I don't see the original poster polling the forum for opinions regarding advice on if legal proceedings would be necessary, appropriate, ethical, etc.,. Nor does it appear he is inquiring for opinions about one who might make use of the public court system as remedy for damages incurred. Yet it seems the thread has derailed a bit and I, although also not asked, feel compelled to defend his statements as perfectly reasonable.
His first post, regarding a grievance with a state agency, stated: "I would like to take them to court, to sue them and prevent them from spreading poison chemicals on my property, to prevent further ecological harm to our region, and to prevent them from causing further reckless damage to my property and others." In addition to defending his property rights, I think a large group of people make donations to organizations who's mission statement is same. 8-)
Then he wrote in reply: "...the sweet and nice approach is fine - and I agree that it is best to start that way. But if the party is causing damage, and isn't responsive, then I would use the courts." Reads as though the courts would be the last resort and, even then, a large percentage of cases are settled before they go to trial.
If you're opinion is that you'd rather have toxins dumped on you & yours, take losses of personal property and leave the public (provided and paid for by you) court system as an unacceptable remedy of last resort due to your concern lest the world become overrun with "sue crazy" people, feelings towards other's problem resolution methods, political leanings, etc., I say - that's your prerogative. (but I'd keep it a secret if I were you, unless asked... would be polite, well.. even then ~> :-X.)