Line 5 tunnel fans, foes plead case amid Army Corps permit deliberations

• At a virtual hearing Wednesday, federal officials heard praise and condemnation about the proposed Line 5 tunnel project
• The US Army Corps of Engineers will soon decide whether to issue key permits for the project
• Environmentalists have called the process flawed and rushed, while tunnel proponents argue the Corps knows all it needs to permit the tunnel

Fans and foes of a proposed Line 5 tunnel in the Straits of Mackinac spent three hours on Wednesday pleading their case to federal regulators who will soon decide whether the project can move forward.

Wednesday’s virtual hearing was the first of two scheduled in response to a recent US Army Corps of Engineers review that concluded most environmental impacts of the proposed tunnel would be “short-term with the effects resolving once construction is completed.”

The agency authored that review as it prepares to decide whether Canadian oil giant Enbridge Energy can move a 4-mile section of the petroleum pipeline from the bottom of the Straits of Mackinac, where it currently sits in the open water, into a concrete-lined tunnel buried deep beneath the lakebed. 

Years into that review, the Corps narrowed its scope and sped up the timeline in response to directives from President Donald Trump, who has made support for fossil fuel development a key tenet of his presidency.

Corps documents indicate the agency’s review was originally supposed to consider the climate impacts of the tunnel project, but that topic was axed following a series of Trump executive orders that direct the federal government to favor energy developments while paying less heed to climate concerns.

Environmentalists at Wednesday’s hearing took umbrage to that fact, urging Corps officials to consider the impact of greenhouse gas emissions from continued transport of petroleum along Line 5. 

RELATED: 

• US officials release Line 5 environmental review; conclude project is needed

• Trump administration to fast-track Line 5 tunnel, calling project 'emergency'
• Seven tribes in Michigan withdraw from federal talks over Line 5 tunnel permit

“Building any new fossil fuel infrastructure is pure negligence during a climate crisis, especially when the bulk of the product in Line 5 goes back to Canada and lines the pocket of a Canadian oil corporation,” said Julie Geisinger, who described herself as a lifelong Michigander.

Representatives from business, trade and oil industry groups, as well as some others, lauded the tunnel project as a way to increase oil spill safety in the Great Lakes without disrupting regional energy transports.

“The sooner we get this tunnel built and get this new line operating, the sooner we can pull these lines from our Great Lakes,” said commenter George Lindquist. 

Michiganders have debated the merits of the tunnel proposal for nearly seven years, ever since Enbridge pitched it in 2018 as a solution to widespread concerns that the 72-year-old petroleum pipeline could cause an oil spill in the Straits of Mackinac. The pipeline has been repeatedly struck by ships’ anchors. 

Michigan officials including Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and Attorney General Dana Nessel have unsuccessfully sought to shut it down.

While the public debates the merits of the tunnel, three Michigan-based Republican congressmen have spent the week pushing to keep the existing pipeline open. 

Legislation sponsored by US Reps. John Moolenaar, R-Caledonia, Tim Walberg, R-Tipton, and Jack Bergman, R-Watersmeet would prevent US presidents from shutting down the pipeline. Moolenaar said the legislation aims to ensure Line 5 continues to “provide affordable and safe energy for our state,” while a Line 5 foe called it “political theater.”

You can read the full Corps review here. The agency is accepting public comments through June and is scheduled to make a final permitting decision this fall.