Line 5 Tunnel Approval Raises More Questions Than Answers

Editor’s Note:

Prior to going to press with this piece the Michigan Supreme Court vacated approval of the Line 5 oil tunnel, finding the tunnel has no state siting approval required under federal law, and holding before any state agency can waive a project like this through it must weigh the public trust doctrine and the environmental impacts of the pipeline. The hard truth, however, is that the old pipes on this 73-year-old pipeline are still in the water, operating since 1953. Now it is time for Gov. Whitmer to finish the job. Every day it keeps running is another day of risk. 

For years Michigan residents have been told that the waters of the Straits of Mackinac are too precious to gamble with. The meeting point of Lakes Michigan and Huron is one of the most environmentally significant bodies of water on Earth, providing drinking water, supporting tourism, recreation, commercial fishing, and serving as a symbol of our state's natural heritage. That is why Governor Gretchen Whitmer's dramatic reversal on the Line 5 tunnel project is so troubling.

________________________________________________________________________________

After 70,000 public comments opposing the project and years of legal battles through the judicial & legislative process, as of July 15^th the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes & Energy has greenlit an untested, risky industrial experiment in the heart of the Great Lakes: a project that won't protect the Straits but will keep the existing 73-year-old Line 5 pumping oil across the lakebed for the six years or more Enbridge says construction will take.

The project has received state approval to construct a tunnel beneath the Straits that would house a replacement section of the pipeline. Supporters argue that enclosing the pipeline inside a tunnel makes it significantly safer than the existing configuration resting on the lakebed. They contend the project protects both energy supplies and the environment.

That argument deserves consideration. But it also deserves skepticism.

No engineering solution eliminates risk entirely. A tunnel can reduce the likelihood of certain types of accidents, but it introduces its own challenges. Construction itself carries environmental risks, and once the tunnel exists, Michigan is effectively committing itself to decades of continued oil transportation through one of the state's most sensitive locations through a dated pipeline that  threatens waters connected to 400 rivers, streams, and wetlands, provides drinking water for 40 million people, and exists within sacred, legally protected Indigenous lands and waterways in one of the most biologically sensitive places in North America.

When she first ran for governor, Whitmer positioned herself as one of Line 5's most vocal opponents. She argued that the aging pipeline represented an unacceptable environmental risk and pledged to shut it down. Those promises resonated with many voters who believed Michigan's freshwater resources should take precedence over the interests of a Canadian oil company.  Rather than moving away from dependence on aging fossil fuel infrastructure, the state is investing in extending its lifespan.

The more troubling issue, however, is not simply the engineering. It is the politics.

When an elected official campaigns aggressively against a project and later approves it, citizens have every right to ask why. What changed? Were new facts discovered? Did the environmental concerns disappear? Or did political and economic pressures simply outweigh campaign promises?

Those questions are not accusations. They are exactly the questions a healthy democracy should ask.

Unfortunately, government often responds to such reversals with vague statements about "careful review," "balancing competing interests," or "following the permitting process." Those explanations may satisfy bureaucratic requirements, but they rarely satisfy the public. Trust is earned through transparency, not talking points.

Michigan residents deserve a complete accounting of how this decision was reached. Every meeting with lobbyists, every consultation with industry representatives, every environmental review, and every legal analysis should be available for public examination. If the approval truly reflects the best available science and the public interest, officials should welcome that scrutiny.

The concern is not merely whether corruption occurred. It is whether government decisions create the appearance that powerful corporate interests receive greater consideration than ordinary citizens. Public confidence suffers whenever campaign promises are reversed without clear, persuasive explanations. Even if every action taken was technically legal and ethically proper, secrecy and inconsistency fuel suspicion.

That is especially true when billions of dollars and one of North America's largest energy companies are involved. Large infrastructure projects inevitably generate enormous lobbying efforts. Citizens should expect their elected leaders to demonstrate not only integrity but complete openness about how such decisions are made.

Supporters of the tunnel argue that Michigan still depends on the fuels transported through Line 5 and that abruptly shutting it down could have significant economic consequences. That is a fair point. Energy reliability matters. Jobs matter. Affordable fuel matters.

But so does credibility.

If circumstances changed enough to justify reversing years of public opposition, Michigan voters deserve more than a simple announcement that permits have been issued. They deserve a detailed explanation of why the governor's previous position was no longer the correct one. They deserve evidence that the environmental concerns once described as unacceptable have been adequately addressed. And they deserve confidence that political influence did not outweigh public interest.

Ultimately, this debate extends beyond a single pipeline. It speaks to the relationship between elected officials and the people who elect them. Campaign promises should mean something. Environmental stewardship should mean something. Transparency should mean something.

Money flowing from corporate interests should not outweigh the prevailing will of the electorate.

Whether one supports or opposes the Line 5 tunnel, every Michigander should agree on one principle: decisions of this magnitude must withstand rigorous public scrutiny. When political leaders reverse course on an issue they once championed, skepticism is not cynicism—it is responsible citizenship.

The waters beneath the Mackinac Bridge belong to every resident of Michigan. Decisions affecting them should be made with complete transparency, uncompromising honesty, and an unwavering commitment to the public good. Anything less risks damaging not only one of our greatest natural treasures but also the public's faith in the government entrusted to protect it.