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 No.
6 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT ) 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 No.
11 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT ) 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 No.
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT ) 92-3040
17 DISTRICT, an agency of the State )
of Florida; et al., )
18 Respondents. )

19

20 Deposition of Cal Neidrauer

21 Taken before Elaine V. Williams,
Professional Reporter and Notary Public in and for
22 the State of Florida at large, pursuant to notice of
taking deposition filed by the Petitioners in the
23 above cause.
- - -
24 Monday, June 28, 1993
319 Clematis Street, 5th Floor
25 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
9:20 a.m. - 3:25 p.m.
 2

1 APPEARANCES:
2 On behalf of the Petitioners Sugar Cane Growers
Cooperative, Roth Farms, Inc., and Wedgworth
3 Farms, Inc.:
Hopping, Boyd, Green & Sams
4 123 S. Calhoun Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32314
5 By: GARY V. PERKO, ESQUIRE

6 On behalf of the Petitioners Florida Sugar
Cane League, Inc., United States Sugar Corp.,
7 and New South Hope, Inc.:
Peeples, Earl & Blank, P.A.
8 One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3636
Two South Biscayne Boulevard
9 Miami, Florida 33131
By: MARK KOBELINSKI, ESQUIRE
10
On behalf of the Respondent SFWMD:
11 Popham, Haik, Schnobrich & Kaufman, Ltd.
100 Southeast Second Street
12 Miami, Florida 33131
By: DANIEL J. McGRATH, ESQUIRE
13
On behalf of the Intervenor, United States of America:
14 Department of Justice
155 South Miami Avenue
15 Miami, Florida 33130
BY: THOMAS A.W. FITZGERALD, ESQUIRE
16

17
- - -
 3

1 - - -
2 I N D E X
3 - - -
4
5 WITNESS: DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS
6 Cal Neidrauer
7
BY MR. PERKO: 4
8 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 103

9

10 - - -
11 E X H I B I T S
12 - - -
13 NUMBER PAGE NO. DESCRIPTION
14 EXB. NO. 1 8 Notice of Depo. Duces Tecum

15 EXB. NO. 2A 29 Lower East Coast Water
Supply Plan Working Document
16
EXB. NO. 2B 29 Appendices for Working Document
17
EXB. NO. 3 32 Preliminary Draft Report
18
EXB. NO. 4 32 Witness' resume'
19
EXB. NO. 5 35 8/22/91 memo to Obeysekera
20 from Neidrauer

21 EXB. NO. 6 63 Excerpt from 3/13/92 SWIM
Plan Appendices
22
EXB. NO. 7 76 SWIM Plan Appendices
23
EXB. NO. 8 81 3/10/92 SAGE meeting transcript
24
EXB. No. 9 98 1/21/92 memo to Obeysekera
25 from Fink
 4

1 P R O C E E D I N G S
2 - - -
3 Thereupon,
4 Cal Neidrauer,
5 being by the undersigned Notary Public first duly
6 sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
7 THE WITNESS: I do.
8 DIRECT (Cal Neidrauer)
9 BY MR. PERKO:
10 Q. Could you please state your name and
11 business address for the record?
12 A. My name is Cal Neidrauer, I work for the
13 South Florida Water Management District, 3301 Gun
14 Club Road in West Palm Beach.
15 Q. Mr. Neidrauer, my name is Gary Perko. I am
16 an attorney with Hopping, Boyd, Green & Sams in
17 Tallahassee. I am here on behalf of the Sugar Cane
18 Growers Cooperative, Roth Farms and Wedgworth Farms,
19 Incorporated as part of the ongoing administrative
20 challenge of the Everglades SWIM Plan.
21 I am here today to ask you a series of
22 questions about knowledge that you have relating to
23 the issues in this case. If for any reason you don't
24 understand my question, I urge you to let me know and
25 I'll try to rephrase it so you understand it;
 5

1 otherwise, I'll assume that you knew what I meant and
2 we'll go on.
3 If at any time you feel like you need a
4 break or to get a drink of water, fresh air or
5 anything, just let me know and we'll take a break.
6 With that being said, have you ever been
7 deposed before, sir?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Okay. Have you ever testified in an
10 administrative or judicial proceeding?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Okay. Mr. Neidrauer, what is your current
13 position at the South Florida Water Management
14 District?
15 A. I am currently a supervising professional
16 civil engineer.
17 Q. Who is your direct supervisor, sir?
18 A. It would be Ken Ammon.
19 Q. What division do you work at?
20 A. Lower District planning.
21 Q. Is Mr. Ammon the division director?
22 A. No, he is not.
23 Q. Who is the division director?
24 A. That would be Larry Pearson.
25 Q. What is Mr. Ammon's title?
 6

1 A. Same as mine.
2 Q. Do you supervise anyone else? Who do you
3 supervise?
4 A. Four engineers in the division.
5 Q. What are their names?
6 A. Ray Santee, Paul Trimble, Lehar Brion, and
7 the last one is real tough one, it is -- I can't
8 spell his first name -- he goes by Kris, his first
9 name, K-r-i-s, and Krisnon (phonetic) is his last
10 name.
11 Q. Does Shawn Sculley work in your division?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Does he work for the District?
14 A. No.
15 Q. He used to work for the District, though;
16 is that correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. When did he leave?
19 A. Sometime in the fall of '92. October,
20 November.
21 Q. I believe you stated that your current
22 position is supervising professional engineer; is
23 that correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. What are your responsibilities, sir?
 7

1 A. Primarily to oversee and coordinate
2 activities related to regional modeling for the Lower
3 East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan.
4 Q. When you say "regional" -- I'm sorry --
5 "regional modeling," what are you specifically
6 referring to?
7 A. Well, primarily the use of regional tools
8 that the District has developed and modification of
9 those tools. They are large scale regional
10 hydrologic models.
11 Q. And how many models do you actually use as
12 part of your duties for the District?
13 A. Two.
14 Q. What are those?
15 A. The South Florida Water Management Model
16 and the South Florida Regional Routing Model.
17 Q. Is that also referred to as the Pot model?
18 A. Used to be.
19 Q. Not anymore?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Do you use any other models, sir?
22 A. Not for regional scale water resources
23 evaluation.
24 Q. Okay.
 8

1 (The document was marked
2 Petitioner's Exb. No. 1.)
3 BY MR. PERKO:
4 Q. Mr. Neidrauer, let me show you what has
5 been marked as Neidrauer Exhibit 1. Do you recognize
6 this document, sir?
7 A. I have seen something similar to this, if
8 not this document.
9 Q. Do you recall reviewing a list of documents
10 requested on page 5 under Documents to be Produced?
11 A. Yeah, I have seen this.
12 Q. For the record, Exhibit 1 is the notice of
13 taking deposition dated June 21, 1993; is that
14 correct?
15 MR. McGRATH: Obviously, the document
16 speaks for itself, so if that's what the
17 document is, that's what the document is.
18 BY MR. PERKO:
19 Q. Let's go through the list of documents to
20 be produced beginning on page 5, sir. Item number
21 one requests "production of all documents relating to
22 computer modeling performed or planned to estimate
23 the effects of phosphorus reduction alternatives
24 considered in the development of the Settlement
25 Agreement SWIM Plan, or draft interim permit on
 9

1 hydroperiods within A, Everglades Agricultural Area;
2 B, Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge; C, Water
3 Conservation Areas 2A, 2B, 3A and 3B; and D,
4 Everglades National Park." If you refer to the
5 definitions under Schedule A, the term "phosphorus
6 removal alternatives" includes Best Management
7 Practices, Stormwater Treatment Areas, or STAs, and
8 Water Management Areas.
9 Mr. Neidrauer, to your knowledge, have all
10 documents relating to computer modeling performed or
11 planned to estimate the effects of these phosphorus
12 alternatives on hydroperiods within the listed areas
13 been produced in connection with this deposition or
14 previously?
15 MR. McGRATH: Cal, before you answer that
16 question let me just, for the record, refer
17 counsel to a document that's dated -- or served
18 March 19, 1993. It is the pleading called
19 "Respondent South Florida Water Management
20 District's response to Petitioner's Sugar Cane
21 Growers Cooperative of Florida, Roth Farms,
22 Incorporated, and Wedgworth Farms,
23 Incorporated's second Request for Production of
24 Documents." Again, that was served March 19th
25 of '93. The document production request that I
 10

1 just referred to is virtually identical to the
2 duces tecum attached.
3 MR. PERKO: Counsel, I am familiar with
4 that document and I am trying to inquire about
5 the witness' knowledge about what documents were
6 produced, and I think if you'll review the
7 notice duces tecum, there are additional matters
8 that were not covered in that document; the
9 prior document request.
10 MR. McGRATH: Right. But I am saying that
11 the District, and as representing the District,
12 the District has responded and produced
13 documents except for those additional documents
14 that we have brought with us today, counsel.
15 BY MR. PERKO:
16 Q. Okay. Mr. Neidrauer, referring your
17 attention back to item number one, to your knowledge,
18 have all documents related to computer modeling
19 performed or planned to estimate the effects of
20 phosphorus reduction on hydroperiod within the listed
21 areas been produced?
22 A. To my knowledge, I think they have.
23 Q. Okay. To your knowledge, what documents
24 would be included within this request?
25 A. What documents would be included?
 11

1 Q. What documents are responsive to this
2 request?
3 A. The primary information deals with the work
4 that was done in February and March of 1992 to
5 evaluate the preliminary impacts of the proposed
6 Stormwater Treatment Areas on hydroperiods and the
7 conservation areas.
8 Q. Okay. Are you referring to the materials
9 produced in connection with your March 1992
10 presentation to the Scientific Advisory Group for the
11 Everglades?
12 A. That is correct.
13 Q. Okay. And what specific documents were
14 included within those materials, if you recall?
15 A. Boy. I believe there is a set of color
16 maps indicating a summary of some of the model output
17 that compared base line with a proposed STA
18 alternative.
19 MR. PERKO: Okay. Counsel, we did not
20 receive those maps.
21 BY MR. PERKO:
22 Q. Did you bring them with you to the
23 deposition today?
24 A. No.
25 MR. PERKO: Okay. We would request copies
 12

1 of those maps.
2 BY MR. PERKO:
3 Are there any other documents that you
4 recall in connection with that March 1992
5 presentation?
6 A. The computer code and output files. Those
7 things were requested by our Office of Counsel and
8 given to them.
9 Q. On diskette?
10 A. On diskette. I am assuming that those
11 things were presented to you all.
12 Q. When you say computer code; output files as
13 well or input files?
14 A. I'm not sure exactly what we gave you --
15 it's been a while -- but I think the whole thing was
16 requested. I think.
17 Q. Do you recall any raw output from that
18 modeling effort?
19 A. I'm not sure I understand what you are
20 saying.
21 Q. Well, maybe we can get into this later, but
22 exactly what output did you obtain when you ran that
23 model back in March of 1992 or thereabouts?
24 A. There is a big variety of different types
25 of output that are produced by the model.
 13

1 Q. How is that produced? Is it on hard copy?
2 A. Initially in electronic form and then it
3 can be printed on hard copy.
4 Q. Do you recall if any of the output
5 resulting from those modeling runs performed in or
6 about March of 1992, do you recall if any of that
7 output was indeed printed?
8 A. Some of it was for the presentation that
9 was made in March '92.
10 Q. Do you recall specifically what output was
11 printed?
12 A. The hydroperiod maps I mentioned.
13 Q. That's direct output from the model?
14 A. No, it is not.
15 Q. So there would be some interim step?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And what would you first receive from the
18 model as far as output?
19 A. A series of electronic files in binary
20 format.
21 Q. Would those be presented?
22 A. No, they would be -- we used a series of
23 utilities to process the binary information to
24 eventually get it into the map format.
25 Q. By "series of utilities," you mean computer
 14

1 programs?
2 A. Uh-huh.
3 Q. Okay.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. What would come after the use of these
6 series of utilities? What is the next step in the
7 process?
8 A. Typically it is an evaluation of the
9 results.
10 Q. What type of evaluation is performed or was
11 performed in that case?
12 A. The results are usually analyzed as to
13 whether they make sense intuitively, a few basic
14 checks, conservation of mass and reasonableness,
15 overall reasonableness of results.
16 Q. Once you evaluate the results of that
17 process, what is the next step or was the next step
18 in this case?
19 A. In this case, the next step was to put
20 together the presentation that was made to SAGE.
21 Q. And that presentation included the
22 hydroperiod maps that you referenced earlier?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Was there any other model output that you
25 put together in connection with that presentation?
 15

1 A. Other than the maps?
2 Q. Exactly.
3 A. There might have been some water level
4 hydroperiod graphic comparisons that were prepared
5 and presented also.
6 Q. Okay. Anything else?
7 A. I am trying to remember. I don't think so.
8 I think that was it.
9 Q. Okay. Mr. Neidrauer, are you aware of any
10 other computer modeling performed or planned to
11 estimate the effects of phosphorus reduction
12 alternatives on hydroperiods within listed areas
13 other than the March 1992 presentation that you
14 referred to earlier?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. What other computer modeling has been done?
17 A. Well, it is hot off the press. It was just
18 done in the last month. To evaluate the effects of
19 the most recent conceptual design.
20 Q. When you say "hot off the press," when was
21 that done?
22 A. Last week. But it is a preliminary draft
23 at this point in time.
24 Q. Did you bring that with you to the
25 deposition?
 16

1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Did you actually perform that modeling
3 effort?
4 A. I was part of the team.
5 Q. Who else was part of that team?
6 A. Ray Santee and Tommy Strowd.
7 Q. How do you spell Strowd?
8 A. S-t-r-o-w-d.
9 Q. Who requested you to perform that analysis?
10 A. Tony Federico.
11 Q. And when did Mr. Federico or did
12 Dr. Federico request you to do that?
13 A. I can't remember the exact day. It was
14 sometime in late May.
15 Q. Other than the March 1992 presentation and
16 this most recent hot off the press modeling, are you
17 aware of any other modeling efforts to determine
18 potential effects of phosphorus reduction
19 alternatives on hydroperiods within listed areas?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Let's move on to item number two then.
22 This requests all documents relating to computer
23 modeling performed or planned to estimate the effects
24 of phosphorous reduction alternatives considered in
25 the development of the Settlement Agreement, SWIM
 17

1 Plan, or draft interim permit on phosphorus loads to
2 the same listed areas. Are you aware of any computer
3 modeling to determine the effects of phosphorus
4 reduction alternatives on phosphorus loads to the
5 listed areas?
6 A. No.
7 Q. None whatsoever?
8 A. None.
9 Q. In your experience with the District, sir,
10 have you ever performed computer modeling of
11 phosphorus loads?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Is it fair to say that your experience has
14 been limited to hydrologic modeling as opposed to
15 water quality modeling?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Does anyone else at the District perform
18 water quality modeling?
19 A. I don't know.
20 Q. Who would you ask to determine whether such
21 modeling has been or is being performed?
22 A. I'd probably talk to friends in research
23 first.
24 Q. Who might that include?
25 A. Probably Jayantha Obeysekera.
 18

1 Q. Anyone else?
2 A. Tom Fontaine.
3 Q. Okay. Moving on to item number three, this
4 requests all documents relating to computer modeling
5 performed or planned to estimate the effects of
6 phosphorus reduction alternatives on phosphorus
7 concentrations in inflows to the listed areas that we
8 have discussed previously. Were you aware of any
9 such computer modeling to estimate the effects of
10 phosphorus reduction alternatives on phosphorus
11 concentrations?
12 A. No.
13 Q. If you were to inquire as to whether such
14 modeling has been performed, would you ask the same
15 individuals that you have referenced previously?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Dr. Obeysekera and Dr. Fontaine?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Moving on, item number four requests all
20 documents relating to computer modeling performed or
21 planned to estimate the effects of phosphorous
22 reduction alternatives on volumetric flows to the
23 listed areas. Are you aware of any computer modeling
24 that has been done or is planned to determine the
25 effects of phosphorous reduction alternatives on
 19

1 volumetric flows to those areas?
2 A. Other than what we talked about under item
3 one, I'm not.
4 Q. So that would include the March 1992
5 presentation as well as the most recent modeling
6 efforts; is that correct?
7 A. I think so.
8 Q. Moving on to item number five, all
9 documents relating to computer modeling performed or
10 planned to estimate the effects of phosphorous
11 reduction alternatives on water balances for the
12 listed areas. Do you recall any computer modeling
13 done to estimate the effects of phosphorous reduction
14 alternatives on water balances?
15 A. No.
16 Q. None whatsoever?
17 A. Huh-uh.
18 Q. Who would you ask to determine whether such
19 modeling has been done?
20 A. I'd probably ask the same two individuals I
21 mentioned earlier as well as Tony Federico.
22 Q. That would include Dr. Obeysekera,
23 Dr. Fontaine and Tony Federico?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Moving on to item number six, it requests
 20

1 copies of all user manuals, instructional materials,
2 source codes, executable files and data files for
3 each computer model utilized in modeling activities
4 encompassed by items one through five above. Have
5 all those responsive materials been produced, sir?
6 A. To my knowledge, yes.
7 Q. What user manuals currently exist relating
8 to the models that you have used in those two
9 presentations?
10 A. No user manuals exist for the two models.
11 Q. What about instructional materials?
12 A. There's two technical publications, one for
13 each -- the Regional Routing Model and the South
14 Florida Water Management Model -- that were published
15 by the District in the early to mid '80's.
16 Q. That would be technical publication 84-3
17 for the South Florida Water Management Model; is that
18 correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And technical publication 86-3 for the
21 routing model; is that correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And have either of those two publications
24 been updated, to your knowledge?
25 A. No, they have not.
 21

1 Q. Are there any memoranda or similar
2 documents that list updates that have been performed
3 on those models, to your knowledge?
4 A. There was a memorandum that was put
5 together in, I think, 1990 having to do with the
6 recalibration of the water management model.
7 Q. Anything else, to your knowledge?
8 A. Nothing comes to mind.
9 Q. Moving on to item number seven, which
10 requests all documents relating to efforts to
11 calibrate each computer model utilized in modeling
12 activities encompassed by items one through five
13 above, including but not limited to all documents
14 reflecting the results of such efforts and all data
15 files utilized in such efforts, to your knowledge,
16 sir, have all documents responsive to this request
17 been produced?
18 A. Yeah, I think so.
19 (Discussion held off the record.)
20 BY MR. PERKO:
21 Q. Mr. Neidrauer, we were discussing item
22 number seven, and I believe you testified that all
23 responsive documents have been produced; is that
24 correct?
25 A. To my knowledge, yes.
 22

1 Q. What documents have been produced in
2 response to this request, to your knowledge?
3 A. The technical publications that you
4 mentioned, 84-3 and 86-3.
5 Q. Okay.
6 A. I believe the calibration memo I mentioned,
7 the recalibration memo, was submitted, and I think we
8 were also asked to submit the source code for the
9 water management model.
10 Q. Do you recall if the source code has been
11 updated or revised subsequent to the version that you
12 produced to us?
13 A. Yes, it has.
14 Q. Is that an ongoing effort?
15 A. Yes, it is.
16 Q. What version of the model did you produce
17 to us?
18 A. It was a version that existed prior to
19 formal source code control, so it didn't have a name.
20 It is a version that existed prior to version 1.1.
21 Q. What is the current version of the model?
22 A. 1.1.
23 Q. Other than the technical publications, the
24 source code and the memorandum regarding the
25 recalibration effort that you referenced, do you
 23

1 recall any other documents responsive to item number
2 seven?
3 A. I don't think so.
4 Q. Has the model been recalibrated since the
5 recalibration effort referenced in that memorandum?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Moving on to item number eight, which
8 requests all maps and coordinate designations for all
9 grid points used in each computer model utilized in
10 modeling activities encompassed by items one through
11 five above, to your knowledge, sir, have all
12 documents responsive to this request been produced?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And what documents would that include?
15 A. That would include primarily the electronic
16 output from the model runs that were done in March
17 '92.
18 Q. And by "electronic output," do you mean
19 something that was stored on computer diskette?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And that has been produced, sir?
22 A. It is my understanding it has, yes.
23 Q. Are you aware of any maps or coordinate
24 designations for grid points of those models that
25 exist on hard copy form?
 24

1 A. The maps, yes, but the coordinate
2 designations, no. I would like to make a comment on
3 that, if I could.
4 Q. Sure.
5 A. We receive all our information requests
6 from our Office of Counsel.
7 Q. I see.
8 A. And what they do with electronic versions
9 as far as producing hard copies of selected files, it
10 is beyond my knowledge --
11 Q. Okay.
12 A. -- of which hard copies they produce.
13 Q. Let me ask you this: Would there be any
14 hard copies of this information which reflect
15 information that is not provided on computer
16 diskette?
17 A. I don't think so.
18 Q. Is the model output that you provided to us
19 in binary form?
20 A. Some of it.
21 Q. What portions of it are in binary form?
22 A. All the model information, time series
23 model information for water levels, ponding depths,
24 groundwater and surface water flow, rainfall,
25 evapotranspiration.
 25

1 Q. Did you produce the utility programs that
2 were used that you mentioned previously?
3 A. I don't think so.
4 Q. What programs do you use?
5 A. They are all developed in-house and they
6 have various names.
7 Q. Do you recall what those names are?
8 A. Yeah. There is hydroperiod utility, and a
9 lot of the utilities are through the geographic
10 information system package that I'm not completely
11 aware of because of my lack of complete understanding
12 of GIS.
13 Q. Is that an arc info system?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Is there a utility for volumetric flows?
16 A. I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
17 Q. Maybe I don't understand what I mean. I
18 believe you stated previously that you run the model,
19 receive certain input, and then you run certain
20 utilities to compile that information to a different
21 format; is that a correct understanding?
22 A. Uh-huh.
23 Q. And some of the utilities that you use are
24 hydroperiod utilities, and that results in
25 hydroperiod maps, for example; is that correct?
 26

1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Is that utility that you use in order to
3 compile information relating to volumetric flows?
4 A. You mean with respect to things like water
5 balances; that sort of thing?
6 Q. Yeah.
7 A. Yeah, there is a utility that was written
8 to generate water budgets.
9 Q. Does that have a name, sir?
10 A. Yeah, it is called Water Management Model
11 Water Budget, or WMMWBUD.
12 Q. Do the utility programs translate binary
13 information into flows and depths?
14 A. Some of them do.
15 Q. Would the WMMWBUD translate binary
16 information to that sort of format?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Moving on then to item number nine on page
19 8 of Exhibit No. 1, it requests all documents that
20 describe or explain the contents of data files
21 produced in response to items six and seven above,
22 including but not limited to all documents that
23 describe or explain A, ID keys or abbreviations used
24 in such files; B, types of data contained in such
25 files; C, units of data, e. g. cfs, milligrams per
 27

1 liter, acre-feet, et cetera; D, sources of data
2 contained in such files; and E, distinctions between
3 raw, averaged, interpolated, or similar data
4 contained in such files. Do you know, sir, if all
5 documents responsive to this request have been
6 produced?
7 A. I think they have, and I think the
8 technical publications explain most of that.
9 Q. That would be technical publications 84-3
10 and 86-3?
11 A. Primarily the former.
12 Q. 84-3?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Are there any additional documents that
15 describe this type of information listed in item
16 number nine?
17 A. Not that I am aware of.
18 Q. Moving on to item number eight, which
19 requests all documents that describe or explain the
20 file structure (e. g. file type, field length, field
21 position, et cetera) of data files produced in
22 response to items six and seven above, do you recall
23 if all documents responsive to this request have been
24 produced?
25 A. Yeah. Yeah. Yes, they have, in the same
 28

1 context that the previous item, the technical
2 publications, explains those things.
3 Q. Okay. Item number nine requests a copy of
4 your current resume'; curriculum vitae, or similar
5 document. Did you bring one of those with you to the
6 deposition with you?
7 A. Yes.
8 MR. McGRATH: I have a copy right here.
9 MR. PERKO: Thanks.
10 BY MR. PERKO:
11 Q. Item number ten requests all documents and
12 data relied upon in developing the historical water
13 budgets set forth in Appendix C to a draft Lower East
14 Coast Regional Water Supply Plan, including but not
15 limited to annual water budgets for the parameters
16 indicated. Did you produce those documents, sir?
17 A. This is the first time I have seen this
18 request.
19 Q. Is that something you could produce to us,
20 sir?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. How long would it take you to compile that
23 information?
24 A. Not long. I mean, primarily we are talking
25 about the water management model water budget program
 29

1 and the data files. That's, you know, an hour's
2 worth of work.
3 MR. PERKO: Okay. Counsel, we would
4 request that information.
5 BY MR. PERKO:
6 Q. Item number 11 requests all documents and
7 data reviewed or relied upon in preparing Section
8 VII.C of the Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply
9 Plan, Draft Working Document, pages VII-58 through
10 60. Do you recall if all documents responsive to
11 this request have been produced?
12 A. Section C? Oh. Oh, yeah, I think they
13 have.
14 Q. Do you recall --
15 MR. McGRATH: I was going to say, counsel,
16 if you have got a copy of the document being
17 referred to, that might assist in refreshing the
18 witness' recollection.
19 MR. PERKO: Mark this, please.
20 (The document was marked
21 Petitioner's Exb. No. 2A and B.)
22 BY MR. PERKO:
23 Q. Mr. Neidrauer, I refer your attention to
24 what has been marked Exhibit Number 2 to this
25 deposition. Do you recognize this document, sir?
 30

1 A. Yes, I do.
2 Q. What is that document?
3 A. That's the appendices for the Working
4 Document in support of the Lower East Coast Regional
5 Water Supply Plan.
6 MR. PERKO: Actually, why don't we mark
7 this 2A and B.
8 BY MR. PERKO:
9 Q. Mr. Neidrauer, if you could, please refer
10 your attention to Exhibit Number 2A.
11 A. Okay.
12 Q. Do you recognize this document, sir?
13 A. Yes. This is the Working Document in
14 support of the Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply
15 Plan.
16 Q. Okay. And then 2B, do you recognize that
17 document?
18 A. That's the appendices for the same report.
19 Q. Let me refer your attention to page VII-58
20 of the Working Document, Exhibit 2A.
21 A. Okay.
22 Q. This is the material referenced in item 11
23 of the Notice Duces Tecum, Exhibit Number 1. To your
24 knowledge, sir, have all documents and data reviewed
25 or relied upon in preparing item VII.C on pages
 31

1 VII-58 through 60, have those documents been
2 produced, sir?
3 A. To my knowledge, yes.
4 Q. What would those documents include?
5 A. The same things that we talked about in the
6 early part of this session; the technical
7 publications for the model, the model code and the
8 graphics that were used in the March '92
9 presentation.
10 Q. Anything else, sir?
11 A. No.
12 Q. If we could, sir, I believe you mentioned
13 that you brought additional materials with you to
14 this deposition. If you could identify those for me,
15 please?
16 A. Yeah. Draft Report -- Preliminary Draft
17 Report. It's not been reviewed yet. I wanted to add
18 that caveat.
19 Q. Okay.
20 A. It is efforts recently completed to
21 simulate the hydrologic impacts of the most recent
22 conceptual design.
23 MR. PERKO: Okay. Why don't we mark this
24 as Exhibit Number 3.
 32

1 (The document was marked
2 Petitioner's Exb. No. 3.)
3 BY MR. PERKO:
4 Q. Mr. Neidrauer, I show you what has been
5 marked as Exhibit Number 3. Is that the document
6 that you just referenced; the Draft Report?
7 A. Yes, it is.
8 Q. Okay. Did you bring anything else with
9 you, sir, to this deposition?
10 A. No.
11 MR. PERKO: Okay. Let me mark this Exhibit
12 Number 4.
13 (The document was marked
14 Petitioner's Exb. No. 4.)
15 BY MR. PERKO:
16 Q. Mr. Neidrauer, I show you what has been
17 marked as Exhibit Number 4 to this deposition. Do
18 you recognize that document?
19 A. Yes. It is my resume'.
20 Q. Is that a current copy of your resume',
21 sir?
22 A. Yes, it is.
23 MR. PERKO: Could we take a little break?
24 (Thereupon, a recess was taken.)
 33

1 BY MR. PERKO:
2 Q. Mr. Neidrauer, I would like to ask you a
3 couple of questions about the South Florida Water
4 Management Model. First of all, could you explain to
5 me briefly how the model is structured?
6 A. No, I can't explain briefly.
7 Q. It is my understanding that it is on a grid
8 system; is that correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And what is the size of the grid?
11 A. Two miles by two miles.
12 Q. Okay. What is the purpose of the model,
13 sir?
14 A. The purpose of the model, as is mentioned
15 in the technical publication 84-3, is to be able to
16 evaluate, on a regional scale, changes to structural,
17 or operational changes, or structural or operational
18 changes to the system as to their hydrologic impacts
19 on the region.
20 Q. And when you say "hydrologic impacts," what
21 do you mean?
22 A. Water levels, discharges at the primary
23 water control structures.
24 Q. Anything else?
25 A. That's primarily it.
 34

1 Q. When you say discharges -- strike that.
2 Does the model simulate flows at the S-10
3 structures --
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. -- or does model input?
6 A. It does both. It is user's choice.
7 Q. One or the other; correct?
8 A. That is correct.
9 Q. Is the same true for flows at the S-11s and
10 S-12s?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. I believe you stated, sir, that there are
13 currently modifications being performed on South
14 Florida Water Management Model; is that correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. What sort of modifications are currently
17 being conducted?
18 A. We are modifying the way the model
19 estimates demands in the lower east coast developed
20 area.
21 Q. What do those modifications entail?
22 A. The creation of an unsaturated zone in the
23 lower east coast developed area to be able to
24 estimate the irrigation requirements by use type.
25 Q. Are there other modifications currently
 35

1 being undertaken or planned?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Including?
4 A. Modifications to make the model easier to
5 use, primarily; make some of the hard coded data,
6 bring that out into data files so that it can be more
7 of a data driven model than it currently is.
8 Q. Am I correct in understanding that the
9 model is run on a main frame computer?
10 A. It is run on a work station.
11 Q. A work station?
12 A. Uh-huh.
13 Q. Are any modifications to the model's
14 algorithms currently being conducted or planned?
15 A. Other than the lower east coast developed
16 area that I just mentioned, no.
17 Q. Have there been recent changes to the ET
18 algorithms; evapotranspiration, that is?
19 A. Not since the model was recalibrated.
20 Q. And you are referring to the recalibration
21 that you previously mentioned?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Let's mark this Exhibit 5.
24 (The document was marked
25 Petitioner's Exb. No. 5.)
 36

1 BY MR. PERKO:
2 Q. Mr. Neidrauer, I refer your attention to
3 what has been marked as Exhibit 5 to this deposition.
4 Do you recognize this document, sir?
5 A. Yes, I do.
6 Q. What is it?
7 A. It is an internal memorandum documenting
8 the effort to recalibrate the South Florida Water
9 Management Model.
10 Q. I believe you previously testified that you
11 thought this recalibration effort occurred in 1990.
12 Does this document refresh your recollection as to
13 the date?
14 A. Yes, it does. It was '91.
15 Q. August 22, 1991?
16 A. That's when this memorandum was developed.
17 Q. Okay. And you're an author of this
18 memorandum; is that correct, sir?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. This copy of the memorandum is stamped a
21 draft. Do you recall if a final version of the
22 memorandum has been prepared?
23 A. Let me take a look at it. No, there wasn't
24 anything beyond this.
25 Q. Okay. I believe you previously testified
 37

1 that there has been no subsequent recalibration
2 effort.
3 A. Not yet.
4 Q. Is there one planned?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. When will that be conducted?
7 A. This fall.
8 Q. Will you be involved in that recalibration
9 effort?
10 A. Yes, I will.
11 Q. What will that entail?
12 A. After the changes, as I mentioned earlier,
13 with respect to Lower East Coast Area are made, there
14 will be a series of tests that will be performed, and
15 parameter values will be recalibrated.
16 Q. Mr. Neidrauer, if I could refer your
17 attention to page number 3 of the document, under the
18 subheading C: Changes slash improvements made to the
19 SFWMM, if you could, sir, review those changes, my
20 question is have there been any additional changes to
21 the model other than the changes to the lower east
22 coast demand projections that you previously
23 mentioned beyond what is listed in this document?
24 A. Okay. Certainly, additional topographic
25 information has been collected. We are trying to use
 38

1 the best available information that is out there --
2 Q. Okay.
3 A. -- for this next recalibration.
4 Q. And so additional topographic information
5 since this 1991 memorandum?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And that has been included into the model,
8 sir?
9 A. Not yet.
10 Q. Has not?
11 A. Not.
12 Q. When do you anticipate that topographic
13 information?
14 A. Before we recalibrate this fall.
15 Q. Okay. Where was that topographic -- or how
16 was that topographic information obtained, from whom,
17 or did the District collect it?
18 A. The District collected part of it in the
19 area between C-111 and the Everglades National Park.
20 I think the Park had a survey done also that we are
21 trying to get that information for the panhandle area
22 of Everglades National Park incorporated into the
23 model, as well as a recent survey that was done by
24 Loxahatchee Refuge to get that information into the
25 Water Conservation Area 1 portion of the model.
 39

1 Q. Okay. Do I understand you correctly to say
2 that you have not yet obtained additional topographic
3 information from the Refuge?
4 A. We have that.
5 Q. You do have that?
6 A. Yeah. It just hasn't been put into the
7 model yet.
8 Q. Does that information encompass the entire
9 Refuge?
10 A. Yes, it does.
11 Q. Have you received the additional
12 information from that Everglades National Park?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. For the eastern panhandle of the Park?
15 A. Uh-huh, yes.
16 Q. You have received that information?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. If I could refer your attention to item
19 C1-B, have there been any other changes beyond what
20 is listed in this document to the land use data for
21 the lower east coast?
22 A. No, there haven't.
23 Q. Okay. What about item C1-C, hydraulic
24 conductivity?
25 A. No, there have been no changes.
 40

1 Q. Have there been any changes to item C1-D,
2 model canal parameters?
3 A. No. We may review some of these things
4 before we recalibrate again, but to date there have
5 not been any changes.
6 Q. When will you begin this additional input
7 and recalibration effort?
8 A. Depends on the outcome of mediation, I
9 think. Our plans were to begin it in August.
10 Q. Of 1993?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Okay. Referring your attention to item C2
13 under Time Series Data, this document states that,
14 "Rainfall and flow data sets were extended from 1985
15 through 1989. Some missing flow data was estimated."
16 My question is, have additional rainfall and flow
17 data been extended beyond 1989, to your knowledge?
18 A. Yes, they have.
19 Q. And has that been inputted into the model?
20 A. Not yet, actually.
21 Q. What additional rainfall and flow data do
22 you anticipate inputting into the model?
23 A. Calendar year 1990.
24 Q. Anything beyond 1990?
25 A. No.
 41

1 Q. And that will be done as part of the
2 ongoing recalibration effort?
3 A. That's right.
4 Q. Okay. Item C2-B references "40 additional
5 monitoring points and 17 additional canal stage
6 points." Are you aware of any additional monitoring
7 points or canal stage points that have been inputted
8 into the model?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Are there any plans to?
11 A. There are plans to survey and to take as
12 much available information as there is to recalibrate
13 the model this next go round.
14 Q. I take it then that the District will be
15 reviewing what information is in the model and what
16 additional information it has to determine if there
17 is anything else that could be inputted into the
18 model.
19 A. Yeah, that's a fair assessment.
20 Q. And that will be performed as part of the
21 recalibration effort that's currently proposed for
22 August of this year?
23 A. Right.
24 Q. Okay. Item C2-C references "monthly pan
25 evaporation data for each of the model's 15 rainfall
 42

1 basins." Beyond what is referenced in this
2 memorandum, sir, do you recall if any additional pan
3 evaporation data has been inputted into the model?
4 A. In the same context that the rainfall and
5 flow data has been undated for calendar year 1909,
6 pan evaporation data has also been expanded to 1990.
7 Q. Has that been inputted into the model yet?
8 A. The data set has been created, but no model
9 runs have been made yet.
10 Q. Okay. Moving on to item C3, A references
11 that, "The ET algorithm was modified to base ET
12 computations on pan evaporation data. This algorithm
13 was adopted from the Natural System Model," or NSM.
14 I believe you have testified that there have been no
15 changes to the ET since their recalibration efforts
16 of 1991; is that correct?
17 A. Yeah, for the version 1.1 of the model,
18 which is the existing version, there hasn't been any
19 changes to the algorithm.
20 Q. Do you anticipate any changes being
21 performed?
22 A. Not to the natural system areas. The lower
23 east coast algorithms are being changed to better
24 estimate the ET in the lower east coast developed
25 area.
 43

1 Q. You mentioned the natural systems areas.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. What are you referring to when you say
4 that?
5 A. Primarily the Everglades, the water
6 conservation areas, Everglades National Park.
7 Q. So when you say the natural systems areas,
8 you mean those ares in the context of the South
9 Florida Water Management Model as well as the Natural
10 Systems Model; is that correct?
11 A. Yes, that is correct. "Natural" meaning
12 not affected by human activities to the degree that
13 the lower east coast developed areas are.
14 Q. Okay. Moving back to item C2-C, you
15 mentioned the model's have 15 rainfall basins.
16 A. Uh-huh.
17 Q. Are those rainfall basins documented in a
18 publication or memorandum?
19 A. I am trying to think. I don't think they
20 are in technical publication 84-3. They may be in a
21 Draft Report that the Everglades National Park put
22 together on an evaluation of the Natural System Model
23 version 3.4.
24 Q. Do you recall the date of that Draft
25 Report?
 44

1 A. I think that was sometime in the beginning
2 of '92.
3 Q. Do you recall any other documentation of
4 those 15 rainfall basins?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Moving on to item C3-B, "Regression
7 equations, based on a flownet analysis for the
8 two-dimensional finite element model SEEPN, were
9 added to more accurately estimate the seepage beneath
10 the eastern WCA levees from S-5A to S-335, and the
11 seepage beneath L-31N from S-335 to S-176." Other
12 than the change that's referenced in item 3B, are you
13 aware of any additional changes to the regression
14 equations?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Are there any planned?
17 A. We will probably look at those in the
18 recalibration effort this fall.
19 Q. Moving on to item C3-C on page 4, it states
20 that, "A new algorithm was developed to calculate the
21 volume of water needed to maintain the lower east
22 coast service area canals at desired minimal levels.
23 Additional code was added to more appropriately route
24 water supply needs through the canal system." Beyond
25 what is explained in item C3, are you aware of any
 45

1 new algorithms or additional code that has been added
2 to the model?
3 A. No. No additional code has been added with
4 respect to this.
5 Q. Any plans to add additional code?
6 A. It will be reviewed and evaluated, and, if
7 necessary, additional code will be added.
8 Q. Are there any plans to update technical
9 publications 84-3, to your knowledge?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. When is that anticipated?
12 A. It has not been defined yet.
13 Q. Okay. Who would be responsible for that
14 project?
15 A. I don't think the responsibility aspect has
16 been defined yet, but more than likely it would be
17 myself.
18 Q. Okay. If I could, sir, refer your
19 attention to bates page 9615 of Exhibit Number 5, it
20 is at the bottom --
21 A. I like your page numbering. That's neat.
22 Here we go. Okay.
23 Q. What does this chart reflect, sir?
24 A. I don't know yet. It is a comparison
25 between the computed values that the model yields
 46

1 versus historical, but I'm not sure exactly what it
2 is comparing at this point. It looks like --
3 MR. McGRATH: Remember, don't speculate.
4 If you know, you know; if not, just let them
5 know that you don't know.
6 THE WITNESS: Okay. I don't know at this
7 point, without looking further.
8 BY MR. PERKO:
9 Q. When you say computed levels versus
10 historical, do you mean model simulated versus
11 observed data?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Let me ask you this: Is the model capable
14 of simulating flow data for the structures that
15 discharge from the EAA into the WCAs?
16 A. The model does simulate discharges from the
17 EAA to the conservation areas.
18 Q. Has there been an effort to compare
19 simulated values for those parameters with observed
20 values?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Is that reflected in this document, sir?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Okay. Do you recall what the results were?
25 A. No, I don't.
 47

1 Q. Is there any documentation of that effort?
2 A. No.
3 Q. So it is simply comparison of electronic
4 data on a computer screen?
5 A. Yeah.
6 Q. Okay. What kind of deviation between
7 simulated and observed data do you consider
8 acceptable?
9 A. I don't have any set standards for that.
10 Q. Well, when you are comparing such data as
11 part of a recalibration effort, what criteria would
12 you use to determine whether additional calibration
13 was needed?
14 A. It depends what we are looking at. If we
15 are looking at stages, there would be a visual
16 comparison of observed to computed water levels. And
17 if the timing and the trends are similar and the
18 deviations between observed and computed are not
19 excessive, then that would be the assessment that the
20 calibration is reasonable.
21 Q. What about for simulated versus observed
22 flow data?
23 A. I haven't actually been involved with those
24 actual comparisons to be able to say what the
25 criteria is.
 48

1 Q. Who would be involved in that?
2 A. That would be Ray Santee and Lehar Brion.
3 Q. Drawing your attention back to page 3 of
4 this Exhibit Number 5, sir, item C3 mentions that,
5 "The ET algorithm was modified to base ET
6 computations on pan evaporation data," and it says,
7 "This algorithm was adopted from the Natural System
8 Model"; citing Perkins and MacVicar, 1991. Are the
9 changes in the ET algorithms documented in Perkins
10 and MacVicar, 1991?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. So that would contain the current ET
13 algorithms; is that correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. "That," meaning Perkins and MacVicar, 1991?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Have there been any changes in how the
18 model treats canal flow since 1984?
19 A. How the model treats canal flow? I'm not
20 sure I understand.
21 Q. Canal flow in terms of internal time step.
22 A. Since 1984?
23 Q. Yes, sir.
24 A. I don't recall.
25 Q. Have there been any changes in the area
 49

1 simulated by the model since 1984?
2 A. No, the model demand has stayed the same.
3 Q. Have there been any changes regarding canal
4 or structure operations since 1984?
5 A. I'm sure there have been, but I'm not aware
6 of the specifics.
7 Q. Do you recall any documentation of changes
8 of that type?
9 A. No, I don't.
10 Q. Mr. Neidrauer, does the South Florida Water
11 Management Model contain assumptions regarding
12 aquifer depths?
13 A. Surficial aquifer depths, yes.
14 Q. And how were those aquifer depths
15 determined?
16 A. From -- I don't know. That was done in the
17 original development of the model back in the early
18 '80's or late '70's.
19 Q. Who developed models originally?
20 A. Tom MacVicar, Tom Valante, and Al Castro.
21 Those are also the same three guys that are coauthors
22 on the 84-3 technical publication.
23 Q. Okay. Does the model contain assumptions
24 regarding seepage for the levees contained within the
25 simulation area?
 50

1 A. Yes, it does.
2 Q. How were those assumptions determined?
3 A. Let me refer you back to Exhibit 5 that we
4 were talking about. I'm looking for the section that
5 discusses the SEEPN model.
6 MR. McGRATH: Page 3.
7 BY MR. PERKO:
8 Q. C3-B perhaps?
9 A. Yes, that's it. That's basically it.
10 There was a separate analysis done with this finite
11 element model, and the corresponding regression
12 equations were developed to estimate the more
13 localized seepage that occurs across the levee
14 section.
15 Q. So am I correct in understanding then that
16 the seepage terms are simulated, as opposed to
17 observed data?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Do you know if any documentation of the
20 flownet analysis referred to in item C3-B is
21 available at the District?
22 A. I think there was an internal memorandum
23 that was put together documenting that analysis.
24 Q. Do you recall the author of that
25 memorandum?
 51

1 A. I think it was Lehar Brion.
2 Q. Do you recall the approximate date?
3 A. It would have been before this memo was put
4 together. It must have been sometime during the
5 summer of 1991.
6 Q. Okay. I believe you testified earlier that
7 as part of the recalibration effort currently planned
8 for August of this year, you intend to most likely
9 look at the seepage assumptions again.
10 A. Uh-huh.
11 Q. But - --
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. -- since 1991 you have not re-evaluated
14 those seepage assumptions; is that correct?
15 A. That is correct.
16 Q. Mr. Neidrauer, how is rainfall determined
17 for each of the models?
18 A. There are 15 rainfall basins in the model,
19 and each basin represents an arithmetic average of
20 the selected rainfall gauges that fall within that
21 basin.
22 Q. Are those averages weighted?
23 A. No. They are arithmetic.
24 Q. How does the model calculate east coast
25 water demands during a particular simulation?
 52

1 A. The water demands in the east coast are the
2 deliveries from the primary water supply structures
3 that are needed to maintain the canals at minimal
4 levels.
5 Q. And how were those determined?
6 A. The minimal levels?
7 Q. Uh-huh.
8 A. The operational policies that our
9 operations people use for maintaining those canals
10 are the same ones used in the model.
11 Q. Are those documented?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. How are they documented?
14 A. Let's see. I have seen the previous
15 analysis that the water management model was used for
16 and the list of assumptions, I have seen tables that
17 display the operational levels for those canals, but
18 I don't recall those documents off the top of my
19 head.
20 Q. Who would you look to if you were wanting
21 to obtain that information?
22 A. Ray Santee.
23 Q. Mr. Neidrauer, are you familiar with what I
24 have heard termed the seven mile gap between the Big
25 Cypress and WCA 3A?
 53

1 A. Yes.
2 Q. How is that area addressed in the model?
3 A. It's in an effort to simulate the overland
4 flow that occurs through that area. There is no
5 restriction on the movement of surface water from the
6 Big Cypress Basin into Conservation Area 3A; through
7 that gap.
8 Q. Is there observed data available for that
9 period?
10 A. Not that I am aware of.
11 Q. So it is all simulated?
12 A. Yes. The model simulates the flow through
13 that area.
14 Q. Okay. How is the model calibrated for that
15 area?
16 A. I don't recall if there is a water level
17 recorder near that area or not. If there is, then
18 the water levels were matched. The simulated versus
19 historical water levels were matched.
20 Q. Mr. Neidrauer, if I could refer your
21 attention to Exhibit 2A to the Working Document for
22 the Lower East Coast Water Supply Plan, I refer your
23 attention to page V-2.
24 MR. McGRATH: Gary, can you repeat that?
 54

1 BY MR. PERKO:
2 Q. V-2. The paragraph that begins about the
3 middle of the page under Performance Measure Number
4 1, the last sentence, or the second-to-last sentence
5 of that paragraph refers to a -- or states that, "The
6 District is currently working with the University of
7 Maryland Center for Environmental and Estuarine
8 Studies to develop an Everglades Landscape Model to
9 provide better measures of health for the Everglades.
10 However, this model will not be available in time to
11 be incorporated into this water supply plan." Do you
12 know what the status of the Everglades Landscape
13 Model is?
14 A. I don't know the recent status of that.
15 Last status that I heard has been probably six months
16 ago, and at that point in time they were saying it
17 would be five years before they would have a
18 landscape model developed.
19 Q. And what is the purpose of the landscape
20 model, to your knowledge?
21 A. So simulate the complex relationships
22 between water quantity, water quality and vegetation.
23 Q. Are there plans to incorporate the South
24 Florida Water Management Model into the Everglades
25 Landscape Model?
 55

1 A. There was some discussion at one time about
2 using parts of the water management model to
3 establish boundary conditions for the landscape
4 model, but I'm not sure what their recent status is.
5 Q. Mr. Neidrauer, let me ask you what is your
6 role in the -- or what was your role in the Lower
7 East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan?
8 A. Well, primarily, to prepare background
9 information that was used for Chapter VII of the
10 Working Document.
11 Q. Did you have any other input into this
12 document?
13 A. I had some input at, I guess you would call
14 it, the consulting level.
15 Q. I notice on the second page of the document
16 that you are listed as a principal author. Did you
17 specifically draft any portions of the document?
18 A. All of Chapter VII.
19 Q. All of Chapter VII?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Did you draft any other portion of the
22 document?
23 A. There might have been some sections in
24 Chapter -- I'm not even sure which chapter it is --
25 that deal with the computer models.
 56

1 Q. What is the purpose of the Lower East Coast
2 Water Supply Plan?
3 A. Well, in a nutshell, it is basically to
4 assess the projections of future growth and the
5 corresponding increases in water demands, and to try
6 to look at those increases in a comprehensive way in
7 order to be able to assess shortfalls and possible
8 problem areas.
9 Q. Who is the project manager for the Lower
10 East Coast Water Supply Plan?
11 A. Ken Ammon.
12 Q. He is your supervisor; is that correct?
13 A. That is correct.
14 Q. Mr. Neidrauer, I refer your attention to
15 V-8, which at the very bottom of the page states
16 that, "The model is currently undergoing significant
17 modifications in order to be able to be reasonably
18 consistent with the county level models, to simulate
19 the current operational strategies and to provide the
20 performance measure outputs that are required for
21 evaluating alternatives." Other than the many
22 modification that we discussed previously, are there
23 any additional modification that you're aware of
24 planned at this time?
25 A. No, there are none; any major level
 57

1 modifications.
2 Q. If I could refer your attention to Exhibit
3 2B, which is the Appendices and Technical Information
4 for the Lower East Coast Water Supply Plan,
5 specifically refer your attention to Appendix C, page
6 14 -- C-14, that is -- what does the table on page
7 C-14 reflect, sir?
8 A. It is a summary of water budgets for Water
9 Conservation Area 1.
10 Q. Do you know who prepared the water budget
11 for Conservation Area 1?
12 A. A group of us did, but I was involved with
13 the preparation of this table.
14 Q. Could you explain to me the process that
15 you went through in preparing this table?
16 A. The model, when it was recalibrated, uses
17 historical flows at the major water control
18 structures, and we calibrate corresponding water
19 levels at over a hundred monitoring points throughout
20 the model area. That version of the model, or that
21 particular run, we refer to as our historical run
22 because it reflects our best understanding of what
23 actually happened during that recorded history. So
24 then we use the output from the model and post
25 process the information with the water budget
 58

1 utilities that I mentioned earlier, and that utility
2 summarizes information in pretty much this format.
3 It doesn't summarize it in a report quality format,
4 but the information summarized by that utility was
5 then extracted and put in this table.
6 Q. Did you develop -- as I understand it, this
7 table reflects average water budgets over a ten-year
8 period; is that correct?
9 A. The first column does, yes.
10 Q. Okay. Did you develop annual water budgets
11 for each year of that ten-year period in order to
12 develop this summary?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Okay. I believe you previously mentioned
15 that you could readily compile that information; is
16 that correct?
17 A. Uh-huh.
18 MR. PERKO: Counsel, I believe that's
19 covered in our notice duces tecum. I would like
20 to request that information.
21 MR. FITZGERALD: Can we clarify? It is not
22 clear to me whether that has been compiled in
23 that fashion or you're asking him to create
24 something for discovery. If you are asking him
25 to create it for discovery --
 59

1 MR. PERKO: No, I'm asking --
2 MR. FITZGERALD: -- that's beyond the
3 obligation of any party.
4 BY MR. PERKO:
5 Q. Mr. Neidrauer, I believe you testified that
6 you have compiled annual budgets for each of the ten-
7 year periods, which were then synthesized into this
8 table; is that correct?
9 A. That is correct.
10 Q. Could you produce or compile the
11 information that you relied upon in producing this
12 table?
13 A. Yes.
14 MR. PERKO: Okay. That's what I am
15 requesting, counsel.
16 MR. FITZGERALD: It didn't clarify
17 anything.
18 MR. PERKO: Why did it not?
19 MR. FITZGERALD: It doesn't seem to me --
20 you have asked at the time he did it, did they
21 produce a document which he can simply copy and
22 give to you, or does he have to go back and
23 recompile, regenerate the annuals so that he can
24 provide them for you?
 60

1 BY MR. PERKO:
2 Q. Did you produce a document, sir, that has
3 the annual information for each of the years of this
4 ten-year period that are reflected in this table?
5 A. There was a hard copy printout from the
6 water budget utility that was generated.
7 Q. Does the District currently possess copies
8 of that hard copy printout?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. That is the information that I am
11 requesting.
12 A. Okay.
13 Q. Was similar information compiled for the
14 other water budgets, specifically on pages C-16 for
15 2A, C-18 for 2B, C-20 for 3A, C-22 for 3B, C-24 for
16 eastern Palm Beach County?
17 A. Yes.
18 MR. PERKO: Okay. We would also like that
19 information as well.
20 BY MR. PERKO:
21 Q. Mr. Neidrauer, referring your attention
22 back to page C-14 -- I'm sorry, wrong page -- C-16,
23 what does this document reflect, this page?
24 A. This is the water budget summary for
25 Conservation Area 2A.
 61

1 Q. Okay. Did you go about the same process in
2 developing this summary as you did for the water
3 budgets for WCA-1, reflected on page C-14?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Okay. I note there is an asterisk by the
6 item Structure Inflows S-10 A, C, D and E and S-7.
7 A. Uh-huh.
8 Q. And that asterisk states that, "All
9 structure flows are historical, except S-11 which is
10 simulated in the model."
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Am I correct in understanding that the
13 annual average 360 denoted for S-11 A, B and C is
14 simulated, as opposed to observed, data?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Okay. Why did you use simulated, as
17 opposed to observed, data for the S-11 structures?
18 A. The use of historical data at S-11 during
19 low flow times, during dry times, when the head
20 across the S-11 structures was low, caused problems
21 with the model calibration. Investigation revealed
22 that the S-11 structures seemed to have -- the rating
23 curve for those structures seemed to have some
24 problems, so the historical data was questionable for
25 that point in time. So there were some adjustments
 62

1 made to the historical data to better reflect the
2 actual historical information.
3 Q. If I could refer your attention to page
4 C-20, what does the table on this page reflect, sir?
5 A. Similar information we discussed
6 previously, only this is Water Conservation Area 3A.
7 Q. Did you go about the same process in
8 developing this summary table?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. I note also that there is a similar
11 asterisk near the L-3 and L-28 notations.
12 A. Uh-huh.
13 Q. It states that these data were simulated in
14 the model. Why were those data simulated, as opposed
15 to observed?
16 A. In the case of L-3, we did not have access
17 to the detailed information of the three water
18 control structures that are at that junction, and we
19 had to make an approximation based on the recorded
20 information directly upstream.
21 Q. What about L-28?
22 A. I'm not sure on L-28.
23 Q. Who would know that information?
24 A. Ray Santee.
25 MR. McGRATH: Gary, why don't we take a
 63

1 quick break here and then go up until lunch.
2 MR. PERKO: Why don't we talk for a minute
3 about lunch.
4 (Discussion held off the record.)
5 BY MR. PERKO:
6 Q. Mr. Neidrauer, did you have any involvement
7 or input into the development of the Everglades SWIM
8 Plan?
9 A. I had some involvement back in, I think it
10 was, '88 or '89 with helping to draft some of the
11 background sections, but at that point in time, you
12 know, that was the limit of my involvement, and I'm
13 not sure what got into the final report.
14 Q. Do you recall the subject matter of those
15 portions that you had involvement with?
16 A. It was limited to background information on
17 hydrology and water management.
18 MR. PERKO: Mark this as the next exhibit.
19 (The document was marked
20 Petitioner's Exb. No. 6.)
21 BY MR. PERKO:
22 Q. Mr. Neidrauer, let me show you what's been
23 marked as Exhibit Number 6 to this deposition. I'll
24 represent for the record that this is an excerpt from
25 Everglades SWIM Plan Appendices, the final SWIM Plan,
 64

1 dated March 13, 1992; specifically three pages, B-135
2 through 137.
3 MR. FITZGERALD: Is that B as in Bravo?
4 MR. PERKO: Yes, sir.
5 BY MR. PERKO:
6 Q. B-135 provides annual average material
7 budget for WCA-1 for the period '79 through '88;
8 B-136, annual average material budget for WCA-2A for
9 1979 through 1988; and B-137 provides
10 annual average material budget for WCA-3A for period
11 1979 through '88.
12 Do you know, sir, who is responsible for
13 preparing these annual average material budgets?
14 A. No, I don't.
15 Q. Sir, I would like to direct your attention
16 to B-135 as well as page C-14 in the Appendices to
17 the Lower East Coast Water Supply Plan, Exhibit 2B to
18 this deposition.
19 My first question is, sir, for the
20 historical water budgets for WCA-1 reflected on page
21 C-14 of Exhibit 2B, what was the period of record for
22 the annual average information reflected in the first
23 column?
24 A. This is -- I'm sorry?
25 Q. I'm sorry. I am referring to the water
 65

1 supply plan.
2 A. Oh, okay.
3 Q. Page C-14.
4 A. Period of record was the calendar year 1980
5 through 1989.
6 Q. That's calendar year?
7 A. That is correct.
8 Q. So that would be January 1980 through
9 December 1989?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. If you note on page B-135 of Exhibit 6, the
12 Everglades SWIM Plan Appendices, the period of record
13 there was 1979 through 1988. Do you know why a
14 different period of record was used in developing the
15 water budgets for the Lower East Coast Water Supply
16 Plan as opposed to the Everglades SWIM Plan?
17 A. No, I don't.
18 Q. If I could, sir, refer your attention to
19 the first row of Table C3 under Water Supply Plan
20 Water Budget Rainfall, it states that the annual
21 average was 594,000 acre feet; is that correct?
22 A. Uh-huh. Yes.
23 Q. If I could refer your attention to the
24 similar notation on Table B-27 of the Everglades SWIM
25 Plan, it states that rainfall for WCA-1 for the
 66

1 period of record 1979 through '88 was approximately
2 576,000 acre feet; is that correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Do you know -- why do you consider that to
5 be a significant difference; 21,000 acre feet?
6 MR. MCGRATH: Object as far as this
7 witness' opinion as to the difference. First of
8 all, you haven't asked regarding his knowledge;
9 if he's ever seen Table B-27 before.
10 MR. PERKO: He's seen it right now,
11 counsel.
12 MR. McGRATH: Then the objection's to the
13 extent that any --
14 BY MR. PERKO:
15 Q. You can answer the question.
16 MR. McGRATH: -- thought he has got as to
17 the differences is irrelevant.
18 BY MR. PERKO:
19 Q. Let me ask you this: Do you know why there
20 might be a difference of that, or could that be
21 explainable simply by the different period of record?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Okay. Let me refer your attention to the
24 row for S-5A, inflows in Lower East Coast Water
25 Supply Plan. The notation is 236,000 acre feet; is
 67

1 that correct?
2 A. That is correct.
3 Q. If you look at the corresponding notation
4 for the Everglades SWIM Plan for S-5A inflows, it
5 appears to be approximately 314,000 acre feet; is
6 that correct?
7 A. Uh-huh. Yes.
8 Q. Do you know why that information would be
9 different; the 236,000 acre feet compared to the
10 314,000?
11 A. Yes, I have a pretty good idea.
12 Q. What would that be?
13 A. I'd say we are talking about two different
14 points. What is in the Working Document for the
15 Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan is a
16 point upstream of the pump station.
17 Q. Okay.
18 A. And what is in the SWIM plan I would assume
19 is the actual pump discharge at S-5A. Woops. No.
20 That's not correct.
21 The S-5A notation in the Lower East Coast
22 Working Document is the total flow into Conservation
23 Area 1 from the S-5A pump station, and it also
24 includes any flow out of Conservation Area 1 that
25 might go through the gravity structures, so it is
 68

1 more than just the pumped inflow that's being
2 reflected in the Working Document.
3 Q. Okay. Just so I understand, the Working
4 Document for the Lower East Coast Water Supply Plan
5 includes inflows and possibly some outflows --
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. -- incorporated into that figure?
8 A. Right.
9 Q. Whereas the Everglades SWIM Plan is simply
10 inflows?
11 A. I assume it is. I don't know without any
12 specific identification of what they mean by S-5A.
13 Q. Okay. If I could refer your attention to
14 the notation for S-10 outflows in the Lower East
15 Coast Water Supply Plan, the notation is 297,000 acre
16 feet; is that correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And for the Everglades SWIM Plan, if you
19 total S-10 A, C, D and E, it would be approximately
20 372,000; is that correct?
21 A. Approximately, yeah.
22 Q. Okay. What might explain the difference
23 between the 297,000 and 372,000 acre feet?
24 MR. McGRATH: I'm going to instruct, for
25 questions like these, you know, please feel free
 69

1 to testify about those things that you have
2 knowledge of. Please do not guess or assume
3 things that are not within your knowledge.
4 BY MR. PERKO:
5 Q. I am just asking your knowledge,
6 Mr. Neidrauer. Is it your testimony that you do not
7 know what might explain those differences?
8 A. That is correct. I don't know.
9 Q. Okay. Do you have an opinion, sir, as to
10 which figures are more accurate; those in the water
11 supply plan as opposed to those in the Everglades
12 SWIM Plan?
13 MR. McGRATH: I'm going to object to the
14 extent that this witness has already testified
15 that he has got absolutely no knowledge as to
16 how the numbers were arrived at, he has got no
17 basis to render an opinion, which means you're
18 asking him to speculate, in which case I'm going
19 to ask him not to answer the question.
20 MR. PERKO: Are you instructing him not to
21 answer the question?
22 MR. McGRATH: To the extent you're asking
23 him to speculate when you have established no
24 basis for him.
25 MR. PERKO: I'm asking if he has an
 70

1 opinion, counsel.
2 BY MR. PERKO:
3 Q. Do you have an opinion, sir?
4 A. I don't have an opinion until I investigate
5 the source of the information used to generate the
6 information in the SWIM plan.
7 Q. Okay.
8 MR. KOBELINSKI: Can I ask a quick question
9 to avoid me going back to this when I start up
10 again?
11 MR. McGRATH: Sure.
12 MR. KOBELINSKI: Do you have an opinion as
13 to whether or not the information contained on
14 page C-14 of Exhibit 2B is correct?
15 MR. MCGRATH: Define "correct."
16 MR. KOBELINSKI: Are these accurate
17 measurements?
18 THE WITNESS: To the best of my knowledge,
19 they are.
20 MR. KOBELINSKI: You used the best
21 available information for these estimates of
22 flows inflows and outflows?
23 THE WITNESS: At the time they were
24 performed, yes.
25 MR. KOBELINSKI: Okay. Is there something
 71

1 different you would do about that now to
2 re-estimate those?
3 THE WITNESS: I don't think so.
4 BY MR. PERKO:
5 Q. Let me ask you this, Mr. Neidrauer: Page
6 C-14 includes a notation for annual average
7 evapotranspiration to be 525,000 acres. How is that
8 figure developed?
9 A. That is information that's simulated by the
10 model.
11 Q. Okay. I believe you previously testified
12 that there were changes to the ET algorithms in
13 connection with the recalibration effort in 1991; is
14 that correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Do you know if that recalibration was
17 performed after the annual average material budget
18 reflected in Appendix B of the SWIM plan were
19 formulated?
20 A. I don't know.
21 Q. Let me refer your attention to page C-20 of
22 the Lower East Coast Water Supply Plan, which is a
23 water budget for Water Conservation Area 3A; is that
24 correct?
25 A. Yes.
 72

1 Q. There is a notation here for Other Inflows,
2 sir. What is that referring to?
3 A. You are referring to the water supply plan?
4 Q. Yes, sir.
5 A. I don't recall, off the top of my head.
6 Q. Where would you look to obtain that
7 information?
8 A. I'd probably talk with Lehar Brion and Ray
9 Santee about that one.
10 Q. If I could refer your attention to page
11 B-137 of the Everglades SWIM Plan Appendices, Exhibit
12 Number 6, I note that for the L-3 inflows there is a
13 notation of volume of approximately 74,000 acre feet;
14 is that correct?
15 MR. McGRATH: Obviously, the document
16 speaks for itself.
17 THE WITNESS: Yes.
18 BY MR. PERKO:
19 Q. And in comparison, the similar notation for
20 L-3 inflows on the water budget for WCA 3A included
21 in the water supply plan is approximately 28,000 acre
22 feet; is that correct?
23 A. That is correct.
24 Q. Do you know what is responsible for the
25 difference in these figures; between 28,000 acre feet
 73

1 and the 74,000 acre feet?
2 A. I have an idea, but without investigating
3 the data, I would only be speculating.
4 MR. McGRATH: And again, let me object to
5 the extent there has been no foundation laid as
6 to this witness' knowledge of the background or
7 the preparation of the figures that are on
8 B-137.
9 BY MR. PERKO:
10 Q. Bringing your attention to page C-20 of the
11 water supply plan, the notation for S11 inflow is for
12 360,000 acre feet. Do you know, sir, if this was
13 simulated data or observed?
14 A. There is not a notation on the Table;
15 therefore, there is a very high chance that it is
16 historical data.
17 Q. Okay.
18 A. Let me add something to that.
19 Q. Sure.
20 A. I think there was an omission in this
21 Table; in Table C6 on page C-20. I think that data
22 is simulated by the model.
23 Q. Okay.
24 MR. KOBELINSKI: I'm sorry. You are
25 referring to the S-11 data?
 74

1 THE WITNESS: Yes.
2 BY MR. PERKO:
3 Q. Mr. Neidrauer, if I could refer your
4 attention to Exhibit 2A, which is the Working
5 Document for the Lower East Coast Water Supply Plan,
6 specifically pages VII-58 through 60, under
7 subheading C, Preliminary Evaluation of Regional
8 Water Quantity Impacts from the Stormwater Treatment
9 Areas, did you draft this portion of the document,
10 sir?
11 A. Yes, I did.
12 Q. The first sentence of the section states
13 that, "To assess impacts to the regional system (Lake
14 Okeechobee, the WCAs and the Lower East Coast) from
15 the preliminary design of the proposed Stormwater
16 Treatment Areas (STAs) and the associated Best
17 Management Practices (BMPs) for the EAA, the STAs
18 were simulated using the SFWMM." When did this
19 simulation occur, sir?
20 A. This was in the early part of 1992. It
21 would have been January and February of 1992.
22 Q. Is that the analysis that was described in
23 your presentation to SAGE in March of 1992?
24 A. That is correct.
25 Q. Were there any subsequent analyses of the
 75

1 STAs after this simulation described in this
2 particular portion of the water supply plan?
3 A. Not until about five, six weeks ago.
4 Q. And in the one performed five or six weeks
5 ago, is that what led to the document that you
6 provided this morning?
7 A. That is correct.
8 Q. So in between that time period, there were
9 no simulations of the STAs; is that correct?
10 A. Right.
11 Q. This reference in the first sentence on
12 page VII-58 to the proposed Stormwater Treatment Area
13 and associated Best Management Practices, is that the
14 proposal as it exists in the Everglades SWIM Plan,
15 dated March 13, 1992?
16 A. That I don't know.
17 Q. Okay. In connection with the simulations
18 described in this portion of the water supply plan,
19 what model outputs did you develop in connection with
20 that?
21 A. This was the same output that was presented
22 to SAGE --
23 Q. Okay.
24 A. -- in '92.
25 Q. And what outputs did that include?
 76

1 A. The water level hydrograph comparisons and
2 the hydroperiod maps.
3 MR. PERKO: Let's mark this, please.
4 (The document was marked
5 Petitioner's Exb. No. 7.)
6 BY MR. PERKO:
7 Q. Mr. Neidrauer, let me show you what has
8 been marked as Exhibit Number 7 to this deposition.
9 Can you tell me if you recognize that document, sir?
10 A. Yes, I do.
11 Q. What is that document?
12 A. This looks like the set, or a copy of the
13 overheads that were presented in March '92.
14 Q. Okay. Do you recall any additional
15 overheads that were presented during that
16 presentation?
17 A. I think there were a couple of hydroperiod
18 maps that were also presented.
19 Q. Okay. Are those the color maps that you
20 referenced earlier?
21 A. Right.
22 Q. Approximately how many maps were included
23 in that presentation?
24 A. I don't remember. I think it was at least
25 three.
 77

1 Q. What assumptions can you make regarding
2 lower east coast water supply demands in connection
3 with this presentation?
4 A. We did not assume any increase for this set
5 of analysis.
6 Q. Did you make any assumptions -- I note that
7 under General Assumptions on the third page of
8 Exhibit Number 7 you assumed a 20 percent reduction
9 in EAA runoff due to BMPs; is that correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Did you make any assumptions regarding
12 makeup water for this 20 percent reduction?
13 A. There was no makeup water for this run.
14 Q. What were the results of the modeling
15 reflected in Exhibit Number 7?
16 A. The general results were increased
17 hydroperiods at the north end of Conservation Area
18 3A. I don't recall the findings in Area 1 and Area
19 2A. Everglades National Park, there were no
20 significant changes.
21 Q. In hydroperiod?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Did you model flows to Everglades National
24 Park?
25 A. Yes.
 78

1 Q. What were the results of those simulations?
2 A. I don't recall from this set of
3 simulations.
4 Q. Was there any documentation of the results
5 of your simulation of flows to Everglades National
6 Park?
7 A. No.
8 Q. None whatsoever?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Either on computer disk or hard copy?
11 A. That would be the only place that I would
12 be aware of any information.
13 Q. And do I understand you correctly to say
14 that there is no documentation either on computer
15 diskette or hard copy?
16 A. No. I'm sorry. I misunderstood when you
17 said documentation. Nothing was produced in report
18 form as a result of this analysis. There is
19 certainly the outputs from the model runs that would
20 have had that information on them.
21 Q. Does that output still exist?
22 A. No, it does not.
23 Q. What happened to it?
24 A. It was inadvertently deleted.
25 Q. How do you know that it was inadvertently
 79

1 deleted?
2 A. Because Ray Santee deleted it inadvertently
3 in trying to manage his files. It was something that
4 just was destroyed.
5 Q. I'm sorry. Was there any hard copy made of
6 that information?
7 A. I'm not sure. I'm not sure.
8 Q. If there was, where would those hard copies
9 be? In your files?
10 A. In my files there would be something, if it
11 existed.
12 Q. Did you review your files to identify that
13 information in connection with this deposition?
14 A. No.
15 MR. PERKO: Counsel, I believe that such
16 information would be included within our
17 document request, and if possible,
18 Mr. Neidrauer, I would ask you to review your
19 files, and if you can obtain --
20 MR. McGRATH: Obviously, if it exists. The
21 witness' testimony so far is he doesn't believe
22 that it does.
23 MR. PERKO: I understand. But he also
24 testified that he didn't review his documents,
25 and I think that's covered by the request.
 80

1 THE WITNESS: I might add that electronic
2 versions of that were requested and, to the best
3 of my knowledge, presented with this document
4 request.
5 BY MR. PERKO:
6 Q. Okay. On computer diskette?
7 A. Yes.
8 MR. PERKO: Why don't we go ahead and break
9 for lunch. Now is as good a time as any. Come
10 back about 1:15; all right?
11 (Thereupon, a luncheon recess was taken.)
 81

1 AFTERNOON SESSION
2 MR. PERKO: Would you mark this, please?
3 (The document was marked
4 Petitioner's Exb. No. 8.)
5 BY MR. PERKO:
6 Q. Mr. Neidrauer, I show you what is marked as
7 Exhibit Number 8 to this deposition, and I'll
8 represent for the record that this is a copy of a
9 transcript of the meeting of the Scientific Advisory
10 Group to the Everglades, or SAGE, for March 10th,
11 1992, and I believe, sir, that this is the SAGE
12 presentation that you made; your presentation for
13 modeling of the STAs; is that correct?
14 A. I assume it is. I haven't seen this
15 before.
16 Q. Okay. Well, I want to refer your attention
17 to a couple of items in this transcript and see if it
18 refreshes your recollection.
19 A. Okay.
20 Q. Specifically, on page 245, beginning on
21 line 21 it says that you stated, "I believe this is
22 the third time that the STAs have been analyzed with
23 the South Florida Water Management Model and
24 presented. The first two presentations were
25 performed by a Shawn Sculley back in November of last
 82

1 year and February of this year to the STA Working
2 Group, Design Working Group." Do you recall making
3 that statement, sir?
4 A. No, I don't recall making that statement,
5 but it is here, so --
6 Q. Do you recall prior model simulations
7 performed by Mr. Sculley?
8 A. Under his direction, I think there were
9 prior simulations that were made.
10 Q. By "November of last year," you would have
11 meant November of 1991, do you recall?
12 A. Yeah. Yes.
13 Q. Okay. And February of 1992?
14 A. I think so. I would have thought the
15 February '92 stuff would have been the same
16 information presented at this particular meeting,
17 but --
18 Q. Well, this states that it was the STA
19 Working Group. Was there another presentation made
20 in February to the STA Working Group?
21 A. Okay. That's possible. Yeah. I wasn't
22 involved with that, though, I don't think.
23 Q. Do you recall any documentation of the
24 November modeling simulations that Mr. Sculley
25 prepared?
 83

1 A. There were some overhead tranparencies for
2 the presentation, but I don't -- I don't recall any
3 documentation in terms of like a report being
4 prepared.
5 Q. Do you recall what specifically Mr. Sculley
6 simulated?
7 A. No, not off the top of my head. It must --
8 well, no.
9 Q. Okay. Did you rely on any of the
10 information developed by Mr. Sculley in your
11 presentation of March 1992?
12 A. I don't believe so.
13 Q. Did you independently run the South Florida
14 Water Management Model in connection with your
15 presentation?
16 A. I didn't, no.
17 Q. Who actually performed the model runs that
18 you relied on?
19 A. Ray Santee.
20 Q. Okay. I believe you stated previously that
21 there may be some documentation either in electronic
22 or hard copy form of those modeling runs but you
23 would have to check; is that correct?
24 MR. McGRATH: Let me object to the extent
25 the question mischaracterizes --
 84

1 MR. PERKO: I'm asking him for his
2 understanding.
3 THE WITNESS: When we talked about that
4 earlier, I think the discussion had to do with
5 the water budgets that were generated or some
6 kind of output that was generated that I
7 possibly might have in hard copy form, but it is
8 likely that's already been submitted under the
9 original records request in diskette form.
10 BY MR. PERKO:
11 Q. Mr. Neidrauer, let me refer your attention
12 to page 283, beginning at the end of line one.
13 Again, if you refer back to -- this is the end of
14 some statements that began on page 281 that are
15 attributed to you. If you would like, refer to the
16 whole section, but I am specifically referencing you
17 to the end of line one on page 283.
18 A. Uh-huh.
19 Q. It says that you stated, "And what I'm
20 seeing, from the results of the simulation, are that
21 there are less flows to the Park, but those flows are
22 less regulatory flows to the Park, because that
23 three-gauge average is slightly lower than it was in
24 the base condition." Do you recall making that
25 statement, sir?
 85

1 MR. McGRATH: Let me just advise the
2 witness, to the extent you need to read more of
3 the document to put statements in context, you
4 know, take your time, because counsel is not
5 doing it intentionally, but to the extent that
6 things are being taken out of context, read what
7 you need to read to be able to answer the
8 question properly.
9 THE WITNESS: Certainly.
10 BY MR. PERKO:
11 Q. Take your time.
12 A. I remember -- I mean, you know, this really
13 helps refresh my memory because, obviously, this is
14 what happened, but --
15 Q. Okay. Is this statement accurate, or is my
16 understanding of the statement accurate to say that
17 you, in fact, simulated flows into Everglades
18 National Park as part of this presentation?
19 A. That is correct. We did.
20 Q. Okay. Would there have been any
21 documentation of the simulation of flows?
22 A. The summary of the model results that we
23 just discussed a second ago that usually you have in
24 electronic form or that are possibly in some of my
25 old files may actually summarize that information.
 86

1 Q. Okay. Later on, on page 284, and again I
2 am skipping some material here -- if you need to go
3 back, please feel free to do so -- it states that,
4 line eight, Mr. Soukup apparently stated, "Do you
5 have a magnitude or any kind of quantitative estimate
6 of that reduction?" And I believe he was referring
7 to the reduction of flows to the Everglades National
8 Park; is that correct?
9 A. Let's see.
10 MR. McGRATH: Don't assume. If you have to
11 read it to make sure that's what he was
12 referring to, please read it.
13 THE WITNESS: Okay. Now that I have read
14 it, I forgot the question.
15 BY MR. PERKO:
16 Q. Mr. Soukup apparently said, "Do you have a
17 magnitude or any kind of quantitative estimate of
18 that reduction?" To your recollection, was he
19 referring to the estimate of reduction to inflows to
20 the Park?
21 A. That's the way I read this, yeah.
22 Q. Okay. And it states here that you said, "I
23 didn't commit that number to memory, but I've got a
24 number I could scrounge up. Can I get with you
25 afterwards about that?" Do you recall this
 87

1 interchange with Mr. Soukup?
2 A. No, I don't.
3 Q. Okay. Do you recall if you ever scrounged
4 up a number for Mr. Soukup?
5 A. I don't think I did.
6 Q. Okay. Do you recall any subsequent
7 conversations or correspondence with Mr. Soukup?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Do I understand your testimony correctly to
10 say that if documentation of your simulation of ENP
11 flows exists, it would either be on the computer disk
12 that you previously provided for us or on hard copy
13 in your files, and you will look for that?
14 A. Sure.
15 Q. Okay. Mr. Neidrauer, does this portion of
16 the transcript that I just read to you refresh your
17 recollection as to the amount of simulated reduction
18 in ENP flows?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Mr. Neidrauer, if I could, I would like to
21 direct your attention to Exhibit 3 to this
22 deposition, which I believe is the June 24, 1993
23 memorandum that you prepared. Once again, this is
24 the memorandum that you said was hot off the presses
25 in connection with your simulation of the revised STA
 88

1 configurations.
2 A. Yeah. Preliminary draft.
3 Q. Okay. I refer your attention to the second
4 paragraph of the cover memorandum. It states that,
5 "Attached is the revised Draft Report, which
6 summarizes the scope assumptions and preliminary
7 results of this preliminary effort." Was there a
8 prior Draft Report prior to this report?
9 A. Yeah. I don't know if you could call it a
10 report, but yeah, there was a prior draft.
11 Q. When was that prepared?
12 A. I would have to say the 11th. June 11.
13 Q. Okay. Did you transmit that to anyone else
14 within the District?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Just simply an internal report?
17 A. Yeah.
18 Q. Do you retain a copy of that in your files?
19 A. Possibly. I'm not sure if I threw that
20 away or not.
21 MR. PERKO: Once again, counsel, I think
22 that's within the scope of the request, and if
23 you find it in your files, we would like a copy
24 of it.
25 THE WITNESS: Okay. It is basically --
 89

1 MR. FITZGERALD: Counsel, I don't know if
2 you had an opportunity review it yet, but
3 counsel for another petitioner has moved to
4 evade providing certain documents and reports on
5 the basis that they were not final reports, and
6 to the extent that the hearing officer might
7 rule that that is a legitimate interposition to
8 production, it seems to me that it would apply
9 equally to an interim non-final draft.
10 MR. PERKO: Well, counsel, I believe that
11 the pending motion relates to draft reports
12 prepared by people who have been designated as
13 expert witnesses in this proceeding. That's not
14 the case with Mr. Neidrauer, so I don't see that
15 there would be --
16 MR. FITZGERALD: But I think the District
17 might well take the position Mr. Neidrauer is a
18 non-testifying expert with regard to any --
19 MR. PERKO: Well, the District can take the
20 position, but I don't think you have the right
21 to take a position for the District.
22 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, I certainly wasn't
23 trying to. But it seems to me that if you want
24 to get those type of documents, it is going to
25 be an evenhanded production effort.
 90

1 MR. PERKO: We can deal with that later.
2 Counsel, I request a copy of that if
3 Mr. Neidrauer finds it within his files.
4 MR. McGRATH: Yeah. Just for the record, I
5 have noted your several requests throughout the
6 course. I am not going to comment one way or
7 another on the request. I am obviously not
8 agreeing to anything, but your requests have
9 been noted.
10 BY MR. PERKO:
11 Q. The next sentence of the cover memorandum
12 to Exhibit Number 3 states that, "This revised draft
13 includes documentation of the results of the
14 simulations performed on Friday, June 18, 1993 which
15 include Lake Okeechobee "makeup" water deliveries and
16 deliveries of treated water to the Holeyland." I
17 take it from that statement that the prior Draft
18 Report did not include simulations of Lake Okeechobee
19 makeup.
20 A. That is correct.
21 Q. The next paragraph in the second sentence
22 states that, "Further refinement of this model is
23 possible and might increase the accuracy of
24 simulations." What further refinement of the model
25 is possible or were you referring to in this
 91

1 statement?
2 A. Oh, specifically improvements in the L-8
3 basin that were proposed in the conceptual design,
4 but we didn't have the time to incorporate in a lot
5 of detail.
6 Q. Have you received any feedback from
7 Mr. Federico or others at the District as to
8 potential further refinement?
9 A. No.
10 Q. I refer you to page 4 of the attached Draft
11 Report. About three-quarters of the way down, the
12 paragraph begins with, "Two intermediate simulations
13 were also prepared to provide additional information.
14 The first of these was a baseline simulation with EAA
15 BMPs." Then later on it says, "The second of the two
16 intermediate simulations was made to assess the
17 impacts of the EPP without the "makeup" water."
18 My question, sir, is, were the intermediate
19 simulations -- the results of the intermediate
20 simulations -- provided in connection with this
21 report as an appendices or otherwise?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Was documentation of those intermediate
24 simulations retained in your files either
25 electronically or in hard copy?
 92

1 A. Yes.
2 MR. PERKO: Counsel, we would also request
3 a copy of that documentation.
4 MR. McGRATH: Your request is noted.
5 BY MR. PERKO:
6 Q. On page 5 of the report under item number
7 three at the top it states that, "Water budget
8 summaries were developed for purposes of verifying
9 mass balance and reasonableness of the simulation
10 results. Water level hydrographs in each STA for
11 Lake Okeechobee were also prepared for validating
12 model results."
13 With regard to the water budget summaries
14 referenced in the first sentence, what model was used
15 to develop those water budget summaries?
16 A. The South Florida Water Management Model
17 was used for this entire analysis.
18 Q. For the entire analysis?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. So you did not use any other models?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Are the water budget summaries referenced
23 in those first sentences provided in the appendices
24 or elsewhere in this report?
25 A. Yes, in the appendices, and information
 93

1 from the appendices is used throughout the analysis
2 and the report.
3 Q. Okay. Would the appendices reflect the
4 actual raw model output?
5 A. The appendices -- the water budgets in the
6 appendices reflects the output from the post
7 processing water budget utility we talked about this
8 morning.
9 Q. Okay. The next sentence refers to water
10 level hydrographs at each STA and for Lake
11 Okeechobee. Are those hydrographs set forth in the
12 report or in the appendices?
13 A. The Lake Okeechobee hydrograph is, the
14 water level hydrographs for the STAs were not
15 prepared.
16 Q. Did you retain copies of those hydrographs
17 in your files?
18 A. No.
19 Q. No?
20 A. Well, they are in the output of the model,
21 but there were no graphics that were actually
22 compared, prepared, based on that information.
23 Q. Okay. Later on down the page, item number
24 five states that, "Summaries comparing the water
25 supply deliveries to Lower East Coast service areas
 94

1 and to Everglades National Park were prepared to
2 compare potential differences in delivered flows."
3 Were the water supply delivery summaries
4 referenced in item number five set forth in this
5 Draft Report or the appendices?
6 A. Yes, they are.
7 Q. They are? Would that be in the appendices?
8 A. No, it would be in the results section of
9 the report.
10 Q. And once again, the results -- the
11 summaries would contain output from the utility
12 functions that you referenced before?
13 A. Right. If I could clarify that, they were
14 actually in both the water budget summaries
15 appendices and in the results section of the report.
16 Q. And the raw model output that went into
17 these reports would be stored electronically?
18 A. That is correct.
19 Q. In your computers?
20 A. Uh-huh.
21 Q. Could you describe for me generally what
22 the purpose of this exercise was?
23 A. On the first page of the document, I think
24 the objective of the efforts was stated pretty
25 clearly; To simulate the performance of the proposed
 95

1 Everglades plan with regard to its water quantity
2 effects in both space and time on the regional
3 system. And the regional systems includes Lake
4 Okeechobee, the EAA, the Water Conservation Areas,
5 Lower East Coast service areas, and Everglades
6 National Park.
7 Q. And a proposed Everglades plan refers to
8 what, sir?
9 A. The latest conceptual design of the
10 Stormwater Treatment Areas as documented in the May
11 10th -- I think it is May 10th -- there's some
12 reference to that somewhere here.
13 Q. I believe it is in the transmittal memo.
14 A. Yeah, from Burns & McDonnell, Zan Kugler.
15 Q. To your knowledge, is that the latest
16 proposed Everglades plan?
17 A. To my knowledge, yeah.
18 Q. To your knowledge, there have been no
19 revised or altered plans?
20 A. Not that I am aware of.
21 Q. What were the results of your simulations
22 as summarized in this report, sir?
23 A. Well, it is something that can't be briefly
24 described, but on pages 59 and 60 there is a
25 reasonably detailed summary of the results that's
 96

1 given.
2 Q. Item number three on page 59 states that,
3 The reduced runoff from the EAA to WCAs called for an
4 equivalent volume of "makeup" water to be delivered
5 from Lake Okeechobee to the STAs to make up for the
6 reduced EAA runoff to the WCAs. This makeup delivery
7 was 184,000 acre feet on average." Is that correct?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Do I understand your earlier testimony
10 correctly to be that your original analysis of the
11 STAs back in March of 1992 did not include makeup
12 water; is that correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. So in that regard, the assumptions and the
15 analysis set forth in your June 24 memorandum is
16 different from your March 1992?
17 A. That is correct.
18 Q. And was Lake Okeechobee the only source of
19 makeup water analyzed in this report?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Item number 8 on page 60 states that,
22 "Flows to ENP increased as a result of the proposed
23 plan. Average annual flows for the Baseline and
24 EPLAN simulations were 422,600 acre feet and 468,000
25 acre feet respectively." Is that an accurate
 97

1 statement, sir?
2 A. That's what it reads, yes.
3 Q. Baseline would be simulations performed of
4 the existing operational scenario and project
5 operations; is that correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. EPLAN would refer to the plan in the May
8 10th, 1993 conceptual design; is that correct?
9 A. That is correct.
10 Q. Earlier, Mr. Neidrauer, I believe you
11 stated that flows from the various structures can
12 either be simulated or input into the model; is that
13 correct?
14 A. That is correct.
15 Q. For purposes of this analysis, were flows
16 to the S-10s, S-11s and S-12s simulated or input?
17 A. They were simulated.
18 Q. And what about for your March, 1992
19 presentation; were they simulated or input?
20 A. They were simulated then, too.
21 Q. Let me ask you this, Mr. Neidrauer: Is the
22 base simulation referenced in Exhibit Number 3
23 consistent with the base simulation in the Lower East
24 Coast water supply plan?
25 A. I don't recall there being a base
 98

1 simulation in the Lower East Coast water supply plan.
2 Are you referring to the STA analysis that was
3 documented in the water supply plan?
4 Q. Yes.
5 A. Okay. No, those bases are different.
6 Q. How are they different?
7 A. A different version of the water management
8 model was used.
9 Q. Okay.
10 A. And there were some slightly different
11 assumptions on -- the overall baseline assumptions
12 might have been slightly different.
13 Q. Mr. Neidrauer, if I could refer your
14 attention to page 61, the very last sentence of that
15 page states that, "Water budget summaries on a
16 monthly wet season, dry season, and water year
17 (November through October) basis were also generated
18 but were not included because they are voluminous.
19 These summaries are available upon request." Are
20 those summaries still available upon request?
21 A. They are in electronic form right now.
22 MR. PERKO: Counsel, we request copies of
23 those summaries. Electronic form is fine.
24 (The document was marked
25 Petitioner's Exb. No. 9.)
 99

1 MR. PERKO: I apologize, counsel. I seem
2 to have misplaced my copies of this next
3 exhibit, but it won't take long.
4 BY MR. PERKO:
5 Q. Mr. Neidrauer, I refer your attention to
6 Exhibit Number 9 to this deposition. Do you
7 recognize this document, sir?
8 MR. KOBELINSKI: Could you quickly describe
9 that for the record?
10 MR. PERKO: Yeah. It is a memorandum from
11 Larry Fink to Jayantha Obeysekera, dated January
12 21, 1992 regarding STA design modeling issues.
13 BY MR. PERKO:
14 Q. Do you recognize this document, sir?
15 A. No, I don't.
16 Q. If I could just borrow it for a second
17 here, the first paragraph of the document states
18 that, "This is a request that you originate a
19 step-by-step process for the development,
20 calibration/verification, documentation, and
21 application of a mechanistic model of total
22 phosphorus removal by a Stormwater Treatment Area."
23 Are you aware of any such model being developed or
24 currently being developed?
25 A. No, I'm not.
 100

1 Q. Mr. Neidrauer, are you aware of the
2 Everglades Phosphorus and Hydrology Model being
3 developed by Tetra Tech, Incorporated in connection
4 with this proceeding?
5 A. I am aware of a model that's being
6 developed by Tetra Tech, but I'm not sure if it is
7 the same model that you just mentioned.
8 Q. Okay. What's your understanding of the
9 model being developed by Tetra Tech?
10 A. I think there is some model being developed
11 to be able to evaluate questions regarding the
12 effects of the Stormwater Treatment Areas and Best
13 Management Practice on the Everglades.
14 Q. Have you been asked to review any model
15 being developed by Tetra Tech?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Are you aware of anybody else at the
18 District that's been asked to review?
19 A. Yeah. I think Jayantha Obeysekera has been
20 asked to look at that.
21 Q. Do you know if Dr. Obeysekera has actually
22 conducted that review?
23 A. No, I don't.
24 Q. Do you know what the purpose of
25 Dr. Obeysekera's review is?
 101

1 A. No, I don't.
2 MR. PERKO: Counsel, I have nothing further
3 at this time. I would, however, reserve the
4 right to continue this deposition by the fact
5 that we have not been provided a number of
6 documents that were responsive to our notice of
7 duces tecum. And I realize that this deposition
8 was scheduled shortly after the stay, so I'm not
9 trying to imply that the District purposely
10 withheld these documents, but based on my notes
11 at this time, the following documents are ones
12 that I believe fall within our request and we
13 would like to follow up on: Number one, the
14 utilities functions that Mr. Neidrauer
15 referenced early in the deposition; number two,
16 annual water budgets that were relied upon in
17 developing the summaries set forth in Appendix C
18 to the Lower East Coast water supply plan;
19 number three, any hard copy documentation of raw
20 model output developed in connection with
21 Mr. Neidrauer's March 1992 presentation to SAGE;
22 number four, any hard copy or electronically
23 stored documentation of the simulations
24 referenced in Exhibit Number 3, which is
25 Mr. Neidrauer's June 24, 1993 memorandum to
 102

1 Mr. Federico; number five, the intermediate
2 simulations referenced on page 4 of Exhibit 3,
3 and any electronically stored or hard copy
4 version of those simulations; number six, water
5 budget summaries referred to on page 5 of
6 Exhibit Number 3; number seven, the water supply
7 delivery summaries to the Lower East Coast and
8 Everglades National Park referred to on page 5
9 of Exhibit Number 3.
10 MR. KOBELINSKI: Pardon me one moment,
11 counsel. I have probably about 30 to 60 minutes
12 of questions. If you want to just take a quick
13 break after you're done reciting those
14 documents, I'd appreciate it.
15 MR. PERKO: Number eight, water budget
16 summaries referenced on page 61 of Exhibit
17 Number 3; and number nine, earlier draft of the
18 Exhibit Number 3 that Mr. Neidrauer testified
19 about.
20 MR. McGRATH: Again, your requests are
21 noted. I am not going to agree or disagree to
22 anything on the record at this point in time.
23 I'll obviously consult with my client and
24 respond at that time.
25 MR. PERKO: Okay. Do you want to take a
 103

1 break?
2 (Thereupon, a recess was taken.)
3 CROSS (Cal Neidrauer)
4 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
5 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Neidrauer. My name is
6 Mark Kobelinski. We met earlier. I represent the
7 petitioners also in the same consolidated
8 proceedings. And just as Mr. Perko asked you a few
9 questions, I have a few follow-up questions for you
10 under the same rules. If you don't understand a
11 question, please state so. I'll attempt to rephrase
12 it. If you don't know the answer, don't understand,
13 say "I don't know" or "I don't understand" and we'll
14 proceed from there; all right?
15 A. Okay.
16 Q. A few follow-ups on something perhaps I
17 didn't catch earlier.
18 You were discussing the South Florida Water
19 Management Model and some of the additions that were
20 going to be taking place to that model; one of which
21 was, if I understood you correctly, a survey, a new
22 survey, information with regard to the Refuge; is
23 that correct?
24 A. New topographic information, yes.
25 Q. Do you know when that topographic survey
 104

1 was done and by whom?
2 A. I don't know when it was done. The
3 University of Florida was involved with that. That's
4 pretty much the extent of my knowledge on that one.
5 Q. Okay. Do you know who from the University
6 of Florida?
7 A. No, I don't.
8 Q. Could that possibly be part of some work
9 done by Wiley Kitchens and John Richardson?
10 A. Possibly.
11 Q. Do you have that in electronic format or
12 what do you have that in?
13 A. Yeah, in electronic format.
14 Q. Okay. We may want to get a copy of that.
15 We may already have it, so I'll just talk to counsel
16 afterwards.
17 That's all the information you have on that
18 particular survey?
19 A. I think there is a report. That's what I
20 was trying to recall the names of, the authors, when
21 I was thinking about --
22 Q. Do you recall the name of the report that
23 might help clarify what this is?
24 A. No, I don't. I think that's a sketch or
25 map of Water Conservation Area 1 on the front cover,
 105

1 and that's about all I can recall.
2 Q. All right. I believe we are talking about
3 the same report then.
4 A. Okay.
5 Q. Earlier we were discussing what is, I
6 believe, marked as Exhibit 2B of this deposition, the
7 appendices and technical information for the Lower
8 East Coast Regional water supply plan, and I would
9 like to draw your attention to page C-12 of Exhibit
10 2B, which, if I understand this correctly, is a
11 historical water budget for the EAA.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. I noted from the report and also from your
14 testimony earlier that for some structures in these
15 water budgets that are contained in this Exhibit 2B,
16 for instance the S-11 structures, there was some
17 difficulty or question as to the historic data with
18 regard to those flows; is that correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. All right. Do you recall whether or not
21 you had any questions with regard to the measurements
22 of gravity flows through the former hurricane gate
23 structures, which I believe would be -- these are the
24 hurricane gate structures connecting Lake Okeechobee
25 with the EAA -- HG-3, HG-4 and HG-5?
 106

1 A. I don't recall any analysis to, you know,
2 investigate the accuracy of those structure flows;
3 historical structure flows.
4 Q. Okay. And do you recall whether there was
5 any problem with the data with regard to the
6 replacement structures S-351, 352 and 354?
7 A. No, I don't.
8 Q. So what data have you used for the S-351
9 and 352 and 354 for the model?
10 A. Historical information.
11 Q. Would that be the USGS or the District?
12 A. That I can't -- I don't know.
13 Q. Okay. What about with regard to the former
14 hurricane gates that we just referred to?
15 A. The question's whether it is USGA data or
16 District data?
17 Q. What data do you use for that?
18 A. I don't know, without looking at the
19 records.
20 Q. With regard to the simulation that was
21 done, marked as Exhibit 3, this June 24, 1993
22 memorandum and the simulation of the
23 Burns & McDonnell proposed refinements or latest
24 conceptual design, did this simulation take into
25 effect or account any impacts that would occur as a
 107

1 result of implementation of the modified water
2 delivery GDM for the Park?
3 A. It did not.
4 Q. Would that have any impact upon the water
5 budgets and the water availability for Lower East
6 Coast and the Park?
7 A. I can't -- it is hard to say without
8 actually performing simulation and evaluating the
9 results.
10 Q. Have you or do you know if anyone at the
11 District has used the South Florida Water Management
12 Model to essentially run a model or do a run
13 determining what the impacts of that modified water
14 delivery GDM would have upon the flows and the water
15 supply?
16 A. The District, to my knowledge, has not done
17 any evaluations with the Water Management Model to
18 assess that. I think the Corps of Engineers has done
19 that work as part of their GDM.
20 Q. Okay. Do I understand correctly that the
21 South Florida Water Management Model essentially is
22 something that is currently being worked on not only
23 by the District but also with input and assistance
24 from the Park; is that correct? Everglades National
25 Park?
 108

1 A. No.
2 Q. Would that be the Natural System Model?
3 A. They have been involved to some degree with
4 the Natural System Model development as far as the
5 refinements of that model are concerned.
6 Q. Okay. Is anyone other than the District
7 assisting with this model version 2.1 of the South
8 Florida Water Management Model?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Does Exhibit 3, the model run of the
11 Burns & McDonnell conceptual design, does it take
12 into account any proposed lower lake schedule; Lake
13 Okeechobee schedule?
14 A. No.
15 Q. What impact, if any, would that have?
16 A. I could give you an educated guess, but to
17 do that would be speculating at this point.
18 Q. Well, what is your best educated guess?
19 A. It would force more regulatory flows out to
20 the estuaries.
21 Q. With regard to estuary flow -- before I ask
22 that question, on page 1 of Exhibit 3, and I am
23 referring to numeric page 1, in the second paragraph
24 there, the first sentence states that, "Due to the
25 immediate need for this analysis, several simplifying
 109

1 assumptions had to be made which may limit the
2 accuracy of the estimated hydrologic impacts of the
3 proposed Everglades Plan." Do all those simplifying
4 assumptions -- are those contained in the document
5 itself?
6 A. Yeah. The most important ones are.
7 Q. Okay. Are there any important ones that
8 were left out?
9 A. Not to my knowledge.
10 Q. Are there any assumptions that you can
11 think of that were left out?
12 A. Not that I can think of off the top of my
13 head.
14 Q. Okay. I would refer you to page 6 of
15 Exhibit 3. In the numeric paragraph number 12 it
16 states that, "Regulatory discharges from Lake
17 Okeechobee will be made through the Miami, North New
18 River, West Palm Beach, and Hillsboro Canals as a
19 first priority. If there is not sufficient
20 conveyance capacity in these canals to bring the lake
21 stage below the regulation schedule, then additional
22 releases will be made to the Caloosahatchee River and
23 the St. Lucie Canal." Is that the assumption that
24 was made for the purpose of running this model?
25 A. It was. That assumption was made for both
 110

1 the baseline and the with project simulations.
2 Q. Keeping that in mind, I would refer you to
3 page 59 of the document, which is Exhibit 3, and what
4 is marked as the fourth numbered paragraph, number
5 four, and in that paragraph the last sentence states,
6 "Most of the regulatory discharges in both
7 simulations were made to the Caloosahatchee and St.
8 Lucie Estuaries since conveyance limitations in the
9 EAA did not allow these flows to pass south to the
10 STAs." Is that statement there based upon historic
11 data; historically, most of the discharges have gone
12 through the estuaries, as opposed to through the EAA?
13 A. No, that's based on the simulated
14 information that's contained in the results section
15 of the report.
16 Q. Are you aware of whether or not the
17 District and the Army Corps of Engineers, of
18 essentially Mr. Mireau, who was deposed last week,
19 put it, reinterpreted the regulatory discharges such
20 that the flows through the EAA will be the primary
21 means of regulatory discharges, with the estuaries
22 used truly as only secondary sources, and that was
23 effective commencing January of this year?
24 A. I knew that they were trying to deliver
25 more water south as a first priority. However,
 111

1 according to Lake Okeechobee regulation schedule
2 that's been in effect since 1978, the first priority
3 of regulatory flows has always been to the south.
4 Q. Right. Which prior to January of this year
5 Mr. Mireau had stated that was interpreted as, quote,
6 conservative gravity flow discharges through the EAA?
7 A. Uh-huh.
8 Q. To your understanding, were there any
9 pumping discharges made through the EAA?
10 A. In this simulation?
11 Q. No. Historically, up to January of this
12 year.
13 A. No, I'm not aware of that.
14 Q. Mr. Mireau testified that the 600,000 acre
15 feet of regulatory discharge was pumped through the
16 EAA from January through approximately the end of
17 April, beginning of May, of this year.
18 A. He said they pumped it?
19 Q. They pumped it.
20 A. Okay.
21 Q. Which he said was the direct result of the
22 reinterpretation of how regulatory discharge would be
23 made.
24 A. Huh.
25 Q. Would this change, which he stated was
 112

1 substantial, have any impact upon your model runs?
2 A. I'm not sure.
3 Q. I am referring to Exhibit 3.
4 MR. McGRATH: I'm going to object because I
5 am lost now with the preamble. So just for the
6 record, I was having trouble keeping track of
7 what the question is.
8 BY MR. PERKO:
9 Q. Okay. My question goes towards your model.
10 If I understand what is on page 59, paragraph 4, it
11 essentially states that regulatory discharges through
12 the EAA are -- well, let me withdraw that.
13 How large were the regulatory discharges
14 through the EAA for your model run?
15 A. I would have to look at the Table that is
16 in the results section.
17 Q. Which would be what page, sir, of that
18 exhibit?
19 A. Let me find it here. Yeah. Page 28, Table
20 4.
21 Q. All right.
22 A. And your question was again?
23 Q. What were the regulatory discharges through
24 the EAA into the WCAs for the period of record? Am I
25 to understand, given our viewing page 28, that that
 113

1 would be in the first column there on that Table 4?
2 A. For the baseline, yes.
3 Q. Okay. And then there would be in the
4 fourth column for the -- under the proposed
5 Burns & McDonnell plan?
6 A. That is correct.
7 Q. Looking at the period of record under the
8 baseline for regulatory discharges, it goes
9 approximately 207,000 acre feet, 26,000, zero,
10 67,000, 55,000, 45,000, zero, zero, zero, 38,000, for
11 an average during the period of record for 44,000
12 acre feet. Given Mr. Mireau's testimony that 600,000
13 acre feet of regulatory discharge were pumped through
14 the EAA during the first four-and-a-half to five
15 months of this year, would that have impacted the
16 findings of this model as to the amount of water you
17 would have in the WCAs, and that would be at the
18 Park?
19 MR. McGRATH: Let me just object to the
20 extent that your question is actually asking
21 this witness to speculate on evidence or
22 testimony that he may not be aware of.
23 THE WITNESS: Should I answer the question?
24 MR. McGRATH: Oh, yeah. You're permitted
25 to answer the question. Answer it until I tell
 114

1 you -- unless I tell you not to.
2 THE WITNESS: Okay. Just kick me if you
3 want me to shut up.
4 This model simulates operational policies
5 as we best know them. "We" being those in
6 planning who do this kind of work. If our
7 operational people have gone and changed -- the
8 policy has changed or whatever -- with respect
9 to this recent one, you know, we are not aware
10 of any policy changes. So, if we were to
11 incorporate that policy change into the model,
12 it is likely that we could have -- that model
13 would have simulated more regulatory flows to
14 the conservation areas under both the baseline
15 and the with project scenarios.
16 BY MR. PERKO:
17 Q. Drawing your attention back to page 6 of
18 Exhibit 3, and specifically to numbered paragraph 13,
19 if you would review that to yourself --
20 A. Uh-huh.
21 Q. Under the model, if regulatory releases
22 through the EAA from Lake Okeechobee would result in
23 WCA 3A exceeding its regulation schedule, would the
24 model stop those regulatory releases through the EAA
25 and force them through the estuaries?
 115

1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Do you know if that's a practice of the
3 District?
4 A. That's the policy that we assumed for the
5 simulations.
6 Q. Okay. Do you know if the modified water
7 delivery plan is the current regulation schedule for
8 the Park existing? Is that correct?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Excuse me. The rainfall driven plan.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Okay. But even under the rainfall driven
13 plan, regulatory releases or flood control releases
14 can be made as part of that plan; is that correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Do you know whether or not during
17 essentially the same period we were discussing a few
18 moments ago, from January through actually today, the
19 regulatory releases have been made through the 12
20 structures and essentially having them wide open to
21 let the water flow freely from 3A?
22 A. I missed the first part of that.
23 Q. Do you know whether or not regulatory
24 releases have been made through the 12 structures
25 essentially from January forward this year?
 116

1 A. I believe they have, yeah.
2 Q. Do you know why or what caused those
3 regulatory releases?
4 MR. McGRATH: Don't speculate. If you
5 know, answer the question.
6 THE WITNESS: There could be a variety of
7 hydrologic reasons.
8 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
9 Q. Okay. Were you aware, and perhaps I didn't
10 ask this earlier, were you aware that water was being
11 pumped from Lake Okeechobee through the EAA?
12 A. Not that it was being pumped, no.
13 Q. Are you aware of whether or not the
14 District stopped the pumping through the EAA when 3A
15 hit the top of its regulation schedule?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Going back to then paragraph 13 on page 6
18 of Exhibit 3, if this assumption did not hold true
19 that's in paragraph 13, that essentially regulatory
20 releases through the EAA would halt when 3A or the
21 other WCAs hit their top of their regulation
22 schedule, if that was not -- if that assumption was
23 not made, how would it impact the outcome of this
24 model?
25 A. We would see more regulatory flows going to
 117

1 Conservation Area 3A. It would be removed constraint
2 from the simulated operation.
3 Q. Would that result in greater water going to
4 the Park?
5 A. Possibly.
6 Q. Under what circumstances wouldn't it?
7 A. With the proposed plan, the delivery of
8 water to Conservation Area 3A is more by sheet flow
9 than through the canals, so we may see a lot of that
10 regulatory flow evapotranspirate before it even gets
11 down to the south end of 3A.
12 Q. Okay. Being familiar with the STAs to the
13 extent necessary to do this modeling, would the STAs
14 have been able to handle the 600,000 acre feet
15 regulatory discharges in approximately a
16 four-and-a-half month period?
17 A. I don't know. I would have to run some
18 numbers to evaluate that.
19 Q. All right. Does your model assume that all
20 regulatory releases will go through the STAs prior to
21 entering into the Water Conservation Areas?
22 A. Yes, these model runs assume that.
23 Q. Drawing your attention to page six of
24 Exhibit 3, as a general question, are you doing
25 anything further with regard to this simulation for
 118

1 the further refining of it at this point in time?
2 A. No. Huh-uh. As is stated on the cover
3 memo, we plan to continue to review the results in
4 detail, and as the reviewers' comments come in and
5 recommendations are made, further refinements, we'll
6 initiate those at that time.
7 Q. Okay. With regard to page 16, the final
8 sentence therein refers to further investigation that
9 may be necessary. That's not being done at this
10 time?
11 A. Some of that investigation has already been
12 done, but I would say the statement is still correct;
13 further investigation is necessary.
14 Q. What is the investigation that you're
15 referring to having already been done? Is that just
16 reviewing the numbers with greater care?
17 A. In addition to consulting other
18 professionals with regard to the reasonableness of
19 this particular estimate.
20 Q. Would that be other professionals within
21 the District itself?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. I assume you are speaking of someone other
24 than Mr. Santee or Mr. Strowd.
25 A. Yes.
 119

1 Q. Who would that be that you're consulting
2 with or that was consulted?
3 A. Paul Trimble. And I just got thinking here
4 that we have actually talked to people that are
5 District consultants about this estimate as well;
6 Galen Miller being one.
7 Q. Anyone else?
8 A. Jayantha Obeysekera is another one.
9 Q. Did you discuss the findings of this
10 particular simulation with Mr. Miller?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Did he have any comments or suggestions?
13 A. Suggestions on refinements; in particular,
14 the L-8 basin.
15 Q. What was it about the L-8 basin he felt
16 could be refined?
17 A. We weren't simulating the proposed project
18 improvements in the L-8 canal.
19 Q. That would be --
20 A. North of Conservation Area 1.
21 Q. Is that a widening of the canal there, or
22 what exactly are they doing?
23 A. The proposal is to put a divide structure
24 in the canal to allow backpumping of the runoff from
25 the northern section of the basin into Lake
 120

1 Okeechobee.
2 Q. Okay. Any other comments?
3 A. Just real minor things with regard to some
4 of the assumptions. Nothing really significant other
5 than the L-8 basin.
6 Q. Nothing that would impact the results,
7 ultimate results, of the simulation?
8 A. Not the primary or the major impacts that
9 we have documented so far, although I would like to
10 say that he had not seen a copy of this at the time
11 we discussed it, so his comments will, I'm sure, be
12 more detailed after he reviews the report.
13 Q. Okay. I'm not sure if Mr. Perko asked you
14 earlier, but there are three authors of this
15 simulation; yourself, Mr. Santee and Mr. Strowd.
16 What were your -- essentially how did you divide the
17 responsibility?
18 A. Well, Mr. Strowd did a lot of background
19 information collection for us and interpretations of
20 the conceptual design with maps and just general
21 participation in brainstorming discussions to make
22 sure that we all, after reading the May 10 letter,
23 all had a common understanding of what the conceptual
24 design was all about; Ray Santee was primarily
25 responsible for making code changes to the water
 121

1 management model and performing the simulations; and
2 my responsibilities were to coordinate the entire
3 effort, to interpret the results of the model output,
4 post process the model output, and write this report,
5 as well as communicate with Tony Federico regarding
6 the simulations and the status.
7 Q. Is there a reason for the baseline period
8 that you used? What was that baseline period?
9 A. It was recommended to us to be consistent,
10 reasonably consistent, with the 1979 to '88 period
11 that had been used by Galen Miller for previous
12 analysis.
13 Q. Okay. So, just -- I believe this is
14 true -- you did not use the same baseline you used
15 for your runs in the Lower East Coast Regional Water
16 Supply Plan?
17 A. The base -- if you're referring to the
18 baseline --
19 Q. Yes.
20 A. -- for the STA analysis, that is correct;
21 it was not the same baseline simulation.
22 Q. And it was not the same baseline you used
23 for the water budgets that Mr. Perko had previously
24 questioned you about; correct?
25 A. There was no baseline for those water
 122

1 budgets. That information in the report on water
2 budgets is our best estimates as to what historically
3 happened. So, as we define baseline, it really isn't
4 applicable to that particular analysis.
5 Q. Let me then just digress for a moment and
6 draw your attention to Exhibit 2B, page C-14. Now, I
7 may be in error, but I had thought that you had
8 testified that the period of record for this
9 particular water budget reflected in Table C3 was
10 1980 through '89. Is that correct?
11 A. That is correct.
12 Q. Okay. So we are just -- I am just --
13 semantically I am using the wrong term?
14 A. Possibly.
15 Q. You answered my prior question there was no
16 baseline, and I guess I am just semantically using
17 the wrong term there.
18 A. Yeah, it is a matter of semantics.
19 Q. But period of record for the water budgets
20 contained in the Lower East Coast Regional Water
21 Supply Plan use a different period of record than
22 those used for your Exhibit 3, June 24, 1993
23 simulation?
24 A. Yes. That is correct.
25 Q. Drawing your attention then back to Exhibit
 123

1 3, the 1993 simulation of the Burns & McDonnell plan,
2 page 9, paragraph 2, you discuss the EAA, BMPs, as,
3 of course, you do throughout this document. Is
4 there -- did the BMPs, to the best of your knowledge,
5 impact the ET? Not the EAA, not the STAs, but the
6 BMPs.
7 A. There wasn't a significant change in ET
8 between the simulations with and without the BMPs.
9 Q. And is that as a result of an ET algorithm
10 within the program itself?
11 A. Partly, yeah. I think it is the way that
12 we simulated the BMPs in the water management model
13 as an increase in the soil storage in the unsaturated
14 zone, so the same basic area was exposed to
15 evapotranspirate both with and without BMP
16 simulations.
17 Q. Although the same area is exposed, would
18 one be better than the other?
19 A. There would be more soil moisture in the
20 without BMP scenario.
21 Q. Would that result in greater ET?
22 A. Possibly.
23 Q. Was the algorithm that's used in the water
24 management model sufficient to account for that
25 difference in ET, whatever it may be?
 124

1 A. The ET could occur if the soil moisture was
2 in the water column. I don't know if that algorithm
3 is sensitive enough to account for significant
4 differences in soil moisture.
5 Q. With regard to the algorithm or the ET
6 values that are used, have you utilized any input
7 from ET studies being conducted in relation to the
8 ENR project?
9 A. No, we haven't.
10 Q. Are you familiar with what they are doing
11 there with the tanks and such?
12 A. Just a little bit. The lysimeter studies.
13 Q. Right.
14 A. But I haven't seen any of the findings or
15 the initial evaluation of any information.
16 Q. Is that something that the District intends
17 in the future to use; those lysimeter -- is that the
18 correct term?
19 A. Lysimeter.
20 Q. Lysimeter -- intends to use to calibrate or
21 check the algorithm of the water management model?
22 A. I don't think there is an explicit plan to
23 do that -- certainly, planning hasn't focused on
24 that -- but the people in research that are
25 responsible for next generation model development,
 125

1 that sort of thing, are certainly doing those studies
2 for that reason, as well as others.
3 Q. To the extent that ET would be increased as
4 a result of the increased soil moisture, would that
5 increase in ET result in a need for -- greater
6 supplemental water need for the EAA?
7 A. If there were an increase in the ET; but it
8 is too early to decide whether there would be an
9 increase in ET.
10 Q. How would you go about doing that?
11 A. I haven't really thought about that. I
12 don't know at this point.
13 Q. Who developed the ET algorithm in the water
14 management model?
15 A. The algorithm development -- I don't know
16 who developed the algorithm itself. I would have --
17 I would be only speculating to give a name.
18 Q. Do you know what was done to test the
19 accuracy of the algorithm?
20 A. Yeah. There was a calibration verification
21 exercise that was done to demonstrate that the model
22 produced reasonable values of runoff and supplemental
23 water requirements as compared to historical
24 information.
25 Q. And essentially, does that allow you to
 126

1 back into determining whether or not the ET was
2 accurate?
3 A. It helps to derive evapotranspiration
4 estimates that the model produces, and then those
5 estimates are subsequently compared then with
6 information from other reports, other studies, that
7 use different methods to estimate evapotranspiration.
8 Q. Do you know who did the analysis on the ET
9 or the calibration on that?
10 A. Yeah. That was Ray Santee.
11 Q. Was he also involved in the rainfall
12 simulation; determining rainfall and the rainfall
13 simulation features of the model?
14 A. I'm not sure I understand.
15 Q. Okay. Well, I am not a modeler, so I am
16 just, as they say, muddling or modeling my way
17 through this. How does the model -- how is rainfall
18 dealt with in the model? Is it just based upon
19 historic data?
20 A. That's right. Historical information is
21 used to drive the model.
22 Q. It does not then have a function where it
23 develops or simulates rainfall?
24 A. That is correct.
25 Q. Back to Exhibit 2A and B, the Lower East
 127

1 Coast Regional Water Supply Plan. If I understand
2 your testimony correctly with regard to the water
3 budgets that are contained in the draft appendices
4 and technical information, essentially from C-10
5 through C-33, all of these are derived from the water
6 management model; is that correct?
7 A. That is correct. With the exception of
8 Lake Okeechobee.
9 Q. Where is -- the Lake Okeechobee water
10 budget, where was that obtained?
11 A. It was a separate analysis that was done on
12 historical inflows and outflows to Lake Okeechobee
13 that was performed. The results of that analysis
14 were summarized in the Working Document Appendices.
15 Q. Did that use some other type of model or is
16 it just literally more of an analysis of inflows and
17 outflows?
18 A. Traditional water budget analysis.
19 Q. How is ET estimated for that water budget
20 analysis?
21 A. As with most traditional water budgets
22 analyses, ET for Lake Okeechobee was estimated as
23 what is left over basically between inflows and
24 outflows to the Lake. It is an indirect estimate.
25 Q. With regard to then the other budgets,
 128

1 other than the Lake Okeechobee, and I assume that
2 would likewise qualify the estimate in C-32, looking
3 at page C-32 which also contains Lake Okeechobee; is
4 that correct?
5 A. Is that the tin basin area?
6 Q. Yeah.
7 A. Yeah, that's right. That is correct.
8 Q. For the other areas, those were all
9 generated using the water management model; is that
10 correct?
11 A. That is correct.
12 Q. Is the information with regard to inflows
13 and outflows, except as noted, and I believe you made
14 one additional notation, where the model simulated
15 the flows, this is all based upon historical data; is
16 that correct?
17 A. Except where it is noted as simulated and
18 except for the case where there is a typo in there or
19 something, yes, that's true.
20 Q. Okay. I may have missed it earlier, but
21 you are in what division?
22 A. I am in the Lower District Planning
23 Division.
24 Q. And what department would that be?
25 A. Planning department.
 129

1 Q. Now, what department of the District is
2 responsible for essentially making the District
3 determination of what you know they maintain are the
4 historical flows; for instance, S-2? Is there a
5 particular department that says for the District, as
6 far as it's concerned, these are the flows that we
7 believe have gone through S2 historically for X
8 periods of record?
9 A. That would be the Data Management Division
10 of the Water Resources Evaluation Department.
11 Q. Now, with regard to the historical data
12 that your division has used, or you have used, with
13 regard to water management model, where did you get
14 the inflow and outflow, other than simulated, as you
15 have noted and as noted in this document? Where did
16 you get that information?
17 A. From the data sets that were established
18 years ago by the Water Resources Engineering
19 Division. Some of that information came directly
20 from the Corps of Engineers.
21 Q. Do those numbers differ from the numbers
22 that we have just referred to that the Data
23 Management Division puts out or perhaps its
24 department puts out as what the District believes it
25 maintains the inflows and outflows are?
 130

1 A. There are some differences in some of the
2 structures.
3 Q. What would be the cause for those
4 differences?
5 A. Different agencies recording the
6 information. There are some structures where you
7 have the USGS and the District and the Corps all
8 producing information for flows at one particular
9 structure.
10 Q. And at those situations, what would be a
11 good example? Would S-2 be a good example of that?
12 A. I'm not sure.
13 Q. Which would you have used in the water
14 management model?
15 A. Normally USGS flows.
16 Q. As opposed to the District flows?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Is that based upon any belief or
19 determination that one is more accurate than the
20 other?
21 A. It was based on the belief that the USGS
22 flows were better, but I don't necessarily agree with
23 that. That was a belief that was held by people that
24 put the data sets together.
25 Q. Is anything being done currently to
 131

1 re-evaluate the historic data sets as far as inflows
2 and outflows?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And who is in charge of that?
5 A. I am.
6 Q. What stage are you along in this particular
7 project?
8 A. We are still in the process of putting
9 together a revised data set that we are going to use
10 for the next recalibration.
11 Q. That's the 2.1 version?
12 A. Right.
13 Q. How are you going about doing that? Basin-
14 by-basin?
15 A. Structure-by-structure, day-by-day.
16 Q. What are you; how far along; approximately
17 50 percent done or --
18 A. That's hard to say. The effort's being
19 done by one of the engineers I supervise, and he is
20 working closely with our Data Management Division. I
21 would have to say it is 75 percent, as a rough
22 estimate, 75 percent complete.
23 Q. Okay. As a result of that reanalysis, or
24 that project, will those numbers impact these water
25 budgets that are contained in the Lower East Coast
 132

1 Regional Water Supply Plan?
2 A. They may, but I'm not sure by how much or
3 which ones. Some of the sub areas may be impacted
4 negligibly, others may have larger impacts, but it is
5 certainly too early to tell until we actually perform
6 the recalibration and start evaluating the results
7 and preparing them to this technical publication.
8 Q. Okay. That project with regard to
9 reanalysis or analysis of historical flows, inflows
10 and outflows, that won't have any impact upon the ET,
11 will it?
12 A. It may have some.
13 Q. How so?
14 A. Well, in that, when we calibrate the model,
15 we use historical flows through the major structures
16 and calibrate the evapotranspirational algorithm
17 coefficients. It may have some slight impacts on the
18 evapotranspiration estimates that are made by the
19 model, but it should not affect any analysis as far
20 as this particular document. You know, when we
21 compare a baseline to a with project alternative, it
22 is all a relative comparison anyway.
23 Q. Okay. So to the extent inflows increase,
24 thereby extending hydroperiod for a matter of period
25 of time, that may impact the ET in the area, for
 133

1 instance; is that essentially correct?
2 A. It may, yes.
3 Q. All right. What is the name of the
4 engineer doing this project with regard to the
5 reevaluation of historic inflows and outflows?
6 A. That's Lehar Brion, who has been charged
7 with coordinating the efforts with the Data
8 Management Division.
9 Q. Could you spell his last name?
10 A. Sure. It is just like Brian, only with an
11 O instead of an A. B-r-i-o-n.
12 Q. Could you spell his first name?
13 A. L-e-h-a-r.
14 Q. With regard to the water budgets that are
15 contained in the Lower East Coast Regional Water
16 Supply Plan, except for whatever revisions may result
17 from this project you were just discussing, would
18 these contain the best or most accurate information
19 the District has on the water budgets for the various
20 areas contained inside here?
21 A. You know, I did the work -- or a lot of the
22 work -- so, you know, naturally I'm going to say that
23 I think it is, but I'm not aware of any other
24 comprehensive water budgets that have been done on a
25 regional scale by the agencies, so I would have to
 134

1 say they are.
2 Q. Okay. Recognizing, of course, it is a
3 draft document, it is yet to be completely adopted,
4 but your instructions, I assume, were to use the best
5 available information for the District Water Supply
6 Plan for the lower east coast; is that correct?
7 A. Well, as a professional engineer, I would
8 do that anyway. But we were not requested to do
9 water budgets. That was something that the technical
10 people decided needed to be done, and did it.
11 Q. Do you know whether or not the water
12 budgets that you did do are used for the purposes of
13 planning the water supply plan?
14 A. They'll be used as a comparative technique,
15 but this won't be used in the actual alternatives
16 evaluation for the water supply plan.
17 Q. Okay. Leaving Exhibit 2B open and drawing
18 your attention perhaps at the same time to Exhibit 3,
19 and the appendices in particular, the first portion
20 of the appendices, which at the top states ANBUD
21 period base, what does that stand for?
22 A. That's an annual water budget for the
23 baseline simulation.
24 Q. All right. It's for the same period of
25 record as used in the SWIM plan; a portion of which
 135

1 has been marked as Exhibit 6?
2 A. I don't think so. I think that was the '79
3 to '88 period in the SWIM plan.
4 Q. And what is used for your Exhibit 3
5 simulation?
6 A. The same that's in the appendix; 1979
7 through 1988.
8 Q. Okay. So the SWIM plan and the appendix to
9 the Exhibit 3 Burns & McDonnell simulation would be
10 the same period of record?
11 A. I'm sorry. Say that one more time.
12 Q. The SWIM Plan Appendices and the Water
13 Budget Appendices to the Burns & McDonnell simulation
14 would be for the same period of record?
15 A. No. Maybe I messed up on one of your
16 earlier questions. The period of simulation that we
17 used in the Burns & McDonnell, in Exhibit 3, was 1979
18 to 1988, and it is a calendar year; January through
19 December.
20 Q. Okay.
21 A. The information in the Everglades SWIM Plan
22 that's in Exhibit 6 is also 1979 through 1988, but it
23 doesn't state whether it is calendar year or water
24 year.
25 Q. Okay.
 136

1 A. So it is kind of difficult.
2 Q. That could result in some differences
3 between the two?
4 A. Yes, it could.
5 Q. All right. Would you anticipate that to be
6 major or minor?
7 A. Between these two budgets, I would
8 anticipate pretty big differences.
9 Q. Why would that be?
10 A. Because the simulations are simulating
11 current operational policies; whereas, if this is
12 historical information in Exhibit 6, then it is going
13 to be what historically happened through that
14 ten-year period, which with the policy changes that
15 occurred over that period of time, I wouldn't expect
16 historical information to be reproduced by this
17 model.
18 Q. Okay. Then in the appendices to Exhibit 3,
19 annual budget base, those baseline budgets do not
20 reflect historical data?
21 A. Other than rainfall, they do not.
22 Q. Inflows and outflows from structure would
23 not be based upon historical data?
24 A. That is correct.
25 Q. All right. You lost me as to why.
 137

1 A. Well, we basically don't use historical
2 flows with the simulation model, we simulate the
3 structure operations, and the model then estimates
4 the flows that would result from the different
5 structural or operational changes that we are trying
6 to simulate the effects of.
7 Q. Okay. Then since I now have three
8 different things I am attempting to compare, one is
9 the water budgets that are contained in Exhibit 2B,
10 Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan --
11 A. Right.
12 Q. -- the other are the water budgets
13 contained in Exhibit 3, the Burns & McDonnell
14 simulation, and specifically I am referring to the
15 baseline budgets there --
16 A. Okay.
17 Q. -- and the third is the excerpts from the
18 Everglades Appendices, Exhibit Number 6 --
19 A. Uh-huh.
20 Q. Now, as I understand your testimony, the
21 water budgets contained in the Lower East Coast
22 Regional Water Supply Plan, Exhibit 2B, actually
23 reflect historical data?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Inflows and outflows. And those would
 138

1 differ then from the water budgets contained in
2 Exhibit 3 for the baseline because these are
3 simulated inflows and outflows?
4 A. Right. That is correct.
5 Q. Well, then I'll revise my question.
6 A. Okay.
7 Q. I would then draw your attention to page
8 B-135 of Exhibit 6 and page C-14 of Exhibit 2B.
9 A. You said C-14?
10 Q. C-14, yes, I did.
11 A. Okay.
12 Q. Now, with regard to your budget that you
13 prepared for Exhibit 2B, Water Conservation Area 1,
14 just comparing rainfall, and evapotranspiration is a
15 net producer of water; is that essentially correct?
16 A. On an annual average basis, rainfall
17 exceeds evapotranspiration.
18 Q. By approximately 69,000 acre feet?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Okay. Now, we are dealing with a one-year
21 difference in the period of record for the water
22 budget contained on B-135. Recognizing that, there
23 is -- in the SWIM plan, it shows that the Water
24 Conservation Area 1 is a net water user; is that
25 correct?
 139

1 A. It is showing that rainfall is less than
2 evapotranspiration.
3 Q. Okay. By approximately some 45,000 acre
4 feet; is that correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Comparing then just rainfall and ET in the
7 SWIM plan and rainfall and ET in the District's Lower
8 East Coast Water Supply Plan, there is approximately
9 a 100,000 acre foot swing just for that one
10 conservation area?
11 A. There is a difference.
12 Q. Would that 100,000 acre reflect -- and
13 these are both annual averages -- be accounted for by
14 the one-year difference in the period of record?
15 A. In part, it could be.
16 MR. McGRATH: Let me just object to again
17 these comparative questions where you're asking
18 the witness for his understanding of differences
19 when there hasn't been established his knowledge
20 of what the numbers in Exhibit Number 6 are
21 based on. So to that extent, you're asking him
22 to speculate, which is improper.
23 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
24 Q. Given that this is over approximately a
25 nine-year period, for there to be a 100,000 acre foot
 140

1 average difference in the annual -- or in the
2 average, it would require approximately what; 900,000
3 acre foot to be made up somehow? Is that correct?
4 A. I'm not sure I understand the question.
5 Q. My question is that there is a difference
6 in the water budget in the District Water Supply
7 Plan, which shows a positive rainfall, exceeds ET by
8 69,000, and in the SWIM plan, ET exceeds rainfall by
9 approximately 45,000. Difference of about 110,000
10 acre feet. Given that these are both annual averages
11 over a nine and a ten-year period, for there to be
12 that large a difference, that extra year, to account
13 for it would require literally somewhere in the area
14 of 900,000 to a million acre feet; is that correct?
15 A. I'm not sure how you are arriving at that.
16 Q. I'm just trying to see what you would need
17 to have in the -- I mean, there is a difference of
18 one year between these budgets, water budgets; is
19 that correct?
20 A. I read them both as having ten years.
21 Q. I have the District as '79 to '88 and your
22 water budget is '80 through '89.
23 A. Yeah.
24 Q. It would be a difference of one year.
25 A. One year on either side.
 141

1 Q. Right.
2 A. So they are both ten years.
3 Q. Okay. But one year on either side
4 difference. I am just trying to determine whether or
5 not the difference of 100,000 acre or 110,000 acre
6 feet on an average basis for those two different
7 periods would be accounted for by the difference of
8 those one year on either side.
9 A. I don't think -- I think in part the
10 difference can be accounted for by the difference in
11 the periods that were used for the averaging.
12 Q. Okay. And that would mean the difference
13 would be accounted for by 1979 being used by the SWIM
14 plan and 1989 being used in the water supply plan?
15 A. Right.
16 Q. Okay. Were those two exceptional years?
17 A. They were different. '79 was a wet year,
18 '89 was a dry year.
19 MR. McGRATH: Also, I don't think we have
20 established if it's a calendar year or water
21 year that you're dealing with, Exhibit Number 6.
22 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
23 Q. '89 you say was a dry year?
24 A. Uh-huh.
25 Q. And the water supply plan uses 1989; is
 142

1 that correct?
2 A. Uses it for what?
3 Q. Uses it in calculating its annual average
4 water budget.
5 A. Yeah, it is one of the ten years, yes.
6 Q. Okay. So if it was a dry year, if
7 anything, that would result in making WCA-1 less of a
8 water supplier, or a net water supplier; is that
9 correct?
10 A. As it affects the mean, I think you would
11 have to consider the differences in 1978 -- or, I'm
12 sorry, 1979 also.
13 Q. Oh, I know that. I was just doing 1989
14 first.
15 A. Okay.
16 Q. So 1989 would have resulted in, if
17 anything, making rainfall, when you calculate that
18 into your average, if anything, it reduces your
19 annual average rainfall, is that correct, because it
20 was a dry year?
21 A. It would reduce. Yeah, I think it would.
22 Q. All right. And if you look at 1979, which
23 was not included for the water supply plan but was
24 included for the SWIM plan, that was a wet year?
25 A. Uh-huh. Yes.
 143

1 Q. All right. And that would have increased
2 rainfall; is that correct?
3 A. '79 would have higher rainfall.
4 Q. All right. So, with regard to the SWIM
5 plan, that would have resulted in some incremental
6 increase in the rainfall average if '79 had not been
7 used?
8 A. I think so. I would like to look at the
9 numbers for those years in particular before I really
10 speculate as to how the means would be estimated, but
11 in theory, what you're saying makes sense. If you
12 include a dry year in an averaging and exclude a wet
13 year, you are going to affect the mean by increasing
14 it.
15 Q. Well, given that '79 is included in the
16 SWIM plan and not in the water supply plan, and
17 likewise '89's included in the water supply plan and
18 not in the SWIM plan, the discussion we just had, if
19 anything, if you excluded those years, you would have
20 an even greater difference than 110,000, comparing
21 the two annual means, wouldn't you?
22 A. Are you talking strictly rainfall?
23 Q. I am talking rainfall and ET.
24 A. I'm not sure how inclusion or exclusion of
25 those years would affect the evapotranspiration
 144

1 estimate that was made in the SWIM plan report
2 because I'm not aware of how they estimated
3 evapotranspiration.
4 Q. To the best of your knowledge, the ET
5 contained in the water budget water supply plan is
6 the accurate ET estimate, average annual ET estimate,
7 for Water Conservation Area 1; is that correct?
8 A. Yeah. It is as accurate an estimate as I
9 could give you.
10 Q. Is there anyone else at the District you
11 would turn to for a better estimate?
12 A. Other than to research additional, you
13 know, previous reports, no.
14 Q. And in any water supply plan, particularly
15 for the lower east coast of South Florida, ET is a
16 very important factor in that water supply plan;
17 isn't it?
18 A. It is an important component, sure.
19 Q. Given then your best effort at estimating
20 ET for the water budget contained in the water supply
21 plan, do you agree or disagree with the ET estimate
22 contained in the SWIM plan of 619,000 acre feet for
23 Water Conservation Area 1?
24 MR. McGRATH: I have got to object. How
25 can he agree or disagree when he doesn't know
 145

1 what is the basis of what is in the SWIM plan?
2 MR. KOBELINSKI: I'm not asking for the
3 basis, I am just asking whether he believes that
4 619,000 acre feet for average ET is correct.
5 MR. McGRATH: Without establishing his
6 knowledge for the factors and data that went
7 into calculating that?
8 MR. KOBELINSKI: I'm not asking him to
9 recalculate 619, I'm asking him has he
10 calculated ET for Water Conservation Area 1? He
11 said yes, he did it on the best available
12 information he has. Now, since he has done
13 that, I'm asking him whether or not he agrees
14 with 619 acre feet as the average ET for Water
15 Conservation Area 1.
16 MR. McGRATH: But how can he do that if he
17 doesn't know how that was calculated?
18 MR. KOBELINSKI: Because he's calculated
19 his own.
20 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
21 Q. I could ask him -- sir, is 9 million acre
22 feet correct ET for Water Conservation Area 1 for an
23 average year?
24 A. How did you get 9 million?
25 Q. I just pulled it out of the air.
 146

1 A. No.
2 Q. No, it is not. Okay. Is 619,000 acre
3 feet --
4 MR. FITZGERALD: You're considering the
5 source then.
6 THE WITNESS: Exactly.
7 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
8 Q. Is 619,000?
9 A. I'll ask you the same question: How did
10 you get 619,000?
11 Q. I got it from the SWIM plan.
12 A. Well, I don't know how the SWIM plan got
13 that number.
14 Q. Well --
15 A. You know, I don't know if they did a
16 comprehensive water budget analysis or whether it was
17 somebody's rough estimate or where they got that
18 information.
19 Q. Okay. Do you believe your 525,000 acre
20 feet for Water Conservation Area 1 is the correct ET
21 for that area?
22 A. I believe it is a good estimate based on
23 the analysis that we did.
24 Q. Is there a better estimate made by the
25 District?
 147

1 A. Not that I am aware of.
2 Q. With regard to the inflows you used in your
3 water budget and the water supply plan, those are,
4 likewise, the best figures available for the water
5 budget inflows and outflows?
6 A. I think so.
7 Q. Drawing your attention to page C-16 of
8 Exhibit 2B and page B-136 of Exhibit 6, comparing the
9 ET for Water Conservation Area 2A contained in the
10 District Draft Water Supply Plan of 327,000 acre
11 feet; is that correct?
12 A. Are you talking about the annual average?
13 Q. Yes.
14 A. The annual average is 387.
15 Q. Excuse me. 387. Thank you. That's also
16 then a number that you have calculated?
17 A. That's the number that was generated by the
18 water management model.
19 Q. All right. Then comparing that to the
20 Everglades SWIM Plan Appendix B, water budget at page
21 B-136 of Exhibit 6, which shows the ET for Water
22 Conservation Area 2A of 484,905 acre feet, based upon
23 the information you have reviewed, which of these
24 would be the accurate, or more accurate; the
25 evapotranspiration figure for Water Conservation Area
 148

1 2A?
2 A. I'll have to answer the same way I did for
3 the previous discussion on Area 1: Without knowing
4 the methods they used to estimate evapotranspiration,
5 it's difficult to say.
6 Q. But you did use, to your knowledge, the
7 best available information you could find at the
8 District?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And in fact, the District is using the data
11 you generated for these water budgets and essentially
12 from the water model in its water supply plan for the
13 lower east coast?
14 A. We plan to use the water management model
15 for the water supply plan analysis, yes.
16 Q. Do you have any idea what would account for
17 a difference of approximately 98,000 acre feet,
18 97,000 acre feet?
19 A. I have some ideas.
20 Q. What would those be?
21 A. Well, we talked about this morning the
22 differences in structure flows.
23 Q. Okay.
24 A. That could account for some of the
25 differences.
 149

1 Q. That would then affect the ET algorithm in
2 your water management model; is that correct?
3 A. If we used these numbers. If we modified
4 the numbers for the structure flows in the water
5 management model, it may have an impact on the ET
6 numbers.
7 Q. Do you believe that impact would be
8 approximately 98,000 acre feet?
9 A. No, I don't think it would explain 98,000
10 acre feet.
11 Q. Any other thoughts or factors that may
12 influence that?
13 A. Not at this point. But I am real curious
14 to talk to people back at the District and find out
15 how this budget was put together. It is always nice
16 to have something to compare to, and I think it will
17 be a useful exercise to compare our information with
18 the way this stuff was estimated. But this is the
19 first time I have seen this.
20 Q. I will then just very briefly, just to
21 confirm that you have no additional information in
22 comparing the water budget for 3A contained in the
23 water supply plan, which is at page C-20, to the
24 water budget, page B-137 on Exhibit 6, ET, as shown
25 in the District Draft Water Supply Plan, is 1,833,000
 150

1 acre feet and ET for the same area in the SWIM plan
2 is 2,227,210 acre feet; a difference of approximately
3 290,000 acre feet, or 295,000 acre feet. Again, any
4 thoughts as to any additional factors that may have
5 resulted in this approximately 300,000 acre feet
6 difference in ET?
7 A. Not off the top of my head.
8 Q. Looking back just briefly for the budget in
9 the SWIM plan for Water Conservation Area 1, 2A and
10 3A, essentially added up, you have somewhere between
11 450- and 500,000 acre feet more ET reflected in the
12 SWIM plan on an annual average basis for those three
13 Water Conservation Areas than you do in the District
14 Water Supply Plan, Draft Water Supply Plan. Would
15 that difference of approximately 450,000 to 500,000
16 acre feet of ET, if it was actually correct, such
17 that there is an additional loss through ET of
18 approximately half a million acre feet, have an
19 impact upon the water supply decisions or proposals
20 being made in this water supply plan?
21 A. To date, no. It wouldn't have any effect
22 because the budgets haven't been used for any
23 decision making at this point in time.
24 Q. Would you anticipate that it would have
25 impact upon decision making budgets; essentially a
 151

1 loss of an additional half a million acre feet?
2 A. That's hard to say.
3 Q. Are you involved in that decision making
4 process; i.e., taking the facts and figures that are
5 being put together and then using it to make the
6 determination as to water supply?
7 A. Not the decision making, no.
8 Q. Okay. So to a certain extent, the question
9 I just posed was perhaps to the wrong person; is what
10 you are telling me?
11 A. Possibly.
12 Q. Okay.
13 A. Let me --
14 MR. McGRATH: There is no question pending,
15 so there is no further explanation needed.
16 THE WITNESS: All right.
17 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
18 Q. Was there something you were going to say?
19 A. No.
20 MR. FITZGERALD: Is there a question you
21 were going to ask?
22 MR. KOBELINSKI: I just did.
23 THE WITNESS: No. That's okay.
24 MR. KOBELINSKI: Why don't we take a two-
25 minute break, but I think I have nothing
 152

1 further.
2 (Thereupon, a recess was taken.)
3 MR. KOBELINSKI: I have no further
4 questions at this time. Although I do not
5 anticipate the need, we likewise may have need
6 to ask Mr. Neidrauer some additional questions
7 at such point when we get the documents that
8 Mr. Perko had mentioned and we have had the
9 opportunity to review this Exhibit 3. I would
10 not anticipate that to be the case, but I will
11 make the same reservations that Mr. Perko did.
12 Thanks a lot. I assume you want to read.
13 MR. McGRATH: We'll read.
14 (Witness excused.)
15 (Thereupon, at 3:25 p.m.,
16 the deposition was concluded.)
 153

1 CERTIFICATE OF OATH

2
The State of Florida )
3 County of Palm Beach. )

4
I, the undersigned authority, certify that
5 Cal Neidrauer personally appeared before me and was
duly sworn.
6
WITNESS my hand and official seal this ___
7 day of ________, 1993.

8
________________________________
9 Elaine V. Williams, CM
Notary Public - State of Florida
10 My Commission No. CC 263435
Expires: March 27, 1997
 154

1 C E R T I F I C A T E

2
The State of Florida )
3 County of Palm Beach. )

4
I, Elaine V. Williams, Professional
5 Reporter, do hereby certify that I was authorized to
and did report said deposition in stenotype; and that
6 the foregoing pages, numbered from 1 to ____,
inclusive, are a true and correct transcription of my
7 shorthand notes of said deposition.

8 I further certify that I am not attorney or
counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or
9 employee of any attorney or counsel or party
connected with the action, nor am I financially
10 interested in the action.

11 The foregoing certification of this
transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the
12 same by any means unless under the direct control
and/or direction of the certifying reporter.
13
Dated this ____ day of ______, 1993.
14

15
________________________________
16 Elaine V. Williams, CM

17
The State of Florida )
18 County of Palm Beach. )

19
The foregoing certificate was acknowledged
20 before me this ____ day of _______, 1993 by
Elaine V. Williams, who is personally known to me.
21

22 ________________________________

23 Notary Public - State of Florida
My Commission expires:
24

 155

1 C E R T I F I C A T E
2 - - -
3
4 The State of Florida, )
5 County of Palm Beach. )
6
7
8 I hereby certify that I have read the
9 foregoing deposition by me given, and that the
10 statements contained therein are true and correct to
11 the best of my knowledge and belief.
12
13 Dated this ____ day of______________ 1993.
14
15
16
17
18 _________________________
19 Cal Neidrauer
20
21
 156

1 DATE: July 7, 1993
2 TO: Cal Neidrauer
South Florida Water Management District
3 3301 Gun Club Road
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
4
RE: Sugar Cane Growers v SFWMD
5
Please take notice that on June 28, 1993
6 you gave your deposition in the above referred
matter. At that time you did not waive signature.
7 It is now necessary that you sign your deposition.

8 Please come to our office, 319 Clematis
Street, Suite 500, West Palm Beach, Florida, at any
9 time between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, to sign the deposition.
10 Notice that this address may be different than the
one where you gave your deposition.
11
If you do not appear to sign your
12 deposition within thirty (30) days, the original will
be forwarded to the attorney who requested your
13 appearance for deposition, for filing with the Clerk
of the Court. If you wish to waive your signature,
14 sign your name in the blank at the bottom of this
page and return to us.
15
Very truly yours,
16
MUDRICK, WITT, LEVY & CONSOR
17 REPORTING AGENCY, INC.

18
____________________________
19 Elaine V. Williams
NOTARY PUBLIC
20

21 I do hereby waive my signature:

22
______________________________
23 Cal Neidrauer

24 cc:
cc:
25 cc: