An act to amend Sections 13000, 13050, 13144, 13181, and 13241 of, and to add Sections 13142.1, 13170.4, and 13243.5 to, the Water Code, relating to water.
AB 362 would revise California water law to explicitly recognize California tribal communities and tribal water uses within the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. The bill adds legislative findings stating that tribal communities have special ties to waters that sustained them and that tribal water uses should be protected as part of the state’s water quality program. It also expands the definition of “beneficial uses” to include tribal water uses, and directs the State Water Resources Control Board and regional water boards to consider tribal water uses, tribal ecological knowledge, and tribal consultation in water quality policy and planning.
The bill would require state and regional water boards to describe, using both quantitative and qualitative information, how proposed projects or regulatory programs would affect tribal water uses. It would also require the State Water Board to consult with California tribal communities when formulating or revising water quality policy, and to propose water quality standards for the San Francisco Bay and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta watershed that protect tribal water uses. In addition, the bill would require regional boards, on their next triennial review after January 1, 2026, to define tribal beneficial uses in their water quality control plans and adopt standards where needed to protect those uses.
AB 362 would also amend the California Water Quality Monitoring Council framework to include California tribal communities in monitoring and data coordination efforts. The bill requires the California Environmental Protection Agency and the Natural Resources Agency to amend the monitoring council memorandum of understanding to incorporate tribal participation, and to include recommendations for achieving and maintaining tribal water uses through regulatory action, habitat restoration, and other programs. The bill further states that adoption of tribal water uses in water quality control plans is exempt from CEQA, and that tribal participation in consultations or comanagement arrangements is voluntary and does not subject tribes to state law beyond what federal law authorizes.
The bill’s impact would be to embed tribal water rights and tribal consultation more directly into state water quality planning, permitting, monitoring, and reporting processes. It would affect the State Water Board, regional water boards, the California Environmental Protection Agency, and the Natural Resources Agency, while also influencing projects and regulatory programs subject to board approval. It would not create an appropriation, but it would impose new planning, consultation, reporting, and rulemaking obligations on state water agencies and could affect how water quality objectives and beneficial uses are set in future basin plans.
The overall sentiment appears supportive, at least in committee, with unanimous “do pass” votes in both recorded committee actions. The bill’s framing emphasizes protection of tribal communities and environmental justice, suggesting broad policy support for its goals. No committee transcript is available here, so the main visible point of contention is structural rather than political: the bill adds new procedural requirements, reporting duties, and a CEQA exemption, which could raise implementation and transparency questions, especially around how tribal water uses are defined, how confidential tribal information is protected, and how the new standards would be integrated into existing water board processes.
AB 362 would amend the Water Code to add tribal water uses as a protected beneficial use under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, require tribal consultation in state water quality policymaking, and direct regional and state boards to incorporate tribal beneficial uses and, where applicable, tribal water quality standards into basin planning. It would also require new reporting and monitoring-council participation provisions, add environmental justice and tribal consultation as factors in setting water quality objectives, and exempt adoption of tribal water uses in water quality control plans from CEQA. The bill would affect the State Water Resources Control Board, regional water quality control boards, the California Environmental Protection Agency, the Natural Resources Agency, and projects or regulatory programs subject to board approval.
The available voting history shows strong support: the bill received unanimous committee approval in both recorded votes (9-0 and 5-0). The bill’s language and structure indicate a policy consensus around strengthening tribal inclusion in water governance, recognizing tribal ecological knowledge, and protecting tribal water uses. No opposition testimony or transcript is provided, so there is no direct evidence of organized resistance in the materials supplied.
The main potential points of contention are implementation-related rather than ideological. The bill would require boards to define tribal beneficial uses, develop standards for specific watersheds, and incorporate tribal consultation and reporting into existing regulatory processes, which could raise questions about administrative burden, timing, and how standards will be developed. It also exempts adoption of tribal water uses from CEQA and includes a confidentiality finding protecting personal and historical tribal information, which may prompt concerns from transparency or process-focused stakeholders. The bill’s voluntary-participation language for tribes appears designed to address sovereignty concerns and avoid unintended legal consequences for tribal participation.