Enbridge is at critical juncture for Line 5 tunnel — and Michigan must push back
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
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
13 hours ago
- Politico
Negotiate or fight? Trump has colleges right where he wants them.
President Donald Trump's campaign against two of the planet's best-known universities is laying bare just how unprepared academia was to confront a hostile White House. Schools never imagined facing an administration so willing to exercise government power so quickly — targeting the research funding, tax-exempt status, foreign student enrollment and financial aid eligibility schools need to function. That's left them right where the president wants them. Even as Ivy League schools, research institutions, and college trade associations try to resist Trump's attacks in court, campus leaders are starting to accept they face only difficult choices: negotiate with the government, mount a painful legal and political fight — or simply try to stay out of sight. Groundbreaking scientific research, financial aid for lower-income students and soft power as an economic engine once shielded schools' access to federal funds. Trump has now transformed those financial lifelines into leverage. And the diversity and independence of U.S. colleges and universities — something they've seen as a source of strength and competition — is straining efforts to form a singular response to the president. 'Perhaps it's a failure of imagination on the part of universities,' said Lee Bollinger, the former president of Columbia University. 'It feels now like there has been a naïveté on the part of universities. There's been no planning for this kind of thing.' Schools are accustomed to tension with their faculty, governing boards, legislatures and governors. But punishments for resisting the Trump administration plumbed untested levels of severity this week when the president issued an executive order to bar foreign students from entering the country to study at Harvard University as his administration threatened Columbia's academic accreditation. Even though Project 2025 — The Heritage Foundation's roadmap for a second Trump administration — previewed some of the tactics the administration would use, many school leaders may have underestimated the president's determination. 'It just seemed inconceivable that we would be in this position of having massive amounts of federal funding withheld, threats to have legislation that attacks your tax status, and now these new issues with international students,' Bollinger said. A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order Thursday night that blocked Trump's directive to restrict Harvard's access to international students. But the administration is brandishing its response to Harvard's resistance as a warning to other schools who might resist, as federal officials pressure schools to negotiate the terms of a truce over the administration's complaints about campus antisemitism, foreign government influence and its opposition to diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. 'We've held back funding from Columbia, we've also done the same thing with Harvard,' Education Secretary Linda McMahon told House lawmakers this past week. 'We are asking, as Columbia has done, to come to the table for negotiations,' she said, just hours before telling the school's accreditor it was violating federal anti-discrimination laws. 'We've also asked Harvard. Their answer was a lawsuit.' A Harvard spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment. 'What we've seen so far when it comes to Harvard is the playbook for holding these radical schools accountable is way deeper than anyone anticipated or expected,' a senior White House official told POLITICO. 'You're starting to get to the bone, so to speak, of holding these people accountable,' said the official, who was granted anonymity to freely discuss White House strategy. 'Harvard knows they cannot endure this for long, they just can't. They're going to have to come to the table, and we'll always be there to meet them. But this was a test case of what to do.' The university described Trump's latest foreign student order this week as 'yet another illegal retaliatory step.' A federal judge in May blocked a separate administration attempt to prevent Harvard from enrolling international students. Harvard is still locked in a legal fight over more than $2 billion in federal grants the White House blocked after the school refused to comply with demands to overhaul its admissions and disciplinary policies. Trump announced plans to cancel Harvard's tax-exempt status in early May, then later floated redistributing billions of dollars in university grants to trade schools. 'It is not our desire to bring these schools to their knees. The president reveres our higher educational facilities. He's a product of one,' the White House official said. 'But in order to hold these people accountable, we will be unrelenting in our enforcement of the law and hitting them where it hurts, which is their pocketbook.' Many institutions have chosen a more muted response following months of conflict, including major public institutions in states that have also grown reliant on the full-freight tuition paid by international students. 'Universities don't have as many degrees of freedom, at least in the public sector, as you might think they do,' said Teresa Sullivan, the former president of the University of Virginia. 'One reason they seem to be relatively slow to act is there's a certain disbelief — can this really be happening?' 'We seem to be in uncharted territory, at least in my experience,' Sullivan said. 'All of a sudden, the rules don't seem to apply. I think that's disconcerting. It shakes the ground beneath you, and you don't necessarily know what to do next.' Still, some higher education leaders are trying to confront the government. More than 650 campus officials have so far signed onto a joint statement that opposes 'the unprecedented government overreach and political interference now endangering American higher education.' Sullivan and a group of other former presidents used an op-ed in The Washington Post to argue the Trump administration's offensive 'won't be confined to Harvard University.' Trade associations including the American Council on Education, Association of American Universities, and Association of Public and Land-grant Universities have joined schools in a lawsuit to block some of Trump's research funding cuts. The Presidents' Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, a collective of school leaders, has also sued to challenge the Trump administration's attempts to target the legal status of thousands of foreign students. 'Your first obligation as president is you don't want to hurt the institution you represent,' Sullivan said of the relative silence coming from non-Ivy League institutions. 'These days it's hard to tell what hurts and what doesn't. I think that's the motive. The motive is not cowardice.' Schools still face a choice between negotiating with the government — and risk compromising on their principles — or inviting Trump's rage by putting up a fight. 'Every school has had an option to correct course and work with the administration, or stand firm in their violations of the law,' the administration official said. 'They have an option, they know very well what to do.' The real question, according to Bollinger, the former Columbia president, is how far the White House will go and how much resistance the schools are willing to put up. 'The power of government is so immense that if they want to destroy institutions, they can,' he said. 'What you do in that kind of environment is you stand on principle.'
Yahoo
14 hours ago
- Yahoo
Like Elon Musk, Russ Vought wants to break Washington. Unlike the billionaire, the budget guru might just succeed.
The Elon Musk era of the Trump administration's fiscal sturm und drang is over. But his much more understated — and savvy — counterpart, Russ Vought, is just hitting his stride. Vought, the two-time director of the Office of Management and Budget, is the most strategic player in executing the Trump administration's effort to slash the federal government. Just this week, Vought has been everywhere from doing TV hits at the White House and on the Sunday shows to sitting in Speaker Mike Johnson's office to sell the 'big beautiful bill' and lay the groundwork for codifying the DOGE cuts. His omnipresence highlights how Vought's work is taking on a more public profile after months of behind-the-scenes planning as Musk captured the spotlight — and that far from slowing down, his agenda to fundamentally remake government from the ground up remains in high gear. Whereas Musk bulldozed through bureaucracy and largely ignored Capitol Hill, Vought relies on a different playbook: pushing change through institutional channels, backroom conversations, and contingency planning. That sort of meticulousness and deep understanding of government has inspired fear among federal workers as he strengthens presidential authority to dismantle large parts of the federal bureaucracy, underscoring that unlike Musk, Vought actually knows how to get things done. His ultimate goal is to 'bend or break the bureaucracy to the presidential will,' and use it to send power from Washington and back to America's families, churches, local governments and states, he wrote in Project 2025. 'It wasn't actually Musk holding a chainsaw. Musk was a chainsaw in Russ Vought's hands,' said a senior government employee with a front row seat to Trump's remaking of government, who, like others in this story, was granted anonymity to describe it. The contrast between the two men is stark, and increasingly consequential. While Musk operated with a kind of maniacal urgency, Vought has proven he's willing to slow down before speeding up. While Musk staffed DOGE with tech loyalists barely old enough to rent cars, Vought's team at OMB is a veteran-heavy group with deep roots in government. 'Elon is an owner. Russ has, for his entire career, been an exceptional staffer,' said Paul Winfree, who held various policy roles in the first Trump administration. 'Russ knows how to manage both up and down, and he also knows how to use the levers of government, whether or not they're at OMB, and how to think more broadly about legislative strategy and working with Congress, basically the way that things get done in this town,' Winfree added. 'He is a master at this.' And it takes a mastery of government and near-endless patience to achieve what Vought really wants: stripping down what he has long seen as a bloated federal budget, bringing an unwieldy federal bureaucracy to heel and drastically transforming the foundation of the U.S. government. Musk arrived with grand plans to slash $2 trillion from the federal budget but left his role having cut less than 10 percent of that figure, forced to admit that the sprawling federal bureaucracy was not as easy to wrap his arms around as he originally thought. 'Everyone thinks they can come to D.C. and fix it,' said one former Trump administration official. 'But you have to have a really good understanding of this town, how the policies are cooked and baked. At OMB, that's the team. These are seasoned policy guys. They've been working on their issue areas forever.' Vought has spent more than two decades in Washington, including stints as executive director of the Republican Study Committee, a group of conservative House members; and vice president of Heritage Action, the conservative Heritage Foundation's advocacy arm. At his core, Vought is both a fiery conservative ideologue and a budget wonk, allies say. He's known for spending free time poring over budget documents — even on weekends — but also has been one of the administration's sharpest messengers on traditional cable news networks and conservative distinction between Vought and Musk is apparent in the rescissions package, a $9 billion bundle of cuts originally slated to be sent to Congress in April. When internal GOP whip counts showed the White House wouldn't have enough Senate votes to pass it, Vought pulled back, recalibrated, and started working the phones. 'Why the delay? Because the House actually wants to pass it … and put pressure on the Senate,' Vought said on longtime Trump adviser Steve Bannon's WarRoom show late last month. 'I don't want to send a rescissions bill out there that goes nowhere.' Trump allies on the Hill have welcomed his engagement.'I'm glad he comes over here. We need that,' said Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.). 'We can't have an administration where you never hear from them, never see them, except when they want to spend a ton of money.' Assisting Vought is a team of allies from his first OMB stint, including deputy chief of staff Hugh Fike, general counsel Mark Paoletta and communications director Rachel Cauley. Unlike Musk, Vought isn't an act-first, come-up-with-the-legal-theory-later type. If his recissions package fails to pass Congress, Vought has a plan B and if that fails, a plan C, which he's started to outline publicly in recent days. Vought has long been a proponent of the idea that the executive can legally impound, or withhold, spending that has been approved by Congress. Critics say only Congress has the power of the purse. Though an OMB memo from the early days of the administration suggested it was poised to wage that fight — by abruptly freezing all federal financial assistance — the office quickly pulled the order back. Vought's allies say he's being deliberate about which fights he picks over impoundment and is waiting to build a solid legal case. Another interim strategy if Congress declines to approve the package is pocket rescissions, a process in which the White House would send the rescissions package at the end of the fiscal year and then run out the clock on Congress's ability to act on the proposal, leading to the automatic cancellation of funds when the fiscal year ends. 'I've worked closely with him for 15 years, and one of the things that he has always done a pretty good job at doing is thinking out into the future,' Winfree said. 'With this recissions package that he's moving on the Hill right now — it isn't just about the recissions. He's thinking about, how do the moves on this package set up the next move that sets up the next move?' Former administration officials say that Vought learned from the failed recissions fight of 2018 — spearheaded by then-Trump budget director Mick Mulvaney — by building relationships on the Hill that he hopes will get the package across the finish line this year. Now, 'I think they're more attuned to the push and pull here, and the need to find the center of gravity with the Hill,' a second former Trump administration official said, even if that means making small tweaks to the recissions package to get it across the finish line in the Senate. 'Give them a win, and then it should be fine.' Others are less optimistic about the totality of the administration's legislative agenda, including the president's 'one big beautiful bill,' which Vought also is playing a key role in shepherding. 'Russ is going to have to get in there with some hand-to-hand combat and get these guys to 'yes,'' a third former administration official said. 'If this bill passes, Trump's going to have everything. He'll have [deregulation] on steroids with Russ. He'll have tariffs as a negotiating tool and tactic for China and he'll have [the] cost of living going down for all Americans. And that's the midterms. Like, the end.' 'If one of those things falters,' the person added, 'I think Republicans lose the midterms.'
Politico
15 hours ago
- Politico
This Musk counterpart actually knows how to use the government to dismantle it
The Elon Musk era of the Trump administration's fiscal sturm und drang is over. But his much more understated — and savvy — counterpart, Russ Vought, is just hitting his stride. Vought, the two-time director of the Office of Management and Budget, is the most strategic player in executing the Trump administration's effort to slash the federal government. Just this week, Vought has been everywhere from doing TV hits at the White House and on the Sunday shows to sitting in Speaker Mike Johnson's office to sell the 'big beautiful bill' and lay the groundwork for codifying the DOGE cuts. His omnipresence highlights how Vought's work is taking on a more public profile after months of behind-the-scenes planning as Musk captured the spotlight — and that far from slowing down, his agenda to fundamentally remake government from the ground up remains in high gear. Whereas Musk bulldozed through bureaucracy and largely ignored Capitol Hill, Vought relies on a different playbook: pushing change through institutional channels, backroom conversations, and contingency planning. That sort of meticulousness and deep understanding of government has inspired fear among federal workers as he strengthens presidential authority to dismantle large parts of the federal bureaucracy, underscoring that unlike Musk, Vought actually knows how to get things done. His ultimate goal is to 'bend or break the bureaucracy to the presidential will,' and use it to send power from Washington and back to America's families, churches, local governments and states, he wrote in Project 2025. 'It wasn't actually Musk holding a chainsaw. Musk was a chainsaw in Russ Vought's hands,' said a senior government employee with a front row seat to Trump's remaking of government, who, like others in this story, was granted anonymity to describe it. The contrast between the two men is stark, and increasingly consequential. While Musk operated with a kind of maniacal urgency, Vought has proven he's willing to slow down before speeding up. While Musk staffed DOGE with tech loyalists barely old enough to rent cars, Vought's team at OMB is a veteran-heavy group with deep roots in government. 'Elon is an owner. Russ has, for his entire career, been an exceptional staffer,' said Paul Winfree, who held various policy roles in the first Trump administration. 'Russ knows how to manage both up and down, and he also knows how to use the levers of government, whether or not they're at OMB, and how to think more broadly about legislative strategy and working with Congress, basically the way that things get done in this town,' Winfree added. 'He is a master at this.' And it takes a mastery of government and near-endless patience to achieve what Vought really wants: stripping down what he has long seen as a bloated federal budget, bringing an unwieldy federal bureaucracy to heel and drastically transforming the foundation of the U.S. government. Musk arrived with grand plans to slash $2 trillion from the federal budget but left his role having cut less than 10 percent of that figure, forced to admit that the sprawling federal bureaucracy was not as easy to wrap his arms around as he originally thought. 'Everyone thinks they can come to D.C. and fix it,' said one former Trump administration official. 'But you have to have a really good understanding of this town, how the policies are cooked and baked. At OMB, that's the team. These are seasoned policy guys. They've been working on their issue areas forever.' Vought has spent more than two decades in Washington, including stints as executive director of the Republican Study Committee, a group of conservative House members; and vice president of Heritage Action, the conservative Heritage Foundation's advocacy arm. At his core, Vought is both a fiery conservative ideologue and a budget wonk, allies say. He's known for spending free time poring over budget documents — even on weekends — but also has been one of the administration's sharpest messengers on traditional cable news networks and conservative distinction between Vought and Musk is apparent in the rescissions package, a $9 billion bundle of cuts originally slated to be sent to Congress in April. When internal GOP whip counts showed the White House wouldn't have enough Senate votes to pass it, Vought pulled back, recalibrated, and started working the phones. 'Why the delay? Because the House actually wants to pass it … and put pressure on the Senate,' Vought said on longtime Trump adviser Steve Bannon's WarRoom show late last month. 'I don't want to send a rescissions bill out there that goes nowhere.' Trump allies on the Hill have welcomed his engagement.'I'm glad he comes over here. We need that,' said Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.). 'We can't have an administration where you never hear from them, never see them, except when they want to spend a ton of money.' Assisting Vought is a team of allies from his first OMB stint, including deputy chief of staff Hugh Fike, general counsel Mark Paoletta and communications director Rachel Cauley. Unlike Musk, Vought isn't an act-first, come-up-with-the-legal-theory-later type. If his recissions package fails to pass Congress, Vought has a plan B and if that fails, a plan C, which he's started to outline publicly in recent days. Vought has long been a proponent of the idea that the executive can legally impound, or withhold, spending that has been approved by Congress. Critics say only Congress has the power of the purse. Though an OMB memo from the early days of the administration suggested it was poised to wage that fight — by abruptly freezing all federal financial assistance — the office quickly pulled the order back. Vought's allies say he's being deliberate about which fights he picks over impoundment and is waiting to build a solid legal case. Another interim strategy if Congress declines to approve the package is pocket rescissions, a process in which the White House would send the rescissions package at the end of the fiscal year and then run out the clock on Congress's ability to act on the proposal, leading to the automatic cancellation of funds when the fiscal year ends. 'I've worked closely with him for 15 years, and one of the things that he has always done a pretty good job at doing is thinking out into the future,' Winfree said. 'With this recissions package that he's moving on the Hill right now — it isn't just about the recissions. He's thinking about, how do the moves on this package set up the next move that sets up the next move?' Former administration officials say that Vought learned from the failed recissions fight of 2018 — spearheaded by then-Trump budget director Mick Mulvaney — by building relationships on the Hill that he hopes will get the package across the finish line this year. Now, 'I think they're more attuned to the push and pull here, and the need to find the center of gravity with the Hill,' a second former Trump administration official said, even if that means making small tweaks to the recissions package to get it across the finish line in the Senate. 'Give them a win, and then it should be fine.' Others are less optimistic about the totality of the administration's legislative agenda, including the president's 'one big beautiful bill,' which Vought also is playing a key role in shepherding. 'Russ is going to have to get in there with some hand-to-hand combat and get these guys to 'yes,'' a third former administration official said. 'If this bill passes, Trump's going to have everything. He'll have [deregulation] on steroids with Russ. He'll have tariffs as a negotiating tool and tactic for China and he'll have [the] cost of living going down for all Americans. And that's the midterms. Like, the end.' 'If one of those things falters,' the person added, 'I think Republicans lose the midterms.'
