Amador County joined a growing list of nearby counties opposed to the controversial California Wild Heritage Act, voting against the bill in its current form at its meeting Tuesday morning. The vote ran counter to the wishes of nearly 300 petitioners from Amador County.

The bill, which was reintroduced in August by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-California), would protect 2.5 million acres of California wilderness and would designate 22 California river segments as National Wild and Scenic Rivers. Included in the bill is the north fork of the Mokelumne River. If approved by Congress, the bill would designate nearly 17 miles of the river as a National Wild and Scenic River, from one-quarter mile downstream of Salt Springs Dam west to the National Forest boundary just upstream of Tiger Creek Powerhouse.

In addition, the bill would create the Caples Creek Wilderness from 22,360 acres of national forest lands. The area includes both Caples Creek, which flows from Caples Lake to the Silver Fork of the American River and the headwaters of the Silver Fork American River, below Silver Lake.

Despite including heightened protection for the local river, the board had concerns about the bill.

"This sounds really good on the face," District Two Supervisor Richard Forster said. "But I have a number of concerns about this bill ... We have to look at the big picture. There are a lot of counties in the state that are going to be hurt by this bill. There are some good portions but I think it is too restrictive in many ways as it is written."

One main issue most board members touched on was the future impact of the bill. If approved, future water projects along the river would no longer be possible.

"If this bill were adopted and we needed water from the river 75 years from now we wouldn't be able to touch it," District Three Supervisor Richard Vinson said.

Katherine Evatt of the Foothill Conservancy also spoke at Tuesday's meeting. Evatt provided a packet of information to the board for review prior to the meeting.

According to information in the Conservancy's packet, the Mokelumne River already serves millions through its existing system of dams, powerhouses and reservoirs. Wild and Scenic River designation would not affect existing power creation or uses of the river water itself, Evatt argued.

In addition, Evatt said the portion of the Mokelumne River proposed for designation lies almost wholly within national forest lands. National Wild and Scenic River designation does not affect the uses of nearby private lands, the letter said.

"The California Wild Heritage Wilderness Act proposes to protect only a small portion of the eligible wilderness and wild and scenic rivers that comprise our state's natural heritage," the letter concludes. "Locally, it will serve to attract more visitors to our county who spend money in local businesses. It offers balance to the more intensive uses of other public lands and rivers."

At Tuesday's meeting, Evatt said that if the north fork of the river were in another bill the Conservancy would support it also.

"But it is not in another bill; it is in this one," she continued. "Because this bill is good for the residents of Amador County and protects local areas, you should support it. By doing so you show your support for the people of this county and show you represent them because they often feel that you don't."

Still, the restrictive nature of the bill worried the board.

"I have a great deal of trepidation in voting for anything that will be this restrictive and will take away the rights of so many people to use that area as they do now so we can protect others," District Three Supervisor Richard Vinson said.

Amador Water Agency (AWA) Director Dan Brown spoke to the issue of future water rights.

"I am speaking in opposition to this bill," he said. "The Amador Water Agency is interested in extending its consumptive rights on the river; a project that affects the residents of the entire county."

However, Evatt provided an e-mail communication from AWA Board President Terry Moore which refuted Brown's comments. Moore denied that the AWA Board has ever taken a position on the bill.

"The Board did discuss the Act, and its potential to impact AWA projects, back in February," Moore wrote to Evatt. "...the AWA board decided to remain neutral. That has not changed. Like any other citizen, Board Directors may speak at other public forums. However, the views they present are their own and do not represent the policy position of the Agency."

In the end, the board voted 4-0-1, with District One Supervisor Rich Escamilla abstaining, to oppose the bill in its current form.

The Joint Chambers Commission of El Dorado County, the board of supervisors for Calaveras, El Dorado and Alpine Counties, Assemblyman Tim Leslie, Assemblyman Alan Nakanishi and several recreation groups have also opposed the bill.