COMMENTARY
Legislators seem open to idea of shifting some historic sites to Texas Historical Commission
The mighty are crumbling. At a Culture, Recreation and Tourism Committee hearing by the House of Representatives April 10 in Austin, testimony on HB 12 was startling. A controversial component of the bill transfers 18 state historic sites from the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) to the Texas Historical Commission (THC).

TERRIE GONZALEZ

THC supporters far outnumbered the TPWD supporters in the standing room only audience of more than 100, and their arguments were orchestrated for impact. TPWD was eviscerated by testimony, as Executive Director Bob Cook and State Parks Director Walt Dabney watched and listened.

Based on comments by the seven-person committee, the transfer of some or all of the historic sites appears to be a foregone conclusion. What may likely remain on the table is, "How many sites will be transferred?" Caddoan Mounds State Historic Site near Alto is one of the parks on the list for possible transfer. There could be others added.

THC did their homework before the hearing, and speakers did not ramble or cross-over to discuss a topic of testimony already provided. Leading off the THC presentation was John Nau, THC commissioner, who said he takes the proposal to transfer the historic sites very seriously. Mr. Nau is a wealthy businessman who owns the largest Budweiser distributorship in the Southwest and is reportedly friends with House Speaker Tom Craddick.

J.P. Bryan, a current member of the THC board, said that TPWD's responsibility and oversight over state historic sites is a distraction from their primary role in the environment. He cited THC's successful programs including the Main Street program, courthouse program and trails projects. If the historic sites are transferred to THC, he said, "They won't be a stepchild but an honored prodigy."

Perhaps the most surprising testimony came from friends groups who fund-raise and support historic sites. Fort Griffin, Fulton Mansion and Landmark Inn all want to be transferred to THC, where they think they will receive more funding and attention.

Speaking in opposition to the transfer of historic sites were groups including the two chapters of the Sierra Club, Texans for State Parks and the National Wildlife Federation. These groups called for a cooperative way to work together without the transfer, and to preserve the strength and integrity of the park system.

They also spoke in support of lifting the cap on the sporting goods tax and providing TPWD with more funds to operate parks.

THC promised prosperity to the historical sites with heritage tourism, marketing and promotion. With 200 local historical organizations and "feet on the street" presence in local communities working for free as volunteers, THC said they are the organization with the most to offer.

THC is seeking a portion of the sporting good tax to pay for the maintenance of the parks they wish to see transferred.

Edmund Kuempel, a member of the committee, warned THC that history will likely repeat itself and tight budget years will again return to the state. In those cycles, all state agencies get squeezed. He urged THC to plan for rainy days.

The House of Representatives will likely take up the debate on the floor within the next couple of weeks. A final decision may not be forthcoming on the future of state parks until a Senate and House conference committee negotiate their differences.

One idea being floated around the Capitol is to package the Texas State Railroad with historic sites that will be transferred to the Texas Historical Commission.

The grass always looks greener on the other side of the fence. Stay tuned.