172
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
Deposition of Sharon Trost
20 VOLUME II
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 Petitioner in the
23 above cause.
- - -
24 Friday, October 30, 1992
319 Clematis Street, Suite 500
25 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
9:10 a.m. - 12:35 p.m.
173
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 Also present: Courtney T. Hackney, Ph.D.
- - -
174
1 - - -
2 I N D E X
3 - - -
4
5 WITNESS: DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS
6 Sharon Trost
7
BY MR. KOBELINSKI: 174(continued)
8
9 - - -
10 E X H I B I T S
11 - - -
12
13 NUMBER PAGE DESCRIPTION
14 EXB. NO. 33 180 Water supply trends/conditions
EXB. NO. 34 185 Strategic Plan 1990-2000
15 EXB. NO. 35,36 228 ASR Executive Summary/Report
EXB. NO. 37 253 2/9/90 Memo to Bradow from
16 Coughanour
EXB. NO. 38 255 9/7/90 memo to Distribution list
17 from Fontaine
EXB. NO. 39 256 7/25/90 memo to Trost from Shine
18 EXB. NO. 40 257 8/22/90 memo to Trost from Bucca
EXB. NO. 41 259 memo from Niedraur to Sculley
19 EXB. NO. 42 261 12/20/91 memo from Worth to
Distribution list
20
21
175
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 previously duly
6 sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
7 THE WITNESS: I do.
8 CONTINUED DIRECT (Sharon Trost)
9 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
10 Q. I guess we are back on the record. Good
11 morning Miss Trost. This will be a continuation of
12 the deposition we commenced yesterday. I would
13 remind you that you are still under oath, and I have
14 a couple of follow-up questions, before we move on to
15 a different area, with regard to some of the matters
16 we covered yesterday.
17 The first deals with the report that you
18 supervised, with regard to the potential downstream
19 impacts of the Water Management Areas, and although I
20 do not recall the specific comments you had made with
21 regard to hydroperiod, but as a premise to that, let
22 me ask you; do you have substantial experience in the
23 study and impact of hydroperiod upon flora and fauna?
24 MS. BIRCH: Object to the form.
25 THE WITNESS: No, I do not.
176
1 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
2 Q. Do you consider yourself a hydroperiod
3 expert?
4 A. No, I do not.
5 Q. Have you, for the District, done any type
6 of hydroperiod studies?
7 A. I had a contract that was being managed by
8 a person in my division entitled Wetlands
9 Hydroperiods that was basically a literature search;
10 it was done by two outside consultants, but I did not
11 perform the study or the analysis.
12 Q. Other than that, have you done any types of
13 studies, projects or analysis dealing with
14 hydroperiod?
15 A. The only other study I can think of was
16 about four years ago. The U. S. Geological Survey
17 did a study for the Water Management District
18 entitled "The effects of a well field on limestone
19 type Everglades wetlands", and it was about how, if a
20 well field drew the water level down a lot, would
21 that affect the wetland?
22 Q. Did you participate in that?
23 A. No, I did not.
24 Q. Okay. With regard to -- we had, yesterday,
25 a number of questions relating to the District models
177
1 used for the Lower East Coast Planning Area; what
2 familiarity do you have with those models?
3 A. As I stated yesterday in the deposition, I
4 am only familiar with the basic concepts of how they
5 work and the individuals that utilize them. I have
6 never run any of those models, I have never analyzed
7 any of the code of those models, and I have never
8 analyzed the output from any of those models.
9 Q. Have you ever been a modeler for the
10 District for any portion of the District?
11 A. Yes, I have.
12 Q. And for what geographic areas?
13 A. For the upper east coast, which is Martin
14 and St. Lucie counties, and I have overseen model
15 development in Lee County, Collier County, Hendry
16 County and Palm Beach County. These models are
17 groundwater flow models which do not simulate
18 overland flow of surface water, they only simulate
19 water levels within aquifer systems; underground
20 water.
21 Q. Have you ever done any modeling which
22 included both surface water and groundwater flows?
23 A. No, I have not.
24 Q. Have you ever done any modeling in relation
25 to surface water flows?
178
1 A. Only in graduate school.
2 Q. Is the modeling in relation to surface
3 water flows different than the modeling that would be
4 used for ground water flows?
5 A. Yes, it is.
6 Q. Does the District have modelers who are
7 assigned to, or work with, the Lower East Coast
8 Geographic area, or planning area?
9 A. Yes, there is a division that works -- a
10 division called the Lower District Planning Division,
11 and there are divisions in the other departments --
12 The Everglades Research Division -- in which those
13 individuals occasionally work on modeling projects in
14 the lower east coast.
15 Q. To your knowledge, who is the person most
16 knowledgeable, at the District, with regard to the
17 District modeling efforts for the Lower District
18 Planning Division, or geographic area, should I say?
19 A. I don't know who is most knowledgeable.
20 Q. Who, in your opinion, is knowledgeable as
21 to those areas?
22 A. Calvin Neidrauer.
23 Q. Could you spell that last name?
24 A. N-e-i-d-r-a-u-e-r. Paul Trimble, Ray
25 Santee.
179
1 Q. Is that all? Mr. Trimble and Mr. Santee
2 were the engineers, or modelers, that you supervised
3 with regard to the potential impact of the WMAs; is
4 that correct?
5 A. That is correct. I don't really believe I
6 actually supervised them, though. I would classify
7 that as more of a coordination of that assignment and
8 providing them with logistical support. They were
9 not reporting to me nor have I ever performed a
10 performance appraisal of their work.
11 Q. Are you aware what their current position
12 is?
13 A. I don't know their exact titles.
14 Q. Do you know what division they worked for?
15 A. Yes, I do.
16 Q. And that is?
17 A. The Lower District Planning Division.
18 Q. To your knowledge, are they still working
19 on modeling for the Lower District Geographic Area?
20 A. I don't know what they are working on
21 specifically.
22 Q. From the time that they had conducted the
23 WMA study to today's date, have they been in the
24 Lower District Planning Division?
25 A. No. Due to several reorganizations, they
180
1 were in a number of different divisions, and I do not
2 know exactly when they became members of the Lower
3 District Planning Division.
4 Q. Currently, they are members, though; is
5 that correct?
6 A. That is correct.
7 (The document was marked
8 Trost Exb. No. 33.)
9 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
10 Q. I am showing you, Miss Trost, what has been
11 marked as Trost Exhibit Number 33 and ask you to take
12 a look at this document and tell me whether or not
13 you have ever seen it before. It is a memorandum
14 from Richard Rogers to a number of people including
15 yourself dated January 2, 1990, the subject being
16 "Comments on Water Supply Trends and Conditions
17 Analysis". It bears bates numbers 0351890 through
18 0351907.
19 A. Yes, I recall this document.
20 Q. Do you know what the purpose of this
21 document was?
22 A. In late 1989 -- the Planning Department was
23 formed approximately October of 1989. Mr. Rogers was
24 the director of the department. Shortly before the
25 Christmas holidays in 1989 he announced, to the
181
1 division directors, that in order to focus the
2 project that we were working on, we had, everyone, to
3 prepare what he called Concept Plans of the different
4 projects. These concept plans would be brief
5 summaries of each of the approximately 25 to 30
6 projects that we were attempting to work on in the
7 department, that kind of laid out the title of the
8 project, why we were doing the project and what we
9 thought we would learn from the project, and a
10 section of those plans was to include current trends
11 or conditions in that particular Natural Resource
12 Management Area within our Water Management District.
13 Mr. Rogers prepared this paper and sent it out to us
14 for review and comments. These were his thoughts on
15 water supply trends and condition analysis.
16 Q. Did you preview this document?
17 A. Yes, I did.
18 Q. Did you provide any comments to Mr. Rogers?
19 A. Yes, I did.
20 Q. Did you retain a copy of those comments?
21 A. No, I did not. Normally, because there are
22 so many pieces of paper that go around the District
23 and the deadlines, this apparently -- we were allowed
24 three days to give comment. I normally write my
25 comments right on the document and give it back to
182
1 the individual, then they can incorporate them as
2 they see fit.
3 Q. Do you recall what sections of this
4 document you provided comments on?
5 A. Yes. I commented on the entire document
6 because I felt that it read a little bit choppy, and
7 most of my comments were of an editorial nature and
8 tried to make the document a little bit more clear.
9 So I would say a lot of my comments were for style.
10 Q. From the first page of the document this
11 bears the Director of the Water Supply Planning
12 Division. Remind me, if you would, at this
13 particular stage, what were your general
14 responsibilities were; for instance, the geographic
15 area that you were responsible for.
16 A. As I mentioned in yesterday's deposition, I
17 was responsible for initiating an overall water
18 supply planning process for the entire geographic
19 area of the District. Our focus, for that first year
20 of the department, was to identify what we felt could
21 be generic outlines, or approaches, that were
22 systematic to developing water supply plans
23 regardless of the geographic region; identifying the
24 four major geographic regions for which we were going
25 to write plans and working on the Water Supply Policy
183
1 Document. In addition, we did initiate the
2 development of the Lower West Coast Water Supply
3 Plan. I was overseeing, that first year, the
4 preparation of the Needs and Sources Survey Document.
5 Q. What is Mr. Rogers' current position with
6 the District?
7 A. Mr. Rogers is now the Director of the
8 Surface Water Management Division in the Department
9 of Regulation.
10 Q. Surface Water -- was that management?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Drawing your attention to bates page
13 numbers 0351902 through 0351906, do you recall what
14 if any comments you had on this portion of the
15 document? I am referring to the Lower East Coast
16 portion.
17 A. I remember rewriting portions of this
18 because I felt that the sentence structure needed a
19 little bit of help. I don't think that -- Mr. Rogers
20 is a very busy man and he probably didn't have a lot
21 of time to prepare this, so I felt it needed a little
22 bit of style and grammatical assistance, but I don't
23 remember specifically any comments that I made.
24 Q. Are you aware how much time was devoted to
25 this paper by Mr. Rogers?
184
1 A. I'm not aware of how much time,
2 specifically, was devoted.
3 Q. Do you know if he had any assistance in the
4 preparation of this document?
5 A. No, I believe that he wrote this document
6 and then sent it out to us for review and comment, so --
7 Q. Drawing your attention to page 0351904,
8 second full paragraph there, approximately middle of
9 that paragraph, the statement is "there is an obvious
10 shared public /private responsibility for water
11 quality traveling from the EAA to the WCA"; do you
12 recall whether you provided any comments on that
13 statement?
14 A. I don't recall if I did or not.
15 Q. Do you know what Mr. Rogers meant by that
16 statement?
17 A. No. I would have to take the statement at
18 face value.
19 Q. The next statement, "The worst thing that
20 could happen to the Everglades system is for all
21 water to be retained in the EAA." Did you provide
22 comments on that statement?
23 A. I believe I asked him to clarify what he
24 meant by that.
25 Q. Did you discuss with him what he meant by
185
1 that?
2 A. No, I did not. I don't recall discussing
3 that with him.
4 Q. Do you recall whether or not he did clarify
5 that?
6 A. I don't recall if another version of this
7 document came out or not.
8 Q. Do you know what Mr. Rogers meant by that
9 statement; "The worst thing that could happen in the
10 Everglades system is for all water to be retained in
11 the EAA"?
12 A. I would have to speculate. I don't really
13 know exactly what he meant by that.
14 Q. You don't know? That is sufficient. Thank
15 you.
16 (The document was marked
17 Trost Exb. No. 34.)
18 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
19 Q. Showing you, Miss Trost, what has been
20 marked as Trost Exhibit Number 34, I ask you to take
21 a look at this document and tell me whether or not
22 you have ever seen the document.
23 A. That is my handwriting.
24 Q. Okay. For the record, are you identifying
25 the handwriting in the upper right-hand portion of
186
1 the first page of this document?
2 A. Yes. That says Sharon Trost.
3 Q. For the record, this document is entitled
4 "Strategic Plan 1990 to year 2000, South Florida
5 Water Management District", dated May 9, 1990; it
6 bears bates numbers 0800219 through 0800329.
7 MS. BIRCH: Mark, there are some numbers
8 missing out of this document.
9 THE WITNESS: It goes from 249 to 271 E-5
10 to E-28.
11 MR. KOBELINSKI: What do you have?
12 THE WITNESS: E-26. It is backwards.
13 MS. BIRCH: It appears that it is out of
14 order.
15 THE WITNESS: It is all messed up.
16 MR. KOBELINSKI: Why don't we do this: Can
17 you mark this one as the original? I don't
18 think there are any markings on it. This one
19 appears to be in order. And I'll use that.
20 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
21 Q. Have you seen the document?
22 A. Yes, I have seen the document.
23 Q. What is the purpose of this document?
24 A. The purpose of the document is to inform
25 the board, the members of the public, and the staff,
187
1 of the major programs and projects that the District
2 would be working on over the next several years and
3 to provide guidance for those parties; and where the
4 District estimates it will be allocating its
5 resources and budget dollars, manpower and so forth.
6 Q. Did you have any input in this document?
7 A. Yes, I did.
8 Q. What was your input?
9 A. I prepared some summaries of some water
10 supply issues, including a portion of page 2 under
11 "water supply".
12 Q. What portion of the water supply did you
13 provide or did you participate in on page 2?
14 A. The bullets that are underneath the heading
15 Water Supply, I wrote those bullets, or wrote bullets
16 similar to that. They may have been slightly
17 modified by the editors of the plan. I also provided
18 the information on page 25 under number two, Water
19 Supply Planning, which is basically part of a matrix,
20 where I told the major focus of the initiative was to
21 provide data and studies in support of augmenting
22 water supplies and some typical projects that would
23 fall underneath that. Then in the section entitled
24 Regional Trends & Conditions, this section here,
25 probably represents the revised or edited version of
188
1 Mr. Rogers' earlier --
2 MR. ROSENBERG: Excuse me. What page are
3 you at?
4 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry; I am on page E9
5 now, on 0800253.
6 MR. ROSENBERG: I don't have that.
7 MR. KOBELINSKI: Yours might also be
8 reversed, Bob.
9 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
10 Q. I'm sorry. Could you repeat what you were
11 saying with regard to the E section? What had you
12 provided assistance, or input, on?
13 A. No, on the E section I had only provided
14 some review of Mr. Rogers' earlier draft, which a
15 number, probably 10 or 12 people, were asked to
16 review, and when their comments went back, I'm sure
17 that various comments are reflected in this final
18 edited portion here.
19 Q. To your knowledge, is this the final
20 version of this document?
21 A. We have had two or three, possibly four
22 strategic plans in the last three or four years, and
23 they changed the annual date on them, but there could
24 have been another version. I don't really know.
25 When you're a Division Director, you get copies of
189
1 all sorts of documents like this circulated to you
2 and it is very hard to say whether this was the final
3 one.
4 Q. Do you recall seeing a strategic plan for
5 1990 through the year 2000 after May 9, 1990?
6 A. No, I don't, but if it had the same title
7 and it was a later version, I may not have realized
8 that it was different.
9 Q. Okay. Do you know who would have provided
10 information on the lower east coast contained in this
11 document?
12 A. Would you direct me to the pages, please?
13 Q. Drawing your attention to pages E9 through
14 E17 or bates numbers 0800260 through on page E26,
15 which bears bates number 0800269?
16 A. Including the flood control and
17 environmental enhancements portions of it?
18 Q. Yes.
19 A. Okay.
20 A. I believe that the population projections,
21 on page E17 under Item A, Regional Overview, were
22 prepared by David Gilpin-Hudson and Jane Bucca of my
23 staff.
24 Q. The second name that you just mentioned,
25 could you just do it again?
190
1 A. B-u-c-c-a.
2 Q. All right.
3 A. Going into the Water Supply Section, it
4 clearly resembles Mr. Rogers' writing style, so I am
5 assuming that he wrote this section. It seems to be
6 the same document as the previous, just in a
7 different type face.
8 I don't know for certain who wrote the
9 flood control protection section.
10 I don't know who wrote the section on Water
11 Quality /environmental Enhancement, however, I do
12 know that it was not anyone in my division at that
13 time because I would have recalled this from
14 reviewing it; and we wouldn't be writing something
15 water quality or environmental enhancement in that
16 division anyway.
17 Q. Is there a particular reason you would have
18 recalled this, having reviewed it?
19 A. The only thing I recall reviewing in this
20 document was the water supply section that we
21 discussed; the last exhibit that we just discussed.
22 Q. I'm sorry but your testimony, a few moments
23 ago, stated that "I would have recalled reviewing
24 this had I reviewed it"; is there a particular reason
25 why, since you previously stated you review hundreds
191
1 of documents and you can't always recall what you
2 have reviewed, is there something particular about
3 this water quality environmental enhancement section
4 that you would have specifically recalled? Was there
5 a reason for that comment?
6 A. I probably would have recalled it because
7 the Lake Okeechobee SWIM Plan is heavily discussed
8 here, and that is a major project at the District,
9 and I knew at the time, around 1990, that we were
10 going to be reorganizing again and I was going to be
11 responsible for Lake Okeechobee issues.
12 Q. With regard to discussions here regarding
13 Lake Okeechobee or the Lake Okeechobee SWIM Plan, is
14 there anything in here that you take exception with?
15 MS. BIRCH: Object to the form.
16 THE WITNESS: I would have to carefully
17 read the document and make an analysis of it
18 before I could answer that.
19 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
20 Q. Please feel free to review the section, or
21 whatever else you need to, to tell me whether or not
22 there is anything in there that you disagree with.
23 A. Which section are you referring to? The
24 entire --
25 Q. The Water Quality Environmental
192
1 Enhancements, which you previously commented on.
2 MR. ROSENBERG: What page is that?
3 MR. KOBELINSKI: E23, bates 0800266.
4 (Thereupon, a portion of the record
5 was read by the reporter.)
6 MR. KOBELINSKI: I am referring to the
7 water quality environmental enhancements
8 section, which the witnessed previously
9 testified "had she reviewed it, she would have
10 recalled it". I am just trying to find out
11 what, if anything, in that section the witness
12 disagrees with.
13 MS. BIRCH: I thought that Miss Trost was a
14 witness as to water supply, water supply
15 modeling and hydroperiod. This section deals
16 with water quality environmental enhancements.
17 I have not heard her testify that she was
18 an expert at to water quality or hydroperiod or
19 any environmental matter. Unless she has
20 personal knowledge as to the issues that may
21 have been raised in that section, I would
22 instruct her not to answer if it would require
23 her to draw conclusions, or speculate, as to
24 what the author might have meant, if she has no
25 personal knowledge of what was in this section.
193
1 MR. KOBELINSKI: Counsel, I'm not asking
2 her to speculate as to anything. She testified
3 that portions of this section dealt with Lake
4 Okeechobee SWIM Plan, which she had
5 responsibility for, and as such, she would have
6 recalled reviewing it.
7 MS. BIRCH: I don't recall that as being
8 her testimony.
9 MR. KOBELINSKI: Would you please read back
10 that testimony?
11 THE WITNESS: That was not my testimony.
12 MR. KOBELINSKI: That's fine. Let's read
13 back what the testimony was and find out exactly
14 what it was.
15 MS. BIRCH: Let's read back the question
16 previous to the testimony.
17 (Thereupon, a portion of the record
18 was read by the reporter.)
19 MS. BIRCH: Same objection, adding no
20 foundation. I think what Miss Trost testified
21 to was she would have been responsible for the
22 Lake Okeechobee section SWIM plan, she would
23 have had significant involvement, but I don't
24 see a foundation that's been laid to
25 sufficiently qualify her to testify about that
194
1 section. But if she can answer --
2 THE WITNESS: As I just testified, I was
3 not yet in charge of the Lake Okeechobee SWIM
4 Plan. I had heard we were going to reorganize
5 and that I would probably be in charge of it
6 within the next year, so at the time that this
7 document was prepared, I had done no work on
8 Lake Okeechobee or on the Lake Okeechobee SWIM
9 Plan.
10 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
11 Q. I understand that from your prior
12 testimony. My question still remains, is there
13 anything in this water quality/environmental
14 enhancement section that you disagree with?
15 A. I would have to read the section. If there
16 was anything that confused me I would have to find
17 out who wrote the section; I would have to ask them
18 what they meant by it before I could give you a
19 professional and accurate answer.
20 Q. Okay. And where we started approximately
21 15 minutes ago, please feel free to read the section
22 and, if there is any other portion of the document
23 you need to read -- the section is all of
24 approximately two-and-a-half pages long -- if there
25 is another portion of the document you need to refer
195
1 to, please do so. If there are portions that confuse
2 you, you can tell me in subsequent testimony, but
3 please feel free to read the section so you can
4 respond to the question.
5 MS. BIRCH: My watch indicates that we have
6 been discussing and reading back for
7 approximately seven minutes.
8 MR. KOBELINSKI: I'll withdraw my prior
9 estimate of 15 minutes. Seven minutes.
10 THE WITNESS: Regarding the section; I have
11 read the section pages E23 to E26 and I do not
12 disagree with anything under the paragraph that
13 says Trends, talking about Lake Okeechobee, up
14 through number four, where it says "Expansion of
15 the Lake Okeechobee SWIM Plan". On the
16 remaining section, I really have no opinion one
17 way or another.
18 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
19 Q. And why is that?
20 A. Because I have never done any work in the
21 area of the Everglades or the Water Conservation
22 Areas and I don't feel that I am trained in ecology
23 or water quality issues.
24 Q. Okay. So you're just referring to the
25 sections on the Everglades. You have not studied
196
1 that, as a result, you do not have a comment on that;
2 is that correct?
3 A. The only comment I am making is that under
4 Trends, number one through four, on Lake Okeechobee,
5 I don't disagree with anything there. And on the
6 remaining one, two, three pages, I have no comments.
7 I have no opinion.
8 Q. Again, when you say you have no opinion, do
9 you agree or disagree with any sections of this?
10 Because there are in, for instance page E26 areas of
11 concern, there are a number there with regard to Lake
12 Okeechobee. You have no opinion on those one way or
13 another?
14 MS. BIRCH: Objection; asked and answered,
15 and I think we are becoming argumentative with
16 the witness. You have asked the question three
17 times.
18 THE WITNESS: These are simply areas of
19 concern; these are not statements of fact.
20 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
21 Q. My question is, do you have any
22 disagreement with -- do you agree or disagree with
23 any of these areas? Do you agree that the area of
24 concern number one, the Lake Okeechobee regulation
25 schedule, has adverse effects on the littoral zone?
197
1 MS. BIRCH: Objection; asked and answered.
2 MR. KOBELINSKI: I have yet to hear an
3 agree or disagree.
4 MS. BIRCH: She told you. She answered the
5 question. You want her to agree or disagree.
6 She told you she has no opinion on it. She
7 doesn't have to have an opinion.
8 MR. KOBELINSKI: I agree with that,
9 counsel.
10 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
11 Q. Do you have any experience with regard to
12 the Lake Okeechobee regulation schedules?
13 A. Very limited experience.
14 Q. Do you have any knowledge as to whether or
15 not they have an impact on the littoral zone?
16 A. No, I don't because we have a major
17 contract study that will not be complete until
18 September of 1993, which will give us, hopefully, the
19 answer to that question.
20 Q. Was there a concern in 1990 that it was
21 having an impact upon the littoral zone which
22 prompted the study?
23 MS. BIRCH: Object to the form of the
24 question.
25 THE WITNESS: Concerns that there were
198
1 impacts was what initiated our work with IFAS
2 and the University of Florida to perform that
3 study.
4 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
5 Q. Do you agree with the concerns that
6 prompted the study?
7 A. I didn't agree nor disagree because I was
8 not involved in prompting that study. I stepped into
9 the whole issue with Lake Okeechobee in the last
10 year. That is when my involvement with that lake
11 initiated.
12 Q. What are your responsibilities with regard
13 to Lake Okeechobee?
14 A. My division, the Upper District Planning
15 Division, is responsible for producing the Lake
16 Okeechobee SWIM Plan Update, which is currently --
17 which just transmitted to the Department of
18 Environmental Regulation for consistency review with
19 state water policy.
20 Q. Does the Lake Okeechobee SWIM Plan Update
21 cover, at all, any adverse effects the regulation
22 schedule has on the littoral zone?
23 A. It discusses the Lake Okeechobee Ecosystem
24 Study which I just referred to a moments ago, the
25 contractual study we have at the University of
199
1 Florida, discusses the purposes of that study and how
2 the literal zone will be examined in that study, and
3 it discusses a study with the Corps of Engineers
4 where we look at the lake regulation schedule. Both
5 of those studies are ongoing, neither has been
6 complete and, therefore, I can not give any opinion
7 on whether or not there is an adverse effect on the
8 literal zone.
9 Q. I guess my question is, if it is no longer
10 an area of concern, why is the study ongoing?
11 A. Whoever said it was no longer an area of
12 concern?
13 Q. Okay.
14 A. I am saying we initiated a sturdy and we
15 have to get the results of that study before we know
16 whether or not we should have a concern.
17 Q. What prompted the study?
18 A. I don't know, because I was working in a
19 different area at the time that that study was
20 initiated.
21 Q. Are you now responsible for the ongoing
22 study?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Who is?
25 A. Who is the contractor, or who is the
200
1 District contact person?
2 Q. Who is the division under which that study
3 is being conducted?
4 A. That study is conducted by the University
5 of Florida. However, staff at the Water Management
6 District lias with the people at the University of
7 Florida to monitor the progress of the study, and
8 that is Dr. Nicholas Aumen, who is the director of
9 the Kissimmee Okeechobee Systems Research Division.
10 Q. All right. Does your division have any
11 dealings with regard to that study?
12 A. Our only dealings with regard to that study
13 are when Dr. Aumen provides us with deliverables that
14 have been reviewed and approved by his staff. We
15 then incorporate that information into any subsequent
16 SWIM planning updates. We are a planning division.
17 That is a research study, and as such, is being
18 monitored by someone in the Research Department.
19 Q. Under what division would the research
20 monitoring and planning for Lake Okeechobee occur?
21 A. Research studies regarding Lake Okeechobee
22 would be conducted under the Division of Kissimmee
23 Okeechobee Systems Research, under the direction of
24 Dr. Nick Aumen. Anything regarding monitoring, any
25 monitoring of data that District staff would collect,
201
1 would have been performed out of Dr. Leslie
2 Wedderburn's department, the Water Resource
3 Evaluation Department, and I don't know who
4 specifically would collect the data.
5 Q. And planning?
6 A. The Planning Department does planning
7 regarding Lake Okeechobee. We don't do any research
8 or data collection regarding Lake Okeechobee in our
9 department.
10 Q. So you're saying it would be the Planning
11 Department for planning regarding Lake Okeechobee?
12 A. Oh, I thought you meant planning, meaning
13 Planning Department.
14 Q. No.
15 A. I misunderstood the question.
16 Q. I'm sorry. I am just reading off Area of
17 Concern number three; I'm trying to find out what
18 divisions are in charge of the different various
19 areas mentioned there.
20 A. My division is in charge of planning for
21 Lake Okeechobee SWIM activities.
22 MR. KOBELINSKI: Let's take a quick break.
23 (Thereupon, a recess was taken.)
24 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
25 Q. Miss Trost, when did you become involved
202
1 with the aquifer storage recovery demonstration
2 project for Lake Okeechobee?
3 A. I believe I became the project manager in
4 mid 1988. I'm not sure of the exact date.
5 Q. At what stage was the project at that point
6 in time?
7 A. The project was only a concept. It hadn't
8 been initiated until I became the project manager.
9 Q. Who was involved in, or in charge of, the
10 planning of the parameters of the project?
11 A. I'm not sure what you mean by parameters.
12 Q. Okay. Who planned, for instance, where it
13 would be, how many wells, what was going to be tested
14 for; just generally who planned out what the project
15 would be?
16 A. Okay. The LOTAC committee, in their final
17 report, recommended the installation of an aquifer
18 storage and recovery demonstration project in the
19 Taylor Creek/Nuben Slough basin north of Lake
20 Okeechobee, so that basically laid out the fact that
21 there was going to be a demonstration project and
22 what basin it would be, and it was going to be one
23 project. After that LOTAC committee finalized all
24 their reports, a number of recommendations for
25 implementation strategies came out and the executive
203
1 office assigned various people to be in charge of
2 seeing those projects come to fruition. I was
3 selected to oversee the aquifer storage and recovery
4 demonstration project.
5 The first thing that I did was to sit down
6 with staff and try to develop a very broad concept of
7 what our goals would be in that project and to
8 identify what type of contractual assistance we would
9 need to perform this project. We identified a need
10 for three different contracts to help us implement
11 this demonstration project. The first of these was
12 an engineering services contract. Within the
13 engineering services contract we would use CCNA
14 procedures, send out a request for proposals, and
15 have an engineering firm, or group of firms, respond
16 back. These people would help to design the specific
17 aspect of the ASR well, to develop the water quality
18 monitoring program, to actually perform the
19 engineering testing analysis on the site, and to
20 supervise all construction, or work done, at the
21 site. That is the first contract the engineering
22 services.
23 The next contract that we identified was a
24 need for someone to drill the aquifer storage and
25 recovery well, and the on-site monitoring well, and
204
1 to install all the appropriate plumbing and piping
2 and appurtenances, valves, flow meters, et cetera.
3 We identified yet a third contract that
4 would be necessary, and that was the construction of
5 the surface facilities for the project. The surface
6 facilities would include installation of a cofferdam
7 along the canal so that we could have an intake pipe
8 and collect water from the surface water canal and
9 put it into a holding basin that was a couple of
10 acres in size and then take that water and inject it
11 down into an ASR well, so you had to have surface
12 facilities, meaning things you could physically see
13 on the surface. So that was the third construction
14 contract.
15 We proceeded --
16 Q. Before you go any further, I don't mean to
17 interrupt you, but you mentioned coffer -- well, just
18 briefly, cofferdam -- excuse me -- what is a
19 cofferdam?
20 A. Cofferdam is just concrete piling, it is a
21 structure that holds the sediment solid at the bank
22 so it doesn't erode, and you can place an intake pipe
23 or something in that, so you can capture water.
24 Q. All right. Thank you. If you would then
25 continue with your next step.
205
1 A. We had finished the identification of the
2 need for three different contracts and we felt that,
3 since we had limited experience, my staff and I, in
4 the area of surface facility construction, and since
5 we did not know specifically how deep we would want
6 the ASR well yet, because the geology in south
7 Florida is very site specific, we decided to initiate
8 the advertisement for the engineering services.
9 We felt it would be most effective if we
10 worked with the engineering firm through this process
11 and we would put in, as part of the scope of work,
12 that they help us develop the bid specifications for
13 these other two contracts and that is what occurred.
14 We advertised for engineering services and
15 went through that entire procurement process and the
16 firm of CH2M Hill, in Deerfield Beach, was selected
17 for the contract. We negotiated a contract and
18 agreed upon a contract price of $380,000 for
19 engineering services associated with this project.
20 That engineering firm then assisted us in developing
21 bidding documents, bid specifications for the other
22 contracts. The engineering firm recommended all of
23 the testing and sample collection data on the project
24 for our approval and then we would either approve or
25 disapprove the recommendation and then they would
206
1 proceed on. We negotiated a detailed scope of work.
2 It took several weeks to do that. We agreed upon
3 that and we took the contract to the Board for
4 execution and the Board allowed us to enter into a
5 contract with the engineering company.
6 Q. Okay. After you entered into a contract
7 with the engineering company, what was the next
8 general step?
9 A. The next general step was for us to select
10 a specific site for the ASR demonstration project.
11 In order to do that, I took several members of my
12 senior staff with me and I got a four-wheel drive
13 vehicle and I went up into the Taylor Creek/Nuben
14 Slough basin and started to ride the levees in the
15 basin to locate a site that I felt would be
16 sufficient -- of such magnitude -- for such a
17 drilling and testing operation. The drill rigs that
18 are required to construct wells like this are quite
19 large. They are smaller than an oil company rig, but
20 they are much larger than our drilling rigs at the
21 District. I wanted to make sure we had ingress and
22 egress and that the equipment could turn around
23 without jackknifing, that we would have storage for
24 pipe and cement and other supplies; so we spent a
25 half a day driving up and down the levees and we
207
1 located the perfect site for the demonstration
2 project.
3 Q. Pardon me. If I could again just ask you a
4 quick question in that regard; were the geologic
5 factors considered in site selection at this point,
6 or purely the surface characteristics that you had
7 just mentioned?
8 A. At that point you really have to go on
9 surface characteristics for the staging area and for
10 logistics because you don't know what you are going
11 to encounter. Drilling is unknown. That is why
12 drilling contracts are very complicated when you
13 negotiate a contract with a drilling company, because
14 they never know what they will encounter as they
15 drill down into the earth. So they can run into
16 problems and you may have to pay extra money, or
17 things can go very smoothly and you may come in under
18 budget. So it is very hard to predict with a
19 drilling contract what your final budget will be.
20 Q. Did CH2M Hill assist in the selection of
21 the site?
22 A. No, they did not. After we selected the
23 site, we recommended it to them. Their staff --
24 Their project manager went out to the site with my
25 field subordinate who was in charge of all field
208
1 operations at that time, and he agreed that the site
2 appeared to have optimal logistics.
3 Q. Who is the CH2M Hill project manager?
4 A. Albert Muniz.
5 Q. Could you spell that last name?
6 A. M-u-n-i. He is a professional engineer.
7 Q. And you had mentioned that someone from
8 your staff had gone out there. What position was he?
9 A. His name was Martin Braun, B-r-a-u-n, and
10 his title is Supervisor of Field Operations,
11 Hydrogeology Division. This was all while I was
12 still director of the hydrogeology division.
13 Q. Was he the actual on-site manager for the
14 District for this project?
15 A. He was the field manager to oversee the
16 drilling and testing. However, we did have
17 professional hydrogeologists at the key point of
18 aquifer testing and at various key phases of the
19 project. I was present for all key field phases, but
20 for the mundane, day-to-day, hour after hour of slow
21 drilling, the field operation supervisor was the
22 appropriate person to have on site.
23 Q. And that was Martin Braun; is that correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. All right. Once the site was approved by
209
1 CH2M Hill, what was the next step in the process?
2 A. The next step in the process was a very
3 lengthy permitting process with the Department of
4 Environmental Regulation. In addition, CH2M Hill was
5 able to perform various types of tests, including jar
6 tests on water in the Taylor Creek, to get a handle
7 on what the water quality parameters were. And we
8 had various analyses to be submitted to DER as part
9 of the terms of the permit.
10 Q. Did the permitting process result in any
11 changes in your plan for the ASR project?
12 A. No, it did not.
13 Q. Approximately how long did the permitting
14 process take?
15 A. Well, there were large number of permits
16 required for this project, and the first permit that
17 you have to pursue is the construction clearance
18 permit, which basically gives you permission to
19 construct what is known as a Class 5 well, and within
20 the DER, the various types of wells are broken into
21 different classifications, depending upon whether
22 they are for public supply or for testing for
23 experimental design, for disposal of effluents,
24 sewage effluents, for example. There are a lot of
25 different criteria they have, and they have specific
210
1 processes for each one. We were able to proceed with
2 the design and drilling of the monitor well after a
3 nominal review by their staff, because that well we
4 were doing was typical of wells all over. The
5 agricultural interests in the area would have very
6 similar wells to that.
7 Regarding the aquifer storage and recovery
8 well, that had to be constructed to certain
9 specifications with certain sizes and thicknesses of
10 casing, it had to be made of a certain material, it
11 had to have certain types of concrete seals and inner
12 seals on the casing at each level. Special blowout
13 preventers were required because, when you drill down
14 deep, there is a lot of pressure in the aquifer
15 system, and they wanted to minimize the chance of
16 more salinet water depth-bursting out and going into
17 onto the ground in that area, so there were a number
18 of requirements that we had to follow, and we had to
19 work with the drilling company and with the
20 engineering firm to make sure that we would be able
21 to satisfy their concerns.
22 Q. What is a Class 5 well?
23 A. A Class 5 well is a well that is used for
24 injection of materials; and in this particular case,
25 since we were going to a relatively shallow horizon
211
1 and we were going to recover the materials, they
2 really didn't have a specific category that we could
3 go to, so we had to kind of build -- we actually
4 built this ASR well to the same level of standards
5 that you would for a sewage disposal well, which
6 was -- it was extremely overdesigned for the purpose
7 of the project, in my opinion.
8 Q. Are you aware whether, currently, there is
9 a class of well for ASR wells?
10 A. We are working on that. I am the District
11 representative and I am attending a meeting with the
12 United States EPA on Monday, and with the DER, to
13 discuss the regulatory aspects and the proper way to
14 streamline and to improve the efficiency of
15 permitting for ASR projects. We have only had one
16 meeting to date, and this is our second meeting, on
17 Monday.
18 Q. In addition to the construction clearance
19 permit, were there any additional permits you
20 obtained?
21 A. Yes. I had to obtain a dredge and fill
22 permit from the Corps of Engineers to construct the
23 cofferdam. I also had to obtain a similar type of
24 dredge and fill permit from the DER. However, when I
25 successfully obtained one from the Corps of Engineers
212
1 they accepted their permit.
2 Besides the construction clearance, and the
3 dredge and fill, when we first started to sample the
4 water from the monitor well from this zone and
5 compare the native Floridan aquifer water to the
6 surface water that was going to be placed down and
7 stored in the storage horizon, we had to submit water
8 quality samples of these two waters to the DER for
9 evaluation, because the DER Class 5 aquifers into
10 what they call G-3 or G-2, various classifications
11 that have to do with how many dissolved solids and
12 what the type of water quality is within the aquifer,
13 and it also has to do with whether or not there is a
14 remote possibility you could ever use water from that
15 aquifer for public drinking supply. They do this
16 because they must protect, over the long run, all
17 possible sources of water for potable water, so we
18 had to locate a zone where we hoped to find less than
19 10,000 parts per million of total dissolved solid,
20 and we had to locate -- as we went through this
21 monitoring well -- a pilot test well. A very skinny
22 well.
23 As we went down to collect this data, we
24 had to locate a zone that was a very well-contained
25 zone, that was sort of -- this zone underground was
213
1 isolated from the zone below it, and the zone above
2 it, by the nature of the rocks above and below it,
3 and there are ways that you can test for that, and we
4 performed those tests.
5 The intent of aquifer storage and recovery
6 is extremely different from deep well injection
7 disposal, which is used for sewage treatment or
8 disposal of sewage effluents. The whole point behind
9 aquifer storage and recovery is to recover the water
10 that you put down in the well, so you have to find
11 the ideal zone where, when you put fresher water down
12 into a salty horizon like that, the water will
13 actually float there, like a bubble, because it is a
14 different density than the other water that is deep
15 underneath the ground, so we wanted to find a place
16 where we could force this bubble of fresher water in
17 there, let it remain there for a certain number of
18 days or weeks, and then retrieve the water, and
19 analyze the water as it came out to see if it had
20 done any mixing with the water that was underneath
21 the ground.
22 Our intent was to perform various cycles of
23 testing. For example, two weeks of injection with a
24 week or two of storage there, and then a week or two
25 of recovery and increasing that to a month, two
214
1 months, three months, and trying to increase these
2 cycles of injection, storage and recovery, so that
3 eventually you would flush out the salty residue that
4 was within the aquifer, close to the well bore, and
5 you would create a pocket for storage of fresh water.
6 That is basically how the ASR concept works and that
7 is how it has been used in a number of public
8 drinking water supply installations in the State of
9 Florida.
10 Q. With regard to the monitor well that
11 initially was installed, do you then test, as you are
12 going down, to try and find the pockets that you
13 referred to a few moments ago, or is there just a
14 projected depth as to where these pockets will be
15 found?
16 A. I was very familiar with the Floridan
17 aquifer in that area because of my previous work on
18 the hydrogeology of the Kissimmee Planning Area, so I
19 had a pretty good idea that the zone we were
20 interested in was going to be somewhere between 1500
21 and 1850 feet below land surface.
22 As we started to go down through the
23 monitor well, you did special types of data
24 collection which is standard in any deep well
25 drilling procedure. Standard procedure would be to
215
1 collect well cuttings, little chips of rock every ten
2 feet, so that you can reconstruct a vision of what
3 the layers look like on your way down. You look at
4 them under a binocular microscope and you describe
5 them with a standard set of formats.
6 The next thing you do is collect water
7 quality samples every 30 feet of the underground
8 water and you have them analyzed. After you have
9 completed the well to a certain depth or to a depth
10 of interest, there are a couple of things that you
11 want to do. The first thing is that you trip out of
12 the hole, take the rod out of the hole, and you use a
13 special tool called a bore-hole geophysical logger.
14 This is a tool that, through electrical or magnetic
15 impulses, is sent down the well on a long cable and
16 it collects information about all the strata. This
17 is not information that you can look at directly.
18 You must infer from this information. This is a
19 technology that was originally developed by the oil
20 companies in the United States and, now, we use it
21 all the time in water well applications. Through
22 this technique -- there are actually different types
23 of tools that can tell you a lot about what is
24 underground --
25 So after we analyzed the bore hole
216
1 geophysical logs, we decided where we would want to
2 perform a packer test. In a packer test, that is
3 where you put bladders down the hole and you inflate
4 them with air from a compressor up on the land
5 surface, and then you isolate a zone, and within that
6 zone, water would then flow into the annular space
7 and you could pump water out of that zone and you
8 could measure at what rate you were pumping the
9 water -- how many gallons per minute were coming
10 out -- and you could monitor the change in the water
11 level in the aquifer at that point. Having those two
12 numbers enables a hydrogeologist to perform various
13 calculations that would tell him, or her, something
14 about the productivity of that zone, or how easily
15 water would be transmitted through that zone. So, we
16 performed that packer test in several different areas
17 and we identified a zone that we wanted to have for a
18 storage horizon.
19 Q. Where, approximately, was the depth of that
20 zone for the ASR for the demonstration project?
21 A. We felt that the depth of that zone would
22 be from about 1350 to 1750 feet.
23 Q. And what was the depth used for the
24 ultimate ASR project?
25 A. 1732 feet, I believe. I would have to
217
1 check the documents. I haven't read the report for
2 three or four years.
3 Q. Were there any additional permits then?
4 A. Yes, there were. As I was saying, when you
5 compare the water quality of the receiving water body
6 and the water that is going to be sent down in there,
7 they have to be comparable on a number of different
8 parameters, and if they are not, if there is a
9 difference between the two waters, and if the water
10 that you're putting down is better, in some
11 parameters, than the receiving water, then you have
12 to obtain what is called a water quality criteria
13 exemption. We needed to do that because there were a
14 number of parameters including, I can't remember
15 exactly -- I think corrosivity, total iron, possibly
16 coliform bacteria, and one other parameter. There
17 were four parameters that were different. So we
18 applied for a water quality criteria exemption from
19 the DER and that entailed the necessity to do further
20 jar tests, and water quality analysis, submit that
21 information to them, and we were granted the water
22 quality criteria exemption.
23 However, as we got closer to the point of
24 where we wanted to perform the testing, it was
25 determined that, due to the presence of coliform
218
1 bacteria in the canal, which was from the cattail
2 that would go down near the edges of the canal and so
3 forth, that was going to be a problem, and we would
4 have to do something to treat the water to kill the
5 coliform bacteria, to disinfect the water, before it
6 was injected into the deep horizon. I disagreed with
7 that because, in my professional opinion, when you
8 put the water down under 1750 feet, under that
9 tremendous pressure, you would have total mortality
10 of the bacteria. However, regulations are
11 regulations, and we had to go forward with the
12 construction of a water treatment plant very similar
13 to a plant that you would use in a small city; say a
14 city the size of maybe Delray Beach. This added
15 considerably to the cost of the surface facilities
16 project.
17 Relating this back to the permit, when we
18 obtained this chlorination facility, basically, and
19 we were all set to start the testing, we got the DER
20 and the EPA, through a series of meetings, to discuss
21 the feasibility of something called an aquifer
22 exemption. An aquifer exemption means that we would
23 be exempted from meeting certain water quality
24 standards in the immediate vicinity of the bore hole
25 of the well if we would perform certain testing, and
219
1 it would be for a limited duration. We had to get
2 this exception -- it is a regulatory administrative
3 relief mechanism that is out there -- had to get this
4 exemption if we wanted to be able to perform the
5 testing. So, up to this point in time, we haven't
6 put a drop of water into an ASR well yet; okay? We
7 are still going through the various permitting.
8 Q. Was construction of the ASR well actually
9 taking place at this point?
10 A. Yes. Yes, you are allowed to construct it.
11 There's construction and clearance permits just
12 letting you build the facility. You then have to get
13 an operating permit, and there is a difference
14 between the two.
15 So we got the aquifer exemption and it was
16 the first aquifer exemption granted, east of the
17 Mississippi, in the United States. That was a major
18 accomplishment. It was very interesting to me, from
19 a regulatory standpoint, working with all the
20 different agencies to obtain that.
21 Q. Now, this exemption, did it deal with the
22 fecal coliforms you were referring to a few moments
23 ago or no?
24 A. Yes, it did.
25 Q. Were you ever able to test your theory with
220
1 regard to whether or not the pressure and the
2 injection itself would kill, or result in mortality
3 of, the fecal coliforms?
4 A. Yes, I was.
5 Q. What was the result of that?
6 A. My theory was found correct.
7 Q. Okay. Was that before or after you had to
8 build the plant?
9 A. It was after, because we had -- the way
10 that we agreed to perform the test was that the first
11 two cycles would be without pre-clorination. We
12 would do direct injection of the surface water, and
13 we would monitor it very carefully and complete tests
14 of the water that was going in; like, measure the
15 coliform bacteria and then test the water. At the
16 beginning, like every day of the injection cycle, you
17 were testing the water. And we had graphs, and they
18 are all in these books of how many bacteria there
19 were and everything, and then how long it would stay
20 down there, and then how long it would come back. We
21 had one test where it stayed for a very short
22 residence time; they were dead when they came out.
23 And we had another one that was longer; and they were
24 also dead.
25 Q. Okay. So, you also mentioned operating
221
1 permits. Is that the final permit you required?
2 A. No, that was not the final permit that we
3 required; and we did not receive an operating permit,
4 we received a temporary operating permit, which is
5 now in for renewal at the District.
6 Q. Okay.
7 A. The final permit that was required was
8 something called a National Pollution Discharge
9 Elimination System, NPDES, permit, which I obtained
10 from the U.S. EPA. I believe that's it for the
11 permits.
12 Q. Why was Taylor Creek/Nuben Slough, that
13 area, selected for the ASR project?
14 A. Because it was recommended by LOTAC, Lake
15 Okeechobee Technical Advisory Committee, in their
16 report.
17 Q. Are you familiar with why that area was
18 selected or recommend by LOTAC?
19 A. I attended a presentation of the meeting of
20 the LOTAC committee, I don't remember the date, just
21 prior to the completion of their final report, where
22 one of the members of the committee, and I'm not sure
23 who it was because I don't really know them all by
24 sight, stated that the Taylor Creek/Nuben Slough
25 contributed approximately 6 percent of the flow to
222
1 the lake, but about 29 percent of the phosphorus, and
2 they felt that would be a good bank for the buck
3 approach to do a demonstration project in that area.
4 Q. What were the purposes or purpose of the
5 ASR project then?
6 A. The first purpose of the project was to
7 determine if it was possible to store and recover
8 large volumes of water in the Floridan aquifer
9 system. The second purpose of the project was to
10 determine if there was any decrease in nutrients in
11 the surface water after it was injected, stored and
12 recovered from the Floridan aquifer. There were
13 other ancillary purposes that were more minor:
14 Things such as; what are the permitting requirements,
15 what is involved in the engineering of a project like
16 this, how much would it cost if we were getting to do
17 this in a sort of a production mode fashion, would we
18 have economy at a scale that we could gain because of
19 saving money on the engineering costs and so forth,
20 but they were all ancillary to the project. The main
21 thrust of the project was to find out if it was
22 technically feasible to do aquifer storage and
23 recovery in that area, and if it would affect the
24 nutrient content of the water.
25 Q. Was a deep injection well ever contemplated
223
1 as an alternative to the ASR?
2 A. I don't know -- by the LOTAC committee?
3 Q. Yeah.
4 A. I don't know.
5 Q. Was recovery of the water an important
6 factor in the project?
7 A. Yes, recovery of the water was an important
8 factor in the project.
9 Q. The water then was important to the Lake
10 Okeechobee ecosystem?
11 A. We felt that we wanted to look at ASR in
12 this application as a possible water treatment
13 technology, and not a diversion, because if you put
14 the water in a deep well injection, you'll never
15 recover it.
16 Q. Are you familiar with what other ASR
17 projects either had already been completed or were in
18 progress at the time you commenced the ASR?
19 A. I have a very broad familiarity with a
20 number of projects within Florida, but a number of
21 them are utilized for public drinking water supply
22 outside of our Water Management District. And then,
23 we are also working with the Florida Keys Aqueduct
24 Authority on a demonstration project in Stock Island
25 and in Marathon, and we hope to use the application
224
1 there, because they have a 150 mile long pipeline.
2 If there is ever a hurricane, all those people that
3 live there would not have any safe drinking water.
4 However, if you could store three to five days' worth
5 of water at a couple of points along that pipeline,
6 and if you had a break in the pipeline, you would be
7 able to get crews out in time to repair a portion of
8 it and at least have some water, three or four days'
9 worth of water, for those people. So we initiated
10 that project as a cooperative effort with the
11 Aqueduct Authority.
12 We also had a demonstration project, it was
13 more like a research project, in Lee County with the
14 U.S. Geological Survey in the Fort Myers area, and
15 there is another project in Collier County in
16 cooperation with Collier County Utilities, but I'm
17 not directly involved with that project.
18 Q. With regard to the Keys project you
19 mentioned, was the purpose of that ASR project
20 primarily or solely for water storage as opposed to a
21 dual purpose of storage and also some benefits
22 relating to water quality?
23 A. Oh, no. I should have clarified when I
24 answered that earlier question that the unique thing
25 about the project in Lake Okeechobee was that we were
225
1 using raw water; water that was existing the way it
2 was in the canal. We weren't really doing anything
3 to it other than running it through a great chamber
4 to get the duckweed and stuff out before we put it
5 down in the well. In the Keys, and in these projects
6 I mentioned outside of the Water Management District,
7 that is treated potable drinking water that's been
8 completely treated, and you could drink the water
9 before it went down into the well.
10 Q. So to that extent, the Lake Okeechobee ASR
11 project was unique in that it had two goals; not just
12 storage and recovery, but also at least a goal, or
13 attempt, to determine whether or not there would be
14 an impact on water quality; is that correct?
15 A. That is correct.
16 Q. Okay. You had mentioned during the initial
17 contract negotiations with CH2M Hill, they had
18 proposed testing procedures, which you considered and
19 modified, if necessary. Were there any testing
20 procedures that they proposed that you did modify, or
21 did you just go with what the recommendations of
22 CH2M Hill were?
23 A. I think I made some minor modifications to
24 their recommendations. I think that they originally
25 recommended collecting cuttings every 30 feet, but I
226
1 wanted them every ten feet. And also there were some
2 engineering and logistical things that I disagreed
3 with, such as; they were going to have an engineer on
4 site eight hours a day and I said, "No way." We
5 needed someone there 24 hours a day because it was a
6 very expensive project and the drilling is 24 hours a
7 day. You don't stop. You can't stop when you are
8 drilling a well like that because you could have
9 caving or something like that.
10 Q. Were there any testings that they
11 recommended that the District decided not to go with?
12 A. No. To my knowledge, everything regarding
13 testing, we usually increase the amount that they
14 recommended, especially in the area where I was
15 concerned about this coliform thing; that I wanted to
16 have them design something that would test the
17 mortality issue.
18 Q. At what point did you get your TPO; your
19 temporary operating permit?
20 A. The week before we started to operate it,
21 but I don't remember the date of that. I really
22 should, but I don't remember.
23 Q. Was there any problem or major problems
24 that occurred prior to that point?
25 A. Major problems?
227
1 Q. With regard to the well, the construction I
2 mean, you explained the permitting procedure. Were
3 there any construction problems or unanticipated
4 problems that occurred prior to the initiation of the
5 testing?
6 A. No. I am very proud of this project
7 because it was one of the most complicated projects
8 that we ever embarked upon, and I brought it in on
9 time and under budget.
10 Q. Okay. You had started briefly to describe,
11 and that was just with regard to the fecal coliform
12 test, the initial tests that you did. Could you
13 generally take us through that -- you know, your
14 initial injection, throughout the procedures used to
15 go ahead to test the ASR?
16 A. I don't recall the specifics. I would be
17 able to do it if I had the engineering report --
18 Q. Is there --
19 A. -- because it's been years since I have
20 read this.
21 Q. I have here, as you can see, a report by
22 CH2M Hill. There is an executive summary, an
23 engineering, a Volume 2 appendices, and a Volume 3
24 appendices. Would one of these be of assistance to
25 you?
228
1 A. The executive summary on the engineering
2 report would probably be the most useful.
3 Q. Okay. Why don't we mark these as two
4 exhibits.
5 (The documents were marked
6 Trost Exb. Nos. 35 and 36.)
7 THE WITNESS: These are simply reems and
8 reems of data and numbers. They are all
9 summarized and analyzed in these reports.
10 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
11 Q. Since you are going to be going through
12 these, I'm not looking for a day-by-day analysis of
13 what was done, but rather an understanding as
14 generally the procedures that were followed as a
15 opposed to a day-by-day analysis of how the testing
16 took place; all right?
17 A. Okay.
18 Q. For the record, Trost Exhibit Number 35 is
19 entitled Construction and Testing of the Aquifer
20 Storage Recovery ASR Demonstration Project for Lake
21 Okeechobee, Executive Summary. It bears bates
22 numbers 0394885 through 0394894. Trost Exhibit
23 Number 36 is the engineering report, Volume I,
24 Construction and Testing of the Aquifer Storage
25 Recovery ASR Demonstration Project for Lake
229
1 Okeechobee, also put out by CH2M Hill, or prepared by
2 them, dated December 1989, without bates numbers.
3 A. I think it would be easiest to just -- you
4 want like a broad overview of what happened; right.
5 Not detail?
6 Q. Please.
7 A. It is going to be easiest if you want to
8 follow along under data collection and results in the
9 executive summary, because this really is the essence
10 of the entire report; this Exhibit Number 35.
11 On page Roman, small Roman Numeral vi, we
12 had four test cycles that we were running to test how
13 much water we could put underground and how much
14 would come back, and also look at this chlorination
15 versus nonchlorination issue, to see if different
16 storage lengths of time had an effect on the
17 bacteria.
18 Q. Before you go any further, you said four
19 cycles, and I believe you said how much water you
20 could put down, how much water you could take back
21 up, chlorination, nonchlorination. Were those the
22 four test cycles?
23 A. No. I'll go into what the cycles were.
24 During the first three cycles, we injected
25 water for five days on each of the three cycles at
230
1 about five million gallons per day. So that means
2 you had about 25 million gallons down there. And
3 then we would recover on each of those first three
4 cycles for ten days using the natural pressure that
5 was in the well. You didn't have to use a pump to
6 get the water back, because it was under so much
7 pressure, it would flow out of the well. The only
8 difference between being cycles one through three was
9 the length of time we let the water reside
10 underground. And that would be called the storage
11 period. And the storage period was one day for the
12 first cycle, one week for the second cycle, and 28
13 days for the third cycle. And that was all with
14 unchlorinated water. And again, the purpose of that
15 was to see if the different residence time, the
16 different storage time, had any effect on the
17 mortality of the coliform. And in all cases, in all
18 four cycles, we did extensive water quality sampling
19 before it went down and after it came back, to look
20 at nutrients and all different types of parameters.
21 Q. Before you go any further, you mentioned
22 that you would pump -- during cycles one through
23 three, you inject for five days at approximately five
24 million gallons a day, you recover for the following
25 ten days. By that do you mean you would recover
231
1 approximately 25 million gallons over a ten-day
2 period?
3 A. Yes. Because when you pumped -- when you
4 were using a pump -- this is a very big and expensive
5 pump, it was a $160,000 pump -- it would really pump
6 pretty hard to get the five million gallons per day.
7 The natural artesian flow of the system is not equal
8 to that. It is about two-and-a-half million gallons
9 per day. It is about half that amount. So when I
10 say recovered for ten days, that was after the
11 storage periods in each case; okay?
12 Q. Right.
13 A. All right.
14 Q. Does the pressure -- you said the natural
15 artesian pressure is -- is that pressure constant?
16 For instance, if you had dug on the east side of the
17 lake, would you anticipate the same two million five
18 hundred thousand gallons a day of recovery, or is
19 that also a factor that changes site to site?
20 A. That is a factor that could easily change
21 from site to site.
22 Q. I'm sorry. Go ahead.
23 A. And over time, if you left the well open,
24 that rate could slowly decrease. It is a very slow
25 exponential decrease in the flow.
232
1 Q. To the extent that you are draining, then,
2 that portion of the aquifer?
3 A. That is one way to describe it. Over many
4 years, if you left something open, you would slowly
5 lower the pressure in the aquifer. And we have
6 documented that for like 25 or 30 years, and so has
7 the USGS in various areas of Florida.
8 Q. What were the results of cycles one through
9 three with regard to the testing on the fecal
10 coliform?
11 A. Well, the results showed us that the ASR
12 well had no problem taking five million gallons per
13 day, and we felt that it could take more water than
14 that. It also showed that the fecal coliform were
15 killed off from that test. On the first day of cycle
16 one of recovery, there was one fecal coliform that
17 was still alive in the sample, and on the last day of
18 recovery, there was one. However, we later
19 discovered that the engineer felt that there had been
20 a sampling error on the last day of cycle one. On
21 all of cycles two and three, there were never any
22 living coliform. The fourth cycle was 20 days of
23 injection with the chlorinated water, and then we
24 immediately recovered for 40 days. We didn't have
25 any storage time there.
233
1 Q. What was the purpose of that test?
2 A. The purpose of that was to just look at a
3 longer day. We were trying to put an appreciable
4 volume of water underground. The purpose of that was
5 to see if -- you know, we are looking now at 100
6 million gallons of water. That is much larger than
7 25 million. And we wanted to calculate on cycle four
8 percentage of recovery; so we felt that to do that
9 reasonably, you have to put a good volume down. And
10 that was one of the concerns with the first three
11 cycles, because it was relatively small volumes. 25
12 million gallon sounds like a lot of water, but it
13 really isn't a lot when you are talking about on a
14 geologic scale.
15 Q. Now, you are testing the water that was
16 coming down the canal in the Nuben Slough/Taylor
17 Creek; is that correct?
18 A. Canal L-63 north.
19 Q. What was the flow of L-63 north on a daily
20 basis? Do you know that, approximately?
21 A. I don't know, but in comparison to what we
22 were taking out, we were taking out a minute, minute
23 fraction of that flow. You would not see any change
24 in the level of the canal, for example. It is a very
25 big canal there, and we have one pipe about this big,
234
1 taking water out.
2 Q. Just so I understand the overall purpose
3 then, given flying success, and we'll get into what
4 the conclusions were with regard to the project, but
5 given flying success, was the intent of multiple
6 wells then to ultimately use -- excuse me --
7 ultimately inject a large percentage of the water
8 coming down the L-68 canal and recover it and put it
9 into the lake?
10 A. The L-63 north canal.
11 Q. L-63?
12 A. The intent of this project was purely and
13 simply to complete the demonstration and find out as
14 much as we could about the technology. After we
15 completed all that, we were then going to think about
16 looking at that technology in relationship to other
17 possible options and trying to decide if it would be
18 feasible to do a large scale ASR, where you could
19 have a big canal and you could have wells every so
20 many feet, take water out of the canal, store it
21 underground for awhile, recover it out, you know,
22 store it during the wet season and recover it during
23 the dry season, and let it flow into the lake.
24 Q. With regard to the first three cycles,
25 wherein there was a waiting period between injection
235
1 and recovery, one day, one week, and then 28 days,
2 was that -- were the spans, and the difference in the
3 spans, solely for testing with regard to the fecal
4 coliforms, or did that have an additional purpose?
5 A. No, it was really for the testing regarding
6 the fecal coliforms and to a slight extent just to
7 see if there was a change, an appreciable change, in
8 water quality between like a one-day storage and a
9 month storage, but it was mostly because all other
10 things remained constant; the number of days of
11 injection and the number of days of recovery. So the
12 only thing you were changing in that experiment was
13 the storage recovery zone. So it was mostly to look
14 at the coliform. A side benefit of that is to see if
15 there was an appreciable change in the water quality.
16 Q. Was there a change in the water quality as
17 a result of the cycle one test?
18 A. I don't recall the specific water quality
19 data, and that would be buried somewhere in one of
20 these appendices, but what we did discover was we
21 probably needed to put more water in than these small
22 amounts of 25 million gallons, because when we put
23 the water down underground, we theorized that because
24 of the big difference in density between the injected
25 water, which was low density, and the salinent water
236
1 in the aquifer, which was higher density, we think
2 the water went down and banded out on a thin ribbon
3 on top of the storage horizon, which created more
4 mixing than we wanted. If you can force more water
5 in, of really large volume, you are forcing it down
6 into that zone and out to the sides, where you are
7 actually creating -- if we could look at this as the
8 zone, if this is the well, we would create a more of
9 a cylindrical zone of storage.
10 What actually happened on the first couple
11 cycles, just on our theories, was we created a thin
12 band, sort of like it pancaked out when it went
13 underground.
14 Q. Is there, in this zone that you were
15 injecting the water into -- were you aware whether or
16 not there was any type of a flow within there, such
17 as groundwater type flow?
18 MS. BIRCH: Off the record.
19 (Discussion held off the record.)
20 THE WITNESS: This is hard to explain. A
21 lot of times people think that there are
22 underground rivers and things like that, but
23 they really don't exist. In certain areas of
24 Florida, where the water has had a lot of
25 time -- in recharge areas, like the northern
237
1 portion of the state near Polk County, where the
2 Floridan aquifer is closer to land surface and
3 lots of rain has had a chance to percolate and
4 erode channels and solution cavities, you can
5 sometimes get gushing of water through those
6 areas or springs, such as you are familiar with
7 in the Gainesville area. However, down at this
8 depth, in this part of the Floridan aquifer, it
9 is very far away from its recharge area, and in
10 this area it is called a discharge area of the
11 aquifer, because the water wants to leave the
12 aquifer and go up towards land surface because
13 it is under pressure from all the sediments that
14 are overlaying it. So, within the zone itself,
15 the only flow that you would be able to measure
16 would be if you knew the water level in the
17 zone, say, at point A and then maybe a couple
18 hundred feet away, if it was slightly different,
19 perhaps there would be a very slow, barely
20 imperceptible, movement of water in that
21 direction. But it is unlikely that there was a
22 measurable flow gradient within that band of the
23 aquifer.
24 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
25 Q. That then has -- so, in other words, that
238
1 has no impact whatsoever on creating this; be it a
2 bubble or cylinder type effect you were discussing a
3 few minutes ago? In other words, the water you are
4 injecting down doesn't get washed away?
5 A. The bubble type effect could be based on
6 the ease at which water moves through the aquifer
7 this there which is called the transmissivity. The
8 aquifer is extremely transmissive. When water got
9 into that portion, it would want to keep moving,
10 because transmissivity, the higher it is, that means
11 the easier it is for water to be transmitted through
12 the band of the aquifer. And when we were doing the
13 testing, we were trying to locate a zone that was not
14 too transmissive so that you would have water just
15 going away and not so low in transmissivity that it
16 would just sit there and be hard to force it in and
17 create the bubble, the storage horizon. So we were
18 looking for something that was just right.
19 Q. Given that, is ASR a technology that can be
20 used anywhere?
21 A. Anywhere in Florida?
22 Q. Yeah, in Florida.
23 A. I believe that it would really depend on
24 the site specific geology to determine whether or not
25 the ASR would be successful.
239
1 Q. Due in large part to what you were saying,
2 you have to have the correct type of transmissivity?
3 A. You need more than the correct type of
4 transmissivity. You have to have a lot of different
5 things that fall into place. You have to have the
6 right degree of confinement, which means the right
7 amount of pressure within the aquifer system, you
8 have to have the right range of transmissivity within
9 areas of moving water within that zone, you also want
10 to look at the native water quality, as compared to
11 the water that you are putting in, because if the two
12 water qualities were very similar, for example, they
13 would totally mix, you would not be able to tell what
14 you were getting back out versus what was already in
15 there. You could never say how much you had actually
16 recovered. For example, if you had identical water
17 quality, you were taking water of X quality and
18 putting it down into a zone of water of X quality,
19 well, then I guess you would have to say you have got
20 100 percent back, because you would have no way of
21 measuring the differences. So there are a number of
22 parameters that you have to look for to lead you
23 toward a successful ASR project. And because there
24 are probably three or four different issues, they can
25 vary substantially from place to place.
240
1 Q. You said if you have similar water
2 qualities, it makes it difficult or impossible to
3 determine what your recovery ratio is. Couldn't you,
4 for instance, and this might sound silly, but
5 couldn't you dye the water or do something to the
6 water to determine what the mixing is, or is that not
7 really a practical --
8 A. No, you could do that. You could put a
9 tracer in the water. And another concern about water
10 quality besides if they're are too similar, depending
11 on the nature of the geochemistry of the system, if
12 the native water quality is of a certain type, there
13 is the danger that it could react chemically with the
14 introduced water and cause a precipitant -- it could
15 cause some chemical, some dissolved mineral that is
16 in the solution, to come out of the solution, and
17 that could cement up the tiny holes and pores and
18 openings in the aquifer, which could reduce
19 productivity of the zone, and it could eventually
20 result in clogging of the well and an extreme
21 reduction in your ability to store or recover water.
22 So you could have chemical clogging induced by a
23 chemical reaction between the two waters, and you
24 could have physical clogging, if the water that you
25 were putting down had tiny suspended particles in it,
241
1 of clay, dirt, soil, any type of naturally occurring
2 material or non-naturally occurring material,
3 depending on the size of those particles, they could
4 clog up the storage horizon.
5 Q. All right. With regard to the clogging up
6 and the impact upon the horizon, would the removal of
7 phosphorus by calcium cause this?
8 A. I don't know what you mean by the removal
9 of phosphorus by calcium.
10 Q. Was one of the purposes of the ASR project
11 to attempt to see whether or not, as part of the ASR,
12 nutrients would be removed during the holding period
13 under the underground holding period?
14 A. Yes. In that analysis we were thinking
15 more of the phenomenon of adsorption of the
16 phosphorus onto the limestone matrix. The limestone
17 is made of calcium carbonate. Is that what you're
18 referring to?
19 Q. Yes. How does that adsorption work?
20 A. I am not a geochemist, so I really couldn't
21 give you a specific answer about that.
22 Q. Do you know whether or not the reduction of
23 phosphorus by adsorption through the calcium
24 carbonate matrix would result in the type of clogging
25 or plugging of the horizon that you referred to
242
1 earlier?
2 A. I personally have not had experience with
3 that; however, the engineer who was in charge of the
4 project said that over time, over many successive
5 cycles of injection, storage and recovery, if more
6 and more phosphorus or other materials were adsorbed
7 onto the limestone matrix, you could result in
8 clogging, and you would have to develop some
9 engineering solution for that, which could be
10 complicated and expensive.
11 Q. Who is the engineer you are referring to;
12 CH2M Hill or the District?
13 A. CH2M Hill, Albert Muniz, PE.
14 Q. What were the results? I believe we
15 finished with the four cycles. What were the results
16 of the testing; of the first four cycles of testing?
17 A. The results basically showed us that it was
18 possible to store large volumes of water underground
19 in the Floridan aquifer system. The results also
20 showed us that we could expect mortality of coliform
21 bacteria when they are put down to that depth and
22 under those tremendous pressures, and also that it
23 was an aerobic environment, which means without
24 oxygen. In addition, the results showed us that
25 there was approximately a 30 percent reduction in the
243
1 amount of phosphorus in the recovered water as
2 compared to the original water that was injected, and
3 we did not really see any change in the nitrogen
4 concentration.
5 Q. Did the number of days of storage have an
6 impact on P reduction; phosphorus reduction?
7 A. I believe that it did, because it is my
8 recollection that on cycle four, which was the
9 only -- actually, that was the one with the larger
10 volumes -- I believe that that showed that when we
11 put large volumes down for 20 days and then recovered
12 for 40 days, that I think we had a larger reduction
13 in the amount of phosphorus. I would have to check
14 the appendices.
15 Q. What was the next step in the test, or was
16 that the ultimate conclusion?
17 A. Well, that wasn't the ultimate conclusion;
18 that was the end of the testing. The conclusion that
19 we reached, besides the fact that it was possible at
20 this particular site to store large volumes of water
21 in the Floridan -- and that at this particular site,
22 we had had an approximate 30 percent reduction in the
23 phosphorus, we also had a conclusion that our
24 particular well had a very wide storage horizon. And
25 if we were to go back into this well and do another
244
1 test, we would want to backfill a portion of the
2 bottom of the well to reduce the thickness of that
3 storage horizon, and we felt that we would get a
4 higher percentage recovery if we did that. We have
5 never been able to go back and do that due to funding
6 and manpower constraints.
7 Q. So I understand what you are talking about,
8 are you talking about -- you say backfilling or
9 backpacking?
10 A. Backplugging, backfilling.
11 Q. Well, is that to solve this effect you
12 referred to earlier?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Was the ASR demonstration project a
15 success, in your opinion?
16 A. I feel that it was, because it answered our
17 two major questions at the start of the project, and
18 it also answered most of the ancillary questions.
19 Q. Okay. Is an ASR still being considered as
20 a potential use for the Lake Okeechobee area?
21 A. Not to my knowledge, it is not.
22 Q. Why isn't it?
23 A. I believe that at this time it isn't
24 because the first strategy embarked upon in the 1989
25 SWIM plan was a regulatory strategy through the
245
1 utilization of best management practices and other
2 practices on farms and the works of the District
3 program, and I feel that those programs are now being
4 given time to be implemented, and they are monitoring
5 the changes in loads off those farms, and unless and
6 until it is decided that more work needs to be done
7 up in that basin to achieve the goals of the 1989
8 SWIM plan, we have not pursued looking at ASR in that
9 basin.
10 Q. During yesterday's deposition period we had
11 looked at an exhibit which requested a dollar per
12 phosphorus removal comparison. Do you recall how the
13 dollar per phosphorus removal of the ASR compares to,
14 for instance the BMPs you just mentioned?
15 A. I don't recall.
16 Q. Was the decision at this time to hold off
17 or not proceed on the ASR construction of SRAs around
18 Lake Okeechobee, was that a determination also based
19 upon the cost of constructing aquifer storage and
20 recovery wells?
21 MS. BIRCH: Object to the relevancy.
22 THE WITNESS: I recall discussions of the
23 cost and discussions of the fact that it would
24 be very expensive, but I don't recall any
25 meetings or discussions where we specifically
246
1 stated whether or not we would go forward with
2 the technology or not.
3 MR. ROSENBERG: Mark, can I ask you --
4 somebody else is going to be reading this, and
5 they may not be familiar with certain terms.
6 Could I ask you to have her define storage
7 horizon, adsorption, and terms like that? It is
8 a little late, I know, and we understand the
9 terms, but somebody else may not, so could I ask
10 you just to have her define those terms for the
11 record?
12 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
13 Q. I believe you briefly described horizon
14 before, but if you could describe what you refer to
15 as the storage horizon.
16 A. The storage horizon is that zone within the
17 Floridan aquifer where we want the surface water to
18 be injected down to that zone and to enter into that
19 zone of the aquifer and be stored and reside there
20 until we elected to recover the water.
21 Q. And with regard to the term that was
22 previously used, adsorption, could you generally
23 describe that term?
24 A. I'm not a geochemist, but adsorption is
25 basically a geochemical process where various types
247
1 of minerals or other constituents become attached to
2 another type of chemical constituent. In this case,
3 we were looking at phosphorus attaching itself to the
4 rock matrix of the limestone, and limestone is made
5 up of calcium carbonate.
6 Q. Is the well still in use at this point in
7 time?
8 A. The Hydrogeology Division had embarked upon
9 a testing program, doing extended length of
10 injections, storage and recovery tests in conjunction
11 with the U. S. Geological Survey. That is the extent
12 of what I know about it. Someone in the hallway told
13 me that. I have not reviewed the program and I have
14 not been to the site since about 1988 or '89. I
15 haven't visited the site.
16 Q. Does the Floridan aquifer extends below the
17 Everglades Agricultural Area and the Water
18 Conservation Areas?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Has the District considered using aquifer
21 storage and recovery in the Everglades Agricultural
22 Area?
23 A. Not to my knowledge, no.
24 Q. Yesterday we had looked at an exhibit which
25 was marked as Exhibit Number 5, wherein there was a
248
1 brainstorming session regarding potential projects
2 for south of Lake Okeechobee.
3 A. I recall that portion. I recall stating
4 that I didn't think it was a good idea to explore ASR
5 until we had completed the demonstration project.
6 Q. Right. The brainstorming session as I
7 recall your testimony, was in January of 1988. And
8 if I recall your testimony correctly, it was, as you
9 just stated, that at that point you had recommended
10 that ASR not be pursued for the EAA until this
11 initial testing project that was being conducted, or
12 at that time contemplated, for Lake Okeechobee had
13 been completed, and the experience then used there
14 could be used in a subsequent test was deemed
15 appropriate for the Everglades Agricultural Area.
16 Having completed the test at the Lake Okeechobee ASR
17 demonstration project, is it your opinion now that
18 the ASR could be used effectively for the Everglades
19 Agricultural Area?
20 MS. BIRCH: Object to the form.
21 MR. KOBELINSKI: Could I understand where
22 your objection is for the form?
23 MS. BIRCH: What is effective? And the
24 other thing I object to is that I recall her
25 testimony was, as to your previous question
249
1 yesterday, was whether or not ASR could be used
2 in other areas, and I believe her other
3 testimony was that she had made no -- had no
4 opinion or recommendation as to that to be used
5 in any area as to until the demonstration
6 project for Lake Okeechobee was completed.
7 MR. KOBELINSKI: I think you'll have to
8 look at her testimony. We were talking
9 yesterday, and perhaps we should go through this
10 document again, but this document deals with
11 brainstorming related to projects south of Lake
12 Okeechobee.
13 BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
14 Q. Do you recall what your comments were on
15 the recommendation of conducting an ASR demonstration
16 project in the EAA?
17 A. I recall from my testimony yesterday that
18 someone had suggested that, during the brainstorming
19 session -- I believe it was Dr. Wedderburn -- and it
20 was briefly discussed for a few moments, and I felt
21 that we were in the middle of this demonstration
22 project and we didn't have the results of it and it
23 was premature because we still didn't really know
24 where we were going with ASR, and I do not recall
25 from that time ever having been in any discussions
250
1 since then about ASR south of Lake Okeechobee; me,
2 personally.
3 Q. Are you the person at the District most
4 knowledgeable regarding the ASR demonstration project
5 for Lake Okeechobee?
6 A. Regarding which aspect of the project?
7 Q. The overall project itself. The goals, the
8 manner in which it was done, and the conclusions
9 drawn from the testing.
10 A. I would say that Scott Burns and I are
11 equally knowledgeable.
12 Q. What was Mr. Burns' role with regard to the
13 ASR project for Lake Okeechobee?
14 A. Mr. Burns was my subordinate at the time,
15 and he performed a number of tasks on that project,
16 including preparing all of the permit applications
17 for my review and approval, and reviewing the
18 deliverables from the engineering contract to approve
19 them, and then I would sign off if I agreed with his
20 review and comments. So he was the technical person
21 working on the project. And the other individual I
22 mentioned earlier, Mr. Braun, was sort of the field
23 person supervising the project. I was the project
24 manager.
25 Q. Okay. Given the experience you had with
251
1 regard to the Lake Okeechobee ASR project, are there
2 any physical aspects of the EAA that you're aware of
3 that would make use of ASR technology or aquifer
4 storage and recovery wells impossible or impractical
5 for the Everglades Agricultural Area?
6 A. I don't know because, as I stated
7 yesterday, I never did geological work in the
8 Everglades Agricultural Area in my professional
9 career, so I don't know anything really specifically
10 about the geology there. I only know the general
11 framework of South Florida geology.
12 Q. Would you need to do a monitor well or test
13 well to determine the feasibility of using an ASR
14 well in the EAA?
15 A. In my professional opinion, you would need
16 to do a monitor or test well any place in Florida if
17 you wanted to embark upon an ASR project, because it
18 is very expensive, and no matter where you want to do
19 the project, if I wanted to do a project one thousand
20 feet away from the Okeechobee project, I would do a
21 monitor test well first.
22 Q. So if, for instance, if today you were
23 assigned to do an ASR demonstration project for the
24 EAA, would you set it up in the same manner in which
25 you set up the Lake Okeechobee?
252
1 A. Would I set what up?