In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the right to use waters flowing through or adjacent tothe 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 thereservation, intended to deal fairly with American Indians by reserving forthem the waters without which their lands would have been useless. 【Later decisions, citing Winters, established thatcourts can find federal rights to reserve water for particular purposes if (1)the land in question lies within an enclave under exclusive federaljurisdiction, (2) the land has been formally withdrawn from federal public lands—i.e.,withdrawn from the stock of federal lands available for private use underfederal land use laws—and set aside or reserved, and (3) the circumstancesreveal the government intended to reserve water as well as land whenestablishing 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 theUnited States acquired sovereignty over New Mexico in 1848. Although they atthat 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constituted a part of federal public lands; in any event, no treaty, statute,or executive order has ever designated or withdrawn the pueblos from public landsas American Indian reservations. This fact, however, has not barred applicationof the Winters doctrine. What constitutes an American Indian reservation is aquestion 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 whichany type of federal reservation is created does not affect the application toit of the Winters doctrine. Therefore, the reserved water rights of PuebloIndians have priority over other citizens’ water rights as of 1848, the year inwhich pueblos must be considered to have become reservations.
首先第一段說1908年最高法院裁定流經F地或者其周邊的水使用權保留給印第安人，依據是以前的條約Winters。 雖然這個條約沒有清楚寫明水權，不過法院覺得政府當初設保留地的時候就是為了防止土地荒蕪而有意保障印第安人的水權。然后說到后來的決定引申到 Winters法案，說了政府為了特定目的留出水資源的條件是(1)這些地在政府的直接管轄范圍之內(2)這些土地從政府的公共用地中單列出來用以其他的特殊目的;(3)政府在設立保留地時也有意保留用水權的意圖。
但是R部落卻一向被美國政府視為保留地，因為事實上什么組成保留地是一個實際操作問題，而不是法律定義的問題。之后作者舉出一個1963年Arizona VS California的案例印證，在該案例中法院表示，無論保留地是通過何種方式建立起來的，都不影響Winters對它的適用性。因此，從1848年起，即pueblo被認為是保留地的那一年開始，R部落的人都享有優先用水權。
57. According to the passage, which of thefollowing was true of the treaty establishing the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation?
GMAT入門考生應該知道這屬于細節題，根據題目中的關鍵詞”treaty”和”Fort Belknap Indian Reservation”可以知道題目問的是政府與Fort Belknap Indian Reservation所定的treaty內容，因此原文定位在 ”Althoughthis treaty did not mention water rights, the Court ruled that the federal government, when it created thereservation, intended to deal fairly with American Indians by reservingfor them the waters without which their landswould have been useless.” 一句中，注意，原文中說的是“盡管treaty中沒有涉及到保留地水權，法院仍然認定保留地是擁有水權的”，而且全文中明確提到這個treaty內容的僅此一句。
(A) It waschallenged (原文中沒有說treaty質疑了最高法院的決定)in theSupreme Court a number of times.
(B) It was rescinded (原文中未提到政府廢除treaty) by thefederal government, an action that gave rise to the Winters case.
(C) It cited American Indians’traditional use of the land’s resources (原文并沒有提到印第安人對土地資源的傳統使用)
(D) It failed to mention water rights tobe enjoyed by the reservation’s inhabitants
(E) It was modified by the SupremeCourt in Arizona v. California (這個根據后文也能知道，A v. Cmodify了winters法案里關于印第安保留地水權的處理，而不是treaty的條文).
58. The passage suggests that, if the criteriadiscussed in lines 10–20(中間的部分) were the only criteria for establishing a reservation’s water rights, which ofthe following would be true?
本題屬于推斷題，根據題目我們可以知道本題討論的內容focus在winters法案中政府為了特定目的留出水資源的3個條件里，即(1) the landin question lies within an enclave under exclusive federal jurisdiction,這些地在政府的直接管轄范圍之內(2) the land has beenformally withdrawn from federal public lands這些土地從政府的公共用地中單列出來用以其他的特殊目的(3) the circumstancesreveal the government intended to reserve water as well as land whenestablishing the reservation政府在設立保留地時也有意保留用水權的意圖。
(A) The water rights of the inhabitants ofthe Fort Belknap Indian Reservation would not take precedence over those of other citizens. (既然后來的裁決中引申了winters法案，那么這個地區的情況一定符合winters法案中的條件, 因而不會存在water rights not take precedence的情況)
(B) Reservations established before 1848 (10-20行里面未提到任何與時間相關聯的信息) would be judged to have no water rights.
(C) There would be no legal basis for thewater rights of the Rio Grande pueblos.
(D) Reservations other thanAmerican Indian reservations (10-20行中沒有特別提到適用范圍只在America Indians的保留地上) could notbe created with reserved water rights.
(E) Treaties establishing reservationswould have to mention water rightsexplicitly (與原文相悖。引申出winters法案的原因就在于treaties沒有明文提到水權) in order toreserve water for a particular purpose.