Bad River Band argues against federal permit for Line 5 reroute
A billboard promoting Enbridge Inc. (Susan Demas | Michigan Advance)
Over two days of hearings this week, members of the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, environmental advocates and experts testified against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers granting a permit to reroute Enbridge's Line 5 oil and natural gas pipeline in northern Wisconsin.
The tribe's testimony was one of its last chances to prevent the new pipeline from being installed upstream of its reservation — which the tribe says will harm water quality in the watershed, encourage the growth of invasive species and damage wetlands, diminishing the ability to filter pollutants out of runoff before reaching surface waters.
Enbridge insists the reroute plans do everything possible to minimize the environmental effect of pipeline construction and operation while industry groups and labor unions say the project has been vetted to ensure it isn't harmful and that the arguments against the environmental effects of construction could be used to slow down any project in the state, not just those the tribe disagrees with politically.
Last year, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources issued its own permits for the company to build the pipeline with more than 200 added conditions to ensure compliance with state standards. Months after the DNR's permit decision, a separate pipeline operated by Enbridge in Wisconsin spilled 69,000 gallons of crude oil in Jefferson County.
The tribe is also challenging the DNR's permit determination in a series of hearings later this summer.
For decades, Line 5 ran through the tribe's reservation and in 2023 a federal judge ordered that it be shut down. Since 2020, Enbridge has been working on a plan to reroute the pipeline, which runs from far northwest Wisconsin 645 miles into Michigan's Upper Peninsula, under the Straits of Mackinac and across the U.S. border into Canada near Detroit. It transports about 23 million gallons of crude oil and natural gas liquids daily.
At the hearings this week, the tribe argued that under the Clean Water Act, the Corps shouldn't grant the permits because the tribe has determined the new pipeline will negatively affect its water quality.
'Our people have resided in the Bad River watershed for hundreds of years,' Robert Blanchard, the tribe's chairman, said Tuesday. 'It's our homeland. If the U.S. Army Corps grants these permits, Enbridge is undoubtedly going to destroy and pollute our watershed by trenching, blasting and horizontal drilling across hundreds of upstream wetlands and streams. I'm asking the U.S. Army Corps to think of the people and all the living things this will affect, and to deny the permit for this project.'
During Tuesday's testimony, Blanchard added, 'When I look at my homelands, I see it through the eyes of my grandfather, who saw it through the eyes of his grandfather.'
Blanchard said he wants his grandchildren to be able to see their homelands through his eyes, too. He recounted boating up the Bad River toward Lake Superior as a boy, catching fish with his elders to eat or to sell at the market. His grandfather taught him to hunt and gather and to this day Blanchard gathers medicinal herbs which are used by his community, he said. He remembers the lumber companies that clear cut the forests, and, he said, some of his loved ones have died of cancer after living near an industrial dump site.
'That was all in the Bad River watershed,' said Blanchard. He stressed that in tribal tradition, all things in nature have spirit, including the water. To the Bad River Band, nature is not only critical to human survival, it is a sacred thing to be protected.
In their testimony Tuesday, Enbridge consultants and researchers downplayed concerns about how the pipeline reroute could harm local ecosystems. Just over 118 acres of forest will need to be cleared during construction and turned into a managed grassland. Experts testifying for the company said that the underground pipeline will not act as an underwater dam and disrupt groundwater flow, nor will the explosives used to blast trenches for the pipeline present a danger. Other concerns such as radioactive contamination, PFAS pollution (often called forever chemicals) and arsenic are not used by the project, and have not been detected in the area.
Although Enbridge's consultants and experts argued that the project would not violate the Bad River Band's water quality standards, the Band itself disagreed, citing concerns about pollutants, water quantity and quality, hydrology, mineral content and water temperature.
Connie Sue Martin, and environmental attorney who testified against the project said the Bad River Band 'is the expert' on water quality in the area, not U.S. government agencies including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Esteban Chiriboga, a geologist with the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, testified that the rerouted pipeline's distance from the reservation is irrelevant because contaminants can travel. Using imagery from Laser Imaging, Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) technology, Chiriboga demonstrated that waterways and flow channels between rivers, creeks and wetlands are interconnected. Others who spoke against the project on Tuesday expressed concerns about the potential for increased runoff, soil erosion, and the spread of invasive species as consequences of the project.
On Wednesday, much of the tribe's testimony centered around the ways in which the tribe's members rely on the Bad River and its tributaries.
'You will not find another community so dependent upon subsistence harvesting and dependent upon the health of our environment,' said Dylan Jennings, a member of the tribe and former appointee of Gov. Tony Evers to the state Natural Resources Board. 'Simply put, our community maintains a relationship with the entire ecosystem and not a segmented area, we continue to utilize an entire system approach which naturally extends beyond our reservation boundaries.'
During the public comment period of the hearing Wednesday, a number of labor union representatives defended the project as a source of local jobs and environmentally safe. Chad Ward, a representative of the Teamsters Local 346, said members of his union will work on the project and live locally, so they take 'very seriously our commitment to the community and the environment around the construction site.' But, he said, the tribe's complaints could be made about any construction project in the area.
'I and others have grave concerns that the assertions made by the tribe could have impacts well beyond the Line 5 project itself,' Ward said. 'Construction practices considered industry and regulatory best practices for environmental protection are cited as reasons by the tribe for why this project should not proceed, practices that are standard use all over the country'
'They are practices the Band has been fine with for dozens of projects in the same area,' he continued. 'This leaves the impression that these concerns are more based on the political views of the project than the construction method themselves. And while they're entitled to their political views, it is the job of the permitting process to determine if the laws and regulations are being followed, not weigh the political arguments.'
After Wednesday, the Army Corps will accept written comments on the permit approval for 30 days and then can make a decision any time after that. The hearings on the legal challenge to the DNR permits begin Aug. 12 in Ashland.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
E&E News
4 days ago
- E&E News
House Republicans try again on water permitting bills
Republicans on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee introduced 15 water-related bills Thursday, targeting everything from the length of federal permitting to the types of water resources protected by the Clean Water Act. The bills would benefit oil and gas companies, farming interests, homebuilders, water utilities and others who say that environmental reviews and long permitting timelines are stifling development. They were introduced by Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee Chair Mike Collins (R-Ga.) and Reps. Rick Crawford (R-Ark.), David Rouzer (R-N.C.), Doug LaMalfa (R-Calif.), Pete Stauber (R-Minn.), Burgess Owens (R-Utah), Eric Burlison (R-Mo.), Jeff Hurd (R-Colo.), Jefferson Shreve (R-Ind.), Dave Taylor (R-Ohio) and Jimmy Patronis (R-Fla.). Advertisement 'The Clean Water Act was intended to protect water quality, support healthy communities, and balance the demands of economic growth across the United States,' Graves said in a statement.
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Yahoo
Wildlife, land conservation groups push for tweaks to Republican stewardship grant bill
Rep. Tony Kurtz testifies on his proposed legislation to reauthorize the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Grant program. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner) Organizations representing wildlife, land conservation and local governments testified Wednesday at a public hearing to push for the passage of a Republican bill to reauthorize the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Grant program while advocating for a number of amendments to the bill's text. The proposal's authors, Rep. Tony Kurtz (R-Wonewoc) and Sen. Patrick Testin (R-Stevens Point), say the current version of the bill is a starting point for negotiations. Without a deal, the 35-year-old program will lapse despite its popularity among voters. The challenge for legislators is that despite overwhelming public support for land conservation, a subset of the Republican members of the Legislature have grown opposed to the grant program. In their view, the grant program allows land to be taken off the local property tax roll and blocks commercial development. That opposition has grown stronger since the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in a 6-1 decision last year that the Legislature's Republican-controlled Joint Finance Committee's authority to place anonymous holds on stewardship grant projects is unconstitutional. Kurtz has said that without returning some level of legislative oversight, the Republican opposition to the program won't get on board with reauthorizing it. But the bill also needs to be palatable to Democratic Gov. Tony Evers so that he will sign it and any Republican opposition to the bill could make the votes of Democratic legislators more important. In an effort to recruit Republican holdouts, the bill includes a provision that requires the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to submit a list to the Legislature each January of any major land acquisitions costing more than $1 million the department plans to purchase with stewardship funds that year. The Legislature would then need to approve each proposed project in a piece of legislation and provide the required appropriation. To gain the support of environmental groups, the bill allows stewardship dollars to be used for the first time to fund habitat restoration projects. Following a recent trend of Republican-authored legislation, the bill separates the policy changes to the program from the budget appropriation to fund it in an attempt to sidestep Evers' partial veto pen. Charles Carlin, the director of strategic initiatives at non-profit land trust organization Gathering Waters, said in his testimony at the hearing Wednesday that the bill's authors had to 'try and thread a challenging political path towards reauthorization.' At the hearing, testifying members of the public mainly highlighted two areas for improvement on the bill — clarifying how the DNR should prioritize habitat restoration, facility upkeep and land acquisition in award grants and more clearly laying out how the legislative approval process for major land acquisitions will work. As currently written, the bill would require the DNR to prioritize property development over land acquisition projects. Brian Vigue, freshwater policy director for Audubon Great Lakes, said those types of grants are so different that they should be considered separately. 'Because habitat management projects are so different from land acquisition projects, it really will make it difficult for the DNR to determine which of the two types of grant applications would have priority over the other,' he said. 'It's kind of an apples to oranges comparison to make so I think a practical solution to this challenge is to create a separate appropriation for wildlife habitat grants.' A number of organizations testifying called for more direct language outlining how the legislative oversight process will work, such as binding timelines for when the Legislature must consider the projects on the DNR list, clear guidelines for how projects will be evaluated and quickly held votes on project approval. Representatives of organizations that work to purchase private land and conserve it through conservation easements or deals with the state said that the opportunities to purchase a piece of land and save it for future enjoyment by the broader public come rarely and that those real estate transactions can often be complicated and take a long time. If a deal is largely in place except for the required legislative approval — which could potentially take years or never even come up for a vote — landowners might be unwilling to participate in the process. 'Opportunities to provide such access sometimes only come once in a generation,' said Tony Abate, conservation director at Groundswell Conservancy, a non-profit aimed at conserving land in south central Wisconsin. 'We are concerned with the funding threshold and the logistics of the proposed major land acquisition program. Real estate near population centers is expensive, and we often compete with non-conservation buyers to secure farmland or recreational lands.' Abate said that of the conservancy's 16 current projects, four would surpass the $1 million threshold and require legislative approval. He suggested raising the threshold to $5 million. Carlin, with Gathering Waters, said the provision as currently written could indefinitely delay projects. 'We appreciate legislators' concerns with oversight, and we welcome discussion about how to provide effective and efficient oversight,' he said. 'Unfortunately, the current proposal lacks defined timelines, transparent evaluation processes or mechanisms to require timely votes. Without these elements, worthy conservation projects could languish indefinitely. So we would ask that any review process include binding timelines, transparent project evaluation and timely votes to ensure strong oversight while maintaining predictability for applicants.' At the hearing, members of the committee asked few questions of the testifying groups and members of the public. Democrats on the committee pushed more than once to make sure they see the partner bill providing the money for the program before voting on the policy changes. All of the testimony at the hearing Wednesday was either to provide information only to the legislators or in favor of the bill. The committee received one written comment against the bill's passage, from the Wisconsin Bear Hunters' Association. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Yahoo
Republican lawmakers introduce bill to keep stewardship grant program alive
Republicans on the Legislature's Joint Finance Committee rejected a funding request from the City of Ashland to build a new boat launch at Kreher Park. (City of Ashland) A pair of Republican lawmakers has introduced legislation that would re-authorize the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Grant program, a popular program that allows the state Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to fund the purchase of public land and the upkeep of recreational areas. The decades-old program is set to expire next year and despite its bipartisan support among the state's voters, a subset of Republicans in the Legislature — largely from the northern part of the state — have become increasingly opposed to the program due to concerns that it stops land from being developed for commercial activities. Until a 6-1 decision by the Wisconsin Supreme Court last summer, members of the Legislature's powerful Joint Finance Committee had the ability to place anonymous holds on proposed grants through the program, which resulted in many projects being delayed or prevented altogether. Without that ability, Republicans who were already wary of the program became more opposed because of what they characterize as a lack of legislative oversight. Proponents of the program say the Legislature exercises oversight through the budget writing process when it allocates funding for the program. In recent years, the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship program has received $33 million annually in the state budget. In his budget request this year, Democratic Gov. Tony Evers proposed re-authorizing the program with a $100 million annual budget. Republicans stripped that provision out of the budget along with most of Evers' other proposals. Last week, Rep. Tony Kurtz (R-Wonewoc) and Sen. Patrick Testin (R-Stevens Point) introduced a bill that would keep the program alive with $28 million in annual funding. The bill would also create a major land acquisitions program for stewardship grant awards which would require the DNR to annually submit a list of all its proposed land acquisitions costing more than $1 million for that year. Those acquisitions would need to be approved by votes of the full Legislature. Additionally, the bill would create a sub-program to use stewardship grant funds for habitat restoration projects, require the DNR to prioritize projects that develop already existing public lands over new land acquisition, require local governments to match 20% of the state funding, get rid of the current 10-acre minimum size requirement and limit the state's contribution to 40% of the total cost if the sale of a piece of land is already closed when stewardship funds are applied for. In a co-sponsorship memo, Kurtz and Testin, who did not respond to requests for an interview about the bill, said the initial proposal is meant to be the start of negotiations, not the final version of the bill. 'It's important to note what we're proposing is not an agreed upon deal,' the memo states. 'It's a first offer to provide a starting place for negotiations on this important program. It's very likely the bill will continue to change during the legislative process, but it's important to put something forward to allow feedback, have open-minded conversations and ultimately find a good place to ensure the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program's legacy continues.' At a meeting with the Wisconsin chapter of the Audubon Society in April, Kurtz said the program was on 'life support' and he was trying to save it from dying but any bill would need to put some oversight on the DNR in order to receive enough Republican support. The opposition to the stewardship program from a subset of the Republican caucus in both chambers means the bill might require Democratic votes to pass the Legislature and reach Evers' desk. Sen. Jodi Habush Sinykin (D-Whitefish Bay) has spent months pushing for the program's reauthorization – often pointing to a stewardship grant project in her district that was subjected to an anonymous hold, the Cedar Gorge Clay Bluffs on Lake Michigan. She said the hold on that project angered a lot of her constituents of both parties. 'That really got people upset,' she told the Wisconsin Examiner. 'People would not at all want to see a reenactment in any fashion of that anonymous objection process.' Habush Sinykin said that she's closely watching the bill to make sure it protects a program that enjoys wide support outside of the Capitol building and will stir up significant opposition if it's allowed to die. 'Once people understand that this program is at risk, they are coming forward to express their opposition to any permanent damage to the program,' she said. 'And so what we are engaged in right now is this process to keep it going forward, and there is going to be ongoing negotiation, because the devil is in the details. We need to make sure that what is one step forward will not ultimately be two steps backward.' Charles Carlin, director of strategic initiatives for Gathering Waters, a non-profit aimed at land conservation across Wisconsin, said that Kurtz and Testin should be credited for working to get the conversation started and provisions in the bill like the habitat restoration program. But he added that there are still a lot of questions about how provisions such as the requirement for legislative approval will work. 'I think part of what they are trying to balance here is a recognition that this is an incredibly popular program with voters, while trying to balance that against the fact that there are a handful of legislators who are deeply skeptical of the DNR and deeply skeptical of additional investments in conservation,' he said. 'So I see that major land acquisitions component as a way for them to try and balance those competing interests. The way that that major land acquisitions program is currently described in the bill just leaves a lot of question marks.' The bill is set to receive a public hearing in the Assembly Committee on Forestry, Parks and Outdoor Recreation Wednesday at 11 a.m.
