1

 1          DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
       DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, STATE OF FLORIDA
 2 
   
 3   SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE     )
     OF FLORIDA; ROTH FARMS, INC., and  )
 4   WEDGWORTH FARMS, INC.,             )
                      Petitioners,      ) DOAH Case No. 92-3038
 5        v.                            )
     SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT     )
 6   DISTRICT, an agency of the State   )
     of Florida; et al.,                )
 7                    Respondents.      )
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
 8   FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, INC.;   )
     UNITED STATES SUGAR CORPORATION;   )
 9   and NEW HOPE SOUTH, INC.,          )
                      Petitioners,      )
10        v.                            ) DOAH Case No. 92-3039
     SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT     )
11   DISTRICT, an agency of the State   )
     of Florida; et al.,                )
12                    Respondents.      )
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
13   FLORIDA FRUIT AND VEGETABLE        )
     ASSOCIATION; LEWIS POPE FARMS;     )
14   W.E. SCHLECHTER & SONS, INC.,      )
     and HUNDLEY FARMS, INC.,           )
15                    Petitioners,      )
          v.                            ) DOAH Case No. 92-3040
16   SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT     )
     DISTRICT, an agency of the State   )
17   of Florida; et al.,                )
                      Respondents.      )
18  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
   
19                        100 S.E. 2nd Street
                          Miami, Florida 33131
20                        Thursday, March 17, 1994
                          9:25 a.m. - 3:45 p.m.
21 
                DEPOSITION OF CARLOS MARIN
22 
               Taken before BRIAN GARY BERKOWITZ, Shorthand
23   Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of
     Florida at Large, pursuant to Notice of Taking
24   Deposition filed in the above cause.
                            - - - - - - -

                                                 2

 1                       APPEARANCES
   
 2 
      ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE,
 3    INC., UNITED STATES SUGAR CORP., AND NEW HOPE SOUTH, INC.
   
 4         EARL BLANK KAVANAUGH & STOTTS, P.A.
           One Biscayne Tower - Suite 3636
 5         Two South Biscayne Boulevard
           Miami, Florida 33131
 6         BY:  ROBERT H. BLANK, ESQ.
   
 7    ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT SOUTH FLORIDA
      WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
 8 
           POPHAM HAIK SCHNOBRICH & KAUFMAN, LTD.
 9         100 S. E. 2nd Street
           Suite 4000
10         Miami, Florida 33131
           BY:  R. BENJAMINE REID, ESQ.
11 
                                INDEX
12   Witness              Direct    Cross    Redirect  Recross
     CARLOS MARIN
13   By Mr. Reid            3
   
14                         MARIN EXHIBITS
       Exhibit 1..........................................4
15     Exhibit 2.........................................23
       Exhibit 3.........................................24
16     Exhibit 4.........................................63
       Exhibits 5-36.....................................69
17                             -  -  -

                                                 3

 1   Thereupon --
 2                       CARLOS MARIN
 3   was called as a witness and, having been first duly
 4   sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
 5                    DIRECT EXAMINATION
 6   BY MR. REID:
 7       Q.    Would you state your name?
 8             MR. BLANK:  Ben, I checked across the hall to
 9        see if someone from the U.S. Attorney's Office was
10        going to attend, and they said they don't think
11        so.
12             MR. REID:  I heard that.
13   BY MR. REID:
14       Q.    Would you state your name?
15       A.    Carlos Marin.
16       Q.    What's your address?
17       A.    Business address?
18       Q.    Yes.
19       A.    1101 East Harrison, Harlingen, Texas.
20       Q.    By whom are you employed?
21       A.    I am employed by Ambiotec Environmental
22   Consultants.
23       Q.    Tell me a little bit about that company.
24       A.    We're an environmental engineering,
25   scientific environmental engineering firm.

                                                 4

 1       Q.    Is that your only job, at the present time?
 2       A.    Yes, sir.
 3       Q.    How long have you been there?
 4       A.    Since '86, I presume.
 5             MR. REID:  Let's mark your CV as Exhibit No.
 6        1.
 7          (The document referred to was thereupon
 8   marked Marin Exhibit 1 for Identification.)
 9   BY MR. REID:
10       Q.    Can you please tell me if this is a current
11   CV, and that has everything on there about you as of
12   today?
13             (Pause.)
14       A.    That's pretty current.  Yes, sir.
15       Q.    Tell me a little bit about what is it,
16   Ambiotec?
17       A.    Ambiotec.
18       Q.    Tell me a little bit about what it does.
19       A.    We're involved in a number of different
20   projects.
21             On the local level, we work with clients in
22   terms of helping them to comply with environmental
23   regulations.  We do that both on the U.S. side and the
24   Mexican side.  We're located right close to the border.
25       Q.    Has long has this company been in existence?

                                                 5

 1       A.    Since '86.
 2       Q.    Who owns the company?
 3       A.    I'm one of the major partners, a principal.
 4       Q.    It's incorporated under the laws of the State
 5   of Texas?
 6       A.    Yes, sir.
 7       Q.    How many professionals are employed by the
 8   company?
 9       A.    We have six professional employees.
10       Q.    Give me an idea of what kind of professionals
11   they are.
12       A.    We have two engineers.  One is a mechanical
13   engineer.  The other one is a civil environmental
14   engineer.
15             Myself, who -- I'm an environmental engineer.
16             One is a geologist, and the other one is an
17   environmental scientist.
18       Q.    How many non-professional people are employed
19   at Ambiotec?
20       A.    Three non-professionals.
21       Q.    Three?
22       A.    Yes, sir.  Four non-professionals.
23       Q.    Has your company, or have you, personally,
24   been involved in wetlands issues before?
25       A.    No, sir, I have not.

                                                 6

 1       Q.    How about your company?
 2       A.    No.
 3       Q.    What would you consider to be the closest
 4   thing to wetlands science that you've been involved in,
 5   in your work?
 6       A.    Well, the company has -- we do have some
 7   people that have taken courses from the Corps of
 8   Engineers to identify what wetlands are, for wetland
 9   delineations, but in terms of the type of -- myself
10   being involved with wetlands work, I have not been
11   directly involved with wetlands work, in terms of
12   identifying wetlands, delineating wetlands.
13             The closest that my own work, in reference to
14   the Florida project we're working on right now, is in
15   terms of modeling, uncertainty analysis having to do
16   with modeling, calibration.
17       Q.    So, I take it that you're doing that kind of
18   work in other areas as well as what you are doing in
19   this case?
20       A.    Yes, sir.
21       Q.    Is it essentially the same science, the same
22   approach to things?
23       A.    In terms of the uncertainty analysis, model
24   calibration, model evaluation, it is, yes.
25       Q.    Do I understand that to mean that rather than

                                                 7

 1   going out and taking samples and evaluating what's in
 2   the ground, on the ground, over the ground, you
 3   actually work with mathematical calculations in terms
 4   of attempting to predict what happens on the ground?
 5       A.    Exactly.  And I mean, the processes are
 6   different, in different systems, but the work that I'm
 7   doing is evaluating the models, doing uncertainty
 8   analysis on the models, are the calibrations being done
 9   properly, as opposed to doing the specification of the
10   processes that are involved.  So -- but, yes, my work
11   is not involved in actually going out and collecting
12   data or anything like that.
13       Q.    You sort of added a third level to my
14   description, which is what I will call checking up on
15   the modeling after it's been done by somebody else?
16       A.    Exactly.
17       Q.    That's what you are doing in this case?
18       A.    Yes, sir.
19       Q.    And you have done that in previous matters?
20       A.    Yes, sir.
21       Q.    Tell me, or describe for me, the water bodies
22   or the matters in which you've done this work before.
23       A.    I've done modeling and model verification --
24   that's pretty synonymous and usually goes
25   hand-in-hand -- for streams.

                                                 8

 1             I've done a lot of work for the EPA office of
 2   solid waste, both for multimedia models, ground water
 3   models, air models, surface water models.  In fact
 4   that's been a major part of my work in the last six
 5   years, has been to develop uncertainty analyses for
 6   fate and transport models for EPA.
 7       Q.    I take it, then, that no one at your company
 8   has ever done any work in what I would call wetlands?
 9       A.    In terms of the modeling itself, and the --
10   no, not prior to this project.
11       Q.    Does your company do things other than
12   modeling?
13       A.    Yes.
14       Q.    Do you actually do the other -- the first
15   thing that I described, going out and taking the
16   samples?
17       A.    Yes.  Members of our company do go out and
18   collect samples, and we do engineering design and
19   remedial investigations, feasibility studies.
20       Q.    Have any of those other people that do that
21   kind of work in your company, had any experience in
22   wetlands?
23       A.    Not that I'm aware of.
24       Q.    What do you understand me to mean when I say
25   "wetlands," by the way, so we know we're talking about

                                                 9

 1   the same thing?
 2       A.    A wetland is a body that's defined as being
 3   inundated a significant amount of the time, and it
 4   doesn't have the same flow properties as a river.  It's
 5   more -- it's usually shallow, in low lying areas, flood
 6   areas.
 7       Q.    Everglades would qualify?
 8       A.    I would think so, yes.
 9       Q.    Before you opened your own company in '86,
10   you were on the staff at Duke?
11       A.    Yes.
12       Q.    Tell me a little bit about what you did at
13   Duke.
14       A.    I was in the -- both in the department of
15   forestry and environmental studies, the School of
16   Forestry and Environmental Studies.  Also, in the civil
17   engineering department.  I taught graduate level
18   courses in uncertainty analysis, environmental systems
19   analysis, planning analysis.  Part of that was doing
20   the modeling optimization.  I taught courses doing
21   that.  I also did research in uncertainty analysis, as
22   well.
23       Q.    During your time at Duke, did you have any
24   experience or exposure to wetlands?
25       A.    Not directly.

                                                 10

 1       Q.    Did you work with what has been, I guess,
 2   it's come to be known as the Duke Wetlands Center?
 3       A.    I had conversations with Curt about the work
 4   he was doing, but I was not directly involved in this
 5   work.
 6       Q.    You were not part of the Wetlands Center?
 7       A.    No, sir.
 8       Q.    Or any of its predecessor components?
 9       A.    No, sir.
10       Q.    Other than knowing Curt Richardson and
11   casually from time to time talking about it, you didn't
12   have any direct involvement in what he was doing?
13       A.    No, sir.
14       Q.    Specifically with what he was doing in the
15   Everglades?
16       A.    No, sir, I did not.
17       Q.    Did you work with any of the other people at
18   the Wetlands Center?
19       A.    No.  I did work with Ken Reckhow, but I'm not
20   sure if he's associated with the Wetlands Center or
21   not.
22       Q.    What did you do with Dr. Reckhow?
23       A.    He and I wrote a number of proposals
24   together, papers, and generally worked together on
25   research areas.

                                                 11

 1       Q.    Any involved in wetlands?
 2       A.    Not that I recall.
 3       Q.    As I recall from Dr. Reckhow's deposition, he
 4   pretty much deals with the statistical approach or
 5   models and so forth?
 6       A.    Exactly, yes.
 7       Q.    And then, before Duke, you were a consulting
 8   engineer.
 9       A.    When I was a graduate student at Harvard, I
10   was doing some work with Meta Systems as part of my --
11   not as part of my graduate work, but during my graduate
12   work.
13       Q.    And you were also, during the same period, a
14   research scientist at Harvard?
15       A.    Yes, sir.
16       Q.    During your Harvard period, and the time you
17   were consulting, any involvement with wetlands in that
18   experience?
19       A.    No, sir.
20       Q.    What did you do?  What did you deal with
21   principally during that period?
22       A.    Primarily, statistical areas, associated with
23   modeling and uncertainty analysis, model specification,
24   errors.
25       Q.    Before that you were at Rice?

                                                 12

 1       A.    Yes.
 2       Q.    Was that while you were in school?
 3       A.    I'm sorry?
 4       Q.    While you were in school?
 5       A.    Yes, sir.
 6       Q.    Any wetlands experience there?
 7       A.    No, sir.
 8       Q.    Your undergraduate degree was in civil
 9   engineering?
10       A.    Correct.
11       Q.    Did you have to focus or specialize in any
12   particular area?
13       A.    At that time, I think Rice had an option for
14   environmental, and so it was civil with an
15   environmental option, and I don't remember.  At that
16   time they did not have an environmental engineering
17   degree, undergraduate degree.  It was civil with an
18   environmental option.
19       Q.    Did you take the environmental option?
20       A.    Yes.
21       Q.    I notice that you did get a master's from
22   Rice in environmental engineering.
23       A.    Yes, sir.
24       Q.    Tell me a little bit about what environmental
25   engineering is.

                                                 13

 1       A.    Environmental engineering -- it's
 2   environmental science and engineering.  Environmental
 3   engineering is, it's identification of potential
 4   problems, coming up with a design solution for it, in
 5   order to meet certain objectives in an economically
 6   efficient way.
 7       Q.    At some point, you became interested in
 8   dealing with formulas and statistics and that kind of
 9   thing.
10             When in your career did that first come up?
11       A.    When I was at Rice.
12       Q.    Undergraduate or graduate?
13       A.    Graduate.
14       Q.    What led you in that direction?
15       A.    What led me in that direction was experience
16   with modeling, when I was a senior, or my first -- in
17   the interim being between a senior and first year
18   graduate student.  I was doing some modeling for one of
19   my eventual advisors at Rice, stream modeling.
20       Q.    Stream modeling?
21       A.    Yes, sir.  It seemed like you could overfit
22   the data, and people were calibrating models and
23   weren't getting a real handle on what the uncertainty
24   was associated with that prediction, what it mattered,
25   calibrating, estimating that uncertainty and trying to

                                                 14

 1   figure out what it meant.  And that's what got me
 2   interested in the statistics, and modeling
 3   verification.
 4       Q.    Your first Harvard degree was a master of
 5   science, I take it?
 6       A.    Yes, sir.
 7       Q.    I understand environmental engineering.  What
 8   does operations research mean?
 9       A.    Operations research is a body of, or a set of
10   disciplines, that deals with the use of applied
11   mathematics to solve real world problems, as opposed to
12   pure mathematics, and I think my general understanding
13   is that operations research, the techniques were
14   developed during the war, World War II, in order to
15   optimize operations, and logistics, et cetera,
16   deliveries.
17       Q.    Give me some examples that I might
18   understand.
19       A.    For example, operations research, how do you
20   optimize where to put your planes and schedule your
21   planes in order to get there on time and minimize your
22   overall fuel consumption.
23             Operations research deals with optimization,
24   optimization, uncertainty -- under all parameters,
25   optimization with uncertainty, when you don't know the

                                                 15

 1   parameters.  It's basically a way to define an
 2   objective, what's the best way to reach that objective,
 3   what is best.
 4       Q.    I assume that discipline would expand beyond
 5   the environmental field?
 6       A.    Definitely, yes.
 7       Q.    At Harvard, was there a separate department
 8   of operations research, that took people in from all of
 9   the other disciplines, or how is it operated?  How is
10   it set up?
11       A.    The -- my Ph.D. is in environmental
12   engineering, but my areas, if you would say, the area
13   of specialization was operation research.
14             I did not get a degree in operation research.
15   There is an operation research department in applied
16   math.
17       Q.    With what --
18       A.    In the applied math department.
19       Q.    Tell me how operations research, then, is
20   manifest in the environmental field.
21       A.    Basically, it's an extension of what
22   engineering companies -- engineering is trying to find
23   a solution that satisfies some constraints in some
24   optimal way.
25             Operations research is simply a formal

                                                 16

 1   statement of that, of that problem.
 2       Q.    Do you use those skills on a regular basis?
 3       A.    As I said, operation research is fairly broad
 4   and yes, I use statistics in operation research.
 5       Q.    Have you used it in your work in this case?
 6       A.    The general principles, yes.  Optimization
 7   itself has been used in some of the fitting techniques,
 8   but generally it would fall more under the applied
 9   statistics area, yes.
10       Q.    Tell me what a model is.
11       A.    A model is a representation of a system, it
12   could be a real system or a hypothetical system, and it
13   attempts to relate inputs to outputs, and the model is
14   the linkage between those inputs and outputs.
15             It's used to predict, simulate what the
16   hypothetical system you are trying to model or the real
17   system you are trying to model, its behavior under
18   different inputs.
19       Q.    Tell me how you use modeling within the
20   context of the streams that you mentioned, in your
21   first experience.
22       A.    Primarily to predict concentrations of
23   various contaminants in the streams, and the transport
24   of those contaminants.
25       Q.    I assume that's exactly what you're,

                                                 17

 1   generally speaking, doing in this case, using the same
 2   approach?
 3       A.    And in this case, what I'm doing is taking a
 4   model that somebody else already developed, and seeing
 5   whether the parameters are fitting correctly, are they
 6   the right parameters, are correct inferences being made
 7   with that model.
 8       Q.    Is it fair to say, I'm just trying to make
 9   sure I understand this, we didn't cover this in English
10   history at UNC, but you know you have a certain body of
11   water and you know you have a certain flow, and you
12   know that certain contaminants are being put into it,
13   and you might be interested in figuring out what is
14   left at the end, when it comes out, if your goal is to
15   try to, let's say, cut down on those contaminants?
16   Would that be a problem that you could deal with, with
17   modeling?
18       A.    Yes.  In a general sense, yes.
19       Q.    Then you might compare how different
20   parameters would affect the difference between what you
21   had at the beginning and what you ended up with at the
22   end?
23       A.    Different inputs, you mean?
24       Q.    Yes.
25       A.    Yes.

                                                 18

 1       Q.    Or different parameters.  What do you mean by
 2   "inputs"?
 3       A.    "Inputs" would be the -- there can be either
 4   control variables or exogenous variables.  Exogenous
 5   variables you have no control over.
 6             There are exogenous inputs to the model that
 7   you usually have no control over, but they had to be
 8   taken into account in the modeling process.  For
 9   example, precipitation, evaporation.
10             Then there are those variables that you are
11   concerned about, the input variables, that are what is
12   called decision variables or control variables, that
13   you are trying to control and determine what's the best
14   level of those inputs.
15       Q.    In our case, a control variable might be the
16   amount of phosphorus that came through the structures?
17       A.    Yes.  For example, through, say, best
18   management practices.
19       Q.    Once you put best management practice into
20   place, you end up with a certain amount of -- certain
21   amount of phosphorus, we will say.
22       A.    Right.  Another control variable would be the
23   area, say, that you use a tree and the output would be
24   the concentration, for example, if that's what you are
25   interested in.

                                                 19

 1       Q.    And how much of this is based on actual
 2   things on the ground, as opposed to mathematical
 3   calculations, in a model such as -- a simple model that
 4   we're talking about?
 5       A.    Generally, the model development starts from
 6   basic principles, it could, or it could be a simple
 7   statistical model.  It has no mechanistic components in
 8   it.  The level of mechanistic components in a model
 9   could vary from very simple to very complex, and the --
10   I'm sorry.  Could you rephrase your question?
11       Q.    Let me ask you this:  What do you
12   understand -- what is the model that you are ultimately
13   going to comment on in this case?
14             Can you, in a simple description, give me
15   what that model is, the way you understand it?
16       A.    It's a simple mass balance model.
17       Q.    Tell me how that works.
18       A.    Basically, you have some idea what the mass
19   of phosphorus coming into the ground is, and --
20       Q.    Would that be the load?
21       A.    The load coming in.  Right.
22       Q.    Okay.
23       A.    And there's a parameter, a settling rate,
24   that determines what percentage of that load coming in
25   is going to be ending up in the ground and removed, if

                                                 20

 1   you will, and then, that will tell you what the model
 2   then predicts what is going to be coming out, after
 3   it's been removed in that sized area.
 4       Q.    That seems pretty simple.
 5       A.    It's a simple model, yes, and it's
 6   representational.
 7       Q.    Why do we need all these Ph.D. s to figure
 8   this out?
 9       A.    I think model selection is a very, very
10   important issue.  Complexity of the model, how simple
11   it is, how complicated it is, and you need to make a
12   decision about what's the optimal level of complexity,
13   and typically that decision is a function of the amount
14   of data you have.
15             If you have a very complex model, very little
16   data, you're going to have a hard time fitting that
17   model and making credible predictions.
18             If you have a very simple model at the same
19   time that overlooks some of the basic principles, you
20   could have some problems with predictions, as well.
21             My own belief, the simpler the model, the
22   better.  The scale of the model, I think I agree with
23   the model, in terms of the complexity of it.
24             What you need -- the opinions are, or the
25   Ph.D.s, if you will, is in determining whether those

                                                 21

 1   values are, in fact, going to be representative of
 2   what's going out, the calibration process.  Does this
 3   model predict well?  What are the issues associated
 4   with the model?  What are the issues associated with
 5   taking those model values and predicting somewhere
 6   else?
 7       Q.    Whose model are you particularly commenting
 8   on?
 9       A.    Dr. Walker's model, found in his, I believe,
10   March '93 paper.
11       Q.    I notice some material by Dr. Kadlec in some
12   of the papers that were produced.  Are you talking
13   about anything that Dr. Kadlec has done?
14       A.    Only as it relates to the paper, the model
15   that Walker has used.
16             My understanding is that some of that, those --
17   that model is based on some of the work that Dr. Kadlec
18   used, or did.
19       Q.    With regard to the model or the data leading
20   up to the model, you have not -- you are not going to
21   be dealing with credibility, if you will, of any of the
22   actual sampling points and things such as that?
23       A.    The only way I would be dealing with that,
24   not necessarily testifying to the validity of the
25   point, but possibly using analysis to point out that in

                                                 22

 1   fact we should look at some of these points.  They may
 2   have a large influence on the results and we should
 3   look to see if that's a reasonable point or not.
 4       Q.    By "point," you mean sampling point?
 5       A.    Data point, yes, sir.
 6       Q.    Which would be, ultimately, when somebody
 7   went out and took cores?
 8       A.    Exactly.
 9       Q.    Or took the water, whatever --
10       A.    Yes.
11       Q.    When were you retained to work in this case?
12       A.    It was the latter part of 1992.  November or
13   December, somewhere in the last part of that quarter.
14       Q.    Who retained you?
15       A.    I am not sure if it was Rick Burgess or Bob
16   Blank.
17       Q.    Somebody at Peeples Earl & Blank?
18       A.    Yes.
19       Q.    The Peeples Earl & Blank firm?
20       A.    Yes.
21       Q.    Do you know how they got your name?
22       A.    I don't know specifically, but -- no, I do
23   not know, specifically, but I would think maybe through
24   Curt Richardson.  That would be speculation.
25       Q.    Until you got this call in late '92, you had

                                                 23

 1   really never done anything with or had any thoughts
 2   about the Everglades?
 3       A.    That's correct.
 4       Q.    When you were actually called, what were you
 5   asked to do?
 6       A.    I was simply -- I was asked if I had time to
 7   get involved in a project dealing with the Everglades.
 8   It wasn't very specific.
 9             At the time I was simply asked to attend some
10   meetings to get some background information to see if I
11   would be interested in participating.
12       Q.    I have a letter dated November 3, 1992, which
13   is to you, from Rick Burgess.  This looks like it would
14   have been your letter of retention.  Is that correct?
15       A.    Yes, sir.
16             MR. REID:  Mark that as the next exhibit.
17          (The document referred to was thereupon
18   marked Marin Exhibit 2 for Identification.)
19   BY MR. REID:
20       Q.    Then there's a letter dated April 28, from
21   you to Mr. Blank, here, with a budget attached.
22             Was this the ultimate description of what you
23   intended to do?
24       A.    Generally, so.  I think our focuses have been
25   primarily on the first two tasks, and my work

                                                 24

 1   primarily, up to that time, has been helping counsel
 2   with preparation for depositions, helping him
 3   understand the implications of models, and this
 4   developed in April, basically focusing on tasks 1 and
 5   2.
 6             MR. REID:  Mark this as the next exhibit,
 7        please.
 8          (The document referred to was thereupon
 9   marked Marin Exhibit 3 for Identification.)
10             MR. BLANK:  What was the date of that letter?
11             MR. REID:  April 28, 1993.
12   BY MR. REID:
13       Q.    Do you know if there was any other letter or
14   memo, which summarized what you are going to do?
15       A.    No.  No, there is not.
16       Q.    Task one was to "develop, calibrate/validate,
17   and perform uncertainty analysis on an alternative
18   (non-zero intercept) settling rate model."
19             Did you do that?
20       A.    That was originally based on the first Walker
21   model, and when that changed, the focus of that task
22   changed.
23       Q.    Tell me what an uncertainty analysis is.
24       A.    An uncertainty analysis, in a general sense,
25   is to predict what the uncertainty analysis -- the

                                                 25

 1   uncertainty is in the predictions of a model, try to
 2   assess what the uncertainty in the predictions are.
 3       Q.    How is it quantified?
 4       A.    It can be done a number of different ways,
 5   but usually in a probabilistic way.  Say the prediction
 6   has certain probability of being within a certain
 7   range.
 8       Q.    Like 90 percent, 80 percent, 50 percent?
 9       A.    Sure.  It has an average of this, and has
10   some problems associated with distribution predictions.
11       Q.    Are there certain levels that are considered
12   to be better than others?
13       A.    A priori, no.  It all depends on what you are
14   trying to do, your objective function, the objective of
15   your modeling.
16       Q.    "What is an alternative," and then
17   parenthesis, "(non-zero intercept) settling rate
18   model"?  I guess my first question -- what alternative
19   to what?
20       A.    That was an alternative to the initial Walker
21   model, which I guess was represented by his October '93
22   document, in which he had a relationship --
23       Q.    October of '92?
24       A.    '92, yes.  I think it was August.
25             MR. BLANK:  August.

                                                 26

 1       A.    August, I'm sorry.  He had a relationship
 2   between the phosphorus accretion versus concentration
 3   in that regression, as a way to estimate the settling
 4   rate, and that regression went through the origin, to
 5   zero, and there was speculation on the part of Dr.
 6   Richardson at the time, that there should be a -- that
 7   there might be a possibility, a hypothesis, that that
 8   regression should not necessarily go through zero, it
 9   should go through some other intercept, non-zero
10   intercept, and that would indicate a source of
11   phosphorus other than phosphorus from the water column
12   concentration.
13             The idea was to test that model, a simple
14   statistical model, to see if, in fact, the intercept of
15   that data was through non-zero.  And as I said, that
16   model changed in March, right -- as a matter of fact,
17   this document was put out after Walker's document came
18   out in March of '93.  The focus of that task changed,
19   because that model was, in a sense, relegated to a back
20   burner.
21       Q.    Did you ever do anything with Walker's August
22   '92 model?
23       A.    No, I did not.  Other than looking it over,
24   but not specifically develop alternatives to it.
25       Q.    When you say he was relating phosphorus to

                                                 27

 1   concentration, total phosphorus to concentration?
 2       A.    Total phosphorus, yes, in the core.  Core
 3   data phosphorus to phosphorus concentration in the
 4   water column.
 5       Q.    And the core, by that you mean -- you mean,
 6   just so we're clear, C-O-R-E?
 7       A.    Yes, I'm sorry.
 8       Q.    In the ground?
 9       A.    Yes, sir.
10       Q.    He was taking somebody's core samples and
11   pulling off the phosphorus level concentration?
12       A.    The amount of phosphorus in the ground.
13       Q.    The amount?
14       A.    Yes.
15       Q.    How was that described?
16       A.    I'm not familiar with the actual laboratory
17   analysis techniques to do it.  It was a measure of the
18   amount of phosphorus deposited over time in the ground.
19       Q.    He compared that to the concentration in the
20   water?
21       A.    Correct.  And from that he developed a
22   relationship or regression relationship, with slope, as
23   a function of K, or the settling rate.
24       Q.    You said "water column."  What's "water
25   column"?

                                                 28

 1       A.    The concentration of phosphorus in the water.
 2   Actually, above the ground, in the water.
 3       Q.    Is there a difference between the water
 4   column and surface water, in your understanding?
 5       A.    Surface water and water column?  The water
 6   column concentration is just the concentration in the
 7   column of water above the soil.
 8       Q.    Over what area?
 9       A.    It depends on the model.  In this particular
10   case, it was representative of what was up top of the
11   core, over the core.
12       Q.    Literally over?  Are you talking about in a
13   mechanical sense, literally over, directly over that
14   core that was taken?
15       A.    The general area of that core, yes.
16   Basically, the concentration of water -- of phosphorus
17   in the water column on top of the core.
18       Q.    So, if you put -- you know, like if you cut a
19   hole in a golf course, you take a cylinder and stick it
20   all the way down into the ground.  Some of it is below
21   the surface of the soil, and some of it is above.
22             Would you capture everything in that column
23   which would be water as well as soil, and those would
24   be the two areas you are talking about?  Is it that
25   precise?

                                                 29

 1       A.    I think it represents the concentration in --
 2   the average concentration of the water column, yes.
 3       Q.    But it would be that precise, directly over
 4   the core?  You take it all at the same time as opposed
 5   to taking a core and then going back with a bucket
 6   later and maybe scooping up some water?
 7       A.    These were long term averages and they
 8   represent the long term average concentration over that
 9   core.  It wasn't specific, at any one time.
10       Q.    Based on this relationship, what was Walker
11   trying to do, as you understand it?
12       A.    Estimate what the settling rate is, which
13   would then give you what the fraction of the input load
14   coming in, settling out, to be removed from the
15   wetlands.
16       Q.    I take it you would need a series of cores
17   that moved downstream, so to speak?
18       A.    Not necessarily, but that's the data he had.
19   Yes.
20       Q.    Explain to me, again, the non-zero intercept
21   versus some other intercept, which you say would
22   suggest alternative sources of phosphorus.
23       A.    Non-zero intercept basically says if there's
24   no phosphorus in the water column, then you are not
25   going to have any deposition into the soil.  And the

                                                 30

 1   hypothesis that Dr. Richardson had, was that there
 2   could be -- that in fact a regression might go through
 3   zero.  What is the source of that phosphorus if, in
 4   fact, it didn't go through zero?  And it seemed, the
 5   regression that was done by Walker, forced the
 6   regression to zero, rather than letting it vary and
 7   giving you an intercept.  And the idea was to see what
 8   that intercept would be and find an explanation for why
 9   that -- you had a non-zero intercept.
10       Q.    So, if you put the soil phosphorus on the X
11   axis and the water column on the Y, Richardson --
12       A.    No, the other way.
13       Q.    Whichever.  Okay.  I wasn't trying to be
14   precise.  One or the other.
15       A.    Sure.
16       Q.    Walker, you believe, was saying in effect,
17   that if you got down to zero on one, and you had to be
18   at zero on the other?
19       A.    Exactly, yes.
20       Q.    Richardson was suggesting to you, he believed
21   that you could be at zero in the soil, but still be up
22   the axis, so to speak, in the water column?
23       A.    I think what he was --
24       Q.    Or was it backwards?
25       A.    What he was suggesting was, first of all, to

                                                 31

 1   look at what the data was telling you, and if you
 2   didn't force it to zero, what number would you get, and
 3   if it was positive, it would say, where was that source
 4   of phosphorus coming from?  Was it coming from the
 5   water column?
 6             The idea was to let the regression tell you
 7   what that intercept was, instead of forcing it, and
 8   then come up with a hypothesis to test where it could
 9   be coming from.
10       Q.    Walker's assumed all the phosphorus in the
11   ground came from the water, or he got to that point?
12       A.    In that analysis, yes.
13       Q.    Did anybody ever contradict or do any work to
14   determine if that was accurate or not?
15       A.    I never did.
16       Q.    Do you know if anybody else ever did?
17       A.    Not that I know of.
18       Q.    Did you ever talk to Dr. Richardson about it?
19       A.    We talked about it, in the sense that the
20   focused shifted to a different model and we weren't
21   going to do the analysis, or that I didn't do the
22   analysis.
23       Q.    Your second task was to reproduce, critique
24   and perform uncertainty analysis on Walker II, mass
25   balance model.

                                                 32

 1             Did you do that?
 2       A.    Yes.
 3       Q.    That's essentially what your opinions in this
 4   case are going to be.
 5       A.    Exactly.
 6       Q.    There's a three, a four and a five.  Did you
 7   do any of those?
 8       A.    No.
 9       Q.    Why didn't you do those?
10       A.    That was a decision by counsel, to focus on
11   the first two tasks.
12       Q.    Had you even started that?
13       A.    No.
14             MR. BLANK:  I'm sorry.  What was the
15        question?
16             MR. REID:  Had he done three, four and five,
17        and he said no, and I said, why.
18             MR. BLANK:  Okay.
19   BY MR. REID:
20       Q.    What's a plug flow model?
21       A.    A plug flow model is one where the
22   concentration varies with distance, as opposed to a
23   continuous stir tank reactor, where the concentration
24   anywhere in that reactor would be homogenous, or the
25   same.  In this case you have gradients, concentration

                                                 33

 1   gradients, across the reactor.
 2       Q.    What was the second one, continuous --
 3       A.    Stir tank reactor.
 4       Q.    Stirring.
 5       A.    Where the concentration doesn't vary in
 6   space, within that gradient.
 7       Q.    Did Walker use either of these approaches?
 8       A.    My understanding is that the second model is
 9   a plug flow model.
10       Q.    Walker II?
11       A.    Yes.
12       Q.    How do these two models compare to or relate
13   to mass balance models?
14       A.    They're both mass balance models.  They use
15   as the first principle, mass balance.  That's the first
16   principle underlying both models.
17       Q.    Mass balance means that you just figure out
18   what goes in, and figure out what goes out, and the
19   difference is something?
20       A.    Yes.  To account for mass, yes.
21       Q.    Within the operation of the system that you
22   are focused on, that you are going to do this sort of
23   gross analysis of, you either have one behavior or
24   another behavior?
25       A.    Correct.

                                                 34

 1       Q.    Do you have an opinion as to which is the
 2   better model for the Everglades?
 3       A.    I would agree that the -- because of the
 4   concentration gradients, the plug flow is more
 5   appropriate than the continuous stir tank reactor.
 6       Q.    Because you've seen data that indicates as
 7   you move down from the structures in the north of
 8   WCA-2A, and you seem to get a reduction of
 9   concentrations as you get away from the structures?
10       A.    That concentration varies spacially, yes, and
11   you don't have a complete mixing for the entire zone.
12       Q.    Would a lake be something that would be more
13   appropriate for a continuous stir approach?
14       A.    It depends on the size.  The ideal situation
15   is you have a reactor, like a waste water plant, and
16   where you have complete mixing, that's the ideal
17   situation.
18       Q.    I was just thinking, that's a man-made --
19       A.    Right.
20       Q.    Number three seems to relate back to the
21   first two tasks, in that it describes work developing
22   and implementing a procedure for recalibrating or
23   validating and performing uncertainty analysis for the
24   models in tasks 1 and 2, using Richardson and Reddy's
25   data.

                                                 35

 1       A.    Can I see that again, please?
 2       Q.    Yes.  Look at number three.
 3             Did you do that?
 4       A.    I guess when I was thinking of task two, I
 5   was not looking carefully at task three.
 6             What I've been doing is reproducing,
 7   critiquing and performing uncertainty analysis, and I'm
 8   having trouble distinguishing what task three would do
 9   at this point.  Calibrating, validating --
10       Q.    I should have more than one copy, shouldn't
11   I, by this time?
12       A.    The Walker II had that data.
13       Q.    What data was Walker II based on?
14             MR. BLANK:  You didn't know that when you did
15        this?
16       A.    I did not know what data -- that's part of
17   the problem, I guess, yes.
18       Q.    So we're clear now --
19       A.    I think in retrospect, that what I've been
20   doing, is looking at the Walker II model, and
21   reproducing the calibration that Walker did, and then
22   testing that model with different data sets and with
23   new data that has become available to us, and doing the
24   uncertainty analysis of the Walker II model.
25             Part of the confusion is task three, and that

                                                 36

 1   paper was done before we were aware of the Walker II
 2   model.
 3       Q.    Now as you understand, Walker II relies on
 4   the Richardson and the Reddy core samples?
 5       A.    Correct.
 6       Q.    For his model?
 7       A.    Yes, sir.
 8       Q.    And you have now had the benefit of some
 9   additional samples?
10       A.    Yes.
11       Q.    As part of your task, you have taken out the
12   Reddy-Richardson samples, and -- or maybe a better way
13   to describe it is, you have overlaid the new samples
14   with what you already had, to find out how close they
15   are?
16       A.    Exactly.
17       Q.    We will get to that in a minute.
18       A.    Okay.
19       Q.    But, do you find the new samples are
20   materially different?
21       A.    The two new samples cause, yes, a change in
22   Ke, yes.
23       Q.    What is Ke?
24       A.    The settling rate.  Ke.
25       Q.    Why is it Ke, by the way?

                                                 37

 1       A.    The effect of settling rate, that's what the
 2   sub e stands for.  That's the product of the settling
 3   rate which Walker defines as K times some product, some
 4   value, B, which he defines the ratio of the time
 5   weighted, flow weighted concentration.  It could be the
 6   other way.  But the factor B is a function of the
 7   relationship between the flow weighted concentration
 8   and the time average concentration.
 9             MR. BLANK:  Can we take a break?
10             MR. REID:  No problem.
11                  (Thereupon, a brief recess was taken,
12                  after which the following proceedings
13                  were had:)
14   BY MR. REID:
15       Q.    We've cleared up now --
16       A.    Yes.
17       Q.    As far as task four, it had to do with
18   developing a three parallel plug flow model alternative
19   dealing with some of Kadlec's work.  You have not done
20   that?
21       A.    No.
22       Q.    Finally, developing a decision analysis
23   alternative to determine the number of acres required.
24   You haven't done that?
25       A.    No.

                                                 38

 1       Q.    Do you have any opinions at all about the
 2   subject matter of those final two tasks?
 3       A.    No, I do not.
 4       Q.    You said you thought it would cost 70,000.
 5   How much has it actually cost to get you to here today?
 6       A.    I think as of last year -- it was on the
 7   order of about $65,000 that we spent as of the end of
 8   last year.
 9       Q.    What have you done since then?
10       A.    Probably another 25 since, this year.
11       Q.    So we're pushing a hundred now?
12       A.    About 85, 90,000.
13       Q.    Okay.  After you received the call, I take it
14   you began to work on this assignment.
15       A.    Those assignments?
16       Q.    Yes.  After you received the first call back
17   in late '92.
18       A.    No.  Really, the first -- I would say the
19   first six months, were primarily just getting familiar
20   with the problem, and helping counsel formulate issues
21   and help with depositions.  That was primarily what I
22   was doing.  And it wasn't until that document where we
23   actually started thinking about tasks.
24       Q.    After you were retained, what is the first
25   thing you did?  By that I mean, did you come to a

                                                 39

 1   meeting, or did you get documentation?
 2       A.    I remember, I think -- I have a recollection
 3   of going to a meeting, I believe it was in North
 4   Carolina, Durham, and just getting an overview of what
 5   the issues were.
 6       Q.    Who gave you that overview?
 7       A.    I remember counsel being present, and Curt
 8   Richardson being present, and several other
 9   consultants.  I don't have a firm recollection of who
10   exactly was there.  Maybe Dennis Lettenmaier and maybe
11   John Davis.
12             There was general discussion about what the
13   issues were, and what was relevant.
14       Q.    How long did the meeting last?
15       A.    I don't remember.
16       Q.    A couple of days or one day?
17       A.    One or two days.  I do not have a firm feel
18   for that right now.
19       Q.    This was your first exposure to the problem?
20       A.    Yes, sir.
21       Q.    At the conclusion of that meeting, what did
22   you understand the problem to be?
23       A.    I think at that point, I just got a general
24   overview of what the situation was.  It was still very
25   confusing in terms of what was going on.  There were a

                                                 40

 1   lot of legal issues, and I mean --
 2       Q.    Give me an overview of what was going on, as
 3   you understood it at that point?
 4       A.    As I understood, was that the -- there were
 5   going to be some STAs designed to meet some limits.
 6   The question was whether the design was based on some
 7   settling rate and whether that settling rate was
 8   reasonable or not.  That's basically the overall
 9   impression I had at that time.
10       Q.    Was that the general topic of this meeting,
11   or was this an overall litigation strategy meeting?
12       A.    Of what I remember, that was a major part of
13   it.  There were other issues related to legal
14   implications of -- related to permitting and so on, but
15   I wasn't really aware of what was going on, or had a
16   good grasp of what those issues were.
17             What I was interested in was primarily the
18   settling rate and whether that was reasonable or not,
19   and that's my best recollection of the important issue
20   at that point.
21       Q.    You mentioned Lettenmaier.
22       A.    Dennis Lettenmaier might have been there.
23             MR. BLANK:  His deposition has been taken.
24       Q.    What is his role, as far as you know?  What
25   was his role at that point, as you understood?

                                                 41

 1       A.    I wasn't aware of what his specific role was
 2   at that time.  I don't think that was the purpose of
 3   that meeting, to define who was going to do what.
 4             I don't know if Dennis had already been part
 5   of the meetings before or after, or he had just come on
 6   like I did.  I don't know.
 7       Q.    You said John Davis was there?
 8       A.    Yes, John Davis.  That's where I met John
 9   Davis.
10       Q.    And Curt Richardson was there?
11       A.    Curt was there.
12       Q.    Did you have any understanding of what these
13   other people -- what their role was in the case?
14       A.    I had a vague idea that John was doing data
15   collection, data management, and I knew that Curt had
16   come up with some calculations for the settling rates
17   of his own, and that was my understanding of what they
18   were doing.
19       Q.    Do you remember what settling rates were
20   being discussed at this meeting?
21       A.    I don't remember if the 8.3 was already out.
22   I guess it was probably 8.3.  I think I remember seeing
23   that.
24       Q.    What was the reaction to 8.3?
25             That would be meters per year, right?

                                                 42

 1       A.    There were questions about how it was derived
 2   and whether it was reasonable to do the flow weighting,
 3   and how it was done, but in terms of whether it was
 4   high or low, I did not get that impression.
 5             Does it make sense?  What is the issue here?
 6       Q.    At that meeting, there was no conclusion
 7   about whether it made sense or not?
 8       A.    My main recollection of that meeting is that
 9   there were still a lot of issues to figure out how it
10   was done and whether it made sense or not.  It wasn't,
11   a priori, decided it was crazy or not.
12       Q.    Was there any talk about what you would do at
13   that meeting?
14       A.    I think in a vague sense, yes, but it was
15   more -- I don't remember getting a specific assignment
16   at that point.
17       Q.    What is the next thing you did?
18       A.    I think I started reading documentation,
19   primarily the Walker August '93 paper, and getting
20   familiar with the issues, and getting a better handle
21   on that.
22             At the same time, just formulating issues
23   about the modeling and what kind of things should be
24   looked at or might make sense to look at.  Primarily to
25   get a better handle of what was going on.

                                                 43

 1       Q.    Did you understand the 8.3 was a product of
 2   Dr. Walker's work?
 3       A.    I think that's the number that came out of
 4   the August '92 paper, yes.
 5       Q.    Did you know Dr. Walker before this?
 6       A.    I knew Dr. Walker before, yes.
 7       Q.    He's up in the area where you went to
 8   college, I guess?
 9       A.    Right.
10       Q.    Or graduate school.
11       A.    Yes.
12       Q.    What did you think about him?
13       A.    I have a lot of respect for Dr. Walker.
14       Q.    Have you ever been involved in anything
15   that's he's been involved in, before this?
16       A.    Only tangentially.  When I was a graduate
17   student, I was working at Meta Systems part-time.  He
18   was doing some work, and I helped him with some data
19   bases, some statistical work.  That was all.
20       Q.    Some documents have been produced today.  I
21   assume some of these documents would have been some of
22   the reading that you just described?
23       A.    Correct.
24       Q.    Do you have a file at your office relating to
25   this assignment?

                                                 44

 1       A.    Yes, I do.
 2       Q.    What is in that file?
 3       A.    Documents that I've given you, plus I've got
 4   some public documents, documents that are public
 5   documents, and some correspondence from counsel.
 6       Q.    Did you actually pull together the set of
 7   documents that was sent over to me as representative of
 8   your, quote, file, close quote, for this case?
 9       A.    The majority of documents, yes.  Some of
10   those documents, the bulk of documents I just went
11   through a list and pointed out the ones I had copies
12   of.
13       Q.    I'm talking about the actual documents.
14       A.    Yes.
15       Q.    We can look at this in a minute and mark
16   them, but does this look like the material?  Is that
17   about the right volume?
18       A.    It's about the right size, yes.
19       Q.    Then there's a list of, here, I don't know,
20   of pages and pages, a lot of pages of public documents
21   that you've looked at.
22             You would have copies of these at your
23   office?
24       A.    Yes.
25             MR. BLANK:  When you say "these," counsel,

                                                 45

 1        you are referring to the public documents?
 2             MR. REID:  Yes.  There's a list here called,
 3        "Supplementary documents publicly available, not
 4        copied," and it's 27 articles.
 5             THE WITNESS:  Yes.
 6   BY MR. REID:
 7       Q.    These would be ones you actually have copies
 8   and you didn't bring because you figured we had them?
 9             MR. BLANK:  You have to answer.
10       Q.    You have to say yes or no.
11       A.    Yes.  I was just given a sheet and told to
12   check them out.
13       Q.    You did some reading.  During the time you
14   did this reading and studying, did you talk to anybody
15   else about this case, or your assignment?
16       A.    During what period?
17       Q.    I guess from the time of the meeting in
18   Durham, until the next major event that occurred.
19   Strike that.
20             Tell me what the next major event that
21   occurred for you, was.
22       A.    There might have been another meeting, but I
23   do not recall.  The next major event was the
24   formulation of that document, the tasks.
25       Q.    Exhibit 2, the April 28 letter?

                                                 46

 1       A.    Yes.
 2       Q.    Between the Durham meeting -- by the way, do
 3   you know when that meeting was?
 4       A.    The Durham meeting?
 5       Q.    Yes, the first one, or the one you described.
 6       A.    December, maybe.  December of ninety --
 7       Q.    '92?
 8       A.    '92, yes.
 9       Q.    Between then, December '92 and April of '93,
10   you were busy reading and educating yourself about the
11   project?
12       A.    Right.
13       Q.    That's where these documents I have here
14   would have come into play?
15       A.    Some of them, yes.
16       Q.    During that time, did you have any
17   conversations with anybody, about this case?
18       A.    I more than likely talked to Curt Richardson,
19   and that's where that task number one came out.
20       Q.    Do you recall anybody else that you spoke to
21   about it?
22       A.    Not directly.  I think Curt Richardson was
23   the principal person.  I'm sure I talked to counsel.  I
24   might have talked to Steve -- Dennis Lettenmaier, but
25   I'm not positive of that, and we really haven't done

                                                 47

 1   much work together.
 2       Q.    What exactly is his discipline, Lettenmaier?
 3       A.    Dennis, I would characterize him as -- it's
 4   hard.  I just know him from reputation and haven't
 5   worked with him until recently -- is the area of
 6   systems analysis, which is sort of environmental
 7   engineering, operations research.  Very similar to my
 8   area.
 9       Q.    Do you know what role he's playing in this
10   particular case?
11       A.    Specific projects, the details I couldn't
12   give you, but a general consultant providing expert
13   testimony.
14             Really, I couldn't pin it down exactly.  I
15   could give you a general idea, but not exactly.
16       Q.    During this period, were you also helping
17   with discovery or depositions?
18       A.    Yes.
19       Q.    Which depositions, specifically, did you help
20   with?
21       A.    I was preparing for Dr. Kadlec's deposition,
22   or was asked to help out, just in terms of interpreting
23   what the math meant.  And I don't know if I was also
24   asked to help out with the Walker deposition, but that
25   was rescheduled, and I'm not sure whatever happened to

                                                 48

 1   it, but primarily to help out with Dr. Kadlec's
 2   deposition.
 3       Q.    Specifically, what role did you play with Dr.
 4   Kadlec?
 5       A.    To help counsel prepare questions for Dr.
 6   Kadlec.
 7       Q.    Was there any particular part of his opinions
 8   that you were dealing with specifically?
 9       A.    I think it was primarily to find out exactly
10   what he was doing and the basis for his modeling, and
11   the implications of the modeling, all the assumptions
12   of the modeling, to get it clarified.
13       Q.    Did he do a model separate from Dr. Walker?
14       A.    My understanding is that the Walker model
15   that's used in the March '93 paper, is based on a model
16   developed by Dr. Kadlec.
17       Q.    Dr. Kadlec had a data base?
18       A.    Right.
19       Q.    A North American data base of wetlands and so
20   forth.  Some of that information made its way into the
21   Walker model.  Is that correct?
22       A.    That's not my understanding, but I do not
23   know, but not my understanding.
24       Q.    Did Dr. Kadlec use, as far as you know, that
25   data base in his work?

                                                 49

 1       A.    I --
 2             MR. BLANK:  Just for clarification, are you
 3        talking about the North American data base?
 4             MR. REID:  Yes.
 5       A.    I know he references it in his work and uses
 6   sort of a general indication of performance of wetlands
 7   systems.  He might have used it for the basis for
 8   formulating his hypothesis or his model structure.  I
 9   do not know.
10       Q.    You just said this, and it escaped me, so I
11   apologize for asking again.
12             How did what you are calling the Kadlec model
13   and the Walker model, relate?
14       A.    I believe they're very similar, except for
15   maybe notation differences.
16       Q.    Was there any particular part of Kadlec that
17   you found to be objectionable, when you were helping
18   the lawyers prepare?
19       A.    I don't think it's a question of being
20   objectionable.  Just in terms of the assumptions he was
21   making, and trying to clarify what those were.
22       Q.    Can you recall any specific assumptions that
23   he made, that you found fault with or questioned?
24       A.    I don't think they're a question of fault
25   with them.  Just a question of assumptions that it

                                                 50

 1   would be interesting to look at them.
 2       Q.    Were there any that you thought were
 3   incorrect?
 4       A.    No.
 5       Q.    Did you overall -- did you feel that there
 6   was some overall problem with the Kadlec model?
 7       A.    I think there were some issues that would
 8   have been useful or would be useful to look at the
 9   assumptions, in terms of the potential heterogeneity of
10   the value of K.  A single value of K is assumed, and --
11   but it's not clear right now that that assumption is
12   incorrect.
13             It was just an issue of one possible thing to
14   look at.
15       Q.    Anything else that you can recall
16   specifically?
17       A.    That was the primary consideration.
18       Q.    When you talk about the heterogeneity of the
19   K value, explain to me what you mean about that.
20       A.    The model basically assumes a single K value,
21   at least the way Walker used it and Kadlec.
22       Q.    That would be the settling rate?
23       A.    The settling rate.  That's assumed to be the
24   same everywhere, it has no variability, and the
25   question that arises is, well, is it possible that

                                                 51

 1   there are sources, where it does vary spacially, and
 2   what would be the implication of that.
 3       Q.    So the closer to the structures, you might
 4   have a greater settling rate or a lesser settling rate?
 5       A.    Yes, and it would be different in space.
 6       Q.    Have you seen any work on this by anybody in
 7   the case?
 8       A.    What I've done is, I've done some, if you
 9   will, sensitivity analysis, where I partitioned the
10   WCA-2A, and tried to fit the data from that partition,
11   and seeing if I were to get different Ks.  And --
12       Q.    Did you?
13       A.    Yes, of course.  You would expect to get
14   different Ks.
15       Q.    These partitions that you made, were these
16   partitions that you came up with, or did you use some
17   that Richardson came up with?
18       A.    I came up with those partitions based on
19   input from Dr. Richardson.
20       Q.    Do I recall correctly that one of the Duke
21   reports or one of the calculations on settling rate, he
22   used a partitioning approach to arrive at a settling
23   rate?
24       A.    Right.  His recommendation was primarily
25   based on what he thought vegetation types would be

                                                 52

 1   represented by those partitions.
 2       Q.    In other words, where you had a lot of
 3   cattails, you might call that one area.  Then maybe not
 4   so many cattails another area, and so forth?
 5       A.    Basically.  Exploratory in nature.  It's not
 6   meant to be defined very precise, but just a general
 7   breakdown of a reasonable way to break up the
 8   partitions.
 9       Q.    Did you help to prepare for anybody else's
10   deposition during this --
11       A.    Dr. Walker's recent deposition.
12       Q.    You did that recently?
13       A.    Yes.
14       Q.    Did you do any other major work during this
15   period from December '92 until April '93?
16       A.    No, I did not.  The work I'm talking about
17   was done subsequent to that period.
18       Q.    After this letter was sent in April '93, you
19   mentioned you had some correspondence in your file with
20   counsel.
21             MR. REID:  Is that being marked as
22        privileged?
23             MR. BLANK:  Correct.  That's correspondence
24        from counsel.
25             MR. REID:  From counsel to Dr. Marin?

                                                 53

 1             MR. BLANK:  Correct.
 2             MR. REID:  You're going to give us a list or
 3        something of that?
 4             MR. BLANK:  Correct.
 5   BY MR. REID:
 6       Q.    Let me just get a general idea of the counsel
 7   correspondence.
 8             Does it contain assignments, for instance,
 9   for you?
10       A.    Yes.  In terms of well, can you make it to
11   this deposition, can you be here at --
12       Q.    I meant work assignments in the case.
13   Substantive work assignments.
14       A.    Not that I can think of.
15       Q.    Does it contain any -- did it pass along any
16   data to you?
17       A.    No.
18       Q.    Was there ever a confirmation of an
19   acceptance of this April 28 proposal, or did you just
20   start working?
21       A.    Verbal.  Verbal.
22       Q.    So, then, you began your work?
23       A.    It wasn't probably until a couple of months
24   afterwards, that I remember.
25       Q.    So --

                                                 54

 1       A.    Sometime in the summer.
 2       Q.    In the summer of '93?
 3       A.    Yes.
 4       Q.    You began your work?
 5       A.    Yes.
 6       Q.    Was there some reason that you didn't start
 7   until then?
 8       A.    Scheduling.
 9       Q.    Your scheduling?
10       A.    Yes.
11       Q.    Were you given any deadlines?
12       A.    At the time, no.
13       Q.    I've been talking about you all the time.
14   Did anybody else at your company work on this project?
15       A.    No, they did not.
16       Q.    Even in a clerical way or doing computer work
17   or anything?
18       A.    Making copies, but not doing anything else.
19       Q.    Do you have time records of how much time
20   you've actually spent?
21       A.    Yes.
22       Q.    Do you know how many hours you've spent
23   working on this project?
24       A.    I can tell you from the billing.  As I said,
25   it was about 50-some-thousand dollars last year, and

                                                 55

 1   about 8,000 in '92, and last -- it's been pretty heavy
 2   the last two months, 20 thousand something.
 3       Q.    That's your hourly rate?
 4       A.    $115 an hour.
 5       Q.    Give me an overview of your work in terms of
 6   what you did.  I don't mean your opinions and all, but
 7   just kind of tell me how you went about it.
 8       A.    Okay.  The first thing we did, that I did, is
 9   try to see if I could reproduce Walker's analysis.  And
10   the paper pretty much contained the data I needed to be
11   able to reproduce his work.
12             I set that up and I was able to get 10.2,
13   10.25, what power he used for the residuals.  It wasn't
14   very much of an impact.  So, we were able to reproduce
15   his work.
16             The other thing we did, we had some
17   additional data.  Dr. Richardson had collected three
18   additional cores near the top of the WCA-2A structure.
19   WCA-2A.  Near the gates.  And one of the cores, he
20   found problems with it, the quality assurance, quality
21   control problems, so we only used two of those cores.
22             We then fitted the model to the additional
23   cores.
24             The other thing we did was partition the
25   WCA-2A area in different sets of partitions, and see if

                                                 56

 1   we saw variability in the K.  Then, the other thing we
 2   looked at, was the sensitivity of that K, to each
 3   individual core value.
 4       Q.    Of the three new ones or of all of them?
 5       A.    All of them.
 6             The other thing we did do was to look at
 7   reviving that issue about the non-zero settling --
 8   non-zero intercept, by adding a constant term to the
 9   settling rate Dr. Walker had and testing to see if that
10   proved to be significant or not.  And the other thing
11   we've done, and that's been the major effort the last
12   three months, has been the uncertainty analysis, trying
13   to find out what the probability distribution of the
14   concentration predictions are for a given design.
15       Q.    I think I got everything you said, except the
16   second thing.  You said you fitted the data to
17   something; all the data, you said.
18       A.    We were trying to look at the effect of each
19   data point on sensitivity, on the settling rate
20   estimate, and seeing how sensitive that K was to any --
21   settling rate was to any particular data point.
22       Q.    So, to see if I have them then, you first
23   replicated Walker's work, and you found, you arrived at
24   the K he arrived at, 10.5, or whatever it is?
25       A.    Correct.

                                                 57

 1       Q.    10.5?
 2       A.    10.2.
 3       Q.    10.2, I'm sorry.
 4             Then you took the new core samples and used
 5   those, that data, two of the three --
 6       A.    Right.
 7       Q.    -- in Walker's model?
 8       A.    Correct.
 9       Q.    Ignoring all the data that he used?
10       A.    No, no.  Using his data, also.
11       Q.    You added these new ones to his?
12       A.    Yes.  We basically set up a bunch of
13   different data sets, and set up the model to see what
14   the effect would be.
15       Q.    Then you determined the sensitivity or the
16   effect on the K value, to any one core sample?
17       A.    Yes.
18       Q.    By that -- okay.  I'll talk about that in a
19   minute.
20       A.    Okay.
21       Q.    Then you partitioned WCA-2A, and in effect,
22   modeled, did a little model for each subpart?
23       A.    No, I wouldn't call it a model.  What we were
24   doing was basically fitting the model as if that was
25   the only data set you had.

                                                 58

 1       Q.    You took all the data points within that
 2   partitioned area, and determined what K would be?
 3       A.    What if that was your only data, what would
 4   you do?
 5       Q.    Exactly.  Then finally, you added a constant,
 6   such that you could test this zero intercept.
 7       A.    Yes.
 8       Q.    Is that all you did?
 9       A.    And the uncertainty analysis.
10       Q.    Then you did an overall uncertainty analysis
11   on Walker's work?
12       A.    Yes.
13       Q.    Assuming the data points that he used, only.
14       A.    No.  Uncertainty analysis -- let me clarify a
15   little bit.
16             We had a number of different data sets.  None
17   of the uncertainty analysis was done on partitioned
18   data sets.  Assuming we had one K, one settling rate
19   for the entire area.
20             The idea of the partitioning was to see if
21   you did get different settling rates and whether it
22   makes sense to then try to test hypotheses that those
23   Ks are, in fact, different.
24             The uncertainty analysis is based on several
25   data sets, one of them to look at the original data

                                                 59

 1   set.  Another set includes a look at the original data
 2   set plus the two new cores.
 3             I was also provided some data that Dr.
 4   Patrick collected for some core data as well.  That was
 5   also included.
 6             Then part of our sensitivity analysis showed
 7   that one of the cores in particular, was very high
 8   impact on the settling rate, and so, one of the data
 9   sets was created, and let's see what happens if we
10   remove that.
11       Q.    Which core was that?
12       A.    A Reddy core, very close to the gates.  R-10.
13   That's a notation that I got in my documents.  So, that
14   was another data set.
15             For those data sets, we've done the
16   uncertainty analysis, and the uncertainty analysis is
17   two parts.  First estimating the uncertainty in the
18   settling rate from the fitting procedures and taking
19   that uncertainty in settling rate, and the uncertainty
20   in the inputs of the design model, and seeing what the
21   effect is on the concentration for the actual design.
22       Q.    The last thing you said, I didn't understand.
23   I didn't understand your alternatives.  You said you
24   did two things?
25       A.    It's all part of the same --

                                                 60

 1       Q.    I understand.
 2       A.    The first step is to find out the uncertainty
 3   in the settling rate for the fitting process, where you
 4   fit the data at WCA-2A.
 5       Q.    What do you mean by "fitting"?
 6       A.    Calibration process, where you estimate K,
 7   try to find your uncertainty in the estimate of
 8   settling rate, by using data in WCA-2A.
 9             Then the next thing you need to do is look at
10   the uncertainty, which we did, look at the uncertainty
11   in the actual design for the actual STAs, which
12   incorporates the uncertainty in the settling rate
13   estimate to -- that was derived by fitting or deriving
14   it from the data in WCA-2A.
15       Q.    So, the first would have been calculating or
16   calibrating the uncertainty or doing the uncertainty
17   analysis, basically in Walker's original model, with
18   his data?
19       A.    What I'm calling the Walker 1993, March 1993
20   paper, yes, with his original, yes.
21       Q.    Then, what's different about the second
22   uncertainty analysis?
23       A.    Each of those -- it's all part of the
24   uncertainty analysis.  Each of those are the steps that
25   go into the uncertainty analysis, and those were done

                                                 61

 1   for three data sets.
 2             The first step you need to do is figure out
 3   what the uncertainty is in the fitting process or
 4   calibration process, and then how that uncertainty
 5   affects the design, and that's how I'm breaking it up
 6   into two steps.
 7       Q.    Anything else that you did?
 8       A.    Can you go over the list, what we said?
 9       Q.    Okay.  Maybe it's easier just to talk through
10   them.  Replicating Walker, including the new core
11   samples, partitioning, that exercise, testing Walker's
12   zero intercept assumptions, and doing the uncertainty
13   analysis, using the various data sets that you had to
14   work with.
15       A.    Correct.  One other thing we did -- I just
16   thought of something.  As part of the sensitivity
17   analysis, we specified what would happen if you were to
18   let the K vary with concentration, and see what would
19   happen.
20             That's sort of an exploratory test to
21   determine the -- if the K could be related to the
22   concentration, assuming a non-linear K.
23       Q.    How would you do that?  I mean --
24       A.    We just specified that the settling rate was
25   a function, inverse function of the concentration.

                                                 62

 1       Q.    So, as the concentration --
 2       A.    Goes down, the settling rate would go up.
 3   Inverse relation.  See if that would test out.
 4       Q.    Was it a one to one kind of thing, or did you
 5   have a formula that created that relationship?
 6       A.    It was a formula.
 7       Q.    Who came up with that formula?
 8       A.    It was just something I tried.
 9       Q.    Did anything come of that work?
10       A.    For the original data, no.  It was just an
11   exploratory test, and it didn't prove to be very
12   sensitive.
13       Q.    I'm going to come over there, because I'm
14   going to run through these exhibits with you.
15       A.    Okay.
16       Q.    Then I'll go back.
17             The next exhibit will be a letter of March 9,
18   to me, from Bob Blank, with a list of documents.
19             Are these the documents that you read and
20   didn't reproduce to give to me?
21       A.    I'm just making sure that the ones I know
22   I've been using are here.
23             (Pause.)
24       A.    Yes.  Essentially, yes.
25       Q.    Was this background reading, in a sense?

                                                 63

 1       A.    Some of it was background reading.  Some of
 2   it was documents that I haven't gotten through, but I
 3   do have in my possession, and some were documents I
 4   actually used.
 5             MR. REID:  Let's mark this as Exhibit 4.
 6          (The document referred to was thereupon
 7   marked Marin Exhibit 4 for Identification.)
 8   BY MR. REID:
 9       Q.    Let me have you tell me, first of all, which
10   ones you haven't read.  Just call the numbers out.
11       A.    Not read?
12       Q.    Yes.  That you have in your possession.
13       A.    That I have not read?
14       Q.    That you have not read.
15       A.    I may have looked at this, but I don't think
16   I read No. 3.
17             No. 4.
18             I'm not sure what No. 5 is.
19       Q.    Okay.
20       A.    That's fairly vague, but I'm sure I've seen
21   it.
22       Q.    What?
23       A.    No. 7, diagrams containing data --
24       Q.    Okay.
25       A.    Diagrams -- I haven't read this one.

                                                 64

 1       Q.    No. 9?
 2       A.    Right.  When you say "read," what do you mean
 3   by that?  Have I skimmed through it?  Have I read it,
 4   and am going to use it and rely on it?
 5       Q.    You gave me three categories, and I was going
 6   to go through each of the three.  You gave me one you
 7   didn't read.  You gave me one that you read, and then
 8   you gave me one that you read and you are actually
 9   using.
10       A.    How would you qualify skimming?
11       Q.    Skimming would probably be not read.  If you
12   are not going to use it --
13       A.    Okay.
14       Q.    What number?
15       A.    I don't think I'm going to -- No. 14, I've
16   skimmed through it.
17             There's an oldie, I skimmed.  I'm not going
18   to use that.
19             MR. BLANK:  You're referring to No. 15.
20       A.    15, I'm sorry.  15.
21             I haven't read this one.
22       Q.    No. 20?
23       A.    Yes.  If I have, I just skimmed through it.
24             I'm not exactly sure.  I remember some vague
25   recollection of this document, and I may rely on it,

                                                 65

 1   but I couldn't tell you right now.
 2       Q.    22 is unknown at this point.
 3       A.    24, I can't tell you.  I know it's a Burns
 4   and McDonnell document, but I couldn't tell you
 5   specifically about that one.
 6             That's pretty much it.
 7       Q.    Tell me the ones you actually relied on.
 8       A.    No. 1.
 9       Q.    Tell me what you relied on, as far as No. 1
10   goes.
11       A.    No. 1, that's the March '93 paper.  That lays
12   out the document -- I mean the model, the data, the
13   procedures used for fitting.
14       Q.    That's what you are really critiquing or
15   analyzing?
16       A.    Analyzing, yes.  No. 2, there's some data,
17   water quality data in there, that I may rely on.  I
18   will rely on.
19             I will rely on No. 6.
20       Q.    In what way?
21       A.    Simply that I've done an uncertainty
22   analysis, just for comparison purposes, to see what Dr.
23   Walker has done, in terms of what he thinks some of
24   these numbers are.
25       Q.    That was an uncertainty analysis of Walker I

                                                 66

 1   we're calling it?
 2       A.    Yes.  Basically a reference to other ranges
 3   of some parameters.
 4       Q.    So you used some of that?
 5       A.    Used it and/or will use it.
 6       Q.    Okay.
 7       A.    I may use this document.
 8       Q.    No. 9?
 9       A.    Yes.  I may use it, but I haven't decided.
10             No. 16, I have used it.
11       Q.    In what regard?
12       A.    In terms of the -- seeing how the data was
13   derived for the loadings, for the design -- in the
14   design.
15             Some of these are drafts, and there are
16   subsequent reports that are final.  So, they might be a
17   previous document, and I'll probably rely on the most
18   recent document.
19             No. 19.
20       Q.    What is that?
21       A.    That's the recommended affected areas -- it's
22   probably "effective."
23             MR. BLANK:  I think that would be a typo
24        there.
25       A.    That's basically a design document.  I'll

                                                 67

 1   definitely use that.
 2       Q.    In what regard?
 3       A.    That specifies how a design is being modeled,
 4   how the STAs are designed, how they're sized and how
 5   the concentration is being predicted.
 6       Q.    How does that relate to Walker II?
 7       A.    That uses the Walker II model and the 10.2
 8   settling rate, and takes that model and applies it to
 9   the STAs and the sizing of the STAs, and predicting the
10   concentrations.
11       Q.    How are you using that in your opinions?
12       A.    In order to be able to predict how the
13   uncertainty analysis will affect those concentrations,
14   I need to know how the design is being made.
15       Q.    Okay.
16       A.    I will use No. 21, or may use it, and I have
17   used it, and I'm not sure what that is.
18       Q.    How are you using 21?  That's the Reckhow
19   piece.
20       A.    The way I would describe it is sort of a
21   laugh test to see if based on --
22             MR. BLANK:  "Lab," L-A-B, or "Lap," L-A-P?
23             THE WITNESS:  No, "Laugh," L-A-U-G-H.
24       A.    It's sort of a laugh test, L-A-U-G-H.  To see
25   if the general relationships that are shown for

                                                 68

 1   wetlands will substantiate what this model is saying,
 2   basically, and I'm not certainly going to use the model
 3   Dr. Reckhow has looked at, but I will at least read his
 4   paper to see about -- maybe use that model or a
 5   different model.
 6       Q.    So, really, you are going to use that to sort
 7   of test or confirm what you do, or otherwise, see if it
 8   works?
 9       A.    See if what -- sort of part of verification
10   on a laugh test, does it make sense.  Does it tell you
11   you are in the ballpark or not.
12       Q.    What was his basic premise, Dr. Reckhow?
13       A.    I think that there's a relationship between
14   the phosphorus concentration out of wetlands, versus a
15   loading coming in, areal loading.  I'm not sure you
16   call it permanence, but that's the relationship it
17   showed.
18             MR. REID:  Off the record.
19             (Discussion off the record.)
20       A.    I'm not exactly sure about the No. 23.  I'm
21   not exactly sure.  I need to go back and review it, and
22   see what -- number 24, definitely.  No. 25, definitely.
23   BMP stuff.  No. 26, for sure.  And No. 27.
24             MR. REID:  Mark these as the next exhibits.

                                                 69

 1          (The documents referred to were thereupon
 2   marked Marin Exhibits 5-36 for Identification.)
 3                  (Thereupon, a brief recess was taken,
 4                  after which the following proceedings
 5                  were had:)
 6   BY MR. REID:
 7       Q.    Let's look at the -- continuing to look at
 8   exhibits, Exhibit 5, can you tell me what that is and
 9   whether you are using it?
10       A.    It's documentation of some work being done by
11   Tetro Tech.
12       Q.    Why is it in your file?
13       A.    It was fax'd to me by counsel.  I will be
14   using the general -- in the sense that I will probably
15   be looking at fitting the model to both core and water
16   quality data.  But in terms of using the results, I
17   will not be using the results.  It's just sort of a
18   general description of what their results were.
19       Q.    Have you completed your work?  You've been
20   talking about will use or --
21       A.    Yes.
22       Q.    Tell me where you are.
23       A.    In terms of fitting --
24       Q.    In general.  Have you finished all the work
25   you've done in this case?

                                                 70

 1       A.    The Monte Carlo uncertainty analysis spread
 2   sheets are fairly well complete.
 3             What we need to do is go back in and refine
 4   what the parameters are going to be, and the
 5   uncertainty analysis are.
 6             I haven't discussed this with counsel.  In
 7   terms of additional work, I may or may not be doing
 8   this, is to test the hypothesis that the settling rates
 9   vary within the partitions, and those settling rates
10   are significant.
11       Q.    You haven't done that yet?
12       A.    No.  One of the other things that would make
13   sense, would be to go back and estimating the settling
14   rate by -- for both water -- with both water quality
15   data and the core data.
16       Q.    You haven't done that yet?
17       A.    Right.  Part of the problem of finalizing the
18   documentation, has been, for example, the data that I
19   finally use in my uncertainty analysis, I don't need
20   just the average data that Walker had in his paper, but
21   I need the entire ten or fifteen years to use, and I
22   had some files, electronic files that I got early this
23   year, and trying to make sense of those was just really
24   a hassle.  And I finally got a kit with the input file
25   that Walker used for his model, March first.  So that's

                                                 71

 1   been part of the difficulty.
 2       Q.    Well, so, at this point, you're here today
 3   prepared to testify to certain opinions that you've
 4   been retained to reach.  Is that correct?
 5       A.    That's correct.
 6       Q.    My question is, are you going to be coming in
 7   with new opinions, or are you going to do new things,
 8   between now and the trial in three weeks, or whatever
 9   it is, four weeks?
10       A.    I think the background work for some -- some
11   of the opinions are pretty final, and I go with -- I
12   can go over them with you, if you wish, but some of
13   those opinions will depend on what the results will be
14   of this fitting the data to both water quality data and
15   the core data and the finalization in terms of
16   finalizing the numbers in Monte Carlo.  But the spread
17   sheet themselves are fairly final.
18       Q.    Do you know how Tetro Tech calculated these
19   settling rates?
20       A.    I have a general idea that they used water
21   quality data to fit -- to estimate the Ke values, and I
22   have a general understanding of what they are trying to
23   do, but in terms of the mechanics or the mathematics, I
24   have no idea what they did.
25       Q.    Are any of the notes on these two pages

                                                 72

 1   yours?
 2       A.    Yes.
 3       Q.    Just tell me what the notes say.
 4       A.    I have a hard time recognizing my
 5   handwriting.  Water column concentration was -- I think
 6   in general, the general comment is that water column
 7   concentration was used as opposed to core data.  That's
 8   the general meaning there.  Bob Grabner, that's the
 9   fellow I talked to at Tetro Tech.
10             This says, "Single prediction for the model,"
11   but I'm not sure exactly what it means or the
12   implications for that.  What water quality data has
13   been questioned to me, if there were any estimates of
14   standard error.  I couldn't find any.  That's just Ke
15   3.3. It could have been part of the conversation I had
16   with Bob.
17       Q.    "Ke" means what?
18       A.    Settling rate.
19       Q.    And "KM"?
20       A.    Kilometers.
21       Q.    It's not K sub m?
22       A.    No.  That's the estimated Ke.
23       Q.    Right.
24       A.    Using equation nine, that's my comment.
25   "What period?"  Some questions to myself.

                                                 73

 1             What period did they use?  I think what I did
 2   here, I took their data and fitted it, just a real
 3   quick fit with the Walker II model, and got a Ke of 12,
 4   using core data.  That was real quick.
 5             I wouldn't say that there was any reliability
 6   to that number.  That was just -- that was just a back
 7   of the envelope type calculation.
 8       Q.    On the first column, the first page here,
 9   they apparently are estimating the phosphorus settling
10   rates using the concentration data.  That would be in
11   the core?
12       A.    No.  This is water quality data.  That's my
13   understanding of what they did, yes.
14       Q.    And they in effect were partitioning.  Is
15   that correct?
16       A.    Yes.  Saying what if we only use data from
17   zero to five and zero to eight.
18       Q.    What data were they using?  What water
19   quality data were they using?  Do you know?
20       A.    Data collected from June '78 to February '84.
21       Q.    You don't know by whom?
22       A.    No.
23       Q.    Whether it was the district --
24       A.    I do not know.
25       Q.    On the second page, they were estimating the

                                                 74

 1   settling rate using concentration data, which I assume
 2   is the same?
 3       A.    Right.
 4       Q.    And independent estimates, C and Q.  What
 5   does that mean?
 6       A.    They were using different values for the flow
 7   rate and different values for the inlet concentrations
 8   into the WCA-2A area.
 9       Q.    C, I can't read what sub is on that.  One of
10   those is flow and one is inlet?
11       A.    Where are you pointing out?
12       Q.    These two.
13       A.    C sub zero and Q sub zero.
14       Q.    What are they?
15       A.    C sub zero is the inlet concentration.  Q sub
16   zero would be the inlet flow.
17       Q.    Exhibit 6, what is that and why is it there?
18       A.    This was one of the Walker -- it should be in
19   my other files.  This was one of the Walker documents
20   that came out of the electronic files, and it was
21   useful for me in terms of summarizing data, data
22   sources, and that's a table from the Burns and
23   McDonnell document, looking at their sensitivity
24   analysis.
25       Q.    Anything wrong with that?

                                                 75

 1       A.    No.  I'm just using it as a reference for
 2   comparative purposes.
 3       Q.    The rest of these would all be from Burns and
 4   McDonnell?
 5       A.    Yes.  That's the input table from Walker.
 6       Q.    From Walker.  All we were just talking about
 7   are contained in Exhibit 6.
 8             MR. BLANK:  How are we identifying Exhibit 6?
 9             MR. REID:  It's -- the bulk of it is Burns
10        and McDonnell, sensitivity analysis.  There's also
11        electronic data that you received from Walker.
12   BY MR. REID:
13       Q.    Exhibit 7 is what?
14       A.    That is part of a document produced by Dennis
15   Lettenmaier, some uncertainty analyses he did, and it's
16   part of that document, or it goes with that document in
17   terms of references for other uncertainty analysis.
18       Q.    By "that document," you mean the Walker
19   material we were just looking at?
20       A.    Yes.
21       Q.    I guess you may as well tell me, now, what is
22   a Monte Carlo simulation?
23       A.    Monte Carlo simulation, it's a way to derive
24   a distribution, an output distribution, without having
25   to do it analytically, and it's done by generating

                                                 76

 1   random numbers.
 2       Q.    Explain it to me in the context here.
 3       A.    In the context of uncertainty analysis, what
 4   you could do is, if you knew what the probability
 5   distributions were to an input, as inputs to some
 6   model, you could try to derive analytically what the
 7   output distribution's probability would be, and you
 8   could try to do that analytically.
 9             That's usually very, very difficult to do.
10   What you do is you generate random numbers from the
11   input data, run it through the model and then
12   accumulate the outputs that are now random, and derive
13   the distribution that way.  It's a numerical technique,
14   if you will.
15       Q.    I want you to repeat that using actual data,
16   you know, water quality, phosphorus levels,
17   concentrations or whatever.  Whatever you are
18   comfortable doing.
19       A.    Let's just take the case where I have a
20   model, where the flow is a random input.
21       Q.    What do you mean by "random input"?
22       A.    "Random input" means that the input to this
23   model is not fixed, it's not a single number, but
24   rather is governed by a distribution function.
25       Q.    Sometimes you might have higher

                                                 77

 1   concentrations of phosphorus in the water flowing, and
 2   sometimes you might have lower?
 3       A.    Right.
 4       Q.    It varies over time, and you have no
 5   consistency?
 6       A.    Right.  We have a random distribution for the
 7   flow, random distribution for the concentration.  We
 8   have this model that translates those inputs, the flow
 9   and concentration, into an effluent concentration,
10   effluent flow.
11       Q.    Effluent?
12       A.    In this case you have a single value for flow
13   and concentration.  You run it through the model and
14   get a single output out.
15       Q.    Based on the amount of water that comes in,
16   and the concentration of whatever pollutant you are
17   dealing with, would lead to -- because once it comes
18   in, a certain amount comes out and you would determine
19   what the concentration is in the effluent or the water
20   that comes out?
21       A.    I'm not sure I follow exactly what you just
22   said, but the general idea is you got a model that
23   translates some inputs, that are flow and
24   concentration, and gives you effluent concentration
25   that comes out.

                                                 78

 1             Let's say you are interested in the effluent
 2   concentration.  You can take a single value from the
 3   flow and a single value from the concentration, and
 4   that would be the prediction.  If the flows and
 5   concentrations are random, you can try to do it
 6   analytically.
 7       Q.    What do you mean by "analytically"?
 8       A.    You can try to derive analytically -- by
 9   "analytically," you can try to derive what the
10   probability distribution of the effluent contribution
11   is, as a function of the probability distribution of
12   the influent flow as relates to the inputs and outputs.
13             Typically, that's very hard to do.  What is
14   done is, you have this numerical technique called Monte
15   Carlo, where you generate random samples from each of
16   the distributions, run it through the model, and each
17   random sample creates one effluent concentration.
18             You repeat that many times and accumulate the
19   effluent concentrations, and that gives you an estimate
20   of the probability distribution of the concentration
21   effluent, or the output.
22       Q.    Why do you do that?
23       A.    Why do you do that?  It depends on different
24   circumstances.
25       Q.    Why would somebody be doing it regarding the

                                                 79

 1   Walker model that we're working with?
 2       A.    That's a big question, but I'll try to give
 3   you a short answer, and a legible one, too.  Let's see.
 4             Uncertainty analysis is very important in
 5   terms of determining how variable your effluent
 6   concentration predictions are going to be.
 7       Q.    Monte Carlo simulation is a subpart of an
 8   uncertainty analysis?
 9       A.    It's a technique used in uncertainty
10   analysis, because there are some other approaches that
11   can be used.  Monte Carlo is sometimes the easiest way
12   to do it.
13       Q.    Then I understand why you want to do it.  I
14   didn't understand that that was -- what you just told
15   me cleared it up.
16       A.    I'm sorry.
17       Q.    I thought it was something different.  It's
18   just one of the ways you can test somebody's
19   hypothesis; right?
20       A.    It's one of the ways that you can carry out
21   an uncertainty analysis.  It's a technique for carrying
22   out an uncertainty analysis.
23       Q.    What might your results be from one extreme
24   to the other?  You might find that there's no
25   relationship between the two input parameters and the

                                                 80

 1   output, or you might find out there's an amazingly
 2   close relationship?
 3       A.    The Monte Carlo itself, in this case, is
 4   designed to not test relationships, but simply say, if
 5   the relationship is given in this way, and this is the
 6   distribution of the inputs, that this is what the
 7   probability distribution of the output is going to look
 8   like.
 9       Q.    So, the -- Walker's already done that in the
10   first instance; is that right?
11       A.    In the first instance --
12       Q.    That was the purpose for what he was doing,
13   to try to develop a model that would be -- that could
14   be used as a predictor.
15       A.    Let me try to clarify this, because I'm not
16   sure exactly what you are saying.
17             One thing is to develop a model, and estimate
18   the model and make a single prediction with it, and the
19   second thing is to try to predict what the uncertainty
20   associated with that prediction is.
21       Q.    How good the prediction is?
22       A.    Not necessarily how good, but how will it
23   vary.  It may vary.  How good the prediction is, that's
24   sort of a related question.
25       Q.    Maybe you don't go as far as I'm assuming,

                                                 81

 1   but as I understand, Walker has created a model, and
 2   that model is going to be used to predict certain
 3   activity, which will then be used to design, in this
 4   case, the STAs.
 5       A.    Right.
 6       Q.    Your job is to find out by the subsequent
 7   analysis or reanalysis of what he's done, whether or
 8   not it's appropriate to use his model.
 9       A.    The Monte Carlo itself assumes that the model
10   is correct.  So, it doesn't really -- the Monte Carlo
11   will not be used to say his model is wrong or not
12   wrong.  It's going to be used to determine what in fact
13   his model is using and how uncertain are his
14   predictions, because there's uncertainty in the
15   settling rate, and there's uncertainty in the input
16   set, and he's going to create an uncertain output, and
17   it doesn't necessarily reflect on his model.  His model
18   is -- we're assuming the model is correct, and that --
19   in the sense of the mechanics and the linkages between
20   the inputs and outputs are correct.
21       Q.    What's the purpose of doing what you are
22   doing?
23       A.    To give a realistic understanding of the
24   potential variability in the long term concentration
25   for a given design, or given an understanding of the

                                                 82

 1   variability of the prediction, of the design.
 2       Q.    It sounds to me like you are being sort of
 3   euphemistic there.
 4       A.    Yes.  It's a subtle distinction.
 5       Q.    It sounds like you don't want to say that you
 6   are trying to prove that Walker did something wrong.
 7   That's not what you are doing, I guess?
 8       A.    An uncertainty analysis in itself -- there
 9   are two separate issues.  One is, sort of the -- is
10   whether the model mechanics are correct, whether the
11   estimate of value of Ke is correct.  But there's
12   uncertainties.
13             I mean, Walker says there's uncertainties in
14   his Ke.  He agrees to that.  Those uncertainties are
15   going to produce an uncertain concentration.
16             He has done an uncertainty analysis for the
17   model one, I think, and the idea of the model is just a
18   representation of what the uncertainty in the
19   predictions are, and that the uncertainty could be the
20   variability of the flows.
21             My estimate of Ke is well known.  My influent
22   is variable; that means my effluent is going to be
23   variable.
24       Q.    You've been involved in litigation before.
25       A.    Not being taken -- not taking depositions.

                                                 83

 1       Q.    But you've done work for lawyers?
 2       A.    Yes.
 3       Q.    You understand there are two sides.
 4       A.    Right.
 5       Q.    Do you understand what your role is in this
 6   litigation, as compared to what Dr. Walker's role is?
 7       A.    In a general sense, yes.
 8       Q.    Tell me what you understand you are being
 9   asked to do.
10       A.    What I'm being asked to do is to review the
11   work that's been done by Dr. Walker, and see what the
12   uncertainty in the predictions are, and to see if the
13   model formulation in terms of the sensitivity of the
14   data is reasonable, and did he derive that value of Ke
15   correctly; has that been calibrated correctly.
16       Q.    Is there a "Yes" or "No" answer to that?
17       A.    To what?
18       Q.    To that question, that series of questions.
19   Did he do that correctly or not?
20       A.    I think the biggest -- biggest difference in
21   what we're talking about is just different data that
22   exists.  It's not a question of correct or not correct.
23   There was some data he didn't have access to.
24       Q.    The two cores you had?
25       A.    And there's a question of one core and how

                                                 84

 1   important that is.  What I'm sort of saying, the
 2   uncertainty analysis doesn't necessarily have to be
 3   used or will be used to say he did everything
 4   correctly.  You can do an uncertainty analysis, but say
 5   the value of Ke is incorrect, but it reflects the
 6   uncertainty.
 7             That particular technique does not
 8   necessarily directly impact on whether that value of Ke
 9   is right or wrong, or the model is right or wrong.
10       Q.    That's just a function of whatever particular
11   subject matter you are dealing with?  Some things just
12   by nature will be more uncertain than others?
13       A.    Yes.  The value of Ke will be uncertain,
14   because that doesn't fit the data exactly, and we're
15   simply trying to reflect what the uncertainty in that
16   does.  But it doesn't necessarily -- that technique, by
17   itself, doesn't necessarily say that model is bad,
18   because it has a lot of variability.
19       Q.    If you were modeling something -- give me an
20   example of a model that would have no variability.
21   Give me a simple example, the one extreme.
22             MR. BLANK:  No variability or no uncertainty?
23             MR. REID:  That's a good point.
24       Q.    Either/or.
25       A.    Either/or?

                                                 85

 1       Q.    I want you to give me a model that we can
 2   then use as sort of our control.  We will talk about --
 3       A.    No uncertainty in the inputs, no uncertainty
 4   in the parameter specification, no uncertainty in the
 5   model area.
 6       Q.    Give me an example.
 7       A.    There's no such animal.
 8       Q.    They wouldn't hire you, I guess, because then
 9   you would just see it.
10       A.    That's right.
11       Q.    Okay.  Let's keep talking.
12             I think -- did you tell me who you think did
13   this?
14       A.    I believe it's Dennis Lettenmaier.
15       Q.    Is he doing the same thing that you are
16   doing?
17       A.    That was for the original Walker data, and
18   the design.
19             MR. BLANK:  Can I see that exhibit a minute?
20             (Pause.)
21   BY MR. REID:
22       Q.    Exhibit 8 is what?
23       A.    That's a document that was given to me, that
24   may have some use in terms of the uncertainty analysis,
25   in terms of quantification of the variability inflows

                                                 86

 1   and concentration.
 2             MR. BLANK:  Let me interrupt and reflect for
 3        the record, this Exhibit 7 we identified is only
 4        pages two and three of the report that Dr.
 5        Lettenmaier prepared, which is an exhibit -- the
 6        complete document is an exhibit to Dr.
 7        Lettenmaier's deposition in this case.
 8             MR. REID:  Sure.
 9   BY MR. REID:
10       Q.    Do you have any idea or do you know anything
11   about what Dr. Lettenmaier is doing in this case?
12       A.    Only in a very general sense.
13       Q.    What do you understand he's doing?
14       A.    Something to do with water quality at the
15   Refuge.  Something to do with the time stream of
16   payments, but I don't know, really.
17       Q.    But part of it, at least in part, he's doing
18   an uncertainty analysis?
19       A.    That was work he had done earlier, yes.  That
20   document is simply to get some ranges that he used and
21   compare them.
22       Q.    Exhibit 8, you were saying someone gave you?
23       A.    Yes.  This is a document prepared, I believe,
24   by, I think Dr. Walker, and the idea was simply to look
25   at his data and see if it could be used for the Monte

                                                 87

 1   Carlo.
 2       Q.    Did you use it?
 3       A.    Not right now, I haven't used it.
 4       Q.    Are these handwritten notes in here, your
 5   notes?
 6       A.    Yes.
 7       Q.    On page 3, there's a sentence, "Assuming that
 8   the STAs perform similarly to these other wetland
 9   treatment systems," and then it goes on, and you have
10   "Big assumption."  Why do you put that there?
11       A.    Just an assumption.
12       Q.    Why is it a big assumption?
13       A.    I don't think there's any significance to
14   that.
15       Q.    Do you believe they will, or do you believe
16   they won't, or do you have an opinion about it?
17       A.    I think there's a question about
18   transferability of the K value, but it's not clear to
19   me right now whether it is transferable or how
20   untransferable it is.
21       Q.    From these other various North American
22   wetland systems that Kadlec reports?
23       A.    Let me see.  I guess it's a very vague
24   statement, also, "perform similarly."  What do you mean
25   by that?

                                                 88

 1             Yes, it should probably perform within the
 2   range.  The question is, what I was thinking about
 3   more, whether if you can take a Ke derived in one
 4   WCA -- in WCA-2A and say that's going to be the Ke at
 5   the STAs.  That's an assumption.
 6       Q.    You don't have an opinion whether the WCA-2A
 7   experience is transferable to the STA design?
 8       A.    My opinion is, there is some question about
 9   the transferability, but I don't have an answer to it,
10   yes or no, it is not transferable, but I think it's an
11   issue.
12       Q.    Do you have an answer as to how probable it
13   is, that relationship?
14       A.    No.  It would require some additional
15   analysis.
16       Q.    You haven't done it?
17       A.    No.
18       Q.    What is the note on page 4 in your hand?
19   Something "control assumption"?
20       A.    Let me see.  "Another critical assumption."
21       Q.    "Another critical assumption."  Again, it has
22   to do with comparing WCA-2 to something else.  Is that
23   correct?
24       A.    It says, "Quantification of this benefit is
25   difficult."

                                                 89

 1       Q.    Then on page six, you have a note, and the
 2   specific comment is, "The long term flow weighted mean
 3   discharge concentration is less than or equal to the 50
 4   PPB design objective."
 5             When you commented on that, what did you say
 6   about that?
 7       A.    That's the -- the way, you know, the
 8   hypothesis, innocent until proven guilty or guilty
 9   until proven innocent.  That's just a given that --
10       Q.    Then on page 8, there's a -- you have a
11   comment, a question mark.  Why don't you read the
12   comment to me first?  Then I'll see if we need to talk
13   about it.
14       A.    It's just saying that there's a 10 percent
15   chance that you would reject the hypothesis
16   incorrectly.  It's a statement of what he's saying, 10
17   percent.
18       Q.    Exhibit 9 is the Qian-Reckhow paper.  You
19   told me previously how you intend to use that.  As a
20   laugh test, I think you said.
21       A.    I think the -- that the general idea is to
22   look at that data set, and see if you are within the
23   ballpark, and see if it makes sense.
24       Q.    What data sets was he using?  Do you
25   remember?

                                                 90

 1       A.    I think he was using -- I'm not sure, but I
 2   know that he is not using the -- the data set Dr.
 3   Kadlec was using, and our intention was to use the same
 4   data Dr. Kadlec was using, and we just got that data
 5   two days ago.
 6       Q.    Actually, I thought he was using Kadlec and
 7   WCA-2A data.
 8       A.    It's not clear to me.
 9       Q.    I took his deposition.  I thought that's what
10   he said.
11       A.    The understanding I have -- well --
12       Q.    Go ahead.  That's fine.
13       A.    He's not using the same data set that Dr.
14   Kadlec is.
15       Q.    Kadlec's North American data set has been
16   updated since Reckhow used it, apparently.  You're
17   right in that sense.
18       A.    Okay.
19       Q.    Tell me this.  I want you to read this first
20   paragraph, right here.  Just read it to yourself.
21       A.    "To compare"?
22       Q.    Starting there.
23       A.    "To compare" --
24       Q.    To yourself.
25             MR. BLANK:  Just for the record, what page

                                                 91

 1        are you on?
 2             MR. REID:  Page 13 of the Reckhow article.
 3             (Pause.)
 4       A.    Without doing -- reading this paper in
 5   detail, I don't know what he's saying.  It's not clear.
 6       Q.    Are those Ke values right there, 9.65 and
 7   9.68?  Is that what those are meant to be?
 8       A.    I don't think so.  I think he's talking about
 9   residual sum of squares.
10       Q.    No. 10, Exhibit 10 is Appendix F to the SWIM
11   plan.  Are you using that?
12       A.    Yes, general reference.
13       Q.    Anything in particular in this that you are
14   using?
15       A.    Not that I -- not that I --
16       Q.    Okay.  Exhibit 11 is a fax from Kadlec to
17   Walker, with some data, WCA-2A inlet zone analysis.
18   Are you using that in any way in your work?
19       A.    Not right now.
20       Q.    No. 12 is the Lettenmaier paper, that I think
21   we had two pages from a moment ago, dated January 8,
22   '93.
23             This would be comments or a study of Walker
24   I -- Roman Numeral One, when we talk about Walker I and
25   Walker II.

                                                 92

 1             Is that correct?
 2       A.    Yes.  That is my understanding.
 3       Q.    Are you using this in any way?
 4       A.    Only as a reference for comparative purposes
 5   for the uncertainty analysis.  It has some ranges on
 6   the values and sort of a check on whether I'm in the
 7   ballpark.
 8       Q.    Exhibit 13, Exhibit 14, Exhibit 15, Exhibit
 9   16, all seem to be similar sorts of --
10       A.    Yes.
11       Q.    What are these?
12       A.    I received a data set from, I believe it's
13   Curt Richardson, that was -- initially tried to look at
14   the relationship between total phosphorus out and the
15   phosphorus loading in, and these were just some
16   preliminary exploratory plots, and we found out this is
17   not the right data set, and so we -- that's as far as
18   this got.  This is just plots of the relation between
19   total phosphorus out and total phosphorus in.
20             This plot is all a data set, and what I tried
21   to do is identify from what system it was.  I didn't
22   have any information what system it was, but at least
23   try to differentiate what systems, and see what you
24   get, just some preliminary fits.
25             This one did the same thing, except

                                                 93

 1   restricted the ranges of observation to phosphorus
 2   loading in of less than two grams per square meter per
 3   year, as opposed to the range of one to a thousand.
 4             What this did was look at P average as
 5   opposed to individual observations for each site.
 6       Q.    These are core samples or water quality?
 7       A.    No.  This is, my understanding, information
 8   on the phosphorus out water concentration versus
 9   phosphorus loading in.
10       Q.    That would be water quality?
11       A.    Yes.
12       Q.    Readings, at the structures, coming in and
13   going out?
14       A.    For different wetland systems.
15       Q.    Is this WCA-2A?
16       A.    No.  The data set I had was supposed to have
17   been part of the North American data base, but since
18   then we know that's not the right data set.  There's
19   new data sets or new site sets included, and we just
20   got that data two days ago.
21       Q.    So, this, geographically, you don't know, as
22   you sit here, you don't know what this included?
23       A.    No.  We just plotted them out, just
24   preliminarily.
25       Q.    It looks like you seek some sort of general

                                                 94

 1   relationship?
 2       A.    There's a general relationship, but the
 3   question is to deal with this, and the idea is to do
 4   the same thing as part of this laugh test I referred
 5   to, but with the correct data set.
 6       Q.    Exhibit 17?
 7       A.    That's an output of the -- one output of the
 8   uncertainty analysis.
 9       Q.    Done by whom?
10       A.    Myself.
11       Q.    Obviously, that's the result of your work?
12       A.    That's right.
13       Q.    We will put that aside and talk about it
14   later, when we talk about your opinions.
15             Exhibit 18 is a Kadlec article?
16       A.    A reference document.
17       Q.    Anything in there in particular?  Background?
18       A.    Background.
19       Q.    Next is, "Uncertainty analysis by Walker,"
20   done in October of '92.  This would have been for his
21   first work.  Is that correct?
22       A.    Yes.  Prior to the '93.
23       Q.    Did you use this in any manner?
24       A.    The same way that I've used all the other
25   uncertainty analyses.  Just as a corroboration, backup,

                                                 95

 1   confirmation, comparative analysis of the uncertainty
 2   ranges.
 3       Q.    Does Exhibit 18, or 19, rather, reflect
 4   essentially the same thing that you've done, and did
 5   Walker just do an uncertainty analysis and now you are
 6   doing another one?
 7       A.    I think the general technique is the same.
 8   The difference would be in how the probability
 9   distributions are specified, but it's a general idea,
10   yes.
11       Q.    He was doing to his own work, what you are
12   now doing to his work?
13       A.    Pretty much so, yes.  In a general sense.
14   The details are different, but --
15       Q.    Why would they be different?
16       A.    In terms of how the estimates of the
17   uncertainty in Ke are determined, the uncertainty in
18   the influent values, for example, they would be
19   different -- his uncertainty analysis, it's not clear
20   to me what uncertainty he's using for the flows, what
21   value he's using.
22             In principle it's the same, but I would be
23   using different -- the design as being used by Burns
24   and McDonnell, which is not part of this design.
25       Q.    Certainly, this would be different?

                                                 96

 1       A.    The general principles are the same, but
 2   there are different details.
 3       Q.    If you were doing an uncertainty analysis of
 4   his previous paper, Walker I, would it be exactly like
 5   this?
 6       A.    I don't see any documentation for what
 7   distribution he's using, for the probability
 8   distributions that he's using.
 9       Q.    Does that mean that this uncertainty analysis
10   has some measure of subjectivity based on what the
11   analyzer decides?
12       A.    Only in the same way you would say that two
13   different models are subjective in terms of what
14   components are important, yes.  It's -- in terms of
15   what components in the model are important to include.
16   If you want to call that subjectivity or judgment or
17   professional judgment, yes.
18       Q.    I see that being different from this, in that
19   here you are, in effect, analyzing a set piece of work.
20   You're both analyzing the same piece of work.  So, my
21   question is, is there subjectivity in that analysis
22   process?
23       A.    I wouldn't call it subjectivity.  I would
24   call it professional judgment, in terms of what
25   distributions --

                                                 97

 1       Q.    Give me an example.
 2       A.    Some things may not be important.  Someone
 3   may say, "Well, I don't believe the uncertainty in the
 4   precipitation variability is important.  I'm not going
 5   to include it."  Or, "I would use a uniform
 6   distribution."
 7             You can try to estimate what that
 8   distribution is and use a normal distribution.
 9   Ultimately, the bottom line is whether it makes any
10   difference in terms of the concentration.
11       Q.    In the range of ideas, in this battle between
12   you and Walker on -- how does one decide who is correct
13   in making these evaluations?  What's the ultimate --
14       A.    The thing I worry about is whether in fact
15   the predictions are very different.  There's always
16   going to be different assumptions.  The question is,
17   does it make any difference or not?  That would be the
18   first thing I would ask.
19       Q.    The issue here would be how many acres are
20   you going to need for the STAs.
21       A.    That answer depends on elements that are
22   outside the uncertainty analysis.  That answer will
23   depend on the level of reliability that you are going
24   to need to meet a particular limit, and so, the acreage
25   will depend on that.  The higher the level of

                                                 98

 1   reliability, the higher the acreage.
 2       Q.    Say that again.
 3       A.    The higher the level of reliability that you
 4   want to meet a given target limit, the higher the
 5   acreage you need.
 6       Q.    You mean more acres?
 7       A.    If you want to be more certain.
 8       Q.    I see what you mean.  Sort of like -- or just
 9   having more room for error?  You are having more
10   acreage, which theoretically would take up more
11   phosphorus?
12       A.    Bigger safety factor.
13       Q.    Exhibit 20 is a fax from Walker to Kadlec.
14       A.    Again, I was looking at these ranges.
15       Q.    Are these your notes?
16       A.    No.  That, near the top, that says, "Two of
17   two," is my notes.
18       Q.    Anything about this that you have relied on,
19   or is it just looking again for a kind of general
20   similarity?
21       A.    Yes.  There are some parameters that we're
22   going to have to use; a range, for example.  The
23   rainfall phosphorus concentration uses 13 to 67, for
24   example, here.  In some cases, we're going to have to
25   rely on what their range is.

                                                 99

 1       Q.    Exhibit 21?
 2       A.    Basically, the same thing.  Just more
 3   reference of his uncertainty analysis.
 4       Q.    Again, on Walker I?
 5       A.    I believe this is a subset.  Yes.  Walker I.
 6       Q.    He did a Monte Carlo simulation, Walker did?
 7       A.    Yes.
 8       Q.    22?
 9       A.    This is a graph -- I don't know who exactly
10   did it, but it was part of either Walker or Dr. Kadlec.
11   It's not clear who did it.  But showing the same
12   relation between PLI and TP, and this is the work that
13   we're basically going to be trying to reproduce.
14       Q.    Is this the Everglades or --
15       A.    I'm not sure.  No, it's the data from 49
16   different wetland zones.
17       Q.    Okay.  That ultimately led to the ultimate
18   decision, or the ultimate work product of Walker,
19   Walker II?
20       A.    No.  No.  I don't think so.  This is sort of
21   a general -- a general indication of performance of
22   wetlands.
23       Q.    I misunderstood.  I thought you said that's
24   the data we're going to be working with?
25       A.    No, that's the data for what I call the laugh

                                                 100

 1   test.
 2       Q.    Exhibit 23 is a fax from Kadlec to Walker.
 3   Anything about this that is significant to you?
 4       A.    I think these are two, basically, faxes just
 5   talking about the --
 6             MR. REID:  Excuse me one second.
 7             (Pause.)
 8       A.    I think the only note is that the estimate of
 9   the uncertainty analysis, or the confidence limits of
10   this estimate, this person's thinking, is a little low,
11   and that's basically confirmed by my bootstrap works.
12       Q.    You jumped ahead of me here.
13             Let's look at 23 first.
14       A.    That was just a general reference.  This is
15   the one that --
16       Q.    No significance, really, in your work on 23?
17       A.    No.
18       Q.    24 is a message to Kadlec from somebody named
19   Curl.
20       A.    Yes.  Basically, he's saying that the
21   uncertainty analysis, his standard, I mean, his
22   confidence limits for Ke are a little tight, and my
23   bootstrap analysis certainly confirms that, as well.
24   It's not a significant difference, but it is a
25   little -- my bootstrap limits are a little wider than

                                                 101

 1   what Walker gets.
 2       Q.    Tell me what that means.
 3       A.    It means that --
 4       Q.    Less likely to be --
 5       A.    I'm saying that the uncertainty in Ke is
 6   broader than the uncertainty that Walker gets from his
 7   Ke.
 8       Q.    Which means that Walker's would be more --
 9   Walker's -- you believe that Walker's is not as
10   predictive as Walker thinks it is?
11       A.    No.  All I'm saying is that the confidence
12   limits are broader for Ke than what -- what Walker's
13   is, but the difference is -- I don't have the numbers
14   in front of me, but it's -- I haven't compared to see
15   what effect those confidence limits have on the
16   ultimate effect, the ultimate distribution of the
17   effluent concentration, whether it makes a big
18   difference or not.
19       Q.    But that's one of the factors you might look
20   at to critique Walker's work, in terms of whether it's
21   suitable to be used in the real world of design?
22       A.    What the purpose of the uncertainty analysis
23   is, is simply to show if you designed the STAs at a
24   certain level, there's a probability you're going to
25   exceed the fifty or sixty parts per billion.

                                                 102

 1             What we're talking about is changes in those
 2   distributions, not the interpretation.
 3             Given that you want a given reliability of
 4   meeting those target limits, there would be some
 5   differences in what the required acreages will be to
 6   meet that target limit, but it's not clear to me
 7   they're going to be significant at this point.  But the
 8   point is that the level of reliability is really what's
 9   going to drive this game.
10       Q.    And the practical result of that would be
11   that you would need more acreage to make sure --
12       A.    For any uncertainty analysis.  If you look at
13   Walker or anyone else's, the higher level of
14   reliability you want to meet that target, you are going
15   to need larger acreage.
16             The difference in our analysis would be how
17   much more or less acreage to meet that target limit.
18   At this point, I haven't carried out the analysis to
19   see how sensitive it is.
20       Q.    Is that something you would do?
21       A.    That's part of what the uncertainty analysis
22   is designed to do, yes.
23       Q.    Would you talk, in the end, about acreage?
24       A.    For a -- I will not make a recommendation
25   saying this is what the acreage needs to be.

                                                 103

 1             What I will do is provide a range of acreage
 2   saying, "If you want to meet this target limit, this is
 3   how much acreage you need to meet it."
 4       Q.    You haven't done that yet?
 5       A.    No.
 6       Q.    And you are not going to do that?
 7       A.    I will.
 8       Q.    When are you going to do that?
 9       A.    Before trial.  As I said, the Monte Carlo,
10   you can look at the Monte Carlo and get rough estimates
11   for that acreage.
12       Q.    You will tell me that later?
13       A.    Yes.
14       Q.    Exhibit 25?
15       A.    That's just a background document.
16       Q.    Exhibit 26?
17       A.    That was part of the -- that original graph
18   that I was talking about before, about phosphorus
19   accumulation versus concentration, and going through
20   zero or going through somewhere else.
21       Q.    Just so I understand, you would need more
22   acres if the settling rate is 4.6 than you would if
23   it's eight?
24       A.    The higher the settling rate, the less
25   acreage you need.