The Attorney General of Texas 

October 1, 1979 

MARK WHITE 

Attorney General 

4924 Altut. *w.. suin 190 

El Paso. TX. 79905 

9lm3w84 

Honorable Alton Bow= 

Commissioner 

Texas Education Agency 

201 East llth Street 

Austin, Texas 78701 

Opinion No. MU-8 1 

Re: Duty of a city to provide 

police protection and city services 

to area acquired by a state agency 

from the federal government. 

Dear Commissioner Bowem 

Your predecessor asked if tha City of San Antonio is legally obligatti 

to provide police protection and other city services to an area cons~bting of 

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.woPertY of 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-715 fl948). 

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 

JOHN W. 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: 

OPINION COMMITTFX 

C. Robert Heath, Chairman 

Jim Allison 

David B. Brooks 

Susan Garrison 

Rick Gilpin 

William G Reid 

Bruce Youngblood 

p. 194