149

 1           Division of Administrative Hearings
 2      Department of Administration, State of Florida
 3 
      SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE      )
 4    of FLORIDA; ROTH FARMS, INC.; and   )
      WEDGWORTH FARMS, Inc.,              )
 5              Petitioners               )
         V                                )  DOAH Case
 6    SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT      )  No. 92-3038
      DISTRICT, an agency of the State    )
 7    of Florida; et al.,                 )
                Respondents.              )
 8 
      FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, INC.;    )
 9    UNITED STATES SUGAR CORPORATION;    )
      and NEW HOPE SOUTH, INC.,           )
10                Petitioners,            )
         V                                )  DOAH Case
11    SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT      )  No. 92-3039
      DISTRICT, an agency of the State    )
12    of Florida; et al.,                 )
                  Respondents.            )
13 
      FLORIDA FRUIT and VEGETABLE         )
14    ASSOCIATION; LEWIS POPE FARMS;      )
      W. E. SCHLECHTER & SONS, INC.,      )
15    and HUNDLEY FARMS, INC.,            )
                    Petitioners,          )
16        V                               )   DOAH Case
      SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT      )   No. 92-3040
17    DISTRICT, an agency of the State    )
      of Florida; et al.,                 )
18                  Respondents.          )
   
19                   Deposition of L Carl Woehlcke
                            VOLUME II
20 
               Taken before Elaine V.  Williams,
21   Professional Reporter and Notary Public in and for
     the State of Florida at large, pursuant to notice of
22   taking deposition filed by the Petitioners Sugar Cane
     Growers Cooperative in the above cause.
23                           -  -  -
     Thursday, January 28, 1992
24   319 Clematis Street, Suite 500
     West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
25   9:30 a.m. - 2:30 p.m.
                                                 150

 1    APPEARANCES:
 2 
          On behalf of the Petitioners Florida Sugar
 3         Cane League, Inc., United States Sugar Corp.,
           and New South Hope, Inc.:
 4             Peeples, Earl & Blank, P.A.
               One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3636
 5             Two South Biscayne Boulevard
               Miami, Florida  33131
 6             By:  SCOTT D. LIEBERMAN, ESQUIRE
   
 7        On behalf of the Respondent SFWMD:
               Popham, Haik, Schnobrich & Kaufman, Ltd.
 8             4000 International Place
               100 Southeast Second Street
 9             Miami, Florida  33130
               By:  PAUL NETTLETON, ESQUIRE
10 
          On behalf of the Intervenor, United States of America:
11            Department of Justice
              Miami Avenue, Suite 600
12            Miami, Florida  33130
              BY:  KEITH E. SAXE, ESQUIRE
13 
          On behalf of the Petitioners Sugar Cane Growers
14        Cooperative of Florida, Roth Farms, Inc., and
          Wedgworth Farms, Inc.,
15            Hopping, Boyd, Green & Sams
              Post Office Box 6526
16            Tallahassee, Florida  32314
              By:  DONNA H. STINSON, ESQUIRE
17 
         Also present:  Ronald D. Lacewell
18 
                           -  -  -
19 
                                                 151

 1                         -  -  -
 2                      I  N  D  E  X
 3                         -  -  -
 4 
 5  WITNESS:            DIRECT  CROSS  REDIRECT  RECROSS
 6  L Carl Woehlcke
 7 
    BY MS. STINSON:      152 (continued)
 8  BY MR. LIEBERMAN:            167
   
 9 
   
10                         -  -  -
11                     E X H I B I T S
12                         -  -  -
13 
14  NUMBER            PAGE NO.      DESCRIPTION
15  EXB. NO. 17        264          8/17/92 memo to
                                    Woehlcke from March
16 
                                                 152

 1                    P R O C E E D I N G S
 2                       -  -  -
 3   Thereupon,
 4              L Carl Woehlcke,
 5   being by the undersigned Notary Public previously duly
 6   sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
 7              THE WITNESS:  I do.
 8                      FURTHER DIRECT (L. Carl Woehlcke)
 9   BY MS. STINSON:
10       Q.    Good morning.  Back at it.
11             Yesterday we went through documents you had
12   produced and just this morning I have got a few more
13   general questions.
14             What has been your role in the development
15   of the Everglades SWIM Plan from the beginning, from
16   the original draft several years ago?
17       A.    My role in the development of the
18   Everglades SWIM Plan is very, very limited.  I
19   completed a quick assignment toward the beginning,
20   working with some other economists, providing some
21   background information and laying out what is
22   contained in these memos that I haven't reviewed for
23   a long time, and I know that I produced a memo
24   commenting on the draft plan.  Then I participated in
25   this economic impact statement analysis and -- you
                                                 153

 1   asked me about the development of the SWIM plan?
 2       Q.    Right.
 3       A.    Yeah.  Okay.  Well, this came after that.
 4       Q.    You say you had a quick assignment early
 5   on.  What was that assignment?
 6       A.    I don't remember real specifically.  It was
 7   basically to produce the documents that are in here
 8   that are dated 1979.
 9       Q.    '89?
10       A.    '89.
11       Q.    Well, as I understand from looking at the
12   file you provided to me this morning, you were asked
13   to prepare a section on the economic profile of the
14   area; is that correct?
15       A.    Yes.
16       Q.    Did you do any work in determining economic
17   effect of what the proposed SWIM plan would do?
18       A.    No.  We were looking at the baseline.
19       Q.    Who were the other economists?
20       A.    Dick March and Sabina Joe.
21       Q.    Did you complete that assignment?
22       A.    We completed drafts and turned them over to
23   the people writing the plan.
24       Q.    So in the preliminary draft of the SWIM
25   plan, are there sections that you essentially
                                                 154

 1   authored?
 2       A.    I don't think I have ever seen it in a
 3   draft of the SWIM plan.
 4       Q.    Not even the preliminary drafts?
 5       A.    No, I don't recollect seeing it after we
 6   turned it over.
 7       Q.    Okay.
 8             MR. NETTLETON:  Just for clarification, you
 9        don't recollect seeing the SWIM plan itself or
10        the draft of the SWIM plan?
11   BY MS. STINSON:
12       Q.    Or your work in the SWIM plan?
13       A.    I don't recollect that.  I do recollect
14   that toward the end, Dave Swift called me and asked
15   me to double check some economic background numbers
16   that had been included in the SWIM plan.
17       Q.    Toward the end, meaning within the past
18   year?
19       A.    Past two years.
20       Q.    After you completed your quick assignment
21   in 1989, were you taken off the project and moved
22   onto other things or why were you no longer involved?
23       A.    All I know is I was not asked to be
24   involved and so I just worked on other things.
25       Q.    And then the next time you became involved
                                                 155

 1   was in the selection of -- writing the RFP for the
 2   Hazen and Sawyer economic impact work; what came to
 3   be the Hazen and Sawyer economic impact work?
 4       A.    Yes.  No.  I was the contract monitor for
 5   the rule making economic impact statement.
 6       Q.    For the BMP rule?
 7       A.    Yes.
 8       Q.    Okay.  Have you seen or reviewed a report
 9   prepared by Craig Diamond for the Wilderness Society?
10       A.    I have seen it and looked at it.  I have
11   not thoroughly reviewed it.
12       Q.    Have you written or prepared any analysis
13   of that report for the District or for anybody else?
14       A.    I certainly don't recollect it.  I am
15   pretty sure I didn't.
16       Q.    Are you in any way relying on that report?
17       A.    No.
18       Q.    Way back yesterday you mentioned I believe
19   attending some meetings of the Funding Council; is
20   that correct?
21       A.    I was asked to go to one meeting of the
22   Funding Council.
23       Q.    When was that?
24       A.    I don't remember.  I remember which one it
25   was.  It was in Belle Glade.
                                                 156

 1       Q.    Okay.  Why were you asked to attend that
 2   meeting?
 3       A.    Dr. Polopolus and Dr. Luke were presenting
 4   information to the Funding Council.
 5       Q.    Did you present anything to the Funding
 6   Council?
 7       A.    No.
 8       Q.    Were you asked to provide input to the
 9   Funding Council on the comments of Luke and Polopolus
10   or anyone else?
11       A.    Asked by whom?
12       Q.    Anyone.
13       A.    No.
14       Q.    Did you provide any comments to the Funding
15   Council either formally or informally regarding --
16       A.    I provided informal comments to the members
17   of the Funding Council who were in the car with me
18   going over and coming back.
19       Q.    Okay.  Did you discuss with members of the
20   Funding Council the proposed methods for financing
21   the projects proposed in the SWIM plan?
22       A.    No.
23       Q.    What did you discuss with the members of
24   the Funding Council?
25       A.    The parts that related to what they're
                                                 157

 1   concerned about.  We discussed the reasonableness of
 2   the Polopolus estimates of economic impact.
 3       Q.    But none of these comments that you made to
 4   them are put in any kind of written document?
 5       A.    No.
 6       Q.    Has the Funding Council, to your knowledge,
 7   made any decisions on how the projects proposed in
 8   the SWIM plan will be funded?
 9       A.    Not to my knowledge, they haven't made any
10   decision.
11       Q.    Was there discussion by the Funding Council
12   either another the formal meeting or informally in
13   your discussions about the feasibility of funding
14   with a stormwater utility?
15       A.    I don't remember a stormwater utility being
16   specifically mentioned.
17       Q.    Were there types of funding discussed;
18   alternative types of funding?
19       A.    My recollection is that there were
20   alternative types of funding discussed both at the
21   meeting and in the car.
22       Q.    Okay.  What were those alternative types?
23       A.    The alternatives basically had to do with
24   how much could be paid by South Florida, and that's
25   divided between the industry in the EAA and the South
                                                 158

 1   Florida Water Management District, and the
 2   possibility of obtaining state and federal
 3   participation.
 4       Q.    Has there been a determination of how much
 5   of the plan can be financed by those various
 6   segments?
 7       A.    I have no knowledge of any such
 8   determination.
 9       Q.    Has there been a determination that it is
10   not possible to fund the project solely through
11   assessments on the industries in the EAA?
12       A.    Are you asking me whether the Funding
13   Council has voted on something?
14             MR. NETTLETON:  I object.  It's been asked
15        and answered two times already.
16             MS. STINSON:  I don't think it is the same
17        question.
18             THE WITNESS:  I have no knowledge of the
19        Funding Council deciding anything.
20   BY MS. STINSON:
21       Q.    Well, let me ask it more generally.  Did
22   there appear to be a consensus of the Funding Council
23   that it could not -- "it" being the STA projects
24   proposed in the SWIM plan -- could not be totally
25   funded by the industries in the EAA?
                                                 159

 1             MR. NETTLETON:  Object to the form.  Calls
 2        for speculation.
 3             THE WITNESS:  I don't recollect the Funding
 4        Council members being polled to express their
 5        opinions on that.
 6   BY MS. STINSON:
 7       Q.    Well, that is not quite the question I
 8   asked.  In the discussion, which I gather you heard
 9   at the Funding Council meeting in Belle Glade, did
10   there appear to be a general agreement that the
11   entire amount could not be financed by some kind of
12   assessment on the industry in the EAA?
13             MR. NETTLETON:  Object to the form; calls
14        for speculation as to what Funding Council
15        members were thinking or -- I just think it is
16        an improper question.
17             You can answer it.
18             THE WITNESS:  I recollect several of the
19        Funding Council members indicating that they
20        felt that South Florida couldn't afford it and
21        we would need federal or state assistance.  I
22        don't know whether that is a, quote, consensus
23        or not.
24   BY MS. STINSON:
25       Q.    Mr. Woehlcke, you have been listed as a
                                                 160

 1   witness who will testify fairly generally, as I
 2   recall the response, on the issue of economic impact
 3   of the Everglades SWIM Plan.  Have you formulated any
 4   opinions regarding the economic effect of the
 5   Everglades SWIM Plan?
 6       A.    Could you explain the question?
 7       Q.    Would you read it back.
 8             (Thereupon, a portion of the record
 9              was read by the reporter.)
10             THE WITNESS:  Okay.  In answering that
11        question, am I to use the specific scenarios and
12        assumptions that Hazen and Sawyer use, because
13        the decisions haven't been made.  I mean, we are
14        analyzing what would happen if the Board made
15        various decisions, and they have some options.
16   BY MS. STINSON:
17       Q.    Okay.  Decisions regarding the funding.
18       A.    Sure.
19       Q.    Okay.  And those decisions will obviously
20   affect the economic impact of the plan?
21       A.    Yes.
22       Q.    Is it not true that in addition to having
23   to make decisions about the funding, the District
24   Board is also looking at something called the optimal
25   plan, some variations of the projects proposed in the
                                                 161

 1   SWIM plan, and all that is to be considered together?
 2             MR. NETTLETON:  Object to the form.  Calls
 3        for speculation, compound question as well.
 4             MR. SAXE:  Objection to the form.
 5             THE WITNESS:  What I know is that Pete
 6        Rhoads has expressed that alternatives are being
 7        evaluated, and I have seen reports on that and
 8        some films of Board presentations, so I know
 9        that is true, and, you know, that he hopes to
10        have the information together for the Board, and
11        I hazily remember a mid 1993 time frame.
12   BY MS. STINSON:
13       Q.    That time frame is the time frame you
14   understand to be the time frame for making decisions
15   regarding funding as well as looking at possible
16   alternatives?
17             MR. NETTLETON:  Object to the form.
18             THE WITNESS:  Not necessarily.  I don't
19        necessarily understand that.  I know we want
20        information for the Board at that time.  I don't
21        know that they have to assign that at that time.
22   BY MS. STINSON:
23       Q.    Do you know what is a projected time frame
24   for making a decision on funding?
25       A.    No.
                                                 162

 1       Q.    Is it true then that you cannot form an
 2   opinion regarding the economic impact of the SWIM
 3   plan until the decision is made regarding how that
 4   plan will be funded?
 5             MR. NETTLETON:  Object to the form.
 6             MR. SAXE:  Objection to form.
 7             THE WITNESS:  I consider it a difficult
 8        question to answer because in economic analysis,
 9        we are looking to inform the Board about if it
10        does this, this will happen, if it does that,
11        that will happen, if it does the other thing,
12        that will happen.  So we are trying to provide
13        them information, which is why Hazen and Sawyer
14        looked at two scenarios and three levels of, you
15        know, acreage funding to support the STAs.  So I
16        don't know what the Board's going to decide.
17        After the Board made a decision we could do an
18        economic analysis of their actual decision, but
19        we also provide input information to help them
20        make that decision.
21   BY MS. STINSON:
22       Q.    Okay.  And that is really the purpose of
23   the current Hazen and Sawyer work?
24       A.    Yes.
25       Q.    Have you formed opinions then regarding the
                                                 163

 1   various alternative scenarios for funding that could
 2   be decided by the Board or can you not do that until
 3   Hazen and Sawyer completes its current assignment?
 4       A.    What are the various funding alternative
 5   scenarios?
 6       Q.    Well, I don't know.  Do you know what the
 7   various funding alternative scenarios are?
 8             MR. NETTLETON:  Are you asking him whether
 9        he knows what you are talking about?
10             MS. STINSON:  No.
11   BY MS. STINSON:
12       Q.    Do you know what the possibilities are for
13   funding of the projects proposed in the SWIM plan?
14             MR. SAXE:  Objection to form.
15             THE WITNESS:  Nobody has ever laid out
16        "these are our alternatives" to me.  I have been
17        present at conversations where people have
18        talked about funding options.  For instance, I
19        mentioned the discussions at the Funding Council
20        meeting.
21   BY MS. STINSON:
22       Q.    I am really not trying to be confusing, but
23   I am trying to determine what it is that you would
24   anticipate testifying about in this proceeding
25   regarding the economic effect of the Everglades SWIM
                                                 164

 1   Plan.  And as we indicated, your counsel has listed
 2   you as a witness to talk about economic impact and
 3   the economic effect of the SWIM plan.  So my question
 4   is really simply, if you are proffered as an expert
 5   in economics to testify about the economic effect of
 6   the SWIM plan, what is it -- do you have any opinions
 7   regarding that --
 8             MR. SAXE:  Objection.  Are you finished
 9        with the question?
10   BY MS. STINSON:
11       Q.    -- that you would offer at hearing?
12             MR. SAXE:  Objection to form; asked and
13        answered, ambiguous.  Counsel indicated
14        yesterday on the record the witness has been
15        listed in an abundance of caution.  I believe
16        that the position stated on the record by
17        counsel for the District was that presently
18        there is not an intent to proffer expert opinion
19        testimony through the deponent.
20             MR. NETTLETON:  I'll join the objection,
21        but you can answer it.
22             THE WITNESS:  My best understanding is that
23        because of the work that I have done, they want
24        me to state my professional opinion as to the
25        quality and the adequacy of the Hazen and Sawyer
                                                 165

 1        analysis and they want me to state my
 2        professional opinion regarding, you know, the
 3        quality and efficacy and appropriateness of the
 4        comments and criticisms.
 5   BY MS. STINSON:
 6       Q.    So as not to be repetitive or go over all
 7   that again, correct me if I am wrong, but it is my
 8   understanding that you believe the work done by Hazen
 9   and Sawyer -- well, first of all, you believe that it
10   overstates the impact on jobs, et cetera, in the
11   region; is that correct?
12             MR. NETTLETON:  Object to the form.
13             MR. SAXE:  Objection; asked and answered.
14             THE WITNESS:  I believe that significant
15        more effort needs to be put into looking at the
16        adjustments the industry can and might make as a
17        result of the changed economic situation that
18        might be presented by these scenarios that Hazen
19        and Sawyer are considering, and I support the
20        look at the 20 year time period.
21   BY MS. STINSON:
22       Q.    Okay.  And in going over some documents
23   relating to work by Polopolus and Richardson, you
24   generally agree with the criticisms of that work?
25       A.    Whose?
                                                 166

 1             MR. SAXE:  Objection to form.
 2             MR. NETTLETON:  I guess it is not an
 3        objection.
 4             THE WITNESS:  The ones that I wrote?  Yes,
 5        I do.
 6   BY MS. STINSON:
 7       Q.    And the ones written by Grace Johns in
 8   Exhibit 14?
 9       A.    Yes.
10       Q.    The ones in Exhibit 13, which are your
11   summary of observations from the meeting with
12   Polopolus and Richardson?
13       A.    Uh-huh.  Yes.
14       Q.    And the comments in Exhibit 12, your memo
15   of December 23?
16       A.    Yes.  I agree with those.
17       Q.    Do those exhibits I just referenced
18   generally outline your criticisms of the Polopolus
19   and Richardson work?
20       A.    Yes.
21             MR. NETTLETON:  I object to the form.
22   BY MS. STINSON:
23       Q.    Are there any criticisms of the work done
24   by Polopolus and Richardson that are not reflected in
25   those exhibits we just went over?
                                                 167

 1       A.    I can't think of any.
 2       Q.    Now, obviously until Hazen and Sawyer
 3   finishes its current work on the 20 year projections,
 4   you cannot formulate any opinions as to the quality
 5   of that work, I presume.
 6       A.    No, I can't.
 7             MS. STINSON:  I don't have any other
 8        questions.
 9             MR. SAXE:  Are there any other questions?
10             MR. LIEBERMAN:  Yes, I have more questions.
11             (Discussion held off the record.)
12                         CROSS (Carl Woehlcke)
13   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
14       Q.    Good morning, Dr. Woehlcke.  My name is
15   Scott Lieberman and I am here today representing the
16   Florida Sugar Cane League, New Hope South and United
17   States Sugar.  I am going to ask you some questions.
18   If there is anything you don't understand or you are
19   not certain of, please ask me to clarify it;
20   otherwise I will assume that you understand these
21   questions.
22             If I could start with yesterday when you
23   were talking about your past experiences, there was
24   no mention of any publicated writings.  Do you have
25   any publicated writings that we are not familiar
                                                 168

 1   with?
 2       A.    My main publication is the book
 3   Transportation Productivity Analysis.  During the
 4   period when I worked for the contract research firm,
 5   we typically, you know, would complete three or four
 6   contract completion reports in a year.  And at the
 7   District I have been co-author on three or four
 8   technical publications.
 9       Q.    And what would those be?
10       A.    Waste Water Reuse Policy Options Analysis
11   and An Analysis of Water Demands in South Florida.
12       Q.    What was that focusing on just general
13   water demands?
14       A.    It focused on the price responsiveness of
15   urban demands.
16       Q.    Did you center on any central region of
17   South Florida?
18       A.    We were developing demand equations for all
19   of South Florida.  The urban users.  Those are the
20   only two that I remember.  We have another class of
21   publication too that is like a technical memorandum.
22   I had people under me that worked preparing some of
23   those.
24       Q.    And which would those be?
25       A.    Oh, boy.  I am only going to know them
                                                 169

 1   generically, kind of.  We did a study on how to
 2   estimate the impacts of drought in South Florida, a
 3   study on --
 4       Q.    If you can remember, it would be helpful,
 5   just for the record, an idea of the time frame when
 6   these were prepared?
 7       A.    They were almost all prepared before 1985.
 8       Q.    How long before 1985?  A general range.
 9       A.    Say between '78 and '85, which is when I
10   came to the District.  And I didn't have one exactly
11   when I came, so it must be between about '79 and '85.
12       Q.    Okay.
13       A.    We did an analysis of land use and water
14   demands for Martin County, non-agricultural water use
15   in the Upper East Coast Planning Area.  Those are the
16   separate publications that I remember.
17       Q.    Okay.  You also mentioned in your testimony
18   yesterday about having various meetings and dealings
19   with other experts and federal experts.  If I could,
20   can we just discuss some people?  Ron Lacewell; when
21   was the first time you met him?
22       A.    Let me go back.  I think probably there are
23   only two technical publications with my name on it as
24   an author.  Those two that I remembered.  I'm not
25   sure that there are others so let me change that
                                                 170

 1   answer to two.  Okay?
 2       Q.    That is sufficient.
 3       A.    When did I first meet Ron Lacewell?  My
 4   recollection is I first met him in the pre-meeting to
 5   the Polopolus meeting, so that would have been, I
 6   think December 15th or thereabouts.
 7       Q.    And had you heard of him professionally
 8   before then or was that the first time you met and
 9   became familiar with him?
10       A.    I had heard of him professionally and I had
11   talked to him on the phone before that.
12       Q.    In the context of the Everglades plan?
13       A.    Yes.
14       Q.    And when did you start speaking with him in
15   the context of that?
16       A.    My recollection is that I had a few phone
17   conversations with him about their opinion on the
18   quality of Hazen and Sawyer study.  This would have
19   been in the time frame after I became reinvolved in
20   the contract review, so it would have been about the
21   time that Hazen and Sawyer started sending in their
22   drafts.
23       Q.    So the focus of your contact was evaluating
24   the Hazen and Sawyer plan?
25       A.    Oh, yes.
                                                 171

 1       Q.    And what was your understanding of
 2   Mr. Lacewell's complaints to you or questions to you?
 3             MR. SAXE:  Objection to form.
 4   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
 5       Q.    What was your understanding of
 6   Mr. Lacewell's complaints to you about the plan?
 7             MR. NETTLETON:  Object to form.
 8             MR. SAXE:  Object to form.
 9             MR. LIEBERMAN:  Basis?
10             MR. SAXE:  Assuming facts not in evidence.
11        I didn't hear the witness testify about
12        complaints.
13             MR. LIEBERMAN:  He said the complaints of
14        Mr. Lacewell, I believe.  If not, okay, I'm
15        sorry.
16             THE WITNESS:  I don't recollect saying
17        "complaints".
18   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
19       Q.    Your discussions about the plan, about the
20   Hazen and Sawyer evaluation, what was your
21   understanding of his opinions?
22       A.    That he thinks it is a very good plan, a
23   very good study, adequate on which to base decisions.
24       Q.    Were these conversations -- did you focus
25   on Dr. Polopolus' opinions?
                                                 172

 1       A.    Some of them took place, I believe, before
 2   Dr. Polopolus' comments and some of them after.
 3       Q.    And the ones after, what was your
 4   understanding of his opinions of Dr. Polopolus' plan?
 5             MR. SAXE:  Objection to form.
 6             THE WITNESS:  Are we talking just about the
 7        phone conversations?
 8   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
 9       Q.    Yes.  Or any other conversation you had
10   subsequent.
11       A.    My understanding is that he thinks most --
12   he thinks that the focus that Polopolus and
13   Richardson put on the study of firm survival is not
14   what we asked for in the RFP, is not typically an
15   economic impact analysis, and therefore kind of
16   represents a diversion of attention from what we had
17   asked Hazen and Sawyer to do.
18       Q.    And what is your reaction to that?
19       A.    I agree.
20       Q.    Okay.  How about Teofilo Ozuna?
21       A.    Forrest Izuno?
22       Q.    No.  Teofilo Ozuna.
23       A.    Never heard of him.  I don't recollect ever
24   meeting the gentleman.
25       Q.    Spoken with him?
                                                 173

 1       A.    I don't recollect him.
 2       Q.    How about Bruce Gardner?
 3       A.    I do not know him nor recollect ever
 4   speaking to him.
 5       Q.    Are you familiar with him professionally?
 6       A.    No.
 7       Q.    Dr. Bromley?
 8       A.    No, I don't know him.
 9       Q.    And Bill Boggess?
10       A.    I know him and I had spoken to him, met
11   with him over probably close to the last ten years on
12   occasion on District business.
13       Q.    When was the first time in the context of
14   this Everglades plan?
15       A.    I believe the first time was when he was
16   down at the District making a presentation on the
17   transferable Everglades restoration efforts.
18       Q.    And have you had other meetings with him in
19   the context of the Everglades plan?
20       A.    Yes, he participated in other meetings.
21       Q.    Which meetings were those?
22       A.    The one before and the one after the
23   meeting with Polopolus and Richardson.
24       Q.    And who arranged for that meeting?
25             MR. NETTLETON:  Object to form.
                                                 174

 1             MR. LIEBERMAN:  Basis?
 2             MR. NETTLETON:  Which meeting?
 3   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
 4       Q.    The first meeting; the December 15th
 5   meeting.
 6       A.    I'm not sure who arranged it.
 7       Q.    Was an agenda prepared for that meeting?
 8       A.    No, I don't recollect an agenda.
 9       Q.    How about the second meeting; the meeting
10   after the meeting with Dr. Polopolus, who attended
11   that meeting?
12       A.    Mr. Saxe, Ron Lacewell, Lonnie Jones, Bill
13   Boggess, Chris Moline, Grace Johns, me, and Sally
14   Kennedy part of the time, and Pete Rhoads part of the
15   time.
16       Q.    Do you know who arranged for that meeting?
17       A.    Explain to me what by what you mean
18   "arranged for".
19       Q.    Who set up the meeting, who organized it?
20       A.    I'm not sure who organized it.
21       Q.    Was there an agenda prepared for that that
22   meeting?
23       A.    No, I'm not aware of any agenda.
24       Q.    I'm sorry to switch between --
25       A.    I'm not aware of any agenda for that
                                                 175

 1   meeting.
 2       Q.    I'm sorry to switch back between the
 3   meetings.
 4             Back to the December 15th meeting; do you
 5   remember the issues that were discussed?
 6       A.    We discussed the federal economists'
 7   opinion of the quality of the Hazen and Sawyer
 8   report, we discussed what methods that Drs. Polopolus
 9   and Richardson might have used, especially in
10   applying the FLIPSIM model.
11       Q.    When you speak to that, what methods
12   Drs. Polopolus and Richardson used, what methods are
13   you speaking of in particular?
14       A.    How they might have entered the financial
15   information, especially the things where it is not
16   obvious, such as the debt structure and the taxes and
17   the criteria for firms going out of production.
18       Q.    Any other issues that you remember being
19   discussed?
20       A.    I don't recollect any other issues.
21       Q.    And on those methods of Dr. Polopolus and
22   Dr. Richardson that you mentioned, how they extended
23   the financial structure and the debt structure, what
24   was your opinion of that?
25             MR. SAXE:  Objection to form.
                                                 176

 1             THE WITNESS:  That we didn't have enough
 2        information.
 3   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
 4       Q.    Concerning?
 5       A.    What the two doctors had done.
 6       Q.    In relation to debt structure?
 7       A.    Well, in relation to any of those.
 8       Q.    And what additional information would you
 9   have needed?
10       A.    Well, we would have needed, you know,
11   precise and detailed explanations from Drs. Polopolus
12   and Richardson and copies of the printout showing the
13   input and the outputs of the FLIPSIM model and then
14   follow-up showing whatever interpretations came out
15   of that, you know, or any post processing type
16   things, because they may not have actually got some
17   of the decision criteria directly out of the model,
18   that may have been assumed by relating that to the
19   outputs of the model.  In other words, the model may
20   have only outputted some financial information, not
21   this firm went out of business.  Okay?  So they had
22   to do some translating there.  Those are the kinds of
23   things that we would need to know exactly what they
24   did.
25       Q.    Did you ever attempt to get this?
                                                 177

 1       A.    Yes.
 2       Q.    When was that?
 3       A.    At the meeting with Drs. Polopolus and
 4   Richardson.
 5       Q.    You asked them for the precise details that
 6   you just spoke of?
 7       A.    I asked them; not in the exact same words.
 8   But they discussed, during the meeting, all the runs
 9   that they had made and the results, and I asked if
10   they had any printout they could share, you know.
11   What I was asking for were, you know, the input and
12   outputs of the model.
13       Q.    Did you ask for the translations directly
14   or just the printout itself?
15       A.    Just the printout.
16       Q.    Okay.  And the meeting after, the meeting
17   following, was there an agenda prepared for that
18   meeting?
19             MR. SAXE:  Objection; asked and answered.
20             THE WITNESS:  Yeah.  I don't recollect any
21        agenda on that.
22   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
23       Q.    Which issues were discussed at that
24   meeting?
25       A.    The meeting centered around the issues that
                                                 178

 1   Drs.  Polopolus and Richardson had raised.
 2       Q.    Specific detail of those issues?  Can you
 3   offer me some specific issues that were addressed
 4   from the Dr. Polopolus and Richardson meeting?
 5       A.    Okay.  The issue of debt was discussed, the
 6   issue --
 7       Q.    Please elaborate your recollection of that
 8   issue; debt.  I mean, when you say the issue of debt
 9   was discussed; in what context was the issue of debt
10   discussed?
11             MR. SAXE:  Objection to form.  Counsel, if
12        you would like information from the witness, can
13        you tell him the information you would like
14        before he answers the question?
15             MR. LIEBERMAN:  Unfortunately, I wasn't at
16        the meeting, so I am trying to find out what he
17        learned at the meeting.
18             MR. NETTLETON:  Go ahead and answer if you
19        remember the question.
20             THE WITNESS:  Okay.  What I am trying to do
21        is lay out some of the areas that we discussed
22        and what I recollect about those discussions.
23   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
24       Q.    That would be great.
25       A.    Okay.  Well, we discussed the fact that
                                                 179

 1   Polopolus and Richardson were not using a baseline
 2   analysis, had laid out what they expected to happen
 3   to the industry without the impacts caused by the
 4   SWIM plan, we discussed the debt structure
 5   assumptions, the lack of data that there were, the
 6   inappropriateness of using a kind of a farm model
 7   when the firms in this case are much bigger than
 8   individual farms, we discussed -- did I say the lack
 9   of data on that?  Okay.  Would it be okay for me to
10   refer to this document to help jog my memory?
11       Q.    Which document are you referring to?
12             MR. NETTLETON:  Florida Sugar Cane League.
13             It is up to your inquirer here.  Is that
14        the one you are referring to?
15             THE WITNESS:  Yeah.
16             MR. LIEBERMAN:  That would be fine.
17             MR. NETTLETON:  Can we identify for the
18        record what it is?  It is a document entitled --
19        we identified this yesterday -- the Florida
20        Sugar Cane League Summary of Hazen and Sawyer's
21        Potential Economic Impacts Analysis, with
22        various subtitles, footnotes and qualifications.
23             THE WITNESS:  Okay.  We discussed the
24        criticism of the productivity assumptions, and
25        we discussed ways that in the future Hazen and
                                                 180

 1        Sawyer could analyze productivity growth.  We
 2        discussed the information that Drs. Polopolus
 3        and Richardson had provided us as background to
 4        NAFTA and the impacts of that.  We discussed
 5        their ideas for future baseline projections,
 6        which again usually focused on bad things that
 7        might happen to the industry in the baseline.
 8        We discussed that memo that I had provided on
 9        the historical profitability.  There was some
10        discussion, I think, on machinery replacement,
11        but I don't recollect what was said there.
12   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
13       Q.    Dr. Woehlcke, did you take notes at these
14   meetings?
15       A.    Yes.
16       Q.    Did you produce those notes?
17       A.    Yes.
18       Q.    Those notes are all the notes that we went
19   through yesterday.  I believe there are 15 or 16.
20   Were those all the handwritten notes from yesterday;
21   were those all your notes from those meetings?
22             MR. SAXE:  Objection to form.  Are you
23        referring to Exhibits, counsel?
24             MR. LIEBERMAN:  I'm not certain if they got
25        entered yesterday.
                                                 181

 1   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
 2       Q.    The handwritten notes that you showed
 3   yesterday; did those represent all the notes
 4   prepared?
 5       A.    At all of these meetings, to the best of my
 6   knowledge.  You know, I keep them in a file, and I
 7   made a stack of everything that I thought I had.
 8       Q.    Did you ever summarize the notes into a
 9   memo?
10       A.    No.
11       Q.    Okay.  Now, if we can just go through some
12   of these issues, you said you discussed the debt
13   structure assumptions, the lack of data, the
14   inappropriateness of the model.  Why do you feel the
15   model is so inappropriate?
16       A.    First of all, because the focus of Hazen
17   and Sawyer's assignment is to analyze the potential
18   use of the land, not the financial stability of the
19   existing farms out there.
20       Q.    So?
21       A.    The second, the analysis that
22   Drs. Polopolus and Richardson did, treated a farm;
23   they created a farm level of operation at which they
24   analyzed this financial stability and viability.
25   Okay?  But that is not what is out there and what is
                                                 182

 1   out there is large, large firms and some small ones,
 2   but they treated everybody as if the firm was the
 3   farm.  That is not true.
 4       Q.    Can you elaborate more on that distinction?
 5   I'm not an economist.
 6       A.    The difficulty in handling the debt that is
 7   on the land, if it does exist out there -- again, we
 8   don't have the data -- would relate to the ability of
 9   the firm to carry and finance that debt.  That is
10   going to depend not only on the profitability of the
11   individual model farm or whatever, but on the
12   profitability of the firm in all its other endeavors
13   inside and outside the EAA.
14       Q.    Let me just see if I can clarify this for
15   my own understanding.  Like I said, economics -- I
16   have a hard time spelling it, let alone understanding
17   all of it.
18             The profitability of the firm you say
19   dictates the actual area, the size of the firm; is
20   that correct?  Is that my understanding of what
21   you're saying?
22       A.    No, I said the profitability of the firm
23   overall is what is important in determining their
24   ability to handle whatever debt structure there might
25   be on the land out there.
                                                 183

 1       Q.    If the land is not profitable because it is
 2   going out of production or it is just not profitable
 3   anymore, if we can make that assumption, does that
 4   mean a big firm's better off taking a loss than a
 5   small firm?
 6             MR. SAXE:  Objection to form.  The question
 7        is confusing.  I think the underlying assumption
 8        is not sound.
 9             MR. LIEBERMAN:  Well, that is what I am
10        trying to clarify.
11   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
12       Q.    So if you could for me, Dr. Woehlcke --
13             MR. SAXE:  Would you re-read the question,
14        please?
15             MR. LIEBERMAN:  I'll be more than happy to
16        rephrase it; try and work out something that he
17        understands better.
18   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
19       Q.    Do you understand what I mean?
20       A.    No.  It doesn't fit in an economic
21   framework very well.
22       Q.    Okay.  You are talking about the
23   profitability of the firm to the larger firm.  What
24   distinction for a large firm to have a loss of
25   profit, loss in the EAA, would it be for a large firm
                                                 184

 1   to take that profit loss versus a small firm to take
 2   that profit loss?
 3             MR. NETTLETON:  Object to form.
 4             THE WITNESS:  It depends on the large
 5        firm's profitability without it, you know.
 6        Maybe the large firm's losing money and it is a
 7        problem for them, and the small firm's making
 8        it.  There is no necessary correlation between
 9        size and profitability to start with.  I
10        couldn't say.
11   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
12       Q.    So what would then be your specific problem
13   with the inappropriateness of the model, if there is
14   no relation there?
15       A.    Polopolus and Richardson are looking at
16   differences in the revenues and costs of the industry
17   that result from the actions of the SWIM plan, and
18   they are relating those to the ability of a
19   hypothesized farm to handle that.  Okay?  But in many
20   cases, the farm is not the same as the firm.  The
21   firm is much bigger, has other business interests,
22   and the ability of the firm to carry the debt is what
23   I believe is relevant.
24       Q.    Can you expand more on this concept of the
25   ability of the firm to carry the debt?  You just
                                                 185

 1   stated in your answer that it depends on the ability
 2   of the firm to carry the debt.  Can you just in an
 3   economic sense expand on that, why that is so
 4   important to you?
 5             MR. NETTLETON:  Object; asked and answered.
 6   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
 7       Q.    Can you clarify it then?
 8       A.    All this has secondary importance because
 9   the primary focus is on the use of the land rather
10   than the survival of the firm.  Okay?
11             I am trying to make an additional point;
12   that even if we were doing a survival of the firm
13   analysis, say if Polopolus and Richardson had done
14   it, then I would critique and criticize what they did
15   because they are not looking at -- they are saying
16   that if, for instance, considering it like if you're
17   a homeowner, okay, and you have a mortgage and your
18   income goes down, and you decide you have got
19   problems making your mortgage payment, you might face
20   the loss of your house.  Okay?  But if you're a
21   landholder that has -- and I'll make a hypothesis --
22   20 profitable other land holdings and you're facing
23   the loss on this one, okay, financially you can still
24   afford, you know, to support the debt and to keep the
25   land in production.
                                                 186

 1       Q.    Okay.  Keep with this hypothesis; in your
 2   numerous years of economic experience, if you're this
 3   land holder, with 20 other profitable properties and
 4   one that is not profitable, wouldn't it make sounder
 5   economic sense to sell that property, or to have to
 6   leave that property because there is no reason to
 7   support it, if you're making money on 20 other
 8   properties?
 9       A.    You are going to make your decision based
10   on your long-term expectations of the profitability
11   of that enterprise, and you are going to also base it
12   on what you can get, you know, for it when you sell
13   it so --
14       Q.    What if that property has no future?
15             MR. NETTLETON:  Object to form.
16             THE WITNESS:  If the property has no future --
17        meaning what?
18   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
19       Q.    Meaning there is a -- for whatever reason --
20   around the area that piece of land will not come back
21   into what it once was worth or, if it's a house or a
22   commercial property, it's been condemned -- there is
23   no -- you can't get proper zoning -- for whatever
24   reason -- that, in essence, it goes, quote, out of
25   production.
                                                 187

 1             MR. SAXE:  Objection to form.
 2             THE WITNESS:  You're creating scenarios
 3        that are really hard to answer because they are
 4        not clear as to what the economics of the firm
 5        and its options are.  You are not laying them
 6        out in a way that I can relate to them.
 7   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
 8       Q.    Really simple.  Really generally then --
 9   I'm sorry -- if you have these 20 properties and you
10   have the one property -- let's just assume, for
11   whatever reason without inserting facts, just
12   hypothetically, that that property is just going to
13   continue to diminish in value, there is nothing that
14   can ever been done to it to increase its value again --
15   would you keep that?  Are you saying that the firm
16   should keep that property -- that the landowner
17   should keep that property -- if there are 20 others?
18   Just because he has 20 doing well, he should keep the
19   one, even though it is going to continue to never do
20   well for him again?
21       A.    Well, the firm would look at what it could
22   get for selling it, and, based on what it could sell
23   it for, it would re-evaluate its options as to
24   whether to continue to operate it or not.  Okay?
25             The firm won't look at what it paid for it;
                                                 188

 1   in other words, that is kind of like a sunk cost.
 2   Okay?  So if you made a mistake, you may have to eat
 3   it.  Okay?  But they would look forward and they
 4   would have to project what they expect their revenues
 5   and costs to be.
 6       Q.    I am saying assume -- just to stay on the
 7   hypothetical assumption so we don't have to worry
 8   about confusing detail -- assume there is no future
 9   for it, you're never going to get it -- it is just
10   diminished in value -- it is a worthless piece of
11   land now except for the real estate value --
12             MR. NETTLETON:  I object to the form.  He
13        is trying to answer the question and you're just
14        not happy with it because variables are
15        involved.  He has answered it that way, and I
16        don't think he can answer it the way you want
17        it.
18             THE WITNESS:  Hazen and Sawyer used the
19        criteria that if the land is not able to be
20        farmed so that they can cover their costs of
21        farming, even if the value of the land
22        diminishes, that the land does go out of
23        production.  That is how it goes out of
24        production in Hazen and Sawyer's analysis.  I
25        believe that is the sound way of analyzing that.
                                                 189

 1   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
 2       Q.    Okay.  You also mentioned that -- I'm sorry --
 3   to go back to this meeting; now, with the numerous
 4   people that you had ideas from, were you discussing
 5   ideas for future base lines?
 6       A.    Uh-huh.
 7       Q.    What were those ideas?
 8       A.    Well, we talked about the importance of
 9   future subsidence, we talked about the importance of
10   productivity improvements, we talked about the
11   importance of changes in federal support policy, and
12   that could come about through NAFTA or other trade
13   agreements or through changes in those policies.  We
14   also talked about whether there might be a scenario
15   that tried to reflect Cuba becoming free and entering
16   into the world market more in a way that might affect
17   the price support system and supply/demand balance in
18   the United States.
19       Q.    What would be that effect of Cuba entering?
20       A.    I don't know.  We would have to analyze it.
21       Q.    Just based upon your 20 years of
22   experience, just what would your opinion be?  I mean,
23   is the price of sugar going to go up or go down?
24       A.    My experience from 20 years is you can't
25   answer questions offhand like that.
                                                 190

 1       Q.    Let's say sugar.
 2       A.    We do not answer questions offhand like
 3   that.
 4       Q.    So you really can't answer?
 5       A.    Give me a lot of the specifics about, you
 6   know, --
 7             MR. SAXE:  Objection to form.
 8             THE WITNESS:  -- about what is going to
 9        change in Cuba, how the United States policy is
10        going to respond, and then I would have to --
11        you know, I do not have U. S. Sugar supply and
12        demand equations in my head.  I would go analyze
13        it.
14   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
15       Q.    Okay.  Going back to NAFTA; yesterday you
16   said, you know, you couldn't tell if Mexico -- I
17   believe, you mentioned something about, you wouldn't
18   be able to determine if Mexico was going to come and
19   just enter the world market -- I mean enter this
20   NAFTA --
21       A.    I was repeating a point made by
22   Dr. Polopolus that apparently the impacts of NAFTA
23   depends on whether Mexico establishes itself as a net
24   exporter of sugar to the United States.
25       Q.    And what is your opinion if they do; if
                                                 191

 1   Mexico does become a net exporter of sugar in the
 2   United States?
 3       A.    Generally, it would tend to mean more
 4   competition and lower prices.  Other things in the
 5   federal policy being equal, how much -- you need to
 6   analyze --
 7       Q.    That is exactly what I am trying to -- I
 8   mean -- I'm not asking you to analyze.  Just
 9   generally, would they be lower?  Would the same
10   situation happen, for instance in the GATT
11   negotiations, if the agricultural price supports are
12   removed?
13             MR. SAXE:  Objection to form.
14   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
15       Q.    If the United States could no longer
16   institute agricultural price supports to the sugar
17   industry, as GATT did, did you consider that
18   possibility?
19       A.    Hazen and Sawyer analyzed, already, the
20   case in which there are no price supports and took a
21   look at what it appeared the world market price would
22   be, and that was their scenario; one that showed
23   prices lower than would be, had the industry
24   continued to operate out there even under the
25   baseline.
                                                 192

 1       Q.    Did you ever consider --I know the
 2   Caribbean Basin Initiative has a sugar provision in
 3   the sense that sugar isn't as freely traded as our
 4   other products.  It limits the products without tax.
 5   Are you familiar with that?
 6       A.    No.
 7       Q.    Okay.  You mentioned that you just talked
 8   about these ideas you had for future baselines.  What
 9   was ever done about these ideas?  Did you ever relate
10   them to Hazen and Sawyer?
11             MR. SAXE:  Objection to form.
12             THE WITNESS:  Hazen and Sawyer was in
13        attendance.  I mentioned that Grace Johns and
14        Chris Moline were at that meeting.
15   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
16       Q.    Are they being instituted in the next plan
17   action?
18             MR. SAXE:  Objection to form.
19             MR. LIEBERMAN:  On what basis?
20             MR. SAXE:  Ideas he had about future
21        baselines?  What do you mean by that, counsel?
22   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
23       Q.    Okay.  You talked about that.  You focused
24   on productivity, new federal support policies that
25   could be added to the baseline; correct?
                                                 193

 1       A.    They are alternative baselines.
 2       Q.    Do you know the status of these; whether
 3   they were ever incorporated in Hazen and Sawyer?
 4             MR. SAXE:  Objection to form.
 5             THE WITNESS:  I testified I don't know what
 6        the exact work statement is for Hazen and
 7        Sawyer.  I expect that we would be considering
 8        these.
 9   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
10       Q.    Okay.  I am going to just ask you a few
11   questions off the documents we went through
12   yesterday; some additional questions.
13             Exhibit 1:  If you have Exhibit 1 there, if
14   you can just look at Exhibit 1.  In number 2, the
15   last sentence, "A memorandum report" -- do you see
16   where I am talking about -- "will be prepared
17   presenting the sources of the differences and
18   providing the evaluation of their soundness as
19   alternatives to the initial analysis".  Do you see
20   where I am talking?
21       A.    Yes.
22       Q.    Do you know if this report was ever
23   prepared?
24       A.    No.  What was prepared was a summary memo
25   following the meeting with Polopolus and Richardson
                                                 194

 1   as well as a memo, I think, in this time frame,
 2   explaining, you know, Hazen and Sawyer's response to
 3   the initial questions.  That is -- how, you know, the
 4   question to be addressed is -- how do we respond?
 5   And it was responded to by several memos.
 6       Q.    Which memos?
 7       A.    Memos by Hazen and Sawyer to Pete Rhoads.
 8       Q.    And did you review these memos?
 9       A.    Did I review the memos?
10       Q.    Did you get copies of these memos from
11   Hazen and Sawyer to Pete Rhoads?
12       A.    I recollect getting a copy of the memo that
13   followed the meeting with Polopolus and Richardson.
14   I think there was another memo.
15       Q.    And that is the memo we have that has been
16   produced?
17       A.    Yes.
18       Q.    You think there was another memo?
19       A.    I think there was a memo sent shortly after
20   the original presentation by Dr. Polopolus, but I'm
21   not sure.
22       Q.    And where's that memo?
23       A.    Gee, I don't know.
24       Q.    You don't know if that memo was produced?
25       A.    I don't know whether I have a copy.  If I
                                                 195

 1   have a copy, it was produced.
 2       Q.    Did you read a copy?  Was that part of your --
 3       A.    My memory is too hazy on that.
 4       Q.    But you do remember this memo that you
 5   reviewed?
 6       A.    I am pretty sure there was a memo.
 7             MR. LIEBERMAN:  Counsel, we don't have a
 8        copy of that.  Since he did review it, we would
 9        like a copy of that memo.
10             MR. NETTLETON:  He says he doesn't even
11        remember if there was one.  I mean --
12             MR. LIEBERMAN:  I thought he said he didn't
13        remember if --
14             THE WITNESS:  I think there was one, but
15        I'm not sure.
16   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
17       Q.    Can you please check and see if that memo
18   exists?
19             MR. NETTLETON:  Well, he's produced all of
20        his documents.  He has no obligation to go back
21        and start searching through the District for
22        things.
23   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
24       Q.    Well, did you base any opinions or ideas
25   off of this memo?
                                                 196

 1             MR. NETTLETON:  He doesn't remember it, so --
 2             THE WITNESS:  I don't remember.
 3   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
 4       Q.    Okay.  Dr. Woehlcke, if I could ask you to
 5   look at what is marked as Exhibit 2, under Technical
 6   Improvements, number 2, that sentence; "...land not
 7   economic," -- the second sentence.
 8       A.    Uh-huh.
 9       Q.    If you could just explain what this means;
10   what you mean by that sentence?
11       A.    One of the options that industry has is if
12   it proves to be uneconomic for one crop, they may
13   shift its use to another crop.  And in most of its
14   analyses, Hazen and Sawyer had not at that time
15   provided enough information to convince me that they
16   had thoroughly looked at the issue of what substitute
17   crops might come in.
18       Q.    Are you satisfied with their analysis of
19   that now?
20       A.    Yeah.
21       Q.    You are satisfied?  I'm sorry?
22       A.    Uh-huh.
23       Q.    And in your opinion, what is their
24   conclusion on that?
25       A.    The major conclusion is that they have not
                                                 197

 1   been able to find a good substitute for sugar cane.
 2       Q.    And you agree with that finding; that there
 3   is no good substitute for sugar cane?
 4             MR. SAXE:  Objection to form.
 5             THE WITNESS:  I agree they haven't found
 6        any.
 7   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
 8       Q.    Do you know of any, personally?
 9       A.    No.  If I was, I would have told them about
10   it.
11       Q.    Now, you mentioned -- I just wanted to
12   clarify something.  You mentioned about the benefits
13   report evaluations of a benefit report yesterday.
14   Did you review the updated benefits report?
15       A.    Define "updated benefits report".
16       Q.    That was your term yesterday.  I have that
17   from you yesterday.  You were talking about an
18   updated benefits report.  I guess --
19       A.    Just for clarification, since we are
20   calling the very last version we got from Hazen and
21   Sawyer the project completion report, there is a
22   project completion report for the benefits, and what
23   we did there is between the draft and the final, in
24   the areas that were changed, were there were changes,
25   I was faxed the sections where there were changes and
                                                 198

 1   reviewed those.  But then the final report was sent
 2   over to the Office of Everglades Restoration, and I
 3   do not recollect, nor do I believe I have ever
 4   received or looked at, a copy of what was sent to
 5   them.
 6       Q.    So you reviewed only the changes from the
 7   draft to the final?
 8       A.    Yeah.
 9       Q.    Did you report these, your review or your
10   analysis of this, to anybody in particular at the
11   District?
12       A.    We had proposed certain changes based on
13   this memo in our discussion with Hazen and Sawyer,
14   and I discussed generally -- we then had
15   conversations with the subcontractor, Hazen and
16   Sawyer and myself.  Okay?  And I discussed with Pete
17   Rhoads in general what we decided to do, you know, to
18   improve the report.
19       Q.    What was the theme of that discussion with
20   Pete Rhoads?  I mean, what is the general decision?
21   What was the general decision you discussed with him?
22       A.    They were going to, you know, complete most
23   of the changes that we had requested, but they
24   weren't going to --
25       Q.    When you say "the changes we requested", do
                                                 199

 1   you remember those changes specifically?
 2       A.    Those changes mostly related to a better
 3   explanation of the source; what was used, what they
 4   meant by "loss of wetlands".  It related to improving
 5   the estimate for the low level productivity approach
 6   and the low level contingent value, and explaining
 7   some of those studies better, and adding some more
 8   guidance as to "well what does this report mean and
 9   how might it be used in --"
10       Q.    And again I am just clarifying; but you
11   don't know how these were implemented because you
12   haven't seen the final report?
13             MR. NETTLETON:  Object to form.
14             THE WITNESS:  What I know is that I
15        reviewed sections that were to be changed.  The
16        whole report wasn't going to be changed.  So I
17        reviewed the sections that were to be changed.
18   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
19       Q.    Did you prepare a memorandum on this
20   review?
21       A.    No.
22             (Thereupon, a recess was taken.)
23   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
24       Q.    Okay.  Dr. Woehlcke, if I could, I believe
25   it is marked as Exhibit 3; a July 27 memorandum.
                                                 200

 1       A.    Uh-huh.  Yes.
 2       Q.    The second page, the last paragraph,
 3   starting four lines up, "There also needs to be
 4   more" -- do you see the part to which I am referring?
 5       A.    Second page in the last sentence.
 6       Q.    Last sentence underneath Economic Impact at
 7   the bottom.
 8       A.    Oh, okay.  "There also needs to be" --
 9   okay.
10       Q.    What do you mean by that?
11       A.    What I mean by that is that, you know, we
12   set out with this economic impact statement to
13   provide the information the Board wanted and needed
14   to make decisions.  We had very little experience to
15   go on as to what they might want, and I consider the
16   distribution and the impacts on the existing owners
17   to be part of the information that the Board would
18   want and to be useful in their decision making.
19       Q.    To focus in on the first part, "There also
20   needs to be more sensitivity."  What do you mean by
21   "sensitivity"?
22       A.    Analysis.  The analysis needs to include
23   that to a great extent.
24       Q.    And how would you propose that?
25       A.    To try to get actual information on the
                                                 201

 1   profitability of the firms out there and their
 2   ability to handle, you know, what debt they do have,
 3   and the ability to handle it so that something could
 4   be said more definitively about the likelihood that
 5   the present firms, you know, may go bankrupt or be
 6   forced to sell part of their lands or do something
 7   like that.
 8       Q.    Now, did you ask for information from Hazen
 9   and Sawyer subsequent to these comments and memos,
10   this July 27, specifically addressing this memo?
11             MR. SAXE:  Could you read the question
12        back, please.
13             (Thereupon, a portion of the record
14              was read by the reporter.)
15             THE WITNESS:  I had conversations with
16        Grace Johns about her responses to these
17        comments and what she was doing to the draft
18        final report to address these comments.
19   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
20       Q.    And what did she do in response to these
21   comments and your conversations?
22       A.    All the comments or specifically this one?
23       Q.    Specifically first just this comment.
24       A.    I think they tried to explain better the
25   difference between the concept of land staying in
                                                 202

 1   production and the firm's viability and survival so
 2   the Board would understand what their analysis
 3   addressed.
 4       Q.    And do you think that is done to your
 5   satisfaction now?
 6       A.    That part is done to my satisfaction.
 7       Q.    When you say "that part," are you referring
 8   to there is another part that is not done to your
 9   satisfaction?
10       A.    The goal of my comment was that there be
11   more information available, which there isn't.
12       Q.    What type of information were you hoping to
13   have available?
14       A.    Information on the profitability of the
15   firms and their debt structure.
16       Q.    Did you ever try to obtain that
17   information?
18       A.    I did not.
19       Q.    Did you ever ask Grace if she tried to
20   obtain it?
21       A.    Yes.
22       Q.    And what was her response?
23       A.    It was part of their information request
24   from the industry.
25       Q.    Did they receive it, to your satisfaction?
                                                 203

 1       A.    My understanding is they did not receive
 2   any of that.
 3       Q.    Okay.  If you could please look at what has
 4   been marked as Exhibit 4, and number 3 under Task 4:
 5   If you could look at the second sentence, "This is
 6   good as a baseline, but potential adjustments need to
 7   be discussed such as bringing other lands into
 8   production," et cetera, et cetera; what do you mean
 9   by "other land"?
10       A.    One of the direct impacts of buying some of
11   the lands for the STAs is that those lands do
12   directly go out of production, and one of the ways
13   for the industry, for instance, to supply additional
14   cane to mills would be to bring more land into
15   production, whether it is by the land within the EAA,
16   unintensively used lands within the EAA, or lands
17   outside the EAA, such as in the sand lands areas to
18   the west.
19       Q.    When you say "unintensively used lands in
20   the EAA", to which are you referring?
21       A.    Well, I noted that Hazen and Sawyer has --
22   there is in Hazen and Sawyer's data reflecting the
23   tax assessor data, which indicates significant
24   pasture lands still out there.  That is unintensively
25   used, in my view.
                                                 204

 1       Q.    I'm sorry?
 2       A.    That is unintensively used in my view.
 3       Q.    Are you aware of any other lands that
 4   aren't being farmed intensively?
 5       A.    My understanding is that some of the sod
 6   lands are not being farmed intensively, but that may
 7   have to do strictly with the slack demands for sod
 8   during the current recession and lack of housing
 9   construction.  So it may only be temporary.
10       Q.    And then when you say toward the end of
11   that sentence "trying to affect the price support
12   programs to adjust revenues", how do you propose
13   that?
14       A.    These would essentially be industry efforts
15   to convince their Congressmen and other
16   representatives that they deserve a better break
17   because they are paying for part of the clean up and
18   gee, can't something be done in the way the price
19   support program is run to assist them?
20       Q.    So in essence you're encouraging like a
21   lobbying effort?
22       A.    I am saying I expect a lobbying effort.
23       Q.    And do you have an opinion whether you
24   think that would be successful and that that is an
25   actual fact that needs to be considered?
                                                 205

 1             MR. SAXE:  Objection to form.
 2             THE WITNESS:  I think it needs to be
 3        considered, yes.
 4   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
 5       Q.    Do you think it is likely?
 6             MR. SAXE:  Objection to form.
 7             MR. NETTLETON:  Objection; form.
 8   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
 9       Q.    What is your opinion on affecting the price
10   support programs?  Do you think a lobbying effort
11   will be successful?
12       A.    I would want to analyze it before I would
13   venture an opinion.
14       Q.    You have no just basic reaction?
15       A.    Worth looking into.
16       Q.    And then towards the end of that paragraph
17   on the next sentence you then say, "On the other
18   hand, if profit opportunities are good elsewhere and
19   resources (e.g. the mills) are portable..."  What
20   info do you have that the mills are portable?
21       A.    My understanding is that the capacity has
22   been added onto gradually, and so it can be -- I
23   think therefore it indicates there is a possibility
24   that it could be adjusted by components, too.
25       Q.    Do you have any information -- have you
                                                 206

 1   done any --
 2       A.    No.
 3       Q.    Do you have any direct knowledge that the
 4   mills are portable in this manner?
 5       A.    I remember reading, although I do not know
 6   where, of a case where a mill was essentially bought,
 7   picked up and moved and plunked down in another
 8   location.
 9       Q.    Just a simple process you remember it
10   being?
11       A.    No, I don't remember it being a simple
12   process.  I just remember reading that that had
13   occurred.
14       Q.    Do you remember where?
15       A.    No, I don't.
16       Q.    And what mill it was referring to?
17       A.    No, I don't remember.
18       Q.    Do you know the last year a mill was
19   established in the EAA?
20       A.    No.
21       Q.    Do you have any idea of the cost of
22   establishing these mills?
23       A.    No, I don't know those numbers offhand.
24       Q.    And you have personally conducted no actual
25   investigation of the portability of these mills?
                                                 207

 1       A.    No.
 2       Q.    Or any section of these mills?
 3       A.    No, I have not conducted an investigation.
 4       Q.    So you are not certain whether this is a
 5   true mitigating factor since you aren't certain about
 6   the portability of the mills?
 7             MR. NETTLETON:  Object to the form.
 8             MR. SAXE:  Objection to form.
 9             THE WITNESS:  I wanted to see these issues
10        addressed in the Hazen and Sawyer report.
11   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
12       Q.    And were they?
13             MR. SAXE:  Objection; asked and answered.
14   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
15       Q.    I am talking direct portability as a
16   mitigating factor.
17       A.    No, I don't recollect anything to that
18   effect.
19       Q.    Do you remember ever discussing this
20   portable issue with Grace Johns?
21       A.    I'm not sure.  I think we may have
22   discussed portability; mill portability.
23       Q.    And what was your remembrance of her
24   opinions?
25       A.    I think she had some information that
                                                 208

 1   indicated that it was portable, but I'm not sure.
 2       Q.    Did you ever discuss this with Pete Rhoads
 3   personally, outside of this memo?
 4       A.    Did I ever discuss that particular issue?
 5       Q.    Yes.
 6       A.    I don't believe so.
 7       Q.    If you could turn the page and please look
 8   at the last item, number four; I believe in your
 9   testimony yesterday, when you were referring to this,
10   you said, "they found no other crop".  Who are
11   "they"?
12       A.    I don't remember saying they found no other
13   crop.  What was the context?
14       Q.    You were talking about studies of what
15   other crop could be done; their alternative farming.
16       A.    I believe I was referring to Hazen and
17   Sawyer who found no evidence, you know, in their
18   research that there were other crops and therefore
19   they didn't assume any.
20       Q.    Now, if marginal costs are greater than
21   revenue from production, what should these lands be
22   used for?
23       A.    When the marginal costs get to be greater
24   than the revenue -- and we are including in here the
25   costs, you know, the necessary adjustments in the
                                                 209

 1   land values that are possible -- then the land,
 2   essentially, would not have an economic value other
 3   than -- I'll call it a residual land, speculative
 4   type value.
 5       Q.    So you didn't find any other -- just to
 6   clarify -- you didn't find any other kind of cash
 7   crop equal to sugar?
 8             MR. SAXE:  Objection to form.
 9             THE WITNESS:  My understanding is Hazen and
10        Sawyer did not find any other crop that could or
11        they felt would likely come in and substitute
12        for sugar in the case where the situation in
13        sugar had deteriorated to the point where sugar
14        was no longer viable.
15   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
16       Q.    Now, interjecting what Dr. Polopolus'
17   opinions are, he then would say the farm is out of
18   production; correct?
19             MR. NETTLETON:  Object to form.
20   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
21       Q.    Your understanding.
22             MR. SAXE:  Objection to form.
23             MR. NETTLETON:  Calls for speculation.
24   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
25       Q.    Not to speculate.  Your understanding.
                                                 210

 1       A.    He said the farm is out of production when?
 2       Q.    When, this cash crop is no longer viable
 3   because of marginal costs being greater than the
 4   revenue from production.
 5       A.    Would he agree to that?  I believe they
 6   agreed to that in our meeting, yes.
 7       Q.    Taking that into consideration and into
 8   consideration that there is no alternative crop, what
 9   else would you recommend doing --
10             MR. SAXE:  Objection to form.
11   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
12       Q.    -- with this land?
13             MR. SAXE:  Assuming facts not in evidence.
14        The witness has not testified there is no
15        alternative crop.
16   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
17       Q.    On a hypothetical and in a hypothetical
18   sense.
19       A.    Well, what are we talking about because,
20   you know, you're saying on some of the land that
21   Hazen and Sawyer projects --
22       Q.    Just in a hypothetical situation, so we
23   don't have to get caught up --
24       A.    What is the hypothetical?
25       Q.    Marginal costs are now greater than the
                                                 211

 1   revenue for production, there is no other alternative
 2   to this agriculture that is as presently there, it is
 3   no longer viable.  What else would you recommend
 4   doing with this land?
 5       A.    I'm not recommending things to be done with
 6   the land.  I am an economist trying to analyze what
 7   people would decide to do with the land if that
 8   situation did arise so that the agriculture really
 9   wasn't profitable.  And, you know, when we say the
10   costs are greater than the revenues, we need to take
11   into account the fact that land values in agriculture
12   can deteriorate, and those are not fixed costs to the
13   use of the land.  Okay?  But if we do reach that
14   point, as Hazen and Sawyer did for some of their, you
15   know, some of the land, what might happen to that,
16   what might people decide to use it for?  I'm not
17   really sure.
18       Q.    Now, in task 6 there, Number 3, sugar
19   mills, farms; do you see to which I am referring?
20       A.    Right.
21       Q.    Have they been evaluated now in the current
22   plan as a joint enterprise?
23       A.    Yes, I believe that the mills and the farms
24   have been evaluated as a joint enterprise.
25       Q.    And you agree that is proper?
                                                 212

 1       A.    That is the proper way to go.
 2       Q.    And why is your opinion that is the proper
 3   way to go?
 4       A.    Okay.  I believe it is the proper way to go
 5   for a couple of reasons.  One is that even if they
 6   are separate enterprises, if you have a fixed
 7   investment in the mill, and you consider that as a
 8   fixed investment, you will then look at, you know,
 9   your marginal revenues and marginal costs for keeping
10   that mill in operation.  And if the marginal revenue
11   of getting more -- you know -- the results from
12   getting more cane exceeds the marginal costs of
13   getting cane, you would be willing to bid up the
14   price of the cane to mill.  Okay?  And that
15   essentially integrates those two.  The other reason
16   is the fact that much of the operation out there is,
17   in fact, a vertical enterprise of corporations.
18       Q.    And so when you say it needs to be
19   considered as a joint enterprise, what about the non-
20   large vertical corporations to which you are
21   referring?
22       A.    The first rationale that I gave is a reason
23   why it is still appropriate, even if they are
24   separate corporations.  The mill would be willing to
25   bid up the price of the cane, given it's fixed
                                                 213

 1   investment, in order to keep that as long as the
 2   marginal revenue, you know, from processing that cane
 3   would exceed the marginal cost of the processing and
 4   of obtaining the cane.  So they would bid it up.  If
 5   cane became in short supply, that is what would
 6   happen.
 7       Q.    Do you envision cane becoming in short
 8   supply?
 9       A.    I envision an initial impact on the supply
10   of cane from land going out of production in the
11   STAs, and I suggest that the ability of the industry
12   to adjust to that by more intensively farming,
13   bringing new lands into production, shifting crops
14   within the EAA and other responses on the supply side
15   of the cane should be looked at.
16       Q.    Getting back to this intensivity of the
17   farming; if, as an economist, if you were
18   recommending to a large corporation, wouldn't you
19   recommend maximizing your intensity?
20       A.    No.
21       Q.    Why not?
22       A.    Bringing an absolute maximum yield
23   generally entails raising costs to very high levels
24   in the same way that achieving zero pollution would
25   raise costs of pollution removal.  You try to reach
                                                 214

 1   an extreme and the costs tend to run up.  There tends
 2   to be a point somewhere below absolute maximum in
 3   production or pollution removal or whatever at which,
 4   you know, the revenues cease to exceed the costs.
 5   But you would stop when you reached the point where
 6   the marginal revenues and marginal costs were equal.
 7       Q.    That is the point at which you stop; is
 8   that what you're saying?
 9       A.    Uh-huh.  In your intensity of operation or
10   whatever.
11       Q.    And costs from cleaning up and costs to now
12   have to maximize your intensity in new areas, these
13   will lead to this revenue, to that point of revenue
14   exceeding --
15             MR. SAXE:  Objection to form.
16             THE WITNESS:  It is not a foregone
17        conclusion.  That is why we had --
18   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
19       Q.    But that is where you're basing your claim;
20   is that correct?  This evolution?
21             MR. SAXE:  Objection to the form.
22             THE WITNESS:  I think you have to restate
23        that question.
24             THE WITNESS:  I believe you're putting
25        together different things and I can't really
                                                 215

 1        make sense out of that.
 2   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
 3       Q.    You said factors that would make you reach
 4   that point that it is no longer viable would be, for
 5   instance, I believe you stated in your testimony,
 6   would be things like having to comply with new
 7   pollution regulations.
 8       A.    They could be fixed costs or they could be
 9   marginal costs.
10       Q.    And you also mentioned as another factor
11   that would get you to that point of viability not
12   being worth it; the maximizing your intensity is
13   another built-in cost.
14             MR. SAXE:  Objection to form.
15             Counsel, my understanding of this colloquy
16        is the witness is testifying as to your point
17        about maximizing the intensity of yield and drew
18        an analogy to pollution clean up as an area in
19        which marginal costs can exceed marginal
20        benefits as you approach a maximum state.  Now
21        you're mixing apples and oranges.  It sounds as
22        though you are trying to draw the witness back
23        into a discussion of firm profitability or firm
24        survival.  Would you clarify the question you
25        want the witness to answer?
                                                 216

 1   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
 2       Q.    I don't think I am trying to mix apples and
 3   oranges as much as I am -- you're saying apples can
 4   lead you to, in essence, downfall, or not having it
 5   worth viability if marginal costs exceed, and then
 6   you're saying oranges -- as you call them, apples and
 7   oranges -- also can bring you to that point.  So if
 8   you combine apples or oranges, or if you combine
 9   these two revenue things that would make your costs
10   go up, that would get you there twice as fast,
11   wouldn't it?
12             MR. SAXE:  Objection to form.
13             MR. NETTLETON:  Objection to form.
14             THE WITNESS:  No, I don't think I can give
15        a specific answer to that.  I think the
16        fundamental thing is, you know, we do expect
17        things like the per acre charges that Hazen and
18        Sawyer were asked to analyze to affect the
19        profitability of firms, and we feel our Board
20        would be interested in that and in, you know,
21        what effect that might have on, you know, the
22        employment and the land use in the Everglades
23        Agricultural Area.  So we expect there to be
24        impacts of the Everglades plan actions, given
25        the scenarios that they were asked to analyze.
                                                 217

 1        That is why we wanted to analyze them.  But how
 2        much and whatnot is contained in the Hazen and
 3        Sawyer analysis.
 4   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
 5       Q.    If I could ask you to go to document 6 --
 6             MR. NETTLETON:  Exhibit 6 you mean?
 7   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
 8       Q.    I'm not sure if we clarified it for the
 9   record yesterday, so I just wanted to make sure when
10   you say from "Dick", you are referring to Dick March.
11       A.    I am referring to Dick March.
12       Q.    It is the third paragraph at the bottom of
13   that.  The last sentence.  You have, "If soil
14   subsidence and loss of soil productivity are
15   considerations, I would expect to see a gradual
16   decline in yield, rather than the constant yields
17   which are assumed".  Do you agree with that?
18       A.    Other things being equal, one might expect
19   that.
20       Q.    Can you clarify that?  What do you mean,
21   "other things being equal"?
22       A.    Well, given the productivity of, the
23   varieties of, and the intensity of the farming effort
24   that the farm enterprises put into the lands, and so
25   on and so forth, you know, those would also affect
                                                 218

 1   the trends in the yield; okay?  So other things being
 2   equal -- I mean, if you weren't able to improve your
 3   variety of productivity or the fertilization
 4   practices or weed control practices or -- you know,
 5   there is a whole host of ways that they could
 6   improve.  So, over time, you are going to see the
 7   effect of a lot of factors, not just in -- but other
 8   things being equal, that might be something that you
 9   would expect.
10       Q.    So you would agree with that, absent these
11   other factors?
12       A.    No, I don't agree with that.  I agree that
13   it is something that you would look at.
14       Q.    Why don't you agree with it then?
15       A.    It is like a hypothesis; it is not based on
16   data and information.
17       Q.    So in your reaction to it, without data and
18   information, why would you not agree with it?
19             MR. SAXE:  Objection to form.
20             THE WITNESS:  Because I generally don't
21        agree to things unless I have something to back
22        it up.  You know, I would want the data and
23        information to back it up.  I would say, "Gee,
24        that sounds like a definite -- you know, it
25        sounds like a possibility.  We should look into
                                                 219

 1        it, you know.  We should ask Hazen and Sawyer to
 2        look at, you know, whether there is information
 3        that would allow them to project those changes".
 4   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
 5       Q.    When you say "those changes", which exact
 6   changes are you referring to?
 7       A.    The changes in yield over time due to
 8   subsidence.
 9       Q.    Did you ask Hazen and Sawyer to look into
10   those changes?
11             MR. SAXE:  Objection to form; asked and
12        answered.  We had extensive testimony about the
13        exhibits describing Dr. Woehlcke's input to
14        District staff concerning what Hazen and Sawyer
15        might look into in future work, and unless there
16        is some reason to go back over that ground, it
17        is unduly burdensome to reask the same questions
18        again and again.
19   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
20       Q.    I don't think we are asking the same
21   questions.  I am talking specific response to this
22   memorandum to you.  You said you would look at it.
23   You just stated before that you want look at it and
24   say, "Hey, that is a possibility and we need to do
25   some analysis".  Did you ask Hazen and Sawyer to do
                                                 220

 1   that analysis?
 2             MR. SAXE:  Objection to form.  Misquoted
 3        the witness.
 4   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
 5       Q.    I am attempting to characterize what you
 6   said.
 7       A.    I had discussions with Grace Johns about
 8   the data on which they based their yield belts, which
 9   are closely related to depths to muck, and I
10   discussed with her the time period for which they had
11   that information, which I believe was fairly long,
12   and those data establish that for those yield belts
13   there are significant differences.  I don't know
14   whether Hazen and Sawyer specifically looked to see
15   whether those data could yield a time trend within
16   the yield belts or not.
17       Q.    Do you remember ever asking Grace to
18   specifically do that?
19       A.    No, I don't think I asked her specifically
20   to do that.  I know that Hazen and Sawyer did include
21   in the report an overall productivity improvement
22   that again kind of net the impacts of all of these
23   different things that may affect productivity.
24       Q.    Okay.  In the next paragraph after the
25   quotation you have, "The water supply and flood
                                                 221

 1   control implications of maintaining higher water
 2   tables need to be discussed and related".  What
 3   exactly did Dick mean by this?
 4       A.    I don't know.
 5       Q.    What did you understand this to mean when
 6   you read it?
 7       A.    My guess as to what he would mean would be
 8   that if you are maintaining higher water tables, you
 9   may need to irrigate less frequently, but that when
10   significant rains come, you would want to be able to
11   drain faster or you would have higher water levels in
12   your fields than you would without because you
13   started from a higher level.
14       Q.    Did you ever ask him specifically about
15   this?
16       A.    I don't recollect doing that.
17       Q.    Would the implications of a higher table,
18   as you just referenced, be impacted by BMP standards?
19             MR. SAXE:  Objection to form.
20             MR. NETTLETON:  Object to form.
21             THE WITNESS:  Say that again.
22   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
23       Q.    It's okay.  We can go by that one.
24             Now, would you agree that with differing
25   BMP standards, yield changes would be important?
                                                 222

 1             MR. NETTLETON:  Object to form.
 2             MR. SAXE:  Object to form.
 3             THE WITNESS:  Say it again.
 4   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
 5       Q.    Would you agree with differing BMP
 6   standards, yield changes would be an important
 7   analysis tool?
 8             MR. SAXE:  I'm sorry.  What was the last
 9        word?
10             MR. LIEBERMAN:  Analysis tool.
11             MR. NETTLETON:  Same objection.  I don't
12        understand the question.
13             THE WITNESS:  What do you mean by different
14        BMP standards?
15   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
16       Q.    Well, there are proposals for various BMP
17   standards in the models, correct, that Hazen and
18   Sawyer conducted?
19       A.    Okay.
20       Q.    So with considering variable levels of BMP
21   standards --
22       A.    Who is considered that?
23       Q.    Hazen and Sawyer.
24       A.    No.
25             MR. SAXE:  Objection.
                                                 223

 1             THE WITNESS:  They have essentially one
 2        level of BMP standard.  That is what's in the
 3        existing rule.
 4   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
 5       Q.    But aren't they considering a range of
 6   costs as a result of these BMP standards?
 7             MR. SAXE:  Counsel, what do you mean by BMP
 8        standards?  Maybe that will help clarify the
 9        question.
10             MR. NETTLETON:  I would also like to just
11        object to the word "standards".  I don't know
12        that there is such a thing as a BMP standard.
13   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
14       Q.    Due to the impact of using best management
15   practices.
16       A.    To comply with the existing rule, that is
17   what Hazen and Sawyer had to put into their analysis;
18   what would the farmers have to do to comply with the
19   existing rule?  And what they put in was their best
20   estimate of what the farmers would do.
21       Q.    Now, did they use a varying -- did they
22   just pick one estimate or did they use varying
23   estimates?
24             MR. NETTLETON:  Object to form.  Can you
25        specify what estimate you are talking about?
                                                 224

 1             MR. LIEBERMAN:  The BMP estimate he just
 2        mentions and references.
 3             THE WITNESS:  Are you talking about the
 4        estimate of what the farmers would do?
 5   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
 6       Q.    Yes.
 7       A.    What it would cost?  Like are you
 8   specifically asking whether they always used a range
 9   of costs for the BMPs?  I don't believe they used a
10   range of costs.
11       Q.    Now, we can then go back to the letter.
12   Under P5 there is a sentence, "The analysis examines
13   costs of BMPs" and you are telling me that they
14   didn't, or they did --
15             MR. SAXE:  Objection to form.
16   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
17       Q.    -- do this; examine cost of BMPs?
18             MR. SAXE:  Objection.
19             THE WITNESS:  Where are you?
20   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
21       Q.    6 under P5, the last sentence.  It starts
22   with, "The analysis examines costs of BMPs."
23             MR. NETTLETON:  What is your question?  I'm
24        sorry.
                                                 225

 1   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
 2       Q.    Did you just testify -- I am just confused
 3   here.  I am trying to clarify.  Did you just testify
 4   that BMP costs -- they didn't examine range of BMP
 5   costs?
 6             MR. NETTLETON:  That is the previous
 7        sentence, I think, but you can answer.
 8             THE WITNESS:  They analyzed the cost of the
 9        BMPs and chose to present a central best
10        estimate rather than a range of costs is my
11        recollection of what is in Hazen and Sawyer.
12   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
13       Q.    Did they do a similar -- and then the
14   sentence goes on -- "...but yield changes in response
15   to BMP implementation are not included."
16       A.    And we followed up with that as to, you
17   know, what best information Hazen and Sawyer had
18   which indicated that there would not be significant
19   yield changes.
20       Q.    And that was the extent of the follow-up?
21       A.    Yes.
22       Q.    And then if you could turn to the last
23   page, please, the second sentence, "I was glad to see
24   that the runs made with the four percent and nine
25   percent reductions in sugarcane price"; to which runs
                                                 226

 1   are you referring?
 2             MR. SAXE:  Objection to form.  You are
 3        assuming facts not in evidence.  Is this a
 4        comment by the deponent or a comment by Dick
 5        March?
 6   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
 7       Q.    Did you see these runs that Dick March is
 8   referring to?
 9       A.    I saw in the Hazen and Sawyer report that
10   for the mills which supply the areas directly
11   affected by the purchase of land for the STAs, Hazen
12   and Sawyer estimated impacts on those mills and
13   formulated those as differences in the prices that
14   they could offer the farmers, and that is where the
15   four and nine percent reductions come in.
16       Q.    So these runs that are in the Grace Johns
17   reports --
18       A.    Are in the Hazen and Sawyer reports, yeah.
19       Q.    Second sentence before the end, three lines
20   up, four lines up from the end, same last paragraph,
21   "As mentioned elsewhere, a major missing piece of the
22   analysis"; what was this major missing piece as of
23   7/8, as of July 8, as of the time of this report?
24             MR. SAXE:  Objection to form.  This is not
25        the witness' comment.  It assumes --
                                                 227

 1   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
 2       Q.    What is your understanding of what Dick
 3   March is referring to?  What is the major missing
 4   piece?
 5             MR. NETTLETON:  I would object in that you
 6        didn't finish reading the sentence.
 7   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
 8       Q.    "As mentioned elsewhere, a major missing
 9   piece of the analysis seems to be the impact of BMPs
10   on yield."
11       A.    Dick March is saying that he would like to
12   see Hazen and Sawyer specifically analyze and discuss
13   what the potential impact of the BMPs on the yield
14   will be.
15       Q.    Was this ever done?
16       A.    I don't recollect exactly in the report
17   what Hazen and Sawyer now, you know, in the
18   completion report, now says about that.  I recollect
19   discussions with Hazen and Sawyer in which they
20   talked about essentially the professional opinion of
21   Del Bottcher that there will not be significant
22   impacts on yield.
23       Q.    And what is your understanding of what Del
24   Bottcher's professional opinion was?
25       A.    He was one of the major researchers
                                                 228

 1   conducting research on BMPs in the EAA.
 2       Q.    I am saying what is your understanding of
 3   why he felt it wasn't important?
 4             MR. SAXE:  Objection to form.
 5             MR. NETTLETON:  Objection; form.
 6             THE WITNESS:  Who?
 7   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
 8       Q.    Del Bottcher.
 9       A.    He didn't say it wasn't important, he said
10   he wouldn't think it would happen.
11       Q.    And what is your understanding of why he
12   didn't think it would happen?
13       A.    I don't know why he didn't think it would
14   happen.  I didn't talk to him about it.
15       Q.    Do you understand why the farmers consider
16   this -- do you understand why the farmers consider
17   this important; this factor?
18             MR. SAXE:  Objection to form.  Counsel, are
19        you --
20             MR. NETTLETON:  Speculation.
21             MR. SAXE:  -- saying that the farmers --
22             MR. LIEBERMAN:  I am speculating if the
23        farmers consider this important, do you know
24        why?
25             MR. SAXE:  So it is a hypothetical
                                                 229

 1        question?
 2             MR. LIEBERMAN:  In essence.
 3             MR. NETTLETON:  I object.  I'm sorry.  I
 4        just object.  You're asking a hypothetical and
 5        then asking him to speculate about your
 6        hypothetical.
 7             So you can answer it to the extent you can.
 8             THE WITNESS:  After all that, would you
 9        repeat the question?
10   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
11       Q.    If we assume, in a hypothetical sense, that
12   the farmers consider this important, why would you
13   think that the farmers would consider it important?
14       A.    I believe the farmers would consider it
15   important because they are dealing with fairly high
16   value crops, and that the costs of the BMPs are
17   really not that big compared to the value of the
18   crops, so even small percentage reductions in yield
19   even on a periodic basis could be more significant
20   than the actual cost of the BMPs to their enterprise.
21       Q.    From any possible discussions you may have
22   had with Dick following this memo, do you know why he
23   considered it so important?
24             MR. NETTLETON:  Object to characterization
25        and form.
                                                 230

 1             THE WITNESS:  I don't know.  I don't
 2        recollect any discussions with him specifically
 3        about that.
 4   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
 5       Q.    In connection with this, you mentioned that
 6   originally the plan, the Hazen and Sawyer plan, was
 7   supposed to be a 20 year analysis.
 8       A.    Yes.
 9       Q.    Do you know who made the decision to cut
10   back to ten?
11       A.    No, I don't.
12       Q.    Do you have any idea why it was cut back?
13       A.    I don't remember the specifics of the
14   discussion at the time that I was told that it had
15   been cut back; as to why.  I would be guessing, and I
16   might be just making up reasons that I have, so I am
17   not going to say.
18       Q.    As an economist, what would be your reasons
19   to change?  What is the value of the ten year plan
20   versus the 20 year plan?
21             MR. SAXE:  Objection to form.  Which
22        question do you want answered?
23   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
24       Q.    What is the value of the ten year versus a
25   20 year plan, considering which one to go with?
                                                 231

 1       A.    I can't think of any values of doing a ten
 2   year analysis rather than the 20.
 3       Q.    Can you think of any values of doing the 20
 4   rather than the ten?
 5       A.    Yes.
 6       Q.    What would those be?
 7       A.    It provides a better estimate of the value,
 8   it provides a better estimate of the impact as it may
 9   actually occur, given the fact that the charges are
10   expected to occur over this longer period of time.
11       Q.    So you believe -- I'm sorry.
12       A.    So in that sense, it would be more
13   appropriate, I think, for the policy decision.
14       Q.    So you believe it would have been more
15   valuable to keep it as an original 20 year plan
16   rather than having cut it back to a ten?
17       A.    Yes.
18       Q.    If you can refer to P5 on the first page, I
19   just want to know if you can read just the last
20   sentence of that paragraph.
21       A.    Yeah.
22       Q.    Drawing on your 20 years of experience as
23   an agricultural economist, I mean, do you think the
24   yield changes should have been included?
25             MR. NETTLETON:  Objection; asked and
                                                 232

 1        answered.
 2             THE WITNESS:  Well, I didn't have the
 3        fortune of going to school of agricultural
 4        economics; okay?  I have worked in the area of
 5        agricultural economics, but I'm not a
 6        agricultural economist.  I do believe they were
 7        included to the best of the information
 8        available; which is that the person we had
 9        working on the BMPs in that area did not feel
10        that there would be significant impact, and the
11        no one else provided any other information to
12        the contrary.
13   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
14       Q.    So do you agree or you don't agree?  I'm
15   sorry.
16             MR. NETTLETON:  Objection to the form.
17             MR. SAXE:  Objection to the form.
18             THE WITNESS:  I agree it is important.  I
19        don't agree it wasn't included.  The result of
20        the assessment was that there was likely to be
21        little impact.  So you're including the
22        consideration, and your answer is generally
23        negative.  You don't expect a significant
24        impact.
25             MR. SAXE:  Could you mark that.
                                                 233

 1             THE WITNESS:  That is the best information
 2        available.
 3             MR. SAXE:  Could you mark that answer,
 4        please.
 5   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
 6       Q.    Going back to the ten and 20 year decision,
 7   was a 20 year analysis actually started originally
 8   before it was cut back to a ten year analysis?  Was a
 9   20 year analysis started?
10       A.    I recollect that the 20 year analysis was
11   called for in the actual work statement.
12       Q.    Do you recall if it was ever actually
13   commenced?
14       A.    That is in the period of my noninvolvement
15   between the evaluation of the contractors and the
16   first review of the task statements and I did not
17   know at that time that it even had been changed.
18       Q.    Do you have any knowledge of any disks or
19   runs that were ever done on the initial 20 year?
20       A.    No, I have no knowledge of that.
21       Q.    If you could go to Exhibit 7, I believe it
22   is marked page 2, under number 3, in that last
23   sentence on the last line, you say, "... consider
24   factors" --
25             MR. SAXE:  Excuse me, counsel what exhibit
                                                 234

 1        are you on?
 2             MR. NETTLETON:  7
 3             MR. LIEBERMAN:  7
 4             MR. SAXE:  You're saying the deponent says
 5        "you consider factors"?
 6   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
 7       Q.    Well, the letter is from Hazen and Sawyer,
 8   and it says on the last sentence under numeral 3 --I
 9   am just trying to see if Dr. Woehlcke can clarify
10   this for me.
11             MR. SAXE:  Are you going to read the
12        sentence?
13             MR. LIEBERMAN:  If you would like it read,
14        we can read it in.
15             MR. SAXE:  Because I'm not seeing what
16        you're referring to.
17             MR. NETTLETON:  It is right here.
18             MR. SAXE:  Go ahead.
19   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
20       Q.    "When evaluating the second ten-year
21   plan,(sic) these assumptions should be reevaluated to
22   consider factors..."  -- which factors?
23             MR. SAXE:  You did not read the whole
24        sentence, counsel, and you misread it.  It
25        doesn't say "plan", it says "period".
                                                 235

 1             MR. LIEBERMAN:  Excuse me.
 2             MR. SAXE:  Would you read it correctly or
 3        shall I volunteer?
 4             MR. LIEBERMAN:  If you would like to do
 5        some prose for us --
 6             MR. SAXE:  "When evaluating the second ten-
 7        year period, these assumptions should be
 8        reevaluated to consider factors that would
 9        increase or slow the gains in raw sugar
10        production efficiency."  Now, what is the
11        question?
12   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
13       Q.    Do you know which factors are being
14   referred to here?
15       A.    I don't know what Grace had in mind when
16   she wrote that.
17       Q.    Just in context, nothing directly from the
18   actual letter, but in context to number 4, commodity
19   prices, on the next page, do you expect the Federal
20   Sugar Program to remain unchanged for the next ten to
21   20 years?
22             MR. NETTLETON:  Objection; asked and
23        answered.
24             MR. SAXE:  Same objection.
25             MR. NETTLETON:  Calls for speculation also.
                                                 236

 1             THE WITNESS:  I would wait to see the
 2        analysis.  That is why we have to analyze it.
 3   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
 4       Q.    What about the loan rates for sugar grown
 5   in Florida?  Will the loan rate -- do you think that
 6   will remain at 18 cents per pound or do you think it
 7   will increase?
 8       A.    I don't know.  I would want it analyzed.
 9       Q.    And then if the Federal Sugar Program were
10   abolished and the U. S. bought and sold sugar on the
11   world market, what would be the impact of this action
12   to the sugar industry within the EAA?
13       A.    Say that again.
14       Q.    If the Federal Government, you know,
15   abolished the sugar program so the U. S. bought and
16   sold sugar in a world economy, in the world market,
17   what would be the impact of this action on the sugar
18   industry within the EAA?
19       A.    I believe the Hazen and Sawyer analysis of
20   their scenario one, which I believe covers that case,
21   you know, is a good analysis and indicates that the
22   sugar industry in the EAA would not be viable in that
23   situation.
24       Q.    Do you think that raw sugar per acre
25   figures measure mill efficiency properly or a good
                                                 237

 1   way of measuring it?
 2       A.    Measuring mill efficiency in what?
 3       Q.    Trying to figure out maximizing intensity
 4   with the mills being efficient in their productivity.
 5             MR. SAXE:  Objection to form.
 6             THE WITNESS:  It is clearly a combination
 7        measure because it goes back to the acres, so it
 8        would also reflect efficiencies on the farm.
 9   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
10       Q.    Referring to number 8, yesterday you
11   mentioned that the FLIPSIM program was being
12   abandoned; is that correct?
13             MR. SAXE:  Objection to form.
14             MR. NETTLETON:  Are you talking about
15        Exhibit A?
16             MR. LIEBERMAN:  No.  I'm sorry.  Numeral A
17        when discussing yesterday --
18             MR. SAXE:  I don't recall the witness
19        testifying a FLIPSIM program was being
20        abandoned.
21   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
22       Q.    That the new report would not be using
23   the -- is the new report going to use the FLIPSIM
24   model?
25       A.    My understanding is that it will not use it
                                                 238

 1   for the calculations.
 2       Q.    Do you know why the decision was made to no
 3   longer use it?
 4       A.    It is not the most convenient calculation
 5   vehicle, and for the analysis that needs to be done,
 6   Hazen and Sawyer can expand their existing spread
 7   sheets to cover the 20 year period.  The standard
 8   FLIPSIM model apparently does not go out for 20 years
 9   and you would -- if he had to purchase and be trained
10   on a 20 year version of that model, which
11   Dr. Richardson told us was available and we might be
12   able to get permission to use --
13       Q.    If this was available and you had
14   permission to use it, do you think it would be more
15   efficient?
16       A.    No, because the FLIPSIM model -- the way
17   that I remember the formulation of the recommendation
18   from Dr. Johns is that because the FLIPSIM model
19   contains so many other farm policies and other
20   variables, it is not the most convenient and
21   efficient calculation method for the analysis that
22   needs to be done here.
23       Q.    So that's your understanding of Dr. Johns
24   and why she is no longer using it?
25       A.    That is my understanding.
                                                 239

 1       Q.    If you can refer to document 8, please, we
 2   discussed it a little this morning, the optimal plan,
 3   but in paragraph two you mention or this memo
 4   mentions, an updated economic impact analysis after
 5   the optimal plan.  Is Hazen and Sawyer -- will Hazen
 6   and Sawyer be doing this analysis?
 7       A.    I don't think any decision on that could be
 8   reached at this time.  I believe District's standard
 9   practice would tend to make me, you know, go out for
10   competitive bid, but I don't know the intricacies of,
11   you know, contracting.
12       Q.    Now, in the optimal plan -- I am just still
13   confused by it -- you said Pete Rhoads -- early this
14   morning you mentioned something to the effect, and
15   the testimony will exactly -- the record will exactly
16   state -- that Pete Rhoads expressed that alternatives
17   are being evaluated and to seeing things on an
18   optimal plan.  What does this mean?  In essence, what
19   is the optimal plan?
20             MR. SAXE:  Object to the form.
21   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
22       Q.    In your understanding.
23       A.    What is the optimal plan?  Again, my
24   understanding is that the Board had asked that
25   alternatives be considered, and we have contracts out
                                                 240

 1   to consider the alternatives, including treatment
 2   alternatives and BMP alternatives and, you know,
 3   staff is to report back to the Board with the results
 4   of those alternatives and recommendations as to
 5   whether to continue to implement the existing
 6   measures, the measures in the existing SWIM plan, or
 7   other measures to, you know, to achieve the water
 8   quality goals required by the settlement agreement
 9   and the Marjory Stoneman Douglas Act.  So that, I
10   believe, is what he's referring to as the optimal
11   plan.  The request from our Board that these
12   alternatives be analyzed and that we report back to
13   them to see whether something different should be
14   recommended.
15       Q.    So the plan will represent a range of
16   alternatives?
17       A.    I don't know exactly how he expects to
18   present it to them.
19             MR. NETTLETON:  Object.
20             THE WITNESS:  Alternatives are being
21        considered in these studies.
22   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
23       Q.    Can I refer you to document 9, please,
24   Dr. Woehlcke.  I believe we have got two 9s.  No, it
25   is 10 we have two of.  So document 9, we have two
                                                 241

 1   numbers here, and paragraph two, for an accounting of
 2   gross acre per gross acre we have a $236 accounting
 3   in paragraph two, and then I believe you calculated
 4   $149 per acre in paragraph three; is that correct?
 5   That's your calculation; 149 per acre?
 6       A.    Let me look.  Yes, it is $149 per acre.
 7       Q.    What, in your opinion, accounts for the
 8   difference from the 236 to the 149?
 9       A.    I don't know.
10             MR. SAXE:  Objection.  Can you clarify,
11        counsel?  Were you asking whether or not the
12        $149 figure here was calculated by the deponent
13        or that it was from --
14             MR. LIEBERMAN:  I am mainly concerned if he
15        has an idea of why the $149 calculation varies
16        from the $236 calculation.
17             THE WITNESS:  No, I don't.  We went over
18        that extensively yesterday.
19   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
20       Q.    And if you can turn to the chart, please,
21   next page, when you have as your source Sugar and
22   Sweetener Report, for instance, you know, on the
23   first, second and the fourth line -- do you see what
24   I am referring to?
25       A.    Yeah.
                                                 242

 1       Q.    Does that mean that in every column your
 2   statistics came from the Sugar and Sweetener Reports
 3   as your source?
 4       A.    Yes.  They presented a time series.
 5       Q.    So your conclusions then are based on data
 6   from the Sugar and Sweetener Reports where it is
 7   marked, so noted?
 8       A.    Yes.  These profit estimates are based on
 9   these data from the Sugar and Sweetener Reports.
10       Q.    So every time it says Sugar and Sweetener
11   Reports, those are directly from the Sugar and
12   Sweetener Reports, your data?
13       A.    Directly from the table quoted, and those
14   tables are Xeroxed --
15       Q.    Right.
16       A.    -- in the subsequent pages.  As I said
17   yesterday, very reproducible.
18       Q.    I'm sorry?
19       A.    It is very reproducible.  You'll see
20   exactly what I did.
21       Q.    This is the table you're referring to, the
22   figure marked 4-2, raw sugar yield per harvest acre,
23   that you referred us to yesterday --
24       A.    You are referring to that now?
25       Q.    Right.
                                                 243

 1       A.    I wasn't referring to that when I was
 2   talking about that.
 3       Q.    Right.  But we later came to this table.
 4       A.    Yeah.  You had that table, yeah.
 5       Q.    Do you have a copy of the table?
 6       A.    No.  It should be in the report, though.
 7       Q.    As you see, it runs from 1964, if you need
 8   to look at it, to '90.
 9       A.    Yes.
10       Q.    Do you know why this time frame was chosen
11   for this table?
12       A.    That was part of our discussion that we had
13   with Drs. Polopolus and Richardson about the time
14   frame.  The end date, I think, was constrained by
15   what the latest data available were at the time that
16   Hazen and Sawyer constructed the table.  The early
17   date I think Hazen and Sawyer said that they picked
18   because they wanted to represent the efficiencies
19   with all the existing mills out there and because of
20   the industry being relatively much smaller if you
21   went back much farther.  So it is the period in which
22   kind of like the existing large industry with the
23   existing mills have been out there, and that is what
24   they wanted to reflect in their estimate of the
25   efficiency improvements.
                                                 244

 1       Q.    Now, when Hazen and Sawyer made this
 2   selection, did you review it or did you have an input
 3   in it or recommend a time frame to use?
 4       A.    I did not.
 5       Q.    Do you have knowledge --
 6       A.    You know, it was in the report as far back
 7   as I remember.
 8       Q.    Do you have knowledge of who was involved
 9   in the decision to select that time period?
10       A.    Hazen and Sawyer selected it, as far as I
11   know.
12       Q.    Are you aware that their period starts with
13   the lowest production acre in 1964 and ended with the
14   highest value ever recorded?
15       A.    I am aware of that, as it was pointed out
16   by I believe it was Dr. Richardson at our meetings,
17   because they presented that information.  That's when
18   I became aware of that.  I'm not sure it is the
19   highest ever recorded.  I know I went back after that
20   meeting and checked the subsequent year, which is now
21   out, and that is also a very high year.  It may not
22   be quite as high as the number that I believe shows
23   for 1990.  In other words, that end point is not
24   isolated any more; it has another high point going
25   with it.
                                                 245

 1       Q.    Do you have runs on these other high points
 2   and other years that were run?
 3       A.    I don't.
 4       Q.    Do you know if there was ever any other
 5   runs done of different years?  Maybe taking it, for
 6   instance, 1970?
 7       A.    Drs. Polopolus and Richardson presented
 8   some alternatives statistical analyses that they had
 9   done, but I'm not sure whether they did it for
10   different time periods or not.
11       Q.    Do you know of any Hazen and Sawyer may
12   have done?
13       A.    I don't know of any that Hazen and Sawyer
14   did.
15       Q.    And you didn't personally do any?
16       A.    No, I didn't do any.
17       Q.    Dr. Woehlcke, if I can refer you to
18   document 10, I believe now we have an A and a B, I am
19   looking at the November 18th one that starts with the
20   subject "A Perspective".
21       A.    Yes.
22       Q.    If you could turn to, please, page 4, at
23   the top of the page, that very first sentence?
24       A.    The one that begins, "The proposed" --
25       Q.    Yes.
                                                 246

 1       A.    Okay.
 2       Q.    The assumptions to which you refer, did you
 3   ask Dr. Polopolus for those at the 12/16 meeting?
 4       A.    We asked, yes, because they are essentially
 5   the assumptions that say that when the firm goes out
 6   of production, that the land will permanently go out
 7   of production.  Yes.  We talked about that.
 8       Q.    And farther down, I believe it is the third
 9   sentence, "The breakdown they have appeared" -- do
10   you see what I am referring to?  Same paragraph, two
11   sentences down.  "The breakdown they have appeared to
12   assume is that debt problems cause bankruptcies among
13   the agricultural enterprises."  Is it unusual for
14   that problem to cause bankruptcies?
15             MR. SAXE:  Excuse me, counsel.  Where are
16        we reading?
17             MR. LIEBERMAN:  Page 4, I believe, of
18        document 10, a copy "A Perspective".
19             THE WITNESS:  No, that is not unusual.
20        Again, that is the first of a sequence of things
21        that represents the breakdown that they are
22        referring to.  It is not just the first item.
23   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
24       Q.    On page 5, under Final Observations, the
25   last paragraph --
                                                 247

 1       A.    Yes.
 2       Q.    It is really almost the entire paragraph,
 3   if you want to review it, but I want to focus on the
 4   last two sentences.
 5       A.    Okay.
 6       Q.    You start the second-to-the-last sentence
 7   with, "Providing assurances that these conditions of
 8   further uncertainty will not prevail", how would the
 9   District provide such assurances?
10             MR. SAXE:  Objection to form.  Counsel, are
11        you asking how might the District provide such
12        assurances, because I don't read anything that
13        says the District would or will.
14   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
15       Q.    Well, when you refer to providing
16   assurances, are you referring to the District
17   providing these assurances?
18       A.    I believe I was mostly reflecting on the
19   District providing them, although I suppose others
20   could.
21       Q.    And how would you propose the District
22   provide them?
23       A.    Well, if the District had the authority to
24   make an agreement that, you know, what is required by
25   the interim goals of the settlement agreement, I
                                                 248

 1   guess it is -- or I'm not sure exactly where the
 2   specific interim goals are -- but if the District had
 3   authority to agree that those would be -- that would
 4   constitute the sole responsibility of agriculture,
 5   that if there were further stringent, more stringent,
 6   requirements, that those costs would be borne
 7   elsewhere.  That was the kind of thing that I would
 8   have in mind as something that, you know, if it could
 9   be done would help provide that assurance so that the
10   farmers would consider not just the burden of the
11   existing fees and BMPs, whenever what they are
12   actually going to be is provided, but that, you know,
13   they would consider only those rather than having to
14   consider those plus the possibility of additional
15   further fees that could further hurt the financial
16   condition.
17       Q.    To your knowledge --
18       A.    That I believe would reduce the possibility
19   that there would be economic impacts.  Again, because
20   it would focus on the existing burden rather than on
21   two things, which is existing burden and worrying
22   about the future burden.
23       Q.    To your knowledge, does the District have
24   such authority?
25       A.    I don't know.
                                                 249

 1       Q.    But if the District does have such
 2   authority, you would recommend it?
 3             MR. NETTLETON:  Objection.
 4             THE WITNESS:  No, I did not say that.  I
 5        said that these are ways that we could enhance
 6        meeting the goal of having minimal economic
 7        impact.  They would have to weigh that against
 8        other goals, and that is a job done by the
 9        Governing Board.
10   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
11       Q.    Okay.  If we could briefly look at document
12   11, towards the middle of the letter you are asking
13   Grace to look into baseline estimates.  What I am
14   really concerned with is do you expect a response
15   from Grace to this letter, to these conversations
16   which you reference here?
17       A.    At this point, no, I don't expect a formal
18   response from her.
19       Q.    Do you know what she is now evaluating or
20   looking into in relation to this?
21       A.    I expect to see the whole question of what
22   the baseline profits would be -- your starting point
23   from the historical takeoff into the future -- to be
24   just completely re-evaluated in the 20 year analysis.
25   The 20 year analysis, as I understand it, is not
                                                 250

 1   just, "Well, we are going to take the ten and extend
 2   it for two more years, or ten more years, but we are
 3   going to go back and re-look at everything starting
 4   from the present."
 5       Q.    And that is the wrap up of what you assume
 6   from that; just that it will be looked at?  You don't
 7   expect any further memos from Grace regarding this?
 8       A.    A memo from Grace explaining just why her
 9   historical -- her baseline profits seem to be so much
10   lower than historical, no, I don't expect a memo on
11   that.  I expect that we are just going to basically
12   redo the analysis going out over a 20 year time
13   frame.  But we'll have the baseline estimates to more
14   clearly start from.
15       Q.    Okay, Dr. Woehlcke.  Document 12 -- just
16   because I'm not certain -- you mentioned something --
17   that the starring underneath the date is because of
18   when you turn on your computer that day?
19       A.    I bought a program that is supposed to have
20   a tickler feature, and if you put something in, a
21   document, with the two stars before it, it is
22   supposed to come right up and tell you, you know --
23       Q.    So is this prepared on your home computer?
24       A.    No.  This is done at work.
25       Q.    I'm not sure if it was in the record
                                                 251

 1   yesterday, but I just want to make certain.  You did
 2   author this letter?
 3             MR. NETTLETON:  Which letter?
 4   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
 5       Q.    Or this document we are looking at?
 6       A.    Document 12?  I authored both pieces.
 7       Q.    Now, you stated yesterday something to the
 8   effect, and the record will show exactly, the reason
 9   why you had this meeting is, "We wanted their input".
10   Who is the "we"?  Referring to the federal input.
11       A.    I was referring generically to the
12   District.
13       Q.    Why is it important for the District to
14   give the federal witnesses an opportunity to have an
15   input?
16             MR. SAXE:  Objection.  Assuming facts not
17        in evidence.  Federal witnesses?
18   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
19       Q.    Excuse me.  Why was it important to have
20   these people --
21       A.    We want to get good input from all
22   interested parties.
23       Q.    Well, obviously Polopolus and Richardson
24   weren't invited to this meeting before the meeting.
25       A.    My understanding of this was that the
                                                 252

 1   District originally tried to set up a meeting at
 2   which all the economists would sit down, but that the
 3   fact that the federal economists would be at the
 4   meeting was objected to by the Sugar Cane League, or
 5   whoever would make Polopolus and Richardson
 6   available, and, therefore, since they couldn't meet
 7   with us at the same time.  We were meeting with
 8   Polopolus and Richardson, they wanted to have an
 9   input to this review process.
10       Q.    Who is "they"?  I just want to stop you.
11   Who do you mean; "they wanted to have an input"?
12       A.    I believe the federal economists and the
13   people that decide what meetings they come to.
14       Q.    So the people that decided what meetings
15   the federal economists come to are the ones that
16   wanted this meeting?  Is that what you're saying?  I
17   don't want to mischaracterize.
18       A.    We want the overall process to include good
19   input from all the parties.  We were restricted in
20   that we couldn't have a single meeting with
21   everybody, so we agreed to or I don't think we
22   pursued -- I think we agreed to separate meetings
23   with those parties who indicated an interest.
24       Q.    When you say, "We agreed to separate
25   parties that indicated an interest", who came to you
                                                 253

 1   indicating an interest to have this meeting?
 2             MR. SAXE:  Objection; asked and answered,
 3        counsel.
 4             MR. LIEBERMAN:  Well, before we were told
 5        he doesn't remember, he doesn't know, so now I
 6        am trying to clarify, since he seems to be
 7        recollecting a little better.
 8             MR. NETTLETON:  Objection;
 9        mischaracterizing his testimony.
10   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
11       Q.    I don't mean to mischaracterize.  What I
12   mean is if you remember who came to you.
13       A.    Nobody came to me.  I was told we were
14   going to have a meeting.  I'm not sure who at the
15   District called me up to say that we were going to
16   have a pre-meeting with the federal economists.  I
17   don't know.  You know, I did not participate in the
18   discussions that set up the meeting.  I was told we
19   were going to have the meeting.
20       Q.    So do you even know the participants in
21   that discussion to set up the meeting?
22       A.    No.
23             MR. SAXE:  Would you mark that answer,
24        please.
                                                 254

 1   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
 2       Q.    Now, document 13.
 3       A.    Yes.
 4       Q.    The fifth paragraph.  You authored this
 5   document; correct?
 6       A.    Yes.
 7       Q.    Where you say, "The way they present their
 8   results continues to hide the significance", do you
 9   see where I am talking about; that paragraph?
10       A.    Uh-huh.
11       Q.    What do you mean by that whole paragraph?
12       A.    They present their results by first saying
13   that they replicated the Hazen and Sawyer numbers,
14   then they adjust for about ten things that they call
15   errors.
16       Q.    Give me an example of -- what do you mean
17   by errors?
18       A.    Not considering debt.  But they adjust for
19   all ten of them at once.  We asked and tried to get
20   information that would help us sort out which of
21   those numbers really were causing the differences,
22   and they didn't come through.
23       Q.    When you say they didn't come through --
24       A.    They didn't provide them.  And at the same
25   time, they make those adjustments then -- on top of
                                                 255

 1   those, they make changes in the basic assumptions
 2   that would affect the industry's viability in the
 3   baseline, but they make those after they make the
 4   others, which again tends to hide the fact that they
 5   want to use a very different baseline.  That is what
 6   I mean by that one-sentence paragraph.
 7       Q.    Okay.  And then two paragraphs -- then the
 8   next paragraph after that -- or not the next -- two
 9   paragraphs down, "They provided some leads" --
10       A.    Yes.  Some way to get better costs and
11   other data.
12       Q.    Have these leads been followed up on?
13       A.    Hazen and Sawyer was following up on them.
14   I'm not sure what their status is.  They are
15   essentially people to go to within the USDA to try to
16   get additional information, essentially breaking down
17   the data that Hazen and Sawyer had obtained from the
18   USDA in an aggregate manner.
19       Q.    And in the second-to-last paragraph,
20   starting with, "I asked Hazen and Sawyer" --
21       A.    Uh-huh.
22       Q.    -- was this what you were referring to
23   earlier when you said that -- when you were referring
24   to the 20 year extended FLIPSIM model?
25       A.    Yes.
                                                 256

 1       Q.    And you don't know for certain whether
 2   Hazen and Sawyer has been contacted about a 20 year?
 3       A.    I believe they did not, because we decided,
 4   "Oh, no, let's evaluate first whether we would really
 5   need it."  And that decision is, I think, "No, we do
 6   not really need it."
 7       Q.    So you just made this decision to evaluate
 8   first after this document then?
 9       A.    These are my notes the day after.  Okay?
10   Based on my discussion with Hazen and Sawyer, I
11   believe that when I said in our discussion with Hazen
12   and Sawyer that I would like them to look into that,
13   that I said, "Well, let me check back with the people
14   in my office first."  And so I did that.  But Grace
15   John --
16       Q.    When you checked back --
17       A.    -- hadn't done anything.  And we said, "No,
18   let's wait and evaluate first."
19       Q.    Okay.  When you checked back with the
20   people in your office, who did you check with?
21       A.    Pete Rhoads.
22       Q.    And what was Pete's --
23       A.    Let's evaluate first.
24       Q.    Let's evaluate?
25       A.    Whether we really want the model first, you
                                                 257

 1   know, rather than asking first and then deciding,
 2   "Well, gee, we didn't need it after all" or "It
 3   doesn't suit our needs" or whatever.
 4       Q.    Was Pete part of the decision after
 5   evaluating, or did you just go back and tell Pete
 6   that you had decided not to ask for it?
 7       A.    Oh, I don't make those decisions.  My role
 8   is a technical reviewer.
 9       Q.    Do you know who made that decision?
10       A.    I think that Grace Johns made a
11   recommendation to Pete, but I'm not sure.
12       Q.    And then Pete is that saying that?  Pete
13   made the ultimate decision, or you are not sure who
14   made the ultimate decision?
15       A.    I'm not sure whether Pete talked about it
16   with anybody else.
17       Q.    And you weren't a part of these discussions
18   between Grace and Pete?
19             MR. SAXE:  Objection.
20   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
21       Q.    Were you part of these discussions with
22   Grace and Pete?
23             MR. SAXE:  The deponent didn't say there
24        were discussions; he said he didn't know.
25             MR. LIEBERMAN:  I thought he said Grace
                                                 258

 1        talked to Pete.
 2             THE WITNESS:  I said I believe that she
 3        did.  I'm not sure whether this subject came up
 4        at some of our meetings with Grace.  It may
 5        have, but, you know, I can't say for sure.
 6   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
 7       Q.    When you say, "In our meetings with Grace",
 8   are you referring to Pete Rhoads?  "Our meetings with
 9   Grace"; you and Pete Rhoads?
10       A.    Me, Pete Rhoads, and Sally Kennedy, I
11   think.
12       Q.    So Pete Rhoads and Sally Kennedy were
13   involved in most of the meetings, as was yourself,
14   with Hazen and Sawyer?
15       A.    Yeah.
16       Q.    Now, were these informal meetings or were
17   there formal meetings where an agenda was prepared?
18       A.    "These" being --
19       Q.    The meetings between Pete Rhoads, yourself,
20   Grace Johns, Sally Kennedy.
21       A.    If I have any agendas, they were in my
22   stuff.  I don't recollect any others.
23       Q.    Do you have any idea how many meetings you
24   had in that; the four of you?
25       A.    Well, I recollect we had -- over the whole
                                                 259

 1   period of the contract?
 2       Q.    Yes.
 3       A.    Maybe three or four.
 4       Q.    And what were the topics of these meetings?
 5       A.    Direction.  Give direction to the
 6   contractor and receive input from them on what they
 7   had been doing.
 8       Q.    Direction regarding?
 9       A.    How to proceed with the contract, what
10   topics might be discussed or covered in the final
11   scope of work, go over some of the contracting cost
12   estimating details of the contract.
13       Q.    Were any of them economists?  You mentioned
14   earlier from meetings -- from the meeting you had pre
15   the Dr. Polopolus meeting and post the Dr. Polopolus
16   meeting -- were any of those people ever in
17   attendance at these meetings to decide direction on
18   the Hazen and Sawyer report?
19       A.    No, I can bifurcate the meetings.  The
20   outside federal parties were at the meeting before
21   and the meeting after, and I don't remember the
22   economists or their lawyer being at any of the other
23   meetings that I was at.
24       Q.    Any of the other meetings?  You mean with
25   Hazen and Sawyer?
                                                 260

 1       A.    Yeah.
 2       Q.    Have you had numerous or have you had any
 3   meetings with federal counsel or their people -- you
 4   referred to them just prior in your testimony -- have
 5   you ever had any other meetings with them besides the
 6   two -- the one before, the 12/15, and I believe the
 7   other one is 12/17?
 8             MR. SAXE:  I'm sorry.  Could you read that
 9        question back or repeat it; whichever.
10   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
11       Q.    Had you had any other similar meetings with
12   the same, you know, federal counsel present, as
13   Dr. Woehlcke (sic) referred to, and the other
14   economists that he mentioned?  Were there any other
15   meetings besides the 12/15 and the 12/17 meeting?
16             MR. SAXE:  Objection.  12/15 and 12/17
17        meetings?
18             MR. LIEBERMAN:  I believe those are the
19        dates.  The ones pre Dr. --
20             THE WITNESS:  No.  There is one before and
21        I think there is one a week after.  I think they
22        are seven days apart.
23   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
24       Q.    I'm sorry.  Those meetings.  Were there any
25   others?
                                                 261

 1       A.    I don't recollect any others.  No, I'm
 2   pretty sure there weren't.
 3       Q.    You're pretty sure?  I am just clarifying
 4   for the record.  You're pretty sure there weren't any
 5   others or there weren't any others?
 6             MR. SAXE:  Objection; asked and answered.
 7        Would you read back the witness' answer, please.
 8             (Thereupon, a portion of the record
 9              was read by the reporter.)
10   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
11       Q.    Okay.  Dr. Woehlcke, if you could turn to
12   document 15.  Now, every place the reference is made
13   within this document to the parenthetical C-4157, end
14   paren -- do you see what I am referring to?
15   Throughout the document.
16       A.    Okay.  I see C-145.
17       Q.    4157.  Every place that is referenced, is
18   it your understanding that Hazen and Sawyer is under
19   contract to do those items?  Do you want to go
20   through them individually?
21             MR. NETTLETON:  I would object to the form.
22        This isn't his document, and you're asking him
23        what is meant when Grace Johns wrote it.
24   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
25       Q.    On this document, is that your
                                                 262

 1   understanding of what that is to mean; that the ones
 2   that have the reference, Hazen and Sawyer is under
 3   contract to do?
 4       A.    I don't know because I have not seen a task
 5   statement for the current contract.  I don't know
 6   what it says they are to do.
 7       Q.    Okay.  So let's go through it then.  On the
 8   first page, 2.1.3, "revenues and costs for
 9   vegetables -- contact E. Wine regarding her returns
10   tables", that one does not have a reference.  Do you
11   know if Hazen and Sawyer has ever conducted this or
12   if they are under contract to do this?
13             MR. SAXE:  Objection to form.  Which
14        question do you want answered?
15             MR. NETTLETON:  Well, I am going to object
16        if you're going to go through this whole thing
17        because he's already said repeatedly he has not
18        even seen the final work task for this second
19        contract, so I would assume his answer is going
20        to be the same for all of them; he doesn't know
21        whether this is part of the contract or not a
22        part of the contract.
23             THE WITNESS:  I don't know whether it is
24        part of the contract.
                                                 263

 1   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
 2       Q.    Were you involved in discussions prior to
 3   the actual setting the contract?
 4       A.    Yes.
 5       Q.    Do you remember from your discussions
 6   whether this was a consideration?
 7             MR. SAXE:  Objection to form.  Would you
 8        clarify what you mean by whether this was a
 9        consideration?
10   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
11       Q.    We'll start with 2.1.3. Was a consideration
12   to be conducted by Hazen and Sawyer as part of the
13   contract?
14       A.    You mean like whether that should be
15   included in the contract or not?
16       Q.    Yes.
17       A.    No.
18       Q.    No what?  I'm sorry.
19       A.    I don't recollect that being an issue in
20   the discussion that I had.  Again, I wrote a proposed
21   background memo that we have gone over where I said,
22   "Well, these might be tasks."  I don't remember that
23   being discussed.
24       Q.    How about 2.1.6 on the second page?
25       A.    What is your question about it?
                                                 264

 1       Q.    Same question.
 2       A.    Which is?
 3       Q.    Do you remember from discussions prior to
 4   seeing the contract whether this was considered to be
 5   added to the Hazen and Sawyer contract?
 6             MR. NETTLETON:  You're asking whether he
 7        remembers this issue being discussed as part of
 8        it during his conversations?
 9             MR. LIEBERMAN:  Correct.
10             THE WITNESS:  I remember lots of
11        discussions, but I don't remember whether this
12        was --
13   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
14       Q.    You don't remember this particular issue?
15       A.    Yeah, as part of any discussion of should
16   it be in the contract or not in the contract, because
17   I didn't participate in the discussions that went
18   over should this be in the contract, should that not
19   be in the contract?
20             MR. LIEBERMAN:  Okay.  If I could have this
21        marked as Exhibit 17.
22             (The document was marked
23             Woehlcke Exb. No. 17.)
24   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
25       Q.    If you want to take a second to glance it
                                                 265

 1   over.  Is this a memorandum -- what I am trying to do
 2   is identify it.  Is this a memorandum to you?
 3       A.    Yes.
 4       Q.    And it is from?
 5       A.    Dick March.
 6       Q.    Did you produce this memorandum in your
 7   production?
 8       A.    I don't recollect.
 9       Q.    We didn't find it either.  Who assisted you
10   with the production of your documents?
11       A.    People from the Office of Counsel.
12       Q.    Who were those people?
13       A.    I don't remember.
14       Q.    You don't remember anyone who ever was
15   involved in the review of your documents?
16       A.    They mostly came over and called me up and
17   said, "We would like your documents".
18       Q.    Who is "they"?
19             MR. NETTLETON:  I object to this.
20             THE WITNESS:  People from the Office of
21        Counsel.
22             MR. NETTLETON:  Excuse me.  I object to
23        this line of questioning.  It is getting into an
24        area that could potentially be attorney work
25        product area of how we conduct litigation, and I
                                                 266

 1        don't think there is -- unless you are making
 2        some kind of claim here we have withheld some
 3        documents.  In either case, I don't think it is
 4        a relevant or permissible area of inquiry.
 5             MR. LIEBERMAN:  We are just trying to
 6        establish the level of review of documents.
 7   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
 8       Q.    Do you remember this document in particular
 9   when you conducted your review of documents?  Was
10   there a decision to not include this document with
11   your --
12       A.    Oh, absolutely not.
13             MR. LIEBERMAN:  Is there a privilege list
14        that I'm not familiar with that this could be
15        appearing on, counsel?
16             MR. NETTLETON:  You're asking me?
17             MR. LIEBERMAN:  Yes.
18             MR. NETTLETON:  No.
19   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
20       Q.    If we could look at the first paragraph,
21   third sentence, I believe, "To a large extent the
22   differences between the report stem from the
23   Polopolus and Luke report considering a number of
24   factors not addressed in the original study by
25   Dr. Grace Johns."  Do you agree with that statement?
                                                 267

 1       A.    Not entirely, no.
 2       Q.    What do you mean by "not entirely"?
 3       A.    Much of their difference comes from
 4   different basic assumptions; not considering factors
 5   like debt and taxes, but from basic assumptions that
 6   modify the inherent profitability of the industry.
 7       Q.    What assumptions would those be that would
 8   modify it?
 9       A.    Productivity improvement, sugar cane
10   price --
11       Q.    If you look on --
12       A.    -- integration of the industry.
13       Q.    If you can look on, and if I can read the
14   next part, "Many of the limitations of the Johns
15   report stem from the decision to use an input-output
16   framework.  This framework focuses on aggregate
17   county-level (or larger area) impacts, while it was
18   clear from the workshop discussion that many public
19   concerns were over localized impacts, only
20   imperfectly captured in the input-output model
21   outputs.  This same criticism can be applied to the
22   output presented on page 19 of the report by
23   Dr. Polopolus, although he evidences an appreciation
24   of this limitation."  And then continuing to the next
25   paragraph, "Neither study addresses a major problem,
                                                 268

 1   the social problems associated with a major
 2   disruption in the economic base in the EAA."  Do you
 3   agree with that?
 4             MR. SAXE:  That is quite a mouthful.
 5        You're asking the witness if he agrees with
 6        everything you just read?
 7   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
 8       Q.    The context.  How you perceive that.
 9             MR. SAXE:  Objection to form.
10   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
11       Q.    If you want, we can start with the
12   narrowing of it.
13             Do you agree with the fact that the Johns
14   report is limited -- not the fact, but the assertion
15   here that the Johns report is limited?
16       A.    Aren't we all, except God, you know.
17       Q.    Don't we all.  But do you agree with the
18   assertion here that --
19       A.    I don't think the use of an input-output
20   framework is a major limitation on the Hazen and
21   Sawyer work.
22       Q.    When you say "major limitation", do you
23   consider it a limitation?
24       A.    I don't think the use of the framework is a
25   limitation.  The fact is there is not a sub-county
                                                 269

 1   level input-output model available.  Some of the
 2   important data on industry practices and purchasing
 3   its input or, you know, processing its outputs, those
 4   data are not available, or were not made available,
 5   and data on locations of employment for those
 6   employed by agricultural enterprises were not made
 7   available.  Those are data limitations rather than
 8   framework limitations.
 9       Q.    The top of that paragraph -- I mean the
10   next paragraph, "Neither study addresses a major
11   problem, the social problems", et cetera -- it's been
12   read in before.  Did you ever bring this to Grace
13   Johns' attention or to anyone's attention?
14             MR. SAXE:  Objection to form.  Are you
15        asking whether the witness ever brought this
16        statement to Grace Johns' attention?
17   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
18       Q.    Well, the failure of her program to address
19   the social problems.
20             MR. NETTLETON:  You are talking about Dick
21        March's assessments?
22   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
23       Q.    Yes.  Dick March's assertion.  Because this
24   letter is to you; correct?
25       A.    It is a memorandum addressed to me.
                                                 270

 1       Q.    And that is Dick March; right?
 2       A.    Yes.  What I did with most of his -- well,
 3   with all of his -- memoranda is I would attach it to
 4   whatever comments I had informalized in my memo, and
 5   sent it over, you know, to Pete Rhoads.
 6       Q.    So you would have sent this memo then to
 7   Pete Rhoads?
 8       A.    I would have, yeah.
 9       Q.    Did you ever discuss with Pete this issue,
10   or the issue we just talked about; the input-output
11   as a result of what Dick was saying?  Did you, Pete
12   and Dick ever have discussions regarding his
13   opinions?
14       A.    I don't remember discussing this particular
15   factor.  What Dick is saying relates again to the
16   kind of breakdown case that I referred to, in that I
17   said you really would look at in detail if you had
18   established certain factors that indicate that that
19   breakdown was likely.  Well, because of the initial
20   impacts, because of lack of options and, you know,
21   lack of capability of the area or the people to
22   respond.
23       Q.    Okay.  Just to help me establish the review
24   process here, so you received Dick's memos; correct?
25       A.    Uh-huh.
                                                 271

 1       Q.    Now --
 2             MR. SAXE:  Objection to form.  Are you
 3        asking the witness if he receives all memos that
 4        Dick writes?
 5   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
 6       Q.    No.  That he writes relating to the
 7   assessment of Polopolus or the assessment of the
 8   Hazen and Sawyer reports.  And then you forward them
 9   to Pete Rhoads.  Was that your testimony?
10       A.    I believe that all Dick's input on this he
11   funneled through me.
12       Q.    Now, did you actually have meetings with
13   Pete Rhoads regarding the economic impact statements?
14             MR. SAXE:  Objection to form; asked and
15        answered.
16             MR. NETTLETON:  Same objection.
17             THE WITNESS:  The whole thing is the
18        economic impact statement.
19   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
20       Q.    Right.  Was Dick included in these meetings
21   that you mentioned with Pete Rhoads?
22       A.    I remember him being at one of the initial
23   review meetings in which we conveyed our comments to
24   Grace Johns.  I'm not sure whether Pete Rhoads was
25   there or not.
                                                 272

 1       Q.    I'm sorry.  Just to understand your role,
 2   did you report to Pete Rhoads regarding the impact
 3   statement?
 4       A.    Yes.
 5       Q.    How often did you report to Pete?  Was it
 6   regularly?
 7       A.    As needed.  If there is nothing going on, I
 8   didn't report to him.
 9       Q.    How many times a month would you say you
10   reported to Pete from the time you were in charge?
11       A.    I'm not in charge of anything.
12       Q.    You were in charge of the review process.
13   When you were in charge of the review process.
14       A.    I don't consider that I was, quote, in
15   charge of the review process.
16       Q.    Your role.  How many times when you were in
17   that role that you described?  I don't want to
18   mischaracterize what your role was in the review
19   process, but how many times did you report to Pete
20   would you say, a month?
21       A.    Once I became heavily involved in the
22   review?
23       Q.    Daily, weekly, monthly?
24       A.    Biweekly.
25       Q.    Did Dick join you on these meetings?
                                                 273

 1       A.    These are mostly phone conversations that I
 2   am talking about.
 3       A.    That is an average, because it really
 4   depends on whether Hazen and Sawyer has a product due
 5   and when a product comes in we would review.
 6       Q.    So there is nothing really scheduled?
 7       A.    Yeah.  We would get back to Pete.  Or if
 8   they are considering modifications to the contract
 9   and want my input.
10       Q.    So it is possible you could meet with him
11   every day in a week if it was right before a Hazen
12   and Sawyer draft was in?
13             MR. NETTLETON:  Objection to form.
14             THE WITNESS:  No, nothing like that
15        occurred.
16   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
17       Q.    Okay.  If I can direct you to the third
18   paragraph -- actually the final paragraph on the
19   first page -- if we can try and characterize what
20   Dick is referring to when he says -- and I'll just
21   interject it separately -- "However, more
22   important" -- the part where it starts "... is an
23   identification of the major factors to which the
24   impact estimates are sensitive.  Dr. Johns' report is
25   conducted under an assumption" and then there is a
                                                 274

 1   misspelling -- I will assume it is "at".
 2             Would all counsel accept that?
 3       A.    Wait a minute.  Could you start in the
 4   middle of a sentence?
 5             MR. NETTLETON:  Why don't you just let him
 6        read the paragraph and then you can ask the
 7        question.
 8             THE WITNESS:  Which part of the paragraph?
 9   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
10       Q.    From the "however" down is what I am
11   concerned with.
12             Is it a correct characterization of this?
13       A.    I still haven't read this to the point
14   where I say I understand what he is saying here.
15       Q.    I'm sorry.  Maybe you can just tell me do
16   you know if these concerns Dick has here were ever
17   addressed by Grace Johns?
18       A.    Many of the things which Dick March is
19   suggesting here, which I believe can be summarized as
20   a very extensive sensitivity analysis, you know, were
21   not completed.  For instance, Hazen and Sawyer was
22   not asked to look at the implications of different
23   sizes of the STAs.  That was simply not within their
24   contract scope of work.
25       Q.    So this sensitivity analysis he refers to
                                                 275

 1   was not investigated then by Hazen and Sawyer?
 2       A.    No.  I said that some of the things
 3   weren't.  You know, were clearly not.
 4       Q.    Which are those things then?  Let's clarify
 5   which are those things that were clearly not?
 6       A.    Okay.  Well, clarify what things you think
 7   are there.
 8       Q.    You told me from reading them -- I'm asking
 9   your characterization.  What things do you think?
10             MR. SAXE:  Well, I'm lost.
11   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
12       Q.    Do you understand what I am saying?
13       A.    I am mostly lost.
14             MR. SAXE:  He said, you said, he said, you
15        said.
16   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
17       Q.    Dr. Woehlcke, when you read that, you said
18   it involved, you characterized it, an extra
19   sensitivity analysis.
20       A.    No, I characterized it as extensive
21   sensitivity analysis.
22       Q.    Then you said certain parts of this
23   analysis -- let me try and characterize to make sure
24   we are understanding -- certain parts of this extra
25   sensitivity analysis weren't addressed by Hazen and
                                                 276

 1   Sawyer.
 2       A.    Well, I picked up, in reading that, that
 3   one of the things he says is that they did not do a
 4   sensitivity analysis on the size of the STAs.  And I
 5   say yes, they did not do -- I know they did not do a
 6   sensitivity analysis on the size of the STAs.  Okay?
 7   On the cost of the BMPs, they did look at and revise
 8   estimates through the process, but they did not
 9   conduct a formal sensitivity analysis, which would
10   have involved developing a range of costs of BMPs and
11   looking at the implications of those ranges.
12       Q.    Do you agree with this statement here,
13   "Dr. Johns' report is conducted under an assumption"
14   then we'll just pick out one of the items in the
15   comments information "both with regard to yield" --
16             MR. SAXE:  Counsel, I object to your not
17        letting the witness answer the question.
18             MR. LIEBERMAN:  I'm sorry.  I thought he
19        fully answered it.
20             MR. SAXE:  I appreciate your interest in
21        expediting this --
22             MR. LIEBERMAN:  No, I have no interest in
23        expediting at all.  I will be more than happy to
24        stay as long as it needs to.
25             MR. NETTLETON:  Well, if we are going to do
                                                 277

 1        that, can we go to lunch?
 2             MR. LIEBERMAN:  Let's get through this
 3        document.
 4             THE WITNESS:  Okay.  No risk or uncertainty
 5        with regard to yield.
 6   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
 7       Q.    Uh-huh.
 8       A.    I agree there is no risk or uncertainty in
 9   there with regard to yield other than the input that
10   Hazen and Sawyer got, which is as far as the BMPs go.
11   There is not a significant risk to yield, you know.
12   So, I mean, it is not that it is not there, it is
13   that their best estimate from the experts is that it
14   is close to zero.  So there is not a big range to
15   look at.
16             With regard to price, I believe that they
17   did an analysis.  That is why we had them look at the
18   two different scenarios for the sugar cane, so at
19   least the sugar cane is covered by a significant
20   price sensitivity scenario.
21       Q.    And finally, if you can, I just want to
22   address "... with regard to the effects of the
23   restoration program" as far as this paragraph is
24   concerned.
25       A.    "... with regard to the effects of the
                                                 278

 1   restoration program."  Oh, I don't even know what he
 2   meant by that.  I'm not sure how that relates to
 3   Hazen and Sawyer's analysis.
 4       Q.    Do you have -- you can't --
 5       A.    Well, okay.  He explains it.  "... with
 6   regard to the effects of the restoration program,
 7   proxied for by the size of the STAs."  Well, that I
 8   said wasn't done.  Okay?  And the cost of BMPs, I
 9   don't see where that is an effect of the restoration
10   program.  He may be implying that there is an
11   uncertainty about what the farmers will be required
12   to do under the existing BMP program.  That is
13   probably what he's implying.
14       Q.    Okay.  If you can turn the page, please, in
15   the third paragraph there is an assertion here by
16   Dick March where he says, "The discussion of the
17   impact of long-term debt seems to point up a major
18   difference between the two studies."  Do you agree
19   with that statement?
20       A.    I don't even know where you are.
21       Q.    I'm sorry.  The third line.  The sentence
22   starts in the middle of the third line.
23       A.    Which paragraph?
24       Q.    Top of the page.
25       A.    Oh, you're up at the top.  Yes, I think it
                                                 279

 1   points out the difference between the focus on the
 2   survival of the firm and the use of the land.
 3       Q.    Farther down -- I'm sorry, because it is a
 4   long paragraph -- about the tenth -- halfway at the
 5   present time line down, it starts to the right side
 6   margin, "From a more micro scale" --
 7       A.    Yes.
 8       Q.    Do you believe the existence of debt is an
 9   important variable under sensitivity analysis?
10             MR. NETTLETON:  From a more micro scale?
11   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
12       Q.    Yeah.  I am saying -- I'm not referring to
13   that part of that.  That is just a prefatory part of
14   the sentence.  I am saying do you believe the
15   existence of debt is an important variable to a
16   sensitivity analysis?
17             MR. NETTLETON:  I think that is part of the
18        sentence.
19             THE WITNESS:  The existence of debt would
20        ideally be solved not by sensitivity analysis,
21        but by finding and obtaining the appropriate
22        data.
23   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
24       Q.    That is ideal.  I am saying do you believe
25   that it is an important variable?
                                                 280

 1       A.    I believe it is of secondary importance
 2   because it is part of the picture of firm survival,
 3   and the focus of what Hazen and Sawyer was asked to
 4   do was on analysis of land use.  I agree and have
 5   said before that I think that the impacts on existing
 6   firms, it is relevant information that the Board
 7   would want to consider.  It is not what we asked
 8   Hazen and Sawyer to do their detailed analysis of.
 9   If the Board so directs us to do a firm survival
10   analysis, we'll do that.
11       Q.    Okay.  When you say it is a secondary
12   importance, what do you consider a primary
13   importance?
14       A.    The use of the land and the economic
15   activity in the area that results from the use of the
16   land and changes in that due to the costs and other
17   impacts.
18       Q.    Finally, there is a sentence in the second
19   paragraph.  I just really want to know if you agree
20   with this.  "The existence, at least" the
21   existence -- I'm sorry -- "at least in the short-run,
22   of significantly more "displaced resources," (people
23   who lose their jobs) than indicated by Dr. Johns,
24   seems likely."  Do you agree that it is likely?
25       A.    I would agree that if firms go out of
                                                 281

 1   production because of their financial problems, even
 2   though the lands may stay in production in the long
 3   run, there were likely be short-run loss of jobs.
 4   Well, I won't say I'm sure.  There may be short-run
 5   loss of jobs during the change over.
 6       Q.    Well -- I'm sorry.  Finish your answer.
 7       A.    That's it.
 8       Q.    Well, do you agree that Dr. Johns'
 9   estimates then are low?
10             MR. NETTLETON:  Object to the form.  Have
11        we had on the record what Dr. Johns' estimate
12        are?
13             MR. LIEBERMAN:  No.  It just says that they
14        are --
15             MR. SAXE:  Excuse me.  Counsel, you read a
16        sentence in which the author of this indicated
17        that short-run displaced resources seems likely.
18        The deponent answered that he thought they were
19        possible.  I think the question has been
20        answered.
21             MR. LIEBERMAN:  He said they are possible.
22        I'm asking him now to relate that directly to
23        his familiarity with the Dr. Johns' report.
24             MR. SAXE:  And what is the question?
25             MR. LIEBERMAN:  Does he believe that
                                                 282

 1        Dr. Johns' numbers in this regard are on a low
 2        estimate?
 3             THE WITNESS:  In this regard?
 4   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
 5       Q.    In regard to the rest of displaced
 6   resources.
 7             MR. NETTLETON:  I don't think -- excuse me.
 8             THE WITNESS:  Due to temporary reductions?
 9   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
10       Q.    Correct.  People lose their jobs; exactly
11   as stated there.
12             MR. NETTLETON:  Objection to the form.  I
13        don't think there has been any predicate laid as
14        to what Dr. Johns has said, if she has even
15        stated in her report a loss of peoples' jobs
16        during a short term.
17             But you can answer if you know.
18             THE WITNESS:  No.  My understanding is that
19        the Hazen and Sawyer report did not estimate
20        this short-term displacement of resources, which
21        again I consider to be speculative as to whether
22        it would occur.  It is possible, but I wouldn't
23        say that it is likely.
24             MR. LIEBERMAN:  I just have a final
25        follow-up questions of review.  Honestly, no
                                                 283

 1        more than ten minutes.  I would like to take a
 2        five-minute break before so doing, if that is
 3        agreeable.
 4             MR. NETTLETON:  That's fine.
 5             (Thereupon, a recess was taken.)
 6   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
 7       Q.    Dr. Woehlcke, does the discount rate change
 8   as the return to lands decline in an agricultural
 9   area?
10       A.    Does the discount rate change as the return
11   to lands decline?  The discount rate is an interest
12   rate you're using in a financial analysis.  That is
13   generally your assumption.
14       Q.    So you think it is an assumption?
15       A.    The discount rate is an assumption, yeah.
16       Q.    I am saying does that rate decline in
17   agricultural areas?
18             MR. NETTLETON:  I object to the form.
19             MR. SAXE:  That is a different question.
20             THE WITNESS:  I think you must be confusing
21        some economic concept, and I can't answer the
22        question as you have stated, other than what I
23        have said.
24   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
25       Q.    What are the factors in determining the
                                                 284

 1   discount rate?
 2       A.    What is the discount rate you are referring
 3   to?
 4       Q.    The discount rate you're using for land
 5   value.
 6       A.    Well, I didn't use a discount rate for land
 7   value, so you have got to put it in context.
 8       Q.    A discount rate for land value.  Do you
 9   know the factors that would be involved or you have
10   no --
11             MR. SAXE:  Objection to form.
12             THE WITNESS:  A discount rate is an
13        interest rate used in financial analysis.  It is
14        an input, not an output.
15   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
16       Q.    So let me ask you, would the proper
17   formula -- not the proper, but would a formula for
18   determining the value of agricultural lands be value
19   equals return to land over discount rate?
20       A.    That is a formula used for capitalizing the
21   value, assuming the returns are constant in
22   perpetuity.
23       Q.    Let me try and ask it this way then.  What
24   are the components that go into making up the per
25   acre return to land?
                                                 285

 1             MR. NETTLETON:  Object to form.  Which?
 2   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
 3       Q.    I'm asking what are the components?
 4       A.    Whose, where?
 5       Q.    Well, would you agree that we should look
 6   at -- let me ask you, as a component for going into
 7   making up a per acre return, total cash expenses for
 8   production, should that be a factor to consider?  Or
 9   a component, I should say.
10       A.    I'm not sure.  Again, there are different
11   ways that you would do your financial analysis,
12   depending on what you were trying to get.  In other
13   words, whether you were looking -- you know, whether
14   you are looking at cash flow or whether you are
15   looking at, you know, overall profitability.
16       Q.    If you were trying to determine the per
17   acre return to land, what components would you use?
18       A.    The per acre return to land.  You try to
19   account for the revenues and the costs.
20       Q.    When you say "revenues", can you break out
21   which revenues you are referring to?  Are you
22   referring to total revenues?
23       A.    It would be the gross revenues from all the
24   primary and secondary products that result.
25       Q.    The gross?
                                                 286

 1       A.    Yeah.
 2       Q.    So would you include property taxes?
 3       A.    That is not a gross revenue.
 4       Q.    I am saying would you include property
 5   taxes in achieving your per acre return level?  Under
 6   your --
 7             MR. SAXE:  This question does not follow up
 8        on the previous one, I take it.
 9             MR. LIEBERMAN:  Yeah.  I'm sorry.
10             MR. NETTLETON:  Just for the record, it is
11        obvious the witness is having trouble
12        understanding exactly what you're asking, and I
13        don't understand it, but I don't claim to be an
14        economics person.
15   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
16       Q.    My claim to economic familiarity isn't of a
17   high value here, so bear with me and tell me if
18   you're confused.  I am just trying to figure out in a
19   per acre -- in establishing a per acre return to
20   land, the components that are used, that you would
21   use, in setting up your model.
22       A.    Okay.  The purpose of the analysis is what?
23       Q.    For instance, determining their acre return
24   from the sugar industry.
25       A.    See, the difficulty there is in the way
                                                 287

 1   that you answer the question, because there are
 2   considerations that you take when your purpose is one
 3   versus another.  It is like the difference between a
 4   firm having one set of books for their Federal tax
 5   records and another set of books for some other
 6   records.
 7             Now, what you consider, you know, what my
 8   return to land is may depend on, you know, in one
 9   year on tax policy or something like that.  If that
10   is what my concern is, tax liability, and what is the
11   return for the purposes of tax liability --
12       Q.    Let me try and clarify it then for you.
13   Let's say the Hazen and Sawyer study, return to
14   land -- I mean, like I said, my limited assessment --
15   return to land appears to be an essential part of the
16   Hazen and Sawyer study.  Do you know what component
17   they used in figuring out the per acre return to
18   land?
19       A.    I looked at them.  I don't think I could
20   name them all from memory.
21       Q.    Can we go through some and see if you
22   remember them being there?  Let's do that.
23       A.    I don't think that would I would remember
24   them being there.  I could conceptualize as to
25   whether it makes sense for me to think that they are
                                                 288

 1   there.
 2       Q.    Total cash expenses for production?
 3             MR. NETTLETON:  You are talking as to
 4        whether these are components of the cost side of
 5        the equation?
 6   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
 7       Q.    Well, as part of the equation.  It is just
 8   making up the per acre return to land equation as
 9   used in the Hazen and Sawyer study.
10       A.    What are the total cash?  What is included
11   in the total cash expenses?
12       Q.    The total cash expenses for production.
13       A.    Uh-huh.
14       Q.    Would you agree?
15       A.    What are the total cash expenses?
16       Q.    I don't want to interfere with, like, your
17   economic knowledge.  Whatever you would --
18       A.    See, that is an aggregate category that is
19   going to cover a lot of components, and I would need
20   to know what you're considering in there in order to
21   answer that.
22       Q.    Okay.  We can move on to property taxes.
23   Would you consider property taxes --
24             MR. NETTLETON:  Before or after deduction
25        on Federal income?
                                                 289

 1             THE WITNESS:  In calculating the return to
 2        land, I believe you would want to include
 3        property taxes.
 4   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
 5       Q.    How about interest on immediate and
 6   operating debt?
 7       A.    Immediate and operating debt?  Because what
 8   we are saying is we are getting a return to the land
 9   in profit.  Then the interest on the operating debt
10   would be included in your expenses.
11       Q.    Okay.  Relating to the Hazen and Sawyer
12   study, what effect do you think ignoring risk has on
13   economic feasibility analysis?
14             MR. NETTLETON:  Object to form.
15             THE WITNESS:  Risk with regard to what?
16   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
17       Q.    The report itself.
18       A.    The risk of the report?  That doesn't make
19   sense.
20       Q.    No.  The risk analysis in the report.  The
21   ignorance.  Hypothetically, if you were to ignore
22   risk in performing an in-farm analysis, what effects
23   are you likely to see?
24       A.    In other words --
25             MR. SAXE:  Objection to form.
                                                 290

 1             THE WITNESS:  Ignore risk in everything?
 2             MR. SAXE:  Counsel, it would be helpful
 3        perhaps if you referred to the SWIM plan --
 4        excuse me -- to the economic impact evaluation.
 5             MR. LIEBERMAN:  I think if we can get
 6        something on this hypothetical, it will be fine.
 7             MR. NETTLETON:  I object to the form in the
 8        sense that you're not identifying what risks are
 9        being ignored.
10   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
11       Q.    I am saying, Dr. Woehlcke -- how did you
12   characterize it?  Ignoring all risk?  I don't want to
13   mischaracterize.
14       A.    Since he wouldn't specify and he seemed to
15   want all, I guess he is talking about ignoring all
16   risk.
17       Q.    That's fine.
18       A.    Are you saying Hazen and Sawyer ignored all
19   risk?
20       Q.    No.
21       A.    If you ignored all risks, what would be the
22   impact?
23             MR. NETTLETON:  On what?
24             MR. LIEBERMAN:  Farm analysis.
25             THE WITNESS:  On what?
                                                 291

 1   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
 2       Q.    On performing an environmental farm
 3   analysis.
 4       A.    I don't know what an environmental farm
 5   analysis is.
 6       Q.    Just we'll say an in-farm analysis.
 7       A.    I can't relate to that either.  You'll have
 8   to rephrase that.
 9       Q.    A farm analysis of a farm within the EAA
10   area.  What effects are you going to see in that and
11   fallacies in an economic feasibility analysis by
12   making a complete disregard to risk?
13       A.    Okay.  And we are talking about the impacts
14   on firms, not land use?
15       Q.    Let's do firms first.
16       A.    Okay.  The impacts on firms, it is really
17   indeterminate, because, again, we haven't said what
18   the distribution of the risks is, and we haven't
19   characterized the people as being -- as to whether
20   they're risk takers or whether they're risk adverse.
21   So I really couldn't say what the net impact would
22   be.
23       Q.    Okay.  In review of the Hazen and Sawyer
24   study so far, let me just ask if you agree or
25   disagree that they incorrectly estimated mill
                                                 292

 1   efficiency.  Do you agree or disagree that the Hazen
 2   and Sawyer study did so?
 3             MR. SAXE:  I'm going to object on grounds
 4        of asked and answered in light of the vagueness
 5        and lack of context of the question.  If I
 6        recall correctly, there was testimony yesterday
 7        concerning the treatment by Hazen and Sawyer of
 8        mill efficiency and the economic impact reports,
 9        and unless you want to go back to a specific
10        context and ask a specific question, I'm going
11        to object to that question as vague and
12        unanswerable.
13             THE WITNESS:  What do I here from my
14        left-hand man?
15             MR. NETTLETON:  You can answer if you
16        understand what he is asking.
17             THE WITNESS:  I object to the term
18        "incorrectly".
19   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
20       Q.    I am saying do you agree or disagree?
21       A.    It is again a characterization that
22   something is all black and white.  I believe that the
23   projection of mill efficiency is one of the
24   relatively weaker parts of the Hazen and Sawyer
25   study, and it needs to be improved, and I am
                                                 293

 1   anticipating it will be improved in the 20 year
 2   analysis.
 3       Q.    Did you mention this need to Grace Johns?
 4       A.    Oh, yes.
 5       Q.    On the same lines, do you agree or disagree
 6   that the report excluded interest on immediate and
 7   long-term debt?  Intermediate debt -- excuse me --
 8   and long-term debt.
 9       A.    My understanding is it did not include
10   interest on long-term debt because there was no
11   information on debt, and debt was not addressed on
12   long-terms debt.  I believe it included interest on
13   intermediate debt, which would be, like, the debt for
14   the machinery and other equipment.
15       Q.    Was any effort made to try and achieve what
16   the long-term debt interest would be?
17       A.    The debt information was, I believe, asked
18   for as part of the information request from the
19   agricultural people.
20       Q.    So you believe those requests were made?
21       A.    I believe the requests were made, yeah.
22       Q.    Do you consider the report's failure to
23   consider federal income taxes a problem with it?
24       A.    No, I don't consider that to be a problem.
25       Q.    Why not?
                                                 294

 1       A.    Because we are looking at whether the use
 2   of the land is profitable, and the Federal income tax
 3   is basically going to -- it depends on the level of
 4   profit.  So that as the level of profits diminishes,
 5   it diminishes -- it is not a situation where it would
 6   throw a positive number to a negative number.  It
 7   would affect the size of the positive or the negative
 8   that you have got, but it wouldn't force the shift.
 9       Q.    Would it affect the size in one way or the
10   other; positive or negative?
11       A.    It would affect the size as far as what the
12   return is.  But again, the profitability would depend
13   on the rate and the profitability for the whole
14   enterprise, not just the individual farm that may be
15   affected by the SWIM plan requirements.
16       Q.    When you say it will effect the return,
17   what do you mean?  What kind of affect will it have?
18       A.    What I am saying is that if you calculate a
19   return to land and profit today, without stating and
20   without deducting the impact of the Federal income
21   tax, when you get a positive number, you will get a
22   larger positive number than you would with the taxes
23   taken out when the marginal tax is positive, and you
24   would get a bigger negative number than you would
25   when -- you get a bigger negative number than you
                                                 295

 1   would when the taxes are accounted for, provided that
 2   the firm had some offsetting profits to diminish the
 3   impact of the losses.
 4       Q.    How about state income taxes?  Would the
 5   same be true?
 6             MR. NETTLETON:  Which state income taxes?
 7   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
 8       Q.    Considering all state income taxes.
 9       A.    I believe that would be true, too.
10       Q.    Do you agree that the Hazen and Sawyer
11   report neglected to consider state income taxes?
12       A.    I'm not sure as I remember them being
13   discussed, but I'm not a hundred percent clear on how
14   they were incorporated in their farm financial
15   analysis.
16       Q.    Okay.  Now, can you tell me what other
17   people at the District did you have interaction with
18   as it relates to the Hazen and Sawyer study?  You
19   mentioned Pete Rhoads; correct?
20       A.    Right.  Okay.  Paul Muncy, Sally Melcz
21   Kennedy, Pete Rhoads, Dick March, Tom MacVicar.
22   Okay.  This is in regards to the Hazen and Sawyer?
23       Q.    Yes.
24       A.    I discussed my assignments briefly with my
25   boss, Dave Thatcher, and I would -- there was one
                                                 296

 1   other gentleman who was at one meeting, and I forget
 2   his name.
 3       Q.    District economist?
 4       A.    No.  He was, I believe, more like a
 5   financial analyst.
 6       Q.    And he was a District employee?
 7       A.    Yes.
 8       Q.    When you say meetings, are you referring
 9   to -- was there a set meeting for all of you, or the
10   people you mentioned?
11       A.    Where we got together and sat down as a
12   team?
13       Q.    Uh-huh.
14       A.    There were occasional meetings; again,
15   depending on the need.  If there was a need to
16   discuss and make decisions about some directions for
17   Hazen and Sawyer or follow-ups for the contract or to
18   discuss and review some of the drafts, we had a
19   meeting.  But it wasn't like we had a regular team
20   meeting, you know, the first Tuesday of any month or
21   anything like that.
22       Q.    When you say, "We had a meeting" --
23       A.    They all had a special purpose.
24       Q.    I'm sorry.  When you say, "We had a
25   meeting", do you mean all the people you mentioned;
                                                 297

 1   MacVicar, Pete Rhoads, March?
 2       A.    No.  The attendance varied quite a lot.
 3   Okay?
 4       Q.    From these meetings, were there ever -- did
 5   you ever do memos on these meetings?
 6       A.    I never did.
 7       Q.    Would anyone?  Was there an agenda
 8   prepared?
 9             MR. NETTLETON:  Objection.  This has all
10        been asked and answered.
11             MR. LIEBERMAN:  Well, we were, I believe,
12        in a different set of meetings.
13             THE WITNESS:  No.  I think we are talking
14        about the same set of meetings, and I don't
15        recollect any agenda.  I think that sometimes
16        some items for discussion were presented.  You
17        saw one of my memos.  You know, items for
18        discussion.  There's one in here where Pete laid
19        out some options that I think was used at one of
20        the meetings.  And I think Grace may have
21        prepared again some ideas of, "Well, at this
22        meeting I would like to cover these topics."
23   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
24       Q.    And do you have copies of any of those
25   items of discussions besides the ones that you wrote
                                                 298

 1   that you include in your documents?
 2       A.    You guys have got what I got.
 3       Q.    Okay.  Dr. Woehlcke, in your view, what is
 4   the major flaw or flaws in the Hazen and Sawyer study
 5   of economic impact?
 6             MR. NETTLETON:  Object to the form.
 7        Assumes that he has such views.
 8   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
 9       Q.    Do you consider there being one major flaw?
10   Let's start with that.
11             MR. SAXE:  Objection to the form.
12             THE WITNESS:  A major flaw.  I don't
13        consider it has a major flaw.
14   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
15       Q.    What would you consider the flaw?  What do
16   you consider the most significant flaw it has, even
17   if it is not major in your assessment?
18             MR. NETTLETON:  Object to the form.
19             THE WITNESS:  Of the Hazen and Sawyer
20        study, I see areas for improvement.  I see the
21        20 year -- going to the 20 year analysis as a
22        significant area of improvement.  I see
23        considering more of the adjustments that the
24        industry might make that would help them
25        maintain their profitability and keep the land
                                                 299

 1        in production to be a major improvement.
 2   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
 3       Q.    Major improvement that will be done in the
 4   new study?  Is that what you're saying?
 5       A.    I hope it will be done in the new study.  I
 6   provide input to scopes of work, but I say I don't
 7   even know what their final scope of work is.  I think
 8   going along with the 20 year analysis, you know, a
 9   very good look at the productivity improvement
10   assumptions for all the agricultural industries is
11   important.  That kind of fits in with the adjustment
12   category, but it also indicates that even without the
13   SWIM related changes, the industry has capabilities
14   to -- you're going to look at their capabilities for
15   improving their productivity.
16       Q.    Did you pass that idea on to Hazen and
17   Sawyer?
18             MR. SAXE:  Objection; asked and answered.
19   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
20       Q.    This particular productivity.
21       A.    Productivity improvement, yes.
22       Q.    Did they have a response?
23       A.    A verbal response.  I believe they intend
24   to look at it.
25       Q.    And you again have no knowledge of whether
                                                 300

 1   it will be included?
 2       A.    No, I don't have the specific knowledge.
 3   It would come from looking at the --
 4       Q.    Do you have any knowledge?
 5       A.    Yes.  It was favorably received by
 6   everybody --
 7       Q.    Who is everybody?
 8       A.    -- that was at the discussions.  Grace
 9   Johns, Hazen and Sawyer.  This was discussed -- many
10   of the meetings with Hazen and Sawyer, Pete and Sally
11   would be in and out, and I can't really recall who
12   was there when this particular topic came up.
13       Q.    Was it --
14       A.    So I feel confident that it will be -- it
15   is an idea which is important, and it was well
16   received.  Grace understands it, I understand it.  I
17   am confident it will be, you know, addressed.
18       Q.    Were there ever people at these meetings
19   that weren't employees of the District or Hazen and
20   Sawyer?
21             MR. NETTLETON:  Object to the form.  Which
22        meetings?
23             THE WITNESS:  The only meetings that I
24        recollect anybody else other than District
25        employees and Hazen and Sawyer being there were
                                                 301

 1        the meetings with the federal economists and
 2        their counsel.
 3   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
 4       Q.    The two meetings?
 5       A.    Yeah.
 6       Q.    I mean, that is all inclusive.  I am just
 7   trying to make sure that when you say "the meetings"
 8   you referred to those two meetings that we all know
 9   well.
10       A.    Those are the two meetings.
11             MR. NETTLETON:  Just to clarify the record,
12        I believe he also previously testified about a
13        meeting with Drs. Polopolus and Richardson, who
14        I don't believe are associated with the
15        District.
16             THE WITNESS:  Okay.  Yes.  Right.  We
17        discussed looking at productivity with them,
18        too.
19   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
20       Q.    I don't want to mischaracterize, but I
21   believe you said when you passed on your criticisms
22   to Pete Rhoads when you had problems with the Hazen
23   and Sawyer plan.  Was there any other District
24   employees or staff that you passed on your complaints
25   or criticisms to?
                                                 302

 1             MR. SAXE:  Objection to form.  We
 2        appreciate you don't want to mischaracterize,
 3        but you are misquoting the witness.  The witness
 4        referenced comments concerning the work, not
 5        criticisms and complaints.
 6   BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
 7       Q.    Do you pass your comments -- or when you
 8   had a problem, when you looked at the plan and
 9   noticed that something needed changed or wanted to
10   recommend a change and had such comments -- and we'll
11   call them criticisms in the generic sense as a
12   critique -- did you pass those on to Pete Rhoads?
13       A.    My comment memos are all addressed to Pete
14   Rhoads.
15       Q.    And did you pass them on to any other
16   District employees?  Did you write comment memos to
17   any other District employees?
18       A.    You mean different comment memos or are you
19   talking about copies of the same memo?
20       Q.    No.  Both.  First, different comment memos.
21       A.    No recollection whatever of any different
22   comment memos.
23       Q.    And who else would get copies of the memos
24   you sent to Pete Rhoads?
25       A.    Dave Thatcher and Dick March.  I don't
                                                 303

 1   believe I ever sent copies to Sally Kennedy.  I
 2   believe that I just left it to Pete to share a copy
 3   with her.
 4       Q.    When you say you sent copies --
 5       A.    You know, yeah, that is what the comment
 6   memos -- that as what I did.
 7       Q.    When you sent copies to Thatcher, what was
 8   his role then upon receiving it?
 9       A.    I am in the Comprehensive Planning Division
10   of the Planning Department and he's my Division
11   Director, and I need to keep him informed about my
12   assignments, about the use of my time, and the role
13   that Pete has me playing in this review.
14       Q.    So you had --
15       A.    He's my supervisor and I keep him informed.
16       Q.    So do you have status meetings with him
17   regarding your responsibility to Pete Rhoads?
18       A.    I have occasionally sat down with him and
19   said, "Here is what I'm doing and how it is going."
20   I sat down two days ago and said, "I'm going to be
21   deposed on Wednesday and Thursday."
22       Q.    And he probably said, "You lucky man."
23       A.    No.
24       Q.    Thank you for your time.  I have no other
25   questions.
                                                 304

 1             MR. NETTLETON:  Before we go off the
 2        record, for the record I just want to preserve
 3        objections with regard to two matters.  One is
 4        the some of the exhibits that have been marked,
 5        as has been stated on the record here, have
 6        marks on them that were put on by counsel for
 7        the Cooperative, and I believe some of them even
 8        have outlining on them, and it is not clear.
 9        Some of them were scratched out.  I don't think
10        necessarily all of them were.  So just for
11        purposes of identifying the exhibits, there may
12        be some objection to comments written on them.
13        The other objection is just to preserve our
14        continuing objection with regard to economic
15        impacts and its relevancy or materiality to this
16        entire proceeding on the validity of the SWIM
17        plan.  I know that is still being discussed in
18        front of the hearing officer.  We have produced
19        Dr. Woehlcke in cooperation in discovery in
20        hopes of continuing to expedite this proceeding
21        in the event the hearing officer should rule
22        that this matter is appropriately considered,
23        but in no way are we waiving our position that
24        an economic impact analysis or statement is
25        required in any way by the Marjory Stoneman
                                                 305

 1        Douglas Act or the SWIM Act to determine the
 2        validity of the SWIM plan.
 3             MR. SAXE:  And the United States joins in
 4        the first objection.
 5                          -  -  -
 6                   (Witness excused.)
 7 
 8 
 9           (Thereupon, at 2:25 p.m.,
10            the deposition was concluded.)
11 
                                                 306

 1                    C E R T I F I C A T E
   
 2 
     The State of Florida     )
 3   County of Palm Beach.    )
   
 4 
               I, Elaine V.  Williams, Professional
 5   Reporter and Notary Public, State of Florida at
     large, do hereby certify that Carl Woehlcke was by me
 6   first duly sworn to testify the whole truth; that I
     was authorized to and did report said deposition in
 7   stenotype; and that the foregoing pages, numbered
     from 149 to 306, inclusive, are a true and correct
 8   transcription of my shorthand notes of said
     deposition.
 9 
               I further certify that the said deposition
10   was taken at the time and place hereinabove set forth
     and that the taking of said deposition was commenced
11   and completed as hereinabove set out.
   
12             I further certify that I am not attorney or
     counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or
13   employee of any attorney or counsel or party
     connected with the action, nor am I financially
14   interested in the action.
   
15             The foregoing certification of this
     transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the
16   same by any means unless under the direct control
     and/or direction of the certifying reporter.
17 
               In witness whereof I have hereunto set my
18   hand and seal this ____ day of_____________ 1993.
   
19 
   
20 
                        _______________________________
21                      Elaine V. Williams, CP, CM
                        Notary Public, State of Florida
22                      at large.  My commission expires
                        March 27, 1993.
                                                 307

 1                    C E R T I F I C A T E
 2                         -  -  -
 3 
 4   The State of Florida,   )
 5   County of Palm Beach.   )
 6 
 7 
 8             I hereby certify that I have read the
 9   foregoing deposition by me given, and that the
10   statements contained therein are true and correct to
11   the best of my knowledge and belief.
12 
13             Dated this ____ day of______________ 1993.
14 
15 
16 
17 
18                           _________________________
19                               Carl Woehlcke
20 
                                                 308

 1   DATE:  February 5, 1993
 2   TO:  Carl Woehlcke
          South Florida Water Management District
 3        3301 Gun Club Road
          West Palm Beach, Florida
 4 
     RE:  Sugar Cane Growers v SFWMD
 5 
              Please take notice that on January 28, 1993 you
 6   gave your deposition in the above referred matter.
     At that time you did not waive signature.  It is now
 7   necessary that you sign your deposition.
   
 8             Please come to our office, 319 Clematis
     Street, Suite 500, West Palm Beach, Florida, at any
 9   time between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.,
     Monday through Friday, to sign the deposition.
10   Notice that this address may be different than the
     one where you gave your deposition.
11 
               If you do not appear to sign your
12   deposition within thirty (30) days, the original will
     be forwarded to the attorney who requested your
13   appearance for deposition, for filing with the Clerk
     of the Court.  If you wish to waive your signature,
14   sign your name in the blank at the bottom of this
     page and return to us.
15 
                             Very truly yours,
16 
                             MUDRICK, WITT, LEVY & CONSOR
17                           REPORTING AGENCY, INC.
   
18 
                             ____________________________
19                           Elaine V. Williams
                             NOTARY PUBLIC
20 
   
21   I do hereby waive my signature:
   
22 
     ______________________________
23   Carl Woehlcke
   
24   cc:
     cc:
25   cc: