OG P390 印第安保留区水权 全文分析

joanwong

In Winters v. United States (1908), the SupremeCourt held that the right to use waters flowing through or adjacent to the FortBelknap Indian Reservation was reserved to American Indians by the treatyestablishing the reservation.【给出全文背景，提出“印第安保留区”和“水权”两个贯穿全文的概念，后文围绕保留区印第安居民的水权进行展开】

Although this treaty did not mention water rights, theCourt ruled that the federal government, when it created the reservation,intended to deal fairly with American Indians by reserving for them the waterswithout which their lands would have been useless.

Laterdecisions, citing Winters,established that courts can find federal rights to reserve water for particularpurposes if (1) the land in question lies within an enclave under exclusivefederal jurisdiction, (2) the land has been formally withdrawn from federalpublic lands—i.e., withdrawn from the stock of federal lands available forprivate use under federal land use laws—and set asideor reserved, and (3) the circumstances reveal the government intended toreserve water as well as land when establishing the reservation.【基于温特斯案件又做出了一系列决定，列举在三个条件下联邦政府可以拥有水权，并将水权赋予给印第安人】

注释： exclusive federal jurisdiction（EFJ）排他司法管辖权

       enclave 飞地（指隶属某一行政区管辖但不与本区毗邻的土地）

第一段翻译：

最高法院在1908年审理“温特斯诉美国案”时根据保留地建立的协议条约判决Ft. Belknap印第安人保留地的印第安人拥有流经、毗邻该地域的水域的使用权。尽管协议本身并未涉及水权，最高法院却认为，联邦政府在建立保留区的时候本意是通过为印第安人保留水域而和他们进行平等的交换。因为如果不赋予印第安人水权，保留区的土地就完全无法使用。根据温特斯一案的判决结果，之后的决议认定在以下三种特殊情况下法院可以将水权赋予联邦政府（联邦政府有了水权才能把水权赋予给印第安人）：第一，该地域属于联邦政府拥有排他司法管辖权的飞地；第二，该地曾作为联邦政府公共用地被抽调他用（即基于联邦土地使用法，抽调该地做私人用途），之后被闲置或保留；第三，各种情况显示，政府在建立保留地的时候，其意图是保护当地水域和土地。

Some American Indian tribes have also established water rights throughthe courts based on their traditional diversion and use of certain waters priorto the United States’ acquisition of sovereignty. 【看到这个also，可以确定上文肯定也有获得水权的其他方式，而第一段的段首就给出，最高法院通过保留区协议判决当地水权归印第安人所有，因此可以判断两段之间是平行结构】

For example, the Rio Grande pueblos already existed whenthe United States acquired sovereignty over New Mexico in 1848. Although they at that time became partof the United States, the pueblo lands never formally constituted a part offederal public lands; in any event, no treaty, statute, or executive order hasever designated or withdrawn the pueblos from public lands as American Indianreservations.【段内为举例论证结构】

Thisfact, however, has not barredapplication of the Winters doctrine. What constitutes an American Indianreservation is a question of practice, not of legal definition, and the puebloshave always been treated as reservations by the United States.【支持第一段温特斯案件判决的决定，实践大于法律】

This pragmatic approach is buttressed by Arizona v. California (1963), wherein the SupremeCourt indicated that the manner in which any type of federal reservation iscreated does not affect the application to it of the Winters doctrine.【进一步论证上一句的实践大于法律】

Therefore, the reserved water rights of PuebloIndians have priority over other citizens’ water rights as of 1848, the year in which pueblos must beconsidered to have become reservations.【得出结论：在保留区印第安居民水权高于公民】

第二段翻译：

一些印第安部落也基于他们的传统差异以及他们在联邦政府获得统治权之前就一直使用部分水域的特定事实，通过法院确立了水权。例如，RG印第安人村庄在1848年美国取得墨西哥统治权之前就已经存在。尽管当时这个村子成为了美国的一部分，但是村庄的土地却从没有正式成为联邦政府的公共用地，也从来没有任何协议或行政命令将村子指定为或从公共用地中调取出来作为印第安人保留区。但是这个事实也无法阻碍温特斯原则的生效。建立印第安保留区是历史实践的问题，而不是由法律定义来决定的，而这些印第安小村庄也一直被美国当做保留区。这一务实的做法被1963年亚利桑那州诉美国加州案的审判结果所支持。在此案中，最高法院联邦保留区建立的方式并不影响温特斯原则的实施。因此，自从1848年起，当地印第安人的水权高于其他公民的水权，也正是从这一年起村庄也被认定成为保留区。