Should state law recognize that certain plants have “inherent rights” to exist?
That became an intensely debated topic among legislators and testifiers during a hearing in the Minnesota Senate last week.
A bill making the rounds at the Capitol that would increase environmental protections for uncultivated wild rice across the state also includes a provision that would make it the “policy of the state to recognize the inherent right of uncultivated wild rice to exist and thrive in Minnesota.”
Sen. Mary Kunesh, DFL-New Brighton, is the chief author of the proposal, SF1247.
On its face, the bill includes a handful of clauses that would enhance environmental protections for uncultivated wild rice, which grows on its own and is often harvested by Minnesota residents and members of tribal nations.
Specifically, the bill would prohibit operating any motorized “watercraft in or through an uncultivated wild rice bed.” It would also prohibit operating motorized watercrafts “at greater than slow-no-wake speed within 150 feet of an uncultivated wild rice bed.”
While representatives for the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources have told legislators they have some concerns over how that language would impact those who own lake shore homes or who navigate rivers and lake channels that may include some wild rice beds, that wasn’t a major focus of the discussion on Thursday.
Wild rice ‘not a religion in the way that we think of European Christianity’
During the April 3 hearing on the bill in the Senate Environment, Climate and Legacy Committee, Sen. Kunesh said she intentionally included the provision that would assign an “inherent right” to uncultivated wild rice “to exist and thrive in Minnesota” because of the sacred, cultural and spiritual significance that the vegetation holds to indigenous communities.
When two of Kunesh’s Republican colleagues in the committee criticized that language as overtly religious and inappropriately elevating the plant to have “personhood”-like protection in law, she offered a counterargument.
“This isn’t, when we talk about the inherent rights of uncultivated rice, it’s not a religion,” Kunesh said. “It’s not a religion in the way that we think of European Christianity. Wild rice is the people. It is of the people.”
Kunesh’s declaration came following an amendment that Sen. Nathan Wesenberg, R-Little Falls, offered that would have deleted the phrase “inherent right” from the bill’s language and replaced it with “important.”
Wesenberg said that while he supports the major tenet of the bill to provide greater protection of wild rice from invasive species and pesticides, he won’t support a bill “that gives a plant an inherent right over people.”
“Historical characteristics of rice that has a sacred, cultural and spiritual significance (for indigenous people), that’s great and I don’t disagree,” Wesenberg told Kunesh. “But to me, unborn babies are very important, and you know, when I read an ‘inherent right,’ and [I see] we are giving a plant an inherent right over people, that really bothers me.”
Sen. Steve Drazkowski, R-Mazeppa, told Kunesh the clause has the potential to set a bad precedent in state statute.
“We did hear multiple times people testify that this [language] needs to stay in here because it underpins their religious beliefs,” Drazkowski said. “We shouldn’t be writing your religious beliefs or my religious beliefs … or anybody else’s religious beliefs into law.”
Testifier challenges critics to acknowledge ‘white supremacy’
Wesenberg agreed to withdraw his amendment because the committee chose not to take action on the bill. It’s instead being laid over for possible inclusion in an omnibus bill later this session. He said he is open to working with Kunesh on amending the language so that the bill would be crafted in a way where he could support it. A House companion, HF2134, has not yet been scheduled for a committee hearing.
But following that statement, another testifier, Debra Topping, a member of the Fond du Lac Tribe near Cloquet, challenged Wesenberg and other senators in the committee to recognize how institutional “white supremacy” may prevent them from being able to better appreciate the language in question.
“When we talk about wild rice being our relative, being alive, having inherent rights, it’s just like, no different than the unborn child that you are talking about, that we also love and care for, right?” Topping said, addressing Wesenberg’s comments.
“What is white supremacy?” Topping continued. “And I don’t say that to insult anybody at all. I, too, am born into white supremacy … But so what I am hearing you say is that because you make the rules, you can’t see how important this [wild rice] is to us. You can’t see that it’s a relative to us. So you are saying ‘No. No, that’s not right.’ But that’s what white supremacy is.”
Hank Long
Hank Long is a journalism and communications professional whose writing career includes coverage of the Minnesota legislature, city and county governments and the commercial real estate industry. Hank received his undergraduate degree at the University of Minnesota, where he studied journalism, and his law degree at the University of St. Thomas. The Minnesota native lives in the Twin Cities with his wife and four children. His dream is to be around when the Vikings win the Super Bowl.
