1

 1           Division of Administrative Hearings
 2      Department of Administration, State of Florida
 3 
      SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE      )
 4    of FLORIDA; ROTH FARMS, INC.; and   )
      WEDGWORTH FARMS, Inc.,              )
 5              Petitioners               )
         V                                )  DOAH Case
 6    SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT      )  No. 92-3038
      DISTRICT, an agency of the State    )
 7    of Florida; et al.,                 )
                Respondents.              )
 8 
      FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, INC.;    )
 9    UNITED STATES SUGAR CORPORATION;    )
      and NEW HOPE SOUTH, INC.,           )
10                Petitioners,            )
         V                                )  DOAH Case
11    SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT      )  No. 92-3039
      DISTRICT, an agency of the State    )
12    of Florida; et al.,                 )
                  Respondents.            )
13 
      FLORIDA FRUIT and VEGETABLE         )
14    ASSOCIATION; LEWIS POPE FARMS;      )
      W. E. SCHLECHTER & SONS, INC.,      )
15    and HUNDLEY FARMS, INC.,            )
                    Petitioners,          )
16        V                               )   DOAH Case
      SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT      )   No. 92-3040
17    DISTRICT, an agency of the State    )
      of Florida; et al.,                 )
18                  Respondents.          )
   
19 
                          VOLUME I
20               DEPOSITION OF GALEN MILLER, P.E.
   
21             Taken before Rachel W. Bridge, Professional
     Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of
22   Florida at large, pursuant to notice of taking
     deposition filed by the Petitioners in the above
23   cause.
                             -  -  -
24   Wednesday, February 3, 1993
     319 Clematis Street, Suite 500
25   West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
     9:20 a.m. - 4:45 o'clock p.m.

                                                 2

 1    APPEARANCES:
 2 
          On behalf of the Petitioners Florida Sugar
 3         Cane League, Inc., United States Sugar Corp.,
           and New South Hope, Inc.:
 4             Peeples, Earl & Blank, P.A.
               One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3636
 5             Two South Biscayne Boulevard
               Miami, Florida  33131
 6             By:  RICHARD BURGESS, ESQUIRE
   
 7        On behalf of the Respondent SFWMD:
               POPHAM, HAIK, SCHNOBRICK & KAUFMAN, LTD.
 8             4000 International Place
               100 S.E. Second Street
 9             Miami, Florida  33131
               By:  PAUL NETTLETON, ESQUIRE
10 
          On behalf of Sugar Cane Growers:
11             Hopping, Boyd, Green & Sams
               123 South Calhoun Street
12             Tallahassee, Florida  32301
               By:  GARY V. PERKO, ESQUIRE
13 
          On behalf of the Intervenor United States of America:
14             Assistant United States Attorney
               Southern District of Florida
15             Department of Justice
               155 South Miami Avenue, Suite 600
16             Miami, Florida  33130
               By:  SUZAN HILL PONZOLI, ESQUIRE
17                  MAUREEN DONLAN, ESQUIRE
   
18        Also Present:  Dr. John Davis
                         Ronald K. Munson
19                       David W.  Stewart
                         Ed Barber

                                                 3

 1 
                        I  N  D  E  X
 2 
   
 3  WITNESS:             DIRECT  CROSS  REDIRECT  RECROSS
   
 4  GALEN E. MILLER
   
 5    BY MR. BURGESS       4
   
 6                     E X H I B I T S
   
 7  NUMBER             PAGE  DESCRIPTION
   
 8  MILLER EXHIBIT  1    89  Notice of Taking Deposition
   
 9  MILLER EXHIBIT  2    90  List of Document Production
   
10  MILLER EXHIBIT  3   108  9-29-92 Draft Report TAP Review
                             of Everglades Protection Project
11 
    MILLER EXHIBIT  4   108  Dec. '92 TAP Review of Everglades
12                           Protection Project Conceptual Design
   
13  MILLER EXHIBIT  5   109  3-31-92 Conceptual Design of STAs
                             for Everglades Protection Project
14 
    MILLER EXHIBIT  6   155  7-8-92 Memo to Galen Miller from
15                           Rhonda Haag and Contract C-3021
   
16  MILLER EXHIBIT  7   157  5-29-92 letter to Zan Kugler from
                             Galen Miller Re: Contract C-3021
17 
    MILLER EXHIBIT  8   158  6-8-92 letter to Zan Kugler from
18                           G. Miller Re: Contract C-3021
   
19  MILLER EXHIBIT  9   158  6-8-92 letter to Zan Kugler from
                             Galen Miller, with attachments
20 
    MILLER EXHIBIT 10   163  3-26-91 Memo to Paul Whalen from
21                           Gary Goforth Re WMA 3
   
22  MILLER EXHIBIT 11   171  7-31-92 Roport on Model Analyses
                             for ENR Project
23 
    MILLER EXHIBIT 12   179  7-27-92 Memo to Distribution List
24                           from Zan Kugler Re: Contract C-3051
   
25  MILLER EXHIBIT 13   181  5-19-92 letter to Doug Gilbert from
                             Gene Foster, with attachments

                                                 4

 1                  P R O C E E D I N G S
 2                           -  -  -
 3   Thereupon,
 4                    GALEN E. MILLER,
 5   being by the undersigned Notary Public first duly
 6   sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
 7              THE WITNESS:  I do.
 8                      DIRECT (GALEN E. MILLER)
 9   BY MR. BURGESS:
10       Q.    Would you state your name and professional
11   address for the record?
12       A.    My name is Galen E. Miller.  I'm employed
13   with Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company.
14             My place of employment is at 8826 Santa Fe
15   Drive, Suite 305, Overland Park, Kansas, 66212.
16       Q.    Mr. Miller, my name is Rick Burgess.  I
17   represent the United States Sugar Corporation, New
18   Hope South and the Florida Sugar Cane League in the
19   SWIM Plan challenge.
20             Over the course of hopefully only two days
21   I'm going to be asking you some questions.  If at any
22   time you don't understand my question or if it
23   appears to you to be inartfully worded such that you
24   don't think you could fully respond, I would
25   appreciate you letting me know that so I have the

                                                 5

 1   opportunity to rephrase it.  Otherwise, I'll assume
 2   that you are answering the question that I asked,
 3   okay?
 4       A.    Understood.
 5       Q.    What's your occupation?
 6       A.    I'm a civil engineer.
 7       Q.    How long have you been at Burns
 8   & McDonnell?
 9       A.    I was employed with Burns & McDonnell in
10   June of 1974.
11       Q.    What is Burns & McDonnell?
12       A.    Burns & McDonnell is a consulting firm
13   providing engineering and architectural services.
14             Does that answer the question fully?
15       Q.    Yes.  How many offices do they have?
16       A.    The primary office for Burns & McDonnell is
17   in Kansas City, Missouri.  That is the home office
18   and where the majority of the resources are situated.
19             The office I am in is in Overland Park,
20   Kansas, which is about ten miles from that main
21   office.
22             We also have an office in Miami and an
23   office in Denver, Colorado, and there may be other
24   project offices sprinkled about for different
25   purposes that I'm not aware of.

                                                 6

 1       Q.    How many employees are in Burns
 2   & McDonnell?
 3       A.    Approximately 1,140.
 4       Q.    How about in the Overland Park, Kansas,
 5   office that you are in?
 6       A.    That would be 18.
 7       Q.    Are you a partner or a principal in the
 8   firm?
 9       A.    I am a principal in the firm.
10       Q.    What is the structure, ownership structure
11   of the firm?
12       A.    It is an ESOP employee stock option plan.
13   It's an employee-owned firm.
14       Q.    How many principals are there in the firm?
15       A.    I don't know.
16       Q.    How many partners?
17       A.    Well, there are no partners as such in the
18   firm.
19       Q.    When did you become a principal?
20       A.    It was during 1992, but I don't recall the
21   exact month.
22       Q.    Are the majority of principals civil
23   engineers?
24       A.    No, they are not.  It's a fairly broad
25   spectrum of disciplines representative in the

                                                 7

 1   principals, representative of the fairly broad
 2   spectrum of services that we provide.
 3             (Thereupon, Ms. Ponzoli entered the room.)
 4   BY MR. BURGESS:
 5       Q.    Give me an idea for what other disciplines
 6   are represented by principals.
 7             Are there, for instance, hydrologists?
 8       A.    I know of no hydrologist technical
 9   discipline as principals of the firm, although that
10   would be my own technical classification if I were
11   asked for one other than civil engineer.
12       Q.    Would be a hydrologist?
13       A.    Yes.  There are mechanical engineers,
14   electrical engineers, environmental or sanitary, as
15   they used to be referred to, engineers.
16             I believe there is an architect who is a
17   principal in the firm, and structural engineers.
18       Q.    Any biologists?
19       A.    As principals?  Not that I can think of.
20       Q.    Ecologists?
21       A.    Not that I can think of.
22       Q.    As employees, are those disciplines
23   represented?
24       A.    Yes.
25       Q.    When was your Miami office established?

                                                 8

 1       A.    It was in the early 1960s.
 2       Q.    And how many employees are in Miami?
 3       A.    This is a rough estimate.  I'd say there
 4   are probably around 20.
 5       Q.    Are the majority of the employees located
 6   in Kansas City?
 7       A.    Yes, they are.
 8       Q.    With respect to the work that you do with
 9   the Water Management District presently, is the
10   majority of your interaction with other employees at
11   the Overland Park office or the Kansas City office or
12   Miami?  Can you separate it out?
13       A.    The work for the South Florida Water
14   Management District is done primarily with personnel
15   from both the Overland Park and Kansas City,
16   Missouri, offices.
17       Q.    When did you first become associated with
18   the District in a contractor capacity?
19       A.    As a consultant to the District in 1986.
20       Q.    And what were you retained as a consultant
21   for at that time?
22       A.    The initial assignment was for the design
23   of the replacement structure on the C-3 canal in
24   Coral Gables.  That's the G-97 structure, I think it
25   is.

                                                 9

 1       Q.    And how did that consultancy come about?
 2   Was it a competitive bid process?
 3       A.    It was a CCNA process.  We responded to an
 4   advertisement that the District had made and were
 5   eventually selected.
 6       Q.    What does CCNA stand for?
 7       A.    Consultants Competitive Negotiation Act.
 8       Q.    Were you involved in preparing whatever
 9   paperwork needed to be submitted to the District in
10   conjunction with that project?
11       A.    I was.
12       Q.    And that work obviously is complete now?
13       A.    Yes, it is.
14       Q.    And how do you refer to that work, as the
15   C-3, did you say?
16       A.    Well, it was called the Coral Gables
17   structure, but it's structure G-97, and it was a
18   structure replacement.
19       Q.    And how long did that job last?
20       A.    I believe the design was complete in 1987
21   and construction completed in late 1988, but those
22   dates could be a little off.
23       Q.    What was your next job with the District?
24       A.    That would have been for the design of the
25   Deerfield structure G-56 on the Hillsboro Canal,

                                                 10

 1   another structure replacement.
 2       Q.    Was that in 1988?
 3       A.    That's right.  The design contract, the
 4   consultant's contract was signed in 1988.
 5       Q.    And construction completed?
 6       A.    In 1991.
 7       Q.    With respect to both the G-97 and G-56,
 8   were you the project manager for the project?
 9       A.    I was.
10       Q.    In all of your dealings with the District,
11   have you been the project manager on the various
12   projects you have been associated with?
13       A.    I have.
14       Q.    Do you know the total amount of the
15   contract and all amendments which were paid from the
16   District to Burns & McDonnell for either G-97 or
17   G-56?
18       A.    Not with precision.  In fact, I don't
19   recall G-97 well at all.
20             G-56 was on the order of $150,000.  I
21   believe G-97 was on the order of 85 to 90,000.
22       Q.    What was your next engagement?
23       A.    We were selected by the District as a
24   result of the CCNA process for providing services on
25   a continuing service contract.  I believe that

                                                 11

 1   contract number was C89-0041.
 2       Q.    What was the nature of the continuing
 3   services?
 4       A.    The purpose of the contract was to provide
 5   technical assistance to the District's engineering
 6   division primarily and various assignments as they
 7   needed to augment their own staff resources.
 8       Q.    Do you have any idea as to how many
 9   amendments there have been to C89-0041?
10       A.    There were a total of 15 amendments to that
11   contract.
12       Q.    And were each of those amendments actually
13   a small work project in itself?
14       A.    Each was a work project in itself.  There
15   were some that were not that small.  I don't know
16   what you mean by small.
17       Q.    I didn't mean to categorize the size.  I
18   was just trying to get an idea as to what -- the fact
19   that it was a continuing services contract with so
20   many amendments, was in fact a different job
21   performed for each amendment or were they --
22       A.    In some instances more than one amendment
23   dealt with the same general project or job.
24       Q.    Do you have any idea as to what the total
25   amount of compensation of Burns & McDonnell has been

                                                 12

 1   under that contract and its amendments?
 2       A.    It is on the order of a million dollars,
 3   but I don't recall the exact figure.
 4       Q.    Are you still operating under that
 5   continuing services contract?
 6       A.    There are two work efforts that are still
 7   open under that contract.  One is the provision of
 8   electrical engineering services in connection with
 9   the design of two new storage buildings for the
10   District.  I believe that's under amendment number --
11   I think it's 11.  I may be wrong there.
12             The last one is that we are completing
13   design of a modification or renovation of pumping
14   station S-13, which was initially authorized under
15   amendment number 10 to that contract.
16       Q.    Was the work that you did for the District
17   in connection with the ENR project under this
18   contract?
19       A.    The design services were.
20       Q.    And in general terms, what design services
21   did you provide in conjunction with ENR?
22       A.    We provided the detailed design -- well, I
23   guess first we provided a conceptual design or
24   analysis of the ENR project that was completed in
25   August of 1989, I believe.

                                                 13

 1             We then prepared the detailed design of
 2   three separate contracts for the ENR project.
 3             One contract was for the construction of
 4   the supply canal.  The second contract was for the
 5   construction of the perimeter levee.  And the third
 6   contract was for the construction of the two pump
 7   stations, the inflow and outflow pump stations for
 8   the project.
 9       Q.    Are you still providing services to the
10   District with regard to the ENR project?
11       A.    We are.  We are providing construction
12   period services to the District in review of
13   compliance of materials and similar type of
14   activities for those three contracts.
15             The perimeter levee contract has been
16   completed.  The supply canal contract is virtually
17   complete, and the pumping station contracts is
18   scheduled for completion in July of this year.
19       Q.    And the construction services that you are
20   providing with respect to ENR are pursuant to
21   contract 89-0041 and amendments thereto?
22       A.    They are not.
23       Q.    Oh, okay.
24       A.    That contract had a period, if you will, of
25   two years, I think it was.  We intended it to be

                                                 14

 1   three.
 2             The District subsequently readvertised for
 3   another continuing services contract, and I think
 4   eventually issued four.  We received one of those
 5   contracts.  That is contract C91-2059.  The
 6   construction period services on the ENR project are
 7   included in -- I need to correct myself.
 8             The construction period services for the
 9   perimeter levee were included under amendment number
10   13 to the C89-0041.
11             The construction services for the pump
12   stations are included in amendment number one to
13   C91-2059.
14       Q.    What was the reason that the District did a
15   new CCNA for construction services for the ENR?
16       A.    Actually they did not do a new CCNA for the
17   construction services for the ENR.
18             There was a new CCNA for the water
19   resources project, various descriptions; again, just
20   a general services contract to replace, in essence,
21   the C89-0041.
22       Q.    And the one of the four that you got was
23   for construction -- I'm sorry, was for what?
24       A.    It was, again, for general engineering
25   services, continuing basis, for water resource

                                                 15

 1   projects.
 2       Q.    Have you operated under that contract for
 3   water resources projects for any project other than
 4   the ENR?
 5       A.    We have.  There is an amendment number
 6   three under that contract that provides for
 7   construction period services during construction of
 8   the District's north loop communications system.
 9             I'm trying to run down in my mind a list of
10   amendments at this point.
11             Amendment number two under that contract is
12   the -- I don't recall what amendment number two was
13   for.
14             Amendment number four I believe was for the
15   preparation of a model analysis of the ENR project in
16   support of the District's application for an
17   operation permit, DER.
18       Q.    What is the status of that work?
19       A.    That work was completed in July of 1991.
20             Amendment number five under that contract
21   is for some additional design services on the S-13
22   pump station renovation, a change in scope of the
23   project.
24             Amendment number six under that contract
25   includes the preparation of a conceptual design for a

                                                 16

 1   possible alternative to the C-51 west inflood control
 2   project as it is presently formulated in the Corps of
 3   Engineers design memoranda.
 4       Q.    What is the status of that amendment?
 5       A.    That amendment, we are scheduled to issue
 6   the final report resulting from that work late this
 7   month.
 8       Q.    Any other amendments?
 9       A.    Those are all the current amendments.
10       Q.    I think we have identified four separate
11   contracts up to now.
12             Are there any additional contracts that you
13   have been involved with with the District?
14       A.    No.
15       Q.    Under what contract do you provide --
16       A.    I have got to correct myself.  There is
17   another contract.
18       Q.    Okay.
19       A.    The one we are here talking about, I think
20   C-3021, which is the contract for preparation of a
21   general design memorandum for the Everglades
22   Protection Project.  Again, selection for that
23   contract was made through the CCNA process.
24       Q.    And when was that contract entered into?
25       A.    It was in mid 1992.  The exact date escapes

                                                 17

 1   me.
 2       Q.    Do you know who any of the other bidders in
 3   the CCNA process were for that work?
 4       A.    For the contract?  I don't recall the
 5   entire list.
 6             I am familiar, of course, with Brown &
 7   Caldwell, who as a result of the District's review
 8   and selection process were ranked second in that and
 9   subsequently received a contract related to this
10   topic as well.  I think that's C-3051.
11       Q.    Do you know of any others?
12       A.    I do not recall the entire short list.
13       Q.    Do you know if Nolte and Associates --
14       A.    They did not submit independently.
15       Q.    How many amendments have there been to that
16   contract?
17       A.    Two.
18       Q.    And what were the subject matters of those
19   amendments?
20       A.    Amendment number one was for the conduct of
21   preliminary engineering analyses intended to go back
22   and review and refine, where necessary, some of the
23   basic data employed in the conceptual designs, and
24   that was executed in August of 1992.
25             Amendment number two was executed in

                                                 18

 1   December of 1992 and will include the plan
 2   formulation for the Everglades Protection Project.
 3       Q.    What was the reason that amendment one was
 4   made necessary, if you will?
 5       A.    The preparation of the conceptual design
 6   was performed over a fairly short period of time
 7   without opportunity for independent review and
 8   analysis of some of the basic data employed therein.
 9             During the preparation of that conceptual
10   design there were a number of questions raised by
11   various interests which seemed to warrant the
12   continued analysis and refinements of the basic data.
13       Q.    What type of analysis of the data was done
14   pursuant to that amendment?
15       A.    We have prepared a number of documents
16   under amendment number one, primarily in the form of
17   technical memoranda.
18             One was the documentation of the historical
19   discharge data during a defined base period, 1979 to
20   1988, volumetric discharges into and out of the EAA
21   with primary emphasis on the structures discharging
22   to the Everglades Protection Area, and that has been
23   issued in final form.
24             Another document was the technical
25   memorandum dealing with estimates of phosphorus loads

                                                 19

 1   into and out of the EAA, with again primary emphasis
 2   on loads of discharge to the Everglades Protection
 3   Area.  That document is in draft form.  We are
 4   awaiting review comments.
 5       Q.    Who has it been submitted to?
 6       A.    It has been submitted, as all our documents
 7   are, to the District for review.  Those documents are
 8   then typically distributed by the District to a wide
 9   variety of interests, one of which would be the
10   Scientific Advisory Group for the Everglades and
11   comments solicited from those groups as well.
12             A third document is a technical memorandum
13   which attempts to define or defines the temporal and
14   spatial distribution of reductions in total
15   phosphorus load discharge as well as volumetric
16   discharges resulting from the implementation of best
17   management practices in the EAA.
18             That document was issued on January 13 of
19   this year in draft form and we are scheduled to
20   present its contents to SAGE at its February 25th and
21   26th meeting.
22             We also prepared a, based on geographic
23   information systems data furnished to us by the
24   District as well as copies of information from the
25   permit files and other sources, a series of maps of

                                                 20

 1   the Everglades Agricultural Area that define our best
 2   estimates of current land use as well as areas
 3   tributary to the various pump stations.
 4             And those are all the documents that have
 5   been produced at this point.
 6       Q.    Has the temporal and spatial document been
 7   given to the District?
 8       A.    It has been.  It was delivered to the
 9   District January -- they received it January 14.  I
10   believe it was distributed to SAGE at its January
11   22nd and 23rd meeting.
12       Q.    Was Burns & McDonnell the principal author
13   of the three technical memoranda?
14       A.    Of those technical memoranda.
15             There was one other, a document that was
16   prepared under subcontract to us by the firm of Nolte
17   and Associates out of their Sacramento, California,
18   office which was in essence a peer review of the
19   conceptual design.
20       Q.    How did you determine the current land use
21   on the series of maps that you have delivered to the
22   District?
23       A.    We were furnished by the District a copy of
24   current aerial photography of Palm Beach County from
25   Palm Beach County dated 1991, I believe it was.

                                                 21

 1             And the land use was estimated based on
 2   inspection of the aerial photography.  There was no
 3   ground truthing.
 4             We did not receive similar photography for
 5   that small portion of the EAA that is actually in
 6   Hendry County for which we estimated land use based
 7   on ownerships and such information that was available
 8   to us.
 9       Q.    Were these satellite images?
10       A.    They were not.  These were aerial
11   photographs.  I'm not sure what the heights were.
12   The scale varied with location.  Primarily one was
13   400 feet, and some of the denser areas it was 200
14   feet.  By denser, more developed areas.
15       Q.    What was the purpose for putting together
16   this series of maps to determine land use?
17       A.    One of the, one focus of some of our
18   analysis was to see if we could identify at the point
19   of discharge to the EPA a relationship between land
20   use in the tributary area in both volume and
21   concentration of total phosphorus in discharges; in
22   essence, an attempt to correlate land use to those
23   two items.
24             We were unable to develop a satisfactory
25   correlation for that.

                                                 22

 1             Another use of the mapping, one thing we
 2   did was update the hydrography shown on the mapping.
 3       Q.    What is hydrography?
 4       A.    Simple definition, the surface water as to
 5   location of canals and structures.  The information
 6   furnished to us by the District was based on
 7   hydrographic files delivered to the District by the
 8   USGS and were outdated.
 9             So again, the basin hydrography, which in
10   essence consists of the canal system, was updated as
11   well based on inspection of the aerial photography.
12       Q.    So that was a success?  It was completed?
13   You were able to do it?
14       A.    That's correct.
15       Q.    Now why were you attempting to see if you
16   could identify land use and volume of discharges
17   through aerial photography?
18       A.    Well, we were hoping it would provide us
19   some additional guidance or insight into how we could
20   analyze the probable distribution of reductions due
21   to BMPs.
22       Q.    How would that have been accomplished?
23       A.    That's uncertain.  Again, without knowing,
24   without defining the relationship, it's difficult to
25   say how we would have done that.

                                                 23

 1             Another purpose in updating the hydrography
 2   and permit data was to develop schematics, if you
 3   will, of the drainage systems in each of the primary
 4   basins of the EAA, such that we had a ready reference
 5   for total area tributary to the canals at any
 6   particular point along the line, as such information
 7   may be necessary for the analysis of potential
 8   distributed facilities, smaller regional scale
 9   facilities.
10       Q.    What does that mean?
11       A.    Again, the conceptual design includes, if
12   you will, end of pipe type treatment areas located at
13   the downstream ends of the basin of each of the four
14   basins immediately prior to the point of discharge to
15   the EPA.
16             One possible alternative to that scenario
17   would be the development of distributed facilities,
18   smaller scale, at multiple locations within the
19   basins.
20       Q.    Are you speaking in terms of smaller scale
21   constructed wetlands?
22       A.    Whatever.  Not necessarily just constructed
23   wetlands.
24       Q.    What else could they be?
25       A.    A number of alternative treatment

                                                 24

 1   technologies are being analyzed for the District or
 2   evaluated by Brown & Caldwell under contract C-3051.
 3             I won't attempt to run through the entire
 4   list of all those alternatives that they are
 5   considering and evaluating.  We are awaiting to
 6   receive their draft document to see what the results
 7   of their evaluation are.
 8       Q.    Do you know the total amount of moneys that
 9   Burns & McDonnell have been paid with respect to
10   contract C-3021 and the two amendments?
11       A.    Have been paid?
12       Q.    Yes.  Let's start with have been paid, if
13   you know.  If not, what are the contract amounts?
14       A.    The contract amount for amendment number
15   one is roughly $241,000.
16             The amount for amendment number two is
17   roughly $250,000.
18             To date, the terms of payment under
19   amendment number one --
20       Q.    That's okay, you answered my question.
21             How about with respect to the contract
22   itself, 3021, have payments been made?
23       A.    No.  All work scopes and payments are the
24   subject of amendments to that contract.  The contract
25   itself simply defines the general structure and focus

                                                 25

 1   or intent of the work and specifically identifies
 2   that any specific items of work and fees associated
 3   therewith would be subject to the individual
 4   amendments issued under the contract.
 5       Q.    Has that been the case with respect to all
 6   Burns & McDonnell's previous contracts, that payment
 7   is made pursuant to amendment as opposed to pursuant
 8   to contract?
 9       A.    With the exception of the structure
10   replacement contracts G-97 and G-56, that is true.
11       Q.    I think we have covered the various
12   technical memoranda issued pursuant to amendment
13   number one.
14             Have there been similar memoranda prepared
15   with respect to amendment number two?
16       A.    There have not been.  Amendment number two
17   again was approved or executed just in December of
18   last year, about six weeks ago.
19             And much of the work under amendment number
20   two cannot be productively prosecuted until such time
21   as we have received documents such as the evaluation
22   of alternatives by Brown & Caldwell.
23       Q.    What work steps are called for in amendment
24   number two?
25       A.    I would have to refer to the amendment

                                                 26

 1   itself.
 2       Q.    Okay.
 3       A.    I do recall that the general intent or
 4   purpose of amendment number two is to present a
 5   recommended plan, if you will, to the board of
 6   governors for the District, and in the development of
 7   that recommended plan it is necessary for us to
 8   consider at least three basic alternatives for, in
 9   essence, each basin of the EAA.
10       Q.    For each of how many basins?
11       A.    There are four basins as they are defined
12   in the Chapter 40E-63.
13       Q.    Do you know, is there a contract or
14   amendment contemplated completion date with respect
15   to that that amendment?
16       A.    It is intended that the plan be presented
17   to the governing board at its June 11, 1993 meeting
18   for further action.  The ability to comply with that
19   date will be somewhat dependent upon the timing in
20   which we receive some of the documents necessary for
21   completion of the work.
22       Q.    You said it is intended that the plan.
23   What plan?  Is there a name for that plan?
24       A.    No, there is not a name for it.  And at
25   this point there is no plan as such.

                                                 27

 1       Q.    But the different work scopes under
 2   amendment two are contemplated to come together in a
 3   plan that would be presented in June of '93?
 4       A.    That is correct.
 5       Q.    Have we covered, to your knowledge, all of
 6   the contracts that you have been associated with with
 7   the District and Burns & McDonnell?
 8       A.    Yes.
 9       Q.    To your knowledge, has Burns & McDonnell,
10   outside of your involvement as project manager, been
11   associated with the District with other contracts?
12       A.    I do not believe they have, as far as
13   working for the District.  There has been other
14   involvement in terms of, as would be for most
15   consultants, submittal of documents for approval by
16   the District, that sort of thing.
17       Q.    When you were working on the G-97 contract,
18   can you estimate the percentage of your time during
19   that contract period that you spent on that contract?
20       A.    I could not.
21       Q.    How about with respect to the G-56?
22       A.    Again, that's too far back for me to
23   recall.
24       Q.    How about C89-0041?
25       A.    I would say it varies from time to time,

                                                 28

 1   but with respect to C89-0041 extending through
 2   current involvement, in any given month the
 3   percentage of my time dedicated to District
 4   activities would vary from somewhere around 40
 5   percent to well over 80 percent; in some cases, full
 6   involvement.
 7       Q.    Same question with respect to C91-2059.
 8       A.    My intent was to carry that from the 0041
 9   through all the other contracts.
10       Q.    Including the 3021?
11       A.    That's correct.
12       Q.    Okay.  Since August of '92, which I think
13   is the date that you identified the first of the two
14   amendments to 3021, how much of your time have you
15   spent on District contract-related work?
16       A.    I could provide an estimate.
17       Q.    That's fine, that's all I'm asking.
18       A.    It's well over 80 percent.
19       Q.    Would you say that you were the principal
20   negotiator of the performance terms of the contract
21   3021 and its amendments?
22       A.    Yes.
23       Q.    How about the monetary terms?
24       A.    Yes.
25       Q.    With respect to 3021, what other principal

                                                 29

 1   or principals at Burns & McDonnell are working with
 2   you on that contract and its amendments?
 3       A.    Principals working with me, you mean active
 4   production of documents?
 5       Q.    In active satisfaction of the
 6   responsibilities under that contract.
 7       A.    From a technical standpoint of the point of
 8   production, none.
 9             There are other principals involved in the
10   allocation of resources to the contracts.
11       Q.    Okay.  Who are they and what are they
12   doing?
13       A.    One would be a Mr. Joel Cerwick, President
14   of the Environmental Division of Burns & McDonnell,
15   and is the officer of the firm to whom I report.  He
16   makes available the materials I need for the
17   prosecution of the work.
18             There are other principals involved in the
19   review of the various documents that are prepared as
20   a part of our established and normal quality control
21   practices in the firm.
22       Q.    Mr. Cerwick is a civil engineer?
23       A.    I'm not entirely sure what his title is,
24   whether it's civil engineering or environmental
25   engineering.

                                                 30

 1       Q.    And where is he located?
 2       A.    Kansas City, Missouri.
 3       Q.    What other principals or officers are
 4   involved in reviewing the work product under that
 5   contract?
 6       A.    There is a Ron or Ronald C. Miller, civil
 7   engineer, principal in the firm, but not an officer.
 8             There is a Dwight G. Robinson.  There are
 9   some additional individuals, but honestly, I don't
10   know if they are principals or not.  We don't
11   commonly keep track of what everyone's classification
12   is.
13       Q.    Other than -- I guess I used a bad divider.
14             Other than principals, what other persons
15   at Burns & McDonnell are assisting you with respect
16   to the work steps, and what are their areas of
17   responsibility?
18       A.    Okay, there is a Mr. Gene Foster, who
19   provides primarily assistance with respect to the
20   hydrologic and hydraulic modeling and was, had
21   prepared the majority of the work reflected in the
22   technical memoranda on discharge volumes and total
23   phosphorus loads.  Gene is in the Kansas City,
24   Missouri office.
25             There is a Dan Burr, a Dan Korienek in my

                                                 31

 1   office in Overland Park, who to this point have been
 2   primarily involved in the preparation of the mapping
 3   and some of the analyses associated with the BMPs.
 4       Q.    What are their backgrounds?
 5       A.    Dan Burr is a civil engineer.  Dan Korienek
 6   is -- again, I'm not sure whether it's civil or
 7   environmental in terms of his degree.
 8             There are a number of other people that
 9   provide detailing and support services.
10       Q.    Would these three gentlemen be the ones who
11   have provided the most technical assistance with
12   respect to that contract?
13       A.    Yes, I'd say so.  In terms of responsible
14   efforts, Gene has had a very responsible role.
15       Q.    And Cerwick, Miller and Robinson have been
16   assisting in more or less of a review capacity; is
17   that correct?
18       A.    Cerwick has been assisting primarily in
19   terms of in his role as an officer, providing people
20   and resources necessary for the conduct of the work
21   and does review the documents as well.
22       Q.    Okay.
23       A.    But Miller and Robinson have primary
24   responsibilities under our quality control program
25   for the review of those documents.

                                                 32

 1       Q.    Who has been your principal contact at the
 2   District with respect to 3021?
 3       A.    The project, the general project manager
 4   for the contract and my principal contact has been
 5   Mr. Zan Kugler, who is Director of the District
 6   Engineering Division.
 7       Q.    Who else would you call upon at the
 8   District other than Mr. Kugler with respect to
 9   questions that you might have regarding the work
10   steps under contract 3021?
11       A.    Such as requests for information or
12   assistance in finding data?
13       Q.    Yes.
14       A.    There would be a Karin Landers in the
15   engineering division, a Jennifer Barone in the
16   engineering division.
17             Those three would be my primary points of
18   contact with requests for information.
19       Q.    Since the inception of contract 3021, have
20   there been any say project committees formed at the
21   District with respect to the work steps outlined in
22   that contract?
23       A.    Bear with me, because there have been a
24   number of committees for different things.
25             Committees formed at the District to assist

                                                 33

 1   in the prosecution of 3021?
 2       Q.    Right.
 3       A.    No, not that I know of.  I assume I would
 4   be on them if there were.
 5       Q.    Do you recall the body called the STA
 6   Design Committee?
 7       A.    I do.
 8       Q.    And do you recall what the purpose of that
 9   committee was?
10       A.    The purpose of that committee was to
11   provide technical input in review guidance in the
12   preparation and development of the March 31, 1992
13   conceptual design.  At least that's my understanding
14   of its purpose.
15       Q.    Pursuant to what contract did you perform
16   the March 31 conceptual design?
17       A.    That's what I was trying to recall for
18   sure.
19             We did work associated with conceptual
20   design under both amendments 14 and 15 to contract
21   C89-0041, and I believe the final preparation of that
22   document was included under amendment number two to
23   C91-2059.  That was the amendment I couldn't recall
24   the subject matter of.
25       Q.    So the conceptual design was completed in

                                                 34

 1   advance of going to contract in 3021?
 2       A.    Correct.
 3       Q.    The work that you are now doing with
 4   respect to the general design, what contract is that
 5   under?
 6       A.    C-3021.  Again, there have been two
 7   amendments issued.  The current thinking is that
 8   there would be a third amendment that would be
 9   executed, if you will, subsequent to board approval
10   should they so approve it of the recommended plan,
11   which would encompass the preliminary engineering of
12   the recommended plan.
13       Q.    Do you recall how the STA Design Committee
14   came into being?
15       A.    I'm not sure how it came into being.  It
16   was formed in some fashion as a result I think of an
17   earlier conceptual design that was issued in October
18   of 1991.
19       Q.    Was that issued by Burns & McDonnell?
20       A.    It was.  That document was prepared under --
21   well, it was prepared in a short period of time at
22   the request of the District to have some handle on
23   what the specific form of treatment areas or STAs may
24   be.
25             And it became apparent when that document

                                                 35

 1   issued that some of the technical information that
 2   had gone into its preparation was not perhaps
 3   consistent with that that had been considered and
 4   developed by various other folks prior to its
 5   issuance.
 6             I believe the purpose, I believe the
 7   purpose of the STA Design Review Committee was to
 8   provide the additional guidance necessary to us in
 9   the preparation of the revised conceptual design to
10   more closely reflect what folks actually thought.
11       Q.    Did you request formation of such a
12   committee?
13       A.    We requested additional guidance and
14   information, and I think that may have been one
15   element resulting in the formation of that committee,
16   but we did not request the formation of the
17   committee.
18       Q.    Do you recall how many times the committee
19   met?
20       A.    Not with certainty.  There were a number of
21   times.  The first meeting was in November of 1991.
22             I would say we probably met twice a month
23   after that through March, so that would be somewhere
24   on the order of eight meetings, but that count could
25   be wrong.

                                                 36

 1             (Thereupon, Mr. Stewart entered the room.)
 2             MR. BURGESS:  For the record, this is David
 3        Stewart.  He is with me.
 4   BY MR. BURGESS:
 5       Q.    Do you recall at the inception of the
 6   formation of the committee that it was to have a
 7   limited life only through your completion of the
 8   March '92 conceptual design?
 9       A.    I think there was at some point in time
10   some thought that perhaps that committee or something
11   like it would be around to review other documents as
12   submitted through the general design phase of the
13   project.
14             At that point in time our contract extended
15   only to the completion of the conceptual design, so
16   I'm not sure what the intent was after that.
17       Q.    Does the committee still exist?
18       A.    It has not met since March of last year, so
19   whether that means it exists, I don't know.
20       Q.    Have you heard why it hasn't met since
21   March of last year?
22       A.    No, I can't say that I have.
23       Q.    Have you had any conversation with anyone
24   at the District as to what the status of the STA
25   Design Committee is?

                                                 37

 1       A.    I have.  I have suggested to the District
 2   that something of that form be resurrected,
 3   particularly as we get into a plan formulation phase
 4   so that we can keep the various interested parties
 5   abreast of what our thinking is in the development of
 6   that plan, because we have no desire to spring
 7   surprises on folks in May.
 8       Q.    May being?
 9       A.    Well, if we are going to present something
10   to the governing board in June of next year, that we
11   have something prepared in terms of a draft in
12   advance of that date.
13       Q.    Has the District responded to your request
14   for information of such a similar committee?
15       A.    I believe there has been some contact with --
16   well, there was discussion of that possibility at the
17   last SAGE meeting, but there has yet to be definition
18   of the actual membership of that committee, if in
19   fact it is a formal committee as such, or selection
20   of the first date for its meeting.
21             Our intent was not to ask for a new
22   committee, but to simply ask for the ability to meet
23   with various technical entities, perhaps a
24   representative of the United States or the
25   agricultural interests, DER certainly, to in essence

                                                 38

 1   take advantage of their insights and guidance as we
 2   are preparing, as we are conducting the plan
 3   formulation.
 4       Q.    Since your discussion at the last SAGE
 5   meeting, have you heard whether or not such a
 6   committee is going to be available to you?
 7       A.    I believe -- well, in fact, we have been
 8   asked to try to schedule whenever we can define the
 9   appropriate subject matter for an agenda or at least
10   suggest the date for such a meeting, so that the SAGE
11   can be advised of the meeting date and subject matter
12   so that they can suggest who they would like to have
13   participate in that.
14             Again, I don't believe we are looking at a
15   fixed committee membership as such.  Attendance at
16   these meetings would be highly dependent upon the
17   nature of the agenda or subject matter.
18       Q.    Do you have, as you sit here today, a date
19   contemplated for the first meeting?
20       A.    I do not.
21       Q.    Can you recall when you first became aware
22   that the District was involved with the SWIM planning
23   process for the Everglades?
24       A.    When they were involved with it?  It would
25   have been in mid 1989.

                                                 39

 1       Q.    And do you recall how you became aware of
 2   it?
 3       A.    I don't.
 4       Q.    Do you recall when you became aware of the
 5   fact that the District was involved in a lawsuit
 6   pending in United States District court brought by
 7   the United States of America?
 8       A.    I have been aware of that for some time.
 9   When I became aware of it, the presence of such a
10   suit, I would have to guess in 1989.
11             And how I became aware of it, I saw a
12   newspaper or just word, gossip around the District
13   offices.
14       Q.    Since mid 1989 and your becoming aware of
15   the SWIM planning process, were any of the work steps
16   that you were performing at that time targeted to
17   providing assistance with the SWIM planning process,
18   as far as you knew?
19       A.    No.
20       Q.    Have you read say portions of the present
21   SWIM Plan?
22       A.    I have.
23       Q.    Have you reviewed previous drafts?
24       A.    I have seen previous drafts and I have
25   reviewed portions of the previous drafts, a draft in

                                                 40

 1   January of 1992, I think, and I believe there was one
 2   in September of 1991.
 3       Q.    Could it be September of '90?
 4       A.    That could be.
 5       Q.    Were you aware that the draft SWIM Plan in
 6   September of '90 spoke in general terms of setting
 7   aside up to 75,000 acres of farm land as constructed
 8   wetlands to be known as water management areas or
 9   WMAs?
10       A.    Yes.
11       Q.    Were you aware at that time in September of
12   '90 of that fact?
13       A.    No, it was subsequent to that, but I do not
14   recall when I first saw that.
15             I think the first reference I saw to it was
16   in just review of the District's published capital
17   improvements program, which made a reference to water
18   management areas.
19       Q.    Did you or anyone at Burns & McDonnell have
20   input into the concept of water management areas as
21   described in that September '90 SWIM Plan?
22       A.    No.
23       Q.    Do you know how that acreage was
24   calculated?
25       A.    No.

                                                 41

 1       Q.    Do you know who the principal architects or
 2   drafts-person of that concept was at the District?
 3       A.    No.
 4       Q.    Are you aware that the District entered
 5   into a settlement agreement of that pending federal
 6   lawsuit in July of 1991 which provided for the
 7   setting aside of 35,000 acres of farm lands as
 8   constructed wetlands to be known as STAs?
 9       A.    I'm aware of the agreement.
10       Q.    When did you become aware?
11       A.    When it was presented to the board of
12   governors for its approval in July of 1991.
13       Q.    Did you or anyone at Burns & McDonnell have
14   input into the concept of STAs as that settlement
15   agreement addresses the STA?
16       A.    No.
17       Q.    Do you know how the acreage 35,000 was
18   calculated?
19       A.    Only as I can glean it from either that
20   document or the SWIM Plan.
21       Q.    Are you aware that the settlement agreement
22   had various technical appendices?
23       A.    Yes.
24       Q.    Prior to the date on which the settlement
25   agreement was presented to the board in July of '91,

                                                 42

 1   had you ever seen any draft copies of that settlement
 2   agreement or any of the appendices?
 3       A.    I saw the document itself just shortly in
 4   advance of the board meeting.  It was a document
 5   presented to the board.
 6       Q.    You are talking about a matter of days?
 7       A.    Yes, matter of days, and I had seen no
 8   drafts or didn't know there was such a thing being
 9   developed prior to that time.
10       Q.    Do you recall having participated in any
11   meetings between September of '90 and July of '91
12   wherein the subject matter of stormwater treatment
13   areas or setting aside of farm lands for wetlands was
14   discussed?
15       A.    We had begun work in, I think it was May of
16   1991 on some preliminary planning for the possible
17   expansion of the Everglades Nutrient Removal Project
18   to the north.
19             That one had been begun and was in progress
20   when the settlement agreement was published and
21   announced, which in essence stopped work under that,
22   stopped that work.  It appeared it would have had a
23   very decided impact on what we were doing.
24       Q.    What was the contemplated expansion?
25       A.    To make the ENR project larger by going

                                                 43

 1   straight north to a total aggregate area of, I think
 2   it was 7,200 acres.  We were asked to look at how
 3   that might be done and what the nature of the
 4   physical facilities might be if that were to be
 5   accomplished.
 6             (Thereupon, Mr. Barber entered the room.)
 7   BY MR. BURGESS:
 8       Q.    At some point after announcement of the
 9   settlement agreement you ceased work on that; is that
10   correct?
11       A.    That's correct.  In fact, the nature and
12   focus of the work shifted from where we had
13   originally started to the preparation of, if you
14   will, a quick and dirty conceptual design so that
15   there could be some information generated from the
16   District as to the cost of facilities defined in the
17   settlement agreement.
18       Q.    I think I asked you whether you had any
19   knowledge as to how that 35,000 acres was calculated,
20   and you said something in the order of only as you
21   can glean it from that document or the SWIM Plan.
22             Do you have any knowledge concerning who at
23   the District was involved in any calculations that
24   resulted in that 35,000 acres, even if that's
25   knowledge that you have only gained subsequent to

                                                 44

 1   becoming aware of the settlement agreement?
 2       A.    There has been -- there were analyses
 3   prepared by, either directly or by his personnel,
 4   Mr. Tom Fontaine.
 5             Now whether they were actually the basis
 6   for the acreage shown in the settlement agreement or
 7   SWIM Plan, I would assume they would be the basis for
 8   what's shown in the SWIM Plan.
 9             And I wish I could tell you what the name
10   of the actual appendage or agency of the District
11   was, but they have changed a lot and I don't think I
12   ever really knew at the time.
13       Q.    Have you reviewed Tom Fontaine's analysis?
14       A.    Not the full analysis.  I have reviewed the
15   published information on it and did receive a copy of
16   what I believe to be in essence just a source code,
17   if you will, for the model as such that he had
18   prepared and upon which his work was based, or his
19   group.  I don't know if it was Tom or the people that
20   work for him.
21       Q.    I'm sorry, I don't mean to repeat myself,
22   but were you aware of any discussions taking place
23   between September of '90 and July of '91 with respect
24   to construction of expanded WMAs or STAs in addition
25   to the ENR project that you were working on?

                                                 45

 1       A.    No.
 2       Q.    Not at all?
 3       A.    No.
 4       Q.    Are you aware that the settlement agreement
 5   calls for an interim standard of 50 parts per billion
 6   to be discharged from the stormwater treatment areas?
 7             MR. NETTLETON:  Object to the form.
 8             MS. PONZOLI:  Join the objection.
 9             MR. NETTLETON:  You can answer it.
10             THE WITNESS:  There is a definition of 50
11        parts per billion long-term average
12        flow-weighted concentration as a desired
13        objective and defined as an interim standard.
14   BY MR. BURGESS:
15       Q.    When did you first become aware of that
16   long-term average of 50 parts per billion?
17       A.    When I read the settlement agreement.
18       Q.    Up until that time, had you had any
19   discussions with anyone at the District concerning
20   long-term averages or interim standards for areas in
21   the EPA?
22       A.    No.
23       Q.    What discussions, if any, were taking place
24   with respect to concentrations or load reductions to
25   be achieved by the ENR project?

                                                 46

 1       A.    The majority of the initial analyses
 2   related to the nutrient removal performance or
 3   objectives of the ENR project were the subject matter
 4   of a contract issued by the District to the firm of
 5   Post, Buckley Schuh & Jernigan, again, under a
 6   continuing service contract that was awarded at the
 7   same time as our contract C89-0041.
 8       Q.    And what were they to do under that
 9   contract?
10       A.    They were under their contract to prepare
11   the, if you will, design of the interior portions of
12   the facilities of the ENR project, and a part of
13   their work did include the preparation of
14   documentation concerning nutrient or phosphorus
15   removal performance.
16       Q.    Were you aware of any targeted reduction
17   loads or standards that came about as a result of
18   Post, Buckley's work?
19       A.    There was some confusion throughout the
20   design period on the ENR project.
21             I believe the focus of the interior works
22   design or planning design, if you will, was the
23   removal of roughly 25 metric tons of phosphorus from
24   discharge to STA-1.  And I don't recall that a
25   discharge concentration as such was ever really a

                                                 47

 1   target.
 2       Q.    Did Post, Buckley complete their work
 3   pursuant to that continuing service contract?
 4       A.    I don't know whether they -- I believe all
 5   the documents they were required to submit were
 6   submitted.
 7             I do know that the design documents for the
 8   interior works were subsequently not used by the
 9   District, who elected instead to prepare that design
10   themselves.
11       Q.    Do you know why they didn't use Post,
12   Buckley's interior design document?
13       A.    No, I can't say for sure that I do.
14             I know that one item that was of some
15   concern was the fact that the interior design
16   documents prepared by Post, Buckley did not reflect
17   the presence of the new FPL power line that cuts
18   across the ENR project, and that generated some real
19   concern.
20             Beyond that, I suspect there were some
21   concerns of the District with respect to -- I'm
22   speculating now.  That's all I know for sure as an
23   identified weakness of the documentation.
24       Q.    Subsequent to that identified weakness in
25   that documentation, did your firm, Burns & McDonnell,

                                                 48

 1   take on any expanded duties with respect to the ENR
 2   project?
 3       A.    No.  The design of the interior works was
 4   prepared by the District's engineering division.
 5       Q.    Did you consult with them or did Burns
 6   & McDonnell consult with them with respect to the
 7   design of the interior works?
 8       A.    By consult, we discussed it with them as
 9   they were doing it, of course, but we had no, there
10   was no contract to assist in the design of the
11   interior works, but if asked for technical guidance,
12   we would give it to them like we would to anybody.
13       Q.    I want to make sure I understand your
14   testimony.
15             Up until the board meeting in July of '92,
16   is it your testimony that other than any design work
17   done in conjunction with the ENR project, that
18   neither you nor your firm worked on for the District,
19   conceptually or otherwise, any constructed wetlands
20   known as water management areas?
21       A.    Okay, your reference is probably to the
22   July 1991 board.
23       Q.    Right, I'm sorry.
24       A.    And the only work we had done for the
25   District in any fashion related to constructed

                                                 49

 1   wetlands was our work related to the initial
 2   conceptual analysis, the ENR project, the subsequent
 3   design of its perimeter facilities.  And we had begun
 4   work, I think it was in May of that year on the
 5   possible expansion of the ENR project to the north,
 6   and that is the total.
 7       Q.    What brought about the discussions in May
 8   about the possible expansion of the ENR project?
 9       A.    I don't know.  We were asked to look at
10   what might happen or how that might be accomplished.
11             What brought that about, I don't know.
12       Q.    Subsequent to that July '91 board meeting,
13   how did your focus shift, first with respect to your
14   responsibilities regarding the ENR project?
15       A.    Regarding the ENR project, I don't know
16   that our responsibilities ever changed over the
17   addition of the construction documents we had
18   prepared.
19             The work we had begun in May of '91 for
20   possible expansion of the ENR project was I believe
21   initially authorized under amendment number 14 to the
22   C89-0041.  With the announcement I guess of the
23   settlement agreement, the focus of that work shifted
24   to expansion of the ENR project for use in what was
25   termed STA-1.

                                                 50

 1             Amendment number 15 to that contract
 2   included work related to the conceptual design of
 3   STAs 2, 3 and 4, resulting in the October '91 pair of
 4   documents, the one on feasibility study for STA-1,
 5   the second on conceptual design for STAs 2, 3 and 4.
 6             The purpose for the two separate documents
 7   is because they were prepared under two separate
 8   amendments.
 9             The continuation or subsequent modification
10   of those conceptual designs was the subject matter of
11   amendment number two, the contract C91-2059.
12       Q.    I'm sorry?
13       A.    I have forgotten what the question was.
14       Q.    That's okay.  Amendment number two was
15   what?  You just --
16       A.    The preparation of the conceptual design,
17   the March 31, 1992 conceptual design.
18       Q.    Okay.  After the announcement of the
19   settlement agreement and the I guess execution of
20   amendment number 14, how did your focus shift with
21   respect to the incorporation of the ENR project into
22   STA-1?  What did you do?
23       A.    Well, originally we were simply looking at
24   how we might expand the ENR project by going straight
25   north.  It would result in an area not nearly

                                                 51

 1   approaching that of the, that suggested in the
 2   settlement agreement for STA-1.
 3       Q.    What do you mean by approaching an area not
 4   nearly large enough?
 5       A.    Not nearly as large as the STA-1 as stated
 6   in the settlement agreement.
 7       Q.    Which is how large, if you recall?
 8       A.    I would have to look at the document.
 9       Q.    Okay.  And what did you undertake to do
10   under that amendment?
11       A.    What we initially undertook to do under
12   amendment 14 was to simply look at the expansion of
13   the ENR project to the north, and we had just begun
14   work on that, in fact, when the settlement agreement
15   was announced.
16             The District desired in as rapid a period
17   of time as possible to have some indication of what
18   the possible cost of the facilities outlined in the
19   settlement agreement might be, so the focus of our
20   work under amendment number 14 then shifted under
21   that amendment to expansion, in essence, of the ENR
22   project to the full size of STA-1 suggested in the
23   settlement agreement.
24       Q.    Was it your understanding when you received
25   this assignment that the District didn't have any

                                                 52

 1   projections as to possible cost of expansion of the
 2   ENR into an STA-1?
 3       A.    That is my understanding.  The District was
 4   preparing, I think did attempt to prepare some
 5   estimates at the same time, in that same time, July
 6   and August.
 7             I think altogether it aggregated to some
 8   309 or 10 million dollars, but those estimates were
 9   not prepared before we started work on the
10   amendments, and I don't know that I have ever really
11   seen any documentation on those.
12       Q.    Did you work on those cost estimates?
13       A.    Not on those.  We prepared our own cost
14   estimates in association with the October 1991
15   conceptual designs.
16       Q.    Who from the District, if you know, worked
17   on those cost estimates for the District?
18       A.    I believe those estimates were prepared
19   under the direction of Dick Rogers and Ken Ammon, but
20   again, I haven't seen the estimates.  That's just my
21   belief.
22       Q.    And who at Burns & McDonnell worked on your
23   cost estimates?
24       A.    I was the project manager and primary lead
25   on that.  We do have the cost estimating department

                                                 53

 1   that provided some information to me, but -- I can
 2   give you the names of those folks if you like.
 3       Q.    Again, the scope of this cost estimation
 4   just with respect to incorporating the ENR into STA-1
 5   or increasing the size of the ENR to become an STA-1,
 6   what was it?
 7       A.    That was amendment number 14.
 8             Amendment number 15 was to prepare
 9   estimates of cost for the remaining three STAs.
10       Q.    Again, when you began your work on
11   amendment number 15, were you aware as to whether or
12   not the District had cost estimates with respect to
13   those STAs already prepared?
14       A.    The timing is pretty close.  I'm not sure I
15   knew when we started work on amendment number 15 that
16   they were preparing rough estimates, but I'm not sure
17   if they were done before we started work.  I know we
18   paid no attention to them in the conduct of the work.
19             MR. NETTLETON:  Can we take a two-minute
20        break?
21             (Thereupon, a recess was taken.)
22   BY MR. BURGESS:
23       Q.    Mr. Miller, with respect to amendment 15,
24   what was, in general, what was your assignment under
25   that amendment?

                                                 54

 1       A.    The preparation of conceptual design for
 2   STAs 2, 3 and 4.
 3       Q.    And was then amendment 14, did that include
 4   the preparation of a conceptual design for STA-1?
 5       A.    Correct.
 6       Q.    And just so I can get these documents
 7   straight in my mind and also for purposes of use as
 8   exhibits for the deposition, amendment 14's
 9   conceptual design work product was dated what, do you
10   recall?
11       A.    October of 1991.
12       Q.    Okay.  And then amendment 15?
13       A.    October of 1991.
14       Q.    Also, okay.
15       A.    Those were draft documents and never --
16   well, I guess you could say they were finally updated
17   to the March 31, 1992 document under a separate
18   contract, but those drafts were never issued in final
19   form.
20       Q.    As you commenced your work subsequent to
21   the board approval of the settlement agreement in
22   July, what documents or data were you initially given
23   by the District in conjunction with, let's start with
24   amendment 14, or if it's easier for you to answer the
25   question with respect to both amendment 14 and 15,

                                                 55

 1   that's fine.
 2       A.    Both amendments.  With respect to the
 3   documents that were issued in October of '91, we were
 4   given the settlement agreement and we were given
 5   discharge data from the primary pump stations.
 6       Q.    Is that daily, monthly, yearly?
 7       A.    Daily data.
 8       Q.    Anything else that you recall?
 9       A.    I would have to look to be sure when we
10   actually received the first data on phosphorus loads
11   and discharges.
12             When we did receive it, it was in the form
13   of monthly data for the structures.  I don't believe,
14   I'm sure that was not considered in the October '91
15   draft documents.
16       Q.    So you had the settlement agreement and
17   daily discharge data from pump stations.
18             Any other documents or data that you were
19   given by the District with respect to amendment 14?
20       A.    I do not believe there was.
21       Q.    Did you ask for any additional data or
22   documents from the District prior to finalizing your
23   draft report in October of '91?
24       A.    We received the September, I guess it was
25   '90, you corrected me, SWIM Plan, and I don't recall

                                                 56

 1   exactly whether we asked for it or it just simply was
 2   given to us.
 3       Q.    Do you know why?
 4       A.    Do I know why?
 5       Q.    It was given to you?
 6       A.    No, I can't recall.  That's about all I can
 7   recall about it.
 8       Q.    What were you told relative to the
 9   settlement agreement?
10             MR. NETTLETON:  Object to the form.
11             MS. PONZOLI:  Join the objection.
12   BY MR. BURGESS:
13       Q.    When the District gave you the settlement
14   agreement and the discharge data, what, if anything,
15   did they say with regard to utilizing either
16   settlement agreement or the discharge data in
17   responding to amendment number 14 of the contract?
18       A.    Amendment 14 and 15?
19       Q.    Yes.
20       A.    In essence, this is a settlement agreement
21   that had been negotiated, that we were in essence
22   asked to prepare a conceptual design what the
23   facilities might be and what they might cost.
24       Q.    When you say what they might be, is that
25   what they might look like conceptually?

                                                 57

 1       A.    Yes, a conceptual plan.
 2       Q.    And what, if any, understanding did you
 3   have at that time with respect to what the District
 4   knew what those STAs might look like?
 5       A.    Other than the acreage defined in the
 6   settlement agreement, not much of anything.
 7             We did have, of course, some understanding
 8   of the general configuration because of the ENR
 9   project, and so it would bear some relationship to
10   that.
11       Q.    I think you answered my question earlier
12   with respect to what the District had regarding cost,
13   and that was that you believe they had prepared some
14   estimates in July or August.  You weren't clear as to
15   the date.
16       A.    That's correct.
17       Q.    Who was it that kind of physically said
18   here is the settlement agreement and the discharge
19   data, go for it and design a conceptual plan?
20       A.    We were furnished the, a copy of the
21   settlement agreement by the engineering division of
22   the District.
23             Discharge data we were furnished by -- and
24   again, I forgot what the division of the department
25   was called at the time, but by another division of

                                                 58

 1   the District.
 2       Q.    Did you feel that you had enough data to
 3   respond and prepare this draft document in October of
 4   '91?
 5       A.    No, I'm not sure we had enough data to say
 6   we ever had enough data to do that.
 7             Our understanding to design criteria at
 8   that point was a 14-day hydraulic weir retention
 9   time, which we took to mean the flow-weighted
10   retention type.  It was necessary for us to develop
11   that document to assume if we had that detention time
12   for constraints in the ENR project system, we would
13   achieve whatever concentration results we were
14   looking for.
15             Given that, there was sufficient data to do
16   the work.
17       Q.    What concentration results were you looking
18   for?
19       A.    Well, it was again stated as the, in
20   essence, the 50 parts per billion.
21       Q.    Is it your understanding -- and that's
22   really all I'm interested in is your understanding --
23   was it your understanding that your assignment with
24   respect to both amendment 14 and amendment 15 was to
25   prepare a conceptual design of the stormwater

                                                 59

 1   treatment areas that were called for in the
 2   settlement agreement?
 3       A.    That is correct.
 4       Q.    Subsequent to your receiving this
 5   assignment and performing this work, did anyone from
 6   the District ever tell you the basis for the
 7   District's agreement to agree to the settlement
 8   agreement calling for 35,000 acres of stormwater
 9   treatment areas?
10             MS. PONZOLI:  Object to form.
11             MR. NETTLETON:  Object to form.
12             THE WITNESS:  I'm not sure I know what you
13        are asking me.
14   BY MR. BURGESS:
15       Q.    I think we have established that you were
16   aware of 75,000 acres of WMAs in the September '90
17   SWIM Plan and you became aware only days before of
18   the 35,000 acres called for in the settlement
19   agreement.
20             And since I think you have testified you
21   weren't involved in that process or either of those
22   processes, I'm asking whether subsequent to your
23   finding out about the settlement agreement and the
24   35,000 acres, did anyone at the District communicate
25   to you the basis for their agreeing to settle the

                                                 60

 1   lawsuit by signing a settlement agreement which
 2   called for 35,000 acres of constructed wetlands?
 3             MS. PONZOLI:  Objection.
 4             MR. NETTLETON:  Same objection.
 5             THE WITNESS:  No, I don't recall anyone
 6        ever discussing the basis for anything agreed to
 7        with me.
 8   BY MR. BURGESS:
 9       Q.    When you were given this assignment with
10   respect to amendments 14 and 15, did anyone at the
11   District say if you have any questions about the
12   settlement agreement, this is who you need to talk
13   to?
14       A.    No.
15       Q.    Did you have any understanding as to who
16   you -- you would go to Zan Kugler or --
17       A.    Again, the primary point of contact for all
18   of our contact with the District has been Zan Kugler,
19   and typically information would be directed through
20   him or his personnel.
21       Q.    Subsequent to your getting your assignment
22   with respect to amendments 14 and 15, did you have
23   any discussions with anyone at the District as to
24   whether any alternatives to the construction of
25   35,000 acres of constructed wetlands were considered

                                                 61

 1   during let's say the settlement agreement
 2   negotiations?
 3       A.    No.
 4             MS. PONZOLI:  Object to form.
 5   BY MR. BURGESS:
 6       Q.    Did either your original contract 3021 or
 7   amendment 14 or 15 allow you to consider alternatives
 8   to 35,000 acres of constructed wetlands?
 9             MS. PONZOLI:  Object to form.
10             MR. NETTLETON:  Same objection.
11             You can answer if you know.
12             THE WITNESS:  Okay, I get confused when I
13        hear that.
14             MR. NETTLETON:  Just so you know, when
15        someone objects to the form, it's just for
16        preserving it on the record, and you can go
17        ahead and answer if you understand the question.
18             THE WITNESS:  Okay.  Under amendments 14
19        and 15, we were pretty much ticketed with the
20        acreage.  I don't know that we looked at
21        anything of any modification of the acreage.
22   BY MR. BURGESS:
23       Q.    What do you mean, pretty much ticketed?
24       A.    We were given a settlement agreement saying
25   these are the acres involved, and we did a design

                                                 62

 1   which we thought would be the job, if you will, on
 2   that acreage.
 3             Amendment number two to the C91-2059 did
 4   allow us the flexibility to in essence calculate, if
 5   you will, effective areas which did wind up being
 6   slightly different from those in the settlement
 7   agreement.
 8             Contract C-3021 requires us to consider
 9   alternatives to the constructed wetlands.
10       Q.    Which contract?
11       A.    C-3021.
12       Q.    Does allow you or does instruct you?
13       A.    Does require me to.
14       Q.    Amendment two, I'm sorry, was signed when?
15       A.    In December of '92.
16       Q.    And what acreage is the somewhat different
17   acreage that you alluded to with respect to your
18   calculating the effective areas of treatment?
19       A.    That was in the March 31, '92 conceptual
20   design.  The exact figures escape me.  I have to look
21   at the documents.  There is a direct comparison of
22   the acreages for each STA presented in that document.
23       Q.    At what point did the concepts that have
24   been referred to as farm treatment areas and regional
25   treatment areas come into being?

                                                 63

 1       A.    While we were preparing the conceptual
 2   design, the March 31, 1992 conceptual design, the
 3   concept of the farm treatment area, if you will, was
 4   developed in January, I think it was, of 1992
 5   primarily by District engineering division personnel,
 6   but with some input from my office.
 7             Regional treatment facilities were first
 8   discussed I think at about that same point in time.
 9       Q.    And who, if you recall, was promoting that
10   that concept be looked at?
11       A.    The District engineering division.
12       Q.    What did you do with respect to examining
13   both FTAs and RTAs?
14       A.    There has been no work to this point
15   expended by our office on RTAs.  No concepts have
16   been developed.
17             Part of the reason for, again, the
18   preparation of the mapping and discharge schematics
19   on amendment number one to C-3021 is to generate data
20   to allow that be rationally done.
21       Q.    In examination of RTAs?
22       A.    Yes.  Again, it is unfortunate, but we
23   could not make that strong correlation between land
24   use and discharge characteristics.
25       Q.    Is that in fact a contemplated work step,

                                                 64

 1   continued work on RTAs at this point?
 2       A.    It's possible.
 3             Do we plan to actively pursue it?  I won't
 4   know until we see the evaluation of alternatives
 5   document being prepared by Brown & Caldwell, who does
 6   include some valuation of the different scales of the
 7   alternative treatment technologies.
 8       Q.    How about with respect to farm treatment
 9   areas?
10       A.    Could you repeat the question for me,
11   please?
12       Q.    Yes.  What was the extent of the work
13   effort of Burns & McDonnell with respect to both FTAs
14   and RTAs?
15             I think you said there has been no work
16   expended on RTAs to date.
17       A.    That is correct.  The FTAs, there was a
18   draft conceptual design document prepared by the
19   District engineering division into which we did
20   provide some technical advice and consultation, but
21   there has been no document as such or further
22   follow-up on the FTAs by Burns & McDonnell.
23       Q.    Do you know whether Brown & Caldwell are
24   looking at FTAs?
25       A.    Brown & Caldwell are required under one of

                                                 65

 1   the amendments to their contract to generate an
 2   evaluation of alternative best management practices,
 3   one of which might include concepts such as FTAs.
 4       Q.    So in your mind, is it safe to say that
 5   those concepts will get a further look by Burns
 6   & McDonnell only if they are approved pursuant to
 7   Brown & Caldwell's contract?
 8       A.    As far as approved, I'm not sure what that
 9   means.
10             If as a result of Brown & Caldwell's work
11   it appears that there is sufficient justification to
12   further pursue those or any other alternatives, they
13   will be further considered by Burns & McDonnell.
14       Q.    Was the C-3021, that was the July '91
15   contract; is that your recollection?
16       A.    That's about the right point in time.  I
17   think the first amendment of it was issued in August.
18   It may have been June of '91, but it was in early
19   summer of '91 when the contract itself was executed.
20       Q.    And was it that contract that required you
21   to consider alternatives or was it amendment two?
22       A.    I would have to look at the actual form of
23   the contract.
24       Q.    When was Brown & Caldwell selected or
25   retained to examine alternatives?

                                                 66

 1       A.    At about the same point in time as our
 2   selection for the general design memorandum.
 3             In fact, their selection for that work
 4   followed shortly by a period of weeks, just a few
 5   weeks as our selection for contract C-3021.
 6       Q.    Other than through Brown & Caldwell, has
 7   Burns & McDonnell considered any alternatives to
 8   constructed wetlands?
 9       A.    We have received a number of other
10   documents published by various parties, including
11   consulting firms working for the sugar interests,
12   vegetable growers, that we have looked at and are
13   considering, but the primary responsibilities for the
14   detailed evaluation of those alternatives lies with
15   Brown & Caldwell.
16             And we will be, subsequent to the
17   completion of their work, considering those results
18   in the overall plan formulation process.
19       Q.    Now how is that process meshing, the fact
20   that you have looked at and are considering
21   alternatives and that Brown & Caldwell is doing the
22   same thing?
23             Are you meeting with them on a scheduled
24   basis?
25       A.    We are not.  Again, the primary

                                                 67

 1   responsibility for that evaluation of alternatives
 2   lies with Brown & Caldwell.  We have received some of
 3   the same documents they have, so we have tried to
 4   become familiar with that so that we are in a
 5   position to proceed rapidly once the rest of the
 6   information is in our hands.
 7       Q.    What's your understanding as to when Brown
 8   & Caldwell will finish their evaluation?
 9       A.    A draft report on the evaluation of
10   alternatives and as well I think on the BMPs is due
11   for delivery to the District on February 18.
12       Q.    And then you anticipate that you will meet
13   with them, with Brown & Caldwell to discuss that work
14   product?
15       A.    We would meet with them to discuss the work
16   product only if there were uncertainties in our minds
17   resulting from our review of those documents.
18       Q.    What alternatives do you understand they
19   are looking at?  I'm not asking for a laundry list,
20   but just what you recall or have knowledge of.
21       A.    Again, they were tasked looking at a wide
22   variety.  There was an initial phase one evaluation.
23   I think they have reduced the list somewhat.
24             I know they are considering in their mix of
25   alternatives constructed wetlands, direct filtration,

                                                 68

 1   direct filtration perhaps followed by constructed
 2   wetlands.
 3             I think those were the three primary
 4   treatment technologies identified from the results of
 5   phase one.  They may be looking at others that I'm
 6   not sure of.
 7             Again, I'll have to wait until I see the
 8   document until I can be sure what they are looking
 9   at.
10       Q.    Are you working with them at all during
11   this phase of their work or is Burns & McDonnell
12   working with them with respect to how various
13   alternatives may fit into the STA conceptual design
14   that you did or the general design work that you are
15   now doing?
16       A.    No.
17       Q.    There is no interaction?
18       A.    No.  They are preparing their evaluations
19   and then we will incorporate the results of their
20   evaluations in the plan formulation process.  It is
21   their independent work product.
22       Q.    I'm sorry, you said you would incorporate?
23       A.    The reason the District is having this done
24   is so there is some definition of what alternatives
25   there may be in their road to desirability.

                                                 69

 1             That is the purpose for preparation of the
 2   documents by Brown & Caldwell, and we are going to be
 3   required to consider the contents of those documents
 4   in the plan formulation process.
 5       Q.    Who will make recommendations to the board
 6   concerning those alternatives?
 7       A.    I'm not sure I can answer the question just
 8   like you have asked it.
 9             Make recommendations to the board when?
10       Q.    Well, let me ask it this way.  After the
11   draft report on alternatives in BMPs is submitted on
12   February 18 by Brown & Caldwell to the District, what
13   do you understand will happen with that report and
14   any recommendations contained therein?
15       A.    Those reports, if the process is similar to
16   that it has been for everything else we have seen,
17   will be distributed to SAGE and to other interested
18   parties, and their comments on the reports requested.
19             Upon receipt of those comments, the reports
20   will be updated as necessary to properly respond to
21   the comments and reissued in final form.
22             Now whether that, whether or not that
23   involves a presentation to the board of governors, I
24   do not know.
25       Q.    Or to the governing board?

                                                 70

 1       A.    Governing board.
 2       Q.    You understand that, or do you have any
 3   understanding as to whether Brown & Caldwell's draft
 4   report or final report will make recommendations
 5   concerning various treatment technologies?
 6       A.    Oh, I would expect it would.
 7       Q.    And do you have any idea or knowledge as to
 8   who will act on those recommendations or when anyone
 9   will act on those recommendations?
10       A.    Well, I guess that would depend somewhat on
11   what the recommendations are.
12       Q.    What will Burns & McDonnell do subsequent
13   to February 18?
14       A.    We will receive the documents.  We will
15   first review those documents to make sure we
16   understand their contents and to identify any
17   questions we may have that would affect potentially
18   the recommendations or conclusions reached in those
19   documents.  That's to make sure we understand what
20   was done and the results of that analysis.
21             We will then couple the results of those
22   documents with the work we have been doing and
23   attempt to identify that possible mix of things, of
24   alternatives capable of achieving the objectives in
25   the SWIM Plan.

                                                 71

 1       Q.    That's I guess where I was going with my
 2   earlier question that I perhaps didn't communicate
 3   properly.
 4             Suppose that Brown & Caldwell make a
 5   recommendation of direct filtration to be followed by
 6   constructed wetlands.
 7             Do you immediately take that recommendation
 8   on February 18 or after a comment period, or do you
 9   take that recommendation when the report is issued in
10   final form, or do you await some action from the
11   board before you attempt to integrate the concepts of
12   direct filtration with constructed wetlands?
13       A.    We will, it would be desirable to wait
14   until all documents in this effort have been reviewed
15   and finally issued.
16             The schedule doesn't permit that.  We will
17   begin consideration of whatever recommendations they
18   make once we have them in hand and understand them
19   fully.
20       Q.    When you say begin consideration, do you
21   contemplate that although Brown & Caldwell may well
22   recommend direct filtration followed by constructed
23   wetlands, that that's something that you can reject
24   and not incorporate or recommend in your final work
25   product?

                                                 72

 1             MS. PONZOLI:  Object to form.
 2             THE WITNESS:  The work as it's been
 3        prepared by Brown & Caldwell, as I understand
 4        it, and I have seen the amendments themselves,
 5        the scopes of work attached to the amendments,
 6        considers each of these various alternatives as
 7        individual and discrete elements.
 8             Our task is to, if you will, meld or blend
 9        all the various analyses that are being
10        conducted both by Brown & Caldwell and by
11        ourselves into an overall plan.
12             And in the doing of that, we will not
13        necessarily feel constrained to select a
14        treatment technology that may be considered most
15        attractive by Brown & Caldwell unless it does
16        seem to make sense in the overall context.
17   BY MR. BURGESS:
18       Q.    Is one of the options that you are
19   considering in fact the STAs as contemplated in the
20   settlement agreement?
21             MR. NETTLETON:  Object to the form.
22             MS. PONZOLI:  Join the objection.
23             THE WITNESS:  One alternative we will be
24        considering will be the use of alternatives for
25        the SWIM Plan.

                                                 73

 1             Much of the work we have been doing under
 2        amendment number one to contract C-3021 is,
 3        again, refinement of the data and assumption
 4        analysis, if you will, that went into the
 5        March 31, '92 conceptual design, so that we have
 6        the most current definition of what those
 7        constructed wetlands might be in that
 8        evaluation.
 9   BY MR. BURGESS:
10       Q.    And is that March 31 conceptual design the
11   latest pronouncement, if you will, of Burns
12   & McDonnell on that subject of the design of the
13   constructed wetlands?
14       A.    It's the last document that defines in one
15   place what the constructed wetlands might be.
16             It will not be the last document issued by
17   Burns & McDonnell, but it is the most, it is the
18   current definition of constructed wetlands.
19       Q.    Are you presently doing work that involves
20   either moving the location of any of those four STAs
21   as contained in the March document or combining
22   either of them or some of them?
23             Is that the type of work you are doing now?
24       A.    What we are doing right now under amendment
25   number one is we have one final deliverable required

                                                 74

 1   under that amendment, and that is a technical
 2   memorandum defining, in essence, the bottom line in
 3   terms of the effective areas of STAs generated in
 4   accordance with the more recent data and analysis.
 5             At this point we are not -- for that work
 6   we are not considering other possible locations or
 7   combinations or grand alternatives to the STAs other
 8   than a refinement in their size and conceptual design
 9   to reflect the subsequent developments.
10       Q.    When do you hope to have that amendment
11   complete?
12       A.    That amendment?
13       Q.    Yes, or that one final deliverable under
14   that amendment.
15       A.    Well, again, that work is in progress now.
16   We are awaiting receipt of some additional technical
17   documentation before I feel that we can finalize what
18   we would call a draft document on that.
19             I would hope that it would be prepared and
20   made available at or, at some point in time near the
21   timing of the February SAGE meeting at the end of
22   this month.
23       Q.    What technical documents are you awaiting
24   receipt of?
25       A.    It would be, it is my understanding that

                                                 75

 1   there is an additional document being prepared that
 2   compiles the results of analyses of all available
 3   data in Water Conservation Area 2A.
 4       Q.    Compiles?
 5       A.    Yes, puts all the data together.  It's my
 6   understanding that's being prepared.  That's I guess
 7   hearsay, being prepared for the Department of
 8   Justice.  I would like to see that before we finalize
 9   the draft on this next deliverable.
10       Q.    Have you made a request for it?
11       A.    Not a formal request to the District,
12   inasmuch as they don't control that process.
13             I have indicated to technical advisors for
14   the Department of Justice that we have a desire to
15   see that information.
16       Q.    Who have you indicated that to?
17       A.    To Bob Kadlec and to Bill Walker.  And I
18   believe I stated that desire as well at the last
19   meeting of the SAGE committee.
20       Q.    And what have either Kadlec and/or Walker
21   told you?
22       A.    It was my understanding that such a
23   document was being prepared and would be available
24   imminently, but without indication of an actual date.
25       Q.    When was it indicated to you that the

                                                 76

 1   document would be available imminently?
 2       A.    Early in the month of, early January.  At
 3   that time I think it was stated within a few weeks,
 4   with no specific date given.
 5       Q.    Are there any other technical documents you
 6   are awaiting receipt or review of before you complete
 7   the final deliverable under amendment one?
 8       A.    No.
 9       Q.    Why is it important that you review this
10   particular document?
11       A.    A central element in the subject matter of
12   amendment number one is the, again, the settling
13   rate, the use of the settling rate and its numeric
14   definition.
15             It is desirable as an engineer to have the
16   most recent complete data before we issue a document
17   that is based on such a central consideration.
18             We recognize that the SAGE committee has by
19   motion at its last meeting at least adopted or at
20   least recognized the rationale behind use of a
21   settling rate and has indicated that the eight meters
22   per year is a reasonable value.
23             I won't pretend or try to restate their
24   motion.  We would like to see whatever final
25   documentation is available on that.

                                                 77

 1       Q.    Is it your understanding that this
 2   particular deliverable will address whether or not
 3   eight meters a year is in fact a reasonable or
 4   appropriate value?
 5             MS. PONZOLI:  Object to form.
 6             THE WITNESS:  It is necessary for us in the
 7        preparation of that document to use a value.
 8             To this point, the eight meters per year
 9        would appear to be the most reasonable value
10        available, from the various analyses of the data
11        we have seen, but again, we understand that this
12        final document will include compilation of all
13        available data into an analysis, and we would
14        like to see that before we take a position.
15   BY MR. BURGESS:
16       Q.    Do you have any understanding as to how
17   that data will be compiled?  When you say it will be
18   a compilation of all available data, what exactly is
19   the --
20       A.    Well, there have been dated generated by
21   the District, by the Department of Justice, by Duke
22   University, by Ramish Reddy, by a variety of sources
23   for a variety of clients, if you will.
24             And it's my understanding that there is
25   under way an attempt to consider all available data,

                                                 78

 1   not just data that resulted from a particular source,
 2   and analysis of the settling rate in Water
 3   Conservation Area 2A.
 4       Q.    I think you said earlier that 3021 requires
 5   you to consider alternatives, and my question would
 6   be whether under 3021 Burns & McDonnell is itself
 7   doing any works or tasks which are alternatives to
 8   managed or constructed wetlands.  Not Brown &
 9   Caldwell, Burns & McDonnell.
10       A.    We are required to consider alternatives
11   under amendment number two in the plan formulation
12   phase.
13             We are not presently developing an
14   evaluation of alternatives.
15       Q.    But you anticipate that you will be upon
16   receipt of the Brown & Caldwell report?
17       A.    That's correct.
18       Q.    Nor are you is it proper or correct to say
19   engaged in any design work for alternatives to
20   managed or constructed wetlands?
21       A.    Not to this point.  We will be engaged in
22   conceptual design of alternatives within the overall
23   context of the EAA under amendment number two, but
24   that work has not begun as yet and cannot begin until
25   we receive at least the draft documents on the

                                                 79

 1   detailed evaluations.
 2       Q.    And I don't mean to repeat myself, but
 3   again, so that I am clear and the record is clear,
 4   with respect to Burns & McDonnell being engaged in
 5   conceptual design of alternatives after the Brown &
 6   Caldwell report, is it your understanding that
 7   immediately upon issuance of the final report, you
 8   will begin that conceptual design, or are you charged
 9   now to begin that upon receipt of the February 18
10   report?
11       A.    I am charged to have completed the plan
12   formulation process by the June '93 board meeting.
13       Q.    But you are going to meet, regardless?
14       A.    Which requires me that as soon as I have
15   something that appears usable in hand to begin
16   considering it.  So we will not be waiting until
17   those documents are finalized.
18       Q.    Nor will you, is it correct, be waiting for
19   any affirmative board action with respect to an
20   affirmance of the recommendations in Brown & Caldwell
21   or rejection of those recommendations?
22       A.    I don't believe that there is intended a
23   need for board action on those alternatives.
24             I believe these documents were originally
25   intended to provide technical input into the plan

                                                 80

 1   formulation process and would not in and of
 2   themselves be of a form suitable for requesting
 3   approval of the board.
 4             It may be that with the recommendations
 5   contained therein would require some board action, I
 6   don't know.  Again, it depends on the
 7   recommendations.
 8       Q.    Is it only the recommendations or
 9   recommendation for which you will be preparing a
10   conceptual design?
11       A.    No, we will consider -- again, I'm
12   speculating.  I don't know what the document is going
13   to look like even, but we will be considering all the
14   information contained therein and we will be
15   attempting to structure large scale alternatives, if
16   you will, or different concepts for the EAA employing
17   mixes of technologies and probably based on what
18   would appear to be the most suitable or desirable
19   technologies outlined in those documents.
20       Q.    Again, so that's your understanding, you
21   don't need only to consider what Brown & Caldwell
22   might recommend, but you also could conceivably
23   prepare a conceptual design of alternative
24   technologies which they in their documents have
25   rejected?

                                                 81

 1       A.    That is conceivable.
 2       Q.    And who will make the decision as to --
 3       A.    What we consider?
 4       Q.    Yes.
 5       A.    I will.
 6       Q.    Okay.  And will you also make the decision
 7   with respect to what will be conceptually designed?
 8       A.    Yes, in terms of I will make that decision
 9   potentially after consultation with some of the more
10   senior members of our firm for additional technical
11   guidance, but in terms of directing our work effort,
12   those are decisions I will make.
13       Q.    Will the conceptual design be similar in
14   scope and completeness to the conceptual design which
15   you did for the STA?
16             MR. NETTLETON:  Object to the form.
17   BY MR. BURGESS:
18       Q.    Do you understand what I mean?
19       A.    I think so.  Are we looking for thumbnail
20   sketches?
21       Q.    Yes.
22       A.    The District will require from us a fairly
23   complete definition of what it is we are talking
24   about.
25             In other words, we are not going to be able

                                                 82

 1   to do things in a rudimentary form.  It is going to
 2   have to be fairly with the level of detail we have
 3   seen previously with the STAs.
 4       Q.    So it will be similar to the level --
 5   that's the word I guess I was searching for -- to the
 6   STAs?
 7       A.    That's correct.
 8       Q.    Do you anticipate devoting 100 percent of
 9   your professional time to these tasks between now and
10   June of '93?
11       A.    No, I couldn't say 100 percent, because I
12   do have other responsibilities, but I would expect to
13   be well over, well over 80 percent.
14             And the longer it takes to get some of
15   these documents, the higher the percentage is going
16   to get.
17       Q.    Do you have a certain drop-dead date on
18   which if you don't receive the document from the
19   Department of Justice, you are going to go ahead and
20   complete amendment number one?
21       A.    I have not tried to set such a date in my
22   own mind, but I am feeling a need to complete that
23   work.
24       Q.    Is there a due date for amendment one?
25       A.    There is a due date, and that document is

                                                 83

 1   now overdue.
 2       Q.    When was it due?
 3       A.    I do not recall.  It's stated in the
 4   amendment.
 5       Q.    Is the only reason it is overdue is because
 6   of lack of receipt of the document from the
 7   Department of Justice?
 8       A.    No.  This document builds upon the various
 9   other documents.  The technical memoranda prepared
10   under amendment number one, the schedule established
11   for amendment number one did encompass or envision a
12   two-week review period by all parties of draft
13   documents and our receipt of their comments so we
14   could then update and issue the documents in final
15   form.
16             In fact, only one of the technical
17   memoranda in the amendment has been issued in final
18   form, that being the memorandum on discharge data.
19   We are still awaiting receipt of comments on
20   phosphorus loads, on best management practices, the
21   distribution of spatial and temporal reductions.
22             In essence, we are delayed as a result of
23   extended review periods by the various agencies and
24   parties who are reviewing these documents.  We are
25   proceeding with the preparation of this final

                                                 84

 1   technical memoranda based on data presented in draft
 2   documents, which makes me somewhat nervous, but
 3   again, waiting for the final information given the
 4   extended review period is not a luxury I have.
 5       Q.    The final deliverable which you are going
 6   to issue under amendment one, is that going to be
 7   issued in draft form for a comment period or is that
 8   going to be issued in --
 9       A.    It will be issued in draft form, as all the
10   other documents.  Upon receipt of comments, it will
11   be issued in final form, as will be hopefully the
12   other documents.
13       Q.    Is there a set comment period that you have
14   observed or that the District has observed between
15   the submission of your draft documents and the
16   preparation of a final report?
17       A.    The contract amendment, and I'm working
18   from memory here, I think typically would allow a
19   two-week review period by the District, SAGE,
20   whoever, and then typically a two-week period for our
21   preparation of the final document in response to
22   those comments.
23             That again, the detailed schedule on that
24   is stated in the memoranda.  I think that could be
25   consistent with it.

                                                 85

 1       Q.    Do you have a target date with respect to
 2   that draft final deliverable?
 3       A.    Again, I would hope that we would have that
 4   prepared on or about the end of this month, but we
 5   have not set a final date for its delivery.
 6       Q.    Okay.  Are there any outstanding materials
 7   or receivables under 3021, not of the amendments, but
 8   3021 that you are aware of?
 9       A.    There is no defined deliverables or
10   detailed scope of work, if you will, under contract
11   C-3021.  It defines the general nature of the general
12   design process and specifically states that all
13   actual items of work would be included in subsequent
14   amendments.
15       Q.    And any other deliverables other than the
16   reports you are waiting for from the Department of
17   Justice under amendment one?
18             MR. NETTLETON:  Object to the form.
19             MS. PONZOLI:  Join the objection.
20             THE WITNESS:  You may have to restate that,
21        because their report is not one of my
22        deliverables.
23   BY MR. BURGESS:
24       Q.    Okay, I'm sorry, I think it's clear that
25   under amendment one you said you have one final

                                                 86

 1   deliverable in draft form that's yet required under
 2   that amendment and that it's overdue.
 3             My question to you is whether under
 4   amendment one you are awaiting receipt of any other
 5   information from any other party or parties prior to
 6   finalizing any deliverables required under that
 7   amendment.
 8       A.    We are awaiting receipt of either comments
 9   or indication that there will be no comments on
10   everything but the discharge memoranda.
11       Q.    I'm sorry, the discharge tech memo is the
12   one that hasn't been delivered yet?
13       A.    It has been delivered in final form.  The
14   other documents have been delivered, remain in draft
15   form.  We have not been authorized to finalize those
16   and have not received written comments on those
17   documents.
18             Oh, there is one other, I keep forgetting.
19   The report prepared by Nolte and Associates under
20   contract 3021 has been issued in final form as well.
21       Q.    From who do you receive or would you expect
22   to receive authorization to issue these various
23   technical memos in final form?
24       A.    The District's engineering division.
25       Q.    Is that through Zan Kugler?

                                                 87

 1       A.    Yes.
 2             MR. BURGESS:  I'm at a natural break going
 3        into another subject area, so if you want to
 4        break for lunch, we come back at 1:00.
 5             (Thereupon, a luncheon recess was taken.)
 6   BY MR. BURGESS:
 7       Q.    Okay, Mr. Miller, have you had any
 8   conversations with District personnel regarding scope
 9   of the testimony that you might be called upon to
10   give at the trial of this matter?
11       A.    The basic definition that was given to me
12   was that I would be asked to testify relative to the
13   engineering methodology employed for the design of
14   STAs and for the consideration of alternatives.
15       Q.    Who did you have those conversations with
16   and when?
17       A.    It was not actually a conversation.  It
18   came to me in the form of correspondence from the
19   District's offices of counsel.
20       Q.    Have you had any conversations with them in
21   follow-up nature as to what this includes or doesn't
22   include?
23       A.    I had some discussions yesterday morning I
24   think with Paul representing the District to make
25   sure I understood what it was I would be asked to

                                                 88

 1   testify relative, and that's been about it.
 2       Q.    Have you discussed specific opinions that
 3   you have with respect to the scope of your testimony
 4   as you have defined it that are final as you sit here
 5   today?
 6       A.    No.
 7       Q.    Do you know whether you have any final
 8   opinions as you sit here today with respect to the
 9   scope of your testimony?
10       A.    No, I can't say that I do.
11       Q.    Is it fair to say that the work that you
12   have identified this morning in response to my
13   questions is work of the nature that you will
14   complete and that is or could be used to form a basis
15   for the opinions that you will give at the time of
16   trial?
17             MS. PONZOLI:  Object to form.
18             THE WITNESS:  Yes.  Again, in terms of the
19        opinions I will be asked to give at the time of
20        trial, I'm not sure what those are, but the
21        basis for any opinion I may generate will be the
22        work we discussed this morning.
23   BY MR. BURGESS:
24       Q.    That is ongoing and not yet complete?
25       A.    That is correct.

                                                 89

 1       Q.    Since August of 1992, how much of your time
 2   have you spent in Kansas and how much have you spent
 3   in Florida?
 4       A.    Oh, I don't know.  At most I'd say, and it
 5   varies from month to month, depending upon how many
 6   SAGEs there have been, that sort of thing, but
 7   perhaps 15 to 20 percent of my time has been spent in
 8   South Florida.
 9             MR. BURGESS:  I show you what we'll mark as
10        Exhibit 1 --
11             (The document was marked
12             Miller Exh. No. 1.)
13   BY MR. BURGESS:
14       Q.    -- and ask you if you can identify that
15   document.
16       A.    Yes.  This was delivered to me by -- it's a
17   copy of I guess what you might call a subpoena for
18   this hearing, for this process.  It was delivered to
19   me by facsimile transmission roughly a week ago, I
20   think.
21       Q.    Is that the first time you saw it?
22       A.    That is correct.
23       Q.    Did you review it when you received it?
24       A.    I did.
25       Q.    Did you discuss it with anyone at the

                                                 90

 1   District?
 2       A.    I discussed with Ruth Clements of the
 3   office of counsel the documents which should be
 4   produced for inspection.  They had furnished me a
 5   listing of those documents they had identified, and I
 6   added some additional documents to that list.
 7             We also discussed the location of the
 8   deposition, which was stated in the document as being
 9   in Overland Park, Kansas, and was subsequently
10   changed to here.
11             MR. NETTLETON:  Okay.  I show you what
12        we'll mark as Exhibit 2 --
13             (The document was marked
14             Miller Exh. No. 2.)
15   BY MR. BURGESS:
16       Q.    -- and ask if you can identify that
17   document.
18       A.    This would appear to be a listing of
19   documents that had been furnished to me with the
20   facsimile transmission of the subpoena, if in fact
21   that's the right term for this.
22       Q.    Notice.
23       A.    Notice.
24       Q.    You received this listing at the same time
25   you received the notice?

                                                 91

 1       A.    That is correct.
 2       Q.    Do you know who put the listing together?
 3       A.    I do not.  It was furnished by the office
 4   of counsel.
 5       Q.    Did office of counsel tell you what it
 6   represented?
 7       A.    It represented, in her explanation, those
 8   documents as near as they could tell that comprise a
 9   complete listing of the documents requested in the
10   notice.
11             MS. PONZOLI:  I'd like a copy of those
12        attached to my deposition in full, please, since
13        I don't have the particular Exhibit Number 2.
14   BY MR. BURGESS:
15       Q.    Can you review Exhibit 2 and tell us
16   whether or not that document contains those documents
17   which you have testified you had added to the list?
18       A.    It will take a few moments to look through
19   it.
20       Q.    Okay.
21       A.    It does not appear as though additional
22   documents are listed here.
23       Q.    How many such additional documents do you
24   recall telling Ms. Clements about?
25       A.    There would have been the various technical

                                                 92

 1   memoranda we described this morning that were
 2   prepared under amendment number one to contract
 3   C-3021, with the possible exception of the final
 4   draft of the Nolte report, which I don't recall if
 5   that was in this list or not.
 6             There was a publication or paper that had
 7   been prepared by Dr. Kadlec at Michigan concerning
 8   the, in essence the compilations and previous
 9   publications concerning form of equations or analysis
10   for use such as in situations as we have here.
11             There was also a copy of our subcontract
12   with Nolte and Associates and pertaining
13   correspondence between our office and Nolte and
14   Associates that was on that list.  And I believe that
15   to be all of it.
16       Q.    Do you have any knowledge as to whether or
17   not the documents depicted on Exhibit 2 were in fact
18   provided to the Florida Sugar Cane League or any of
19   my other clients or to me?
20       A.    Certain of the documents I know have been
21   pursuant to requests for access to the public
22   documents, but I do not know that all of these have.
23       Q.    Where do you maintain your files with
24   respect to the various contracts we spoke about this
25   morning?

                                                 93

 1       A.    In Overland Park, Kansas.  The official
 2   contract files as such are maintained in Kansas City,
 3   Missouri, but I maintain copies of my own in my
 4   office.
 5       Q.    Are they basically duplicate copies of
 6   what's in Kansas City?
 7       A.    The Kansas City, Missouri office has just
 8   the contracts themselves.  The balance would be in
 9   Overland Park.
10       Q.    Are duplicates of the files that you
11   maintain in Overland Park maintained at the District?
12       A.    They are not.  I don't know what files they
13   maintain, but they are not duplicates of my files.
14       Q.    Did you review any of the District files in
15   responding to Exhibit Number 1?
16       A.    I did not.
17       Q.    Did anyone from the District review any of
18   your Overland Park files in responding to Exhibit
19   Number 1?
20       A.    No.
21       Q.    Did you review your Overland Park files in
22   responding to Exhibit Number 1?
23       A.    I did.
24       Q.    What type of files in general did you
25   review?

                                                 94

 1       A.    My correspondence files.  I have maintained
 2   separate files for each of the various amendments for
 3   each contract we have done for the District.  So I
 4   did review those in the time made available to me to
 5   see what items were missing from this overall list.
 6       Q.    Are there files that you have yet to
 7   review?
 8       A.    There are not.
 9       Q.    Were any of those or any documents that you
10   located in those correspondence files subsequently
11   produced to Ruth Clements?
12       A.    The contract with or subcontract with Nolte
13   & Associates and the correspondence was delivered to
14   Ruth Clements on Thursday of last week, I think it
15   was.
16             The other documents identified had
17   previously been delivered to the District.  The other
18   documents, there was one additional document
19   delivered to Ms. Clements, and that was the paper by
20   Dr. Kadlec.
21       Q.    What type of data do you maintain in
22   computer form with respect to, let me limit my
23   question to contract 3021, amendments 1 and 2 and
24   amendments 14 and 15?
25             MR. NETTLETON:  Object to the form.

                                                 95

 1             THE WITNESS:  The type of data that we
 2        maintain in computer form, of course, we have
 3        the original data that was furnished to us by
 4        the District and we also have data that was
 5        generated by us in the various analyses reported
 6        in the technical memoranda.
 7   BY MR. BURGESS:
 8       Q.    With respect to your latter grouping there,
 9   data generated by you, does the District maintain
10   duplicate copies of that data that you generate?
11       A.    Only in certain instances.  We do not
12   furnish all data we generate to the District.  There
13   are occasions in which, say any models we may
14   prepare, those are furnished to the District, as well
15   as data that was employed in the operation, if you
16   will, of those models.
17             I think that's about as clear as I can
18   answer.
19       Q.    In reviewing both Exhibits 1 and 2, did you
20   provide to Ruth Clements any data maintained on disk
21   in your offices in Overland, Kansas?
22       A.    We did not.
23       Q.    Did you make a decision whether it was or
24   was not called for by the scope of the notice?
25       A.    The original data furnished by the District

                                                 96

 1   I believe to be available through the District.
 2             As far as the data we have generated and
 3   not delivered to the District, I did not consider
 4   that to be germane, to be called for by the notice.
 5       Q.    Did you have discussions with Ms. Clements
 6   about whether or not that data was called for by the
 7   notice?
 8       A.    No, we did not.
 9       Q.    So you made the determination that it
10   wasn't germane?
11       A.    Their calculations.  When I say data, it's
12   not original data.  It's just results of
13   calculations.
14       Q.    If the District asked you for that, would
15   you deliver it to them?
16       A.    Yes.
17       Q.    Is it your testimony that the District has
18   copies of all computer models that you prepared
19   relative to your work on either the ENR or the STA
20   projects and any amendments thereto?
21       A.    The conceptual design done in 1989 for the
22   ENR project did include a model, if you will, that I
23   don't believe was ever delivered to the District, and
24   I'm not sure we could even produce it now.
25             There is, of course, with work we have in

                                                 97

 1   progress additional models being developed and
 2   generated which are not finalized yet and as a result
 3   are not available.
 4             Other than that, all models which have been
 5   prepared by Burns & McDonnell have been delivered to
 6   the District.
 7       Q.    Let me ask you to refer to numbers eight
 8   and nine in Exhibit Number 1, which I think
 9   encompassed settlement agreement documents or
10   settlement agreement negotiation.
11       A.    Could you say that again?
12       Q.    Sure, number eight and nine.
13             MR. NETTLETON:  I just object for the
14        record to any questions dealing with the
15        settlement agreement and incorporate by
16        reference our previous motions relating to that.
17   BY MR. BURGESS:
18       Q.    Did you have any documents encompassed by
19   numbers eight and nine?
20       A.    Let me read this again.
21       Q.    Sure.
22             MS. PONZOLI:  I'm going to join the
23        objection, but I think the witness has already
24        indicated he didn't participate in the
25        settlement negotiations.

                                                 98

 1             THE WITNESS:  No, we have no documents.  We
 2        have nothing which predated the settlement
 3        agreement itself and we had no participation in
 4        the negotiations.
 5   BY MR. BURGESS:
 6       Q.    Okay.  Who are Nolte -- is it and
 7   Associates or is it Nolte Associates?
 8       A.    Nolte and Associates, a consulting
 9   engineering firm based primarily in California with
10   multiple offices.  They have some offices outside
11   that state.  The work done for us under subcontract
12   was prepared in their Sacramento, California, office.
13       Q.    How did they come to be involved as a
14   subcontractor to Burns & McDonnell?
15       A.    In the response to the CCNA advertisement
16   for contract C-3021, we did submit a statement of
17   qualifications, as did other firms, and we were
18   ranked after the District review of those
19   qualifications and subsequent oral interviews as a
20   first-ranked firm.
21             However, in the negotiation of the
22   agreement, it was expressed to us as a concern that
23   we did not have adequate nationally-recognized
24   experts, if you will, in wetlands design represented
25   on our project team.

                                                 99

 1             It was in response to that identified
 2   weakness during the contract negotiation that we then
 3   subsequently contracted through Nolte and Associates,
 4   and in particular Ron Crites of that firm, for the
 5   formation of a Technical Advisory Panel and the
 6   conduct of peer review of the conceptual design.
 7       Q.    Was it made a part of your contract or any
 8   amendment that such a peer review process would be a
 9   part of the work that you performed under the
10   contract?
11       A.    That was included in amendment number one
12   to the contract.
13       Q.    Did you interview other firms to act as
14   potential peer reviewers?
15       A.    We did not.
16       Q.    Were you familiar with Nolte from other
17   work?
18       A.    From other contacts, and we were also
19   familiar with certain of the members of the Technical
20   Advisory Panel that was formed by Nolte.
21       Q.    Did you personally know Ron Crites?
22       A.    I did not personally know him, no.
23       Q.    Had you worked with Nolte and Associates
24   before?
25       A.    I had not.

                                                 100

 1       Q.    Had Burns & McDonnell?
 2       A.    There had been association, but the details
 3   of it, I don't know.
 4       Q.    How did they come to be selected?
 5       A.    They were suggested or recommended to us, I
 6   guess first by Sherwood Reed.
 7       Q.    Who is he?
 8       A.    He is a member of the Technical Advisory
 9   Panel who we did have some contact with, who acts as
10   a private consultant, as an individual consultant.
11             We were aware of Ron Crites with Nolte and
12   Associates due to the previous publications in the
13   field.
14       Q.    Crites' publication?
15       A.    Yes.
16       Q.    Do you know when Nolte was brought aboard
17   as a subcontractor?
18       A.    That would have been in May of '92; again,
19   prior to the actual execution of the contract.
20       Q.    How were you familiar with Sherwood Reed?
21       A.    We had pursued some work in Missouri and
22   had attempted to use -- he had been subcontractor to
23   us for that work.  We were unsuccessful in obtaining
24   what we went after, but that's where we first met
25   Sherwood Reed.

                                                 101

 1       Q.    Did you contact him specifically with
 2   reference to possibly serving on some Technical
 3   Advisory Panel?
 4       A.    I did.
 5       Q.    Were you personally familiar with either
 6   Bob Gearheart or Ray Krone?
 7       A.    No.
 8       Q.    How about George Tchobanoglous?
 9       A.    I knew of him, but not personally.
10       Q.    Procedurally how did this process get
11   started?  Were there meetings, telephone calls?
12       A.    Telephone -- well, the first contact was a
13   telephone call between myself and Ron Crites in which
14   I asked -- well, after Sherwood Reed had suggested
15   him to me, because Sherwood Reed had been involved
16   with us in the original submittals to the District
17   and in the presentation, if you will, for the
18   contract.
19             But again, given the District's desire to
20   strengthen that national level of involvement, if you
21   will, we found it necessary to expand from a single
22   member to a panel.
23             Sherwood had suggested Ron Crites, who we
24   were familiar with, who we knew of, so we contacted
25   Ron and as a result of that discussion decided that

                                                 102

 1   the best contractual vehicle for such a panel would
 2   be through Nolte & Associates, because they had
 3   associated with these various individuals in the
 4   past.
 5             Following initial contact, Nolte and
 6   Associates did prepare a brief statement of their
 7   qualifications, as well as the summation of the TAP,
 8   Technical Advisory Panel, that was submitted to the
 9   District and accepted.
10       Q.    Were all of the proposed members of TAP
11   subsequently approved?
12       A.    Yes, there were no additions and no
13   subtractions.
14       Q.    Did you interv