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 identified, please indicate"; do you
12   have any idea why he included that?
13             MS. BIRCH:  If you have personal knowledge,
14        answer that question, Ms. Trost, but if it
15        requires you to speculate, I instruct you not to
16        answer.
17             THE WITNESS:  I don't know why he has that
18        there.
19   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
20       Q.    Did you ask him that you did not wish to be
21   identified?
22       A.    No.
23       Q.    Turning your attention then to the page
24   0425602, did you participate in the grouping of the
25   alternatives --
                                                 87

 1       A.    No.
 2       Q.    -- into the categories listed there?
 3       A.    No.
 4       Q.    Okay.  I may have asked, but I don't
 5   recall, but the first two pages of this exhibit, do
 6   you recognize the handwriting?
 7       A.    No.
 8             (The document was marked
 9             Trost Exb. No. 6.)
10   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
11       Q.    Showing you what has been marked as Trost
12   Exhibit 6, could you look through this document and
13   tell whether or not you have ever seen this document
14   before?
15       A.    I see that my name is on this distribution
16   list, but I don't recall this document.
17       Q.    Drawing your attention to the first page of
18   that document, which is the distribution list you
19   referred to, it reads, "General SWIM Distribution
20   List."  What were your responsibilities with regard
21   to the Everglades SWIM plan during the period
22   approximating March 1, 1989, in that area?
23       A.    My responsibilities were to review the
24   section of the plan that was about the geology of the
25   area and hydrogeology of the area.
                                                 88

 1       Q.    Who is responsible for drafting that
 2   section?
 3       A.    I believe that was drafted by Sarah
 4   Bellmund.
 5       Q.    What was Miss Bellmund -- or would it be
 6   Dr. Bellmund or Ms. Bellmund?
 7       A.    She is now married.  She has a different
 8   last name.  duToit.  Little d-u, T-o-i-t.
 9       Q.    Would that be doctor or Ms.?
10       A.    She is in a Ph.D program now.  It is Mrs.,
11   I guess.
12       Q.    At the time, I guess it was Miss Bellmund?
13       A.    It was Ms. Bellmund at the time.
14       Q.    To the extent that she is referred to on
15   these documents as Sarah Bellmund, I will at this
16   point just refer to her as Ms. Bellmund; all right?
17   What was Mrs. Bellmund's position at the time?
18       A.    She was a staff environmental scientist.
19       Q.    Was she in your division?
20       A.    No.
21       Q.    What division was she in?
22       A.    She was in the Water Quality Division.
23       Q.    Was she a hydrologist?
24       A.    No.
25       Q.    Was she a hydrogeologist?
                                                 89

 1       A.    No.
 2       Q.    Did she have either a hydrologist or a
 3   hydrogeologist assisting her in drafting those
 4   portions of the SWIM plan?
 5       A.    One of my staff reviewed her draft, and I
 6   also reviewed it.
 7       Q.    Which of your staff reviewed it?
 8       A.    John Lukasiewiscz.
 9       Q.    Does Miss Bellmund -- you stated currently
10   she is working on a Ph.D. Does she have a master's
11   degree?
12       A.    Yes.
13       Q.    Do you recall what that is in?
14       A.    I know about her master's dissertation, but
15   I don't recall if the degree is in biochemistry or if
16   it is in marine biology and marine systems.
17       Q.    What Ph.D is she working on?
18       A.    She is working on a Ph.D in coral reef
19   ecology.
20       Q.    Was the review of Miss Bellmund's section
21   of the SWIM plan on geology and hydrogeology your
22   sole participation in the SWIM planning process for
23   the Everglades?
24       A.    Yes.
25       Q.    Drawing your attention back to Exhibit 6
                                                 90

 1   for a moment, the document attached to the
 2   distribution list is entitled, "An evaluation of
 3   Habitat Improvements and Wildlife Benefits from the
 4   U.S. Army Corps of Engineer's proposed Shark Slough
 5   General Design Memorandum," dated March, 1989.  Do
 6   you know whether or not the District provided a
 7   review of this Corps GDM?
 8       A.    I don't know.
 9       Q.    Have you provided any reviews of Corps GDMs
10   dealing with the park or the Everglades Protection
11   Area, as that is defined in the SWIM plan?
12       A.    No.
13       Q.    Have you studied at all any of the impacts
14   on hydrology or hydroperiod to the Everglades caused
15   by the canals, structures and levees of the Federal
16   project?
17       A.    No, I have not.
18       Q.    Have you studied at all hydroperiod impacts
19   upon any of the vegetation in the WCAs or the
20   Everglades National Park?
21       A.    No, I have not.
22       Q.    Have you at any point studied the water
23   supply needs of Water Conservation Areas or
24   Everglades National Park?
25       A.    No, not of those areas.
                                                 91

 1       Q.    Have you ever studied the water supply
 2   needs of the EAA?
 3       A.    Only as the supervisor of the planner that
 4   put together the water demand projections for the
 5   crop types in the EAA that we discussed earlier in
 6   the deposition.
 7       Q.    Have you ever studied the water supply
 8   needs of the Lower East Coast?
 9       A.    I had coordinated that assignment where the
10   engineers tried to estimate potential water supply
11   downstream water supply impact of the proposed
12   stormwater treatment areas that I mentioned earlier
13   in the deposition.
14       Q.    And other than any aspect of that study,
15   which may have dealt with the Lower East Coast, have
16   you been involved in any other study of the water
17   supply needs of the Lower East Coast?
18       A.    No, I have not.  You'll note from my
19   previous testimony that most of my work
20   responsibilities since I have been at the District
21   have been everywhere but the Lower East Coast:  Lower
22   west, upper east and Kissimmee.
23       Q.    During the period of time that you were
24   preparing a -- during the period of time that you
25   were Director of the Water Supply Planning Division,
                                                 92

 1   did you initiate the development of a 20-year water
 2   supply plan for the portion of the District that is
 3   below Lake Okeechobee, south of Lake Okeechobee?
 4       A.    No, I did not.
 5       Q.    What water supply plans 20-year plans were
 6   initiated during your tenure as Director of the Water
 7   Supply Planning Division?
 8       A.    During that time we developed schedules for
 9   the four major regional water supply plans, we
10   developed a generic outline of what should be in a
11   water supply plan, and I worked on the policy
12   document.  We may have initiated the plan for the
13   lower west coast during that time.
14       Q.    Nothing was done with regard to the Lower
15   East Coast Planning Area other than just the criteria
16   that you were putting together?
17       A.    What do you mean by criteria?
18       Q.    What you were just testifying to.
19       A.    Not criteria.  An outline of general
20   content of water supply plan.  That is not the
21   criteria.
22       Q.    Okay.
23       A.    No.
24             (The document was marked
25             Trost Exb. No. 7.)
                                                 93

 1   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
 2       Q.    Miss Trost, showing you what has been
 3   marked as Trost Exhibit Number 7, I ask you to take a
 4   look at this document and tell me whether or not you
 5   have ever seen this document before.
 6       A.    I don't recall it, but let me read real
 7   quickly.  This was the entire document?
 8       Q.    This is again what we received of it.
 9       A.    I was not present at this meeting.
10       Q.    You are referring to the meeting that is
11   referenced on page 2 of the document, bates number
12   0041297?
13       A.    Correct.  Mr. Burns was present in my
14   stead.
15       Q.    Were you a member of the SWIM steering
16   committee?
17       A.    No.
18       Q.    Do you recall who was on the SWIM steering
19   committee?
20       A.    I don't recall.
21       Q.    Do you recall whether or not you served as
22   a liaison to the SWIM Steering Committee?
23       A.    I do recall that we were asked to provide a
24   summary of the relationship of water supply planning
25   over the long-term to SWIM planning, and that is the
                                                 94

 1   extent of my recollection of any dealings I may have
 2   had with that committee.
 3       Q.    When you say "we", who are you referring
 4   to?
 5       A.    Scott Burns and I.
 6       Q.    Who is Mr. Burns?
 7       A.    Scott Burns was my number two person in my
 8   division.  He was my subordinate, and he and I worked
 9   together on a lot of the different projects within
10   the hydrogeology division.  When I was promoted to
11   Director of Water Supply, I recommended him for
12   promotion to Hydrogeology Division Director.
13       Q.    And he was promoted?
14       A.    Yes.
15       Q.    There is a reference here to WUMP and
16   SWUMP.  What is that?
17       A.    WUMP stands for Water Use Management Plans
18   and SWUMP stands for -- I think it stands for
19   Sectional Water Use Management Plans.
20       Q.    Were you involved in either the WUMP or
21   SWUMP?
22       A.    Yes, I was, and I always hated those
23   acronyms.
24       Q.    Isn't there also a DWUMP?
25       A.    Yes, there is.
                                                 95

 1       Q.    And what does DWUMP stand for?
 2       A.    DWUMP stands for the District Water Use
 3   Management Plan.
 4       Q.    Could you tell me briefly what the
 5   difference is between WUMP, SWUMP and DWUMP?
 6       A.    Yes I can.  WUMP is -- a corollary term for
 7   WUMP in today's parlance at the District would be the
 8   Water Supply Planning Initiative.  Today's corollary
 9   for SWUMP would be a Regional Water Supply Plan.  And
10   DWUMP refers to a requirement in 1740 where the all
11   Water Management Districts shall develop a District
12   Water Use Management Plan which will address water
13   supply, the environment, land acquisition,
14   regulation, basically everything that water
15   management districts do.  And all the water
16   management districts are currently working on that
17   process, and it is due November 1st of 1994.
18       Q.    When were you working on the WUMP?
19       A.    That initiative began in October of 1988,
20   and it was born out of the results of the
21   Agricultural Water Use Task Force.
22       Q.    Who was working on that?
23       A.    On which?
24       Q.    On the WUMP.
25       A.    My division and a number of other people
                                                 96

 1   throughout the Water Management District.
 2       Q.    Okay.  Who was responsible for developing
 3   the WUMP?
 4       A.    Scott Burns was responsible for developing
 5   the long-term outline of a water supply planning
 6   process, and I was responsible for reviewing that and
 7   approving it, and I was responsible for developing
 8   the budgets that would be necessary to initiate such
 9   a long-term water supply planning process at the
10   District.
11       Q.    Just so I understand, when you are
12   referring to budgets, are you referring to actual
13   dollars or are we talking about, like, a water
14   budget?
15       A.    Oh, no.  Dollars for people and computers,
16   contracts.
17       Q.    When you say Mr. Burns was responsible for
18   the long-term outline, is that an assignment you gave
19   him?
20       A.    I believe it came out of a discussion that
21   a group of us had when the Agricultural Water Use
22   Task Force was over.  We said we really need to
23   develop a long-range plan for writing up these water
24   supply plans, and because we are required by law to
25   do that in 1740 and in Chapter 373 of the Florida
                                                 97

 1   Statutes.
 2       Q.    The WUMP would cover the entire geographic
 3   area of the District?
 4       A.    Yes.  The original WUMP initiative -- and I
 5   later changed the name of it when I became Director
 6   of Water Supply Planning to the Water Supply Planning
 7   Initiative -- had eight sections that covered the
 8   entire geographic area of the Water Management
 9   District.  These sections correspond to the
10   agricultural permit basins that are in the basis and
11   review for comsumptive use permitting.  I felt that
12   it was very cumbersome to write eight plans like
13   that, and we started to look at the basins.  We took
14   a map of the eight basins and saw that it was very
15   easy to collect a number of them together and create
16   four regions from eight separate basins where these
17   regions were related in the geology and in the
18   problems that they would face regarding water supply,
19   so eight were collapsed down to four.
20       Q.    You made reference that the eight regions
21   dealt with primarily eight different agricultural
22   regions; is that correct?
23       A.    Eight basins of agricultural water use
24   permitting basins that the size of the basin could
25   also include cities or pristine areas that had no
                                                 98

 1   development.
 2       Q.    Was the WUMP process geared towards
 3   addressing primarily agriculture then, or was it just
 4   all water use?
 5       A.    A water supply.  At the time, it started
 6   out with the need to figure out how to go through the
 7   long-term permit renewal process of over two thousand
 8   permits, making sure that the correct data models and
 9   information was available to evaluate them and to get
10   it more coalesced.  It became a specific planning for
11   water supply.
12       Q.    The approximately two thousand permits you
13   are referring to, though, those were agricultural?
14       A.    Yes.
15       Q.    So this grew out of that and expanded to
16   include cities?
17       A.    Yes.
18       Q.    Did it also include environmental water use
19   requirements?
20       A.    The Water Supply Planning Initiative, at
21   the initial stage, hoped to, at some point in time,
22   determine the environmental water supply needs, and
23   as we go through a number of years in that process,
24   we are developing that methodology and performing
25   that analysis.
                                                 99

 1       Q.    Did the WUMP, or subsequent Water Supply
 2   Plan, -- is that right --
 3       A.    Water Supply Planning Initiative.
 4       Q.    -- did that deal with both the demand and
 5   the supply or just look at uses?
 6       A.    It looked at demand and supply; identified
 7   areas where shortfalls would occur, and then, would
 8   propose many solutions for these problem areas.
 9       Q.    Okay.  Was that WUMP ultimately produced?
10       A.    The first Regional Water Supply Plan that
11   was produced was the Lower West Coast Draft Water
12   Supply Plan, which was published in January of 1991.
13       Q.    So a water use management plan for the
14   entire District was not produced?
15       A.    No, that is not due until November of 1994.
16       Q.    Is there a difference between the WUMP and
17   the DWUMP?
18       A.    Yes.  We don't use the terminology WUMP
19   anymore, so that is what is a little bit confusing
20   here, but WUMP in these documents refers to a Water
21   Use Management Plan Initiative; okay?  The District
22   Water Management Plan, which is laid out in state
23   water policy, talks about all aspects of water
24   management, including land management, land
25   acquisition, water quality in environment, water
                                                 100

 1   supply, and flood protection; okay?  That big
 2   District Water Management Plan, that all five
 3   districts are required to do -- water supply would be
 4   one sub-set of it.  Then you would have a series of
 5   documents related to flood control, you would have
 6   documents related to the environment, and documents
 7   related to water quality.
 8       Q.    Were you involved in the SWUMP, which I
 9   believe you said was Sectional Water Use Management
10   Plan?
11       A.    SWUMP is simply dividing the District into
12   the eight pieces to write these eight plans.
13       Q.    Dealt with the old eight regions?
14       A.    The eight regions.
15       Q.    Were you involved with any of the eight
16   regions prior to your taking over and collapsing them
17   into four, or combining them into four?
18       A.    No.
19       Q.    Who is involved with the SWUMP for the --
20   before I can ask that -- what regions were there that
21   are now collapsed into the lower east coast?
22       A.    They don't really have names.  They are
23   lines on a map.
24       Q.    Okay.  How many regions were there?
25       A.    Eight.
                                                 101

 1       Q.    How many regions previously were there that
 2   are now comprised of the Lower East Coast Region?
 3       A.    Either three or four.
 4       Q.    Who is responsible for the SWUMP with
 5   regard to those three or four?
 6       A.    We had never initiated that until this past
 7   year, when the District started the Lower East Coast
 8   Advisory Committee for Water Supply Planning.
 9       Q.    Who is on the Lower East Coast Water Supply
10   Planning Committee?  Is it a committee?
11       A.    Advisory committee.
12       Q.    Advisory committee?
13       A.    It is an external committee made up of
14   about 50 or 60 members that represent agriculture;
15   elected officials, governmental agencies,
16   environmental interest groups, and there are people
17   that reside between Palm Beach County and through
18   Monroe County.
19       Q.    Drawing your attention to the final page of
20   this exhibit, where it says "1, A:  SWIM/WUMP
21   linkage, Burns/Trost," what responsibilities and/or
22   activities did you do with regard to the SWIM/WUMP
23   linkage?
24       A.    I directed Mr. Burns to develop a Governing
25   Board presentation that explained what WUMP was.
                                                 102

 1       Q.    And how is the SWIM and the WUMP linked?
 2       A.    Basically, in the presentation the
 3   explanation was made that the time frames were
 4   different for the two initiatives, and that the
 5   regional water supply plan for the lower east coast
 6   was not scheduled for completion until '93 or '94.
 7   This is all going back like to like 1989 or
 8   something.  Discussions were held on whether or not
 9   people would have to work on specific water supply
10   aspects of SWIM or it should just be -- in the SWIM
11   plan, it should just reference the Water Supply
12   Planning Initiative; and when that information became
13   available, could be incorporated into any SWIM plan
14   and updates.
15       Q.    Was the information being developed for the
16   Lower East Coast Water Supply Planning Paper or Water
17   Supply Plan necessary for the SWIM plan?
18       A.    No, I don't think so.
19       Q.    Why not?
20       A.    Because the SWIM plan focuses on water
21   quality and environmental issues, and this is a water
22   supply issue.
23       Q.    Is water supply impacted or does water
24   supply impact the hydroperiod issues?
25       A.    What hydroperiod issues?
                                                 103

 1       Q.    Is it your understanding whether or not the
 2   Everglades SWIM Plan is supposed to address
 3   hydroperiod issues; restoration of hydroperiod to the
 4   Everglades?
 5       A.    That it is supposed to address?
 6       Q.    Yes.
 7       A.    I don't know.  I reviewed the geology
 8   section of the plan.
 9       Q.    Did you do work on the water supply policy
10   for the District, water supply policy paper?
11       A.    Yes, I am the principal author of that
12   paper.
13       Q.    Did that include a review of the Marjory
14   Stoneman Douglas Everglades Protection Act?
15       A.    No, it did not.
16       Q.    Has it ever been updated to include a
17   review of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas Everglades
18   Act?
19       A.    No.
20       Q.    Are you familiar with the Marjory Stoneman
21   Douglas Everglades Protection Act?
22       A.    I have heard of it, but I have never read
23   it.
24             (The document was marked
25             Trost Exb. No. 8.)
                                                 104

 1   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
 2       Q.    Drawing your attention to what has been
 3   marked as Trost Exhibit Number 8, a memorandum from
 4   Peter Rhoads to Jocelyn Branscome, dated April 12,
 5   1989, it is a three-page document, bates 0041271
 6   through 0041273, take a look at this document and
 7   tell me whether or not you have ever seen it before.
 8             MS. BIRCH:  Does your document say through
 9        Peter Rhoads or to Peter Rhoads?
10             MR. KOBELINSKI:  Thank you.  That would be
11        through Peter Rhoads.
12   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
13       Q.    And it is from Ms. Branscome to a
14   distribution list, including yourself.
15       A.    I don't recall it, but I can read it
16   quickly.
17       Q.    Have you ever seen any portion of this
18   document before?
19       A.    I do believe I have read this before.
20       Q.    Turning to the second and third page of
21   this document, which is entitled Draft Outline for
22   Everglades Area SWIM Plan, could you review the
23   assignments there, which include your name, and I
24   would draw your attention to Roman Numeral Number II,
25   Section C 3?
                                                 105

 1       A.    Yes.  I had just referred to that a few
 2   moments ago in my testimony; that I was asked to
 3   review the section on geology, history and soils.
 4   There are a number of sections on geology, history
 5   and soils in the document, and I was responsible for
 6   reviewing all of those sections.
 7       Q.    Drawing your attention there to II C 1A and
 8   B, there are sections there on geology, history and
 9   soils for the Water Conservation Areas in the EAA,
10   but there are no names assigned next to them.  Did
11   you review those sections?  I am referring to Roman
12   Numeral II C 1A and B, right above where you see
13   C-111 basin.
14       A.    I don't recall specifically reviewing those
15   sections, but anything on geology, history and soils
16   would have been my responsibility.
17       Q.    Okay.  Drawing your attention then to Roman
18   Numeral III, A2, what was your responsibility with
19   regard to the status, schedule and approach to
20   address water supply issues?
21       A.    I believe that Scott Burns was to prepare
22   the overall schedule for water supply plan
23   development, which would include the lower east
24   coast, and we were to provide it to the project
25   manager so that it could be incorporated into the
                                                 106