Tag: Line 5

Comments on Army Corps’ Line 5 Supplemental DEIS considering Horizontal Directional Drilling

Published on December 9th, 2025 by - Blog Posts, Reports & Media Releases

DOWNLOAD: Flow Water Advocates, Sierra Club, and Surfrider Foundation comments on Line 5 Tunnel Project Supplemental Draft EIS on the HDD Installation Alternative

Traverse City, Mich. — On December 5, Flow Water Advocates (Flow), a Great Lakes water protection organization, in partnership with the Sierra Club and Surfrider Foundation (known collectively as the Water Coalition), submitted written comments on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Supplemental DEIS) for Enbridge’s proposed Line 5 tunnel project, which is now considering an alternative to the tunnel proposal using Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) to create a borehole and install a replacement pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac (the HDD Installation Alternative).

Support Flow’s work to defend the Great Lakes.

Enbridge’s application for the proposed project’s federal Clean Water Act and Rivers and Harbors Act permits is currently under review by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps). The National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) requires agency and public review, including the preparation of both a Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statement (and supplements, when warranted), which must assess the purpose and need for the proposed project, alternatives to the proposal, and an assessment of the environmental consequences of the project.

While the Corps originally discounted the HDD Installation Alternative as infeasible years ago, the Supplemental DEIS states that Enbridge submitted information that pursuing the alternative is now technically feasible due to advances in technology, and that the Corps subsequently determined that the HDD Installation Alternative should be subject to “detailed analysis” in the EIS.

The Water Coalition’s comments emphasize that the Corps’ unjustified fast-tracking of the review process for both the DEIS and the Supplemental DEIS unlawfully undermines public participation in the process, as well as the “hard look” required by the agency under NEPA. The comments also highlight the Supplemental DEIS’ striking failure to include the information necessary for the agency to properly review the HDD Installation Alternative and its potential impacts on the surrounding lands and waters. Among the deficits are a failure to detail impacted wetlands, confirm the stability of the bedrock, and survey for protected species and archeological resources.

In order to comprehensively compare the potential environmental impacts of the HDD Installation Alternative against Enbridge’s preferred tunnel project, the Corps and the public must have sufficient location-specific data and information about the risks posed by each technology, as well as the site-specific impacts of each method. The Corps attempts to justify these deficiencies in the Supplemental DEIS by deferring the required assessment to a potential future in which Enbridge chooses to pursue the HDD alternative. However, this reasoning hampers the evaluation of alternatives, and is unacceptable under federal law.

The comments conclude that the supplemental review does not remedy the fatal flaws of the May 2025 DEIS, outlined in the Water Coalition’s June 2025 comments, but rather compounds them.

The people of the Great Lakes Basin depend on the Corps, with its technical expertise and mandate to serve the public interest, to take great care in its consideration of the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed tunnel and alternatives. The Corps violates that mandate in both the May 2025 DEIS and the new Supplemental DEIS, by failing to collect the information necessary to properly assess the risks, and by unlawfully failing to consider feasible alternatives to building a new pipeline through the Straits. Flow and its partners remain steadfast in their commitment to hold the Corps accountable to its legal obligations.

The Corps anticipates that it will publish a Final EIS in early 2026, followed by a Record of Decision in the Spring.

###

Flow Water Advocates is an independent 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, strategic communicators, 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.

Michigan revoked the Line 5 easement 5 years ago. What happens next?

Published on November 19th, 2025 by - Blog Posts

Five years ago, on November 13, 2020, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer and the Department of Natural Resources revoked and terminated the 1953 easement that had allowed Enbridge to locate and operate its dual Line 5 pipelines on the lakebed and in the waters of the Straits of Mackinac. As public trustee and fiducidary, the state revoked the easement for two key reasons:

  • The state has a duty under the public trust doctrine to protect the waters of the Great Lakes for the people of Michigan. This duty required the state to revoke the easement due to the “extraordinary and unacceptable risk” posed by the aging, vulnerable pipelines, which have been struck multiple times by anchors and cabling.
  • Enbridge “repeatedly and incurably” violated the express terms of this public trust easement, and had done so for decades. Enbridge persistently failed to satisfy numerous conditions related to the support, protective coatings, and curvature of the pipelines.

An analogy to landlord-tenant law is warranted since the state of Michigan is the sovereign owner and protector of the public trust waters and bottomlands in the Great Lakes. In the case of landlord-tenant relations, any landlord would be within their rights to evict a tenant who violated their lease, repeatedly left the stove on and the bathtub overflowing, and refused to leave when the lease was up. And a landlord would be correctly concerned about a tenant who had previously burned down another apartment due to negligence.

Half a decade later.

And yet, half a decade later, the Line 5 pipelines remain, haphazardly suspended across the lakebed floor, buffeted by strong currents and vulnerable to anchor strikes and other hazards in one of the busiest shipping lanes in the Great Lakes. Each day, Line 5 carries nearly 23 million gallons of fossil fuels from western Canada, through the Great Lakes — the majority of which supply Canadian refineries in Ontario and Quebec. The water security of the Great Lakes is at high risk every day.

On each of the 1,825 days and counting since the easement was revoked, Michigan has borne unacceptable risks so that a Canadian pipeline company can continue to profit, protect its market share, and deliver crude oil primarily from Canada to Canada. The Line 5 pipeline in the Straits of Mackinac could only be built in 1953 with a public trust easement from the state of Michigan; therefore, an easement authorizing Enbridge permission to occupy our public waters is necessary for its continued operation. That easement no longer exists.

The Line 5 pipeline and the proposed replacement tunnel are now being fought in multiple courts by multiple parties, including Flow Water Advocates.

Here’s where Line 5 currently stands in Michigan:

Nessel v. Enbridge

At issue:
In 2019, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel filed suit in Michigan’s 30th Circuit Court (Ingham County), seeking an order to decommission Line 5. She argues that its continued operation violates the public trust doctrine, is a public nuisance under common law, and violates the Michigan Environmental Protection Act.

Flow, along with the Great Lakes Business Network and the Sierra Club, briefed the court in 2019, 2021, and 2024 in support of Michigan’s sovereignty and public trust rights.

What has happened so far:
Enbridge has successfully delayed the case (and kept the oil and profits flowing) over matters of jurisdiction, and it initially succeeded in moving the case from state to federal court — long after the 30-day time limit to do so had passed.

  • In June 2024, the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the move to federal court was indeed untimely, and sent the case back to state court.

  • Enbridge then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in June 2025 agreed to hear the case on the procedural question of whether district courts have the authority to excuse the 30-day time limit — again prolonging the risks of Line 5’s continued operation. The SCOTUS will hear oral arguments in spring 2026.
What happens next:
In August 2025, Ingham County circuit court Judge James Jamo denied Enbridge’s request to stay (pause) the state case while awaiting a SCOTUS ruling. We are now awaiting a decision by Judge Jamo on whether Line 5 will be shut down.

Enbridge v. Whitmer

At issue:
On November 24, 2020, Enbridge filed its federal court lawsuit asserting that Governor Whitmer does not have the authority to protect its sovereign interests of public trust waters and submerged lands, and that state action against Line 5 may violate Enbridge’s alleged treaty right to pump oil through the Great Lakes uninterrupted.

What has happened so far:
Governor Whitmer moved to dismiss the action on the grounds that state officials have immunity from federal lawsuits under the U.S. Constitution’s Eleventh Amendment. Enbridge’s separate federal case against the state still remains before Judge Jonker in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan who held (we think wrongfully) that an exception applies.

  • In an October 2024 amicus brief, Flow and the Great Lakes Business Network argue that Enbridge’s lawsuit impairs state sovereign and public trust duties; and that long-standing legal principles that balance federal and state sovereign interests weigh in favor of states’ rights and jurisdiction over the public navigable waters and bottomlands of the Great Lakes.

On November 12, 2025, Judge Jonker heard oral arguments in the case. Michigan Assistant AG Keith Underkoffler argued that the state’s preexisting authority could not be undermined by the federal Pipeline Safety Act, which wasn’t enacted until 1968. Further, he argued that the state would not have granted the easement in 1953 if it had known that 15 years later, the state’s rights in relation to the easement would be preempted by the federal government.

What happens next:
Judge Jonker is now considering the arguments, and we are awaiting a decision.

Michigan Supreme Court: Line 5 tunnel permit

At issue:
In late 2023, the Michigan Public Service Commission approved a permit for Enbridge’s proposed Line 5 pipeline tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. In doing so, Flow argues that the MPSC failed in its duties under the public trust doctrine, Michigan Environmental Protection Act (MEPA), and Great Lakes Submerged Lands Act to protect the waters of the Great Lakes and their bottomlands for the people of Michigan; and that the MPSC failed to consider feasible and prudent alternatives to the tunnel.

What has happened so far:
Flow, along with other environmental groups, tribes, and an individual, appealed the MPSC’s permit decision in the Michigan Court of Appeals. In February 2025, the Court of Appeals affirmed the MPSC’s tunnel permit.

Flow and others then appealed that decision to the Michigan Supreme Court, which in September 2025 announced it would hear the appeals, paving the way for a review of the permit. The Supreme Court specifically directed the parties to address whether the MPSC is required to comply with the common law public trust doctrine and MEPA in its permitting decisions.

What happens next:
Flow and the other appellants submitted opening briefs to the court on November 14, 2025. Additional briefing will take place in December and January, with oral arguments expected to be scheduled in 2026.

Meanwhile, the proposed tunnel has yet to receive the required permits from the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).

Read: Flow’s comments to EGLE; Flow’s comments to USACE.

The USACE is now also conducting a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that will evaluate horizontal directional drilling. Public comments are due December 5, 2025.

The next five years.

It is unlikely — though not impossible — that we will go another half-decade before the Line 5 threat is resolved. Flow is fighting every day for a resolution that respects Michigan’s sovereignty, the public trust doctrine, and the rights of all Michiganders present and future to enjoy, navigate, use, and be sustained by the irreplaceable waters of our Great Lakes. As part of our work, we also are committed to ensuring water security and energy security solutions for the Great Lakes region. It is our fervent hope that Line 5 is shut down lawfully by our civil courts, and not because of an oil spill disaster.

Flow Water Advocates files Line 5 brief with the Michigan Supreme Court.

Published on November 17th, 2025 by - Blog Posts, News, Reports & Media Releases

November 17, 2025

[ DOWNLOAD: Flow Water Advocates Brief on Appeal (PDF) ]

 

Traverse City, Mich. — Flow Water Advocates (“Flow”) has filed a brief in its appeal of the Michigan Public Service Commission’s decision to approve a permit for Enbridge’s proposed Line 5 pipeline tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. Flow’s appeal will be heard in the Michigan Supreme Court.

In September, the Court granted a landmark application for leave to appeal, paving the way for a review of the permit. Flow initiated the legal challenge, arguing that the MPSC failed to uphold its public trust obligations to protect Michigan’s waters and submerged lands. The Supreme Court’s order specifically directs the parties to address whether the MPSC is required to comply with the common law public trust doctrine in its permitting decisions.

Support Flow’s work to defend the Great Lakes.

In its brief filed on November 14, Flow addresses three central questions regarding the common-law public trust doctrine and the Michigan Environmental Protection Act (“MEPA”) and their application by the MPSC.

First, Flow argues that the plain meaning of the statutory text and the legislative history of MEPA binds all agencies to protect the air, water, and other natural resources and the public trust in these resources.

Second, Flow maintains that all agencies, including the MPSC, as arms of the state have an independent duty to comply with the State’s public trust obligations. As the sovereign title holder, the State may not violate the public trust by granting rights to use the Great Lakes bottomlands without regard to the trust’s restrictions. Thus, the effect of the common-law public trust doctrine is to safeguard the public’s interests in the waters and submerged lands of the Great Lakes. When the MPSC granted the tunnel permit without conducting a public trust analysis, it failed to fulfill its duty to assess potential impacts to the public’s paramount rights in the resources at stake.

Third, Flow argues that the MPSC cannot permit Enbridge’s tunnel project unless and until the Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy (“EGLE”) makes the requisite public-trust determinations under the common-law public trust doctrine and the Great Lakes Submerged Lands Act. In its brief, Flow articulates what a proper public trust analysis must look like to ensure that the proposed action — in this case, the siting and construction of an underground tunnel and pipeline through the bottomlands of the Straits — does not violate the State’s obligation to protect these public trust resources. EGLE cannot approve any proposed use of Great Lakes bottomlands, unless it has determined both that the adverse effects to the environment and the public trust will be minimal, and that there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the applicant’s proposed activity — such as the shutdown of Line 5. These mandatory determinations have not been made; therefore, the MPSC is required to deny Enbridge’s permit application under Michigan law.

Flow is represented in this case by its legal team and co-counsel, Kanji & Katzen, P.L.L.C. and Olson & Howard, P.C. The case will be heard alongside a related appeal from a coalition of the Little Traverse Bay Band of Odawa Indians, Bay Mills Indian Community, Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, and Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi, with the Environmental Law and Policy Center and the Michigan Climate Action Network.

###

Flow Water Advocates is an independent 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, strategic communicators, 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.

An abridged and ongoing list: Things Enbridge Takes Credit For

Published on November 7th, 2025 by - Blog Posts

Published May 24, 2024; updated November 7, 2025

Do you enjoy celebrating the holidays with your friends and family? How about checking items off your bucket list, or watching the Super Bowl? Are cookies, chips, and pizza some of your guilty pleasures?

Believe it or not, you can thank your friendly neighborhood pipeline company for all of these things and more! (Unless your neighborhood is Marshall, MI.)

We don’t know if this is absolutely bonkers PR, or just some good old-fashioned Search Engine Optimization tactics. But either way, you almost have to admire the chutzpah!

An ongoing list of things Enbridge takes credit for:

 

Treating diabetes

Achieving your lifelong dreams

4th of July Celebrations

Chocolate chip cookies

Thanksgiving dinner and parade balloons

Not dying of a heart attack

4th of July Celebrations (again)

Fudge

Back to School shopping

Potato chips

Michigan fall tourism

Thanksgiving dinner and visiting your family

The Super Bowl and Super Bowl parties

Not dying from diabetes

Family fun

County fairs and festivals

Detroit-style pizza and football

Eyeglasses, kayaks, deodorant, etc.

Christmas presents

Christmas decorations

 

But there are some important things Enbridge doesn’t like to take credit for, like being penalized six times by the United States for failing to live up to its commitments on safety; violating the terms of its pipeline easement with Michigan; or operating a pipeline in the open waters of the Straits of Mackinac that is uniquely vulnerable to anchor strikes.

How to write a great Line 5 letter to the editor

Published on October 15th, 2025 by - Blog Posts

Download this guide (PDF)

Writing a Letter to the Editor of your local newspaper is a great way to keep the Line 5 pipeline issue front and center, and educate our communities and elected officials about the threat Line 5 poses, and why we need to shut down Line 5.

First, know your newspaper’s guidelines:

  • Before you write your letter, visit the newspaper’s website or call to find out the word count limit. (Most are 100-250 words.)

  • Follow your newspaper’s directions on how to submit your letter (e.g. via email, through their website, or by mail).

  • Some newspapers require your full name and current city of residence, so be sure to include that information if needed.
Ready? Time to write your letter!

  • Personalize your letter and write it in your own voice. We’ve provided a tried-and-true formula below, but we encourage you to make it your own!

  • If your local newspaper has recently run a story about Line 5, reference it in your letter.

  • The Line 5 issue can feel really frustrating, but remember, your mission is to persuade, not to vent. Focus on a couple of key points that will resonate across the aisle and in your community.

Guide and examples (click to enlarge).

Download this guide (PDF)

Michigan Supreme Court grants review of Line 5 tunnel permit

Published on September 20th, 2025 by - Blog Posts, Reports & Media Releases

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: September 19, 2025

Lansing, Mich. – The Michigan Supreme Court has granted a landmark application for leave to appeal, paving the way for a review of the Michigan Public Service Commission’s (MPSC) decision to approve a permit for Enbridge’s proposed oil pipeline tunnel in the Straits of Mackinac. This order, issued on September 19, 2025, also invites the State Bar of Michigan Environmental Law Section and Real Property Law Section to file amicus briefs.

Support Flow’s work to defend the Great Lakes.

For Love of Water (FLOW), a Traverse City-based environmental nonprofit recently rebranded as Flow Water Advocates, initiated the legal challenge, arguing that the MPSC failed to uphold its public trust obligations to protect Michigan’s waters. The Supreme Court’s order specifically directs the parties to address whether the MPSC is required to comply with the common law public trust doctrine in its permitting decisions.

“This is an incredibly important step forward for the protection of the Great Lakes,” said Flow Water Advocates Legal Director Carrie La Seur. “The public trust doctrine is a fundamental principle of Michigan law that must be considered in decisions that affect our natural resources. We are eager to argue this case and ensure that our state’s waters are protected for generations to come.”

The case will be heard alongside a related appeal from the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, a testament to the broad legal and public interest in this issue. The Supreme Court’s decision to grant review signifies the high stakes and critical legal questions surrounding the Enbridge Line 5 tunnel.

Flow is represented in this case by its legal team and co-counsel.

###

Flow Water Advocates is an independent 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.

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

Published on September 9th, 2025 by - Blog Posts, Reports & Media Releases

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.

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

Published on August 12th, 2025 by - Blog Posts

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.

FAQs: Making public comments to EGLE on the Line 5 tunnel

Published on July 28th, 2025 by - Blog Posts

The Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) is taking public comments on Enbridge’s proposed Line 5 pipeline tunnel through August 29, 2025. The State of Michigan now has the power to deny the tunnel permit, and protect the Great Lakes from years of construction upheaval, wetlands damage, and other risks. 

Submit your comments to EGLE
What every Michigander should know about the Line 5 tunnel

Michigan can assert its sovereignty, stop the exploitation of our publicly-held resources for private profit, and protect the waters today, and for future generations. Here’s how you can engage with EGLE on this important issue: 

(1) Attending a virtual public information session on August 12 (6:00pm EDT). This is an opportunity to ask EGLE representatives questions and learn more about the application and next steps.

(2) Attending the virtual public hearing on August 19 (6:00pm EDT) and providing oral comments that will be considered by EGLE in its review of the application .

(3) Submitting written comments that will be considered by EGLE in its review of the application by August 29.

Here are answers to some of the questions we’ve received about the EGLE permit process, and how to get involved:

If I have already submitted comments on the project, can I submit comments during this public comment period?

Yes. The current application for a Water Resources Permit under Michigan’s Wetland Protection Act (Part 303) and Michigan’s Great Lakes Submerged Lands Act (Part 325) is distinct from the review of earlier permit applications for the project, so it is important to submit comments on the current proposal to ensure your voice is heard.

Flow Water Advocates will be providing both oral comments at the August 19 hearing and written comments by the August 29 deadline, and we encourage interested members of the public to do the same.

Do I have to live in Michigan to contribute comments?

No, we all have an interest in protecting the Great Lakes and there are no restrictions on who can participate in the public comment period.

What makes a strong public comment?

The most effective comments are grounded in the facts of the proposed project and its likely impacts, and the requirements for permit approval under the law. Highlighting your personal connections to the waters, ecosystems, communities, cultural resources, and economies that stand to be impacted by the project is also powerful.

When preparing to provide oral comments at the public hearing, we recommend that you write down what you would like to say in advance and practice sharing it a couple times, as each person is usually allowed only 3 minutes to speak. Three minutes of speaking time is about 400 words, depending on how quickly you speak.

What are some of Flow Water Advocates’ major concerns with Enbridge’s permit application?

First, Enbridge has not provided sufficient information–on the full project, its potential environmental impacts, or the available alternatives–for EGLE to properly consider its application for a Water Resources Permit under Part 325 and Part 303 of Michigan’s Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act .

Second, when all of the necessary information is considered, it is clear that the tunnel project cannot be lawfully permitted because the project will have more than minimal environmental effects, and because the shutdown of Line 5 is a viable, and much preferable, alternative to constructing an unprecedented tunnel project to house a new section of oil pipeline through the heart of the Great Lakes.

Finally, Enbridge does not have the necessary legal authorization to operate the proposed tunnel project in the Straits, as required under the Great Lakes Submerged Lands Act and Michigan’s public trust doctrine.

For more information on the potential environmental impacts of the project, deficiencies with the application materials, and the viable alternatives that must be considered, visit our website: https://flowwateradvocates.org/line5/.

If we don’t have time to comment on everything, are there any aspects of the permit that we should prioritize?

There is certainly a lot to cover–the gaps in the application, the many potential environmental impacts, and the available alternatives to the project that must be considered.

When you have limited time to prepare comments, a good strategy can be to focus your comments on an issue or two that you care about or in which you have particular insight or expertise, knowing that others will do the same.

Oil and Water Don’t Mix has compiled a list of several issues that can be raised and expanded on in public comments.

Earthjustice has also provided a helpful comment submission form with a message to get you started.

If you have additional questions about submitting comments, we encourage you to attend the public information session hosted by EGLE on August 12.

When you register for the session, there is the option to include questions that you would like to be addressed by the agency and there will also be time for additional questions at the end of the session.

Enbridge appeals Line 5 decision to U.S. Supreme Court: Our statement

Published on July 1st, 2025 by - Blog Posts

July 1, 2025
Kacey Cook, Flow Staff Attorney

In June 2024, the federal Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision to send Attorney General Dana Nessel’s 2019 suit Nessel v. Enbridge back to state court where it started. The Sixth Circuit held that Enbridge’s removal of AG Nessel’s lawsuit to federal court, more than two years after it was filed, was untimely and unjustified. Enbridge’s attempt to take the lawsuit to federal court came well after the deadline for removal, and the Sixth Circuit ruled that the delay could not be justified on any of the grounds cited by Enbridge or the lower court.

Enbridge appealed that decision to the US Supreme Court, which has now agreed to hear the case. The appeal serves to prolong the operation of the company’s pipeline through the heart of the Great Lakes–allowing Enbridge to continue to profit, while our shared freshwater resources remain at risk.

Under Michigan public trust law, the State has the paramount responsibility, and power, to protect the Great Lakes and their bottomlands from occupation by private projects that present unacceptable risks to these shared public resources.

It is difficult to imagine a project that presents greater risks than Enbridge’s Line 5 pipeline–pumping approximately 23-million gallons of oil through the Straits of Mackinac every day with the ever-present potential for a catastrophic oil spill.

In 2020, Governor Whitmer issued a Notice of Revocation and Termination of the project’s easement across the Straits, citing both violations of the public trust doctrine and Enbridge’s “longstanding, persistent, and incurable violations of the Easement’s conditions and standard of due care.”

Today’s news is the most recent development in Enbridge’s years-long campaign of defiance against the State’s enforcement of Michigan law. Flow Water Advocates will continue to monitor all developments in the federal courts, and we stand with the State of Michigan in its efforts to ensure that this important case enforcing Michigan’s public trust doctrine is properly heard in State court.

Flow is also closely following Michigan agencies’ careful review of Enbridge’s state permit applications for the proposed tunnel project and applaud the State’s continued insistence that Enbridge provide all of the information required for a proper review of the risks associated with the unprecedented megaproject.