KTR00086

MONTVAI, ZOLTAN
10/7/2008
Page 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
IN RE: KATRINA CANAL BREACHES : CIVIL ACTION

CONSOLIDATED LITIGATION : NUMBER: 05-4182 "K" (2)
:
: JUDGE DUVAL
:
PERTAINS TO: MRGO, Robinson : MAG. WILKINSON
(No. 06-2268) :
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
Videotaped Deposition of ZOLTAN MONTVAI
VOLUME I
Washington, D.C.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
8:59 a.m.
* * * *
Reported by: Okeemah S. Henderson, LSR
Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

MONTVAI, ZOLTAN
10/7/2008
Page 2 Page 4
1 Deposition of ZOLTAN MONTVAI, held at the 1 I-N-D-E-X
2
2 offices of: 3 Deposition of ZOLTAN MONTVAI
3 4 October 7, 2008
4 U.S. Department of Justice 5 EXAMINATION BY: PAGE:
5 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest 6 Mr. O'Donnell 7
7
6 Washington, D.C. 20004 8 EXHIBITS PAGE
7 (202) 353-2574 9 1 Mississippi Gulf Outlet letter of
8 transmittal 10
10
9 2 Post 1997 reorganization chart 14
10 11
11 3 Pre 1997 reorganization chart 14
12
12 4 Digest of water resources policies
13 13 and activities 19
14 14 5 2/98 Mississippi River Gulf Outlet
bank erosion report 57
15 15
16 6 1/94 Mississippi River Gulf Outlet
17 Pursuant to agreement, before Okeemah S. 16 bank erosion report 59
17 7 11/07 final report to Congress 87
18 Henderson, Licensed Shorthand Reporter and Notary 18 8 Lake Portchartrain & vicinity,
19 Public in and for The District of Columbia. Louisiana letter 116
20 19
21 * * * * * 20 (Exhibits included with transcript.)
21
22 22
Page 3 Page 5
1 APPEARANCES
ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS:
1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S
2 PIERCE O'DONNELL, ESQUIRE
O'DONNELL & ASSOCIATES PC
2 (9:24 a.m.)
3 550 South Hope Street, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90071
3 THE VIDEO OPERATOR: On the record with
4 (213) 347-0290 4 disk No. 1 of the video deposition of Zoltan
E-mail: pod@oslaw.com
5
- and -
5 Montvai taken by the plaintiff in the matter of
6
JOSEPH M. BRUNO, ESQUIRE
6 Katrina Canal Breaches Consolidated Litigation in
7 BRUNO & BRUNO
855 Baronne Street
7 the United States District Court for the Eastern
8 New Orleans, Louisiana 70113
(504) 525-1335
8 District of Louisiana. Civil Action No. 05-4182
9 9 K.
ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
10 JEFFREY P. EHRLICH, ESQUIRE 10 This deposition is being held at the Offices
DANIEL BAEZA, ESQUIRE
11 ROBIN SMITH, ESQUIRE 11 of the United States Department of Justice located
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
12 CIVIL DIVISION, TORTS BRANCH 12 at 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest in
P.O. Box 888
13 Benjamin Franklin Station 13 Washington, D.C. on October 7, 2008 at
Washington, D.C. 20044
14 (202) 353-2574 14 approximately 9:24 a.m. My name is TJ O'Toole. I
E-mail: jeff.ehrlich@usdoj.gov
15 15 am the certified legal video specialist. The
ON BEHALF OF THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
16 CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OFFICE OF COUNSEL: 16 Court Reporter is Okeemah Henderson. The both of
MARTIN R. COHEN, ESQUIRE
17 441 G Street, NW 17 us are representing Gregory Edwards, LLC Court
Washington, DC 20314
18 (202) 761-8545 18 Reporter.
E-mail: Martin.R.Cohen@usace.army.mil
19 19 Will counsel, please, introduce themselves
ALSO PRESENT:
20 TJ O'Toole, Video Operator 20 and indicate which parties they represent.
(Via Telephone)
21 Richard Pavlick, Esq., Darcy Decker, Esq., Darryl 21 MR. O'DONNELL: Pierce O'Donnell for
Decnem, Esq., Brendan O'Brien, Esq., Adam Chud,
22 Esq., Matthew Clark, Esq., Mark Raffman, Esq.
22 the Robinson plaintiffs.
2 (Pages 2 to 5)
MONTVAI, ZOLTAN
10/7/2008
Page 6 Page 8
1 MR. BRUNO: Joseph Bruno, Plaintiffs. 1 MR. O'DONNELL: Great. Okay. I'm
2 MR. SMITH: Robin Smith for the United 2 going to start again. Your name is Zoltan
3 States. 3 Montvai.
4 MR. BAEZA: Dan Baeza for the United 4 A. Correct.
5 States. 5 Q. M-O-N-T-V-A-I. And you work for the
6 MR. EHRLICH: Jeff Ehrlich for the 6 Army Corp. of Engineers?
7 United States. 7 A. Yes, sir.
8 THE VIDEO OPERATOR: Folks on the 8 Q. What's your position, sir?
9 telephone? 9 A. I'm the civil deputy for the
10 MR. DECNEM: Darryl Decnem, plaintiff. 10 Mississippi Valley Division Regional Integration
11 MR. DECKER: Darcy Decker, Orleans Levy 11 Team at our headquarters office in the directorate
12 District. 12 of civil works.
13 MR. O'BRIEN: Brendan O'Brien, 13 Q. You're the civil deputy for the
14 plaintiff. 14 Mississippi Valley Division?
15 MR. CHUD: Adam Chud, LeFarge. 15 A. Regional Integration Team.
16 MR. CLARK: Matthew Clark, plaintiffs. 16 Q. And said something else?
17 THE VIDEO OPERATOR: Thank you. Will 17 A. The directorate of civil works in our
18 the Court Reporter please swear in the witness. 18 headquarters office.
19 Whereupon, 19 Q. That's here in Washington, D.C.?
20 ZOLTAN MONTVAI, 20 A. Yes.
21 called as a witness, having been first duly sworn 21 Q. And that's the same place where the
22 to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 22 chief of engineers is located?
Page 7 Page 9
1 but the truth, was examined and testified as 1 A. They are down the hallway, yes.
2 follows: 2 Q. How long have you worked for the Army
3 EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF: 3 Corps?
4 BY MR. O'DONNELL: 4 A. I have worked for a little more than
5 Q. Good morning, sir. Can you pronounce 5 32 years.
6 your name for me? 6 Q. And you understand that you've been
7 A. Zoltan Montvai. 7 designated by the United States to be what we call
8 Q. M-O-N-T-V-A-I? 8 a rule 30(B)(6) witness as to certain topics
9 A. Correc5t. 9 involved in this litigation?
10 Q. Great. Super. And how are you 10 A. Yes, sir.
11 employed? 11 Q. And you understand that you will be
12 A. I work for the U.S. Army Corp. of 12 testifying in part about topic one, which I'll
13 Engineers. 13 summarize as the Army Corps procedures for
14 Q. What's your position? 14 obtaining congressional authorization for the
15 (Off record discussion held.) 15 MRGO?
16 MR. O'DONNELL: Excuse me, we're taking 16 A. Yes, sir.
17 a deposition here. 17 Q. And also on topic No. 22 you have been
18 MR. EHRLICH: Can you all hear us? 18 designated by the United States to discuss the
19 MS. DECKER: No. 19 Army Corps procedures for congressional
20 MR. DECNEM: No. 20 authorization of civil works projects including
21 MR. O'DONNELL: Can you hear us now? 21 decisions on when and how to seek approval for
22 MR. DECNEM: Yes. 22 modifications and plans that span over time?
3 (Pages 6 to 9)
MONTVAI, ZOLTAN
10/7/2008
Page 10 Page 12
1 A. Yes. 1 Q. I'll get into that. Let's talk about
2 Q. What did you do to prepare for today's 2 your 32 years at the Corp. and what preceded that.
3 deposition? 3 Do you have a college education?
4 A. Talk to some of the attorneys that are 4 A. Yes. I've got a civil engineering
5 here briefly. I just kind of gathered some 5 degree, a bachelor of science degree and I have a
6 thoughts on the process that we have in place. 6 masters in water resources.
7 Q. Did you review any documents? 7 Q. Where did you get your civil
8 A. I have looked at some documents rather 8 engineering degree?
9 briefly. 9 A. Both of those degrees I have gotten
10 Q. What documents did you briefly look 10 them at the University of Buffalo. It's the
11 at? 11 University of New York at Buffalo.
12 A. The house document that authorized was 12 Q. What year did you get your BS degree?
13 the basis for authorization of the MRGO outlet, 13 A. '76 and I think I got my masters in
14 the navigation project in question. 14 '82.
15 MR. O'DONNELL: We'll mark this as 15 Q. When did you go to work for the Army
16 Montvai Exhibit No. 1. 16 Corps?
17 (Montvai Deposition Exhibit No. 1 was marked for 17 A. I started working for the Corps in
18 identification.) 18 June of 1976.
19 BY MR. O'DONNELL: 19 Q. And can you trace just briefly for me
20 Q. Sir, I have placed before you a copy 20 your work history and promotions in the Corps?
21 of what has been previously identified as House of 21 A. I started at the relatively entry
22 Representatives Document No. 245 in the 82nd 22 level and rotational training program civil
Page 11 Page 13
1 Congress First Session. Is this the document 1 engineering, you know, and engineering training I
2 you're referring to? 2 think is the term they used at the New Orleans
3 A. Yes, it is. 3 District in 1976.
4 Q. Had you seen that before you began 4 Went through that program about nine months
5 your preparation for today's deposition? Had you 5 of it. Following that I worked about another
6 seen it before then? 6 close to a year in New Orleans in hydraulics. I
7 A. I have seen it before. 7 was a hydraulic engineer. After that I relocate
8 Q. Okay. Fine. Now, is one of your 8 to the Buffalo where there's an Army Corps of
9 responsibilities it's a long title but on the 9 Engineers office there.
10 regional integration team for the Mississippi 10 Worked in hydraulics for some time, about
11 Valley Division MRGO? 11 five years there and then I worked another close
12 A. Essentially, yes. All the civil works 12 to five years in planning organization. I moved
13 activities from the Mississippi Valley Division 13 to headquarters office in 1987. I have been there
14 area come up through our office and my staff 14 about 21 years now, here in Washington in various
15 working for the director of civil works process 15 capacities; planning program manager, working
16 those documents. 16 different regions across the country.
17 Q. Are you the No. 2 person in your 17 Became a planning branch chief in 2001.
18 division? 18 Following that we went through some
19 A. It's hard to say. The No. 2 person in 19 reorganizations in about 2004 when we have set up
20 our division is the directorate of civil works, 20 the structure that we have the regional
21 the senior executive service person, that's Mr. 21 integration team, which is just really a group of
22 Steve Stockton. He's my boss's boss essentially. 22 folks dedicated to a certain area to process and
4 (Pages 10 to 13)
MONTVAI, ZOLTAN
10/7/2008
Page 14 Page 16
1 work actions from there. 1 Division --
2 I have been in that position at the civil 2 Q. I know that?
3 deputy for the Mississippi Valley Division region. 3 A. -- but I work at the headquarters
4 MR. O'DONNELL: I'm going to mark this 4 level.
5 as Montvai Exhibit 2. It's an org chart. I'm 5 Q. And the Mississippi Valley is
6 going to leave the stickum on it that says pre1997 6 headquartered in Vicksburg?
7 reorganization. But this will be Exhibit 2. And 7 A. Correct.
8 then I'm going to mark this at the same time as 8 Q. Then there's a position in this
9 Exhibit 3 and this is called post1997 9 structure of the Army Corps known as the director
10 reorganization. 10 of civil works?
11 (Montvai Deposition Exhibit Nos. 2-3 were marked 11 A. Correct.
12 for identification.) 12 Q. Is that where you work?
13 BY MR. O'DONNELL: 13 A. Yes.
14 Q. I'll represent to you, sir, that these 14 Q. And then there's various directorates
15 Exhibits 2 and 3 are our attempt to depict the 15 and then they report in turn ultimately to the
16 pecking order hierarchy reporting levels of Army 16 chief of engineers?
17 Corps and we understand from the Corps Web site 17 A. Correct.
18 and other sources that there was some kind of 18 Q. Who has a deputy?
19 reorganization around 1997, okay? Is that your 19 A. Yes.
20 understanding of the reorganization? 20 Q. Then the Chief of Engineers reports to
21 A. I'm just trying to remember when -- 21 the chief of staff of the Army?
22 the regional integration team that I'm part of 22 A. Yes.
Page 15 Page 17
1 now, I believe that was a later process than 1997 1 Q. Who in turn reports to the secretary
2 but -- 2 of the Army?
3 Q. I'm mostly focusing on that but we'll 3 A. Correct.
4 get to that -- 4 Q. And that's a presidential appointee,
5 A. That may have been a reorganization in 5 the secretary of the Army?
6 1997 and I don't recall it. 6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Let's look at Exhibit 2 because you've 7 Q. Then the secretary of the Army reports
8 been with the Corps since the '70s, right? 8 ultimately to the secretary of defense?
9 A. Right. 9 A. Yes. I would presume so.
10 Q. And I'm going to go from the bottom 10 Q. Then ultimately to the President of
11 up. You started your work you said in 1972 upon 11 the United States?
12 graduation from college in the New Orleans 12 A. Yes.
13 District? 13 Q. Now, there's an OMB here, that's the
14 A. Yes, sir. 14 office of management and budget?
15 Q. And it's my understanding the New 15 A. Correct.
16 Orleans District reports to the Mississippi Valley 16 Q. You have to deal with them, as we'll
17 Division? 17 learn I think later today, when you're processing
18 A. Correct. 18 budget proposals for the Army Corps to Congress?
19 Q. And at the national level 19 A. Not only the budget proposals but the
20 nonintegration team in civil works, that's where 20 reports themselves are looked at by the office of
21 you work, correct? 21 management and budget as the Corps may request
22 A. I don't work at the Mississippi Valley 22 authorization from Congress.
5 (Pages 14 to 17)
MONTVAI, ZOLTAN
10/7/2008
Page 18 Page 20
1 Q. And Exhibit 3 is a post1997 -- we've 1 Department of Army digestive Water Resources
2 labeled it as the post1997 reorganization and it 2 Policy and activities, civil works, office of the
3 would appear to me that there's more -- 3 chief engineers. It has the code or
4 A. I think you might have these 4 classification capital EP 1165-2-1, December,
5 backwards. 5 1972.
6 Q. I have them backwards? 6 BY MR. O'DONNELL:
7 A. Well, the point being that in my 7 Q. Can you identify that for me?
8 recent years, the Mississippi Valley Division is 8 A. Yes.
9 called that currently. And this one that you call 9 Q. Can you identify that Exhibit 4 for
10 post shows it as lower Mississippi Valley Division 10 us, sir?
11 that was prior to the reorganization, I believe, 11 A. Sure. It's the digestive water
12 that you're referring to here. 12 resources policies and activities for the
13 Q. Okay. If I've got them in reverse, so 13 Department of the Army, Civil Works dated
14 let's just try this for a second? 14 December, 1972.
15 A. I believe you probably do. 15 Q. And you're familiar with that
16 Q. So I have now reversed them and now 16 document?
17 we'll identify Exhibit 2 as the post' 97 17 A. I am.
18 reorganization and Exhibit 3 as the pre '97 18 Q. You refer to it from time to time?
19 reorganization. And let me ask you a question. 19 A. We use it on and off.
20 As I see Exhibit 3 as we kind of look at 20 Q. What was the purpose of that document?
21 them side by side, in the reorganization there are 21 A. It establishes very broadly the
22 now fewer divisions, correct? 22 policies of the Corps of Engineers working on the
Page 19 Page 21
1 A. Correct. 1 Department of the Army in implementing civil
2 Q. So there must have been some 2 works-related projects.
3 consolidation, I would presume? 3 Q. And MRGO would fall under that
4 A. Yes. 4 category?
5 Q. And there are more districts? 5 A. Well, it would be MRGO is a project
6 A. The districts I believe remained. 6 that would have been developed by similar policies
7 They were no district that I recall that may have 7 but understanding many years ago prior to this
8 been eliminated but some of the districts were 8 policy being established.
9 reassigned to other divisions. 9 Q. But to the extent that MRGO is an
10 Q. Okay. Fine. So we know where you 10 ongoing project that post dated December, 1972,
11 are. You're located in that green block in the 11 would it be covered in those policies?
12 middle of each organization chart? 12 A. It's operation and maintenance. Yes.
13 A. Yes, I am. But I am not the director 13 Q. We'll get to that in a minute. So
14 of civil wars. 14 that digest has procedures for decision making?
15 Q. But you still have some time to go? 15 A. I believe it does.
16 A. I don't plan on doing that. 16 Q. Reporting?
17 MR. O'DONNELL: Let's mark this as 17 A. I believe it does.
18 Montvai Exhibit 4 if we could. Thank you. 18 Q. And chain of command?
19 (Montvai Deposition Exhibit No. 4 was marked for 19 A. But again, this is a document that's
20 identification.) 20 really not an ideal document. There are other
21 MR. O'DONNELL: I only have one copy of 21 documents that are more appropriate in those
22 this. I have marked this Exhibit 4, this is a 22 terms.
6 (Pages 18 to 21)
MONTVAI, ZOLTAN
10/7/2008
Page 22 Page 24
1 Q. What do you mean it's not an ideal 1 Q. It's regulation number?
2 document? 2 A. 1110-2-100.
3 A. It's a very broad and general policy. 3 Q. When was that promulgated?
4 Procedures are more detailed and there are other 4 A. It's been in place. I don't recall
5 policies within the Corps that describe those more 5 the first time that was issued but it's currently
6 accurately. 6 being updated. I believe the version that's up
7 Q. Is that document Exhibit 4 still 7 there on our Web site may be about 2000. I don't
8 operative? 8 recall precisely.
9 A. Not this version, no. 9 Q. Fine. I understand. We'll get it.
10 Q. Is there a more recent version? 10 What other documents are more specific than the
11 A. Yes, sir. 11 digestive water resources policies and activities
12 Q. What's the most recent version? 12 that guide your work?
13 A. At least 1999 maybe more recently. I 13 A. Possibly the budget circular that's
14 don't recall if the copy that I've got printed out 14 put out every year.
15 it says 1999. Electronic versions on our Web 15 Q. Is that an OMB document?
16 sites are probably more recent, more up to date. 16 A. No. It's a Corps produced document
17 Q. So there's a '99 version on your Web 17 that provides guidance out on budgeting for
18 site? 18 studies and projects.
19 A. At least, if not more current. I 19 Q. Is that on your Web site?
20 don't recall what the version is on the Web site. 20 A. Yes, it is.
21 Q. Do you know how many changes or 21 Q. Can you give me the classification?
22 amendments the Exhibit 4 went through between 1972 22 A. I don't have it off the top of my
Page 23 Page 25
1 and 1999? 1 head.
2 A. I don't know that, no. 2 Q. But it's a budget circular?
3 Q. Did it go through any changes? 3 A. Yes.
4 A. I'm sure there had to have been some 4 Q. What other documents are there that
5 revisions, that's why you update it. 5 are more specific than the digest?
6 Q. May I borrow Exhibit 4 for a minute? 6 A. Well, there are many regulations, you
7 A. Sure. 7 know, we can look up on the Web site and see
8 Q. Thank you. Now, you said in addition 8 what's appropriate but I don't -- I think those
9 to the digestive water resources policy and 9 are really the key documents.
10 activities there are more specific or detailed 10 Q. What document would you go to if you
11 policy manuals? 11 were thinking that maybe we need to go to Congress
12 A. Yes. 12 to get some funding for preventing wetlands loss
13 Q. Governing civil works for water 13 in the area of the MRGO. What documents would you
14 resources projects? 14 look at?
15 A. Basically the planning side, that's 15 A. You would need to have a decision
16 what you're talking about here? 16 document completed, those regulations alone
17 Q. Okay. Can you identify those 17 wouldn't take you there.
18 documents for me? 18 Q. What's a decision document?
19 A. Sure. It's planning guidance 19 A. A document that reflects an evaluation
20 notebook, engineering regulation 1110-2-100. 20 of the situation at hand and then makes a
21 Q. Is that an EP? 21 recommendation upon evaluation of the conditions
22 A. It's a regulation EP is just a policy. 22 to take a certain action out.
7 (Pages 22 to 25)
MONTVAI, ZOLTAN
10/7/2008
Page 26 Page 28
1 Q. So it recommends a specific action? 1 A. Correct.
2 A. Correct. Correct. 2 Q. Was that equivalent to what we'd call
3 Q. What's that document called 3 today to a feasibility report?
4 generically in the Corps? 4 A. Essentially. The process has changed
5 A. It's called typically a decision 5 from what was the process in the '50s to what we
6 document. It could be a feasibility report. 6 have today but this document is essentially an
7 Could be a post authorization change report, 7 investigation in response to congressional
8 there's different titles that fall within that 8 resolution asking for a study, an evaluation.
9 categories. 9 Q. And money was appropriated for that
10 Q. I'm interested in those titles. 10 purpose?
11 Feasibility report is one? 11 A. Must have been. Otherwise you would
12 A. Yes. 12 not have been able to accomplish the work.
13 Q. And you said a post -- 13 Q. I understand that house document 241
14 A. Post authorization change report is 14 which is the 1951 document --
15 another. 15 A. 245.
16 Q. Okay. Any others? 16 Q. I misspoke. 245. Was the equivalent
17 A. It could be general re-evaluation 17 of a feasibility report studying and investigating
18 report, which is essentially a feasibility 18 the prospects for a Mississippi River Gulf Outlet
19 document but it's done post authorization. A more 19 and it was recommended to Congress in house
20 elaborate, more involved evaluation of change 20 document 245?
21 conditions than say a post authorization change 21 A. Correct.
22 report would be. 22 Q. Other than house document 245, are you
Page 27 Page 29
1 Q. For the MRGO from 1958 to the present, 1 aware of any Army Corps feasibility report, post
2 has the feasibility report, the post authorization 2 authorization change report and/or general
3 change report or general evaluation report -- 3 re-evaluation report for the MRGO?
4 re-evaluation report ever been prepared by the 4 A. I'm not.
5 Corps? 5 Q. You're not aware of any?
6 A. I'm sorry. What was your question? I 6 A. No.
7 missed the last part. 7 Q. Now, other than those three types of
8 Q. Since 1958, has the Corps prepared for 8 records that you've identified for me --
9 the MRGO a feasibility report and/or a post 9 withdrawn. We got to these three types of reports
10 authorization change report and/or a general 10 when you described for me what a decision document
11 re-evaluation report? 11 was. Do you recall that?
12 A. I don't know. I mean, maybe it's not 12 A. Right.
13 appropriate. I mean, a feasibility report is 13 Q. And without a decision document, the
14 produced to recommend to Congress an 14 Corps does not go to Congress or up the rest of
15 authorization. That's what resulted in this 15 the chain of command to get congressional
16 document, the one you just gave me a copy of. 16 authorization for funding, correct?
17 Q. Exhibit 1? 17 A. Not for authorization. No. Keep in
18 A. Congress authorized the project and 18 mind, authorization and funding are two separate
19 from that authorization upon appropriations being 19 steps.
20 provided, the project was constructed. 20 Q. I understand that. Let's be clear.
21 Q. Exhibit 1 was a 1951 document, 21 Authorization as opposed to appropriation?
22 correct? 22 A. Correct.
8 (Pages 26 to 29)
MONTVAI, ZOLTAN
10/7/2008
Page 30 Page 32
1 Q. So a decision document is required for 1 A. John Saia?
2 authorization for a project or activity by the 2 Q. Yes. Well, I think he had at least
3 Corps, correct? 3 four pronunciations in his deposition.
4 A. Yes. 4 A. I understand who you're referring to.
5 Q. Now, distinguish authorization and a 5 Q. I think it's John Saia is the way I
6 decision document for me on the one hand to an 6 understood. He was a Rule 30 (B)(6) witness on a
7 appropriation on the other. What document, if 7 related topic and just to get a frame of
8 any, is required for the Army Corps to go to 8 reference, he said that in his experience, the
9 Congress for an appropriation for something 9 budget cycle from the time the New Orleans
10 involving say a MRGO. And let's pick -- go ahead? 10 District would first put together its budget say
11 A. The Corps puts together its annual 11 for O&M for the MRGO to the time it was finally
12 budget. Within that budget if you have an 12 appropriation was about an 18 month cycle; is that
13 authorized project or well, let me just stay with 13 about right?
14 the project for a second. 14 A. That's about right.
15 Q. Let's stick with the MRGO. That's 15 Q. Have you had personal involvement
16 fine. 16 reviewing and commenting on the O&M budget for the
17 A. Okay. MRGO. The Corps will provide a 17 MRGO over the years?
18 request operation and maintenance funds for that, 18 A. Not so much the O&M budget but I have
19 it's a federal responsibility. So that is part of 19 an individual that works for me that's the budget
20 the budget request that is submitted from the New 20 program manager. He would be the one to look at
21 Orleans District through the division office at 21 that in more detail. I normally wouldn't have a
22 the Mississippi Valley Division up to the 22 reason to look at the O&M budget.
Page 31 Page 33
1 directorate of civil works. 1 Q. Okay. Is that because it's not that
2 And then the budget is rolled into one 2 large an item?
3 document and it's provide to the secretary -- the 3 A. Not necessarily. It's just more of a
4 assistance secretary Army for civil works and 4 normal year-to-year process. It's more of a
5 ultimately the office of management and budget. 5 routine.
6 They in turn then combine it with other budget 6 Q. What does the operation budget entail?
7 requests from the other agencies and that becomes 7 What activities is money appropriated for?
8 part of the President's budget proposal for a 8 A. Normally it's appropriated for the
9 certain fiscal year. 9 activities of the project to maintain it. Where
10 Then Congress would presumably take that 10 we have federal maintenance responsibilities such
11 into consideration as they provide appropriations 11 as like the MRGO and its normal operation
12 for that year. 12 maintenance activities.
13 Q. And I understand along the process 13 Q. Does that include largely dredging?
14 after the New Orleans District puts together say 14 A. Dredging.
15 an O&M budget for the MRGO, changes can occur to 15 Q. Anything else?
16 those items? 16 A. Could include some measures relating
17 A. Certainly. 17 to dredging personnel, surveying of the
18 Q. Including at the congressional 18 conditions, placement of rock, I believe, was also
19 committee level, right? 19 done out of the O&M fund?
20 A. Yes. 20 Q. Rip rap?
21 Q. Now Mr. Saia, another Army Corps, 21 A. Rip rap can be part of that upon
22 employee? 22 justification being done for that purpose.
9 (Pages 30 to 33)
MONTVAI, ZOLTAN
10/7/2008
Page 34 Page 36
1 Q. Would it be within the operation and 1 over the years of MRGO that the project purpose
2 maintenance budget on this annual cycle if the 2 was navigation and the O&M activity was restricted
3 Corps wanted to propose measures to prevent the 3 to dredging and other operations to maintain the
4 widening of the MRGO channel? 4 waterway as navigable?
5 A. If it's related to the dredging 5 A. Yes.
6 responsibility they could. 6 Q. But whether there was impact say from
7 Q. What if it was related to the 7 wetlands that would require separate study and
8 operations responsibility? I want you to assume 8 separate appropriated funds?
9 hypothetically, there's a lot of documents on 9 A. Correct. And authorization to add
10 this, that the MRGO was originally constructed to 10 that as a second project purpose.
11 a top width of about 650 feet. Are you familiar 11 Q. Okay. So activities other than
12 with that? 12 dredging and related activities to keep the
13 A. Yes. 13 waterway at the authorized depth for shipping
14 Q. And a bottom width of about 500 feet? 14 would have to be separately studied?
15 A. Correct. 15 A. Correct.
16 Q. But over the years the banks widen in 16 Q. Congress would have to determine that
17 part from natural conditions but also because of 17 funds needed to be used for separate purpose like
18 what's called wave wash or wave erosion. Are you 18 wetlands preservation, right?
19 familiar with that phenomenon? 19 A. Yes.
20 A. Yes. 20 Q. And therefore, there would have to be
21 Q. If the Corps had wanted to do 21 appropriate congressional action --
22 something to arrest that widening process to tar 22 A. That's correct.
Page 35 Page 37
1 it or even prevent it, would the money have been 1 Q. -- of authorization on the one hand
2 proposed to be appropriated out of the O&M budget? 2 and then appropriation, correct?
3 A. If it's shown to be that there's 3 A. Yes.
4 certain cost savings realized as a result of that 4 Q. Are you aware of whether the Corps
5 measure in maintaining that navigation channel. 5 ever from 1958 to the present went to Congress and
6 In other words, the Corps just couldn't go out 6 asked that the purpose of the MRGO be modified to
7 there and they decide I want to use half of that 7 include wetlands preservation and appropriate
8 money and just put some stone there because I like 8 funding for wetlands preservation along the MRGO?
9 stone there, no, that's not the process. 9 A. That's a long question there.
10 Q. What if the Corps was aware of 10 Q. Do you want me to break it down?
11 information that said if we put stone or other 11 A. If you would.
12 kind of armoring along the banks we'll save, we'll 12 Q. Please, go ahead?
13 stop the widening process and also protect 13 A. There were investigations under way to
14 wetlands. Would that have been a justification 14 deal with that problem. That investigation,
15 under O&M? 15 however, did not proceed and get provided to
16 A. No. Because that's not a project 16 Congress.
17 purpose, then the Corps would have had to look at 17 Q. Was not submitted to Congress, right?
18 a document, would have to look at like a 18 A. It wasn't completed.
19 reconnaissance, the study process that we just 19 Q. Does that mean by the time of Katrina?
20 talked about and recommend to Congress another 20 A. Even as of now that I'm aware of.
21 project purpose. 21 Q. What was -- I'm sorry. Forgive me --
22 Q. It has been the Corps interpretation 22 A. There was a reconnaissance
10 (Pages 34 to 37)
MONTVAI, ZOLTAN
10/7/2008
Page 38 Page 40
1 investigation done in the '80s time frame. I 1 Water Resources Development Act of 1986.
2 don't recall exactly, may have been like '88, '92. 2 When it says you are looking at purpose of
3 Q. Was that the bank erosion report? 3 coastal restoration and we've done investigations
4 A. I believe it may have been focussed on 4 other than just specific to MRGO, Louisiana
5 that. 5 coastal area is an ecosystem restoration effort on
6 Q. And that was not completed to the 6 a large scale, that requires 65 percent federal,
7 point where the Corps made a recommendation? 7 35 percent nonfederal cost share and the act
8 A. Correct. 8 itself requires that the operation maintenance is
9 Q. Recommendation to Congress? 9 a nonfederal responsibility. Congress defines
10 A. Yes. It was not because of the lack 10 those.
11 of a cost share sponsor to sponsor the feasibility 11 Q. Are you telling me that WRDA, the 1986
12 study. The 1986 Act, the Water Resources 12 Water Resources Development Act has a specific
13 Development Act of 1986 required cost sharing of 13 provision with regard to the MRGO?
14 activities the Corps undertakes. 14 A. I didn't say that. I don't know.
15 Q. Let me probe that. You said earlier 15 Q. You don't know one way or another?
16 and I don't think there's much of a dispute, that 16 A. I don't recall. I mean, that Act has
17 MRGO is a federal project, correct? 17 thousands of provisions in it.
18 A. Correct. 18 Q. Okay. The Army Corps went to Congress
19 Q. And any responsibilities for operation 19 and got some funds for foreshore protection in the
20 and maintenance are a federal responsibility? 20 upper part of Reach 2 of the MRGO, did it not?
21 A. Correct. 21 A. I believe it did.
22 Q. So if a federal project is a federal 22 Q. What was the purpose of that foreshore
Page 39 Page 41
1 responsibility and a consequence of that project 1 protection?
2 is wetlands loss, are you telling me that it's the 2 A. I believe it was to protect the bank
3 Corps position that the remediation of that 3 of the MRGO.
4 problem caused by the federal project it has to be 4 Q. From what?
5 cost shared with local sponsors? 5 A. From continued erosion.
6 A. No. You have to look at the project 6 Q. So it didn't have any ecosystem
7 purpose involved. The project purpose of MRGO is 7 protection purpose?
8 navigation. The O&M responsibility for navigation 8 A. That wasn't the purpose. No.
9 projects is federal, but if you're looking at 9 Q. Now, at any time over the life of the
10 ecosystem restoration or looking at other 10 MRGO, the Corps could have gone to Congress and
11 restoring coastal wetlands, different cost sharing 11 recommended an amendment to the purpose of the
12 and it's a nonfederal responsibility for operation 12 MRGO to include remediating adverse effects of the
13 and maintenance. 13 MRGO, correct?
14 Q. Has it been the Corps position since 14 A. Yes.
15 the construction of MRGO that to the extent there 15 Q. It did not do so, correct?
16 might be a need to remedy the destruction or loss 16 A. I believe I said earlier that we
17 of coastal wetlands or ecosystem caused by the 17 didn't have a feasibility cost sharing partner
18 MRGO, it was not an exclusive federal 18 that was willing, financially able to complete
19 responsibility to pay for that? 19 that feasibility investigations.
20 A. I think you're presuming Congress what 20 Q. I'd like you to assume hypothetically
21 they might do on that but the Corps has not -- I 21 with me what I believe is a fact but you can
22 mean, right now we have laws that we go by, the 22 assume it that prior to the Water Resources
11 (Pages 38 to 41)
MONTVAI, ZOLTAN
10/7/2008
Page 42 Page 44
1 Development Act of 1986 the Corps had identified 1 about in the early '80s, '82 or so time frame that
2 the continuing widening of the MRGO banks and 2 investigated or asked the Corps of Engineers to
3 destruction of the wetlands as a problem related 3 investigate the erosion problem along the canal.
4 to the existence of the MRGO. Will you assume 4 Q. Is that what led to the soil
5 that? 5 reconnaissance study?
6 A. I believe there were widening 6 A. I'm not familiar with that.
7 certainly did occur following construction of MRGO 7 Q. But based on input from local
8 and those conditions were known many years back. 8 interests in the greater New Orleans area you're
9 Q. Right. Including the wetlands loss, 9 referring to?
10 correct? 10 A. I'm presuming, yes.
11 A. Of course. The widening resulted in 11 Q. Congress authorized some money to
12 loss of wetlands. 12 study what?
13 Q. So before the 1986 Water Resource 13 A. Congress authorized the authority
14 Development Act, this problem had been identified 14 itself asking for the Corps to look at the
15 by the Corps, correct? 15 condition that existed at that time.
16 A. I'm sure it was. 16 Q. Which conditions?
17 Q. But the Corps did not go to Congress 17 A. The erosion of the banks.
18 prior to 1986 to ask for an amendment for the 18 Q. Was that study -- that study was never
19 purpose of MRGO and any funds be appropriated for 19 completed?
20 remediation of the widening of the channel or loss 20 A. There was a reconnaissance study that
21 of wetlands, correct? 21 was done in response to that resolution. In fact,
22 A. I'm not aware of a specific document 22 there were, I believe, two reconnaissance studies.
Page 43 Page 45
1 that would have been sent to Congress. I can't 1 Q. One in 1988 and one in 1984?
2 answer the question if there were documents sent 2 A. That would be about right.
3 to Congress to notify them of that. 3 Q. But they didn't come to a conclusion
4 Q. Well, sending a document to Congress 4 or recommend anything to Congress, correct?
5 to notify Congress of a situation is not the same 5 A. I think the '94 reconnaissance being
6 as recommending to Congress that money be 6 the more recent one did not identify a sponsor
7 appropriated for, correct? 7 that I was referring to earlier to go into more
8 A. The only time you would ask for money 8 detailed investigations that could have resulted
9 is once Congress gives us an authority to study 9 in an action presuming there is federal interest
10 that problem. 10 determined to send it to Congress. Yes.
11 Q. The way the procedure works in your 11 Q. If you assume for purposes of my
12 experience is the Corps would go to Congress and 12 discussion hypothetically that the problems caused
13 say we have a situation here that we think needs 13 by the widening of the MRGO and the attendant loss
14 funding, would you please fund it, correct? 14 of wetlands was caused by a federal project of
15 A. That's one process. Another process 15 MRGO, wouldn't that be a federal responsibility to
16 could very well be that local interest go to their 16 fund that 100 percent, the study of that problem?
17 members and make them aware of a certain situation 17 A. If you're looking at restoring coastal
18 and request that Congress ask the Corps to study 18 wetlands as I described that requires a 65, 35
19 that problem. 19 cost share.
20 Q. To your knowledge, did that happen 20 Q. I didn't ask you that question. I
21 with regard to MRGO? 21 asked you was it the Corps position that if a
22 A. I believe there was a study resolution 22 adverse effect such as widening of the channel and
12 (Pages 42 to 45)
MONTVAI, ZOLTAN
10/7/2008
Page 46 Page 48
1 loss of wetlands is attributable to the MRGO, that 1 looking at ecosystem restoration and the cost
2 there never the less still has to be a local 2 sharing requirements reflected by the Water
3 sponsor to pay for 35 percent of the study? 3 Resources Act.
4 A. That's what the '86 SEC requires. 4 Q. So with regard to the 1994
5 Q. It would be fair to say that's at 5 reconnaissance report, it's your understanding
6 least the Corps interpretation of the act? 6 that the Chief of Engineers did not send that
7 A. Yes. And I may add there's amendments 7 report to Congress with the recommendation for any
8 to that act or certain previsions if you're 8 appropriations or authorization for funding,
9 looking for that may be in subsequent Water 9 correct?
10 Resources Development Act. 10 A. Correct. You don't send
11 Q. To your knowledge after 1986, did the 11 reconnaissance records to Congress because you
12 Corps ever go out and seek a nonfederal local 12 have to follow that up with a more detailed
13 sponsor to study the problems caused by the MRGO 13 investigation, that's the basis for the chiefs.
14 including widening of the banks and loss of 14 Q. But it wasn't sent to Congress, to
15 wetlands? 15 your knowledge, by the Chief of Engineers?
16 A. The '94 recon did specifically just 16 A. Correct.
17 that. 17 Q. If the Corps decided it needed to take
18 Q. And what was the conclusion? 18 further actions because of the problems it
19 A. They were not able to find that 19 identified with regard to the widening of the
20 nonfederal sponsor. 20 channel and the loss of the wetlands, what would
21 Q. Did they inform Congress of that fact? 21 have been the next step after the 1984
22 A. I'm sure they were, Congress was 22 reconnaissance report?
Page 47 Page 49
1 notified, they were part of the mailing list, it 1 A. The next step, in fact, was the New
2 was almost a normal process but that, was there a 2 Orleans District evaluated placing rock, rip rap
3 formal letter sent or a final chief report sent to 3 along the banks and the project purpose that they
4 Congress? I'm not aware of that. 4 were ultimately able to do it under the navigation
5 Q. To your knowledge, there is not one, 5 purpose by showing that placing the rock had
6 correct? 6 reduced their operation and maintenance
7 A. I'm not aware of it. No. 7 responsibility or requirements and based on that
8 Q. Well, if anybody was in the Corps to 8 shore protection was provided.
9 speak today about whether there was one, it would 9 Q. For a fairly short stretch, correct?
10 be you, right? 10 A. Some stretches of it certain river
11 A. Well, I wasn't in the position at that 11 miles but I don't know what the total amount was.
12 time and it's possible that -- 12 Q. That foreshore protection was on the
13 Q. Your designation includes the process 13 south side of Reach 2, correct?
14 by which the Corps over the years of MRGO went to 14 A. I thought there was some on the north
15 Congress to deal with any deleterious or harmful 15 bank as well.
16 effects of the MRGO. Have you studied that issue? 16 Q. There was an area along the MRGO upper
17 A. We have studied in a general sense and 17 part of Reach 2 where the channel had broken
18 in fact, right now, the Corps is looking at an EXO 18 through to Lake Borgne. Are you familiar with
19 system restoration for MRGO. 19 that?
20 Q. To be exclusively federally funded? 20 A. Yes, that's the north part, not the
21 A. I don't believe there would be because 21 south part.
22 that's again goes back to the project that you're 22 Q. Was there any foreshore protection or
13 (Pages 46 to 49)
MONTVAI, ZOLTAN
10/7/2008
Page 50 Page 52
1 rock put in that area? 1 the Corps?
2 A. I'm not specific. My analogy is not 2 A. Yes. 100 percent federally funded.
3 specific exactly where they put it, but I believe 3 Q. But to move to the next step to try to
4 they tried to place the shore protection in there 4 deal with the problem to get to Congress to ask
5 to maintain that separation of MRGO from Lake 5 for appropriations for the problem, it is the
6 Borgne. 6 Corps policy and interpretation of WARDA, at
7 Q. When was that done? 7 WARDA, the Water Resources Development Act 1986,
8 A. I don't have a specific date. 8 that a nonfederal sponsor has to be found to pay
9 Q. Post Katrina? 9 for 35 percent of the feasibility study --
10 A. Prior to Katrina, I believe. 10 A. No. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to
11 Q. How far? 11 confuse you. The study itself is 50 percent.
12 A. It may have been some post Katrina 12 It's 50/50 for feasibility studies. The 65/35
13 work as well. 13 portion that I referred to, that's project
14 Q. I want to go back to this apparently 14 implementation. And it's Section 103, I believe,
15 the Corps interpretation of the Water Resources 15 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 has
16 Development Act of 1986. Okay. Can you site to 16 the concept of the two phase planning process, the
17 me today where in that Act Congress specified that 17 feasibility phase being the phase that is cost
18 if any study was to be done up to ameliorate the 18 shared 50/50.
19 adverse effects of an exclusively federal project 19 It's sponsor providing credits and services,
20 there still had to be a 35 percent nonfederal cost 20 you get credit for that but that would be the
21 sharing? 21 vehicle then to produce reports to go back to
22 A. I don't believe there is a provision 22 Congress for modification to a project.
Page 51 Page 53
1 that's specific to that. Keep in mind there are 1 Q. Let's cut this up into smaller pieces.
2 policies of the administration also has to move 2 So now your testimony as I understand your
3 forward with certain types of projects. 3 testimony is that to go from a reconnaissance
4 Q. Can you point to me a policy, a 4 report, which essentially identifies a problem,
5 regulation, an opinion of -- 5 correct?
6 A. Budget policies circular. 6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Can you tell me which budget circular 7 Q. To a feasibility study a report, which
8 I could go to in order to find a statement of 8 lays out proposed alternative solutions and
9 Corps policy or federal government policy that to 9 budgets for Congress is the Corps interpretation
10 ameliorate adverse effects caused by a federal 10 of the Water Resources Development Act that that
11 project, particularly the MRGO, 35 percent of any 11 study must be funded 50 percent by the United
12 funds to study a solution of that problem had to 12 States and 50 percent by a nonfederal sponsor?
13 come from a nonfederal source? 13 A. Correct.
14 A. Right now what I have described to you 14 Q. Can you point to me anywhere in the
15 earlier is the Corps completed a recon to 15 Act where it says with regard to a federal project
16 determine the appropriate cost sharing and cost 16 which has caused adverse effects that that is the
17 allocation, depending on what the project purposes 17 policy?
18 are, what the benefits of a certain measure may be 18 A. I don't believe that policy is
19 to navigation, the feasibility study would be the 19 reflected in the Act. I'm not aware of it.
20 one to precisely lay that out, make a 20 Q. Can you show me any Corps regulation,
21 recommendation to Congress. 21 policy statement, interpretation, budget circular
22 Q. Reconnaissance reports are funded by 22 that states this?
14 (Pages 50 to 53)
MONTVAI, ZOLTAN
10/7/2008
Page 54 Page 56
1 A. I guess you have to go back and 1 focussing on the 50/50 implementation requirement.
2 investigate that situation, that's the reason for 2 A. 50/50 cost sharing.
3 the study to begin with so you can identify -- 3 Q. Right. The one you corrected earlier?
4 because basically what you're doing, sir, is 4 A. Right. That's not implementation of
5 you're jumping to a conclusion to know what the 5 the.
6 outcome of that study is going to be. 6 Q. No. No. I meant 65/35?
7 MR. O'DONNELL: No, I didn't. Can you 7 A. 65/35 restoration.
8 read the question back, please? I don't think I 8 Q. You said it's the Corps position that
9 did. 9 with regard to the implementation of any solutions
10 A. I'm sorry. I misunderstood you. 10 to problems even though it's a problem caused by
11 Q. It's okay. I'll restate it. Can you 11 the MRGO, a federal project, the remediation of
12 point to me any Corps policy statement, circular, 12 those adverse affects such as widening of the
13 interpretation, regulation or other document that 13 channel and the loss of wetlands, the
14 says when a federal project like the MRGO causes 14 implementation of any such solution requires in
15 adverse affects, such as widening of the banks and 15 the Corps interpretation of Water Resources
16 wetlands in this instance, that to prepare a 16 Development Act a 50/50 sharing between the
17 feasibility study on possible solutions, there 17 federal government, a nonfederal sponsor or
18 must be a 50 percent nonfederal sponsor to fund 18 sponsors, correct?
19 that study? Can you show me anywhere where I can 19 A. That's correct.
20 find that? 20 Q. Can you point to me any document that
21 A. That's the planning process that we 21 says that?
22 have in place. I don't know where specifically 22 A. Other than the budget document, the
Page 55 Page 57
1 that's written at the moment. No. 1 planning guidance notebook possibly looks at that
2 Q. You can't site it to me now? 2 but it's a document yeah thick. I can't recall
3 A. Not off the top of my head, no. 3 specific provisions of it.
4 Q. Can you site to me any Corps policy, 4 Q. In terms of something like a water
5 statement, interpretation, circular, regulation or 5 digest policies, a regulation, a circular, an
6 other document that says that for the 6 opinion of the general counsel of the Army Corps
7 implementation of a recommended solution to a 7 of the U.S. Army, anybody, can you show me a
8 federal project like the MRGO is adverse effects 8 document that has that interpretation?
9 such as widening of the banks and wetlands loss, 9 A. I'm not aware of one.
10 that the implementation costs must be shared 10 MR. O'DONNELL: Why don't we just take
11 35 percent by a nonfederal sponsor? 11 a quick break.
12 A. I believe the way you would look at 12 THE VIDEO OPERATOR: The time is
13 that is that project purpose. What's the purpose 13 10:16:18. Off the record.
14 of that investigation? That's why you go back to 14 On the record. The time is 10:33:02.
15 ecosystem as the restoration purpose and the cost 15 MR. O'DONNELL: Welcome back, sir.
16 sharing required for that, that's defined by the 16 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
17 Act itself. 17 MR. O'DONNELL: Let's mark this as the
18 Q. Can you show me anything in writing 18 next exhibit in order.
19 stating that interpretation? 19 (Montvai Deposition Exhibit No. 5 was marked for
20 A. Can you be more specific? What 20 identification.)
21 interpretation? 21 BY MR. O'DONNELL:
22 Q. It's a parallel question. I'm now 22 Q. I'll identify it and then pass it to
15 (Pages 54 to 57)
MONTVAI, ZOLTAN
10/7/2008
Page 58 Page 60
1 the witness. I only have one copy but I think 1 A. That's one of them. Yes.
2 that will be sufficient. This is Exhibit 5 and 2 Q. Let me see the first one, the 1988
3 it's the Army Corps of Engineers Mississippi River 3 just for a moment. Is there a basic format that's
4 Gulf Outlet St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana bank 4 used to prepare reconnaissance reports in terms of
5 erosion report, reconnaissance report, February, 5 what's in the document, not the specifics but the
6 1998. Have you seen this document? 6 different --
7 A. I have seen it when counsel showed it 7 A. Generally speaking, there's a certain
8 to me. 8 requirement that a reconnaissance report will
9 Q. I believe that was also Exhibit 9 in 9 have. It will include to you some lead in like an
10 the summary judgment exhibit list. Sir, have you 10 executive summary or syllabus. It will make a
11 seen that document before? 11 reference to a study resolution or what the
12 A. I'm aware of it but I have not read 12 authority that is under which that study is being
13 this document. No. 13 conducted.
14 Q. And you refer to a type of decision 14 They'll have typical background information
15 document one of which -- withdrawn. No. You 15 leading anywhere from climatology to physical
16 referred earlier to a reconnaissance report. Is 16 settings of the project area. It will identify
17 that a reconnaissance report? 17 problems, needs and opportunities. It will look
18 A. Correct. 18 at one or two or more alternatives looking at ways
19 Q. And you said there have been a couple 19 of addressing that problem but it will also make a
20 of reconnaissance reports done of the MRGO? Is 20 determination is there a potential federal
21 that one of them? 21 interest in moving out onto a more detailed
22 A. That is one of them. Yes. 22 investigation.
Page 59 Page 61
1 MR. O'DONNELL: 1 And is there a nonfederal interest out there
2 Q. Why don't we while we're doing this, 2 who is financially able and is willing to cost
3 mark this as Exhibit 6. 3 share in the more detailed investigation, the
4 (Montvai Deposition Exhibit No. 6 was marked for 4 feasibility study. And it will identify or have a
5 identification.) 5 project management plan for the next phase. In
6 A. There may have been others but I'm not 6 other words, what's the cost, the features of the
7 aware of all the documents that were done. 7 following study.
8 BY MR. O'DONNELL: 8 Q. Okay. The way I look at these
9 Q. I'm going to show you Exhibit 6 for 9 documents is I work backwards, so about, they're
10 identification which was an Army Corps, a document 10 not paginated, but maybe about a fifth of the way
11 as well. It's the same words I said before, 11 into the document I have found something which has
12 Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, St. Bernard Parish, 12 the Department of the Army stationary and then it
13 Louisiana, bank erosion reconnaissance report. 13 says Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, St. Bernard
14 This has a January, 1994 date. Sir, have you 14 Parish, Louisiana, reconnaissance report on bank
15 taken a look at Exhibit 6? 15 erosion. The next page is what you said is a
16 A. I have looked at it just now. Yes. 16 syllabus. Is a syllabus like a summary?
17 Q. Have you seen that before? 17 A. Like an executive summary.
18 A. I have not. I knew of its existence 18 Q. Okay. And then there's a table of
19 but I have not read it. 19 contents you mentioned and then there's various
20 Q. You referred to a second 20 couple hundred pages. Do you see that?
21 reconnaissance report on the MRGO for 1994. Is 21 A. Okay. I see what you have.
22 that the document that you're referring to? 22 Q. Then working toward the front of the
16 (Pages 58 to 61)
MONTVAI, ZOLTAN
10/7/2008
Page 62 Page 64
1 document there are other different documents like 1 River Outlet bank erosion reconnaissance report.
2 correspondence and comments attached. Can you 2 Do you see that?
3 tell me what they are? 3 A. Yes.
4 A. I don't know. I haven't seen it so 4 Q. Again, I'll represent to you and I'll
5 how can I tell you. 5 show you there are one, two, three, four pages of
6 Q. When the report is done by the New 6 typed plus some design sketches attached. Do you
7 Orleans District, okay, was this report done by 7 see that?
8 the New Orleans District? 8 A. Yes.
9 A. I'm presuming it is. I don't know. I 9 Q. Would that be typically the form in
10 haven't seen it, sir. 10 which the comments would be made by the division?
11 Q. Is it commented upon up the chain of 11 A. Correct.
12 command? 12 Q. And are those comments considered part
13 A. Reconnaissance reports, typically not. 13 of the overall report?
14 Reconnaissance reports -- keep in mind that over 14 A. Yes. They're part of the record.
15 the years at one time headquarters looked at 15 Those comments may have raised questions on the
16 reconnaissance reports so let me be clear in my 16 conclusions or comments may have been referring to
17 response. Today we do not look at that. 17 the study itself or may have made comments for
18 This is what I was referring to earlier that 18 things to consider for the following
19 while the process is essentially the same 19 investigations.
20 providing investigations and recommendations to 20 Q. There's a reference to a memorandum
21 Congress, the level of review and involvement in 21 for the record about a meeting that was held.
22 this documents over the years have been delegated 22 What's a memorandum for record?
Page 63 Page 65
1 more and more down to the district and division 1 A. It's just a, basically what it says.
2 levels. 2 It's a memo that was written documenting the
3 So while at one point headquarters looked at 3 discussions that took place at a particular
4 the reconnaissance report, we no longer do that 4 meeting.
5 today. 5 Q. There's a reference to a GDM
6 Q. Does the Mississippi River Valley 6 supplement. What's a GDM?
7 Division review reconnaissance reports? 7 A. General design memorandum.
8 A. Not today. 8 Q. And what's a GDM supplement?
9 Q. How about 1988? 9 A. Well, a supplement is something that
10 A. 1988 they probably did. Yes. 10 was prepared to the general design memorandum but
11 Q. I'll represent to you there are 11 those are engineering documents that are prepared
12 comments in Louisiana -- the lower Mississippi 12 typically following authorization by Congress.
13 Valley Division in here. Okay. 13 The view being to develop the basic planning or
14 A. I would not be surprised to see that 14 basic concept, the plans that were identified in
15 at all. No. There may have been an '88 15 the feasibility report, a more detailed
16 headquarters comment on them as well. I think in 16 feasibility report, they would then develop as
17 '88, headquarters did look at the reconnaissance. 17 engineering details toward the view of being able
18 Q. Into the document about 10 or 12 pages 18 to prepare plans and specifications ultimately
19 is a section called LMVD. Is that Lower 19 leading your construction.
20 Mississippi Valley Division? 20 Q. While the reconnaissance report was
21 A. Yes. 21 being prepared, was the Corps in the New Orleans
22 Q. Comments relative to the Mississippi 22 District also processing a general design memo for
17 (Pages 62 to 65)
MONTVAI, ZOLTAN
10/7/2008
Page 66 Page 68
1 some fore shore protection? 1 for a fact.
2 A. I don't know that other than what you 2 Q. Now, typically in 1994, a
3 making a reference there but there were numerous 3 reconnaissance report would be followed up by a
4 general design memos leading all the way back to 4 feasibility report?
5 in the '50s, I know that for a fact. 5 A. Correct.
6 But they just too numerous for me to know 6 Q. And that's one that would be shared
7 what were the purposes or you would have to look 7 50 percent federal funding and 50 percent
8 at each and every one of those individually and 8 nonfederal sponsor funding?
9 find out what they were accomplishing. 9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Did the Army Corps of Engineers pay 10 Q. On page 2 of the document numbered
11 for 100 percent of the 1988 reconnaissance report? 11 page 2 of the syllabus it states as follows: "The
12 A. Yes. I mean, I don't have that 12 report contains recommendation to proceed to the
13 specifically but the policies being what they were 13 feasibility phase." Do you see that?
14 that the reconnaissance reports were 100 percent 14 A. I'm presuming that's what that says
15 federally funded, the answer would be yes. 15 but I can't see that far.
16 Q. And also the 1994 reconnaissance 16 Q. Take a look at it, page 2, first
17 report? 17 sentence of the last paragraph here. Does it say
18 A. Yes. 18 that?
19 Q. If the comments by the lower 19 A. Yes.
20 Mississippi Valley Division suggested additional 20 Q. It did not proceed the feasibility
21 evaluation say of the alternative completely 21 phase, correct?
22 closing the MRGO, how would that comment move 22 A. That's my understanding. Yes.
Page 67 Page 69
1 forward in the process if at all? 1 Q. The opening paragraph of the syllabus,
2 A. I don't know how they move forward. 2 would you read the first sentence to us into the
3 So you're asking me to speculate on something I 3 record? The first paragraph of the syllabus?
4 don't know how you -- 4 A. First paragraph first sentence, "This
5 Q. Do you know if that comment moved 5 report presents the results of continued
6 forward? 6 reconnaissance phase investigations of bank
7 A. I don't know because I haven't seen 7 erosion and erosion-related problems in the
8 that comment nor the response that the District 8 vicinity of Mississippi River Gulf Outlet MRGO
9 provided on that so I don't know that. 9 channel."
10 Q. I think you said earlier in your 10 Q. From that, it would indicate that this
11 testimony this morning that the 1994 11 1994 reconnaissance report of that erosion was a
12 reconnaissance report on the MRGO bank erosion 12 follow on study to the 1998 report?
13 stated that it could not find a potential 13 A. Yes.
14 nonfinancial sponsor? 14 MR. BRUNO: And if you guys want to
15 A. I believe so. Yes. Whether it's in 15 make copies during the lunch hour, but I think we
16 the reconnaissance report there may have been 16 all know this document and I just --
17 correspondence following the reconnaissance report 17 BY MR. O'DONNELL:
18 because sometime that goes on for some time 18 Q. Were there any follow on
19 following completion of the report as you are 19 reconnaissance reports done on the bank erosion
20 preparing to undertake the feasibility study. 20 wetlands problem of the MRGO after the 1994
21 So that document may or may not be in that 21 reconnaissance report, to your knowledge?
22 report. It would be but I just don't know that 22 A. I believe there was a 96 recon report
18 (Pages 66 to 69)
MONTVAI, ZOLTAN
10/7/2008
Page 70 Page 72
1 that was the one that the district ultimately 1 time to make it a higher priority within the
2 concluded that they could implement some measures 2 administration or budgets tend to go up and down
3 to protect the banks because it resulted in a cost 3 from year to year.
4 savings in the operation; in other words, dredging 4 So but I'm presuming that they were funded
5 of the channel. 5 and those measures I believe were implemented.
6 Q. Would that be called a reconnaissance 6 Q. And it's your testimony as I
7 report or might it have a different -- 7 understand it that the reason the reconnaissance
8 A. It think it was called a 8 report of 1994 did not proceed to a feasibility
9 reconnaissance report. 9 report or study was because a nonfederal sponsor
10 Q. Is that what preceded the funding for 10 to put up 50 percent of the cost of that study
11 the foreshore protection we described earlier? 11 could not be identified?
12 A. I'm presuming that was it. I don't 12 A. I believe I said that and that's
13 know what was the next document. I'm just talking 13 correct.
14 to some folks I'm aware of that. 14 Q. So up to the time of Katrina, the
15 Q. Even though it may be anecdotal or 15 Corps never identified a nonfederal sponsor?
16 secondhand I just need to ask some more questions. 16 A. You need to be more specific on that.
17 If, in fact, the 1986 New Orleans District had a 17 Nonfederal sponsor for what?
18 reconnaissance report that showed a benefit versus 18 Q. They measure the same mode --
19 cost to doing some foreshore protection, was a 19 MR. EHRLICH: I'm sorry. Just let
20 feasibility study done after that? 20 Mr. O'Donnell finish his question before you
21 A. It may not have been for the following 21 answer.
22 reason, because they concluded that the 22 BY MR. O'DONNELL:
Page 71 Page 73
1 implementation of that measure was with an 1 Q. Up to the time of Katrina it's your
2 existing authority. In other words, it was a 2 understanding and testimony that the Corps did
3 navigation project purpose and cost savings 3 not identify a nonlocal sponsor to put 50 percent
4 resulting to the operation and maintenance of that 4 of the cost to go to the next stage of a
5 existing project. 5 feasibility study to ameliorate the adverse
6 For that reason, they would not have 6 effects of MRGO?
7 completed a feasibility report because the 7 A. Not under MRGO. And you said nonlocal
8 feasibility report is produced with the primary 8 sponsor, right?
9 purpose to send that report to Congress and 9 Q. Yeah. Nonfederal or local sponsor?
10 requesting additional authorization. 10 A. Yes.
11 So they, they had the authority to implement 11 Q. It didn't find one?
12 so they did not have to go to the next phase. 12 A. Correct.
13 Q. And available funding within the 13 Q. Can you tell us, for the record, what
14 annual operation or maintenance? 14 efforts were made to find such a nonfederal, local
15 A. That's correct. Was used to actually 15 sponsor?
16 accomplish that work. So they may have done a GDM 16 A. I am not familiar with that, the
17 or detail design, plans and specs and go to 17 District would have to provide that more detailed
18 construction. One step those funds were made 18 assessment. Now, there were other activities
19 available, so they may have budgeted for that as 19 ongoing as well besides directly related to MRGO.
20 part of their annual O&M budget requirements, and 20 The Corps was investigating a large scale coastal
21 I don't know if it took couple of years to get 21 restoration to address the issue of coastal
22 that money because sometimes those things take 22 wetland losses.
19 (Pages 70 to 73)
MONTVAI, ZOLTAN
10/7/2008
Page 74 Page 76
1 That was the coastal restoration, the LCA, 1 the Water Resources Development Act of 2007. It's
2 Louisiana Coastal Area ecosystem restoration 2 an authorized project as we speak right now.
3 report stemming from the coast 20/50 concept 3 Q. Was the reconnaissance report done by
4 because there have been many other man-made and 4 the Army Corps of Engineers?
5 natural affects that have resulted in the loss of 5 A. Yes.
6 coastal wetlands. 6 Q. Funded by the Army Corps of Engineers?
7 The Corps did finish a feasibility study for 7 A. Yes.
8 that and provided that to Congress for 8 Q. No nonlocal sponsor?
9 authorization as an authorized project to restore 9 A. No, not on national.
10 costal wetlands in Louisiana including the 10 Q. On the feasibility report there was a
11 vicinity of MRGO. 11 completion in 2004, who paid for that?
12 Q. That study, however, is a broad 12 A. That was one half the Army Corps while
13 federal study dealing with impacts on the coastal 13 the federal government, the other half of it was
14 wetlands other than Army Corps impacts such as 14 paid for by the State of Louisiana.
15 MRGO, for example, oil and gas pipelines, correct? 15 Q. Did the am back (phonetic) pay for it?
16 A. You said other than Army includes? It 16 A. Yes.
17 never made the distinction of where the impacts 17 Q. How about the chief's report of
18 came from but recognizing there have been both 18 January, 2005 who paid for that?
19 man-made and Army Corps was part of that man-made 19 A. Well, that's, there's no payment
20 as well as other projects, and I'm not even 20 involved that comes out of folks producing it for
21 talking about projects in Louisiana. 21 the Chief of Engineers like myself that are paid
22 Well, there were projects, navigation 22 from our general expense accounts.
Page 75 Page 77
1 projects, the flood control projects, the levies 1 Q. When the Corps does a cost benefit
2 themselves that were built along the Mississippi 2 analysis an a reconnaissance report, does it take
3 River themselves were part of the reasons why 3 into consideration nonmonetary environmental
4 coastal subsidence, wetlands as you've stopped the 4 benefits or only actual cost savings such as
5 natural flow of the sediment. 5 dredging?
6 So it looked at that without placing blame 6 A. You have to look at the project
7 on any one organization or activity or whether it 7 purpose for navigation. What you would look at
8 was natural or man-made process, the objective was 8 was what's the monetary, so you're looking at
9 to identify a large scale restoration measure for 9 purely economics flood control similarly. When
10 coastal Louisiana recognizing that the wetlands 10 you're looking at ecosystem restoration and
11 were being eroded and were being lost. 11 benefit cost ratio is not computed but the outputs
12 Q. What's the name of that study? 12 of that effort is restoration of X number of acres
13 A. Louisiana Coastal Area. 13 of wetland and described with a benefit cost ratio
14 Q. LCA? 14 is not produced for that.
15 A. Yes. 15 Q. So the answer is that nonmonetary
16 Q. When did it start? 16 benefits such as environmental benefits and
17 A. The reconnaissance report had to have 17 preserving wetlands from further loss and
18 been in early 2000 maybe even late 1998 or so time 18 restoring loss wetlands is not calculated in the
19 frame. It resulted in a feasibility report of 19 cost benefit equation?
20 2004 or so. We had a chief report, January, 2005 20 A. That's correct.
21 that was formally sent to Congress recommending a 21 Q. And why not?
22 large scale restoration, that became authorized in 22 A. Because it's not an appropriate --
20 (Pages 74 to 77)
MONTVAI, ZOLTAN
10/7/2008
Page 78 Page 80
1 there's no way to put a dollar value on wetlands. 1 category. Keep in mind when the Corps says that
2 Q. Well, are you aware of the Corps 2 if you have say 10 acres or whatever number of
3 studies and other studies that indicate wetlands 3 wetlands it's going to reduce damages to an area,
4 have a surge-buffering effect during hurricanes? 4 we need to defend that.
5 A. Yes. 5 And right now, the science and the models at
6 Q. So could you monetite that a little 6 our Vicksburg research facility have not been
7 bit? 7 comfortable in being able to show that number.
8 A. Well, there's been a number of studies 8 Q. Has the Corps asked Congress for any
9 done to try to put a dollar value on ecosystem and 9 funds to be appropriated to do such further
10 again, then you have to look at well, what is 10 studies and modeling?
11 ecosystem? How rare? How significant that is? 11 A. I'm sure we have.
12 And but we have not placed a benefit cost ratio in 12 Q. No. I want to know in fact has the
13 our hurricane protection studies, for example, on 13 Corps done it?
14 the value of wetlands. 14 A. I'm not aware of that but a lot of our
15 But we do acknowledge and recognize that 15 research and development funds that have been
16 they do have a tendency of, they have a surge 16 provided to the Corps have been asked in that
17 reduction and protection of the wave foundation so 17 area.
18 we have not shown a benefit cost ratio, no. 18 Q. Can you site one specific request?
19 Q. For example, if we had healthy 19 A. You have to look at the research and
20 wetlands in a certain place, you would have a 20 development program and I'm not involved in that
21 surge and wave reduction effect which could save a 21 program.
22 billion dollars in potential property damage 22 Q. So you're not competent or --
Page 79 Page 81
1 that's not done? 1 A. I'm not aware of specifically.
2 A. No, it's not done. 2 Q. I mean, you're competent but it's not
3 Q. And that's because it's not a 3 your bailiwick?
4 navigation purpose? 4 A. It's not my area of responsibility
5 A. No, because the science and the 5 that I would be all that intimately involved in
6 modelling that would have been associated with 6 that to know what they actually have in there but
7 that to show that while there has been some rough 7 I know they have had a number of investigations in
8 rule of thumbs, there has not been any defendable 8 this area.
9 or science done on that to exactly show how much a 9 Q. But you speculated to whether they've
10 mile worth of wetlands will reduce that surge as 10 asked Congress for funding to do modeling and cost
11 well as depending upon the condition of that 11 benefit analysis to what a mile or an achor of
12 wetland could be quite different. 12 healthy wetlands would be in terms of a benefit in
13 A wetland could be also different when you 13 storm protection for property and people?
14 have different search conditions. 14 A. We have, the only way I could answer
15 Q. I understand that. So what you're 15 that question if I looked at the research and
16 saying is the Corps made a decision or choice not 16 development program and I don't know.
17 to try to monetize the benefits that would come 17 Q. Are you aware that in the 1994
18 from protecting wetlands from further destruction 18 reconnaissance report, Exhibit 6, the Corps
19 and preserving wetlands. 19 actually said that a case could be made that
20 A. I'm not sure that's accurate. I think 20 100 percent of the next feasibility phase study,
21 what has been is that we have not had done 21 project construction and operation and maintenance
22 sufficient studies on that to defend that benefit 22 of bank stabilization features could be
21 (Pages 78 to 81)
MONTVAI, ZOLTAN
10/7/2008
Page 82 Page 84
1 100 percent federal? 1 Q. Well, in fact --
2 MR. EHRLICH: Can you show him the 2 A. I have mentioned earlier that the '96
3 document? 3 report was able to ultimately justify measures
4 A. I'm not aware of that. I haven't seen 4 100 percent of the cost of that for reduction in
5 that document. 5 operation of maintenance. So in that sense, that
6 BY MR. O'DONNELL: 6 portion of it because it relates back to the
7 Q. I'd like you to, I'd like to show you 7 navigation project purpose would be appropriate at
8 a paragraph at the bottom of 63 of the Exhibit 6, 8 100 percent federal cost.
9 the 1994 reconnaissance report. It's under a 9 Q. They chose not to do that, however,
10 section called preliminary financial analysis and 10 correct?
11 cautionary proposal introduction. If you read the 11 A. I mean, you have to look at the rest
12 paragraph that begins as shown on table 20 and 12 of the 60 percent. It's only a piece of the pie.
13 skip over to 65 to the end of the first sentence 13 The rest of it what was the, what purposes I'm
14 where it says 100 percent federal? 14 presume ecosystem restoration and they needed a
15 MR. EHRLICH: I mean, he's asking you 15 feasibility study to address the total problem,
16 questions about a document that you haven't seen. 16 not just a percentage of it for that reason
17 I wanted you to have a chance to look at it. It 17 because they were not able to identify it as I
18 isn't a pop quiz. 18 understand it a sponsor for the remaining
19 MR. O'DONNELL: Well, why don't I just 19 60 percent essentially. They were unable to go
20 read it in the record. I'll do it -- 20 into the feasibility phase.
21 MR. EHRLICH: Well, it's an exhibit so, 21 Q. Let me ask you a question, it's a
22 you know, it's in the record I know but I want to 22 hypothetical. If a -- Army Corps has dredging
Page 83 Page 85
1 follow up with it if you're going to ask him 1 ships or bows, right? Barges, whatever they're
2 further questions about it. 2 called?
3 MR. O'DONNELL: Did you read it? It's 3 A. We still have some dredges but over
4 this one beginning as shown and then it skips over 4 the years a lot of the dredges were eliminated
5 to the up to the word 100 percent federal. 5 because and now the dredging is done by
6 A. What it says is that as shown in 6 contractors, and I believe we still have but a few
7 table 20, 40 percent of quantifiable monetary 7 dredges.
8 benefits for option 4, one of the alternatives I'm 8 Q. Let's assume in a period of time when
9 presuming, are due to savings in a maintenance 9 the Corps had its own dredging ship they call
10 dredging cost for the MRGO navigation project. 10 them? Boats? Ships?
11 Since the majority of the project monitored 11 A. Dredging fleet but I don't know what
12 benefits are maintenance savings and maintenance 12 the situation was at that time. I don't remember
13 judges costs, the MRGO channel are borne 13 that.
14 100 percent by the federal government. A case 14 Q. Let's take the 1970s. I don't think
15 could be made that that feasibility phase project 15 there was privatization?
16 construction and operation and maintenance of bank 16 A. Not much.
17 stabilization features should also be 100 percent 17 Q. So and that the Coast Guard, I mean,
18 federal. 18 the Army Corp's hypothetical dredge hits a
19 But when you look at this sentence, it makes 19 commercial ship and causes damage to the
20 that only about 30 percent of the overall problem 20 commercial ship. Can you assume that
21 is directory related to the benefits for that are 21 hypothetically?
22 savings and dredging. 22 A. Sure.
22 (Pages 82 to 85)
MONTVAI, ZOLTAN
10/7/2008
Page 86 Page 88
1 Q. That would be a federal 1 decision documents, generically there was a
2 responsibility, would it not? 2 feasibility report and you also said a post
3 MR. EHRLICH: This is outside the scope 3 authorization change report?
4 of his designation. We object on that ground. 4 A. Correct.
5 BY MR. O'DONNELL: 5 Q. And are you aware of any such document
6 Q. Can you answer? 6 that was done on the MRGO?
7 A. There would be some action to take 7 A. The only one I'm aware of that was
8 care of that situation, I'm presuming. I don't 8 done and that I remember was the deauthorization
9 know. 9 report, which was a post authorization but it was
10 Q. What I'm trying to get at is -- 10 a deauthorization report and that's the one that
11 withdrawn. When the Corps does a cost benefit 11 you're pulling out there?
12 analysis and a reconnaissance report about 12 Q. Exhibit 7. I'll get to that in a
13 potential recommendations to remediate whatever 13 moment. Thank you?
14 the problem is, who is it making those cost 14 A. But I'm not aware of a PAC report, as
15 benefit calculations for? 15 we used to call it, the post authorization change
16 A. Well, the purpose of the cost benefit 16 report and those are usually or can be done when
17 analysis and the reconnaissance report is to 17 you already have an authorized project but then
18 determine potential federal interest to do a more 18 change conditions result in having to notify
19 detailed investigation, to go into feasibility 19 Congress of that change as in requesting
20 study. 20 presumably that Congress would authorize some
21 If a reconnaissance report looks at a 21 modifications.
22 problem in response to a congressional resolution 22 The post authorization change report can
Page 87 Page 89
1 but finds the benefit cost ratio is 0.5; in other 1 also be implemented depending on its scope with an
2 words, for every dollar that you would spend in 2 existing authority, depending on what that is.
3 correcting the problem, you only gain benefits 3 You have to look at that, I guess
4 half of that, that would not be a basis to 4 Q. But to your knowledge, a PAC or post
5 continue on to a federal feasibility study. 5 authorization change report for MRGO was never
6 So the primary purpose of a benefit cost 6 sent to Congress?
7 ratio in a reconnaissance is just determine to go 7 A. No.
8 should I proceed on to a more detailed 8 Q. It could have been but they chose not
9 investigation. The reconnaissance is not a 9 to do so?
10 decision document is what I'm trying to tell you 10 A. It didn't progress far enough for
11 Q. No, but it is an attempt to scope out 11 whatever reasons. I have no idea.
12 how you would allocate federal versus nonfederal 12 Q. The third category of document besides
13 responsibilities, correct? 13 feasibility report and the PAC report you identify
14 A. It's the beginning of it. But the 14 was a general re-evaluation report. Do you see
15 feasibility phase would be the one to make that 15 that?
16 further assessment in greater detail. 16 A. Correct.
17 MR. O'DONNELL: Let me mark one page of 17 Q. Was it -- was a re-evaluation report
18 a very fat document. I'll mark this as the next. 18 done on the MRGO?
19 (Montvai Deposition Exhibit No. 7 was marked for 19 A. No.
20 identification.) 20 Q. And do you know why not?
21 BY MR. O'DONNELL: 21 A. Normally the general re-evaluation
22 Q. You said earlier that among the 22 report would in more detail of the feasibility
23 (Pages 86 to 89)
MONTVAI, ZOLTAN
10/7/2008
Page 90 Page 92
1 level, a very detailed assessment of assessing the 1 least I have a Bate stamp number for that. You're
2 project itself. 2 not familiar with that document?
3 So in other words, you have a, give you 3 A. I'm not.
4 another example if I may, if you have a flood 4 Q. What would be the purpose of a
5 control project but things change out there and 5 re-evaluation or a general re-evaluation study
6 then the Corps has to go back after the project 6 report?
7 has been authorized and go over and in effect redo 7 A. Some conditions that they were
8 the feasibility study, that's really what results 8 addressing, maybe economics, some other things. I
9 in a general re-valuation report. For example, on 9 have no idea. You would have to look at that
10 MRGO if -- I should wait. 10 report and that should tell you what that is.
11 Q. I'm listening? 11 Q. Do you know whether -- let me show you
12 A. On MRGO, if you had a certain channel 12 what's the first page of a very apparently thick
13 and all of a sudden you had much larger ships 13 document. This is Exhibit 7. It's the integrated
14 coming in there than what the channel was designed 14 final report to Congress and legislative
15 for, you can do a general re-evaluation report to 15 environmental impact statement for the Mississippi
16 address that change in condition. 16 River Gulf Outlet deep draft deauthorization study
17 Q. Did you study at all whether before 17 November, 2007, revised June, 2008. You have seen
18 you testified today whether or not the Corps, in 18 that document before?
19 fact, did a general re-evaluation study to MRGO? 19 A. Yes, I have.
20 A. I did not. 20 Q. And for purposes of convenience, can
21 Q. I'll represent to you that we've had 21 we just have the first page? Is that all right?
22 produced in this case or we found one, two, three 22 A. Yes.
Page 91 Page 93
1 documents, and I'll read them into the record, 1 MR. EHRLICH: Yes.
2 that bear the title variously re-evaluation study. 2 BY MR. O'DONNELL:
3 There's a 1999 to 2003 MRGO re-evaluation study. 3 Q. What is a deauthorization study?
4 This may be the same document, so maybe I'm wrong. 4 A. That was a report that was produced by
5 A. I don't know what that is. You said 5 the Corps in response to a provision in Water
6 it was a re-evaluation. I don't know if it was a 6 Resources Development Act of 2007, I believe, and
7 general re-evaluation report. We have many 7 even though that study was started earlier than
8 documents with some varying names of it and I told 8 already to deauthorize and eliminate MRGO as a
9 you right up earlier I'm not aware of all the 9 water weight.
10 documents that were done for MRGO. 10 As of right now, MRGO M-R-G-O is no longer a
11 Q. So you may have been in error or not, 11 navigation project. That report, the one that you
12 didn't know, correct? I'm not impugning -- 12 have the first page of, was the basis and
13 A. I was not aware of that is what I said 13 recommendations that the Corps made resulting in a
14 and I'm still not aware of it. 14 chief's report to Congress to deauthorize the
15 Q. I have a 2003 MRGO report 15 water weight.
16 re-evaluation study Army Corps New Orleans 16 That was completed recommendation from that
17 District, February, 2003 and this may be the same 17 was to place a plug at Bayou Lalutra, I believe,
18 document but I also have a Mississippi River Gulf 18 in the waterway as a safety measure so that the
19 Outlet general re-evaluation study report draft 19 vessels no longer utilized the waterway.
20 May, 2005, final report September 1, 2005 and it 20 Q. Was there any purpose of that plug to
21 has a Bate stamp all caps NOP-003-000000591. 21 also keep salt water intrusion from the upper
22 So let me deal with the 2005 because at 22 reaches of the --
24 (Pages 90 to 93)
MONTVAI, ZOLTAN
10/7/2008
Page 94 Page 96
1 A. I think that was some of the purposes 1 Q. LCA study, okay, was a
2 whether that was the ultimately shown to be the 2 comprehensive --
3 justification for that, I don't believe so because 3 A. Covered the entire state of Louisiana.
4 salt water can still get through other bayous and 4 Q. Covered the whole state of Louisiana
5 waterways through there. 5 study, correct?
6 So by placing a plug on that, you eliminate 6 A. Yes.
7 some of that tidal exchange and salt water 7 Q. Which you believe has as a subset the
8 intrusion, no question about that, but there's 8 coast land -- the wetlands affected by the MRGO?
9 still other tidal flushing and salt water exchange 9 A. That's part of evaluation.
10 that does take place. 10 Q. In the deauthorization study, the
11 Q. I won't debate that with you but let 11 Chief of Engineers recommends further study of
12 me ask you this question: Was the 2005 general 12 amelioration of the wetlands affected by the MRGO
13 re-evaluation study report any part of or a 13 itself, correct?
14 precursor to the deauthorization study? 14 A. Yes.
15 A. I'm not aware of that. And this is a 15 Q. What about does the deauthorization
16 different project purpose. This purpose was 16 study, Exhibit 7, make any recommendation to
17 simply to deauthorize the water weight. I'm not 17 Congress about what should be done about the fact
18 aware of what the purpose of the evaluation study 18 that the MRGO widened over the course of its
19 was that you were referring to. 19 history from 650 top width to 2000 in some places,
20 Q. The deauthorization study, Exhibit 7, 20 3000 feet?
21 does not contain any recommendations to Congress, 21 A. I don't know if that's discussed in
22 does it, to deal with restoration of wetlands 22 the report but the purpose of that report was
Page 95 Page 97
1 destroyed by the MRGO? 1 deauthorization. That issue was not a significant
2 A. It does address that but recognizing 2 information in that context.
3 that this report was done rather quickly to 3 Q. Has the Corps undertaken any study
4 eliminate the, some of the tidal salt water 4 with a view toward making a recommendation to
5 intrusion and to eliminate this deauthorize the 5 Congress what to do about the fact that MRGO while
6 waterway, that report make specifically a 6 it's close in navigation still has a width of 2000
7 recommendation for the Corps to initiate a study 7 in some places 3000 feet?
8 along that same authority for coastal restoration. 8 A. What would be a purpose for that?
9 A change report made that even more clearer 9 Q. Well, protecting property and
10 and that study is currently under way. 10 population from wave run up, surge, further
11 Q. Another study, right? 11 erosion of the banks into nonfederal property,
12 A. A study to make a specific 12 there could be a bunch of possible reasons for
13 recommendation to Congress for coastal wetland or 13 that. Are you aware of any such study under way?
14 coastal restoration measures. Yes. 14 A. Yes. The Corps has a current
15 Q. Within the confines of the area 15 investigation called Louisiana Coastal Area
16 affected by the history of the MRGO, correct? 16 Protection and Restoration, LCAPR, that's a study
17 A. I don't think it's that specific but 17 currently under way funded by Congress following
18 it certainly would look at that. 18 Katrina, Hurricane Katrina in August of 2005
19 Q. Well, you said earlier that the 19 that's a study that is 100 percent federally
20 Louisiana -- the LCA, which is Louisiana 20 funded, looking at providing increased hurricane
21 Coastal -- 21 and storm damage risk reduction to coastal
22 A. Area. Ecosystem restoration study. 22 Louisiana.
25 (Pages 94 to 97)
MONTVAI, ZOLTAN
10/7/2008
Page 98 Page 100
1 One of the purposes of that is to provide a 1 Q. The local senators, Mary Andrews and
2 comprehensive plan that includes not only the 2 David Bitter were active in proposing it, were
3 hurricane protection but also costal wetland 3 they not?
4 restoration navigation that provide a 4 A. They were supportive of this. Yes.
5 comprehensive plan to restore and to protect 5 Q. Now, when is the study supposed to be
6 coastal Louisiana. 6 finished?
7 Q. Including the area where MRGO 7 A. It was supposed to have been completed
8 adversely affected wetlands? 8 in December of 2008. It was a two-year, like, a
9 A. Yes. 9 $20 million study. Due to complexities and just
10 Q. This is 100 percent federally funded? 10 it's a very complex problem to evaluate and many
11 A. Correct. 11 alternatives being looked at, that study is now
12 Q. Did the Corps recommend this or did 12 being completed. Drafts will be available
13 Congress impose it? 13 somewheres around early January of '09. Internal
14 A. Congress provided in an appropriation 14 drafts are being prepared right now that will go
15 act shortly after Katrina hit the area two 15 through policy review but a public draft, I
16 studies, one was for Louisiana, one was for 16 believe, will not be available until springtime or
17 Mississippi to look at providing a higher level of 17 so, but the final report to Congress is scheduled
18 hurricane protection, that was the specific 18 for about the summer of '09?
19 authority in an appropriation act as well as 19 Q. About six or seven months after it was
20 funded in the act itself. 20 targeted?
21 Q. But the Louisiana Coastal Area 21 A. Yes. And the -- that's what happens
22 Protection and Restoration? 22 sometimes, you know.
Page 99 Page 101
1 A. LACPR. Yes. 1 Q. And one of the reasons why the study
2 Q. CPR? 2 is being undertaken is a recognition that the loss
3 A. LACPR, that's the abbreviations for 3 of wetlands is partially attributable to the MRGO,
4 that. 4 correct?
5 Q. I can't resist, is that CPR for the 5 A. I'm not aware of that at all.
6 wetlands? 6 Q. One of the reasons this study is being
7 A. No. No. But that's part of it. 7 undertaken is a recognition that the coastal
8 LACPR for wetlands. 8 wetlands play a part in protecting people and
9 Q. Did the Corps recommend this or did 9 property from storms, hurricanes?
10 Congress initiate this? 10 A. I believe it will try to make that
11 A. The reason I'm not 100 percent sure 11 case but that was not the purpose for that study.
12 there was a lot of communications going out 12 Q. What was the purpose of it?
13 shortly after Katrina committees requested the 13 A. The purpose of the study was to
14 Corps for impacts to projects. I don't know if 14 provide category five level of protection to
15 the study was proposed. 15 Louisiana coastal area.
16 I believe Congress was the one that asked 16 Q. And does the LCAPR study deal with
17 for the study, not the Corps. There may have been 17 hurricane levies and flood protection structures
18 communications at the, you know, between the 18 or does it deal with other protective measures
19 committees but I'm not sure. 19 such as restoration of wetlands or both?
20 I would have to review some Excel 20 A. It deals with both as well as
21 spreadsheets whether we proposed this to Congress 21 nonstructural measurers. It's a comprehensive
22 or whether Congress funded it. 22 evaluation of multipurposes.
26 (Pages 98 to 101)
MONTVAI, ZOLTAN
10/7/2008
Page 102 Page 104
1 Q. Is this part of the Corp's 100 years 1 that did not exist say 5 to 10 years earlier?
2 study? 2 A. Hurricane Katrina changed a number of
3 A. No. This is beyond, this is to 3 the businesses along the inner harbor navigation
4 provide a higher level of protection certainly 4 canal. Some of the project benefits were
5 than New Orleans than what the current 100 year 5 relocation costs avoided of businesses that
6 plan that's ongoing. 6 benefit from the water weight.
7 Q. What is the 100 year plan category 7 Q. Isn't it true that for since at least
8 protection; category 3? 8 some point in the 1970s, there had been declining
9 MR. EHRLICH: Objection. 9 ship usage of the MRGO?
10 A. It's difficult to put a category on it 10 A. That is true.
11 because a category is a reflection of wind speed. 11 Q. And at the time of Hurricane Katrina
12 When you're looking at 100 year, it's more of a 12 do you know what the average monthly usage was of
13 surge. What happens as a result of a coastal 13 the MRGO?
14 storm, and no two storms are alike. 14 A. I have seen that number but I couldn't
15 So for that reason, it's really complicated 15 tell you what it is. I'm sure you have it.
16 and not difficult to put a category one or two on 16 Q. I do. But I'm not going to waste your
17 100 year level of protection. 17 time. Was any of the articulated reason for the
18 BY MR. O'DONNELL: 18 closure of the MRGO the possibility that MRGO
19 Q. Would it be fair to say that the LCAPR 19 somehow affected storm surge or currents during a
20 study process -- 20 hurricane?
21 A. It's LACPR. 21 MR. EHRLICH: Objection. Vague.
22 Q. LACPR. I'm sorry. LACPR was 22 BY MR. O'DONNELL:
Page 103 Page 105
1 initiated as a result of the devastation of 1 Q. Is there any discussion of public
2 Hurricane Katrina? 2 safety in the deauthorization study as a reason
3 A. Yes. 3 for closure of MRGO or recommending closure of
4 Q. Do you have any understanding whether 4 MRGO?
5 the deauthorization study for MRGO, Exhibit 7, 5 A. Public safety as a result of damages
6 discusses at all the case for closing the MRGO for 6 or collision occurring on the waterway itself.
7 not economic reasons? 7 Q. Other than that?
8 A. I believe it makes a case that there 8 A. I'm not aware of it.
9 are economic benefits to be gained by not 9 Q. Let's go to the first exhibit I
10 maintaining a water weight. It concluded that 10 marked. Exhibit 1. This is house document 245,
11 navigation benefits were not sufficient to 11 is it not, sir?
12 continue to operate and maintain MRGO. It had a 12 A. Yes. That's what it says.
13 benefit cost ratio below one. 13 Q. Now, let's go through this document if
14 Q. As early as less than 10 years earlier 14 I may. It's my understanding that this was the
15 than the Exhibit 7, the Corps had reached an 15 report of the Chief of Engineers of the Army Corps
16 opposite conclusion on the cost benefit analysis, 16 of Engineers recommending to Congress that it
17 had it not? 17 authorized an appropriate funds for the
18 A. I believe it must have concluded 18 construction of the Mississippi Gulf River Outlet?
19 because it was continuing to operate and maintain 19 A. That's not totally accurate because
20 a water weight. 20 the report is for the secretary of Army to
21 Q. What happened? What facts existed in 21 Congress, not the Chief of Engineers.
22 199 -- in 2007 when the Corps recommended closure 22 Q. I'm sorry. The transmittal to the
27 (Pages 102 to 105)

MONTVAI, ZOLTAN
10/7/2008
Page 106 Page 108
1 speaker of the House of Representatives dated 1 A. Correct.
2 September 25, 1951 is in fact from Frank Pace, 2 Q. Supporting the waterway?
3 Jr., Secretary of Army? 3 A. Yes, they were.
4 A. That's correct. 4 Q. Then we have starting on page 4,
5 Q. That's on the first page, on the top 5 report of Chief of Engineers of U.S. Army dated
6 part of the second page of the document, right? 6 May 5, 1948?
7 A. Correct. 7 A. Correct.
8 Q. And for the purposes of the record 8 Q. And his report comprises pages 4 and
9 this has a Bates number of 10060004. And then 9 5?
10 page No. 001, et cetera. Do you see that? 10 A. That's what it shows it. Yes.
11 A. Yes. 11 Q. And he concurs in the views and
12 Q. And when I say page 2, I'm referring 12 recommendations stated in the report, correct?
13 to the last number of the Bate stamp. Do you see 13 A. That's correct.
14 that? 14 Q. And just for the record, that was
15 A. Yes. 15 Lieutenant General R.A. Wheeler. Does the Chief
16 Q. So on page 2, after Frank Pace Jr., 16 of Engineers usually have the rank lieutenant
17 secretary of the Army's name, we then have a next 17 general?
18 part of this document called comments of the 18 A. Not always. There have been in the
19 Bureau of the Budget, correct? 19 very early times some that were not lieutenant
20 A. Yes. 20 generals but certainly from the '50s on to today,
21 Q. And signed on page 3 by one Elmer D. 21 they have always been lieutenant general as a
22 Statts, S-T-A-T-T-S, acting director of the Bureau 22 rank.
Page 107 Page 109
1 of the Budget? 1 Q. Tell me the pecking order of generals.
2 A. That's what it says. 2 What's the first general?
3 Q. And he is endorsing the recommendation 3 A. First general is a brigadier general,
4 of the Secretary of the Army to build the MRGO? 4 that's a one start; major general, that's 2 star;
5 A. Yes. 5 Lieutenant general is 3 star and general is a four
6 Q. And -- 6 star.
7 A. With some conditions, I might add but 7 Q. So lieutenant general is a 3 star?
8 essentially that's true. 8 A. Yes.
9 Q. What was the condition; is that the 9 Q. It's a very high-ranking officer,
10 Seabrook line? 10 right?
11 A. No. At the time, recommend with 11 A. Relatively speaking. Yes.
12 understanding, however, that no appropriation for 12 Q. Is the current incumbent a lieutenant
13 construction of the project will be sought until 13 general?
14 such time as the budgetary situation clearly makes 14 A. Yes.
15 possible the initiation of such improvement. So 15 Q. Next we have on page 6 report of Board
16 it's some conditions in there but essentially they 16 of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors. Do you see
17 cleared this report, the executive office and the 17 that?
18 President allowing the Corps to budget for this 18 A. Yes.
19 effort. They did not object to it. 19 Q. And what is or was the Board of
20 Q. Okay. Then we have printed in the 20 Engineers for Rivers and Harbors?
21 report comments of the governor of Louisiana, one 21 A. It's a body that consist of the
22 James H. Davis, right? 22 division engineers, usually one or two star
28 (Pages 106 to 109)
MONTVAI, ZOLTAN
10/7/2008
Page 110 Page 112
1 generals that sit on this board and this board has 1 Q. Now, in the reports that are on top of
2 since been abolished by Congress. So this board 2 that one, if you will, that precede it, for
3 no longer exists today. 3 example, the board of harbors --
4 Q. But in those days it was a reviewing 4 A. Board of Engineers for Rivers and
5 body? 5 Harbors.
6 A. It was a body to review 6 Q. But I also have to look in that report
7 recommendations from a Corps of Engineers district 7 to understand any changes?
8 or division office. 8 A. Right. They could recommend changes
9 Q. And on page -- 9 to Congress. They could endorse the division and
10 A. Division office normally because they 10 district engineers reports in its entirety and in
11 would be the ones to send it. 11 fact the board does its own evaluation and review
12 Q. And they were usually generals? 12 of the document as to how the division does it as
13 A. They were all generals as I said, 13 well and then the Board of Engineers for Rivers
14 either one or two star. Now, that's possible that 14 and Harbors would then send that report to the
15 you might have had a division commander that was a 15 Chief of Engineers.
16 Colonel but was promotable but may not have gotten 16 And the chief likely had a staff that looked
17 a star yet. 17 at that report and made a recommendation and
18 Q. Was their endorsement during this 18 provided him with a draft chief's report before
19 period of time required? 19 the Chief Engineers that then he forward it to
20 A. Essentially, yes. 20 secretary of the Army.
21 Q. Now, on page 17 of the document we 21 Q. Now, if you look at page 5 on the
22 have something that begins report of division 22 bottom?
Page 111 Page 113
1 engineer. Do you see that? 1 A. I'm there.
2 A. Yes. 2 Q. This is the second page of the report
3 Q. And it is my understanding that the 3 of the Chief of Engineers. Okay. And you notice
4 rest of the document from page 17 through 45 4 in paragraph 3 and I'm not going to go through the
5 comprises the report of the division engineer or 5 whole thing. It says, "I recommend modification
6 am I wrong about that? 6 of the existing project for Mississippi River,
7 A. That's what it looks like. 7 Baton Rouge, to the Gulf of Mexico to provide for
8 Q. Now, the division engineer would have 8 construction of a seaway canal, et cetera." Do
9 been the person at this point in time who was the 9 you see that?
10 head of the lower Mississippi Valley Division? 10 A. I do.
11 A. Correct. 11 Q. Was this a modification of MRGO
12 Q. Would that person have received input 12 proposal or is that a separate project?
13 from the New Orleans District for this report? 13 A. That's a project that allows
14 A. Yes. As well as the board of 14 navigation to take place in the Mississippi or
15 commissioners report of New Orleans, the governors 15 through the Mississippi all the way up to Baton
16 office and other local stakeholders and 16 Rouge, so that's the basic navigation project
17 constituents. 17 authority.
18 Q. So if I wanted to understand what in 18 What the recommendation here is to modify
19 fact was being recommended to Congress, I would 19 that navigation project by allowing an extension
20 look at the report of the division engineer, 20 or another waterway from that basic project MRGO
21 correct? 21 so that it allows exit into the Gulf of Mexico in
22 A. That would be the place to start. 22 a faster time through the MRGO waterway.
29 (Pages 110 to 113)

MONTVAI, ZOLTAN
10/7/2008
Page 114 Page 116
1 Q. So essentially from the Mississippi 1 to skip to another document I'm going to mark then
2 River through the eye agents, the industrial 2 I'm going to go back to house document 245. I'm
3 harbor navigation canal locks then into the MRGO? 3 going to mark as the next exhibit house document
4 A. Correct. 4 231.
5 Q. So this is actually part of the 5 (Montvai Deposition Exhibit No. 8 was marked for
6 overall project and technically there had to be a 6 identification.)
7 recommendation of the recommended modifying 7 BY MR. O'DONNELL:
8 existing project to fit the MRGO within it? 8 Q. Sir, I have marked for you a document
9 A. Congress looked to this basic project. 9 called Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity, Louisiana,
10 The Mississippi River from Baton Rouge to the Gulf 10 letter from the Secretary of the Army transmitting
11 and identified another exit to that project to get 11 some Corps of Engineers information. House
12 into the Gulf. So it's a modification to that 12 document 231 dated July 6, 1955. It deals with
13 basic investigation project that was in place 13 the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity, Louisiana
14 already. 14 Hurricane Protection Project. Have you seen this
15 Q. Now, the Bureau of Budget does not 15 document before?
16 recommend ordinarily changes in a project, 16 A. I think I have seen portions of this
17 correct? 17 document, not in connection with MRGO but with
18 A. No. 18 other investigative acts.
19 Q. And the Secretary of the Army is just 19 Q. And I'll represent to you that that is
20 transmitting the whole thing to Congress, right? 20 the house report -- house document 231 was the
21 A. Correct. That's typical because they 21 recommendation of the Army Corps of Engineers and
22 normally don't get into those technical issues. 22 US Army and everybody else, Secretary of Army for
Page 115 Page 117
1 Q. Now, MRGO was authorized by Congress 1 the construction of the what we call the LPV, the
2 in the River and Harbor Act of 1956. Okay. In 2 Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane
3 the language of that bill, Congress said that it 3 Protection Project. You're familiar with that,
4 was authorizing the project, quote, substantially 4 right?
5 in accordance with the recommendation of the Chief 5 A. Yes.
6 of Engineers as contained in house document 245 6 Q. This document is not unlike the
7 82nd Congress first session, et cetera. Okay? 7 previous one we looked at, Exhibit 1, house
8 THE VIDEO OPERATOR: Excuse me, 8 document 245 dealing with the recommendations of
9 Counsel, we've run out of time. 9 the Army Corps for the construction of the MRGO,
10 MR. O'DONNELL: Well, then we'll stop 10 correct?
11 it. We'll pick up after a quick 5 minute bathroom 11 A. This is a similar document. Yes.
12 break. 12 Q. And obviously different projects?
13 THE VIDEO OPERATOR: This ends disk 13 A. Different level of detail as obviously
14 No. 1 of the Montvai deposition. The time is 14 by the size of it.
15 11:36:51 off the record. 15 Q. And Congress authorized the I'll call
16 On the record with disk No. 2 of the 16 it LPV for short under an authorization separate
17 testimony of Zoltan Montvai in the matter of 17 from the MRGO earlier authorization, correct?
18 Katrina Canal Breaches Consolidated Litigation. 18 A. Correct. They filed another act.
19 The date is October 7, 2008. The time is 19 Q. We saw that the house -- withdrawn.
20 11:54:27. 20 Do you know whether house document 231 dealing
21 BY MR. O'DONNELL: 21 with the LPV made any recommendations with regard
22 Q. We're back on the record. I'm going 22 to any modifications of MRGO itself?
30 (Pages 114 to 117)

MONTVAI, ZOLTAN
10/7/2008
Page 118 Page 120
1 A. I'm not aware of it. If it did, it 1 that discretion couldn't build a 250 foot bottom.
2 may be there but I have never read it that 2 So it's a limited discretion.
3 closely. 3 Q. If Congress approved a recommendation
4 Q. Typically after Congress authorizes a 4 for a project that said it's going to go from
5 project like the MRGO, the project will go through 5 point A to point C, the Chief wouldn't have the
6 a series of general design, GDM, is that what 6 authority to change it from point A to point Z,
7 they're called? 7 which would be a significant change?
8 A. General design memorandums. Now a 8 A. He can reduce the duration to the
9 days it's a different process but just presenting 9 extent of it but typically you would not extend
10 detailed design so that the project can move 10 upon it, that would require additional studies and
11 towards plans and specs of construction. 11 authorization by Congress.
12 Q. Moving from a conceptual to a detailed 12 Q. Or just relocate it? I'll give you a
13 engineering study? 13 hypothetical. If MRGO was authorized essentially
14 A. Right. 14 to go from the, I'll make it very simple, from the
15 Q. Now, what do they call, MRGO had 15 port of New Orleans through 40 something miles of
16 general design memos. What do they call them 16 marshland out into to Gulf, correct? If the Chief
17 today? Do they call them something else? 17 decided he was going to take it out through Lake
18 A. Preconstruction engineering and 18 Borgne and down another direction, he wouldn't be
19 design, PED. 19 authorized to do that?
20 Q. Preconstruction and engineering? 20 A. He would not.
21 A. Preconstruction engineering and 21 Q. If Congress said you shall armor or
22 design. Same. Essentially the same document. 22 protect the banks of the MRGO, he wouldn't have
Page 119 Page 121
1 Q. The act of Congress authorizing the 1 authority not to do that, correct?
2 MRGO I read to you some of the language said that 2 A. He would have authority. Congress
3 it was authorizing the project substantially in 3 gave him authority. So he would have the
4 accordance with the recommendation of the Chief of 4 authority to do that. Now, the question is one of
5 Engineers contained in house document 245. Do you 5 funding. You have authority. Whether you
6 recall that? 6 implement that authority, that's a separate
7 A. I believe so. Yes. 7 decision.
8 Q. What is your understanding of the 8 (Off record discussion was held.)
9 latitude or discretion that the Chief of Engineers 9 BY MR. O'DONNELL:
10 has to deviate from the plans that are set forth 10 Q. Well, I want you to assume
11 in house document 245? 11 hypothetically that Congress did approve the MRGO
12 A. The chief has some discretion and the 12 project with a provision in the report that
13 reason for that is to allow fine-tuning and 13 contemplated armoring of the banks, No. 1?
14 implementation of the project so that it's a 14 A. Yes.
15 better project than what may have been identified 15 Q. I'd like you to assume that by the
16 in the house document from the less detailed 16 time Katrina except for the small stretch we
17 engineering. 17 talked about earlier, that was never done. So
18 So that gives the Chief flexibility to shift 18 Congress in my hypothetical authorized it but it
19 some location, modify some features but it's a 19 was never done. Do you know why?
20 limited discretion. Clearly the Chief could not 20 MR. EHRLICH: Object.
21 go ahead, you know, if Congress authorized, for 21 A. How could I possibly answer that
22 example, a 50 foot bottom channel, the Chief using 22 question its a hypothesis.
31 (Pages 118 to 121)

MONTVAI, ZOLTAN
10/7/2008
Page 122 Page 124
1 BY MR. O'DONNELL: 1 is estimated to be X million in '48, it would have
2 Q. If I am correct that it was authorized 2 gone up by '56 likely?
3 but never done, do you have any idea why not? 3 A. And by the time they actually
4 MR. EHRLICH: Objection. Calls for 4 implement it, the cost went up again I assure you.
5 speculation. 5 Q. So do you know what the actual cost
6 BY MR. O'DONNELL: 6 was of MRGO?
7 Q. Do you know? 7 A. Off the top of my head, I do not know.
8 A. I can't answer that question. 8 Q. You don't know what the number was,
9 Q. Okay. Fine. There was original cost 9 right?
10 estimates associated with the MRGO project when it 10 A. I do not know something higher than
11 was approved, correct? 11 what was authorized.
12 A. There were different costs in the 12 Q. Well, if you have an operation of
13 document from the report of the division engineers 13 maintenance cost, obviously it would be a lot more
14 to the chief reports to the secretary of the Army 14 than that?
15 because time elapsed and they updated the cost 15 A. It's an expensive waterway to operate
16 estimate. 16 and maintain.
17 Q. Was the estimated cost at the time of 17 Q. Largely because of the periodic
18 approval in 1956 about $88 million? 18 dredging requirements to stay at 36 feet?
19 A. Depends on what document you're 19 A. As well as the fact that a lot of the
20 looking at. If you go back to the authorizing 20 banks left in vessel wakes causing erosion and had
21 document that may be a number if I remember in the 21 to have increase dredging than what may have been
22 authorizing document, because time elapsed, that 22 anticipated in the original document.
Page 123 Page 125
1 was my response, that as a result the cost 1 Q. Right. The Army Corps had built
2 estimate went up. 2 before and after the MRGO other navigable
3 Q. The original report was a 1951 report? 3 waterways, had it not?
4 Actually, I'm sorry. The original report was a 4 A. I'm sure we have. Yes.
5 1948 report, the division engineer. 5 Q. Do you know whether there's any other
6 A. I have to look at file. 6 navigable waterway that the Army Corps build but
7 Q. Which I represent to you was a 1948 7 it cost more to maintain than the MRGO?
8 report only because I have slept with this 8 MR. EHRLICH: Objection. Outside the
9 document more than -- never mind. I know the 9 scope of the designation.
10 document. I'll represent to you -- 10 MR. O'DONNELL: Sustained. It was sort
11 A. That's what it is. 11 of a have you stopped beating your wife question
12 Q. My point is that let's assume that I 12 too, I would sustain it on that grounds, too.
13 think the division engineers report is '48? 13 Argumentative.
14 A. Okay. 14 BY MR. O'DONNELL:
15 Q. But its transmitted approximately 15 Q. Where could I find a written statement
16 three years later in '51, correct? 16 of the extent to which the Chief of Engineers has
17 A. Okay. 17 discretion to vary the implementation of a project
18 Q. Congress doesn't approve the -- 18 like the MRGO approved by Congress?
19 A. It authorized it. 19 A. It's expressed in some of our planning
20 Q. It authorized it until '56? 20 documents. I'm sure it's in the ER 10 that I had
21 A. Correct. 21 mentioned, the planning guidance notebook.
22 Q. So I'm making your point. If the cost 22 There's some reference to that and there's
32 (Pages 122 to 125)
MONTVAI, ZOLTAN
10/7/2008
Page 126 Page 128
1 different tests and conditions. 1 various stretches of the MRGO, correct?
2 And we rely on our lawyers to assess on a 2 A. Activities directly related to
3 case-by-case basis whether the proposal falls 3 maintain the navigation channel.
4 within the discretionary authority. 4 Q. Would the Corps overhead, like, people
5 Q. Were those planning notebooks in 5
6 existence in the late '50s and 1960s? 6
7 A. Not those planning. Used to be a 7
8 combination of different regulations. They were 8
9 ERs as well but they were separate documents and 9
10 they became one that most combining to this one 10
11 comprehensive document covering all the planning 11
12 principals and guidelines and I do not recall when 12
13 that was pulled into that one document. 13
14 Q. Can I borrow your Exhibit 1, please. 14
15 A. Yes. 15
16 MR. O'DONNELL: Please bear with me for 16
17 a second. I'm trying to find something. Let's go 17
18 off the record for one minute. 18
19 THE VIDEO OPERATOR: The time is 19
20 12:10:44. Off the record. 20
21 On the record. The time is 12:17:10. 21
22 BY MR. O'DONNELL: 22
Page 127 Page 129
1 Q. I want to go back and see if I 1 within the Corps who were responsible, would that
2 understood some of your earlier testimony about 2 be covered by that request as well?
3 the annual budgeting process. There's an annual 3 A. I'm not sure that I can answer that
4 budget cycle for the MRGO operation and 4 question for you. I'm not knowledgeable in that
5 maintenance, correct? 5 area.
6 A. That's correct. 6 MR. EHRLICH: Just one thing, there's
7 Q. And it starts in the New Orleans 7 another topic in the 30(B)(6) that's dedicated to
8 District and with a budget justification -- 8 budget appropriations, proposals, request for
9 A. Let me clarify that. That's no longer 9 funding associated with the construction and
10 the case today but up to this point, that was 10 maintenance of MRGO, so.
11 correct. 11 MR. O'DONNELL: That's 22.
12 Q. Up to 2005? 12 MR. EHRLICH: No. No. 3.
13 A. Correct. 13 MR. O'DONNELL: That was Saia and I
14 Q. What is done today? 14 covered it in the New Orleans.
15 A. It's deauthorized. 15 MR. EHRLICH: Okay. My point is that
16 Q. But up to the time of Katrina, there 16 you're asking questions that are obviously within
17 was and annual budgeting cycle? 17 No. 3.
18 A. Yes. 18 MR. O'DONNELL: Well, actually not
19 (Mr. Bruno excused from deposition proceedings.) 19 because I'm about to ask for authorization about
20 BY MR. O'DONNELL: 20 something. It's preliminarily but I got what I
21 Q. And operation maintenance was largely 21 needed from Mr. Saia. Okay.
22 comprised of the ongoing dredging required along 22 BY MR. O'DONNELL:
33 (Pages 126 to 129)

MONTVAI, ZOLTAN
10/7/2008
Page 130 Page 132
1 Q. Let me ask you this question: If the 1 THE COURT REPORTER: Anyone else?
2 Court concluded, and I think you've answered this 2 Anyone else on the phone?
3 but I want to be sure I got it in the record. 3 MR. CHUD: This is Adam Chud for
4 If the Court concluded that it needed to 4 LeFarge, we're not going to order a transcript at
5 have funding for other than dredging because it 5 this time.
6 was concerned about the need to deal with 6 THE VIDEO OPERATOR: This ends tap
7 wetlands, okay, or surge whatever the problem was, 7 No. 2 and concludes the testimony of Zoltan
8 okay, it would have to go to Congress through the 8 Montvai as 30(B)(6) witness in the matter of
9 chain of command you've described and first get an 9 Katrina Canal Breaches, et cetera.
10 amendment or modification to the purpose of the 10 The date is October 7th, 2008. The time is
11 project, correct? 11 12:21:27. Off the record.
12 A. Let me answer it this way. If the 12 (Signature having not been waived, the deposition
13 activity that they were proposing was determined 13 of ZOLTAN MONTVAI was concluded at 12:21 p.m.)
14 to be something other than navigation purpose, 14
15 they would have to acquire or get additional 15
16 purpose from Congress for those, then they could 16
17 budget for that. 17
18 Q. So you got to get authorization from 18
19 Congress for an additional or modified purpose, 19
20 then you got to get funding for that project? 20
21 A. That's correct. 21
22 Q. And that never happened up to the time 22
Page 131 Page 133
1 of Katrina, to your knowledge? 1 CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER-NOTARY PUBLIC
2 A. I'm not aware of that. 2 I, Okeemah S. Henderson, LSR and Notary
3 Public, the officer before whom the foregoing
3 MR. O'DONNELL: All right. Nothing
4 deposition was taken, do hereby certify that the
4 further and thank you very much. 5 foregoing transcript is a true and correct record
5 MR. EHRLICH: Nothing, and we will read 6 of the testimony given; that said testimony was
6 & sign. 7 taken by me stenographically and thereafter
7 THE COURT REPORTER: Counsel on the 8 reduced to typewriting under my direction and that
8 phone, can I get orders on the record, please. 9 I am neither counsel for, related to, nor employed
9 Counsel on the phone, may I get your orders on the 10 by any of the parties to this case and have no
11 interest, financial or otherwise, in its outcome.
10 record, please if you're ordering transcripts or
12 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my
11 video? 13 hand and affixed my notarial seal this day
12 MR. O'DONNELL: The plaintiffs are 14 of , 2008.
13 covered by Mr. Bruno. 15
14 THE COURT REPORTER: Okay. 16 My Commission Expires:
15 MS. DECKER: For the Orleans Levy February 28, 2010.
16 District, I think we'll probably need a copy of 17
18
17 the transcript.
Okeemah S. Henderson, LSR
18 THE COURT REPORTER: And that's who. 19 NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR
19 MS. DECKER: New Orleans Levy District. THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
20 MR. PAVLICK: Richard Pavlick on behalf 20
21 of Jefferson Parish we would like a transcript, 21
22 please. 22
34 (Pages 130 to 133)

MONTVAI, ZOLTAN
10/7/2008
Page 134
A addition 23:8 Andrews 100:1 98:7,15,21 101:15 attempt 14:15

abbreviations 99:3 additional 66:20 and/or 27:9,10 29:2 129:5 87:11
able 28:12 41:18 71:10 120:10 anecdotal 70:15 Argumentative attendant 45:13
46:19 49:4 61:2 130:15,19 Angeles 3:3 125:13 attorneys 10:4
65:17 80:7 84:3 address 73:21 annual 30:11 34:2 armor 120:21 attributable 46:1
84:17 84:15 90:16 95:2 71:14,20 127:3,3 armoring 35:12 101:3
abolished 110:2 addressing 60:19 127:17 121:13 August 97:18
accomplish 28:12 92:8 answer 43:2 66:15 Army 3:15 7:12 8:6 authority 43:9
71:16 administration 72:21 77:15 81:14 9:2,13,19 12:15 44:13 60:12 71:2
accomplishing 66:9 51:2 72:2 86:6 121:21 122:8 13:8 14:16 16:9 71:11 89:2 95:8
accounts 76:22 adverse 41:12 129:3 130:12 16:21 17:2,5,7,18 98:19 113:17
accurate 79:20 45:22 50:19 51:10 answered 130:2 20:1,13 21:1 29:1 120:6 121:1,2,3,4
105:19 53:16 54:15 55:8 anticipated 124:22 30:8 31:4,21 121:5,6 126:4
accurately 22:6 56:12 73:5 anybody 47:8 57:7 40:18 57:6,7 58:3 authorization 9:14
achor 81:11 adversely 98:8 apparently 50:14 59:10 61:12 66:10 9:20 10:13 17:22
acknowledge 78:15 affixed 133:13 92:12 74:14,16,19 76:4 26:7,14,19,21
acquire 130:15 agencies 31:7 appear 18:3 76:6,12 84:22 27:2,10,15,19
acres 77:12 80:2 agents 114:2 appointee 17:4 85:18 91:16 29:2,16,17,18,21
act 38:12,13 40:1,7 ago 21:7 appropriate 21:21 105:15,20 106:3 30:2,5 36:9 37:1
40:12,16 42:1,14 agreement 2:17 25:8 27:13 36:21 107:4 108:5 48:8 65:12 71:10
46:6,8,10 48:3 ahead 30:10 37:12 37:7 51:16 77:22 112:20 114:19 74:9 88:3,9,15,22
50:16,17 52:7,15 119:21 84:7 105:17 116:10,21,22,22 89:5 117:16,17
53:10,15,19 55:17 alike 102:14 appropriated 28:9 117:9 122:14 120:11 129:19
56:16 76:1 93:6 allocate 87:12 33:7,8 35:2 36:8 125:1,6 130:18
98:15,19,20 115:2 allocation 51:17 42:19 43:7 80:9 Army's 106:17 authorize 88:20
117:18 119:1 allow 119:13 appropriation arrest 34:22 authorized 10:12
acting 106:22 allowing 107:18 29:21 30:7,9 articulated 104:17 27:18 30:13 36:13
action 1:4 5:8 113:19 32:12 37:2 98:14 asked 37:6 44:2 44:11,13 74:9
25:22 26:1 36:21 allows 113:13,21 98:19 107:12 45:21 80:8,16 75:22 76:2 88:17
45:9 86:7 alternative 53:8 appropriations 81:10 99:16 90:7 105:17 115:1
actions 14:1 48:18 66:21 27:19 31:11 48:8 asking 28:8 44:14 117:15 119:21
active 100:2 alternatives 60:18 52:5 129:8 67:3 82:15 129:16 120:13,19 121:18
activities 4:13 83:8 100:11 approval 9:21 assess 126:2 122:2 123:19,20
11:13 20:2,12 ameliorate 50:18 122:18 assessing 90:1 124:11
23:10 24:11 33:7 51:10 73:5 approve 121:11 assessment 73:18 authorizes 118:4
33:9,12 36:11,12 amelioration 96:12 123:18 87:16 90:1 authorizing 115:4
38:14 73:18 128:2 amendment 41:11 approved 120:3 assistance 31:4 119:1,3 122:20,22
activity 30:2 36:2 42:18 130:10 122:11 125:18 associated 79:6 available 71:13,19
75:7 130:13 amendments 22:22 approximately 122:10 129:9 100:12,16
acts 116:18 46:7 5:14 123:15 ASSOCIATES 3:2 Avenue 2:5 5:12
actual 77:4 124:5 AMERICA 3:9 area 11:14 13:22 assume 34:8 41:20 average 104:12
Adam 3:21 6:15 amount 49:11 25:13 40:5 44:8 41:22 42:4 45:11 avoided 104:5
132:3 analogy 50:2 49:16 50:1 60:16 85:8,20 121:10,15 aware 29:1,5 35:10
add 36:9 46:7 analysis 77:2 81:11 74:2 75:13 80:3 123:12 37:4,20 42:22
107:7 82:10 86:12,17 80:17 81:4,8 assure 124:4 43:17 47:4,7
103:16 95:15,22 97:15 attached 62:2 64:6 53:19 57:9 58:12

MONTVAI, ZOLTAN
10/7/2008
Page 135
59:7 70:14 78:2 Baton 113:7,15 blame 75:6 129:8 130:17 89:12 101:14
80:14 81:1,17 114:10 block 19:11 budgetary 107:14 102:7,8,10,11,16
82:4 88:5,7,14 Bayou 93:17 board 109:15,19 budgeted 71:19 caused 39:4,17
91:9,13,14 94:15 bayous 94:4 110:1,1,2 111:14 budgeting 24:17 45:12,14 46:13
94:18 97:13 101:5 bear 91:2 126:16 112:3,4,11,13 127:3,17 51:10 53:16 56:10
105:8 118:1 131:2 beating 125:11 Boats 85:10 budgets 53:9 72:2 causes 54:14 85:19
a.m 1:13 5:2,14 began 11:4 body 109:21 110:5 Buffalo 12:10,11 causing 124:20
beginning 83:4 110:6 13:8 cautionary 82:11
B 87:14 Borgne 49:18 50:6 build 107:4 120:1 certain 9:8 13:22
B 32:6 begins 82:12 120:18 125:6 25:22 31:9 35:4
bachelor 12:5 110:22 borne 83:13 built 75:2 125:1 43:17 46:8 49:10
back 42:8 47:22 behalf 3:1,9,15 borrow 23:6 bunch 97:12 51:3,18 60:7
50:14 52:21 54:1 131:20 126:14 Bureau 106:19,22 78:20 90:12
54:8 55:14 57:15 believe 15:1 18:11 boss 11:22 114:15 certainly 31:17
66:4 76:15 84:6 18:15 19:6 21:15 boss's 11:22 businesses 104:3,5 42:7 95:18 102:4
90:6 115:22 116:2 21:17 24:6 33:18 bottom 15:10 34:14 108:20
122:20 127:1 38:4 40:21 41:2 82:8 112:22 C CERTIFICATE
background 60:14 41:16,21 42:6 119:22 120:1 C 3:1 120:5 133:1
backwards 18:5,6 43:22 44:22 47:21 bows 85:1 CA 3:3 certified 5:15
61:9 50:3,10,22 52:14 Box 3:12 calculated 77:18 certify 133:4
Baeza 3:10 6:4,4 53:18 55:12 58:9 branch 3:12 13:17 calculations 86:15 cetera 106:10
bailiwick 81:3 67:15 69:22 72:5 Breaches 1:4 5:6 call 9:7 18:9 28:2 113:8 115:7 132:9
bank 4:14,16 38:3 72:12 85:6 93:6 115:18 132:9 85:9 88:15 117:1 chain 21:18 29:15
41:2 49:15 58:4 93:17 94:3 96:7 break 37:10 57:11 117:15 118:15,16 62:11 130:9
59:13 61:14 64:1 99:16 100:16 115:12 118:17 chance 82:17
67:12 69:6,19 101:10 103:8,18 Brendan 3:21 6:13 called 6:21 14:9 change 26:7,14,20
81:22 83:16 119:7 briefly 10:5,9,10 18:9 26:3,5 34:18 26:21 27:3,10
banks 34:16 35:12 benefit 70:18 77:1 12:19 63:19 70:6,8 29:2 88:3,15,18
42:2 44:17 46:14 77:11,13,19 78:12 brigadier 109:3 82:10 85:2 97:15 88:19,22 89:5
49:3 54:15 55:9 78:18 79:22 81:11 broad 22:3 74:12 106:18 116:9 90:5,16 95:9
70:3 97:11 120:22 81:12 86:11,15,16 broadly 20:21 118:7 120:6,7
121:13 124:20 87:1,6 103:13,16 broken 49:17 Calls 122:4 changed 28:4 104:2
Barges 85:1 104:6 Bruno 3:6,7,7 6:1,1 canal 1:4 5:6 44:3 changes 22:21 23:3
Baronne 3:7 benefits 51:18 77:4 69:14 127:19 104:4 113:8 114:3 31:15 112:7,8
based 44:7 49:7 77:16,16 79:17 131:13 115:18 132:9 114:16
basic 60:3 65:13,14 83:8,12,21 87:3 BS 12:12 capacities 13:15 channel 34:4 35:5
113:16,20 114:9 103:9,11 104:4 budget 17:14,18,19 capital 20:4 42:20 45:22 48:20
114:13 Benjamin 3:13 17:21 24:13 25:2 caps 91:21 49:17 56:13 69:9
basically 23:15 Bernard 58:4 30:12,12,20 31:2 care 86:8 70:5 83:13 90:12
54:4 65:1 59:12 61:13 31:5,6,8,15 32:9 case 81:19 83:14 90:14 119:22
basis 10:13 48:13 better 119:15 32:10,16,18,19,22 90:22 101:11 128:3
87:4 93:12 126:3 beyond 102:3 33:6 34:2 35:2 103:6,8 127:10 chart 4:10,11 14:5
Bate 91:21 92:1 bill 115:3 51:6,7 53:21 133:10 19:12
106:13 billion 78:22 56:22 71:20 case-by-case 126:3 chief 8:22 13:17
Bates 106:9 bit 78:7 106:19 107:1,18 categories 26:9 16:16,20,21 20:3
bathroom 115:11 Bitter 100:2 114:15 127:4,8 category 21:4 80:1 47:3 48:6,15

MONTVAI, ZOLTAN
10/7/2008
Page 136
75:20 76:21 96:11 95:8,13,14,21 100:7,12 44:11,13 45:4,10 contains 68:12

105:15,21 108:5 97:15,21 98:6,21 completely 66:21 46:21,22 47:4,15 contemplated
108:15 112:15,16 101:7,15 102:13 completion 67:19 48:7,11,14 50:17 121:13
112:19 113:3 code 20:3 76:11 51:21 52:4,22 contents 61:19
115:5 119:4,9,12 COHEN 3:16 complex 100:10 53:9 62:21 65:12 context 97:2
119:18,20,22 college 12:3 15:12 complexities 100:9 71:9 74:8 75:21 continue 87:5
120:5,16 122:14 collision 105:6 complicated 80:8 81:10 88:19 103:12
125:16 Colonel 110:16 102:15 88:20 89:6 92:14 continued 41:5
chiefs 48:13 Columbia 2:19 comprehensive 93:14 94:21 95:13 69:5
chief's 76:17 93:14 133:19 96:2 98:2,5 96:17 97:5,17 continuing 42:2
112:18 combination 126:8 101:21 126:11 98:13,14 99:10,16 103:19
choice 79:16 combine 31:6 comprised 127:22 99:21,22 100:17 contractors 85:6
chose 84:9 89:8 combining 126:10 comprises 108:8 105:16,21 110:2 control 75:1 77:9
Chud 3:21 6:15,15 come 11:14 45:3 111:5 111:19 112:9 90:5
132:3,3 51:13 79:17 computed 77:11 114:9,20 115:1,3 convenience 92:20
circular 24:13 25:2 comes 76:20 concept 52:16 115:7 117:15 copies 69:15
51:6,7 53:21 comfortable 80:7 65:14 74:3 118:4 119:1,21 copy 10:20 19:21
54:12 55:5 57:5 coming 90:14 conceptual 118:12 120:3,11,21 121:2 22:14 27:16 58:1
civil 1:4 3:12 5:8 command 21:18 concerned 130:6 121:11,18 123:18 131:16
8:9,12,13,17 9:20 29:15 62:12 130:9 concluded 70:2,22 125:18 130:8,16 Corp 7:12 8:6 12:2
11:12,15,20 12:4 commander 110:15 103:10,18 130:2,4 130:19 Corps 3:15,16 9:3
12:7,22 14:2 comment 63:16 132:13 congressional 9:14 9:13,19 12:16,17
15:20 16:10 19:14 66:22 67:5,8 concludes 132:7 9:19 28:7 29:15 12:20 13:8 14:17
20:2,13 21:1 commented 62:11 conclusion 45:3 31:18 36:21 86:22 14:17 15:8 16:9
23:13 31:1,4 commenting 32:16 46:18 54:5 103:16 connection 116:17 17:18,21 20:22
clarify 127:9 comments 62:2 conclusions 64:16 consequence 39:1 22:5 24:16 26:4
Clark 3:22 6:16,16 63:12,22 64:10,12 concurs 108:11 consider 64:18 27:5,8 29:1,14
classification 20:4 64:15,16,17 66:19 condition 44:15 consideration 30:3,8,11,17
24:21 106:18 107:21 79:11 90:16 107:9 31:11 77:3 31:21 34:3,21
clear 29:20 62:16 commercial 85:19 conditions 25:21 considered 64:12 35:6,10,17,22
cleared 107:17 85:20 26:21 33:18 34:17 consist 109:21 37:4 38:7,14 39:3
clearer 95:9 Commission 42:8 44:16 79:14 Consolidated 1:4 39:14,21 40:18
clearly 107:14 133:16 88:18 92:7 107:7 5:6 115:18 41:10 42:1,15,17
119:20 commissioners 107:16 126:1 consolidation 19:3 43:12,18 44:2,14
climatology 60:15 111:15 conducted 60:13 constituents 111:17 45:21 46:6,12
close 13:6,11 97:6 committee 31:19 confines 95:15 constructed 27:20 47:8,14,18 48:17
closely 118:3 committees 99:13 confuse 52:11 34:10 50:15 51:9,15
closing 66:22 103:6 99:19 Congress 4:17 11:1 construction 39:15 52:1,6 53:9,20
closure 103:22 communications 17:18,22 25:11 42:7 65:19 71:18 54:12 55:4 56:8
104:18 105:3,3 99:12,18 27:14,18 28:19 81:21 83:16 56:15 57:6 58:3
coast 74:3 85:17 competent 80:22 29:14 30:9 31:10 105:18 107:13 59:10 65:21 66:10
96:8 81:2 35:20 36:16 37:5 113:8 117:1,9 72:15 73:2,20
coastal 39:11,17 complete 41:18 37:16,17 38:9 118:11 129:9 74:7,14,19 76:4,6
40:3,5 45:17 completed 25:16 39:20 40:9,18 contain 94:21 76:12 77:1 78:2
73:20,21 74:1,2,6 37:18 38:6 44:19 41:10 42:17 43:1 contained 115:6 79:16 80:1,8,13
74:13 75:4,10,13 51:15 71:7 93:16 43:3,4,5,6,9,12,18 119:5 80:16 81:18 84:22

MONTVAI, ZOLTAN
10/7/2008
Page 137
85:9 86:11 90:6 41:17 45:19 48:1 damage 78:22 88:1 121:7 designated 9:7,18
90:18 91:16 93:5 50:20 51:16,16 85:19 97:21 decisions 9:21 designation 47:13
93:13 95:7 97:3 52:17 55:15 56:2 damages 80:3 Decker 3:21 6:11 86:4 125:9
97:14 98:12 99:9 61:2,6 70:3,19 105:5 6:11 7:19 131:15 designed 90:14
99:14,17 103:15 71:3 72:10 73:4 Dan 6:4 131:19 destroyed 95:1
103:22 105:15 77:1,4,11,13,19 DANIEL 3:10 declining 104:8 destruction 39:16
107:18 110:7 78:12,18 81:10 Darcy 3:21 6:11 Decnem 3:21 6:10 42:3 79:18
116:11,21 117:9 83:10 84:4,8 Darryl 3:21 6:10 6:10 7:20,22 detail 32:21 71:17
125:1,6 128:4 86:11,14,16 87:1 date 22:16 50:8 dedicated 13:22 87:16 89:22
129:1 87:6 103:13,16 59:14 115:19 129:7 117:13
Corp's 85:18 102:1 122:9,15,17 123:1 132:10 deep 92:16 detailed 22:4 23:10
correct 8:4 15:18 123:22 124:4,5,13 dated 20:13 21:10 defend 79:22 80:4 45:8 48:12 60:21
15:21 16:7,11,17 125:7 106:1 108:5 defendable 79:8 61:3 65:15 73:17
17:3,15 18:22 costal 74:10 98:3 116:12 defense 17:8 86:19 87:8 90:1
19:1 26:2,2 27:22 costs 55:10 83:13 David 100:2 defined 55:16 118:10,12 119:16
28:1,21 29:16,22 104:5 122:12 Davis 107:22 defines 40:9 details 65:17
30:3 34:15 36:9 counsel 3:16 5:19 day 133:13 degree 12:5,5,8,12 determination
36:15,22 37:2 7:3 57:6 58:7 days 110:4 118:9 degrees 12:9 60:20
38:8,17,18,21 115:9 131:7,9 DC 3:17 delegated 62:22 determine 36:16
41:13,15 42:10,15 133:9 deal 17:16 37:14 deleterious 47:15 51:16 86:18 87:7
42:21 43:7,14 country 13:16 47:15 52:4 91:22 Department 2:4 determined 45:10
45:4 47:6 48:9,10 couple 58:19 61:20 94:22 101:16,18 3:11 5:11 20:1,13 130:13
48:16 49:9,13 71:21 130:6 21:1 61:12 devastation 103:1
53:5,13 56:18,19 course 42:11 96:18 dealing 74:13 depending 51:17 develop 65:13,16
58:18 64:11 68:5 Court 1:1 5:7,16,17 117:8,20 79:11 89:1,2 developed 21:6
68:21 71:15 72:13 6:18 130:2,4 deals 101:20 Depends 122:19 development 38:13
73:12 74:15 77:20 131:7,14,18 132:1 116:12 depict 14:15 40:1,12 42:1,14
84:10 87:13 88:4 covered 21:11 96:3 deauthorization deposition 1:9 2:1 46:10 50:16 52:7
89:16 91:12 95:16 96:4 129:2,14 88:8,10 92:16 4:3 5:4,10 7:17 52:15 53:10 56:16
96:5,13 98:11 131:13 93:3 94:14,20 10:3,17 11:5 76:1 80:15,20
101:4 106:4,7,19 covering 126:11 96:10,15 97:1 14:11 19:19 32:3 81:16 93:6
108:1,7,12,13 CPR 99:2,5 103:5 105:2 57:19 59:4 87:19 deviate 119:10
111:11,21 114:4 credit 52:20 deauthorize 93:8 115:14 116:5 different 13:16
114:17,21 117:10 credits 52:19 93:14 94:17 95:5 127:19 132:12 26:8 39:11 60:6
117:17,18 120:16 current 22:19 deauthorized 133:4 62:1 70:7 79:12
121:1 122:2,11 97:14 102:5 127:15 depth 36:13 79:13,14 94:16
123:16,21 127:5,6 109:12 debate 94:11 deputy 8:9,13 14:3 117:12,13 118:9
127:11,13 128:1 currently 18:9 24:5 December 20:4,14 16:18 122:12 126:1,8
130:11,21 133:5 95:10 97:17 21:10 100:8 describe 22:5 difficult 102:10,16
corrected 56:3 currents 104:19 decide 35:7 described 29:10 digest 4:12 21:14
correcting 87:3 cut 53:1 decided 48:17 45:18 51:14 70:11 25:5 57:5
Correc5t 7:9 cycle 32:9,12 34:2 120:17 77:13 130:9 digestive 20:1,11
correspondence 127:4,17 decision 21:14 design 64:6 65:7,10 23:9 24:11
62:2 67:17 25:15,18 26:5 65:22 66:4 71:17 direction 120:18
cost 35:4 38:11,13 D 29:10,13 30:1,6 118:6,8,10,16,19 133:8
39:5,11 40:7 D 106:21 58:14 79:16 87:10 118:22 directly 73:19

MONTVAI, ZOLTAN
10/7/2008
Page 138
128:2 document 10:12,22 dredges 85:3,4,7 efforts 73:14 entail 33:6

director 11:15 16:9 11:1 20:16,20 dredging 33:13,14 Ehrlich 3:10 6:6,6 entire 96:3
19:13 106:22 21:19,20 22:2,7 33:17 34:5 36:3 7:18 72:19 82:2 entirety 112:10
directorate 8:11,17 24:15,16 25:10,16 36:12 70:4 77:5 82:15,21 86:3 entry 12:21
11:20 31:1 25:18,19 26:3,6 83:10,22 84:22 93:1 102:9 104:21 environmental
directorates 16:14 26:19 27:16,21 85:5,9,11 124:18 121:20 122:4 77:3,16 92:15
directory 83:21 28:6,13,14,20,22 124:21 127:22 125:8 129:6,12,15 EP 20:4 23:21,22
discretion 119:9,12 29:10,13 30:1,6,7 130:5 131:5 equation 77:19
119:20 120:1,2 31:3 35:18 42:22 due 83:9 100:9 either 110:14 equivalent 28:2,16
125:17 43:4 54:13 55:6 duly 6:21 elaborate 26:20 ER 125:20
discretionary 56:20,22 57:2,8 duration 120:8 elapsed 122:15,22 eroded 75:11
126:4 58:6,11,13,15 DUVAL 1:5 Electronic 22:15 erosion 4:14,16
discuss 9:18 59:10,22 60:5 D.C 1:11 2:6 3:13 eliminate 93:8 94:6 34:18 38:3 41:5
discussed 96:21 61:11 62:1 63:18 5:13 8:19 95:4,5 44:3,17 58:5
discusses 103:6 67:21 68:10 69:16 eliminated 19:8 59:13 61:15 64:1
discussion 7:15 70:13 82:3,5,16 E 85:4 67:12 69:7,11,19
45:12 105:1 121:8 87:10,18 88:5 E 3:1,1 Elmer 106:21 97:11 124:20
discussions 65:3 89:12 91:4,18 earlier 38:15 41:16 employed 7:11 erosion-related
disk 5:4 115:13,16 92:2,13,18 105:10 45:7 51:15 56:3 133:9 69:7
dispute 38:16 105:13 106:6,18 58:16 62:18 67:10 employee 31:22 error 91:11
distinction 74:17 110:21 111:4 70:11 84:2 87:22 endorse 112:9 ERs 126:9
distinguish 30:5 112:12 115:6 91:9 93:7 95:19 endorsement Esq 3:21,21,21,21
district 1:1,2 2:19 116:1,2,3,8,12,15 103:14 104:1 110:18 3:22,22,22
5:7,8 6:12 13:3 116:17,20 117:6,8 117:17 121:17 endorsing 107:3 ESQUIRE 3:2,6,10
15:13,16 19:7 117:11,20 118:22 127:2 ends 115:13 132:6 3:10,11,16
30:21 31:14 32:10 119:5,11,16 early 44:1 75:18 engineer 13:7 essentially 11:12
49:2 62:7,8 63:1 122:13,19,21,22 100:13 103:14 111:1,5,8,20 11:22 26:18 28:4
65:22 67:8 70:1 123:9,10 124:22 108:19 123:5 28:6 53:4 62:19
70:17 73:17 91:17 126:11,13 Eastern 1:2 5:7 engineering 12:4,8 84:19 107:8,16
110:7 111:13 documenting 65:2 economic 103:7,9 13:1,1 23:20 110:20 114:1
112:10 127:8 documents 10:7,8 economics 77:9 65:11,17 118:13 118:22 120:13
131:16,19 133:19 10:10 11:16 21:21 92:8 118:18,20,21 established 21:8
districts 19:5,6,8 23:18 24:10 25:4 ecosystem 39:10,17 119:17 establishes 20:21
division 3:12 8:10 25:9,13 34:9 43:2 40:5 41:6 48:1 engineers 3:15,16 estimate 122:16
8:14 11:11,13,18 59:7 61:9 62:1,22 55:15 74:2 77:10 7:13 8:6,22 13:9 123:2
11:20 14:3 15:17 65:11 88:1 91:1,8 78:9,11 84:14 16:16,20 20:3,22 estimated 122:17
16:1 18:8,10 91:10 125:20 95:22 44:2 48:6,15 58:3 124:1
30:21,22 63:1,7 126:9 education 12:3 66:10 76:4,6,21 estimates 122:10
63:13,20 64:10 doing 19:16 54:4 Edwards 5:17 96:11 105:15,16 et 106:10 113:8
66:20 109:22 59:2 70:19 effect 45:22 78:4,21 105:21 108:5,16 115:7 132:9
110:8,10,15,22 dollar 78:1,9 87:2 90:7 109:16,20,22 evaluate 100:10
111:5,8,10,20 dollars 78:22 effects 41:12 47:16 110:7 112:4,10,13 evaluated 49:2
112:9,12 122:13 draft 91:19 92:16 50:19 51:10 53:16 112:15,19 113:3 evaluation 25:19
123:5,13 100:15 112:18 55:8 73:6 115:6 116:11,21 25:21 26:20 27:3
divisions 18:22 drafts 100:12,14 effort 40:5 77:12 119:5,9 122:13 28:8 66:21 94:18
19:9 dredge 85:18 107:19 123:13 125:16 96:9 101:22

MONTVAI, ZOLTAN
10/7/2008
Page 139
112:11 expensive 124:15 87:15 88:2 89:13 69:2,3,4,4 82:13 44:1 75:19
everybody 116:22 experience 32:8 89:22 90:8 92:12,21 93:12 Frank 106:2,16
exactly 38:2 50:3 43:12 features 61:6 81:22 105:9 106:5 109:2 Franklin 3:13
79:9 Expires 133:16 83:17 119:19 109:3 115:7 130:9 front 61:22
EXAMINATION expressed 125:19 February 58:5 fiscal 31:9 fund 33:19 43:14
4:5 7:3 extend 120:9 91:17 133:16 fit 114:8 45:16 54:18
examined 7:1 extension 113:19 federal 30:19 33:10 five 13:11,12 funded 47:20 51:22
example 74:15 extent 21:9 39:15 38:17,20,22,22 101:14 52:2 53:11 66:15
78:13,19 90:4,9 120:9 125:16 39:4,9,18 40:6 fleet 85:11 72:4 76:6 97:17
112:3 119:22 eye 114:2 45:9,14,15 50:19 flexibility 119:18 97:20 98:10,20
Excel 99:20 E-mail 3:4,14,18 51:9,10 53:15 flood 75:1 77:9 99:22
exchange 94:7,9 54:14 55:8 56:11 90:4 101:17 funding 25:12
exclusive 39:18 F 56:17 60:20 68:7 flow 75:5 29:16,18 37:8
exclusively 47:20 facility 80:6 74:13 76:13 82:1 flushing 94:9 43:14 48:8 68:7,8
50:19 fact 41:21 44:21 82:14 83:5,14,18 focusing 15:3 70:10 71:13 81:10
Excuse 7:16 115:8 46:21 47:18 49:1 84:8 86:1,18 87:5 focussed 38:4 121:5 129:9 130:5
excused 127:19 66:5 68:1 70:17 87:12 focussing 56:1 130:20
executive 11:21 80:12 84:1 90:19 federally 47:20 folks 6:8 13:22 funds 30:18 36:8
60:10 61:17 96:17 97:5 106:2 52:2 66:15 97:19 70:14 76:20 36:17 40:19 42:19
107:17 111:19 112:11 98:10 follow 48:12 69:12 51:12 71:18 80:9
exhibit 10:16,17 124:19 feet 34:11,14 96:20 69:18 83:1 80:15 105:17
14:5,7,9,11 15:7 facts 103:21 97:7 124:18 followed 68:3 further 48:18
18:1,17,18,20 fair 46:5 102:19 fewer 18:22 following 13:5,18 77:17 79:18 80:9
19:18,19,22 20:9 fairly 49:9 fifth 61:10 42:7 61:7 64:18 83:2 87:16 96:11
22:7,22 23:6 fall 21:3 26:8 file 123:6 65:12 67:17,19 97:10 131:4
27:17,21 57:18,19 falls 126:3 filed 117:18 70:21 97:17
58:2,9,10 59:3,4,9 familiar 20:15 final 4:17 47:3 follows 7:2 68:11 G
59:15 81:18 82:8 34:11,19 44:6 91:20 92:14 foot 119:22 120:1 G 3:17
82:21 87:19 88:12 49:18 73:16 92:2 100:17 fore 66:1 gain 87:3
92:13 94:20 96:16 117:3 finally 32:11 foregoing 133:3,5 gained 103:9
103:5,15 105:9,10 far 50:11 68:15 financial 82:10 foreshore 40:19,22 gas 74:15
116:3,5 117:7 89:10 133:11 49:12,22 70:11,19 gathered 10:5
126:14 faster 113:22 financially 41:18 Forgive 37:21 GDM 65:5,6,8
Exhibits 4:8,20 fat 87:18 61:2 form 64:9 71:16 118:6
14:15 feasibility 26:6,11 find 46:19 51:8 formal 47:3 general 22:3 26:17
exist 104:1 26:18 27:2,9,13 54:20 66:9 67:13 formally 75:21 27:3,10 29:2
existed 44:15 28:3,17 29:1 73:11,14 125:15 format 60:3 47:17 57:6 65:7
103:21 38:11 41:17,19 126:17 forth 119:10 65:10,22 66:4
existence 42:4 51:19 52:9,12,17 finds 87:1 forward 51:3 67:1 76:22 89:14,21
59:18 126:6 53:7 54:17 61:4 fine 11:8 19:10 67:2,6 112:19 90:9,15,19 91:7
existing 71:2,5 89:2 65:15,16 67:20 24:9 30:16 122:9 found 52:8 61:11 91:19 92:5 94:12
113:6 114:8 68:4,13,20 70:20 fine-tuning 119:13 90:22 108:15,17,21
exists 110:3 71:7,8 72:8 73:5 finish 72:20 74:7 foundation 78:17 109:2,3,3,4,5,5,7
exit 113:21 114:11 74:7 75:19 76:10 finished 100:6 four 32:3 64:5 109:13 118:6,8,16
EXO 47:18 81:20 83:15 84:15 first 6:21 11:1 24:5 109:5 Generally 60:7
expense 76:22 84:20 86:19 87:5 32:10 60:2 68:16 frame 32:7 38:1 generals 108:20

MONTVAI, ZOLTAN
10/7/2008
Page 140
109:1 110:1,12,13 guess 54:1 89:3 hereunto 133:12 48:19 65:14 72:11 initiation 107:15
generically 26:4 guidance 23:19 hierarchy 14:16 72:15 114:11 inner 104:3
88:1 24:17 57:1 125:21 higher 72:1 98:17 119:15 input 44:7 111:12
give 24:21 90:3 guide 24:12 102:4 124:10 identifies 53:4 instance 54:16
120:12 guidelines 126:12 high-ranking 109:9 identify 18:17 20:7 integrated 92:13
given 133:6 Gulf 4:9,14,15 history 12:20 95:16 20:9 23:17 45:6 integration 8:10,15
gives 43:9 119:18 28:18 58:4 59:12 96:19 54:3 57:22 60:16 11:10 13:21 14:22
go 12:15 15:10 61:13 69:8 91:18 hit 98:15 61:4 73:3 75:9 interest 43:16 45:9
19:15 23:3 25:10 92:16 105:18 hits 85:18 84:17 89:13 60:21 61:1 86:18
25:11 29:14 30:8 113:7,21 114:10 Hope 3:3 impact 36:6 92:15 133:11
30:10 35:6 37:12 114:12 120:16 hour 69:15 impacts 74:13,14 interested 26:10
39:22 42:17 43:12 guys 69:14 house 10:12,21 74:17 99:14 interests 44:8
43:16 45:7 46:12 28:13,19,22 implement 70:2 Internal 100:13
50:14 51:8 52:21 H 105:10 106:1 71:11 121:6 124:4 interpretation
53:3 54:1 55:14 H 107:22 115:6 116:2,3,11 implementation 35:22 46:6 50:15
71:12,17 72:2 half 35:7 76:12,13 116:20,20 117:7 52:14 55:7,10 52:6 53:9,21
73:4 84:19 86:19 87:4 117:19,20 119:5 56:1,4,9,14 71:1 54:13 55:5,19,21
87:7 90:6,7 hallway 9:1 119:11,16 119:14 125:17 56:15 57:8
100:14 105:9,13 hand 25:20 30:6 hundred 61:20 implemented 72:5 intimately 81:5
113:4 116:2 118:5 37:1 133:13 hurricane 78:13 89:1 introduce 5:19
119:21 120:4,14 happen 43:20 97:18,20 98:3,18 implementing 21:1 introduction 82:11
122:20 126:17 happened 103:21 101:17 103:2 impose 98:13 intrusion 93:21
127:1 130:8 130:22 104:2,11,20 improvement 94:8 95:5
goes 47:22 67:18 happens 100:21 116:14 117:2 107:15 investigate 44:3
going 8:2 14:4,6,8 102:13 hurricanes 78:4 impugning 91:12 54:2
15:10 54:6 59:9 harbor 104:3 114:3 101:9 include 33:13,16 investigated 44:2
80:3 83:1 99:12 115:2 hydraulic 13:7 37:7 41:12 60:9 investigating 28:17
104:16 113:4 harbors 109:16,20 hydraulics 13:6,10 included 4:20 73:20
115:22 116:1,2,3 112:3,5,14 hypothesis 121:22 includes 47:13 investigation 28:7
120:4,17 132:4 hard 11:19 hypothetical 84:22 74:16 98:2 37:14 38:1 48:13
Good 7:5 harmful 47:15 85:18 120:13 including 9:20 55:14 60:22 61:3
gotten 12:9 110:16 head 25:1 55:3 121:18 31:18 42:9 46:14 86:19 87:9 97:15
Governing 23:13 111:10 124:7 hypothetically 34:9 74:10 98:7 114:13
government 51:9 headquartered 41:20 45:12 85:21 increase 124:21 investigations
56:17 76:13 83:14 16:6 121:11 increased 97:20 37:13 40:3 41:19
governor 107:21 headquarters 8:11 incumbent 109:12 45:8 62:20 64:19
governors 111:15 8:18 13:13 16:3 I indicate 5:20 69:10 69:6 81:7
graduation 15:12 62:15 63:3,16,17 idea 89:11 92:9 78:3 investigative
Great 7:10 8:1 healthy 78:19 122:3 individual 32:19 116:18
greater 44:8 87:16 81:12 ideal 21:20 22:1 individually 66:8 involved 9:9 26:20
green 19:11 hear 7:18,21 identification industrial 114:2 39:7 76:20 80:20
Gregory 5:17 held 2:1 5:10 7:15 10:18 14:12 19:20 inform 46:21 81:5
ground 86:4 64:21 121:8 57:20 59:5,10 information 35:11 involvement 32:15
grounds 125:12 Henderson 1:20 87:20 116:6 60:14 97:2 116:11 62:21
group 13:21 2:18 5:16 133:2 identified 10:21 initiate 95:7 99:10 involving 30:10
Guard 85:17 133:18 29:8 42:1,14 initiated 103:1 issue 47:16 73:21

MONTVAI, ZOLTAN
10/7/2008
Page 141
97:1 kind 10:5 14:18 laws 39:22 9:9 115:18 lost 75:11
issued 24:5 18:20 35:12 lawyers 126:2 little 9:4 78:6 lot 34:9 80:14 85:4
issues 114:22 knew 59:18 lay 51:20 LLC 5:17 99:12 124:13,19
item 33:2 know 13:1 16:2 lays 53:8 LMVD 63:19 Louisiana 1:2 3:8
items 31:16 19:10 22:21 23:2 LCA 74:1 75:14 local 39:5 43:16 4:18 5:8 40:4
I-N-D-E-X 4:1 25:7 27:12 40:14 95:20 96:1 44:7 46:2,12 73:9 58:4 59:13 61:14
40:15 49:11 54:5 LCAPR 97:16 73:14 100:1 63:12 74:2,10,21
J 54:22 62:4,9 66:2 101:16 102:19 111:16 75:10,13 76:14
James 107:22 66:5,6 67:2,4,5,7 lead 60:9 located 5:11 8:22 95:20,20 96:3,4
January 59:14 67:9,22 69:16 leading 60:15 19:11 97:15,22 98:6,16
75:20 76:18 70:13 71:21 80:12 65:19 66:4 location 119:19 98:21 101:15
100:13 81:6,7,16 82:22 learn 17:17 locks 114:3 107:21 116:9,13
Jeff 6:6 82:22 85:11 86:9 leave 14:6 long 9:2 11:9 37:9 lower 18:10 63:12
Jefferson 131:21 89:20 91:5,6,12 led 44:4 longer 63:4 93:10 63:19 66:19
JEFFREY 3:10 92:11 96:21 99:14 LeFarge 6:15 93:19 110:3 127:9 111:10
jeff.ehrlich@usd... 99:18 100:22 132:4 look 10:10 15:7 LPV 117:1,16,21
3:14 104:12 117:20 left 124:20 18:20 25:7,14 LSR 1:20 133:2,18
John 32:1,5 119:21 121:19 legal 5:15 32:20,22 35:17,18 lunch 69:15
Joseph 3:6 6:1 122:7 123:9 124:5 legislative 92:14 39:6 44:14 55:12
Jr 106:3,16 124:7,8,10 125:5 letter 4:9,18 47:3 59:15 60:17 61:8 M
JUDGE 1:5 knowledge 43:20 116:10 62:17 63:17 66:7 M 3:6
judges 83:13 46:11 47:5 48:15 let's 12:1 15:7 68:16 77:6,7 MAG 1:6
judgment 58:10 69:21 89:4 131:1 18:14 19:17 29:20 78:10 80:19 82:17 mailing 47:1
July 116:12 knowledgeable 30:10,15 53:1 83:19 84:11 89:3 maintain 33:9 36:3
jumping 54:5 129:4 57:17 85:8,14 92:9 95:18 98:17 50:5 103:12,19
June 12:18 92:17 known 16:9 42:8 105:9,13 123:12 111:20 112:6,21 124:16 125:7
Justice 2:4 3:11 126:17 123:6 128:3
5:11 L level 12:22 15:19 looked 10:8 17:20 maintaining 35:5
justification 33:22labeled 18:2 16:4 31:19 62:21 59:16 62:15 63:3 103:10
35:14 94:3 127:8 lack 38:10 90:1 98:17 101:14 75:6 81:15 100:11 maintenance 21:12
justify 84:3 LACPR 99:1,3,8 102:4,17 117:13 112:16 114:9 30:18 33:10,12
102:21,22,22 levels 14:16 63:2 117:7 34:2 38:20 39:13
K Lake 4:18 49:18 levies 75:1 101:17 looking 39:9,10 40:8 49:6 71:4,14
K 1:4 5:9 50:5 116:9,13 Levy 6:11 131:15 40:2 45:17 46:9 81:21 83:9,12,12
Katrina 1:4 5:6 117:2 120:17 131:19 47:18 48:1 60:18 83:16 84:5 124:13
37:19 50:9,10,12 Lalutra 93:17 Licensed 2:18 77:8,10 97:20 127:5,21 129:10
72:14 73:1 97:18 land 96:8 lieutenant 108:15 102:12 122:20 major 109:4
97:18 98:15 99:13 language 115:3 108:16,19,21 looks 57:1 86:21 majority 83:11
103:2 104:2,11 119:2 109:5,7,12 111:7 making 21:14 66:3
115:18 121:16 large 33:2 40:6 life 41:9 Los 3:3 86:14 97:4 123:22
127:16 131:1 73:20 75:9,22 limited 119:20 loss 25:12 39:2,16 management 17:14
132:9 largely 33:13 120:2 42:9,12,20 45:13 17:21 31:5 61:5
keep 29:17 36:12 124:17 127:21 line 107:10 46:1,14 48:20 manager 13:15
51:1 62:14 80:1 larger 90:13 list 47:1 58:10 55:9 56:13 74:5 32:20
93:21 late 75:18 126:6 listening 90:11 77:17,18 101:2 manuals 23:11
key 25:9 latitude 119:9 litigation 1:4 5:6 losses 73:22 man-made 74:4,19

MONTVAI, ZOLTAN
10/7/2008
Page 142
74:19 75:8 mind 29:18 51:1 monthly 104:12 117:22 118:5,15 13:6 15:12,15
mark 3:22 10:15 62:14 80:1 123:9 months 13:4 119:2 120:13,22 30:20 31:14 32:9
14:4,8 19:17 minute 21:13 23:6 100:19 121:11 122:10 44:8 49:1 62:6,8
57:17 59:3 87:17 115:11 126:18 Montvai 1:9 2:1 124:6 125:2,7,18 65:21 70:17 91:16
87:18 116:1,3 missed 27:7 4:3 5:5 6:20 7:7 127:4 128:1 102:5 111:13,15
marked 10:17 Mississippi 4:9,14 8:3 10:16,17 14:5 129:10 120:15 127:7
14:11 19:19,22 4:15 8:10,14 14:11 19:18,19 multipurposes 129:14 131:19
57:19 59:4 87:19 11:10,13 14:3 57:19 59:4 87:19 101:22 nine 13:4
105:10 116:5,8 15:16,22 16:5 115:14,17 116:5 M-O-N-T-V-A-I nonfederal 39:12
marshland 120:16 18:8,10 28:18 132:8,13 7:8 8:5 40:7,9 46:12,20
MARTIN 3:16 30:22 58:3 59:12 morning 7:5 67:11 M-R-G-O 93:10 50:20 51:13 52:8
Martin.R.Cohen... 61:13 63:6,12,20 move 51:2 52:3 53:12 54:18 55:11
3:18 63:22 66:20 69:8 66:22 67:2 118:10 N 56:17 61:1 68:8
Mary 100:1 75:2 91:18 92:15 moved 13:12 67:5 N 3:1 72:9,15,17 73:9
masters 12:6,13 98:17 105:18 moving 60:21 name 5:14 7:6 8:2 73:14 87:12 97:11
matter 5:5 115:17 111:10 113:6,14 118:12 75:12 106:17 nonfinancial 67:14
132:8 113:15 114:1,10 MRGO 1:6 9:15 names 91:8 nonintegration
Matthew 3:22 6:16 misspoke 28:16 10:13 11:11 21:3 national 15:19 76:9 15:20
mean 22:1 27:12,13 misunderstood 21:5,9 25:13 27:1 natural 34:17 74:5 nonlocal 73:3,7
37:19 39:22 40:16 54:10 27:9 29:3 30:10 75:5,8 76:8
52:10 66:12 81:2 mode 72:18 30:15,17 31:15 navigable 36:4 nonmonetary 77:3
82:15 84:11 85:17 modeling 80:10 32:11,17 33:11 125:2,6 77:15
meant 56:6 81:10 34:4,10 36:1 37:6 navigation 10:14 nonstructural
measure 35:5 modelling 79:6 37:8 38:17 39:7 35:5 36:2 39:8,8 101:21
51:18 71:1 72:18 models 80:5 39:15,18 40:4,13 49:4 51:19 71:3 NOP-003-000000...
75:9 93:18 modification 52:22 40:20 41:3,10,12 74:22 77:7 79:4 91:21
measurers 101:21 113:5,11 114:12 41:13 42:2,4,7,19 83:10 84:7 93:11 normal 33:4,11
measures 33:16 130:10 43:21 45:13,15 97:6 98:4 103:11 47:2
34:3 70:2 72:5 modifications 9:22 46:1,13 47:14,16 104:3 113:14,16 normally 32:21
84:3 95:14 101:18 88:21 117:22 47:19 49:16 50:5 113:19 114:3 33:8 89:21 110:10
meeting 64:21 65:4 modified 37:6 51:11 54:14 55:8 128:3 130:14 114:22
members 43:17 130:19 56:11 58:20 59:21 necessarily 33:3 north 49:14,20
memo 65:2,22 modify 113:18 66:22 67:12 69:8 need 25:11,15 Northwest 2:5 5:12
memorandum 119:19 69:20 73:6,7,19 39:16 70:16 72:16 Nos 14:11
64:20,22 65:7,10 modifying 114:7 74:11,15 83:10,13 80:4 130:6 131:16 notarial 133:13
memorandums moment 55:1 60:3 88:6 89:5,18 needed 36:17 48:17 Notary 2:18 133:2
118:8 88:13 90:10,12,19 91:3 84:14 129:21 133:19
memos 66:4 118:16 monetary 77:8 91:10,15 93:8,10 130:4 notebook 23:20
mentioned 61:19 83:7 95:1,16 96:8,12 needs 43:13 60:17 57:1 125:21
84:2 125:21 monetite 78:6 96:18 97:5 98:7 neither 133:9 notebooks 126:5
Mexico 113:7,21 monetize 79:17 101:3 103:5,6,12 never 44:18 46:2 notice 113:3
middle 19:12 money 28:9 33:7 104:9,13,18,18 72:15 74:17 89:5 notified 47:1
mile 79:10 81:11 35:1,8 43:6,8 105:3,4 107:4 118:2 121:17,19 notify 43:3,5 88:18
miles 49:11 120:15 44:11 71:22 113:11,20,22 122:3 123:9 November 92:17
million 100:9 monitored 83:11 114:3,8 115:1 130:22 number 1:4 24:1
122:18 124:1 month 32:12 116:17 117:9,17 New 3:8 12:11 13:2 77:12 78:8 80:2,7

MONTVAI, ZOLTAN
10/7/2008
Page 143
81:7 92:1 104:2 once 43:9 129:14 131:15,19 109:15 110:9,21 55:11 66:11,14
104:14 106:9,13 ones 110:11 outcome 54:6 111:4 112:21 68:7,7 72:10 73:3
122:21 124:8 ongoing 21:10 133:11 113:2 81:20 82:1,14
numbered 68:10 73:19 102:6 outlet 4:9,14,15 pages 61:20 63:18 83:5,7,14,17,20
numerous 66:3,6 127:22 10:13 28:18 58:4 64:5 108:8 84:4,8,12,19
NW 3:17 opening 69:1 59:12 61:13 64:1 paginated 61:10 97:19 98:10 99:11
operate 103:12,19 69:8 91:19 92:16 paid 76:11,14,18 percentage 84:16
O 124:15 105:18 76:21 period 85:8 110:19
object 86:4 107:19 operation 21:12 outputs 77:11 paragraph 68:17 periodic 124:17
121:20 30:18 33:6,11 outside 86:3 125:8 69:1,3,4 82:8,12 person 11:17,19,21
Objection 102:9 34:1 38:19 39:12 overall 64:13 83:20 113:4 111:9,12
104:21 122:4 40:8 49:6 70:4 114:6 parallel 55:22 personal 32:15
125:8 71:4,14 81:21 overhead 128:4 Parish 58:4 59:12 personnel 33:17
objective 75:8 83:16 84:5 124:12 O&M 31:15 32:11 61:14 131:21 PERTAINS 1:6
obtaining 9:14 127:4,21 32:16,18,22 33:19 part 9:12 14:22 phase 52:16,17,17
obviously 117:12 operations 34:8 35:2,15 36:2 39:8 27:7 30:19 31:8 61:5 68:13,21
117:13 124:13 36:3 71:20 33:21 34:17 40:20 69:6 71:12 81:20
129:16 operative 22:8 O'Brien 3:21 6:13 47:1 49:17,20,21 83:15 84:20 87:15
occur 31:15 42:7 Operator 3:20 5:3 6:13 64:12,14 71:20 phenomenon 34:19
occurring 105:6 6:8,17 57:12 O'Donnell 3:2,2 74:19 75:3 94:13 phone 131:8,9
October 1:12 4:4 115:8,13 126:19 4:6 5:21,21 7:4,16 96:9 99:7 101:8 132:2
5:13 115:19 132:6 7:21 8:1 10:15,19 102:1 106:6,18 phonetic 76:15
132:10 opinion 51:5 57:6 14:4,13 19:17,21 114:5 physical 60:15
office 3:16 8:11,18 opportunities 20:6 54:7 57:10 partially 101:3 pick 30:10 115:11
11:14 13:9,13 60:17 57:15,17,21 59:1 particular 65:3 pie 84:12
17:14,20 20:2 opposed 29:21 59:8 69:17 72:20 particularly 51:11 piece 84:12
30:21 31:5 107:17 opposite 103:16 72:22 82:6,19 parties 5:20 133:10 pieces 53:1
110:8,10 111:16 option 83:8 83:3 86:5 87:17 partner 41:17 Pierce 3:2 5:21
officer 109:9 133:3 order 14:16 51:8 87:21 93:2 102:18 pass 57:22 pipelines 74:15
offices 2:2 5:10 57:18 109:1 132:4 104:22 115:10,21 Pavlick 3:21 place 8:21 10:6
oil 74:15 ordering 131:10 116:7 121:9 122:1 131:20,20 24:4 50:4 54:22
okay 8:1 11:8 14:19 orders 131:8,9 122:6 125:10,14 pay 39:19 46:3 52:8 65:3 78:20 93:17
18:13 19:10 23:17 ordinarily 114:16 126:16,22 127:20 66:10 76:15 94:10 111:22
26:16 30:17 33:1 org 14:5 129:11,13,18,22 payment 76:19 113:14 114:13
36:11 40:18 50:16 organization 13:12 131:3,12 PC 3:2 placed 10:20 78:12
54:11 61:8,18,21 19:12 75:7 O'Toole 3:20 5:14 pecking 14:16 placement 33:18
62:7 63:13 96:1 original 122:9 109:1 places 96:19 97:7
107:20 113:3 123:3,4 124:22 P PED 118:19 placing 49:2,5 75:6
115:2,7 122:9 originally 34:10 P 3:1,1,10 Pennsylvania 2:5 94:6
123:14,17 129:15 Orleans 3:8 6:11 PAC 88:14 89:4,13 5:12 plaintiff 5:5 6:10
129:21 130:7,8 13:2,6 15:12,16 Pace 106:2,16 people 81:13 101:8 6:14 7:3
131:14 30:21 31:14 32:9 page 4:5,8 61:15 128:4 plaintiffs 3:1 5:22
Okeemah 1:20 44:8 49:2 62:7,8 68:10,11,16 87:17 percent 40:6,7 6:1,16 131:12
2:17 5:16 133:2 65:21 70:17 91:16 92:12,21 93:12 45:16 46:3 50:20 plan 19:16 61:5
133:18 102:5 111:13,15 106:5,6,10,12,16 51:11 52:2,9,11 98:2,5 102:6,7
OMB 17:13 24:15 120:15 127:7 106:21 108:4 53:11,12 54:18 planning 13:12,15

MONTVAI, ZOLTAN
10/7/2008
Page 144
13:17 23:15,19 possibly 24:13 57:1 84:14 52:16 54:21 62:19 pronounce 7:5
52:16 54:21 57:1 121:21 presuming 39:20 67:1 75:8 102:20 pronunciations
65:13 125:19,21 post 4:10 18:10,17 44:10 45:9 62:9 118:9 127:3 32:3
126:5,7,11 21:10 26:7,13,14 68:14 70:12 72:4 processing 17:17 property 78:22
plans 9:22 65:14,18 26:19,21 27:2,9 83:9 86:8 65:22 81:13 97:9,11
71:17 118:11 29:1 50:9,12 88:2 prevent 34:3 35:1 produce 52:21 101:9
119:10 88:9,15,22 89:4 preventing 25:12 produced 24:16 proposal 31:8
play 101:8 post1997 14:9 18:1 previous 117:7 27:14 71:8 77:14 82:11 113:12
please 5:19 6:18 18:2 previously 10:21 90:22 93:4 126:3
37:12 43:14 54:8 potential 60:20 previsions 46:8 producing 76:20 proposals 17:18,19
126:14,16 131:8 67:13 78:22 86:13 pre1997 14:6 program 12:22 129:8
131:10,22 86:18 primary 71:8 87:6 13:4,15 32:20 propose 34:3
plug 93:17,20 94:6 pre 4:11 18:18 principals 126:12 80:20,21 81:16 proposed 35:2 53:8
plus 64:6 precede 112:2 printed 22:14 progress 89:10 99:15,21
pod@oslaw.com preceded 12:2 107:20 project 10:14 21:5 proposing 100:2
3:4 70:10 prior 18:11 21:7 21:10 27:18,20 130:13
point 18:7 38:7 precisely 24:8 41:22 42:18 50:10 30:2,13,14 33:9 prospects 28:18
51:4 53:14 54:12 51:20 priority 72:1 35:16,21 36:1,10 protect 35:13 41:2
56:20 63:3 104:8 Preconstruction privatization 85:15 38:17,22 39:1,4,6 70:3 98:5 120:22
111:9 120:5,5,6,6 118:18,20,21 probably 18:15 39:7 45:14 47:22 protecting 79:18
123:12,22 127:10 precursor 94:14 22:16 63:10 49:3 50:19 51:11 97:9 101:8
129:15 preliminarily 131:16 51:17 52:13,22 protection 40:19
policies 4:12 20:12 129:20 probe 38:15 53:15 54:14 55:8 41:1,7 49:8,12,22
20:22 21:6,11 preliminary 82:10 problem 37:14 55:13 56:11 60:16 50:4 66:1 70:11
22:5 24:11 51:2,6 preparation 11:5 39:4 42:3,14 61:5 71:3,5 74:9 70:19 78:13,17
57:5 66:13 prepare 10:2 54:16 43:10,19 44:3 76:2 77:6 81:21 81:13 97:16 98:3
policy 20:2 21:8 60:4 65:18 45:16 51:12 52:4 83:10,11,15 84:7 98:18,22 101:14
22:3 23:9,11,22 prepared 27:4,8 52:5 53:4 56:10 88:17 90:2,5,6 101:17 102:4,8,17
51:4,9,9 52:6 65:10,11,21 60:19 69:20 83:20 93:11 94:16 104:4 116:14 117:3
53:17,18,21 54:12 100:14 84:15 86:14,22 107:13 113:6,12 protective 101:18
55:4 100:15 preparing 67:20 87:3 100:10 130:7 113:13,16,19,20 provide 30:17 31:3
Pontchartrain present 3:19 27:1 problems 45:12 114:6,8,9,11,13 31:11 73:17 98:1
116:9,13 117:2 37:5 46:13 48:18 56:10 114:16 115:4 98:4 101:14 102:4
pop 82:18 presenting 118:9 60:17 69:7 116:14 117:3 113:7
population 97:10 presents 69:5 procedure 43:11 118:5,5,10 119:3 provided 27:20
port 120:15 preservation 36:18 procedures 9:13,19 119:14,15 120:4 37:15 49:8 67:9
Portchartrain 4:18 37:7,8 21:14 22:4 121:12 122:10 74:8 80:16 98:14
portion 52:13 84:6 preserving 77:17 proceed 37:15 125:17 130:11,20 112:18
portions 116:16 79:19 68:12,20 72:8 projects 9:20 21:2 provides 24:17
position 7:14 8:8 President 17:10 87:8 23:14 24:18 39:9 providing 52:19
14:2 16:8 39:3,14 107:18 proceedings 127:19 51:3 74:20,21,22 62:20 97:20 98:17
45:21 47:11 56:8 presidential 17:4 process 10:6 11:15 75:1,1 99:14 provision 40:13
possibility 104:18 President's 31:8 13:22 15:1 28:4,5 117:12 50:22 93:5 121:12
possible 47:12 presumably 31:10 31:13 33:4 34:22 promotable 110:16 provisions 40:17
54:17 97:12 88:20 35:9,13,19 43:15 promotions 12:20 57:3
107:15 110:14 presume 17:9 19:3 43:15 47:2,13 promulgated 24:3 public 2:19 100:15

MONTVAI, ZOLTAN
10/7/2008
Page 145
105:1,5 133:1,3 quick 57:11 115:11 35:20 45:4 98:12 106:8 108:14 relative 63:22
133:19 quickly 95:3 99:9 107:11 112:8 115:15,16,22 relatively 12:21
pulled 126:13 quite 79:12 113:5 114:16 121:8 126:18,20 109:11
pulling 88:11 quiz 82:18 recommendation 126:21 130:3 relocate 13:7
purely 77:9 quote 115:4 25:21 38:7,9 48:7 131:8,10 132:11 120:12
purpose 20:20 51:21 68:12 93:16 133:5 relocation 104:5
28:10 33:22 35:17 R 95:7,13 96:16 records 29:8 48:11 rely 126:2
35:21 36:1,10,17 R 3:1,16 97:4 107:3 112:17 redo 90:7 remained 19:6
37:6 39:7,7 40:2 Raffman 3:22 113:18 114:7 reduce 79:10 80:3 remaining 84:18
40:22 41:7,8,11 raised 64:15 115:5 116:21 120:8 remediate 86:13
42:19 49:3,5 rank 108:16,22 119:4 120:3 reduced 49:6 133:8 remediating 41:12
55:13,13,15 71:3 rap 33:20,21 49:2 recommendations reduction 78:17,21 remediation 39:3
71:9 77:7 79:4 rare 78:11 62:20 86:13 93:13 84:4 97:21 42:20 56:11
84:7 86:16 87:6 ratio 77:11,13 94:21 108:12 refer 20:18 58:14 remedy 39:16
92:4 93:20 94:16 78:12,18 87:1,7 110:7 117:8,21 reference 32:8 remember 14:21
94:16,18 96:22 103:13 recommended 60:11 64:20 65:5 85:12 88:8 122:21
97:8 101:11,12,13Reach 40:20 49:13 28:19 41:11 55:7 66:3 125:22 reorganization
130:10,14,16,19 49:17 103:22 111:19 referred 52:13 4:10,11 14:7,10
purposes 45:11 reached 103:15 114:7 58:16 59:20 14:19,20 15:5
51:17 66:7 84:13 reaches 93:22 recommending referring 11:2 18:2,11,18,19,21
92:20 94:1 98:1 read 54:8 58:12 43:6 75:21 105:3 18:12 32:4 44:9 reorganizations
106:8 59:19 69:2 82:11 105:16 45:7 59:22 62:18 13:19
Pursuant 2:17 82:20 83:3 91:1 recommends 26:1 64:16 94:19 report 4:14,16,17
put 24:14 32:10 118:2 119:2 131:5 96:11 106:12 16:15 26:6,7,11
35:8,11 50:1,3 realized 35:4 recon 46:16 51:15 reflected 48:2 26:14,18,22 27:2
72:10 73:3 78:1,9really 13:21 21:20 69:22 53:19 27:3,3,4,9,10,11
102:10,16 25:9 90:8 102:15 reconnaissance reflection 102:11 27:13 28:3,17
puts 30:11 31:14 reason 32:22 54:2 35:19 37:22 44:5 reflects 25:19 29:1,2,3 38:3 47:3
P-R-O-C-E-E-D-... 70:22 71:6 72:7 44:20,22 45:5 regard 40:13 43:21 48:5,7,22 53:4,7
5:1 84:16 99:11 48:5,11,22 51:22 48:4,19 53:15 58:5,5,16,17
p.m 132:13 102:15 104:17 53:3 58:5,16,17 56:9 117:21 59:13,21 60:8
P.O 3:12 105:2 119:13 58:20 59:13,21 region 14:3 61:14 62:6,7 63:4
reasons 75:3 89:11 60:4,8 61:14 regional 8:10,15 64:1,13 65:15,16
Q 97:12 101:1,6 62:13,14,16 63:4 11:10 13:20 14:22 65:20 66:11,17
quantifiable 83:7 103:7 63:7,17 64:1 regions 13:16 67:12,16,17,19,22
question 10:14 reassigned 19:9 65:20 66:11,14,16 regulation 23:20 68:3,4,12 69:5,11
18:19 27:6 37:9 recall 15:6 19:7 67:12,16,17 68:3 23:22 24:1 51:5 69:12,21,22 70:7
43:2 45:20 54:8 22:14,20 24:4,8 69:6,11,19,21 53:20 54:13 55:5 70:9,18 71:7,8,9
55:22 72:20 81:15 29:11 38:2 40:16 70:6,9,18 72:7 57:5 72:8,9 74:3 75:17
84:21 94:8,12 57:2 119:6 126:12 75:17 76:3 77:2 regulations 25:6,16 75:19,20 76:3,10
121:4,22 122:8 received 111:12 81:18 82:9 86:12 126:8 76:17 77:2 81:18
125:11 129:4 recognition 101:2,7 86:17,21 87:7,9 related 32:7 34:5,7 82:9 84:3 86:12
130:1 recognize 78:15 record 5:3 7:15 36:12 42:3 73:19 86:17,21 88:2,3,9
questions 64:15 recognizing 74:18 57:13,14 64:14,21 83:21 128:2 133:9 88:10,14,16,22
70:16 82:16 83:2 75:10 95:2 64:22 69:3 73:13 relates 84:6 89:5,13,13,14,17
129:16 recommend 27:14 82:20,22 91:1 relating 33:16 89:22 90:9,15

MONTVAI, ZOLTAN
10/7/2008
Page 146
91:7,15,19,20 110:19 127:22 45:17 77:18 61:13 63:6 64:1 80:5

92:6,10,14 93:4 requirement 56:1 restricted 36:2 69:8 75:3 91:18 scope 86:3 87:11
93:11,14 94:13 60:8 result 35:4 88:18 92:16 105:18 89:1 125:9
95:3,6,9 96:22,22 requirements 48:2 102:13 103:1 113:6 114:2,10 Seabrook 107:10
100:17 105:15,20 49:7 71:20 124:18 105:5 123:1 115:2 seal 133:13
107:17,21 108:5,8 requires 40:6,8 resulted 27:15 Rivers 109:16,20 search 79:14
108:12 109:15 45:18 46:4 56:14 42:11 45:8 70:3 112:4,13 seaway 113:8
110:22 111:5,13 research 80:6,15 74:5 75:19 Robin 3:11 6:2 SEC 46:4
111:15,20 112:6 80:19 81:15 resulting 71:4 Robinson 1:6 5:22 second 18:14 30:14
112:14,17,18 resist 99:5 93:13 rock 33:18 49:2,5 36:10 59:20 106:6
113:2 116:20 resolution 28:8 results 69:5 90:8 50:1 113:2 126:17
121:12 122:13 43:22 44:21 60:11 reverse 18:13 rolled 31:2 secondhand 70:16
123:3,3,4,5,8,13 86:22 reversed 18:16 rotational 12:22 secretary 17:1,5,7
Reported 1:20 Resource 42:13 review 10:7 62:21 Rouge 113:7,16 17:8 31:3,4
Reporter 2:18 5:16 resources 4:12 12:6 63:7 99:20 100:15 114:10 105:20 106:3,17
5:18 6:18 131:7 20:1,12 23:9,14 110:6 112:11 rough 79:7 107:4 112:20
131:14,18 132:1 24:11 38:12 40:1 reviewing 32:16 routine 33:5 114:19 116:10,22
REPORTER-N... 40:12 41:22 46:10 110:4 rule 9:8 32:6 79:8 122:14
133:1 48:3 50:15 52:7 revised 92:17 run 97:10 115:9 section 52:14 63:19
reporting 14:16 52:15 53:10 56:15 revisions 23:5 R.A 108:15 82:10
21:16 76:1 93:6 re-evaluation sediment 75:5
reports 15:16 response 28:7 26:17 27:4,11 S see 18:20 25:7 60:2
16:20 17:1,7,20 44:21 62:17 67:8 29:3 89:14,17,21 S 1:20 2:17 3:1 61:20,21 63:14
29:9 51:22 52:21 86:22 93:5 123:1 90:15,19 91:2,3,6 133:2,18 64:2,7 68:13,15
58:20 60:4 62:13 responsibilities 91:7,16,19 92:5,5 safety 93:18 105:2 89:14 106:10,13
62:14,16 63:7 11:9 33:10 38:19 94:13 105:5 109:16 111:1
66:14 69:19 112:1 87:13 re-valuation 90:9 Saia 31:21 32:1,5 113:9 127:1
112:10 122:14 responsibility Richard 3:21 129:13,21 seek 9:21 46:12
represent 5:20 30:19 34:6,8 131:20 salt 93:21 94:4,7,9 seen 11:4,6,7 58:6,7
14:14 63:11 64:4 38:20 39:1,8,12 right 15:8,9 29:12 95:4 58:11 59:17 62:4
90:21 116:19 39:19 40:9 45:15 31:19 32:13,14 save 35:12 78:21 62:10 67:7 82:4
123:7,10 49:7 81:4 86:2 36:18 37:17 39:22 savings 35:4 70:4 82:16 92:17
Representatives responsible 129:1 42:9 45:2 47:10 71:3 77:4 83:9,12 104:14 116:14,16
10:22 106:1 rest 29:14 84:11,13 47:18 51:14 56:3 83:22 senators 100:1
representing 5:17 111:4 56:4 73:8 76:2 saw 117:19 send 45:10 48:6,10
request 17:21 restate 54:11 80:5 85:1 91:9 saying 79:16 71:9 110:11
30:18,20 43:18 restoration 39:10 92:21 93:10 95:11 says 14:6 22:15 112:14
80:18 129:2,8 40:3,5 47:19 48:1 100:14 106:6 40:2 53:15 54:14 sending 43:4
requested 99:13 55:15 56:7 73:21 107:22 109:10 55:6 56:21 61:13 senior 11:21
requesting 71:10 74:1,2 75:9,22 112:8 114:20 65:1 68:14 80:1 sense 47:17 84:5
88:19 77:10,12 84:14 117:4 118:14 82:14 83:6 105:12 sent 43:1,2 47:3,3
requests 31:7 94:22 95:8,14,22 124:9 125:1 131:3 107:2 113:5 48:14 75:21 89:6
require 36:7 97:16 98:4,22 rip 33:20,21 49:2 scale 40:6 73:20 sentence 68:17
120:10 101:19 risk 97:21 75:9,22 69:2,4 82:13
required 30:1,8 restore 74:9 98:5 river 4:14,15 28:18 scheduled 100:17 83:19
38:13 55:16 restoring 39:11 49:10 58:3 59:12 science 12:5 79:5,9 separate 29:18

MONTVAI, ZOLTAN
10/7/2008
Page 147
36:7,8,17 113:12 Signature 132:12 sources 14:18 111:16 128:1

117:16 121:6 signed 106:21 south 3:3 49:13,21 stamp 91:21 92:1 structure 13:20
126:9 significant 78:11 span 9:22 106:13 16:9
separately 36:14 97:1 120:7 speak 47:9 76:2 star 109:4,5,6,7,22 structures 101:17
separation 50:5 similar 21:6 117:11 speaker 106:1 110:14,17 studied 36:14
September 91:20 similarly 77:9 speaking 60:7 start 8:2 75:16 47:16,17
106:2 simple 120:14 109:11 109:4 111:22 studies 24:18 44:22
series 118:6 simply 94:17 specialist 5:15 started 12:17,21 52:12 78:3,3,8,13
service 11:21 sir 7:5 8:7,8 9:10 specific 23:10 15:11 93:7 79:22 80:10 98:16
services 52:19 9:16 10:20 14:14 24:10 25:5 26:1 starting 108:4 120:10
session 11:1 115:7 15:14 20:10 22:11 40:4,12 42:22 starts 127:7 study 28:8 35:19
set 13:19 119:10 54:4 57:15 58:10 50:2,3,8 51:1 state 76:14 96:3,4 36:7 38:12 43:9
133:12 59:14 62:10 55:20 57:3 72:16 stated 67:13 108:12 43:18,22 44:5,12
settings 60:16 105:11 116:8 80:18 95:12,17 statement 51:8 44:18,18,20 45:16
seven 100:19 sit 110:1 98:18 53:21 54:12 55:5 46:3,13 50:18
share 38:11 40:7 site 14:17 22:18,20 specifically 46:16 92:15 125:15 51:12,19 52:9,11
45:19 61:3 24:7,19 25:7 54:22 66:13 81:1 states 1:1 3:9,11 53:7,11 54:3,6,17
shared 39:5 52:18 50:16 55:2,4 95:6 5:7,11 6:3,5,7 9:7 54:19 60:11,12
55:10 68:6 80:18 specifications 9:18 17:11 53:12 61:4,7 64:17
sharing 38:13 sites 22:16 65:18 53:22 68:11 67:20 69:12 70:20
39:11 41:17 48:2 situation 25:20 specifics 60:5 stating 55:19 72:9,10 73:5 74:7
50:21 51:16 55:16 43:5,13,17 54:2 specified 50:17 Station 3:13 74:12,13 75:12
56:2,16 85:12 86:8 107:14 specs 71:17 118:11 stationary 61:12 81:20 84:15 86:20
shift 119:18 six 100:19 speculate 67:3 Statts 106:22 87:5 90:8,17,19
ship 85:9,19,20 size 117:14 speculated 81:9 stay 30:13 124:18 91:2,3,16,19 92:5
104:9 sketches 64:6 speculation 122:5 stemming 74:3 92:16 93:3,7
shipping 36:13 skip 82:13 116:1 speed 102:11 stenographically 94:13,14,18,20
ships 85:1,10 90:13 skips 83:4 spend 87:2 133:7 95:7,10,11,12,22
shore 49:8 50:4 slept 123:8 sponsor 38:11,11 step 48:21 49:1 96:1,5,10,11,16
66:1 small 121:16 45:6 46:3,13,20 52:3 71:18 97:3,13,16,19
short 49:9 117:16 smaller 53:1 52:8,19 53:12 steps 29:19 99:15,17 100:5,9
Shorthand 2:18 Smith 3:11 6:2,2 54:18 55:11 56:17 Steve 11:22 100:11 101:1,6,11
133:1 soil 44:4 67:14 68:8 72:9 stick 30:15 101:13,16 102:2
shortly 98:15 99:13 solution 51:12 55:7 72:15,17 73:3,8,9 stickum 14:6 102:20 103:5
show 53:20 54:19 56:14 73:15 76:8 84:18 Stockton 11:22 105:2 118:13
55:18 57:7 59:9 solutions 53:8 sponsors 39:5 stone 35:8,9,11 studying 28:17
64:5 79:7,9 80:7 54:17 56:9 56:18 stop 35:13 115:10 submitted 30:20
82:2,7 92:11 somewheres spreadsheets 99:21 stopped 75:4 37:17
showed 58:7 70:18 100:13 springtime 100:16 125:11 subsequent 46:9
showing 49:5 sorry 27:6 37:21 St 58:4 59:12 61:13 storm 81:13 97:21 subset 96:7
shown 35:3 78:18 52:10 54:10 72:19 stabilization 81:22 102:14 104:19 subsidence 75:4
82:12 83:4,6 94:2 102:22 105:22 83:17 storms 101:9 substantially 115:4
shows 18:10 108:10 123:4 staff 11:14 16:21 102:14 119:3
side 18:21,21 23:15 sort 125:10 112:16 Street 3:3,7,17 sudden 90:13
49:13 sought 107:13 stage 73:4 stretch 49:9 121:16 sufficient 58:2
sign 131:6 source 51:13 stakeholders stretches 49:10 79:22 103:11

MONTVAI, ZOLTAN
10/7/2008
Page 148
suggested 66:20 133:4,7 95:17 116:16 total 49:11 84:15 understand 9:6,11
Suite 3:3 talk 10:4 12:1 123:13 130:2 totally 105:19 14:17 24:9 28:13
summarize 9:13 talked 35:20 131:16 trace 12:19 29:20 31:13 32:4
summary 58:10 121:17 thinking 25:11 training 12:22 13:1 53:2 72:7 79:15
60:10 61:16,17 talking 23:16 70:13 third 89:12 transcript 4:20 84:18 111:18
summer 100:18 74:21 thought 49:14 131:17,21 132:4 112:7
Super 7:10 tap 132:6 thoughts 10:6 133:5 understanding
supplement 65:6,8 tar 34:22 thousands 40:17 transcripts 131:10 14:20 15:15 21:7
65:9 targeted 100:20 three 29:7,9 64:5 transmittal 4:9 48:5 68:22 73:2
Supporting 108:2 team 8:11,15 11:10 90:22 123:16 105:22 103:4 105:14
supportive 100:4 13:21 14:22 15:20 thumbs 79:8 transmitted 123:15 107:12 111:3
supposed 100:5,7 technical 114:22 tidal 94:7,9 95:4 transmitting 119:8
sure 20:11 23:4,7 technically 114:6 time 9:22 13:10 114:20 116:10 understood 32:6
23:19 42:16 46:22 telephone 3:20 6:9 14:8 19:15 20:18 tried 50:4 127:2
79:20 80:11 85:22 tell 6:22 51:7 62:3 20:18 24:5 32:9 true 104:7,10 107:8 undertake 67:20
99:11,19 104:15 62:5 73:13 87:10 32:11 37:19 38:1 133:5 undertaken 97:3
125:4,20 129:3 92:10 104:15 41:9 43:8 44:1,15 truth 6:22,22 7:1 101:2,7
130:3 109:1 47:12 57:12,14 try 18:14 52:3 78:9 undertakes 38:14
surge 78:16,21 telling 39:2 40:11 62:15 67:18 72:1 79:17 101:10 United 1:1 3:9,11
79:10 97:10 tend 72:2 72:14 73:1 75:18 trying 14:21 86:10 5:7,11 6:2,4,7 9:7
102:13 104:19 tendency 78:16 85:8,12 104:11,17 87:10 126:17 9:18 17:11 53:11
130:7 term 13:2 107:11,14 110:19 Tuesday 1:12 University 12:10
surge-buffering terms 21:22 57:4 111:9 113:22 turn 16:15 17:1 12:11
78:4 60:4 81:12 115:9,14,19 31:6 update 23:5
surprised 63:14 testified 7:1 90:18 121:16 122:15,17 two 29:18 44:22 updated 24:6
surveying 33:17 testifying 9:12 122:22 124:3 52:16 60:18 64:5 122:15
sustain 125:12 testimony 53:2,3 126:19,21 127:16 90:22 98:15 upper 40:20 49:16
Sustained 125:10 67:11 72:6 73:2 130:22 132:5,10 102:14,16 109:22 93:21
swear 6:18 115:17 127:2 times 108:19 110:14 usage 104:9,12
sworn 6:21 132:7 133:6,6 title 11:9 91:2 two-year 100:8 use 20:19 35:7
syllabus 60:10 tests 126:1 titles 26:8,10 type 58:14 usually 88:16
61:16,16 68:11 thank 6:17 19:18 TJ 3:20 5:14 typed 64:6 108:16 109:22
69:1,3 23:8 57:16 88:13 today 17:17 28:3,6 types 29:7,9 51:3 110:12
system 47:19 131:4 47:9 50:17 62:17 typewriting 133:8 utilized 93:19
S-T-A-T-T-S thick 57:2 92:12 63:5,8 90:18 typical 60:14 U.S 2:4 3:15 7:12
106:22 thing 113:5 114:20 108:20 110:3 114:21 57:7 108:5
129:6 118:17 127:10,14 typically 26:5
T things 64:18 71:22 today's 10:2 11:5 62:13 64:9 65:12 V
table 61:18 82:12 90:5 92:8 told 91:8 68:2 118:4 120:9 Vague 104:21
83:7 think 12:13 13:2 top 24:22 34:11 Valley 8:10,14
take 25:17,22 31:10 17:17 18:4 25:8 55:3 96:19 106:5 U 11:11,13 14:3
48:17 57:10 68:16 32:2,5 38:16 112:1 124:7 ultimately 16:15 15:16,22 16:5
71:22 77:2 85:14 39:20 43:13 45:5 topic 9:12,17 32:7 17:8,10 31:5 49:4 18:8,10 30:22
86:7 94:10 113:14 54:8 58:1 63:16 129:7 65:18 70:1 84:3 63:6,13,20 66:20
120:17 67:10 69:15 70:8 topics 9:8 94:2 111:10
taken 5:5 59:15 79:20 85:14 94:1 TORTS 3:12 unable 84:19 value 78:1,9,14

MONTVAI, ZOLTAN
10/7/2008
Page 149
various 13:14 water 4:12 12:6 74:10,14 75:4,10 worked 9:2,4 13:5 $
16:14 61:19 128:1 20:1,11 23:9,13 77:17,18 78:1,3 13:10,11 $20 100:9
variously 91:2 24:11 38:12 40:1 78:14,20 79:10,18 working 11:15 $88 122:18
vary 125:17 40:12 41:22 42:13 79:19 80:3 81:12 12:17 13:15 20:22
varying 91:8 46:9 48:2 50:15 94:22 96:8,12 61:22 0
vehicle 52:21 52:7,15 53:10 98:8 99:6,8 101:3 works 8:12,17 9:20 0.5 87:1
version 22:9,10,12 56:15 57:4 76:1 101:8,19 130:7 11:12,15,20 15:20 001 106:10
22:17,20 24:6 93:5,9,15,21 94:4 we'll 10:15 15:3 16:10 20:2,13 05-4182 1:4 5:8
versions 22:15 94:7,9,17 95:4 17:16 18:17 21:13 23:13 31:1,4 06-2268 1:7
versus 70:18 87:12 103:10,20 104:6 24:9 35:12,12 32:19 43:11 09 100:13,18
vessel 124:20 waterway 36:4,13 115:10,11 131:16 works-related 21:2
vessels 93:19 93:18,19 95:6 we're 7:16 59:2 worth 79:10 1
vicinity 4:18 69:8 105:6 108:2 115:22 132:4 wouldn't 25:17 1 4:9 5:4 10:16,17
74:11 116:9,13 113:20,22 124:15 we've 18:1 40:3 32:21 45:15 120:5 27:17,21 91:20
117:2 125:6 90:21 115:9 120:18,22 105:10 115:14
Vicksburg 16:6 waterways 94:5 Wheeler 108:15 WRDA 40:11 117:7 121:13
80:6 125:3 WHEREOF writing 55:18 126:14
video 3:20 5:3,4,15wave 34:18,18 133:12 written 55:1 65:2 1/94 4:15
6:8,17 57:12 78:17,21 97:10 widen 34:16 125:15 10 4:9 63:18 80:2
115:8,13 126:19 way 32:5 37:13 widened 96:18 wrong 91:4 111:6 103:14 104:1
131:11 132:6 40:15 43:11 55:12 widening 34:4,22 125:20
Videotaped 1:9 61:8,10 66:4 78:1 35:13 42:2,6,11 X 10:16:18 57:13
view 65:13,17 97:4 81:14 95:10 97:13 42:20 45:13,22 x 1:3,7 77:12 124:1 10:33:02 57:14
views 108:11 97:17 113:15 46:14 48:19 54:15 100 45:16 52:2
VOLUME 1:10 130:12 55:9 56:12 Y 66:11,14 81:20
ways 60:18 width 34:11,14 yeah 57:2 73:9 82:1,14 83:5,14
W Web 14:17 22:15 96:19 97:6 year 12:12 13:6 83:17 84:4,8
wait 90:10 22:17,20 24:7,19 wife 125:11 24:14 31:9,12 97:19 98:10 99:11
waived 132:12 25:7 WILKINSON 1:6 72:3,3 102:5,7,12 102:1,5,7,12,17
wakes 124:20 weight 93:9,15 willing 41:18 61:2 102:17 1000 3:3
want 34:8 35:7 94:17 103:10,20 wind 102:11 years 9:5 12:2 10060004 106:9
37:10 50:14 69:14 104:6 withdrawn 29:9 13:11,12,14 18:8 103 52:14
80:12 82:22 Welcome 57:15 58:15 86:11 21:7 32:17 34:16 11/07 4:17
121:10 127:1 went 13:4,18 22:22 117:19 36:1 42:8 47:14 11:36:51 115:15
130:3 37:5 40:18 47:14 witness 6:18,21 9:8 62:15,22 71:21 11:54:27 115:20
wanted 34:3,21 123:2 124:4 32:6 57:16 58:1 85:4 102:1 103:14 1110-2-100 23:20
82:17 111:18 wetland 73:22 132:8 133:12 104:1 123:16 24:2
WARDA 52:6,7 77:13 79:12,13 word 83:5 year-to-year 33:4 116 4:18
wars 19:14 95:13 98:3 words 35:6 59:11 York 12:11 1165-2-1 20:4
wash 34:18 wetlands 25:12 61:6 70:4 71:2 12 63:18
Washington 1:11 Z
35:14 36:7,18 87:2 90:3 12:10:44 126:20
2:6 3:13,17 5:13 Z 120:6 12:17:10 126:21
37:7,8 39:2,11,17 work 7:12 8:5
8:19 13:14 Zoltan 1:9 2:1 4:3 12:21 132:13
42:3,9,12,21 12:15,20 14:1
wasn't 37:18 41:8 5:4 6:20 7:7 8:2 12:21:27 132:11
45:14,18 46:1,15 15:11,21,22 16:3
47:11 48:14 115:17 132:7,13 1331 2:5 5:12
48:20 54:16 55:9 16:12 24:12 28:12
waste 104:16 56:13 69:20 74:6 50:13 61:9 71:16 14 4:10,11

MONTVAI, ZOLTAN
10/7/2008
Page 150
17 110:21 111:4 96:19 97:6 55:11 94:20 96:16 103:5

18 32:12 20004 2:6 353-2574 2:7 3:14 103:15 115:19
19 4:13 2001 13:17 36 124:18 7th 132:10
1948 108:6 123:5,7 2003 91:3,15,17 70s 15:8
1951 27:21 28:14 2004 13:19 75:20 4 70113 3:8
106:2 123:3 76:11 4 4:12 19:18,19,22 76 12:13
1955 116:12 20044 3:13 20:9 22:7,22 23:6 761-8545 3:18
1956 115:2 122:18 2005 75:20 76:18 83:8 108:4,8
1958 27:1,8 37:5 91:20,20,22 94:12 40 83:7 120:15 8
1960s 126:6 97:18 127:12 441 3:17 8 4:18 116:5
1970s 85:14 104:8 2007 76:1 92:17 45 111:4 8:59 1:13
1972 15:11 20:5,14 93:6 103:22 48 123:13 124:1 80s 38:1 44:1
21:10 22:22 2008 1:12 4:4 5:13 82 12:14 44:1
1976 12:18 13:3 92:17 100:8 5 82nd 10:22 115:7
1984 45:1 48:21 115:19 132:10 5 4:14 57:19 58:2 855 3:7
1986 38:12,13 40:1 133:14 104:1 108:6,9 86 46:4
40:11 42:1,13,18 2010 133:16 112:21 115:11 87 4:17
46:11 50:16 52:7 202 2:7 3:14,18 50 52:11 53:11,12 88 38:2 63:15,17
52:15 70:17 20314 3:17 54:18 68:7,7 888 3:12
1987 13:13 21 13:14 72:10 73:3 119:22
1988 45:1 60:2 63:9 213 3:4 50s 28:5 66:5 9
63:10 66:11 22 9:17 129:11 108:20 126:6 9 58:9
199 103:22 231 116:4,12,20 50/50 52:12,18 56:1 9:24 5:2,14
1994 48:4 59:14,21 117:20 56:2,16 90071 3:3
66:16 67:11 68:2 241 28:13 500 34:14 92 38:2
69:11,20 72:8 245 10:22 28:15,16 504 3:8 94 45:5 46:16
81:17 82:9 28:20,22 105:10 51 123:16 96 69:22 84:2
1997 4:10,11 14:19 115:6 116:2 117:8 525-1335 3:8 97 18:17,18
15:1,6 119:5,11 550 3:3 99 22:17
1998 58:6 69:12 25 106:2 56 123:20 124:2
75:18 250 120:1 57 4:14
1999 22:13,15 23:1 28 133:16 59 4:16
91:3 6
3
2 3 4:11 14:9,15 18:1 6 4:15 32:6 59:3,4,9
2 1:4 4:10 11:17,19 18:18,20 102:8 59:15 81:18 82:8
14:5,7,15 15:7 106:21 109:5,7 109:15 116:12
18:17 40:20 49:13 113:4 129:12,17 60 84:12,19
49:17 68:10,11,16 30 32:6 83:20 63 82:8
106:12,16 109:4 30(B)(6) 9:8 129:7 65 40:6 45:18 82:13
115:16 132:7 132:8 65/35 52:12 56:6,7
2-3 14:11 3000 96:20 97:7 650 34:11 96:19
2/98 4:14 32 9:5 12:2 7
20 82:12 83:7 347-0290 3:4
7 1:12 4:4,6,17 5:13
20/50 74:3 35 40:7 45:18 46:3
87:19 88:12 92:13
2000 24:7 75:18 50:20 51:11 52:9

KTR00086

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

KTR00086

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MONTVAI, ZOLTAN

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

IN RE: KATRINA CANAL BREACHES : CIVIL ACTION

Videotaped Deposition of ZOLTAN MONTVAI

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

Reported by: Okeemah S. Henderson, LSR

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

27 (Pages 102 to 105)

29 (Pages 110 to 113)

30 (Pages 114 to 117)

31 (Pages 118 to 121)

33 (Pages 126 to 129)

34 (Pages 130 to 133)

A addition 23:8 Andrews 100:1 98:7,15,21 101:15 attempt 14:15

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

75:20 76:21 96:11 95:8,13,14,21 100:7,12 44:11,13 45:4,10 contains 68:12

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

128:2 document 10:12,22 dredges 85:3,4,7 efforts 73:14 entail 33:6

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

91:7,15,19,20 110:19 127:22 45:17 77:18 61:13 63:6 64:1 80:5

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

36:7,8,17 113:12 Signature 132:12 sources 14:18 111:16 128:1

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

17 110:21 111:4 96:19 97:6 55:11 94:20 96:16 103:5

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

You might also like