In June of this year, Louisiana enacted a law governing the gathering of air pollution data by community-based organizations. Similar legislation has been introduced (but not adopted) in West Virginia and may be proposed in other states. While proponents argue they are simply ensuring only the best data is used, the Louisiana law undermines valid community efforts to understand and address air pollution concerns, deprives the public and agencies of potentially valuable information, and raises serious legal and constitutional questions. In response, the Association for Advancing Participatory Sciences has issued a statement that “trying to stifle the creation and use of community air monitoring data is short-sighted and counterproductive.”
These proposals come in response to the rapid growth of air monitoring by community-based organizations. The emergence of cheaper air monitoring technologies, together with increasing public sophistication, allow community organizations to collect and analyze their own data on air pollution—no longer depending entirely on monitoring done by government agencies. Although the devices they use may not be as accurate as agency monitors, communities can generate data on a more local scale than the agencies typically obtain, and thus provide agencies with valuable information—e.g., about where enforcement might be needed or where agencies should place their monitors.
In 2022, several Louisiana organizations received grants—competitively awarded by the U.S. EPA—to carry out carefully designed community air monitoring projects. This drew the attention of industry, which feared that the data being gathered might be used against it. Air quality has been a battleground for many years in Louisiana, especially in the heavily industrialized area that locals call “cancer alley.” At the urging of industry, legislation governing the use of such data was signed into law in May 2024 as the “Community Air Monitoring Reliability Act” (CAMRA).
CAMRA imposes a host of limitations on the gathering and use of data by community air monitoring projects. It requires groups collecting data “for the purpose of alleging violations or noncompliance” with federal or state clean air laws to use federally approved monitoring methods (FRMs) rather than the lower-cost devices community groups usually utilize. The law could be interpreted to cover not only allegations in court proceedings, but also allegations in public statements by community organizations. It prohibits the use of data from other types of monitoring devices (including those typically used by community organizations) in enforcement cases, either by state agencies or in citizen suits. The law also imposes requirements for what must be stated in the “release or communication” of any monitoring data, and on permissible analytical methods and software.
CAMRA raises significant policy and legal concerns. FRM devices are extremely expensive, effectively making air monitoring infeasible for community groups if they anticipate the possibility of making any “allegation” of noncompliance (e.g., in a citizen suit against a polluting company, or even just a public statement). It effectively deprives agencies and the public of valuable local-scale information that would not otherwise be available.
The law would seem to allow publicizing air quality data for general public information. It also allows the state to consider non-FRM community data in reviewing whether regional air quality meets national ambient air quality standards. However, its prohibition on the use of such data for enforcement specifically is so broad that it might prohibit the state from even considering community data as an indicator of a local problem that warrants further investigation.
The law also raises serious constitutional concerns, in restricting “allegations” that may be made simply in public statements by a community organization, and in specifying in detail how “any release or communication” of data must be written. The collection of data broadly has been held to raise First Amendment issues, calling into doubt the law’s core restrictions on data gathering.
It is not in fact clear that a problem exists that requires legislation. The groups doing such monitoring are aware of the limitations of their devices and the need for proper interpretation and generally try to act accordingly. Proponents of the bill did not cite examples in which data from community monitoring was used inaccurately or in misleading ways. In enforcement cases, courts have procedures for evaluating whether scientific evidence should be considered, and those procedures can be applied to community monitoring data without a blanket prohibition on non-FRM data. In fact, EPA’s rules specifically reject the argument that only data from FRM monitors may be used in enforcement, stating that any “credible evidence” must be considered. During consideration of the bill, EPA sent a letter stating that it appeared to violate that rule.
Ensuring that community-generated data is used appropriately, and communicated accurately, is a worthy goal. However, legislation like Louisiana’s goes too far—depriving the courts, agencies, and public of valuable information. States, communities, and air monitoring experts should work together to develop joint strategies to support and improve how community monitoring data can contribute to understanding air quality—and be used to inform strategies to reduce air pollution and protect public health.