[Senate Report 105-146]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 282
105th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 105-146
_______________________________________________________________________
PROVIDING CERTAIN BENEFITS OF THE PICK-SLOAN MISSOURI RIVER BASIN
PROGRAM TO THE LOWER BRULE SIOUX TRIBE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
_______
November 8, 1997.--Ordered to be printed
_______________________________________________________________________
Mr. Campbell, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 156]
The Committee on Indian Affairs, to which was referred the
bill (S. 156) to provide certain benefits of the Pick-Sloan
Missouri River Basin Program to the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe,
and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports
favorably thereon with amendments and recommends that the bill
(as amended) do pass.
PURPOSE
The purpose of S. 156 to provide certain benefits to the
Lower Brule Sioux Tribe which were authorized in Public Law 87-
735 to provide for the mitigation of the effects of the Fort
Randall and Big Bend Dam projects on the tribe's reservation,
but which the United States failed to provide in whole or in
part.
BACKGROUND
The Lower Brule Sioux Tribe (``the Tribe'') resides on a
230,000 acre reservation in central South Dakota. The Missouri
River overlies the reservation's eastern boundary, and its rich
bottomlands provided the Tribe for generations with food,
water, wood for shelter and fuel, forage for cattle and
wildlife, and plants used for medicinal purposes. Construction
of the Fort Randall and Big Bend Dams, authorized by the Flood
Control Act of 1944, resulted in the inundation of over 22,000
acres of these bottomland resources and the permanent loss of
the subsistence economy based on those resources.
The Fort Randall Dam, which the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (``the Corps'') began constructing in 1946, flooded
7,997 acres of bottomland, over half of which was sheltered
pastureland. Thirty-five families, constituting 16 percent of
the resident tribal membership, were relocated against their
wishes. Although the town of Lower Brule, the population center
of the Lower Brule Reservation, was saved, the Tribe was
greatly affected by the flooding of the community of Fort
Thompson, on the Crow Creek Reservation directly across the
Missouri River from Lower Brule. The Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA) agency headquarters at Fort Thompson, which served both
tribes, and its subagency in the town of Lower Brule, were
combined and relocated off the reservations in Pierre, South
Dakota, 60 miles from Lower Brule. Similarly, the Indian Health
Service (IHS) hospital at Fort Thompson was moved off the
reservation to Chamberlain, South Dakota, 30 miles from Lower
Brule, creating great hardship on the Tribe, whose
transportation facilities were severely limited.
The Big Bend Dam, which the Corps began constructing in
1960, resulted in the flooding of another 14,299 acres on the
Lower Brule Reservation, the relocation of the town of Lower
Brule, and the displacement of 62 families--approximately 53
percent of the resident tribal population. The government's
handling of the Fort Randall relocations was not well-thought
out, as families on both the Crow Creek and the Lower Brule
reservations were relocated on lands within the projected area
of the Big Bend Dam. As a result, the affected families were
subsequently forced to relocate a second time.
In 1962, the Congress enacted the Big Bend Recovery Act
(Public Law 87-735), which provided for the purchase of land
for the Big Bend Dam two years afterconstruction began. This
Act acknowledged the adverse impacts of the Fort Randall and Big Bend
projects on the Lower Brule people, and directed the Corps to replace
lost infrastructure, tribal and Federal government facilities, schools,
hospitals, a community center, roads and utilities. However, as a
result of subsequent funding decisions by the Corps and a lack of
coordination between the Corps and the BIA, these directives either
were carried out inadequately, or not at all.
The benefits that S. 156 would provide to the Tribe are
similar to those provided for in the Three Affiliated Tribes
and the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Equitable Compensation Act of
1992, Public Law 102-575. That Act established a $149,200,000
trust fund for the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold
Reservation and a $90,600,000 trust fund for the Standing Rock
Sioux Tribe. The trust funds were funded with receipts of
deposits from the Missouri River Basin Pick-Sloan program. The
amount of compensation was based on recommendations provided
after an extensive study by a joint Federal-tribal advisory
committee, known as the Garrison Unit joint Tribal Advisory
Committee,which analyzed the impacts of the United States
government's taking of more than 200,000 acres of tribal lands
for the Garrison Dam and Reservoir as part of the Missouri
River Basin Pick-Sloan program.
The provisions of S. 156 are also similar tithe Crow Creek
Sioux Tribe Infrastructure Development Trust Fund Act of 1996,
Public Law 104-223. This Act established a $27,500,000 trust
fund, also funded with receipts form deposits from the Pick-
Sloan program, for the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe, which suffered
the loss of more than 15,000 acres that were inundated by the
Fort Randall and Big Bend dams. In the case of the Crow Creek
Sioux Tribe, as with the Three Affiliated Tribes and the
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, the Congress found that the
compensation payments and mitigation funds that were expended
on their behalf were significantly less than the value of the
actual damages suffered by the tribes and the actual cost of
replacing the lost facilities that the Untied States had
promised the tribes.
S. 156 establishes a Lower Brule Tribe Infrastructure
Development Trust Fund in the U.S. Treasury in which will be
deposited, on an annual basis beginning in fiscal year 1998, an
amount equal to 25 percent of the receipts of the deposits to
the Treasury for the preceding fiscal year made by the
integrated programs of the Missouri River Basin Pick-Sloan
program, administered by the Western Area Power Administration
(WAPA), until the aggregate of the amounts deposited is equal
to $39,300,000. The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and
directed to invest these amounts in interest-bearing
obligations of the Untied States or in obligations guaranteed
as to both principal and interest by the United States.
Once the aggregate amount has been deposited in the Fund,
the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to transfer any
interest which has accrued on the amounts deposited in the Fund
into a separate account, and to transfer any funds in that
account to the Secretary of the Interior for purposes
authorized in S. 156, without fiscal year limitation on the
availability of such funds. In turn, the Secretary of the
Interior is authorized to make payments to the Tribe. The Tribe
can use the fund only for carrying out projects and programs
pursuant to a plan for socioeconomic recovery and cultural
preservation. No part of these payments may be distributed to
any member of the Tribe on a per capita basis.
The plan is to be developed by the Tribe, in consultation
with the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Health
and Human Services, no later than two years after the enactment
of S. 156. The plan must include the following programs and
components: (1) an educational facility to be located on the
Tribe's reservation. (2) a comprehensive inpatient and
outpatient health care facility to provide essential services
that the Secretary of Health and Human Services determines are
needed and which are unavailable through existing facilities of
the IHS on the Lower Brule Reservation; (3) the construction,
operation, and maintenance of a municipal, rural and industrial
water system for the reservation; (4) recreational facilities
suitable for high-density recreation at Lake Sharpe at Big Bend
Dam and at other locations on the reservation; and (5) other
projects and programs for the educational, social welfare,
economic development, and cultural preservation of the Tribe as
the Tribe considers to be appropriate. The Committee's hearing
record includes a detailed history, developed by Historical
Research Associates, Inc.,\1\ of the impacts of the Fort
Randall and Big Bend dams on the Lower Brule Sioux people, the
legal battles over the Corps' efforts to take Indian lands by
eminent domain for Missouri River dam construction, and the
efforts by the Lower Brule Sioux and other Sioux Tribes
affected by the dams first to stop construction, and failing
that, to obtain compensation for damages and relocation costs.
A synopsis of that history is set forth below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ An Analysis of the Impact of Pick-Sloan Dam Projects on the
Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, by Michael L. Lawson, Ph.D., 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
synopsis of historical background
The Pick-Sloan Project, a compromise of the separate water
resource programs developed by Colonel A. Pick of the Corps of
Engineers and William G. Sloan of the Bureau of Reclamation,
concerned the development of flood control measures to protect
the lower Missouri Basin (``Pick-Plan'') and the construction
of irrigation facilities to the upper Missouri Basin (``Sloan
Plan''), and was developed in response to the urgentdemand for
federal action that followed the devastating Missouri River floods of
1942 and 1943.
Officially labelled the Missouri River Basin Development
Program, the Pick-Sloan Plan was gradually expanded to include
the construction of 150 multiple-purpose reservoir projects. In
addition to flood control, these dams were designed to provide
the benefits of hydroelectric power, navigation, recreation,
and improved water supplies. The backbone of the Pick-Sloan
Plan was provided by the six massive dams constructed by the
Corps on the main stem of the Missouri River, two of which
(Fort Peck and Oahe) rank among the largest earthen dams in the
world. Together, these six projects inundated over 550 square
miles of Indian land and displaced more than 900 Indian
families.
Many of the problems encountered by the affected tribes and
their tribal members came as a result of the United States
government's failure to provide an adequate administrative
structure for the Pick-Sloan Plan. In response to the
apparently overwhelming opposition to the creation of a
Missouri Valley Authority, the Truman Administration placed the
program under the rather loose-knit coordination of the
Missouri Basin Inter-Agency Committee (MBIAC), a non-statutory
body.
The MBIAC took a piecemeal approach to Missouri Basin
problems and was preoccupied with engineering methods that did
not allow for adequate consideration of such important human
factors as the condemnation of farms and ranches and the
relocation of Indian families. The Corps had little in its
training or background that prepared it to deal knowledgeably
with Native Americans, and the Federal agency usually charged
with that responsibility, the BIA, was hampered during this
period by a severely-reduced budget and the threat of being
abolished altogether by those in Congress who supported the
termination of the government's trust responsibility for Indian
lands and resources.
While a more centralized administrative structure, such as
that proposed for the Missouri Valley Authority, might have
received an annual block appropriation for all of its
activities and functions, the numerous agencies involved with
Pick-Sloan had to deal with several separate committees in
Congress for funding of their particular part of the overall
program. This meant that the Corps often received generous
amounts for dam construction during years when the Sioux tribes
were not able to receive appropriations for their necessary
relocation or compensation for their losses. Because of this
lack of coordination, tribal members were denied most of the
important benefits offered by Pick-Sloan and the efforts at
reconstruction fell far short of their needs.
The Sioux Tribes knew little of the Pick-Sloan Plan until
long after it had been approved. Although existing treaty
rights provided that land could not be taken without their
consent, none of the tribes were consulted prior to the
program's enactment. The BIA was fully informed, yet made no
objections to the plan while it was being debated in Congress
in 1944. The BIA did not inform the tribes of the damages they
would suffer until 1947. The Corps, assuming it could acquire
the Indian land it needed through Federal powers of eminent
domain, began construction on its dams, including those
actually on reservation property, before opening formal
negotiations with the tribal leaders.
In 1947, the BIA made its first effort to represent tribal
interests within the MBIAC. To assess fully the damages to
Indian land resulting from Pick-Sloan, the BIA organized the
Missouri River Basin Investigations Project (MRBI) within the
structure of its regional office at Billings, Montana.
Initially this agency was given the task of conducting both
extensive reservation surveys and appraisals to estimate
replacement costs as well as social and economic damages
resulting from inundation. Later, the MRBI was assigned the
task of helping the tribes gain equitable settlements and to
assist relocation and reconstruction activities.
By the time the first MRBI staff members reached the field,
the Corps had spent approximately $28 million on the
preliminary construction of three of its main-stem projects,
including the Fort Randall Dam. A significant portion of the
reservoir to be developed behind Fort Randall Dam, Lake Francis
Case, would flood the land and resources of the Lower Brule
Reservation. Initial MRBI findings were not published until
1949, by which time the Corps had spent an additional $37.5
million on construction. Yet, it was not until these early MRBI
appraisals were made available that the Lower Brule Sioux
learned the full effect of Pick-Sloan on their reservation.
Construction of the Fort Randall Dam began in May of 1946.
This project was located downstream of the Lower Brule Indian
Reservation, 100 miles southeast of Lower Brule and just above
the Nebraska line in south-central South Dakota. When it was
completed in 1949, Fort Randall provided a water storage
capacity of 5.7 million acre-feet and a maximum hydroelectric
power output of 320,000 kilowatts. The reservoir behind the dam
extended over 107 miles. Fort Randall was built with compacted
earth fill, as were other Corps projects on the Missouri River.
Like the Garrison and Oahe dams, it featured a relatively high-
head dam (160 feet) and a chute-type spillway designed to
release excessive flows. Although in 1944 the Corps estimated
this project would cost $75 million, it ultimately cost more
than $200 million.
The Fort Randall Dam flooded 22,091 acres of Sioux land and
dislocated 136 Indian families. The flooding of 7,997 acres of
the Lower Brule Reservation caused the dislocation of 35 Indian
families or approximately 16 percent of the resident
population. Nearly one-half of the lost acreage was sheltered
pastureland. The Tribal LivestockEnterprise, the reservation's
primary industry, suffered a serious blow.
The complete inundation of Fort Thompson, the largest
community on the Crow Creek Reservation immediately across the
Missouri from Lower Brule, adversely affected the Lower Brule
Tribe. The BIA agency headquarters at Fort Thompson, which
served both the Crow Creek and Lower Brule tribes, and its
subagency in the town of Lower Brule were combined and
relocated off the reservations in Pierre, South Dakota, 60
miles from the town of Lower Brule. Likewise, the Public Health
Service hospital at Fort Thompson was moved in Chamberlain,
South Dakota, 30 miles from the town of Lower Brule. With the
closing of the Indian boarding school at Fort Thompson,
students from Lower Brule and Crow Creek were also compelled to
leave the reservations to attend high school. The off-
reservation facilities were now located over 80 miles from
remote parts of the reservations. Tribal offices remained on
Indian land but with the removal of BIA facilities it was no
longer possible for the Lower Brule Sioux to take care of their
BIA, public-health, and tribal business needs on the same day
at the same location. For a people whose transportation
facilities were severely limited, this situation created an
immense hardship.
While the Lower Brule Sioux were sustaining major damages
from the Fort Randall project, the Corps began work on the Big
Bend Dam in September, 1959. This project was located near the
new townsite of Fort Thompson on land belonging to the Lower
Brule and Crow Creek tribes. The smallest of the Corps' main-
stem structures, Big Bend Dam was developed primarily for
hydroelectric power production. Taking advantage of the long
bend in the river for which it was named, engineers built a dam
that produced 468,000 kilowatts and was just ninety-five feet
high.
The Big Bend project took an additional 21,026 acres of
Sioux land. Of the tribes affected, the Lower Brule suffered
the most damage. The flooding of 14,299 acres required the
relocation of the entire community of Lower Brule to a new site
one mile west of its former location. Sixty-two Indian
families, comprising 53 percent of the tribal population, were
displaced. Most of the timber and pastureland not already
destroyed by the Fort Randall Reservoir and nearly one-half of
the remaining farms and ranches were inundated. Because the
Corps wanted to change the original site of the Big Bend
project and waited until 1957 to select a final alternative
site, families on both the Lower Brule and the Crow Creek
reservations were relocated on lands within what became the
taking area for Big Bend Reservoir. These tribal members were
thus required to undergo the trauma of yet another move.
Because their families and most important resources were
concentrated near the Missouri River, resettlement devastated
affected members of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe. The natural
advantages of their former homes could not be replaced on the
marginal reservation lands that remained after inundation. The
shaded bottomlands had provided an environment with plenty of
wood, game, water, and natural food sources. Livestock grazed
on abundant grasses and took shelter under the trees. The
barren upland regions to which the Lower Brule people were
forced to move were less hospitable, more rigorous, and
presented far greater challenges to their survival.
The bottomlands were critically important to the way of
life of the Lower Brule people. Trees along the river had
provided them with their primary source of fuel and lumber. The
wooded areas also provided protection from the ravages of
winter blizzards and the scorching summer heat. The gathering
and selling of wood helped supplement their small cash income.
The flooding of the forestlands destroyed 90 percent of timber
on their reservation.
The wooded bottomlands also served as a shelter and feeding
ground for many kinds of wildlife. Deer, beaver, rabbits, and
raccoons were abundant year-round, and numerous pheasants and
other game birds wintered there each year. The hunting and
trapping of this game provided the Lower Brule Sioux with an
important source of food, income, and recreation. The gathering
and preserving of wild fruits and vegetables was a traditional
part of the culture of the Lower Brule Sioux. Traditionally,
they were also used for ceremonial and medicinal purposes. Wild
fruit, including chokecherries, buffalo berries, gooseberries,
and currants were readily available for picking. Destruction of
this environment by the Pick-Sloan dams reduced the wild game
and plant supply on the reservation by 75 percent.
The loss of the bottomland grazing areas seriously set back
the livestock industry on the Lower Brule Reservation. Ranching
had become the primary economic activity on the reservation in
the years prior to Pick-Sloan. The Tribal Livestock Enterprise
maintained ranches in four locations with a total of up to 700
head of cattle. However, the progress made in establishing a
tribal cattle enterprise was greatly hindered by the reservoir
projects. A substantial portion of the Indian ranchers were
forced either to liquidate their assets altogether or to
establish smaller operations on the inferior reservation land
that remained.
The upland regions also presented a stiff challenge for
Indian homeowners. The nature of the soil and terrain made
irrigation impractical, if not impossible, while the Pick-Sloan
project flooded the most potentially irrigable lands. The Fort
Randall and Big Bend projects, for example, destroyed the
possibility of implementing plans proposed jointly by the BIA
and the Bureau of Reclamation for sizable irrigation projects
on the Lower Brule Reservation.
Initial Efforts to Achieve Settlement of Tribal Claims
Realizing they were powerless to stop the dams, Sioux
tribal leaders were determined, nevertheless, to negotiate for
payments and benefits which would allow them to fully utilize
their remaining resources. In light of congressional debate
over the termination of Federal trust responsibilities, they
also sought compensation that might permit them to make
progress toward self-sufficiency, a goal established previously
by the administration of BIA Commissioner John Collier between
1933 and 1945. Thus, tribal negotiators reasoned that a
generous settlement might include the development of new
programs and facilities for health, education, housing,
community growth, and employment. They also hoped for such
direct benefits from the dam projects as low-cost electrical
power, irrigation, and improved water supplies.
Recognizing its obligation to ensure that the Sioux tribes
affected by Pick-Sloan received just compensation, Congress in
1950 authorized the Corps and the BIA to negotiate separate
settlement contracts with representatives of the Standing Rock
and Cheyenne River Sioux Tribes. In addition to providing
payment for all damages, these agencies were directed to cover
the costs of relocating tribal members so that their economic,
social, and religious life would be reestablished and
protected. Each of the agencies was required to prepare a
detailed analysis of damages, and in the event that they could
reach a satisfactory agreement in the field, the Congress was
to legislate a final settlement.
The Tribe petitioned in 1951 for prompt enactment of
similar settlement procedures for their negotiations, but
Congress did not act on their request until 1954. In the
meantime the tribes were not idle. Meetings were held on the
reservations to discuss contract terms, negotiating committees
were appointed, and contracts for legal counsel were finally
approved. Damage appraisals were prepared by both the Corps and
the BIA; MRBI staff members conducted socioeconomic surveys;
tribal lands were inspected by Indian Commissioner Dillon S.
Meyer; and a contract for legal counsel was finally approved by
the BIA. The Lower Brule Sioux retained Marcellus Q. Sharpe, a
former governor of South Dakota, as their attorney. As chairman
of the Missouri River States Committee, he had been a leading
advocate of the Corps' main-stem Missouri River projects during
the 1944 congressional debate on the Pick-Sloan Plan.
In 1951, the BIA announced that because of the Fort Randall
project it planned to move its facilities at Fort Thompson,
which served both the Crow Creek and Lower Brule Tribes, to the
non-Indian community of Chamberlain, South Dakota. It also
proclaimed that all schools on the reservations would be closed
and students would be transferred to nearby public
institutions. Hospital facilities at Fort Thompson had already
been moved to Chamberlain the previous year.
The Tribe vehemently opposed those decisions, which it
viewed as an initial step toward termination of Federal trust
services. Tribal leaders protested that the relocation plan
would create undue hardship. While Chamberlain was much closer
to Lower Brule than Pierre, there was a strong feeling that the
citizens of Chamberlain were prejudiced toward tribal members.
In a petition to D'Arcy McNickle of the BIA's Tribal Affairs
office, they asked that the decision be reconsidered.
In a letter to Herbert Wounded Knee, Crow Creek Tribal
Chairman, Commissioner Meyer denied that an official decision
had been made concerning the Fort Thompson facilities. He
assured the tribal leader that the BIA had no intention of
either ignoring tribal desires or depriving tribal members of
their rights, but in executive conference with other BIA
administrators on February 1, 1952, the Commissioner reaffirmed
the earlier decisions. On July 21, 1952, the gates of Fort
Randall Dam were closed, and by the end of the year portions of
the Lower Brule Reservation were under water. Still the Tribe
awaited the initiation of settlement talks. Negotiations were
finally opened at Fort Thompson on March 9, 1953.
The Corps offered the Lower Brule negotiators $233,756 for
their land and improvements. This settlement was based on an
appraisal made by the Corps Real Estate Division. BIA officials
offered $270,611, an amount reached by MRBI appraisers. When
Attorney Marcellus Q. Sharpe asked Corps officials if they
would accept the higher MRBI figures, they refused. The Corps
then threatened to take the land by condemnation if an
agreement could not be reached quickly. Several other meetings
were held during the next few months, but all failed to bring
the parties closer to settlement.
Army attorneys began preparing condemnation suits for the
taking of the Lower Brule land without waiting for further
developments. They claimed that the rising pool level of the
Fort Randall reservoir and the long delay of Congress in
establishing settlement guidelines left them no alternative.
The Tribe was assured that 90 percent of the appraised value of
tribal property would be made immediately available to it
through the Federal Court, and that this legal action would in
no way affect the eventual settlement from Congress. On June 1,
1953, a tentative agreement between the Corps and the tribe's
attorney was reached which included the Tribe's right to use
the land free of charge until a final settlement could be
reached and the retention of all mineral rights within the
reservoir area.
On August 4, 1953, the Corps filed suit in the United
States District Court of South Dakota in an attempt to obtain
title to lands on the Lower Brule and Crow Creek reservations.
The action went unchallenged, the Court passed favorably on
thecondemnation request, and the Corps again succeeded in circumventing
its legal obligations to the Indians. Despite previous agreements, an
amount equal to the Corps' land appraisal rather than that of the BIA
was deposited with the Court, but this money was never distributed to
the tribes. The United States Attorney's office failed to file a
declaration of taking, which would have given the Corps full title to
the land, before Congress passed a law establishing legal guidelines
for the Fort Randall negotiations in July, 1954. This act required
Federal representatives to open new talks with the tribes. When these
negotiations failed to bring about an agreement by 1955, the Justice
Department permitted the Corps to proceed with its original
condemnation suits.
the fort randall settlement
By 1954, construction of the Fort Randall Dam was 84
percent complete, all non-Indian land needed for the project
had been acquired, and the pool level of the reservoir was
rising rapidly, while Indian property owners still awaited
Congressional action. Finally, legislation providing a
settlement for the Yankton Sioux and establishing contract
guidelines for the Lower Brule and Crow Creek Tribes was
approved on July 6, 1954.
Negotiation guidelines established for the Lower Brule
Sioux were similar to those provided for the Cheyenne River and
Standing Rock tribes in 1950, with some important exceptions.
The growing urgency of the situation caused Congress to shorten
time limits for further talks; BIA and Corps representatives
were given only a year to obtain a contract agreement. Despite
treaty provisions and precedents established in earlier
settlements with the Fort Berthold and Cheyenne River Tribes,
tribal ratification requirements were lowered from three-fourth
of the adult tribal members to a simple majority. The Interior
Department had recommended this action in order to expedite
approval. In addition, the retention of tribal mineral rights
was limited to gas and oil.
New talks with the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe were begun in
the autumn of 1954 but ended again in deadlock. The BIA raised
its offer for a property settlement to allow for the increase
in land values since 1951, the year of the last MRBI appraisal.
The Corps refused to offer any more than the amount it had
previously deposited with the federal court in its condemnation
suits of 1953. Although the Tribe was increasingly pressured by
the impending flood, it was determined to hold out for better
terms. Lower Brule negotiators, for example, demanded a
property settlement of $508,493, which was 82 percent higher
than the best Bureau of Indian Affairs offer. In the meantime
tribal leaders were compelled by circumstances to make plans
for the evacuation of their lands.
Lower Brule families within the Fort Randall taking area
faced the prospect of having their homes inundated during the
spring runoff of 1955, yet they still had no money with which
to move. Condemnation funds deposited with the court were not
available because the Justice Department had not yet filed a
``declaration of taking'' on the land, and the chances for a
timely Congressional settlement appeared increasingly dim.
Because it was anticipated that favorable agreements could not
be reached with BIA and Corps representatives, Senator Francis
Case and Congressman E.Y. Berry of South Dakota were asked to
introduce settlement legislation for the tribes in the Eighty-
third Congress. These bills, which asked for $6,348,316 for the
Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, were not given consideration. As a
result, the Tribe expected that it would have to use its own
meager funds to help families relocate. During the fall of 1954
tribal leaders began planning for this eventuality.
Following a breakdown of negotiations in November, 1954,
both the Corps and the BIA requested the Justice Department to
carry out the condemnation suits filed in 1953. The Corps
wanted clear title to the land, and the BIA wanted some money
dispersed to tribal members before they were forced to move.
Consequently, an official declaration of taking was filed on
January 20, 1955. The Court allowed the Corps to take the
Indian land it needed--the legality of the suite was not
questioned. The Corps later claimed that its action was legal
because the settlement guidelines, established by Congress the
previous year, had stipulated that negotiations would not be
allowed to interfere with the scheduled construction of the
Fort Randall project. The Corps, however, had filed suit before
the legislation was passed, and nothing in the act itself
specifically authorized the Corps to exercise the right of
eminent domain.
On March 22, 1955, Indian landowners on the Lower Brule
Reservation received $270,611 as partial payment for their
property. BIA assistance was requested in the distribution and
expenditure of these funds, and a tribal committee was formed
to plan relocation activities.
The Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, like the Standing Rock Sioux,
was compelled for three more years to pursue a legislative
settlement. New legislation incorporating tribal demands was
introduced in the 84th and 85th Congresses; but despite the
obvious urgency of the settlements, the Congress did not act,
and in the meantime, the Fort Randall project was officially
dedicated on August 11, 1956.
White legislation was being considered in the Congress, in
January of 1958, an injunctive action was filed on behalf of
the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe in Federal district court to halt
further construction of the Oahe Dam project until an adequate
settlement was negotiated with the Tribe, arguing that the
Corps did not have the legal authority to condemn Standing Rock
property, citing the Sioux Treaty of 1868, which provided that
land could be taken from the tribe only upon payment of just
compensation and the consent of three-fourths of its adult
membership. The action also sought to establish that even
though the Supreme Court had determined that the Congress had
the right ofeminent domain over Indian land as long as just
compensation was provided in accordance with the Fifth Amendment, the
court had also ruled in at least two cases that this power rested only
with the Congress and could not be extended to other Federal agencies
without express authorization.
The presiding Judge, George T. Mickelson, a former governor
of South Dakota, decided on March 10, 1958, to uphold the
tribe's motion to dismiss the Army's condemnation suit. In
doing so, he ruled that the Congress had not authorized the
Corps to take Indian lands by any legislative act, including
the Flood Control Act of 1944. ``It is clear to this Court,''
he observed, ``that Congress has never provided the requisite
authority to the Secretary of the Army to condemn this tribal
land. Such action is wholly repugnant to the entire history of
Congressional and judicial treatment of the Indians.''
Six months later, settlement legislation for the Lower
Brule Sioux, the Crow Creek Sioux, and Standing Rock Sioux
Tribes was enacted into law. The Lower Brule Sioux received
$976,523 for their property, including their interest in the
riverbed and all damages caused by the Fort Randall project.
Unlike the Standing Rock Sioux, the Lower Brule Tribe was
denied rehabilitation money and the right to regain ownership
of any former property found unnecessary for the project.
Although no limit was placed on moving costs, the Tribe was
required to pay all relocation expenses out of its settlement
funds. The Standing Rock and Cheyenne River legislation had
provided that such costs would be charged to the Corps' project
budget. In addition, the Lower Brule Sioux did not receive
protection for livestock hazards as the Cheyenne River Tribe
had or the right to ratify the final agreement, nor were they
permitted the same degree of autonomy over control and
distribution of settlement funds, relocation of tribal members,
or consolidation of their land.
Of all the Sioux tribes, only the Lower Brule and Crow
Creek suffered the hardship of having to move two years before
receiving a settlement, and they alone were denied funds for
rehabilitating their reservations, although their poverty was
relatively greater. They were also the only tribes that would
face the same ordeal again.
the big bend settlement
Even as tribal negotiators were in Washington seeking
compensation for Fort Randall damages, Corps crews were
surveying Lower Brule land for the Big Bend project.
Construction of this dam was scheduled to begin in September
1960, thereby making it necessary for the Tribe to negotiate a
settlement by that time if it hoped to avoid losing more land
without adequate compensation. The Corps, however, worked ahead
of schedule and ground-breaking ceremonies for the project took
place on May 30, 1960.
Legislation for the Crow Creek and Lower Brule Sioux Tribes
was introduced in Congress on March 2, 1960, just three months
before the ground-breaking ceremonies for Big Bend Dam. A week
later, the Corps again filed suit in Federal district court to
condemn the 867 acres of Indian land needed for the actual
project site, despite the earlier decision handed down by the
same court in regard to the Standing Rock suit in 1958.
Congress had still not specifically delegated its powers of
eminent domain to the Army, yet the Corps was allowed to take
title to the reservation land.
In 1962, fourteen years after construction began on Fort
Randall Dam and two years after construction began on Big Bend
Dam, the Congress enacted the Big Bend Recovery Act, Public Law
87-734, which directed the Corps ``to protect, replace,
relocate or reconstruct any existing essential governmental and
agency facilities on the Lower Brule reservation, including
schools, hospitals, Public Health Service and Bureau of Indian
Affairs offices, facilities, service buildings, and employees'
quarters, roads, bridges, and incidental matters or facilities
in connection therewith''. The Act also directed the Corps to
construct ``a townsite for the new town of Lower Brule,
including substitute and replacement streets, utilities,
including water, sewerage, and electricity, taking into account
* * * the reasonable future growth of the new town''.
The Lower Brule Sioux Tribe was granted $825,000 for direct
damages (including the loss of the riverbed and gravel),
$400,715 for indirect damages, and $1,968,750 for
rehabilitation, for a total of $3,194,465. Moving expenses were
limited to $247,325 and negotiating expenses to $75,000.
Requests for shoreline boundary markers, fire protection, and
unrestricted grazing, hunting, and fishing rights were denied.
The Tribe received the same salvage and shoreline rights
provided in all previous Pick-Sloan tribal settlements, subject
to Federal regulation, but with the additional right to lease
shoreline grazing areas to non-Indians if the tribe chose. No
provision was given for special tribal funds to be developed
from these revenues as the Tribe had hoped, and the Corps was
given the authority to regulate the location, size, and nature
of all land so used.
reconstruction
With the passage of the Big Bend Recovery Act, the Federal
government acquired the last tribal lands needed for the Pick-
Sloan main-stem projects. Over the span of fourteen years and
at a cost of over $34 million, the United States had obtained
title to approximately 204,124 acres of Sioux property, more
Indian land than was taken for any other public works project
in the United States. None of the tribes considered their
compensation adequate. As long and arduous as the process of
negotiating finalsettlement was, it was only the first stage of
the Pick-Sloan ordeal for the tribes affected. Once compensation was
received, and benefits and provisions were outlined in law, or even
earlier in the case of the Fort Randall takings, plans had to be
implemented for the relocation of tribal members and their property,
the reconstruction and restoration of reservation facilities and
services, and the rehabilitation of entire Indian communities.
For the Sioux Tribes, the period of reconstruction was the
most difficult phase of the Pick-Sloan experience. The Sioux
Tribes affected by Pick-Sloan often experienced as much
difficulty in obtaining their funds as the government did in
distributing them. The Lower Brule Sioux had a particularly
difficult time in relocation families from the Fort Randall
reservoir area. Because the tribe only received money from the
Corps' condemnation settlement at the time they were forced to
move, its relocation program had to be tailored to fit the
funds available rather to meet the goal of full reestablishment
as contemplated by the Congress. Aimed at immediate results
rather than comprehensive rehabilitation, the Corps' efforts
did not provide for such crucial items as development of
satisfactory water supplies, construction of sufficient
housing, or reestablishment of lost sources of income.
Although the Fort Randall project has been announced a full
decade earlier, neither the Corps nor the BIA was prepared to
implement an efficient relocation program when the time came
for the Indians to move. Though it was clearly their
responsibility to do so, neither agency had bothered to survey
the reservations for new homesites or to investigate the actual
cost of building materials. They failed to keep tribal members
fully informed about the relocation plans affecting them. Kept
in uncertainty until the last possible moment, the Tribe was
compelled to proceed in haste when the time came to evacuate
its lands.
Tribal families were crowded into temporary quarters until
houses could be relocated and restored. In the chaos that
followed, many were assigned to the wrong tracts of land and
eventually had to move a second time. Shacks that should have
qualified only for destruction had to be moved and repaired
simply because there was not enough money for new housing.
Despite the Congressional mandate to mitigate the impacts
of the dam projects, subsequent funding requests for the Corps
and the BIA to carry out these directives were insufficient for
that purpose. Some educational and health facilities serving
the Lower Brule Tribe were either not replaced or restored
adequately or not restored at all. The new water system was not
adequate to accommodate ``reasonable future growth''.
Replacement houses were neither well built nor sufficiently
insulated. Whether due to underestimating the costs of
mitigation or other reasons, the school, hospital, townsite and
other infrastructure replacement guaranteed to the Tribe in the
1962 Act were not provided as promised. In short, the Federal
government failed at every turn in making the Tribe whole.
legislative history
Senator Daschle introduced S. 156 for himself and Senator
Johnson on January 21, 1997. Although initially referred to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, the bill was
subsequently discharged from the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources and rereferred to the Committee on Indian
Affairs on May 21, 1997. The Committee held a hearing on S. 156
on October 20, 1997.
committee recommendation and tabulation of vote
On October 23, 1997, the Committee on Indian Affairs, in an
open business session, considered S. 156 and ordered it
reported with a technical amendment, with a recommendation that
the bill, as amended, be passed.
section-by-section analysis
Section 1. This section states the short title of the Act
as the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe Infrastructure Development Trust
Fund Act.
Section 2. This section sets forth the findings of the
Congress.
Section 2(1) states that the Congress approved the Pick-
Sloan Missouri basin program by passing the Flood Control Act
of 1944 to promote the general economic development of the
United States, to provide for irrigation above Sioux City,
Iowa, to protect urban and rural areas from devastating floods
of the Missouri River, and for other purposes.
Section 2(2) expresses the finding of the Congress that the
Fort Randall and Big Bend projects are major components of the
Pick-Sloan program, and contribute to the national economy by
generating a substantial amount of hydropower and impounding a
substantial quantity of water.
Section 2(3) expresses the finding of the Congress that the
Fort Randall and Big Bend projects overlie the eastern boundary
of the Lower Brule Sioux Reservation, having inundated the
fertile, wooded bottom lands of the tribe along the Missouri
River that constituted the most productive agricultural and
pastoral lands of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe and the homeland
of the members of the Tribe.
Section 2(4) states the finding of the Congress that Public
Law 85-923 authorized the acquisition of 7,997 acres of Indian
land on the Lower Brule Sioux Indian Reservation for the Fort
Randall project and Public Law 87-734 authorized the
acquisition of 14,299 acres of Indian land on the Lower Brule
Sioux Indian Reservation for the Big Bend project.
Section 2(5) sets forth the finding of the Congress that
Public Law 87-734 provided forthe mitigation of the effects of
the Fort Randall and Big Bend projects on the Lower Brule Indian
Reservation, by directing the Secretary of the Army to:
(A) replace, relocate, or reconstruct any existing
essential governmental and agency facilities on the
reservation, including schools, hospitals, offices of
the Public Health Service and the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, service buildings, and employee quarters, as
well as roads, bridges, and incidental matters or
facilities in connection with those facilities;
(B) provide for a townsite adequate for 50 homes,
including streets and utilities (including water,
sewage, and electricity), taking into account the
reasonable future growth of the townsite; and
(C) provide for a community center containing space
and facilities for community gatherings, tribal
offices, tribal council chamber, offices of the Bureau
of Indian Affairs, offices and quarters of the Public
Health Service, and a combination gymnasium and
auditorium.
Section 2(6) states that the requirements under Public Law
87-734 with respect to the mitigation of the effects of the
Fort Randall and Big Bend projects on the Lower Brule Indian
Reservation have not been fulfilled.
Section 2(7) expresses the finding of the Congress that
although the national economy has benefited from the Fort
Randall and Big Bend projects, the economy on the Lower Brule
Indian Reservation remains underdeveloped, in part as a
consequence of the failure of the United States to fulfill its
obligations under Public Law 85-916 and Public Law 87-735.
Section 2(8) contains the finding of the Congress that the
economic and social development and cultural preservation of
the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe will be enhanced by increased
tribal participation in the benefits of the Fort Randall and
Big Bend components of the Pick-Sloan program.
Section 2(9) expresses the finding of the Congress that the
Lower Brule Sioux Tribe is entitled to additional benefits of
the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin program.
Section 3 provides definitions of five terms used in S.
156.
Section 3(1) defines the term ``Fund'' to mean the Lower
Brule Sioux Tribe Infrastructure Development Trust Fund
established under section 4(a) of the bill.
Section 3(2) defines the term ``plan'' to mean the plan for
socioeconomic recovery and cultural preservation prepared under
section 5 of the bill.
Section 3(3) defines the term ``Program'' to mean the power
program of the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin program,
administered by the Western Area Power Administration.
Section 3(4) defines the term ``Secretary'' to mean the
Secretary of the Interior.
Section 3(5) defines the term ``Tribe'' to mean the Lower
Brule Sioux Tribe of Indians, a band of the Great Sioux Nation
recognized by the United States of America.
Section 4 of S. 156 provides for the establishment of the
``Lower Brule Sioux Tribe Infrastructure Development Trust
Fund''.
Subsection 4(a) establishes in the U.S. Treasury a fund to
be known as the ``LowerBrule Sioux Tribe Infrastructure
Development Trust Fund''.
Subsection 4(b) requires the Secretary of the Treasury to
deposit into the Trust Fund 25 percent of the receipts from the
deposits to the Treasury from the Pick-Sloan program until such
deposits total $39,300,000.
Subsection 4(c) requires the Secretary of the Treasury to
invest the money in the Trust Fund only in interest-bearing
obligations of the United States or in obligations guaranteed
as to both principal and interest by the United States.
Subsection (d) requires the Secretary of the Treasury,
beginning with the fiscal year immediately following the fiscal
year during which the Trust Fund is fully funded, to transfer
any interest earned on the Trust Fund into a separate account
which shall be available, without fiscal year limitation, to
the Secretary of the Interior. The Secretary of the Interior
may only withdraw funds from the account to make payments to
the tribe, which can only use the funds to carry out projects
and programs pursuant to the plan prepared under section 5. No
per capita payments may be made to any tribal member.
Subsection (e) bars the Secretary of the Treasury from
making any withdrawals from the Trust Fund except to make
payments to the Secretary of the Interior to make payments to
the tribe.
Section 5. Section 5 of the bill provides for the
development of a plan for socioeconomic recovery and cultural
preservation.
Subsection (a) requires the Tribe, within two years of
enactment of the bill, to prepare a plan for use of the funds
to be paid to the Tribe by the Secretary of the Interior. In
developing the plan, the Tribe must consult with the Secretary
of the Interior and the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
The plan shall identify the costs and benefits of each of its
components.
Subsection (b) requires the plan to include (1) an
educational facility; (2) a comprehensive inpatient and
outpatient health care facility to provide essential services
unavailable through existing facilities of the Indian Health
Service on the reservation; (3) the construction, operation and
maintenance of a municipal, rural and industrial water system;
(4) recreational facilities suitable for high-density
recreation at Lake Sharpe at Big Bend Dam and at other
locations on the reservation; and, (5) other projects and
programs for the educational, social welfare, economic
development, and cultural preservation of the Tribe as the
Tribe considers appropriate.
Section 6 of S. 156 authorizes the appropriation of such
sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of the
bill, including funds for administrative expenses associated
with the Trust Fund established under section 4.
Section 7 of S. 156 addresses the effect of payments to the
Lower Brule Sioux Tribe.
Subsection (a) provides that no payment to the Tribe
pursuant to this Act shall result in the reduction or denial of
any service or program to which, pursuant to Federal law, the
Tribe is otherwise entitled because of its status as a
Federally recognized Indian tribe, or to which any individual
tribal member is entitled because of that individual's status
as a member of the Tribe.
Subsection (b) provides that no payment made under this Act
shall affect Pick-Sloan Missouri River basin power rates, and
that nothing in this Act may be construed as diminishing or
affecting any right of the Tribe that is not otherwise
addressed in this Act, or any treaty obligation of the United
States.
cost and budgetary considerations
The cost estimate for S. 156, as amended, as calculated by
the Congressional Budget Office, is set forth below:
S. 156--Lower Brule Sioux Tribe Infrastructure Development Trust Fund
Act
Summary: S. 156 would provide compensation to the Lower
Brule Sioux Tribe for the taking of reservation lands to build
the Fort Randall and Big Bend dam projects. The bill would set
up an economic recovery fund for the tribe and make interest
from the fund available to the tribe for education, social
welfare, and economic development programs.
CBO estimates that enacting S. 156 would create new direct
spending authority of $1.2 million in fiscal year 1999, 2.5
million in 2000, and $2.6 million for each of fiscal years 2001
and 2002. We estimate that resulting outlays would total about
$5.6 million over the 1999-2002 period. Because S. 156 would
affect direct spending, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply.
In addition, S. 156 would authorize the appropriation of such
sums as may be necessary to carry out this act, including funds
necessary to cover the administrative expenses of the economic
recovery fund. Based on information from the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA), CBO estimates that any increase in discretionary
spending would be negligible. S. 156 contains no
intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA).
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The costs of this
legislation fall within budget function 450 (community and
regional development). The estimated budgetary impact of S. 156
is shown in the following table.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars
---------------------------------------------
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING
Estimated budget authority....................................... 0 1 2 3 3
Estimated outlays................................................ 0 (1) 1 2 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Less than $500,000.
Basis of estimate: S. 156 would establish an economic
recovery fund for the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe. Beginning with
fiscal year 1998, the bill would direct the Secretary of the
Treasury to deposit up to 25 percent of the receipts in the
preceding fiscal year from the Pick-Sloan Missouri River basin
program into the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe Infrastructure
Development Trust Fund in the United States Treasury. Once
$39.3 million is deposited, no further principal deposits would
be made. The bill would direct that the fund's principal be
invested in interest-bearing Treasury securities and that the
fund's interest earnings be transferred to a separate account
and be made available to the tribe--without fiscal year
limitation or the need for further appropriation--beginning in
the fiscal year after the fund is capitalized.
Direct spending
Based on information from the Western Area Power
Administration--which markets electricity produced from the
Pick-Sloan Missouri River basin--CBO estimates that receipts
from the Pick-Sloan project for fiscal year 1997 totaled about
$260 million. Therefore, CBO expects that the fund would be
fully capitalized in fiscal year 1998 with a deposit of $39.3
million. the deposit to the trust fund would be an
intragovernmental transfer and there would be no net outlays
associated with it.
S. 156 would make the interest on the amounts in the
economic recovery fund available to the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe
for education, social welfare, and economic development. For
the purpose of this estimate, CBO assumes that S. 156 will be
enacted in the first quarter of calendar year 1998 and that the
$39.3 million deposit into the fund will be made by March 31,
1998; thus, the deposits would earn interest for one-half of
fiscal year 1998 and interest earnings would first become
available for spending in fiscal year 1999. We assumethat the
principal balance in the fund would earn interest at an annual rate of
about 6.2 percent, which is CBO's baseline projection of the interest
rate on 10-year Treasury securities. Under S. 156, interest earned on
the $39.3 million principal would be transferred to a separate Treasury
account and then made available for spending by the Lower Brule Sioux
Tribe. Unspent interest in that amount also would earn interest, but at
a lower (short-term) rate. We assume that balances in the account would
accrue interest at a rate of about 5 percent.
As a result, CBO estimates that interest earnings of $1.2
million would be made available to the tribe in fiscal year
1999 and interest earnings of between $2.5 million and $2.6
million would be made available for each of fiscal years 2000
through 2002. Estimated outlays of this interest are based on
historical spending rates for programs with similar goals and
activities as those stated in this bill.
Spending subject to appropriation
S. 156 would authorize to be appropriated such funds as may
be necessary to carry out the legislation. CBO estimates that
any increase in discretionary spending would be negligible. The
Office of Trust Fund Management within the Department of the
Interior would be responsible for the creation and maintenance
of the trust fund created by S. 156. According to BIA, it is
unlikely that the Office of Trust Fund Management would have to
hire any additional employees to manage the new fund.
Pay-as-you-go considerations: The Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 specifies pay-as-you-go
procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or
receipts. For purposes of enforcing pay-as-you-go procedures,
only the effects in the budget year and the succeeding four
years are counted. CBO estimates that enacting S. 156 would
have no effect on direct spending in 1998, but would result in
direct spending of less than $500,000 in 1999, and gradually
increasing amounts in succeeding years, as indicated in the
following table.
SUMMARY OF EFFECTS ON DIRECT SPENDING AND RECEIPTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars
---------------------------------------------------------------------
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes in outlays........................ 0 0 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 3
Changes in receipts.......................
(9) Not applicable
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated impact on State, local, and tribal governments:
S. 156 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in
UMRA. As a condition of receiving payments from the federal
government, section 5 of the bill would require the Lower Brule
Sioux Tribe to prepare a plan for use of those payments and
would specify a number of elements to included in the plan.
Based on information provided by the tribe, CBO estimates that
the cost of complying with this requirement would be minimal.
The annual payments received from the federal government would
be used by the tribe to carry out projects included in the
plan.
S. 156 would impose no other costs on state, local, or
tribal governments.
Estimated impact on the private sector: The bill would
impose no new private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Kristen Layman; Impact
on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Marjorie Miller.
Estimate approved by: Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
regulatory and paperwork impact statement
Paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the
Senate requires each report accompanying a bill to evaluate the
regulatory and paperwork impact that would be incurred in
carrying out the provisions of the bill.
The Committee believes that the enactment of S. 156 will
have a minimal regulatory or paperwork impact.
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS
The Committee received the following testimony from the
U.S. Department of the Interior setting forth the position of
the Administration of S. 156. Issues addressed in this
testimony were resolved prior to the markup of S. 156.
STATEMENT OF TERRY VIRDEN, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF TRUST RESPONSIBILITIES
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I
am pleased to be here today to present the Department of the
Interior's views on S. 156, ``the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe
Infrastructure Development Trust Fund Act of 1997.'' I wish to
thank Senator Daschle for introducing the bill which addresses
longstanding problems regarding development in the Missouri
River Basin and its impacts on Indian tribes residing in the
region. If enacted, this bill would provide the Lower Brule
Sioux Tribe with much deserved benefits from the Missouri River
Basin Pick-Sloan Program.
S. 156 is a continuation of the United States efforts to
correct inequities resulting from a regional Federal
development project which affected several Tribes, many of
which did not receive any appreciable benefits from that
development. We view this as a companion to Public Law 104-223,
the ``Crow Creek Sioux Tribe Infrastructure Development Trust
Fund Act of 1996,'' which was also sponsored by Senator Daschle
and addressed many of these same issues for the Crow Creek
Sioux Tribe.
The Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin Program, or Pick-Sloan,
is a major Federal program that provides for economic
development, irrigation, and flood control in the Missouri
River Basin. Two of the primary components of Pick-Sloan are
the Fort Randall and Big Bend projects. While these two
projects have resulted in economic benefits for the United
States in general, and more specifically for the Missouri River
Basin, they have had a devastating impact on the Lower Brule
Sioux Tribe, its culture, and its economy.
Fifty years ago the Big Bend and Fort Randall Dams flooded
over 22,000 acres of tribal homelands. As a result, over 70
percent of the Tribe's residents were forced to relocate from
historical cultural homelands and fertile river lands. These
lands were taken and permanently sacrificed to provide for the
general welfare of the United States.
S.156 provides the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe to be a major
beneficiary of the Pick-Sloan, for which they sacrificed so
much, and to share in the economic development it has provided
over the past fifty years.
While this legislation is not the final chapter in
addressing compensation for the sacrifices of all tribes the
region, it is an important step toward providing much needed
resources for the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe.
The Administration could support S. 156 if amended. As
currently drafted, the bill would be subject to pay-as-you-go
requirements of the Omnibus Budget and Reconciliation Act of
1990, as amended and its costs would need to be offset. In
addition, S. 156 would need to be amended to conform to Federal
financial management principles that disallow the payment of
interest on appropriation.
This concludes my testimony. We would be happy to work with
the Committee staff to develop amendments. I will be happy to
respond to any questions you may have. Thank you.
changes in existing law
In compliance with subsection 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by
the bill are required to be set out in the accompanying
Committee report. The Committee states that enactment of S. 156
will not result in any changes in existing law.