In First Month of COVID-19 Guidance, the California Regional Water Quality Control Boards Have Issued Hundreds of Approvals for Compliance Extensions Submitted by Regulated Entities
Time 3 Minute Read
Categories: California, Water

On March 20, the California Water Boards issued guidance about complying with regulatory requirements during the COVID-19 shelter-in-place orders. We summarized that guidance here. In short, the guidance directs regulated entities to “immediately” notify the Board if compliance is not possible and to seek appropriate relief. Water Board staff committed to “do their best to respond within 24/48 hours.”

It has now been a month, and preliminary data about the extent to which regulated entities have sought relief, and how the Regional Water Boards have responded is available. The following information was presented today in a Bar Association of San Francisco’s Environmental Law Section Master Series Roundtable providing detail about extension requests and delays by regulated entities as of the week of April 20 (i.e., at the conclusion of the first month of the policy):

  • The Regional Water Boards across California have received 345 requests for extensions pursuant to the COVID-19 guidance.
    • The Los Angeles Regional Water Board has received the most requests (approximately 100 requests).
    • The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Board has received fewer requests (approximately 30 requests).
  • Regional Water Board staff have responded to 208 of these requests. The remainder are under review.
  • Approximately 80 percent of the requests, where a response has been made, have been accepted. Most of the approved requests relate to extensions to monitoring and reporting deadlines associated with site investigation and cleanup obligations.
  • Requests that were more likely to be denied included those pertaining to drinking water-related compliance and/or situations where the Regional Water Board staff determined that a delay could cause or contribute to an imminent and substantial endangerment.

When making requests for extensions or delays to Regional Water Board staff, regulated entities are encouraged to ensure they provide detailed information in the categories included in the guidance:

  • The specific Regional Water Board order, regulation, permit, or other requirement that cannot be timely met;
  • The inconsistent COVID-19 directive or guideline (i.e., this appears to request reference to shelter-in-place orders, or similar directives, that preclude or limit the ability to comply with environmental requirements);
  • An explanation of why the responsible entity cannot timely meet the Regional Water Board order or requirement; and
  • Any action that the entity will take in lieu of complying with the specific Regional Water Board order or requirement.

In addition to the specific criteria listed in the guidance, successful requests should (1) provide detailed information about why timely compliance is not possible and (2) address why the requested delay will not cause an imminent and substantial endangerment or, if there is a risk of such endangerment, why the delay is impossible to avoid under the circumstances and what steps will be taken to minimize any endangerment.

Regulated entities should also consider the type of relief that can realistically be provided by Regional Water Board staff. For example, in situations where compliance is mandated by an order formally issued by the Regional Water Board itself, staff may be unable to provide a literal “extension” and will instead only provide assurance, via exercise of enforcement discretion, that the delay will not result in penalties. However, any such assurance will be predicated on the thoroughness and accuracy of the information underlying the request for an extension and, if the Regional Water Board were to learn of new, relevant information, it could revisit its decision to exercise its enforcement discretion.

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 4 Minute Read

North Carolina has once again favored policyholders seeking insurance coverage for COVID-19 business interruption losses. A recent decision from the Middle District of North Carolina in Durham Wood Fired Pizza Co. LLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., reinforces the North State Deli decision and suggests that a failure to provide coverage for COVID-19 business interruption claims may constitute bad faith.

Time 2 Minute Read

On November 4, 2025, the Supreme Court of Nevada denied a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by insurers seeking to challenge denial of their partial summary judgment motion on the issue of whether Covid-19 may cause “direct physical loss, damage or destruction” of property under an all-risk insurance policy that includes affirmative coverage for loss caused by infectious disease.

Time 4 Minute Read

The Minnesota Court of Appeals recently handed policyholders an important win in Life Time, Inc. v. Zurich American Insurance Co., reversing a trial court ruling that had capped coverage under a communicable disease endorsement at the $1 million per occurrence limit. Relying on the express language of the communicable disease coverage at issue, the appellate court held that government shutdown orders—not the COVID-19 pandemic itself—constituted the operative “occurrences” under Life Time’s policy. By interpreting the cause of loss in this way, the court expanded Life Time’s recovery from a single $1 million limit to 29 separate limits, one for each jurisdiction that independently ordered closure of Life Time’s business locations.

Time 4 Minute Read

In the case of Tarquinio v. Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab (No. 24-1432), decided by the Fourth Circuit on June 25, 2025, the court addressed whether an employer had a duty under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to accommodate an employee who refused to provide medical documentation supporting her request for a COVID-19 vaccine exemption.

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Authors

Archives

Jump to Page