Requesting the Department of Conservation and Recreation to study the feasibility of establishing a state park in Washington County at the Mendota Trail and Abrams Falls located within the Holston River watershed. Report.
House Joint Resolution 42 requests the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) to study whether a new state park should be established in Washington County at the Mendota Trail and Abrams Falls area within the Holston River watershed. The resolution frames the proposal as a tourism, recreation, and economic development opportunity, citing the region’s natural resources, the success of the Mendota Trail as a rails-to-trails project, and the potential for the area to become a premier destination park in Southwest Virginia.
The study would require DCR to consult with local citizens, local governments, and regional organizations, and to receive assistance from other state agencies as needed. DCR must complete its meetings by November 30, 2026, and submit an executive summary and report with findings and recommendations by the first day of the 2027 Regular Session. The resolution does not itself create a park or change land ownership; it only directs a feasibility review and reporting process.
HJ42 would not directly amend the Code of Virginia or create a state park by itself. Its legal effect is to request a study by DCR and to set deadlines, consultation requirements, and reporting obligations for that study. If carried out, the resolution could influence future state park policy, land-use decisions, tourism planning, and potential acquisition or management discussions related to the Mendota Trail, Abrams Falls, and surrounding lands in Washington County.
The bill appears to have broadly positive, promotional sentiment based on its findings, which emphasize conservation, recreation, tourism, and local economic benefits. The resolution presents the proposed park as a way to expand public access to outdoor recreation and support Southwest Virginia’s economy. There is no recorded committee debate or vote history in the provided materials, and the bill was left in Rules, so there is no direct evidence of formal support or opposition in the available record.
Because there are no committee transcripts or votes, no specific objections are documented in the provided materials. Potential points of contention, if the proposal advances, could include whether the state should pursue a new park in this location, the costs and feasibility of establishing and maintaining it, and how local land-use, conservation, and tourism priorities should be balanced. The resolution itself anticipates input from local citizens, local governments, and regional organizations, suggesting that local stakeholder views may be important if the study proceeds.