Public commenters urge Line 5 decommissioning and raise safety, cultural and environmental concerns

Several members of the public addressed the Mackinac Straits Corridor Authority Oct. 17, urging shutdown or decommissioning of Line 5 and raising safety, environmental and cultural concerns.

Patrick Egan, who identified himself as a resident and long-time attendee, said the authority's responsibility is to "get the project done safely and productively" and urged that quality-assurance work not be sidelined. Egan criticized the lack of public-facing quality-assurance review of recent specification changes and said he wanted the authority and Delve Underground to ensure rigorous QA oversight.

A tribal speaker who identified his Christian name as John Paul spoke for the water and said the proposal violated tribal rights and treaties, called the project a "scheme and a scam," and urged decommissioning and removal of Line 5. He said continuing project activities causes him personal stress and represented a sacred and ancestral concern.

William Peralta, who said he owns acreage near Lake Michigan, warned of anchor-strike risk and geological concerns. He said engineers later identified the potential for methane in lake-bed materials to saturate tunnel materials and that anchor strikes on heavy freighters present a fracture risk to nearshore infrastructure. Peralta warned the authority against choices that could attach their names to catastrophic outcomes.

Monica Katie summarized and cited a Michigan Technological University study (2018) and told the board a worst-case tunnel spill could reach 2.5 million gallons and contaminate hundreds of miles of shoreline. She cited cultural and public-health concerns, said all 12 Michigan tribes seek Line 5 closure and decommissioning, and raised social concerns about worker "man camps," fentanyl and trafficking the community associates with transient workforces.

The chair acknowledged receipt of one written comment from Sherry Allry and said it would be included in the minutes.

Why it matters: Public comments identify the social, cultural and worst-case-scenario environmental risks community members associate with the project; the authority recorded the remarks for its minutes and may consider public sentiment alongside permitting and oversight responsibilities.

Provenance: Public comment period opened at 00:33:22; principal public remarks recorded between 00:33:28 and 00:46:00.

Speakers: [
{"name":"Patrick Egan","role_title":"Resident (public commenter)","affiliation_type":"citizen","affiliation_name":"not specified","first_reference":{"timecode":"00:33:28","transcript_line_range":[1,12]}},
{"name":"John Paul","role_title":"Public commenter","affiliation_type":"citizen","affiliation_name":"not specified","first_reference":{"timecode":"00:38:42","transcript_line_range":[1,12]}},
{"name":"William Peralta","role_title":"Public commenter","affiliation_type":"citizen","affiliation_name":"not specified","first_reference":{"timecode":"00:48:03","transcript_line_range":[1,12]}},
{"name":"Monica Katie","role_title":"Public commenter","affiliation_type":"citizen","affiliation_name":"not specified","first_reference":{"timecode":"00:52:27","transcript_line_range":[1,12]}}
]

Authorities: [
{"type":"other","name":"Michigan Technological University study (2018) cited by public commenter","referenced_by":["public-comment-summary-2025-10-17"]}
]

Topics: [
{"name":"public_comment","justification":"Article compiles the substance of multiple public comments recorded in the meeting minutes.