SB 1322 creates the Government-to-Government Consultation Act. It defines key terms (including "agency action" and "tribal implications"), encourages state agencies to consult with California tribes and federally recognized tribes, and sets a 60-day response window when a tribe requests consultation.
The bill also identifies which state officials may represent California in consultations and authorizes them to delegate that authority.
The measure requires the Department of Human Resources to develop a mandatory training for listed officials and sets deadlines for completion and annual retraining. The text mixes encouragement language with mandatory-sounding requirements and includes dated deadlines that raise immediate implementation questions about enforcement, resourcing, and scope.
At a Glance
What It Does
Defines tribal consultation terms, creates a statutory expectation that agencies consult on actions with tribal implications, and requires consultation within 60 days of a tribal request. It names which state officials may represent California and directs the Department of Human Resources to develop and deliver consultation training with specific content elements.
Who It Affects
California and federally recognized tribes, nonfederally recognized tribes and tribal organizations, cabinet-level and department directors, statewide elected officials, and the Department of Human Resources. Any state agency undertaking policies, regulations, programs, or projects that could affect tribes will be implicated.
Why It Matters
The bill attempts to standardize how and when tribes are brought into state decisionmaking, creating predictable processes and mandatory training for senior officials. It also raises practical questions about enforceability, scheduling of agency actions, and the capacity of smaller departments to comply.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 1322 starts by establishing the Government-to-Government Consultation Act and then anchors the law with a short set of working definitions. Its definition of "agency action" is intentionally broad, covering policies, regulations, guidelines, processes, programs, and projects that have tribal implications.
The bill similarly defines three categories of tribal parties—California tribes on the Native American Heritage Commission contact list, federally recognized tribes listed under federal law, and nonfederally recognized tribes or tribal organizations—so the consultation rubric applies across multiple tribal statuses.
The bill makes consultation an expectation and, in one key subdivision, ties consultation to a tribe's request: when a California tribe or federally recognized tribe requests government-to-government consultation on a specified agency action, the state is to consult within 60 days. The statute specifies what a consultation must include: communications and documents that are culturally and educationally accessible and multiple attempts by the state to engage using various formats (in-person, video, phone, written).
That combination creates both procedural content and minimum engagement practices.SB 1322 also clarifies who speaks for the state. It lists senior officials—from the Governor and Attorney General down to directors and chief counsels—who may represent California in formal consultations, and it permits these officials to designate others to conduct preliminary consultations and act on the state's behalf.
That delegation authority is practical for scheduling but shifts judgement about who is qualified to engage in government-to-government discussions onto agency leadership.Finally, the bill directs the Department of Human Resources to develop a training program addressing timing, forms of consultation, principles, resolution, tribal sovereignty, sacred sites, and law changes affecting tribes. It sets firm completion deadlines for existing officials and requires annual retraining.
Taken together, the provisions standardize many aspects of consultation while leaving key questions about enforcement, funding, and interaction with other state or federal requirements unresolved.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill defines "tribal implications" to include impacts on tribes, the government-to-government relationship, or the distribution of power and responsibilities between the state and federally recognized tribes.
At a tribe's request, the state must consult on a specified agency action within 60 days and the consultation must include accessible communications and multiple engagement attempts.
The Governor, Attorney General, each constitutional officer and statewide elected official, agency and department directors, commission chairs and executive officers, and chief counsels are statutorily authorized to represent the state in consultations and may formally designate delegates.
The Department of Human Resources must develop a consultation training for the named officials, covering timing, form, principles, resolution, tribal sovereignty, sacred sites, and relevant changes to state law.
Officials listed must complete the training by January 1, 2025 (or within six months of appointment) and must retake it annually; the bill sets a development deadline of June 1, 2024 for the training curriculum.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title: Government-to-Government Consultation Act
This short provision gives the statute its name so agencies and courts can cite it directly. The label signals that the Legislature intends a formal government-to-government framework rather than ad hoc outreach, which matters for how agencies interpret subsequent duties and customary practice.
Definitions: agency action, tribe categories, and tribal implications
The definitions section sweeps broadly. "Agency action" expressly includes policies, regulations, guidelines, processes, programs, and projects—language that can capture routine rulemaking as well as discrete capital projects. The statute distinguishes California tribes on the NAHC contact list, federally recognized tribes listed under federal law, and nonfederally recognized tribes or tribal organizations, which widens the universe of potential consultees. "Tribal implications" is defined to reach impacts on tribes, on government relationships, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities; that phrase is purposefully capacious and will determine when the consultation trigger applies.
Consultation expectation and tribe-triggered 60‑day consultation
Subdivision (c) frames consultation as encouraged, while subdivision (d)(1) creates a tribe-initiated trigger requiring consultation within 60 days of a request. Practically, this establishes a two-track approach: agencies should consider consultation proactively, but a tribe can compel a consult timetable by requesting it. Subdivision (d)(2) sets minimum process attributes—plain-language communications and multiple outreach attempts—so consultations must be accessible and proactive rather than a single formal notice.
Who must consider consultation and who represents the state
Agency directors are expressly encouraged to assess consultation needs before approving actions. The statute then lists specific senior officials who may represent California in government-to-government talks and allows them to designate others for preliminary consultations or to act on the state's behalf. That delegation mechanism is practical but shifts responsibility for competence and continuity to agency leadership and designees.
Training curriculum development by Department of Human Resources
The Department of Human Resources must develop a training in consultation basics in coordination with state entities experienced in tribal issues and with tribal governments. The bill prescribes topics to be covered—timing and notice, formats, principles, resolution, tribal sovereignty, sacred sites, and law changes affecting tribes—so the curriculum will need subject-matter expertise and tribal input to meet the specified scope.
Training completion deadlines and annual retraining
Officials named in subdivision (f) must complete the training by a set date or within six months of appointment, and must retake it annually. The deadline structure places continuing education obligations on senior officials and establishes a recurring administrative requirement that agencies must schedule and track.
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 tribes on the Native American Heritage Commission contact list: Gain an explicit statutory mechanism to request government-to-government consultation and a guaranteed, time-bound response window.
- Federally recognized tribes within California: Obtain the same request-triggered consultation priority and statutory recognition of consultation formats and communication standards.
- Nonfederally recognized tribes and tribal organizations: The bill encourages consultation with these groups as appropriate, potentially increasing their participation in state decisionmaking even if they lack federal recognition.
- Senior agency officials and legal teams: Receive a standardized training and a clarified list of who may represent the state, reducing ambiguity about roles during consultations and creating shared expectations across agencies.
- Tribal communities affected by projects and policies: Benefit indirectly from clearer processes intended to produce more meaningful input on sacred sites, sovereignty issues, and power distribution between state and tribal governments.
Who Bears the Cost
- State agencies and departments: Must devote staff time to assess tribal implications, schedule consultations within 60 days of requests, and implement the documentation and outreach standards required by the bill.
- Department of Human Resources: Must design, coordinate, and deliver the required training program with tribal and interagency input—work that requires funding, subject-matter contractors, and ongoing maintenance for annual retraining.
- Small or under-resourced agencies: Face disproportionate compliance burdens because the law imposes process standards and training without allocating implementation resources, potentially slowing approvals or program launches.
- Designated delegates and counsel: Individuals asked to stand in for senior officials will carry responsibility for conducting preliminary consultations and for ensuring those talks meet the bill's accessibility and engagement requirements.
- Taxpayers (indirectly): If agencies require additional funding to meet scheduling, staffing, or training demands, the costs will fall on state budgets unless the Legislature appropriates new resources.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill tries to make consultation meaningful—by setting standards, timelines, and training—while avoiding rigid mandates; the core tension is between creating enforceable, timely opportunities for tribes to shape state action and preserving the operational flexibility and resource constraints of state agencies, a trade-off that the text does not fully resolve.
The bill leaves several practical and legal questions open. First, it mixes hortatory language—"encourages"—with mandatory-sounding directives—"shall consult" within 60 days of a tribe's request.
That tension creates uncertainty about enforceability: the statute prescribes process elements but supplies no private right of action, administrative remedies, or penalties for noncompliance. Second, the 60‑day response window and the requirement for multiple engagement attempts could meaningfully delay agency timelines for rulemaking or project approvals, particularly for agencies without preexisting tribal relations or staffing to support rapid outreach.
Third, the training deadlines in the text are dated (development due June 1, 2024; completion by January 1, 2025), creating an immediate implementation problem if the bill becomes law after those dates; the statute does not include a fallback schedule. Fourth, the definition of "tribal implications" is broad enough to capture many agency actions, increasing the risk of over‑inclusion and procedural burden.
Finally, the bill is silent on funding and on how consultation obligations interact with other statutory processes (for example, environmental review timelines or federal consultation obligations), leaving agencies to reconcile potentially conflicting duties.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.