Members of the public attend a hearing over Enbridge Line 5. (Photo courtesy of Devon Young Cupery)

An administrative law judge in Madison heard arguments Wednesday in a case contesting Wisconsin’s approval of Enbridge’s proposed Line 5 pipeline reroute. Members of the  public testified, followed by an expert witness in geology and hydrology, who questioned aspects of the reroute plan. 

The lawsuit, brought by Clean Wisconsin and Midwest Environmental Advocates (on behalf of the Sierra Club of Wisconsin, the League of Woman Voters of Wisconsin and 350 Wisconsin), challenges permits allowing the Canadian oil company to move forward with rerouting the Line 5 pipeline around the Bad River reservation in northern Wisconsin. Wednesday’s hearing followed the opening day of testimony in Ashland and was one of a series of hearings  scheduled through early October. The Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa is challenging Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources permits for a Line 5 reroute, which was designed to fix a legal problem with the existing pipeline after a federal court found that it trespasses on tribal land. Attorneys for the Band, environmental groups and Enbridge testified at the hearing. 

Enbridge’s Line 5 pipeline has been a polarizing issue, with one side arguing that it’s crucial for energy independence and jobs in Wisconsin, while the other points to a history of leaky and ruptured Enbridge pipelines causing ecological damage, a national need to transition away from fossil fuels, and the company’s years-long trespass on the Bad River Band’s sovereign land. 

Public testimony Wednesday drew  people from both sides of the debate. “The loss of Line 5 would have devastating impacts on the propane industry,” said Connor Kaeb, an associate manager with GROWMARK, which Kaeb said is Wisconsin’s fifth largest provider of propane. Kaeb stressed that farmers and northern Wisconsin communities depend on affordable and easily accessible propane. Shutting down Line 5 could cause “immense strain on the entire propane system in the region,” he said. 

Tabitha Faber, who spoke against the pipeline, said that the reroute would cross more than 100 waterways, and that even though it avoids the Bad River Band’s reservation, that the pipeline remains in the Bad River watershed, continuing to endanger the Band’s natural resources. Faber recalled visiting sites along the reroute path and seeing bald eagles and wood turtle  habitats. Faber also said that the pipeline’s construction and operation could wash invasive species into new and sensitive habitats, including within the Bad River reservation. Steve Boas, a Madison resident, also spoke against the project, calling the more than 70-year-old pipeline “an accident waiting to happen.” 

The American Petroleum Institute called the relocation project “essential to maintaining Wisconsin’s energy reliability.” The Institute claimed that rerouting Line 5 will create more than 700 jobs, adding that the pipeline has heated homes and businesses, aided agriculture and enabled transportation for decades “without any issue.” In contrast, Third Act Wisconsin — a group of older Americans concerned about climate and democracy — echoed concerns that Line 5 would threaten high-quality wetlands, the Bad River watershed as a whole and even Lake Superior.

Access to clean water is a crucial asset for Wisconsin, environmental groups testified. Tourism generates $378 million in Bayfield, Ashland, Douglas, and Iron counties, while also supporting 2,846 jobs, all in the area near Line 5, according to Clean Wisconsin. 

“For decades, the Bad River Band has been sounding the alarm about the unprecedented risks posed by Enbridge’s Line 5 pipeline,” Ellen Ferwerda, who leads Third Act Wisconsin’s work on Line 5, said in a statement. Despite “a myriad of scientists, economists, environmental groups, and citizens” who’ve spoken out against the pipeline, “the DNR summarily dismissed these concerns and issued a permit allowing Enbridge to begin construction of a reroute around the Bad River Reservation.” 

“It feels like the Bad River Band is being punished for standing up for their legal right to protect the watershed their culture and livelihood has relied on for centuries,” she added. Julia Issacs, co-facilitator of Third Act Wisconsin, said in a statement that “we should be decommissioning old and dangerous pipelines, not investing in new fossil fuel infrastructure.” 

Most of Wednesday’s hearing was dedicated to grilling William Joseph Bonin, a licensed senior geologist with Midwest Geological Consultants. He produced a report in May 2025 that pushed back on assessments made by experts from the DNR and Enbridge. 

Bonin raised a multitude of concerns, particularly around how construction of the pipeline could affect springs, aquifers and groundwater. He pointed to the presence of glacial sediments, which make it difficult to predict how water flow could be affected. Bonin recalled one 2018 project in Minnesota, where a gas pipeline was installed along a roadway near adjacent springs. The springs disappeared, and then other springs showed up in a parking lot on a private property, he said. Springs and aquifers that help feed nearby wetlands and other adjacent habitats could be affected by pipeline construction, he testified, and cutting trenches to construct the pipeline could also lead to increased erosion.

Bonin said the risk of aquifer breaches is higher than what had been assessed, and questioned how the presence of already fractured rock layers could be altered by the use of blasting in constructing the reroute. He also pointed to the possibility of “thermal impacts” to waterways, including high-quality trout streams which are sensitive to temperature changes. “Blasting is going to have a larger impact than the expert reports discussed and the reason for that is the already fractured bedrock was not taken into consideration in the reports,” Bonin said. “The effects of blasts, especially on fracture networks, may be permanent,” he added.  “The basted rock is never going to be restored.” This, in turn, could have a ripple effect on how water moves and behaves in the ground around the pipeline reroute, he testified. 

Attorneys representing the DNR and Enbridge took turns cross-examining Bonin. They discussed knowledge gaps Bonin had regarding the wetland aspects of the permits, and argued that methods like blasting and trenching are very common construction practices for all sorts of projects from pipelines to roads.  Enbridge’s attorney pointed out that, while  Bonin has reviewed and analyzed the effects of blasting, Bonin himself has not worked in the field. 

Another hearing in Madison is scheduled for Friday, Sept. 12, at the Hill Farms State Office Building. On Sept. 15 and 19, there will be  hearings in Ashland at the Northwood Technical College Conference Center, followed by more hearings in Madison on Sept. 22, Sept. 26, Sept. 29 and Oct. 3.