California’s 2026–2027 El Niño Proclamation: Environmental Permitting FAQ

18.2 minute read

October 14, 2026

This FAQ provides general permitting information and is not a determination that any project qualifies for expedited review or emergency authorization. Requirements vary by project and jurisdiction. Confirm current agency guidance, authorization criteria, and notification deadlines before undertaking regulated work.

On September 21, 2026, Governor Gavin Newsom proclaimed a statewide emergency in preparation for anticipated El Niño conditions. The proclamation directs state agencies to prioritize permitting, consultation, and technical assistance for certain flood-preparedness activities.

For public agencies, infrastructure owners, and project proponents, the coming storm season presents practical permitting challenges. Planned improvements may involve several regulatory authorities, and work affecting streams, wetlands, coastal areas, or other regulated resources may require multiple approvals. Identifying those requirements early can help avoid preventable delays and clarify which permitting options are available.

The proclamation does not independently authorize construction or waive environmental permitting requirements. However, it provides an opportunity to coordinate with agencies about project needs, application status, and potential expedited review. Separate emergency provisions may also be available for work that meets the applicable criteria. The following FAQ addresses common questions about environmental permitting, agency coordination, and project readiness for the 2026–2027 storm season.

Understanding the Proclamation

1. How does the proclamation affect environmental permitting?

The proclamation directs state agencies, including the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and California Coastal Commission, to prioritize permitting, consultation, and technical assistance for qualifying flood-preparedness activities. For project proponents, this creates an opportunity to discuss proposed improvements with the relevant agencies, clarify application requirements, and determine whether pending or planned work may receive prioritized review or if it would qualify for alternative emergency permitting processes. The effect will depend on the project, the agency involved, and the authority under which the work is regulated. Project proponents should contact the agency (or agencies) responsible to determine how the proclamation applies to their activities and whether any additional steps are needed to request prioritization.

2. Does the proclamation waive environmental permitting requirements?

No. The proclamation does not create a blanket exemption from environmental laws or automatically qualify a project for emergency authorization.

Depending on the proposed activities and affected resources, projects may remain subject to Clean Water Act (CWA) Sections 401 and 404, California Fish and Game Code Section 1602, coastal development requirements, and other applicable federal, state, and local regulations. Separate statutory or regulatory provisions may provide alternative procedures for qualifying emergency work. Those provisions have their own eligibility criteria and procedural requirements, which must be evaluated independently of the proclamation.

3. What types of projects may warrant consideration for prioritized review?

Flood-preparedness activities that may warrant discussion with the relevant agencies include:

• Repair or replacement of culverts, drainage facilities, and other flood-related infrastructure.
• Improvements to channels, outfalls, and drainage conveyance systems.
• Repairs to infrastructure threatened by flooding, erosion, or unstable slopes.
• Measures intended to protect roads, utilities, public facilities, and other essential infrastructure.
• Work in streams, wetlands, coastal areas, and other regulated environments where flood-preparedness activities may require environmental authorization.

These examples are illustrative, not a determination that any activity qualifies for prioritization or emergency authorization. Eligibility depends on the proposed work, its circumstances, and the applicable agency requirements.

4. What is the difference between prioritized review and emergency authorization?

Prioritized review concerns the handling of an application or consultation. An agency may conduct an expedited review while retaining the substantive requirements of the applicable permitting program. A project may qualify for prioritized review without meeting the criteria for emergency authorization. Emergency authorization is a separate process that may allow certain work to proceed under specific circumstances when immediate action is necessary to address an emergency. Eligibility depends on the nature and level of urgency, the proposed work to resolve the situation, and the specific requirements of the permitting agency. Emergency authorization may also require agency notification, approval, or follow-up documentation. Project proponents should evaluate these options separately and coordinate with each agency to confirm eligibility and identify any requirements that must be satisfied before work begins.

Planning and Agency Coordination

5. Which agencies may need to be involved?

The appropriate agencies depend on the project location, the resources affected, and the nature of the proposed work.

• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE): Federal authorization may be required under CWA Section 404 for discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act for work in, over, or under navigable waters of the United States, or affecting the course, location, condition, or capacity of such waters.
• Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB): The appropriate Regional Board may be responsible for CWA Section 401 water quality certification, waste discharge requirements under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and other state water quality approvals.
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW): Activities affecting rivers, streams, or lakes may be subject to Fish and Game Code Section 1602, with Section 1610 potentially relevant to qualifying emergency work.
• California Coastal Commission and local Governments: Coastal development permit approval may be required for activities within the coastal zone, subject to applicable provisions of the California Coastal Act and certified Local Coastal Programs.
• San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC): Projects within BCDC's jurisdiction, including certain development in San Francisco Bay, along its shoreline, and in designated areas of Suisun Marsh, may require a separate permit.

Other federal, state, and local agencies may also have jurisdiction. Project proponents should identify the necessary approvals early and determine whether agency reviews can proceed concurrently.

6. What information should be prepared before contacting agencies?

A clear description of the proposed work helps agencies identify applicable requirements and determine what additional information may be needed. Depending on the project, useful materials include:

• A location map, site plan, and photographs of existing conditions.
• A description of the infrastructure issue and the proposed improvements.
• Construction methods, access routes, staging/laydown areas, anticipated work limits, and schedule.
• Available information about streams, wetlands, sensitive habitats, and other potentially affected resources.
• Existing permits, pending applications, prior agency correspondence, and relevant technical studies.
• Proposed measures to minimize environmental disturbance, control erosion, and restore affected areas.

The level of detail needed will depend on the project and the authorization being sought. For applications already under review, resolving outstanding agency comments and supplying requested information may be the most effective way to move the process forward.

7. Should standard permit applications continue while expedited options are being evaluated?

In most cases, continuing the standard permitting process is prudent unless the agency responsible advises otherwise. A project may not qualify for emergency authorization, or an emergency procedure may cover only a portion of the proposed work. Maintaining progress on required applications helps avoid unnecessary delays if an alternative pathway is unavailable.

For pending applications, project proponents should ask whether additional information is needed, whether the application may receive prioritized review, and whether a separate emergency authorization request or notification is required to pursue another permitting pathway.

Any proposed change in permitting strategy should be coordinated with the agencies responsible for the necessary approvals.

8. How should permitting be incorporated into storm-season planning?

Prioritized review may help advance a permitting matter, but it does not guarantee approval by a particular date. Project schedules should account for the possibility that ordinary permitting requirements will remain applicable. Permitting should be considered alongside engineering, procurement, and construction scheduling. Where improvements can be identified in advance, project proponents should evaluate environmental constraints, determine likely authorization requirements, and allow time for agency review. Potential information gaps, including unresolved jurisdictional questions or incomplete impact assessments, should be identified early. For projects already in the permitting process, regular communication with agency staff can help clarify remaining requirements and determine whether additional coordination is warranted.

CDFW and Stream-Related Work

9. How does Fish and Game Code Section 1602 apply to flood-preparedness projects?

Fish and Game Code Section 1602 establishes notification requirements for specified activities that may substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of a river, stream, or lake; substantially change or use material from its bed, channel, or bank; or deposit or dispose of certain materials within these waters. Where CDFW determines that a proposed activity requires a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement, the applicable agreement and its conditions must be addressed before proceeding, unless a valid exception applies. Flood-preparedness work is not automatically exempt from these requirements. Project proponents should determine whether Section 1602 applies to the proposed activities and whether other environmental authorizations are needed.

10. Can CDFW's Fish and Game Code Section 1610 apply to emergency work?

Potentially. Section 1610 provides an exception to the advance notification requirements of Section 1602 for certain qualifying emergency work in streams, lakes, and rivers. CDFW has identified this provision as an appropriate mechanism for qualifying emergency work associated with preparing for the 2026–2027 El Niño season. Under CDFW's published guidance, advance notification is not required for qualifying work under Section 1610. Written notification must be submitted through CDFW's Environmental Permit Information Management System, or EPIMS, within 14 days after work begins. The exception does not apply to every flood-preparedness activity. CDFW identifies examples such as immediate work necessary to protect life or property, emergency repairs to public service facilities needed to maintain service, and certain emergency highway repairs. Project proponents should evaluate the actual circumstances and scope of work against CDFW's criteria. Where feasible, consultation with CDFW before or during work can help identify measures to reduce impacts on fish and wildlife resources.

Official guidance: CDFW Lake and Streambed Alteration Program

USACE and Federal Permitting

11. Are emergency Regional General Permits available for flood-related work?

USACE administers expedited permitting procedures that may provide a pathway for qualifying emergency repair and protection activities. Examples of relevant Regional General Permits (RGPs) in California include RGP 5 (San Francico District), RGP 8 (Sacramento District), and RGP 63 (Los Angeles District). However, it is important to note that these permits have defined geographic coverage, eligibility criteria, and notification and reporting requirements. The appropriate option depends on the project location, the proposed work, and whether the circumstances meet the applicable criteria. The three permits should not be treated as interchangeable or assumed to cover all areas of California. Project proponents should contact the responsible USACE District as early as possible and generally before initiating construction to confirm whether a RGP or other authorization may apply, whether authorization is required before work begins, and what notification, reporting, and mitigation obligations must be met. The availability of emergency procedure does not eliminate the need to establish eligibility under applicable federal requirements.

12. Can planned improvements qualify for emergency authorization if flooding is anticipated?

Not necessarily. A known drainage deficiency, recurring flooding, or deteriorating infrastructure may demonstrate a need for preventive improvements, but those conditions alone do not establish eligibility for emergency permitting procedures. The agency responsible must assess the specific circumstances under the criteria governing the authorization. Those criteria may distinguish between planned improvements intended to reduce future risk and work necessary to address an immediate or imminent threat. Project proponents should not rely on the possibility of a potential future emergency as the basis for postponing standard permitting. Improvements that can be planned in advance should continue through the applicable process while any alternative pathway is evaluated.

Regional Water Board Requirements

13. What emergency permitting options may be available through the Water Boards?

The State Water Resources Control Board publishes guidance and general orders for certain emergency projects involving discharges of dredged or fill material to waters of the state. Depending on the activity and applicable federal authorization, these procedures may provide a streamlined route to water quality certification or waste discharge requirements. Available pathways include state water quality certifications associated with USACE emergency RGPs 5, 8, and 63, as well as a separate emergency waste discharge requirements process for certain projects that do not require a USACE permit. As previously stated, these options have specific geographic coverage, eligibility criteria, and notification and reporting requirements. Project proponents should establish whether federal authorization is required, identify the applicable USACE permit if one is needed, and consult the appropriate Water Board regarding the corresponding state process.

Official guidance: State Water Board Emergency Permitting for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material

14. What notification deadlines apply to emergency Water Board procedures?

Notification requirements depend on the specific general order or authorization. Under the State Water Board's published emergency permitting guidance, the first four listed emergency procedures require notification 48 hours before work begins. If advance notice is not possible, notification must be provided within one business day after the activity begins. Other procedures may have different timelines or additional requirements. Notification alone should not be assumed to establish regulatory coverage. Depending on the applicable order, project proponents may also need to submit a notice of intent, pay fees, provide supporting information, or complete reporting and restoration obligations. Before work begins, proponents should review the applicable order and confirm the required steps with the appropriate Water Board. Where an immediate threat makes advance coordination impracticable, the notification and documentation requirements of the applicable emergency procedure should be followed.

15. Do requirements differ among Regional Water Quality Control Boards?

It depends. The applicable process can depend on the project location, the receiving waters, and the authorization being sought. The State Water Board establishes statewide policies and administers certain certification and permitting programs. The nine RWQCBs administer water quality requirements within their respective jurisdictions. Projects involving discharges to waters in more than one region may fall under State Water Board jurisdiction for certain approvals. Statewide guidance is a useful starting point, but project proponents should not assume that every procedure applies identically throughout California. Geographic coverage, order-specific conditions, and project circumstances may affect which options are available.

Contact the appropriate RWQCB early to confirm jurisdiction, eligibility, submission requirements, and deadlines.

Coastal and San Francisco Bay Permitting

16. What should coastal and San Francisco Bay project proponents consider?

Projects along the California coast or within the San Francisco Bay region may be subject to additional permitting requirements, depending on their location and the work proposed. The California Coastal Commission or a local government with a certified local coastal program may have permitting authority for coastal development. The Coastal Act provides emergency coastal development permitting procedures for qualifying activities necessary to address emergency conditions. Depending on circumstances and permitting jurisdiction, emergency authorization may be available through the California Coastal commission or applicable local government, subject to specific eligibility criteria and procedural requirements. Within its jurisdiction, BCDC regulates specified activities in San Francisco Bay, along its shoreline, and in designated areas of Suisun Marsh. Its jurisdiction can include certain shoreline infrastructure and flood-protection improvements. Project proponents should determine which authority has jurisdiction and whether separate approvals are required. Where multiple agencies are involved, early coordination can help clarify application requirements, identify potential conflicts, and establish a realistic schedule. A flood-preparedness objective or gubernatorial emergency proclamation does not, by itself, eliminate applicable coastal or BCDC permitting requirements.

Resources: California Coastal Commission | BCDC jurisdiction and permitting

17. Does a USACE emergency permit resolve the project's state permitting requirements?

Not automatically. Federal authorization under CWA Section 404 and state water quality requirements under Section 401 serve different regulatory functions. Some USACE general permits may be covered by an existing Section 401 certification, subject to its terms and conditions. Other projects may require separate individual water quality certifications or additional state authorization. Project proponents should confirm whether the specific federal authorization is covered by an applicable certification, whether enrollment or notification is required, and whether other state approvals remain necessary. The permitting strategy should account for all required authorizations, not just the federal permit.

Responding to Emergency Conditions

18. What should project proponents do when an immediate threat develops?

When conditions deteriorate, project proponents should assess the threat to public safety, property, and essential infrastructure and determine which agencies have potential jurisdiction over the proposed response. Where circumstances allow, project proponents should promptly document the conditions necessitating emergency work, identify the measures needed to address the immediate threat, and contact the responsible agencies to clarify applicable authorization and notification requirements. Where immediate action is necessary, project proponents should comply with applicable procedures including any required notifications, limitations of scope of work, and follow-up documentation or reporting. An emergency declaration or urgent need to protect infrastructure does not automatically authorize all work that may be useful in addressing the problem. The scope of the response should remain consistent with the applicable legal authority, and any outstanding permitting and reporting obligations should be tracked through completion.

19. What records should be maintained during emergency work?

Thorough recordkeeping helps establish why the work was necessary, what was completed, and whether the response complied with the applicable authorization. Depending on the circumstances, project files should include photographs documenting site conditions, dates and descriptions of the emergency or threat, maps identifying the work area, construction records, and documentation of agency communications and notifications. Records of material used, quantities of work performed, limits of disturbance, environmental protection measures, and any restoration or corrective actions should also be maintained, as applicable. Documentation should be collected to the extent feasible without compromising public safety or delaying necessary protective work. Project proponents should review the applicable permits, orders, or emergency procedures to confirm any specific reporting and recordkeeping.

20. What obligations may remain after emergency work is complete?

Completing the immediate response does not necessarily conclude the regulatory process. Depending on the authorization or requirements, agencies may require follow-up notifications, technical reports, mitigation, site stabilization, restoration, or other project close-out documentation. Project proponents should identify these obligations and assign responsibility for completing them within applicable deadlines. Where work has resulted in impacts to streams, wetlands, or other regulated resources, additional measures may be needed to address temporary or permanent impacts. The extent of those requirements will depend on the nature of impacts, applicable authorization, and agency direction, which will determine the required follow-up.

Infrastructure and Construction Readiness

21. What should infrastructure owners assess before the storm season?

Where work may affect regulated resources, environmental review should be incorporated into project planning from the outset. Infrastructure owners should identify assets vulnerable to flooding, erosion, debris flows, or other storm-related impacts and determine which deficiencies warrant attention before conditions worsen. Depending on the system, inspections may include culverts, channels, outfalls, slopes, levees, drainage facilities, and infrastructure near recent burn areas. Post-fire watersheds may warrant additional attention because runoff and debris-flow conditions can change substantially following a wildfire. The assessment should establish priorities, identify construction constraints, and determine which improvements can be advanced through standard permitting.

22. What operational arrangements should be addressed in advance?

Public agencies and infrastructure owners should review whether the personnel, contractors, equipment, materials, and inspection resources needed for planned work or emergency response will be available. Preparation may include reviewing on-call contracts, confirming site access, establishing communication procedures, and checking erosion-control and stormwater management measures. Construction and cost-recording procedures should also be established before work begins. These preparations can improve response coordination and support subsequent regulatory reporting or funding applications. Eligibility for disaster assistance or reimbursement remains subject to the requirements of the relevant program and is not guaranteed by a state emergency proclamation.

23. Is there anything public agencies or project proponents can do now?

Project proponents should establish a permitting strategy before storm events create additional risks or affect project schedules. This includes identifying vulnerable areas and infrastructure, defining the proposed improvements, gathering available technical information, and coordinating early with the agencies with potential jurisdiction over the proposed activities.

As part of this process, project proponents should identify activities that can continue through the standard permitting process, determine which pending applications may qualify for prioritized review, and evaluate whether any work could qualify for a specific emergency authorization. The proclamation provides a basis for requesting prioritized review and coordination with state agencies regarding flood-preparedness needs. However, whether a particular project can receive expedited review or proceed under an emergency procedure will depend on the applicable requirements and agency determinations. Early coordination, realistic schedules, and a clear understanding of applicable permitting or authorization requirements give project proponents a stronger basis for making decisions before conditions change.

Agency Resources

• CDFW Lake and Streambed Alteration Program — Sections 1602 and 1610 and applicable notification procedures
• State Water Board Emergency Permitting — Emergency procedures for dredge-and-fill projects
• State Water Board Section 401 General Orders — Water quality certification orders and related requirements
• USACE Sacramento District, San Francisco, and Los Angeles Districts Regional General Permits, and Regional General Permits 5, 8, and 63 information and coverage
• BCDC jurisdiction — San Francisco Bay and Suisun Marsh permitting jurisdiction
• Coastal Commission — Coastal Commission permitting
  

Authors

Emily Mastrelli

Director / Environmental Planning + Compliance

---

Frank S. Lopez, PE, QSD

Vice President / Business Development

---