1 1 Division of Administrative Hearings 2 Department of Administration, State of Florida 3 SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE ) 4 of FLORIDA; ROTH FARMS, INC.; and ) WEDGWORTH FARMS, Inc., ) 5 Petitioners ) V ) DOAH Case 6 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT ) No. 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 ) No. 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 ) No. 92-3040 17 DISTRICT, an agency of the State ) of Florida; et al., ) 18 Respondents. ) 19 Deposition of Carl Woehlcke 20 VOLUME I 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 Petitioners in the 23 above cause. - - - 24 Wednesday, January 27, 1992 319 Clematis Street, 5th Floor 25 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 10:30 a.m. - 5:05 p.m. 2 1 APPEARANCES: 2 On behalf of the Petitioners Florida Sugar 3 Cane League, Inc., United States Sugar Corp., and New South Hope, Inc.: 4 Peeples, Earl & Blank, P.A. One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3636 5 Two South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 6 By: RICK BURGESS, ESQUIRE SCOTT D. LIEBERMAN, ESQUIRE 7 On behalf of the Respondent SFWMD: 8 Popham, Haik, Schnobrich & Kaufman, Ltd. 4000 International Place 9 100 Southeast Second Street Miami, Florida 33131 10 By: PAUL NETTLETON, ESQUIRE 11 On behalf of the Intervenor Department of Justice 12 Miami Avenue, Suite 600 Miami, Florida 33130 13 By: KEITH E. SAXE, ESQUIRE 14 On behalf of the Petitioners Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida, Roth Farms, Inc., and 15 Wedgworth Farms, Inc., Hopping, Boyd, Green & Sams 16 Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 17 By: DONNA H. STINSON, ESQUIRE 18 Also present: Ronald D. Lacewell 19 20 3 1 I N D E X 2 3 WITNESS: DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS 4 Carl Woehlcke 5 BY MS. STINSON: 4 - - - 6 E X H I B I T S - - - 7 NUMBER PAGE NO. DESCRIPTION 8 EXB. NO. 1 29 9/24/92 memo to Woehlcke from Mlecz 9 EXB. NO. 2 31 8/28/92 memo to Rhoads from Woehlcke 10 EXB. NO. 3 37 7/27/92 memo to Rhoads from Woehlcke 11 EXB. NO. 4 49 7/13/92 memo to Rhoads from Woehlcke 12 EXB. NO. 5 60 6/22/92 memo to Rhoads from Woehlcke 13 EXB. NO. 6 67 7/8/92 memo to Woehlcke from March 14 EXB. NO. 7 72 9/18/92 letter to Rhoads from Johns 15 EXB. NO. 8 97 Status of Economic Analysis EXB. NO. 9 99 11/3/92 memo to Rhoads from 16 Woehlcke EXB. NO. 10 103 11/18/92 memo to Rhoads from 17 Woehlcke EXB. NO. 11 126 12/28/92 letter to Boggess 18 from Woehlcke EXB. NO. 12 127 Ideas for Discussion with 19 Federal economists EXB. NO. 13 132 Summary of observations of 20 12/16/92 meeting EXB. NO. 14 134 12/24/92 memo to Kennedy from 21 Johns EXB. No. 15 137 1/8/93 memo to Kennedy from 22 Johns EXB. NO. 16 138 1/13/93 letter to Milledge 23 from Polopolus 4 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 - - - 3 Thereupon, 4 L. Carl Woehlcke, 5 being by the undersigned Notary Public first duly 6 sworn, was examined and testified as follows: 7 THE WITNESS: I do. 8 DIRECT (L. Carl Woehlcke) 9 BY MS. STINSON: 10 Q. Would you please state your name and 11 business address? 12 A. Louis Carl Woehlcke, I work for the South 13 Florida Water Management District, the address is 14 3301 Gun Club Road, West Palm Beach, Florida. 15 Q. How long have you worked there? 16 A. It is coming up on 15 years. 17 Q. In one position or several positions? 18 A. In several positions. 19 Q. Can you tell me what those have been over 20 the years? 21 A. My initial position title was Assistant to 22 the Director of the Resource Planning Department. I 23 was then made Division Director of Water Use Planning 24 Division. Do you need time frames? 25 Q. Not particularly. But I would like a 5 1 description of the duties in each position. 2 A. Okay. My duties in the first position were 3 to act as the economist for the District and to 4 analyze water demands, economic cost and benefits of 5 District plans, and as director then of the Water Use 6 Planning Division, the division had responsibility in 7 the areas of economic analysis, water use estimation, 8 water conservation, promotion. Those are the main 9 areas. 10 Q. Okay. 11 A. And then after that, I was made a senior 12 professional, which is a non-management position, and 13 I began to work, again as an economist, principally 14 on water supply plans. 15 Q. And that position is what you hold now? 16 A. That is what I hold now. 17 Q. How long have you held that particular 18 position? 19 A. I think it is about three to four years. 20 Q. Okay. Prior to that time you were in more 21 of a management position? 22 A. For about five years I was in a management 23 position. 24 Q. Can you tell me, please, your educational 25 background? 6 1 A. I have a Bachelor's in Science Degree in 2 economics from Loyola University, in Los Angeles, and 3 I have a Ph.D in economics from Washington State 4 University. 5 Q. What years did you receive those degrees? 6 A. The Bachelor's I received in 1965, the Ph.D 7 in 1970. 8 Q. You didn't have an intervening Master's? 9 A. It wasn't required, and it was a thesis 10 only option, and it would generally slow you down. 11 As long as things were going well in the Ph.D 12 program, why stop? 13 Q. After you received your Ph.D, tell me about 14 your professional experience. 15 A. I worked for eight years with the economic 16 research and consulting firm in Washington, D.C. 17 area, Jack Faucett Associates. 18 Q. And what did you do there? 19 A. Okay. We conducted economic analysis 20 principally on contracts for the Federal Government, 21 but with some state, I don't think any local, just 22 state governments. The areas are laid out in the 23 resume'. We did a lot of analysis of transportation 24 and the impacts of government policies and actions on 25 transportation, and with the advent of a lot of 7 1 interest in energy and the impacts of the oil embargo 2 in '74, we did a lot of work in that area. 3 Interspersed were studies with state and other 4 agencies that had -- other agencies that had a more 5 local impact flavor, such as work for the Appalachian 6 Regional Commission, the State of Louisiana, on 7 energy development within the state. Things like 8 that. 9 Q. Did you have any particular involvement in 10 water resource planning during that period of time? 11 A. No. 12 Q. Can you tell me some of the major projects 13 you have worked on in your current position at the 14 District? 15 A. Okay. The District has completed a number 16 of planning studies; okay? We did one on the cost 17 analysis of backpumping as a water supply 18 alternative, we did one as an evaluation of Lake 19 Okeechobee management water quality and management 20 options, and both of those looked at economic impacts 21 of water shortages that result from the policies or 22 actions that were being considered. I worked on an 23 evaluation of changes in the rate schedule for Lake 24 Okeechobee. We were assisting LOTAC II. I think 25 they had like a water supply subcommittee. We 8 1 completed a flood damage assessment analysis for the 2 C-51 basin. I worked a lot in reviewing outside 3 studies; the Corps of Engineers studies associated 4 with the South Florida Water Supply Study, including 5 one that had to do with economics of desalination, 6 desalting water as a water supply alternative, 7 outside contract on waste water reuse costs. 8 Q. Did any of these projects involve looking 9 at the economic impact on the community, as does the 10 project performed by Hazen and Sawyer? 11 A. No. 12 Q. Have you, at the District, worked on any 13 other projects that did look at economic impact on 14 community? 15 A. Let me think for a minute. I don't 16 recollect any that the District has done. It is a 17 new area of interest for the District. You know, I 18 worked reviewing the studies done for the dairy 19 industry north of the lake that resulted from the 20 impacts and concerns that resulted from the Lake 21 Okeechobee SWIM Plan implementation. 22 Q. Were those studies contracted for by the 23 District? 24 A. By the dairy industry. 25 Q. Okay. 9 1 A. Dairy Farmers, Incorporated I think it is. 2 Q. But the District did not do its own 3 economic impact study of that? 4 A. Not an economic impact study. 5 Q. When I use the term FLIPSUM, will you know 6 what I am talking about? 7 A. Uh-huh. 8 Q. Have you ever performed any studies prior 9 or been involved in any studies prior to the one 10 performed by Hazen and Sawyer using the FLIPSIM 11 model? 12 A. No. 13 Q. Prior to the work done by Hazen and Sawyer 14 had you been involved in any studies using a 15 multiplier analysis? 16 A. Many. It goes way back to my work at Jack 17 Faucett Associates. Jack Faucett Associates had 18 extensive background and made extensive use of input/ 19 output models in its work, and we used those in 20 analyzing the multiplier impacts of government 21 actions. For instance, we had contracts to analyze 22 economic impact of strikes, and as the strikes 23 occurred and the shortages of materials reverberated 24 through the economy, there will be multiplier impacts 25 from the loss of that input, and we used those. We 10 1 used those in formulating the long range projections 2 for freight transportation activities, again because 3 there are a lot of interactions among the various 4 economic sectors in that regard. 5 Q. Did any -- 6 A. Those are two that I recall offhand. 7 Q. Have you worked with the RIMS analysis 8 before? 9 A. No. I have supervised contracts in which 10 what were provided to us were the RIMS multipliers. 11 My understanding is that that is the way the 12 Department of Commence now supplies local 13 multipliers. 14 Q. What contracts have you supervised using 15 RIMS? 16 A. Okay. We had a contract completed -- we 17 called it the Water Shortage Economic Impact Model. 18 Q. "We" meaning? 19 A. The District. 20 Q. And when was that? 21 A. That was -- I think it was completed in 22 1991. 23 Q. Who performed that study? 24 A. There was a main contractor, Apogee 25 Research, and two subcontractors, the University of 11 1 Florida, the Resource Economics Department, and 2 Planning and Management Consultants of Carbondale, 3 Illinois. 4 Q. What was your role? 5 A. I was the monitor, or manager; contract 6 manager. 7 Q. Tell me what your role has been in the 8 District analysis of the economic impact or effects 9 of the Everglades SWIM Plan. 10 A. Okay. What do you mean by the economic 11 impacts of the Everglades SWIM Plan? 12 Q. Okay. Let me back up then. Has the 13 District performed any studies or contracted for any 14 studies to look at the economic effect of the 15 proposed Everglades SWIM Plan? 16 A. The District has contracted with Hazen and 17 Sawyer to complete an economic analysis of the 18 Everglades SWIM Plan. 19 Q. Okay. When did the District contract with 20 Hazen and Sawyer, more or less? 21 A. Gee, I'm not sure. I don't know. You 22 know, I think it must have been 1992. 23 Q. Can you tell me generally how it came to be 24 that the District did contract with Hazen and Sawyer? 25 A. The Board was concerned with the economic 12 1 impacts of the plan and they indicated they wanted an 2 economic impact analysis done. 3 Q. Were you present at meetings where that was 4 discussed? 5 A. Uh-huh. 6 MR. NETTLETON: Just one point. Try to 7 avoid saying uh-huh, and say yes or no. 8 THE WITNESS: Yes. 9 BY MS. STINSON: 10 Q. Can you tell me generally the discussion 11 that led up to the Board's decision to have such an 12 analysis performed? 13 MR. NETTLETON: Object to the form. 14 BY MS. STINSON: 15 Q. At meetings of the Board or staff that you 16 may have attended. 17 A. That would have been hearsay on my part. I 18 was not at meetings where that was discussed; the 19 Board meetings. 20 Q. Okay. Tell me your role in that process 21 and the contract with Hazen and Sawyer. 22 A. Okay. I'm going to go into the detail 23 here. You know, I was asked to help locate some 24 economists who could possibly work on an economic 25 evaluation of the SWIM plan, so I helped the District 13 1 come up with some names; okay? My understanding is -- 2 I was not involved in this -- but they negotiated 3 with Fred Bell from Florida State University, and 4 after he had scoped out and they realized the extent 5 of the contract and the effort, the decision was made 6 to put this out as a competitive bid contract. 7 Q. Okay. 8 A. And when it was put out, when that decision 9 was made, I volunteered to write a draft scope of 10 work, which I did. 11 Q. Can you recall when you did that? 12 A. It must be on documents. Let me think 13 back. See if I can recollect the time frame Hazen 14 and Sawyer was given. I can't place it. 15 Q. Okay. So you drafted basically the request 16 for proposals; is that correct? 17 A. The work statement. 18 Q. And such an RFP was issued? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. And who responded to that RFP -- 21 A. Would you -- 22 Q. -- and where was it published? Do you 23 know? What kind of notice? 24 A. No, I don't know. Whatever the District 25 does. 14 1 Q. Okay. 2 A. It is done by contract. But my 3 recollection, there were about six respondents, and I 4 recollect that CH2M Hill responded, Hazen and Sawyer 5 responded, I think A. T. Kearny, and a couple of 6 others. Many of them were groups. In other words, 7 some economists from Florida were bid with a national 8 firm. So the involvement went beyond the prime 9 contractor. 10 Q. How was the evaluation process performed? 11 A. I was part of the evaluation team. We 12 received copies of the contracts and an evaluation 13 form, and we met and ranked them, and selected Hazen 14 and Sawyer as the top firm. 15 Q. Do you recall how you personally ranked 16 Hazen and Sawyer? 17 A. I ranked them number one. 18 Q. Had you ever had any dealings with either 19 Grace Johns or Hazen and Sawyer or anybody from that 20 firm prior to this RFP? 21 A. She had come -- I think she had come to my 22 office sometime before, introducing herself, you 23 know, I am an economist, our firm is interested in 24 doing economic research for your organization. That 25 kind of a visit. Let me think whether there is 15 1 anything else we had done before. I don't recollect 2 anything. There were no other contracts or anything 3 like that. 4 Oh. Okay. I do remember Hazen and Sawyer 5 had a contract on waste water reuse cost analysis 6 that they did for Broward County, and they were 7 looking at developing a waste water reuse system for 8 Broward County, and I talked with her a couple of 9 times about that contract and about their data, and I 10 got a copy of the report from them because I still 11 have an interest in that area. 12 Q. That was prior to the RFP? 13 A. Yeah. I knew who she was and everything. 14 Q. Okay. I guess at the end of this process 15 then, that evaluation process, the firm of Hazen and 16 Sawyer was selected? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Is that correct? Okay. Tell me then what 19 your involvement was and what happened procedurally. 20 A. After the selection, I had, I think, only 21 one phone contact with Grace Johns until just before 22 the reports were due. In other words, they didn't 23 consult me for input during the conduct of the study. 24 Q. Who at the District did they deal with? 25 A. They dealt primarily with Paul Muncy, who 16 1 left the District, and having left the District, Pete 2 Rhoads then approached me and got the approval of my 3 superior for me and for Dick March, who is another 4 economist with the District, to provide technical 5 review of the Hazen and Sawyer work products. 6 Q. What was Muncy's position in relation -- 7 A. He was under Pete. He was the contract 8 manager. His title was, I think, Senior Economist, 9 but I don't know for sure. 10 Q. How did that relate to your position? Were 11 you -- did you report to Muncy or vice versa or were 12 you separate? 13 A. Oh, we are very separate units. I am in 14 the Planning Department. Paul Muncy was under Pete 15 Rhoads in the Office of Everglades Restoration, which 16 is directly in the Executive Office. 17 Q. Okay. And Dick March is whom? 18 A. He is an economist with the District in the 19 Planning Department, where I am. 20 Q. Is he the same thing you are? 21 A. His title is staff economist, I believe. 22 Q. So prior to Mr. Muncy's leaving, it was 23 primarily he who dealt with Hazen and Sawyer; is that 24 correct? 25 A. As I said, I only recollect one phone 17 1 conversation with Grace between the time that I 2 completed the evaluation and when we began. Well, it 3 was just prior to like when the reports were due and 4 started coming in. 5 Q. You did not review drafts or communicate on 6 a regular basis with her by memos or review 7 correspondence? 8 A. I reviewed drafts. That came after this 9 point. 10 Q. After Mr. Muncy left? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. But prior to that time, you did not? 13 A. No. 14 Q. In the documents that you provided to me 15 last week and this week, do they include documents 16 that would have been in Mr. Muncy's files? 17 A. Oh, no. I never had anything to do with 18 Mr. Muncy's files. Well, let me clarify that. He 19 may have gotten and put in his files some of the 20 things that I did. In other words, my original draft 21 of the scope of work; my evaluation sheet from when 22 Hazen and Sawyer was evaluated. That is about the 23 only things that I could think of. 24 Q. Who inherited Mr. Muncy's files? 25 A. My understanding is that Pete Rhoads 18 1 inherited it, and then he delegated the 2 responsibility of contract management to Sally Mlecz, 3 whose name is now Kennedy. M-l-e-c-z I think it is. 4 Q. Her name is now what? 5 A. Kennedy. 6 Q. So whatever comments that Mr. Muncy had on 7 reviews of drafts prior to his departure, you did not 8 have or produce to me; is that correct? 9 A. I'm not aware of whether there even are 10 any. 11 Q. Okay. 12 A. I believe that I started reviewing the 13 first formal work product requirements, but I didn't 14 review, you know, like if there was there were any 15 interim outlines or strategy papers or something 16 about how they would go about it. I'm not aware of 17 those. 18 Q. Since Mr. Muncy left, did you become the 19 contract manager? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Who is the contract manager? 22 A. Sally. 23 Q. Is she in Pete Rhoads' office? 24 A. She is under Pete Rhoads. 25 Q. What is your role -- what has your role 19 1 been since Mr. Muncy left in working on an economic 2 analysis of the SWIM plan? 3 A. My role has been to review the products of 4 Hazen and Sawyer and to review the critiques of Hazen 5 and Sawyer's work; to participate in meetings like 6 with the League economists or with the economists 7 hired by the Federal Government. 8 Q. So although Ms. Kennedy took over the role 9 as contract manager, you have become more involved 10 since Mr. Muncy's departure; is that a fair 11 statement? 12 A. An understatement. 13 Q. Okay. Can you tell me why that is; why you 14 had to become more involved after he left? 15 A. Economics background. The District wanted 16 competent technical economic review of the Hazen and 17 Sawyer records. 18 Q. And Ms. Mlecz does not have that 19 background? 20 A. I'm not sure what her background is. 21 Q. Okay. In reviewing the work of Hazen and 22 Sawyer, are there any particular standards or 23 criteria you look to to judge the quality of the work 24 or the appropriateness of the analysis? 25 A. One standard we have to use is the work 20 1 statement. They have to comply with the contract and 2 fulfill their obligations under the work statement. 3 Other than that, I find the question kind of too 4 general to answer. 5 Q. At what stage was Hazen and Sawyer's work 6 when you became more involved after Mr. Muncy's 7 departure? Were there moderately final drafts at 8 that point? 9 A. They were the first drafts, which were, I 10 believe also you could say, the moderately final 11 drafts. 12 Q. Okay. 13 A. They were sent in in groups of chapters, 14 you know, as they were completed, and that shows up 15 in the documents that I'm sure you have. I believe 16 that is what was called for in the work statement. 17 They had certain dates on which to submit the 18 products from certain tasks, and those products 19 became associated with various chapters of the 20 report. 21 Q. Do you recall when Mr. Muncy left? 22 A. No. 23 Q. At the time of the issuance of the final 24 report on July 31, 1992, the evaluation of the 25 economic impact, had Mr. Muncy left? 21 1 A. Mr. Muncy left before I became involved in 2 reviewing the drafts, so he left a long time before 3 that. 4 Q. Okay. I received from you in your document 5 production a document entitled Contract Completion 6 Report, also the Evaluation of the Economic Impact. 7 Can you tell me generally what the differences are 8 between the final report and the contract completion 9 report and how it came to be that there was something 10 subsequent to the so-called final report? 11 A. The final report, you know, met the 12 schedule of the contract as far as when a report had 13 to be done, and it was then, and on the basis of 14 that, that the initial presentation was made to the 15 Governing Board. Okay? One of the Governing Board 16 members specifically requested a review to make sure 17 that Hazen and Sawyer had completed all of the tasks 18 required in the contract. 19 Q. What board member was that? 20 A. Eugene Pettis. 21 Q. Okay. 22 A. And as a result of that, we looked again at 23 the contract and at their product and we found some 24 areas for improvement. We found also some areas 25 where the presentation needed, we felt, to be 22 1 improved, and Hazen and Sawyer agreed to do those. 2 Some of those respond to some of the criticisms that 3 were presented by the economists hired by the League 4 and the Sugar Cane Cooperative. 5 Q. Do you know what it is that caused 6 Mr. Pettis to have concern about whether the report 7 was complete or not? 8 MR. NETTLETON: Object; calls for 9 speculation. 10 THE WITNESS: I was not at the Board 11 meeting. I don't know. 12 BY MS. STINSON: 13 Q. Did anyone tell you what his cause for 14 concern was? 15 A. I think I asked Pete Rhoads, and he said he 16 didn't think it was anything specific; it was just an 17 area of concern for Mr. Pettis in general. He wanted 18 to make sure that the District always made sure that 19 all the contracts were fulfilled completely. 20 Q. Did Hazen and Sawyer receive any additional 21 contract funds to do the October '92 document? 22 A. I don't know. I believe there had been 23 contract modifications, but I'm not sure. I have 24 never seen any paperwork on it. 25 Q. Are you aware of any document that outlines 23 1 the differences between the final report and the 2 contract completion report? I ask that because I'm 3 not sure. I'm not sure I saw such a thing; or if I 4 did, I didn't know what I was looking at. 5 A. You know, a chronology on that is that, you 6 know, I did produce, and it should have been in my 7 things, a memo that listed suggested changes; okay? 8 And that memo was then negotiated in a meeting with 9 Grace Johns; okay? Well, you know, Carl says he 10 thinks, you know, this would be a concern, and she 11 would be able to say whether she agreed, what she 12 could do about it, you know, and so on and so forth; 13 okay? And from that we decided on some work tasks 14 that she would complete. But I don't have, I 15 believe, a written record of, you know, the final 16 conclusion was this, the final conclusion was that. 17 So my memo was an input to that process of deciding 18 exactly what they would modify and how and what they 19 would address. But it wasn't like that was signed 20 on. 21 Q. Were there any significant differences in 22 the conclusions between the final report and the 23 contract completion report, to your knowledge? 24 A. No. No. 25 Q. Maybe in going through some of these 24 1 documents, it will become clearer as to what happened 2 here. 3 (Discussion held off the record.) 4 BY MS. STINSON: 5 Q. I have got a memo with a fax transmittal 6 sheet to you from Grace Johns dated October 1, '92. 7 Does that contain some of the changes between the 8 final report and the project completion report? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Do you know whether it contains the bulk of 11 the changes or just a portion of the changes? 12 A. Just a portion, I think. 13 Q. Whose handwritten notes are on the typed 14 sheets, if you know? 15 A. Both Grace Johns and mine. 16 Q. Did you sit down with Ms. Johns and talk 17 about? 18 A. These changes? 19 Q. Yes. 20 A. After I scribbled them on here? I believe 21 we did it over the phone, but I'm not sure. 22 Q. But it also has her handwritten -- 23 A. Yeah. I think that she -- I think this is 24 her writing. In other words, what she faxed me was, 25 you know, rather than doing strikethroughs or 25 1 underline, she says, "Well, I am going to put this 2 here; what do you think of it? I'm going to put 3 these -- make these editorial changes; what do you 4 think of it? I am going to put this little bit in" 5 and then I recognize my handwriting here as 6 suggesting some other wording to go into that 7 sentence. So it contains both. 8 Q. Is the typewritten portion straight out of 9 the final report, as far as you know? 10 A. As far as I know, it is, but I don't know 11 for sure. 12 Q. Okay. We are jumping around in time here, 13 but that is the way my documents are. 14 There is a memorandum dated June 17 to 15 Mr. Rhoads from Ms. Johns. Can you just tell me what 16 that is? 17 A. This, I believe, was the cover memorandum 18 for the first submittal, which covers tasks one, two 19 and three. 20 Q. The first submittal being a draft of the 21 report? 22 A. Again, I believe, the contract called for 23 task reports. 24 Q. Okay. 25 A. Okay? And we had decided that because of 26 1 the time and because of the subject matter and the 2 way the tasks were structured, it would be okay that 3 these task reports then form the basis of chapters; 4 in essence, in their final contract completion 5 report, so they wouldn't have to write it all over. 6 So these were the tasks reports for tasks one, two 7 and three, but I think you'll find that they largely 8 became particular chapters in the final report. 9 Q. I see. Okay. 10 A. That doesn't look like my copy because it 11 is not marked up. 12 Q. I have another copy that is marked up. Is 13 that your handwriting? 14 A. Yes, this is mine. 15 Q. Okay. I guess -- well, let me ask you, 16 here is a June 22nd memo from Ms. Johns to 17 Mr. Rhoads. Looks like a similar item with similar 18 handwriting. Is it another task report with your 19 comments? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And similarly, a July 1 memorandum. 22 A. Uh-huh. That is my comments. It is 23 consistent with the procedure that I used. I would 24 get a copy of the report and wrote comments on it, 25 and then I prepared a summary memo. I would also get 27 1 comments. Dick March would get a copy. He would get 2 comments and feed them to me. I would consolidate 3 them or attach his, depending on how the thing went, 4 and then I shipped them over to Pete Rhoads. 5 Q. So the comments that you have handwritten 6 on these memos should be expressed in a typed 7 memorandum somewhere generally? 8 A. They are. 9 Q. Okay. 10 A. Although the typed memorandum is going to 11 be a summary. 12 Q. Right. I'll just ask you what is this and 13 when was it prepared? Do you know? Is this your 14 handwritten file label that was on top of it? 15 A. Yes. Again, Mr. Pettis asked that -- let's 16 see. Wait a minute. This here -- 17 Q. The reference to August 26. 18 A. Yes. That refers to Mr. Pettis' concern 19 and the fact that I was assigned to write -- well, I 20 was assigned to give assurances that, you know, that 21 the contract was indeed complying with all of the 22 requirements. And that was why we went back to Hazen 23 and Sawyer and said we'd like to see these additional 24 things before we can sign off on it. And when they 25 were done, then I signed off on it. 28 1 Q. Okay. Do you know when this document was 2 prepared? 3 MR. SAXE: Objection to form. 4 THE WITNESS: This? 5 BY MS. STINSON: 6 Q. The thing you are looking at, yes. 7 A. No. But I know who prepares them. 8 Q. Okay. Who prepares them? 9 A. Joanne Geisler, who is like -- she 10 schedules Board meetings and Board follow-up items. 11 It is the format of a document that is issued 12 periodically to track all the things that the Board 13 has asked her to give assignments on and asks the 14 status. 15 Q. What is her position? 16 A. I don't know. Again, her job is really to 17 schedule Board meetings, presentations, follow-up. 18 She must be in the Executive Office. 19 Q. Here is another document called Statement 20 of Work with Hazen and Sawyer's name at the top. Can 21 you tell me what that is and do you know when it was 22 prepared? There appears not to be a date on it. 23 A. What I did is, again went back and created 24 a separate file for the final contract review, and I 25 took from the contract that we had -- well, let's see -- 29 1 well, I Xeroxed this out so that I would have that 2 for a reference as to what they were supposed to do. 3 Q. You copied it out of the contract? 4 A. Out of the contract, I believe. 5 Q. Are those your handwritten notes? 6 A. Yeah. Right. Those are the areas that I 7 then highlighted in that memo, saying these are the 8 areas they need to improve on. You'll find 9 correlations there between what I scribbled here and 10 what I put into the memo. 11 (Thereupon, a recess was taken.) 12 MS. STINSON: This one I do want marked. 13 (The document was marked 14 Woehlcke Exb. No. 1.) 15 BY MS. STINSON: 16 Q. Mr. Woehlcke, this is a document we have 17 had marked as Exhibit 1. It is a September 24 memo. 18 Is that the document that summarizes your handwritten 19 comments and chores to be performed by Hazen and 20 Sawyer prior to its final completion report? 21 A. No. 22 Q. What is that document? 23 A. Well, I had a copy in my files, but I don't 24 have my file. 25 Q. No. What is this document? 30 1 A. What is this document? They were 2 considering asking Hazen and Sawyer to do follow-up 3 work for extra funds that would have to be approved 4 by the Board, and they were trying to get some 5 potential tasks for that. 6 Q. So that would be work in addition to 7 completing the contract? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Okay. Do you recall the date of the 10 memorandum which memorializes your handwritten 11 comments and the additional work to be done for 12 contract completion? 13 A. No. 14 MR. NETTLETON: Just for the record, 15 looking at Exhibit 1, there are some comments on 16 the side, which I assume are written by counsel. 17 MS. STINSON: Correct. 18 MR. NETTLETON: Which say "done yet" and I 19 think the one on Exhibit 1 has been scratched 20 out. 21 MS. STINSON: Correct. 22 MR. NETTLETON: I just want the record to 23 be clear that some of these writings on here are 24 by counsel. 25 MR. BURGESS: Is Exhibit 1 a two-page 31 1 document? 2 MS. STINSON: Yes. Exhibit 2 is going to 3 have some of those marginal comments, which I am 4 also scratching out. 5 BY MS. STINSON: 6 Q. Let me try again. I show you a memo dated 7 August 28 and ask you if that is the memo that 8 describes the additional tasks to be performed to do 9 the project completion. 10 A. Yes. 11 MS. STINSON: All right. Let's have this 12 marked as Exhibit 2. 13 (The document was marked 14 Woehlcke Exb. No. 2.) 15 BY MS. STINSON: 16 Q. Looking at Exhibit 2, paragraph one, you 17 indicate the tasks 7, 10 and 11 cannot be considered 18 complete? 19 A. Uh-huh. 20 Q. Is there something that will tell us what 21 those tasks specifically are? 22 A. The contract. 23 Q. Do you know whether those tasks -- were 24 those tasks completed to your satisfaction in the 25 contract completion report? 32 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. The required information, such as the 3 potential impact on agricultural suppliers, sugar 4 refineries, shipping and packing houses was included 5 in the contract completion report -- 6 A. Okay. 7 Q. -- is that correct? 8 A. This memo represents my input as to what 9 Hazen and Sawyer should ideally do. Okay? That was 10 then negotiated with Hazen and Sawyer based on 11 consideration such as, you know, had the data, you 12 know, that had been requested by agriculture, been 13 provided, you know, what sources of information were 14 there? And so the completion report -- the terms of 15 the contract are complied with to my satisfaction. 16 Q. Okay. Well, let me ask you if information 17 such as the potential impact on agricultural supplier 18 sugar refineries, shipping and packing houses was 19 included in the contract completion report? 20 A. The impact on refineries is better 21 discussed. I remember that. I don't think that 22 Hazen and Sawyer received information on the 23 suppliers to agriculture -- or to the activities in 24 the shipping and packing houses that they could rely 25 on. 33 1 Q. Do you know why they didn't or do you 2 recall discussing that issue with them to find out 3 why that information cannot be included? 4 A. I believe it was basically information they 5 had asked of the industry and didn't receive. 6 Q. You also indicate in this memo that 7 analysis and strategies appropriate for mitigating 8 the economic impacts associated with the new District 9 requirements are not presented. 10 A. They extensively revised that chapter and 11 included that to my satisfaction. 12 Q. Okay. Under Technical Improvements, you 13 indicate that "A basic response to criticisms should 14 be included." Was one included in the contract 15 completion report? 16 A. I believe that some responses were 17 incorporated into the text. The decision was made 18 not to include it as an appendix. 19 Q. Point 2: "Analysis need to be complete 20 regarding the use of the land." Were these analyses 21 completed in the contract completion report? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Was there a discussion of what happens to 24 lands taken out of production in one crop? 25 A. Basically, there was additional review of 34 1 what the options were, and there don't seem to be 2 many options for, you know, the agricultural use of 3 the land. 4 Q. Under Presentations and Perspective you 5 indicate, "The report needs an explanation of what 6 impacts and adjustments to impacts are and are not 7 covered." Was that included in the final contract 8 completion report? 9 A. There is more discussion of that, yes. 10 Q. The second page of that memo, or question -- 11 Does the second page that of memo deal with a 12 separate portion of the analysis, which is the 13 economic benefits analysis? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Okay. Has there ever been a final report 16 of the economic benefits analysis? 17 A. We received a revised report that 18 incorporated work on that similar to the work that 19 Hazen and Sawyer completed in doing the completion, 20 you know, going from the final report to the 21 completion report. Pete Rhoads has that. I don't 22 know what he has done with it. 23 Q. You do not have that? 24 A. I don't think in my files I have a copy of 25 the final report, no. I don't recollect it. 35 1 Q. Was it issued approximately the same time 2 as the contract completion report on the impacts 3 side? 4 A. Yes. 5 MR. SAXE: Clarification. Would you 6 re-read the last two witness' responses and the 7 intervening question, please. 8 (Thereupon, a portion of the record 9 was read by the reporter.) 10 MR. SAXE: Were you inquiring about the 11 final report or the contract completion report 12 date? 13 MS. STINSON: I don't know. 14 MR. SAXE: So you're asking about the final 15 report but then asking if it came out at the 16 same time as the contract completion report? 17 MS. STINSON: I guess I'm not being that 18 technical. Let me clarify here. 19 BY MS. STINSON: 20 Q. Hazen and Sawyer, either they or through a 21 subcontractor, did not only an evaluation of the 22 economic impact of the SWIM Act, but also an 23 evaluation of the benefits; correct? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. In a separate document? 36 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Was there a contract completion report of 3 the benefits portion issued at the same time as the 4 contract or about the same time as the contract 5 completion report of the impact analysis? 6 MR. NETTLETON: Object to the form. 7 BY MS. STINSON: 8 Q. You can answer. 9 A. For something so simple, it is very 10 confusing. 11 Q. I don't mean to be confusing or overly 12 technical. 13 A. Hazen and Sawyer, working with their 14 subcontractors, revised the benefits report and sent 15 Pete a revised version at about the same date that 16 they sent in the completion report. 17 Q. That is all I needed to know. Thanks. 18 Whatever it is called then. 19 MS. STINSON: Let's mark this 3. 20 MR. SAXE: Counsel, are you moving off of 21 Exhibit 2? 22 MS. STINSON: Yeah. 23 MR. SAXE: Before you do so, I had some 24 questions about the marginalia on that. 25 MS. STINSON: About the what? 37 1 MR. SAXE: The margin notes and scribbling 2 on those documents. 3 MS. STINSON: I think I already indicated 4 the margin note and the scribbling are mine. 5 MR. NETTLETON: She said that before she 6 started. 7 MR. SAXE: Okay, thanks. 8 (The document was marked 9 Woehlcke Exb. No. 3.) 10 BY MS. STINSON: 11 Q. Again, for the record, on Exhibit 3, the 12 little circles, the 1 and 2, are my notes and not 13 something off the witness' document. 14 I have handed you what has been marked as 15 Exhibit 3, a memorandum dated July 267, 1992. Can 16 you tell me what that memorandum is? 17 A. It is a memorandum in which I comment on 18 the economic impact draft, final report; and on the 19 economic benefits evaluation draft, final report. 20 Q. Specifically, on the second paragraph you 21 indicate your concern that the economic impact report 22 overstates the likelihood of acreage going out of 23 production and is not sensitive to the impacts that 24 would occur on the present owners of the farm 25 enterprises in the EAA. You then have -- 38 1 A. Those are my concerns. 2 Q. Okay. On the third page, the last page of 3 the memo, on Analysis of Marginal Revenue and Cost 4 Analysis from Keeping Farms in Production -- 5 A. Uh-huh. 6 Q. -- does that third page analysis relate to 7 your concern that the report overstates the 8 likelihood of acreage going out of production? 9 A. It is a piece of it. 10 Q. Can you explain that to me, please; how it 11 relates and what your concern is, or was? 12 MR. NETTLETON: Object to the form. 13 THE WITNESS: What does that mean? 14 MR. NETTLETON: I'm sorry. I should have 15 told you. If I object to the form, it is just I 16 am preserving my objection, but you can go ahead 17 and answer if you understand the question. 18 THE WITNESS: Okay. Let me take a minute 19 to look at this thing. Do you happen to 20 remember where I referenced that in the actual 21 text? I want to take it in context. 22 MR. NETTLETON: If you need to read the 23 entire document in order to answer a question, 24 feel free to go ahead and do it. 25 MS. STINSON: Take your time, yeah. Look 39 1 though. Just to help you out, I think it is 2 right here. 3 THE WITNESS: Uh-huh. Okay. This relates 4 to one of the points that I have tried to make 5 with Hazen and Sawyer that I believe they have 6 corrected; and that is, that to determine 7 whether the lands would go out of production, 8 you have to look at the marginal revenues and 9 marginal costs of keeping the lands in 10 production. This goes whether the industry is 11 considered as a single integrated, vertically 12 integrated, enterprise -- vertically integrated 13 meaning that there is the farm and the 14 processing, which is the sugar mill and the 15 refining maybe, which is all owned by the same 16 company -- so that that company is concerned not 17 just with the profit of the farm, but with the 18 profit of the whole enterprise. And I was 19 concerned. And in reviewing some of the numbers 20 from the Hazen and Sawyer report, it appeared 21 that they were taking lands out of production 22 when it would still be profitable to the 23 enterprise. Okay? Which includes the 24 refining -- no, excuse me -- includes the 25 milling and the farm production. 40 1 BY MS. STINSON: 2 Q. Okay. And you say that your concern in 3 this regard was addressed in the final report? 4 A. Uh-huh. 5 Q. Tell me how it was addressed to your 6 satisfaction. 7 A. I believe they changed the criteria for 8 farms going out of production. Okay? So that they 9 allowed a larger allocation of mill profits to help 10 support a decision to keep farm lands in production. 11 Q. Then from the draft final to the final 12 report, did the conclusion regarding how much land 13 would go out of production change significantly 14 downward? 15 A. I don't think it was significant. 16 Q. But they did address the concern you had in 17 terms of how that should be looked at? 18 A. Right. 19 Q. The point that I have marked on the first 20 page there as 2, "is not sensitive to the impacts 21 that would occur on the present owners," I don't 22 understand what you mean there. Can you please 23 enlighten me? 24 A. The economic impact analysis is essentially 25 an analysis of what economists call distribution; 41 1 okay? The plan has already been adopted and 2 approved, the Governing Board has decided that the 3 benefits, economic and noneconomic, exceed the costs, 4 so it is a good thing to do, and we want to do it, 5 but the burden is not going to fall equally on 6 everybody. Some people are going to receive more of 7 a burden and some less. Okay? 8 Hazen and Sawyer's tasks in the contract 9 are to try to identify the areas of concentrated 10 impact. In other words, it is not simply 100 percent 11 oh, that is the EAA and we don't have to really look 12 at that question. But they do have to look at that 13 question. But even within the EAA, there are 14 different levels of impact. The impact may be on the 15 firm which presently owns the land, may presently 16 have a mortgage on the land, and that firm's 17 financial well-being may be, you know, affected by 18 the proposed District actions in one way. On the 19 other hand, there are the people that live and work 20 out there, the communities that work out there, and 21 there is the lands out there. And the question is 22 you know what will be the use of the land and the 23 impact on those community? And that is primarily 24 what we asked Hazen and Sawyer to do. 25 What I am saying here is that the Board may 42 1 very well be interested in well, what is it going to 2 do to the existing owners, the owners who are out 3 there, because we provide drainage, who have invested 4 in improving the land, and so on and so forth? So I 5 was encouraging Hazen and Sawyer to include as much 6 as they could about, you know, well, what are the 7 impacts on the farm enterprise? I thought the Board 8 would be interested in that. 9 Q. And was that addressed in the final report 10 to your satisfaction; the impact on the actual 11 owners? 12 A. Only in a very limited way. And again, the 13 main reason is that would require extensive 14 information on the well-being of the firms out there. 15 Not just a hypothesized farm, okay, because of the 16 integration of the industry. Okay? The major -- let 17 me explain a little bit more on that. Okay? 18 The analysis of the impacts on the firms 19 would depend on the well-being of the firms, but many 20 of the firms out there are diversified, large, albeit 21 privately held corporations that have interests in 22 lots of different places. 23 Q. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you 24 said a moment ago, in beginning your explanation, 25 that it was a matter of distribution; that the Board 43 1 had adopted the SWIM plan; that they had decided the 2 benefits exceeded the costs. 3 A. Economic and non-economic. That is a way 4 of saying they felt it was the thing to do and they 5 voted to do it. 6 Q. Okay. In fact, when they voted to adopt 7 the SWIM plan, they had not yet looked at a complete 8 economic analysis; isn't that correct? 9 MR. NETTLETON: Object to the form. 10 THE WITNESS: What is a complete economic 11 analysis? 12 BY MS. STINSON: 13 Q. Well, let me ask it this way: If the SWIM 14 plan was adopted, the Board did not have the benefit 15 of the Hazen and Sawyer report? 16 A. They had not looked at how the benefits and 17 costs would be distributed, but they decided that 18 overall, it was worthwhile. I don't think that is 19 that unusual in water resource planning. Very often 20 the decision is made, let's say, like to have a 21 federal project that may include a dam, but doesn't 22 include a detailed analysis of where the local 23 financing is going to come from. The idea is that it 24 is profitable to the society, but the society hasn't 25 figured out who is going to get exactly how much of 44 1 the burden and who is going to get exactly how much 2 of the benefits. 3 Q. Well, there had not been anything in the 4 nature of an economic impact assessment or economic 5 impact study done prior to the adoption of the SWIM 6 plan; correct? 7 A. What do you mean by, again, an economic 8 impact assessment and an economic impact study? 9 Q. Is there any documentation that you're 10 aware of showing -- other than the Hazen and Sawyer 11 report, showing the economic benefits or effects of 12 the SWIM plan? 13 A. Economic benefits or effects? 14 MR. NETTLETON: Object to the form of the 15 question. 16 THE WITNESS: I know that the SWIM plan 17 itself provides information on expected costs of 18 implementing the SWIM plan. 19 BY MS. STINSON: 20 Q. Right. 21 A. As well as other information. The economic 22 benefits, I believe, are addressed mostly by the 23 benefits portion. That is the only place I know 24 where they're addressed. The economic benefits 25 portion of the study that Hazen and Sawyer did. 45 1 Q. Okay. You indicated you do not have a copy 2 of the revised economic benefits study in your files. 3 Did you have any role in reviewing that as you did in 4 reviewing the economic impact assessment? 5 A. Oh, yes. 6 Q. Did the conclusions between the benefits 7 analysis done, let me just say for lack of a more 8 specific time frame, the summer of 1992, differ 9 substantially from that submitted in October of '92? 10 A. Some of the numbers were revised. I am 11 pretty sure they were lowered. And much more 12 explanation was put in as to what the procedures were 13 followed; you know, what, in the professional 14 assessment of the authors, the report would do and 15 could be used for, how reliable it would be, because 16 the main issue there is they are trying to transfer 17 information about benefits from projects outside of 18 Florida to the situation in the Everglades. 19 Q. Okay. 20 A. They discussed that much more thoroughly in 21 the final. 22 Q. Okay. My other question is, they did not 23 do any site specific surveys or analysis; is that 24 correct? 25 A. That is correct. 46 1 MR. SAXE: Objection to the form. 2 BY MS. STINSON: 3 Q. The bottom of the first page of Exhibit 3 4 concerning the benefits evaluation, you indicate that 5 the evaluation has total values per acre for the 6 wetlands and "the situation we face is a change from 7 nutrient poor wetlands to nutrient richer wetlands, 8 not their elimination. The nutrient richer wetlands 9 might well provide more fishing value". Did the 10 revision in the benefits report include assumptions 11 regarding perhaps more fishing value or distinguish 12 because the out-of-state analysis related to 13 elimination of wetlands as opposed to change in 14 wetlands? 15 A. To improve on that, they really would have 16 had to find a more appropriate study. They didn't 17 find any more appropriate studies. What they had to 18 do was the caveat; and explain better what was done 19 in the studies that they did have. And they, of 20 course, couldn't change the numbers in the study that 21 they did have because that related to that situation. 22 And that study was done. So the numbers really 23 didn't change. 24 Q. Would you agree that the reliability of the 25 conclusions and the benefits analysis is 47 1 questionable? 2 MR. NETTLETON: Object to the form. 3 THE WITNESS: What do you consider to be 4 the conclusions of the benefits analysis? 5 MS. STINSON: Well, I apologize, but not 6 provided with your documents was the benefit 7 component of the contract completion report, so 8 I don't have the further explanation that you 9 talked about about the reliability or the 10 usefulness of such report. 11 THE WITNESS: Could you read me back the 12 question? 13 (Thereupon, a portion of the record 14 was read by the reporter.) 15 MR. SAXE: I'm going to object to form 16 also. 17 THE WITNESS: The reliability of the 18 conclusions? I have got a problem in figuring 19 out what you mean by what the conclusions are; 20 okay? 21 Essentially, the report says we were given 22 the task of finding the best estimate that might 23 be transferred in from comparable studies. We 24 did that. Here are those numbers. And so that 25 is not -- you know, there is not much to 48 1 conclude from that, other than we did it and 2 here are the numbers. They do have a lot of 3 discussion in there about why it is difficult to 4 do that transfer and why it would be better to 5 do an on site survey. 6 BY MS. STINSON: 7 Q. Okay. 8 A. I would agree that it is difficult to make 9 the transfer and it is much better to do a survey to 10 the particular problem. 11 Q. Does the contract completion report not 12 reach conclusions as to the value of Everglades land 13 per acre, for example -- 14 MR. SAXE: Objection to form. 15 BY MS. STINSON: 16 Q. -- that would be benefited by the SWIM 17 plan? Let me ask that again? 18 A. Say it again. 19 Q. Does the benefits report conclude a 20 monetary value of the SWIM plan? 21 MR. NETTLETON: Object to the form of the 22 question. 23 THE WITNESS: It is couched strictly in 24 terms of if you transfer in monetary values from 25 other studies to obtain improvements, specified 49 1 improvements in the quality of the Everglades, 2 okay, it doesn't relate at all to whether the 3 SWIM plan would promote that. It is -- you 4 know, their basic assumption is you get this 5 improvement, okay, and if you get this 6 improvement, then what is the economic value? 7 It doesn't say the SWIM plan will produce this 8 improvement. They were not asked to look at 9 that. 10 MS. STINSON: All right. I guess we are 11 backing up in time. This is 4. 12 (The document was marked 13 Woehlcke Exb. No. 4.) 14 BY MS. STINSON: 15 Q. Again, the scribbles in the margin are 16 mine. 17 What I have just showed you, marked as 4, 18 is a memo dated July 13. Am I correct in 19 understanding that this is a memo regarding a prior 20 draft of the impact? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. In the second paragraph, you indicate 23 "Options for responding to the changes caused by the 24 restoration program need to be brought out and 25 discussed." Were they? 50 1 MR. SAXE: Object to form. 2 MR. BURGESS: What is the basis of your 3 objection? 4 MR. SAXE: There is context in the document 5 that there is no foundation laid concerning the 6 options referred to by counsel in the question. 7 The question is unclear. 8 THE WITNESS: I am referring to options 9 that the industry has or will be subject to 10 through market forces that would allow them to 11 adjust to the impacts caused by our actions. 12 BY MS. STINSON: 13 Q. Okay. 14 A. Okay? And Hazen and Sawyer did improve on 15 their analysis of those options. For instance, sod 16 lands going out of production. They originally 17 assumed that would mean a permanent reduction in sod 18 production in the EAA; okay? I believe they since 19 revised that to indicate that other lands could pick 20 up that sod production and/or more intensive sod 21 production would take place on the remaining lands. 22 So those are adjustments that would mitigate the 23 impacts. I continue to feel that those are not 24 adequately accounted for, so I would continue to 25 consider Hazen and Sawyer's analysis to be on the 51 1 kind of high end of potential impacts. 2 Q. Well, we'll come back to that in a little 3 bit. 4 Under task 4-2 you state, "An assessment of 5 the use/impact of funds paid to current owners for 6 the purchase of their lands should be included." Was 7 such an assessment included? 8 A. Not to my knowledge. 9 Q. Do you know why not? 10 A. I can, as an economist, guess why not. 11 Q. Okay. 12 A. In order to do that, because these funds 13 would go to relatively few owners, you would need to 14 know the economic conditions of their firms and their 15 business opportunities to find out, for instance, 16 whether having sold land for the STAs, they would 17 decide to reinvest in the EAA, such as for energy 18 co-generation facilities, or whether they would take 19 that money and go somewhere else, or whether that 20 money would go to pay off some debts of the 21 corporation. It is very specific kinds of 22 information that probably the firms involved don't 23 really know what they would do with the money either 24 at this point. 25 Q. Let me ask a general question. Did these 52 1 memos also go to Grace Johns? 2 A. I can't swear to that. I sent them to 3 Pete, and we generally had meetings about them at 4 which these were discussed, but I did not myself 5 deliver these to Grace Johns. 6 Q. Point 3 under task 4, you state that 7 potential adjustments need to be discussed, such as 8 bringing other lands into production, farming other 9 areas more intensively, et cetera. "These would all 10 mitigate the impacts. On the other hand, if profit 11 opportunities are good elsewhere and resources are 12 portable, then mill closings and such are possible. 13 I suggest adding a section after the baseline to 14 address these issues." Was such a discussion added 15 to the report? 16 A. This relates closely to my earlier answer 17 about, you know, including adjustments, and there was 18 some improvement, but not to the extent that I would 19 have liked there to be, and -- 20 Q. What about your "on the other hand" 21 comment? Was there a discussion of the potential for 22 mill closings and the industry moving elsewhere? 23 A. Well, that would relate to their profit 24 opportunities elsewhere. No, I don't think there 25 was. Again, that would relate very specifically to 53 1 input the industry, I think, would have to provide. 2 There is a little bit of information that Hazen and 3 Sawyer did include. It may have been in the original 4 draft, again, which shows the profitability of sugar 5 cane farming in Florida relative to other areas in 6 the United States, and historically it's been more 7 profitable here. So, you know, from that, again, 8 that is a secondary source. You can say, "Well, they 9 wouldn't probably all pick up and move to Louisiana 10 because it isn't as profitable in Louisiana as it is 11 here". But, you know, whether they have 12 opportunities in the Dominican Republic or not, we 13 would have to ask those firms. They would have to 14 indicate something to us. 15 Q. Okay. Point 4 you indicate you still find 16 the distinction between the sugar farms and the mills 17 to be artificial and misleading. I believe you told 18 me, when we were looking at the prior exhibit, that 19 Hazen and Sawyer did look at the integration of the 20 industry in their final report; is that correct? 21 A. Since I wrote "I still" here, okay -- 22 Q. We are earlier -- 23 A. -- this came before the other one. There 24 must be something still even earlier in which that 25 was discussed. 54 1 They gradually improved their consideration 2 and they have convinced me that they are not taking 3 the lands out of production too soon, because they 4 are not adequately sharing the profits between the 5 mills and the farms. 6 Q. Okay. On page 2 of the memo, task 5-4, you 7 state, "The risks/expectations of revenue reductions 8 need to be thoroughly considered. Their efficacy 9 needs to be justified. Reasons for the present lack 10 of implementation need to be provided." Frankly, I 11 just don't understand what you are talking about 12 there. Can you tell me? 13 A. I am talking about the potential that 14 implementing the BMPs will cause reductions in crop 15 production and, therefore, reductions in revenue, and 16 I wanted those to be thoroughly considered. 17 Q. Were those thoroughly considered in the 18 final report or the contract completion report? 19 A. To the extent of knowledge of the 20 agricultural experts that Hazen and Sawyer contacted, 21 it is, and they said, you know, they don't believe 22 there is going to be significant reductions in 23 production. I reviewed that. You know, "Grace, did 24 you check back; what did they say?" So it didn't 25 really change, but they double checked it. 55 1 Q. Do you know who she consulted with on that 2 issue? 3 A. I believe Del Bottcher was the primary 4 person. 5 Q. Task 6 states, "This section brings out the 6 importance of the original cost/yield assumptions." 7 Was this issue addressed more thoroughly to your 8 satisfaction in the final report? 9 A. It really wasn't addressed. Again, what 10 Hazen and Sawyer had is fairly extensive and good 11 information on yield differences in geographical 12 areas so that they could create these yield belts. 13 This is consistent with what is done in the appraisal 14 process for the taxes on the lands. And it was 15 based, I believe, mostly on those data. But the data 16 that they had on the costs of production were 17 aggregate USDA data, and USDA is not going to reveal 18 individual farm data, so this is one of the cases 19 where information on cost variations across areas of 20 the EAA that could have been provided by the 21 agricultural enterprises would have been very useful 22 in improving the data that Hazen and Sawyer had to 23 work with. So they didn't address it. They did not 24 get data that indicated, you know, just how do the 25 costs vary in farming land away from the lake, which 56 1 generally has lower depths, to the cap rock; lower 2 depths of muck; okay? They didn't have data on that. 3 Q. Point 3, you ask, "Why was a scenario of 4 stable profits picked for sugar cane while one of 5 declining profits was picked for lettuce and one of 6 going out of business was picked for celery?" Was 7 your question answered to your satisfaction? 8 A. This is an area that needs improvement. It 9 is the area that deals with the issue of productivity 10 improvement in the industry. Hazen and Sawyer 11 explained to me thoroughly how they got where they 12 got and what information they had to go on, and so I 13 understand, you know, where they were, but it is an 14 area where we want them to look more thoroughly when 15 they do the 20 year analysis. 16 Q. Okay. We'll get into that later, too. 17 Point 3 under task 6 has to do again with your 18 concern about looking at the industry as an 19 integrated whole. 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Point 4 you ask, "What else could lands 22 taken out of production go to that would help pay for 23 the assessments?" Was your question answered? 24 A. They did not find anything. 25 Q. Okay. Let me ask you related to that -- 57 1 A. This would for, you know, in the higher 2 impact levels for, you know, where they have large 3 sugar cane acreages going out of production; okay? 4 They did not find any other crop that would 5 substitute in. 6 Q. Let me back up here for a minute. In the 7 SWIM plan, the SWIM plan is to be funded through a 8 stormwater utility to be paid for by people in the 9 EAA; correct? 10 MR. NETTLETON: Objection to form; calls 11 for speculation. 12 MR. SAXE: Objection to form. 13 THE WITNESS: Well, actually I don't know. 14 I don't know that that is true. My 15 understanding is that it is not 100 percent 16 sure. No. You know, I have been at a fund -- I 17 am not going to volunteer information. 18 BY MS. STINSON: 19 Q. That's okay. I'll ask you about it later. 20 At this point you do not know whether the projects 21 for stormwater treatment areas proposed in the SWIM 22 plan will be funded through a stormwater utility; is 23 that correct? 24 A. I don't know that. 25 Q. You don't know? 58 1 A. I don't know how they are going to be 2 funded. 3 Q. Okay. 4 A. Nor do I believe does anybody else. 5 Q. You probably don't know this either, but 6 let me ask just to make sure. If there is a 7 stormwater utility assessment -- strike that. Let me 8 back up. 9 The economic impact analysis done by Hazen 10 and Sawyer looks at or considers the possibility of a 11 stormwater utility assessments; correct? 12 A. An assessment. Doesn't say where it came 13 from. 14 Q. Okay. In differing levels per acre? 15 A. That is what they were assigned to do, yes. 16 Q. Okay. Do you know whether the assessment 17 would be made whether or not the land is in 18 production or not? 19 A. No. 20 Q. Do you know what assumption was made by 21 Hazen and Sawyer in that regard? 22 A. They assumed that the assessment was made 23 as long as the land was in production, and once the 24 land was out of production and there was no economic 25 use, they didn't really deal with it. 59 1 Q. So if I understand correctly then, Hazen 2 and Sawyer does assume that because of the impact, 3 some lands will go out of production and remain idle, 4 correct, over a period? 5 A. There are results under the scenario 6 showing some land going out of production. First of 7 all -- I mean -- 8 Q. Beyond that; just used for the actual STAs? 9 A. Yes. As a result of assessments. 10 Q. Right. Do they then, for the land taken 11 out of production, assume there will be no assessment 12 per acre? Is that what you just told me? 13 A. The question is the assessment on the -- 14 the effect of the assessment is on the economic use 15 of the land, and once the land has no economic use, 16 they don't deal with it. It wouldn't make it more go 17 out of production than if it was already out of 18 production. 19 Q. But wouldn't it impact the amount to be 20 paid by the remaining acreage in production? 21 MR. SAXE: Objection to form. 22 THE WITNESS: Not necessarily. And Hazen 23 and Sawyer did not consider an additional 24 assessment that would come about on the 25 remaining lands. 60 1 BY MS. STINSON: 2 Q. Why do you say not necessarily? 3 A. Depends on what funding arrangements the 4 District decides on. I don't see anywhere -- Hazen 5 and Sawyer was not told to look at an assessment in 6 which the remaining lands had to pay the full dollar 7 amount that would have originally been paid by the 8 total acreage. They were not told to do that and 9 they did not. 10 Q. Okay. 11 (Thereupon, a recess was taken.) 12 BY MS. STINSON: 13 Q. Mr. Woehlcke, we are still on these 14 memoranda containing your review of the Hazen and 15 Sawyer drafts. Let me have another one marked as 16 Exhibit 5 and we'll talk about that. 17 (The document was marked 18 Woehlcke Exb. No. 5.) 19 BY MS. STINSON: 20 Q. You have got Exhibit 5, which is a memo 21 dated June 22, 1992, which I presume again contains 22 your review of a draft of Hazen and Sawyer. 23 A. This contains review my review of the 24 draft. 25 Q. Okay. We are going back in time here. 61 1 A. Yes, I can see that. 2 Q. A couple of points here. Point 3, you 3 indicate, "The three scenarios required by the scope 4 were neither developed nor assigned probabilities." 5 How was that issue resolved? 6 A. The issue -- it is largely a specious 7 issue; okay? You notice this is tasks 1 and 2. This 8 is right when I got back into being involved in the 9 contract; okay? The last that I had seen of it was 10 the scope of work that went out in the RFP. 11 Q. Okay. 12 A. At that time in the RFP I think we had 13 requested three scenarios; okay? Between that time 14 and when I got involved, it had been changed and they 15 were not required to do the three. 16 Q. Okay. Number 4, you say, "A better picture 17 needs to be given of how internalized the economy of 18 the impacted area is." 19 A. Right. 20 Q. What did you mean by that? 21 A. Hazen and Sawyer had a picture of how much 22 local business activity there was from a survey that 23 they had done. They did not present a picture of how 24 much employment in the agricultural industries was 25 from the EAA, from the coast in Palm Beach County, 62 1 from Dade and Broward counties. 2 Q. Was that information ultimately given? 3 A. No. 4 Q. Do you know why not? 5 A. By Hazen and Sawyer? 6 Q. Right. 7 A. I believe this is another case where it was 8 requested from the agricultural people. 9 Q. Okay. Number 9, you indicated, "No 10 corroborating evidence regarding levels and 11 differences in profitability are offered." Was that 12 information provided later? 13 A. Let me look at this. 14 MR. NETTLETON: Just for the record, there 15 is also a notation on the side of that as well 16 as on additional pages, and I would like to know 17 whether those were of counsel. 18 MS. STINSON: Those are mine as well, and 19 we'll scratch them out. 20 THE WITNESS: You know, I can't be sure 21 exactly what I was referring to here without 22 going back to what I wrote on the drafts. 23 BY MS. STINSON: 24 Q. Okay. Well, maybe I can show you that one. 25 What task are we talking about? 63 1 A. This is 1 and 2. 2 Q. Maybe this document will help you. 3 A. I can't reconstruct it very well. 4 Q. Okay. Back on the memo, I forgot to ask 5 you about point number 1. You indicate that, "The 6 area of impact is not adequately defined." Was that 7 area adequately defined to your satisfaction? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And Number 5, what are LP techniques? 10 A. Hazen and Sawyer had originally proposed to 11 use linear programing techniques to find optimum farm 12 output levels and, you know, optimize profitability 13 given land use and production constraints, and I was 14 never clear on how they were proposing to do that, 15 and I think it is in their contract well, why not? 16 Q. Did you get an answer that satisfied you? 17 A. I never saw how they would be used to begin 18 with, so I kind of dropped it from then on. 19 Q. Okay. 20 A. Usually there is a lot more information 21 requirements and you need to be addressing a fairly 22 narrow problem to use linear programing methods. 23 Q. Okay. The second page of Exhibit 5 says, 24 "Comments on Hazen and Sawyer report," july 18, 1992. 25 Is this a document you prepared or do you know whose 64 1 it is? 2 A. Where are you? Oh, this. These would be 3 Dick March's comments, which maybe I don't indicate. 4 These should be Dick March's. Yes. 5 Q. May as well stay on that page. 6 MR. NETTLETON: Well, just for the record, 7 in light of his testimony, is it correct that 8 the first page of Exhibit 5 is not related to 9 the rest of Exhibit 5? Are they the same 10 document? 11 THE WITNESS: Two people commenting on the 12 same document, I believe. 13 BY MS. STINSON: 14 Q. And were Dick March's comments directed to 15 you generally? I mean, he gave you his comments? 16 A. We worked out an arrangement in which I 17 would take his comments and would forward them. 18 Q. Okay. 19 A. It's not like I had the lead in this. I'm 20 not his supervisor. 21 Q. Okay. Let me ask you a question about it. 22 On the paragraph that begins Table 2-8 -- 23 A. Okay. 24 Q. -- he indicates, "A number of small 25 vegetable and sod producers may have been omitted." 65 1 Do you recall whether that question was addressed; as 2 to whether some farmers had been omitted from the 3 analysis? 4 A. Hazen and Sawyer assured us that their data 5 were essentially complete because it came from the 6 tax records. 7 Q. Okay. At the bottom of the page he 8 indicates that, "The yield figures presented appear 9 to be substantially less than those implicit in the 10 model farm presented in Alvarez and Schueneman." Was 11 that question addressed; as to the accuracy of the 12 yield figures? 13 A. Alvarez and Schueneman take a particular 14 model farm, so they are not working from a total 15 production. They don't have a control total, which 16 Hazen and Sawyer had and used. So when you take the 17 control total, which is USDA data, and you expect to 18 be real good, taking a typical farm, it still may not 19 hit the average. 20 Q. Okay. The next page, the second paragraph, 21 where it says page 4-12, "The statement that 22 "... 1994 revenues and costs are firmly based on USDA 23 data" is misleading," was that statement amended or 24 corrected? 25 A. I don't recollect from the report exactly 66 1 how Hazen and Sawyer states the 1994 numbers, but 2 clearly USDA does not have 1994 actual productions. 3 Q. Several paragraphs down, where it says, 4 "Summary of Economic Impacts of Stormwater Treatment 5 Areas -- 6 A. Uh-huh. 7 Q. It states, "Within the framework adopted 8 here, the higher the costs of the STAs, the greater 9 are the direct, indirect and induced changes in 10 sales. This may be an inherent limitation of using 11 I-O analysis for analyzing government-mandated 12 expenditures." Can you explain that paragraph to me? 13 A. As an economist who didn't write this but 14 had looked at it before? 15 Q. Yes. 16 A. I don't know what he was getting at. 17 Q. Okay. Neither did I. 18 The last paragraph on the page says, "This 19 modeling approach," regarding acres leaving 20 production, "leads to large changes in acreage at 21 discrete points in time. A more realistic approach 22 would take into account price, yield, and cost 23 variability and uncertainty, which would allow for, I 24 suspect, smaller, but more frequent, changes in 25 acreage." Was that issue addressed by Hazen and 67 1 Sawyer? 2 A. It is inherent to the way Hazen and Sawyer 3 did their analysis, by using a few select cases of 4 farms rather than a continuous distribution of farms 5 with various profitability levels. I would suspect 6 that it would have little impact on the total 7 estimate of economic losses or land going out of 8 production. What he's really talking about is it 9 looks better to see a few farms this year, a few 10 farms this year, a few farms this year rather than 11 coming in lumps when certain stages are reached. 12 Yes, it is still in there. If you look at the 13 impacts, you'll see, you know, in some years they 14 have jumps. 15 Q. Okay. The remainder of Dick's notes are on 16 the benefit side of the analysis, are they not? 17 A. Right. National Resource -- 18 Q. NRDA? 19 A. -- Damage Assessment, yeah. I think that 20 is the name of the firm. The subcontractor. 21 Q. Okay. 22 (The document was marked 23 Woehlcke Exb. No. 6.) 24 BY MS. STINSON: 25 Q. Exhibit 6 is a memo, I presume, to you from 68 1 Dick March; is that correct? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Dated July 8, '92? 4 A. Okay. So now we are going forward in time. 5 Q. That is the way you gave them to me. 6 The comment in the paragraph that begins, 7 General Comments, "Many of the BMPs involve 8 additional rice production. There needs to be a 9 discussion of the impact of additional rice 10 production on" -- various things. Was the analysis 11 of rice production expanded in the Hazen and Sawyer 12 report? 13 A. Before we get to the completion report, it 14 was changed several times, and the amount of rice 15 production that was proposed be included in the BMPs 16 was reduced, and there is more discussion, I believe, 17 of the potential markets for the rice and what that 18 might entail. 19 Q. Under General Comments on Evaluation 20 Methodology, "The time horizon used to evaluate the 21 BMPs (ten years) may be shorter than it should be," 22 why was the ten year time frame used? 23 A. It was a decision that was made before I 24 became reinvolved in the project. 25 Q. Did the project originally begin by looking 69 1 at 20 years? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Do you know why it was changed from 20 to 4 10? 5 A. No,, I was not a party to that. Do I know 6 why it was changed? I remember asking Pete Rhoads 7 about that after I became involved and found out that 8 it was changed. Let me see if I can recall an 9 answer; what he said. I don't recall exactly what he 10 said to me as to why. 11 Q. It is true, is it not, at this point in 12 time that Hazen and Sawyer is doing a 20 year 13 analysis under some additional work? 14 MR. SAXE: Objection to form. 15 THE WITNESS: As far as I know, they are 16 doing it, and the contract is all signed, but 17 I'm not absolutely sure where the contract 18 approval process is. 19 BY MS. STINSON: 20 Q. Okay. Back on Exhibit 6, the paragraph 21 that begins page 5 states, "The use of a range of 22 costs may be useful for analysis of all BMPs." Was 23 that done? 24 A. No. 25 Q. Do you know why not? 70 1 A. No. But I can speculate. 2 Q. Okay. Go right ahead. 3 MR. NETTLETON: I would prefer you didn't 4 speculate unless you have some foundation for 5 your speculation. I mean, you can answer the 6 question to the best of your knowledge. 7 THE WITNESS: I don't -- I would have to 8 speculate, which I don't want to do. 9 BY MS. STINSON: 10 Q. Did you have any discussions with anyone 11 regarding why a range of costs was not used? 12 A. No, not that I can recall. 13 Q. Do you agree that the use of a range of 14 costs would be useful? 15 A. Depended on how you knew that there should 16 be a range and how certain you are about the range 17 compared to your central estimate. 18 Q. On the next page at the top paragraph it 19 states, "A clearer explanation of the relationship 20 between planted acres, harvested acres, and gross 21 acres should be provided." Was that explanation 22 provided? 23 A. I believe it is. 24 Q. Under tasks 4 and 6, page 3, he states, "I 25 have been unable to reconcile the figures in this 71 1 section on sugar cane production with published FASS 2 data." Is that the issue we talked about earlier, 3 the Schueneman figure as compared to the figure used 4 by Hazen and Sawyer, do you know? 5 A. I imagine the FASS is Florida Agricultural 6 Statistical Service. I'm not even sure what that is. 7 There will be state data put out. I didn't pursue 8 this issue at all. I don't know. 9 Q. Were you ultimately satisfied with the 10 accuracy of the yield numbers used by Hazen and 11 Sawyer? 12 A. Yes, because it matches the USDA numbers. 13 Q. On the next page, the very last comment 14 states, "...the yield is held constant throughout the 15 projection period." Did that continue to be true 16 through all versions of the Hazen and Sawyer -- 17 A. Where are we? 18 Q. The very last phrase. 19 A. Hazen and Sawyer varies the sugar cane 20 yield based on productivity change. They don't vary 21 the vegetable or sod yield, I believe. 22 Q. They vary the yield on a yearly basis? 23 A. They have a time frame and yield on sugar 24 cane. 72 1 (The document was marked 2 Woehlcke Exb. No. 7) 3 BY MS. STINSON: 4 Q. Mr. Woehlcke, I believe you indicated at 5 some point, or alluded to the fact, that Hazen and 6 Sawyer is doing some work beyond that which they did 7 which resulted in ultimately the contract completion 8 report -- 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. -- on the evaluation of economic impact. 11 Let me show you a document which you can't have yet, 12 but marked Exhibit 7, a letter to Mr. Rhoads from 13 Hazen and Sawyer, and ask you if that document 14 essentially outlines what is proposed to be done for 15 that additional work. 16 MR. BURGESS: What is the date? 17 MS. STINSON: September 18. 18 MR. NETTLETON: Do you want him to read the 19 whole document? 20 MS. STINSON: No. Just if he knows. He 21 may. 22 THE WITNESS: This is a memo written about 23 the same time as I wrote my suggestion memo to 24 Ms. Mlecz -- 73 1 BY MS. STINSON: 2 Q. And you are -- 3 A. -- as to what additional tasks they might 4 fulfill. I believe it is about the same time. 5 Q. You marked that as Exhibit 1, I believe. 6 Let's take a look at that. Is that Exhibit 1 that 7 you're referring to? 8 A. Yeah. 9 Q. Okay. 10 A. Let's see. This is September 24 and this 11 is September 18, so they were written about the same 12 time. They are the basis, but by no means the only 13 thing, that went into whatever Hazen and Sawyer is 14 doing right now. 15 Q. Okay. Is there also a formalized contract 16 with Hazen and Sawyer for this additional work, do 17 you know? 18 A. That is why I say I don't know the status 19 of it. I believe they are under contract and working 20 on it, but I'm not sure. 21 Q. Who is the contract manager for that 22 project? 23 A. Ms. Mlecz, Burkett Neely. 24 Q. Okay. Are you playing a role in the work 25 being done under that contract? 74 1 A. Uh-huh. 2 Q. Is it the same role that you played with 3 regard to the previous work done by Hazen and Sawyer? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. I presume that that contract would outline 6 all the additional work to be done; correct? 7 A. It would have the work tasks, sure. 8 Q. Do you know who drafted the work tasks in 9 the new contract? 10 A. Nope. 11 Q. You did not? 12 A. Depends on whether this shows up in the 13 work contracts or not. I don't know. 14 Q. Do you know when the work that is being 15 performed by Hazen and Sawyer is to be completed? 16 A. I know that they are to have a draft of the 17 20 year analysis by March 15. I don't know when the 18 contract is to be completed, although I have a 19 recollection that the contract completion date is 20 somewhere in the future way beyond that. 21 Q. In Exhibit 1 you outlined some additional 22 tasks. One of them is an unnumbered one in the first 23 paragraph, "To obtain input, information and 24 criticisms from all persons providing input or review 25 of the initial study." Is that being done, to your 75 1 knowledge? 2 A. It has been done and is being done. 3 Q. Do you know from whom the contractor is 4 obtaining such input information and criticisms? 5 A. From the Florida Sugar Cane League hired 6 economists, from the federal economists, and from all 7 the parties that have been invited to an open forum 8 on the methodology for the 20 year forecast, which is 9 scheduled, I believe, for next week. 10 Q. Okay. Will you be involved in that 11 discussion, that meeting? 12 A. I sure hope so. 13 Q. Do you know whether Hazen and Sawyer has 14 obtained and is reviewing any alternative 15 quantitative analysis conducted of the impact of the 16 SWIM program -- SWIM plan? Excuse me. 17 A. We obtained a little bit of information 18 from the Florida Sugar Cane League economists, and 19 that was reviewed to the extent that the detail and 20 the data permitted. 21 Q. Okay. In paragraph 2 you say, "A 22 memorandum report will be prepared presenting the 23 sources of differences and providing an evaluation." 24 Has that memorandum report been submitted? 25 A. Let me make it clear these were my 76 1 suggestions as follow-up tasks; okay? 2 Q. Right. 3 A. So it is not like -- 4 Q. This is not the contract? 5 A. Yeah, this is not a contract at all. I 6 know that Hazen and Sawyer did prepare a summary memo 7 on the differences and did prepare, you know, a memo 8 after the meeting with the Florida Sugar Cane League 9 economists. 10 Q. Okay. And was that the type of report you 11 envisioned in your paragraph 2? 12 A. Uh-huh. Yes. 13 Q. It says here you're also suggesting that, 14 "The Contract Manager may request that certain 15 sensitivity analyses be made incorporating data, 16 assumptions, or methods from these alternative 17 analyses." Do you know whether that is being done? 18 A. No, it is not. 19 Q. It is not being done? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Do you know why not? 22 A. With the shift to the 20 year analysis, 23 there needs to be much more of a focus on the 24 long-term prognosis for a profitability of the 25 industry. That is one reason. And I believe the 77 1 other reasons are that I don't believe that the 2 information provided us indicates that it is 3 warranted. 4 Q. Information provided you by? 5 A. Polopolus and Richardson. 6 Q. Are you saying then that you basically 7 disagree with the suggestions of Drs. Polopolus and 8 Richardson regarding their different data assumptions 9 or methods? 10 A. Are you asking for my professional opinion 11 or for the District's position? 12 Q. Let's start with your professional opinion. 13 A. Okay. My professional opinion is that most 14 of the big differences that they propose have to do 15 with the differences in assumptions about the 16 profitability of the industry which would affect the 17 baseline projections, and those are being considered 18 in the 20 year analysis. The other differences do 19 not have a large impact on the likelihood of land 20 going out of production. There are some cases, such 21 as the contention by Polopolus and Richardson that 22 the industry needs to be segmented, and having farms 23 considered separate from the mills and the rest of 24 the businesses owned by the firms that are involved 25 in agricultural production in the EAA isn't the 78 1 correct way to proceed. 2 Q. Okay. Tell me the District's position. 3 A. I don't know the District's position. If 4 you asked me the first one first, it would have been 5 quicker. 6 Q. On the second page you suggest the 7 contractor obtain input from two additional 8 reviewers. Do you know whether that is being done? 9 MR. NETTLETON: What are you reading from? 10 MS. STINSON: Sort of the middle of the 11 paragraph on that page. 12 THE WITNESS: No, it is not. It was an 13 alternative way for obtaining review of the 14 report. The idea was presented, but it wasn't 15 accepted. 16 BY MS. STINSON: 17 Q. It was not accepted by whom? 18 A. It was presented to Pete Rhoads. 19 Q. Why did he disagree or decide not to 20 implement your suggestion? 21 MR. NETTLETON: Objection; calls for 22 speculation. 23 You can answer if you know. 24 THE WITNESS: I know a revised version of 25 the proposal -- wait. Let me think. I remember 79 1 that he did consider and presented a kind of a 2 revised version of this in some of our meetings 3 where we discussed forming kind of a review 4 committee. 5 BY MS. STINSON: 6 Q. In-house? 7 A. No. No. These would be outside experts. 8 Q. And have you done that? 9 A. No. The issues came up as to well, who 10 would decide and, you know, would that just further 11 the issue and expand the realm of experts or would it 12 really help solve the problem? And I think he 13 decided it wasn't the best way to do it; move the 14 problem towards solutions. 15 MS. STINSON: Okay. Now can we go ahead 16 and get a copy of this? 17 (Thereupon, a recess was taken.) 18 BY MS. STINSON: 19 Q. Looking at Exhibit 7, letter written by 20 Grace Johns, she indicates in the first paragraph, 21 "We understand that between now and May 1993 all 22 issues regarding economic impacts need to be resolved 23 so that the Governing Board may continue their 24 decisionmaking regarding the implementation of the 25 Act and Settlement Agreement." Do you know whether 80 1 May is the project completion date? 2 A. No, I don't. 3 Q. What do you understand the purpose of the 4 additional Hazen and Sawyer work to be? Do you 5 understand it to be as stated by Ms. Johns? 6 A. You mean this purpose that you just read 7 me? 8 Q. The sentence I just read, correct. 9 A. I understand it is to provide input to 10 decision making, you know, for our Governing Board, 11 and I do know that Pete Rhoads considers kind of May, 12 June to be a crucial time, because at that time we 13 expect to have the analysis of alternatives and the 14 BMP costs and potential levels of BMP re-evaluated, 15 and if the Board were to select a different approach 16 to solving the problems, they would want to know what 17 the economic impacts were. I think that is why she 18 is mentioning May. 19 Q. Let's see if I can accurately summarize. 20 What you're saying is that by May or June the 21 District will make some decisions as to whether to 22 actually implement the projects contained in the 23 present SWIM plan or to make some modifications to 24 that, and part of that analysis includes the economic 25 impact? 81 1 MR. NETTLETON: Object to the form of the 2 question. 3 MR. SAXE: Object to form. 4 THE WITNESS: Based on things that I have 5 heard Pete Rhoads say, I believe that is the 6 District's strategy. 7 BY MS. STINSON: 8 Q. In the last paragraph on that first page 9 Ms. Johns states that, "The economic impact 10 evaluation found that the economic impacts of the 11 STAs the BMPs, the $10 or $25 per acre assessment 12 would reduce sales and employment in the area by less 13 than ten percent. However, some agricultural land 14 would not be sustainable throughout the second ten 15 year period causing a further reduction in sales and 16 employment during the second ten year period." Do 17 you agree with that conclusion or assumption? 18 A. We have to evaluate it first. That is all 19 I would say. 20 Q. Well, judging by Ms. Johns' letter, without 21 coming up with any numbers, she seems to indicate 22 that it is her presumption the conclusions would show 23 a further reduction in sales and employment during 24 the second ten year period. Do you agree that that 25 is a valid presumption? 82 1 MR. NETTLETON: Object to the form. 2 MR. SAXE: Objection. 3 THE WITNESS: No, because of the 4 importantance of the underlying profitability 5 questions that I say we will emphasize and Hazen 6 and Sawyer will emphasize in the 20 year 7 analysis. 8 BY MS. STINSON: 9 Q. Explain that to me. The underlying 10 assumptions of profitability? What do you mean? 11 A. Built into the different scenarios that 12 Hazen and Sawyer considered are baseline projections. 13 Those baseline projections will result in a certain 14 level of industrial profitability. 15 Q. All right. 16 A. Okay? Insofar as factors come in which 17 affect those baseline profitability assumptions, the 18 sensitivity of the industry to the actions under the 19 SWIM plan would be different. 20 Q. Okay. And those baseline presumptions are 21 as part of this additional work being re-evaluated? 22 A. Yes. 23 MR. SAXE: Objection. Baseline assumptions 24 or presumptions, I believe -- 83 1 BY MS. STINSON: 2 Q. Assumptions. 3 A. They are analyzed, so I wouldn't call them 4 assumptions. We call them scenarios. 5 Q. Okay. Those baseline scenarios are being 6 re-examined as part of this additional work; correct? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Are those baseline scenarios being 9 re-evaluated taking into consideration the possible 10 impact of the North American Free Trade Agreement, 11 NAFTA? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. What other factors are being considered in 14 reanalyzing the baseline scenarios? 15 A. Again, only I can only base my answer now 16 on discussions that I have had with Grace Johns, 17 Drs. Polopolus and Richardson, and with, you know, 18 Pete Rhoads and Sally and I think with the federal 19 economists. I don't know what their contract says. 20 Okay? 21 Q. Okay. 22 A. But I think that some of the major factors 23 will be yes, the continuation of the federal price 24 support system, the impacts of NAFTA or other foreign 25 trade programs or treaties that may affect the 84 1 imports and the prices of sugar, the effect of 2 subsidence. Those are all that I can think of right 3 now. 4 Q. Do any of those factors, in your opinion -- 5 would any of those factors, in your opinion, tend to 6 increase the profitability of growing sugar in the 7 EAA? 8 MR. SAXE: Objection as to form. 9 THE WITNESS: Compared to what? 10 BY MS. STINSON: 11 Q. Compared to the original baseline 12 projections. 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. What of those factors, in your opinion, 15 would tend to increase profitability? 16 A. Anything that ups the price supports based 17 on inflation or in any absolute terms over time, 18 because the baseline assumption had no increase 19 whatsoever in price, despite the inflation. 20 Q. Do you know what the probability is or what 21 the probability is being assumed by Hazen and Sawyer 22 regarding increase in price supports? 23 MR. SAXE: Objection as to form. 24 THE WITNESS: I don't believe Hazen and 25 Sawyer is starting out by assuming something 85 1 like that. They have to look at it. They have 2 to consult experts, they have to look at 3 historical data. They have got a lot of work to 4 do. 5 BY MS. STINSON: 6 Q. Okay. And they haven't gotten to the point 7 of reaching an assumption yet on that issue? 8 A. They haven't developed a scenario or the 9 basis for the scenarios yet. 10 Q. Do you have an opinion with regard to the 11 probability of increased price supports for sugar? 12 A. I would have to look at it before I would 13 venture an opinion. 14 Q. Okay. So at this point, you have no 15 opinion on that issue; is that correct? 16 A. I cannot give a learned and studied 17 professional opinion because I have not looked at 18 that and talked with people that work every day in 19 the area and examined all the historical, you know, 20 trend data and things like that. The same kinds of 21 things that Hazen and Sawyer will have to do. 22 Q. Are there any other factors which might 23 affect the baseline projections which, in your 24 opinion, could increase profitability? 25 A. Compared to the existing baseline? 86 1 Q. Right. 2 A. Yes. Taking into account many of the 3 market adjustments and other options, the industry 4 has to either cut costs, increase production, invest 5 in technological improvements and, you know, 6 influence their labor costs or maybe influence the 7 prices that they receive. 8 Q. Have you done any analysis of the 9 possibilities in those regards that you just listed? 10 A. No, I have not completed those analyses. 11 Q. Are you in the process of doing such an 12 analysis? 13 A. No, I'm not. 14 Q. On the top of page 2 of Ms. Johns' letter, 15 the last two sentences of the first paragraph, she 16 states that, "Most of the BMPs are associated with 17 water table management which may become more 18 complicated due to the shallow organic soil. 19 Ultimately agricultural production in many areas of 20 the EAA will become too expensive relative to 21 revenues from raw sugar, sod and vegetable sales." 22 Do you agree with those statements? 23 A. I don't know. 24 Q. You don't agree with them? 25 A. No. I do not have a firm opinion. Okay? 87 1 Q. You don't know whether you agree with them 2 or not at this point? 3 A. Right. I would need more evidence. 4 Q. In the second sentence on that page she 5 indicates that soil subsidence is an important factor 6 in the evaluation of economic impacts from BMPs and 7 cost sharing of the STAs. It is also an important 8 aspect in evaluating the optimal size of the STAs. 9 For example, if half the land in agricultural will be 10 abandoned or converted to other uses, then the 11 economic impacts will be lower and perhaps the design 12 of the STAs would be different than under the current 13 land use in the EAA. 14 MR. NETTLETON: Just object for the record, 15 just in the sense that you are paraphrasing some 16 of these things that may appear as quotes and 17 thereby leaving certain words out, and I just 18 want the record to reflect that. 19 MS. STINSON: That is true. I hope I have 20 not altered the meaning. 21 BY MS. STINSON: 22 Q. But if you would read that entire paragraph 23 and tell me whether you agree with Ms. Johns' 24 statements there. 25 A. I agree that the rate of soil subsidence as 88 1 potential for affecting the agricultural acreage over 2 time should be evaluated. As to whether it is an 3 important aspect for evaluating the optimal size of 4 STAs depends on the Board's decision as to what they 5 are building the STAs for. If they are building only 6 to meet the initial goals and, you know, accommodate 7 the present agriculture, it would be. But our Board 8 could decide to develop STAs that provide some 9 measure of capacity for meeting anticipated future 10 and more stringent pollution goals. So in a narrow 11 sense of, you know, as far as meeting the established 12 goals, yes. 13 Q. Is the question of whether to have STAs 14 designed to meet more stringent goals under 15 consideration by the Board, to your knowledge? 16 A. Under consideration by the Board? I don't 17 know whether it is under consideration by the Board. 18 Q. Has there been discussion of that, do you 19 know, with the Board or has the Board discussed that 20 issue? 21 MR. SAXE: One moment, counsel. 22 THE WITNESS: I don't really know. 23 MR. SAXE: Could you read back the 24 witness' -- not this immediate previous answer, 25 but the one right before that, please. 89 1 (Thereupon, a portion of the record 2 was read by the reporter.) 3 BY MS. STINSON: 4 Q. Okay. I believe I interrupted you, 5 Mr. Woehlcke, too. You were about to add something. 6 MR. NETTLETON: I believe he said he didn't 7 know was his last answer. 8 THE WITNESS: Yeah. You were asking 9 whether the Board was considering -- 10 BY MS. STINSON: 11 Q. Right. 12 A. -- that, and I don't know. 13 Q. Okay. Before I ask that, though, I think 14 you were going to continue as to whether you agreed 15 or disagreed with some of the comments in that 16 paragraph. 17 A. Well, the last sentence is really just a 18 hypothesis; for example, if. And my answer there 19 would relate back to my answer as to whether it is an 20 important aspect in evaluating the optimal size of 21 the STAs. And that is an example of that. 22 Q. At the bottom of the page, paragraph 3, 23 Ms. Johns indicates, "The current ten-year study 24 assumed that the costs of production would increase 25 at historic rates of inflation in farm and mill 90 1 inputs and that efficiency gains in the recovery of 2 raw sugar from sugar cane would continue as they have 3 since 1964. When evaluating the second ten-year 4 period, these assumptions should be re-evaluated to 5 consider factors that would increase or slow the 6 gains in raw sugar production efficiency." Those are 7 the assumptions regarding baseline scenarios that you 8 discussed previously; is that correct? 9 A. They are a part of it, but they are the 10 part that the industry ultimately will control by its 11 own measures that increase productivity. 12 Q. Do you know of any measures that could be 13 undertaken by the owners to increase productivity? 14 A. Economists can characterize the kind of 15 responses that a firm or industry can have, and we 16 can fit them into categories that that industry may 17 consider. So, for example, you know, if restrictions 18 are put on production in a particular area, the 19 industry may decide to produce more intensively on 20 the remaining land, they may decide to bring new 21 lands into production, they can substitute among the 22 types of crops to assure that they are producing the 23 mix that is most profitable for them, and those again 24 can be translated back into things that the industry 25 might do to obtain that. 91 1 Q. Do you know whether any of those three 2 things you just listed are possible for the sugar 3 growers in the EAA? 4 A. Do I have specific knowledge of what they 5 would do? 6 Q. Yes. 7 A. No. 8 Q. Do you have specific knowledge of what they 9 could do, what the possibilities are? 10 MR. NETTLETON: Object; asked and answered. 11 THE WITNESS: I believe I have answered 12 that. 13 BY MS. STINSON: 14 Q. Well, your last answer said well, you said 15 do I know what they would do? No. My question is do 16 you know what they could do, as opposed to what they 17 would do? 18 A. No. I gave the answer before that that 19 said these are the categories of things. 20 Q. But beyond the categories, you know of no 21 specific ways that those categories could be 22 implemented; is that correct? 23 A. Well, I know that in the past they have 24 been implemented by varietal research, by water 25 management research order to develop, you know, new 92 1 and better technologies, and I have, you know, seen 2 some of those activities, and I think those are some 3 of the ways. 4 Q. The top of page 3 Ms. Johns indicates that, 5 "The current ten-year study assumed that the cost of 6 vegetable and sod production would increase each year 7 at historic rates of inflation with no productivity 8 gains over time. As a result, the constant revenues 9 and increasing costs will eventually force vegetables 10 out of production." Can you explain? 11 A. Under the baseline economic projections -- 12 Q. Excuse me. Under the baseline economic 13 projections. Can you tell me why Hazen and Sawyer 14 assumed increase in efficiencies and revenues for 15 sugar but no such increase, rather the opposite, for 16 vegetables and sod? 17 A. They had information on sugar that would 18 help establish a rate of productivity increase. They 19 didn't have the comparable data for the vegetables 20 and the sod. And they were taking a posture that 21 they wanted to put in factors like that only where 22 they could really document that they had some data on 23 which to base them. 24 Q. Do you know specifically what data was used 25 to determine the increased productivity for the sugar 93 1 growing? 2 A. They had data, I believe, on sugar cane or 3 sugar yield per harvested acre. 4 Q. Do you know what period of time was used 5 and what the projections were based on? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Can you tell me? Would you like to look -- 8 A. I remember the graph, okay, but I don't 9 remember the end point in time. I believe it was 10 about a 15 or 20 year period. 11 Q. Can you find it in the report? 12 A. Uh-huh. This. 13 Q. Okay. You are referring to what? 14 A. Figure 4-2. 15 Q. In the project completion report? 16 A. Uh-huh. Yes. 17 Q. Based on the data collected for what years? 18 Can you tell me? 19 A. In 1964 to 1990. 20 Q. That is depicted in figure 4-2. Did Hazen 21 and Sawyer assume simply a straight line increase in 22 production of sugar? 23 A. From the data, they developed an average 24 annual increase in productivity over time. 25 Q. And that average was used in the baseline 94 1 projections? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. As I gather, those assumptions or 4 projections regarding productivity increase will be 5 re-evaluated as part of the new work? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Under part 4, entitled Commodity Prices, 8 Raw Sugar, Vegetables and Sod -- scratch out my 9 margin notes there, please -- Ms. Johns indicates 10 that, "... changing political philosophies and 11 policies of the Federal Government should be followed 12 as the District is developing strategies to design 13 and finance the STAs." 14 First of all, do you agree that changing 15 political philosophies and policies of the Federal 16 Government should be followed as the District is 17 developing such strategies? 18 MR. NETTLETON: I object to the form of the 19 question. I think it is ambiguous as to what 20 you mean by follows or what Grace Johns meant by 21 follows as opposed to simply keep track of. 22 THE WITNESS: I'm not sure what she meant 23 by that. 24 BY MS. STINSON: 25 Q. Let me ask you a question on vegetable and 95 1 sod production. Are those activities more labor 2 intensive than sugar cane? Are there more workers 3 per acre in vegetable growing than in sugar cane 4 growing? 5 A. There certainly are in vegetables than 6 sugar cane. 7 Q. Okay. The second paragraph under point 4 8 she states, "The current economic impact evaluation 9 found that liberalized trade in sugar or increase is 10 in sugar imports into United States can significantly 11 reduce the amount of land that will remain in sugar 12 cane production in Florida under the baseline 13 economic projections." When she states, "The current 14 economic impact evaluation," she means the Hazen and 15 Sawyer work done originally? 16 A. She means their original work and the 17 scenario one under which the price support system 18 especially goes away. 19 Q. Do you agree that NAFTA may have a 20 significant impact on sugar imports into the United 21 States that may reduce the amount of land that will 22 remain in sugar cane production? 23 A. I find that hard to answer because you say 24 do you agree that it may. Well, number one, I 25 haven't analyzed it, so I really don't know. 96 1 Q. Okay. 2 A. As to whether it may, I would say yes, 3 definitely it should be analyzed. 4 Q. Okay. That's good enough. 5 On the next page, page 4, scratch out my 6 notes again at the bottom, if you would. Ms. Johns 7 indicates that, under point 8, "A formal economic 8 impact model could be developed from the foundation 9 built during the economic impact evaluation to 10 quickly incorporate new information regarding prices, 11 costs, yields and other factors." Do you know if 12 that is being done as part of the new contract? 13 A. I'm not sure exactly what she meant by a 14 formal economic impact model. I know that she has 15 said that they will be working with spread sheets to 16 develop, you know, the financial analysis that 17 they'll be doing. 18 Q. Is that something that was not done under 19 the original work? 20 A. They are going to trust the spread sheets 21 more extensively and what she said is FLIPSIM not at 22 all. 23 Q. Well, can you explain to me how those two 24 approaches differ; the spread sheet versus FLIPSIM -- 25 A. I have not -- 97 1 Q. -- so I can understand it? 2 A. I have not looked at the FLIPSIM model in 3 documentation. What I know of it is from the 4 meetings that I have attended. I would have to base 5 my opinion just on what economists at those meetings 6 have represented about it. 7 Q. Well, can you explain to me what you mean 8 by spread sheets? 9 A. A spread sheet is essentially an applied 10 computer program that allows you to enter information 11 and repetitively calculate results. It is organized 12 in a row in column format, which often makes it easy 13 to understand what is going on and how the 14 information in one part relates to another. 15 Q. Would the data necessarily be any different 16 than the data used in FLIPSIM or it is just a 17 different type of format for analyzing it? 18 A. I would say that a different type of format 19 for analyzing it is a good way of putting it. 20 (The document was marked 21 Woehlcke Exb. No. 8.). 22 BY MS. STINSON: 23 Q. I show you what has been marked as Exhibit 24 8, and just if you can tell me what that is, where it 25 came from, who did it and when? 98 1 MR. BURGESS: Start with what it is so I 2 can see if I have it. 3 MS. STINSON: It says at the top Status of 4 Economic Analysis. 5 THE WITNESS: And your question is? 6 BY MS. STINSON: 7 Q. Who, what, where, why and when? 8 A. Well -- 9 MR. NETTLETON: Object to the form. 10 THE WITNESS: You know, I do not recollect 11 specifically seeing it before. 12 BY MS. STINSON: 13 Q. Okay. You did not prepare it, I take it, 14 then. 15 A. No. 16 Q. Okay. 17 A. And I would look at the bottom, and I see 18 PBR 9/21/92, so my guess is Pete Rhoads would have 19 prepared it. 20 Q. It refers to May '93, so I presume it has 21 to do with the new analysis. Would you presume the 22 same thing? 23 A. What it appears to be is, yes, his laying 24 out some of the information about what we might want 25 to do between now and May '93. 99 1 Q. Okay. You don't know why this was prepared 2 or whether it was an agenda for a discussion group or 3 anything like that? 4 A. I think it might have been, but I'm not 5 sure. 6 Q. Okay. 7 (The document was marked 8 Woehlcke Exb. No. 9.) 9 BY MS. STINSON: 10 Q. Okay. Number 9 is a memo that you wrote 11 regarding historical profit calculation for the 12 Florida sugar industry, et cetera. What was the 13 purpose of this memorandum? 14 A. I was still puzzled over some of the 15 results of the Hazen and Sawyer study, and surprised 16 at the amount of land that was going out of 17 production, and again I wanted to see what 18 information there was out there on the historical 19 profit levels. Grace Johns had mentioned some of the 20 sugar situation and outlook reports and good articles 21 they had on it, so I asked her to send me copies of 22 those. And when I looked at them, I said, "Hey, 23 there is enough information here to basically see 24 what the historical profits have been." And, you 25 know, I did those calculations, and then I said, "I 100 1 wonder how they compare with Hazen and Sawyer's 2 projected profit levels in the baseline?" And so 3 that was also included. It was not solicited by 4 anybody, it was my insight in looking for more 5 information to clarify the study results and what is 6 going on. 7 Q. Did you discuss this with Grace Johns and 8 determine why her figure differed from your figure? 9 A. I asked her if she knew why, and she said 10 she didn't, but she would look into it. And I 11 haven't -- she has not provided me with an 12 explanation of that. 13 Q. This memo is dated subsequent to submission 14 of the contract completion report by Hazen and Sawyer 15 correct? 16 A. Uh-huh. 17 Q. Can you tell me why you didn't do this 18 review before that completion report and have Hazen 19 and Sawyer satisfy you that the numbers were correct 20 before that report was submitted? 21 A. I prepared the spread sheet before, and I 22 communicated the numbers to Grace before, and I 23 communicated the basic numbers to Pete, but I just 24 kind of didn't get around to doing it. 25 MS. STINSON: Off the record. 101 1 (Discussion held off the record.) 2 BY MS. STINSON: 3 Q. The analysis you did of the profit level is 4 contained on the second page of that memorandum; is 5 that correct? 6 A. Uh-huh. The historical profits. 7 Q. And are the remaining pages simply copies 8 from Sugar and Sweetener reports? 9 A. These are copies that show exactly where I 10 got the data from. It is a very reproducible 11 analysis. 12 Q. Okay. The last page has something called 13 Profitability Comparison, Hazen and Sawyer versus 14 USDA Historical. Is that your work? 15 A. That is my work. 16 Q. Does that somehow relate to the spread 17 sheet on page 2 of this memo? 18 A. No. I used it and the data from the spread 19 sheet on page 2 to show that there was a difference 20 between the historical profit, a significant 21 difference between the historical profit rate and the 22 baseline profit rate in Hazen and Sawyer, with the 23 later being a lot lower. 24 Q. Can you just explain to me the last page? 25 A. The profitability per overall acre in Hazen 102 1 and Sawyer is going to relate to the number of acres 2 in the farms of the different categories, and so we 3 have model farms, eight different types, we have the 4 acres that are in those, and we then have the returns 5 per acre, which you see is from Appendix A in the 6 Hazen and Sawyer report. So, for instance, there are 7 77,941 acres in model farm type one, which Hazen and 8 Sawyer estimates in 1994 as $341 of baseline returns. 9 That translate into $26 million. 10 Q. Okay. 11 A. Okay? And I added all of those up; the 26, 12 the 4, the 5, divided it through by the total acres, 13 the 456,484, and came up wit