Native communities, climate activists react after Michigan Supreme Court rejects permit for Line 5 project

Construction on what some advocates consider America's most dangerous pipeline now faces a setback after Michigan's Supreme Court overturned a permit needed to move forward with the project.    

Climate activists and Native American communities sought to overturn approval for a 2023 siting permit granted by the Michigan Public Service Commission to Enbridge, the Canadian oil company that owns Line 5. They argued that the MPSC's permit approval did not abide by the Michigan Environmental Protection Act and that moving forward with the project would subject the surrounding water and wildlife to unacceptable environmental risks.   

"The PSC erred by not examining whether the Replacement Project would be the proximate cause of further environmental harm by extending Line 5's lifespan," wrote Justice Elizabeth Welch in a majority opinion. 

"This decision gives us another opportunity to honor our treaty rights, protect our waters, and consider the generations who will inherit this place," Bay Mills Indian Community President Whitney Gravelle said. "The Straits of Mackinac are not simply a route for an oil pipeline to be abused. They are sacred waters, the heart of creation for Anishinaabe people, and a source of life for millions." 

The Line 5 oil pipeline is a 645-mile tunnel that delivers over 500,000 barrels of oil every day. Under the Straits of Mackinac, this oil pipeline diverges into two lines and runs for 4.5 miles each up to Canada. The pipeline, built by Enbridge 73 years ago, has been the center of controversy and lawsuits for years.  

Enbridge is seeking approval to replace both of those pipelines with one massive tunnel.  The project, titled the Great Lakes Tunnel Project, aims to provide "extra layers of safety" to the current pipelines. Now that Michigan's Supreme Court has overturned the permit, the Michigan Public Service Commission must now complete a new review.  

"The Court's decision is unfortunate in that it adds an additional delay to the permitting process for the Great Lakes Tunnel, which is designed to protect the Great Lakes and ensure the ongoing safe, reliable and efficient delivery of energy to our region," Enbridge spokesperson Ryan Duffy said. 

"What remains unchanged is our commitment to operating Line 5 safely and responsibly, incorporating enhanced safety measures in the Straits, and protecting Michigan's natural resources for generations to come. 

Environmental advocates say that the only way to ensure the protection of the Great Lakes is to shut down the pipeline completely. Activists often point to an oil spill from an Enbridge pipeline in the Kalamazoo River as a cause for concern. 

"I lived in Kalamazoo for 17 years and was there during the 2010 Kalamazoo oil spill, which we are now about to commemorate the 16th anniversary of that oil spill," Denise Keele, executive director of the Michigan Climate Action Network, said. "Even though it's a different line, it is in many ways what got this on lots of folks' radar." 

Keele said the pipeline is already decades past its original 50-year life span, and the likelihood of an oil rupture increases as the pipeline continues to age.  

"It's a ticking time bomb, and it only gets older and more decrepit," Keele said.  

Native American communities across Michigan have been a key part of multiple lawsuits against the pipeline for years, with some communities arguing the pipeline has illegally infringed on land granted to Native American communities in the 1836 treaty. 

"How can you have a treaty right to fish if you don't have clean water for fish to live?" Gravelle said. "How can you have a treaty right to fish if fish populations and spawning grounds are being harmed by infrastructure and construction projects?" 

The Bay Mills Indian Community, a federally recognized Indian reservation in the Upper Peninsula, has led the fight against the pipeline among Michigan's tribal nations. Construction on the pipeline could mean members of the community must make the decision between digging up their ancestors to preserve their graves or having the graves destroyed in the construction.  

"When a project comes in, threatening that way of life, threatening the forest and the wetlands where you harvest medicines, threatening the desecration of burial grounds and ancestral remains, that too is then threatening your ability to live that indigenous way of life," Gravelle said.