## Facts

- Gerald Wright managed a water treatment and distribution system at Lake Tenkiller near Vian, Oklahoma (1987–1989).
- Federal regulations issued under the Safe Drinking Water Act required daily turbidity monitoring and monthly reporting of daily turbidity values to the state within ten days after each month ended.
- Oklahoma had primary enforcement authority for drinking-water standards; Wright submitted monthly turbidity reports to the county health department, which forwarded them to the state health department.
- Wright’s reports were false because they represented turbidity sample results even though samples were not taken or analyzed.
- A federal indictment charged Wright under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 for knowingly and willfully making false statements “in any matter within the jurisdiction” of a federal agency, alleging the falsified reports fell within the EPA’s jurisdiction despite being filed with state and county entities.
- In a plea agreement, Wright stipulated that the reports were submitted to the county health department and that EPA oversight included evaluating and auditing the state program, providing federal funds based on evaluations, and reviewing a sample of operational reports during audits.

## Issues

1. Whether false turbidity reports submitted to state and county health departments under a federally regulated drinking-water program are “in any matter within the jurisdiction” of the EPA for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 1001.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Wright’s motion to dismiss the indictment.
- The court held the turbidity reports were matters within the EPA’s jurisdiction under § 1001, even though the reports were submitted to state and local agencies.
- The court affirmed Wright’s conviction following his conditional guilty plea.

## Legal Principles

- For 18 U.S.C. § 1001, “jurisdiction” is interpreted broadly to include matters in which a federal agency has statutory authority to regulate, supervise, audit, or make funding-related decisions, even if a false statement is not made directly to the federal agency.
- In cooperative federal–state regulatory programs, false reports required by federal regulations and subject to federal oversight can fall within a federal agency’s jurisdiction when the agency retains evaluation, audit, and funding authority over the state program.
- Delegation of primary enforcement authority to a state does not eliminate federal agency jurisdiction where the federal agency maintains continuing supervisory power under the governing federal statute and regulations.

## Conclusion

Because the turbidity reporting requirements were created under federal law and the EPA retained ongoing authority to evaluate, audit, and fund the state drinking-water program (including reviewing operational reports), Wright’s falsified state-filed turbidity reports were within EPA jurisdiction, supporting liability under 18 U.S.C. § 1001.


United States v. Wright, 988 F.2d 1036 (10th Cir. 1993)