BILL NUMBER:  SB 1828
  VETOED	DATE: 09/30/2002




SEP 30 2002

To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 1828 without my signature.

I fully support the goals of this legislation.  Native Americans and
their sacred sites deserve the greatest respect, honor and
protection.  On rare occasions, I have been privileged to view a
sacred site.  It has left me with a deep sense of reverence.

There is no doubt more must be done to protect sacred sites.
Unfortunately, this bill is a flawed attempt to do that.  I deeply
regret that this bill is in a form that I am unable to sign.  I am
fully committed to working with all interested parties to craft a
measure that adequately addresses the problem.

This bill was designed to protect Native American sacred sites by
giving tribes a significant voice in the environmental review process
for projects that might impact them.  At the heart of the bill is
the list of sites maintained by the Native American Heritage
Commission.  But that list can be both under-inclusive and
over-inclusive.  It is under-inclusive because some tribes,
understandably fearing destruction of sites, have not disclosed their
identity to the Commission.  It can be over-inc lusive because,
under this bill, any site may be placed on the list by anyone, no
matter the level of evidence that the site is sacred.  Nonetheless,
simply placing a site on the list gives it all the protections
afforded by the bill.

There is another problem that must be addressed.  This bill does not
find the right balance between the need for confidentiality to
protect sites, and the need for disclosure and notification to allow
those planning projects to know to avoid areas containing sacred
sites.  As this bill is written, someone might invest large sums of
money in a project before learning the development implicates a
sacred site.

In addition, while this bill draws on the CEQA process, it makes some
key changes that are highly controversial.  It gives Native
Americans influence over the CEQA process that no other party, agency
or governmental body now has.  If we are to develop a process beyond
the standard CEQA procedures, there should be a greater effort at
collaborative discussions that seek a strong consensus.

But it is not clear that we need to enlist CEQA to protect sacred
sites.  Existing law relating to the protection of sacred sites on
public lands might serve as a framework for protecting sacred sites
on private lands.  We should consider expanding the duties and
authority of the Native American Heritage Commission so it can use
existing and expanded law to protect sacred public and sacred private
lands.

The protection of sacred sites is a matter that must be addressed.
Accordingly, I am directing my Secretary of Resources and my Director
of the Governor's Office of Planning and Research to work with the
proponents of this measure an d others to introduce a bill next year
that meets these concerns.

I would also note that I have signed Senate Bill 483, which protects
Native American sacred sites from the adverse environmental effects
of proposed mining operations.  I am particularly concerned about the
proposed Glamis gold mine in Imperial County, and I have directed my
Secretary for Resources to pursue all possible legal and
administrative remedies that will assist in stopping the development
of that mine.

Sincerely,



GRAY DAVIS