接下来给大家贴上神人的分析:膜拜之! In Winters v. United States(1908), the Supreme Court held that the right to use waters flow- Line ing through or adjacent to the (5) Fort Berthold Indian Reservation was reserved to American Indians by the treaty establishing the reservation. 在winters v United States一案中,最高法院判定经由建立保留地的条款,印第安人拥有流经或者临近FB印第安保留地的水域的用水权。
Although this treaty did not mention water rights, the Court (10) ruled that the federal government, when it created the reservation, intended to deal fairly with American Indians by preserving for them the waters without which (15) their lands would have been use less. 这一条款没有提及水权,但是最高法院判定当联合政府建立保留地的时候,是有意保留水权和印第安人公平交易的,因为没有水权,印第安人的土地无法得到更大的利用。
Later decisions, citing Winters, established that courts can find federal rights to reserve water for particular purposes if (20) (1) the land in question lies within an enclave under exclusive federal jurisdiction, (2) the land has been formally withdrawn from federal public lands — i.e., withdrawn from(25) the stock of federal lands available for private use under federal land use laws — and set aside or reserved, and (3) the circumstances reveal the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 (30) intended to reserve water as well as land when establishing the reservation. 在引用winters的基础上,后来的决议判定法院能找到联邦法律在如下的情况下为特殊的用途保留水权,(1)如果决议中的土地位于一个被包围的领土中,这一领土隶属于最高联邦权限。(2)如果决议中的土地已经正式的从联邦公共土地中脱离—即从可为私人占有的联邦土地中脱离—而且单独保留。(3)如果情形表明政府建立保留地的时候有意同时保留水权和土地。
Some American Indian tribes have also established water rights (35) through the courts based on their traditional diversion and use of certain waters prior to the United States’ acquisition of sovereignty. 基于他们先于美国主权建立之前对水域的改道和对水域的使用权,一些印第安部落也在法庭上获得了水权。
For example, the Rio Grande (40) pueblos already existed when the United States acquired sovereignty over New Mexico in 1848. 比如说,当美国在1848年建立主权的时候,RG印第安村庄就已经存在了!
Although they at that time became part of the United States, the pueblo lands (45) 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constituted a part of federal public lands; in any event, no treaty, statute, or executive order has ever designated or withdrawn the pueblos from50) public lands as American Indian reservations. 尽管当时他们成为了美国的一部分,这个村庄的土地从来都没有正式成为联邦公共土地的一部分;没有任何条款,法令或者行政命令曾经指定这个村庄为印第安保留地或者把这个村庄从公共土地中脱离出去成为保留地。
This fact, however, has not barred application of the Winters doctrine. 但是这个事实并没有阻碍winters条款的实施。
What constitutes an American Indian (55) reservation is a question of practice, not of legal definition, and the pueblos have always been treated as reservations by the United States.
印第安保留地的组成是一个基于实用的问题,而不是一个法律定义的问题。
This pragmatic (60) approach is buttressed by Arizonav. California(1963), wherein the
Supreme Court indicated that the manner in which any type of federal reservation is created does not(65) affect the application to it of the Winters doctrine.
这种注重实效的策略在Arizona v. California (1963)得到了支持。当时最高法院判定任何形式的联邦保留地的建立的模式都不影响winters条款的运用。
Therefore, the reserved water rights of Pueblo Indians have priority over other citizens’ water rights as of 1848, (70) the year in which pueblos must be considered to have become reservations.因此,在1848年P村庄的印第安人拥有比其他人优先的水权,那一年P村庄应该被认为成为了保留地。
下面附上整片的翻译整理,括号里的是原文或者自己引申的东西(来自edison890424):
在1908年的Winters v. United States案子中,最高法院判定(held),根据建立保留地的条约,印第安人享有流经FB印第安保留地及其周边的水源的使用权。尽管条约中没有(明确)提到水权(的归属),最高法院认为联邦政府在创建保留地的时候是打算以保留其水源的方式公平地对待(deal fairly with)印第安人的,(因为)缺少水源会使他们的土地变得毫无用处。在之后的一些决定(decisions)引证W案例,规定法院在以下情况下应裁定(find)联邦须因(这些)情况(为保留地)保留水源:1. 待裁决的土地位于联邦全权治下土地的包围之中;2.待裁决土地曾被正式从联邦公共土地中分离出来(withdrawn),即从在联邦土地使用法(指导)下可以作私人用途的联邦土地库存中分离出来,并被留出或保留的;3. 有迹象显示当时的政府在建立保留地时有意将水权和土地权一起保留(给当地人)。
其他一些印第安人部落也基于他们历史上(traditional)调取和使用水源早于美国取得当地主权的事实通过法庭获得了水权。例如,RG的印第安村落在美国1848年取得新墨西哥主权之前就已经存在了。虽然他们那时成为了美国的一部分,他们的土地却从没有正式成为联邦公共用地的一部分;(而)在任何的事件、条约、法规和行政命令中,美国(也)从没有标示或分离出这些印第安村落为保留地。不过,这一事实并没有影响W规则的适用性。定性(某个地方)是否属于印第安保留地是一个实践问题,而不是法律定义问题,而上述村落一直以来被美国当作保留地来对待。这一实用主义方法被1963年的Arizona v. California案例所支持。在A案例中最高法院认为各种联邦保留地是以何种方式建立的并不影响W案例规则对其的适用性。因此,从这些村落理应被认定为保留地的1848年起,村落的印第安居民便享有优先于其他公民的水权。