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if (1) the land in question lies within an enclave under exclusive federal jurisdiction, (2) the land has been formally withdrawn from federal public lands—i.e., withdrawn from the stock of federal lands available for private use under federal land use laws—and set aside or reserved, and (3) the circumstances reveal the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constituted a part of federal public lands; in any event, no treaty, statute, or executive order has ever designated or withdrawn the pueblos from public lands as American Indian reservations.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 the legal rights of citizens other than American Indians to the use of water flowing into the Rio Grande pueblos are


guaranteed by the precedent set in Arizona v. California

abolished by the Winters doctrine

deferred to the Pueblo Indians whenever treaties explicitly require this

guaranteed by federal land-use laws

limited by the prior claims of the Pueblo Indians

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。

正确答案是 E。因为这篇文章指出,对非印第安人来说,不管在什么时候美国取得主权,都要考虑到印第安人传统改变和使用一些水资源的权利,因此不能保证美国公民使用印第安人使用水资源的权利。Arizona v California虽然为美国公民获得水资源权利提供了先例,但帮助是有限的,因为根据Winters doctrine,印第安人对水资源的先前声明具有优先权。因此,正确答案是E,即美国公民使用印第安人使用水资源的权利受先前声明的限制。

展开显示

登录注册 后可以参加讨论

OG2017-RC