Contact the Mackinac Bridge Authority

The governor’s plan does not secure the health of the water or those of us, humans, plants, animals, that depend and cherish it. Please don’t implement it.

I live in Oscoda Michigan on the shore of Lake Huron. Our water service is provided from the lake, an our lives are centered around the lake for recreation and family gatherings.


Based on the past history of Enbridge I have no confidence that a tunnel will provide protection from future containment from spills. The construction of a tunnel will just add to the structure of the lake bottom.


This entire pipeline is not necessary for Michigan. We get no value from the contents of the pipeline.

Dear Secretary Sweeney,


I am writing to express my deep concerns with the tunnel for Line 5 that is proposed to be the responsibility of the Mackinac Bridge Authority.


Line 5 is a pipeline that has already exceeded its intended lifespan. It carries oil from Canada under the Straits, across Michigan, and back to Canada, bringing minimal benefit to the people of Michigan. Its continued existence is a constant risk to the irreplaceable waters of the Mackinac Straits. An anchor strike on the pipeline last winter demonstrated that even under rather average winter conditions, neither Enbridge, the pipeline’s owner, nor the Michigan Coast Guard are equipped to respond to emergencies in a timely or efficient fashion.


Now I understand the State of Michigan wants to build a tunnel for Line 5 and place it under the purview of the Mackinac Bridge Authority. You will be asked to consider this matter on November 8. As a Michigan citizen, I urge you to turn down this plan and recommend decommissioning Line 5 instead. At the very least, please insist on a thorough environmental review before any agreement is made.


As you are evaluating the proposal, please consider the following questions:


Why would the Mackinac Bridge Authority enter into a 99-year lease with Enbridge, a company that has shown repeatedly that it cannot be trusted to safeguard the health of Michigan’s citizens and natural resources?


How does it make sense for the bridge authority assume financial risk for damage to Line 5 and the proposed tunnel when most of the oil running through the pipeline will not stay in the US?


Why should the agreement limit Enbridge’s liability to less than a quarter of the possible cost of spill cleanup in the event that their pipeline ruptured?


I hope you take into account the enormous potential harm to our great state, its resources, and its people that the Line 5 tunnel proposal represents.


Thank you for your attention to this matter.


Yours,


Katherine Heins

Traverse City

Dear MBA Secretary Bob Sweeney:


I strongly urge you to oppose the risky proposed tunnel for Canadian oil.


Why should the bridge authority own the risky tunnel and be saddled with Enbridge through a 99-year lease, especially given Enbridge’s horrible track record in Michigan?


Why should the bridge authority assume financial risk in the event of a tunnel collapse and pipeline rupture for a private Canadian oil company when most of the oil in Enbridge’s Line 5 is for Canada’s use?


The agreement between Enbridge and Gov. Snyder would only provide $1.88 billion in financial pledges from Enbridge in the case of major damages when economists estimate the cost of a worst-case spill could reach $6.3 billion. Why should the bridge authority potentially put the financial health of the Mackinac Bridge at risk by taking responsibility for Enbridge’s oil tunnel?


Why is the bridge authority considering bypassing a thorough environmental review of the Snyder-Enbridge oil tunnel under the Great Lakes Submerged Lands Act instead of looking at better alternatives which include decommissioning Line 5 now?


Sincerely,


Art Hanson


1815 Briarwood Dr.


Lansing, MI 48917

I’m am so concerned and saddened by this reckless and greedy behavior from our Governor. The residents of Michigan DO NOT WANT THIS TUNNEL. This pipeline is an unnecessary threatens our Great Lakes. Why is the bridge authority considering bypassing a thorough environmental review of the Snyder-Enbridge oil tunnel under the Great Lakes Submerged Lands Act instead of looking at better alternatives which include decommissioning Line 5 now?

Sincerely,

Adam Wells

This is what I wrote: Dear Mr. Sweeney,


I’m concerned about the proposed Enbridge tunnel that would carry oil under Lake Michigan.


Why should the Mackinac Bridge Authority assume financial risk in the event of a tunnel collapse and pipeline rupture for a private Canadian oil company when most of the oil in Enbridge’s Line 5 is for Canada’s use? Why isn’t Enbridge being required to have insurance or bonds that would cover the costs of a worst-case spill?


Why is Enbridge going to be able to continue to run oil through Line 5 for many years while this tunnel is being built? Years of risk for Lake Michigan and the surrounding communities. Line 5 should be shut down as soon as possible.


The tunnel MAY lessen the chances for a spill under the Straits of Mackinac, but what about all along the old Line 5? It runs across Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula — over and near many bodies of water and through many communities. There will still be risks to our water and communities if Line 5 is allowed to continue operation.


I don’t live in Michigan, but I live near Lake Michigan in Milwaukee. We get our drinking water from Lake Michigan and enjoy the Lake for fishing, swimming and other recreation. In addition, I often travel to the U.P. to hike and paddle and ski. I would choose to spend my vacations (and spend my dollars) elsewhere if there was an oil spill from Line 5.


Sincerely,


Anne Steinberg

Milwaukee, WI

I questioned their mission state and MI law Act 21 of 1950 allowing them to own a tunnel for oil and gas.

This is what I sent:

Dear Mr. Sweeney,


I am writing as a concerned Michigan citizen about the proposed Enbridge tunnel that the Governor has proposed. I want to begin by thanking you for inviting public comment, and I encourage you to continue to engage with Michiganders about this issue.


I’ll begin by pointing out the obvious—Enbridge has long been an irresponsible business partner with Michigan, hiding and mischaracterizing wear and tear and outright damage to the current Line 5 pipeline. The Great Lakes continue to face risk of an oil spill from this pipeline, which would have devastating environmental, public health, and economic impacts, which our economy and population would be unable to bear without significant damage. We cannot forget the risk that this corporation is willing to burden Michiganders with in the present when considering future business deals.


Without going into the questions about whether a bridge authority should assume responsibility for a tunnel, I would also like to raise the point that any tunnel construction, or tunnel collapse or oil spill would directly impact the operation of the Mackinac Bridge. It’s well known that northern Michigan relies heavily on shipping and tourism for its economy—I myself have visited every year for as long as I can remember to enjoy the beauty of the area, particularly its clean water. Any disruption to the peaceful and pristine nature of the area will discourage visitors such as myself, and hurt the local economy.


It is also outright irresponsible to invest in a 99 year lease for fossil fuel infrastructure as the world commits to moving towards renewables. In light of the most recent IPCC report, which predict more damage and risk from climate change with each release, we have until 2040 before we start seeing serious impacts from climate change. I am a young person (and a Michigan voter for many more years), and I need my government to invest in long-term solutions for my future and my generation, not business profits and short term political gain. I want to see my state putting more wind and solar on the grid, something northern Michigan has been spearheading. An oil pipeline is a step back, and quite frankly, the economy or voters such as myself will put it out of commission long before it turns a profit. Investing in the infrastructure only serves to waste taxpayer dollars and support a dying, toxic industry.


The Governor wants to seal in the oil tunnel for a century, but a century from now we will be unable and unwilling to invest in the fossil fuel industry. This is the wrong choice for Michiganders in the long term and the short term.


I hope you take this into consideration and keep doing what the Bridge Authority does best—connect Michiganders to the natural and cultural beauty of Northern Michigan. For that, generations will continue to thank you.


Best,


Alexandra Lindstrom

Isn’t said that “doing the same thing and expecting different results is insane”?

That is what you are doing by not decommissioning Line 5.

Do it Gov. Snyder. Or live with the fact that you could have stopped it, but didn’t.

Let’s not ruin our natural resources. this is a bad idea.