Yes, there are others, but most are not likely to go away any time soon. We hope.
Recent news that Texas’ Fairfield Lake State Park is closing to make way for a new upscale gated community raised a question: How many other state parks could be subject to closure because they aren’t really owned by the state?
The answer, according to Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, is one — Lake Colorado City State Park. That West Texas Park north of San Angelo sits on land owned by The Texas Electric Service Company, and wildlife officials say they are not aware that it is at any risk of closure, said Stephanie Garcia, a spokeswoman for the agency.
The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department leases 15 parks, including Fairfield Lake and Lake Colorado City, from other entities. “The rest are leased from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, river authorities or city or county governmental entities,” Garcia said.
State wildlife officials have been leasing land for decades and using the properties for state parks, on land ranging in size from less than an acre to several thousand acres, Garcia said.
The lease for Fairfield Lake State Park, which is located between Dallas and Houston, was terminated recently by its lessor, Vistra. The park will be closed to the public Feb. 28 due to its impending sale to make way for a new real estate and golf course development by Todd Interests.
Here is the TPWD list of all 15 parks on leased land, including the two not owned by a governmental entity.
See here and here for the background. As nearly all of these other parks are on land owned by other government entities, it seems unlikely that they could end up getting sold to a developer, at least in the near future. But selling off properties is a thing that local governments do all the time when they need cash for their operating budgets – the city of Houston has done this many times over the past 20 years or so. The feds do it, too – just look at all the new development where post offices used to be. Maybe none of these sites have a Fairfield Lakes destiny in their future. The point is that the only way for the state to have control over that is to own those properties. Perhaps this is the nudge – and the budget, with its large surplus – that the Legislature needs to do something about that.