# The Attorney General of Texas
October 1, 1979 MARKWHITE AttorneyGeneral

**4924 Altut.**  ***w.. suin**  **190 El**  **Paso. TX.**  **79905** 9lm3w84 HonorableAlton Bow= Commissioner Texas EducationAgency 201East llth Street Austin, Texas 78701 OpinionNo. MU-81 Re: Duty of a city to provide police protection and city services to area acquired by a state agency fromthe federal government. Dear Commissioner Bowem Your predecessor asked if tha City of SanAntonio is legally obligatti to provide police protection and other city services to an area cons~btingof 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 ” intimes **of** emergency &ring the thirty~ear period. The City of SanAntonio questions thejurisdictional effect of tha 1975 conveyance fromthe United States to the center. The center contends that ipso facto, the conveyance waked a recession ofjurisdiction to the state andits 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 oflandl

. . . to hold, possess, and exercise said jurisdiction over the

P- 191- . . . *

HonorableAltonBowen - PageTwo (Ml+61)

same as long as same remains the i.woPertY of the United States of America..

. . Governor’sDeedof Cewion, Feb. 2,1945. (Emphasis added)- The property was within the political jurisdiction Of the city OfSan 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 byfederal law. HumbleGil & Refining Company **V.** Calve&, 464 S.W.2d170 (Tex. Civ. App. - Austin IS’&, cert. den, 409U.S. 987 (1972). Accordingto the United States Supreme Court, the soverebmhe United States over property acquired pursuant to article I,section 8, clause 17ends with the reasons for the existence of the federal power and the disposltion of the property. S.R.A. v. Minesota, 327U.S. 558(1946).See also United States v. Goings, 504P.2d809(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 NorthDakota, but which hadbeen subsequently conveyed bythe 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 40U.S.C. S472(g), defining “smplus property,” and 46 U.S.C. S484(k), concerning tFdiiposal of federal land%) It, too, contained several conditions and a covenant reserving to the United States

“thefull andunrestricted control, powesslon, and use ofthe property conveyed intimes **of** emergency

” during a thirty year period, with a corresponding obligation onthe part of the United States to pay rent duringany 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 (16U.S.C. Sll3(cl, applicable tovClause 17 ”landq see 18U.S.C. S7(3))because the United States had divested itself of exclusive jurisdlction?Ihe federal court agreed, in United Statesv. 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 twesthe land exclusively foreducational 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 duringperiods of emergency require a holdingthat exclusive

P. 192HonorableAlton 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. &, HumblePipe 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 istemporary. Weagree 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 nolonger holdsthe prqxrty intact dedicated to the purposes and objects of Clause 17. Jurisdiction must revert to the State. Id.at all, 812. - Inthe light of the a case, we believe federal jurisdiction over the land hasbeen relinquished, andthat 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 OpinionV-715

fl948). SUMMARY ThaCity ofSanAntonio 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 TEDL. HARTLEY Rxecutive Assistant Attorney General

P- 193- : .-, -

HonorableAlton Bowen -. PageFour (MW-61)
PreparedbyBiuze Youngblood As&tint Attorney General APPROVED: OPINION

COMMITTFX C. Robert Heath, Chairman JimAllison David B.Brooks SusanGarrison RickGilpin WilliamGReid BruceYoungblood

p. 194