STATE OF FLORIDA
             DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS


                                                CASE NOs.  92-3038
                                                           92-3039
                                                           92-3040

SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE OF 
FLORIDA, INC., ROTH FARMS, INC., 
and WEDGWORTH FARMS, INC.,

and

FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, INC., 
UNITED STATES SUGAR CORPORATION, 
and NEW HOPE SOUTH, INC.,
                                                VOLUME I     
and

FLORIDA FRUIT AND VEGETABLE 
ASSOCIATION, LEWIS POPE FARMS,
W.E. SCHLECHTER & SONS, INC., and 
HUNDLEY FARMS, INC.,

               Petitioners,
vs.

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT 
DISTRICT,

               Respondent,
and

MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS OF 
FLORIDA, the UNITED STATES OF 
AMERICA, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF 
ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, and 
FLORIDA WILDLIFE FEDERATION,

               Intervenors.

_____________________________________________________________

                       DEPOSITION OF 
                    DR. LEO C. POLOPOLUS

_____________________________________________________________




                     ACCURATE REPORTING
                            A/K/A
              MACDONALD COURT REPORTING SERVICE
   204 West University Ave., Suite 7, Gainesville FL 32601
    (904) 373-1126 ù (800) 329-1133 ù FAX (904) 375-6249


     Pursuant to due notice, the deposition of the above-
named witness was taken by the Respondent-Intervenor, the
United States of America, before Mary Macdonald, Court
Reporter and Notary Public, State at Large, at 204 West
University Avenue, Gainesville, Florida, on Wednesday, April
14, 1993, commencing at 9:00 a.m.

APPEARANCES:

     KEITH E. SAXE, Esquire, United States Department of
Justice, Environment & Natural Resources Division, General
Litigation Section, Post Office Box 663, Washington, D.C. 
20044-0663;

     RICK BURGESS, Esquire, and SCOTT D. LIEBERMAN, Esquire,
Peeples, Earl & Blank, One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3636, Two
South Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, Florida  33131;

     PATRICK S. COUSINS, Esquire, Popham, Hail, Schnobrich &
Kaufman, Ltd., 4000 International Place, 100 Southeast Second
Street, Miami, Florida  33131;

     CAROL RAEPPLE, Esquire, Hopping, Boyd, Green & Sams,
Post Office Box 6526, Tallahassee, Florida  32314;


ALSO PRESENT:  Lonnie L. Jones, Ph.D.
                    Grace Johns, Ph.D.
                    William Boggess, Ph.D.

     Thereupon,
                    DR. LEO C. POLOPOLUS,
     being first duly sworn, testified as follows:

                     DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. SAXE:
     Q    Dr. Polopolus, I'm Keith Saxe, I'm an attorney with
the United States Department of Justice and I represent the
United States in the action Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of
Florida versus South Florida Water Management District.
               I'll be taking your deposition for this case today
through Friday, and if necessary on some other date to be
scheduled in the future.
               During this deposition I will be asking you a
series of questions.  You are required to give me your
complete and honest answer to each question, unless your
attorney instructs you not to answer.  If for any reason you
don't understand a question, please tell me and I'll try to
clarify it.
               Dr. Polopolus, would you please state your full
name and home address for the record.
     A    Yes.  My name is Leo Polopolus and my address is
4741 Northwest 8th Avenue, Gainesville, Florida, 32605.

                         MR. SAXE:  Ms. Court Reporter, would you mark
          those for identification, please?

          (Document entitled Memorandum, to Ms. Susan
          Pacheco, from Leo Polopolus, dated August 18, 1992,
          so marked as Polopolus Exhibit No. 1; 
                         Document entitled Biological Sketch, Leo C.
          Polopolus, so marked as Polopolus Exhibit No. 2;
                         Document entitled Leo C. Polopolus, Selected
          Programs and Publications:  Economics of Sugar,
          Vegetables and Fruit, so marked as Polopolus
          Exhibit No. 3.)

BY MR. SAXE:
     Q    Dr. Polopolus, I'm handing your three documents
that have been marked for identification, Exhibits 1, 2 
and 3.  
               If you would take a look at the first document, No.
1, and identify it for the record.
     A    This is a memorandum from me to Susan Pacheco of
Peeples, Earl & Blank, just a transmittal letter that
indicates enclosed are my biographic sketch and a Selected
List of Publications.
     Q    And would that be the documents that have been
marked for identification as Nos. 2 and 3?
     A    Yes, sir.
                     Q    Does Document No. 2 represent a relatively complete
and current version of your Curriculum Vitae?
     A    I believe it's the last one that I have prepared. 
     Q    Okay.  And you've indicated that Document No. 3 is
a list of publications?
     A    It's a selected list of publications of mine
dealing with the economics of sugar, vegetables and fruits,
completed while at the University of Florida or with the
Florida Department of Citrus.
               It does not include my earlier publications in
these subject areas, while on the faculty at Louisiana State
University.
     Q    And I understand that if we need to take a look at
copies of any of those omitted publications that you will
check to see if you have copies for us.
     A    If they're in print I'll be happy to provide them.
     Q    That's great.
               Dr. Polopolus, what is your occupation?
     A    I'm an agricultural economist.
     Q    How long have you been an ag economist?
     A    I've been an agricultural economist for thirty-
three years.
     Q    Would you describe your educational background,
starting with high school?
     A    Yes.  I completed high school at Colton Union High
School, Colton, California.  I'm a life member of the
California Scholastic Federation.
               From there I went to the University of California,
Davis, where I obtained a Bachelor of Science degree in
agricultural economics, with highest honors.
               Then I went to the University of California at
Berkeley, and I received a Ph.D. in agricultural economics in
1960.
     Q    Do you hold any other undergraduate degrees, other
than the B.S. from U.C. Davis?
     A    No.
     Q    Any other graduate, advanced or professional
degrees, besides the Ph.D. from U.C. Berkeley?
     A    None.
     Q    Do you specialize in any particular aspect or did
you specialize in any particular aspect of ag economics in
your education?
     A    I'm fairly broadly trained in agricultural
economics and management production economics, marketing,
econometrics, policy.
               The Ph.D. dissertation focus was ÄÄ which dealt
with the U.S. beet sugar industry, by the way ÄÄ had a focus
on policy, public policy, and industrial organization.
     Q    Have you received any other training that relates
to the work you're doing in this case, besides the
educational background that you have described?
     A    It depends on what you mean by training.
     Q    Any formal courses, any organized seminars, things
of that nature?
     A    There's been countless numbers of conferences,
seminars, experiences with organizations, with groups, and
I'll be happy to discuss them.
     Q    Any that come to mind as being particular germane
to the work that you're doing in this case?
     A    Yes, some of them would be.  For example, I was a
member of the IFAS Water Resources Council for three years. 
               I was Chairman of the University of Florida Water
Research Center, which encompasses the College of
Engineering, all the academic units at the University of
Florida.
               I was previously on the Aquatic Weed Resource
Council of IFAS.
               IFAS stands for the Institute of Food and
Agricultural Sciences at the University of Florida.
               In the area of sugar, I have been involved in work
and conferences, meetings and consulting and advising,
teaching, in a variety of contexts.
     Q    Are these involvements, that you have just
mentioned, listed on this Selected Programs and Publications,
that's marked as Exhibit No. 3?
                     A    Some of them, yes.
               In addition to the sugar, I should also mention, I
have been involved in, since vegetables are also an area of
interest here for this particular project, I could say the
same thing about vegetables involved in, like, for example, I
was a consultant to the National Commission on Productivity,
under President Nixon.  In that respect I was involved in not
only statewide but national issues of productivity that
involved the fruit and vegetable industry.
     Q    When was that?
     A    That was the National Commission on Productivity
experience, was in '72, '73 ÄÄ 1972/1973 period.
     Q    Your reference to the IFAS Resources Council, is
that what is listed here on Exhibit No. 3 as 3(g), the IFAS
Marketing Task Force?  Is that the same thing?
     A    No, not at all.
               The IFAS Water Resource Council was formed in the
early ÄÄ I should say mid-1970s and was operative through, I
think, the early 1980s, to bring together all of IFAS
resources on water quality and water resource issues.  
               We had a special effort and my role, as Chairman of
the Department of Food and Resource Economics at the time,
was to try to muster and organize and recruit and carry out
an economics program as part of the statewide effort in water
resources.
                     Q    Your involvement with the resources council was
from its inception through the early '80s, or. . .
     A    Pretty much from its inception until the early
'80s, yes.
     Q    Are any of the particular involvements that you
have been talking about present involvements, things that
you're doing presently, or are they all things that you have
done in the past?
     A    Those particular activities are things in the past
and not current.
     Q    Okay.
     A    I'm not currently involved in ÄÄ I'm not even aware
that there is currently an IFAS Water Resources Council.  I'm
not involved if there is one.
     Q    Okay.  What were your duties with the Water
Resources Council?
     A    Again, as I indicated, my role, as the Chair ÄÄ the
resource economist of the Department of Food and Resource
Economics and my role was to assist in carrying out the IFAS
mission in water resource economics.
     Q    Were you involved in research in that capacity?
     A    No, I was not directly involved in research, but in
organizing research.
     Q    So would you say it was administration?
     A    It was more administrative and policy than it was
in directly conducting the work.
     Q    Did you review research?
     A    Oh, yes, indeed, and one of the roles that I played
in IFAS, in my tenure as chairman, was to develop a teaching,
research and extension program in the natural resource and
environmental quality area.  For example, I brought together
a team of people that we developed a specialization in a
teaching program, in natural resource environmental
economics; we developed, we think, one of the finest, at that
time, one of the finest extension programs in Natural
Resource and Economics in hiring Dr. Carriker, Dr. Comer, and
other people, and I'm responsible for hiring such people as
Dr. Boggess, Dr. Lini, Dr. Clouser, Dr. Mulkey, and many of
the current players in the University of Florida's Natural
Resource Team.
               So, I was not the researcher, but I was very much
involved in the development of the program.
     Q    Okay.  Are there any other programs or affiliations
that, besides the ones that you have mentioned, that you
think have provided you experience or opportunities that are
particularly germane to your work in this case?
     A    My own research experience and my continuing
interest in sugar economics, which culminated in a book I
wrote on the subject, and also a continuing interest in
vegetables and vegetable policy, which one piece of that was
my role as editing a book recently released on vegetable
trade.  
     Q    The sugar economics book that you're referring to,
is that listed on Exhibit No. 3?
     A    Yes.
     Q    Would that be 3(o) on the second page of the
document?
     A    Which document, sir?
     Q    Exhibit No. 3, the second page.
     A    Yes.
     Q    Is that the book?
     A    Yes.
     Q    Did the book deal with the sugar industry and
environmental problems in the Everglades?
     A    The sugar book was primarily oriented to the
natural sugar and sweetener industry, which Florida was a
part.  It included cane sugar, beet sugar and high fructose
corn syrup.  
               It, in discussing both the cane production,
domestic cane production and domestic cane milling and
domestic cane refining, it obviously dealt with Florida.
     Q    Did it deal with the environmental issues of South
Florida?
     A    No, it did not.
     Q    Would you describe your employment history for me
in chronological order, starting with your graduation from
Berkeley?
     A    Yes.  My first full-time employment, except for
that at the University of California, Berkeley, when I was a
full-time research associate my last year there, but I went
to my first academic appointment at Louisiana State
University as Assistant Professor for three years and then
was promoted to Associate Professor for the next two years,
at which point ÄÄ that's the period, giving specific dates,
Assistant Professor, LSU, 1960-63; Associate Professor, LSU,
1963-65.
               At that time I took an appointment with the Florida
Citrus Commission, on the campus of the University of Florida,
as a research economist for the Florida Department of Citrus.
               Within less than a year the director of the
Research and Marketing Department of the Commission, located
in Lakeland, resigned and I was appointed director.  We split
off the marketing from the economic research.  I asked to be
maintained in my directorship in Gainesville and for the
remaining two or three years I was Director of Economics for
a state agency, a state regulatory agency, and also had other
marketing responsibilities.  It was called Economic Research
Department, the Florida Citrus Commission.  Subsequently it's
been changed to the Florida Department of Citrus.
     Q    The distinction you described there, when you said
the Commission split between the marketing function and what
was the other one?
     A    The economic ÄÄ at one time the agency had an
Economic and Marketing Department.
     Q    Okay.
     A    When I became the director I became the Director of
Economic Research, and Marketing Research continued to be
headquartered in Lakeland.
     Q    Okay.
     A    So there was sort of a bifurcation there of
responsibility.
               Then I left the Florida Department of Citrus, but
remained at the University of Florida, became Professor of
Food and Resource Economics for the University of Florida in
1969, January of 1969.
     Q    So you were with the Florida Citrus Commission
between '65 and '69?
     A    That's correct, until December 31, 1968.
               January 1, 1969, I became a Full Professor of Food
and Resource Economics at the University of Florida.
     Q    Okay.
     A    Within a matter of a few months I was asked by the
new dean for the graduate school, an eminent physicist,
University of Texas, to be a part-time assistant dean for the
graduate school for the University of Florida.
                                               So in 1969, for a four-year period, I had a half-
time appointment as Assistant Dean of the Graduate School
with responsibilities across the whole campus, and Professor
of Food and Resource Economics.
               In 1973 I resigned my role as assistant dean, half-
time, it was like having two full-time jobs, to becoming the
Chairman of the Department of Food and Resource Economics as
Professor of Food and Resource Economics, and I was Chairman
of that department for a ten-year period, 1973 through 1983.
               In 1983 I stepped down as Chair of the department
and resumed my role as Professor of Food and Resource
Economics at the University of Florida.
     Q    Okay.  And you have been with the University of
Florida since 1983 in that capacity?
     A    In that capacity, that is correct.
     Q    Okay.  During the course of your employment. . .
               Well, before I move off your chronology here, I
asked you about employment after your graduation from
Berkeley and you mentioned you were a full-time research
assistant at Berkeley.
     A    Yes.
     Q    Was there any employment, between and during your
undergraduate and graduate years, that was related to the
subject matter of your work on the case?  I don't need you to
tell me, you know, your part-time jobs at McDonald's, that
kind of thing, if any, but is there anything that comes to
mind that you worked on?
     A    No, except my full-time role as graduate research
assistant, or whatever the title was, at Berkeley, in my last
year there, 1959-1960, was to work on sugar policy and sugar
marketing, and I spent full-time on that, and that also
became my dissertation on the U.S. beet sugar industry and
the structure and performance of that industry under
government regulations and control.
               So in that context, I very intimately became
familiar with sugar policy, as it affected both cane and beet
industries in the United States.
     Q    During the course of your professional and academic
involvements, have you worked on any project that involved
either economic or socioeconomic impact analyses of resource
management actions that are proposed to remedy environmental
problems?
     A    With the construction of that question, as I
understand it, and with some difficulty in scanning over
thirty-three years of effort, when you add the word
environmental problems, then I would have to say no to the
question.
     Q    All right.  Let's work ÄÄ rather than going to
fully qualified, let me work back from the basic end.
               Have you worked on any projects that involved
economic or socioeconomic impact analyses, period?
     A    Yes.
     Q    Would you list them for me?
     A    Well, there was a period of time in that period of
time at LSU when my role was a regional economist and I had
federal grants from the U.S. Department of Commerce and had a
group of graduate students and others as staff members, and
the concern there was ÄÄ if you recall, the economy, the U.S.
economy, in the early '60s, was one of high unemployment rate
and low economic development, and the Economic Development
Administration in Washington and in state areas were trying
to develop ways to deal with problems of unemployment and
promote growth, economic growth, and in that capacity, in my
role, both in teaching, graduate teaching, and in research, I
carried out research for the area of Redevelopment
Administration on how agribusiness or agriculture could be
used to value added activities to promote the economy of a
particular region, and that particular application happened
to be south/central Louisiana, and how one could take
agricultural production in that area and generate employment
and income and growth.
               So I have a number of publications and other work
that related to that effort.
               So that is one application of that.
     Q    So, if I understand your testimony, this project to
promote economic growth involved proposals, developmental
proposals, some involving agribusiness and other agricultural
undertakings.
     A    It involved proposals, it involved theses work,
dissertation research, publications, chapters in books, it
involved theoretical pieces, it involved a whole series of
effort that would be under my supervision and with some joint
authorships and so forth.
     Q    Did it involve any economic impact assessment
projects, strictly called?

                         MR. BURGESS:  Object to the form.

BY MR. SAXE:
     Q    Do you understand the question?
     A    Not well.
     Q    Okay.  Did the work involve any projects
quantifying economic impacts of a particular proposal?
     A    It involved the economic impact of creating or
adding value to agriculture product.  It involved primarily
investment feasibility:  would it be feasible, economically
feasible, to expand into the use of new technology?
               Let me give you an example of what was involved.
     Q    Okay.
     A    The U.S. Department of Agriculture was developing
new technology and the development of new products.  One
product was sweet potato flakes.  Okay.  Brand new
technology, wasn't applied, we took the research of the U.S.
Department of Agricultures' Food Utilization Lab in New
Orleans, where they developed a technical feasibility for
utilizing the processes of manufacturing sweet potato flakes,
and we applied that technical feasibility to whether or not
that was economically feasible to actually produce sweet
potato flakes and recover the investment of that facility by
using locally grown sweet potatoes.
               Now, what's involved there is the determination of
quasi-rents, total revenue streams, total operating costs,
and so forth.
     Q    Is there a difference between economic feasibility
assessment or analysis, and an economic impact analysis?
     A    There could be.
     Q    What I'm looking for here is whether or not, in
your role in this particular project or set of projects, you
quantified the economic impacts in terms of changes in sales,
income or employment of any of the proposed actions.
               The one you mentioned is applying sweet potato
flake technology to develop that product, using local
potatoes.
     A    Yes.
     Q    My question is, did you undertake to assess the
economic impact of such a project?
     A    Not in the sense that maybe you're leading to.
               That particular project did not then take that
result and use multiplier analysis to determine what the
community impact, let's say, would be.  We were looking at
the economic feasibility.
               But at about the same time we were looking at other
projects in the Caddo-Bossier Parish to develop ÄÄ we
developed a proposal and began the research to actually
estimate employment and sales multipliers through original
research and at teaching the graduate level at Louisiana
State University I taught Leontief multiplier analysis and we
did develop a research proposal that was funded by the Caddo-
Bossier Parish Agribusiness Council, if I recall, and we had
the cooperation of industry, broadly speaking, to undertake
this kind of analysis.
               The problem with that was that in order to do and
develop primary employment and income multipliers it became
an accounting nightmare for many of the respondents and so we
never got an adequate completion of that.
               I may say, in connection with economic impact, and
I guess that the gist of your question is whether I had
experience in doing economic impact analyses, and maybe a
better way of characterizing that would be the work that I
did with the Florida Department of Citrus.  Where there is a
state agency it has regulatory advertising and marketing
research responsibility and as chief economist, in going
before a state regulatory authority on numerous occasions, I
presented the results of my work on what you might call an
economic impact statement.  
               What would be the economic impact of changing a
regulation, with respect to a school lunch program?  A
diversionary program.  What would be the economic impact of
permitting importation of more foreign orange juice
concentrate?  Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
               So in that context I did conduct, or under my
supervision had conducted studies of that nature.
     Q    So in your involvement in the Florida Department of
Citrus then you did quantify the economic impacts in terms of
changes in sales, income and/or job employment, the proposal,
concerning the school lunch program?
     A    We did not look at the employment implications, but
we looked at the sales implications.
     Q    How about with respect to importing the frozen
citrus?
     A    Again, we usually did not, other than to ÄÄ you
know, the question there was what would changes in tariff
policy do to production levels, which then would have an
impact on employment, and at that time we had employment
multipliers in the citrus processing industry and they were
estimated to be about. . . 

               (Short interruption)

BY MR. SAXE:
     Q    Dr. Polopolus, in your understanding of the terms,
would you call the analyses that you did at the Florida
Department of Citrus, that you just mentioned, economic
impact analyses?
     A    Maybe, maybe not.  It depends on how you define
economic impact analyses.
     Q    I guess what I'm asking is, given the way you would
define economic impact analysis, would you call those
analyses economic impact analyses?
     A    Well, the question is whether we're talking about
economic analyses, economic impact analyses.  Certainly
they're economic analyses.
     Q    Okay.  I'm asking about economic impact analyses.
     A    They may or may not be.
               I think the more standard definition would include
or could include employment implications.
     Q    When you say the definition could include
employment implications, would you consider an economic
impact analysis, done in the circumstances of this case, to
be an adequate one if it did not include employment impacts?
                     A    I think with respect to, say, the economic impact
analysis, as I understand it under state law and under state
regulations, and so forth, those analyses can be rather
cursory and not too analytical and not, you know, not much
research based on it, but in the context of this particular
application that we would say economic impact would more
appropriately include employment impact.
     Q    Okay.  So then would it be fair to say that the
analyses that you did at the Florida Department of Citrus
were not appropriate economic impact analyses?
     A    No, I'm not saying that, that they're not
appropriate.  I'm saying in the context of what the
application there ÄÄ for example, what is the impact of
having a diversionary program, which sets aside X percent of
the crop or X percent of the process product into a reserve
pool, which is the secondary market; what is the economic
impact of that?  And there we use what we call price
discrimination analysis and where we establish marginal
revenues, we set the net marginal revenues equal to zero, we
determine the impact of what that would be on lower revenue,
we then turn around and look at that impact on consumers and
what would that do to prices, and so on and so forth.
               So that's an economic impact analysis, in the sense
that we're determining the impact on growers and impact on
consumers and impact on the trade.
                                               Now, in the context in which we're talking about
this project, we may have a different definition of economic
impact, in the context of the particular problem.
     Q    As a professor of agricultural economics or food
and resource economics, does economic impact analysis have
any special meaning or definition?
     A    It's not in the standard textbook of agriculture
economics.  I mean, if you read a textbook of agriculture
economics, in the beginning course in agriculture economics,
to my knowledge, you can take the books that I have read or
seen, economic impact analysis would not be something that
would be a chapter heading or even a major sub-heading of a
textbook.  It may be included in a course, in some other kind
of course, but not in general agriculture economics.  It
wouldn't have any special meaning.
     Q    Are you aware of any scholarly texts, any
textbooks, within the discipline, that are either wholly or
partially devoted to the procedures for doing economic impact
analyses?

                         MR. BURGESS:  In the discipline of agriculture
          economics?
                         MR. SAXE:  Yes.


BY MR. SAXE:
     Q    Or food and resource economics.
     A    I'm not aware of any title of a book that says
"Economic Impact Analyses", offered by, you know. . .
     Q    Are you aware of any textbooks that have chapters
on economic impact analyses?
     A    I'm certainly aware of books that deal with
Leontief input/output analyses.
     Q    Would you spell that, please?
     A    V-a-s-s-i-l-y  L-e-o-n-t-i-e-f.
     Q    Thank you.
     A    Vassily Leontief was a guest of ours a few years
ago, he's a Nobel Laureate in economics.  
               Vassily is the author of what is known as
"input/output analyses".  He's the father of the technique,
which shows the interdependencies of economics within an
international economic framework.  He's the economist that
developed the primary concept of a multiplier and he's the
father of that.
               Now, are there textbooks, chapters in textbooks,
that deal with input/output analyses, as we know it from
Leontief?  There are dozens, hundreds.
               Are there similar books that are titled "Economic
Impact Analyses"?  I don't know of any.
     Q    Okay.
                     A    Certainly there has been no Nobel Laureate, to my
knowledge, on economic impact analyses.
     Q    You mentioned the Leontief multiplier analysis in the
context of what I think you called a Caddo-Bossier situation.
     A    Yes.
     Q    You said that, if I recall your testimony, that
although you may have been involved in an initial attempt to
do input and output analyses, in that context, that it turned
into an accounting nightmare and it wasn't completed.
     A    Right.
     Q    Are there any other projects that you have worked
on that have undertaken input/output analyses to quantify
economic impacts, in terms of changes in sales, job income
and employment?
     A    I think the answer to that is we would all love to
do that.  As scholars we would love to have the opportunity
of developing our own Leontief type input/output
coefficients.  The problem is the cost and the resources that
are required to develop those original estimates.  
               So what university economists have tended to do is
rely on the U.S. Department of Commerce and to rely on them
to develop the basic input/output multipliers, and so what
you find is the adaptation of those multipliers for the
purpose of developing estimates of inter-industry
relationships from a set, you know, or given reference base.
                                               We had, when I was Chairman of the Food and
Resource Economics Department, we had a major effort in this
area and our department were probably the leaders in the
State of Florida in working with the State of Florida
Department of Commerce and other university economists in
developing ÄÄ trying to develop better coefficients at a
micro level.
               One of the problems that you have with the Leontief
input/output coefficients is that they tend to be very
aggregative, they tend to aggregate a two-sector SIC code as
opposed to a four-sector or five-sector ÄÄ in other words,
they tend to aggregate agriculture in general, and what we
found, those of us in agriculture economics, at least in
Florida, that have attempted to use input/output multipliers,
we have found that sometimes the federal government's
multipliers, as they apply to agriculture, do not dis-
aggregate to the level by industry or they do not dis-
aggregate to the level by county or by sub-region to the
level we would like, and we try to do the best we can with
the available data and make reasonable estimates from what is
available.
     Q    Are you familiar with the Rims 2 multipliers?
     A    Generally.
     Q    Are those among the U.S. Department of Commerce
multipliers that you're referring to?
                     A    Yes.
     Q    Have you ever used the Rims multipliers before this
case?
     A    I have utilized the work of others and I don't
regard myself as presently a regional economist.  So when it
comes to multipliers, and even in this case I defer the
specific estimate of multipliers to those experts who spend
much of their career in ÄÄ so I defer to those, and in this
particular application we also defer to those references of
those individuals that have developed what we think are
reasonable estimates.
     Q    Let me see if I can close in on what I'm trying to
get at in my questioning here.
               Have you ever developed an input/output model?
     A    Yes, I did, in Caddo-Bossier Parish.
     Q    That was the one you commenced the analysis, but
did not complete it?
     A    And I might explain why it was not completed, give
you the reason for it.
               We were trying to determine the inter-industry
relationship to agriculture, to non-agriculture, in northwest
Louisiana.  One of the key industries in northwest Louisiana,
in addition to agriculture, happens to be natural gas and
petroleum.  
               What we were asking the natural gas and petroleum
industries, of northwest Louisiana, was to give us the data
in an accounting sense that bifurcated their data for just
those two parishes, Caddo and Bossier Parish, and their
relationship of buying inputs or selling supplies to
agribusiness components.  So it didn't work out.  
               Also I think that I mentioned that I have taught
Leontief input/output multipliers.  I have had Mr. Leontief
as my personal guest.  I mean, I have listened to him in
lectures.  I have been trained by Mr. Leontief.  I don't feel
I'm a stranger to the analysis.
     Q    And other than your work in the Caddo-Bossier case,
you have never completed an input/output analysis of economic
impacts on sales, income and employment?
     A    Not directly.
     Q    Okay.  I asked you about Rims before and you
testified that you used the work of others concerning Rims
and you don't consider yourself a regional economist, but
have you ever used Rims multipliers to estimate indirect or
induced impacts?
     A    Yes.
     Q    In what?
     A    In citrus.
     Q    Could you tell me about that?
     A    That's the application I think I mentioned with
respect to what is the employment impact of a particular
policy action in citrus and how that might impact employment
and sales, and I don't have publications on this, but I have
given papers and made presentations where, if I recall, the
coefficient was ÄÄ unemployment, I can't recall the
coefficient, but I can recall the sales coefficient on
processing of citrus to be above 2.4, and the point we made
with the industry and others, about value added agricultural
industries, is that when there is a processing activity or a
packing activity the sales and employment multipliers are
much larger than when the agricultural product is not
processed or packed locally.
     Q    So the work that you have done, doing input
analyses of the impact of citrus policies, looked not only at
employment impacts, but also at sales impacts?
     A    Yes.
     Q    Okay.  And I'm sorry, but did you indicate that you
had used Rims multipliers?
     A    Well, those are multipliers that are basically
Rims.  They are authored by other individuals.  You know,
they're in publications of other individuals.
     Q    Are they taken from Rims multipliers?
     A    I believe they are.
     Q    Okay.
     A    My understanding is that they are.
     Q    Have you ever estimated indirect or induced impacts
by any other techniques?
     A    Well, I have estimated economic impacts within.
               Is the question in the context of Leontief
input/output analyses?  Is that the question?
     Q    Yes.
     A    I don't recall.
     Q    Okay.  Moving back up to my initial question in
this colloquy, about work you might have done on economic
impact and assessment of resource management actions,
proposed to remedy environmental problems.  
               Your testimony so far sounds to me like it's
concerned only with developmental proposals, proposals to
stimulate economic growth or develop a particular industry;
is that a fair characterization of your testimony?

                         MR. BURGESS:  Object to the form.
                         ANSWER BY DR. POLOPOLUS:  Well, within the ÄÄ
          I'm not sure I understand the question, but it's
          not a characterization, it doesn't adequately
          characterize my output, all of my output.

BY MR. SAXE:
     Q    Would you identify for me any input/output analysis
of economic impacts that you have done that pertained to
proposed actions involving environmental remedies, as opposed
to economic development?
     A    Placed in the context, as I understand your
question, when you constrain it to input/output analysis, the
answer is I can't recall having done input/output analyses in
that context.
     Q    Have you. . .
     A    Other than what I have indicated.
     Q    Which of the projects that you worked on would you
say did involved ÄÄ when you say other than what you have
indicated, I'm not recalling whether you indicated any of
your work so far dealt with environmental remedies as opposed
to. . .
     A    Oh, environmental remedies, I'm sorry if that's
part of your question. . .
     Q    Okay.  The focus of my question is economic impact
analyses or input/output analyses of economic impacts of
proposed environmental remedies.
     A    No, that's not an area ÄÄ that's not my bag.
     Q    So your work, as I am attempting to characterize
your testimony before, your work involves, to the extent that
you had done input/output analyses or economic impact
analyses, it's been of economic developmental activities?
     A    Economic activities, maybe.
     Q    Okay.  That's fine, thanks.
               Are you familiar with the term benefit cost
analysis or cost benefit analysis?
     A    I have heard the term.
     Q    Does it have a specialized meaning in your
profession?
     A    Very specialized meaning.
     Q    Have you ever done any benefit cost analysis or
cost benefit analysis?
     A    Again, that is in the province of natural resource
economists and I'm not prepared to testify, nor am I actively
involved in "benefit cost analyses".
     Q    Okay.  Dr. Polopolus, I'd like to talk a bit about
your retention as a potential expert witness in the case.
     A    Yes.
     Q    You have been designated by the League to give
potential expert testimony in a case on the South Florida
Water Management District's ongoing economic study and on
regional and statewide economic impacts of the SWIM Plan.  
               Is that consistent with your understanding of the
potential scope of your expert testimony?
     A    Yes, it is.
     Q    Are there any additional areas you might be giving
expert testimony?
     A    Would you restate what you just said?
     Q    Yes.  As a matter of fact, if you would like to
take a look at the League's expert witness designation, that
would be fine. . .
               Let me grab that.  
               There you go.
     A    All right.  
     Q    My question is, are there any areas, besides the
District's ongoing economic study and regional and statewide
economic impacts of the SWIM Plan, that you might give expert
testimony on in this case?
     A    I don't intend to.  I'm not aware of.
     Q    What do you understand by the reference to the
District's ongoing economic study?
     A    What that refers to, I believe, is the Hazen and
Sawyer contract to conduct a study of economic impact, and my
role is to evaluate that study and their results.
     Q    Would that include economic benefit analysis that
Hazen and Sawyer might have been contracted to do?
     A    I may have seen some of their earlier work on that,
but I'm not ÄÄ I don't believe I have been asked to be
responsible for professional critique of benefit analysis.
     Q    Have you ever served as a litigation expert in a
case, other than this one?
     A    Yes.
     Q    Can you tell me about them, starting with your most
recent?
     A    I don't do a lot of this, so I have to go back over
some time, but the most recent was in a Federal District
Court of Danville, Virginia, where I was an expert witness in
a federal case involving the Immigration Reform Act, in
particular the H-2 Program of temporary foreign workers in
tobacco industries in Virginia and North Carolina.
     Q    Did your testimony involve economic impact issues?
     A    Yes, it did.
     Q    Could you tell me about that?
     A    The issues had to do with the adverse effect wage
rate and that was the primary focus of the litigation and the
setting of the adverse effect wage rate as it might affect
the number of foreign workers that would be available, and it
had to do, therefore, with the cost of production in tobacco
and economic viability of those industries vis-...-vis
immigration policy.
               Economic impact, definitely, but economic impact in
the context of the South Florida case, not really.
     Q    Okay.  Did you testify concerning the effects of
that policy or potential effects of the policy on sales for
the industry?
     A    That was one part of it.
               I was a part of a team and I was not the major
economist player in that particular effort.  Dr. James Holt,
consulting labor economist, in Washington, D.C., was the
primary economist that I worked with and I worked with him as
an agricultural economist, someone familiar with agricultural
industry, agricultural economics, things of that nature.
     Q    Who retained you in that case?  I don't mean the
name of the person, I mean the name of the party or entity.
     A    To be honest, I can't recall the exact name, but it
was an organization of tobacco growers in North Carolina and
Virginia.
     Q    And what was the position of the tobacco growers in
the litigation?  
               Let me ask you this first.  Who were the other
parties in the litigation?
     A    The other party, I believe, was the U.S. Department
of Labor, but it's been about eight years and I cannot recall
the details.
     Q    So this was about '85?
     A    Something like that, '84, '85.
     Q    So it was basically a case in which the government
and the industry were on opposite sides of the controversy?
     A    Right.
     Q    Okay.  Any other cases in which you have given
expert testimony?
     A    In a ÄÄ I'm restricting this to actual courtroom
situations, right?
     Q    If you would, you can broaden that to include not
only a courtroom, but also administrative hearing form, like
the one involved in these SWIM proceedings.
               Are you familiar with the distinction?
     A    Yes, I'm familiar with the distinction.
     Q    Okay.
     A    Most of the work that I have done, as an
agriculture economist, has involved legal proceedings that
never went that far.  They were settled out of court or
something happened, you know, you do the work and so on and
so forth, and I can talk about a recent one that I'm involved
in or was, I don't know whether I'm still involved in it or
not, where I'm an expert for the U.S. Department of Justice.
     Q    What would that one be?
     A    That one involved the tax credit policy, under tax
law of the sixty cent a gallon tax credit that is available
to manufacturers of a product called ETBE, a derivative
product which oxygenates a fuel and one of the basic raw
materials of that is ethanol.
               So I was retained by the U.S. Justice Department a
couple of years ago to look at the economic impact of that
regulation.
     Q    Do you know the name of the attorney at the Justice
Department?
     A    Stewart Gibson.
     Q    Do you know the name of the case?
     A    No, not really.  I do know that it's an action
brought by a group of organizations, including certain
individuals, against the Justice Department.
     Q    What kind of organizations?
     A    I may misstate the names, but it's like the Sierra
Club and Defenders of the Environment, it goes on and on and
I'm not sure of all of them, and there are certain
individuals in Minnesota and different places that are the
plaintiffs.
     Q    Would it be fair to say that the challengers or
plaintiffs in the case are suing the Federal Government,
alleging environment grievances?
     A    They're alleging potential environment grievances
over the administration of this policy.
     Q    And what is the nature of your proposed expert
testimony in the case?
     A    Well, here again, I'm working with a colleague, in
this case Professor Schmitz, Professor Andrew Schmitz,
Chairman of the Department of Agriculture and Resource
Economics, University of California at Berkeley, and he and I
are working together evaluating the likely impact of this
policy.
     Q    Okay.  The likely impact of the tax credit policy?
     A    The tax credit policy.
     Q    That would be the economic impact?
     A    The economic impact, yes.
                     Q    Okay.
     A    Or would it have an economic impact?
     Q    Are there any other controversies, in which you had
been retained as a potential expert witness, whether or not
they went to trial, and you actually gave testimony?
     A    When you have a thirty-three year history. . .
     Q    You can start with the most recent. . .
     A    I don't have. . .
     Q    . . .ten-year period.
     A    We don't write these things in our r‚sum‚s and they
don't become part of our pedigree and we don't utilize them
for tenure or promotion or anything else, so. . .
     Q    So they fade from memory?
     A    Yes, they fade from memory, but let me throw out a
few.
     Q    Okay.
     A    One of them, which was my experience, I did file an
affidavit in the Northern California Federal District Court,
about 1975, involving the private action under antitrust law,
Federal Antitrust Law, dealing with pricing policy and in
particular allegations of price fixing against a group of
sugar companies in California and Hawaii.  
               I say private action, because the public action ÄÄ
it's my understanding that in the public action the
defendants in this case, the sugar industries, pleaded nolo
contendere to the federal charge and then they were facing
the private charges of industry members, namely the buyers,
and the vertical structure.  The buyers of sugar then filed a
trouble damage suit against the sugar companies.
     Q    Do you know who the manufacturers were in the case?
     A    It was a class action suit and there were literally
hundreds of plaintiffs.
     Q    What was the class?
     A    The class was the class of users of sugar.  They
were sugar ÄÄ at that time they were still using ÄÄ this was
in the 1970s ÄÄ they were still using sugar in soft drinks,
so I think there were some soft drink manufacturers, there
were canners, a whole variety of firms, candy manufacturers,
other users of sugar, who filed this class action against 
the. . .
     Q    Had you been retained by the industry defendants?
     A    I was, again, part of a team of economists that
were involved in looking at the economic impact and looking
at the economics of markets, sugar markets, and I was, I
guess, retained ÄÄ I guess you might say, I don't know how to
use the word retainer, but I was employed as a consultant by
the industry.
     Q    By the defendants?
     A    By the defendants.
     Q    Okay.  In the tax credit case for ETBE, I
understand you don't recall the name of the case, but do you
remember what court it's in?
     A    I believe it's in a Washington, D.C. court, but I
can't say for sure.
     Q    Okay.
     A    It hasn't, to my knowledge, gone that far and I'm
just doing some background economic work.
     Q    Okay.  You're doing well with remembering these
faded cases, but you indicated a few moments ago that you
would throw a few out.
     A    Yes.
     Q    What are the other ones, besides the private
antitrust action?
     A    Okay.  Another one had to do with a case in the
federal ÄÄ a likely case in the federal court in Boston, and
that was also an antitrust action brought about by one
private party against another party, and it had to do with
cranberries and it had to do with the provision of antitrust
law that dealt with sales below cost, and one rival was
alleging to another rival that:  You're driving me out of
business, because you're pricing below cost and I believe
that's a violation of the antitrust law and, therefore, I am
seeking damages and remedies and so forth.
               In that particular case what became important was
the economics of cranberry marketing or cranberry packing,
cranberry harvesting, cranberry production and cranberry
juice processing.  
               So I began an analysis of using economic
engineering techniques to look at the economics of those
activities involved in the production, harvesting, packing or
processing of cranberries.
     Q    Who were the parties in the case?
     A    The parties were ÄÄ I think the plaintiff in the
case was a firm called Dekus and the defendant was Ocean
Spray Growers Cooperative.
     Q    And who did you work for?
     A    I worked for Ocean Spray.
     Q    About when was this case?
     A    This was about ÄÄ I recall it was the time of the
last presidential election, so it would have been 1988.
     Q    The California sugar company private antitrust case
was about when?
     A    That was '74/'75 era, in that vicinity.
     Q    And the ETBE tax credit case?
     A    That began about two years ago, a year and a half
ago.
     Q    Are there any other cases in which you were
retained as an expert witness?
     A    There was one in Gainesville, and I believe I had a
deposition in this office, and it involved transportation law
in trucking and at the time we had strict regulations on
trucking rates and that was in a state court and I was
retained for a relatively minor amount of time to testify
regarding economic impact of the regulations on freight rates
and trucking rates and restrictions and so forth.
     Q    About when was that?
     A    Oh, this has got to be fifteen years ago.
     Q    All right.  So about '78?
     A    Something like that.
     Q    Okay.
     A    I remember the trucking firm or the moving 
company and they have since gone out of business.  I can't
recall. . .
     Q    Who were the parties?
     A    All I remember is the trucking company that I was
retained with.
     Q    And who was that?
     A    I don't remember the name of the firm, but the
individual was Wayne McKubbin.
     Q    And it was a private trucking company?
     A    Yes, here in Gainesville.
     Q    And they were sued by a competitor or they sued?
     A    They were being sued, I believe.
     Q    And the competitor was another trucking company?
     A    I believe.
                     Q    Any other retentions as a potential expert witness?
     A    Yeah, there was one with AmStar Sugar in New York,
sugar refiner.
     Q    And that was in?
     A    That was in a potential case that never went to
trial.
               All of these, except for the one on trucking and
the one in the Federal District Court in Virginia, never went
to trial.
     Q    Okay.
     A    The AmStar case involved, if I recall, a sugar
brokerage.
     Q    What court?  You said New York.
     A    I believe some New York court, but it never went to
trial and. . .
     Q    Who were the parties, besides AmStar Sugar
Refiners?
     A    It was another private firm, but I don't recall.
     Q    Was AmStar plaintiff or defendant?
     A    I don't recall, I really don't.
     Q    Do you remember whether they. . .
     A    I believe they were the defendant and the nature of
the case had to do with whether or not AmStar could drop a
general line broker and go ahead and develop their own
brokerage force, and it had to do with the brokerage ÄÄ the
brokering of sugar, if I recall, and my role on that was just
to look at sugar brokerage as it existed and look at
specialization in sugar brokerage versus companies' ability
to develop their own services by not retaining brokerages.
               I can't remember the legal issue that was involved.
     Q    So was your retention, your expertise in this case,
did it involve economic impact, per se, or more of an
economic feasibility?
     A    It wasn't economic feasibility, it was economic
impact, in terms of the economics of the firm, you might say. 
The economics to the firms that were involved, namely the
brokerage firms that were ÄÄ if you look at sugar brokerage
over history, from the time of the American Revolution to
today, you would find that sugar brokerage, as an industry,
was specialized sugar brokers and so forth, that industry has
waned and waned in terms of numbers and so on.  So some of
the last vestiges of some aspects of that specialized
business were concerned about their economic viability.
     Q    So this was microeconomics?
     A    It was firm economics.
     Q    Firm economics.
     A    Yes.  It affected the brokerage industry, but that
wasn't. . .
     Q    But that wasn't the nature of your potential
testimony.
                     A    No, I was just called on as somebody that had some
knowledge of sugar marketing and sugar brokerage.
     Q    Well, these may be faded memories for you, but
they're all interesting.
               Are there any other retentions, as a potential
expert witness, that you can recall?
     A    No.
     Q    The two cases that you indicated went to trial, the
Gainesville trucking case and the Immigration Reform Act
case, did you testify in both of those cases?
     A    Yes.
     Q    Okay.  Moving to this case, if we can.
               When were you retained as an expert in this case?
     A    I think it was sometime in late May or early June
of 1992.
     Q    And by whom were you retained?
     A    By the League, through Peeples, Earl & Blank.
     Q    Were there any other services that you were
retained to provide, besides potential expert testimony?

                         MR. BURGESS:  Object to the form.
                         MR. SAXE:  Grounds?
                         MR. BURGESS:  I don't think he said he was
          retained to provide potential expert testimony.

BY MR. SAXE:
     Q    Let me rephrase the question, Dr. Polopolus.
               Were you retained to provide potential expert
testimony?
     A     I think that was in the background, but I believe
the initial focus was to review the work of Hazen and Sawyer,
with the idea that there may or may not be litigation
involved.
     Q    Was the nature of your retention or employment
altered at some point between the initial retention and now
to include, more explicitly, providing potential expert
testimony?
     A    Well, I believe that it became clear in recent
months that my role might involve litigation.
     Q    All right.  So initially, it's your testimony, that
you were retained to review Hazen and Sawyer work.
               Can you elaborate on what you were asked to do in
connection with that review?
     A    Yeah.  My role was to work as part of a team with
Dr. James Richardson, in terms of evaluating the work of
Hazen and Sawyer, where they were the primary contractor to
the District to evaluate economic impact.
     Q    Were there any other individuals or entities that
you would be working with or have been working with?
     A    You know, at the time that I was contacted ÄÄ I was
contacted about this maybe in March or April of 1992, and
there was a period of time there where there was some
uncertainty as to my availability and so when all of that got
clarified and we discussed seriously my involvement, I had to
indicate to Mr. Burgess, whom I was directly in contact with
in these discussions, with Peeples, Earl & Blank, that in
view of my heavy teaching, research and other commitments at
the University of Florida, that I could ÄÄ if I were to
become involved that I would have to become involved under a
particular arrangement, in terms of services and support.
     Q    So the initial question, regarding your
availability, had to do with your other obligations as a
professor at the University of Florida.
     A    Right.  It basically ÄÄ what that meant, and what I
mean by that, is that I would not have the time to crunch a
lot of numbers and to conduct the laborious mathematical
calculations and computations, personally, that might be
involved.
     Q    Okay. 
     A    At this point I wasn't aware of any ÄÄ at this
early point I was not aware of other economists being
directly involved. I was viewing this in terms of what my
role would be as an economist assisting the evaluation of the
work of others.
     Q    Were you first asked to work on this controversy or
issue through IFAS?
     A    No, IFAS never asked me to work on this.
     Q    Did anyone else ask you, before you were contacted
by the League?
     A    Yeah, there was a communication that I received
from one of the sugar officials in ÄÄ about the time the RFP
was issued.
               I received a communication from Mr. Wedgworth,
saying:  Leo, why don't you consider applying for this
particular grant and conduct the analysis for the District?
               I did receive that communication.
               I received from him, not the District, but from Mr.
Wedgworth, a copy of the research proposal format.
     Q    Do you know Mr. Wedgworth from his dealings,
outside the context of this case?
     A    I had known him by reputation, I had interviewed
him in connection with a graduate student research, but I
didn't have any long established relationship with Mr.
Wedgworth.  I knew who he was.
     Q    You testified that he said:  Leo, why don't you
apply. . .
     A    Yes.  People have a hard time with Polopolus and
tend to shift quickly to Leo.
     Q    Okay.  Were you ever asked to work on this as an
IFAS project?
                     A    No.
     Q    You said there was an initial question regarding
your availability and then I believe you testified that it
was resolved.  You mentioned an arrangement regarding
services and support, but was there anything else that
happened that resolved the initial question about your
availability?
     A    Well, I don't know how important it is to get into
the details of that, but if you would like me to describe
what happened between my initial contact from Mr. Burgess and
the time I said I would be available to be considered as an
economist for the League, I would be happy to go through the
details, if you would like those details.
     Q    Well, about when did you agree?  Was that May '92?
     A    Yeah, it was late May, early June.  It was sometime
in late May or sometime in June, but I can't recall the
precise date.
     Q    Well, why don't you tell me what transpired between
when you were initially contacted by the League and when you
were retained?
     A    Well, I was initially contacted by Mr. Burgess and,
I believe, a representative of Peterson Consulting came to
Gainesville, pretty much like an interview, to see me, meet
me, talk to me, so forth, about my employment, and I
indicated to Mr. Burgess at the time that I might be
available, but I would have to get the approval of my
University of Florida, IFAS and the university, before I
would commit myself to this effort, and then I had a meeting
with my department chairman and discussed this and he said
that it didn't look very promising that IFAS would approve my
involvement, but he would discuss it, without filling out all
the formal paperwork, he would discuss it with my dean, and
he meant in particular the Dean for Extension, although I
don't carry an extension appointment, all consulting of this
nature has to be approved by the Dean for Extension, in
addition to the Vice President for IFAS.
               So I got another call from the department chairman: 
Leo, we're going to have to talk about this, and I have this
lengthy letter from the dean saying that for a variety of
reasons your request, as you're proposing it, would not be
approved.
               So I so indicated to Mr. Burgess, that it would not
be approved.
     Q    Was that in March of '92?
     A    That was probably in April of '92.
     Q    Okay.
     A    Then I began to think about that and I said:  Well,
wait a minute, what is the IFAS policy with respect to
outside employment?  And I started doing a lot of my own
research, collecting my own documents, trying to find what
separates an approval from a disapproval, and my own research
led me to the conclusion that IFAS did not have a coherent
policy.
               At that point I retained two local attorneys and I
said:  This is my problem and I'm doing this not for Leo
Polopolus but for other similarly situated.
               At that time I was very concerned that one of my
colleagues, Dr. Boggess, had similarly been told that he
could not consult.  
               So I said:  Well, I'm nearing retirement, I don't
have to worry about this employment situation, I'll take some
risks ÄÄ and I thought for the good of my colleagues.  
               So I retained two attorneys and I presented them
with all of the policies, all the documents and so on and so
forth.

                         MR. BURGESS:  Leo, I want to interject, for
          the record, that you have a privilege between what
          you say to attorneys and what they say to you, and
          you don't need to disclose either voluntarily or in
          response to questions any of those communications,
          if you don't desire to.
                         So you need to keep that in mind, vis-...-vis
          your discussions with attorneys.
                         DR. POLOPOLUS:  Thank you.
                                                         MR. SAXE:  I would also interject that you
          don't need to give me the substance of any
          communications with counsel, but unless counsel
          instructs you otherwise, I would expect you ÄÄ you
          can, to the extent that you remember it, and in
          response to my question, tell me about
          conversations that ÄÄ or communications that took
          place and identify the approximate dates and the
          nature of the conversation of the subject matter.
                         MR. BURGESS:  I disagree with Mr. Saxe.
                         I don't need to instruct him not to answer
          concerning matters of discussion between he and
          other counsel that he had employed.  I'm not his
          counsel for that purpose and I don't think I have
          the right to instruct him not to answer, but I'm
          just pointing out for his benefit that he has
          privilege bestowed on him, in the State of Florida,
          that he need not reveal the substance of
          communications between himself and counsel, should
          he decide that he does not want to do so.
                         MR. SAXE:  And how will I know when privilege
          is being invoked, counsel?
                         MR. BURGESS:  He can invoke that privilege on
          discussions he had between himself and counsel.
                         MR. SAXE:  Well, if you're instructing Dr.
          Polopolus that, rather than waiting for you to
          object on grounds of privilege, that he can tell me
          a conversation took place and this was the nature,
          but he's not going to tell me, on the grounds of
          privilege, is that your position?
                         MR. BURGESS:  With respect to matters that he
          had, he as a client had with his attorneys, in this
          particular subject matter, yes, I'm advising him
          that he has that privilege and he can make that
          determination.
                         MR. SAXE:  Are you referring. . .
                         MR. BURGESS:  You're blowing this out of
          proportion, Keith, it's a simple comment on my 
          part to him that he, as a client of an attorney, in
          this state, has a privilege not to reveal
          substantive communications between himself and the
          attorney.
                         MR. SAXE:  So your instructions are limited to
          the retention by Dr. Polopolus of the two local
          attorneys in any matters that were communicated
          between them?
                         MR. BURGESS:  Yes.
                         MR. SAXE:  Thank you.


BY MR. SAXE:
     Q    You can go ahead, Dr. Polopolus.
     A    Okay.  
     Q    You said you were nearing retirement and you had
decided. . .
     A    I had decided that I would consult these attorneys,
and meanwhile I wrote a letter to the President of the
University of Florida and in that letter I basically, again,
asked for the policy and asked for the equity at a time when
it appeared that professors in some colleges were being
encouraged to consult and other colleges they were given so
many days a week, and that kind of stuff, and at a time when
our former President was on the Board of ÄÄ you know, at the
time on boards of Johnson & Johnson, and at a time when the
Chairman of the Board of Regents, without even approval by
the Board of Regents, the Chancellor of the Board of Regents,
not the head, but the Chancellor, took on a directorship with
Florida Power, so on and so on, all of this stuff going on
and on.
               So I said:  Wait a minute, what's going on here?  
               So I wrote a letter to the President and so on and
so forth.
               Well, based on advice from my counsel on that
issue, I then decided that I would take certain risks,
employment risks, and say that I would be available.  
                                               Where it stands right now?  The University has
asked me to resubmit that application and I have so
resubmitted that application and it's in process.
               All I have asked the university to do is if they're
going to fire me over this particular issue that they give me
the opportunity to resign first.  That's all I've ever asked.
     Q    Okay.  I don't want you to give me any of the
details of your communications with your attorneys in this
matter, but could you tell me who the two attorneys are that
you referred to?
     A    Yes.
     Q    What are their names?
     A    Jonathan Wershow and Pamela Schneider. 
     Q    Are they here in Gainesville?
     A    Yes.
     Q    You testified that you're nearing retirement.  Can
you elaborate on that for me?
     A    Yes.  I'm fifty-nine and a half years old and I
have had thirty-three years of service and I intend to retire
from the University of Florida, but not to retire as a
professional consultant economist, when I become sixty-two
years of age.
     Q    So that would be three years from now?
     A    Two and a half.
     Q    Okay.  I want to go into a chronology of your work
in preparing for this case, but before we move off the topic
of your retention I have a couple of things I want to get
some elaboration from you on.
               When you said that you needed an arrangement or an
arrangement was necessary regarding your service and support,
because you didn't have time to crunch numbers or do
calculations, what did you mean?  Can you elaborate on that?
     A    Just that.  That in view of my responsibilities at
the University of Florida, and the various hats and roles
that I play, and the likelihood of a large amount of data
aggregations and data calculations and so forth, that I
would, if involved, I would prefer or request that I have
assistance or support in carrying out those calculations and
the preparations of tables and adding and subtracting and
dividing and so forth.
     Q    What assistance or support is being provided or
will be provided?

                         MR. BURGESS:  Object to the form.
                         MR. SAXE:  Compound?
                         MR. BURGESS:  Yes, and he testified with
          respect to what was provided.

BY MR. SAXE:
     Q    I'm sorry, Dr. Polopolus, you said you requested
assistance and support?
     A    Yes.
     Q    Did you get the response?
     A    Yes, I did.
     Q    What was the response?
     A    The response was that that support would be
provided.
     Q    And what support specifically was to be provided?
     A    That support was to be provided with the assistance
of Peterson Consulting.
     Q    Exclusive of what Peterson was going to do in
supporting you, what did you agree to do specifically?
     A    At what stage?
     Q    At that point in time when this initial request was
made.
     A    I agreed to evaluate the work of Hazen and Sawyer
and to become generally familiar with the issues that ÄÄ
economic issues that were extant at that time, talking about
mid-June 1992.
     Q    Did you prepare or was there prepared for you a
statement of work that described what you would do?
     A    There was a contract that I signed with Peeples,
Earl & Blank.
     Q    Did it contain a description of the tasks that you
would perform?
                     A    I don't recall the terminology of that contract,
but it provided a general outline.
     Q    Dr. Polopolus. . .

                         MR. SAXE:  Rick, do you know whether a copy of
          that contract has been. . .
                         MR. BURGESS:  It will be on our privileged
          list.
                         MR. SAXE:  Okay.
                         MR. BURGESS:  I think, except to the extent
          that if it does contain a scope of work, and I
          don't think it does, I think it's discoverable and
          I will provide it.
                         MR. SAXE:  Okay.

BY MR. SAXE:
     Q    In the next three months, excluding June of '92,
what was the division of labor between you and the Peterson
Consulting group and Dr. Richardson in any work that you did
analyzing Hazen and Sawyer's analysis?
     A    Well, in taking that time sequence from mid-June,
the very first thing that was happening was that Hazen and
Sawyer was beginning to issue reports of certain phases of
their work, sort of like preliminary papers on -- I think
they called them Task Force Reports, and my first involvement
was to review those reports and I recall -- I think my first
report was around June the 29th, 1992, where I reviewed Hazen
and Sawyer's Task Force Reports 1, 2, 3, not 4, but 5,
something like that, and then other task force numbers came
later on.  So from mid-June to mid-July most of my work was
general familiarization of the issues and the work of others
and including engineers and reports and economic reports, so
on and so forth.  But July 15 was a very significant date,
because that was the date that the preliminary report of
Hazen and Sawyer became publicly available.
     Q    Before the July 15 date, what did you or -- you
were just doing general reading and review of the task
reports that were issued by Hazen and Sawyer?
     A    Right.
     Q    How did you acquire those task reports?
     A    They were sent to me by Peeples, Earl & Blank, I
believe.
     Q    And you did not do any other work between June and
before July 15, besides reading those task reports?
     A    And commenting on them and -- I can't recall the
exact date. . .
               See, in the June period, June '92 period, I was not
aware of Dr. Richardson's involvement, but I was involved in
and part of the work was, if I recall, and I do recall, Hazen and
Sawyer's initial reports discussing the FLIPSIM









methodology as the best methodology and characterizing a
review of methodology, I think an original scope of work, and
so on and so forth, and I began to become more inquisitive as
to that methodology and began to review that methodology,
independent of any work of Dr. Richardson in this particular
application.
               At some point, and I discussed this with Mr.
Burgess:  Hey, there's an awful lot of number crunching that
was going to be involved here and it would be nice if we had
some analytical capability that goes beyond my resources and
my time ÄÄ and somewhere along this marriage came along and
somewhere in early July I began to ÄÄ I was advised that Mr.
Richardson was a part of the team and at that point, sometime
in early July, I began to work directly with Dr. Richardson,
agriculturist-economist at Texas A&M University, on
evaluating the economic impact issues.

          (Thereupon, a short recess was had; whereupon, the
          following proceedings were held:)

BY MR. SAXE:
     Q    Dr. Polopolus, before we get back to the chronology
that you were giving me, just a couple of other matters on
your retention as a potential expert witness in the case.
               You indicated that you had a contract sometime
around June of '92, when you were retained, and we don't know
whether there's a scope of work, but counsel will take a look
at it and see if there is.
               Has there been an evolution of your retention that
is formalized in contract amendments or revisions in a scope
of work or any other form?
     A    Not in terms of written documents, but there has
been an evolution in terms of communications from Mr.
Burgess, in terms of the nature of my work.
     Q    Could you describe that to me, please, with respect
to your work as a potential expert witness in the case?
     A    Well, I think early on it wasn't clear that I would
be involved as a potential witness.  I think in the early
phases, from June 22nd to maybe through August of '92, it was
more or less the concentration on evaluation of Hazen and
Sawyer's work, but in the fall of '92 it became more clear
that I may be involved in testifying in some litigation.
     Q    Okay.
     A    I can't recall the precise date, but. . .
     Q    Can you tell me more about how that expressed
itself?
     A    Yes, through telephone communications with counsel,
Mr. Burgess.
     Q    Thank you.
               One other question on your retention in the case.
         I hate to pry, but it's a matter appropriate for
discovery.
               Can you tell me about your financial arrangement
for your work on the case for the League?
     A    I think the contract, initial contract, established
the financial compensation that I would receive for the work
that I performed.
     Q    And what is that compensation?
     A    If I recall, it's slightly less than a hundred
dollars an hour.
     Q    That is for your work both testifying and other?
     A    There's no distinction, right.
     Q    Was there any quantification of how many hours of
work you would be providing on the case?
     A    I believe the original contract had a limit.
     Q    Do you recall. . .
     A    Upper limit.
     Q    Do you recall?
     A    I vaguely recall a number of twenty-five thousand
as an upper limit.
     Q    Has that been modified by any contract amendments
or otherwise?
     A    No.
     Q    Can you tell me how many hours of work you have
done thus far on the case?
                       A  The time and effort depends on the nature of Hazen
and Sawyer, so there was a lot of time and effort in July and
August and very little since then.  So the average amount ÄÄ
I don't know if you would average that and say:  Well, there
are periods of inactivity and periods of activity.  I would
say an approximate average would be about one day a week.
     Q    Okay.  Going back to your chronology of the work
that you have been doing.
               When you said you weren't aware initially of Dr.
Richardson's involvement in June and then sometime in early
July you became aware of his involvement.
               How did you become aware of Dr. Richardson's
involvement, can you elaborate on that?
     A    Well, again, through a telephone communication from
Mr. Burgess.
     Q    And what did you understand Dr. Richardson's role
was going to be?
     A    Well, at that time the relative responsibilities
became intimately clear and one doesn't need to be a rocket
scientist to figure out that Dr. Richardson, since Hazen and
Sawyer we assumed was using FLIPSIM and since Dr. Richardson
is the author and originator or FLIPSIM and I'm not, that Dr.
Richardson would have the responsibility of the FLIPSIM
analysis, which is the farm level, agricultural level
production analysis, and my responsibility would then be
concentrated in the aggregative impact analysis.
               So at that point it became a division of labor, a
division of responsibility between Dr. Richardson on one
hand, as a member of the team, and myself on the other as
dealing with the multiplier analysis and the aggregative
economic impact analysis.
     Q    Can you define or explain aggregative impact
analysis for me, what you mean by that?
     A    Well, taking the results of FLIPSIM, which were
cast in terms of representative model farms, casting that
impact in terms of the EAA as a region, and any related
impact to the broader geographic region around the EAA and
any broader impact around the state of Florida economy.
     Q    When you say FLIPSIM result impacts concerning
representative model farms, I'm not sure ÄÄ let me see if my
statement is fair or not and maybe we can get a clearer
understanding that way.
               Were the FLIPSIM results expected to be direct farm
level impacts and the aggregated impact analysis would be
secondary impacts, using those?
     A    No.
     Q    Okay.
     A    No, they would be both direct impacts.  We're still
talking about the primary industry, namely ÄÄ we're still
talking about, you know, the primary industry being
agriculture.  The question is whether you have it at the firm
level or the industry level of the geographic area levels.
               Dr. Richardson's analysis did not do the
aggregation for the industry of producers.
     Q    What does the FLIPSIM. . .
               When you say Dr. Richardson's analysis, that would
be the FLIPSIM analysis, or is there more to it than that?
     A    Yes.  The FLIPSIM analysis is a comprehensive tool
that's used to analyze economic impact and we can discuss
that and describe that, you know, to the extent that you care
to discuss that aspect of it.
               I had to have a very good understanding of what
that model was in order to better understand what we were
receiving from him, in order to do our aggregated analysis.
     Q    It may facilitate this testimony if we do it a
little bit later when we're referring to documents, but for
right now, in terms of the division of labor, I'm really
trying to just get a handle on the division of labor.
               So Dr. Richardson was going to use FLIPSIM to do
firm level impacts, you were doing the aggregation to the
industry, but still all direct impact.
     A    Yes, that's correct.
     Q    Okay.
     A    And then from that I was responsible for doing the
indirect.  So, in other words, the question is:  How many
acres in the aggregate would be lost to production as a
result of BMP, a tax assessment, the STAs, you know, what's
the aggregate acreage, aggregate this or that.
               We started with ÄÄ let's say the aggregate acreage,
what would be the impact of alternative policies?  FLIPSIM
would give, sort of at the firm level, and then my
responsibility was to aggregate that for the industry and
then given those aggregations apply the Leontief multiplier
analysis to determine the direct and indirect.
     Q    Is there any other input/output analysis
methodology besides the Leontief multiplier?
     A    Yeah, I mean, you can use the word input-output to
refer to efficiency ratios, you know, but in the context of
what we're doing. . .
     Q    Economic impact analysis.
     A    I'm not familiar with any technique that is used
for economic impact analysis as we're utilizing or conceiving
it.
     Q    Now, were you to do, at that point in time, before
the July 15th draft, Hazen and Sawyer draft, when you became
aware of Dr. Richardson's involvement and the division of
labor became clear, were you to do the number crunching and
calculations for the industry-wide aggregation and for the
secondary impact clarification from Dr. Richardson's analysis
or was somebody else to do that work?
                     A    I don't understand the question.
     Q    Let me streamline it a little bit.  
               You testified that you were going to do the
industry aggregation from Dr. Richardson's firm level results
and then provide the input-output analysis to check secondary
impacts.
               Were you going to do that all by yourself?
     A    No, as I said earlier, in any context I needed
assistance with the number crunching.
     Q    And that was the Peterson assistance?
     A    That's where the Peterson involvement came in to
assist me in carrying out those data manipulations and data
calculations.
     Q    Who is the Peterson team or group that would be
providing this?
     A    Peterson Consulting is a well-known internationally
recommended economic consulting firm that, to my
understanding, was retained by Peeples, Earl & Blank.
     Q    Do you understand that Peterson Consulting or any
employee of Peterson Consulting has been designated as a
potential expert witness in the case?
     A    I don't know anything as to whether they are or are
not.
     Q    Were there any particular individuals at the
Peterson Consulting firm that are part of the team assisting
you?
     A    There were a number of people.

                         MR. BURGESS:  Object to the form.

BY MR. SAXE:
     Q    Can you give me the names of the individuals
comprising the group at Peterson Consulting providing you
support or assistance?

                         MR. BURGESS:  Object to the form.
                         MR. SAXE:  Grounds?
                         MR. BURGESS:  He testified only that they
          provided assistance to him with what he did back in
          July and August, not that it's ongoing.
                         MR. SAXE:  Let me rephrase the question.

BY MR. SAXE:
     Q    Who were the people at Peterson Consulting who you
understood were going to be providing this assistance back in
June and July of '92?
     A    People at Peterson Consulting that I worked with,
who assisted me in the calculations, I believe beginning in
July, were a large number, but I believe it included Stan
Rolen, Andy Bernstein, and other members of their staff.
                     Q    Do you know who those members were?
     A    I did at the time, but I ÄÄ I believe there was a
Shelly, I can't remember the last names, Shelly Lofton, I
think, and a Hector somebody, and a Marsha somebody.  Excuse
me, but it's been since last July since I ÄÄ or August, maybe
early August, since I worked with some of them.
     Q    Did your contact with Peterson Consulting terminate
in July?
     A    Well, there hasn't been ÄÄ I wouldn't say
termination, but there wasn't very much activity at all after
mid-August.  In fact, I don't ÄÄ I don't know that I can say
no activity, but I don't know that ÄÄ there wasn't any
substantial amount of activity between me and Peterson until
the early December period when Dr. Richardson and I met with
the economists for the District and the economists for Hazen
and Sawyer in Hollywood, Florida, on December 16th, 1992.
     Q    So between August and December you had no. . .
     A    Basically. . .
     Q    . . .no interaction with Peterson Consulting?
     A    Right.
     Q    Did they continue to do work to support and assist
you during that period in your work as a potential expert
witness in this case?
     A    I wasn't doing very much in that period, so I don't
recall.
                     Q    Do I understand your testimony correctly that in
July you were assisted by Stan Rolen, Andy Bernstein and some
other people at Peterson Consulting, maybe a Shelly Lofton,
Hector somebody, somebody named Marsha?
     A    Yes.
     Q    And that that assistance and support continued
through August, but then there was nothing further until
December?
     A    That's my recollection.
     Q    Okay.  What assistance did Peterson Consulting
provide you in July?
     A    Okay.  Dr. Richardson and I worked out a basic plan
of research, in terms of evaluation of the Hazen and Sawyer
reports.  The division of labor was established, as I have
indicated.
               Then we bring it over to my area of work, then I
laid out the parameters of how we were going to analyze
economic impact and what multipliers were going to be used,
what definitions of impact we were going to include, that is,
what we were going to talk about, the baseline, and then once
we start with the baseline what we were going to talk about: 
Assessment rate at ten dollars an acre?  Assessment rate at
twenty-five dollars an acre?  Fifty dollars an acre?  A
hundred dollars an acre?  All these had a bearing on the
construction of our analysis.
                                               So given those decisions that Dr. Richardson and I
worked out, and then given the results of the firm level
analysis of FLIPSIM, then Peterson assisted in the ÄÄ what I
call the number crunching, assisted in giving the
coefficients for multipliers and giving the general data base
that is given in terms of the number of total acres, became
an important variable:  The total number of acres in sugar,
the total acres in sod, the total acres in vegetables, given
all that, then Peterson assisted in actually saying:  Well,
if we looked at this then what would be the jobs lost?  What
would be the acreage lost?  What would be the revenue lost? 
What would be the earnings lost?  As we had negative impact
from the policies ÄÄ alternative policies of the District.
     Q    Going back a little bit.  Before the July 15, 1992
Hazen and Sawyer draft came out, you indicated that you read
the task reports and commented.
               Did you prepare documents reflecting your comments
or were these notations that you made on the task reports
that you received, or both?
     A    If I recall, I prepared like a memorandum and I
believe I sent ÄÄ each of those memorandum were sent to Mr.
Burgess and I believe we provided copies of those, of my
comments of those early Task Force Reports, to you and
members of your counsel.
     Q    Were those the only written comments that you made
in your review of the task reports?
     A    Yes.
     Q    Before. . .
     A    That's correct.
     Q    Before the July 15th draft?
     A    Yes.
     Q    Now, the work that you described that was
contemplated in July, Dr. Richardson doing FLIPSIM farm level
analysis, you doing industry aggregation and Leontief
input/output analysis and Peterson assisting you in the
number crunching for those purposes, was that work that was
being done based on the early task reports that you had
reviewed and commented on?
     A    In part. 
     Q    What else did that work relate to?  Any other Hazen
and Sawyer work product?
     A    Well, their work product of their preliminary
report of July 15th and the interaction that I had with Dr.
Richardson regarding the critique that we made jointly of the
Hazen and Sawyer study when the draft report was available.
               So it was sort of a building process of involvement
and interaction on our part, which spread to the later public
statements that we made before the Funding Council on August
the 7th and attempted to make before the Governing Board on
August 13th.
                     Q    Between the July '92 memorandum on counsel
commenting on the early task reports and the August public
presentations, did you or anyone on behalf of the League
prepare additional reports or other documents that commented
on the Hazen and Sawyer analysis or expressed economic
impact?

                         MR. BURGESS:  Object to the form.
                         MR. SAXE:  Let me break it down.

BY MR. SAXE:
     Q    Take me through, chronologically.
               I've got the memorandum around July to counsel
concerning the early task report.  
               Now, as I understand your testimony, at this time
work was ongoing.
     A    Yes.
     Q    By you and Dr. Richardson and by Peterson
Consulting, and the Hazen and Sawyer draft came out on July
15th.
     A    Yes.
     Q    What was the next report or document prepared
either by you or by others on behalf of the League?
     A    I don't think there was a document, but I believe
that the report was issued at the time, and I don't think
that Dr. Richardson was in attendance, but I believe that I
made a press conference or had an initial reaction to the
report in West Palm Beach at the time of the report.
               In other words, we received the report, I read the
report, spent all night reviewing it and I think the next day
I presented an initial reaction to the report.
     Q    Okay.
     A    I can't recall the date, whether it was July 16th
or 17th, but it wasn't a written document, just an off-the-
cuff, you know:  This is my immediate reaction to the report.
     Q    And that was to the press?
     A    That was to the public and the press and I don't
remember all who was in attendance.
     Q    Where did that take place?
     A    That took place in West Palm Beach.
     Q    At the Water Management District?
     A    No.  It took place, I believe, in a meeting room of
a hotel, which I can't remember the name of.
     Q    And was that a press conference?
     A    It was more like a press conference.
     Q    You said it was to the public as well as to members
of the press.
     A    Yeah.
     Q    Do you recall who was there?
     A    I know there were members of industry there and
there were members of the press there.  I cannot recall who
else was there in attendance, to be honest.
     Q    Did you call the meeting or did you organize this
press conference?
     A    No, I think the League called the meeting.
     Q    And. . .
     A    And asked me to make the presentation at that
meeting.
               I think that was my first public statement with
regard to our ÄÄ Dr. Richardson's and our collective
evaluation of the preliminary report.
     Q    All right.  When were you asked to attend this
conference or meeting and make these statements?  Was it
after the Hazen and Sawyer report came out on July 15th?
     A    No, it was in anticipation that the report would be
out on the 15th, so maybe I got a call three days before, I
can't recall the exact date, but I received a call:  We're
going to have this report, it's going to be available, you've
read the Task Force Reports; the assumption was that the Task
Force Reports would be fairly consistent with the preliminary
draft report, which they turned out to be, and they would be
fairly consistent, but I don't have a text of that
presentation and I don't ÄÄ to be honest, someone said they
did a video of it, but I don't recall exactly the structure
of that presentation.
                     Q    Who might have done a video of it?
     A    I'm not sure.
     Q    Do you remember the person who said. . .
     A    I think there were TV people there, I don't know
whether the League had someone there to video it or not.  I
don't recall.  I know there were a lot of cameras going off
at the time.
     Q    It was a photo op?
     A    Something like that.
     Q    Do you know the purpose for the request of the
League for you to make these statements?
     A    It was to give an initial reaction to the report.
     Q    That's all that was expressed to you?
     A    Yeah.
     Q    Now, if more was expressed to you, but you feel
it's attorney/client communication. . .
     A    No.
     Q    You can tell me that, but. . .
     A    No, there was nothing like that.
     Q    Okay.  At the time of this press conference, had
you completed the analysis that you would subsequently
present to the Funding Council in August?
     A    No.
     Q    How far along was it?
     A    It was in a ÄÄ you know, this is always in a state
of flux and a state of change, you know, as new knowledge
becomes available.
               Some of the basic parameters were there.  Namely,
there was a ÄÄ the Hazen and Sawyer report estimated very
little job loss and that was of great concern to us, because
as we looked at it and looked at the assumptions that Hazen
and Sawyer used and the way we viewed those same assumptions,
we had a rather striking different interpretation at the time
about what that job loss would be and, if I recall, that was
one of the focus points of that press conference, is that the
District's report is saying:  Hey, there's no problem.  I
think the press was reporting, the Miami Herald and the Palm
Beach Post, and other media, that there's no problem, and I
think what we're saying is:  Hey, there may be a problem.  So
we highlighted the job loss differential.
     Q    To the best of your recollection, specifically what
was your statement at that conference?
     A    That some of it was that you have a report from
Hazen and Sawyer, which says minimal impact and our cursory
and preliminary analysis is saying that there can be a rather
large impact.
               Then the next two weeks we began to develop our
basis for arguing that we believed there was or could be a
large economic impact.
     Q    Did you quantify the possible increase in the
impacts over what Hazen and Sawyer had indicated during your
statement at the conference?
     A    I cannot recall the specific numbers, if any, that
were presented at that conference.
     Q    Actually I'm asking whether you recall that
specific numbers were presented, as opposed to quantitative
descriptions of the impacts as being much larger or other
relative kinds of descriptions.
               Were there any numbers presented?
     A    I really don't recall.
     Q    Okay.  And then you just indicated a few minutes
ago that in the next several weeks you then commenced to do
what?  To quantify the differences?
     A    Yes.
     Q    Okay.
     A    In the next several weeks we began to look at the
assumptions of Hazen and Sawyer, the methodology of Hazen and
Sawyer, recast some of those assumptions and re-estimate ÄÄ
assuming that Hazen and Sawyer had already utilized FLIPSIM
or some method like FLIPSIM, and starting with the basic same
parameters, in terms of total acreage and what the EAA
constituted and the acreages that were in cane, vegetables
and sod, and so on, but taking what we regarded were flawed
assumptions and then taking and utilizing the FLIPSIM
methodology in a refined state, then we came out with a
series of ÄÄ at that time ÄÄ numerical numbers and so forth,
and that constituted the August 7th report to the Funding
Council.
     Q    Okay.  At any time, up to that point, had Hazen and
Sawyer asked you, or any member of Hazen and Sawyer, Ms.
Johns or somebody else, for any assistance in their
undertaking?  Not just during the period of time of your
retention in this case, but goes back earlier than June '92.
     A    Oh, yeah, I had Chris Melene, staff member of Hazen
and Sawyer, in my office for several days and I gave him
filing cabinets of data from several reports.
               Now, I wasn't in as much contact with Dr. Johns 
as I was with one of her economists, but early on I believe
when ÄÄ I'm talking now about before I was involved in this
with Peeples, Earl & Blank and with the League, but whenever
Grace called or when Mr. Melene asked I provided them copies
of ÄÄ I think, in fact, I even loaned Mr. Melene my book on
sugar and he took it and read it and sent it back, and then
he needed other information and, you know, I said whatever I
have I would be happy to provide you out of my library on
sugar marketing, sugar economics, things of that nature.
               So I had a relationship with Mr. Melene in, you
know, I'm talking about March and I believe it was February,
March, before I ever even encountered Rick Burgess.
               But after I got involved and was retained by the
League I don't recall that I had requests from Hazen and
Sawyer for additional data or information to me personally.
     Q    Do you recall whether you were ever requested to
either review some of Hazen and Sawyer's work or to discuss
that work with Hazen and Sawyer that you declined to provide?
     A    I don't recall any requests, nor do I ÄÄ I don't
recall any requests.
     Q    So. . .
     A    So I had no opportunity to accept or decline.
     Q    Okay.  Up to the point in time where we're adding
your chronology now, which would be the end of July, had you
contacted or attempted to contact Hazen and Sawyer to discuss
their flawed results or their methodology or errors in
assumptions in the work they had done so far?

                         MR. BURGESS:  Object to the form.

BY MR. SAXE:
     Q    Okay.  Had you attempted to contact Hazen and
Sawyer to give any input on the model that they had done at
that point?
     A    I indirectly ÄÄ I provided comments on Task Force
Reports to Mr. Burgess and Peeples, Earl & Blank, the extent
to which that was then translated to Hazen and Sawyer I'm not
aware.
                     Q    Okay.  In the division of labor between you and the
Peterson Consulting group, you said that you laid out
parameters for the economic impact analysis and collected
multipliers to find relevant economic impacts, and they
assisted in number crunching.
     A    Yes.
     Q    Did they make any decisions concerning methodology?
     A    Not the basic methodology, no.
     Q    Did they make any decisions concerning the input
data to be used?

                         MR. BURGESS:  Objection, because I don't know
          what you're meaning by input data.

BY MR. SAXE:
     Q    Did they make any decisions about the numbers to
crunch, that is, Peterson?
     A    Not really, no.
     Q    So those decisions, was that part of your. . .
     A    And Dr. Richardson's, right.
     Q    So then would it be fair to say that they basically
carried out calculations at your directions and under your
guidance?
     A    That's it.
     Q    After the July conference or gathering, we'll call
it a press conference.
     A    Okay.
     Q    After the July press conference, what was the next
either written report that was produced on behalf of the
League concerning this work or oral presentation of analysis
for the League?
     A    The next major move or step was the August 7th
presentation by me to the Funding Council.
               I think it's fair to say, in this context, that
when Hazen and Sawyer presented their primary report they had
also established, to my recollection, a schedule of public
events, that they would take the result of their work and
make it publicly available to the Funding Council, to various
other groups at the District, and to the growers ÄÄ I'm not
exactly sure what their scheduling entailed, but they had an
organized program of making known to the public the results
of their work and in that context we felt it appropriate that
our side of that story be told, and so the first major
presentation to critique the Hazen and Sawyer analysis was a
presentation I made to the Funding Council in West Palm Beach
on August 7th, 1992.
     Q    Did you provide a written report or other written
document at that point?
     A    There was a written report, which was in the form
of an outline of the remarks.
                     Q    Okay.  Do you recall, generally speaking, what the
nature of the presentation was?
     A    Yes.
     Q    Can you describe it for me?
     A    Sure.
               It was a critique of the Hazen and Sawyer study on
economic impact and it began with an overview of the
structure of the agricultural economy of the EAA.  It
included estimates ÄÄ before we get to economic impact ÄÄ it
included our estimates, what we thought the employment base
was in agribusiness and in non-agribusiness.
     Q    What was the last one?
     A    In agribusiness as well as nonagribusiness.
     Q    Okay.
     A    And nonagricultural components of the EAA and it
included a discussion of the assumptions that we thought were
not dealt with adequately in Hazen and Sawyer and our
interpretation of what might be a better assumption, and it
included the quantitative estimate of job loss, acreage loss,
sales loss, under a variety of scenarios, and it compared ÄÄ
it summarized the Hazen and Sawyer result, and it compared
and contrasted our analysis of that, and there was a very
sharp contrast in the results.
     Q    What was the next either oral presentation or
written report that was produced, not necessarily presented?
                     A    The next one that was produced was the. . .
               You're talking about my presentation, not the
presentation of Dr. Richardson, but my presentation.
     Q    I'm actually talking about ÄÄ let me clarify it.
               Any that you're aware of on behalf of the League. 
Certainly any that you produced or presented or any that were
produced or presented by people you were working with or
people working for the League.
     A    The next focus point for me was August 13th, 1992.
     Q    And that was the. . .
     A    That was the presentation that I was to make to the
Governing Board of the District, and I need to give a little
background to what turned out to be some confusion about all
of this.
               August the 12th and August the 13th were two of the
days that the District set aside for discussion of the EAA
project.  August the 12th turned out to be a day when I was
making presentations in Baltimore, Maryland and I could not
be present.  I had a prior conflict of many months
longstanding and I so informed the District and I informed
counsel that I could not make a presentation on the 12th,
because I would be in Baltimore, Maryland, at the
Agricultural Economics Association meetings.  
               Okay.  I believe that on the 12th the report that I
had prepared was summarily presented by Stan Rolen of
Peterson Consulting, but I had not made a presentation and we
had requested that I be given the opportunity to make a
presentation on the 13th, before the District Board.
     Q    What did Stan Rolen present ÄÄ was this the written
outline of your earlier Funding Council presentation?
     A    I'm not exactly sure what he presented.  I'm sure
the testimony that he gave before the District Board would
reflect what he said.  I've never read a text of it and I'm
not sure what he presented, but I assume that what he
presented were the results of our report, the
Richardson/Polopolus report that we were to summarize on the
13th.  
               So on the 13th of August, 1992, Dr. Richardson and
I were prepared to appear before the Board and make our
summary presentation of our critique of Hazen and Sawyer's
analysis, but we were not permitted to make that
presentation.
               So the report was completed and I think the report
was offered, but the report itself was not presented.
     Q    When you say a report, do you mean a written
document?
     A    There was a written document.
     Q    Okay.
     A    Again, it was an outline form document that
presented our latest thinking about the Hazen and Sawyer
report and our latest thinking about what is the likely
economic impact of imposing the STAs on thirty-five thousand
acre reduction, of imposing BMPs and imposing alternative tax
assessments.
     Q    Did you say overheads?
     A    I think some of them were ÄÄ some of that report
was made into overheads.
     Q    Okay.
     A    So it was not a journal type paper, it was a 
paper that was prepared and intended to be presented in a
public. . .
     Q    Presentation materials.
     A    Right.
     Q    Documentary presentation materials.
     A    Yes.
     Q    Now, these had not been in existence a few days
earlier at the Funding Council presentation?
     A    Not that same form.  There were changes that were
made between the August 7th report and the August 13th
report.
     Q    Now, when you say the August 7th report, would that
be the written outline of remarks that you referred to
earlier?
     A    Yes.
     Q    Okay.  That was also a documentary presentation
material or packet?
     A    Yes.
     Q    And then there were changes made to it for the
August 13th presentation?
     A    Yes.
     Q    Do you recall what changes were made?
     A    No.  I really can't recall the changes that were
made specifically.  I would have to look at the two documents
and compare them.
     Q    Do you remember why the changes were made?
     A    I think it was more of presentation, not so much of
substance.
     Q    Had there been overheads also for the August 7th
Funding Council presentation?
     A    Yes.
     Q    But the overheads for the August 13th presentation
would be a little different?
     A    Some of them were different.
     Q    Some of them were different?
     A    Yes.
     Q    When you say that ÄÄ I'm paraphrasing the report ÄÄ
the report was offered, but wasn't accepted, I think that was
the gist of what you were saying.
     A    Offered but not presented.
     Q    What did you mean by that?
                     A    Well, it was a long day.  When, Grace Johns, with
Hazen and Sawyer, was permitted to present her report, we
thought that we would have the opportunity of following her
and presenting a rebuttal, but it turned out that several
dozens of people testified and made various comments, the day
kept wearing on and on and on, and at approximately six p.m.
that evening, when members of the Governing Board had planes
to catch and there was a question of quorum and people were
yawning and very tired, and then they called Dr. Polopolus
and Dr. Richardson to the podium to present their report, and
we began our report and then the Chair says:  Sorry, I don't
think we have a quorum, I don't think we have many people
that are going to stay and hear this, but I know the gist of
what you might be saying and I know that there's likely to be
a big difference between you and Hazen and Sawyer, can you ÄÄ
and there was sort of a stop in the proceedings ÄÄ and then
the Chair said:  Can you meet at some other time, can you ÄÄ
meaning Dr. Richardson and Dr. Polopolus ÄÄ meet with Hazen
and Sawyer, have a meeting of you two economists and discuss
your differences and then come back and give us a report?
               So that's how it ended.
     Q    Had Dr. Richardson made any presentation?
     A    I'm not sure whether he did or not up to that
point.  I don't know.
     Q    So you were standing at the podium when this took
place.
     A    Oh, on the 13th both of us were standing together,
we were both at the podium together, at six p.m. on the 13th.
     Q    And you were asked to submit something in writing?
     A    My recollection is that the District staff, and
with Hazen and Sawyer and with the League staff conferring at
that point, saying:  How are we going to handle this?  Well,
we obviously have a big difference of opinion about economic
impact but why not let the economists get together, meet and
discuss the methodologies, the procedures, so forth, and then
why don't we give the parties the opportunity to come back
after that meeting and report to us what happened.
     Q    Okay.  What happened next?
     A    Not much.
     Q    Let me ask a question before we leave this dark day
of August 13th.
               What did Hazen and Sawyer present at that Governing
Board meeting?
     A    My recollection is that Dr. Johns made a
presentation of her findings.
     Q    Did she present the July 15th draft reports?
     A    She presented her. . .
               I should have mentioned earlier that I believe on
July the 31st, Hazen and Sawyer issued their final report and
so now she's, on August 7th and August 13th, Dr. Johns would
be presenting the results, not of her preliminary report,
because she had made some changes, didn't change the final
conclusions, but obviously made some changes, and so the
August 7th and August 13th presentations were based on her
July 31, 1992 final report.
     Q    Had those changes between the July 15th draft and
the July 31 final report been considered by the people
working for the League and preparing the presentation that
was presented to the Funding Council on August 7th?
     A    Excuse me?
     Q    Okay.  Had the presentation that was made to the
Funding Council, on August 7th, included the changed material
on the July 31st Hazen and Sawyer final report?
     A    The presentation by whom?  By Hazen and Sawyer or
by us?
     Q    By the League.
     A    We certainly took into account the changes of Hazen
and Sawyer, between their preliminary report and their final
report.
     Q    So the presentation that was made on August the 7th
pertained to the final report as well?
     A    It pertained to the final report, yes.
     Q    And also that's true concerning the aborted
presentation on August 13th?
     A    That's correct.
                     Q    Okay.  What was the next thing that was done by you
or Peterson and/or Richardson in the case?
     A    Well, not much happened.
               The next stage was that we were trying to get a
meeting of economists that were the primary economists
involved, that is, the economists for Hazen and Sawyer and
the economists for the League, and up to that point we were
the only economists who were coming forward with a lot of
analyses and a lot of data and a lot of interpretations and
so on and so forth.  So we felt that we were the primary
group of economists involved and interested in demonstrating
that interest through public presentations and so on.
               So we were trying to get this meeting, this meeting
that we thought the Board had requested, and the next thing
we learned was that the District was calling a meeting of all
the economists, by all economists meaning the economists with
the Justice Department, economists at various universities,
economists with the Department of Agriculture, including, and
so on and so forth.
               So that's not what Dr. Richardson and I thought was
the meaning of the District Governing Board on August 13th. 
We just wanted to have a face-to-face opportunity to meet
with Chris Melene and Dr. Johns and discuss methodology as
economist-to-economist, you know:  Why do you do it this way? 
Could you have done it that way?  What was the basis for this
number?   What was the basis for that assumption?  So on and
so forth, you know, that type of thing.
               It took from August 13th to December 16th, 1992 to
actually realize this meeting.
               I did make a public presentation to the Funding
Council on November 19th, at which time I again said it would
be nice if the District permitted a meeting between the Hazen
and Sawyer economists and the League economists to hatch out
our differences over methodology.  It would be nice.
               At that time we said it also would be nice if the
District would permit Hazen and Sawyer, if they were to do
another analysis, which we didn't know if they would or
wouldn't, if they were to do another analysis, if they would
extend the analysis to a twenty-year period.
               But we had the meeting on December 16th and it was
a good one and very productive one from both sides, I think.
     Q    All right.  Going back to the efforts to arrange a
meeting between you and somebody on behalf of the League, I
take it, and Hazen and Sawyer; is that correct?
     A    Yes.
     Q    Were you the person who was attempting to make
these arrangements?
     A    No.  Mr. Burgess was, on behalf of the League, and
on behalf of ÄÄ representing the economists for the League,
was seeking to resolve this problem.
                                          QSo when you say:  We just wanted to discuss
methodologies and so forth, you mean the economists for the
League or do you mean counsel and the economists for the
League?
     A    I think basically it was Dr. Richardson and I who
felt an obligation to follow up on the Governing Board's
recommendation that the economists get together and talk
about it, the primary economists.
     Q    Okay.  What was the ÄÄ I take it from your
testimony that there was ÄÄ that you objected or that the
League objected to having other economists present at that
meeting?
     A    Yeah, there was concern about that.
     Q    Okay.  Can you explain those concerns for me?
     A    Well, I can speak for myself, you know, I can't
speak for the League on this point or anybody else's.  But
what we didn't want to happen is we didn't want to have and
characterize a meeting that had political overtones to it,
that had an adversarial overtone to it.  We wanted it to be a
colleagial meeting of the economists, where we sat next to
each other without any representatives of industry, without
any representatives of the District or without any pressures,
political and otherwise, we just wanted a meeting of the
primary economists.       
               We were characterized in the media as battling over
and having great differences and so forth, and we wanted to
say:  Okay, let's get into a closed room, without people with
vested interests, and just talk about economics and talk
about methodology.
               So that's why we didn't want ÄÄ we didn't want a
large number of people and then take a vote:  Well, was this
methodology good?  Nine in favor of two against ÄÄ something
like that.  We didn't want that kind of an atmosphere to
pervade the discussion.
     Q    All right.  You indicated, as a preface to your
comment, that you were only going to speak for yourself and
then you said "we".  
               Can you. . .
     A    Well, I think Dr. Richardson and I felt similarly
about this.
     Q    What did you understand the League's objection was
to the presence of other economists at this meeting?
     A    I really don't know.  Mr. Burgess could answer
that.
     Q    Did you have any understanding of the League's
objections?
     A    I believe they were concerned, as we were, about
making a kangaroo court out of this issue.
     Q    You described your rationale in terms of your
wanting to have a colleagial meeting, not an adversarial
meeting, without industry representatives present.
     A    Yes.
     Q    Did you not consider yourself to be an industry
representative?
     A    In that context I considered myself an economist.
     Q    Did you consider the economists that had been
retained by other parties in the case, to be representatives
of the parties as opposed to economists?
     A    I didn't think about it that way.
     Q    Well, what was your thinking about the presence of
economists, that had been retained by other parties would
make the meeting adversarial in a way that your presence, as
an economist retained by a party in the case, would not?
     A    It's a good question, but I think I expressed my
feeling about that.
     Q    And that is that you hadn't really thought about
it?
     A    Not in that context, and I should state very
clearly that I am not opposed, and I believe it's a very good
idea, for economists of all persuasions and of all stripes
and from all interest groups, be given the opportunity to
discuss methodology, but we were talking about a very
constrained issue that resulted from a specific event that
took place on August the 13th, and I'm talking about that. 
I'm not talking about meetings of economists in general, I'm
talking about responding to the Governing Board's concern
that the two economists get together and resolve and discuss
and so forth.
     Q    You were aware, I'm sure, at that time that the
League who had retained you also sued the Water Management
District over the SWIM Plan; is that correct?
     A    I became aware of that, yes.
     Q    Were you aware of that at the time that you were
attempting to arrange the meeting with Hazen and Sawyer?
     A    No.
     Q    At that time you were not aware of that?
     A    No.
     Q    Were you aware that ÄÄ did you have any
understanding about a challenge to the SWIM Plan by the
League?

                         MR. BURGESS:  Object to the form.

BY MR. SAXE:
     Q    Do you know when the League filed a petition
challenging the SWIM Plan?
     A    No, I don't know the date.  To be honest, I don't
remember the date.
     Q    Moving on to a parallel track, between the August
13th Governing Board presentation and the November 19th
Funding Council presentation.
     A    Yes.
     Q    What work was being done by you and Dr. Richardson
and Peterson Consulting, if any, on analyzing the Hazen and
Sawyer impact analysis or economic impacts on the SWIM Plan,
generally?
     A    Very little.  I wasn't in contact with Peterson
Consulting at that point.  In fact, the overheads that I
presented on November 19th to the Funding Council were not
prepared ÄÄ Peterson Consulting was not involved, I wasn't in
contact with them.
               I was in some general telephone conversations with
Dr. Richardson, but we had not conducted any new analysis of
the Hazen and Sawyer work for the presentation to the Funding
Council on November the 19th.
               It was a pretty much updated summary of our prior
presentations of August 7th and August 13th.
     Q    So there was another presentation document that was
presented on November 19th?
     A    A presentation document, outline format.
     Q    And what was done to update it from the materials
that had been presented or available for presentation on
August 13th?
     A    Well, some of it was a change in emphasis.  For
example, that particular presentation looked at price
assumptions and questioned the methodology of Hazen and
Sawyer over the price level, over the inflation of the price,
so on and so forth.  It was sort of like:  This is what we
believe to be one of the flawed assumptions of Hazen and
Sawyer, it could have been done like ÄÄ you know.  Like: 
What went wrong with Hazen and Sawyer?  And our character
says:  What would have been a better way to have dealt with
this?  And what we concluded or what we pleaded was that
Hazen and Sawyer would consider ÄÄ seriously consider if they
were to do another analysis that they give attention to what
we thought were flawed assumptions and that the District give
us an opportunity to meet with Hazen and Sawyer to talk about
them and that the analysis be extended to a twenty-year
period, and so forth.
     Q    But no new numbers.
     A    No new numbers, absolutely.
     Q    Not just by Peterson, but by. . .
     A    By anybody.
     Q    Had any adjustments been made in numbers?
     A    No new numbers, no, and that can be corroborated by
looking at the outline, the overheads that were presented,
the numbers were the same, you know.
     Q    Okay.  Moving then from the November 19th Funding
Council presentation, to the December 16th meeting.
     A    Yes.
                     Q    Take me from November 19th to December 16th, in
terms of the work that was being done, it any.
     A    Okay.  A lot of differences took place.  It was a
very significant ÄÄ there were significant changes in terms
of what Richardson and I began to do and did do in
preparation for the meeting of the economists.
     Q    Before we ÄÄ if you'll bear with me, I don't mean
to interrupt you, but just on a detail point while you're
there.
               Do you know when the meeting of economists was
agreed upon for December 16th?
     A    I can't recall that, but I imagine it was somewhere
in early December.  I cannot recall when that date was agreed
upon.
     Q    Was that the event that triggered these changes in
approach by you and Dr. Richardson?
     A    That was, in part.  There was also a Protective
Order that came to my attention about that time and our
realization, as we began to look at this issue of why is
there such a difference?  Why is it difficult to explain
these huge differences in impact?  Maybe it would be better
if we could place the battle on a plane where comparisons
would be more readily understood by the public and by others
who were trying to grapple with why are there these big
differences.
                                               So our decision making was to say we will adopt the
model framework of Hazen and Sawyer's analysis, even though
we think there may be some problems with it.  Let's adopt
that so that that doesn't become an issue.  Let's completely
go to public sources of data, as did Hazen and Sawyer, so
that we remove this kind of doubt that:  Oh, maybe the reason
why they have such big numbers is that the League economists
are using data from individual farms and Hazen and Sawyer
are using data from some other source and that's the reason
for not ÄÄ it's not because of this and that and that and
this.
               So we said:  Let's remove that doubt and let's
utilize the same data base, same data sources.  So let's use
the same model structure, let's utilize publicly available
data, and we thought we were all using FLIPSIM or something
like that, so we were all using the same methodology,
basically as a starter; so, therefore, the focus will be
placed on the assumptions and placed on what constitutes
total revenue and what constitutes cost, and where we think
the appropriate battleground should be on the assumptions.
               So in preparation for the December 16th meeting we
said:  Let's now take a new ÄÄ forget that earlier analysis,
let's take a new look at this thing and let's take a look at
how we would view Hazen and Sawyer's analysis within now a
new model framework, mainly the Hazen and Sawyer's model,
which average the different Belt Zones, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, and
the farm sizes that Hazen and Sawyer had, the large and small
size, average size, which are within each zone belt, and we
adopted all of that.  The yields that Hazen and Sawyer had
and so forth.  I'm not the expert on this firm analysis, Dr.
Richardson is, and so if you want to get into all the details
about what the specific yield was for each of the zone belts,
for the large farm, small farm, you would have to ask Dr.
Richardson.
               But we, as a general strategy, we said:  let's
adopt this framework and let's analyze the Hazen and Sawyer
report in that context.  And we did.
     Q    Were there any other aspects of the Hazen and
Sawyer's methodology, besides the yield belts, the different
size model farms and the yield numbers that you adopted?
     A    Would you repeat that?
     Q    Were there any other aspects of Hazen and Sawyer's
methodology that you adopted and changed from your previous
work, besides the yield belt, the different size model farms
and the yield values?
     A    Well, let me state that we attempted to validate
the Hazen and Sawyer study by taking all of the data that
Hazen and Sawyer had.  As a matter of fact, in our outline of
results of December the 16th, we took the Hazen and Sawyer
price, price trend and the costs, and we replicated Hazen and
Sawyer to the penny, and you would have to ask Dr. Richardson
about, you know, how we did that.
     Q    Okay.
     A    So we replicated it.
               So we believe that we know every element of the
Hazen and Sawyer analysis and we can reproduce it, not only
to then penny but over the ten-year planning horizon that she
studied.
               So we took he analysis and then said:  Let's now
look at some of the assumptions and. . .
               So, I don't know if I'm answering your question,
but one phase of this, you know, we adopted all of it, all of
Hazen and Sawyer, all of it.
     Q    What do you mean one phase of this we adopted. . .
     A    Well, one phase of it was, if you look at the table
that we presented at that meeting of economists, which we
also later presented to the members of the Governing Board,
we had three levels of analyses.  We had one ÄÄ we think
price is a critical component of all this debate ÄÄ one,
where we said we accept, for purposes of argument, we accept
Hazen and Sawyer's price level of thirty-five dollars and
ninety cents a ton, with a trend factor of increasing that
price one point seven percent per year over the planning
horizon to reflect the efficiencies of the mill.
               Given that assumption, we analyzed the impact in
that ÄÄ but then we changed other assumptions with attempt to
yield risk, so on and so forth.
               Then the second one was where we said:  Let's
assume that the price level of Hazen and Sawyer's thirty-five
dollars and ninety cents a ton, but we will not admit the
trend, because we found some statistical problems with Dr.
Johns' analysis of trend.
               Then we said:  Let's take a third price level where
we assume the average season price that growers, in fact,
receive and reported by the Florida Crop and Livestock
Reporting Service, over the last five-year period, let's take
that price, which is thirty dollars and some cents per ton,
and let's show the impact of that.
               So we did those three scenarios, utilizing FLIPSIM.
     Q    So there were two scenarios that were not pure
replications of Hazen and Sawyer and one that was?  I'm 
not. . .
     A    Well, it's confusing, because we, first of all, we
didn't report ÄÄ I should correct that ÄÄ we did not report
in that presentation our replication that replicates Hazen
and Sawyer to the penny, we did not report that in the table,
but we stand ready to produce that.  I'm sure Dr. Richardson
can produce that replication.
               What we did in our December 16th presentation was
show her price trend, her price level and trend, and show the
economic impact if we consider a different interpretation of
some of the assumptions, namely, for example, debt, so on and
so forth.
               At some point, if you want to get into the FLIPSIM
methodology, I'm not the expert on that, Dr. Richardson is,
but I would be more than willing to discuss what that means
and how similar our first stages of analysis were with Hazen
and Sawyer over the land use, which is apparently becoming an
issue as to whether or not we do land use and some people are
arguing that we only look at farm/firms and we don't look at
land use and so on and so forth.
     Q    All right.  
               I think later we'll get into some of those
questions during the course of the deposition.
               Now, being primarily interested in kind of trying
to establish what was done and when it was done, so that we
have a framework for questioning about these issues.
     A    Yes.
     Q    As I understand it, there was an analysis done that
replicated Hazen and Sawyer to the penny.
     A    Yes.
     Q    Then do I understand correctly that analyses were
rerun. . .
     A    Yes.
     Q    Varying certain assumptions.
                     A    Yes.
     Q    To produce the results that were summarized at the
December 16th meeting?
     A    Yes.
     Q    With Hazen and Sawyer?
     A    That's correct.
     Q    And those were three scenarios, so there were three
analyses, there was ÄÄ let me lay it out and you can tell me
where this goes wrong or where it needs