The people running Canadian energy company Enbridge is obvious. Pipeline 3 would bring tar sands (31% more toxic than regular oil) from Alberta to Wisconsin. What is to stop them from using Line 5 in the Michigan straits for the same purpose? Aside from oil, building an underground tunnel through a tricky ecosystem is a gamble at best. Damage just from construction could take years for recovery. Have Enbridge make a gamble in Canada, not Michigan.
I urge you to reject (deny) the fast-tracking of the Line 5 Oil Tunnel project for several reasons, including environmental issues and climate change, protection of water (and land and air), the need to recognize Treaty Rights, the unproven safety of this never-before-constructed tunnel plan, and the purpose and scope of this NEW fossil fuel infrastructure at a time when we must turn away from fossil fuels — and we have Michigan-made alternatives.
Michigan’s two peninsulas are shaped by over 20% of the world’s fresh surface water, which makes us water stewards in a way that few states can claim. Rushing through environmental and safety impacts of this unproven, multi-year tunnel project puts Michigan’s future at risk. Please, protect fresh water at this time when climate change will create more demands on the Great Lakes.
We must move away from any new fossil fuel infrastructure if we are to ensure the health and safety of our communities and mitigate the challenges of climate change — and we can! Michigan has ample solar and wind capabilities. The USACE should be engineering a renewable energy future, since our planet surpassed the 1.5 degree Celsius tipping point in 2024, and if we don’t stop mining, processing, and burning fossil fuels, we will instigate the worst of what is predicted with a longer range 1.5 degree increase in global temperature.
None of Michigan’s federally registered tribes support the Line 5 Oil Tunnel plan, and the USACE needs to listen, carefully, to Indigenous communities who have Treaty Rights that allow all Indigenous communities and their governing bodies valuable, legal input in how land, water, and air are managed.
Finally, this multi-year tunnel project will permanently disrupt and disfigure the bottomlands of the Great Lakes, and with the bottomlands as dynamic and ever-changing as they are, there is no guarantee that this tunnel project will be safe and reliable. At best, it is an unproven plan that some tunnel experts have called dangerous (for its propensity toward explosions). You have this information, of course, which has been presented by MiCAN, Flow Water Advocates, Clean Water Action, and UM’s Environmental Law & Policy Center.
I urge you to take into consideration all carefully studied and presented environmental and construction risk assessments that Michigan’s many environmental groups and water advocates have provided and will continue to provide.
We are the Great Lakes state. At minimum, the public expects the USACE to act as careful, diligent stewards of the largest body of fresh surface water on the planet.
The Great Lakes state doesn’t directly, significantly benefit from Enbridge’s tar sands bearing Line 5 dual pipelines now — and we certainly won’t benefit from any future Oil Tunnel in the future.
Approving this project — especially in any express, rushed manner — is risky and irresponsible.
The public is counting on the USACE to demonstrate integrity and restraint, to do what is right for Michigan now and into the future.
All the best,
Maryann Lesert
The land on and near Mackinaw is already stolen and commercialized indigenous land, that should not be touched any further. This will be harmful for the environment and as a citizen I am adamantly opposed. We do not need more environmental damage and we do not need to corrupt native land any further.
.Reliability: Enbridge pipelines have failed their required structural integrity many times, notably leaking oil into the Kalamazoo River which when undetected for several hours, and a pipeline rupture and fire in Kentucky. Enbridge’s assurances of safe construction and operation are not to be relied upon. The tunnel would have a profile of a shallow U-shape, meaning any leak of butane or similar gas would pool and risk a catastrophic
explosion.
.Economy: The proposed tunnel plan envisions the current pipelines remaining in use for several years. I have been given to understand that if the existing pipes rupture, the municipal water supply for Mackinac Island will have to be closed immediately, and the island evacuated by air. Similarly, models of Great Lakes currents have demonstrated the potential to close several resort areas. The damage to commercial fishing would have immediate financial impacts, and would be a violation of treaties with tribal organizations that have relied upon the treaty obligations. The risk of economic damage is too great to justify the continued use of the pipeline, and too great to justify the potential damages of accidents during
construction.
.Environmental impact of construction: Enbridge has described the tunnel as being 3.6 miles long and 21 feet in diameter. It is a simple calculation to arrive at 243,837.8 cubic yards of material – all that rock and soil would have to go somewhere. This presents a risk of damage to protected wetlands, and a potential source of contaminated rainwater
runoff.
.Qualifications: I hold a bachelor’s degree in Industrial Administration and a Master of Divinity degree. I do not need to be an engineer to understand the negative impacts of the continued use of the existing pipelines and the risks of tunnel construction.