Flow comments on the IJC’s draft report on Great Lakes diversions

The Great Lakes are the lifeblood of North America, holding nearly one-fifth of the world’s surface freshwater and supplying drinking water to 40 million people. A new report from the International Joint Commission (IJC), its second Draft 10-Year Report on the Protection of the Waters of the Great Lakes, highlights progress as well as new and unprecedented threats—from climate change and groundwater overuse to Big Tech’s rapid expansion of data centers—and offers a series of recommendations for governments to act in concert.

Flow Water Advocates recently submitted public comments (PDF) on the IJC’s draft report and recommendations, urging stronger protections to protect this finite but globally significant freshwater reserve. Specifically, Flow urges the IJC and governments at all levels to:

  • Prioritize Indigenous leadership in decision-making.
  • Require transparency and accountability for large water users like data centers.
  • Strengthen groundwater science, management, and funding.
  • Activate and implement the public trust doctrine in Great Lakes governance.
  • Restore and expand funding for binational climate science.

Indigenous leadership in Great Lakes governance is essential: Flow commends the report for calling for Indigenous Nations to be recognized as rights holders, not stakeholders. Active indigenous participation, coupled with their knowledge of laws, treaties, and traditional ecological knowledge (TEK), is critical to ensuring the waters are managed with respect for tribal sovereignty and long-term stewardship of these shared waters.

Data centers pose growing risks to our water, energy, land, and climate: The explosion of data centers to power artificial intelligence and cloud computing is transforming the Midwest into “ground zero” for new construction. But this growth comes with steep costs:

  • A single hyperscale data center can use 1–5 million gallons of water per day—equivalent to a town of 10,000–50,000 people.
  • U.S. data centers already use 17 billion gallons of water annually, a number expected to double or quadruple.
  • Most Great Lakes states provide tax breaks to data centers, but do not require water conservation measures.

Even more concerning, water use often goes unreported when centers connect to municipal systems. This loophole leaves policymakers blind to cumulative water impacts. Flow urges governments to require full disclosure of water, energy, and climate impacts before new data centers are sited—and to close gaps in water use reporting.

The Public Trust Doctrine provides a vital legal backstop: While the Great Lakes Compact and related agreements provide important protections, they are not sufficient to address emerging threats like climate volatility and water-thirsty industrial expansion. The public trust doctrine, rooted in centuries of law, affirms that governments hold waters in trust for the benefit of the public. Flow urges the IJC and Great Lakes governments to integrate this legal principle into decision-making by:

  • Requiring findings on cumulative impacts before approving major withdrawals.
  • Ensuring no privatization or commodification of Great Lakes waters.
  • Applying public trust protections to groundwater as well as surface waters.

This doctrine provides a durable backstop to prevent harm, overuse, and privatization before it happens, and holds governments accountable for protecting the water as a commons for current and future generations.

Climate change is already here and continues to accelerate in the Great Lakes: The Lakes are experiencing climate volatility at a faster pace than anticipated: water levels that swing dramatically, ice cover disappearing, droughts increasing, and harmful algal blooms spreading. Extreme weather events have already doubled since the 1990s. And yet, funding for the science the public and policymakers rely on—like NOAA’s Great Lakes research programs—is under threat. To prepare, Flow urges the IJC and the governments to continue to invest in robust science, climate modeling, and groundwater mapping, while ensuring that preparedness planning integrates both traditional ecological knowledge and Western science.

The Great Lakes are at a crossroads. Expanding data centers, intensifying climate extremes, and groundwater stress all converge on a finite resource that 40 million people depend on. Flow’s comments recommend that the IJC and governments act decisively by elevating Indigenous leadership, requiring transparency from Big Tech and other large water users, embedding public trust principles into governance, and investing in the science needed to anticipate and manage climate change risks and impacts. The choices made in this decade will reverberate for generations. In short, by embracing planning, precaution, and shared stewardship, we can ensure the Great Lakes remain healthy, abundant, and protected for the public good.

Flow, Sierra Club, and Surfrider Foundation to EGLE: Reject the Line 5 tunnel permit.

PRESS RELEASE: SEPTEMBER 9, 2025

Download the written comments to EGLE (PDF)

Traverse City, Mich. – On August 29, 2025, Flow Water Advocates, a Great Lakes water protection organization, together with the Sierra Club and Surfrider Foundation, submitted written comments on Enbridge’s application for a Water Resources Permit for its proposed Line 5 tunnel project through the Straits of Mackinac. The Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) is reviewing the application for compliance under the Michigan Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA), Parts 303 and 325.

Flow’s comments demand that EGLE’s review consider the entire project, and detail the many adverse environmental impacts that will or are likely to result from the project’s approval, including:

  • a projected six years of construction traffic and noise, light, and air pollution; 
  • the destruction of precious wetland ecosystems; 
  • climate impacts from the tunnel’s construction and the products it will transport for the duration of a 99-year lease, and 
  • the potential impacts resulting from a project failure, including a catastrophic oil spill.

Flow’s comments also highlight the expert reports and Enbridge’s own expert testimony that have confirmed available alternatives for transporting the products currently flowing through Line 5.

Because the proposed tunnel will have significant–and potentially catastrophic–impacts on Michigan’s public trust waters and natural resources, and because these impacts can be avoided through available alternatives, EGLE must deny the permit under Michigan’s controlling environmental laws and regulations.

Michiganders are counting on the State to uphold its responsibility to protect the public trust rights of current and future generations who depend on the Great Lakes for their drinking water, subsistence, and way of life.

An additional public comment period for Enbridge’s application to EGLE for a wastewater discharge permit under NREPA, Part 31, is anticipated in the coming months.

###

Flow Water Advocates is a nonpartisan 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization based in Traverse City, Michigan. Our mission is to ensure the waters of the Great Lakes Basin are healthy, public, and protected for all. With a staff of legal and policy experts, writers, and community builders, Flow is a trusted resource for Great Lakes advocates. We help communities, businesses, agencies, and governments make informed policy decisions and protect public trust rights to water. Learn more at www.FlowWaterAdvocates.org.

Issue Brief: Osceola Co. potash project threatens 2M gallons of freshwater daily

Rushed potash fracking operation threatens groundwater and wetlands.

Michigan Potash & Salt Company is attempting to develop a massive potash and salt fracking facility in rural Osceola and Mecosta Counties, right next to Bullkill Marsh, some of Michigan’s most beautiful and fragile wetlands. If built, the Michigan Potash mine would consume more than two million gallons of freshwater per day — almost 4 times more water than the controversial BlueTriton bottling plant less than 10 miles away. Much of that water would become briny chemical waste and then injected deep underground. One thing stands in the way: money. And they’re asking the public to fund it.

Download our issue brief: Osceola County's fight for clean water.

This worksheet breaks down the fight in Osceola County against Michigan Potash & Salt Company’s desire to destroy pristine wetlands and use 2M gallons of freshwater daily. We can fight back. 

What Traverse City and Flow taught me about law, water, and myself

By Sydney Howard,
Flow Summer Legal Intern –

This summer, I traded my usual Carolinian life for something completely new – I moved to Traverse City, Michigan, for a three-month internship with Flow Water Advocates. I had never been to the state, didn’t know anyone, and moved into a house with strangers. It was a big leap, but I wanted to challenge myself and see what I could learn, both professionally and personally. 

Working at Flow gave me the chance to be involved in meaningful projects that connected legal research to real-world advocacy.

One of my main projects was researching the proposed Michigan Potash fracking operation, a large industrial project with significant implications for wetlands and nearby communities. I examined its permitting history, environmental risks, and potential legal challenges, and visited the site to speak with resident advocates. I also contributed to the filing of a successful permit appeal that led the EPA to withdraw all Underground Injection Control permits in their entirety. Seeing firsthand how legal work shapes policy and impacts communities was an invaluable part of my growth as a future environmental lawyer. 

LEFT: From Left to right, Executive Director Liz Kirkwood, Staff Attorney Kacey Cook, Legal Intern Sydney Howard, Legal Assistant Chelsea Faber and Operations Manager Stephanie Kimball enjoy a night at the ball park with the Traverse City Pit Spitters. RIGHT: From Left to right, Chelsea Faber, Sydney Howard, Legal Director Carrie La Seur and Legal Intern Tori Tran go sailing on Boardman Lake in Traverse City. 

But this summer was more than just work – it was about experiencing northern Michigan in all its glory. I biked everywhere; learned to stand-up paddleboard on crystal clear water; visited Mackinac Island; and hiked the dunes at Sleeping Bear. I spent weekends browsing local bookstores and lingering in coffee shops. I tried dozens of restaurants, enjoyed wine at vineyards overlooking Lake Michigan, and ate more ice cream than I care to admit. Along the way, strangers became friends, and Traverse City started to feel like my home away from home.

What I learned about Traverse City is that it’s not just beautiful, it’s a place where water is at the center of life. Protecting it isn’t just a legal issue; it’s a community value. What I learned about myself is that I can adapt to new environments, build connections quickly, and step confidently into challenges I once found intimidating. And what I learned about the law is that it’s most powerful when it’s grounded in the people and places it serves. 

I’m leaving Michigan with sharper skills, an enhanced sense of purpose, and a deep gratitude for the people who made this place feel like home so quickly. Take this as a sign to say yes to adventure, and to challenge yourself in the process. 

The Line 5 tunnel isn’t what we were told.

Line 5 – the 72-year-old dual pipelines suspended across the bottomlands of the Straits of Mackinac – has been battered by anchor strikes and entangled by cables from passing ships.

It is universally accepted that the exposed pipelines represent a clear and present danger to the Great Lakes and the regional economy should Line 5 fail.

In the final two months of Governor Rick Snyder’s second term in 2018, the State of Michigan hurriedly signed four agreements with Enbridge, the Canadian pipeline company that owns and operates Line 5, authorizing the construction of a tunnel beneath the Straits of Mackinac intended to contain and protect Line 5.

The agreements, hastily prepared without public hearings or public review of any kind, require the State of Michigan to take ownership of the tunnel once construction is complete, and to oversee the operation and maintenance of the tunnel for the next 99 years.

There is one notable  problem with this unusual partnership between the State and Enbridge: The tunnel the State agreed to manage is not the tunnel that Enbridge intends to build. 

"Almost every aspect of the tunnel’s design, construction, and operation is radically different that what was originally intended," says Brian O’Mara, an expert with over 30 years of tunnel construction experience. "The tunnel project is so off track in so many ways, it is questionable that it can ever be successfully constructed, let alone operated safely."

Basic design assumptions for the proposed tunnel.

The State’s participation in the tunnel project was based on a detailed report, Alternatives Analysis for the Straits Pipeline, authored in 2017 by Dynamic Risk Assessment Systems, Inc., a company providing engineering consulting services to the pipeline industry. Dynamic Risk’s assessment was based upon a tunnel design that was distinctly different from the tunnel design that Enbridge proposes today.

Dynamic Risk recommended a tunnel alternative for Line 5 pipeline based upon the following assumptions:

  1. A thorough and comprehensive investigation of the lakebed would be conducted to understand the geological conditions that the proposed tunnel project would encounter.
  2. The pipeline within the proposed tunnel would be permanently embedded in concrete that would completely fill the 10-foot diameter of the tunnel.
  3. The tunnel would be bored through entirely sound and solid bedrock.
  4. There would be minimal groundwater inflow and pressure.
  5. There would be no methane or toxic gas (H2S) encountered.

None of these assumptions proved to be true or accurate.

How the tunnel has changed.

First, the Dynamic Risk evaluation assumed that “a comprehensive site-specific subsurface investigation and lab testing program would be required” by the State of Michigan, before construction to identify the characteristics of the rocks the tunnel excavation would encounter.

But the expert consultants, McMillen Jacobs Associates (MJA), retained by the Michigan Department of Transportation, identified numerous problems and red flags that were not adequately addressed in Enbridge’s investigation of the proposed tunnel path. For example, MJA found that Enbridge “did not adequately characterize the anticipated ground conditions on site” and that many of the rock sample borings intended to characterize the underlying geology did not reach the proposed depth of the tunnel, with only one boring sample taken from the most critical two-mile length of the tunnel’s proposed pathway.

Second, the tunnel design recommended and approved by the State’s consultant, Dynamic Risk, was a tunnel, 10 feet in diameter, with a “closed annulus,” meaning that the interior of the tunnel would be filled with an impermeable, inflammable cement surrounding the pipelines. The concrete would permanently seal the pipelines, preventing damage or leaks and affording an additional critical measure of safety. The present design is for an open, unsealed, 21-foot tunnel lacking the security and protection that a sealed tunnel would provide.

Third, the Dynamic Risk report on which the State relied assumed that the tunnel would be bored through solid bedrock. But Enbridge’s limited investigation found conditions that would be extremely challenging. It found that the tunnel route would encounter rock formations that are highly fractured and highly permeable, with most rock formations classified as “poor” or “very poor.” Moreover, the boring samples repeatedly encountered “voids”- open underground spaces that would need to be filled with concrete and grout before the tunnel boring machine could progress through the proposed route.

Fourth, the MJA consultants found that the extreme depth of the tunnel route will result in the boring effort encountering high “hydraulic conductivity and hydrostatic pressure” constituting “areas of significant risk impacting tunnel operations due to high groundwater inflows.” The MJA reports state that pressures may “overwhelm” the systems designed to treat water infiltration, estimated at 25,000 gallons per day. The US Army Corps of Engineers’ draft Environmental Impact Statement indicates that the pressures the tunneling machine would encounter may be the highest ever in a tunnel construction project.

Fifth, Enbridge reported that no methane of consequence was encountered in its limited geological investigation, but internal reports indicated that methane was detected in some of the samples and Enbridge failed to note that the proposed tunnel would be situated directly above the Collingwood-Utica Shale Oil and Gas play capable of yielding gas and oil in recoverable quantities. In 1971, a similar tunnel building effort in Lake Huron resulted in a methane explosion that killed 22 construction workers inside the tunnel.

A continued threat to the Great Lakes.

The tunnel project on the table today is substantially different from the tunnel project that was proposed when the agreements were signed by Governor Snyder. And the tunnel design recommended by Dynamic Risk and relied upon by the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) and the Mackinac Straits Corridor Authority (MSCA) is not the design being advanced by Enbridge now. 

The proposed tunnel construction has the potential to impair both the Great Lakes bottomlands and the waters of Lakes Michigan and Huron.  A recent survey found that there have been 321 documented tunnel failures through 2020.  The proposed project is replete with “red flags” indicating the project will encounter extraordinary environmental challenges. It is clear that the proposed tunnel project is not as safe as Enbridge wants Michiganders to believe. The risks that the proposed project presents to the Great Lakes cannot be ignored. With the permitting process for the tunnel underway, we must all call on our federal and state agencies to protect the public interest in our shared freshwater resources.

The International Joint Commission is seeking public input on its draft 2025 report.

The International Joint Commission (IJC) is seeking public comment on the recently released Draft 2025 Review of the International Joint Commission’s Report on the “Protection of the Waters of the Great Lakes”. The report updates the IJC’s analysis of Great Lakes stresses from consumption, diversion, and removal of water from the Great Lakes.

The IJC issued its first report with recommendations on the Protection of the Waters of the Great Lakes in 2000, following a formal request, or “reference” from the governments of Canada and the U.S.

A three-year review was released in 2004, and a 10-year review in 2015. The analysis in the draft 2025 report is informed by interviews with over 30 key stakeholders and subject-matter experts.
This draft report provides a preliminary evaluation of the relevance and implementation status of recommendations issued by the IJC in a 2015 report. It also proposes new recommendations for the IJC to submit to governments. Among the recommendations:

  • Before further pursuing AI and data center projects for siting within their boundaries, the states and provinces should consult with experts how these growing water uses impact the Great Lakes basin.
  • The Great Lakes states and provinces should convene a panel of legal experts to ascertain the significance and potential of the public trust doctrine to assist in protection of the waters of the Great Lakes while allowing for a public comment period.
  • The Great Lakes states and provinces should increase collaboration with Indigenous Nations in decision making on major water withdrawals and diversions.

A public webinar will be held on August 14 from 12pm-1pm (EDT) to provide an overview of the preliminary findings of the draft report and record public comments. Comments can also be provided in writing to the IJC.

The comment period is open until August 31, 2025.

Flow Water Advocates welcomes 3 new board members.

Flow is thrilled to welcome three incredible new members to our Board of Directors: Environmental journalist Keith Schneider, MSU Assistant Professor Kelly Hirko, and MSU Assistant Professor Anthony Kendall!

Each brings a deep commitment to protecting the Great Lakes, along with unique expertise—from community organizing and environmental law to science, education, and advocacy. Together, they will help guide our mission to safeguard our waters, wetlands, and the communities that depend on them.

We’re grateful for their leadership, passion, and vision—and excited for the waves we’ll make together. Please join us in giving them a warm welcome!

Meet Keith Schneider.

Keith Schneider is a nationally prominent environmental journalist and editor who reports on the intersection of energy, agriculture, and water from across the United States and around the world. A former national correspondent and regular contributor to the New York Times, Keith also reports for The Guardian, ProPublica, National Geographic, Energy News Network, Mongabay, The New Lede, and Circle of Blue. 

Meet Kelly Hirko.

Kelly Hirko is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at Michigan State University’s College of Human Medicine, and a community-based researcher at Michigan State’s rural medical campus in Traverse City. Her research seeks to elucidate the role of modifiable lifestyle, environmental and social determinants on cancer prevention, control, and disparities.

Meet Anthony Kendall

Anthony Kendall is an Assistant Professor jointly appointed in the Earth and Environmental Sciences Department and AgBioResearch at Michigan State University. He is a lifelong resident of Michigan, at the heart of the Great Lakes. Anthony studies how climate and land use affect water resources, and the human and ecological systems that rely on those resources.

Have a water story? Flow is looking for live storytellers!

Calling all storytellers and water lovers!

On February 5, 2026, 7pm, Flow Water Advocates is teaming up with Here:Say Storytelling to present a night of true, first-person stories about water – from ice hockey, to fishing, to why you love boating with your grandma. The Great Lakes are more than just a natural wonder — they shape who we are. They hold our memories, fuel our creativity, sustain our communities, and inspire awe, generation after generation. We Are Made From Rivers brings together local storytellers to share powerful testimony to the waters that made us.

Save the Date:
Who: Flow Water Advocates & Here:Say Storytelling & Beth Price Photography
What: We Are Made From Rivers, a local true, first-person storytelling event
When: February 5, 2026 at 7pm
Where: Kirkbride Hall, Traverse City

We’re looking for 5 to 6 storytellers to share their experiences at Kirbride Hall at 7pm on February 5. The event will also feature the photography of Beth Price, an outstanding editorial and commercial photographer based in Northern Michigan.

Each performer will participate in Here:Say Storytelling’s workshopping process. This is required to ensure a congruence between each story. The workshopping process will take place between November and January and prepare each story and storyteller for the performance. 

To pitch your story idea: 

  • Submit your story idea via the Google Form in a 1 paragraph pitch. Tell the quick abbreviated version of your story. Submit your pitch by September 30, 2025.
  • Stories will be selected and storytellers will be notified by October 17, 2025. 
  • The workshopping process with Kabie Stein and Here:Say Storytelling and will begin after selection.
  • Contact Marshall at Marshall@FlowForWater.org for more questions.

Frequently asked questions:

What’s the Here:Say vibe?

To listen to past shows to get to know the Here:Say vibe and a sense of the storytelling model we follow, listen to the podcast.

No experience necessary. All that’s required is an openness to engaging in the story workshopping process and a willingness to tell your story on stage to an audience.

Here:Say stories are true, first-person narratives that tell the story of a specific experience the teller had within their lives.  There’s no requirement about tone (it doesn’t have to be a funny story), but it should be meaningful to you in some way and make for an entertaining story.

You can say of your story, “This is an experience that happened to me.”

There are many perfectly legitimate forms of storytelling, but some are meant to be read rather than listened to aloud. But we don’t necessarily give an automatic “no” to the stories that we think just don’t work on stage – instead, if you are game for it, we will workshop the story with you to find a way to tell it in a way that aligns with the Here:Say model.

Memoir that covers a whole lot of timeline, “journey” stories that evaluate an experience instead of telling what happened, long anecdotes that only serve to get to a punchline, other people’s stories, rants and comedy riffs on an overall topic, fiction, stories that comment on the process of telling a story.

Stories are about 10 minutes in length, which translates to approximately 5 double-spaced pages in Word.

The process will begin the first week of November and will conclude the end of January to ensure enough time to practice before the show. An extra 30 days was added to accomodate the holidays toward the end of the year. The process is outlined below: 

  • Submit the 1 paragraph pitch at the link above via the Google Form.
  • If selected, you will be introduced to Kabie Stein via email by Flow Water Advocates.
  • Write your story, then submit a draft via email to Kabie. (Word preferred.)
  • Kabie reads the story and returns the draft to you with feedback. Typically this feedback is provided as comments/questions in the document itself and an overall response in the email.
  • Submit revised draft to Kabie Stein.
  • Repeat steps 3 and 4 as needed, until you and Kabie both feel it’s ready for stage.
  • Perform your story live on February 5, 2026. 

Nitrates in well water: What you need to know and what you can do.

What are nitrates and why do they matter?

If your household water comes from a private well, you may be at risk of nitrate contamination —and not even know it. Nitrates are a type of nitrogen compound that can seep into groundwater from the use of fertilizers, manure, and failing septic systems. The problem? Nitrates are colorless, odorless, and tasteless — you can’t detect them without testing. At high enough levels, they can harm your health. Long-term exposure to even moderate nitrate levels has been linked to increased risks of thyroid, colorectal, ovarian, and bladder cancers and adverse pregnancy outcomes, including preterm birth and birth defects. People with compromised immune systems or chronic illnesses may also face higher risks.

Download our policy brief: Nitrates in well water: What you need to know

This worksheet breaks down nitrate pollutionto better understand the impacts that nitrates inflict on the environment, the animals, and the threat to public health in communities across Michigan.

Policy Brief: The hidden costs of anaerobic digesters and biogas

Anaerobic digesters are facilities that decompose organic waste, separating biogas from a sludge called “digestate.” Biogas can be used on-site, paired with a facility like a livestock confinement, or processed into purified pipeline-grade biomethane for electricity or transportation. While biogas can be part of a sustainable farm operation, it has many potential shortfalls that must be evaluated carefully to protect the public interest.

On concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), a digester may be a cover on a cesspit. After the methane is captured, CAFO operators spread untreated digestate — which may contain biological hazards like thermotolerant, antibiotic-resistant E. coli bacteria — onto farm fields as “fertilizer.” Digesters fed by sources like municipal food waste may produce digestate that is contaminated by high levels of heavy metals and toxic compounds like PFAS and PFOS, which may then be sold or given away to spread on fields.

Download the PDF below to learn more! 

Download our policy brief: The hidden costs of anaerobic digesters and biogas

This worksheet breaks down anaerobic digestion to better understand the impacts that CAFOs inflict on the environment, the animals, and the threat to public health in communities across Michigan.

Explore more about CAFOs