Mar. 21—WASKISH, Minn. — Efforts to restore tribal boundaries to include the entirety of Upper Red Lake have gained some traction in the Minnesota State Legislature recently, but such plans won’t go without opposition.

One bill,

House File 4780

and its companion

Senate File 5080

would transfer all state-owned land and real property within 84,105 acres of Red Lake State Forest to the

Red Lake Nation.

This would also transfer land surrounding the entirety of Upper Red Lake including a 1-mile buffer that would exist under tribal control.

The bill was introduced to the Minnesota House of Representatives on March 11, roughly one month after the

2024 Red Lake State of the Band Address

where tribal chairman Darrell Seki Sr. detailed the nation’s most recent actions.

Last year, the nation announced plans to restore tribal boundaries

in accordance with treaty negotiations in 1889. This included expanding boundary lines so that all of Upper Red Lake is under the nation’s control.

Currently, around 60% of Upper Red Lake falls within tribal boundaries. Seki noted the past year’s advocacy and meetings with the U.S. Department of the Interior to “right a historical wrong” following the Dawes Act of 1889.

This intended to aid assimilation by dividing communal tribal land into smaller household-size land plots for farming and private ownership. Once each head of household was allocated 160 acres of land, the remaining land would be made available for sale to non-Native Americans.

“The arbitrary allotment was done without consideration to the nature or type of lands, and not all lands were suitable for cultivation,”

Red Lake Nation’s website reads.

“The end result deprived Native Americans of millions of acres of traditional territory.”

Despite ceding tracts of land to the United States, the band maintained control of its central portion of land. The nation formerly encompassed 3.2 million acres in 1889 before ceding 2.9 million acres to households registered under the Dawes Act.

This left Red Lake Nation with roughly 300,000 acres including all of Lower Red Lake and the western portion of Upper Red Lake. During negotiations, Seki detailed that Red Lake hereditary chiefs drew a line surrounding the entirety of both Upper and Lower Red Lakes on an 1889 Rand McNally map, over which Red Lake Nation would retain full sovereignty.

However, Seki claimed that the map, presented by government officials in St. Paul after negotiations with Red Lake, did not include the aforementioned outline and instead depicted a line that splits Upper Red Lake into two parts, which can be seen on current maps.

“The band has been advocating for the return of the entire Upper Red Lake along with a 1-mile buffer of land around the lake,” Seki said in February. “The Department of the Interior attorneys are working with our attorneys to finalize a legal opinion.”

Seki also pointed to 92,000 acres of land north of Red Lake Nation leased by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to the state of Minnesota in 1940. According to Seki, the nation was not informed of the lease and the tribal council will seek an early cancellation of the lease, currently set to expire in 2035.

“Because the band was not informed of this lease, the band did not consent to the lease,” Seki added. “It’s the state of Minnesota and the federal government that deceived us and stole our lands. We want our lands back that were stolen from us, returned to our membership.”

As the bill works its way through the legislative process, private residents, business owners and other stakeholders have expressed concern over potential consequences should these lands change ownership.

In a March 19 meeting for the

Upper Red Lake Area Association,

attendees flooded Waskish Town Hall — which is surrounded by the Red Lake State Forest — to discuss implications the bill could have if it passes.

Several community members expressed frustration over the introduction of the bill and a lack of clarity regarding privately owned land.

Senate District 2 Rep. Steve Green, R-Fosston, attended the meeting via Zoom and drew a parallel between Red Lake’s bill and

Senate File 3480, which would transfer ownership of the White Earth State Forest to the White Earth Nation.

“You guys are in a different position than White Earth as (White Earth) is an open reservation. People can own land within that reservation, you guys can’t,” Green stated on Tuesday, noting that Red Lake is a closed nation where members own the land in common. “The state can give (Red Lake Nation) the state land around the lake, but they can not give (Red Lake) your land.”

Despite the chance that private property owners could keep their land with surrounding tribal control, Green noted that property values could plummet with such a change. Access to Upper Red Lake was another concern raised by Green and Robyn Dwight, president of the Upper Red Lake Area Association.

“If the state land goes back to Red Lake, we lose access because on Upper Red Lake, there’s only one public access point that goes through DNR property,” Dwight said. “That will seriously impact our community.”

Dwight added that Upper Red Lake, a popular walleye fishing destination, received over 75,000 visits from those across the state and the U.S. last year. With a change in ownership, she expressed uncertainty over the status of

the state’s Keep It Clean Law

— a bill that went into effect in July 2023 prohibiting any kind of garbage or waste on or below lake ice.

Other implications regarding an ownership change to the Red Lake State Forest brought about even more questions than answers on Tuesday.

“What about the tax money that goes to our schools that we’ll lose if we lose those forests? What about the relationships that we do have with Red Lake Nation, which are good relationships?” Dwight questioned. “Think about all the things that can happen even if our private properties are not on the chopping block.”

Green expanded on his opposition to the bill, stating, “I don’t even have the words to describe how frustrated I am with the legislators who brought this forward, and they don’t even have a dog in this fight. … I am opposed (to the bill) and I will remain opposed to it.”

Similar to its neighboring tribal nations, Leech Lake Nation is undergoing the process of

retaining over 11,000 acres of land

previously managed by the Chippewa National Forest. In August 2023, a

map of proposed parcels for transfer

was made available to the public.

“The Forest and the Band identified the proposed parcels to be transferred. The intent is to limit fragmentation of ownership boundaries while honoring private property rights,” a release from the U.S. Department of Agriculture explained. “The legislation language makes provisions for honoring any existing private property rights such as easements, permits or other encumbrances.”

Attendees on Tuesday were encouraged to contact their legislators — notably DFL officials — to voice their thoughts on the bill.

Green noted agreement with State Sen. Rob Kupec, DFL-Moorhead, and Sen. Grant Hauschild, DFL-Hermantown, regarding their opposition to White Earth’s land transfer. Similar agreement between the three has arisen against the Red Lake bill.

Citizens were also encouraged to share a letter expressing disapproval of the bill while recognizing Red Lake Nation’s sovereignty.

“While I acknowledge the importance of addressing historical injustices and promoting the rights of Indigenous peoples, I believe that the proposed measures associated with the Land Back movement could have detrimental effects on both the local community and broader societal harmony,” the letter reads. “Furthermore, I am concerned about the potential ramifications of redistributing land without considering the practical implications and the interests of all stakeholders involved.

“While the goal of returning land to Indigenous communities is noble in theory, it must be approached with caution and sensitivity to avoid unintended consequences. Displacing current landowners or disrupting existing economic activities could exacerbate tensions and lead to further division rather than reconciliation.”

The Upper Red Lake Area Association plans to hold a town hall event in April for further discussion on the legislation.

On Thursday,

the Red Lake Tribal Council released a historical summary of the 1889 Treaty

as council members continue to make their case.

“The United States’ illegal disposition of Upper Red Lake does not, and cannot, suffice to diminish the boundaries of the Red Lake Reservation,” the summary states. “We respectfully urge the Department of the Interior to rectify the United States’ past wrongdoing, and restore and affirm the boundaries of the Red Lake Reservation as Red Lake leaders originally intended in 1889.”