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withdrawn from federal public lands-i.e., withdrawn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ever designated or withdrawn the pueblos from public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

Could someone please explain the meaning of the highlighted sentence. This is the most difficult passage in OG-12 and I hardly understand it.

Thanks.

Hi sui,

Whenever you have a tough sentence in a passage, it's often helpful to consider the context it's in as a tool to decode it.

First, we're introduced to Winters. The Belknap Indian Reservation was created from federal lands by a treaty that didn't mention water; but because of the circumstances it was created under, they got water right "without which their land would have been useless."

However, we're introduced to a contrast in paragraph 2. The Pueblo Indians were granted the rights to the water on their land, even though they were not created by Federal treaty!

And that brings us to the meaning of the bolded statement. "The manner in which any type of reservation is created" simply means, how that reservation came to be. And the way it came to be "does not effect" the application of the Winters Doctrine. So, in plain English, the sentence you highlighted says that reservations can get water rights, and it doesn't matter how those reservations originally became reservations.

Good luck with your studies!

Thanks for the reply and the helpful advice.

the sentence you highlighted says that reservations can get water rights, and it doesn't matter how those reservations originally became reservations.

I got the point that you wrote above. But I still couldn't get why is Winters Doctrine mentioned here.

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.

Does it mean no matter how any type of reservation is created it will get water rights as per Winters Doctrine ? OR no matter how any type of reservation is created it will not affect the guidelines of Winters Doctrine ?

Precisely, I can't decode the following line - does not affect the application to it of the Winters doctrine. Also what is the connection between Arizona v. California and Winters doctrine ?