HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE February 18, 1997 1:43 P.M. TAPE HFC 97-31, Side 1, #000 - end. TAPE HFC 97-31, Side 2, #000 - end. TAPE HFC 97-32, Side 1, #000 - end. TAPE HFC 97-32, Side 2, #000 - 298. CALL TO ORDER Co-Chair Therriault called the House Finance Committee meeting to order at 1:43 p.m. PRESENT Co-Chair Hanley Representative Kelly Co-Chair Therriault Representative Kohring Representative Davies Representative Martin Representative Davis Representative Moses Representative Foster Representative Mulder Representative Grussendorf ALSO PRESENT Representative Brian Porter; Representative Alan Austerman; Representative Norman Rokeberg; Dean Guaneli, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law; Jayne Andreen, Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault; Paul Fuhs, Alaska ARDOR Association; Mary Stadum, Anchorage; Patricia Demarco, Anchorage; Ike Waits, Anchorage; Alice Ruby, Dillingham; Donna Tollman, Glennallen; James Elson, Kenai; Sherry Biggs, Kenai; James Winchester, Prince William Sound Economic Development Council; Berne Miller, Southeast Conference; Barbara Brink, Director, Public Defender Agency, Department of Administration; SUMMARY HB 9 "An Act relating to the right of crime victims and victims of juvenile offenses to be present at court proceedings; and amending Rule 615, Alaska Rules of Evidence." CSHB 9 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with a fiscal impact note by the Department of Administration; and with five zero fiscal notes, one by the Department of Law, one by the Department of Administration, one 1 by the Department of Public Safety (dated 1/27/97), one by the Alaska Court System (dated 1/27/97), and one by the Department of Health & Social Services (dated 1/27/97). HB 35 "An Act extending the termination date of the Alaska regional economic assistance program; and providing for an effective date." HB 35 was reported out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with a fiscal impact note by the Department of Community and Regional Affairs, dated 2/5/97. HB 51 "An Act relating to the Department of Environmental Conservation." HB 51 was HELD in Committee for further consideration. HOUSE BILL NO. 9 "An Act relating to the right of crime victims and victims of juvenile offenses to be present at court proceedings; and amending Rule 615, Alaska Rules of Evidence." BARBARA BRINK, DIRECTOR, PUBLIC DEFENDER'S AGENCY observed that the bill has metamorphosed since she last testified. She stated that current rules operate to assure an accurate fact finding process. She emphasized that the reason a witness is excluded from a trial is to assure that their testimony or recollection of events is not modified or tainted by something they subsequently learn during the proceedings. Under current rules, the crime victim that is not actually a witness to a case would not be excluded. She asserted that, if a victim is also a witness, the judge is in the best position to balance the interest of the victim against assuring that the jury has the true facts before them. She emphasized that the human brain is not a true recorder of events and can be influenced by other factors. She stated that a prosecutor can solve the problem by calling the victim as the first witness. She spoke against removal of the Exclusionary Rule from a criminal case. She reiterated that if the victim is not a witness they will not be excluded from proceedings. Ms. Brink expressed concern with section 13. Section 13 limits the court's ability to grant an order requiring a victim to undergo a psychiatric or psychological examination to cases where the victim's psychiatric condition is an element of the offense charged. She alleged that the bill 2 ignores the fact that people do not have perfect recall. She stated that witnesses may have conditions relating to their mental health that affect their ability to tell the truth or remember accurately. She stressed that there is already a burden on a criminal defendant to obtain an evaluation. She maintained that psychological examinations are rarely granted. She emphasized that due process requires that the jury be informed if there is a mental condition that affects the credibility of a witness. She stressed that the jury is the finder of fact. In response to a question by Representative Davies, Ms. Brink discussed section 18. Section 18 amends Alaska Evidence Rule 404(b) to allow, in the prosecution of a crime involving domestic violence or interfering with a report of domestic violence, evidence to be introduced that the defendant has committed other crimes involving domestic violence or interfering with the report of a crime involving domestic violence against the same or another victim. She emphasized that a person cannot be convicted because they are unlikable or have been bad in the past. The prosecution is required to prove that the person actually committed the crime in which they are charged. She noted that a person's prior misdeeds can be admissable under a broad variety of circumstances. If the misdeed is relative to prove intent or motive, opportunity, common plan or scheme, or lack of mistake or accident it is admissible. She maintained that this section has constitutional concerns. Co-Chair Therriault observed that section 18 is not limited to previous convictions. Co-Chair Therriault referred to section 8. Section 8 adds a new provision to the criminal code making it a class A misdemeanor to interfere with a person who is reporting or attempting to report a domestic violence crime to the police. These kinds of instances happen when someone who is a victim of domestic violence decides to report. Ms. Brink asserted that "interfere" is a broad word. She noted that there is no legal connotation. JAYNE ANDREEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COUNCIL ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT testified in support of the committee substitute. She observed that Alaskan voters passed a constitutional amendment supporting victims access to criminal proceedings. She stressed that the legislation goes a long way in ensuring that victims will have the access that they are granted by the state constitution. Ms. Andreen referred to section 7. Section 7 amends the definition of "incapacitated" in the sexual assault statutes. "Incapacitated" means that a victim was temporarily unable to appraise the nature of his or her 3 conduct, or that the victim was temporarily unable to express unwillingness to act. She expressed concern that the level of proof can be damaging to victims. She observed that someone who is developmentally delayed and may not know or be able to appraise the nature of the act, but is able to communicate a willingness or unwillingness, would not fit under the definition. Victims under the influence of the rape drug, rohypnol, would not fit the definition. Ms. Andreen discussed section 8, the crime of interfering with a person who is reporting or attempting to report a domestic violence crime to the police. She recounted that numerous victims have reported that they were prevented from making a report when the perpetrator ripped the phone out of the wall. She expressed concern that this relays a long term message that it is futile for the victim to try to do anything to protect themselves. Ms. Andreen observed that it is now mandatory in domestic violence cases for the court and corrections systems to look at and incorporate the safety needs of the victim. She emphasized that the legislation expands this to all victims of violent crimes. Ms. Andreen referred to section 13, psychological examinations of a victim. She observed that a psychological examination of the victim indicates to the victim that they are responsible or at fault, or could be held accountable for the fact that the crime occurred. Ms. Andreen observed that domestic violence is a cyclical offense. Domestic violence continues over a period of time and gradually escalates. She stressed that the State is working to develop a policy and process that is not as dependent on victims, to make or break a criminal case. Representative G. Davis suggested that in a case where a phone is pulled out of the wall that "it appears that the anger level is so high, would be so high, that this is really a small thing. It's like going into a jewelry store and robbing a whole box of watches, and on the way out grabbing a $.25 cent candy bar." Ms. Andreen replied that it is difficult to comprehend that domestic violence is unlike other crimes, in that you cannot take a single episode or incident and break it down. The on-going erosion of a person's ability to be responsible for themselves must be considered. Co-Chair Therriault referred to section 8. He expressed concern that "interfering" is a little "wide open". Representative Kelly noted that AS 18.66.990 is cited on 4 page 3, line 20. He expressed concern that federal laws that remove the right to keep and bear arms if a person is associated with the crime of domestic violence could apply. He stated that "some of the definitions they have on domestic violence are pretty absurd to give up a constitutional right." He maintained that because definitions of "domestic violence" under AS 18.66.990 collaterally references "harassment" that a person could lose the right to keep and bear arms because they have insulted, taunted or challenged someone to provoke an immediate, violent response. He did not feel that the provision should be in the legislation. He expressed concern that the provision is too broad. Representative Grussendorf questioned if there have been situations where an in-law, trying to promote harmony, has prevented a woman from filing a report. Ms. Andreen noted that in-laws may provide emotional pressure to the victim to not report. She recounted two instances where brothers of the alleged perpetrator applied physical pressure to prevent a victim from reporting. Representative Kelly reiterated his questions regarding references to the definition of domestic violence in AS 18.66.990. He maintained that this "is a fairly weak crime to go ahead and include in this list, which could end up causing one to lose their constitutional right to keep and bear arms." He pointed out that police and military forces are going to have family problems, and that they aren't going to have to do physical harm. All they are going to have to do, is insult, taunt or challenge in a manner likely to provoke an immediate violent response to be out of a job. He reiterated that it is a low threshold. DEAN GUANELI, CHIEF ASSISTANT ATTORNEY, DEPARTMENT OF LAW clarified that the portions of the state harassment statute that are incorporated within the definition of domestic violence are fairly narrow. References include telephoning, making repeated telephone calls, and making anonymous obscene calls. He stressed that the federal prohibition from carrying a fire arm would not automatically be invoked. He stated that the federal prohibition refers to domestic violence that involves using physical force or a weapon against a person. The federal law would only be triggered if the state conviction contains those elements. Representative Davies reiterated that a person must be convicted under the state statute for federal prohibitions to take effect. Mr. Guaneli clarified that the physical restraint of a person could form the basis for an assault charge under state statute. He acknowledged that a conviction pertaining to a single instance of physical 5 restraint is rare. Representative Grussendorf noted that the legislation refers to the "alleged victim". Mr. Guaneli observed that the language acknowledges that there is an assumption of innocence until guilt is proven. Co-Chair Hanley referred to section 8. He asked the definition of "interfering". Mr. Guaneli pointed out that the perpetrator has to know that they are interfering with someone that is reporting or attempting to report a crime to a law enforcement agency. He emphasized that the jury is left to decide if there is actual interference. He observed that the provision is similar to statutes pertaining to interfering with or resisting an arrest by a law enforcement agency. He noted that this law has been on the books without specific definition of "interference". He clarified that the perpetrator must know that they are interfering and that they must have some suspicion that the woman was attempting to report to a law enforcement agency for a conviction to occur. He emphasized that the most common occurrence is the phone being removed while a victim is attempting to call 911 or telling a child to call 911, or during an actual call to 911. He summarized that it is a more aggravated offense that is reflected by an additional charge. In response to a question by Co-Chair Hanley, Mr. Guaneli discussed section 18. He agreed that "the law, as expressed in this rule of court, wants to base a conviction on the conduct that occurred at that particular instance". There are exceptions where prior bad conduct can also come into evidence as a way of explaining or putting into context what happen on that particular instance. The change reflects that domestic violence is the type of thing that happens over and over again, and tends to escalate in violence. He observed that the Legislature has amended this statute to allow into evidence prior child sexual abuse. He noted that there is a similarity in the offense patterns of child sexual abuse and domestic violence. He did not think that the provision would be found unconstitutional. Representative Davies asked why the back pattern cannot be allowed under existing law. (Tape Change, HFC 97-31, Side 2) Mr. Guaneli noted that different judges apply the rule in different ways. The specific exceptions under this rule to allow in prior bad acts are applied very literally by some judges. 6 Representative Grussendorf summarized that a pattern of physical abuse as demonstrated by doctor records would be admissable. Mr. Guaneli agreed and added that evidence from the victim that the abuse has happened on previous occasions could be admissible. Co-Chair Therriault observed that prior evidence, not just convictions, would be admissible. He suggested that the evidence is being presented as fact. Mr. Guaneli agreed that the evidence is brought in as fact. He stressed that the jury must decide how the evidence relates to the new event. Judges generally instruct juries to consider the prior evidence, not merely for the fact that the person is a bad person, but in order to help explain why something occurred on another occasion. He maintained that the restriction to prior convictions would defeat one of the purposes of the provision. He noted that domestic violence often is not reported until well into the cycle of violence. The action of the abuser has discouraged the victim from reporting to the police. In response to a question by Co-Chair Hanley, Mr. Guaneli discussed the Exclusionary Rule. He agreed that actual fact finding is needed in any judicial system. He maintained that the current practice of automatic exclusion of every witness, including every victim, goes beyond what is necessary to assure accurate fact finding. He stressed that there must be a balance between the rights of the accused and the victim. He observed that there is now a constitutional right that gives victims the right to be in the courtroom every time that the defendant is present. He stressed that victims of certain types of crimes feel that they are victimized by the proceedings in the court room. They feel that they are being attacked by the arguments that are being made. Their conduct and credibility are being attacked. Most victims feel that they have a right to be present when they are being attacked. He emphasized that the judge continues to have the right to exclude someone from the court room if their presence will prejudice the jury or the accused's rights. He maintained that there ought to be a factual basis for the exclusion. Representative Kelly expressed concern that defendants may accept the charge of domestic violence because they do not have money to fight the charge. He reiterated concerns relating to the collateral reference to "harassment". Representative Porter pointed out that all defendants are provided counsel by the State if they cannot afford private representation. He spoke against changing the fundamental definition of domestic violence. He emphasized that the scope of "harassment" is a very narrow application within 7 the domestic violence definition. Representative Davies referred to section 13. Mr. Guaneli disagreed that section 13 would present constitutional concerns. He observed that the defense commonly challenges the victim's credibility through the use of psychological examinations by expert witnesses. He agreed that a mental exam would be appropriate if the victim's mental condition is a direct element of the defense. He observed that polygraph evidence is not allowed. Representative Davies questioned if instructions from the court that mental examinations cannot be for the purpose of harassment or embarrassment have been effective in preventing abuse. Mr. Guaneli replied that the standard has been low. He did not think that the current standards are adequate to protect against abuse. Representative Davies quoted Ms. Brink as saying that the Court of Appeals has cautioned that, "care must be taken to assure that requests for evaluation will in fact yield relevant evidence." Mr. Guaneli expressed belief that a number of judges have found it easier to approve the order for an exam. When the case goes to trial the judge decides if the evidence will be allowed. He pointed out that by trial time the harm has been done. "The victim has been revictimized." Co-Chair Hanley MOVED to adopt Work Draft #O-LS008\H, dated 2/12/97 (copy on file). There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Representative Davies provided members with Amendment 1 (copy on file). OBJECTED for purposes of discussion. Representative Davies explained that Amendment 1 would amend the Exclusionary Rule. He maintained that the amendment would balance the rights of the victim and the defendant. The amendment would allow the victim to be present unless; "(i) the testimony concerns the subject about which the victim is expected to testify; and (ii) the victim is likely to be called as a witness and has not, at the time of the testimony, testified." He spoke in support of Amendment 1. Representative Porter spoke against the amendment. He disagreed that the amendment would balance the rights of the victim and defendant. He observed that the defendant may stay throughout the trial even though they are about to testify, but the victim cannot. He reiterated that victims should receive the same rights as defendants. In response to a question by Representative Grussendorf, Representative Porter noted that the wording of the 8 constitutional amendment states that "crime victims as defined by law, shall have the following rights as provided by law". Some judges have interpreted this to mean that if the specific enumeration is not provided in the statute it is not provided by law. Mr. Guaneli added that the Exclusionary Rule has been a court rule for a long time and a lot of judges are use to operating in this manner. The legislation will implement changes provided by the constitutional amendment. In response to a question by Representative Davies, Mr. Guaneli emphasized that the judge always has the power and obligation to take whatever steps are necessary to assure a fair trial. A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION. IN FAVOR: Davies, Grussendorf, Moses OPPOSED: Davis, Kelly, Kohring, Martin, Mulder, Hanley, Therriault Representative Foster was absent from the vote. Representative Mulder MOVED to report CSHB 9 (FIN) out of Committee with individual recommendations and with the accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. CSHB 9 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with a fiscal impact note by the Department of Administration; and with five zero fiscal notes, one by the Department of Law, one by the Department of Administration, one by the Department of Public Safety (dated 1/27/97), one by the Alaska Court System (dated 1/27/97), and one by the Department of Health & Social Services (dated 1/27/97). HOUSE BILL NO. 35 "An Act extending the termination date of the Alaska regional economic assistance program; and providing for an effective date." Representative Austerman provided members with a sponsor statement. He observed that the Alaska Regional Development Organizations program was created in statute in 1988. Commonly referred to as ARDOR's, they are private, nonprofit corporations formed by local initiative to promote private sector economic development within their designated regions. The ARDOR program has led to the formation of 11 regional development organizations such as the Southwest Alaska 9 Municipal Conference, the Southeast Conference, the Lower Kuskokwim Economic Development Council and the Anchorage Economic Development Corporation. He maintained that the nearly two hundred representatives of local political, social and economic interests, who serve on ARDOR boards of directors, are working together to lead their regions to greater economic self-sufficiency. The original legislation had a sunset clause that ended the program in 1993, but was extended until the end of fiscal year 1997. He stated that it is in the best interest of the State of Alaska to continue the ARDOR program to ensure the ongoing economic viability of Alaska's various regions. Representative Austerman provided members with the Alaska Regional Development Organizations' Annual Report, March 1996 (copy on file). He noted that the last page shows funding sources generated by program. State funding was a little more than $600 thousand dollars in FY 97. The addition of private funds resulted in a total budget of $6,585 million dollars in FY 97. PAUL FUHS, ALASKA ARDOR ASSOCIATION spoke in behalf of HB 35. He pointed to the ARDOR program as an example of a successful private/public partnership. He emphasized the importance of local implementation and coordination of projects. He observed that state funding comes through Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA) program receipts. The Governor has proposed $620 thousand dollars for the ARDOR program in FY 98. He observed that a local match is required. Representative Martin expressed his opposition to HB 35. He questioned what the ARDOR's do that cannot be done by local Chambers of Commerce and Rotary Clubs. Mr. Fuhs emphasized that ARDOR's provide a private/public cooperative effort to look for infrastructure on a regional level. He gave examples of ARDOR programs. He maintained that Chambers of Commerce would not provide coordinated services. He stated that the Alaska ARDOR Association would welcome a legislative audit. MARY STADUM, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SOUTHWEST ALASKA MUNICIPAL CONFERENCE testified via the teleconference network in support of HB 35. She observed that the Conference was founded before the ARDOR program was established. She reviewed services provided by the Conference. She stressed that ARDOR's bring local Chambers of Commerce together with other organizations. (Tape Change, HFC 97-32, Side 1) 10 Ms. Stadum emphasized that ARDOR's allow people to work together and share resources. She noted that leaders in small communities wear many hats. She noted that the Conference passed two resolutions in expressing support for the ARDOR program. ALICE RUBY, COUNCIL MEMBER, CITY OF DILLINGHAM testified via the teleconference network in support of HB 35. She maintained that the program has allowed them to work on a grass roots level to provide information, networking, technical assistance and to serve as a catalyst for economic development and diversification. She gave examples of ARDOR activities. DONNA TOLLMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COPPER VALLEY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, GLENNALLEN testified via the teleconference network. She urged support of HB 35. She observed the affects of reductions to the ARDOR program. She stressed that the Council, through a contract for welfare to work programs, helps to develop self efficiency plans for residents. The Council also helps small businesses to create development plans. She noted that the Council is involved in tourism and child care. Representative Martin maintained that activities performed by the Council should be done by government. Ms. Tollman emphasized the distance of the region from the Palmer office. In response to a question by Co-Chair Hanley, Ms. Tollman noted that the Council received its contract for the welfare to work program through the Department of Community and Regional Affairs. JAMES ELSON, CHAIRMAN, KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, KENAI testified via the teleconference network. He spoke in support of HB 35. He observed that he has served as a volunteer of the local ARDOR organization. He stressed that state funding has allowed them to obtain good professional staff. He pointed out that ARDOR's also receive private funding. He stressed that jobs have been created through economic development efforts. He recounted accomplishments of the Kenai Peninsula Borough Economic Development District. SHERRY BIGGS, KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, KENAI testified via the teleconference network in support of HB 35. She emphasized that Kenai has a very diversified economy. She stressed that there needs to be a regional approach. She maintained that ARDOR provides a bridge between government and private enterprise. 11 Mr. Elson observed that ARDOR's can contract directly with the State without going through the competitive bid process. JAMES WINCHESTER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PRINCE WILLIAM SOUND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, testified via the teleconference network in support of HB 35. He maintained that the Council is about providing jobs. The Council has three main areas of activities, small business development, infrastructure development projects, and economic recovery projects. The Council has a $3.0 million dollar budget and 2 and half full time staff positions. PATRICIA DEMARCO, PRESIDENT, ANCHORAGE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION testified via the teleconference network in support of HB 35. She emphasized the importance of the ARDOR program as an integrating force across the State. She stressed efforts to provide year-round jobs. She noted that planning functions are not easily funded by private sector initiatives. She reviewed ARDOR projects implemented by the Anchorage Economic Development Corporation. IKE WAITS, ARDOR PROGRAM, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS observed that the program is a way to stretch state funds for regional economic development. He spoke in support of the ARDOR Program. BERNE MILLER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SOUTHEAST CONFERENCE testified in support of HB 35. He provided members with written testimony (copy on file). He stressed that the program relies on local and regional decision making about what is important. In response to a question by Co-Chair Hanley, Mr. Miller acknowledged that the Conference existed before it received state ARDOR funding. The Southeast Conference's total FY 97 budget is approximately $225 thousand dollars. Representative Kohring expressed concern with the State's participation. Mr. Miller stated that the Conference helps show organizations how to execute projects as quickly and economically as possible. Co-Chair Hanley clarified that ARDOR's are non-profit groups. Individual regional organizations administer the program. Co-Chair Hanley acknowledged the benefit of the ARDOR program. He pointed out that many of the regional organizations would continue to exist without state funding. 12 He emphasized that funding may be reduced. He clarified that each ARDOR receives $55.0 thousand dollars. He asked why all ARDOR's receive the same funding. Mr. Fuhs noted that the original appropriation to the ARDOR program was $1.6 million dollars. The Governor's FY 98 request is $620 thousand dollars. He maintained that equal funding is the most fair. The required local match varies based on capability. Representative Martin pointed out that $55.0 thousand dollars pays for one position per ARDOR. He spoke against continuing the program. Mr. Fuhs observed that private business does not want to be over regulated. He added that government working with business for economic development "makes all the difference in the world." Representative Foster MOVED to report HB 35 out of Committee with individual recommendations and with the accompanying fiscal note. Representative Martin OBJECTED. He stated that the ARDOR program should undergo an audit to determine if all eleven ARDOR's should be funded. A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION. IN FAVOR: Davies, Davis, Foster, Grussendorf, Kohring, Mulder, Therriault, Hanley OPPOSED: Martin Representative Kelly was absent from the vote. The MOTION PASSED (9-1). HB 35 was reported out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with a fiscal impact note by the Department of Community and Regional Affairs, dated 2/5/97. HOUSE BILL NO. 51 "An Act relating to the Department of Environmental Conservation." REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG provided members with a committee substitute, Work Draft #O-LS0091\T, dated 2/17/97 (copy on file). Representative Foster MOVED to adopt Work Draft #O- LS0091\T, dated 2/17/97. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Representative Rokeberg maintained that the committee substitute simplifies the legislation. He explained that the committee substitute more closely follows HB 342 which was passed by the Nineteenth Alaska State Legislature. 13 House Bill 342 was vetoed by the Governor. (Tape Change, HFC 97-32, Side 2) Representative Rokeberg reviewed changes incorporated in the committee substitute. The committee substitute revises the title. It also adds a findings and intent section which states: "The people of Alaska express their will through the legislature and regulations implement legislative action." He maintained that it is the legislature that determines the policy of state government. Section 2 deletes language relating to the definition of background conditions, page 1, lines 10 - 12, version T. Section 3 deletes "shall" and inserts "may" on page 2, line 7. He observed that the prior language resulted in a $3.2 million dollar fiscal note. This language relates to state takeover of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The original legislation added authority for the state takeover of this program, at the request of the Department of Environmental Conservation. "Natural" was changed to "background" on page 2, lines 27, 28, 30 and 31. New language was added on page 3, lines 10 - 15, to clarify that an applicant is allowed to request a change in state regulation for water quality standards when there is a deviation from federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards. New regulations would be promulgated as required by the statute. This statutory language does accept the petitioning language as found in the Administrative Procedures Act. "Hydrologic" was changed to "biological, chemical, and physical". HB 51 was HELD in Committee for further consideration. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 4:06 p.m. 14