The Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa and environmental groups are taking legal action to block state-issued permits for the construction of a new 41-mile section of Enbridge Energy’s controversial Line 5 oil pipeline in northern Wisconsin.
During a six-week contested case hearing this fall, attorneys and expert witnesses presented evidence showing that the DNR failed to fully evaluate the risks of the project. Here’s what we learned.
The Line 5 reroute would cause significant long-term harm to wetlands and waterways—impacts the DNR ignored.
Multiple expert witnesses testified that the Wisconsin DNR underestimated or overlooked the long-term ecological damage the Line 5 reroute would cause.
- Wetland expert Alice Thompson said, “In my opinion, this project will cause significant adverse environmental impact to a unique area in not only Wisconsin, but in the Great Lakes. I can’t overstate how this – the Kakagon Sloughs – is an internationally recognized wetland with wild rice beds that no one else has. No other tribe, no other place, has these beds. This is a unique location and, in my opinion, this permit does not go far enough to protect what is at risk.”
- Senior environmental scientist Tracey Ledder said, “The project would have a much greater and longer-term impact to the water resources and ecosystem than considered by DNR.”
- Geologist B.J. Bonin said, “The DNR failed to adequately assess the risk of construction on water resources, groundwater, groundwater dependent ecosystems, and drinking water.”
- Ecologist James Almendinger asked, “How serious will these impacts be here, for the construction of Line 5? We may never know, given the dangerously inadequate monitoring plan that meagerly measures a few wetland water levels, ignores sub-wetland groundwater pressures, fails to adequately sample for water quality, and dismisses changes in wetland sediment compaction.”
- When asked about Enbridge’s plans for restoring the many exceptional wetlands along the proposed reroute, DNR wetland expert Allison Willman testified that she could not cite a single example of an exceptional wetland being restored to exceptional condition.
- Bad River Band Chairman Robert Blanchard testified about how the proposed reroute threatens the Band’s rights to hunt, fish, and gather on lands and waters ceded to the United States through treaty.
Once construction begins, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources can’t order Enbridge to stop – even if they violate permit conditions and cause environmental harm.
The testimony of DNR staff undermined the idea that permit conditions are enforceable safeguards that can prevent environmental damage.
- DNR Program Director Ben Callan, who signed the permit and the water quality certification for the Line 5 reroute, testified that the DNR has no authority to stop work once construction begins. Even if Enbridge were to violate a permit condition, the DNR would need to seek a court injunction in order to stop further construction.
Enbridge’s history of environmental violations on the Bad River Band’s reservation raises serious doubts about its ability to safely construct the Line 5 reroute.
Testimony revealed that Enbridge has a track record of failing to meet its own safety and restoration commitments, especially on Indigenous lands and sensitive ecosystems.
- Bad River Band Natural Resources Director Naomi Tillison testified that in 2019, staff working for the Band notified Enbridge that a portion of the Line 5 pipeline had become exposed along a creek tributary on the reservation. It took Enbridge five months to begin reburying the pipeline, and five more years to finish properly restoring and stabilizing the site. During that period, the Band was forced to issue two emergency approvals to protect their water quality from the project’s design failures.
- Tillison testified that in another Enbridge project last year, Enbridge vehicles trampled sensitive wetland areas while installing check valves along Line 5—despite assurances that culturally important plants would be protected. In both cases, permit conditions and Enbridge’s assurances failed to prevent substantial impacts to the Band’s wetlands and waterways.
Enbridge’s Line 5 plans call for the same construction methods used during Line 3 construction in Minnesota—methods that caused significant environmental damage and led to criminal charges against Enbridge.
Enbridge’s claim that the Line 5 reroute is “already the most-studied pipeline project in state history” is identical to a claim made by the company about its disastrous Line 3 replacement project in Minnesota.
- Enbridge Project Director Barry Simonson testified that he signed an agreement with Minnesota authorities in 2022 acknowledging that Enbridge had caused uncontrolled aquifer discharges. Ultimately, Minnesota authorities fined and charged Enbridge for puncturing aquifers during Line 3 construction.
Enbridge submitted incomplete and confusing data as part of its permit application.
Expert witnesses testified that Enbridge’s application lacked the basic elements of a credible monitoring plan.
- Senior environmental scientist Tracey Ledder testified that, “[Enbridge’s Water Quality Monitoring Plan] is lacking many aspects of a monitoring plan that are considered essential for implementable, useful data collection. There is a lack of described objectives, reasoning for selection of parameters, criteria for interpreting data significance, and methods of data use. Therefore, I have little confidence that the collected data will be appropriate to make decisions to protect the environment during construction, or to make a determination on the extent of impact after construction is complete.”
- Only riparian landowners can be permitted to place structures in Wisconsin’s navigable waters, but Enbridge never submitted proof to DNR that it owns the properties next to those waters, and evidence shows that Enbridge does not in fact own those properties and is therefore not eligible for permits.
A decision in this case is expected sometime this winter. Learn more here.
