## Facts

- John Morrell & Co. operated a meat-packing plant in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, generating large volumes of wastewater that was treated and discharged into the Big Sioux River.
- Morrell held a Clean Water Act (CWA) permit requiring limits on ammonia nitrogen discharges, weekly ammonia testing, and monthly discharge-monitoring reports submitted to the EPA.
- After Morrell increased hog processing in 1991, wastewater volumes increased and ammonia levels exceeded permit limits.
- Wastewater treatment personnel manipulated discharge timing and monitoring so that weekly test samples showed low ammonia while higher-ammonia discharges occurred later in the week (“flow manipulation”).
- Personnel also selectively sampled and falsified monitoring and reporting to understate actual ammonia levels reported to the EPA.
- Timothy J. Sinskey (plant manager) signed and submitted the monthly reports to the EPA; Wayne Kumm (plant engineer) was involved in plant operations affecting discharge flows.
- Federal prosecutors charged Sinskey and Kumm with criminal CWA violations and conspiracy based on discharge, sampling, and reporting practices intended to conceal permit exceedances.
- After a joint jury trial in the District of South Dakota, Sinskey was convicted on 11 counts and Kumm on 1 count; both appealed their convictions and sentences.

## Issues

1. Under CWA § 1319(c)(2)(A), does “knowingly violates” require proof that a defendant knew the conduct was illegal or that it violated permit conditions, or only that the defendant knew and intentionally performed the underlying acts?
2. Was the evidence sufficient for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Sinskey and Kumm knowingly participated in CWA violations and related conspiracies?
3. Did the district court commit reversible error in jury instructions and other trial rulings, including evidentiary decisions?
4. Did the district court err in applying the Sentencing Guidelines and making related factual findings?

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgments.
- The court held that “knowingly violates” in § 1319(c)(2)(A) requires proof the defendant knew the nature of the acts performed and acted intentionally, not that the defendant knew the acts were unlawful or violated the CWA/permit.
- The court upheld the challenged “knowingly” instruction because it correctly required awareness and intentional action while not requiring knowledge of illegality.
- The court found sufficient evidence that Sinskey and Kumm knowingly participated in discharge manipulation and monitoring/reporting practices that concealed exceedances, and that they joined conspiratorial conduct proved by direct and circumstantial evidence.
- The court rejected claims of instructional error on conspiracy and other elements when the charge was read as a whole.
- The court upheld the sentences, finding no reversible error in Guidelines application or the district court’s factual determinations.

## Legal Principles

- In federal criminal statutes, absent clear contrary text, “knowingly” generally refers to knowledge of the facts and conduct that constitute the offense, not knowledge that the conduct is illegal.
- For CWA felony liability under 33 U.S.C. § 1319(c)(2)(A), the government must prove the defendant knowingly engaged in the conduct that produced the permit violation (including intentional manipulation of monitoring/reporting), but need not prove the defendant knew the conduct violated the CWA or permit conditions.
- On sufficiency review, an appellate court views evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, and a jury may infer knowledge and intent from circumstantial evidence, including patterns of conduct and managerial responsibility.
- Conspiracy may be proved by circumstantial evidence showing coordinated activity and participation consistent with an agreement; jury instructions are evaluated as a whole for legal adequacy.
- Sentencing determinations based on factual findings receive deferential review; legal interpretation of the Guidelines is reviewed more closely, but requires reversal only for error affecting the sentence.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit affirmed CWA convictions and sentences arising from wastewater discharge and reporting manipulation, holding that the statute’s “knowingly violates” requirement demands proof of intentional conduct and awareness of actions, not proof that defendants knew their actions were unlawful or violated permit requirements.


United States v. Sinskey, 119 F.3d 712 (8th Cir. 1997)