Late last week, the Wisconsin DNR signed off on a controversial liquid petroleum pipeline project in northern Wisconsin.
Rerouting a portion of Enbridge Line 5 has been the subject of wide debate and packed public hearings. Tens of thousands of people have submitted written comments.
Some applaud the DNR’s approval as a step in the right direction; others fear the potential impacts of the decision. Line 5 carries crude oil and natural gas liquids through 30-inch diameter underground pipes. The 645-mile, 70-year-old line runs from Superior, Wisconsin, to Sarnia, Ontario, moving liquid petroleum that originates in western Canada.
The company says the products the line carries “heat homes and businesses, fuel vehicles, and power industry.”
There’s concern about a 4 ½-mile section of Line 5 that runs across the bottom of the Straits of Mackinac between Lakes Michigan and Huron.
The proposed project lies within Wisconsin, replacing a 12-mile stretch that crosses the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa reservation. Easements with the Bad River Band expired years ago. In 2019, it filed a lawsuit arguing the pipeline should be removed.
Enbridge countered by proposing a 41-mile loop that would run around the reservation. While the company still needs the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to OK the plan, on Thursday, the state Department of Natural Resources issued its approval.
Republican Congressman Tom Tiffany celebrated the news. “A lot of propane goes through that line. I’m one of the largest districts in the use of propane for home heating fuel,” Tiffany says.
Tiffany believes the Enbridge line carries even greater significance.
“For energy security and independence for America. We’re not going to give up using diesel fuel, propane and things like that any time soon. In fact, I would say the American people voted on Tuesday, November 5, they want to get back to energy abundance and independence,” he says.
Tiffany calls the plan a win-win — good for the environment and the economy. And he says people who live along the proposed reroute support it.
“Local landowners stepped up and said, you can run that reroute through my property. To me that’s the ultimate affirmation of how important this is — property owners got together and said, you know what, we need this pipeline, we’re going to get it done,” Tiffany says.
Not everyone shares Tiffany’s conviction. Tony Wilkin Gibart is with Midwest Environmental Advocates.
“We’re a nonprofit environmental law center. People in Ashland and northern Wisconsin reached out to us and asked us to support them in analyzing and investigating the concerns they had about this project,” Wilkin Gibart says.
Concerns include the risks to land, water and quality of life during and after construction and fears of a potential rupture. Wilkin Gibart says it will take time to thoroughly review the DNR’s decision; he shares his initial take.
“The standards that we have to protect waterways in Wisconsin are robust and rigorous. And it is hard to believe that the proposal could meet the standards given the complexity of this project, but we are still reviewing and that review will be based on the law and science,” Wilkin Gibart says.
The permit approves Enbridge’s request “to place temporary and permanent structures in navigable waterways.” The plan also calls for dredging waterways and discharging fill-in wetlands.
A DNR spokesperson told WUWM its approval requires Enbridge to meet 250 conditions. They include flagging or staking construction areas and following the manufacturer’s direction when applying herbicide “within or adjacent to wetlands, waterways and sensitive resources.”
Still, Wilkin Gibart believes the risks are enormous, “In a very sensitive part of the state across pristine waterways, important wetlands, he says.
That includes internationally recognized coastal wetlands along Lake Superior.
“If something were to happen, the consequences for that watershed and for Lake Superior would be unthinkable,” he says.
Wilkin Gibart anticipates his team will finish its review of the DNR’s decision by the end of this month.
In the meantime, people on both sides of the debate await the decision by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It must determine whether to allow Enbridge to “discharge dredged or fill material to waters of the United States.”
Those waters add up to nearly 200 waterways along the ecologically rich, 41-mile-long project’s path.
