Some stupid rule preventing me from attaching a doc file in which I have properly done the formatting which is not getting copied over here.Anyways, will upload the doc file as soon as possoible, until then
Line by line breakdown of the passage:
1.In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the right to use waters flowing through or adjacent to the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation was reserved to American Indians by the treaty establishing the reservation.
The notation “v.” means versus. “Supreme court(SC) held the right” means that it’s a court case. Here the term “Reservation” means it’s a piece of reserved land. The Fort Berthold Indian Reservation(FBIR) was reserved to American Indians(AI’s) by “the treaty establishing the reservation”. So, there is some treaty establishing land reservation, on the basis of which SC held the right to use the waters by AIs.
2.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 preserving for them the waters without which their lands would have been useless.
Federal Government(FG)= (central govt. governing all the states in a country/)
The treaty only mentioned land rights but not water rights, even then the SC ruled the case saying that the FG intended to deal fairly with AIs when it created the reservation
3.Later decisions, citing Winters, established that courts can find 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if (1) the land in question lies within an enclave under exclusive federal jurisdiction, (2) the land has been formally withdrawn from federal public lands — i.e., withdrawn from the stock of federal lands available for private use under federal land use laws — and set aside or reserved, and (3) the circumstances reveal the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.
“Later decisions, citing winters” means there have been other court cases in which the rulings have been made citing the winters case. So, what did the later decisions establish? They established that courts can find federal rights to reserve water for particular purposes based on following conditions:
I. If the land in question lies within an enclave under exclusive federal jurisdiction. Enclave means “An enclosed territory that is culturally distinct from the foreign territory that surrounds it”
II. “If the land has been formally withdrawn from federal public lands” meaning that the land has been made private and then set aside or reserved for something or some people(like the AIs) or some purpose.
III. If the circumstances reveal that the government intended to reserve water as well as land when establishing the reservation.
4.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.
Sovereign=Government free from external control, Independent.
So, there are some other AIs who also have established water rights but based on their traditional diversion and use of certain waters prior to US’s acquisition of sovereignty. This means that US acquired sovereignty of some place in which some people like the ‘AIs’ reside and these guys, the AIs got their water rights not based on treaty but through some traditional water usage.
5.For example, the Rio Grande pueblos already existed when the United States acquired sovereignty over New Mexico in 1848.
Now the author is stating an example for the 4th line. Here there are some people called Rio Grande pueblos who already existed in New Mexico when the US acquired NM’s sovereignty in 1848. Rio Grande pueblos are a type of American Indians different from those of Fort Berthold Indian Reservation
6.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.
So, even though the pueblos became a part of the US, their lands were never declared to be a part of the federal public lands. No treaty/statute/EO has ever designated pueblos lands as American Indian reservations nor withdrawn them from being a part of federal public lands. (Usually when America acquires sovereignty of a particular state, the non-private lands are automatically assumed to be public lands, they have to be withdrawn from being public lands in order to acquire a special status)Basically there was no declaration regarding pueblos lands.
7.This fact, however, has not barred application of the Winters doctrine.
As per what author has told until now, winters doctrine can be applied when the lands meet the criteria mentioned in 3rd line, like, they should lie as an enclave or they have been formally withdrawn from public lands or if the circumstances reveal that the govt intended to reserve water rights along with land rights when forming a reservation. But, the Rio Grande pueblos lands have failed to meet any of these three conditions but it did not stop them from applying winters doctrine.
8. What constitutes an American Indian reservation is a question of practice, not of legal definition, and the pueblos have always been treated as reservations by the United States.
So, here the author is stating the definition of a “American Indian Reservation” as per the court. The court states that it is a question of practice and is not limited by a legal definition. So, the practice is that the pueblos have always been treated as reservations by the US. And thus, Rio Grande pueblos acquired the water rights
9.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.
Pragmatic=Practical
Buttress=Reinforce/make stronger
So, the practical approach stated in the 8th line is reinforced by another case “Arizona vs California of 1963”, where the SC indicated that however the federal reservation is created, it cannot be barred from winters doctrine being applied to it.
10.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.
So, in 1848 itself, the pueblos got the water rights, the time since which, they are believed to have become reservations.
Questions:
1. 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?
(A) Suggest why it might have been argued that the Winters doctrine ought not to apply to pueblo lands
(B) Imply that the United States never really acquired sovereignty over pueblo lands
(C) Argue that the pueblo lands ought still to be considered part of federal public lands
(D) Support the argument that the water rights of citizens other than American Indians are limited by the Winters doctrine
(E) Suggest that federal courts cannot claim jurisdiction over cases disputing the traditional diversion and use of water by Pueblo Indians
Explanation:
The Rio Grande pueblos were never formally withdrawn from public lands. Formally withdrawing from public lands is one of the conditions to be met for the application of winters doctrine. However, winters doctrine has been applied to it.
’A’ suits better.
‘B’ has never been stated in the passage.
Author had no intention of meaning ‘C’.
‘D’ This is contradicting as water rights of RGPs have not been limited by winters doctrine
‘E’ Irrelevant
2. The passage suggests that, if the criteria discussed in lines 10–20 [Later decisions, citing Winters, established that courts can find 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.] were the only criteria for establishing a reservation’s water rights, which of the following would be true?
(A) The water rights of the inhabitants of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation would not take precedence over those of other citizens.
(B) Reservations established before 1848 would be judged to have no water rights.
(C) There would be no legal basis for the water rights of the Rio Grande pueblos.
(D) Reservations other than American Indian reservations could not be created with reserved water rights.
(E) Treaties establishing reservations would have to mention water rights explicitly in order to reserve water for a particular purpose.
Explanation:
‘A’ Fort Berthold Indian Reservation meets the 2nd criteria. So, AI’s water rights take precedence over other citizens
‘B’ No such case mentioned in the passage
‘C’ The 3 criteria were the legal basis for application of winters doctrine. For, RGPs, none of the criteria were met, so there is no legal basis for their water rights.
‘D’ No such thing implied or stated in the passage
‘E’ Again, no such thing mentioned in the passage
3. According to the passage, which of the following was true of the treaty establishing the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation?
(A) It was challenged in the Supreme Court a number of times.
(B) It was rescinded by the federal government, an action that gave rise to the Winters case.
(C) It cited American Indians’ traditional use of the land’s resources.
(D) It failed to mention water rights to be enjoyed by the reservation’s inhabitants.
(E) It was modified by the Supreme Court in Arizona v. California.
Explanation:
‘A’ No such thing mentioned or implied
‘B’ Rescind means to cancel officially. The treaty stating the land rights has not been cancelled by the federal govt. The court case has been created because the treaty does not explicitly state the water rights along with land rights.
‘C’ Traditional use of land’s resources has been cited for some other American Indians such as RGP’s, not Fort Berthold Indian Reservation AIs
‘D’ Yes, the treaty did not mention the usage of water rights along with land rights
‘E’ No, treaty was not modified by SC during Arizona v. California
4. The primary purpose of the passage is to
(A) trace the development of laws establishing American Indian reservations
(B) explain the legal basis 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
Explanation:
‘A’ The passage is not just concerned about AI reservations but about the water rights
‘B’ The passage explains how each kind of AIs got their water rights, explaining the legal basis for gaining them
‘C’ The author does not intend to question the legal criteria used to determine water rights for AIs, it discusses
‘D’ Although this is stated at the end of the passage , this cannot be taken as the primary purpose since it is not about establishing a date since which the AIs got the water rights
‘E’ The passage does not point out a legal distinction between the AI reservations themselves but between the gaining of water rights for different AI reservations.
5. Which of the following most accurately summarizes the relationship between Arizona v. California in lines 38–42 [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.], and the criteria citing the Winters doctrine in lines 10–20 [Later decisions, citing Winters, established that courts can find federal rights to reserve water for particular purposes]?
(A) Arizona v. California abolishes these criteria and establishes a competing set of criteria for applying the Winters doctrine.
(B) Arizona v. California establishes that the Winters doctrine applies to a broader range of situations than those defined by these criteria.
(C) Arizona v. California represents the sole example of an exception to the criteria as they were set forth in the Winters doctrine.
(D) Arizona v. California does not refer to the Winters doctrine to justify water rights, whereas these criteria do rely on the Winters doctrine.
(E) Arizona v. California applies the criteria derived from the Winters doctrine only to federal lands other than American Indian reservations.
Explanation:
‘A’ “A v. C” neither abolished the existing criteria nor established a new set
‘B’ “A v. C” did reinforce the fact that Winters doctrine can be applied to a broader range of situations than those defined by the criteria
‘C’ “A v. C” It is one of the example and not the sole example.
‘D’ “A v. C” does refer to the winters doctrine for water rights
‘E’ Ridiculous
6. The "pragmatic approach" mentioned in highlight text of the passage is best defined as one that
(A) grants recognition to reservations that were never formally established but that have traditionally been treated as such
(B) determines the water rights of all citizens in a particular region by examining the actual history of water usage in that region
(C) gives federal courts the right to reserve water along with land even when it is clear that the government originally intended to reserve only the land
(D) bases the decision to recognize the legal rights of a group on the practical effect such a recognition is likely to have on other citizens
(E) dictates that courts ignore precedents set by such cases as Winters v. United States in deciding what water rights belong to reserved land
Explanation:
C,D&E are straight out. The thing mentioned in option B has been stated in the passage (traditional use of water), however it not the pragmatic approach the passage is talking about. Pragmatic approach is the one in which it’s important how the lands are treated as reservations to satisfy the 2nd criteria thereby granting water rights to AIs
7. The passage suggests that the legal rights of citizens other than American Indians to the use of water flowing into the Rio Grande pueblos are
(A) guaranteed by the precedent set in Arizona v. California
(B) abolished by the Winters doctrine
(C) deferred to the Pueblo Indians whenever treaties explicitly require this
(D) guaranteed by federal land-use laws
(E) limited by the prior claims of the Pueblo Indians
Fairly easy one
8. It can be inferred from the passage that the Winters doctrine has been used to establish which of the following?
(A) A rule that the government may reserve water only by explicit treaty or agreement
(B) A legal distinction between federal lands reserved for American Indians and federal lands reserved for other purposes
(C) Criteria governing when the federal government may set land aside for a particular purpose
(D) The special status of American Indian tribes' rights to reserved land
(E) The federal right to reserve water implicitly as well as explicitly under certain conditions
Explanation:
The winters doctrine is used for establishing federal right to reserve water for certain purposes
Nov 18
Nov 22
Nov 25
08 Jun 2020, 23:11
. I am just worried as this is RC query which you usually don't prefer over CR and SC . Kindly don't take it as burdensome. 
Please reply at your convenience time. No hurry:) 
