The Attorney General of Texas
October 1, 1979
MARK WHITE
Attorney General
Honorable Alton Bow= Opinion No. MU-81
Commissioner
Texas Education Agency Re: Duty of a city to provide
201 East llth Street police protection and city services
Austin, Texas 78701 to area acquired by a state agency
from the federal government.
Dear Commissioner Bowem
4924
Altut.*w..suin190 Your predecessor asked if tha City of San Antonio is legally obligatti
ElPaso.
TX.79905 to provide police protection and other city services to an area cons~btingof
9lm3w84
approximately eight acres within the city limits that tha Education Service
Center, Region 20, acquired from the United States in 1975.~ The United
States conveyed the tract on the condition that the property ha used for
thirty years as an educational facility and that the center comply with.
certain provisions of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1984. It also reserved
the right to “full and unrestricted control,. possession, and use of the
property” in times of emergency &ring the thirty~ear period.
The City of San Antonio questions the jurisdictional effect of tha 1975
conveyance from the United States to the center. The center contends that
ipso facto, the conveyance waked a recession of jurisdiction to the state
and its political subdivisicns.
Tha land was obtained in two separate transactions by the Ilnited
States for use as a military depot site. Article I, section 8, clauss 17 of the
United States Constitution empowers the federal Congress:
To exercise exclusive Legislation . . . over all Places
purchased by the Consent of tha Legislature of the
State in which the same shall be,. . . for the Rrection.
of Forts . ..and~otherneedfulBuildfnga...
Governors of Texas in 1942 and 1948, a&ii pursuant to V.T.C.S.
articles 5242, 5243, and 5247, formally ceded to ths United States
exclusive jurisdiction over [both tracts of landl . . . to
hold, possess, and exercise said jurisdiction over the
P- 191
- . . .
*
Honorable Alton Bowen - Page Two (Ml+61)
same as long as same remains the i.woPertYof the United States of
America.. . .
Governor’s Deed of Cewion, Feb. 2,1945. (Emphasis added)-
The property was within the political jurisdiction Of the city Of San Antonio until
&u&e jurisdiction was ceded by the state to the federal government. The legal effect
of such a cewion deed is to be determined by Texas law, but after exclusive federal
jurisdiction has attached, the legal effect of an act purportedly effecting a recession of
jurisdiction to the state is determined by federal law. Humble Gil & Refining Company V.
Calve&, 464 S.W.2d 170 (Tex. Civ. App. - Austin IS’&, cert. den, 409 U.S. 987 (1972).
According to the United States Supreme Court, the soverebmhe United States over
property acquired pursuant to article I, section 8, clause 17 ends with the reasons for the
existence of the federal power and the disposltion of the property. S.R.A. v. Minesota,
327 U.S. 558 (1946). See also United States v. Goings, 504 P.2d 809 (8th Cir. 1974).
In United States v. Coin8s, supra, the court considered the appeal of a defendant
charged with a federal crime on land over which exclusive f&eral jurlldiction had been
ceded by North Dakota, but which had been subsequently conveyed by the United Statesto
United Tribes of North Dakota Development Corporation under a deed identical in all
material respects to the deed employed here. As here, that deed declared the property,
formerly part of a fort, to be anplus to the needs of the grantor. &e 40 U.S.C. S 472(g),
defining “smplus property,” and 46 U.S.C. S 484(k), concerning tFdiiposal of federal
land%) It, too, contained several conditions and a covenant reserving to the United States
“the full and unrestricted control, powesslon, and use of the property conveyed in times of
emergency” during a thirty year period, with a corresponding obligation on the part of the
United States to pay rent during any such emergency period. The principle conditions, as
here, were that the property be used thirty years for certain educational purposes, and
that the grantee comply with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The defendant argued that he could not legally be prosecuted under the federal
statute (16 U.S.C. S ll3(cl, applicable to vClause 17”landq see 18 U.S.C. S 7(3)) because the
United States had divested itself of exclusive jurisdlction?Ihe federal court agreed, in
United States v. Goings, supra. that:
Here, the reasons for the existence of the [federa power are no
longer present. The purchaser, United Tribes, is a private
enterprise which.owns and twes the land exclusively for educational
purposes. The conditions subsequent imposed by the United States
did no more than insure that the sale was in accordance. with the
statutory authorization for the disposal of federal lands. No
federal function is performed and no continuing federal involve
ment hi the lands is maintained.
--a . [Dloe~ the covenant reserving in the United States the right
to use during periods of emergency require a holding that exclusive
P. 192
Honorable Alton Bowen - Psge’Ttree (m-61)
jurisdiction was not relbxlulshed? It is settled that more than
private use of the lands is necessary to revest jurisdiction in the
State. Humble Pipe Line Co. v. Waggonner, 376 U.S. 369 . . .
(1964).. . In addition, the land must no longer be under. the
ultimate control of the federal government ready for use when
needed for the military purposes for which it was dedicated. &,
Humble Pipe Line Co. v. Waggonner,supra . . .
Whether the United States will ever exercise the reserved right
to use the lands during periods of emergency is a contingency too
remote for prediction. Its exercise, however, will make the United
States the lessee of United Tribes. The sale transferred to United
Tribes ultimate control over the lands and recognizes that any use
by the United States is temporary. We agree with the trial court’s
holding that this covenant is a declaration of procedure to
facilitate the government’s power of eminent domain. The United
States no longer holds the prqxrty intact dedicated to the purposes
and objects of Clause 17. Jurisdiction must revert to the State.
-Id. at all, 812.
In the light of the a case, we believe federal jurisdiction over the land has been
relinquished, and that the City of Ssn Antonio hss the same power, obligation and duty to
furnish police protection and other city services to the area in question that it has to
furnish such protection and services to other areas of the city. ‘See .Attorney General
Opinion V-715fl948).
SUMMARY
Tha City of San Antonio hss the same power, obligation and duty to
provide police protection and other city services to an area within
the city acquired by a state agency from the federal government
that it has to furnish such protection and services to other areas of
the dty.
MARK WHITE
Attorney General of Texas
JOHNW. PAINTER,JR.
First Assistant Attorney General
TED L. HARTLEY
Rxecutive Assistant Attorney General
P- 193
.-, -
- :
Honorable Alton Bowen -. Page Four (MW-61)
Prepared by Biuze Youngblood
As&tint Attorney General
APPROVED:
OPINIONCOMMITTFX
C. Robert Heath, Chairman
Jim Allison
David B. Brooks
Susan Garrison
Rick Gilpin
William G Reid
Bruce Youngblood
p. 194