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if (1)the land in question lies within an enclave under exclusive federal jurisdiction; (2)the land has been formally withdrawn from federal lands available for private use under federal land use laws-and set aside or reserved; and (3)the circumstances reveal the government intended to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constituted a part of federal public lands; in any event, no treaty, statute, or executive order has ever designated or withdrawn the pueblos from public lands as American Indian reservations.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 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 treatment explicitly require this

guaranteed by federal land-use laws

limited by the prior claims of the Pueblo Indian

考题讲解

题目分析:

文章细节题:文章认为印第安人之外的居民对流过RG的水的使用权?

选项分析:

A选项:在AC案中被保证了:与原文相反:AC保证的印第安人的水权高于其他居民。

B选项:被Winters废除了:原文没提。

C选项:服从于Pueblo印第安人当条文明确要求的时候:原文没有提到有此要求的“条文”。

D选项:
被联邦土地使用法保证了:原文没提。

E选项:正确。
被之前关于Pueblo印第安人的声明限制了:与原文一致(the reserved water rights of Pueblo Indians have priority over other citizens’ water rights as of 1848)

展开显示

登录注册 后可以参加讨论

OG2020-RC