On a muggy evening in late August 2000, at the Henry B. Whipple federal building at Fort Snelling, John Steinworth, a member of a loose coalition of Coldwater Spring supporters known as the Preserve Camp Coldwater Coalition (PCCC) stood up and spoke to the assembled agency representatives who had come to hear public comment about the impending transfer of the Bureau of Mines property to the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC). Steinworth talked about accomplishments of the coalition in bringing public attention to the effect of Highway 55 on the spring and the surrounding area. “We have been around quite some time.” Whoever gets the property Steinworth said, “gets us too. We come with the property.”

The 2000 meeting where this occurred came about because the Department of Interior had reached a decision about what would happen to Coldwater/Bureau of Mines property. Now the agency, through the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA), a branch of the National Park Service, wanted to get public input about what to put in the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with MAC, to protect the character of the property. After the meeting the public would have seven days–later extended to two weeks–to submit written comment.

Not all of the people there that night were members of PCCC, but all who were there were not happy. As John Steinworth also pointed out the Coldwater people felt that they had been pushed around and ignored in the process of determining the ultimate ownership of the property. They wanted to be heard not only on the MOA, but on the basic decision the Park Service was announcing. The Department of Interior and MNRRA wanted to keep things simple. The meeting was intended to start out with various officials speaking about the process. Then people were supposed to split up in smaller groups to discuss and give comments.  After this was announced in the meeting, there was a lot of grumbling. Someone called for a vote. Very few people wanted to go into small groups. Most wanted to remain in the large group, so that everyone could hear what everyone said. Finally, after much hemming and hawing, officials acquiesced and the Coldwater people got the meeting they wanted, where everyone got to talk and say his or her piece.

Over the course of the next few, muggy hours, many people spoke, including both Coldwater people and public officials. The Coldwater people who spoke that night were from many different backgrounds and had come to support the preservation of the spring for many different reasons. Some had been involved in the Highway 55 “Stop the Reroute” opposition, but after the battle was lost they re-formed as the PCCC, to preserve the spring. The group met periodically at local restaurants and operated under a consensus-model of decision-making. Also involved and represented that night was the Mendota Mdewakanton Dakota Community, the only vocal Dakota support for preserving the spring, but a group with neither money nor federal recognition. Others were like Dave Fudally, a local resident who had gotten to know the area very well over many decades. He was and is an amateur historian who had been a pioneer in trying to convince agencies for several decades to preserve the area.

Though there are a wide diversity of opinions about many things, these diverse people had united in their support for the preservation of Coldwater. Notes of what was said that night are incomplete, but it appears that most of the discussion was about the advisability of giving the property to MAC. Many wanted the Park Service to keep it and manage it. There was fear that the Airports Commission would fill the property with parking lots or would do something else to develop the property.

Lynn Levine pointed out that people supporting the preservation of Coldwater had been lied to a lot. She was concerned about the ongoing health of the spring. Jim Anderson and Linda Brown of the Mendota Dakota spoke about the importance of the spring to the Dakota and a need for that to be acknowledged. Dave Fudally spoke about how important the property was to all Minnesotans, not just Dakota people. Michael Kincaid spoke abut the need to erase the artificial boundaries that divided all the various important properties  in the Fort Snelling area. Legislator Karen Clark questioned the desirability of transferring the property to an agency that had no experience in managing cultural and historic places. Someone stated that the preservation of Coldwater was a “justice issue.” Tom Holtzleiter raised the issue of the fifty-year run of the Memorandum of Agreement governing the transfer of the property to the Airports Commission. What would happen then and how would the National Park Service protect the spring? Answering most of the questions was historian John Anfinson of MNRRA. He gave detailed and credible answers but not ones that truly satisfied the Coldwater supporters. They simply believed that Anfinson was defending the indefensible.

Even so, by the end of the night people who attended had an exhilirating feeling that their voices were finally being heard. After the meeting, when many lingered outside the Whipple Building to hash over what had happened, Susu Jeffrey–a longtime activist on many political and military issues– relished the moment and, referring to the sale of the property to the Airports Commission announced triumphantly: “That agreement is toast.”  It did turn out to be toast, but what ended it was the events of 9/11 which caused fundamental changes in the air-transportation system in the country.

At the time of the meeting, many thought that Dakota or Indian ownership of the Coldwater property was desirable, though few believed that it was possible, since there seemed to be no interest among the federally-recognized tribes in Minnesota about owning the property. However, all supporters of Coldwater preservation tried to communicate what they believed to be the importance of the place for the Dakota, something that a number of Dakota elders had made clear to the Minnesota Department of Transportation in public hearings in 1999.

In the following years, the importance of the spring to the Dakota seemed to be an operating assumption of Coldwater supporters. In 2001, they fought and obtained a provision of state law which protected the flow of water to the spring from any governmental action. As described by Mary Weitz, who did a lot of the lobbying for the bill at the State Capitol, Coldwater supporters also fought for inclusion of language designating the area as a “traditional cultural property,” the term used to describe a place of cultural importance to a people such as the Dakota. The language was stripped out of the bill before final passage.  However the law passed contained the following statement:

Neither the state, nor a unit of metropolitan government,  nor a political subdivision of the state may take any action that may diminish the flow of water to or from Camp Coldwater Springs. All projects must be reviewed under the Minnesota Historic Sites Act and the Minnesota Field Archaeology Act with regard to the flow of water to or from Camp Coldwater Springs.

The effect of the law, which was later tested in court, was to force the Minnesota Department of Transportation to protect the flow of water to the spring in the construction of Highway 55 south of the Highway 62 interchange, just west of the Bureau of Mines property.

After 2001, the Park Service went back to the drawing board in arriving at a solution for the BOM property. Meanwhile the Coldwater people met periodically, bided their time, tried to read the tea leaves about what the Park Service might do, and continued to go to Coldwater Spring for water. Whenever the Park Service has done anything to limit access to the spring, Coldwater people have been quick to challenge it, as in 2005 when a permit system was implemented for access to the Coldwater property.

In 2001, Susu Jeffrey split away from the PCCC to form the Friends of Coldwater. In her prolific writing Jeffrey has consistently maintained that federal ownership would provide the greatest protection for the spring, although she also acknowledges the sacredness of the spring to the Dakota. Others continued working with the older group, the PCCC, in arriving at the consensus that the property should first be offered to the Dakota. In 2006, working with environmental lawyer Thomas E. Casey, they drafted comments on the Bureau of Mines draft EIS, urging that the property be transferred to the Dakota:

Preserve Camp Coldwater Coalition strongly recommends that one (or combination of more than one) of the recognized Dakota communities receive title to the Bureau of Mines/Coldwater Spring area property. Dakota communities and other Native American tribes have, from the distant past through the present time, continued to gather at the Coldwater Spring area for water and other ceremonies. This is why the Dakota communities have the largest vested interest in protecting the area. They also may have the financial resources to ward off would be interlopers. Some Dakota communities are also considering a serious bid of private funds for the area. However, albeit unlikely, a future tribal election could result in elected officials who are less dedicated to protecting Coldwater Spring and the surrounding area. In that event – and to provide the highest level of protection – the conservation easement provisions described . . . below are essential conditions for the transfer of ownership.

At the time this was written a lot more interest had been shown in the Coldwater property by federally-recognized Dakota communities, including Shakopee, Prairie Island and Lower Sioux, which all submitted proposals, in 2006, asking for the property. But MNRRA, acting for the Department of Interior, has not considered these proposals seriously and has declined to acknowledge that Coldwater Spring is a traditional cultural property for Dakota people.

All of this is background for what occurred at the Coldwater/Bureau of Mines open house on February 23, 2009, when Waziyatawin, Sheldon Wolfchild, and others demanded that the property go to the Dakota people. Although some of the speakers that night did thank those who had supported the preservation of the property over the years, many Coldwater people felt that their role was not properly acknowledged or respected. They had been advocating for the property and for its importance for the Dakota since 1999 and earlier. They continued to favor ownership by the Dakota. They felt slighted and some simply felt that the style of the demands made in the speeches was not helpful in achieving the desired results. So, in some ways, what occurred that night challenged continuing consensus among Coldwater people about the best way to save Coldwater Spring.

On Thursday, March 26, 2009,  Hennepin County law-enforcement officers, with the permission of the Fish and Wildlife Service made use of Building 1 and adjacent area of the former Bureau of Mines site for a training operation involving fifty camouflaged officers, numerous vehicles, and plenty of weaponry. The event was apparently unknown and unanticipated by officials of the National Park Service-Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA), three of whom went to the site to look at some things “relative to planning for site restoration,” the topic of the public comment period (on the restoration of the property) that had ended just the night before. According to Steven P. Johnson of MNRRA, “they encountered a large number of law enforcement vehicles and officers, and were denied access. The law enforcement folks were conducting training exercises of some sort.”

Learning of this, Johnson called Bob Hansen of the Fish and Wildlife Service, which is currently managing the property. Hansen had given the Hennepin County Sheriff’s office permission to use Building 1 and the area around it, though, according to Johnson, Hansen had “expected the rest of the site would be available to the public.” Johnson informed him that this was not the case. “He was going to look into if further in the afternoon.” (It should be noted that the Sheriff’s office provides security for the property, but has done little to prevent extensive spray painting by taggers to the BOM buildings and the historic marker at the spring.)

Later in the morning Debbra Myers, Jeanne Hollingsworth, Susu Jeffrey and other Coldwater Spring supporters received word of the law enforcement actions and decided to go to the spring. Myers, Hollingsworth, and Jeffrey all went to the spring, arriving shortly after 1 PM and staying until 4 PM. During the afternoon they spoke on the phone with Bob Hansen who stated that the property was public property and had to be available to everyone. The account of Debbra Myers about what happened is shown below.

Although the events were a surprise to MNRRA officials, they raise question about the commitment of the Department of Interior to protecting the cultural and historic character of the Coldwater Spring property in the future, and their longterm sensitivity to the concerns of Dakota people. It should be remembered that several proposals put forward during initial phases of the current environmental process were for a Minneapolis Police Department facility and a law-enforcement training facility on this site. It was assumed that these proposals had fallen by the wayside. Is what happened on March 26 a sign of or preparation for things to come, a show of force, or is it intended as a provocation? One way or another it is hoped that no one will be provoked to do anything in response. These events make government agencies look bad enough. They don’t need any competition. 

Account of Debbra Myers about what happened at the Coldwater/Bureau of Mines property on March 26, 2009

On the morning of March 26th I was informed that the Sheriff Dept of Hennepin County and several other police divisions were gathering at Coldwater Spring. I immediately called Bruce White, Jimmy Anderson, and several others and headed for the Spring. The Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service’s 30 day public comment period had ended the night before at midnight. I was wondering if all this was connected.

As we approached the entrance I was not prepared for what lay ahead. There was a large motor home that was a command post complete with a lot of communication equipment on top. A large tent set up on the circular paved area right before the gates. Numerous local suburban police cars as well, Plymouth, Crystal, Golden Valley squads among others. There were around 50 camouflaged clothed males in the immediate area.

The whole scene was surreal, and totally inappropriate; this is sacred land. It felt like a military camp. I started to visibly shake and had a large knot in my stomach. As we approached the entrance at a slow speed, I was not willing to be denied access, this was not an option. We were able to drive into the Spring without resistance.

We drove down to the Spring to gather our thoughts. The Spring was clear and noticeably without the ducks. I had been coming down all winter the ducks were always gathered on the water. Was this a sign of the hostile actions about to take place. We drove back out the gates to wait for others that were coming. I was not comfortable in the area of the police gathering and hesitated to stay out side of the gates.

As we approached the entrance again, a SUV from the Sheriff’s Department pulled up to our car, his vehicle was inches from my window. He was agitated that we were there, it was obvious. He barked, where we thought we were going? We replied that we were going to the Spring. He told us to go! I was not moving since there was a camouflaged office standing in front of my car. The officer yelled at me to go again, and said “he will move.” The officer in front of my car was hyper and couldn’t wait to aggressively ask,”where do you think you are going?” Again we replied the Springs. We were then told that the Sheriff’s Department were going to be using building 1 for training and the area would have a lot of people running around, so we should not be worried. We informed the officer that no guns should be involved and they really should not be there, this was inappropriate use of the land. We were informed that there would be no live ammunition in the guns. The officer was told any guns on the land were inappropriate and we were terribly upset at the situation.

Our cars were backed in at the top of the drive near the Spring. The training did begin and the officers staged up 20 – 30 feet from the cars. At this point there were 3 women in our group. With guns drawn and some devices that were used to launch “something” from their shoulders, was this thing a rocket launcher? Their games began. I couldn’t believe it was all taking place; it was an appalling and shocking display which played out for 4 hours.

Bob Hansen of the Fish and Wild life Services called on the cell and informed us he had given permission for the Hennepin County Sheriff Dept to use the Building 1. He said it was a property of the Department of Interior, and the land was to be used by all people. He informed us that the Sheriff’s Dept was the agency that was providing security for the Spring, and it was a trade off. Sacred land being used for war maneuvers? The Security Squads have been driving on the grassy areas of the Spring, this has caused erosion and is unacceptable.

This appears to be, as we have seen time and time again, the aggressive and shameless use of power to intimidate the people who are protesting and speaking out on the use and abuse of a sacred area. This is and always will be Dakota land and the latest cowboy show is totally vile. Stop the abuse of this area and do the right thing, give back the land to the Dakota. 

[Updated, to include an additional email from Chris Mato Nunpa.]

Early on Wednesday, March 25, 2009, Steven P. Johnson of the National Park Service responded to the earlier posting on this site about a Villager article describing the February 23, 2009, Coldwater/ Bureau of Mines open house and to an email from Waziyatawin concerning the same article. Waziyatawin had stated:

I had hoped that your comments to me at the public hearing were sincere and that you were going to take actions to respect the concerns of the Dakota people.  I was, therefore, very disturbed to learn that the NPS staff people are still asserting such ludicrous perspectives that diminish Dakota actions and concerns.  All of the Indigenous people who spoke that night were Dakota people (save for someone who was Dakota and part Ojibwe), and fortunately, we have the video to prove it. I  hope that the NPS will take a different approach during the April public hearing.  If you create transparency, NPS folks and Dakota people can have an open conversation.  Your current tactics encourage the perpetration of lies, misrepresentations, and misinterpretations.

Email from Steven P. Johnson addressed to Waziyatawin and Bruce White, March 25, 2009

I suspect you both have had enough contact with newspaper reporters to know the National Park Service did not control the story that appeared in the Highland Villager, any more than we did the story that appeared in the Southside Pride. Some of our staff were interviewed. Who else the Villager reporter chose to interview was up to him. Despite Bruce’s comments to the contrary, the reporter was in attendance at the meeting.You may also not be aware that some of the story was factually incorrect and we have asked the Villager to print a correction. I don’t know if it will or not.

The purpose of the meeting and subsequent written public comment period, as you both know, was to gain public input on what it should mean to “restore” the site and the spring. While we continue to gather public comment on that topic (the comment period ends today), you and others continue to emphasize another subject: that of the future owner of the site. As we explained to you and others that night (and before and since), a determination of a future owner/manager of the site will be made by the property owner (the Department of the Interior) based on the yet-to-be-completed Final Environmental Impact Statement and the written comments received during a subsequent 30-day public comment period on the Final EIS. Comments on future ownership will need to be made again during that comment period, and we will at that time ensure everyone who has commented during the current period is aware of that.

As we discussed on February 23, a recommendation that the property be transferred to “the Dakota people” makes a good slogan at a rally, but doesn’t create an action the property owner can actually take. “The Dakota people,” while a justifiably proud and important people in Minnesota, isn’t an entity that can accept a deed to this or any other land. Land could only be deeded to a federally recognized tribe, or possibly a joint powers agreement among several tribes. It is also not clear who is empowered to speak for “the Dakota people. We are required to communicate with federally recognized tribes through the tribe’s elected leadership. While there are many Dakota people with diverse opinions, as a government agency we must respond to the tribal government. In the same way, we may get many comments on an issue from residents of the city of St. Paul, but the city’s official comments to us would come from the city’s elected leadership.

We were sincere in our comments that evening that there may be some way to accomplish much or all of what you seek for the future of the site. But it will require working through government process and not just slogans at a rally.

Let me be clear about the next steps in the process;

1. Today is the final day for public comments on how the site and spring should be restored.
2. We will soon be reviewing those comments and developing a plan for site restoration. I believe, from everything I’ve heard from you, that we are in general agreement about removal of the builidngs and other infrastructure on the site (roads, concrete pads, etc.).
3. We are currently working on preparation of the Final Environmental Impact Statement. It should be published early this coming summer.
4. Once the Final EIS is published, there will be a 30-day written comment period on the issues of site restoration AND future ownership/management of the site. Everyone who registered at the February 23 meeting and everyone who has sent in comments since will be notified about that comment period.
5. At the conclusion of that comment period, the Final EIS and all comments received will be transmitted to the property owner, the Department of the Interior.
6. Subsequent to receiving and reviewing that material, the Department of the Interior will make a decision about site restoration and future ownership/management, and will announce that decision in a document called a Record of Decision.
7. Once the Record of Decision is made public, implementation can begin.

Response from Waziyatawin to Steven P. Johnson, March 25, 2009

As I stated the evening of the rally, this whole process is a colonial process.  The government of the United States and its citizens worked to systematically break up the Dakota nation, to destroy our traditional governing structure and to replace it with new structures based on the U.S. model.  This was part of the colonization process.  As I explained to you already, for the government and its accompanying institutions to insist now, after more than 150 years of colonial intervention, that the only legitimate voice for Dakota people are the tribal councils, is highly problematic.  As a goverment employee supporting that position, you are doing your part as a good colonizing agent to uphold colonial rule.

Our claim to that land is much more than a slogan at a rally and I find your dismissal of our position deeply offensive.  As I stated on February 23rd, we will not give up that site.  Your actions now can either assist us in challenging the ways things are done, or you can help maintain the colonial status quo.  You can help make the case for return of the site to Dakota people, or you can make the case for keeping that site under colonial rule.  Either way your role will be well-documented and publicized and we will hold you accountable.

Email from Chris Mato Nunpa, May 27, 2009