Only donate if we've informed you about important Michigan issues
See what new members are saying about why they donated to Bridge Michigan:
- “In order for this information to be accurate and unbiased it must be underwritten by its readers, not by special interests.” - Larry S.
- “Not many other media sources report on the topics Bridge does.” - Susan B.
- “Your journalism is outstanding and rare these days.” - Mark S.
If you want to ensure the future of nonpartisan, nonprofit Michigan journalism, please become a member today. You, too, will be asked why you donated and maybe we'll feature your quote next time!
Opinion | Beneath the surface: Why Michigan must say no to the Line 5 tunnel
Share this:
Standing on the shores of the Straits of Mackinac, where Lakes Michigan and Huron meet in a swirling torrent of currents, it’s hard to imagine a more pristine — or vulnerable — piece of America’s natural heritage.
These waters have sustained Indigenous communities for millennia, powered economic growth across the Midwest, and provided drinking water for more than 40 million people.
Beneath these pure, sacred waters right now, Canadian oil company Enbridge wants to dig a tunnel that could lock in fossil-fuel pollution for the next century while continuing to put the Great Lakes at risk of a catastrophic oil spill.
The Sierra Club has a simple message for Michigan’s environmental regulators: Reject the Line 5 tunnel permit and protect our Great Lakes as you are entrusted to do by the Michiganders you serve.
With the end of the public comment period for Enbridge’s proposed state permit to drill an oil tunnel in the Straits of Mackinac, Michigan’s Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) now faces three straightforward questions that the law requires them to answer.
First: Is this tunnel in the public interest? We would argue it’s very clearly not. When the harms include climate pollution, construction risks, and decades of dependency on fossil fuels, while the benefits flow primarily to a Canadian oil company, the answer here is clear.
Second: is the tunnel necessary? With ample alternatives available and oil demand projected to decline as clean energy scales up, necessity is hard to prove.
And third: Are there safer, practical alternatives? Absolutely — starting with Enbridge’s existing pipeline capacity that doesn’t run beneath the Great Lakes.
A flimsy case
A review of these questions lays bare what we have long known: Enbridge’s case for the tunnel and keeping Line 5 running simply doesn’t hold water.
Let’s take a closer look at the history here. In 2018, as public pressure mounted to shut down Enbridge’s aging oil pipeline beneath the Straits, Michigan officials cut a deal: let the company build a $500 million tunnel encasing the pipeline.
But here’s the catch: the state never completed the legal homework required for such a momentous decision, violating the state’s public trust doctrine. Under this legal framework, private use of public waters must be proven to serve the public interest — a question Michigan regulators never answered.
When it comes to Michigan’s long-term plans for energy sourcing, the math doesn’t add up. Preserving Line 5 locks the state into a 99-year commitment to continue burning fossil fuels at the same time the state has committed to carbon neutrality by 2050 via clean energy laws.
Michigan, along with the rest of the world, recognizes that climate change is already reshaping its landscape — less winter ice on the Great Lakes, more devastating floods, and disrupted ecosystems that threaten everything from maple syrup production to tourism.
Finally, Enbridge promises the tunnel will be safe. Again this falls apart under scrutiny, as their own engineering reports tell a different story. State-commissioned studies flag serious concerns: poor rock quality that could compromise construction, methane seeping into groundwater and air pressures potentially higher than any tunnel project in history.
The unique currents in the Straits could carry contamination across hundreds of miles of shoreline in both Lake Michigan and Lake Huron, devastating ecosystems and communities that depend on clean water.
This isn’t abstract risk—it’s Russian roulette with the Great Lakes.
The false choice and our shared responsibility
Finally, the entire argument for Line 5’s tunnel lifeline rests on a false premise: that Michigan needs this tunnel to meet its energy needs. This is patently false.
The US is producing record amounts of oil. Independent analyses show that shutting down Line 5 would hardly be the economic catastrophe Enbridge claims. Meanwhile, alternative pipeline capacity could move fuel without crossing the Great Lakes at all.
The Great Lakes don’t belong to Enbridge, Michigan politicians, or even current residents alone. They are held in trust for all Americans, for future generations, and in recognition of the treaty rights of Indigenous communities who have called these waters home since time immemorial.
That trust carries responsibilities. It means looking beyond short-term political convenience to long-term consequences. It means refusing deals that privatize benefits while socializing risks. It means saying no when a project fails to serve the public interest, no matter how much pressure corporations and their allies bring to bear.
Michigan officials have a choice. They can stand with the people who depend on these waters, or they can cave to corporate pressure and lock in decades of pollution and risk.
It’s time for Michigan to say no to the Line 5 tunnel — for the climate, for the Great Lakes, and for the generations who will inherit whatever decision we make today.
Related
Bridge welcomes guest columns from a diverse range of people on issues relating to Michigan and its future. The views and assertions of these writers do not necessarily reflect those of Bridge or The Center for Michigan. Bridge does not endorse any individual guest commentary submission. If you are interested in submitting a guest commentary, email your submission or idea to guestcommentary@bridgemi.com. Click here for details and submission guidelines.