Circling in on Fee Demo

Donald Lacoste, my high school English teacher, argued that life was circular and that we were destined to return to the points, places, events, and ideas that once structured our lives. I've taken this idea with a grain of salt, but have discovered that there are patterns to our actions.

During the past six years, as American Whitewater has worked on the Congressional Fee Demonstration, "Fee Demo", test program we have found ourselves circling the issue. In 1995 we supported the principle of the Fee Demo program and testified on its behalf. Three years later we led the charge against the program as we saw program abuses, and developing problems related to fairness and equitability. Now, in 2001, we find ourselves cautiously supporting the program again and are optimistic about what the future holds for this program.

This morning, as I walked out of my house to catch the Metro for this talk, I saw my yard for the first time in three weeks. Instead of taking care of my yard, I've been working at developing and maintaining American Whitewater's river access sites around the East. I've been routing my time and energy into areas where I'll get the greatest return - after all American Whitewater does provide my paycheck, and compared to that my yard is a distant concern.

Likewise, the Forest Service, Park Service, and Bureau of Land Management have been funneling maintenance funds, time, and energy to the places where they would receive the greatest return. Fee Demo has provided a welcome source of revenue for maintaining the agencies' scattered properties around the country. Most people believe that this is a good thing, and support the principle of contributing to the maintenance and upkeep of our public lands. Folks also provide broad support for the principle of paying fees for developed services such as RV hookups and bathroom facilities.

However, Fee Demo goes beyond providing simple maintenance funds, and treads on philosophical questions about the appropriateness of paying for "access" to America's public lands, which we, the taxpayers, own. As a result, we continue to have concerns.

Our primary concern is a question of fairness. On rivers like the Kern in California and the Nantahala in North Carolina, the boating community is effectively subsidizing other forest visitors. In the Grand Canyon, the boating community is being charge over $200 to visit the river under Fee Demo whereas other park visitors are charged a tenth of this amount.

Another concern is that we are starting to see real congressional funding offsets. These offsets don't take the form of reduced funding for the agencies. Instead, they come in the form of statements from congressional staffers that the agencies "don't need additional funding because they are receiving new revenue from Fee Demo."

We are also seeing specific user groups targeted for fees. For instance the boating community composes less than 1% of national forest use. However, 20% of Fee Demo sites target river runners and river recreationists. This is patently unfair, yet is understandable since the agencies logically look for low hanging fruit when initiating Fee Demo sites. River runners are particularly easy to charge since we access rivers at specific launch points. Whereas many other uses such as hunters, hikers, and fishermen tend to access these public lands at more dispersed locations and can be harder to identify and charge.

These funds are a consistent source of revenue for the agencies that are not subject to congressional or presidential funding whimsies. However, OMB and Congress need to be reminded that they are only one slice of the funding pie.

In the future, we encourage the agencies to solicit greater public input and to continue conducting public opinion research while addressing the philosophical questions about charging fees. We would also like to see greater fee sharing between neighboring forest and park units and within regions. Agencies should find ways of rewarding volunteerism and making efforts to reduce the impacts on visitors from charging fees.

Finally, a word of caution. When I leave this afternoon, I will be heading home to mow my yard. While I wish that I could charge the pedestrians who walk past on the sidewalk a fee so I can pay the kid down the street $20 to mow the grass for me, that is not ethical and not going to happen. The sidewalk is held in the public trust for our benefit and funded through our taxes. Likewise, the agencies are entrusted with managing our public lands and receive funds through our taxes. This program to collect fees from visitors on our public lands is the first step on a slippery slope, and I am personally concerned about what it says about our culture that we are pursuing the program.