Opinion | Permitting precedent imperils Michigan’s waters

Every Great Lakes citizen should be deeply concerned regarding the State of Michigan’s handling of Enbridge’s proposed tunnel project beneath the Straits of Mackinac. If there’s anything we’ve learned since their 2010 spill, it’s that we can’t accept Enbridge’s claims around risk, safety and benefits. If the state does not require full permitting for this risky project, it will set a dangerous precedent.  

There's a reason that the State of Michigan initially ordered it to stop pumping oil underneath the Lakes: spills, dangerous practices, and a lack of accountability illustrate Enbridge's dodgy practices. Now is not the time for the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy to back down. The good news is that there's time. The final chapter has not been written, and EGLE must play its part. They must require comprehensive permitting —including and especially, the Submerged Lands Act permitting. If we're learning anything in 2025, it's that speaking up is best done early and often.

The Great Lakes are not just a Michigan treasure; they are a global resource, holding 20% of the world’s surface freshwater. Their protection must be a non-negotiable priority for any project that impacts their ecosystems. Enbridge’s track record of aquifer breaches, drilling spills, and, of course, the devastating 2010 Kalamazoo River spill, demonstrates the catastrophic consequences of inadequate oversight. Bypassing full permitting requirements for the use of bottomlands, would be a signal from the state that corporate interests can outweigh the need for rigorous environmental scrutiny.   

If Michigan officials allow Enbridge to proceed without obtaining the necessary permits, they are effectively greenlighting a process that sidesteps critical safeguards. This undermines the integrity of the permitting system, which exists to ensure that projects are thoroughly vetted for their environmental, economic, and social impacts. By failing to enforce these requirements, the state risks normalizing a pattern of regulatory shortcuts that could be exploited by other corporations in the future.

Moreover, the Submerged Lands Act and Public Trust Doctrine, a cornerstone of Michigan’s environmental law, explicitly mandates that the state act as a steward of natural resources for the benefit of all residents. The bottomlands of the Great Lakes are held in trust for the public, and any use of these lands must be subject to the highest standards of accountability. Allowing Enbridge to proceed without full permitting would be a betrayal of this duty, eroding public confidence in the state’s commitment to protecting shared resources.  

The potential consequences of this precedent extend far beyond the Line 5 project. If Michigan fails to require complete permitting, it opens the door for other industries to argue for similar exemptions, weakening the regulatory framework that safeguards our environment. This could lead to a cascade of poorly vetted projects, each claiming precedent from the Enbridge case, further endangering Michigan’s natural heritage.  

I urge state officials to uphold their responsibility to the people of Michigan by requiring Enbridge to obtain all necessary permits, including those for the use of bottomlands. This is not just about one pipeline or one project; it is about preserving the integrity of our regulatory systems and ensuring that the Great Lakes are protected for generations to come. The stakes are too high to allow shortcuts.  

Michigan has the opportunity to demonstrate leadership in environmental stewardship by holding Enbridge to the highest standards. Let us not set a precedent that future generations will regret.