UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 88-1886-CIV-HOEVELER UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al, Plaintiffs, vs. SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT; JOHN R. WODRASKA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT; FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION; AND DALE TWACHTMANN, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, et al., Defendants. ______________________________________/ - - - DEPOSITION OF LISA SMITH - - - VOLUME I DATE: December 17 & 18, 1990 1 I N D E X Direct Cross Red. Rec. WITNESS: LISA SMITH BY MS. THRONE-CONTE 3 BY MR. HALL (Vol. II) 247 E X H I B I T S LS-1 Pg. 5 LS-17 Pg. 207 LS-2 Pg. 24 LS-18 Pg. 212 LS-3 Pg. 32 LS-19 Pg. 216 LS-4 Pg. 61 LS-20 Pg. 218 LS-5 Pg. 88 LS-21 Pg. 218 LS-6 Pg. 99 LS-22 Pg. 218 LS-7 Pg. 107 LS-23 Pg. 218 LS-8 Pg. 112 LS-24 Pg. 224 LS-9 Pg. 117 LS-25 Pg. 224 LS-10 Pg. 125 LS-26 Pg. 224 LS-11 Pg. 131 LS-27 Pg. 224 LS-12 Pg. 179 LS-28 Pg. 231 LS-13 Pg. 181 LS-29 Pg. 233 LS-14 Pg. 181 LS-30 Pg. 234 LS-15 Pg. 190 LS-31 Pg. 234 LS-16 Pg. 194 LS-32 Pg. 348, Vol II 2 The deposition of LISA SMITH, a witness in the above-entitled and numbered cause, was taken before me, S. Elaine Smith, Court Reporter and Notary Public for the State of Florida at Large, at The Royce Hotel, 1601 Belvedere Road, in the City of West Palm Beach, County of Palm Beach, in the State of Florida, beginning at the hour of 10:05 o'clock a.m. on the 17th day of December, 1990, pursuant to the Notice in said cause for the taking of said deposition, which is annexed to the Court file herein, on behalf of the Plaintiff in the above-entitled action pending in the above-named Court. The appearances at said time and place were as follows: DEXTER W. LEHTINEN, U.S. ATTORNEY 155 South Miami Avenue Miami, Florida 33130 by B.J. THRONE-CONTE, AUSA by RICHARD HARRISON, AUSA SOUTH FLORIDA MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680 by JACQUELYN L. WATERS, ESQ. PEEPLES, EARL & BLANK One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3636 Two South Biscayne Blvd. Miami, Florida 33131 Attorneys for Cities of Belle Glade and Clewiston by KARL E. HALL, JR., ESQ. 3 1 THEREUPON, 2 LISA SMITH, 3 being by the undersigned Notary Public first duly 4 sworn, in answer to questions propounded, was examined 5 and testified as follows: 6 DIRECT EXAMINATION 7 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 8 Q Ms. Smith, I don't know if you have ever been 9 deposed before. I am going to ask you several 10 questions. I want you to answer them to the best of 11 your ability. If I ask you something and you don't 12 understand it, let me know and I will be more than 13 happy to rephrase it for you. 14 Basically, I am concerned about finding out 15 about your involvement in the SWIM planning process. 16 Would you please state your current address? 17 A My address is 7730 Nemec, N-e-m-e-c, Drive 18 South, that is in West Palm Beach, 33406. 19 Q What is your current business address? 20 A My business address is 3301 Gun Club Road, 21 West Palm Beach. 22 Q Are you represented by Counsel today? 23 A Yes, I am. 24 MS. THRONE-CONTE: Ms. Waters, are you 25 representing Ms. Smith as an employee of the 4 1 District. 2 MS. WATERS: Yes, I am. 3 MS. THRONE-CONTE: For the record, I would 4 like to note that it is approximately seven 5 minutes after ten and there is no Counsel present 6 for the cities of Belle Glade and Clewiston. 7 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 8 Q Where are you currently employed? 9 A I am currently employed by the South Florida 10 Water Management District, Planning Department. 11 Q How long have you been so employed? 12 A Thirteen years. 13 Q Has that always been in the Planning 14 Department? 15 A No, it hasn't. 16 Q What other departments were you employed at? 17 A I have worked with the Office of Public 18 Information at the beginning of my career with the 19 District. I have worked with the Office of Resource 20 Assistance in the Community Relations Division. I have 21 worked in the Department of Resource Control, and I 22 worked again with the Office of Resource Assistance 23 prior to my work with the Planning Department. 24 Q You were asked through your subpoena duces 25 tecum to bring with you a copy of your curriculum vitae 5 1 and you have done that today? 2 A Yes. 3 MS. WATERS: For the record, I have provided 4 a copy of Ms. Smith's resume to Ms. Throne-Conte 5 and I am providing a copy to the Court Reporter. 6 MS. THRONE-CONTE: I would like that marked 7 for identification, please. 8 (Whereupon, Exhibit LS-1 was marked for 9 identification.) 10 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 11 Q Ms. Smith, I am looking at your curriculum 12 vitae, which we have identified as LS-1. The first job 13 you got at the District, where would that be on your 14 curriculum vitae here? 15 A That is not represented here. This goes back 16 to, well, Information Services, which is now called the 17 Office of Communications, would be the first job that I 18 had with the District was in a Water Resources Office 19 in Pompano that existed for about a year. 20 Q What were your duties there? 21 A My duties, I began as a secretary for about 22 six months and then I was promoted to a technician 23 position. I prepared public information materials 24 having to do with water conservation practices and also 25 general public information materials that explained the 6 1 policies and activities of the South Florida Water 2 Management District. 3 Q And then what job did you have after that? 4 A I continued with the Office of Public 5 Information for about five years. I was promoted to 6 officer position, a professional position, and most of 7 the highlights of that work are represented at the 8 bottom of this page under "Public Information 9 Specialist, Information Services." 10 Q And that is with the Office of Public 11 Information? 12 A Information Services, it was called then. 13 The name changed several times. 14 Q And that is currently called the Office of 15 Communications now? 16 A That is currently called the Office of 17 Communications. 18 Q Did you receive any special training from the 19 District on putting together these technical public 20 information materials? 21 A I did attend courses on editing and 22 publishing, putting together print shop requisitions, 23 preparing and described how to arrange and format 24 public information for readability. I did attend a 25 couple of coursees during that time. 7 1 Q I see your degree is in social sciences and 2 history. How did you get into the technical field for 3 something like that? 4 A My degree is in education, secondary 5 education. My emphasis was in social sciences. My 6 first job with the District was in a public education 7 facility, and that is how my training allowed me to 8 work for the Water Management District. 9 I began there preparing presentations for 10 general audiences, not technical audiences. I also did 11 develop materials and programs for schools, which was 12 also one reason why my background fit to what the Water 13 Management District needed at that time. 14 As a result of my experience in the Public 15 Information Office, I did become more exposed to the 16 technical aspects of the District, the regulatory 17 aspects, the research aspects through covering 18 governing board meetings and having to respond to 19 authorities about our technical programs and regulatory 20 programs and policies. So it was on-the-job experience 21 in that regard. 22 Q So you would consider that you acquired a 23 large amount of on-the-job experience in technical 24 issues? 25 A As it relates to the Water Management 8 1 District activities, yes. 2 Q What years were you at the Water Resources 3 Office in Pompano Beach? 4 A That facility was open for about fourteen 5 months, fourteen, fifteen months. I began in 1978 and 6 I think the facility closed and the staff was moved to 7 West Palm Beach the following year in July of '79. 8 Q When the staff was moved to West Palm Beach, 9 is that when you were promoted to a Public Information 10 Specialist? 11 A To a technician position. I held that 12 position for a couple years. 13 Q When were you promoted to the Public 14 Information Specialist? 15 A I think about three years after I began with 16 the District. That would be '81. 17 Q How long did you hold that position? 18 A I held that position until I transferred into 19 the Community Relations Division of the office in 1985. 20 Q What position did you hold when you 21 transferred into the Office of Community Relations? 22 A It was Public Issue Specialist position. 23 Q What is that? 24 A That work dealt with external organized 25 groups, civic groups, environmental groups, other 9 1 government agencies, local government entities, to 2 explain District programs and policies to those 3 specific groups. 4 Q During that time, did you -- it says you 5 supplied staff support to the Governing Board. Could 6 you explain that? 7 A The staff support to Governing Board members 8 who were representing the District on local water 9 resource advisory boards. At that time we had one 10 Governing Board member represented on the advisory 11 board in Broward County, and another on an advisory 12 board in Palm Beach County. 13 Q How long were you an Issue Management 14 Specialist at the District? 15 A Until I transferred to the Regulatory 16 Department. I have to think now, until February of 17 1988. 18 Q And that is when you became what you have 19 termed a Review Coordinator, Developments of Regional 20 Impact? 21 A Yes. 22 Q Tell me about the work you did coordinating 23 and documenting interagency, public meetings for LOTAC 24 II and SWIM Indian River Lagoon? 25 A The LOTAC II council met on about a monthly 10 1 basis from September through March of each year of its 2 existence, and for each meeting my major responsibility 3 was to attend the meeting, make notes about the 4 council, presentations, council discussions, action 5 items that the council members would identify, any 6 votes that were taken and prepare a meeting summary 7 that would highlight those council activities at the 8 meeting. 9 Q Was it also one of your major 10 responsibilities to do a similar type action for the 11 SWIM meetings? 12 A For the Indian River Lagoon, those meetings 13 were SWIM planning meetings that involved two water 14 management districts. So my role there was to perform 15 the similar task when the agencies met together to 16 discuss how they would address Indian River Lagoon SWIM 17 matters. That was in the first year of the Indian 18 River SWIM Lagoon effort and in the SWIM planning 19 effort. 20 Q Did you ever have occasion to prepare 21 summaries for any Everglades SWIM meetings? 22 A Yes, I have. 23 Q Was that part of your responsibilities as an 24 Issue Management Specialist? 25 A Yes. 11 1 Q I notice you have termed yourself after your 2 name on your curriculum vitae Senior Issue Management 3 Specialist, is that correct? 4 A That is my position. 5 Q What does ORA stand for? 6 A Office of Resource Assistance, which is where 7 I was working when this material was prepared. 8 Q When was this curriculum vitae prepared? 9 A August of '89. 10 Q Why did you prepare it? 11 A As a result of the reorganization and the 12 formation of the Planning Department, I was being, the 13 Office of Resource Assistance was being reorganized and 14 I was being transferred into the Planning Department 15 into a new division, and to work for a new division 16 director, Tony Federico. 17 He had asked that all of the members of the 18 newly-organized division or upcoming division, we were 19 not official until October 1, we would prepare a very 20 brief summary of our education and our experience with 21 the District and this is what I repaired in response to 22 that request. 23 Q Is there anything else you want to add to 24 this since the date you prepared this in August 1989? 25 A I don't think so, not at this point. 12 1 Q Why was the promotion -- how did it come 2 about that you became a Review Coordinator for 3 Developments of Regional Impact? 4 A It was an open position in the agency. I was 5 familiar with the regulatory aspects of the District as 6 part of my work with the Public Information Office. 7 I attended regulatory review meetings, as 8 part of my work, to keep informed about regulatory 9 issues, and I was aware of the review or DRI review 10 process. 11 When the position became open, I made some 12 inquiries about it and I applied for it and I was hired 13 for the position. 14 Q You were then transferred over to the Office 15 of Resource Control? 16 A Yes, to accept the position. The Review 17 Coordinator position was in the Resource Control 18 Department. 19 Q This was during a time that the Planning 20 Department -- 21 A No, that was prior to the formation of the 22 Planning Department. I transferred or accepted that 23 position, began work there in February of 1988. 24 Q DRI stands for what? 25 A Development of Regional Impact. 13 1 Q FQD? 2 A Florida Quality Development. 3 Q Your curriculum vitae indicates you 4 contributed to the design and supervised the production 5 of computerized project tracking and mapping report; 6 does that have a specific name? 7 A At that time it was called DRI Tracking 8 Report. 9 Q What is it called now? 10 A I am not certain what its name is now. A 11 similar report is prepared, but I am not sure what its 12 formal title is now. 13 Q This tracking report was only for 14 Developments of Regional Impact? 15 A Yes. 16 Q I would like to go back to your previous job 17 as an Issue Management Specialist. Who was your 18 supervisor during that time? 19 A For most of that time -- I began under the 20 direction of Fred Schiller. Shortly after I began work 21 there, within three or four months, Fred Schiller moved 22 to another division in the District and I began working 23 for, his place was taken by Dick Feeney. 24 Q Did you supervise any other employees? 25 A No. 14 1 Q In your job as a Review Coordinator, who was 2 your supervisor when you started? 3 A Sarah Lockheart. 4 Q Who is it now? 5 A Now? 6 Q Yes. 7 A My supervisor is Sharon Trost. I am sorry, 8 Sharon is my division director. My immediate 9 supervisor is Dean Powell. 10 (Whereupon, Karl Hall, Esq. enters the 11 deposition Room.) 12 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 13 Q In your curriculum vitae you refer to your 14 current job as a Senior Management Specialist, correct? 15 A Yes. 16 Q Is that the same as Review Coordinator? 17 A No. 18 Q Tell me what the difference is? 19 A Review Coordinator position was specific to 20 agency reviews of Developments of Regional Impact. 21 Developments of Regional Impact is a land development 22 review process that is administered by the Department 23 of Community Affairs. 24 The Review Coordinator position with the 25 District was devoted to reviewing applications that 15 1 were prepared as part of the Development of Regional 2 Impact process. It is a review process that has 3 existed for sixteen years. It is fairly standardized 4 and I conducted agency reviews, which essentially 5 involved transmitting that application to individuals 6 within the Regulatory Department, that would in turn 7 look more in depth at the water supply elements of that 8 application, the surface water management elements, the 9 natural resources elements and the water quality 10 elements. 11 From their technical reviews, I would prepare 12 requests for additional information and I would prepare 13 final impact assessment reports that summarized 14 concerns that the agency would have with the project, 15 and also provide some indication to the applicant the 16 types of issues that they would need to address when 17 they came back to the Water Management District at some 18 point in the future for a permit from the agency. 19 The Senior Issue Management Specialist 20 position is not as structured. It involves working 21 with primarily external audiences, agencies, groups 22 that the District would like to have be informed about 23 its programs and policies, or groups that may be 24 affected by District programs and policies and would 25 need to have their input brought into our policy 16 1 development process. 2 Q How long have you held that position? 3 A The Senior Issue Management position I have 4 held since February of 1989. 5 Q Who was your supervisor when you got in? 6 A When I returned to Community Relations, 7 Pat Walker was the division director. 8 Q Who is your supervisor now? 9 A My supervisor now is Dean Powell. 10 Q Do you supervise any other employees? 11 A No. 12 Q How many employees have the title Senior 13 Issue Management Specialist at the District? 14 A I know of one other. 15 Q Who is that? 16 A Woodie Vanvoorhees, and he is with the 17 Government Assistance Division. 18 Q Would you consider that you do pretty much 19 the same work? 20 A Yes. 21 Q How would you categorize it, that he is in a 22 different division than you are? 23 A He is working primarily with Indian Affairs. 24 Q What do you work primarily with? 25 A Right now I am working on programs in the 17 1 Upper Kissimmee region of the District. 2 Q Does the scope of your duties now as a Senior 3 Issue Management Specialist include working on the 4 Everglades SWIM Plan? 5 A Not currently. 6 Q When did you stop working on that specific 7 issue? 8 A I think the last time I had any involvement 9 would have been December of last year, 1989. 10 Q How is it that you stopped with this 11 particular area? 12 A My work with Everglades SWIM was geared 13 primarily to working with the Everglades SWIM advisory 14 group. December was the time of their last meeting, 15 and that was when I concluded my activities at that 16 time. 17 Also around December, an opening to take on 18 these responsibilities in the Kissimmee emerged within 19 my same division and I was asked by my division 20 director if I would be interested in working in that 21 area, and I said I would be. So I took on those 22 responsibilities towards the end of December/January 23 1990. 24 Q During what time period were you involved 25 with the SWIM planning process? 18 1 A I was from about March of 1989 through 2 December of 1989. 3 Q What were your primary duties? 4 A My primary duties were to assist the project 5 manager at that time, Joycelyn Branscome with the 6 advisory group, the Everglades SWIM advisory group. 7 Also to assist in preparing, assist Joycelyn in 8 preparing some of the materials that were used for her 9 presentations for the advisory group and to the 10 Governing Board. 11 Q From March of 1989 through December of 1989, 12 were you also involved with preparing summaries for 13 LOTAC II? 14 A Yes. 15 Q What other summaries were you involved with 16 preparing during that time? 17 A I did prepare a summary for internal use 18 relating to a special Governing Board meeting that was 19 held in August to review SWIM, Everglades SWIM issues. 20 Q I am sorry, I didn't catch the name of the 21 group that you prepared that for? 22 A It was just for internal use. It was a 23 public Governing Board meeting. My responsibility was 24 not to prepare the summary for that meeting per se, but 25 to prepare a summary for internal use for people who 19 1 were working on the SWIM Plan, and also to provide some 2 background to the other agencies that we were dealing 3 with, to provide background to LOTAC and to Everglades 4 SWIM advisory group meetings about what was discussed 5 at that particular Governing Board meeting. 6 MS. THRONE-CONTE: For the record, I would 7 like to note that we do have a representative for 8 the cities of Belle Glade and Clewiston. 9 MR. HALL: I represent the cities of 10 Belle Glade and Clewiston. 11 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 12 Q Also on the front of your curriculum vitae 13 you have a notation under education concerning your 14 special education. 15 A Yes. 16 Q You say, "This training has come in handy 17 during the last few years." 18 A Yes. 19 Q Please explain that. 20 A Well, the District had gone through quite a 21 bit of readjustments and we had taken on quite a bit of 22 new responsibilities and there were reorganizations 23 going over the last couple of years, and I think that 24 reference was made to indicate that that awareness of 25 how people react to stress and how groups deal with 20 1 each other, how important it is to keep people informed 2 about things that are matters of concern. 3 I felt that that training, that sensitivity 4 to other points of view, stood me in good stead when a 5 lot of that change was going on. 6 Q Would you say it is accurate to say that the 7 type of open communication that you are just talking 8 about is part of your job as a Senior Issue Management 9 Specialist? 10 A Yes. 11 Q It is very important to keep these lines of 12 communication open? 13 A Yes. 14 Q Did you take any courses in getting your 15 Bachelor of Science that had to do with environmental 16 issues or water quality issues? 17 A No. 18 Q Did you have any type of technical background 19 at all? 20 A No, other than what is normally required as a 21 minimum requirement. I had some freshman biology and 22 freshman physics that I needed to take as part of my 23 degree requirements, and that is as technical as my 24 college education became in environmental issues. 25 Q When you first started with the District in 21 1 1978, did you find it difficult dealing with the 2 technical terms and issues? 3 A My audiences were not technical in nature and 4 I, working at the Water Resource Center, I did have an 5 opportunity to education myself about the District over 6 time. 7 I spoke with two very general audiences who 8 did not have any, whose interest was not technical and, 9 therefore, I had time to acquire an understanding of 10 the technical issues from the agency's point of view. 11 At first it was difficult. It did take a while to sort 12 through things, sort things out, but I was not dealing 13 with technical audiences, so it was not a problem. I 14 was dealing with general audiences. 15 Q In preparing documents for the public, is it 16 accurate to say that you review the technical 17 information first, make a summary of it and then 18 disseminate it to the public in some way in your job as 19 a Senior Issue Management Specialist? 20 A I am not sure. In my job as a Senior Issue 21 Management Specialist I am not preparing materials for 22 public education purposes. 23 Q Who are you repairing these for then? 24 A They are meeting summaries that are being 25 prepared for the, in the case of LOTAC, for the council 22 1 itself. 2 Q Would you consider it then that you are 3 preparing summaries of technical issues for other 4 parties who do have some knowledge of the area? 5 A I am preparing a summary of discussions that 6 occur at LOTAC meetings. They are principally geared 7 to provide a record of LOTAC activities. I am not 8 preparing them for any other audience. 9 Q In preparing these summaries, say, for 10 example for LOTAC, did you find that you needed to know 11 the technical aspects of whatever it was you were 12 hearing a summary of in order to be able to accurately 13 summarize it? 14 MS. WATERS: Object to the form of the 15 question. 16 THE WITNESS: Could you rephrase the 17 question? 18 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 19 Q In preparing your summaries, say, for example 20 for LOTAC, did you feel that it was necessary that you 21 had an understanding of what it was that you were 22 summarizing in order to make an accurate summary of 23 that issue, whatever it was? 24 A The accuracy of my summaries was based on my 25 review of video tapes of the meetings. If I was 23 1 uncertain or unsure about a particular word that I had 2 heard, I would either use the videotape or consult 3 someone else who was in the meeting, or consult the 4 individual on the council who made the statement. 5 Q If you had questions, would you, say, go to 6 Joycelyn Branscome for guidance? 7 A Not for LOTAC. 8 Q What would you go to her for? 9 A I am not sure I understand the question. 10 Q You stated before that Joycelyn Branscome was 11 your supervisor. 12 A No, I did not. 13 Q I am sorry. How is it that you have a 14 connection with Joycelyn Branscome? 15 A She was the SWIM project manager. 16 Q Was it one of your duties to assist her in 17 special projects? 18 A Yes. Excuse me, no, not in special projects. 19 Only for Everglades SWIM. 20 Q As part of your duties you helped her to 21 prepare presentations, you said, to the Governing 22 Board; is that accurate? 23 A Yes. 24 Q If you had questions on what it was that you 25 were summarizing and preparing, would you go to her for 24 1 guidance? 2 A Well, I assisted her at her request. So if I 3 had -- usually she was pretty specific about the type 4 of material that she would need to have prepared, 5 either overheads or, in many cases, my assistance was 6 just in distributing the information to people who 7 needed to have it in advance of the meeting. 8 If I would have any questions about the 9 instructions that she gave me, yes, certainly I would 10 consult her. 11 Q In assisting the SWIM advisory group, who did 12 you mostly deal with? 13 A I dealt principally with Joycelyn. 14 Q And in preparing summaries for LOTAC II, who 15 did you primarily deal with? 16 A Frank Lund. 17 Q I am going to hand you a document and we can 18 get this marked. Please take a moment to look at it. 19 A (Witness complies.) 20 (Whereupon, Exhibit LS-2 was marked for 21 identification.) 22 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 23 Q This has been marked as LS-2. Can you please 24 identify this for me? 25 A It is an original chart for the Environmental 25 1 Planning Division. 2 Q To the best of your knowledge, do you know if 3 this is an accurate representation of the Environmental 4 Planning Division as it stands right now? 5 A As of this date, the Environmental Planning 6 Division does not exist. 7 Q So this is not accurate then? 8 A For present day, that is correct. 9 Q And when did the Environmental Planning 10 Division cease to exist? 11 A That change was made as of October 1st of 12 this year. 13 Q Was there a massive reorganization or just 14 several positions were changed, or how updated is this? 15 A Well, the date is shown at the lower 16 righthand corner of this chart 5/90, May of 1990. 17 There have been significant shifts within the Planning 18 Department since that date. Three divisions were 19 essentially consolidated into two divisions and 20 renamed. 21 Q What three divisions were consolidated into 22 what two divisions? 23 A The three prior, previously existing 24 divisions were Environmental Planning Division, Basin 25 Planning Division and Water Supply Planning Division. 26 1 Q What did they get consolidated into? 2 A They became -- well, as of today they are 3 currently titled the Upper District Planning Division 4 and the Lower District Planning Division. 5 Q Where are you located? 6 A I am not Upper District Planning Division. 7 Q Is Tony Federico still the division director? 8 A He is the director of the Lower District 9 Planning Division. 10 Q And who is the division director of the Upper 11 District? 12 A Sharon Trost. 13 Q You said your immediate supervisor was Dean 14 Powell, correct? 15 A Currently. 16 Q Who is his supervisor? 17 A Sharon Trost. 18 Q Do you know if Philip Lund is in the Lower 19 District? 20 A He is not. 21 Q Do you know where he is located now? 22 A He is with the Government Assistance 23 Division. 24 Q What about Joel Van Arman? 25 A Joel is in the Lower District Planning 27 1 Division. 2 Q What about John Mulliken? 3 A John is with the Lower District Planning 4 Division. 5 Q What about Kevin Rodberg? 6 A Kevin is with the Lower District Planning 7 Division. 8 Q What about Lynn Gulick? 9 A Lynn is also with the Lower District Planning 10 Division. 11 Q Debra Burns? 12 A Same for Debbie. 13 Q What about Paul Whalen? 14 A Lower District Planning Division. 15 Q Eric Flaig? 16 A Lower District Planning Division. 17 Q Dewey Worth? 18 A He is with the Lower District Planning 19 Division. 20 Q Daniel Haunert? 21 A Dan Haunert is with the Upper District 22 Planning Division. 23 Q Sarah Bellmund? 24 A Lower District Planning Division. 25 Q Guy Germain? 28 1 A Lower District Planning Division. 2 Q David Black? 3 A Lower District Planning Division. 4 Q Lorraine Janus? 5 A Lorraine has left the Water Management 6 District. 7 Q David Swift? 8 A Right now Dave is a member of the Upper 9 District Planning Division, I believe. 10 Q You say that with a little bit of hesitancy. 11 A Well, I know he is transferring into the 12 division and I believe it is effective, but I can't be 13 certain. 14 Q Into the Upper District? 15 A Upper District Planning Division. 16 Q What about Herbert Grimshaw? 17 A Lower District Planning Division. 18 Q Brent Moll? 19 A Lower District Planning Division. 20 Q Louise Bos? 21 A Upper District Planning Division. 22 Q Leslie Vilchek? 23 A Upper District Planning Division. 24 Q Patricia Sime? 25 A Upper District Planning Division. 29 1 Q Tamara Germain? 2 A Tammy is currently with the District's Office 3 of Counsel. 4 Q Is Tammy Germain related to Guy Germain? 5 A Yes. 6 Q Are they husband and wife? 7 A Yes, they are. 8 Q When you were involved with the Everglades 9 SWIM Plan, did this represent, did this exhibit LS-2 10 represent an accurate reflection of how the division 11 was set up? 12 A LS-2 represents an accurate picture of the 13 division only during my involvement with Everglades 14 SWIM only from roughly September of 1989 onward to the 15 conclusion of my involvement with Everglades SWIM in 16 December. 17 Q How was it different before that, before 18 September 1989? 19 A I was part of the Office of Resource 20 Assistance, Community Relations Division and this 21 Planning Division did not exist at that time. So all 22 of the people on here were elsewhere. 23 Q I am sorry, I don't understand. I thought 24 you said that you were with the Office of Resource 25 Assistance from 1985 to 1988? 30 1 A Yes. 2 Q And then from February of 1988 to February of 3 1989 you worked with the Office of Resource Control, is 4 that right? 5 A Say that again. 6 Q From February 1988 to February of 1989 you 7 worked with the Office of Resource Control as a Review 8 Coordinator for the DRI? 9 A Right. 10 Q And then from February 1988 to, excuse me, 11 February of 1989 to, I guess it would be, January of 12 1990 you have been working -- 13 A No. 14 Q Or from February 1989 to the present you were 15 working as a Senior Management Specialist? 16 A No. That is my title, yes. 17 Q I am sorry then, I guess I don't understand 18 how your title is different from the different offices 19 that you have been in. 20 A My title is not different. My title has 21 remained the same. The division in which I am working 22 has changed. 23 Q So in February 1988 you were working in the 24 Office of Resource Control as a Review Coordinator? 25 A Yes. 31 1 Q And it is my understanding that that job 2 evolved into the Senior Issue Management Specialist 3 because of the change in the division? 4 A No. 5 Q Then how did you get to be a Senior Issue 6 Management Specialist? 7 A There was an open position in the division of 8 Community Relations, which was in the Office of 9 Resource Assistance. I applied for that open position 10 and was hired by Pat Walker, who was the director of 11 Community Relations at that time. So I returned to the 12 Community Relations Division to accept the position, 13 the title that I now hold, Senior Issue Management 14 Specialist. 15 Q As a Senior Issue Management Specialist, it 16 was during that time from March of 1989 through 17 December of 1989 when you worked on the Everglades SWIM 18 Plan? 19 A Correct. 20 Q When you rejoined the Office of Research 21 Assistance in February of 1989 -- 22 A Resource Assistance. 23 Q Office of Resource Assistance, how did the 24 division look as compared to exhibit LS-2? How was it 25 different? 32 1 A The Community Relations Division was composed 2 of Senior Issue Management Specialist that worked on a 3 variety of District activities. It was mostly 4 coordinating with external entities. 5 Many of the professionals were also assigned 6 to a support staff to local government assistance 7 programs and to support local government 8 representatives in those efforts. 9 There were people in that division who -- the 10 division no longer exists as a result of the 11 reorganization that resulted in the creation of the 12 Planning Department. 13 Q Is there a Senior Issue Management Specialist 14 or some type of Issue Management Specialist assigned to 15 each of the divisions? 16 A No. 17 Q Other than Woodie Vanvoorhees, do you know of 18 anyone else who holds a similar type of position in the 19 District? 20 A No, I don't know of any other. 21 Q I am going to hand you another document we 22 will mark as LS-3. 23 (Whereupon, Exhibit LS-3 was marked for 24 identification.) 25 33 1 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 2 Q Can you please identify Exhibit LS-3? 3 A It is a distribution list relating to 4 distribution of SWIM materials within the Water 5 Management District. 6 Q And is your name included on it? 7 A Yes, it is. 8 Q To the best of your knowledge, did this 9 represent an accurate list of the people who were 10 contacted concerning SWIM documents and SWIM planning 11 and process review. 12 MR. HALL: Object to the form. 13 THE WITNESS: Would you rephrase the 14 question, please? 15 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 16 Q To the best of your knowledge, did this 17 represent, as of March 1st, 1989, the date that is on 18 it, an accurate representation of the parties who were 19 contacted concerning Everglades SWIM Plan? 20 MS. WATERS: Object to the form of the 21 question. 22 THE WITNESS: The distribution list may not 23 have been all inclusive. These were people who 24 were -- this was used to distribute materials to 25 primarily people who were involved in steering 34 1 committee activities. 2 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 3 Q Was there a separate distribution list for 4 Everglades SWIM Plan? 5 A I don't know of one. 6 Q Was it part of your duties, and I am going to 7 be focusing on the time that you were involved with the 8 Everglades SWIM Plan for quite a while, so you know 9 exactly what I am talking about, was it part of your 10 duties in carrying out that function to distribute 11 documents to scientists, to other people in the 12 District? 13 A Yes. 14 Q Did you have a distribution list you worked 15 off of? 16 A The distribution list I used was to 17 distribute documents relating to Everglades advisory 18 committee meetings. That was in the spring of 1989, 19 and I did -- this would have been the list that I would 20 have used to distribute Everglades SWIM materials to. 21 Q Was there a different distribution list for 22 the SWIM advisory group. 23 A I am not sure I understand what you mean. 24 Q The way I understand what you just said, this 25 could be accurately used if you were to distribute to 35 1 Everglades SWIM Plan people in the District; is that 2 right? 3 A Some of the people on this list were working 4 on Everglades SWIM in particular. This list, its title 5 is General SWIM Distribution List, which means all SWIM 6 planning activities. 7 Q So I asked if there was a specific one for 8 Everglades SWIM Plan? 9 A I answered I did not know of one specific to 10 Everglades SWIM. 11 Q If you needed to send something out to people 12 who were involved with the Everglades SWIM Plan, could 13 you use this list? 14 A I could. Not everyone on this list was 15 working on Everglades SWIM. 16 Q If you needed to contact the people working 17 on Everglades SWIM, how would you do it? 18 A Well, in March of 1989, work was really 19 beginning in earnest on the plan, so at that time it 20 was organizational. In context, I would have consulted 21 with Joycelyn Branscome at that time about who needed 22 to be provided materials if she did not specify. 23 Q To the best of your knowledge, do you know if 24 there was a specific distribution list for Everglades 25 SWIM Plan, District employees? 36 1 MR. HALL: Objection, asked and answered. 2 MS. WATERS: Asked and answered. 3 THE WITNESS: I do not know. 4 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 5 Q Was there a specific distribution list for 6 LOTAC II committee meeting documents? 7 A The LOTAC meeting documents were distributed 8 to the council. Each meeting summary would return to 9 the council at its next meeting, and they were reviewed 10 and approved as the meeting summary and it became a 11 matter of record. 12 There was no standard list of distribution. 13 Anyone who requested a meeting summary could be 14 provided with one. 15 Q How many different committees or groups were 16 you involved with at the time that you were Senior 17 Issue Management Specialist in the course of your 18 duties? 19 A In addition to working with the LOTAC II and 20 with the Everglades SWIM advisory group, I did do some 21 meeting coordination, coordination of public meetings 22 associated with the rule-making procedures associated 23 with the work of the District rule. 24 I also assisted in preparing several public 25 meetings having to do with District water shortage 37 1 activities that were going on in the spring of that 2 year. 3 Q Did you ever do any work with or for the SWIM 4 steering committee? 5 A I attended those committee meetings. 6 Q Was it part of your duties to attend those 7 committee meetings? 8 A Yes. 9 Q How many did you attend? Were they weekly, 10 biweekly? 11 A The schedule varied. 12 Q When did you start attending them? 13 A When I rejoined the Office of Resource 14 Assistance in March of 1989. It would have been the 15 first time I would have attended a SWIM steering 16 committee meeting. 17 Q What was the purpose of the SWIM steering 18 committee meeting? 19 A Informational, for the most part, to gather 20 people who were working on various aspects of SWIM 21 planning throughout the District and to report progress 22 on SWIM plans that were in development or plans that 23 were being updated, and to discuss personnel 24 allocations, to discuss, plan whatever public meetings 25 or board presentations or briefings that needed to 38 1 occur either within the District or outside the agency. 2 Q Approximately how often did the committee 3 meet? 4 A I am really not certain. Initially it was 5 weekly and then at some point it became biweekly. 6 Q Where were these meetings held? 7 A In District conference rooms. 8 Q Did you make a written summary of these 9 meetings? 10 A I did not, no. 11 Q Do you know if there was a written summary 12 ever done? 13 A Summaries were prepared. 14 Q Who prepared them? 15 A Ginger Brooks. 16 Q What is her title at the District? 17 A I don't know her title. 18 Q Is she a support staff or technician or can 19 you categorize her? 20 A She is support staff. I am not sure to whom 21 she reports directly at this time. 22 Q If you needed to get a copy of minutes or 23 whatever from the steering committee, would you talk to 24 Ginger? 25 A I would go to her first to obtain a copy, 39 1 yes. 2 Q Tell me about the advisory committee; when 3 did you first become involved with that? 4 A In March. 5 Q And that is also when you got back to that 6 division? 7 A Yes. 8 Q Was the advisory committee in existence 9 before you got transferred back? 10 A Yes. 11 Q What was the purpose behind the advisory 12 committee? 13 A They were representatives of government 14 agencies, environmental groups, agricultural industry, 15 organizations that were within the Everglades SWIM 16 planning area boundaries. 17 Q What was the extent of your participation in 18 this committee? 19 A I attended advisory group meetings, assisted 20 in the preparation of some staff presentations that 21 were made, principally presentations made by Joycelyn 22 Branscome. 23 I did do some follow-up to the meetings. If 24 there were advisory group members that needed any 25 additional information that the District had, I 40 1 arranged for that to be provided. I did work to try to 2 list discussion items that occurred during advisory 3 group meetings for follow-up in whatever way was 4 appropriate, either if it was relevant to SWIM Plan 5 development, if it was issues that would need to be 6 addressed at the following meeting in some fashion, I 7 prepared those sorts of summaries based on advisory 8 group discussion. 9 Q Besides the summaries that you prepared, was 10 there anyone else who was given the task of making a 11 formal written record of these meetings? 12 A No. 13 Q So if there are any summaries that exist at 14 all, they would be ones that you authored? 15 A Yes, and they are informal. They were not, 16 the advisory group was not formed to function as a 17 decision making group, but rather to provide input to 18 the development of the SWIM Plan. 19 So we did not seek votes or consensus or 20 decisions from them necessarily, and so they were not 21 provided with formal meeting summaries that they signed 22 off on. The notes I made were for internal use. 23 Q Who did you address the summaries to? 24 A They were not formally addressed. They were 25 notes that I would sometimes prepare if, at a later 41 1 date, they were relevant to presentations that were 2 being held or in planning for public meetings. 3 If we begin to see the same issues 4 reoccurring, people who had to plan those, either 5 writers of the SWIM Plan or people, District staff 6 making presentations at public meetings, board meetings 7 needed to be aware that these concerns existed. The 8 concerns I elicited from the advisory group were part 9 of preparing for those events. 10 Q Were the summaries routinely reviewed or 11 looked at by anyone at the District? 12 A They were discussed within the Community 13 Relations Division by myself and Joycelyn Branscome and 14 Pat Walker. 15 Q What action, if any, would come out of these 16 discussions with the Community Relations Division? 17 A It depended on the nature of the issues. 18 Sometimes it would be to let other agency people know 19 who would have to respond to those issues at a later 20 date, that this question had been raised. It was 21 informal discussion mostly. 22 Q If someone in the advisory committee 23 expressed a concern, say, about the Everglades SWIM 24 Plan and you summarized this, and I take it then it 25 went to the Community Relations Division for some type 42 1 of discussion, or is it possible that this concern 2 could be replayed back to the people who were actually 3 writing the SWIM Plan at that time? 4 A Yes. 5 Q Did that happen quite often? 6 MS. WATERS: Object to the form. 7 THE WITNESS: It happened as necessary. 8 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 9 Q Do you remember any issues in which this 10 happened? 11 A I don't recall any specific issue. 12 Q Is there any documentary thing that would 13 help you remember that? 14 A My notes, whatever notes that I made as a 15 result of the meeting are in my files which have been 16 provided. 17 Q Were you responsible for following through 18 with anything that was brought out in the advisory 19 committee, to take it back to say the Everglades SWIM 20 planning team, whoever was writing the SWIM Plan? 21 A No. 22 Q Whose responsibility was that? 23 A That determination was made by Joycelyn. 24 Q And she would normally, in the course of her 25 duties, assign someone to look into the matter more? 43 1 A I am not sure how she would have followed up 2 with that. 3 Q But are you aware that there was some 4 follow-up on certain issues coming out of the advisory 5 committee? 6 MS. WATERS: Objection, no facts in evidence. 7 THE WITNESS: I don't have any direct 8 knowledge of what particular episodes she may have 9 conveyed. 10 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 11 Q What knowledge do you have, if any, of the 12 hydrology committee? 13 A I am not familiar with that. 14 Q What knowledge, if any, do you have of the 15 SWIM planning committee? 16 A I don't know of a specific committee by that 17 name. 18 Q What about the Hydroperiod Task Group? 19 A I know only that one existed. I am not 20 familiar with it other than there was a group that was 21 formed that had that name. 22 Q Do you have any knowledge as to what its 23 purpose was? 24 A No. 25 Q Do you know of anyone who was on that task 44 1 group? 2 A I can't recall. 3 Q What about the Water Quality Task Team? 4 A I am not familiar with that group. 5 Q What about the Philosophy Group? 6 A No. 7 Q What about the C-111 Task Team? 8 A I am not familiar with that group. 9 Q If I wanted to identify members of these 10 different groups and find out what they were all about, 11 who would you suggest I talk to at the District? 12 A Joycelyn Branscome. 13 Q Between March of 1989 and December 1989, when 14 you were working on the Everglades SWIM Plan, 15 approximately how much of your time was devoted to 16 doing that? 17 A From March through around July, I would say 18 about a quarter of my time was spent with Everglades. 19 From July through, I would say, the end of September, 20 when the first draft was being finalized and we were 21 getting ready for public meetings on the plan, about 22 seventy-five percent of my time. 23 Q What about from September of 1989 to December 24 of 1989? 25 A It would be even less than a quarter of my 45 1 time. 2 Q In the course of your duties, how much actual 3 contact did you have with the people who were writing 4 the Everglades SWIM Plan? 5 A Very minimal contact. 6 Q Would you be able to identify what scientists 7 or what group of scientists wrote any portion of any 8 part of the SWIM Plan? 9 A No. 10 Q If I wanted to find this information out, who 11 would you suggest I contact? 12 A Either Joycelyn Branscome or Paul Whalen. 13 Q Do you have any idea as to what group of 14 scientists would write different sessions of the SWIM 15 Plan? 16 A I don't have any firsthand knowledge of that. 17 Q Would then the knowledge you have be just 18 what you have heard or can you explain that a little 19 bit? 20 A I am aware of the people who were working on 21 the SWIM Plan, but I don't know what particular 22 portions. 23 Q Do you know or have knowledge as to how 24 scientists were assigned to work on various portions of 25 the SWIM Plan? 46 1 A No, I don't. 2 Q Do you have any knowledge as to whether any 3 part of the Everglades SWIM Plan was written by a 4 non-District employee? 5 A I have no such knowledge. 6 Q Or any other type of third person? 7 A No. 8 Q Are you aware of any outside contractors who 9 were hired to do parts of the SWIM Plan? 10 A Not to write the SWIM Plan, no. 11 Q In what capacity were the outside contractors 12 hired then? 13 A To the best of my knowledge, to compile 14 available information that would assist in preparation 15 of the SWIM Plan. 16 Q Do you know how these contractors were hired, 17 what process they had to go through? 18 A No, I don't. 19 Q Who would be responsible for carrying out 20 that capacity in the District? 21 A I am not sure I understand what you mean. 22 Q Who would be responsible for hiring any 23 outside contractors for the SWIM Plan? 24 A I don't know. 25 Q To the best of your knowledge, do you know 47 1 who would be responsible for reviewing the work that 2 they did? 3 A The work that the contractors did? 4 Q Yes. 5 A I don't know. 6 Q If you needed to find out that information, 7 who would you seek in the District? 8 A I would consult either Joycelyn Branscome or 9 Paul Whalen. 10 Q What is Joycelyn Branscome's position at the 11 District? 12 A I am not certain what her current title is. 13 Q When you were working with her on various 14 issues relative to the Everglades SWIM Plan, what was 15 her title? 16 A During that time she was a Technical Program 17 Coordinator. 18 Q And what is your understanding of a -- pardon 19 me, what is it? 20 A Technical Program Coordinator. 21 Q What was your understanding of her duties? 22 A To help prepare programs, work products that 23 have to do with technical policy making at the 24 District. 25 Q Is it your understanding that her main 48 1 capacity was involved with the Everglades SWIM Plan? 2 MS. WATERS: Object to the form. 3 THE WITNESS: My knowledge of her and her 4 responsibilities were related to her work on the 5 Everglades SWIM Plan. 6 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 7 Q Do you know if she had other duties besides 8 the Everglades SWIM Plan? 9 A I am not aware of any other. 10 Q What was Paul Whalen's position at the time 11 you were working on the Everglades SWIM Plan? 12 A I am not sure what his -- I think Paul was a 13 supervising professional. I think that is his title, 14 was then and still is. 15 Q What does a supervising professional do at 16 the District? 17 A supervising professionals do have staff 18 employees whose work they supervise. It involves 19 administrative tasks associated with merit reviews and 20 job classifications and that sort of thing. 21 Q Does it also involve technical review of work 22 that is being done by their employees that they 23 supervise? 24 A If they are supervising technical people, 25 yes. There are supervising professionals that deal 49 1 with non-technical work. It is a very generic job 2 title at the District. 3 Q I want to ask you more about the 4 organization. It seems like every four months things 5 are switching over there. 6 It is my understanding, correct me if I am 7 wrong, the Office of Resource Assistance and the 8 Resource Planning Departments were merged into the 9 Department of Research and Evaluation at one point? 10 A No, they were not merged. 11 Q What is an Office of Resource Assistance, 12 first of all? 13 A The Office of Resource Assistance was 14 comprised of, well, that has changed shape over time, 15 but they deal primarily with government relations and 16 community relations; dealt, I should say. 17 Q Pardon me? 18 A They dealt with those issues. 19 Q How were they reformed; to what? 20 A Some of the local government representatives 21 went to the Planning Department as the Government 22 Assistance Group. My division director, Community 23 Relations Division Director, is currently directing the 24 Comp Planning Division, or she is assistant director of 25 the Comp Planning Division in the Planning Department. 50 1 Frank Lund and I were moved from Community 2 Relations into the Environmental Planning Division and 3 several other Issue Specialists were transferred into 4 the Office of Communications, which is not part of the 5 Planning Department. 6 Q Is the Environmental Planning Division part 7 of the Planning Department? 8 A It was, yes. 9 Q Does it stand alone now? I mean, now I 10 thought it was divided into Upper and Lower District 11 Divisions? 12 A It is. Initially the Planning Department was 13 formed based on disciplines. You would find 14 hydrogeologists working for the Water Supply Division. 15 You would find engineers working for the Basin Planning 16 Division, you would find environmental working for the 17 Environmental Planning Division. 18 The reorganization within the Planning 19 Department that occurred most recently was reconfigured 20 along geographic areas that would allow people from 21 each of those disciplines to work together on a 22 particular project rather than having projects assigned 23 to a discpline and have that person have to go out and 24 get that expertise somewhere else. 25 For the most part, most of the people 51 1 continued to work on the same assignments that they 2 were previously working on. It was a matter of 3 organizational housekeeping to shift the emphasis away 4 from a discpline and to a program, a regional program 5 point of view. 6 Q Is there now a person dealing with Government 7 Assistance working in each of the divisions? 8 A No. 9 Q But there is one working for the Upper 10 District Division and the Lower District Division? 11 A No. I am working for the Upper District 12 Division. The other person with my same title is 13 working with the Government Assistance Program. That 14 is a different division. 15 Q That is Philip Lund? 16 A No. I was speaking of Woodie Vanvoorhees. 17 Q What was it that Philip Lund did before this 18 big breakup? You said he had been transferred to the 19 Government Assistance Division. 20 MS. WATERS: Object to the characterization 21 big "breakup." 22 MS. THRONE-CONTE: I will rephrase it. 23 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 24 Q When the Planning Division was reorganized, 25 where did Philip Lund go? 52 1 A Philip Lund, he was not affected by the 2 Planning Division reorganization. 3 Q So where is he now? 4 A He is with the Government Assistance Program. 5 He applied for and there was an open position, 6 therefore, which he applied and was hired prior to the 7 time that the Planning Department reorganized. 8 Q Is he with the Lower District Division? 9 A No, he is not. 10 Q So he is in a totally separate part of the 11 District then? 12 A He is with the Government Assistance Division 13 in the Planning Department. 14 Q What other divisions are there in the 15 Planning Department? 16 A There is the Upper District Planning Division 17 and the Lower District Planning Division, the Division 18 of Government Assistance, the Comp Plan Review Division 19 and the Kissimmee River Restoration Division. 20 Q Currently, under which division are the 21 people who work on the Everglades SWIM Plan? 22 A Primarily in the Lower District Planning 23 Division. 24 Q Why were several of these divisions 25 reorganized, to the best of your knowledge? 53 1 A Which divisions are you speaking about? 2 Q Let's start off with the Environmental 3 Planning Division. 4 MS. WATERS: Objection, asked and answered. 5 THE WITNESS: The Environmental Planning 6 Division was part of an effort to consolidate 7 three divisions into two. 8 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 9 Q Is it accurate to say then that this was part 10 of the emphasis, to revise the District to follow more 11 geographic lines than disciplinary lines? 12 A That is my statement, yes. 13 Q During your work on the Everglades SWIM Plan, 14 did you have occasion to speak with Mr. MacVicar in any 15 capacity? 16 MS. WATERS: Object to the form of the 17 question. It is overly broad. 18 THE WITNESS: I met with Mr. MacVicar only 19 once in connection with Everglades SWIM. 20 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 21 Q When was that? 22 A That was sometime during the fall in order to 23 discuss the upcoming meeting of the Everglades SWIM 24 advisory group. 25 Q What was the substance of your conversation? 54 1 A It was essentially to review with him the 2 agenda for the meeting. He was attending, I believe 3 for the first time, and I reviewed for him very briefly 4 what, how we had handled meeting agendas up until that 5 point, and there was a meeting scheduled for December 6 that we were discussing. 7 (Whereupon, Richard Harrison, Esq. entered 8 the deposition room and Carole Fernandez, Esq. 9 exited the deposition room.) 10 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 11 Q Have you had occasion to speak with 12 Mr. Wodraska during your tenure working on the 13 Everglades SWIM Plan? 14 A No. 15 Q Did you have occasion to prepare any 16 briefings for the District Governing Board during your 17 tenure working on the Everglades SWIM Plan? 18 A Some materials were prepared as part of 19 backup to Governing Board meetings, yes. 20 Q Could you explain a little bit more what you 21 mean? 22 A I did provide some summaries of LOTAC 23 discussions relating to Everglades SWIM, only as part 24 of Governing Board backup materials, and also some 25 summaries of issues that were raised during public 55 1 meetings of the first draft, public meetings that were 2 held in August and September. 3 Q What is Governing Board backup material? 4 A They are folders that are distributed to the 5 Board in advance of each monthly meeting that contain 6 backup information that is relevant to the agenda items 7 that are coming up. 8 Q Are these documents attached and made part of 9 the record of that meeting? 10 A They are public information materials. I 11 don't know that. Unless they are referred to 12 specifically during the course of the Governing Board 13 discussion, they would be made part of the record in 14 that effect. 15 Q If they are not discussed as part of the 16 record, how do you know that they are public 17 information? 18 A They are public information in that they are 19 available to the public upon request. 20 Q Typically what would be contained in one of 21 these Governing Board backup material? 22 A It depends on the nature of the agenda item. 23 Q Would there be staff recommendations or 24 summaries? 25 A That would be included. Agenda items are 56 1 distributed at the meetings and to a mailing list in 2 advance of the Governing Board meetings. Anyone who 3 wanted to see the Board backup for a particular agenda 4 item can request it. 5 Q Were these Governing Board backup materials 6 distributed with an agenda to parties or these were 7 only available if you asked for them? 8 A They were available upon request. 9 Q If you wanted to get any of these documents 10 from the Governing Board backup materials, where would 11 you go to get these documents? 12 A The executive office. 13 Q Do you know if you would need a specific date 14 and then you would get the materials or are they stored 15 by subject matter? 16 A They are stored by meeting date. 17 Q What is your knowledge, if any, of a group 18 called Executive Council? 19 A That is a group comprised of department 20 directors and deputies at the Water Management 21 District. It also includes the Executive Director and 22 deputy directors. 23 Q Does that also include the Office of Counsel? 24 A Yes, it does. 25 Q In your work that you did for the Everglades 57 1 SWIM Plan, did you ever prepare any documents for the 2 Executive Council? 3 A No. 4 Q Do you know if your files were provided to 5 the United States for inspection? 6 A I assume they were. I do not know that for a 7 fact. 8 Q Did you at any time physically put together 9 your files for the Government's inspection? 10 A I am not sure I understand what you mean by 11 put them together. 12 Q Did someone come in your office and look 13 through your files and determine what was relevant to 14 the Government's request for documents, or did you get 15 a directive that you could do that yourself? 16 A No. Someone came into my office and asked me 17 where materials were located and indicated that they 18 would be reviewing what was in my office area. 19 Q Who was that? 20 A I don't remember a name. I have been asked 21 for the files twice and I don't remember -- I think the 22 first time was a gentleman named Frost. The second 23 time were District attorneys. 24 Q Did you review the documents that were 25 removed from your office in any way? 58 1 A No. 2 Q Do you have any idea at all of what was 3 turned over for inspection? 4 A I have a general idea of the contents. 5 Q What is your understanding of that? 6 A Notes, memos, drafts of meeting summaries 7 that I was working on in connection with the Everglades 8 advisory group, some meeting summaries from steering 9 committee meetings and notes that I may have made, very 10 preliminary, very rough lists of water resource issues 11 that were during sort of like a brain storming period 12 before the SWIM Plan was actually being written, but 13 when we were still trying to make sure that we were 14 coming up with a complete list of issues and problems 15 that should be addressed in some fashion, some copies 16 of transparencies and overheads that were prepared as 17 part of staff presentations to the advisory group. 18 Q Was it within the course of your duties to 19 normally keep transparencies? 20 A I didn't keep the transparencies, I kept 21 paper copies just to assist as part of my record 22 keeping, if someone would refer to those that I would 23 have a copy handy to refer to myself. 24 Q In any of your work in the Everglades SWIM 25 Plan, was the Federal lawsuit ever discussed? 59 1 A No, not directly. It was mentioned from time 2 to time, but not discussed. No, I couldn't say that. 3 Q Who mentioned it? 4 A In passing conversation that there is, that 5 it was occurring and that it was looking at the same 6 issues that we were dealing with in the Everglades SWIM 7 Plan. 8 Q Were there any type of tone or emotion that 9 went along with these discussions? 10 MS. WATERS: Object to the form of the 11 question. 12 THE WITNESS: I can't recall any particular 13 emotion or tone, other than as a matter of course 14 that it was occurring. 15 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 16 Q Were there any specific concerns raised that 17 you knew about? 18 A No. At that time during that period that I 19 was working on Everglades SWIM, the lawsuit was in the 20 background and there was a great deal of effort on the 21 part of people working with Everglades SWIM to not pay 22 attention to that, that that was a separate effort and 23 preparing the plan was first and foremost at that time 24 when the first draft was being prepared, and the 25 lawsuit was really not an issue. 60 1 Q When did it become more of an issue or come 2 off the back burner, as you say? 3 MS. WATERS: Object to the form of the 4 question. I want to note the testimony that the 5 efforts didn't come off the back burner. 6 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 7 Q At any time, in your opinion, did it come off 8 the back burner for the scientists at the District? 9 A For the scientists at the District, I can't 10 speak for them. 11 Q Who can you speak for? 12 A Myself and my activities associated with the 13 SWIM planning efforts, and for me the impact really was 14 not felt until document production began and people's 15 files were being removed and that began to have an 16 impact, yes. 17 MS. THRONE-CONTE: Do you want to break for 18 lunch now? It is twelve o'clock. Let's meet back 19 at one. 20 (Whereupon, there was a luncheon recess.) 21 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 22 Q Ms. Smith, pursuant to the subpoena duces 23 tecum, I understand that you provided this document for 24 my review. I understand that if I wish to request it, 25 Counsel will arrange for copies of all the documents? 61 1 MS. WATERS: That document, I can provide 2 copies of those today (handing). 3 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 4 Q Ms. Smith, you wrote this while you were 5 employed by the South Florida Water Management 6 District? 7 A Yes. 8 (Whereupon, Exhibit LS-4 was marked for 9 identification.) 10 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 11 Q Please briefly describe what this "In Depth 12 Report" is about? 13 A Its title is "The Challenge of Water 14 Management" and it describes efforts to manage water 15 resources in the South Florida area from the mid-1800s 16 up to when the Water Resources Act of 1972 was enacted. 17 Q Is it accurate to say that this publication 18 represents an official position by the South Florida 19 Water Management District? 20 MS. WATERS: Object to the form of the 21 question. 22 MR. HALL: Objection, the document speaks for 23 itself, secondly, facts not in evidence. 24 THE WITNESS: The document represents a 25 history of water management efforts. Not all of 62 1 those efforts are Water Management District 2 efforts. It is a history of agencies and 3 activities that preceded the existence of the 4 South Florida Water Management District. 5 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 6 Q Were you requested to write this document in 7 the discharge of your normal duties? 8 A Yes. 9 Q Was the content of this document approved by 10 the Executive Office or the Governing Board before its 11 publication? 12 A The Executive Office. 13 MS. WATERS: Object to the form of the 14 question. 15 THE WITNESS: The Executive Office did review 16 the document prior to publication. 17 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 18 Q And they made comments revisions or in some 19 way did review it, though? 20 A They did review it, yes. 21 Q In the course of your duties, over the last, 22 I guess it would be about what, eleven years working at 23 the South Florida Water Management District? 24 A I have worked there thirteen years as of 25 March. 63 1 Q Let's just take since your duties as Issue 2 Management Specialist and a Senior Issue Management 3 Specialist, was it your position to write documents 4 that would be issued to the public? 5 A That was the audience for most of the 6 materials I prepared. 7 Q Were those documents approved or in some way 8 reviewed by the Executive Office or the Governing 9 Board? 10 MS. WATERS: Object to the form of the 11 question. 12 THE WITNESS: Some were and some were not. 13 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 14 Q What would cause some to be reviewed and 15 others not? 16 A Depending on the nature of the publication, 17 if it was dealing with an issue that was currently 18 active and unresolved and in some way controversial, 19 then there was additional review outside of the Office 20 of Public Information. 21 If they were materials that were very broad 22 and dealt with existing Water Management District 23 programs and were mainly limited to updating 24 information, then it would not necessarily go outside 25 the office or to the Executive Office for their review. 64 1 Q Your summaries of the advisory committee, 2 were they reviewed by the Governing Board or the 3 Executive Office? 4 A Summaries were provided to the Governing 5 Board for their information. 6 Q But they were not specifically, they did not 7 have to be reviewed before they could be distributed to 8 either other agencies or scientists within the 9 District? 10 A Right. 11 Q Did you ever have occasion to speak with 12 anyone from the Sugar Cane League during the course of 13 your activities working on the Everglades SWIM Plan? 14 A No. 15 Q Have you had the occasion to speak with 16 anyone from the Florida Sugar Cane League in any other 17 capacity? 18 A No. 19 Q Have you had occasion to speak with anyone 20 from the Institute of Food and Agricultural Science? 21 A No. 22 Q As part of your duties relating to the 23 Everglades SWIM Plan, did you have the occasion to 24 review any or all of the Everglades SWIM plans? 25 A I did not -- I have seen a portion of the 65 1 first draft having to do with a description, a broad 2 description of water quality issues in the first draft 3 of the SWIM Plan. 4 Q That would be the 1989 draft? 5 A Right. 6 Q Would that be the executive summary and the 7 policy statements? 8 A I believe the portion that I was involved 9 with became Volume II, the issues volume, not the 10 executive summary. 11 Q Was it within the normal course of your work 12 to review text that would be later included in one of 13 the volumes or did you see it after it was included? 14 A I did not review it. I was not a reviewer of 15 that text. I did see it in the context of other people 16 who were asked to review that portion, and I made some 17 notes that indicated reviewer's comments, and I 18 compiled that for other people to revise or incorporate 19 in the section of the SWIM Plan. 20 Q Who was assigned to review the first draft of 21 the Everglades SWIM Plan? 22 A There were a number of people. It was 23 routinely distributed to department directors and 24 deputy directors. I don't recall. 25 Q If you looked back at Exhibit LS-3, would 66 1 that help to refresh any names that may have done that? 2 A There are some people on this list that were 3 asked to review, that I can recall. 4 Q Who is that? 5 A Irene Quincey, Bonnie Kranzer, Mike Slayton, 6 Bill Malone, Jeanne Hall, Dick Rogers, Tony Federico, 7 Pete Rhoads. Those are the only names on this list 8 that I can recall specifically. 9 Q If I wanted to find out who the reviewers 10 were for the Everglades SWIM plan, who would you 11 suggest I contact? 12 A Joycelyn Branscome. 13 Q Are you aware of whether these people, who 14 you have identified as reviewers, continued as 15 reviewers throughout the entire SWIM process or there 16 were different groups for different drafts of the SWIM 17 Plan? 18 A I am not aware of their involvement outside 19 that first round for that particular section that I 20 saw. 21 Q So you have no knowledge as to whether there 22 may have been other people or identities that were 23 switched later on? 24 A Right. 25 Q You said you have seen, to use your own 67 1 words, "portions of Volume II or the draft of Volume 2 II." What other parts of the SWIM Plan have you seen? 3 A I have seen the portions of the SWIM Plan 4 that were, the draft that was published in the fall of 5 1998. 6 Q 1989? 7 A Yes, I am sorry. Yes, that is what I mean. 8 Q Would that be the August 1989 draft? 9 A The August 1989 draft and the executive 10 summary that was published later, I believe. 11 Q Did you ever review Volume III with the 12 technical summary in it? 13 A No. 14 Q Why did you review any part of the SWIM Plan 15 at all? 16 A I did not review it. I was not a technical 17 reviewer. I was compiling the comments of other 18 reviewers. 19 Q Why is it that you read any part of the SWIM 20 Plan at all? 21 A In connection with the editing of the final 22 draft. 23 Q So you participating in the editing of the 24 final draft? 25 A Of the final draft. Okay, the editing of the 68 1 first draft that was published in August of 1989. 2 Q How much were you involved with the editing 3 of that draft? 4 A Just a small portion of the issues section, 5 the overall description of water quality issues and 6 environmental issues that was later incorporated in 7 Volume II. 8 Q You stated that one of your jobs was to 9 compile the comments from other reviewers? 10 A Yes. 11 Q How specifically did this assignment come up? 12 A I am not sure what you mean by that. 13 Q How did you get assigned to do that? 14 A I was asked by Joycelyn Branscome to become 15 involved in it and it evolved, as the copies that were 16 distributed to the reviewers came back, to be 17 incorporated in a final draft document. 18 Q Were these reviews that were just the first 19 draft of the SWIM Plan? 20 A I am not sure what you mean by "just the 21 first draft." 22 Q What time period are we talking about? 23 A We are talking about July. 24 Q Of 1989? 25 A Right. 69 1 Q Were you involved with the reviewing of 2 comments after the first draft of the SWIM Plan came 3 out in August of 1989? 4 A No. 5 Q So you didn't do any of that type of work 6 then after just that one episode? 7 A Correct. 8 Q What kind of summaries did you compile? 9 A I didn't compile summaries. I had a copy of 10 the text and I indicated on that copy where reviewers 11 had commented and the substance of their comments. 12 Q And what did you then do with this document? 13 A That was provided to Joel Van Arman. 14 Q Did you just write on the copy or did you do 15 some type of summary of what problems or whatever that 16 you saw? 17 A I just wrote on the copy. 18 Q What if anything did Mr. Van Arman do with 19 your summary? 20 A I am not certain what he did with the 21 notations that I made. 22 Q What action did he take, if any? 23 A He accepted the document with the revisions 24 that I had indicated. 25 Q And are you aware of whether then those 70 1 revisions were incorporated into rewriting the first 2 draft of the SWIM Plan? 3 A I didn't follow up to see what was and was 4 not or how that was dealt with. 5 Q So you were never gotten back to, 6 Mr. Van Arman never came back to you and gave you 7 another assignment? 8 A That is right. 9 Q How long did it take you to do the compiling 10 of the comments? 11 A I don't recall. I think there was a very 12 quick turn around time, so I don't think I had more 13 than a week to note all the comments that were made. 14 Q Now, you said you were compiling comments. 15 That seems to me to indicate that you were getting them 16 from somewhere else? 17 A Right. 18 Q Who were you getting comments from? 19 A They were from the other people who were 20 assigned to review the document. 21 Q Who would that be? 22 A Well, the individuals that I named earlier 23 were part of that review process. 24 Q And is it accurate to say that you got their 25 comments and then incorporated them on a single 71 1 document that you gave to Mr. Van Arman? 2 A That is not totally accurate. The entire 3 text of the draft plan was distributed to the 4 reviewers. The portion that I received back had to do 5 with comments that were made to a particular section. 6 So I saw only those comments that were made dealing 7 with that particular section. 8 Q And you said that that section was the 9 overall description of water quality and environmental 10 issues? 11 A Yes. 12 Q What was the substance of the comments that 13 you got back? 14 A They varied in their scope and in their 15 topic. Some items were to correct inaccuracies, some 16 were questions and indications to check further on 17 certain statements that were made. Other comments were 18 suggested alternative language in certain portions that 19 I noted those substitutions, proposed substitutions. 20 Q Did you go back to any of these reviewers 21 while you were compiling all their different comments 22 and talk to them about their comments? 23 A No. 24 Q How was the form of the comments that came to 25 you; were they in documents, memo form? 72 1 A They were written in the margins, for the 2 most part, of the draft plan that was distributed. 3 Q So you would get a whole array of different 4 drafts back with comments on the margins? 5 A Correct. 6 Q Do you keep these drafts? What happened to 7 those drafts? 8 A I have kept those, yes, and they were 9 provided in my files. 10 Q What was the substance of questions to check 11 further on certain statements? 12 A The only thing I can remember specifically 13 had to do with the rate of soil subsidence and the EAA. 14 That was one that someone had earmarked to check 15 further about that statement. I can't remember 16 anything else specifically. 17 Q Was it your position to check further or just 18 to summarize and give it to someone else who would then 19 have another person check it out? 20 A It was my job to summarize the comments that 21 were made and compile them all, lay them out so they 22 could all be seen as they related to that section of 23 the document. It was someone elses job to follow up 24 and make the revisions. 25 Q Did you have any input at all into the 73 1 revisions themselves then, the content? 2 A Not after I provided that compilation. 3 Q Your compilation, though, did not change the 4 substance of any of the comments, right? 5 A That was my intention, yes. 6 Q And to the best of your knowledge, your 7 compilation accurately represents what each of the 8 different reviewer's comments was? 9 A I believe so, yes. 10 Q When you did summaries for the advisory 11 committee, and I apologize if I asked you this before, 12 to the best of your knowledge, were those accurate 13 representations of what actually went on at these 14 meetings? 15 A Well, the accuracy of those meeting summaries 16 was determined by LOTAC when they approved the meeting 17 minutes. That was their determination. 18 Q So when you did the summaries for LOTAC, 19 those minutes that you prepared were reviewed by the 20 committee itself? 21 A Right. 22 Q What about for the Everglades Advisory 23 Committee, were those summaries that you prepared ever 24 reviewd by the committee? 25 A I did not prepare meeting summaries for the 74 1 committee. I prepared meeting summaries of committee 2 discussions for use by District staff. 3 Q To the best of your knowledge, the summaries 4 that you prepared for the Everglades Advisory 5 Committee, though, represented what you understood went 6 on in these meetings? 7 A Yes. 8 Q So to the best of your knowledge, they are 9 accurate representations? 10 A Yes. 11 Q When you would provide the summaries for the 12 Everglades Advisory Committee, do you remember any 13 discussions concerning the regulation of agricultural 14 discharge? 15 A No, I don't. 16 Q Do you recall any discussion of the effect of 17 phosphorus in water conservation areas? 18 A Discussion in the summaries? 19 Q Well, the summaries you prepared, we just 20 went over, reflected an accurate representation of what 21 went on at meeting. Was there discussion at the 22 meeting, as reflected in the your summaries, concerning 23 phosphorus in water conservation areas? 24 A There was discussion at the LOTAC meetings 25 and that discussion would have been represented in the 75 1 meeting summaries that I prepared. 2 Q What about at the Everglades Advisory 3 Committee meetings? 4 A There was discussion of that issue. 5 Q Do you remember what dates? 6 A No, I don't. 7 Q Is there any type of document that could help 8 you remember? 9 A There would be notes in my files about the 10 issues that were brought up at those meetings. 11 Q Do you keep those notes by subject matter or 12 by date? 13 A Meeting date. 14 Q If I wanted to request those documents, how 15 would you suggest that I label them or identify them? 16 A Well, those documents have been provided and 17 they are my files, and they are labeled Everglades 18 Advisory Group and there will be a meeting date as part 19 of the label on the file. 20 Q You say those documents were provided. To 21 the best of your knowledge, though, from what I 22 understand, before you said those documents were 23 removed for inspection? 24 A They were removed, right. 25 Q At the LOTAC meetings was there discussion of 76 1 the invasion or existence of cattails in the water 2 conservation areas? 3 A There was discussion. 4 Q On what dates were those? 5 A I don't recall the specific dates. 6 Q What document or type of document would help 7 you remember? 8 A The meeting summaries. 9 Q The LOTAC meeting summaries are kept where? 10 A I am not sure where they are currently kept. 11 The official documents were kept in the common area in 12 Community Relations. I am not sure where they might be 13 now. 14 Q What about the unofficial documents? 15 A The only other ones that I know of are the 16 documents that I prepared, my working files that I 17 used, compiled in preparation of those meeting 18 summaries. 19 Q Are your working files categorized by date or 20 subject matter or LOTAC meeting? 21 A Date of meeting. 22 Q At either LOTAC or the Everglades advisory 23 meetings, was there discussion of nutrient problems in 24 the Water Conservation Area or Loxahatchee Wildlife 25 Refuge or Everglades National Park? 77 1 A Yes. 2 Q Do you remember the dates they were 3 discussed? 4 A No, I don't remember the specific dates. 5 Q And again, you would need your documents to 6 remember that accurately? 7 A Yes. 8 Q The documents that would help refresh your 9 memory on the advisory committee and LOTAC meetings, 10 are they in the room today? 11 A The LOTAC meeting minutes were provided 12 today. I don't know about the others. 13 Q We have the box here; could you find those 14 for me? 15 A I guess, if they are here. 16 (Whereupon, there was a discussion off the 17 record.) 18 MS. THRONE-CONTE: Ms. Smith has identified 19 additional documents that are responsive to the 20 subpoena for today. I am looking for either LOTAC 21 or advisory meeting summaries that you prepared 22 which reflect regulation of agricultural 23 discharge, evidence of phosphorus in water 24 conservation areas or the existence of cattails? 25 MS. WATERS: Just for the record, Ms. Smith 78 1 has provided, pursuant to the subpoena duces 2 tecum, ten additional files reflecting 1989 3 LOTAC II minutes. If there are specific questions 4 about the documents that she has provided pursuant 5 to your request or your review, if you have 6 reviewed those documents, Ms. Smith might be able 7 to assist you, but without dates she would have to 8 go through each of the documents. If that is what 9 you are requesting, we could bring the files 10 over here and go through each file date by date. 11 I think that is the only way she would be familiar 12 with what was in the document, unless you inquire. 13 It is my understanding that she does not use 14 those files or has not looked at them since 15 December of 1989, which is approximately a year. 16 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 17 Q So it is accurate to say, Ms. Smith, you can 18 not pick out what documents would be relative to my 19 question at this point? 20 A That is right. 21 Q You would need some time to review the 22 documents to be able to pull out -- 23 A That is right. 24 Q Ms. Smith, if you would take a moment, I 25 would like you to scan the documents, the documents 79 1 that you have provided for me today, and see if 2 anything on these three topics that I mentioned, you 3 would be able to pull out now? 4 A Okay. 5 MS. WATERS: While Ms. Smith is reviewing 6 those documents, I would like to make a statement 7 for the record. 8 In an attempt to cover the broad request that 9 was made by the United States for the documents in 10 possession of Ms. Smith, she has attempted to 11 provide all of those documents. I think that 12 because she has not reviewed those documents since 13 1989 and because of the broad request of 14 nutrients, phosphorus and nitrogen in a number of 15 minutes that might have been provided and 16 discussed at those LOTAC meetings, there may be a 17 number of those documents, and at no other 18 deposition have witnesses been required, for 19 example, Mr. Parks' deposition with excess of 20 twenty boxes that he provided in response to the 21 subpoena duces tecum that he brought from a prior 22 production, was he ever requested to go through 23 and extract those documents. So it may take 24 Ms. Smith a while to do that. 25 MS. THRONE-CONTE: I have asked Ms. Smith to 80 1 briefly scan over and see if she can pull 2 something out. I intend to go through the 3 documents when I get a chance. 4 Unlike Dr. Parks' documents, which were 5 provided before the deposition, these documents 6 were only provided this morning, and considering 7 the date of these documents, I realize sometimes 8 things may slip by, but perhaps they should have 9 been produced quite a while ago. 10 THE WITNESS: Can you repeat for me so that 11 I can write down the topics that you are looking 12 for. 13 MR. HALL: A quick statement for the report; 14 on behalf of the cities, I am going to object at 15 this point in time. I just want to note for the 16 record that a box of approximately ten files, I 17 believe, the District's representative response to 18 the United States' subpoena, was produced at the 19 beginning of this deposition. 20 At least on behalf of the cities, we have not 21 had an opportunity to adequately review those 22 documents, and it is the cities' position that it 23 is improper to waste the time in the middle of a 24 deposition for the witness to identify the 25 documents that she has already testified she has 81 1 no knowledge about the specific content of those 2 documents and whether, in fact, they exist. 3 More importantly, I don't believe it is 4 proper at this point in time to engage a witness 5 in selecting materials, as the United States has 6 characterized them, for the purpose of the United 7 States. If the United States feels compelled to 8 ask the witness direct questions concerning the 9 existence or nonexistence of documents or anything 10 that the witness personally remembers from 11 hearing, that would be proper the scope of the 12 examination, but to have a witness search for what 13 you characterize as a particular content of 14 document, she has already testified she has no 15 recollection of it. I don't believe it is proper 16 and should not be done during the conduct of the 17 deposition. 18 If the United States would suggest an 19 alternative, we may then proceed with this 20 deposition in a timely and efficient manner. 21 MS. WATERS: The District would join the 22 objection and also note that the documents were 23 provided this morning, pursuant to the subpoena, 24 and were left for the purpose of review during the 25 course of a lunch period. 82 1 I know that that may not have been a 2 sufficient amount of time to review the documents, 3 but I would suggest that it would be more 4 appropriate to review the documents at a later 5 time other than right now. 6 I would perhaps suggest that if you can 7 continue with your voir dire of the witness and at 8 that time recess and allow you an opportunity to 9 review the documents, if you have any specific 10 questions about the documents that you have 11 requested that she produce, at that time you ask 12 those questions as opposed to having her go 13 through looking for something that may not answer 14 questions that you have asked on very broad 15 topics. 16 MS. THRONE-CONTE: I asked Ms. Smith if she 17 would briefly scan the documents to see if 18 something would jump out at her concerning issues 19 in those three areas. It was not my intention to 20 have her sit here at length and go through and 21 pick out documents. However, I would like her, 22 because she has indicated to me that she needs 23 documents which are documents, coincidentally, 24 that are provided today, to be able to identify 25 certain LOTAC and certain advisory committee 83 1 meetings where certain topics were discussed. 2 MS. WATERS: I don't know that the witness 3 has testified that there are any advisory 4 committee meeting notes in there, but if you want 5 her to look through and see if anything quote, 6 unquote jumps out, I would ask her to do that if 7 she can do that briefly. Otherwise I think it 8 would be more appropriate to allow you to continue 9 your questioning and review those documents. 10 If you have any questions specifically why 11 the documents were not previously produced, I 12 suggest you voir dire the witness as to the 13 location of the documents prior to document 14 production, which occurred in May and June of 15 1990. 16 Also because of the large number of documents 17 that have been produced and were produced from the 18 District and specifically Ms. Smith's office, I 19 would suggest that it is totally impossible for 20 the District to find every file from every office 21 of the number of District employees that we have, 22 and I know specifically of other cases where the 23 United States has not produced documents, and 24 compared to the size of documents that are being 25 produced, it should not be a problem with 84 1 continuing and reviewing those documents in 2 an appropriate manner and not allow the witness to 3 go through and do that at this point, because they 4 are specifically LOTAC minutes and those are 5 issues which may have been discussed at a number 6 of meetings. I think it would be inappropriate to 7 ask her to do that at this juncture. 8 MS. THRONE-CONTE: I will repeat, if you can 9 do it briefly, then please do it briefly. Let's 10 take ten minutes. 11 THE WITNESS: Would you say again which three 12 issues. 13 MS. THRONE-CONTE: I am interested in 14 discussions either at Everglades Advisory 15 Committee meetings or LOTAC meetings concerning 16 the regulation of agricultural discharge, the 17 existence of cattails in any of the water 18 conservation areas, including the park as well and 19 the existence of phosphorus in the Water 20 Conservation Area. 21 MR. HALL: Just for the record, the cities 22 would object to the characterization, which I 23 believe states facts not in evidence. There 24 hasn't been any line of questioning on the witness 25 to establish the, quote, issues that you are 85 1 asking her to locate documents on. 2 Secondly, should the witness be able to 3 locate a document that jumps out at her concerning 4 these issues as characterized by the United 5 States, the cities would like the opportunity to 6 review the materials in that box so the document 7 can be put in its proper context. 8 We do have a time problem here. We do have a 9 procedure that all parties have followed regarding 10 providing materials prior to deposition, as well 11 as providing copies of exhibits prior to them 12 being introduced to the witness, and I think we 13 can together work out some fashion that that can 14 be accomplished so a document can be seen within 15 its context and all parties have time to 16 adequately look at the records before a witness is 17 questioned on them. 18 MS. WATERS: Well, it is the District's 19 position when a subpoena duces tecum or a notice 20 of a witness to produce documents is presented to 21 the District, we anticipate complying completely 22 because there may be a number of documents that 23 have not previously been provided because of time 24 factors and because of inadvertence on behalf of 25 the District, whatever purpose it may have been 86 1 that those documents have not been provided, 2 and because of issues that have not previously 3 been presented. For instance, asking for resumes, 4 publications of individual witnesses, the District 5 is in good faith attempting to comply with the 6 request. 7 I think this issue is going to have to be 8 resolved by all parties, because I think you will 9 continue to see documents being produced pursuant 10 to these requests and it is inappropriate to ask 11 witnesses, during the course of these depositions, 12 to go through a number of boxes or documents 13 or files in this manner. 14 We are wasting deposition time, we are 15 wasting record time and it may be more appropriate 16 for us to make some determination as to how this 17 is going to continue to occur. 18 I think we should probably break and allow 19 Ms. Smith to see if she finds any of these 20 documents and present those documents or dates to 21 Ms. Throne-Conte, and if she has any questions 22 about those documents, to ask them, but also we 23 have to make copies for all parties to review 24 pursuant to previous agreements that we have made 25 about documents being produced. 87 1 (Whereupon, there was a brief recess.) 2 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 3 Q During the break have you had the opportunity 4 to review the documents that were provided this 5 morning? 6 A The documents that I provided this morning 7 were Everglades SWIM meeting summary files. My review 8 consisted of looking for and pulling out the agenda for 9 each meeting in order to determine the likelihood that 10 the meeting discussion would have included any 11 reference to the regulation of agricultural discharge, 12 cattails in the water conservation areas or the 13 Everglades National Park, and phosphorus in the water 14 conservation areas and in Everglades National Park. 15 For the June 8th LOTAC meeting, the Everglades SWIM 16 Plan was an item on the agenda. 17 Q What year was that? 18 A 1989. On September 7 the Everglades SWIM 19 Plan was an item on LOTAC agenda. On September 28th 20 and 29th, Everglades SWIM Plan was an item on the LOTAC 21 agenda. On the October 31st meeting there was a report 22 to the council on the Everglades symposium. 23 There was a presentation by Everglades 24 National Park staff to LOTAC and there was an 25 Everglades SWIM Plan agenda item. On the meeting for 88 1 November 30th and December 1st there was an item 2 regarding Dr. Parks' nutrient management discharge 3 criteria and that is the limit to what I could gather 4 on that review. I did not review any files relating to 5 Everglades Advisory Group. 6 Q Because there are none here in your 7 possession at the time? 8 A There are none here in this box, right. 9 Q The October 31st and November 30th and 10 December 1st meetings, those were LOTAC meetings? 11 A Say that again. 12 Q The October 31st and the November 30th and 13 December 1st meetings, were those for LOTAC? 14 A Yes. 15 Q And all the meetings that you have just given 16 me occurred in 1989? 17 A Correct. 18 Q I am going to review those documents that you 19 have identified for me and I will be questioning you on 20 them. 21 I would like to hand you a document which we 22 can label as LS-5. 23 (Whereupon, Exhibit LS-5 was marked for 24 identification.) 25 89 1 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 2 Q Please take a moment to review this. 3 A (Witness complies.) 4 Q This document is entitled "Everglades SWIM, 5 Draft Goals, Objectives and Strategies, working 6 document, not for distribution," is that right? 7 A That is correct. 8 Q Have you ever seen this document before? 9 A Yes. 10 Q How can you identify it? 11 A I am familiar with the the subject matter. I 12 have heard those. I am familiar with those draft 13 goals, objectives and strategies as discussion items. 14 Q Have you seen this particular summary before? 15 A I have seen the summary before. 16 Q Did you write or authorize any part of this 17 document? 18 A No. 19 Q Do you know who did? 20 A No, I don't know. 21 Q Would you know whether or not Paul Whalen 22 would be in a position over at the District to author 23 this document? 24 MS. WATERS: Object to the form of the 25 question. 90 1 THE WITNESS: I don't know whether -- I don't 2 have any knowledge of that. 3 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 4 Q Who at the District is responsible for the 5 goals, objectives and strategies for the SWIM Plan? 6 A There were many people involved in drafting 7 the goals, objectives and strategies. I have been in 8 internal meetings where these issues were discussed, 9 but I am not certain who authorized these particular 10 proposals. 11 Q Is there a department or project group that 12 would, to the best of your knowledge, be responsible 13 for defining goals, objectives and strategies of the 14 Everglades SWIM Plan? 15 A During most of my involvement with Everglades 16 SWIM, the work was divided between Office of Resource 17 Assistance personnel, which included Joycelyn 18 Branscome, and the SWIM Plan project manager, and other 19 people in the what was known as the Planning Department 20 that housed the research and scientific group of the 21 District. 22 Q Would that include the Environmental Sciences 23 Division? 24 A Yes. 25 Q And what person are you aware of who was 91 1 responsible, the project manager over at Environmental 2 Sciences? 3 A I am not aware of a project manager in 4 Environmental Sciences related to this. 5 Q Are you aware of anyone in the Planning 6 Department that has a similar type of job that Joycelyn 7 Branscome has or in the Office of Research Assistance? 8 A Well, there is only one project manager. 9 First there was Joycelyn Branscome and then those 10 responsibilities were assumed by Paul Whalen. 11 Q I would like you to turn your attention to 12 page three. The top of the page says, "SWIM Program," 13 and has two headings, "Program Management Duties," and 14 "Project Management Duties." What is your 15 understanding of these terms? 16 A Those terms relate to the division of SWIM 17 planning activities between the Planning Department, 18 the old Planning Department, it is now currently called 19 Research and Evaluation, the Department of Research and 20 Evaluation, and the project management duties that were 21 administered out of the Office of Research Assistance 22 under project management duties. 23 Q I see. So it is your understanding that the 24 project management duties comes from the Office of 25 Resource Assistance? 92 1 A That is where the personnel who were 2 performing those duties were located at the time. 3 Q And then the program management duties flowed 4 from the Research and Evaluation Department, which used 5 to be known as the Planning Department; is that 6 accurate? 7 A That is correct. 8 Q Was this split the same for all the different 9 components of the SWIM Plan, whether it be the C-111 10 provision or the Everglades provision? 11 A It was meant to provide a guideline for the 12 entire Everglades SWIM planning effort. 13 Q I would like to turn your attention to page 14 two under "Strategies." I am looking at paragraphs 15 number four and five, if you would read those, please? 16 A (Witness complies.) 17 Q You stated that you had participated in 18 internal meetings at the District regarding this 19 subject matter, is that correct? 20 MS. WATERS: Object to the form of the 21 question. Specifically, I don't understand what 22 subject matter you are speaking about. 23 MS. THRONE-CONTE: I will rephrase it. 24 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 25 Q You stated specifically that you had attended 93 1 internal meetings where Everglades SWIM goals, 2 objectives and strategies had been discussed, is that 3 right? 4 A That is right. 5 Q And you are familiar then with what is in 6 this document? 7 A I believe my statement was that I am familiar 8 with this document because it was presented in those 9 meetings, yes. It was part of the meeting material on 10 materials provided. 11 Q Was there discussion at those meetings on 12 what materials were provided? 13 A Yes. 14 Q When were these meetings and where were they 15 held? 16 A The steering committee meetings included 17 discussions of these types of issues. 18 Q Any other departments or committees which 19 would be likely to consider these types of issues? 20 A I am not aware. I am only aware of the 21 discussion that was held in meetings that I attended. 22 Q Was it part of your duties to attend the SWIM 23 steering committee meetings? 24 A Yes. 25 Q And I believe your testimony was previously, 94 1 though, that you did not, it was not part of your 2 duties to provide a written summary of those meetings, 3 is that right? 4 A Correct. 5 Q When was this issue active, to the best of 6 your recollection? When do you think this document 7 would relate, to what date? 8 MS. WATERS: Read back the question. 9 (Whereupon, the pending question was read by 10 the Court Reporter.) 11 MS. WATERS: Objection to the compound 12 question, also objection to what issue are we 13 discussing? 14 MS. THRONE-CONTE: I will rephrase the 15 question. 16 BY THRONE-CONTE: 17 Q To the best of your knowledge, when do you 18 think this, when do you think this document was 19 written? 20 MS. WATERS: Objection, the witness has 21 testified she did not write it, she doesn't know 22 who wrote it, and it would call for speculation. 23 THE WITNESS: I would guess that -- 24 MS. WATERS: Objection, I am going to 25 instruct the witness not to speculate. 95 1 THE WITNESS: I can't really give a time. 2 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 3 Q When did the goals, objectives and strategies 4 of the Everglades SWIM Plan come up in the steering 5 committee meetings that you attended? 6 A It would have come up in the spring. I don't 7 have any particular dates. Drafting the goals and 8 objectives and strategies was part of the preliminary 9 SWIM planning process. 10 Q Would that be the spring of 1989? 11 A That is right. 12 Q I asked you to review paragraphs four and 13 five on page two under the heading "Strategies." 14 Paragraph four states, "No new discharges will be 15 permitted into the Conservation Areas unless consistent 16 with the goals and objectives of the plan." 17 Do you recall any specific conversations 18 concerning this issue? 19 A No, I don't. 20 Q Paragraph five states, "All water quality 21 problems will be dealt with outside the Water 22 Conservation Areas. Any treatment that occurs within 23 the Water Conservation Areas will serve as a margin of 24 safety." 25 Do you recall any are conversations 96 1 concerning this paragraph when you participated in the 2 steering committee meetings? 3 A Not about that particular item, no. 4 Q Reviewing this document as you did, are there 5 any paragraphs that you recall were discussed in 6 steering committee meetings? 7 A Not any particular paragraph. 8 Q Is there any series of paragraphs or heading 9 that you remember being discussed at the steering 10 committee meetings? 11 A I remember most clearly some discussion about 12 the language in the goals and objectives in particular. 13 Q Are you referring to, which paragraphs or 14 part of this document are you referring to? 15 A The first paragraph, goal number one, and the 16 second heading, the objectives coming after. 17 Q At the steering committee meetings, do you 18 remember any discussions concerning rainfall quality 19 water to the park versus current discharges to 20 Everglades National Park? 21 A I don't remember any discussion of that 22 issue. 23 Q Do you remember any discussion on your 24 participations during committee meetings concerning, I 25 am going to read now, it is on page one, "Goal One, 97 1 Water Quality, only water with nutrient levels lower 2 than or equal to nutrient levels of the better or 3 current discharge or good rainfall will be acceptable 4 for discharge into the park." 5 MS. WATERS: What is the question. 6 MR. HALL: I raise an objection at this point 7 in time. The documents speaks for itself. Just 8 so the record is clear, I believe your reading was 9 improper. You stated as a goal and only read the 10 first line. 11 I would outline, the first page of the 12 document outlines four objectives, four headings; 13 Water Quality, Water Quantity Distribution and 14 Timing, Flood Control, Water Supply, Recreation 15 and Public Information and Education, and should 16 not be taken out of context and stated as a goal 17 and clearly -- 18 MS. THRONE-CONTE: To the extent I listed it 19 was a goal, if there are other parts of this 20 document that you want to bring to the attention 21 of someone in this deposition, I am sure you will 22 have the opportunity to do that. 23 MS. WATERS: Would you read the question 24 back. 25 98 1 (Whereupon, the pending question was read by 2 the Court Reporter.) 3 THE WITNESS: Could you restate the question? 4 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 5 Q The time you spent on the Everglades steering 6 committee meetings, I would like to know if there was 7 any discussion concerning the paragraph that I read to 8 you, and if you like, I will read it again. 9 MS. WATERS: The paragraph specifically is 10 the first sentence of the paragraph under 11 "Objectives, Water Quality," or are you asking her 12 about the entire paragraph, one sentence which was 13 excluded from your reading? 14 MS. THRONE-CONTE: If she would like to 15 clarify it, I was going to ask her about the one 16 sentence. If she would like to make a comment as 17 to the whole paragraph, that is fine. 18 THE WITNESS: The discussion that I recall 19 had to do with, it was not a technical discussion 20 in particular but had to do with the overall 21 review of this as a draft document for Everglades 22 SWIM planning purposes. 23 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 24 Q Do you recall any specific conversations 25 concerning the substance of this paragraph? 99 1 A Not about that particular issue. 2 Q What about the broader issue of water quality 3 as it goes into the park? 4 A The discussion in the steering committee 5 meeting about this issue, as I recall, was focused on 6 whether or not that should be a SWIM planning 7 objective. 8 Q And what was the resolution of that issue? 9 A I don't recall that there was any 10 determination made at that time. These were draft 11 documents outlining the potential focus of the SWIM 12 Plan. They were used for discussion purposes. 13 Q I turn your attention to page two, at the 14 very bottom it says "Definitions: Phosphorus levels in 15 good rainfall equals 0.03 milligrams per liter." 16 To the best of your knowledge, where did this 17 number come from? 18 A I don't know where that came from. 19 Q I would like to hand you another exhibit. 20 Please take a moment to review it. This will be 21 labeled LS-6. 22 (Whereupon, Exhibit LS-6 was marked for 23 identification.) 24 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 25 Q Having reviewed this document, can you 100 1 identify it for the record? 2 A It is a memorandum to Tony Federico and Paul 3 Whalen from Joycelyn Branscome dated September 6, 1989 4 and the subject is Everglades SWIM Plan wrap up. 5 Q Were you copied on this document? 6 A Yes. 7 Q So you have some familiarity with it? 8 A Yes. 9 Q I would like to call your attention to the 10 third paragraph on page one, it is entitled "Advisory 11 Committee Meetings" and I would like to read one 12 sentence from that paragraph. It states, "Lisa Smith 13 is responsible for preparing a summary of those 14 comments for presentation at the September Governing 15 Board meeting." 16 Did you, in fact, prepare a summary of 17 comments? 18 A Yes. 19 Q And those were presented to the September 20 Governing Board meeting? 21 A They were provided to the Governing Board in 22 their backup material for the SWIM Plan item on that 23 agenda. 24 Q And what was the substance of those comments? 25 A The comments were a list of issues that were 101 1 raised by the advisory group as a result of their 2 review of Volumes I and II of the draft plan. 3 Q And that is for comments on Volumes I and II 4 of the draft plan, correct? 5 A Right. 6 Q Turn your attention to the next page, the 7 first full paragraph entitled "LOTAC meetings." It 8 states, "Frank Lund is staff contact for LOTAC. They 9 have asked for a technical review role in the 10 Everglades SWIM Plan. The Everglades SWIM project 11 manager is responsible for coordinating with Frank and 12 District staff to respond to LOTAC's questions on the 13 plan." 14 Who is the Everglades SWIM Project manager? 15 A Who is -- I am sorry, in the context when 16 this memo was written? 17 Q Yes. 18 A At that time Joycelyn Branscome was the 19 project manager. 20 Q And now it is Paul Whalen, correct? 21 A It is Paul Whalen, yes. 22 Q Do you know if a technical review role was 23 ever assigned to LOTAC? 24 A I am not sure I understand the question. 25 Q The paragraph that I quoted appears to say 102 1 that LOTAC is asking for a role in the Everglades SWIM 2 Plan, and my question is, to the best of your 3 knowledge, do you know if they were given a role? 4 A They were given an opportunity to review 5 drafts of the plan as they were prepared and after 6 those drafts were presented to the Governing Board. 7 Q So they were allowed to review the plan, but 8 only after it had been presented to the Governing 9 Board, but not before? 10 A That is correct. 11 Q Did their comments go to any specific person? 12 A Their comments on the SWIM Plan? 13 Q Correct. 14 A They were summarized and provided to the 15 Governing Board in their backup material as part of the 16 public review of the draft SWIM Plan. 17 Q Did you summarize their comments? 18 A Yes. 19 Q And approximately when did you do that? 20 A It would have been following the LOTAC 21 meeting held on September 7th and prior to the time 22 that the Board met on the 15th. 23 Q Previously you stated you had brought with 24 you today the Everglades SWIM summary review files from 25 your office and one of those files is from 103 1 September 7th, 1989, a LOTAC meeting? 2 A That is incorrect. 3 Q Please correct me? 4 A What I brought today were the meeting 5 summaries for the LOTAC Committee Council, 6 Lake Okeechobee Technical Council. 7 Q I am sorry, I stand corrected. What is the 8 September 7, 1989 LOTAC meeting summary; would that be 9 the summary that you are talking about here where LOTAC 10 reviewed and commented on the Everglades SWIM Plan? 11 A That is right. 12 Q So I should find a copy of your summary then 13 in the files that you brought today? 14 A There are two separate summaries that I was 15 asked to prepare here. There will be a meeting summary 16 for the LOTAC meeting on September 7th. That will 17 summarize their discussion on all of their agenda 18 items. 19 One of these agenda items included their 20 discussion of Everglades SWIM Plan Volumes I and II 21 drafts. 22 What is being referred to here in this 23 exhibit is a separate summary of their discussion on 24 the Everglades SWIM Plan only from that meeting that 25 was provided to the Governing Board at their 104 1 September 15th meeting as backup for their discussion 2 on the Everglades SWIM Plan Volumes I and II. 3 Q Do you have a copy or can you identify a copy 4 in the box there have documents you brought today of 5 the summary that you did on LOTAC's comments on the 6 Everglades SWIM Plan? 7 A It would be a document, a meeting summary for 8 the LOTAC meeting on the 7th would include the council 9 meeting summary. 10 Q I would like to turn your attention to the 11 next page. What can you tell me about the Philosophy 12 Group? 13 MS. WATERS: Objection, asked and answered. 14 THE WITNESS: I have no knowledge of that 15 group. 16 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 17 Q The second full paragraph on the third page 18 of this document states, "The technical writing team 19 (John Mulliken, Joel VanArman, Dave Swift, Sarah 20 Bellmund and Louise Bos) have put in an enormous amount 21 of work in writing this plan." 22 Have you spoken with these people concerning 23 their writing of the Everglades SWIM Plan? 24 A At any time? Is there a time frame? 25 Q Any time working on the Everglades SWIM Plan. 105 1 A I have discussed some of that with them, yes. 2 Q Do you know whether Louise Bos was dropped 3 from the technical team, technical writing team at some 4 point? 5 MS. WATERS: Objection to the form of the 6 question, the use of the term "dropped." 7 MR. HALL: Join in the objection. 8 THE WITNESS: I don't know that she was 9 dropped, no. 10 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 11 Q Have you had conversations with Louise Bos 12 concerning the Everglades SWIM Plan? 13 A No. 14 Q Which of these other people on the technical 15 writing team have you had conversations with? 16 A I have had some discussions off and on with 17 John Mulliken, Joel Van Arman and with Dave Swift. 18 Q What was the substance of those 19 conversations, to the best of your recollection? 20 A Joel Van Armon's conversations regarding 21 Everglades SWIM were really very limited to that period 22 that I spoke about earlier when I compiled some 23 reviewer's comments on the SWIM Plan. 24 I have talked with John Mulliken and Dave 25 Swift about their SWIM planning activities since I 106 1 stopped working on Everglades SWIM, because my 2 assignment as of January of 1990 and currently was to 3 begin or to continue some preliminary SWIM planning 4 efforts in Lake Tohopekaliga and East Lake Tohopekaliga 5 in the Upper Kissimmee chain, and my conversations with 6 them had to do with how they went about organizing 7 their materials and their staffs and how they got 8 started in preparing the SWIM Plan. 9 Q What specific SWIM Plan, Everglades SWIM Plan 10 activities did you speak with Mr. Mulliken and 11 Mr. Swift about? 12 A Mostly how to coordinate work between the 13 technical staffs, the writing staff and some of the 14 public review that goes into preparing a SWIM Plan 15 external review. 16 Q Did you have a series of routine meetings or 17 were these just conversations that came up as needed? 18 A They were casual conversations at my request. 19 Q I would like to hand you another document and 20 we will mark this one LS-7. Please take a moment to 21 review that document. 22 A (Witness complies.) 23 (Whereupon, Exhibit LS-7 was marked for 24 identification.) 25 107 1 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 2 Q Could you please identify this document? 3 A It is a memorandum to Patricia Walker and 4 Irene Quincey and to Joycelyn Branscome from me and the 5 date is June 27, 1989. The subject is Everglades SWIM 6 advisory committee draft summary of the May 25, 1989 7 meeting. 8 Q Who is copied on this? 9 A Jim Harvey. 10 Q Who is he? 11 A At that time he was the director of the 12 Office of Resource Assistance. 13 Q He was your supervisor? 14 A My supervisor, immediate supervisor was 15 Patricia Walker. Jim Harvey was the office director. 16 Q I would like to turn your attention to the 17 document that is attached to this memorandum. It 18 states "draft" on the top. Was there ever a final 19 done? 20 A No. 21 Q This draft, Everglades SWIM Plan advisory 22 committee meeting of May 25th, 1989 is copied to the 23 general SWIM distribution. It is on the last page. 24 A Yes. 25 Q Would that encompass the persons we talked 108 1 about earlier today that are listed on Exhibit LS-3? 2 A That exhibit is titled "General SWIM 3 Distribution List," yes. 4 Q So to the best of your knowledge, this went 5 out to the people listed on Exhibit LS-3? 6 A It may have gone to another that was revised 7 since this one, which is dated March 1st, 1989. 8 Q I see. LS-3 is of a different date? 9 A Correct. I can't be certain that the 10 distribution list referred to in this agenda or this 11 memo dated June 27th is the same distribution list that 12 is dated March. 13 Q Would you have any reason to believe that it 14 wouldn't be? 15 A It could have changed, yes. As we got more 16 involved in preparing the SWIM Plan, the makeup of the 17 steering committee and the people copied on, as we got 18 more involved in Everglades SWIM planning, in 19 particular the makeup of the steering committee and 20 people who are copied on SWIM, general SWIM activities 21 shifted. 22 Q Exhibit LS-3, the general SWIM distribution 23 list, can that also be referred to as the steering 24 committee or are they two entire separate entities? 25 A There are overlaps. 109 1 Q Did you receive any feedback or comments on 2 the summary? 3 A I did receive comments from the individuals 4 to whom it was addressed. 5 Q And what was the substance of those comments? 6 A That the detail and the format was a good one 7 to use, but that it was not necessary to develop 8 something as detailed or as formal as this for each 9 advisory committee meeting. 10 Q So this was the only one, to the best of your 11 recollection, that was done in this detail? 12 A There was one other one that I was asked to 13 prepare that outlined the first advisory committee 14 meeting that was held in February. I don't remember 15 the exact date. That meeting occurred prior to my 16 arrival back in Community Relations, and I viewed that 17 meeting on videotape and summarized the presentations 18 that were made and the introduction of the advisory 19 group members. 20 Q In 1989, how many summaries did you do of 21 advisory committee meetings? 22 A Two draft summaries, this one and the one to 23 which I just referred. There were other more informal 24 notes or issue lists that are in my files that I took 25 into meetings when we were discussing Everglades SWIM 110 1 planning issues. 2 Q How many were there of these more informal 3 documents? 4 A I would have prepared one or they were notes 5 taken during the course of the meetings that I 6 attended. So there would have been one for each 7 meeting, one in February, one in May. 8 After this May meeting they did not meet 9 again until after the first draft of the SWIM Plan was 10 issued, and I am trying to remember whether their next 11 meeting was held in August or September. It was one of 12 a series of public meetings that were held to look at 13 the first draft of the plan. 14 Q Anything after September of 1989? 15 A I don't recall. 16 Q Did any of the people this was addressed to, 17 Patricia Walker, Irene Quincey or Joycelyn Branscome 18 have any comment on the substance and content of what 19 the Everglades SWIM Plan advisory committee had 20 recommended? 21 A No. 22 Q Did you ever hear of or have knowledge of any 23 comments on the substance of their recommendations? 24 A Repeat your question again. 25 Q Did you ever hear of or have knowledge of any 111 1 conversations concerning the substance of these 2 Everglades SWIM advisory committee recommendations? 3 A No. 4 Q Did you ever talk with Mr. Mulliken or 5 Mr. Swift concerning these recommendations? 6 A No. 7 Q To the best of your knowledge, though, these 8 Everglades SWIM advisory committee summary notes are an 9 accurate representation of what went on at that 10 meeting? 11 A Yes, they are. 12 Q I would like to turn your attention now to 13 page five of the meeting summary. The very last 14 paragraph states, "Staff was asked whether additional 15 information could be provided concerning the volume and 16 quality of water flowing into and out of Water 17 Conservation Areas. Pete Rhoads indicated that the 18 most current data that is readily available has been 19 provided to the committee in the form of the March 1989 20 LOTAC II report. Water budget data is being updated by 21 staff as part of the Everglades SWIM Plan development 22 and will be provided to the advisory committee as part 23 of the draft plan." 24 Do you know if this update was ever done? 25 A It was provided to them in the form of the 112 1 draft Everglades SWIM Plan. 2 Q Do you know in what section of the plan it 3 was contained? 4 A I don't recollect what section responded to 5 this in particular. 6 Q Is there any document that would help you 7 remember that? 8 A I can't speak to that issue. I did not 9 review the whole Everglades SWIM Plan. 10 Q If you needed to find this information out, 11 who would you contact at the District? 12 A I am not sure, you know. I would go back to 13 Pete Rhoads. 14 Q I would like to hand you another document, 15 which we will label LS-8. Please take a moment to 16 review it. 17 A (Witness complies.) 18 (Whereupon, Exhibit LS-8 was marked for 19 identification.) 20 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 21 Q Can you please identify Exhibit LS-8? 22 A The top page is the cover of the memorandum 23 to Patricia Walker and to Joycelyn Branscome from 24 myself, dated May the 26th, regarding Everglades SWIM 25 Plan development advisory committee issues, meeting of 113 1 May 25th, 1989. 2 Q And you are the author of this document, 3 right? 4 A Yes. 5 Q This document LS-8 covers this same meeting 6 the previous document LS-7 does, doesn't it? 7 A Just the portion of this exhibit that deals 8 with the memorandum. There is also an agenda attached 9 that deals with the agenda for that meeting, and there 10 are, the first couple of pages I recognize having to do 11 with that meeting. 12 Q Is the meeting summary the same for document 13 LS-7 as it is for LS-8? 14 A The meeting summary -- there are some 15 differences. 16 Q Could you point those out for me, please? 17 A The meeting summary provided was prepared the 18 day after the Everglades Advisory Committee met and was 19 my report to my supervisor and to Joycelyn Branscome, 20 the project manager, for the activities that transpired 21 during that meeting. It was an internal memo, just as 22 an outline of meeting activities. 23 The previous exhibit included essentially the 24 same content and the same format, but is prefaced with 25 an introductory discussion and a heading because it was 114 1 being proposed that this be distributed as a meeting 2 summary. 3 The previous exhibit is also covered by a 4 memorandum dated a month later than the meeting was 5 held, suggesting that this could be a way to transmit 6 information about the advisory group meeting 7 discussions to others within the District and outside 8 the Water Management District that might have an 9 interest in the discussions that were had by the 10 advisory committee. 11 Q From the date of the document LS-8, it was 12 evidently done before document LS-7, is that correct? 13 A Correct. 14 MS. WATERS: For the record, when you are 15 speaking of document LS-7, are you referring 16 to the first page and the letter dated June 27th, 17 1989 and not the attachment draft minutes from 18 May 25, 1989? 19 MS. THRONE-CONTE: That is a good point, 20 Counselor. 21 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 22 Q Ms. Smith, Exhibit LS-7, was the attachment 23 also done on June 27, 1989, revised on June 27, 1989? 24 A The attachment? 25 Q The document that said "draft"? 115 1 A Well, as I just explained, there were 2 revisions that essentially include two introductory 3 paragraphs and a different heading. It was being 4 presented as a suggestion from me to others that this 5 could be used for external distribution and not just 6 use within the Community Relations Division. 7 Q You stated before that there was an advisory 8 committee meeting in February of 1989 that you 9 summarized, is that correct? 10 A Yes. 11 Q Was that done more in the format of document 12 LS-8, where it was just directed to Patricia Walker and 13 Joycelyn Branscome? 14 A No, it wasn't done in that format. 15 Q In what format was that meeting summarized? 16 A It was a meeting summary similar to what I 17 have prepared for the Lake Okeechobee Technical 18 Advisory Committee that lists the meeting date, the 19 people that were in attendance, both committee members 20 and others making presentations, and the format was in 21 sentence form and in more detail than this outline is. 22 Q Is it accurate to say that the LOTAC 23 summaries presented individual opinions that were 24 raised during the meeting? 25 A Points of view were attributed in those 116 1 summaries to the speakers. 2 Q Were other points attributed to the group as 3 a whole? 4 A Only when they took a vote or made a motion 5 or otherwise developed a group recommendation or 6 decision. 7 Q Is it accurate to say that the summaries you 8 have prepared for the Everglades Advisory Committee 9 represented more of a group consensus? 10 A No, that would be inaccurate. 11 Q How would you make that statement accurate? 12 A The summaries here represented issues, 13 questions, concerns that were brought up during the 14 meeting without attributing them to a particular 15 speaker or group. 16 Q I would like to turn your attention to one of 17 the attachments. I am sorry, these are not numbered by 18 page. It states, "Phosphorus Budget for the EAA" and 19 it has got a diagram on it. 20 (Whereupon, there was a brief recess.) 21 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 22 Q Ms. Smith, were you able to locate the page I 23 was talking to you about? 24 A I see several. I have several pages with 25 that title. 117 1 Q The first one in the series should be a copy 2 of one with those yellow stickies on it, and the second 3 one in the series would have where that sticky was 4 removed. 5 My question to you, on these two pages there 6 seems to be either one or two different handwriting on 7 this document. Can you identify whose handwriting that 8 may be? 9 A The handwriting on the upper righthand 10 corner, I recognize Pete Rhoads initials. 11 Q That is the one which has three initials and 12 followed by the date, 5/11/89? 13 A Yes. I don't recognize the other. 14 Q I am going to give you another document and 15 we will mark this as LS-9. Please take a moment to 16 read it. 17 A (Witness complies.) 18 (Whereupon, Exhibit LS-9 was marked for 19 identification.) 20 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 21 Q Can you please identify the Exhibit LS-9, the 22 first page of it? 23 A It is a memorandum to distribution list from 24 Paul Whalen dated September 7, 1989 and the subject is 25 Secretary Twachtmann's response on Everglades SWIM 118 1 issues. 2 Q Have you ever seen this letter and the 3 attachment before? 4 A Yes. 5 Q How do you know that? 6 A I am on the distribution list and I have read 7 the letter before. 8 Q Are you aware of any changes in the 9 Everglades SWIM Plan because of this letter and its 10 attachment? 11 MS. WATERS: Object to the form of the 12 question. 13 THE WITNESS: I am not aware of any changes 14 attributed to this letter. 15 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 16 Q Would you be in a position, as part of your 17 duties, to become aware or have familiarity with 18 changes that are made in the Everglades SWIM Plan? 19 A This letter is dated December 7, 1989. That 20 was around the time where my work on the Everglades 21 SWIM Plan was concluding. I was taking on different 22 responsibilities. 23 Q During the time that you did work on the 24 Everglades SWIM Plan during 1989, were you in a 25 position to review changes in the Everglades SWIM Plan? 119 1 A No. My involvement with the Everglades SWIM 2 Plan really coincided with the issuance of the first 3 draft, that is all drafts, Volumes I through IV of the 4 first draft. So revisions to that draft were not yet 5 beginning in December, and that was the time where my 6 involvement with Everglades SWIM are was ending. 7 Q Were there instances of documents that were 8 distributed to the Everglades distribution list that 9 caused a change in the draft, the Everglades SWIM Plan 10 that you were involved with? 11 MS. WATERS: Repeat that question, please. 12 (Whereupon, the question was read by the 13 Court Reporter.) 14 THE WITNESS: I don't have any knowledge of 15 any documents that specifically provoked a change. 16 My role in Everglades SWIM planning was primarily 17 to distribute draft planning materials and elicit 18 whatever public comment was provided and bring 19 that back into the District. 20 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 21 Q And were, to the best of your knowledge, any 22 changes made because of the information that you 23 brought back? 24 A I don't know. 25 Q Who would know that? 120 1 A Paul Whalen who is project manager and 2 supervised most of the plan revisions to the first 3 draft. 4 Q What about Joycelyn Branscome? 5 A I don't know. 6 Q I would like to turn your attention to the 7 letter that is attached with this memorandum, dated 8 November 9, 1989. There appears to be some kind of 9 stamp on top of this document. Can you identify if 10 that is from the District or not? 11 A I can't be certain. I can only read the 12 date. I can't read what is underneath the date. 13 District stamps include generally some reference to the 14 department that is receiving the information. 15 Q Would you have any knowledge in reconciling 16 the date this document was received, November 2nd, when 17 it supposedly wasn't sent out until November 9th? 18 A Again, I don't know whose stamp it is. 19 Q Are you aware if this letter was sent to 20 Jerry Jackson? 21 A I don't know. 22 Q Who would know? 23 A I don't know. 24 Q What was the purpose behind you being on a 25 distribution list that you could receive documents like 121 1 this? 2 A Up until the time that I accepted a 3 reassignment to work on SWIM planning in Upper 4 Kissimmee region, I was intending to be part of the 5 group that would prepare revisions to the draft plan 6 based on the public comments that had been received 7 during the review period. 8 Q I would like to ask you about two paragraphs 9 in this letter. The first paragraph is the second one 10 on page one. I would like to read a part of that 11 paragraph. 12 It states, "The Everglades Agricultural Area, 13 that includes the sugar industry, does contribute the 14 largest amount of phosphorus into the Water 15 Conservation Areas. We also agree that those in the 16 Everglades Agricultural Area should be responsible for 17 treatment of their own runoff before it is discharged 18 into State waters." 19 In your work in reviewing and revising the 20 first draft of the Everglades SWIM Plan, had you come 21 across this position from DER before. 22 MS. WATERS: Objection, there has been no 23 testimony that she has come across any position 24 stated by DER. She is not a DER employee, nor is 25 this a letter written by a District employee. 122 1 MR. HALL: Join the objection. 2 THE WITNESS: First of all, my review, I did 3 not review or advise the SWIM Plan. I 4 participated only in compiling comments from other 5 reviewers within the Water Management District. 6 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 7 Q Was DER a member of the Everglades Advisory 8 Committee? 9 A DER was represented on the advisory 10 committee, yes. 11 Q Can you recall whether this position that I 12 have read in this paragraph was ever announced or in 13 any other way came out during an Everglades Advisory 14 Committee meeting? 15 MS. WATERS: Object to the form of the 16 question. 17 THE WITNESS: I don't recall this particular 18 point being made by the DER representative at an 19 advisory committee meeting. 20 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 21 Q Was it made by any other representative at 22 that advisory committee meeting or any other agency? 23 A I don't recall. 24 Q Was this position known to you through your 25 summaries of LOTAC meetings? 123 1 MS. WATERS: Objection. The witness hasn't 2 testified that this position was known to her. 3 THE WITNESS: I don't recall this position 4 being represented at LOTAC meetings. 5 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 6 Q I would like to ask you about another 7 paragraph on this page, it is the fourth paragraph 8 down. It starts, "The Department's preliminary review 9 comments on Volumes I and II of the Everglades SWIM 10 Plan calls for the use of stronger language in the plan 11 to require," which is underlined, "the farms in the 12 Everglades Agricultural Area to develop a stormwater 13 management plan that address the treatment of 14 phosphorus in their runoff. In addition, the comments 15 suggested that the stormwater treatment facilities 16 should be on Everglades Agricultural Area land to the 17 greatest degree possible." 18 In your work with the Everglades Advisory 19 Committee, have you been exposed to or understand this 20 position to be raised before? 21 A I have heard that position taken. 22 Q By someone representing DER? 23 A I don't recall a particular -- at the 24 Everglades Advisory Committee, I don't recall a 25 particular speaker, though that issue was discussed and 124 1 there are those who do believe that that is how it 2 should be addressed. 3 Q Who are those people that you are speaking 4 of? 5 A I don't recall any particular names. 6 Q Are they District staff, outside agencies, 7 mixture of both? 8 MS. WATERS: Objection to the form of the 9 question. I think she has testified that she 10 doesn't recall. 11 THE WITNESS: I can not attribute it to an 12 individual or group. 13 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 14 Q Has this issue been raised in the SWIM 15 steering committee meetings? 16 A Not to my recollection, no. 17 Q Has this issue been raised in LOTAC meetings? 18 A Yes. 19 Q Do you recall a specific instance? 20 A That would have been raised in the context of 21 agenda items having to do with the Everglades SWIM 22 Plan, and I believe I did indicate which meetings that 23 was, the Everglades SWIM Plan was on the agenda. 24 Q I would like to hand you another document. 25 We will call this one LS-10. Please take a moment to 125 1 review it. 2 A (Witness complies.) 3 (Whereupon, Exhibit LS-10 was marked for 4 identification.) 5 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 6 Q Can you please identify this document? 7 A It is a memorandum to Pete Rhoads from me 8 dated October 4th, 1989 and the subject is LOTAC II 9 review of Everglades SWIM Plan technical issues. 10 Q Why did you write this document? 11 A I prepared it to assist with staff 12 presentations that were being planned for the October 13 Governing Board meeting. 14 Q Is this the type of document that would wind 15 up in a Governing Board backup material? 16 A It could. 17 Q Do you know if in fact this one did? 18 A I am not certain. Generally, they are 19 accompanied by a cover memo from the Executive Director 20 to the Governing Board. I can't recall whether or 21 not -- 22 Q Documents that are included in the Governing 23 Board backup materials, are they specifically reviewed 24 by any person before they go into that group of 25 documents? 126 1 A They are reviewed by department directors and 2 by the Executive Office. 3 Q What about the Office of Legal Counsel? 4 A Often they are, not necessarily always. 5 Q Was this document reviewed by anyone? 6 A It was reviewed by Frank Lund. 7 Q And what comments or revisions did he make, 8 if any? 9 A I don't recall him making any substantive 10 revisions. Some typos were noted, but I don't recall 11 any particular -- the language here that describes 12 council action was taken from language that council 13 used and that I wrote down as a result of viewing the 14 videotape of that discussion. 15 Q So this is an inaccurate representation of 16 positions that were taken in that particular meeting? 17 MS. WATERS: Objection to the form. 18 THE WITNESS: It recounts -- it is a synopsis 19 of council action taken at their September 28th, 20 29th meeting regarding their review of LOTAC I and 21 II -- I am sorry, Volumes I and II of the SWIM 22 Plan. 23 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 24 Q To the best of your knowledge, is this an 25 accurate statement of what happened? 127 1 A Synopsis. 2 Q I would like to draw your attention to 3 Paragraph C at the bottom of page one, which states, 4 "Meeting November 1 through 3 of a technical advisory 5 group convened by District staff to assess and refine 6 management options for the WMAs." 7 To the best of your knowledge, do you know if 8 there were any reports done or -- 9 A I don't know of any report. 10 Q Do you know what technical advisory group 11 they are talking about? 12 A Yes. 13 Q Which one is that? 14 A It was a group formed by Environmental 15 Sciences staff, working on the water management areas 16 concept, that is the strategy that has been developed 17 in the SWIM Plan. It was advisory to the Environmental 18 Sciences staff. 19 Q What was the name of this group? 20 A I don't recall their formal title. 21 Q Who was on it? 22 A I don't recall. 23 Q Is there anything that would help you 24 remember, any document? 25 A No documents that I have. Well, there was a 128 1 report made to a LOTAC meeting. LOTAC did have a 2 representative, I believe, at this meeting. 3 Q And what meeting would that be, what date? 4 A I am not sure which days that individual was 5 there. It was a three-day meeting held the first 6 through the third. 7 Q That is November, 1989? 8 A That is right. 9 Q What was the substance of their report to 10 LOTAC? 11 A I don't recall. That report was made by the 12 LOTAC member who was present at those meetings to his 13 fellow council members. 14 Q Was the report written by a group formed from 15 the District's Environmental Sciences staff or was it 16 written by someone from LOTAC with the help of the 17 Environmental Sciences staff? 18 A A report regarding? 19 Q This issue, the report that was made to the 20 LOTAC meeting November 1st through 3rd? 21 A It was an oral report made. 22 Q Was it made by someone in LOTAC to the rest 23 of the LOTAC members? 24 A It was a LOTAC representative who attended 25 the meeting and reported back to the council at its 129 1 next meeting about the discussion that was held during 2 the time that he was in attendance. 3 Q During the time he was in attendance -- 4 A At the November 1st through 3rd technical 5 advisory meeting. I was not there. 6 Q To the best of your knowledge, do you know 7 how this member of LOTAC came to make this report? Was 8 it based on the District's staff's help? 9 A The LOTAC had been advised at its previous 10 meeting, I believe at the September 28th and 29th 11 meeting, that the District was organizing this 12 technical advisory group and the LOTAC council members 13 were invited to attend the technical advisory group 14 meeting, and subsequently space at the meeting become 15 limited. There were other technical council members 16 who had initially expressed an ability to attend, and 17 as a result of scheduling conflicts were not permitted 18 to attend so, LOTAC did designate one of their council 19 members to attend the meeting and report back to them 20 if they were able in fact to attend. 21 Q And that is the report that was made to LOTAC 22 in November of 1989? 23 A Yes. 24 Q Next page, Paragraph D states, "Reasons for 25 cattails, council considered factors, (hydroperiod, 130 1 nutrients, et cetera) that contribute to the presence 2 of cattails in the Water Conservation Areas and 3 reiterated its position attributing to cattail 4 infestation to nutrient enrichment. Council also 5 acknowledged that reduction of phosphorus in particular 6 is the key to managing cattail growth." 7 Are you aware of any revisions in the draft 8 of the Everglades SWIM Plan that you reviewed that were 9 changed because of this paragraph? 10 A I did not review -- 11 MS. WATERS: Object to the form of the 12 question and I would remind Counsel that this 13 witness testified that she didn't review the SWIM 14 Plan. 15 THE WITNESS: I did not review the SWIM Plan 16 subsequent to this information or this position 17 being developed or taken by LOTAC. 18 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 19 Q The part of the SWIM Plan that you did 20 review, I think your words were that you saw, would 21 that have included the subject matter of nutrient 22 enrichment or cattail growth? 23 A It could have. 24 Q Do you remember if it did? 25 A I don't remember specifically. 131 1 Q I would like to hand you another document. 2 This will be LS-11. Please take a moment to review it. 3 A (Witness complies.) 4 (Whereupon, Exhibit LS-11 was marked for 5 identification.) 6 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 7 Q Would you please identify this? 8 A It begins with: To SWIM Plan Reviewers, 9 From Paul Whalen, John Mulliken and Joel Van Arman. It 10 is dated October 24th, 1989 and the subject is 11 Everglades SWIM Plan Volume III, Part A. 12 Q Paul Whalen is referred to as an Everglades 13 assignment leader in the title, is that correct? 14 A Yes. 15 Q How is that different from a project manager? 16 A It is not really. That is to be consistent 17 with other assignments that were being made as part of 18 the new Planning Department's organization. At that 19 time, in order to differentiate between programs and 20 projects as they previously existed and how they would 21 be handled subsequent to the planning departments 22 formation, the term assignment leader was used in lieu 23 of the term project manager until all of the 24 departments' projects and assignments could be defined 25 within the context of the new Planning Department's 132 1 organization. 2 Q John Mulliken is described as a technical 3 editor. What is your understanding of that position? 4 A My understanding is that that position 5 provides support to prepare and edit and publish 6 documents that the District produces that are technical 7 in nature. 8 Q Did you ever do any editing for any of the 9 drafts of the SWIM Plan? 10 A I did not do editing in the sense that I 11 determined deletions, additions, corrections. I 12 compiled comments that contributed to others who made 13 those decisions. 14 Q You are listed as a party who is copied on 15 this document, is that correct? 16 A Say that again, I didn't hear the question. 17 Q You were copied, you were listed as a party 18 who was copied on this document, is that correct? 19 A Yes. 20 Q Do you have any idea why there was a dot 21 placed next to your name? 22 A I don't know. Did you compile any comments 23 on Volume III-B of the SWIM Plan? 24 A No. 25 Q Why was that? 133 1 A I was not able to get to that assignment. I 2 did notify Paul Whalen that I would not be able to 3 review the draft. 4 Q So the only part that you did see of the 5 Everglades SWIM Plan was what we talked about 6 previously then, that would be what ended up being 7 Volume II? 8 A A portion of the Volume II. 9 Q As it dealt with water quality issues? 10 A Right. 11 MR. HALL: Just for the record, I would note 12 the document speaks for itself. The single page 13 and the text appears to indicate an attached 14 draft, which is not present, for whatever reason. 15 MS. THRONE-CONTE: I am sorry, Counsel, you 16 said an attached what? 17 MR. HALL: The first paragraph states, 18 "Please review the attached draft of Volume III, 19 Part A. Volume III, Part A is relatively 20 short, thirty-seven pages," et cetera and that is 21 not attached to this document. 22 (Whereupon, there was a discussion off the 23 record.) 24 MS. THRONE-CONTE: Counsel have been 25 discussing the procedure for copying the documents 134 1 that were provided today. We have reached an 2 agreement. We will be adjourning now. It is 3 approximately ten minutes after 4:00 and Counsel 4 for the District will attempt to arrange for 5 copying of documents that the United States and 6 the cities of Belle Glade and Clewiston will be 7 reviewing tonight, and then we will continue 8 this deposition at 10:00 a.m. tomorrow, and 9 we will have the documents that we can question 10 Ms. Smith on. Is that agreed? 11 MS. WATERS: Yes. 12 (Whereupon, the deposition was recessed 13 at 4:10 o'clock p.m.) 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 135 1 (Whereupon, at 10:05 a.m. the following day 2 the testimony continued as follows:) 3 MS. THRONE-CONTE: Ms. Smith, we are going to 4 be continuing with your deposition this morning. 5 I will remind you that you are still under oath. 6 I would like to first put on the record that 7 that Counsel for the District has provided us with 8 copies of documents, which we tagged last night at 9 the recess of the deposition last night. 10 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 11 Q Ms. Smith, I am going to be talking to you a 12 little bit more this morning about your involvement 13 with the Everglades SWIM Plan, some broad overview 14 questions first. 15 What departments or divisions were involved 16 with the drafting of the Everglades SWIM Plan, to the 17 best of your knowledge? 18 A The Regulation Department, the Planning 19 Department, the Office of Resource Assistance, Office 20 of Counsel, Operations and Maintenance was involved, 21 Construction Management Department was involved at 22 various points in preparing the first draft. 23 Q What about subsequent drafts? 24 A I am not familiar with that. I was not 25 involved in preparing subsequent drafts. 136 1 Q Which divisions in each of the different 2 departments was involved in the preparation of the SWIM 3 Plan? 4 A In the Planning Department, the old Planning 5 Department, which is now known as Department of 6 Research and Evaluation, the divisions were 7 Environmental Sciences and Water Quality Division, that 8 I am aware of. 9 In Resource Assistance, individuals involved 10 were Joycelyn Branscome, as project manager, and myself 11 in the Community Relations Division. 12 Local government representatives in the 13 Office of Resource Assistance participated in the 14 public meetings that were held to review the plan and 15 bringing those public comments back to the agency. 16 Regulation personnel were involved to represent the 17 District's regulatory point of view. 18 Q Was there any specific division within the 19 Regulatory Department? 20 A The department staff sent representatives, 21 staff that reported directly to the department 22 director. 23 Q Do you know who those people are? 24 A The only one I recall right now is Susan 25 Coughanour. 137 1 Q Spell her last name? 2 A C-o-u-g-h-a-n-o-u-r. 3 Q Are there different divisions within the 4 Office of Counsel who participated within the 5 Everglades SWIM Plan? 6 A There are no further separations that I am 7 aware of. 8 Q Were there specific people who were assigned 9 to work on the Everglades SWIM Plan from the Office of 10 Counsel? 11 MS. WATERS: Object to the form of the 12 question. 13 THE WITNESS: I am not aware of specific 14 assignments. I saw representatives at various 15 meetings, but I don't know the nature of their 16 instructions from their supervisors. 17 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 18 Q Who did you see at the various meetings? 19 A Irene Quincey, Steve Walker, Fran Jauquet, 20 that is all. 21 Q What specific divisions within the Department 22 of Operation and Maintenance were involved with the 23 SWIM Plan, to the best of your knowledge? 24 A I am not aware of the division titles, per 25 se. Alan Hall, deputy director of the department, has 138 1 participated in SWIM Plan activities. Dick Slyfield 2 has participated. I don't know the name of the, I 3 don't know the formal name of the division that he 4 headed at the time. 5 Q Anyone else? 6 A That is all I can remember. 7 Q What about any divisions or personnel within 8 the Department of Construction Management? 9 A Project management division staff were 10 involved in at various times. 11 Q Can you name any names? 12 A Gary Goforth and J.B. Jackson. I believe he 13 is in that division, although I can't be certain. I 14 know he is in that department. 15 Q Can you identify any specific people in the 16 Division of Environmental Sciences? 17 A Steve Davis, Marguerite Cook, I can't think 18 of any others. 19 Q Can you identify personnel from the Division 20 of Water Quality? 21 A Tony Federico, Paul Whalen, Joel Van Arman, 22 Dave Swift, Sarah Bellmund. That is all that I can 23 recall. 24 Q What about Mike Slayton? 25 A Mike Slayton did have some participation. He 139 1 was in the Executive Office at that time. 2 Q Who else in the Executive Office participated 3 in the SWIM Plan, to the best of your knowledge? 4 A I don't know of any others. 5 Q What about Tom MacVicar? 6 A I am not aware of Tom's involvement in the 7 Everglades SWIM, outside of the single meeting that I 8 attended along with Paul Whalen to brief him about 9 advisory council activities. 10 Q What about Jim Harvey? 11 A Jim Harvey participated in steering committee 12 meetings. 13 Q Which division is he with? 14 A At that time he was the director of the 15 Office of Resource Assistance. 16 Q What about Pete Rhoads? 17 A Pete Rhoads participated, yes. 18 Q Which division is he with? 19 A He currently is the director of the 20 Department of Research and Evaluation. 21 Q During your participation in the Everglades 22 SWIM Plan, which department or division was he with? 23 A He was the director of the Planning 24 Department. 25 Q Which is now known as the -- 140 1 A Department of Research and Evaluation. 2 Q What about Walt Dineen? 3 A Walt Dineen did participate. 4 Q Was he with the Division of Environmental 5 Sciences? 6 A He was the director. 7 Q What about Bill Malone? 8 A Yes, he did participate. 9 Q Which division or department was he with? 10 A Land Management. 11 Q Is that a department? 12 A Department of Land Management, yes. 13 Q Does that department have different divisions 14 or is it not broken down? 15 A Which department? 16 Q Department of Land Management. 17 A There are difficult divisions. 18 Q Do you know which division he is in? 19 A He is the department director. 20 Q What about Dick Rogers? 21 A Dick did participate. 22 Q Which department or division was he with at 23 that time that you participated in the Everglades SWIM 24 Plan? 25 A Primarily, well he was forming the Planning 141 1 Department, the new Planning Department as part of the 2 reorganization effort. He had left the Department of 3 Resource Control, where he was department director, and 4 his principal work while I was involved with the SWIM 5 Plan was forming the new Planning Department. 6 Q What about Rick Cooper? 7 A I don't have any knowledge of his 8 involvement. 9 Q What about Cal Neidrauer? 10 A I don't have any knowledge of his 11 involvement. 12 Q Do you know who those two people are? 13 A I have met them. 14 Q How many other people have you met that you 15 have just named as participating in the Everglades SWIM 16 Plan? 17 A Say that again. 18 Q How many other people have you met who you 19 just named as participating in the Everglades SWIM 20 Plan? 21 A I have met them all. 22 Q How did you come to meet them? Were there 23 meetings where you all got together? 24 A I know them other than my involvement with 25 Everglades SWIM. 142 1 Q Was there ever a meeting with all of these 2 people to discuss any aspect of the Everglades SWIM 3 Plan? 4 A Some of the people participated off and on in 5 steering committee meetings. The only single meeting 6 that I can recall where most of the people were present 7 was when the first draft of the Everglades SWIM Plan 8 was distributed for internal review, and it was simply 9 a matter of meeting in the auditorium and receiving the 10 copies of the plan and instructions about how to 11 provide comments and the date. 12 Q Who was it that instructed the group on how 13 to provide comments? 14 A Joycelyn Branscome. 15 Q Were you responsible for receiving these 16 comments? 17 A I did receive some of the documents. 18 Q Is that the compiling of the comments that 19 you spoke of yesterday when you saw portions of the 20 draft? 21 A No. Those were separate. I held some of the 22 documents until the review period ended, and they were 23 all provided then to Joycelyn at that time. 24 Q When did you meet in the auditorium for this 25 gigantic meeting? 143 1 A I don't recall the date. It was in July, 2 early in July, I believe. 3 Q Of 1989? 4 A Yes. 5 MS. WATERS: Object to the form of the 6 question, use of the term "gigantic meeting." 7 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 8 Q Do you have any copies of the staff comments 9 from this meeting? 10 A Copies, there were no staff comments provided 11 in this meeting. 12 Q Did you compile any comments from the staff 13 as a result of this meeting. 14 MS. WATERS: Objection, asked and answered. 15 THE WITNESS: Staff did not provide comments 16 at this meeting on the SWIM Plan. The document 17 was just being distributed. 18 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 19 Q Was there a subsequent deadline for receiving 20 comments from their drafts? 21 A Yes. 22 Q At that point did you receive comments from 23 the staff? 24 A I received written comments back from the 25 staff, copies that I held until the review date period 144 1 had ended, and I turned those documents over to 2 Joycelyn Branscome. 3 Q Do you have copies of the drafts that the 4 staff gave to you to hold? 5 A No. 6 Q Everything was turned over to Joycelyn? 7 A Yes. 8 MS. WATERS: Objection, asked and answered. 9 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 10 Q To the best of your recollection, what was 11 the substance of the staff comments? 12 A I did not review them. 13 MS. WATERS: Objection, the witness hasn't 14 testified that she had any knowledge of the 15 comments. 16 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 17 Q Did you look at the comments at all, review 18 them in any way? 19 A No. 20 Q To the best of your knowledge, do you know if 21 any of these comments were incorporated into a later 22 draft of the SWIM Plan? 23 A I don't know. 24 Q If I wanted to find this information out, who 25 would you suggest that I contact? 145 1 A Joycelyn Branscome. 2 Q The people who you have identified who 3 participated in the SWIM planning process, do you have 4 any knowledge as to how these people were selected or 5 encouraged to participate? 6 A I don't know. 7 Q Are you aware if there was a selection 8 committee or a meeting to identified persons to work on 9 the Everglades SWIM Plan. 10 MS. WATERS: Objection, asked and answered. 11 That material was covered yesterday. 12 THE WITNESS: I do not know how those 13 decisions were made. 14 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 15 Q If I wanted to find this information out, who 16 would you suggest that I talk to? 17 MS. WATERS: Objection, asked and answered. 18 THE WITNESS: Joycelyn Branscome. 19 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 20 Q In your opinion, the people that participated 21 on the SWIM Plan, would you consider them the most 22 qualified people to do that? 23 MS. WATERS: Objection, this is not an expert 24 witness and I object to the form of the question 25 and the use of the term "qualified." 146 1 MR. HALL: I join in that objection. 2 THE WITNESS: I have not formed a judgment 3 about their qualifications. 4 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 5 Q You stated yesterday that your involvement 6 with the Everglades SWIM Plan terminated at the writing 7 of the first draft; is that an accurate summation of 8 what you told me yesterday? 9 A No. 10 MS. WATERS: Objection to the form of the 11 question. The testimony will be reflected as it 12 was stated previously during the course of this 13 deposition. 14 THE WITNESS: I was also involved in 15 conducting and recording comments provided at 16 public meetings subsequent with the publication of 17 the first draft. 18 BY XX: 19 Q Besides the two instances you told me, one 20 apparently after this July 1989 meeting and then at 21 another point where you collected comments from the 22 staff, is there any other instance where you collected 23 comments from the staff that went into anything to do 24 with the Everglades SWIM Plan? 25 MS. WATERS: Object to the form of the 147 1 question. 2 MR. HALL: Objection, presumes facts not in 3 evidence. 4 MS. WATERS: Also the witness' testimony was 5 she didn't have any knowledge whether those 6 comments were used in conjuction with the SWIM 7 Plan. 8 THE WITNESS: I did not collect comments from 9 staff. 10 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 11 Q It is my understanding that you testified 12 yesterday that you compiled comments from several 13 people and turned those comments over to Joycelyn 14 Branscome, is that correct? 15 A No, that is not correct. 16 Q Why don't we go over that again then. 17 Q Is it accurate to state that your testimony 18 yesterday, you have only seen one portion of the first 19 draft of the plan? 20 MS. WATERS: Objection to the question. It 21 has been asked and answered, and object to the 22 form of the question. 23 THE WITNESS: I did testify yesterday that I 24 have seen one portion of the SWIM Plan. 25 148 1 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 2 Q And was it your testimony yesterday that you 3 compiled comments from several persons from staff and 4 turned those comments over to Joycelyn Branscome? 5 A I did not turn the comments over to Joycelyn 6 Branscome. 7 Q You turned those comments over to 8 Joel Van Arman? 9 A That was my testimony yesterday. 10 Q You would not characterize that as compiling 11 comments from staff? 12 MS. WATERS: Objection to the form of the 13 question. 14 THE WITNESS: I did compile the comments. I 15 did not collect those comments. The comments were 16 provided to me by Joel Van Arman, along with the 17 text. So I did not collect those particular 18 comments that I compiled. 19 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 20 Q I am sorry, could you explain your difference 21 in wording between compiling and collecting, as you 22 understand it? 23 MS. WATERS: Objection, there is no testimony 24 that Ms. Smith has ever made a distinction between 25 collecting and compiling. There is no previous 149 1 testimony as to that fact. 2 THE WITNESS: I did not solicit staff 3 comments. That is what I equate with the word 4 "collect." The comments that I compiled were 5 provided to me by another individual, and along 6 with the portions of the SWIM Plan to which those 7 review comments pertained. I was asked to take 8 those materials, the original text and the 9 comments that were provided, and asked to compile 10 those review comments. 11 In other words, I was asked to correlate the 12 comments that were made to the text of the SWIM 13 Plan, combine the comments of multiple reviewers 14 as they related to a single section of the test. 15 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 16 Q Those comments then you turned over to Joel 17 Van Arman? 18 A I returned to Joel Van Arman. 19 MS. WATERS: Objection, asked and answered. 20 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 21 Q When did you do that? 22 A It was in July, subsequent to the 23 distribution of the SWIM Plan and the return of the 24 comments, reviewers' comments. 25 Q The people that you have identified who 150 1 participated in the SWIM planning process, to the best 2 of your knowledge, are you aware of how they received 3 their assignments. 4 MS. WATERS: Objection, asked and answered. 5 THE WITNESS: No, I am not aware of how they 6 received their assignments. 7 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 8 Q Are you aware if there was a central office 9 or person who handed out assignments? 10 MS. WATERS: Objection, asked and answered 11 for the third time. 12 THE WITNESS: I do not know of any such 13 office. 14 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 15 Q To the best of your knowledge, are you aware 16 of a group of persons or a division or some 17 identifiable source within the District that reviewed 18 difficult parts of the SWIM Plan? 19 A I believe an effort was made to include 20 representatives from each department in the District in 21 review of the SWIM Plan draft. 22 Q To the best of your knowledge, are you aware 23 if there was a central committee or heads of department 24 or some identifiable group that routinely reviewed 25 parts of the SWIM Plan? 151 1 MS. WATERS: Objection, asked and answered. 2 THE WITNESS: I am not aware of that, such a 3 body functioning in that way. 4 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 5 Q Were you involved with or aware of any 6 technical research that you participated in for the 7 SWIM Plan? 8 A I did not participate in any technical 9 research. 10 Q Did you participate through any other type of 11 research? 12 A No. That is not my area of expertise. 13 Q Are you aware of who specifically in the 14 District was doing technical research for the SWIM 15 Plan? 16 MS. WATERS: Objection to the form of the 17 question. 18 MS. THRONE-CONTE: Basis, Counselor? 19 MS. WATERS: Technical research, how are you 20 defining that, Counselor? 21 MS. THRONE-CONTE: Ms. Smith, do you have an 22 understanding of technical research? 23 MS. WATERS: Ms. Smith's understanding may be 24 different than the term that you are discussing. 25 MS. THRONE-CONTE: I would like to find out 152 1 what her definition is. 2 MS. WATERS: If she has one. 3 THE WITNESS: I would equate that phrase with 4 scientific methods. 5 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 6 Q Are you aware of persons in the District who 7 are doing such research, technical research as you have 8 just defined? 9 MS. WATERS: Are you talking about when she 10 was working on the SWIM Plan? 11 MS. THRONE-CONTE: Yes, ma'am. 12 THE WITNESS: I was not aware of anyone who 13 was assigned specifically to do research for the 14 SWIM Plan. 15 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 16 Q Were you aware through other means besides 17 direct communication of certain persons who were doing 18 technical research? 19 A I don't understand that question. 20 Q Were you aware through conversations with 21 people, through common knowledge of what was going on 22 in the District that certain people were doing 23 research, technical research for the SWIM Plan? 24 A I am not aware of anyone who was doing 25 research specifically for the SWIM Plan. 153 1 Q Were you aware of anyone who was doing 2 research generally for the SWIM Plan? 3 A I don't understand what the difference 4 between that question and the last two that you have 5 just asked me. 6 Q Your answer back to me was that you didn't 7 know anyone who was doing specific research. You chose 8 the word specific research. 9 So I am asking you, in your mind was there 10 someone that you knew who was doing research in the 11 issues that were involved with the SWIM Plan? 12 MS. WATERS: I am going to object to the form 13 of the these questions, use of the word 14 "research." That could denote a number of 15 different terms, whether people were -- 16 THE WITNESS: I do not know of any research 17 efforts that were initiated specifically with 18 regard to the SWIM Plan. I am not aware of anyone 19 who received such an assignment. 20 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 21 Q Were you aware of anyone who was continuing 22 research that had been started before the SWIM planning 23 process began? 24 MS. WATERS: Objection to the question. 25 There is no testimony by Ms. Smith that she was 154 1 aware of anyone doing research for the SWIM Plan. 2 THE WITNESS: I don't know. 3 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 4 Q Were you aware of anyone at the District who 5 was working on research that may have been begun before 6 the SWIM planning process began, but that continued 7 through the time you were working on the Everglades 8 SWIM Plan? 9 A I don't have any specific knowledge of what 10 technical research could have been ongoing related 11 directly to the SWIM Plan. I was not involved in that 12 assessment or decision making. 13 Q You testified yesterday that you 14 participated, I guess you could term -- let me ask it 15 this way; how would you characterize your participation 16 in the advisory committee meetings and the LOTAC 17 meetings? 18 A I was there at each of those groups' meetings 19 as an observer and to assist in my preparation, in the 20 case of LOTAC of meeting summaries, of council 21 activities, and in the case of the advisory committee, 22 to identify those committeess concerns, issues, 23 questions, for use by District personnel in preparation 24 of the SWIM Plan. 25 Q As an observer and having the duties of 155 1 comparing these summaries, would you say it was 2 encumbent upon you to listen very carefully to what 3 went on at these meetings? 4 A Yes. 5 Q What is your understanding as an observer in 6 LOTAC and advisory committee meetings over what their 7 concerns were and their comments going into the SWIM 8 Plan? 9 MS. WATERS: Read the question back. 10 (Whereupon, the pending question was read by 11 the Court Reporter.) 12 THE WITNESS: My understanding is best 13 represented in the meeting summaries that I 14 prepared. I can't reconstruct or recollect those 15 things, those points at this time. 16 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 17 Q What was the substance of their concerns, 18 general themes? 19 MS. WATERS: Objection, the witness has just 20 testified that the summaries are the best 21 recollection of hers of what occurred at those 22 meetings approximately a year ago. 23 MR. HALL: Object as to form, use of "they." 24 Who are you referring to, whether it was LOTAC, 25 or advisory committee. 156 1 MS. THRONE-CONTE: Please read back my 2 question. 3 (Whereupon, the pending question was read by 4 the Court Reporter.) 5 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 6 Q I would like to rephrase that. What is your 7 understanding of the general themes of concerns as an 8 observer in the LOTAC and Everglades Advisory Committee 9 meeting? 10 MS. WATERS: Objection, also calls for 11 speculation and conjecture on the other parts of 12 what other people might have meant during the 13 course of those meetings. 14 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 15 Q I have asked as an observer, what do you 16 recollect? 17 A I recollect the range of issues that were 18 discussed in connection with LOTAC; there was 19 discussion concerning water quality issues, the 20 hydrology and the hydraulics of the system, of the 21 Water Conservation Areas and Everglades National Park. 22 Discussions about the use of Water Management Areas as 23 a potential strategy for addressing water quality 24 concerns. 25 Discussion about the existence and the source 157 1 of phosphorus and other nutrients in the waters of the 2 Water Conservation Area and Everglades National Park. 3 Discussions about the biological integrity of the 4 wildlife and the vegetation in the Water Conservation 5 Areas and Everglades National Park, the water supply 6 needs associated with the agricultural area, the water 7 supply needs of the Water Conservation Areas and 8 Everglades National Park, the water supply needs of the 9 Lower East Coast urban area. They were all issues that 10 were raised in LOTAC. 11 Q As part of your duties in summarizing the 12 meetings for LOTAC, did it require you to get a working 13 knowledge of technical terms and phrases? 14 MR. HALL: Objection, asked and answered. 15 MS. WATERS: Objection to the form of the 16 question, asked and answered yesterday. 17 THE WITNESS: I needed to understand the 18 technical phrases. I needed to know how to spell 19 them. I needed to have a basic understanding of 20 the physical working of the nature system and the 21 flood control project. 22 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 23 Q Where did you get your understanding from 24 concerning the basic understanding of the nature system 25 and the flood control project? 158 1 A Through my work with the Office of Public 2 Information, which required me to communicate to a 3 variety of general audiences, non-technical audiences 4 such as local governments and advisory groups, 5 politicians, elected officials, special interest groups 6 about the work of the Water Management District. 7 Q Would you say that you need a working 8 knowledge of technical terms as used in these various 9 issues and areas that you have identified for me in 10 order to do your job in the way that you think you 11 should? 12 MS. WATERS: Objection to the form of the 13 question, and asked and answered. 14 THE WITNESS: Could you repeat the question? 15 (Whereupon, the pending question was read by 16 the Court Reporter.) 17 THE WITNESS: Yes. 18 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 19 Q Are you familiar with the nutrient threshold 20 numbers of .03 milligrams per liter total phosphorus? 21 MS. WATERS: Objection, asked and answered. 22 The witness is not an expert and not a scientist. 23 MR. HALL: I join the objection. 24 MS. THRONE-CONTE: Could you read back the 25 question, please? 159 1 (Whereupon, the pending question was read by 2 the Court Reporter.) 3 THE WITNESS: I have heard that threshold 4 discussed. 5 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 6 Q Has it been discussed in LOTAC and/or 7 advisory committee meetings? 8 A In both groups. 9 Q To the best of your knowledge, are you aware 10 also that this threshhold number is addressed in any of 11 the drafts of the SWIM Plan? 12 A I did not review any portion of the SWIM Plan 13 that referred to that number. 14 Q Besides actually seeing it in writing, are 15 you generally aware that there is a nutrient threshold 16 number of .03 milligrams per liter of total phosphorus? 17 MS. WATERS: Objection to the form of the 18 question, "generally aware." 19 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 20 Q Through other means? 21 A Other means other than the discussion in 22 these group meetings? 23 Q Or something that you have read directly? 24 A No, I am not aware. 25 Q Are you aware that the first draft of 160 1 Volume III was published in November of 1989? 2 A I am aware that it was published. 3 Q But you are not clear on the date? 4 A I am not clear, no. 5 Q Would you say that you are aware that it was 6 published in late 1989? 7 MS. WATERS: Objection, asked and answered. 8 The witness testified that she was not aware of 9 when the draft was published. 10 MS. THRONE-CONTE: I believe her testimony 11 was she wasn't aware if it was published in 12 November or not? 13 THE WITNESS: It would have been after 14 October, I don't know exactly when. 15 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 16 Q Are you aware that the final draft of 17 Volume III was published in September of 1990? 18 A I have not been following the progress of the 19 SWIM Plan revisions. 20 Q So you are not aware then that it was 21 published at all or whether there was a final draft? 22 A I am not. I don't have any knowledge now of 23 the status of that volume. 24 Q So you are not even aware whether there was a 25 final draft published of Volume III? 161 1 MS. WATERS: Objection, asked and answered. 2 THE WITNESS: I have not been following the 3 status of the SWIM Plan revisions. 4 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 5 Q Are you aware that the nutrient threshold 6 number have .03 milligrams per liter of total 7 phosphorus was changed from the first draft of the SWIM 8 Plan to the final draft of the SWIM Plan? 9 MR. HALL: Objection, assumes facts not in 10 evidence. 11 MS. WATERS: I join the objection. The 12 witness has testified that she has not read the 13 last version of the SWIM Plan and is not familiar 14 with the latest version of the SWIM Plan. 15 THE WITNESS: I did explain earlier that I 16 have not read references in the first draft to 17 that number. 18 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 19 Q Are you aware of whether or not direct causal 20 evidence between nutrients and changes in periphyton 21 and native species were removed from the first draft of 22 the SWIM Plan and was in the final draft of the SWIM 23 Plan? 24 MS. WATERS: Objection to the form of the 25 question. The witness is not an expert, and 162 1 further, this question calls for a legal 2 conclusion. 3 MR. HALL: Join the objection on the same 4 grounds. 5 THE WITNESS: I have not read any references 6 to that issue in the first draft of the SWIM Plan. 7 I have not read the final draft of the SWIM Plan. 8 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 9 Q Are you aware through any other means, 10 conversations, general understanding speaking with 11 other staff on that issue? 12 MS. WATERS: Objection, same as noted a 13 before. 14 THE WITNESS: My awareness about that issue 15 is limited to the discussions of that issue in 16 advisory group meetings and in LOTAC meetings. 17 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 18 Q Then what I am going to ask you, are you 19 aware -- what I would like you to do then is consider 20 your awareness through those meetings that you have 21 attended and what you may have read, okay? 22 Are you aware of whether or not statements 23 concerning water quality changes in Water Conservation 24 Area One were removed from the first draft of the SWIM 25 Plan to the second draft, the final draft of the SWIM 163 1 Plan? 2 A I have not read any portions of the first 3 draft that refer to that issue. 4 Q Are you aware through any other means, any 5 conversations, anything you may have heard in either 6 the LOTAC or advisory committee meetings? 7 A As I said earlier, I am aware that that issue 8 was discussed in those meetings. 9 Q Can you recall the substance of those 10 discussions? 11 MS. WATERS: Objection, asked and answered. 12 It is an over broad question, Counselor. There 13 were no more meetings that occurred for both the 14 advisory counsel and LOTAC for the course of at 15 least a year, the witness has testified. 16 If perhaps you could narrow the question down 17 to a specific date or a time frame, that will 18 assist the witness in answering the questions. 19 MS. THRONE-CONTE: I believe I have asked 20 her if she is aware, of whether or not she knows 21 why references to impacts in Water Conservation 22 Area One were taken out, that were mentioned in 23 the first draft of the SWIM Plan, were taken out 24 in the final draft of the SWIM Plan. 25 MS. WATERS: She has responded she has not 164 1 read the first, second or third. She has not read 2 that. There were no facts that she has testified 3 to that would even assume that the questions that 4 you are asking, that she has any knowledge about 5 those. 6 MS. THRONE-CONTE: I asked her in her 7 participation as an observer in the advisory 8 committee meetings and in the LOTAC meetings, 9 whether she is aware of any information on that. 10 MS. WATERS: Objection, information as to 11 what? 12 MS. THRONE-CONTE: As to why references to 13 impacts in Water Conservation Area One that were 14 in the first draft of the SWIM Plan were taken out 15 of the final draft of the SWIM Plan. 16 MR. HALL: Objection, go ahead, Counsel. 17 MS. WATERS: Objection, calls for facts and 18 testimony not previously stated. 19 MR. HALL: Same grounds, grounds that the 20 objection assumes facts not in evidence, and at 21 this point I will ask that the question prior to 22 this statement on the record be re-read to the 23 witness to directly reflect what question is 24 currently pending. 25 165 1 (Whereupon, the above-referenced question was 2 read by the Court Reporter.) 3 THE WITNESS: My awareness on that issue 4 comes as a result of participation in advisory 5 group meetings and LOTAC meetings that preceded 6 the publication of the first draft of the SWIM 7 Plan. 8 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 9 Q So then it is your testimony that you have no 10 knowledge? 11 A Knowledge of what? 12 Q As to why references to impacts in Water 13 Conservation Area One, which appeared in the first 14 draft of the SWIM Plan, were then removed from the 15 final draft of the SWIM Plan. 16 MR. HALL: Objection, assumes facts not in 17 evidence. I believe that is a statement by 18 Counsel and not a question pending before the 19 witness. 20 MS. WATERS: And I would join that objection. 21 THE WITNESS: I have not read references to 22 that issue in the first draft of the SWIM Plan. 23 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 24 Q What do you mean by "references to that 25 issue"? 166 1 A I have not read the first draft of the SWIM 2 Plan in its entirety. 3 Q Are you aware of whether or not citations to 4 government documents were removed from the final 5 addition of the SWIM Plan? 6 MS. WATERS: Object to the form of the 7 question. What government documents are you 8 referring to? 9 MS. THRONE-CONTE: I am referring to -- let 10 me rephrase it and make it more pointed. 11 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 12 Q Are you aware of whether or not citations to 13 specific government studies which document the impact 14 of nutrients on the Water Conservation Area, which 15 appeared in the first draft of the SWIM Plan were 16 removed from the final draft of the SWIM Plan? 17 MR. HALL: Object at this point in time to 18 the form of the question, to the characterization 19 of undisclosed government publications. What 20 government publications? 21 Object to assuming facts not in evidence. 22 This witness has clearly testified her 23 participation in the meetings predated the 24 publication of the initial draft of the SWIM Plan. 25 Her testimony the last two days clearly shows 167 1 her participation after that fact was not of the 2 extent to be aware of any changes. There has been 3 no testimony in the last two days whether this 4 witness is even aware that the final draft has 5 been published. So you can not presume that 6 there, in fact, have been changes and I object to 7 the characterization of instructing this witness 8 on what answer Counsel would like regarding her 9 knowledge of any changes. She has clearly 10 testified her knowledge is limited to at least the 11 first draft. 12 MS. WATERS: I would join the objection and 13 further note that the witness has clearly 14 testified that she has not read the first draft 15 nor any subsequent draft of the SWIM Plan. 16 MS. THRONE-CONTE: I would put on the record 17 this deponent has also stated that she has 18 participated in advisory committee meetings. She 19 has also participated in LOTAC meetings, been on 20 the distribution list for the Everglades SWIM Plan 21 and that her knowledge may be broader than what 22 she has indicated now. 23 The form of this question is not 24 objectionable. I am asking her if she is aware. 25 It is irrelevant whether the facts are in evidence 168 1 and she can just tell me whether she is aware of 2 it or not. 3 MS. WATERS: For the record, I think the 4 witness has, over the course of two days in 5 questioning by Counsel as to what her 6 participation was, clearly testified what her 7 participation was and when asked factual questions 8 as to what her observations were, the witness has 9 testified what her observations were. This 10 The witness is not an expert, and just 11 because she was listed on the distribution list of 12 the Everglades SWIM Plan does not encompass an 13 acute, complete knowledge of all facts that were 14 stated in the Everglades SWIM Plan. 15 If the witness understands the question, I 16 would advise her to answer. 17 MS. THRONE-CONTE: I would point out on the 18 record that the Government has every right to 19 question the witness to figure out what she does 20 know and the limitations of her knowledge and what 21 does she does not know, and to secure that on the 22 record. 23 Would you like to answer the question, 24 please? 25 THE WITNESS: Would you restate the question? 169 1 (Whereupon, the pending question was read by 2 the Court Reporter.) 3 MS. WATERS: Just renew my objections as 4 previously stated, and also for the record I think 5 that the record will reflect that the District has 6 in no way hindered the United States in completing 7 their discovery of facts known by this witness 8 throughout the course of this deposition. 9 THE WITNESS: I have not read the first draft 10 of the SWIM Plan. I have no knowledge of whether 11 or not those citations were there or whether they 12 were subsequently removed. 13 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 14 Q Are you aware of whether or not several 15 scientists at the District met with District's 16 Washington counsel in March of 1990? 17 A I am not aware of that meeting. 18 Q Are you aware of whether or not Steve Davis 19 participated in that meeting? 20 A I know nothing of that meeting. 21 MS. WATERS: Object to the form of the 22 question. 23 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 24 Q Are you aware of whether or not copies of any 25 parts of any draft SWIM Plan were sent to District's 170 1 Washington counsel at any time. 2 MS. WATERS: Objection to the form of the 3 question. It assumes facts not in evidence. 4 MS. THRONE-CONTE: Please read the question 5 back. 6 (Whereupon, the pending question was read by 7 the Court Reporter.) 8 THE WITNESS: I have no knowledge of any 9 communication on the draft SWIM Plan from District 10 staff to the Washington office of District 11 counsel. 12 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 13 Q Are you aware of whether or not there were 14 any public meetings where the final draft of the SWIM 15 Plan, the addendum was discussed? 16 A I have not been involved in any public 17 meetings subsequent to those held in connection with 18 the issuance of the first draft of the SWIM Plan. 19 Q If I wanted to inquire as to the discussion 20 in public meetings, whom would you suggest I contact? 21 A Paul Whalen. 22 Q Are you aware of whether or not discussions 23 occurred at the SWIM Plan advisory meetings on whether 24 regulating the EAA for water quality was being 25 considered as a possible solution to resolving the 171 1 problem with nutrient impact in the Water Conservation 2 Area? 3 MR. HALL: Object to the form of the 4 question. I also object on the grounds that 5 question in similar vein was asked and answered 6 yesterday. 7 Secondly, it is presuming facts not in 8 evidence, also calling for an expert opinion by 9 this witness, who clearly is not qualified and has 10 testified she is not an expert. 11 MS. WATERS: I join the objection. 12 MS. THRONE-CONTE: Ms. Smith is certainly 13 qualified to give any lay opinions and you can 14 answer the question, please. 15 THE WITNESS: There was some discussion in 16 the advisory group meeting about the proposed use 17 of water management areas in the EAA to improve 18 water quality. 19 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 20 Q To the best of your recollection, do you 21 remember when these meetings occurred? 22 A The May meeting of 1989 and the advisory 23 group's meeting in August or September, I don't recall, 24 late August or early September, as part of the public 25 review of the first draft of the SWIM Plan. 172 1 Q Are you aware of whether or not there were 2 discussions in the advisory committee meetings 3 concerning specifically regulating the EAA for water 4 quality? 5 A In connection with the water management area 6 strategy, there was some discussion about whether or 7 not those same goals could not be accomplished by 8 regulating the agricultural community or some 9 combination thereof of the two strategies. 10 Q To the best of your recollection, what was 11 the substance of the comments? 12 A The substance of the discussions centered 13 around identifying management strategies that would 14 improve water quality, whether or not water management 15 areas alone would suffice, whether or not regulation of 16 the agricultural community would suffice and whether or 17 not there would be a combination of both of those 18 strategies. 19 The substance was more in the nature of 20 listing potential strategies and ascertaining the 21 relative effectiveness of each or that was the 22 substance of the discussion. 23 Q When you state "management strategies," could 24 you please elaborate on what those are? 25 A Management strategies, proposals in the SWIM 173 1 Plan to manage the water resources to protect or 2 improve water quality. 3 Q Would those include best management 4 practices, BMPs? 5 A BMPs could be included as management 6 strategies. 7 Q What would be some other management 8 strategies? 9 A In addition to the water management areas, 10 the regulatory approaches, the use of water management 11 or best management practices on the agricultural 12 community. There has been discussion about improving 13 the condition of the water conservation areas by 14 managing hydroperiod within the conservation areas, by 15 removing exotic vegetation from those areas, looking at 16 methods by which natural habitat could be protected 17 where it currently exists or perhaps restored and 18 protected to other areas where it used to exist, but 19 exists no longer. 20 Q By the term "regulatory approaches," what do 21 you mean? 22 A The regulation of groundwater withdrawals, 23 otherwise known as consumptive use permits and also 24 regulation of surface water management systems. 25 Q And that includes surface water permits? 174 1 A Yes. 2 Q What about storm water permits? 3 A That was also discussed as a potential 4 management strategy. 5 Q Was there any single management strategy or 6 combination that was favored or listed as a priority or 7 higher on the list? 8 MR. HALL: Objection, I believe it is an 9 ambiguous question. What list are you referring 10 to? 11 MS. THRONE-CONTE: I will rephrase it. 12 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 13 Q Was there any combination or single one of 14 these management strategies that was considered a 15 priority item? 16 A During the time that I was involved in 17 discussions of these issues with LOTAC and with the 18 advisory group, there was no ranking process. 19 Q Do you recall if there was any particular 20 agency or private individual or any one of the members 21 of the advisory committee who seemed to favor any one 22 of these management practices? 23 MS. WATERS: Repeat the question, please. 24 (Whereupon, the pending question was read by 25 the Court Reporter.) 175 1 MS. WATERS: That calls for speculation as to 2 what would seem to occur in the minds of other 3 people. 4 THE WITNESS: The discussion that I recall 5 centered around describing these options as 6 whether or not they were feasible or inquiring the 7 extent to which Water Management District staff 8 have considered or would consider application of 9 those strategies within the context of the SWIM 10 Plan that was being prepared at that time. 11 I don't recall anyone promoting a particular 12 strategy above others at that time. 13 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 14 Q Do you recall anyone in particular who 15 pressed against or voted against or voiced an opinion 16 against one of these management strategies? 17 MS. WATERS: Objection to the form of the 18 question, "pressed against." 19 MS. THRONE-CONTE: Do you understand what I 20 mean? 21 THE WITNESS: I don't understand that phrase. 22 I understand voted against. 23 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 24 Q Is there any one group or individual in the 25 advisory committee meetings that voiced an opinion 176 1 against or voted against one of these management 2 strategies? 3 A I don't recall any rejection of those 4 strategies in concept. There were -- I do recall 5 objections or a suggestion by the Game and Fish 6 Commission that Holey land and Rotenberger land not be 7 used as water management area when that option was 8 discussed as a potential strategy, but there was not an 9 objection to the concept of the water management area, 10 per se. 11 Q Was there any individual or group that took a 12 position in opposition to specifically any one of these 13 management strategies? 14 A I don't recall anyone opposing them. 15 Q Do you recall any discussions in these 16 advisory committee meetings about whether or not the 17 EAA farmers could be regulated by use of Water 18 Management District permitting regulations? 19 A Could you repeat the question? 20 (Whereupon, the question was read by the 21 Court Reporter.) 22 THE WITNESS: The discussion that I recall in 23 the advisory committee was really limited to 24 inquiries from some members of the committee about 25 whether or not the Water Management District would 177 1 be considering that option in the SWIM Plan. 2 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 3 Q Do you recall which parties this was that 4 raised the concern? 5 A I don't recall. 6 Q Do you remember in what particular meeting 7 this topic came up? 8 A The May meeting that preceded the publication 9 of the draft, the first draft. 10 Q Are you aware of whether anyone on District 11 staff ever responded to this concern in one of the 12 advisory committee meetings? 13 A I don't remember the specific response. 14 Q Do you remember or recall any specific 15 individual or group that took a position favoring 16 regulation of the EAA and the use of the advisory 17 committee meetings? 18 A As I stated earlier, my clearest recollection 19 of these meetings pre-dated preparation of the SWIM 20 Plan. The discussion at that point was focused on 21 identifying potential strategies. 22 I don't recall anyone that early in the plan 23 development process pushing for any one management 24 alternative over others that were being discussed as 25 possibilities at that time. 178 1 Q Was there such a discussion in the advisory 2 committee meetings later on in the process, SWIM 3 planning process? 4 A I don't recall specifically. The advisory 5 committee met after the first draft of the SWIM Plan to 6 provide District staff with their reactions to the 7 plan. I don't recollect any particular recommendations 8 about regulating the EAA. 9 (Whereupon, there was a brief recess.) 10 MS. THRONE-CONTE: For the record, we have 11 received copies of the documents which we 12 requested earlier this morning. I would like to 13 propose that we go until approximately 12:30 and 14 take a late break for lunch so that Counsel for 15 the United States may review the documents. 16 MS. WATERS: What time do you want to 17 reconvene? 18 MS. THRONE-CONTE: At 1:30 or quarter to two. 19 MS. WATERS: That is fine. 20 MS. THRONE-CONTE: I can go until 12:30 and 21 finish the other documents that I have to do. 22 MS. WATERS: It is up to you. If it is 23 easier for you to go back and finish, or we can 24 continue if you have further questions and go on. 25 MS. THRONE-CONTE: I would like to continue 179 1 and take a later lunch, if that is okay with you. 2 MS. WATERS: All right. 3 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 4 Q I would like to hand you this document and 5 have it marked by the Reporter as LS-12. Please take a 6 moment to review it. 7 A (Witness complies.) 8 (Whereupon, Exhibit LS-12 was marked for 9 identification.) 10 MS. WATERS: While Ms. Smith is reviewing. 11 LS-12, I would like the record to reflect that all 12 parties are in possession of all copies requested 13 over the break last night. 14 These are documents that were responsive to 15 the United States' subpoena duces tecum of 16 Ms. Smith during the course of this deposition. 17 MS. THRONE-CONTE: Counselor, it is my 18 understanding that these documents were also 19 responsive to the United States in its request for 20 production to the District? 21 MS. WATERS: I am sorry. 22 MS. THRONE-CONTE: Is it not also true that 23 these documents were responsive to the United 24 States' first request for production? 25 MS. WATERS: Some of them, that is correct. 180 1 MS. THRONE-CONTE: Is it not also true that 2 the documents that were responsive to the United 3 States' request for production were not produced 4 to the Government during the documents production? 5 MS. WATERS: The documents you are currently 6 reviewing have not been previously produced to the 7 United States. 8 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 9 Q Can you please identify this document? 10 A It is a memorandum to Dave Black, Supervising 11 Professional, Environmental Planning Division and 12 Joel Van Arman, Supervising Professional, Environmental 13 Planning Division, from David Swift, Research 14 Environmentalist. The date is January 9, 1990 and the 15 subject is project assignments for January. 16 Q Does your name appear on this document? 17 A Yes, it does. 18 Q And you were copied on this document? 19 A Yes. 20 Q I would like to draw your attention to the 21 second paragraph, which starts out with Task No. 1, 22 "John Mulliken had requested that I take a careful look 23 at the Everglades SWIM Plan and identify specific 24 issues or statements in the plan which are not 25 supported (or are weakly supported ) by scientific data 181 1 (in other words, what data presented in the plan might 2 have a tough time standing up in court.) 3 Are you aware of whether or not there was a 4 report or other type of response to this memo? 5 A I am not aware of the follow-up to the 6 statements that you just read. 7 Q I would like to hand you another document. 8 Would you take a moment to read it? I will have this 9 one marked as LS-13. 10 A (Witness complies.) 11 (Whereupon, Exhibit LS-13 was marked for 12 identification.) 13 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 14 Q Have you ever seen document LS-13 before? 15 A No, I have not. 16 Q If you wanted to identify the author of this 17 document, where would you go? 18 A I don't know how to go about doing that. 19 Q I would like to hand you another document and 20 ask you to take a look at it. 21 A (Witness complies.) 22 (Whereupon, Exhibit LS-14 was marked for 23 identification.) 24 MS. WATERS: Counsel, while the witness is 25 reviewing Exhibit LS-14, I would like the record 182 1 to reflect at pages two and pages three of the 2 document, parts are illegible and not clear and 3 noting the microfilm, U.S. microfilming indexing 4 is also unclear, indicating that there might have 5 been a defect when the copy was made. 6 MS. THRONE-CONTE: I apologize for the 7 portions that are difficult to read on the 8 attachment. I don't believe it will affect my 9 questioning. I certainly hope the witness will 10 tell me if there is any part of this document that 11 she has found will hamper her in answering any of 12 my questions. 13 MS. WATERS: Is it your intent not to use -- 14 Do you have any objection to adapting the exhibit? 15 MS. THRONE-CONTE: Yes. The exhibit is not 16 in its entirety totally incomprehensible. 17 MS. WATERS: I object to the use of this 18 exhibit regarding any questioning of the witness 19 as to pages two and three where portions are 20 clearly not legible. 21 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 22 Q Ms. Smith, are you finished reviewing this? 23 A Yes. 24 Q Could you please identify Exhibit LS-14? 25 A It is a memorandum to Tony Federico, Director 183 1 of Water Quality Division, Resource Planning 2 Department; John Van Arman, Supervising Professional, 3 Water Quality Division, Resource Planning Department; 4 Dave Swift, Research Environmentalist, Water Quality 5 Division; Resource Planning Department, from myself 6 with the Community Relations Division, Office of 7 Resource Assistance, dated September 15, 1989. The 8 subject is LOTAC II Everglades SWIM Plan technical 9 issues. 10 Q Did you author the two-page summary, which is 11 attached to it entitled "LOTAC II September 7, 1989 12 Everglades SWIM Plan Technical Issues"? 13 A Yes, I did. 14 Q I would like to draw your attention to the 15 first page of the exhibit and ask you a question on the 16 first paragraph which states, "Attached please find a 17 two-page summary of queries about the Everglades SWIM 18 Plan, Volumes I and II, made by LOTAC II members at the 19 September 7 council meeting. The summary has been used 20 to develop a briefing for the Governing Board and is 21 provided to you to aid Everglades SWIM Plan revisions 22 and to prepare for Governing Board and LOTAC 23 presentations scheduled for September 26th and 24 September 28th through the 29th, respectively." 25 Are you aware of whether or not there was a 184 1 briefing done to the Governing Board? 2 A Yes, there was. 3 Q Would there be a written recording of that 4 briefing. 5 MS. WATERS: Objection, asked and answered 6 yesterday as to the Governing Board briefing of 7 this item. 8 THE WITNESS: There would be an audio 9 recording and a written summary of that board 10 meeting. 11 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 12 Q Your memo states, "The summary has been used 13 to develop a briefing." Was there another set of 14 documents that were created to brief the Governing 15 Board? 16 A By that statement I mean that the summary 17 attached to this memo was part of a briefing for the 18 Governing Board at its scheduled meeting. 19 Q Was this attachment then given to the 20 Governing Board at a meeting? 21 A I don't recall whether or not this was 22 distributed directly to the board as is. 23 Q Could it have been used to develop another 24 document which was distributed to the Governing Board. 25 MS. WATERS: Objection to the form of the 185 1 question, calls for speculation. 2 THE WITNESS: It is possible. 3 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 4 Q Would that briefing be available in hard copy 5 form for someone to request? 6 A All Governing Board meetings are recorded, 7 and including this one, and that would be available. 8 Q It also states, "The summaries were provided 9 to you to aid Everglades SWIM Plan revisions." 10 Are you aware of whether there was ever any 11 feedback on the specific summary? 12 A I am not aware how this specific summary 13 might have actually been used to revise the Everglades 14 SWIM Plan. 15 Q Are you aware of whether or not this summary 16 was used to prepare the Governing Board and the LOTAC 17 meetings for presentations scheduled for September 26th 18 and September 28th through the 29th? 19 A This document was provided to the people 20 listed at the top of the memo in order to assist at 21 their discretion their preparations or other staff 22 preparations and presentations that were coming up at 23 the board meeting that was held on September 26th, and 24 also to prepare for staff presentations that were being 25 readied for the September 28th and 29th LOTAC meeting. 186 1 Q Are you aware of whether or not this attached 2 document was ever used in those presentations by staff 3 of the District? 4 A I do not know if or how any of the staff 5 presentations may have been prepared using this 6 document. 7 Q How did you come about writing or recording 8 or summarizing this attached document, the LOTAC II 9 September 7, 1989 meeting? 10 A LOTAC had discussed in this September meeting 11 the first draft of Volumes I and II of the Everglades 12 SWIM Plan. These were the issues that they as a group 13 decided to pursue with District staff preparing the 14 SWIM Plan, and I was asked to summarize that portion of 15 the LOTAC discussion on the Everglades SWIM Plan issues 16 and provide that for possible use in preparing these 17 board briefings. 18 LOTAC was one of the entities requested by 19 the Governing Board in the Executive Office to comment 20 on the Everglades SWIM Plan draft and this was their 21 response to that request. 22 Q Who specifically requested that you summarize 23 this meeting? 24 A I can not be certain whether or not that 25 request came from Frank Lund or from Pat Walker in the 187 1 Community Relations Division. 2 Q You stated just several moments ago that this 3 attached document represents the consensus for LOTAC on 4 their comments for Volumes I and II, is that accurate? 5 A No, it is not. 6 MS. WATERS: Object to the form of the 7 question. 8 THE WITNESS: The summary reflects, as I have 9 stated in this cover memorandum, a summary of 10 LOTAC inquiries or queries about the Everglades 11 SWIM Plan. Many of the items here are presented 12 in the form of questions and requests for 13 additional information and do not reflect 14 consensus. 15 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 16 Q Was this summary reviewed by anyone on LOTAC 17 or any other person or agency or individual for its 18 accuracy, Everglageds SWIM Plan revisions? Are you 19 aware of whether there was ever any feedback on the 20 specific summary? 21 A I am not aware how this specific summary 22 might have actually been used to revise the Everglades 23 SWIM Plan. 24 Q Are you aware of whether or not this summary 25 was used to prepare the Governing Board and the LOTAC 188 1 meetings for presentations scheduled for September 26th 2 and September 28th through the 29th? 3 A This document was provided to the people 4 listed at the top of the memo in order to assist at 5 their discretion their preparations or other staff 6 preparations and presentations that were coming up at 7 the board meeting that was held on September 26th and 8 also to prepare for staff presentations that were being 9 readied for the September 28th and 29th LOTAC meeting. 10 Q Are you aware of whether or not this attached 11 document was ever used in those presentations by staff 12 of the District? 13 A I do not know if or how any of the staff 14 presentations may have been prepared using this 15 document. 16 Q How did you come about writing or recording 17 or summarizing this attached document, the LOTAC II 18 September 7, 1989 meeting? 19 A LOTAC had discussed in this September meeting 20 the first draft Volumes I and II of the Everglades SWIM 21 Plan. These were the issues that they as a group 22 decided to pursue with District staff preparing the 23 SWIM Plan, and I was asked to summarize that portion of 24 the LOTAC discussion on the Everglades SWIM Plan issues 25 and provide that for possible use in preparing these 189 1 board briefings. LOTAC was one of the entities 2 requested by the Governing Board in the Executive 3 Office to comment on the Everglades SWIM Plan draft and 4 this was their response to that request. 5 Q Who specifically requested that you summarize 6 this meeting? 7 A I can not be certain whether or not that 8 request came from Frank Lund or from Pat Walker in the 9 Community Relations Division. 10 Q You stated just several moments ago that this 11 attached document represents the consensus for LOTAC on 12 their comments for Volumes I and II; is that accurate? 13 A No, it is not. 14 MS. WATERS: Object to the form of the 15 question. 16 THE WITNESS: The summary reflects, as I have 17 stated in this cover memo, a summary of LOTAC 18 inquiries or queries about the Everglades 19 SWIM Plan. Many of the items here are presented 20 in the form of questions and requests for 21 additional information and do not reflect 22 consensus. 23 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 24 Q Was this summary reviewed by anyone on LOTAC 25 or any other person or agency or individual for its 190 1 accuracy? 2 A Could you repeat the question, again? 3 MS. THRONE-CONTE: Please read it back. 4 (Whereupon, the pending question was read by the 5 Court Reporter.) 6 THE WITNESS: I believe this summary was 7 reviewed by Frank Lund to its distribution as 8 reflected in the cover memo. 9 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 10 Q And were his comments or review incorporated 11 into the draft or the attachments that we have before 12 us? 13 A Yes. 14 Q To the best of your recollection, is this 15 then an accurate statement of summary of queries about 16 the Everglades SWIM Plan on Volumes I and II made by 17 LOTAC II? 18 A Yes. 19 Q I hand you another exhibit. Please take a 20 moment to review it. We will call this one LS-15 21 A (Witness complies.) 22 (Whereupon, Exhibit LS-15 was marked for 23 identification.) 24 MS. THRONE-CONTE: For the record, I would 25 like to note that several of the pages in the 191 1 attachment are incomplete. I will not be 2 questioning the witness on those pages. However, 3 during the lunch break I will recopy those pages 4 and submit them to all parties in order to have a 5 complete and accurate record, is that agreeable? 6 MS. WATERS: Would that be pages eleven and 7 five? 8 MS. THRONE-CONTE: And page three. 9 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 10 Q Would you please identify this exhibit LS-15? 11 A The top heading reads "Dr. Parks' Nutrient 12 Management Discharge Criteria, Drafts I and II." 13 Q Did you author this document? 14 A Yes, I did. 15 Q Excuse me, did you author the first two pages 16 of this document? 17 A Yes, the document that has that heading. 18 Q And the rest of this exhibit is the nutrient 19 management discharge criteria authored by Dr. Parks? 20 A Yes. 21 Q How were you requested to review Dr. Park's 22 document? 23 A I was not specifically requested to prepare 24 this. I did two drafts which were received prior to a 25 LOTAC meeting. I prepared this these as notes to 192 1 myself to try to discern the differences between the 2 two drafts, and I provided those notes to the people 3 that are copied on this memo. 4 Q Did any have those persons Frank Lund, Paul 5 Whalen, Joel Van Arman or John Mulliken request that 6 you review Dr. Park's document? 7 A No, they did not. 8 Q Would you please explain what you mean at the 9 top, "Drafts I and II"? 10 A Dr. Parks provided two drafts. 11 Q One of those drafts is attached to this 12 document? 13 A I believe so, yes. 14 Q Do you know the date of the other draft? 15 A I can't recall. 16 Q Were you asked to merely summarize the two 17 drafts or do some type of analysis of the contents of 18 his documents? 19 MS. WATERS: Object to the form of the 20 question and to assuming facts not in evidence. 21 The witness testified that she was not asked to 22 summarize this document. 23 MS. THRONE-CONTE: I would like to restate 24 the question. 25 193 1 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 2 Q You stated that you prepared this document as 3 notes to yourself prior to a LOTAC meeting. Was that 4 preparation merely an analysis or summary? 5 A The preparation that I was doing was to try 6 to discern the differences between the two drafts in 7 advance of council discussion at an upcoming meeting. 8 Q Did you anticipate that there would be 9 questions concerning his two drafts? 10 A I anticipated discussion of the drafts. 11 Q Did you attend the LOTAC meeting where these 12 drafts were discussed? 13 A Yes. 14 Q Was there discussion concerning his drafts? 15 A Yes. 16 Q Was any part of the document that you 17 prepared presented to the LOTAC committee? 18 A No. 19 Q Were your comments used in any way by 20 Frank Lund, Paul Whalen, Joel Van Arman or John 21 Mulliken. 22 MS. WATERS: Objection, calls for 23 speculation. 24 MR. HALL: Join the objection. 25 THE WITNESS: This document was not referred 194 1 to in the LOTAC meeting. 2 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 3 Q The last paragraph of this document states, 4 "Suggest that these issues be addressed not only in 5 preparation for the 11/30 LOTAC meeting, but also for 6 the 12/7 advisory committee meeting and should be 7 considered as part of the schedule for revisions to the 8 draft." 9 Do you know if your document was used in any 10 of those ways? 11 A I do not know if in fact there was follow-up 12 on these discussion suggestions. 13 Q Who would I contact if I wanted to find out 14 if there was any follow-up on these suggestions? 15 A The people shown on the copy notation at the 16 bottom of this memo. 17 Q I hand you another document, which will be 18 labeled as LS-16. Please take a moment to review it. 19 A (Witness complies.) 20 (Whereupon, Exhibit LS-16 was marked for 21 identification.) 22 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 23 Q Would you please identify this document? 24 A It is a letter to the Honorable 25 Peter R. Deutsch, Florida House of Representatives, 195 1 from John r. Wodraska, Executive Director. 2 Q Are you copied in this letter? 3 A A blind copy, yes. 4 MS. WATERS: I would like the record to 5 reflect also that the letter is not signed 6 by Mr. Wodraska. 7 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 8 Q Ms. Smith, do you see any notation on this 9 document that it was mailed? 10 A There is a handwritten note that says "Mailed 11 July," and I am not certain, there is a three and the 12 following digit is not legible to me. It could be a 13 zero, could be a one. 14 Q But there is a notation on this document that 15 it states it was mailed on a certain date? 16 A Yes, that appears so. 17 Q In 1985 when you were working with the 18 District, was it customary to keep a tissue paper copy 19 of all letters that went out outside the District? 20 A I believe that was the procedure at that 21 time. 22 Q Do you recall whether or not the tissue paper 23 copies were normally signed or not signed? 24 MS. WATERS: Objection to the form normally. 25 THE WITNESS: The tissue, they were tissue 196 1 carbons and they were usually attached with the 2 original and removed after the original had been 3 signed. 4 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 5 Q Would you have any reason to doubt that this 6 is not the copy of a document that was sent out to the 7 Honorable Peter Deutsch? 8 A I find it unusual that a handwritten mail 9 date is entered. I would wonder why that was 10 necessary, but that would be the only question that I 11 would have. 12 Q Did you in fact respond to the Honorable 13 Peter Deutsch as directed by Mr. Wodraska? 14 A I do recall contacting his office and I did 15 speak with someone on his staff. I do not recall 16 speaking with the Representative directly to make 17 myself available to answer any additional questions 18 that he might have had. 19 Q And to the best of your recollection, you 20 received a copy of this letter directing you to contact 21 him? 22 A I believe it was the receipt of the copy that 23 prompted me to follow through. 24 Q Would you have any reason to doubt that the 25 letter was mailed out, concerning the fact that you 197 1 received a copy of it? 2 A I would assume, since I did get the 3 distribution that that normally does follow mailing of 4 the letter. So, yes, I would assume that it had in 5 fact been mailed. 6 Q I would like to read you the first part. It 7 states, "Enclosed is a packet of information regarding 8 your questions about the South Florida Water Management 9 District. I understand your present interests relate 10 to the operation of the Central and Southern Florida 11 Flood Control Project, so the attachments have been 12 selected to better explain the project." 13 I will finish the paragraph off for the sake 14 of rounding out the discussion. "However, the 15 responsibilities of this District far exceed the flood 16 protection and water supply purposes of the project. 17 We believe our core mission under the Florida Water 18 Resources Act includes environmental protection and 19 enhancement as well as water quality protection." 20 Do you recall what specifically 21 Representative Deutsch, what concerns did he raise with 22 Mr. Wodraska which you responded to? 23 A I don't have any firsthand knowledge of the 24 discussion between Mr. Wodraska and Representative 25 Deutsch. I did not speak with either of them directly. 198 1 My involvement was simply to contact the office and 2 follow up to see if there was any further information 3 that was requested. 4 Q Was there any further information that they 5 requested? 6 A I don't believe so. 7 Q Is there any document in your possession or 8 control which would help you you remember? 9 A Well, I have not met Representative Deutsch. 10 To the best of my knowledge, the extent to which I 11 followed up on this correspondence is limited to the 12 phone call that I made to Representative Deutsch's 13 office. 14 Q My question was, is there any document in 15 your possession or control which might help refresh 16 your recollection? 17 A And my testimony is that I don't recall any 18 documents. I recall only making a phone call. 19 Q You stated yesterday you were aware of a 20 group called the Executive Council, is that correct? 21 A That is correct. 22 Q Would you please tell me again, I apologize 23 if this is redundant, what parties are involved with 24 the Executive Council? 25 MS. WATERS: Objection, asked and answered. 199 1 THE WITNESS: The Executive Council is 2 comprised of District department directors, 3 deputy directors, the executive director, his 4 deputy directors, the Office of Counsel and the 5 Office of Communications. 6 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 7 Q Did you ever attend a meeting of the 8 Executive Council? 9 A Only once. 10 Q And when was that? 11 A When I was preparing the District's annual 12 report for fiscal year '83/'84, and I was called into a 13 council meeting at one point when the council was 14 reviewing that document draft. 15 Q What was the purpose of your attendance 16 there? 17 A There were some errors in transposition of a 18 chart, a bar graph that was not discovered on the black 19 and white copies, but it was only apparent on the color 20 copies. Color plates were prepared and that was 21 something that they wanted to check and review. 22 Q Are you aware of whether or not there is 23 someone who has the duty of summarizing the activities 24 in the Executive Council meetings? 25 A I do not know if someone has that 200 1 responsibility. 2 Q Do you know whether or not it has been done 3 in the past? 4 MS. WATERS: Objection, calls for 5 speculation? 6 THE WITNESS: I have not seen any summaries. 7 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 8 Q When you attended the one Executive Council 9 meeting, do you recall whether or not someone was 10 taking notes? 11 A I didn't notice. 12 Q If I wanted to find out if someone summarizes 13 the meetings, where would you suggest or who would you 14 suggest I contact? 15 A The Executive Office. 16 Q Do you know whether or not Cathy Malone 17 summarizes Executive Council meetings? 18 MS. WATERS: Objection, the witness testified 19 she doesn't know if there are any summaries of any 20 of the Executive Council meetings? 21 THE WITNESS: I do not know. 22 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 23 Q Do you know Cathy Malone? 24 A Yes, I do. 25 Q Does she work in the executive office? 201 1 A Not currently. 2 Q To the best of your knowledge, when did she 3 stop working in the executive office. 4 MS. WATERS: Objection, assumes facts not in 5 evidence. 6 THE WITNESS: Earlier this year, 1990 7 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 8 Q Are you aware of anyone who may have replaced 9 her in the Office of Executive Council. 10 MS. WATERS: Objection, calls for 11 speculation. 12 THE WITNESS: I am not aware exactly who 13 assumed her duties after she left. 14 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 15 Q Do you have an opinion as to which or any of 16 the committees which you participated with, the LOTAC 17 Committee or the Advisory Committee, as to whether 18 their comments were considered by District staff? 19 MS. WATERS: Objection, calls for a 20 conclusion beyond the scope of this witness' 21 testimony. 22 MR. HALL: Objection, ambiguous, also calls 23 for speculation. 24 THE WITNESS: I have not formed a judgment 25 about how those comments by those groups may have 202 1 been perceived or used. 2 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 3 Q Do you have an opinion as to any of the 4 different groups, whether you directly participated in 5 them or not, including the Office of Executive Council, 6 the steering committee, LOTAC II, the advisory 7 committee, as to whether anyone in the District looked 8 upon any of those committees more than one or the other 9 for science or policy guidelines? 10 MS. WATERS: Could you read back the 11 question, please? 12 (Whereupon, the pending question was read by 13 the Court Reporter.) 14 MS. WATERS: Objection, the question is quite 15 ambiguous and convoluted. It calls for 16 speculation and this witness is not an expert to 17 determine scientific data. 18 THE WITNESS: I do not know to what extent 19 anyone who was a party to or participated in those 20 advisory groups may have regarded or disregarded 21 the opinions, recommendations, information, that 22 was generated by those groups. 23 It was my job simply to summarize and try to 24 capture those groups' concerns, recommendations, 25 questions, as best and as objectively as I could 203 1 and provide that information to others who were 2 dealing with the technical and political issues. 3 I did not follow up to discern how those 4 others may or may not have reacted to or valued or 5 evaluated that information or otherwise used that 6 information in their work. 7 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 8 Q In your opinion, did District staff tend to 9 rely on one group more than another for scientific or 10 policy issues for their recommendations? 11 MS. WATERS: Object to the form. The 12 question calls for speculations and conclusions. 13 MR. HALL: Join the objection. 14 THE WITNESS: Could I have the question 15 repeated? 16 (Whereupon, the pending question was read by 17 the Court Reporter.) 18 THE WITNESS: I am not aware of any reliance 19 or preference on the part of District staff. 20 MS. THRONE-CONTE: I have before me your 21 subpoena duces tecum for this deposition. For the 22 record, I would like to find out which, if any, of 23 the seven categories of documents that were 24 requested were provided to the United States this 25 morning. Counsel, can you help me out? 204 1 MS. WATERS: I can tell you that if you want 2 to go down the list and I'll tell you which was 3 provided. I can tell you that we responded to the 4 request by reviewing the documents in Ms. Smith's 5 office and have provided a number of documents 6 under each category. 7 The first one you requested was a resume, a 8 document of that nature that one was provided to 9 you yesterday, along with the box of documents 10 that was copied overnight, which was provided 11 yesterday morning for your review. 12 The second item you asked for was listing of 13 publications. Ms. Smith brought with her one 14 publication. I believe that was listed as Exhibit 15 LS-4, which was discussed yesterday. 16 From your listing on the subpoena, I believe 17 would be three through the end of that list, a 18 number were provided. 19 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 20 Q Ms. Smith, are there any categories of 21 documents which were not provided to the United States? 22 A I have provided all the documents in my 23 possession that respond to that list. 24 Q My question, is there any category of 25 documents which you don't have documents which are 205 1 responsive to my request? 2 A Scientific documents, discussions, analyses, 3 I do not have those in my possession. 4 Q Do you have a list of publications which you 5 have authored and co-authored? 6 A The only one that I have authored exclusively 7 was provided yesterday. 8 Q You provided the copy, but no list exists? 9 A Correct. 10 MS. WATERS: In reviewing the listing, most 11 of the documents that were provided to you were 12 specifically LOTAC, which under your listing would 13 be under the category four. 14 MS. THRONE-CONTE: I would like to take a 15 break now and finish my review of the documents 16 that were copied and provided. At that time I 17 don't anticipate I will have that much more 18 questioning time. So we will take a break and 19 reconvene at 2:00 o'clock. 20 MS. WATERS: Is that a sufficient amount of 21 time for you? 22 MS. THRONE-CONTE: Yes. 23 (Whereupon, there was a luncheon recess.) 24 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 25 Q Ms. Smith, you provided to the parties two 206 1 diskettes labeled "Everglades SWIM, IRL SWIM 1989 and 2 LOTAC 1989"? 3 A Yes. 4 Q Are these replications of the documents that 5 you gave us today and yesterday? 6 A Yes, they are. 7 Q Are they a total duplication of what we got 8 or is it possible that there is documents on these 9 diskettes that are not included in your files in their 10 hard copy form? 11 A Can you rephrase the question again? I am 12 not sure what you are looking for. 13 Q Is it possible that there are documents on 14 your diskettes that are not in your files in their hard 15 copy form that you gave us? 16 A It is possible, yes. 17 Q What does Everglades SWIM, IRL SWIM mean? 18 A Everglades SWIM relates to paper that I 19 generated relating to Everglades SWIM activities, 20 including the advisory group, and IRL SWIM refers to 21 Indian River Lagoon SWIM activities on which I also did 22 some work. 23 Q Is there any way that you refer to documents 24 on these diskettes, which would facilitate our being 25 able to locate either LOTAC or advisory committee 207 1 minutes or recordings? 2 A The LOTAC disk is exclusively LOTAC 3 documentation. The other disk, that includes 4 Everglades SWIM but also information relating to Indian 5 River Lagoon SWIM. Most often the documents titled are 6 prefixed by EV and some other combination of letters or 7 numbers. Meetings usually have a number in the title 8 that identifies the meeting date. 9 Q You mean, like say for example, March 1989 10 would come out 3/89 or something like that in the 11 title? 12 A Correct. 13 Q What is the program that these diskettes run 14 off of? 15 A They are Word Perfect files. 16 Q What version? 17 A They are 5.0. 18 Q I would like to hand you what we are going to 19 mark as Exhibit LS-17. Would you take take moment to 20 review this document? 21 A (Witness complies.) 22 (Whereupon, Exhibit LS-17 was marked for 23 identification.) 24 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 25 Q Have you reviewed this document? 208 1 A Yes. 2 Q This document purports to be a draft meeting 3 summary of a Lake Okeechobee Technical Advisory Council 4 for September 7, 1989, does it not? 5 A Yes. 6 Q On page two of the documents there begins 7 some handwriting, which continues through page three. 8 Can you identify whose handwriting that is? 9 A That is my handwriting. 10 Q How is it that you came to make these 11 revisions? 12 A The revisions are really clarification and 13 corrections. I misstated the name of a department. I 14 inserted the word "regulatory" before criteria in order 15 to clarify what criteria. I inserted Mr. MacVicar's 16 name, which was omitted at the beginning of a sentence. 17 They were my notes about typos or were 18 expressing certain things more completely, grammatical 19 changes. 20 Q Were these changes brought about at the 21 suggestion of someone else or did you do these entirely 22 on your own? 23 A They are as a result of my review. 24 Q What prompted you to insert the word 25 "regulatory" before criteria on page two? 209 1 A I felt that the type of criteria needed to be 2 specified there in order to be clear what criteria was 3 being discussed, and I inserted that word for that 4 reason. 5 Q What about the insertion of "for cattail 6 expansion" on page three, Subparagraph C? 7 A To complete the phrase that begins "as a 8 catalyst." Catalyst for what? It was incomplete and I 9 inserted that to make that clear what the catalytic 10 situation was. 11 Q In the course of your duties when you made 12 revisions on your own and on these summaries of the 13 LOTAC meetings, are you confident that your revisions 14 would not change the substance of what was being said 15 in the meetings? 16 MS. WATERS: Are you asking her if she is 17 confident now or was she confident when she made 18 the revisions? 19 MS. THRONE-CONTE: When she made the 20 revisions. 21 MR. HALL: Object to the form. Which 22 revisions? The document LS-17 contains what 23 appear to be different versions of a draft summary 24 of a meeting on September 7, 1989, LOTAC II. 25 MS. THRONE-CONTE: That is correct. We are 210 1 talking about the first draft in the document. 2 MS. WATERS: I join in the objection. 3 THE WITNESS: The revisions that I made were 4 as accurate as I could be. I felt they were 5 necessary. If I had a question, usually I would 6 indicate that and check further. 7 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 8 Q In reviewing these meeting summaries in the 9 course of your duties when you had this particular 10 duty, did you endeavor to make sure that the summaries 11 were as accurate as possible? 12 A Yes. 13 Q I would like to ask you about the second 14 draft summary that is attached to this exhibit. There 15 appears to be some handwriting at the top of the page. 16 Can you identify that for me, please? 17 A That is my handwriting. 18 Q There appear to be some corrections on page 19 three and page four, and page five and page six and 20 page seven. Can you identify for me who made those 21 corrections? 22 A Tom MacVicar made those revisions. 23 Q How do you know that? 24 A This copy was provided to Tom for his review 25 and he returned this copy with his comments on it. 211 1 Q Revisions that you and Mr. MacVicar made on 2 the September 7, 1989 draft meeting summary, were those 3 incorporated into a final meeting summary? 4 MS. WATERS: Object to the form of the 5 question. 6 THE WITNESS: The revisions that were 7 suggested here were incorporated along with 8 others that may have been provided in a draft that 9 was provided to the LOTAC for their review. 10 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 11 Q And to the best of your knowledge, did LOTAC 12 approve the revisions that were made for this 13 September 7th meeting? 14 A To the best of my knowledge they did approve 15 the final draft that was presented. 16 Q When LOTAC approves a final draft, does that 17 document then have on the top of it "final draft" or do 18 they go into the records somewhere and they still say 19 "draft" on top of it, but then in the meetings for the 20 next minute it will say that that draft was approved? 21 A I heard several questions there. Could you 22 repeat? 23 Q The draft that is submitted to LOTAC for 24 their approval, does that still have "draft meeting 25 summary" on the top of it? 212 1 A Yes. 2 Q When the committee approves that draft, does 3 another document come out then that says "final meeting 4 summary"? 5 A The final document says "meeting summary" and 6 it also indicates when LOTAC approved the meeting 7 summary, the date. 8 Q Were you in the habit of keeping the final 9 meeting summaries in your files? 10 A I kept a copy in my files. 11 Q Were you also in the habit of keeping all the 12 different corrected or revised drafts in your files? 13 A Yes. 14 Q Your files that were provided to us were 15 categorized by date; was that your typical way of 16 storing your LOTAC files? 17 A Yes. 18 Q The files that we have under a particular 19 date, is that the sum total of files that you have that 20 would relate to that LOTAC meeting date? 21 A Yes. 22 Q I would like to hand you another exhibit 23 which we will call LS-18. 24 (Whereupon, Exhibit LS-18 was marked for 25 identification.) 213 1 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 2 Q Is this document in your handwriting? 3 A Yes, it is. 4 Q Does this document represent the minutes that 5 you took at the LOTAC II meeting on September 7, 1989? 6 A This document represents my notes. They are 7 not minutes, per se. 8 Q Does this document then represent your notes 9 from the meeting on September 7, 1989? 10 Q Did you attend this meeting? 11 A Yes. 12 Q And you took these notes while the meeting 13 was in progress? 14 A Yes. 15 Q I noticed going through your files, were you 16 in the habit of keeping your handwritten notes from 17 each of the LOTAC meetings in the file that you have 18 labeled for a particular date? 19 A Yes. 20 Q Were your handwritten notes ever circulated 21 to anyone? 22 A No. 23 Q I would like to call your attention to a page 24 in here, page fourteen, it says September 28/29. 25 A Could you repeat the page identification? 214 1 Q It says September 28/29 program on the top of 2 it; do you have it in front of you? 3 A Yes. 4 Q About three-quarters down the page it looks 5 like the name Martin; do you see that? 6 A Yes. 7 Q Who is Martin? 8 A He is a member of the Lake Okeechobee 9 Technical Advisory Committee. 10 Q The document states, "Martin," and there is a 11 hyphen, "want to bet one hundred million on this poker 12 game, question mark." Do you recall what he was 13 talking about? 14 MS. WATERS: The document that we are looking 15 at, 100M, is that the line you are looking at? 16 MS. THRONE-CONTE: Yes, ma'am. 17 MS. WATERS: What is the question? 18 THE WITNESS: I don't recall the comment in 19 particular. 20 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 21 Q Were you in the habit of typing up your 22 summary based on your notes? 23 A No. 24 Q What documents or what aid would you use in 25 writing your draft meeting notes? 215 1 A The videotape proceedings. 2 Q Why did you take handwritten notes? 3 A In order to guide my preparation of the 4 meeting summary, to be able to find locations on the 5 tape where certain items were discussed, to keep track 6 of action items, to keep track of questions that were 7 asked that might require further follow-up, to keep 8 track of documents that were presented to LOTAC and 9 would need to be included in council files and referred 10 to in the minutes, if necessary. 11 Q Did you ever find that your handwritten notes 12 contained more or less information than your draft 13 meeting summary? 14 A There is information in my notes that was not 15 included in the meeting summary. 16 Q Using this Exhibit LS-18 as an example, would 17 you be able to show me any type of comment or writing 18 that you made in your notes that did not show up in the 19 meeting summary? 20 A Well, other than the example that you just 21 gave, that particular comment was not reflected in the 22 meeting summary. 23 Q Were you solely responsible for drafting the 24 meeting summary, or did someone assist you either 25 through using the videotape or using your notes here? 216 1 MR. HALL: Objection, asked and answered. 2 MS. WATERS: Join the objection. 3 THE WITNESS: I prepared the first draft of 4 the summary with the aid of my notes and with the 5 aid of the videotape. 6 (Whereupon, Exhibit LS-19 was marked for 7 identification.) 8 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 9 Q I am interested in the document that is done 10 in handwriting. Does this appear to be a handwritten 11 document dated September 25th, 1989? 12 A Yes. 13 Q Is this in your handwriting? 14 A Most of it. 15 Q Is there a note at the top of the first page 16 in someone elses handwriting? 17 A Yes. 18 Q It is a note from a person apparently named 19 Marge; is that correct? 20 A Yes. 21 Q Who is Marge? 22 A Marge at that time was a secretary in the 23 Community Relations. Well, actually, no. The 24 Community Relations Division did not exist at that 25 time. I had transferred into Environmental Planning 217 1 Division. Marge was transferred from Community 2 Relations into the Comp Plan Review Division. 3 Q Was she your secretary? 4 A She was when we were both in Community 5 Relations. 6 Q When this was written, September 25th, 1989, 7 was she your secretary? 8 A Yes. 9 Q What are 6085 files? 10 A That is a word processing software, 6085. It 11 is a desk top publishing system that uses Word Perfect, 12 I am sorry, Viewpoint format. 13 Q What does she mean by 6085 files? 14 MS. WATERS: Objection, calls for 15 speculation. 16 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 17 Q What is your understanding of her note 18 referring the 6085 files? 19 A She is asking whether or not any of the files 20 that she had on her desk top when she was in the 21 Community Relations Division that were prepared in 22 connection with my job should be transferred to the 23 6085 in the new division to which I was transferred. 24 Q Do 6085 files deal with any particular 25 subject matter? 218 1 A No. 2 MS. WATERS: Excuse me. For this exhibit, I 3 guess it is LS-19, are you only interested in the 4 handwritten documents or are you interested in the 5 other documents that were attached in the file? 6 MS. THRONE-CONTE: I would like to ask 7 questions on the other ones, on the other exhibits 8 that are attached to this. 9 MS. WATERS: Why don't we number them 10 individually? 11 MS. THRONE-CONTE: Or we can make a 12 composite, because they are all part of the same 13 file. 14 MS. WATERS: Well, they are a part of the 15 same file, but they are individual documents. It 16 really doesn't matter. It might be easier to 17 number them individually so you know what you are 18 talking about. 19 MS. THRONE-CONTE: The first document is 20 LS-19. It is a handwritten document. It says 21 "Dry Run, 9/25/89" on the top page. The next document 22 will be LS-20. 23 (Whereupon, Exhibits LS-20 - LS-23 were 24 marked for identification.) 25 219 1 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 2 Q Did you author LS-20? 3 A No. 4 Q Was this a handout at a Governing Board 5 meeting? 6 A I don't recall where I -- I don't recall 7 where this came from or how. 8 Q Do you recall whose handwriting it is? 9 A No, it doesn't look familiar to me. 10 Q If this was located in your file of 11 September 25th, 1989, would it be in your habit to 12 include the handouts from that meeting in your file as 13 well for September 25th, 1989? 14 A That file would include handouts, yes. 15 Q I would like to turn your attention to LS-21. 16 Is this a copy of a transparency from the board meeting 17 of September 28th, excuse me, a LOTAC II meeting of 18 September 28th and 29th, 1989? 19 A No. 20 Q What is the origin of this document? 21 A These are copies of transparencies that were 22 prepared for a board briefing following the LOTAC II 23 meeting of September 28th and 29th. 24 Q Who prepared these? 25 A I don't know who prepared them. 220 1 Q Do you recall whether it was at the specific 2 request of anyone? 3 A They were used by Pete Rhoads. I am not 4 aware how they were prepared. 5 Q Do you recall what the date was of the 6 Governing Board meeting that this document was used at? 7 A I don't recall, although I do see further on 8 in the document there is a December 11, 1989 date in 9 the lower right-hand corner. 10 Q Is that December 11? 11 A I am sorry, October 11. Board meetings are 12 usually held the second week in the month, so I assume 13 that may be the board date. 14 Q I would like to turn your attention to LS-22. 15 What is the origin of this document? 16 A They are copies of transparencies that were 17 used in the board presentation. 18 Q Do you recall with which presentation these 19 documents were used? 20 A I don't recall specifically. I am fairly 21 certain they had to do with the Everglades SWIM Plan 22 item on the Governing Board's agenda for that month. 23 Q Could this document also have been used by 24 Pete Rhoads in his presentation? 25 MS. WATERS: Objection, calls for a 221 1 conclusion and speculation. 2 THE WITNESS: I don't recall whether or not 3 Pete used these particular transparencies. 4 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 5 Q Do you recall whether or not these 6 transparencies were used at a specific Governing Board 7 meeting? 8 A Again, taking my cue from the date in the 9 lower right-hand corner, I am fairly certain that it 10 would have been used in the Governing Board as part of 11 the presentation to the Board at its October meeting. 12 Q I would like to turn your attention to LS-23; 13 did you author this document? 14 A No. 15 Q Do you know who did? 16 A No. 17 Q Do you know whose handwriting appears on this 18 document? 19 A I don't see handwriting on this document. 20 Q I believe there is some in the upper 21 right-hand corner. 22 Q Let me show you the document that I am 23 looking at. 24 A All right. 25 Q Proceeding with LS-23, having reviewed the 222 1 document, were you the author of this document? 2 A Let me look, yes. 3 Q Can you identify the author of the 4 corrections on this document? 5 A I believe it is Pete Rhoads. 6 Q What would make you believe that? 7 A There are initials in the upper-right hand 8 corner. 9 Q Are those Pete Rhoads initials? 10 A They appear to be, yes. 11 Q Are you familiar with his handwriting? 12 A Yes. 13 Q What else does that writing say on the top of 14 the first page? 15 A It says, "looks good." 16 Q Was this document incorporated into a meeting 17 summary? 18 A It is part of a LOTAC council meeting 19 summary, yes. 20 Q What date would this be for? 21 A I am not certain, since there is no -- okay, 22 on the page with the handwritten number three at the 23 top it says, "The meeting was adjourned at 24 approximately 5:30 and reconvened on Friday, 25 September 29 at 9:15 a.m." 223 1 So this portion relates to the LOTAC meeting 2 held on September 28 and 29th. 3 Q Was it in your habit to type up a draft of 4 the LOTAC II meeting summaries in this form first 5 before typing them in a form such as document LS-17? 6 A To me they are the same form. I am not sure 7 what distinction you are making between LS-23 and 8 LS-17. 9 Q LS-17 appears to have a heading on it with 10 members present, members absent and others 11 participating. Document LS-23 does not appear to have 12 that. 13 A It is my habit to distribute a complete 14 package, a complete draft meeting summary to all 15 parties that I might ask to review. Usually people who 16 made presentations to the council were asked to review 17 my summary for accuracy concerning their presentation. 18 Q Was it in your habit to distribute a meeting 19 summary without the heading and the other categories, 20 members present, members absent, other participants 21 that appears on LS-17? 22 A Occasionally there were instances where 23 partial copies would be distributed because people 24 would not be available when a full document was 25 completed. 224 1 As I finished sections that related to their 2 portion, I would provide that portion to them for their 3 review while I continued on to complete the draft. 4 That would be the only occasion in which I would have 5 circulated a partial draft. 6 Q Would you consider document LS-23 as a 7 partial draft? 8 A Yes. 9 Q Why don't we label the next one in that 10 section LS-24. 11 (Whereupon, Exhibit LS-24 was marked for 12 identification.) 13 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 14 Q Did you author this document? 15 A No. 16 Q Is this a copy of transparency? 17 A Yes. 18 Q Do you have any recollection or knowledge as 19 to when this transparency was used or why it was used? 20 A It was used as part of the staff presentation 21 to the board in October. 22 Q Do you recall whether or not this document 23 was authorized by Pete Rhoads? 24 A I don't know who authorized the document. 25 (Whereupon, Exhibits LS-25, 26 and 27 were 225 1 marked for identification.) 2 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 3 Q Can you please identify LS-25? 4 A The top line reads, abbreviated form of 5 October, and G.B., which stands for Governing Board. 6 Q Can you please read the whole thing for us? 7 A "Additional WMA design criteria available, 8 Governing Board direction on Volume I and II. 9 statistical analysis of all inflows to ENP in order to 10 pinpoint new target for park inflows, provide 11 assurances that it will not degrade any further. 12 "Agency comments on Volume I and II to 13 Governing Board. Copies of staff presentations in 14 advance. Volume III, I.D. degradation, specify 15 affected area. Five page paper presented to LOTAC - 16 statutory background." 17 Q What does the second page of this say? 18 A There is a letter B, "Bite-size approach to 19 SWIM Plan - Water Management Area. 20 "C, Change number for park inflows, just a 21 paper change? Providing reasonable assurance that 22 standard." 23 The next line reads, "November 1 - 3, 24 technical group to examine WMA." 25 Q What does this document represent? 226 1 A I really have no recollection of these notes. 2 Q These are in your handwriting? 3 A Yes, they are. 4 Q Were you in the habit of making notes during 5 Governing Board meetings? 6 MR. HALL: Objection as to form. Are you 7 asking her about the eleven or thirteen years she 8 has been with the District? 9 MS. THRONE-CONTE: I will rephrase it. 10 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 11 Q Is it reasonable to assume that these are 12 notes, your personal notes from the October 1989 13 Governing Board meeting? 14 MS. WATERS: Object to the form of the 15 question and instruct the witness not to assume, 16 but if the witness has knowledge about facts, she 17 can testify as to what her knowledge is, but not 18 assumptions. Calls for speculation and draws 19 conclusions that may not be applicable. 20 THE WITNESS: I am not assuming that they are 21 notes from the Governing Board meeting. They 22 may be. Again, I am not, I don't recall making 23 these notes. 24 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 25 Q Were you in the habit of using this type of 227 1 paper when you made summaries of LOTAC or advisory 2 committee meetings or any other type of meetings? 3 A I don't know what you mean by "this type of 4 paper." 5 Q This document is labeled at the very top 6 "correspondence/notes." 7 A (No response.) 8 Q It appears to be a commercially produced type 9 of -- 10 A It is. 11 Q Were you in the habit of using this type of 12 commercial paper for correspondence and notes in any 13 LOTAC meetings or Everglades Advisory Meetings or other 14 meetings that you attended? 15 A In LOTAC meetings or in advisory group 16 meetings I would record my notes on legal pad, standard 17 legal pads. I would use paper with this type of 18 heading occasionally to make notes to myself in my 19 office area or take this sort of paper to meetings with 20 me to make notes. 21 Q Did you attend the October 1989 Governing 22 Board meeting? 23 A I believe I viewed a portion of it. 24 Q In person or videotape? 25 A I watched it on a monitor in the conference 228 1 room. I was not in the auditorium. 2 Q Let's turn to LS-26. 3 MR. HALL: Counsel, before we continue I 4 want to raise an objection at this point in time. 5 If you are going to be, in a sense, testifying by 6 purporting to represent the document as opposed to 7 asking the witness questions, I will be raising 8 objects. 9 Specifically as to LS-25, the record will 10 reflect the witness has testified she doesn't 11 recall. Counsel, you testified that the document 12 reference "correspondence and notes," the document 13 speaks for itself and I will just read in the 14 bottom left-hand corner, "1988 Priority Management 15 Systems, Inc." 16 MS. THRONE-CONTE: I believe Ms. Smith 17 testified this was a type of paper she has used 18 and she also has testified this is in her 19 handwriting. 20 MR. HALL: That is correct. I want the 21 record to reflect if you are not going to have the 22 witness testify about a document and you yourself 23 are going to testify about a document, that it 24 be represented properly, especially when it is 25 updated as here. 229 1 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 2 Q Let's turn to LS-26. Can you identify the 3 handwriting on the first page? 4 A No. 5 Q Is this a note to you? 6 A This is a note to me, yes. 7 Q Could you please read it? 8 A It says "Lisa, is there a master list of SWIM 9 Plan letters?" And then it is followed by the 10 abbreviations "RPC, DER and Environmental Coalition." 11 Oh, I am sorry, abbreviation "Everglades Coalition." 12 Q Do you recall what this note was in reference 13 to? 14 A No, I don't. 15 Q Do you know what RPC stands for? 16 A Regional Planning Council. 17 Q And DER? 18 A Department of Environmental Regulation. 19 Q Is there a master list of SWIM Plan letters? 20 A I am not sure what this refers to. 21 Q Let's turn to the second page, is this your 22 handwriting? 23 A Yes. 24 Q How was this document created? 25 A I am not certain. 230 1 Q Are you aware of whether or not this document 2 was prepared at the direction of someone? 3 A I don't believe so. It appears to be my 4 handwritten notes, but it is difficult for me to 5 determine in what context they were prepared. 6 Q I would like to turn to LS-27. Do you know 7 whether or not this was the final water shortage plan 8 issued by the South Florida Water Management District? 9 MR. HALL: Objection, assumes facts not in 10 evidence. 11 MS. WATERS: Join in the objection. Also it 12 calls for a conclusion and speculation on behalf 13 of the witness. 14 THE WITNESS: I don't know how to respond to 15 the word "final." 16 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 17 Q Do you know or are you aware if there were 18 other versions of this document that came out after 19 January of 1986? 20 A I am not aware of any. 21 Q Are you aware of whether or not this document 22 was presented or included in the materials of the 23 October 1989 Governing Board meeting? 24 A I don't know. 25 Q Are you aware of whether or not this document 231 1 was included in any advisory committee meeting or LOTAC 2 meeting? 3 MR. HALL: Object as to form. 4 THE WITNESS: I can't recall. 5 (Whereupon, Exhibit LS-28 was marked for 6 identification.) 7 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 8 Q Did you author this document? 9 A Yes. 10 Q Do you recall if this was authored for or on 11 behalf of a LOTAC or Everglades Advisory Committee 12 meeting? 13 MR. HALL: Object to the form. 14 MS. WATERS: Object to the question. I mean, 15 you are asking three questions out of whether it 16 was the meeting regarding LOTAC or some other? 17 MS. THRONE-CONTE: I will rephrase it. 18 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 19 Q What is this document? 20 A It is a portion of a LOTAC II meeting 21 summary. 22 Q From what date? 23 A I am not certain of the date. 24 Q Is this a partial summary? 25 A Yes. 232 1 Q Do you recognize the handwriting in the 2 middle of the page? 3 A Yes. 4 Q And whose handwriting is that? 5 A That is Pete Rhoads handwriting. 6 Q Do you recall what he meant by "maybe not 7 essential"? 8 MS. WATERS: Objection, calls for a 9 conclusion and speculation on the part of the 10 witness. 11 THE WITNESS: I don't recall having a 12 discussion with him about that comment. 13 MR. HALL: I also object at this point and 14 state that the document speaks for itself and 15 object to the characterization by Counsel of the 16 handwritten note, which appears to be somewhat 17 illegible and subject to interpretation. 18 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 19 Q Ms. Smith, can you recognize the handwriting 20 in the middle of of the page? 21 A Yes. 22 Q Can you read it? 23 A It says "maybe not essential." 24 Q Do you recall revising this document because 25 of Mr. Rhoads' written comments? 233 1 A Because he did not request that it be deleted 2 and because he did make, correct a typographical error 3 in that paragraph. I know I would not have deleted it 4 based on this comment. I don't remember whether it was 5 included or excluded in the final draft that was 6 presented to the council. 7 (Whereupon, Exhibit LS-29 was marked for 8 identification.) 9 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 10 Q Could you please identify this document? 11 A It is entitled "Lake Okeechobee Technical 12 Advisory Council, LOTAC II, September 28-29, 1989, 13 South Florida Water Management District Auditorium, 14 West Palm Beach, Florida, Draft Meeting Summary." 15 Q Did you author this document? 16 A Yes. 17 Q Do you recognize the handwriting on this 18 document and specifically I am referring to the 19 handwriting at the bottom of the first page and on the 20 second page? 21 A Yes. 22 Q Whose handwriting is that? 23 A It is Pete Rhoads' handwriting. 24 Q Can you please read the comment on the bottom 25 right-hand corner of the first page? 234 1 A Just the comment? 2 Q Yes. 3 A It says "considerably above average." 4 Q Were you in the habit of giving your reviews, 5 giving your meeting summaries to Mr. Rhoads for the 6 LOTAC meetings? 7 A Only on those occasions when Mr. Rhoads made 8 a presentation to council. 9 (Whereupon, Exhibits LS-30 and LS-31 were 10 marked for identification.) 11 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 12 Q Let's go to the next document, which has been 13 marked LS-30. 14 MR. HALL: Can we take about a two-minute 15 break? 16 (Whereupon, there was a brief recess.) 17 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 18 Q I would like to turn your attention to the 19 next document, which is labeled LS-31. It is an 20 October 31, 1989 LOTAC II meeting. Going back to 21 LS-30, did you author this document? 22 A Yes. 23 Q Do you recall whose handwriting appears on 24 page eight of this document? 25 A That is my handwriting. 235 1 Q Do you recall what prompted you to make these 2 notes? 3 A No, I don't. 4 Q Would these notes have been incorporated in a 5 later version of these meeting notes, meeting summary? 6 A I am not certain. The notes on page eight do 7 not appear to me to be corrections. 8 Q What do they appear to be to you? 9 A They appear to be some further discussion 10 about those items, but I am not sure whose discussion. 11 Q Can you identify who you may have had this 12 discussion with? 13 MS. WATERS: Objection to the question. It 14 requires the witness to speculate. If she knows, 15 she can answer. If she doesn't, I would instruct 16 the witness not to speculate. 17 THE WITNESS: I don't know. 18 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 19 Q At the bottom of the page, the very bottom of 20 the page, can you please read the writing down there? 21 I think it starts off "subcommittee." 22 A It says, "Subcommittee to suggest modeling? 23 Use pot model with data." Then it says, "By November 1 24 meeting." 25 Q What did you mean by that? 236 1 A I am not certain. I can't -- 2 Q Can you identify which subcommittee you were 3 talking about? 4 A I am not certain which subcommittee. 5 Q What is a pot model? 6 A It is a type of computer model that is used 7 to model water flows. 8 Q I would like to move onto LS-31, dated 9 October 31st, 1989. Can you please, first of all, did 10 you author this document, and speaking about the first 11 three pages of this exhibit? Did you author the first 12 two pages of this Exhibit Ls-31? 13 A Yes. 14 Q Would you please identify the document? 15 A Lake Okeechobee Technical Advisory Council, 16 (LOTAC II), October 31st, 1989, South Florida Water 17 Management District Auditorium, West Palm Beach 18 Florida, Draft Meeting Summary. 19 Q Would you please turn to the second page. 20 Can you please identify the handwriting on the very top 21 middle portion of that page? 22 A The handwriting, that reads to me "excessive 23 P concentrations." 24 Q Yes, do you recognize that handwriting? 25 A Yes. 237 1 Q Whose handwriting is it? 2 A That is Frank Lund's handwriting. 3 Q Can you read that handwriting? 4 A "Excessive P concentrations were occurring." 5 Q And there is handwriting to the immediate 6 right of that, do you recognize that handwriting? 7 A That is my handwriting. 8 Q Can you please read that notation? 9 A There is an asterisks and it is dated 11/6 10 10:25. It says, "P. Rhoads via Ruth Moore - B.P. 11 section okay, no changes, LS." 12 Q What do you mean by -- 13 MS. WATERS: Counsel, for the record, in 14 looking at the document that is before me that has 15 been marked as LS-31, Ms. Smith read the top first 16 line where there is an arrow. 17 On the left there is handwritten in the, 18 looks like same print, stating "no" with an arrow 19 up to "excessive P concentrations were 20 occurring." 21 I would like the record to reflect that the 22 document reflects the arrow with the word 23 "no" before it. 24 MS. THRONE-CONTE: I would disagree with 25 Counsel that is the documents reflection. 238 1 2 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 3 Q Ms. Smith, what is your interpretation of Mr. 4 Lund's handwriting here? 5 A The reference at the top of the page refers 6 to a bracketed section. There is a comment to the side 7 that reads, "no", which I interpreted as incorrect. 8 There is an arrow leading from that bracketed section 9 with the suggested substitute language for what is 10 within the brackets. 11 Q And what is within the brackets? 12 A The words "Lake Okeechobee water quality 13 standards." 14 Q Was it your interpretation that Mr. Lund 15 wanted you to replace what was in the bracketed area, 16 the brackets that he indicated in the paragraph with 17 "excessive P concentrations were occurring"? 18 A That was his understanding of what was 19 occurring at that time. 20 Q It is your understanding of his notation on 21 this document? 22 A Yes. 23 Q Getting back to the notation on the top 24 right-hand corner, I believe you said that was in your 25 handwriting? 239 1 A Yes. 2 Q What does BP section mean? 3 A Back pumping. 4 Q Does that refer to a section in this 5 document? 6 A Yes. 7 Q Where would that be? 8 A It is the section beginning on this page, 9 page two, "Mr. Pete Rhoads proceeded with an update on 10 Lake Okeechobee water supply backpumping." 11 Q How did you reconcile Mr. Rhoads notations on 12 this document with your notation on the upper 13 right-hand corner? 14 MR. HALL: Objection, assumes facts not in 15 evidence, mischaracterizes the witness' testimony. 16 MS. WATERS: I would join the objection. 17 THE WITNESS: I would have to refer to 18 Mr. Rhoads' comments and the subsequent draft. I 19 don't recall at this point what changes if any 20 were made ultimately. 21 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 22 Q In preparing these summaries for LOTAC, was 23 it your customary habit to try and follow the exact 24 wording of what was said in the meetings? 25 MS. WATERS: Objection to the form of the 240 1 question. 2 THE WITNESS: Could you say the question 3 again? 4 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 5 Q In your summarizing of the LOTAC meetings, 6 was it your customary habit to try to follow the exact 7 wording of what went on in the meeting? 8 A They were not verbatim transcripts. I was 9 preparing summaries, so the exact wording was not 10 always used. 11 Q To the best of your recollection, was it your 12 customary habit to try and use the exact scientific or 13 technical terms that were used in the meetings? 14 MS. WATERS: Objection, asked and answered. 15 The witness has already previously testified it 16 was her role to complete summaries, not exact 17 wordings. 18 THE WITNESS: I used exact wording usually 19 only in relation to specific motions or votes by 20 the council when they would devise exact language 21 for that purpose. That language would be 22 reflected verbatim in the meeting summary at their 23 instruction. 24 BY MS. THRONE-CONTE: 25 Q I draw your attention to the bottom of that 241 1 page. There appears some handwriting. Can you 2 identify that handwriting? 3 A Yes, that is my handwriting. 4 Q Could you please read that? 5 A It says, "Frank - please review. Thirteen 6 foot level was Lake Okeechobee target for January 1, 7 not November 1 (MacVicar, September 7). Also, any 8 benefit to briefing water supply subcommittee on 11/16 9 and saying so here. More responsive, especially if 10 meeting summary is mailed next week in advance of 11/16 11 meeting. I'm going to run this by Pete for accuracy, 12 Lisa." 13 Q What did you mean by that note? 14 A The first phrase was a request to review this 15 portion of the meeting summary. The next sentence 16 referring to the Lake Okeechobee target was in response 17 to a discussion that Frank and I had earlier about that 18 target. 19 The final sentence regarding the briefing to 20 the water supply subcommittee related to preparing the 21 agenda for LOTAC's water supply subcommittee meeting, 22 which was scheduled for the 16th of November. 23 Q What do you mean by "more responsive"? 24 A I am not certain exactly what I was getting 25 at there. 242 1 Q The next page in this exhibit is a 2 handwritten sheet. If you would, please turn to that. 3 A (Witness complies.) 4 Q Was this sheet originally attached to the 5 first two pages of this exhibit or was it originally 6 attached to the last pages of this exhibit. 7 A It was a cover page for the last, the pages 8 that follow in this exhibit. 9 Q Turning to the last pages of that exhibit -- 10 A The last page? 11 Q The last pages after what you have identified 12 as a handwritten cover page, is that another copy of 13 the draft meeting summary for October 31st, 1989? 14 A Yes, it is. 15 Q Can you identify whose handwriting that is 16 specifically which occurs on page two and page five of 17 the second meeting summary? 18 A That is Pete Rhoads' handwriting. 19 Q On both of those pages? 20 A Yes. 21 Q Is there anything else that you would like to 22 tell me, either in connection with the advisory 23 committee or your involvement in the Everglades SWIM 24 planning process? 25 MS. WATERS: Objection, it is not a question, 243 1 it is a statement, it is overly broad. If 2 Counsel has any specific questions she would like 3 the witness to answer, then proceed with 4 questioning. 5 THE WITNESS: I have no further comment. 6 MS. THRONE-CONTE: I don't have any further 7 questions. 8 (Whereupon, there was a discussion off the 9 record.) 10 MS. THRONE-CONTE: It is approximately ten 11 minutes after 4:00. We are going to recess for 12 the day and continue at 8:30 in the morning, with 13 questions by the cities of Belle Glade and 14 Clewiston. Is that agreeable, as the parties have 15 stipulated? 16 MR. HALL: That is fine. 17 (Whereupon, the deposition was recessed.) 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 244 1 2 THE STATE OF FLORIDA,) 3 ) 4 COUNTY OF PALM BEACH.) 5 I, S. Elaine Smith, Court Reporter and Notary 6 Public for the State of Florida at Large, do hereby 7 certify that I reported the deposition of LISA SMITH, 8 called by the Plaintiff in the above-styled cause; that 9 the witness was sworn by me; that the foregoing pages, 10 numbered from 1 to 243, inclusive, constitute a true 11 record of the deposition by said witness. 12 I further certify that I am not attorney or 13 counsel of any of the parties, nor a relative or 14 employee of any attorney or counsel connected with the 15 action, nor financially interested in the action. 16 WITNESS MY HAND and official seal in the City 17 of West Palm Beach, County of Palm Beach, State of 18 Florida, this _____ day of January, 1991. 19 20 ________________________ S. ELAINE SMITH, Notary 21 Public, State of Florida at Large. My commission 22 expires: 3-4-93 23 24 25 ??