Overview
Title
To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 and the Flood Control Act of 1968 to provide for provisions relating to collection and retention of user fees at recreation facilities, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
The LAKES Act is like a new set of rules that lets certain people or groups take care of lakeside parks. They can collect money from visitors to help keep the parks clean and fun, but they must use most of that money to improve the same park where it was collected.
Summary AI
The bill, H.R. 6906, known as the "LAKES Act," aims to amend previous water-related laws to address the management of recreation facilities and user fee collection. It allows non-Federal public entities and private nonprofit entities to collect and use fees from developed recreational sites for their maintenance and management, under the Secretary of the Army's oversight. Additionally, the bill mandates that fees from such sites be deposited into a special Treasury account and used for the facilities' operation, supplementing rather than replacing existing funding. This ensures that a majority of the fees collected at each site are reinvested there.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
The proposed legislation, known as the "Lake Access Keeping Economies Strong Act" or the "LAKES Act," aims to amend the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 and the Flood Control Act of 1968. This bill’s primary intent is to reform how user fees collected at recreation facilities, which are managed by non-federal and nonprofit entities, are handled. It seeks to authorize these entities to collect fees and use them primarily for maintenance, operation, and management, while ensuring a part of these funds remains at the collection site.
Summary of the Bill
The LAKES Act introduces mechanisms for adjusting the management of user fees collected at federal recreation sites. It allows non-Federal public entities and private nonprofit organizations involved in managing these sites to retain up to 100% of the collected fees, contingent upon the Secretary of the Army's determination. These fees are intended to support site-specific operations and maintenance. Moreover, the bill specifies that at least 80% of collected fees must be reinvested back into the original collection sites and are kept separate from regular appropriated funds. Additionally, it aims to provide clearer definitions around involved entities and their responsibilities in handling these funds.
Summary of Significant Issues
One major concern identified is the potential lack of accountability and consistency in determining the retention percentage of collected fees by non-Federal and nonprofit entities, as this is dependent on the Secretary’s discretion. The bill also lacks specific oversight mechanisms for ensuring fees are used appropriately, raising questions about financial management and transparency. Furthermore, broad terms such as "operation, maintenance, and management" are not well defined, which may allow room for misuse of funds. Another critical issue is the stipulation that 80% of the fees remain at the collection site, possibly leading to inflexibility in addressing more pressing needs across different sites. Moreover, the bill's provision that collected fees be used without further appropriation might reduce oversight.
Impact on the Public
Broadly, the bill could result in improved maintenance and enhancement of recreation facilities if fees are applied as intended. By allowing local entities to manage and reinvest fees directly, facilities might see more timely improvements and upkeep that enhance the visitor experience. However, without clear oversight and rules, there might be inconsistencies in how different sites are managed, possibly resulting in inefficient resource use or uneven service quality.
Impact on Stakeholders
Non-Federal and Nonprofit Entities: These organizations might benefit from increased control over funds, allowing them to directly address needs specific to their managed recreation sites. This could also incentivize efficient fee collection methods. Yet, the obligation to pay damages in case of non-performance could discourage participation or risk-averse behaviors prioritizing liability avoidance over public benefit.
The General Public: Visitors to recreation sites might enjoy improved facilities if funds are appropriately reinvested; however, if funding flexibility is mismanaged, some sites might suffer from neglected improvements. Also, user fees might increase to enhance revenue, inadvertently limiting access to low-income individuals.
Federal and State Agencies: These bodies might face challenges regarding oversight and accountability, particularly if financial practices lack transparency. Ensuring compliance with the bill's conditions without adequate monitoring frameworks might strain resources.
Local Economies: Communities surrounding recreation sites could witness potential economic growth from improved facilities drawing more visitors, though this could be uneven if not all sites manage and invest revenues efficiently.
In summary, while the LAKES Act could potentially provide significant benefits through improved management and reinvestment of fees at recreation sites, it requires careful implementation to address the existing concerns about oversight, equity, and application of funds. These factors are crucial to avoid unintended drawbacks and to ensure a fair and beneficial impact for all involved stakeholders.
Issues
The provision in Section 2 allowing non-Federal public entities or private nonprofit entities to retain up to 100 percent of collected user fees determined by the Secretary could lead to inconsistent practices or favoritism, potentially resulting in financial mismanagement or inequality among entities.
The lack of oversight or detailed reporting requirements in Section 2 regarding the use of fees by non-Federal public or private nonprofit entities may result in funds not being used appropriately, reducing accountability and transparency.
The broad terms 'operation, maintenance, and management activities' in Section 2 are not clearly defined, potentially allowing for misuse of funds or expenditures not aligned with the intended objectives of the Act.
The language in Section 3 allowing fees to be 'available for use, without further appropriation' could result in reduced oversight or control over fund usage, leading to potential accountability issues.
Restricting not less than 80 percent of fees to be used at the collection site as stated in Section 3 might lead to inflexibility in resource allocation, potentially ignoring greater regional needs or inequalities among different recreation sites.
The term 'Supplement, Not Supplant' in Section 3 is not clearly defined, which may cause legal challenges or misinterpretation, especially concerning appropriations.
The requirement in Section 2 that non-Federal or private entities pay damages in case of failure could deter participation or lead entities to prioritize liability avoidance over public interest.
The bill lacks detailed definitions for key terms like 'visitor reservation service' in Section 2, leading to ambiguity regarding what services are included and how provisions should be applied.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the bill gives the short title of the act, which can be called the “Lake Access Keeping Economies Strong Act” or simply the “LAKES Act”.
2. Challenge cost-sharing program for management of recreation facilities Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends the Water Resources Development Act to define terms for non-federal and private entities that manage recreation facilities and allows these entities to collect and use user fees under certain conditions, subject to the oversight of the Secretary of the Army. It outlines requirements for agreements and specifies how collected fees can be used for the operation and maintenance of recreation sites.
3. Retention of recreation fees Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends how recreation fees collected under the Flood Control Act of 1968 are managed, specifying that all fees should be deposited into a special Treasury account to be used for maintaining recreation sites, with at least 80% of the fees spent on the site where they were collected. It also clarifies that these fees should add to, and not replace, the funds usually allocated for such purposes, and allows previously unspent funds to be available for maintenance without needing additional approval.