1
1 STATE OF FLORIDA
2 DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
3
4 AUTHORIZATION NO. 10988
5
6 Case Nos. 92-3038, 92-3039, 92-3040
7
8 SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE )
OF FLORIDA, a Florida Agricultural )
9 Cooperative Marketing Association, )
ROTH FARMS, INC., AND )
10 WEDGWORTH FARMS, INC., )
)
11 and )
)
12 FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, INC., )
UNITED STATES SUGAR CORPORATION; )
13 and NEW HOPE SOUTH, INC., )
)
14 and )
)
15 FLORIDA FRUIT AND VEGETABLE )
ASSOCIATION, LEWIS POPE FARMS, )
16 W.E. SCHLECHTER & SONS, INC., and )
HUNDLEY FARMS, INC., )
17 )
Petitioners, )
18 vs. )
)
19 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT )
DISTRICT, an Agency of the State )
20 of Florida. )
Respondent, )
21 and )
)
22 MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS OF )
FLORIDA, the UNITED STATES OF )
23 AMERICA, and FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF )
ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, and the )
24 FLORIDA WILDLIFE FEDERATION, and )
the FLORIDA AUDUBON SOCIETY, and )
25 SIERRA CLUB, )
Intervenors. )
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
2
1
2
3
4
5
6 A P P E A R A N C E S
7
GEOFFREY GARVER, Esquire
8 Assistant U.S. Attorney
155 S. Miami Avenue, 6th Floor
9 Miami, Florida 33130
10
PATRICK S. COUSINS, Esquire
11 Popham & Haik
4000 International Place
12 Miami, Florida 33131
13
JONATHAN L. GAINES, Equire
14 Peeples, Earl & Blank, P.A.
One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3636
15 Two South Biscayne Boulevard
Miami, Florida 33131
16
17 MORRIS ROSEN, Staff Planner
South Florida Water Management District
18 West Palm Beach, Florida
19
20 DEPOSITION OF DAVID L. ANDERSON, Ph.D.,
taken on behalf of the Intervenors, on the
21 17th day of February, 1993, pursuant to the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in the
22 offices at 250 N. Australian Avenue, 14th
Floor, West Palm Beach, Florida before me,
23 Phil Berglan, a Shorthand Reporter and Notary
Public in and for the State of Florida.
24
25
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
3
1 DAVID L. ANDERSON, Ph.D.,
2 a witness being produced, sworn and examined
3 on behalf of the Intervenors does hereby
4 deposeth and saith as follows:
5 DIRECT EXAMINATION
6 BY MR. GARVER:
7 Q. Doctor Anderson, we will move right
8 along with the documents we were working on
9 yesterday. I would like you to turn now to
10 Anderson Exhibit No. 3. If you could briefly
11 identify that exhibit.
12 A. Technical Summary, August, 1991,
13 entitled, "Reduction of Phosphorous Loading in
14 the EAA Through Control of Sediments and
15 Suspended Solids in Drainage Water."
16 Q. Do you know who wrote this document?
17 A. It was a combined document prepared
18 by Hutcheon Engineers and myself.
19 Q. Can you tell me what portion of this
20 document you wrote.
21 A. Parts of this has been extracted
22 from other writings of mine. To be very
23 specific, Figure 1-1 is my figure, Pages 9
24 through 10.....it's hard for me to exactly
25 tell which parts have been extracted as far as
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
4
1 of the overall text.
2 But the overall document was formed
3 and put together by the staff at Hutcheon
4 Engineers.
5 Q. Did you then draft intermittant
6 sections in this report?
7 A. It looks like it, yes.
8 Q. Can you tell me why this report was
9 written.
10 A. At the time, we were asked to give a
11 summary of our current information that was
12 generated since the May presentation to the
13 Technical Oversight Committee, or to SAGE, and
14 this document was put together to expand on
15 the information base that we had generated at
16 that time.
17 Q. What new information had been
18 generated in connection with the chemical
19 treatment and sediment control proposed since
20 May of 1992, that were reported in this
21 report?
22 A. Well, the document information
23 listed in Pages 9 through 10 is a very brief
24 summary of the overall effort since May. It
25 does not contain any specific raw data other
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
5
1 than the data summarized from district data in
2 Table 1 of Page 10.
3 It contains really a summary of the
4 overall operation of our research program at
5 that time.
6 Q. What additional research had you
7 done between May, 1992, and August, 1992?
8 A. Actually between May and June, other
9 than support occasionally in the field with
10 Hutcheon Engineers, we were getting equipment
11 together, laboratory procedures together,
12 formulating and trying to get the right
13 personnel put together.
14 In July, we completed all of our
15 personnel in the laboratory and at our
16 facility. And at that time in July, we
17 started a lot of our jar work, our jar testing
18 work, and our laboratory studies which was
19 reported in the November report, 92-11.
20 Q. By August, had those jar tests been
21 completed?
22 A. No, not to the degree that the
23 report 92-11 explains, no.
24 Q. Does the August, 1992 report provide
25 information on data other than South Florida
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
6
1 Water Management District data?
2 A. No, it does not. It basically
3 outlines the importance of sediments in the
4 EAA and our concerns with the sediment
5 transport and the quantification of what
6 sediments we had reserved largely from the
7 Hutcheon Engineers collection standpoint.
8 Q. What are you referring to?
9 MR. GAINES: Ask him to take a look
10 at Table 1 here, just to verify that's
11 District data. I don't know whether it is or
12 not. I don't know if that's what you are
13 referring to.
14 A. Well, to refer you to Page 11,
15 entitled, "Canal Systems, Farm Canal Water
16 Quality," 3.1, second paragraph. "An
17 experiment was developed to determine actual
18 amounts of sediments transported during the
19 pumping event. On May 29th, 1992, water
20 quality samples were collected at locations
21 approximately 200 feet upstream at three
22 separate farm stations. See Appendix A."
23 That is the stations that are
24 reported there in the next table, Table 1 on
25 Page 12.
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
7
1 Q. (BY MR. GARVER) Who did this
2 sampling that is referred to in the paragraph
3 you were just reading from?
4 A. Hutcheon Engineers.
5 Q. Is that the same data that is
6 reported on Page 27 of this August, 1992
7 report entitled, "Sediment Transport Study"?
8 MR. GAINES: Page 27?
9 MR. GARVER: It's not numbered.
10 It's the page after Page 26. It's actually
11 the two pages following Page 26.
12 A. Yes, that's their data that they
13 generated, that's correct.
14 Q. (BY MR. GARVER) I would like to you
15 turn to Page 9 of Exhibit No. 3. In the last
16 full paragraph on Page 9, the last sentence
17 reads: "Additional field samplings have been
18 made to ascertain the variability of the water
19 in the EAA and to determine the parameters
20 influencing coagulation and sedimentation."
21 What field sampling is being
22 referred to in that sentence?
23 A. That is field samples that were
24 reported in report 92-11. But before that
25 time, we had made random samples of water
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
8
1 samples throughout the EAA on a random basis
2 just trying to find out what the variability,
3 initial variability, falls from, basically a
4 benchmark characteristic that we needed to
5 take a look at.
6 Those have not been reported in any
7 of our reports. Based on those very
8 preliminary results in our laboratory trying
9 to get our benchmark levels or concentrations,
10 we initiated EPD samples that were reported in
11 the report in 92-11.
12 Q. Why were the randomly selected
13 samples never reported?
14 A. There wasn't any particular
15 direction that we wanted to keep the data and
16 turned the data strictly within in-house
17 laboratory trying to make sure that we might
18 have an understanding of what waters we were
19 working with, just an in-house check.
20 Q. What was the purpose of obtaining
21 that data?
22 A. To establish some variabilities, so
23 we had a handle on what kind of variabilities
24 we could expect when we start a formal
25 program. These were preliminary samples
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
9
1 before we started officially, to start
2 something on a more formal basis.
3 Q. How were sites, these random sites,
4 selected for the random sampling that you just
5 described?
6 A. We stayed within the district canals
7 -- not on anybody's property. We stayed
8 entirely in the district canals, driving on
9 roads and looking at the main canals.
10 Q. How many different sampling sites
11 were included in this initial random sampling?
12 A. I don't recll how many, off-hand.
13 It would have been a dozen, twenty.
14 Q. What were the results of that random
15 sampling effort?
16 A. I don't recall exactly.
17 I may want to clarify something here
18 just for your benefit.
19 Q. Okay.
20 A. Really, based on the data that I
21 received regarding the district data on the
22 basin work on Table 1, Page 10, that basically
23 allowed us to -- encouraged us to look at the
24 variabilities of water, not to assume that we
25 had one constant variability.
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
10
1 I think the general observation from
2 people looking at our work was we'll establish
3 a dosing level and establish a chemical for us
4 and give us a recipe. And obviously our water
5 quality was dramatically changing from time to
6 time or from sample to sample.
7 We could not do that with any degree
8 of certainty and the determination of some
9 kind of variability feeling of what we were
10 working with was essential. And this initial
11 data from the district which was data received
12 from the district was a basis for us to start
13 looking at the variability question.
14 And it wasn't until formally where
15 we looked at sampling at the stations in the
16 EPD that we could actually say, "This is our
17 program, here is our variability."
18 Q. Was there any particular parameter
19 or parameters as to which you were interested
20 in finding more about the variabilities?
21 A. Well, initially, of course, the most
22 important, total phosphorus and soluble
23 phosphorus, but we were looking -- interested
24 in looking at pH and conductivity and various
25 other parameters that could have been employed
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
11
1 at that time before our full knowledge of what
2 was important.
3 So we were taking a very broad
4 approach and looking at a broad range of
5 characteristics.
6 Q. What was the purpose of the Sediment
7 Transport Study that is discussed on Pages 11
8 and 12?
9 A. The basis of interest in sediments
10 stems from how sampling is done of waters in
11 the EAA for total phosphorus. Total
12 phosphorus consists of particulate insoluble
13 fractions and the determination of the
14 particulate load is also very variable but
15 obviously that has a very important aspect to
16 the total phosphorus.
17 That being the case, there is
18 interest to know if these particulate
19 fractions in the water, whether or not it can
20 set sediment and sediment actually can fall
21 and collect on the bottom of the canals. At
22 what rate does -- the deposition rate, what
23 rate does it -- how much is disturbed, how
24 much is compacted, what are the concentrations
25 of phosphorus in those sediments if they are
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
12
1 redisturbed and redistributed.
2 If your flows are very high, you
3 obviously have scalping of the bottom
4 sediments whether it be next to a pump or
5 downstream, that any disturbance of that
6 bottom sediment load would introduce an
7 additional factor that would increase the
8 total phosphorus loading.
9 Whether or not it came from a farm
10 or not, it could have been sediment in the
11 works of the district at a high flow time that
12 could have redistributed in the water and
13 penalized anybody because it was a residual
14 that historically has been there.
15 So an understanding of the sediment
16 loading is probably critical for us to
17 understand how sediments are resuspended and
18 redistributed, how it might even go further as
19 the chemical process reduction, the potential
20 process where phosphorus is actually released
21 into a soluble form from the sediments, is
22 important for us to understand in the future.
23 That was the intent of the
24 interest. That was why an interest in the
25 sediment control was started, because of a
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
13
1 particular knowledge that particular loading
2 was very important.
3 Q. To what extent did the sediment
4 transfer study that is reported in the August,
5 1992 report assist you in providing answers to
6 the objectives you were interested in?
7 A. Well, I believe the Florida Sugar
8 Cane League was asked to present some
9 documentation to the SAGE Committee regarding
10 why or what direction they wanted to travel,
11 what was important. This information was
12 presented to emphasize the importance of
13 sediment control.
14 I think that was the intent of
15 producing it before SAGE, was to give SAGE
16 Committee members some information to think
17 about that might have not been apparent
18 previously to that point or to inform them
19 that, yes, the industry was knowledgeable
20 about it or thinking about it.
21 This certainly was not an all
22 conclusive study report, but more, I would
23 imagine, an educational attempt just to inform
24 the SAGE Committee and to start on an honest
25 basis of starting to look at this in a
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
14
1 positive way.
2 So I think that was the intent of
3 this report, to give some basic information
4 with some, at least some, elementary attempt
5 at getting some information that might be used
6 as a basis of starting something else.
7 Q. Would it be correct to say then that
8 reporting on this sediment transport study was
9 intended to indicate that the particulate
10 fraction of the total phosphorus load was high
11 enough that sediment control should be
12 considered as an option for reducing
13 phosphorus in the drainage?
14 A. That's correct. That is a correct
15 assumption.
16 Q. I would like you to turn to Page 13
17 of Exhibit No. 3. And actually, the next set
18 of questions I have will deal with the section
19 entitled, "Farm Scale Demonstration
20 Projects" --
21 A. Okay.
22 Q. -- which goes from Page 13 to Page
23 20. Did you prepare any of this section
24 entitled, "Farm Scale Demonstration Projects"?
25 A. No, that was a response --
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
15
1 preparation responsibility was Hutcheon
2 Engineers. They were acting cooperators with
3 our group.
4 Q. Did you assist at all in the
5 preparation of these sections?
6 A. Yes, we had numerous meetings during
7 the summer to discuss the concepts and the
8 direction that we thought might be viable.
9 Q. The concepts from the farm scale
10 demonstration project?
11 A. That's correct.
12 Q. The rock pits that are described on
13 Pages 13 and 14, are those the rock pit
14 concepts that we were discussing yesterday
15 that's primarily a sedimentation process?
16 A. That's correct.
17 Q. Who developed Figure 3-1 on Page 14?
18 A. Hutcheon Engineers.
19 Q. Did you assist in the preparation of
20 that?
21 A. We discussed it previously to their
22 design and their drawing of this drawing.
23 Their responsibility in this overall project
24 was to do the engineering design or
25 construction if we moved in that direction,
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
16
1 which included some of the planning and some
2 of the figures related to engineering design.
3 Q. Did you make any suggestions or
4 recommendations on how to present or prepare
5 the proposal for rock pits that is included in
6 this report?
7 A. Well, the concept itself was
8 discussed by Florida Atlantic University in a
9 report that they had previously. I don't
10 remember exactly what year that was published
11 but there was a report, I believe, funded --
12 it might have been by the district also at one
13 time.
14 And we had taken a look at that,
15 discussed it in an open meeting and nothing in
16 writing, and Hutcheon Engineers was then
17 instructed to develop a preliminary plan for
18 doing it based on our verbal discussion.
19 Q. Are you aware of any examples of the
20 use of rock pits as a means for controlling
21 sedimentation?
22 A. No, not actually, no. Our concepts
23 really were developed from a basis of knowing
24 we needed a sedimentation basin large enough
25 and a flow small enough so that the
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
17
1 sedimentation process would occur. Rock pit
2 fits the general category for the flows that
3 we were looking at to be very successful in
4 doing that.
5 Also the fact that Florida Atlantic
6 University's report from years previous
7 indicated very, very small levels of
8 phosphorus, total phosphorus, in those pits,
9 and we were interested in the general
10 chemistry of a rock pit and its impact on
11 water, drainage water, that would flow through
12 it and exit through it at some point which is
13 demonstrated in Figure 3-1 on Page 14.
14 Q. Are you aware of any disadvantage to
15 using rock pits as a means for expelling
16 phosphorus?
17 A. None other than these rock pits
18 generally are not used for anything except for
19 water storage, that after their construction
20 and use, they essentially are no longer used,
21 that they are a low impact or a low impact
22 zone that could be used or utilized. There
23 are quite a few rock pits in the EAA. I don't
24 know the exact number, but there is quite a
25 few.
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
18
1 Some of them are in construction and
2 others are abandoned and have not been used
3 after they have been finished. This
4 particular rock pit was on Okeelanta
5 (phonetic) property down on the north New
6 River Canal, and it more or less fit our
7 desires to take a look at a fairly large
8 acreage of drainage, diversion of water
9 drainage, that could be diverted through the
10 rock pit structure with basically minimal
11 construction costs, and looked to be very
12 feasible and usable.
13 Especially in the view that total
14 phosphorus is a particulate that needs to drop
15 out as a sediment, this looked like a very
16 good site to both study the sediment design
17 and controls as well as to look at chemical
18 dosing and collection of residues, should we
19 have gone to that site.
20 Q. What is -- has a demonstration
21 project using rock pits been initiated?
22 A. No, it was not initiated. Our group
23 had sampled the waters coming off this area
24 and the concentrations of phosphorus were well
25 below 60 -- very low concentrations of total
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
19
1 phosphorus. And for the investment of money
2 that we were going to invest on this, we
3 decided, or it was decided for us, that this
4 was not a suitable site because loading was
5 essentially very low to begin with.
6 Q. Were any other rock pits in the EAA
7 considered?
8 A. We considered using various ones but
9 this one was the one that we wanted to focus
10 on because it was available. The company was
11 interested in cooperating and developing it.
12 Basically time has been so short, this being
13 between July or August to this period of time,
14 that very few alternatives have been seriously
15 considered because money has to be up front
16 before we initiated some of these things.
17 An initial survey of existing water
18 quality must be done. We have not proceeded
19 with this basically because we did not have
20 funding support to continue a project that
21 would have some start and some finish.
22 Q. In your opinion, how much of the EAA
23 phosphorus load could be removed using the
24 rock pit technology?
25 A. I am not sure if I know the facts
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
20
1 and figures for that. I certainly haven't
2 calculated them myself but probably a very
3 substantial amount of flow could be diverted
4 to rock pits of this caliber. Certainly there
5 is some percentage but I can't -- I am not
6 going to guess on the percentage.
7 Q. In your opinion, can rock pits alone
8 reduce phosphorus, long term average
9 phosphorus concentrations in the EAA 50 parts
10 per billion?
11 A. In my opinion, it will contribute to
12 lowering it, but it may not be a total
13 solution by itself.
14 Q. In your opinion, is it possible that
15 it could be a total solution by itself?
16 A. In my opinion, I don't think it
17 would be a total solution by itself.
18 Q. Do you know how many total acres of
19 rock pits there are in the EAA?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Do you know anyone who might know
22 that?
23 A. Palm Beach County planners probably,
24 since each of these rock pits have to be
25 permitted.
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
21
1 Q. Do you know how many of the rock
2 pits in the EAA, existing rock pits in the
3 EAA, would be available for use to reduce
4 phosphorus loads and concentrations?
5 A. I don't know the number of rock
6 pits. The location of those rock pits on
7 different properties and to allow a diversion
8 of acreage or water, whether it be a section
9 of land or 4,000 acres of land, a section
10 being 600 and some acres, would depend largely
11 on where that rock pit was located, whether it
12 was close to existing works of the district,
13 or whether it was internal, several miles
14 within property lines.
15 It is feasible -- it is possible. I
16 would likely assume that the engineers that
17 controlled the private property in that area
18 would be the best source of information as to
19 whether or not this would be likely, you know,
20 they could divert enough water through the
21 existing rock pits.
22 It would have to be a rock pit --
23 each site would have to be looked at by itself
24 and evaluated.
25 MR. GAINES: Your question is about
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
22
1 physically available as opposed to whatever
2 legal or economic or private property, those
3 kinds of issues? I mean, you are asking him
4 which would be or how many would be suitable
5 for this technology or how many would be --
6 MR. GARVER: I was not calling it
7 available. Just a general question
8 MR. GAINES: I would object to those
9 parts of the question that he would have no
10 basis to answer, but I think he answered from
11 a physically available viewpoint anyway.
12 Q. (BY MR. GARVER) Is that where --
13 you answered my question in terms of
14 physically available suitability as opposed to
15 legal availability?
16 A. No, I was answering in terms of how
17 many physically were available. I don't know
18 the number. Whether they are suitable to be
19 used, I don't really rightly know. I think
20 each rock pit would have to be considered by a
21 case by case situation.
22 But yes, we have discussed in our
23 meetings, you know, in general meetings,
24 whether or not rock pits could be utilized.
25 And the general opinion is, yes, there is a
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
23
1 possibility that rock pits can be utilized for
2 diversion and for basin sediment controls.
3 Q. Are the rock pits in the EAA
4 concentrated in a particular area or are they
5 scattered about the entire EAA?
6 A. Generally, the rock pits are along
7 Highway 27, as well as a new highway. In fact
8 DOT owns -- Department of Transportation, owns
9 several rock pits or borrow pits along New
10 Highway 80 going out into the Everglades.
11 They are basically lined up along major
12 roadways.
13 Now, you are asking questions that
14 we have been asking ourselves in the past.
15 You know, the same questions you have asked
16 are no different than what we have asked in
17 the past so --
18 Q. In your opinion, what additional
19 work would be required to determine whether,
20 and the extent to which, rock pits would be
21 used to remove phosphorus from agricultural
22 discharges in the EAA?
23 A. Essentially following these types of
24 plans that are outlined here is really all it
25 would take. The most simplest evaluation,
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
24
1 which is the cheapest evaluation, is merely to
2 measure water quality before and after it
3 leaves. More intensive studies could also be
4 done to look at the deposition rates if it was
5 interested.
6 Basically you would take a look at
7 water quality before and after and determine
8 how much particulate loading has been
9 reduced. That would be the basic study, a
10 very inexpensive study, that can then be done.
11 More intensive studies obviously would also
12 have to be looked at to quantify materials,
13 but I think if preliminary information is
14 desired, it probably is not a radical thing to
15 set up a research program that would determine
16 some suitablilty to preliminary data.
17 Q. To your knowledge, has such a
18 research program been developed?
19 A. Well, we were hoping to do it but we
20 have not. Primarily, again, because the
21 funding was not secured.
22 Q. To your knowledge, were rock pits
23 considered a low priority in terms of
24 funding?
25 MR. GAINES: Object to the form. By
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
25
1 who? Don't answer it until he clears it up.
2 By who?
3 MR. GARVER: By whoever is making
4 the funding decision.
5 MR. GAINES: Wait a minute. I think
6 that is potentially -- a question that
7 potentially gets into the privileged areas.
8 Unless you can clarify who you are asking
9 about, who is making decisions, I will
10 instruct him not an answer.
11 MR. GARVER: What kind of
12 privilege?
13 MR. GAINES: Attorney/client
14 privilege.
15 MR. GARVER: That's interesting.
16 MR. GAINES: In other words, you can
17 ask him about his own priorities or his own
18 research but, you know, I think you see the
19 problem with the question.
20 MR. GARVER: Not exactly. I mean,
21 does the Florida Sugar Cane League make its
22 funding decisions based on conversations with
23 its lawyers, Mr. Gaines?
24 MR. GAINES: I am not being
25 deposed. I mean, your question is what, is
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
26
1 funding considered a high priority or
2 something along those lines. If you are
3 asking to him, then he can answer the
4 question.
5 A. It's my opinion that this is
6 something that should be pursued, correct. It
7 should be pursued. It has some viability to
8 it. The quantification of numbers need to be
9 obtained.
10 Q. (BY MR. GARVER) I would like to
11 turn now to Pages 15, 16 and 17 of Exhibit
12 No. 3.
13 A. Figure 3-2?
14 Q. Yes, right. Page 15 and Figure 3-2
15 III-2 and Figure III-3, is this another
16 section that Hutcheon Engineers wrote or
17 prepared?
18 A. This is a conceptual plan of a
19 possible design that we may want to consider.
20 These are not designed or engineering plans
21 for construction. They are conceptual plans
22 so that a visualization can be made and
23 discussed as to whether or not they wanted to
24 pursue it.
25 That was also one of the projects
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
27
1 that we had considered as an expanded canal
2 site to look at widening, increasing the
3 surface areas of the canal slowing down flows
4 so that particulate settling can be done at
5 appropriate times whether or not we are dosing
6 wih chemicals and trying to remove sediment
7 and residue together, or without dosing and
8 strictly wanted to look at sediment.
9 There are two aspects to the
10 chemical dosing that are important to relate
11 back to sediment control. No. 1, you must
12 have a handle or some degree of knowledge or
13 control over removals of residues if you are
14 going to use rack gravitation for removal.
15 No. 1, your flows -- your particles
16 must coagulate, be heavy enough so that they
17 are able to settle to the bottom of a canal.
18 No. 2, in order for that to happen
19 and encourage that to happen and slow down
20 flows, one of the ways of doing that is not
21 deepening a canal, but widening out a canal
22 and bringing up the surface area.
23 The canal expansion, expanded canal
24 concept, was to do exactly that. It was to
25 open up and increase the width of the canal,
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
28
1 drop your flows down that would encourage
2 sedimentation.
3 For chemical dosing, we had
4 discussed concepts of how to collect residue
5 using such constructed canals, expanding
6 canals or to construct along with it
7 simultaneously traps which are essentially
8 pockets in the bottom of the canals to deflect
9 residue and moving bedloads -- we call them
10 bedloads.
11 The other aspect to this is
12 sediment. Some sediments are immobile, they
13 are compacted. They stay on the bottom unless
14 they are physically scaled down by high
15 velocity water moving at a large pump rate.
16 In other cases, there is a more
17 diffuse particles that are toward the bottom
18 but mobile, and when there is flow that goes
19 -- particles which are -- it's hard to
20 describe, but there is a lot of particulate
21 loading close to the bottom which moves also
22 with the flow.
23 The only way to keep this bedload
24 from traveling to a pump and then being
25 registered as a total phosphorus as part of
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
29
1 the contribution of this total phosphorus to a
2 particulate, that needs to be intercepted.
3 And this particular project was conceived to
4 intercept that bedload whether it be from a
5 residue from chemical dosing or the bedload
6 that is in the mobile phase in the canal.
7 And in relation to what you were
8 asking about diversion previously, it was
9 surmised that we would divert large amounts of
10 drainage through that existing modified canal
11 section so that we had a control of where that
12 drainage water went and where it exited. That
13 was the plan, this was a concept plan.
14 Again, we did not proceed with that
15 due to nonfunding, and it still is a viable
16 concept just like the rock pit concept. We
17 certainly do need to verify this through
18 collection of data eventually. And the
19 principal expense, of course, is the private
20 landowner to bring this equipment, heavy
21 equipment, in there, and do the physical work.
22 And that is not a small amount of
23 money. We are talking about $50,000 or
24 $100,000. That is a lot of money even for a
25 large farm. So unless there is a clear
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
30
1 direction, I think, in support, whoever is
2 funding this, I believe that's probably what
3 probably hindered us to proceed, is a
4 nondefinitive direction that we were going.
5 Q. Has there been a demonstration
6 project of the expanded canal?
7 A. Just in plan only. We had sampled
8 some locations that we wanted to take a look
9 at. We looked at the water quality from those
10 locations but we have not proceeded with that.
11 Q. I would like you to turn to Page 24.
12 Who collected the primary canal sediment core
13 data that is discussed on Page 24?
14 A. Hutcheon Engineers.
15 Q. Was this sampling done in connection
16 with the sediment transport study that we
17 discussed earlier?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. What was the purpose of the sediment
20 core data collection?
21 A. It was to -- basically the cores
22 were to look at how deep were some of these --
23 the depth, how deep or how variable was the
24 depth of sediment involved in these canals,
25 and looking at the total phosphorus that was
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
31
1 present in the sediments as a possible
2 contributor ultimately to the collected water
3 samples which would contribute to the total
4 phosphorus discharge.
5 If those sediments were not there,
6 obviously they would not contribute to total
7 phosphorus if it was collected or
8 redistributed. What we were interested in was
9 looking at the distribution or the depth of
10 sediment accumulation in some existing canals,
11 and the canals we were looking at and what was
12 the total phosphorus content. One core sample
13 is listed in report 92-11.
14 Q. Who did the analysis of the core
15 data?
16 A. That was contracted out. I am not
17 sure who did this. You would have to check
18 with Hutcheon Engineers. They had their own
19 private consulting company.
20 Q. Is this something that Dave Stewart
21 could answer?
22 A. Dave Stewart should be able to
23 answer, yes.
24 MR. GARVER: Off the record for a
25 second.
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
32
1 (A brief off-the-record discussion
2 was here had).
3 MR. GARVER: I would like to get
4 this next one marked as Exhibit No. 6.
5 (Deposition Exhibit No. 6 was here
6 marked for identification purposes by the
7 court reporter).
8 Q. (BY MR. GARVER) Doctor Anderson, I
9 am handing you what has been marked as
10 Anderson Exhibit No. 6. Can you identify this
11 exhibit?
12 A. It's an updated report dated
13 November 19th, 1992, report 92-11 entitled,
14 "Reduction of Phosphorus Concentrations in
15 Agricultural Drainage of the EAA by
16 Participation, Coagulation, and
17 Sedimentation."
18 Q. Who prepared this report?
19 A. I prepared it.
20 Q. Did anybody assist you in preparing
21 this report?
22 A. My staff assisted me in putting this
23 together. Staff's name on, I guess, the Page
24 I, single I.
25 Q. On the second page of this exhibit,
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
33
1 can you identify what this page is.
2 A. This is a letter written to Doctor
3 Peter Rosendahl, the Florida Sugar Cane
4 League. This is the letter you are referring
5 to?
6 Q. Yes. It's a letter you wrote?
7 A. It's a letter I wrote basically as
8 an introduction letter to the report giving an
9 updated report to the project.
10 Q. The second sentence of the first
11 paragraph reads, "Although you nor the FSCL
12 have requested this report, we are at the
13 stage in our research whereby this report was
14 essential." What did you mean by saying that
15 this report was essential at this time?
16 A. For us, we needed to stop at the
17 time of -- we had been, first of all, very
18 busy with a lot of the work. Not just busy
19 work but producing a lot of information that
20 needed to be digested. We needed to stop,
21 formulate what we saw, what direction we
22 wanted to go.
23 This essentially would be internally
24 an essential step to any research program.
25 Not just to collect data for data's sake, but
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
34
1 to look at the data, find out what it means,
2 see what needs to be reevaluated or
3 reassessed, whether the data is good, bad or
4 indifferent, just for our internal assessment
5 of the research program, to look at it
6 honestly.
7 I think every research program must
8 stop at a certain period of time and evaluate
9 their data, must evaluate their database, and
10 this report reflects that moment in which we
11 have stopped and reassessed what we were
12 doing. And we felt the results were important
13 enough to update the research committee that
14 was responsible for funding the direction --
15 or funding, not the directing, but funding
16 this research program.
17 Really, at no time were we asked to
18 produce any data for a certain objective
19 outside our group. We were pretty much
20 independent of what we could or could not do.
21 This report was not requested by the industry.
22 I submitted it, really, apart from
23 any request and the intent was to just clarify
24 the information and make sure people
25 understood where we were going and where we
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
35
1 were coming from.
2 Q. Who was on the research committee
3 that you just mentioned?
4 A. The copies of this letter, Andy
5 Rackely, Robert Buker, Hank Andries, Dennis
6 Stott, Bill Tarr, Mr. Parsons, Bello Wade and
7 Van Waddill was the director of the REC. He
8 was my director.
9 Q. Doctor Rosendahl, was he also on the
10 research committee?
11 A. Doctor Rosendahl was in charge of
12 the research committe and acted as project
13 coordinator for the Florida Sugar Cane League.
14 Q. To your knowledge, is this committee
15 still in existence?
16 A. To my knowledge, it is. Although
17 you are aware the Florida Sugar Cane League
18 has had changes. Doctor Rosendahl no longer
19 works for the Florida Sugar Cane League.
20 Q. Is Doctor Rosendahl still on this
21 research committee?
22 A. I can't answer that. I don't know.
23 Q. I would like you to turn to Page i.
24 And the first sentence in the text of this
25 page says, "The problem with chemical dosing
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
36
1 for the remediation of natural surface waters
2 (ie.,, phosphorus removal) is that there is an
3 uncertain water quality that changes with
4 time, location and environmental conditions."
5 When you use the phrase, "uncertain
6 water quality," in that sentence, is that
7 referring to variability in water quality
8 parameters that we have been discussing?
9 A. Which I use the term, "uncertain," I
10 refer to whether or not it can be predicted or
11 not predicted, whether the water quality at
12 one point in time can be predictably a certain
13 concentration or certain value. It cannot.
14 There is no certainty of predicting that
15 concentration because there are other factors
16 affecting the conditions.
17 Q. At the bottom of Page i, there are a
18 list of bullets relating to questions that
19 have arisen at that point. Some of those
20 refer to sediment and some of those refer to
21 residue. Can you just clarify for me what the
22 difference between sediment and residue is as
23 used in this, on this page.
24 A. Residue -- well, sediment is any
25 accumulation of any solid matter on the bottom
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
37
1 of a canal. Residue is what is the direct
2 product of precipitation from a chemical
3 dosing.
4 In a natural canal system or a
5 natural water, service water system, you have
6 a combination when dosing with a residue plus
7 the sediment, which really becomes the
8 sediment, also -- or we were just referring to
9 that ultimately as a residue.
10 That residue would contain the
11 sediment, either buoyant particles that did
12 not settle or a combination of those particles
13 that would settle without dosing.
14 Q. Just going through these bullets,
15 what questions had arisen with respect to
16 sediment characterization?
17 A. Do you want me to go down each one?
18 Q. Yes, that's what I was meaning for
19 you to do.
20 A. Our questions on sediment
21 characterization realizes at the time that we
22 did this, we were approximately six months
23 into our work, our funded work, the questions
24 we had about sediment characterization was
25 what were the concentrations we had -- excuse
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
38
1 me, let me go back.
2 Some data on Page 8 of the report,
3 Table 2.3.3, we had done some sediment work at
4 two sites and had done some initial, very
5 basic work on calculating the percentage
6 solids, it's ash content, percent nitrogen,
7 carbon, and phosphorus. From that
8 information, we knew that it's going to be
9 likely that in the future we will have to
10 characterize or work in a canal system and
11 dose in a canal system. We needed to have a
12 good characterization of that sediment before
13 dosing.
14 That's something that we needed more
15 work done. That was one of the things we were
16 pointing out. No. 2, sediment phosphorus
17 releases removal and redistribution. So much
18 -- some amount of phosphorus when it goes
19 anerobic without oxygen on the bottom of a
20 canal, will release phosphorus in time. We
21 don't know specifically how much phosphorus is
22 released from the bottom sediments into a
23 soluble form.
24 We don't know exactly how much of
25 this bedload, this sediment load, is also
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
39
1 redistributed. And we don't know how it's
2 redistributed after it's resuspended. Those
3 are some things that we don't know, was not
4 really in the scope of this project, but came
5 out as being very important for us to
6 determine, because ultimately chemical dosing
7 would -- you would have to have some knowledge
8 of the ultimate fate of this particulate
9 fraction with time.
10 Q. Before you continue, the problem of
11 having anerobic conditions, is that greater
12 the deeper the water is, in general?
13 A. It might be with greater sediment if
14 the sediment is deeper. Even though your
15 water has oxygen in it and it is freshly
16 pumped, below the sediment it may be
17 anerobic. The oxygen may not be one inch, two
18 inches, three inches below that sediment.
19 It may be anerobic, and most likely
20 would be. Therefore, what happens, how does
21 phosphorus redistribute through the sediment
22 as a soluble fraction, be reintroduced or
23 released into the water, is a question that
24 needs to be answered.
25 There has been some work done by
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
40
1 other researchers around the world on this
2 question but it's -- and some modeling, some
3 computer modeling, has been done. But we have
4 not, to my knowledge, done any work in South
5 Florida in the the EAA to model it under our
6 conditions. So that is an unknown.
7 Q. Would the problem of sediment
8 phosphorus release, removal and redistribution
9 also be a question that would need to be
10 resolved with respect to sediments accumulated
11 in rock pits if that technology were to be
12 used?
13 A. Yes, obviously, that's correct.
14 Q. Continue.
15 A. The third bullet to this residue
16 characterization, again, within the time frame
17 of the year that we have this funded project,
18 it is in the realm of what we would like to
19 accomplish.
20 We may not be able to accomplish all
21 of this this year, in our first year, but the
22 residue, what the product of the chemical
23 dosing is, what it precipitates and coagulates
24 as, we must have a full understanding of its
25 residue characteristics under different
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
41
1 conditions, under different water quality
2 conditions.
3 We don't know the exact ratio of
4 phosphorus to iron, for example, in our
5 residues which is likely to change greatly
6 because we have different carbon -- the amount
7 of carbon, all the carbon comes out with the
8 product.
9 We have different hardnesses and
10 alkalinities that effect the final residue
11 product. But we need to have a good
12 understanding of what that residue is so that
13 it can be used later on for the fourth bullet,
14 residue land application. Whether or not we
15 can utilize that, we need to know how stable
16 these different products are.
17 Because what chemical is used, for
18 example, iron chloride or iron sulfate,
19 whether it be in a ferrous or ferrate form,
20 will have slightly different characteristics
21 apart from each other. Some characteristics,
22 when they go anerobic, are different than
23 others, some are more stable than others.
24 Q. When you say, "stable," what do you
25 mean?
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
42
1 A. Stable meaning it's the second,
2 second bullet point, that how stable is
3 phosphorus when it goes anerobic/aerobic in
4 the sediment loads, bedloads. If it's stable,
5 that means we can accumulate a residue for
6 x-amount of time and clean it out only when we
7 fill the capacity of the trap or the canal or
8 the device that we are using for collecting
9 the residue in the canals.
10 If it's not stable, that is,
11 releases phosphorus or breaks down, then we
12 have to have a more active removal program.
13 Not necessarily does it preclude use of it,
14 but it just means we have to have a more
15 active removal of that sediment in time
16 instead of allowing it to accumulate.
17 And that is important if we are
18 using a rock pit versus a canal. A rock pit
19 has a large capacity probably for holding a
20 lot of materials whereas a canal does not.
21 It's likely that a maintenance program in a
22 rock pit will be very low. It's likely that a
23 maintenance in removal of sediments built up,
24 or residues built up, in a canal, would be
25 very high in comparison. So the residue
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
43
1 stability is important to understand and to
2 know.
3 Q. Are there any other characteristics
4 of the residue as to which you would like to
5 develop more information?
6 A. We wanted to really find out -- I
7 think I would like to find out the nature of
8 the iron bonding to the hydroxyl units, how
9 phosphorus or other components are actually
10 absorbing onto the surfaces, the charge
11 characteristics of it, the material.
12 There might be a number of other
13 characteristics important but that would
14 probably involve other colleagues at some time
15 in the future that would assist me in
16 determining those characteristics.
17 Q. Why are you interested in
18 determining or getting more information on the
19 phosphorus to iron ratio?
20 A. In textbooks, standard textbooks, on
21 this type of chemical dosing for wastewater
22 cleaning, very often textbooks quote an iron
23 to phosphorus ratio that needs to be
24 maintained to have good precipitation and
25 coagulation. These ratios might be 1 to 2, 1
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
44
1 to 1.8, et cetera, et cetera.
2 What we have seen thus far is that
3 these ratios do not hold in our water quality
4 conditions, it might be one to a hundred or
5 one to ten, and largely because of the amount
6 of dissolved organic carbon, the color that's
7 in the water, the hardness and the alkalinity
8 differences. The quality differences that
9 consumes the chemical also react with the
10 reactions.
11 It does not allow this to make this
12 a hard and fast rule over ratio between iron
13 and phosphorus which typically, in most
14 textbooks, you see those ratios quoted but
15 they are not applicable for our conditions
16 because we have seen the ratios change
17 dramatically. This departs a little bit from
18 what is current knowledge.
19 Q. We can continue on with the rest of
20 the bullets.
21 A. The residue application. We need to
22 know whether or not it can be used, whether we
23 can pump the residues as a viscous amorphous
24 mass onto land and dispose of it that way,
25 whether or not there is any toxicity problem.
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
45
1 My expert opinion, my opinion, is that this is
2 not going to be a problem but certainly needs
3 to be addressed since this is -- we are -- if
4 we do this in a very large way, there will be
5 a large amount of mass produced, residue mass.
6 This is something that will have to be taken a
7 look at.
8 The second to the last bullet is
9 identification of on-farm and basin nutrient
10 budgets. Basically, if we do a dosing scheme,
11 we want to find out what the actual loading
12 was before we dosed and what the loading
13 leaving the farm is, and we need to have a
14 mass balance of the amount of phosphorus that
15 does or does not move off the farm or onto the
16 basins with this chemical process intact. We
17 don't have that information.
18 And the other information we do not
19 have is exactly what kind of projection of
20 sizing of facility is needed. We have
21 discussed sizing, very small pilot studies to
22 take care of small field problems to regional
23 facilities.
24 Those facilities or those plans and
25 projections have not been made as of this
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
46
1 moment, and maybe could not be done until
2 small pilot studies are done, or until all
3 parties get together and decide whether or not
4 this was economically affordable or suitable
5 for a solution.
6 Q. Since writing this November 19th,
7 1992 report, have you made any progress in
8 resolving any of the issues or questions that
9 you have identified with respect to these six
10 bullets on Page i?
11 A. No, we have not, not significantly.
12 Q. On the next page, Page ii --
13 A. Let me clarify also here before we
14 get into detail of this report, if I may, we
15 are revising this report right now for
16 release. We have been asked to release this
17 report next week in a draft form. And we are
18 just currently trying to get copies that would
19 be released with all the corrections, verbal
20 or verbage corrections, or any other problems
21 that we might have seen. So by next week on
22 the 24th, we are expecting to release this
23 formally to the district.
24 MR. GARVER: Mr. Gaines, we would
25 like a copy of that as soon as it's available,
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
47
1 and we may have additional questions, I would
2 think, on that -- on the revised report.
3 MR. GAINES: That's fine. My
4 understanding is that just editorial revisions
5 of the --
6 THE WITNESS: Yes, we are not
7 changing any numbers or anything like that.
8 We are just in the process of verbally going
9 through it and editing it. Some of the
10 language might have changed just to make sure
11 it's clear. So it's environmentally -- we are
12 environmentally sensitive, you know. Those
13 kinds of things, we want to make sure it's
14 language is very clear.
15 MR. GAINES: In other words, I am
16 not volunteering him for a second deposition
17 on this report but if there is some specific
18 change that emerges then you can make a case
19 and we can take it up.
20 MR. GARVER: Right, sure. I am just
21 going to reserve our right to do that if it's
22 appropriate.
23 Q. (BY MR. GARVER) On Page ii, the
24 executive summary table, towards the bottom of
25 this page there is a row labeled residual iron
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
48
1 concentration and under two of the columns
2 there is a notation, "Opt. Condition"; is that
3 optimum?
4 A. Optimum, yes.
5 Q. What is meant by optimum condition?
6 A. Chemical dosing cannot -- must be
7 done under certain water conditions. In some
8 cases, a certain pH is optimized, must be
9 optimized, to get optimum coagulation
10 properties. It might precipitate. It might
11 stay in a fog in small particles, but if it
12 doesn't -- isn't under the right water
13 conditions, it will not coagulate, come
14 together in sediment and fall out. So there
15 has to be optimal conditions met.
16 Q. I believe you stated in this case
17 it's primarily the pH condition that would
18 determine the outcome?
19 A. The pH is usually a way of adjusting
20 it. You restore it with variable charges
21 between solution and the particulate charge it
22 has on it. And pH allows you to have that
23 variable charge changed so that they attract
24 to each other instead of repel each other.
25 And a pH adjustment is used and is used in our
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
49
1 case, you know, to adjust to a more favorable
2 coagulation condition.
3 Often times, if you give time, a
4 longer residence time for the chemical to
5 react, it eventually does coagulate and fall
6 out, but if you are trying to optimize the
7 shortest time interval between dosing and
8 removal, then you have to optimize the water
9 conditions which refers to possible secondary
10 treatment or dosing or tertiary dosing to
11 recondition water.
12 Q. If, staying with this row entitled,
13 "Residual Iron Concentration," does this table
14 indicate that if you are not under optimum
15 conditions, then using ferric chloride or
16 ferric sulphate, will result in iron
17 concentrations in the water that are higher
18 than --
19 A. Well, that's true with every one of
20 these chemicals, and especially true with
21 ferrous materials. We will probably change
22 part of this table to reflect that it's
23 possible under poor conditions you can always
24 get more iron in solution, or left in
25 solution, regardless of, you know, what
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
50
1 chemical is used, because always must you have
2 a good handle on the water quality before and
3 afterwards.
4 And the chemical process, again,
5 must match the engineering design for that
6 process so that if you are too low of a pH or
7 to high of a pH, that you don't -- again, of
8 one recipe is not going to be suitable if you
9 have a high variability of water conditions
10 entering a process.
11 So yes, under all -- for each one of
12 these chemicals, you can exceed that iron
13 residue concentration if you fall outside of
14 optimum conditions for those reactions.
15 Q. What frequency of monitoring in your
16 opinion would be necessary in a chemical
17 treatment program for the EAA?
18 A. Well, I believe we have got to start
19 with the maximum amount of monitoring, hourly
20 monitoring. I mean if we were to have a pilot
21 plant, I would not want to sequentially
22 monitor every hour or during the process, the
23 entire process, every 15 minutes.
24 MR. GAINES: Wait a minute. You are
25 asking him about a pilot program or if it was
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
51
1 applied to the EAA in practice?
2 MR. GARVER: I was asking very
3 generally. I think Doctor Anderson started by
4 saying at the beginning.
5 MR. GAINES: I want you to make sure
6 you are answering what he is asking you
7 there.
8 A. I think typically I would desire --
9 my opinion is that we would have to have
10 optimal and have as many samples as possible
11 up front to make sure that we are -- the
12 process is correct. And as we get more
13 experience, that the process can be modeled or
14 predicted with reasonable certainties, then we
15 can drop away from that.
16 Typically a wastewater treatment
17 facility might be monitoring every hour, at
18 least every day. And that means that you have
19 to have fairly quick turn-around time, you
20 know, in your laboratory, that certain
21 analysis obviously couldn't be done if you
22 lack some facilities, but minimum monitoring
23 might be pH in line with the stream of water
24 or flow of water. It might be the color, it
25 might be the alkalinity.
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
52
1 We have also looked at doing buffer
2 pH, looking at the nitratable acidities.
3 Those kinds of things can be probably modeled
4 in the future to help the maintenance and
5 operation of such a facility if it should so
6 occur.
7 And after we have some knowledge
8 about that variability, then we can drop back
9 to begin where we have predictability or
10 certainty of things and back away from that.
11 Q. The next column down from iron --
12 residual iron concentration or the next row,
13 excuse me, is labeled, "Sludge Quality," and
14 three of those columns has the notation, "Must
15 be removed"; can you explain what "Must be
16 removed" indicates in those columns?
17 A. Well, actually and there is some --
18 probably I would rephrase the third column
19 which is iron chloride 2, probably is no
20 problem. The exception to all the iron 2 --
21 again, remember that this was a preliminary
22 draft, an updated report, not for general
23 consumption, but when we release this part,
24 there might be some changes. But let me
25 explain the changes so you understand it.
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
53
1 Generally the iron 2 compounds
2 kinetically do not react very well. The iron
3 stays in solution for a long period of time
4 and if you want your reaction process to occur
5 very rapidly, the iron 3 or the ferric
6 chloride and ferric, first two columns of the
7 chemicals that you would want to choose.
8 If you have a very large residence
9 time, I mean the water is staying in a given
10 area for days or many hours at a time, it is
11 possible that ferric -- or ferrous chloride
12 and ferrous sulphate can be utilized. In
13 fact, we believe it can be very effectively.
14 Now, regarding to no problem and
15 must be removed, if a residue builds up on the
16 bottom as a sediment, if sediment plus the
17 residue occurs and we have anerobic
18 conditions, there is sulphur reducing bacteria
19 that reduce the sulphur -- sulphate to a
20 sulphur form, and change the characteristics
21 of that residue such that phosphorus is
22 rereleased into a soluble fraction, under
23 anerobic conditions.
24 It takes time, but if you were to
25 leave a sulphate residue, for example, on the
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
54
1 bottom of a sediment, I would assure -- have
2 great assurance that eventually those anerobic
3 bacteria would affect that residue stability
4 and make it instable such that you have
5 reintroduction of a certain portion of that
6 soluble fraction of phosphorus. That is not
7 something we want to happen.
8 Unless we remove that system
9 immediately, I would avoid using a sulphate.
10 Now, the ferric chlorides form a very stable
11 complex that is not effected by anerobic
12 conditions. And in that case, we can probably
13 use something like that in a rock pit and not
14 worry about a breakdown over a year, or two
15 years, three years, four years. It's stable.
16 It's not affected by the anerobic bacteria.
17 That is the implication.
18 There are certain conditions, but I
19 believe we have four chemicals that under
20 different site specific conditions each one
21 could be used. If we were to look at one
22 chemical that could be used in all conditions,
23 I would probably choose ferric chloride. But
24 based on cost and other considerations, we
25 could, depending on where we use it, use any
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
55
1 one of these other three.
2 Q. Moving down to the next row, that
3 row is labeled, "Reliability of Process."
4 What is meant by the term, "reliability," what
5 are the criteria that are built into that
6 term?
7 A. That's probably a good question. We
8 are predicting that we can dose and
9 precipitate and coagulate; how reliable is
10 that process in that order. And sediment, you
11 know, there is a sediment process. That's
12 what is meant by reliable, how reliable is
13 that process going to occur with each one of
14 these chemicals.
15 We have moderate reliability really
16 with the ferrous materials because it's in an
17 iron 2 form. It must be reduced to the iron 3
18 form to be able to be insoluble and convert to
19 the insoluble fraction of iron hydroxide.
20 We are already in iron 3 and when we
21 add iron 3, ferric forms. So it's fairly
22 reliable that we are going to have a fairly
23 quick conversion to a ferric hydroxide.
24 There are other parameters that
25 relate to the coagulation. Once we get a
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
56
1 precipitation, that's one stage of the
2 process. The other is the attraction of those
3 particles. That is a different question, but
4 reliability is high with the ferric. It is
5 moderate or low with the ferrous materials.
6 Q. In the last row there, it's labeled,
7 "Other Environmental Effects," and all of
8 those columns indicate either an increase or
9 lowering of hardness. What is the
10 significance with either of these or lowering
11 of hardness?
12 A. Well, really this is something
13 that's probably going to go out on the next --
14 it's not going to even be in this next report,
15 only because we don't have -- there is a
16 little bit of confusion that was noted by some
17 of the other people reading it.
18 It's not an environmental problem
19 but what we have seen is some hardness changes
20 as we add chemicals, either increasing or
21 decreasing. I don't believe our data base is
22 strong enough right now to really say whether
23 or not we have a strong solid increase or a
24 decrease.
25 And I am going to be probably
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
57
1 omitting these comments entirely into the next
2 draft form because it's -- I don't believe
3 it's a significant effect right now for us to
4 comment on. It's not a problem. Hardness is
5 already high in water, meaning a lot of
6 calcium and magnesium in our waters in the EAA
7 is very high.
8 Whether they go -- increase or
9 decrease really has no significant -- does not
10 go as a significant problem or change. We
11 just don't have enough data to make a good
12 solid -- make a good solid case on whether or
13 not it is significant or not. So that will
14 probably be changed in the next draft.
15 Q. In the change from the ferrous to
16 the ferric form, is that a reduction process
17 or an oxidation process?
18 A. Well, it's a reduction process. And
19 they -- it takes time for it to undergo those
20 changes. Under anerobic conditions, the
21 iron 3 can be converted into an iron 2 form
22 and by vice-versa, going in the opposite
23 direction.
24 But basically, the ferrous materials
25 are fairly stable in water in solution and
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
58
1 ferric remains fairly insoluble. They
2 precipitate out very rapidly.
3 Q. I would like you to turn to Page 2
4 of this report. And the section labeled,
5 "Water Quality within the EAA: Environmental
6 Protection District/South Florida Water
7 Management District Data." Who did the
8 sampling for the Environmental Protection
9 District that is reflected in this report?
10 A. The Environmental Protection
11 District, I believe, contracted Hutcheon
12 Engineers to head a team of their workers
13 sampling 19 stations. There might be 16
14 stations now, but at the initial time, there
15 were 19.
16 And we made an agreement with that
17 group of workers to collect grab samples at
18 the time that they sampled their composite
19 samples in the field, out of their sampler
20 units.
21 Q. The sampling stations were -- well,
22 on Page 2 it states that the stations may be
23 grouped into three main types and then it
24 lists one, secondary canals, and then two and
25 three are different kind of primary canals.
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
59
1 Were there any patterns in the Environmental
2 Protection District data that fell along the
3 lines of these groups?
4 A. No, we have not looked at the data
5 regarding whether or not they could group up
6 or correlate to these different
7 classifications. We basically have data base
8 of collection of information which is
9 presented here from since September. It is
10 now February so we have this many months of
11 information.
12 We have not gotten into a rainy
13 period yet where -- you know, until June or
14 July, so we just don't know what that pattern
15 might be. I mean we certainly could look at
16 the data but I wouldn't have a great deal of
17 certainty whether it would mean something
18 until we had a significant amount of
19 information through our whole year.
20 Q. On Page 5 of this report, the last
21 section, the last sentence of the first
22 paragraph after the table there states,
23 "Unfortunately, further qualifying data, ie.,
24 pH, TOC, hardness, et cetera, are not
25 available to develop correlational databases
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
60
1 of use to the study."
2 What is meant by correlational data
3 bases?
4 A. I have been trying to get ahold of
5 district data that -- other than just total
6 phosphorus and soluble phosphorus from the
7 district since I started this work and I just
8 have not been able to get my hands on data
9 that would be of use that would include pH,
10 carbon content, chloride hardness and other
11 parameters. If we had some of the information
12 that I believe is available from the district,
13 we could probably look at correlating its
14 effect to flow.
15 We are asking ourself what is the
16 variability of this water, and we need to know
17 -- and you are asking under what conditions
18 were these characteristics correlated. If we
19 had full data from the district that has the
20 large data base, then we could take a look at
21 how it relates to flow, how does it relate to
22 different characteristics in the basin.
23 I just have not been able to get my
24 hands on the data as of yet. Van Kugler
25 (phonetic) out of engineering has helped me
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
61
1 occasionally, you know, get at least focused
2 in where some of the data is but as of yet, I
3 have not an been able to get something that is
4 manageable or workable other than total
5 phosphorus and other than soluble phosphorus.
6 Q. Has Van Kugler expressed to you
7 concerns about whether the storm water
8 treatment areas will work?
9 A. I think everyone in the district
10 that I have known has expressed concern about
11 that, especially anyone who wants to put their
12 name onto something.
13 I think there is enough either
14 circumstantial evidence or discussion or there
15 is reasonable doubt to whether the storm water
16 treatment area is going to be successful, that
17 it's a watch, and wait and see opinion, I
18 think, from many people that I know in the
19 district.
20 I think there is great expectations.
21 A lot of good work has been done by the
22 district and by the consultants, but we still
23 have not proved whether or not it's going to
24 be viable or not. There is still some
25 reasonable doubts.
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
62
1 Q. Who else at the district has
2 expressed concern to you about the STA?
3 A. I can't put a name behind an exact
4 the comment but over the years since that
5 concept has been put together I have heard it
6 many times by many people.
7 Q. Over -- did you say the year?
8 A. Over the time since that -- the
9 STA's has been proposed as a viable option for
10 controlling phosphorus concentrations in
11 surface drainage water. I have heard that
12 comment from several -- you know, from various
13 people in the district and outside.
14 Q. To your knowledge, when were STA's
15 or similar technologies proposed?
16 MR. GAINES: Object to the form.
17 A. I just saw publications out there
18 this morning. I was looking through my books
19 at the office. I don't remember exactly when
20 the date was. I can't recall the exact date.
21 I have the publications in my office.
22 I mean, in 1989, the SWIM bill, the
23 various drafts were written, and STAs were
24 included in that as an option for control.
25 December, 1992 -- in January, the report on
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
63
1 calculations how to design an STA were made.
2 I mean, there has been discussion
3 for a long time about STAs, and even now, just
4 now, is some of the assessments even by
5 private consultants still are coming in. I
6 mean, that's -- that's not a -- I can't answer
7 that specifically.
8 It's been a concept that's been
9 around for a long time, even before the
10 district has used it in writing. I mean, it's
11 been used in conceptual form by many other
12 people.
13 Q. (BY MR. GARVER) On Page 5,
14 continuing over to Page 6, there is a list of
15 critical factors dealing with variability and
16 total phosphorus concentration; is that
17 correct?
18 A. What page was this?
19 Q. Page 5, leading over to Page 6.
20 A. Would you repeat your question.
21 Q. The lead into that list of bullets
22 there, is total phosphorus concentration,
23 quantities and variability and drainage or
24 flow-through water as it related to a number
25 of critical factors which include, but are not
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
64
1 limited to, and then it lists a series of
2 factors.
3 A. Sure, but not limited to these.
4 Q. And then following that list there
5 is a statement, "These factors have not been
6 qualified by the agricultural EAA, the South
7 Florida Water Management District, nor the
8 University of Florida. Although not easily
9 controlled in time, these factors must be
10 understood to affectively monitor and control
11 water quality data."
12 To your knowledge, is there any work
13 going on at this time to increase
14 understanding relating to those factors?
15 A. It's my understanding that the
16 district is interested in modeling the EAA and
17 control of the water quality, and monitoring,
18 you know, in terms of predictable -- making a
19 predictable model and I am sure, I know that a
20 lot of these factors will probably be included
21 into those models. I am not a modeler in that
22 regard, so I can't comment on that.
23 Q. In your opinion, is greater
24 understanding of this list of factors required
25 before chemical treatment can be used to be
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
65
1 implemented on a basin wide scale to reduce
2 phosphorus?
3 A. I don't believe so. It may take
4 hundreds of years before we are completely
5 able to model what is happening in the EAA.
6 It may take a long time, who knows, but
7 certainly we should not wait for that to take
8 place before we do something else.
9 Q. I like to refer you to now to Page 7
10 and Table 2.3.2. And specifically, I would
11 like to refer you to row 15 and the column
12 labeled, "Minimum," under there which
13 indicates a total phosphorus concentration of
14 one part per million; is that correct?
15 A. That's correct.
16 Q. Was the analysis of this data done
17 with a technique that can detect total
18 phosphorus down to one part per billion?
19 A. Well, in the case of soluble cases,
20 we have a reliability within one to two parts
21 per billion, using our anion chromatograph.
22 But this is, again, one of the things that we
23 have gone through, our staff and I have gone
24 through. It is probably what our next draft
25 is going to do is going to state the critical
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
66
1 detection levels.
2 In this case, one really represents
3 below the critical detection level for total
4 phosphorus which is a digested sample, an
5 unfiltered digested sample, analyzed with flow
6 chemistry equipment, which is detection with a
7 limit. I can't recall the exact, somewhere
8 between ten and 20 parts per billion.
9 So when you do view the next draft,
10 we are probably going to have an asterisk and
11 that will be referred to as below
12 concentration detection limits. But in
13 referred to soluble phosphorus, yes, we can
14 get to those levels with our anion
15 chromatograph.
16 Q. Just for clarification, the
17 technique you are using for total phosphorus
18 has a detection limit of 10 to 20 parts per
19 billion; is that correct?
20 A. That's correct. One of the dilemmas
21 in the laboratory for any chemist today versus
22 10 or 15 years ago is that the concentration
23 compliance levels that have been stated in the
24 past, all the way from 50 down to seven parts
25 per billion, make it kind of a laughable or
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
67
1 difficult task for the chemist to do,
2 especially if it's recalling to total
3 phosphorus levels to seven parts per billion.
4 Only unless you get into very
5 specific chemistry can you get those low
6 detection limits to a reliable level, detected
7 to a reliable level. So that has meant that
8 most laboratories in the last five years have
9 had to upgrade their laboratory and their
10 quality controls and quality assurances of the
11 entire program to be very strict:
12 Because very small levels of
13 phosphorus may be very difficult to determine
14 through typical techniques used in the past or
15 equipment used in the past. That has been
16 primarily our biggest emphasis over the last
17 year is making sure that we, you know, are
18 able to do it:
19 Which includes buying the proper
20 equipment, you know, that currently can
21 guarantee those kinds of results, but most
22 labs are having difficulty assuring those low
23 concentration levels generally. That would be
24 true for me as well as for the district, as
25 well as for anybody else.
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
68
1 Q. When you do a statistical analysis
2 using data that's below a detection level, how
3 do you treat such data and statistical
4 analysis?
5 A. Specifically what is the number that
6 I use?
7 Q. Yes.
8 A. I use the number that is the
9 detection limit on the bottom of the limit and
10 that is what is used.
11 Q. I would like you to turn now to Page
12 18 of this report. On this page, in the
13 second paragraph, the first sentence, there is
14 a reference to three farm scale demonstration
15 projects; are those the three farm scale
16 demonstration projects that were indicated in
17 the August, 1992 report?
18 A. Those are the ones that we discussed
19 last hour.
20 Q. So those were just to review rock
21 pits, expanded canals and maintenance?
22 A. Dredging.
23 Q. Is that's correct?
24 A. That is correct.
25 Q. And what was the maintenance
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
69
1 dredging, if you could just briefly describe
2 that.
3 A. Very briefly, it was a canal section
4 that had not been cleaned out in many, many
5 years or never had since its construction, was
6 filled with a lot of sediments, very thick or
7 very thin. And our plans were to completely
8 clean that canal, set up some sediment traps
9 and measure the bedload movement and see if
10 that had an effect on reduced concentrations
11 of phosphorus leaving the farm.
12 Q. And at this point none of those farm
13 scale demonstration projects have been begun;
14 is that correct?
15 A. Have not been completed, that is
16 correct.
17 Q. Have not been completed, have they
18 been initiated?
19 A. The maintenance dredging project was
20 initiated. Whether -- I don't believe that
21 has been completed meaning that the private
22 landowner has not completed his cleaning of
23 the canal nor have we, as a research group,
24 been -- you know, completely funded to go
25 ahead and proceed with that.
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
70
1 So we are lacking focus from our
2 research committee who is funding the work to
3 complete it but the landowner has gone and
4 done so much into preparing the cleaning of
5 the canal for the project.
6 Q. What have you done to date on that
7 project?
8 A. We have monitored water quality from
9 time to time. We have stopped monitoring the
10 water quality from that canal currently
11 because the project has been stopped. But we
12 have measured some sediments which is reported
13 -- is in this report in one of the tables from
14 that location. We monitored the water quality
15 when we had samples from that location.
16 Q. Why was the maintenance dredging
17 project stopped?
18 A. Lack of funding.
19 Q. On that same page, Page 18, there is
20 a list of objectives near the top of the page,
21 1 through 5. No. 4 states, "Demonstrate the
22 effectiveness of the design criteria for
23 residue sediments"; can you just clarify what
24 that means.
25 A. Okay. Field scale test sites,
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
71
1 first, is -- okay, let me go on.
2 We had three sites that were in the
3 process of being selected and the engineers
4 responsible for the design of each of those
5 locations for modifications, in either the
6 canal or construction of facilities or
7 modification of those canals:
8 We were going to monitor the
9 effectiveness of that particular modification,
10 engineering modification, on the deposition of
11 the residue and the effect of the residue and
12 the sediment deposition after dosing.
13 Q. Okay.
14 A. Design criteria refers to the
15 engineering modifications.
16 Q. Okay. Doctor Anderson, still
17 working off of Page 18, Exhibit No. 6, I would
18 like to refer you to the fifth objective at
19 the top of the exhibit lists at the top of the
20 page which states, "Develop reliable criteria
21 and data for use in predicting capital
22 operating costs of full-scale facilities."
23 What is meant by the term,
24 "full-scale facilities," in that sentence?
25 A. Should we desire to construct
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
72
1 full-scale facilities, whether it be for an
2 on-farm or whether it be for regional
3 approach, we wanted to have reliable
4 information and data that could help predict
5 those capital outlying costs and maintenance
6 and operation costs.
7 I essentially have not been
8 responsible for that. That's generally been
9 the engineering consulting firm that is
10 responsible for developing those economic
11 statements. But the data that would come from
12 preliminary jar testing, obviously, is still
13 in the laboratory and it's not in the field,
14 would be preliminary, and the criteria would
15 be reliable only in the sense that it's a jar
16 test data.
17 Q. What is the status of work being
18 done to fulfill this objective No. 5 that I
19 just read?
20 A. We have not been funded after April,
21 so far, any assurances of continuing our work.
22 We don't have assurances of that. Therefore
23 -- and Hutcheon Engineers have not been
24 working with us since this last fall on any
25 construction.
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
73
1 We have not looked at those three
2 sites that were described as rock pit, canal
3 widening or canal cleaning. So I would say,
4 at this point in time, it's undetermined what
5 the status is right now.
6 Q. Do you know when a decision will be
7 made regarding funding?
8 A. No, I do not.
9 Q. What is the status of the other four
10 objectives, work being done to fulfill the
11 other four objectives listed on Page 18?
12 A. No. 1, demonstrate the effectiveness
13 -- as jar testing goes forward, the report
14 demonstrates that we can take water that is
15 loaded with so many parts per billion or
16 million phosphorus and reduce it below the 50
17 part per billion concentration level.
18 No. 2, establish effectiveness of
19 design criteria for determining precipitation
20 and dosing rates, mixing energies and mixing
21 times. We have established, under various
22 conditions, a range of dosing rates that
23 appear to be very effective.
24 We have not looked very carefully at
25 this point in time -- I don't mean very
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
74
1 carefully -- we haven't done extensive work on
2 mixing energies up to this time. That takes
3 more elaborate work.
4 But as far as mixing times, we have
5 established basic information regarding how
6 much flash mixing or slow mixing needs to be
7 done.
8 No. B, residue sediment settling
9 rate for various combinations of compounds.
10 We have basically made visual observations at
11 this point in time of the settling rates under
12 different conditions and established visual
13 observations as to the quality of the
14 coagulated material using either the chlorate
15 or sulfate iron compounds. We have made those
16 observations and recorded those.
17 No. C, residue sediment
18 characteristics. That is yet to be done.
19 Should we be continuing our funding, and all
20 that, we expect a full-sized characterization
21 to be done. We have some arrangements right
22 now within the next two months to do some
23 small amount of characterization but not to
24 the extent of characterization which we think
25 is going to be necessary.
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
75
1 No. D, coagulant-sludge settling
2 trap for removing solids. it was our hope
3 with the field designs, the preliminary
4 fieldwork that we were going to do, we would
5 have some kind of estimate of how effective
6 sediment traps in the canals would be for
7 collecting the bedloads or the residue loads
8 that would be loaded in the canals.
9 Since we have not proceeded --
10 industry has not proceeded with the field
11 testing, there is no way we can actually make
12 any conclusions about that at this point in
13 time.
14 Three, demonstrate the effectiveness
15 of treatment process tested by laboratory
16 results in phase one of phosphorus reduction.
17 Demonstrate is defined as being in the field
18 to demonstrate. Since we have not proceeded
19 yet with the field studies, we could not
20 demonstrate, so this objective cannot be met
21 at this point in time.
22 No. 4, demonstrate the effectiveness
23 of design criteria for residue sediments.
24 Again, demonstrate means field demonstrations,
25 and we have not gone to the field yet to
JACK BESONER AND ASSOCIATES
76
1 demonstrate what laboratory jar tests have
2 indicated.
3 Q. How much time would you estimate
4 would be necessary to fulfill these five
5 objectives?
6 A. That depends entirely on the
7 engineering and the rate of progress in the
8 field of constructing the facilities.
9 Q. Constructing which facilities?
10 A. The field locations.
11 Q. The field demonstration project?
12