Final Version of Federal Land Act Causes Division within Sioux Nation Story-Date: 12:54 p.m. PST Sunday , November 1, 1998 ------------------------------------------------------------ Final Version of Federal Land Act Causes Division within Sioux Nation By David Melmer, Indian Country Today, Rapid City, S.D. Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News Nov. 2--EAGLE BUTTE, S.D.--The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe opposed the very legislation it helped to create. An act that would give back some land taken by the federal government more than 40 years ago has caused a division within the Sioux Nation. The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe and State of South Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife Restoration Act, more commonly known as the "mitigation bill" was signed into law against the wishes of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, its most ardent supporter. The tribe changed positions because of last-minute changes conducted behind closed Congressional doors. "This is not our bill. We have spent two years negotiating this bill and someone changed it at the last minute without consulting us," said Gregg Bourland, chairman of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Council. "We only found out about these changes by chance," he said. "There is a new section which gives a water permit, easements and rights-of-way to the Oglala Sioux Tribe under the state of South Dakota's land transfer which would violate treaty water rights. We were never consulted on this new section." Bourland and the CRST council were surprised by the addition of language directing a one-year study be conducted to determine if the land transfer would affect any downstream water use. Bourland drafted an executive resolution and sent letters to President Bill Clinton asking that he use the line-item veto; and to Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., minority leader, asking him to "rectify" the situation. The bill, originally part of a water rights measure, ended up attached to the Omnibus Appropriations Bill, which was passed on Oct. 21 and signed by the president the following day. Daschle had no comment about the changes in the act. "We Lakota people have been made many promises in the past by the United States only to have them broken. Title VIII represents another broken promise by the United States to my people," Chairman Bourland said in his letter to the president. Bourland, who had been working on the language of the proposed act said from the beginning that if the wording ever infringed on water rights he would oppose the bill. The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe has determined that provisions in the new language do just that. The mitigation act did not come without struggle and controversy. Not all tribes or organizations supported the measure, while Cheyenne River stood steadfast in its support. Other tribes and the Great Sioux Nation Treaty Council, which opposed the act, did not expect Cheyenne River to reverse its position. But the act did change. The new language gave the Oglala Sioux Tribe an easement on land that will be given to the state for the Mni Wiconi Water project. The language gives the Oglala Sioux Tribe exclusive rights in perpetuity to the easement, but the state will own the land. Bourland said he was not opposed to the Oglala interests, and supported them, but he and the CRST council did not appreciate the word exclusive. There also was some confusion about an easement rather than tribal ownership. "The land was going to belong to the Oglala on the west side, we did not oppose that, we promoted it and even said it was a good idea," Bourland said. Bourland also said he thought the Oglala Sioux Tribe wanted ownership of the land, not an easement. He said he reread the original intent and realized the Oglalas were not asking for ownership of the land. "I guess I'm the guy that wanted the land for Oglala. I guess I misread something there in the interpretation. I thought the Oglala would want the land, because ownership of the land and the water rights is the most critical thing. But I missed that," Bourland said. Attempts to reach Oglala Sioux Tribal President John Steele were not successful. Study requirements and payment schedules either changed or were added to the final version of the measure without the knowledge of the proponents of the measure. According to Sen. Daschle's office, the new language ordering the study was entered into the bill to accommodate concerns of downstream states. Missouri was most vocal in asking for the environmental impact study to protect its water use for transportation, according to Sen. Daschle's office. A change in the time-line for payment was altered in the Appropriations Committee. The original act provided that funds would be made available immediately, to begin work on restoring wildlife habitat. That changed because it did not fall in line with Congressional rules concerning appropriations that affect budgets over a 10-year period. The appropriations committee will have to be approached each year to create funding so the parties receiving the land will be able to make improvements to accommodate wildlife, create access locations and maintain the property, according to Daschle's office. Annual appropriations will cease when interest on the trust funds reach designated levels and go to the tribes and the state, which may be 10 years. "Now that the president has signed this appropriations, we have no choice but to ask the entire Congress to remove the offensive language or to completely remove the whole thing," Bourland said. There is a possibility that certain portions of the bill directly affecting Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe can be repealed. Eric Washburn from Sen. Daschle's office said the issue can be taken to Congress to ask for the repeal. "We certainly respect whatever decision they make, if they decide to go that route," Washburn said. It has been a long, hard and controversial two years of negotiating, writing, rewriting, and criticizing the mitigation act. The process has brought about harsh criticism against the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and for Bourland personally by other tribes in South Dakota. "We have done all our negotiating out in the open. Cheyenne River, if you noticed, has caught a lot of hell over this because of the fact that we have been open about it and we have had multiple, multiple meetings," Bourland said. Under the agreement the Cheyenne River Sioux and the Lower Brule Sioux tribes will share the interest on $57 million and the state will receive interest on $100 million that will be placed in a trust. The funds will come from revenues generated by the hydro-power facilities on the Missouri River. Some 100,000 acres of excess land will be transferred from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to the two tribes and the state on both shores of the Missouri River. The land is referred to as "taken lands." Creation of reservoirs on the Missouri River flooded thousands of acres of land owned by the reservations and the state. It is not known how deep a rift in unity between some of the Sioux Nation tribes has occurred over this issue. Standing Rock Sioux Nation opposed the measure. The Great Sioux Nation Treaty Council opposed the measure and verbally criticized Bourland and Cheyenne River in public and on tribal radio stations. Cheyenne River officials also criticized opponents of the act in public forums. Accusations of authority and credibility were passed back and forth in newspapers, including Indian Country Today. Oliver Red Cloud, chairman of the Great Sioux Nation Treaty Council, said the mitigation bill violated the 1868 and 1851 treaties. The treaty council ------------------------------------------------------------