California 20252026 Regular Session Status: Introduced 1 D cosponsors

AB 362 — Water policy: California tribal communities.

Last action — Died on inactive file.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. 1
    Introduced
  2. 2
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Assembly
  4. 4
    Passed Senate
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill has been introduced in the Assembly. Introduced January 30, 2025. It must pass committee before a floor vote.

Next likely step: a committee referral and hearing.

Prognosis

Stalled 30% · moderate confidence

Where this bill stands today.

Odds of enactment

Low

How often bills like it became law.

  • Introduced

    Current position in the legislative process.

  • 2 sponsors

    1 primary, 1 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Single-party support

    Sponsorship is currently within one party (1 D).

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 2 recorded votes so far.

Prognosis reads this bill's own signals — stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes and cross-state momentum. Odds come from a model trained on which bills have become law.

Summary

(1) The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act establishes a statewide program for the control of the quality of all the waters in the state and makes certain legislative findings and declarations. Existing law defines the term "beneficial uses" for the purposes of water quality as certain waters of the state that may be protected against quality degradation, to include, among others, domestic, municipal, agricultural, and industrial supplies. This bill would add findings and declarations related to California tribal communities, as defined, and the importance of protecting tribal water use. The bill would add tribal water uses as waters of the state that may be protected against quality degradation for purposes of the defined term "beneficial uses." The bill would require any project or regulatory program subject to approval by the State Water Quality Control Board or a regional water quality control board, within a specified environmental review, and in any findings and declarations presented for state board or a regional board approval, to describe, with both quantitative and qualitative information, how the project or regulatory program will impact tribal water uses, and would require, on or before December 1, 2026, and every 2 years thereafter, the state board to publish a report on implementation of this provision on its internet website. (2) Existing law requires the state board to consult with and carefully evaluate the recommendations of concerned federal, state, and local agencies during the process of formulating or revising state policy for water quality control. This bill would additionally require the state board to consult and carefully evaluate the recommendations of concerned California tribal communities. (3) Existing law requires the state board to formulate and adopt state policy for water quality control. Existing law requires each regional board to formulate and adopt water quality control plans for all areas within the region and prohibits a water quality control plan, or a revision of the plan, adopted by a regional board from becoming effective unless it is approved by the state board. Existing law authorizes the state board to adopt certain water quality control plans. Existing law requires a regional board to establish water quality objectives in water quality control plans that in its judgment will ensure reasonable protection of beneficial uses and the prevention of nuisance and requires each regional board to consider specified factors in establishing water quality objectives. This bill would require, on or before January 1, 2027, the state board to propose, and solicit tribal consultation and public comment on, water quality standards to achieve reasonable protection of tribal water uses into the water quality control plan for the San Francisco Bay and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta watershed. This bill would add consultations with California tribal communities and environmental justice considerations as factors for a regional board to consider in establishing water quality control objectives. The bill would exempt adoption of tribal water uses within water quality control plans from the California Environmental Quality Act, and would require, upon the next triennial review of a water quality control plan after January 1, 2026, each regional board to define tribal beneficial uses in its water quality control plan and, where applicable, adopt water quality standards to achieve reasonable protection of tribal water uses into water quality control plans. (4) Existing law requires the California Environmental Protection Agency and the Natural Resources Agency, on or before December 1, 2007, to enter into a memorandum of understanding for the purposes of establishing the California Water Quality Monitoring Council, which the state board is required to administer. Existing law requires the monitoring council to review existing water quality monitoring, assessment, and reporting efforts and to recommend specific actions and funding needs necessary to coordinate and enhance those efforts. Existing law requires the memorandum of understanding to describe the means by which the monitoring council shall formulate recommendations to reduce redundancies, inefficiencies, and inadequacies in existing water quality monitoring and data management programs and to ensure that water quality improvement projects financed by the state provide specific information necessary to track project effectiveness with regard to achieving clean water and healthy ecosystems. This bill would require, on or before December 1, 2026, the California Environmental Protection Agency and the Natural Resources Agency to amend the memorandum of understanding to incorporate participation from California tribal communities in the actions of the monitoring council, and would describe these potential methods of participation. The bill would require the memorandum of understating to include recommendations on how to achieve and maintain tribal water uses through state board and regional board regulatory actions and other programs, as specified. (5) Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Died on inactive file.

  2. Ordered to inactive file at the request of Assembly Member Ramos.

  3. Ordered to third reading.

  4. From inactive file.

  5. Notice of intention to remove from inactive file given by Assembly Member Ramos.

  6. Ordered to inactive file at the request of Assembly Member Ramos.

  7. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  8. Ordered to second reading.

  9. Withdrawn from committee.

  10. Assembly Rule 96 suspended. (Ayes 51. Noes 15. Page 2806.)

  11. In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.

  12. In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to suspense file.

  13. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 0.) (April 29). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  14. Re-referred to Com. on E.S & T.M.

  15. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on E.S & T.M. Read second time and amended.

  16. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on E.S & T.M. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (April 8). Re-referred to Com. on E.S & T.M.

  17. Re-referred to Com. on W. P., & W.

  18. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on W. P., & W. Read second time and amended.

  19. Referred to Coms. on W. P., & W. and E.S & T.M.

  20. From printer. May be heard in committee March 2.

  21. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 1 co-sponsors · 120 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

Co-sponsors (1)

  • Richardson

Not signed on (120)

120 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 120 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]

Passed 5 Yea · 0 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 5000
Republican 0002
Total 5002
% of votes cast 71%0%0%29%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca Democratic Yea
Connolly, Damon Democratic Yea
Lee, Alex Democratic Yea
McKinnor, Tina Democratic Yea
Papan, Diane Democratic Yea
Castillo, Leticia Republican Not Voting
Ellis, Stan Republican Not Voting

Official roll call →

Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials]

Passed 9 Yea · 0 Nay · 4 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 8001
Unaffiliated 1000
Republican 0003
Total 9004
% of votes cast 69%0%0%31%
How each member voted (13)
Member Party Vote
Ávila Farías — Yea
Alvarez, David Democratic Yea
Bains, Jasmeet Democratic Not Voting
Bennett, Steve Democratic Yea
Boerner, Tasha Democratic Yea
Caloza, Jessica Democratic Yea
Hart, Gregg Democratic Yea
Papan, Diane Democratic Yea
Rodriguez, Celeste Democratic Yea
Rogers, Chris Democratic Yea
Gonzalez, Jeff Republican Not Voting
Macedo, Alexandra Republican Not Voting
Tangipa, David J. Republican Not Voting

Official roll call →

Subjects

civil-rights environment
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does AB 362 do?
(1) The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act establishes a statewide program for the control of the quality of all the waters in the state and makes certain legislative findings and declarations. Existing law defines the term "beneficial uses" for the purposes of water quality as certain waters of the state that may be protected against quality degradation, to include, among others, domestic, municipal, agricultural, and industrial supplies. This bill would add findings and declarations related to California tribal communities, as defined, and the importance of protecting tribal water use. The bill would add tribal water uses as waters of the state that may be protected against quality degradation for purposes of the defined term "beneficial uses." The bill would require any project or regulatory program subject to approval by the State Water Quality Control Board or a regional water quality control board, within a specified environmental review, and in any findings and declarations presented for state board or a regional board approval, to describe, with both quantitative and qualitative information, how the project or regulatory program will impact tribal water uses, and would require, on or before December 1, 2026, and every 2 years thereafter, the state board to publish a report on implementation of this provision on its internet website. (2) Existing law requires the state board to consult with and carefully evaluate the recommendations of concerned federal, state, and local agencies during the process of formulating or revising state policy for water quality control. This bill would additionally require the state board to consult and carefully evaluate the recommendations of concerned California tribal communities. (3) Existing law requires the state board to formulate and adopt state policy for water quality control. Existing law requires each regional board to formulate and adopt water quality control plans for all areas within the region and prohibits a water quality control plan, or a revision of the plan, adopted by a regional board from becoming effective unless it is approved by the state board. Existing law authorizes the state board to adopt certain water quality control plans. Existing law requires a regional board to establish water quality objectives in water quality control plans that in its judgment will ensure reasonable protection of beneficial uses and the prevention of nuisance and requires each regional board to consider specified factors in establishing water quality objectives. This bill would require, on or before January 1, 2027, the state board to propose, and solicit tribal consultation and public comment on, water quality standards to achieve reasonable protection of tribal water uses into the water quality control plan for the San Francisco Bay and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta watershed. This bill would add consultations with California tribal communities and environmental justice considerations as factors for a regional board to consider in establishing water quality control objectives. The bill would exempt adoption of tribal water uses within water quality control plans from the California Environmental Quality Act, and would require, upon the next triennial review of a water quality control plan after January 1, 2026, each regional board to define tribal beneficial uses in its water quality control plan and, where applicable, adopt water quality standards to achieve reasonable protection of tribal water uses into water quality control plans. (4) Existing law requires the California Environmental Protection Agency and the Natural Resources Agency, on or before December 1, 2007, to enter into a memorandum of understanding for the purposes of establishing the California Water Quality Monitoring Council, which the state board is required to administer. Existing law requires the monitoring council to review existing water quality monitoring, assessment, and reporting efforts and to recommend specific actions and funding needs necessary to coordinate and enhance those efforts. Existing law requires the memorandum of understanding to describe the means by which the monitoring council shall formulate recommendations to reduce redundancies, inefficiencies, and inadequacies in existing water quality monitoring and data management programs and to ensure that water quality improvement projects financed by the state provide specific information necessary to track project effectiveness with regard to achieving clean water and healthy ecosystems. This bill would require, on or before December 1, 2026, the California Environmental Protection Agency and the Natural Resources Agency to amend the memorandum of understanding to incorporate participation from California tribal communities in the actions of the monitoring council, and would describe these potential methods of participation. The bill would require the memorandum of understating to include recommendations on how to achieve and maintain tribal water uses through state board and regional board regulatory actions and other programs, as specified. (5) Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.
Who sponsors AB 362?
AB 362 is sponsored by Richardson and Ramos, James C. (Democratic).
What is the current status of AB 362?
This bill has been introduced in the Assembly. Introduced January 30, 2025. It must pass committee before a floor vote.
Where can I track AB 362?
Track AB 362 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 362

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of AB 362

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →