The Corps’ action should be of great concern to the state of South Dakota, its people, businesses and the Indian tribes all of whom have vested legal rights to Missouri River water as a natural resource. The natural flows of water are not subject to the Corps’ control. The natural flow of a river refers to the flow of water in the river absent the reservoirs. South Dakota and North Dakota have a legally established right to manage Missouri River water. The Corps’ action does not correctly address the distinction between water supply that is available to the states (natural flow) and water supply from storage, nor does it adequately address South Dakota Tribes’ rights to water. A state’s management of natural flows is exempted by the Flood Control Act. Indian Tribes and the state of South Dakota have the right to use Missouri River water for various purposes even though it may not now be so used. The Missouri River flows through or is adjacent to several Indian reservations and also supplies water to several Tribes in the region such as the Oglala Sioux Tribe and the Rosebud Sioux Tribe through water projects. The various South Dakota Indian Tribes’ water rights have also not been properly taken into account. The Tribes have long established "reserved water rights." The Tribes’ reserved rights predate the Flood Control Act but were not addressed in the Flood Control Act. The effort by the Corps to create a new definition of ‘surplus water’ arguably amounts to a wrongful taking, as well as a misunderstanding of Tribal and State’s rights to river water.Get the Story:
David Ganje: Army Corps of Engineers wrong on Missouri River water plan (Prairie Business Magazine 8/21)
Join the Conversation
