Tag: Line 5 tunnel

Enbridge Line 5 webinar: What every Michigander needs to know

Published on June 25th, 2025 by - Blog Posts

Watch the webinar recording!

Facing competition, declining fossil fuel demand, and challenges building new pipelines in Canada, Enbridge is working overtime to convince Michiganders that we’re dependent on Line 5, but that’s not true.

On July 22, join Flow Water Advocates and Oil & Water Don’t Mix for a special live webinar, as our panel of experts and advocates discuss recent developments in the Line 5 litigation, why the tunnel isn’t good for Michigan, and how you can get involved.

Did you know that…

  • Enbridge was responsible for the devastating 1.2 million gallon oil spill in Marshall, Michigan — one of the worst in U.S. history.
  • 80-90% of the crude oil carried by Line 5 goes from Canada, to Canada.
  • The State of Michigan is the legal trustee of the Straits, and has the power and duty to protect them for the benefit of Michiganders.
  • Enbridge still needs permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Michigan Dept. of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) to build the tunnel.

Our expert panel includes:

  • Riyaz Kanji, founding member and Directing Attorney of Kanji & Katzen – representing the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa
  • Carrie La Seur, Legal Director, Flow Water Advocates 
  • Skip Pruss, Senior Legal Advisor, Flow Water Advocates
  • Beth Wallace, Climate and Energy Director, National Wildlife Federation and Co-Director of the Great Lakes Business Network

Hosted and moderated by Flow staff attorney Kacey Cook.

This online webinar is free, and supported in part by the Mackinac Island Community Foundation’s Natural Resources and Preservation Fund and the Straits Area Community Foundation. 

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.

As Flow’s Legal Director, Carrie develops and implements legal and policy strategies to maximize protection of public trust resources and uses. A graduate of Yale Law School, Carrie recently relocated to northern Michigan from Montana, where she practiced civil litigation, specializing in environmental and climate issues. From 2006-2012 served as Executive Director of Plains Justice, a legal nonprofit she co-founded, litigating against new fossil fuel infrastructure.

Skip Pruss is an energy expert with decades of experience in both the public and private sector. He is a former cabinet member and director of the Michigan Department of Energy, Labor, and Economic Growth, as well as the former chief energy officer for the State of Michigan, under former Gov. Jennifer Granholm, where he was responsible for designing and implementing Michigan’s clean energy economy diversification efforts.

Earlier in his career, Skip served as Deputy Director of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. Skip also is a co-founder of 5 Lakes Energy LLC, a clean energy technology consultancy.

Bio coming soon!

Watch the webinar recording!

Enbridge Line 5 tunnel: What every Michigander needs to know

Published on June 3rd, 2025 by - Blog Posts

Canadian pipeline company Enbridge wants to bore a massive fossil fuels tunnel through Straits of Mackinac. The proposed four mile tunnel would remove 364,000 cubic yards (or

Download as PDF
Facebook

27,000 dump truck loads) of earth and rock from the bottomlands of the Great Lakes.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers finds that the tunnel project would result in both short- and long-term detrimental impacts1, including loss of wetlands and wildlife habitats; potential release of drilling fluids; up to six years of construction noise, lights, traffic, and vibrations; limits to recreational activities; destruction of archaeological resources; and impacts to property values and tourism.

The State of Michigan is the legal trustee of the Straits, and has the power and duty to protect them for the benefit of Michiganders and future generations. Let’s take a look at why the tunnel is a dead end:

We can not trust Enbridge with our Great Lakes.

1. The Line 6B disaster.
Enbridge was responsible for the devastating 2010 Line 6B oil spill in Marshall, Michigan — one of the worst inland oil spills in U.S. history. In its investigation of the 1.2 million gallon disaster, the NTSB cited “pervasive organizational failures” at Enbridge.2

2. Bad track record.
There have been 34 documented Line 5 oil spills in Michigan and Wisconsin, totaling over 1.3 million gallons. The pattern continued as recently as November 2024, when 70,000 gallons3 spilled in Jefferson, Wisconsin

3. Irresponsible.
In 2024, the federal government had to order Enbridge to repair cracks4 in Line 5, and assess cracks using more comprehensive methods that account for all pipeline stresses.5 Enbridge should have taken this measures without being told.

4. Unaccountable.
In 2020, an Enbridge internal investigation revealed that an Enbridge-contracted ship likely dragged a cable and damaged Line 5 in the Mackinac Straits. Enbridge later admitted it failed to notify the state as was required.6

The Line 5 tunnel would primarily serve Canada, not Michigan.

According to Enbridge, Line 5 supplies half of the oil used in Ontario and Quebec,7 or approximately 396 thousand barrels per day.8 Line 5 carries 400-450 thousand barrels of crude oil per day9 from northwestern Canada, eastward. Upwards of 88% of Line 5 crude oil flows from Canada, to Canada, using the Great Lakes and Michigan as a risky short-cut to Sarnia, Ontario.

Line 5 also carries 80 thousands barrels of Natural Gas Liquids per day.

“We’ve seen multiple occasions where as a country we [Canada] can’t get behind building pipelines, so it’s important to keep the existing ones up and running.”10

Vern Yu, Enbridge Executive Vice-President and President, Liquids Pipelines (fmr.)

Unstudied, unstable.

What we know about the rock quality under the Straits.

A technical review of the proposed tunnel by the Michigan Department of Transportation raised numerous red flags and factors that could result in tunnel collapse, environmental damage, or even an explosion.

The combination of poor geology, length, depth, potential for methane gas pockets, and extremely high hydrostatic pressure12 all add up to an unprecedented, untested design unlike any other tunnel in the world.

Enbridge hasn’t done its homework.

1. Lack of due diligence.
Understanding the bedrock and geology of the tunnel’s path is critical for its safe construction and operation. But Enbridge only sampled the rock an average of once every 950 feet, far below the industry standard of once every 50 to 250 feet.13

2. Insufficient sampling.
Enbridge only took one rock sample over a span of about 11,000 feet14 — the deepest, most critical section of the proposed tunnel route. There is a span of 1.5 miles that has not been sampled at all (thousands of feet longer than the un-sampled sections of similar tunnel project).15

3. Wrong depth.
Enbridge didn’t take enough rock samples, and some of the samples it did take were not deep enough.16 The percentage of samples laying within the zone of the tunnel path was less than the typical amount of samples studied during comparable projects.17

4. Unprecedented.
A hazardous liquids pipeline tunnel of this length, depth, and in geologic and hydrostatic pressure conditions like those found in the Mackinac Straits has never before been attempted.18 We cannot allow the Great Lakes to be Enbridge’s guinea pig.

The unacceptable risk of collapse and explosion.

Instead of solid, uniform bedrock, this tunnel would bore through fractured geologic formations that are “poor” and “very poor” quality, and contain voids.19 This type of rock with large, open seams, has high hydraulic conductivity, which means water can easily flow through it. Studies have also found high hydrostatic pressure at tunnel depth.20

This all adds up to a sponge-like environment that is vulnerable to uncontrollable inflows of water — water that is connected to Lake Michigan.

Tunneling through a slurry of rock and soil, or mixed-face tunneling, is “the most dangerous type of tunneling”21 and there is a risk of collapse around the tunnel boring machine (TBM).

Experts also warn that vapors within the tunnel and dissolved methane in the groundwater could ignite and cause an explosion.22, 23

A tunnel to the past.

Investing in a new fossil fuels tunnel doesn’t add up.

The world is changing, and so are energy markets. Increasing fuel efficiency, electric vehicle sales, and decarbonization across industries make this new fossil fuels tunnel a bad bet.

With global oil demand predicted to peak this decade,24 we should not invest in a massive piece of fossil fuel infrastructure that will start to become obsolete almost as soon as it opens.

A bad investment for Enbridge and Michigan.

1. Skyrocketing costs.
A 2025 report by the non-partisan Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) found that the tunnel may cost up to three times more than initial estimates.25 Meanwhile, Enbridge also faces an expensive 41-mile reroute in Wisconsin.

2. Depressed market.
During this critical time for climate action, projects like the Line 5 tunnel are a bad bet — and Wall Street knows it. The fossil fuels sector underperformed the S&P 500 for 7 of the last 10 years, delivering the lowest performance of all S&P 500 sectors.26

3. Declining demand.
According to Goldman Sachs, global oil demand will peak in 2035 and then begin to decline27 — just six years after the tunnel is scheduled to open.28 U.S. gasoline consumption peaked in 2018 and has fallen more than 4% despite population growth.29

4. You’re on the hook.
Ownership of the tunnel would transfer to the Mackinac Straits Corridor Authority — or in other words, Michigan taxpayers. Enbridge may lease the tunnel rent- free30 for up to 99 years. It’s unclear who will be liable for its upkeep if the lease is terminated early.31

The tunnel isn’t the answer.

There’s no question: Line 5 as it exists today, resting exposed on the lake bed floor, buffeted by strong currents and vulnerable to anchor strikes,32 is an unacceptable threat to our Great Lakes.

That’s why Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer revoked the Line 5 easement in 2020 and ordered that it be shut down. (Enbridge continues to operate Line 5 in defiance of the State of Michigan.)

Due to the poor rock quality and volatile gasses, the tunnel would not eliminate the threat of an oil spill.

The multi-year construction phase would be especially risky, as Enbridge plans to operate the existing Line 5 during the boring underneath.

The good news is, there are other ways33 to supply fossil fuels to eastern Canada and replace the much smaller amounts supplied by Line 5 to Michigan and the U.S. — alternatives that don’t endanger the Great Lakes.

Here’s the big picture: building the tunnel would feed climate change, lock Michigan into fossil fuels, and deincentivize the development of healthier regional energy networks and solutions. We can do better.

Michigan after Line 5.

We can get oil out of the Great Lakes and make a better future.

Facing competition from other pipeline companies and declining demand, Enbridge is working overtime to protect its profits and convince Michiganders that we’re dependent on Line 5, but that’s not true.

We have a range of viable alternatives to Line 5, including excess capacity in existing pipelines34 that go around, and not through, the Great Lakes

What happens when we decommission Line 5.

1. Stable prices.
Enbridge’s own expert found that gas prices in Michigan would only increase half a cent per gallon,36 well within normal fluctuations. And a report from supply chain analyst PLG Consulting says that a planned and orderly shut down of Line 5 will not result in price spikes.37

2. Depressed market.
PLG Consulting has also calculated that 87% of Line 5’s crude oil supply could be replaced within three months by fully utilizing Enbridge Line 78 through southern Michigan. Any shortfalls could be supplemented by other transport methods and regions.38

3. Energy independence for Canada.
Since early 2025, Canadian leaders have expressed new interest in investing in their energy security.39 This could include reviving the proposed Energy East pipeline, which would run entirely north of the U.S. border and Great Lakes, supplying Canada’s eastern provinces.40

4. Protected waters.
Michigan has the power to deny the tunnel permit, and protect the Great Lakes from years of construction upheaval, wetlands damage, and other risks. Michigan can assert its sovereignty, stop the exploitation of our resources, and protect the waters today and for generations to come.

References

1. U.S. Army Corps of Energineers, Enbridge Line 5 Tunnel Project Final Environmental Impact Statement.
2. National Transportation Safety Board, https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/PAR1201.pdf
3. Wisconsin Public Radio, https://www.wpr.org/environment/enbridge-oil-spill-jefferson-county-wisconsin-pipeline
4. Detroit News, https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2024/07/08/enbridge-line-6 b-proposed-eighth-modification-circumferential-cracks/74327136007/
5. U.S. Dept. of Justice, https://www.justice.gov/enrd/media/1359506/dl
6. MI Attorney General, https://www.michigan.gov/ag/news/press-releases/2020/06/25/judge-orders-line-5-to -cease-operations
7., 10. Canada House of Commons, https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/43-2/CAAM/meeting-4/evidence
8. Government of Canada, https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/cv.action?pid=2510003001 9., 33., 34., 35., 37., 38. PLG Consulting, https://plgconsulting.com/white-paper-likely-market-responses-to-a-line-5-shutdown/
11., 12. McMillen Jacobs & Associates for MDOT, https://www.michigan.gov/-/media/Project/Websites/egle/Documents/Multi-Division/L ine-5/MDOT_Question_on_Collapses_in_Terms_of_Loss_of_Face_Control_Jan_2021.pd f
13. Michigan Advance, https://michiganadvance.com/2020/09/28/geologists-condemn-line-5-tunnel-plan-pe rmitting-the-project-at-this-time-would-be-a-mistake/
14., 15. McMillen Jacobs & Associates for MDOT, https://www.michigan.gov/-/media/Project/Websites/egle/Documents/Multi-Division/L ine-5/MDOT_Question_on_Risk_mitigation_Jan_2021.pdf
16., 17., 19., 20. McMillen Jacobs & Associates for MDOT, https://www.michigan.gov/-/media/Project/Websites/egle/Documents/Multi-Division/L ine-5/MDOT_Question_on_Geotechnical_Investigation_Jan_2021.pdf
18. EarthJustice, https://earthjustice.org/press/2025/tribes-greens-take-line-5-tunnel-to-michigans-supremecourt
21. Michigan Advance, https://michiganadvance.com/2020/09/28/geologists-condemn-line-5-tunnel-plan-permittin g-the-project-at-this-time-would-be-a-mistake/
22. Richard Kuprewicz, comments to the Michigan Public Service Commission, https://narf.org/nill/documents/20211214-line5-mpsc-kuprewicz-testimony.pdf
23. Brian O’Mara, testimony to the Michigan Public Service Commission, https://turtletalk.blog/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/bay-mills-experts.pdf
24., 27. Goldman Sachs, https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/articles/peak-oil-demand-is-still-a-decade-away 25. Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, https://ieefa.org/resources/enbridge-should-consider-closing-its-old-troubled-line-5-pipeline
26. Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, https://ieefa.org/sites/default/files/2025-01/REVIEWED-15818-Briefing%20Note_2024%20Re cap%20oil%20stocks%20%281%29.pdf
28. Bridge Michigan, https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-environment-watch/trump-administration-fast-track-lin e-5-tunnel-calling-project-emergency 29. U.S. Energy Information Administration, https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=23&t=10
30., 31. State of Michigan, https://www.michigan.gov/psab/-/media/Project/Websites/psab/archive/media/ProposedTun nelLease_12-13-18.pdf
32. Flow Water Advocates, https://flowwateradvocates.org/line5
36. Neil K. Earnest, Muse, Stancil & Co, federal court filing, https://environmentaldefence.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Report-expert-Enbridge-exp ert-Neil-Earnest-Muse-Stancil.pdf
39. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/west-east-pipeline-jonathan-wilkinson-1.7452406
40. Financial Post, https://financialpost.com/commodities/energy/sentiment-pipelines-trump-canada

Michigan Court of Appeals Affirms Line 5 Tunnel Permit

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

Michigan Court of Appeals Affirms Line 5 Tunnel Permit; FLOW Asserts Michigan’s Public Trust Responsibilities

 

Traverse City, Mich.— For Love of Water (FLOW) participated in consolidated appeals challenging a Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) order conditionally approving Enbridge Energy’s application to replace the segment of its Line 5 pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac, constructing a new pipeline within a proposed tunnel. On February 19, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the MPSC’s order.

Background: Following a series of agreements between Enbridge and the State of Michigan, and the creation of the Mackinac Straits Corridor Authority (MSCA) by the state legislature to oversee tunnel construction, Enbridge sought MPSC authorization for the “Replacement Project”. In 2024, MPSC issued a permit.

Appellants’ Arguments: The appellants (environmental groups, tribes, and an individual) argued that the MPSC erred by:

  • Limiting its review to the public need for the replacement segment rather than the entire Line 5 pipeline.
  • Using improper comparisons in its Michigan Environmental Protection Act (MEPA) analysis.
  • Inadequately analyzing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

In addition, FLOW argued that Michigan has sovereign public trust responsibilities that cannot be waived legislatively through the delegation of a public policy decision to an agency.

The Court’s decision held that:

  1. The MPSC properly limited its review to the Replacement Project, as the application concerned only that specific segment. The need for the entire Line 5 had been previously established.
  2. The MPSC’s MEPA analysis was sufficient. While the court noted some inconsistencies in comparisons (e.g., comparing rail alternatives for the entire line but not the existing pipeline), it concluded that the MPSC ultimately considered all presented alternatives and that its decision was supported by the record.
  3. Because the MPSC has only the authority created in it by the Legislature, it has no duty to consider the public trust in its decisions.

FLOW Legal Director Carrie La Seur said, “We stand by our argument that the MPSC failed to make the determinations required under MEPA and improperly excluded critical evidence offered by the intervenors. Michigan’s public trust guardianship is codified in MEPA and the Michigan Constitution, which apply to all agency actions. Just like a tenant has no right to give away a rented house, the Legislature has no right to hand over its public trust responsibilities. The state holds Michigan waters in trust for all Michiganders, in perpetuity. They are not for sale.”

FLOW is likely to appeal this decision.

Risky, costly, and ill-advised: New report and webinar analyzes the Enbridge Line 5 tunnel project

Published on January 7th, 2025 by - Blog Posts

WATCH THE WEBINAR RECORDING

 

Enbridge’s plan to bore a tunnel between Lake Michigan and Lake Huron to replace an underwater segment of Line 5 is costly and ill-advised, according to a new report from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA). The report shows that the aging pipeline is servicing a shrinking market and is facing additional challenges that will make it costly to maintain operations. The report also shows that the pipeline tunnel will likely be more costly than project proponents have disclosed publicly to date. IEEFA’s analysis concludes that Enbridge should question whether it makes sense to keep sinking money into an old pipeline when markets for its products are on a declining trajectory. Download the report.

Live Webinar: January 15 at 12:00pm EST

FLOW will host a free, live webinar with IEEFA report co-authors Suzanne Mattei, Energy Policy Analyst; and David Schlissel, Director of Resource Planning Analysis. We’ll talk about the report’s findings and answer your questions. The webinar will be moderated by FLOW Legal Director Carrie La Seur.

About IEEFA

The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) examines issues related to energy markets, trends, and policies. The Institute’s mission is to accelerate the transition to a diverse, sustainable and profitable energy economy. IEEFA’s nonpartisan and evidence-based approach provides solid ground on which to base sound investment and policy decisions and to challenge misinformation.

Webinar Guest Speakers

Suzanne Mattei is an attorney with over 30 years of experience in public interest law and policy. She has analyzed the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s policies related to interstate pipeline approval. She has also conducted research on blue hydrogen, petrochemical projects, gas flaring and fossil fuel extraction on public lands.

Suzanne is a former regional director for the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, where she supervised permitting and enforcement in New York City, with an area population of about 8 million.

Previously, in City government oversight positions, her analysis helped spur the City to abandon a risky plan to sell its drinking water supply system to a state-run authority and to reject a costly, ill-advised plan to build garbage incinerators. Her investigation on behalf of Sierra Club exposed the federal government’s failure to curb exposure to pollution from the 9/11 World Trade Center disaster. Her testimony to Congress helped lead to a law that aids 9/11 responders and survivors.

Suzanne helped to establish free legal assistance and secure federal aid for bereaved families after the 9/11 disaster, and for Ground Zero workers suffering from negative health impacts.

She has a juris doctor degree from Yale University and B.A. from Washington State University. She is admitted to practice law in New York.

David Schlissel is an IEEFA analyst with 50 years of experience as an economic and technical consultant on energy and environmental issues.

He has testified as an expert witness before regulatory commissions in more than 35 states and before the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Schlissel’s work has included researching, writing and testifying about the U.S. nuclear industry and the cost overruns, construction delays and other challenges associated with many nuclear projects. He has engineering degrees from MIT and Stanford University as well as a Juris Doctor from Stanford Law School. He also has studied nuclear engineering at MIT in a non-degree program.

FLOW Appeals MPSC Decision Approving the Line 5 Tunnel

Published on April 15th, 2024 by - Blog Posts, Reports & Media Releases

Download FLOW Appellate Brief  (PDF)

Traverse City, Mich.— On April 11, 2024, FLOW filed a brief before the Michigan Court of Appeals aimed at reversing the Michigan Public Services Commission’s (MPSC) approval of the proposed Line 5 tunnel project.

Enbridge’s proposed tunnel received a green light from the MPSC on December 1, 2023. FLOW is challenging the approval arguing that the MPSC’s action violated the Michigan Environmental Protection Act by failing to determine whether feasible and prudent alternatives were available that would render the estimated $2 billion project unnecessary. FLOW also contends that the MPSC failed to undertake any analysis of whether there was a “public need” for the project, given growing concerns over greenhouse gas emissions and projected reductions in the use of transportation fuels.

“Enbridge has admitted that growing U.S. and Canadian concerns over climate change will significantly reduce the serviceable lifetime of Line 5 and the tunnel,” stated FLOW’s Executive Director Liz Kirkwood. “The project is demonstrably an environmental and economic albatross.”

FLOW has joined numerous Native American tribes and other advocacy organizations in formally opposing the tunnel project.

U.S. Army Corps to Limit Line 5 Tunnel Review

Published on July 27th, 2023 by - Blog Posts

“The US Army Corps of Engineers decision to exclude the cumulative impacts of the fossil fuels Line 5 will transport, climate concerns, and, remarkably, engineering concerns raised by experts as to the integrity of the tunnel, flies in the face of the Corps’ purpose and mission, the Biden Administration’s goals and policy, and public concern for the protection of Great Lakes waters.” – Liz Kirkwood, FLOW Executive Director

FLOW to Mackinac Straits Corridor Authority: No Enbridge Oil Tunnel Without Authorization Under Public Trust Doctrine

Published on September 20th, 2021 by - Blog Posts, H2Olson, News, Reports & Media Releases

FLOW Founder and Senior Legal Advisor Jim Olson submitted the following statement to the Mackinac Straits Corridor Authority as part of a September 20, 2021, public meeting regarding Enbridge’s oil tunnel proposed through public bottomlands in the Straits of Mackinac and the Line 5 Easement, Assignment, Tunnel Agreement, and 99-year lease.

Dear Honorable Members of the Mackinac Straits Corridor Authority:

Thank you for setting up the public information session today. The importance of the issues surrounding the decisions you face as members of the Authority cannot be overstated. This is particularly the case, because while the information regarding the details of construction, geotechnical, risk, health, environmental, and tribal and cultural issues remain crucial, the patently lack of authorization under the State’s public trust laws, statutes, and duties lays bare a fundamental question that must be answered and complied with before further investments of time, money, and resources by the State and Enbridge. In the absence of such authorizations for the tunnel easement, our assignment to Enbridge, the 99-year lease, and the purported right of continued occupancy under paragraph 4.2 of the Third Agreement, the continued movement forward continues to put the State and Enbridge, and the State’s citizens at risk.

FLOW and many organizations, appeared and testified before this Authority on Friday, March 6, 2020. At that time, FLOW submitted a legal analysis and comment, dated March 5, 2020, and on March 6, 2020 made an oral presentation to the Mackinac Straits Corridor Authority (”MSCA” or “Authority”) that is part of the record in this matter. FLOW reiterated these comments in a statement to the Authority on February 3, 2021.

I realize that there are new members of the Authority, so, I have attached the above link to this analysis and incorporate the above comments and statements into the comments below. Without waiving the several points contained in FLOW’s analysis and comments, today, I want to underscore the fact and law that the DNR Easement, the Assignment from you to Enbridge, and the Tunnel Agreement provisions calling for a 99-year lease have not been authorized under the rule of law of the public trust doctrine:

  1. These documents are subject to the GLSLA, 324.32502-32508 and rules, but to date the agreements and conveyance documents have not been authorized under the GLSLA;

  2. The DNR Tunnel right of way or Easement purports to be authorized under Act 10, now MCL 324.2129, for a public utility easement. However, the DNR has never authorized it based on the required findings under the public trust doctrine, an absolute necessity based on the position of the State, AG Nessel, and DNR in the Ingham County cases: Nessel v Enbridge; and State Governor and DNR Director v Enbridge.

Until this authority is obtained by Enbridge, no contracts should be signed, no monies spent, and no construction commenced; to do so, would be at MSCA’s and Enbridge’s own risk. For this reason, you, the members of MSCA, are requested, respectfully, to ask for an Opinion of Attorney General Dana Nessel, on the serious question of the lack of required authorization of the 2018 Easement, the Assignment of Easement, and the Tunnel Agreement/99-Year Lease Agreement for occupancy and use of the State’s sovereign public trust bottomlands and waters of the Great Lakes.

Thank you. Should you have any questions, or your AG staff have questions, we remain available to discuss the same.

Sincerely yours,

James Olson

Founder and Sr. Legal Advisor

For Love of Water (FLOW)