In 2008, a grassroots opposition movement succeeded in stopping California’s aerial spray program for eradicating the light brown apple moth. The movement included a small core of citizen experts who focused on refuting the technical assessments that the state used to justify the aerial spray program. This article analyzes the rhetoric of the opposition movement, especially its written technical discourse, to find out how the movement established expert authority and why the movement’s rhetorical success represents a cautionary tale for public deliberation in an era of democratized expertise.

The questions are, by now, familiar in our technologically advanced society: How can or should ordinary citizens influence public policy decisions when the problems under consideration call for the...

Two versions of a biological opinion written by different teams in the U.S. Fish and Wild-life Service illuminate how different rhetorical strategies reflect different values. The historical narrative in the earlier biological opinion, which is used to argue for vigorous action to protect endangered species along the Missouri River, is largely erased in the later opinion that privileges human uses of the river system. This analysis emphasizes the problematic nature of authorship when the concept is applied to a document produced in an organization or agency. Moreover, examining how authors control information reveals the power technical writers have to influence meaning making.