Nearly five years after a potentially devastating close-call, environmentalists and Native American tribes are urging the Michigan Supreme Court to halt Enbridge Energy’s contentious Line 5 tunnel project beneath the Straits of Mackinac. Their collective appeal follows a Michigan Court of Appeals decision that upheld permits for constructing an underground concrete-lined tunnel encasing the oil pipeline.
Environmental and Cultural Risks at Stake
The Line 5 pipeline, transporting over 22 million gallons of crude oil daily, traverses beneath the delicate, ecologically vital waters connecting Lake Michigan and Lake Huron. This location, according to a detailed assessment by University of Michigan researchers, is the worst possible site for an oil spill, posing a catastrophic threat to nearby ecosystems and recreation-dependent economies. The study warns that a single oil leak could quickly contaminate vast shorelines and cause damages exceeding six billion dollars.
For Native tribes in the region, these risks strike deeper. The tunnel’s route traverses sacred spaces and vital natural resources that sustain tribal traditions and economies. Whitney Gravelle, president of the Bay Mills Indian Community, highlighted the broader issues: “Enbridge’s track record speaks for itself—catastrophic spills, environmental destruction, and a complete disregard for tribal sovereignty and the rights of future generations.” Indeed, Enbridge’s infamous 2010 Kalamazoo River spill, which resulted in the largest inland oil spill in U.S. history, underscores tribal and environmentalists’ deep concerns.
Failures in Comprehensive Evaluation
While Enbridge argues the tunnel will maintain pipeline operations safely beneath the lakebed, the challenging coalition asserts that the Michigan Public Service Commission’s (PSC) assessment glossed over critical environmental considerations and risks. Earthjustice Senior Associate Adam Ratchenski insisted the commission failed its primary responsibility: protecting Michigan’s natural resources from pollution and permanent damage.
“Enbridge’s track record speaks for itself—catastrophic spills, environmental destruction, and a complete disregard for tribal sovereignty and the rights of future generations.” – Whitney Gravelle, Bay Mills Indian Community President
This lapse in adequate evaluation is precisely the assertion being made by both environmentalists and tribal leaders. Lawyers representing tribal interests emphasized that the PSC failed to truly weigh the risks of oil spills to both ecosystems and communities dependent on them. The inadequate review, according to advocates, represents a violation of the Michigan Constitution, the public trust doctrine, and the Michigan Environmental Protection Act.
Tribal communities further argue the tunnel’s construction undermines their treaty rights, rights upheld historically by numerous federal court decisions. Protecting these longstanding reciprocal agreements is crucial not just for Native peoples but to maintain the integrity of agreements established over centuries. The Michigan Climate Action Network and Environmental Law & Policy Center have joined advocates in urging the Supreme Court to accept the case and reexamine the previous rulings.
A Questionable Necessity
Beyond potential risks and regulatory oversights lies a more fundamental question raised by the groups challenging Line 5: Is this tunnel even necessary? David Gover, senior attorney with the Native American Rights Fund, underscores alternatives: potentially shutting down Line 5 altogether and investing instead in transitional energy solutions that respect the environment while ensuring energy security.
The questionable necessity of the project gained relevance after a 2018 anchor strike incident that dented Line 5 in three separate places, setting off alarms for environmental advocates and local communities. Opponents argue that enhancing existing risky infrastructure, rather than re-evaluating the pipeline’s very relevance, could be a critical misstep with lasting repercussions.
Gover asserts that Michigan leaders have the chance to approach energy policy thoughtfully—one prioritizing renewable sources and the safety of natural resources treasured by millions. By entrenching fossil fuel infrastructure, he argues, Michigan misses opportunities for economic innovation and development through sustainable measures.
Critically, the Line 5 debate touches on national tensions around energy production, infrastructure safety, and Indigenous rights—a dynamic echoed through similar disputes across North America. With President Biden currently championing climate-conscious initiatives, Michigan’s ruling carries broader symbolic and practical weight, resonating far beyond the Great Lakes region.
The Supreme Court’s willingness to entertain this crucial appeal could define the next chapter of Michigan’s environmental legacy. Until then, the pipeline pushes millions of gallons of crude oil each day beneath reluctant waterways and conflicted communities, their future hinging on a looming judicial decision.
