Much of the confusion over Native American water rights in the United States can be traced to Winters v. United...
GMAT Reading Comprehension : (RC) Questions
Much of the confusion over Native American water rights in the United States can be traced to Winters v. United States, the 1908 Supreme Court decision that first established those rights. In one part of this decision, the Court seemed to suggest that Native Americans were entitled to all the water flowing in rivers bordering or entering their reservations. Elsewhere in the decision, the Court stated that Native Americans had rights only to an amount of water from such rivers sufficient for irrigation purposes. There was obviously a considerable difference between the two positions. But even if one assumed, as most attorneys have since, that the Court intended to set a limit, its nature was far from clear. What exactly did the Court mean by "irrigation purposes"? Did it mean the irrigation needs at the time of a reservation's creation? Or at the time of the Court's decision? Or was the decree open-ended and intended to guarantee Native Americans additional water (or perhaps less water) as their population grew (or declined) and their agricultural needs along with it? If meant to be open-ended, then did this not create a hardship for non-Native Americans? How, for example, could they proceed to make costly investments to develop their lands if at any time the courts could deprive them of water needed by a nearby reservation? Alternatively, if Native American rights to water were to be determined by irrigation needs (whether past or future), did this not constitute an unjust restriction on Native Americans? Should they, for example, be required to use their water for irrigation when they might prefer to use it for other pursuits, such as mining or fishing? A related unanswered question that emerged as competition for water increased in the arid western United States was Native Americans' right to water beneath the ground: did the right include only surface streams, or did it extend to the groundwaters that often determined the amount of water flowing in streams? Could Native Americans prevent non-Native Americans from engaging in groundwater pumping close to a reservation, if that pumping diminished the reservation's surface water supplies? Such crucial questions have given rise to dozens of conflicting decisions in both lower and higher courts.
The primary purpose of the passage is to
1. Passage Analysis:
Progressive Passage Analysis
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| Much of the confusion over Native American water rights in the United States can be traced to Winters v. United States, the 1908 Supreme Court decision that first established those rights. | • What it says: There's confusion about Native American water rights, and it all started with one court case from 1908. • What it does: Sets up the main topic and introduces the source of the problem • Source/Type: Author's factual statement about legal history • Connection to Previous Sentences: First sentence - establishes the foundation • Visualization: Timeline: 1908 Winters case → confusion that exists today (116+ years of ongoing confusion) • What We Know So Far: There's confusion about water rights, and it traces back to one specific court case • What We Don't Know Yet: What exactly was confusing about this case? |
| In one part of this decision, the Court seemed to suggest that Native Americans were entitled to all the water flowing in rivers bordering or entering their reservations. | • What it says: The court case said Native Americans could have ALL the water in rivers near their reservations. • What it does: Provides the first part of what made the case confusing • Source/Type: Author's interpretation of the court decision • Connection to Previous Sentences: This builds on sentence 1 by starting to explain WHY there was confusion - here's the first confusing element • Visualization: Position 1: 100% of river water flowing near reservations goes to Native Americans • Reading Strategy Insight: The author is being systematic - promised to explain confusion, now delivering part 1 |
Main Point:
The 1908 Winters v. United States Supreme Court decision created a mess that still exists today because the court gave contradictory guidance about Native American water rights, and every possible way of interpreting that guidance creates serious practical problems for someone involved.
Answer Choice Analysis:
The correct answer is (D): describe the ambiguities stemming from a particular decision concerning an issue. The passage systematically identifies multiple ambiguities within the 1908 Winters decision and shows how these ambiguities created practical problems and ongoing confusion.