1
1 STATE OF FLORIDA
2 DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
3
4 AUTHORIZATION NO. 10988
5
6 Case Nos. 92-3038, 92-3039, 92-3040
7
8 SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE )
OF FLORIDA, a Florida Agricultural )
9 Cooperative Marketing Association, )
ROTH FARMS, INC., AND )
10 WEDGWORTH FARMS, INC., )
)
11 and )
)
12 FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, INC., )
UNITED STATES SUGAR CORPORATION; )
13 and NEW HOPE SOUTH, INC., )
)
14 and )
)
15 FLORIDA FRUIT AND VEGETABLE )
ASSOCIATION, LEWIS POPE FARMS, )
16 W.E. SCHLECHTER & SONS, INC., and )
HUNDLEY FARMS, INC., )
17 )
Petitioners, )
18 vs. )
)
19 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT )
DISTRICT, an Agency of the State )
20 of Florida. )
Respondent, )
21 and )
)
22 MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS OF )
FLORIDA, the UNITED STATES OF )
23 AMERICA, and FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF )
ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, and the )
24 FLORIDA WILDLIFE FEDERATION, and )
the FLORIDA AUDUBON SOCIETY, and )
25 SIERRA CLUB, )
Intervenors. )
2
1
2
3
4 A P P E A R A N C E S
5
ROBERT A. ROSENBERG, Esquire
6 Assistant U.S. Attorney
155 S. Miami Avenue, 6th Floor
7 Miami, Florida 33130
8
DANIEL MCGRATH, Esquire
9 Popham, Haik,
Schnobrich & Kaufman, Ltd.
10 4000 International Place
100 S.E. Second Street
11 Miami, FL 33133
12
JONATHAN GAINES, Equire
13 Peeples, Earl & Blank, P.A.
One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3636
14 Two South Biscayne Boulevard
Miami, Florida 33131
15
16
17 DEPOSITION OF DAVID W. STEWART, taken on
behalf of the Intervenors, on the 12th and
18 13th days of April, 1993, pursuant to the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in the
19 offices of the U.S. Attorney, One Clearlake
Centre, Suite 1403, 250 Australian Avenue
20 South, West Palm Beach, Florida, 33401, before
me, Phil Berglan, a Shorthand Reporter and
21 Notary Public in and for the State of
Florida.
22
23
24
25
3
1 DAVID W. STEWART,
2 a witness being produced, sworn and examined
3 on behalf of the Intervenors does hereby
4 deposeth and saith as follows:
5 DIRECT EXAMINATION
6 BY MR. MCGRATH:
7 Q. Please give us your full name for
8 the record.
9 A. David William Stewart.
10 Q. Could you give us both your business
11 address and your home address.
12 A. Including the corporate name?
13 Q. Including the corporate name,
14 please.
15 A. Kimley-Horn and Associates, 4431
16 Embarcadero Drive, West Palm Beach, Florida,
17 33407, and my home address is 12060 North 60th
18 Street, West Palm Beach, 33411.
19 Q. Mr. Stewart, my name is Dan McGrath,
20 and I am representing the South Florida Water
21 Management District in this administrative
22 proceeding. You have been identified, I
23 believe, by the Florida Sugar Cane League as
24 an expert who is going to provide testimony at
25 the time of final hearing.
4
1 This deposition is intended to find
2 out what your opinions are, the basis of those
3 opinions, and I will be asking questions of
4 that nature.
5 If at any time during the deposition
6 I ask a question you do not understand, which
7 may be very likely, please stop me and let me
8 know you don't understand the question and I
9 will rephrase it in such a way that you do
10 understand it.
11 Our purpose here is not to confuse
12 you or mislead you by the way I phrase my
13 questions. Do you understand that?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Conversely, if I ask a question and
16 you answer it, I will assume that you
17 understood the question asked and the answer
18 that you gave was the answer that you
19 intended. Do you understand that?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Now, you indicated you are employed
22 by a company called Kimberley-Horn and
23 Associates?
24 A. Kimley-Horn.
25 Q. Now, in response to some discovery,
5
1 it was indicated that you are employed by a
2 company called Hutcheon Engineers?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And is there a relationship between
5 Hutcheon Engineers and Kimley-Horn?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. What is that relationship?
8 A. Hutcheon Engineers is a division of
9 Kimley-Horn.
10 Q. What is the nature of Kimley-Horn's
11 business?
12 A. Engineering, planning, surveying,
13 and I will say environmental consulting.
14 Q. The same question, what is the
15 nature of the business of Hutcheon Engineers?
16 A. Civil engineering and environmental
17 services.
18 Q. Now, to the extent that you know, is
19 Hutcheon Engineers a subsidiary of
20 Kimley-Horn, that is, does Kimley-Horn own any
21 portion or all of the business of Hutcheon
22 Engineers?
23 A. Yes, I think you can use the word
24 subsidiary. There are no owners of Hutcheon
25 Engineers other than Kimley-Horn.
6
1 Q. If you know, is Kimley-Horn a
2 private company or a public company?
3 A. It's a private company.
4 Q. What is your present position with
5 Kimley-Horn?
6 A. I am a vice president -- a vice
7 president and senior project manager.
8 Q. Just so I have this clear, directly,
9 do you work for Hutcheon Engineers?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. How long have you been employed by
12 Hutcheon Engineers?
13 A. Since 1978.
14 Q. So would that have been immediately
15 after your completion of your formal
16 education?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. If you could, from 1978, could you
19 give me a chronological outline, the positions
20 that you have held with Hutcheon Engineers up
21 to today.
22 A. The entry level position was
23 engineer intern.
24 Q. Can you describe briefly what your
25 job responsibilities and duties would have
7
1 been as an engineering intern.
2 A. I am trying to phrase the words in a
3 meaningful manner. Engineer interns are
4 supervised by a professional engineer. The
5 interns perform routine tasks using, I will
6 say, academic knowledge.
7 Their work is reviewed by the
8 professional engineers. The scope of that
9 work would include design, writing
10 specifications, gathering field information,
11 things of that nature.
12 Q. How long were you an engineering
13 intern or an engineer intern?
14 A. Three years.
15 Q. So that takes us from 1978 to 1981?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. What was the next position that you
18 held with Hutcheon Engineers?
19 A. Professional engineer, registered
20 professional.
21 Q. When did you sit for your P.E. exam?
22 A. In 1981.
23 Q. Now then, refresh my recollection.
24 In order to obtain a professional engineering
25 license, there are two tests that are
8
1 required; is that correct, an engineering
2 training test and then the final professional
3 engineering test?
4 A. That's correct.
5 Q. When did you sit for your EIT test?
6 A. In my senior year of college, which
7 was 1977.
8 Q. Was your P.E. examination discipline
9 specific, was it in civil engineering or was
10 it a general engineering examination?
11 A. It was -- I am trying to recall the
12 format -- the examination was in civil
13 engineering, but you had the option to
14 designate a specialty. The specialty that I
15 designated was structural engineering.
16 Q. I assume you passed the test on the
17 first sitting?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. So from that point at Hutcheon
20 Engineers, would your position have been
21 professional engineer?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. That's what you were called, that
24 was what was on your business card?
25 A. Yes.
9
1 Q. Can you describe for me, in general
2 terms, the nature of your duties and
3 responsibilities as a professional engineer.
4 A. Okay. The professional engineer
5 directs the technical staff and the engineer
6 interns working for him. As part of the
7 evolution within my company, as you approach
8 the position of professional engineer, you
9 also begin to contact clients and take on the
10 role of project manager.
11 So in this same time frame, I was
12 beginning to deal with clients face-to-face,
13 do the contract negotiations, develop the
14 technical scope of projects, and then
15 interpret that scope for the technical staff
16 and support staff that produced the work.
17 Q. You have used the term, "support
18 staff," or the "technical support staff," a
19 couple of times; what are you referring to
20 when you use that term?
21 A. Technical staff, I am usually
22 referring to drafting technicians, survey
23 crews, and field inspectors, sometimes called
24 field representatives.
25 Q. What is the duty or function of a
10
1 field inspector or field representative?
2 A. The field representative takes the
3 completed construction plans out into the
4 field and reviews the work of a construction
5 contractor and interprets the construction
6 plans for the contractor -- helps the
7 contractor interpret the construction plans.
8 Q. Over how long a period of time was
9 your position title professional engineer?
10 A. One or two years.
11 Q. What was the next position that you
12 held?
13 A. Project manager.
14 Q. So one or two years, we are talking
15 1982 or 1983?
16 A. Yes. The reason for the range,
17 rather than a specific date, is on smaller
18 routine jobs, I was the project manager on
19 more complex projects. I would act as a
20 professional engineer under another project
21 manager's direction, and as I gained
22 experience, I acquired larger and more complex
23 projects.
24 Q. So would it be accurate to say it's
25 more of an assimilation into the role as
11
1 opposed to a jump step from one position to
2 another?
3 A. That's correct.
4 Q. Again, could you describe for me, in
5 general outline terms, the focus of your
6 responsibilities and duties as a project
7 manager.
8 A. The project manager negotiates the
9 contracts with clients, participates in
10 marketing of new work, details the scope,
11 staffing and scheduling of the work, and
12 delegates specific tasks.
13 Q. When you say, "Details the scope,
14 staffing and scheduling," could you explain
15 what you mean by that.
16 A. The client describes a project or a
17 problem. The technical solution to his
18 problem might be expressed as a series of
19 objectives. The objectives are then broken
20 down into specific tasks that must be
21 accomplished.
22 The available staff is then assigned
23 -- let me reverse that -- the specific tasks
24 are then assigned to the available staff and
25 an appropriate effort assigned to that task
12
1 and a schedule to complete that task is
2 assigned by the project manager.
3 Q. When you say, "An appropriate effort
4 is assigned to that task," what does that
5 mean?
6 A. Depending upon the complexity of the
7 task and its value within the scope of the
8 contract, the project manager will indicate
9 the number of man hours or number of man days
10 that would normally be expected to accomplish
11 that task.
12 Q. And then based on, as project
13 manager, your estimation of the man-hours or
14 man-days required, you use that to set the
15 various deadlines for whatever tasks may be
16 associated with a particular project?
17 A. That's correct, unless the deadlines
18 are set externally, in which case either the
19 staffing plan is adjusted or the scope is
20 adjusted to meet the external deadline.
21 Q. Would it be an accurate assessment
22 to state that the role, duties, and functions
23 of a project manager are more administrative
24 than purely technical?
25 A. Yes.
13
1 Q. To the extent -- and I realize we
2 are just talking in general terms without
3 focusing on any specific project, but in
4 general terms, can you estimate what
5 percentage of your time would be spent
6 focusing on engineering work, technical work,
7 versus focusing on the various administrative
8 aspects that you have been describing?
9 MR. GAINES: You are asking him with
10 regard to his overall work experience or on an
11 individual project?
12 MR. MCGRATH: Right now, to the
13 extent that he can answer it, I am just trying
14 to get a feel generally, if he is able to
15 answer that, and I realize that it's kind of
16 broad.
17 Q. (BY MR. MCGRATH) But in general
18 terms, can you define the amount of time that
19 you spend doing actual engineering work versus
20 the time you spend focusing on the various
21 other tasks that you were defining?
22 A. If I can add one other task to the
23 duties of the project manager, and that is
24 quality control. The project manager can
25 assume responsibility for quality control or
14
1 he can delegate that, and with the exception
2 of quality control:
3 I would say that I currently spend
4 10 to 20 percent of my time in project
5 management activities, but I do spend a large
6 amount of my time in terms of quality control
7 which I would normally assign to the duties of
8 a project manager, but can be, you know, very
9 technical in nature.
10 Q. You are talking right now, as you
11 sit, as a vice president?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Let me ask you the same question
14 again, only focusing back at the time when
15 your position was that of a project manager
16 and trying to get a feel for that portion of
17 your time that was spent doing engineering
18 work, and that portion which was focusing on
19 the various administrative tasks that are
20 incumbent on a project manager.
21 MR. GAINES: I am not sure I
22 understand your definitions. An example is
23 one of the tasks he said was works out the
24 details regarding the scope of the project.
25 I don't know if your question is
15
1 considered administrative or technical. So
2 just to the extent that the definitions are a
3 little blurry, I object to the form.
4 You can answer the question if you
5 understand it and can answer.
6 A. In my particular case, I would again
7 answer 10 to 20 percent.
8 Q. (BY MR. MCGRATH) That would be 10
9 to 20 percent focusing on the technical
10 aspects of the work?
11 A. No, the reverse, 10 or 20 percent
12 devoted to project management and the balance
13 either in engineering or technical production
14 or quality control activities of the technical
15 production.
16 Q. How long a period of time was your
17 position project manager?
18 A. Let's say two years. The next
19 milestone that you are looking for occurred in
20 1982.
21 Q. What was that?
22 A. At which time I was named an
23 associate with the firm.
24 Q. What is the significance of that or
25 what did that mean?
16
1 A. That gives me the ability to sign
2 contracts and commit the firm contractually.
3 It did not change any of my management or
4 technical duties.
5 Q. So you were still a project manager?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. What was the next milestone or title
8 position change, because we have got up to
9 about 1982, 1983, project manager, and then in
10 1982, you became an associate. From there,
11 what was the next position that you held?
12 A. I believe it was 1983, that I became
13 a shareholder in the firm, which again did not
14 change my technical or management position.
15 At some point, I was named a senior associate
16 with the firm. I don't recall the exact
17 year.
18 Q. What does it mean when you become a
19 shareholder in the firm?
20 A. It has more -- shareholders purchase
21 private stock in the Kimley-Horn Corporation
22 and there is a change in the benefits package,
23 but my technical duties remained the same.
24 Q. Does shareholder come before the
25 senior associate designation?
17
1 A. It's not mandatory.
2 Q. In your case?
3 A. In my case that's the way it
4 occurred. It's not mandatory.
5 Q. How long have you been a shareholder
6 in Kimley-Horn?
7 A. I would say 1983, ten years. It was
8 either 1983 or 1984.
9 Q. Is it similar to law firms where
10 each year you are given the option or ability
11 to purchase or somehow be given additional
12 shares as your experience and senority
13 increases?
14 A. That's correct.
15 Q. How many shares do you hold as of
16 today?
17 A. I believe it's 2800.
18 Q. Is there any set amount that that
19 may increase with each year or is it variable?
20 A. That's variable.
21 Q. What is the significance of being a
22 senior associate?
23 A. It has a different benefits package
24 but again does not change the technical
25 description, or it does not change my job
18
1 description from a technical standpoint or a
2 management standpoint.
3 Q. So were you, from a technical or
4 management standpoint, still a project manager
5 at the time you became a shareholder and then
6 at the time you became a senior associate?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. What would have been the next
9 milestone?
10 A. Vice president.
11 Q. When did that occur?
12 A. I can't tell you.
13 Q. Can you estimate how long you have
14 been a vice president?
15 A. It's been four or five years.
16 Q. What are the job responsibilities
17 and duties of a vice president as compared to
18 a project manager?
19 A. The duties of the vice president are
20 the same or, in my case, the duties of the
21 vice president are the same as the duties of
22 an associate. I have the ability to commit
23 the firm contractually. It is simply, I will
24 say, an honorary title related to my
25 experience with the firm, but does not change
19
1 my daily job description.
2 Q. So, in essence, your job description
3 would be that of a project manager?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. I noticed from documents that were
6 produced and some letters that had the
7 Hutcheon Engineers/Kimley-Horn letterhead that
8 there are several offices across the country;
9 is that correct?
10 A. That's correct.
11 Q. Are those offices Hutcheon Engineers
12 offices or are they Kimley-Horn offices?
13 A. We only use the name Hutcheon
14 Engineers in Palm Beach County in the West
15 Palm Beach office, and it represents a portion
16 of the West Palm Beach office.
17 Q. With respect to the work that has
18 been performed, which is going to form the
19 basis of your testimony and any opinions you
20 may render in the final hearing in this case,
21 was that work performed by Hutcheon Engineers,
22 the Hutcheon Engineers part of it, or was that
23 also performed by -- outside of Hutcheon
24 Engineers, the Kimley-Horn part of the office,
25 if you understand what I mean?
20
1 A. I understand the question. The
2 contract has the name Hutcheon Engineers. The
3 project manager is within Hutcheon Engineers,
4 but the work, or the staff that produced the
5 work, is all within Kimley-Horn.
6 Once the contract is signed,
7 staffing is assigned based on expertise and
8 the project need. There are no hard lines
9 drawn between divisions that would prevent a
10 Hutcheon -- I am going to put that in quotes,
11 a quote, "Hutcheon," unquote, employee from
12 working on a Kimley-Horn project or
13 vice-versa. In fact, all pay checks say
14 Kimley-Horn on them.
15 Q. Why is there a differentiation
16 between Hutcheon Engineers and Kimley-Horn,
17 that divisional line, why aren't you all
18 Kimley-Horn?
19 A. In, I want to say, in 1986, Hutcheon
20 Engineers and Kimley-Horn merged. At that
21 time, Kimley-Horn was about twice the size of
22 Hutcheon Engineers, had multiple offices in
23 several states. Hutcheon Engineers was well
24 known locally and at the time of the merger,
25 the decision was to continue to maintain the
21
1 name Hutcheon Engineers for local marketing
2 purposes until our past clients came to know
3 us as Kimley-Horn.
4 As things worked out, enough past
5 clients continued to roll over contracts,
6 continued to write amendments to contracts
7 that had all been executed with the name
8 Hutcheon Engineers. It continued to have a
9 marketing advantage, and so as time has gone,
10 there has never been any decision made to stop
11 using the name, Hutcheon Engineers.
12 Q. Now, your client with respect to the
13 work in this matter is the Florida Sugar Cane
14 League; is that correct?
15 A. My client is Phil Parsons, Attorney
16 -- I should say Phil Parsons, Attorney, and
17 Peeples, Earl & Blank.
18 Q. So Phil Parsons and Peeples, Earl &
19 Blank are the ones that actually hired or
20 retained you; is that correct?
21 A. That's correct.
22 Q. Now, did they retain you personally
23 or did they retain Hutcheon Engineers?
24 A. They retained Hutcheon Engineers.
25 Q. Let me ask you this: What is your
22
1 understanding on whose behalf you were
2 retained for? That is a very grammatically
3 poor question. Do you understand that?
4 A. Could you rephrase the question,
5 please.
6 Q. Okay. Is it your understanding that
7 you were retained, or that Hutcheon Engineers
8 was retained, to perform work, form opinions,
9 and provide testimony on those opinions at the
10 time of final hearing on behalf of the Florida
11 Sugar Cane League?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Have you been retained or do you
14 have an understanding of being retained on
15 behalf of any of the other agricultural
16 interests involved in this administrative
17 proceeding?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. What is that understanding?
20 MR. GAINES: You mean with regard to
21 being listed as an expert providing
22 testimony?
23 MR. MCGRATH: Yes.
24 A. In that case, no, I have not been
25 retained as an expert by any other party in
23
1 this administrative hearing -- in this
2 matter.
3 Q. Has Hutcheon Engineers been, or have
4 you been, retained by any other party in this
5 matter to perform work?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Who are the parties that have
8 retained Hutcheon Engineers or you?
9 A. Well --
10 MR. GAINES: Let me just -- are you
11 talking about at any time during his entire
12 span of years --
13 MR. MCGRATH: I am talking within
14 the scope of the time frame where this
15 administrative proceeding lies.
16 MR. GAINES: This was filed in 1992,
17 in September.
18 THE WITNESS: Can I ask you to
19 restate the question.
20 MR. MCGRATH: Okay. Sure. Let me
21 clarify it.
22 Q. (BY MR. MCGRATH) Have you been
23 retained by any other party to this
24 administrative proceeding to perform work,
25 conduct research, perform analyses with
24
1 respect to subject matters regarding this
2 administrative proceeding?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Has Hutcheon Engineers been retained
5 to perform work for any of the other parties
6 to this proceeding, the agricultural
7 interests, regarding work that is not
8 pertaining to the subject matter of this
9 administrative proceeding?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Using 1991, as a baseline point for
12 right now, which of the agricultural interests
13 have retained or contracted with Hutcheon
14 Engineers, and briefly just identify what work
15 they are asking Hutcheon Engineers to
16 perform.
17 MR. GAINES: Wait a minute. You are
18 asking him to identify work from other parties
19 unrelated to these proceedings?
20 MR. MCGRATH: Yes.
21 MR. GAINES: I object to the
22 relevancy of that. I don't know if the
23 witness is permitted to disclose that kind of
24 information for a client that is not
25 represented here that doesn't relate to these
25
1 proceedings.
2 So I will ask the witness if he
3 feels comfortable disclosing that information
4 in this setting.
5 THE WITNESS: Well, I would like to
6 answer the question generally, without getting
7 into specifics.
8 Q. (BY MR. MCGRATH) Yes, I am not
9 asking for details and specifics about
10 projects or assignments, and let me limit, for
11 the purposes of this question, the parties
12 that I am interested in finding out if they
13 have contracted with Hutcheon are the Sugar
14 Cane Growers Cooperative, Roth Farms,
15 Wedgewood Farms, U.S. Sugar Corporation, New
16 Hope South, the Fruit and Vegetable -- the
17 Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association, W.E.
18 Schlechter and Sons and Hundley Farms. Those
19 parties, since 1991, have any of these parties
20 contracted or retained Hutcheon Engineers to
21 perform work?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Which of those parties?
24 A. Not having memorized your list, but
25 U.S. Sugar, New Hope South, John Schlechter,
26
1 the Co-op, and perhaps one or two of the other
2 individual farms that were named there, have
3 retained us, since 1991, to do a variety of
4 projects, some related to the Everglades SWIM
5 issue and some unrelated to the Everglades
6 SWIM issue. But none of them have retained us
7 to provide expert witness testimony in this
8 hearing.
9 Q. What work have you been retained to
10 do that is related to the Everglades SWIM
11 issue?
12 A. In what time frame or --
13 Q. Since 1991.
14 A. We have been retained to evaluate
15 South Florida Water Management District
16 alternatives, evaluate alternatives, suggested
17 or recommended by others, and suggest
18 alternatives of our own.
19 Q. When you are referring to
20 alternatives, are you referring to
21 alternatives to those projects and programs
22 set forth in the most current SWIM documents,
23 SWIM Plan?
24 A. Among others, yes.
25 Q. With regard to the evaluation of
27
1 alternatives, who has retained you?
2 A. The majority of our work has been
3 for the Florida Sugar Cane League through the
4 attorneys that I mentioned previously, but we
5 have also been involved with several
6 applicants under the District's 40-E-63
7 permitting process, and so as part of helping
8 them develop their application, we have
9 discussed, reviewed alternatives.
10 Q. Are those alternatives to those
11 programs and plans set forth in the SWIM
12 document?
13 A. Yes, as well as alternatives within
14 the guidelines of the SWIM Plan, alternatives
15 within the guidelines of 40-E-63.
16 Q. Just so that I am clear, the
17 alternatives that we are talking about, do
18 those relate to the best management practices
19 referred to by 40-E-63?
20 A. Yes, as well as others.
21 Q. What do you mean by "as well as
22 others"?
23 A. The best management practices listed
24 in 40-E-63 is a finite list of on-farm
25 alternatives and the list is not incomplete
28
1 nor looks beyond the confines of on-farm BMPs.
2 Q. I guess maybe my question wasn't
3 clear. What I was trying to get an
4 understanding of was the alternatives that we
5 are discussing are alternative best management
6 practices, either those in the SWIM Plan or
7 others; is that -- is my understanding
8 correct?
9 A. The alternatives that I am
10 discussing are not limited to best management
11 practices.
12 Q. Mr. Stewart, when was Hutcheon
13 Engineers first retained with respect to the
14 work that forms the subject matter of your
15 expected testimony in this case?
16 A. In mid-1990, we began working on
17 issues related to the Lake Okeechobee SWIM
18 Plan and Rule 40-E-61. Several issues that
19 began at that time have continued into the
20 work that we are doing for the Everglades SWIM
21 Plan.
22 Q. At what time did the focus of the
23 work address the Everglades SWIM Plan?
24 A. That transition occurred near the
25 time that we had a satisfactory staff report
29
1 on the 40-E-61 program. Prior to that time,
2 our concern or our focus was directed at the
3 master permit application for the EAA,
4 Environmental Protection District. Once those
5 issues appeared to be satisfactorily
6 addressed, we then began thinking of the
7 40-E-63 program.
8 Q. Do you know date-wise about when
9 that would have occurred?
10 A. That was November or December of
11 1991.
12 Q. With respect to the 40-E-61 program
13 regarding Lake Okeechobee, who were you
14 retained by, you being Hutcheon Engineers?
15 A. Phil Parsons, Landers and Parsons.
16 Q. Was it your understanding that you
17 were being retained by Phil Parsons on behalf
18 of the Florida Sugar Cane League?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Let me ask this: Were you contacted
21 by Mr. Parsons or was someone else in the firm
22 contacted with respect to the 40-E-61 program?
23 A. Someone else in the firm was
24 contacted but I sat in on the first meeting.
25 Q. With respect to the 40-E-61 work,
30
1 what was Hutcheon Engineers asked to do?
2 MR. GAINES: Let me just caution
3 you. I think you are just asking what was the
4 task they were given?
5 MR. MCGRATH: Yes.
6 MR. GAINES: That's fine, but you
7 are not to discuss the specifics of your
8 meetings with Mr. Parsons. He is an attorney
9 representing the Sugar Cane League.
10 A. The overall objective was to prepare
11 an application for a master permit for works
12 of the District, for use of works of the
13 District, under Rule 40-E-61. As part of that
14 application, there was a need to describe
15 strategies, technologies, or projects that
16 would reduce the phosphorus discharges to Lake
17 Okeechobee in the amount of 10 tons by July of
18 1994, and ultimately 12 tons.
19 Q. When was the 12-ton limit supposed
20 to be met?
21 A. I believe that was 1996, 12 tons by
22 July of 1996.
23 Q. You indicated that you sat in on the
24 first meeting; who were the people that
25 participated in that first meeting?
31
1 A. The first meeting, I believe, was
2 just with Phil Parsons.
3 Q. Who, from Hutcheon Engineers, was at
4 that meeting?
5 A. I believe it was Bob Howell, Robert
6 Howell, and myself.
7 Q. Now, with respect to the work that
8 was done regarding Lake Okeechobee, what was
9 your relationship or position with respect to
10 that work?
11 A. My personal --
12 Q. Yes.
13 A. -- relationship? Robert Howell was
14 designated the project manager for the purpose
15 of client contacts, contract negotiations, and
16 quality control. I was assigned a position
17 that we sometimes refer to as task manager
18 which essentially takes care of the technical
19 aspects of managing the job, excluding the
20 business aspects.
21 Q. Now, with respect to the retention
22 of Hutcheon Engineers by Phil Parsons
23 regarding Lake Okeechobee, was there a formal
24 contract that was entered into for that work?
25 A. A formal contract was written, but I
32
1 don't believe it was ever executed, which
2 would make it an informal contract.
3 Q. Do you know the reasons why no
4 formal contract was never signed?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Can you explain to me the nature of
7 the relationship between Hutcheon Engineers
8 and Mr. Parsons and the Florida Sugar Cane
9 League regarding the work on Lake Okeechobee?
10 What I mean by that, what I am trying to find
11 out, is essentially how Hutcheon Engineers was
12 paid for the work they did. Were you paid
13 based on hourly rates of the people involved,
14 was there a set contract price, questions of
15 that nature?
16 A. We were paid on the basis of hourly
17 billing rates for the majority of our work.
18 There may have been specific tasks that were
19 negotiated as a lump sum in advance.
20 Q. But other than those specific
21 instances, was it generally Hutcheon Engineers
22 billed Mr. Parsons on a set basis as work
23 proceeded?
24 A. That's correct.
25 Q. With respect to that work, what was
33
1 your hourly billing rate?
2 A. It was approximately $106 an hour.
3 Q. What is your billing rate now?
4 A. The same.
5 MR. GAINES: 106?
6 THE WITNESS: 106.
7 A. Excuse me, if we are talking about
8 June of 1990?
9 Q. (BY MR. MCGRATH?) Yes.
10 A. It may have been $100 in June of
11 1990. My current billing rate is $106.
12 Q. Now, then in following your previous
13 testimony on setting up a project, once -- you
14 have testified about the objective of what you
15 were asked to do; was there a set of tasks
16 developed, designed to achieve those
17 objectives?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. What were the tasks for the Lake
20 Okeechobee project?
21 A. The Lake Okeechobee master permit
22 relied upon a pump BMP, a project at the Belle
23 Glade and Pahokee POTWs, parenthesis,
24 (publicly owned treatment works), close
25 parenthesis.
34
1 Q. Was that the deep-well injection
2 project?
3 A. Yes, deep-well injection project.
4 Changes at the Clewiston Mill.
5 Q. What kind of changes?
6 A. Changes to their internal water
7 reuse system and the last element was the
8 elimination of a cattle feed lot from the EAA
9 from the Lake Okeechobee basin. There was
10 also, as part of that work, development of an
11 appropriate monitoring plan for surface water
12 discharges going to Okeechobee.
13 Q. Now, who would have been involved in
14 establishing these tasks that you have just
15 described?
16 A. Myself.
17 Q. So are these all your ideas?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Let's just go one-by-one. The pump
20 BMP work, where did that idea come from?
21 MR. GAINES: Object to the form. If
22 you understand the question, you can answer.
23 A. (No response).
24 Q. (BY MR. MCGRATH) I mean as far as a
25 task or a means of accomplishing what was
35
1 required by 40-E-61, how was the proposal
2 regarding the pump management work arrived at?
3 A. It was suggested by the industry. I
4 don't know specificaszlly which person or
5 which company first stated that option.
6 Q. Same question with regard to the
7 deep-well injection project, where did that
8 idea come from?
9 A. Again, I would say the industry.
10 That project was funded in part, in large
11 part, by the EAA, Environmental Protection
12 District, and that occurred before we were
13 retained to work on the project.
14 Q. So was that work that was already
15 underway at the time that Hutcheon Engineers
16 became involved?
17 A. Yes, it was work that had been
18 funded and partially constructed at the time
19 that we were retained.
20 Q. And who was doing the actual on-site
21 work at the deep-well injection site?
22 A. Those projects were being designed
23 and constructed by the various municipalities
24 with funding from the EPD and, I believe, a
25 federal grant. I may be inaccurate on that.
36
1 Q. Was pump BMP work already in
2 progress or underway at the time Hutcheon
3 Engineers became involved?
4 A. Some members of the industry had
5 experimented on their own farms with the
6 concept.
7 Q. The task with respect to changes in
8 the internal water reuse system for the
9 Clewiston Mill, where did that idea come from?
10 A. That was proposed by U.S. Sugar.
11 Q. Was that work, with respect to
12 whatever work went into that task, was that
13 work that was already underway or was that
14 work that was instituted by Hutcheon
15 Engineers?
16 A. The concept was proposed by U.S.
17 Sugar. We were asked to evaluate the
18 magnitude of the load reduction that could be
19 recognized by that work.
20 Q. Skip the -- eliminating the cattle
21 feed lot, and with respect to the development
22 of monitoring for surface water discharges to
23 Lake Okeechobee, where did that idea come
24 from?
25 A. That is something that Hutcheon
37
1 Engineers proposed back to the industry and to
2 the EPD.
3 Q. Now, with respect to the shift in
4 emphasis to looking at the Everglades SWIM
5 Plan, was there ever a meeting that occurred
6 where Hutcheon Engineers was asked to set
7 objectives looking, you know, directed towards
8 the Everglades SWIM Plan?
9 A. There was never any milestone
10 meeting. As we discussed the staff report for
11 the 40-E-61 permit, the closure of the meeting
12 would be, "and then we will start looking to
13 the south."
14 So it was discussed at several
15 meetings before we actually started committing
16 resources to it.
17 Q. Have you produced a copy of the
18 staff report regarding the 40-E-61 program?
19 A. No, I don't believe we did.
20 Q. When would that have been written or
21 ready in final form?
22 A. The permit was issued in January of
23 1992, so the final staff report was probably
24 early December.
25 Q. Did you draft that report?
38
1 A. The staff report?
2 Q. Yes.
3 A. No, sir, South Florida Water
4 Management District staff did.
5 Q. Okay. I understand what you are
6 referring to now. You had indicated there was
7 a transition after the satisfactory staff
8 report on the 40-E-61 program; what was
9 satisfactory about the staff report?
10 A. It recommended approval of the
11 permit.
12 Q. Now, with respect to the task
13 related to pump BMPs, what work was
14 specifically undertaken by Hutcheon Engineers
15 on that?
16 A. We were asked to evaluate the
17 potential load reduction as a result of
18 modifying the on-farm pumping practices.
19 Q. What specifically was undertaken to
20 make that evaluation?
21 A. We reviewed rainfall and pumping
22 records at two subdrainage districts within
23 the Lake Okeechobee basin, and evaluated how
24 the proposed pump BMP would change the pumping
25 at those two stations.
39
1 Q. Do those two stations have a name or
2 designation?
3 A. Yes, the first is the Pahokee Water
4 Control District and the second is East Shore
5 Water Control District.
6 Q. When you say, "We reviewed rainfall
7 and pumping records," did you review the data
8 in those records?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Who else, if anyone else, reviewed
11 that data?
12 A. No one outside of Hutcheon
13 Engineers.
14 Q. But as far as people within Hutcheon
15 Engineers?
16 MR. GAINES: I am sorry, when you
17 say, "did you," do you mean --
18 MR. MCGRATH: I am asking, in this
19 instance, did you, Dave Hutcheon personally --
20 MR. GAINES: Dave Stewart.
21 Q. (BY MR. MCGRATH) -- Dave Stewart,
22 excuse me, review the rainfall pumping records
23 that you referred to?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Did anyone else at Hutcheon
40
1 Engineers analyze or review them?
2 A. Yes, several other people.
3 Q. Can you recall some of their names?
4 A. Well, let me say no, but answer your
5 question by saying the evaluation was a phased
6 review. It began with looking at a single
7 year's record using one technical approach and
8 when results were promising, we expanded the
9 period of record and developed a more
10 sophisticated approach for evaluating the
11 data.
12 And so the task had several levels
13 of interpretation, and as we progressed to the
14 next level of interpretation or next level of
15 detail, I would then select from my available
16 staff the proper analyst and engineer interns
17 to perform that work.
18 Q. But you don't recall the names of
19 the analyst and engineer interns that you
20 assigned to that task?
21 A. No, not specifically that task, or
22 those tasks.
23 Q. What do you mean when you are
24 referring to reviewing the data under one
25 technical approach?
41
1 A. It began with visually reading the
2 manual pump logs which contained the rainfall
3 record and a pump history on the same piece of
4 paper, and after reviewing several months'
5 worth of records, there seemed to be patterns
6 of pumping response to specific rainfall
7 events that fit within the anecdotal comments
8 that we were getting from the industry.
9 We then digitized the rainfall and
10 pumping records for a single year and went
11 through a manual decision-making process with
12 the proposed pump BMP operational rules and
13 evaluated how, under those proposed rules, the
14 station would have been pumped versus the
15 actual historic record.
16 Q. Now, when you are talking about the
17 proposed BMP rules, are you talking about
18 those rules which set forth when you should
19 pump -- the criteria for determining when you
20 should pump and when you shouldn't pump?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And looking at the data that you had
23 using those rules and then analyzing what
24 would have happened if you had followed the
25 rules in pumping based on the rainfall that
42
1 you were reading; is that an accurate
2 description?
3 A. Yes, looking at historical records,
4 what would have happened in 1983, had these
5 rules been in place in 1983, how would that
6 have changed the pumping record.
7 Q. Now, as far as the actual rules
8 themselves, the guidelines for when to pump
9 and when not to pump, who drafted those or
10 whose work is that?
11 A. Well, those rules came from the
12 industry, and over the course of two or three
13 months, there was some refinement to those
14 rules. So we were given a draft, we looked at
15 it, we made certain comments, returned that
16 back to the industry, they would return a
17 second draft to us.
18 And over the course of two or three
19 months, the final form of the pump BMP was
20 developed.
21 Q. So the basic rules were provided by
22 the industry, and based on your work, you
23 refined the rules as you analyzed data?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Now, did you personally participate
43
1 in the refinement of the pumping rules or were
2 those people working under you doing that
3 work?
4 A. I personally participated in that.
5 Q. You stated there was, after analysis
6 of rainfall data, there was an evaluation how
7 the pump BMPs would have operated at the
8 Pahokee and East Shore stations; is that what
9 you just described going through and
10 determining the result based on application of
11 the pumping practices to the rainfall data at
12 those two stations?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Now, you indicated that initially
15 this was done manually. Was the approach
16 refined to the point of being able to generate
17 computer runs doing this analysis?
18 A. Yes, the approach was ultimately
19 converted into a spreadsheet program utilizing
20 a software known as 20-20.
21 Q. Now, were there other activities
22 besides the two that you have mentioned, the
23 analysis rainfall data and the evaluation of
24 the pump BMP's at the two stations, with
25 respect to the tasks regarding the evaluation
44
1 of potential load reduction by modifying
2 on-farm pumping practices?
3 A. No, I believe that was essentially
4 the content of that task.
5 Q. What were the conclusions drawn
6 based on this work?
7 A. Based on modeling at those two
8 subdrainage districts, we concluded that the
9 proposed BMP would reduce the volume of
10 pumping by sixteen and a half to eighteen
11 percent on a long-term annual basis.
12 Q. What was the corresponding reduction
13 in phosphorus loading of the lake achieved by
14 reducing pumping volume of sixteen and a half
15 to eighteen percent?
16 A. I believe our final load reduction
17 was calculated as 3.6 standard tons, not
18 metric tons, and that number in those
19 conclusions are presented in our pump BMP
20 credit report.
21 Q. Was there any -- this may be a
22 repeat of the question I just asked -- was
23 there any other work performed by Hutcheon
24 Engineers regarding analysis in the evaluation
25 of the pump BMPs for Lake Okeechobee?
45
1 A. Well, will you define work to make
2 sure I haven't misinterpret something?
3 Q. Yes, just research analysis,
4 experiments, tasks designed to evaulate the
5 effectiveness of the pump BMPs.
6 A. I believe at that time we did have a
7 partial report of the U.S. Sugar, Mott
8 Weatherald study, and even though I don't
9 believe conclusions had yet been related, it
10 did -- that study did seem to validate the
11 concept that a reduction in volume would
12 relate to a reduction in load.
13 Q. Any other work, including within the
14 scope of the term, "work," review of research
15 or literature or other similar projects that
16 may have existed?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Can you explain to me or describe
19 for me those aspects of the task relating to
20 the deep-well injection project, Belle Glade,
21 and what was the other location?
22 A. Pahokee. That task included
23 analysis of the treatment plant monthly
24 reports, those reports are filed with DER, and
25 review of surface water pumping stations that
46
1 served the basins that contained the treatment
2 plants.
3 We also consulted with Doctor
4 William Patrick of LSU on the effects of crop
5 and soil assimilation within the drainage
6 subbasins.
7 Q. Anything else?
8 A. I think that's essentially it.
9 Q. Can you explain to me what the
10 deep-well injection project involves, how does
11 it work?
12 A. Historically there were three
13 municipalities, Pahokee, South Bay, and Belle
14 Glade, which disposed of their treated
15 municipal waste water by surface discharge and
16 percolation. All three of these treatment
17 plants had DER permits, but were in some form
18 of discussion with DER about improving their
19 plants, their treatment plants.
20 I don't know where the concept of
21 deep-well injection came from or who proposed
22 it, but what was proposed and ultimately
23 constructed was a well into an aquifer known
24 as the boulder zone, which is a brackish
25 aquifer, and the treated municipal effluent is
47
1 pumped down the well and disposed of in the
2 aquifer.
3 The project was designed by others,
4 permitted by others, constructed by the three
5 municipalities involved with funding from the
6 Environmental Protection District and, I
7 believe, a federal grant, or grants.
8 Q. How deep a well are we talking
9 about?
10 A. I couldn't quote you the number.
11 Q. With respect to the actual
12 performance of the various work items under
13 the task, the first analysis of the treatment
14 plant reports to the DER, did you personally
15 perform this analysis?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Do you know who did?
18 A. Well, it would have been several
19 people in Hutcheon Engineers.
20 Q. As you sit here today, can you
21 remember who those people would be?
22 A. Well, the work -- that work would
23 have been supervised by either Ed Weinberg or
24 Julie O'Neal, and they, in turn, would have
25 delegated the work to engineering interns,
48
1 engineering analysts to do the actual review.
2 It probably entailed digitizing manual records
3 or hard copy reports and then evaluating the
4 digitized data in a spreadsheet format.
5 Q. When you say, "digitized," what do
6 you mean?
7 A. I mean typed into a computer file
8 the numbers, dates, that are in the hard copy
9 report.
10 Q. Did you personally perform a review
11 of the data regarding the surface water
12 pumping stations that you mentioned?
13 A. Yes, and probably to the same extent
14 that I personally reviewed the DER reports.
15 If I could embelish on that for a moment?
16 Q. Yes, because I am a little confused
17 because I thought you just said that you had
18 not reviewed the DER reports.
19 A. It's a matter of degree as the
20 technical, or as the task manager, I am
21 responsible for supervising the technical
22 production of all the work under this
23 contract.
24 It's within my training as a civil
25 engineer to have reviewed the DER reports, to
49
1 have reviewed the pump station records. And I
2 would develop technical approach, discuss that
3 with engineers and environmental scientists on
4 my staff, and direct them to review the
5 reports which means that I personally did not
6 turn the pages and read the reports, but that
7 work was done under my supervision and
8 direction:
9 And upon the completion of the
10 tasks, they report back to me the results of
11 their review and I question them as to -- I
12 questioned them in order to satisfy myself
13 that the work had been done in the manner that
14 I had outlined for them.
15 Q. Now, with respect to the
16 consultation with Doctor William Patrick,
17 first, how did that come about and did
18 Hutcheon Engineers retain Doctor Patrick or
19 was there some contractual relationship
20 between Hutcheon Engineers and Doctor Patrick
21 regarding his work in this area?
22 A. I don't believe that Doctor Patrick
23 sent us an invoice for his work on that
24 particular item. We had met with Doctor
25 Patrick and discussed some other issues prior
50
1 to beginning work on the POTW analysis, and
2 his telephone consultations and correspondence
3 with us, I don't know that we received an
4 invoice for those items specifically.
5 Q. What did you ask Doctor Patrick to
6 do?
7 A. We asked his opinion as to how
8 phosphorus in water discharged from the
9 treatment plant would or would not be
10 assimilated within the soils of the
11 agricultural land surrounding the treatment
12 plant.
13 Q. What opinion did Doctor Patrick give
14 you?
15 A. Well, his correspondence is included
16 as an exhibit in that report. He expressed an
17 opinion that the assimilation rate within the
18 soil would be relatively low, and from memory,
19 on the order of five or ten percent, I
20 believe.
21 Q. What was the concern or interest in
22 getting Doctor Patrick's opinion regarding the
23 assimilation of phosphorus in the soil?
24 A. That was in response to a question
25 from South Florida staff in their review of
51
1 the permit application.
2 MR. GAINES: You mean the District
3 staff?
4 THE WITNESS: The District staff.
5 Q. (BY MR. MCGRATH) So this may be a
6 short and not necessarily accurate way of
7 describing this, but with respect to the
8 deep-well injection project, this is basically
9 just pumping the water into the ground to get
10 rid of it?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Did Hutcheon Engineers perform any
13 type of environmental impact study to assess
14 the effect or consequences of that practice?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Are you aware of any person or group
17 that has performed any type of environmental
18 impact study on the practice of deep-well
19 injection?
20 A. No, but deep injection wells are
21 used throughout the State of Florida and are
22 permitted by Florida DER. The first one I saw
23 was in 1974, at the University of Florida
24 campus.
25 Q. What types of phosphorus
52
1 concentrations did the effluent from the
2 treatment plants have when they were being
3 injected into the wells?
4 MR. GAINES: Are you asking for a
5 range?
6 MR. MCGRATH: Yes, a range.
7 A. I am sorry, I can't recall the
8 specific numbers.
9 Q. (BY MR. MCGRATH) Was there a final
10 report or a summary report on this task
11 prepared by Hutcheon Engineers?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Would those numbers be contained in
14 that --
15 A. Yes, they would.
16 Q. -- final report? Do you know who
17 drafted the final report regarding the deep
18 injection well project?
19 A. Again it was a team effort within
20 Hutcheon Engineers. Julie O'Neal, Ed Weinberg
21 both contributed to the text and production of
22 calculations. Exhibits would have been done
23 by technical staff, and I read the report as
24 part of the final checking before it was
25 submitted.
53
1 MR. GAINES: Excuse me, can you
2 spell Julie O'Neal's last name.
3 THE WITNESS: O'-N-e-a-l.
4 MR. GAINES: And Weinberg?
5 THE WITNESS: W-e-i-n-b-e-r-g.
6 A. Also, the report on the evaluation
7 of the POTW was submitted to South Florida
8 staff at least three times during their review
9 process.
10 Q. (BY MR. MCGRATH) This was during
11 the permitting process?
12 A. During the permitting process, and
13 so again, depending upon the questions that
14 came back with the review of the report would
15 decide -- would help me determine which of my
16 staff would respond to those questions.
17 Their response was then incorporated
18 into the report as a revised report rather
19 than attached as an appendices or an addendum
20 to the original report. So again, when you
21 ask who worked on the job, or who worked on
22 the report, there were a handful of people who
23 all contributed technical input to the report.
24 Q. Did you contribute technical input
25 into the report?
54
1 A. I contributed to the discussion of
2 the -- the discussion and the conclusions of
3 the report.
4 Q. When you say you contributed to the
5 discussions and conclusions of the report,
6 were these in the form of comments to the
7 drafters?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Do you recall what the nature of
10 your comments were?
11 A. No, not specifically, and not in
12 general either.
13 Q. Explain to me, or describe for me,
14 what was involved with the work regarding
15 Clewiston Mill and the internal water reuse
16 system.
17 A. Within our office, the work
18 consisted of reviewing pump logs for three
19 pumping stations for either a two or three
20 year period of record, along with associated
21 concentration data, and then reviewing pump
22 logs and concentration data -- I am sorry, I
23 need to retract the concentration data.
24 We had pump logs but we did not have
25 concentration data. The first step was to
55
1 look at three years of historic practices at
2 these three stations and then look at two
3 years of a changed practice.
4 The proposal was to continue the
5 changed practice and we were asked to evaluate
6 the magnitude of that change on reducing
7 phosphorus discharges from this particular
8 basin and then to estimate what reduction Lake
9 Okeechobee would see from that load reduction.
10 Q. What are the practices that you are
11 referring to and how were those practices
12 changed?
13 A. The Clewiston Sugar Mill is within
14 an agricultural land unit that was served by
15 three small drainage pumps. And the practice
16 that was changed -- I need to backtrack.
17 The historic condition within that
18 basin, the Clewiston Mill discharged water to
19 certain ponds, holding ponds on site. The
20 mill pulled water from outside that basin in
21 order to provide make-up water for the mill.
22 The changed practice was to reduce
23 the amount of water being brought into the
24 basin by returning some of the water out of
25 those holding ponds back to the mill in a
56
1 manner that it could be utilized within the
2 mill, and thus reduce the exterior influx of
3 water.
4 That practice would allow the
5 drainage pumps to reduce their pumping. There
6 was also a commitment from the company, and
7 this was probably an unstated commitment, that
8 the sugar cane that was within that
9 agricultural basin would be managed such that
10 the drainage needs would be reduced and that
11 concept of reducing the off-site drainage
12 discharging would, during -- I am sorry.
13 One other important element was we
14 are talking about during the winter grinding
15 season, not the year round. During the winter
16 grinding season, it is also the historic dry
17 season and so the agriculture that remained
18 within that basin could, with a certain amount
19 of risk and a certain amount of internal
20 management, limit its discharges during the
21 dry season.
22 By eliminating the off-site
23 discharge during the dry season, the grinding
24 season, we were able to recognize -- I want to
25 say something like six standard tons load
57
1 reduction. During the wet season, the summer
2 season, the mill is shut down and therefore
3 does not generate its water and the basin --
4 the agricultural lands could then be managed
5 in a normal manner during the wet season and
6 growing season.
7 Q. I forgot to ask you before, what was
8 the phosphorus reduction realized by the deep
9 injection well system?
10 A. I believe it was five standard tons
11 observed at Lake Okeechobee.
12 Q. Now, as far as the permit limits, 10
13 tons for July of 1993, and 12 tons by July,
14 1996, are those permits based on standard or
15 metric tons?
16 A. Standard tons.
17 Q. Briefly, with respect to the
18 elimination of the cattle feed lot draining
19 into Lake Okeechobee basin, what was the
20 phosphorus reduction realized by
21 the implementation of that?
22 A. Our proposed phosphorus credit was
23 approximately three tons -- it might have been
24 five tons. But South Florida staff would not
25 recognize that load reduction and so the final
58
1 permit did not include the feed lot as part of
2 the 10 ton reduction, which is why I don't
3 have that number burned in my memory.
4 Q. By South Florida, you are referring
5 to South Florida Water Management District,
6 correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Do you recall their reasoning or
9 basis for not recognizing the reduction that
10 you believe would have resulted from the
11 elimination of that feed lot?
12 A. Basically the feed lot -- the feed
13 lot went out of production before the end of
14 the period of record that 40-E-61 was based
15 on. And although it was there and generating
16 a significant load during the majority of the
17 base period, because it was taken out of
18 production before the end of that base period,
19 staff did not want to allow or staff told
20 us --
21 I don't know what staff wanted or
22 did not want to do. Staff told us they would
23 not recommend any credit be given for that
24 particular project.
25 Q. And the period of record that is the
59
1 basis of 40-E-61 is what, that was 1983 --
2 what was the period of record that forms the
3 basis for 40-E-61?
4 A. Well, it was a 10-year period of
5 record. For some reason, I think it's not
6 exactly coincident with 40-E-63, and so I
7 don't want to quote those numbers.
8 Q. Obviously it's a matter of record.
9 I just didn't remember it myself. Now, with
10 respect to the development of a moderate
11 monitoring plan for surface water discharges
12 into Lake Okeechobee, did that task result in
13 a realized phosphorus reduction to the lake or
14 was this a monitoring task?
15 A. That task was required by the
16 conditions of 40-E-61, but it in itself, does
17 not cause a load reduction to Lake
18 Okeechobee.
19 MR. MCGRATH: Let's take a real
20 short break.
21 (A brief recess was here had).
22 Q. (BY MR. MCGRATH) With respect to
23 that period of time where, for example, you
24 switched from Lake Okeechobee to the
25 Everglades, was there ever a set of objectives
60
1 determined for work regarding the Everglades
2 SWIM Plan such as you described for the Lake
3 Okeechobee SWIM Plan?
4 A. Not as clear cut.
5 Q. What was your understanding of the
6 objectives sought regarding the Everglades
7 SWIM Plan?
8 A. Well, they began with review of the
9 draft Everglades SWIM Plan, and as 40-E-63 was
10 being drafted, review of that document as
11 well. More specific issues evolved
12 individually as time went on.
13 Q. What is your understanding of the
14 requirements of 40-E-63?
15 A. Reduction by on-farm BMPs of 25
16 percent -- I am sorry, are you talking about
17 40-E-63?
18 Q. Yes, sir.
19 A. 40-E-63, there is a mandatory
20 monitoring program and there is an optional
21 early monitoring program. In either case, the
22 individual farm pumps be monitored for a
23 period of time to establish a baseline for
24 that particular farm.
25 After establishing the baseline,
61
1 on-farm BMPs would be implemented in an effort
2 to reduce the phosphorus discharges. At the
3 same time, South Florida would monitor flows
4 at the beginning of the STAs and/or the
5 primary pumps, whichever comes first, and seek
6 to -- their objective is to observe the 25
7 percent load reduction.
8 If that load reduction is not
9 observed, then there is a procedure for going
10 back upstream and looking for ways to
11 accomplish that load reduction.
12 Q. Is it your understanding that
13 40-E-63 pertains only to the goal reduction,
14 goal phosphorus reduction, of 25 percent, that
15 is that phosphorus reduction through
16 implementation of BMPs?
17 MR. GAINES: Wait a minute. Well --
18 MR. MCGRATH: Do you understand my
19 question?
20 MR. GAINES: He said they would only
21 -- that -- I don't understand. I don't
22 understand. Object to the form on that basis.
23 If you understand it, go ahead and answer it.
24 A. Why don't I ask you to rephrase it
25 so I am sure I understand it.
62
1 Q. (BY MR. MCGRATH) What I am trying
2 to get an understanding of is your
3 understanding of whether 40-E-63 involves the
4 projected performance of the STAs?
5 A. I believe -- my recollection of
6 40-E-63 is that it makes reference to the STAs
7 and makes reference to the Everglades SWIM
8 Plan which in turn makes reference to the
9 settlement agreement.
10 And so the STAs are brought into the
11 40-E-63 document, but I don't recall that
12 40-E-63 specifically describes the STAs and
13 their dimensions and projected performance and
14 things of that nature.
15 Q. But as far as an individual farmer
16 is concerned, is your understanding of the
17 requirements, the compliance requirements for
18 40-E-63, those requirements relating to best
19 management practices only?
20 A. Yes, is the simplest answer.
21 Q. With respect to the objectives as
22 you understood them, that is reviewing the
23 SWIM Plan and in reviewing 40-E-63, and the
24 various other topics that were addressed as
25 they came up, was there a set of tasks
63
1 generated?
2 A. Yes, and by tasks, I am interpreting
3 that to mean within Hutcheon Engineers work
4 tasks were identified, period, paragraph.
5 Q. Okay. Let me catch up with you.
6 Could you identify for me each of the Hutcheon
7 Engineer work tasks relating to the objectives
8 or the work regarding the Everglades SWIM
9 Plan?
10 A. I need some definition.
11 Q. What definition do you need?
12 A. I need some -- within what time
13 frame or within what subjects.
14 Q. Then let's take this a piece at a
15 time. I believe you have stated that by, and
16 correct me if I am wrong, November or December
17 of 1991, the focus of Hutcheon Engineers'
18 involvement had switched from Lake Okeechobee
19 to the Everglades SWIM Plan; is that correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Initially at that period of time,
22 when the time that the focus changed, was
23 there work tasks contemplated or generated to
24 acheive the objectives at that time?
25 A. At the time the focus changed, our
64
1 clients questions were very general in nature,
2 along the lines of let's identify alternatives
3 that can be discussed by the industry.
4 And as the industry discussed
5 alternatives, we would begin to evaluate the
6 expected performance, identify potential
7 difficulties in implementing those various
8 concepts, and listen to the feedback from the
9 industry's technical people as to how various
10 proposals would change their operations.
11 So in that period of time things
12 were working in very general terms. I would
13 say that my scope would change week to week as
14 greater detail was requested in some areas and
15 other areas were dropped from discussion.
16 Q. What was your relationship to the
17 project and the work being done at the time
18 the focus changed to the Everglades?
19 A. Within Hutcheon Engineers, I was
20 still the task manager. Our contract was
21 still with Phil Parsons.
22 Q. Was Mr. Howell still the project
23 manager?
24 A. Mr. Howell was still taking care of
25 the business aspects of the project,
65
1 maintaining project budgets, invoicing, things
2 of that nature, and providing quality control,
3 back checking of documents, things like that.
4 Q. Back at the beginning of this
5 transition period, what was the first thing or
6 what were the first things, tasks, if you
7 will, that were undertaken by Hutcheon
8 Engineers?
9 A. At that period of time, the EPD
10 continued funding of an IFAS program that was
11 studying BMPs and so we were asked to monitor
12 the progress there, keep ourselves informed of
13 progress in that area.
14 The work that we did on the 40-E-63
15 permit gave us confidence that load reductions
16 could be accomplished through volume pump BMPs
17 so that subject translated well from the lake
18 basin to the Everglades basin.
19 At that time, we also had a
20 suggestion from Doctor Patrick relating to
21 lime rock sorption chemically fixing the
22 phosphorus in the calcium carbonates that are
23 present in this area. And there were several
24 other specific concepts that we were looking
25 at, some of them for short periods of time and
66
1 some of them for extended periods of time.
2 Q. What were some of those other
3 concepts that were being examined?
4 A. Well, a little bit later in that
5 process, and again we are talking about early
6 1992, as when this transition, this focus,
7 shifted.
8 Algal turf scrubbers were being
9 proposed, certain sedimentation control
10 practices. At the moment, as far as
11 phosphorus reduction strategies, those are the
12 ones that come to mind at the moment, in that
13 time period.
14 Q. Are there any phosphorus reduction
15 strategies or concepts which, at this point in
16 time, have been either rejected or at least no
17 further work is being done with respect to
18 them?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. What concepts or strategies are
21 those?
22 A. Well, I don't think I am going to be
23 testifying on the strategies that were
24 rejected.
25 Q. Right, this is just to let you know
67
1 a little bit ahead of time to the extent that
2 I can understand what you are not going to
3 testify about, and those things that have been
4 rejected, and that just helps me streamline
5 the questions that I ask you about.
6 MR. GAINES: Let me just -- I don't
7 know exactly what you mean by "rejected,"
8 what that terms means. I think he can testify
9 as to what he is not doing