Reading Comprehension

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withdrawn from federal public lands-i.e., withdrawn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ever designated or withdrawn the pueblos from public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.

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
Main idea
Th is question requires recognizing the main topic
of the passage, which is about the establishment
of water rights on American Indian lands. Its
intent is to explain or describe, and it does not
take sides on any issue.
A Th e passage is primarily about establishing
water rights, not establishing reservations.
B Correct. Th e passage is an explanation of
water rights on American Indian lands.
C Th e passage describes legal criteria used to
establish water rights on American Indian
lands but does not take issue with them.
D Th e passage does not discuss the earliest
date for water rights on American Indian
lands.
E Th e passage is primarily about establishing
water rights, not about types of reservations.
Th e correct answer is B.

MY REASONING

Its a Main Idea question. So what i gathered from the passage is
The First para tells us how initially the supreme court decided in favour of the American Indian tribes .
Then the Para goes on to talk about how Winters doctrine can be applied in 3 cases. The winters doctrine has provisions for securing water supply in favour of the Public (Inferred from the last line of 2nd Para) rather than the Indian tribes.
The second para gives an example of how in case of the pueblos , the winters doctrine could be applied even though none of the 3 cases cited in 1st para fitted in this situation .
Since the Winters doctrine is applicable in case of the pueblos .the water supply is not restricted to only the indians but also available to the general public .
Although we have been told not to find flaws in the OG , i couldnt let this pass as this will really affect my RC Prep