State Sen. Mary Kunesh, DFL-New Brighton, remembers eating the wild rice her father prepared and cooked when she was a child. In her career as a state leader, she said a gift she often receives is wild rice.
Kunesh, a descendant of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, said it is an honorable gift to be given.
“The pride and the reinforcement of how important wild rice is to [people] is always evident. It’s like a firm, hearty handshake,” Kunesh said.
The Senate State and Local Government Committee heard testimony Tuesday on a proposal that would change the language around Minnesota's state grain, wild rice.
The amendment, authored by Kunesh, would update Minnesota's state grain language to include the Dakota and Ojibwe words for wild rice — psíŋ and manoomin. The plant is recognized as significant to Indigenous cultures in the state.
“We would like to recognize the original Indigenous names,” Kunesh said.
A more controversial addition to the bill adds, “It is the policy of this state to recognize the inherent right of uncultivated wild rice to exist and thrive in Minnesota.”
“What I see inherent right is — is that we are treating wild rice not just as a natural resource or property or a commodity, but as a sacred living entity with its own legal rights,” Kunesh said.
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe citizen Leanna Goose supports the change. Goose is an organizer with Rise & Repair Alliance, a nonpartisan group of people and organizations advocating for Indigenous rights and climate justice in Minnesota.
"We're not only looking out for ourselves, we're looking out for our children's future, and we have a responsibility to ensure that they have what they need to survive, so they can exist and thrive,” Goose said.
Kunesh and other supporters of the amendment hope the change will bring recognition to the plant and the need to protect it, as well as cultural understanding. According to a study released last year, wild rice available for tribal harvest off-reservation has declined by 5–7 percent annually in the Great Lakes region.
“We're asking that the wild rice beds and the water that surround it are protected. We're only trying to keep what's left,” Annie Humphrey said, in support of the proposed amendment.
However, critics of the change say the amendment opens possibilities to ambiguity and lawsuits.
Tom Johnson is the government relations director at the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
“It's unclear how we would navigate the right of wild rice to exist and thrive, or what our obligation exactly would be,” Johnson said.
Bob Meier is an assistant commissioner with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. He said the department does understand the cultural significance of wild rice to tribal nation partners.
“The DNR does have concerns over what the inherent right language of wild rice means for the management and protection of wild rice in Minnesota,” Meier said at Tuesday’s testimony hearing. Meier questioned if recognizing the plant’s inherent right would entail needing to keep animals away from uncultivated rice beds.
Kunesh responded, “I think we have to look at the natural rhythm of life in this world, and the fact that we recognize that our two-legged and our four-legged brothers and sisters also thrive off of the wild rice.”
Other bills introduced regarding the protection of wild rice include modifying the use of pesticides on wild rice beds, prohibiting watercraft in rice beds and requiring risk justification assessments.
“When we're taking care of wild rice, we're also taking care of everything else that depends on it,” Goose added.
The amendment will be considered for possible inclusion in a future bill.
Chandra Colvin covers Native American communities in Minnesota for MPR News via Report for America, a national service program that places journalists into local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues and communities.
