In early 2011, Protect Our Manoomin (Weweni Ganawendan Gi-Manoomininaan), an Ojibwe-Anishinaabe grassroots group in Minnesota, was established to raise awareness of the threats of sulfide mining on the ceded lands under the treaties of 1854 and 1855. The main focus of Protect Our Manoomin has been to educate and inform people about sulfide mining and its detrimental impact on the environment – particularly the impact on manoomin.

The English word for manoomin is wild rice. However, the English translation doesn’t convey the deep meaning that manoomin has for Ojibwe-Anishinaabe people. Manoomin means “Good Berry.”  Manoomin is rooted in Ojibwe-Anishinaabeg prophecies and origin stories.  It is a special gift given to the Ojibwe-Anishinaabeg by Gichi-Manidoo (the Creator).  Manoomin is the food that grows on water. Manoomin not only provides food and an economic base, it also provides a cultural, spiritual and ceremonial connection.  To the Ojibwe-Anishinaabeg, manoomin is a living being that has been an inherent part of Ojibwe-Anishinaabe culture for nearly a thousand years.

Manoomin is also an environmental resource. Healthy stands of manoomin are the barometer of a healthy ecosystem. But sulfates, which are released through the sulfide mining process, enter into rivers and lakes.  The sulfates drift into the sediment where they convert into hydrogen sulfide that enters the root system of manoomin. Concentrations of sulfates that are over 10 parts per million of sulfate impairs the growth of manoomin resulting in withered leaves and smaller seeds; high concentrations of sulfates suffocate and kill manoomin.  Macroinvertebrates, vegetation, flora, fish, waterfowl, and wildlife are impacted. Additionally, sulfate-reducing bacteria transforms into methyl mercury that leads to mercury fish contamination. Minnesota state law limits sulfate to 10 parts per million to protect manoomin. The extractive resource colonies proposed for northern and central Minnesota will exceed the limits of the law. 

That sulfates can kill manoomin is evidenced by the Wild Rice Dead Zone – a stretch that begins where the Bine-ziibi (Partridge River) enters into Gichigamiwi-ziibi (St. Louis River) and extends 140 miles to the Anishinaabeg-Gichigami Maamawijiwan (Lake Superior Basin). The Wild Rice Dead Zone is the result of extremely high concentrations of sulfate released by U.S. Steel’s Keetac and Minntac taconite mines. Sulfide mining will add yet more sulfates into rivers and lakes thereby affecting the food that grows on water.            

There is approximately 48,200 acreage of manoomin within the ceded lands of the 1854 and 1855 treaties. Thousands of acreage will be impacted by sulfide mining. The combined total of manoomin in 1854 and 1855 ceded lands account for over three-quarters of the estimated total 64,000 manoomin acreage in Minnesota. Under the treaties, the Anishinaabeg maintain usufructuary rights to hunt, fish, and gather manoomin. These usufructuary rights were affirmed by the Supreme Court decision – Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band - in 1999. However, the issue of ceded lands has been marginalized by extractive resource colonies that seek to build mining districts within ceded lands.  

The issue of sulfide mining is interwoven in the web of corporatism. Sulfide mining is about corporate greed, and profits made at the expense of the environment. The profit margin does not go back into local communities. Mining creates a boom and bust economy.  Jobs for the local workforce are short-term and limited. The aging workforce on the Iron Range lacks the specialized, technical skills that require a minimum two-year college degree for a majority of the jobs.

In the case of PolyMet Mining, the profits go back to a Canadian extractive corporation and to Glencore Metals and Minerals, an international commodities conglomerate based in Switzerland. And the extracted copper will be exported to China.

How is it that foreign corporations are able to come into Minnesota, extract copper, and ship it overseas?

The answer is the legal fiction called corporate personhood that enables corporations, e.g., copper extractive resource corporations, to influence our state legislature through unlimited campaign contributions. Through a corporatist agenda, we have state legislators who are amending or rewriting laws for the benefit of extractive resource industries.

These revisions of laws undermine existing laws like Minnesota’s Wild Rice/Sulfate Water Quality Standard and the EPA’s Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act.  And the extractive resource corporations can do this because Citizens United v. FEC has strengthened their status of “persons” with fundamental natural rights.  Under that status, corporations, including foreign corporations, can make campaign expenditures, without limit, to influence candidates of their choice – in this case, influence pro-mining candidates who can further the sulfide mining agenda by passing laws that are favorable to copper extractive resource corporations like PolyMet Mining/Glencore Metals and Minerals, Kennecott Tamarack/Rio Tinto, Twin Metals/Antofagasta PLC, Cardero Resource Corp., and Teck Mining Corp, all of whom are planning to establish mining districts in Minnesota.   

But the influence of corporate personhood goes beyond state legislators. It extends to congressional lawmakers in Washington.  This is exampled by congressional lawmakers who are involved in efforts to weaken EPA standards for extractive resource corporations and thereby place our environment at risk for the benefit of economic gain.

The Ojibwe-Anishinaabe people know about corporatism. It is part of Ojibwe-Anishinaabeg history.  In the 1600s, the French came through Ojibwe-Anishinaabeg Akiing (Land of the Ojibwe-Anishinaabe that includes Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan) looking for copper deposits to exploit for economic gain. The Ojibwe-Anishinaabeg never revealed the locations of those deposits. In 1826, the U.S. negotiated a treaty at Nagaajiwanaang (Fond du Lac, Minnesota). The treaty was largely to identify the various Ojibwe-Anishinaabeg nations in Ojibwe-Anishinaabeg Akiing.

There was no cession of tribal land in the treaty of 1826.  However, Article 3 of the treaty contained a provision that the U.S. had the right to search for, and carry away, any metals or minerals from any part of Ojibwe-Anishinaabe country. And further, the grant was not to affect the title of the land, nor the existing jurisdiction over it. Less than twenty years later, mining operations began in Michigan at Isle Royale and the Upper Peninsula.

Later treaties weren’t just about the cession of tribal lands to open for settlers and farmers. The U.S. government’s main thrust focused on corporatism – the collusion of the government and extractive resource industries to exploit tribal ceded lands for economic gain and profit.

In the treaty making process, most tribes maintained a portion of their homelands, i.e., reservations, and ceded their outlying homelands. However, tribes maintained usufructuary rights, i.e., hunting, fishing, and gathering rights, on their ceded lands. For example, the Treaty of 1837 states: 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 guaranteed to the Indians, during the pleasure of the President of the United States.”

Usufructuary rights were denied by the extractive resource companies who poured into ceded land to take the timber, metals, and minerals. And these rights were denied by the states because the ceded lands generated an economic base for the states.

It wasn’t until the 1970s that usufructuary rights began to be litigated in state courts and in the Supreme Court. In 1974, the Bolt Decision in Washington State set the precedent in recognizing usufructuary rights.  

What began with the treaties continues today under the banner of corporate personhood.  And this time around, both Ojibwe-Anishinaabe and non-Natives are affected. Private land owners are affected. The environment is affected. The rights of human beings are affected because the so-called personhood rights of corporations take precedence over equal rights.

A fact sheet issued by Protect Our Manoomin cites the following information on the PolyMet mine:

• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): “According to (PolyMet’s) DEIS (Draft Environmental Impact Study], all waste rock at the site is acid generating, and acidic water moving through waste rock and tailings will mobilize metals and sulfates, leaching them into groundwater and surface water…based on our review of the DEIS, EPA has rated the DEIS as environmentally Unsatisfactory – Inadequate. Environmentally Unsatisfactory (EU) indicates that our review has identified adverse environmental impacts that are of sufficient magnitude that EPA believes that the proposed action must not proceed as proposed.” (EPA Letter / February 2010)
• In the tribal response to PolyMet’s EIS, the three tribes involved -  Zagaakwaandagowinini (Bois Forte Band), Nagaajiwanaang (Fond du Lac Band), and Gichi-Onigaming (Grand Portage Band) – cited incomplete and inadequate areas of study and the EIS didn’t meet state or federal environmental laws.  The tribes also were adamant that the Wild Rice/Sulfate Standard be maintained to protect the manoomin.  
• The proposed mine site is within the Superior National Forest, where open pit strip mining is not allowed under the Weeks Act. PolyMet will swap about 6,700 acres of public land with the Superior National Forest. Iron Range Resources provided PolyMet with a $4 million loan to buy the land that will be swapped.
• The mine will directly destroy more than 850 acres of high-quality wetlands with more than 650 additional acres of wetlands indirectly impaired. The total wetlands impact will be more than 1,500 acres. The vast majority of the required wetlands mitigation will occur outside the St. Louis River watershed.
• The mine is expected to generate nearly 400 million tons of waste rock and account for an annual carbon footprint of 767,648 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions. Reactive waste rock piles will be permanently left on the land – ranging in size from 70 to 560 acres in size, and from 13 to 20 stories high. It will take 2000 years of water treatment to restore the water to the condition the water as in when the mining began.
• The project proposes to store mine tailings and toxic waste materials in an existing mine tailings basin that has current basin stability problems. The existing basin is located at Hoyt Lakes – 50 miles from Duluth. There is over 1800 acreage of manoomin located in the Hoyt Lakes area.
• The mining of less than 1% ores results in 99% waste rock.    Mining the Duluth Complex of mineralization will ultimately destroy the most scenic part of northeast Minnesota between Lake Superior and the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. This area includes approximately 9,000 acreage of manoomin.
• Even though mining companies are required to provide financial assurance for clean-up, the record from other states shows that clean-up costs far exceed projections, with tax payers footing the bill.  In addition, financial assurance does not prevent the destruction of manoomin, forests, wetlands, water quality, wildlife habitat, scenic areas, and biodiversity.
• The metals mined will not be used for American technology.  The demand for copper comes from China and is needed for building its industrial infrastructure. During this time of market disruption, China and newly industrializing countries are buying up copper and precious metals as a commodity to bolster their currency.
• In addition, the mining process adds sulfates, arsenic, and toxic heavy metals into the water.
• Copper mineralization is bonded to sulfide ores which eventually produce sulfuric acid.  There is no copper mine in existence that is not polluting the ground water.

(Sources – Protect Our Manoomin, WaterLegacy, Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness, Save Our Blue Sky Waters)

Despite PolyMet’s assurances of environmentally safe and responsible mining, the above facts attest to the deceit that PolyMet is willing to commit in presenting itself as a steward of the environment. In response, Protect Our Manoomin issued the following resolution regarding its position on safe and responsible mining.    

Protect Our Manoomin supports environmentally safe and responsible mining if the following criterion is met:

1.      Responsible mining does not threaten to the St. Louis River Watershed and the Upper Mississippi Watershed.

2.      Responsible mining does not threaten a major local economy. In our case, this would include tourism, our growing number of organic farmers, and the economy of manoomin harvesters.

3.      Responsible mining does not threaten/negatively impact the cultural heritage or survival of any local Native and non-Native residents.

4.      Responsible mining does not lower the values of our property.

5.      Responsible mining does not have the potential to harm Lake Superior in any way.

6.      Responsible mining does not do irreparable damage to the ceded lands of the 1854 and 1855 treaties.

7.      Responsible mining does not threaten the quality of life for the Seventh Generation.

8.      We demand at least one example of an existing mine that has met the conditions above.

9.      Responsible mining does not require perpetual active water treatment after closure.

In closing, Protect Our Manoomin has issued the following summation:

What we do today affects the generations that follow us. Corporate personhood isn’t concerned about the next generation that follows or future generations. Corporate personhood is about instant gratification for profits and economic gain. There is no concern about our nibi, our water, which is sacred and provides us with life. There is no concern about the impaired environment and the poisoned waters they will leave for their children and their children’s children.  Indeed, if corporations are “persons,” then it can be said that their personhood personifies the dysfunctional behaviors of greed, bulliness, and intimidation to get what they want. 

In the Anishinaabe mindset, we think in terms of the Seventh Generation.  When we undertake any actions or make any decisions, we consider how our actions and decisions will affect the Seventh Generation from now. It is that mindset that we all need to help guide us in our opposition to corporate personhood and sulfide mining. What we do today, we do for the generations that follow.

Boozhoo Anishinaabedoog miinawaa Indinawemaaganag

Endaso-Giizhik wiinzowin

Makwa indoodem

Miskwaagamiiwi-zaaga’iganiing indoonjibaa

My name is Robert Desjarlait and I’m from the Red Lake Anishinaabe Nation. I’m a co-founder of Protect Our Manoomin – an Anishinaabe grassroots group whose main mission is to educate and inform people about sulfide mining and its detrimental impact on our environment – particularly the impact on our manoomin, our wild rice. 

Manoomin is also an environmental resource. Healthy stands of manoomin are the barometer of a healthy eco-system. But sulfates, which are a waste product of sulfide mining that enters into rivers and lakes, impair the growth of manoomin, and high concentrations of sulfates destroy manoomin.  Macroinvertebrates, vegetation, flora, fish, and waterfowl are impacted. Additionally, sulfate-reducing bacteria transforms into methyl mercury that leads to mercury fish contamination. This loss of a vital eco-system affects all of us – Native and non-Native alike.

The issue of sulfide mining is interwoven in the web of corporatism. When we look at corporate greed, we see profits made at the expense of our environment. The profit margin does not go back into local communities. In the case of Polymet, the profits go back to a Canadian extractive corporation and to Glencore, an international corporation based in Switzerland. And the extracted copper will be exported to China. How is it that foreign corporations are able to come into Minnesota, extract copper, and ship it overseas?

The answer is the legal fiction called corporate personhood that enables corporations, e.g., copper extractive resource corporations, to influence our state legislature through unlimited campaign contributions. Through the corporatist agenda, we have state legislators who are amending or rewriting the laws for the benefit of extractive resource industries. These revisions of laws undermine existing laws like Minnesota’s Wild Rice/Sulfate Water Quality Standard and the EPA’s Clean Water Act.  And the extractive resource corporations can do that because under Citizens United they have the status of “persons” with fundamental natural rights.  Under that status, corporations, including foreign corporations, can make campaign expenditures, without limit, to candidates of their choice – in this case, pro-mining candidates that can further the sulfide mining agenda by passing laws that are favorable to copper extractive corporations like Polymet/Glencore, Kennecott/Rio Tinto, Twin Metals/Antofagasta, Cardero, and Teck .  But the influence of corporate personhood goes beyond our state legislators. It extends to our congressional lawmakers in Washington.  This is exampled by congressional lawmakers who are involved in efforts to weaken EPA standards for extractive resource corporations and thereby place our environment at risk for the benefit of economic gain.

The Anishinaabe people know about corporatism. It is part of our history.  In the 1600s, the French came through here looking for copper deposits to exploit for economic gain. The Anishinaabe never revealed the locations of those deposits. In 1826, the U.S. negotiated a treaty at Fond du Lac. The treaty was largely to identify the various Anishinaabe nations in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. There was no cessation of tribal land.  However, Article 3 of that treaty contained a provision that the U.S. had the right to search for, and carry away, any metals or minerals from any part of Anishinaabe country. And further, the grant was not to affect the title of the land, nor the existing jurisdiction over it. Less than twenty years later, mining operations began at Isle Royale and the Upper Peninsula.

Later treaties weren’t just about the cessation of tribal lands to open for settlers and farmers. The heart of the treaties was about corporatism – the collusion of the government and extractive resource industries to exploit tribal ceded land for economic gain and profit.

What began with the treaties continues today under the banner of corporate personhood.  And this time around, both Anishinaabe and Non-Native are affected. Private land owners are affected. Our environment is affected. Our rights are human beings are affected because the so-called personhood rights of corporations take precedence over our rights.

In closing, what we do today affects the generations that follow us. Corporate personhood isn’t concerned about the next generation that follows or future generations. Corporate personhood is about instant gratification for profits and economic gain. There is no concern about our nibi, our water, that is sacred and provides us with life. There is no concern about the impaired environment and the poisoned waters they will leave for their children and their children’s children.  Indeed, if corporations are “persons,” then it can be said that their personhood personifies the dysfunctional behaviors of greed, bulliness, and intimidation to get what they want. 

In the Anishinaabe mindset, we think in terms of the Seventh Generation.  When we undertake any actions today, we consider how our actions will affect the Seventh Generation from now. It is that mindset that we all need to help guide us in our opposition to corporate personhood and sulfide mining. What we do today, we do for the generations that follow.

Mii sa go    

Note: This article was published in the Summer edition of WIN Magazine 2011.

“This Straw which I hold in my hands, Wild Rice is what we call this. These I do not sell. That you may not destroy the Rice in working the Timber, Also the Rapids and Falls in the Streams I will lend you to saw your timber.... I do not make you a present of this, I merely lend it to you.” (1837 Treaty)

For the Ojibwe-Anishinaabe people, manoomin (wild rice) plays a central role in our culture, traditions, ceremonies, and spirituality. Long ago, when we lived on the shores of the Great Salt Water (the Atlantic coastline), the Seven Fires Prophecy was given to us. The First Fire reads, “You will know the chosen ground has been reached when you come to a land where food grows on water.” In response, our ancestors set forth on the Great Migration that began over 500 years ago. They traveled down the St. Lawrence River and into the Great Lakes region and entered Anishinaabe Aki, the Land of the Anishinaabe, where they found manoomin—the food that grows on water.

In the early 1800s, explorers who journeyed through Anishinaabe Aki were awed by the vast stands of manoomin that grew in abundance in rivers, streams, and lakes, stands of rice that stretched as far as the eye could see. They appreciated the rice for its nutritional value, and it became a favored commodity item in the fur trade.

With the treaties of 1837 and 1854, ceded tribal lands in Minnesota and Wisconsin opened to white settlement and the ecological habitat of rice changed as settlers built homesteads and farmers developed farmlands.

Despite the depletion of ricing lakes and rivers resulting from white settlement, the manoomin continued to grow in many areas. However, the usufructuary rights in the 1837 and 1854 treaties that guaranteed the Ojibwe the right to harvest rice off-reservation, as well as hunting and fishing rights, were denied in both Minnesota and Wisconsin. These usufructuary rights would be reaffirmed through the Voigt decision (1983) in Wisconsin and the landmark Supreme Court decision in Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe in 1999.

Setting Standards

In the mid-1940s, John Moyle, a biologist for the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR), began studying the ricing stands in northern Minnesota. Moyle’s research focused on why rice was depleted in some areas and abundant in other areas.

Moyle found that no large stands of rice occurred in waters having a sulfate content greater than 10 mg/L (parts per million) and that rice generally was absent from water with more than 50 mg/L.

Sulfate is a natural occurrence in nature. Iron ore was formed during the middle Precambrian period, 2.5 to 1.6 billion years ago.

Sulfate is part of the sulfuric salt runoff from rock formations. But the sulfate levels that Moyle discovered were not natural levels, which are minimal. Rather, the high levels that Moyle found were human-made, the legacy of iron ore mining, which has a 125-year history in northern Minnesota.

In 1973, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency used Moyle’s wild rice research to set the Wild Rice Water Quality Standard. Under state law, sulfate levels from mining industries could not exceed 10 mg/L. In addition, 24 ricing lakes, rivers, and streams were protected under the standard.

In 2006, PolyMet Mining announced its proposal for an open-pit, non-ferrous (sulfide) mining operation in northeastern Minnesota. Non-ferrous mining is the extraction of metals that do not contain iron. Non-ferrous metals include copper, lead, nickel, tin, titanium, zinc, and precious metals—gold, silver, and platinum.

Non-ferrous metals exist naturally in the form of sulfide compounds. From the piles of rock waste, the sulfide leaches into the groundwater and finds its way into rivers and streams, where it changes into sulfate. Once in the water, sulfate settles in the sediment, where it forms into hydrogen sulfide. Thus, wild rice is imperiled in two ways: from sulfates and from hydrogen sulfide.

As part of the proposal, PolyMet was required to submit an Environmental Impact Study (EIS). A draft EIS was completed in 2009. Responses to the DEIS included the Minnesota DNR,the U.S. Forest Service, the Environmental Protection Agendy (EPA), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Because the proposed mine affected off-reservation ceded land (i.e., the 1854 Ceded Territory), tribal respondents included the Fond Du Lac Ojibwe, the Grand Portage Ojibwe, the Bois Forte Ojibwe, the 1854 Treaty Authority, and the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission.

The tribal response did not oppose the mining operation per se, but said that various refining techniques were unsafe to the ecosystem. This included the effects on threatened and special concern species of wildlife, the impact on wetland habitat, effects on endangered species of plants, and the introduction of invasive species of plants. The tribal response also noted that it would take 2,000 years for the water quality to return to premining norms. And the tribes stood steadfastly by the 10 mg/L sulfate standard.

Mobilization: Protect Our Manoomin

Protect Our Manoomin (POM) was established in March 2011 as a grassroots response to the increasing legislative threats to wild rice. Madonna Youngbear, a member of the Mississippi Ojibwe, created a group on Facebook. We currently have 680 members in the group. We have two online petitions with 1,215 worldwide signatories.

In May, we met to formalize our core group of 10 individuals as an unincorporated organization, issued a revised mission statement and declaration, and discussed future goals. Rather than a formalized structure (i.e., president, vice president, etc.), we chose to form as a council, thereby giving equal voice to council members. On important matters, we vote by consensus.

Our council is made up of members of the Mississippi Ojibwe, Red Lake Ojibwe, Sandy Lake Ojibwe, Fond du Lac Ojibwe, Rice Lake Ojibwe, Pembina Ojibwe, and White Earth Ojibwe.

Minnesota currently has a pro-mining legislature. In February 2011, a bill was passed to “streamline” the permit process. The bill also allowed Iron Range Resources (IRR), a state agency, tomake a $4 million loan to PolyMet to buy the land needed for its mine. PolyMet intends to swap the land for a more suitable site located on federal land in the Superior National Forest.

In March 2011, both the House and the Senate introduced bills that would affect the wild rice standard. The House version (HF 1010) raised the standard to 50 mg/L; the Senate version (SF 1029) suspended the standard. HF 1010 became the bill of choice and was sent to the conference committee to draft the language of the final bill.

On May 4, we held our first rally at the state capitol while the conference committee was in session. We had a drum ceremony, an invocation by an elder, and about 30 protesters with signs.

Two days later, three POM members gave public testimony at the capitol before the conference committee. On May 14, we organized a rally for the Governor’s Fishing Opener held at Grand Rapids. On a cold, wet, rainy day, 35 protesters greeted Governor Mark Dayton as he came in off the lake. Senator Al Franken, a member of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, walked by and turned his back on the protesters. Although security segregated POM protestors in an area away from the main landing, media nevertheless filmed and spoke to the protesters. Lakeland PBS of Bemidji featured footage of the protest on its newscast.

On May 13, the EPA responded to a letter submitted by two Minnesota legislators. The letter was a query on EPA standards regarding HF 1010. The EPA response 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.” The EPA pointed out that the sulfate standard could not be suspended while the study was conducted. After completion of the study, it will then be reviewed by the EPA which will then determine if the sulfate standard should be changed.

On May 19, despite the EPA letter, the Minnesota legislature passed HF 1010 and chose to suspend the sulfate standard. Under the bill, the suspension is effective for a two-year period while MPCA completes a wild rice study.

With the passage of the bill, POM posted a form letter to the governor on the group’s website and encouraged our supporters to urge Governor Dayton to veto the bill. Governor Dayton has previously said he would veto any budget bill with policies attached.

The wild rice standard is a policy attached to a budget bill. Although the Minnesota state shutdown has put all bills on hold, the question remains whether Dayton will sign it or veto it when the shutdown ends. Should the bill be signed, the state will have to contend with the EPA regulations.

Although part of POM’s work is tied to legislative issues that affect manoomin, another part of our struggle is tied into the larger issue of sulfide mining. In addition to PolyMet, five more mining companies are expected to file for operating permits. But mining isn’t limited to northeastern Minnesota. Exploratory survey maps reveal deposits of non-ferrous metals all across northern Minnesota, including on the borders of Red Lake, Leech Lake, White Earth, and Mille Lacs Ojibwe tribal lands.

In June, POM was awarded the Grassroots Community Mining Mini-grant from the Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN). The grant will help POM develop outreach programs and host informational forums on reservations. With our IEN grant, we plan to open the forums in September, at the time of the wild rice harvest.

We are also connecting with non-Native environmental groups. The issue of sulfide mining is one of environmental racism, one that includes both Ojibwe and non-Native people. All will be affected by the ecocide unleashed by sulfide mining.

The real strength of Protect Our Manoomin is the support, encouragement, and guidance of our elders. With their direction, we will protect the manoomin—for the present generation to the Seventh Generation.
_______________________________________________________________


Hamburger Wild Rice Steaks with Bleu Cheese1-1/2 cups cooked wild rice
1 egg
2 teaspoons Worcestershire sauce
1 teaspoon salt
1/2 teaspoon fresh ground pepper
1 1/2 pounds lean hamburger
2 tablespoons butter
1 cup crumbled blue cheese

Combine first five ingredients in a large bowl. Add the hamburger, mix together well, and shape 4 to 6 patties. Fry or grill normally. Just before the patties are done, sprinkle with the crumbled bleu cheese and allow it to melt lightly.
________________________________________________________________

Robert DesJarlait is a member of the Red Lake Ojibwe-Anishinaabe Nation located in northern Minnesota. He is a co-founder of Protect Our Manoomin—a Minnesota Anishinaabe grassroots organization that educates tribal members on nonferrous mining and its effects on manoomin and the environment.

Boozhoo Commissioners:

My name is Sandra Skinaway and I am from the Sandy Lake Ojibwe Nation.

I come here today to speak on behalf of Protect Our Manoomin. Protect Our Manoomin is an Anishinaabe grassroots organization that works to educate our people on reservations about the dangers of non-ferrous mining and its effect on our manoomin.  Protect Our Manoomin began in March 2011. We currently have 2100 supporters worldwide.  

Protect Our Manoomin and its supporters are requesting the Commissioners to deny approval of the Resolution in Support of Non-Ferrous Mining in St. Louis County. We ask that you consider the following in denying approval.

The English word for manoomin is wild rice. The English translation doesn’t convey the deep meaning that manoomin has for Ojibwe people. Manoomin means “Good Berry.”  Manoomin is rooted in our origin stories and traditional stories.  It is a special gift given to us by the Creator. Manoomin not only provides food and an economic base for us, it also provides a spiritual and ceremonial connection.  To us, manoomin is a living being that has been an inherent part of our culture for thousands of years.

The proposed establishment of extractive resource colonies in Northeastern Minnesota presents a clear and present to not only our manoomin but to the environment itself.  Manoomin is a barometer of an ecosystem. Manoomin supports a healthy system of microscopic life, fish, waterfowl and wild life. The loss of manoomin directly impacts the ecosystem. In St. Louis County, there are 137 rivers and lakes that produce manoomin, covering 9053 total acreage of manoomin.  Those rivers and lakes will be at great risk if this resolution is passed.

Under state law, the Wild Rice/Sulfide Water Quality Standard is 10 parts per million of sulfate. High concentrations of sulfate damage manoomin. Sulfates drift downstream and become embedded in the sediment where it converts into hydrogen sulfide. This enters into the roots of the manoomin plant and results in withered leaves that turn yellow and brown and the plant produces smaller seeds. High concentrations can suffocate and kill the plant. That sulfates can kill manoomin is evidenced by the Wild Rice Dead Zone – a stretch that begins where the Partridge River enters into the St. Louis River and extends 140 miles to the Lake Superior Basin. The Wild Rice Dead Zone is the result of extremely high concentrations of sulfate released by the Keetac and Minntac taconite mines. Polymet and four other copper mining enterprises are proposing mining operations. A copper mining district composed of several mining companies will compound the release of sulfates, thereby affecting the environment.

Lastly, there is the issue of the Ceded Territory of 1854. The 137 manoomin lakes and rivers in St. Louis County are within the boundaries of the Ceded Territory. The rights of Ojibwe people to hunt, fish, and gather on off-reservation land were affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1999. Therefore, the manoomin in the Ceded Territory is protected under treaty rights. 

Mii’gwech for allowing Protect Our Manoomin and our supporters the opportunity to provide testimony today.  Mii sa go. 

Note: The following FAQs are drawn/adapted from several sources including WaterLegacy, Friends of the BWCA, and Lake Superior Mining News.

Polymet is a foreign, Canadian extractive resource entity backed by Swiss multinational Glencore. Glencore has been cited for human rights abuses in the Congo and Columbia. Glencore currently owns about a quarter of PolyMet stock. Most of the copper from PolyMet’s mine will be exported to China.

• EPA: “According to [PolyMet’s) DEIS [Draft Environmental Impact Study], all waste rock at the site is acid generating, and acidic water moving through waste rock and tailings will mobilize metals and sulfates, leaching them into groundwater and surface water…based on our review of the DEIS, EPA has rated the DEIS as environmentally Unsatisfactory – Inadequate. Environmentally Unsatisfactory (EU) indicates that our review has identified adverse environmental impacts that are of sufficient magnitude that EPA believes that the proposed action must not proceed as proposed.” (EPA Letter / February 2010)
• The proposed mine site is within the Superior National Forest, where open pit strip mining is not allowed. PolyMet will take about 6,700 acres of public land from the Superior National Forest. Iron Range Resources provided PolyMet with a $4 million loan to buy land that will, in turn, be swapped with Superior National Forest land. The mine will directly destroy more than 850 acres of high-quality wetlands with more than 650 additional acres of wetlands indirectly impaired. The total wetlands impact would be more than 1,500 acres. The vast majority of the required wetlands mitigation will occur outside the St. Louis River watershed.
• The mine will result in seepage of high sulfate concentrations and create high risk situations for mercury methylation. Methyl mercury is the active form of mercury that accumulates in fish and is toxic to humans and wildlife.
• The mine is expected to generate nearly 400 million tons of waste rock and account for an annual carbon footprint of 767,648 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions. Reactive waste rock piles would be permanently left on the land – ranging in size from 70 to 560 acres in size, and from 13 to 20 stories high.
• The project proposes to store mine tailings and toxic waste materials in an existing mine tailings basin that has current basin stability problems. The existing basin is located at Hoyt Lakes – 50 miles from Duluth.
• The mine site is located within the 1854 Treaty Ceded Territory, where the Bois Forte, Fond du Lac, and Grand Portage Anishinaabeg Nations retain hunting, fishing and gathering off-reservation rights. 
• Manoomin (natural wild rice) has enormous ecological value - protecting water quality, reducing algae blooms, and providing habitat for fish, mammals and wildfowl.
• Minnesota’s wild rice/sulfate standard - 10 milligrams per liter (mg/L) - protects tribal resources, natural food and a critical ecosystem.  Sulfate pollution from mining kills entire stands of manoomin 
• Manoomin stands serve as resting, foraging, nesting, and brood rearing sites for both migratory and resident water birds. It is one of the most important and nutritional foods for waterfowl in Minnesota. From early May to late November, ducks, geese, and other water birds feed on the sprouting seeds, young shoots, and ripe grain. More than 35 species of shore birds and wading birds have been observed using manoomin fields.
• Manoomin is a vital cultural, spiritual, and food resource for the Anishinaabe people.  
• PolyMet, and sulfide mining in general, is supported by Governor Mark Dayton, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Sen. Al Franken, Rep. Chip Cravaack, and by a majority of Minnesota legislators.
  

What is responsible mining? 

Does a responsible mining proposal negatively impact one group of people, disproportionally more and with the least to gain, while almost completely leaving them out of the conversation?

Is a responsible mine, one in which the owner profits to the extent of buying himself a 33,000 sq ft home? A $46 million boat called "Mine Games" with his own submarine and helicopter. A gulf Stream jet. A 154 acre estate with his own private go-cart track. Do these things represent a "need" for these materials that would be mined? Is it responsible to explode a thousand foot deep hole in the Penokees for "Mine Games II"?

Does a responsible mining corporation say one thing and do another on very important questions such as, 'are you going to weaken WI mining laws?' G-Tac officials assured a crowd in January that they were not interested in weakening state law while at virtually the same time spending time and money lobbying to do just that. By summer our laws were being called onerous.

Is it responsible to weaken state law for wetland protection to help insure and make more certain the desired profit margins for some out of state billionaire coal baron?

Is it responsible for a mining company to hold WI law hostage while inflating the hopes of area residents with the promise of jobs? 

Is it responsible to fast track legislation, shrouded in secrecy, on a project that could effect our area well into the next century?

Is it responsible for mining officials, legislators, and local officials to have no idea how much a project like this will potentially cost taxpayers, but at the same time selling it as a good deal? 

Is this how a responsible mining operation starts out? 

Is the cycle a mine like this perpetuates responsible? Explode mountain or flatten prime farm land, dig coal, stockpile waste for future generations, ship coal, burn coal, heat earth, explode mountain, turn rock to dust, take out what you want, stockpile waste for future generations, make into iron, burn more coal, add mercury to surface water for future generations, ship iron, make steel, ship steel, burn more coal, increase air pollution for future generations, make more machines to dig up more earth. Repeat. 

Is there any evidence that a cycle like this could could have negative consequences? Is this the way of the future? Is this a good cycle to pass on to our kids? 

Is this the best we can do?

Is wishful thinking responsible?

Does it cost us anything as humans to have to tell our children we can't eat fish because we have made them poisonous? 

What happens when its gone? What happens when all the iron is dug from the Penokees?

What then? 

Do we keep walking toward the cliff that global warming and an out of control oligarchy represent or do we stop? We could even stop and turn around! We could then take a step FORWARD. 

As a 5th generation Wisconsinite I have learned about our heritage and am proud of it.

I feel like we stand on the shoulders of giants.

John Muir
Sigurd Olson
Gaylord Nelson
Aldo Leopold
Walt Bresette

DECREE

Law of Rights of Mother Earth

Chapter 1 – Objective and Principles

Article 1. (Objective). The present Law has as its objective the recognition of the rights of Mother Earth, as well as the obligations and duties of the Multi-national State and of its Society, to guarantee respect of these rights.

Article 2. (First Principles). The First Principles which govern the current law, and with which compliance is an obligation, are:

1. Harmony. Human activities, in the framework of plurality and diversity, should achieve dynamic balance with the cycles and processes inherent to Mother Earth.

2. Collective Good. Societal interests, in the framework of the rights of Mother Earth, prevail in all human activity and over any other acquired rights.

3. Guarantee of Regeneration of Mother Earth. The State, at its varying levels, and society, in harmony with the common interest, should guarantee the conditions necessary for the diverse living systems of Mother Earth to absorb damages, adapt to disturbances, and regenerate itself without significant alteration to its structure and functionality, realizing that living systems have limits in their abilities to regenerate themselves, and that humanity has limits in its ability to reverse its effects.

4. Respect and Defense of the Rights of Mother Earth. The State and any other individual or collective persons shall respect, protect and guarantee the rights of Mother Earth for the well-being of existing and future generations.

5. No Commercialization. That life systems cannot be commercialized, nor the processes that sustain them, nor form part of the private inheritance of anyone.

6. Multi-cultural. The exercise of the rights of Mother Earth requires the understanding, recovery, respect, protection and dialogue of the diversity of sensitivities, values, knowledge, understandings, practices, abilities, transcendences, sciences, technologies and standards, of all the world cultures that seek harmonious coexistence with the natural world.

Chapter II – Mother Earth, Definition and Characterization

Article 3. (Mother Earth) Mother Earth is the living dynamic system comprised of the inter-related, interdependent and complementary indivisible community of all life systems and living beings that share a common destiny.

Mother Earth is considered to be sacred, as per the cosmologies of the nations of rural indigenous peoples.

Article 4. (Life Systems) They are complex and dynamic communities of plants, animals, micro-organisms and other beings in their entirety, in which human communities and the rest of nature interact as a functional unit, under the influence of climatic, physiographic and geologic factors, as well as the productive practices and cultural diversity of Bolivians of both genders, and the cosmologies of the nations of rural indigenous peoples, the intercultural communities and the Afro-Bolivians.

Article 5. (Legal Character of Mother Earth) In order to be protected and for the teaching of her rights, Mother Earth adopts the characteristics of collective rights of public interest. Mother Earth and all its components, including human communities, are owners of the rights inherently understood in this Law. The application of Mother Earth’s rights shall take into account the specificities and particularities of its diverse components. Those rights established in this Law do not limit the existence of other rights of Mother Earth.

Article 6. (Exercise of the Rights of Mother Earth) All Bolivians of either gender, as part of the community of beings which comprise Mother Earth, exercise the rights established in this Law, in a manner that is compatible with individual and collective rights.

The exercise of individual rights is limited by the exercise of collective rights of the living systems of Mother Earth, any conflict among these shall be resolved in a manner that does not irreversibly affect the functionality of those living systems.

Chapter III – Rights of Mother Earth

Article 7. (Rights of Mother Earth)

I. Mother Earth has the following rights:

1. To Life: It is the right to the maintenance of the integrity of living systems and natural processes which sustain them, as well as the capacities and conditions for their renewal.

2. To the diversity of life: It is the right to the preservation of the differentiation and variety of the beings that comprise Mother Earth, without being genetically altered, nor artificially modified in their structure, in such a manner that threatens their existence, functioning and future potential.

3. To Water: It is the right of the functionality of the water cycles, of its existence and quantity, and the quality necessary to sustain living systems, and their protection with regards to contamination, for renewal of the life of Mother Earth and all its components.

4. To Clean Air: It is the right of the preservation of the quality and composition of air tosustain living systems and their protection with regards to contamination, for renewal of the life of Mother Earth and all its components.

5. To Balance: It is the right to maintenance or restoration of the inter-relation, interdependence, ability to complement and functionality of the components of Mother Earth, in a balanced manner for the continuation of its cycles and the renewal of its vital processes.

6. To Restoration: It is the right to the effective and opportune restoration of its living systems affected by direct or indirect human activities.

7. To live Free of Contamination: It is the right for preservation of Mother Earth and any of its components with regards to toxic and radioactive wastes generated by human activities.

Chapter IV – Obligations of the State and Social Duties

Article 8. (Obligations of the Multi-national State) The Multi-national State, at all its levels and all its territories, and across all its institutions and authorities, has the following obligations:

1. Develop public policies and systematic preventive actions, early alert, protection and prevention, to avoid human activities that lead to extinction of populations, the alteration of cycles and processes that guarantee life, or the destruction of living systems, including the cultural systems that are part of Mother Earth.

2. Develop balanced forms of production and patterns of consumption for the well-being of the Bolivian peoples, safeguarding the regenerative capacities and integrity of the processes and vital balances of Mother Earth.

3. Develop policies to defend Mother Earth, in the environment of multi-national and international over-exploitation of components, against the commercialization of living systems or the processes that sustain them, and of the structural causes of Global Climate Change and its effects.

4. Develop policies to ensure the sustainability of power generation in the long run by means of saving, increases in efficiency and the gradual incorporation of clean and renewable alternative sources of power.

5. Demand in the international arena the understanding of the environmental debt by means of financing and technology transfer of clean technologies that are clean, effective and compatible with the rights of Mother Earth, as well as other mechanisms.

6. Promote peace and the elimination of all nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction.

7. Promote the understanding and defense of the rights of Mother Earth in arena of multilateral, regional and bilateral international relationships.

Article 9. (Duties of the Persons) It is the duty of public or private natural and juridical persons:

1. To defend and respect the rights of Mother Earth.

2. To promote harmony on Mother Earth and in all its relationships with the rest of the human communities and natural living systems.

3. To participate in an active form, personally or collectively, in the generation of proposals aimed at the respect for and defense of the rights of Mother Earth.

4. To take up production and consumption practices in harmony with the rights of Mother Earth.

5. To ensure sustainable use and exploitation of Mother Earth’s components.

6. To denounce all acts against the rights of Mother Earth, its living systems and/or its components.

7. To attend meetings of competent authorities or civil society oriented at conservation and/or protection of the rights of Mother Earth.

Article 10. (Ombudsman of Mother Earth). The position of Ombudsman of Mother Earth is created, whose mission is to watch over the applicability to, promotion and diffusion of, and compliance with the rights of Mother Earth established in this Law. A special law will establish its structure, function and attributes.

Remitted to the Executive Agency, for constitutional ends.

Given in the Sessions Chamber of the Multi-National Legislative Assembly, on the seventh day of the month of December, 2010.

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.