or some time we have expected fee increases for private river permits through Grand Canyon. After all, a private trip has always been a great deal—at least concerning fees paid to the Park. Private boaters have been paying $25 to get on the waiting list, $50 to launch, and the $4 per person entry fee, allowing 16 people to launch on an 18-day private Grand Canyon trip by paying a mere $159 to the Park. Surely the Park's associated costs must exceed this amount, so the murmurings we heard about a fee increase were not surprising. After all, depending on the outfitter, commercial passengers pay $10 to $20 per person per day to the NPS.
Should boating in Grand Canyon be government subsidized? Congress thinks not, in this age of spiraling deficits. Most fees that the NPS collects go straight into the black hole of general government funds, and although unwilling to cut back tobacco or corporate subsidies, Congress has become increasingly stingy with funding for national parks. Facing a financial crisis, the NPS must use new and innovative methods to protect their valuable resources.
The fee demonstration program is one such innovation which allows the NPS to charge higher fees while keeping the majority of the increased revenue in the Park where it is collected. Entrance fees to Grand Canyon are increasing from $10 to $20 per car load, with the Park retaining 80% of the extra money. There are additional fees for backcountry hikers—$20 for the permit plus $4 per person per night. This fee demonstration revenue cannot be used for salaries or services which are currently provided. Proceeds from increased entrance fees will be channeled into improvements in visitor services at the South Rim in accordance with the General Management Plan. Backcountry fees will finance expanded backcountry office hours as well as resource protection and trail maintenance.
Recently, the NPS began working on plans to increase private boater fees for fee demonstration as well as cost recovery. The river subdistrict office had come under fire for not following NPS guidelines which require an annual cost analysis of the services provided, and adjusting the fees to reflect these costs. So now they're trying to catch up—this has resulted in a set of fee increases which some find alarming. The amount a private permittee will be required to pay for the trip mentioned earlier would now exceed $1900
Examined individually, each fee doesn't seem all that unreasonable, but when considered together they may seem staggering, particularly with such short notice. Private boaters with launches scheduled this summer, some who have waited as much as 8 years for the permit, received a letter shortly before Christmas notifying them that they must pay an additional thousand dollars or more to launch.
As in the past, those wishing to remain on the waiting list must notify the Park of their “continuing interest” during a 6-week period which began December 15th. This year, however, they must also pay $25. If this fee remains unpaid by the end of March, the name will be dropped from the list; (the one year “grace” which was previously allowed for forgetting to file is no longer accepted.) Having to pay to wait in line—perhaps paying hundreds of dollars before they set foot in the park—doesn't sit right with many private boaters. Those who choose to wait until their number comes up will pay substantially more than those who obtain a permit by picking up a cancellation. (More than 1/3 of permittees last season were on the waiting list two years or less.) The waiting list fees are designed to recover costs of managing the list, although many question how it could possibly cost so much to keep a name in a computer database. The launch fee, as originally approved in the last Colorado River Management Plan, was imposed to “offset the costs of the required river orientation program at Lees Ferry and funding for river monitoring and rehabilitation of fragile river corridor areas impacted by recreational users.”

Fee Demonstration Program
$10 per person entrance
fee (previously $4)
$4 per person per
night (new fee)

Typical Private Trip
14 people, 15 days

New NPS System
Waiting List (to get on) $100
Annual Renewal (10 years @$25) $250
Launch Fee $200
Entrance Fees (14 people @ $10) $140
Backcountry Fees ($4 x 15 days x 14) $840
Total $1530

Something Simpler
Waiting List $100
Launch Fee ($100 per person x 14 people) $1400
Total $1500

Previously $50, this fee has increased to $200.
The additional $4 per person per day “impact fee”, part of the new fee demonstration program, can not be used to support any service which is currently being provided. Where, then, will it go, and is it necessary? When pressed, NPS officials offered varying possibilities. River Subdistrict ranger Patrick Hattaway suggested an increased number of patrol trips, but offered no evidence that a need for them exists.
How to spend money from river use fees is already an issue. The recently adopted Colorado River Fund (CRF) will provide approximately $800,000 annually from commercial operations. But the CRF is limited to “capital improvements” which “benefit river runners,” and the NPS and outfitters are still confounded by how to spend it all. Money has a way about it, though; rest assured, it will be spent. The challenge is to apply it toward projects that add value. The CRF seemed to generate revenue merely for revenue's sake, with no clear plan. The private boating fee structure, as proposed, seems to be headed down that same wayward path.
Predictably, those who can afford the fees have been far more supportive of them than those who can't. Some hope that the increased fees will reduce the size of the ponderous waiting list; others feel that ability to pay isn't the appropriate criteria to shorten the wait. Although NPS officials deny this as a motivation for the increased fees, several admitted that it might be an added “benefit.”
The new fee structure establishes other inequities as well. As is the case with the current commercial permit system, the new fees encourage larger, faster trips by making smaller, more leisurely trips much more expensive. With an equal wait in line, a two person private trip will pay three times as much per day, and a one person trip six times more, than each participant on a 16-person trip would be charged. As we look towards the Colorado River Management Plan with the hope of reducing the disincentives for longer, smaller commercial trips, why apply similar disincentives to the private sector? And by collecting a significant amount of money from those on the waiting list, aren't we becoming even more indebted to the current system, thereby reducing our flexibility to change it within the CRMP if that seems the appropriate course?
The small group of NPS officials which has been involved with the decisions were directed “from the top” not to solicit input from the public as it “would take too much time.” Apparently, few opinions were solicited from NPS personnel either. The sense of urgency is palpable, no doubt partly due to increasing pressure to recover costs. Justifying the decision-making process by citing the dollars which would be lost should the fees not all be implemented this year, NPS officials display a business mindset which, no matter how sympathetic we are to their dilemma, is cause for alarm. When rangers are forced to think and respond like corporate executives, financial pressures could impede their making good resource decisions.
The new system also appears to be unnecessarily costly and complex. We are told that it will require at least two additional employees simply to manage the myriad incoming fees. Permittees will be allowed to pay fees by credit card, and since the NPS has promised that some fees collected in advance are refundable, they must be braced for a dizzying array of adjustments for last-minute or mid-trip changes. There must be a simpler way. Rather than further embracing the tired old user day system which encourages shorter, bigger trips, why not charge a set fee for each participant on a private trip? If the NPS feels the need to charge $100 per private boater, wouldn't it be simpler to just charge that amount rather than piling up a complicated array of individual fees? The NPS could charge $100 to get on—and stay on—the waiting list and, a $100 per person launch fee, generating similar revenues, yet allowing them to be spent on needed services rather than on additional accounting personnel.
On November 26, Secretary Babbitt stated “Our highest priority as we implement the test fee demonstration program is to articulate to the public the need for their participation and support... public input, suggestions, and feedback are crucial to the success of this... project.” Reasonable fees, reasonably applied, with clearly defined goals, can and will receive public support... at least until the American public convinces Congress to support National Parks rather than tobacco farmers and military aircraft manufacturers.

Jeri Ledbetter

As onerous as additional fees for private trips might be, what we really need to ask ourselves is “What will the money be used for?” The initial gut response is something like: “This is our money and it damn well better stay within the corridor.” But on reflection I think the proper goal is to make surer it's good for the corridor, and so, I suggest that these fees would be better spent on the rim. In fact, we should insist that it be spent anywhere but within the river corridor. My reasoning goes something like this.
First and foremost, what do we need done along the river? Very little, I think. The current annual resource trips are effective and successful in the partnership between guides, outfitters, and park. And the Colorado River Fund is about to come on line, with more funding than we know what to do with. Perhaps help at the checkout at Lees Ferry would improve things but we don't really want anything added to the Canyon; not outhouses, boat tie-ups, scenic viewpoints, museums, or curio shops. What's left to spend money on then? That's right: more “protection” trips. Unless a strong case can be made that more enforcement is necessary on the river, and that there is no other “self-policing” solution available, I see no justification for additional trips. Nothing against our friends who do the patrol trips but we've worked hard to build a good relationship on the river, to address and solve problems as they arise; and things are working pretty well. More oversight is not the answer. But one thing is as sure as the sunrise; if there is money, it will be spent.
That's where the rim comes in. There is no doubt additional funds can be effectively used in the maintenance of the infrastructure that surrounds the river corridor. This is more than simple charity on our part however; like the shell around an egg, we need that infrastructure to protect our little, underdeveloped haven. Without the concentric shells provided by the park boundaries, the rim, and the backcountry, the river corridor would be a vastly different place. The various semi-urban experiences available throughout the park allow the river to retain its wilderness character. So the best thing we can do for the river is to support the rim.
It's hard to swallow these fees, I know. For such a long time we've enjoyed sweet, cheap freedom of the river. But our National Parks, under fire from those that would exploit or eliminate them, deserve our help. The current fees will not eliminate any of us from going down river; I know, it's the principle. Well, if they get too high, we should raise holy hell. But user fees are a fact of life today and four dollars only gets you a Big Mac and fries at Tusayan. If we're going to pay them, let's make the fees as fair, as simple as possible, and put them where they will do us the most good. Keep them out of the river corridor.

Tom Moody