Melanie Henshaw*ICT + CalMatters*

Five days after signing a law formalizing a state apology for “harms and atrocities” against California’s Native peoples, Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed two additional bills that California tribes had championed, one on water and the other on sacred sites.

Tribal leaders say the vetoes leave them shut out of decisions about their ancestral waters and sacred places.

One of Newsom’s vetoes struck down a measure that would have compelled state agencies to address water shortages faced by tribes. Assembly Bill 2218 by Ash Kalra, a Santa Clara County Democrat, would have established a state policy to address water-related inequities and would have required a dispute between a tribe and any state water agency over water projects in the tribe’s ancestral territory to go through a mediation process, run by the Governor’s Office of Tribal Affairs. The Karuk Tribe and the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians co-sponsored the legislation.

Newsom also rejected a bill that would have barred state agencies from significantly interfering with tribal religious practices on state land unless the state showed a compelling reason and chose the approach that interfered least. Assemblymember James Ramos, a Democrat from San Bernardino and the Legislature’s only Native American member, authored AB 1881, which was called the California Indian Freedom Act of 2026.

Only tribes could sue to enforce Ramos’ bill. Agencies would also have had to seek and document a tribe’s written consent before significantly changing a site they know is sacred, though an agency could ask for consultation if a tribe objected.

Ramos is a member of the Serrano/Cahuilla tribe and is a former chairman of the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians.

Neither bill drew a “no” vote in the Assembly, though 23 members did not vote on the water bill and 15 on the sacred-sites bill, many Republican. Not voting counts the same as a no vote, and lawmakers are known to skip votes that might offend their supporters and donors.

In his veto message for the water bill, Newsom wrote that the bill was “not sufficiently clear about how its new policy will be implemented” and that “adding new sources of uncertainty will delay our urgent fight to secure Californians’ water supplies.”

About Ramos’ bill, Newsom wrote that he was “sympathetic to the goals of this measure” but that it could have “far-reaching impacts” on state government operations and management of state property, and that “this uncertainty calls for further discussion and review.”

The governor’s office referred to Newsom’s veto messages in response to a request for comment on this article.

Tribes criticize water bill veto

“Tribes need to be at the table when decisions are being made, not brought in after the important decisions have already been made,” said Russell “Buster” Attebery, chairman of the Karuk Tribe.

Shingle Springs Vice Chair Malissa Tayaba called the veto of the water bill a “backhanded betrayal of California tribes and a direct contradiction of his apology and promises of reconciliation.”

Her government, like other tribes, can sue or lodge formal objections to state water projects, she said, but those steps don’t guarantee an outcome. The final language of the bill would have added a mediation process that paused an agency’s action while the state and affected tribe discussed a resolution. Tayaba said the status quo excludes her tribe from meaningful consultation on water projects in its ancestral lands and contributes to “a decimation” in salmon runs.

Under the vetoed bill, the State Water Board would have had to consult with any tribe whose ancestral territory included a water body at issue in a water-rights investigation. It also would have required agencies to offer financial assistance to tribes.

“The bill represented a step toward building a more meaningful relationship between California and tribal nations,” Tayaba said.

The Association of California Water Agencies opposed the bill, saying it created a “new and poorly defined standard under the Water Code” and that the mediation process would be inadequate because it would not be binding. Under the rejected bill, a tribe could have withdrawn at any point, according to a legislative analysis — including if the tribe believed the state was not acting in good faith.

“We cannot say with certainty how this bill will be implemented and what its impacts will be on water supply,” Andrea Abergel, an advocate for the California Municipal Utilities Association, testified before the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality in July. The organization, which represents more than 80 public utility agencies across the state, opposed the bill.

Current law doesn’t prevent sacred site destruction

Ramos said the sacred-sites bill, sponsored by Indigenous Justice, an advocacy group, would have afforded Native Americans greater protections to practice their faith.

“Tribal members are routinely questioned or harassed for wearing regalia or carrying ceremonial items in public places,” Ramos told the Senate Judiciary Committee in July. “We have the right to assemble and practice our customs and traditions in a state whose ancestral lands are traditional lands of Indian people.”

The bill would also have treated restrictions on regalia and other ceremonial items at state buildings as a burden on religious practice, requiring that the items be allowed in and inspected by hand when possible.

Assemblymember Patrick Ahrens, a Democrat from Cupertino and a co-author of the bill, criticized the veto. “The least we can do as a government is allow Native Americans unburdened access to state lands to honor their heritage,” he said in a statement to CalMatters and ICT.

Supporters say the bill was needed because harm to sacred sites is a direct result of state and federal policies. Landmark Supreme Court cases such as Apache Stronghold v. United States and Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association have allowed federal projects to go forward on sacred lands despite tribes’ religious-freedom claims.

An Assembly analysis of the bill also notes state law restricts severe damage to sacred sites on public property unless there is a clear and convincing showing that the public interest requires it — but tribes have criticized state agencies for failing to prevent damage.

In the bill’s findings, authors emphasize that Native American religions are land-based, meaning their practices are often inextricably linked to specific geographic locations.

The California Chamber of Commerce applauded both vetoes. The bills “would have created serious legal barriers” to building water storage and infrastructure, wrote John Myers, spokesman for the chamber.

Kristopher Anderson, a policy adviser for the California Chamber of Commerce, testified in July against the sacred sites bill. “This bill is about much more than access,” he said. “It is about the way land and water are managed — and the consequences of this bill would have severe ramifications for the water supply reliability of communities and local economies throughout the state.”

Apology and the vetoes

Newsom declared Sept. 30 a Day of Remembrance for Indian Boarding Schools, which Tayaba called “ironic” considering he rejected bills that would have expanded tribal power the same day.

California was home to 13 federal Indian boarding schools between 1892 and 1974 that forcibly removed thousands of Native children from their families.

In June 2019, Newsom signed an executive order apologizing on behalf of the state to California Native Americans and creating a Truth and Healing Council, saying they “suffered violence, discrimination and exploitation sanctioned by (the) state government.”

On Sept. 25, Newsom signed AB 2115 into law, formalizing an apology to California Native peoples for harms experienced as a result of state policy.

“Newsom acknowledges the state’s historical violence against California’s Indigenous People, but when given the chance to rectify those harms and finalize the bills … he disappointed us and failed to follow through,” said Kasil Willie, policy director of the environmental group Save California Salmon.

Newsom, who is not eligible for re-election, signed a package of tribal bills, including making Native American Day a paid state holiday and making the Governor’s Office of Tribal Affairs permanent. His office says the state has returned more than 100,000 acres to tribes.

Still, tribal leaders including Tayaba from Shingle Springs said they plan to continue their efforts to boost tribal consultation and co-stewardship.

“His apology, what does it really mean?” Tayaba said. “Man, did he really hurt us on his way out.”

This story is co-published by CalMatters and ICT, a news partnership that covers Indigenous communities in California.

The post Newsom apologized to tribes for historic harms, but vetoed 2 bills that would have empowered them appeared first on ICT.

From ICT via This RSS Feed.