Michigan Environmental Groups Protest Fast-Tracking of Enbridge's Line 5 Pipeline Tunnel

Time to read
1 minute
Read so far

Michigan Environmental Groups Protest Fast-Tracking of Enbridge's Line 5 Pipeline Tunnel

Posted in:
0 comments
The Mackinac Bridge over the Straits of Mackinac, connecting Michigan's Upper and Lower Peninsulas (© Shutterstock/Craig Sterken)
The Mackinac Bridge over the Straits of Mackinac, connecting Michigan's Upper and Lower Peninsulas (© Shutterstock/Craig Sterken)

Environmental advocacy groups in Michigan are voicing strong opposition after the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers announced it would expedite the permitting process for Enbridge’s Line 5 pipeline tunnel project without a comprehensive environmental impact statement.

The move to fast-track the project, which involves constructing a tunnel beneath the Straits of Mackinac to house the existing 645-mile pipeline carrying crude oil and natural gas liquids, follows a declaration of a national energy emergency.

Ashley Rudzinsky of the Groundwork Center for Resilient Communities asserted that accelerating the project without a thorough review disregards at least two state environmental laws and heightens anxieties about potential oil spills in the Great Lakes.

“We have also seen many of our partners in this work and allies. The six tribal nations here in Michigan pull out of continued negotiations with the Army Corps. In my estimation, that is because this process has become a sham,” Rudzinsky stated.

Opponents of the Line 5 tunnel are now calling on Governor Gretchen Whitmer and the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) to reject the necessary permits for the project. 

Rudzinsky also cautioned that the tunnel’s costs could potentially be passed on to consumers.

In response to the criticism, Enbridge issued a statement emphasizing the pipeline’s importance. 

“Line 5 is critical energy infrastructure,” the company said, adding that it operates safely.

The environmental groups have indicated they plan to continue their efforts to halt the project, citing concerns for the long-term health of the Great Lakes and potential economic repercussions.