Introduction
In his introductory remarks on April 21, Senator Haskell stated that his concern is that public participation be maximized where public lands are at issue, and that the moderate income family and local skier not be priced out of skiing to make way for the more wealthy destination skier. At the same time, the Colorado Senator recognized the need for continued investment by the private sector to meet the public demand for recreation on public land. Haskell indicated that S1338 would “insure the level of concessioner investments necessary to meet recreation demands on national forest lands.”
Two days later Senator Haskell placed another statement in the Congressional Record asking for prompt action on S. 1338 because of the action taken by the White River National Forest in approving daily lift ticket rate increases for seven Colorado resorts. His staement indicated that the rates would increase by $2.00 over last year and were based on secret information provided by the ski area operators, and approved by a secret Forest Service guideline.
Senator Haskell said the situation was scandalous and the guidelines were a travesty. The hearing conducted in Washington, D.C., on May 26, 1977, by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources left more questions than answers.
- Is the entire ski industry and the nation being burdened with possible new legislation because of particular local problems which exist at several large Colorado resorts?
- Will this legislation actually decrease the availability of badly needed capital investment in the ski industry?
- Is the Haskell Bill in conflict with other recent Forest Service land management legislation?
These questions were recurring themes at the recent hearings in Washington, D.C., on S. 1338, the bill introduced in this session of Congress by Senator Haskell.
The hearing held a few surprises for those attending. The administration represented by the Department of Agriculture, Assistant Secretary Cutler, made a strong statement against the bill and called for a delay until 1978 before any consideration be given to the provision. Representatives of the Colorado skiing industry spoke in favor of the bill while the National Ski Areas Association took a posture of opposition. Senator Hatfield (R-Oregon) was critical of the bill as an attempt to use federal legislation to solve what he perceived to be a local issue.
Provisions
The bill as introduced on April 21st of this year was almost identical to last year’s bill, S.2125, with four changes.
First, it would require that a unit plan exist and that any permit be in accord with the land management plan before it may be issued.
Second, any applicant for a permit or amendment to a permit must submit a plan showing how he would provide alternative low-cost tows or lifts at his area and install them to the maximum extent feasible.
Third, the requirements of last year’s bill calling for disclosure of historical financial data were extended to include any prospective financial data submitted in connection with price increase requests.
Finally, the independent ski instructor section of the bill was stiffened to direct the Forest Service to issue permits when the requirements for those permits are met by the applicant.
After visits from representatives of Colorado Ski Country and the Forest Service, Senator Haskell introduced several amendments to S. 1338.
The low-cost lift requirements was changed to read that a study must be made of the “potential for and acceptability by the public of” low-cost lift facilities.
Disclosure of historical and prospective financial data was reworded to include just historical data.
The other major change, relating to the issue of independent ski instruction, shifts the burden of proof to the applicant to show why he should be granted a permit.
Two key issues were raised over and over again during the hearings on May 26: 1) Was this unnecessary federal regulation to resolve a local problem? and 2) What would be the effect of the regulation on the availability of private capital.?
Department of Agriculture
Opposition to the bill came first and most strongly from the Department of Agriculture. Testifying on behalf of the Department and the Forest Service, Rupert Cutler, the Assistant Secretary for Conservation, Research, and Education, a Carter appointee formerly with the Wildlife Federation, expressed concern with overlap of provisions with other existing laws and with the overall effect of the bill, and said that consideration of the bill should be postponed until October of 1978.
Cutler went on to indicate that land management planning regulations are now being developed and will be available at that time, and that enactment of the bill prior to their availability would be premature.
Cutler also pointed out that the pricing study done for the Forest Service by Laventhol and Horwath, itself an outcome of Haskell’s legislation, indicates that competition does exist in the ski industry and is keeping prices at a reasonable level. In those instances where competition does not exist, the Department has the authority to control fees.
Cutler, in concluding, stated that the net effect of the bill could be detrimental to investment in the industry “. . .the bill, through: 1) the detailed requirements for permit approval including review and approval by Congress of large area permits, 2) the special provisions on review of fees, and 3) the provisions for public hearings on permittee compliance with permit provisions could act to delay and discourage additional investments by the private sector . . .” Cutler’s concern was based on projected capital investment needs being more than double present levels by the year 2000.
NSAA Testimony
Similar concern was expressed by National Ski Areas Association. Hugh Killebrew, President of Heavenly Valley, represented the association in opposing the bill and presented amendments which would be necessary to make the bill palatable to the industry.
Mr. Killebrew indicated that the bill would further restrict access to capital investment requirements.
In addition to pointing out that no new major ski developments have begun in the past five years, he stated that “the existing regulations, terms and conditions that have been issued by the Secretary relating to ski areas have caused unnecessary delays, expenses and frustrations to the permittee. The disconcerting situation will, in our judgment, be compounded by the additional regulations mandated of the Secretary by this bill.” Therefore even if S.1338 is amended as we suggest, it is difficult for us to believe that it will create an environment in which private capital, in any significant amounts, would be attracted to the development of expansion of downhill commercial ski areas on national forest lands,” concluded Killebrew.
Backing up Killebrew on this issue for NSAA was an economist, Dr. Marshall Geer, Dean of the Faculty and Professor of Economics at the American Graduate School of International Management in Glendale, Arizona. Geer said that the return on equity for the high risk, low return ski industry during 1975-76 was 9.35 per cent as compared to an average return of 14.6 per cent for all “leisure time industries” for that period (Business Week, May 16, 1977), therefore,the probable impact of S.1338 “will be to impede the construction of new ski areas and slow or defer the expansion of existing facilities.”
Geer also pointed out that “the prices charged for skiing should reflect all costs, private and social, and particularly the cost of capital. S.1338 as presently written is going to limit skiing opportunities, increase costs, and will not encourage private capital to expand commercial outdoor recreation facilities on public land,” he concluded.
Colorado Presence
The presence of Coloradans (almost half of the witness list) again brought to light the issue originating last year as to whether Haskell was not reacting to local problems with unnecessary federal legislation. Sen. Mark Hatfield spoke, expressing his concern that such might be the case, during testimony by two of his constituents: William Healy, President of Mt. Bachelor, and Carl Reynolds, owner of the day ski area at the base of Mt. Hood. Hatfield was concerned that while this legislation might help the situation at major Colorado resorts, it may at the same time have an unnecessary detrimental effect at the national level.
While Colorado State legislator Nancy Dick and Aspen Mayor Stacey Standley strongly urged passage of the bill as a benefit to the public, Colorado Ski Country President Garry Mitchell wound up in strong support of the bill provided further appropriate amendments were included. This position follows many months of oral skirmishes between Haskell and Colorado Ski Country on this and other ski-related issues.
“In our view, the principal strength of this legislation is the manner in which it addresses the heads of the three partners whose cooperation in the development of outdoor recreation opportunities on public lands is essential. We think that the skiing public, ski area operators, and the U.S. Forest Service have all been given due consideration in the bill and we have affirmed our commitment to Sen. Haskell to work closely with him and the parties in this issue during the entire legislative process,” said Mitchell. “In the final analysis, we look forward to the passage of model public lands legislation and are hopeful that our recommendations will be an integral part of such legislation,” he concluded.
In other testimony, the United States Ski Association, Rocky Mountain Ski Association, and Far West Ski Association presented similar testimony expressing concern that the expansion of ski facilities are essential to meet the public demand, and that nothing should be done which would im-ede that necessity.
Environmentalists in Favor
The Wilderness Society and Sierra Club representatives spoke in favor of the legislation. Concern was expressed that ski resort developments have an adverse impact on the environment and that it is essential that ski resorts not be developed at the expense of other values such as wilderness, air, and water quality.
Future of S. 1338
Following mark-up of the bill in committee, S.1338 will go to the floor of the Senate for action. Since the bill passed by voice vote in the Senate last year, there is a good chance of passage again this year.
The action then moves to the House, where it will probably be introduced by a Democrat on the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee. It will be referred to the Public Lands Subcommittee, headed by Rep. Teno Roncalio (D-Wyoming). Hearings and action in the House will depend in large part on the priority both the sponsor and Roncalio put on the bill.
Deedee Corradini, Vice President of Bonneville Assoc. Inc., is a consultant to Snowbird Corporation
