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if (1) the land in question lies within an enclave under exclusive federal jurisdiction, (2) the land has been formally withdrawn from federal public lands—i.e., withdrawn from the stock of federal lands available for private use under federal land use laws—and set aside or reserved, and (3) the circumstances reveal the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constituted a part of federal public lands; in any event, no treaty, statute, or executive order has ever designated or withdrawn the pueblos from public lands as American Indian reservations.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.
Which of the following most accurately summarizes the relationship between Arizona v. California in highlight text, and the criteria citing the Winters doctrine in the last sentence of first paragraph?
B. the manner in which any type of federal reservation is created does not affect the application to it of the Winters doctrine，一致
0 0 回复 2019-05-24 10:22:33
从文中的This fact, however, has not barred application of the Winters doctrine以及之后的This pragmatic approach is buttressed by Arizona v. California可以看出两者之间是基本一致的，都允许一种实用主义的首段（pragmatic approach） A错误，abolishes不符合文中意思 B正确，Arizona v. California案是实用主义的体现，而这些实用主义的标准没有出现在第10到20行的标准中，因此Arizona v. California案是将Winters案判决结果应用在了更多的情况下（broader range of situations） C错误，sole过于极端，文章并没有提及 D错误，由第37-41行可知Arizona v. California确实提及了Winters doctrine E错误，only过于极端，属于“带有明显标志”中的“唯一性”，且文中也没有提到此项信息