1 DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, STATE OF FLORIDA
2
3
CASE NOS. 92-3038
4 92-3039
92-3040
5
SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE OF )
6 FLORIDA, et al., )
)
7 Petitioners, )
)
8 v. )
)
9 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT )
DISTRICT, )
10 Respondent, )
)
11 and )
)
12 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al )
)
13 Intervenors. )
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
14
15 One Clearlake Center
West Palm Beach, Florida
16 February 16, 1993
9:00 a.m.
17
DEPOSITION OF DOCTOR DAVID ANDERSON
18
19 Taken before JACKIE JOHNSON, Professional
20 Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of
21 Florida at Large, pursuant to Notice of Taking
22 Deposition filed in the above cause.
23 - - - - - - -
24
25
Page 1
1 APPEARANCES
2
ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS
3
PEEPLES, EARL & BLANK
4 One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3636
Two South Biscayne Boulevard
5 Miami, Florida 33131
BY: Jonathan L. Gaines, ESQ.
6
ON BEHALF OF THE INTERVENORS UNITED STATES
7
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
8 P.O. Box 663
Washington, D.C. 20044
9 BY: Geoffrey Garver, ESQ.
10 ON BEHALF OF THE INTERVENORS SFWMD
11 POPHAM HAIK
100 S.E. Second Street
12 P.O. Box 019101
Miami, Florida 33131
13 BY: Patrick S. Cousins
14
15
16 EXHIBITS
NUMBER PAGE
17 1 21
2 154
18 3 155
4 178
19 5 179
20
Page 2
1 Thereupon --
2 DOCTOR DAVID ANDERSON,
3 was called as a witness and, having been first duly
4 sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
5 DIRECT EXAMINATION
6 BY MR. GARVER:
7 Q. Please state your name and address.
8 A. David Anderson. I live at 700 Saganow
9 Avenue, Clewiston, Florida.
10 MR. GARVER: Doctor Anderson, my name is
11 Geoff Garver. I am an attorney with the United
12 States in these administrative proceedings, and
13 you have been designated as an expert witness by
14 the Florida Sugar Cane League, U.S. Sugar
15 Corporation and New Hope South on alternatives
16 to storm water treatment areas, water quality,
17 soil chemistry and chemical treatment of
18 phosphorus; is that consistent with your
19 understanding?
20 THE WITNESS: Yes.
21 MR. GARVER: Your lawyer has indicated to
22 me that your testimony will be primarily limited
23 to chemical treatment as an alternative to storm
24 water treatment areas; is that correct?
25 THE WITNESS: Well, as far as I have been
Page 3
1 asked so far, that's all I know of that's going
2 to be asked, that's correct.
3 BY MR. GARVER:
4 Q. Other than chemical treatment as a means
5 for removing phosphorus from water, are there any
6 other areas as to which you anticipate providing
7 testimony in these proceedings?
8 A. It's hard to tell.
9 My experience is fairly broad working with
10 soil remediation techniques, also, in the dairy soils
11 and dairy areas up north of the lake.
12 Q. Do you anticipate providing testimony with
13 regards to soil remediation techniques as applied to
14 soils in the Everglades Agriculture Area?
15 A. That's correct.
16 My field of endeavor is, I am so-called --
17 at least I have no anticipation for this. I expect
18 to be, I guess, giving testimony regarding the
19 chemical treatment of waters, but should I be called
20 upon, I suppose I will.
21 MR. GAINES: Geoff, maybe I should just
22 state what I told you before the depo.
23 For the Record, there's some other subject
24 matters listed in the witness disclosure besides
25 chemical treatment, and I was working to see if
Page 4
1 that could be eliminated or not, and the
2 decision that we came to is that since those are
3 all tied to the chemical treatment area anyway,
4 we weren't comfortable eliminating any of those
5 areas, but we think his primary focus is his
6 work he is doing on chemical treatment.
7 BY MR. GARVER:
8 Q. Doctor Anderson, have you ever been deposed
9 before?
10 A. No, I have not.
11 Q. Have you ever given sworn testimony before
12 in a legal proceeding?
13 A. No, I have not.
14 Q. Have you ever served as an expert
15 consultant in a legal proceeding?
16 A. No.
17 MR. GARVER: I will just briefly explain
18 what goes on here. Then I will be asking you a
19 series of questions related to your knowledge
20 and expert opinions relating to matters that are
21 at issue in this proceeding.
22 You should give me your complete and honest
23 answers to my questions, and you must answer my
24 questions, unless your attorney instructs you
25 not to.
Page 5
1 If I ask a question that you don't
2 understand or I phrase something in a way that
3 you don't understand, which given the nature of
4 the issues here, is not at all unprobable,
5 please let me know, and I will try to rephrase
6 the question.
7 If at any time you'd like to take a break,
8 just let me know, and we will just take a little
9 breather and get back on track then.
10 The first thing I'd like to do is just
11 review some of the documents we asked for in the
12 deposition notice.
13 BY MR. GARVER:
14 Q. Did you read the deposition notice for this
15 deposition?
16 A. I sure did.
17 Q. I believe the last question I asked you was
18 whether you have read the deposition notice for this
19 deposition, and you said that you had, right?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. I just want to go through the categories of
22 documents we asked for and just have you tell me
23 generally what documents you have produced responsive
24 to each of those categories.
25 The first category was any and all
Page 6
1 documents that you created or relied upon in
2 preparing, formulating, developing, authoring,
3 co-authoring, reviewing or organizing anticipated
4 expert testimony in this action, including any such
5 documents relating to any work in progress.
6 Can you tell me generally what you produced
7 under that category.
8 A. Well, basically you already have all the
9 information based upon your document. I didn't go to
10 any extra work to give anybody any extra documents
11 other than what John had given you, I guess that has
12 to do with the research documents, reports, from this
13 last year.
14 Q. Research reports relating to chemical
15 treatment?
16 A. Chemical treatment.
17 You have a listing of all the other
18 literature that I have been involved with writing.
19 So I didn't supply any other information other than
20 what was in the depo.
21 MR. GAINES: Maybe I can help. I think
22 what he is saying is he hasn't created any
23 documents specifically for his testimony in this
24 case, and I think what you're asking him to do
25 is categorize the documents that we have
Page 7
1 provided into these various categories; is that
2 right?
3 MR. GARVER: Right.
4 If you haven't created or relied upon a
5 document, then I am not -- these lists weren't
6 asking you to create anything. They were just
7 asking what you had created or relied on and
8 then what you had turned over to us through your
9 attorney.
10 BY MR. GARVER:
11 Q. I understand the first category you have
12 indicated that you have turned over some research
13 reports that you prepared during the last year
14 relating to chemical treatment processes; is that
15 correct.
16 A. That's correct.
17 Q. I have three such reports, one from May
18 1992, one from August 1992 and one from November
19 1992.
20 A. That would be the primary three, that's
21 correct.
22 Q. The second category is any and all
23 documents that you created or relied upon in
24 preparing, formulating, developing, authoring,
25 co-authoring, reviewing or organizing anticipated
Page 8
1 expert testimony relating to alternatives proposed in
2 the Everglades SWIM Plan.
3 A. I did not go to any effort of preparing at
4 all for this testimony for being an expert witness;
5 is that what you're asking?
6 Did I create anything for this period of
7 time for anticipating expert testimony? No, I did
8 not.
9 Q. Well, you have been listed as an expert
10 witness who is anticipated to testify at the final
11 hearing in this proceeding; is that correct?
12 A. I believe so.
13 MR. GAINES: Let me just -- I don't want to
14 interrupt.
15 THE WITNESS: I'm a little unclear about
16 your questions.
17 MR. GAINES: I think one of the problems
18 here is that I am not so sure that his documents
19 can be clearly compartmentalized by these
20 categories the way they are in this depo notice.
21 For example, three reports that he just
22 mentioned from May, August and November of '92
23 probably have some relationship to four or five
24 of these categories. But I think, again, Doctor
25 Anderson what he is just asking you is you have
Page 9
1 given us a stack of documents, and really that
2 was done through our office, but you're asking
3 him to say which documents relate to which
4 categories, is that right; is that what you're
5 trying to get him to tell you?
6 MR. GARVER: Yes.
7 THE WITNESS: Maybe you ought to outline
8 the categories you're interested in.
9 MR. GARVER: Well, I did that in this
10 deposition notice. That's why I am going
11 through here. There may be some other
12 terminology in here that's confusing to you.
13 MR. COUSINS: What if we give him the
14 documents and have him take a few minutes to
15 figure out where they all go.
16 THE WITNESS: I have been involved in such
17 a broad range of activities over the past years,
18 that it's difficult for me to really pinpoint
19 exactly what you're talking about, unless you
20 specifically point to a document.
21 BY MR. GARVER:
22 Q. After you read this or were given this
23 deposition notice, did you then give documents to the
24 attorneys?
25 A. I was called in, and in the case of the
Page 10
1 three documents that you were asked about or say that
2 you have, May, August and November, I actually did
3 not have my original copies. So he got those from
4 other originals and got copies. Everything else was
5 not asked for. I don't think anything else was asked
6 for, 'cause they had already -- they had these
7 documents already in their possession.
8 If you want to go back to trying to
9 categorize.
10 As I read this in here relating to
11 alternatives, what documents would be related to the
12 STA's; is that correct?
13 Q. Right.
14 A. I believe those three research documents
15 would be related to the STA alternatives. There's
16 another document that's in international print right
17 now in Journal Science regarding phosphorus
18 mineralization would be another one. There's some
19 other documents also related to South Florida Water
20 Management's contract that we did in 1988, '89 and
21 '90. Report 4.3.1.2.3 regarding the use of soil
22 amendments to reduce phosphorus mobility and
23 transport in soils ordered with animal waste. That's
24 the ones in Lake Okeechobee.
25 There were a number of other documents that
Page 11
1 were published in Southeast Dairy Review on best
2 management practices on reducing, I guess, storm
3 water drainage and runoff, and I believe there's two
4 articles related to that. Those should be listed in
5 my publication listing under contracts and
6 publications.
7 Q. In the report you did on soil amendments in
8 Lake Okeechobee, how does that relate to alternatives
9 to storm water treatment areas?
10 A. There's several things we did. I'd say
11 another document would have been probably a thesis by
12 Orlando Diaz. I have done a number of things since
13 that period of time related to phosphorus retention
14 under modification of soil in the EAA, and we have
15 seen that especially related to the influence of the
16 bed rock and the carbonates, that this has a very
17 positive influence of retaining phosphates.
18 In our work in Okeechobee, we looked at
19 various chemical alternatives to amend those soils in
20 order to slow down the phosphorus coming off the
21 drainage waters.
22 So indirectly those soils can't be compared
23 to what's happening in the EAA, but directly the
24 chemisty and the principals are very similar and have
25 yet been applied, but should be in the future.
Page 12
1 Q. In the Lake Okeechobee soil amendment
2 situation, did that involve adding chemicals to the
3 soil itself?
4 A. Right, exactly.
5 We were interested in measuring the
6 drainage from those soils after they have been
7 chemically altered.
8 Q. And in the case of the chemical treatment
9 alternatives you have been investigating for the EAA
10 drainage waters, that involves adding similar
11 chemicals directly to the water; is that right?
12 A. Not similar chemicals, but just alterations
13 of the water chemistry in order to precipitate and
14 coagulate out minerals and nutrients.
15 Q. Is it then the same physical chemical
16 processes that are at work in the case of the soil
17 amendments in Lake Okeechobee soils and chemical
18 treatment water in the EAA drainage waters?
19 A. No. They are slightly different. You're
20 dealing with different processes that are occurring.
21 In the water, you're working with basically
22 waste water treatment type processes that are fairly
23 well known and delineated, with the exception that we
24 have very unusual waters, very unusual in the sense
25 of its chemical properties are very different from
Page 13
1 anywhere else in the country. The soil has a much
2 more dynamic environment, so to speak. It's got an
3 environmental, biological and chemical interactions
4 that are important. So that's just a little bit
5 different than the reactions that we're taking a look
6 at, waters which are very, very quick. Whereas in
7 the soil, it may take a period of a couple of months.
8 Q. What is unique about the water that you are
9 dealing with in the Everglades Agricultural Area?
10 A. Unique as to the rest of the world?
11 Q. Yes.
12 A. As to anywhere else in the world, we have
13 hardnesses that are extremely high. You have
14 dissolved carbon or organic materials, dissolved
15 organic carbons that are very high. Although
16 variable, the particulate phases in there can range
17 from very low to very high.
18 Just generally speaking, you have a
19 substance that can behave like a weak acid. This
20 water has a very high bufferihg capacity and,
21 frankly, from the experiences, both here in the
22 United States and in Europe, this makes it a very
23 difficult water for chemical treatment, very unique
24 in a sense, because it's from an organic soil.
25 Q. In what respect do the properties of the
Page 14
1 EAA drainage water make it difficult to treat?
2 A. I can't answer that without getting into
3 some of the direct reasons why we're treating it.
4 Your chemical treatment of water is done to
5 precipitate soluble compounds that are in the water.
6 Those soluble compounds, which would include
7 phosphorus, is probably a secondary reaction of the
8 process. The primary reaction will be the conversion
9 of the dosing chemical into an insoluble form which
10 reacts with the soluble carbon and precipitates the
11 carbon materials out, which also then precipitates
12 out or retains or absorbs also the phosphorus and
13 other elements.
14 Chemical dosing is really something which
15 phosphorus is just one of those things that are
16 captured by it. It wasn't specifically keynoted for
17 its reaction just for phosphorus.
18 What we are looking at is, basically, iron
19 compounds at this point and the formation of iron
20 oxides which are insoluable. They have a charge.
21 Because they have a charge, they coagulate.
22 As time progresses in that coagulation
23 process, the materials are very active in the water,
24 and it absorbs phosphorus, absorbs other metals. If
25 there are heavy metals in the water, the metals would
Page 15
1 be absorbed. Basically, everything is taken out,
2 including the color that is seen in the water.
3 From the start, you have a material that
4 looks very colored, like a weak tea, and when we
5 finish, the desirable end product of the water, it's
6 fairly clear water. Those constituents in there make
7 it unique, because it consumes those chemicals in a
8 high rate.
9 If we had lower carbons, you would have
10 less chemicals used. If you had lower hardnesses,
11 you'd have better control over the coagulation
12 process. So these properties make it unique in terms
13 of experience elsewhere in the country.
14 Q. Then is it a fact that generally you would
15 have to use a lot of treatment chemicals, that makes
16 this water difficult to treat?
17 A. Makes it difficult to treat because it
18 consumes more chemical than is traditionally what
19 would be in New York or let's say in good water
20 quality, treating of good water quality.
21 This water quality, naturally, is of a
22 different nature. So it consumes more chemical, and
23 the variability of the water quality changes
24 throughout the year.
25 I mean, we have a semi-tropical climate,
Page 16
1 which means during the Summer, temperatures increase.
2 You have more biological activities during the Summer
3 than in the Winter. You have diurnal fluctuations
4 that also influences the ability to treat these
5 waters, as compared to something that might have just
6 a couple of biological peaks. We have many of them
7 that occur throughout the year.
8 Q. Going back to the document list here.
9 I think so far what we have covered are the
10 research reports that you provided, the 1992 research
11 reports. You have also identified some publications.
12 In connection with work that will
13 potentially relate to your expert testimony, have you
14 produced any raw data?
15 A. You mean anything scientific is raw data?
16 What precisely do you mean?
17 My whole life is -- in my professional
18 life, I produce raw data. I mean, what exactly do
19 you mean?
20 Q. In performing investigations of the
21 applicability of chemical treatment to remove
22 phosphorus, specifically in looking at chemical
23 treatment as an alternatives to STA's, have you
24 produced any raw data?
25 A. Oh, certainly.
Page 17
1 Q. And have you made that available to your
2 attorney to turn over to us?
3 A. Yes. The Report 11-92 really is a
4 collection of all the data produced up to that point.
5 Q. Is the November 1992 report a synthesis of
6 that data?
7 A. It's a collection of all the data. Of
8 course, it's processed data, basically in charts and
9 tables, figures.
10 MR. COUSINS: I hate to interject.
11 Where is that one?
12 MR. GAINES: It's actually '92-11.
13 BY MR. GARVER:
14 Q. In doing your investigations of the
15 chemical treatment as an alternative to STA's, did
16 you generate any handwritten laboratory notes or
17 field notes?
18 A. Well, our entire laboratory is set up for
19 quality assurance and quality control, and every
20 sample that comes in is processed, is logged in, is
21 logged out. Every time we move a sample or change a
22 sample or do something to it, we have it logged.
23 Everything that comes in from the laboratory goes
24 directly onto a computer. So the answer would be
25 obviously yes. There's notes, both, computer form as
Page 18
1 well as controlled laboratory procedures that are in
2 the note form. All those are with the QAQC plan that
3 we established last year also with the project.
4 Q. Did you produce any of the computer files
5 or other compilations of data that you just described
6 to your attorneys to turn over to us?
7 A. No, I did not.
8 MR. GARVER: Mr. Gaines, I believe that
9 that information, those compilations of data
10 would be responsive to our document request.
11 MR. GAINES: What compilations are you
12 talking about specifically?
13 THE WITNESS: You sure you want them all?
14 MR. GAINES: I mean, I just want to
15 understand what it is you're looking for.
16 MR. GARVER: Computer compilations of data
17 used in investigations with any chemical
18 treatment. Whether or not we do want these at
19 this point, I can't say right now, but I would
20 identify those as responsive documents that have
21 not been produced.
22 MR. GAINES: Well, I don't know if those
23 are responsive or not, but let me know if you
24 are looking for them, and then I will get
25 together with him and see what's out there.
Page 19
1 THE WITNESS: There's certainly nothing
2 secretive that wants to be hidden, but there's a
3 lot of a background information.
4 BY MR. GARVER:
5 Q. What other kind of background information
6 is there?
7 A. Well, you're asking -- the reports consist
8 of all the data in a compiled format. So everything
9 that you see in that report is essentially the data
10 base. I am not sure exactly what you would want, but
11 if you want the whole nine yards, it would fill a few
12 boxes, perhaps.
13 MR. GARVER: We'll let you know about that.
14 I just want to figure out the universe of
15 documents.
16 THE WITNESS: I don't look forward to
17 gathering all that, either.
18 MR. GAINES: Just so I am clear, we're
19 talking about this Report 92-11 and the tables
20 and data that are reflected in here. You're
21 talking about the computer printouts that went
22 into putting these tables together?
23 MR. GARVER: Right, the raw data from which
24 those charts and graphs were generated.
25 MR. GARVER: I'd like to turn now to your
Page 20
1 resume, Doctor Anderson.
2 Can we get this marked as Doctor Anderson
3 1.
4 (The document referred to was
5 thereupon marked Anderson Exhibit
6 No. 1 for Identification.)
7 BY MR. GARVER:
8 Q. Doctor Anderson, I am handing you what's
9 been marked as Anderson Exhibit No. 1.
10 A. It is my resume.
11 Q. Is this your most recent resume?
12 A. Yes, it is.
13 Q. Is this a resume you recently updated?
14 A. I just keep a resume updated. I write a
15 lot of materials, and every time I complete
16 something, I just update it. It's just my working
17 file of what I do. It was not -- you know, this
18 resume wasn't prepared specifically for you, no.
19 This is something I have had for years.
20 Q. Can you briefly describe your educational
21 background?
22 A. Sure. I received my Ph.D. in Soil
23 Chemistry and Water Chemistry at the University of
24 Wisconsin, Madison 1981, my Masters degree in Soil
25 Science and Statistics from N.C. State University at
Page 21
1 Raleigh in 1978. I had a BS degree in Natural
2 Resources from the University of Wisconsin, actually,
3 at Stevens Point in 1973.
4 Q. Can you briefly describe to me the degree
5 requirements for a BS in natural resources?
6 A. I don't remember the specific requirements,
7 but a lot of chemistry science. It has to be a lot
8 of science, which includes the biological sciences
9 and chemistry. We covered in that degree forestry,
10 wildlife, water, soils, chemistry labs related to
11 each of those disciplines, humanities, social
12 sciences, psychology, English composition, ROTC, I
13 think, one year.
14 Q. And for your Masters in soil science and
15 statistics, what were the requirements that you had
16 to meet to obtain that degree?
17 A. There were so many credit hours for the
18 whole degree, but basically you have a fairly strong
19 emphasis in soil chemistry, chemistry, as well as
20 statistics. There's four or five different
21 statistics courses that you have to fulfill to go
22 through a minor in statistics.
23 Q. What courses that you took in obtaining
24 your Masters related to chemical treatment of
25 phosphorus as you are employing it?
Page 22
1 A. Not as phosphorus. My particular thesis
2 was regarding liming reactions of soils that were in
3 the mountain soils in North Carolina, and in that
4 line, I spent a lot of work in laboratories as well
5 as taking courses such as soil physics, soil
6 chemistry that related to that thesis and that area
7 of study.
8 Q. Can you describe to me in a little more
9 detail your thesis, your Masters thesis?
10 A. Sure.
11 You're referring to the thesis here?
12 Q. Yes.
13 A. We were looking at different factors, soil
14 chemical factors that actually affected the liming
15 requirements of soils that were originated in the
16 mountain areas of North Carolina. These are soils
17 that would be typical of soils in North Carolina,
18 Virginia, parts of Tennessee. We looked at how the
19 requirements were derived and what factors are
20 actually influencing the lime requirements. Lime
21 requirements meaning how much lime was required to
22 alter the PH, alter the soil chemistry of those
23 soils.
24 Q. What was the lime requirements for? I
25 mean, why would you be altering the PH or the
Page 23
1 chemistry of the soils?
2 A. In many of those areas, those soils are
3 very acid and very unsuitable for land development,
4 whether it be for forest production or whether it
5 would be tobacco or other crops like corn or cotton.
6 In some of those cases, some of those areas have very
7 documented forms of metals such as maganese, and
8 liming reduces those acidity products such that those
9 products can grow at a suitable rate and without any
10 toxicity.
11 In some of those cases, some of those soils
12 have been stripped because of erosion, and some soils
13 are very raw in acid, very difficult to retain, and
14 they use lime to remediate those soils.
15 Q. When you were obtaining your Masters, did
16 you take any or do any course work in wetlands
17 ecology?
18 A. No, I did not.
19 Q. Did you do any course work related to
20 wetlands water quality?
21 A. No, I did not.
22 Q. Did you do any course work, organize
23 research related to oligotrophic systems?
24 A. In my Masters, I did not.
25 Q. Did you do any course work related to
Page 24
1 phosphorus cycling?
2 A. In my Masters, actually the first year of
3 my Masters, I was in the Tropical Soils Program, and
4 at that time we were going to be doing our research
5 in Costa Rica and Turrialba, and the specific topic
6 was phosphorus and intercropping in that area in
7 Central America. That project was with USAID.
8 Support was dropped. There were some political
9 problems at the time, and at that moment, I switched
10 my Masters thesis to the one that I completed. So I
11 had to reverse my entire thesis. So I spent
12 approximately one year preparing for the Central
13 America research program, which was phosphorus and
14 intercropping. So, yes, I guess the answer would be
15 yes, and that's specifically what I did.
16 Q. What is phosphorus and intercropping?
17 A. Phosphorus fertilization of crops that were
18 growing simultaneously under a tropical environment.
19 Previous to my doing my Masters, I worked
20 in the Amazon Basin area which we looked at slash and
21 burn techniques in the Amazon. We were trying to
22 find ways of reducing the population or keeping the
23 population from cutting more forest down by keeping
24 them indignly local to the area that they had cleared
25 out.
Page 25
1 Under normal or natural conditions, after
2 three years of tropical climate, they have to move
3 into the forest, cut new forest down, because the
4 soils had been depleted because of high rainfall for
5 soil conditions. They can't grow good crops. They
6 can't survive. So they cut more down.
7 Our work in the Amazon was to specifically
8 research not only intercropping, but what techniques
9 that they could use to maintain that lands without
10 cutting down more forest. The work that was to be
11 done in Turrialba was to be done in the same type of
12 light, trying to look at the growth of several new
13 crops simultaneously under fertility regime, and my
14 particular area was to be working with phosphorus.
15 Q. In obtaining your Masters, did you do any
16 course work, organize, conduct any research relating
17 to chemical treatment of waste waters?
18 A. I did not.
19 My only experience up to that time on
20 wetlands was when I worked with the Soils Science
21 Department that year, previous to that, in the
22 Organic Tide Water Areas, and these are organic soils
23 located in Plymouth, North Carolina, Eastern North
24 Carolina.
25 Q. What time period are you referring to now?
Page 26
1 A. 1974, '75.
2 Q. This was prior to your returning back --
3 A. Back to school.
4 Q. Can you describe in more detail what work
5 you were conducting between completion of your
6 Bachelors and beginning your Masters work?
7 A. After I finished my Bachelors degree, I
8 went into U.S. Peace Corps and spent approximately
9 one year in Arequipa, Peru, which was working in the
10 soil and water laboratory, and there I was supposed
11 to teach soil and water techniques in the laboratory.
12 I also did some extension related activities of
13 promoting laboratories and the use of the
14 laboratories in Southern Peru, both on the coast and
15 in the interior.
16 After that, I joined N.C. State's team
17 working in the Amazon that following year. Returning
18 from Peace Corps, I worked one year at the Tide Water
19 Research Station as a research technician, and that
20 area is basically organic histosols, working on
21 development of those soils and those wetlands into
22 agriculture production areas before returning back to
23 my Masters.
24 Q. During the time you were with the Tide
25 Water Research Station --
Page 27
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. -- were you involved in chemical treatment
3 of drainage waters?
4 A. No, I wasn't.
5 Q. Can you describe to me the work you did in
6 order to obtain your Ph.D. at the University of
7 Wisconsin?
8 A. Sure.
9 I took numerous courses in the Chemistry
10 Department, soil chemistry, soil mineralogy, soil
11 fertility, the general requirements for that degree
12 in the Department of Soil Science as well as
13 fulfilled the requirements in the Department of Water
14 Science and Water Chemistry and Water Science.
15 My thesis was working at modeling phosphate
16 dissolution in soils, looking at rock phosphates from
17 different types of rock phosphates and modeling their
18 chemical reactions in the soil, developing a chemical
19 or excuse me an interactive computer model that
20 produced the solubility rates and dissolution rates
21 of rock phosphates in soil. So it was both a
22 computer based study as well as a greenhouse and
23 growth room studies looking at specific chemistry --
24 soil chemistry reactions to dissolution process.
25 Q. Did you have any teaching or research
Page 28
1 assistantships in obtaining your Ph.D.?
2 A. Yes. I taught a few semesters assisting as
3 a teaching professor while I was there. That's part
4 of the requirements of the university.
5 Q. In obtaining your Ph.D., did you do any
6 course work or research related to wetlands ecology?
7 A. Not specifically, other than what was in
8 course work that I covered, both, in the Soils
9 Department as well as in the Water Science
10 Department, just covering what studies had been done
11 in the past as a student. I didn't do any research
12 in wetlands ecology.
13 Q. What types of studies relating to wetlands
14 ecology were involved in the course that you just
15 described?
16 A. Well, in the study of water chemistry, you
17 have to study certain case histories, whether it be
18 different lakes have been treated or ecologically
19 studied, and in that course work we were studying
20 under people who are currently doing that type of
21 work. So obviously we knew what they were doing.
22 They informed us what their background was
23 and how it related to the course work, but that's
24 really the limit of my ecological training, other
25 than in my BS training in which we did water surveys
Page 29
1 and ecological surveys for my bachelors degree. We
2 did that during a summer course that we had to take
3 mandatory at a forestry camp. We had to enter the
4 forestry camp for the Summer. At that time we did
5 the biological field studies.
6 Q. Did any of the course work you did in
7 obtaining your Ph.D. relate to the Everglades?
8 A. My Ph.D.?
9 Q. Yes.
10 A. No.
11 Q. Did any of the course work you did in
12 obtaining your Bachelors or Masters degrees relate to
13 the Everglades?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Did you do any course work or research in
16 obtaining your Ph.D. related to chemical treatment of
17 waste waters, including agriculture drainage waters?
18 A. Soil or water remediation, no.
19 Q. What did you do after obtaining your Ph.D.?
20 A. Took a job with USDA in the ARS, worked one
21 year as a post-doc at Auburn University.
22 Q. What is the ARS?
23 A. Agriculture Research Service with the
24 U.S. Department of Agricultural, and my position was
25 a soil chemist.
Page 30
1 Q. And after working at Auburn University,
2 what did you do?
3 A. Took a job with the University of Florida
4 in my current position.
5 Q. What is your current position?
6 A. My current position is located -- I work at
7 the Everglades Research and Education Center. I am a
8 soil water chemist working also with sugar cane
9 nutrition, working with the industry on agricultural
10 crops as well as the work on issues that relate
11 therein. There's a fairly broad mission of
12 responsibilities associated with each of those
13 positions.
14 I have been with the University of Florida
15 for 11 years, initially, by doing a lot of studies
16 regarding fertilizer requirements with sugar cane
17 production, working with some other crops, biomass
18 crops for alcohol production as well. Initially, I
19 worked pretty strongly with the fertilizer industry,
20 fertilizer and chemical industries during that period
21 of time in the early years. I have continued to work
22 with those studies, published a lot of different
23 works on space and soils chemistry as well as soil
24 fertility, both being applied in basic nature.
25 Q. What exactly is the Everglades Research and
Page 31
1 Education Center?
2 A. It's one of the -- I am not sure exactly
3 how many we have in the state. I think there's 15
4 centers in the State of Florida that belong to the
5 Institute of Food and Agricultural Science called
6 IFAS, but the University of Florida, it's one of the
7 stations in the state.
8 We have, I guess, on record 19
9 Ph.D. positions that are designated for that station
10 with, I think, close to 65 support personnel there.
11 That station was one of the first stations in
12 Florida. I think that was established in 1918 or
13 1922. So it's been in that area or that region for a
14 long time.
15 Q. And how is the EREC; is that how it's
16 referred to?
17 A. Uh-huh.
18 Q. How is the EREC funded?
19 A. State of Florida with the budget
20 constraints that we have had, as has everybody,
21 including yourselves. I am sure we have depended
22 fairly heavily on getting support from industry as
23 well as from government outside agencies through
24 research grants.
25 Q. What industries have provided research
Page 32
1 grants?
2 A. Besides the Florida Sugar Cane League, we
3 have got vegetable industry people who are vegetable
4 producers that give money, chemical industry,
5 fertilizer industry, South Florida Water Management
6 District, and there are probably other grants
7 associated with the Caribbean Initiative. I mean,
8 over the year, it's pretty broad based, both from
9 industry and from government.
10 Q. Do you have any teaching responsibilities
11 in your position at EREC?
12 A. No, I have not.
13 Q. Have you ever had any teaching
14 responsibilities?
15 A. No.
16 This is a 100-percent research position.
17 Q. Do you work with degree candidates?
18 A. I have been associated with several, but my
19 official students, I only had one student in 11
20 years. His name was Orlando Diaz.
21 Q. Were you his main professor, so to speak,
22 in getting him to complete his degree requirements?
23 A. There had to be two professors. I was one
24 of them. The other one was in Gainesville. In order
25 to complete his degree, he had to have a professor up
Page 33
1 in Gainesville. So there were two of us, one down
2 here, one up at the Gainesville campus.
3 Q. Has Mr. Diaz obtained his Ph.D.?
4 A. Yes, he has.
5 Q. In your work at EREC, have you been
6 involved in any work relating to treatment of
7 agricultural drainage waters?
8 A. Yes, I have.
9 Q. And what work have you done in that area?
10 A. The work that was, I guess, essentially
11 started in 1991, December of 1991, shown in the
12 report of May of '92, also shown in the report of
13 August and November of '92.
14 Q. And that's work relating to chemical
15 treatment of agricultural drainage waters?
16 A. Directly the chemical treatment of
17 agricultural drainage waters.
18 Q. Prior to the work you commenced in December
19 1991, have you done any other work relating to
20 treatment of agricultural drainage waters?
21 A. I have been associated in working as
22 project leader for soil remediation with the soil
23 aspects with the District grants, taking a look at
24 the transport of phosphorus in the Okeechobee
25 Drainage Basin which is in Okeechobee County.
Page 34
1 There are a number of my colleagues who are
2 involved in similar locations, but we were looking at
3 the soil drainage waters and reactions after we had
4 remediated those soils. We have looked at drainage
5 waters off of those. So we had done column studies
6 off of those and been fairly successful at it.
7 I just might add, the other study was a
8 grant, also, with DER that I had last year, and that
9 was related to the treatment of dairy soils that were
10 heavily loaded with manure with gypsum stack
11 material, which is called desulphurization gympsum
12 that was in conjunction with Tampa Electric
13 Authority.
14 MR. COUSINS: Do you have a paper?
15 THE WITNESS: We have got a paper regarding
16 that work in review right now. It's Number 6 on
17 Page 10, Nutrient Release and Bacterial
18 Enumeration in Soil After Gypsum Application.
19 BY MR. GARVER:
20 Q. Did I understand you correctly that that's
21 been primarily a laboratory research operation?
22 A. Yes, it was.
23 Some of the work we had done regarding
24 gypsum materials was also done with the District
25 project, and with that District project, we had done
Page 35
1 both laboratory and some field studies, and some of
2 the data that we found that was very favorable
3 regarding gypsum treatment at that time we enumerated
4 into this study and did it a second, third or fourth
5 time. So this was under DER grant.
6 Q. When you say the District study, that was
7 the study related to soil amendments in Lake
8 Okeechobee soils?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. During the time you have been at the EREC,
11 have you conducted any research or investigations in
12 the Water Conversation Areas themselves?
13 A. Such as best management practices, by
14 chance? What exactly do you mean?
15 MR. GAINES: He is asking in the WCA's, not
16 in the EAA.
17 BY MR. GARVER:
18 Q. In the Water Conservation Areas?
19 A. No, we have not.
20 We have attempted to do some studies in the
21 Everglades National Park last year, but we could
22 never get the funds for the permission to work in the
23 Park. That was in conjunction with the Soil
24 Conservation Service. The last Soil survey of the
25 Park was done, I think, in the 1920's by Mary Collins
Page 36
1 out of Gainesville, and the SCS personnel down here
2 have an interest in renewing those studies in order
3 to establish some baselines which appear not to be
4 there.
5 Q. What is SCS?
6 A. Soil Conservation Service.
7 Q. Are you referring to --
8 A. I would say we were working through the
9 State Conservationist, would be Wade Hurt in
10 Gainesville.
11 Q. Is that H-U-R-T?
12 A. H-U-R-T, yes, that's correct, and Doctor
13 Mary Collins in Gainesville.
14 Q. Were there any federal employees involved
15 in that project?
16 A. No.
17 We just tried to pursue it trying to do
18 some of the work down there because of our interest
19 in the EAA, and we talked to some of the personnel
20 people in the Everglades National Park about their
21 interest, and they appeared -- basically, they had a
22 little interest in participating, but we could never
23 find the grant funds to proceed with it.
24 Q. Who at Everglades National Park did you
25 discuss this project with?
Page 37
1 A. Michael Zukoff.
2 We went so far as getting SCS to submit to
3 us a proposal of the cost incurred if they would
4 participate. So we went so far as getting some
5 preliminary proposals together.
6 Q. Why were you interested in updating the
7 soil survey in Everglades National Park?
8 A. Many of the soils in the Park are related
9 to soils in the Everglades Agricultural Area, and I
10 have been interested in classification and the nature
11 of those soils, basically, in South Florida. So I
12 have been involved for the last 11 some years in
13 these soils. We have an interest in them.
14 Q. Was there any industry involvement in that
15 proposal?
16 A. No, there was not. This was an academic
17 venture for our own sake.
18 Q. And I believe you stated you couldn't get
19 permission to conduct that research; is that correct?
20 A. It wasn't so much the permission.
21 In order to do work in the Everglades
22 National Park, particularly in the interior, you must
23 involve helicopters, the right time of the year, just
24 to get into the areas that you have to get into. In
25 order to do that, you have to have funding to support
Page 38
1 both the personnel in the park as well as the SCS
2 personnel.
3 The Soil Conversation Service cannot just
4 randomly do studies without additional or outside
5 support. So it was necessary to get grant funds.
6 Q. I still don't understand how permission
7 from and from whom was involved in that project?
8 A. Permission probably would have come from
9 Mike Zukoff or whoever is in charge at Everglades
10 National Park and, partially, whether or not they are
11 interested in pursuing those activities.
12 We never had any clearcut message from Mike
13 whether or not he was interested or not. It was kind
14 of a reserved, well, maybe, combined with the fact
15 that we couldn't get the full grant support. That
16 sort of settled our abilities of getting into the
17 Park and doing the work.
18 Q. Were you ever denied permission from Mike
19 Zukoff or anyone else at the Park to do the research?
20 A. No, not at all. I have always found him
21 very cooperative. I have never had any problems with
22 him.
23 MR. GARVER: Mr. Gaines, there are several
24 publications, and I am finally getting back to
25 you on this, that were listed in Doctor
Page 39
1 Anderson's resume that we would like copies of.
2 MR. GAINES: Okay.
3 MR. GARVER: And we can do that in a break,
4 if you'd like. We can go over those. So we
5 don't have to do that on the Record.
6 THE WITNESS: Tell me --
7 MR. GAINES: Well, obviously we are not
8 going to have those copies for you today.
9 MR. GARVER: Sure.
10 MR. GAINES: When would you want to obtain
11 the copies? Do you know if you're going to be
12 going into tomorrow or not? Is that what you
13 had in mind, to try to get him over and just to
14 get them after the deposition or what?
15 MR. GARVER: Yeah. At this point, I wasn't
16 asking for them necessarily at the conclusion of
17 the depo.
18 MR. GAINES: Well, tell us which ones you
19 would like, and I don't know if they are all
20 available, if he has copies of everything or
21 not. Some of them are out of print. But
22 whatever we have --
23 MR. GARVER: I think just for time sake,
24 let's do it off the Record.
25 MR. GAINES: Okay.
Page 40
1 BY MR. GARVER:
2 Q. Referring back to your resume, Doctor
3 Anderson, on Page 2 under Duties and Responsibilities
4 of your work at the EREC.
5 I notice you have duties and
6 responsibilities in the area of the environmental
7 improvement. Can you describe what those duties and
8 responsibilities are?
9 A. The reason why we have this station is
10 basically to serve the area in whether it be
11 production area, areas of production that are needed
12 to be done or agriculture production or environmental
13 problems that are impacting an area. It's basically
14 our responsibility to get involved in those type of
15 studies and that kind of work. That experiment
16 station really exists as a mission from the State of
17 Florida to the region. It's not specifically to
18 serve necessarily sugar cane interests, but to serve
19 the whole area, whatever those interests might be,
20 and that includes environmental improvement. I am
21 obviously doing some environmental work in
22 accomplishing those duties.
23 Q. Specifically what environmental work are
24 you doing?
25 A. We have been working on the effects of
Page 41
1 water table, not specifically in the EAA, but outside
2 the EAA in Hendry County taking a look at the effects
3 of water table on water quality, the effects of water
4 table on sugar cane production and other parameters.
5 Also, as an interest in the past -- let me
6 just get myself together here, specifically myself.
7 Besides some water remediation work I have
8 been doing, I have also been involved with optimizing
9 fertilizer materials to the sugar cane crop, and
10 that, in particular, is optimizing their most
11 sufficient usage as that fits in as the best
12 management practices. Both the industry and the
13 government are very concerned about people not over
14 fertilizing and pushing nutrients into drainage
15 waters. That's basically it.
16 Q. What specifically have you done in
17 connection with the optimization of fertilization
18 requirements?
19 A. When I first arrived here 11 years ago, I
20 initiated phosphorus studies looking at fertilizer
21 phosphorus application to the sugar cane crop to try
22 to determine their optimum levels and the uses of
23 them based on soil tests, monitoring, tissue plant,
24 tissue monitoring and yield measurements, and those
25 have continued for the past ten years. We have done
Page 42
1 quite a few studies. I can't tell you exact numbers
2 of sites, but we probably have maybe 60 to 70 site
3 years of data collected on that.
4 Currently, I have a man on sabbatical from
5 Brazil that is focusing particularly on that issue,
6 and his job this year will be to collectively gather
7 that data base together and determine the optimum
8 usage of phosphorus fertilizer on sugar cane.
9 Q. To date, have you made any recommendations,
10 published any recommendations regarding optimum
11 phosphorus fertilization?
12 A. No.
13 Of course we have, of course, reported in
14 some of our annual meetings some of our results in
15 the past years, and they vary based on those site
16 specific activities, but we have not published a
17 recommendation or revision of the current
18 recommendation.
19 I have been involved in development of a
20 new chemistry chemical test on soils on acid
21 extraction that we're hoping will do a better job
22 than the past historical procedures have done, but up
23 to this time, no recommendations have been made until
24 we finalize our data base and include it.
25 I think what you're going to find out is
Page 43
1 IFAS or the University of Florida will revise any
2 recommendation with the data substantiated revision,
3 and we are trying to establish some strict guidelines
4 for that so that we don't have individuals making
5 their own recommendations apart from what is the
6 University or IFAS' recommendation.
7 In this last year, we have made some
8 attempts or the University of Florida has made some
9 attempts to unify that process, and we will probably
10 follow the same process.
11 Q. What is the current recommendation relating
12 to phosphorus fertilization?
13 A. It depends on a soil test that they use as
14 a tool to tell them basically how much phosphorus is
15 existing in the fertility of that soil is existing at
16 the time.
17 Actually, the recommendations can be from
18 zero to seventy pounds of P205 per acre. That would
19 be on a plant crop of sugar cane. The routine crop
20 is generally a standard 40 pounds of P205 per acres
21 is taken as the recommendation that's in the EAA.
22 The source of materials generally is using triple
23 super phosphate. That's basically the phosphorus
24 material that is used as the source material.
25 Q. You stated you're doing work now relating
Page 44
1 to updated soil tests to be used in conjunction with
2 the phosphorus fertilization?
3 A. Yes, that's correct.
4 Q. What were the limitations I believe you
5 mentioned earlier regarding existing soil tests?
6 A. Well, initially, historically we have to go
7 back to historical record, particularly for
8 phosphorus. They used a water retractable phosphorus
9 for that test. That test was generally correlated to
10 vegetable crops which grow on a very short term. The
11 water extraction is very variable. You could get --
12 let's give it a soil test unit of two coming out of a
13 test, just for sake of discussion.
14 You could take two different soil samples,
15 both having a value of two coming out of that lab,
16 but if you take a look at a more rigorous extraction
17 technique for phosphorus, one you might find equal to
18 ten and the other equal to 120. Obviously, the one
19 that extracts 120, there's more in the bank than is
20 recognized by the water extractable phosphorus.
21 When I first arrived probably a year after
22 I started working at the center, I started working on
23 other extraction techniques to recognize and to be
24 able to help our calibration of fertilizer of
25 nutrients in that region. That water extractable
Page 45
1 phosphorus test appears to be good with some
2 vegetable crops. But again on a long-term crop, such
3 as sugar cane which utilizes nutrients all year long,
4 it appears to be a very poor indicator for fertilizer
5 needs. In fact, the past published recommendations,
6 using their techniques, probably the science behind
7 it is not very strong, not strongly supporting its
8 recommendation for correlations statistically.
9 I have been working for the last years to
10 hopefully improve that correlation and that ability
11 of predicting true needs using other extraction
12 techniques.
13 Q. How does the lack of a reliable soil test
14 for sugar cane affect the use of phosphorus
15 fertilizers on sugar cane?
16 A. Well, if you were a farmer, if you were a
17 farmer and trying to manage 1000 acres, you would
18 want to be able to know how to have a uniform crop.
19 You would want to produce a uniform crop, and if you
20 did not get the right fertilizer recommendations
21 based on that soil test because it was unreliable,
22 you may have a very irregular production over those
23 thousand acres which would be very difficult for you
24 as a manager of that acreage to manage well and be
25 able to understand what was happening either to
Page 46
1 adjust, increase or decrease the fertilizer amounts.
2 Under fertilizing is not good, and
3 obviously over fertilizing will not be good.
4 Fertilization depends on both the quality of the crop
5 and the quantity of the crop produced, and you have
6 to optimize those levels.
7 So the broad based objective of this would
8 be obviously to have a technique that you could use
9 as a tool that would be very helpful instead of
10 useless.
11 Q. Again, returning back to your resume under
12 your duties and responsibilities, what duties and
13 responsibilities do you have with regard to
14 conservation of organic/mineral soils?
15 A. We have studies that, I think, go back to
16 1948 to more recently in 1988 that have studied the
17 fact of subsidence oxidation of those soils as being
18 an important criteria. Basically, those studies took
19 place at that experiment stations. So the
20 conservation of these soils, whether it be to modify
21 the water table or to be conscious of what other
22 techniques that need to be followed through
23 environmental protection of that area is our
24 responsibility to perform research.
25 In the past years, we have collaberated
Page 47
1 with both -- not myself necessarily -- but other
2 people on that station have collaberated with the
3 Soil Conservation Service. We have done studies
4 regarding the disappearance or the subsidence of
5 these soils over the past 50 years, and that's pretty
6 much -- again, we exist at that station to serve that
7 area and not to be blind about the conditions, but to
8 treat them in a scientific manner when we're called
9 upon.
10 Many times we're called on by press or
11 visitors or people, and we naturally know about the
12 process and discuss it and know about it.
13 Q. What is your understanding of what causes
14 subsidence in soils in the EAA?
15 A. Well, you have a soil that was developed
16 basically underwater without oxygen. The accumulated --
17 those materials accumulated without oxygen. When the
18 State of Florida decided, I think it was in 1902, to
19 start draining some of these soils around the lake,
20 and later on the Federal Government in the '40's and
21 early '50's completed those plans, basically those
22 plans were done to protect the region from floods,
23 hurricanes that are associated with those floods as
24 well as shortage of water to control water both from
25 flooding and from drought.
Page 48
1 The consequence of drainage subsidence and
2 protecting area, which means protecting the coastal
3 areas by giving them enough water use because of a
4 growing population or prospecting water tables in the
5 park result really in the drainage of these whole
6 areas resulting in oxygen getting into those soils,
7 which are basically all organic in nature to start
8 oxidizing, and that oxidation process results in a
9 slow depletion of the material.
10 The only way to reverse that, of course, is
11 to take every canal that drains in South Florida and
12 block it up and reflood the whole area. That would
13 be the only way, should you have enough water to do
14 it. But typically, South Florida is plagued by both
15 extremes in water and drought, which you see the
16 result of fires nearly every Spring. So subsidence
17 is a result of drainage.
18 Q. So the only way to stop subsidence would be
19 to stop up all the canals and take out all the water?
20 A. Completely take every canal apart and stop
21 it up. That would include Port Saint Lucie Canal,
22 which is a shipping lane, as well as going out to the
23 Calooshatchee, because a major amount of natural
24 drainage, natural seepage of water is irreverently
25 changed as a result of people being in South Florida.
Page 49
1 It's my opinion that nothing could be done to stop
2 this process.
3 You know, certainly in 200 years we can
4 have a crop of people in South Florida, a lot more
5 than we have now, which will demand water, and one of
6 the key problems of keeping water probably now in the
7 EAA is the fact that the usage of ground water on the
8 coast essentially allows saltwater intrusion also to
9 infect this area. So there has got to be a hydraulic
10 buffer now of water, which means the only way we can
11 do that is to divert water from the interior to
12 conservation areas or lakes like this and keep a
13 hydraulic head of water stopping the saltwater
14 intrusion. Saltwater intrusion don't reserve itself.
15 Once it's intruded into an aquifer, it's permanent.
16 So in my opinion, probably subsidence is
17 something that we really can't do too much to change
18 it right now.
19 Q. Can you describe to me, in general, and
20 then in more detail, the Lake Okeechobee Soil
21 Amendments Project that you conducted?
22 A. Basically, it's in three parts. The first
23 phase was to take a look at various soil amendments
24 that could be applied in bench scale type studies,
25 take a look at those different amendments which
Page 50
1 included calcium carbonates, gypsum, iron compounds,
2 aluminum compounds and even sludges and see if the
3 addition or disposal of those materials in mixing of
4 those soils would control the release of phosphorus.
5 It was recognized in Florida, in general,
6 but particularly in the Okeechobee area region, this
7 phosphorus actually very rapidly goes into a drainage
8 water, because the soils themself do not retain
9 phosphorus very well.
10 See, our job, our overall objective was to
11 determine what soil chemical amendments could be
12 added to those soils to increase its retention of
13 phosphorus.
14 The second phase we took a look at intact
15 soil column profiles from that area and amended those
16 soils under, both, flooded and drained conditions.
17 We took a look at the mobility of phosphorus from
18 those soils from the surface down through the profile
19 and took a look at the drainages off of those columns
20 to see if our amendment strategies determined in
21 phase one were actually working and for how long
22 would they work.
23 Those studies were done for a good 12
24 months, 13 months. We monitored phosphate and
25 nitrates, sulfates, you know, various things, PH,
Page 51
1 redox potentials of those soils, those columns.
2 The third phase is, we took this to the
3 field and into some dairy fields that we knew were
4 heavily loaded due to this activity in cattle and
5 dairy and applied what we thought would be one of the
6 optimum treatments and monitored that for roughly
7 about one year, and at the end of three years, our
8 contract with the District terminated. Basically,
9 you know, it was a three year study.
10 Q. What treatment did you end up using on the
11 field scale?
12 A. Well, it's not particularly a treatment,
13 what recipe, but basically what conditions did we
14 need to monitor and change.
15 In some cases, we had to be a little more
16 intelligent than just adding a recipe to the soil.
17 We wanted to control soil PH and basically
18 controlling that soil PH to a PH of 7. Then because
19 these soils are very low in calcium, we increased
20 calcium content also through the addition of gypsum
21 materials and also added ferrous sulfate or ferrous
22 chloride materials to increase its retention, because
23 iron is a very important component in retention of
24 phosphorus.
25 Q. What did you do to control the soil PH?
Page 52
1 A. Added limestone.
2 Q. Did you reach any conclusions as a result
3 of your studies?
4 A. Well, we concluded that this wasn't a
5 one-shot deal. Our remediation process did work. It
6 did show effectiveness.
7 Again, probably the best place to look at
8 the documentation of that is the article that's in
9 review right now with the Journal of Environmental
10 Quality on Gypsum Materials. We were able to reduce
11 the phosphate leaching of phosphorus by between 40
12 and 60 percent.
13 Our carbon levels of soluble organic
14 carbons were also reduced around 43. I don't
15 remember the figures exactly, but we were able to
16 reduce the soluble organic phosphorus coming off,
17 which is the color, which was also contains
18 phosphorus, and we also did control some of the
19 nitrates coming off of that. Again, that paper we
20 have under review documents that more formally.
21 Q. Has the use of soil amendments or the
22 processes you're investigating in your study of soil
23 amendments in Lake Okeechobee, have they been applied
24 and practiced in the drainage basin?
25 A. I don't think in a broad based way. It
Page 53
1 hasn't been done yet.
2 Sonny Williamson, one of the Board members
3 in the District was aware of it, and we have had
4 various seminars with the South Florida Water
5 Management District and with the dairy and we
6 discussed it and had several meetings talking about
7 it and documenting it.
8 As of yet, we have not had a full fledged
9 support for it, and I am not sure exactly why, except
10 information gets out very slowly. But we have had
11 people recognize the efforts.
12 Q. Are the soil amendment processes that you
13 were investigating in the Lake Okeechobee Basin,
14 would they be transferable or applicable in the EAA,
15 as well?
16 A. Again, I have to look at the economics
17 behind it.
18 I have done some other studies looking at
19 limestone remediation of some of the organics in the
20 EAA, and indeed it does retain phosphorus. We can
21 change the whole dynamics of phosphorus by adding
22 limestone. Those studies were done primarily to take
23 a look at the effect of high PH by adding those
24 carbonates to products, because we don't want to
25 destroy products, but also to take a look at the
Page 54
1 broader effects.
2 Many of these soils are above a bedrock, a
3 calcium carbonate bedrock. So when a road comes in
4 or a canal is dug, these materials are brought to the
5 edge or the perimeter of these fields, and the
6 question is what the effect of that mixing of those
7 carbonate materials of those roadways have upon the
8 phosphorus of those soils moving eventually into the
9 water.
10 We have not published -- we presented the
11 data at one of our national meetings, but we have
12 taken a look at that and seen that retention of
13 phosphorus can be done very well with carbonates.
14 Unfortunately, the organic soils are highly buffered.
15 They resist changing in PH. So in order to have a
16 very good effect, oftentimes, application of 20 to
17 maybe 60 tons of lime are necessary to change it to
18 see the effect that we want.
19 We have been interested in looking at
20 gypsum materials because we have been effective in
21 using disposable gypsum materials in the dairy areas
22 on those soils and seen very good effects upon
23 soluble carbon, upon nitrogen and phosphorus. We
24 have not proceeded yet to do any studies in the EAA
25 as of this point.
Page 55
1 Also, the residue materials that we're
2 working with currently in our water remediation
3 project, which are basically iron residues that
4 precipitate out, look to be very favorable also for
5 land application in the area, which essentially would
6 be a windwood scenario for anybody using these
7 residuals. They actually do tie up phosphorus more
8 strongly in soil, thus liming the amount of
9 phosphorus that would go in the drainage waters.
10 So there looks like there's opportunities
11 of applying different strategies. So right now all
12 the research has not either been done or been
13 concluded at this point in time, but yes there looks
14 like there are some opportunities in applying these
15 same practices.
16 Q. What are some of the economic constraints
17 you're dealing with in terms of applying these
18 technologies in the EAA?
19 A. In the EAA, if it comes down to limestone
20 and actually saying apply limestone to reduce
21 phosphorus losses, applying 30 tons, for example --
22 let's take a figure of 30 tons of limestone per acre
23 is obviously not an economic venture. Transporting
24 and bringing that much material over a half a million
25 acres is not going to be economical, but if it comes
Page 56
1 down to maybe recommending or recognizing that when
2 the District or private industry cleans this canal or
3 road base materials are put out, that there's a
4 chemical buffering effect that those residue
5 materials from those ditches have upon soil.
6 I think there would probably be some more
7 astute practice of where you put these materials,
8 maybe alternating when they clean ditches,
9 alternating -- instead of basically when they clean a
10 canal, it all goes to one side. A drag line operator
11 goes to one side, and he moves around -- turns around
12 to the opposite field and goes on that side and then
13 goes on the outside and zigzags.
14 So just having records that would identify
15 where modifications could be made, I think, is
16 probably a management practice that should be a
17 little bit well-known. Obviously, it's going to have
18 to be of assistance to growers and people that are
19 controlling these properties to do.
20 MR. GARVER: Why don't we take a little
21 break. I am about to shift topics here.
22 (Thereupon, a brief recess was taken,
23 after which the following proceedings
24 were had:)
25 BY MR. GARVER:
Page 57
1 Q. Doctor Anderson, I believe you testified
2 earlier that starting in December 199l you started
3 work on a project related to chemical treatment of
4 agricultural drainage waters in the EAA; is that
5 correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. How did you come to start working on that
8 project relating to chemical treatment?
9 A. Well, I had been working on another project
10 which I mentioned before with DER looking at fluid
11 desulphurization gypsum stack materials. What we
12 noticed is drainage waters coming from those soils
13 are increasingly clear with our chemical treatments.
14 I guess that was a time that a few of the industry
15 people knew what we were doing and took a look at it
16 and expressed an interest in whether or not we could
17 treat water in the same effect and clean it up, and
18 at that period in time I started looking at various
19 alternatives either from literature in the waste
20 water treatment area or other possibilities, and we
21 started screening different types of chemical
22 processes that could or could not be viable. We took
23 a look at calcium compounds, took a look at calcium
24 compound injection, various avenues.
25 We excluded some treatments because of the
Page 58
1 implied biological toxicity problems that would be
2 associated with it, which would include the use of
3 aluminum compounds, like alum. Basically, we did not
4 want to take a look at that, because I felt that with
5 an environmental agenda, that we would be looked at
6 very critically if something like this was
7 conversional, and use of aluminum is conversional.
8 Even in the science community, there's a lot of
9 questions in whether residual aluminum in water is
10 biologically safe.
11 There's a real question in drinking water
12 whether aluminum is still safe, even though it's an
13 accepted waste water treatment chemical. We kind of
14 avoided that.
15 Also, the other factors that we looked at
16 is what kind of residuals or byproducts would be
17 produced, either toxic or not, and we wanted to take
18 a look at those compounds or residuals that could be
19 easily land applied instead of disposed of in a
20 disposal area. We definitely don't want to have a
21 disposal problem.
22 So the use of aluminum and some of the high
23 PH calcium compounds were quickly assessed to be
24 probably not viable from a sense of either aluminum
25 left in water and being possibly conversional as far
Page 59
1 as toxicity and the materials of the byproduct or the
2 residual byproducts being a very high PH byproduct,
3 which is hard to manage or high in aluminum, which
4 again is a biological problem, because these
5 materials must be land applied without any biological
6 toxicity to be viable.
7 So with that screening, we eventually came
8 into evaluating the iron compounds, the use of
9 different iron compounds, and that's really where our
10 studies have led us right now, is to determine which
11 iron compounds are viable under different
12 circumstances.
13 I hope that gives you kind of a background
14 where it led from Point A to Point B, but it was kind
15 of a logical progression to what we are doing right
16 now.
17 Q. Going back to the beginning.
18 I believe you said the first thing you did
19 was a literature search or one of the first things
20 you did was a literature search; is that correct?
21 A. Well, we have been doing literature
22 searches all the time. From our previous work with
23 soil remediation, we noticed very quickly that we had
24 good control over what was drained. The drainage
25 materials, the water coming from these soils were
Page 60
1 lower in phosphorus, lower in nitrates, lower in
2 organic dissolved organic carbons. With that, our
3 progression of thoughts were, let's see if we can go
4 ahead and do some treatment techniques. Without
5 going all over it again, that's basically how we
6 derived with it.
7 The aluminum compounds, I think I mentioned
8 had some controversial edges to it, and we're
9 avoiding some of those because of the obvious
10 pitfalls in adapting or adoption of these practices.
11 Q. What literature did you rely on to try and
12 develop or refine this project as you moved along?
13 A. I have got a bookcase full of literature
14 from liminology textbooks, to waste water treatment
15 authorities, which include EPA documents. I mean, I
16 have got reams of material that we have looked over
17 and read, from textbooks to EPA reports.
18 The technology of water treatment is not a
19 new technology. It's a fairly well documented
20 technology. The adoption into the natural system,
21 into the natural water system is what makes it very
22 different.
23 Water treatment in the urban setting was
24 done because, essentially, governments said cities
25 had to comply with cleaning up their water or there
Page 61
1 was a need to have clean drinking water. As
2 population centers grew, so did these waste water and
3 treatment drinking water centers in urban areas grow.
4 Essentially, these plants were developed in small
5 acreage areas where they didn't have a lot of space.
6 They essentially were in an urban situation. So the
7 engineering behind a water treatment is pretty much
8 confined to an urban setting.
9 Now, when we're treating water for a
10 natural system, especially in the Everglades
11 Agriculture Area, we essentially have a lot of space
12 to work with. The treatment, while being very
13 similar in chemistry, how we treated the residuals or
14 what's precipitated out, we have more flexibility.
15 Residues are removed in water treatment
16 facilities through either sand filters or centrifugal
17 pumps or other methods, rarely by gravitation.
18 Primarily, it's because they don't have the large
19 space to work with. The residence time of the amount
20 of water they treat is limited. They just don't have
21 the space. They may have ten acres of city property,
22 and in that piece of property, they have to do their
23 whole chemical process and design.
24 In the EAA, we have some very -- or in the
25 natural water system, it's very different. Number 1,
Page 62
1 I think some of the rules that we established for our
2 research, number one, our residuals had to be
3 compatible for land application, our byproduct.
4 Number two, you have to abide to Class III
5 DER legal standards for water affluents, which means
6 that chlorides can't be too high. PH to has to be in
7 this area, you know, the various standards for Class
8 III waters. You're working, also, with a biological
9 system where you might have fish or other benthic
10 organisms on the bottom. Your processes can't impact
11 those negatively.
12 So when you take a look at the process in a
13 natural system, we can immediately exclude certain
14 practices or common treatment engineering designs as
15 incompatible.
16 Alum is not compatible. The use of high PH
17 calcium compounds for precipitation is not
18 compatible. So that limited us very quickly to the
19 use of iron compounds, and you have got several
20 different scenarios to those, also, which limit or
21 narrow their use, depending upon them. There's four
22 different iron compounds.
23 Q. Let me try and go back before we get into
24 the details of what you have done.
25 Are you doing this work relating to
Page 63
1 chemical treatment in the EAA pursuant to some kind
2 of a contractual arrangement?
3 A. We have a grant right now with the Florida
4 Sugar Cane League currently that expires at the end
5 of April.
6 Q. How much was that grant for?
7 A. $185,000.
8 Q. For your three year study on soil elements
9 that you did for the South Florida Water Management
10 District, how much was that grant for?
11 A. 110,000. It might have been a little bit
12 more, somewhere in that neighborhood.
13 Q. In order to get the grant from the Florida
14 Sugar Cane league, did you have to do a proposal?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Was that a written proposal?
17 A. Yes, it was.
18 Q. Did you include that in the documents which
19 were requested?
20 A. Yes, in Report 92-11. Those proposals, I
21 believe, are in the back, in the appendices.
22 Q. I guess I'd just like to pinpoint now the
23 chronology of, I guess what you did over the last
24 year a little bit.
25 What was the first thing you did, starting
Page 64
1 in December 1991, that started to initiate this
2 process?
3 A. We started screening, basically, what
4 alternatives there are in chemical treatment, what
5 could possibly be used. You're looking at,
6 basically, calcium compounds, looking at
7 precipitation techniques, very similar to what our
8 soil remediation work would have looked at, very
9 similar process.
10 Q. And how long did this screening process
11 take?
12 A. Probably till the end of May.
13 We had a very short period of time to
14 produce what we have done right now. So probably
15 about the end of May. Then we had pretty much looked
16 at some of the other alternatives and started to
17 focus more on some specific ones that we're working
18 on right now.
19 Q. What was the result of that screening
20 process that ended in May of 1992?
21 A. Well, it didn't really end. I am just
22 saying chronologically roughly around May we knew
23 another direction. We are going now from Point A to
24 Point B to now Point c.
25 We knew that the use of calcium compounds
Page 65
1 to precipitate phosphorus was not dependable, didn't
2 always work. We found out that the waters that we
3 were working with in the EAA were like weak acids.
4 They had hydration impoundments. They were heavily
5 buffered, that under anaerobic or aerobic conditions,
6 we would be unlikely to have reliable results, and
7 that basically going to calcium routes was not going
8 to be viable. Then moving from that point, we took a
9 look at some of the metals through the use of iron
10 compounds.
11 Q. So roughly speaking, around May 1992, you
12 shifted emphasis from a broad range of including
13 calcium compounds and shifted more towards iron
14 compounds?
15 A. Right.
16 My former students had also worked, I
17 think, on a District contract. The District gave
18 money to Ramesh Redy out of Gainesville and my former
19 student who took a look at calcium compounds and its
20 effects with varying PH's. Basically, I think they
21 found out the same thing as we did.
22 Q. Did you say your former student?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Who was that?
25 A. Orlando Diaz.
Page 66
1 Q. He is now or subsequent to working with you
2 is working with Ramesh Redy?
3 A. He is still working with Ramesh.
4 Q. And after May 1992, what kind of work were
5 you doing on this project?
6 A. Well, beginning in May, we finally got our
7 grant approved with the Sugar Cane League, and I
8 proceeded to find the staff that I needed to do the
9 work that was being asked to be done up to this point
10 in time, which was essentially to go from jar test
11 methodology to hopefully get into pilot or field
12 studies that would investigate the use of the field
13 study.
14 I hired in July a water environmental
15 engineer, also two other lab technicians and chemists
16 at that period of time. So basically our grant was
17 probably close to 50-percent was to -- quite a bit of
18 the money was put up for initial investment in the
19 laboratory and in people and in equipment.
20 Q. Who was the environmental engineer?
21 A. It's a woman named Asha Ceric, and she is
22 listed in that report in my resume from 92-11. In
23 fact, all the names of the people involved with that
24 are listed in that report.
25 Q. In general, since May of 1992, what
Page 67
1 research have you actually conducted?
2 A. Previous to 1992, no.
3 Q. No. Since May 1992.
4 Well, let's start at the beginning. I'd
5 like to sort of keep with the chronology.
6 What research projects have you conducted
7 or laboratory or field?
8 A. What other projects, in general?
9 Q. No.
10 MR. GAINES: You mean relating to this
11 92-11?
12 BY MR. GARVER:
13 Q. Right.
14 A. Since the report?
15 Q. No. Since the beginning. I just want to
16 get a chronology of your actual research projects.
17 A. Okay. I got you.
18 We were working in conjunction with one of
19 the consulting engineering companies that was under
20 contract with the Sugar Cane League, Hutcheons
21 Engineers, and their responsibility was to do the
22 engineering behind any future pilot plants or to
23 request of us any specific engineering design
24 criteria that needed to be determined in our jar test
25 or bench scale testing.
Page 68
1 So, essentially our group, whether it be at
2 the beginning or whether it be with a pilot plant, is
3 essential to the whole process, because what we
4 determine is the criteria for the level of dosing,
5 the rates, the levels of concentration needed, what
6 materials are needed, determining what the residue
7 makeup is, the rate of deposition of materials, the
8 times required, the chemical windows or the chemical
9 criteria that needed to be stayed within to monitor
10 the variability of water that comes into a treatment
11 area.
12 So in this time, we took a look at data
13 water samples that came from the Environmental
14 Protection District beginning in September of '92.
15 At that period of time, every week we took a look at
16 19 field site stations with the EPD and ran
17 approximately 23 different water criteria on each
18 sample as they came into the lab, and those criteria
19 are listed in the report.
20 Our interest in that was to determine how
21 variable water was in the EAA. If we were to receive
22 water at a treatment facility for chemical dosing,
23 it's essential to know what kind of variability you
24 would expect, whether this variability will effect
25 the rate of dosing to keep high efficiency of
Page 69
1 treatment. Essentially, we have been continuing to
2 monitor that even to this day, that information.
3 The other thing that I did, I was able to
4 get ahold of some South Florida Water Management
5 District Basin water quality data, and we took a look
6 at the data coming from the District regarding total
7 phosphorus, soluble phosphorus, and also taking a
8 look then at its particulate loading and determining
9 what that variability was and how variable it was.
10 Again, for the same reasons. It's to see
11 at the end of the treatment at the end of the EAA how
12 does that water compare with the EPD samples which
13 are essentially close to the lake, and our interest
14 in that was to use that information in what we are
15 doing to develop a good sense of direction, you know,
16 for example, how much carbon was effecting our
17 system, how much hardness in alkalinity of the waters
18 were affecting our dosing conditions.
19 You just want to know about this particular
20 project? That's basically the venues that we have
21 been following since then.
22 Q. What have the EPD data indicated with
23 respect to variablity of water quality in the
24 inflows?
25 A. There's extremes in variability, and the
Page 70
1 data, again, is in that report. It's summarized in
2 that report in one of the tables.
3 There's another -- we did some sediment
4 work, also, just a little bit of sediment work. Out
5 of this, what I determined, at least my determination
6 is from the District data at well as EDP data was
7 that the particulate loading, the amount of suspended
8 solids in our EAA waters is probably the number one
9 problem of the ultimate phosphorus loading of these
10 waters. The variability could be as low as close to
11 zero percent particulate to as high as ninety some
12 percent particulate.
13 I think the average particulate loading
14 from EPD was in the neighborhood of 80.4 of the total
15 phosphorus was in particulate form, whereas the
16 average data from the end of the basin from the
17 District indicated it was just around 49.8 percent
18 particulate, the total phosphorus, which means that
19 between areas along the lake, EPD sampling to the
20 areas just outside of the EAA where the District
21 basin end, that you have really a drop out of
22 approximately 30-percent of the phosphorus in the
23 particulate form between that.
24 I know that's just a short amount of data
25 base, but it said to me, again, that the particulate
Page 71
1 loading was by far one of the important aspects that
2 we're working with. The sediments ultimately is
3 going to be the most important of our considerations.
4 One of the advantages of dosing is that
5 when you precipitate this iron hydroxide compounds in
6 water, it becomes a cloud immediately. When you
7 dose, that little cloud comes together. Those
8 particles come together and make a larger particle
9 when they get bigger. They get heavy and they fall
10 out and they settle out. In that whole process,
11 suspended particles also have a charge to them. They
12 have a positive or negative charge. The balance
13 between what is in solution with the anions and
14 cations and what is in particulate form has a lot to
15 do with the rate of coagulation of these materials
16 and ultimately their sedimentation down.
17 If you have a very high level of
18 particulate, the dosing also has not only a favorable
19 aspect on precipitating the soluble fraction, but
20 takes out either the biological detritus or the
21 suspended particles. It has a two-edged sword. It
22 takes out both the suspended and the soluble
23 fractions.
24 In my association with people from the
25 Netherlands who I have been working with, they
Page 72
1 essentially do the same thing. They will take --
2 they will treat fairly large lake areas that had very
3 high chlorophyl content, very high algae content,
4 treat it with ferrous sulfate, and the ferrous
5 sulfate takes out the algae that is suspended and
6 takes that out, and that's sort of their primary
7 treatment before it comes in for the final polshing.
8 That's basically what I found, you know,
9 comparing the data bases for the EPD and then the
10 District. It proved to me that the particulate phase
11 is something that we have to pay careful attention
12 to.
13 There's some ramifications of that. It
14 means that if, for example, the District as well as
15 growers are pumping at a very high rate, that that
16 water velocity will scalp the bottom, resuspend
17 particules, any construction going on in a canal, you
18 know, resuspended particles will obviously just
19 introduce a new load, nutrient load.
20 Obviously, if none of the canals were
21 cleaned out, you have a potential of resuspending a
22 lot of sediments that could be potentially harmful to
23 complying with very low water quality standards, both
24 on the industry standpoint and on the government
25 standpoint or the workings of the District that could
Page 73
1 have implications on both sides.
2 Maybe I should just stop there and let you
3 ask questions. You asked me about the variability of
4 the EPD samples.
5 Q. And I got a long answer.
6 A. You got a long answer, but to me, there was
7 a lot of real meat that we found out from that.
8 Q. Just in general, how does what you learned
9 with respect to variabilty of drainage waters in the
10 EAA, how has that impacted your research or the
11 conducting of your project as to chemical treatment
12 alternatives?
13 A. Well, at the end of April, it may not
14 matter if we don't get continued funding, but if
15 supposing that we continue with chemical dosing, this
16 is going to continue to be a viable alternative in
17 the future for continuing this work.
18 We essentially need a laboratory team of
19 people to monitor variability. That would be monitor
20 the variability of the water received at any one
21 given point to be able to adjust the dosing rates and
22 to make sure that if we're doing a dosing chemical
23 treatment, that we have optimum efficiency at removal
24 of nutrients. Without it, you can't give any one
25 person a recipe, you know. You can't take our
Page 74
1 research and say okay at 60 parts per million, you
2 add this compound and this and this and this, and we
3 don't need you anymore. That's not really true.
4 If you have any knowledge of waste water
5 treatment at all, you will know that every city, City
6 of Palm Beach or City of Tampa, have directly
7 associated with it a laboratory of jar testers and
8 chemists that continually work on a daily or hourly
9 basis monitoring the flow of water into their
10 facility to make sure that there aren't problems that
11 impact the efficiency of that plant.
12 You know, we're dealing with natural water
13 treatment, and I think it's probably just as
14 important for us to make sure that we have -- if we
15 do chemical dosing, that the only problems could be
16 as alluring efficiency. The variability of the EPD
17 samples told me that phosphorus could range from --
18 there's some lows and highs -- but from well below 50
19 parts per billion phosphorus to as high as maybe 500
20 or 600 parts per bill phosphorus.
21 There's some times when you don't have to
22 chemically treat water. Sometimes you do. If the
23 concentration goes up, oftentimes, those rates of
24 chemical dosing have to be altered. That has to do
25 with -- the levels of carbon or other constituents
Page 75
1 which effect the efficiency of chemical dosing also
2 change with time.
3 Although I don't have a whole year or two
4 years or several years of data base with me, I would
5 expect that what happens during the Summer with heavy
6 rains is much different than occasional rains during
7 Winter, that when algae grows real strongly in the
8 Summer, that's going to be different than with the
9 particular type of loading that you see in the
10 Wintertime or the Spring or the Fall.
11 Q. What specific things would you need to
12 monitor?
13 A. We still have to do more work to give you
14 definitive answers to that, but all I can give you is
15 my gut feeling reactions that we feel that hardness
16 is important. Hardness is the calcium magnesium
17 content of the water.
18 We feel that the alkalinity is important.
19 Alkalinity is expressed in terms of calcium carbonate
20 per milligram per liter.
21 We feel that the amount of dissolved
22 organic carbon is important.
23 We also feel that the particulate content
24 is important, how much particulate mass is actually
25 in the water or suspended, and all those factors
Page 76
1 appear to change quite radically, probably less
2 hardness. Because we're working with calcium
3 carbonate bedrocks very close to the surface, that
4 has a tendency of changing less than the other
5 factors, but it's still very important.
6 Q. What about PH?
7 A. PH is also -- I didn't mean to exclude it,
8 but PH is fundamentally the most important.
9 Q. And I suppose you'd want to know the amount
10 of phosphorus, also?
11 A. Well, our different compounds precipitate
12 and coagulate best under given PH regimes. The DER
13 requirements for Class III drainage waters state that
14 those drainage waters should be between a PH of 6 and
15 8.5. There's cases where our natural waters are both
16 higher and lower than that standard, naturally.
17 When waste waters are flooded in a
18 marshland or wetland situation, you have PH's that
19 exceed a PH of 9 largely related to the buildup of
20 CO2 in this water that turns to bicarbonate, and that
21 raises the PH high.
22 Now, freshly drained water in the EAA,
23 especially in the 20 Mile Bend area where the soils
24 have a PH of 3.8 or 4 or 4.5, drainage waters have
25 considerably a PH of less than 6. So that
Page 77
1 fundamentally is important for us to know in having a
2 good treatment efficiency, and that does change,
3 depending on where you're receiving your water,
4 whether it be 20 Mile Bend or down the Miami Canal.
5 Q. I want to go through the list of parameters
6 you gave me.
7 Why is hardness important to monitor?
8 A. It gets down to the balance you have in the
9 water. You have an equal amount of anions and
10 cations, which means the anions have a negative
11 charge. The cations have a positive charge. If
12 there are ten positively charged anions, you have to
13 have an equivalent amount of negative charges.
14 Some organic compounds may have associated
15 some negative charges in one molecule, but basically
16 there has to be a charge balance, plus the minus is
17 equal to a zero charge.
18 When you put particulates in -- suspended
19 solids have a charge also they have a surface charge.
20 When you start precipitating the calcium and some of
21 the anions that were insoluble fractions to a soluble
22 fraction, they can either stay apart or they can
23 attract, and they fall out and grow bigger, and they
24 fall out.
25 If you have a lot of calcium, for example,
Page 78
1 a lot of magnesium, which are positive cations, you
2 must have a balance of negative charges, both in
3 solid solution and in regular liquid solution to be
4 able to have a coagulation process, an attraction
5 process. So if you have a hardness that is very
6 high, that means that the amount of negative charges
7 somewhere has also got to be very, very high, and if
8 it fluctuates a lot, that changes the whole ballpark.
9 Adjusting PH has to do with the variable
10 charges that occur in water. Sometimes very little
11 adjustment of PH is necessary for good recoagulation.
12 Let's just think of you adding Pine Sol to
13 a bucket of water, and you take this clear Pine Sol,
14 put it in a bucket of water, and it turns white.
15 Something happens there. Well, you add the chemical.
16 It precipitates. It gets into mass is where it
17 finally settles out. It stays in suspension.
18 Your charge balance has everything to do
19 with whether or not it will precipitate and then
20 coagulate. There's two processes, and all those
21 factors have a lot to do with good coagulation
22 processes.
23 Sometimes a coagulate aid is used. They
24 add a synthetic or natural organic compound which has
25 another charge to it to balance out that calcium in
Page 79
1 order for it to precipitate out.
2 I don't know where you're from. Did you
3 ever see a pond form in Georgia or New York that's
4 full of clay? It's just a murky pond. What they do
5 to clean the pond is add lime, and all of a sudden,
6 after a day it's clear. You can see the bottom.
7 You add Calgon to your dishwasher because
8 you're adding something that will precipitate instead
9 of keep it suspended, and it helps to clear out your
10 suspended particles. It's the same process in water.
11 Your charge balance is extremely essential.
12 Probably the best person that has done work
13 on it in the world right now, literature wise, is a
14 man out of Germany, and his name is Haire Burnhardt,
15 and some of his articles -- I have talked with him
16 before, and some of his work really has defined a lot
17 of these processes. Some of these are textbook
18 explanations that I am giving you.
19 Q. In determination of the waters you're
20 dealing with in the EAA, is there a desirable level
21 of hardness in terms of ease of employment of the
22 kind of chemicals you would be using?
23 A. The hardness factor you can't really
24 control. In fact, water that's pumped from 1000 feet
25 has a very high hardness, because it's pumping
Page 80
1 through bedrock calcium carbonate.
2 In cases where there is no bedrock
3 influences, the hardnesses are a lot lower, but
4 generally that's a fact.
5 We're probably in the neighborhood of ten
6 times higher than elsewhere in the world or more so
7 if we have a hardness of 800 parts per million.
8 Typically, elsewhere in the world, it's 80, 50, 40.
9 The same with organic carbon. Typically we're 10 to
10 20 times higher or more or 100 times higher. Excuse
11 me.
12 In Europe, I have seen data they are
13 working with one part per million dissolved organic
14 carbon. We're talking with 200, 300 parts per
15 million carbon.
16 Q. So hardness, is that something that you
17 don't see that much variability then in the EAA?
18 A. That is probably the factor that stays the
19 most stabler of any of them, although it does vary.
20 Drainage water coming from 20 Mile Bend,
21 which are soils over sand, don't have the same
22 hardness of those soils over calcium carbonate.
23 Q. How about alkalinity, is that quite
24 variable in the waters in the EAA?
25 A. That is quite variable. That is typically
Page 81
1 two-thirds the concentration as hardness typically,
2 and that is extremely variable. The alkalinity
3 depends on whether or not the water is frequently
4 pumped or whether it's been sitting in a field
5 gathering CO2 and bicarbonate. That's observed
6 through a titration, its buffering capacity. It's
7 tritration ability, that can vary widely, and I
8 believe there's publication in my reports in May
9 about that.
10 Q. How would you treat water with high
11 alkalinity in the EAA different than water with low
12 alkalinity?
13 A. Basically, as the hardness increases, the
14 alkalinity increases. The carbon increases. So does
15 the rate of dosing. It consumes more chemical.
16 Q. Would there ever be circumstances where you
17 would have to use a different chemical for treatment,
18 depending on the alkalinity?
19 A. Possible.
20 There's really four different chemicals
21 that fit in an alternative for treatment. The iron
22 two compounds, which are very soluble, they are
23 called iron sulfate, ferrous sulfate and ferrous
24 chloride.
25 Then you have the other compounds called
Page 82
1 ferric sulfate and ferric chloride. These are the
2 iron three compounds.
3 There's really a viable usage for all four
4 compounds, depending on where it's used and how it's
5 used. I don't know if you want those described to
6 you.
7 Q. Why don't we go through that.
8 When would each of those different
9 compounds be suitable?
10 A. Again, let's go back to why we're treating
11 natural water systems.
12 Ultimately, we still have to comply with
13 our regulation of Class III drainage waters, correct,
14 which means that iron has to stay below one part per
15 million in concentration. If we're working with iron
16 compounds, we need to make sure that we have tables
17 of low iron and keep low iron in a solution. The
18 ferrous materials stay in solution readily. It takes
19 time before they are conversed into an iron three.
20 Iron three are very unstable. They
21 precipitate rapidly, and they come out of solution.
22 Conceivably, after adding ferric compounds, you could
23 have a lower concentration of iron then when you
24 started with no iron added at all. You could have a
25 half a part per million iron naturally, and after you
Page 83
1 add your ferric, you could reduce it to a tenth of
2 that, because iron is very reactive and it affects
3 the chemistry of that water. So you can not directly
4 say by adding iron you're going to exceed a standard,
5 because it's just not the way it works. There's
6 precipitations reactions.
7 The iron two compounds take time, and
8 because they take time, typically, immediately after
9 adding a ferrous compound, you have very high levels
10 of iron in solution. It kinetically takes time for
11 them to be converted to iron three compounds or let's
12 say a ferric hydroxide, because that's what we're
13 converting ultimately from an iron sulfate or iron
14 chloride to a ferric hydroxide material, and that
15 ferric hydroxide material is extremely variable, its
16 molecular size. They call it islands of hydroxy.
17 They grow. They get bigger. You can't say there is
18 a chemical formula for one, because they grow and
19 they have different states in time.
20 If you have a drainage field which you knew
21 you were going to flood and keep flooded let's say
22 for one month or one week, very conceivably a ferrous
23 material could be added to that ponded situation, and
24 it conceivably could be enough time for it to
25 precipitate out in a week's time or month's time. So
Page 84
1 conceivably the ferrous materials would be a viable
2 alternative.
3 If you have anaerobic conditions, meaning
4 oxygen depletion, and you're using an iron sulfate,
5 you may have problems, because the sulfate
6 precipitates the product, the hydroxide and the
7 sulfate in mass residue precipated on a sediment when
8 it becomes anaerobic will go under aerobic
9 decomposition, and you have anaerobic sulfer reducing
10 bacteria which will take that sulfate, reduce it to
11 sulfer and release phosphorus and everything else
12 back into a soluble form again.
13 So under anaerobic conditions, the sulfate
14 forms of ferric hydroxide in sulfate forms are not
15 viable if you're to leave that sediment go into an
16 anaerobic state, but if you're to recover the
17 residue, then conceivably you can use the sulfate
18 materials.
19 Now, if you're in a situation in a canal,
20 you want immediate results within five minutes, then
21 you go to the ferric compounds, either the ferric
22 chlorides or the ferric sulfates.
23 Ferric sulfates, as I said before, if you
24 build up a residue or sediment with time, and it
25 becomes anaerobic, you may have release of
Page 85
1 phosphorus, reintroduction of phosphorus, and other
2 compounds will be released.
3 If you have a ferric chloride, the chloride
4 is very stable. It goes to a ferric hydroxide which
5 does not incur an anaerobic conversion. Those
6 sediments stay very stable and are really the best.
7 So if you don't have time and you are not
8 going to recover the residues, you go with ferric
9 chloride. If you don't have time and you're going to
10 recover those residues actively, you can use ferric
11 chloride or ferric sulfate.
12 If you have a lot of time, a marsh, another
13 iron bridge literally, and you wanted to precipitate
14 it out with the cheapest materials available, go with
15 the ferrous materials, because you probably have time
16 to kinetically change it to iron free, making sure
17 that ultimately your waters coming off of it are low
18 in iron.
19 But there's always a risk, when applying a
20 ferrous material, of having a water that is high in
21 iron, meaning exceeding the one part per million.
22 Now, I have to say that the regulations
23 with DER are not always correct. They assume broad
24 State of Florida, covering a broad range of
25 conditions, many times unnatural conditions.
Page 86
1 You have iron contents well exceeding the
2 standard for Class III waters naturally, and that's
3 been recorded in the laws and under the literature
4 search that the State has. You can get five, six,
5 ten parts per million iron in a natural situation.
6 So there's always a dubiousness of whether or not the
7 one part per million is a real critical point for
8 legislation. It seems to have done very well across
9 the states or across the United, as a general rule,
10 but there are always excesses to that rule that are
11 always broken.
12 MR. COUSINS: You mean billion?
13 THE WITNESS: One part per million is equal
14 to one thousand parts per million. So if I say
15 five hundred parts per million, that's half a
16 part per million.
17 MR. COUSINS: I have a non scientific mind.
18 THE WITNESS: That's okay.
19 The difference between 20 years ago and
20 today is that we're working with parts per
21 billion. They worked with parts per billion.
22 All the water quality standards from the
23 Great Lakes to the Chesapeake to Europe were
24 established as a one part per million standard
25 for affluent waters in waste treatment. All of
Page 87
1 them exist today in Europe. They are going to,
2 I believe, go to 150 parts per million standard
3 in so many years.
4 Chesapeake is the lowest standards that I
5 know of right now that has affluent standard,
6 even for Class III drainage of 150 parts per
7 million. Generally, it's been 180 to 300.3
8 parts per million.
9 Here is the only place that I know of that
10 we're holding oligotrophic conditions to a
11 drainage situation of less than 50 parts per
12 billion, and that actually is going to be very
13 hard to maintain or accomplish consistently in
14 the natural situation that we have.
15 I mean, there's water coming from Lake
16 Okeechobee through the Saint Lucie Canal that's
17 already close to 150 parts per billion
18 phosphorus before it even gets into the EAA.
19 So the question is always going to be how
20 you can make those standards. It appears, at
21 least to myself, that if all else fails, our
22 dosing will do an admirable job.
23 BY MR. GARVER:
24 Q. I was asking you about how variability
25 would affect -- how the water would affect different
Page 88
1 treatment options, and when you would want to use one
2 chemical treatment as opposed to another chemical
3 treatment.
4 Am I correct in understanding that on one
5 hand, your choice of chemical would be based on
6 variability on the input, and on the other hand, it's
7 related to what you want to achieve on the output; is
8 that correct?
9 A. You're right.
10 If, for example, we wanted to treat water
11 and have an immediate affect, we're designing a plant
12 or a facility to treat waters, I would probably
13 select ferric chloride to be my source.
14 Now, if I had a very active design in which
15 there's an active collection of the residue
16 materials, then I have flexibility existing with the
17 chloride or the sulfate materials.
18 Now, remember that the residues, these
19 precipitants, one of the criteria that we're looking
20 at in making sure that they are compatible, that they
21 are not toxic to land application, they are not going
22 to be a biological hazard or a food hazard, and our
23 work thus far has not led us to conclude that.
24 In fact, in Holland, they dispose of it in
25 vegetable fields and grow vegetation on top of it.
Page 89
1 Right now, the City of Tampa is selling its
2 iron residue as a fertilizer material. They call it
3 an iron humate, and it's registered by the Florida
4 Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.
5 So I think what we are doing with the
6 selection that we have got so far, we're meeting the
7 criteria of something that is going to be land
8 disposed of, instead of a hole being dug and it being
9 disposed of through other means. We want to avoid
10 that. We pick our scenario where we want to have it.
11 Our design is figured. The only thing that
12 is not figured is the rate of application. We select
13 chemicals for the situation that we're in.
14 The thing that changes our rate of
15 application is the variability question that you are
16 asking. We have a lot of variability. Then we may
17 be moving from 30 parts per million or 20 parts per
18 million iron all the way up to maybe 80 parts per
19 million iron, and that's where that variability
20 question comes in.
21 Q. Variability on the inputs?
22 A. On the input of the rate of application.
23 So if you were to model this in a scenario where
24 you're selecting -- first of all, you select the
25 situation that you are in. You select your chemical
Page 90
1 and engineering design process. After that, you have
2 to monitor variability, because variability has to do
3 with the rate of application.
4 Q. How often would you have to do monitoring
5 in the scenario you just described?
6 A. Well, it's a good question, 'cause I don't
7 know if I know the answer. All I can tell you is
8 that the variability is high, that in a municipal
9 water system, they have an hourly monitoring of
10 conditions, which means that that laboratory is tied
11 into the process as a quality control. By law,
12 that's required.
13 In agricultural waters, if we want to
14 simplify the system, which we can most likely over
15 design the process to go at a higher rate of
16 application. So conceivably, you monitor once a day
17 or once every twelve hours.
18 Q. With a chemical treatment facility designed
19 to treat EAA waters, would you anticipate that that
20 would have to have a laboratory on hand?
21 A. Oh, it's a must. It's not something you
22 ship out the sample and hopefully in 48 hours you get
23 the results back, which would be a short period of
24 time, 48 hours. You need the results back
25 immediately, you know, within the hour. So I
Page 91
1 anticipate that kind of system you have to tie a
2 laboratory into the whole process to safeguard, you
3 know, the efficiency of what you're doing.
4 As far as the engineering design, I'd have
5 to say you'd have to consult an engineer that designs
6 all this, and that's why we hired -- at least I hired
7 Asha Ceric, our engineering process. So basically
8 our team is doing that.
9 I have got an engineer. I have got
10 chemists and myself, and things that we have written
11 in the report is really a combination of the
12 different skills and input.
13 Q. Would the question relating to the
14 frequency of monitoring of the amount of the chemical
15 you would add, would those be balanced and determined
16 ultimately on the basis of economics?
17 A. What we have found thus far can really
18 basically tell us that our jar test, our chemistry
19 lab bench tests -- as pointy headed as it might
20 sound, the University of Florida is doing these very
21 narrow tests -- is telling us what that what we are
22 doing is feasable.
23 Ultimately, when you place the chemical
24 process with the engineering design, you have to have
25 a merging and a matching of the two, which means that
Page 92
1 you may have to modify the chemical process or modify
2 the engineering design to fit each other.
3 I anticipate that if we are going to
4 continue, that hopefully there's a joining of the
5 right engineers and right chemists and the right
6 individuals to make sure we have a good match of the
7 processes being designed.
8 I'm not an expert to build a waste water or
9 a treatment plant. I mean, I have an expertise that
10 is focused, but it's going to take an engineering,
11 you know, expertise also to match what we have found
12 out as being feasible. We know it's feasible. It's
13 not ironclad.
14 Q. So to speak.
15 A. Right.
16 What we have discussed, I guess right now,
17 is we're hoping remediation will draw the District,
18 our group, and perhaps some engineering groups
19 together to work on this problem instead of two
20 people with glass houses throwing stones at each
21 other. We hope that they form a company and walk
22 forward and solve some of the problems that may be in
23 the minds of one and not the other.
24 I guess the direction that we're hoping to
25 go right now is to join the research groups together
Page 93
1 so that we have some of the engineer technical
2 problems that have been stated and so some of the
3 questions on the chemical process that have been
4 stated figured out in the shortest period of time.
5 Q. What questions have come up on that the
6 chemical process?
7 A. Well, the unknowns -- you have to say what
8 are the unknowns. The unknowns are -- and you asked
9 me about PH or how does it all match in.
10 We really need to know the modeling. We
11 need to know how each of these parameters are modeled
12 ultimately to the dosing of these waters for optimum
13 efficiency, and we don't know the answer to that yet.
14 I mean, that's an open-ended question that I think
15 research and development has to determine. It's
16 going to take some time.
17 Q. Other than trying to define the
18 relationships between parameters that you would
19 monitor and the amount of dosing you would need of
20 various chemicals, are there any other questions that
21 have come up regarding chemical treatment?
22 A. Some basic questions, and it would be
23 regarding the residues, really, what are the
24 residues? What's the characteristics of them? How
25 do they decompose in time? Do they stabilize in
Page 94
1 time? We know that -- at least I have got experience
2 from the Tampa facility that uses ferric sulfates
3 that they have a colloidal mass, and when it dries
4 out, it becomes insoluble, and that material has some
5 promise of being a good soil amendment for
6 remediation of soils. So there's a win, win
7 situation for us.
8 Whether we can use those residues once they
9 are dried down or dehydrated or incorporated, they
10 can positively have an impact environmentally by
11 retaining more phosphorus in that soil environment
12 where they have applied. So that's what I look at is
13 a win, win situation, but we need to find that out.
14 We need time to make sure that's correct. That's my
15 hypothesis. That's what we are supposing is going to
16 be the case, but we don't have raw data. We don't
17 have a data base. That takes time.
18 Q. So at this point, whether or not residues
19 from chemical treatment would be suitable for land
20 application is still unknown?
21 A. We believe it is based on -- I believe it
22 is based on what I see the use in Tampa residues
23 being used and being authorized by the Florida
24 Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. In
25 fact, they are authorizing this as an iron humate
Page 95
1 sold now to various agriculture concerns.
2 I know from my experience in Europe where I
3 have seen these residues land applied successfully,
4 that you have to monitor use of these iron compounds
5 in making sure you have clean iron compounds, that
6 you are not getting a pickle-licker. That's called a
7 pickle-licker in industry. It comes from some
8 byproduct process, and in that, there's all kinds of
9 heavy elements and toxic elements. That's why the
10 American Society of Waste Water certifies compounds
11 used in municipal waste water. All those compounds
12 are certified that they are low in metal content.
13 As long as we have that security, security
14 that we are not getting contamination introduced to
15 the chemical, we have really a viable option.
16 Q. Is there a possibility in the EAA that
17 there wouldn't be that security?
18 A. No, not really.
19 If we go with this kind of treatment, it's
20 a given, from my standpoint, that we will produce our
21 own raw materials. To get the raw materials, for
22 example, to produce ferric chloride, it's fairly
23 simple. We can construct a portable plant, and
24 produce materials for the process and any other
25 municipality as another side venture very easily, and
Page 96
1 that would ensure that our quality control is very
2 high. In fact, any high volume chemical treatment
3 facility is already doing the same thing, and that's
4 a given.
5 A difference in cost of raw materials could
6 be as high as let's say from 84 cents a gallon to 12
7 cents a gallon if you make it. It's very cheap. So
8 obviously for quality control and for reducing costs,
9 you produce a raw material yourself.
10 I have been in contact with people who have
11 already assured me that it can be done.
12 Q. When you're talking about the raw material,
13 you're talking about the ferric --
14 A. It means we ship in ferrous sulfate or
15 ferrous chloride from Europe in raw material form to
16 the Port of Everglades, bring it in and produce our
17 own ferric chloride or our own ferric sulfate and
18 make our own materials. It doesn't take a large
19 facility to do that. That's more or less
20 confidential information, but --
21 MR. GAINES: Not anymore.
22 THE WITNESS: Not anymore.
23 But what I am saying is that if you're
24 talking about quality assurance, where you get
25 quality assurance is, you make the material
Page 97
1 yourself.
2 Now, if you ask, why do you make it
3 yourself, this is another loop of why do you
4 want to entangle yourself with that?
5 Well it's a very simple process to do, and
6 the incentive is reducing costs of the
7 operation. You can reduce your cost from 60 to
8 80 some cents a gallon down to 10 to 20 cents a
9 gallon.
10 You have got -- obviously if there is a
11 plant in Bartow that makes this material, they'd
12 rather sell that material they make over there
13 to us at 68 cents or 75 cents a gallon. But to
14 make sure we have quality assurance, you asked
15 me about unknowns, and how do you solve those
16 unknowns? The solution is, you make your own
17 material, and the win to it is it's much cheaper
18 in the long run. It's certainly feasible.
19 BY MR. GARVER:
20 Q. So to that extent, then, you can control
21 the quality of the chemical and additives you're
22 putting into the water; is that correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Is there anything about the nature of the
25 waters in the EAA drainage basin that might affect
Page 98
1 the nature of the residue that would come out after
2 treatment?
3 A. Well, we're just about really officially
4 not even a year old in our project. So we have done
5 a lot of work already, but the thing that we need to
6 be doing in the future is characterizing the residue
7 material to see if the quality or the characteristics
8 of the residue has changed based on water quality.
9 I don't have an exact answer for you. All
10 I can say is that I think that we have a variability
11 of the residue that, following that, it captures out
12 biological detritus, particulates. That's basically
13 a ferric hydroxide material that has captivated the
14 phosphorus. Any probable pesticides are gone,
15 because it's a very attractive molecule.
16 Essentially, everything in that water, all the dirt
17 is entrapped in that residue. So if it's cleaned one
18 day and dirtied the next, you're going to have a
19 different quality of the residue, and we have seen it
20 in our jar test where the characteristics of our
21 residue is different with the quality of our drainage
22 water, but I don't know the range.
23 Q. In your analysis of the residues you
24 retained in your jar test, have you observed any
25 residues that you would consider toxic?
Page 99
1 A. No.
2 Q. Have you observed any residues that you
3 have determined would be unsuitable for land
4 application?
5 A. That's a better question, no.
6 I mean, if you're asking me whether it was
7 toxic, I don't have raw data to tell you it's not
8 toxic, but by whose standards? There are various
9 standards.
10 It's my best -- my educated opinion is that
11 no, they are not, and I would say that that needs to
12 be determined either by myself or other people.
13 That's why I would hope that sooner or later we have
14 more than one individual, several individuals working
15 on this to determine those things. But it's my
16 educated opinion that, no, they are not toxic, based
17 on what I have seen other municipalities -- how they
18 are disposing of it and other experiences that I have
19 seen in Europe. Nothing has been toxic thus far.
20 We're talking about a very stable compound.
21 Q. What criteria do you consider in
22 determining whether a residue is suitable for land
23 application?
24 A. That's a good question.
25 I think the criteria would have to be in
Page 100
1 how sludges right now are defined, waste sludges. I
2 don't have the new ruling on it.
3 There's been a new ruling out of EPA on
4 waste sludges, and I don't have a copy of that yet,
5 but I imagine the criteria would have to follow those
6 guidelines, would have to follow the EPA guidelines
7 on sludge management.
8 The outside thing is, first of all, does it
9 radically change the soil PH? Does it release toxic
10 elements harmful for biological systems, both plants
11 and animal and bacterial? Those are the questions I
12 would probably ask.
13 The sludge management basically goes on
14 criteria of how much metal, let's say lead or
15 mercury, how much mercury is applied per aerial load
16 per year. They have limitations on sludges. Sludges
17 have other limitations. Whether the E-coli has a
18 certain level, whether they are active sludges from
19 waste water have to be deactivated with calcium
20 hydroxide and calcium oxide materials. They
21 basically have standards for that. We don't have to
22 worry about.
23 I would think the only standard that we
24 would have to worry about is the total number of
25 toxic metal of a loading per area. It might be that
Page 101
1 if we determine that there's a particular element
2 there, that it will only take five pounds per acre
3 for year. That would be a limitation for land
4 application. It's probably not going to be because
5 we're putting too much iron in, because the iron will
6 ultimately increase probably the retention of
7 phosphorus on that land, which is a positive thing we
8 want to do. It might be a slow release fertilizer
9 form ultimately which we would have interest of
10 doing, in following through on, but I'd have to refer
11 you to the EPA's current recent release on sludge
12 management on that. I am kind of getting -- is it a
13 toxic metal application is a key question that you
14 have to ask.
15 Q. So without having reviewed the EPA
16 criteria, is it impossible to determine whether the
17 residues from the chemical treatments would be
18 suitable for land application?
19 A. At this time, yeah, under our conditions,
20 because if this is a viable alternative, then we'd
21 have to investigate particularly for the EAA, I would
22 say yes, which I don't know that yet. Then you bring
23 in your own experts or bring in people that are used
24 to it, and let them determine that.
25 MR. GAINES: You're asking him if it's
Page 102
1 impossible to determine it with regards to the
2 EPA guidelines or any criteria?
3 MR. GARVER: Yeah.
4 MR. GAINES: Do you understand his
5 question?
6 THE WITNESS: I think so.
7 MR. GARVER: He already answered my
8 question.
9 THE WITNESS: It's not impossible to
10 determine, but we have not determined it as of
11 this point.
12 BY MR. GARVER:
13 Q. I know you have probably gone over this
14 before, but I have this outline here, and I haven't
15 asked you this specific question yet.
16 Can you just describe to me generally how
17 the chemical treatment process that you have been
18 researching for EAA drainage waters will work?
19 A. Soluble iron is added to the water at a
20 certain concentration of iron to so many parts per
21 million of water. The iron precipitates into an iron
22 hydroxide form. It's changed. It eventually
23 coagulates. It collects suspended particles
24 coagulate with suspended particles and precipitates
25 out the other soluble portions, which includes
Page 103
1 phosphorus. It comes together. They coagulate.
2 They drop out as a sediment or residue. That's
3 basically the process.
4 Q. During that process, in general, what is
5 removed from the treated water?
6 A. Carbon is removed. Phosphorus is removed.
7 Any metals are removed. We have not done any
8 characterization exactly of the bonding natures yet
9 of the residue, but that's one of our next steps in
10 time, and this year's step, if we're continuing with
11 our funding, will continue that venture.
12 Basically, any of the inorganic
13 constituents are going to be precipitated, which
14 includes phosphorus, carbon, particulates, any
15 biological detritus like algae eventually come
16 together, are trapped out with it. Essentially, it
17 takes out a lot of trash, you know, very fine
18 particulate material.
19 Q. Minerals, would they be removed?
20 A. Like calcium or magnesium. We have not
21 seen any significant effect on hardness, for example,
22 on calcium or magnesium. Iron is, generally if we're
23 doing it right, is going to be at a very low level.
24 So iron actually if it starts at 800 parts per
25 billion, may go down to 10 parts per billion, if
Page 104
1 we're doing it right, if we're setting our criteria
2 up correctly.
3 Q. What about molibinum?
4 A. Actually, molibinum is generally found in
5 calcium carbonate materials, and the reason it is is
6 because carbonate material is precipitated out very
7 rapidly. It's a trace element, and those trace
8 elements are likely to be all trapped out.
9 Q. What about silicates?
10 A. Silicate in the EAA is low, to begin with.
11 In fact, we have silicate or silicon deficiencies all
12 throughout South Florida and Central Florida.
13 Silicate is already very low, and these are likely to
14 be trapped out. Base arsenic, silicone and
15 phosphorus have very similar facilities.
16 Q. What about nitrate compounds, what happens
17 when the chemical treatment process is being
18 investigated?
19 A. I don't have anything definitive. Nitrates
20 are a soluble form, but if you're talking about
21 organic nitrate form, which is the soluble organics,
22 these organic compounds consist of carbon, oxygen,
23 nitrogen, phosphorus, and when they are trapped out,
24 precipitated out, they structurally come out also,
25 but the nitrates itself are virtually unaffected. We
Page 105
1 are not really affecting the nitrates.
2 Q. Have you done any tests to determine how
3 much of the nitrogen in the EAA waters are in the
4 form of nitrates as compared to organic forms of
5 nitrogen?
6 A. Yes, we have, and my report has all that.
7 I routinely run nitrates and total nitrogen
8 in our labs, and we have data on that.
9 Q. And then you show the percentage?
10 A. Which I would call the difference might be
11 particulate or organic nitrates. Yeah, we have a
12 difference.
13 Generally, there's a particulate nitrogen
14 also reported in our reports of EPE samples, and that
15 comes from the determination of total nitrogen over
16 an unfiltered sample versus the nitrates determined
17 from a filtered sample.
18 Q. Would chemical treatment change the
19 nitrogen to phosphorus ratio in the water?
20 A. I am sure it would.
21 Q. Can you say generally what would happen to
22 the nitrogen and phosphorus ratio?
23 A. The nitrogen phosphorus ratio changes
24 radically, anyway. Nitrogen denitrofies easily,
25 anyway. In surface water, we're generally not
Page 106
1 concerned with nitrogen, because nitrogen does
2 convert and go into and N02 gas quickly. The levels
3 of nitrate in standing water might be negligible, and
4 the same water frequently pumped may be high.
5 The difference between ammonia nitrates and
6 N02, it's a flux. It settles into the atmosphere,
7 which means that the ratio between nitrogen and
8 phosphorus is meaningly less, because we're dealing
9 with surface water.
10 If we're dealing with water table, deep
11 down groundwater, nitrogen doesn't escape the
12 groundwater. It's captivated. Then nitrates are
13 important, but in surface water we are not interested
14 in nitrates, because it's only surface -- I am not
15 sure where you're leading me on the question to say
16 whether that ratio changes. Regardless whether we
17 dose or not is going to change radically.
18 Phosphorus does not. In a closed system,
19 phosphorus stays physically in the system, and that's
20 the difference. Phosphorus goes into a sediment, and
21 it stays as a sediment or building up of soil. It's
22 fine, but if it's resuspended, it can be biologically
23 activated. Again, it can go into a form that's
24 released, but it cannot escape the system like
25 nitrogen does.
Page 107
1 Q. Do denitrification processes depend on the
2 presence of phosphorus compounds?
3 A. No. It largely depends on the amount of
4 oxygen present in the system. It occurs because
5 there's a biological oxidation process. Bacteria
6 would normally take oxygen if it's really available,
7 but NO3 has oxygen associated with it. That bacteria
8 will take that oxygen from the NO3 and convert it to
9 NO2 and take that NO2 and convert it to an NH4 or
10 NH2, and it leaves.
11 So generally the flux of the cycle is
12 dependant on aerobic and anaerobic fluxs which occur.
13 You may have a bottom sediment that is anaerobic, no
14 nitrates. You may have a very frequently pumped
15 water system with high nitrates, but that same water
16 can change very quickly if it's let into a field and
17 it sits there for three months.
18 If you go into a rice field, there is no
19 nitrates. That water is standing there flooded for a
20 month. There is no nitrates. There might be
21 ammonia, but there's no nitrates.
22 Q. In the chemical treatment processes you
23 have investigated, would any of them require
24 secondary treatment prior to discharge into the Water
25 Conservation Areas?
Page 108
1 A. You want to repeat that again?
2 Q. Would you anticipate that any of the
3 chemical treatment processes you have investigated
4 requires secondary treatment beyond the addition of
5 the primary chemical prior to discharge into the
6 Water Conservation Areas?
7 A. Well, we have surmised that that might be
8 necessary as a post treatment or a secondary
9 treatment. In fact, I think I have written it down
10 somewhere in some of our discussions.
11 That would be basically to make sure that
12 we complied to whatever existing Class III standards
13 might exist.
14 For example, on PH, if we start with a PH
15 of 6.5, and we dose and that chemical that we're
16 dosing with is acidic and it drops the PH to 5, we
17 may have to have some secondary treatment maybe
18 through a carbonate sludge applied to elevate that PH
19 before it's released. That's conceivable, but again
20 that's why it's important to match the engineering
21 designs with the chemical treatment, because it is
22 likely that some of those questions, after we design
23 these, will come up and have to be tackled then. So
24 the answer is, yes, perhaps not.
25 Q. Other than --
Page 109
1 A. And really, the waste treatment process is
2 that variable. That may limit secondary treatment if
3 the process has a different water quality coming in.
4 If we're treating water that's been sitting
5 in a marsh and very hot, full of high alkalinity PH,
6 average 85.9, it's unlikely that we are going to have
7 to do a secondary treatment.
8 If PH is a problem, there's a possibility
9 of maybe a post treatment. You may have three
10 treatments that are necessary. It's not strictly
11 just iron. It may be pre conditioning the water to a
12 certain PH and then realtering that PH before it's
13 released.
14 Q. Other than PH, what other water parameters
15 might need adjustments, either in pre treatment or
16 post secondary tertiary treatment?
17 A. Very possibly a coagulant aid, and
18 coagulant aids are something like starch or synthetic
19 polymers. These are degradable. They have been used
20 by various engineering designs to aid coagulation.
21 We have looked at those very, very briefly.
22 Basically, avoiding those because of the time
23 restraints we have had on just getting some research
24 of other nature going. Those are generally, I would
25 say, are not desirable, because they add more cost to
Page 110
1 the process, although they could be needed under
2 certain conditions. When we have tested them, they
3 basically have not aided at all in the process.
4 The reason to that, again, is we're working
5 with very high hardnesses, very high levels of
6 calcium and magnesium in the water already, and
7 basically those are very cationic or very anionic in
8 nature.
9 If we're basically dealing with a cationic
10 system, a lot of charge in a system, I guess it's not
11 going to be necessary, because what we're forming is
12 an anionic substance that has a negative charge.
13 Q. So the addition of a coagulant agent would
14 be a pre treatment?
15 A. Possibly or it could be a base treatment
16 just to get the PH in the right line. What I am
17 talking about is an engineering design fitting and
18 conforming to the chemical process.
19 Q. Other than readjustment of PH, would there
20 be any other post treatments that might be necessary?
21 A. Possibly, as I said before, and I think I
22 have drawn some figures on that, possibly liquid lime
23 being slurried into the water immediately downstream,
24 and the reason we look at calcium carbonates slurries
25 is they will modify the PH no further than a PH2.
Page 111
1 They keep it within regulation.
2 Q. Is it possible that the residue that
3 precipitates during treatment would need to be
4 treated prior to land application?
5 A. I don't think so. The materials are more
6 siskin of a gel material that lacks structure, lacks
7 anything. It's sorts of like a muddy mass. If it's
8 spread out on a land surface and it dehydrates, it
9 becomes insoluble, irreversibly insoluble.
10 No, I don't believe it needs any pre
11 treatment. It doesn't have a PH problem. It doesn't
12 have a solubility toxicity problem. That, by the
13 way, that can be confirmed in other sites that are
14 currently using the materials. There's documentation
15 on that.
16 Q. In your opinion, can a chemical treatment
17 process that you have investigated be scaled up to
18 treat all of the water discharges from the EAA to the
19 Water Conservation Areas?
20 A. Conceivably.
21 Q. Conceivably?
22 A. Well, let's just put -- let's just give you
23 a scale to think about. Let's suppose you chose a
24 real small pump, 1000 gallons per minute pump.
25 That's a small pump in the EAA, very small. It might
Page 112
1 have an eight-inch pipe on it. 1000 gallons per
2 minute in one day will be producing or pumping
3 1,440,000 gallons per day. That's about the size
4 treatment of a small municipality, very small town
5 like Clewiston or Belle Glade.
6 You put a 20,000 gallon per minute pump,
7 which is more like the reasonable pump system, that
8 pumps a section or a half section of land in the EAA,
9 and that per day is 20 times higher than that, which
10 is 11,440,000 gallons, 11.4 million gallons per day,
11 and that's about the size of a moderate city. Tampa,
12 City of Tampa, Miami are in the neighborhood of 70 to
13 100 million gallons per day in their treatment.
14 You have two ways of thinking about this.
15 You asked the question: What is the aerial loading
16 requirements? How many pounds of phosphorus or tons
17 of phosphorus do you want limited to go into the
18 STA's or to the back. We can say, yes, we will
19 coagulate and trap out X number of tons that equate
20 to so many tons of phosphorus, and we will stop --
21 that's one way of thinking about it. We can do the
22 requirements. We can budget what we have, what it
23 will cost to do 200 tons.
24 On the other hand, if you want to say, I
25 want a water quality standard, which is really kind
Page 113
1 of stupid, because you can have a cow at the end of
2 the field emitting some very high water quality just
3 out of its butt end, but it's not very much. The
4 quantity of water is what you're treating.
5 If you have to treat all the water, we are
6 talking about how many two million acre feet of
7 water, something in that neighborhood, maybe 4
8 million acre feet of water times 320 something
9 thousand gallons per acre foot. That's a lot of
10 water. That's a couple hundred billion gallons of
11 water. That's a lot of water. Conceivably, it can
12 be done, yeah, but it will come at a fairly large
13 cost. Essentially what you can do then is create
14 your own water utility.
15 Q. What kind of cost do you think we're
16 talking about?
17 A. Well, I don't know those things. I know
18 Braun & Caldwell gave a report or talked last week at
19 the District about it, and I will know next week when
20 I get the report in my hands, but they have from --
21 this is just hearsay -- that they have said that the
22 cost is substantially less than an STA if they
23 treated the water. That's based on conservative
24 estimates, conservative meaning that if you
25 overdesign the system, which is what you have to do,
Page 114
1 you have to oversize it first to make sure that you
2 are within allowable specifications. That's the only
3 information I have, you know.
4 I know basic chemical costs, but that's not
5 the whole picture. There's M and O. There's
6 maintenance and operation costs. There's initial
7 startup courses, although I have no real reasonable
8 handle on it.
9 Q. You haven't done any work and tried to
10 develop a plan?
11 A. Our work has pointed out that the chemical
12 treatment is feasible, nothing more, nothing less.
13 We have had less than a year to work on it, budgetary
14 wise, and I think we have produced an enormous amount
15 of data with the short amount of time that we have
16 had. It's going to take a lot more finesse and
17 development with other people, as well, to get all
18 those things tweaked out, all those things figured
19 out. I think Braun & Caldwell's report is probably
20 your best estimate.
21 Q. You mentioned earlier that you were under
22 some time constraints; what constraints are those?
23 A. You hire somebody, and you can only promise
24 employment for one year, and we have got to produce
25 so much information in a short period of time, no
Page 115
1 assurances of continuation with a budget. So there's
2 time constraints. You have got to produce the
3 material. You have got to verify it. Everything has
4 got to be managed pretty tightly.
5 Q. Where are these time constraints coming
6 from?
7 A. Primarily from me.
8 I mean, if you're going to be successful at
9 doing a project, you know, you have to produce some
10 results. If you want to be a productive scientist
11 and continue hopefully with future funding, you
12 better produce something so that whoever is funding
13 you is happy with your funding. Actually, the
14 District has given us those constraints. I am just
15 joking.
16 Q. How much additional time do you think you
17 need to do the studies that would be required to
18 build this chemical treatment concept?
19 A. We're already in the process of getting
20 small design facilities together with one of the
21 companies, not something as elaborate as treating
22 canals, but it's treating small field scale
23 experiments, to do things properly. I think
24 according to a protocol that's accepted by
25 engineering and science, I think we need at least two
Page 116
1 more years to not only confirm, but to verify what we
2 are saying is going to be viable, and viable from a
3 standpoint of handling residues, at least getting
4 some idea how to handle residues, how to handle the
5 quantity of water, depending on where you're going
6 with it, whether it's going to be a regional
7 treatment or field treatment or whether you're going
8 to put it at a sugar cane mill. It takes time for
9 the engineering work to conform with the chemical
10 process work which we say is viable.
11 I think two more years is probably what we
12 are looking at, and that would be sufficient time
13 probably for everybody throwing stones to throw their
14 final stones and start work, throw them all and get
15 to work.
16 The stone throwing is helpful, actually,
17 'cause you know what problem might be out there.
18 Nobody throws stones who can't critique your work.
19 So that's on a positive note. It's probably helpful
20 to get those people throwing stones involved in the
21 work.
22 MR. GARVER: It's about 12:30. This might
23 be a good time to take a lunch break.
24 (Thereupon, a brief recess was taken,
25 after which the following proceedings
Page 117
1 were had:)
2 BY MR. GARVER:
3 Q. Doctor Anderson, I believe you stated
4 earlier that you have been collaberating with
5 Hutcheon Engineers -- is it Hutcheons Engineering --
6 on the chemical treatment processes we have been
7 discussing; is that correct?
8 A. That's correct.
9 Q. Who have you been working with at
10 Hutcheons?
11 A. David Stewart.
12 John Potts was also listed in the original
13 proposal, but we had virtually no contact with him.
14 Q. And what has David Stewart been doing in
15 connection with the chemical treatment?
16 A. Actually, they really did very little other
17 than develop the original proposals.
18 They were intended to be the engineering
19 expertise to help develop the physical design
20 specifications. We just have not gotten that far
21 yet.
22 Q. Are they still involved in chemical
23 treatment projects?
24 A. Not that I am aware of.
25 Q. When was the last time they were involved
Page 118
1 in the project?
2 A. Probably the last interaction was September
3 of last year.
4 Q. Were they involved from the beginning in
5 December 1991?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Do you anticipate that they would get
8 involved, again, if you got funding to continue your
9 work?
10 A. That I am not sure of. Of course, that
11 depends on who funds them. It might be competitive
12 bids.
13 Currently we're trying to develop a
14 proposal with Metcalf & Eddie, and I don't know the
15 status of that yet. I have given over some of my
16 materials over to Metcalf & Eddie, and then we may be
17 developing something. We may not. It all depends on
18 which direction our works goes.
19 I think currently there's been some
20 discussion to join in with the District and join in
21 with other consulting engineers. I don't know if
22 that has anything to do with the remediation process
23 or collaberating or whether giving over the data is
24 what we are intending to do, but we have discussed
25 it.
Page 119
1 I have had discussions with people at the
2 District for the past year about possibly doing just
3 that, collaberation, and I think it's a reasonable
4 thing to happen.
5 Q. Who at the District have you been
6 discussing collaberation with?
7 A. Zan Kugler.
8 Of course, his staff has come to me with
9 questions, and I have pretty much answered any
10 questions that they have had, and it's been just a
11 fairly free conversation. I haven't gotten any
12 information from any of those people that have asked
13 us about it.
14 I am trying to remember who else, primarily
15 Zan Kugler, maybe Pete Rhoads. Pete Rhoads on a
16 different agends, though.
17 Q. What agenda have you had discussions with
18 Pete Rhoads on?
19 A. Well, I brought in a man from Holland. His
20 name is Pierre Restrolin, in September and organized
21 with his staff person, Mary Beth Buta, just organized
22 a seminar at the District to open up conversations of
23 what people in Holland -- how the water control
24 managers and pollution control authorities are
25 managing water in Holland.
Page 120
1 I just asked him to present basically what
2 they are doing and open up discussions, and
3 consequent to his visit, we got a delegation in
4 another month and-a-half coming over from Holland to
5 exchange with the Board members here and with the
6 Saint Johns Water Management District, and Pete's
7 involved in that process.
8 So that all has to do with the chemical
9 dosing also, because I have been over to Holland to
10 observe their work and collect information, both
11 there in Holland and in Germany.
12 Q. What about the nature of the discussions
13 you had with Zan Kugler, specifically?
14 A. It's been pretty light. They initially
15 approached me to ask me what the support information
16 data was to dosing.
17 They were interested in who our group was,
18 what our facilities looked like, questions whether or
19 not I had personal thoughts of other alternatives to
20 STA's, what my feelings were, what the problems were,
21 and I pretty much openly discussed that with him. I
22 think it was August of last year.
23 Him and his staff spent approximately one
24 day in our laboratory facility and office discussing
25 those things. I pretty much opened up any of the
Page 121
1 books that we had and shared them with him.
2 Q. Have you had discussions with either Zan
3 Kugler or Pete Rhoads regarding the viability of
4 STA's?
5 A. Not Pete.
6 I have been asked my opinion by Zan Kugler,
7 and I more or less told him of my opinion.
8 Q. What was your opinion?
9 A. That STA's are -- basically, they are
10 unproven, and it's my guess, my educated guess, as
11 well as some of the information that we have
12 generated through research, that it probably wouldn't
13 work.
14 There's certain limitations that a
15 treatment area has, and the examples of it is
16 probably more famous out of Orlando, the Iron Bridge,
17 a place called Iron Bridge out of Orlando. Today
18 it's a non effective treatment area. It had what
19 they figure was a small period of time of
20 effectiveness, and right now basically what goes in
21 is still coming out at the same time. The loading
22 that's actually coming out is higher.
23 We have also, with the graduate student
24 that I mentioned before, Orlando Diaz, have done
25 flooded and drained column studies looking at
Page 122
1 mineralization, the release of phosphorus, and have
2 determined that under a frequently flooded drained
3 situation, which is essentially what our natural
4 system will be out here with the varying hydroperiod,
5 that you have a tremendous release of phosphorus out
6 of these soils.
7 Unless they figured the hydroperiod 12
8 months out of the year, it's likely that phosphorus
9 release out of a storm water treatment area is going
10 to be extremely variable, and it may be higher.
11 That's excluding any biological activity or
12 biocycling or manipulation within that STA.
13 What I mean by that is when it's first
14 constructed, it's not going to react the same way
15 three years from now. You will have a stabilized
16 hydroperiod, supposing that it is stable. Even if
17 there's drought, they'll pump the water. To maintain
18 that water in that system, you will have a tremendous
19 biological activity.
20 I pulled some some information that I have
21 collected from Holland. You're going to be
22 introducing a phosphorus recycling into the system
23 that might relate in higher levels of phosphorus
24 leaving the STA than enters. That in some way is the
25 same experience that rice or flooded fields in the
Page 123
1 EAA have right now. They will flood the lands right
2 after vegetable production at the end of the Summer,
3 leave it flooded for two to four months.
4 At the end of four months, phosphorus
5 levels are very high largely because there's a lot of
6 biological activities. There's a lot of birds out
7 there. They just flooded into that area. There's an
8 abundance of food. As food increases, so does the
9 activities.
10 So there's several factors that really go
11 against the concepts of the STA's. I feel that
12 number one is that there's not a real solid basis for
13 it, from a basis of the Florida experience, and they
14 have used -- Iron Bridge has been looked at as a
15 serious attempt to use STA's to control phosphorus
16 levels.
17 What's been disappointing to me, as well as
18 to other people, is that it has been very successful
19 in the Lake Apopka area. I don't have any direct
20 data from them, but it's my understanding from the
21 Saint Johns Water Management District, there's been
22 some flood experiment treatment areas that have been
23 flooded, also, that have had problems with
24 maintaining low levels, you know, water leaving those
25 areas. That's also the experience, from my
Page 124
1 understanding, in the Saints Johns Water Management
2 District. Some of those opinions they asked me in
3 essentially a little bit lengthy discussion. That's
4 basically what we have discussed.
5 Q. When did you review the Iron Bridge system?
6 A. Last year sometime. I think the South
7 Florida Water Management District had some of the
8 published data, if I remember. I am not sure. I
9 can't put my hand on it right now, but I remember
10 reading it, seeing some of the charts.
11 Q. What are the observations that you told me
12 that you made with respect to Iron Bridge that
13 specifically is no longer working; on what
14 information is that based?
15 A. Well, until I can put my hand on it, I
16 can't tell you. I remember reading it and seeing it
17 and studying it at the time. I had it, but I don't
18 recall where I had that information.
19 Q. Was it a specific report or was it a series
20 of reports?
21 A. A specific report on Iron Bridge.
22 Q. Was it a published report?
23 A. I believe so, but I am not very clear on
24 where I saw that. In fact, it may have been a
25 misnomer to even mention it, but I will have to look
Page 125
1 through some of my publications and see if I can find
2 it. I don't recall offhand, but I know it's been
3 discussed among other people, also. So it might be a
4 rumor, but I remember seeing and reading about it.
5 Q. In the studies or the experience you just
6 told me about relating to rice fields, on what
7 specific information did you base your comments on
8 rice fields?
9 A. It's my experience with running water
10 quality samples in the area.
11 Q. Running water quality samples on rice field
12 affluents?
13 A. Yeah, in general, looking at water quality
14 off the flooded fields over the last year, year
15 and-a-half.
16 Q. Have you provided any reports that document
17 your observations with respect to the water quality
18 in rice fields?
19 A. No, I have not.
20 Q. Has anyone at EREC published any reports on
21 water quality off rice fields?
22 A. I believe Forest Izuno has done some report
23 on that. I might be able to find some information
24 from Izuno and Voucher.
25 Q. I believe you mentioned earlier that you
Page 126
1 are in the process of working up a proposal with
2 Metcalf & Eddie; is that correct?
3 A. Uh-huh.
4 Q. And what specifically is that proposal?
5 A. We're intending to try to get a proposal to
6 go to develop a pilot facility, provided we find
7 funding.
8 Q. Do you have plans to give this proposal to
9 anyone in particular?
10 A. I have been told most of this information
11 is proprietary; is that correct?
12 MR. GAINES: What work you have in progress
13 or a proposal?
14 THE WITNESS: Uh-huh.
15 MR. GAINES: Without getting into the
16 specifics of it, I think you can tell us
17 generally what you're working on.
18 THE WITNESS: The person that has been
19 generally -- I don't mean to be hiding anything,
20 but I have just been told very specifically to
21 keep it to myself. That's why I am asking.
22 Metcalf & Eddie, under Pete Rosenthal on
23 flow side, we have been talking about a proposal
24 possibly for the EPD, Environmental Protection
25 District, which essentially will continue our
Page 127
1 studies from the status that they are right now
2 and carrying them on to the next phase.
3 It's a little bit like saying you have got
4 something without giving substantiation for the
5 results.
6 BY MR. GARVER:
7 Q. You actually started to put together this
8 proposal?
9 A. Yes. We have already put one draft
10 together.
11 MR. GARVER: Mr. Gaines, is that something
12 you're withholding on the basis --
13 THE WITNESS: I don't think he knows about
14 it. I don't think he knows about it.
15 MR. GAINES: I am not specifically
16 withholding it, but I don't think that that
17 would be produceable.
18 THE WITNESS: It's not. It's not really
19 substantial enough to even probably discuss
20 right now.
21 We are going into second draft right now
22 under the assumption that there needs to be more
23 detail in the proposal.
24 BY MR. GARVER:
25 Q. Does the proposal relate to chemical
Page 128
1 treatment or any other alternative to STA's?
2 A. Chemical treatments.
3 Q. Who at Metcalf & Eddie are you working
4 with?
5 A. Paul Bowman out of Atlanta and Don Humman
6 out of Plantation.
7 MR. COUSINS: Broward County?
8 THE WITNESS: Uh-huh.
9 BY MR. GARVER:
10 Q. Why are you doing this work with Metcalf &
11 Eddie as opposed to Hutcheons Engineers?
12 A. Well, basically, I think we are trying to
13 look at the very best engineering firm that has the
14 best experience in developing of similar facilities
15 or municipal waste treatment plants that has the
16 basic experience and a team of people to collaberate
17 with. It could be Braun & Caldwell. It could be
18 maybe half a dozen engineering firms. But Metcalf &
19 Eddie is extremely well known in the industry. They
20 have got a large book they published that's very
21 famous on waste treatment.
22 I think it was our suggestion that we look
23 at the very best people, not only for credibility,
24 but for sake of time. No need to reinvent the wheel
25 in developing facilities that have already been
Page 129
1 developed, facilities that have already been thought
2 out very well.
3 Q. What kind of schedule are you proposing for
4 developing the pilot facility for chemical treatment
5 with Metcalf & Eddie?
6 A. Pilot might be just a scale model that is
7 put on a trailer in which we change the design
8 specifications and run ten gallons a minute through.
9 It could be that small.
10 I think the time schedule is largely
11 affected by the lawsuit, trying to get some data and
12 some things at least in a preliminary form that
13 substantiate that there's viability in the system.
14 It could be October. I don't have a date really set.
15 I think the industry, if they wanted it or
16 the District wanted it, they'd want it yesterday.
17 It's just a matter sometimes of how much money can be
18 pumped in, but generally with as little time as we
19 have left, it's going to take a little bit of time to
20 develop. Sorry. I can't answer it any more
21 specifically than that.
22 Q. Have you done any work in your professional
23 life involving wetland treatment systems?
24 A. No, I have not.
25 Part of my expertise, however, is organic
Page 130
1 soils, histosols, in particular. That, in itself,
2 may not be a wetland, although I would assume that my
3 expertise does cover the area within the EAA quite
4 considerably.
5 Q. Have you done any review or studies of data
6 that has been collected in Water Conservation Area
7 2A?
8 A. Uh-huh, yes, I have.
9 Q. And what have those studies involved?
10 A. Studies by Ramesh Redy and his group of
11 people. I know them quite well. We have worked
12 together. I basically have read those reports, both,
13 out of the District and heard him give them at
14 national meetings. My former student is working for
15 him. So we talk. I basically know all the people in
16 that area.
17 Q. Beyond reviewing Doctor Redy's reports,
18 have you done any other work?
19 A. No, I have not not in those areas.
20 Q. Not in Area 2A?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Do you generally agree with the conclusions
23 that Doctor Redy has reached with respect to these --
24 MR. GAINES: Let me object to the form of
25 the question. Without you identifing the report
Page 131
1 and talking about it or what conclusions you're
2 talking about, I object to the form, "Do you
3 generally agree with Doctor Redy's work?"
4 MR. GARVER: I didn't finish my question.
5 MR. GAINES: Go ahead and finish your
6 question.
7 BY MR. GARVER:
8 Q. My question was: Do you generally agree
9 with the conclusions that Doctor Redy has drawn from
10 his analysis of data in Water Conservation Area 2A?
11 A. Yes.
12 MR. GAINES: Same objection. Without you
13 specifying what conclusions you're talking
14 about, I object to the form of the question.
15 MR. COUSINS: But the witness has said he
16 has read the Redy report.
17 MR. GAINES: I don't know what report he
18 has read or hasn't read. He said reports, I
19 think, plural. In other words, the form of the
20 question is objectionable if what you're asking
21 him is: Do you agree with Doctor Redy's
22 conclusions, without being more specific than
23 that. Also, I think it goes outside his
24 expertise here.
25 MR. GARVER: Well, I guess we have
Page 132
1 eliminated a little bit of time.
2 MR. GAINES: He said he hasn't done any
3 work in 2A.
4 MR. COUSINS: But the question is, the
5 witness just testified that he read Doctor
6 Redy's report on H2O conversion in Area 2A, and
7 then the question is: Does he agree with Doctor
8 Redy's conclusions or however it was phrased,
9 and he said yes, and you're objecting.
10 MR. GAINES: I don't think he said yes, but
11 I was objecting in the middle of the question.
12 If that's your question, and you're happy
13 with that question, I am not going to instruct
14 him not to answer, but I don't think it's a
15 meaningful question, without identifying what
16 report or what conclusions you're talking about.
17 If you have a report that has one
18 conclusion, I don't know what your question
19 means. I don't know what you mean by
20 conclusions which report, and I think it's
21 objectionable on the form of the question.
22 BY MR. GARVER:
23 Q. Can you answer the question?
24 A. Let me clarify.
25 MR. GAINES: I wish somebody would.
Page 133
1 THE WITNESS: Ramesh and I get along very
2 well, and we're friends, and I don't object or
3 have any major objections to the way he does
4 research or work. I think he does very good
5 work. He has a very good staff of people,
6 students working with him that is of very good
7 quality. I don't have any objections to his
8 work.
9 There's maybe some minor point on
10 methodology that I may not agree with him, but
11 generally I accept his conclusions as if they
12 would come from another colleague of mine from
13 the University of Florida. I have not disagreed
14 with him really on anything major, no big deal.
15 MR. COUSINS: I don't know what the report
16 is myself, but just going back and forth here, I
17 figure if you read it and you're comfortable
18 with answering it, I don't understand the
19 objection, but I understand what you're getting
20 at, also.
21 THE WITNESS: He has some interpretations
22 in the results, especially where he has mapped
23 out the phosphorus in that zone and provided a
24 topol map of concentrations.
25 BY MR. GARVER:
Page 134
1 Q. This is the zone in the --
2 MR. GAINES: Part of Conservation Area 2A
3 THE WITNESS: Right.
4 I don't necessarily agree with his
5 conclusions or some of the interpretations of
6 his conclusions. I think Ramesh is very careful
7 in not concluding anything that is not
8 specifically taken from data.
9 I think some people have concluded
10 erroneously some conclusions with the data.
11 You can always take this data and look at
12 it several different ways, and I don't think all
13 the avenues or all the right conclusions have
14 been put forward, but his work is really, I
15 consider, impeccable and good information, good
16 work, reliable.
17 BY MR. GARVER:
18 Q. What specific interpretations from Doctor
19 Redy's work do you have disagreement with?
20 A. Well, I am not sure if it's his
21 interpretation right now.
22 If you get the document out in front of me,
23 I can take a look at it, but I think what I am
24 repeating is more hearsay right now at this point
25 than actually fact.
Page 135
1 Q. Well, can you recall any specific
2 interpretations from his work that you can recall
3 right now, not having seen the report?
4 MR. GAINES: Let me just reassert my
5 objection here. We are going down a road here
6 that I don't think has any real meaning for
7 Doctor Anderson's deposition, asking him in a
8 vaccum about Doctor Redy's work and what do you
9 agree with and what do you disagree with. I
10 don't think this is within any area that he is
11 going to be testifying about and, you know, I
12 think it's objectionable.
13 MR. GARVER: Well, I mean, you haven't
14 really limited, beyond soil chemistry, what
15 Doctor Anderson is going to be testifying about,
16 Mr. Gaines. Any interpretation you can give me
17 I am happy with it.
18 MR. GAINES: I would invite you to look at
19 his description of his testimony within the
20 witness disclosure.
21 MR. GARVER: Soil chemistry.
22 MR. GAINES: No, I don't think so. Let me
23 see, alternatives to STA's, water quality, soil
24 chemistry, chemical treatment of phosphorus.
25 MR. GARVER: It's consistent with my
Page 136
1 recollection.
2 BY MR. GARVER:
3 Q. Doctor Anderson, in conducting your work
4 relating to chemical treatment in the EAA, did you
5 rely on or do any review of such a system in Germany
6 at the Wahnbach Estuary?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Can you describe the system that's in place
9 at the Wahnbach Estuary?
10 A. Yeah. I have been there. It's basically a
11 very narrow basin, small treatment area that 100
12 percent is taken over through traditional waste water
13 treatment techniques, cleaned and put into a dammed
14 reservoir, that water.
15 The project actually was initiated in 1978.
16 Within two, three years after completion, results
17 were very favorable. The water is very, very clean.
18 It used to be very atrophic -- no, it's oligotrophic.
19 They have an oxygenated system where they
20 pump air into the reservoir at 60, 80 feet deep. It
21 would be akin to a reservoir or a dammed area in
22 Tennessee. So there's a backup. There's a dam, and
23 then there's a back up of water that goes several
24 miles backward, and the supply waters are all
25 treated. Burnhardt has basically spent his entire
Page 137
1 life doing this work and has done a very good job.
2 Q. What is the source of water that enters the
3 treatment facility in the Wahnbach Estuary?
4 A. It's a treatment -- it's a river. It's a
5 drainage basin river water source. It's been
6 polluted. It's very high in algae and E-coli. You
7 know, it's basically a very polluted water. One
8 hundred percent of it's treated.
9 Q. Are you familiar with any of the pollution
10 sources in that treatment system?
11 A. That area consists of dairy farms, animal
12 farms, pig farms. Seaborg is a small municipality in
13 that general area. There's a lot of small
14 communities. It's very hilly area. So there's some
15 erosion. There's some recent erosion that comes from
16 animals on pastures.
17 They have gone so far as developing small
18 clean-up systems for those small streams that enter
19 into the reservoir. It's a very well managed system.
20 They have got a full-time liminologist working there
21 named Claussen. They have done just a very, very
22 good job.
23 Q. Are you familiar with the uses to which the
24 water from this reservoir is put to use?
25 A. It is a private utility. It's managed as a
Page 138
1 private utility. They sell water in that part of
2 Germany. It's a network of water systems that's
3 piped out, sold to municipalities for profit. It's a
4 private utility that is non profit that's been built
5 into provide a continuing supply of water in that
6 region.
7 Q. For municipal water supply?
8 A. Municipal and industrial water supply.
9 Q. Are you familiar with any chemical
10 treatment systems that are used to treat water prior
11 to its discharge, a wetland ecosystem?
12 A. Yes.
13 Well, let me just -- I don't remember all
14 the names. Again, in Europe my last experience this
15 last year was to basically collect information on
16 precisely that point. Lake Naardimeer, which is
17 located in Central Holland, they essentially treat
18 all the drainage waters that enter into a wildlife
19 reserve. It's a wildlife reserve, and it's
20 essentially a very famous area that all throughout
21 Europe is being hailed as one of the models that's
22 been held up to example quite a bit.
23 I don't remember all the other lakes in the
24 Province of Reinland also in Holland. I don't
25 remember the lake offhand. I have got the
Page 139
1 information in my office. But they also directly
2 treat waters going in through canals and dosed into
3 the canal, allow the residues to build up in the
4 canal, periodically clean it out, but all those
5 waters go directly into the lake.
6 There's other systems over there in
7 Holland. I mention Holland quite a bit because they
8 have been very progressive in this area. These areas
9 are basically organic soil areas, very similar to
10 this region. They are faced with phosphorus enriched
11 cost problems that will cost several million dollars.
12 I should be back there this next week, week
13 and-a-half seeing some other facilities, both, in
14 Germany and Holland.
15 Q. Are you familiar with any chemical
16 treatment systems which treat water prior to
17 discharge into a subtropical wetland ecosystem?
18 A. Not that I am aware of. That doesn't mean
19 there isn't. Just not that I am aware of.
20 It seems to me Lynn Schuler is one of the
21 EPA coordinators in Chesapeake. I talked to him this
22 last fall. He said that they are in the process of
23 treating some of their trepidaries they run through
24 the Chesapeake Basin. They are also interested in
25 chemical treatment, but that's more on the basis of
Page 140
1 municipal and water shed treatment on a formal basis.
2 What makes us a little bit unique -- again,
3 going back to the uniqueness of this region -- is
4 that we have thousands of miles of canal systems
5 which lends itself very well for collection of bottom
6 sediments or residues instead of being retained out
7 of filters, centrifuge filters. So our treatment
8 capabilities could be done very simply if we take
9 advantage of it, probably. I am going to say
10 probably very effectively, because we have not done
11 the engineering design valdations yet on it, but
12 probably the primary settling through gravitation is
13 probably a very good technique to use when we have
14 miles of canals to use to retain the water after its
15 precipitated -- things are precipitated and
16 coagulated out. So we have the capability with our
17 canal systems to do something that nowhere else in
18 the world is capable of doing.
19 Q. Let me turn now to some of the other
20 alternatives to STA's that have been discussed in the
21 last year or so.
22 Have you been involved in investigating or
23 reviewing the use of limerock absorption?
24 A. Uh-huh.
25 Q. What has been your involvement in looking
Page 141
1 at limerock absorption as an alternative to STA's?
2 A. Probably four or five years ago we talked
3 about it with our Okeechobee Project. Ramesh Redy
4 was involved with that, along with Don Grats, Bob
5 Mansel, and a few others and probably came a little
6 bit to this part with my work with limestone and
7 liming in that area to control some of the problems,
8 but my involvement is, and this is minimal, I have
9 listened to the presentation that Patrick has given.
10 I don't have -- I have not seen any of the data. I
11 have not seen any data either in raw form or in table
12 form or figures regarding whether it's effective or
13 not. I have surmised that it has probably poor
14 effectiveness, but I don't have any verification for
15 that.
16 Q. Did you say poor?
17 A. Poor. There are circumstances where it
18 will not do well.
19 Q. Under what circumstances wouldn't it do
20 well?
21 A. These waters in the EAA are highly
22 buffered, and they do behave as complex as organic
23 acids. They have several titration points. That
24 being the case, if your PH is not adequate, meaning
25 very low, that will be dissolving your rock.
Page 142
1 There's a resistence for precipitation
2 which occurs at PH 8, 8.2, 8.5, and if these waters
3 are highly buffered, then you start eating the rock
4 up instead of precipitating it. So there are,
5 because of the changing conditions of these waters,
6 probably conditions where it will not work well.
7 Q. Do you anticipate providing any testimony
8 in the hearing in this matter regarding limerock
9 absorption?
10 A. No. It's not my work.
11 Q. Are there any circumstances or situations
12 in the EAA in which you believe limerock absorption
13 will work as an alternative to STA's?
14 MR. GAINES: Wait a minute, you know. I
15 don't know how many of these are going to be
16 done, but he just said he doesn't anticipate
17 testifying on this. It's not his area of
18 expertise. He hasn't seen any data. His only
19 involvement has been basically hearing somebody
20 else's report. So I mean, I just kind of -- let
21 me just object, generally. We're getting into
22 areas that don't have any meaning for this
23 witness, and it seems like a waste of time.
24 MR. GARVER: I don't intend to go very far
25 into this.
Page 143
1 BY MR. GARVER:
2 Q. You can answer the question.
3 A. Well, it's subjective, you know. My answer
4 would be subjective. I don't have any raw figures or
5 data to answer that question.
6 Q. Have you been involved in investigating or
7 reviewing the application of algal surf scrubbers as
8 an alternative to STA's?
9 A. I have seen it. I have listened to the
10 presentation, yes.
11 Q. And just generally, do you have an opinion
12 as to the application of algal surf scrubbers?
13 A. It's a new technology. It does hold some
14 promise, especially for polishing water down to low
15 concentrations. There are obviously some problems
16 associated with it, and I don't know the answers to
17 how they can solve some of the problems.
18 Q. What are the obvious problems?
19 A. How many billion acres or billion gallons
20 do we need to treat, and how fast do we need to treat
21 it. There's no answers that technology, but it has
22 shown promise, and at least some of the data looks
23 promising. There might be application, you know, in
24 some areas for it.
25 Q. Do you anticipate providing any testimony
Page 144
1 regarding algal surf scrubbers at the final hearing
2 in this matter?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Have you been involved in investigating and
5 reviewing sediment dredging to reduce phosphorus as
6 an alternative to STA's?
7 A. Yeah.
8 Q. What has been your involvement in looking
9 at sediment dredging?
10 A. Basically, I guess I recommended it before
11 the group.
12 Q. Before what group?
13 A. Well, before the industry group, you know,
14 I have been recommending it. That's something that
15 we have been needing to take a look at for quite a
16 while.
17 We have done some preliminary work.
18 Hutcheons Engineers, I believe, has also done some
19 work, and I believe the information is in one of
20 those reports from last year that I gave you.
21 MR. GAINES: You're talking about one of
22 the SAGE reports?
23 THE WITNESS: Yeah.
24 We had preliminary proposals -- actually to
25 develop two proposals at two sites to take a
Page 145
1 look specifically at that. One proposal might
2 be entitled Canal Cleaning and Cleaning Canals
3 and to Observe Effects on Final Concentrations
4 of Phosphorus.
5 The other one was a Canal Widening or
6 Modification of a Canal, and again that should
7 in published records, our proposal along with
8 Hutcheons was included in that list of work.
9 Basically, we were looking at trying to
10 modify a canal to increase the sedimentation
11 rates and stop a bed load, which would include
12 using sediment traps.
13 As I said previously this morning, that
14 probably the number one problem is controlling
15 suspended particulates, which can be from the
16 bed or it can be from eroded banks, but if you
17 have an unclean canal, basically you have a
18 jeopardy there of residues because of sediments,
19 which ultimately when sampled, contributes to
20 the ultimate phosphorus loading.
21 So we haven't done any specific work yet in
22 that area. It's still been in proposal. We had
23 preliminary data. Again, that's in Report
24 92-11. There's some sediment data from our
25 location in there.
Page 146
1 BY MR. GARVER:
2 Q. Is sediment dredging a one-shot kind of
3 proposal or is it something that would need to be
4 done regularly to remove phosphorus?
5 A. Canals have to be periodically cleaned or
6 you have to establish a way of trapping out what is
7 called the bed load.
8 Some suspended particles will actually
9 filter down or fall down on to the bed well after it
10 passes a filter, a trap which is essentially a trap
11 at one point in the canal which sediments build up in
12 that. In time, every canal will develop a sediment,
13 whether it be half an inch or six feet. You know,
14 the problem is ultimately probably the same.
15 In other places in the world, cleaning
16 canals is part of a regulatory action where they
17 require sediments to be cleaned on a regular basis,
18 you know, out of canals. As opposed to this area,
19 basically the only people that clean canals are
20 private land owners. To my knowledge, there's been
21 very little cleaning in the works at the District.
22 Q. Do you anticipate providing testimony with
23 respect to sediment dredging at the final hearing in
24 this matter?
25 A. Possibly. I don't know. That's part of
Page 147
1 our proposal title. If you read the proposal title,
2 sedimentation is part of it.
3 If we're doing chemical dosing, we're also
4 working with sediments, the residues, and making sure
5 sediments are trapped out and removed. So the
6 sedimentation process is really tied into the
7 proposal.
8 Q. So sedimentation, am I correct in
9 understanding that that's something that can be done
10 with or without chemical dosing and still be used to
11 remove phosphorus?
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. You have been involved in investigating and
14 reviewing farm interconnects as an alternative to
15 STA's?
16 A. I have been in discussions when they were
17 discussed. My work is not personally involved in it.
18 Q. Do you anticipate providing any testimony
19 with regards to farm interconnects as an alternative
20 to STA's?
21 A. I don't believe so.
22 Q. Have you been involved in investigating and
23 reviewing aquifer storage and recovery wells as an
24 alternative to STA's?
25 A. No.
Page 148
1 Q. Have you been involved in investigating and
2 reviewing the use of rockpits as an alternative to
3 STA's?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. What has been your involvement in studying
6 rockpits?
7 A. Well, as one of the chief investigators,
8 although we have had a list of proposals to do work,
9 actually, it was discussed by other groups of people.
10 We have not proceeded with the rockpit
11 investigations, primarily because the phosphorus
12 loading at the site that we were looking at was very
13 low and rockpit use with a rockpit in conjunction
14 with controlling sediments and controlling in dealing
15 with the residues from chemical dosing is a very good
16 conjuncture, very good mate, and there's some very
17 good possibilities of doing some very good work with
18 that.
19 I have to say it's all on standby, because
20 a lot of this we have discussed, but we have not yet
21 investigated either, because we have not the funds to
22 proceed with it or there hasn't been time.
23 Some of these suggestions have been since
24 maybe August or September, and we are only talking
25 what six, seven months ago. It's a very short period
Page 149
1 of time, but yes I have been involved in discussions.
2 Q. Have you described to me generally how
3 rockpits can be used to remove phosphorus?
4 A. Will I?
5 Q. Please do.
6 A. Actually, there's two things that rockpits
7 provide, a very good opportunity, and rockpits all
8 throughout the region are used by DOT and private
9 coring operations.
10 Q. By DOT, Department of Transportation?
11 A. Yes, road base materials, materials coming
12 out of these rockpits are being used for road base
13 materials privately or through conjuncture with the
14 Department of Transportation, whoever owns it.
15 Rerouting waters through these rockpits
16 provides a storage or a trap mechanism to possibly
17 trap out particulate materials.
18 Our concept of using rockpits was to use
19 this in conjuncture with chemical dosing as a means
20 of storing residue materials precipitated from the
21 chemical process. It would be a way of safely and
22 over a long period of time be able to build up a load
23 of materials. They actually become a very good
24 sedimentation basin, because you're coming out of a
25 canal and widening out in a large volume and area and
Page 150
1 very slow -- the water slows down quite a bit. The
2 particles drop out very rapidly, and it's just --
3 although we have not investigated or proceeded with
4 it, as I said before, the loads appear to be very
5 small for us to make it viable.
6 Right now, the opportunity of using
7 rockpits for that purpose is excellent. It's just
8 another direction that we have felt to be a very
9 viable alternative of using those properties, and
10 there's quite a few rockpits, also, in the EAA.
11 Q. That was my next question.
12 A. I could read it off your face.
13 Q. And why have you stopped looking at
14 rockpits for the time being?
15 A. Well, I have only had so much funding, and
16 the funding has been primarily to establish whether
17 or not chemical dosing can be done effectively by
18 using jar test methodology. That's basically what we
19 were funded to do.
20 We have been discussing future endeavors
21 should be done hereafter which includes the rockpits,
22 which included looking at canal sedimentation, which
23 included maybe the other alternatives that you have
24 been talking about, suggestions. It's included all
25 that.
Page 151
1 Until we come to the point of directing our
2 research with the money to support our endeavors, I
3 am not proceeding any further. Really, all my staff
4 right now is completely grant funded, which means if
5 our grant goes, so do our people.
6 Q. Other than acting as a sediment trap and
7 facilitating sedimentation, are there any other
8 chemical or physical processes at work in rockpits
9 that make them effective to remove phosphorus?
10 A. No.
11 I think we're primarily looking at the
12 sedimentation characteristics when it reaches that
13 rock bed. It's like a trap on your sink.
14 Q. Have you been involved in investigating and
15 reviewing water quality supplied diversions as an
16 alternative to STA's?
17 A. Cleaning up a portion of the treatment and
18 diluting the rest; is that what you're saying?
19 Q. I am working off a list of alternatives to
20 STA's, and this one is listed as water quality/supply
21 diversions. I believe that refers to diverting water
22 away from the Everglades, rerouting waters?
23 A. No, the answer is no.
24 Q. Now, have you made any presentations to the
25 so-called SAGE or Scientific Advisory Group for the
Page 152
1 Everglades Committee?
2 A. Yes, I have.
3 Q. When did you make such presentations?
4 A. Do you have my resume?
5 Q. Did you make one such presentation or more
6 than one?
7 A. I have given several. In May, I gave one.
8 Unfortunately, I didn't write them down here. I
9 usually do. Also, in August I gave a presentation.
10 Those are the two times.
11 Q. Let's start with the presentation.
12 What was the purpose of that presentation?
13 A. Let me just think and make sure I have got
14 my recollection right.
15 Do you have a copy of that report?
16 MR. GAINES: Somewhere among the documents
17 that were produced.
18 You want to see your May 92 report to SAGE?
19 THE WITNESS: Yes.
20 You don't mind, do you?
21 MR. GARVER: No.
22 THE WITNESS: Some of this may blur after a
23 time.
24 MR. GARVER: Sure. I will be going through
25 those reports.
Page 153
1 BY MR. GARVER:
2 Q. Your attorney has just handed you a
3 document; can you just describe it?
4 A. This is a technical summary dated August
5 1992 entitled Reduction of Phosphorus Loading in the
6 EAA Through Control of Sediments and Suspended Solids
7 and Drainage Water Sediment Control.
8 MR. GAINES: You have got the May one?
9 MR. GARVER: Yes.
10 BY MR. GARVER:
11 Q. I have just handed you a document; what is
12 that one?
13 A. This is entitled Introduction and Program
14 Description for Reduction of Phosphorus
15 Concentrations in Agricultural Drainage by
16 Preciptation Coagulation and Sedimentation dated
17 April 1992 revised May 12, 1992.
18 MR. GARVER: So that you don't have to do
19 that again, why don't we mark that as an exhibit
20 now.
21 THE WITNESS: You want me to answer the
22 question now?
23 MR. GARVER: Why don't we get these marked?
24 MR. GAINES: Here's the May one.
25 (The document referred to was
Page 154
1 thereupon marked Exhibit No. 2 for
2 Identification.)
3 MR. GARVER: The May one is Anderson No. 2.
4 Then we will mark the August one Anderson
5 No. 3.
6 (The document referred to was
7 thereupon marked Exhibit No. 3 for
8 Identification.)
9 BY MR. GARVER:
10 Q. I asked you generally what the purpose was
11 for the presentation you made to the SAGE in May of
12 1992?
13 A. I think the objective was to present the
14 concepts of chemical dosing to the SAGE Committee for
15 consideration.
16 Q. Could you just describe generally just at
17 this point what you discussed at the May
18 presentation? I will go into more detail later. I
19 just want to know generally what was discussed there.
20 A. I think there's an individual videotape, if
21 you want to check that and look at that, I think, on
22 that day. We presented -- both Hutcheon Engineers
23 and myself presented this document orally to the SAGE
24 Committee.
25 I believe at that time I also did a little
Page 155
1 Mr. Wizard type demonstration of a chemical dosing
2 procedure and how it works basically trying to
3 describe the chemistry to the group of people and why
4 we were taking a look at it.
5 Q. Do you recall a discussion during your May
6 1992 presentation regarding measuring of soluble
7 inorganic phosphorus in the supernatant water as
8 opposed to sampling total phosphorus?
9 A. Uh-huh.
10 Q. And can you just describe what that
11 discussion was about?
12 A. Well, there's a number of confused
13 individuals who didn't understand what the difference
14 between, I think, total phosphorus and total soluble
15 phosphorus was, and I spent some time to describe the
16 fractionation of phosphorus, you know, basically what
17 it is chemically in the laboratory, and questions
18 were particularly related to some of the data
19 presented on total soluble phosphorus and a question
20 of why we measured that instead of total phosphorus.
21 I had a discussion after that to describe
22 exactly why we measured total soluble phosphorus
23 instead of total phosphorus.
24 Q. And why did you measure soluble, total
25 soluble phosphorus rather than total phosphorus?
Page 156
1 A. Total soluble phosphorus was the fraction
2 that we were more concerned about when we go through
3 chemical dosing, removing the soluble fraction of
4 phosphorus loading and removing it out of a soluble
5 fraction in a particulate fraction.
6 The particulate fraction we know we can we
7 move through other procedures, whether it be a sand
8 filter or through gravitation. We wanted to present
9 why chemical dosing moves at soluble fraction and
10 precipitates it. So that's why we presented the
11 total soluble fraction instead of the total
12 phosphorus. Total phosphorus would have said there
13 is no change, 'cause it measures both. It doesn't
14 differentiate which fraction it's in, and I
15 demonstrated or tried to show information showing how
16 chemical dosing moves soluble to the insoluble one.
17 It's in a particulate fraction, and we have other
18 techniques of dealing with it through sedimentation
19 or coagulation.
20 Q. Isn't coagulation and sedimentation part of
21 the whole treatment scheme that is involved for -- if
22 we're removing phosphorus in the EAA waters?
23 MR. GAINES: You mean part of the chemical
24 treatment?
25 THE WITNESS: Coagulation involves a
Page 157
1 growing of the particulate phase to a more
2 substantial size. So there's sedimentation.
3 They are different.
4 No, it's not involved directly in the EAA.
5 It's strictly sedimentation, which means that
6 without coagulation, you may have suspended
7 particles that will never fall out, never by
8 gravity become a sediment, because they are
9 buoyant. They float in the water column.
10 Unless there's a coagulation process which joins
11 these very buoyant particles making them
12 heavier, they are never going to flock out.
13 They are never going to in the EAA without
14 anything. They only involve sedimentation.
15 Chemical dosing involves a coagulation step; is
16 that clear?
17 BY MR. GARVER:
18 Q. My question was: In the chemical treatment
19 scheme that would be used to treat EAA waters to try
20 and remove phosphorus, isn't it coagulation and then
21 settling out or sedimentation of those coagulant part
22 of the entire scheme that's invovled?
23 A. That's right. That's part of the process.
24 Q. In other words, if you just ended up with
25 suspended particulates, you wouldn't have done the
Page 158
1 job; is that correct?
2 A. No.
3 Like I made the example of Pine Sol put
4 into a bucket. It turns white. You don't just want
5 it to turn into fine particles and go down. You
6 haven't changed the phosphorus, because you have
7 grabbed the sample. You want it to fall out before
8 you take that sample, and in order for that to
9 happen, you have to have coagulation. You have to
10 have these particles bump into each other, grab each
11 other, actually grow and get heavy and fall out or be
12 able to be filtered out.
13 Q. When you did measurements of the soluble
14 dissolved phosphorus, did you do those measurements
15 prior to the settling part of the treatment scheme?
16 A. Yes.
17 Essentially take a sample, which whether
18 it's settling or not contains particulate fractions
19 along with the soluble, filter it and remove the
20 particulate and just measure the soluble.
21 Q. Did you subsequently do additional tests of
22 the total phosphorus after the settling or
23 sedimentation phase?
24 A. At the May meeting, we were essentially
25 unfunded for all that work that we put together. I
Page 159
1 had no money whatsoever to do the work. So it was
2 out-of-pocket, so to speak. We did not at that time
3 have full capability -- laboratory capabilities at
4 that time to fulfill everything that we needed to do,
5 such as determine the particulate fraction.
6 After that period of time in May, April, we
7 were able to do that, and so we had the whole scheme,
8 the whole fraction that we were able to determine,
9 but at that time we only measured the soluble
10 fraction. We were only interested in conversion of
11 soluble to particulate phase, and really that was the
12 most significant measurement to be made and verify
13 that the treatment process was successful, but it did
14 not show the success of sedimentation or coagulation.
15 Q. Have you subsequently done work that has
16 shown the success of the coagulation sedimentation?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Which report reflect the results?
19 A. 92-11, Exhibit No. 4.
20 Q. I'm not sure that that's an exhibit yet at
21 this point. I don't think we have a number on that
22 exhibit, but it's a report that you did in November
23 1992; is that correct?
24 A. Yes, that's correct.
25 Q. Did you make a proposal in August of 1989
Page 160
1 entitled the Knights Farm Entry Study?
2 A. Uh-huh.
3 Q. What was that proposal?
4 A. That proposal was to do the work for the
5 Knights Lands Project for the District. We didn't
6 get funded for it.
7 Q. You did not?
8 A. Our proposal was not accepted.
9 Q. Was a different proposal accepted?
10 A. Uh-huh. As far as I know, ours wasn't
11 accepted. That's all I know.
12 Q. What was the nature of this study you were
13 proposing to do for the Knights Farm Nutrient Study?
14 A. Gee, in 1989 I am sure I have it on the
15 computer.
16 We were, I think, proposing -- there were
17 three people involved, Charlie Sanchez and Doctor
18 Sanchez, Doctor Porter and myself, and we had
19 proposed to look at, I guess, a very broad base of
20 objectives that the District had on their request for
21 proposals to address, which includes, I think,
22 release, you know, mobility of phosphorus under
23 flooded conditions, just a number of other things. I
24 don't remember the exact nature of it. It's been a
25 little while. I am surprised you mentioned it,
Page 161
1 actually.
2 Q. Was that study designed to determine
3 methods for improving the performance of wetland
4 treatment systems?
5 A. It basically was a wetlands proposal, yes.
6 Q. What do you mean when you say wetlands
7 proposal?
8 A. Well, the Knights Lands Project was to take
9 agricultural lands in the EAA and reflood it and use
10 it as a storm water area for treating storm water
11 runoff. So essentially it was being converted back
12 into a wetland. It was a wetlands proposal.
13 Q. And just generally do you recall what some
14 of the studies you were proposing to conduct were?
15 A. I'd have to look back. There were a lot of
16 them. There were a lot of sub tasks that we had
17 decided we were going to do, and I don't remember
18 exactly.
19 Do you have a copy of that document?
20 Q. I am trying to decide how far we need to go
21 into this, but I mean later we may be dealing with
22 that in detail. I'm just asking you in general right
23 now.
24 A. I think if I had it before me, I could
25 address it a little bit more clearly to you.
Page 162
1 Q. Do you anticipate providing any testimony
2 regarding that proposal or any studies that were done
3 on the Knights Farm in this proceeding?
4 A. Until now, no.
5 Since we did not do the work, all I could
6 comment on is our capability, which we didn't do, our
7 capabilities maybe of doing it and debating whether
8 or not we should have gotten it or shouldn't have
9 gotten it, but I don't see how that's going to add
10 anything to the testimony.
11 Q. Are you familiar with a March 1992
12 Everglades SWIM Plan?
13 A. Uh-huh.
14 Q. That was yes?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. What is your understanding of the purpose
17 of the Everglades SWIM Plan?
18 MR. GAINES: To the extent that this asks
19 for a legal conclusion, I would object.
20 MR. GARVER: I'm just asking for his
21 understanding.
22 MR. GAINES: That's fine.
23 THE WITNESS: I have been listening to all
24 kinds of versions of that. There's been many
25 versions of that document. Surface water
Page 163
1 improvement and management amounts of the EAA
2 was intended to address conditions in the
3 Everglades Agricultural Area and to improve the
4 surface water quality of water through
5 management practices, environmental management
6 practices on the level of the industry as well
7 as on the level of the District's
8 responsibilities.
9 BY MR. GARVER:
10 Q. Have you read the March 1992 Everglades
11 SWIM Plan?
12 A. Not cover to cover. I have gone through
13 it.
14 Like I said, the first edition was it 1990,
15 1989? I don't remember which ones. There's been
16 many versions, and the earlier versions I read in
17 greater detail, but the last one I basically thumbed
18 through not bothering with detail any longer.
19 MR. GAINES: You missed all the changes.
20 THE WITNESS: There were a lot of changes.
21 It was a different proposal. It was a different
22 document.
23 BY MR. GARVER:
24 Q. The earlier versions that you reviewed,
25 were you doing that for your own interests?
Page 164
1 A. Yeah, basically.
2 I think between 1985 through 1990, I went
3 to as many meetings as I could with my time. I
4 listened to LOTAC meetings or meetings regarding the
5 area, just to gain information for ourselves.
6 Q. Have you ever provided written comments to
7 the District on any of the SWIM Plan drafts, the
8 Everglades SWIM Plan?
9 A. That's a good question. I don't remember
10 if I ever verbalized them in writing. Unless you can
11 provide something for me, I don't remember if I did
12 or not. It's likely that I could have.
13 Q. I don't have a document I am going to whip
14 in front of you.
15 A. I have no clue. It's likely that I could
16 have, because a number of people in the District that
17 I know, you know, over the years have asked me about
18 it.
19 I am sure I have commented, you know, to
20 them either verbally or in writing, but I don't
21 offhand remember every letter I have written or not
22 written. It's hard to piece that together.
23 Q. Have you ever made any oral comments at a
24 District board meeting on the Everglades SWIM Plan?
25 A. I guess I have made a few comments from
Page 165
1 here to there. Generally, I keep my mouth shut and
2 just listen, but there's been a couple of files where
3 I have probably made some comments.
4 Q. Do you recall specifically what comments
5 you made?
6 A. One in which we presented our views to
7 LOTAC. I don't remember the date to that, but that
8 was a formal meeting in which I gave a formal
9 presentation to LOTAC. The Board was present then.
10 Another time was a small meeting in one of their
11 conference rooms. It may have been video'd or not,
12 but I made comments after seeing so many errors in
13 their first few revisions of the SWIM document.
14 I do remember making a verbal comment that
15 they needed to be peer reviewed before they were sent
16 to the general public and would have probably avoided
17 some of the controversial things that were errors in
18 text or errors in judgment or errors in quoting or
19 whatever. I made a comment to that effect at that
20 time.
21 Q. Do you recall any of the errors that you
22 identified?
23 A. There were a lot of them. There were a lot
24 of bad errors.
25 Q. I don't expect you to make a comprehensive
Page 166
1 list, but do you recall any specific errors you
2 noted?
3 A. There were errors there -- basically, just
4 for example, the amount of nutrients used by Sugar
5 Cane, for example, which I knew very well what the
6 actual figures would have been -- 300, I think, if I
7 am quoting it right, 300 pounds of nitrogen used in
8 the EAA for Sugar Cane, which is just absurd, because
9 no nitrogen is used, things like that that were in
10 the documents, then bracketed IFAS private
11 communication. I remember making a comment that in
12 the future putting a name behind the comment, it
13 would probably stop some of the comments and make it
14 correct.
15 There were a number of things like that
16 that were just bad facts, bad numbers. They could
17 have been errors on the judgment of the writer, but
18 the comment I made specifically at that time was they
19 should peer review the document first, even if it was
20 a paid review, and it would have avoided a lot of the
21 legal discussion or anger, you know, frustration on
22 industry and the District part, 'cause at that time I
23 think the District was sometimes getting wet faced
24 because some of the people representing the District
25 at public meetings, I think, were embarrassed
Page 167
1 sometimes with the errors, because they have to trust
2 and work with their group of people. So the comment
3 was strictly a recommendation to peer review future
4 materials.
5 Q. Did you point out specific errors to the
6 District, also?
7 A. Yeah. At the time I am sure I did, yeah.
8 Q. Do you recall any of the errors?
9 A. I have never been asked to peer review any
10 of the documents. So I haven't responded
11 specifically.
12 Q. Have any of the errors that you have
13 pointed out to the District been corrected in
14 subsequent drafts of the SWIM Plan?
15 A. I believe that particular issue of
16 nitrogen, I remember it was corrected. I think the
17 document we have right now is an improved document.
18 It may not be perfect, but it's much improved.
19 Q. Are you familiar with the STA's proposed in
20 the SWIM Plan -- with the proposal for STA's in the
21 SWIM Plan?
22 A. Uh-huh.
23 Q. That was also a yes?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. What is your understanding of the STA
Page 168
1 proposal?
2 MR. GAINES: You mean what is his
3 understanding of the entire proposal, how big it
4 is, where they go, how they work, all that kind
5 of stuff?
6 BY MR. GARVER:
7 Q. Just generally what is your understanding
8 of the STA proposal?
9 A. Generally, water that is coming off of
10 farms that are conveyed through the waters of the
11 District are diverted into storm water treatment
12 areas which are marsh situations with a fixed
13 hydroperiod, and the end result will be essentially a
14 filtration or a cleaning up of the water quality when
15 it leaves that retention area. My understanding is
16 that it's being treated as a retention area before
17 final release of those waters.
18 Q. Have you done any reviews or investigations
19 or other studies of the STA proposal?
20 A. No, I have not.
21 Q. Do you anticipate providing testimony at a
22 final hearing in this matter on your opinions
23 regarding the STA proposal?
24 A. Not unless it refers to any of the
25 literature we have published regarding the phosphorus
Page 169
1 mineralization under flood conditions. I do believe
2 it has relevance to the issue.
3 Q. Are these publications that are listed in
4 your resume?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Why don't we turn back to your resume and
7 just identify which ones.
8 A. Page 8, number 27.
9 Q. Any others?
10 A. Well, there's a sister article in
11 preparation right now, Page 10, number 7.
12 Q. Is that number 7 on the top?
13 A. Yes, 7 on the top.
14 Q. Nitrogen Mineralization of Selected
15 Histosols?
16 A. Right. That's a sister article of the one
17 I just mentioned previously.
18 Q. Do you have draft manuscripts or drafts of
19 these or full copies of these documents available
20 that you could bring here tomorrow?
21 A. The phosphorus one, I can run a copy off
22 probably. The nitrogen one is a little bit
23 premature, and I don't have the recent updates to
24 that.
25 Q. I think the phosphorus one would be the
Page 170
1 main one.
2 A. I think so.
3 Q. Are there any other documents in here in
4 your resume that relate to opinions you may have
5 regarding the STA proposal?
6 A. I don't think so.
7 Q. Could you describe to me how this document
8 entitled Phosphorus Mineralization from Histosols of
9 the Everglades Agricultural Area relates to the STA
10 proposal?
11 A. The soils -- this was a part of a Ph.D
12 thesis by Orlando Diaz. The soils that we used were
13 soils that are indicative of over 90-percent of the
14 area in the EAA. The soils were packed in columns to
15 take a look at the amount of phosphorus that
16 mineralized over a period of one year. They were
17 either infrequently or cyclically flooded and drained
18 or completely drained and leached. The data
19 indicated the difference is that that phosphorus
20 mineralization did occur, so much phosphorus coming
21 off these soils over so much period of time, and
22 probably the fact is the worse scenario is when you
23 flood the soil and then drain it periodically.
24 Basically, periodic flooding is a harmful management.
25 So as it relates to the STA or possible
Page 171
1 STA, an obvious recommendation is that a hydroperiod
2 would have to be maintained.
3 In order for this data not to apply, if at
4 any time these STA's are allowed to drain, you know,
5 hold back oxygen without oxygen going back and forth,
6 then you're only opening up to a scenario of
7 increased phosphorus leaving those STA's. So it's a
8 soil problem. It's no longer just a flood control
9 problem of water coming in, but then it also becomes
10 a soil problem.
11 Q. Does the stduy in the phosphorus
12 mineralization article apply to agricultural soils in
13 the Everglades or would it also apply to soils in the
14 marsh?
15 A. Well, the STA's are soils that are -- that
16 were formally in agriculture production. They are
17 not "virgin" soils. They have been touched. They
18 have been cultivated, fertilized, crops haven't grown
19 on them. Therefore, they are not true wetland soils
20 any longer. They are modified. They have been
21 altered.
22 If you went into the Conservation Areas,
23 you have really quite different chemical
24 characteristics as a result of undisturbed organic
25 soils.
Page 172
1 Q. Are you aware of any studies similar to the
2 one reflected in the phosphorus mineralization
3 article we discussed that have been done for
4 undisturbed Everglades soils in Water Conservation
5 Areas?
6 A. We also used undisturbed soils from the EAA
7 that have never been cultivated. We also had virgin
8 soils included in that study, same studies, but used
9 over a much shorter time period than we studied here
10 and under strictly a drained condition was done by
11 Ramesh Redy. I don't remember the exact date,
12 sometime in the '90. It was published in '83, '84.
13 Q. And his report dealt with soils in the
14 Water Conservation Areas; is that right?
15 A. No. That was soils out of Lake Apopka.
16 Q. Were the same results obtained for the
17 uncultivated soils as were obtained for the
18 cultivated soils in this 1993 study?
19 A. No.
20 The release of phosphorus was a magnitude --
21 probably on a magnitude of more or less.
22 Q. In the undisturbed soils?
23 A. Yes, uncultivated soils.
24 Q. When you referred to periodic flooding in
25 this study, what period of wetness and what period of
Page 173
1 dryness are you referring to?
2 A. A 30-day flooding period followed by a very
3 rapid drainage and then a flooding again, essentially
4 draining within a period of one day and then
5 reflooding. So flooding was a consistent 30-day
6 drainage period within a day and reflooded again.
7 Q. And when were measurements made in that
8 sequence of the phosphorus?
9 A. As we were collecting the runoff from the
10 soils.
11 Q. Just so I understand.
12 You're measuring STA continuous flow system
13 where you can measure the runoff during the 30-day
14 flooding period or do you flood it for 30 days and
15 then sample during the drainage period?
16 A. After 30 days, you drain it and you leach
17 it and leach out the available nutrients of the --
18 the water soluble nutrients. After that is finished,
19 within a day's period, it's reflooded.
20 Q. And then is there another --
21 A. Another 30-day period, and that was
22 continued for a year, for 12 months.
23 Q. Just so I understand it.
24 You also have samples that were never
25 drained?
Page 174
1 A. Yes, we did. No, we did not. We did not
2 have samples that were continually flooded without
3 ever a drainage cycle, no.
4 Q. What other sets of data did you have other
5 than this 30-day flooding followed by drainage
6 sequence?
7 A. I don't understand your question.
8 Q. Other than your periodic flooding group of
9 samples, what other groups of samples did you have?
10 A. Oh, we had a continually draining system as
11 if it would be under sugar cane or some crop
12 condition. So there's only basically two lark
13 conditions that were set continously, drained with a
14 set moisture content or flooded and periodically
15 drained upon the leaching.
16 Q. And were they continuously drained samples?
17 Were those also measured every 30 days?
18 A. Yes, same time period.
19 MR. GARVER: Why don't we take a break now.
20 (Thereupon, a brief recess was taken,
21 after which the following proceedings
22 were had:)
23 BY MR. GARVER:
24 Q. Doctor Anderson, have you ever been in the
25 Water Conservation Areas?
Page 175
1 A. No, I haven't, just on the peripheral up on
2 the levee looking in. That's it.
3 Q. And have you ever been in Everglades
4 National Park?
5 A. Uh-huh.
6 Q. And when have you been in Everglades
7 National Park?
8 A. Just visiting the Visitor Center with Mike
9 Zukoff, general facilities over there, just a couple
10 of times. I have not been into the trails, have not
11 been airboats, have not visited in the interior
12 Everglades.
13 Q. How often have you visited the Research
14 Center?
15 A. Twice.
16 MR. GAINES: Was it the Research or the
17 Visitors Center?
18 THE WITNESS: Research.
19 MR. GAINES: I am sorry.
20 BY MR. GARVER:
21 Q. And do you recall when those visits were?
22 A. No, not exactly, no, several years ago,
23 within the last two years.
24 Q. Do you recall the purpose of those visits
25 to the Research Center?
Page 176
1 A. To discuss with Mike possible projects with
2 the Soil Conservation Service to characterize
3 benchmark soils within the Park.
4 Q. And we have already discussed that
5 proposal, correct?
6 A. Yeah.
7 Q. Do you know what the basis for the 378 acre
8 figure is, as used in connection with this water
9 treatment plan?
10 A. I did not calculate the acreage. Hutcheon
11 Engineers did, as design engineers for a
12 sedimentation basin that would be in line with the
13 chemical dosing station, I believe, that the amount
14 of acreage that they felt was necessary to settle out
15 the amount of residue from treatment of water along
16 the New River Canal, North New River Canal.
17 Q. Do you know whether this water treatment
18 area was intended to treat the same amount of water
19 as is proposed for treatment in Storm Water Treatment
20 Area No. 3?
21 A. No, I don't know for sure.
22 Q. Is Dave Stewart at Hutcheon Engineers a
23 person to ask these questions?
24 A. Yes.
25 (Discussion off the record.)
Page 177
1 MR. GARVER: Doctor Anderson, we are just
2 going to try and just summarize some testimony
3 that was missed here.
4 MR. GAINES: Let just state, there was a
5 momentary malfunction of the court reporter's
6 machine here, and we have to just sort of go
7 back and recreate what we just did. We missed
8 about maybe one or two minutes of questions and
9 answers here.
10 MR. GARVER: Right.
11 (The document referred to was
12 thereupon marked Anderson Exhibit
13 No. 4 for Identification.)
14 BY MR. GARVER:
15 Q. We had marked Anderson Exhibit No. 4, and
16 you testified that you did not prepare this exhibit;
17 is that correct?
18 A. I did not prepare this particular exhibit.
19 Q. And you don't recall or don't know who
20 prepared the first page of this exhibit; is that
21 right?
22 A. No, I do not.
23 Q. And the second page of this exhibit I
24 believe you testified is derived from a page in
25 Anderson Exhibit No. 2 marked as Bates number page
Page 178
1 0930266; is that correct?
2 A. That's correct.
3 (The document referred to was
4 thereupon marked Exhibit No. 5 for
5 Identification.)
6 BY MR. GARVER:
7 Q. Doctor Anderson, you have been handed
8 what's been marked as Anderson Exhibit No. 5.
9 Can you identify this document?
10 A. Yes. That's the proposal we discussed for
11 the Knights Farm Nutrient Study RFP No. C89-0377.
12 Q. I'd like you to turn to Page 4 of this
13 exhibit, please. The first indented paragraph on
14 that page states, "Studies are currently in progress
15 regarding the rate of nutrient release and
16 variability of soil chemical characteristics from EAA
17 soils and should be completed in 1989."
18 Are those the studies that you mentioned
19 earlier in your resume as relating to your opinions
20 regarding the STA proposal?
21 A. No.
22 These are different documents which are
23 published, and it's listed on Page 8 of my resume
24 which is Anderson No. 1, Page 8, Number 24. It also
25 relates to the Ph.D thesis of Diaz, which is not in
Page 179
1 the resume.
2 Q. I'd like you to turn to Page 7 of this
3 exhibit, please, and I'd like to refer you to the
4 beginning, to the paragraph, the last paragraph that
5 begins at the bottom of the page which states in the
6 first sentence, "The use of management wetlands to
7 control P depends on biological immobilization, as
8 well as physio-chemical soil absorption."
9 Did you write that sentence?
10 A. I believe I did, although it could have
11 been either one of my other colleagues, but I put the
12 document together for a group of us.
13 Q. Do you know what the basis for that
14 statement is?
15 A. Sure, yes.
16 Q. What is it?
17 A. Biological immobilization is referring to
18 plant uptake and retention of phosphorus, in
19 particular, phosphorus as well as any roots that are
20 immobilizing nutrients from water or from the soil as
21 well as any other biological animals that would be
22 tying up the physical phosphorus within their bodies
23 and be retained in the wetlands; that's referred to
24 as the biological immobilization of phosphorus.
25 Q. What about the physio-chemical soil
Page 180
1 absorption?
2 A. Physio-chemical soil absorption of
3 phosphorus refers to the soil characteristics that
4 affect phosphorus retention specifically in the soil.
5 Those are related to, both, chemical and physical
6 aspects.
7 Q. When you prepared this report or this
8 proposal in 1989, what experience had you had with
9 managed wetlands?
10 A. I have not worked with managed wetlands.
11 If I could rephrase. The wetland EAA is a
12 managed wetland or formally was a wetland, the same
13 as in North Carolina, the same as anywhere else where
14 organic soils have been used for some other land use,
15 other than strictly for wildlife.
16 Q. On Page 8 of this document, the first full
17 paragraph begins, "Although P cycling in histosols is
18 very complex, it is likely that P levels can be
19 managed effectively with a strategy that considers
20 relatively few soil chemical and environmental
21 factors."
22 Can you explain what that sentence means?
23 A. Well, continued, "Most important of these
24 are the inorganic soil constituents that have a major
25 influence on the behavior of mineralized phosphorus."
Page 181
1 If you want to complete the rest of the
2 sentence, it more or less explains that paragraph.
3 "Soils low in iron and aluminum sequioxides
4 and free calcium carbonate tend to retain phosphorus
5 poorly, while soils high in these constituents leach
6 relatively little phosphorus from the system.
7 Retention of phosphorus is also influenced by changes
8 in soil moisture affecting redox chemical conditions.
9 Phosphorus retention may vary considerably within the
10 EAA because of difference in soil chemical
11 properties, and changes in seasonal rainfall and
12 irrigation practices."
13 Q. I believe you testified earlier that you
14 never actually conducted this study; is that correct?
15 A. That was a proposal in response to the
16 request for proposals by the District at that time in
17 expectations of getting grants, money to do the work.
18 Q. Have you reviewed any of the nutrient
19 removal studies that have been conducted on the
20 Knights Farm site subsequent to your writing this
21 proposal?
22 A. No, I haven't. I am not sure if the
23 Knight's Land Project is even operational yet.
24 Q. Have you reviewed any of the studies that
25 have been conducated as part of the Everglades
Page 182
1 Nutrient Removal Project?
2 A. I have not reviewed any materials, no.
3 Q. I'd like to refer back now to Exhibit
4 No. 2, which is your May 1992 report. I'd like you
5 to turn to Page 1 of that report. The second
6 paragraph in that statement, the last sentence of
7 that paragraph reads, "This proposal provides a
8 description of technological development for a
9 natural systems reduction of phosphorus from
10 agricultural class waters."
11 I guess first I should ask you: Did you
12 write --
13 A. I prepared this.
14 Q. -- this document?
15 A. I prepared this, yes.
16 Q. In the sentence I just read to you, what is
17 referred to by the phrase unnatural systems reduction
18 of phosphorus?
19 A. Our intention of this project isn't as it's
20 described in this document is to treat agricultural
21 waters in the existing canal systems, in the existing
22 systems, without modification of a particular waste
23 treatment facility. It's to utilize the natural
24 environment as part of the aid for coagulation and
25 removal of phosphorus with chemical dosing. So we're
Page 183
1 looking at natural waters being treated and released
2 for agriculture drainage which is as agricultural
3 drainage class waters.
4 Q. When you say natural waters, are you
5 referring to the agricultural drainage waters?
6 A. That's correct.
7 Q. It could be argued that those are really
8 natural waters, couldn't it?
9 MR. GAINES: Objection, argumentative, but
10 you can answer the question.
11 THE WITNESS: We could argue.
12 BY MR. GARVER:
13 Q. I'd like you to turn to Page 2, and I refer
14 you to the third sentence on that page which reads,
15 "The compound and resultant precipitate must be
16 evironmentally compatible with the natural system."
17 What is meant by the term environmentally
18 compatible with the natural system in that sentence?
19 A. I am sure it could be said many different
20 ways, but essentially it cannot be toxic to a
21 biological system.
22 In like a waste water treatment facility
23 which does not deal with living organisms within the
24 treatment plants, we're treating in the natural
25 system, in the system in agriculture drainage waters
Page 184
1 in the canals in existing water works which there's
2 biological activities. Whatever we add, the
3 compounds and precipitates or the residues have to be
4 non toxic and must be environmentally compatible with
5 any kind of agricultural class drainage rulings.
6 Q. So environmentally compatible, do you mean
7 not toxic as one criteria, and also they must be --
8 they must meet water quality standards applicable to
9 agricultural drainage waters?
10 A. What I perceive your question is, is that
11 the difference between a municipal water plant and
12 treatment of agriculture drainage waters in the EAA,
13 according to our proposal, is that in a water
14 treatment plant at a municipal plant, you have a
15 contained facility in which water is -- water is
16 released. Before they are released, they are
17 completely entrenched in the facility.
18 Water treated as our proposal states has to
19 be compatible with biological processes that occur in
20 canals in the natural system, which means that
21 sediments or residues precipitated to the bottom of a
22 canal cannot be benthic to any organic residues that
23 are pumped out into adjacent fields and disposed of
24 have to be compatible. Ultimate water quality must
25 be in compliance to agriculture Class III drainage
Page 185
1 criteria.
2 Also, there's a big difference between what
3 is classically done as waste water treatment and what
4 we would call as treatment in a natural system.
5 Treatment in a natural system in Holland might be
6 dosing a canal that naturally runs into a lake.
7 That's natural water treatment.
8 If you have a facility, then it's already a
9 closed system, and you release the water only when it
10 meets a certain qualified standard.
11 Here in your work, in a natural system, you
12 must be compatible essentially with a lot of
13 different criteria in order for it to be in the
14 natural system. It's already open.
15 I am not perceiving that you are
16 understanding the difference between the two.
17 MR. GAINES: If he doesn't understand, he
18 will ask another question.
19 BY MR. GARVER:
20 Q. When you say Class III agriculture waters,
21 what are you referring to?
22 A. The State of Florida classes different
23 water releases in the state according to difference,
24 and they have requirements for the water quality of
25 every class water, the agricultural drainage. Those
Page 186
1 qualifications must meet what is called a Class III
2 drainage.
3 Q. So does the phrase environmentally
4 compatible with the natural system, did you intend
5 that to mean environmentally compatible with the
6 natural system in the Water Conservation Areas to the
7 receiving waters?
8 A. Could you ask me again that question? I am
9 not sure I understand your question.
10 Q. When you use the phrase environmentally
11 compatible with the natural system, did part of what
12 that phrase is referring to include environmental
13 compatibility of the chemically treated water with
14 the water that it is ultimately discharged to?
15 A. Water is ultimately discharged into a
16 Conservation Area, possibly or discharged into the
17 works of the District.
18 Q. So in other words, environmental
19 compatibility is determined by the receiving body?
20 A. Environmental compatibility meaning that in
21 no step in the process of treatment is there a
22 toxicity problem, is there an incompatibility with
23 whatever environmental regulation might occur, in no
24 part of the process is there.
25 Q. In considering chemical treatment as an
Page 187
1 alternative to STA's, have you considered the effect
2 of that chemically treated agricultural waters on the
3 marsh ecosystem in the Water Conservation Areas?
4 A. No, we have not.
5 Q. At the bottom of Page 2, the last sentence
6 on that page that carries over to the next page
7 states, "The treatment process has a documented
8 history of removing phosphorus and particulant matter
9 from both large and small flows."
10 Does that sentence include removal or
11 include reference to removal of phosphorus and
12 particulant matter from agricultural flows?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And can you give me some examples of where
15 it's been used with agricultural flows?
16 A. Lake Naardimeer in Holland is one example.
17 MR. GAINES: I'd say there's an example in
18 the next sentence, Wahnbach Estuary Reserve.
19 BY MR. GARVER:
20 Q. The Wahnbach Estuary Reserve has a
21 agricultural drainage water?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. What is the lake that you mentioned in
24 Holland; what is that called again?
25 A. Naadimeer.
Page 188
1 Q. Can you describe that chemical treatment
2 system to me, please.
3 A. The treatment facility was built with funds
4 that were received from the area from a railroad
5 being built adjacent to the wildlife reserve.
6 Before, that existing land use was primarily
7 agricultural. It surrounded the Reserve. The
8 decision was made to treat the water and to purchase
9 land adjacent to the Reserve, and that treatment
10 plan, with funds from the railroad, was built to
11 handle all the agricultural water draining naturally
12 into that lake.
13 Today it's being maintained as a wildlife
14 reserve area with continued maintenance of the plant
15 water treatment facility.
16 Q. Is the Lake Naardimeer system in an area
17 that has organic soils?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Are those soils similar to the histosols of
20 the Everglades Agricultural Area?
21 A. As similar as you are going to get anywhere
22 else in the world, yes.
23 That particular area has been a freshwater
24 marsh area for quite some time, although some of the
25 organims are saltwater marsh, tidal water marsh area.
Page 189
1 So there are some differences, but there's a lot of
2 similarities.
3 MR. GAINES: How do you spell the name of
4 that lake?
5 THE WITNESS: N-A-A-R-D-I-M-E-E-R, I am
6 pretty sure.
7 BY MR. GARVER:
8 Q. In the last sentence in that same paragraph
9 on Page 3, that sentence states, "In future
10 developments, objectives will be to reduce phosphorus
11 in the natural system, under economical and
12 environmentally sound technology."
13 Again, when you use the phrase
14 environmentally sound there, what criteria are you
15 taking into account?
16 A. Well, I will repeat. To meet the standards
17 based on EPA or DER for agricultural drainage waters
18 and compatibility with organisms that are in the
19 natural system, making sure that there's no toxicity
20 problems.
21 It was primarily written in there to make
22 sure that if we desire to have aluminum products like
23 alum being used or, as I mentioned before, high PH
24 calcium products like calcium hydroxide or calcium
25 oxide, those have some incompatibility with the
Page 190
1 natural system, that is, them being toxic to
2 organisms.
3 Q. Does environmentally sound in that sentence
4 include compatibility with water quality standards or
5 regulations that apply to the Water Conservation
6 Areas?
7 A. I think that's a leading question. I think
8 the only thing that can be said is that it will meet
9 agricultural class standards, and it probably exceeds
10 any other standard that you have for waters in the
11 natural environment.
12 Q. By natural environment, in that case, you
13 mean Water Conservation Areas; is that correct?
14 A. That is 50 parts per billion standard that
15 has been set as a minimum compliance.
16 Q. What did you mean when you said natural
17 environment?
18 A. EAA drainage waters. It could be the
19 Conservation Areas.
20 Maybe you could ask me directly what you're
21 intending to ask.
22 Q. You used the words natural environment in
23 your answer, and I just was unclear what you were
24 referring to.
25 A. When I refer to a natural system's water
Page 191
1 clean-up or water remediation, natural systems
2 meaning in a farm environment, you know, in a
3 wildlife environment, in a system that is non rural
4 or non urban setting that is not constructed with
5 concrete bunkers and contained facilities. It's in
6 the natural environment. There's fish. There's
7 bottom dwelling organisms. There may be plants. So
8 that is a natural system.
9 Q. I guess I am just still confused whether
10 the future objectives with respect to this
11 technology, as you are explaining it in this report,
12 would include compatibility with water quality laws
13 or regulations or requirements in the Water
14 Conservation Areas?
15 A. You just said it.
16 MR. GAINES: Before you answer, let me
17 object to the extent you're calling upon
18 knowledge of water quality laws and standards in
19 WCA's. I think that's a legal area. He may
20 have expertise in that, but I don't think you
21 have established a predicate for that. So I
22 object to the question.
23 BY MR. GARVER:
24 Q. You can answer my question.
25 A. I think you're trying to wrangle some
Page 192
1 answer out of me that I am not sure that you really
2 want. Maybe I didn't use the right words. We'll,
3 put it here as an editorial problem.
4 But just to explain it very directly to you
5 is, whatever we do, we wanted to make sure that it
6 complies to a water quality standard that meets and
7 complies to regulations in the EAA. That's our
8 minimum. That's our minumum standard that we have to
9 abide to. Our minimum standard is 50 parts per
10 billion phosphorus. We may do much better than that.
11 Historically, from other individuals, other
12 locations that have used this technology, they do
13 much better than that, but all I can say is that the
14 objective is to meet the compliance of what is being
15 asked of the EAA for drainage waters.
16 Saying anything more than that is, I think,
17 foolish. I mean, that's the objective.
18 MR. GARVER: Can we take a one minute
19 (Thereupon, a brief recess was taken,
20 after which the following proceedings
21 were had:)
22 BY MR. GARVER:
23 Q. Did part of what you meant when you wrote
24 environmentally sound technology include meeting the
25 50 parts per billion phosphorus level that's being
Page 193
1 asked of in the EAA; am I understanding that
2 correctly?
3 A. That's correct, including the 50 parts per
4 billion standard.
5 MR. GAINES: I think what he is -- I am not
6 putting words in his mouth. I think what he is
7 saying is it would include, but not be limited
8 to that. That would be the minimum he would
9 hope to accomplish; is that what you're saying?
10 THE WITNESS: There's certain water quality
11 standards that you have to meet. I mean, like I
12 said, you can't release waters that have a PH
13 exceeding whatever units. You can't exceed
14 chloride concentrations by 50 percent or 10
15 percent.
16 MR. GAINES: So there's other parameters?
17 THE WITNESS: There's other parameters out
18 there that are listed and known and, obviously,
19 if you add something, you better make sure you
20 comply to overall standards, not only the
21 phosphorus, but other quality standards.
22 The question has been in the past whatever
23 chloride -- if you add ferric chlorides, do
24 chlorides exceed the limits allowable by law?
25 The answer is, no. The answer is, we can't use
Page 194
1 things that will exceed any limitations that the
2 law requires us to follow. It's got to be
3 environmentally compatible with those laws.
4 Okay? I hope that's clear.
5 BY MR. GARVER:
6 Q. Are you familiar with the so-called
7 narrative nutrient standard? Have you heard of that
8 phrase?
9 A. Out of the Florida statutes?
10 Q. Under Florida law, yes.
11 A. Yes, I have got a copy of them in my
12 office.
13 Q. What is your understanding of what the
14 narrative -- your understanding now, you know, I'm
15 not going to tie you to this, but your understanding
16 of what the narrative nutrient understanding is.
17 A. It's a list of water quality requirements
18 for the different class waters that are specified,
19 what those limitations should be under law, and
20 there's a varied number of criteria. Some of them
21 are synthetic chemicals, polyphenal carbons,
22 whatever. It's a whole long list of things that are
23 in that particular listing.
24 Q. Are you familiar with the standard that
25 says that nutrients should not be present in waters
Page 195
1 to the extent that it causes -- and this is my own
2 paraphrase -- that to the extent that it causes an
3 imbalance in the native flora and fauna?
4 A. I have read something to that effect
5 before, yes.
6 Q. In considering chemical treatment
7 technology you have been looking into and considering
8 future developments of that technology, have you
9 given consideration to meeting the water quality
10 standard that's designed to prevent imbalances in
11 native flora and fauna?
12 A. Would you define imbalance?
13 Q. Regardless of my understanding of
14 imbalance, it really doesn't matter in the way I am
15 asking the question.
16 A. Would the question be: Does distilled
17 water change the flora of a marsh system or does
18 ultra pure water or very clean water change the
19 flora?
20 I have no idea, except in the examples that
21 I know of and I have given, there's not an imbalance
22 of flora, you know, in that area. There's a healthy
23 outlook in those areas that I have listed where
24 chemical dosing has been used.
25 Q. Which examples now are you referring to?
Page 196
1 A. Lake Naadameir, the Wahnbach area, those
2 two examples in particular.
3 I wish I wasn't on Record.
4 MR. GAINES: You are.
5 BY MR. GARVER:
6 Q. Are you finished?
7 A. Uh-huh.
8 Q. On Page 4 of this Exhibit, the first
9 paragraph in the middle of that paragraph in the
10 sentence, "Three phases of research are proposed,
11 bench scale testing, model scale testing and field
12 scale testing."
13 Is that the research that you testified to
14 earlier you believed would require two more years to
15 complete?
16 A. If I recall the question, just make sure I
17 am recalling your question from this morning. You
18 asked me previously how long would it take to get
19 pilot facilities; is that correct?
20 Can you rephrase your question from this
21 morning?
22 Q. I am fairly sure I can't.
23 What time frame did you have in mind for
24 the research that's proposed here in this May 1992
25 report involving bench scale testing, model scale
Page 197
1 testing and field scale testing?
2 A. This report was May 1992, and we were
3 attempting to have a pilot running sometime in '93.
4 So far, we have only funded -- the industry has
5 funded bench scale testing. We have not done model
6 scale testing, which is an engineering scale model,
7 nor have we done field scale testing at this
8 particular time. So the time intervals that were set
9 in May 1992 obviously have not been met yet.
10 Q. Are the model, scale testing and field
11 scale testing that you are referring to in this
12 sentence, are those a part of the work you're
13 proprose to do with Metcalf & Eddie?
14 A. Very similar, that's correct.
15 The engineering phase and the engineering
16 consultants would be constructing the model scale
17 testing and the field scale testing with our group as
18 a support chemistry group behind the pilot.
19 Q. I'd like you to turn now to Page 7 of this
20 report. Near the bottom of that page there are three
21 bullets, and I am not going to ask you with respect
22 to the second one, 'cause I think we have covered it.
23 But with respect to the third bullet, "Resultant
24 sludges must be compatible for land application,"
25 what criteria did you have in mind there for
Page 198
1 compatibility with lands application?
2 A. We did not want to have any resultant
3 sludges or residues or sediments that would have to
4 be disposed of in a land fill. We wanted to make
5 sure that these sludges could be utilized on adjacent
6 lands for agricultural application, land application.
7 Q. And what criteria would determine whether
8 the resultant sludges would have to be put into a
9 landfill, as opposed to put in use for land
10 application?
11 A. If there was a toxicity problem, than a
12 landfill would be an alternative. If there was a
13 toxicity problem where it could not be land applied,
14 you'd put it into a landfill or maybe a matter of
15 convenience you would put it into a landfill.
16 However in this region, in this area, it's not of
17 convenience for desirability to put a landfill in.
18 Q. At this point, is it an open question
19 whether the resultant sludges would be compatible for
20 land application?
21 A. Yes. There is no solid data to
22 substantiate in the EAA that we can proceed with that
23 until we do it until the research verifies that it's
24 correct.
25 Q. And the final sentence on that page says,
Page 199
1 "All compounds used at effective rates of dosing must
2 be cost-effective."
3 What criteria did you have in mind in terms
4 of whether the compounds would be cost-effective?
5 A. Well, in terms of what can be used and what
6 can't be used in we wanted to do with an iron 6
7 compound, which I think they call ferrate materials.
8 The price of that is extremely high, perhaps good for
9 treating uranium polluted waters, but certainly not
10 phosphorus treated waters. That's not going to be
11 cost-effective, although it might be very chemically
12 suitable. So cost-effective, if you have options
13 between two chemicals. Obviously you pick the lower
14 priced chemical.
15 Q. In determining whether it's cost-effective,
16 would that involve balancing performance and the cost
17 of the chemical, basically?
18 A. I was not responsible -- our group was not
19 responsible for determining the economic feasibility.
20 That was left up to the engineering consultants.
21 Ultimately, that's where it needs to stay, because
22 the question and maintenance of the facility, the
23 construction and all that are also part of the
24 cost-effectiveness of the system. It may be found in
25 Caldwell's report issued next week. That may be the
Page 200
1 best research at this point.
2 Q. Have you been in contact with Braun &
3 Caldwell towards preparing this report that will come
4 out next?
5 A. They have contacted me several times. I am
6 trying to remember their names, Mr. Nissan. I don't
7 remember all their names exactly. It may be found in
8 Braun & Caldwell's report that will be out next week.
9 I don't remember offhand. Jim Nissan was
10 one of the individuals and a few others have talked
11 to me from their, both, California and Atlantic and
12 Orlando location regarding literature, regarding
13 Wahnbach and other examples that we have talked about
14 in previous meetings.
15 I have shared with them some of the
16 information, given them the names, addresses and
17 phone numbers for them to follow-up, and I believe
18 they have.
19 Q. I'd like you to turn to Page 8 of this
20 exhibit, the second paragraph referring to mixing
21 energies and the need for mixing.
22 In the middle of that paragraph is a
23 sentence that states, "Energy requirements on farm
24 lands have some him limitations, although regional
25 treatment facilities will not have the same
Page 201
1 limitations."
2 What limitations were you referring to in
3 that sentence?
4 A. If you have requirements for electrical
5 power, there's not a pole in every location at a
6 farm, whereas if you have a regional facility, you
7 definitely can have a pole in every region. There's
8 obviously some limitations with being in the rural
9 area that can't be reached by a normal power
10 requirement that may be for engines or motors.
11 Q. Are those the only limitations you had in
12 mind in that sentence?
13 A. At the moment, yes.
14 Q. On Page 14, I'd like to refer you to the
15 second full paragraph on that page dealing with a
16 farm sized facility. In the middle of that paragraph
17 is a sentence that reads, "Water level in this
18 section of canal will need to be maintained above the
19 surrounding ground water to prevent infiltration."
20 In your opinion, would that constraint,
21 meaning the need to maintain the treated water above
22 the surrounding groundwater, would that apply to a
23 full scale facility, as well?
24 A. You can see David -- contact David Stewart
25 for that. This particular comment is coming from
Page 202
1 Hutcheon Engineers.
2 Q. On Page 20, did you write this page
3 regarding the jar testing methodology?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. In the jar testing that you performed, is
6 there any flow component in the jar tests?
7 A. No, other than a mixing energy,
8 no flow mixing energy, yes.
9 Q. Can you briefly describe to me how the jar
10 test was conducted?
11 A. Approximately a quantity of one to two
12 liters of irrigation water or drainage water is
13 utilized. There's paddles that are connected to a
14 rotating paddle and chemicals are added. You have
15 agitation, depending on how long you want your energy
16 mixing to be, whether it be one second or thirty
17 minutes. You take your water samples thereafter in
18 those vessels. This is jar test methodology that is
19 used and accepted by the waste water treatment
20 industry.
21 Q. In the third paragraph on Page 20, you list
22 parameters in the supernatant.
23 What is a supernatant in this case?
24 A. That's the resulting water after treatment.
25 Q. And the parameters you measured were PH
Page 203
1 turbidity, phosphorus as phosphates and iron
2 concentrations; is that correct?
3 A. That's corrrect.
4 Q. Is the phosphorus as phosphate, is that the
5 same as the soluble inorganic phosphorus?
6 A. Yes, SIP.
7 Q. And why in those didn't you measure total
8 phosphorus?
9 A. At the time this report was made before we
10 had any funding whatsoever, we did not have the
11 personnel for all the equipment, nor money to perform
12 all the necessary test requirements. In order to do
13 it, you have to be fairly well set up.
14 Q. Since you conducted the tests that were
15 reported in the May 1992 report, have you done
16 similar tests in which you did tests for total
17 phosphorus?
18 A. Absolutely.
19 Q. And are those results reported in your
20 November 1992 report?
21 A. Yes, they are.
22 MR. GARVER: Why don't we break here.
23 (Thereupon the deposition was adjourned)
Page 204
1 CERTIFICATE
2
3 STATE OF FLORIDA:
: SS.
4 COUNTY OF BROWARD:
5
6 I, JACKIE JOHNSON, being a Professional
Reporter and Notary Public for the State of Florida
7 at Large, do hereby certify that I was authorized to
and did report the deposition of Doctor Anderson in
8 stenotype; that the said witness was by me first duly
sworn to testify the whole truth; that the reading
9 and subscribing of the deposition were waived by said
witness and by counsel; and that the foregoing pages,
10 numbered from 1 to 216, inclusive, constitute a true
and correct transcription of my shorthand notes of
11 the deposition by said witness.
12 I further certify that the said deposition
was taken at the time and place hereinabove set forth
13 and that the taking of said deposition was commenced
and completed as hereinabove set out.
14
I further certify that I am not an attorney
15 or counsel of any of the parties, nor a relative or
employee of any attorney or counsel connected with
16 the action, nor financially interested in the action.
17 The foregoing certification of this
transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the
18 same by any means unless under the direct control
and/or direction of the certifying reporter.
19
WITNESS my hand and official seal in the
20 City of Ft. Lauderdale, County of Broward, State of
Florida, this 20th day of March, 1993.
21
22
23 ____________________________
JACKIE JOHNSON, NOTARY
24 PUBLIC AT LARGE.
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:
25 MAY 22, 1995
Page 205
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Page 206