United States v. Raymond T. Brittain
21 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 21092, 32 ERC (BNA) 2084, 931 F.2d 1413 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Clean Water Act, any individual with operational responsibility for a facility can be held criminally liable as a "person" for willful or negligent permit violations, regardless of whether the individual is the named permittee. Falsifying mandatory reports for a regulatory self-monitoring system constitutes a material falsehood under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 because it is capable of influencing agency enforcement decisions.
Facts:
- The city of Enid, Oklahoma, operated a wastewater treatment plant under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued by the EPA.
- Raymond T. Brittain served as the public utilities director for Enid, with general supervisory authority over the wastewater treatment plant's operations.
- Brittain directed the plant supervisor to falsify eighteen monthly discharge monitoring reports sent to the EPA by recording fixed, false values for pollutants regardless of actual measurements.
- The plant's renewed NPDES permit authorized discharge from only one point source (outfall 001) and expressly prohibited discharge from a second point source (outfall 002).
- During periods of heavy rain, a bypass pipe diverted raw sewage through the prohibited outfall 002 directly into Boggy Creek.
- The plant supervisor informed Brittain of these illegal discharges from outfall 002.
- Brittain personally observed two of these illegal discharges in January and August 1986.
- Brittain instructed the plant supervisor not to report the illegal discharges to the EPA, a violation of the permit's terms.
Procedural Posture:
- A jury in the United States District Court (federal trial court) convicted Raymond T. Brittain on eighteen felony counts of making false statements and two misdemeanor counts of violating the Clean Water Act.
- Brittain, as the appellant, appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a public utilities director, who is not the permittee but has operational control over a facility, a 'person' who can be held criminally liable for willful or negligent violations of the Clean Water Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Baldock, Circuit Judge.
Yes. An individual with operational control over a facility is a 'person' subject to criminal liability under the Clean Water Act. The Act's plain language defines a 'person' to include any 'individual.' This definition is not limited to only those who hold the discharge permit. The statute's specific inclusion of 'responsible corporate officers' was intended to expand, not limit, the scope of liability, ensuring that those in positions of authority can be held accountable. Furthermore, Brittain’s false statements on the monitoring reports were material under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 because they were capable of influencing the EPA's decision-making process. The entire NPDES program relies on accurate self-reporting, and falsifications undermine the integrity of this regulatory system. The government presented expert testimony that the plant was in disrepair and could not have been meeting its permit limits, meaning the false reports were capable of influencing an EPA enforcement action.
Concurring - Brorby, Circuit Judge.
Yes. The majority is correct, but its reasoning on the materiality of the false statements should be viewed narrowly. The decision correctly found materiality because the false statements were capable of influencing an EPA enforcement action. However, influencing an 'enforcement action' is not the exclusive basis for finding materiality. False statements on discharge monitoring reports could also be material if they are capable of influencing other required agency determinations, such as permit decisions or the establishment of pretreatment requirements, even if those determinations are not enforcement-oriented.
Analysis:
This case clarifies that criminal liability under the Clean Water Act is not limited to the permit-holding entity but extends to individuals in positions of operational control. By rejecting the argument that only permittees or 'responsible corporate officers' could be liable, the court broadened the reach of environmental criminal statutes to include on-the-ground managers. This prevents individuals from using the corporate or municipal form as a shield against personal liability for environmental crimes. The decision also reinforces the importance of the self-reporting system in environmental regulation, establishing that any falsification that could influence an agency's function—not just trigger an immediate enforcement action—is a material offense.
