Enbridge is at critical juncture for Line 5 tunnel — and Michigan must push back

Yahoo

15-04-2025

Enbridge is pushing forward with a series of permit applications that ignore the risks of running a 4-mile oil tunnel through the heart of the Great Lakes ― the Straits of Mackinac.
In March, Enbridge submitted several permit applications to Michigan's Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy (EGLE) as part of its push to replace the aging Line 5 pipeline into a tunnel it wants to construct in the Straits.
But by a plain reading of Michigan environmental law, the application is woefully incomplete.
Rather than conducting a thorough analysis of the project's full impact on the Great Lakes, Enbridge's submission narrowly focuses on the tunnel's north and south ends — ignoring vital ecological, cultural and hydrological consequences of drilling into the gravel-like lakebed.
Michigan's law is clear: The Great Lakes belong to the public, and the state has a legal obligation to protect these waters under the Public Trust Doctrine and the Michigan Submerged Lands Act.
Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and EGLE Director Phil Roos now have a critical decision to make. Will they stand with the millions of Michiganders who rely on clean water, healthy fisheries and a thriving tourism economy? Or will they allow Enbridge to cut corners, ignore environmental risks and endanger our state's most precious natural resource?
More from Freep Opinion: How much of Project 2025 has been implemented? Enough to break us beyond repair.
Here's how the EGLE permitting process works: There are EGLE must deem three major permits administratively complete, and ultimately approve, for this project to move forward. The first is under Part 31 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. This permit, previously granted under the Snyder Administration, revealed Enbridge's plans to discharge up to 5 million gallons of wastewater and other construction liquids per day into Lake Michigan during tunnel construction.
The second permit they are pursuing is under Part 303, Wetlands Protection. This permit has been recently filed and must be scrutinized by EGLE to ensure that critical wetlands are not negatively impacted by the project, along with rare plant species ― which have been identified in the project area. Currently, the application only considers the north and south ends of the proposed tunnel. The company is seeking a reissuance of this permit, in part because of the company's failure to disclose delineated wetlands in the first round.
Finally, the third permit falls under Part 325, Great Lakes Submerged Lands, which explores whether the proposal will negatively impact fisheries and navigation. Enbridge submitted a letter expressing that it believed Part 325 did not apply, but begrudgingly did submit a limited application. The scope of that application was restricted to a small area near the wetlands considered in the previous permit's scope. The company claims that the project will cause no harm during the three to five years that they are drilling and blasting through our Great Lakes bottomlands. Now, EGLE must rigorously scrutinize this to ensure that this project serves the public interest — not just the financial interests of a foreign oil company.
More from Freep Opinion: After 30 years in Detroit journalism, I can't stop thinking about this story
The risks of this project are not hypothetical. Enbridge's lengthy history of environmental disaster proves the company cannot be trusted. The catastrophic 2010 Line 6B spill in Michigan's Kalamazoo River remains one of the worst inland oil spills in U.S. history, contaminating nearly 40 miles of waterways and requiring over $1 billion in cleanup costs. More recently, during the construction of its Line 3 pipeline in Minnesota, Enbridge breached multiple aquifers, releasing millions of gallons of groundwater and inflicting long-term damage to local ecosystems. In November of 2024, Enbridge's 70,000-gallon spill on Line 6 in Wisconsin marked the largest oil spill in that state's history. Plus, don't forget that Line 5 itself has already spilled more than a million gallons during its lifetime.
These disasters are not anomalies; they're the predictable outcome of a business model that, in my estimation, is built on negligence, incompetence and a propensity to operate until failure.
Michigan cannot afford to gamble with the Great Lakes by allowing Enbridge to drill a tunnel beneath one of the most sensitive ecosystems in the world.
Environmental hazards aside, approving this 99-year oil infrastructure would lock our economy into decades of continued reliance on fossil fuels at precisely the moment when we must be accelerating our transition to clean energy. The economic and environmental costs of this outdated infrastructure would be borne by Michigan residents, while the profits would flow to Enbridge's corporate headquarters in Canada.
It's worth remembering that Enbridge petitioned and won approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to pass the costs of tunnel construction onto their shippers, which may then be passed onto consumers ― i.e., you and me. Plus, the Line 5 tunnel would be owned by the Mackinac Straits Corridor Authority (MSCA), a state entity, while Enbridge would lease and operate it. This financial structure raises concerns about liability, as Michigan taxpayers could ultimately be responsible for costs associated with potential pipeline rupture cleanup, maintenance or unforeseen damages.
The tunnel also represents a direct affront to indigenous sovereignty and threatens to desecrate indigenous sites of immense cultural and spiritual significance, violating treaty rights and perpetuating a long history of environmental injustice. Efforts to fast track this permit on behalf of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers behind closed doors have led seven Michigan tribes to withdraw from continued federal discussions.
Expert review of Enbridge's deficient Michigan Public Service Commission application has already highlighted serious risks — including potential methane intrusion, explosion risk and unstable geology. Given these significant threats, EGLE must not only demand a more rigorous review, but ultimately reject this application outright once the scope of harm is fully accounted for.
The Great Lakes are the heart of our region. They provide drinking water for more than 40 million people, fuel a $6 trillion economy, and support industries that are the backbone of Michigan's prosperity, from tourism and fishing to shipping and recreation.
These waters are not just a resource; they are our way of life. But today, these waters ― comprising more than 20% of the world's fresh surface water ― stand threatened by Enbridge's unvetted proposal to build an oil tunnel beneath the Straits of Mackinac.
EGLE and Gov. Whitmer must recognize Enbridge's application for what it is: An attempt to push through a deeply complicated and ultimately flawed project without proper scrutiny or oversight. To date, no single agency, state or federal, has completed an assessment of whether the tunnel is actually feasible, safe or cost effective. By deeming their permits administratively incomplete, the agency would send a clear signal that Michigan takes its duty to protect the Great Lakes seriously.
Ashley Rudzinski is the Climate & Environment Program Director for Groundwork Center for Resilient Communities. Submit a letter to the editor at freep.com/letters, and we may publish it online and in print.
Like what you're reading? Please consider supporting local journalism and getting unlimited digital access with a Detroit Free Press subscription. We depend on readers like you.
This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Latest Enbridge info for Line 5 tunnel isn't good enough | Opinion