This coverage is made possible through a partnership with Grist and Interlochen Public Radio in Northern Michigan.
Seven Indigenous nations have withdrawn from discussions over an oil and gas liquids pipeline in Michigan, citing federal agencies’ failure to adequately engage with tribal governments during the process.
The move is expected to trigger lawsuits the tribes hope will block the controversial Line 5 project, a 645 mile pipeline that carries over half-a-million barrels of crude oil and natural gas liquids per day and runs between the United States and Canada. Enbridge, the company behind Line 5, has proposed a tunnel under the Great Lakes in order to replace a section of the 72-year-old pipeline.
The tribal nations have been involved with the permitting process since 2020, when Enbridge applied to build the underground tunnel for the pipeline, but have grown increasingly dissatisfied with negotiations they say ignored tribal expertise, input, and concerns, and undermined treaty rights.
On March 20, tribes say the Army Corps of Engineers, the agency assessing the project and its environmental impacts, informed them that it would likely soon grant Enbridge a fast-tracked permit for the tunnel under President Donald Trump’s energy emergency declaration, which effectively created a new class of permit to boost energy supplies. That announcement, the tribes say, prompted the withdrawal.
“Tribal Nations are no longer willing to expend their time and resources as Cooperating Agencies just so their participation may be used by the Corps to lend credibility to a flawed [Environmental Impact Statement] process and document,” they wrote in a March 21 letter to the Corps.
Whitney Gravelle, president of the Bay Mills Indian Community, said the tunnel would destroy “not only the Great Lakes, but also an Indigenous people’s way of life, my way of life, for all Great Lakes Anishinaabe.”
“We’ll do what we need to do now moving forward, not participating in that process,” she added.
Tribal nations in Michigan — and others across the country — have long argued that the pipeline is unsafe, and that the tunnel would further threaten their way of life by extending the possibility of an oil spill into the Straits of Mackinac, which connect lakes Michigan and Huron, and potentially contaminating the largest source of fresh water in North America.
In an email, Enbridge spokesperson Ryan Duffy said the tunnel would “make a safe pipeline safer while also ensuring the continued safe, secure, and affordable delivery of essential energy to the Great Lakes region.” But critics say that risk has yet to be properly analyzed and the Army Corps maintains that considering the risk of oil spills, or their impacts, is beyond the scope of its authority and should be conducted by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. Despite that stance, in early January an assistant secretary with the Department of Defense directed the Army Corps to carry out that assessment. That will now likely be ignored under the Trump administration’s executive order, according to attorneys with the tribes.
In an email, Army Corps spokesperson Carrie Fox said the agency is reviewing the tribes’ letter and relying on existing regulations to speed up permitting for eligible projects under Trump’s executive order, adding that new procedures will be posted publicly.
The odds are heavily weighted toward Enbridge, according to Matthew Fletcher, a citizen of the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians and a professor of law at the University of Michigan.
“The rule of law is basically dead. Enbridge and the feds are not acting in good faith,” he said in an email. “It must be apparent to the tribes that, in this administration, no matter what the tribes say or do, or evidence they provide, etc., Enbridge will get absolutely anything it wants from the United States.”
The tribes aren’t alone. The United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues has repeatedly called for the suspension of pipeline operations until the free, prior, and informed consent, or FPIC, of affected Indigenous nations has been secured. FPIC, a right guaranteed under international law that says countries must consult with Indigenous peoples in good faith and obtain consent for development projects on their land, is rarely enforced and the U.S. has yet to codify the obligation.
“Any law that requires consent, or even consultation, of Indians and tribes, is a threat to this entire industry,” Fletcher said. “I guarantee this administration will ignore and/or denigrate all of these laws on behalf of their climate change-inducing and pollution-generating constituents.”
But even adhering to the Trump administration’s “America First” priorities, the tunnel project shouldn’t receive a fast-tracked permit, said David Gover, an attorney for the Native American Rights Fund which is representing Bay Mills. “You’re talking about a project, Line 5, that serves Canadian companies and Canadian interest,” he said.
While much of the pipeline’s oil and gas products pass through Michigan and on to Canadian refineries, Enbridge says the pipeline provides jobs and other benefits to the state, including more than half of Michigan’s propane. Those benefits won’t pay off in the long run, according to opponents, and experts have said the pipeline’s continued operation would generate tens of billions of dollars in climate damages. Moreover, replacing that section of pipeline wouldn’t create more capacity, Gover said, “So there’s no extension or expansion of meeting those energy needs here in America.”
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
“We are multifaceted governments, and not all tribes oppose oil. But all tribes in the state of Michigan have stood up to say that this is a bad project,” said President Gravelle. “If we wanted to protect one of our most precious resources, which is the Great Lakes themselves, we would decommission this for those future generations.”
Editor’s note: Earthjustice, one of the law firms representing the Bay Mills Indian Community, is an advertiser with Grist. Advertisers have no role in Grist’s editorial decisions.
