U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

39–935 PDF 2008

S. HRG. 110–268

IMPACT OF THE FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF 1944

ON INDIAN TRIBES ALONG THE MISSOURI RIVER

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

NOVEMBER 1, 2007

Printed for the use of the Committee on Indian Affairs

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota, Chairman 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Vice Chairman 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

TOM COBURN, M.D., Oklahoma 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

SARA G. GARLAND, Majority Staff Director 

DAVID A. MULLON, JR., Minority Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on November 1, 2007 ........................................................................ 1

Statement of Senator Conrad ................................................................................. 25 

Statement of Senator Dorgan ................................................................................. 1

Prepared statement of Senator Johnson ................................................................ 3

Statement of Senator Murkowski ........................................................................... 21

Statement of Senator Tester ................................................................................... 2

WITNESSES

Cournoyer, Robert W., Chairman, Yankton Sioux Tribe ...................................... 94

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 96

His Horse Is Thunder, Ron, Chairman, Standing Rock Sioux Tribe ................... 25

Prepared statement with attachments ........................................................... 28

Jandreau, Michael B., Chairman, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe ................................ 57

Joint prepared statement with Lester Thompson, Chairman, Lower Brule 

Sioux Tribe .................................................................................................... 58

Nazzaro, Robin M., Director, Natural Resources and Environment, Government Accountability Office; accompanied by Jeff Malcolm, Assistant Director .......................................................................................................................... 3

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5

Steele, John Yellow Bird, President, Oglala Sioux Tribe ..................................... 98

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 99

Thune, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from South Dakota ........................................... 22

Trudell, Roger, Chairman, Santee Sioux Nation .................................................. 91

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 92

Wells, Jr., Marcus, Chairman, Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold 

Reservation ........................................................................................................... 59

Prepared statement with attachment ............................................................. 63

APPENDIX

Brings Plenty, Joseph, Chairman, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 119

Fool Bear, Archie, Board Member, Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and Upper 

Missouri River InterTribal Allottees Association, prepared statement with 

attachments .......................................................................................................... 122

Supplementary statements of: Lester Thompson, Michael B. Jandreau, and 

Duane Big Eagle .................................................................................................. 196

(1)

IMPACT OF THE FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF 

1944 ON INDIAN TRIBES ALONG THE

MISSOURI RIVER 

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2007

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m. in room 

628, Senate Dirksen Office Building, Hon. Byron L. Dorgan, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON L. DORGAN,

U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA 

The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will come to order. This is a 

hearing of the Indian Affairs Committee. We will receive testimony 

today on the history of the Flood Control Act of 1944 and how it 

continues to affect Indian tribes along the Missouri River. 

The Flood Control Act authorized the Pick-Sloan plan, which was 

a plan to stop flooding along the Missouri River and increase irrigation and provide for navigation. A well-intentioned plan, but 

there were negative consequences to this plan, some significant, 

and those consequences are still being felt today. That plan authorized the building of five mainstem dams and reservoirs along the 

Missouri River, and we will show some charts and photographs momentarily. 

The land was forcibly taken from a number of interests, especially from Indian tribes and individuals. In some cases, the Indians had little notice about being removed. Although the tribes were 

ultimately compensated for the lands, the lands were not voluntarily given up by the tribes. And in a number of cases, tribes were 

given payments in the form of what are called JTAC payments and 

others. In some cases this happened once, in some cases more than 

once. There have been pieces of legislation introduced to revisit it 

again. 

My feeling was that we should take a look at the entire set of 

reservoirs and dams and the displacement of all of the tribes along 

the Missouri River as a result of the Pick-Sloan plan. We should 

try to make an evaluation of what has happened with respect to 

all of the tribes affected, and then make some judgment and proceed from there. 

The loss of these lands have been devastating to the Indian communities. More than 900 Indian families were relocated, but the 

2

fact is we have had entire communities inundated by water. My father, as a young man herded horses on the Indian reservation. He 

stayed in and lived in a city, or community, called Elbow Woods. 

Elbow Woods no longer exists. It has been under water for almost 

50 years. The town, the hospital, it is all under water. 

The reason I know Elbow Woods is because my father used to 

take me to Elbow Woods and say, here is where I herded horses; 

here is where I worked with the Indians and worked on the reservations. He was enormously proud of that portion of his life. So 

I know Elbow Woods. This is a picture of the community as the 

water began rising, and of course, the water inundated that community. 

I tell you that only to say that entire tribal infrastructures and 

economies were destroyed. Their way of life changed dramatically 

from living on the river bottoms and eating fruit and berries and 

healthful foods on the river bottoms, to being relocated. And so 

there are a lot of consequences for that happening. 

I am going to be joined at this hearing by my colleagues from 

South Dakota, Senator Johnson, who has introduced legislation affecting some South Dakota tribes, which is very important legislation, and my colleague, Senator Tester, from Montana, who has 

had similar interest with respect to Montana tribes. 

I, of course, am very interested in the North Dakota interests of 

tribal governments. So this, I think, will be a hearing at which we 

will gather information, both during and after the hearing, to try 

to get a more global view of what has happened along the Missouri 

River with respect to tribal interests. In addition, we look at what 

kind of recompense was offered and received, and what needs to be 

done to be fair for all of these years to those whom land was taken. 

I have just received a call that I have to go to Senator Reid’s office for an important, but brief, meeting on a couple of appropriations bills. I have asked Senator Tester if he would chair the hearing in my absence, and I expect to be back in about 30 minutes. 

My apologies for that, but sometimes in this business meetings 

come up at the last moment. 

Let me ask Senator Tester if you want to take the Chair here. 

You and Senator Johnson will want to make statements, and then 

introduce witnesses, and then I will return. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER,

U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA 

Senator TESTER. [Presiding.] That would be fine. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Tester, thank you very much. 

Senator TESTER. I think that Senator Dorgan has summarized 

the issue very, very well that we are going to be dealing with 

today. I appreciate his leadership on this Committee, and once 

again on issues that are critically important to Indian Country. 

I think Senator Johnson has a statement, but he wants it to be 

put into the record. I think that what we will do now is just hear 

from Ms. Robin Nazzaro, Director of Natural Resources and Environment from the GAO. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Johnson follows:]

3

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. TIM JOHNSON, U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA

Thank you to Chairman Dorgan, Vice Chairwoman Murkowski, and the staff of 

the Indian Affairs Committee for holding this hearing. I would like to welcome the 

South Dakota tribal leaders, Chairman Jandreau, Chairman Cournoyer, President 

Steele, and Chairman His Horse Is Thunder. Chairman Thompson of Crow Creek 

and Chairman Brings Plenty of Cheyenne River could not be here but they are planning to submit written testimony. I also would like to welcome my colleague Senator 

Thune, thank you for joining us today. 

The Flood Control Act of 1944 had a tremendous effect on my state. It has provided many benefits and numerous problems that are both still being felt today. Unfortunately, the South Dakota tribes have not fully shared the benefits, but were 

dealt an unfair share of the costs. The impacts of the dams and irrigation districts 

affected each tribe and each part of the state independently. I look forward to hearing the testimony on the continuing challenges each tribe faces individually due to 

this act. 

Thank you.

Senator TESTER. Robin, if you want to start out and fire away, 

we can hear some history of what is going on and hopefully we will 

have some questions for you when you are done. Robin? 

STATEMENT OF ROBIN M. NAZZARO, DIRECTOR, NATURAL

RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, GOVERNMENT

ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE; ACCOMPANIED BY JEFF

MALCOLM, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR 

Ms. NAZZARO. Thank you, Senator Tester. I am pleased to be 

here today to discuss the compensation provided to the seven tribes 

for lands taken by flood control projects on the Missouri River. 

As was mentioned, the Federal Government constructed these 

dams that caused damage to seven reservations: Fort Berthold, 

Cheyenne River, Standing Rock, Lower Brule, Crow Creek, 

Yankton and Santee. As was noted, Congress authorized payments 

to these tribes as compensation for the damages, and then again 

later Congress responded by authorizing additional compensation 

through the establishment of development trust funds for tribes at 

each of the seven reservations. 

However, as the Chairman noted earlier, lingering questions remain about whether the tribes have been adequately compensated 

for the damages and whether they have been treated consistently. 

Since 1991, we have issued three reports on additional compensation for tribes at five of the reservations: Fort Berthold, Cheyenne 

River, Standing Rock, Lower Brule and Crow Creek. My statement 

today is based on these reports and summarizes the damages and 

compensation authorized by the Congress. 

The reservoirs created by the dams on the river permanently 

flooded over 350,000 acres of land on the reservations, ranging 

from over 150,000 acres flooded on the Fort Berthold Reservation 

to less than 600 acres on the Santee. In addition to the valuable 

river bottomland that was lost, the tribes also lost the natural resources such as timber, wildlife and native plants, and structural 

improvements such as homes and ranches on the land. 

In addition to the direct damages, the tribes also suffered indirect or intangible damages for the loss of assets of unknown value, 

including spiritual ties to the lands, tribal claims to the homeland, 

and benefits derived from living along the river. The damage that 

each tribe sustained was unique, depending on the land that was 

4

lost, the resources and structure on that land, and the overall impact to the community. 

The tribes at the seven reservations originally received compensation for their damages between 1947 and 1962. The Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation received $12.6 million. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe received $10.6 million. Standing 

Rock Sioux Tribe received $12.3 million. The Lower Brule Sioux 

Tribe received $4.3 million. The Crow Creek Sioux Tribe received 

$5.9 million. The Yankton Sioux Tribe received $.2 million, and the 

Santee Sioux Tribe, $.059 million. 

For the tribes at the five reservations that we have reported on 

in the past, the original compensation was based on detailed assessments by the U.S. Government and the tribes of the damages 

caused by the dams, and in some cases protracted settlement negotiations. They were ultimately unable to reach settlement agreements and Congress decided the compensation amounts. In each 

case, the original compensation provided was less than what the 

tribes had requested. 

The tribes received additional compensation between 1992 and 

2002. The Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation 

received $149.2 million; the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, $290.7 

million; the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, $90.6 million; the Lower 

Brule Sioux Tribe received $39.3 million; the Crow Creek Sioux 

Tribe, $27.5 million; the Yankton Sioux Tribe, $23 million; and the 

Santee Sioux Tribe, $4.8 million. 

During our prior reviews, we recognized the inherent difficulties 

with trying to perform a new economic analysis on the damages the 

tribes sustained over 50 years after the fact. We suggested that if 

Congress determined that additional compensation was warranted, 

it could determine the amount of compensation by calculating the 

difference between the tribes’ final settlement proposal and the 

amount of compensation Congress originally authorized. 

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 of the range. The three largest additional compensation 

amounts for Fort Berthold, Cheyenne River, and Standing Rock 

Reservations were all within the ranges we calculated. 

Congress did not ask us to review the methodologies used to calculate the four small additional compensation amounts, which were 

all less than $40 million before enacting the bills. The Crow Creek 

Sioux and Lower Brule Sioux Tribes were authorized additional 

compensation commensurate on a per acre basis, with the additional compensation provided to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe in 

1992. Similarly, the additional compensation authorized in 2002 to 

the Yankton Sioux and the Santee Sioux Tribes was also partially 

based on a per acre calculation. 

In closing, I would caution against looking solely at the acreage 

loss and the authorized compensation amounts to try and determine if the tribes were treated consistently. Such comparisons have 

led to perceived inequities between the tribes. Looking at just the 

total compensation amounts masks the outlying differences of each 

of the compensation bills. 

5

This concludes my statement and I would be pleased to answer 

any questions you or Senator Johnson have at this time. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Nazzaro follows:]


1101g1.eps
6


1101g2.eps
7


1101g3.eps
8


1101g4.eps
9


1101g5.eps
10


1101g6.eps 1101g7.eps
11


1101g8.eps
12


1101g9.eps
13


1101g10.eps
14


1101g11.eps
15


1101g12.eps
16


1101g13.eps
17


1101g14.eps
18


1101g15.eps
19

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Robin. I appreciate your testimony. 

I do have a few questions here. 

You provide some more background information as it relates to 

the original compensation amounts to the tribes and how they were 

developed. The original compensation was from the 1950s and the 

1960s, and your testimony stated that the original compensation to 

the tribes was based on detailed assessment by the U.S. Government and the tribes of the damages caused by the dams and, in 

some cases, protracted settlement negotiations. Could you describe 

some of the factors and information that was utilized to determine 

the level of damage caused to the tribes during those original settlement negotiations? 

Ms. NAZZARO. Yes. The Corps of Engineers did an initial assessment of the direct damages of the flooding. The Department of Interior then did an assessment of indirect damages. These included 

pretty extensive inventories of not only the lands, but the resources 

on those lands. For example, how many trees were on the lands; 

what kind of trees; livestock, if you will. 

I have seen records of actually counting how many chickens were 

there; what kind of agricultural pursuits had been in the area; 

what kind of resources would be available, even into the future. 

Say they decided to pursue logging with the trees that were on the 

lands. 

There was some attempt made to try to determine not only the 

value of the resources then, but also how these resources could 

have been used in the future. 

Senator TESTER. Did the indirect damages include things like 

you are talking about, like spiritual ties and those kind of things? 

Ms. NAZZARO. That was indirect costs, correct? Or damages, yes. 

Senator TESTER. I am assuming, other than trees and livestock 

and homes and churches and hospitals, that also the value of the 

land was also included as a baseline. 

Ms. NAZZARO. That was the Corps of Engineers’ assessment. Yes, 

the Corps of Engineers did the direct assessment of damages. 

Senator TESTER. Who did the indirect? 

Ms. NAZZARO. The Corps of Engineers. 

Senator TESTER. Did both indirect and direct? 

Ms. NAZZARO. No, indirect came from the Department of Interior. 

Yes. 

Senator TESTER. Can I ask why? Why was it done that way? Do 

you know why the Army Corps just didn’t do them both? 

Ms. NAZZARO. I wouldn’t think that they would have that expertise to be able to assess the indirect damages. 

If I could bring my expert on this whole issue, who knows the 

history of the tribes very well, Jeff Malcolm? 

Senator TESTER. I certainly don’t have a problem with that. 

Jeff? 


1101g16.eps
20

Mr. MALCOLM. Jeff Malcolm. I am an Assistant Director with 

GAO’s Natural Resources and Environment team. 

The Corps of Engineers felt that in the original legislation that 

authorized compensation for the dams, that they were only authorized to pay for the direct damages directly caused by the dams. 

They didn’t believe they were authorized to pay for other intangibles or indirect damages. 

Senator TESTER. I got you. Okay. 

GAO has taken a position that it would be difficult to perform 

new economic analysis on the damage to the tribes sustained 50 or 

60 years ago. Instead, GAO recommended that Congress look to a 

tribe’s final asking price during the original negotiations and use 

that to determine whether a tribe should be entitled to additional 

compensation. 

Can you further describe why we can’t just use the information 

we have to perform a new economic analysis on the damages faced 

by the tribes when their lands were originally taken? Does that 

make sense to you? 

Ms. NAZZARO. Well, I think a big part is the time that has 

lapsed. A lot of these people are no longer alive. The lands are no 

longer there to visually inspect them, so you are still relying on 

historical records, which may or may not be accurate. So it would 

be very difficult. That gets to our point about the difficulty 50 years 

after the fact to go in and make an assessment. 

Senator TESTER. Okay. If the GAO was asked, would they be able 

to develop methodologies for calculating damages based on factors 

other than tribes’ final asking price? 

Ms. NAZZARO. I think we would want to stand behind the methodology we used before. We really felt that the tribes’ final asking 

price was the most complete and realistic estimate at the time, and 

that is why we used that estimate. I know there have been questions raised as to why we used that price. 

Senator TESTER. Yes. 

Ms. NAZZARO. But as over time, as the negotiations went on, data 

became more enriched, if you will, and so we feel that it is better 

data to use the more recent, or the final asking price, rather than 

to go back to any other ones. As you reach through a negotiation, 

you both start at kind of opposite ends. 

Senator TESTER. And work toward the middle. 

Ms. NAZZARO. Doing the worst case, you know, how much are you 

going to pay, and I think you come closer together. So we felt that 

final asking price was probably the best number to use. 

Senator TESTER. Okay. The GAO has recognized that there were 

problems with the original settlement negotiations, namely that 

the tribes may have been at a disadvantage during the negotiations 

with the Federal Government. What are some of the reasons why 

the tribes may have been at a disadvantage during these negotiations? 

Ms. NAZZARO. Well, in one case that I am particularly familiar 

with is the fact the Government was actually constructing the 

dams at this time. We have heard that they felt pressured, that 

this was kind of a one shot deal, either come to the table and put 

forth your estimate, or you may not have an opportunity again. 

Jeff might have another perspective. 

21

Senator TESTER. But did this happen in most of the cases, that 

the dams were being built and negotiations were going on after the 

dam had been in progress? 

Mr. MALCOLM. I would say in most of the cases that is what happened. Again, there were varying degrees of how long the construction had been ongoing while the negotiations were ongoing. But 

yes, in some cases the dams had been closed and the water had 

started rising. Certainly, as we refer to in our statement, there 

were protracted negotiations. So the negotiations spanned over 

many years. During that time, some people were being relocated 

without really having compensation. 

Senator TESTER. So what you are saying is the dams weren’t just 

starting construction. They were done with construction. 

Mr. MALCOLM. Done is a relative term as you look at the dams. 

Basically, they report the time the dams were closed, which is 

when they actually walled off the water for the last time. After the 

dams were closed, the construction was continuing to go on for a 

number of years after that. They continued to fill in the dams and 

do various parts of the construction. 

Senator TESTER. Okay. In your testimony, Robin, you stated that 

four of the seven tribes received rehabilitation funds as a part of 

their original settlements, but that GAO believes that rehabilitation should be considered separately from any comparison for damages because rehabilitation was not directly related to the damage 

caused by the dams. 

Can you address what rehabilitation funds were meant to address originally? 

Ms. NAZZARO. Rehabilitation was not a factor in the Fort 

Berthold situation. It didn’t happen until later, more in the 1958 

time frame, when they were negotiating with Standing Rock that 

the whole concept of rehabilitation came back in. 

The idea here was to improve the economic and social status of 

the tribes. It had a lot to do with just the history of the tribes and 

how the Federal Government interacted with the tribes. This was 

really a preparation for termination of Federal supervision of the 

tribes, and was in the form of business loans, education loans, 

things like that to actually improve the overall welfare of the tribes 

at the time. It wasn’t really linked to the flooding of the Missouri 

River. 

Senator TESTER. Okay. All right. Okay. Thank you. 

We have been joined by Senator Murkowski and Senator Thune. 

We welcome them to the Committee. If you folks have any opening 

statements, we could certainly take them at this point in time. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI,

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I don’t have much of an opening statement. I just do want to acknowledge, recognizing the history of the Pick-Sloan program and 

the impact of the very sudden relocation of entire Native communities. We recognize how complex, how far-reaching this really is. 

The Pick-Sloan program also illustrates that if the community 

relocation is unavoidable that the true costs of relocation should be 

22

very carefully evaluated in advance of the relocation, and that the 

process of the relocation should be very carefully planned. 

We have some situations in Alaska, perhaps not much unlike 

what we have seen here. We have several communities, in fact a 

whole handful of communities, that are looking to relocate as a consequence of what we are seeing with rising sea levels due to climate change, erosion on the coast. We are looking at their capacity 

to adequately cover the losses that are sustained by relocating 

these tribal communities. 

So I am pleased that we are able to have this hearing this morning to look specifically to the Pick-Sloan, but also about how we can 

perhaps better anticipate as we move forward in matters such as 

this. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator TESTER. Senator Thune, did you have any opening statement? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE,

U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA 

Senator THUNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just want to tell you I appreciate very much, since I am not on 

the Committee, the opportunity to be able to be here today along 

with my colleague, Senator Johnson from South Dakota, be able to 

welcome the Chairmen and Presidents of our tribes in South Dakota, to look at the impacts of Pick-Sloan. There are lots of positive 

things that have happened in our State, and yours as well, Mr. 

Chairman, as a result of Pick-Sloan, but there are also a lot of consequences and impacts that have perhaps not been as positive with 

regard to the lands adjacent to and the impacts they have had on 

the tribes. 

So we are going to hear from some of those tribal leaders today 

and I am very glad to be able to welcome them here, and look forward to the insights and the testimony they will be able to provide 

about how this project has affected their specific reservations and 

what fair compensation could do to improve them. 

So I want to thank you again for holding the hearing, for inviting 

me, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides 

of the aisle to address and bring some resolution to these issues, 

which are very long-standing and in need of some closure. 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Senator Thune. 

Senator Johnson, did you have any questions for the witness? 

Senator JOHNSON. Yes. 

I understand the GAO numbers are all based on final asking 

price. While that may be a good benchmark when parties to negotiations are on equal footing, I believe that they can not be strictly 

applied to every historical injustice. Did the GAO’s analysis examine the conditions under which the parties arrived at their final 

asking price? 

Mr. MALCOLM. We looked at the historical record. Again, just to 

say for the record, certainly we worked closely with our economists 

at GAO. The final asking price issue is not something that is written in stone. We did look for any information to indicate why that 

would have been, or if that would have been an unreasonable numVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:27 Mar 10, 2008 Jkt 039935 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\39935.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
23

ber to use. So we looked at all of the tribal offers that were made 

over a period of years to try to determine if the final asking price 

was inconsistent with or totally out of line with other offers that 

had been made over time. 

What we determined based on that analysis was that it was a 

reasonable offer. It was consistent with generally the other offers 

that had been made over time. One of our issues that we had was 

again looking at the offers that were made as a proposal. The proposal had many different components. As you know, in a negotiation, you might be willing to give up something in category A if you 

get more in category B. 

So there are tradeoffs and decisions that are made between 

those, so we think it is kind of important to consistently use one 

offer, as opposed to taking components out of various offers that 

were made over different years. So that was also one of the issues 

we raised in our report. 

Ms. NAZZARO. And those proposals didn’t always decrease over 

time. In fact, actually in one case it was actually the highest proposal that the tribes came back with, and that was the one that 

was used in our economic analysis. 

Senator JOHNSON. It seems the tribes must of been at a disadvantage in the original negotiations. Are they not also at a disadvantage in this GAO formula? 

Mr. MALCOLM. The basis of the formula, again, is simply recognizing the difficulties with redoing a completely new economic analysis. As Robin mentioned, you don’t have the people to interview 

today in every case to really determine how they valued items 50 

years ago. I mean, something might be much more valuable to 

someone today than it was to a different person 50 years ago when 

they were actually there. So not having those people to do that type 

of analysis is difficult. 

So basically, our approach was simply to say, make the assumption that you gave essentially 100 percent of what they asked for 

at the time. So 50 years ago, they were willing to settle for X 

amount, and we saw that as their final asking price. So our assumption is, let’s say if they had come to the table as they did 50 

years ago, put a proposal across the table, and said, we are willing 

to accept $12 million for this land. The Government would have 

said, we will take that offer; let’s sign this on the dotted line. 

That didn’t happen. The Government and the tribe did not reach 

an agreement. They were at a stalemate. So what we are saying 

is, okay, let’s say you had accepted that offer that they made 50 

years ago. So we calculated how much did they ask for then; what 

did Congress actually provide. So we are basically looking at trying 

to make them whole, if you will, in accepting the final offer that 

was issued at the time. 

Senator JOHNSON. Are you saying the agreements were at the 

end subjective in nature? 

Mr. MALCOLM. Excuse me? 

Ms. NAZZARO. If he is asking that the final offers were subjective, 

the final negotiations, there never was an agreement between the 

Government and the tribes. Congress ultimately made the decision 

on that original compensation and it was less than the tribes wanted. So that is why we went back and said let’s look at the difVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:27 Mar 10, 2008 Jkt 039935 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\39935.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
24

ference, then, between what the tribes wanted and what Congress 

gave them, and use that as the basis, that difference. 

And then we applied an interest rate and a bond rate to give you 

a range of what we thought would have been fair had we stuck 

with what the tribes actually were asking for back then. It did 

seem like it was more arbitrary as to what Congress decided to 

give them than what the tribes, because that was based on their 

personal knowledge. So we felt it was fairer to go back to what the 

tribes actually were asking for. 

Senator JOHNSON. No further questions. 

Senator TESTER. Senator Murkowski? 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just have one question. In your testimony, you had mentioned 

that in addition to the direct damages, that Congress had also recognized that the tribes had suffered damages due to social and cultural losses. The question for you this morning is whether or not 

those social costs have been contemplated in GAO’s calculation of 

additional compensation for the seven Indian tribes? If so, how do 

you calculate for that? How do you provide for that accounting? 

Ms. NAZZARO. It was factored in the final asking price. The tribes 

had included all those various components: direct costs, indirect 

costs, and in some cases rehabilitation costs. The only one that did 

not include rehabilitation was for the Affiliated Tribes associated 

with the Fort Berthold Reservation. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. So you are saying that the tribes had proposed that number as compensation? 

Ms. NAZZARO. That was part of the component of the discussions. 

That is where Jeff was mentioning that there was a tradeoff, that 

sometimes they would say, well, we will take more for the direct, 

and then we will cut back on the indirect, that there was a balancing. But all those components were on the table at the time of 

the original negotiations for compensation. So that was a part of 

that number that, if you will, the tribes proposed at the end. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. As you are looking to additional compensation, are the culture and the social costs still factored in, or have 

you basically concluded that that was done once and so there is no 

more? 

Mr. MALCOLM. It still is factored in, Senator Murkowski. Again, 

as Robin described, we looked at all the different components of 

how much the tribe itself had asked for those indirect damages at 

the time. We looked at again the compensation bill that Congress 

enacted, and again in every case they got less than what they had 

requested. So we did have a factor for the indirect damages that 

we then brought forward to current values to see how the amount 

that they were not paid, how much would that be worth today, i.e. 

how much would it take to make them whole based on what they 

asked for 50 years ago. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator TESTER. Senator Thune? 

Okay. I want to thank you very much for your testimony and 

your answering of the questions. Thank you very much. 

Mr. MALCOLM. Thank you. 

Ms. NAZZARO. Thank you. 

25

Senator TESTER. Our next panel consists of the Honorable Ron 

His Horse Is Thunder, Chairman of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe 

from Fort Yates, North Dakota; the Honorable Michael B. 

Jandreau—and excuse me if I have pronounced it wrong—Chairman of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe of Lower Brule, South Dakota; 

the Honorable Marcus Wells, Jr., Chairman of the Three Affiliated 

Tribes of Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation, New Town, North 

Dakota; the Honorable Roger Trudell, Chairman of the Santee 

Sioux Nation in Nebraska; the Honorable Robert Cournoyer, Chairman, Yankton Sioux Tribe in South Dakota; and the Honorable 

John Yellow Bird Steele, President of the Oglala Sioux Tribe in 

South Dakota. 

We will start out with Ron His Horse Is Thunder. You can start 

with your testimony and we will go down the list. Thank you for 

being here. 

We will keep the testimony. If you can make it as concise, keep 

it to five minutes, it would be very much appreciated. 

We are joined by the other good Senator from North Dakota, 

Senator Conrad. Do you have any statement before we get started 

with this panel? We are just starting now. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KENT CONRAD,

U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA 

Senator CONRAD. If I could just for a moment, Mr. Chairman, especially welcome Ron His Horse Is Thunder, a very dear friend and 

somebody who has a real vision and a commitment to improving 

the future of his people. I am delighted that he is here. 

I welcome all the witnesses, Marcus Wells as well. I didn’t notice 

that you were here as well. Good to have you here. Marcus is a relatively new tribal Chairman, but somebody who has jumped in 

with both feet to try to improve the future of his people as well. 

So we are delighted to have these two distinguished witnesses 

from North Dakota and all the witnesses on this panel. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Senator. 

We will try to keep the comments to five minutes. I appreciate 

it very much if you would. There are six of you here and we do 

have limited time today by the time we get through the questions. 

So Ron, you go ahead and fire away. 

STATEMENT OF RON HIS HORSE IS THUNDER, CHAIRMAN, 

STANDING ROCK SIOUX TRIBE 

Mr. HIS HORSE IS THUNDER. Mr. Chairman, honorable members 

of the Committee, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to 

speak today. I have written remarks, but I am not going to read 

them off to you. I will condense them down into some oral testimony here. 

I particularly find interesting the GAO’s method of accounting 

for losses that tribes incurred more than 50 years ago. Of course, 

we all, and the street term, if you will, for accountants is bean 

counters. It is really interesting as they start talking about how 

they appraised our land originally, et cetera, and the difference between their appraisal and the tribe’s appraisal, and basically call 

26

it an asking price, what we originally asked for. I don’t know if our 

tribe ever came up with an original asking price. Maybe they did. 

They seemed to say that there is a difference between what was 

given us by Congress then and the asking price. So I would be interested in knowing what our asking price originally was and what 

was the difference in terms of percentages that was the original 

asking price and what was in fact given us. 

Standing Rock did lose about 56,000 acres of land and we were originally given about $12 million in compensation for that loss. 

Now, I have talked to a number of the elders who were alive back 

then, and I have seen some of the records of the price that they 

were given for their land. Every time you talk to them, it brings 

up much sadness in their hearts. They were given about $31 an acre for their land back then, is 

what they were given. There was no negotiation with them. It was 

just, you take this, and that is it. I find it real interesting that they 

didn’t understand that there was in fact a negotiation process. 

They didn’t understand the fact that they could have appealed it, 

that they could have gotten a lawyer and appealed the process, and 

maybe even gotten more compensation. 

They didn’t understand that. Most of them didn’t speak English 

very well. The Bureau of Indian Affairs was giving them an appraisal notice saying $31 an acre and this is how many acres you 

are going to lose, and this is how much we are going to give you 

for it. And even though many of them said no, they refused to sign, 

they were still forced to take $31 per acre, again not understanding 

that they had a right to get an attorney and to challenge it. 

Now, non-Indians, many of them, did challenge it and got up to- wards $60 an acre, more than almost twice the value of what Indian land was paid at. So there is a huge discrepancy in the 

amount that Indians got for land and non-Indians got for their 

land, it being the exact same land. 

Standing Rock in its 55,000 acres that was lost, although we 

didn’t lose the most amount of acres. I think that Fort Berthold 

lost more acres than we did. Standing Rock did lose the most timbered land. Out of all the tribes, we lost more timber acreage than 

any of them. 

As GAO says, you can’t really use one appraisal rate and apply 

it to another tribe because the types of land lost were different. But 

the timberland was highly valuable to us in that it is where most 

of our game resided. It is where we acquired most of our food from. 

I purposely used the word bean counter when I started this because when we start talking about food, that is something that 

wasn’t truly accounted for. There is a little field mouse, if you will, 

that lives among the trees, and it collects beans. It will run from 

tree to tree or plant to plant and collect little beans, and store 

them for the wintertime. They dry. They create huge mounds of the 

stuff. 

We used to use that as food. We would go find these little 

mounds, these huge mounds, if you will, where these beans were 

stored and we would trade with those little field mice. We would 

leave corn or we would leave tobacco, and we would take half of 

their beans that they stored for the winter, and that was part of 

our food supply. That is something the GAO, those bean counters 

27

will never understand in terms of beans. They never will. That was 

our food supply, and of course the grapes and the berries and everything else that is associated with the forest. That will never be 

accounted for, and can’t be accounted for. 

Now, they talk about the difference in asking price. Again, I 

don’t think our tribe ever really had an official asking price, but 

maybe it did. We did receive additional compensation at the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. We got in the 1990s an additional $90.5 million. But we asked actually for more. We didn’t receive that higher 

amount, and when they start talking about negotiations, the negotiations change from tribe to tribe. If you came in later after Standing Rock and Three Affiliated came in, we were the first, if you 

came in after that, the way of appraising your land and what you 

lost changed, and actually got more. I mean, the evaluation go 

more. 

So if you were to give us what the tribes got after we came in, 

the negotiation process gets better and better. We in fact believe 

that our true loss in 2004 dollars was $611 million. We have a 

study that we would like to leave that accounts for that difference. 

So truly what Standing Rock believes it lost, even if you take out 

the $90.6 million that was paid to us in the 1990s, is truly an additional loss of $611 million that we believe is there. 

Also, there is surplus land that the Corps of Engineers when it 

took, it took a long square boundary line along the river. There is 

what is deemed excess Corps land. We know on our reservation 

there are 19,000 acres that is Corps land that could be given back 

to the tribe. We have asked for it. They have given us back only 

365 acres thus far and we would like to see all that 19,000 acres 

returned to us. 

I can’t actually see the clock, sir. 

Senator TESTER. Actually, the clock hasn’t been running for a 

while, but you are about out of time. So wrap it up, please. 

Mr. HIS HORSE IS THUNDER. So in the end, I really feel for our 

tribal members, and there are still some alive today who were the 

original landowners who only got paid $30 an acre and were forced 

to move from the best land we had up to the top on the prairies. 

Originally, there was, and I have heard it said by the GAO, some 

replacement lands that were available, rehab lands they refer to 

them as, available to these landowners who originally lost land. 

Well, those rehab lands, those rehab dollars, we call them section 

five dollars on our reservation. Section five dollars, of all the people 

who lost land on the river bottom, only one person ever got section 

five land ever. Section five land was administered by the Bureau 

of Indian Affairs, and you want to know who got section five land? 

Bureau of Indian Affairs employees who did not lose land on our 

reservation, and did get replacement land even though they didn’t 

lose any land. Only one person who ever lost land on the river bottoms, one person, ever got replacement lands. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. His Horse Is Thunder follows:]

28


1101h1.eps
29


1101h2.eps
30


1101h3.eps
31


1101h4.eps
32


1101h5.eps
33


1101h6.eps
34


1101h7.eps
35


1101h8.eps
36


1101h9.eps
37


1101h10.eps
38


1101h11.eps
39


1101h12.eps
40


1101h13.eps
41


1101h14.eps
42


1101h15.eps
43


1101h16.eps
44


1101h17.eps
45


1101h18.eps
46


1101h19.eps
47


1101h20.eps
48


1101h21.eps
49


1101h22.eps
50


1101h23.eps
51


1101h24.eps
52


1101h25.eps
53


1101h26.eps
54


1101h27.eps
55


1101h28.eps
56


1101h29.eps
57

The CHAIRMAN. [Presiding.] Let me next call on Chairman 

Jandreau. 

Let me thank Senator Tester for Chairing. I had to depart momentarily for an important appropriations meeting with the Leader. 

Chairman Jandreau, thank you very much for being here. You 

may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL B. JANDREAU, CHAIRMAN, LOWER 

BRULE SIOUX TRIBE 

Mr. JANDREAU. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Dorgan, Senator 

Johnson, Senator Conrad, Senator Tester, Senator Murkowski and 

Senator Thune, for allowing me to come today to make a presentation in relationship to these losses that have occurred. 

Lower Brule and Crow Creek are in a little bit different situation 

at this point. Chairman Thompson could not be with me today. 

However, I have submitted a statement for the record on behalf of 

Chairman Thompson and myself. 


1101h30.eps
58

First of all, Senate bill 160, which affects the Lower Brule and 

Crow Creek, has been changed to meet the concerns that have been 

reflected in the last hearing. First of all, we modified it in several 

ways. One was to reduce the amount of money that we were asking 

for by $57 million, from $186 million to $129 million. Second, a 

new section five made it clear that Lower Brule and Crow Creek 

legislation would declare this as full and final compensation for the 

Missouri River claim in relationship to the dams. And thirdly, we 

asked that this not impact any other tribe outside of the Missouri 

River. 

I listened today with great interest in all of the comments that 

were made by GAO. The idea of final asking price is unrealistic. 

When GAO did the study, they came to our reservation. They 

talked to elders, elders who were alive at the time of the taking. 

They listened to them tell how incomplete the taking of these lands 

made them and their ability to survive. 

They told the folks that were there from GAO that they believed 

that adequate compensation had never been made. In fact, when 

we testified before this Committee in 1992, I believe it was, the 

first time, we submitted testimony from our elders that reflected 

that the monies that we received at that time were not full compensation for what they believed the losses were. 

While we encourage and support our fellow tribesmen in having 

their needs dealt with, we ask that if that is not possible in this 

session of Congress, that this Committee would recommend moving 

forward with our bill. If a bill during this Congress can be done 

comprehensively, we understand that and are willing to work with 

Congress, with our fellow tribesmen, to be a part of that. 

However, if ours moves forward before that, we agree that we 

will not ask for any additional compensation than that that is Senate bill 160. 

Thank you very much. 

[The joint prepared statement of Mr. Jandreau and Mr. Thompson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL B. JANDREAU, CHAIRMAN, LOWER BRULE SIOUX

TRIBE AND LESTER THOMPSON, CHAIRMAN, CROW CREEK SIOUX TRIBE

Chairman Dorgan, Senator Johnson, Members of the Committee, I am Chairman 

Mike Jandreau of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe. With me is Chairman Lester 

Thompson of the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe. Allow us to also recognize Senator Thune, 

who has introduced The Lower Brule and Crow Creek Compensation Act, S.160, 

with Senator Johnson. 

First, Mr. Chairman, we appreciate that this hearing is on the larger question of 

compensation for all Tribes on the Missouri River (the River) that lost land as a 

result of the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Program. We support full and fair compensation for all Tribes on the River, not just our two Tribes. 

At the same time, however, we believe we are in a unique position. Our legislation 

was reported by the Committee in the 108th Congress and the 109th Congress. The 

legislation passed the Senate three times in the 108th Congress. After the bill was 

reported in the 109th Congress, Chairman McCain asked the GAO for a report on 

the legislation. A mathematical error was discovered and the legislation before you 

was then modified in several ways:

• First, the amount of compensation was reduced. For Lower Brule the amount 

in the bill was reduced from $186 million to $129 million, or $57 million. The 

Crow Creek amount was reduced by $36 million, from $105 million to $69 million.

59

* The information referred to is printed in the appendix. 

• Second, a new Section 5 was added making it clear that as to Lower Brule and 

Crow Creek this legislation would be full and final compensation, even if additional legislation were enacted for all other Missouri River Tribes; and, last,

• Section 5 also makes it clear that S. 160 would not be a precedent beyond the 

Missouri River Basin Program.

Mr. Chairman, the Flood Control Act of 1944 may have been good for the United 

States, but it has been devastating for River Tribes. I ask that our testimony of 

June 15, 2004 and June 24, 2006 be made a part of this hearing record. * 

In partial compensation for the damage caused by Pick-Sloan, the Congress did 

enact two Infrastructure Development Trust Funds for Lower Brule and for Crow 

Creek. We have used these funds to the best advantage of our Tribes. Meetings were 

held with our elders and other Tribal members to establish priorities and many critical projects have been undertaken. But we have only scratched the surface of what 

needs to be done to bring Tribal life and our Tribal economies into the mainstream 

of American life. 

It is very painful to read The World is Flat and to read that the United States 

is outsourcing jobs to China and India when many American Indian reservations 

have an unemployment rate over 80 percent and a third world standard of living. 

When exactly is the United States going to establish a comprehensive plan for the 

Reservations here in the United States? 

The Lower Brule and Crow Creek Compensation Act would enable our two Tribes 

to move forward with health care, justice programs, education, transportation, 

broadband, and our many other needs. Let us stress, however, we also support moving forward with legislation for all other River Tribes when they are ready to do 

so. 

Our main point today is that it is not fair or right to hold our bill up until all 

other River Tribes are ready. Each year that passes we are losing millions of dollars 

in interest that our people need for critical services. We have done our studies, created our internal plans, and are ready to move forward. We are prepared therefore 

to accept S. 160 as full and final compensation.

Finally, let us stress that we are not seeking a hand out based on our human 

needs. This legislation is intended to provide compensation for the loss of our land 

and the costs suffered by our two Tribes. The Army Corps of Engineers has estimated that the Pick-Sloan project’s overall contribution to the U.S. economy is over 

$1.2 billion per year. Tribal compensation must been seen in that context. The 

United States took our best land and our water (under the Winters doctrine) to 

produce electricity. They then sell the electricity and instead of sharing the revenue 

with the Tribes, they charge us for the electricity. 

This is fundamentally wrong! Further, we are not talking about injustices that 

were committed against the Indian people in the 1860’s. We are talking about this 

year, 2007. It is time to correct the record and enact legislation that compensates 

all Tribes that have lost their land. It is time to fairly compensate River Tribes for 

their loss and their contribution to the American economy. We urge the Committee 

to look at the cost of the legislation in the context of history and the revenue the 

is generated each year by Pick-Sloan. 

We urge the Committee to bring S. 160 to the floor of the United States Senate. 

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Chairman Jandreau, thank you very much. 

Next, we will hear from the Honorable Marcus Wells, Jr, the 

Chairman of the Three Affiliated Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara 

Nation Tribes in New Town, North Dakota. 

Chairman Wells, thank you very much. 

STATEMENT OF MARCUS WELLS, JR., CHAIRMAN, THREE 

AFFILIATED TRIBES OF THE FORT BERTHOLD RESERVATION 

Mr. WELLS. Good morning. My name is Marcus Dominic Wells, 

Jr. [Greeting in native tongue.] 

I would like to thank the Committee and the Chairman for inviting me to testify today. 

60

Over 50 years ago, our lands were flooded to construct the Garrison Dam and its reservoir. These lands were our prime bottom 

lands, home to over 90 percent of our tribal members. These lands 

provided us with fertile soil for agriculture. These lands were 

where our tribal ancestors lived and prospered. We were self-sufficient. 

In all, we lost 156,000 acres of our best and most fertile lands. 

Our tribal families were forced to move up to the dry, windy highlands of the reservation, which our people had previously used for 

grazing of our animals. Now, our people must live there. 

The result was not by our own choosing. Our tribe was pressured 

and steam-rolled into signing away our prime bottom lands in the 

1940s. In May of 1948, Tribal Chairman George Gillette traveled 

here to Washington, D.C. to sign the final agreement with the Department of Interior. A photograph of that event shows Chairman 

Gillette weeping as Interior Department officials sign away the 

tribe’s lands to make way for Garrison Dam’s giant reservoir, Lake 

Sakakawea. Chairman Gillette said, ‘‘Right now, the future does 

not look too good for us.’’

I keep that photograph above my desk as a reminder of why I 

and my fellow Council members work so hard to ensure that the 

United States Government fulfills its long-delayed promises and 

commitments to make our people whole once again. 

Chairman Gillette was right. The flooding of our bottomlands destroyed our prosperous agriculture base and segregated the reservation to six isolated segments. We have struggled to be self-sufficient again as our communities became separate from one another. Driving from one part of the reservation to another can take 

three hours or more, making it very difficult and costly to provide 

basic governmental services such as law enforcement, health care, 

education, and transportation services. 

The payment from the Federal Government to the tribe was far 

too little to compensate for the loss of our bottomlands. Our depth 

of our people’s suffering, and the fragmentation of our unified tribal government services. Three decades later, the Federal Government admitted as much. Secretary of the Interior Donald Hodel 

signed a charter in 1985 creating the Garrison Unit Joint Tribal 

Advisory Committee, or JTAC. The JTAC’s final report of 1986 

stated very clearly that our tribe had been forced to accept a highly 

inequitable payment for the flooding of our lands, resulting in catastrophic social and economic damage. The JTAC report found that 

the resources we had lost was valued in the range of $170 million 

and $343 million. 

In addition to further financial restitution, the JTAC report recommended that the Federal Government undertake several measures to compensate the tribe for its sustained losses. These steps 

included completion of a reservation-wide drinking water system, 

construction of two major irrigation projects, financial assistance 

for reservation farms, development of recreational shoreline opportunities on Lake Sakakawea, preferential rights for Garrison 

power, and replacement and refurbishment of critical infrastructure lost due to the flooding, such as our health care facility, 

bridge, school dormitories, tribal roads and housing. These recommendations were intended to make the tribe whole once again. 

61

These projects have not been fulfilled in accordance with the Federal Government’s promise. It has been over 50 years since the 

flooding of our lands and we have still not been made whole. Each 

year, the tribe subsidizes the Government’s trust responsibilities by 

millions of dollars, to name a few: $600,000 toward law enforcement; $500,000 to Indian Health Service; $600,000 to the roads; $1 

million toward the housing program. 

The tribe’s drinking water system is far from complete. In fact, 

90 percent of our tribal households still have no running water. 

Over 300 families truck in water for use in the home, making life 

on the reservation expensive and inconvenient. Other families use 

well water laden with heavy salts and minerals. I have seen parents washing their babies in brown well water that reeks of heavy 

and unhealthy minerals such as manganese, coal, iron, and lime. 

Our horses and other livestock also drink from the same brown 

water. More than 50 years after the flooding of our land, too many 

of our family homes do not have access to a safe, clean water supply. 

The Garrison Reformulation Act of 1986 and the Dakota Water 

Resources Act of 2000 were meant to speed the completion of our 

drinking water system, but annual funding has been too little to 

make substantial progress. There are only a handful of elders left 

who remember the time before the flooding of our lands. They deserve to see clean, safe drinking water running into their homes in 

their own lifetimes. 

Contrary to the Federal Government’s promises and the express 

terms of the Dakota Water Resources Act, our tribal members living in New Town and Parshall are paying extremely high water 

bills and live under the threat that their water will be turned off 

due to the falling water levels in the Missouri River. Our tribe has 

prepared detailed water purchase agreements to share the benefits 

of the Dakota Water Resources Act not only with our people, but 

with all people, Indian and non-Indian, living on the Fort Berthold 

Reservation, whether living in towns or in rural areas. 

Although the Dakota Water Resources Act expressly states that 

the water project is to provide municipal as well as rural water 

benefits, the Bureau of Reclamation has so far not agreed that appropriations under the Act can be used to help provide water benefits to residents in New Town and Parshall. We need this Committee’s help to change this unwise and unfair policy. 

We also had to bring a lawsuit against the Bureau of Reclamation to gain recognition that the tribe’s successful financing of a 

small portion of the water project through low-interest USDA loans 

could be repaid with the Dakota Water Resources Act appropriations. To help us more promptly complete this vital municipal, 

rural and industrial water project, I ask for the Committee’s support and Congress’s prompt passage of Senate bill 2200, the Tribal 

Water Resources Innovative Financing Act, which was introduced 

by Senator Conrad and cosponsored by Senators Johnson and Tester. 

Since our lands were first taken from the tribe for the Pick-Sloan 

Project over a half century ago, the tribe has also attempted to recover lands that are in excess of those needed for the project. The 

Three Affiliated Tribes and Standing Rock Sioux Equitable ComVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:27 Mar 10, 2008 Jkt 039935 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\39935.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
62

pensation Act provided for the return of project lands located at or 

above elevation 1,860 feet mean sea level to the tribe and other 

former landowners, but those provisions were repealed in 1994. 

The new law provided that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

should proceed with the Secretary of the Interior to designate excess lands and transfer them. The Corps has been studying the potential transfer of the lands since 1994, but to date the tribe has 

not received any of the lands. 

The tribe seeks the immediate return of these lands that are at 

or above the maximum flood pool elevation, and we have advised 

the Corps that we will agree to reasonable and necessary easements for lake access for project purposes. There is no question 

that the Corps has the legal authority to transfer these lands immediately to the tribe under the Fort Berthold Mineral Restoration 

Act. The Corps agrees that this provision provides legal authority 

for the Corps to transfer the excess lands to the Secretary of the 

Interior for the benefit of the tribe, but we are still waiting for it 

to be done. 

The tribe and the Corps share a mutual interest in stewardship 

over these land along the lakeshore, but in my view, the tribe has 

a greater interest and ability to manage these lands. I firmly believe that the tribe would be a better steward of the lands than the 

Corps. We are already managing the contiguous tribal lands. Return of the lands would assist the tribe in developing tourism, 

recreation, and economic development opportunities. It is long overdue. 

I also remind the Committee of the JTAC promise to replace the 

hospital that was flooded due to the Pick-Sloan Project. We have 

been working diligently with Chairman Dorgan and our North Dakota congressional delegation to fulfill this promise, but we still 

have a ways to go. I ask for the support of this Committee to finally bring the dream of caring, competent, and accessible health 

care to the Fort Berthold Reservation. 

Finally, individual tribal landowners did not receive adequate 

compensation for their losses caused by the Pick-Sloan Project. For 

example, the Federal Government agreed to move some houses up 

to dry land before the flood, but many of these homes were simply 

moved atop dry bluffs in the middle of nowhere. These homes were 

not livable and have long since been abandoned. Many tribal members had to abandon the reservation because they could no longer 

survive in the land of their ancestors. Fundamental fairness demands that all individual tribal members who were cast out of 

their homes receive just compensation for their losses. 

Again, I thank the Committee for the opportunity to speak and 

look forward to answering any questions you may have. I will be 

submitting my more detailed written testimony shortly. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wells follows:]

63


1101w1.eps
64


1101w2.eps
65


1101w3.eps
66


1101w4.eps
67


1101w5.eps
68


1101w6.eps
69


1101w7.eps
70


1101w8.eps
71


1101w9.eps
72


1101w10.eps
73


1101w11.eps
74


1101w12.eps
75


1101w13.eps
76


1101w14.eps
77


1101w15.eps
78


1101w16.eps
79


1101w17.eps
80


1101w18.eps
81


1101w19.eps 1101w20.eps
82


1101w21.eps 1101w22.eps
83


1101w23.eps 1101w24.eps
84


1101w25.eps 1101w26.eps
85


1101w27.eps 1101w28.eps
86


1101w29.eps 1101w30.eps
87


1101w31.eps 1101w32.eps
88


1101w33.eps 1101w34.eps
89


1101w35.eps 1101w36.eps
90

The CHAIRMAN. Chairman Wells, thank you very much for your 

testimony. 

Next, we will hear from the Honorable Roger Trudell, the Chairman of the Santee Sioux Nation in Nebraska. 

Chairman Trudell? 


1101w37.eps 1101w38.eps
91

STATEMENT OF ROGER TRUDELL, CHAIRMAN, SANTEE SIOUX 

NATION 

Mr. TRUDELL. Good morning, Chairman Dorgan and members of 

the Committee, and our two neighboring Senators, Senator Johnson and Senator Thune. It is always a pleasure to be wherever you 

are at, and Senator Murkowski, Senator Conrad. 

I am going to limit mine because I did submit a couple page testimony, and just briefly say that our lands were taken through the 

condemnation process. There was no negotiation process involved 

in it at all. The lands that were taken were probably our richest 

lands because they were the bottomlands. 

Some of the things I tried to point out in what I was presenting 

was if you just looked at it as a dollar value for an acre of land, 

probably the compensation was just. But if you don’t take into consideration the long-term effects of the dam and what it has on our 

community, our reservation, you know, we are running into repairs 

that we can’t meet because we have no resources to meet them. Because the dam and the lake are there, we have a lot of hunters that 

come in. We are a major flyway for geese and ducks and bats and 

mosquitoes and whatever else. 

Nobody takes responsibility for the roads. The State has maintenance on the road into the reservation. They maintain it to a certain point, but once it ends at the village limits, then the village 

of Santee itself, which is 99.9 percent tribal, and has no tax base, 

and we have to stand the cost of repairing roads and other issues 

related to the hunters and stuff that are coming in. 

Off those hunters, we have no income or anything. I think the 

Government are the only people who are able to sell waterfowl permits because it is Corps land, and the Corps has an agreement 

with the State of Nebraska, then they have to have a State of Nebraska hunting permit, and they don’t have to have a tribal hunting permit. So we are not able to capture any dollars off of those 

people to do the repairs that need to be done on our roads. 

And then one of the other things is that we are losing additional 

lands because of the Gavins Point Dam and Lewis and Clark Lake 

by I call it siltation, and somebody says it is actually sedimentation, I guess. The sedimentation is creating the rising water table 

along other lands through the creeks and stream beds. Those 

things I would like maybe to have somehow considered and the loss 

of potential income that we would have had if we still had control 

and access to the lands of the river, even down to the hunting 

rights of our people, because the State demands a hunting license 

from our tribal members, although it was formerly our land and it 

is basically Federal land if it was taken for the Corps of Engineers 

in the dam. 

So the rights of our people are also being limited by what has 

taken place over the last 50 some years, with the creation of the 

Gavins Point Dam and Lewis and Clark Lake. 

I am going to end my testimony at this point for the sake of time. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Trudell follows:]

92


1101s1.eps
93


1101s2.eps
94

The CHAIRMAN. Chairman Trudell, thank you very much for your 

testimony. We appreciate your traveling to this hearing. 

Next, the Honorable Robert Cournoyer, the Chairman of the 

Yankton Sioux Tribe in Marty, South Dakota. 

Mr. Chairman, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT W. COURNOYER, CHAIRMAN, 

YANKTON SIOUX TRIBE 

Mr. COURNOYER. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of 

the Indian Affairs Committee. 

I serve as the elected Chairman of the Yankton Sioux Tribe. Our 

tribal lands are located in southeastern South Dakota and the Missouri River borders our southern boundary. On behalf of the 

Yankton Sioux Tribal membership, I would like to express my appreciation to you and the Committee members for inviting me to 

testify today and for taking up consideration of the impact of the 

Flood Control Act of 1944 on Indian tribes along the Missouri 

River. 

Our reservation was established by the Treaty of 1858, which 

provided our people with 430,405 acres of land along the Missouri 

River. As time passed, our reservation was diminished by the Act 

of August 15, 1894, which opened up our reservation to non-Indian 

settlement. By the 1950s when the Fort Randall Dam project was 

constructed, only 44,938 acres of Indian land remained in Federal 

trust status. 

In 1944, the United States Congress enacted the Flood Control 

Act which authorized the construction of five dams along the Missouri River known as the Pick-Sloan Project. The primary purpose 

of the dams and reservoirs was flood control downstream. Other 

stated purposes were navigation, hydropower generation, providing 

water supplies, and recreation. 

The impact of the Pick-Sloan Program was devastating to all the 

Missouri River tribes, including the Yankton Sioux Tribe. The Fort 

Randall Dam and reservoir inundated a large portion of the 

Yankton Sioux Indian Reservation bottomlands and rich productive 

agricultural lands. The Fort Randall project flooded 2,851 acres of 

Indian trust land within the reservation and required the relocation and resettlement of at least 20 families which was approximately eight percent of the resident tribal population. Over the 


1101s3.eps
95

past 50 years, the tribe has lost an additional 408 acres to stream 

bank erosion. 

The Missouri River bottomlands provided a traditional way of life 

for the Yankton Sioux, and now it is virtually lost. The 

bottomlands provided an abundance of game and plants for traditional food, plants for ceremonial and medicinal purposes, and 

plenty of trees for lumber and fuel. In addition to the loss of the 

bottomlands, the tribe lost acres and acres of productive agricultural land. 

Inundation of the community of White Swan. The waters of the 

Missouri River completely inundated the traditional and self-sustaining community of White Swan, one of the tribe’s major settlement areas. The White Swan families raised various livestock 

which took shelter in the timbered bottomlands or outbuildings. 

The White Swan families sold surplus milk and eggs in the towns 

of Lake Andes and Wagner. The money received was generally 

used to purchase needed stapes that were not cultivated from the 

rich soil in and around the community of White Swan. 

The community was very close-knit and the families helped each 

other in many ways. While it was the practice of the United States 

to relocate flooded Indian communities flooded by the Pick-Sloan 

program to higher ground, the community of White Swan was 

never relocated or reestablished elsewhere. The White Swan families were simply dispersed elsewhere and the community was never 

replaced. 

Condemnation proceedings. Neither the Flood Control Act of 

1944 or any subsequent acts of Congress specifically authorized the 

United States Army Corps of Engineers or the Bureau of Reclamation to condemn Sioux tribal lands for the Pick-Sloan project. Unfortunately, the condemnation of the Yankton Sioux tribal lands 

was not challenged for a host of reasons. 

The condemnation proceedings in the U.S. District Court resulted in settlements that did not provide adequate compensation 

to the Yankton Sioux Tribe. The tribe did not receive compensation 

for direct damages, but rather a compensation for the appraised 

value of their property. The condemnation proceedings did not take 

into account the large proportion of productive agricultural land. 

Further, the settlement did not account for the inflation of property values between the time of the taking and the time of settlement, which was several years later. The average settlement payment on other Indian reservations whose land was taken by the act 

of Congress was approximately $16,000 per family according to the 

research documents, while the Yankton Sioux Tribe received $5,605 

per family as a settlement for the land taken by the United States. 

The Yankton Sioux Development Trust Fund. We recognize your 

efforts to compensate the Yankton Sioux Tribe in the 107th Congress. The Yankton Sioux Tribe Development Trust Fund was 

signed into Public Law 107–331 in December, 2002. The language 

sets up a trust fund for $23,023,743 in compensation for the tribal 

lands lost due to the Flood Control Act of 1944. These funds are 

not available until 2013. We would appreciate the Committee examining the possibility of these funds being made available prior 

to 2013. 

96

In conclusion, many of our tribal elders who experienced firsthand the taking of tribal lands and the removal have passed on. 

It has been long enough for a just and equitable resolution to the 

devastating impacts of the Pick-Sloan Act on our tribe. 

Thank you for your time in considering this important matter. 

A couple of things I wanted to add, too, is currently we are in 

court with the Corps of Engineers on the takings areas of the 

White Swan and the North Point. Basically, what had happened 

there is that there was some discovery of remains and they were 

doing construction, because at the time they were turning these 

lands over to the State of South Dakota for recreational purposes. 

If it weren’t for Title VI, the Wildlife Habitat Restoration Act, those 

lands rightfully should have come to the Yankton Sioux Tribe. Currently, we are asking that approximately 1,000 acres of that land 

be restored to the tribe. 

Traditionally before the Corps took over and returned the land 

to the State of South Dakota, we had access to the river above the 

dam and below the dam in those Corps areas. Now, we are restricted from having access to those lands. Title VI was created, because a lot of the white landowners came and protested to not only 

the Governor and to their representatives in Congress, which said 

that if that land was given back all along the river, to the Tribes 

the taking areas, that it would block the white farmers, landowners, hunters, etc., from having access to the river. We believe 

that not to be true, and that is what they have done to us, in fact, 

is that by turning the land over to the State of South Dakota, that 

it blocked the Tribe and Tribal membership access to the river 

above the dam and below the dam in the Corps areas. 

So we are asking currently that approximately 1,000 acres be restored back to the Tribe the taking areas. 

Thank you for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cournoyer follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT W. COURNOYER, CHAIRMAN, YANKTON SIOUX

TRIBE

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Indian Affairs Committee, my name is Robert 

Cournoyer, and I serve as the elected tribal Chairman of the Yankton Sioux Tribe. 

Our Tribal lands are located in southeastern South Dakota and the Missouri River 

borders our southern boundary. On behalf of the Yankton Sioux tribal membership, 

I would like to express my appreciation to you and the committee Members for inviting me to testify today and for taking up consideration of the impact of the Flood 

Control Act of 1944 on Indian Tribes along the Missouri River. 

Background 

Our reservation was established by the Treaty of 1858, which provided our people 

with 430,405 acres of land along the Missouri River. As time passed, our reservation 

was diminished by the Act of August 15, 1894, which opened up our reservation to 

non Indian settlement. By the 1950s, when the Fort Randall dam was constructed, 

only 44,938 acres of Indian land remained in federal trust status. 

In 1944, the United States Congress enacted the Flood Control Act which authorized the construction of five dams along the Missouri River known as the Pick-Sloan 

Program. The primary purpose of the dams and reservoirs was flood control downstream. Other stated purposes were navigation, hydropower generation, providing 

water supplies, and recreation. 

The impact of the Pick-Sloan program was devastating to all the Missouri River 

tribes including the Yankton Sioux Tribe. The Fort Randall dam and reservoir inundated a large portion of the Yankton Sioux reservations bottom lands and rich productive agricultural lands. The Fort Randall project flooded 2,851 acres of Indian 

trust land within the Yankton Sioux reservation and required the relocation and reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:27 Mar 10, 2008 Jkt 039935 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\39935.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
97

settlement of at least 20 families which was approximately 8 percent of the resident 

tribal population. Over the past fifty years, the tribe has lost an additional 408 

acres to stream bank erosion. 

The Missouri River bottom lands provided a traditional way of life for the 

Yankton Sioux that is now virtually lost. The bottom lands provided an abundance 

of game and plants for traditional food, plants for ceremonial and medicinal purposes, and plenty of trees for lumber and fuel. In addition to the loss of the bottom 

lands, the tribe lost acres and acres of productive agricultural land. 

Inundation of the Community of White Swan 

The waters of the Missouri River completely inundated the traditional and selfsustaining community of White Swan, one of the tribe’s major settlement areas. The 

White Swan families raised various livestock which took shelter in the timbered bottom lands or out buildings. The White Swan families sold surplus milk and eggs 

in the towns of Lake Andes or Wagner. The money received was generally used to 

purchase needed staples that were not cultivated from the rich soil in and around 

the community of White Swan. The community was very close knit and the families 

helped each other in many ways. 

While it was the practice of the United States to relocate flooded Indian communities flooded by the Pick-Sloan program to higher ground, the community of White 

Swan was not relocated or reestablished elsewhere. The White Swan families were 

simply dispersed elsewhere and the community was never replaced. 

Condemnation Proceedings 

Neither the Flood Control Act of 1944 nor any subsequent acts of congress specifically authorized the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or the Bureau of Reclamation 

to condemn Sioux tribal land for Pick-Sloan projects. Unfortunately, the condemnation of Yankton Sioux tribal land was not challenged for a host of reasons. 

The condemnation proceedings in U.S. District Court resulted in settlements that 

did not provide adequate compensation to the Yankton Sioux Tribe. The tribe did 

not receive compensation for direct damages but rather a compensation for the appraised value of their property. The condemnation proceedings did not take into account the large proportion of productive agricultural land. Further, the settlement 

did not account for the inflation of property values between the time of taking and 

the time of settlement which was several years later. The average settlement payment on other Indian reservations whose land was taken by acts of Congress was 

approximately $16,680 per family according to research documents, while the 

Yankton Sioux Tribe received $5,605 per family as a settlement for the land taken 

by the United States. 

Yankton Sioux Tribe Development Trust Fund 

We recognize your effort in compensating the Yankton Sioux Tribe in the 107th 

Congress. The Yankton Sioux Tribe Development Trust Fund was signed into Public 

Law 107–331 December, 2002. The language sets up a trust for $23,023,743 in compensation for the Tribal lands lost in the Flood Control Act of 1944. These funds 

are not available until 2013. We would appreciate the Committee examining a possibility of these funds being made available prior to 2013. 

Conclusion 

Many of our tribal elders who experienced first hand the taking of tribal land and 

the removal have passed on. It has been long enough for a just and equitable resolution to the devastating impacts of the Pick-Sloan program on our tribe. Thank you 

for your time and consideration to this important matter. We appreciate Chairman 

Dorgan and the rest of the Committee’s attention to the large scope of the issues 

affecting the Pick-Sloan program.

The CHAIRMAN. You are asking the Corps of Engineers at this 

point, right? 

Mr. COURNOYER. Yes, we have a lawsuit with them currently. 

The CHAIRMAN. Chairman Cournoyer, thank you very much. 

Finally, we will hear from Chairman John Yellow Bird Steele, 

the President of the Oglala Sioux Tribe in South Dakota. 

Mr. Steele, you may proceed. 

98

STATEMENT OF JOHN YELLOW BIRD STEELE, PRESIDENT, 

OGLALA SIOUX TRIBE 

Mr. STEELE. Thank you very much, Senator Dorgan. 

I would like to thank the members of this Committee for allowing me to testify at this hearing. I would say that my heart feels 

very happy to see Senator Johnson there representing the Oglala 

Sioux Tribe. And I thank Senator John Thune for his attendance 

and representing also the Oglala Sioux Tribe. 

I think that this is a very important hearing, Senators, and I 

thank you for holding this hearing. We talk about a comprehensive 

bill addressing the impacts of the 1944 Flood Control Act and the 

Pick-Sloan program, but I don’t think it is as comprehensive as you 

call it, because it does not include the Oglala Sioux Tribe. We have 

been impacted. 

I would like to say that the impact the Oglala Sioux Tribe feels 

from the 1944 Flood Control Act and the Pick-Sloan program, it requires reference to our treaties and the tribal land claims that we 

have filed in the Indian Land Claims Commission. I did not hear 

the GAO make reference to these. They only addressed those tribes 

that are physically situated along the Missouri River. The Oglala 

Sioux Tribe is a river tribe. I make reference and say just because 

we are adjacent to the Black Hills physically, that these other 

tribes are not Black Hills tribes. Why do we have to be physically 

located there to feel the physical impacts of the Pick-Sloan Act? 

We are, and I would like to give a little testimony. I gave written 

testimony here. I would like to in my oral testimony explain a little 

on that. But I will say that just a little over 100 years ago, the 

Wounded Knee massacre, the Sand Creek massacre, the United 

States Government physically fought our people. Our mothers, our 

grandmothers, our daughters were there fighting the United States 

Government for a way of life that was being destroyed. 

Today, this life is called third world conditions, the most impoverished—words, words, words. You physically live the life in the 

middle of these United States. And we are talking about some compensation for taking and not justly compensating rights. I thank 

you for that. That is the way we should treat one another, I do believe. 

But we are still wary, Senators. Trusting is very hard when our 

lands we consider from our points of view to have been stolen, not 

justly compensated for. I am sorry. 

I got a telephone call last night from a Mr. Sam Waddell, a tribal 

member of the Yankton Sioux Tribe, saying the Army Corps of Engineers just got orders from up above to quantify the tribe’s rights 

on the river. Who is the Army Corps of Engineers to quantify this? 

And this leaves in my mind some fears, some apprehensions that 

this hearing might also lead to some settlement of water rights. It 

is a fear because, as I say, of the way we have been treated in the 

past, the way we live today. 

But I will say my time is getting very short, Senators, so I am 

going to have to wrap it up here, that the 1944 Flood Control Act 

has impacted us because the Corps of Engineers operates the Missouri River main stem and the Bureau of Reclamation operates the 

tributaries. This is all associated with the 1944 Flood Control Act. 

Right now, the Angostura Dam on the Cheyenne River tributary 

99

immediately upstream from the Pine Ridge Reservation has devastatingly impacted Pine Ridge. 

Representative Herseth Sandlin has introduced H.R. 833 to establish a trust fund for the Oglala Sioux Tribe and restore water 

flow to the Cheyenne River. Senator Johnson will be introducing 

that bill on behalf of the Oglala Sioux Tribe. We thank him for 

that. 

In conclusion, I would like to say, Senators, that Congress should 

develop and enact comprehensive reform of the Pick- Sloan program. The tribes upstream need drinking water. It is affecting the 

intakes of the water systems of tribes. The stabilization of reservoir 

levels, and protection of historic properties are very important to 

us. 

I would also like to say that anything dealing with any settlement of water rights requires that we settle our outstanding land 

claims with the United States Government. So let’s sit down, Senators, and let’s talk about these in a fair, just way. Let us again, 

if need be, like the old treaties were established, talk about these 

what we might consider to be hard subjects and come to some sort 

of a settlement or agreement. 

Today, us people sitting here testifying before you are the same 

people that were shedding their blood just a little over 100 years 

ago. This is a different kind of a war, but we are tomorrow’s ancestors and we have a responsibility to see that our peoples are able 

to live a little better than we are right now in our dealing with 

yourselves. 

I would like to thank you for this hearing. I really appreciate it, 

and I thank you for allowing me at the last minute to give testimony. I think that this hearing is very timely, and I look forward 

to working with this Committee on just a little bit of what I have 

said. I had to put this testimony together very quickly just from 

yesterday, and so we will refine it and resubmit it to you, Senators. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Steele follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN YELLOW BIRD STEELE, PRESIDENT, OGLALA SIOUX

TRIBE

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee on Indian Affairs, my name is John 

Yellow Bird Steele. I serve as President of the Oglala Sioux Tribe. 

Let me begin by thanking you for holding this important hearing. The Missouri 

River Basin Pick-Sloan Program has had significant adverse impacts on land, water 

and cultural resources of the Oglala Sioux Tribe and Great Sioux Nation. The costs 

of the Pick-Sloan program have disproportionately fallen on the Tribes, while the 

benefits are enjoyed in predominantly non-Indian communities, with little spillover 

benefits on the Indian Reservations. 

The impact of the 1944 Flood Control Act and Pick-Sloan program on our Tribe 

requires reference to our treaties, and the tribal land claims filed in the Indian 

Claims Commission. Our reserved water rights to the Missouri River and its tributaries, and to the cultural resources along the banks of the Missouri River, have 

their source in our Treaties. 

Tribal Treaties 

The Oglala Sioux and other Tribes of the upper Missouri River basin are treaty 

Tribes. As such, we are entitled to special consideration with respect to the impacts 

of federal public works projects, on our land and resources. 

The 1868 Ft. Laramie Treaty (11 Stat. 749) recognized title to the Teton and 

Yankton Sioux to 60 million acres of territory west of the Missouri River in the 

States of South Dakota and North Dakota. 

100

The 1868 Treaty (15 Stat. 635) carved a 26 million acre reservation out of our 

1851 Treaty territory for the Sioux bands. This reservation, called the ‘‘Great Sioux 

Reservation’’ included all of western South Dakota west of the low water mark of 

the east bank of the Missouri River. Thus, the 1868 Treaty recognized an undivided 

ownership interest in the entire bed of the Missouri River in the Oglala Sioux Tribe 

from the North Dakota boarder to the Nebraska border. 

The United States maintains that it acquired the western portion of the Great 

Sioux Reservation known as the ‘‘Black Hills’’ under the Act of February 28, 1877 

(19 Stat. 254) even though its confiscation of this area violated Article 12 of the 

1868 Treaty which provided that no part of the reservation could be ceded to the 

United States without three-fourths consent of the adult male Sioux Indians occupying or interested in the Great Sioux Reservation. 

The United States also maintains that it acquired an additional 9 million acres 

of the Great Sioux Reservation under the Act of March 2, 1889 (25 Stat. 888). The 

Act also established five smaller Sioux reservations from the remainder of the Great 

Sioux Reservation including the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. 

Thus, the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation is the current home of the Oglala Sioux 

Tribe, although the Tribe has claimed unextinguished rights to our treaty lands including the Missouri River. 

Indian Claims Commssion 

I believe that a discussion of the Indian Claims Commission Act proceedings is 

also necessary because I don’t believe the Oglala Sioux Tribe can quantify its water 

rights in the Missouri River without first settling its outstanding land claims with 

the United States. 

The Oglala Sioux Tribe filed a land claim in the Indian Claims Commission in 

1950. This case was designed as ‘‘Docket 74.’’ The case was divided into two cases 

in 1960, Docket 74–A and 74–B. Docket 74–A involves a claim for 34 million acres 

of 1851 treaty land located outside of the Great Sioux Reservation. It also involved 

an aboriginal title claim that included the east bank of the Missouri River in South 

Dakota from Pierre, S.D. northward into North Dakota. 

There were two acts of fraud perpetuated by the Government upon the Sioux 

tribes regarding Docket 74–A lands. The first Act was when some federal official 

inserted ‘‘relinquishment language’’ in Article 2 of the 1868 Treaty. The ICC acknowledged that the Sioux bands would not have signed the 1868 Treaty, which 

ended the Powder River War of 1866–1867, had they known they were giving up 

any land. Nevertheless, the ICC ruled that Article 2 constituted a voluntary cession 

of 1851 treaty territory. 

The second was when the U.S. Claims Court rammed a $44 million final money 

judgment down the Sioux tribes’ throats in Docket 74–A based on a stipulated settlement agreement that the claims lawyers signed behind the backs of the Sioux 

tribes. The claims attorneys also stipulated away $3.7 million as an offset to the 

U.S. without the consent of the Sioux tribes. 

The Oglala Sioux Tribe filed a motion for relief from judgment, which was denied 

by the Claims Court. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed, 

but Judge Newman wrote the following in her dissenting opinion which exposes the 

collusion between the tribes’ claims attorneys, government attorneys and the federal 

courts:

The entry of judgment is surely not a routine ‘‘evidentiary stipulation’’ such as 

is encountered in day to day trial management: not only because the stipulation 

disposes of some 3.7 million dollars in moneys previously adjudged to be due 

the Sioux Indians; but because counsel for both sides knew that since at least 

1979 tribes representing the majority of Sioux Indians had given instructions 

contrary to the settlement. The record contains two resolutions of the Oglala 

Sioux Tribal Council informing counsel that it no longer sought money damages, 

but wanted to pursue legal and legislative strategies to gain return of ancestral 

lands. These resolutions also directed counsel to have the Oglala Sioux Tribe 

dismissed from this litigation.

A lawyer cannot be authorized by a court to make a settlement and bind the 

client contrary to the client’s wishes. Nor can either the court or the United 

States ignore the tribes’ several attempts to discontinue Mr. Lazarus’ representation. The court does not discuss the asserted violation of 25 U.S.C. 81.

In light of this extended history, the Claims Court’s acceptance of the Stipulation of Facts and the grant of the Joint Motion to Enter Judgment is incongruous; and its denial of appellants’ motion for relief (from judgment) under 

Rule 60(b) is in plain error, in light of the undisputed assertion that they were 

given no prior notice of the settlement. [Emphasis Supplied].

101

See Oglala Sioux Tribe and Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. United States, 862 F.2d 275 

(Fed. Cir. 1988).

We can never accept the award for Docket 74–A under these circumstances, for 

to do so would be tantamount to closing our eyes and affirming these two acts of 

fraud perpetuated upon our Tribe by the Federal Government. And I don’t see how 

we can quantify our water rights to the Missouri River without reaching an agreement with Congress to resolve our Docket 74–A land claim. Docket 74–B was a claim for the Black Hills Claim. The ICC awarded $17.1 million, plus $85 million in simple interest, for the 7.3 million acres of Black Hills 

lands that was confiscated by the United States in the Act of February 28, 1877 

(19 Stat. 254). 

On appeal, the Court of Claims dismissed the ICC award on the basis that it had 

already ruled on the Black Hills Claim in a 1942 case. The Teton Sioux Tribes (except for the Oglala Sioux Tribe) and other 1868 Treaty signatory tribes got Congress 

to pass a new Court of Claims special jurisdictional act in 1978 that allowed for de novo consideration of the claim. The claim was refiled under the Act as Docket 148–

78, and the Court of Claims which affirmed the ICC award in 1979 based on the 

record made in the ICC. 

The Supreme Court affirmed the ICC award on June 30, 1980 on the basis that 

the confiscation of the Black Hills violated the Just Compensation Clause of the 

U.S. Constitution. 

However, the Oglala Sioux Tribe did not renew its contract with its claims attorney Arthur Lazarus, Jr. when it expired by its own terms in 1975. It also never authorized its former claims attorney to refile the claim under the 1978 act and did 

not regard itself as a party to the 1979 Court of Claims decision and the U.S. Supreme Court decision. It therefore filed a quiet title and trespass damages action 

in U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota in 1980, after the Supreme 

Court made its ruling. 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, however, ruled that the tribe 

could not sue in the Article III courts of the United States because the Indian 

Claims Commission, which could only award money damages for the tribe’s treaty 

lands, was the tribe’s exclusive remedy and that the tribe was a party to the 1980 

Supreme Court case. 

Docket 74–B, like Docket 74–A, needs to be settled in a fair and honorable manner by negotiation and the implementation of any negotiated settlement through 

Congressional legislation 

The 1944 Flood Control Act 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was placed in charge of constructing six dams 

on the main stem of the Missouri River under the Missouri River Pick-Sloan Program that was authorized by the 1944 Flood Control Act (58 Stat. 887). The Corps 

acquired approximately two million acres for the dams, and areas flooded by the 

lakes created by the dams. Three lakes, Lake Oahe, Lake Sharpe, Lake Francis 

Case are located within our treaty territory. 

It is common knowledge that a substantial amount of land taken by the Federal 

Government for the main stem dams was located on Indian reservations that bordered the Missouri River. 

The Oglala Sioux Tribe was impacted by the 1944 Flood Control Act because it 

has unextinguished rights to the river bed of the Missouri River, and to treaty lands 

located in its 1851 and 1868 Treaty areas, as well as the aboriginal title lands located east of the Missouri River that were taken by the Government for the main 

stem dams and reservoirs under the Missouri River Pick-Sloan Program. It also has 

cultural resources along the Missouri River that were impacted by the Act. The 

Corps never acquired the Oglala Sioux Tribe’s interests in these properties when it 

attempted to extinguish Indian title for the dams and reservoirs. 

The White River and Cheyenne River Pick-Sloan Projects 

The Flood Control Act authorized two dams on the Pine Ridge Reservation at 

Slim Buttes and Rockyford for irrigation, recreation and flood control. The projects 

were never constructed, however. This failure has resulted in the Tribe not being 

able to develop its irrigation potential that would have created economic opportunities for the tribe and its members. 

The Oglala Sioux Rural Water Supply System 

The western portion of the Pine Ridge Reservation in White Clay District (now 

Oglala District) was suffering from lack of good potable water in the 1980s. The 

Tribe took the initiative to join the West River and Lyman Jones rural water 

projects in developing and getting Congress to pass the Mni Wiconi Act (P.L. 100–

102

516) in 1988. The Act authorized the construction of a Core pipeline and related facilities from the Missouri River at Ft. Pierre to the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, 

as well as a reservation delivery system. The Core pipeline is 95 percent completed 

and the reservation delivery system is 40 percent completed. The core pipeline and 

reservation delivery system is held in trust by the United States for the Oglala 

Sioux Tribe. 

There are now three inter-connecters to the OSRWSS, the West River/Lyman 

Jones Rural Water System, the Lower Brule Rural Water System, and the Rosebud 

Rural Water System. 

This OSRWSS is a good project that allows the Tribe to reap some of the benefits 

that it has been denied over the years from its lands along the Missouri River, and 

from the Missouri River itself. It also allows us to improve the health and general 

welfare of our tribal members and plan for future water shortages that may be 

caused by global warming. 

We want to thank Congress for the annual appropriations that has allowed the 

OSRWSS and other systems to be constructed, and we look forward to the day when 

the Mni Wiconi Project is completed. 

Missouri River Land Transfer Issues Under WRDA 

The Oglala Sioux Tribe presently has a civil action pending in the United States 

District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the transfer of title to Corps’ 

lands and recreational areas along the Missouri River to the State of South Dakota 

under Title VI of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999, as amended by 

Title VI of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000. See Oglala Sioux Tribe 

v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, et al. (Case No.1:01CV02679 (GK)). This case is 

a reservation boundary dispute that seeks to uphold the 1868 Treaty and protect 

historic properties and cultural resources on the lands and recreational areas. 

There is a Need for Comprehensive Reform of the Pick-Sloan Program 

Comprehensive reform is needed to ensure that the Indian Tribes share more equitably in the water supply and hydropower benefits of the Pick-Sloan program. Reforms should address at least four areas. First, the water management by the Corps 

of Engineers on the Missouri River main stem, and the Bureau of Reclamation on 

the tributaries to the Missouri, must be revised to ensure adequate water supplies 

for the Tribes. Second, reforms should include the authorization to use hydropower 

revenue generated by the Pick-Sloan program, to fund development projects on Indian Reservations in the Missouri River basin. Third, Congress should address the 

claims of individual Indian Tribes that are directly impacted by a dam project under 

the Pick-Sloan program. Fourth, the historic preservation laws need to be strengthened to ensure that cultural resources along the Missouri River are protected from 

erosion and destruction. 

1. The Water Management by the Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation 

Must be Revised 

The Corps of Engineers operates the dams on the Missouri River pursuant to the 

Missouri River Master Water Control Manual. The Master Manual, as revised by 

the Corps of Engineers in 2004, provides for steady seasonal flows from Gavins 

Point Dam for downstream navigation. Daily releases are significant, with 35,000 

cfs designated as full navigation service for an eight month navigation season. In 

addition, the Corps of Engineers designates water releases for the spring rise for 

habitat restoration, and for hydropower generation, at the various times of the year. 

In its Missouri River operations, the Corps of Engineers gives no consideration to 

Tribal water supply needs. This is the case even though the Oglala Sioux Tribes operates the water treatment and intake facilities on the Missouri River for the Mni 

Wiconi Project, which serves the West River Lyman Jones Water District, Lower 

Brule Sioux, Rosebud Sioux and Oglala Sioux Tribes. The Indian Reservations along 

the Missouri River, such as the Standing Rock Sioux and Cheyenne River Sioux 

Tribes, have suffered diminished drinking water supplies. The reservoir levels in the 

upper Missouri basin diminished substantially, as a result of the continuing navigation flows, during the current period of severe drought. 

The Corps of Engineers violates our Treaties and our rights under the Winters 

Doctrine, by managing water flows in a manner that causes diminished water supplies in the upper Missouri River basin. The water releases for downstream navigation and habitat restoration directly impact the water supplies that are needed by 

the Oglala Sioux and our fellow Indian Tribes on the upper Missouri River. 

Yet the Corps of Engineers manages the Missouri River water flows in a manner 

that allocates water flows for non-Indian uses in the lower Missouri River. The Master Manual must be revised, to decrease navigation flows and stabilize water supplies on the upper Missouri River, to fulfill the rights of the Tribes. 

103

The water supplies and rights of our Tribe should not be jeopardized by the regional disputes between the upper and lower Missouri basin. The Congress should 

take action requiring the Corps to maintain stable reservoir levels on the upper Missouri River, for Tribal consumptive and instream water needs. 

The Bureau of Reclamation operates the tributary dams for irrigation and recreation. One such project, the USBR Angostura Unit, impounds water flows of the 

Cheyenne River immediately upstream from the Pine Ridge Reservation. The USBR 

completely blocks off Cheyenne River water flows, in order to provide water service 

of 48,000 acre-feet per year for irrigation of 12,218 acres at the Angostura Irrigation 

District. 

The Bureau of Reclamation released the Final Environmental Impact Statement, 

Angostura Unit, Contract Negotiation and Water Management, in August, 2002. Reclamation confirmed the incidence of fish with lesions and problems with water quality and riparian vegetation on the Pine Ridge Reservation, downstream from Angostura. 

The water management by the Bureau of Reclamation of the Cheyenne River at 

Angostura provides for the diversion of waters subject to the water claims of the 

Oglala Sioux Tribe for the Angostura Irrigation District. Water flows have diminished and the environment on the Pine Ridge Reservation has been degraded as a 

direct result of the USBR water management. 

As is described below, Representative Herseth-Sandlin has introduced H.R. 883, 

to establish a trust fund for the Oglala Sioux Tribe and restores certain water flows 

in Cheyenne River. This legislation addresses the problems caused by water management by the Bureau of Reclamation on the Cheyenne River. 

2. The Congress Should Authorize the Use of Pick-Sloan Hydropower Revenues for 

Development Projects on Indian Lands 

The comprehensive reform of the Pick-Sloan program should include the authorization for the use of hydropower generated by the Pick-Sloan program, to fund development projects on Indian Reservations in the Missouri River basin. Hydroelectric revenues of the Western Area Power Administration are collected for debt 

service of the multi-purpose functions of the Pick-Sloan program. The re-designation 

of these funds for Tribal development projects would constitute a cost effective manner of addressing the historic inequities of the Pick-Sloan program. 

The waters of the Missouri River produce a hydroelectricity system estimated by 

the Corps of Engineers as contributing approximately $800 million to the national 

economy each year. The economy on the Pine Ridge and other Indian reservations 

in the upper Missouri River Basin remain generally impoverished, however. 

The population of the Pine Ridge Reservation is approximately 47,000, making 

the Oglala Sioux one of the largest Tribes in the United States. (Bureau of Indian 

Affairs, Indian Labor Force Report, 2003). The 2003 unemployment rate was estimated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs at 87 percent. Id. The 2000 Census indicates 

that per capita income in Shannon County, the Reservation’s largest county, was 

$6,286. This compares with the per capita income nationwide of $21,587. Median 

household income on the Reservation in 2001 was $20,916, less than one-half the 

national average of $41,994. 

The revenue produced by the sale of the hydroelectricity in the Pick-Sloan program should be authorized for the use by the Tribes of development on our Reservations. This will address the historical inequities of in the allocation of the costs and 

benefits of the Pick-Sloan program, and address the far-reaching infrastructure and 

economic development needs of the Indian Tribes in the upper Missouri River basin. 

3. There Must Be Redress for Indian Tribes Under Pick-Sloan 

Throughout the upper Missouri River basin, individual components of the PickSloan program have adversely affected the lands, waters and economic resources of 

Indian Tribes. Many Tribes retain claims that have not been addressed, for the taking of land, relocation of communities, destruction of infrastructure, diminished 

water supplies, and degraded environment, from the construction and on-going operation of the Pick-Sloan program. 

For example, the Oglala Sioux Tribe has suffered from diminished water flows, 

riparian vegetation, wildlife and degraded water quality, due to the impoundment 

of water and irrigation at the USBR Angostura Unit. The Bureau of Reclamation 

impounds 133,000 acre-feet of water at Angostura Reservoir, completely disrupting 

natural water flows in the Cheyenne River on the Pine Ridge Reservation. 

The harm suffered by the Tribe is documented in the Final Environmental Impact 

Statement, Angostura Unit, Contract Negotiation and Water Management. Accordingly, Rep. Herseth-Sandlin has introduced H.R. 883. This legislation establishes a 

trust fund for the Oglala Sioux Tribe in the amount of $90.5 million, and restores 

104

water flows in Cheyenne River through efficiency improvements at the Angostura 

Irrigation District. It will provide resources for the Tribe to address the environmental impacts of the Angostura Unit, and for much needed economic development 

on the Pine ridge Reservation. 

This legislation is long overdue. The Congress should enact H.R. 883, and should 

address the claims of all Tribes which suffered adverse impacts from the Pick-Sloan 

program. 

4. Enhanced Protection for Cultural Resources is Needed 

No agency of the Federal Government has destroyed more cultural resources or 

desecrated more Native American human remains than the Army Corps of Engineers, in its Missouri River operations. Yet in its operations of the Missouri River 

dams, the Corps of Engineers has failed to implement a mitigation or other compliance plan as required under the National Historic Preservation Act. (16 U.S.C. 

§ 470a et seq.) 

The National Historic Preservation Act requires the Corps of Engineers to evaluate the impact of its ‘‘undertakings’’ on historic properties along the Missouri River. 

(NHPA § 106, 16 U.S.C. § 470f). The federal courts have determined that wave action caused by water releases at the Missouri River dams are ‘‘undertakings’’ requiring compliance with the NHPA. (Yankton Sioux Tribe v. Army Corps of Engineers,

83 F. Supp. 2d 1047 (D.S.D. 2000)). 

A Corps of Engineers Programmatic Agreement with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, outlining the agreed-upon procedures for compliance with section 

106 of the NHPA, when wave action of the Missouri River impacts cultural sites 

at the water’s edge. However, on July 17, 2000, the Advisory Council terminated 

the agreement, informing the Corps:

The Omaha District’s handling of this matter evidences a serious lack of understanding of Federal historic preservation laws and regulations, a lack of commitment to fulfill historic preservation legal responsibilities, and an unwillingness to seek and consider the views and recommendations of State officials, tribal governments, and the Council . . ..

The PA was intended to allow the Corps greater flexibility in how it met its 

obligations under Section 106 while fostering better long-term planning for and 

stewardship of historic properties . . . (T)he Omaha District has disregarded 

commitments it made in the PA and the resulting (negative) consequences it 

has had for irreplaceable resources under its care. The Council is forced to conclude that the Corps is unable, or unwilling to carry out the terms of the PA.

(Letter of Carolyn Buford Slater, Chairperson, Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation, to Secretary of the Army, dated July 17, 2000).

The Corps of Engineers has failed in its responsibility of stewardship for sacred 

Native American cultural resources along the Missouri River. The Corps disregarded its commitments under the Programmatic Agreement, which was consequently terminated by the Advisory Council. The Missouri River Master Manual 

contains no provisions for the protection of the identified cultural sites in the future, 

or mitigation of damage that is caused by wave action. 

Native American human remains are entitled to special protection under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. (NAGPRA) (25 U.S.C. § 3001 

et seq.). Yet the Corps has completely disregarded its obligation to avoid disturbance 

of existing grave sites, and to properly repatriate human remains upon inadvertent 

unearthings due to wave action of the Missouri River. 

These legal requirements are extremely important to our Tribe. Under NAGPRA, 

Indian Tribes enjoy presumptive rights of ownership and repatriation of human remains and cultural objects that are unearthed within its aboriginal territory, as adjudicated by the Indian Claims Commission. (25 U.S.C. § 3002). As stated above, the 

Oglala Sioux Tribe retains treaty and aboriginal claims throughout an extensive 

area, including the bed of the Missouri River and the lands adjacent to the Missouri. 

Consequently, our Tribe enjoys rights of ownership and repatriation under NAGPRA 

on lands along the Missouri River. 

The wave action caused by COE water releases for hydropower generation and 

downstream navigation causes erosion, as well as the destruction of cultural resources of Lakota and Arikira origin along the Missouri River. This violates the 

NHPA and NAGPRA. Yet the Corps of Engineers continues these actions, and is 

now finalizing long-term plans which fail to address them. 

The failure of the Corps of Engineers to comply with the National Historic Preservation Act and Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act directly 

and adversely impacts cultural resources and human remains of Lakota origin along 

the Missouri River. The current Programmatic Agreement of the Corps of Engineers 

105

provides no plan to put an end to this destruction caused by wave action from COE 

water releases for navigation. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, no quantification of water rights should occur until all tribal land 

claims are resolved. Moreover, the Congress should develop and enact comprehensive reform of the Pick-Sloan program. The stabilization of reservoir levels and enhanced protection of historic properties must be an important part of the reforms. 

The need to respect the rights of the Oglala Sioux and other Indian Tribes is intensified by the climate change we are experiencing, which further stresses the water 

resources of the Missouri River basin. 

This hearing is thus very timely. I look forward to working with the Committee 

on Indian Affairs to develop comprehensive reform of the Missouri River Pick-Sloan 

program, to respect and implement the Treaty rights of the Oglala Sioux Tribe.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. We appreciate your being here. You have presented to this Committee previously, and we appreciate your advice. 

Let me call on the Vice Chair, Senator Murkowski. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Mr. Chairman, I don’t have any questions 

this morning, but I do want to thank all those that have traveled 

from your communities to represent your constituents to testify before this Committee on an issue that is clearly of great import to 

you all. 

Again, I thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Because I was detained, I had to leave briefly, I will ask the others to ask questions, and I will ask questions at the end. I do want 

to just say this, however, before calling next on Senator Johnson. 

The issue of compensation is one that we need to study with respect to the entire Pick-Sloan plan and the reservations that were 

injured as a result. I have gathered together the information about 

compensation. We have had several different areas of compensation, some in 1947, some in 1958, some in 1962, some in 1992, 

using different approaches. 

The fact is, I called this hearing because we continually hear 

tribes ask questions about why they have not been adequately compensated. They want to present information to point out the difficulties they now face and the lack of compensation. I would prefer 

that we address this not in five different areas, but that we address 

this with respect to the Pick-Sloan plan and all of those who have 

been disadvantaged. Let us evaluate the compensation up and 

down the river on that plan in a way that makes sense to all of 

us. 

So that is why we held the hearing of this type, because we can’t 

ignore this, nor should we give priority depending on who has the 

loudest voice and says, I demand these issues be addressed. 

All of you have described conditions that really demand the 

issues be addressed. Ron His Horse Is Thunder, the Chairman of 

the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, in his testimony describes something that many of us have seen down there: water conditions, the 

inadequate water supply, inadequate device in that reservoir in the 

river, and what is now I guess, a stream, that provides water for 

the tribe. This is a tribe that has experienced having no water for 

a lengthy period of time, running out of water, and having no 

water come out of that reservoir. 

106

So we understand that water is necessary for a decent life and 

we understand what it means in Standing Rock to lose your access 

to potable water. It is devastating. So there are a lot of issues that 

all of you face, and I appreciate your testimony. 

I will ask questions at the end, but let me call on my colleagues 

as a matter of courtesy. 

Senator Johnson? 

Senator JOHNSON. Mr. Jandreau, how many times has this reform legislation passed the Committee? 

Mr. JANDREAU. Our particular bill passed the Committee three 

times and went to the Floor of the Senate, but it has never become 

law. 

Senator JOHNSON. Are you ready and willing to proceed with this 

legislation at this time? 

Mr. JANDREAU. Yes. 

Senator JOHNSON. Are you reluctant to have compensation held 

up at this time? 

Mr. JANDREAU. Yes, I am. 

Senator JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, the Crow Creek and Lower 

Brule Tribe are ready and willing to go. They have proceeded to 

present legislation at this time and it is unfair to hold them up 

having been passed out of the Committee three times. 

Mr. His Horse is Thunder, what would you do if you were to 

have the range of compensation? How would it be prioritized? 

Mr. HIS HORSE IS THUNDER. Thank you, Senator, for the question. I have been asked by a lot of the elders who—let me put it 

this way. Standing Rock has received one compensation package 

for $90.6 million. It was for the tribe’s economic loss and the money 

is to be spent for development of the economy on the reservation. 

The element that is missing that I am asked by my relatives, my 

elders to bring today is this. It is that some of the compensation 

be used to make whole those people who originally lost land. Over 

half the land that was taken on our reservation was lost by individuals themselves. 

Senator JOHNSON. Are there diminishing numbers of those people? 

Mr. HIS HORSE IS THUNDER. Absolutely, Senator. Today, I know 

of 18 who are currently alive. This past year, we lost three of the 

people who were original landowners at the time of the taking. So 

the numbers are very much diminishing. 

Senator JOHNSON. Mr. Wells, how would you use the money? 

Mr. WELLS. Senator, what we have been doing, what we have 

done so far as been to use the interest, which is approximately $6 

million a year. It has been directed toward Federal programs, contracts and grants as shortfalls as the contracts go from Bureau of 

Indian Affairs, Indian Health Service, BOR. 

The next priority would be projects, infrastructure, water, sewer, 

building—anything that needed to be upgraded from the time of 

the flood. And then what is remaining is just enough to help the 

elders organization, the Boys and Girls Club. 

So out of the $6 million, it comes back down to basically just 

meeting the Federal shortfalls for projects and programs and contracts and infrastructure. 

107

Senator JOHNSON. Mixed up with the money that the tribes are 

owed originally. 

Mr. WELLS. Well, $350 million would have been probably the better number to get us whole. But what happened is it just basically 

made up the shortfall of the Federal trust responsibility, Senator. 

Senator JOHNSON. Mr. Trudell, how would you use the money? 

Mr. TRUDELL. Senator Johnson, thank you for the question. We 

would probably, you know, because we receive no income off the income that goes into the river from waterfowl sales or hunting licenses to the States, and there is no development. On our front, the 

development is all east of us. 

So we would probably look at, although we have to stand the repairs of all these things that take place, we would probably have 

to use additional income to repair our main thoroughfare through 

the community where the heavy traffic is, and then we would have 

to probably look at replacing individual wells which run anywhere 

from $5,000 to $8,000 because of the sedimentation problem that 

is creating a rising water table on our other lands. 

Most of the wells are shallow wells at the present time, and so 

we will have to go to a much deeper well to get to pure water, nontainted water. So those average anywhere from over $5,000 to 

$10,000, I think they told me the other day, but probably on the 

average about $8,000 a well. 

We are in the process of trying to develop a reservation-wide 

water system which was partially funded by Congress, but underfunded, so that study hasn’t been completed yet. That is in the 

hands of the Bureau of Reclamation. So water development is going 

to be one of our primary. And then I don’t know how we would ever 

look at compensation for lands that are currently being lost because of the sedimentation problem. 

Thank you. 

Senator JOHNSON. Mr. Cournoyer, how would you use the 

money? 

Mr. COURNOYER. I think our plan is like some of the other Chairmen stated, and Presidents, is that we would upgrade our infrastructure, our community water systems, roads, because we all 

know that the Federal Government that whatever they don’t fulfill, 

we have to try to put whatever resources we have towards assisting Federal programs. 

And not only that, too, what I would look at and strongly recommend is that we put some of that money towards education, finishing, completing our school, but not only that, enhance our community college and look at providing a little money for scholarships 

so that people can go to school and get that education, because once 

you get an education, you get that degree, you are creating economic self-sufficiency, or you are sustaining something that they 

can do all kinds of things to you, once you get that degree, they 

can’t take that away from you. So you are creating your own economic stability. 

But not only that, too, looking at industry, bringing jobs into the 

reservation because nobody is knocking at most of our reservation 

doors and saying, I have X amount of jobs, so I think we have to 

create economic development for ourselves, and if we can do that, 

I think that we can go out and do anything. 

108

Senator JOHNSON. President Steele, welcome to the Committee. 

You had the unique position, and recognized that you have the Angostura Project, which is a Pick-Sloan project. Apart from that, you 

have a legitimate claim to being a river tribe. How would you use 

the money as compensation for the project? How would use the 

money? 

Mr. STEELE. Like the other tribal Presidents, Senator, I would 

have to address the basic infrastructure that the Federal Government—I call it inherent Federal neglect, whereby every Federal department had nothing to do with this very large land base in the 

middle of the United States. They said that was Bureau of Indian 

Affairs and Indian Health Service responsibility through most of 

the 1900s. 

They stuck monies in technical assistance into the surrounding 

municipalities and counties and built their infrastructure. Well-intended Bureau of Indian Affairs people patterned the roads on a 

very large land base, Pine Ridge, directing that dollar directly offreservation as soon as it hits it. 

I need to re-pattern and rebuild those roads. He told me, your 

people need to go shop. You need north-south roads, very well intended. But I can’t turn that God darn dollar over even once because of the very patterning of the roads, basic economics 101. How 

is development to happen on Pine Ridge? 

I, like the rest of these Chairmen, have to address the basic infrastructure, the tangible and the intangible. We just adopted the 

Uniform Commercial Code and set up the filing system with the 

State of South Dakota. 

But I have unfunded mandates by the Federal Government on 

solid waste. With a large land base, the disposal according to EPA 

standards, the operational costs are outstanding, Senator. It is difficult. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Senator Thune? 

Senator THUNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I do appreciate the testimony. I know it was a very insightful 

hearing from each of our tribal leaders about the challenges that 

they face day to day, providing a better life for the people that they 

serve there, and what some of these past projects and Federal actions have done to impair their ability to do that. So I appreciate 

very much all of you being here today and sharing your testimony. 

I would echo what my colleague from South Dakota, Senator 

Johnson, said, Mr. Chairman, in that I share your view that there 

is value in seeing these things in a context that allows for a comprehensive type approach to it. But absent that happening, we do 

have Senate bill 160, which has cleared this Committee and the 

Senate previously. There were issues that were raised at the hearing we had in the last session on this that have been tightened up 

in the legislation, and it is queued up and ready to go. So I hope 

we can figure out a way in the context of a broader bill, or if not, 

some way to bust that legislation loose. 

I would like to ask a question of Chairman Jandreau with regard 

to that. There have been some comments and concerns, as I said 

previously, in the past at a hearing we had on this about there 

109

being no end in sight for Pick-Sloan Project compensation. In this 

particular bill, the Lower Brule and Crow Creek Tribe Compensation Act, if it was passed, the bill makes clear now that these payments would be treated as full and final compensation. 

I guess I would like to get your reaction and thoughts about the 

tribe’s view of the finality of this particular bill. 

Mr. JANDREAU. That is a very correct statement, Senator. After 

the last hearing and the reaction of some of the Senators’ concerns, 

we went home and we did talk to our respective tribal councils. We 

did receive from them the authority to state that this would be 

final compensation on the Missouri River claim. 

We were also asked how this would affect pay-go. You know, currently our land and our water rights still continue to provide $1.2 

billion a year to the Federal Government. While it probably cannot 

be looked at exactly as a place to extract pay-go, we feel that in 

our unique circumstance that it is the appropriate place to extract 

that. 

So we have agreed to, regardless of whether the settlement for 

the other tribes is higher or not, that we have agreed that what 

we have asked for in S. 160 will be our final request for Crow 

Creek and Lower Brule. 

Thank you. 

Senator THUNE. Thank you. 

All of the compensation plans that are currently being considered 

involve the creation of or the payment to a trust fund. I guess I 

would just open this to whoever would like to comment on it. It 

kind of ties back to the question that Senator Johnson asked earlier, but could you sort of explain to the Committee what sort of 

projects and economic development the tribes might use these trust 

funds that would be created for? 

Mr. Trudell? 

Mr. TRUDELL. Yes, sir. 

Thank you, Senator. 

I call it money that is not money, because it is just a pencil entry 

and interest, and it is not available to us until I think 2013, so we 

can’t do anything with it right now. That is one of the primary 

problems is we have ongoing damage taking place all the time with 

no way to repair that damage. Without earlier access to those 

funds, then our streets and stuff and other things are continue to 

deteriorate. 

We have to take a plan before the people. We had to have hearings before our tribal membership on the development of a plan, 

and we did that. We submitted that plan for approval by the Department of Interior. The Bureau of Indian Affairs had to approve 

that plan, which I don’t understand. And then at a later point, we 

decided to leave our money that is not money with the Treasury 

because they are probably going to be around longer than the Bureau of Indian Affairs, but we still need to have access to that interest at an earlier date to take care of some of the needs that we 

currently have. 

Thank you. 

Mr. HIS HORSE IS THUNDER. Mr. Senator, could I respond to that 

just real briefly? 

110

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and its $90.6 million receives about $4 million a year of thereabouts, depending on how the interest rate fluctuates, but of the $4 million a year that we currently 

receive, we provide about $500,000 a year in scholarships for our 

students to go on to college. We also use at least a good chunk of that $500,000 or thereabouts per year to purchase land that either tribal members or 

non-Indians within our reservation boundaries have for sale. As we 

know, the fractionalization of tribal lands is a huge problem. We 

have set money aside to buy land back from either tribal members, 

again, or non-Indians, trying to do away with checkerboarding on 

the reservation. 

We have also put a huge chunk of change into road development. 

We have taken actually a loan out by a bank and used our JTAC 

money as collateral and pay back through JTAC for about $28 million to develop our roads on the reservation. We probably have now 

some of the better roads of most of the reservations in North and 

South Dakota because we have done that. 

We have set money aside for entrepreneurs. I think we put $600,000 in there just this year alone so that for equity investment, 

we call it. They can get 15 percent of a business package paid for 

by the tribe. They would have to go get the rest of the money from 

a bank that would ensure that they had a good business proposal 

developed, otherwise the bank is not going to give them the remaining 85 percent of the dollars that they need to start businesses. So we put money into entrepreneurial development. 

We put money into home ownership that we will pay up to 25 percent of the costs, up to $100,000, for a house for our tribal members who can’t. Housing is at a premium, and they can’t normally 

go get a bank loan for a house, usually you want 20 percent down. 

So we will pay that 20 percent down for the tribal member, provided that they live in that house for at least a minimum of 10 

years. 

So we are putting it into economic development and home ownership, land purchase, scholarships, et cetera. 

Mr. WELLS. Senator, as I alluded earlier, I am Marcus Wells, Jr., 

Chairman, Three Affiliated Tribes of Mandan, Hidatsa and 

Arikara, but I alluded earlier to the $149.2 million that is in the 

principal amount. Basically, we have done step one which is to take 

care of the Federal shortfalls, trust responsibilities, and infrastructure, but we have a lot more infrastructure to take care of, and no 

doubt are basically our priorities. 

Our priorities would be the water, health care, homes, just social 

impacts that we have had to endure. Employment I think is probably—economic development, and somewhere down the line, we 

feel after we get the infrastructure needs taken care of, then we 

can progress further, and that is the approach that we have taken. 

Just get us the basics—water, homes, and the health care—and 

then we will work on economic development as a spinoff of that. 

But right now, those are our priorities, to know that elders and our 

young couples who are having newborns are being inundated by 

health care bills that are not being paid for by the Federal Government. As long as the trust and treaty responsibilities are there, our 

elders are the ones. A former Chairman of our tribe, Arby Little 

111

Soldier, is still getting inundated by legal bills, and he is here with 

me in prayer to make sure that I continue that voice forward to 

Senator Conrad and Senator Dorgan and yourself, Senator Thune. 

Thank you. 

Senator THUNE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate again your indulgence in allowing me to join the panel today. I was a cosponsor of 

your amendment last week on the Floor to add more law enforcement personnel on our reservations. That is an issue, in discussing 

with the leaders of our tribes in South Dakota, talking in Standing 

Rock, 2.2 million acres and seven full-time law enforcement personnel, and a lot of times long distances to get to a situation. This 

creates all kinds of problems, and security is a big issue as well. 

So I appreciate your efforts on that, and I am glad to join in that. 

But as all of us are aware, because we have traveled out there, 

we have some very serious needs in our communities on the reservations. The various legislative solutions that have been proposed, and some of which are in the works right now, I think would 

do a lot to help these leaders address those needs. 

So I appreciate again the chance to join the panel today and I 

thank our leaders for their testimony and look forward to working 

with them. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Thune, thank you very much. 

In response to your comment and the comment by Senator Johnson, this hearing is not called for the purpose of delaying anything, 

but to the extent that we move forward on these issues. I would 

hope that we would have some finality, number one, and number 

two, that we have a methodology that is fair, acceptable and one 

that is explainable. We have different interests up and down the 

river. It is long past the time this Federal Government made things 

right. The question is how do we do that. I would hope that we will 

have some methodology and some finality that all of us can feel is 

the right approach. So, that is the purpose of the hearing. 

Senator Conrad? 

Senator CONRAD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As the principal sponsor of the original JTAC legislation that led to a settlement of $90.6 million for Standing Rock and $140.2 million for Three Affiliated Tribes, I perhaps have a special perspective on this because it took me years to get the legislation passed. 

It was the first bill that passed. It became the model for all of the 

other compensation bills that passed later. 

I think there is one fact that I really want to draw to the attention of my colleagues and to the record. There was a very significant difference between the GAO estimates and the estimates of 

the original JTAC Committee on what would represent just compensation. Let me just give you on the upper end of the ranges the 

difference. 

On the upper end for Standing Rock, the GAO said equitable compensation would be $170 million. The JTAC report prepared by 

former Secretary Hodel in the Reagan Administration said for 

Standing Rock, the top end of the range should be $349 million, 

twice as much as the GAO report. So the range of the two reports 

for Standing Rock was $170 million to $349 million. They received 

$90.6 million. Okay? 

112

On Three Affiliated Tribes, the GAO said top end of the range, $149.2 million. The JTAC Commission under Secretary Hodel in 

the Reagan Administration estimated $411.8 million. They received 

$149.2 million. 

I make this point because I think it is critically important to understand there was a dramatic difference between the estimates of 

the General Accounting Office that used one methodology, and the 

JTAC Commission under Secretary Hodel that used a different 

methodology. 

I personally always believed that the more appropriate methodology was that done by Secretary Hodel. Why do I believe that? Because the GAO approach, which is certainly a defensible approach, 

but I think misses the point. They looked at land values, what land 

was worth at the time. They increased that with an inflationary 

index, and then said this would be a buyout amount on the open 

market. What is wrong with that approach? It completely misses, 

to me, the point that a way of life was done enormous damage. 

This wasn’t just a matter of the value of land. This was not only 

the value of land, it was also the value of infrastructure, in the 

case of Three Affiliated Tribes, a hospital, bridge, school. They have 

never been compensated for. We did get the bridge. In fairness, we 

have to say we got the bridge. But we have not gotten a hospital. 

The school has never been compensated for. In the case of Standing Rock, the $90.6 million, all of these were 

a matter of negotiation. Let’s be frank. I was the negotiator so I 

know. I know how this worked. I never believed that those numbers were a fair resolution, but it was the first settlement legislation. It was something that had never been done before, and it was 

very, very hard to convince colleagues to do it. We had to adopt a 

very creative way to deal with the budget process. That is why the 

money is not available immediately. It is available outside the five 

year budget window because it was the only way we could get the 

legislation passed under the budget rules that pertained at the 

time. 

So Mr. Chairman, first of all, I salute you for having this hearing. You are doing exactly the right thing. There ought to be a consistency in approach for all of these settlements. It shouldn’t be 

somebody comes later, therefore they get more. It should be based 

on a formula that everybody understands and is defensible both to 

taxpayers and to those who are receiving the funds in compensation for what was taken. And let there be no doubt, an enormous 

amount was taken. 

In the case of Three Affiliated Tribes, the vast majority of tribal 

members were forced to relocate, and they went from the rich 

bottomlands that supported a very rich way of life, and I don’t 

mean rich just in material terms. I mean rich in every term. 

Standing Rock was similarly devastated. I mean, that is just the 

truth of the matter. And to just say, well, it is a calculation of how 

much the land was worth, no. That isn’t the real calculation because what was devastated here was a way of life—and economic 

way of life, a series of social institutions that were done enormous 

damage. So I think any fair minded person would have to go back 

and say that the JTAC calculations come much closer to some kind 

of fair and equitable compensation than does the other calculations 

113

that were made by the General Accounting Office. I don’t fault the 

General Accounting Office. They have a perfectly good rationale for 

the way they approached this. I just think it misses the larger reality. 

So with that, I would say to the witnesses, we thank you very 

much for being here. The issue of how the money would be used 

is going to be critically important. I have been down this road before. I know how this issue will arise with my colleagues. This has 

been very difficult with respect to the previous JTAC settlements. 

I think all of us know that. 

I think to the extent that you can say, as Ron you have said and 

Marcus you have said, that the money would be used for infrastructure and for education and for entrepreneurial development, 

and of course there are tremendous needs in health care, needs in 

housing. Those are all legitimate claims, making up for the shortfall in terms of what the Federal Government provides. 

I will end there because I have taken more of the Committee’s 

time than I should, and I apologize, Mr. Chairman, for that, but 

I did want to just lay out these issues, having experienced this over 

many years, and having been deeply involved in the original negotiations. I never thought at the time, never believed in my heart, 

that these final numbers we were able to negotiate represented fair 

and equitable compensation. I believed it was the best we could get 

at the time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Conrad, thank you very much, and 

thank you for your leadership. In 1992, I was in the U.S. House 

and Senator Conrad invited the leadership here to get started and 

to finish the negotiations and move legislation. I was proud to advance that legislation, as well in the House. But without Senator 

Conrad’s leadership, we would not have had the 1992 settlements 

that existed. He has indicated, and I agree, that that was what was 

achievable at the time, but much has happened since then. 

I go back to the—I guess we don’t have the photograph here of 

George Gillette—but the photograph of George Gillette at the signing, and he says, ‘‘With a few scratches of the pen, we will sell the 

best part of our reservation. We will sell the best part of our reservation.’’

Well, the other point I would make is that when we have the 

chart up that shows the Missouri River basin, that is not the only 

issue here. That Missouri River basin had to bear the costs, but the 

benefits went way down to the rest of the Country. It went down 

to the Mississippi, all the way to the Gulf, and we had flood control. We had opportunities to store water so that when there was 

less water on the middle Mississippi for barging, that that water 

was available. 

So a lot of other folks got the benefits from this, and we bear the 

costs of a flood that comes and stays. To some it is a flood. To others it is a complete inundation of their homeland, of their town, of 

their hospital, of any range of things that represented a good life 

for them. 

So while this hearing and your testimony focuses on the PickSloan plan, which essentially is going from Montana down to Gavins Point and the mainstem dams that were built, that project was 

not just about geography. The substantial benefits from that 

114

project flowed well beyond, down to the rest of the center part of 

this Country. 

Now, the question is, were the costs that were imposed on the 

Indian reservations properly compensated? The answer, quite 

clearly, is no. The more difficult question is how does one properly 

compensate? What is the methodology by which we begin to address this issue? 

As Senator Conrad has said, this is a circumstance where, and 

I believe Chairman Steele you indicated as well, we have people 

living in third world conditions. Chairman Wells, you talked about 

the number of people hauling water and the percentage of the people in your tribe that don’t have running water. We have people 

that are horribly disadvantaged, living a lifestyle that is gripped 

with desperate poverty. Well, the fact is at least a portion of these 

people were affected by land that was taken and not properly compensated. 

Now, some of the things we have described exist on reservations 

in many parts of the Country, so this is not all attributable to this 

issue. But the proper compensation for land that was taken as a 

part of the Pick-Sloan plan would certainly begin to alleviate some 

of these issues. 

I make one final point. The people of my State and South Dakota 

and the other States on that map, and especially the tribes, did not 

get on a train or a car and come to Washington, D.C. to say, can 

you put together a water plan for us that will take our lands? Nobody went to Washington to beg for the Pick-Sloan plan from our 

region of the Country because we were going to be net losers. And 

so they came to us. Washington came to the tribes and the States 

and said, here is what we would like to do. We understand there 

are some burdens for you as a result of it, and here is what we 

plan to do for you. 

Well, much of it has never occurred. While we have made some 

progress, I mentioned earlier the years 1947, 1958, 1962, 1992, 

there have been various types of settlements with various tribes 

using different methods. But it has never been properly addressed, 

which is why I felt when we started talking about this, that we 

would call all of the affected parties in and talk through this to see 

if we can’t reach some finality about what would be fair to tribal 

governments that have been cheated in a number of ways by the 

Federal Government over many, many years. I think that term 

cheated exists as well with respect to how they were compensated 

when they were seeing the taking of their lands for the Pick-Sloan 

plan. 

So many of you have traveled a long distance to come here today. 

You don’t come because you like to travel, especially these days. 

Traveling is not easy, but you have provided a very compelling 

story to this Committee about life on your reservations, and the 

consequences of the taking of land. 

Let me ask a couple of questions before we have to conclude. All 

of you have water rights, or virtually all of you I believe have 

water rights from the Missouri River. I think nearly all of you have 

said those water rights have never been quantified. 

115

Chairman His Horse Is Thunder would you talk about that for 

a moment? I believe all of you have said about the same thing, but 

why don’t you proceed. 

Mr. HIS HORSE IS THUNDER. We haven’t quantified our water 

rights in the past, Senator. We have not. We have a figure which 

we believe would be an adequate appropriation for our tribe. 

Today, we figure that at 1.5 million acre feet I believe is where we 

are at. That would allow us to, and we figured it out, to irrigate 

so many acres of land, as well as serve an additional population of 

30,000 members for future growth and development, as well as our 

MR&I programs to pump water across the whole reservation. 

We figure it would be about 1.5 million acre feet. We have not 

thrown that figure out officially yet, but that is where we would 

look at if we were going to settle. In the past we and many others 

have truly been fearful of appropriations because w did not want 

to, if you will, limit the ability of future generations to a particular 

quantity of water should that water not be enough. 

And so we figure about 1.5 million would adequately take care 

of future generations. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Chairman, I was on your reservation when 

you ran out of water—was it three years ago, now? 

Mr. HIS HORSE IS THUNDER. It would be four years ago this 

Thanksgiving. 

The CHAIRMAN. Four years ago Thanksgiving, and you were out 

of water for how many days? Eight to ten days? 

Mr. HIS HORSE IS THUNDER. I believe we were out for five days, 

sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Five days. I salute the employees of the Bureau 

of Reclamation working over Thanksgiving weekend, which, as you 

know, is very difficult conditions to try to get something done temporarily to get the water supply working again. But I recall the discussions we had about the cost of fixing it by getting an intake out 

there that would fix this permanently for you. 

The issue was that there is not enough money. It seems to me, 

to find out 40 or 50 years later that a Federal agency says it is too 

much money to have a permanent intake for you, we don’t have the 

funds, is irrehensible. 

Somebody ought to have the funds to provide a solution to issues 

caused by this entire plan. I assume you would agree that you 

didn’t run out of water before the Pick-Sloan plan, did you? I mean, 

you had access to the river at that point. I assume you find it frustrating and probably it makes you angry that you face these problems of the need for a permanent intake. But people say, there is 

no money. But they have a responsibility to give you permanency 

with respect to taking water out of that reservoir. 

Mr. HIS HORSE IS THUNDER. We do find it quite frustrating. The 

temporary solution that we incurred four years ago cost about $5 

million, and that is just a temporary solution. Of that, I believe the 

tribe still hasn’t been reimbursed for about $1.5 million of those 

dollars. So a permanent solution would definitely be something we 

think is just to us. But the temporary fix itself presents a whole 

bunch of problems besides the cost of $5 million, that right now, 

with the drought we are having, that we are with a temporary soVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:27 Mar 10, 2008 Jkt 039935 PO 00000 Frm 00119 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\39935.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
116

lution and taking a look at that water intake being inundated with 

silt as well. 

And then if we do get rain like we really want, and snow pack 

in the mountains next year and we get a lot of water, that if that 

the water rises above eight feet where it is right now, it will, believe it or not, actually blood that intake, and make it unworkable, 

and then we will be back to no water again. 

Right now, the reservoir is down about 28 feet, and so we all 

want it to go back up, but if it comes up just eight feet, we are back 

to no water again on our reservation. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I want to continue to work with you on 

that. It is another one of those effects of this set of issues that 

needs to be resolved. 

Chairman Wells, your reservation gave up the largest quantity 

of land. Is it 152,000 acres that were lost? What percent was that 

of your reservation? 

Mr. WELLS. Of the one million acres, I imagine it would be 15 

percent. 

The CHAIRMAN. So it is 15 percent. At that point, it was one million acres total? 

Mr. WELLS. Yes, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. And you had a settlement in 1992, did you not? 

Mr. WELLS. The $149.2 million. We certainly appreciate all of the 

work that was done by Senator Conrad, Mr. Chairman, and yourself, and Congressman Pomeroy. We have used the money conservatively. We have used it for infrastructure. We have used it for 

supplementing the Federal shortfalls, as I said in my testimony. I 

don’t think we have ever really got to do any services for the tribal 

programs. We have done the four areas—economic development, social welfare, and education, and in others, but we have never been 

able to really open that up other than one year. I believe that was 

in fiscal year 1999 and 2000, maybe two years. But then we found 

out that it just made the shortfall of the Federal trust responsibility. 

So of the $411 million that Senator Conrad spoke of earlier, I 

would certainly see us getting into the conditions that Chairman 

Jandreau just spoke of. I think we would be close, because of the 

housing and the water and health care issues. I just had a grandmother in the tribal office and she has three of her children living 

in her home, in a HUD home. They have children. And she looked 

up at that picture of former Chairman Gillette and she was explaining the history to her daughter. She said, ‘‘And our Chairman 

now is going up to Washington, D.C. to see if he can get some more 

justification for us, to get you a house.’’ And that is her very simple 

words to her daughter in front of me. I was smiling, and I said, 

‘‘How did you know that?’’ And she said, ‘‘Well, they told me you 

were heading to D.C. That is why I had to come and get you before 

you left.’’

So those are real stories. It is every day, the roads. I had friends 

of my wife come up to her and say, can you talk to your husband 

and see if he can get some gravel on our roads, Alvina, the first 

lady, I guess you would call her. That is how I initiated a joint relationship for housing. We both went in and got a screener and a 

crusher and we are putting gravel on the roads, home roads and 

117

rural roads, because of the shortfalls of the BIA. They have no 

money for gravel. 

So those are the real things that we are doing, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Chairman Wells, thank you very much for coming. 

All of you have a common cause as Chairmen and leaders of your 

tribe. Let me just say, I appreciate your leadership. Leadership is 

about opportunity and responsibility: the opportunity to provide 

leadership, to move in the right direction, seek the right solutions. 

But obligation, I mean, leadership is not easy. Good leadership requires a lot of time, effort, energy, and controversy from time to 

time. 

So I want to thank you for your leadership. I have asked all of 

you to come in to give us a larger perspective of what has happened to the tribes with respect to the Pick-Sloan plan. I think you 

have done that today. To our neighbors in South Dakota, as I said, 

we have common purpose. It seems to me, tribal governments 

should take a look at what happened and what now, in the year 

2007, and beyond should be done to make sure we have some final 

recompense that is fair to the first Americans, who were injured as 

a result of the taking of land, a substantial amount of lands in the 

1940s. 

So I do have to close the hearing, but I want to thank all of you, 

all six of you, for traveling to Washington, D.C. at considerable 

time for you and providing this information. The Committee intends to work with you. You heard testimony. You heard commitment from my colleagues today. We intend to work with you to try 

to find ways to reach some solutions on these issues. 

Thank you very much for being here, and this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:38 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(119)

1 Examples: (1) S. Hrg. 106–200, Cheyenne River Sioux Equitable Compensation Act, Senate 

Committee on Indian Affairs Hearing on S. 964 (August 3, 1999); (2) Pub. L. 83–776, 68 Stat. 

1191 et. Seq. (1954); (3) S. Hrg. 109–572, Tribal Parity Act, and the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe 

Equitable Compensation Amendments Act (June 14, 2006); (4) Analysis of Economic Loss Resulting From Lands Taken from the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe for the Oahe Dam, Robert 

McGlaughlin Company, (Solen, ND July 1994); and (5) GAO/RCED 98–39: Cheyenne River 

Sioux Tribe’s Additional Compensation Claim for the Oahe Dam (August 1998). 2Government Accounting Office Report 98–39 ‘‘Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe’s Additional Compensation Claim for the Oahe Dam, GAO/RCED 98–39 (1998), Appendix IV, Statement of Robert 

McGlaughlin. 3 Id. 

APPENDIX

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOSEPH BRINGS PLENTY, CHAIRMAN, CHEYENNE RIVER

SIOUX TRIBE

I want to thank the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and Chairman Dorgan 

for the opportunity to provide you with written testimony on the losses suffered by 

the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe resulting from the construction of the Oahe Dam 

in 1954. My name is Joseph Brings Plenty and I am the Chairman of the Cheyenne 

River Sioux Tribe. 

The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe has provided this Committee and the United 

States Congress with repeated testimony about the direct losses in land, infrastructure and improvements upon land as well as indirect damages in loss of timber, 

wildlife, wildlife products, and destruction of the agricultural economy with the loss 

of 104,420 acres of land within the Reservation. That history is found in hearing 

transcripts from numerous prior hearings and Government Accounting Office studies. 1

Those older and wiser than I have recounted for you what happened when the 

Oahe Dam was constructed. One account states that, ‘‘by the end of the decade, the 

Tribe would be facing the forced removal of 200 Indian families from four river settlements and their surrounding bottomlands; would be forced to give up its valuable 

riparian cottonwood forest plant, and wildlife habitat bordering the Missouri; see 

the ruination of its cattle raising industry; suffer the loss forever of bottomland 

hunting and fishing for indigenous species found there, permanently lose the use of 

bottomland plant products for cultural and spiritual purposes an finally, see its 

homes destroyed along with churches, schools, and its tribal social life. It would see 

the residue of their remaining lands fall to a value only a ‘small fraction of their 

present value.’ The above was not an account of the government’s taking put forward by the Tribe but the government’s own account from House Report 2484 (83rd 

Congress) on the project’s probable impact on the Cheyenne River Sioux.’’ 2

This taking was accomplished by threats and force. By the time the United States 

had come to the Tribe to discuss taking of the land, the Oahe Dam was already 

under construction, making it clear that the lands would be flooded. The United 

States Army Corps of Engineers stated to the Tribe on the open public record, ‘‘Neither your Constitution nor your treaty rights can stop the taking of your lands according to law under the right of eminent domain. The United States is a sovereign 

power and if the Tribe could stop the taking of the land then it would be the supreme power even over the United States government and this cannot be.’’ 3

It was this attitude of might makes right which resulted in the destruction of 

lives, resources, and the entire economy here at Cheyenne River. To date, the Tribe 

has not received one cent of additional compensation since 1954. Congress has enacted legislation in the Cheyenne River Equitable Compensation Act of 2000 establishing a Trust Fund of $290,722,958.00 which will be deposited on October 1, 2011, 

and the interest from which will become available on that date, but until then, 

Cheyenne River’s economy and society continue to suffer the effects of the destruction from the Oahe Dam unabated. This continues today even though the United 

States sees the benefit of 1.2 billion dollars in hydroelectric production from these 

dams every year, Missouri farmers see and have seen since 1954 billions of dollars 

120

in gains from their crops due to flood control on their bottomlands which once lay 

unprotected from storms that wiped out crops every season, and the economies of 

all Missouri River states including South Dakota thrives from tourism in hunting 

and fishing along the Missouri River. 

While the Nation prospers and South Dakota prospers, Cheyenne River watches 

our people die young from depths of poverty unseen anywhere else in the United 

States; from the theft of our hospital and Indian Health Service’s refusal to fund 

the staffing so we have more than two doctors for 16,000 people because it was the 

Corps of Engineers that built the hospital in Eagle Butte in 1956 to replace the one 

they flooded and not the Indian Health Service; from drinking water contaminated 

with over a billion tons of mining tailings flowing from the Black Hills that pile up 

at the mouth of the Cheyenne River instead of continuing to flow downstream because the Oahe Dam backs that water up and drops those tailings right where our 

only water intake sits. This is all attributable to the construction of the Dam. And 

none of it is included in any calculation of damages done to date. 

Cheyenne River has repeatedly sought remedies for the environmental contamination compounded by the Oahe Dam to no avail. Title VI of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 includes authorization to the Corps of Engineers to address 

this environmental devastation but has the Corps even begun to study the problems 

let alone seek funding to remedy these problems? No. And no amount of discussion 

has changed this. The Tribe and seven federal agencies with the help of the South 

Dakota delegation provided almost 20 million dollars in funds to move that water 

intake over the past 2 years at our own expense. But not before our rates of cancer, 

autoimmune disorders, and deaths from unheard of diseases are out of control. We 

have seven cases of pancreatic cancer—there are only 32,000 cases in the entire 

United States. Now, we have authorization in the 2007 Water Resources Development Act for another $65 million dollars to build a mainline from that intake to 

Eagle Butte—where the United States relocated the tribal headquarters—over 65 

miles from the River. If we had not been forced to relocate to a non-Indian town 

for political reasons with the flooding and were instead allowed to stay near the 

River, the Tribe would not be in this position of needing this level of funding just 

to have a permanent supply of clean drinking water. The United States government 

did this. Until this main line is built, Cheyenne River will not see one new home 

or business because there is no water pressure. Our families will continue to live 

two to four families per household. After the main line is built, the system needs 

an upgrade to all the water lines to reach the families who were scatters over an 

area the size of Connecticut by forced relocation from the flooding. The Banner 

study already submitted to this Committee demonstrates that the total cost in 2004 

was estimated at $389 million. This makes the Equitable Compensation Act Fund 

for Cheyenne River pale in comparison. 

Meanwhile, our people die from the health disorders caused by that contaminated 

silt stacking up at our border on our Cheyenne River all because the dam was built. 

And Indian Health Service, the Corps of Engineers, and the Environmental Protection Agency continue to tell the Tribe they have no programs or funds to do anything about it—it’s up to Congress. And still Cheyenne River waits, and prays for 

a better time to come where there are not at least two funerals a week. 

While we wait, our population is growing exponentially. Half of the population at 

Cheyenne River is under the age of twenty-one years old. And the Tribe still has 

not one cent in funds to address rebuilding from the flooding. With this population 

explosion there is less to go around per person. The poverty created by the destruction of our river bottoms is like a whirlpool. The original losses keep spiraling and 

expanding exponentially as time goes on and the longer time goes on without any 

funding to rebuild, the larger the costs are to actually restore the tribal economy 

to the same level as its counterparts in South Dakota. 

The Tribe has testified before this Committee at length about how prepared Cheyenne River is to implement its long term strategic plan for poverty reduction—a 

plan developed in partnership with the Northwest Area Foundation and being implemented with $10 million in funding from that Foundation and the Tribe. Yet, 

this plan cannot be fully implemented fully until it starts receiving interest income 

from the Cheyenne River Equitable Compensation Act of 2000. Until October 2011, 

all we can do is proceed as best we can with the limited funds we can gather. We 

have a sixty bed nursing home under construction right now, and struggle to secure 

the funds to complete construction and operate with operations slated to start in 

2008. But we are prepared for when the Tribe actually begins to receive funds to 

move forward. 

All studies on the losses at Cheyenne River assume the Tribe’s original requests 

in 1954 that were not funded and add a generic economic inflation rate over time. 

These economic inflation rates do not calculate the exponential growth of the tribal 

121

population or the cost of that infrastructure that was destroyed and never replaced. 

In order to place the Tribe on equal footing with all others, the Congress would have 

to account for the cost of replacement of the water system, the cost of a new hospital 

built by Indian Health Service so they would actually staff it, the cost in human 

health harms and lives lost from contamination of our water supply. These are just 

a few of the costs not calculated into any Government Accounting Office study to 

date. 

Even worse, the Corps of Engineers received funding to relocate graves and still 

today, as the water rises and falls, bones are exposed from graves that were supposed to be moved. The Missouri River Basin is home to over 15,000 known historic 

sites—this has been documented and written about in numerous publications. And 

yet, funds to protect these national treasures which are irreplaceable and are a national treasure—not just to the Lakota Nations and our brother and sister Nations—but of the United States for all our children, are negligible. No calculation 

of damages for any Tribes to date accounts for what it costs to protect these national 

treasures, or for what it would cost to properly relocate those burial sites the Corps 

of Engineers failed to relocate in their haste to see he dams become operational for 

the benefit of Missouri farmers, navigators, and the hydroelectric power industry. 

When money and power become the basis for destroying the lives of our own 

United States citizens, and the goal of the government offices requested to look at 

the value of the damages becomes to limit what it will cost to ‘‘compensate for original losses’’, no justice will prevail. When I buy insurance and my house is destroyed, 

I receive what it costs to replace that home. This is the principal behind determining ‘‘just’’ compensation—what will it take to make the person whole again? Not 

just what could I sell it for on the open market. This is important here—the United 

States in the reports listed in footnote 1 of this statement itself has stated that no 

one would have been a willing seller of this land and these assets because the stolen 

was the heart and sole of an entire civilization. It would be akin to trying to compensate Palestinians or Israelites for the loss of Jerusalem and thinking that money 

would make the Nation whole. 

The United States needs to sit down and take a good look at what it will cost 

to restore basic infrastructure that the rest of the United States has but we have 

never had. While the rest of the United States has enough of an economy to look 

at infrastructure development and economic growth, Cheyenne River spends the majority of its government funds on heating assistance for tribal members, food for its 

members, shelter for its members, and health care for its members. With an unemployment rate of over 80 percent this year, what else is the government to do? Until 

the basic infrastructure of clean drinking water, housing, roads, and economic engines for growth in the tourism and agriculture industries are restored, there is little room for change. 

As this Tribe has testified to this Committee before, our greatest resource is our 

tribal membership whose skills, talents, determination and perseverance are the 

very reason Cheyenne River continues to achieve gains. And this will remain no 

matter what the Congress does as a result of this hearing. 

But I hope, as I must, that I live to see the Cheyenne River Equitable Compensation Act of 2000 funds actually received by the Tribe and I hope I see the day that 

our gravesites are all protected and no more relatives will be found on the shores 

of the Missouri River, and I hope I see the day when all of our people have clean 

drinking water and adequate health care. And I hope that this Committee, if it 

chooses to look further into what compensation is ‘‘just,’’ will acknowledge that the 

Tribes on this River know best how to achieve that economic self-sufficiency that 

was once the birth right of the Nations. And that justice will be served when that 

birth right to be economically self-sufficient is restored to our Nations. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to provide you with my thoughts. I welcome 

any questions you may have regarding this testimony. 

122

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ARCHIE FOOL BEAR, BOARD MEMBER, STANDING ROCK

SIOUX TRIBE AND UPPER MISSOURI RIVER INTERTRIBAL ALLOTTEES ASSOCIATION


1101u1.eps
123


1101u2.eps
124


1101u3.eps
125


1101u4.eps
126


1101u5.eps
127


1101u6.eps
128


1101u7.eps
129


1101u8.eps
130

Attachments


1101u9.eps
131


1101u10.eps
132


1101u11.eps
133


1101u12.eps
134


1101u13.eps
135


1101u14.eps
136


1101u15.eps
137


1101u16.eps
138


1101u17.eps
139


1101u18.eps
140


1101u19.eps
141


1101u20.eps
142


1101u21.eps
143


1101u22.eps
144


1101u23.eps
145


1101u24.eps
146


1101u25.eps
147


1101u26.eps
148


1101u27.eps
149


1101u28.eps
150


1101u29.eps
151


1101u30.eps
152


1101u31.eps
153


1101u32.eps
154


1101u33.eps
155


1101u34.eps
156


1101u35.eps
157


1101u36.eps
158


1101u37.eps
159


1101u38.eps
160


1101u39.eps
161


1101u40.eps
162


1101u41.eps
163


1101u42.eps
164


1101u43.eps
165


1101u44.eps
166


1101u45.eps
167


1101u46.eps
168


1101u47.eps
169


1101u48.eps
170


1101u49.eps
171


1101u50.eps
172


1101u51.eps
173


1101u52.eps
174


1101u53.eps
175


1101u54.eps
176


1101u55.eps
177


1101u56.eps
178


1101u57.eps
179


1101u58.eps
180


1101u59.eps
181


1101u60.eps
182


1101u61.eps
183


1101u62.eps
184


1101u63.eps
185


1101u64.eps
186


1101u65.eps
187


1101u66.eps
188


1101u67.eps
189


1101u68.eps
190


1101u69.eps
191


1101u70.eps
192


1101u71.eps
193


1101u72.eps
194


1101u73.eps
195


1101u74.eps
196


1101a1.eps
197


1101a2.eps
198


1101a3.eps
199


1101a4.eps
200


1101a5.eps
201


1101a6.eps
202


1101a7.eps
203


1101a8.eps
204


1101a9.eps
205


1101a10.eps
206


1101a11.eps
207


1101a12.eps 1101a13.eps
208


1101a14.eps
209


1101a15.eps
210


1101a16.eps
211


1101a17.eps
212


1101a18.eps
213


1101a19.eps
214

Æ


1101a20.eps