| OCR Text |
Show retained, only in those uncommon instances where it is absolutely necessary to the Federal Government, and in such instances the United States should provide a statutory or regulatory code to govern the areas. In many cases the Federal Government needs to have something more than a proprietorial jurisdiction over its properties. Generally, these are areas which, because of their immense size, large populations, remote locations, or peculiar use requirements, are beyond the capabilities of state and local governments to service. The seasonal demands of policing and servicing national park lands are one example. On the other hand, many of the arguments advanced in favor of exclusive Federal jurisdiction fail, since the umbrella of constitutional immunity protects the Federal Government from state interference in carrying on its legitimate functions, including those of security. For the most part, therefore, the Commission finds that, as to lands for which it has responsibility, there is little need for more than proprietorial jurisdiction in the Federal Government, and where any greater degree of jurisdiction does exist, unless a clear requirement for retention can be demonstrated, jurisdiction should be retroceded to the state.9 Despite the fact that the United States has some legislative jurisdiction over these large areas, it has failed to fulfill its responsibility and obligation to the people living in or visiting such areas. Instead of tryng to establish and maintain a body of statute law governing the areas, we submit that where exclusive jurisdiction is required, Congress should provide the Federal management agency with the power, and impose the duty upon it, to establish the highest regulatory standards of those of the adjoining state in matters of health, safety, and similar activities. Under existing law, local and state income, motor fuel, sales and uses taxes apply to businesses operating in areas over which the Federal Government has exclusive legislative jurisdiction.10 However, state and 9 Similar recommendations were made by the Interdepartmental Committee for the Study of Jurisdiction over Federal Lands Within the States in their report of April, 1956. 10 4 U.S.C. §§ 104-106 (1964). local property taxes cannot be imposed in such areas even upon privately owned property.11 Although the amount of privately owned personal property exempt from taxation varies from time to time and at most is sizable in only relatively few instances, we recommend that provision be made to permit the imposition and collection of state and local property taxes in order to insure equal treatment for businesses operating within or outside of Federal enclaves in the same general region. Retrocession of Jurisdiction Recommendation 130: Federal departments and agencies should have the authority to retrocede exclusive Federal legislative jurisdiction to the states, with the consent of the states. There is no general statute authorizing retrocession of jurisdiction to the states, and in less than 40 instances in the history of the Nation has Congress enacted specific statutes of retrocession. Many of these have been in the last decade, as Federal administrators recognized the absence of need for Federal jurisdiction, or complex situations induced state officials to reassert jurisdiction. To implement the Commission's first recommendation, an orderly review of the jurisdictional status of all federally owned lands should be undertaken. Retrocession of jurisdiction should be accomplished as quickly as possible where indicated by such a review. Obviously, to require legislation for each area where retrocession is desirable would impose an unnecessary burden upon Congress and result in undue delay. Therefore, in addition to requiring a review of all cases in which jurisdiction was ceded to the Federal Government, Congress should also authorize the land managing agencies to retrocede jurisdiction by administrative action. The Commission is convinced that there would be no detriment to either the Federal Government or any of its citizens if such retrocessions were to occur, while at the same time there would be great benefits resulting from uniformity and efficiency. 11 Surplus Trading Co. v. Cook, 281 U. S. 647 (1930). 279 |
