Posted Draft EIS Comments

We’re living in dystopian times; issues that benefit the citizens of our state/country are consistently ignored in favor of anything benefiting the wealthy. For Michigan one of the greatest threats is represented by the fast tracking of Line 5. Why would a project that impacts 20% of all the fresh water in the world be accelerated; bypassing research, safety and environmental impacts. Is it greed or a total disregard for human life? All for the dirtiest oil – tar sand oil, a product that environmentalists, and oil industry executives know is making the planet less livable. The benefits for which are all delivered to Canada.

With the recent focus on State’s Rights? Reducing/eliminating FEMA? How does dismissing the court decision awarding Michigan the right to decide and handle this issue at the state level fit? I’m not writing anything that you aren’t aware of, like the fact that Enbridge was solely responsible for the largest inland oil spill in Michigan history, with the leak into the Kalamazoo River which is still being reclaimed.

The Enbridge record on Line 5 has already been dismal; after a ship’s equipment hit the pipeline, causing a small crack, it went undetected for years before it was fixed? Totally irresponsible and no accountability. Doesn’t seem like a firm that anyone would want to control the viability of 20% of the world’s freshwater.

This issue is an extension of the total disregard for the citizens of this country. Much like the Europeans that were determined to “claim” the North American land mass despite the fact that it was inhabited by native people. White men decided they were inferior and “deserved” to be “conquered”. But enough is never enough for those that believe in white supremacy. Our native people deserve to have the treaties negotiated with them respected and have a voice on issues that impact their lives. We cannot succeed if the treaties the US negotiates are constantly ignored. A people that has always protected and served the land and nature, can bring an understanding and knowledge as important as that of the highly educated.

At a time when the arbitrary cuts to the federal workforce is causing disasters in numerous industries I’m begging you to not risk 20% OF THE WORLD’S FRESHWATER. And, at a time when most regulations are being dismantled, PROTECTING OUR FRESHWATER IS CRITICAL.

We do not need the tunnel or the pipeline. Spain is completely free of fossil fuels and we should be also. Also it benefits CANADA which we suddenly are in dispute with. Remove the fossil fuels subsidies NOW

Could you please extend the comment period o this topic. It is very important for us Wisconsinites to be able to have a voice in this matter and understand the details of what we are commenting on.
Thank you

As a U.S. Army veteran myself it will be disappointing if you guys approve the project. Protect the Great Lakes and not let enbridge push you guys over.

Please protect our fresh water for future generations. As a lifelong criticizes of Michigan, over multiple generations my family has cherished our Great Lakes, and we need to put people over big oil. The accelerated timeline does not provide adequate time for a legitimate environmental assessment and burying the pipeline, while reducing the risk that it will be hit with an anchor again introduces new concerns according to experts.

Douglas Fuller
7518 Ridge Road
Harbor Springs, MI 49740
231-526-2326
marthadoug@charter.net

As a resident of Harbor Springs on Little Traverse Bay, Lake Michigan, I have been closely following the Line 5 controversy.
From what I have been reading in papers and hearing in news reports:

• It seems that the review of this project does not take into account all of the environmental factors of maintaining Line 5,
• Enbridge has a terrible reputation for safety and preventing oil spills (e.g. the Kalamazoo River leak),
• There are feasible and safer alternatives for transporting the products carried by Line 5,
• The waters and ecosystems of the Great Lakes are too precious to expose them to any unwarranted risks,
• The geology beneath the Straits is not suitable for safe tunnel construction (based on a presentation given by geological engineer and tunnel expert Brian O’Mara just last month),
• There is no “energy emergency” in the U.S. which justifies keeping this dangerous pipeline in place. Conversely, we should be transitionig away from fossil fuels in favor of more sustainable and environmentally friendly alternatives.

As such, I strongly urge the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to deny a permit for the Line 5 tunnel and, instead, recommend the total shut-down of Line 5.

Sincerely,

Douglas Fuller

The line 5 oil tunnel is a complicated, risky, and unvetted project. There is no “energy emergency” to justify this potential disaster in the Great Lakes. No oil tunnel in the Great Lakes!

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.