这篇阅读遇到很多次，可是就是没明白过……哪位大牛指点下……谢谢

jhqdsjx

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 res-
ervation.  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.  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formally withdrawn from federal
public lands — i.e., withdrawn from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 avail-
able for private use under federal
land use laws — and set aside or
reserved, and (3) the circum-
stances reveal the government
(30)    intended to reserve water as well
as land when establishing the
reservation.
          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.
For example, the Rio Grande
(40)    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
(45)    never formally constituted a part
of federal public lands; in any
event, no treaty, statute, or exec-
utive order has ever designated
or withdrawn the pueblos from
(50)    public lands as American Indian
reservations.  This fact, how-
ever, has not barred application
of the Winters doctrine.  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.  This pragmatic
(60)    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
(65)    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,
(70)    the year in which pueblos must
be considered to have become
reservations.

铁甲

水源的案子。
第一段说是在winters案中，美国法例没有规定印第安人保护区内的水源也受保护，不过法院根据法例的意图而判定水源也受保护。
第二段中，提到另外一个案子，这个案子里面，甚至都没有法例把p地作为保护区，按道理不应该适用winters的案例，但是由于p地事实上是保护区，虽然没有法例规定其是保护区，法院仍然适用了winters的判例来保护p地的水源。

jhqdsjx

太谢谢了！