A bill that would ease requirements for new ATV trails on some state lands, including Bear Brook State Park in Allenstown, drew about 100 people on both sides to a hearing yesterday afternoon. The proposal would relax drinking-water protections for new ATV trails and exempt existing trails, including old roads or hiking trails, from stream setback requirements. It's the same idea that the Senate effectively brushed off two weeks ago, voting that bill into interim study.

The sponsor of the bill was Rep. Charles Royce, a Republican from Jaffrey.

"We had said to the ATV people that we were encouraging more trails because we upped their (registration) fees - and we're registering more every year," Royce said.

At issue is a setback requirement for drinking water wells. The legislation passed in 2002 says it should be 4,000 feet, but Royce, who chairs the House Resources Committee, where he proposed the amendment, said the original bill should have said 400 feet.

"I'd like to see the error corrected," he said.

Other officials from state Fish and Game, Environmental Services and the Department of Resources and Economic Development agreed that the setback should have been much smaller. Without the change, trails will not be cut in Bear Brook or perhaps anywhere else in the state. According to Royce, the 4,000-foot perimeter would seal off 1,154 acres of the 8,000-acre park. With a 400-foot setback, that would shrink to 11.5 acres, he said.

But many opponents weren't at all convinced it was an accident.

A furious Sen. Jack Barnes, whose district includes Allenstown, said he didn't even know of the hearing until a constituent called him. "I'm very upset that this was brought forward without me knowing. That, to me, is dirty pool. And if this comes down, there will definitely be a big fight on the floor of the Senate," he said.

Since the Senate committee reviewed the bill during at least five executive sessions and a slew of public hearings, Barnes was particularly irate that Royce would bring it up again, he said.

Other residents and town officials who testified during the nearly three-hour hearing yesterday said even if that extra zero was a mistake, the larger buffer area was what the public saw during the eight hearings before the legislation was passed. When the guidelines were originally drafted, it was behind closed doors.

"The language the public saw is the language that's in the statute,"said Judy Silva of the New Hampshire Municipal Association. "I can't tell you whether it was a mistake or not. I'm not privy to that. But neither was the public."

Many of those who supported the amendment said the issue was not about Bear Brook, but that the state park is one of few that fit the criteria for a public ATV trail. Less than 90 percent is forested wetlands or habitat for endangered species. The park is easily accessible for riders looking for a day trip and preliminary findings suggest it could support a 20-mile trail.

But then the constraints of the setback issue were discovered.

Rep. Mike Whalley, a Republican from Alton and the deputy House speaker, also testified, speaking on behalf of Rep. Gene Chandler, speaker of the House.

"This is all about process. A compromise was struck some time ago (in the ATV trail bill), but what was passed is not what was intended," he said. "We're trying to get back to that compromise with this amendment.

"We do not approve of taking advantage of a mistake made, wherever it was made. If you believe when you passed this legislation originally, that it was a 400-foot protection area, then pass this. Think about what you intended when you voted on it the first time."

Norman Provencher of Pembroke Waterworks, which supplies drinking water to about 8,000 people in Pembroke, Allenstown and Hooksett, said the company has two of its wells in Bear Brook.

"I'd like to see this go into further study so these resources can be protected as much as possible," he said. "There is potential for more MtBE, and our wells in that area are only about 7 feet deep."

Rep. Don Brueggmann, a Democrat from Concord, asked one question to proponents of the setback change. But no one could answer him.

"My question is, it seems like we've been going through this process with Bear Brook for some time now and every time you meet with some sort of roadblock, the rules change. Do you think that's fair to the people of Allenstown?"Brueggmann asked.

Rep. David Hess, a Republican from Hooksett, who sat firmly on the fence during his testimony, said he wasn't familiar enough with the issues to answer that. "My town counsel is on the record as supporting the trails. However, sitting behind me are a significant number of concerned residents. I simply ask the committee to carefully consider both sides," he said.

Brueggmann next turned to Paul Gray, chief of the state's Bureau of Trails. "Typically, you go through a process once or twice to get a sense of how it works, then change it. My concern is, we are in the process and we keep changing it. How do we assure (Allenstown residents) that we're not going to do this every time a roadblock comes up?"

Gray replied that the bill would not be a change, just "correcting an error."

That answer prompted Rep. Dennis Fields, a Republican from Merrimack, to ask Gray if his testimony was the same when he spoke to the Senate committee, which opted to study - rather than pass -the bill. It was.