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?
 2       Q.    An EAA ASR demonstration project.
 3       A.    Yes, it is most likely that I would,
 4   although I am in the Planning Department, and I don't
 5   do that type of work anymore.
 6       Q.    Who at the District would know whether or
 7   not the use of ASR aquifer storage and recovery has
 8   been or is being considered for the Everglades
 9   Agricultural Area?
10       A.    I don't know.
11       Q.    What department would be in charge of
12   making that type of consideration?
13       A.    The only thing I can think of regarding
14   long-range planning for the Everglades SWIM Plan is
15   the actual production of an Everglades SWIM Plan, and
16   in the earlier version, which I reviewed the geology
17   history and soils, I don't recall reading anything in
18   that plan about an ASR project.  If it is there, I am
19   unaware of it.
20       Q.    Are you saying that it is the SWIM planning
21   committee, in the draft in the SWIM plan, that you
22   would consider the use of ASR for the Everglades
23   Agricultural Area?
24             MS. BIRCH:  Object to the form.
25             THE WITNESS:  I wasn't on that SWIM
                                                 253

 1        technical review team for that SWIM plan, so I
 2        don't really know what they discussed or what
 3        they didn't discuss.
 4   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
 5       Q.    I'm not asking whether they had or had not,
 6   I am just trying to find out at what point, where in
 7   the process of the District and the divisions in the
 8   planning, would the consideration of using aquifer
 9   storage and recovery in the Everglades Agricultural
10   Area take place?  During what process and by whom?
11       A.    If you were considering doing that project
12   in the EAA, it would probably -- that consideration
13   would probably take place during the preparation of
14   the Everglades SWIM Plan, and I don't know who in
15   particular would consider that.
16       Q.    With regard to the phosphorus reduction
17   that occurred as a result of your testing on the
18   Aquifer Storage and Recovery Demonstration Project
19   for Lake Okeechobee, the actual figures regarding
20   phosphorus reduction would be found in the report
21   prepared by CH2M Hill?
22       A.    Yes, they would.
23             (The document was marked
24             Trost Exb. No. 37.)
                                                 254

 1   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
 2       Q.    Showing you, Miss Trost, what has been
 3   marked as Trost Exhibit Number 37, it is a memorandum
 4   from Susan Coughanour to various individuals, dated
 5   February 9, 1990, regarding the follow-up on Proposed
 6   Revisions to State Water Policy, bears bates numbers
 7   0474362 through 0474364.  I ask whether or not you
 8   have ever seen this document before.
 9       A.    Yes, I have seen this.
10       Q.    Why did you receive this memorandum?
11       A.    I received this memorandum because I was
12   working on the District Water Policy, Water Supply
13   Policy Document.
14       Q.    Drawing your attention to the final page of
15   this document, 0474364, on follow-up items, which is
16   towards the bottom of the page, number one, it
17   states, "Provide DER with our recommended definition
18   of "nutrient limitations" as soon as possible within
19   the next two weeks."  Was that a task that you were
20   working on?
21       A.    No, I did not work on any task associated
22   with this.  This was sent to my supervisor, and I was
23   only copied as an informational copy.
24       Q.    With regard to your work on the state water
25   policy paper?
                                                 255

 1       A.    No.
 2       Q.    Policy documents?
 3       A.    Water Supply Policy Document for the
 4   District.
 5       Q.    With regard to your work on the Water
 6   Supply Policy Document for the District, were you
 7   involved in defining the nutrient limitations?
 8       A.    No.  There is no discussion of nutrients in
 9   the Water Supply Policy Document at all.
10       Q.    Have you ever been involved in the District
11   defining the term, quote, nutrient limitations?
12       A.    I have not.
13             MS. BIRCH:  Objection to the relevancy, but
14        you answered.
15             (The document was marked
16             Trost Exb. No. 38.)
17   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
18       Q.    Ms. Trost, showing you what has been marked
19   as Trost Exhibit Number 38, it is a memorandum from
20   Tom Fontaine to a distribution list, dated September
21   7, 1990, regarding a Simulation Model of South
22   Florida Hydrologic Ecosystem, bates 0725715 through
23   0725729, have you ever seen this document before?
24       A.    I don't recall it.  You know, I mentioned
25   yesterday -- I was trying to wrack my brain last
                                                 256

 1   night about early September of 1990, and I think I
 2   was in Spain from like August 28 until September 15,
 3   because there was a later memo in one of the exhibits
 4   yesterday from like the 19th or 20th of September
 5   that I did recall, but I don't recall this.
 6       Q.    Did you participate on behalf the District
 7   with the Corps of Engineer's Simulation Model of
 8   South Florida Hydrologic Ecosystem?
 9       A.    No, I did not.
10       Q.    Did you have any input into that?
11       A.    No, I did not.  I was copied on a number of
12   later memos, but I have never attended any meetings
13   regarding it or written any memos about it.
14             (The document was marked
15             Trost Exb. No. 39.)
16   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
17       Q.    Showing you, Miss Trost, what has been
18   marked as Trost Exhibit Number 39, which is a memo
19   from Mary Jo Shine to yourself, dated July 25, 1990,
20   regarding the modeling for the Lower East Coast Water
21   Supply Plan, bearing bates numbers 0801197 through
22   0801202, I ask whether or not you have ever seen this
23   document.
24       A.    Yes, I have seen this.
25       Q.    What is this memo regarding?
                                                 257

 1       A.    This memo is regarding the fact that the
 2   Lower District Planning Division needed some
 3   additional staff assistance in developing the
 4   modeling strategy to develop the Lower East Coast
 5   Water Supply Plan, and Mary-Jo Shine, who was on my
 6   staff, was volunteered to go help this other
 7   division, and she prepared this memorandum for me to
 8   inform me of what she was working on and she was
 9   working under the direction of the other division
10   during this assignment.
11       Q.    Did you provide her with any comments with
12   regard to this particular memorandum?
13       A.    No.  We just discussed it.  This was an
14   informational memorandum.  I wasn't asked to provide
15   any comments.
16       Q.    Were you involved at all in the decision
17   making regarding the modeling for the Lower East
18   Coast Water Supply Plan?
19       A.    I was not involved.
20             (The document was marked
21              Trost Exb. No. 40.)
22   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
23       Q.    Showing you what has been marked as Trost
24   Exhibit Number 40, it is a memorandum from Tom Teets
25   to -- excuse me -- from Jane Bucca through Tom Teets
                                                 258

 1   to yourself, dated August 22, 1990, regarding water
 2   demand projections, bearing bates numbers 0801166
 3   through 0801168, I would ask whether or not you have
 4   ever seen this document before.
 5       A.    Yes, I vaguely remember this document.
 6       Q.    What was the purpose of this document?
 7       A.    The purpose of this document was for the
 8   economist that was working with this water demand
 9   projection model, and the IWR-MAIN is solely for
10   projection of urban demands.  Jane Bucca had some
11   concerns with the model, and she wrote me this memo
12   to let me know that she thought that perhaps we
13   should stop using this model because there was a
14   possibility it was going to undergo significant
15   revisions by the person who originally developed it;
16   somebody in Texas or California or something like
17   that and that there may be problems with it, and that
18   we should develop some other type of methodology.
19       Q.    Did you agree with her conclusion that they
20   should develop some other type of methodology?
21       A.    Yes, I did.
22       Q.    Did they discontinue to use the IWR-MAIN?
23       A.    To my knowledge, we are no longer using the
24   model.
                                                 259

 1             (The document was marked
 2             Trost Exb. No. 41)
 3   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
 4       Q.    Showing, you Miss Trost, what has been
 5   marked as Trost Exhibit Number 41, which is a
 6   memorandum from Cal Neidrauer, N-e-i-d-r-a-u-e-r,
 7   through Todd Tisdale and Jayantha Obeysekera to Shawn
 8   Sculley and Tony Federico, dated December 11, 1991,
 9   regarding the Regional Modeling Group Meeting, bates
10   0934043 through 0934046, I ask whether or not you
11   have ever seen this document before.
12       A.    Yes, I have seen this.
13       Q.    Were you a member of the Regional Modeling
14   Group?
15       A.    No, I have never been a member of the
16   Regional Modeling Group Meeting.  A person on my
17   staff, Mary Jo Shine, and Randy VanZee, were members
18   of this Regional Modeling Group, and I was copied as
19   a courtesy because all division directors who have
20   people that are on committees get copied on
21   memorandums summarizing committee activities of the
22   District.
23       Q.    What was the purpose of the Regional
24   Modeling Group?
25       A.    If you'll note, underneath the subject on
                                                 260

 1   the memo on page 0934044, the Regional Modeling Group
 2   is a group of technical professionals that convene
 3   erratically, every three weeks, maybe every four
 4   weeks, at the Water Management District to discuss
 5   modeling and modeling applications at the Water
 6   Management District, and the discussions that they
 7   have cover all the models that the District staff
 8   uses, including models on Lake Okeechobee in the
 9   Kissimmee chain of lakes, groundwater models, surface
10   water models, and so forth.  And as you can see from
11   this list here, they even get into talking about pre
12   and post processors, such as GIS linkages, which
13   stands for Geographic Information Systems.  But they
14   talk about all kinds of modeling issues at these
15   meetings, so my staff, even though they are upper
16   District planning, which covers all the areas of the
17   District except for the lower east coast, attend
18   these meetings because we do -- my staff does discuss
19   models that we are using in my division.
20       Q.    Who is the head of the Regional Modeling
21   Group?
22       A.    I don't know.
23       Q.    To your knowledge, is Cal Neidrauer one of
24   the heads of that group?
25       A.    I don't think he is.
                                                 261

 1             (The document was marked
 2             Trost Exb. No. 42.)
 3   BY MR. KOBELINSKI:
 4       Q.    Showing you, Miss Trost, what has been
 5   marked as Trost Exhibit Number 42, I ask you to take
 6   a look at this document and tell me whether or not
 7   you have ever seen it before.  It is a memorandum
 8   from Dewey Worth to a distribution list, dated
 9   December 20, 1991, regarding the Everglades Landscape
10   Model Development.  Have you ever seen this document
11   before?
12       A.    Yes, I have.
13       Q.    Were you involved in the Everglades
14   Landscape Model Development?
15       A.    I was invited to be part of a combined
16   managerial technical staff group that would work with
17   the University of Maryland and the contractor on the
18   development of this model; however, I told my
19   supervisor that I felt that I already was doing too
20   many things at the District, and I wouldn't have time
21   to do this, so I did not join this group.
22             (Thereupon, a recess was taken.)
23             MR. KOBELINSKI:  I don't believe I have any
24        additional questions.
25             MR. ROSENBERG:  I have no questions.
                                                 262

 1             MS. BIRCH:  Thank you.  We'll read.
 2           (Witness excused.)
 3                         -  -  -
 4           (Thereupon, at 1:35 p.m,
 5            the deposition was concluded.)
 6 
                                                 263

 1                    C E R T I F I C A T E
   
 2 
     The State of Florida     )
 3   County of Palm Beach.    )
   
 4 
               I, Elaine V.  Williams, Professional
 5   Reporter and Notary Public, State of Florida at
     large, do hereby certify that Sharon Trost was by me
 6   first duly sworn to testify the whole truth; that I
     was authorized to and did report said deposition in
 7   stenotype; and that the foregoing pages, numbered
     from 172 to 263, inclusive, are a true and correct
 8   transcription of my shorthand notes of said
     deposition.
 9 
               I further certify that the said deposition
10   was taken at the time and place hereinabove set forth
     and that the taking of said deposition was commenced
11   and completed as hereinabove set out.
   
12             I further certify that I am not attorney or
     counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or
13   employee of any attorney or counsel or party
     connected with the action, nor am I financially
14   interested in the action.
   
15             The foregoing certification of this
     transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the
16   same by any means unless under the direct control
     and/or direction of the certifying reporter.
17 
               In witness whereof I have hereunto set my
18   hand and seal this ____ day of_____________ 1992.
   
19 
   
20 
                        _______________________________
21                      Elaine V. Williams, CP, CM
                        Notary Public, State of Florida
22                      at large.  My commission expires
                        March 27, 1993.
23 
   
24 
                                                 264

 1                    C E R T I F I C A T E
 2                         -  -  -
 3 
 4   The State of Florida,   )
 5   County of Palm Beach.   )
 6 
 7 
 8             I hereby certify that I have read the
 9   foregoing deposition by me given, and that the
10   statements contained therein are true and correct to
11   the best of my knowledge and belief.
12 
13             Dated this ____ day of______________ 1992.
14 
15 
16 
17 
18                           _________________________
19                               Sharon Trost
20 
                                                 265

 1   DATE:  November 10, 1992
 2   TO:  Sharon Trost
          South Florida Water Management District
 3        3301 Gun Club Road
          West Palm Beach, Florida
 4 
     RE:  Sugar Cane Growers v SFWMD
 5 
              Please take notice that on October 30, 1992 you
 6   gave your deposition in the above referred matter.
     At that time you did not waive signature.  It is now
 7   necessary that you sign your deposition.
   
 8             Please come to our office, 319 Clematis
     Street, Suite 500, West Palm Beach, Florida, at any
 9   time between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.,
     Monday through Friday, to sign the deposition.
10   Notice that this address may be different than the
     one where you gave your deposition.
11 
               If you do not appear to sign your
12   deposition within thirty (30) days, the original will
     be forwarded to the attorney who requested your
13   appearance for deposition, for filing with the Clerk
     of the Court.  If you wish to waive your signature,
14   sign your name in the blank at the bottom of this
     page and return to us.
15 
                             Very truly yours,
16 
                             MUDRICK, WITT, LEVY & CONSOR
17                           REPORTING AGENCY, INC.
   
18 
                             ____________________________
19                           Elaine V. Williams
                             NOTARY PUBLIC
20 
   
21   I do hereby waive my signature:
   
22 
     ______________________________
23   Sharon Trost
   
24   cc:
     cc:
25   cc: