Forest Service gets to keep ski area fees—and spend them without Congress

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.
• Wildfire prevention and response activities at ski areas receive explicit funding priority, potentially drawing resources away from wildfire mitigation in non-recreation areas or lower-revenue forests.
• The bill does not require public comment, environmental review, or transparency reporting on how retained fees are spent, creating an accountability gap compared to appropriated funds subject to congressional scrutiny.
• Ski area operators may gain indirect leverage over Forest Service priorities if permit fees become the primary funding source for local forest operations, blurring the line between public land stewardship and commercial recreation interests.

Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.

Who it affects

The bill creates a genuine public benefit: ski area fees fund Forest Service operations, maintenance, and wildfire prevention that directly serve public recreation and safety, reducing pressure on general appropriations. However, the mechanism also creates a structural incentive for the Forest Service to prioritize ski area development and maintenance over other National Forest uses (hiking, camping, wildlife habitat), potentially shifting public resources toward a narrow recreation constituency

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)

Named in the bill

U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Forest System, Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996, Forest Service Facility Realignment and Enhancement Act of 2005, Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, Granger-Thye Act

Where it stands

13 cosponsors: 7 Democrats, 6 Republicans.

• Feb 6, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in Senate”
• Feb 6, 2025 — Referred to Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources · Congress.gov: “Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. (text: CR S795-796)”
• Sep 11, 2025 — Reported out of committee · Congress.gov: “Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.

Money around this bill

1 lobbying clients named this bill on 2 disclosure filings across 2 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $40,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 4 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.

More lobbying clients named this bill than 0% of bills with at least one filing.

John Barrasso, the sponsor, reported $408,500 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.

• Western States Tourism Policy Council — $40,000 on 2 filings

Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 16, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.