119-S-472 Journalist Public Summary

Headline Summary

Let local National Forests keep most ski-area permit fees to reinvest in visitor services, safety, and recreation management instead of sending all of it to Washington. (congress.gov)

What It Does

The Ski Hill Resources for Economic Development (SHRED) Act would create a Ski Area Fee Retention Account so that when ski areas pay rent to operate on National Forest System lands, most of that money stays with the forest that generated it. The bill directs 80% of fees back to the local forest (with authority to reduce to not less than 60% if local needs are fully met) and 20% for agency-wide recreation needs. Of the local share, 75% is for ski-program administration, permitting, visitor info, and wildfire planning; 25% is for trail, road and facility upkeep, parking, search and rescue, avalanche education, and related recreation work. Funds would be available for up to four fiscal years and cannot be used for wildfire suppression or buying land. (congress.gov)

Figures on ski-area count and annual fee magnitude come from sponsor statements at introduction. Policy splits and limits come from the bill text. (blakemoore.house.gov)

Who’s For It

• Bipartisan Senate sponsors and cosponsors led by Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) and Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO), with support from colleagues representing ski states (e.g., CO, WY, NH, NV, OR, ID, MT). They argue the bill strengthens outdoor recreation economies and gives forests resources to manage heavy visitation. (bennet.senate.gov)
• House champions include Reps. Joe Neguse (D-CO) and Blake Moore (R-UT), who introduced a companion bill. (congress.gov)
• Industry and local stakeholders such as the National Ski Areas Association, Outdoor Recreation Roundtable, Colorado Association of Ski Towns, and several ski resorts (e.g., Vail Resorts, Jackson Hole) endorse the bill, saying it speeds permits, improves visitor services, and meets growing demand. (bennet.senate.gov)

Who’s Against It

• There’s no prominent, organized national campaign specifically against this bill on the record, but past federal reviews of recreation fee–retention programs highlight recurring concerns: tracking and accounting controls, whether dedicated accounts reduce oversight, and whether user-fee incentives could skew priorities or spur overdevelopment. (gao.gov)
• Skeptics may also question whether forests can translate new dollars into faster permitting without sufficient staffing—an implementation risk sponsors acknowledge the bill aims to address via funding flexibility. (blakemoore.house.gov)

What’s Next

As of February 12, 2026, Congress.gov shows S. 472 was ordered reported favorably by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee (September 11, 2025) and is awaiting full Senate consideration; a House companion (H.R. 1084) is introduced and sitting in the Agriculture and Natural Resources Committees. In short: next stop is a Senate floor vote; if it passes, the House would take it up or act on its companion before any bill goes to the President. (congress.gov)