Indian Issues: Damages and Compensation for Tribes at Seven	 
Reservations Affected by Dams on the Missouri River (01-NOV-07,  
GAO-08-249T).							 
                                                                 
From 1946 to 1966, the government constructed five dams as flood 
control projects on the Missouri River in North Dakota and South 
Dakota. The reservoirs created behind the dams flooded portions  
of seven Indian reservations--Fort Berthold, Cheyenne River,	 
Standing Rock, Lower Brule, Crow Creek, Yankton, and Santee. The 
tribes at these seven reservations received compensation when the
dams were built as well as additional compensation over the years
that followed. Since 1991, GAO has issued three reports on	 
additional compensation claims for tribes at five reservations:  
(1) 1991--Fort Berthold and Standing Rock (GAO/RCED-91-77); (2)  
1998--Cheyenne River (GAO/RCED-98-39); and (3) 2006--Crow Creek  
and Lower Brule (GAO-06-517). In these reports, GAO proposed 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 Congress and
then adjust the difference using the inflation rate and an	 
interest rate to reflect a range of current values. This	 
testimony is based on GAO's three prior reports, and summarizes  
the damages estimated by the Department of the Interior and the  
compensation authorized by Congress, for dams constructed on the 
Missouri River. 						 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-08-249T					        
    ACCNO:   A77893						        
  TITLE:     Indian Issues: Damages and Compensation for Tribes at    
Seven Reservations Affected by Dams on the Missouri River	 
     DATE:   11/01/2007 
  SUBJECT:   Compensation					 
	     Compensation claims				 
	     Damage claims					 
	     Dams						 
	     Dual compensation					 
	     Flood control					 
	     Indian affairs legislation 			 
	     Indian lands					 
	     Land management					 
	     Native American claims				 
	     Property losses					 
	     Proposed legislation				 
	     Rivers						 
	     Cheyenne River Sioux				 
	     Crow Creek Sioux					 
	     Fort Berthold Reservation (ND)			 
	     Lower Brule Sioux					 
	     Missouri River					 
	     Standing Rock Reservation (ND/SD)			 

******************************************************************
** 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-08-249T

   

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately.

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Testimony: 
Before the Committee on Indian Affairs: 
U.S. Senate: 

For Release on Delivery: 
Expected at 9:30 a.m. EDT: 
Thursday, November 1, 2007: 

Indian Issues: 

Damages and Compensation for Tribes at Seven Reservations Affected by 
Dams on the Missouri River: 

Statement of Robin M. Nazzaro: 
Director: 
Natural Resources and Environment: 

GAO-08-249T: 

GAO Highlights:

Highlights of GAO-08-249T, a testimony before the Committee on Indian 
Affairs, U.S. Senate. 

Why GAO Did This Study:

From 1946 to 1966, the government constructed five dams as flood 
control projects on the Missouri River in North Dakota and South 
Dakota. The reservoirs created behind the dams flooded portions of 
seven Indian reservationsï¿½Fort Berthold, Cheyenne River, Standing Rock, 
Lower Brule, Crow Creek, Yankton, and Santee. The tribes at these seven 
reservations received compensation when the dams were built as well as 
additional compensation over the years that followed.

Since 1991, GAO has issued three reports on additional compensation 
claims for tribes at five reservations: 

* 1991ï¿½Fort Berthold and Standing Rock (GAO-06-517); 
* 1998ï¿½Cheyenne River (GAO/RCED-98-39); and 
* 2006ï¿½Crow Creek and Lower Brule (GAO-06-517).

In these reports, GAO proposed that one recommended approach to 
providing additional compensation would be to calculate the difference 
between the tribeï¿½s final asking price and the amount that was 
appropriated by Congress and then adjust the difference using the 
inflation rate and an interest rate to reflect a range of current 
values.

This testimony is based on GAOï¿½s three prior reports, and summarizes 
the damages estimated by the Department of the Interior and the 
compensation authorized by Congress, for dams constructed on the 
Missouri River.

What GAO Found:

The reservoirs created by the dams on the Missouri River permanently 
flooded over 350,000 acres of land on seven Indian reservations, 
ranging from over 150,000 acres flooded on the Fort Berthold 
reservation to less than 600 acres flooded on the Santee reservation.  
In addition to the valuable river bottom land that was lost, the tribes 
also lost any natural resources and structural improvements on the 
land. The natural resources lost included timber, wildlife, and native 
plants. The structural improvements lost included such things as homes 
and ranches. In some cases, entire towns were lost. In addition to the 
direct damages, Congress has recognized that the tribes also suffered 
indirect or intangible damages for the loss of assets of unknown value. 
These losses included spiritual ties to the lands (for example, 
cemeteries and tribal monuments); tribal claims to a homeland; and 
benefits derived from living along the Missouri River.

The tribes at the seven reservations that lost land due to the flood 
control projects on the Missouri River originally received compensation 
for their damages between 1947 and 1962, and they subsequently 
requested and received additional compensation between 1992 and 2002. 
For the tribes at the five reservations that we have reported on in the 
past, the original compensation was based on detailed assessments by 
the U.S. government and the tribes of the damages caused by the dams 
and, in some cases, protracted settlement negotiations. The U.S. 
government and the tribes were ultimately unable to reach settlement 
agreements, and Congress decided the compensation amounts. In each 
case, the original compensation authorized was less than what the 
tribes had requested, leading the tribes to request additional 
compensation. The three largest additional compensation 
amountsï¿½Cheyenne River, $290.7 million in 2000; Fort Berthold, $149.2 
million in 1992; and Standing Rock, $90.6 million in 1992ï¿½were all 
within the ranges calculated in GAOï¿½s 1991 and 1998 reports. Congress 
did not ask GAO to review the methodologies used to calculate the four 
smaller additional compensation amounts, all less than $40 million, 
before enacting the bills in 1996 (Crow Creek), 1997 (Lower Brule), and 
2002 (Yankton and Santee). The Crow Creek Sioux and Lower Brule Sioux 
tribes were authorized additional compensation commensurate, on a per-
acre basis, with the additional compensation provided to the Standing 
Rock Sioux tribe in 1992. Similarly, the additional compensation 
authorized in 2002 for the Yankton Sioux and Santee Sioux tribes was 
also partially based on a per-acre calculation.

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
[hyperlink, http://www.GAO-08-249T]. For more information, contact 
Robin M. Nazzaro at (202) 512-3841 or [email protected]. 

[End of section] 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our work on reviewing the 
additional compensation claims by tribes at seven Indian reservations 
for lands taken by flood control projects on the Missouri River. As you 
know, between 1946 and 1966 five dams were constructed on the Missouri 
River--the Garrison Dam in North Dakota, and the Oahe, Fort Randall, 
Big Bend, and Gavins Point Dams in South Dakota--that damaged seven 
reservations. The reservoirs created behind the dams permanently 
flooded portions of the Fort Berthold, Cheyenne River, Standing Rock, 
Lower Brule, Crow Creek, Yankton, and Santee reservations. While the 
dams were being constructed, Congress enacted a number of laws that 
authorized payments to the tribes residing on the affected reservations 
as compensation for the damages caused by the dams. However, beginning 
in the 1980s, some of these tribes began requesting additional 
compensation. As part of their pursuit of additional compensation, the 
tribes generally hired consultants to develop economic analyses or 
perform other calculations to form the basis for their requests for 
additional compensation. In the 1990s and early 2000s, Congress 
responded to these requests for additional compensation by establishing 
development trust funds for the tribes at each of the seven 
reservations.[Footnote 1]

However, today, more than 45 years after the last original compensation 
bill was enacted and almost 5 years after the last additional 
compensation bill was enacted, lingering questions remain about various 
aspects of the tribes' compensation. Most notably, questions have been 
raised about whether the tribes have been adequately compensated for 
the damages they sustained and whether they have been treated 
consistently. For example, two bills pending in the 110th Congress, 
H.R. 155 and S. 160, would provide the Crow Creek Sioux and Lower Brule 
Sioux tribes with a third round of compensation totaling an additional 
$132.2 million.[Footnote 2] Specifically, the Crow Creek Sioux tribe 
would receive an additional $41.7 million over and above the $27.5 
million in additional compensation authorized in 1996 (unadjusted for 
inflation) and the Lower Brule Sioux tribe would receive an additional 
$90.5 million over and above the $39.3 million in additional 
compensation authorized in 1997 (unadjusted for inflation). Also, 
pending in the 110th Congress is the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe 
Equitable Compensation Amendments Act of 2007, H.R. 487.[Footnote 3] 
This bill would make a number of amendments to the 2000 act that 
authorized additional compensation for the Cheyenne River Sioux tribe, 
including allowing individual tribal members to be eligible for 
payments and changing how the trust fund is capitalized and invested.

Since 1991, we have issued three reports on additional compensation 
claims for tribes at five reservations: (1) in May 1991 we reported on 
claims by the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation 
and the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe;[Footnote 4] (2) in January 1998 we 
reported on the claim by the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe;[Footnote 5] 
and (3) in May 2006 we reported on the most recent additional 
compensation claims by the Crow Creek Sioux and Lower Brule Sioux 
tribes.[Footnote 6] In each report, we raised questions about the 
approach and calculations used in developing the tribes' additional 
compensation claims, and, as an alternative we calculated a range of 
possible additional compensation for Congress to consider should it 
determine that additional compensation was warranted. In addition, we 
testified in April 1991 on our work related to our first report and 
more recently, we testified on June 14, 2006, on our May 2006 
report.[Footnote 7] Our testimony today is drawn from our three prior 
reports and summarizes the damages incurred, and the compensation 
received, for dams constructed on the Missouri River.

We compiled information from our three prior reports to prepare this 
testimony. In reviewing the additional compensation claims for the 
tribes at the five reservations covered by our prior reports, we met 
the tribes' consultants to discuss the damages caused by the dams and 
the analysis that was the basis for the tribes' additional compensation 
claims. We also reviewed other pertinent information regarding the 
economic condition of the tribes at the time the land was acquired, 
including reports prepared by the Department of the Interior. In 
addition, for our 1998 and 2006 reports, 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 tribes' settlement negotiations 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 testimony. We also met with 
representatives of the Cheyenne River Sioux, the Crow Creek Sioux, and 
the Lower Brule Sioux tribes. Our three prior reports, on which this 
testimony is based, were prepared in accordance with generally accepted 
government auditing standards.

In summary,

* The reservoirs created by the dams on the Missouri River permanently 
flooded over 350,000 acres of land on seven Indian reservations. Two 
reservations lost more than 100,000 acres while the remaining five 
reservations each lost less than 56,000 acres. In addition to the 
valuable river bottom land that was lost, the tribes also lost any 
natural resources and structural improvements on the land. The natural 
resources lost included timber, wildlife, and native plants and 
berries. For example, the Crow Creek reservation lost 94 percent of its 
timberland and the Fort Berthold reservation lost 100 percent of its 
irrigable land. The structural improvements lost included such things 
as homes and ranches. In some cases, entire towns were lost. In 
addition to the direct damages, Congress has recognized that the tribes 
also suffered indirect or intangible damages for the loss of assets of 
unknown value. These losses included spiritual ties to the lands (for 
example, cemeteries and tribal monuments); tribal claims to a homeland; 
and benefits derived from living along the Missouri River.

* The tribes at the seven reservations that lost land due to the flood 
control projects on the Missouri River originally received compensation 
for their damages between 1947 and 1962 and they subsequently requested 
and received additional compensation between 1992 and 2002. For the 
tribes at the five reservations that we have reported on in the past, 
the original compensation was based on detailed assessments by the U.S. 
government and the tribes of the damages caused by the dams and, in 
some cases, protracted settlement negotiations. For example, the 
settlement negotiations for the Crow Creek Sioux and Lower Brule Sioux 
tribes involved two dams and stretched over about 9 years, from 1953 
through the enactment of their settlement legislation for the Big Bend 
Dam in 1962. The U.S. government and the tribes were ultimately unable 
to reach settlement agreements and Congress decided the compensation 
amounts. In each case, the original compensation provided was less than 
what the tribes had requested, leading the tribes to request additional 
compensation. The three largest additional compensation amounts-- 
Cheyenne River, $290.7 million in 2000; Fort Berthold, $149.2 million 
in 1992; and Standing Rock, $90.6 million in 1992--were all within the 
ranges we calculated in our 1991 and 1998 reports. Congress did not ask 
us to review the methodologies used to calculate the four smaller 
additional compensation amounts, all less than $40 million, before 
enacting the bills in 1996 (Crow Creek), 1997 (Lower Brule), and 2002 
(Yankton and Santee). The Crow Creek Sioux and Lower Brule Sioux tribes 
were authorized additional compensation commensurate, on a per-acre 
basis, with the additional compensation provided to the Standing Rock 
Sioux tribe in 1992. Similarly, the additional compensation authorized 
in 2002 for the Yankton Sioux and Santee Sioux tribes was also 
partially based on per-acre calculation. In addition to the per-acre 
calculation, an adjustment was made for these two tribes to provide an 
amount for severance damages and rehabilitation that was not included 
in their original compensation.

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.[Footnote 8] The Pick-Sloan 
Plan--a joint water development program designed by the U.S. Army Corps 
of Engineers and the Department of the Interior's 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 (see fig. 1). 
The dams were constructed during a 20-year period from 1946 to 1966.

Figure 1: Dams and Reservations on the Missouri River: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a map of North Dakota, South Dakota, and Northern 
Nebraska, depicting the following dams and reservations on the Missouri 
River: 

Dams: 
Garrison Dam, North Dakota;
Oahe Dam, South Dakota; 
Big Bend Dam, South Dakota; 
Fort Randall Dam, South Dakota; 
Gavins Point Dam, border of South Dakota and Nebraska. 

Reservations:
Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota;
Standing Rock reservation, North and South Dakota; 
Cheyenne River reservation, South Dakota; 
Lower Brule reservation, South Dakota; 
Yankton reservation, South Dakota; 
Santee reservation, Nebraska. 

Sources: The National Atlas of the United States of America and Map 
Resources.

[End of figure] 

For tribes at five of the seven reservations, Congress asked us to 
review the additional compensation proposals developed by tribal 
consultants. Our reviews for tribes at three reservations--Fort 
Berthold, Standing Rock, and Cheyenne River--were conducted before 
Congress authorized their additional compensation. 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.[Footnote 9]

More recently, we reviewed the additional compensation claims for the 
Crow Creek Sioux and Lower Brule Sioux tribes. The Crow Creek Sioux and 
Lower Brule Sioux tribes were affected by the Fort Randall and Big Bend 
dams. The tribes received their original compensation for the damages 
caused by these two dams in 1958 and 1962.[Footnote 10] However, the 
tribes did not consider their original compensation to be sufficient, 
and they sought additional compensation to address the effects of both 
dams. As a result, in 1996 and 1997, Congress authorized additional 
compensation for the Crow Creek Sioux and the Lower Brule Sioux tribes, 
respectively.[Footnote 11] 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 1991 and 
1998 reports. As a result of the consultant's analysis, the two tribes 
are currently seeking a third round of compensation. In our 2006 report 
we assessed whether the tribes' consultant followed the approach in our 
prior reports in calculating the compensation for Congress to consider 
in determining whether additional compensation was warranted for the 
Crow Creek Sioux and Lower Brule Sioux tribes.[Footnote 12]

Damages Caused to the Tribes at Seven Reservations as a Result of Dams 
on the Missouri River:

The reservoirs created by the dams on the Missouri River permanently 
flooded over 350,000 acres of land on seven reservations, ranging from 
over 150,000 acres flooded on the Fort Berthold Reservation to less 
than 600 acres flooded on the Santee Reservation (see table 1). In 
addition to the valuable river bottom land that was lost, the tribes 
lost any natural resources and structural improvements on the land. The 
natural resources lost included timber, wildlife, and native plants and 
berries. The structural improvements lost included such things as homes 
and ranches. In some cases, entire towns were lost.

Table 1: Acreage Flooded on Seven Reservations by Dams on the Missouri 
River:

Reservation: Fort Berthold;
Dam: Garrison; 
Acreage flooded: 152,360.

Reservation: Cheyenne River;
Dam: Oahe;
Acreage flooded: 104,420.

Reservation: Standing Rock; 
Dam: Oahe;
Acreage flooded: 55,994. 

Reservation: Lower Brule;
Dam: Fort Randall and Big Bend;
Acreage flooded: 22,296. 

Reservation: Crow Creek; 
Dam: Fort Randall and Big Bend;
Acreage flooded: 15,597.

Reservation: Yankton;
Dam: Fort Randall;
Acreage flooded: 2,851. 

Reservation: Santee; 
Dam: Gavins Point; 
Acreage flooded: 593. 

Reservation: Total; 
Dam: 5 dams; 
Acreage flooded: 354,111.  

Source: GAO analysis of the additional compensation acts.

[End of table]

The damage that each tribe sustained was unique depending, on the land 
that was lost, the resources and structures on the land, and the 
overall impact on the community. For example, the Department of the 
Interior estimated at one point that 78 percent of the families living 
on the Fort Berthold reservation, or 289 families, lived in the area 
that was going to be flooded, a number that was generally two to three 
times higher than on the other reservations. On the Crow Creek and 
Lower Brule reservations, the Fort Randall Dam displaced 119 families, 
and the Big Bend Dam displaced 89 families. In some cases the same 
families were displaced by both dams. The Crow Creek reservation lost 
94 percent of its timberland and the Fort Berthold reservation lost 100 
percent of its irrigable land.

In addition to the direct damages, Congress has recognized that the 
tribes also suffered indirect or intangible damages for the loss of 
assets of unknown value. These losses included spiritual ties to the 
lands (for example, cemeteries and tribal monuments); tribal claims to 
a homeland; and benefits derived from living along the Missouri River.

Compensation Provided to the Tribes on the Missouri River for the 
Damages Caused by the Dams:

The tribes at the seven reservations that lost land due to the flood 
control projects on the Missouri River originally received compensation 
for their damages between 1947 and 1962, and they subsequently 
requested and received additional compensation between 1992 and 2002 
(see table 2). For the tribes at the five reservations that we have 
reported on in the past, the original compensation was based on 
detailed assessments by the U.S. government and the tribes of the 
damages caused by the dams and, in some cases, protracted settlement 
negotiations over how much the tribes should be compensated for their 
losses. The settlement negotiations for the Cheyenne River Sioux tribe 
lasted about 4 years from the date settlement negotiations were 
authorized to the date the settlement legislation was enacted. The 
settlement negotiations for the Crow Creek Sioux and Lower Brule Sioux 
tribes involved two dams and stretched over about 9 years, from 1953 
through the enactment of their settlement legislation for the Big Bend 
Dam in 1962. The results of the settlement negotiations were that the 
U.S. government and the tribes were unable to reach an agreement. As a 
result, the settlements were left for Congress to decide. For each of 
the tribes at the five reservations that we have reported on in the 
past, the original compensation provided was less than what the tribes' 
believed their lands were worth.

Table 2: Compensation Authorized by Congress for Tribes on the Missouri 
River (Current year dollars in millions):

Tribe: Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation;
Acreage lost: 152,360; 
Year original payment enacted: 1947 and 1949; 
Original payment authorized: $12.6; 
Year additional compensation enacted: 1992; 
Additional compensation authorized: $149.2. 

Tribe: Cheyenne River Sioux; 
Acreage lost: 104,420; 
Year original payment enacted: 1954; 
Original payment authorized: $10.6; 
Year additional compensation enacted: 2000; 
Additional compensation authorized: $290.7. 

Tribe: Standing Rock Sioux; 
Acreage lost: 55,994; 
Year original payment enacted: 1958; 
Original payment authorized: $12.3; 
Year additional compensation enacted: 1992; 
Additional compensation authorized: $90.6. 

Tribe: Lower Brule Sioux; 
Acreage lost: 22,296; 
Year original payment enacted: 1958 and 1962; 
Original payment authorized: $4.3; 
Year additional compensation enacted: 1997; 
Additional compensation authorized: $39.3. 

Tribe: Crow Creek Sioux; 
Acreage lost: 15,597; 
Year original payment enacted: 1958 and 1962; 
Original payment authorized: $5.9; 
Year additional compensation enacted: 1996; 
Additional compensation authorized: $27.5. 

Tribe: Yankton Sioux; 
Acreage lost: 2,851; 
Year original payment enacted: 1952 and 1954; 
Original payment authorized: $0.2; 
Year additional compensation enacted: 2002; 
Additional compensation authorized: $23.0. 

Tribe: Santee Sioux; 
Acreage lost: 593; 
Year original payment enacted: 1958; 
Original payment authorized: $0.05; 
Year additional compensation enacted: 2002; 
Additional compensation authorized: $4.8. 

Source: GAO analysis of the compensation acts.

Note: The dollar amounts in this table are generally from different 
years and they should not be added together or compared without first 
making adjustments for changes in the purchasing power of money over 
time. 

[End of table]

During our prior reviews, we have recognized the problems with the 
original settlement negotiations, namely that the tribes may have been 
at a disadvantage during the negotiations and that they were not 
willing sellers of their land. We also recognized the inherit 
difficulties with trying to perform new economic analyses on the 
damages the tribes sustained 50 years after the fact. In our 1991 and 
1998 reports, for the tribes at 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. 
Instead, we suggested that if 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 our 2006 report as the tribe's 
"final asking price") and the amount of compensation 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 three largest additional compensation 
payments--Cheyenne River, $290.7 million in 2000; Fort Berthold, $149.2 
million in 1992; and Standing Rock, $90.6 million in 1992--were all 
within the ranges we calculated.

The four smaller additional compensation payments were calculated using 
a different approach. We were not asked by Congress to review the 
additional compensation claims for the Crow Creek Sioux and Lower Brule 
Sioux tribes in the 1990s when they received their additional 
compensation. 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.[Footnote 13] In our 2006 report, where we reviewed the additional 
compensation claims by the Crow Creek Sioux and Lower Brule Sioux 
tribes, we found that the additional compensation provided to the Crow 
Creek Sioux tribe in 1996 was slightly above the range we calculated 
and the additional compensation provided to the Lower Brule Sioux tribe 
in 1997 was within the range we calculated. The additional compensation 
dollar ranges we calculated for the tribes at five reservations covered 
in our three prior reports are summarized in figure 2. (The dollar 
amounts in figure 2 are generally from different years and they should 
not be added together or compared without first making adjustments for 
changes in the purchasing power of money over time.)

Figure 2: GAO's Estimated Range of Additional Compensation Versus the 
Additional Compensation Authorized for Five Tribes Since 1992 9dollars 
in millions):

[See PDF for image] 

This graph is a horizontal line graph depicting GAO's Estimated Range 
of Additional Compensation Versus the Additional Compensation 
Authorized for Five Tribes Since 1992. The horizontal axis of the graph 
represents dollars in millions from 0 to 300. The following data is 
depicted:

Tribe: Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation (GAO 
range in 1990 dollars); 
Compensation range: 51.8 to 149.2 (Additional compensation authorized 
in Pub L. No. 102-575, title XXXV, 106 Stat. 4600, 4731 (1992)). 

Tribe: Standing Rock Sioux (GAO range in 1990 dollars); 
Compensation range: 64.5 to 170.0 (90.6 - Additional compensation 
authorized in Pub L. No. 102-575, title XXXV, 106 Stat. 4600, 4731 
(1992). 

Tribe: Cheyenne River Sioux (GAO range in 1990 dollars);
Compensation range: 78.2 to 290.7 (Additional compensation authorized 
in Pub L. No. 106-511, title I, 114 Stat. 2365 (2000)).

Tribe: Crow Creek Sioux: (GAO range in 1990 dollars); 
Compensation range: 6.5 to 21.4 (27.5 - Additional compensation 
authorized in Pub L. No. 104-223, 110 Stat. 3026 (1996)). 

Tribe: Lower Brule Sioux: (GAO range in 1990 dollars); 
Compensation range: 12.2 to 40.9 (39.3 - Additional compensation 
authorized in Pub L. No. 105-132, 111 Stat. 2563 (1997)). 

Source: GAO. 

The additional compensation authorized in 2002 for the Yankton Sioux 
and Santee Sioux tribes was also partially based on a per-acre 
calculation. Congress followed a two-part calculation in authorizing 
additional compensation for the Yankton Sioux and Santee Sioux tribes. 
The first part involved taking the additional compensation provided to 
the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe in 1997, on a per-acre basis ($1,763), and 
multiplying that times the acreage the Yankton Sioux and Santee Sioux 
tribes lost (Yankton Sioux, $1,763 ï¿½ 2,851.4 acres = $5.027 million; 
Santee Sioux, $1,763 ï¿½ 593.1 acres = $1.046 million). The second part 
of the calculation involved multiplying the results of the first part 
by 4.58 to add an amount for severance damages and rehabilitation 
(Yankton Sioux, $5.027 million ï¿½ 4.58 = $23.02 million; Santee Sioux, 
$1.046 million ï¿½ 4.58 = $4.79 million).[Footnote 14] We have not 
performed any reviews of the additional compensation claims for the 
Yankton Sioux and Santee Sioux tribes.

Rehabilitation funds had been provided to tribes on four of the seven 
reservations as part of their original compensation in the 1950s and 
1960s (see table 3). While rehabilitation was a significant component 
of the original compensation package for four tribes, 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.[Footnote 15] From the late-1940s through the early-1960s, 
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 
Congress in the late 1950s, and rehabilitation funding for individual 
tribes during this time was most often authorized by 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.

Table 3: Rehabilitation Payments Authorized by Congress for Tribes on 
the Missouri River (Current year dollars in millions):

Tribe: Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation;
Year original payment enacted: 1947 and 1949; 
Original payment authorized: $12.6; 
Rehabilitation payment authorized: $0; 
Percentage: 0%. 

Tribe: Cheyenne River Sioux; 
Year original payment enacted: 1954; 
Original payment authorized: $10.6; 
Rehabilitation payment authorized: $5.2[A]; 
Percentage: 49%. 

Tribe: Standing Rock Sioux; 
Year original payment enacted: 1958; 
Original payment authorized: $12.3; 
Rehabilitation payment authorized: $7.0[A]; 
Percentage: 57%. 

Tribe: Lower Brule Sioux; 
Year original payment enacted: 1958 and 1962; 
Original payment authorized: $4.3; 
Rehabilitation payment authorized: $1.9; 
Percentage: 45%. 

Tribe: Crow Creek Sioux; 
Year original payment enacted: 1958 and 1962; 
Original payment authorized: $5.9; 
Rehabilitation payment authorized: $3.8; 
Percentage: 64%. 

Tribe: Yankton Sioux; 
Year original payment enacted: 1952 and 1954; 
Original payment authorized: $0.2; 
Rehabilitation payment authorized: $0; 
Percentage: 0%. 

Tribe: Santee Sioux; 
Year original payment enacted: 1958; 
Original payment authorized: $0.05; 
Rehabilitation payment authorized: $0; 
Percentage: 0%.  

Source: GAO analysis of the compensation acts.

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

[End of table]  

In closing, I would caution against looking solely at the acreage lost 
and the authorized compensation amounts to try and determine if the 
tribes were treated consistently. Such comparisons have led to 
perceived inequities between the tribes. For example, questions could 
be asked such as, Why was the original compensation for the Standing 
Rock Sioux tribe almost as much at the original compensation for the 
Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation when the Fort 
Berthold reservation lost three times as much land? or Why was the 
additional compensation provided to the Yankton Sioux tribe almost as 
much as the additional compensation provided to the Crow Creek Sioux 
tribe when the Crow Creek reservation lost more than five times as much 
land? The type of land lost, the resources on the land, the structures 
on the land, the settlement negotiations, the compensation bills, and 
the dates when compensation was provided, has varied by tribe. Looking 
at just the total compensation amounts masks the underlying differences 
in each of the compensation bills. 

Mr. Chairman, this completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to 
respond to any questions you or other Members of the Committee may have 
at this time. 

Contact and Acknowledgments: 

For further information, please contact Robin M. Nazzaro on (202) 512- 
3841 or [email protected]. Individuals making key contributions to this 
testimony and our 2006 additional compensation report are Greg Carroll, 
Tim Guinane, Susanna Kuebler, Jeffery D. Malcolm, and Carol Herrnstadt 
Shulman. 

[End of section]  

Footnotes: 

[1] Fort Berthold and Standing Rock, Pub. L. No. 102-575, title XXXV, 
106 Stat. 4600, 4731 (1992); Crow Creek, Pub. L. No. 104-223, 110 Stat. 
3026 (1996); Lower Brule, Pub. L. No. 105-132, 111 Stat. 2563 (1997); 
Cheyenne River, Pub. L. No. 106-511, title I, 114 Stat. 2365 (2000); 
and Yankton and Santee, Pub. L. No. 107-331, title II, 116 Stat. 2834, 
2838 (2002). 

[2] Bills were also introduced in the 108th and 109th Congresses that 
would have provided the Crow Creek Sioux and Lower Brule Sioux tribes 
with a third round of compensation. See S. 1530, 108th Cong. (2003); 
H.R. 4949, 108th Cong. (2004); H.R. 109, 109th Cong. (2005); and S. 
374, 109th Cong. (2005). 

[3] Similar versions of this bill were introduced in the 109th 
Congress. See H.R. 3558, 109th Cong. (2005); and S. 1535, 109th Cong. 
(2005). 

[4] GAO, Indian Issues: Compensation Claims Analyses Overstate Economic 
Losses, GAO/RCED-91-77 (Washington, D.C.: May 21, 1991). 

[5] GAO, Indian Issues: Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe's Additional 
Compensation Claim for the Oahe Dam, GAO/RCED-98-39 (Washington, D.C.: 
Jan. 28, 1998). 

[6] GAO, Indian Issues: Analysis of the Crow Creek Sioux and Lower 
Brule Sioux Tribes' Additional Compensation Claims, GAO-06-517 
(Washington, D.C.: May 19, 2006). 

[7] GAO, Indian Issues: GAO's Assessment of Economic Analyses of Fort 
Berthold and Standing Rock Reservations' Compensation Claims, GAO/T- 
RCED-91-30 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 12, 1991); and Indians' Additional 
Compensation Claims: Calculations for the Crow Creek Sioux and Lower 
Brule Sioux Tribes Differ from Approach Used in Prior GAO Reports, GAO- 
06-849T (Washington, D.C.: June 14, 2006). 

[8] Pub. L. No. 78-534, 59 Stat. 887 (1944). 

[9] GAO/RCED-91-77 and GAO/RCED-98-39. 

[10] Fort Randall Dam: Crow Creek, Pub. L. No. 85-916, 72 Stat. 1766 
(1958); and Lower Brule, Pub. L. No. 85-923, 72 Stat. 1773 (1958). Big 
Bend Dam: Crow Creek, Pub. L. No. 87-735, 76 Stat. 704 (1962); and 
Lower Brule, Pub. L. No. 87-734, 76 Stat. 698 (1962). 

[11] Crow Creek, Pub. L. No. 104-223, 110 Stat. 3026 (1996); and Lower 
Brule, Pub. L. No. 105-132, 111 Stat. 2563 (1997). 

[12] GAO-06-517. 

[13] We proposed in our 1991 report that Congress consider a range of 
additional compensation of $64.5 million to $170 million for the 
Standing Rock Sioux tribe. In 1992, Congress authorized payment to the 
tribe of $90.6 million. According to the Crow Creek Sioux tribe's 
consultant, the additional compensation for the Crow Creek Sioux tribe 
was calculated by adding an adjustment factor to the Standing Rock per- 
acre amount of $1,618--to take into account that a greater percentage 
of the Crow Creek Sioux Reservation was taken--and then multiplying 
this figure ($1,763.16) by 15,597 acres. Using this formula, the 
Congress authorized an additional compensation payment to the Crow 
Creek Sioux tribe of $27.5 million in 1996. Similarly, using the same 
$1,763.16 per-acre figure (multiplied by 22,296 acres), the Congress 
authorized an additional compensation payment to the Lower Brule Sioux 
tribe of $39.3 million in 1997. 

[14] See S. Rep. No. 107-214 at 4 (2002). The $23.0 million and $4.8 
million in additional compensation authorized in 2002 for the Yankton 
Sioux and Santee Sioux tribes, respectively, is significantly less than 
the $34.3 million and $8.1 million originally proposed as additional 
compensation for these two tribes in 1999. See H.R. 2671, 106th Cong. 
(1999); and S. 1148, 106th Cong. (1999). For an explanation of how 
these higher dollar amounts were calculated see S. Rep. No. 106-367 at 
7-8 (2000).  

[15] The policy of termination, which was initiated in the 1940s and 
ended in the early 1960s, was aimed at ending the U.S. government's 
special relationship with Indian tribes, with an ultimate goal of 
subjecting Indians to state and federal laws on exactly the same terms 
as other citizens.  

[End of section]  

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 [hyperlink, http://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 [hyperlink, http://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: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: [email protected]: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:  

Congressional Relations:  

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected]: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548:  

Public Affairs:  

Chuck Young, Managing Director, [email protected]: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

*** End of document. ***