Tag: Line 5 tunnel

Gov. Whitmer to Enbridge: The tunnel game is up; it’s time for a new solution

Published on September 9th, 2026 by FLOW Editor - Blog Posts, Reports & Media Releases

September 9, 2026

Traverse City, Mich. — Today, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer and her administration issued a consequential new statement on Enbridge’s proposed Line 5 pipeline tunnel through the Straits of Mackinac, telling the Canadian company that it’s time to pull back from its tunnel plan that will put the Great Lakes at risk for another decade. The governor called on Enbridge to expedite an alternative to the tunnel and the existing pipelines, and get its oil out of our Great Lakes.

The call for Enbridge to pack its bags comes in the wake of the recent Michigan Supreme Court ruling remanding the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) permit for the tunnel, and requiring that all state agencies conduct comprehensive analyses of environmental impacts and alternatives in permitting decisions. It also comes just days after a Line 5 leak in Wisconsin released 1.3 million gallons of natural gas liquids — the largest spill in Wisconsin’s history.

Gov. Whitmer stated that the Court’s 6-1 decision in FLOW v. MPSC — and the concurrent case brought by 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, the Environmental Law and Policy Center, and Michigan Climate Action Network — fundamentally changes the landscape and the standard by which the tunnel permits issued by EGLE will be evaluated.

The Court found that the MPSC failed to properly weigh the Great Lakes’ public trust protections, potential environmental impacts, and alternatives before approving the Enbridge Line 5 tunnel. Given that the EGLE permits are likely to be challenged on the same legal basis, Gov. Whitmer acknowledged that the Court decision will effectively push the timeline for the tunnel back for years, possibly a decade or more. Meanwhile, Line 5 as it sits today remains a very real danger and threat to the Great Lakes — described by Gov. Whitmer as a “ticking time bomb” — and the communities and economies that rely on them.

Notably, in her letter to Enbridge, the Governor boldly reasserted her responsibility as a public trustee to protect the Great Lakes, stating that “The bottomlands belong to the people of Michigan” and pointed out Enbridge’s absurd assertion that “Michigan, having once said yes to these pipelines in 1953, is forever bound to that decision with no further say.” Gov. Whitmer also called out Enbridge’s familiar, disastrous track record in Michigan, citing the catastrophic 2010 oil spill in the Kalamazoo River — which stands as one of the largest inland spills in U.S. history. “One spill in the Straits could do irreparable damage to our water, our economy, and our way of life.”

“We Michiganders are united by the Great Lakes and we are united in defending them against a Canadian oil corporation in our lakes. Every hour, Line 5 pumps almost a million gallons of oil through the open waters of the Great Lakes. As the Governor made clear, the status quo is unacceptable,” said Liz Kirkwood, Executive Director of Flow Water Advocates. “Enbridge’s false tunnel solution is a profitable delay tactic that keeps oil flowing through the existing pipelines and threatens our Great Lakes. It’s high time for our communities to demand real alternatives that promote energy security and market stability, and protect our Great Lakes from a catastrophic oil spill.”

Flow Water Advocates has long advocated for safer alternatives to deliver Line 5’s cargo — the majority of which is delivered to refineries and petrochemical plants in Sarnia, Ontario. As Gov. Whitmer succinctly stated in her letter to Enbridge, “[T]here is an alternative. The choice is not simply between the existing pipelines and a tunnel…That alternative may not preserve Enbridge’s current market share or be as profitable for your shareholders. But those are not reasons to expose the Great Lakes to another decade of unthinkable risk.”

###

Flow Water Advocates is an independent 501(c)(3) nonprofit based in Traverse City, Michigan, dedicated to ensuring the waters of the Great Lakes Basin are healthy, public, and protected for all. Our team of legal and policy experts helps communities, businesses, and governments make informed decisions that safeguard public trust rights to water. Learn more at FlowWaterAdvocates.org.

There is no such thing as a free lunch – or a free tunnel.

Published on August 18th, 2026 by FLOW Editor - Blog Posts

Every day, hundreds of thousands of barrels of crude oil and natural gas liquids (NGLs) flow across the Straits of Mackinac through two 20-inch pipelines that have proven vulnerable to anchors dropped by passing freighters and barges. There’s a broad consensus for the need to remove the aging pipelines and reduce the risk of a catastrophic oil spill in one of the world’s most environmentally sensitive areas.

The solution proposed by Enbridge, the Canadian owner of the pipelines, is to build a tunnel, 21-feet in diameter and four miles long, deep below the Straits of Mackinac. The tunnel would enclose a new pipeline, making it less vulnerable than it is today.

The cost? Likely $2 billion – to be paid by consumers.

In an era of rising costs with consumer pain over the high cost of gas in particular, it would be reasonable and prudent to look for another, less costly delivery solution.

Energy security after Line 5.

Two exhaustive studies by PLG, one of the world’s leading pipeline and logistical consultancies with deep analytical expertise, have identified solutions that would reduce costs for both Enbridge and consumers while completely obviating any future environmental risks.

PLG identified a range of replacement options that are both “commercially viable and operationally feasible.”

Enbridge’s Lakehead System is a complex web of energy infrastructure transporting 36 million barrels of through more than 1900 miles of pipelines, with 20 major terminals, 200 tanks, and over 600 pumping systems.

First constructed more than 70 years ago, Line 5 is part of Enbridge’s Lakehead System, a network of pipelines in the Great Lakes region. It is fed by Enbridge pipelines originating in Western Canada.

Line 5 transports between 400,000 and 450,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil, in addition to about 80,000 bpd of NGLs east from Superior, Wisconsin, to Sarnia, Ontario. At least 88% of Line 5 crude oil is delivered to Canada.

PGL concluded:

“Based upon careful research as well as PLG’s more than 15 years of consulting experience in energy supply chains and logistics, our analysis demonstrates that energy markets will adapt – as they have always done and continue to do – in the event that Line 5 is shut down. With advance notice, the markets can be expected to do so without supply shortages or price spikes.”

The reality is that if Line 5 were to shut down tomorrow, the vast North American pipeline system would recalibrate “and would not materially affect the affordability or market competitiveness of product delivered to any given Line 5 destination area.”

Recall, the dire predictions of widespread energy shortages accompanying the disruption of energy supplies resulting from the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. The immediate response included recalibration of the European energy system and the near immediate phase out of EU dependence on Russian gas, oil and coal.

Canada is considering a new pipeline to avoid the Great Lakes — and the United States.

The Canadian government is actively exploring a new pipeline corridor wholly on Canadian soil that would connect Alberta production directly to Sarnia, bypassing the Great Lakes entirely. This alternative would accomplish Enbridge’s stated objective — delivering crude to Sarnia refineries — without running a high-risk line across Michigan and the Straits of Mackinac, or spending billions on a tunnel under the Great Lakes.

The fact that Canada is seriously studying this option undercuts the claim that Line 5 is irreplaceable. If a domestic Canadian route is technically and economically feasible—and Ottawa’s interest suggests it is—then doubling down on the construction of a contested, geotechnically challenged tunnel becomes even harder to justify.

Enbridge acknowledges that the “tunnel solution” is temporary.

Enbridge itself acknowledges that the “tunnel solution” is temporary. In a filing to the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the company sought to shorten (“truncate”) depreciation schedules for its U.S. energy infrastructure. The deprecation schedule is important because it sets a time horizon for when the tunnel becomes an essentially worthless asset. Enbridge’s stated reasons are telling: “current and anticipated competition to the Enbridge Mainline,” “actions by state and local governments,” and “the uncertainty arising from the recent acceleration” of decarbonization laws and policies in both the U.S. and Canada.

Electric vehicle adoption is reducing oil demand as well. The International Energy Agency forecasts that electric vehicles will displace more than 5 mb/d by 2030.

In plain terms, Enbridge has informed regulators that long-term demand for its pipelines is uncertain and increasingly constrained by policy and market changes. That admission directly contradicts any narrative that Line 5 — and especially a massive new tunnel project — is an essential, long-term energy asset. If Enbridge expects its mainline infrastructure to face declining utilization and competitive pressure, why should regulators or consumers underwrite an expensive new tunnel that is likely to be underused well before its engineered lifespan expires?

We will all pay for the tunnel.

Finally, consumers will ultimately pay for the avoidable $2 billion cost of the tunnel. Pipeline companies recover capital expenditures on infrastructure like the tunnel through tariffs — fees that are embedded in the price of gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, and home heating fuels and passed on and paid by the end-user: you. A multibillion-dollar tunnel that is not critical for regional energy security is, in effect, a privately directed but consumer-funded infrastructure project.

In a market that already enjoys ample supply, multiple alternative routes, and strong redundancy, forcing households, small businesses, and industrial users to finance an unnecessary tunnel is neither reasonable nor prudent. Those dollars could instead support grid modernization, energy efficiency, electrification, or genuinely forward-looking infrastructure that aligns with evolving decarbonization policies.

Taken together, the evidence points to a clear conclusion: Line 5 is not a lynchpin of North American energy security. The integrated, surplus-rich, and highly adaptable North American pipeline system already in place can reliably serve the Great Lakes region without the dangerous Line 5 shortcut and the tunnel. With viable Canadian alternatives emerging, Enbridge’s own acknowledgment that its assets face declining long-term demand, and a hefty price tag that would be borne by consumers, the proposed Line 5 tunnel is not just risky — it is unnecessary.

Flow senior advisor Stanley “Skip” Pruss was the former director of the Michigan Department of Energy, Labor, and Economic Growth; and the State’s Chief Energy Officer under former Gov. Jennifer Granholm. Earlier in his career, Skip served as Deputy Director of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.

Flow statement on U.S. Army Corps tunnel permit

Published on August 12th, 2026 by FLOW Editor - Blog Posts, Reports & Media Releases

Fast-tracked under a January 2025 presidential executive order declaring a trumped-up “energy emergency,” the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has announced its decision to approve the Canadian company Enbridge’s pipeline tunnel through Lake Michigan at the Straits of Mackinac. The proposed tunnel would house the Enbridge Line 5 pipelines, which terminate in Sarnia, Ontario, and primarily serve eastern Canada.

The tunnel project can not move forward, however, without a permit from the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) — which the Michigan Supreme Court struck down in a 6-1 ruling.

The Army Corps approval was made possible by the Whitmer administration’s recent approval of two EGLE permits. The Corps approved the project despite its own findings (PDF) that it would result in both short- and long-term detrimental impacts, including permanent wetland and wildlife habitat losses; potential release of drilling fluids to ground and surface waters; up to six years of construction noise, lights, traffic, and vibrations; limits to recreational activities; destruction of archeological resources; and housing values and tourism.

Flow Water Advocates anticipated that the Army Corps would rubber-stamp this project, because the Corps relied on the same conveniently narrow analysis of the project that was just struck down by the Michigan Supreme Court. In our recent victory in FLOW v. MPSC and the parallel Tribal coalition case, the Court vacated the MPSC permit and ordered it to complete a comprehensive analysis of the environmental and public trust impacts, and fairly compare feasible and prudent alternatives.

Live webinar: A Deep Dive on Line 5

Published on August 5th, 2026 by FLOW Editor - Blog Posts

WEBINAR: Deep Dive on Line 5

Enbridge’s Line 5 pipeline and proposed tunnel in the Straits of Mackinac threaten the Great Lakes, while primarily serving Canada. In July, the Tribal and environmental coalition earned a significant victory when the Michigan Supreme Court vacated a required state permit for the tunnel project. Meanwhile, additional state and federal permit processes continue to play out, as the Line 5 issue shapes the important November election.

Presented by Flow Water Advocates and Oil & Water Don’t Mix on August 20, 2026, this webinar recording unpacks what it all means, what happens next, and how you can help get oil out of the Great Lakes.

Watch the recording:

Our expert panel includes:

Riyaz Kanji, founding member and Directing Attorney of Kanji & Katzen – representing the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa and Flow Water Advocates
Debbie Chizewer, Managing Attorney, EarthJustice
David Holtz, Oil & Water Don’t Mix Campaign Coordinator and member of the Sierra Club Board of Directors

Hosted and moderated by Flow executive director Liz Kirkwood.

About the panelists

Riyaz Kanji, Founding Member and Directing Attorney, Kanji & Katzen

Riyaz Kanji is a founding member of Kanji & Katzen, PLLC, a firm whose mission is to advance Tribal sovereignty. A graduate of Harvard College and the Yale Law School, Riyaz served as a law clerk to the late Honorable Betty Fletcher of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and Justice David Souter of the United States Supreme Court. He is an advisor to and vocal cheerleader for the Tribal Supreme Court Project. Riyaz represents Tribes at all levels of the federal court system, and was part of the team that argued and won the decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma vindicating the continued existence of the Muscogee Creek Reservation. Riyaz served as lead attorney for Flow Water Advocates in its recent successful appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court, FLOW v. MPSC, which vacated the Line 5 tunnel permit issued by the Michigan Public Service Commission.

Debbie Chizewer, Managing Attorney, EarthJustice

As the managing attorney for Earthjustice’s Chicago office, Debbie Chizewer has built a Midwest team and a docket of cases across three program areas — climate and energy, healthy communities, and wild lands and wildlife. This team’s work includes representation of Tribal Nations in the fight against the risky Line 5 oil pipeline and advocacy on behalf of Black, low-income communities facing disproportionate environmental harms from air and water pollution. Throughout her career, Debbie has advocated for environmental protection across many issues — fighting for environmental justice in the Midwest at Northwestern Law’s environmental law clinic, promoting Great Lakes health at the Alliance for the Great Lakes, and protecting wildlife and public lands in the Rockies for the National Wildlife Federation. Debbie graduated from Princeton University and Boston University School of Law. After graduation from law school, she clerked in the U.S. District Court in the District of Delaware.

David Holtz, Coalition Coordinator for Oil & Water Don't Mix and Member of the Sierra Club Board of Directors

David’s passion for environmental protection, social justice and belief in people-powered political change led him to become a Sierra Club volunteer and in 2013 join the campaign to shut down Enbridge’s dangerous Line 5 oil pipeline in the Straits of Mackinac. He currently serves as coalition coordinator for Oil & Water Don’t Mix. David is a member of the national Sierra Club Board of Directors where he serves on the board’s Executive Committee. For more than a decade David worked as a newspaper reporter and is a former senior aide to a Member of Congress from Michigan. David was a founding board member of the nonprofit communications hub, Progress Michigan, and served as its executive director from 2010 to 2013 and is the former Michigan Director for Clean Water Action. He is a U.S. Marine Corps Vietnam veteran.

Flow v. MPSC: MI Supreme Court issues Line 5 tunnel permit decision

Published on July 31st, 2026 by FLOW Editor - Blog Posts, Reports & Media Releases

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: July 31, 2026

Michigan Supreme Court upholds the public’s rights to the Great Lakes, orders new review of Line 5 tunnel.

Traverse City, Mich., July 31, 2026 — The Michigan Supreme Court ruled that Michigan regulators failed to properly weigh the Great Lakes’ public trust protections and environmental impacts before approving Enbridge Energy’s proposed Line 5 tunnel beneath the Straits of Mackinac. The Court overturned the Michigan Public Service Commission’s (“MPSC”) approval of the project and sent the case back to the agency for further review of public trust and environmental impacts — a major victory for Flow Water Advocates (“Flow”) and its Tribal and environmental co-appellants.

The ruling resolved the consolidated appeals brought by Flow, four federally recognized Tribes – 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 – and the Environmental Law and Policy Center and the Michigan Climate Action Network, all of whom challenged the MPSC’s approval of the tunnel.

The High Court found that the Court of Appeals erred in this case “by applying a deferential standard of review to the MPSC’s decision, and the MPSC erred by (1) failing to consider whether the tunnel project will factually and proximately cause the extension of Line 5’s operational life, potentially resulting in additional environmental harm; (2) comparing alternatives in an inconsistent manner; and (3) failing to consider the project’s impact on public trust resources.” The Court rejected the Court of Appeals’ ruling that the MPSC lacked the authority to apply a common-law public trust analysis, stating, “We agree with FLOW and hold that MEPA requires separate consideration of harms to public trust resources.”

Lead attorney, Riyaz Kanji, remarked, “Today the Michigan Supreme Court vindicated the rights of every Michigander to the protection of the Great Lakes. It reaffirmed that the invaluable waters of the Great Lakes and submerged lands beneath them are held by the state for the benefit of the people, and that the public’s rights in those vital waters and lands cannot be given away to private interests like Enbridge without careful consideration of the environmental impacts and alternatives. The High Court made clear that regulators and state agencies, like the MPSC, which has authority over the location and operation of pipelines and other utilities, cannot avoid this fundamental duty to the public in their permit decisions.”

Flow’s Executive Director, Liz Kirkwood, said, “This decision of the Michigan Supreme Court builds on a long lineage of public trust case law and affirms that the public trust doctrine and the Michigan Environmental Protection Act (“MEPA”) are alive and well in Michigan. Today’s historic ruling cements the importance of the MEPA and the common-law public trust doctrine in agency permitting decisions affecting the waters and natural resources of the people of Michigan. The MPSC cannot greenlight the tunnel project until the agency actually determines its impact on the public’s rights to the Great Lakes waters and the lands beneath them — and weighs that harm against the alternatives, as the law requires.”

Flow is represented in this case by its legal team and co-counsel, Kanji & Katzen, P.L.L.C. and Olson & Howard, P.C.

Flow Water Advocates statement on Whitmer administration’s Line 5 tunnel permit decisions.

Published on July 15th, 2026 by FLOW Editor - Blog Posts, Reports & Media Releases

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: July 15, 2026

TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. — In a pair of key permit decisions announced today by the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) regarding Enbridge’s proposed pipeline tunnel through the Straits of Mackinac, the state has failed to carry out its duties under the Michigan Wetlands Protection Act (Part 303), the Great Lakes Submerged Lands Act (Part 325), and the Public Trust Doctrine to protect Michigan wetlands and submerged lands. It has also disregarded over 70,000 public comments EGLE received during the public comment period last summer and instead sided with Enbridge and its pipeline that ends in Sarnia, Ontario and primarily delivers crude oil to Canada.

“That these heartbreaking permit decisions were announced during a period of dangerously bad air quality due to climate change-related wildfires is sadly poetic,” said Liz Kirkwood, Flow Water Advocates executive director. “It’s a stark illustration that building this tunnel and further entrenching the burning of fossil fuels isn’t just wrong for the Straits and Michiganders, it’s wrong for the planet.”

Flow Water Advocates holds that under the Great Lakes Submerged Lands Act, the tunnel project cannot be lawfully permitted unless the state has found that adverse effects to the environment and public trust are minimal, and that there are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the applicant’s proposed activity (in this case, Enbridge’s proposal to bore a 4.5-mile tunnel through the Straits).

No such finding has been made, and feasible alternatives — including utilizing excess capacity elsewhere in pipeline and rail networks, as detailed in a pair of reports by energy supply chain analysts PLG Consulting (Likely Market Responses to a Potential Shutdown of Line 5 (2023), Prospective Line 5 Closure Boosts US Energy Dominance (2025)) — are available. The decisions are particularly egregious given the fact that feasible and prudent alternatives are also identified in the state’s own record.

And just last week, the CBC reported that Ontario Premier Doug Ford and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith are backing a new “Northern Shield” oil pipeline that would stretch from Western Canada to Sarnia, bypassing the U.S. and the Great Lakes. Last fall, the Ontario government began a feasibility study for the project, which would bolster Canadian energy independence — and potentially render Enbridge’s Line 5 and proposed tunnel redundant.

In joint comments submitted to EGLE, Flow Water Advocates, the Sierra Club, and Surfrider Foundation wrote “Enbridge’s pursuit of the Line 5 tunnel runs in direct contradiction to the public interest in Michigan’s invaluable freshwater resources and the ecosystems they support; in the sacred cultural sites within and surrounding the Straits and the Tribal rights that are inextricably tied to them; in a healthy climate future and a resilient Michigan economy; and in the vested rights of all Michiganders to use and enjoy the State’s public trust resources free from the threat of substantial impairment.”

The permit approvals announced today are a blow to Michigan’s public trust resources, Tribal rights and interests, and Governor Whitmer’s own Healthy Climate Plan and commitment to carbon neutrality.

Enbridge cannot begin construction of this proposed tunnel under the Great Lakes until it has secured final approval for two other major permits, including the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from EGLE, and the federal permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. A permit issued by the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) has been appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court by Flow Water Advocates (For Love of Water v. MPSC) and a coalition of tribal nations joined by the Environmental Law & Policy Center and Michigan Climate Action Network (Little Traverse Bay Bands v. MPSC). A decision is expected in late July.

###

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.

Deep concerns raised at Line 5 tunnel public hearing

Published on June 25th, 2026 by FLOW Editor - Blog Posts

Last week, over 200 participants gathered over Zoom for the public hearing on the proposed reissuance of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Individual Permit (NPDES) for Enbridge’s proposed Line 5 tunnel through the Straits of Mackinac.

Line 5 is a pair of aging oil pipelines that travels across the bottom of the Straits of Mackinac, where Lake Michigan meets Lake Huron. Enbridge, the Canadian company that owns Line 5, is proposing to replace the Line 5 pipelines with a tunnel that will be bored underneath the lakebed. The U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers (USACE) found that the tunnel will result in detrimental impacts, including loss of wetlands and wildlife habitats; potential release of drilling fluids; construction noise, lights, traffic, and vibrations; limits to recreational resources; and impacts to property values and tourism.

Enbridge is requesting a reissuance of the now-expired NPDES permit that the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) granted in 2021. If re-approved, the permit would allow Enbridge to dump massive amounts of warm waste water into Lake Michigan, take up to 2 million gallons of water per day from Lake Michigan, and discharge unknown toxic chemicals into the water as a result of the tunnel boring. The proposed draft permit and other related documents can be found here.

Out of the 200+ participants at last week’s hearing, around 90 people spoke up and gave public comments in support or opposition to the NPDES permit. EGLE took comments for nearly 6 hours, as the hearing stretched on until almost midnight.

A majority of commenters opposed the permit, noting an array of concerns, including the lack of information on what chemicals Enbridge will be using for water treatment; Enbridge’s lack of trust and various failures at Line 3 in Minnesota and Line 6B in Kalamazoo; the company’s lack of good will in Wisconsin over the Bad River Band territory; concerns on the cultural impact to Indigenous Peoples and safety concerns about the construction camps near Indigenous lands, among others. Folks in attendance also highlighted concerns regarding the safety of dumping potentially contaminated wastewater into Lake Michigan, with several commenters noting that the temperature limit for wastewater as established in the permit was too high for the Great Lake’s cold water ecosystem.

Comments in support of the permit had an eerie familiarity as a number of commenters followed the same formula – establishing that they are a life-long Michiganders who love the outdoors, and highlighting the same language that we see from Enbridge itself about how the tunnel is the “most environmentally sound option” despite heavy evidence to the contrary. Supporters also argued that the tunnel will provide energy security to the Upper Peninsula, despite the fact that most of the fuel transported by Line 5 goes to Canada. There was also support for the permit from industry groups and unions because of alleged job creation.

However, over 60% of commenters opposed the tunnel. And, perhaps the most inspiring part of the evening: a majority of those commenters in opposition appeared to come from young people. The youth are showing up to protect the future from the devastation that the Line 5 tunnel could bring. The youngest commenter of the evening, a 3 (and a half) year old named Lola, spoke with more wisdom than some adults, saying “we can’t drink oil.” A seemingly simple, but essential thought that cannot be lost when it comes to the Great Lakes.

Sacrificing our freshwater, our drinking water, and our survival comes at an incredibly high cost, with little benefit for Michiganders. The great activist, scholar, philosopher, and author Dr. Angela Davis once said: “Youth always leads struggles for change. No revolution has ever happened without young people being in the forefront.” Building on the energy of these young people, Flow encourages readers to submit a comment to EGLE if you haven’t already. This may be the last chance for folks to submit comments urging EGLE to reject Enbridge’s dangerous and unnecessary tunnel project and protect Michigan and the Great Lakes for generations (like little Lola) to come.

Last chance to speak up: Reject Enbridge’s discharge into Lake Michigan

Published on June 2nd, 2026 by FLOW Editor - Blog Posts

What is happening:

Enbridge is requesting a permit from the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) for its proposed Line 5 pipeline tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. If approved, the permit would allow Enbridge to:

Dump billions of gallons of wastewater into Lake Michigan — enough to fill 9 Olympic-sized swimming pools every day
Take up to 2 million gallons of water per day directly from Lake Michigan
Discharge chemical additives, chlorides, solids, as well as pollutants from the heavy machinery used to bore the tunnel (like metals, oil, and grease)

The discharges may also affect the temperature and pH of the water, altering its chemistry and stressing fish and other aquatic life.

What you can do:

EGLE is now taking public comments on Enbridge’s requested National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, now and through June 30.

1) Tell EGLE and the State of Michigan to say NO to Enbridge’s plan to take millions of gallons of clean water from Lake Michigan, and discharge billions of gallons of dirty wastewater back into Lake Michigan. DEADLINE: June 30.

2) Attend the virtual public hearing on June 18 at 6:00pm. The public meeting will include a presentation and Q&A session, after which the public will have an opportunity to provide comments for the record.

Enbridge must receive multiple state and federal permits for its troubled tunnel proposal. You may have already commented on a previous federal or state permit application for the tunnel (thank you!), but it’s important to comment on this new permit too.

This is likely our last chance to tell EGLE and Governor Whitmer to reject Enbridge’s dangerous and unnecessary tunnel project and deny Enbridge permission to pollute the Great Lakes.

Additional resources:

Michigan gets the risk, Canada gets the oil

What every Michigander needs to know about the Line 5 tunnel

REPORT: Enbridge's tunnel plan costly and ill-advised

Line 5 tunnel appeal: Join us in Lansing on March 11!

Published on March 3rd, 2026 by FLOW Editor - Blog Posts

Flow Water Advocates and our allies are challenging the MPSC’s Line 5 tunnel permit in the Michigan Supreme Court, and you’re invited to a gathering and press conference in Lansing on March 11.

Join in community at Lansing’s Central United Methodist Church at 9:00am to listen to oral arguments via livestream, make posters, and mingle with other Line 5 advocates. Space in the courtroom is very limited, so we’ve arranged this separate venue where everyone can listen and participate.

Following oral arguments, we’ll head to the Michigan Supreme Court steps for a press conference and show of solidarity.

Coming from Traverse City? Oil & Water Don’t Mix has arranged for a bus to take folks down to Lansing at 5:45am; returning at 3:30pm.

Whether you plan to ride the bus or not, please register here for this event:

Flow files reply brief in Line 5 tunnel permit case before the Michigan Supreme Court

Published on January 26th, 2026 by FLOW Editor - Blog Posts, Reports & Media Releases

Download Flow’s reply brief (PDF)

Traverse City, Mich. — On January 23, Flow Water Advocates (“Flow”) filed its reply to the arguments raised by Enbridge Limited Energy LLC, the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC), and other Appellees in Flow’s Michigan Supreme Court case challenging the MPSC’s issuance of a permit to the company for its proposed Line 5 pipeline tunnel through the Straits of Mackinac.

The Office of the Michigan Attorney General and the Great Lakes Business Network filed amicus briefs in support of Flow. The parties now have the opportunity to respond to adverse amicus briefs, due on February 13. The court will hear oral arguments in March.

In its brief, Flow argues that under the Michigan Environmental Protect Act (MEPA) and the common-law public trust doctrine, the MPSC has an obligation to withhold authorization for the tunnel project unless and until EGLE determines that the tunnel will not impair the public’s rights to the Great Lakes “waters and [the] lands beneath them” (Glass v Goeckel (2005); see also Collins v Gerhardt (1926)). Neither EGLE nor any state entity has made such a determination.

Support Flow’s work to defend the Great Lakes.

Notably, EGLE is currently reviewing a new, modified permit application from Enbridge. It is seeking additional information about the environmental impacts and alternatives to the tunnel because, according to EGLE, Enbridge has thus far failed to demonstrate that the project will not create untenable risks or violate Great Lakes Submerged Lands Act (GLSLA) standards.

In September, the Court granted Flow and other parties a landmark application for leave to appeal, paving the way for a review of the MPSC tunnel permit. The court specifically directed the parties to address whether the MPSC is required to comply with the common law public trust doctrine in its permitting decisions. Flow’s reply brief can be downloaded in full from its website, FlowWaterAdvocates.org/Line5.

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.

###