In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the right to use waters flowing 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 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if (1) the land in question lies within an enclave under exclusive federal jurisdiction, (2) the land has been formally withdrawn from federal public lands—i.e., withdrawn from the stock of federal lands available for private use under federal land use laws—and set aside or reserved, and (3) the circumstances reveal the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constituted a part of federal public lands; in any event, no treaty, statute, or executive order has ever designated or withdrawn the pueblos from public lands as American Indian reservations.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.
Later decisions, citing Winters, established that courts can find federal rights to reserve water for particular purposes . 我觉得这篇文章要多看，我一开始也看不懂，后来想想觉得是因为里面有很多文化的因素。 之后的一些决定（关于水权的一些决定），引用Winters这个案例的决定， 建立说：法院可以以下一些特殊目的（以下的3个）下保留水权。
Later decisions, citing Winters, established that courts can find federal rights to reserve water for particular purposes . 我觉得这篇文章要多看，我一开始也看不懂，后来想想觉得是因为里面有很多文化的因素。 之后的一些决定（关于水权的一些决定），引用Winters这个案例的决定， 建立说：法院可以以下一些特殊目的（以下的3个）下保留水权。
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2010-7-21 20:32:59
收藏
收藏
楼主
