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if (1) the land in question lies within an enclave under exclusive federal jurisdiction, (2) the land has been formally withdrawn from federal public lands—i.e., withdrawn from the stock of federal lands available for private use under federal land use laws—and set aside or reserved, and (3) the circumstances reveal the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constituted a part of federal public lands; in any event, no treaty, statute, or executive order has ever designated or withdrawn the pueblos from public lands as American Indian reservations.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.
According to the passage, which of the following was true of the treaty establishing the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation?
Although this treaty did not mention water rights
federal land 和用水权的关系 case 1 Winters v. United States (1908)中法院判决用水权，然后建立相应的规则federal land case 2 Rio Grande pueblos，尽管没有契约说明是federal land ，但还是判决用水权了。因为 用水权是a question of practice, not of legal definition。上述规则的范围扩大了。 case 3 Arizona v. California (1963)支持上述规则的扩大 结论 the reserved water rights of Pueblo Indians have priority over other citizens’ water rights
选项C的答案乱了：ourt a number of times. B It was rescinded by the federal government, an action that gave rise to the Winters case. C It cited American Indians’ traditional use of the land’s resources.
0 0 回复 2017-07-15 12:08:34
0 0 回复 2018-05-17 07:17:22
定位文章第1到10行，从文中此处的信息可知，该条约旨在保护贝克纳城堡印第安人的用水权，并且条约并未直接提及“用水权” A错误，文章未涉及该条约被质疑 B错误，文章未提及该条约被废除 C错误，文章未提及该条约引用了美国印第安人土地资源的传统用途 D正确，文中的确提到了，该条约未直接使用“用水权”这样的字眼 E错误，与第二段的Arizona v. California无关