The following editorial appeared in the Santa Barbara News-Press on July 9, 1998.
One of the most hotly debated topics on these pages during the year has been the U.S. Forest Service's Adventure Pass program. It began in June 1997 and generated much emotion and rhetoric from the start.
We earlier had expressed mixed feelinds about the experiment. While it is obvious the Forest Service needs the money — its budget has been cut regularly in recent years — we questioned the fairness of charging people twice for using public land, first as taxpayers and then as users of National Forest lands.
A year of the program in operation has not resolved that basic conflict. Fees on top of taxes really amounts to double taxation, which is a losing proposition for those wishing to visit the great outdoors for which their tax dollars have been used to create and preserve.
Now comes word of another problem associated with the Forest Service, and one that tips the scales in favor of getting rid of the Adventure Pass program - the Forest Service apparently does not spend wisely. Not only are its spending habits in question, there is a problem with accounting practices. These situations were brought to the public's attention this week in heariings before U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee on government management, information and technology.
For you skeptics who consider the term "government management" to be an oxymoron, these were the hearings for you.
First, an official in the U.S. General Accounting Office — a watchdog agency that keeps track of government spending and management practices — told committee members the Forest Service is plagued with fiscal problems, not the least of which are financial systems that can't track revenues and expenses. She said such problems are indicators of an agency's general lack of accountability.
Not exactly what taxpayers want to hear about an agency of the federal government that is receiving the benefit of tax dollars [fi]and[FR] user fees.
The GAO official went a step further, telling of a 1995 audit of the Forest Service's fiscal activities that showed the agency double-counted $45 million owed to it by other federal agencies, did not have a system in place to track money it owed for privately contracted services, and does not have a complete inventory of everything it owns.
To further cloud the Forest Service's fiscal reputation, other witnesses said the agency was using money from one trust fund — which was set up to provide money for wilderness preservation, which is how the Adventure Pass fee revenues are supposed to be spent — to buy computers and pay for utilities and salaries. The Forest Service also is being sued by some of its own employees for alleged misuse of those trust fund monies.
Which brings us back to the Adventure Pass. In view of testimony about internal fiscal problems, is it prudent to continue to allow the Forest Service to collect the $5 daily or $30 annual visitor fees? Probably not. The Forest Service should send the Adventure Pass for an extended — and permanent — hike.