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 work on right now. 10 And if he is going to testify to 11 something that's been rejected, I would just 12 ask that you get him to explain what he means 13 by that, or I will have to do it later. 14 Q. (BY MR. MCGRATH) Why don't we just 15 go through right now and list for me, if you 16 can, those phosphorus reduction strategies or 17 concepts that you do not anticipate providing 18 testimony about or rendering opinions on at 19 the time of final hearing. 20 A. Okay. Just so I won't be 21 nonresponsive, let's put down magnetic 22 separation. Now, I am not sure I understand 23 the question because I think I may be asked to 24 testify or to discuss many of the topics that 25 were part of the League's alternate plan 68 1 presentation and so that group of subjects 2 stays on the list of things that I may testify 3 to. 4 The work that we presented to SAGE 5 are all things that I may testify to, which I 6 think means, your question is what subjects 7 have never been presented to SAGE and have 8 never been incorporated in the League's 9 alternate plan have I looked at. 10 Q. Why don't we go about it this way. 11 Could you list for me every alternative that 12 you anticipate testifying about and rendering 13 opinions on at the time of final hearing in 14 this matter. 15 A. I can list those subjects that I 16 anticipate testifying to. There may be other 17 topics that today I don't anticipate 18 testifying to that could come up, between now 19 and then. 20 Q. I understand that. I mean as far as 21 your understanding, as you sit here today, 22 could you list for me each of the alternatives 23 that you anticipate testifying about in 24 rendering opinions on at the time of final 25 hearing in this matter. 69 1 A. Okay. On-farm pump BMPs, rock pits, 2 chemical treatment, sediment -- sediment 3 control. There are one or two other topics 4 not related to on-farm BMPs, on-farm control 5 measures which may be included within my 6 scope. 7 Q. Before we go into that, the topics 8 that you have discussed, would they fall 9 within your understanding of on-farm practices 10 or measures? 11 A. With the exception of pump BMPs, 12 that list would also have application at a 13 regional or subregional scale. But those 14 topics are generally identified as on-farm 15 BMPs, or commonly identified. 16 Q. Do you anticipate providing 17 testimony and rendering opinions on algal turf 18 scrubbers? 19 A. No, I don't anticipate that. 20 MR. GAINES: Let me just state for 21 the record, I think it's obvious and I will 22 put it on the record at this point, that the 23 exact contours of Mr. Stewart's testimony will 24 to a certain extent be dictated by where the 25 District stands with its optimal plan, or 70 1 whatever the nomenclature, being used for it's 2 final mix that it comes up with. 3 And also by the Burns and McDonald 4 analysis which is supposed to come out in the 5 next month or so as to what their final 6 technology mix is going to be, and that some 7 of these things are still undetermined at this 8 time. 9 I am not comfortable with 10 eliminating, without qualification, certain 11 areas of testimony which might become more 12 germane as time goes by. 13 MR. MCGRATH: I understand. It 14 doesn't seem like anyone has related any final 15 opinions yet, so that doesn't come as a 16 surprise. 17 MR. GAINES: Well, I mean I think 18 Mr. Stewart has final opinions to express but, 19 you know, to a certain extent a lot -- 20 everyone is working with some moving targets 21 and trying to do the best they can. 22 MR. MCGRATH: I understand. I 23 understand. 24 Q. (BY MR. MCGRATH) With counsel's 25 clarification in mind, as you sit here today, 71 1 are there other alternatives that you 2 anticipate testifying about and rendering 3 opinions on at the time of final hearing? 4 A. I expect that I will be asked to 5 review the final Burns McDonald documents, 6 whatever documents are available between now 7 and the cut-off time, Brown and Caldwell and 8 their review of alternatives, and any other 9 drafts or final reports prepared by South 10 Florida Water Management District staff. 11 Q. But as of right now, are there any 12 subject matters or specific topics, specifics 13 alternatives, that you can anticipate 14 testifying about at the time of final hearing, 15 besides the ones that we have already 16 mentioned? 17 A. Well, just to be clear, I would like 18 to say that at a regional scale -- let me just 19 repeat the list: Rock pits, chemical 20 treatment, sedimentation control. 21 Q. Anything else? 22 A. I think that's essentially the list. 23 Q. Now, what do you mean or why are you 24 placing -- I don't want to portend to speak 25 for you, but why are you focusing on regional 72 1 scale? What is your intent in pointing that 2 out? 3 MR. GAINES: Well, I object to the 4 form in that he characterizes his testimony as 5 focusing on a regional scale. I think what he 6 said was that he gave you a list and then 7 realized that some of them weren't strictly 8 on-farm and I think your question had asked 9 for on-farm, and he was breaking that down for 10 you. But if my understanding is incorrect, 11 you can tell him. 12 Q. Why are you differentiating between 13 on-farm and regional? 14 A. The on-farm practices fit within the 15 definition of 40-E-63 although the 16 technologies may have application at larger 17 scale than 40-E-63 anticipates, and I did not 18 want those subjects to be categorized as being 19 limited to farm scale application. 20 Q. Do you intend testifying and 21 rendering opinions at the time of final 22 hearing that the regional scale items that you 23 have mentioned are alternatives to the 24 proposed storm water treatment area? 25 A. Alternatives to wetland treatment 73 1 areas, yes, alternatives to managed wetlands. 2 Q. But specifically, with respect to 3 the current SWIM Plan, will you be testifying 4 and rendering opinions that the regional scale 5 items that you have mentioned are alternatives 6 to the STAs, the storm water treatment areas 7 proposed by the SWIM Plan? 8 A. Yes, I will have comments on that 9 subject. 10 Q. Now, going back, part of your 11 initial tasks you have testified to were 12 monitoring the IFAS program studying BMPs; is 13 that correct? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Is it your understanding that the 16 IFAS program and the IFAS BMPs, are those BMPs 17 set forth in the current SWIM document? 18 A. Yes, but I believe the current SWIM 19 document provides some language which is 20 flexible enough that other on-farm BMPs can be 21 substituted for the IFAS BMPs. 22 Q. Based on your understanding of 23 40E63, are the SWIM Plan BMPs the only BMPs 24 that farmers may consider? 25 A. No. 74 1 Q. Are farmers within the EAA permitted 2 to propose alternate BMPs, BMPs separate from 3 those or different from those set forth in the 4 SWIM Plan, as far as your understanding of 5 40-E-63 goes? 6 MR. GAINES: To the extent that 7 these questions require the witness to draw 8 legal conclusions, I object to them, otherwise 9 he can answer it, to his understanding. 10 A. It's my understanding that 11 applicants can propose different BMPs or 12 modified BMPs. Until those permits are 13 granted, I don't know which ones will be 14 approved or not approved. 15 Q. (BY MR. MCGRATH) At the outset of 16 the work during the Everglades SWIM Plan, the 17 late 1991 or early 1992 period, what was your 18 understanding of the phosphorus reduction 19 sought or required by the SWIM Plan? 20 MR. GAINES: You mean with regard to 21 the BMPs? 22 MR. MCGRATH: With regard to the 23 BMPs. 24 A. I understood it to be 25 percent of 25 the historic load. 75 1 Q. (BY MR. MCGRATH) Do you have any 2 understanding of what that correlates to as 3 far as either standard tons or metric tons per 4 year reduction in phosphorus loading? 5 A. The number varies between perhaps 45 6 and 50 metric tons, depending upon what 7 historic load you are using at the moment. 8 Q. But keeping that in mind, it's your 9 understanding that the 45 to 50 metric ton 10 reduction corresponds to a 25 percent 11 reduction in the phosphorus discharges leaving 12 the EAA? 13 A. The phosphorus discharges that are 14 attributed to farm runoff, yes. 15 Q. What specifically was done as far as 16 monitoring the IFAS program regarding BMPs? 17 A. Reviewing several draft documents 18 and their final guide. I believe the title 19 was something like "Guide to Implementing 20 On-Farm Best Management Practices," something 21 of that nature. 22 Q. Are you referring to the work by 23 Izuno and Bottcher? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Izuno is, I-z-u-n-o, and Bottcher 76 1 is, B-o-t-t-c-h-e-r, I believe. Do you intend 2 or do you anticipate testifying and rendering 3 opinions at the time of final hearing on the 4 BMPs that are set forth in the SWIM document, 5 that are currently set forth in the SWIM 6 document? 7 A. Yes, that could be within my scope. 8 Q. Before I start asking specific 9 questions on your opinions, I would kind of 10 like to gain an understanding of the work that 11 was done, the chronology during which it was 12 done. You were talking about your role and 13 scope in the project would change week by week 14 as the project progressed. 15 After the initial tasks that you 16 have talked about, the monitoring of the IFAS 17 program, knowing what you knew regarding the 18 pump management practices with the Lake 19 Okeechobee work, Doctor Patrick's suggestion 20 regarding lime rock sorption, was there a 21 subsequent set of tasks generated regarding 22 the work in this area? 23 A. Well, the easy answer is yes, but 24 you weren't asking the question just to get a 25 yes. 77 1 Q. And the follow-up question being 2 what were the subsequent tasks? 3 A. In general, our approach to 4 evaluating any of these alternatives would 5 include a literature review, a review of South 6 Florida Water Management District records that 7 might be pertinent, discussion with the 8 industry as to impacts that the proposed 9 phosphorus reduction strategy would have on 10 their operations. 11 At this point, the approach diverges 12 depending upon the type of alternative that's 13 been looked at. Alternatives which affect the 14 timing or volume of water flow would then 15 undergo a hydrologic/hydraulic analysis of 16 some form. 17 Alternatives which deal with 18 concentration reductions would be reviewed 19 primarily from available literature, and in 20 some cases, may have some field data 21 collection performed. 22 Then the approaches would converge 23 again to a phosphorus load estimate usually as 24 a historic condition compared against a 25 proposed change. And at that point, we would 78 1 then report back to our client on that 2 specific alternative. 3 Q. Let's break down the alternatives. 4 You had first referenced alternatives relating 5 to the timing of volume of water flow, what 6 alternatives would fit in that category? 7 A. The various pump BMPs that were 8 proposed, the IFAS water management BMP, 9 aquatic cover crops, and I will say 10 conventional retention/detention systems. 11 Q. And by that are you referring to 12 such things as retention ponds and the like? 13 A. Yes, that was proposed by South 14 Florida Water Management District staff during 15 the review of the 40-E-63 permits. 16 Q. Do you mean the 40-E-61 permits? 17 A. No. 18 Q. 40-E-63? 19 A. 40-E-63. 20 Q. Okay. Excuse me. 21 A. Perhaps the time frame here is 22 stretching a bit. 23 Q. Are there any other alternatives 24 besides the ones that you have mentioned that 25 would fall within the category of the timing 79 1 and volume of water flow? 2 A. On the regional scale, the influence 3 of pump BMPs on inflows to the STAs. And also 4 the same deep injection wells that we 5 discussed in the lake basin, one of those 6 wells is also in the Everglades basin, and so 7 there is a hydraulic-related question on deep 8 injections wells. 9 Q. Any others? 10 A. I think that's pretty complete. 11 Q. And the same thing, could you 12 identify for me those alternatives that would 13 fit under the category of concentration 14 reduction. 15 A. Many of the IFAS BMPs are 16 concentration reduction BMPs, sediment 17 control, chemical treatment, lime rock 18 sorption, rock pits, that's the best I can do 19 at the moment. 20 Q. Do you consider lime rock sorption 21 and rock pits to be two separate alternatives? 22 A. Yes. 23 MR. MCGRATH: This would be probably 24 a good time to take a break. It's almost 12 25 o'clock. Do you want to just take a lunch 80 1 break? 2 (A luncheon recess was here had). 3 Q. (BY MR. MCGRATH) Mr. Stewart, let 4 me hand you -- I am not going to bother 5 marking this as an exhibit, your deposition, 6 but let me hand you a copy of the notice of 7 taking deposition and duces tecum that was 8 served with respect to your deposition here 9 today, and ask you first if you have ever seen 10 that document before? 11 A. Yes, I have. 12 Q. I would like you to turn to Page 3 13 of the attachment to that notice. I have 14 earmarked it and dog-eared it on the bottom. 15 This is the duces tecum portion directing you 16 to produce certain documents with respect to 17 this deposition. 18 Have you -- did you review this 19 portion of your deposition notice prior to 20 your deposition today? 21 A. Yes, I did. 22 Q. With respect to each category of 23 document designated, have you produced all 24 documents in your possession, or available to 25 you, responsive to each of these catergories? 81 1 A. Yes, on one through five, and eight 2 and nine -- I am sorry, seven and nine. On 3 items six and eight, after consulting with 4 counsel, we thought the questions were a 5 little broad. 6 Q. That's with respect to Paragraph 6 7 and Paragraph 8? 8 A. Yes. 9 MR. MCGRATH: I guess this should be 10 more properly towards counsel. Has any formal 11 objections ever been served with respect to 12 this duces tecum? 13 MR. GAINES: I don't believe we have 14 served any formal objections or asserted a 15 privilege at this time. Let me just state, 16 with regard to No. 6 and No. 8, they do appear 17 to be somewhat overly broad. No. 8, for 18 example, asked for basically any piece of 19 paper relating to the Everglades, as I read 20 it, and that would have been essentially the 21 entire office down there. 22 We tried to use some logic in 23 responding to this and produce things that are 24 related to the issues in the case and that 25 would have some bearing on Mr. Stewart's 82 1 testimony. 2 With regard to No. 6, analysis or 3 critique of work relating to the Everglades 4 WCAs or Everglades National Park performed by 5 fact and expert witnesses, included are 6 witnesses in this proceeding, I think, there 7 are a small number, I am not sure of the exact 8 amount, of documents that may have been 9 responsive with regard to the fact witness 10 portion that have been withheld as privileged. 11 MR. MCGRATH: Has there been a 12 privileged list generated and served with 13 respect to this witness? 14 MR. GAINES: No. 15 MR. MCGRATH: Will there be? 16 MR. GAINES: Yes. 17 MR. MCGRATH: Do you know when we 18 could anticipate receiving that? 19 MR. GAINES: How about if we get it 20 to you within ten days? 21 MR. MCGRATH: That would be fine. 22 MR. GAINES: I will make an effort 23 to get you that with regard to this witness. 24 I think there has been a lot of ongoing issues 25 about privileged lists in this case and 83 1 various parties' failure to supply those, but 2 we will go ahead and get that one done within 3 the next ten days. 4 Q. (BY MR. MCGRATH) Mr. Stewart, other 5 than with respect to documents that you have 6 referred to and your counsel has further 7 spoken about, are there documents that you are 8 aware of that would be responsive to the 9 catagories set forth in the duces tecum that 10 have not been produced? 11 A. No, there are no documents that I 12 know of that have not been produced. 13 Q. Have you ever been retained on 14 behalf of any party or individual as an expert 15 witness in a litigation related matter? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. How many times have you been 18 retained as an expert witness in a litigation 19 related matter? 20 A. Three times, only one of which went 21 to Court, or at an administrative hearing. 22 The two other cases were settled prior to 23 that. 24 Q. Can you tell us what those were. 25 A. The first one was a structural 84 1 engineering question relating to a roof 2 failure, a building code issue that was 3 settled out of Court. 4 The second was, again, a structural 5 related question of DPR, Department of 6 Professional Regulations, bringing action 7 against an engineer, and they called me as 8 their witness to review the engineer's work. 9 And the third was a case of South 10 Florida Water Management District versus 11 Strazulla Neville (phonetic), I would like to 12 say 1988, it might have been 1987, or 1988, 13 and South Florida retained me as an expert in 14 surface water management systems for 15 agricultural lands. This was an inverse 16 condemnation case. 17 Q. Is this last matter the matter that 18 actually went to either trial or final 19 administrative proceeding? 20 A. Yes, it went to trial. 21 Q. Did you testify at trial? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. What was the outcome of that case? 24 A. There were five or six items that 25 were being litigated and South Florida won 85 1 several points and lost on others. I couldn't 2 quote you the exact findings in the case. It 3 was a mixed -- a mixed decision. 4 Q. Was your deposition taken during 5 that case? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. With respect to the second matter 8 that you mentioned, you were retained on 9 behalf of the Department of Federal 10 Regulations? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. And that did not go to a trial or 13 final proceeding? 14 A. That's right. 15 Q. Did you give a deposition in that 16 case? 17 A. No, there was -- I gave -- I made 18 statements to the DPR attorneys and swore to 19 the accuracy of the written statements. 20 Q. The first matter, the structural 21 engineering building code issues, that also 22 did not go to trial, right? 23 A. That's correct. 24 Q. Did you give a deposition in that 25 case? 86 1 A. No. That again was -- I have 2 forgotten the legal term for it, but in lieu 3 of showing up in Court, sworn statements as to 4 the observations that I made and the 5 conclusions that I came to was provided. 6 Q. So is this the only the second time 7 you have ever been deposed? 8 A. That's correct. 9 Q. To your knowledge, is there anyone, 10 other than yourself, employed by Hutcheon 11 Engineers who is going to testify as an expert 12 in this administrative proceeding? 13 A. No, there is not anyone else. 14 Q. Let me hand you what we have just 15 marked as Exhibit No. 1 and ask if you could 16 identify that for me. 17 A. It's a copy of my corporate resume' 18 which is used for marketing purposes. 19 Q. Is this document the most current 20 version of your corporate resume'? 21 A. Yes, it is. 22 Q. When would this have been last 23 revised or edited? 24 A. Probably mid-1992. 25 Q. You have stated this was a corporate 87 1 resume', do you have a personal resume' 2 separate and apart from a corporate resume'? 3 A. No, no, I don't maintain a personal 4 resume'. 5 Q. Is this the only resume' document 6 that you are aware of? 7 A. For marketing purposes, the format 8 of my resume' categorizes my project 9 experience in certain catagories, and, 10 depending upon the project that we are 11 marketing, we will reassemble the resume' and 12 we may add to or subtract from this project 13 list depending upon the particular client and 14 the particular project. 15 This resume' would be used for 16 agricultural clients, surface water management 17 projects. Any large land development 18 projects, this would be the resume' that I 19 would use. The information that is here is 20 correct. It is just not all inclusive in 21 describing my project experience. 22 Q. Could you give us an idea of the 23 various permutations of this document, things 24 that would be included if given to other 25 clients that are not included in the document 88 1 that we have marked as Exhibit 1. 2 A. I would say that the categories 3 describing my experience are all represented 4 here and the different permutations of my 5 resume' would relate to the opening paragraph 6 in which we make a marketing decision whether 7 to highlight water management or highlight 8 airports or municipal projects, depending upon 9 the project that is being pursued along the 10 theory that the person reviewing the document 11 will read the first paragraph and may not read 12 the following 12 pages. 13 Q. You have made reference to this 14 being a corporate resume' for marketing 15 purposes, and I am wondering if you have a 16 separate resume' for the corporation for other 17 purposes that might go into greater detail 18 regarding your technical experience or some 19 other aspect such as that? 20 A. No, this is the only resume' that I 21 have. 22 Q. You obtained a Master's in 23 Engineering from the University of Florida in 24 1978; is that correct? 25 A. That's correct. 89 1 Q. Is your Master's Degree in Civil 2 Engineering? 3 A. Yes, it is. 4 Q. Were you required to prepare a 5 thesis as part of your Master's requirements? 6 A. The University of Florida had an 7 option where I could take additional course 8 work and write a reduced form of a thesis that 9 they refer to as a Master's Report. 10 Q. Is that what you did? 11 A. Yes, I did. 12 Q. What was the topic or subject matter 13 of your Master's Report? 14 A. It was applications of personal 15 programmable calculators to several 16 engineering problems. The specific subject 17 area that I chose was structural engineering. 18 Q. Was there any particular focus of 19 your Master's studies? 20 A. My focus was structural engineering 21 but curriculum requirements caused me to take 22 an equal number of hours in soil mechanics and 23 geotechnical topics. 24 Q. With respect to your undergraduate 25 degree, do you recall what your class rank 90 1 was? 2 A. No, I don't. 3 Q. Going through some of the 4 information on the first page, you received 5 your professional engineering license in 1981? 6 A. I believe it was 1981, yes. 7 Q. When did you receive your 8 certification as a special inspector? 9 A. Let me see -- 1987 -- I think 1987. 10 Q. What was required for you to obtain 11 that certification? 12 A. That certification, I will say, is 13 self-certifying. The Florida Board of 14 Building Codes and Standards, in response to 15 the Cocoa Beach condo failure -- that was a 16 defined event in time where a multi-story 17 building under construction collapsed killing 18 a number of workmen -- 19 And as a result of that collapse, 20 the Florida legislature passed a law that 21 called for a special inspector be responsible 22 for shoring details and connection details on 23 a project that passed a certain threshhold. 24 To initiate the program, there was a 25 self-certifying procedure where a structural 91 1 engineer could submit his project experience, 2 his academic experience to the State of 3 Florida, and they would then register that 4 architect or engineer as a threshhold building 5 inspector. 6 Q. So, in other words, there was not a 7 specific examination or a test that had to be 8 passed in order to obtain that certification? 9 A. That's correct, it was based on a 10 resume' and, I believe, personal references. 11 Q. With respect to your professional 12 organizations, can you tell me what the 13 Society of America of Value Engineers is? 14 A. Value Engineering is a relatively 15 new technical specialty that endeavors to 16 either reduce the cost or improve the quality 17 of products or projects. 18 It uses a very organized a