The Great Lakes supply drinking water for over 30 million people (https://coast.noaa.gov/states/fast-facts/great-lakes.html). More than 75,000 jobs are attributed to recreational, tribal, and commercial fishing in the Great Lakes. Great Lakes fishing produces more than $7 billion of economic activity each year (https://www.glfc.org/pubs/factsheets/FACT2_14-0913_HR.pdf). Many homes are on the Great Lakes shoreline, and the Great Lakes are also important for swimming, boating and other recreation. Mackinac Island draws more than a million visitors annually. Due to all the activity on the Great Lakes, protecting our Great Lakes should be a top priority. Also, due to water shortages and diminishing ground water levels in the US outside of the Great Lakes watershed, it is imperative the Great Lakes be protected as a drinking water source. Pipelines, and Enbridge, have a history of spills and it is not a question of “if”, but “when” a spill will occur with any pipeline. Preserving the quality of our Great Lakes is too important to subject them to the risk of a spill. The US Army Corps of Engineers Draft Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary states that “The Tunnel would provide secondary containment NGLs and oil product in the event of a release” (page 30), however the summary also states that “While no known karst features are mapped within the area of analysis, there is potential for karst features to develop. Vibrations given off by the TBM during excavation activities have the potential to cause shifts in the geology, specifically in areas surrounding the installed precast concrete tunnel lining.” (page 20) I dispute the statement that the tunnel would provide secondary containment in the event of a spill. Aquifers in karst bedrock are considered highly susceptible to groundwater contamination due to the fractures and permeability of the karst formations. Fractures in the bedrock (existing or due to the tunneling operation) and any karst formations (created or encountered) could provide a conduit between the tunnel and Lakes Michigan and Huron, thereby releasing the spill to the lakes. Fractures in the bedrock could also provide a conduit to ground water aquifers, thereby also putting them at risk in the case of a spill. There is no way of determining all the pathways and connections of fractures in the bedrock and no way of guaranteeing the protection of Lakes Michigan and Huron and groundwater aquifers in the event of a spill.
I oppose the Line 5 Tunnel Project due to the lack of its necessity. Environmental Defence Canada determined Enbridge’s Line 78 is currently operating below capacity and with some upgrades to pumping stations, could accommodate most of volume currently being pumped through Line 5. (https://environmentaldefence.ca/2022/03/04/alternatives-to-line-5-pipeline-exist/) The State of Michigan and the National Wildlife Federation also conducted alternatives analyses, and found feasible alternatives with minimal economic impact. (https://watershedcouncil.org/policy-advocacy/state/pipelines/line-5-pipelines/alternatives-to-enbridge-line-in-the-straits-of-mackinac/) As long as these alternatives exist, our Great Lakes should not be exposed to risks created by the Line 5 Tunnel project.
I also oppose the Line 5 Tunnel project as the United States needs to transition away from its reliance on fossil fuels and broaden its use of renewable energy sources. As a world economic leader, the US should be leading the world in its use of renewable energy sources. Renewable energy is the future, and fossil fuel projects that propose substantial risks to the environment as the Line 5 Tunnel project does, should not be allowed.
Regarding Native American that are affected by this decision, I believe that they were wronged in 1950 when the state of Michigan disregarded the treaty with them, and this should not happen a second time. Their ideas should be listened to, respected, and treaties should be honored.
The ecosystem of the Straits of Mackinaw would be significantly damaged during the creation of a tunnel. The Army Corps of Engineers draft environmental impact statement acknowledged detrimental effects from construction, including nearly five acres of wetland loss, groundwater aquifer drawdown of two feet, and impacts to surface waters, not to mention clearing of 5 acres of forested land, and nineteen acres of vegetation.
Finally, why would we want to jeopardize the largest body of fresh water on our planet to build over a six year period, a tunnel to house a pipeline that that carries petroleum products that eventually will not be needed?
Line 5 poses a clear and present danger to the Great Lakes, which hold 21% of the world’s surface fresh water and provide drinking water for over 40 million people. A spill in the Straits of Mackinac would be catastrophic—not only environmentally, but economically. The Great Lakes support over 1.3 million jobs and generate more than $82 billion in wages annually through tourism, recreation, commercial and sport fishing, and shipping. These industries rely on clean, healthy water.
Allowing a foreign corporation to transport oil through aging infrastructure beneath one of the most ecologically and economically valuable freshwater systems on Earth is short-sighted. The potential for irreversible harm far outweighs any short-term economic benefit. Preserving our freshwater resources is not only an environmental imperative—it is an economic necessity.
Michigan has the opportunity to lead in clean energy and sustainable economic growth. We should invest in renewable infrastructure, not double down on fossil fuel dependency.
For the sake of our environment, economy, and future generations, I urge regulators to decommission Line 5 and reject the tunnel proposal.
Sincerely,
Frances