State of Texas Sues Dow and Braskem

The Office of the Attorney General of Texas filed a lawsuit around February 13, 2026, against The Dow Chemical Company, its subsidiary Union Carbide Corporation, and Brazilian petrochemical manufacturer Braskem America Inc., alleging "inert" plastic pellet pollution at their large-scale petrochemical complex in Seadrift, Texas.

— 1 —

Main Allegations

In the 46-page lawsuit, the State points out that since 2020, these companies have:

Unauthorized discharge of plastic pellets (nurdles): Discharged plastic pellets without authorization on 37 days between 2020 and 2021, with investigators still finding floating or settled plastic pellets in canals as of January 2026.
Violated multiple environmental regulations: Including the Texas Water Code, the Texas Solid Waste Disposal Act, and related permit requirements.
Over 100 violations: Involving issues such as exceeding bacterial limits, abnormal acidity levels, and chemical violations. For example, in 2021, 3,600 gallons of waste were discharged into the Victoria Barge Canal.
Failed to report violations.
— 2 —

Pollution Impact and State Demands

These discharge points connect to San Antonio Bay and the Gulf of Mexico via the Victoria Barge Canal, posing a threat to local waters.

Consequently, the Texas Attorney General's Office is asking the court to order the companies to:

Immediately cease all unauthorized discharges.
Within 60 days, clean up all solid waste, particularly plastic pellets, from the land and waters surrounding the facility (including the Victoria Barge Canal).
Commission an independent audit to review their wastewater management practices and submit a report to the TCEQ (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality).
Pay civil penalties exceeding $1 million (up to $25,000 per violation).
— 3 —

Reactions and Incident Background

Corporate Response: A spokesperson for Union Carbide Corporation, which operates the plant, stated that the company "works closely with state and federal regulators to ensure compliance with all existing laws and regulations," but declined to comment on the specifics of the pending litigation.
Environmentalist Criticism: Diane Wilson, an environmental activist who has long monitored the local area, strongly criticized the state's lawsuit. She characterized it as a "sweetheart deal with industry," far less impactful than the lawsuit her organization, the San Antonio Bay Estuary Guardian, planned to file under the Clean Water Act. Ms. Wilson previously sued another chemical plant (Formosa Plastics) over similar issues and secured a settlement exceeding $100 million.
Legal Maneuvering: Under the Clean Water Act, citizen groups have the right to sue when regulatory agencies are inactive. However, once a state files and actively pursues a similar lawsuit, the citizen suit is legally barred. The state's lawsuit was filed just as the 60-day waiting period for the citizen group was about to expire, thus preventing the citizen suit from proceeding. Despite this, the non-profit environmental law firm representing Ms. Wilson stated they would "remain actively involved in this case" to ensure regulatory agencies require substantial improvements at the plant.