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if (1) the land in question lies within an enclave under exclusive federal jurisdiction, (2) the land has been formally withdrawn from federal public lands—i.e., withdrawn from the stock of federal lands available for private use under federal land use laws—and set aside or reserved, and (3) the circumstances reveal the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constituted a part of federal public lands; in any event, no treaty, statute, or executive order has ever designated or withdrawn the pueblos from public lands as American Indian reservations.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 passage suggests that, if the criteria discussed in highlight text were the only criteria for establishing a reservation’s water rights, which of the following would be true?
A错误，由于Fort Belknap印第安人保留地的建立依据的是Winters案，而第10行到20行提到的标准也引用了Winters案的判决结果，因此，Fort Belknap印第安人保留地的成立符合这一标准，拥有用水权，该选项说反了。
C正确，文章第二段第一句提到另外的两条标准：based on their traditional diversion and use of certain waters prior to the United States’ acquisition of sovereignty，随后作者举了Rio Grande pueblos的例子进行说明。因此，如果仅仅根据第一段的三个标准，那么Rio Grande pueblos的用水权就是没有法律基础的
D错误，文中的的内容没有涉及reservations other than American Indian reservations
2018-05-17 07:28:54 回复
2018-05-17 07:22:00 回复
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. (1) the land in question lies within an enclave under exclusive federal jurisdiction, (2) the land has been formally withdrawn from federal public lands
【OG19-P384-444题】The idea that carotenoid-based coloration is significant partly because carotenoids are required for health suggests that a lack of bright coloration in a male is most likely to indicate which of the following?