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if (1) the land in question lies within an enclave under exclusive federal jurisdiction, (2) the land has been formally withdrawn from federal public lands—i.e., withdrawn from the stock of federal lands available for private use under federal land use laws—and set aside or reserved, and (3) the circumstances reveal the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constituted a part of federal public lands; in any event, no treaty, statute, or executive order has ever designated or withdrawn the pueblos from public lands as American Indian reservations.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The author cites the fact that the Rio Grande pueblos were never formally withdrawn from public lands primarily in order to do which of the following?
第一遍选择了错误答案C，第二次想了想选对了。可能是网页原因，最上面的网友解析提到的30行好像不存在了，全文在屏幕上没有30行。。我是这么理解的：Rio Grande是一个棘手的特例也许会有人反对其应用保留地条令（option B)。因为很早就使用水而拥有水权，但它从未正式加入或者撤出联邦土地，也没有很正式的指出过它是保留地。其实就是为了呼应后文举的一个例子，Winters doctrine不在乎有没有正式成立这个保留地，只要它被认作是就算是。“has not barred application of the Winters doctrine".
Option A. Sorry about the typo.
0 0 回复 2019-12-22 23:06:33
加了一个might 与其有缓和，被后面的however 反驳了
0 0 回复 2018-05-17 08:27:09
文中第30行左右提到相关内容，从此处文章的意思可知，Rio Grande pueblos从未正式脱离公共用地，即不符合第一段提出的第二条标准，因此应该不符合Winters案中关于美国印第安人保留地的标准，所以，文章此处提到“Rio Grande pueblos从未正式脱离公共用地”就是为了陈述Rio Grande不符合Winters案的原因。因此答案要选一个与Winters案相关的选项 A正确，不但含有Winters，而且与解题思路相符 B错误，与文章内容相反，因为文章提到，美国于1848获得了对pueblos土地的主权 C错误，文中提到the pueblo lands never formally constituted a part of federal public lands D错误，虽然提到Winters，但是与“不符合Winters案的标准”无关 E错误，文章未提及“获取管辖权”