Forest Service gets to keep ski area fees—and spend them without Congress
S. 472 — Ski Hill Resources for Economic Development Act · Filed by John Barrasso (R-WY) · 13 cosponsors · Introduced Feb 6, 2025 · Reported out
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This bill allows the U.S. Forest Service to retain and spend ski area permit fees directly, rather than sending them to the U.S. Treasury. Ski areas operating on National Forest land pay annual permit rental charges; under current law, those fees go to the general Treasury. The bill creates a special account where 80% of fees collected at each ski area stay at that location for Forest Service operations (maintenance, staffing, visitor services, wildfire prevention), with 20% available agency-wide. Fees remain available for 4 years and can be spent without additional congressional appropriation.
Why we flagged it
The bill's core mechanism is fiscal: it redirects ski area permit fees from the general Treasury into a dedicated account controlled by the Forest Service, enabling direct spending on ski area operations and related recreation infrastructure without annual appropriations. This is a revenue-retention and operational-autonomy measure, not a subsidy or privatization.
What the text implies
- The 4-year carryover window for unspent fees may incentivize the Forest Service to accumulate reserves at high-revenue ski areas, creating a de facto endowment that could reduce budget flexibility and congressional oversight of ski area spending priorities.
- The 80/20 split (local vs. agency-wide) may create internal Forest Service competition for funds, with high-revenue ski areas capturing disproportionate resources relative to their contribution to broader forest management or conservation goals.
The full analysis lists 5 implications of this text.
Who stands to gain
ski area operators (indirect: reduced pressure on Forest Service to charge higher permit fees or imp; Forest Service (direct: operational autonomy and funding without annual appropriations); recreation-focused constituencies (hikers, skiers, visitors to ski areas)