1 1 STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS 2 Case No. 92-3038 92-3039 3 92-3040 4 SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE OF FLORIDA, ) a Florida Agricultural Cooperative Marketing ) 5 Association, ROTH FARMS, INC., and WEDGWORTH ) FARMS, INC., ) 6 and ) FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, INC., and UNITED ) 7 STATES SUGAR CORPORATION ) and ) 8 FLORIDA FRUIT AND VEGETABLE ASSOCIATION, LEWIS ) POPE FARMS, W.E. SCHLECHTER & SONS, INC., and ) 9 HUNDLEY FARMS, INC., ) Petitioners ) 10 vs. ) SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, ) 11 an Agency of the State of Florida, ) Respondent, ) 12 and ) MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS OF FLORIDA, ) 13 the UNITED STATES OF AMERICAN and The ) FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL ) 14 PROTECTION, The FLORIDA WILDLIFE FEDERATION, ) The FLORIDA AUDUBON SOCIETY, and The SIERRA ) 15 CLUB, ) Intervenors. ) 16 __________________________________________________ ) 17 99 N.E. 4th Street Miami, Florida 18 April 8, 1994 9:45 - 1:00 p.m. 19 20 21 Deposition of Robert Reimold 22 Taken before Suzanne Fernandez, Notary Public in and for the State of Florida at Large, 23 pursuant to Notice of Taking Deposition filed in the above cause. 24 - - - - - - - 25 2 1 APPEARANCES: 2 ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF: 3 EARL, BLANK, KAVANAUGH & STOTTS, P.A. One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3636 4 Two South Biscayne Blvd. Miami, Florida 33131 5 BY: Jonathan L. Gaines, Esq. 6 ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT: 7 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 601 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 8 Eighth Floor, Rm. 866 Washington, DC 20004 Florida 9 BY: Stephen M. Macfarlane, Esq. 10 ALSO PRESENT: Don Jones 11 12 13 14 - - - - - - - 15 I N D E X Witness Direct Cross Redirect Recross 16 Dr. Reimold 3 155 158 158 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 Thereupon: 2 ROBERT J. REIMOLD, 3 was called as a witness by the United States, and 4 after being first duly sworn, was examined and 5 testified under oath as follows: 6 DIRECT EXAMINATION 7 BY MR. MACFARLANE: 8 Q. Would you state your name for the 9 Record, please. 10 A. Robert James Reimold. 11 Q. Good morning, Doctor Reimold. 12 A. Good morning. 13 Q. My name is Steve Macfarlane. I'm with 14 the Department of Justice. I'm one of the 15 attorneys representing the federal government and 16 its agencies in this litigation on behalf -- we 17 have intervened on behalf of the South Florida 18 Water Management District in defense of the SWIM 19 plan. 20 Let me ask you, sir, have you ever been 21 deposed before? 22 A. Yes, I have. 23 Q. Approximately how many times? 24 A. Around ten, twelve, something like 25 that. 4 1 Q. So you're a veteran at this? 2 A. Well -- 3 Q. To the extent anybody can be a veteran? 4 A. That's right. 5 Q. Well, let me say that, as you probably 6 understand, the purpose of this deposition is to 7 learn about the subject matter and the substance 8 of testimony that you may be called to give on 9 behalf of the Petitioners at any final hearing 10 that may take place in this litigation. 11 If for any reason a question I ask you 12 is unclear to you or you want me to rephrase it, 13 don't hesitate to ask me to do so. I'd be happy 14 to. 15 I know your counsel will object if it 16 is appropriate to do so, and unless he instructs 17 you not to answer, you should go ahead and answer 18 my question, if you can. 19 And any time you want to take a break, 20 please feel free to give a holler and we'll do 21 that; okay. 22 Doctor Reimold, could you -- let's mark 23 that as an exhibit. 24 (Thereupon the document referred to was 25 marked as Government Exhibit No. 1 5 1 for Identification, a copy of which is 2 attached hereto.) 3 BY MR. MACFARLANE: 4 Q. Doctor Reimold, let me show you what's 5 been marked as Government Exhibit 1, and let me 6 ask you if you have ever seen that before? 7 I will represent that this is an 8 extract of a document that was previously filed in 9 this case by the Petitioners for Sugar Cane League 10 and United States Sugar Corporation. 11 A. I don't think I have ever seen a copy 12 of this before. 13 Q. Okay. 14 Let me ask you, sir, to turn to page 15 15, and do you see your name there? 16 A. Yes, I do. 17 Q. Doctor Reimold, you have been listed as 18 an expert witness by the Florida Sugar Cane League 19 and United States Sugar who are Petitioners in 20 this action. You're aware of that? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. And the subject matter of your expected 23 testimony as listed on page 15 of the disclosure 24 of expert and fact witness of Petitioner Florida 25 Sugar Cane League and the United States Sugar 6 1 Corporation is given as follows: Application of 2 chemical treatment technologies to phosphorus 3 reduction, engineering and feasibility aspects of 4 chemical treatment, environmental impacts of 5 chemical treatment. 6 Doctor Reimold, is that description in 7 accordance with your understanding of what you 8 anticipate giving testimony on at the final 9 hearing in this litigation? 10 A. No, not really. 11 The latter part of it is, i.e. taking 12 information relative to chemical treatment, 13 engineering information, feasibility, jar testing 14 and the like. My expectation was to deal with 15 environmental impact of that treatment. 16 Q. So your understanding is you would only 17 be giving testimony on the environmental impacts 18 of chemical treatment? 19 A. That's correct. 20 Q. You don't anticipate giving testimony 21 at the final hearing on the engineering or 22 feasibility aspects of chemical treatment? 23 A. Well, only to the extent that they 24 relate to certain aspects of the environmental 25 impact. 7 1 But I'm a scientist; not an engineer. 2 Q. So does that mean you would not be 3 talking, for example, about the actual 4 construction of a chemical treatment facility? 5 A. That's correct. 6 Q. Would you be giving any testimony about 7 cost estimates or chemical treatment as compared 8 to other treatment technologies? 9 A. Only to the extent, say, regarding to 10 comparing cost of wetlands and other technologies 11 and the size of areas and things like that. But 12 again, looking at the engineering information 13 developed by others and the economic information 14 developed by others to make scientific 15 conclusions; not developing those particular 16 pieces of information myself. 17 Q. Let me just ask a follow-up to what you 18 have said. 19 Am I correct in understanding that your 20 testimony, to the extent you get into cost 21 analysis, would be based upon engineering work 22 done by others? 23 A. That's right. 24 Q. All right. Okay. 25 Doctor Reimold, do you have a 8 1 consultant contract with either the Florida Sugar 2 Cane League, United States Sugar or the law firm 3 of Earl, Blank, Kavanaugh? 4 A. Our company has a contract with Earl, 5 Blank, et cetera, but I don't personally. 6 Q. What is your company, sir? 7 A. Metcalf & Eddy, Incorporated. 8 Q. What is your position? 9 A. I'm the vice-president and national 10 director for environmental quality. 11 Q. And is this contract that you have, is 12 that a written contract? 13 A. Yes, it is, but I have never seen the 14 contract. 15 We have, in a corporation the size of 16 ours, we have people who deal with contracts, and 17 I believe the project manager on this job is 18 Doctor Bowen, whom you have previously met, 19 someone has previously met. 20 So I'm not knowledgeable about the 21 details of the contract. 22 Q. Fair enough. 23 Do you know when approximately your -- 24 Metcalf & Eddy entered into this contract with 25 Earl, Blank? 9 1 A. No, I don't. 2 Q. Okay. 3 Let's enter this as Exhibit 2, please. 4 (Thereupon the document referred to was 5 marked as Government Exhibit No. 2 6 for Identification, a copy of which is 7 attached hereto.) 8 BY MR. MACFARLANE: 9 Q. All right. 10 Doctor Reimold, let me show you what's 11 been marked as Government Exhibit 2 and ask you to 12 identify that, if you can. 13 A. It's a copy of a resume, Metcalf & 14 Eddy's corporate resume of me. 15 Q. Of you. That's your resume? 16 A. Um-hum. 17 Q. And I see you have a Ph.D. in biology 18 and marine science from the University of 19 Delaware? 20 A. Right. 21 Q. I'd like to ask you a few questions 22 about some of the work you have done, Doctor 23 Reimold. I was very interested in looking at the 24 wide variety of things you have been involved in. 25 I see at the bottom of the first page 10 1 under general background, you're listed as 2 vice-president and national director for 3 environmental quality for Metcalf & Eddy. 4 Can you give me an idea of what you do 5 in that position? 6 A. In that position, my corporate 7 responsibilities relate to dealing with 8 environmental quality issues throughout the firm. 9 Metcalf & Eddy is a firm of over 2,000 10 persons. It's an 87 year old firm, environmental 11 engineering firm, and we have environmental 12 expertise of various kinds; biological, physical, 13 chemical, scientist-types and planner types, as 14 opposed to engineers, and a number of our 15 corporate officers are a preponderance of those in 16 the home office. And my responsibility is to 17 interact with the staff in the various offices to 18 lead projects that deal with environmental quality 19 issues, to deal with particularly problematic 20 areas, to deal with screening new staff, hiring 21 new staff or serving as an expert witness or 22 working on specialized projects that are a little 23 more problematic than just general environmental 24 projects. 25 These projects are sometimes 11 1 stand-alone projects, work done for federal 2 agencies and municipal and state agencies, 3 regulatory agencies like EPA, Corps of Engineers, 4 U.S. Army, et cetera, private clients, private 5 industry and the like, and also for 6 municipalities. 7 Q. Thank you. 8 Just at the very bottom of the first 9 page there is a description provided on your 10 resume. I guess that also describes some of your 11 duties. And I'll just read it. 12 "He coordinates corporate inter-office 13 staff expertise and project execution of 14 ecological risk assessments, habitat evaluations, 15 and related environmental work assessing potential 16 positive and negative impacts and appropriate 17 clean up levels for various engineered remediation 18 activities." And then it goes on to say that you 19 have a special expertise in wetlands. 20 A. Right. 21 Q. My question, Doctor Reimold, is this: 22 Prior to the present contract between Metcalf & 23 Eddy, and Earl, Blank, Kavanaugh & Stotts, had you 24 ever provided such services in relation to an 25 oligotrophic marsh or ecosystem? 12 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Can you give me some examples? 3 A. Let's see. 4 A system that's very similar 5 ecologically in terms of a Typha Caladium system 6 is Kawailao which is a wetland in Honolulu or 7 north of Honolulu. 8 This is an approximately 500 acre 9 wetland receiving runoff from agricultural and 10 urban developed areas, subject to some 11 manipulation of water shed management and flood 12 control. 13 Q. Which island is that on? 14 A. Oahu, north of Honolulu. 15 Let's see, other oligotrophic 16 wetlands? 17 Some small areas of Caladium in Puerto 18 Rico relative to environmental assessment of the 19 health of it and the quality of it. Those were 20 being considered for parking lot development by 21 one of the industries, and this is near the town 22 of Humacao, H-U-M-A-C-A-O, in Puerto Rico. 23 I could probably think of others, but 24 I'm trying to answer just that one focused tight 25 question. 13 1 Q. Thank you. 2 Let me ask you, just generally, how 3 would you define a wetland? 4 A. Well, it's an interaction of three 5 principal components: Water, soil and 6 vegetation. And there is a federal definition 7 that a number of us worked on, and I was on the 8 team of people who sat around a conference room in 9 the early '70s to develop that federal definition 10 which I'm sure you've heard other persons recite, 11 but the critical components are making sure that 12 you have water in the right quantity and the right 13 quality and the right periodicity and having soils 14 that are hydric soils. These are soils that will 15 accommodate plants that grow under conditions that 16 are water logged or, in other words, they are 17 submerged at or near the surface for a period of 18 the growing season, and vegetation that will 19 survive under such conditions. 20 For example, you can take vegetation 21 alone. You can plant wetland plants in your front 22 yard, and after a short period of time, they won't 23 live, even if you water them every day because you 24 would have the right vegetation and the right -- 25 perhaps the right amount of hydrology, but you 14 1 would not have the proper soils. So it's a 2 combination of the three factors in order to make 3 a wetland. 4 Q. Any particular soils that are -- 5 A. As I said, they are called hydric 6 soils, and there are a variety of soils which are 7 hydric soils, and these are the ones that are 8 identified in the U.S. Department of Agriculture 9 Corps of conservation of various soils. 10 There is a book -- USDA describes these 11 soils in detail. 12 Q. Okay. 13 A. In a little more detail. 14 Q. So I guess, let me ask you, it would be 15 your opinion, wouldn't it, that the Everglades 16 fits this description? 17 A. Yes, it does. 18 Q. Do you have an opinion whether the 19 Everglades are unique in any way as wetlands? 20 A. Well, the Everglades are like all 21 wetlands. I have a bias that all wetlands are 22 unique, i.e., they are resources of special value, 23 and that's why there has been the international -- 24 first national, I'd say, and in more recent times 25 through Ramseys and others, international efforts, 15 1 focused on wetlands and unique ecosystem. 2 They are unique from a variety 3 standpoint. They are more productive than normal, 4 say, agricultural or forested or upland 5 ecosystems. Relative to, say, the Everglades 6 being the most unique one, I think there is the 7 regional bias everywhere in the world that I have 8 worked, quote, "My one is the most unique one." 9 And the popular media, I think, brings that 10 message across. 11 National Geographic says it's the 12 Everglades. Go back a couple seasons and it was 13 the wetlands in the coast of Georgia. 14 So the public attention and the quote, 15 "unique factor" is kind of a nebulous thing, but 16 as far as ecosystems go, yes, wetlands are unique 17 ecosystems and have a higher standing. That's 18 probably one of the reasons we are all spending 19 this time and that's why there has been federal 20 legislation. 21 Q. We'll get into some of those issues 22 perhaps in a bit more detail later on. 23 Let me ask you a few more questions 24 about some of the things you have done. 25 On page two of your resume, down, let 16 1 me see, the third bullet from the bottom indicates 2 that you directed the successful environmental and 3 local planning, zoning and permitting for 4 construction of a -- 7-mgd is the abbreviation 5 for? 6 A. Million gallons. 7 Q. That's what I thought. 8 -- water treatment facility for the 9 Massachusetts American Water Company in Hingham, 10 where aesthetic issues had previously halted work 11 on the project. 12 Did this involve -- was this water 13 treatment facility a chemical treatment plant? 14 A. All water treatment facilities are 15 chemical treatment plants. 16 Q. Okay. 17 A. All water treatment facilities -- the 18 stuff that you drink today, if it weren't for some 19 form of chemical treatment, you wouldn't be 20 drinking it, so yes. 21 Q. What -- 22 A. I think that involves activated carbon, 23 ferric hydroxide. I've forgotten what polymers. 24 There is too many polymers. 25 It involves pulse -- let's see -- some 17 1 kind of a pulse system. I've forgotten the 2 patented name, but it's a pulsator system, rapid 3 pulsator systems that introduced fine dissolved 4 bubbles at the bottom of the system. Once the 5 chemicals are added, it does the same kind of 6 thing that's been talked about here, i.e., it 7 takes what's in the water and removes it or 8 removes it in a breachable quantity so it's safe 9 for drinking. 10 Q. Did it involve the use of coagulants? 11 A. Yes, that's why I said that. 12 Then there is also -- well, there are a 13 variety of chemicals -- I mentioned the 14 coagulants -- for the purpose of taking out the 15 chemicals. 16 Q. Let me ask you, flip the page, the 17 second bullet from the top, you're listed as 18 having managed preparation of conceptual design 19 for wetlands restoration associated with 20 remediation at a major New England Superfund 21 Site. 22 Can you give me a general outline of 23 the major features of the conceptual design for 24 that? 25 A. Well, this is a site that was extremely 18 1 contaminated with metals and pesticides. It was a 2 chemical manufacturing and formulation plant. And 3 their practices resulted in the contamination of 4 sediment up to about 18 feet deep in both emerging 5 macrophyte and forested matter and forested 6 wetland of -- how many acres? -- 20, 30-something 7 acres. 8 Q. This involved an existing wetland that 9 had been contaminated? 10 A. Yes, yes. 11 So then the objective was, in order to 12 clean up -- the levels were so high, literally 13 what they're doing, and their contract has just 14 been started on, doing the work, but the 15 conceptual design for the remediation was to 16 actually incinerate the soil -- excavate and 17 incinerate, so it's going to be done in segments. 18 As segments are excavated, new soil is brought in, 19 hydric soils, and plants are planted, and 20 hydrology has been planned such that the water for 21 the hydrology is running through a ground water 22 treatment so that you don't recontaminate the soil 23 with bad groundwater. 24 Q. Is this remediation of this wetland or 25 the construction of a new wetland? 19 1 A. It's like taking the soil out of a 2 room, taking it away a piece at a time and then 3 building it back. 4 Q. Will the wetland that is replaced there 5 be used for treatment of runoff or is it there 6 primarily just restoring the wetland for habitat? 7 A. It'll just be used as a wetland. 8 Q. Have you had experience in the use of 9 constructed wetland to treat water? 10 A. Yeah, for storm water. 11 Q. Can you give me some idea where? 12 A. Well, my most recent project is one in 13 Farmington, Connecticut, west of Hartford. 14 An emergent macrophyte wetland was 15 recreated for the purpose of removing contaminants 16 and nutrient, metals, et cetera, from storm water 17 runoff. 18 Q. Had you had experience with the use of 19 constructed wetlands to treat agricultural 20 constructed wetlands? 21 A. I've had the experience relative to 22 reviewing the literature and the work of others, 23 but not doing the actual design of it myself. 24 Q. How about experience in the use of 25 constructed wetlands to treat water that was 20 1 discharged into a natural system -- 2 A. Well -- 3 Q. -- as opposed to -- 4 A. -- all waters, treated waters, are 5 discharged into natural systems. Depends what 6 we're going to call natural. 7 We deal with treatment systems from 8 water treatment plants, waste water treatment 9 plants, industrial treatment plants. If they 10 don't go to the municipal sewer, they eventually 11 get to a natural system, i.e., a river, wetland, 12 whatever. So in that sense, yes, I have, where 13 there have been wetlands designed as polishing 14 ponds for the final removal of nutrients after you 15 get most everything out of the -- take everything 16 out to a low enough level where the wetland can 17 achieve efficient removals. 18 Q. Have you had -- let me just ask you, 19 can you give me an example of a constructed 20 wetland that your firm has designed that treated 21 water that was then discharged into a marsh 22 environment? 23 A. I can tell you about where. Somewhere 24 in north Georgia is the most recent one. 25 Paul Bowen -- if this goes to trial, 21 1 you can ask Paul Bowen about it. 2 It was designed in north Georgia and it 3 has to do with treatment of an industrial 4 facility. And then after treatment in an 5 industrial facility, it goes to a wetland 6 polishing pond before discharge to one of the 7 contributories of the Chattahoochee River. 8 Q. I take it that your firm has 9 recommended constructed wetland as a water 10 treatment strategy? 11 A. Only as a component of it. I mean, I 12 wouldn't want you to say -- to misuse that. 13 Yes, as a component of it where you 14 precede it with appropriate chemicals and physical 15 and biological means, the necessary parts of the 16 treatment. 17 What you have to understand, I don't 18 want to lecture, but in a treatment system, 19 different components do different things. There 20 isn't one system alone that will do it all. And 21 so it's sort of like everything else; a diversity 22 of things in life makes your life better, and a 23 diversity of things here actually results in an 24 appropriate treatment of water to meet the water 25 quality standards and receiving water conditions. 22 1 Q. Okay. I appreciate the clarification. 2 Let me ask you, going down to the next 3 bullet on page three, there is a list of sites in 4 which you have managed wetland jurisdictional 5 determinations and directed development and 6 evaluation of marsh and wetland restoration. And 7 I note that you have done some work in Florida. 8 A. Yeah. 9 Q. On Amelia Island, St. Augustine and 10 other places. 11 A. Naples, Hollywood, New Port Richie. 12 Q. Have you done any of this sort of work 13 for any portion of the Everglades before? 14 A. Well, I guess that, you know, depends 15 upon exactly where one draws the boundaries of the 16 Glades. 17 The work in Naples was really at the 18 fringes of the Everglades, but other than that, 19 the rest of these sites were clearly not within 20 part of the Everglades. 21 Q. Had you ever done any consulting work 22 involving the Everglades in any capacity before? 23 A. No. 24 With the exceptions that I have just 25 given you. 23 1 Q. Okay. 2 Let's go down to the bottom of that 3 page. In the second bullet up from the bottom you 4 are listed as a member of the Wetlands Ecosystem 5 Analysis Team for the National Wetlands Technical 6 Council. 7 What did you do in that position? 8 A. This is back in the early '70s when we 9 were actually formulating what became the federal 10 definition of wetland. I mentioned this before. 11 And then coming up with a scheme for mapping 12 wetland which resulted in the National Wetland 13 Inventory System of mapping -- let's see, it's 14 coordinates and all habitat evaluation 15 classification scheme for wetlands, so there was a 16 team of people that were the precursor to that 17 habitat evaluation classification scheme and 18 actual federal definition of wetland. 19 And that included -- at that time I was 20 in academia, and so it included academicians and 21 federal regulatory people from the Corps, Fish and 22 Wildlife Service, National Marine Fishery System. 23 I don't remember who else. 24 Q. What were you doing in academia? 25 A. I worked for the University of Georgia; 24 1 taught a variety of courses in ecology, graduate 2 courses, and I advised graduate students. I 3 worked at the University of Georgia Marine 4 Institute and Marine Extension Service of the 5 University of Georgia dealing with ecological 6 courses related to wetland, freshwater and 7 saltwater wetland. 8 Q. Were you a professor on the faculty? 9 A. Yes, first assistant professor, then 10 associate professor at the University of Georgia, 11 with appointment in the zoology -- Department of 12 Zoology, and co-staffed at the University of 13 Georgia Marine Institute. 14 Q. When did you leave the University of 15 Georgia? 16 A. It was like late '70s, early '80s. 17 During a period of about two or three 18 years I worked for the State of George at the same 19 time I worked for the University directing a 20 coastal management program and dealing with 21 wetland protection program that Georgia had at 22 that time. 23 And then in 1982 I went to Metcalf & 24 Eddy. 25 Q. Okay. 25 1 A. So during the time I was at the 2 University of Georgia, I did a variety of 3 consulting work, and that's where a lot of these 4 project experience I have gained as a consultant 5 at the same time as being a faculty member, as 6 Doctor Jones and other people do. 7 Q. Let's go back to the wetland ecosystem 8 analysis team for a minute. 9 You said that you were involved in 10 mapping of wetland and -- 11 A. Defining the terms for the mapping. 12 Defining. 13 Q. Okay. 14 A. Defining the terms for the category. 15 I assume in this case you probably 16 produced the wetland -- National Wetland Inventory 17 Maps that show pluster forest and emergent 18 macrophyte and that sort of thing. 19 The classification scheme was 20 conceived -- a variety of things were talked about 21 and the classification scheme was conceived, and 22 then Luke Core, Virginia Carter and Frank Goldat 23 and a few other people took all that, wrote it up, 24 sent it out. I think the team reviewed some 25 drafts, and then it was published as a document 26 1 which most people who work in wetlands have seen 2 and used. 3 Q. In the course of that work that you 4 have just described, did you receive information 5 or attend presentations concerning the Everglades? 6 A. Well, I think information was -- I 7 mean, Everglades were one of the systems 8 considered in terms of developing a definition, as 9 were lots of other major wetland ecosystems; hard 10 woods and soft woods of the Mississippi, pluster 11 and forests in New England. 12 Q. Do you recall how the Everglades were 13 classified as part of the scheme? 14 A. At that point, no, I don't. I mean, 15 that's probably 22 years ago or something like 16 that. You're getting into too much detail. 17 Q. Just got to ask. 18 A. No, I can appreciate that. 19 Q. Okay. Let's move along to the next 20 page, at the very bottom, the last bullet. 21 You are listed as serving as a member 22 of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 23 Administration's Estuarine Eutrophication 24 Evaluation Team. 25 A. Um-hum. 27 1 Q. Can you tell me what you do in that 2 capacity? 3 A. A year-and-a-half ago, approximately, 4 put together a compendium of all the estuaries of 5 the country with all the information that they 6 knew to exist relative to nutrient content, 7 eutrophication, et cetera. Then they went around 8 the country and solicited persons, and I have a 9 list in my office. I don't know, I couldn't quote 10 to you right now, only two or three other people 11 to be on it, and they said: Okay, have you worked 12 in Galveston Bay? I worked there. Have you 13 worked in whatever? And they then asked if you 14 would be a reviewer of the summary of the 15 literature assembled relative to those estuaries 16 to determine whether, in your opinion, you thought 17 there were sufficient documentation to show that 18 there was eutrophication and there was not 19 eutrophication, and the purpose of that is for 20 them to just make decisions on funding future 21 study. 22 Q. So you -- 23 A. Among others things. 24 That's still ongoing. I probably have 25 a stack of some of the notes on my desk now 28 1 because I had some of the data on Georgia, Mass. 2 Bay, and I've forgotten which ones I've had. 3 I've seen various ones over the past, 4 but it's been approximately a year in September 5 that that got underway. 6 Q. So you're primarily a reviewer of 7 documents on eutrophication in wetlands? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Have you received information on 10 eutrophication in the Everglades? 11 A. Not through that. 12 Q. Not through that. 13 Let me ask you to flip two pages. 14 A. Okay. 15 Q. And the second bullet from the bottom. 16 A. This statement starts out: Directed a 17 comprehensive evaluation? 18 Q. That's correct, yes, you got it. 19 A. Yeah. 20 Q. You directed a comprehensive evaluation 21 of the environmental, engineering and economic 22 aspects of alternative means for disposal of 23 treated wastewater in southern New Jersey, 24 including ocean discharge, bay discharge, land 25 application and wetland application. 29 1 A. Um-hum. 2 Q. Let me ask you, Doctor Reimold, what 3 were the conclusions of that evaluation? 4 A. This was work done for the Cape May 5 County Municipal Authority in conformance with 6 Section 201 of the Clean Water Act. 7 It was facility planning, and it was to 8 evaluate for all of Cape May County what were the 9 options for the best, the most economical, the 10 least environmentally impacting disposal of their 11 treated effluent from the wastewater collection 12 system for that county, and so just as it says, 13 reevaluated the alternatives. And the final 14 alternative was that, based on the level of 15 treatment, which was secondary treatment, that the 16 ocean discharge offered the most -- say the least 17 environmental impacting and the most cost 18 efficient. There is Cape May and Wildwood, direct 19 ocean discharges. 20 They had also considered, in addition 21 to these things that are explicitly stated here, 22 options of level of treatment. I don't go into 23 secondary, only go to primary, and so there were 24 two scenarios of treatment. 25 Q. Do you recall what the approximate 30 1 population was that you were designing or 2 recommending treatment for? 3 A. Well, this was done in the period of 4 like '85 to '88, and whatever the population of 5 Cape May County was at that time. I'm sorry, I 6 don't remember. I mean, it's in there. I know 7 because we had -- in doing something like this, 8 you take the existing census, whatever this is, 9 part of Section 201, Clean Water Act and you use 10 the existing census, then use various demographic 11 projections looking ten, twenty years ahead in 12 order to determine population growth. So I don't 13 remember what the population was, but it's 14 available. 15 Q. Sure, I understand. 16 Can you tell me what level of treatment 17 would have been necessary for wetland discharge? 18 A. A minimum secondary. We didn't look at 19 any primary treatment. I mean, the engineers told 20 me that the levels of nutrient would be such that 21 wetland would not be able to accommodate the 22 load. So the option I mentioned of primary was 23 only considered in terms of ocean discharge, not 24 inland application, or bay discharge, or wetland 25 discharge. 31 1 Q. Do you have any recollection as to what 2 the loads were or what the concentration levels 3 were? 4 A. Not right now, but you know, at the 5 time of trial, we can develop that information and 6 provide it. 7 MR. GAINES: I think we'll develop the 8 information at the time of trial that I ask you to 9 develop. 10 THE WITNESS: I said can or could. I 11 didn't say would. 12 MR. GAINES: Mr. Macfarlane is a nice 13 guy, but let's not go too far. 14 BY MR. MACFARLANE: 15 Q. Doctor Reimold, let me ask you, would 16 it be fair to say that most of the wetlands you 17 have had direct experience with have been located 18 in the northeast or mid Atlantic regions of the 19 country? 20 A. No, I wouldn't say that. 21 I'd say most of the wetlands I have 22 been familiar with and worked in would start from 23 places where Doctor Jones used to work down in 24 Louisiana, Florida, Georgia, essentially all the 25 Atlantic Seaboard coast states. 32 1 The freshwater parts have been off the 2 Columbia River, and one of the largest wetlands in 3 the state of Hawaii that I mentioned earlier. I 4 mean, I would say that I have lived up in the 5 north the last twelve years, but I have been doing 6 work in the north and south and west and other 7 places in the last twelve years. And prior to 8 that I lived and worked in the southeast all that 9 time, since out of graduate school. 10 Q. Was the wetland near the mouth of the 11 Columbia River, was that Asturia? 12 A. Miller Sands. How do you know that? 13 Q. I have been to Asturia. 14 A. Did you do any wetland work there? 15 Q. No. 16 A. Litigation related to wetland? 17 Q. No. This was back in my former life. 18 A. Yeah, Miller Sands is a site with an 19 experimental wetland creation project. If you 20 know where Miller Sands is, it's a little upstream 21 from Asturia. 22 In the early days, back before I got 23 gray hair and you lost some, in those days, the 24 Corps of Engineers called it wetland restoration 25 or habitat creation or marsh creation or something 33 1 like that. So the Corps of Engineers funded a 2 demonstration project to see if you can build 3 wetland. 4 I was responsible for designing and 5 building one in George, and then we extrapolated 6 that information to the Miller Sands site, and 7 they actually had contracts from private 8 contractors to do the work out there for 9 construction of that. And then I'm trying to 10 think who it was, Pat Barker and some of these 11 people in Texas did one. 12 Q. Was Miller Sands built what, in the 13 early '70s? 14 A. Yeah. Like '73 to '77, something like 15 that, in that area. 16 Q. And you said it's a demonstration 17 project. 18 Beyond what you have said, you know, 19 can one build wetlands, were there any other 20 purposes behind the demonstration project? 21 A. Yeah. For those it was can you keep 22 the cost of dredging down, i.e., when you dredge 23 major waterways, can you make the sediment stay 24 somewhere, and if you put it and make it upland, 25 it's not a favored habitat, again, because we 34 1 talked about the way wetlands are valued. And can 2 we take a wetland, and if the roots aren't 3 established, they won't fall back in the water and 4 have less maintenance cost. 5 Q. Let me see if I understand that 6 correctly. 7 The principal purpose, or one of the 8 principal purposes of the Miller Sands 9 demonstration project was the use of wetland for 10 sediment control? 11 A. That was one of the purposes, right. 12 Q. And another was to see the feasibility? 13 A. Another was to look at the feasibility 14 in terms of habitat creation, looking at the 15 vegetation and plant and animal community, and the 16 habitat that was established for that, what kind 17 of diverse ecosystem, because wetland, you don't 18 just talk about the plant or just the microbes or 19 just the nutria or something like that. We talk 20 about them all together. So it was what kind of 21 habitat and ecosystems can we accommodate by 22 developing those kind of wetlands. 23 Q. Do you consider that to have been a 24 successful demonstration project? 25 A. It had successes and drawbacks. 35 1 We had a lot of problems with the 2 nutria eating out the vegetation that was 3 transplanted before it was put in, and I think we 4 learned an awful lot in terms of how important -- 5 you were asking earlier the three components of 6 wetland: Soils, vegetation and hydrology. 7 We had the vegetation, we had the 8 hydrology, but we didn't have good soil. We 9 basically had river sand and it wasn't as good as 10 it could have been if the soils had been better. 11 Q. Do you know what the status of Miller 12 Sands is today? 13 A. I don't know. 14 Do you? 15 Q. No. 16 A. I was just curious. I mean, off the 17 record. 18 (Thereupon conversation was 19 held off the record.) 20 MR. MACFARLANE: Back on the record. 21 BY MR. MACFARLANE: 22 Q. Doctor Reimold, would it be fair to 23 say, again, most, and I do mean most, not all, but 24 most of the wetland project you have been involved 25 with as a consultant have concerned most coastal 36 1 and marine wetland or salt marshes? 2 A. No. I guess I have to say maybe 60 3 percent, but not most. I wouldn't say that. 4 Q. That's more than 50 percent? 5 A. Yeah. But most to me is like 90 to 95 6 percent, and I wouldn't call it that. 7 Q. Would you consider yourself an expert 8 on the ecosystem found in freshwater wetland in 9 the United States? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. And that would be based upon your 12 experience as a consultant? 13 A. And my training as well. I mean, 14 education and experience are two parts. 15 Q. Okay. 16 Let me ask you about a couple of what 17 you have listed as representative publications, 18 and these may, I think, go over some of the things 19 we have just been talking about, but I'm curious 20 anyway. 21 On the first page of your 22 representative publications, the third bullet 23 down, you wrote an article, is that correct, on 24 wetland functions? 25 A. Actually, it's a chapter in a book 37 1 dealing with various methodologies for appraising 2 wetland functions and values of all kinds of 3 wetlands in all parts of the world, historically 4 what's been used. 5 This says December '93. The 6 publication is delayed and it will be out in -- I 7 think it's August of '94, so it's actually not on 8 the street yet. I just reviewed the galleys of it 9 last week. 10 Q. Can you tell me, in a nutshell, what 11 your conclusions were? 12 A. Well, let's see. I reviewed a variety 13 of ecological and economic methods and tools for 14 assessing wetland functions and values and said, 15 basically, you know, you pick what you like, 16 depending upon what you're going to do with it, 17 that you really need to include both economics and 18 ecology when you are going to make any decisions 19 about using them or putting value judgments on 20 them, but it's not just bugs and bunnies, nuts and 21 berries, and it's not just dollars and cents, it's 22 all those. 23 Q. How would you describe wetlands 24 values -- 25 A. Well -- 38 1 Q. -- in 25 words or less? 2 A. Well, I guess the values of wetlands 3 relate to physical, chemical, biological -- well, 4 I guess I'll focus a little bit differently 5 because I'm thinking about some other structure to 6 my thinking. 7 I have this idea that in order to come 8 up with a value system on ecosystems, and this 9 relates to ecosystems, if we're going to put a new 10 interstate highway through or evaluate a forest or 11 Biscayne Bay that's going to become a marine 12 preserve or whatever, we have social, technical, 13 economic, environmental, legal, political and 14 institutional values. I call those STEEPLI. I 15 have written a paper about that a while back, 16 contract work for EPA. There is actually a guy in 17 EPA, and I started this like 12, 14 years ago, but 18 in assessing the value of something, from my 19 perspective, one needs to consider all these 20 different factors, so I call it STEEPLI, 21 S-T-E-E-P-L-I, social, technical, economic, 22 environmental, legal, political and institutional, 23 and in assessing the wetland, the value of a 24 wetland or value of any other ecosystem, one needs 25 to consider all of those. 39 1 Now, typically what I find is that 2 persons assess the value based on their own set of 3 classes. An ecologist looks at the environment. 4 An economist looks at the economics. You're a 5 lawyer, so then you lawyers look at it from a 6 legal perspective. For me the evaluation has to 7 be done from all those perspectives. 8 Q. Wetland functions, same question. 9 A. Yeah, the wetland functions. Maybe 10 there are functions that wetlands accommodate and 11 provide from the physical, chemical and biological 12 standpoint. Again, functions as a treatment 13 facility; functions as a way to mitigate from 14 floods; functions as a compensatory storage; 15 functions as a home for endangered species; 16 functions as a habitat for migratory water fowl. 17 So those functions relate to biological, chemical 18 and physical features of things that happen in 19 this system. Functions are construed by some in 20 terms only of aesthetics. 21 Twenty, fifteen years ago I read an 22 article with some people, Non-consumptive Uses of 23 Wetland. Because, you know, perhaps none of the 24 four of us or five of us are all interested in the 25 wetland from a real technical standpoint, but for 40 1 other persons the wetland has a very important 2 function in terms of aesthetics alone and not 3 consumptive use, so that's why people come to the 4 coast or go to the Glades to look, because to them 5 it has a functional value that's not quantifiable. 6 Q. Well, let me follow up on that. 7 Have you had occasion to form any 8 opinions about the function of wetlands in the 9 Everglades? 10 MR. GAINES: You mean in this case or 11 any? 12 BY MR. MACFARLANE: 13 Q. Generally. 14 I assume you have reviewed material -- 15 A. Right. 16 Q. -- on the Everglades, and I wondered if 17 the Everglades, as a specific wetland, has entered 18 your thinking as you deal with the issue of 19 functions of wetland? 20 A. Yeah. Just as thinking about any 21 wetland, I think about the functions, the various 22 functions of it. 23 Q. What would you think the functions of 24 the Everglades wetland are? 25 A. Well, it's all the things that I just 41 1 listed. They're all the things I listed. 2 Any wetland that's the subject of 3 public attention in this country or 4 internationally, if it's meriting that attention 5 of the public, it has a lot of functions and 6 values, a diversity of sorts. 7 Q. Let's flip the page. 8 Let me ask you about the second article 9 from the top, Mitigation or Litigation. I like 10 that title. 11 A. Right. 12 Q. The Scientific Reasonableness of 13 Wetlands Restoration Vs. Preservation. 14 What were your conclusions in that 15 article? 16 A. Well, I mean, if we want to know the 17 exact conclusions, I'd have to get a copy of it, 18 but -- 19 Q. The best of your knowledge. 20 A. But my opinion is that there are ways 21 to mitigate, for when you get involved in anything 22 related to restoring wetlands, that there are 23 usually what I will consider to be environmental 24 solutions that are cheaper and better to the 25 environment than legal solutions. 42 1 Q. Can you give me an example or two? 2 A. Let's see. 3 There was a case in New Jersey, the 4 Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission. It 5 was actually New York V. The State of New Jersey, 6 and it had to do with whether or not we were going 7 to build what's now the Giants Stadium and the 8 sports complex. 9 Q. The Meadowlands? 10 A. The Meadowlands complex. 11 So it was on and off again with the 12 litigation of the whole area and who owns it and 13 what should be done there, and then finally it 14 appeared that it could be litigated for years and 15 years, so the mitigation was the clean up of some 16 contaminated wetlands around there and the 17 mitigation there was development of the various 18 creek nature center which is now the home of the 19 Hackensack Meadowlands Commission. And the 20 trade-off for that was you go ahead and consume 21 the surrounded wetland. 22 Another current -- that's 20 years I 23 guess now, but I was involved in another more 24 current one. The State of Connecticut dealt 25 with -- well, no, I'll go to something even in 43 1 Florida. 2 There was a case of the fellow who 3 owned the southern part of Amelia Island. 4 Actually, he owned the major part of Cumberland 5 Island, Charlie Frazier. And so there was a 6 question there about the National Parks Service 7 having interest in Cumberland Island as a national 8 seashore, but they needed to get this major 9 landowner involved. So we -- I was involved in 10 some examination of wetland functions and values 11 in Amelia Island contrasted to Cumberland, and the 12 trade-off to keep fighting over it was to get 13 Frazier to buy the land and develop Amelia Island, 14 this is the short form, and Cumberland Island was 15 acquired by the feds and turned into Cumberland 16 Island National Seashore. 17 Q. Let me ask you -- I was going to ask 18 you about the article you wrote on Non-Consumptive 19 Use of Wetlands, and let me ask you if there is 20 anything -- you got into it a moment ago. 21 A. Yeah. I talked about aesthetics, but I 22 mean just in terms of the land shape, ecology 23 approach that brings in more than just the -- what 24 I, again, call nuts and berries, bugs and bunnies, 25 part of it. 44 1 I have a listing of a number of famous 2 artworks. If you go to the National Gallery, for 3 example, and you look at any landscape painting, 4 you will most likely see a wetland. If you think 5 about wetlands as being open water, and a wetland 6 can be forested wetland, and a wetland can be an 7 emergent macrophyte and a lily pond with lilies on 8 it. 9 The next time you go to an art museum, 10 take a look at landscape scenes and see how many 11 of them have wetlands on them. It's amazing the 12 number of them, the real critical art pieces in 13 the history of art that have wetlands involved. 14 Beach scenes, people ice skating, they are ice 15 skating on top of wetlands. 16 Let's see. Some music, a variety of 17 classical music works have been inspired and 18 written relative to wetlands. 19 I have to go back and get the article 20 to find all these things I researched at the 21 time. 22 MR. GAINES: The water museum? 23 THE WITNESS: Yeah. 24 There are a lot of non-consumptive 25 uses. Look at what happened the last 20 years, 45 1 how many boardwalks have been built to wetlands. 2 They are a road to nowhere, but very popular, 3 because people want to go. Wetland ecology or the 4 flooding or something else, they're just there to 5 have a look. 6 BY MR. MACFARLANE: 7 Q. Inspirational wetland? 8 A. Yeah. So there are a lot of what I 9 call non-consumptive uses of wetlands, even for 10 educational purposes, that give wetlands another 11 factor in terms of consideration. 12 Q. Have you been to the Everglades? 13 A. Yes, I have. 14 Q. Everglades National Park? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. How about the Loxahatchee National 17 Park? 18 A. No. 19 Q. All right. 20 MR. GAINES: Off the record. 21 (Thereupon conversation was 22 held off the record.) 23 BY MR. MACFARLANE: 24 Q. I'd like to have this marked as an 25 exhibit, please. 46 1 (Thereupon the document referred to was 2 marked as Government Exhibit No. 3 3 for Identification, a copy of which is 4 attached hereto.) 5 BY MR. MACFARLANE: 6 Q. Doctor Reimold, I'm showing you what's 7 been marked as Exhibit 3. I'd like you to 8 identify that, if you can. 9 A. You want me to read the title? 10 Q. Have you seen that before? 11 A. Yes. Love this article. 12 Q. Yes. 13 And have you reviewed this article? 14 A. Yes, I have scanned it as one of the 15 things that I used in reviewing history for the 16 case. I can't say that I know it word-for-word or 17 anything like that. 18 Q. Fair enough. 19 For the record, this is an article that 20 appeared in the journal Ecology, Volume 40, 21 January, 1959, entitled A Study Of The Vegetation 22 in the Florida Everglades, by Charles M. 23 Loveless. 24 A. Just for the record, it's journal with 25 a small J. There is another thing called Journal 47 1 of Ecology with a capital J. It's British, and 2 I'm a member of both, and I know they don't like 3 this to be referred to as the Journal, so it's 4 journal with a small J. 5 Q. Doctor Reimold, do you intend to rely 6 on this article for any part of your testimony in 7 the final hearing? 8 A. Only to the extent that it serves as 9 background for what we know about the Everglades. 10 Q. Well, let me ask you, then, let's look 11 at the first page. 12 And let me direct your attention to the 13 second column and just at the top, the first 14 sentence there beginning, "The area's principal 15 vegetational components are the sawgrass marshes, 16 wet prairies, slough aquatic communities and tree 17 island communities." 18 Do you agree with that statement? 19 A. Well, I mean, I agree with it in 20 principle. 21 Remember, this is reporting of the 22 conditions in the system as described by Loveless 23 in the '50s, not '90s. But I mean, I think it's 24 an accurate generic description. 25 Q. Accurate at the time it was made? 48 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Let's go to page two, and there is a 3 description under the heading Descriptions of 4 Plant Communities, Sawgrass Communities. 5 Let me direct your attention, start 6 with, "Sawgrass is usually the dominant plant, 7 either occurring in almost pure stands or mixed 8 with a wide variety of other sedges, grasses, 9 herbs, and attached emergent or floating leafed 10 aquatic plants. The composition of such marshes 11 is affected by prevailing water conditions. 12 Abundance and density of plant species in the 13 community are greatly influenced by depth of 14 water, period of inundation and rate of rise and 15 fall of water levels." 16 Would you agree that that was an 17 accurate -- those were accurate statements at the 18 time they were made? 19 A. Yeah. 20 I guess just, you know, the period of 21 inundation there, the periodicity is an important 22 factor. I'm not sure if you want that to fall in 23 your reading or not. 24 Make sure when you are picking out 25 pieces of it that you think about that. 49 1 You said turn the page; is that right? 2 Q. Yeah. I'm looking to see if there is 3 anything else I need to ask you relative to this 4 article. 5 On page six, in the first column toward 6 the top there is -- 7 A. Let me see where you are. 8 Q. Okay. Take your time. 9 A. We are talking about the section of 10 tree islands? 11 Q. Yes. 12 A. Page six? 13 Q. Page six. 14 And there is, I guess just below the 15 halfway point down that first paragraph, there is 16 some discussion of the pH of the tree islands. 17 And the sentence reads, "For example, Gallatin and 18 Henderson report the soil pH of the tree islands 19 they sampled in the lower Everglades to range from 20 7.5 to 8.5 and conclude that it must be assumed 21 these soil solutions are normally basic." 22 Do you have any reason to doubt the 23 accuracy of that report and data -- 24 A. Well -- 25 Q. -- at the time it was made? 50 1 A. Well, I mean, what he's doing, the 2 author here, Loveless, is quoting Gallatin and 3 Henderson (1943). I haven't read this. I see 4 what they wrote. 5 If you go on, it says Davis says that 6 they are acidic, and the author here speculates 7 there may be some reasons why there is 8 differences, but as he says very clearly, in his 9 words, there is a paucity of data supporting this. 10 Q. Let's be clear, since you have gone to 11 the next sentence. 12 I believe the sentence was a reference 13 to the northern Everglades. Let me just read in 14 that next sentence. "In contrast to this, Davis 15 (1943) states that the tree islands of the 16 northern Everglades are acid." 17 A. Well -- 18 Q. Do you have any understanding of the 19 location of the northern Everglades? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. What's your understanding? 22 A. South of the water conservation area 23 where the Glades begin, and the southern part 24 being down toward the south. Actually the south 25 and a little west. 51 1 Q. Do you think of the water conservation 2 area as being part of the Everglades? 3 A. No. 4 Q. And let me just turn to -- 5 A. You're asking me about a paragraph. I 6 don't like people taking things out of context. 7 You want to read what the author said about it? 8 He said these different things which you quoted on 9 the record, then he goes on -- "there is a paucity 10 of data supporting this." 11 So at this time, 1959, he says there 12 isn't any information to support one or the 13 other. 14 Q. Fair enough. 15 A. I don't know what you're going to do 16 with that information. I just want to be sure to 17 put his last words in there. 18 Q. Page seven, there is a discussion of 19 slough communities. 20 And at the top of the second column, 21 there is a discussion of alligator holes. 22 A. Um-hum. 23 Q. And I direct your attention to the 24 statement about the vegetation of alligator holes, 25 and the sentence reads, "The vegetation of 52 1 alligator holes is distinct and therefore usually 2 well defined. Spatterdock is the dominant species 3 with some white water-lily and floating heart also 4 present. Species represented in the narrow 5 ecotone are willow, pickerel weed, flag, cattail 6 and occasionally leather-fern, smartweeds and 7 primrose-willow." 8 Do you have any reason to doubt that 9 those were an accurate description of the 10 vegetation of alligator holes at the time the 11 article was written? 12 A. I don't have any reason to doubt it. 13 The ecotone is then, I would assume, 14 the transition between the alligator hole and the 15 rest of the slough community. 16 Ecotone is a very thin strip of 17 substance, whether it's land or water where you 18 transition from one community to another, from one 19 ecosystem to another. 20 Q. Do you know whether the Everglades is a 21 Typha Caladium wetland? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. And what percentage of the native 24 vegetation in the unimpacted Everglades habitat is 25 cattail, do you know? 53 1 MR. GAINES: Let me object to the form 2 of the question, unimpacted. 3 I think you need to define what you're 4 talking about, and when. 5 BY MR. MACFARLANE: 6 Q. Well, let's talk about the areas of 7 Everglades National Park, for example, below 8 the -- well, in sharp river slough, and below the 9 S-12 structures. 10 Just focusing on that area, do you have 11 any idea what percentage of the native vegetation 12 in the park there is cattail? 13 A. Today? 14 Q. Today. 15 A. I don't know the exact percentage, no. 16 But I mean, that information can be 17 developed through photograph and quantification of 18 that. So, you know, someone could, if one were 19 directed, get that number for you. 20 I would presume others have already 21 developed that number for you. I don't know what 22 it is right now. 23 Q. How about in the Loxahatchee National 24 Wildlife Refuge, the interior marsh -- well, let 25 me ask you first. 54 1 Are you familiar with the Loxahatchee 2 National Wildlife? 3 A. No. You asked me earlier if I had been 4 there and I told you no. 5 Q. That's a different question. 6 I mean, have you read anything about 7 the Loxahatchee National Wildlife? 8 A. Yes, I believe I have. 9 The articles I reviewed in preparing 10 for this had some information about it, I believe 11 some sampling. I can't remember which one. 12 Q. Do you know where it is? 13 A. Yes. It's north of where we have just 14 been talking about and south of the EEA -- EAA. 15 Q. Do you have any understanding of 16 whether the interior marsh in Loxahatchee is a 17 Typha Caladium wetland? 18 A. Yes. I think it's the -- you probably 19 are going to bring it up, but I believe I recall 20 reviewing an article by Davis that describes a 21 sampling point in that area. So when you bring it 22 up, we can get the answer. I haven't committed 23 all that to memory. 24 I assumed this was an open book test. 25 Q. Let me mark this as an exhibit. 55 1 (Thereupon the document referred to was 2 marked as Government's Exhibit No. 4 3 for Identification, a copy of which is 4 attached hereto.) 5 BY MR. MACFARLANE: 6 Q. Let me show you what's been marked as 7 Government Exhibit 4, Doctor Reimold. 8 Have you reviewed this document? 9 A. Something I read in terms of preparing 10 for this. 11 Q. Would you identify it, please. 12 A. Well, it's an April '94 pub from -- 13 let's see -- it's BioScience, Vol. 44 No. 4. 14 Want me to read the title? 15 Q. It reads Hurricane Andrew Impact on 16 Freshwater Resources. 17 A. Charlie Roman and others. 18 Q. And there is, on page 247, which is the 19 first page of the article, there is a description 20 of the Everglades freshwater landscape. 21 Are you familiar with that description? 22 A. I see what it says. 23 Q. Do you agree that that's an accurate 24 description of the Everglades freshwater landscape 25 prior to Hurricane Andrew? 56 1 A. I think it's a reasonable portrayal of 2 it. 3 Q. Let me direct your attention to page 4 248. And there is, under the heading 5 Water-quality responses to the hurricane, and the 6 sentence -- the paragraph begins, "Oligotrophic, 7 nutrient-poor waters are characteristic of the 8 interior portion of Everglades National Park." 9 Then on the next page, continues, "Soluble 10 reactive phosphorus is typically at or below four 11 ug/l in this part of the Everglades." 12 Do you have any reason to doubt that 13 statement concerning the soluble reactive 14 phosphorus levels? 15 A. I don't have any reason to doubt it. 16 I only want you to think of it in terms 17 of a flag. In looking at nutrient data of the 18 Glades in the whole case, one must remember and 19 use caution in talking about any number because 20 when you see there such wide variability, wide 21 swings in concentrations from minimums to 22 maximums, that may be an average. But just 23 typically at or below. But it doesn't say 95 24 percent of the time it's four with a standard 25 deviation of .1, and in fact, a lot of the 57 1 nutrient concentration and other parameter 2 concentrations have wide levels of ranges. So 3 just keep that in mind. 4 Q. We may get into that a little later. 5 Let's mark this as an exhibit. 6 (Thereupon the document referred to was 7 marked as Government's Exhibit No. 5 8 for Identification, a copy of which is 9 attached hereto.) 10 BY MR. MACFARLANE: 11 Q. All right. 12 Doctor Reimold, I'm showing you what 13 has been marked as Government Exhibit 5. This is 14 an article entitled Wetlands: Concerns and 15 Successes, or perhaps that's the journal that 16 appears -- the article title is Water Quality 17 Management for Everglades National Park. 18 A. It's not a journal. It's a special 19 publication of the American Water Resources 20 Association. 21 Q. I appreciate the correction. 22 Water Quality Management for Everglades 23 National Park by Dan Scheidt, Mark Flora and David 24 Walker. 25 Have you reviewed this article? 58 1 A. It's another one of the things I have 2 looked at for preparation, yes. 3 Q. Let me ask you to direct your attention 4 to page 378, and the bottom paragraph, and 5 'cause I don't want to rip things out of 6 context. 7 A. That's the second page of the article? 8 Q. Yeah. 9 The paragraph reads, "Water delivered 10 to the park may originate from or pass through 11 areas that have the potential to alter or degrade 12 water quality. Eutrophic conditions in lake 13 Okeechobee were documented as early as 1969 and 14 have since worsened with the 1988 mean total 15 phosphorus concentration of 122 ug/l the highest 16 on record." 17 Let me stop there and ask, do you agree 18 with those statements that I read out so far? 19 A. I agree with what you read. I don't 20 know of any factual reason that what they say is 21 not true. 22 Q. Okay. Let's continue. 23 "Water quality is further degraded in 24 the EAA due to fertilizer use and water management 25 practices." 59 1 Would you agree with that? 2 A. To the extent that that takes place. I 3 wouldn't agree that's the only source of 4 degradation. 5 Q. Let's continue. 6 "At least 300,000 acres of the 7 Everglades Water Conservation" -- 8 A. 30,000. 9 Q. I apologize 10 -- "30,000 acres of the Everglades 11 Water Conservation Areas downstream of the EAA 12 have been biologically impacted by nutrient-rich 13 water." 14 Do you believe that's true? 15 MR. GAINES: Wait a minute. 16 Let me object to you asking Doctor 17 Reimold for basically an opinion on one of the 18 largest issues in this case, when that's not an 19 area he's been asked to look at. I think it's 20 outside his scope. 21 If he has an opinion, he can answer it, 22 but I object to going through and picking a 23 sentence here and there and asking, do you agree 24 with this, when it's not what he's been asked to 25 look at. 60 1 MR. MACFARLANE: So noted. 2 BY MR. MACFARLANE: 3 Q. Doctor Reimold, can you answer the 4 question? 5 A. Well, I would say that the answer to 6 your question is the areas are impacted both by 7 nutrient-rich water and by the periodicity of the 8 water or the absence of periodicity. 9 Q. Okay. 10 Let's flip over to page 382 and the 11 paragraph headed Present Everglades Water 12 Quality. 13 The paragraph reads, "The park's marsh 14 freshwater originates from rainfall or from canal 15 deliveries. Canal water chemistry is distinctly 16 different from marsh water chemistry in this 17 system." 18 Do you have any opinion as to whether 19 that is true? 20 A. Based upon what you read or -- I 21 believe it's true. 22 Q. Let's continue. 23 "Natural Everglades marsh water is 24 hard due mostly to calcium bicarbonate, of neutral 25 pH, and oligotrophic in regard to ambient water 61 1 column nutrient levels and nutrient 2 availability." 3 Do you have any reason to doubt that? 4 MR. GAINES: Let me object to the form 5 of the question because I don't think that 6 sentence makes a lot of sense grammatically. So 7 you're asking if he agrees with something, I don't 8 think it reads well. So I'll object to the form, 9 and maybe the objection is more directed to Mr. 10 Scheidt and Mr. Flora. 11 BY MR. MACFARLANE: 12 Q. Well, issues of style notwithstanding, 13 Doctor Reimold, would you have an opinion as to 14 the truth of that statement? 15 A. Well, let's dissect it. 16 It's hard due to calcium bicarbonate, 17 that's probably correct. Neutral pH, there is 18 data to suggest that water in the natural 19 Everglades is acidic. There is some that suggests 20 it's on the other side. You just read something 21 earlier that said it's acidic. 22 It's oligotrophic in regard to ambient 23 water column. I don't know if this is the water 24 of the Everglades. This is oligotrophic. I don't 25 know in regard to the ambient water column. I 62 1 don't know what that means, but the water in that 2 lower part of the Glades is typically 3 oligotrophic. And that's nutrient availability. 4 I mean, it's related to the concentrations in the 5 first place. So it's a mixed bag as far as a 6 sentence. 7 Q. Let's flip over to the next page. 8 Maybe this will answer the question. 9 Table three, which is a table titled 10 Average Everglades nutrient concentrations in 11 ug/l. 12 Just focus your attention on the line 13 titled marsh background. Would you think that 14 that describes an oligotrophic ecosystem or 15 oligotrophic water, the numbers reported for total 16 phosphorus, dissolved phosphate, dissolved nitrate 17 and total nitrogen? 18 A. Well, this has the number of times with 19 natural background, but I don't know what the 20 citation here is. 21 The data source or natural background 22 is footnote one. Let's see what that is. 23 1985 to '88 mean. Do we know? 24 Q. I think it may be given at the top of 25 the page. 63 1 A. Of which page? 2 Q. Page 383. I was going to ask you about 3 that anyway. 4 Where it says, Interior marsh sites 5 within the park, nutrient concentrations are 6 usually less than the South Florida Water 7 Management District detection limits (dissolved 8 orthophosphate four ug/l; total phosphate 10 9 ug/l. 10 A. I'd have to know the detection limits. 11 Just flag that as an example in one of the 12 problems I have seen, in one of the literature in 13 reviewing here. 14 Maybe in the original document it does 15 tell us the detection limits, but if you can't 16 find the detection limits, and the number is four, 17 then it means the answer is already in here. If 18 it's here, we'll find it. Somebody point it out 19 to me. But let me just make a point first. 20 If the detection limit, if it's -- 21 Q. Continue, I'm listening. 22 A. That's all right. I'll wait till 23 you've finished. 24 Q. Would you understand that the detection 25 limits are those limits listed in the parenthesis? 64 1 A. Not necessarily. 2 Q. I see. 3 A. I'd have to go to the document. 4 I want to tell you what I was going to 5 say. When you can't document what the detection 6 limit is, one side of the case would like to argue 7 that the number is zero; the other would like to 8 argue, let's say the number is four, the others 9 say the number is 3.9, and you and I don't know 10 what the answer is. So I don't know. 11 In this case, the way it's written, it 12 may or may not be. 13 Q. Let me ask you to turn your attention 14 to pages 386 to 389. This portion of the article 15 describes the nutrient dosing research, and there 16 is some underlining and marginal comments with 17 certain words circled, and let me ask you, is that 18 your underlining, do you recall? 19 A. It probably is. I couldn't verify it 20 for sure unless I saw the original, but it might 21 be. 22 I sometimes pull out a red pen when I'm 23 reading something, but I couldn't guarantee it. 24 Q. Sure. 25 A. Somebody else marked on it. 65 1 Q. Let me ask you, did you have occasion 2 to review this portion of the article on the 3 nutrient dosing research? 4 A. Not in the detail you're asking me 5 about. It's something I speed read and put 6 aside. 7 Q. Let me ask you, generally, what your 8 understanding of that research project was as 9 described here, if you have an understanding of 10 it? 11 A. Well, can I take a minute then to read 12 it? I can't remember it. 13 Q. Please do review it. 14 MR. GAINES: Let's take a two-minute 15 break if he is going to do that. 16 (Thereupon there was a brief 17 recess in the proceedings.) 18 BY MR. MACFARLANE: 19 Q. Doctor Reimold, you have had an 20 opportunity to review the nutrient dosing study 21 reported in this article. 22 Do you have any opinion as to the 23 conclusions of that study based upon your review? 24 A. Based on what's provided here, I would 25 have grave concern about how good the study was, 66 1 specifically because, as I see it, they made three 2 artificial channels constructed of fiberglass 3 sheets, fiberglass, yeah, about one meter high and 4 sunk some 15 centimeters into the peat sediment. 5 And through those three channels the water flow 6 was dosed and tested, but there was another 7 channel which was quote, "the control," but if you 8 look at this figure four, what do you see 9 different about the control? 10 If I were building this and we were 11 talking about -- I would have made the control 12 channel with fiberglass sheeting along both edges 13 of it. Otherwise, what I'm seeing is whatever 14 happens to this water going through the quote, 15 "control area" that here is subject to a lot of 16 other interactions in addition to just the mixing 17 and whatever takes place as it flows through. So 18 I guess that's kind of a red flag in terms of 19 method. 20 Now, I see it does say in the paper 21 here that for the full detail of methodology, you 22 need to look at a paper by Flora, F-L-O-R-A (1986 23 and 1988). I don't know if you have a copy of 24 that. That would be the way to go back and take a 25 look at maybe some other things that aren't shown 67 1 here they did. 2 On this alone I'd be concerned about 3 the control. A good control for an experiment is 4 as important as doing the experiment in and of 5 itself. 6 Q. Are your concerns substantial enough 7 that you would throw into question the results of 8 the study? 9 A. Yeah. I guess I'd question the results 10 of it because all the results are compared to how 11 background things are done and how much things 12 change, whether it's nitrogen or phosphorus, 13 limited by what happened in those quote, 14 "experimental channels" compared with what 15 happened in the control channel. 16 They talk about numbers of, you know, 17 so many times a factor of so much. And in order 18 to make that comparison, if you were going to do 19 the study, you'd want to have all four channels 20 exactly the same, and in three of them we put 21 nutrient in whatever you're doing, but you'll have 22 one that's exactly the same system, and they 23 didn't do that. 24 Q. Have you ever designed an experiment 25 like that yourself, or have you ever had a -- 68 1 answer that question first. 2 A. Have I ever designed an experiment 3 controlled? 4 Sure. I have designed experiments to 5 look at the effects of putting different kinds of 6 nutrient on wetlands; a randomized block design 7 where you set up plots of say three meters by 8 three meters, or three meters by two meters and 9 then select them on a random basis and select them 10 for applications of different levels of 11 treatment. It's an atypical agronomic practice. 12 Q. Can you give me an example of where you 13 did an experiment like that to test impact of 14 nutrient? 15 A. Two examples, both of them in Georgia, 16 in a wetland which involved -- one was applying 17 various concentrations of ammonium nitrate. I 18 think we used three different treatments of 19 ammonium nitrates broadcast on the soils of two by 20 three meter plots, or split plot design, to then 21 see if we could determine the increased primary 22 productivity through the use of remote sending. 23 This was in the early '80s when color infrared 24 film was declassified and we could see three 25 different levels of treatment based on color 69 1 signals. 2 The other one was when you used radio 3 labeled phosphorus to look at the flux through 4 wetland ecosystem and apply different levels of 5 the radio label in different areas and, you know, 6 selecting a controlled experiment. It wasn't the 7 flow through, i.e. the flow of water, but it was 8 the flux of the nutrient in the wetland 9 plantation. 10 Q. All right. 11 I think that's all on that one. 12 Mark this six. 13 (Thereupon the document referred to was 14 marked as Government's Exhibit No. 6 15 for Identification, a copy of which is 16 attached hereto.) 17 BY MR. MACFARLANE: 18 Q. Doctor Reimold, let me ask you if you 19 recognize what I have handed you as exhibit six? 20 A. Yes, I do. 21 Q. And what is that? 22 A. It's a chapter out of a book, or out of 23 a publication journal called Estuarine, Volume 10, 24 Number 2. Cattail Invasion, et cetera, by Beare, 25 B-E-A-R-E, and Zedler, Z-E-D-L-E-R. 70 1 Q. And you have reviewed this article, I 2 take it? 3 A. I have. 4 Q. Would you intend to rely on this 5 article as any part of your testimony in this 6 case? 7 A. I might. 8 Q. How would you use it? 9 A. Well, I guess -- yeah, I figured that 10 would be the question you'd ask. 11 To me it's a demonstration that plants 12 do have certain abilities to respond to changing 13 environmental conditions and still survive, and in 14 this case they show Typha cattail, showing that 15 even as the salt concentrations increase with 16 certain ranges, you know, a lot of salt, and then 17 you can't survive, but with certain changes in the 18 chemistry in the water, the plant can adapt to the 19 changes and still survive. 20 Q. Let me ask a follow-up to that then. 21 What would be the lesson that you would 22 take or how would you apply that in the Everglades 23 context? 24 A. Well, that the plants within a certain 25 range, not outside a certain range, within ranges 71 1 and edaphic conditions or environmental 2 conditions, the plant can conform and survive. 3 And so, I guess the extrapolation to 4 the Glades would be in terms of there is a certain 5 range in which Typha can tolerate say levels of 6 nutrient, and outside of that range -- it isn't 7 going to tolerate all nutrients in the world -- it 8 isn't going to be able to survive or there isn't 9 going to be able to be so much of them or take 10 them up or metabolize them. 11 There are some movements, as the ranges 12 can slide and expand, but they never can become 13 all encompassing. 14 Q. Would the same principle -- you're 15 talking about Typha. 16 Would the same principle apply to 17 Sawgrass, for example? 18 A. Sure, any plant. 19 Q. Aylilokorous (phonetic)? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Do you have any idea or opinion as to 22 the ranges of nutrients that, let's say, Sawgrass 23 could respond to in the Everglades context? 24 A. Yeah. Sawgrass can respond to and 25 tolerate very low nutrient concentration. 72 1 Typha can tolerate a wider range and 2 higher level. 3 Q. Let me ask you about Sawgrass here. 4 When you say low nutrient conditions, 5 can you give me a more precise -- 6 A. The literature varies from probably 7 five or six to ten to thirty or forty, sometimes 8 exceeding fifty. 9 Q. Fifty what? 10 A. Parts per billion. 11 Q. Parts per billion. 12 Do you have any idea what would happen 13 to a Sawgrass community that was exposed to 50 14 parts per billion phosphorus, for example, over an 15 extended period of time? 16 MR. GAINES: Object to the form of the 17 question. 18 You can answer it. 19 THE WITNESS: I don't. I mean, I need 20 to know what other things are in there. 21 This is always -- 22 MR. GAINES: That was my objection. 23 THE WITNESS: The question is: What 24 are the other constituents in the water, similar 25 concentrations or reduced or concentrated. 73 1 This is a basic biological lesson, but 2 all biological tissue has carbon nitrogen and 3 phosphorate. The ratio is about a hundred to 4 sixteen to one. So we will say with the nitrogen 5 and phosphorus, and I know you have been through 6 those ratio stories, whatever you get out of that 7 sixteen nitrogen to one phosphorus, whichever is 8 there, the nutrient. And then you can go into the 9 nitrogen phosphorate and the like. 10 For the big three you've got to know 11 the phosphorus and nitrogen in order to say what 12 would happen. 13 BY MR. MACFARLANE: 14 Q. Let's hypothesize the situation in 15 which phosphorus can become the limited nutrient. 16 MR. GAINES: Let me object to this type 17 of question, unless you would be stating what the 18 hydrologic conditions of the Sawgrass community -- 19 hypothetical Sawgrass community would be subjected 20 to, whether the hydro period would be natural or 21 manipulated by man, et cetera. 22 I don't think that you have given 23 enough information in your question, so I object 24 to the form. 25 BY MR. MACFARLANE: 74 1 Q. Doctor Reimold, do you feel you can 2 answer the question? 3 A. Well, your question was if I assume 4 that the phosphorus -- 5 Q. If the phosphorus has become the 6 limiting nutrient, how long do you think or what 7 do you think the impacts would be on a Sawgrass 8 community? 9 Let's hold other things, other things 10 in the hydro period area being equal. 11 A. I guess I'm just -- 12 MR. GAINES: Same objection. 13 THE WITNESS: I'm having trouble to 14 think how the question works in terms of an answer 15 because you give me some hypothesis, but I will 16 try to answer. 17 That alone is hard to answer. I don't 18 know where your mind is relative to what you're 19 saying the normal hydro period is. 20 The normal hydrogen concentration and 21 the periodicity of the water and the concentration 22 of other nutrients is important, so if you could 23 tell me. 24 BY MR. MACFARLANE: 25 Q. How about all conditions natural except 75 1 the phosphorus? 2 MR. GAINES: Object to the form. 3 THE WITNESS: Natural to what? 4 BY MR. MACFARLANE: 5 Q. Not man-altered. 6 A. Where? 7 Q. Well -- 8 A. I mean, that's the problem with the 9 Everglades. 10 You want me to stop? 11 MR. GAINES: Go ahead, you made the 12 same objection. 13 THE WITNESS: That's the problem I 14 have, is that what's natural to me may be a 15 caladium Sawgrass community in some area that's 16 not been impacted, like in this one area in Puerto 17 Rico that I was thinking of. 18 But I can't think that because all we 19 know that we can say is that there are areas of 20 the Glades Sawgrass community that aren't 21 impacted. 22 So what is the natural situation you're 23 trying to tell me about? 24 Let's think of the situation that might 25 have been described by Loveless and all back in 76 1 the '30s and '40s and described in the '50s 2 and'60s. I mean, maybe that's the situation you 3 want to kind of conceive, what was it like then. 4 Q. All right. Well, let's take that. 5 A. So if it were like it was in the good 6 old days, then what's the question? 7 Q. If phosphorus levels had become 8 elevated that it became the limiting nutrient, 9 what would happen? 10 A. It doesn't become the limiting 11 nutrient. It's background. 12 If phosphorus -- 13 MR. GAINES: You need to talk a little 14 slower for her. 15 THE WITNESS: If phosphorus levels 16 become elevated, then it's not limiting. 17 If the supply of Doritos goes up, you 18 are not limited in terms of survival because you 19 can always eat Doritos, but maybe you don't have 20 other things. 21 If the phosphorus goes down, whatever 22 you have the lowest concentration of is limiting. 23 It goes back to 1830 called Lebecks law 24 of the limited. Whatever is present in the lowest 25 concentration is the factor that's limiting. 77 1 That's been something that's been kind of misused 2 in all that grade stuff that I have been looking 3 at lately. Things are limiting, but we are 4 talking about higher concentration. The lower the 5 concentration is something that then becomes 6 limiting, not the higher. 7 BY MR. MACFARLANE: 8 Q. Okay. I take your point. 9 I will leave the question, then. 10 A. Okay. 11 Are we finished with this? 12 Q. Yeah, we are finished with that. 13 A. I'm trying to keep a clean slate. 14 Q. Good point. 15 Let me ask you, Doctor Reimold, have 16 you had occasion to read the SWIM plan that is the 17 subject of the challenge in this case? 18 A. No. 19 Q. And you haven't had occasion to look at 20 this, for example, the supporting information 21 document that has passages on water quality and 22 the water conservation areas of the park? 23 A. I don't know what supporting 24 documentation. Tell me a title and I could tell 25 you. 78 1 MR. GAINES: It's part of the SWIM 2 plan. 3 BY MR. MACFARLANE: 4 Q. The SWIM plan is a multi volume 5 document. 6 A. I don't know. 7 Q. Are you familiar at all with the storm 8 water treatment areas as described in the SWIM 9 plan? 10 A. Remotely. 11 Q. What's the basis of your understanding? 12 A. Well, as discussed in some of the 13 literature that I have reviewed, Brown and 14 Caldwell reports and the like, it's based on oral 15 presentations from Hansen and other scientists 16 that I heard last October in California at a 17 national meeting. Beyond that, I couldn't. 18 Q. Have you had occasion to look at any 19 reports authored by the firm of Burns and McDonald 20 concerning the storm water treatment areas? 21 A. I don't recall. I mean, other than 22 just to think if it's on that list, I mean, other 23 than the things that are in my mind and sort of 24 incorporated to start with, and things I did, you 25 go out for refreshers and put on the list. 79 1 MR. GAINES: This is just a list of the 2 documents that we produced to you. 3 MR. MACFARLANE: I think I have that 4 list. 5 Well, let's enter that as an exhibit. 6 (Thereupon the document referred to was 7 marked as Government's Exhibit No. 7 8 for Identification, a copy of which is 9 attached hereto.) 10 BY MR. MACFARLANE. 11 Q. Doctor Reimold, I'm showing you what's 12 been marked as exhibit seven and I will ask you if 13 you recognize it? 14 A. Yes. It's Amendment 4 -- let me look 15 at this for a minute. I think I noticed 16 yesterday -- yeah, I had not seen the 15th May 17 version. I saw a February version which did not 18 have the appendices to it. I got one piece of 19 Appendix A that I reviewed. And so I actually 20 took a moment to look at my version to see it and 21 I couldn't see that there was any difference to 22 it. Yesterday afternoon someone said, "You must 23 mean the May 15." And I said, "No, no, I'm sure 24 mine says February." 25 Q. For the record, the version I have just 80 1 handed Doctor Reimold is the same version that's 2 listed in a list of his. 3 MR. GAINES: The list says February 18, 4 '89. 5 THE WITNESS: The list has February 6 18. 7 MR. GAINES: I don't know whether these 8 are the copies or we just told you the date. I 9 don't know. 10 MR. MACFARLANE: Can I take a look 11 here? 12 THE WITNESS: It may be. You know, I 13 don't know if they made any changes from one time 14 to the other, but in terms of keeping things 15 honest, the document I looked at said February. 16 BY MR. MACFARLANE: 17 Q. All right. I take the point. 18 A. It's the same title. 19 Q. I need to go back and check the list 20 that I got. 21 But let me ask you, then, just 22 generally -- 23 A. It's okay. I can't imagine they 24 rewrote it. 25 Q. I don't think that they did, but there 81 1 were some minor changes. 2 Let me ask you generally about your 3 familiarity with chemical treatment and other 4 various alternative treatment technologies that 5 have been proposed as alternative to the storm 6 water treatment areas in this case. And can you 7 just generally describe to me what your 8 understanding of chemical treatment is as a form 9 of treatment technology for treating water? 10 A. A general description, you mean? 11 It's adding constituents to the water 12 in order to remove things that you don't want in 13 the water when it leaves the facility that you 14 have for purposes of treating. And it's a series 15 of physical and chemical processes that are -- in 16 some cases it could be biological, but we are 17 talking about additions of chemicals in order to 18 take out certain things you don't want in the 19 water. 20 My expertise is not in the chemical 21 foundations of that. 22 Q. Okay. Let me hone in on that area. 23 The