Cal. Codes » Water Code / DIVISION 7. WATER QUALITY / CHAPTER 4. Regional Water Quality Control / ARTICLE 4. Waste Discharge Requirements
California Codes

Cal. Water Code § 13267 (2026)

Waste Discharge Requirements

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)A regional board, in establishing or reviewing any water quality control plan or waste discharge requirements, or in connection with any action relating to any plan or requirement authorized by this division, may investigate the quality of any waters of the state within its region.

(b)(1)In conducting an investigation specified in subdivision (a), the regional board may require that any person who has discharged, discharges, or is suspected of having discharged or discharging, or who proposes to discharge waste within its region, or any citizen or domiciliary, or political agency or entity of this state who has discharged, discharges, or is suspected of having discharged or discharging, or who proposes to discharge, waste outside of its region that could affect the quality of waters within its region shall furnish, under penalty of perjury, technical or monitoring program reports which the regional board requires. The burden, including costs, of these reports shall bear a reasonable relationship to the need for the report and the benefits to be obtained from the reports. In requiring those reports, the regional board shall provide the person with a written explanation with regard to the need for the reports, and shall identify the evidence that supports requiring that person to provide the reports.

(2)When requested by the person furnishing a report, the portions of a report that might disclose trade secrets or secret processes may not be made available for inspection by the public but shall be made available to governmental agencies for use in making studies. However, these portions of a report shall be available for use by the state or any state agency in judicial review or enforcement proceedings involving the person furnishing the report.

(c)In conducting an investigation pursuant to subdivision (a), the regional board may inspect the facilities of any person to ascertain whether the purposes of this division are being met and waste discharge requirements are being complied with. The inspection shall be made with the consent of the owner or possessor of the facilities or, if the consent is withheld, with a warrant duly issued pursuant to the procedure set forth in Title 13 (commencing with Section 1822.50) of Part 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, in the event of an emergency affecting the public health or safety, an inspection may be performed without consent or the issuance of a warrant.

(d)The regional board may participate in an inspection of an unlicensed cannabis cultivation site conducted pursuant to a warrant duly issued pursuant to the Penal Code when requested by the party seeking that warrant, and when there is probable cause that the unlicensed cannabis cultivation and its associated activities may involve the discharge of waste in violation of this division or of any principles and guidelines established pursuant to Section 13149.

(e)The state board or a regional board may require any person, including a person subject to a waste discharge requirement under Section 13263, who is discharging, or who proposes to discharge, wastes or fluid into an injection well, to furnish the state board or regional board with a complete report on the condition and operation of the facility or injection well, or any other information that may be reasonably required to determine whether the injection well could affect the quality of the waters of the state.

(f)As used in this section, “evidence” means any relevant evidence on which responsible persons are accustomed to rely in the conduct of serious affairs, regardless of the existence of any common law or statutory rule that might make improper the admission of the evidence over objection in a civil action.

(g)The state board may carry out the authority granted to a regional board pursuant to this section if, after consulting with the regional board, the state board determines that it will not duplicate the efforts of the regional board.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2006–2021 · leading case: City of Arcadia v. State Water Resources Control Bd., 36 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20025 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Arcadia v. State Water Resources Control Bd., 36 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20025 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “Ill Cost-Benefit Analysis and Economic Considerations The Water Boards next contend the court erred by finding the Trash TMDL is invalid because they violated state law by not conducting a cost-benefit analysis (Wat. Code, § 13267) or considering economic factors (id.”
Barclay Hollander Corp. v. Cal. Reg'l Water Quality Control Bd., 251 Cal. Rptr. 3d 206 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2019). · cites it 3× “) *501 Water Code section 13267 authorizes a regional water board, or the state board, to investigate potential threats to the quality of the waters of the state, 26 including on an emergency basis.”
Dep't of Fin. v. Comm'n on State Mandates, 378 P.3d 356 (Cal. 2016). · cites it 2× “‖ (Wat. Code, § 13267, subd. (c).) Thus, state law imposed an overarching mandate that the Regional Board inspect the facilities and sites.”
San Francisco Baykeeper v. WEST BAY SANITARY Dist., 791 F. Supp. 2d 719 (N.D. Cal. 2011). · cites it 3× “C. § 1365 . Plaintiffs Complaint seeks a judgment declaring that Defendant has discharged pollutants from its Collection System without a permit, in violation of the CWA, an injunction preventing Defendant from discharging pollutants without a NPDES permit, and civil penalties…”
California Sportfishing Prot. All. v. Shiloh Grp., LLC, 268 F. Supp. 3d 1029 (N.D. Cal. 2017). “See Cal. Water Code § 13267 (b)(1). As explained by the Ninth Circuit, “[sjtorm water presents a unique problem under the CWA because it is a- significant source of water pollution but is not inherently a nonpoint or point source.”
Sweeney v. California Reg'l Water Quality Control Bd. (Cal. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 4× “(Wat. Code, § 13267, subd. (b)(1).) Section 13267 states: “The burden, including costs, of these reports shall bear a reasonable relationship to the need for the report and the benefits to be obtained from the reports.”
Sweeney v. California Reg'l Water Quality Control Bd. (Cal. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 4× “(Wat. Code, § 13267, subd. (b)(1).) Section 13267 states: “The burden, including costs, of these reports shall bear a reasonable relationship to the need for the report and the benefits to be obtained from the reports.”
Barclay Hollander Corp. v. Cal. Reg'l Water Quality Control etc. (Cal. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 3× “” Water Code section 13267 provides, in pertinent part: “(a) A regional board, in establishing or reviewing any water quality control plan or waste discharge requirements, or in 10 In response to that order, Shell conducted the requested environmental investigation, including…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.