AB 1866 adds Section 8685.1 to the Government Code and directs the Director of Emergency Services to prioritize local agencies that are ineligible for federal assistance under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act solely because they do not meet FEMA’s minimum damage thresholds found in 44 CFR 206.48.
The prioritization applies when the director determines allocations for projects that are otherwise consistent with the California Disaster Assistance Act.
This is a targeted policy fix to a long-standing gap: small, rural, and special-purpose local agencies often suffer disaster losses that fall below federal per-incident or per-capita thresholds and therefore receive no FEMA assistance. The bill steers state decisionmaking toward those jurisdictions, but it does not appropriate new funds, define how priority is measured, or alter federal eligibility rules — leaving key implementation questions to Cal OES and the state budgeting process.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires the Director of Emergency Services to give priority in state disaster funding allocations to local agencies that FEMA declared ineligible because they failed to meet the minimum damage thresholds in 44 CFR 206.48. The directive applies when allocating funds for projects that meet the California Disaster Assistance Act’s existing criteria.
Who It Affects
Small cities, rural counties, and special districts (for example, water, fire, and sanitation districts) that often fall below FEMA damage thresholds will move ahead in state allocation decisions. Cal OES and local emergency managers will bear the operational work of identifying those ineligible agencies and implementing the prioritization.
Why It Matters
The measure creates a state-level backstop for jurisdictions shut out of federal disaster aid, changing how limited state recovery dollars are allocated after a declared state emergency. For compliance officers and emergency managers, it reallocates prioritization responsibilities without adding explicit funding or procedural detail.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 1866 inserts a single, focused provision into the California Disaster Assistance Act framework: when the Director of Emergency Services is deciding how to allocate state disaster funds for a project that otherwise complies with the Act, the director must prioritize local agencies that FEMA excluded because they did not meet that agency’s minimum damage threshold under 44 CFR 206.48. In practice, this means Cal OES must identify which local applicants were denied federal Public Assistance or Individual Assistance eligibility for that specific reason and give them preferential treatment in the state allocation process.
The bill does not change the underlying eligibility tests in either federal or state law. A project must still be “consistent with this chapter,” meaning it must meet the Act’s existing standards for covered costs and activities.
The new rule is a directive about ordering state allocations — it does not create an automatic entitlement to state funds, nor does it create a separate pool of money specifically for federally ineligible jurisdictions.Implementation will require Cal OES to reconcile FEMA determinations with state project applications. That reconciliation includes verifying the basis for FEMA ineligibility, documenting which projects or applicants fall into the prioritized class, and adjusting allocation decisions accordingly.
Because the bill contains no appropriation language, prioritization will play out within whatever state funding is available after a disaster or within the parameters of existing budgeted programs.For local officials, the practical effect is increased likelihood of receiving state assistance even when federal thresholds cut them out. For state administrators, the bill creates a new allocation objective without prescribing the mechanics — no scoring rubric, timeline, or funding floor is provided — which means operational policies will be decisive in how much relief actually reaches small or otherwise excluded jurisdictions.
The Five Things You Need to Know
AB 1866 adds Government Code Section 8685.1 directing the Director of Emergency Services to prioritize local agencies that FEMA found ineligible because they did not meet the minimum damage thresholds in 44 CFR 206.48.
The prioritization applies only when the director is determining an allocation for a project that is otherwise consistent with the California Disaster Assistance Act — it does not expand statutory eligibility for state funds.
The bill references the federal standard (44 CFR 206.48) as the trigger for priority treatment but does not specify how the state must verify or document FEMA’s ineligibility findings.
AB 1866 contains no appropriation and therefore does not create new money; prioritization must be exercised within existing or subsequently appropriated state disaster resources.
Because the bill fixes a state allocation priority rather than a new entitlement, Cal OES will need to develop operational policies (verification, ranking, and timing) to make the prioritization meaningful.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Priority for agencies excluded by FEMA minimum damage thresholds
This is the operative clause: it requires the Director of Emergency Services, when allocating funds for a project under the chapter, to prioritize local agencies that are not eligible for federal assistance because they failed to meet the minimum damage threshold in 44 CFR 206.48. The provision ties state prioritization directly to a federal eligibility determination rather than to an independent state test.
Applies only to projects consistent with the California Disaster Assistance Act
The prioritization is conditional: it applies only to projects that meet the chapter’s existing criteria. That preserves the Act’s substantive eligibility rules — state assistance still requires consistency with state law — and makes the new section an allocation directive rather than an expansion of who can receive assistance.
No appropriation or procedural mechanics included
The bill does not include funding, deadlines, or a methodology for how priority allocations are calculated. That leaves several implementation choices to Cal OES and the Legislature: whether to develop a scoring system, how to verify FEMA denials, how to time allocations against federal decisions, and how to handle reconciliation if a federal determination changes.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Small cities and rural counties that experience disaster losses below FEMA’s per-incident or per-capita thresholds — the bill increases their likelihood of receiving state recovery funds when federal aid is unavailable.
- Special districts (water, fire, sanitation, irrigation) that frequently sustain localized infrastructure damage but lack the aggregate damage levels FEMA requires; priorization improves their access to state support for repairs.
- Local residents and businesses in small jurisdictions, who may see faster restoration of services and infrastructure because their local agency gains priority in allocation decisions.
- Local emergency management offices, which can present a stronger case for state funding in the absence of federal assistance and may secure resources earlier in the recovery process.
Who Bears the Cost
- California’s state budget (and therefore taxpayers) — because the bill channels limited state disaster dollars toward jurisdictions FEMA excluded, it increases pressure on the same finite pool of state resources.
- Other eligible local agencies that did meet FEMA thresholds — they could see lower priority for state funds, particularly when state resources are insufficient to cover all needs.
- Cal OES and local administrators — they will carry the operational burden of verifying FEMA ineligibility, documenting priority status, and creating allocation procedures without guidance or additional appropriation.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether California should use scarce state disaster dollars to fill gaps for small or otherwise excluded jurisdictions — improving equity for those places — at the expense of spreading limited resources more broadly or prioritizing larger, federally assisted recovery projects. That trade-off forces a choice between targeted relief for the administratively excluded and an efficient distribution of finite state funding.
The statute orders prioritization but leaves the most consequential questions unanswered. The director must prioritize, but the bill does not define what “prioritize” means in practice: does it require first-dollar payment, higher score in an allocation matrix, expedited processing, or simply consideration in close cases?
That ambiguity gives Cal OES wide discretion but also creates the risk of inconsistent treatment across incidents and applicants. Verifying that an agency is ineligible “due to their inability to meet the minimum damages threshold” requires reliable, timely data from FEMA and clear internal criteria for what counts as sufficiently causal (for example, a formal FEMA denial versus a preliminary screening determination).
Fiscal and equity trade-offs are also substantial. State disaster funds are limited; directing priority to federally excluded jurisdictions will benefit smaller actors but can divert funds from jurisdictions that both suffered larger absolute losses and obtained federal aid.
The lack of an appropriation raises the practical question of whether prioritization will be meaningful in years when state funds are constrained. Finally, the bill creates potential administrative complexity: if a jurisdiction later qualifies for federal aid or successfully appeals a FEMA decision, Cal OES will need reconciliation procedures to avoid duplication of benefits and to adjust prior allocations.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.