by Renee Gurneau, Anishinaabe Indigenous Knowledge Institute, and Tom B.K. Goldtooth, Indigenous Environmental Network

“Indigenous elders, who have been grounded in culture and language, are the foundation of traditional education about water. They are our living treasures. Understanding the meaning of water helps us to understand our relationship with, and our interconnectedness with the natural world and with each other. The values of sharing and caring are taught.” – Indigenous Teachings of Water Learned from Elders: the late Sandy Beardy (Cree), Chief Simon Lucas (Nuu Chah Nulth), and Dr. Huirangi Waikerepuru (Maori)

The essential value conflicts between indigenous peoples and western society and in their respective relationships to water lie in the differing creation stories where relationships in Creation are spelled out. What is known about Original Instruction in the instruction given by the Creator to people at the time of Creation. Even though the expression of spirituality, the ceremonies, etc., is mandated by the environment may differ depending on the environment where the peoples may live, in all religions, Original Instruction consists of basically two components; one, how people are to treat each other and two, how they are to interact with the rest of creation.

Although it appears simplistic, these differing stories inform how these societies continue to treat water and the rest of the natural world.

Conflicts of the Conquest Mindset

In Western Society, in what has become known as the developed industrialized nations, the basis is in the Judeo-Christian tradition of “Dominion over all things.” This means that the world was created for the use of people and that people are to have final say in how it is used. Although this was not spelled out in the Bible, over time this has come to be interpreted to mean an objectification of the natural world. Earth is to be controlled. Nature is to be managed for the comfort of humans.

In direct opposition to the objectification of the natural world, to the indigenous mind, atr is inexpressively sacred. The reverence we hold for water is difficult to discuss because of the natural reticence that indigenous peoples have to exhibit to the world at large, our most fundamental and sacred teachings. We have good reason for his caution. We are aware that we are presenting our most precious ways of thinking and being in front of a power structure that has no respect for any of this and in fact ridicules and minimizes the importance of indigenous cosmologies, philosophies, and world views.

And in the dynamics of colonization, which have been internalized, demand that we s indigenous peoples are not entitled to our own thinking. All indigenous thought and ways of being were criminalized and so we are hesitant to share our high consciousness with a society that cannot and will not comprehend it. Another element is the protection of Indigenous Knowledge from those who would exploit it and manipulate it for other purposes than what was given.

It is important to spell out how colonization works. This working definition is succinct and definitive.

1.      The invasion of a foreign power.

2.      The criminalization of all things indigenous by the invading power: this means all life-ways, societal norms, education of our children, governance, ways of expressing spiritual knowledge, family structure, gender roles, understanding the relationship and knowledge of the integrated whole of the rest of creation, language,\.

3.      The imposition of all societal norms of the invading power upon the indigenous peoples: this means all life ways, societal norms, the land and water are to be not held in reverence, but, divided into individual ownership, language, education of the children becomes one of shame and severing of kinship understanding that held indigenous communities intact, governance becomes an ineffective replication of the structures of the invading power, the power and place of women is diminished, Christianity is imposed and brutally enforced.

4.      All held in place by military might.

Differences in Cosmology  

So, when the European invaders came to indigenous lands they brought with them a cosmology so different from ours that we couldn’t comprehend them and they couldn’t comprehend us. The most destructive value that the European invaders imposed is the quantification and objectification of the natural world by imposing monetary value on sacred things, and committing genocide against the indigenous peoples who resisted.

The assumption that any open land is there for the taking and all they have to do is put up a fence to own it.

One of the first things the invaders did is to dump their garbage into water, contaminating the very force that holds and nurtures all life.

What does his mean for our relationship with water? The discussion about water is just the natural progression of the discussion of all so called “natural resources.” It is about the commodification, the objectification, the dehumanization of all our ways of understanding.

For the indigenous peoples, the suffering caused by all this is beyond human. One of the most residual problems is now we are in a period where we are just enough beyond the trauma to begin to talk about our own experience with a bit of distance.

If our suffering is caused by the disruption of all that is ours, then, it would seem that the way to a strong position in any global or national negotiations about “resources” would be to strengthen and revitalize our cultural and spiritual identity. No one can claim our traditional knowledge and give permission to use it except ourselves. Before we share, we must become clear ourselves and secure within our own knowledge. Before we give anyone else permission to use our knowledge we must claim it first as ours. Ignorance of our own sacred teachings about water, about creation is not a natural occurrence. That is why revitalization of language and culture is vital to indigenous thought, etc.

The authority of colonization which is based on an insane idea of racist superiority allows for all things indigenous to be fair game for the taking. And take they do. This entrenched ideology of racial superiority, progress, and entitlement enables a deliberate and intentional disregard for the outcome od shortsighted and destructive policies. The high intelligence of the “Seven Generations” concept, meaning that every decision we make is with the consciousness of how that decision will impact our world and peoples seven generations from now, is completely absent from energy, water, social justice, and land policies of the current dominant and dominating societies.

Indigenous world view perceives all of creation as alive and imbued with all of the intelligence of the Creator. He has put all of his knowledge of the science of creation in every single individual part. Although every atom and particle is individuated, we are all part of an integrated whole. This assumes a caring and loving creation where all parts of creation care for all the other parts. No part is higher. No part has “dominion” over any other part. We were not put here to be “stewards” of anything. Rather we were all created to live in a harmonious, awake, loving, and intelligent relationship with all other aspects of creation. This is what Mitakuye Owasin “All My Relations” of the Lakota, Nakota, and Dakota nations means. It is what Mino-bimaadiziiwin “The Good Life” means in the Anishinaabe original instruction. It is the power of the “Good Mind” in the cosmology of the Iroquois nations.   

The indigenous view is that the Earth is our true mother who gives birth to us and maintains our life through hers. She is the mother of all living things. Water is her life blood which courses through her body and maintains all life. Our first environment is water. We live in water throughout gestation inside our mother who hen gives birth through water. She hen maintains our life through her own body, through the milk and water of her own body. This is not difficult. From this understanding comes our reverence for water. It is from his comprehension of the totality of creation that our political positions about water are informed and based. It is impossible to act on one part of creation without impacting the rest.

Any way of thinking and acting that objectifies, commodifies, or puts a monetary value on land, air, and water is antithetical to indigenous understanding. Yet we are forced into his world market with nothing to negotiate with except our “natural resources.” Because of the imposition of these alien values, this changes the way in which we relate to the environment we live in. Because there has been a deliberate disruption in the transmission of traditional knowledge from one generation to the next, we find ourselves in the untenable and impossible position of being financially dependent on our own cultural self-destruction.

Within the indigenous languages lay the full capacity to grasp the intricacies of the science of creation. Our creation stories begin with the Creator’s beginning, awakening, and awareness. We liken this to our own birth and water is at the very beginning. Water is the medium which carries us from the spirit world to the physical world. The Mother Earth and our own natural mother have carried [us] and is the sacred vessel of water from which we come.

That water is not treated as sacred contributes to and is even the cause of ill health, poverty, and ignorance. If water had been kept sacred it would not be contaminated.

Without water, nothing could have come together. Matter could not have come together without moisture. Every part of creation took part in the creation of physical life. Life could not have come together without water and without spiritual motivation.

If we are to negotiate from a position of strength, we must come from a position of self-knowledge. Currently, all terms are defined not by indigenous peoples, but, by systems that are not concerned with our interests. It is an imbalanced power structure, where we are always on the defensive.

“We draw no line between what is political and what is spiritual. Our leaders are also spiritual leaders. In making any law, our leaders must consider three things: the effect of their decisions on peace; the effect on the natural order and law; and the effect on future generations. The natural order and laws are self-evident and do not need scientific proof. We believe that all lawmakers should be required to think this way, that all constitutions should contain these principals.”

~ “Circles of Wisdom,” Native Peoples/Native Homelands Climate Change Workshop held in Albuquerque, New Mexico, 1998

Struggle for Water Rights

It is unfortunate that in some countries, the efforts of indigenous peoples to achieve self-determination, land rights, and the securing of their customary water rights has created serious disputes between national governments, local jurisdictions, non-indigenous communities, private sector, industry and indigenous peoples, indigenous peoples right to self-determination and sovereignty, application of traditional knowledge, and cultural practices to protect the water are being disregarded, violated, and disrespected.

Throughout indigenous territories worldwide, indigenous peoples are experiencing increasing scarcity of fresh waters and the lack of access to water resources, including oceans. In these times of scarcity, governments are creating commercial interests in water that lead to inequities in distribution and prevent access to the life giving nature of water.

Water as a Commodity – Continued Conflicts within in Neo-Colonial Framework

Indigenous traditional knowledge developed over the millennia is undermined by an over-reliance on relatively recent and narrowly defined western scientific methods, standards, and technologies. Indigenous peoples support the implementation of strong measures to allow the full contribution by indigenous peoples to share our experiences, knowledge, and concerns.

Economic globalization constitutes one of the main obstacles for both the recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples and the protection of water resources. In the Global South, transnational corporations and industrialized countries are imposing their global agenda on  the negotiations and agreements of the United Nation system; the World Bank and other financial institutions; and the World Trade Organization and other free trade bodies; which reduce the rights enshrined in national constitutions, international conventions and agreements. Water is now being viewed as an economic commodity, and no longer a basic human right. This viewpoint is what underpins programs on water privatization and full-cost recovery, which is increasing mass poverty instead of reducing it.

Review of models of privatization of water and sanitation systems demonstrates that transnational corporations, regardless of hoe responsibility they try to carry out their business, are simply not designed to provide public services to all people on an equitable basis.

Indigenous peoples feel that water and sanitation services must be provided by the public, with full and effective participation of our indigenous peoples and local communities. An increase of innovative public financing mechanisms is needed. Experience demonstrates that water services by the private sector are not working.

Indigenous peoples are concerned that once water and sanitation services are privatized, the essence of life itself, which is the sacredness of water, would be determined and defined by the market system. Under the mechanism of privatization, the delivery of water services is based on the “ability to pay,” which means that poor communities frequently end up without adequate services. Indigenous peoples are concerned with this, since globally we are the poorest of the poor. An economic market-based system is not designed to conserve natural resources such as water. Maximizing profits means encouraging increased consumption. Water must be maintained as a public trust.

Water Contamination and Poor Water Conditions

Contamination of traditional food resources is becoming an increasing issue of concern among indigenous peoples. The link of these traditional foods to sources of drinking water, irrigations systems, and food from local lakes, rivers, springs, and wells is very evident in many communities, in both developed and developing countries. In South America for example, indigenous peoples in the Andes and Amazon Basin regions are exposed to high levels of arsenic and mercury in local water systems and in the fish population. This creates health problems among children and in breast feeding babies. For many tribal groups in Africa, unsafe drinking water and unhygienic handling of food is contributing to high levels of diarrheal diseases in infants and children. Indigenous peoples in the industrialized rich countries of the North also have examples of conditions of poverty, struggles for water rights, drought conditions, scarcity of water, ill-health from water borne diseases, such as found in developing countries.

Canada is a wealthy country with a large indigenous First Nations population which, according to statistics, has a lower life expectancy, higher infant mortality and greater disease burden than the dominant society. A study of water and sewage facilities conducted by Health Canada (a federal agency) and the Department of Indian Affairs (another federal agency), examined 863 First Nations community water treatment systems and 425 community sewage-treatment systems. It found that vast improvements in health, leading to economic development and poverty reduction, could be achieved by providing indigenous communities with a good water supply and improved waste sanitation systems.

Water quality and adequate water supply, wastewater, sanitation and waste disposal systems are essential to the health of indigenous peoples and local communities. Among the many indigenous peoples communities worldwide, in both developing and developed countries, safe and adequate water supply and wastewater disposal facilities are lacking. An alarming number of indigenous peoples have unsafe drinking water, and the numbers are growing. There is a lack of the existence of community infrastructure programs to address the most immediate health threats, requiring the provision of clean water, basic sanitation facilities and safe housing.

Underlying the Water Crisis is a Governance Crisis and a Cultural Crisis

An ethical framework based upon respect for life-giving water and its cultural manifestations is of critical importance for water policy and use. When water is disrespected, misused, and poorly managed, indigenous peoples see the life threatening impacts on all of creation, all populations and human settlements.

Over 80% of the world’s remaining biodiversity is found within indigenous peoples lands and territories. Indigenous peoples represent approximately 350 million individuals in the world and make up approximately 90% of the world’s cultural diversity.

Key Points

1.      Indigenous peoples’ interest on water and customary uses must be recognized by governments by ensuring that indigenous rights are enshrined in national legislation and policy.

2.      Governments must enhance the participation and mutual partnership of indigenous peoples, in all aspects of agricultural water use, development and management of water resources, development of water and sanitation services and to recognize indigenous peoples interests on water use, allocation and customary uses, improved services for better water management means, improved water governance which ensures effective use of existing resources and the active participation of indigenous peoples, a substantial increase in financing water infrastructure and targeted financing schemes; and mechanisms for empowerment and capacity building.

3.      Effective development and management of water resources, efficient and equitable provision of water supply and sanitation services are essential for poverty reduction, ecosystem protection and sustainable growth. Adopt strategies that explore alternatives to large-scale private sector systems and technologies by seeking innovations in formal or informal small-scale water system providers, intermediate technologies, indigenous knowledge and community-based approaches.

4.      Governments to recognize within many indigenous cultures, the women are often the caretakers and users of traditional water resource systems requiring the need for mainstreaming gender in integrated water management planning, implementation and monitoring. Implementation an ecological approach that incorporates Indigenous Knowledge Ecological Knowledge (TEK) principals of water management. Integrate indigenous TEK principals of the sacred nature of water.

5.      Governments should acknowledge the basic human right to water that the U.N. Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ECOSOC) affirmed in November 2002. Recognition of this right in national policy-making and legislation is critical to bring about fundamental approach to poverty eradication. Human rights and environmental obligations of States must be complied with by the World Trade Organization (WTO), the General Agreement of Trade Services (GATS) and other regional and bilateral trade agreements.

6.      Governments, private sector, donors, financial institutions, NGOs, and intergovernmental organizations must implement the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (DRIPs) that was adopted in 2007 by the United Nations General Assembly. One article of this Declaration addresses the rights of indigenous peoples free prior and informed consent and consultation by cultural appropriate means in all decision-making activities and all matters, including partnerships. In many indigenous communities, collective decision-making enhances indigenous peoples self-development.

7.      National and international capital should be available to local levels, sub-sovereigns and indigenous peoples to finance small-scale appropriate technology water infrastructures and sanitation services. International and domestic systems of restoration, financing, investments, and compensation to be established in partnership with indigenous peoples to restore the integrity of damaged watersheds and ecosystems.

We recognize, honor, and respect water as sacred and the sustainer of all life. Water is the source of life, it is far more than a human right, it is a right for all of nature, all plants, all animals. Within many indigenous cultures, our women are the traditional caretakers of water.

Conclusion

There is a need for a new paradigm in this world, in relation to how it defines its relationship to Mother Earth and water. This paradigm requires a change in the human relationship with the natural world from one of exploitation to a relationship that recognizes the sacredness of water. This viewpoint would value the importance for the protection of sacred water sources such as headwaters, springs, and other water systems that have cultural and spiritual significance to indigenous peoples.

As a crosscutting issue, the agenda of addressing this water crisis must fully embrace the reality of the global crisis affecting our local communities. The social, ecological, and political systems, globally and nationally are on the verge of catastrophic change. Very few societies are prepared for this change. Governmental efforts to respond to these issues are inadequate. Corporate and industrial efforts to reform the way they do things don’t happen because of systemic limits that require continued growth and profit at the expense of the protection of water, the environment, ecosystem and habitat, human health, human rights, and the general well-being of society.

Global sustainability can only be reached if we seek greater local and regional self-sufficiency, not less. Building our economies on local watershed systems is the only way to integrate sound environmental policies with peoples’ productive capacities and to protect our water at the same time.

Dialogue is needed amongst indigenous and non-indigenous stakeholders and especially the public/civil society to reevaluate a colonial law system that doesn’t work. A body of law needs to be developed that recognizes the inherent rights of the environment, of animals, fish, birds, plants, and water itself outside of their usefulness to humans. This would address the question as to the Law of Nature, however with the framework of indigenous natural laws, or within the framework of Original Instructions. Most colonial Western law limits Nature and what some North America indigenous peoples term as the Circle of Life, as mere property or natural “resources” to be exploited.

                  Communities must declare all water sources as sacred sites.

TO:                  Chief Negotiators for Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement

                        (glwqa-aqegl@ec.gc.ca and glwqa@glnpo.net)

RE:                   Comments on Negotiations to Amend the Great Lakes Water

                          Quality Agreement

 

Affiliation:       Protect Our Manoomin

Date:               September 8, 2011

Protect Our Manoomin is a Minnesota Ojibwe grassroots organization dedicated to protecting our manoomin (wild rice) and the sustenance, cultural, and spiritual heritage of the tribal communities for whom manoomin is an integral part of their lifeway.

One of our main concerns is the contaminants from taconite and sulfate mining, and how those contaminants affect the tribal ceded (or off-reservation) environment – in particular, the aquatic ecosystem that include manoomin, fish, wildlife, and plants .We submit the following comments in connection with the 2010 Renegotiation of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA):

Protect Our Manoomin agrees with Comment Number: 18GLWQA: [I]t would seem to me as an Aboriginal living within this area that we have involvement in activities and projects. In review a lot of the funded programs limit a person like myself in this clean up that is needed and by large not committed by our people but have been forced to live in the middle of what has been damaged heritage and rights to fish when species are polluted and endangered.

Our comment:  The former site of the U.S. Steel Duluth Works located in the Saint Louis River basin is a Superfund Site. In August 2011, Spirit Island, the sixth stopping place in the migration of the Anishinaabe people from the northeastern part of the continent, was purchased by the Fond du Lac Ojibwe Band. The nearly 10 acre island has 2,200 feet of shoreline and was purchased from a Duluth resident for $150,000. The fish population is inedible due to the mercury that polluted the waters. The cleanup effort by the Fond du Lac band will not focus on cleaning the waters but rather cleaning Spirit Island. The band will use the island for conservation and cultural efforts.  The band will use its own resources to clean up Spirit Island.  This is but one example of cleanup efforts that tribes have to engage in to restore land – and water – polluted by mining industries whose contaminants flow into Lake Superior.

Protect Our Manoomin agrees with Comment Number 74GLWQA that the GLWQA should: “Establish a specific review of the impacts of metallic sulfide mining in water-rich regions to determine the level of threat posed by current ongoing mine explorations in northern Minnesota (boundary waters region) and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan (Yellow Dog Plains, Salmon Trout River, Lake Superior Watershed).”

Our comment: The river basins that flow into Lake Superior contain contaminants from taconite mining that include sulfates and mercury. Proposed mining projects at Eagle Rock in Michigan, the Penokee Mountains outside of Bad River, and Ceded Territory of 1855 in Minnesota, that includes the Grand Portage, Fond du Lac, and Bois Forte Bands of Ojibwe, will elevate the levels of contaminants into Lake Superior.

One example – What is called the Wild Rice Dead Zone extends from the point where the Partridge River meets the St. Louis River. From that point and extending to 140 miles to the St. Louis River basin, manoomin doesn’t grow, or in some areas grows poorly, as a result of sulfates released from U.S. Steel’s Keetac and Minntac mines. The sulfates (and mercury) from those mines flows into Lake Superior.  

Therefore we feel it is imperative that any review of sulfate mining – and taconite mining – include tribal representatives from bands of the Lake Superior Ojibwe whose tribal land and ceded lands are affected by mining industries.   

Protect Our Manoomin further agrees with Comment Number 74GLWQA that the GLWQA should analyze geological surveys of the region, maps of groundwater, and surface discharge impacts, and determine what level of regulation and limitation will be necessary to protect the aquatic ecosystems.

Our comment: In our opinion tribal environmental/natural resources departments need to be a part of this process. Only those departments can provide an accurate analysis on discharge impacts and the manner necessary to protect reservation and ceded land aquatic ecosystems.

Protect Our Manoomin agrees with Comment Number 99GLWQA that the GLWQA should be revised to add new stressors and reflect a better understanding of stressors in the Agreement, including copper and nickel sulfide mining sources, groundwater pollution and changes in water levels that may affect water quality. We would suggest that mine dewatering is an important stressor that may affect water quality by changing water levels.   

Our Comment: An important factor that affects water quality – in addition to water levels – is water treatment technologies. States need to be accountable for ensuring that sulfate and taconite mining industries will provide water treatment that will meet EPA Clean Water Act regulations. The issuance of permits – for both air and water – needs to be stringent. Unfortunately some states have chosen to by-pass regulations and, instead, create laws that streamline the permit process and cater to the needs of mining industries. One example is the recent legislation that was passed in Minnesota. Under the Omnibus Environment, Energy and Natural Resources Finance Bill, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), to the fullest extent allowable under federal law, does not require a permittee to expend funds for design and implementation of sulfate treatment technologies until the new rules are enacted.  The law allows the MPCA to amends rules, if necessary, to accomplish this using the good cause exemption.  And it requires the MPCA to amend discharge limits in affected wastewater discharge permits to reflect the new standard developed under the new rules and enter into schedules of compliance in the permit.

In Minnesota, the wild rice/sulfate water quality standard, under state law, is 10 mg/L – i.e., 10 milligrams of sulfate per liter. Anything over 10 mg/L endangers manoomin.  Manoomin is a barometer of the environment. Healthy beds of manoomin indicate a healthy ecosystem; unhealthy manoomin beds indicate a ecosystem in distress. Although the MPCA has given assurances that the 10 mg/l water quality will be maintained, the new law does not provide that assurance.

Permits are essential to the well-being of the environment. Yet the permits being issued in Minnesota do not hold mining industries accountable for water treatment that will maintain the current water quality standard for sulfates. One concern is the Schedule of Compliance (SOC). Recent permits approved for U.S. Steel’s Keetac and Minntac mines provide an SOC until 2024. So the question is – what kind of environmental damage will occur over the period of a lengthy SOC? The Keetac Mine is releasing a sulfate concentration of 40 to 60 mg/L; Minntac is releasing 240 to 850 mg/L. Those concentrations will enter the St. Louis River and, in turn, enter Lake Superior.

This mines that we are speaking about here are taconite mines. The proposed copper-nickel mines are not part of the current equation.  How much more sulfates and mercury will enter Lake Superior as a result of mining? This is just Minnesota. Once the Kennecott/Rio Tinto copper-nickel mine in Michigan, and the proposed Gobebic taconite mine in Wisconsin are factored in, we are dealing with an enormous and alarming problem.  One that will strongly affect the waters of Lake Superior.

Protect Our Manoomin submits the following additional comments:

Historically, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan are called Anishinaabeg Akiing – the Land of the Ojibwe.  Originally, the Ojibwe lived on the coast of the Atlantic Ocean, in the area now called New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. It was there we were given the Seven Fires Prophecy. According to the First Fire, we were to migrate to the east and when we came to where the food grows on water that would be the land that Gichi-Manidoo, the Creator, had intended for us to live on. According to our traditions, we began our migration 600-700 years ago, and migrated down the St. Lawrence River and entered into the Great Lakes region. It was there we found the food that grows on water, i.e., wild rice. The main area that the Ojibwe settled was Anishinaabeg-gichigami – the Sea of the Ojibwe. This was later renamed Lake Superior by Europeans.

In the mid-1600s, French explorers began seeking out copper deposits. As a result of treaties, American mining companies began mining for copper on ceded lands in the mid-1800s.    

Treaty rights included off-reservation rights on ceded lands. These rights included hunting, fishing, and gathering rights – including the harvest of manoomin. These rights were affirmed by the Voigt decision in Wisconsin (1983), and the landmark Supreme Court decision - Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe (1999).

Protect Our Manoomin supports Comment Number 113GLWQA by the Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Ojibwe and Comment Number 118GLWQA by the Sault St. Marie Band of Ojibwe. However, there are other Ojibwe bands that need to be included by virtue of off-reservation/ceded land rights. This includes the Fond du Lac, Bois Forte, and Grand Portage bands of Ojibwe. Indeed, all Ojibwe bands included in the Ceded Territory of 1855, need to be included in any dialogue regarding the well-being of Anishinaabeg-gichigami. Their voices should not be ignored.

Dear Minnesota Indian Affairs Council Members:

Aniin Boozhoo. It is with urgency and concern that we write to you on behalf of the members of Protect Our Manoomin. We ask, with immediacy and expediency, that the recent legal and legislative attempts by the state of Minnesota regarding mining be brought to the attention of your honorable organization.  We ask that issues related to copper and taconite mining be formally addressed by convening a mining conference that would include tribal representatives, tribal environmental departments, environmental groups, and experts. 

Protect Our Manoomin is a grassroots Anishinaabeg organization that strongly opposes current legislation that will impact and devastate the natural wild rice stands and ecosystem in northern Minnesota. We are resolved, as a group of Anishinaabeg and non-Anishinaabeg, to resist any changes that endanger our manoomin.  We have a 10 member council with members from Sandy Lake, East Lake, Rice Lake, Red Lake, White Earth, Leech Lake, and Fond du Lac. Our council is largely composed of individuals from intergenerational rice harvesting families who have harvested the rice for hundreds of years. We have 700 members in our Facebook group with an additional 2000 worldwide supporters who have signed our petition.  We are currently funded by the Indigenous Environmental Network. 

We seek to create awareness of sulfate and sulfide pollution from mining and its harmful effects on manoomin – a vital cultural, spiritual, and environmental resource. We feel recent legal and legislative attempts by the state of Minnesota to bend laws to benefit corporate interests risk the vitality of our manoomin beds and threaten our Anishinaabe culture and traditions by deluging our manoomin stands, waters, and air of our reservation communities with contaminates from mining.  

Our main issues of concern include -

Wild rice/sulfate water quality standard:

The current wild rice/sulfate water standard is 10 milligrams per liter or mg/L. This was set by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency in 1978. Concentrations that are over 10 mg/L can harm and endanger manoomin.  There have been efforts by Minnesota lawmakers to change the standard, either by raising it to 50 mg/L to 250 mg/L or by suspending the standard altogether. The Minnesota legislature seeks these changes to appease the proposed development of copper mining in northeastern Minnesota. Changing the standard will lower the cost of water treatment facilities.

In 2011, the Minnesota Legislature passed H.F. 1010.  Originally this bill was intended to raise the wild rice/sulfate standard to 50 mg/L.  The bill was incorporated into the Environment/Energy/Commerce Omnibus Bill. After the shutdown, the Omnibus bill was passed. The wild rice/sulfate standard was dropped largely as a result of a letter sent by EPA that stated such action would violate Clean Water Act rules and regulations (see attachment).  However, the main area of concern is interpretation of the bill that was passed regarding water treatment facilities. To wit:  

Environment/Energy/Commerce Omnibus Bill, ARTICLE 4 STATUTORY CHANGES, Sec. 32. WILD RICE RULEMAKING AND RESEARCH: e) From the date of enactment until the rule amendment under paragraph (a) is finally adopted, to the extent allowable under the federal Clean Water Act or other federal laws, the Pollution Control Agency shall exercise its authority under federal and state laws and regulations to ensure, to the fullest extent possible, that no permittee is required to expend funds for design and implementation of sulfate treatment technologies. Nothing shall prevent the Pollution Control Agency from including in a schedule of compliance a requirement to monitor sulfate concentrations in discharges and, if appropriate, based on site-specific conditions, a requirement to implement a sulfate minimization plan to avoid or minimize sulfate concentrations during periods when wild rice may be susceptible to damage.

This law needs to be interpreted and clarified. The current law indicates that a permittee, like Polymet, is not required to implement water/sulfate treatment that will ensure minimization of sulfate discharges. If so, how will the wild rice/sulfate standard of 10 mg/L be maintained? According to a letter sent to Protect Our Manoomin by Paul Aasen, Commissioner of MPCA, the MPCA ensures the 10 mg/L will be maintained. But the question remains – how will the standard be maintained if water treatment isn’t maintained?

The Keetac Mine Expansion Project:

The U.S. Steel’s Keetac Mine at Keewatin proposes to restart an idle line and expand sections of its open pit iron ore mine. One section of Keetac’s Environmental Impact Study focuses on manoomin and sulfate. In summary:

Wild rice stands on Hay Creek and Hay Lake, Swan River and Swan Lake will be affected by sulfate concentrations that already exceed the wild rice/sulfate standard from the Keetac facility. Currently Hay Lake has concentrations of sulfate ranging from 48-55 mg/L; concentrations are expected to be 51-58 mg/L by 2021, and concentrations of 47-55 mg/L by 2036. Current concentrations for Swan Lake range from 25-30 mg/L; concentrations are expected to be 29-34 mg/L by 2021, and concentrations of 32-37 mg/L by 2036.

According to the Keetac EIS: The MPCA has determined that a nine year compliance schedule is a reasonable amount of time to take the steps necessary to write, review, revise, and implement a Water Management Study Plan, Sulfate Reduction Strategy Study Plan, and a Sulfate Reduction Plan, and potentially conduct a study to gather data and information that would support a total sulfate limit, other than the final limitations included in the permit.

One of the interesting points in the Keetac EIS is the disclosure that taconite mining per se is party to high concentrations of sulfate. There is no doubt that since the inception of iron ore mining in 1882, mines on the Iron Range have impacted our environment including our manoomin. Indeed, at the point where the Partridge River enters the St. Louis River and continuing to the St. Louis River basin, sulfates from taconite mining have created a “wild rice dead zone.”

Continued operations of U.S. Steel’s Keetac and Minntac mines promises high concentrations of sulfate and emissions of mercury. With the opening of copper mining, it stands to reason that concentrations of sulfates will increase proportionally to the number of taconite and copper mines in operation.  This is a great concern. Tribal monitoring programs will be essential, especially in ceded areas.  Ceded areas provide, under treaty rights, usufructuary to harvest manoomin. Because many manoomin beds are located in ceded areas, monitoring is essential.         

Polymet:

How will the proposed Polymet mine impact manoomin stands in the 1855 Ceded Territory? In February 2001, Polymet received a 4 million dollar loan from Iron Range Resources (IRR) to buy land that will, in turn, be exchanged for national forest land. How will this impact tribal rights under the 1855 Treaty?

What will be the overall impact on manoomin stands by other nonferrous mining companies that are expected to apply for mining permits? These companies include Franconia Minerals Corporation, Twin Metals/Twin Duluth, Cardero Resource Corporation, and Teck Mining Company.

 EPA and Ceded Territories:

EPA Clean Water Act (CWA) regulations need to be enforced to ensure the safety of surface and groundwater within reservation borders and on ceded territories. Sulfate contaminates in ceded areas could flow into tribal streams and rivers. How does the CWA protect off-reservation water surfaces that impact tribal waters?

Nonferrous Exploratory Surveying in Aitkin County:

In 2010, the DNR held a silent auction for mineral exploration rights in Aitkin County. These auctions are held to encourage prospecting. HTX Minerals Corporation, a Canadian company, bid on six parcels; Minerals Processing Corporation, a Duluth company operating the Eagle Mines in Michigan's Upper Peninsula, bid on six; and  Kennecott Exploration Company, already operating in Aitkin County and a division of Rio Tinto, bid on 41 sections.

The question that should be asked is if Kennecott opens copper-nickel mines in Crow Wing and Aitkin Counties, with a sulfur mine in Aitkin (as indicated on Minerals Industries of Minnesota map – see attachment), how will these proposed mines impact the manoomin stands in the rivers and streams in this area? How will the sulfates and mercury impact the fish population in Lake Mille Lacs?

…

As stated in Preserving the Integrity of Manoomin in Minnesota:

“[M]anoomin is a living entity that has its own unique spirit. Anishinaabeg have a responsibility to respect that spirit and to care for it.” (Wild Rice White Paper, Nibi and Manoomin Symposium, 2011)

Manoomin is a sacred gift from Gichi-Manidoo to enjoy and to be sustained by. We know this because it has been taught to us as by our elders and our ancestors. We offer asemaa in recognition of that plant's gift and sacrifice every year before harvesting. Manoomin is also served ceremonially for that same reason. Additionally, manoomin has medicinal qualities for healing. Manoomin is a part of our interconnectedness to the Four Orders of Life and in accordance with the original instructions given to us by Gichi Manidoo, the Creator. Its importance and our dependence upon its bounty comes from deep within our history, from the times when we were given our prophecies over 500 years ago.  We have long recognized its integrity in maintaining not only a healthy community for humans, but also for other living creatures that inhabit and are endemic to where it occurs. This has also been noted by the American government in its treaty negotiations with our people long before Minnesota was even a state as noted in the 1837 Treaty of St. Peters. To wit:

ARTICLE 5: The privilege of hunting, fishing, and gathering the wild rice, upon the lands, the rivers and the lakes included in the territory ceded, is guarantied to the Indians, during the pleasure of the President of the United States.

Therefore we ask that your honorable organization, with immediacy and thoroughness, to examine and address recent attempts by the Minnesota legislature and the mining companies who are seeking to establish industries that will disturb and infringe on our inherent gathering rights as sovereign nations, our life giving waters, and the very quality of our lives to an extent that is terrifying and unacceptable. We feel that this would be yet another undue burden and risk that the Anishinaabeg and our relations will have to endure, after we have had to endure so much already. We ask for your attention, support and help for your Indigenous relations in protecting our manoomin for the Seventh Generation. We must seek to preserve and protect our resources for the unborn Anishinaabeg that are yet to come, that they may be able to enjoy that wonderful good berry, that life giving gift we call manoomin.

As a result of unanswered questions and concerns, there is an underlying trust issue in this pressing matter towards some of our elected state and tribal officials. We feel it imperative that our tribal leaders and representatives engage in an open dialogue on mining to better inform their constituents and communities on issues regarding mining.

In the best interest of our communities and tribal citizens, we formally request that this threat to one of our community's greatest resources be addressed by our tribal leaders. We ask, on behalf of our supporters, our elders, and our children, that a mining conference be convened to consider the grave consequences and risks that are before us.  

We appreciate your time, consideration and the great efforts your honorable organization makes to preserve, protect and support the Native communities across Minnesota. Ahaaw dash mii’gwech.

Sincerely,

Protect Our Manoomin Council

Mud Lake by Ball Club, circa 1947

The following was written by our sister from Minisinaakwaang (East Lake) Community of the Rice Lake Band of Mississippi Ojibwe-Anishinaabeg:

Manoomin and my people's ways are important to me. Both of those things are also endangered. That's why this year, we (family, friends and relations) had to organize a group that would somehow try to protect this gift. Our food source and our culture is under attack by the state of Minnesota and other corporate interests. They only understand value in a monetary sense. That's why they have no qualms about poisoning our waters and our communities with the byproducts of manufacture, to the fullest extant possible. In the pursuit of financial gain, they have lost all sense of reason, judgment and perspective. We ask only that our manoomin beds be protected. So that the nourishment received from this plant to our people and our culture, can continue to feed the spirit and body for generations to come.

And I could type for days trying to describe the sheer beauty of the season and all the sensory treasures it holds in store and I could go on even longer about how precious of a gift we consider our sacred food. This is one of the few times a year that our communities have an easier time simply existing. The work is hard but to have some free food, and to engage in the traditions of our ancestors and to really be connected to this good earth....well it makes up for all that sweat and strain, surely. This is the time of year when families get together, stories and jokes are told, the memory is flexed and (sometimes stretched) and the people are generally in good spirits. There is less of a financial strain and stress because of the rice that is sold. Many people are able to supplement their children's clothes, pay bills and maybe even buy a car to be able make it to school, job, next seasonal work, hospital and grocery store. For one time of the whiteman's billing year - it's not so hard making ends meet. These examples and so many more, are why I love Manoominike giizis and our ricing culture.

My Dad always tells this lil story illustrating of the manoomin harvest to our Anishinaabeg communities. When he was a very young boy, his father, my grandfather took him out on Mud lake to rice. As they were going along, they came across another pair of ricers. As they came close my dad could see that it was a one armed poler and a blind knocker. They talked Indian to my grampa and made the motions for asking for a drink of water. To which my grandfather passed them a canteen to drink. They drank and made their way on, the one armed poler and his partner, the sightless knocker. Moving on through the bed to continue that hard work known as ricing. And my father and his dad went on their way. It was impressed upon my father at that moment and down to me by that story, of how important that manoomin is to our people. That even in the most hard times, especially in the hard times, and in whatever physical condition, our people would continue to rice. Like my father says "Because that's what you do. How else are you gonna take care of your family? Jobs may not last. And you're gonna have to know how to put some food on the table. It's there and it's free and all you gotta do is go get it." My dad always closes that tale with a look of astonishment and surprise and the same sentence - "A blind knocker and a one armed poler - now, that's DETERMINATION.

Mii sa go

"Why is a Canadian copper mining company, Polymet, who is backed and partially owned by a Swiss mining conglomeration, Glencore, mining northeastern Minnesota for copper that will be shipped to China?"

On August 9 and August 10, U.S. Representative Chip Cravaack (MN-R) hosted two Town Hall meetings in Deer River and Grand Portage. The emphasis of Cravaack’s meetings was to meet with his constituents to discuss the debit ceiling bill. Cravaack, to the consternation of the GOP establishment, voted against the compromise.  His visit to the 8th District was to explain his view on taxes and to firm up support for his sagging reelection.

During his talk at Deer River, Cravaack said that we are in debt to China and that 29% of our debt is to China. He said that with just the interest from the debt we owe, China can build so many weapons and they can build a huge military with just the interest the U.S. pays them.

After Cravaack’s presentation on the debit bill and taxes, the meeting then opened up to questions by the audience. A Protect Our Manoomin (POM) supporter asked Cravaack the question - "Why is a Canadian copper mining company, Polymet, who is backed and partially owned by a Swiss mining conglomeration, Glencore, mining northeastern Minnesota for copper that will be shipped to China?"

Cravaack answer was jobs. Jobs that will be offered not only by Polymet, but other mining industries as well. In addition to Polymet, other mining companies that are lining up at the door for permits include Franconia Mineral Corp., Twin Metals.Duluth Metals, Cadero Resource Corp., and Teck Mining Co. Additionally, Kennecott plans to open copper-nickel mines in Crow Wing and Aitkin Counties, including a sulfur mine in Aitkin.

Cravaack then asked the audience if they knew what could be made with the copper and he explained that it's shipped to China and makes things for our military.

He went on to talk about how he has met with Polymet and they're trying to do the right thing and meet with the tribes and EPA and MPCA.

Cravaack then said: "If I had a nickel for every time I met with Polymet in Washington D.C." Such a statement reveals something we already know – that the Polymet lobby is not only active at our state capitol but also the Capitol in Washington.

At the Grand Portage Town Hall meeting, Cravaack talked about the debt, how we all need to fear China, and how we are basically bought and sold by the Chinese. During the question period, a POM supporter asked, "Why is a Canadian copper mining company, Polymet, who is backed by a Swiss multinational, Glencore, mining NE MN for copper that will in large part be shipped to China?"

Cravaack’s response was that China was “the enemy our children will be fighting."

He was then asked to cite one example of a non-polluting copper-nickel mine anywhere in the world. Although Cravaack was unable to provide an example, he did respond, "It's better to do it here where we have strict EPA requirements" and that Polymet has "made technological advances"

A man from Grand Portage asked Cravaack about changing the sulfite standard to accommodate mining. Cravaack responded "that is beyond my pay grade," and that "he believed in letting the scientists work it out."

For a lawmaker who was elected to protect Minnesota’s interest and the national interest, Cravaack’s contradictory answers regarding China are disturbing to say the least. 

Granted, Cravaack is absolutely correct regarding America's economic debt to China. In "China's not doing us a favor" by Fareed Zakaria (CNN), Zakaria quotes a Hong Kong newspaper that reported Washington owes every single Chinese citizen 5,700 Yuan - about 900 U.S. dollars.

Zakaria furthers states: "...in terms of who is paying whom, data from the Congressional Budget Office shows that the U.S. pays out some 74 million dollars to China in interest payments on debt every day. We did the math. That means Washington is paying Beijing 833 dollars every second."

Beyond the debt, a situation that Zakaria refers to as a economic cold war, there is the question of the role copper plays on a world stage in which many analysts project China emerging as a dominant superpower.   

Understandably, for Cravaack, and many other lawmakers, it’s all about supporting industries that will provide jobs for constituents. However, Cravaack has failed to connect the dots in assessing the alarming potential that exports of copper and other nonferrous metals to China might mean. Therefore, a few simple, well-known facts are in order.   

Polymet and Red Gold

In her article, “Popping the Polymet Propaganda Pill,” Elanne Palcich writes:

ARE THESE METALS CRITICAL FOR OUR OWN NEEDS?

The truth is that the demand for copper, nickel, and a myriad of other metals is coming from China.  As China becomes an industrial nation, it is moving its population from rural to urban areas.  These metals are needed for residential pipes and wiring and factory construction and processes.  In addition China is aggressively building infrastructure and transportation systems to accommodate 1.4 billion people as it seeks to become the next great industrial power.

China is accepting metals in semi-processed form, such as would be produced by the hydrometallurgical process proposed by PolyMet.  China is currently stockpiling all such metals.

That indeed China is stockpiling copper is verified by Shiv Hari, a commodities analyst: “China has been stockpiling [copper] since last November [2010].”

In turn, according to Jeremy Gray, global head of resources at Standard Chartered PLC , “Copper is red gold. We’re on the verge of the biggest commodities bull market we have ever seen.”

China’s quest for copper is expected to triple its consumption to 20 million metric tons by 2020. This will account of 49% of world copper sales.   

According to Mineweb, in 2010, China’s imports of copper concentrate increased to 6.47 million metric tons and copper scrap imports increased to 4.36 million metric tons. In 2007, China consumed of 45.9% of American copper.

The leading copper exporters to China include Chile, Zambia, Peru, the U.S., the Congo, Russia, Pakistan, Taiwan, Japan, Kazakhstan, South Korea, the Philippines, Poland, Australia, the Netherlands, Germany, and Mongolia.  China’s recent investment of copper mines in Argentina will pave the way for Argentina to emerge as a player in the Chinese export market.

Urbanization is at the crux of China’s expansion of copper. Over the next 15 years, the country will need 50,000 skyscrapers, 170 mass transit systems, and urban housing for 350 million people, according to a study by the McKinsey Global Institute.

Copper has many uses. However, electronics account for three quarters of copper use. Electrical uses of copper include power transmission and generation, building wiring, telecommunication, computers, and electrical and electronic products, transporting water and gas.

There is another use of copper that is overlooked – military uses. Elizabeth Young writes:  “Industries that use copper the most include untold military uses where the government is not likely to reveal all of its secret or strategic uses and include industrial proprietary or patented processes where the proportion and types of copper products is likely to be kept secret.”

The Copper Development Association, Inc. lists 47 military specifications that employ copper.

One example of military use of copper is development of micro-detonators. According to Michael Beggans, a scientist in the Energetics Technology Department of the Indian Head Division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center: "Today, everything is becoming smaller, consuming less power and offering more functionality," 

Beggans added, "When you hear that a weapon is 'smart,' it's really all about the fuze [i.e., the overall device]. The fuze is 'smart' in that it knows the exact environment that the weapon needs to be in, and detonates it at the right time. The MEMS fuze would provide 'smart' functionality in medium-caliber and sub-munitions, improving results and reducing collateral damage."

Connecting the Dots

In light of China’s consumption of copper and the uses of copper including military uses, Cravaack’s remarks highlight an ignorance of the potentialities to which China will apply its stockpile of copper.

At Deer River, Cravaack said: “With just the interest from the debt we owe, China can build so many weapons and they can build a huge military with just the interest the U.S. pays them.”

If this is so, then why does Cravaack support Polymet who will then sell the red gold to the Chinese?

At Grand Portage, Cravaack said that China was “the enemy our children will be fighting.”

This statement poses an interesting question, one that Cravaack should consider. Because if China is the enemy, then what role will Cravaack play in providing China with red gold that, in turn, will undoubtedly  be used to stockpile China’s munitions, provide the cartridge shells for bullets, provide the deadly copper hoods for RPG’s, provide the means of manufacturing micro-detonators, and that will fine-tune computers and computer components to pin-point Chinese nuclear weapons?

Nonferrous mining is about much more that the destruction of our manoomin stands and our environment. Because there is a darker truth that delves under Cravaack’s platform of jobs, jobs, jobs. And the question posted at the beginning of this article is a question that Minnesota voters should be asking candidates at election time. It's time for people to start connecting the dots. 

Mii sa go

“It’s the new fur trade” ~ Shawn A-in-chut Atleo, National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations

In his comment, Chief Atleo was alluding to mining and energy industries that are expanding their operations in Canada. Like the furs of the fur trade, the metal and mineral sectors are viewed as a commodity that Atleo hopes will provide a sustainable economy for Canadian tribes.

However, Atleo’s  reference to a “new fur trade” was a bit of a gaffe. The energy sector may certainly be a part of the new fur trade, but mining is not. Indeed, mining was part of the historical fur trade.

The historical record makes it clear that metal and mineral exploration was an integral part of the European excursion into North America. In 1604, Master Simon, a mining engineer with Samuel de Champlain, reported the discovery of silver and iron in Acadia. In 1643 a shipment of coal was reported to have been sent from Grand Lake, New Brunswick. In 1672 Nicolas Denys prepared a report on the coal resources of the Maritimes for Louis XIV.

Explorers and missionaries had a keen interest in copper.  In 1669, Fr. Claude D’Ablon, a Jesuit missionary, collected information on copper mining in the Lake Superior region. He was the first to write about Lake Superior copper deposits. D’Ablon’s reports led to efforts to locate the mines and obtain specimens.

Charles de Beauharnois, governor of New France, and Gilles Hocquart, his attendant, wrote of their copper findings. In a letter to the French Minister, dated October 25, 1729: “We will neglect no steps, Monsignor, to procure information as to the quality and quantity of the ore in the mine, And to that end, Beauharnois will send orders next spring to the officer commanding at the point of Chagoüamigon to instruct some voyageurs who may pass by that spot to bring as much ore as they can from the mine with a detailed report on its situation and extent.”

Beauharnois and Hocquart noted the difficulty transporting ore specimens:  “…consider the difficulties that would be encountered in conveying five thousand livres weight of the ore in bark canoes that would inevitably be wrecked if struck by a squall on that lake while approaching shore--as ore cannot be landed as easily as packages of furs.”

In 1736, Beauharnois and Hocquart sent another letter to the French Minister: “Monsignor--we have the honor to inform you that Monsieur De la Ronde who was instructed to work the copper mines on Lake Superior, came down from there in the month of August to report on his discoveries, and brought with him about 500 pounds of ore taken from two large masses of copper, one of which is at the Tonnaganne River, and the other on the Shore of Lake Superior near the Piouabic River (Iron River, in northern Michigan),”

In 1737, Beauharnois wrote: “If the Tonnagane mine can be worked, the peace just concluded between, the Cristinaux and the Sauteur of La Pointe is of the greatest advantage as regards the peaceful exploitation of the mines.”

A year later, the French sent out an exploratory team composed of a group of voyagers and two experienced miners to survey several copper deposit sites along Lake Superior.

The earliest mining attempt occurred in 1701. Pierre-Charles Le Sueur mined 30,000 pounds of what he thought was copper ore from the banks of what are now the Blue Earth and Le Sueur rivers near their junction, a few miles southwest of present-day Mankato. He sent 4,000 pounds of this material to France.  Le Sueur’s finding proved to be worthless as a source of copper or any metallic product.

The historical records show that Europeans had more than a passing interest in metals and minerals, and that the fur trade was not only about furs but also about exploring and surveying tribal lands for metals and minerals. In Anishinaabe Akiing, the land of the Ojibwe-Anishinaabe, it was about the copper. What the early French explorations did was to essentially map out potential areas where copper deposits could be found. Those areas would later be exploited for their resources.

With the establishment of the U.S., Euro-Americans turned their attention to the potential wealth underlying tribal lands. Treaties became the bargaining tool that the government applied in gaining access to tribal land.

In the Treaty with the Chippewa, negotiated at Fond du Lac in 1826. Article 3 states: ”The Chippewa tribe grant to the government of the United States the right to search for, and carry away, any metals or minerals from any part of their country. But this grant is not to affect the title of the land, nor the existing jurisdiction over it.”

This treaty, the first Ojibwe-Anishinaabe treaty council held in Minnesota, covered a vast expanse of Anishinaabe Akiing beginning in Minnesota, through Wisconsin, and into the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Article 3 of the treaty provided for metal and mineral exploration and mining within Ojbwe-Anishinaabe lands. Lewis Cass, the chief negotiator, said that the Great Father wanted “to take such copper as he may find.”

Given the statement by Cass, it’s doubtful that the Euro-Americans were not aware of the copper deposits that the French had explored and documented in their findings and reports beginning nearly two hundred years before the 1826 treaty.  Indeed, the remark by Cass indicates the U.S. knew about the copper deposits but, like the French, they didn’t quite know where many of those the deposits were located.

It had long been assumed by the French that the Ojibwe-Anishinaabe reluctance was due to superstitious taboos about copper and that revealing the locations of mines would lead to calamity.

Beauharnois and Hocquart, in 1729, noted: “Hitherto it had been thought that these mines were found only in one or two Islands; but, since we have made more exact inquiries on the subject, we have learned from the savages some secrets, which they did not wish to reveal.

“The savages, timid and superstitious as they all are, have never dared to go there since that time, for fear of dying there, believing that there are certain spirits who kill those who approach them.

“All the savages assert that copper is to be found at a great many places on Lake Superior; from time to time they have brought pieces which they have given to Frenchmen and in particular…a Jesuit Missionary at Michilimakinac…the savages have told many people, the metal exists in abundance, and in many places.”

Zhingaabewasin (Image Stone), an ogimaa from Bawating (Sault Ste. Marie) who signed the 1826 treaty, was obviously aware of the Ojibwe-Anishinaabe history of reluctantly sharing information with Europeans. To address this situation, Zhingaabewasin said:    

“My friends, our fathers have come here to embrace their children. Listen to what they have to say. It will be good for you. If you have any copper on your lands, I advise you to sell it. It is of no advantage to us. They can convert it into articles for our use. If any one of you has any knowledge on this subject, I ask you to bring it to light.”

There is nothing in the historical record that indicates that other Ojibwe-Anishinaabe ogimaag heeded Zhingaabewasin’s advice.   

The French view would inform the works of others writing on the history of Lake Superior copper, a view that continued into the 1980s and 90s. Dr. Susan R. Martin, Industrial History and Archaeology Program, Michigan Technological University, wrote a seminal article to address the myths and fantasies regarding the history of Lake Superior copper.    

In “Dispelling some Myths about the Old Copper Culture” (1995), Dr. Martin, writes:  “Fortunately there is an extensive body of scholarship about Ojibwa myth and world view related to copper…The fact is, the manitous and their powers according to Ojibwa myth are seen as an extension of the human social world. Humans and not-so-humans strive to influence each other through ritual exchange in which copper was one medium among many. Power was also believed to reside in copper itself, according to Ojibwa myth. Copper was considered by some to contain powerful medicine, a great medium for ritual exchange, that brought wealth, health and well-being. This is probably why it was worn by and buried with children. In addition, contact-era Ojibwa people had every reason to dissemble about the locations of copper deposits and their significance. After all, powerful strangers were trying to gain access to Ojibwa lands, primarily to extract culturally-valued resources. Why aid and abet this attempted seizure by revealing everything about copper? There is nothing inconsistent about the myths regarding copper and native use of it; in fact copper use is completely consistent with the Ojibwa world view and with the archaeological record of the basin.”

Dr. Martin’s view is more in line with Ojibwe-Anishinaabe cultural norms and traditions than anything previously written about Lake Superior copper. Although the French and Euro-Americans considered the Ojibwe-Anishinaabe as primitive and superstitious, the Ojibwe-Anishinaabe of the Pre-Invasion period had every reason to protect a “culturally-valued resource.”

With the signing of the Treaty of 1826, the Ojibwe-Anishinaabe gave up their rights to copper. Less than fifteen years later, Euro-Americans began their encroachment on copper deposits that were largely centered on the Upper Peninsula.

In 1839, Douglass Houghton, Michigan's first state geologist, spent many weeks in the field each season with his assistants, mapping and evaluating Michigan's natural resources.  His fourth annual report, based on field work done in 1840, appeared February 1, 1841. It helped trigger the first great mining boom of American history, and earned him the title of "father of copper mining in the United States."

In 1843, the Lake Superior Mining Co. opened the first copper in Michigan. Isle Royale Mine opened the first mine on Minong (Isle Royale) in 1852. From the mid-1840s to the late 1870s, there were one-hundred and eleven copper mines in the Upper Peninsula and twenty-eight on Minong (Isle Royale).  

History has shown that copper was never a commodity to be bartered between indigenous tribes and French and Euro-Americans. The Treaty of 1826 took away any notion of commodity. But the historical record shows that copper was part and parcel of the historical fur trade. Like the virgin timber forests that were felled by the timber barons, copper was a resource to be plundered from the earth and enrich the mining barons.

Today, the mining barons once again seek to encroach upon our lands. They come under new names – PolyMet, Twin Metals, Franconia, Kennecott (Rio Tinto), Gogebec. In their quest for miskwaabikoon (copper), their efforts will severely impact of our ecosystem in a destructive manner. Therefore, it is imperative that we not work with them, but rather oppose the potential ecocide of our environment. It is for the Seventh Generation that we need to protect our wetlands, forests, waterfowl, wildlife and our manoomin.

Mii sa go    

On May 26, Governor Dayton's first stop on his budget deadlock tour was at Duluth International Airport.  Speaking for nearly 30 minutes, Dayton talked about the problems with the GOP budget plan.  As the press conference neared the end, one reporter asked:

"Governor...would you be willing to speak about the sulfate levels and the controversy that exists, and shed some light on where your position is in defending and maintaining the 10 milligrams of sulfate in the water standards?" 

‎Dayton was clearly thrown off by the unexpected question.  He wasn’t expecting someone to bring up Article 4, Section 47, Wild Rice Rulemaking and the issue of sulfide levels. Regaining his composure, Dayton responded:

"I'd have to defer to Paul Aasen who's Commissioner of the Pollution Control Agency and he's been talking with the EPA in Chicago about a common approach that will protect the waters and protect the citizens and also continue the mining operations in Northeastern Minnesota where the iron ore extraction and taconite have been crucial to the economy. So it's trying once again to find a reasonable balance and Commissioner Aesen will be proceeding to do that." 

Dayton was obviously unaware of the convoluted activity that happened on May 13, the day that the House Conference Committee pushed through Article 4, Section 47 - Wild Rice Rulemaking and Research.  If Dayton thought that the EPA was going to have a common approach answer regarding the wild rice/sulfate standard, then he didn’t see the EPA’s letter to Sen. Bakk and Rep. Dill.

On May 9, the Conference Committee was scheduled convene a meeting on H.F 1010. The meeting was cancelled and rescheduled for May 10.  On the day that the meeting was originally scheduled, Sen. Bakk and Rep. Dill sent an inquiry letter to Tinka Hyde, EPA Director, Water Division, in Chicago. According to the EPA letter, the two legislators requested that the EPA “provide its views of two draft bills, which would alter the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s implementation of the current, federally-approved water quality standard of 10 mg/L sulfate for wild rice waters.”

On May 13, Bakk and Dill received EPA’s response. A Conference Committee on H.F. 1010 was scheduled for 8:15 a.m. on May 13. The meeting as rescheduled for 6:00 p.m. in the evening. The delay could very well been due to the EPA letter.

The EPA letter stated: “To the extent that any legislation changes the EPA-approved water quality standards for Minnesota, such revised water quality standards must be submitted to EPA for review and approval…”

At the time Bakk and Dill submitted their letter, both the House version, H.F. 1010 and the Senate version, S.F. 1029, had yet to be melded into one. Thus, the EPA response covered two primary issues in both bills.

The EPA wrote: “As you know, H.F. 1010 and S.F. 1029 propose to modify or suspend the current, federally-approved water quality standard for wild rice waters of 10 mg/L, and H.F. 1010-3 specifically sets 50 mg/L as the numeric criterion for sulfate in wild rice waters until a new standard is developed.”

The EPA then pointed out that 33 USC §1313 (c)(2)(A) / CWA §303 (c)(2)(A) – whenever the State revises or adopts a new standard, such revised or new standard shall be submitted to the Administrator – “are not effective for CWA purposes, including National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Permits (NPDES) permits, unless and until approved by EPA.”

Further: “Should Minnesota wish to submit these to EPA as changes to Minnesota’s water quality standards…40 CFR §131.6 provides the submittal requirements. These include…the methods and analyses conducted to support the water quality standards revisions, including how the revised water quality criteria are sufficient to protect the designated uses.”

To make a change in the water quality standard, there would have to be, among other things, a “scientifically defensible basis” as cited under 40 CFR §131.5, 131.11, and 131.2. Lacking such evidence, the EPA “would be unable to approve a revised standard as cited in 40 CFR §131.6 (b)."

The EPA then tackled the issue of the suspension of the wild rice/sulfate standard found in both S.F. 1029 and H.F. 1010 – “both of which generally prevent MPCA from including sulfate limitations in [NPDES] permits until a new standard is developed.”

The EPA wrote: “A state with a federally authorized NPDES program is required to issue permits that ensure the protection of federally approved water quality standards," citing 33 USC §1311 (b)(1)(C) / CWA §301 (b)(1)(C); and, 40 CFR §123.25 (a)(1), 40 CFR §122.4 and §122.44 (d)(1).  

“When a state proposes to issue a permit that fails to apply, or to ensure compliance…the EPA has the authority to review and to object to such permit issuance…under 40 CFR §123.44.”

If the EPA objected to a state-proposed permit, “the state or any interested person… would have 90 days to request a public hearing," as cited in 40 CFR §123.4 (e)-(f). 

“Pursuant to 40 CFR §122.4 (c), the state may not issue a permit over EPA’s objection.”  

In ending, the EPA noted that “should the EPA determine that a state is not administering its federally approved NPDES program in accordance with…the CWA, EPA has the authority to require the state to take corrective action, and if necessary, to withdraw authorization of the program, pursuant to 33 USC §1342 (c)(2)-(3).”

On May 18, a day before final House passage on May 19, MPCA stepped into the fray. In a memo from Rebecca Flood, Assistant Commissioner of MPCA, to Steve Morse, Executive Director of Minnesota Environmental Partnership, MPCA’s position was clarified. Flood wrote: “As you may be aware, there have been several bills and legislative proposals regarding sulfate and the state water quality standard for the protection of wild rice…we want to be clear about MPCA’s objectives as things move toward the conclusion of the legislative session.”

The memo stated that “the state has an existing standard of 10 mg/L of sulfate for the protection of waters used for the production of wild rice” and that MPCA was “committed to implementing that standard as required by the Clean Water Act.” Further, the MPCA was “committed to conducting research to evaluate whether the current standard should be changed.” And lastly, “some legislative language may pose a threat to retaining MPCA’s NPDES permit program delegation, and that MPCA was attempting to suggest language changes to address it.”   

One would think that the preponderance of EPA CWA rules and regulations cited in the EPA letter would have deterred any legislative attempt to pass a policy to change the wild rice/sulfate standard.  The EPA made it clear that CWA would trump any attempt by the state to legislatively change or suspend the current 10 mg/L wild rice/sulfate standard. Additionally, the state could not legislatively suspend MPCA’s NPDES permit process until a new sulfate standard was developed.

The MPCA memo emphasized their commitment to implement the current 10 mg/L standard in accordance with CWA.  They also stressed the threat to undermine the NPDES permit program.

The MPCA memo also mentioned research to evaluate the current standard. This was a reference to MPCA’s current study that is part of their 2008-2012 Triennial Review. Every three years the federal Clean Water Act requires states to obtain public comment on, and revise as needed, their water quality standards. The wild rice/sulfate water quality standard is part of the review.

Legislators decided they wanted a more in-depth study, one that would include scientific analysis. In H.F. 1010, Article 3, Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund, $1,000,000 was slated for a new study by MPCA.  Of course, the thinking behind this was such a study would result in a change in wild rice/sulfate water quality standard – one more suitable for the needs of Polymet and other nonferrous mining companies.

The proposed study was connected to Article 4, Statutory Changes, Sec. 47 – Wild Rice Rulemaking and Research. Apparently, the strategy of the legislators was to suspend the wild rice/sulfate standard while the study was conducted. However, as the EPA letter shows, the state can’t change or suspend the wild rice/sulfate standard unless there is a scientifically defensible basis that meets EPA’s criteria.  

Perhaps that is why Bakk, the senator from the Iron Range, decided to vote against H.L. 1010 in its House passage on May 19. But Dill, who was on the Conference Committee, apparently decided to be a man of his convictions – regardless of how haphazard and misguided – and voted for H.L. 1010.

Should the budget deadlock be broken and should Dayton pass H.L. 1010, the convoluted wild rice legislation, as it now stands, is doomed to fail. Given what we now know – via the EPA letter - the legislators will have to compromise. Their best move on a checkmated board is to take out Section 47 altogether and leave in the $1,000,000 for a study. Of course, there is no guarantee that a new study will change the wild rice/sulfate standard. It could, in fact, lower the standard from 10 mg/L to 8 mg/L or 5 mg/L.

Mii sa go

On May 24, Governor Mark Dayton vetoed HF 1010. Many of our supporters at our Facebook group page called it a victory and congratulated us for our hard work.

But the problem was Dayton's veto wasn't a veto. At least, it wasn't a veto because of Chapter 46, HF 1010, Article 4, Statutory Changes, Section 47 - Wild Rice Rulemaking and Research, a policy that would suspend the current wild rice/sulfate standard. Rather, Dayton vetoed all nine GOP finance bills as a result of the budget stalemate between the Governor and the House.

By protocol, Dayton submitted a letter to Kurt Zellers, Speaker of the House, that outlined his reasons for vetoing HF 1010. Aside from his comments on the budgetary problems of the bill, Dayton focused on "two controversial policy provisions that were added to the bill during the conference committee process." (See letter below.)

No where in his statement did Dayton mention the fifty-two policy provisions (Statutory Changes) that were attached to HF 1010. This seems at odds with Dayton's previous statement, made before the legislative session began, that he would veto budget bills with policy attachments. It seems that Dayton could have simply stated that in his letter to Zellers, i.e., he was vetoing HF 1010 because it was a budget bill with policy attachments.

That brings up the question - had there not been a budget standoff and there had been a compromise on the two policies that Dayton objected to, would Dayton have signed this bill? Indications are that he most likely would have. And that brings up another question. If the budget stalemate is resolved and HF 1010 reintroduced with compromises on the two policies, will Dayton sign it?  

Alarmingly, Section 47 - Wild Rice Rulemaking and Research appears to be an insignificant factor in any decision made on HF 1010. It is certainly a controversial policy change that will affect the livelihood and culture of the Anishinaabe people. However, Dayton made no mention of this in his veto.

Therefore, those who take comfort in Dayton's veto have very little to celebrate. Section 47 continues to be a clear and present danger to our manoomin.

Mii sa go

Dayton's letter to Zellers on his veto of HF 1010:
http://weeblyfile/7/1/3/4/7134305/20110524_environment.pdfweeblylink_new_window

Core members of Protect Our Manoomin met on Tuesday, March 24, and formed as a unincorporated organization as defined under Alternatives to Non-Profits, Minnesota Council of Non-Profits.
 
Rather than a formalized structure with a president (or CEO), vice president, etc., we chose to form as a council. All 10 members of our council have an equal voice at the table.

Tribal affiliations of council members include Mississippi Ojibwe, Red Lake Ojibwe, Sandy Lake Ojibwe, Rice Lake Ojibwe, Fond du Lac Ojibwe, Pembina Ojibwe, and White Earth Ojibwe.

In conjunction with our formation as an unincorporated organization, we have released a revised Mission Statement and Declaration.

Protect Our Manoomin will continue to work in the legislative sector to oppose legislation that endangers our manoomin and ecosystem; to educate and inform Anishinaabe of the imperilment of sulfide mining - we will do this through expanded outreach programs and forums; and we will develop programs to engage youth and families in manoominike (harvest manoomin).  

On May 9, I attended a meeting at the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) regarding the sulfate standard for wild rice. The full title for the meeting was – MPCA Wild Rice / Sulfate Water Quality Standard Study Protocol Development Discussions. The meeting objectives were:

1. Share understanding of what is known about the effects of sulfate and sulfide on wild rice.

2. Identify the most critical “unknowns” and associated hypothesis, needed to inform further evaluation and, if warranted, revision of the wild rice sulfate standard.

3.  Recommend study design(s) and methods to test the most critical hypothesis.

The first part of this article focuses on my personal experience and views of the meeting.

I first learned about this meeting through an acquaintance who works for a tribal environmental department – one of the three tribes (Bois Forte, Grand Portage, Fond Du Lac) who submitted tribal responses to Polymet’s DEIS. Through an email that I was sent, I was able to sign up as an observer.  

In the intervening three weeks before the meeting, I was sent two documents - Protocol Development Discussion Document and an Excel spreadsheet on Specific Hypothesis Regarding the Role of Sulfate.

On the day of the meeting, I was cordially welcomed by the MPCA staff.  I didn’t know where to go at first, so I sat at what I called the Big Table – this was the main meeting room where the scientists and experts would meet.  Seated to my right and left were two female scientists/experts, and they welcomed me to the meeting. No one knew who I was – I was there as a representative of Protect Our Manoomin – and I think most people there were intrigued that a Native person was present.

Everyone had placards that they filled in and put in front of them. Tribes were represented by Grand Portage, Bois Forte, Fond Du Lac, the 1854 Treaty Authority, and Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission. Various agencies included the USEPA, MPCA, Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources, U.S, Geological Survey, Barr Engineering Co., Ducks Unlimited, U. S. Salinity Laboratory; and various scientists and experts from the University of Minnesota, University of California – Davis, U of M Duluth, Louisiana State University, Northland College, Lakehead University (Canada), University of Wisconsin – Oshkosh. The total number of participants was forty-seven. 

I sat there thinking – how did a Redlaker ever come to sit at a table like this? Well, of course, it wasn’t my table. I was just an observer. Just before the meeting started, I asked one of the MPCA staff to direct me to the observer room.

The room for observers was located two or three rooms down the hallway. There weren’t too many observers – only six of us. Other observers opted for teleconferencing the meeting.

Paula Maccabee was across from me. She came over and gave me a gracious handshake. I was familiar with her from her work as an attorney in the forefront  of the battle against raising the sulfate standard and sulfide mining.

Three other individuals seated the end of table across from me were: Mike Robinson, MN Chamber of Commerce, Dave Skolasinski, Cliffs Natural Resources, and Mike Hansel, Barr Engineering.  The MN Chamber of Commerce is the most powerful lobby at the State Capitol; they filed a lawsuit against the MPCA regarding the sulfate standard, a lawsuit that was intended to raise or suspend the standard. Cliffs Natural Resources is a Fortune 500 company that specializes in iron ore and metallurgical coal, used to make coke for foundries. Barr Engineering, among other services, integrates engineering and environmental expertise for mining and minerals processing.

It was an interesting sight seeing those three so-called powerful men hunched together. I thought - so these are the environmental racists we face. Of course, the three shared a common affinity in wanting a raised or suspended sulfate standard that would allow their companies to reap the mining plunder of northeastern Minnesota. Like Paula, I turned my back and ignored them.

The proceedings of the meeting at the Big Table were aired via video cam on a large screen. After introductions, MPCA discussed their history of the current wild rice standard. The name of John Moyle came up a number of times. Although long deceased, it was clear that MPCA still held Moyle and his work in high regard. It was Moyle’s work, done in the 1940s, that MPCA used to set the wild rice standard in 1973.  Despite challenges to Moyle’s work, his wild rice standard has held up for nearly 40 years.

The meeting then turned to a discussion of the protocol development for the study of the sulfate standard. Basically, the MPCA discussed some of the hypothetical approaches. The opinions and comments of the scientists and experts would be considered for a potential study of wild rice. Part of the study was for the MPCA’s 2012 Water Quality Standards Triennial Review. (There are other factors involved, including technical factors, and these will be covered in Part 2.)  

We then broke for lunch. Margaret Watkins, Grand Portage Environmental Department, came over and talked to me. She said she was glad that I came and was familiar with Protect Our Manoomin. She encouraged me to continue with the work we were doing in creating awareness of the sulfate standard. She also said the tribal position was that the 10 mg/L standard had to be maintained.

After lunch, there were two breakout sessions. Observers were allowed to attend the sessions and we had seats along the wall. Both sessions were the same and revolved around these questions:

• Perhaps on an empirical model would be adequate;
• We don’t need to understand all the mechanisms;
• But different background conditions may produce different results;
• So we need to identify the potential controlling variables for designing data collection and interpreting data:
• Iron, manganese, copper, zinc
• Organic Matter
• Nitrogen…and so on
• What is the most efficient way to test as many high-priority hypothesis as possible?
• We probably have two field seasons (after a preliminary field survey in 2011);
• What should we do over those two field seasons?

These questions formed the background for the Excel spreadsheets – Special Hypothesis Regarding the Role of Sulfate.

The table then opened for discussion and the scientists and technical experts offered their views. Basically, the discussion was how to conduct the study in situ (i.e. in the field) and in the lab. The complications, variables, and measurements that were involved. And how to maintain the correlation between the lab and the environment.   

I noticed the MN Chamber rep was lost. He didn’t appear to know or understand the discussion. He didn’t take notes and he sat there with a bewildered look on his face. I think the discussion was much more complex than he thought it would be and that changing the standard wasn’t going to be a simple task.

It seemed to me that some of the experts were talking about the study as being a new study – a study that would start from the beginning. At that point, Shannon Lotthammer of MPCA spoke and said that the MPCA had a standard, based on Moyle’s work, and that the MPCA wanted to use current scientific methods to maintain that standard or revise it.

With that, the breakout session ended. At that point I had to leave, but the remainder of the meeting was a recap of the two breakout sessions and the next steps MPCA would take.

As a humble observer, what is my take of this important meeting? The scientists clearly enjoyed their discussion of their various hypotheses for the study. It was interesting to watch their interaction. Some ideas were good, others not so good.

But what I found more interesting was the MPCA’s stand. And they stand behind the work of John Moyle and the standard that evolved from Moyle. Lotthammer strongly emphasized that MPCA has a standard. And it’s going to take in-depth scientific methods to maintain the standard or revise it. And it seemed to me that MPCA was confident that the standard would be maintained. Given the information on the effects of sulfate/sulfide that was made available at the meeting, indeed, should the standard be revised, the standard may be lowered rather than raised.    

Note - At the time of this writing, I received word that the conference committee chose to suspend the current standard. H.L. 1010 will now go to Dayton who will sign it or veto it. It's our consensus that Dayton will sign the bill. Nevertheless, suspending the standard does not mean the battle is over - indeed, it is only beginning. It should be further noted that the suspension of the sulfate standard will be in effect until the MPCA completes its study.