In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the right to use waters flowing through or adjacent to the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation was reserved to American Indians by the treaty establishing the reservation. Although this treaty did not mention water rights, the Court ruled that the federal government, when it created the reservation, intended to deal fairly with American Indians by reserving for them the waters without which their lands would have been useless. Later decisions, citing Winters, established that courts can find federal rights to reserve water for particular purposes if (1) the land in question lies within an enclave under exclusive federal jurisdiction, (2) the land has been formally withdrawn from federal public lands—i.e., withdrawn from the stock of federal lands available for private use under federal land use laws—and set aside or reserved, and (3) the circumstances reveal the government intended to reserve water as well as land when establishing the reservation.

Some American Indian tribes have also established water rights through the courts based on their traditional diversion and use of certain waters prior to the United States' acquisition of sovereignty. For example, the Rio Grande pueblos already existed when the United States acquired sovereignty over New Mexico in 1848. Although they at that time became part of the United States, the pueblo lands never formally constituted a part of federal public lands; in any event, no treaty, statute, or executive order has ever designated or withdrawn the pueblos from public lands as American Indian reservations. This fact, however, has not barred application of the Winters doctrine. What constitutes an American Indian reservation is a question of practice, not of legal definition, and the pueblos have always been treated as reservations by the United States.This pragmatic approach is buttressed by Arizona v. California (1963), wherein the Supreme Court indicated that the manner in which any type of federal reservation is created does not affect the application to it of the Winters doctrine. Therefore, the reserved water rights of Pueblo Indians have priority over other citizens' water rights as of 1848, the year in which pueblos must be considered to have become reservations.


The passage suggests that, if the criteria discussed in the highlighted text were the only criteria for establishing a reservation's water rights, which of the following would be true?


The water rights of the inhabitants of the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation would not take precedence over those of other citizens.

Reservations established before 1848 would be judged to have no water rights.

There would be no legal basis for the water rights of the Rio Grande pueblos.

Reservations other than American Indian reservations could not be created with reserved water rights.

Treaties establishing reservations would have to mention water rights explicitly in order to reserve water for a particular purpose.

考题讲解

此讲解的内容由AI生成,还未经人工审阅,仅供参考。

答案是 C。

因为这段文字提到,根据 Winters v United States 1908 的裁定,如果一块土地位于排除他人的独占联邦管辖区域内,并且被官方从联邦公共土地上撤出,另外可以看出政府有意保留水资源并创建保留区,那么可以通过法院来确定联邦有权保留水资源用于特定目的。随后,有关安纳海姆部落的案例也表明,他们在美国获得主权之前就已经有过水资源使用传统,他们实际上也被视为保留区,这扩大了能建立保留区水资源权的条件。因此,答案 C 正确,即 Rio Grande pueblos (里奥格兰德普韦布洛)没有法律依据,以建立保留区水资源权。

展开显示

登录注册 后可以参加讨论

OG2016-RC