Posted Draft EIS Comments

Good Morning, In lieu of denying the permit (preferred action) for Line 5 New Route around the. Bad River Reservation (but still located in the ceded territory, please extend the comment period. I live in Bayfield County, north of the expected new routing. I am extremely concerned and saddened by a new route. The potential impact to soil, quality of life, wells, cultural resources (wild rice and ash trees), and especially to the waters, will be devastating. I have watched what has occurred in Minnesota, along the Line 3 build. The impact continues to reveal itself. There is no amount of restoration or mitigation to affected geology that would ever recreate the original conditions. Fractures and leaks are part of the build process. Enbridge is not known for its honesty nor for the quality of its work. Please pay close attention to the expert witnesses who testified for Bad River during the contested case hearing. They brought the deep dive and quality of assessment – and knowledge of on-the-ground conditions that is embarrassingly and sorely missing from the information – written by Enbridge – that you see in their various permit applications for ACE and for the WIDNR. Please either deny this permit, or extend the comment period. Thank you.

Please , please do the right thing for our children and grandchildren. You know the truth; honor it.

Subject: Urgent Call to Halt the Line 5 Tunnel Project

Dear USACE,

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the Line 5 Tunnel project. The implications of this initiative extend far beyond mere infrastructure; it threatens our environment, our economy, and the health of our communities.

Let’s face the facts, this project risks leaving our rivers and lakes polluted, jeopardizing our access to clean drinking water and air. We cannot afford to turn our backs on the potential for disaster, as we’ve seen with the Line 4 incident that devastated lives and left families without clean water or homes. Imagine the anguish of having to evacuate your home due to a preventable oil spill, or the despair of losing your livelihood because your home was rendered uninhabitable. These are not just hypothetical scenarios; they are a reality that countless citizens face when we choose fossil fuels over sustainable energy solutions.

If we aim for true energy dominance, we must invest in renewable solutions like solar and wind energy. These alternatives provide not only a safer option for us and our environment but also affordable energy for all Americans without the risks associated with fossil fuels.

I urge you to think of the families, friends, and communities that will be impacted by this project. We have a responsibility to protect our fellow citizens and the environment we depend on. Please take a stand for the American people and halt the Line 5 Tunnel project.

Let’s prioritize the well-being of our communities, our economy, and our planet.

Sincerely,
Mickkayla Callahan, MBA

I live in northern Michigan and i know what incredible damage an oil spill can do to Lake Michigan. Our family uses the lake for recreation (and beauty), and our community relies on it to boost our economy with tourism. I want the Enbridge pipeline out of there and definitely no tunnel. It is insane to let that company potentially spoil our way of life. Given its track record, we know we cannot trust them . There is always the potential for human error.

I disagree with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ decision to fast-track the approval process for Enbridge’s Line 5 tunnel project. I join with other water protectors across the state who want dangerous fossil fuel infrastructure out of our Great Lakes.

There is no need for this oil. We can survive without oil. Why take the chance that this line will pollute this water in the future. We can’t live with out water. Enbridge is know for building pipelines but not maintaining them. If you go ahead and approve this line then have Enbridge put 40 billion dollars in escrow for a possible future clean up.

The line 5 project to construct a tunnel to carry petroleum products under the under the Great Lakes should be paused until a complete risk assessment is completed. The risk assessment should address the rights of indigenous tribes, impacts on public health as well as impacts on the environment. Impacts on the environment and health should include not only the short term effects of a spill but also the long term effects of burning the transported products even if no spill occurs.

The current tunnel is in a very sensitive area environmentally, in the straits under the Mackinac Bridge. That it was ever constructed in the first place shows a lack of long term awareness, planning, or regard for the future. Surely we have learned much since then, about the ongoing effects of oil spills & leaks, especially in water sources. To consider replacing it can only mean more risks for future generations. It is more than a matter of engineering a tunnel that MAY be safer, as creative and interesting as that kind of project can be. The Straits are not only a sacred place; the confluence of the waters means that any leaks or spills can cause catastrophic effect, to a part of the Great Lakes that relies heavily on tourism, agriculture, recreation, clean water and healthy ecosystems. Just because there may be some chance that a new tunnel can be safely built (another question, the removal of the current tunnel and the construction risks/harms) doesn’t mean that it ought to. And, this isn’t about access to crude oil, ongoing. There is another way to handle that kind of access, specifically not under water, under the Straits, or continuing to cross our fingers that nothing worse will happen than already has.