In How Algorithm-Assisted Decisionmaking Is Influencing Environmental Law and Climate Adaptation, Ziaja provides a useful framework to analyze whether an algorithm-assisted decisionmaking (AADM) tool and its design process is procedurally equitable. Ziaja’s framework contains several different questions advocacy groups can use to analyze the AADM tools that are increasingly used for environmental resource governance, such as the INFORM and RESOLVE algorithms discussed in the article, which guide the allocation and distribution of water and energy resources. The questions within the framework can help stakeholders assess the legal and policy assumptions (“value-laden assumptions”) embedded in algorithmic decision tools and are a starting point for identifying potential biases and substantive equity issues within those systems and encouraging greater deliberation and coproduction of AADM tools between governmental agencies and advocacy groups. This Comment discusses some of the barriers advocacy organizations face when engaging in the development of algorithmic systems, how the framework can ease those barriers, and finally the need for the developers of algorithmic decision systems to complete impact or risk assessments to further enable informed discussion and coproduction of these tools.