AB 977 adds Section 8028.73 to the Health and Safety Code and requires the California State University (CSU) to develop a systemwide policy governing the reburial of California Native American human remains that CSU repatriates when the reburial would occur on CSU-owned land. The statute ties that policy to existing state law (Section 8028.7) and to the federal Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA).
The policy must require consultation with culturally affiliated California Indian tribes on a defined list of topics — from site location and land availability to long-term stewardship and confidentiality — and it bars CSU from selecting a reburial site unless the university and the culturally affiliated tribes mutually agree on the location. For campus compliance officers, facilities planners, and tribal representatives, the bill creates a new, legally mandated framework for negotiating reburials on university land and for documenting stewardship responsibilities going forward.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill directs CSU to prepare a reburial policy for Native American human remains repatriated to tribes when reburial is to occur on CSU-owned land, and it specifies consultation topics that the policy must cover. It requires mutual agreement between CSU and culturally affiliated tribes before approving any proposed reburial location on university land.
Who It Affects
The mandate applies systemwide across the 23-campus CSU network, California Indian tribes with cultural affiliation claims, CSU land and facilities managers, campus counsel and compliance teams, and campus planners who control land use decisions. Researchers and collections managers at CSU museums and repositories will also need to account for the policy when processing repatriation claims.
Why It Matters
AB 977 moves reburial planning from ad hoc negotiations into a statutorily required process, giving tribes defined input and de facto veto power over reburial sites on CSU property. That formalization creates operational and legal responsibilities for CSU — from land inventories and stewardship agreements to confidentiality protocols — but the bill leaves implementation details and funding to the university.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 977 inserts a new, narrowly focused duty into California law: when the California State University repatriates Native American human remains and the reburial would occur on CSU-owned land, the university must have a written policy that lays out how reburial locations are chosen and protected. The statute ties that duty to existing state repatriation law and to federal NAGPRA, signaling that the CSU policy must operate within both state and federal frameworks.
The law requires CSU to consult with culturally affiliated California Indian tribes about a defined set of topics before a reburial proceeds. Those consultation topics range from basic questions (is there campus land available and where) to operational matters (long-term stewardship, who will care for and protect a burial site), and governance issues (how tribal cultural protocols will be respected, confidentiality protections, and compliance with applicable laws).
By listing consultation topics in statute, the Legislature narrows the scope of negotiation and creates predictable subjects for discussion between the university and tribes.Crucially, the statute conditions any proposed reburial on mutual agreement: CSU cannot unilaterally designate a burial site on university property. That shifts practical power into the consultation — tribes that are culturally affiliated with potential land must consent to the site.
The bill does not prescribe the mechanics of that consent (for example, timelines, dispute-resolution processes, or how CSU should handle competing tribal claims), nor does it appropriate funds to implement stewardship obligations or land protections.Because the statute limits reburials to CSU-owned land and requires alignment with Section 8028.7 and NAGPRA, implementation will intersect with CSU’s collections policies, campus land-use rules, and federal repatriation procedures. Operationalizing the law will likely mean inventorying campus parcels that could host reburials, negotiating stewardship agreements (possibly perpetual), balancing confidentiality with public records obligations, and clarifying who at CSU has authority to bind the system in these agreements.
The Five Things You Need to Know
AB 977 adds a new statutory section — Health & Safety Code §8028.73 — specifically requiring CSU to develop a reburial policy for repatriated Native American human remains on CSU-owned land.
The statute lists seven mandatory consultation topics CSU must address with culturally affiliated California Indian tribes, including campus land availability, cultural affiliation, long-term protection and stewardship, legal compliance, tribal protocols, confidentiality, and other burial-related matters.
The bill requires mutual agreement between CSU and the culturally affiliated tribes for any proposed reburial location on university property — CSU cannot unilaterally approve a site.
The duty applies only where reburial would occur on land owned by the California State University; it does not create obligations for non-CSU properties.
The new section explicitly ties the CSU policy to existing state repatriation law (Section 8028.7) and to the federal Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C. §3001 et seq.).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Purpose and legal alignment
This opening clause sets the statutory purpose: require CSU to develop a reburial policy and anchor that duty to existing state law (Section 8028.7) and federal NAGPRA. Practically, it signals that CSU must ensure its policy does not conflict with either the state repatriation framework or federal repatriation obligations, and it frames the policy as a systemwide responsibility rather than a campus-by-campus discretion.
Required consultation topics
Subsection (a) mandates consultation with California Indian tribes and enumerates specific topics the policy must cover: campus space and location availability; identifying tribes culturally affiliated with potential land; long-term protection and stewardship; compliance with federal, tribal, state, and local laws; other burial-related topics requested by consulting parties; tribal cultural protocols access and use; and confidentiality. By listing these subjects, the statute narrows negotiation to these elements and creates clear expectations that CSU must address both practical site-selection questions and longer-term stewardship and confidentiality concerns.
Mutual agreement requirement for reburial locations
Subsection (b) requires that any proposed reburial location on CSU land be 'mutually agreed upon' by CSU and the culturally affiliated tribes. That language gives tribes decisive leverage over whether a site moves forward, but the statute does not define mutual agreement procedures (timelines, how to handle competing affiliations, or dispute resolution). Implementers will need to design processes to operationalize what mutual agreement looks like in practice.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Indigenous Affairs across all five countries.
Explore Indigenous Affairs in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- California Indian tribes culturally affiliated with remains: the statute guarantees formal consultation on site selection, cultural protocols, stewardship, and confidentiality, giving tribes legal leverage to ensure reburials on CSU land meet tribal expectations.
- Tribal families and communities seeking reburial: greater clarity and a statutory framework can speed culturally appropriate reburials and reduce ad hoc negotiations with university administrators.
- CSU campuses and collections managers: a required systemwide policy reduces legal uncertainty by setting a uniform process for handling repatriation-related reburials on CSU land, potentially lowering the risk of litigation or public disputes.
Who Bears the Cost
- California State University (administration and campuses): CSU must develop the policy, conduct consultations, inventory potential land, negotiate stewardship agreements, and carry out long-term protections — functions that require staff time and likely recurring funds.
- Campus facilities and planners: campuses may need to reserve, rezone, or otherwise set aside parcels for reburial and implement physical protections, which could conflict with existing development plans or academic projects.
- CSU legal and compliance offices: the university must ensure the policy and any agreements comply with federal, tribal, state, and local law and manage confidentiality obligations, creating new legal workload without specified funding.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma AB 977 creates is between honoring tribal authority and cultural protocols for reburial — including giving tribes decisive control over location — and managing an operating university campus that must plan land use, fund long-term stewardship, and comply with public-law obligations; the statute privileges tribal agreement but leaves CSU to resolve the practical and financial consequences.
AB 977 creates a clear statutory expectation without spelling out many of the operational details that make reburial on institutional land workable. The statute lists consultation topics and requires mutual agreement, but it leaves open the process design: who signs off for CSU, what constitutes timely consent from tribes, how to reconcile competing tribal affiliation claims, and what mechanisms will resolve disputes.
Those gaps can create delay or stalemate unless CSU adopts internal rules that reconcile speed, fairness, and legal risk.
The bill also shifts long-term stewardship obligations onto arrangements negotiated between CSU and tribes but does not allocate funding or specify enforcement tools. That raises practical questions about who pays for site protection, monitoring, and access controls over time.
Confidentiality provisions are mandated as a consultation subject, yet they may collide with public records and campus transparency laws; implementers must craft narrowly tailored confidentiality protections that survive legal scrutiny. Finally, the requirement to align with federal NAGPRA and other laws could create procedural overlaps (for example, federal repatriation timelines or tribal-consultation standards) that CSU will need to reconcile within a single policy framework.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.