Research

INTRODUCTION

Water is the first medicine.
Bad River Tribal Chairman Mike Wiggins, Jr., quoting Ojibwe elder Tony de Perry, 2013.

Ojibwe Anishinaabe (First People) cultural traditions are inextricably linked to Nibi, Water, in daily and ceremonial life, as well as ancestral experience. Prophecies guided the people on a Great Migration to western Lake Superior, “the place where food grows on Water” (Benton Banai 1988), which describes the wild rice beds of this wetland and Water-rich region. Manoomin, “the good berry,” wild rice, Zizania palustris (Meeker et al. 1993) is an emergent wetland plant that is central to the culture, ecology, and spirituality of Lake Superior Ojibwe people (please see Appendix 1 for glossary). Bad River elder Dana Jackson explains that the Ojibwe fiercely protected the rice beds of northern Wisconsin and Minnesota: “We fought the Sioux for a thousand years” (10 October 2012). Harvest of Manoomin was integral to treaty negotiations with the U.S. government in the mid-1800s (Fig. 1), during which the Ojibwe reserved rights to hunt, fish, and gather off-reservation in the Ceded Territories (CT; Loew 2013). MashkiZiibi, “wetland medicine river,” later named the Bad River, is a tributary of Lake Superior and home of the Bad River Indian Reservation. Taking the long view of Lake Superior preservation, Bad River Tribal Chairman Mike Wiggins, Jr. asserts, “We are the keepers of a stronghold” (8 August 2012). In 2011, the Bad River Ojibwe established their own Water quality standards under the Clean Water Act “treatment as states” policy (EPA 2011). In its current state, the Bad River Watershed (BRW) contributes high quality Water to Lake Superior.

Although Lake Superior is the largest freshwater lake in the world by surface area, industrial, agricultural, and municipal drawdowns and discharge comprise threats to its Water quantity and quality (Grady 2007). Freshwater is no longer considered a renewable resource (Younger 2013). Bad River elder Joe Rose, Sr. Iban, “has walked on,” shared a story about paddling his canoe on Lake Superior and dipping in a tin cup to drink straight out of the lake. Now at the lakefront beach that Rose spoke of, the Tribe is monitoring Water quality for contaminants (https://www.badriver-nsn.gov/beach/). Historic threats to Water and Ojibwe cultural practices in the MashkiiZiibi Watershed include commercial fishing, logging, and mineral mining. Contemporary threats include concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), pipeline development, climate change, and aquatic invasive species. Degradation of Water quality threatens Indigenous Water traditions, treaty rights, and Water sovereignty. There have been cumulative impacts to Water within and surrounding the Bad River reservation. At the onset of the commercial fishing era, namé, lake sturgeon, Acipenser fulvescens, were netted from the lake and cast aside as “trash fish,” depleting their positive influence on Water as filterers. In the late 1800s, commercial logging’s detrimental impacts on Watersheds, paired with Indian agents and Christian missionizing, resulted in cumulative impacts on Tribes. Negative ecological, social, and cultural impacts resulted in the waning of traditional Anishinaabe practices (Co-author Leoso, who is a descendant of Chief Mashinawe, signer of 1854 Treaty, gathered this information through personal research and oral history). The environmental onslaught of the industrialized era continues today with the same practices. These cumulative physical threats to the Watershed complement and amplify Bad River residents’ experiences of historical trauma. Additionally, the threat of changing climate in a coastal community includes increase in storm severity. Increased flooding and winds in early summer threaten Manoomin at the vulnerable floating leaf stage and bird migrations.

Ojibwe responses to these threats include leveraging policy together with traditional knowledge. Mobilizations by Anishinaabe and allies include attending hearings, leveraging policy to protect Water through cultural values and management techniques, asserting Treaty rights through off-reservation harvest and the Penokee Harvest Camp. Water ceremonies include Water walks (Chiblow 2019, Bédard 2021; J. Mandamin, Iban, has walked on, 9 July 2012) and Water songs, (D. Day, http://www.motherearthWaterwalk.com/?attachment_id=2244), and the placing of prayer flags throughout the Watershed (Joe Rose, Sr. Iban, 29 May 2013). Collaboration by Native rights-holders and non-Native allies have potential as effective means to steward and protect Water (Grossman 2005). In the Ojibwe CT of northern Wisconsin, Tribal and non-Tribal people formed alliances to protect Ojibwe traditions and treaty rights during the Walleye Wars of the 1980s (Whaley and Bresette 1999, Nesper 2002). In the mid-90s, Ojibwe were joined by non-Tribal fishermen and river guides to protect the Wolf River against a proposed copper mine (Reynolds 2003). Investing in relationships and reciprocity builds social capital (Gunderson and Holling 2002), resulting in cross-cultural coalitions.

Watersheds are potential shared spaces (Harris and Wasilewski 2004); and Water stewardship is a potential “middle ground” (Deloria 2006) for community-based research (CBR) initiated by outsiders in Indian country. To holistically represent the human impacts of environmental degradation in Indigenous communities, participatory research methods offer an effective framework of collaboration across research design, data collection, and interpretation of results (Chan et al. 2021). Cross-cultural perspectives that incorporate Native and Western science potentially serve to augment local efforts by Native communities to protect Watersheds. Community-based research fosters “learning networks or communities of learning” (Robson et al. 2009, as cited in Berkes 2012:191). Watersheds also constitute an appropriate scale for investigation of social-ecological systems (Berkes and Folke 1998). Given that Western scientists are increasingly giving weight to traditional ecological knowledge (TEK), Indigenous knowledge about Water stewardship is locally and globally relevant for continuing to expand scientific and cultural understandings of Water quality, via modes of outreach, education, and policy influence. In this study, we implement a cross-cultural, intergenerational approach, rooted in decolonizing research methods (Kovach 2009, Chilisa 2012, Smith 2021), leveraging Water and Watersheds as organizing contexts for conservation. Individuals in academia are needed to serve as allies, translators, and educators that help foster cultural understanding of Water and Water rights.

Conaway is a university researcher and Leoso is a Tribal member and local expert. Authors collaborated on CBR on Water stewardship in Bad River. Conaway is a white researcher in Environment and Resources from the University of Wisconsin - Madison. Conaway’s approach to environmental studies is interdisciplinary, incorporating experiential education, participatory geographic information systems, and environmental ethics. Conaway has been working with Tribal Nations in environmental advocacy and cultural education since the mid-1990s. Leoso is a Bad River Tribal Member, Bad River Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO), and member of Niswi Ishkodeg Midewigamig, the Three Fires Midewiwin Lodge. Midewiwin philosophy and practice encompass the traditional spiritual, teaching, and stewardship of Lake Superior Ojibwe. Leoso contributed to study design, provided feedback throughout the project, and co-authored this article. We write in two voices, the authors’ respective sections are prefaced with last names. For parts of the case study, Leoso presents first, followed by Conaway’s perspective. We chose this style to honor Anishinaabe traditional knowledge and present mainstream academic conventions in a supportive role.

It is imperative that research in Indigenous communities prominently feature Native perspectives and process, and benefit Tribes (Louis 2007, Kovach 2009). Throughout imperial expansion and persisting into university settings today, research has been a tool for appropriation of Indigenous knowledge for the benefit of the individual researcher (Smith 2021). This study challenges the extractive research paradigm by committing to durable local outcomes in the Bad River community. With insights into the interface of Native and Western science for Water stewardship, we aim to move the discussion forward toward two goals: providing more effective frameworks for integrated Water stewardship in and beyond Indigenous communities, and indigenizing the study of Water in academia. Western science is a tool that can leverage and affirm traditional Indigenous values and practices for Water conservation. This work is also a template for community-based research in Indian Country, from concept to dissemination, highlighting TEK as a collaborative process (Whyte 2013), and featuring Ganawendan Ginibiiminaan in Bad River as a case-in-point.

CASE STUDY: WATER STEWARDSHIP IN BAD RIVER

In the Ojibwe tradition, women are the keepers of the Water.
J. Mandamin, Iban, has walked on, 9 July 2012.

Leoso: Water is first examined at birth. Water breaks and we know something good is coming. Water is an indicator. It tells us what’s coming. And today when we do scientific examinations of Water, we know what might be coming for the People. This “thinking out of the box”- people need to start thinking this way again. And bringing it back to life, all people.

Ecological and social contexts

Bad River Watershed

Mashkii Ziibii Nibikaaning: Mashki Ziibii is what we called the Bad River. Mashki is relative to Mashkiikii, and Mashkiikii is medicine in general. Some people say marsh or swamp, but a marsh or a swamp is where the medicines were found. At certain times of the year, you could find every medicine that there was to heal something on your body or your mind. And if you go up here by Mashkii Zagaa’igan, you will see a lot of marshes. And the Peno Akii is the home of the Binessiiwassimowajiw, translated as bird-energy-mountain. This is the Thunderers. Imagine being out on Lake Superior looking back at the Penokee Hills and seeing a storm coming out of the south up over those hills. To people a long time ago, that would be an indicator that this is a special place. And the round stones? The stones on the beaches of Bad River are Thunderbird eggs. Bad River is one of two places in the world where these concretions are found. The sloughs are where the Mashkii Ziibii and Ogaakagonike come together in the Manoomin beds, the “place where food grows on Water.” The coast of our reservation is in sight of Moningwane’akaaning, which is the seventh stopping place on the Great Migration of the Anishinaabe (Fig. 2).

Conaway: The Bad River Watershed (BRW) is within the Lake Superior Basin in the northernmost reaches of Wisconsin, USA (Fig. 3). The headwaters of the BRW are in the Penokee or Gogebic Range, with an average elevation of 567 meters (1800 feet) above sea level. Out of its origins in Caroline Lake, amidst diverse headwater wetland types, the Bad River runs north into Lake Superior, an elevation of 180 meters (591 feet) above sea level. Near its meeting with Lake Superior, the Bad is linked via groundwatershed with the Kakagon River; they join to make the Kakagon-Bad River sloughs (Leaf et al. 2015). These sloughs form the largest in-tact coastal estuary on all of Lake Superior, and the largest in-tact wild rice bed in the entire Laurentian Great Lakes system. The mouth of the Bad River is across the channel from Madeline Island, the largest of the Apostle Island archipelago (Fig. 3).

Bad River Watershed is approximately 2590 square kilometers (1000 square miles; Superior Rivers 2015). Ecological highlights of the BRW are diverse high-quality aquatic and wetland ecosystems: spring-fed perennial cold-Water streams, ziibiins, waterfalls, artesian wells, and large rivers. The headwater of the Bad River includes nine wetland types (Wisconsin Wetland Association 2010). The lower Bad River Watershed constitutes the 6475-hectare Kakagon-Bad River Sloughs, which includes 12 wetland types. Adjacent to the sloughs is Long Island, which hosts the federally endangered Piping plover, Charadrius melodus. The Bad and Kakagon Rivers support an Ogaa, walleye, Sander vitreus, fishery, and the Bad River is the largest producer on Lake Superior of Namé, lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens).

Bad River Ojibwe Reservation

The reservation of the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa is located in the lower portion of the Bad River Watershed. The 48,560-hectare Bad River reservation was created under the terms of the 1854 treaty (Loew 2013). One thousand and ninety-six Tribal members live on the reservation, and 6865 live off-reservation (Bad River Enrollment 2015).

METHODS

Water stewardship work in Bad River created “new social spaces for shared learning” (Harris and Wasilewski 2004:13). My interactions (Conaway) with Tribal members entailed listening, being open-minded, a sense of humor, an awareness of environmental and cultural traumas, and the history of relationships between the Tribal community and university researchers. Humility and compassion, and commitment to collective leadership and shared expertise, were pivotal. Indigenous research methods that we (Conaway and Leoso) employed for this work included elder epistemology, Talking Circles (a Native American ceremonial focus group), community feedback sessions, and using a cultural lens for design and implementation. Conaway’s icebreaker for this work was “bringing skills, not an agenda to the table” (P. Loew, P., M. Pearce, 21 November 2014). Our methods were relational and process-oriented.

This community-based research had four main phases: (1) visiting, listening, and orientation; (2) implementation and stewardship fieldwork; (3) project launch and community follow-up; and (4) analysis and co-authorship. Initial interviews were about places in the Waterscape (Waterways, Water bodies, Water-rich landscape) that told a story about Ojibwe Water and culture. To honor the local protocol for asking about traditional teachings, Conaway offered Asema, ceremonial tobacco, clumsily at times, and the conversations began. The phases of the research process involved co-education, relationship-building, and trust-building.

Phase 1

Developmental interviews

Conaway: Beginning in June 2011, I started the orientation phase, which lasted two years. During this time, I traveled to Bad River four times yearly for visits that lasted a minimum of one week. This involved getting acquainted with Bad River people and becoming oriented to the Watershed. The developmental work with Bad River community members had three aspects: interviews, map work, and dialogue about environmental terminology. The interviews were informal and held either in-person or over the phone. I used informal maps of the Bad River reservation as conversation starters. The maps facilitated storytelling, and interviewees marked the maps to indicate places within the Bad River reservation and Watershed that told significant stories about Water protection, community values, and history. To learn about Ojibwe environmental terms and concepts, I laid out note cards with phrases in English such as “environmental ethic” in front of Tribal members, asking which might be best to use. Minwendan, “good way of being,” and mino bimaadiziwin, “living in a good way,” are Ojibwemowin terms that people shared during this developmental work. During this phase I also spoke informally with Tribal political leaders, and employees of the Bad River Tribal Natural Resources Department (BR NRD) and Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC), about current community capacity, and threats to Watershed health.

Getting acquainted with the Bad River Waterscape

To access the sites that had come up in developmental interviews and prepare for continued work with the Bad River Ojibwe community around Water stewardship, it was necessary to become acquainted with the Waterscape of the reservation. On a case-by-case basis with Tribal members who lived adjacent to Waterways, I requested access to paddle on the rivers of the reservation. In December 2012, I Skyped into a Tribal council meeting to formally request access to the boat landings on the reservation for research. (This was the first time that Skyping in had been permitted, and was initially met with some trepidation, but it then worked out to the Council’s satisfaction). Presenting my work to the Tribal Council at this time was the Bad River equivalent to, and also required by, the Internal Review Board at the University of Wisconsin.

Although I had been teaching sea kayaking in the adjacent Apostle Islands of Lake Superior for five years, I was a newcomer to the Bad River reservation and the Watershed. I committed to a holistic orientation to Waterways and Water bodies via sea kayak, canoe, and Water science work in the tributaries. I traveled in parts of the BRW that lie in Ceded Territories. To orient myself to the Water science of the area, I gathered baseline Water quality data on the Tyler Forks River, a large tributary of the upper Watershed, for physical, chemical, and biological characteristics. Traveling and working via Waterways proved to be a very good orientation for my work with Bad River about Waterways on and off reservation.

After developmental interviews with community members and natural resource agency staff, and Watershed orientation via paddling and Water science work, I proceeded to the next step of community-based research: reflection on discussions and what I observed and experienced paddling in the Watershed. I did informal values coding (Saldana 2009) of the developmental interviews to become more familiar with Bad River environmental terms, concerns, and perspectives. I incorporated these into formal interview questions, which Leoso helped to draft.

Phase 2

Formal interviews

From May 2013 through April 2014, I completed the formal fieldwork. I began by interviewing 13 Bad River elders, community leaders, harvesters, and parents: eight women and five men. In these semi-structured interviews, I asked about community Water stewardship, as well as places on the reservation and in the CT that tell a particularly significant story about Water and culture. Tribal members chose the locations for the interviews: offices, homes, coffee shops, and the community center. I recorded the interviews with a small audio recorder and took notes. I chose to use audio instead of video because it is less obtrusive and distracting. I created and used large maps of the BRW and CT to further the conversation and record spatial data about Bad River Water and culture (J. Conaway, unpublished manuscript).

Fieldwork

Beginning in June 2013, I worked with elders to incorporate the data from the 13 interviews into development of “Bad River Youth Outdoors” (BRYO), a summer Watershed education program (J. Conaway, unpublished manuscript). We initiated BRYO with 10 Tribal youth in a Talking Circle facilitated by Edith Leoso. A Talking Circle is a ceremonial group discussion and Indigenous research method. I summarized Talking Circle participant observations in notes afterward. At the time of writing, recording of ceremonies was forbidden.

Midewiwin women guided us in a Water ceremony before our first launch of canoes and kayaks on the Kakagon River. BRYO was a cross-cultural experiential education program. Working together with Bad River community members, BRNRD, and GLIFWC employees, we co-instructed environmental education and Native science.

During the four-week program, BRYO participants took part in several community Water stewardship actions. Elders had requested that the youth be visible doing work for Water off-reservation in the Ceded Territories, so BRYO participants monitored Water quality weekly on Tyler Forks, using the Water Action Volunteers Level 1 protocol (Water Action Volunteers. Retrieved on 12 May 2015 from https://wateractionvolunteers.org/resources/methods/). BRYO participants also cleaned up trash on the reservation beaches and removed invasive cattails from the wild rice beds with BR NRD, and collected waypoints for aquatic invasive species for GLIFWC.

Phase 3

Analysis

Using Dragon Naturally Speaking software, I transcribed 13.75 hours of interview data, and imported the transcripts into NVIVO 10 for analysis. I coded interview transcripts, field notes, and Talking Circle notes. First cycle coding included attributes and holistic coding, followed by a second round of values coding (Saldana 2009). Twenty-four codes emerged. I grouped these into three code matrices: (1) Water, (2) culture, and (3) Western science-TEK.

Community follow-up

Between summer 2013 and spring 2014, Conaway held two community feedback sessions with Tribal members who were involved in the BRYO program and mapping project (J. Conaway, unpublished manuscript). To make a space for feedback on the research process and products from elders and community members, sessions were held in a central location on the reservation, in the community room of the casino. These sessions were 1–4 hours in length. Feedback on the maps entailed sharing drafts of the maps and parents giving feedback on the youth’s work in the maps. Elders shared guidance for quotes on the maps and implementation of the youth program. We kept the questions open ended to invite broad-based interpretations and insights.

Conaway also used regular email and phone communication to elicit ongoing feedback. I completed a process called “member-checking” with individuals whom I interviewed to confirm that the information they shared was represented as they intended. Via mail and email, I sent transcripts of interview quotes as well as the contexts. Contributors could then choose to edit their quotes before we submitted for publication.

Phase 4

Co-authorship with a Tribal member

Inviting Leoso to co-write was the next step in the collaborative process.

Leoso: I appreciated you asking me to be a co-author because I’ve helped so many people in their academic endeavors worldwide. So I was glad to help. I respect the academic community and feel that I can contribute to something that might become a new trend or standard in academia. In Indian Country, you can rarely find a Native person who doesn’t know something about their heritage or culture, no matter how trivial it may appear to them. However, there are few Native people who have the ability to articulate that in writing. I’m just an ordinary person. Even though I only have an Associate of Arts Degree from a Community College, I am in the 3rd Degree of a 5th Degree Midewiwin Lodge. I feel that I can, without jeopardizing the integrity of our inherent teachings, provide insight into generations of knowledge that has become acculturated. If I have an opportunity to provide Native people with some sense in a nonsensical time, then I am doing my work as a Midekwe. The reason I do this is for the people. This is an opportunity to help people understand a different way of thinking. This is an opportunity to help Native people acknowledge what is in their blood memory. I am adamant about doing something about the way non-Native people understand Native people. This is well worth my time, because I am so tired of the romanticized version of being Indian.

RESULTS

Conaway: Here we highlight seven themes that emerged from interviews, Talking Circles, and field notes. The first two themes are contextual, consistent with Indigenous oral traditions of “starting with the beginning,” particularly when speaking with an outsider.

(1) Cultural vulnerabilities

Because of assimilation policies of the U.S. government and the Christian Church, cultural traditions were lost or damaged. “Elders showed their grandchildren how to put Asema down for Water, but did not share the associated stories and/or teachings, because they feared retribution for themselves or their families ... We couldn’t practice our own way of life. We couldn’t speak our language” (Esie Leoso, 31 May 2013). Boarding schools forbade Ojibwemowin to be spoken.

Leoso: Everyone in Indian Country knows that every Indian experienced historical trauma every day—environmental degradation to the land—whether it is, or was, degraded on or off-reservation ... If the families, grandparents, parents don’t share traditional knowledge with their children, then it’s not given, so it’s not known. But because of our intrinsic values, our inherent values, we know that we’re missing something, and when we hear it, we know that’s it.

(2) Cultural resilience

Conaway: Assimilation policies resulted in generational gaps in traditional Water knowledge and practices. Bad River Ojibwe overcome these cultural vulnerabilities in part by returning to generational teachings about outdoor traditions: uncle to nephew, grandmother to granddaughter. “Cultural knowledge is a shared resource,” so families share pieces that they have with the rest of the community (Dana Jackson, 30 May 2013). This mosaic of traditions has been recreated and fortified since the initiation of the American Indian Movement in the 1970s, at which point “Indian people had had enough” (Esie Leoso, 31 May2013).

“Things will always change. If they don’t change, they die” (Jill Hartlev, 30 May 2013). Cultural resilience is a response to forced assimilation, illustrated by the ability to adapt and change, incorporate new technologies, and include new allies. During the Walleye Wars, violent racism against Tribes reemerged, highlighting the extent of cultural misunderstanding of Native rights and traditions. Ojibwe spearfishermen had to assert that use of new technologies—a motorboat, battery-powered headlamp, a metal spear—are logical adaptations of ancient traditions. “Living in modern times, we use modern methods as well as traditional methods” (Dana Jackson, 30 May 2013). Leoso: Culture is fluid. Communities adapt their methods, but a core of traditional teachings remains constant. For example, Midewiwin teachings have to be shared verbatim.

(3) Water reflects culture and worldview

Conaway: For Bad Rivers, Water protection and cultural resilience are inextricably linked. “According to our Anishinaabe perspective, the health of an ecosystem is connected to the health of the people who live in that ecosystem” (Phoebe Kebec, 14 November 2013). “If the Water quality is bad, we’re going to starve” (Dana Jackson, 30 May 2013). In a culture that looks forward Seven Generations, environmental values are compared to parenting values. “People not caring about the environment, not caring about their children” (Wendy Corbine, 31 May2013). When parenting values wane, environmental values seem to correspond.

Leoso: When it’s being harmed, Water is like a child that is being beaten. We know that there are toxic barrels in the bottom of Lake Superior, and that pollution is leaking out. That’s like poisoning that child. So it’s simple: as far as Water quality goes, our Water should be as pure as a baby is. Water shows you everything that is there, but the choice of what to do is with humans.

Conaway: The next two themes elucidate the tangible and intangible aspects of traditional Water stewardship in Bad River. Relationships to Water and Waterways are viewed through the lenses of survival and interdependence.

Leoso: This is not work. It’s our life: to take care of the environment, to take care of all living things, out of gratitude.

(4) Tangible aspects of traditional Water stewardship

Tangible aspects of stewarding Water include intergenerational teachings about: Water respect, personal safety, and understanding Water quality through a “filter of food” (Mike Wiggins, Jr., 28 May 2013).

Spring ceremonies are family events, and teach respect and responsibilities for Water. “Elders teach the young people how to maintain and respect [Water], and we also ask for safety of our fisherman and our swimmers” (Dana Jackson, 30 May 2013). These gatherings have tangible impacts on community education about the safety and health of both Water and people. “It’s all part of the cooperative communal society” (Joe Rose, Sr., 29 May 2013). Each year this reciprocal relationship is affirmed.

Bad River Ojibwe “are users of the Water, and harvesters of plants and animals that live in the Water” (Dana Jackson, 30 May 2013), so care is taken to ensure on-Water safety. Water travel is dangerous, particularly on Lake Superior, which creates its own weather systems. “Water can give life, but Water can take life too” (Sue Lemieux, 1 June 2013).

Leoso: Our respect for the Water is reciprocal: we respect the Water, and the Water respects us, we love the Water and the Water loves us.

Conaway: This reciprocity and respect are extended to harvests, which have tangible impacts on stewardship. Water-based harvests depend on local knowledge, gained through active participation in the Waterscapes of the reservation and CT. “When uncles are teaching nephews about Water, it’s primarily taught through a filter of food: where certain species of fish are, at what times of year, Water clarity, Water temperature. All of these things give the harvesters a unique understanding of the Water resources of their home” (Mike Wiggins, 28 May 2013). Bad River Ojibwe Water stewardship is hands-on, participatory.

(5) Intangible aspects of traditional Water stewardship

Intangible aspects of Bad River Water stewardship traditions include actions that assert Water sovereignty, and facets of Water ceremonies that illuminate and perpetuate Ojibwe knowledge about Water. Protecting Water to sustain harvest traditions is part of asserting sovereignty: “We have to have constant vigilance for Water” (Sue Lemieux, 1 June 2013). Bad River elder Joe Rose, Sr. explains:

You can’t hunt, gather, and fish if you don’t live in harmony and balance with the four orders of Creation. That’s at the very foundation of Native spirituality: to live in harmony and balance with all things in the natural environment, with Mother Earth, with plants, animals, and other human beings. That’s a different worldview than the anthropocentric world view of “man’s dominion.” That’s where the two worldviews clash. (29 May 2013)

“Water ceremonies are part of living in balance. In Ojibwe tradition, women are keepers of the Water” (Joe Rose, 29 May 2013). Midewiwin women have unique responsibilities to maintain community respect, reciprocity, and relationships to Water. “In the Three Fires Midewiwin Lodge ... I learned my spiritual and cultural place with Water” (Esie Leoso, 31 May 2013).

Leoso: Ceremony is not religion. It’s our way of life. We incorporate it into our life. It’s not just on Sundays. Respect comes from understanding our way of life.

Conaway: For Bad Rivers, ceremonies have direct influence on Water: “Water quality is maintained by respect ... and continuing with the culture, spirituality, and ceremonies that have happened for many, many, many generations” (Jill Hartlev, 30 May 2013). Ceremonies also prepare people for direct action for Water protection. Joe Rose, Sr. explains,

We maintain Water quality by spending a great deal of time and energy defending ourselves against those forces that would pollute and destroy. And in that process, we go back to our ceremonies. Our Midewiwin people do Water ceremonies for the Bad River, Kakagon River, as well as Lake Superior. This is one of the strongest defenses of our battle against those that would threaten the Water both qualitatively and quantitatively (29 May 2013).

These Water-based traditions are intergenerational, encompassing a vast scope of experience. This cumulative knowledge has contemporary value for Water governance and sovereignty:

A holistic approach gives us context and a perspective, and an understanding of what we need to do in real time to acknowledge the threats and work to protect Water resources ... an Ojibway cultural view isn’t just through a filter of what does this mean for human beings, or what does this mean for Anishinaabe people? It’s merited in and evaluated through a holistic perspective of everything from centipedes to hummingbirds to loons to humans ... It’s about everything that exists in an ecosystem, no one being more important than the other (Mike Wiggins, Jr., 28 May 2013).

(6) Traditional ecological knowledge about Water

Leoso: There are so many values associated with Water. Water is life. We know that from our relationship to the Water—it begins at conception within our mother’s womb—we are surrounded by Water there. We know from conception that we need Water in order to survive. If you know that you need something, there is a certain amount of respect that you should provide for that something, if your life is contingent upon that. We value Water, we value it with our lives.

Conaway: Tangible and intangible aspects of Bad River Ojibwe’s relationship to Water constitute a holistic framework of Water-based harvests, stewardship, and sovereignty. This framework also incorporates Ojibwe worldviews: identity with Water, and valuing Water as a person, “a living being” (Mike Wiggins, Jr., 28 May 2013).

Bad River’s people identify deeply with the Waters of their homeland. The people and Lake Superior share a name, Anishinaabe Gichiigaming.

“The lake is part of our identity, and Water is part of our identity. We are caretakers of the Water and the rice, told to us in our Creation Story and our Migration Story” (Aurora Conley, 28 May 2013).

“We are a Water-oriented people, with all of our activities: hunting, fishing, crafting, and gathering. We still practice that lifestyle; it’s not dead, it’s very much alive. That’s a part of who we are and what we do” (Joe Rose, Sr., 29 May 2013).

“The Anishinaabe Nation, our people are Water people. The great strength of our Nation is the ability to move through Water, the ability to support our communities through harvesting in the Water” (Phoebe Kebec, 14 November 2013).

In the Ojibwe Water schema, identity with Water extends to consideration of Water as both a person and a relative. “We are all related. And it doesn’t just mean humans. It means all people, and by people, I mean all living things” (Dana Jackson, 30 May 2013). Ojibwe relate to animals and plants as people: “the two-leggeds, the winged people, the plant people,” and so on, and extend respect as one would to a relative. Ojibwe also extend this respect to Water. For Lake Superior Ojibwe, Water has personhood status.

Leoso: Is Water alive? Does it breathe air? Yes. There is exchange of oxygen with the air. It carries nutrients in it to help everything else live. Water is not a thing or a resource. Water is a person. Our lives are reliant upon that person. Because of what it does, the work it does for all life. Water has stayed on the path and maintained its purpose. We choose to put things in the Water. Create events. If we would think of Water as a person, then we would consider more carefully what we do to that person? First you think of it that way. It’s about whether you incorporate that into your culture: that thought of Water as a living entity. Then you would have that reciprocal relationship.

Think of the Water not as in this well, that well, that well ... it’s a huge being. We are all reliant on this huge being. We maintain Water quality by recognizing it for what it is, for the life that it is, a living entity, Nibi, Nibikaaning. Ojibway have incorporated it into our culture that we think of Water as a person, and the loss of this person would be devastating. This person is not in one place, it’s stretched around the world. If we harm the Water here, it will be felt around the world.

When we look at Nibi from this perspective, we understand a very small part about who Nibi is: It is the first living being on Earth. Several times Nibi completely covered our Mother the Earth, healing her. Other living beings were birthed by Nibi, and a part of Nibi would remain with them for the rest of their time in this life. When the first human came to the Earth, a part of Nibi was within that first human. Anishinaabe. Today, that part of Nibi continues to flow in every blood vessel.

The “ni” in Anishinaabe is the same language root as the “ni” in Nibi translating to “I” or “me.” The “bi” in Nibi corresponds to “abe,” meaning “a human being,” illustrating both that Water is a being and there is a primordial connection between Water and people.

(7) Integrating TEK and Western science for Water stewardship: successes and challenges

Leoso: Western science is another resource for Anishinaabe stewardship. Historically, Anishinaabe people had scientists and philosophers. I know about this from the teachings that were given to me, and the extensive effort and thought that were placed into those teachings that came from so far back.

Conaway: Contemporary Water stewardship in Bad River incorporates Ojibwe traditions and Western science methods.

There’s historical Bad River and modern Bad River, and they blend really well together. Historically, Bad River Ojibway people feel that Water quality is self-sustaining. It’s the perfect harmony of the whole environment, with the wetlands and the lake. Modern Bad River, we as the tribe, have our own Water quality department, and take a lot of care in that area (Jill Hartlev, 30 May 2013).

Leoso: If NRD wants us to do work for them, they ask us with tobacco. People will give tobacco and ask us to come do that in a sincere way. That exchange goes both ways. When we do our Water ceremony, sometimes I’ll even ask, “Has there been any indication in any of the streams, of challenges, elevated levels of something?” And then we’ll keep in mind those places. This team approach is infused throughout the department. At the fish hatchery, first thing in the morning, they put tobacco down before they put the boats on the Water.

Conaway: Western science tools and data are useful for Bad River Water stewardship, but the attitudes and values do not always mesh well. “Scientists need to come down to the person level and look at things as a human being rather than just as this computer-like mind” (Dana Jackson, 30 May 2013).

DISCUSSION

The main work of this paper is twofold: (1) advancing a schema of Ojibwe Water TEK with local relevance and application of Ojibwemowin: Mino bimaadiziwin, as clarified by elders in Bad River; and (2) asserting that to decolonize research and academia, TEK and other Indigenous knowledge is spoken and written about as knowledge, not belief or worldview. We intend that this work contribute to a decolonizing process of orienting English language terms to Indigenous knowledge systems and applications. Respectful and accurate terminology that we utilize in description and implementation of Indigenous knowledge is essential to decolonize perspectives across Water-related fields and all fields.

In Ojibwemowin, one representation of TEK is mino bimaadiziwin. Translations include, literally, “my good life” (Leoso); “living in a good way,” living right by personal and communal relationships (Dana Jackson, Joe Rose, Sr., Iban, and Esie Leoso). Mino bimaadiziwin describes an ethic of reciprocity and respect, expressed in spring Water ceremonies; and in relationship, expressed by participation in harvests of manoomin and ogaa, among other ways. These relationships to Water are about interdependence and survival. “This is about respecting Water as lifeblood” (Mike Wiggins, Jr., 28 May 2013). Ojibwe Water-based harvests engage seen and unseen aspects of Water stewardship. Beginning with ceremony, they engage spirit and knowledge, then connect the tangible act of the harvest to Water stewardship through participation. Ojibwe harvests in the Ceded Territories also assert sovereignty and Treaty Rights. Tangible and intangible aspects of Bad River Ojibwe’s relationship to Water constitute a holistic framework of Water-based harvests, and Water stewardship, sovereignty, and knowledge. These are aspects of Water TEK (Fig. 4).

Intangible aspects of traditional Water stewardship include upholding spiritual traditions as an integral part of the personal, participatory, and creative aspects of Native philosophy (Cajete 2000). We assert that TEK reflects ancient and ongoing scientific observation and relationships, and a more accurate term would be knowledge as opposed to beliefs. Beliefs are potentially more readily discredited or avoided by mainstream science.

Bad River Ojibwe Water TEK incorporates intangibles of identity with Water, Water values, and Water ceremonies. These intangibles guide and direct Water stewardship, direct action, and Water conservation. Ojibwe expressions of respect and reciprocity are ways of knowing, not beliefs. In discussions and integrations of TEK and Western science, terminology could better reflect respect for traditional lifeways as knowledge systems. We recommend that in discussions about the intangibles of Native science and TEK, the terms “know,” “knowledge,” and “ways of knowing,” replace “believe,” “beliefs,” and “belief systems.” We aim to reinforce Cajete and other scholars’ affirmations that spiritual, unseen aspects of Water traditions as being integral to knowledge systems and Native science. This recognition could potentially dissolve barriers between TEK and mainstream science around spirituality and ceremonial aspects of conservation and stewardship. Recognition of ceremonies as knowledge systems, rather than beliefs, is potentially more approachable by Western scientists who may perceive intangibles of stewardship to be outside of the realm of conventional conservation.

Tribes leverage Western science techniques and data in Water stewardship, demonstrating that Native and Western science can be integrated successfully in certain situations. For example, Native and Western sciences share the method of observation for gathering information. The Bad River Integrated Resource Management Plan includes both quantitative and narrative measures of Water quality (Elias 2001). There has to be a mutual respect for differences though, that are not currently reconcilable. Ongoing critique of co-management scenarios are necessary to ensure that Indigenous knowledge is accurately represented and respectfully reciprocated, and that shared goals are being met (Nadasdy 2005). Ecology resonates fairly well with Native science, but still grapples with the intangibles (Kimmerer 2013).

Leoso: All life has a balance. Everything has its opposite. In order to have that balance in life, if there is a tangible side, then there has to be an intangible side. By dismissing that side, you are losing out on half of the knowledge. Recognize the personhood of Water, an example of that intangible component. Methods of Western science include observation, testing, developing methods, coming to conclusions based on results. The scientist wants a result, and they do the experiment until a result occurs. Here’s what is missing: They might not ask, “What else does it do?” Until there’s a recall in the drug, for example. The knowledge making stopped because they acquired that result. Indian people always keep looking. There is always room for improvement. Why put a mine in without having the full understanding of what a mine will do, and how far that action will extend in space and time, into the universe.

Conaway: Native science encompasses a holistic perspective that includes observation, but also relies on nurturing relationships with community and nature (Cajete 2000). Ethics are integral to Native scientific method (Cajete 2000) and to Indigenous research methods (Kovach 2009). Bad Rivers determine that Water TEK gained from observation and participation is not an end result, but one step in the process of understanding Water. Water TEK is dynamic, and one person’s observation of a Water phenomenon is but an infinitesimal aspect of an enormously complex system; so humility and receptivity are necessary.

Leoso: Many people have failed to recognize or accept an intangible component. You have to ask for it. Feel it, experience it. It has to be in your heart. That connection is made through your heart, voice, mind—your being.

Conaway: Bad River Water TEK describes participatory community ethics that encompass tangible impacts of safety and sustainability, and intangible aspects of orientation in territory and place, time, and cosmos. The Ojibwe Seventh Fire teaching is about the approach to a fork in the road: one fork is perceived as being technological, the other is natural (Benton-Banai 1988; Joe Rose, Sr., Iban, 7 February 2015). What fork will we choose? Partnerships with Native experts in Native contexts, and commitment to growing Indigenous scholarship (Kovach 2009) could open up possibilities for new collaboration around Water TEK.

CONCLUSION

For Ganawendan Ginibiiminaan, the Bad River Watershed was a shared ground for collaboration that employed Indigenous research methods, highlighted Indigenous voices and values, and depicts Water through an Ojibwe lens. Vulnerabilities of Water and culture are entangled; solutions promoting resiliency of Bad River Water and people demonstrate a symbiosis of people and place.

Ojibwe cultural health and identity are firmly bound to harvest traditions within the matrix of Water TEK. There is a need to consider cultural values in Water quality metrics and integrate Native science into Western Water stewardship theories and practices. Water stewardship in Bad River demonstrates that Native science is fluid and can incorporate the tools of Western science. To reciprocate, the Western scientific community could strive to better understand Indigenous knowledge as a living historical counterpart to its own understanding of Water. Water resilience is potentially furthered by interdisciplinary and cross-cultural efforts.

This study is a template for research by outsiders in Indian country. Successful collaboration between Indigenous communities and university researchers has global applications. Consideration of cultural value systems such as mino-bimaadiziwin moves us collectively toward an intercultural Water ethic, locally defined and globally relevant. Intangible aspects of Ojibwe Water TEK—respect, humility, relationship-building—potentially advance Western scientific practice of Water stewardship, conservation, and management.

Leoso: Our work here isn’t just about Water, it ripples out to everything else. We can look at Water and look at other elements, wildlife, plants, soils through the reflection of Nibi. Water TEK is one aspect of TEK and ripples out and back. Just like Water, it is fluid, it has no boundaries and is ever moving. Forever flowing.

We couldn’t communicate effectively in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s. Now it’s better. There is yearning for a different understanding. Non-Tribal people are willing to accept Native philosophy as a viable resource. It’s been through trial and error that they’ve come to that conclusion. We said, “There’s a better way of doing things,” but they didn’t listen to us, so they went through trial and error, and then found out that the way that we said to do it, worked.

LITERATURE CITED

Bédard, R. (Mazinegiizhigookwe). 2021. Anishinaabeg maternal activism: we sing a prayer for the water. Journal of the Motherhood Initiative 12(2):109-126.

Benton-Banai, E. 1988. The Mishomis Book: the voice of the Ojibway. Red School House, Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA.

Berkes, F. 2012. Sacred ecology. Third edition. Routledge, New York, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203123843

Berkes, F., and C. Folke, editors. 1998. Linking social and ecological systems: management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Cajete, G. 2000. Native science: natural laws of interdependence. Clear Light, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA.

Chan, H. M., K. Fediuk, M. Batal, T. Sadik, C. Tikhonov, A. Ing, and L. Barwin. 2021. The First Nations food, nutrition and environment study (2008-2018)—rationale, design, methods and lessons learned. Canadian Journal of Public Health 112(1):8-19. https://doi.org/10.17269/s41997-021-00480-0

Chiblow, S. 2019. Anishinabek women’s Nibi Giikendaaswin (water knowledge). Water 11(2):209. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11020209

Chilisa, B. 2012. Indigenous research methodologies. Sage, Thousand Oaks, California, USA.

Deloria, P. 2006. What is the middle ground, anyway? William and Mary Quarterly 63(1):55-22. https://doi.org/10.2307/3491723

Elias, J., editor. 2001. Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians Integrated Resources Management Plan. Bad River Natural Resources Department, Odanah, Wisconsin, USA.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2011. Water quality standards regulations: Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Chippewa Tribe. EPA, Washington, D.C., USA. https://www.epa.gov/wqs-tech/water-quality-standards-regulations-bad-river-band-lake-superior-chippewa-tribe

Grady, W. 2007. The Great Lakes: the natural history of a changing region. Greystone Books, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Grossman, Z. 2005. Unlikely alliances: treaty conflicts and environmental cooperation between Native American and rural white communities. American Indian Culture and Research Journal 29(4):21-43. https://doi.org/10.17953/aicr.29.4.9024g3927h514667

Gunderson, L. H., and C. S. Holling. 2002. Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Island, Washington, D.C., USA.

Harris, L., and D. Wasilewski. 2004. Indigeneity, an alternative worldview: four R’s (relationship, responsibility, reciprocity, redistribution) vs. two P’s (power and profit). Sharing the journey towards conscious evolution. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 21(1):489-503. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.631

Kimmerer, R.W. 2013. Braiding sweetgrass. Milkweed Editions, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.

Kovach, M. 2009. Indigenous methodologies: characteristics, conversations, and contexts. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Leaf, A. T., M. N. Fienen, R. J. Hunt, and C. A. Buchwald. 2015. Groundwater/surface-water interactions in the Bad River Watershed, Wisconsin. Prepared in cooperation with the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa and U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs. Scientific Investigations Report 2015-5162. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, USA. https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2015/5162/sir20155162.pdf

Loew, P. 2013. Indian Nations of Wisconsin: histories of endurance and renewal. Wisconsin Historical Society Press, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.

Louis, R. P. 2007. Can you hear us now? Voices from the margin: using Indigenous methodologies in geographic research. Geographical Research 45(2):130-139. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-5871.2007.00443.x

Meeker, J., J. Elias, and J. Heim. 1993. Plants used by the Great Lakes Ojibwe. Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission, Odanah, Wisconsin, USA.

Nadasdy, P. 2005. The anti-politics of TEK: the institutionalization of co-management discourse and practice. Anthropologica 47(2):215-232.

Nesper, L. 2002. The Walleye War: the struggle for Ojibwe spearfishing and treaty rights. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA.

Reynolds, G. 2003. A Native American water ethic. Pages 143-161 in C. Meine, editor. Wisconsin’s waters: a confluence of perspectives. Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.

Saldana, J. 2009. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage, London, UK.

Smith, L.T. 2021. Decolonizing methodologies: research and Indigenous peoples. Zed, London, UK.

Superior Rivers. 2015. Bad River watershed description. Bad River Watershed Association, Ashland, Wisconsin, USA. https://www.superiorrivers.org/about-our-waters/

Whaley, R., and W. Bresette. 1999. Walleye Warriors: the Chippewa treaty rights story. Revised edition. Tongues of Green Fire Press, Writers Pub. Cooperative, Warner, New Hampshire, USA.

Whyte, K. P. 2013. On the role of traditional ecological knowledge as a collaborative concept: a philosophical study. Ecological Processes 2:7. https://doi.org/10.1186/2192-1709-2-7

Wisconsin Wetlands Association. 2010. Wetland gems. Wisconsin Wetlands Association, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.

Younger, P. 2013. New water for old? Geology and the long view on water resources. Geology Today 29(2):68-72. https://doi.org/10.1111/gto.12004