a

GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

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

GAO-06-517
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

May 2006

INDIAN ISSUES

Analysis of the Crow Creek Sioux and 

Lower Brule Sioux Tribes’ Additional 

Compensation Claims 

Highlights of GAO-06-517, a report to the 

Chairman, Committee on Indian Affairs, 

U.S. Senate 

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 

6.5 21.4

27.5

12.2 40.9

39.3

Dollars in millions

Additional compensation that the Congress authorized for the tribes in 1996 and 1997

0 10 30 20 40 50

Crow Creek Sioux

(GAO range in 1996 dollars)

Lower Brule Sioux

(GAO range in 1997 dollars)

Source: GAO.

Tribe

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. 
Page i GAO-06-517 Sioux Tribes’ Additional Compensation Claims

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 5

Background 7

Consultant’s Compensation Analysis Differs from the Approach 

GAO Previously Used for Other Tribes 17

Amounts Calculated by GAO Are Similar to the Amounts Received 

by the Tribes in the 1990s 22

Observations 26

Consultant’s Comments and Our Evaluation 26

Appendixes

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 30

Appendix II: Map of Tribes and Dams on the Missouri River 31

Appendix III: Timeline of Settlement Negotiations and Compensation for 

the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe 32

Appendix IV: Timeline of Settlement Negotiations and Compensation for 

the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe 34

Appendix V: Comments from the Tribes’ Consultant 36

GAO Comments 50

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 54

Tables Table 1: Acreage Lost and Families Displaced by the Fort Randall 

and Big Bend Dams 10

Table 2: Selected Settlement Proposals for the Fort Randall 

Dam 13

Table 3: Selected Settlement Proposals for the Big Bend Dam 15

Table 4: Additional Compensation Authorized by Congress for 

Tribes on the Missouri River 16

Table 5: Comparison of the Settlement Figures Used by the Tribes’ 

Consultant Versus the Tribes’ Final Asking Prices for the 

Fort Randall Dam 18

Table 6: Comparison of the Settlement Figures Used by the Tribes’ 

Consultant Versus the Tribes’ Final Asking Prices for the 

Big Bend Dam 19

Table 7: Comparison of Rehabilitation Figures Used by the Tribes’ 

Consultant Versus the Tribes’ Final Asking Prices 20

Table 8: Rehabilitation Payments Authorized by Congress for 

Tribes on the Missouri River 21
Contents

Page ii GAO-06-517 Sioux Tribes’ Additional Compensation Claims

Table 9: Estimate of Additional Compensation Range for the Crow 

Creek Sioux Tribe 23

Table 10: Estimate of Additional Compensation Range for the Lower 

Brule Sioux Tribe 24

Figures Figure 1: The Fort Randall Dam and Lake Case (February 2006) 8

Figure 2: The Big Bend Dam and Lake Sharpe (July 1998) 9

Abbreviations

MRBI Missouri River Basin Investigations Unit

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. However, 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.
Page 1 GAO-06-517 Sioux Tribes’ Additional Compensation Claims

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

May 19, 2006 Letr

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 

1

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

72 Stat. 1773 (1958).

2

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

Stat. 698 (1962).
Page 2 GAO-06-517 Sioux Tribes’ Additional Compensation Claims

$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 

3

Crow Creek, Pub. L. No. 104-223, 110 Stat. 3026 (1996); and Lower Brule, Pub. L. No. 105-

132, 111 Stat. 2563 (1997).

4

Fort Berthold and Standing Rock, Pub. L. No. 102-575, title XXXV, 106 Stat. 4600, 4731 

(1992); 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).

5

GAO, Indian Issues: Compensation Claims Analyses Overstate Economic Losses,

GAO/RCED-91-77 (Washington, D.C.: May 21, 1991); and Indian Issues: Cheyenne River 

Sioux Tribe’s Additional Compensation Claim for the Oahe Dam, GAO/RCED-98-39

(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 28, 1998).
Page 3 GAO-06-517 Sioux Tribes’ Additional Compensation Claims

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 

6

We proposed in our 1991 report that the Congress consider a range of additional 

compensation of $64.5 million to $170 million for the Standing Rock Sioux tribe. In 1992, the 

Congress authorized payment to the tribe of $90.6 million, which amounted to $1,618 per 

acre. 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 this per-acre 

amount—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. 
Page 4 GAO-06-517 Sioux Tribes’ Additional Compensation Claims

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 

7

Michael L. Lawson, Ph.D., Morgan Angel & Associates, The Lower Brule and Crow Creek 

Sioux Tribes of South Dakota: Parity Compensation for Losses from Missouri River PickSloan Dam Projects (Washington, D.C.: June 15, 2004). See S. Hrg. No. 108-620, at 34-112 

(2004). The consultant calculated a gross amount of additional compensation of $292.3 

million (in 2003 dollars)—$105.9 million for the Crow Creek Sioux tribe and $186.4 million 

for the Lower Brule Sioux tribe. After subtracting the $66.8 million in additional 

compensation that the tribes received in the 1990s, the consultant arrived at a net additional 

request of $225.5 million.
Page 5 GAO-06-517 Sioux Tribes’ Additional Compensation Claims

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, 
Page 6 GAO-06-517 Sioux Tribes’ Additional Compensation Claims

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 
Page 7 GAO-06-517 Sioux Tribes’ Additional Compensation Claims

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.)

8

Pub. L. No. 78-534, 59 Stat. 887 (1944).
Page 8 GAO-06-517 Sioux Tribes’ Additional Compensation Claims

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.) 

Source: GAO.
Page 9 GAO-06-517 Sioux Tribes’ Additional Compensation Claims

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 nonIndians, 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 

Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Page 10 GAO-06-517 Sioux Tribes’ Additional Compensation Claims

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

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 

Fort Randall Dam Big Bend Dam

Tribe

Acreage 

lost

Number of 

families 

displaced

Acreage 

lost 

Number of 

families 

displaced

Crow Creek Sioux 9,418 84 6,179 27

Lower Brule Sioux 7,997 35 14,299 62

Total 17,415 119 20,478 89

9

The Secretary of the Interior created this unit in 1945 to study the impact of the various 

Missouri River flood control projects.

10Damages fall into two categories—direct and indirect. In this context, direct damages 

primarily include values for land and improvements in the area affected by the dams’ 

construction. Indirect damages include values for the loss of such things as timber, wildlife, 

and wild products in the taking area.
Page 11 GAO-06-517 Sioux Tribes’ Additional Compensation Claims

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. 

11MRBI estimates were based on studies it had conducted on the effect of the proposed 

reservoir on the two tribes. Included in these investigations were a timber assessment, an 

appraisal of all tribal members’ properties in the reservoir area, and an analysis of indirect 

damages likely to be sustained by members of the tribe.

12Pub. L. No. 83-478, 68 Stat. 452 (1954).

13H.R. 9832 and H.R. 9833, 83rd Cong., 2nd Sess., introduced on July 8, 1954; and S. 3747 and S. 

3748, 83rd Cong., 2nd Sess., introduced on July 14, 1954. 

14Funds for rehabilitation were an attempt to bring the Indians’ standard of living closer to 

that of their non-Indian neighbors through loans and welfare payments. 
Page 12 GAO-06-517 Sioux Tribes’ Additional Compensation Claims

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.

15Statements and Estimates of the Crow Creek Tribal Council and Negotiating Committee, 

February 21, 1958, submitted at hearings held on March 25, 1958; and Proposed Program 

Submitted by the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe in Support of H.R. 6074, March 25, 1958.

16Administrative expenses for the Crow Creek Sioux tribe had been included earlier in H.R. 

3602 and S. 952, 84th Cong., 1st Sess., introduced on February 3, 1955, and February 4, 1955, 

respectively, and no changes to the amount were proposed by the tribe in the March 1958 

request or later requests.

17H.R. 12663 and H.R. 12670, 85th Cong., 2nd Sess., introduced on May 23, 1958.

18H.R. Rep. No. 2054, 85th Cong., 2nd Sess., at 3 (1958) and H.R. Rep. No. 2086, 85th Cong., 2nd

Sess., at 3 (1958).
Page 13 GAO-06-517 Sioux Tribes’ Additional Compensation Claims

Table 2: Selected Settlement Proposals for the Fort Randall Dam

Source: National Archives.

a

H.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.

b

Statement 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.

c

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

d

Crow 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 

Current year dollars

Type of compensation, by tribe

Tribes’

July 1954 

request 

House and 

Senate bills, 

1955 and 1957a

Tribes’

 May 1957

requestb

Tribes’ 

Mar. 1958 

request

House bills, 

May 1958c

Payment 

authorized, 

Sept. 1958d

Crow Creek Sioux 

Damages $1,699,419 $1,817,590 $2,105,021 $2,105,021 $2,019,220 $1,395,812

Administrative expenses 0 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000

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 expenses 0 100,000 200,000 200,000 100,000 100,000

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

19H.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.
Page 14 GAO-06-517 Sioux Tribes’ Additional Compensation Claims

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.

20Proposed amendments to H.R. 5144 and H.R. 5165, prepared jointly by the Department of 

the Interior, the Department of the Army, and the Crow Creek Sioux and Lower Brule Sioux 

tribes.
Page 15 GAO-06-517 Sioux Tribes’ Additional Compensation Claims

Table 3: Selected Settlement Proposals for the Big Bend Dam 

Source: National Archives.

a

H.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.

b

H.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.

c

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

d

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

698 (1962).

e

The 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, 

Current year dollars

Type of compensation, by tribe

House bills,

Mar. 1960a

House and 

Senate bills,

Mar. 1961b

U.S. and tribal 

proposed 

amendments,

June 1961

House bills,

 Aug. 1961c 

Payment 

authorized, 

Oct. 1962d

Crow Creek Sioux 

Damages $0 $915,924 $822,004e $564,302 $564,302

Administrative Expenses 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 75,000

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 expenses 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 75,000

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
Page 16 GAO-06-517 Sioux Tribes’ Additional Compensation Claims

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

Source: GAO analysis of the additional compensation acts.

a

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

b

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

c

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

d

Pub. 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. 

e

Pub. 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.

Current year dollars in millions

Tribe Dam(s) Acreage lost

Year additional 

compensation 

enacted

Additional

compensation

authorized 

Three Affiliated Tribes of the 

Fort Berthold Reservation

Garrison 152,360 1992a $149.2

Standing Rock Sioux Oahe 55,994 1992a 90.6

Crow Creek Sioux Fort Randall;

Big Bend

15,597 1996b 27.5

Lower Brule Sioux Fort Randall;

Big Bend

22,296 1997c 39.3

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
Page 17 GAO-06-517 Sioux Tribes’ Additional Compensation Claims

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 
Page 18 GAO-06-517 Sioux Tribes’ Additional Compensation Claims

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

Sources: National Archives and the consultant’s analysis.

a

The 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 

Current year dollars

Type of compensation, by tribe

Settlement 

figure used by the 

tribes’ consultanta

Date of 

settlement 

figure

Tribes’ final

asking prices 

Date of final 

asking price Difference

Crow Creek Sioux 

Direct damages $641,588 May 1957 $641,588 Feb. 1958 $0

Indirect damages 1,463,433 May 1957 1,463,433 Feb. 1958 0

Administrative expenses 100,000 May 1957 100,000 Feb. 1958 0

Subtotal $2,205,021 $2,205,021 $0

Lower Brule Sioux 

Direct damages $739,904 July 1954 $771,998 Mar. 1958 ($32,094)

Indirect damages 1,790,568 July 1954 788,904 Mar. 1958 1,001,664

Administrative expenses 100,000 Feb. 1955 200,000 Mar. 1958 (100,000)

Subtotal $2,630,472 $1,760,902 $869,570

Total $4,835,493 $3,965,923 $869,570
Page 19 GAO-06-517 Sioux Tribes’ Additional Compensation Claims

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

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

a

The 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.

b

The 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 

Current year dollars

Type of compensation, by tribe

Settlement 

figure used by the 

tribes’ consultanta

Date of 

settlement 

figure

Tribes’ final 

asking prices 

Date of final 

asking price Difference

Crow Creek Sioux 

Direct damages $494,890 Mar. 1961 $355,000 June 1961 $139,890

Indirect damages 467,004 June 1961 467,004 June 1961 0

Administrative Expenses 125,000 Mar. 1961 125,000 June 1961b 0

Subtotal $1,086,894 $947,004 $139,890

Lower Brule Sioux 

Direct damages $1,111,910 Mar. 1961 $825,000 June 1961 $286,910

Indirect damages 884,472 June 1961 884,472 June 1961 0

Administrative expenses 125,000 Mar. 1961 125,000 June 1961b 0

New school 350,000 Mar. 1961 350,000 June 1961b 0

Subtotal $2,471,382 $2,184,472 $286,910

Total $3,558,276 $3,131,476 $426,800
Page 20 GAO-06-517 Sioux Tribes’ Additional Compensation Claims

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

Sources: National Archives and the consultant’s analysis.

a

The 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.

b

The 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 

Current year dollars

Rehabilitation payment, by tribe

Settlement 

figure used by the 

tribes’ consultanta

Date of 

settlement 

figure

Tribes’ final 

asking prices 

Date of final

asking price Difference

Crow Creek Sioux $6,715,311 May 1957 $4,002,000 Mar. 1961 $2,713,311

Lower Brule Sioux 6,348,316 Apr. 1957b 2,670,300 Mar. 1961 3,678,016

Total $13,063,627 $6,672,300 $6,391,327
Page 21 GAO-06-517 Sioux Tribes’ Additional Compensation Claims

of federal supervision.21 Funding for these rehabilitation programs came 

from both the government and from the tribes themselves. From the late1940s 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

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 expended $416,626 for relocating and reestablishing tribal members 

living in the area that was flooded. 

21The 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.

Current year dollars in millions

Tribe

Year payment 

enacted

Total payment 

authorized

Rehabilitation 

payment authorized Percentage

Three Affiliated Tribes of the 

Fort Berthold Reservation 1947 and 1949 $12.6 $0 0%

Cheyenne River Sioux 1954 10.6 5.2a 49

Yankton Sioux 1952 and 1954 0.2 0 0

Standing Rock Sioux 1958 12.2 7.0a 57

Santee Sioux 1958 0.05 0 0

Crow Creek Sioux 1958 and 1962 5.9 3.8 64

Lower Brule Sioux 1958 and 1962 4.3 1.9 45
Page 22 GAO-06-517 Sioux Tribes’ Additional Compensation Claims

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 

22Aaa is the highest grade of corporate bonds in the estimate of bond rating services, such as 

Moody’s Investment Services.
Page 23 GAO-06-517 Sioux Tribes’ Additional Compensation Claims

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 

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

a

The 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. 

b

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

76 Stat. 704 (1962).

Current year dollars

Additional compensation range

(in 1996 dollars)

Type of payment, by dam

Tribes’ final

asking prices 

(1958 and 1961)a

Payment 

authorized

(1958 and 1962)b Difference 

Low end

(inflation rate)c

High end

(interest rate)d

Fort Randall Dam

Damages $2,105,021 $1,395,812 $709,209 $3,848,314 $13,369,732

Administrative expenses 100,000 100,000 0 0 0

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 expenses 125,000 75,000 50,000 259,701 794,433

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
Page 24 GAO-06-517 Sioux Tribes’ Additional Compensation Claims

c

Data 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.

d

Data 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 

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

a

The 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.

b

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

76 Stat. 698 (1962).

Current year dollars

Additional compensation range 

(in 1997 dollars)

Type of payment, by dam

Tribes’ final 

asking prices 

(1958 and 1961)a

Payment 

authorized

(1958 and 1962)b Difference 

Low end

(inflation rate)c

High end

(interest rate)d

Fort Randall Dam

Damages $1,560,902 $976,523 $584,379 $3,243,892 $11,816,283

Administrative expenses 200,000 100,000 100,000 555,101 2,022,024

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 expenses 125,000 75,000 50,000 265,674 852,109

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
Page 25 GAO-06-517 Sioux Tribes’ Additional Compensation Claims

c

Data 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.

d

Data 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.

• 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. 

• 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 
Page 26 GAO-06-517 Sioux Tribes’ Additional Compensation Claims

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 
Page 27 GAO-06-517 Sioux Tribes’ Additional Compensation Claims

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 
Page 28 GAO-06-517 Sioux Tribes’ Additional Compensation Claims

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 
Page 29 GAO-06-517 Sioux Tribes’ Additional Compensation Claims

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
Page 30 GAO-06-517 Sioux Tribes’ Additional Compensation Claims

Appendix I

Scope and Methodology AAppenednxidexiIs

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.
Page 31 GAO-06-517 Sioux Tribes’ Additional Compensation Claims

Appendix II

Map of Tribes and Dams on the Missouri RiverApendxiI

Sources: The National Atlas of the United States of America® and MapArt.

Garrison Dam

North Dakota

South Dakota

Lake Sakakawea

Lake Oahe

Lake Oahe

Missouri River

Lake

Sharpe

Lewis and

Clark Lake

Missouri River

Fort Berthold

reservation

Standing Rock

reservation

Cheyenne River

reservation

Lake Francis Case

Crow Creek

reservation

Yankton

reservation

Santee

reservation

Gavins

Point Dam

Fort Randall Dam

Big Bend Dam

Oahe Dam

Nebraska

Lower Brule

reservation
Page 32 GAO-06-517 Sioux Tribes’ Additional Compensation Claims

Appendix III

Timeline of Settlement Negotiations and 

Compensation for the Crow Creek Sioux TribeApendxiI

Initial Mission River Basin Investigations findings on Sioux lands

published

July 15-16

First hearings held to discuss Fort Randall compensation bills

March 9

Informal negotiations begin 

July 21

Gates of Fort Randall Dam closed; flooding begins

May

Construction of Fort Randall Dam begins

1944

1946

1953

1954

1949

1952

1958

1957

1956

1955

December 22

Pub. L. No. 78-534, 58 Stat. 665 (1944)

Flood Control Act of 1944

May 23, 24

S. 2152, H.R. 7758 introduced

May 23

H.R. 12670 introduced

August

H.R. 12670 amended

September 2

Pub. L. No. 85-916, 72 Stat. 1766 (1958)

Fort Randall compensation passed for the Crow Creek Sioux tribe 

July 8, 14

H.R. 9833; S. 3747 introduced for Fort Randall Dam compensation

February 3, 4

H.R. 3602; S. 952 introduced

March 19, 20

H.R. 6125 and 6204 introduced

November 15

Formal negotiations begin at Fort Thompson

March 25

Hearing - Crow Creek Sioux Tribe Negotiating Committee proposal

May 15

Final hearings for Fort Randall compensation

Relocation activities begin on reservation

Fort Randall Dam completed

May 17

Crow Creek Sioux Tribe Negotiating Committee proposal

Fort 

Randall 

Dam

Legislation Year Key events Era
Appendix III

Timeline of Settlement Negotiations and 

Compensation for the Crow Creek Sioux 

Tribe

Page 33 GAO-06-517 Sioux Tribes’ Additional Compensation Claims

Sources: National Archives legislative files, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the consultant’s analysis. 

2004

1959

1963

1966

1995

1996

1962

1960

1961

2005

2003

March 17

H.R. 11237 introduced for Big Bend Dam compensation

March 2, 8

H.R. 5165; S. 1252 introduced

June 16

Crow Creek proposed amendment

August 8

H.R. 5165 amended

October 3

Pub. L. No. 87-735, 76 Stat. 704 (1962)

Big Bend compensation passed for Crow Creek Sioux tribe

September 20, October 19

S. 1264, H.R. 2512 introduced - Crow Creek

Infrastructure Development Trust Fund Act

July 31

S. 1530 introduced - Tribal Parity Act

Construction of Big Bend Dam begins

May 30

Groundbreaking ceremony for Big Bend Dam

July 21 - August 2

Hearings on H.R. 5165

July 1

Last day tribal members are able to remain on their land free of charge

September

Big Bend Dam officially opened

April 25

Joint hearings on Crow Creek Tribe Infrastructure

Development Trust Fund Act

June 15

Senate hearing on Tribal Parity Act

January 4, February 14

Tribal Parity Act reintroduced as H.R. 109 and S. 374

October 1

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

Crow Creek Tribe Infrastructure

Development Trust Fund Act

July 22

H.R. 4949 introduced - Tribal Parity Act

Big Bend 

Dam

Additional 

compensation

Legislation Year Key events Era
Page 34 GAO-06-517 Sioux Tribes’ Additional Compensation Claims

Appendix IV

Timeline of Settlement Negotiations and 

Compensation for the Lower Brule Sioux 

Tribe ApendxiIV

Initial Mission River Basin Investigations findings on Sioux lands

published

July 15-16

First hearings held to discuss Fort Randall compensation bills

March 9

Informal negotiations begin 

July 21

Gates of Fort Randall Dam closed; flooding begins

May

Construction of Fort Randall Dam begins

1944

1946

1953

1954

1949

1952

1958

1957

1956

1955

December 22

Pub. L. No. 78-534, 58 Stat. 665 (1944)

Flood Control Act of 1944

April 2

H.R. 6569 introduced

May 23

H.R. 12663 introduced

July - August

H.R. 12663 amended

September 2

Pub. L. No. 85-923, 72 Stat. 1773 (1958)

Fort Randall compensation passed for the Lower Brule Sioux tribe 

July 8, 14

H.R. 9832; S. 3748 introduced for Fort Randall Dam compensation

February 3, 4

H.R. 3544; S. 953 introduced

March 18

H.R. 6074 introduced

November 15

Formal negotiations begin at Fort Thompson

March 25

Hearing - Lower Brule tribe expresses support for H.R. 6074

May 15

Final hearings for Fort Randall compensation

Relocation activities begin on reservation

Fort Randall Dam completed

May 10

Lower Brule Sioux Tribe Negotiating Committee proposal

Fort 

Randall 

Dam

Legislation Year Key events Era
Appendix IV

Timeline of Settlement Negotiations and 

Compensation for the Lower Brule Sioux 

Tribe

Page 35 GAO-06-517 Sioux Tribes’ Additional Compensation Claims

Sources: National Archives legislative files, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the consultant’s analysis. 

2004

1959

1963

1966

1997

1962

1960

1961

2005

2003

March 16

H.R. 11214 introduced for Big Bend Dam compensation

March 2, 8

H.R. 5144; S. 1251 introduced

June 16

Lower Brule proposed amendment

December 2

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

Lower Brule Tribe Infrastructure 

Development Trust Fund Act

October 3

Pub. L. No. 87-734, 76 Stat. 698 (1962)

Big Bend compensation passed for the Lower Brule Sioux tribe

January 21

S. 156 introduced - Lower Brule Tribe

Infrastructure Development Trust Fund Act

July 31

S. 1530 introduced - Tribal Parity Act

Construction of Big Bend Dam begins

July 21 - August 2

Hearings on H.R. 5144

July 1

Last day tribal members are able to remain on their land free of charge

September

Big Bend Dam officially opened

October 20

Committee on Indian Affairs hearings held

June 15

Senate hearing on Tribal Parity Act

January 4, February 14

Tribal Parity Act reintroduced as H.R. 109 and S. 374

July 22

H.R. 4949 introduced - Tribal Parity Act

Big Bend 

Dam

Additional 

compensation

Legislation Year Key events Era
Page 36 GAO-06-517 Sioux Tribes’ Additional Compensation Claims

Appendix V

Comments from the Tribes’ Consultant ApendxiV

Note: GAO comments 

supplementing those in 

the report text appear 

at the end of this 

appendix.

See comment 1.

See comment 2.
Appendix V

Comments from the Tribes’ Consultant

Page 37 GAO-06-517 Sioux Tribes’ Additional Compensation Claims
Appendix V

Comments from the Tribes’ Consultant

Page 38 GAO-06-517 Sioux Tribes’ Additional Compensation Claims

See comment 3.

See comment 4.
Appendix V

Comments from the Tribes’ Consultant

Page 39 GAO-06-517 Sioux Tribes’ Additional Compensation Claims

See comment 2.

See comment 3.

See comment 3.
Appendix V

Comments from the Tribes’ Consultant

Page 40 GAO-06-517 Sioux Tribes’ Additional Compensation Claims
Appendix V

Comments from the Tribes’ Consultant

Page 41 GAO-06-517 Sioux Tribes’ Additional Compensation Claims

The consultant’s 

appendixes are not 

included in this report.
Appendix V

Comments from the Tribes’ Consultant

Page 42 GAO-06-517 Sioux Tribes’ Additional Compensation Claims

See comment 3.
Appendix V

Comments from the Tribes’ Consultant

Page 43 GAO-06-517 Sioux Tribes’ Additional Compensation Claims

See comment 5.

The consultant’s 

appendixes are not 

included in this report.
Appendix V

Comments from the Tribes’ Consultant

Page 44 GAO-06-517 Sioux Tribes’ Additional Compensation Claims
Appendix V

Comments from the Tribes’ Consultant

Page 45 GAO-06-517 Sioux Tribes’ Additional Compensation Claims
Appendix V

Comments from the Tribes’ Consultant

Page 46 GAO-06-517 Sioux Tribes’ Additional Compensation Claims

See comment 6.
Appendix V

Comments from the Tribes’ Consultant

Page 47 GAO-06-517 Sioux Tribes’ Additional Compensation Claims

See comment 7.
Appendix V

Comments from the Tribes’ Consultant

Page 48 GAO-06-517 Sioux Tribes’ Additional Compensation Claims

See comment 8.

Now on pp. 20-21.
Appendix V

Comments from the Tribes’ Consultant

Page 49 GAO-06-517 Sioux Tribes’ Additional Compensation Claims
Appendix V

Comments from the Tribes’ Consultant

Page 50 GAO-06-517 Sioux Tribes’ Additional Compensation Claims

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 peracre 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. 
Appendix V

Comments from the Tribes’ Consultant

Page 51 GAO-06-517 Sioux Tribes’ Additional Compensation Claims

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 
Appendix V

Comments from the Tribes’ Consultant

Page 52 GAO-06-517 Sioux Tribes’ Additional Compensation Claims

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 
Appendix V

Comments from the Tribes’ Consultant

Page 53 GAO-06-517 Sioux Tribes’ Additional Compensation Claims

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. 
Page 54 GAO-06-517 Sioux Tribes’ Additional Compensation Claims

Appendix VI

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiVI

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

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

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)
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. 

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.” 

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 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

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 

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 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER