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if (1)the land in question lies within an enclave under exclusive federal jurisdiction; (2)the land has been formally withdrawn from federal lands available for private use under federal land use laws-and set aside or reserved; and (3)the circumstances reveal the government intended to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constituted a part of federal public lands; in any event, no treaty, statute, or executive order has ever designated or withdrawn the pueblos from public lands as American Indian reservations.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.

The author cites the fact that the Rio Grande pueblos were never formally withdrawn from public lands primary in order to do which of the following?

Suggest why it might have been argued that the Winters doctrine ought not to apply to pueblo lands.

Imply that the United States never really acquired sovereignty over pueblo lands

Argue that the pueblo lands ought still to be considered part of federal public lands

Support the argument that the water rights of citizens other than American Indians are limited by the Winters doctrine

Suggest that federal courts cannot claim Jurisdiction over cases disputing the traditional diversion and use of water by Pueblo Indians





A选项:正确。说明为啥有可能争论“Winters不应该被应用到Pueblo土地上”:原文提到这一点是为了转折“This fact, however, has not barred application of the Winters doctrine”,说明虽然RG不符合条件,但是它依旧应用了Winters,暗示这里可能会有一个小争议。

B选项:暗示美国从来没有真正获得过Pueblo土地:与原文不符。原文提到“Although they at that time became part of the United States”。

C选项:争论Pueblo土地应该被认为是联邦公共土地的一部分:原文已经明确说“ the 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。




登录注册 后可以参加讨论