You are here

House Committee Poised To Rewrite National Park Fee Authority

Share

Published Date

October 27, 2015

A much anticipated hearing before the House Natural Resource Committee arrives Wednesday, and the outcome could be higher fees for national park visitors. 

Among the potential outcomes outlined in the draft legislation written by U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop, R-UT: motorcyclists and snowmobilers in national parks would face the same entrance fees charged motorists; shuttle buses such as those in Zion and Acadia national parks that now are free to ride might require a paid ticket, and; "destination" visitor centers or interpretive centers on national forest lands could charge a fee for entrance.

However, if Congress does not pass the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Modernization Act beyond the current law's scheduled expiration date of October 2017, fees collected by the National Park Service would go directly to the U.S. Treasury, not to the Park Service for use in the National Park System.

Among other provisions of the draft legislation (attached below), one would restrict permit fee charges to no more than 3 percent of the permit holder's annual gross revenue from their business. The legislation also directs the federal land-management agencies to look into technology and automation that could "increase accountability, efficiency, and the convenience of paying recreation fees." (e.g., an E-ZPass system for entering national parks).

Along with requiring the land-management agencies to seek public comment on proposed fee increases, as currently is done, the measure if enacted would require the agencies to seek comment from gateway communities as well.

Foreign visitors would no longer be able to purchase an America the Beautiful -- the National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Pass under the legislation. Too, the cost of the passes, currently $80 for most, would be recalculated every three years to reflect changes in the Consumer Price index. Language in the measure also would give the Interior secretary the authority to provide passes free to members of the U.S. military.

In testimony it was drafting for Wednesday's hearing, National Parks Conservation Association officials were supportive of many of the provisions, yet expressed concern for many others. Among those it expressed concern with were:

* Wording that required Congressional approval for any new or increased fees.

* A change that would alter the current 80-20 fee revenue split -- 80 percent remains in the park where the fee is collected, while 20 percent is sent to Washington, D.C., for redistribution to parks that don't collect fees -- to a 90-10 split.

"This proposed shift in the funding formula would likely benefit fee-collecting parks, but at the expense of the competitive account that benefits parks that cannot collect fees," NPCA's draft said. "Since less than half of park sites collect fees, we fear this formula change would reduce opportunities to enhance recreation and visitor programs and improve infrastructure in the over 200 parks that do not currently collect fees."

The legislation, would, however, reduce the amount agencies can spend on administration of fee programs from 15 percent to 5 percent.

* No consideration of increasing the Senior Pass fee from its current $10 charge, which provides for a lifetime pass.

"A modest adjustment to this fee has the potential to leverage important revenue. Today, approximately 400,000 to 500,000 Senior Passes are sold every year at national parks. The US Census Bureau projects the nation’s 65-and-older population to reach 83.7 million in the year 2050, nearly doubling the size of that population from 2012; this growth would likely lead to a growth in seniors visiting parks," said the draft testimony. "A modest modification of the Senior Pass would foster additional fee revenue that could provide additional recreation benefits to seniors, among other park visitors."

* A provision that would allow concessionaires to extend their seasons at their own discretion. In their draft NPCA officials cautioned that, "...such actions may inevitably pose a risk of unforeseen negative impacts to under-resourced park staff and/or to park resources."

The hearing is scheduled for 10 a.m. Wednesday.

Comments

How about making a list of all the public facilities, trails, forests, rivers, roads, sewers, water pipes, bridges, police agencies, fire departments, streetlights, city parks, and more that you will never ever use again because they are paid for by others?

I can confidently say that there are none for which I haven't contributed. 


And so can all the rest of us.  The key word there is "contributed."  That makes you a socialist like everyone else. 

So stop complaining.  When you complain, you're demonstrating your entitlement mentality.

Smile, tovarisch

 


What hypocrisy. The constant crying from NPS affiliated people to taxpayers that we should continue to pay in addition to our taxes for the "privilege" of using public lands.  It's like going to the library and having to pay to check out a book.  We pay for the library but some bureaucrat thinks we need to pay them again to fund their eternal retirement.  That is the greatest example of "entitlement mentaility" in existence.


EC, you didn't answer my question. Would you rather have these fees go to the general treasury and have Congress decide where to spend them, or would you rather have them dedicated to recreational pursuits across the country?


I'd rather there not be the fees in the first place but if there are, they should go to the general treasury and be spent on powers enumerated by the Constituion.  I don't think the "peoples" money should be spent on local projects. 


I'd rather there not be the fees in the first place but if there are, they should go to the general treasury and be spent on powers enumerated by the Constituion.  I don't think the "peoples" money should be spent on local projects. 


That makes you a socialist like everyone else. 

Lee, your high school civics class failed you.  Contributing to something you use is neither socialist nor entitilement.  Expecting some one else that does not use the service to contribute represents both.  


BP wrote: "The constant crying from NPS affiliated people to taxpayers that we should continue to pay in addition to our taxes for the "privilege" of using public lands.  It's like going to the library and having to pay to check out a book."

I've asked him before and there has been no answer, I challenge him again to answer one question: The national park budget represents something like 0.001% of the Federal budget.  BP, pull out your income tax return from last year.  Multiply the amount you finally paid after all deductions by 0.001.  Now tell us just how much YOU personally paid in taxes to support our parks.

I'm sure we we'll all be waiting to see your numbers.  If you don't reply, it will be prima facie evidence that you paid an embarrassingly small amount.  I'll bet it's far less than $15.

Second, there are any number of public libraries around the country that are in dire financial straits.  Some are already charging fees; some charge an annual fee for library cards; and some are simply consolidating or closing entirely.  Bad comparison there.

 


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.

Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.

You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

FREE for iPhones and Android phones.