The nation needs a fresh approach to the debate over what to do with the remaining roadless areas in national forests. But first, let’s haul away the old one.

When the Bush administration in May 2005 decided to open more forest lands for commercial purposes, the U.S. Forest Service stated that this “helps us to move forward with a policy that is not clouded by legal uncertainty, as was the case with the 2001 rule.”

On Wednesday, a federal judge chopped down the Bush plan. It’s the sixth federal court decision in five years on the relative merits of the roadless rules imposed by Presidents Clinton and Bush – three victories for each side. It’s like watching a tedious tennis match. Advantage, nobody.

At present, the 2001 ban on forest roads is back in place, but most observers see this issue going all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. In short, it’s still a road to nowhere.

That shouldn’t be surprising. The issue has been framed as a hunt for the right process, but the competing processes aren’t all that different.

When President Clinton imposed the ban on building new roads, Republicans complained that he usurped the role of Congress. That’s true. But in reversing the rule, President Bush also bypassed Congress. Instead he sought the input of governors, but the ultimate decision-maker would still be the executive branch.

Environmentalists are adamant that the ban stay in effect to preserve pristine areas. Commercial interests see money-making opportunities. Presidents are trying to rig the rules.

On the same day the judge nullified Bush’s roadless rule because it didn’t give sufficient consideration to environmental impacts and endangered species, Idaho Gov. Jim Risch unveiled his wish list for the 9.3 million acres in his state that aren’t under wilderness protections. The plan calls for no road-building on 3.1 million acres and opens the rest to commercial enterprises.

All of this jockeying over process leaves out an important factor that should frame the debate: cost. How will these roads be paid for? And is that spending defensible?

That’s a question Congress has to answer, but because of its record of inaction it’s been removed from the debate. That has to change, because Congress is ultimately responsible for the enormous sums needed to build and maintain Forest Service roads, which have long been a budget drain.

The Forest Service already has a $10 billion maintenance backlog on its 390,000 miles of roads. It’s way behind on the upkeep of hiking trails, too. This despite the fact that road-building has been halted for five years and had declined by 75 percent between 1987 to 1997. Furthermore, timber from national forests only accounts for 3 percent to 5 percent of U.S. umber and paper supplies.

Spending on new development in national forests just isn’t a high priority, especially with the significant budget challenges that lie ahead in financing wars, health care, education and retirement programs.

Stop debating and litigating the process. Start debating the dollars.