Concurrent Jurisdiction is the term applied in those instances wherein granting to the United States authority which would otherwise amount to exclusive legislative jurisdiction over an area, the State concerned has reserved to itself the right to exercise, concurrently with the United States, all of the same authority.

In United States law, a federal enclave is a parcel of federal property within a state, that is under the Special Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction of the United States.  DOJ Criminal Resource Manual 1630  — 18 U.S.C., states “any property under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction of the United States is subject to these federal enclave laws”.

In the 1956 federal report on this web site, titled, Part 1, Interdepartmental Committee for the Study of Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas within the States, Chapter IV, Page 20 declares:  “State law, including any amendments which may be made by the State from time to time, is applicable in a concurrent jurisdiction area.  Thus there is absent the tendency which exists in exclusive jurisdiction areas for general laws to become obsolete.  Federal law appertaining generally to areas under the legislative jurisdiction of the United States also applies.  State or local agencies and administrative processes needed to carry out various State laws, such as laws relating to notaries, various licensing boards, etc., can be made available by the State or local government in accordance with normal procedures.  State criminal laws are, course, applicable in the area for enforcement by the State.  The same laws apply for enforcement by the Federal Government under the Assimilative Crimes Act, which by its terms is applicable to areas under the concurrent as well as the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the United States, and other Federal criminal laws also apply.  Most crimes fall under both Federal and State sanction, and either the Federal or State Government, or both, may take jurisdiction over a given offense.  Unlike the situation in exclusive jurisdiction areas, the State and the local governmental subdivisions have the same obligation to furnish their normal governmental services, such as sewage disposal, to and in the area, as they have elsewhere in the state.  They also have the compensating right of imposing taxes on persons, property, and activities in the area (but not, of course, directly on the Federal Government or its instrumentalities).  The regulatory powers of the States may be exercised in the area but, again, not directly on the Federal Government or its instrumentalities, and not so as to interfere with Government activities.”

Partial Jurisdiction is the term applied in those instances wherein the Federal Government has been granted for exercise by it over an area in a State certain of the State’s authority, but where the State concerned has reserved to itself the right to exercise, by itself or concurrently with the United States, other authority constituting more than merely the right to serve civil or criminal process in the area (e.g., the right to tax private property).

Proprietorial Interest Only – the Federal Government has acquired no form of legislative jurisdiction over the federally owned lands in question.  Those instances wherein the Federal Government has some right or title to an area in a State, but has not obtained any measure of the State’s authority over the area.  In applying this definition, recognition should be given to the fact that the United States, by virtue of its functions and authority under various provisions of the Constitution (Property Clause, Commerce Clause, Necessary and Proper Clause, etc), has many powers and immunities not possessed by ordinary landholders with respect to federal lands, and the fact that all its properties and functions are held or performed in a governmental rather than a proprietary capacity.  These days you rarely (if ever) hear federal agencies use the term Proprietorial Interest Only, they generally use the term “Proprietary Jurisdiction”.  The term proprietary Jurisdiction implies to the uninformed (nearly everyone), that the federal gov’t has “jurisdiction” over an area.  To this day, in the annually published DOI Public Land Statistics book, the federal government claims “Jurisdiction” over all federal lands.  Federal reports on this web site reveal the federal government only has a Proprietorial Interest Only on approximately 95% of all federal lands (1962 Eisenhower Inventory Report).  While the federal agencies have full management authority over all federal lands – Property Clause (article IV, section 3, clause 2), cessions of Jurisdiction are regulated solely under the Enclave Clause (article 1, section 8, clause 17) (aka Jurisdiction Clause).  

In the 1956 federal report, titled, Part 1, Interdepartmental Committee for the Study of Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas within the States, Chapter IV, Page 21 defines Proprietorial Interest Only as: “Where the Federal Government has no legislative jurisdiction over its land, it holds such land in a proprietorial interest only and has the same rights in the land as does any other landowner.  In addition, however, there exists a right of the Federal Government to perform the functions delegated to it by the Constitution without interference from any source.  It may resist, by exercise of its legislative or executive authority or through proceedings in the court, according to the circumstances, any attempted interference by a State instrumentality as well as by individuals.  Also, the Congress has special authority, vested in it by article IV, section 3, clause 2 of the Constitution, to enact laws for the protection of property belonging to the United States.  Subject to these conditions, in the case where the United States acquires only a proprietorial interest, the State retains all the jurisdiction over the area which it would have if a private individual rather than the United States owned the land.  However, for the reasons indicated, the State may not impose its regulatory power directly upon the Federal Government nor may it tax the Federal land.  Neither may the state regulate the actions of the residents of the land in any way which might directly interfere with the performance of a Federal function.  State action may in some instances impose an indirect burden upon the Federal Government when it concerns areas held in a proprietorial interest only, as in the Penn Dairies case, supra.”

Within the Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS), click on  “Title 3. United States”, click on “Jurisdiction“, than you will see Articles 1 – 3. (constitutional cessions of legislative jurisdiction in Colorado are recorded in CRS Title 3)

Title 3, Article 1, (click on link) shows all cessions of exclusive jurisdiction by Colorado to the federal government.  Review of the exclusive jurisdiction cessions show none after 1962.  Each of these locations is a federal enclave.  Example- In 1929, Per CRS 3-1-101 Colorado ceded exclusive jurisdiction over Rocky Mountain National Park to the federal government, making it the largest federal enclave in Colorado.  If you learned much in the “Get Educated” section of this web site, you also know that (since 1940) the federal government must formerly accept a cession of jurisdiction by a state.  Here is the link to view CRS 3-1-130 and the February 19, 1929 formal acceptance by the federal government of exclusive jurisdiction over Rocky Mountain National Park per CRS 3-1-130.

Article 3, Title 3, CRS 3-3-101– shows all cessions of concurrent jurisdiction by Colorado.  In this case the only cessions occurred in 1983, when the state ceded concurrent jurisdiction over many National Monuments within the state, like the Colorado National Monument in Mesa County, Grand Junction, CO.   Here is the link to the the federal governments 1984 formal acceptance of concurrent jurisdiction in Colorado. 

There are no CRS records in Title 3, regarding cessions of “partial Jurisdiction” in the state of Colorado.  This completes the research pertaining to the cessions of legislative jurisdiction in Colorado under Title 3.

Note: There is no cession process pertaining to “proprietorial interest only”.  This is because, as quoted on page 3 of the Eisenhower report, “With respect to the large bulk of federally owned or operated real property in the several States and outside of the District of Columbia it is desirable that the Federal Government not receive, or retain, any measure whatever of legislative jurisdiction, but that it hold the installations and areas in a proprietorial interest status only, with legislative jurisdiction remaining in the several States”.