APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL LANDHOLDING AGENCIES'
DATA RELATED TO JURISDICTION
The questionnaires addressed to each of the 23 landholding agencies
of the Federal Government produced a tremendous mass of information;
reports from the larger agencies exceeded a thousand pages each. The
numbers and areas of properties reported by the agencies were verified
by the Committee against date set out in the Inventory Report on Federal
Real Property in the United States as of December 31, 1953 (S. Doc. No.
32, 84th Cong., 1st sess.), and any discrepancies which might affect
the accuracy of this study were reconciled by the agencies involved.
While a later inventory report is now available (S. Doc. No. 100, 84th
Cong., 2d sess.), it was published after the questionnaires related to
this study had been completed.
The information which each of the landholding agencies transmitted
to the committee concerning its properties, and the views indicated by
each agency concerning the jurisdictional status its properties should
have, are summarized below. References will be noted to questionnaire
A, and questionnaire B; these relate, respectively, to the questionnaire
addressed to each agency concerning its property in general, and to the
similarly addressed questionnaire concerning individual properties of
each agency in the States selected for sampling purposes. Questionnaire
B elicited statistical facts concerning such matters as the number of
nonmilitary residents and the number of children on each installation,
and sought information on a number of other possible recurrent, day-to
day problems. These included such matters as access to local schools
and other local governmental facilities, equality of privileges as compared
with local residents, the maintenance of vital statistics, the availability
of notarial services, the furnishing of police and fire protection, and
garbage disposal.
The accuracy of some of the opinions expressed as to the relative advantages
or disadvantages of the existing jurisdictional status should be measured
against expressions on the matters by the Committee, since it must be
recognized that the extent of knowledge as to what that status is, and
the legal incidents relative thereto, varied with the correspondents.
(81)
82
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Data from questionnaire A.--The three bureaus of the Treasury Department
which supervise property outside of the District of Columbia have a total
of approximately 1,219 installation, aggregating approximately 26,941.45
acres in area plus 67,266 square feet of office and storage space (Coast
Guard: 1,049 installations aggregating 25,473 acres plus 144 installations
(lifeboat stations) aggregation 977 acres; Customs: 20 installations
aggregating 366.6 acres, and buildings totaling 43,444 square feet, of
which 8,112 square feet are located on land either leased or occupied
by permit; and Mint: 6 installations aggregating 124.85 acres plus 630,822
square feet of office and storage space).
The property throughout the United States occupied by the Bureau of
Customs and the Bureau of the Mint is all held under a proprietorial
interest only, while property of the United States Coast Guard is variously
held under each of the several types of legislative jurisdictional status
and under a proprietorial interest. The jurisdictional status of Coast
Guard lands, to the extent that it is known, is indicated to be as follows:
Number of properties
Property Total Area
Proprie-
number (acres) Exclusive Partial Concurrent
torial
Academy........................ 1 61 1 ........
.......... Air detachment................. 4 ...................
........ .......... Air station.................... 9
864 2 ........ .......... Base...........................
22 228 9 ........ .......... 71
Depot.......................... 19 22 9 ........
.......... Electronic engineering station. 11 ........ ..........
........ ..........
Fog signal station............. 1 25 1 ........
.......... Group office................... 4 ........ ..........
........ .......... Lifeboat station............... 144
977 12 1 .......... 131
Light attendant station........ 53 ........ .......... ........
.......... Light station.................. 321 4,912
144 ........ 13 10
Loran transmitting station..... 10 .....283 3 ........
.......... Mooring........................ 12 ........ ..........
........ .......... Radio beacon station........... 1 ........
.......... ........ .......... Radio station..................
14 .....645 4 ........ .......... Receiving center.......
........ 1 .....430 1 ........ .......... Supply
center.................. 1 67 1 ........ ..........
Supply depot................... 3 ........ .......... ........
.......... Training station............... 1 429
1 ........ .......... Yard...........................
1 ......39 1 ........ ..........
Total..................... 633 8,982 189 1
13 148
1Held in mixed status: Concurrent and proprietorial.
Since the jurisdictional status of many properties is unknown to the
Coast Guard, it is impossible to determine the acreage held under each
of the different types of jurisdiction.
Data from questionnaire B.--In the State of California the Treasury
department has a total of 21 installations comprising 1,113.95 acres
and 95,164 square feet of building space. Of these properties 19 belonging
to the Coast Guard, constituting a total of 1,111.19 acres,
83
are reported to be under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the
United States (although it appears that some of these may be within the
definition of "partial" jurisdiction adopted for the instant study, in
view of the practice of this State of reserving certain powers in making
cessions). One property belonging to the mint, consisting of 2.76 acres
and 95,164 feet of building space, is held in a proprietorial interest
only status. The status of the additional property consisting of 7 acres
held
by the Coast Guard (Point Loma Light Station) is unreported. Despite
the exclusive (or partial) nature of most of the california installations,
vital statistics are maintained by State or local authorities and local
coroners investigate deaths occurring on the premises under unknown circumstance
s. Residing on Coast Guard properties are 172 persons other than military
personnel. Twenty-one of the thirty-eight installations in the 12th
Coast Guard District report that their residents are denied equal access
with State residents to State colleges. All persons are indicated as
otherwise having equal access to State governmental facilities and equal
privileges under the State. Sixty-nine children residing on these installations
attend State schools; of these, forty are children of military personnel
and twenty-nine are children of civilians. Resident children are in
all cases granted access to State schools; however, in the majority of
cases it was reported that Federal funds in the form of grantsin-aid
were paid to the State.
The Treasury Department manages no property owned by the United States
in the state of Kansas.
In the state of virginia the coast Guard is the only agency of the
Department reporting management of realty, a total of 50 properties aggregating
1,388.398 acres, 1.03 rods, and 18 perches. Twenty-six properties and
a portion of an additional property, aggregating 18.729 acres, are reported
as having a partial legislative jurisdiction status. One property, consisting
of 0.42 acre, is held in a concurrent legislative jurisdiction status.
Fourteen properties and portions of four are held in a proprietorial
interest status. As to 3 properties and a portion of an additional property,
records on jurisdictional status are unavailable; the area of only one
such property (0.22 acre) is known. Vital statistics are not maintained
on coast Guard reservations. There is no known general rule which the
coroners in the state of Virginia follow apropos investigation of deaths
occurring under unknown circumstances. There are nine civilian personnel
residing on federal properties within the State. These persons acre
granted equal voting rights, equal access to existing governmental facilities,
and
84
equal privileges. Three children of civilian personnel attend State
schools on an equal basis with State residents.
Agency views.--The Bureau of Customs and the Bureau of the Mint have
experienced no difficulties in operating under a mere proprietorial interest
and see no need for Federal legislative jurisdiction over their properties.
While the Coast Guard likewise indicated no significant problems with
any type of jurisdiction it initially stated an opinion that exclusive
or concurrent legislative jurisdiction was best suited to its properties.
This opinion was subsequently revised, and the Coast Guard has informally
indicated to the Committee that a proprietorial interest only would suit
its properties.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
a. Department of the Army.
b. Department of the Navy.
c. Department of the Air Force.
a. Department of the Army
Data from questionnaire A.--The number of properties owned by the United
States and occupied, operated, or supervised by the Department of the
Army is indicated to approximate 1,330. Of this number approximately
574 pertain to military installations and 756 to river and harbor improvements
and flood-control projects. The Army reports that it does not have readily
available information as to specific categories, acreage and type of
jurisdiction in regard to river and harbor improvements and flood control.
However, it has been the policy of the army not to request jurisdiction
over such properties, and generally, they are held in a simple proprietorial
interest. In regard to military properties, the categories, jurisdictional
status, number and acreage are listed as set forth in the following table.
It may be noted therefrom that while many of Army's properties are held
in an exclusive legislative jurisdiction status (41 percent by number
and 20 percent by acreage), similarly large quantities of its properties,
of all categories, are held in a proprietorial interest only (30 percent
by number and 46 percent by acreage), and considerable quantities in
a partial or concurrent legislative jurisdictional status:
86
Data from questionnaire B.1--The acreage and jurisdictional status
of properties held by the Department of the Army in Virginia, Kansas,
and California are reported as follows:
Total Kansas Virginia California
Exclusive................... 67,695 9,563 34,888 23,244
Partial..................... 97,875 74,327 ........ 18,548
Concurrent.................. 122,614 ....... 122,614 ...........
Proprietorial............... 1,010,026 ....... 1,909 1,008,117
Total................ 1,263,210 83,890 159,411 1,049,909
Less arithmetical errors.... -803 ....... -893 .........
Total................ 1,292,317 83,890 158,518
The designation of jurisdictional status supplied by the various reporting
installations was used in every instance except that of Fort Leavenworth,
which was changed by the committee from a reported exclusive jurisdiction
to a partial legislative jurisdiction on the basis of precise information
on this installation.
A general satisfaction of installation commanders with the jurisdictional
status of installations held under exclusive (or partial approaching
exclusive) Federal jurisdiction was reported. This general satisfaction
extended, but in a markedly lesser degree, to all installations whatever
their jurisdictional status. For industrial type installations there
was indicated preference for a proprietorial interest status. With respect
to other types of installations, in a number of instances where there
was only a proprietorial interest it was suggested that a greater degree
of jurisdiction be obtained by the United States, but generally no problems
were indicated as arising out of the existing status. On the contrary,
several advantages were variously cited as arising from such a status.
The reasons given by the Army and by local commanders for retaining
or obtaining exclusive legislative jurisdiction are mainly related to
military control and security, and freedom of both bases and personnel
from local interference and regulation. It appears, however, tat no
serious problems with respect to these matters are reported in the cases
of the many Army installations which are under less than exclusive jurisdiction.
In many cases where an exclusive jurisdiction status was urged for
a proprietorial interest area it was nevertheless acknowledged that State
and local authorities in fact have a "hands off" attitude with respect
to Army operation of military establishments, and that no actual conflicts
exist. In only one instance in which such a change was desired, where
the installation is located in part on exclusive-
1These questionnaires were sent only to military installations. For
the reasons set forth above in relation to questionnaire A, reliable
information is difficult to obtain concerning the areas in the three
selected States devoted to the civil functions of the Army.
87
jurisdiction land and in part on part on proprietorial-interest-only
land, which are all administered uniformly, was there a definite indication
of conflict, the degree of which was not stated. In other such cases,
it was indicated, the Army post commander's fear of State or local interference
was based on a "theoretical analysis" of possibilities, or on suppositions
not based on actual experience. In still other cases the Army commander
had an erroneous impression that an exclusive-jurisdiction status, as
distinguished from a proprietorial-interest-only status, permitted him
to exercise more control over civilians, including their arrest and final
disposition of charges against them.
Where premises had differing legislative jurisdiction statuses, they
were nonetheless administered in the same manner in all cases except
one. In no instance were any problems reported as arising out of the
differing statutes.
The number of residents other than armed forces personnel on Army premises
in Virginia, Kansas, and California is approximately 20,991. On six
installations there residents were denied an equal right with State residents
to vote. On two of the installations at which residents are denied equal
voting rights, Camp Cooks, Calif., and Branch United States Disciplinary
Barracks, Lompoc, Calif., they are also reported to be denied access
to State colleges without payment of a nonresident tuition fee, although
these installations are reported as held under a proprietorial interest
only. A denial of equal facilities was cited on four installations.
Equal privileges were reported as denied in seven instances.
Resident children attending school were reported as follows: Children
of armed forces personnel, 7,323; others, 1,416; total school children,
8,739. Seven installations reported that these children were not accepted
in State schools on an equal basis with State residents. In six of these
cases, State schools were the recipients of federal grants-in-aid; in
the other instance, a separate school maintained on the base was supported
jointly by State and Federal sources.
Vital statistics are maintained inmost instances by local authorities,
regardless of the jurisdictional status of the property. However, 2
installations reported such statistics were no maintained; 9 installations
reported such statistics were maintained by the federal Government.
Eighteen installations reported that a local coroner did not investigate
deaths occurring on the premises; investigations were performed by the
local coroner on 41 installations. For the most part factors other than
jurisdictional status of an installation determine whether or not a local
coroner will conduct investigations.
88
Services of a notary public were available on the premises in 33 of
the 68 reporting installations. In those cases where notaries were not
on the premises, they were located in areas ranging from immediately
adjacent to the premises to 10 miles away.
Thirty installations reported a necessity for the services of a United
States commissioner. Distances to the nearest commissioner ranged from
one on base to 65 miles, with an average distance of about 17 miles.
Services of local police were reported as needed and rendered in 10
instances. In a number of instances local police wold appear to operate
on exclusive jurisdiction areas. such services were not needed in 57
cases. The Sierra Ordnance Depot, Calif., reports a past history of
inability to obtain local police protection despite in 1942 local police
authorities declined to assume jurisdiction over law violations on the
depot on the ground that the status of a military reservation precluded
the assumption of jurisdiction. In order to have some law enforcement,
a United States commissioner was appointed to try violations of California
law under the Assimilative Crimes act. The authority of the commissioner
was challenged on several occasions. Not until 1955 was it possible
for the Army to obtain partial jurisdiction over the area (which contained
leased land) in order to clear the confused situation.
Fire protection was furnished by the Federal Government in 23 cases,
local government in 9 cases, and reciprocally in 34 cases. The source
of fire protection appeared in most instances to be more contingent upon
factors such as the size and manpower of the installation, and the proximity
and resources of the local community, than upon the legislative jurisdictional
status of the properties involved.
The Army makes a special reference to the area occupied by the Pentagon.
Since it appears that there is some uncertainty as to whether the United
States is vested with exclusive or only concurrent jurisdiction over
that part of the Pentagon and outside facilities as are located on land
lying between the boundary line established between the District of Columbia
and the Commonwealth of Virginia by the act of October 13, 1945 (58 Stat.
552), and the high-water mark as it existed on January 24, 1791, the
question arises whether to seek a cession of exclusive jurisdiction over
the area from the Commonwealth of Virginia or whether to retrocede concurrent
jurisdiction over the area now under exclusive jurisdiction, since consistency
in the status of both areas is desirable.
89
Agency views.--The policy of the Department of the Army with respect
to the acquisition of legislative jurisdiction has been for the Chief
of Engineers to make ad hoc decisions on a request for the procurement
of jurisdiction made by the using service. Where such decision is in
favor of jurisdiction, the Corps of Engineers procures the maximum jurisdiction
which the State will grant.
The Department of the Army indicates the desirability of providing
authority to the Secretary of the Army for the adjustment of the existing
jurisdictional status of Army properties, but opposes any action on the
basis of the instant study which would divest the United States of any
jurisdiction over military properties which it now has.
b. Department of the Navy
Data from questionnaire A.--The Department of the Navy has a substantial
inventory of real property (614 installations, comprising 3,417,174 acres),
which property is predominantly held only in a proprietorial interest
status, but a large number of installations are held under the exclusive
legislative jurisdiction of the United States, and lesser numbers in
a partial or concurrent jurisdictional status. The properties fall into
27 categories based on use--naval bases, depots, shipyards, industrial
reserve facilities, ordnance plants, hospitals, radio stations, civilian
and military housing, detention barracks, etc.; all but 1 of such categories
include 1 or more exclusive jurisdiction installations, all but 3 minor
categories of properties, which are used by the Marine Corps, include
proprietorial interest only installations, all but 12 include concurrent
jurisdiction installations, and all but 14 include partial jurisdiction
installations. The numbers and total approximate areas of properties
reported to be under the several types of jurisdiction are indicated
in the following table:
Jurisdiction Number Acreage Square Feet
Exclusive......................... 266 1,065,698
87,000
Concurrent........................ 55 214,821 .................
.....
Partial........................... 34 153,085 .................
.....
Proprietorial...................... 408 1,646,491 ................
......
Total...................... 1743 23,100,095
87,000
1The discrepancy in the number of parcels occurs from the fact that several
parcels enjoy varying types of legislative jurisdiction.
2The Navy advises, on the basis of data full details of which wee not
furnished to the Committee, that this figure should be revised to 3,417,174
acres.
Data from questionnaire B.--The approximate number and acreage of the
sites reported in the three States under specific consideration (Virginia,
Kansas, and California) are as follows:
90
[Acres unless otherwise specified]
State Nun- Total area Uncertain Exclusive Concur-
Partial Proprie-
ber rent
torial
Virginia.... 39 1118,108 .......... 41,322 3,633
........ 73,150
220,000 .......... .......... .......
........ 320,000
Kansas...... 2 34,157 .......... 4,157 .......
........ ...... California.. 67 42,435,154 ..........
186,309 32 136,405 2,114,028
393,418 2601.31 233,287 .......
........ ......... 5159 .......... ..........
....... ........ ......... (6) ..........
.......... ....... ........ .........
Total..... 108 72,557,419 3601.31 231,788 3,665
3,665 2,187,178
In a few reports it was suggested that jurisdiction over housing, particularly
housing entirely for civilians, be retroceded to the States, and that
the Federal Government maintain a proprietorial interest only. With
only one exception all installations reported satisfaction with the housing
units under their command which were held in a proprietorial interest.
Local police, fire, etc., services, as well as rights of the residents
such as voting, were the reasons given for the desirability of a proprietorial
status for these housing units.
On the other hand, reports from local installations showed a general
desire for more than proprietorial interest with respect to lands used
for activities other than housing. Affirmative answers were received
in almost all instances where the type of jurisdiction was the greatest
obtainable under State law. Reports from 38 installations expressed
the opinion that the present jurisdictional status of the installations
was not the most suitable, in almost every such instance desiring the
greatest amount of jurisdiction available to the Federal Government under
the laws of the particular State. The reason most often assigned was
that superior military security and control were possible under superior
legislative jurisdictional status. It will be noted that the Navy Department
its self does not concur in this theory. Despite the many recommendations
for an upgrading in jurisdiction with respect to installations holding
less than exclusive jurisdiction, few problems with local officials or
disadvantages attributable to the existing status of the installations
were reported. Most reports stressed the spirit of cooperation and harmony
existing between the command and local authorities, local officials very
generally have adopted a "hands-off" attitude with respect to naval properties,
whatever the legislative jurisdiction status of such properties, rendering
91
only such service and assuming only such authority as are welcomed by
the naval commanders. This is demonstrated by the fact that in almost
all installations based on areas of land under two or more types of jurisdiction
there is no areas of land under two or more types of jurisdiction there
is no distinction made on the basis of jurisdiction in the administration
of the several areas comprising the installation.
Approximately 37,595 residents were reported living on 52 installations.
The figures ranged from 1 resident to 9,349. From the reports given
it is not possible accurately to determine what proportion of such residents
reside on lands under each of the varying types of jurisdiction.
The reports indicate that residents of 45 of the installations are
allowed to vote in the State and that the right to vote has been denied
to residents of 10 installations. All of the negative responses came
from installations where the civilians resided on land under exclusive
Federal jurisdiction. In many other instances, however, persons on such
land were allowed to vote. Discrepancies were rampant between various
installations in the State and ever between various installations within
a single city.
There are 16,133 schoolchildren residing on naval lands in the 3 sample
States. Of these, 13,684 are children of persons in the naval service
and 2,449 are those of civilians. It is not possible from information
made available to break down the number of schoolchildren by the legislative
jurisdiction of the land on which they reside.
Resident children on 58 installations were reported as being accepted
in State schools on an equal basis with State residents, whereas the
children living on 14 installations were denied this privilege. In all
the cases in which a negative response was received either the local
school district was receiving Federal grants-in-aid, or the installation
was providing transportation to the school for the Federal children.
In no reported instances were the children denied schooling. If formerly
there were problems in this area, it would seem that, at least for the
present, the Federal aid system has alleviated them almost entirely.
Equal use of facilities and equal privileges were accorded to residents
of Federal enclaves almost without fail regardless of the jurisdiction
over the land upon which they resided. Access to courts of divorce,
adoption courts, mental institutions, and other incidents of State residency
were reported denied in a few instances, but there nowhere appeared to
be an overall State policy present, the results differing from locality
to locality within the individual State and, indeed, differing at the
same locality with respect to different facilities and privileges.
(The Naval Auxiliary Air Station at El Centro, Calif., under exclusive
jurisdiction, reported that access is allowed
92
to juvenile courts, divorce courts, adoption courts. On the other hand,
residents are denied the right to serve as executors of administrators
of local estates, as well as well as the right of probate within the
State, and are refused the services of visiting nurses and access to
State hospitals for the mentally ill. Such residents are allowed to
vote.) There were no reported cases of denial of equal privileges, in
fact some installations reported better-license laws.
In a substantial majority of the cases, vital statistics concerning
civilians are taken and maintained by local authorities regardless of
status of jurisdiction. Likewise the coroner investigates deaths of
civilians. In most installations under exclusive jurisdiction and in
some under other statuses, deaths of members of the naval service are
investigated by Federal authorities. In several instances, however,
it was reported that the local coroner was requested to investigate.
Some two or three stations reported that naval authorities attached
to the station had been deputized as coroners by local authorities and
all investigations on the installation were conducted by such deputies.
The availability of notarial services was reported affirmatively in
41 instances, negatively in 62. Where no notary was on the post, such
service were usually available within a short distance. Frequently these
services were performed on land under exclusive Federal jurisdiction.
The services of a United States Commissioner were not required in 80
reporting cases, were required in 22. While many of the installations
reporting no need were held under proprietorial interest only, many others
in a different status relied upon local police or military regulations,
and reported a need for a United States Commissioner rarely if at all.
Thirty installations reported a need for local police services, and
in all except one case such services were available. Local police were
usually utilized to render general police service in connection with
naval housing, although other instances of their use, such as in connection
with theft investigation and traffic control, were cited. Usually, but
not always, the local police were not acting on land under exclusive
jurisdiction. One installation reported that its housing development,
on exclusive jurisdiction land, was patrolled by local police under an
agreement whereby the lessee company of the housing project made a payment
in lieu of taxes to the of accommodating naval authorities, with respect
to arrest of individuals for law violations occurring on other types
of exclusive jurisdiction installations.
93
One station, holding 507 acres exclusive and 10 acres proprietorial,
reported that station police at the gate for formal charge, arrest, and
prosecution. Presumably no attempt was made to determine the jurisdictional
status of the land upon which the purported crime was committed. Sixty
eight installations reported no need for local police services. While
most of these were located on exclusive jurisdiction land, several were
not, but relied upon military policing. The local police appear to have
almost completely respected the desires of installation commanders concerning
the rendering of their services on military land.
Whether or not local fire protection was rendered does not appear to
depend entirely upon the status of the land in question, but rather upon
other factors such as size and character of the installation, proximity
to local fire-fighting facilities, adequacy of local facilities, etc.
The breakdown was as follows: Federal only, 34; local only, 19; reciprocal,
48. While a few of the reciprocal agreements, in consonance with the
often-cited harmony and cooperation between local and Federal officials.
Agency views.--The policy of the Department of the Navy with regard
to the acquisition of legislative jurisdiction has been to acquire no
legislative jurisdiction unless the local commander makes a request for
the acquisition of jurisdiction setting out his reasons therefor. If
the Department determines on the basis of this request that Federal legislative
jurisdiction is necessary or desirable, the Department procures the maximum
jurisdiction permitted by general State cession statutes.
In view of the opinion of the Department of the Navy that the jurisdictional
status of the site of an installation is immaterial insofar as any effect
it may have upon the security and military control over the property
and personnel of a command are concerned, it bases its view of the desirability
of a particular type of jurisdiction in a general way upon the size and
self-sufficiency of the installation. For large, self-sufficient bases
exclusive (or partial approaching exclusive) jurisdiction is felt desirable.
For small, non-self-sufficient installations concurrent jurisdiction
(or proprietorial interest only as a second choice) is desirable. In
all cases the determination would have to be made by an analysis of the
problems of the particular installation and a weighing of the advantages
and disadvantages of the various jurisdictional statuses, with housing
areas being considered separately in arriving at the final decision.
94
c. Department of the Air Force
Data from questionnaire A.--The department of the Air Force reports
that it holds within the United States 189 primary installations comprising
6,327,498 acres. Minor installations were not included in the report.
Of the 6,327,498 acres under concurrent jurisdiction; 201,018 acres
under partial jurisdiction; and 5,744,485 acres under a proprietorial
interest. It is to be noted that over 90 percent of the acreage reported
is held under a proprietorial interest only. The following table illustrates
the current status of Air Force properties broken down by use and jurisdictional
status:
* * * * * * * * * *
Data from questionnaire B.--The acreage and jurisdictional status of
properties held by the Department of the Air Force in the three States
of Virginia, Kansas, and California are reported as follows:
* * * * * * * * * *
The jurisdictional preference of the reporting installations is almost
uniformly for exclusive Federal jurisdiction or for the highest degree
of Federal jurisdiction obtainable under the applicable State statutes.
With regularity, the reason assigned for the desirability of exclusive
jurisdiction was based upon the security of and military control over
the installation. Other reasons assigned were the nonapplicability of
State liquor regulation, noninterference with the operation of post exchanges
and similar Federal instrumentalities, Federal criminal enforcement,
nontaxation of leasehold interests in
95
Wherry housing, and the impression that exclusive jurisdiction would
perfect the installation rights as a riparian landholder.
The various installations report 10,692 residents, of which 1,754 are
in Virginia, 12 in Kansas and 8,926 in California. Apparently the dependents
of Armed Forces personal were not included in the total for Kansas since
the answer to another question indicates a total of 758 children residing
in Kansas.
Residents of these areas are generally accorded all the rights of residents
of the State, with a few exceptions. Residents are not granted a right
to vote at McConnell Air Force Base, Kans., and Beale Air Force Base,
Calif. They are denied equal use of facilities at Topeka Air Force Base,
Kans., and at Beals in California. All of these installations are held
under exclusive or partial Federal legislative jurisdiction. Since
California now grants complete political rights to residents of Federal
areas within its borders, it appears that some error has been made by
local officials in regard to the rights of residents at Beale Air Force
Base.
Seven thousand one hundred and fifty-three children reside on Air Force
installations within the three States. Children of military personnel
in Virginia number 916, in Kansas 758, and in California 5,200. In addition,
279 children of civilians reside on Federal areas within California.
All of the children are enabled to receive public education, with no
reported difficulties. In many instances, however, the local school
districts receive Federal grants-in-aid.
Notaries public were reported as available on base in 13 instances;
on 7 bases notaries were not present. Where a notary was not situated
on the installation, the distance to the nearest notary varied from one
to 27 miles, the average distance being 8.5 miles.
The services of a United States commissioner are required in eight
instances. The distance to the nearest commissioner varies from 1 on
base to 55 miles distant. The average distance to the nearest United
States commissioner is approximately 23 miles. Fifteen installations
reported that they had no requirement for the services of a United States
commissioner.
The services of local police were required and rendered in eight instances.
In two of these cases, the main function of local police was in traffic
regulation. Six of the installations which reported the receiving of
local police services are held under exclusive or partial Federal jurisdiction;
the remaining two bases are held under concurrent jurisdiction. Fourteen
installations reported no requirement for the services of local police.
96
Fire protection was rendered by Federal sources in 16 cases, locally
in 2, and reciprocally in 5. Factors other than the jurisdictional status
of the lands involved appear to determine the source of fire protection.
Agency views.--The policy of the Department of the Air Force with respect
to the acquisition of legislative jurisdiction has been to acquire exclusive
jurisdiction as a matter of course over all permanent installation as
a matter of course over all permanent installations wherever State statutes
permit, except for bombing and gunnery ranges, for which no jurisdiction
is acquired. The relatively small percentage of Air Force properties
having any Federal jurisdictional status is explained by the following
factors: (1) Many permanent installations have only recently been so
designated and time has not permitted the obtaining of Federal jurisdiction,
(2) rapid enlargement of installations by land acquisition and a time
lag in obtaining Federal jurisdiction, and (3) the largest Air Force
acreage represents bombing and/or gunnery ranges; these are for the most
part located in the Western States and are comprised in a large part
of public domain land which is not generally covered by enabling legislation;
also it has been deemed neither necessary nor desirable to obtain Federal
jurisdiction over bombing ranges, as generally no personnel or equipment
are permanently located on them.
The Department of the Air Force is of the apparent view that a form
of partial legislative jurisdiction would be most desirable. The Department
envisages a type of jurisdiction in which the civil and political rights
of the Federal residents would not be disturbed and yet would vest in
the Federal Government substantial powers. It feels that reservations
by the States of authority to control fishing and hunting, regulate and
license private businesses and the power of taxation would not materially
affect the military function. The Department more recently has indicated
a view that concurrent rather than exclusive legislative jurisdiction
is that toward which it would probably lean.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Data from questionnaire A.--The reports of the two agencies of the
Department of Justice which occupy, operate, or supervise real property
owned by the Federal Government in the several States indicate that they
have 48 such properties, aggregating 25,534.58 acres (Immigration and
Naturalization Service 17 properties, 68.48 acres; Bureau of Prisons
31 properties, 25,466.1 acres). The jurisdictional statuses of such
properties are as follows:
97
* * * * * * * * * *
Data from questionnaire B.--Information reported by the Department
of Justice agencies concerning the legislative jurisdictional status
of their properties in the three States to which questionnaire B appertains
may be summarized as follows:
* * * * * * * * * *
A total of approximately 333 persons, including approximately 120 children
of school age, being Government employees or their families, reside on
the Department's properties. These persons appear on the whole not to
be discriminated against because of the status of the areas upon which
they live. However, in instances the right to vote has been denied persons
resident on lands under the exclusive (or partial) legislative jurisdiction
of the United States. Indeed, it appears from information in the hands
of the Committee that at least in the case of one installation of the
Bureau of Prisons, at El Reno, Okla., the right to vote has been denied
to residents although the installation would appear not to be within
the legislative jurisdiction of the United States, the State having limited
its cession of jurisdiction to the land involved for use of the land
for military purposes only.
Agency views.--The Immigration and Naturalization Service has had a
policy of not accepting jurisdiction over lands acquired for its purposes,
and only in two instances, where lands were originally acquired by other
agencies for other purposes, does the Service have lands over which the
United States has legislative jurisdiction. The Service states that
all its needs have been met under a proprietorial interest.
The Bureau of Prisons' practice with respect to the acquisition of
legislative jurisdiction over its installations has in the past not been
98
uniform. The Bureau now feels, however, that concurrent jurisdiction
would be the most suitable for all prison sites.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
A from questionnaire A.--The number of properties owned by the United
States and occupied, operated, or supervised by the Department of the
Interior approximates 1070 properties comprising over 215 million acres.
The numbers of these properties under the various Bureaus of the Department
are as follows:
Number of
Bureau: properties
National Park Service................................................
161
Bureau of Reclamation................................................
120
Fish and Wildlife Service.............................................
312
Bureau of Land Management............................................
218
Bureau of Mines......................................................
25
Geological Survey....................................................
2
Southwestern Power Administration...................................
128
Bonneville Power Administration......................................
221
Bureau of Indian Affairs.............................................
101
Total.........................................................
1,070
These properties are used for a number of purposes by the Department,
the amounts devoted to these uses and the jurisdictional statutes of
the land being indicated by the following table:
Character of Federal jurisdiction, classified by use
[In acres, with number of properties in parenthesis]
* * * * * * * * * * *
99
Character of Federal jurisdiction, classified by use--Continued
[In acres, with number of properties in parenthesis]
* * * * * * * * * * *
[In square feet, with number of properties in parenthesis]
* * * * * * * * * * *
Data from questionnaire B.--The acreage and jurisdictional statuses
of properties held by the bureaus of the Department of the Interior in
the States of Virginia, Kansas and California are reported as follows:
* * * * * * * * * * *
A general satisfaction was evidenced in the status quo of jurisdiction
by the individual reporting installations. The only discernible trend
was the preference of some national parks toward a concurrent legislative
jurisdiction, which, in the majority of cases, was less than the existing
status. The main practical advantage found in concurrent jurisdiction
is the right of the Federal Government to provide adequate policing of
isolated regions where the State authorities are either unable or unwilling
to perform such services.
Residing on these installations are found 2,132 persons, most of whom
are in areas within the limits of national parks. In this respect, it
should be pointed out that many of these residents are residing on
100
lands which they own, but which are "inholdings" in national parks, plots
within the exterior boundaries of the parks.
There were no reported instances in which residents were denied equal
vote, equal privileges, or equal use of facilities.
There are 524 school children residing on lands held by the Department
of the Interior in California, Kansas, and Virginia. All of these children
appear to be admitted to State schools on an equal basis with State residents.
Only two installations reported that local schools received Federal
grants-in-aid, the remainder were silent on this matter.
Regardless of jurisdictional status, in all cases except one vital
statistics were maintained and related certificates issued by the State
authorities. (one national military cemetery, however, reported that
its record were maintained by the Federal Government.) Likewise, local
coroners investigated any deaths occurring on the premises under unknown
circumstances.
In almost all installations services of State notaries public were
not available on the premises. Distances to the nearest notary public
varied from one-fourth mile to 102 miles.
About half of the properties reported a need for the services of a
United States commissioner. Distances to the nearest notary public varied
from one in residence on the installation to 150 miles.
Most of the installations reported need of the services of local police
and in all instances such services were rendered.
Fire protection was provided locally in 18 cases, by the Federal Government
in 25, and reciprocally in 10 instances. The type of jurisdiction does
not appear too relevant in determining the source of fire protection.
Rather, such factors as size of the installation, size and resources
of the surrounding localities, and remoteness of the installations are
of paramount importance.
Agency views.--The policy of the Department of the Interior with respect
to the acquisition of legislative jurisdiction over its properties and
that the efficiency of Federal operation is not impaired by holding lands
under a simple proprietorial interest. For certain national parks and
monuments which cover vast areas and which are situated in remote regions
of the country, partial jurisdiction is deemed necessary, although the
Department recognizes that the State should have substantial authority
in these federally owned areas. For certain wildlife refuges, where
the problems seem to be similar, the Depart-
101
ment has indicated the possible desirability of a concurrent jurisdiction
status.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Data from questionnaire A.--The six agencies of the Department of Agriculture
which operate or supervise real property owned by the United States have
a total of 532 properties aggregating 168,351,577 acres plus 39,433 square
feet of office space, making the Department one of the largest landholding
agencies of the Government (second only to the Department of the Interior).
While most of the Department of Agriculture's land is held in a status
of proprietorial interest only, the Department has lands in each of the
other categories defined by the Committee. The following table summarizes
the jurisdictional status of the lands:
* * * * * * * * * * *
It may be notes, incidentally, that with respect to a certain number
of other properties the United States has be statute assumed authority
over wildlife but this action appears to constitute an exercise of power
under some other clause of the Constitution rather than assumption of
jurisdiction under article I, section 8, clause 17.
Date from questionnaire B.--Responses from Department of Agriculture
installations in Virginia, Kansas, and California indicate that 4 agencies
of the Department of Agriculture supervise a total of 53 properties aggregating
21,502,772 acres and an additional 27,500 square feet, in the 3 States
involved. Most of this property is held in a proprietorial interest
only status, without legislative jurisdiction (51 areas aggregating 21,468,437
acres), but 3 areas aggregating 4,336 acres are held under exclusive
legislative jurisdiction, and a portion (30,000 acres) of 1 otherwise
proprietorial interest only property is held under a partial jurisdiction
status. The status of the lands in these three States is shown in the
following table:
102
California:
Agricultural Research Service:
Proprietorial
Exclusive
Farmers Home Administration: Proprietorial
Forest Service: Proprietorial
Soil Conservation Service: Proprietorial
Subtotal:
Proprietorial
Exclusive
California total
Kansas:
Forest Service: Proprietorial
Farmers Home Administration: Proprietorial
Soil Conservation Service: Proprietorial
Virginia:
Agricultural Research Service:
Farmers Home Administration: Proprietorial
Forest Service:
Proprietorial
Partial
Subtotal:
Proprietorial
Exclusive
Partial
Virginia total
3-State total:
Proprietorial
Exclusive
Partial
Total, 3 States
1 Plus 2,450 square feet of space.
2 1 portion.
3 Plus 2,450 square feet office space.
A total of 6,431 residents (approximately) are on the properties, including
1,328 children attending schools. While the great majority of residents
are on Forest Service properties as to which the Federal Government has
only a proprietorial interest, it appears that discriminations are not
practiced by the States and local committees against the residents who
are on other properties, and all resident children attend schools on
an equal basis with other children.
It is noted that local police assistance is required and rendered from
time to time on various properties, including some properties under the
exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. A number of affirmative
recommendations are made for proprietorial interest on the grounds that
it expedites arrest and punishment of petty thieves by local authorities,
and that local authorities under such a status can supervise the hunting
of game. In a number of instances Federal authorities are not readily
available to enforce law, and in some such cases law enforcement by local
authorities has been reported by some installations as essential to the
carrying out of their functions.
103
Agency views.--The Department of Agriculture is of the view that a
proprietorial interest is sufficient to its needs as to all its properties.
Consequently it is the policy of the Department to acquire no legislative
jurisdiction over its land holdings.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Data from questionnaire A.--The reports of the seven agencies of the
Department of Commerce (Bureau of the Census, Civil Aeronautics Administration,
Coast and Geodetic Survey, Maritime Administration, Bureau of Standards,
Bureau of Public Roads, and Weather Bureau), which occupy, operate, or
supervises real property owned by the Federal Government in the several
States, indicate that together these agencies have 263 such properties,
aggregating 32,688.68 acres, plus 2 such-properties containing 474,360
square feet of office and storage space. The property supervised by
the Department of Commerce is spread through the United States, excepting
only 10 States, and is used for general office and storage space, air
navigation aids, airports, regional headquarters, housing, geophysical
and meteorological observatories, laboratories and testing areas, shipyards,
marine terminals, warehouses, maritime training stations, reserve fleet
installations, equipment depots, flight strips, and highway rights-of
way. The legislative jurisdictional status of areas operated under the
department of Commerce may be summarized as follows:
Area
Jurisdiction Number
Unit Amount
Exclusive...................................... 5 Acre..........
48.3
Do........................................ 2 Square feet...
(474,360)
Concurrent..................................... None ...............
None
Partial........................................ 1 Acre..........
616
Proprietorial.................................. 251 ......do.......
31,623.64
Unknown........................................ 6 ......do.......
32,688.68
Total
104
Data from questionnaire B.--Responses from Department of Commerce installation
s in Virginia, Kansas, and California concerning legislative jurisdictional
status may be summarized as follows:
Jurisdiction Number Acreage
Virginia....................... Unknown........ 1 187
Exclusive...... None None
Concurrent..... None None
Partial........ 1 616
Proprietorial.. 8 3,045.93
Total................. ............... 10 3,848.93
Kansas......................... None........... None None
California..................... Unknown........ 1 2.5
Exclusive...... None None
Concurrent.... None None
Partial........ None None
Proprietorial.. 29 4,964.3
Total................. ............... 30 4,967.3
The several agencies on the whole have found the legislative jurisdictional
status of their properties satisfactory. The predomination proprietorial
-interest--only jurisdiction is chiefly preferred because of the local
police protection which it beings. However, in one such case the Bureau
of Public Roads reports difficulty in procuring police services and suggests
the desirability of concurrent jurisdiction for the area; the problem
apparently arises because of some misunderstanding. The mentioned Bureau
also suggests the desirability of changing the legislative jurisdictional
status of four of its installations from exclusive to concurrent for
the purpose of strengthening its position when local police or fire protection
services are required.
Eleven residents, including two schoolchildren, are located upon premise
of the Department of Commerce in Virginia and California. Such residents
are indicated as having accorded to them all services and privileges
usually rendered by State and local governments only to residents of
the State involved.
The Civil Aeronautics Authority makes special reference to the area
occupied by the Washington National Airport, the jurisdiction of which
is indicated as being partial, Virginia having reserved the right (1)
to tax certain motor fuel and lubricants, (2) to serve civil and criminal
process, and (3) to regulate the manufacture, sale, and use of alcoholic
beverages. CAA finds satisfactory the current legislative jurisdictional
status of Washington National Airport, excepting an existing State-imposed
prohibition on the use of alcoholic beverages other than light wines
and beer. In this connection it points out that travelers using the
airport come from all parts of the world, that many have a vastly different
outlook than is represented by Virginia laws and that the prohibitions
on use of alcohol at the airport
105
seem arbitrary. CAA recommends transfer to Federal jurisdiction of authority
over this subject, but would have no objection to payment to Virginia
of taxes on alcohol consumed on the premises.
Agency views--The Department of Commerce apparently has no departmental
policy with respect to the acquisition of legislative jurisdiction.
However, all of the landholding agencies of the Department have a policy
of accepting only a proprietorial interest in lands acquired for their
several purposes.
The land-acquiring agencies of the Department, with the exception of
the Bureau of Public Roads, and the CAA with respect to the Washington
National Airport, whose views have been indicated, are of the view that
it is unnecessary for the proper performance of Federal functions to
acquire any measure of legislative jurisdiction over their installation
sites.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
Date from questionnaire A.--The properties owned by the United States
and occupied, operated, or supervised by agencies of the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare aggregate 3,848.063 acres outside the
District of Columbia. The major part of this land is composed of hospitals,
most of which are held under exclusive Federal jurisdiction. The status
of quarantine stations, which are located on land aggregating 88.8 acres,
is for the most part unknown to the Department. The various agencies
of the Department also occupy office space i buildings held by other
Federal agencies. The jurisdictional status of these lands in indicated
by the following table:
[Acres]
Total Exclusive Partial Proprie- Un-
torial Known
St. Elizabeth Hospital, Maryland.......................... 307.0
307.0 ..............................................................
Public Health Service:
Quarantine stations............................... 88.8
.3 ....... 6.9 81.6
Hospitals......................................... 2,942.413
2,917.034 8.679 15.4 1.3
Communicable disease centers............................... 147.0 .....
....... 27.0 120.0 .........
National Institutes of Health...............................
362.85 306.2 35.15 21.5 .........
Total............................................. 3,848.063
3,530.534 70.829 163.8 82.9
Data from questionnaire B.--The only bureau of the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare which supervises federally owned property in any
of the 3 States covered by this questionnaire is the Bureau of Medical
Services, which has 4 properties in California and Virginia, 2 being
in each State. Al such property is acquired and the status thereof is
shown in the following table:
106
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
A general satisfaction with the jurisdictional status quo was reported.
Among the advantages of exclusive jurisdiction are listed the following:
Federal property is not subject to State taxation; automobiles of personnel
living on the reservation not subject to local taxes; disposition of
personal effects upon death of patient according to departmental regulations
rather than relinquishment of such effects to the local public administrator.
Advantages accruing from holding property under partial jurisdiction
and proprietorial interest include local fire and police protection,
lectures on fire prevention, and trash collection.
There are 125 residents and 29 schoolchildren residing on the lands
in question, 63 residents (12 children) in Virginia, and 62 residents
(17 children) in California. The rights of State residency appear to
be granted in every case: equal vote, equal schooling, equal privileges
and equal use of facilities.
Vital statistics are maintained locally in all instances; the local
coroner investigates deaths on three reservations, on the fourth such
functions are performed by military authorities.
Notaries are available on the premises in two instances. Where not
on the premises they were available at a short distance.
Services of a United States commissioner are stated to be required,
and available, only at the San Francisco hospital.
Local police services are reported required in 2 instances, and available
in only 1 of these cases. It is desired that such services be made available
at Norfolk (exclusive jurisdiction, reports that local police investigate
thefts and remove disorderly persons from the premises.
Fire protection is available locally on three premise; on the fourth,
military authorities provide such services.
Agency views.--The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare indicates
that prior to this study it had not formulated or expressed its views
on appropriate jurisdictional status for the areas it occupies. For
this and other reasons the practices of the subordinate agencies of the
Department have varied with respect to the
107
acquisition of legislative jurisdiction. The National Institutes of
Health and the Bureau of Medical Services, which manage approximately
nine-tenths of the Departments's land holdings have acquired exclusive
(or partial) jurisdiction over essentially all of their installations.
The practice of the other agencies has not been uniform. All agencies
seem to be reasonably satisfied with the jurisdictional status quo.
The Department recently has come to the view that a proprietorial interest
is most desirable for the large bulk of its properties, and that a concurrent
jurisdiction status is more desirable in a relatively few of its institutions
where special problems exist with repeat to law enforcement.
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
Data from questionnaire A.--The Atomic Energy Commission operates 35
properties totaling 1,605,817.36 acres. These very in size from half
acre laboratories to 430,248-acre testing stations. The jurisdictional
status of these properties is as follows:
* *
Date from questionnaire B.--The Atomic Energy Commission occupies two
properties in the State of California, and none in Virginia or Kansas.
The 2 installations cover approximately 34,905 acres, of which 24,462
acres were withdrawn from the public domain, and 10,443 acres acquired
land; 34,224 acres are held in a proprietorial interest only, and 681
acres under partial jurisdictional status.
One of the installations (partial jurisdiction) has no residents, another
(proprietorial) 120, with 15 children of military personnel and 18 of
civilians. These persons were allowed equal vote, equal use of State
and local facilities, and equal privileges, and their children were given
equal schooling, wit persons domiciled in the State.
Vital statistics were maintained by local authorities and investigations
of deaths occurring on the premises were undertaken by the local coroner.
Notaries were available at 1 installation and were 24 miles distant
at the other.
The installation held in a proprietorial interest only reported no
need for a United States commissioner; the installation under partial
108
legislative jurisdiction replied affirmatively to such need and reported
that a United States commissioner was available 40 miles from the installation.
In the areas held in a proprietorial interest only, police functions
are performed by hired guards who have been deputized as sheriffs by
the local authorities. In the areas under partial jurisdiction, police
functions are performed by guards who are members of the California State
Highway Patrol. While the Commission indicates that it does not feel
it necessary that guards have such local status, such status is customary
policy with the University of California, a State corporation which operates
the installation. It may be noted that the status apparently would give
no authority to the guards, beyond that possessed by citizens generally,
with respect to making arrests in this area.
In both instances, fire protection is Federal. The installation which
was situated nearer to local communities had verbal reciprocal agreements
with these communities.
Agency views.--The policy of the Atomic Energy Commission has been
to acquire no legislative jurisdiction. Indeed, in the case of certain
lands acquired from other Federal agencies which were subject to the
exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, the Commission has sponsored
legislation which allowed it to retrocede jurisdiction to the States.
The Atomic Energy Commission has found that a proprietorial interest
only is entirely satisfactory for all categories of property operated
by that agency. For properties on which communities are located the
Commission considers that a proprietorial interest only offers distinct
advantages over other jurisdictional categories.
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
Data from questionnaire A.--The Central Intelligence Agency reports
that it has two properties, both used for foreign radio monitoring.
These properties cover 579.3 acres of acquired land, all of which are
held in a simple proprietorial interest, although greater jurisdiction
could have been obtained under the applicable State laws.
Data from questionnaire B.--The Central Intelligence Agency operates
only 1 property located in the 3 selected States, that one being in California.
This is a foreign radio monitoring station on 483 acres of acquired
land, all held under a proprietorial interest only. A broader jurisdiction
could have been accepted under the laws of California.
109
The California station reports that, "We have not experienced known
disadvantage because of the application of State and local building,
fire and health regulations, or other State or local law. Arrangements
with local authorities and efficiency of administration doubtless have
been furthered by our compliance with local pattern."
There are no residents on the California property, hence no vital statistics.
Likewise, there has never been an occasion to use the service of a coroner.
A notary public is not available; the nearest one is situated about
8 miles away.
There is believed no need for the services of a United States Commissioner
in the administration of the premises.
Services of State police have not been needed, but it is understood
that they will be furnished if needed.
Fire protection is provided by the Central Intelligence Agency. No
reciprocal arrangements with nearby localities are reported.
Agency views.--The policy of the Central Intelligence Agency with respect
to the acquisition of legislative jurisdiction has been to acquire no
jurisdiction over any of its properties.
Since, in the view of the Agency, the status of proprietorial-interest
-only is not inconsistent with high security standards, it favors a proprietoria
l interest status for all its properties.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Data from questionnaire A.--The Federal Communications Commission reports
that it operates 12 properties having an area of 1,715.45 acres. All
12 properties are used as radio monitoring stations. Of this acreage
87.27 is stated to be under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United
States, and the remaining 1,628.18 acres are under a simple proprietorial
interest only.
Data from questionnaire B.--For radio monitoring purposes, the Commission
holds 190 acres of acquired land in a proprietorial interest in California.
It also maintains 7,700 square feet of office space in that State.
In the State of Virginia it occupies 1,020 square feet of office space.
It neither holds, supervises, nor uses any land in Kansas.
The Commission feels that the proprietorial status of its California
lands is adequate for the purposes for which they are held. It notes
that no particular disadvantages, problems, or advantages have arisen
from the application of State or local laws.
There are no residents on the premises.
Should the occasion arise, a local coroner would investigate deaths,
and records of vital statistics would be kept by the local authorities.
110
Notaries are available at only one of the California monitoring stations.
Generally at the monitoring stations there is no need for the services
of a United States commissioner. However, at the various district offices
such services are occasionally necessary in connection with enforcement
matters.
Agency views.--Since 1940 it has been the policy of the Commission
not to obtain any measure of legislative jurisdiction over its land acquisitions
.
It is the view of the Commission a proprietorial interest only is wholly
sufficient for the performance of fall its Federal functions.
It is the view of the Commission a proprietorial interest only is wholly
sufficient for the performance of all its Federal functions.
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
Date from questionnaire A.--The General Services Administration, as
the manager of Federal buildings throughout the United States used by
various Federal agencies for various purposes, including predominantly
post offices and general office space, supervises a much larger number
of individual pro(3,9904) than any other agency of the United States,
more than a third (by number) of all properties owned by the Federal
Government. The use and description of the 3,904 properties reported
by General Services Administration, including the acreage and the jurisdictional
status of the holdings are presented in the following chart:
112
While the area GSA properties held in each jurisdictional status is
not specified in the GSA report, it is indicated that 3,616 properties
(92.6 percent) are held in an exclusive jurisdiction status, 32 properties
(0.8 percent) in a concurrent jurisdictional status, 243 (6.2 percent)
in a partial jurisdiction status, and 13 (0.4 percent) in a proprietorial
interest only status. By applying these percentages across the board
to the total areas of its properties in each of the categories (buildings,
urban land, and rural land) reported by GSA the following results are
obtained:
* * * * * * *
Data from questionnaire B.--The areas and jurisdictional statuses of
General Services Administration properties in the States of Virginia,
Kansas, and California, as to which reasonably detailed information was
furnished, are as indicated by the following table:
* * * * * * *
Individual General Services Administration installations in California
(29 in number), the legislative jurisdictional status of which is known,
whatever that jurisdictional status, without exception indicate that
a proprietorial interest status is the most desirable for the installation
involved. Individual installations in Virginia (15 in number) the jurisdictiona
l status of which is known, nearly all being in an exclusive status,
are approximately evenly divided on whether that is the most desirable
status, with half of the installations favoring lessening the status
to one under which the State would be authorized and required to render
police and fire services. Individual installations in Kansas (6 in number)
the jurisdictional status of which is known, all but 1 recently acquired
property being in an
113
exclusive status, consider exclusive jurisdiction the most desirable
status.
Only one installation (Tecale, Calif.) indicated that there were any
residents on the area. This installation reported a total of 10 residents
and no children. Although the installation is held under exclusive jurisdiction
, the report indicated that equal schooling was available. It likewise
disclosed that these residents were granted equal privileges and equal
use of facilities.
In a substantial majority of the cases, vital statistics are taken
and maintained by local authorities regardless of the status of cases
no occasion has arisen requiring services of a coroner. Only 3 reports
show that a local coroner investigates deaths, in 1 instance by contract
with the installation, which had an exclusive jurisdiction status.
Availability of notarial services was reported affirmatively in 20
instances and negatively in 30 cases. This question was not answered
in 16 reports. Where no notary was on the installation such services
were generally available within a short distance. In 13 cases these
services were performed on areas under exclusive Federal jurisdiction,
notwithstanding the questionable validity of such notarizations.
Services of a United States commissioner were required in only 4 instances
and a negative report was received in 47 cases. In the four cases requiring
the services of a United States commissioner, such services were available
in the same building.
Twenty-seven installations reported a need for local police services
while 24 installations indicated no need for such services. In none
of the 27 reports indicating a need for local police services was there
any indication that such services were in fact rendered. However, 6
installations reported that the local police were reluctant to make arrests
or to quell disturbances on the area, thus indicating that services were
rendered in part.
Whether or not local fire protection was rendered does not appear to
depend upon the jurisdictional status of the land in question. This
is substantiated by the fact that 50 installations, 26 of which are held
under exclusive Federal jurisdiction, reported that local authorities
furnished fire protection for the area. Only two installations reported
that such protection was rendered by the Federal Government, and no report
disclosed a reciprocal arrangement.
Agency views.--The apparent practice of General Services Administration
and its predecessor agencies with respect to the acquisition of legislative
jurisdiction was until about 1947 to obtain exclusive jurisdiction over
all properties acquired, without reference to the
114
need of the Federal agencies which might occupy the property. The practice
subsequent to that time has not been made known to the Committee but
from the facts furnished the Committee it is surmised that exclusive
jurisdiction is almost uniformly required.
The General Services Administration did not in the first instance express
any agency opinion as to the desirability of any particular measure of
legislative jurisdiction. The opinion among regional counsel, whose
views were forwarded, was divided. Among those who had little or no
experience with any from of legislative jurisdiction other than exclusive,
the consensus was to maintain the status quo. Among those who had substantial
experience with lesser forms of jurisdiction the consensus was in favor
of concurrent jurisdiction or a proprietorial interest only. Later,
the General Services Administration expressed the view that with amendment
of existing legislation so as to permit appointment of special police
without reference to jurisdictional status a proprietorial interest only
would be sufficient for its properties. In the absence of such amendment,
a concurrent legislative jurisdiction status would be desirable for properties
requiring special police service, and a proprietorial interest for others.
HOUSING AND HOME FINANCE AGENCY
Date from questionnaire A.--The only subagency of the Housing and Home
Finance Agency which occupies, operates, or supervises properties of
a type to bring them within the cognizance of this Committee is the Public
Housing Administration. That Administration holds an estimated 17,205.28
acres (plus certain unascertained acreage) of federally owned land, on
which are located 403 projects, with approximately 121,879 housing units,
of which are approximately 79,263 are occupied. Some of these projects
are located in part on leased lands, but the leased land is not included
in the mentioned acreage. In addition, the Public Housing Administration
is in charge of and operates housing projects situated on land owned
by the United States which is under the supervision of other Government
agencies, particularly the Department of Defense. The jurisdictional
status of nearly all of this acreage is proprietorial.
Data from questionnaire B.--In the three States to which the Committee's
questionnaire B pertains (California, Kansas, and Virginia) the Agency
holds something over 7,708 acres of land, principally under a proprietorial
interest only status, on which are located 74 housing projects.
In California, Kansas, and Virginia, a total of 42,685 children are
resident on land of the Agency; 16,263 of this total are children of
civilians, and 26,422 are children of military personnel.
115
No report is made of any practice by States or municipalities of discriminatio
n against residents of such of these properties as are under a proprietorial
jurisdictional status with respect to voting or other rights and privileges
generally accorded to State residents. Some such discriminations are
indicated as having been practiced, at least in Kansas, with respect
to residents of areas under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of
the United States. It appears, however, that in most instances land
in Kansas and elsewhere utilized for housing projects by the Agency,
though formerly under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the State
(because of a provision of the Lanham Act (42 U.S.C. 1547)). California,
pursuant to State judicial decisions, apparently permits the full exercise
of civil rights and privileges by residents of Federal housing projects.
All housing now held by the Agency in Virginia is in a proprietorial
interest only status and no question of denial of civil rights or privileges
arises.
Agency views.--In the view of the Housing and Home Finance Agency there
is no need for the acquisition of legislative jurisdiction over Federal
housing projects and the practice of the Agency has been to acquire none.
INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND WATER COMMISSION, UNITED STATES AND MEXICO
Data from questionnaire A.--The number of properties owned by the United
States and occupied, operated, or supervised by the International Boundary
and Water Commission is 7, comprising 99,284 acres. The jurisdictional
status of these lands is reflected in the following table:
* * * * * * *
Data from questionnaire B.--As the United States does not hold title
to land in Virginia, Kansas, or California under the supervision of the
Commission, there were no responses to questionnaire B Agency views.
-It is the opinion of the commissioner that there is no need for Federal
legislative jurisdiction with respect to the various categories of Federal
lands operated by the agency.
116
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
Data from questionnaire A.--The properties owned by the United States
and occupied, operated, or supervised by the Tennessee Valley Authority
number 487 aggregating 761,226 acres of land, plus 158,634 square feet
of office space in 3 buildings. Nearly 98 percent of the total acreage
of Tennessee Valley Authority properties is accounted for by 38 dam and
reservoir sites, but substantial areas are utilized for steam plants,
transmission substations, radio stations and microwave links, general
offices, field headquarters, chemical plants, phosphate mining, river
terminate, tree crop nurseries, garages, general service reservations,
quarry sites and tributary watershed erosion control.
The jurisdictional status of these lands is an indicated in the table
following:
* * * * * * *
Date from questionnaire B.--Of the three States to which questionnaire
B pertains, Tennessee Valley Authority has property in only 1, Virginia,
in which are located 4 installations consisting of part of a reservoir,
2 transmission substations, and transmission line, with a total area
of 1,211 acres, all of which are in a proprietorial--interest--only status.
The United States Forest Service gives fire protection to certain of
the premises, with additional such protection available from State authorities.
The other premises are given fire protection by a neighboring municipality,
on a reimbursable basis for any services actually rendered.
Police services which may be required with respect to any of the premises
from time to time, and such other governmental services as may be needed
in the case of drowning in the reservoirs are furnished by local authorities.
The premises have no residents, and only one employee, and have no
requirement for any governmental services other than those mentioned.
The Tennessee Valley Authority indicates that no problems arise out
of the fact that the United States has only a proprietorial interest
in these premises, with general legislative jurisdiction left in the
State, and it considers this jurisdictional status as best suited tot
he premises.
117
Agency views.--The Tennessee Valley Authority has policy of not accepting
legislative jurisdiction over lands acquired for its purposes, and the
United States holds such jurisdiction over only such of Tennessee Valley
Authority's property as was acquired from other Federal agencies.
UNITED STATES INFORMATION AGENCY
Data from questionnaire A.--The United States Information Agency holds
five properties, all of which are used for radio transmitter purposes.
These properties total 5,229.5 acres, all held in a proprietorial capacity
by the United States. It is not stated whether these lands were in the
public domain or were acquired.
Data from questionnaire B.--The United States Information Agency holds
2 properties in the State of California, each comprising 640 acres.
These 1,280 acres of acquired land are held in a proprietorial interest,
and both are used for radio transmitters. No lands are held by the agency
in Kansas or Virginia.
These installations feel that a proprietorial status is best suited
for their purposes. They do not specify any reasons for this belief,
however. Local laws and regulations, they report, have created neither
disadvantages and problems nor advantages.
There are no residents on either of these properties. Notaries are
located within 1 and 5 miles of the 2 installations.
The services of a United States commissioner are not required. Likewise
there is no need for local police services.
Agency views.--In the view of the United States Information Agency
a proprietorial--interest--only status is most suitable for its properties.
Consequently, the practice of that agency has been to acquire no legislative
jurisdiction over the sites of its installations.
VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION
Data from questionnaire A.--The properties owned by the United States
and occupied, operated, or supervised by the Veterans' Administration
number 176 installations, plus 14 vacant installation sites, and are
located in all 48 States. The areas occupied by these units in the States
vary in size from 3 acres to 2,367 acres, with an average area of 230
acres, and a total area of 43,874 acres. The numbers and total approximate
areas of properties reported to be under the several types of jurisdiction
are indicated in the following table:
118
* * * * * * * * * *\
In addition, the Veterans' Administration reports occupancy of one
parcel, consisting of 24.04 acres, owned by the Departments of the Army
and Air Force, subject to exclusive jurisdiction, and 1 parcel, consisting
of 96.2 acres, which may be subject to either exclusive or partial jurisdiction.
Data from questionnaire B.--The Veterans' Administration reported 3
properties in Virginia (totaling 687 acres), 3 in Kansas (totaling 1,117
acres), and 10 in California, including a vacant site of 208 acres (totaling
2,173 acres). These landholding constitute 5 percent of the total holdings
reported by the Veterans' Administration, and no reason appears why they
should not constitute a faire sample of all Veterans' Administration
properties. The following table summarizes certain information concerning
the properties in the 3 States. The meanings of the letters following
the jurisdictional designations are explained in the matter following
the table.
Location Area Jurisdiction
Virginia:
Kecoughtan
Richmond
Roanoke
Kansas:
Topeka:
2 tracts
2d tract
Wadsworth
Wichita
California:
Livermore
Los Angeles
Oakland
Fresno
Long Beach
Palo Alto
San Fernando
San Francisco
The letters in the last column of the table represent the several types
of jurisdiction as defined by the Committee: a=exclusive; b=concurrent;
c=partial; and d=proprietorial interest only. The letter or letters
before the first comma after each spelled-out specification of jurisdiction
in the table indicate the view of the Assistant Administrator for Construction,
Veterans' Administration, ass to the character of the jurisdiction of
the United States over the piece of property involved; the letter or
letters between the first two commas indicate the view of the manager
of the establishment as to the jurisdiction had over the property; the
next letter or set of letters indicates
119
The view of the General Counsel of the Veterans' Administration; and
the last letter or set of letters indicates the view of the Committee
staff. Of considerable significance is deemed the fact that in only
6 of the 14 cases analyzed did all 4 parties agree on the character of
the jurisdiction held by the United States.
The establishment managers expressed nearly 100 percent satisfaction
with the jurisdictional status had by the establishments under their
supervision, whatever that status might be. In one instance only did
the manager of an establishment suggest the desirability of a change
in its status, from exclusive to concurrent jurisdiction.
The 14 reported installations each have from 14 to 676 more or less
permanent residents. The total is 2,2337 of whom 175 are children of
school age. In addition, of course, there are many thousands of persons
on these installations as patients and similar inhabitants.
It is indicated by the returns that at 11 of the installations the
permanent residents are permitted to vote in State elections on the basis
of their residence on the installation involved, whatever the jurisdictional
status of such installation may be. This privilege is denied to residents
of only three installations.
With respect to every installation it is indicated that children are
accepted at local public schools on the same basis as State residents,
and in only one case is it indicated that the school district involved
receives Federal assistance (W) and in one case that the children are
given Federal transportation to the school (Livermore).
In all but two instances it is reported that residents of the federal
areas receive equal use of State and local governmental facilities and
equal privileges with persons domiciled in the State involved. In the
two instances which are exceptions it is indicated in one (Kecoughtan)
simply that residents have access to governmental facilities furnished
by local and State governments but are not granted other privileges usually
accorded only to persons domiciled in the State, such discriminations
in practice have not been applied against residents of the Federal installation
involved, although doubt is expressed as to whether a discrimination
might not applied in certain instances.
In every instance agencies of the appropriate city, county, or State,
maintain vital statistics for the Veterans' Administration installations
which reported to the Committee. In all but three cases the local coroner
investigates deaths occurring on the premises under unknown circumstances;
in only one of such cases the FBI investigates (Los Angeles), in another
case the circumstances are made known to the coroner and there apparently
exists complete cooperation be-
120
tween him and the installation authorities, although he has not conducted
a personal investigation in many years (Kecoughtan), and in the third
case no explanation is given beyond the fact that the local coroner does
not conduct investigations in connection with such deaths.
In all but two cases services of a State notary are available on the
premises, frequently furnished by an employee of the Veterans' Administration.
In three instances where the United States has exclusive jurisdiction
with respect to punishment for crimes (Palo Alto, San Fernando, and San
Francisco), the manager indicated that there was no requirement for the
services of a United States commissioner in the administration of the
premises. This may be explained by the fact that in these 3 instances,
and in 6 others, services are rendered to the premises by local police,
who presumably utilize the local system of judicial administration in
processing offenders against the laws. Another explanation may lie in
the sometimes considerable distance of installations from the nearest
commissioner, who may be as for as 35 miles away (Livermore). In 1 of
the only 5 cases in which local police do not render services (Roanke)
the manager suggests the advisability of a change in the status of his
installation from exclusive to concurrent jurisdiction.
In 9 of the 14 reporting cases the Federal Government maintains firefighting
equipment, but in each instance such equipment apparently is inadequate
to cover all possible emergencies, since in each instance arrangements
have been made on a reciprocal or other basis for assistance from local
municipal or other fire-fighting equipment. In the five other cases
fire-fighting protection is furnished only by equipment of the local
municipality.
Agency views.--The policy of the Veterans' Administration with respect
to the acquisition of legislative jurisdiction has for many years been
to acquire exclusive jurisdiction where possible, except as to office
buildings and some other types of buildings located in cities.
It was the consensus of the Administration that exclusive Federal legislative
jurisdiction except as to some urban buildings in general best suits
the requirements of the Veterans' Administration, although in some specific
instances certain rights should be had by the States on a concurrent
basis.
MISCELLANEOUS AGENCIES
Various agencies have reported to the Interdepartmental Committee that
their landholding, if any, either were insubstantial or were administered
or controlled by other Government agencies. Accordingly, report from
these agencies are summarized together.
121
The following agencies reported that they administered or controlled
no real estate within the purview of the study:
(a) Arlington Memorial Amphitheater Commission.
(b) National Capital Planning Commission.
(c) Rubber Producing Facilities Disposal Commission.
(d) Office of Defense Mobilization.
(e) Farm Credit Administration, including Government-owned corporate
units thereunder.
The following agencies reported that they occupied some property,
generally office space, which was controlled and administered by other
agencies. These latter agencies have presumably included the amounts
thereof in their reports:
(a) Department of Labor.
(b) Railroad Retirement Board.
(c) Federal Civil Defense Administration.
(d) Department of State.
(e) Federal Power Commission.
(f) Civil Aeronautics Board.
(g) Small Business Administration.
(h) Post Office Department.
The following agency reported relatively small landholding for which
it is charged with the responsibilities of control and administration:
National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics. The extent of and types
of jurisdiction relative to holdings of NACA can be summarized as follow:
Jurisdiction Number of Area
properties
Exclusive......................................................
2 Area
Concurrent.....................................................
Partial....................................................................
Proprietorial..............................................................
1 Includes 67.77 acres held by permit from Department of the Navy.
2 Includes 200 acres held by permit from Department of the Air Force.
In addition NACA occupies 16,000 square feet of space on lease from the
Department of Defense (Air Force), for which no jurisdictional status
was specified. The agency holds 8,869 acres in Virginia under concurrent
jurisdiction, 39,37 acres in California under exclusive jurisdiction,
and no acreage in Kansas.
The agencies listed in the immediately preceding paragraphs which occupied
property were unanimous in stating that no difficulties had arisen with
respect to the jurisdictional status under which they held their properties.
Accordingly, no agency considered itself in a posi-
122
tion to comment upon the desirability of one type of Federal jurisdiction
rather than another.
The St. Lawrence Seaway Corporation, in an interim reply to the Committee,
reported that the land acquisition program on behalf of the Corporation
had been completed and that the Corporation itself was not as yet operating
any works upon the St. Lawrence River. The reply further stated that
while the officers and staff of that agency had been discussing for some
time the various problems which might arise in connection with security,
search, and seizure on the St. Lawrence River within the boundaries of
the seaway, police jurisdiction along the locks and canals of the seaway,
and similar problems, the Corporation had not as yet arrived at a policy
determination with respect to these matters.
Tables I, II, and III, which follow, summarize some of the information
obtained from the agencies through questionnaires A and B. Table I contains
information as to the amount of real properly held countrywide by Federal
agencies and its legislative jurisdictional status. Table II contains
similar information with respect to Federal real property located in
the States of Virginia, Kansas, and California. Table III reports the
number of residents (other than persons in the military service and inmates
of institutions) and the number of children living on installations of
the various Federal agencies in the three States concerning which information
was sought.
123
124
125
126
|
|
Disclaimer: The file contained in the
box above or displayed in a separate window from a link in the
box above is NOT owned nor implied to
be owned by BeYoND THe iLLuSioN. Most files at BeYoND THe
iLLuSioN are originally from public Bulletin Board Systems
(BBS) which were popular in the days before the Internet or
from gopher, web, and FTP sites from the early days of the
Internet which no longer exist today. Essentially, all files
were acquired from the public domain in one for or another.
However, there have been occasions when copyright protected
material has appeared on BeYoND THe iLLuSIoN without permission
of the copyright holder. In these instances, we have and will
continue to remove the copyright protected file as soon as it
is brought to our attention. This can now be done using our Report Copyright Material form. Fill
out the form, and the webmaster will be notified of the
situation.
There are also times when files found on BeYoND THe iLLuSioN
have a real home somewhere else on the Internet. In these
instances, we will gladly replace the file with a link to its
true home whenever it is brought to our attention. If you know
of the true home of any of these files, you can use our Report Original URL form to bring it yo our
attention.
|
