这是我个人对文章的理解，有问题大家一起讨论。 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(1) the land in question lies within an enclave under exclusive federal jurisdiction, (2) the land has been formally withdrawn from federal public lands — i.e., withdrawn from (25) the stock of federal lands avail- able for private use under federal land use laws — and set aside or reserved, and (3) the circum- stances reveal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a part of federal public lands; in any event, no treaty, statute, or exec- utive order has ever designated or withdrawn the pueblos from (50) public lands as American Indian reservations.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. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q25: 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? - Suggest why it might have been argued that the Winters doctrine ought not to apply to pueblo lands
- Imply that the United States never really acquired sovereignty over pueblo lands
- Argue that the pueblo lands ought still to be considered part of federal public lands
- Support the argument that the water rights of citizens other than American Indians are limited by the Winters doctrine
- Suggest that federal courts cannot claim jurisdiction over cases disputing the traditional diversion and use of water by Pueblo Indians
Answer: A 这道题有难度，不能单独的就例子理解例子，而应该放到全文大背景下思考。象这样的例证题，至少也是段落主旨。文章是关于印第安水权，要想明白这个例子跟水权的关系是什么。 第一段讲到，在W法当中，保障了对印第安保留地的用水，注意了这个法是个关于建立保留地的法律，其中并没有明确提到“水权”。
“Although this treaty didnot mention water rights,…”，这种转折句型不要放过，“虽然这个条款没提到水权…”，再加上第一句话的提示，后文明显要说水权实际已得到保障。然后根据这个法律，法庭在三种情况下find federal rights to reserve water；也就是说这个法律使得水权有了依据。 第二段讲到了非保留地的印第安部落的水权问题，这些部落的水权也得到了法庭的认可，然后举了R部落为例子。W法是适用于印第安保留地的，R不符合保留地的定义，那W法不适用于它吗？然后出现了非常重要的一句话，This fact, however, has not barred application of the Winters doctrine.
然后继续讨论，这些印第安部落的水权是如何保障的。因此，举R部落就是要引出这么一个看似W法不适用的情况。 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q26: The passage suggests that, if the criteria discussed in lines 16 – 32 were the only criteria for establishing a reservation’s water rights, which of the following would be true? - The water rights of the inhabitants of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation would not take precedence over those of other citizens.
- Reservations established before 1848 would be judged to have no water rights.
- There would be no legal basis for the water rights of the Rio Grande pueblos.
- Reservations other than American Indian reservations could not be created with reserved water rights.
- Treaties establishing reservations would have to mention water rights explicitly in order to reserve water for a particular purpose.
Answer: C 这三个标准是法庭判断保留地（这是一个广义的保留地，应与印第安保留地加以区分）是否能享有水权的标准，第一国家对该地享有主权，第二该地被正式的设置为保留地，第三在国家将该地设为保留地时想要将水与地一起保留。A反了。B中的Reservation是可能符合标准的。C是答案，因为R部落明显不符合第二条。D反。E无中生有。 实际上这三个标准是有利于政府的，主动权掌握在政府手中；于是有了第二段，对于不符合条件的印第安部落（没有正式被设为保留地），政府也要保障其水权。 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q27: According to the passage, which of the following was true of the treaty establishing the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation?
- It was challenged in the Supreme Court a number of times.
- It was rescinded by the federal government, an action that gave rise to the Winters case.
- It cited American Indians’ traditional use of the land’s resources.
- It failed to mention water rights to be enjoyed by the reservation’s inhabitants.
- It was modified by the Supreme Court in Arizona v. California.
Answer: D 文章原话，送分题。W法没有提到水权的概念，但是其条款实际保障了水权。 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q28: The primary purpose of the passage is to - trace the development of laws establishing American Indian reservations
搞错了对象，文章中心论述的水权。 - explain the legal bases for the water rights of American Indian tribes
文章两段，先讲W法如何保障了印第安保留地水权，二段讲表面上不符合W法的印第安保留地水权如何得到法律保障。 - question the legal criteria often used to determine the water rights of American Indian tribes
作者并没有质疑这些标准。 - discuss evidence establishing the earliest date at which the federal government recognized the water rights of American Indians
没有讨论什么证据。 - point out a legal distinction between different types of American Indian reservations
搞错对象。 Answer: B | 
