S-254-118
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 575.
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 — with 75% of that share going toward ski permit administration, visitor services, and wildfire preparedness, and 25% toward facility repair, habitat restoration, and search and rescue. The remaining 20% could be spent by USDA at any National Forest unit for those same purposes.
Who benefits
Ski area visitors and operators on National Forest land, who would see more direct reinvestment of fees into the forests they use. Local communities near ski resorts, who would benefit from improved facilities, search and rescue capacity, and reduced wildfire risk. National Forest units with active ski areas, which would receive a guaranteed share of the fees generated on their land. Wildfire preparedness programs adjacent to recreation sites.
Who is hurt
National Forest units without ski areas, which would lose access to the 80% of fees now locked to ski-area forests — reducing the pool of discretionary funds available to them. USDA central administrators, who would lose flexibility to direct the full amount of ski permit fees to the highest-priority needs across the entire National Forest System. Taxpayers or programs that currently benefit from any discretionary use of these fees outside ski-area forests.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that ski area operators pay rental fees specifically because they use and profit from National Forest land, so it is fair and logical that those fees flow back to the forests bearing the costs of that use. Under current law, USDA has broad discretion over where these funds go, meaning the forests hosting ski areas may see little direct benefit. This bill would ensure that local infrastructure, wildfire risk reduction, visitor services, and habitat restoration at ski-area forests are funded by the operators who depend on them — creating a direct link between fee collection and on-the-ground benefit. Supporters also contend that dedicated wildfire preparedness funding near recreation sites addresses a growing public safety need in forested areas.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that earmarking 80% of ski area permit fees to specific forest units reduces USDA's ability to direct limited resources where they are needed most across the entire National Forest System. Forests facing urgent needs — such as severe wildfire risk, habitat loss, or infrastructure failure — that happen not to host ski areas would be cut off from a funding source currently available to them. Critics may also contend that the bill prioritizes a relatively small, commercially oriented recreational sector over broader public land management needs, and that rigid spending formulas reduce administrative efficiency. Some may argue that Congress, rather than agency discretion, should not micromanage internal agency budget allocations at this level of detail.