Posted Draft EIS Comments

I’m writing to oppose the proposed Line 5 tunnel. I’m opposed to the Line 5 even going through any of the great lakes. If there is any break in the line or even a leak it will damage the largest fresh water source on this planet. There is no going back once that happens. The Enbridge company does not have a good safety record as history has shown. This Line should not be going through any of the great lakes it should go around. The disruption to the environment if a tunnel was to be build would be catastrophic. Digging under the lake would stir up generations of sentiment that would then float in the water causing damage to fish, wildlife, shorelines, tourism, and public drinking water systems. It would float down stream for many miles. Please do not approve this proposal.

The Great Lakes are becoming an important source for fresh water as the western states continue to dry up. We cannot take a risk that the waters could be forever polluted due to pipe breakage. The tunnel will be an expensive method to secure the pipe, and could also cause environmental damage long term.

For all the reasons listed in the subjects above, we need more time to review this over 1,000-page EIS. Especially ordinary working Michigan residents like myself do not have time to provide full comments without a much longer period of time. You must extend the comment period for at least two months–unless, of course, this is a sham process in the first place and you really don’t care what Michigan residents think, want, or need.

Hello! Please allow more time for review of the EIS. I’m a Minnesotan who is concerned about the damaging results already being noted by an environmental scientific community group Waadookawaad Amikwag about line 3. (https://waadookawaadamikwag.org/). I am concerned that WI and MI will face similar troubles if the Line 5 tunnel is allowed to proceed.

Line 5 is an unneeded entity that, if completed, will have devastating consequences to communities, natural environments, and life as we know it. The public itself should have more time to review the more than 1000 page EIS document to be able to better understand the impacts outlined within it, and conduct a deeper analysis to determine the real effects of line 5. To put a forward a project of this magnitude as we have experienced some of the worst climate disasters within just the last 10 years is abhorrent and completely irresponsible. We all deserve a chance to make sure that companies and economic interests are not the only things driving our innovations and projects.

Give the public more time to respond!

To the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

I am writing to express my unequivocal opposition to the reckless fast-tracking of Enbridge’s proposed Line 5 tunnel project. Placing this dangerous project on a federal list of expedited infrastructure is an irresponsible act of political theater by the Trump administration — an administration that has fabricated an “energy emergency” to steamroll public safety, environmental safeguards, and our shared future.

This project has not undergone a comprehensive risk assessment, which should be the bare minimum standard for any development that threatens the Great Lakes — one of the world’s largest sources of fresh water — our regional economy, and our climate stability.

Tunnel engineering experts have repeatedly warned that constructing a tunnel under the lakebed is not only technically challenging but also poses severe risks to worker safety and long-term operational integrity. The risks of catastrophic spills, blowouts, or tunnel failures are real — yet they are being brushed aside in the name of short-term political gain.

This supposed “energy emergency” is nothing but a transparent excuse to lock communities into decades more of fossil fuel dependency at the precise moment we should be investing in clean, resilient energy systems. Fast-tracking this tunnel means ignoring the grave reality of climate change and worsening the public health crisis caused by continued greenhouse gas emissions.

The stakes could not be higher: an oil spill in the Great Lakes would devastate the drinking water supply for millions, wipe out wildlife, and cripple Michigan’s economy — an economy where over 1.3 million jobs and $82 billion in wages depend on healthy, unpolluted waters.

Equally shameful is the failure to meaningfully consult Tribal nations and Indigenous communities whose rights, treaties, and voices must be honored under U.S. and international law. This disregard for Indigenous sovereignty is unacceptable and must be rectified immediately.

The USACE must reject the political pressure to rubber-stamp this dangerous project. Conduct a full, transparent, science-based assessment of the tunnel’s risks, its climate and health impacts, and its threat to our waters, our workers, and our communities. Anything less is a betrayal of your responsibility to protect the public and future generations.

Do not allow a fabricated crisis to dictate our energy policy and endanger our Great Lakes. The people deserve better — and so does our planet.

Respectfully,
Alex Valkema
Michigan, USA.

Hello,
I am a resident of the Upper Penninsla of Michigan. Please allow us more time to consider the EIS for the Line 5 tunnel. This is an extremely high risk project; our fish, our economy, and our drinking water is at stake. We need more timentonunderstand the extent to which these extreme risks will be mitigated.

Please allow more time for the public to review the EIS. I’m a Minnesotan who has followed Enbridge Line 3 and the damaging results already being reported by an environmental scientific community group Waadookawaad Amikwag (https://waadookawaadamikwag.org/). I am concerned that communities around the Great Lakes will face similar degradation of the largest known fresh water source in the world if the Line 5 tunnel is allowed to proceed. More time will allow us to give more details about my concerns.

Please build the tunnel, it makes common sense.

The Straits of Mackinaw are a unique and important ecosystem. The Line 5 tunnel is a project to continue use and dependence on fossil fuels, which is in opposition to how we need to generate and use energy in the future. There is no reasonable cost-benefit analysis where the risk to the ecosystem and all that depends on it is worth this tunnel project. Line 5 is well beyond its useful life, which makes this tunnel project a wasted investment and wholly unnecessary and irresponsible project that will result in environmental destruction. I urge you to reject the Line 5 tunnel project based on its lack of merit and benefit and the environmental destruction it will cause.