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if (1) the land in question lies within an enclave under exclusive federal jurisdiction, (2) the land has been formally withdrawn from federal public lands—i.e., withdrawn from the stock of federal lands available for private use under federal land use laws—and set aside or reserved, and (3) the circumstances reveal the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constituted a part of federal public lands; in any event, no treaty, statute, or executive order has ever designated or withdrawn the pueblos from public lands as American Indian reservations.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.
A. 原文提到这一点是为了转折， This fact, however, has not….
B. 不符，原文提到although they at that time…
C. 原文说he pueblo lands never formally constituted a part of federal public lands，并且这一点并不妨碍它获得水权，因为究竟是不是federal public land并不重要，重要的是practice，即事实如何。
全篇都在说water rights, 第一段是说American Indians的，里面包含了3个条件； 第二段是water right的特例，即 Rio Grande pueblos并未满足第一段提出的一个条件，但同样是有right的
0 2 回复 2019-12-27 19:57:55
本文是在谈论美国印第安人获得用水权的法律依据以及其他标准，正确词汇应该出现诸如water rights或者类似的同义转换词汇 A错误，该选项没有提及用水权 B正确，谈及了legal basis以及water rights C错误，该选项没有质疑法律标准 D错误，最高级earliest在原文并没有提及 E错误，该选项没有提及用水权