Environmental groups across Michigan are pushing back after the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers confirmed it will fast-track Enbridge's Line 5 tunnel project without conducting a full environmental review.

Line 5 is a 645-mile pipeline transporting crude oil and natural gas liquids beneath the Straits of Mackinac. Speeding up the project is a response to President Donald Trump's declaration of a "national energy emergency."

Ashley Rudzinksy with the nonprofit Groundwork Center for Resilient Communities said with the federal process fast-tracked, the burden falls more heavily on the state's environmental agency to exercise due diligence. She added state laws require thorough permit reviews and meaningful opportunity for public input.

These laws include the Michigan Public Trust Law and the Submerged Land Act.

Rudzinski says there also are concerns about potential oil spills and threats to treaty rights.

"We have also seen many of our partners in this work, and allies - the six Tribal nations here in Michigan - pull out of continued negotiations with the Army Corps," Rudzinski pointed out. "In my estimation, that is because this process has become a sham."

Enbridge responded in a statement saying in part, "Line 5 is critical energy infrastructure" and it is safe. It went on to say Michigan approved environmental permits and tunnel placement but after nearly five years, the project still awaits a U.S. Army Corps decision on its environmental impact.

Critics of the Line 5 tunnel are urging Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy to deny the necessary permits.

Rudzinski warned the project may also become a burden on taxpayers.

"Enbridge has petitioned the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to be able to pass the tunnel construction cost onto their shippers, who ultimately can pass that on to consumers," Rudzinski noted. "That means everyday folks will have to pay more for these products."

Enbridge has consistently stated it will bear the full financial responsibility for the construction, operation and maintenance of the Line 5 tunnel, and taxpayers will not be required to fund any part of the project.


get more stories like this via email

A critical decision now rests with Gov. Ron DeSantis, as Florida coastal communities and shellfish farmers urge him to sign a bill permanently banning oil drilling near the Apalachicola River. They see the river as a lifeline for the state's aquaculture industry - and a fragile ecosystem.

House Bill 1143, which passed the Legislature with a single "no" vote in the Senate, would block drilling within 10 miles of the Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve.

Adrianne Johnson, executive director of the Florida Shellfish Aquaculture Association, warned that the region's economy and environment hang in the balance.

"That area is really unique; 75% of our oyster farmers operate across Franklin, Wakulla and Gulf counties, so those three counties that are downriver from the proposed oil drilling site," she said. "So, protecting that water is absolutely critical to the livelihood of our farmers."

Despite a court win stopping one drilling project in Calhoun County, she said unprotected sites still threaten Apalachicola's fragile recovery. Aquaculture in the area sustains an oyster industry that once supplied 90% of Florida's wild harvest before its collapse.

The Apalachicola River watershed supports Florida's emerging shellfish industry, which filters water, creates habitats and sustains rural coastal economies. Johnson said even the threat of oil contamination, such as what happened during the 2010 BP spill, could devastate the region.

"We are confident that the governor is supportive of our rural coastal communities," she said. "Under his governorship, the state has invested millions of dollars into restoring Apalachicola Bay. So really, this bill aligns with those values."

Under Florida's "7-Day Rule," DeSantis must decide on the Apalachicola drilling ban by next Wednesday. The bill automatically becomes law if he chooses not to either sign or veto it.


get more stories like this via email

June is World Oceans Month, and advocates are warning that industrial shipping pollution hurts both oceans and port communities.

At least 31 million people live within three miles of a port, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. That includes thousands of New Jerseyans. Industrial shipping frequently relies on heavy fuel oil, which releases carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides and black carbon into the atmosphere, causing harm to marine ecosystems and port communities.

Altorice Frazier, northeast port campaigner with Pacific Environment, said if the global shipping industry was its own country, it would be one of the largest polluters in the world.

"Global shipping burns some of the dirtiest fossil fuels, like heavy oil, producing toxic air pollutions and greenhouse gases," he explained.

Those toxic pollutants often affect the communities closest to ports, frequently working-class neighborhoods made up primarily of people of color. Shipping pollution causes $265,000 premature deaths and six million childhood asthma cases globally each year, according to the Ocean Conservancy.

One way to cut down on port pollution, Frazier said, is the electrification of cargo ships. Much like electric cars, cargo ships can be electrically powered and charged while at a port. He explained this would cut down on emissions, the acidification of marine ecosystems and the negative health effects on port communities.

"We really want to show where there's funding, there's possible job opportunities," Frazier continued. "There's a gain in this. It might not be in the short term, but in the long term, there is definitely opportunity. And we want to see industry and port authorities work alongside communities and government to really strategize how this is possible."

Frazier added shore power can create jobs and sustain economic growth for communities, while cutting down on pollution and noise.

Forest fires have broken out in parts of New Mexico that state forecasters had already warned would see an elevated wildfire risk this summer due to high temperatures, low snowpack and ongoing drought. At least 25 New Mexico jurisdictions imposed some level of fire restriction this spring.

State Forester Laura McCarthy said the peak of fire season is still a week away, beginning June 26.

"Right after the Solstice, so the days are at their longest, which means the burn periods are at their longest and typically the highest temperatures we experience all summer are in the last two to three weeks of June," she continued.

On Tuesday, New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham declared a state of emergency in response to the Trout Fire, which is burning in the Gila National Forest, forcing residents to evacuate. The Buck Fire also has burned more than 57,000 acres in the same area of Southwest New Mexico. The governor has urged localities to ban fireworks and restrict water usage.

McCarthy reminded people that dry conditions can cause a small fire to spread in a split second - whether it's from a backyard grill, a spark caused by welding, or a campfire that appears to be out but is reignited when hidden embers are stirred up by the wind, catching surrounding vegetation on fire. She said there's no "go back" - even if a fire is accidental.

"If you look at every single big fire we've had, there was either a lightning strike or a person behind it,"
she added. "Yes, there is arson, but the majority of human-caused fires are not arson. They are caused by unintentional response and then, it's just too late."

Just three years ago, New Mexico's Hermit's Peak/Calf Canyon fire exploded into the state's most destructive wildfire ever. State lawmakers passed billss in this year's session to address the issue. One establishes a program for wildfire prevention and mitigation, while the other allows for ignition-resistant construction.


get more stories like this via email