California tribes will not receive two proposed new protections for ancestral waters and sacred places after Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed legislation on both issues on Sept. 30, five days after signing a law formalizing the state’s apology to Native peoples for harms caused by government policies. The water bill, AB 2218, would have set a state policy to address water inequities affecting tribes and required mediation when a tribe and a state water agency disputed a project in the tribe’s ancestral territory. The Governor’s Office of Tribal Affairs would have overseen the process, which could have paused an agency action while discussions took place. The Karuk Tribe and Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians sponsored the measure. The bill also would have required the State Water Board to consult tribes whose ancestral territory included a water body involved in a water-rights investigation, and agencies to offer tribes financial assistance. Mediation would not have been binding, and tribes could have withdrawn from it. Karuk Tribe Chairman Russell “Buster” Attebery said tribes should be involved while decisions are being made, rather than brought in after key choices have been made. Shingle Springs Vice Chair Malissa Tayaba said existing avenues to sue or lodge objections do not ensure tribes can meaningfully influence projects. She linked the lack of consultation to harm to salmon runs. Water and utility groups opposed the bill. The Association of California Water Agencies argued it would create a poorly defined standard, while the California Municipal Utilities Association raised concerns about uncertainty over implementation and water supplies. The California Chamber of Commerce said the two bills could create legal obstacles to water infrastructure and other development. Newsom also vetoed AB 1881, the California Indian Freedom Act of 2026. The measure, authored by Assemblymember James Ramos, would have limited substantial interference by state agencies with tribal religious practices on state land unless the state demonstrated a compelling reason and used the least restrictive approach. Agencies would generally have needed a tribe’s written consent before significantly changing a site known to be sacred. Only tribes could have sued to enforce the proposed law. The bill also addressed ceremonial items and regalia, which supporters said Native people can be questioned or harassed for wearing or carrying in public places. It would have treated restrictions on those items in state buildings as a burden on religious practice and generally required that they be allowed, with hand inspection when possible. Newsom wrote that he was sympathetic to the measure’s aims but said its potential effects on state operations and management of public property required further discussion and review. Supporters argued that existing protections have not prevented damage to sacred places. The state Chamber of Commerce opposed the bill, warning of consequences for water reliability and local economies. The vetoes came amid a series of state actions addressing California’s history with Native communities. On Sept. 25, Newsom signed AB 2115, formalizing an apology for harms Native peoples experienced as a result of state policy. The state has also acknowledged the legacy of 13 federal Indian boarding schools that operated in California from 1892 to 1974 and forcibly removed thousands of Native children from their families.