Advertisement

Seymour Reaps Cash Crop From Agriculture Industry

Share
TIMES STAFF WRITERS

For farmers in California’s Central Valley, Republican John Seymour is a political savior who is waging a “courageous and dogged battle” in the U.S. Senate to preserve their access to a cheap and plentiful supply of federal water.

For Seymour, the Central Valley agriculture industry is pumping the mother’s milk of politics--money--into his campaign to defeat Democrat Dianne Feinstein and retain his Senate seat for two more years.

Since he was appointed to the Senate in January, 1991, by Gov. Pete Wilson, Seymour has raised $563,976 in campaign contributions from agricultural donors and Central Valley residents, according to a Times study of Federal Election Commission records. The agriculture industry has provided about one-fourth of the nearly $1 million that Seymour has collected from political action committees, more than any other group.

Advertisement

At the same time, Seymour has introduced and pushed through the Senate a controversial Central Valley Project reform bill that would allow California farmers to continue receiving federal subsidized water for as little as $5 per acre-foot. Urban agencies pay as much as $240 per acre-foot for treated water in Southern California.

Environmentalists and at least one prominent California congressman are critical of the relationship between Seymour and California farm interests.

“For political fund-raising purposes, John Seymour has made the decision to put his political fortunes ahead of this state,” said Rep. George Miller (D-Martinez), chairman of the House Interior Committee. The congressman has written a competing Central Valley Project reform bill that reduces water subsidies for farmers. “We’re talking about somebody’s incredibly selfish political interests. It’s very bad policy. . . . It’s a disaster for California.”

In an interview, Seymour vigorously denied that he is using federal water policy to solicit political donations, saying that he is seeking an equitable statewide solution to California’s water crisis.

“I have never taken one dollar of campaign contributions in exchange for some legislative favor, whether it is carrying a bill or a vote or any other thing,” Seymour said. “People who do that ought to be in jail.”

His reform legislation has been improperly portrayed by the press, environmentalists and Democrats on Capitol Hill as a pro-agriculture bill, Seymour said. “That is totally inaccurate. The bill is a historic compromise between the Metropolitan Water District, representing half of California’s consumers in urban areas, and agriculture,” he said.

Advertisement

Environmentalists say Seymour has sided with farmers while excluding other interests and they cite several indicators: His legislation was drafted primarily by a lawyer for Central Valley growers; he has not responded to repeated requests to discuss his legislation with the largest environmental coalition on federal water reform, and farming interests are providing virtually no financial support for his opponent.

In modern-day politics, raising millions of dollars is a necessity for winning elections, particularly in a huge state such as California with several major media markets.

Through June 30, Seymour raised $4.8 million in campaign funds. Political experts say he will need to at least double that figure in the months leading up to the Nov. 3 election to remain competitive with Feinstein, who has collected $4.5 million and had considerably more cash available after the primary campaign spending.

Seymour, like his predecessor and political mentor Wilson, has found the Central Valley fertile territory, even during a recession when fund raising is more difficult.

The Times analysis found that Seymour has collected contributions totaling $430,111 from donors identified as having direct agriculture interests--$226,997 from PACs and $203,114 from individuals. These figures represent 23% of Seymour’s PAC contributions and 9% of his total contributions.

In addition, Seymour has garnered $133,865 from Central Valley residents. While these contributors have no stated link to agriculture, in many cases their economic health is certainly tied to the valley’s dominant industry. Together, agriculture interests and other valley residents account for 12% of Seymour’s contributions.

Advertisement

These figures may underestimate the importance of agriculture’s donations to Seymour because his campaign failed to identify, as is required by FEC regulations, the occupations of 885 contributors who gave a total of $604,182, or 16% of his $3.7 million in individual contributions. The requirement is rarely enforced by the FEC and many political campaigns fail to provide the information.

In contrast to Seymour’s reliance on agriculture donations, Feinstein has received only 19 contributions totaling $13,750 from individuals who listed occupations identified with farming interests. Her agriculture PAC contributions amount to $2,100.

“I think the reason I’m doing better in the Central Valley than she is is the fact the Central Valley well remembers her support for the Big Green (environmental) initiative, which threatened a tremendous economic hit on the Central Valley,” Seymour said.

The Feinstein camp holds a different view.

“Seymour’s CVP bill favors a narrow special interest that happens to be the financial base for his campaign,” said Kam Kuwata, Feinstein’s campaign manager. “We are not going to sell our support for financial contributions.”

Feinstein is awaiting the outcome of a House-Senate conference committee to settle the differences between Seymour’s and Miller’s Central Valley Project bills before taking a specific stand on the legislation, Kuwata said.

Seymour said: “You mean an issue as important to California as water and she is copping out?”

Advertisement

During his 19 months in office, Seymour has proved to be a friend of agribusiness. This was evident on a campaign swing through the Central Valley cities of Fresno, Bakersfield, Visalia and Sacramento last month when Seymour was praised by farm leaders.

“John Seymour has earned the support of California farmers by his courageous and dogged battle on behalf of agriculture during the time he has served in the Senate,” said Bob Vice, president of the California Farm Bureau Federation.

David Moore, president of Western Growers, said: “California agriculture could have no better friend in the United States Senate than Senator John Seymour. He deserves to be elected.”

The agriculture community was voicing its appreciation to Seymour for introducing a Central Valley Project reform bill last fall that was largely written by Stuart Somach, the chief attorney for Central Valley growers.

Federally subsidized irrigation has made the Central Valley one of the most productive farming regions in the world. The Central Valley Project, the government’s largest water project, delivers more than 6 million acre-feet of low-cost water to farmers during a normal year. (An acre-foot is 326,000 gallons.)

In an interview, Seymour repeatedly emphasized that his bill was the first to create voluntary water transfer provisions proposed by the MWD--which is the largest urban water district in the state--that would allow urban areas to purchase Central Valley Project water. It also provides for an assortment of structural work on the project to benefit threatened fish and wildlife, though the legislation falls far short of what environmentalists say is necessary to restore depleted waterfowl habitat and winter-run salmon.

Advertisement

The part that farmers favor most, however, is that Seymour’s bill is silent on a highly controversial aspect of Central Valley Project operations--the renewal of 40-year water contracts that allow project users to continue to receive about $450 million in government subsidies each year.

House Interior Chairman Miller and Sen. Bill Bradley (D-N.J.), chairman of the Senate water and power subcommittee, are leading advocates of not renewing the long-term contracts when they expire and providing more water for fish and wildlife, as well as to cities under voluntary transfers.

But Seymour argues that cutting back farmers’ water rights would devastate the California agriculture industry. He cited figures from a California Department of Food and Agriculture study and said Miller’s bill would cost $12 billion to the Central Valley economy and put tens of thousands of people out of work. An independent consultant found that the study “is fundamentally flawed and grossly overstates” the economic impact of the bill.

“My priorities,” Seymour said, “are human beings and their jobs, and fish and wildlife, in that order.”

The Seymour bill also would allow local irrigation districts, which serve as master contractors for the federal water, to veto a proposed water transfer from within the district. The Miller-Bradley bill would permit a partial veto with the idea of protecting a district from potential hardship created by a loss of the water.

In supporting Central Valley agribusiness, Seymour is following the same script used by Wilson to defeat Feinstein during the 1990 California gubernatorial race. After his election as governor, Wilson appointed Seymour to fill the remaining two years of his Senate seat.

Advertisement

As a senator, Wilson went to bat for the agriculture industry on an assortment of issues and was a solid foe of Democratic-sponsored Central Valley Project reform. Between 1985 and 1988, Wilson received more money from the agriculture industry--$235,755--than any other political action committee, according to a Common Cause study. Seymour has raised a similar amount from agriculture PACs in 18 months.

Targeting the Central Valley as a source of political money can be an effective campaign strategy, California pollster Mervyn Field said.

“If (Seymour) does nothing more than get a disproportionate amount of money there and uses it for Los Angeles and metropolitan television (advertising), he is ahead of the game,” Field said.

But Field warned that appealing to the agriculture industry is politically risky in a state such as California where the environment is a defining issue. “Any candidate who appears to be anti-environmental is not resonating with California voters,” Field said.

Environmental leaders have criticized Seymour for representing the Central Valley farming community on water issues at the expense of the rest of the state. They charge that he has repeatedly declined to meet with Share the Water, a coalition of the state’s leading environmental, fishing and duck hunting groups.

“There is no evidence that he has seriously considered or provided access to any other side than those who have an economic interest in the Central Valley Project,” said Patricia Schifferle of Share the Water. “He has introduced their bill, he has done their bidding at every turn and he has blocked consideration of any other measures.”

Advertisement

While citing frequent meetings between environmentalists and his staff, Seymour said that Share the Water has acted like “nothing but a campaign front for Dianne Feinstein.” He said that one member organization of Share the Water, the Sierra Club, has endorsed Feinstein and contributed to her campaign.

Nonetheless, Seymour denied that he is unwilling to meet with environmentalists.

“I have personally never declined to sit down with anybody to discuss this bill, including Share the Water,” he said. “. . . I’d be happy to meet with them.”

Times staff writer Bill Stall and researchers Murielle Gamache, Charlotte Huff and Michael Cheek contributed to this report.

Seymour Contributions

These figures show that Sen. John Seymour has received more political action committee contributions from agricultural interests, which are heavily dependent on federally subsidized water, than from any other industry. Agriculture: $226,997 Financial Services: $164,328 Aerospace/Defense: $135,475 Energy/Oil: $94,050 Party/Ideological: $66,734 Health Care: $59,900 Real Estate/Developers: $42,846 Transportation: $25,267 Automobiles: $19,500 Entertainment: $18,250 Other Businesses: $121,628 Total: $974,975 Source: Times analysis of Federal Election Commission records of political action committee contributions to Seymour’s Senate campaign. Contributions are through June 30.

Advertisement