Posted Draft EIS Comments

Please look ahead, shut down line 5 and capitalize on sustainable options instead.

Hi,
I am strongly opposed to Line 5 being in our Straits of Mackinac, or anywhere in our Great Lakes.

The Great Lakes contain 20% of the world’s freshwater. Why would anyone allow this, especially the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, who fully understand the impact on communities who rely on the water from the Great Lakes should something go wrong and oil is spilled into our Lakes. Why would they allow Enbridge to use our precious lakes as their “short cut” to enhance corporate profits? The fresh water in the Great Lakes is vital, I know that you all know that. The communities on the lakes, up and down the coast, in America and in Canada, are threatened should something happen that compromises this pipeline.

There are safer alternatives – trucking. Enbridge has a really awful track record when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect the environment. What basis is the the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers using to validate putting their trust in Enbridge?? Enbridge has repeatedly failed to care properly for their pipeline, violating their agreement with the State of Michigan. 700 miles of shoreline are at risk. Once Enbridge harms the Lakes, I don’t know if we will recover. They are not huge oceans. They are freshwater lakes. Please protect our Great Lakes and advise Enbridge to truck or rail their propane. I wanted to send a note to voice my concerns, I’m at work, and I saw today was the last day. I apologize for my comments being written quickly, I felt it was more important to send you something, even if it isn’t as comprehensive as I would have liked.

Thank you for considering my objection to the proposed pipeline.
Respectfully, Elena Wakeman

water is the blood of mother earth not oil shut down the line 5 pipeline through the greatlakes before we poisen the water!!

I support the Line 5 Tunnel for a variety of reasons.

I am putting my trust into the companies to take great care of the land/water resources as they install the line.

I’m a livestock farmer and my operation is constantly battling the effects of climate change: baseball size hail, uptick in tornadoes, heat waves, air pollution from wild fires, lack of a winter to kill parasites. Moving forward with Line 5 does nothing to address climate change, the driving force behind all the problems listed above. Moving forward with Line 5 is short sighted and not the solution I need.

First of all, there is no energy emergency that this project will address. This is a Canadian company moving Canadian oil to Canadians in Ontario across the United States, specifically, Wisconsin and Michigan. The people of Michigan and Wisconsin have nothing to gain from this pipeline and everything to lose. Enbridge has a poor environmental track record. Line 5 has spilled 33 times and at least 1.1 million gallons along its length since 1968.
The pipelines in the Straits of Mackinac cross one of the most ecologically sensitive areas in the world. The Great Lakes contain21 percent of the world’s fresh surface water, upon which millions depend upon for drinking water, as well as for commercial and recreational fishing and other resources the Great Lakes provide. If Enbridge was such a responsible company, why did they not upgrade this pipeline when it reached its 50-year mark for life expectancy? Instead, they ignored the potential for great damage and have continued to operate what is now a 73 year old pipeline which has spilled more than 1 million gallons of oil into the environment. Enbridge has had more than 20 years to come up with an alternative, and they have failed to do so. They are clearly not concerned with the welfare of local citizens or the environment. All 17 tribes and tribal organizations in Wisconsin & Michigan oppose the pipeline. Why have their concerns not been addressed? This pipeline crosses their ceded land, and a spill would do great damage to their livelihoods. Tribes have a legal right to clean water and a healthy environment. In closing, Enbridge should look for a more environmentally safe method of moving Canadian oil. If Canada enjoys the benefits of the pipeline, then they should also bear the potential for harm.

I would like the Army Corp to not issue a permit for Line 5. Speaking as a citizen of Michigan, and a proud Michigander, we are losing sight of protecting our waters. This project would affect, groundwater, surface water, wetlands, and not to mention the habitats and lives of protected species. What makes Michigan amazing is our waterways and our natural beauty. Line 5 is old, and we shouldn’t be allowing it to hobble forward endangering our waters. I would recommend that the Army Corp of engineers suggest the decommission and deconstruction of Line 5.

Line 5 is a ticking time bomb for Michigan safety, building a new container for it, doesn’t stop it from being a bomb.

Experts in the field have stated, with the inexperience Enbridge has in doing this and the fundamental danger with things like methane pockets, that this is a disaster waiting to happen. If you sign off on this, the disaster could be epic. You will be remembered for handing over our future to what should have been known as a catastrophic failure waiting to happen.

I stand against approval for the proposed line #5 tunnel, as well as the further need for line #5 in general. The demonstrative failure of Enbridge to maintain and operate the current system should be enough to disqualify this project in and of its own.
The Line 5 tunnel project has not undergone a comprehensive risk assessment, which is crucial for a project that poses risks to the Great Lakes, our climate, and our future. The reality here stands that there are too many unknown in this project and that the Michigan taxpayers will ultimately be paying for the project once economically abandoned by Enbridge. This shift of costs should be borne by the entity that creates the issue, not the people who have to live with it.
Many tunnel experts who have reviewed Enbridge’s plans share concerns for the logistics of placing a tunnel under the lakebed, considering it to be complicated, dangerous, and technically challenging. Experts also share concerns for the workers who are subjected to the dangerous pipeline construction and operations. After minimal research in tunnel fails, it is easy to see that even minor incidents could turn into major ecological and economic disasters with this tunnel plan.
The baseless demand claimed for this energy project is flawed and politically motivated by the Trump administration and should not be approved simply to satisfy the desires of this administration. Science should rule to protect the environment and needs assessment for this project.
Further, an oil spill in the Great Lakes would be catastrophic for drinking water, wildlife, and Michigan’s economy. More than 1.3 million jobs, equating to $82 billion in wages, are directly tied to the Great Lakes. Tourism and the great lakes fisheries would be most obviously affected and have long lasting impacts on these industries.
Now is not the time to be expanding fossil fuels and greater consumption. We should be supporting and advancing the renewable energy industry that will provide for more long-term job growth and sustainable clean energy to help abate the damage already done to our ecosphere. Adding fuel to the fire, as it were, with Line #5 tunnel will only exacerbate and accelerate the climate issues we are experiencing. Approving this tunnel locks us into decades of fossil fuel dependency, exacerbating the climate and public health crises; it must be thoroughly assessed for its greenhouse gas emissions and health impacts before proceeding.
Tribal nations and Indigenous communities have not been meaningfully consulted. Their rights, treaties, and voices must be honored as it is their ancestral lands we are destroying. They had been left to experience Line #5 failures on the existing system for far to long and should not be subjected to further insult and disrespect.
Ultimately, the line #5 tunnel is a short-term project with long term consequences. The jobs created to construct this project will disappear once completed. The ramifications of this tunnel will live with us for many years, perhaps a century or more once leaks appear.
I also speak as a lakefront property holder on Georgian Bay. Our ancestral property there could be affected by any spill in Michigan waters as we are just off Lake Huron. As the leaks and slicks flow south and disperse over the waters, property along that waterway will be negatively impacted for private property owners as well.
Please consider long term issues and not short-term requests. There are more than enough suppliers to cover any absence in product supplied by Enbridge on the local market, the State of Michigan has been planning for this does have a plan in place. The long-term potential downsides out way any short-term gains this project presents.

Thank you for considering this plea.

Building a tunnel under the straits of Mackinac for Line 5 is a poor investment in our future energy supply. It will take years to build and be very costly. It is also investing in a fuel source we should be trying to replace with renewable energy – not reinforcing fossil fuel dependence. Enbridge does not have a good track record of pipeline safety, and the risk of contaminating 20% of the world’s fresh surface water is simply too great. Do not approve this plan – instead, have Enbridge look to other solutions, which will also help their long term business model.