.gif){kind=small}
Cover Page
MENU
1968-1972
|
Visitor Fees in the National Park System: A Legislative and Administrative History III. IF AT FIRST YOU DON'T SUCCEED... 1968-1972 |
|
The 1972 Land and Water Conservation Fund Act Amendment
The comprehensive fee study that was to be submitted to Congress by February 1, 1971, was transmitted by Secretary of the Interior Rogers C. B. Morton six weeks after the deadline, Morton having just taken office on January 30. The report presented two basic alternatives: a modification of the existing system, with annual and short-term carload permits and supplemental user permits, said to be favored by the participating agencies; and a modification of a system devised by the Public Land Law Review Commission, favored by "Federal officials interested in maximizing revenue," featuring a $4 annual permit for individuals, daily individual permits, and user permits for highly developed facilities. [24]
Secretary Morton recommended and enclosed draft legislation for the individual permit system, under which revenues were estimated at "more than double the historical fee collection levels which have averaged about $10 million per year." But the difficulties portrayed in the transmittal letter suggested an effort to sabotage the proposal at the outset:
Although the recommended program is believed to be administratively feasible, some period of time will be needed to resolve problems resulting from the fact that visitors must become accustomed to individual permits and stricter enforcement authorities. Agency personnel will also have to be retrained to administer the new permit system....
There may be occasions in the administration of the individual annual recreation permit system at heavily-visited National Parks such as Yosemite, Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, Mesa Verde, Glacier, Mount Rainier, and Shenandoah, that it would unduly delay the entrance of vehicles into the parks. These administrative difficulties would arise from trying to verify the ages of each vehicle's passengers, whether they have an individual permit, and if not, whether they wish to buy such a permit, or in lieu thereof, purchase a daily permit. When these delays necessitate traffic backing up unreasonably, as much as 75-100 cars, it is proposed that the collection be suspended at the entrance stations and only spot checks made by rangers at visitor centers, campgrounds and other visitor concentration points within the park.
From Morton's transmittal, it also required little imagination to sense general displeasure with the recommended system among the fee collecting bureaus:
The recommended fee program is not that preferred by each agency. However, the recreation programs of the agencies vary in many respects. Thus, no one system can be optimum for all. If the proposed draft legislation is enacted, all agencies administering recreation areas where fees are collected will give their best effort to make the new program a success. [25]
Interior's draft bill was introduced as S. 1474, and the Department of Agriculture joined in supporting it. [26] But the Senate Interior Committee rejected the concept of individual annual permits, which "would further complicate, rather than simplify, the program," it said; "It would detract from the concept of 'family' which the committee endorses, and only multiply the problems of administration of a workable fee system." Instead, the committee favorably reported another bill, S. 1893, which would continue the Golden Eagle Passport (so identified in legislation for the first time) for carloads of visitors and provide for a free "Golden Age Passport" for persons 65 and over. Additional offerings were an annual "Golden Eagle Recreation Passport, " including camping, for $25, and an annual $15 camping permit for persons 65 and over. Section 210 would be repealed, and the Corps of Engineers and the other recreation-providing bureaus (Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Bureau of Land Management, Tennessee Valley Authority, Forest Service, U.S. Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission) would continue in the program with the incentive of appropriations from the Land and Water Conservation Fund to assist them in operating their facilities. The Senate passed the committee bill on November 22. [27]
As usual, the House Interior Committee was much less supportive of the interagency fee system concept. "In general it is fair to say that the Land and Water Conservation Fund Program has been a great success [following addition of the OCS leasing revenues], but it is honest to add that the contribution of the Golden Eagle Program to that success has been minimal," the committee stated in reporting a thoroughly amended version of the administration bill, H.R. 6730, in December. "Not only have the outdoor enthusiasts failed to respond as anticipated, but the agencies involved have not made a real effort to make the program effective." [28]
The committee agreed with its Senate counterpart on the individual annual permit, rejecting it as difficult to administer, potentially too expensive for many families, and uncertain of yielding greater revenue. Rather than build on the existing interagency system, however, its bill would limit entrance fees and permits ($10 annually for a carload, free for persons 65 and over for parks in state of residence) to "national parks, national monuments, national historic sites, [and] national battlefield areas " of the National Park System. This was done in the belief that entrance and user fees were insufficiently distinct outside Park System areas with well defined boundaries and gates; charges had often been administratively designated as entrance fees so that the Golden Eagle would apply, when they were really for the use of special facilities within the areas.
All agencies were to be encouraged to levy user fees for developed facilities, however. Receipts would continue to be available for appropriation to the collecting bureau, and now at least 25 percent of each bureau's receipts during the first five years was to go for fee collection promotion and enforcement. The Park Service's annual permits were to be made available in post offices.
The House committee report included a strong statement in behalf of the principle of visitor fees that would be cited in later years when the concept came under attack:
Most members of the committee believe that those people who are fortunate enough to be able to take the time to use and enjoy these areas ought to be willing to help, to some reasonable degree, to defray the cost of providing them with these opportunities. No one wants to price anyone out of these outdoor areas, but neither do they want to unduly burden those who never visit such areas--either for economic or other reasons--with all of the costs of making these areas and their related facilities available.
It seems so abundantly clear as to be almost axiomatic:
That the users of Federal recreation areas should contribute more to Federal recreation programs than non-users;
That frequent users should contribute more than occasional users;
That users of more sophisticated facilities should pay more than users of modest facilities; and
That users of modest facilities should pay more than non-users of any special facilities. [29]
The report also stressed the need for equal fee collection enforcement, stating that all should be required to pay if anyone was--a slap at the honor system approach used by some bureaus. The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation was urged to develop a uniform campground classification system to guide bureaus in setting equal rates for equal facilities.
On the House floor on February 7, 1972, Representative John F. Seiberling of Ohio asked for the record if the committee bill would allow entrance fees to be charged in the new urban parks serving inner-city populations. Representative Roy Taylor replied that such charges could be levied only at national parks, national historic sites, national monuments, and national battlefields; because most of the urban parks were designated national recreation areas, national seashores, or national lakeshores, entrance fees there would not be permitted. The House then passed the measure. [30]
A conference committee was required to resolve the major differences between the House and Senate versions. The entrance fee issue was compromised in the resulting bill by allowing such charges "only at designated units of the National Park System administered by the Department of the Interior and National Recreation Areas administered by the Department of Agriculture" (i.e., the Forest Service). "It is the intent of this provision to limit the collection of admission fees to those areas where admission can be uniformly controlled at established and manned entrance stations where visitors are supplied with information concerning the area and where fees can be collected and explained," the conference report noted. [31] In addition to the $10 annual Golden Eagle Passport, to be sold by Interior and Agriculture and at post offices, "single visit" admission fees were continued; the authority for a "series of visits" permit in the original Land and Water Conservation Fund Act was dropped (a possible inadvertance that would cause problems and require later correction). The Senate's free Golden Age Passport was made applicable to persons 62 and over and others in the same car; holders would be entitled to a 50 percent discount on camping charges. Foreign visitors were to be admitted free to entrance fee areas for three years.
The Senate provisions for annual camping fees (the $25 Golden Eagle Recreation Passport and the $15 permit for persons 65 and over) were deleted on the grounds that user fees should remain linked to frequency of use. The Senate bill had contained language limiting the application of user fees; the conference committee struck it from the bill but incorporated its essence in the report:
It is the intent of the Conferees that special recreation use fees shall be limited to those facilities which require a substantial investment and regular maintenance and which are utilized for the personal benefit of the user for a fixed period of time. No special recreation use fee should be collected for the use of facilities which virtually all visitors might reasonably expect to utilize, such as roads, trails, overlooks, visitor centers, wayside exhibits, or picnic areas. [32]
User fees could also be charged for "group activities, recreation events, motorized recreation vehicles, and other specialized recreation uses" under a provision in the bill.
The bill elaborated somewhat on the fee criteria contained in the original act:
All fees...shall be fair and equitable, taking into consideration the direct and indirect cost to the Government, the benefits to the recipient, the public policy or interest served, the comparable recreation fees charged by non-Federal public agencies, the economic and administrative feasibility of fee collection and other pertinent factors.... It is the intent of this Act that comparable fees should be charged by the several Federal agencies for comparable services and facilities.
Finally, among other provisions, the conference bill incorporated the House bill's funding authority for promoting and enforcing fee collection; rather than prescribing 25 percent of an agency's receipts as a minimum figure for this purpose, however, it set 40 percent as a maximum. The conference report indicated the importance attributed to this provision:
The Conferees agreed that a strong effort should be made to inform the public about the nature and purpose of the fee collection program and that a greater effort should be made--particularly in periods of heavy use--to adequately man fee collection stations to assure the uniform collection from all visitors at admission fee areas and all users of specialized facilities. It is anticipated that a significant effort will be made to improve this aspect of the program and that a portion of the funds collected will be used to expand seasonal employment programs. [33]
Both houses agreed to the conference bill at the end of June, and it became Public Law 92-347 upon approval by the President July 11, 1972--more than six months after the interagency Golden Eagle authority had expired at the end of December. This repetition of the 1970 hiatus again caused administrative and public confusion and inconvenience. Expecting resolution of the congressional differences well before the summer season, the Park Service delayed reviving its 1970 National Parklands Passport and collected only daily entrance fees in the interim. As time passed, criticism from those who were accustomed to saving with an annual permit increased. Finally on June 28, when favorable action on the conference bill appeared assured, the Service began sale of the Parklands Passport, which again substituted for the Golden Eagle the rest of that year. [34]
End of Chapter 3
24Letters, Morton to Sen. Henry M. Jackson and Rep. Wayne N. Aspinall, Mar. 12, 1971, and report, "Federal Recreation Fees," in House Report 92-742, Dec. 10, 1971, pp. 11-26.
26Letter, Under Secretary of Agriculture J. Phil Campbell to Sen. Henry M. Jackson, Sept. 30, 1971, in Senate Report 92-490, Nov. 17, 1971. The reference to "Federal officials interested in maximizing revenue," the distaste for the individual permit system manifest in Interior's letter to Congress supporting it, and Agriculture's otherwise inexplicable support all point to the Office of Management and Budget as the force behind the administration's position.
27Senate Report 92-490; 117 Congressional Record 42578.
30118 Congressional Record 2891-92.
31House Report 92-1164, June 22, 1972, p. 6.
3486 Stat. 459; "$10 Annual Passport Issued by National Park Service," press release, June 28, 1972, WASO-535; letter, Assistant Director Lawrence C. Hadley to Rep. J. Kenneth Robinson, Aug. 24, 1972, WASO-535.
Top
Last Modified: Tues, Apr 4 2000 07:08:48 am PDT
http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/mackintosh3/fees3c.htm
.gif){kind=small}