Bridge Listens: The facts about Michigan’s environment, data centers, dams
May 27, 2026
- Bridge Michigan readers identified environmental issues as top election concerns
- Michigan faces significant challenges with dam safety, data center expansions and the health of the Great Lakes
- Below, we break down the issues, the facts surrounding them, and the policy proposals on the table
No matter their political party, Michiganders love the state’s land and water.
But there’s plenty of political disagreement about how to approach its myriad environmental challenges, from how to reduce oil spill risks in the Great Lakes to who should pay to shore up Michigan’s decrepit dams.
Bridge Michigan readers have listed environmental issues as top statewide concerns in Bridge Listens, our informal election-year survey.
Here’s what some of them said:
- “Michigan’s Great Lakes, and its outdoor recreation areas are unique resources that must be protected.” — Anne, Holt
- “Our prime farmland is being taken over by green energy. We grow navy beans and sugar beets in Huron County, not solar panels.” — Nancy, Pigeon
- “How can our Legislators say they defend the Blue (law enforcement) and at the same time defund the Green (DNR law enforcement)?” — George, Negaunee
Bridge also asked leading gubernatorial candidates to explain their stances on these issues. See their answers here.
Related:
Below, you’ll find the facts and figures on six of the most pressing environmental issues facing Michigan as the 2026 campaign season ramps up.
Last year, Michigan became one of 38 states offering tax breaks for hyperscale data centers, looking to recruit an industry poised for a multi-trillion-dollar global building boom.
Data centers that meet certain criteria can avoid the state’s 6% sales and use tax, a perk that the Senate Fiscal Agency values at $90 million statewide through 2050. In reality, large data center operators will likely save far more than that. Similar tax breaks in other states have amounted to hundreds of millions per facility.
So far, one facility has gained needed power approvals: a 1.4-gigawatt project planned for 250 acres south of Ann Arbor. That’s enough energy to power a large American city.
While backers celebrate potential jobs, local taxes and spinoff investment from data centers, bipartisan backlash has emerged amid concerns about the facilities’ hefty land, water and energy demand and the idea of giving tax breaks to some of the world’s richest companies.
That’s not to mention the fear of societal disruption caused by artificial intelligence, said Erik Nordman, director of the Institute of Public Utilities at Michigan State University.’
“It’s affecting everything from education to journalism to art and design and coding,” he said. “A lot of different fields are affected by this.”
Dozens of Michigan communities have enacted moratoriums on data center development and some lawmakers are pushing for a statewide pause.
Both Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and state House Speaker Matt Hall, the state’s top-ranking Democrat and Republican, say they oppose the moratorium effort.
What the research says
A 2025 study from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the Brattle Group found that states with rising electricity demand had lower prices, likely by adding a new major customer to share in the cost of maintaining poles and wires.
Join Bridge reporters for a free, online discussion about environmental issues in Michigan on Wednesday, May 27 at 7 p.m. Register here.
Listen and look for us on WJR Detroit earlier that same day. Bridge reporter Kelly House will join “All Talk” with Kevin Dietz, tentatively scheduled for 10:18 a.m. on Wednesday, May 27.
But too much demand can have the opposite effect, driving up prices as data centers compete with residential customers for limited electrons, as has happened in Ohio and several neighboring states.
So far, data centers are getting their power mostly from burning more fossil fuels, which means data centers are worsening global warming.
Depending how they’re built, the facilities can also use copious amounts of water. Evaporatively cooled data centers can use millions of gallons a day — on par with an irrigated farm in the heat of summer.
Those that rely on closed-loop systems, like the proposed project near Ann Arbor, may use tens of thousands of gallons, on par with a large office building or hotel.
In the past six years, Michigan has endured environmental and safety crises at aging, undersized dams whose owners failed to address longstanding safety concerns.
Midland, AuTrain and Cheboygan are three prominent examples.
Michigan’s roughly 2,600 dams are among the nation’s oldest, averaging 80 years old, compared to a national average age of 57. Many haven’t been adequately maintained, with about 100 rated in poor condition.
Michigan’s safety standards for high-hazard dams — large ones that could kill people if they fail — are half as stringent as federal standards.
A report last year from the Association of State Dam Safety Officials estimated Michigan dams need at least $1 billion in updates.
What the research says:
Experts have warned for at least two decades about the dangers posed by Michigan’s aging dams, with report after report recommending more stringent safety regulations and greater investment in repairs.
Until such investments are made, “failures and incidents at dams are only going to increase,” said John Roche, president of the American Society of Dam Safety Officials.
Lawmakers considered but declined to strengthen Michigan’s safety standards following dam failures near Midland in 2020. New legislation filed in both the state House and state Senate revives the effort but does not include money to cover repairs.
Delaying dam repairs can lead to bigger public costs. The Midland dams, for instance, needed an estimated $10 million in upgrades before their 2020 failure. Those upgrades never happened, and taxpayers instead spent hundreds of millions rebuilding the dams.
Michigan is transitioning from fossil fuels and, depending who you ask, it’s happening too slow or too fast.
It’s a debate stoked by aggressive fossil fuel industry political spending, questions about which communities should shoulder the burden of fulfilling America’s power needs and disagreement over how much America should fear climate change.
Back in 2023, Democratic lawmakers who then controlled both state legislative chambers enacted a requirement for the state’s utilities to achieve 100% clean energy by 2040.
No Republicans voted in favor of the legislation. After taking control of the state House last year, that party’s leaders are now pushing to rescind the clean energy mandate, contending efforts to adopt clean energy have raised costs and reduced grid reliability, although research disputes those claims.
President Donald Trump’s administration has ordered the continued operation of a Michigan coal plant that was slated for closure, and both the state and federal governments are spending taxpayer money to repower southwest Michigan’s shuttered Palisades nuclear power plant.
What the research says:
Natural gas remains Michigan’s most prominent energy source, generating 45% of the state’s power, while coal and nuclear provide about 21% each and renewables provide 12%.
Michigan utilities have slowly transitioned off fossil fuels, a trend expected to continue as the 2040 deadline approaches and renewable power becomes increasingly cost-competitive with fossil fuels.
Nationally, coal production has declined for years while cheaper renewables and natural gas dominate new power installations. Solar is expected to account for half of the nation’s newly installed generating capacity this year, with battery storage facilities accounting for another 28%.
Scientists have long warned that humanity’s reliance on fossil fuel energy is dangerously warming the globe.
“It’s something that we know with great certainty will continue to get worse … as long as we keep putting greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere,” said University of Michigan climate scientist Jonathan Overpeck.
In Michigan, direct effects range from shorter winters and more intense periods of storm and drought to worsening wildfire smoke, disappearing boreal forests, shrinking fish and expanding outbreaks of invasive species and pests that were once limited by Michigan’s frigid winters.
Climate stress elsewhere is also likely to have ripple effects in the Great Lakes, such as wildfires, drought and sea level rise forcing both people and industries to move to more hospitable regions or crop failures spiking the cost of groceries.
What the research says
Average temperatures have warmed by 2.3 degrees since the 1950s, resulting in nine fewer freezing days annually. Absent swift reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, the state is expected to face another 3 degrees to 6 degrees of warming by midcentury.
As a result, Great Lakes ice cover is declining by about 5% per decade, while many inland lakes are predicted to stop consistently freezing over by midcentury.
Dangerously hot summer days are also growing more common: In Detroit, the number of days topping 90 degrees may increase from about 15 today to between 36 and 72 by century’s end.
And because warmer air holds more moisture, stormy weather is also on the rise. Annual precipitation has increased by 14% since 1951, while the most severe storms have grown 35% wetter.
A 2017 US Environmental Protection Agency study estimated that missed work and early deaths caused by extreme heat will cost the Midwest about $14 billion in today’s dollars annually by midcentury.
By some metrics, the Great Lakes are healthier than ever.
Gone are the days when industry openly dumped waste into their waters, setting waterways ablaze and creating toxic sites from Detroit to Houghton.
But new crises have emerged.
“Are lakes on fire? No,” said Allison Voglesong Zejnati, a spokesperson for the International Joint Commission, an organization created by the US and Canadian governments to focus on shared boundary waters. “But is that a good baseline against which we can compare and say, well, things are fine now? Not necessarily.”
In every lake but Superior, invasive mussels have infiltrated the ecosystem and hogged the food other species need to survive. Whitefish numbers have plummeted so severely that scientists fear they may disappear all together from the lower lakes.
Meanwhile, Lake Erie and Saginaw Bay suffer the consequences of longstanding agricultural pollution that fuels nuisance algae blooms every summer.
And then there’s Enbridge Energy’s Line 5: More than a decade since concerns first emerged about oil spill risks from the 73-year-old pipeline in the Straits of Mackinac, Line 5’s future remains unclear amid prolonged legal battles over whether to shut it down or keep it open.
What the research says:
Mussels are now so abundant in the lower lakes they control levels of phosphorus, a nutrient vital to the lakes’ ability to sustain life. Nobody has yet figured out how to curb their numbers, and neither the state nor federal government have spent much money trying.
Far more money has been spent attempting to reduce the fertilizer and manure pollution that fouls Lake Erie and Saginaw Bay. But so far, it hasn’t worked. Regulators have deemed inner Saginaw Bay “impaired” because of nuisance algae blooms. Last year, Michigan missed a deadline to reduce nutrient loads into Lake Erie by 40%.
Regarding Line 5, a 2017 state-commissioned report found it has a 1-in-60 chance of breaking by 2053. That report and others have offered varying estimates of how far the oil might spread, from about 20 miles to several hundreds of miles.
Moving the pipeline into an underground tunnel would reduce the spill threat to “virtually zero,” according to a 2018 Enbridge report.
According to a February federal assessment, tradeoffs of tunnel construction include destruction of wetlands, bat habitat and archaeological sites. Tunnel proponents argue that without the pipeline, products from Line 5 might instead be transported by rail, truck or barge, increasing tailpipe emissions without eliminating spill risks.
Michigan manages about 250 state parks, recreation areas, and state forest campgrounds, about 4.6 million acres of state land (an area roughly the size of New Jersey), and more freshwater than any other state in the country.
The Michigan Department of Natural Resources oversees those amenities while also monitoring hunting and fishing, stocking fish, fighting forest fires and prioritizing the conservation of hundreds of plant and animal species.
The DNR’s budget for fiscal year 2025-26 is $543.2 million, much of which comes from user fees such as park passes, camping reservations and hunting, fishing and boating licenses.
In 1970, 68% of state park revenue came from the state general fund. Today, about 3% comes from the general fund. About half of parks revenue comes from camping and lodging fees, and about a third comes from Recreation Passports, an annual fee that allows motor vehicles to enter state parks, state forest campgrounds and boating access sites. Nearly 3.1 million resident Recreation Passports were sold in fiscal 2025, which generated about $45.9 million.
Department officials have long warned of a looming financial crisis. Hunting is in decline, leaving fewer paying customers to fund the agency. Hunting and fishing license prices haven’t gone up in more than a decade. Revenue from license sales declined from $65.6 million in 2020 to $63.7 million in 2024.
That’s prompting intense debate about whether to boost the agency’s funding or cut services, along with calls to reform a funding model that former DNR Director Keith Creagh described as “broken and outdated.”
Efforts in recent years to increase revenue by changing the way the state’s Recreation Passport works have failed. Legislation to increase hunting and fishing license fees — Senate Bill 276 and SB 277 — passed the state Senate but is stuck in a state House committee.
Some state lawmakers criticize the department for what they see as over-policing the outdoors. They say the DNR is over-funded and purposely not filling jobs to cover operational costs.
Whitmer’s proposed budget for fiscal years 2027 and 2028 would include a gross funding increase of about 12% for the DNR. The state House is proposing a decrease of 9.1%, while the state Senate is proposing an increase of about 10%.
“My opinion is that natural resource management should be nonpartisan,” Creagh told Bridge. “But the current conversation is someone may not be satisfied with how the DNR either responded or addressed an issue, and so let’s try to fix behavior through a budget process.”
What the research says:
The department’s budget, when compared to a decade ago, is on par with the rate of inflation.
Still, the DNR estimates that its infrastructure needs total nearly $1 billion, including upgrading fish research stations, repairing dams, improving culverts that facilitate stream crossings, upgrading state parks’ utilities and more. That includes an infrastructure backlog of more than $522 million for state parks and recreation areas alone.
The DNR used $273 million in federal American Rescue Plan Act dollars to address a backlog of capital projects, but inflation limited what could be repaired and the list continues to grow.
Search
RECENT PRESS RELEASES
Related Post
