【OG24-502题】The passage suggests that, if the criteria discussed in the highlighted text were the only criteria for establishing a reservation's water rights, which of the following would be true?_mofa留学圈mofaGRE在线题库系统_GRE在线搜题_GRE题库解析_GRE真题机经_GRE课程_GRE培训机构

最新题目

题目内容

纠错

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 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if (1)the land in question lies within an enclave under exclusive federal jurisdiction; (2) the land has been formally withdrawn from federal public lands— i.e., withdrawn from the stock of federal lands available for private use under federal land use laws-and set aside or reserved; and (3) the circumstances reveal the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constituted a part of federal public lands; in any event, no treaty, statute, or executive order has ever designated or withdrawn the pueblos from public lands as American Indian reservations.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 the highlighted text were the only criteria for establishing a reservation's water rights, which of the following would be true?

The water rights of the inhabitants of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation would not take precedence over those of other citizens. Reservations established before 1848 would be judged to have no water rights. There would be no legal basis for the water rights of the Rio Grande pueblos. Reservations other than American Indian reservations could not be created with reserved water rights. Treaties establishing reservations would have to mention water rights explicitly in order to reserve water for a particular purpose.

正确答案： C

参考解析

提交我的解析

文章大意逻辑
文章开篇介绍在Winters v. United States (1908) 案中，最高法院认为Fort Berthold印第安保留地的用水权被条约保留给了美国印第安人，虽条约未提及水权，但法院裁定政府有此意图。接着阐述后续判决确定法院认定联邦保留特定用途水权的三个标准。然后以Rio Grande pueblos为例，说明一些美国印第安部落基于传统用水方式也确立了水权，尽管Rio Grande pueblos土地从未正式成为联邦公共土地一部分，也无相关条约等指定其为保留地，但Winters原则仍适用，这种实用主义做法在Arizona v. California (1963) 案中得到支持。 文章类型及逻辑简图
文章类型为观点阐述型。逻辑简图： Winters v. United States (1908): Supreme Court held water rights reserved for American Indians in Fort Berthold Reservation Later decisions: Criteria for federal water reservation rights Land within federal exclusive jurisdiction Formally withdrawn from federal public lands Government intended water reservation Example of Rio Grande pueblos: Water rights based on traditional use, Winters doctrine applied despite non formal reservation status Arizona v. California (1963): Supported pragmatic approach 问题类型及做题方法
问题类型为推断题。做题方法是根据高亮文本中讨论的确定保留地水权的标准，对各个选项进行推理判断。 选项分析
A选项：文中未提及Fort Berthold印第安保留地居民水权与其他公民水权的优先性对比，属于无中生有，排除。 B选项：文章没有关于1848年前建立的保留地有无水权的相关表述，排除。 C选项：Rio Grande pueblos土地从未正式成为联邦公共土地一部分，也无相关条约等指定其为保留地，若高亮文本标准是唯一标准，那Rio Grande pueblos就没有水权的法律基础，该项可以推出，当选。 D选项：文章未讨论除美国印第安保留地外其他保留地的情况，排除。 E选项：Winters案中条约未明确提及水权但仍确立了水权，说明不一定非要条约明确提及水权才能为特定目的保留水，该项与原文不符，排除。

题目讨论 (如果对题目有任何的疑惑，欢迎在这里提出来，大家会帮你解答的哦~)

还没有人评论,赶快抢个沙发~

做题笔记

参考解析

题目讨论 (如果对题目有任何的疑惑，欢迎在这里提出来，大家会帮你解答的哦~)

请选择错误类型：

请描述一下这个错误：