An Assembly Bill sponsored by the Karuk Tribe, which seeks to expand consultation between state water agencies and tribes during water policy decisions, passed through the California Assembly last week.

The Karuk Tribe says the bill could help address historic inequities by giving tribes a seat at the table.

The vote was 57 in support and 23 members refusing to vote, including every Republican in the Assembly and three Democrats.

If signed into law, Assembly Bill 2218 would declare, as statewide policy, recognition of “the inequities regarding access to, and control over, water caused by state-sanctioned acts of termination, removal, and assimilation inflicted upon all California Native American tribes.”

It would also have the Legislature formally acknowledge and apologize for over a century of state-sanctioned policies that harmed Native Americans.

A key provision of the bill is requiring consultation with tribes when certain water policies are revisited by state agencies. The State Water Board, when investigating the basis of a water right, would need to consult with a California Native American tribe whose ancestral territory includes the water body, when requested.

There are some existing tribal consultation policies, but the Karuk Tribe says they aren’t airtight, legally.

Craig Tucker, a policy consultant for the Karuk Tribe, said current relevant State Water Board policies stem from executive order, and are susceptible to litigation.

“What we’re doing is providing a legislative backstop to those policies, and so [the bill] strengthens those existing policies,” he said.

He thinks there’s still room for state agencies to involve tribes in decision making.

The bill also more broadly calls for historic inequities to be addressed through financial assistance, protection of tribal water uses, consultation on water projects, plans, and policies, plus incorporation of Indigenous knowledge to restore and protect ecosystems.

State agencies like the State Water Board, Regional Water Quality Control Boards, the Natural Resources Agency, the Delta Stewardship Council and the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation would implement this policy.

The Karuk Tribe and the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians (another co-sponsor of the bill headquartered in El Dorado County) said this change would bolster tribal rights, stewardship and justice in a press release.

“Tribal Leaders recognize that California’s water rights system, based on the ‘first in time, first in right’ principle, purposefully disenfranchised the original water users,” said Russell “Buster” Attebery, chairman of the Karuk Tribe in a prepared statement.

“This resulted in California Tribes losing access to their water, traditional foods and culture. We believe that healthy rivers and restored fisheries are inseparable from Tribal equity in water governance,” he said.

Tucker said despite the Karuk Tribe’s advocacy for more water in rivers, there are places with inadequate water for fisheries.

For example, he pointed to the Scott and Shasta rivers, both key tributaries to the Klamath that have hosted water battles between agricultural users and those pushing for flows for fish.

“Currently the Water Board is setting flow requirements on the Scott and Shasta, and we want every legal right to be fully involved in the process,” he said.

The bill would also have the Legislature apologize for policies that led to Indigenous groups across the state losing access to land and water.

“The state historically sanctioned over one century of depredations and prejudicial policies against California Native Americans, including removal from ancestral land. The Legislature apologizes on behalf of the citizens of the state to all California Native Americans for the violence, mistreatment, and neglect inflicted upon them,” the bill reads.

The state has moved to apologize to the Indigenous people of California before. In 2019 Governor Gavin Newsom issued an executive order apoligzing for violence, maltreatment and neglect. A separate Assembly Bill introduced this year calls for a similar apology from the Legislature, which agreed to pay bounties for the heads of Native Americans in the 1850s.

“AB2218 simply acknowledges what we all know to be true, what we have already understood. It creates a space at the table for the future,” Frankie Myers, former Vice-chair of the Yurok Tribe, speaking in support of the bill at an April hearing.

According to AB2218’s author, San Jose Democrat Ash Kalra, the bill will address past state policy harms through meaningful measures “including protection of tribal water uses and consultation on water projects, plans, and policies,” according to his prepared statement in the press release.

The bill is co-authored by Democrat Chris Rogers, who represents the North Coast.

A joint press release from the Karuk Tribe and the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians pointed to continued barriers to accessing and controlling ancestral lands, water rights, and cultural resources.

The tribes say historic redistribution of water has reduced or eliminated access to healthy traditional food sources such as smelt, salmon, freshwater mussels and freshwater plants. Lack of flows also prevent cultural, spiritual and subsistence practices, the press release said.

If signed into law, the bill will come with a financial cost to the state, amid estimated General Fund structural deficits of around $35 billion per year in the 2027-28 fiscal year.

The Assembly Appropriations Committee estimates $5.3 million for about 21 new staff to serve as dedicated tribal coordinators within the Regional Water Boards and in the State Water Board′s major programs to better coordinate with tribes, with additional unknown contracting dollars.

Other state agencies estimated added costs for staff and possibly for grants, intended to be used for tribal participation in policy decisions.

Two associations that represent water organizations across the state, California Municipal Utilities Association and Association of California Water Agencies, oppose the bill, along with the California Farm Bureau and California Chamber Of Commerce.

In comments submitted to the Assembly, opponents criticized the bill as vague or difficult to implement, without clear standards for agencies to put in place.

A spread of environmental organizations have noted their support for the bill, which awaits assignment to committee in the Senate.

“This bill doesn’t right all the wrongs of the past, but it’s a step in the right direction,” said Tucker.