Listen to the article
After seven years of legal battles, energy company Enbridge has begun rerouting an aging oil pipeline around the Bad River Band of Lake Superior’s tribal reservation in northern Wisconsin, despite new lawsuits that could potentially halt the project.
Approximately 12 miles of Enbridge’s Line 5 pipeline currently crosses the reservation along Lake Superior’s shoreline. The tribe initiated legal action against Enbridge in 2019, demanding removal of the pipeline segment from their land. They argued that land easements permitting the pipeline’s operation had expired six years earlier and expressed concerns that the 73-year-old infrastructure posed risks of a catastrophic oil spill in environmentally sensitive areas.
A federal judge ruled in 2023 that Enbridge must remove the segment from reservation land by June 2024. However, the Bad River tribe and various conservation organizations have consistently pushed for a complete shutdown of the pipeline, filing multiple legal challenges to block the reroute project.
The final legal obstacle appeared to be cleared on February 13 when an administrative law judge upheld Enbridge’s state wetlands permit, allowing construction to proceed. Enbridge spokesperson Juli Kellner confirmed that crews began clearing trees for the new pipeline route on Tuesday.
In response, both the Bad River tribe and a coalition of environmental groups filed separate actions in Iron County Circuit Court this month. They’re seeking an immediate stay of the wetlands permit, arguing that regulators have significantly underestimated the environmental impact of the reroute construction.
“The Bad River watershed is not an oil pipeline corridor that exists to serve Enbridge’s profits. It is our homeland. We must protect it,” stated Elizabeth Arbuckle, the Bad River tribal chair, in announcing the tribe’s legal filing.
The judges overseeing these new cases have yet to rule on the stay requests, though a hearing in the Bad River case is scheduled for Thursday.
Kellner defended Enbridge’s position, stating that further delays are unreasonable given the extensive regulatory scrutiny the project has already undergone. She emphasized the pipeline’s critical infrastructure role, noting that Line 5 serves ten refineries and propane production facilities that provide energy to millions across the Midwest and Great Lakes region.
The Calgary, Alberta-based energy company has operated Line 5 since 1953, using it to transport crude oil and natural gas liquids between Superior, Wisconsin, and Sarnia, Ontario. The pipeline forms a crucial part of North America’s energy infrastructure network.
The Wisconsin controversy parallels another ongoing dispute in Michigan, where a 4.5-mile segment of the same Line 5 pipeline runs beneath the Straits of Mackinac, connecting Lakes Michigan and Huron. Environmental groups and tribes have raised similar concerns about the potential for pipeline failure in this ecologically sensitive waterway.
Enbridge has proposed constructing a protective tunnel to encase the underwater pipeline segment in Michigan. This proposal requires permits from both the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Michigan’s Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy. While neither agency has issued final approvals, the federal permitting process has been accelerated under President Donald Trump’s 2025 energy emergency executive order.
The Michigan situation has also spawned legal challenges from state officials. Governor Gretchen Whitmer and Attorney General Dana Nessel have filed separate lawsuits attempting to invalidate the easements allowing Line 5 to operate in the straits.
A federal judge blocked Whitmer’s legal action in December, though the governor has appealed to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Separately, the U.S. Supreme Court is currently determining whether Nessel’s lawsuit should proceed in state or federal court.
These concurrent legal battles in Wisconsin and Michigan highlight the tension between energy infrastructure needs and environmental protection concerns, particularly regarding aging pipeline systems crossing tribal lands and sensitive waterways in the Great Lakes region.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
7 Comments
While rerouting the pipeline may be a pragmatic solution, I can understand the tribe’s push for a complete shutdown. Aging energy infrastructure poses real environmental risks, especially in sensitive areas like the Lake Superior shoreline. The legal process will be key in determining the best path forward.
The Bad River Band is right to be concerned about the potential for a catastrophic oil spill on their land. At the same time, this pipeline plays a crucial role in North America’s energy supply. A carefully negotiated compromise that addresses both environmental and energy security needs would be an ideal outcome.
The Bad River Band’s concerns about the aging pipeline’s risks are understandable. However, rerouting infrastructure projects often involve complex negotiations. I hope all parties can find a reasonable compromise that addresses the tribe’s valid environmental worries while still maintaining this important energy conduit.
Agreed. It’s encouraging to see the administrative law judge upholding the wetlands permit, which should help move the reroute forward. Careful planning and open communication will be key to finding a balanced solution.
This pipeline has been a source of controversy for years. I’ll be following the ongoing legal battles with interest. It’s critical that energy companies work closely with affected indigenous communities to address their valid environmental concerns.
Absolutely. Transparent and collaborative negotiations are essential in these types of infrastructure disputes. Hopefully Enbridge and the Bad River Band can find common ground and a mutually acceptable resolution.
This has certainly been a long and contentious legal battle. Balancing environmental concerns with critical energy infrastructure is always a delicate issue. I’m curious to see how the rest of the legal proceedings unfold and whether the reroute can proceed smoothly.