    Indian Issues: Analysis of the Crow Creek Sioux and Lower Brule
    Sioux Tribes' Additional Compensation Claims (19-MAY-06,
    GAO-06-517).

    From 1946 to 1966, the government constructed the Fort Randall
    and Big Bend Dams as flood control projects on the Missouri River
    in South Dakota. The reservoirs created behind the dams flooded
    about 38,000 acres of the Crow Creek and Lower Brule Indian
    reservations. The tribes received compensation when the dams were
    built and additional compensation in the 1990s. The tribes are
    seeking a third round of compensation based on a consultant's
    analysis. The Congress provided additional compensation to other
    tribes after two prior GAO reports. For those reports, GAO found
    that one recommended approach to providing additional
    compensation would be to calculate the difference between the
    tribe's final asking price and the amount that was appropriated
    by the Congress, and then to adjust it using the inflation rate
    and an interest rate to reflect a range of current values. GAO
    was asked to assess whether the tribes' consultant followed the
    approach used in GAO's prior reports. The additional compensation
    amounts calculated by the tribes' consultant are contained in
    H.R. 109 and S. 374.
    -------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
    REPORTNUM:   GAO-06-517
        ACCNO:   A54360
      TITLE:     Indian Issues: Analysis of the Crow Creek Sioux and Lower
    Brule Sioux Tribes' Additional Compensation Claims
         DATE:   05/19/2006
      SUBJECT:   Comparative analysis
    	     Compensation claims
    	     Consultants
    	     Dams
    	     Economic analysis
    	     Evaluation methods
    	     Indian lands
    	     Native American claims
    	     South Dakota
    	     Fort Randall Dam (SD)
    	     Big Bend Dam (SD)
    	     Missouri River
    	     Crow Creek Sioux
    	     Lower Brule Sioux

    ******************************************************************
    ** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
    ** GAO Product.                                                 **
    **                                                              **
    ** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
    ** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
    ** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
    **                                                              **
    ** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
    ** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
    ** document's contents.                                         **
    **                                                              **
    ******************************************************************
    GAO-06-517

         * Contents
              * Results in Brief
              * Background
              * Consultant's Compensation Analysis Differs from the Approach GAO
                Previously Used for Other Tribes
                   * Consultant Used Various Settlement Proposals, Rather Than
                     Consistently Using the Tribes' Final Asking Prices
                   * Consultant Developed a Single Compensation Estimate for Each
                     Tribe, Rather Than a Range of Estimates
              * Amounts Calculated by GAO Are Similar to the Amounts Received by
                the Tribes in the 1990s
              * Observations
              * Consultant's Comments and Our Evaluation
         * Scope and Methodology
         * Map of Tribes and Dams on the Missouri River
         * Timeline of Settlement Negotiations and Compensation for the Crow
           Creek Sioux Tribe
         * Timeline of Settlement Negotiations and Compensation for the Lower
           Brule Sioux Tribe
         * Comments from the Tribes' Consultant
              * GAO Comments
         * GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
         * PDF6-Ordering Information.pdf
              * Order by Mail or Phone

    Report to the Chairman, Committee on Indian Affairs, U.S. Senate

    May 2006

    INDIAN ISSUES

    Analysis of the Crow Creek Sioux and Lower Brule Sioux Tribes' Additional
    Compensation Claims

    Contents

    Tables

    Figures

    May 19, 2006Letter

    The Honorable John McCain Chairman, Committee on Indian Affairs United
    States Senate

    Dear Mr. Chairman:

    During a 20-year period, from 1946 to 1966, the federal government
    constructed the Fort Randall and Big Bend Dams as flood control projects
    on the Missouri River in South Dakota. Installation of the dams caused the
    permanent flooding of approximately 38,000 acres of the Crow Creek Sioux
    and Lower Brule Sioux Indian reservations. During the construction of the
    two dams, the tribes entered into negotiations with the federal government
    for compensation for their land that would be flooded by the reservoirs
    created by the dams. The settlement negotiations for the Fort Randall Dam
    stretched over several years, and the tribes put forward a number of
    different settlement proposals. The settlement negotiations for the Big
    Bend Dam were conducted in a much shorter time frame, but there still were
    a number of settlement proposals and counterproposals. In both cases, the
    tribes and the federal government were unable to reach a negotiated
    settlement, and the Congress stepped in and imposed a legislative
    settlement. For both dams, the legislative settlements to the tribes were
    less than the amounts that they requested.

    The settlement processes for the two dams spanned several
    decades-beginning in 1958, when the Congress authorized the payment of
    $2.6 million to the two tribes for damages and administrative expenses
    related to the Fort Randall Dam.1 Regarding the Big Bend Dam, in 1962, the
    Congress authorized the payment of about $7.7 million to the two tribes
    for damages, rehabilitation (funds for improving the Indians' standard of
    living), and related administrative expenses.2 However, the tribes did not
    consider the compensation they received in 1958 and 1962 to be sufficient,
    and they sought additional compensation to address the effects of both
    dams. As a result, in 1996 and 1997, the Congress authorized the Crow
    Creek Sioux and Lower Brule Sioux tribes additional compensation of $27.5
    million and $39.3 million, respectively, through the establishment of
    development trust funds for each tribe.3

    In addition to the Crow Creek Sioux and Lower Brule Sioux tribes, other
    Indian tribes in North and South Dakota also (1) lost land to flood
    control projects on the Missouri River, (2) received compensation for
    damages in the mid-1900s, and (3) requested and received additional
    compensation in the 1990s or early 2000s. In 1992, 2000, and 2002, the
    Congress authorized the payment of additional compensation, through the
    establishment of development trust funds, to Indian tribes at five other
    reservations for damages suffered from dam projects along the Missouri
    River.4 Prior to the Congress authorizing additional compensation to
    Indian tribes at three-Fort Berthold, Standing Rock, and Cheyenne River-of
    these five other reservations, we were asked to review their additional
    compensation claims. In 1991, we reported on the additional compensation
    claims for the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation
    and the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, and, in 1998, we reported on the
    additional compensation claims for the Cheyenne River Sioux tribe.5 For
    the tribes at these three reservations, we found the economic analyses
    used to justify their additional compensation claims to be unreliable, and
    we suggested that the Congress not rely on them as a basis for providing
    the tribes with additional compensation.

    As an alternative, we suggested that if the Congress determined that
    additional compensation was warranted, it could determine the amount of
    compensation by calculating the difference between the tribe's final
    settlement proposal (referred to in this report as the tribe's "final
    asking price") and the amount of compensation the Congress originally
    authorized the tribes. We used the inflation rate and an interest rate to
    adjust the difference to reflect a range of current values, using the
    inflation rate for the lower end of the range and the interest rate for
    the higher end. Using this approach, we calculated how much additional
    compensation it would take today to make up for the difference between the
    tribes' final asking prices and the original compensation provided. The
    Congress authorized additional compensation to the tribes of the Fort
    Berthold, Standing Rock, and Cheyenne River Indian reservations that was
    within our suggested range of additional compensation for each tribe.

    We were not asked by the Congress to review the additional compensation
    claims for the Crow Creek Sioux and Lower Brule Sioux tribes in the 1990s.
    The Crow Creek Sioux and Lower Brule Sioux tribes did not base their
    additional compensation claims in the 1990s on an economic analysis as the
    tribes did for the three other reservations that we reviewed. Rather, the
    Crow Creek Sioux and Lower Brule Sioux tribes' consultant asserted that
    since the tribes suffered the same type of damages as the Standing Rock
    Sioux tribe, they should be provided with additional compensation
    commensurate, on a per-acre basis, with the additional compensation
    provided to the Standing Rock Sioux tribe in 1992.6

    After the Crow Creek Sioux and Lower Brule Sioux tribes received their
    additional compensation in 1996 and 1997, respectively, the Congress
    authorized additional compensation for the Cheyenne River Sioux tribe of
    $290.7 million, or about $2,800 per acre of land flooded. In 2003, the
    Crow Creek Sioux and Lower Brule Sioux tribes hired a consultant to
    determine if they were due additional compensation based on the method we
    proposed in our two prior reports. As a result of the consultant's
    analysis, the two tribes are currently seeking a third round of
    compensation totaling an additional $226 million (in 2003 dollars) for the
    land and resources

    flooded by the reservoirs created by the Fort Randall and Big Bend Dams.7
    The tribes assert that their new calculations for additional compensation,
    using the alternative method we proposed in our two prior reports, will
    bring them into parity with the additional compensation provided to the
    other tribes on the Missouri River.

    The additional compensation amounts the consultant recommended are
    included in two bills pending in the 109th Congress, H.R. 109 and S. 374,
    referred to as the Tribal Parity Act. Both the consultant's analysis and
    the bills state that the compensation amounts are based on methodology
    deemed appropriate by GAO. However, in July 2005, we requested that this
    language be deleted from the bills because we had not analyzed the
    proposed additional compensation for these two tribes, as we had for the
    other tribes. As a result, you asked us to assess whether the tribes'
    consultant followed the approach in our prior reports in calculating the
    additional compensation amounts for the Crow Creek Sioux and Lower Brule
    Sioux tribes.

    To assess the consultant's methods and analysis for determining additional
    compensation for the Crow Creek Sioux and Lower Brule Sioux tribes, we
    used standard economic principles and the analysis we conducted in our two
    prior reports on additional compensation. In order to ensure that we
    obtained and reviewed all relevant data, we conducted a literature search
    for congressional, agency, and tribal documents at the National Archives
    and the Department of the Interior's library. We used original documents
    to learn about the negotiation process and to identify the appraised land
    prices and various proposed settlement amounts. As a result, we determined
    that the data were sufficiently reliable for purposes of this report. We
    met with the tribes' consultant to determine how he used the method we had
    suggested the Congress use as the basis for granting additional
    compensation to other tribes. We also met with representatives of the two
    tribes on their reservations in South Dakota to (1) discuss the analysis,
    actions taken with the compensation previously obtained, and plans for the
    additional compensation amounts requested and (2) review any records they
    might have on previous compensation negotiations. We performed our work
    from October 2005 to April 2006 in accordance with generally accepted
    government auditing standards. A more detailed discussion of our scope and
    methodology is presented in appendix I.

    Results in Brief

    The Crow Creek Sioux and Lower Brule Sioux tribes' consultant differed
    from the approach we used in our two prior reports in two ways: (1) by not
    using the tribes' final asking prices as the starting point of the
    analysis and (2) by providing a single estimate of additional compensation
    instead of a range. During the settlement negotiations for the Fort
    Randall and Big Bend Dams, as was the case with the negotiations for the
    other dams that we have reviewed, the tribes made a number of settlement
    proposals. In analyzing a request for compensation, it is critically
    important to decide which settlement proposal to use to calculate the
    difference between what the tribe asked for and what it finally received.
    A small numerical difference in 1950s dollars can result in a large
    difference today, once it is adjusted to reflect more current values. In
    our prior reports, we used the tribes' final asking prices because we
    believed that it represented the most up-to-date and complete information
    and that their final position was more realistic than their initial asking
    prices. In contrast, the tribes' consultant used selected numbers from a
    variety of settlement proposals, several that were not from the tribes'
    final asking prices. For example, for the rehabilitation component of the
    tribes' settlement proposals, the consultant used $13.1 million from
    settlement proposals in 1957, rather than $6.7 million from the tribes'
    final rehabilitation proposals in 1961. While rehabilitation was the
    largest component of the tribes' settlement proposals, it was not directly
    related to the damage caused by the dams. Rehabilitation funding in the
    1950s was intended to improve the tribes' standard of living and prepare
    them for the termination of federal supervision. Finally, the tribes'
    consultant calculated only the highest additional compensation dollar
    value, rather than providing the Congress with a range of possible
    additional compensation based on different adjustment factors.

    Using the approach we followed in our prior reports, we determined in this
    analysis that the additional compensation the Congress authorized for the
    tribes in the 1990s was already at the high end or was above the range of
    possible additional compensation. For the Crow Creek Sioux tribe, we
    estimated that the difference-adjusted to account for inflation and
    interest rates through 1996-would range from $6.5 million to $21.4
    million, compared with the $27.5 million the Congress authorized for the
    tribe in 1996. For the Lower Brule Sioux tribe, we estimated that the
    adjusted difference would range from $12.2 million to $40.9 million,
    compared with the $39.3 million the Congress authorized for the tribe in
    1997. Although the additional compensation amounts enacted in 1996 and
    1997 were not calculated using our approach, the amounts were generally
    within the ranges we would have proposed. Our estimated amounts vary
    significantly from the amounts calculated by the tribes' consultant. Our
    estimated range for the two tribes combined is $18.7 million to $62.3
    million. By contrast, the tribes' consultant calculated additional
    compensation for the two tribes combined to be $292.3 million-$105.9
    million for the Crow Creek Sioux tribe and $186.4 million for the Lower
    Brule Sioux tribe (in 2003 dollars). There are two primary reasons for
    this difference. First, a large difference occurs because we used the
    tribes' final rehabilitation request from 1961 in our calculation, rather
    than the tribes' rehabilitation requests from 1957, which the consultant
    used. Second, our total dollar amounts, including the rehabilitation
    amount, were adjusted to account for inflation and interest earned through
    1996 and 1997 to compare them directly with the additional compensation
    the Congress authorized for the two tribes at that time. The consultant,
    however, adjusted for interest earned through 2003, before comparing his
    estimate with the payments authorized in the 1990s.

    Because the consultant's analysis was the basis for the tribes' additional
    compensation claims and the consultant had asserted that the additional
    compensation amounts were based on a methodology deemed appropriate by
    GAO, we chose to provide the tribes' consultant with a draft of this
    report for review and comment. In commenting on the draft report, the
    tribes' consultant (1) acknowledged that he had made a calculation error
    in his analysis, (2) proposed a range of additional compensation, and (3)
    discussed the complex issues of "asking price" in the context of the Crow
    Creek Sioux and Lower Brule Sioux tribes' request for additional
    compensation. The consultant's proposed range of additional compensation
    is based on four different alternatives, rather than the approach for a
    range of additional compensation as we suggested in our report. We do not
    believe that the consultant's four alternatives represent a sound approach
    for establishing the range of additional compensation. Our approach is to
    provide the Congress with a range of possible additional compensation
    based on the difference between the amount the tribes believed was
    warranted at the time of the taking and the final settlement amount. We
    then adjusted the differences using the inflation rate for the lower end
    of the range and the corporate bond rate for the higher end. The ranges of
    additional compensation we calculated in the report were calculated in
    exactly the same way we did in our 1991 and 1998 reports, and we believe
    our approach is reasonable. Regarding the issue of the tribes' asking
    prices, the consultant disagreed with our assumption that the tribes'
    final asking prices were based on the most up-to-date and complete
    information and that they were more realistic than their initial asking
    prices. In our view, the drawn out negotiations for the Fort Randall Dam
    and the amounts of the tribes' final asking prices do not support the
    conclusion that the tribes simply capitulated and accepted whatever the
    government offered. For example, for 12 of the 15 compensation components
    shown in tables 5, 6, and 7 of our report, the tribes' final asking prices
    were equal to, or higher than, their initial settlement proposals. We used
    a reasonable, clearly defined, and consistent approach. As a result, we
    did not make any changes to the report based on the consultant's comments.
    See the "Consultant's Comments and Our Evaluation" section and appendix V
    for the consultant's comment letter and our evaluation of these comments.

    We recognize that compensation issues can be sensitive, complex, and
    controversial. While our analysis does not support the additional
    compensation amounts contained in H.R. 109 and S. 374, the Congress will
    ultimately decide whether additional compensation should be provided, and
    if so, how much it should be. Our analysis is intended to assist the
    Congress in this regard.

    Background

    The Flood Control Act of 1944 established a comprehensive plan for flood
    control and other purposes, such as hydroelectric power production, in the
    Missouri River Basin.8 The Pick-Sloan Plan-a joint water development
    program designed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) and the
    Department of the Interior's (Interior) Bureau of Reclamation-included the
    construction of five dams on the Missouri River, including the Garrison
    Dam in North Dakota and the Oahe, Fort Randall, Big Bend, and Gavins Point
    Dams in South Dakota. The construction of the Fort Randall Dam, located 7
    miles above the Nebraska line in south-central South Dakota, began in May
    1946 and was officially dedicated in August 1956. The dam is 160 feet
    high, and the reservoir behind it, known as Lake Case, stretches 107 miles
    to the northwest. (See fig. 1.)

    Figure 1: The Fort Randall Dam and Lake Case (February 2006)

    In September 1959, the Corps began work on the Big Bend Dam, which is
    about 100 miles northwest of the Fort Randall Dam on land belonging to
    both the Crow Creek Sioux and Lower Brule Sioux tribes. The Big Bend Dam
    is 95 feet high and was completed in September 1966. The reservoir behind
    the dam, known as Lake Sharpe, is 20 miles long. (See fig. 2.)

    Figure 2: The Big Bend Dam and Lake Sharpe (July 1998)

    The Crow Creek Sioux and Lower Brule Sioux tribes reside on reservations
    located across the Missouri River from one another in central South
    Dakota. The Crow Creek reservation includes about 225,000 acres, 56
    percent of which is owned by the tribe or individual Indians. According to
    the 2000 Census, the Crow Creek reservation has 2,199 residents, with the
    majority residing in the community of Fort Thompson. The Lower Brule
    reservation includes about 226,000 acres, 60 percent of which is owned by
    the tribe or individual Indians. According to the 2000 Census, the Lower
    Brule reservation has 1,355 residents, including several hundred who
    reside in the community of Lower Brule. Both reservations include some
    non-Indians, and both tribes have several hundred members who do not live
    on the reservations. The major economic activities for both the Crow Creek
    Sioux and Lower Brule Sioux tribes are cattle ranching and farming, and
    both tribes provide guided hunting for fowl and other game. Each tribe
    also operates a casino and a hotel. Both tribes are governed by a tribal
    council under their respective tribal constitutions, and each tribal
    council is led by a tribal chairman. The major employers on the
    reservations are the tribes, the casinos, the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
    and the Indian Health Service. In addition, the Lower Brule Sioux tribe
    provides employment through the Lower Brule Farm Corporation, which is the
    nation's number one popcorn producer. See appendix II for a map of the
    Crow Creek and Lower Brule reservations and the locations of the
    previously mentioned dams and reservoirs.

    The construction of the Fort Randall Dam caused the flooding of more than
    17,000 acres of Crow Creek and Lower Brule reservation land and the
    displacement of more than 100 tribal families. After these two tribes
    sustained major damage from this project, the construction of the Big Bend
    Dam inundated over 20,000 additional acres of their reservations. This
    flooding displaced more families, some of whom had moved earlier as a
    result of flooding from the Fort Randall Dam. (See table 1.) Flooding from
    the installation of both dams resulted in the loss of valuable timber and
    pasture and forced families to move to less desirable land, which affected
    their way of life.

    Table 1: Acreage Lost and Families Displaced by the Fort Randall and Big
    Bend Dams

                      Fort                             Big Bend
                   Randall Dam                           Dam
    Tribe           Acreage      Number of families          Acreage Number of
                          lost               displaced             lost  families
                                                                        displaced
    Crow Creek        9,418                      84            6,179        27
    Sioux
    Lower             7,997                      35           14,299        62
    Brule
    Sioux
    Total            17,415                     119           20,478        89

    Sources: House and Senate reports.

    During the early 1950s, the Corps; Interior, through its Missouri River
    Basin Investigations Unit (MRBI);9 and the tribes-represented through
    tribal negotiating committees-developed their own estimates of the damages
    caused by the Fort Randall Dam. Discussions and informal negotiating
    conferences were held among the three parties in 1953 to try to arrive at
    acceptable compensation for damages.10 At that point, the Fort Randall Dam
    had been closed since July 1952 and portions of the reservations were
    underwater. The MRBI's appraisal of damages was about $398,000 for Crow
    Creek and about $271,000 for Lower Brule, which was higher than the Corps'
    proposal.11 Both the MRBI appraisal and the Corps' proposal were
    substantially lower than the tribes' settlement proposals, and the parties
    were unable to reach settlement. The Corps planned to take the land by
    condemnation, but in July 1954 decided against that action when the
    Congress authorized and directed the Corps and Interior to jointly
    negotiate separate settlements with the tribes.12 Meanwhile, the tribes
    arranged to have settlement bills introduced in July 1954.13 These bills
    requested $1.7 million for damages for the Crow Creek Sioux tribe and $2.5
    million for damages for the Lower Brule Sioux tribe. Both of these bills
    also contained requests for about $2.5 million each for rehabilitation
    funds.14 The first formal negotiating conference was held among the
    parties in November 1954, and further discussions continued over several
    more years after the bills were introduced, but, again, the parties could
    not reach settlement. In 1955, with negotiations stalled, the Corps
    requested and obtained an official declaration of taking. The tribes-with
    their lands now flooded-received funds based on the earlier MRBI appraisal
    figures, with the understanding that negotiations for additional funds
    would continue. The tribes continued to insist on receiving substantially
    higher compensation amounts for damages, and additional funds for
    rehabilitation, as part of the settlement. The amounts the tribes
    requested for rehabilitation fluctuated in tribal settlement proposals
    between 1954 and 1957, but both the Corps and the MRBI maintained that
    rehabilitation funding was not within the scope of the negotiations.

    In March 1958, each tribe's negotiating committee submitted new proposals
    at compensation hearings for the Fort Randall Dam.15 The Crow Creek Sioux
    tribe proposed compensation of about $2.2 million for damages and
    administrative expenses related to the settlement, and the Lower Brule
    Sioux tribe proposed compensation of about $1.8 million for damages and
    administrative expenses.16 Neither proposal included funds for
    rehabilitation because both tribes agreed with the government's request to
    wait to procure these funds in the Big Bend Dam compensation request. In
    May 1958, bills were introduced in the Congress with amounts that were
    less than the tribes had proposed through their negotiating committees,
    with the amount for direct damages from Fort Randall Dam construction
    being substantially reduced.17 According to House reports, both the tribes
    and the Corps agreed to the amounts proposed for damages.18 Later that
    summer, amendments to the bills reduced the amount for indirect damages
    for both tribes. In September 1958, the Congress authorized a payment of
    about $1.5 million to the Crow Creek Sioux tribe, and almost $1.1 million
    to the Lower Brule Sioux tribe. See table 2 for a summary of selected
    settlement proposals related to the Fort Randall Dam.

    Table 2: Selected Settlement Proposals for the Fort Randall Dam

     Current year
    dollars
    Type of        Tribes'   House and     Tribes'    Tribes'      House     Payment
    compensation,                  Senate                        bills, May authorized,
    by tribe     July 1954 bills, 1955    May 1957  Mar. 1958      1958c Sept. 1958d
                      request   and 1957a                request
                                             requestb
    Crow Creek
    Sioux
    Damages        $1,699,419  $1,817,590  $2,105,021 $2,105,021 $2,019,220  $1,395,812
    Administrative          0     100,000     100,000    100,000    100,000     100,000
    expenses
    Rehabilitation  2,560,000   5,686,036   6,715,311          0          0           0
    Subtotal       $4,259,419  $7,603,626  $8,920,332 $2,205,021 $2,119,220  $1,495,812
    Lower Brule
    Sioux
    Damages        $2,530,472  $1,497,397  $1,700,924 $1,560,902 $1,175,231    $976,523
    Administrative          0     100,000     200,000    200,000    100,000     100,000
    expenses
    Rehabilitation  2,530,000   6,348,316  16,377,981          0          0           0
    Subtotal       $5,060,472  $7,945,713 $18,278,905 $1,760,902 $1,275,231  $1,076,523
    Total          $9,319,891 $15,549,339 $27,199,237 $3,965,923 $3,394,451  $2,572,335

    Source: National Archives.

    aH.R. 3544 and H.R. 3602, 84th Cong., 1st Sess., introduced on February 3,
    1955, and S. 952 and S. 953, 84th Cong., 1st Sess., introduced on February
    4, 1955; H.R. 6074 and H.R. 6125, 85th Cong., 1st Sess., introduced on
    March 18, 1957, and March 19, 1957, respectively; and H.R. 6204, 85th
    Cong., 1st Sess., and H.R. 6569, 85th Cong., 1st Sess., introduced on
    March 20, 1957, and April 2, 1957, respectively.

    bStatement and Estimates of the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe, Negotiating
    Committee, May 17, 1957; Lower Brule Sioux Tribe Negotiating Committee's
    Estimates and a Breakdown in Figures of All Damages Requested, May 10,
    1957; and S. 2152, 85th Cong., 1st Sess., and H.R. 7758, 85th Cong., 1st
    Sess., introduced on May 23, 1957 and May 24, 1957, respectively.

    cH.R. 12663 and H.R. 12670, 85th Cong., 2nd Sess., introduced on May 23,
    1958.

    dCrow Creek, Pub. L. No. 85-916, 72 Stat. 1766 (1958); and Lower Brule,
    Pub. L. No. 85-923, 72 Stat. 1773 (1958).

    In contrast to the Fort Randall negotiations, the compensation for the
    construction of the Big Bend Dam was granted quickly. In bills introduced
    in March 1961, the Crow Creek Sioux tribe requested over $1 million for
    damages and administrative expenses as a result of the Big Bend Dam
    construction.19 The Lower Brule Sioux tribe requested close to $2.4
    million for damages, administrative expenses, and a new school. In
    addition, both tribes requested the rehabilitation funds that had not been
    included in the Fort Randall Dam settlement-that is, the Crow Creek Sioux
    tribe requested more than $4 million and the Lower Brule Sioux tribe
    requested about $2.7 million. In June 1961, the government and the tribes
    agreed to a reduction in direct damages, while the tribes requested an
    increase to the amount for indirect damages, bringing the total amount of
    compensation, including rehabilitation, requested by the Crow Creek Sioux
    and Lower Brule Sioux tribes to about $4.9 million for each tribe.20 In
    subsequent bills over the next year, however, the Congress lowered
    indirect damages considerably and dropped the amount requested for a new
    school for Lower Brule. The amounts requested for administrative expenses
    and rehabilitation were also reduced. In October 1962, the Congress
    authorized a payment of $4.4 million to the Crow Creek Sioux tribe and
    about $3.3 million to the Lower Brule Sioux tribe. See table 3 for a
    summary of selected settlement proposals related to the Big Bend Dam.

    Table 3: Selected Settlement Proposals for the Big Bend Dam

        Current year
          dollars
          Type of          House   House and      U.S. and      House     Payment
    compensation,      bills,      Senate        tribal     bills, authorized,
          by tribe                    bills,      proposed             Oct. 1962d
                      Mar. 1960a               amendments, Aug. 1961c
                                  Mar. 1961b
                                                 June 1961
    Crow Creek
    Sioux
    Damages                $0    $915,924     $822,004e   $564,302    $564,302
    Administrative    125,000     125,000       125,000    125,000      75,000
    Expenses
    Rehabilitation  2,790,000   4,002,000     4,002,000  4,002,000   3,802,500
    Subtotal       $2,915,000  $5,042,924    $4,949,004 $4,691,302  $4,441,802
    Lower Brule
    Sioux
    Damages                $0  $1,895,908   $1,709,472e $1,225,715  $1,225,715
    Administrative    125,000     125,000       125,000    125,000      75,000
    expenses
    New school              0     350,000       350,000          0           0
    Rehabilitation  1,620,000   2,670,300     2,670,300  2,670,300   1,968,750
    Subtotal       $1,745,000  $5,041,208    $4,854,772 $4,021,015  $3,269,465
    Total          $4,660,000 $10,084,132    $9,803,776 $8,712,317  $7,711,267

    Source: National Archives.

    aH.R. 11214 and H.R. 11237, 86th Cong., 2nd Sess., introduced on March 16,
    1960, and March 17, 1960, respectively. These bills included a placeholder
    for damage amounts to be included at a later time.

    bH.R. 5144 and H.R. 5165, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., introduced on March 2,
    1961; and S. 1251 and S. 1252, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., introduced on March
    8, 1961.

    cH.R. 5144 and H.R. 5165, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., introduced on August 8,
    1961.

    dCrow Creek, Pub. L. No. 87-735, 76 Stat. 704 (1962); and Lower Brule,
    Pub. L. No. 87-734, 76 Stat. 698 (1962).

    eThe amounts included in the damages category reflect the direct costs the
    tribes and government agreed on and the indirect costs proposed by the
    tribes.

    See appendixes III and IV for a timeline summary of the settlement
    negotiations and compensation for the two dams for the Crow Creek Sioux
    and Lower Brule Sioux tribes, respectively.

    Tribes at five other reservations affected by flood control projects along
    the Missouri River incurred losses ranging from about 600 acres to over
    150,000 acres. These tribes received some compensation, primarily during
    the 1950s, for the damages they sustained. However, beginning in the
    1980s, some of these tribes began requesting additional compensation. The
    Congress responded to their requests by authorizing the establishment of
    development trust funds. (See table 4.) The tribes at the Fort Berthold,
    Standing Rock, and Cheyenne River reservations received compensation
    within the ranges we had suggested the Congress consider in our reviews of
    the tribes' additional compensation claims. The ranges were based on the
    current value of the difference between each tribes' final asking price
    and the amount that the Congress authorized. We were not asked to review
    the additional compensation claims for the Crow Creek Sioux and Lower
    Brule Sioux tribes in the 1990s or for the Santee Sioux and Yankton Sioux
    tribes in 2002.

    Table 4: Additional Compensation Authorized by Congress for Tribes on the
    Missouri River

    Current year dollars in
               millions
                Tribe              Dam(s)    Acreage Year additional   Additional
                                                lost    compensation
                                                             enacted compensation

                                                                       authorized
    Three Affiliated Tribes  Garrison     152,360           1992a       $149.2
    of the Fort Berthold
    Reservation
    Standing Rock Sioux      Oahe          55,994           1992a         90.6
    Crow Creek Sioux         Fort          15,597           1996b         27.5
                                Randall;

                                Big Bend
    Lower Brule Sioux        Fort          22,296           1997c         39.3
                                Randall;

                                Big Bend
    Cheyenne River Sioux     Oahe         104,420           2000d        290.7
    Yankton Sioux            Fort Randall   2,851           2002e         23.0
    Santee Sioux             Gavins Point     593           2002e          4.8

    Source: GAO analysis of the additional compensation acts.

    aPub. L. No. 102-575, title XXXV, 106 Stat. 4600, 4731 (1992).

    bPub. L. No. 104-223, 110 Stat. 3026 (1996).

    cPub. L. No. 105-132, 111 Stat. 2563 (1997).

    dPub. L. No. 106-511, title I, 114 Stat. 2365 (2000). The development
    trust fund for the Cheyenne River Sioux tribe will not be created until
    the first day of the 11th fiscal year after enactment, or October 1, 2011.

    ePub. L. No. 107-331, title II, 116 Stat. 2834, 2838 (2002). The
    development trust funds for the Yankton Sioux and Santee Sioux tribes will
    not be created until the first day of the 11th fiscal year after
    enactment, or October 1, 2013.

    Consultant's Compensation Analysis Differs from the Approach GAO
    Previously Used for Other Tribes

    The Crow Creek Sioux and Lower Brule Sioux tribes' consultant differed
    from the approach we used in our prior reports. The consultant used a
    variety of settlement proposals, instead of consistently using the tribes'
    final asking prices, in calculating the difference between what the tribes
    asked for and what the Congress authorized. As a result, the consultant's
    proposed compensation estimates are higher than if he had consistently
    used the tribes' final asking prices. In addition, the consultant provided
    only the highest additional compensation value, rather than a range of
    possible additional compensation from which the Congress could choose.

    Consultant Used Various Settlement Proposals, Rather Than Consistently
    Using the Tribes' Final Asking Prices

    To arrive at an additional compensation estimate, the consultant did not
    consistently use the tribes' final asking prices when calculating the
    difference between what the tribes asked for and what they finally
    received. In determining possible additional compensation for the tribes
    at the Fort Berthold and Standing Rock reservations in 1991, and the
    Cheyenne River reservation in 1998, we used the tribes' final asking
    prices to calculate the difference between what the tribes asked for and
    what they received. In our prior reports, we used the tribes' final
    position because we believed that it represented the most up-to-date and
    complete information, and that their final position was more realistic
    than their initial asking prices. In contrast, the consultant used figures
    from a variety of settlement proposals-several of which were not the
    tribes' final asking prices-to estimate additional compensation for
    damages (including direct and indirect damages), administrative expenses,
    and rehabilitation. As a result, the consultant's estimate of the tribes'
    asking prices in the late 1950s and early 1960s was about $7.7 million
    higher than it would have been if he had consistently used the tribes'
    final asking prices. Choosing which settlement proposal to use to
    calculate the difference between what the tribe asked for and what it
    finally received is critically important, because a small numerical
    difference 50 years ago can result in a large difference today, once it is
    adjusted to reflect more current values.

    With respect to the Fort Randall Dam, the consultant used amounts from a
    variety of settlement proposals for damages and administrative expenses.
    To determine additional compensation, the consultant used a $2.2 million
    settlement proposal by the Crow Creek Sioux tribe and a $2.6 million
    settlement proposal by the Lower Brule Sioux tribe. (See table 5.) The
    Crow Creek proposal was from May 1957, and was the same as the tribe's
    final asking price requested about 1 year later, in February 1958.
    However, the Lower Brule proposal was from the first compensation bill
    introduced in the Congress in July 1954, almost 4 years before the tribe's
    final asking price of about $1.8 million in March 1958--a difference of
    more than $850,000.

    Table 5: Comparison of the Settlement Figures Used by the Tribes'
    Consultant Versus the Tribes' Final Asking Prices for the Fort Randall Dam

         Current year
           dollars
           Type of            Settlement    Date of    Tribes' Date of Difference
    compensation, by   figure used by settlement      final   final
            tribe            the tribes'     figure     asking  asking
                             consultanta                prices   price
    Crow Creek Sioux
    Direct damages           $641,588   May 1957   $641,588    Feb.         $0
                                                                  1958
    Indirect damages        1,463,433   May 1957  1,463,433    Feb.          0
                                                                  1958
    Administrative            100,000   May 1957    100,000    Feb.          0
    expenses                                                   1958
    Subtotal               $2,205,021            $2,205,021                 $0
    Lower Brule
    Sioux
    Direct damages           $739,904  July 1954   $771,998    Mar.  ($32,094)
                                                                  1958
    Indirect damages        1,790,568  July 1954    788,904    Mar.  1,001,664
                                                                  1958
    Administrative            100,000  Feb. 1955    200,000    Mar.  (100,000)
    expenses                                                   1958
    Subtotal               $2,630,472            $1,760,902           $869,570
    Total                  $4,835,493            $3,965,923           $869,570

    Sources: National Archives and the consultant's analysis.

    aThe consultant's figures for the Crow Creek Sioux tribe were from H.R.
    7758, 85th Cong., 1st Sess., (companion bill S. 2152) introduced on May
    24, 1957. The consultant's damage figures for the Lower Brule Sioux tribe
    were from H.R. 9832, 83rd Cong., 2nd Sess., (companion bill S. 3748)
    introduced on July 8, 1954. The administrative expenses figure for Lower
    Brule was from H.R. 3544, 84th Cong., 1st Sess., (companion bill S. 953)
    introduced on February 3, 1955. The direct damages in H.R. 3544 were
    reduced to $708,493.29, and the indirect damages were reduced to $788,904.

    For the Big Bend Dam, the consultant also used amounts from different
    settlement proposals for damages and administrative expenses. To determine
    additional compensation, the consultant used amounts from congressional
    bills introduced in March 1961 for direct damages, but used amounts from
    proposed amendments to the bills in June 1961 for indirect damages. The
    tribes' asking prices from June 1961 can be considered their final asking
    prices because the proposed amendments are the last evidence of where the
    tribes requested specific compensation (indirect damages) or agreed to a
    compensation amount (direct damages). The consultant would have been more
    consistent had he used both the indirect and direct damage settlement
    figures in the proposed amendments from June 1961, rather than a mixture
    of these figures. As a result, the total amount for damages the consultant
    used to calculate the difference between what the tribes requested and
    what it finally received is about $427,000 (in 1961 dollars) higher than
    if the tribes' final asking prices from June 1961 had been used
    consistently. (See table 6.)

    Table 6: Comparison of the Settlement Figures Used by the Tribes'
    Consultant Versus the Tribes' Final Asking Prices for the Big Bend Dam

         Current year
           dollars
           Type of            Settlement    Date of    Tribes' Date of Difference
    compensation, by   figure used by settlement      final   final
            tribe            the tribes'     figure     asking  asking
                             consultanta                prices   price
    Crow Creek Sioux
    Direct damages           $494,890  Mar. 1961   $355,000    June   $139,890
                                                                  1961
    Indirect damages          467,004  June 1961    467,004    June          0
                                                                  1961
    Administrative            125,000  Mar. 1961    125,000    June          0
    Expenses                                                  1961b
    Subtotal               $1,086,894              $947,004           $139,890
    Lower Brule
    Sioux
    Direct damages         $1,111,910  Mar. 1961   $825,000    June   $286,910
                                                                  1961
    Indirect damages          884,472  June 1961    884,472    June          0
                                                                  1961
    Administrative            125,000  Mar. 1961    125,000    June          0
    expenses                                                  1961b
    New school                350,000  Mar. 1961    350,000    June          0
                                                                 1961b
    Subtotal               $2,471,382            $2,184,472           $286,910
    Total                  $3,558,276            $3,131,476           $426,800

    Sources: National Archives legislative files and the consultant's
    analysis.

    aThe consultant used figures from H.R. 5165 (companion bill S. 1252) and
    H.R. 5144 (companion bill S. 1251) for direct damages and administrative
    expenses for the Crow Creek Sioux and Lower Brule Sioux tribes,
    respectively. The figure for the new school for the Lower Brule Sioux
    Tribe was also from H.R. 5144 (companion bill S. 1251). The figures for
    indirect damages were from proposed amendments to these bills. An
    Assistant Secretary for the Department of the Interior included a
    composite of the recommended amendments of the Secretary of the Interior,
    the Secretary of the Army, and the tribes to H.R. 5144 and H.R. 5165 in a
    letter to the Chairman of the House, Subcommittee on Indian Affairs,
    Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, on June 16, 1961.

    bThe tribes' final asking prices for administrative expenses and the new
    school for the Lower Brule Sioux tribe were represented in congressional
    bills introduced in March 1961. No changes were proposed to these figures
    in the proposed amendments to the bills, so we assumed these figures
    represented the tribes' final asking prices as of June 1961.

    Lastly, the consultant did not use the tribes' final asking prices for the
    rehabilitation component of the settlement payment. The consultant used a
    $6.7 million rehabilitation figure that the Crow Creek Sioux tribe's
    negotiating committee proposed in May 1957 and a $6.3 million
    rehabilitation figure that was proposed in congressional bills in 1955 and
    1957 for the Lower Brule Sioux tribe. (See table 7.) Both of these figures
    were developed during the negotiations for the Fort Randall Dam. However,
    the tribes agreed in their February and March 1958 proposals-their final
    asking prices for the Fort Randall Dam-to defer consideration of their
    rehabilitation proposals until after land acquisitions were made for the
    construction of the Big Bend Dam. The Big Bend Dam's installation would
    once again result in the flooding of their lands. In our view, the
    consultant should have used the final rehabilitation figures proposed by
    the tribes in 1961-that is, $4 million for the Crow Creek Sioux tribe and
    $2.7 million for the Lower Brule Sioux tribe.

    Table 7: Comparison of Rehabilitation Figures Used by the Tribes'
    Consultant Versus the Tribes' Final Asking Prices

         Current year
           dollars
        Rehabilitation        Settlement    Date of    Tribes' Date of Difference
         payment, by      figure used by settlement      final   final
            tribe            the tribes'     figure     asking  asking
                             consultanta                prices   price
    Crow Creek Sioux       $6,715,311   May 1957 $4,002,000    Mar. $2,713,311
                                                                  1961
    Lower Brule             6,348,316 Apr. 1957b  2,670,300    Mar.  3,678,016
    Sioux                                                      1961
    Total                 $13,063,627            $6,672,300         $6,391,327

    Sources: National Archives and the consultant's analysis.

    aThe consultant's rehabilitation figure for the Crow Creek Sioux tribe was
    from H.R. 7758, 85th Cong., 1st Sess., (companion bill S. 2152) introduced
    on May 24, 1957. The figure was also presented by the tribe's negotiating
    committee in May 1957. The consultant's rehabilitation figure for the
    Lower Brule Sioux tribe was from H.R. 6569, 85th Cong., 1st Sess.,
    introduced on April 2, 1957.

    bThe same rehabilitation figure was also included in settlement proposals
    from February 1955 (H.R. 3544 and S. 953) and March 1957 (H.R. 6074). As
    shown in table 5, the damage settlement figures the consultant used were
    from H.R. 9832 (companion bill S. 3748) in 1954, years earlier than the
    date of the rehabilitation figure that was used. In 1954, H.R. 9832 and S.
    3748 both included a rehabilitation figure of $2.53 million-over $3.8
    million less than the figure the consultant used.

    While rehabilitation was the largest component of the tribes' settlement
    proposals, we believe it should be considered separately from the
    comparison for damages because rehabilitation was not directly related to
    the damage caused by the dams. Funding for rehabilitation, which gained
    support in the late-1940s, was meant to improve the tribes' social and
    economic development and prepare some of the tribes for the termination

    of federal supervision.21 Funding for these rehabilitation programs came
    from both the government and from the tribes themselves. From the
    late-1940s through the early-1960s, the Congress considered several bills
    that would have provided individual tribes with rehabilitation funding.
    For example, between 1949 and 1950, the House passed seven bills for
    tribes totaling more than $47 million in authorizations for rehabilitation
    funding, and considered other bills, one of which would have provided $50
    million to several Sioux tribes, including Crow Creek and Lower Brule.
    Owing to opposition from tribal groups, the termination policy began to
    lose support with the Congress in the late 1950s, and rehabilitation
    funding for individual tribes during this time was most often authorized
    by the Congress in association with compensation bills for dam projects on
    the Missouri River. However, the granting of rehabilitation funding for
    these tribes was inconsistent. Some tribes did not receive rehabilitation
    funding along with compensation for damages, while others did. (See table
    8.)

    Table 8: Rehabilitation Payments Authorized by Congress for Tribes on the
    Missouri River

    Current year dollars
            in millions
               Tribe             Year Total payment     Rehabilitation Percentage
                              payment    authorized payment authorized
                              enacted
    Three Affiliated      1947 and         $12.6                 $0         0%
    Tribes of the Fort        1949
    Berthold Reservation
    Cheyenne River Sioux      1954          10.6               5.2a         49
    Yankton Sioux         1952 and           0.2                  0          0
                                 1954
    Standing Rock Sioux       1958          12.2               7.0a         57
    Santee Sioux              1958          0.05                  0          0
    Crow Creek Sioux      1958 and           5.9                3.8         64
                                 1962
    Lower Brule Sioux     1958 and           4.3                1.9         45
                                 1962

    Source: GAO analysis of the compensation acts.

    aThese amounts include relocation and reestablishment funds authorized for
    the tribes. For example, the Cheyenne River Sioux tribe expended $416,626
    for relocating and reestablishing tribal members living in the area that
    was flooded.

    Consultant Developed a Single Compensation Estimate for Each Tribe, Rather
    Than a Range of Estimates

    In our two prior reports, we suggested that, for the tribes of Fort
    Berthold, Standing Rock, and Cheyenne River, the Congress consider a range
    of possible compensation based on the current value of the difference
    between the final asking price of each tribe and the amount that it
    received. In calculating the current value, we used two different rates to
    establish a range of additional compensation. For the lower end of the
    range, we used the inflation rate to estimate the amount the tribes would
    need to equal the purchasing power of the difference. For the higher
    range, we used an interest rate to estimate the amount the tribes might
    have earned if they had invested the difference in Aaa corporate bonds as
    of the date of the settlement.22 The consultant did not follow this
    approach when he calculated the compensation estimates for the Crow Creek
    Sioux and Lower Brule Sioux tribes. Instead, he used the corporate bond
    rate to develop a single figure for each tribe, rather than a range.

    The consultant justified using only the corporate bond rate to calculate
    the compensation figures for the Crow Creek Sioux and Lower Brule Sioux
    tribes by pointing out that the Congress authorized additional
    compensation of $149.2 million for the tribes of Fort Berthold and $290.7
    million for the Cheyenne River Sioux tribe in 1992 and 2000, respectively,
    by using our estimates of the high end of the range for these tribes. The
    consultant contended that if the Congress also uses the corporate bond
    rate for the Crow Creek Sioux and Lower Brule Sioux tribes to determine
    compensation, it would ensure parity with the amounts the tribes of Fort
    Berthold and the Cheyenne River Sioux received. However, the Congress has
    not always chosen to use the highest value in the ranges we estimated. For
    example, in the case of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, the Congress chose
    to provide additional compensation of $90.6 million in 1992-an amount
    closer to the lower end of the range we estimated.

    Amounts Calculated by GAO Are Similar to the Amounts Received by the
    Tribes in the 1990s

    Using the approach we followed in our prior reports, which was based on
    the tribes' final asking prices, we found that the additional compensation
    the Crow Creek Sioux and Lower Brule Sioux tribes received in the 1990s
    was either at the high end or above the range of possible additional
    compensation. For both tribes, we calculated the difference between the
    final asking prices and the compensation authorized in 1958 and 1962. We
    then took the difference and adjusted it to account for the inflation rate
    and the Aaa corporate bond rate through either 1996 or 1997 to produce a
    possible range of additional compensation to compare it with the
    additional compensation the Congress authorized for the tribes in 1996 and
    1997. For the Crow Creek Sioux tribe, we estimated that the difference
    adjusted to 1996 values for both dams would range from $6.5 million to
    $21.4 million (see table 9), compared with the $27.5 million the Congress
    authorized for the tribe in 1996. The $27.5 million in additional
    compensation already authorized for the Crow Creek Sioux tribe is
    therefore higher than the amount that we would have proposed in 1996 using
    our approach.

    Table 9: Estimate of Additional Compensation Range for the Crow Creek
    Sioux Tribe

        Current year
           dollars
                                                          Additional
                                                         compensation
                                                           range(in
                                                             1996
                                                           dollars)
    Type of            Tribes'    Payment Difference       Low end    High end
    payment, by dam      final authorized
                           asking                          (inflation   (interest
                           prices  (1958 and                   rate)c      rate)d
                        (1958 and     1962)b
                           1961)a
    Fort Randall
    Dam
    Damages         $2,105,021 $1,395,812   $709,209    $3,848,314 $13,369,732
    Administrative     100,000    100,000          0             0           0
    expenses
    Subtotal        $2,205,021 $1,495,812   $709,209    $3,848,314 $13,369,732
    Big Bend Dam
    Damages           $822,004   $564,302   $257,702    $1,338,508  $4,094,541
    Administrative     125,000     75,000     50,000       259,701     794,433
    expenses
    Subtotal          $947,004   $639,302   $307,702   $1,598, 209  $4,888,974
    Rehabilitation  $4,002,000 $3,802,500   $199,500    $1,036,206  $3,169,789
    Total           $7,154,025 $5,937,614 $1,216,411    $6,482,729 $21,428,495

    Source: GAO analysis of National Archives legislative files and the
    consultant's analysis.

    aThe damages figure for the Fort Randall Dam is from the Statement and
    Estimates of the Crow Creek Sioux Tribal Council and Negotiating
    Committee, dated February 21, 1958, presented at a hearing on H.R. 10786
    before the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Subcommittee
    on Indian Affairs, March 25, 1958. The tribe's final asking price for the
    damages caused by the Fort Randall Dam was embodied in H.R. 10786, 85th
    Cong., 2nd Sess., (companion bill S. 3225) introduced on February 18,
    1958. The administrative expenses figure for the Fort Randall Dam is from
    H.R. 10786. The damage figure for the Big Bend Dam is from proposed
    amendments to H.R. 5165, dated June 16, 1961, and the figures for
    administrative expenses and rehabilitation are from H.R. 5165 (companion
    S. 1252) because the tribes did not ask for any changes to these
    components in the June 1961 proposed amendments.

    bFort Randall Dam, Pub. L. No. 85-916, 72 Stat. 1766 (1958); and Big Bend
    Dam, Pub. L. No. 87-735, 76 Stat. 704 (1962).

    cData in this column reflect the annual inflation rate (consumer price
    index for all items) from 1959 through 1996 for the Fort Randall Dam items
    and from 1962 through 1996 for the Big Bend Dam items and rehabilitation.

    dData in this column reflect the annual average rate of interest earned on
    investments in Aaa corporate bonds from 1959 through 1996 for the Fort
    Randall Dam items and from 1962 through 1996 for the Big Bend Dam items
    and rehabilitation.

    For the Lower Brule Sioux tribe, we estimated that the difference adjusted
    to 1997 values for both dams would range from $12.2 million to $40.9
    million (see table 10), compared with the $39.3 million the Congress
    authorized for the tribe in 1997. The $39.3 million falls toward the high
    end of the range that we would have proposed in 1997 using our approach.

    Table 10: Estimate of Additional Compensation Range for the Lower Brule
    Sioux Tribe

        Current year
           dollars
                                                          Additional
                                                         compensation
                                                          range (in
                                                             1997
                                                           dollars)
    Type of            Tribes'    Payment Difference       Low end    High end
    payment, by dam      final authorized
                           asking                          (inflation   (interest
                           prices  (1958 and                   rate)c      rate)d
                        (1958 and     1962)b
                           1961)a
    Fort Randall
    Dam
    Damages         $1,560,902   $976,523   $584,379    $3,243,892 $11,816,283
    Administrative     200,000    100,000    100,000       555,101   2,022,024
    expenses
    Subtotal        $1,760,902 $1,076,523   $684,379    $3,798,993 $13,838,307
    Big Bend Dam
    Damages         $1,709,472 $1,225,715   $483,757    $2,570,431  $8,244,275
    Administrative     125,000     75,000     50,000       265,674     852,109
    expenses
    New school         350,000          0    350,000     1,859,716   5,964,764
    Subtotal        $2,184,472 $1,300,715   $883,757    $4,695,821 $15,061,148
    Rehabilitation  $2,670,300 $1,968,750   $701,550    $3,727,669 $11,955,943
    Total           $6,615,674 $4,345,988 $2,269,686   $12,222,483 $40,855,398

    Source: GAO analysis of National Archives legislative files and the
    consultant's analysis.

    aThe damages figure and administrative expenses for the Fort Randall Dam
    are from the Lower Brule Proposed Program in Support of H.R. 6074, which
    was presented at a hearing on H.R. 6074 before the House Committee on
    Interior and Insular Affairs, Subcommittee on Indian Affairs, March 25,
    1958. The tribe's final asking price for damages caused by the Fort
    Randall Dam was embodied in H.R. 6074, 85th Cong., 1st Sess., introduced
    on March 18, 1957. The damages figure for the Big Bend Dam is from
    proposed amendments to H.R. 5144, dated June 16, 1961, and the figures for
    administrative expenses and rehabilitation are from H.R. 5144 (companion
    bill S. 1251) because there were no changes requested by the tribe to
    these components in the June 1961 proposed amendments.

    bFort Randall Dam, Pub. L. No. 85-923, 72 Stat. 1773 (1958); and Big Bend
    Dam, Pub. L. No. 87-734, 76 Stat. 698 (1962).

    cData in this column reflect the annual inflation rate (consumer price
    index for all items) from 1959 through 1997 for the Fort Randall Dam items
    and from 1962 through 1997 for the Big Bend Dam items and rehabilitation.

    dData in this column reflect the annual average rate of interest earned on
    investments in Aaa corporate bonds from 1959 through 1997 for the Fort
    Randall Dam items and from 1962 through 1997 for the Big Bend Dam items
    and rehabilitation.

    Our estimates of additional compensation for the two tribes vary
    significantly from the amounts calculated by the tribes' consultant. Our
    estimated range for the two tribes combined is from about $18.7 million to
    $62.3 million. The consultant calculated an additional compensation figure
    for the two tribes of $292.3 million (in 2003 dollars)-that is, $105.9 for
    the Crow Creek Sioux tribe and $186.4 for the Lower Brule Sioux
    tribe-before subtracting the amounts received by the tribes in 1996 and
    1997, respectively. There are two primary reasons for the difference
    between our additional compensation amounts and the consultant's amounts.

    o First, most of the difference is due to the different rehabilitation
    cost figures that were used. For the difference between the tribes' asking
    prices for rehabilitation and the amounts they actually received, we used
    $901,450 and the consultant used about $7.3 million (in 1961 and 1957
    dollars, respectively). Once the $901,450 is adjusted to account for
    inflation and interest earned through 1996 and 1997, it results in a range
    of additional compensation for rehabilitation for the two tribes combined
    of about $4.8 million to $15.1 million. If the consultant's rehabilitation
    figure of about $7.3 million is adjusted through 1996 and 1997, his total
    for the two tribes is $120.9 million, or more than $105 million above our
    high estimate.

    o Second, our dollar values were adjusted to account for inflation and
    interest earned only through 1996 and 1997 to compare them with what the
    two tribes received in additional compensation at that time. The
    consultant, however, adjusted for interest earned up through 2003. In
    addition, he then incorrectly adjusted for the additional compensation the
    tribes were authorized in the 1990s. Specifically, the consultant
    subtracted the $27.5 million and $39.3 million authorized for the Crow
    Creek Sioux and Lower Brule Sioux tribes in 1996 and 1997, respectively,
    from his additional compensation totals without first making the different
    estimates comparable. Since these amounts were in 1996 and 1997 dollar
    values, versus the 2003 dollar values for his current calculations, it was
    incorrect to subtract one from the other without any adjustment. In our
    view, the consultant should have adjusted his current calculations through
    1996 and 1997, depending on the tribe, and then should have subtracted the
    additional compensation provided the tribes at that time. If there was any
    remaining compensation due the tribes, the final step then would have been
    to adjust it to reflect 2003 dollar values. Using this approach, the
    additional compensation provided to the tribes in the 1990s would have
    been subtracted from comparable dollar values.

    Observations

    The additional compensation already authorized for the Crow Creek Sioux
    and Lower Brule Sioux tribes in 1996 and 1997, respectively, is consistent
    with the additional compensation authorized for the other tribes on the
    Missouri River. Rather than bringing the Crow Creek Sioux and Lower Brule
    Sioux tribes into parity with the other tribes, the two bills under
    consideration in the 109th Congress-H.R. 109 and S. 374-would have the
    opposite effect. Providing a third round of compensation to the Crow Creek
    Sioux and Lower Brule Sioux tribes, in the amounts proposed in the bills,
    would catapult them ahead of the other tribes and set a precedent for the
    other tribes to seek a third round of compensation. Our analysis does not
    support the additional compensation amounts contained in H.R. 109 and S.
    374. Notwithstanding the results of our analysis, the Congress will
    ultimately decide whether additional compensation should be provided and,
    if so, how much it should be. Our analysis will assist the Congress in
    this regard.

    Consultant's Comments and Our Evaluation

    Because the consultant's analysis was the basis for the tribes' additional
    compensation claims and the consultant had asserted that the additional
    compensation amounts were based on a methodology deemed appropriate by
    GAO, we chose to provide the tribes' consultant with a draft of this
    report for review and comment. In commenting on the draft, the tribes'
    consultant (1) acknowledged that he had made a calculation error in his
    analysis, (2) proposed a range of additional compensation based on four
    different alternatives, and (3) discussed the complex issues of "asking
    price" in the context of the particular set of facts for the Crow Creek
    Sioux and Lower Brule Sioux tribes. In addition, the consultant commented
    "...that there has been no uniform or consistent approach, method,
    formula, or criteria for providing additional compensation. . ." to the
    seven tribes affected by Pick-Sloan dam projects on the Missouri River.
    Specifically, the consultant pointed out that the Congress has provided
    additional compensation to four tribes based on a per-acre analysis, while
    only three tribes have received additional compensation within the ranges
    we calculated in our two prior reports. As a result, the consultant
    believes that there is a wide disparity in the total compensation that the
    seven tribes have received from the Congress. As discussed in detail
    below, we believe that our approach is reasonable, and we did not make any
    changes to the report based on the consultant's comments. The tribes'
    consultant provided written comments that are included in appendix V,
    along with our specific responses.

    To address the perceived disparity in the total compensation amounts
    provided by the Congress, the consultant proposed four different
    alternatives for calculating additional compensation for the Crow Creek
    Sioux and Lower Brule Sioux tribes: (1) on a per-acre basis compared with
    the Cheyenne River Sioux tribe, (2) the consultant's original proposal
    (amended to correct for the calculation error), (3) on a per-acre basis
    compared with the Santee Sioux tribe, and (4) calculations based on using
    the tribes' highest asking prices. We do not believe that the consultant's
    amended original proposal nor the three new alternatives represent a sound
    approach for establishing the range of additional compensation. Our
    approach is to provide the Congress with a range of possible additional
    compensation based on the difference between the amount the tribes
    believed was warranted at the time of the taking and the final settlement
    amount. We then adjusted the differences using the inflation rate for the
    lower end of the range and the corporate bond rate for the higher end. The
    ranges of additional compensation we calculated in this report were
    calculated in exactly the same way we did in our 1991 and 1998 reports,
    and we believe our approach is reasonable. In our view, trying to compare
    the total compensation for the tribes on a per-acre basis-which are two of
    consultant's proposed alternatives-does not take into account the
    differences of what each tribe lost. For example, even if the individual
    resources such as timber, wildlife, and wild products would have all been
    valued the same for all of the tribes, if one tribe lost more of one
    resource than another, then their per-acre compensation values would be
    different. Also, about half of the payments to four of the tribes were for
    rehabilitation, which had no direct correlation to the acreage flooded by
    the dams, and the consultant did not make the different dollar amounts
    comparable before performing his per-acre calculations.

    The tribes' consultant disagreed with our assumption that the tribes'
    final asking prices were based on the most up-to-date and complete
    information and that they were more realistic than their initial asking
    prices. Specifically, the consultant noted that the tribes' final asking
    prices "were made under conditions of extreme duress." We agree with the
    consultant that the tribes were not willing sellers of their land at the
    initial price that the government offered for their land. However, we
    disagree that this factor invalidates the use of the tribes' final asking
    prices. The drawn out negotiations for the Fort Randall Dam and the
    amounts of the tribes' final asking prices do not support the conclusion
    that the tribes simply capitulated and accepted whatever the government
    offered. For example, for 12 of the 15 compensation components shown in
    tables 5, 6, and 7 of our report, the tribes' final asking prices were
    equal to, or higher than, their initial settlement proposals. We used a
    clearly defined and consistent approach, whereas, in his analysis, the
    consultant selected only certain numbers from a variety of tribal
    settlement proposals without providing any justification. While the
    tribes' consultant chose to use the Crow Creek Sioux tribes' offer from
    May 1957, he did not use the Lower Brule Sioux tribes' offer from the same
    time. Instead, the consultant chose to use the Lower Brule Sioux tribes'
    initial offer from 3 years earlier-July 1954-without any explanation.
    Furthermore, rather than consistently using the Lower Brule Sioux tribes'
    July 1954 offer, the consultant used the tribes' rehabilitation offer from
    April 1957, again without any explanation.

    The tribes' consultant correctly points out that only three of the seven
    tribes have received additional compensation consistent with the ranges
    calculated in our two prior reports. Until this report, the Congress had
    only asked us to review these three tribes' additional compensation
    requests, and, each time, the Congress provided additional compensation
    within the ranges we calculated. Furthermore, our two prior reports dealt
    with the three highest tribal claims for additional compensation-all over
    $90 million-whereas, the four tribes that obtained additional compensation
    based on a per-acre calculation were all less than $40 million, and we
    were not asked to review those requests. As noted in this report, although
    the additional compensation already provided to the tribes in 1996 and
    1997 was calculated on a per-acre basis, by coincidence, for the Lower
    Brule Sioux tribe it was within the range we would have proposed and for
    the Crow Creek Sioux tribe it was above our range. As such, should the
    Congress rely on our analysis in this report and not provide these two
    tribes a third round of compensation, then the additional compensation
    provided to five of the seven tribes would generally be within the ranges
    we have calculated, leaving only two tribes that would have had their
    additional compensation calculated based on a per-acre analysis and not
    analyzed by GAO. Accordingly, we believe our approach would provide more
    consistency among the tribes.

    It is important to note that both the consultant's analysis and the two
    bills pending in the 109th Congress state that the additional compensation
    amounts for the Crow Creek Sioux and Lower Brule Sioux tribes are based on
    a methodology deemed appropriate by GAO. We do not believe our analysis
    supports the additional compensation claims. We recognize that
    compensation issues can be a sensitive, complex, and controversial.
    Ultimately, it is up to the Congress to make a policy determination as to
    whether additional compensation should be provided and, if so, how much it
    should be. We amended our observations to reflect this reality.

    We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional
    committees, the Secretary of the Interior, the tribes' consultant, the
    Crow Creek Sioux and Lower Brule Sioux tribes, and other interested
    parties. We will also make copies available to others upon request. In
    addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at
    http://www.gao.gov .

    If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact
    me at (202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov . Contact points for our Offices
    of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last
    page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report
    are listed in appendix VI.

    Robin M. Nazzaro Director, Natural Resources   and Environment

    Appendix I  Scope and Methodology

    To assess the consultant's methods and analysis for determining additional
    compensation for the Crow Creek Sioux and Lower Brule Sioux tribes as a
    result of the flooding of 38,000 acres of their land and resources by the
    installation of the Fort Randall and Big Bend Dams, we used standard
    economic principles and the analysis we conducted in our two prior reports
    on additional compensation. We met with the tribes' consultant to
    determine how he used the method that we suggested the Congress adopt as
    the basis for granting additional compensation to other tribes and
    reviewed additional information he provided on how he arrived at his
    proposed compensation amounts.

    In order to ensure that we obtained and reviewed all relevant data, we
    conducted a literature search for congressional, agency, and tribal
    documents at the National Archives and the Department of the Interior's
    (Interior) library. We used original documents to learn about the
    negotiation process and to identify the appraised land prices and various
    proposed settlement amounts. As a result, we determined that these data
    were sufficiently reliable for purposes of this report. Specifically, from
    the National Archives, we reviewed legislative files containing proposed
    House and Senate bills, public laws enacted, House and Senate reports, and
    hearings held on compensation for the tribes. In addition, from Interior's
    library, we obtained Missouri River Basin Investigations Unit documents to
    review information on early damage estimates as a result of installation
    of the Fort Randall Dam and on details regarding both informal and formal
    negotiations between the federal government and the two tribes. We also
    met with representatives of the two tribes on their reservations in South
    Dakota to (1) discuss the analysis, the actions taken with the
    compensation previously obtained, and plans for the additional
    compensation amounts requested and (2) review any records they might have
    on earlier compensation negotiations. The tribes, however, did not have
    any documentation on tribal discussions or decisions regarding either
    compensation negotiations or offers that took place in the 1950s and
    1960s.

    We performed our work from October 2005 to April 2006 in accordance with
    generally accepted government auditing standards.

    Appendix II  Map of Tribes and Dams on the Missouri River

    Appendix III  Timeline of Settlement Negotiations and Compensation for the Crow Creek
    Sioux Tribe

    Appendix IV  Timeline of Settlement Negotiations and Compensation for the Lower Brule
    Sioux Tribe

    Appendix V  Comments from the Tribes' Consultant

    The following are our comments on the Crow Creek Sioux and Lower Brule
    Sioux tribes' consultant's letter dated April 27, 2006.

    GAO Comments

    1.The tribes' consultant did not calculate a range of additional
    compensation as we suggested in our report. Our approach is to provide the
    Congress with a range of possible additional compensation based on the
    difference between the amounts the tribes believed was warranted at the
    time of the taking and the final settlement amount. We then adjusted the
    differences using the inflation rate for the lower end of the range and
    the corporate bond rate for the higher end. In deciding not to calculate a
    low-end value using the inflation rate, the consultant stated that
    "...there is no precedent for Congress using the inflation rate as a basis
    for any additional compensation it has awarded to the seven Tribes since
    1992." While the consultant is correct in stating that the Congress has
    not provided any tribe with additional compensation at the lowest value in
    the ranges we have calculated, there is a precedent for the Congress
    providing an amount less than the highest value. In 1992, the Congress
    authorized $90.6 million in additional compensation for the Standing Rock
    Sioux tribe, which was toward the low end of the possible compensation
    range we calculated of $64.5 million to $170 million. Although the
    Congress did not select the lowest value, having a lower value provided
    the Congress with a range from which to select. We did not suggest that
    the consultant should propose a range of additional compensation using
    four different approaches.

    2.Determining whether additional compensation is warranted is a policy
    decision for the Congress to decide. Nonetheless, if the Congress relies
    on our analysis in this report and does not provide a third round of
    compensation to the Crow Creek Sioux and Lower Brule Sioux tribes, the
    additional compensation provided to five of the seven tribes-the Cheyenne
    River Sioux tribe, the Crow Creek Sioux tribe, the Lower Brule Sioux
    tribe, the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, and the Three Affiliated Tribes of
    the Fort Berthold Reservation-would generally fall within the ranges we
    calculated using our approach, thereby leaving only two tribes-the Santee
    Sioux tribe and the Yankton Sioux tribe-that would have had their
    additional compensation calculated on a per-acre basis and not reviewed by
    GAO. As a result, we believe using our approach, which is based on the
    amounts that the tribes believed were warranted at the time of the taking,
    would provide more consistency among the tribes, rather than less.

    3.The tribes' consultant did not make the amounts from different years
    comparable before making his per-acre calculations. The consultant did not
    adjust the original compensation amounts from 1947 through 1962 before
    adding them with the additional compensation amounts from 1992 through
    2002. As a result, any comparisons made between the compensation amounts
    of the Crow Creek Sioux and Lower Brule Sioux tribes and other tribes,
    such as the Cheyenne River Sioux tribe or the Santee Sioux tribe, would be
    inaccurate. For example, for the Lower Brule Sioux tribe, the consultant
    added three amounts from 1958, 1962, and 1997 for a total of $43.6
    million, without first adjusting the individual amounts to constant
    dollars. More importantly, we do not believe that an aggregate per-acre
    comparison among the tribes is appropriate. We agree with the tribes'
    consultant that the tribes all suffered similar damages, but similar does
    not mean exactly the same. Damages would have to be exactly the same among
    all tribes for there to be equal total compensation on a per-acre basis,
    and this was not the case. Products, such as buildings, timber, and
    wildlife, were valued differently depending on type and some tribes lost
    more of one resource than other tribes. As a result, their per-acre
    compensation values would be different. Also, about half of the payments
    to four of the tribes were for rehabilitation that was not directly linked
    to the acreage flooded by the dams.

    4.We disagree that the additional compensation authorized for the Cheyenne
    River Sioux tribe in 2000 had a "skewing" effect on the additional
    compensation provided to the four other tribes prior to that time. The
    additional compensation authorized for the Cheyenne River Sioux tribe fell
    within the range we calculated, as did the additional compensation
    authorized for the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold
    Reservation and the Standing Rock Sioux tribe. Our range was based on the
    amount the Cheyenne Rive Sioux tribe believed was warranted at the time of
    the taking. Furthermore, as our analysis in this report demonstrates,
    although the Crow Creek Sioux and Lower Brule Sioux tribes were provided
    with additional compensation in 1996 and 1997 based on a per-acre
    analysis, the amounts were consistent with, or higher, than the ranges we
    calculated in this report.

    5.As the tribes' consultant noted in his comments, he did not use the
    tribes' highest offers in every case in his original analysis because he
    believed that some of those offers, such as the $16 million rehabilitation
    figure requested by the Lower Brule Sioux tribe, were skewed by special
    circumstances. However, the consultant uses these same highest asking
    prices in his fourth alternative, even though he believed them to be too
    unreasonable to include in his original analysis.

    6.The tribes' consultant is correct in pointing out that we did not use
    the exact phrase "final asking price" in our two prior reports. However,
    the ranges we calculated in our 1991 and 1998 reports were based on the
    final asking price of the tribes and their final settlements. We used the
    phrase "at the time of the taking" as a general phrase to denote the time
    period when the tribes' were negotiating with the government for
    compensation for the damages caused by the dams. It is not intended to
    refer to a specific date.

    7.We disagree with the tribes' consultant that tribal members were forced
    to relocate without funds for moving expenses. The tribes did receive
    initial funds based on the Missouri River Basin Investigations Unit
    appraisals to help cover relocation expenses 3 years before they made what
    we refer to as their final asking prices in March 1958. In March 1955, the
    Crow Creek Sioux tribe received $399,313 and the Lower Brule Sioux tribe
    received $270,611 from the court, with the understanding that negotiations
    between the tribes, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Interior would
    continue until settlements were achieved. Tribal committees were formed to
    plan relocation activities with these funds.

    8.We disagree with the tribes' consultant regarding his characterization
    of the rehabilitation portion of the payment the tribes received. We state
    in this report that it should be considered separately from the comparison
    of the dams because it was not directly related to the damage caused by
    the dams. The tribes' consultant states that "...the Congress has
    consistently demonstrated the understanding that funds for rehabilitation
    were directly linked to the damages caused by the dams." We agree that
    funding for rehabilitation became intertwined with compensation for the
    dams, and we included rehabilitation in our analysis in this report, as
    shown in tables 9 and 10, as we did for the Cheyenne River Sioux tribe and
    the Standing Rock Sioux tribe. However, we disagree that rehabilitation is
    directly linked to the damages caused by the dams for the following three
    reasons. First, other tribes not affected by dam projects were also
    provided with rehabilitation funding. Second, rehabilitation funding was
    to improve the economic and social conditions of all tribal members, it
    was not limited to only those members directly affected by the dams.
    Third, it was clear during the negotiations that the government did not
    consider rehabilitation funding to be compensation for the damages caused
    by the dams. In addition, in this report, as in our 1998 report, we show
    the breakout of each component in our analysis to provide the Congress
    with the most complete information.

    Appendix VI  GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

    Robin M. Nazzaro, (202) 512-3841, nazzaror@gao.gov

    In addition to the individual named above, Jeffery D. Malcolm, Assistant
    Director; Greg Carroll; Timothy J. Guinane; Susanna Kuebler; and Carol
    Herrnstadt Shulman made key contributions to this report. Also
    contributing to the report were Omari Norman, Kim Raheb, and Jena Y.
    Sinkfield.

    (360643)

    www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt? GAO-06-517 .

    To view the full product, including the scope

    and methodology, click on the link above.

    For more information, contact Robin M. Nazzaro at (202) 512-3841 or
    nazzaror@gao.gov.

    Highlights of GAO-06-517 , a report to the Chairman, Committee on Indian
    Affairs, U.S. Senate

    May 2006

    INDIAN ISSUES

    Analysis of the Crow Creek Sioux and Lower Brule Sioux Tribes' Additional
    Compensation Claims

    From 1946 to 1966, the government constructed the Fort Randall and Big
    Bend Dams as flood control projects on the Missouri River in South Dakota.
    The reservoirs created behind the dams flooded about 38,000 acres of the
    Crow Creek and Lower Brule Indian reservations. The tribes received
    compensation when the dams were built and additional compensation in the
    1990s. The tribes are seeking a third round of compensation based on a
    consultant's analysis.

    The Congress provided additional compensation to other tribes after two
    prior GAO reports. For those reports, GAO found that one recommended
    approach to providing additional compensation would be to calculate the
    difference between the tribe's final asking price and the amount that was
    appropriated by the Congress, and then to adjust it using the inflation
    rate and an interest rate to reflect a range of current values.

    GAO was asked to assess whether the tribes' consultant followed the
    approach used in GAO's prior reports. The additional compensation amounts
    calculated by the tribes' consultant are contained in H.R. 109 and S. 374.

    What GAO Recommends

    GAO is not making any recommendations. The tribes' consultant commented
    that he disagreed with our reliance on the tribes' final asking prices.
    GAO believes its approach is reasonable.

    The tribes' consultant differed from the approach used in prior GAO
    reports by (1) not using the tribes' final asking prices as the starting
    point of the analysis and (2) not providing a range of additional
    compensation. First, in calculating additional compensation amounts, GAO
    used the tribes' final asking prices, recognizing that their final
    settlement position should be the most complete and realistic. In
    contrast, the consultant used selected figures from a variety of tribal
    settlement proposals. For example, for the rehabilitation component of the
    tribes' settlement proposals, the consultant used $13.1 million from
    proposals in 1957, rather than $6.7 million from the tribes' final
    rehabilitation proposals in 1961. Second, the tribes' consultant
    calculated only the highest additional compensation dollar value rather
    than providing the Congress with a range of possible additional
    compensation based on different adjustment factors, as in the earlier GAO
    reports.

    Based on calculations using the tribes' final asking prices, GAO's
    estimated range of additional compensation is generally comparable with
    what the tribes were authorized in the 1990s (see figure below). By
    contrast, the consultant estimated about $106 million and $186 million for
    Crow Creek and Lower Brule, respectively (in 2003 dollars). There are two
    primary reasons for this difference. First, GAO used the tribes' final
    rehabilitation proposals from 1961, rather than the 1957 proposals used by
    the consultant. Second, GAO's dollar amounts were adjusted only through
    1996 and 1997 to compare them directly with what the tribes received at
    that time. The consultant, however, adjusted for interest earned through
    2003, before comparing it with the payments authorized in the 1990s.

    The additional compensation already authorized for the tribes in the 1990s
    is consistent with the additional compensation authorized for other tribes
    on the Missouri River. GAO's analysis does not support the additional
    compensation amounts contained in H.R. 109 and S. 374.

    GAO's Estimated Range of Additional Compensation Versus the Additional
    Compensation the Tribes Were Authorized in the 1990s

    GAO's Mission

    The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
    investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
    constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
    accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
    examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
    and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
    Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
    commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
    accountability, integrity, and reliability.

    Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

    The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
    is through GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ). Each weekday, GAO posts newly
    released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To have
    GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
    www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

    Order by Mail or Phone

    The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
    each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
    Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
    copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
    be sent to:

    U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
    D.C. 20548

    To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
    512-6061

    To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

    Contact:

    Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
    Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

    Congressional Relations

    Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S.
    Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Washington,
    D.C. 20548

    Public Affairs

    Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
    Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington,
    D.C. 20548
    *** End of document. ***