In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri

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 The author cites the fact that the Rio Grande pueblos were never formally withdrawn from public lands primarily in order to do which of the following?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.

By mentioning that the Rio Grande pueblos were never formally withdrawn from public lands, the passage implies that there might be an argument against applying the Winters doctrine to pueblo lands. The Winters doctrine is based on the idea that water rights are reserved for American Indian tribes when establishing a reservation, but the lack of formal withdrawal of the pueblos from public lands could raise doubts about the applicability of the doctrine.

2. The passage suggests that, if the criteria discussed in lines 10–20 were the only criteria for establishing a reservation’s water rights, which of the following would be true? (C) There would be no legal basis for the water rights of the Rio Grande pueblos.

The passage states that the Rio Grande pueblos did not meet the criteria discussed in lines 10–20 for establishing reservation water rights. These criteria include formal withdrawal from federal public lands and setting aside or reserving the land. Since the pueblos were never formally withdrawn from public lands and no explicit designation or withdrawal was made, the criteria would not provide a legal basis for their water rights.

3. According to the passage, which of the following was true of the treaty establishing the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation? (D) It failed to mention water rights to be enjoyed by the reservation’s inhabitants.

The passage states that the treaty establishing the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation did not mention water rights. Despite the lack of explicit mention, the Supreme Court ruled in the Winters case that the federal government intended to preserve water rights for American Indians when creating the reservation. This ruling was based on the understanding that the reservation lands would be useless without water.

4. The primary purpose of the passage is to (B) Explain the legal basis for the water rights of American Indian tribes.

The passage primarily focuses on explaining the legal basis for the water rights of American Indian tribes. It discusses the Winters doctrine, which reserved water rights for tribes based on the intention of the federal government to deal fairly with American Indians when establishing reservations. It also mentions how some tribes have established water rights through traditional diversion and use of waters prior to the United States' acquisition of sovereignty.

5. Which of the following most accurately summarizes the relationship between Arizona v. California in lines 38–42 and the criteria citing the Winters doctrine in lines 10–20? (B) Arizona v. California establishes that the Winters doctrine applies to a broader range of situations than those defined by these criteria.

The passage states that Arizona v. California indicates that the manner in which any type of federal reservation is created does not affect the application of the Winters doctrine. This implies that the criteria mentioned in lines 10–20, which include specific requirements for formal withdrawal and reservation of land, do not limit the application of the doctrine. Arizona v. California expands the scope of the Winters doctrine to apply to a broader range of situations beyond those defined by the criteria.

6. The "pragmatic approach" mentioned in 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.

The passage refers to a "pragmatic approach" in recognizing reservations. It states that the pueblos have always been treated as reservations by the United States, despite never being formally withdrawn from public lands or designated as reservations through treaties, statutes, or executive orders. This pragmatic approach grants recognition to reservations based on traditional treatment and practice, even if there is no legal definition or formal establishment.

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 (E) Limited by the prior claims of the Pueblo Indians.

The passage mentions that the reserved water rights of Pueblo Indians have priority over other citizens' water rights as of 1848, the year in which the pueblos must be considered reservations. This suggests that the legal rights of citizens other than American Indians to the use of water flowing into the Rio Grande pueblos are limited by the prior claims of the Pueblo Indians.

8. It can be inferred from the passage that the Winters doctrine has been used to establish which of the following? (E) The federal right to reserve water implicitly as well as explicitly under certain conditions.

The passage discusses how the Winters doctrine recognizes the federal government's intention to reserve water for American Indian tribes when establishing reservations. It is inferred that the doctrine allows for the federal right to reserve water implicitly, without explicit mention in treaties or agreements, under certain conditions. The doctrine's application is not solely dependent on explicit treaty or agreement language, but also on the intention to deal fairly with American Indians and preserve necessary water resources.

You have the right idea, but the "treaty" you're referring to should not be the focus. This treaty was part of Winters v. US, but the author mentions this treaty and this case to show us a bigger point: the Court does not treat legal agreements (such as treaties) as the sole basis for reserving water rights.

Also remember that this question asks us to consider the three criteria listed, so we should stay focused on those criteria.


Paragraph 2 tells us that the Rio Grande pueblos were never formally made part of federal public lands by any kind of law (treaty or otherwise):


Again, the reason the author mentions this is to show that the Winters Doctrine doesn't require explicit legal permission to fulfill the intention of protecting American Indian rights. The author's purpose is to show us how the Court has used this doctrine to take a more pragmatic approach to reserve water rights for American Indians.
_________________

Full explanation is available here: https://gmatclub.com/forum/in-winters-v ... l#p2138203. Always good to check the thread before you ask.
_________________

Hi varotkorn,

This is a primary purpose question. Option E does not communicate the main point that the author of the passage wants to convey, which is to show how (the legal basis for...) some American Indian tribes managed to get water rights.
_________________

The one common underlying theme of the paragraphs is water rights of American Indians and how they were established.
Option (E) talks about legal distinction between American Indian reservations. The critical 'water rights' is missing and there is no focus on 'legal distinctions'.

Attempting to explain Q6 and Q7 which I got wrong-

6. The "pragmatic approach" mentioned in hightlight 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
The pragmatic approach highlights that despite a case not fulfilling listed criteria of the winters doctrine, the doctrine can still be applied to the case(example:Arizona v. California), and through this example, the practical nature of this doctrine is focussed upon.
A-perfect.
B- incorrect. Water usage is not being examined anywhere. Note that water usage would include how the water is being used, however in the passage we are focussing on for whom is the water being used.
C-this statement is true but this is not the practical approach being referred to.
D-no such causal relationship is explained
E-rather courts do not ignore is what is implied in the passage

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

A-wrong, the rights are reduced not guaranteed
B- reduced does not mean the same as abolished. wrong
C-"deferred to pueblo indians" sounds right but "whenever treated explicitly require this"?- nowhere is it stated in the passages that treaties list/state who gets more rights.-incorrect
D-similar to A, not guaranteed
E- correct. "prior claims of pueblo indians" simply means their claim of using the water bodies which the doctrines take into account and the passage states that the rights of of other citizens are less, or in other words-limited.

My breakdown and understanding of passage using the Feynman Technique.

P1-
W v US - Right to use water (through or adj the reserved public land)

Why?
- Fair treatment/Preserve AmIn + their lands

But who gets reservations? Criteria
1, 2 and 3. (Just remember that it's there)

P2-
Some AmIn tribes used same concept to get water.

Eg: RGP (AmIN Tribe) -
- US took over.
- RGP never formally had reservations of pub land
- Still never withdrawn from pub lands.
- And they still got water rights. Winters doc still applied.

WHAT? WHY? HOW?
"What constitutes an American Indian reservation is a question of practice, not of legal definition (not criteria so much), and the pueblos have always been treated as reservations by the United States."

Oh that's why! They were always treated as reservations. Screw criteria!

"This pragmatic (logical/sensible) approach is buttressed (supported/strengthened) 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."

So the Ariz v Cali ruling supports this "logical" deviation and states that how the reservation happens does not matter. IF there is a reservation, the winter's doctorine applies.

Conclusion: The water rights of RGP > Citizens because RGP had reservations - (as of 1848 - i.e. when US took over)

Big picture -
P1. Winters doctorine. What, why? Who does it apply to? Criteria?
P2. Eg. Some leeway in criteria. Winters doctorine applied. Why?How? A broader criteria for reservations. Strengthened by Ari v Cali.

Now, try reading the passage again and see if it makes sense.
This is my understanding, not sure if im a 100% correct, but it sure did help me answer all the questions very comfortably. Hope it helps

In the first paragraph, we learn that the government set aside certain land for a group of Native Americans. However, the initial treaty failed to mention that the tribe had rights to the water flowing through or adjacent to that land. The land would be totally useless without those water rights.

In 1908, the Supreme Court decided that, even though the initial treaty didn't mention water rights, the government had intended for the land to be useful. So, the Native American tribe did have the right to use the water on/next to their land.

That's the Winters Doctrine -- basically, the government could fix old treaties to include water rights. In later court cases, this doctrine was further defined.

I hope that helps!
_________________

Yes. While all matters were defined in the passage, it took me a while to get the point of the passage and answer all the questions correctly. This concept is alien to for example my country (since we do not have indigenous folks that got invaded by outsiders throughout our history - we are the indigenous folks) and it took a while to get the concept about water reservations for indigenous folks. If you have some subject matter knowledge, you would get the context and the main point easier. Just have to be careful about the details that you do not inject outside knowledge but based on my experience with a passage I have subject matter knowledge on, this is a much easier circumstance so as long as you are disciplined in your approach and are just trying to prove a detail/inference from the passage.

That is fair, ag153. My responses will not appeal to everyone. I just wanted you to be aware that I had addressed the questions. Have you tried combing through the following posts by other Experts?

Question 4 (partial explanation)—AjiteshArun

Question 4 (partial explanation)—KarishmaB

Question 5 (part one)—GMATNinja

Question 5 (part two)—GMATNinja

Question 8—GMATNinja

Video solution (multiple questions?)—avigutman

Perhaps they will provide, either individually or collectively, more clarity regarding your queries.

- Andrew
_________________

Thanks GMATNinja

I got the below question wrong. Can you help to explain this question?

Q9: 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?
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.
_________________

Hi,

Can someone explain Q4? How is the primary purpose related to American Indians when 1/2 the passage is about the Pueblos?

Also for Q7, where is the limitation to prior claims mentioned in the passage? I'm not sure I understand why E is correct

carcass
GMATNinja
mikemcgarry
egmat
hazelnut
Can you please explain Q7 and Q2. ?

GMATNinja already explained both questions in this thread, you just have to keep your eyes open

I summarized them below, but of course all credit goes to GMATNinja.

Question 2:





The Rio Grande pueblos were never formally withdrawn from federal public lands ("the pueblo lands never formally constituted a part of federal public lands"), so the second criteria would not apply. Also, the pueblos were never established as a reservation, so the third criteria would not apply. Thus, according to those criteria alone, the courts would NOT be able to find federal rights to reserve the waters of the Rio Grande pueblos (since not all three criteria are satisfied).

Establishing water rights for the pueblos required something beyond those three criteria: "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." A legal basis for the water rights of the pueblos only exists if this "pragmatic approach" is upheld by the courts. If we only use the three criteria referred to in this question, there is no legal basis.

Thus, choice (C) is the best answer.

Question 7:



As for question #7, we are told that "the pueblo lands never formally constituted a part of federal public lands." From (2) in the first paragraph, we know that federal public lands are "the stock of federal lands available for private use under federal land use laws." So if that land were NOT considered a reservation of the Pueblo Indians, then it would be available for private use. But since it is considered a reservation, the rights of other citizens to use that land are limited.

Hi GMATNinja,
would you please confirm my reasoning is solid?
ffrom the pasage, water right could be obtained by two ways,
way #1 -- treaty mentioned in frist paragraph,
way #2 -- is practic if the pueblos were treated as reservation.
as the question, if critreria were the only way to establish reservation, in other words, there is only way #1 -- treaty mentioned in first paragraph
because in any event, no treaty, statute, or executive order has ever designated or withdrawn the pueblos from public lands as American Indian reservations. it implies that the Rio Grande pueblos would not been protected by the critretia in the treaty as mentioned in first paragraph, then we can get that the pueblos.


So C is the answer.


BTW, if no treaty ever designated or withdrawn the pueblos from public lands as American Indian reservations, Does it mean the federal government would not obtain the water right ? did i miss something ?

Hi mikemcgarry, GMATNinjaTwo, MagooshExpert Carolyn,
sayantanc2
VeritasPrepKarishma, please join.

Thanks in advance

have a nice day
>_~

Can anyone explain number 5?? Got that wrong....

Posted from my mobile device

Can someone explain how they got to the answer in question 5

Thanks.

"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."

Doesn't the first phrase mean that Arizona vs Cali supports the application of Winters doctrine. The second phrase confuses me because it seems to suggest that in the case a federal reservation is created, Winters can be applied again. If a reservation has already been created, why is Winters being used again to create a reservation?

Let's break down the sentence in question:

"This pragmatic approach" refers to the preceding sentence: "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." In other words, it is pragmatic to define a piece of land as a reservation based on how the land has been treated in practice, rather than just by legal definition.

The pragmatic approach described above is buttressed (or supported) by a court case, Arizona vs. California. In this case, "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." This means that the Winters doctrine can be applied to a piece of land that became a reservation through legal rulings, through its historical treatment as a reservation, or by any other means.

Let me address this question specifically:

The Winters doctrine did not create any reservations -- it merely established that an existing reservation had the "right to use waters flowing through or adjacent" to the land. It established this right despite the fact that water was not discussed in the original treaty to create the reservation. According to the passage, later court cases expanded the Winters doctrine to apply to more diverse situations.

Arizona vs. California was another of these cases that applied the Winters doctrine to a broader range of situations than did the Winters Vs. United States case. That's why (B) is the best answer choice for question #5.
_________________