NO-FEE COALITION SAYS MOUNT LEMMON CASE FAR FROM OVER
Forest Service Wins RAT Appeal
By Bill Schneider, 1-22-07
The Forest Service’s aggressive fee-charging policy, called the Recreation Access Tax (RAT), was threatened last September by a judge in Tucson, Arizona. The judge ruled that the FS was illegally implementing the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA) by charging for entering the Mount Lemmon area and for roadside parking, but the federal agency immediately appealed the case, and continued to charge the fee in question during the appeal.
On January 16, FS has won its appeal, and the RAT is back in force. But fee opponents insist the legal battle is far from over.
In September 2005, a Forest Service employee issued Christine Wallace two citations for parking along the Catalina Highway and going for day hikes in the Coronado National Forest near Tucson. She refused to pay the tickets, and the FS took her to court.
The Catalina Highway goes through the Sky Isalnd National Scenic Byway to the summit of the Mount Lemmon, only an hour’s drive from downtown Tucson and heavily used by local residents. Several years ago, the FS designated the area as the Mount Lemmon High Impact Recreation Area (HIRA). As detailed in the court decision, it’s now clear that the FS made the area a HIRA so the agency could charge fees for entering public land and parking along public highways, even though language in FLREA specifically disallows such fees, nor was it the intent of Congress to allow agencies to charge such fees.
The Forest Service’s case is summarized by District Judge John M. Roll as: “The Forest Service claims that the agency is allowed to combine areas under FLREA, and the Mount Lemmon HIRA fee is not charged solely for parking, but for use of the amenities in the HIRA in combination with parking.” In his conclusion, Roll agreed with the agency’s assessment of its authority.
“The judge totally disregarded the language in the FLREA, saying it was difficult to enforce,” notes Robert Funkhouser, president of the Western Slope No-Fee Coalition. “FLREA clearly prohibits the FS from charging for disbursed backcountry use, but the agency wants to charge for everything. We contend that the agency is still operating outside of the law.”
“It’s a real good case,” Funkhouser said. “There is limiting language in FLREA, and it is in there for a reason, but this ruling says this language has no meaning.”
Funkhouser also said he expects Wallace’s attorney, who is working pro bono, to file a motion to reconsider. “There have been some contributions to help her, but more money is needed.” He said that in the near future, a special fund would be set up to take contributions.
You can read the entire court decision here.
So what's the background of Judge John M. Roll and who appointed him?
Comment By Robert Hoskins, 1-22-07Bill
Thanks for the update on this important issue. If the Forest Service wants significant public resistance on this issue, it should continue to press for access fees.
Robert
Everyone benefits from public lands, and their taxes pay for these benefits (clean air, watershed protection, etc.).
If you want to utilize these lands for recreational use, you should pay for it.
Why should someone who is never going to step foot in a NF for recreational purposes pay for the upkeep of facilities for that use? Their taxes pay for the basic benefits listed above. If you want more than that, I think you should pay for it.
Tim,
Should I be able to deduct my share of taxes for the town library if I didn't go there last year?
A user-fee system for public goods would be hell, and that's where programs like RAT are leading us.
Also, the access fees are being charged where there are no facilites at all.
Jeff,
You could stretch that argument out forever - I don't like paying for public schools since I don't have any kids. However, we are talking about something different, because public lands present significant benefits to folks who don't even realize that they are there. Furthermore, a strong argument can be made that I benefit from public schools even though I never spent a day in one and don't have any kids. Same for you and the library as people generally assume they increase the overall health and welfare of a community. Whether or not that is true, I have no idea.
Compare public land fees to public transportation. Our taxes subsidize public transport whether or not we use it. Even if I never ride the subway, it reduces traffic on the freeway and I benefit from it. If I do ride the subway and derive that direct benefit I pay extra. No one ever objects to that, do they?
Do I wish we didn't have to pay fees? Sure I do. But that is just not realistic these days.
As for the USFS charging for areas where there are no facilities, that is where I believe fee-opponents should make their stand, although that will lead to managers installing a picnic table and trash can at the trailhead so that it will qualify under REA. There is no easy solution to this problem, and you cannot fault managers for seeking any means possible to help ease the chronic underfunding. Hopefully people make their feelings known to their representatives. Its the only way things might ever change.
It doesn't really matter to me which way this comes down because I see both sides of it, but (in my opinion) when you use partisan rhetoric (RAT) in your article, it really hurts your credibility.
Save the propaganda for the anti-fee websites.