Summary#

ACR 218, The Huuc Atam Highway, is an enacted California Assembly Concurrent Resolution; it does not amend an existing Act. It designates part of State Route 18 in San Bernardino County by that name. The stated goal is to recognize the cultural significance of Huuc Atam, the Maara’yam traditional name for the Arrowhead landmark.

• The designation covers SR 18 from its junction with SR 210 to Old Waterman Canyon Road.
• The resolution requests that Caltrans determine the cost of signs for the designation.
• It requests that Caltrans erect the signs only after receiving enough donations from nonstate sources to cover their cost.

What it means for you#

• People who travel this stretch of SR 18: The highway has the Huuc Atam name designation. Signs are not assured; they depend on sufficient nonstate donations.
• Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation and the public: The resolution recognizes the name and cultural importance of Huuc Atam. It does not change the route, access, or traffic rules.
• Caltrans: The resolution requests a cost estimate and, if sufficient donations are received, signs. It does not set a deadline or require a particular number or location of signs.

Money#

No cost figure is available; the resolution asks Caltrans to determine the sign cost.

• Signs are to be covered by donations from nonstate sources.
• The materials do not state how donations would be gathered or whether there would be other costs, such as sign maintenance.

What is unclear#

• The resolution does not set a timeline for estimating costs or installing signs.
• It does not say how many signs there would be or where they would go.
• It does not explain how donations would be collected or handled.
• It does not state who would pay for maintenance or replacement of signs.

Case for#

• The designation gives public recognition to a traditional name tied to the Arrowhead landmark and its cultural importance to the Maara’yam.
• The route segment is identified by specific boundaries, so the named area is clear.
• Requiring enough nonstate donations before signs are erected avoids making sign costs a condition of state funding in the resolution.

Case against#

• The designation may not be visible to drivers if enough donations are not received.
• The resolution does not set a timeline or explain how donations would be secured, so sign installation could be delayed or not happen.
• The resolution does not address ongoing costs for maintaining or replacing signs.