SACRAMENTO - California tribes and casino regulators are close to ending a long-running disagreement over safeguards in the state's $8 billion tribal-casino industry.

The California Gambling Control Commission and the state's roughly 60 tribes with casinos have been at odds since shortly after a court ruling revoked a federal agency's power to enforce casino rules and procedures meant to protect patrons and tribal members.

Tribes said they already had extensive safeguards in place. But the state gambling agency said it had the power to impose regulations to ensure that standards were followed.

Tribes countered that such a step would violate the state's authority under the 1999 agreement that legalized Las Vegas-style gambling on tribal land. A legal fight looked inevitable.

Now the state and a large number of tribes seem to have accepted a compromise. It emphasizes a federal role in ensuring that California tribes have required standards.

The Gambling Control Commission approved the regulation two weeks ago. Later this year, an association of tribal leaders and state officials, some of whose members helped craft the proposal, is expected to consider it. A final vote could come in early 2010.

"The expectation is it will be approved," said attorney Jerry Levine, whose clients include the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians near Temecula.

Other tribal representatives, though, said the regulation is not a done deal and may be challenged in court.

"I know that a number of tribes still have concerns," said Scott Crowell, the Washington attorney for the Rincon Band of Luiseño Mission Indians in northern San Diego County.

Internal-control standards have a crucial role in organized gambling.

They are meant to protect customers from rigged games. They help guard tribal members from criminals. And an accurate count of casino earnings ensures that the state gets what it is owed under revenue-sharing deals.

For years, the National Indian Gambling Commission had overseen internal-control standards. But a 2006 federal appeals court decision stripped it of that power.

That ruling shifted the matter back to tribes and states. In 2006 and 2007, the issue became part of the debate over casino expansion deals for four tribes in Riverside and San Bernardino.

Months of talks followed but there was little progress until this past summer, according to participants.

"We spent 60 days alternating between San Diego and Sacramento. It was a very good give-and-take," said John Roberts, executive director of the San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians in San Diego County. He led a tribal-state task force that came up with the compromise regulation.

"The tribes aren't against regulation. They were against bad regulation," Roberts said. (Tribes) are going to be deadly serious over protecting their own assets and making sure those games are fair."

Anna Carr, a spokeswoman for the gambling control commission, said the agency thinks the proposed regulation will protect the casinos and the public.

state vs. federal

California tribes say they already spend $90 million annually enforcing security and other safeguards in their casinos.

The difference between the regulation initially proposed by state officials and the latest version centers on who will enforce the rules

Under the regulation, the state would consider the tribes in compliance if they meet or exceed standards set by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The state would verify that.

Tribes, though, can reduce the state's involvement further if they adopt ordinances giving the national gaming commission oversight of their casinos. About a dozen tribes already have done that.

"There's a natural tension, a natural suspicion between the tribes and the state," said Phil Hogen, the former chairman of the National Indian Gaming Commission. "That doesn't mean the tribes love to do business with the feds, but they've been doing it for a long time."

Crowell, though, said there are still questions about the state's role in the regulation. He called the latest arrangement a "house of cards" because, he said, the 2006 federal court decision leaves the federal commission with no power to enforce casino standards.

There also continue to be concerns that the regulation amounts to an illegal change to the tribe's 1999 compact with the state, Crowell said of his clients.

"We would have to keep litigation open as an option," he said.