5 A. I don't remember if that was before or after 6 the deposition, and if this occurred after the 7 deposition, then, perhaps this is another document that 8 I received that you might not have been -- that you 9 might have been asking about. I thought that was 10 before the deposition. 11 Q. So you don't recall reviewing anything in the 12 last month regarding Dr. Reddy's work? 13 A. Well, again, we now have this uncertainty as 14 to whether this is in the last month or not, but let me 15 say just to clarify the record that one of the issues 16 that I believe we discussed in the last deposition had 17 to do with the krigging algorithm, and I'm virtually 18 certain we had a rather lengthy discussion about what 19 we thought he had done and how we had attempted to 20 recreate some of his krigging analysis in some of the 21 reports, not in his 1994 reports but in one of the 22 considerably earlier ones, I believe 1992. In order to 23 follow up on that in his '94 report, the one you're 24 indicating, there was specific mention made of the 25 software he had used, and I don't remember the LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 632 1 particular name of the software, there was discussion 2 with Dr. Davis' group in an attempt to retrieve a 3 user's manual for that software. 4 Q. So you don't know if it's SURFER, GEOPACK 5 or -- 6 A. No, we are not -- there is specific reference 7 in the report to the specific package he used. 8 Q. So you don't think it's SURFER, GEOPACK or 9 GEOEAS? 10 A. We know it's not. 11 Q. Did you have any opportunity to review the 12 MacDonald material that at our last deposition was 13 sitting next to you and you hadn't had an opportunity 14 to review it? 15 A. I have looked through it. I'm not sure you 16 could characterize the level that I have been through 17 it as a rigorous technical review, but I have looked at 18 the reports, yes. 19 Q. Do you know there are three reports in 20 February 1994? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. And you've reviewed all three? 23 A. I've looked at all three of them. 24 Q. And I guess you can't give me a rigorous 25 technical analysis of them or summary of them, but do LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 633 1 you have any comments or criticisms that you wish to 2 offer now or would offer during a hearing? 3 MR. LIEBERMAN: Object to form, we just want 4 to -- you might want to clarify this as to which report 5 you're talking about. 6 Q. We'll talk about all three. 7 A. I can't remember the details of which is in 8 which particular report. I do remember that one of the 9 reports has recalculated areas using the William Walker 10 1993 STA model, essentially the STA performance models, 11 and I do remember that another one of the reports has 12 done some review of the loadings in, I believe, the 13 baseline period. I have concerns or my concerns are 14 limited to aspects having to do with -- and I believe I 15 indicated this in the previous deposition, to 16 uncertainty in either the STA required area to achieve 17 a given target or in the uncertainty regarding the 18 performances of the STA's for a particular fixed area, 19 design area, and so there are certain aspects that are 20 of concern to me that are imbedded in those reports. 21 Q. And those uncertainties are expressed in the 22 report that you did titled "Analysis of Uncertainty in 23 STA Area Requirement" which was marked as Exhibit-5, 24 and basically what I'm trying to get to is, is there 25 additional analysis you would wish to add to that LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 634 1 report? 2 A. I believe we talked about some additional 3 analysis that was ongoing at the time of the previous 4 deposition, but I would also point out that this 5 particular report is indicative of my concerns and the 6 nature of the uncertainties but it's not the sole basis 7 for that concern. 8 Q. What other basis is there? 9 A. Well, this particular report is based on one 10 particular proposed design method or design algorithm, 11 which has since undergone several revisions by the 12 district, hence, similar issues apply to the other work 13 and would certainly be expressed by me in testimony, 14 and I would rely on the general nature of the issues 15 and this type of analysis but not necessarily the 16 numbers and particular figures in this report. 17 Q. I understand what you're saying. You had 18 previously testified today that you have done some 19 further STA sensitivity work. Can you tell me what 20 further work you've done? 21 A. Not in particular STA sensitivity work but 22 work that bears on that issue. 23 Q. What type of work? 24 A. I believe we discussed last time some of the 25 issues relating to short-circuiting. LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 635 1 Q. Can you refresh my memory? When you say 2 short-circuiting, I don't recall -- 3 A. Sure. The issue has to do with referring a 4 settling rate from an area like WCA-2A where the 5 hydraulic characteristics are not particularly well 6 known. 7 Q. That I remember. I was under the impression 8 when we started the deposition today that you had done 9 further work, additional work since the deposition, is 10 that true? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. What work did you do? 13 A. I think I just began to indicate that there 14 is some work relating to short-circuiting. 15 Q. What did you do? 16 A. I have initiated -- well, I'm sorry, I have 17 been conducting some work to look at the -- under 18 certain simplifying assumptions, how the settling rate 19 estimate might be affected by variations in hydraulic 20 characteristics of WCA-2A. 21 Q. Which characteristics are you looking at, 22 rain? 23 A. No, I'm looking at variations in 24 concentration and flows laterally across the area. 25 Q. Okay. Are we talking about surface water LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 636 1 concentrations? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And can you take me through the steps of what 4 you did? 5 A. The idea is to -- instead of treating the 6 entire area as one large cell, with uniform sheet flow 7 and uniform concentration progressing from an 8 upgradient end to a downgradient end and performing, as 9 suggested by William Walker's suggested March 1993 10 model, to see what the effect on the settling rate 11 estimate would be if the same model were assumed to 12 apply except to cells through which varying amounts of 13 load or flow and concentration, hence, load, were 14 moving. 15 Q. I had it for a little while. Are you telling 16 me you divided up WCA-2A in some format? 17 A. Conceptually, yes. 18 Q. How? 19 A. Basically we simply take a hypothetical 20 example with characteristics essentially similar or 21 identical to the characteristics that have been used in 22 Walker's analyses for WCA-2A and treated it as being 23 some number of cells operating in parallel. 24 Q. How many cells? 25 A. That is something that can be varied. LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 637 1 Presently I'm using ten but the analysis won't be 2 particularly sensitive to that. 3 Q. Does that mean you're accepting Walker's 4 underlying assumptions? 5 A. We're saying if one were to accept those 6 assumptions, what would be the implications of these 7 particular characteristics of certain particular 8 assumptions of his not being met but the other ones, 9 the general form of his model, being correct, but the 10 assumption of sheet flow, uniform flow not being met. 11 Q. Have you completed the analysis? 12 A. I have not completed the analysis, but I have 13 formed an opinion. 14 Q. Can you tell us the opinion? 15 A. The opinion is that the settling rate is 16 rather sensitive to short-circuiting. 17 Q. What does that tell us? 18 A. Well, it tells us that there is a rather 19 significant source of uncertainty that has been 20 underestimated in the work that's been done to date. 21 Q. Such as? What's the main uncertainty, 22 essentially? 23 A. I believe in this particular analysis here, 24 and this being Exhibit-5 -- 25 Q. You're learning, Doctor. LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 638 1 A. -- from the previous deposition, that the 2 settling rate was the most critical parameter in the 3 design in terms of the required area, so the nature of 4 this investigation is to try to understand what an 5 appropriate level of variability that might be ascribed 6 to the settling rate in an analysis such as this one 7 is. 8 Q. What kind of variability did you find? 9 A. Well, the variability in the settling rate is 10 determined by the magnitude and characterization of the 11 short-circuiting, which is a hydraulic characteristic. 12 Q. And you're controlling the magnitude of the 13 short-circuiting, are you not? 14 A. In this hypothetical model I can, yes. 15 Q. So if you're doing that, aren't you able to 16 figure out the variability or haven't you figured out 17 some parameters of variability already? 18 A. But the problem is that we don't have the 19 hydraulic data to know what the hydraulic performance 20 of WCA-2A is. 21 Q. Are you telling me you can't complete your 22 analysis until you have hydraulic data? 23 A. What I'm saying is one could do a better job 24 of the analysis if one had detailed hydraulic data, but 25 we can understand how important that data is or is LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 639 1 not. For instance, in the nature of this particular 2 study here, there were certain variables that don't 3 make too much difference, so one would not spend a lot 4 of time going out and trying to get better estimates of 5 certain variables that may not make too much difference 6 to the result. 7 Q. Some of the variables you're talking about 8 might be evapotranspiration, precipitation? 9 A. Transpiration, yes. 10 Q. Would that be one of the variables that 11 aren't sensitive? 12 A. In this model that is not as sensitive a 13 variable as some of the others. 14 Q. And does that same hold true for the 15 additional analysis you've done with the 16 short-circuiting, has it changed? 17 A. Well, no, wait a minute. In the 18 short-circuiting analysis, we are taking the model of 19 Walker's with his parameters, all of those being fixed, 20 with the exception of the lateral variability in 21 concentration and flow, which he does not consider. 22 Those are the two variables that we're focusing on, and 23 how they affect the settling rate. 24 Q. You've isolated concentration and flow, I 25 guess those are a factor in the settling rate LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 640 1 themselves? 2 A. Those are going to affect -- if those vary 3 laterally and are not constant, those are going to 4 affect the inferred settling rate, yes. 5 Q. And I think your testimony from your prior 6 deposition is you couldn't find a relationship between 7 concentration and flow? 8 A. That is a completely separate issue and a 9 completely different context. 10 Q. Are you saying, then, if the relationship 11 between concentration and flow is not linear -- or can 12 I say "constant" being the same as "linear"? 13 A. No, you have me a little confused, but -- 14 Q. I think you've just testified that if the 15 concentration and flow were constant -- 16 A. Laterally. 17 Q. You mean coming down from the higher gradient 18 to the lower gradient? 19 A. No, no, if one has -- we had a picture of 20 WCA-2A. 21 Q. I think we do, hold on. 22 A. Good. 23 MR. FITZGERALD: For the record we might want 24 to say we're looking at the district standard schematic 25 map of the WCA-2A. LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 641 1 A. Actually it's probably in one of these 2 exhibits, but, okay, the general idea, the water is 3 coming through the ten structures here (indicating) and 4 is moving essentially like this (indicating), if one 5 conceptualizes that basically as a rectangle where 6 there's water coming in from the top and moving down 7 across here, which is more or less what Walker does in 8 his analysis. 9 Q. Like a plug flow? 10 A. I always have difficulty remembering the 11 difference between plug flow and uniformly continuously 12 tank reactor -- but plug flow is the correct one of 13 those two approximations. Then his assumption 14 basically is that this stuff implicitly comes in and 15 moves down like that (indicating), certain things 16 happen to it, phosphorus disappears when it gets down 17 here, by comparing certain characteristics here and 18 here (indicating), one can then infer what the settling 19 rate was. 20 Q. When you say "here," you're saying from the 21 outflow versus what's coming in? 22 A. Yes, yes. 23 Q. Just kind of the mass balance approach that 24 he looks at? 25 A. Essentially, yes, how much fell out, and you LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 642 1 have an equation related to the certain characteristics 2 of what's coming in, how the stuff should be going in, 3 and then you back in to what the K must have been to 4 get these concentrations down here, and that analysis 5 can and has been done in several different ways with 6 respect to both water column and sediment 7 concentrations. 8 Regardless of how it's done, you're right, it 9 is essentially mass balance with the dynamic equation 10 that says how the stuff settles out. All I'm saying in 11 terms of variability is if one takes this now 12 conceptualized rectangle and splits it into a number of 13 thinner rectangles and say across here there is some 14 variation in flow and concentration (indicating), such 15 that the total amount of load is the same as what he is 16 assuming, then how does that affect the settling rate 17 estimate. 18 Q. How were you able to do that with the data? 19 I'm trying to conceptualize -- 20 A. The data has been used indirectly insofar as 21 they have been characterized by him i.e., in terms of 22 the loads going in and so on. Again, we have assumed 23 his model. 24 Q. So each cell is equally divisible? 25 A. In each cell his model is assumed to apply, LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 643 1 so that his model says that if you know the load that 2 is going in and you know the flow, which is the same as 3 knowing the concentration and the flow, and you know 4 the evapotranspiration and the precipitation and so on, 5 all of which we have taken his numbers for, then you 6 can determine what the concentration should be at the 7 lower end. 8 His model applies to treating the entire area 9 as one effective block so one gets one estimate of K 10 from doing that. One gets a different estimate of K if 11 you assume that there is a separate value of K that 12 applies to each of these cells through which some of 13 which there are higher flows and some of which there 14 are lower. 15 Q. How are you accounting for different flows in 16 the different cells to come up with a different -- I 17 almost think it's like in a simplistic look you've 18 taken his analysis, cut it into ten pieces, I should 19 get the same result but in ten different pieces on the 20 bottom, and it seems that you're either -- something is 21 happening to the equation to change either flow or 22 concentrations within the cells? 23 MR. LIEBERMAN: Object to form. 24 A. Well, let me just -- for your edification, 25 what you say would be correct if the model were linear. LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 644 1 Q. Okay. 2 A. If it were a linear model, then splitting 3 things into cells and applying the model to each 4 individual cell and adding them up would give you the 5 same answer as if you took the answer and applied it to 6 the whole thing. It's not a linear model, it's a 7 rather complicated form that's in the Burns and 8 MacDonald February 4th report and is in, of course, his 9 reports as well. 10 Q. And then your opinion out of this is that the 11 settling rate is sensitive to the short-circuiting, is 12 that the conclusion? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And by saying that, to a layman, what does 15 that mean? 16 A. Well, it means there's some rather important 17 information that is missing from the analysis on which 18 the settling rate, which is the critical design 19 parameter for the STA's, is based. That one needs to 20 know more than just the concentrations and loads going 21 in and out to estimate that model. 22 Q. And how would you approach resolving that? 23 A. How would I approach it? 24 Q. Yes. 25 A. I'd find a hydraulics expert. LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 645 1 Q. Aren't you one? 2 A. No, I'm a hydrologist. 3 Q. What's the difference? 4 A. Hydraulics is basically the study of fluid 5 mechanics, applied fluid mechanics. 6 Q. And that's because we don't or you don't 7 think it's appropriate to make the assumption of a 8 natural continuum sheet flow in the WCA-2A? 9 A. No, I'm quite certain of that. 10 Q. That that's not the indication? 11 A. That that is not the case, correct. 12 Q. And you base that on this analysis or is 13 there something else you base that on? 14 A. No, I base that on site visits and the 15 bathymetry analysis, which we discussed last time. 16 Q. Can you define it? I was going over it, I 17 remember talking about it, just a quick -- 18 A. Water depth, basically. 19 Q. And that was just a krigging of the water 20 depth? 21 A. Not exactly. This is -- I think we discussed 22 that a combination of several analyses, some of which 23 we had done for the top of sediment elevation and 24 sediment depth, top of sediment elevation in 25 particular, combined with the stage information from LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 646 1 John Davis' group, or that John Davis' group had 2 interpreted. 3 Q. Now I recall that. 4 I don't want to ask you if this is your final 5 opinion because I know what your feelings are with 6 respect to finals, but with respect to this case, 7 unless otherwise asked by counsel do you plan to do any 8 other work with regard to your opinion regarding the 9 sensitivity rates and its relationship to the STA 10 performance? 11 A. There probably will be additional work done, 12 I expect that that will be of the nature of preparing 13 exhibits to demonstrate the nature of the findings, so 14 from that standpoint I can't say that every last figure 15 has been drawn and example run. From the standpoint of 16 forming an opinion in the nature of the issue, I 17 believe I've testified that that work has led to an 18 opinion. 19 Q. If Dr. Marin's work does come to your 20 attention, do you plan to review that? 21 A. Well, again, this depends on what I'm asked 22 to do by counsel. 23 MR. LOREDO: Counsel, if Dr. Lettenmaier does 24 review that -- 25 MR. LIEBERMAN: We will make anything -- if LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 647 1 he relies on it for his testimony or his opinions are 2 changed by that material, we will make you aware of 3 that situation. 4 MR. LOREDO: Then we'll come out to Seattle 5 again. Off the record. 6 (Discussion off the record.) 7 Q. Did you have any other discussions with Dr. 8 Richardson about any other issues on bulk density? 9 A. Based on advice from counsel, I don't believe 10 any other discussions we had would not come under the 11 nature of client privilege. 12 Q. Is that because you're telling me that you 13 had discussions with Dr. Richardson before in front of 14 counsel? 15 A. That's correct. 16 Q. Well, were these discussions about opinions 17 you intend to offer or material you've relied on or 18 anything in your formulation for this case? 19 A. No. 20 MR. LOREDO: Did you want to say something, 21 Counsel? 22 MR. LIEBERMAN: If you want to clarify what 23 you're trying to ask about, which conversations, I 24 think what Dr. Lettenmaier is referring to is 25 conversations that may have involved preparation of LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 648 1 trial exhibits, preparation of trial strategy, which 2 would obviously be covered by the attorney/client 3 privileges in the presence of attorneys, at the 4 direction of attorneys, and it was a meeting resolving 5 litigation activities, not necessarily his direct 6 testimony at trial. 7 MR. FITZGERALD: Counsel, I don't accept 8 that. If, in fact, what you're saying is correct and 9 if what the witness said about exhibits is correct, if 10 he has participated in the production of exhibits based 11 on his expertise and he's already done that, he's open 12 to be questioned about it. 13 MR. LIEBERMAN: This was not in regard to his 14 exhibits. What the doctor is talking about is a 15 meeting called to attention by counsel. It was a 16 direct strategy session directly pertaining to trial 17 and it was not his particular exhibits that he was 18 preparing for trial and it had to do with strategy and 19 actions that will be taken at trial and formulating for 20 trial and preparing for trial and it would clearly be 21 under the attorney/client privilege as work product and 22 as an attorney work product privilege. 23 MR. FITZGERALD: So it's a work product 24 privilege you're invoking, not an attorney/client 25 privilege. LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 649 1 MR. LIEBERMAN: Correct. 2 MR. FITZGERALD: As far as I can tell, none 3 of the clients were there. 4 MR. LIEBERMAN: That's right, it's attorney 5 work product privilege, for clarification, at meetings 6 that were held in preparation for trial. We're talking 7 about one meeting, for clarification. 8 MR. FITZGERALD: And actually according to 9 his correspondence, I think it was called by John 10 Davis. 11 Q. When was the meeting, Doctor? 12 A. The meeting we're referring to was Friday, 13 March the 24th, does that come out being a Friday? 14 Sorry, March 25th is probably a Friday, yes, Friday 15 March 25th. 16 Q. Did you travel to Miami? 17 A. No. 18 Q. Did you travel anywhere? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Where did you travel to? 21 A. Atlanta. 22 Q. Who else was at the meeting? 23 A. Other than Dr. Richardson, Dr. Millard, Dr. 24 Davis, Mr. Burgess -- excuse me, yes, Mr. Blank was 25 there. LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 650 1 Q. Was Mr. Burgess there, also? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Anyone else? 4 A. At any part of the meeting? 5 Q. Yes. 6 MR. LIEBERMAN: I would -- 7 MR. LOREDO: He can tell us who was at the 8 meeting. I'll indulge counsel with respect to your 9 work product privilege, but I do want to know about the 10 meeting and who was there and I believe we're entitled 11 to that. 12 A. Yes, I wouldn't be able to tell you the other 13 names. There was a presentation given on some graphics 14 issues. 15 Q. Was this presentation by counsel or by 16 consultants? 17 A. No, this was by some other consultants. 18 Q. And who were those other consultants? 19 A. I just told you I don't remember their names. 20 Q. What was the presentation on? 21 A. Simply had to do with graphics preparation. 22 Q. Were these expert consultants or consultants 23 in just graphics preparation? 24 A. In graphics preparation. 25 Q. Like trial graphics or something? LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 651 1 A. Something like that, yes. 2 Q. Did you express any ideas of what kind of 3 exhibits you would like to prepare for trial? 4 MR. LIEBERMAN: Object to form. Are you 5 talking generally or are you asking his opinion 6 generally what he likes to do for trial? 7 MR. LOREDO: What his expressions as to what 8 exhibits he may offer at trial are. 9 Q. I'm trying to get an idea of what exhibits 10 you have thought about that you would like to present 11 at trial. I know you haven't done them, but you can 12 tell us if you had any input in that area. 13 MR. LIEBERMAN: Again I would tell you not to 14 answer to the point that it reflects direct requests 15 made by counsel for you to prepare certain exhibits for 16 trial. 17 MR. LOREDO: I don't have a problem with 18 that. 19 A. There were general discussions. 20 MR. FITZGERALD: We're going to see them in 21 two weeks anyway, big surprise. 22 A. We can go on with this for a while, you know, 23 I haven't thought a lot of that through that far. Yes, 24 there were discussions of the general nature of things 25 that might help convey certain messages and might not. LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 652 1 Q. Have you thought about any animated computer 2 modeling procedures? 3 A. Animated? 4 Q. Yes. 5 A. No. It's an interesting idea. 6 Q. I guess you haven't. 7 A. Not 'til just now. 8 MR. LOREDO: That will cost them a lot of 9 money. 10 THE WITNESS: We can go through a lot of 11 money on animated models. 12 MR. FITZGERALD: It's okay. 13 Q. The simulation models that you've developed, 14 are they amenable to that type of application? 15 A. Well, now we're talking about things that 16 have absolutely nothing to do with the meeting, let me 17 clarify that first off, and I'm imagining how I might 18 go do some animation of some of the things I've done 19 and I could probably imagine animating things. Whether 20 they fall into the nature of models or data 21 presentation is something one would have to think 22 through and whether it even constitutes my own data 23 analysis or somebody else's. 24 Q. So you think it might work? 25 MR. LIEBERMAN: Object to the point it calls LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 653 1 for speculation. 2 MR. FITZGERALD: He's an expert. It's a 3 hypothetical. Given enough money and time, we have the 4 technology, we can do it. 5 THE WITNESS: Thank you, you've answered my 6 question. 7 Q. Are there any other consultants you have met 8 or discussed or talked to about this case other than 9 who we've talked about so far, which is Dr. Richardson, 10 Millard, Davis, besides counsel? 11 MR. LIEBERMAN: Again, are you talking about 12 the last month since his deposition? 13 Q. In the last month since your deposition. I'm 14 just trying to see if somebody gave you a bright light 15 idea in the last month. 16 A. Certainly no one has given me a bright light, 17 and whether I've talked to anybody, with the possible 18 exception of people in John Davis' office regarding 19 data transfers and so on, to the best of my 20 recollection the answer is no, other than those that 21 you've listed, obviously. 22 Q. You haven't talked to Dr. Marin? 23 A. Not in the last month, no. 24 (Brief recess.) 25 MR. LOREDO: Back on the record. LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 654 1 Q. I think you've told me about every consultant 2 you at least talked to about this case. What I'd like 3 to know now is whether or not you've reviewed any 4 depositions since your deposition, starting with did 5 you review your own deposition? 6 A. I'm about a third of the way through it, 7 found all the misspellings of "spatial" and a few other 8 problems. 9 Q. I found a few misspellings in there, too. 10 How about any other depositions of any parties in this 11 lawsuit? 12 A. Not to my knowledge. 13 Q. So you have not? 14 A. Since the date March 2nd, I do not believe 15 so. 16 Q. And you haven't seen any exhibits from any 17 deposed parties in this matter? 18 A. Since March 2nd, again, we get into this sort 19 of did it come the week before, did it come the week 20 after and I'm not quite sure. I have been provided 21 with some materials from William Walker's deposition, I 22 believe that was before March 2nd but I'm not certain. 23 Q. No. 24 A. No? Okay. 25 Q. In fact, your deposition was before Dr. LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 655 1 Walker's deposition? 2 MR. FITZGERALD: For the record, so we don't 3 leave an incorrect impression here, Dr. Walker's 4 production of materials was before your deposition, you 5 could have received them before. 6 A. That makes it even more -- and I have glanced 7 at that material, have not had a chance to go through 8 all of it. 9 Q. I've got this picture in my mind of your desk 10 piled up with stacks and stacks of paper. 11 A. You have the right picture. 12 Q. Has there been any change in your contractual 13 relationship in this case? 14 A. No. There is no contract. 15 Q. You stated that you received a letter 16 notifying you of this deposition? 17 A. Well, I said I did not receive a deposition 18 notice. 19 Q. Right, but you did say you received a letter 20 from counsel advising you of a deposition. 21 A. Well, I received a letter saying that it 22 would be in this building, in this floor or this office 23 at this time, I received verbal notification prior to 24 that by about a week. 25 Q. And were you also asked at that point in time LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 656 1 to produce any documents which you had not produced and 2 any additional documents or computer files or other 3 forms of media, such as the Unix 60-meg cartridge, any 4 work that you've done in that, did you produce such 5 media or documents to counsel? 6 A. You've asked two different questions. 7 Q. What I'm looking for is when you received the 8 notice. 9 A. I didn't receive a notice. 10 Q. When you were notified by counsel of the 11 deposition were you also advised to produce additional 12 documents which had not been produced and also 13 additional documents or media form, computer media 14 form, which would reflect the additional work you did 15 since March? 16 A. No. 17 Q. You were not advised of that? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Well, I don't know why counsel didn't do it. 20 Did you produce any documents, additional documents or 21 computer discs or any 60-meg cartridge to your counsel 22 in the last month? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Why did you produce it? 25 A. I presumed, and quite possibly based on the LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 657 1 discussions at the previous deposition, that the 2 incremental work that had been done in that period 3 would need to be documented and that they would need 4 that information. 5 Q. Can you tell us what you produced to counsel? 6 A. I produced a 60-meg Unix cartridge tape and I 7 believe three, 3 1/2 inch floppy disks. 8 Q. Anything else? 9 A. No, other than a cover letter indicating what 10 was on those. 11 MR. FITZGERALD: Did you get that? 12 MR. LOREDO: I unfortunately didn't receive 13 your package until today, Counsel. 14 Q. But just for edification, can you tell me 15 what's in the 60-meg cartridge? 16 A. 60-meg cartridge tape is a copy of all of the 17 files that I have worked on including the ones that 18 have been done since the previous deposition. 19 Q. So I can get rid of the first 60-meg 20 cartridge that you provided in the production of the 21 deposition of March 4th? 22 A. Or you can send it back to me, if you would 23 like. 24 Q. What about the contents of the three, 3 1/2 25 inch floppy disks? LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 658 1 A. One of those is a duplicate of one of the 3 2 1/2 inch disks that you did not seem to be able to read 3 last time and that we, in turn, tried to read and 4 determined that the disk must have been faulty, so we 5 produced another one so that is an exact duplicate, 6 there are no changes. 7 One of them has the copy of the dozen 8 retrieve utilities consistent with the backup utility 9 used to create the case in case there were some 10 problems in reading them, so we were certain you had 11 the same software and -- the ARC software, PK ARC, 12 which is software, those are on the second one, the 13 third one is all of the krigging work that was done by 14 Lisa Dally-Wilson since the previous deposition and had 15 not been included in the earlier package. 16 Q. And is that the krigging work that we had 17 already discussed in this deposition today or is there 18 other krigging work? 19 A. I believe but I'm not certain that we have 20 discussed most of that already this evening. 21 Q. Did we miss anything? 22 A. Well, again, I would have to go through that 23 CD to see exactly what's on it, but the general nature 24 of what's on there has to do with the most recent 25 krigging output, a consistent grid, and we discussed at LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 659 1 the last deposition that this work was being done, the 2 particular files are on there. In fact, I believe we 3 discussed at the previous deposition the work, because 4 at the time of the deposition, I believe that work was 5 completed but it had only been completed a day or two 6 before I went to Miami and it had not been completed at 7 the time -- a week or so earlier, prior to that 8 deposition, when the backups were made. 9 Q. There were two grids, one for 200 meter and 10 400 meter? 11 A. Yes, there were two separate grids. 12 Q. And that's the work that's completed on the 13 disk? 14 A. Yes, there is, I believe, essentially one 15 directory with all of the krigging files and so on that 16 are associated with that particular derived data 17 product that we talked about. 18 Q. I take it you didn't generate any reports in 19 the last month? 20 A. No. 21 Q. All your work is on either the 60-meg 22 cartridge or the 3 1/2 inch floppy disk? 23 A. That's right, it's all on electronic media. 24 Q. I didn't ask you this last time, but in 25 reviewing the deposition it came across me that with LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 660 1 your expertise, have you formed any opinions in this 2 case regarding sampling frequency, station location or 3 whether any stations should be added in order to 4 determine future sampling procedures? 5 MR. LIEBERMAN: Object to form. 6 A. That's an extremely broad question. Maybe 7 you can be more specific. 8 Q. In the last deposition we talked about your 9 involvement with stream water quality monitoring 10 networks and your expertise in formulating 11 recommendations, where sampling should take place, how 12 many samples, the frequency of the sample and 13 locations. I'm wondering, with that expertise, if you 14 had any opinion with respect to future sampling which 15 would take place for the Loxahatchee or the park, and 16 I'm just wondering if you had any opinion as to that or 17 had been asked to formulate opinions as to that? 18 A. I have not been asked specifically to 19 formulate an opinion regarding that. I think if I were 20 asked specific questions regarding specific aspects of 21 the network I had, I would be in a position to offer an 22 opinion. I haven't specifically been asked. 23 Q. I believe you did that type of analysis to 24 Lake Okeechobee? 25 A. That is correct. There's a slightly LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 661 1 different objective. 2 Q. In your last deposition you said you might 3 have some further analysis with respect to load 4 uncertainty? 5 A. There has not been additional work completed 6 in that area. 7 Q. So you haven't done anything since your prior 8 deposition, March 2nd through March 4th? 9 A. That's correct. 10 Q. You distinguished phosphorus load uncertainty 11 and I asked you whether you had done any analysis of 12 phosphorus load uncertainty and I don't think the 13 distinction between phosphorus load uncertainty and 14 load uncertainty was -- 15 A. I'd have to see the context. 16 Q. We were talking about what analysis you were 17 going to do and you said -- you gave us 5 areas you 18 might have further analysis. One was the STA 19 sensitivity, which we've talked about once, one was 20 load uncertainty, then you said phosphorus load 21 uncertainty, then you said trend analysis and actually 22 bring current -- and we're going to get into that, that 23 deals with the park, but that was the context of your 24 statement during your last deposition, if that helps 25 you. LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 662 1 A. The only reason -- I believe that distinction 2 may have been because there was some discussion with 3 respect to the Loxahatchee correlation analysis with 4 respect to conservative versus non-conservative water 5 quality variables, i.e., total phosphorus being 6 non-conservative, so that there might be some 7 opportunity or cause to look at variables other than 8 total phosphorus. That probably is the reason for the 9 distinction. 10 Q. Have you done any analysis like that? 11 A. Since March 2nd, no. 12 Q. Have you changed your opinion regarding the 13 limits which have been set for the Loxahatchee in the 14 Everglades National Park with respect to the problems 15 and the way they were computed? You gave us in summary 16 basically three areas that you thought were 17 problematic, one being the use of the parametric 18 analysis, second being data problems and the third 19 having a problem related to the water quality, the 20 causal relationship between what's coming into the 21 marsh -- and this aspect relates to the Loxahatchee, 22 what comes into the marsh and what the effect of that 23 is to the interior, and those were the opinions, or at 24 least those were the problems you had represented which 25 were your final opinions as to the problems in the LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 663 1 calculations or the limits that were derived in 2 Appendix E of the SWIM Plan. 3 A. I believe that's a correct characterization 4 of what I said. 5 Q. Has that opinion changed? 6 A. Changed, perhaps, no; been reinforced, 7 perhaps, yes. 8 Q. How has it been reinforced? 9 A. My understanding is there are some 10 depositions that have taken place within the last week 11 or so that seem to confirm some of my earlier concerns. 12 Q. That being data problems, parametric issue? 13 A. Data comparability, which we discussed rather 14 extensively in the previous deposition. 15 Q. Do you have any opinion regarding the 16 relationship between the discharge from the EAA, 17 Everglades Agricultural Area, and the inflow into 18 Everglades National Park? 19 A. This is incremental work that's been done 20 since March 2nd. 21 Q. Actually, do you have any opinion now, I 22 don't know if you -- 23 A. That's different from an opinion that I might 24 have expressed at the earlier deposition? 25 Q. You did not express an opinion at the earlier LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 664 1 deposition. 2 A. So we're asking new questions now, sort of 3 over the totally global realm of any opinion I might 4 have having to do with any -- and we're no longer 5 looking at incremental work; is that correct. 6 Q. That is correct. 7 A. Could you repeat the question. 8 Q. Sure. I'm asking whether or not you have an 9 opinion with respect to the relationship between the 10 discharge from the EAA and the inflows into Everglades 11 National Park. 12 A. We're talking water volume now? 13 Q. Yes, surface phosphorus. 14 A. Excuse me. 15 Q. Okay. 16 A. Discharge is typically the measure of flow, 17 i.e., and CFS, and when you say "phosphorus," we're 18 talking loads or concentrations or some other 19 variables? 20 Q. Flows. 21 A. Flows. So now your question is whether there 22 is any relationship between how much water -- I'm 23 really confused. 24 Q. Whether you have any opinion as to the 25 relationship of the discharge from the EAA and the LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 665 1 inflows into Everglades National Park? 2 A. Where the water goes? I'm still very 3 confused by your question. 4 Q. It's actually whether or not the discharge 5 from the EAA is actually reaching the Everglades 6 National Park. There was some discussion in your prior 7 deposition that you may have some opinion that there 8 might not be a relationship from what the discharge is 9 from the EAA and what the actual inflow is into the 10 park, and all you need to tell us now is whether or not 11 you have any opinions. It sounds like you know but -- 12 A. You're sort of asking a question sort of like 13 do I have an opinion whether water flows downhill or 14 not, and that's why I'm so confused by the question, 15 I'm not sure that -- I think we may be into a 16 difference between what you consider to be an opinion 17 and what I as a scientist would consider to be the 18 nature of an opinion. Perhaps you could phrase the 19 question a little differently and I could be a little 20 more forthcoming. I don't quite see how to answer 21 that. 22 Q. You understand that from the EAA area there 23 are discharges of phosphorus, is that an incorrect 24 statement? 25 A. There are discharges of phosphorus, yes. LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 666 1 Q. Let me take part one. Do you have any 2 opinion as to water discharge from the EAA, whether 3 that is coming, finding its way into the Everglades 4 National Park? 5 A. The general pathway of water through south 6 Florida is that it goes from north to south, via a very 7 complex system of canals, pump stations and so on. 8 Q. So then can I say that there would be a 9 relationship of the surface water phosphorus coming 10 from the EAA to the surface water phosphorus coming 11 into the Everglades National Park? 12 A. You have to be much more specific about 13 either under particular conditions, on average, what do 14 you mean, because you have a very highly managed 15 system. 16 Q. Doctor, have you reviewed the structures from 17 the EAA, the surface water phosphorus flow in from the 18 EAA structures, and I guess those would be the S-5A, 19 S-6, 7, 8? 20 A. Now we've switched and we're talking about 21 load as opposed to discharge? 22 Q. No, I want to keep it to discharge. Well, 23 what's the distinction? I thought discharge equaled 24 flow; is that correct? 25 A. Essentially. LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 667 1 Q. And then load is flow times concentration? 2 A. Correct. 3 Q. If we're looking at the S-5A, S-6 and 7 4 structures, have you analyzed that water as to the 5 phosphorus, have you looked at that data? 6 A. I've looked at that, yes. 7 Q. Have you looked at the data of the S-12 8 structures in the Everglades National Park as to the 9 inflows of STA's water and the phosphorus? 10 A. In a much different context. 11 Q. What context? 12 A. I have looked at that data with respect to 13 trends. 14 Q. When you talk about "trends," are they trends 15 between the S-12 structure and what's within the park? 16 A. No, I think we discussed this last time, but 17 what I had looked at was trends in concentrations at 18 the S-12 structures. 19 Q. Have you looked at trends at the S-5A, S-6, 20 S-7 and S-8 structures? 21 A. No. 22 Q. You've looked at the data, though, the flow 23 data? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Do you see any correlation between that flow LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 668 1 data and the data you looked at at the S-12 structures? 2 A. I have not done -- I'm sorry, repeat the 3 question, please? 4 (Reporter read record as requested.) 5 A. I just wanted to make sure -- you had used 6 the term "correlation" and I'm presuming you mean 7 correlation in a statistical sense. I have not done a 8 correlation analysis nor do I believe that would 9 necessarily be an appropriate way of addressing the 10 question you're raising. 11 Q. What type of analysis would address the 12 question, I'm trying to raise -- 13 A. There are records around sufficient to 14 essentially track water through the system. 15 Q. Such as? 16 A. Discharge records at pumps, gates, and so 17 on. One does not ordinarily do a statistical analysis 18 when it is possible to do a deterministic analysis 19 instead. 20 Q. Have you done a deterministic analysis? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Do you have an opinion as to the relationship 23 between the inflow, and I'm talking about the 24 Loxahatchee now, the inflow in the interior with 25 respect to surface water phosphorus? LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 669 1 A. Again, we're sort of mixing flows and 2 concentrations and so on. Could you rephrase the 3 question just a little bit? 4 Q. In your last deposition you said you were 5 waiting for data district regarding concentration 6 and/or load number for the same time period the entry 7 and the access data were collected, and you were 8 specifically talking about sampling points S-5A and 6, 9 and you stated you needed that to conclude your 10 analysis with regard to the relationship between inflow 11 and the interior? 12 A. I think at that point we were talking about 13 work being done by Dr. Millard and what might be needed 14 to complete that work. 15 Q. So you have no opinion then as to the 16 relationship between the inflow and the interior marsh? 17 A. My opinion based on any work that I have seen 18 to date is that I've not been able to see that there is 19 a relationship. 20 Q. What work have you seen that you find or you 21 can apply here today that you have not seen a 22 relationship? 23 A. I think we discussed this last time, so we're 24 sort of going over the same ground, but if you look 25 back through the previous transcript, there was a LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 670 1 rather lengthy discussion of work that Dr. McClave had 2 done. 3 Q. So is your statement based on reliance on Dr. 4 McClave's work, you have no personal opinion as to the 5 causal relationship between the inflows and the 6 interior concentration levels within the marsh? 7 A. That's not a correct statement. 8 Q. Why not? 9 A. I didn't say I had no opinion. 10 Q. But your opinion is based on someone else's 11 work? 12 A. My opinion is based on my review of the work 13 of others, yes. 14 Q. Dr. Millard included? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Have you done any work with respect to this 17 issue we're talking about, the causality, yourself, 18 since March 4th? 19 A. No. 20 Q. Have you reviewed any additional work from 21 Dr. Millard or Dr. McClave as to that work? 22 A. No. 23 Q. You know that Dr. Millard doesn't plan to do 24 further work with respect to the inflow and the 25 relationship to the interior marshes and he has no LARSEN & SMITH, INC., 1325 4TH AVE, SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206)623-6717 671 1 final opinion? As to that it's either yes or no, you 2 don't know or do know. 3 A. I'm sorry, repeat the question. 4