Background / Literature Review

Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG, sometimes MMIWG2S to include Two-Spirit people) is an enduring issue with a long history rooted in racism, gender-based violence, and settler colonialism (Welch, 2022). The scars and sufferings are long-lasting on the survivors, victims’ families, and tribal members, and the survivors and families display tremendous strength in their journeys of surviving and healing. Data shows that Indigenous women are at significantly higher risk of experiencing sexual assault, domestic violence, trafficking and murder than non-indigenous women. The Sovereign Body Institute (SBI) collected data on MMIWG cases in the Dakotas, Montana and Nebraska, as part of an effort to expose the relationship between violence against land and violence against indigenous bodies. Their report revealed that “in November 2019, in Montana and Nebraska Indigenous girls represented 37% and 13% of all missing girls, respectively, even though Indigenous people as a whole represent 6% and 1% of statewide populations. ” Of the 411 MMIWG cases documented by the SBI in the Dakotas, Montana and Nebraska, 20% occurred in or adjacent to counties which the Keystone XL pipeline is proposed to cross. [1] Violence, abuse, trafficking and murder more severely target young girls and women; 31% of the 411 cases were girls under the age of 18, and 40% under the age of 21. It is especially important to recognize the complex systems that enable these historical and ongoing patterns of violence. As pointed out in the SBI report,

“Contrary to these public campaigns that largely center random acts of violence, sex trafficking often occurs as part of a broader nexus of abuse and exploitation, at times intersecting with the child welfare system, domestic and intimate partner violence, housing precarity, and poverty. ” [1]

Research also shows us the nationwide problem with underreporting and underaddressing the problem of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. As

shown in the report issued by Urban Indian Health Institute, there were 5,712 cases of MMIWG reported in 2016, but only 116 of them were logged in the US Department of Justice’s federal missing person database, NamUs (UIHI, 2017). [2] Local law enforcement agencies routinely conduct poor investigations, and searches for the missing are inadequate or non-existent. Additionally, since the Oliphant vs. Suquamish Supreme Court decision in 1978, Tribal courts do not have jurisdiction over non-native offenders, and so Federal courts are responsible for prosecution of non-Native offenders in MMIWG cases. The Department of Justice is often negligent in pursuing justice and providing adequate support for survivors and the families of victims. Deficiencies in the reporting and investigation of MMIW cases exacerbate the systemic failure on all levels on the prevention, enforcement and justice of the issue of MMIW.

“Until there is cooperation and better tracking systems at all government levels, the data on missing and murdered Indigenous women will never be 100 percent accurate, which is what we need to strive for in order to protect our mothers, daughters, sisters, and aunties. ”

Abigail Echo-Hawk (Pawnee), Director, Urban Indian Health Institute

Revisiting the concerning connection between violence against land and against indigineous women and girls, activists have spoken out about the dangers of large construction projects like oil pipelines which bring in a large influx of temporary workers housed in “man camps. ” A study on the Bakken oil fields of North Dakota and Montana found “reports of aggravated assault and of violence committed by strangers increased by 70% and 53%, respectively, and that women experienced a 54% increase in unlawful sexual contact. ” [1] Man camps are also associated with an increase in human trafficking; The Enbridge Line 3 replacement project in Minnesota saw 4 contractors arrested in two separate sex-trafficking stings. These increased rates of violence follow the patterns of colonization in targeting indigenous women and girls. This issue is particularly salient right now in Wisconsin where WWHI is based. Enbridge is seeking approval from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR)l

to build a reroute of Line 5 around the Bad River Reservation. Line 5 currently crosses the Bad River Reservation but the easement expired in 2013, while Enbridge has continued to operate, trespassing on the land of the Chippewa Tribe. The proposed reroute, while circumventing the reservation, significantly increases risk to the Bad River watershed, which would put land, people, and wildlife at risk and violate the treaty rights of the Chippewa people to hunt, fish, and grow wild rice (Manoomin) on the land. The DNR is in the process of reviewing the Draft Environmental Impact Statement of the project, and recently closed their public comment period, during which they held public hearings for live testimony. The 10-hour public hearing on February 2nd was attended by water protectors from not only the great lakes area but around the country, and was a day of moving, emotional stories and powerful expressions of resistance. We include here two examples of moving testimonies which eloquently express the recurring concerns and complaints from indigenous water protectors. First, the testimony of (english name) Joe Bates, who was an invaluable partner and contributor to the project. The second testimony is from Daniel Guzman, a councilman of the Oneida Nation.

My English name is Joe Bates and I live and work on the Bad River Reservation. I'm also a member of the Anishinaabe Environmental Protection Alliance committee. It's a committee approved by a tribal council concerned about the proposed reroute of Line 5. Currently Line 5, across 12.3 miles of reservation, we have 101 confirmed anomalies by Enbridge themselves. What's alarming is what kind of anomalies we're looking at over 645 miles from Superior to Sarnia, Canada. And now the DNR is looking at adding another 141 miles of potential anomalies within the Bad River watershed. I'm concerned about the methods that Enbridge is going to use, which concerns or includes you have to excuse me. It's late I know. Since 400 PM, I've been sitting here on my 65th trip around the sun waiting to have my few minutes to speak. Thank you very much. What I'm concerned about is blasting over 20 miles across a bedrock that we have here in Northern Wisconsin, the trenching that they're going to be doing through some of our class one trout streams, which includes the Lawrence and Potato River, right at the confluence, right there. They want to trench across that trout stream. I'm concerned about all of the other streams that Enbridge is going to cross in this 41 mile reroute, where they all empty into the Bad River. And any kind of break that Enbridge suffers in that pipeline, it's going to end up in those deep gorges down on the south end. And it all goes to Lake Superior. 20% of the world's fresh water resides right here in our Great Lakes, 10% in the Lake Superior alone. I'm concerned about our animals, our plants, our medicines that have grown here since the beginning, since the beginning. My ancestors have died to keep what we have here for generations to come. And I will also uphold those same promises that my ancestors made to our grandchildren and our great grandchildren that are still to come. Enbridge has been doing what they wanted to do by buying legislation in favor of a foreign company and forcing their will through treaty lands, which I have seen with my own eyes in Standing Rock, North Dakota in Minnesota and now they're trying to do it here in Northern Wisconsin... We will defend our right to exist here in Northern Wisconsin on the Bad River Reservation. Thank you for hearing me.

My name is Daniel Guzman King. I'm a Councilman of the Oneida Nation, and I'm speaking on behalf of the Oneida Nation and those who cannot speak for themselves. I would like to express our concerns relative to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Enbridge Line

5. [Moderator: Daniel, before your comment, can you just state your address for the record please?] No, I cannot. I stood on the front lines of the Dakota Access Pipeline and got shot at, tear gassed. I also protested at the front lines of Line 3 and will protest at Line 5 if this goes through. So I will not. Thank you. The Oneida Nation has reviewed Enbridge's proposed plan for the construction of PipeLine 5 and determined that the proposed construction poses a threat to tribal lands, environment treaty rights, historical cultural sites, and waters in the upper Mississippi watershed and the Western Great Lakes. Many sovereign nations and indigenous communities live and rely upon the lands along the proposed pipeline, which poses a threat to indigenous way of life. And the proposed line could disproportionately impact indigenous people, threaten resources critical to the survival of indigenous communities and exacerbate the already profound disparities in health access and outcomes that tribal communities face. The Oneida will understand that water provides sustenance to all life on earth, including the land. And the threat of pollution to the land and waters is too great a risk that it is unacceptable to our people. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement has flaws that are of great importance. First, the EIS fundamentally misrepresents the treaty rights of the tribes. The Oneida Nation knows that the 1842 Treaty with the Chippewa Nation affects more than a few indigenous communities listed in the EIS. As a matter of fact, many of the Chippewa Nations not just in Wisconsin, hold use of rights within the seated territory of the 1842 Treaty. Each tribe deserves to be accurately represented and given adequate consideration of the impacts. This proposed pipeline will have to not only their treaty rights, but also to the livelihood of their people. We believe that the EIS does not contain enough data to determine what the impacts downstream could be if there was a spill. The Oneida Nation is absolutely concerned about this as Enbridge has not had a great history in this arena. As already stated, many tribal communities rely upon our waters for resource, including for sustenance. We believe that the EIS barely scratches the surface as to the potential impacts to the environment. It does not consider or address climate change vulnerabilities that are anticipated to occur relative to rainfall, flooding events, changes in Lake Superior coastal dynamics and watershed vulnerabilities. For example, there are significant natural changes occurring to Lake Superior relative to coastal erosion on the south side of the lake, due to the lake's north side, natural rising. This is a naturally changing environment in which the EIS is not addressed, but could be detrimental to the largest freshwater lake in the world. We also believe that disruption to the natural habitat, the wetlands and the waterways could potentially have some devastating environmental impacts to endangered species, researchers within the Great Lakes, fish and wildlife have stated that their surveys have fallen more endangered species than what the pipelines consultants found and are very concerned about the loss of rare plants and animals. Water quality impacts of an oil spill on aquatic systems at the spill site and downstream would again be devastating. No amount of money, jobs or profit will cover the cost of destroying mother earth and all of her resources. This project and others like it are irresponsible, destructive, shortsighted, unsustainable, and should be considered a heinous crime against the rights of nature and humanity.