In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the right to use waters flowing through or adjacent to the Fort Berthold 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 purpose if (1)the land in question lies within an enclave under exclusive federal jurisdiction; (2)the land has been formally withdrawn from federal lands available for private use under federal land use laws-and set aside or reserved; and (3)the circumstances reveal the government intended to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constituted a part of federal public lands; in any event, no treaty, statute, or executive order has ever designated or withdrawn the pueblos from public lands as American Indian reservations.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 highlight text were the only criteria for establishing a reservation’water rights, which of the following would be true?
The water rights of the inhabitants of the For Berthold 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.
题目分析:
文章推断题:文章认为,如果高亮中的标准是建立保留地水权的唯一标准,那么以下哪点将会是正确的?
原文提到: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(RG从来没有正式被规定为印第安保留地,也就是并不符合上面提到的criteria)。
选项分析:
A选项:B保留地居民的水权将不会优于其他居民的水权:FB是Winters法案中的,而Winters法案又是criteria建立的前提,所以这个criteria不会与FB的判决相冲突。
B选项:1848年前建立的保留地将被认为没有水权:和1848年前建立还是年后建立无关。
C选项:正确。RG的水权将没有法律基础:RG从来没有被正式划为保留地,所以如果严格按照前文提到的criteria,那么RG将无法合法拥有水权。
D选项:除了印第安保留地之外的保留地将不会被赋予水权:无关。
E选项:建立保留地的treaty将不得不明确提到水权:这个criteria和是否“明确提到水权”无关。
在这三种if的情况下:在政府的管辖区内、被正式撤销过、政府想弄成保护区,政府有水权。A选项,FB是被写在Winters里面的(在开头有提到,即印第安人有水权),并且这个和三个if的情况不冲突,所以水权属于印第安人,他们有优先权。B选项,1848以前建立的虽然没有明确的法律条文,但是依旧是被法院支持的,这点在Arizona的内容里提到
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论