1.) The Big Bend  Dam is 95 feet high and was completed in September 1966. Consultant’s Compensation Analysis Differs from the Approach GAO Previously Used for Other Tribes

The Crow Creek Sioux and Lower Brule Sioux tribes’ consultant differed  from the approach we used in our prior reports. Consultant Used Various Settlement Proposals, Rather Than Consistently Using the Tribes’ Final Asking Prices

To arrive at an additional compensation estimate, the consultant did not  consistently use the tribes’ final asking prices when calculating the  difference between what the tribes asked for and what they finally  received. With respect to the Fort Randall Dam, the consultant used amounts from a  variety of settlement proposals for damages and administrative expenses. Lastly, the consultant did not use the tribes’ final asking prices for the  rehabilitation component of the settlement payment. In our view, the  consultant should have used the final rehabilitation figures proposed by the  tribes in 1961—that is, $4 million for the Crow Creek Sioux tribe and $2.7  million for the Lower Brule Sioux tribe. Consultant Developed a Single Compensation Estimate for Each Tribe, Rather Than a Range of Estimates

In our two prior reports, we suggested that, for the tribes of Fort Berthold,  Standing Rock, and Cheyenne River, the Congress consider a range of  possible compensation based on the current value of the difference  between the final asking price of each tribe and the amount that it received. Amounts Calculated by GAO Are Similar to the Amounts Received by the Tribes in the 1990s

Using the approach we followed in our prior reports, which was based on  the tribes’ final asking prices, we found that the additional compensation  the Crow Creek Sioux and Lower Brule Sioux tribes received in the 1990s  was either at the high end or above the range of possible additional  compensation. We  then took the difference and adjusted it to account for the inflation rate and  the Aaa corporate bond rate through either 1996 or 1997 to produce a  possible range of additional compensation to compare it with the  additional compensation the Congress authorized for the tribes in 1996 and  1997. There are two primary reasons for the difference between our  additional compensation amounts and the consultant’s amounts. Second, our dollar values were adjusted to account for inflation and  interest earned only through 1996 and 1997 to compare them with what  the two tribes received in additional compensation at that time. The  consultant, however, adjusted for interest earned up through 2003. In  addition, he then incorrectly adjusted for the additional compensation  the tribes were authorized in the 1990s. 109 and S. 374—would have the  opposite effect. Our analysis does  not support the additional compensation amounts contained in H.R. 109  and S. 374. Consultant’s Comments and Our Evaluation

Because the consultant’s analysis was the basis for the tribes’ additional  compensation claims and the consultant had asserted that the additional  compensation amounts were based on a methodology deemed appropriate  by GAO, we chose to provide the tribes’ consultant with a draft of this  report for review and comment. GAO Comments

1. Nonetheless, if the Congress relies  on our analysis in this report and does not provide a third round of  compensation to the Crow Creek Sioux and Lower Brule Sioux tribes,  the additional compensation provided to five of the seven tribes—the  Cheyenne River Sioux tribe, the Crow Creek Sioux tribe, the Lower  Brule Sioux tribe, the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, and the Three  Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation—would generally fall  within the ranges we calculated using our approach, thereby leaving  only two tribes—the Santee Sioux tribe and the Yankton Sioux tribe— that would have had their additional compensation calculated on a per- acre basis and not reviewed by GAO. 6. First,  other tribes not affected by dam projects were also provided with  rehabilitation funding.
Why GAO Did This Study

From 1946 to 1966, the government constructed the Fort Randall and Big Bend Dams as flood control projects on the Missouri River in South Dakota. The reservoirs created behind the dams flooded about 38,000 acres of the Crow Creek and Lower Brule Indian reservations. The tribes received compensation when the dams were built and additional compensation in the 1990s. The tribes are seeking a third round of compensation based on a consultant's analysis. The Congress provided additional compensation to other tribes after two prior GAO reports. For those reports, GAO found that one recommended approach to providing additional compensation would be to calculate the difference between the tribe's final asking price and the amount that was appropriated by the Congress, and then to adjust it using the inflation rate and an interest rate to reflect a range of current values. GAO was asked to assess whether the tribes' consultant followed the approach used in GAO's prior reports. The additional compensation amounts calculated by the tribes' consultant are contained in H.R. 109 and S. 374.

What GAO Found

The tribes' consultant differed from the approach used in prior GAO reports by (1) not using the tribes' final asking prices as the starting point of the analysis and (2) not providing a range of additional compensation. First, in calculating additional compensation amounts, GAO used the tribes' final asking prices, recognizing that their final settlement position should be the most complete and realistic. In contrast, the consultant used selected figures from a variety of tribal settlement proposals. For example, for the rehabilitation component of the tribes' settlement proposals, the consultant used $13.1 million from proposals in 1957, rather than $6.7 million from the tribes' final rehabilitation proposals in 1961. Second, the tribes' consultant calculated only the highest additional compensation dollar value rather than providing the Congress with a range of possible additional compensation based on different adjustment factors, as in the earlier GAO reports. Based on calculations using the tribes' final asking prices, GAO's estimated range of additional compensation is generally comparable with what the tribes were authorized in the 1990s. By contrast, the consultant estimated about $106 million and $186 million for Crow Creek and Lower Brule, respectively (in 2003 dollars). There are two primary reasons for this difference. First, GAO used the tribes' final rehabilitation proposals from 1961, rather than the 1957 proposals used by the consultant. Second, GAO's dollar amounts were adjusted only through 1996 and 1997 to compare them directly with what the tribes received at that time. The consultant, however, adjusted for interest earned through 2003, before comparing it with the payments authorized in the 1990s. The additional compensation already authorized for the tribes in the 1990s is consistent with the additional compensation authorized for other tribes on the Missouri River. GAO's analysis does not support the additional compensation amounts contained in H.R. 109 and S. 374.