A hotly-debated reroute of a portion of a gas and oil line in northern Wisconsin is seeing its day in court. An administrative law judge is considering a challenge to the Wisconsin DNR's approval of the project.
The Canadian company Enbridge wants to move a section of its 645-mile line that’s been operating for decades near Lake Superior within the Reservation of the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa.
The change would move the section outside tribal land, but still fall within the region’s stream- and wetland-rich landscape.
Last November, the Wisconsin DNR OK'd Enbridge’s plan. But tribal and environmental groups are pushing back.
READ: Bad River tribe and environmental groups challenge pipeline project in northern Wisconsin
Enbridge’s Line 5 has been transporting oil and gas from Superior, Wisconsin to Sarnia, Ontario for more than 70 years.
In recent years, the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa has raised concerns about the section that cuts straight through its reservation. It’s brimming with streams, rivers and wetlands and is home to the Kakagon Sloughs. It’s a vast wetland system within Ashland County that spills into Chequamegon Bay and Lake Superior.
The sloughs are treasured by the Bad River Band for their wild rice and internationally recognized as critical coastal wetlands.
Enbridge had an agreement allowing access to Bad River land. The agreement expired years ago. In 2019, Bad River filed a lawsuit arguing the pipeline should be removed from its land. A federal judge concurred and ordered Enbridge to remove that portion of Line 5 by June of 2026.
But rather than shutting the line down, Enbridge came up with a plan to construct a 41-mile reroute to run around, rather than through the Reservation.
Attorney Stefanie Tsosie says that’s not acceptable. She’s a senior attorney with EarthJustice and represents the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa.
“The Band relies on the water of this region — surface water, groundwater, seeps, springs and wetlands for its livelihood,” Tsosie says.
Tsosie spoke last month in a packed conference room in Ashland, Wisconsin. That’s where legal proceedings began with public testimony and opening statements.
“The Band will present testimony that demonstrates the lack of baseline information and data on the region, as well as testimony on how each of the construction methods — trenching, blasting, and HDD (horizontal directional drilling) — will have both immediate and long-term impacts on wetlands and waterways,” Tsosie says.
Debra Cronmiller with the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin was in the room that day. She described the public comments as moving.
“Forty-six people gave testimony that day – some spoke in support, some spoke against. But it was very heartfelt,” Cronmiller says.
The League is among the plaintiffs in the case being led Midwest Environmental Advocates and Clean Wisconsin. Together they argue the Enbridge’s project fails to meet Wisconsin’s water quality standards and would result in irreversible environmental impacts.
“Because of our quality water and quantity water position, I think that it is important that we stand with our partners at the Bad River to say no, don’t do this. The risks are too phenomenally great to outweigh the potential benefits,” Cronmiller says.
Administrative Law Judge Angela Chaput Foy is presiding over the case.
After opening statements in Ashland, hearings moved to Madison on Sept. 3.
Midwest Environmental Advocates and Clean Wisconsin laid out their concerns, calling on expert witnesses.
Geologist William Joseph Bonin shared his analysis, including the potential impacts of blasting to groundwater.
“The blasted rock is not going to ever be restored and it’s going to form a permanent channel in that rock surface which is going to be a lot more conducive to the infiltration of water. And further, the effects of blasts, especially on fractured networks, may be permanent,” Bonen says.
Before legal arguments began that day, Chaput Foy gave Wisconsin residents time to comment. UW-Madison graduate student Tabitha Faber shared her concern for impacts to already threatened wildlife and critical habitat.
Faber told WUWM she wants more than saying no to the reroute; she’d like the entire aging pipeline to be decommissioned.
“Especially seeing the accelerating climate crisis … I think that continuing to invest in energy infrastructure that includes fossil fuels is just continuing to cause harm to our shared home. And I think we have an opportunity to make a different choice here,” Faber says.
Next week, the case returns to Ashland where the Bad River Band will present its case. Then back to Madison, where Enbridge and finally the DNR will make their arguments.
The state agency asserts it followed prescribed state standards and associated administrative codes in permitting the Enbridge project.
Enbridge says the reroute will result in 700 jobs and an infusion of $135 million to the regional economy. The administrative law judge is expected to issue her decision by mid-December.
Editor's note: Line 5 is operated by Enbridge, which is a financial supporter of WUWM. WUWM will continue to follow the case as all the sides present their arguments.
