1
1 Division of Administrative Hearings
2 Department of Administration, State of Florida
3
SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE )
4 of FLORIDA; ROTH FARMS, INC.; and )
WEDGWORTH FARMS, Inc., )
5 Petitioners )
V ) DOAH Case
6 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT ) 92-3038
DISTRICT, an agency of the State )
7 of Florida; et al., )
Respondents. )
8
FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, INC.; )
9 UNITED STATES SUGAR CORPORATION; )
and NEW HOPE SOUTH, INC., )
10 Petitioners, )
V ) DOAH Case
11 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT ) 92-3039
DISTRICT, an agency of the State )
12 of Florida; et al., )
Respondents. )
13
FLORIDA FRUIT and VEGETABLE )
14 ASSOCIATION; LEWIS POPE FARMS; )
W. E. SCHLECHTER & SONS, INC., )
15 and HUNDLEY FARMS, INC., )
Petitioners, )
16 V ) DOAH Case
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT ) 92-3040
17 DISTRICT, an agency of the State )
of Florida; et al., )
18 Respondents. )
19
20 Deposition of Sharon Trost
21 Taken before Elaine V. Williams,
Professional Reporter and Notary Public in and for
22 the State of Florida at large, pursuant to notice of
taking deposition filed by the Plaintiffs in the
23 above cause.
- - -
24 Thursday, October 29, 1992
319 Clematis Street, 5th Floor
25 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
9:20 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
2
1 APPEARANCES:
2
On behalf of the Petitioners Florida Sugar
3 Cane League, Inc., United States Sugar Corp.,
and New South Hope, Inc.:
4 Peeples, Earl & Blank, P.A.
One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3636
5 Two South Biscayne Boulevard
Miami, Florida 33131
6 By: MARK KOBELINSKI, ESQUIRE
7 On behalf of the Respondent SFWMD:
South Florida Water Management District
8 3301 Gun Club Road
West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680
9 By: JACQUELYN W. BIRCH, ESQUIRE
10 On behalf of the Intervenor, United States of America:
Department of Justice
11 1299 East Broward Blvd.
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301
12 BY: ROBERT ROSENBERG, ESQUIRE
13 On behalf of the Petitioners Sugar Cane Growers:
Hopping, Boyd, Green & Sams
14 123 South Calhoun Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32314
15 By: GARY PERKO, ESQUIRE
16
17 Also Present: Courtney T. Hackney, Ph.D.
18 - - -
3
1 - - -
2 I N D E X
3 - - -
4
5 WITNESS: DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS
6
7
8 SHARON TROST
9 BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 5
10
11 - - -
E X H I B I T S
12 - - -
13 NUMBER PAGE DESCRIPTION
14 NO. 1 7 CV
NO. 2 47 6/23/86 memo to Light from Burns
15 NO. 3 56 7/8/87 memo to Agricultural Water
Use Task Force Members from Burns
16 NO. 4 58 12/16/87 memo to Distribution list
from Bidol
17 NO. 5 65 11 page handwritten notes and memo
on Brainstorming
18 NO. 6 87 Corps memo
NO. 7 92 4/3/89 Steering Committee memo
19 NO. 8 103 4/12/89 memo to Branscome through
Roads
20 NO. 9 106 4/13/89 memo to Branscome through
Rhoads
21 NO. 10 107 5/15/89 memo to Steering Committee
from Brooks
22 NO. 11 112 5/16/89 memo to Rhoads from Rogers
NO. 12 114 Draft of Everglades Hydroperiod
23 Task Group report
NO. 13 117 6/16/89 memo to Steering Committee
24 from Brooks
NO. 14 121 6/28/89 memo to Trimble from Trost
25 NO. 15 125 7/8/89 memo to Steering Committee
from Brooks
4
1 EXHIBITS CONTINUED
2
3
4 NUMBER PAGE DESCRIPTION
5 NO. 16 126 8/18/89 memo to Marban from Trost
NO. 17 132 SWIM plan cost share options report
6 NO. 18 133 Distribution list and summary of
public meetings
7 NO. 19 134 9/20/89 memo to Sculley from Trimble
NO. 20 137 10/16/89 memo to SWIM Plan reviewers
8 from Whalen
NO. 21 139 9/24/89 memo to SWIM Plan reviewers
9 from Whalen
NO. 22 143 4/26/90 memo to Executive Council
10 from Federico, et al.
NO. 23 143 5/17/90 memo to Executive Council
11 from Harvey
NO. 24 143 7/23/90 memo on Agricultural Demand
12 Management
NO. 25 146 6/24/90 memo on Agricultural Demand
13 Management
NO. 26 152 7/31/90 handwritten meeting notes
14 NO. 27 156 12/4/90 note to MacVicar from Trost
NO. 28 161 5/28/91 memo to Jones from Fontaine
15 NO. 29 161 6/19/91 memo to Koch from Swift
NO. 30 162 11/20/91 memo to Wedderburn from
16 MacVicar
NO. 31 164 water supply evaluation-early draft
17 NO. 32 164 water supply evaluation-later draft
5
1 P R O C E E D I N G S
2 - - -
3 Thereupon,
4 Sharon Trost,
5 being by the undersigned Notary Public first duly
6 sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
7 THE WITNESS: I do.
8 DIRECT (Sharon Trost)
9 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
10 Q. Would you please state your name and
11 address for the record?
12 A. Sharon M. Trost, 304 Potter Road, West Palm
13 Beach, Florida 33405.
14 Q. Good morning, Ms. Trost. My name is Mark
15 Kobelinski. I am with the law firm of Peeples,
16 Earl & Blank. We represent the United States Sugar
17 Corporation and New Hope South, Incorporated and the
18 Florida Sugar Cane League in a SWIM challenge,
19 Everglades SWIM challenge, proceedings. I believe
20 you are aware of that. Have you ever been deposed
21 before?
22 A. Yes, I have.
23 Q. Then you're probably aware that a
24 deposition is a means by which parties to be at
25 litigation or administrative proceeding have the
6
1 opportunity to ask questions of individuals under
2 oath to find out what information they have with
3 regard to the issues involved in their action.
4 During the course of the next day or two I
5 will be asking you questions, and I will ask you to
6 go ahead and respond to them fully, completely and
7 truthfully. If you don't understand a question,
8 please tell me that you don't understand it. I'll go
9 ahead and rephrase it. If you don't remember the
10 answer to a question or you don't know, simply state
11 I don't remember, I don't know. Those are the
12 accurate and sufficient responses. Please respond
13 verbally. The court reporter can't take down nods.
14 And if we go by those grounds rules -- and also
15 please don't assume anything, or if you feel
16 compelled to assume in response to a question, please
17 let us know you are assuming facts you are not truly
18 aware of. If we play by those ground rules, I think
19 it will go pretty smoothly; all right?
20 A. Okay.
21 Q. To start with, I would like to get a bit of
22 your educational background and your work experience.
23 And in that regard, I would like this marked as
24 Exhibit 1. Trost Exhibit 1.
7
1 (The document was marked
2 Trost Exb. No. 1.)
3 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
4 Q. Miss Trost, I am showing you what has been
5 marked as Trost Exhibit Number 1. I ask you to
6 review that document and tell me whether or not you
7 have ever seen that before. And particularly I ask
8 is the last page that is attached to that, which
9 bears bates numbers 0780957, a part of this document,
10 to your knowledge?
11 A. No, it is not.
12 Q. Okay. Then if you would just go ahead and
13 remove that, if it is not properly a part of what I
14 believe is your resume'; is that correct?
15 A. Resume' as of whatever date this was
16 prepared. It is not current.
17 Q. That was my next question. Is this a
18 current copy of your resume'?
19 A. Well, it does say 10/90 to present, so I
20 guess it could be called a current copy. I still
21 have the same position, title.
22 Q. Starting with your education, Miss Trost,
23 could you tell us where you received an undergraduate
24 degree?
25 A. At Lehigh University in Bethlehem,
8
1 Pennsylvania.
2 Q. And what was that degree in?
3 A. Geological sciences.
4 Q. What exactly is a degree in geological
5 science? Could you briefly describe the type of
6 program it was?
7 A. The geological sciences degree focuses on
8 gaining an understanding of the earth's resources,
9 including rocks, minerals, oil, water and other
10 natural gases. The program consists of about 130
11 credits spread out between a number of fields. At
12 least 50 credits must be within the geology and
13 related sciences.
14 Q. And that is a four-year program; is that
15 correct, ma'am?
16 A. Yes, it is.
17 Q. Did you concentrate in any particular area
18 within the geological sciences degree?
19 A. No, I did not.
20 Q. And approximately how many credits would
21 you have studied in relation to water resources
22 geological resources?
23 A. In the undergraduate degree?
24 Q. Yes, ma'am.
25 A. I believe it was six credits.
9
1 Q. And did you receive any additional or did
2 you have any additional education after that degree?
3 A. Yes, I attended the University of Arizona
4 in Tucson, Arizona, where I conducted graduate
5 studies in hydrology and water resource
6 administration.
7 Q. How many courses or credits did you take in
8 that regard?
9 A. Approximately 40 credits.
10 Q. Could you give a brief description of the
11 variety of courses you took in that program?
12 A. The majority of the courses were related to
13 ground water resources, including aquifer mechanics,
14 hydrologic systems, soil physics, ground water
15 hydrology, seminars in advance topics, water resource
16 administration, water resource law, differential
17 equations, and that is all the titles I remember
18 right now.
19 Q. All right. What is the difference between
20 water resource administration and hydrology?
21 A. Water resource administration focuses on
22 methodologies to manage water and related resources,
23 including governmental issues and scientific issues,
24 and trying to mesh them to make resource management
25 decisions. Hydrology is the study of water, the
10
1 cycle of water; be it ground water or surface water.
2 Q. With regard to your water resource
3 administration studies at the University of Arizona,
4 did you take any course work in urban water needs or
5 wasn't it divided up in that manner as far as the
6 need for water?
7 A. No, it is not.
8 Q. Okay. Did you receive a degree from the
9 University of Arizona?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Was there a degree for the area of study
12 that you were in?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. What approximately did you need to complete
15 the program to obtain a degree?
16 A. Completion of a thesis.
17 Q. Have you worked on a thesis?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. What was that thesis in?
20 A. Combining physical and management ground
21 water models.
22 Q. Were the models that you mentioned with
23 regard to your thesis pertaining to any particular
24 geographic area?
25 A. No. They are generic.
11
1 Q. Have you completed a thesis?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Did you work during the period of time
4 you're conducting your graduate studies?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Where did you work, ma'am?
7 A. I worked in Arizona surveying subsidence
8 fishers in the Picaho Valley, and I worked for the
9 United States Environmental Protection Agency in
10 Washington, D.C.
11 Q. With regard to the surveying of subsidence
12 and -- I'm sorry, where was that you were studying
13 subsidence?
14 A. In southern Arizona.
15 Q. Who was that done for?
16 A. I forget his last name. It was a professor
17 with the United States Geological Survey in Menlo
18 Park, California.
19 Q. Were you then employed by the USGS?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Just by the professor?
22 A. Uh-huh.
23 Q. You mentioned the Environmental Protection
24 Agency in Washington, D.C.
25 A. Yes.
12
1 Q. What was it you did for them?
2 A. I worked as a task force hydrologist on
3 Love Canal.
4 Q. During what period was this?
5 A. This was in 1979.
6 Q. What portion of the year?
7 A. I believe it was from May to September.
8 Q. What were your responsibilities with regard
9 to being a task force hydrologist on the Love Canal?
10 A. My responsibilities were to collect data
11 and scientific literature on the area, to visit the
12 site, to evaluate and monitor the network, and to
13 propose possible cleanup solutions of the hazardous
14 materials.
15 Q. Did you produce a report with regard to
16 your work as a hydrologist on the Love Canal?
17 A. No. I produced a number of work products
18 that were given to my supervisor. They may have used
19 them for other reports.
20 Q. And who was your supervisor?
21 A. Doctor Paul DeSrosier.
22 Q. And he was with the EPA; is that correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Out of Washington, D.C.?
25 A. Yes.
13
1 Q. After 1979, what was your work experience,
2 ma'am?
3 A. My work experience also included a research
4 assistantship at the university quarter-time, which I
5 did not mention.
6 Q. Was that in a particular area?
7 A. No. It was basically odd jobs for various
8 professors; going to the library and getting them
9 references and summarizing things for them.
10 Q. After that, ma'am?
11 A. The South Florida Water Management
12 District.
13 Q. When did you start with the South Florida
14 Water Management District?
15 A. November 1980.
16 Q. For the purposes of this District, I'll be
17 referring to the South Florida Water Management
18 District as the District. Is that all right with
19 you?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. So when I say the District, I actually mean
22 the South Florida Water Management District, since it
23 is a relatively long name. What did you initially do
24 for the District?
25 A. I started as a staff hydrogeologist.
14
1 Q. What were your responsibilities?
2 A. My responsibilities were to develop a
3 reconnaissance report regarding the water resources
4 of the Kissimmee basin.
5 Q. Is that the water resources of the
6 Kissimmee basin?
7 A. Ground water resources.
8 Q. Did you work with anyone on that project?
9 A. Yes, I did.
10 Q. Who did you work with?
11 A. Jonathan Shaw.
12 Q. Do you recall what Mr. Shaw's position was
13 at the time?
14 A. He was also a hydrogeologist.
15 Q. Was he a staff hydrogeologist, as you?
16 A. I don't recall his exact title. He may
17 have been a hydrogeologist III or something.
18 Q. Was he your supervisor?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Did you have a supervisor with regard to
21 this project?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Who was that?
24 A. Dr. Leslie Wedderburn.
25 Was that an ongoing project at the time you
15
1 joined the District?
2 A. I believe it had just started within a few
3 months of my joining the District.
4 Q. Was there anyone else working on it other
5 than Jonathan Shaw and yourself?
6 A. There were support technicians and well
7 drillers also working on it.
8 Q. Were they working underneath your
9 direction?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Did Mr. Wedderburn have any active role in
12 this project?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. What was his responsibility or role?
15 A. Dr. Wedderburn's responsibilities were to
16 give us oversight on other human resources within the
17 division, to review our work products and determine
18 whether they were technically acceptable.
19 Q. And what were your responsibilities with
20 regard to the project?
21 A. My responsibilities focused on determining
22 the water yielding potential of the Floridan Aquifer
23 System.
24 Q. What were Mr. Shaw's responsibilities with
25 regard to the project?
16
1 A. Mr. Shaw's responsibilities focused upon
2 water quality aspects.
3 Q. Would that be water quality of ground
4 water?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And did you complete a report with regard
7 to that project?
8 A. Yes, we did.
9 Q. When was that completed?
10 A. I believe it was published in January of
11 1984.
12 Q. And do you recall the title of that
13 publication?
14 A. The Hydrogeology of the Kissimmee Planning
15 Area, South Florida Water Management District.
16 Q. Commencing in November 1980 -- I am just
17 going to briefly take you through the years to see
18 what your responsibilities were -- do I understand
19 that during 1980, this was your primary and basic
20 sole responsibility; this project?
21 A. Yes. I had other small responsibilities,
22 but this was my primary responsibility.
23 Q. Going into 1981 --
24 A. This was from 1980 to when the report was
25 published in January of 1984.
17
1 Q. Okay. 1981 then approximately what
2 percentage of your time was taken up by this project?
3 A. In 1981, approximately 85 percent of my
4 time.
5 Q. The other 15 percent, was it spent as to
6 one particular project or just a variety of smaller
7 tasks?
8 A. Most of the other 15 percent was spent on a
9 project I worked with Dr. Wedderburn on.
10 Q. And what was that project?
11 A. We were producing a report entitled
12 Management of Water Levels in the Frog Pond Area of
13 South Dade County.
14 Q. 1982 then, approximately how much of your
15 time was spent on the Kissimmee hydrologic project?
16 A. About 95 percent.
17 Q. Did you continue to do any work on the frog
18 pond study?
19 A. Not to my recollection.
20 Q. The other five percent, was it spent with
21 regards to one project or a variety of tasks?
22 A. Variety of tasks.
23 Q. Okay. 1983 what percentage of your time
24 approximately was spent on the Kissimmee hydrologic
25 project?
18
1 A. Approximately 50 percent of my time.
2 Q. With regard to the other 50 percent, what
3 were your duties at that point?
4 A. I was assigned to become project manager of
5 a study in the Upper East Coast Planning Area.
6 Q. And what was the project with regard to
7 that?
8 A. The purpose of the project was to develop a
9 two-dimensional ground water model of the Floridan
10 Aquifer in Martin, St. Lucie and eastern Okeechobee
11 counties.
12 Q. Did you say eastern Okeechobee County?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And what percentage of your time in 1983
15 was spent on that project?
16 A. In 1983?
17 Q. Yes.
18 A. Approximately 50 percent of my time.
19 Q. Going into 1984, approximately how much of
20 your time was spent on the Kissimmee hydrologic
21 project?
22 A. Zero. We published the report in January
23 of '84.
24 Q. Okay. And how much of your time was spent
25 then on the Upper East Coast Modeling Project?
19
1 A. Approximately 90 percent.
2 Q. Is the remaining 10 percent of your time
3 spent on any one particular project or a variety of
4 tasks?
5 A. A variety of tasks.
6 Q. Going into 1985, could you tell me
7 approximately what percentage of your time was spent
8 on the Upper East Coast Modeling Project?
9 A. Approximately 35 percent.
10 Q. What were your other responsibilities
11 during that year?
12 A. During that year I also had
13 responsibilities for a number of other tasks on
14 different drilling and testing problems, aquifer
15 testing problems going on in the division, and I was
16 also promoted to the Acting Division Director.
17 Q. What division would that be?
18 A. Hydrogeology Division.
19 Q. Is that the same division you had been in
20 since 1981 or 1980?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Who was it you replaced?
23 A. Nagranda Khanal.
24 Q. Did your duties as the Acting Division
25 Director -- and you also mentioned that you had spent
20
1 substantial amount of time with regard to various
2 aquifer testing problems -- did that comprise the
3 remaining approximately 65 percent of your duties in
4 1985?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Okay. In 1986 what percentage of your time
7 was spent on the Upper East Coast Modeling Project?
8 A. Zero.
9 Q. Was that project completed during 1985?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. If you could tell me what your duties were
12 then in 1986?
13 A. In 1986 I supervised a division of
14 approximately 22 or 23 people that was responsible
15 for obtaining aquifer and ground water information
16 for the Water Management District. We had to oversee
17 drilling rigs, geophysical logging, aquifer testing,
18 water quality sampling, water level collection in
19 aquifers, development of ground water modeling tools,
20 preparation of technical reports, and providing
21 assistance to other divisions as needed.
22 Q. Is this the Hydrogeology Division that you
23 are referring to?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Did you remain as the division director
21
1 then during 1986?
2 A. Yes, I did.
3 Q. Given the fact that you were the Division
4 Director, were you able to devote any substantial
5 portion of your time to one particular project or
6 were your duties as Division Director spread across
7 the board that you just explained?
8 A. What I just explained. Spread across the
9 board.
10 Q. Could you briefly summarize your duties in
11 1987?
12 A. The same as 1986.
13 Q. Were you still acting as the Acting
14 Division Director or at some point did you become the
15 permanent Division Director?
16 A. I became the permanent Division Director in
17 1985.
18 Q. Oh. Perhaps I misunderstood. I believe
19 you previously had stated Acting Division Director.
20 A. I became Acting Director in 1985 and I was
21 promoted to Director in 1985.
22 Q. Thank you very much.
23 The Hydrogeology Division, what department
24 is that in at the District?
25 A. In 1987?
22
1 Q. Would it have changed from 1981 through
2 1987?
3 A. No. It was in the Resource Planning
4 Department.
5 Q. As a director of the Hydrogeology Division,
6 who was your supervisor?
7 A. I had several supervisors through that
8 five-year period that I was director of that
9 division.
10 Q. Okay. In 1985 who would your superior have
11 been?
12 A. Alan Hall and Peter Rhoads.
13 Q. In 1986?
14 A. Alan Hall and Peter Rhoads.
15 Q. In 1987?
16 A. Alan Hall and Peter Rhoads, but sometime in
17 1987, I think, it switched to Leslie Wedderburn and
18 Peter Rhoads.
19 Q. With regard to 1987, did you devote any
20 substantial portion of your time to any one
21 particular project?
22 A. No, I did not.
23 Q. In 1988 could you tell me what your
24 responsibilities were? Did you remain as the
25 director?
23
1 A. I remained as a director of the
2 Hydrogeology Division.
3 Q. And who were your supervisors?
4 A. Dr. Leslie Wedderburn and Peter Rhoads.
5 Q. Other than your duties as the director of
6 the hydrogeology division, were you able to devote
7 any substantial portion of your time to any one
8 particular project?
9 A. No, no.
10 Q. Did you have any additional duties in 1988
11 other than those associated with being director of
12 the hydrogeology division?
13 A. Yes. I was a member of a number of
14 District task forces, including the Equal Employment
15 Opportunities Task Force, the Agricultural Water Use
16 Task Force.
17 Q. Other than those two task forces, did you
18 participate in any additional projects or task
19 forces?
20 A. I initiated some work on a project to
21 develop a water supply policy framework for the South
22 Florida Water Management District.
23 Q. I'm sorry, was that water supply policy for
24 the District; the entire District?
25 A. Yes.
24
1 Q. With this last task, the water supply
2 policy, would that normally have fallen into the
3 responsibility of the hydrogeology division?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Would it have been the responsibility of
6 the Resource Planning Department?
7 A. It would have been the responsibility of a
8 number of departments.
9 Q. Were you working on one particular portion
10 of that or were you heading the overall preparation
11 of the water supply policy document?
12 A. I worked on that project with three other
13 individuals and we worked as a team.
14 Q. Who were the three other individuals?
15 A. Scott Burns, Elizabeth Ross, Steve Lamb.
16 Q. Was it Ross, R-o-s-s?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. What department or division was Steve Lamb
19 in at the District at this time?
20 A. The Regulation Department.
21 Q. And Elizabeth Ross?
22 A. The Office of Counsel.
23 Q. Was she an attorney?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And Scott Burns?
25
1 A. The Resource Planning Department.
2 Q. What division?
3 A. Hydrogeology.
4 Q. Was he one of your -- would you refer to
5 him as an employee?
6 A. My subordinate.
7 Q. Subordinate. Thank you.
8 What was Mr. Burns' responsibility with
9 regard to the water policy project; water supply
10 policy project?
11 A. Together, all four members of the team went
12 through existing law and statute and rule to make a
13 compendium of everything we could find related to
14 water resources in Florida law. We then tried to
15 distill that down to a workable set of guidelines for
16 the Water Management District to manage water supply.
17 Q. There are other water management districts
18 outside the South Florida Water Management District
19 in Florida; is that correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Are you aware whether or not any of the
22 other districts have put together a water supply
23 policy paper, as you did?
24 A. We were the first to do it, but a number of
25 them are working on this project as a requirement.
26
1 Q. Okay. I believe you answered my next
2 question; which is, were you then the first? The
3 South Florida Water Management District was the first
4 one to put out such a paper; is that correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Had you been working on any of these three
7 task forces that you just mentioned in 1987?
8 A. I don't recall when I started on those
9 because it's been five or six years now.
10 Q. With regard to Agricultural Water Use Task
11 Force, what was the purpose of that task force?
12 A. The purpose of that task force was to
13 examine the time frames that we had for renewal of
14 agricultural water use permits in the various basins
15 throughout the District and to determine what type of
16 information we would need to effectively evaluate the
17 permit applications as they came up for renewal.
18 Q. This was a planning type document then?
19 A. I guess. I'm not sure what you would call
20 it.
21 Q. Did you actually, for instance, conduct any
22 studies of the agricultural water use in the various
23 areas of the District as part of this task force?
24 A. No.
25 Q. I believe that brings us to 1989. What
27
1 were your duties in 1989?
2 A. In 1989 I was promoted to the director of
3 water supply planning.
4 Q. Is that a division?
5 A. Yes, that is a division.
6 Q. Is it still within the Resource Planning
7 Department?
8 A. No. There was a reorganization.
9 Q. And what basically occurred during this
10 reorganization? How are the divisions different?
11 A. The Resource Planning Department split into
12 two departments; the new Planning Department and the
13 new Department of Research and Evaluation.
14 Q. What was the second department? I'm sorry.
15 A. Department of Research and Evaluation.
16 Q. And what department was the Water Supply
17 Planning Division?
18 A. It was in the new Planning Department.
19 Q. Did this result in a change as to who your
20 supervisor was?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And who was that supervisor?
23 A. James Harvey and Richard Rogers.
24 Q. What was Mr. Harvey's position?
25 A. Deputy director of the Planning Department.
28
1 Q. And Mr. Rogers?
2 A. Director of the Planning Department
3 (Thereupon, a recess was taken.)
4 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
5 Q. What were the responsibilities of the Water
6 Supply Planning Division? Was this a newly
7 created -- I'm sorry, before I ask that -- was this a
8 newly created division as a result of the
9 restructuring?
10 A. Yes, it was newly created, and it started
11 on October 1 of 1989, I believe. The
12 responsibilities of the division were to develop
13 broad-based 20-year time horizon water supply plans
14 for four major geographic areas of the Water
15 Management District. These plans were to look at
16 projected water demands, sources of water supply,
17 areas anticipated to run into problems, and the plans
18 were to propose remedial solutions.
19 Q. With regard to these 20-year water supply
20 plans, was this a new approach being taken by the
21 division -- excuse me -- by the District?
22 A. The District had previously developed water
23 supply plans but this approach was somewhat
24 different.
25 Q. Were the prior water supply plans not 20-
29
1 year plans or were they shorter plans?
2 A. I'm not sure of the time frames of the
3 prior plans.
4 Q. Who was responsible prior to the creation
5 of the water supply planning division for the
6 preparation of the District's water supply plans?
7 A. There had not been a plan produced since
8 '78 or '80, so the division and department were
9 created to address that need.
10 Q. How many people were in the water supply
11 planning division? This is as of October '89.
12 A. Approximately --
13 Q. I'm not asking their names.
14 A. Approximately 30.
15 Q. If you could just generally tell me the
16 composition of the 30 people as far as, for instance,
17 engineers, hydrogeologists, modelers; in broad
18 categories.
19 A. The titles of their expertise or the
20 number?
21 Q. I was just saying more like the number, but
22 whatever is easiest for you to try and describe the
23 make-up of the 30 people in the department.
24 A. It is a division, not a department.
25 Q. I'm sorry. Division.
30
1 A. The make-up of the 30 people was several
2 disciplines including hydrogeologists, approximately
3 four; engineers, approximately eight or nine;
4 environmental scientists, approximately four or five;
5 planner economist types, about three or four of
6 those; and a number between eight and ten
7 administrative and technical support technicians,
8 clerks, computer applications people.
9 Q. Could you repeat how many environmental
10 scientists? That is the one I missed.
11 A. I believe it was five.
12 Q. What were the four geographic areas of the
13 District? How was the District divided into those
14 four geographic areas?
15 A. The four geographic areas are the Kissimmee
16 Planning Area, which extends from Orlando to Lake
17 Okeechobee, 20 or 30 miles on either side of the
18 Kissimmee River, and includes the Indian Prairie dash
19 Lake Istokpoga basin. The second area is the Upper
20 East Coast Planning Area. That includes Martin, St.
21 Lucie and the very extreme eastern edge, less than a
22 mile, of Okeechobee County. The next area is the
23 Lower West Coast Area, which includes portions of
24 Glades, Charlotte, Hendry counties and all of Lee and
25 Collier -- no, all of Lee and most of Collier
31
1 counties. And the final area is the remaining area,
2 and that is the area served by the Central and
3 Southern Florida Flood Control Project, the Lower
4 East Coast Planning Area. That is southern Palm
5 Beach County, Broward, Dade and Monroe County.
6 Q. You mentioned a few moments ago that the
7 restructuring and the creation of the water supply
8 planning division occurred in October of '89. During
9 the initial ten months or so of that year, were your
10 duties and responsibilities equivalent to those of
11 1988?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Were you still working on the water supply
14 policy? I don't know if you referred to that as a
15 task force or not.
16 A. No. The water supply policy working group.
17 Yes, I was.
18 Q. And the Agricultural Water Use Task Force?
19 A. No. I believe that that task force
20 completed its work in around 1988. Around September
21 of '88.
22 Q. And the Equal Opportunities Task Force?
23 A. That is an ongoing task force, and I am
24 still a member of that.
25 Q. With regard to 1989, were there any
32
1 additional task forces or groups; projects you were
2 working on?
3 A. I was on another advisory committee, but I
4 can't remember the year that that was initiated.
5 Q. What advisory committee was that?
6 A. Rule Making Advisory Committee.
7 Q. What were the responsibilities of the Rule
8 Making Advisory Committee?
9 A. Responsibilities are to review the docket
10 and both the administrative rules and the resource
11 related rules that the District initiates, and to
12 make sure that proper documentation has been
13 collected, and that there are resources people
14 available to work on different rule making projects,
15 which include setting up the public hearings and
16 running public meetings and Governing Board
17 presentations.
18 Q. Is that an ongoing committee or was that to
19 just put out a particular type of paper?
20 A. No, that is an ongoing committee. It is a
21 administrative committee.
22 Q. Are you still on that committee?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. 1990. Could you briefly describe for me
25 your responsibilities in 1990?
33
1 A. From late '89 through early 1990 I was
2 basically getting that division up and running and
3 trying to get them to focus on developing detailed
4 schedules for when these different water supply plans
5 would be ready and what kind of information would be
6 included in those plans. In the middle of that year
7 the department reorganized and the divisions in the
8 department were split out into new divisions.
9 Q. Did the reorganization that took place in
10 1990 have any impact upon the water supply planning
11 division?
12 A. Yes, it did. From 1989 through 1990 there
13 were four divisions in the planning department.
14 Environmental planning, water supply planning, land
15 and water planning, and basin planning --five
16 divisions -- government assistance division.
17 The four planning divisions were recombined
18 and then broken out into geographic areas: Lower
19 District planning, which was responsible for all
20 planning activities comprised within the Central and
21 Southern Florida Flood Control District counties; and
22 Upper District planning, which was the other 12
23 counties of the District, the Kissimmee Planning
24 Area, the upper east coast and the lower west coast.
25 I am the director of that division; the Upper
34
1 District Planning Division.
2 Q. Was there a reorganization in 1991?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Approximately when did this reorganization
5 occur in 1990?
6 A. I believe it occurred on October 1st of
7 1990. Usually it coincides with the fiscal year, for
8 budget purposes.
9 Q. There are now then just two divisions
10 within the Planning Department? Is it still referred
11 to as a Planning Department?
12 A. Yes. But there was another reorganization
13 in '92.
14 Q. Okay. As of 1990 --
15 A. Okay. I'm sorry.
16 Q. -- were there then only two divisions,
17 after the organization within the Planning
18 Department?
19 A. No. It went from five divisions down to
20 four divisions, okay, and the reorganization in 1990,
21 it went from -- wait a minute, let me back up -- from
22 1989 to 1990 there were different divisions.
23 Q. Okay.
24 A. In 1990 there were four divisions as a
25 result of that reorganization.
35
1 Q. One was the Lower District Planning
2 Division?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Another was the Upper District Planning
5 Division?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. What were the other two divisions?
8 A. The Comprehensive Planning Division and the
9 Government Assistance Division.
10 Q. And you were the director of the Upper
11 District Planning Division?
12 A. That is correct.
13 Q. Although you are now working with a smaller
14 geographic area than was involved in the Water Supply
15 Planning Division, did your responsibilities expand
16 with regard to that particular geographic area?
17 A. Yes. When I had been the Director of Water
18 Supply Planning, my responsibility focused on
19 developing water supply plans. In this new position,
20 I am also responsible for the development of SWIM
21 plans for that geographic area, stormwater management
22 master plans, flood control protects, planning and
23 water supply plans. I am also responsible for
24 reviewing certain components of local government
25 comprehensive plans.
36
1 MR. KOBELINSKI: Could you read back the
2 second half of that answer?
3 (Thereupon, a portion of the record
4 was read by the reporter.)
5 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
6 Q. Did your supervisor change as a result of
7 the reorganization?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Who is your new supervisor?
10 A. I still had James Harvey, but Mr. Rogers
11 moved into the Regulation Department, so we no longer
12 had a Deputy Department Director. Mr. Harvey's the
13 Department Director.
14 Q. So Mr. Harvey was then your sole
15 supervisor?
16 A. That is correct.
17 Q. Did you have any additional responsibility
18 during the course of 1990 in addition to being the
19 head of the Water Supply Planning Division and the
20 Director of the Upper District Planning Division? As
21 I understand from your previous testimony, you were
22 still on the Rule Making Advisory Committee.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Were you still on the Equal Opportunities
25 Task Force?
37
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Were you still working on the Water Supply
3 Policy Working Group?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Were there any additional groups or task
6 forces you were on?
7 A. Yes, I was given another assignment to
8 coordinate a group of engineers that were asked to
9 analyze possible downstream water supply effects of
10 the proposed stormwater treatment areas proposed in
11 the Everglades SWIM Plan.
12 Q. Proposed -- could you repeat that?
13 (Thereupon, a portion of the record
14 was read by the reporter.)
15 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
16 Q. And at what portion or time in 1990 did you
17 receive that assignment?
18 A. I think it was in May.
19 Q. Who worked on that project?
20 A. Paul Trimble and Ray Santee.
21 Q. Could you spell Santee, please?
22 A. S-a-n-t-e-e.
23 Q. Anyone else?
24 A. I had one engineer in my division that read
25 the report for grammar, but they did not do any
38
1 technical work on the assignment.
2 Q. What were Mr. Trimble's responsibilities?
3 A. Mr. Trimble's responsibilities were to
4 perform model runs, to analyze current and projected
5 water level conditions prior to STAs being in place
6 and after the proposed STAs would be in place.
7 Q. And what were Mr. Santee's
8 responsibilities?
9 A. They were the same. They were both working
10 on the same thing.
11 Q. Other than this additional task force to
12 analyze the downstream water effects of STAs --
13 A. Potential downstream water effects.
14 Q. Potential. Were there any other additional
15 task forces or projects you were working on during
16 1990?
17 A. That I was working on personally or that my
18 division works on?
19 Q. That you were working on.
20 A. Not to my recollection.
21 Q. And when you stated that your division was
22 working on -- were there any additional tasks, other
23 than the description of the tasks you had given me
24 with regard to Upper District Planning Division, SWIM
25 plans, stormwater management master plans, water
39
1 supply plans, flood control protection plans, and I
2 believe it was government --
3 A. Local government comprehensive plans.
4 Q. -- local government comprehensive plans;
5 were there additional tasks that were ongoing in that
6 year?
7 A. No, I don't recall any additional tasks.
8 Q. 1991, could you describe for me your
9 responsibilities during that year, please?
10 A. In 1991 I continued as the Director of the
11 Upper District Planning Division and the major amount
12 of my time was spent overseeing the development of
13 the Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan and completing
14 the Water Supply Policy Document.
15 Q. The Lower West Coast -- was that water
16 supply?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And that is the Water Supply Policy
19 Document that you were part of -- the working group?
20 A. Yes, it is. It was accepted by the
21 Governing Board in December, 1991.
22 Q. Other than your responsibilities as the
23 Director of the Upper District Planning Division and
24 completing the Water Supply Policy Document, were
25 there any additional task forces, or projects, you
40
1 were working on?
2 A. I continued as a member of those other task
3 forces, the standing groups I mentioned before; the
4 Equal Employment Opportunities and the Rule Making
5 Advisory Committee.
6 Q. Anything in addition to those?
7 A. No.
8 Q. I believe you previously said there was no
9 reorganization in 1991; is that correct?
10 A. No, not in '91.
11 Q. Okay. That brings us to 1992. Okay. Was
12 there a reorganization in 1992?
13 A. Yes, there was another reorganization in
14 1992.
15 Q. Was it a reorganization of the Planning
16 Department?
17 A. It was basically a reorganization of the
18 entire District into functional areas of
19 responsibility, and four new Assistant Executive
20 Directors were hired. The effects in the Planning
21 Department were to move a division from the planning
22 department into the Office of Government and Public
23 Affairs.
24 Q. What division was that?
25 A. The Division of Government Assistance.
41
1 Q. Did the reorganization impact your division
2 at all?
3 A. No.
4 Q. And did you remain as the Director of the
5 Upper District Planning Division?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. What have your responsibilities been thus
8 far this year?
9 A. My primary responsibilities this year have
10 been overseeing the development of the Lake
11 Okeechobee SWIM Plan update and the continuing work
12 on the draft Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan, and
13 working with the Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan
14 Advisory Committee that was established in February
15 of 1992.
16 Q. I'm sorry. If we could back up for one
17 moment, with regard to your coordination of the group
18 of engineers asked to analyze the potential
19 downstream water effects of STAs, when was that
20 completed?
21 A. I think that was completed in September of
22 '90, but I have been deposed several times on that,
23 and it should be in the documents.
24 Q. But it was sometime during '90 or at worst --
25 or excuse me -- at the latest, early '91?
42
1 A. It was sometime in '90, I think.
2 Q. And are you still in the Water Supply
3 Working Group, or is that group now disbanded?
4 A. That group has disbanded and there is a new
5 group that is just an interdepartmental coordination
6 group that meets periodically to talk about the
7 progress on the different plans.
8 Q. Are you involved in that group?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. What would the name of that group be?
11 A. I think it is called the Water Supply
12 Coordination Group.
13 Q. In addition to the Rule Making Advisory
14 Committee and Equal Opportunity Task Force, have you
15 been involved in any additional groups or tasks force
16 during this past year; during 1992?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Drawing your attention, Miss Trost, to what
19 has been marked as Trost Exhibit Number 1, on the
20 second page of that document, which bears bates-stamp
21 numbers 0772578, there are six publications listed
22 there. Does this exhibit and the lists contained
23 therein show all of the publications that you have
24 authored or coauthored during your work experience?
25 A. Yes, with the exception of presentations
43
1 given at conferences. Oh, wait a minute. No, wait.
2 They are here. I have given a number of
3 presentations at conferences describing ground water
4 resources of Florida. They are not listed on here,
5 but they were very generic in nature.
6 Q. Okay. Are there any publications that
7 you're currently working on or that have yet to be
8 published that are not on this list which is
9 contained on Exhibit 1?
10 A. No, there are not. In my duties as a
11 manager, I basically oversee the development of those
12 products, and I no longer specifically write them
13 myself.
14 Q. Briefly, and starting at the bottom of
15 these six, with regard to the first publication
16 listed there with J. E. Shaw and yourself, dated
17 1981, Hydrogeologic Characteristics of the Floridan
18 Aquifer in the Kissimmee Planning Area Using Geologic
19 and Geophysical Logs, is this the publication related
20 to the initial project that you were working on when
21 you were hired back in 1980?
22 A. This is a preliminary work product that
23 came out of that project. The main publication that
24 I mentioned earlier in the deposition is the third
25 one listed.
44
1 Q. Are you referring to the one that is listed
2 as Shaw, J. E. and Trost S. M., 1984, Hydrogeology of
3 the Kissimmee Planning Area, publication 84 dash --
4 excuse me -- technical publication 84-1 of the
5 District?
6 A. Yes, I am.
7 Q. Okay. With regard to the second one from
8 the bottom, where you were listed as a coauthor with
9 Dr. Wedderburn and -- is that Dr. or Mr. Lane?
10 A. Mr. Lane.
11 Q. Mr. Lane. Is that in relation to the frog
12 pond study that you had mentioned in your earlier
13 testimony?
14 A. Yes, it is.
15 Q. Okay. Could you explain to me what the
16 1983 publication is, which is entitled Hydrogeologic
17 Framework of South Florida, where you were coauthor
18 with Michael S. Knapp and J. E. Shaw?
19 A. Yes. That was part of a proceedings that
20 we submitted for the Southeastern Geologic Society of
21 America which was held in Tallahassee of that year,
22 and we prepared -- we all worked in different
23 geographic areas, and utilizing our knowledge of the
24 layering of the aquifers and the water producing
25 zones, we combined all of that to show a giant
45
1 underground map, if you will, of South Florida.
2 Mr. Knapp is a strategifer (sic), and he pooled
3 together all the pieces, and we presented it and
4 discussed how we arrived at our conclusion in
5 Tallahassee that year.
6 Q. You had mentioned geographic areas. Were
7 you responsible for a particular geographic area in
8 relation to that project --
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. -- or publication?
11 A. Yes, I was responsible for the Kissimmee
12 Planning Area and the Upper East Coast, Martin and
13 St. Lucie counties.
14 Q. And what was Mr. Shaw responsible for?
15 A. Mr. Shaw was working with me on the same
16 area.
17 Q. Okay. Who was responsible for the lower
18 east coast, or basically. The geographic area below
19 Lake Okeechobee?
20 A. The District has traditionally paid the
21 U. S. Geological Survey for the bulk of groundwater
22 resource studies in that area because of limitations
23 on equipment and resources, so Mr. Knapp took
24 existing publications from the Geological Survey and
25 combined that information into his responsible area,
46
1 which was the lower west coast, to arrive at the
2 total picture.
3 Q. Okay. Drawing your attention to the
4 second-from-the-bottom on the publication list, where
5 you are listed as a coauthor with A. G. Shih, is that
6 correct, S-h-i-h, and a D. Nealon, what is this
7 publication regarding?
8 A. This publication regards possible water
9 supply resource issues in Martin County, Florida, and
10 it was taking a look in particular at the Jensen
11 peninsula.
12 Q. What were your responsibilities with regard
13 to that publication?
14 A. My responsibilities were to develop a
15 resource assessment for the Floridan Aquifer System,
16 which is the deep artesian aquifer there, and to make
17 an outline for the report, to coordinate the
18 completion of the report, and to edit the report.
19 Q. Okay. With regard to the top most
20 publication, where you were listed as a coauthor with
21 J. Lukasiewiscz, titled Three Dimensional Computer
22 Simulation of the Floridan Aquifer System, Upper East
23 Coast Planning Area, has that publication, which on
24 this document is listed in preparation, has that
25 subsequently been published?
47
1 A. That has been published, and the title is
2 slightly different, and I'm not a coauthor of that
3 publication. It is Mr. Lukovitz (phonetic) --
4 Q. Lukasiewiscz. Had you done any work with
5 regard to that?
6 A. Yes. I had developed the first computer
7 simulation of the Floridan aquifer system in Martin
8 and St. Lucie counties, and Mr. Lukasiewiscz used
9 that information to develop a three-dimensional
10 simulation, and I am acknowledged in the
11 acknowledgements, but I'm not a coauthor.
12 Q. Okay.
13 (Thereupon, a recess was taken.)
14 (The document was marked
15 Trost Exb. No. 2.)
16 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
17 Q. Miss Trost, I'm going to be showing you a
18 series of memos to flesh out exactly what you have
19 done to a certain extent. Some may or may not be
20 related. So if we do jump around, these are in
21 chronological order, as opposed to particular areas.
22 So if you could just bear with me, I would appreciate
23 that.
24 I am going to show you what has been marked
25 as Trost Exhibit Number 2, which is a memorandum from
48
1 Mr. Burns to a Mr. Light, dated June 23, 1986. The
2 subject is agricultural water use permitting process.
3 It is a two-page document bearing bates number
4 0204369 through 0204370. I ask you to take a look at
5 this document; tell me whether you have ever seen
6 this before.
7 A. I don't recall it. I would have to read
8 it.
9 Q. Have you ever seen this document before,
10 Miss Trost?
11 A. I probably received a copy of it in June of
12 1986.
13 Q. Was this memorandum with regard to the
14 Agricultural Water Use Task Force?
15 A. Yes, it was.
16 Q. Were you already a member of the task force
17 at this time?
18 A. Yes, I believe I was.
19 Q. The memorandum on page 2 discusses a
20 developing criteria for classifying regions based on
21 degree of development. I believe it gives three
22 levels there: One being Supply Exceeds Demand; two,
23 Supply Meets Demand; and three, Demand Exceeds
24 Supply; were these criteria and classifications ever
25 completed by the task force?
49
1 A. I believe this was an idea that they had
2 discussed for awhile, but I'm not aware that they
3 ever went anywhere with it.
4 Q. Did you ever participate in preparing any
5 type of a classification of regions using either this
6 or some sort of supply classification?
7 A. No. I don't recall classifying regions
8 using this classification at all or another
9 classification.
10 Q. Did the task force study at all the uses
11 and supply related to the different agricultural
12 areas within the District geographic region?
13 A. This task force did not perform that
14 function, to my knowledge. The District was required
15 within state water policy to develop a survey type
16 document called Water Supply Needs and Sources, which
17 we did do, which looked at very broad brush water
18 demand projections for urban and agricultural uses.
19 Q. You said a paper called Water Supply Needs
20 and Sources?
21 A. Uh-huh. Yes.
22 Q. Did you work on that document?
23 A. I supervised the project manager of that
24 document.
25 Q. Who was the project manager of that
50
1 document?
2 A. David Gilpin-Hudson. There is a hyphen in
3 his last name.
4 Q. Gilpin?
5 A. Dash Hudson.
6 Q. How do you spell Gilpin?
7 A. G-i-l-p-i-n.
8 Q. And when did he -- or when was that paper
9 completed?
10 A. The first draft of that report was
11 completed in July of -- I'm not sure if it was '90 or
12 '91.
13 Q. And has a final publication been prepared?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. When was that published?
16 A. I believe it was in August of '92.
17 Q. You stated you supervised the project
18 manager of that. What exact participation did you
19 have in your supervisory role?
20 A. I explained to Mr. Gilpin-Hudson the
21 legislative requirement of producing this document,
22 and I explained to him what support I could provide
23 him as far as staff to assist him, and I sat down
24 with him and helped him to develop a general outline
25 for that report.
51
1 Q. Did that report -- I believe, I'm not sure
2 if you used the term -- I believe you said broad
3 brush.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. If that is the term you used, did that look
6 at the different agricultural areas to determine the
7 supplies and demands for the water they used and --
8 A. Let me clarify that. That report looked at
9 projected water demands for the year 2010 for
10 agriculture and for urban areas within the Water
11 Management District. The report did not quantify
12 water availability. The report only refers to
13 possible water sources that could be tapped to meet
14 the future demands. The water supply plans are
15 supposed to get into the detail of availability and
16 so forth.
17 Q. Did the paper you are referring to, the
18 Water Supply Needs and Sources, include the
19 Everglades Agricultural Area?
20 A. Yes, it did.
21 Q. Did it cover Water Conservation Areas?
22 A. No, it did not look at the water supply
23 needs.
24 Q. Did it cover the Lower East Coast Urban
25 Areas?
52
1 A. Yes, it did.
2 Q. Did it discuss the water supply
3 requirements of Everglades National Park?
4 A. No, it did not. There was a general
5 discussion in each chapter of the report, which was
6 broken out on a county-by-county basis, very general
7 discussion regarding environmental water needs, but
8 there was no quantification of those water needs.
9 Q. Did it address at all the water needs of
10 Lake Okeechobee in an environmental sense?
11 A. No, to my recollection, it did not.
12 Q. Referring you to the document that is
13 marked as Trost Exhibit Number 2, the first complete
14 sentence of that second page states, "In several of
15 the basins, such as the Everglades Agricultural
16 Areas, groundwater is not used extensively".
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. To your knowledge, does the Everglades
19 Agricultural Area, now referred to as the EAA, if
20 that is all right with you, where does the EAA get
21 its water from?
22 A. Primarily surface water from Lake
23 Okeechobee and rainfall.
24 Q. With regard to the surface water from Lake
25 Okeechobee, would that be during the dry season or is
53
1 that a seasonal -- is there any type of a seasonal
2 pattern to the drawing of water from Lake Okeechobee
3 for agricultural purposes in the EAA?
4 A. I don't feel that I am familiar enough with
5 the precise operational practices to answer that.
6 Q. In the course of your work for the
7 District, have you ever looked at the water supply
8 and demand needs for the EAA?
9 A. I personally have not; however,
10 Mr. Gilpin-Hudson attempted to project the water
11 needs of the crops in the EAA based on an equation
12 called the Blaney-Criddle equation, and that is an
13 analytical model designed to determine the amount of
14 supplemental irrigation that would be required.
15 Q. Now, as I understand from your prior
16 testimony, he did this for the year 2010; is that
17 correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Did he do it through 2010 or just took that
20 one particular year, just so I understand what the
21 scope of his study was?
22 A. He basically used the equation to estimate
23 current crop demands in like the year 1990, then he
24 spoke with various agricultural agents and
25 agricultural interests to get an idea of what their
54
1 thoughts were regarding the types of crops that would
2 be there in 20 years, and then he applied the
3 equation again to determine the approximate water
4 demand of those crops.
5 Q. Are you familiar with the concept of the
6 oxidation of the soil that is taking place in the
7 EAA; the loss of soil?
8 A. I have heard it discussed.
9 Q. Do you know whether or not
10 Mr. Gilpin-Hudson took into account any loss of
11 agricultural lands due to the effects of oxidation or
12 like impacts?
13 A. I don't know.
14 Q. Did you review that report?
15 A. Yes, I did.
16 Q. Was that part of an internal review prior
17 to publication?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Do you know who else reviewed that report?
20 A. Probably about 50 or 60 people reviewed the
21 report.
22 Q. Prior to publication?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Did you provide comments to
25 Mr. Gilpin-Hudson with regard to that paper?
55
1 A. I believe I may have made notations in the
2 margins of my copy of the report.
3 Q. Did you agree or disagree with the
4 conclusions he drew, if any, in that report?
5 A. I don't really think there were conclusions
6 in the report. It was intended to be a broad survey
7 document, and it was not detailed and did not really
8 have management implications.
9 Q. What was the purpose of the report then?
10 A. As I mentioned earlier in the deposition,
11 the purpose of the report was to attempt to project
12 in a 20-year horizon agricultural, or urban water
13 demands, and to then simply identify, in a listing
14 type format, possible sources of water to meet those
15 demands. The intent of the legislation requiring all
16 five water management districts to prepare this type
17 of report was to assist local government in the
18 development of their comprehensive plans.
19 Q. So as far as for management purposes, it
20 was actually for local government management
21 purposes?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. To the extent that he was projecting
24 demands in 20 years forward, he did make some
25 conclusions with regard to what those demands would
56
1 be; is that correct?
2 MS. BIRCH: Object to the form.
3 THE WITNESS: I don't understand the
4 question.
5 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
6 Q. Did he make projections as to what the
7 water demands would be in different areas 20 years
8 into the future?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Did you agree with those projections?
11 MS. BIRCH: Object to the relevancy of
12 whether or not she agreed to them.
13 THE WITNESS: I provided my comments on the
14 report, and my comments were mostly of an
15 editorial nature.
16 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
17 Q. As his supervisor, did it require your
18 approval for publication?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Did you approve it for publication?
21 A. Yes.
22 (The document was marked
23 Trost Exb. No. 3.)
24 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
25 Q. Showing you what has been marked as Trost
57
1 Exhibit Number 3, for this deposition, which is a
2 four-page document memorandum from Mr. Scott Burns to
3 Agricultural Water Use Task Force members, dated July
4 8, 1986, as revised on August 7, 1986, bearing bates
5 numbers 0204337 through 0204340, I ask you whether or
6 not you have ever seen this document before.
7 A. I don't recall this document and I don't
8 understand this parentheses here.
9 Q. What parenthesis is that, ma'am?
10 A. This memo was revised on August 7, and it
11 says the date is July 8. I don't understand.
12 Q. Do you recognize the handwriting in the
13 upper right-hand corner, which says revised copy?
14 A. No.
15 Q. This is listed to the Agricultural Water
16 Use Task Force members. You were on that task force;
17 is that correct, ma'am?
18 A. Yes, I was on the task force; however, at a
19 number of the meetings Mr. Burns attended in my
20 stead.
21 Q. I would draw your attention to the
22 objectives which are listed in approximately the
23 middle of the first page. Were these the objectives
24 of that task force, to the best of your knowledge?
25 A. No. These are the objectives of the
58
1 subject matter of the memo, which is proposal for
2 water use support through the water resource
3 availability classification program, which is not the
4 purpose of the task force.
5 Q. How did that program relate to the water
6 use task force?
7 A. I don't know.
8 Q. You were not involved in this?
9 A. I wasn't involved in this.
10 Q. Okay.
11 (The document was marked
12 Trost Exb. No. 4.)
13 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
14 Q. Showing you, ma'am, what has been marked as
15 Trost Exhibit Number 4, which is a memorandum from
16 Pat -- is it Bidol? Is that the correct
17 pronunciation?
18 A. Bidol.
19 Q. "Bidol to distribution list." It is an
20 eight-page document bearing bates numbers 0059339
21 through 0059346. I would ask whether or not you have
22 ever seen this document before, ma'am.
23 A. I don't recall it, but it says that I am on
24 the distribution list.
25 Q. Okay.
59
1 A. I do remember this now.
2 Q. Drawing your attention for the moment to
3 right after the initial paragraph, where it states
4 "The following information is needed; one, estimate
5 of tons P removed in 1992 in 1987", was this
6 regarding a projected estimate of tons of P removed
7 that would occur in 1992? Is that what's being
8 discussed in this document?
9 A. What I think is being discussed is that
10 there were a number of studies that had gone on to
11 look at possible mechanisms to reduce phosphorus
12 inflows to Lake Okeechobee and to the Everglades and
13 the different project managers were asked to estimate
14 how much that particular project could possibly
15 reduce the phosphorus.
16 Q. Okay. And were you involved in putting
17 together this type of data?
18 A. I was the project manager of the Lake
19 Okeechobee Aquifer Storage and Recovery Demonstration
20 Project, which was an outgrowth of a recommendation
21 made by the first LOTAC committee that the District
22 perform an aquifer storage and recovery demonstration
23 project in an area north of Lake Okeechobee to
24 determine if it would be feasible to store large
25 volumes of water underground in the Floridan Aquifer
60
1 and determine if there would be any reduction in
2 phosphorus content of the water prior to its recovery
3 from the well and its release back into Lake
4 Okeechobee.
5 Q. When did you become the project manager of
6 the Lake Okeechobee Aquifer Storage and Recovery
7 Project?
8 A. Sometime in, I think, late '86 or early
9 '87. I don't recall precisely.
10 Q. During what period of time did that project
11 proceed?
12 A. It was about a two-year long project.
13 Q. Wrapped up approximately when?
14 A. Oh, it wrapped up in 1988, I believe.
15 Q. Did you put together a report on the ASR
16 project in response to this memo requiring or
17 requesting data for the LOTAC-II report?
18 A. I probably assigned that assignment to
19 someone within the hydrogeology division to complete
20 that assignment.
21 Q. Do you recall to whom that was assigned?
22 A. No, I do not.
23 Q. Do you know whether a report was provided
24 to Mr. Bidol?
25 A. I do not know.
61
1 Q. You do not recall signing off on any
2 report?
3 A. I don't recall.
4 Q. Do you know who was putting together the
5 information for LOTAC-II? Was that Pat Bidol or was
6 that a particular division?
7 A. Pat Bidol was the Executive Program
8 Director of the District, and her responsibility
9 included dealing with major programs, such as SWIM
10 and water supply, and I do not know who was compiling
11 information for the LOTAC-II group.
12 Q. How would we be able to go about
13 determining whether a summary was prepared on the ASR
14 for LOTAC-II? Is there a particular document that
15 was prepared and presented to LOTAC-II, to your
16 knowledge?
17 A. I believe there are probably thousands of
18 documents prepared for the LOTAC committees, and I'm
19 sure that they are somewhere on record at the Water
20 Management District.
21 Q. Perhaps I should narrow it down. What I
22 was really trying to find out is whether a summary
23 providing the three items that are requested in this
24 memo, whether or not that was provided to LOTAC-II
25 and how we could find that report.
62
1 A. If it was provided to LOTAC-II, there was
2 probably some kind of summary report for LOTAC-II
3 that would have that information in the report;
4 probably one document that summarized everything that
5 that LOTAC-II group did.
6 Q. Drawing your attention down to the sub-
7 category D, did EAA discharges to Everglades,
8 underneath that, number 5, combination alternatives,
9 do you know what those alternatives were?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Do you know whether or not they included
12 aquifer storage and recovery for the EAA?
13 A. I don't know.
14 Q. Have you ever worked on aquifer storage and
15 recovery projects for the EAA?
16 A. No, I have not.
17 Q. To your knowledge, has there ever been an
18 aquifer storage recovery project related to the EAA?
19 A. To my knowledge, there has not been.
20 Q. Have you analyzed the use of aquifer
21 storage recovery as related to the EAA?
22 A. I have not analyzed it. I was asked
23 questions about it by the LOTAC committees when I
24 gave them presentations regarding the Okeechobee
25 project, but I have never analyzed it or done any
63
1 technical review of that.
2 Q. Were you ever asked, subsequently, whether
3 or not that technology, referring to ASR aquifer
4 storage and recovery, could be utilized in the EAA?
5 A. Yes, I was asked that.
6 Q. And what is your opinion on that?
7 A. My opinion was that aquifer storage and
8 recovery is a very site specific technology, and you
9 could not make a blanket statement on whether or not
10 it would work in place X, place Y, place Z unless you
11 performed drilling and testing demonstrations.
12 Q. Did you ever put together a report on ASR
13 or its potential use in the EAA?
14 A. I did not.
15 Q. Drawing your attention to the -- I believe
16 it is the fourth, excuse me -- the fifth page of this
17 document, which bears bates number 0059343, do you
18 know who prepared this summary?
19 A. Who prepared this table here?
20 Q. Yes. "Summary of recommendations". It
21 states "Lake Okeechobee Technical Committee Summary
22 of Recommendations".
23 A. Mr. Stan Winn was one of the staff people
24 that was assigned to assist with these LOTAC issues.
25 He died.
64
1 Q. As I understand it, then he's the most
2 likely person to have prepared this?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Do you know how he generated the data that
5 is included in this summary?
6 A. It appears that the individuals were asked
7 to submit the data to him, and then he probably
8 compiled it into this table. That is speculation on
9 my part.
10 Q. To your knowledge, does this include the
11 data on the ASR?
12 A. Clarify that.
13 Q. Well, is the ASR information included in
14 this summary in one of the --
15 A. The last piece on the page says "Aquifer
16 Storage and Recovery, 122 tons, $13 million, four
17 years; positive aspect significant water supply
18 potential, and negative pilot plant needed to test
19 feasibility".
20 Q. Given the date of this memo, December 16,
21 '87, were you in the middle of the pilot ASR project?
22 A. Yes. I believe the drilling was going on
23 at that time. I don't recall the exact dates, but
24 the whole drilling process for the ASR well, the
25 pilot test well and the monitor well, took a number
65
1 of months, and I don't recall exactly the time frame.
2 Q. The estimates here then, under water
3 supply, number three, aquifer storage and recovery,
4 were not based on any test results from the ASR; is
5 that correct?
6 MS. BIRCH: Object to the form.
7 THE WITNESS: I don't know whether they are
8 from --
9 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
10 Q. Well, had you already conducted any tests
11 with the actual pilot project as of December, 1987?
12 A. I don't believe so. I don't believe the
13 project was prepared for testing until later.
14 Q. Okay. Were there any other working ASR
15 projects at that time, I am talking about December of
16 1987, at the District?
17 A. Not to my knowledge.
18 Q. So, to the best of your knowledge, this is
19 not based upon a District project that was already
20 ongoing with actual results coming in?
21 A. Correct.
22 (The document was marked
23 Trost Exb. No. 5.)
24 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
25 Q. Miss Trost, I am showing you what has been
66
1 marked as Trost Exhibit Number 5. It is an 11-page
2 document bearing bates numbers 0425592 through
3 042602, I would like you to take a look through this
4 document and tell me whether or not you have ever
5 seen this document before.
6 MS. BIRCH: Mark, for the record, this
7 appears to be more than one document. The first
8 two pages appear to be some handwritten notes,
9 and then there appears to be a memorandum that
10 is attached. While I see the bates numbers are
11 inclusive, it appears that they are -- it is
12 obvious it is more than one document.
13 MR. KOBELINSKI: This was produced to us
14 attached together. I'll ask the witness whether
15 she is aware -- I'll just note for the record
16 the first page with the handwritten notes says,
17 "Brainstorming Downstreaming Impacts", and the
18 start of the memo refers to "Brainstorming
19 Session on LOTAC-II options". Perhaps the
20 witness can tell us about it. But this is the
21 way it was produced to us; attached together in
22 this format.
23 (Discussion held off the record.)
24 (Thereupon, a luncheon recess was taken.)
25
67
1 AFTERNOON SESSION
2 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
3 Q. Ms. Trost, I would like you to take a look
4 at what has been marked as Trost Exhibit Number 5.
5 Have you ever seen this document before?
6 A. I have never seen these handwritten notes
7 before.
8 Q. The first two pages of the document bears
9 bates 0425592 and 0425593, and with regard to the
10 remainder of the document, bearing bates numbers
11 0425594 through 0425602.
12 A. The memorandum from Dr. Wedderburn I
13 recall. I do not recall these typewritten pages that
14 start with 425594 through 425560. I recall the
15 425601, titled "Senior staff preferences for
16 approaches to problems south of the Lake". I don't
17 recall 425602, "Suggested approach to developing
18 recommendations for areas south of Lake Okeechobee".
19 Q. Did you participate in a brainstorming
20 session on LOTAC-II on options for projects south of
21 the lake?
22 A. Yes, I did.
23 Q. Approximately when did that brainstorming
24 session occur?
25 A. It was in January of 1988.
68
1 Q. To the best of your recollection, would it
2 have occurred prior to this memo dated January 21,
3 1988?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Now, just for the sake of clarification,
6 there is on this first page of the memorandum, which
7 is bates 0425594, the last sentence says, "I will
8 need your response by noon today; 1/22/87". Is that,
9 to the best of your knowledge, a typographical error?
10 Should it be 1988?
11 A. I just noticed that. It appears to be a
12 typographical error.
13 Q. But to the best of your recollection then,
14 the brainstorming session did occur in 1988, not a
15 year prior to that?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Okay. Who attended that brainstorming
18 session?
19 A. I believe that the people that are shown on
20 the distribution list in this memorandum were in
21 attendance, except I don't believe that Mr. Dineen
22 was there.
23 Q. Was there anyone that is not shown on the
24 distribution list for this memorandum that attended
25 the brainstorming session?
69
1 A. I don't recall.
2 Q. Do you recall whether or not, for instance,
3 Mr. Wedderburn, who is the author of the memorandum,
4 attended that meeting?
5 A. I recall that he was there.
6 Q. Is that Mr. or Dr.?
7 A. Doctor.
8 Q. Doctor. Whatever.
9 Turning to the second page of that
10 memorandum, which is bates number 425595, do you
11 recall during the brainstorming session developing or
12 discussing assumptions for development of a shopping
13 list of potential projects for south of the lake?
14 A. I don't recall the term "shopping list",
15 but I recall that discussions were held about
16 different projects that could be implemented south of
17 the lake.
18 Q. With regard to what is listed there as "A:
19 Past and/or current water management/land use
20 practices have created, or have the potential to
21 create, undesirable downstream impacts on the
22 conservation areas and ENP", do you recall what past
23 and/or current water management land use practices
24 this document may refer to?
25 A. No.
70
1 Q. Do you recall whether any past and/or
2 current water management land use practices were
3 discussed during the brainstorming session, which may
4 have had or had a potential to create undesirable
5 downstream impacts in the WCAs in the ENP?
6 A. No. I basically recall that -- I don't
7 recall discussing these assumptions. I recall
8 talking about a list of different projects, such as
9 best management practices and effluent taxes and
10 construction of flowways, but I don't recall
11 discussing it in current or past practices.
12 Q. Drawing your attention to the flowing page,
13 bearing bates number 0425596, and the first paragraph
14 where it says in parentheses "Note: The following
15 list of possible projects for consideration was
16 developed by senior staff of the District during a
17 "brainstorming" session on January 21, 1988", does
18 that help refresh your recollection as to when the
19 exact brainstorming session occurred?
20 A. I can only go by what this memo says,
21 because that was almost five years ago. I don't
22 recall if it was specifically January 21.
23 Q. If we could then perhaps go through these
24 potential projects, initially could you go through
25 the following four-and-a-half or five pages to
71
1 determine which, if any, of these projects you had
2 proposed during the brainstorming session?
3 MS. BIRCH: Could you read the question
4 back, please?
5 (Thereupon, a portion of the record
6 was read by the reporter.)
7 THE WITNESS: I believe I discussed an
8 effluent tax proposal and a feasibility of
9 chemical and biological treatment.
10 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
11 Q. Would that be on bates page number 0425598,
12 references I and J?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Are there any others?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Drawing your attention back to the bates
17 page 0425596, do you recall who proposed what is
18 listed there as C, which is "Develop" originally
19 stated "Wasteload Allocation /Effluent Standards for
20 EAA", and "Wasteload Allocations" subsequently
21 scratched out?
22 A. No, I don't recall.
23 Q. Do you recall a discussion of that
24 particular option or project?
25 A. I vaguely recall discussion. I believe at
72
1 this meeting we covered about 10 or 12 topics in the
2 space of a couple of hours, and the conversation was
3 just flying around the table, sort of like this. I
4 don't recall specifically who proposed that.
5 Q. Do you recall, on the following page, who
6 proposed the development of a comprehensive plan for
7 use of flowways retention?
8 A. No, I don't recall.
9 Q. Do you recall who proposed the following,
10 which is conduct an ASR demonstration project in the
11 EAA?
12 A. I believe that Dr. Wedderburn proposed that
13 one.
14 Q. Did you have any comments on that
15 particular proposal?
16 A. Yes, I felt it was premature because we had
17 not completed the Taylor Creek/Neuben Slough
18 demonstration.
19 Q. How would the Taylor Creek/Neuben Slough
20 ASR demonstration project impact an ASR demonstration
21 project in the EAA?
22 A. The Taylor Creek/Neuben Slough ASR
23 demonstration project was an extremely complicated
24 project; a $1.6 million engineering project that
25 involved contracts for engineering, contracts for
73
1 well construction and treatment, and contracts for
2 surface facilities, including a one-acre retention
3 pond, five million gallon per day pump station and
4 appurtenant plumbing. There were a lot of people
5 involved in seeing that project would all come
6 together, there was a lot of coordination involved,
7 and component parts of that facility were very
8 expensive, and I felt very strongly that we should
9 complete the project so that District staff could
10 attain familiarity with how one of these projects
11 goes and what you have to -- sort of a learning
12 curve; to go through the experience and find out more
13 about the technology and so forth.
14 Q. So, if I understand what you're saying, the
15 disadvantage is not so much that you would be able to
16 transfer the results, but, rather, you would be able
17 to transfer the expertise, for instance, the District
18 was gaining while doing the Taylor Creek/Neuben
19 Slough ASR project?
20 A. That is correct.
21 Q. Do you recall who proposed the
22 continuation, acceleration and expansion of the
23 development of BMPs?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Did you have any comments on the BMPs?
74
1 A. I believe that I felt that BMPs appeared to
2 be working well in the Okeechobee basin and that we
3 should consider it for the EAA.
4 Q. Are you referring to BMPs for the dairy
5 industry?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Just so I understand, you weren't, for
8 instance, discussing specific BMPs that could be
9 transferred down there; you're just talking about the
10 concept of BMPs had worked in one particular area
11 with regard to one particular industry; in this case
12 a dairy industry; is that correct?
13 A. In my discussions during this brainstorming
14 session, I stated that best management practices for
15 agricultural practices should be explored for the
16 Everglades Agricultural Area.
17 Q. Had you ever worked on agricultural BMPs
18 that could have or were related to the EAA?
19 A. No.
20 Q. With regard to the next proposal, which is,
21 "G: Expand monitoring program in EAA to detect/
22 quantify sources and timing of nutrient releases"; do
23 you recall who proposed this?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Did you have any comments with regard to
75
1 this?
2 A. No, I don't recall making comments with
3 regard to that.
4 Q. With regard to the next item, "H:
5 Wetlands/aquatic plant management"; do you recall who
6 proposed this?
7 A. Yes. Steve Davis proposed this.
8 Q. Did you have any comments with regard to
9 this?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Do you recall exactly what was meant with
12 regard to harvesting cattails?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Was there a discussion of harvesting the
15 cattails in WCA-2A?
16 A. I don't recall.
17 Q. Do you recall whether or not this was a
18 discussion along the lines of what today are referred
19 to as stormwater treatment areas?
20 A. At that time we referred to wetlands, or
21 aquatic plant management techniques, as flowways, to
22 the best of my recollection.
23 Q. And flowways was discussed as number D, or
24 letter D, proposal on page 0425597; is that correct?
25 A. It is also written in under letter H.
76
1 Q. There is a reference there in "Advantages",
2 part of which it says "Enhance long-term nutrient
3 removal capability of flowways, conservation areas
4 and Holey Land", did this proposal deal with using
5 the conservation areas for the nutrient removal
6 capability?
7 A. I don't recall that.
8 Q. Just so I understand, do you not recall, or
9 you don't recall, that that was discussed?
10 A. That what was discussed? Conservation Area
11 2A?
12 Q. No. Do you recall a discussion, one way or
13 the other, of the use of conservation areas for
14 nutrients removal?
15 A. No. I recall a very broad-ranging
16 discussion about we could look at the possibility of
17 flowways for nutrient uptake, and that was the nature
18 of a very generic discussion.
19 Q. Do you recall whether that discussion was
20 in relation to what is proposal "D: Development of
21 comprehensive plan for the use of flowways retention,
22 detention" or whether it was discussed with regard to
23 "H: Wetlands aquatic plants management"?
24 A. I don't recall where the specific reference
25 was made, because during this type of discussion
77
1 meeting, all kinds of comments are thrown out on the
2 floor; people discuss it and someone else talks, and
3 it is a very free-form discussion.
4 Q. Do you recall whether it was Dr. Wedderburn
5 who was taking down the notes on this during this
6 brainstorming session?
7 A. I don't recall.
8 MS. BIRCH: Object to the form.
9 MR. KOBELINSKI: What's wrong with the
10 form?
11 MS. BIRCH: There has been no testimony
12 that Dr. Wedderburn was taking any notes or
13 minutes.
14 MR. KOBELINSKI: Could you read back the
15 question?
16 (Thereupon, a portion of the record
17 was read by the reporter.)
18 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
19 Q. With regard to the next proposal, "I:
20 Feasibility of reverse osmossis, biological or
21 chemical treatment", is this one of the ones that you
22 had discussed or proposed?
23 A. I had discussed this. Several of us were
24 discussing this.
25 Q. Okay. What was this proposal regarding?
78
1 A. This proposal was regarding developing
2 water treatment plants with advance water treatment
3 capability to treat the water prior to leaving the
4 Everglades Agricultural Area.
5 Q. Where would the water treatment plant be
6 located?
7 A. That was not discussed.
8 Q. Is that a technology that you are familiar
9 with; a water treatment, chemical treatment,
10 technology?
11 A. I have had some training at the graduate
12 level in water quality control technologies.
13 Q. Do you recall who else it was that
14 discussed this topic?
15 A. I know that Stan Winn and I both discussed
16 it, and I think someone else discussed it. I don't
17 remember who.
18 Q. Next proposal is "J: Investigate
19 feasibility of effluent tax/resource depletion
20 allowance". What was this proposal regarding?
21 A. This was regarding the possibility of
22 setting up some sort of tax whereby if someone
23 improved water quality, they would receive credits,
24 and if someone had violations in the standards, they
25 would pay money for this revenue tax that would be
79
1 used to develop clean-up measures to build treatment
2 plants or structures or other types of clean-up
3 measures.
4 Q. It states effluent tax. Do you recall what
5 water quality violations were being discussed?
6 A. I think the discussion focused on nutrient
7 content.
8 Q. Would that, then, be a violation of the
9 narrow nutrient standard?
10 A. We didn't discuss specific violations; we
11 just talked about water quality parameters.
12 Q. Was this in relation to water quality
13 flowing of the water flowing out of the EAA?
14 A. To the best of my recollection, yes.
15 Q. Is this proposition based upon the
16 assumption that the water flowing out of the EAA at
17 that time was violating state water quality
18 standards?
19 MS. BIRCH: Object to the form of the
20 question and lack of foundation.
21 THE WITNESS: I'll repeat that this meeting
22 was a brainstorming session where we talked
23 about general projects and options.
24 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
25 Q. Okay. But with regard to this proposal and
80
1 objective, it does say "provide for water quality
2 violations" and you testified that we are talking
3 about water flowing out of the EAA; my question is,
4 was this proposal then, since you were one of the
5 people discussing it, based upon the assumption that
6 there were water quality violations being caused by
7 water flowing out of the EAA?
8 MS. BIRCH: Could you read that question
9 back for me, please?
10 (Thereupon, a portion of the record
11 was read by the reporter.)
12 THE WITNESS: The entire list of options
13 here was so framed out to discuss possible
14 options to remedy water quality problems. No
15 specific discussion was held about exactly what
16 the problem was. This was a brainstorming
17 session to talk about water quality clean-up
18 measures.
19 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
20 Q. Did you have an understanding as to what
21 water quality problems were attempting to be
22 resolved?
23 A. Yes. During the discussions, concern was
24 expressed that there were problems with excessive
25 nutrients in the water and that they should be dealt
81
1 with.
2 Q. Was there a discussion that the nutrients
3 in the water were causing a water quality violation
4 of any Florida standard?
5 MS. BIRCH: Objection to the form of the
6 question; lack of foundation.
7 THE WITNESS: I don't recall any discussion
8 of that sort.
9 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
10 Q. In your proposal or discussion with regard
11 to an effluent tax creating disincentives for water
12 quality violations, what water quality violations did
13 you intend to tax?
14 A. That was not my proposal, it was a proposal
15 that I was discussing.
16 Q. Okay. With regard to your discussion, what
17 water quality violations did you intend should be
18 taxed?
19 A. I did not have any opinions regarding any
20 specific water quality parameters or standards. We
21 were just talking in general about runoff water
22 quality and measures for clean-up.
23 Q. Under this section, it says "disadvantages
24 may not be legally, socially or politically
25 acceptable; may impede or delay implementation of
82
1 other alternatives". Why wouldn't they be legally or
2 socially or politically acceptable?
3 A. I don't know.
4 Q. Was the political acceptability of
5 proposals one of the criteria that was discussed
6 during the meeting?
7 A. I don't recall it discussed specifically.
8 I recall -- this just appears to be some kind of
9 handout at the meeting.
10 Q. Drawing your attention to page 0425596, in
11 the upper section there where it states "Note:The
12 following list of possible projects for consideration
13 was developed by senior staff of the District during
14 a brainstorming session on January 21, 1988"; is it
15 your understanding then that there was a prior
16 brainstorming session wherein this was prepared and
17 then handed out at the brainstorming session you
18 attended?
19 A. No. It just appears that this is some kind
20 of list that was -- I'm not sure if this was -- this
21 is a summary of the discussions or if it was used to
22 generate discussion. I don't recall.
23 Q. Do you recall this document being handed
24 out at your brainstorming session?
25 A. No. As I said a minute ago, it appears to
83
1 be some kind of handout, but it could also be a
2 summary.
3 Q. Do you recall who it was who raised the
4 disadvantage that effluent tax may not be legally,
5 socially or politically acceptable?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Next proposal states "Investigate
8 possibility of changes in Water Conservation Area
9 regulation schedules"; do you recall a discussion of
10 this possibility?
11 A. No, I don't.
12 Q. Are you aware of a manner of enhancing
13 nutrient uptake capabilities of the Water
14 Conservation Areas by changing current regulation
15 schedules?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Next, letter "L" is "Investigate
18 feasibility of partitioning Conservation Area 2A,
19 south end of lake and/or the Holey Lands, to provide
20 a holding reservoir/flowthrough area"; do you recall
21 who proposed this?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Do you recall a discussion of this?
24 A. Vaguely.
25 Q. Who do you recall discussing it with?
84
1 A. I don't recall specific people discussing
2 it, I recall talking about if we were going to go
3 forward with flowways, where would be some of the
4 areas where it would be most implementable?
5 Q. Next letter, M, "evaluate feasibility of
6 temporary, limited resumption of backpumping to Lake
7 Okeechobee from the EAA"; do you recall a discussion
8 of this proposal?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Do you recognize the handwriting on this
11 page?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Next discussion is the number N -- excuse
14 me, letter N -- "Investigate feasibility of state
15 land purchases in the EAA"; do you recall a
16 discussion of this proposal?
17 A. Yes. I recall discussing -- I wasn't
18 discussing, but I recall people discussing looking
19 into other state agencies to see if funds would be
20 available to purchase land for reservation or
21 detention areas of flowways.
22 Q. Do you recall whether there was a
23 discussion as to the approximate acreage that would
24 be purchased?
25 A. No.
85
1 Q. Do you recall who was participating in that
2 discussion?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Drawing your attention to the next page,
5 bates number 0425601, "Senior staff preferences or
6 options/approaches to problems south of lake", this
7 portion of the document I believe you stated you
8 recalled seeing before; is that correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Do you recognize the handwriting on this
11 page?
12 A. I recall seeing it without any handwriting
13 on it.
14 Q. That is not your handwriting?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Where it says "Trost: BMPs, effluent tax",
17 is that your recollection of your references of the
18 options that were discussed at the brainstorming
19 session?
20 A. I also recall that I was interested in the
21 chemical treatment.
22 Q. Did you notify Mr. -- excuse me --
23 Dr. Wedderburn of the fact that you also supported
24 chemical treatment?
25 A. I don't recall.
86
1 Q. Okay. Do you recall whether any other
2 portion of this list is accurate?
3 A. Any other?
4 Q. For instance, "Marban: Combination of
5 flowways and BMPs", is that your recollection of --
6 A. Oh, I don't remember what peoples'
7 preferences were.
8 Q. Okay. Drawing your attention back to the
9 initial page of this memorandum, bates number
10 0425594, where Dr. Wedderburn states, "If you would
11 prefer not to be iden