Abstract

In June 2019, a landmark court decision (San Antonio Bay Estuarine Waterkeeper, et al. v. Formosa Plastics Corporation, et al., hereafter referred to as the Formosa ruling) was issued in Texas, where a judge found a petrochemical company liable for violating the United States Clean Water Act. The case—initiated by a civic group—was mostly built on citizen-collected evidence involving volunteer observations of plastic pellets, powder and flakes in the water over a considerable time span. The contamination could not be proven through existing data held by competent authorities because the company never filed any record of pollution (Formosa ruling, XI.A, p. 17).<sup><a id="xrn1" href="#n1">1</a></sup> In contrast to the majority of environmental pollution cases to date, the monitoring and data collection for this case was conducted by local residents who gathered a wealth of evidence of plastic pollution in water. Through a traditional case law and text analysis of the Formosa ruling, complemented by the analysis of surrounding communications, we explore why and how citizen-collected evidence was admitted and influenced the judge’s ruling. Although the case has some unique features, we identify possible arguments and lessons learned for other citizen-run monitoring initiatives, to strengthen their voice within environmental litigation. We close by suggesting an avenue for future research—especially in the European context, where the discussion is still in its infancy.

Highlights

  • In June 2019, a landmark court decision

  • From the case analysis we have presented and from our communications with the plaintiffs and attorney Johnson, we conclude that the following aspects played a crucial role in ensuring the admission of the citizen-collected evidence: 1. The nature of the evidence: The nature of plastic pellets, powder and flakes—small plastic objects that can be recognized and collected by anyone, even without any specialized knowledge—played an important role in the judge’s decision

  • In terms of the types of evidence that count as citizen science in the Formosa litigation, we can say that videos, pictures, and plastics-containing bags represented citizen science data

Read more

Summary

Introduction

BACKGROUND In June 2019, a landmark court decision Formosa Plastics Corporation, et al, hereafter referred to as the Formosa ruling) was issued in Texas, United States (US), in which a judge found a petrochemical company—the Formosa Plastics Corporation—liable for violating the US Clean Water Act. When we refer in this article to the conviction of Formosa Plastics Corporation or we use the term ‘the company’, we mean the conviction both of Formosa Plastics Corporation, Texas, and Formosa Plastics Corporation, US, which are two different entities against which the case was filed. The civil lawsuit was filed under the ‘citizen suit authority’ as provided by Section 505 of the Clean Water Act, which regulates if and when a citizen can sue a polluter.

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call