S-1964-117
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 253.
Sponsored by Michael Bennet (D-CO)
What it does
This bill would direct how the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) spends rental fees it already collects from ski area operators on National Forest System land. It would require 80% of those fees to be spent at the specific National Forest unit where they were collected — 75% of that share on ski area administration, visitor services, or wildfire preparedness, and 25% on facility repair, habitat restoration, or search and rescue. The remaining 20% could be spent by USDA at any National Forest unit for those same purposes.
Who benefits
Ski area operators and their customers who use National Forest ski areas, as local reinvestment would likely improve permit administration and visitor services at those specific resorts. Visitors to National Forest recreation areas near ski areas would benefit from wildfire preparedness and habitat restoration funding. Local communities near ski resorts would benefit from improved search and rescue capacity and maintained Forest Service facilities. National Forests with high ski area revenue would receive a guaranteed share of the fees they generate.
Who is hurt
National Forest units that do not host ski areas but currently benefit from USDA's discretionary allocation of these fees would receive less funding, as 80% of fees would now be locked to the originating unit. USDA administrators would lose flexibility to direct funds to the highest-priority needs across the entire National Forest System. Forests facing urgent needs — such as severe wildfire risk or infrastructure failures — that lack ski areas on their land could be disadvantaged by the restricted allocation formula.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that ski area operators pay rental fees specifically because they operate on a particular National Forest unit, and it is fair that the communities and landscapes bearing the costs of that commercial activity — increased visitor traffic, wear on facilities, wildfire risk — should see those fees reinvested locally. Tying revenue to its source creates a direct accountability loop: operators and local visitors can see tangible results from the fees paid, which may encourage compliance and support for the permit program. Dedicated funding for wildfire preparedness at active recreation sites addresses a documented and growing risk. Supporters also contend that the 20% discretionary pool preserves USDA's ability to address system-wide needs while still ensuring local forests are not shortchanged.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that rigid geographic earmarking reduces USDA's ability to respond to the most urgent needs across the National Forest System, which may not align with where ski area fees happen to be generated. Forests with the greatest wildfire risk, infrastructure deficits, or ecological damage may not be the same forests hosting profitable ski areas, meaning the formula could systematically underfund the highest-need units. Critics may also contend that the 20% discretionary pool is too small to compensate for this inflexibility, and that Congress is substituting a fixed formula for the professional judgment of land managers who are better positioned to assess shifting priorities. The bill may also create perverse incentives by making ski-area-hosting forests financially advantaged regardless of broader land management priorities.