water rights那篇好难啊。。。

糊香肠

感觉看了答案还是不太明白，有没高手来讲解下啊？？
In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme
Court held that the right to use waters fl owing 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 fi nd 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withdrawn from federal public lands—i.e., withdrawn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ever designated or withdrawn the pueblos from public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
defi nition, 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.
Questions 57–63 refer to the passage above.


57. According to the passage, which of the following was
true of the treaty establishing the Fort Belknap Indian
Reservation?
(A) It was challenged in the Supreme Court a
number of times.
(B) It was rescinded by the federal government, an
action that gave rise to the Winters case.
(C) It cited American Indians’ traditional use of the
land’s resources.
(D) It failed to mention water rights to be enjoyed by
the reservation’s inhabitants.
(E) It was modifi ed by the Supreme Court in Arizona
v. California.



58. The passage suggests that, if the criteria discussed in
lines 10–20 were the only criteria for establishing a
reservation’s water rights, which of the following would
be true?
(A) The water rights of the inhabitants of the Fort
Belknap Indian Reservation would not take
precedence over those of other citizens.
(B) Reservations established before 1848 would be
judged to have no water rights.
(C) There would be no legal basis for the water
rights of the Rio Grande pueblos.
(D) Reservations other than American Indian
reservations could not be created with reserved
water rights.
(E) Treaties establishing reservations would have to
mention water rights explicitly in order to
reserve water for a particular purpose.



59. Which of the following most accurately summarizes
the relationship between Arizona v. California in lines
38–42, and the criteria citing the Winters doctrine in
lines 10–20?
(A) Arizona v. California abolishes these criteria and
establishes a competing set of criteria for
applying the Winters doctrine.
(B) Arizona v. California establishes that the Winters
doctrine applies to a broader range of situations
than those defi ned by these criteria.
(C) Arizona v. California represents the sole example
of an exception to the criteria as they were set
forth in the Winters doctrine.
(D) Arizona v. California does not refer to the Winters
doctrine to justify water rights, whereas these
criteria do rely on the Winters doctrine.
(E) Arizona v. California applies the criteria derived
from the Winters doctrine only to federal lands
other than American Indian reservations.



60. The “pragmatic approach” mentioned in lines 37–38
of the passage is best defi ned as one that
(A) grants recognition to reservations that were
never formally established but that have
traditionally been treated as such
(B) determines the water rights of all citizens in a
particular region by examining the actual history
of water usage in that region
(C) gives federal courts the right to reserve water
along with land even when it is clear that the
government originally intended to reserve only
the land
(D) bases the decision to recognize the legal rights
of a group on the practical effect such a
recognition is likely to have on other citizens
(E) dictates that courts ignore precedents set by
such cases as Winters v. United States in
deciding what water rights belong to reserved
land



61. The author cites the fact that the Rio Grande pueblos
were never formally withdrawn from public lands
primarily in order to do which of the following?
(A) Suggest why it might have been argued that the
Winters doctrine ought not to apply to pueblo
lands
(B) Imply that the United States never really
acquired sovereignty over pueblo lands
(C) Argue that the pueblo lands ought still to be
considered part of federal public lands
(D) Support the argument that the water rights of
citizens other than American Indians are limited
by the Winters doctrine
(E) Suggest that federal courts cannot claim
jurisdiction over cases disputing the traditional
diversion and use of water by Pueblo Indians



62. The primary purpose of the passage is to
(A) trace the development of laws establishing
American Indian reservations
(B) explain the legal bases for the water rights of
American Indian tribes
(C) question the legal criteria often used to
determine the water rights of American Indian
tribes
(D) discuss evidence establishing the earliest date
at which the federal government recognized the
water rights of American Indians
(E) point out a legal distinction between different
types of American Indian reservations



63. The passage suggests that the legal rights of citizens
other than American Indians to the use of water
fl owing into the Rio Grande pueblos are
(A) guaranteed by the precedent set in Arizona v.
California
(B) abolished by the Winters doctrine
(C) deferred to the Pueblo Indians whenever treaties
explicitly require this
(D) guaranteed by federal land-use laws
(E) limited by the prior claims of the Pueblo Indians

感觉每道题都没什么谱，错好多~

增小熊

今晚做了这篇文章，刚开始也有点糊涂，说一下自己对这篇文章的理解。文章主要讲了美国历史上两个关于“水权”的cases（除了这两个还有很多水权，如内华达水权，新墨西哥水权等），一个是"Winters right"(case在1907年被提出，1908年才达成,为美国政府认识和了解印第安人水权重要性提供了一个标准),一个是“Arizona" right( 是在1931年提出的，主要是解决亚利桑那州科罗拉多河水权)，都和美国印第安原住民的用水有关，文章并没有提出一个明确观点去支持哪个case，只是分析和解释了两个case在原住民用水问题上的应用。

美国东部水资源丰富，西部却很匮乏。在美国，关于“水权”有两个体系，一个是"Riparian water system",即靠近岸边的土地所有人拥有用水的话语权；另一个是“Appropriative System”，就是专营权，属于第一个合理使用水资源的人，文章提到的the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation，就是一个适用“Appropriative System”的印第安部落。

57.文章在第5行提到了this treaty did not mention water rights，所以选d。

58.文章在line10-20提到的三个标准，都是适用于"Winters right"，并被美国政府采用（Later decisions)，而第二段提到的puebols则是采用另一种标准制定的，同时在第34-36行提到印第安人的水权是由历史传统沿袭下来的，而非靠法律来规定的。选C。

59和60，第37行有个关键词，pragmatic approach,务实的做法(认可保护区从来没有被正式地设立过，只是传统上一直把他视为保护区）受到了Arizona的支持，暗示着Arizona应用更为广泛。选b和a。

61,第2段主要讲的与第一段提到的winters不同的case，并拿pueblos做例子，既然拿它做例子，肯定就要支持Arizona，而不使用winters(见第33行）。选A。

62.文章主要讲的是印第安人水权问题，与水权无关的都可以排除（a,e).另外文章没有明显地支持哪个case，只是对两个case分别进行了论述，c选项提出了疑问（question)，d提到了earliest,文章没有提到可排除。选b。

63，第42行提到了pueblo 印第安人的储水权利优先与其他城市居民，换句话说，就是其他城市居民的用水受到了pueble印第安人的限制。

-- by 会员 twoflying (2010/9/7 23:51:41)

josieliu

几乎全军覆没

qingbo

我觉得 OG的文章有的好难啊

都搞不明白它想说什么

cc026

恩刚做，真的看中文都看不懂啊

twoflying

文章提及和treaty有关的内容就是第4-5行，况且文章也没有提及印第安人土地利用的事情，只是说政府在建立fort保护区时考虑到，没有水，他们的土地没有任何用处。而题目问的是，有关建立保护区的相关条约哪个是正确的。

rachelxfr

可第57题的D选项为什么比C选项好？

twoflying

今晚做了这篇文章，刚开始也有点糊涂，说一下自己对这篇文章的理解。文章主要讲了美国历史上两个关于“水权”的cases（除了这两个还有很多水权，如内华达水权，新墨西哥水权等），一个是"Winters right"(case在1907年被提出，1908年才达成,为美国政府认识和了解印第安人水权重要性提供了一个标准),一个是“Arizona" right( 是在1931年提出的，主要是解决亚利桑那州科罗拉多河水权)，都和美国印第安原住民的用水有关，文章并没有提出一个明确观点去支持哪个case，只是分析和解释了两个case在原住民用水问题上的应用。

美国东部水资源丰富，西部却很匮乏。在美国，关于“水权”有两个体系，一个是"Riparian water system",即靠近岸边的土地所有人拥有用水的话语权；另一个是“Appropriative System”，就是专营权，属于第一个合理使用水资源的人，文章提到的the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation，就是一个适用“Appropriative System”的印第安部落。

57.文章在第5行提到了this treaty did not mention water rights，所以选d。

58.文章在line10-20提到的三个标准，都是适用于"Winters right"，并被美国政府采用（Later decisions)，而第二段提到的puebols则是采用另一种标准制定的，同时在第34-36行提到印第安人的水权是由历史传统沿袭下来的，而非靠法律来规定的。选C。

59和60，第37行有个关键词，pragmatic approach,务实的做法(认可保护区从来没有被正式地设立过，只是传统上一直把他视为保护区）受到了Arizona的支持，暗示着Arizona应用更为广泛。选b和a。

61,第2段主要讲的与第一段提到的winters不同的case，并拿pueblos做例子，既然拿它做例子，肯定就要支持Arizona，而不使用winters(见第33行）。选A。

62.文章主要讲的是印第安人水权问题，与水权无关的都可以排除（a,e).另外文章没有明显地支持哪个case，只是对两个case分别进行了论述，c选项提出了疑问（question)，d提到了earliest,文章没有提到可排除。选b。

63，第42行提到了pueblo 印第安人的储水权利优先与其他城市居民，换句话说，就是其他城市居民的用水受到了pueble印第安人的限制。

zoemiaoer

58题不是定位在10-20行么？为什么解释说要结合前后文呢？谁能讲解下？？谢谢了，做了两遍 没错都错的稀里哗啦的……

linsonyeo

有没有答案阿?