## Facts

- Raymond T. Brittain served as public utilities director for the City of Enid, Oklahoma, with general supervisory authority over the municipal wastewater treatment plant.
- He was responsible for submitting monthly discharge monitoring reports (DMRs) required by the plant’s NPDES permit under the Clean Water Act.
- Brittain directed the plant supervisor to falsify eighteen monthly DMRs and related laboratory records by reporting fixed pollutant concentrations (about 25–30 mg/L) regardless of actual discharge measurements.
- Federal regulators rely on DMRs to assess compliance with permit limits and to determine appropriate enforcement action.
- For the period May 1985 through September 1986, the government presented evidence (including expert testimony) that the plant could not meet its permit limitations, supporting an inference that unlawful discharges occurred while false reporting continued.
- A jury convicted Brittain of 18 felony counts under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 for materially false statements and 2 misdemeanor counts under the Clean Water Act for unlawful discharges.

## Issues

1. Whether the false entries in NPDES DMRs were “material” for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
2. Whether a municipal public utilities director with supervisory authority can be a “person” who discharges pollutants under the Clean Water Act’s criminal provisions.
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the misdemeanor convictions for unlawful discharge in violation of the NPDES permit limits.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed all convictions.
- The court held that the falsified DMR entries were material as a matter of law because they were capable of influencing regulatory compliance and enforcement decisions.
- The court held that Brittain qualified as a “person” who discharged pollutants given his operational authority and his role in directing conduct that concealed noncompliance.
- The court held that the evidence, including expert testimony and other proof beyond disputed records, was sufficient for a rational jury to find unlawful discharges beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Legal Principles

- Under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, materiality remains an element; in the Tenth Circuit, materiality is a question of law reviewed de novo.
- A false statement is material if it has a natural tendency to influence, or is capable of influencing, a federal agency’s decisions.
- In the NPDES program, DMR accuracy is central to regulators’ ability to monitor permit compliance and determine enforcement responses; intentional falsification of DMR data can satisfy § 1001 materiality.
- The Clean Water Act’s definition of “person” and its criminal provisions can reach individuals who exercise supervisory control over operations and reporting connected to unlawful discharges, not only the governmental entity or those who physically operate the discharge mechanism.
- Sufficiency review asks whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Brittain’s convictions, concluding that knowingly falsified NPDES discharge reports were material to regulatory oversight, that a municipal official with supervisory control could be criminally liable as a “person” for Clean Water Act discharge violations, and that the trial evidence supported the jury’s finding of unlawful discharges during the charged period.


United States v. Brittain, 931 F.2d 1413 (10th Cir. 1991)