Tag: Line 5

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

Flow and Sierra Club file joint amici brief in Enbridge v. Whitmer Line 5 case

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

Traverse City, Mich. — On May 11th, 2026, Flow Water Advocates (“Flow”) and Sierra Club filed an amici curiae, or friend of the court, brief in support of the State of Michigan’s appeal of a federal court’s failure to recognize and uphold an essential attribute of state sovereignty — the public trust doctrine. Flow and Sierra Club together represent thousands of Michiganders who stand up for the State’s right and duty to protect our publicly held lands in the Straits of Mackinac from the urgent threat to the waters and shorelines of the Great Lakes posed by Enbridge’s aging and vulnerable Line 5 pipeline.

Last December, federal District Court Judge Robert Jonker issued a ruling that, as Flow and Sierra Club explain in their brief, “effectively nullifies that state’s exercise of public trust authority over sovereign submerged lands in favor of private commercial interests — an extraordinary action never before sanctioned by the United States Supreme Court or any federal appellate court.” Flow and the Sierra Club argue further that the District Court committed legal error in holding that the State’s attempt to shut down Line 5 is preempted by the safety regulations in the federal Pipeline Safety Act of 1992 and interferes with the federal government’s conduct of relations with Canada and the administration of a 50-year-old treaty between the two countries.

Flow’s Senior Legal Advisor and Founder, Jim Olson said, “Public trust rights and interests foreclose any preemption because the State’s public trust responsibility is an essential element of statehood and can never be abrogated.”

“State sovereignty has to be protected here. The State of Michigan stood by its people and took action to protect Michiganders from the Line 5 pipeline. The safety of Michigan’s communities, lands, and waters is at risk every day this pipeline continues to operate,” said Anne Woiwode, leader, Sierra Club Michigan Chapter.

Flow and Sierra Club’s argument is grounded in the well-established, Supreme Court affirmation of the public trust doctrine (Ill. Cent. R. Co. v. Illinois, 146 U.S. 387, 453-55 (1892)) that supports revocation of a conveyance that was wrongfully granted in violation of the public trust. The State’s power to revoke isn’t just a power possessed by the state; it is an obligation when a conveyance (in this case, the easement) violates the public trust. As stated in Flow and Sierra Club’s brief: “Equating Michigan’s exercise of its public trust authority with enforcement of a “safety standard,” and thus preempted by 49 U.S.C. Section 60104(c), requires a semantical backflip that is contrary to the clear statement rule.”

Flow and Sierra Club also argue that the State’s easement revocation is not preempted by the foreign affairs doctrine; in fact, the 1977 Treaty governing transnational pipelines expressly provides the State with the authority to do what Michigan did in this case. The District Court’s interpretation of the treaty would “read a significant reservation of rights out of the treaty altogether.”

Five additional amici were filed in support of the state, including: The Great Lakes Business Network; a coalition of states led by Minnesota; a group of preemption, energy law, and environmental law scholars; a coalition of tribal nations led by Bay Mills Indian Community; and a group of foreign relations law professors.

###

Sierra Club is America’s largest and most influential grassroots environmental organization, with more than 3.5 million members and supporters. In addition to protecting every person’s right to get outdoors and access the healing power of nature, the Sierra Club works to promote clean energy, safeguard the health of our communities, protect wildlife, and preserve our remaining wild places through grassroots activism, public education, lobbying, and legal action. For more information, visit www.sierraclub.org.

SCOTUS unanimous: Nessel v. Enbridge Line 5 case belongs in state court

Published on April 22nd, 2026 by FLOW Editor - Blog Posts, Reports & Media Releases

Traverse City, Mich. — In a victory for the State of Michigan and its allies opposing the continued operation of the Enbridge Line 5 pipeline through the Straits of Mackinac, the Supreme Court of the United States has issued a unanimous decision that Nessel v. Enbridge will be heard in state rather than federal court. At issue was Enbridge’s attempt to move the lawsuit to federal court after it missed the 30-day deadline to do so by more than two years (in fact, Enbridge waited 887 days).

In June 2024, the federal Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision to send Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel’s 2019 lawsuit back to state court where it started. The Sixth Circuit held that Enbridge’s removal of the lawsuit to federal court was untimely and unjustified. Enbridge then appealed that decision to the US Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments in the case (Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel) on February 24.

In the opinion authored by Justice Sonia Sotomayor for the unanimous court, Sotomayor wrote that “Enbridge’s counterarguments are not persuasive.”

Flow Water Advocates has supported AG Nessel throughout the nearly-seven year procedural odyssey, including in its 2023 amicus brief urging the Sixth Circuit to remand the lawsuit back to state court.

“We are confident that once there is a trial on the merits in the proper state court venue, Attorney General Dana Nessel will successfully argue that the State of Michigan has the legal authority and duty to protect the Great Lakes from a potential catastrophic Line 5 pipeline oil spill,” said Liz Kirkwood, executive director of Flow Water Advocates. “Today’s unanimous decision from the US Supreme Court brings an end to Enbridge’s years-long delay campaign to move the case to a venue it perceives to be friendlier to the company’s ultimate goal of keeping oil profitably flowing through the heart of the Great Lakes — the large majority of which is bound for Canadian markets.”

###

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:

Congress must reinstate the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF)

Published on February 4th, 2026 by FLOW Editor - Blog Posts

On December 31, 2025, the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund Act (OSLTF) expired.¹ The OSLTF was first authorized to tax oil producers in 1990, and provided funds for federal responses to oil spills and compensation for certain damages.² Without the OSLTF, states and taxpayers may be left on the hook for oil spill costs and remediation.

Here in Michigan, the Enbridge Line 5 pipeline — which carries more than 540,000 barrels of petroleum products a day through the Straits of Mackinac where Lake Michigan and Lake Huron meet — has leaked more than 30 times in its 72-year-lifespan.³ According to a 2016 University of Michigan study, more than 700 miles of Great Lakes shoreline would be at risk if the pipeline fails.⁴ The results would be catastrophic for Michigan and our natural resources, and OSLTF funding would be essential for any hope of recovery (if even possible).

Prior to its expiry, funding from the OSLTF was pulled from two major buckets: the emergency fund, and the principal fund.⁵ The emergency fund was used by federal employees to respond to oil discharges and make initial natural resource damage assessments.⁶ While the principal fund was used to pay claims (generally damages not paid by the polluter) and fund appropriations for research and development.⁷ The OSLTF had been financed primarily by a per-barrel excise tax on domestic crude oil and imported petroleum, which recently sat at $0.09 per barrel.⁸

The OSLTF was last extended in 2021 by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, and in the 118th Congress, some members of congress introduced legislation (H.R.8554 and S.4406) that would have extended the per-barrel tax without expiration and increased the tax rate to 10 cents per barrel. This legislation failed, and similar legislation has not been proposed by the 119th Congress.⁹

Without this tax, there is no OSLTF funding to remediate damages to natural resources caused by oil spills, and some of the world’s wealthiest companies and worst polluters are afforded yet another break by the Trump Administration. While the precise motivation behind Congress’ decision not to reinstate the tax remains unclear, one thing is certain–if a high-volume oil spill occurs (like the potential of a Line 5 incident), remediation would be severely curtailed without the OSLTF.

Fortunately, there are some other funding buckets that the government can pull from for oil spill remediation, such as the Hazardous Substance Superfund. In 2026, oil producers can expect to pay $0.18 per barrel for the Hazardous Substance Superfund, but producers are now no longer paying the $0.09 per barrel OSLTF tax.¹⁰ The OSLTF tax could be reinstated at any time, if there is the political will to do so.¹¹ In previous years, the tax has had gaps in its active status, for example, it expired in 2018 but was reinstated in 2020.¹²

This tax may someday be essential to save the Great Lakes from the worst potential Line 5 outcome. We encourage you to call your representatives today and urge them to reinstate the OSLTF.

References

¹ Ramseur, Jonathan L., The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund Tax: Background and Selected Issues, Congress.gov, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF13049.
² Id.
³ Matt Davenport, Line 5 and its risks: ‘The consequences of failure would be catastrophic.’, UMich News (May 28, 2025) https://news.umich.edu/line-5-and-its-risks-the-consequences-of-failure-would-be-catastrophic/.
⁴ Id.
⁵ Upper Mississippi River Basin Association, UMR Resource Manual- OSLTF, https://umrba.org/sites/default/files/documents/UMR-Resource-Manual-OSLTF.pdf.
⁶ Id.
⁷ Id.
⁸ Supra, nite 1.
⁹ Id.
¹⁰ Jack McLoone, Tax Funding Oil Spill Cleanups Has Expired, IRS Clarifies, Law360 (Jan. 7, 2026) https://www.law360.com/articles/2427647/tax-funding-oil-spill-cleanups-has-expired-irs-clarifies.
¹¹ “Oil spill tax” imposed under section 4611 expired on December 31, 2025, KPMG (Jan. 2, 2026) https://kpmg.com/us/en/taxnewsflash/news/2026/01/oil-spill-tax-imposed-section-4611-expired.html.
¹² Id.

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.

###

Federal District Court improperly blocks Michigan’s termination of the 1953 Line 5 pipeline easement.

Published on December 19th, 2025 by FLOW Editor - Blog Posts, News, Reports, Reports & Media Releases

Traverse City, Mich. — On December 17, the District Court for the Western District of Michigan issued its opinion in Enbridge v. Whitmer. The federal case was brought by the Canadian oil company to stop Michigan state officials from enforcing Governor Whitmer’s 2020 Notice of Revocation and Termination of the 1953 Easement for the operation of the aging Line 5 Dual Pipelines through the Straits of Mackinac — the heart of the Great Lakes.

Support our work: We’re taking the Line 5 tunnel permit to the Michigan Supreme Court.

The Court’s sweeping opinion rests on its adoption of Enbridge’s arguments that federal law preempts the State’s ability to enforce the terms of the Easement and the requirements of the public trust doctrine to protect Michiganders’ rights in the waters and bottomlands of the Great Lakes.

To reach its decision, the court improperly conflates Michigan’s public trust doctrine with federal pipeline safety standards. The public trust doctrine, however, is a completely independent, long-standing common law doctrine that is an essential aspect of state sovereignty. Thus, the court’s reduction of the public trust to the equivalent of a safety standard is not only legally wrong, it is offensive to state sovereignty and a century of Michigan Supreme Court jurisprudence. The court similarly errs in adopting Enbridge’s position that the State, in holding the company accountable for its violations of State law, impermissibly interferes with foreign affairs.

“Flow is disappointed by the outcome, and the court’s distortion of Michigan’s public trust doctrine and the State’s inalienable sovereign duties as trustee of that trust,” says Flow Water Advocates Staff Attorney Kacey Cook, “but we remain steadfast in our support of the Department of Attorney General’s exceptional advocacy on behalf of the state officials and their efforts to protect Michigan’s water resources, for all of us.”

The parties now have the option to appeal the district court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

###

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

Published on December 9th, 2025 by FLOW Editor - Blog Posts, News, Reports, 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.

###

search2

Flow short description

Tag: Line 5

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

Deep concerns raised at Line 5 tunnel public hearing