S-472-119
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 333.
Sponsored by John Barrasso (R-WY)
What it does
This bill would create a "Ski Area Fee Retention Account" in the U.S. Treasury to hold permit rental fees that ski areas pay to operate on National Forest land. Under current law, those fees flow to the general Treasury. Under this bill, 80% of fees collected at a given national forest unit would stay at that unit — with 75% of that share going to ski area program administration and 25% to recreation infrastructure — while the remaining 20% could be spent at any National Forest unit. The bill also sets a four-year window for spending deposited funds and explicitly prohibits using the account for wildfire suppression or land acquisition.
Who benefits
Ski resort operators and their customers, who would see faster permit processing and better-maintained trails, roads, parking areas, and visitor facilities on National Forest land. Local communities near ski areas that depend on winter recreation tourism. Search-and-rescue organizations and local governments that receive support funding. Avalanche safety nonprofits. National Forest visitors broadly, including hikers and other recreationists who use the same infrastructure. Forest Service staff who would gain dedicated funding for training and administration.
Who is hurt
The general U.S. Treasury would receive less revenue, as fees that previously flowed to the general fund would be redirected. National Forest units without ski areas would lose access to a portion of fee revenue that currently flows through the general fund and could theoretically be allocated anywhere. Taxpayers who fund Forest Service operations through appropriations could bear costs if the "supplement, not supplant" provision is not strictly enforced. Competing recreation industries (e.g., non-ski outfitters) that pay special use permit fees but do not benefit from a similar dedicated retention account.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that ski areas generate substantial permit fees — totaling tens of millions of dollars annually — that currently disappear into the general Treasury while the local forests hosting those ski areas face chronic maintenance backlogs and understaffed permit offices. They contend that retaining fees locally creates a direct, self-sustaining funding loop: ski areas pay fees, those fees improve the forest infrastructure that makes skiing possible, and the result is better visitor experiences and faster permitting. The bill's bipartisan, multi-state sponsorship reflects broad agreement that local fee retention is a proven model already used in other federal recreation programs, such as the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that earmarking federal fees for a single recreation industry — ski resorts, which predominantly serve higher-income visitors — creates an inequitable two-tier system where wealthy recreation sectors self-fund their own regulatory environment while other public land users do not. They contend that the "supplement, not supplant" language is difficult to enforce in practice, raising the risk that Congress will simply reduce appropriations to covered forest units by an amount equal to retained fees, leaving net funding unchanged while reducing Treasury revenue. Critics may also note that the bill excludes hazardous fuels reduction from allowable expenditures, limiting the account's usefulness for the wildfire risk management that ski areas themselves face.
Constitutional context
No significant constitutional tension exists here. Congress has broad authority under the Property Clause (Art. IV, §3, cl. 2) to manage federal lands and direct how fees collected from their use are deposited and spent. This bill modifies an existing statutory fee structure rather than creating new regulatory mandates, so major questions doctrine concerns raised in West Virginia v. EPA (2022) and post-Loper Bright scrutiny of agency rulemaking are not directly implicated.
Checks and balances
The executive branch (USDA Forest Service/Secretary of Agriculture) gains discretionary spending authority over the retained fees without further appropriation, subject to the statutory spending categories set by Congress; the four-year expenditure window and the "supplement, not supplant" requirement serve as the primary legislative checks on that authority.
Historical precedent
The Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (2004) established a similar fee-retention model for recreation fees across multiple federal land agencies, allowing a portion of collected fees to remain at the site of collection for local improvements.