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if (1)the land in question lies within an enclave under exclusive federal jurisdiction; (2)the land has been formally withdrawn from federal lands available for private use under federal land use laws-and set aside or reserved; and (3)the circumstances reveal the government intended to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constituted a part of federal public lands; in any event, no treaty, statute, or executive order has ever designated or withdrawn the pueblos from public lands as American Indian reservations.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.
According to the passage, which of the following was true of the treaty establishing the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation？
It was challenged in the Supreme Court a numbers of times.
It was rescinded by the federal government in action that gave rise to the Winters case.
It cited American Indians’ traditional use of the land’s resources.
It failed to mention water rights to be enjoyed by the reservation’s inhabitants.
It was modified by the Supreme Court in Arizona v. California.
2. 在成为美国领土之前，有一些印第安部落就基于传统和水的使用情况也建立了水权，如Rio Grande（虽然并不满足上面提到的条件，但不妨碍Winters条款的应用，即保留水权）。定义印第安人保留区的并不是legal definition，而是实际情况。Arizona v California也证实了这一点
文章细节题：根据文章，关于“Fort Berthold Indian Reservation”的treaty以下哪点是正确的？
D选项：正确。它没有提到保留地居民享有的水权：与原文一致（although this treaty did not mention water rights）。
E选项：在Arizona v. California法案中它被最高法院修改了：原文没提对它的修改。