Indian Treaty 2.0

Five Indian tribes claim the right to hunt, fish and gather on lands
and lakes they sold to the federal government years ago. Their
claim extends back to the Treaty of 1836. But it’s been
challenged in court by state officials who say those rights expired
long ago. As Bob Allen reports, now all the parties have reached
an uneasy compromise:

Transcript

Five Indian tribes claim the right to hunt, fish and gather on lands
and lakes they sold to the federal government years ago. Their
claim extends back to the Treaty of 1836. But it’s been
challenged in court by state officials who say those rights expired
long ago. As Bob Allen reports, now all the parties have reached
an uneasy compromise:


170 years ago, the tribes sold millions of acres to the U.S.
government. But they reserved for themselves the right to hunt
fish and gather foods and medicines until the land was settled.


Hank Bailey is an elder with the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa
and Chippewa. He’s scouting out a favorite fall hunting spot
even though it’s pelting rain:


“I know these hills well all around here just from exploring
it…hunting, gathering mushrooms…”


Bailey is a direct descendant from a tribal leader who signed the
original treaty. He says the exercise of those rights in times past
were the difference between survival and starvation. And he
doesn’t think a new piece of paper can ever erase what his
ancestors preserved:


“They were told that this treaty was forever. And I know in
my heart that’s what they believed in. And they thought well
as long as we can hunt, fish and gather we will be able to
survive as a people. This is what bothers me about is, I’m
being told now that when we sign this paper, this is going to
be forever and here we go again.”


Four years ago, the state of Michigan went to court to argue tribal
hunting and fishing rights had expired because the land had been
settled long ago.


But then state officials noticed court rulings in other Great Lakes
states that upheld treaties and in some case awarded tribes as
much as half of the natural resources.


Tribal leaders thought they had a strong case, but they too were
leery of how today’s courts might interpret the phrase that said
their treaty rights exist “until the land is settled,” so the parties
were motivated to negotiate a deal outside court.


Jim Ekdahl is with the state Department of Natural Resources:


“We were in a strange kind of legal limbo where the state
wasn’t exactly sure what the ground rules should be in
light of the fact the federal courts hadn’t ruled on the inland
rights. The tribes weren’t 100% confident that they could
advise their membership in terms of what they ought to be
doing.”


From legal limbo, there are now 130 pages of rules and
regulations on how and where the tribes can exercise their rights.
There’s been some grumbling on both sides.


Some tribal members complain, with some exaggeration, that they
have to fill out a form now before they can pick a single
blueberry, and there are sportsmen who don’t like a special set of
rules for Indians.


What the tribes have agreed to is their rights to hunt, fish and
gather will only apply on lands open to the public. And they only
can take enough for subsistence, not for commercial sale.


Tribal resource managers say what their members take is a drop
in the bucket of the overall resource. And Jim Ekdahl with the
state says there’s still plenty to go around:


“There’s sufficient harvestable surpluses of resources
available to accommodate tribal interests. There’s essentially
no effect on harvest by state licensed recreational users. And
essentially no changes in state regulations are gonna be required as this
thing moves forward.”


The parties to the agreement say is it avoids a bitter legal battle
that could last a decade or more and cost millions of dollars.
Both sides remember an ugly dispute that raged 30 years ago
when tribes reasserted their right to fish commercially with nets
in the Great Lakes.


Matthew Fletcher is a specialist in tribal law at Michigan State
University. As far as he can tell, this is the first time a state has
voluntarily recognized tribal treaty rights extending to off-
reservation lands without being told to do so by a court:


“There are tribes and there are treaties nationwide that have
similar language. And I’m sure they’re watching this very
carefully. And this kind of consent decree is going to create a
kind of precedent for other states that are engaging in similar
kinds of negotiations.”


The agreement still needs to be accepted by a federal judge
before it becomes binding in law. For tribal elder Hank Bailey
the deal might chip away some free exercise of historic rights,
but it also reasserts that those rights can’t ever be taken away:


“For me that’s… that is about the most powerful part of it is
being able to know that I will continue to be an Odawa, black
wolf clan, a man… somebody that respects the resources
around me. And I’m willing to work with anybody else that
feels the same way, whether they’re tribal or not.”


For the Environment Report, I’m Bob Allen.

Related Links

Pros and Cons of Offshore Wind Farms

  • While the tower is around 3 miles north of Cleveland's shore, a viable wind farm would need to be at least 6 times farther out in Lake Erie. The wind monitoring tower measures the speed, direction, and height of Lake Erie's wind to determine if wind power generation on the lake is economically viable. (Photo courtesy of Lisa Ann Pinkerton)

Proposals for offshore wind farms, from the coasts of Texas to New England have the potential to generate more electricity than land turbines do. Lisa Ann Pinkerton reports these projects face various hurdles to becoming reality, but they’re not completely insurmountable:

Transcript

Proposals for offshore wind farms, from the coasts of Texas to New England have the potential to generate more electricity than land turbines do. Lisa Ann Pinkerton reports these projects face various hurdles to becoming reality but they’re not completely insurmountable:


Over the past few months, whenever the weather is favorable, Aaron Godwin of Green Energy Ohio rides a power boat several miles out into Lake Erie. Out on the on the city of Cleveland’s century old water intake structure he’s built a tall wind monitoring tower.


“The upper part of the tower is about 168 feet above the water, so we’re measuring at about 30, 40 and 50 meters, and dual instrumentation at each level, anemometers that measure wind speed and vanes that measure direction.”


Godwin’s got almost a year of wind data and today he’s installing a small wind turbine to confirm what he’s discovered: that the lake’s wind is roughly twice as strong as wind on land. So to Godwin offshore wind farms are inevitable, especially since 75 percent of the nation’s energy use is near coastal cities.


However, proposed projects everywhere face a number of hurdles. One of them is bird and bat migration. Some land turbines have killed creatures that flew too close. But in Denmark, where offshore wind is 15 years old, extensive water foul surveys show little change in bird behavior. Charlotte Boesen is an environmental planner for Dong Energy in Denmark.


“These birds, they do fly around the wind farm. They do not like flying over land you can say and maybe they in some sort they perceive the turbines or wind farm as a similar object.”


Even so, no wind project in the US will ever get off the ground without a full assessment of potential wildlife impacts. That’s why 60% of Lake Erie has already been ruled out by a preliminary study conducted by the wind consulting firm AWS True Wind. Its Executive Director Bruce Bailey says that leaves most of eastern Lake Erie still available, with the best wind about 15 miles northwest of Cleveland.


“That’s where the strongest winds would be found. With water depths still being under say 70 feet.”


Bailey adds the shallow depth of Lake Erie combined with its solid lake bottom and fresh water makes it more friendly to offshore wind generation than oceans.


“You wouldn’t have to deal with the corrosion or the extra cost to safeguard your hardware from corrosion if you’re sighted in a fresh water lake.”


Bailey adds designing against hurricanes makes ocean projects more expensive. On the flip side, Lake Erie’s been known to freeze.


“There are ways to deflect the ice from actually pushing too strongly against or lifting out a turbine foundation. Some of them have already been deployed already in offshore projects in Northern Europe, and some of them are located in locations where you might even get icebergs.”


Another concern is whether these turbines will ruin the natural beauty of America’s Coastlines, even though on the horizon a turbine might only look a big as a thumbnail. Walt Musel of the US Department of Energy says this worry is unfounded.


“It’s worth noting there are no projects in the United States, so most people who object to offshore wind have never seen one.”


Fifteen years ago, projects in Denmark faced the same prejudice. Today tourists rent boats to go see them.


Above all, perhaps the largest impediment to offshore wind power is its high cost. Installation in water is expected to be double the cost of on land construction. However, once farms are producing power, electricity companies are open to buying it.


Out on Lake Erie, Aaron Godwin is packing up his tools for the day. He says there is an up side to those high capital costs. He says in the future, turbines will be so large it’ll make more sense to manufacture the parts locally, giving America’s manufacturing industry a ray of hope.


“Energy is a guaranteed growth market. Wind power is the fastest growing energy sector in the entire world. Why would you not want to get involved in that guaranteed growth market? It just does not make sense.”


Godwin says if the US can clear these hurdles of public perception, engineering, and environmental impacts, he thinks the US economy might find a pleasant surprise: consistent, green energy, built and harnessed off the blue coasts of America.


For the Environment Report, I’m Lisa Ann Pinkerton.

Related Links