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if (1)the land in question lies within an enclave under exclusive federaljurisdiction, (2) the land has been formally withdrawn from federal public lands—i.e.,withdrawn from the stock of federal lands available for private use underfederal land use laws—and set aside or reserved, and (3) the circumstancesreveal the government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constituted a part of federal public lands; in any event, no treaty, statute,or executive order has ever designated or withdrawn the pueblos from public landsas American Indian reservations.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.
首先第一段说1908年最高法院裁定流经F地或者其周边的水使用权保留给印第安人，依据是以前的条约Winters。 虽然这个条约没有清楚写明水权，不过法院觉得政府当初设保留地的时候就是为了防止土地荒芜而有意保障印第安人的水权。然后说到后来的决定引申到 Winters法案，说了政府为了特定目的留出水资源的条件是(1)这些地在政府的直接管辖范围之内(2)这些土地从政府的公共用地中单列出来用以其他的特殊目的;(3)政府在设立保留地时也有意保留用水权的意图。
但是R部落却一向被美国政府视为保留地，因为事实上什么组成保留地是一个实际操作问题，而不是法律定义的问题。之后作者举出一个1963年Arizona VS California的案例印证，在该案例中法院表示，无论保留地是通过何种方式建立起来的，都不影响Winters对它的适用性。因此，从1848年起，即pueblo被认为是保留地的那一年开始，R部落的人都享有优先用水权。
57. According to the passage, which of thefollowing was true of the treaty establishing the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation?
GMAT入门考生应该知道这属于细节题，根据题目中的关键词”treaty”和”Fort Belknap Indian Reservation”可以知道题目问的是政府与Fort Belknap Indian Reservation所定的treaty内容，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，原文中说的是“尽管treaty中没有涉及到保留地水权，法院仍然认定保留地是拥有水权的”，而且全文中明确提到这个treaty内容的仅此一句。
(A) It waschallenged (原文中没有说treaty质疑了最高法院的决定)in theSupreme Court a number of times.
(B) It was rescinded (原文中未提到政府废除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 (原文并没有提到印第安人对土地资源的传统使用)
(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 (这个根据后文也能知道，A v. Cmodify了winters法案里关于印第安保留地水权的处理，而不是treaty的条文).
58. The passage suggests that, if the criteriadiscussed in lines 10–20(中间的部分) were the only criteria for establishing a reservation’s water rights, which ofthe following would be true?
本题属于推断题，根据题目我们可以知道本题讨论的内容focus在winters法案中政府为了特定目的留出水资源的3个条件里，即(1) the landin question lies within an enclave under exclusive federal jurisdiction,这些地在政府的直接管辖范围之内(2) the land has beenformally withdrawn from federal public lands这些土地从政府的公共用地中单列出来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政府在设立保留地时也有意保留用水权的意图。
(A) The water rights of the inhabitants ofthe Fort Belknap Indian Reservation would not take precedence over those of other citizens. (既然后来的裁决中引申了winters法案，那么这个地区的情况一定符合winters法案中的条件, 因而不会存在water rights not take precedence的情况)
(B) Reservations established before 1848 (10-20行里面未提到任何与时间相关联的信息) 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行中没有特别提到适用范围只在America Indians的保留地上) could notbe created with reserved water rights.
(E) Treaties establishing reservationswould have to mention water rightsexplicitly (与原文相悖。引申出winters法案的原因就在于treaties没有明文提到水权) in order toreserve water for a particular purpose.