EDGI is partnered with a few universities research units/programs, Union of Concerned Scientists, and other research labs and climate organizations.
EDGI has a main website where all of their information is stored. Based on a Google search, there is also a social media account via Twitter.
EDGI has several projects such as “A People’s EPA”, “Data Together”, and “Federal Environmental Web Tracker”
“Federal Environmental Web Tracker”: a public dataset to changes of federal environmental websites under the Trump administration and beyond. This one especially peaked my interest because it is fairly simple to navigate and there is also a Google Sheets version that is downloadable I believe.
EDGI obtains its funding from several 501 c 3 organizations but primarily relies on volunteer work. They are also offered compensation and reimbursement for some of their work or operations. EDGI is fiscally sponsored by Multiplier, a 501 c 3 organization that supports projects that have a planet-saving impact.
EDGI formed in November 2016 to document and analyze changes to environmental governance that would transpire under the Trump Administration. EDGI subsequently became the preeminent 'watchdog group' for material on federal environmental data issues on government websites and a national leader in highlighting President Trump’s impacts such as declines in EPA enforcement.
EDGI has created many projects that demonstrate tracking of environmental governance changes, specifically in environmental data infrastructure. It mainly deals with federal datasets and does not have much information on its website about engaging smaller communities.
There are 50+ members of this organization from academic institutions, non-profit and grassroots organizations, and professionals from a broad spectrum of work and life backgrounds.
Sub-units of this organization include one for environmental data justice.
There are five major programs: 1) investigating and analyzing the inner workings of federal environmental policy, through interviewing of agency staff, as well as data and documentary collection and analysis, 2) monitoring changes to, and exploring standards for, web-based information about the environment, energy, and climate provided by the federal government, 3) developing new ways of making federal environmental data more accessible to the public, 4) imagining, conceptualizing, and moving toward Environmental Data Justice, and 5) prototyping new organizational structures and practices for distributed, collective, effective work rooted in justice.
"The Environmental Data & Governance Initiative (EDGI) documents, analyzes, and advocates for the federal provision of environmental data and governance, from policies and institutions, to public access to information, to environmental decision-making. They seek to improve environmental information stewardship, promote environmental democracy, health, and justice, and to better adapt these all to the digital age." (Environmental Data and Governance Initiative, About section)
This supplementary legal document describes recommendations for storm- and waste-water management improvements for the Formosa petrochemical plant in Calhoun County, Texas. The text is a fairly standard drainage assessment. The author describes non-trivial discharge of pollutants out of the plant’s outfalls, which drain into local waters, and the inability of the plant’s systems to prevent flooding from even small storms. For some context on this, it is pretty standard to design a stormwater system to be able to drain the 100-year storm (that is, the storm with a 1% or less chance of occurring in any given year). Formosa’s Texas plant demonstrated the inability to convey even the 2-year storm.
Emphases are mine:
“Problem areas were identified based on the results from the outfall drainage studies provided by Formosa. Thus, all the results in the OPCC rely on those studies, uncertainities associated with those studies, and the assumptions made for those studies, some of which may or may not be appropriate as I pointed out in Supplement #2 [Page 4]” (3)
“The proposed improvements assume that the conveyance capacity of the problem areas is increased 100%, which would be able to handle twice as much flow that it currently does. The results from the Drainage Study are not conclusive as to what storm event Formosa’s system currently is capable of conveying. The report does mention that the system is not capable of conveying the 2-year storm, and “sometimes” not even the 1-year storm event.” (3)
“A 45% contingency is applied to the OPCC due to the uncertainties associated with underground utilities, likelihood of existence of low road crossings and need to replace those, groundwater impacts, other unknowns, and additional costs associated with engineering, etc. 45% is reasonable and in line with industry practices in my experience, especially given the large amount of unknown information available.” (4)
“My opinion from my July 9, 2018 report that “there have been and are still pellets and/or plastic materials discharges above trace amounts through Outfall 001” is further supported by the deposition testimony of Lisa Vitale, as representative for Freese & Nichols, Inc, that she and her colleagues have seen floating white pellets or small plastic pieces in Lavaca Bay and in the area near outfall 001 as part of her work on the receiving water monitoring program for Formosa’s TPDES permit...Ms. Vitale also testified that she told John Hyak of Formosa about these sightings as well as has sent him water samples with the pellets about five or six times, including at least one time prior to 2010. This, along with the June 2010 EPA Report I cited in my July Report, demonstrates to me that Formosa was aware of problems related to discharges of plastics from its facility since at least in 2010.” (6)