NEWS ANALYSIS : CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS / U.S. SENATE : Seymour Fails to Make a Name for Himself

John Seymour came to Capitol Hill at the start of 1991 with high hopes of distinguishing himself as an effective legislator and persuading California voters to elect him to his temporary Senate seat.

“I can run the best doggone campaign in the world . . . but that is not going to do it,” Seymour told supporters the day after he was appointed by Gov. Pete Wilson. “What is going to do it is that John Seymour has got to perform and he’s got to make his mark very quickly.”

As the 102nd Congress adjourned for the year, Seymour left Washington last week with a reputation in some circles as the “roadblock senator” for his all-out effort to thwart a pair of landmark bills that sought to protect the California environment.

With three weeks to go before the Nov. 3 election, Seymour comes home having failed to make a name for himself: 51% of California registered voters say they do not know enough about their junior senator to judge him, according to a Times poll conducted last month. And statewide polls consistently have shown Seymour trailing his better-known Democratic opponent, former San Francisco Mayor Dianne Feinstein, by double digits.

“He has established a reputation of being the only U.S. senator who has been in office 21 months and is not known by half of his constituents,” said Larry Berg, a USC political scientist. “That is hardly a record to behold.”

But Seymour’s persistent--though unsuccessful--attempts last week to prevent the Senate from approving sweeping changes in the way federal water is distributed by the huge Central Valley Project could boost his name recognition.

“At the very least, the public now has a little greater awareness that John Seymour is a U.S. senator,” said veteran California pollster Mervin Field. “I guess that helps more than it hurts in that he gets some visibility.”

For his part, Seymour has said he is proud of his achievements in the Senate. He recently cited his persistent, behind-the-scenes lobbying to increase federal transportation dollars for California and save 4,100 jobs by keeping the Long Beach Naval Shipyard open. And he was applauded by environmental groups for his work in adding 400,000 acres of wilderness territory in the Los Padres National Forest and creating 5,400 square miles of protected marine sanctuary in Monterey Bay.

“For somebody who has only been here 21 months, I think I’ve accomplished a great deal,” Seymour said at a news conference Wednesday to discuss his efforts to stop the water legislation.

But as an appointee with no seniority who belongs to the minority party in Congress, Seymour was given little opportunity to become an influential player in the Senate. He was unable to push through Congress a single bill that he introduced.

The demands of running a statewide campaign 3,000 miles away from Washington also took their toll. Unlike many incumbents running for reelection, Seymour did not neglect his legislative duties--he kept a 90% attendance record over the last year.

Perhaps Seymour’s most controversial initiatives during the 102nd Congress were his attempts to block two major environmental issues--increased protection of the vast California desert and reform of the Central Valley Project.

Last month, Seymour successfully used Senate parliamentary procedures to prevent the Energy Committee from considering landmark legislation to protect 4.8 million acres of desert from mining exploration, cattle grazing and off-road vehicle use. Last week, he failed in his efforts to bottle up action on the Senate floor and block passage of a major reclamation bill that included overhauling the delivery of Central Valley Project water.

“I was disappointed by my failure to negotiate a compromise on desert wilderness and the water bill,” said Seymour, who made desert legislation a top legislative priority shortly after being appointed by Wilson.

Seymour opposed both bills, contending they would cost tens of thousands of jobs in the mining and farming industries at a time when the California economy could least afford it. He said he took these stands knowing they were politically unpopular throughout much of the state and could hurt his election campaign.

“What I get out of this, bottom line, is I have done my level best to work within the system to achieve my objectives,” Seymour said. “Sometimes you don’t win in the process, unless you want to give your principles away. . . . At least I had the backbone to stand up and say no, when in fact the politics were you ought to say yes. Had I given in on the desert and had I given in on water, the rightful question would have been: ‘You were really pandering to the voters, weren’t you?’ ”

The problem with Seymour’s argument on the water bill, said USC’s Berg, is that his actions favored a narrow special interest over the broader interests of California constituents.

“I don’t see how that flies,” Berg said. “Would you prefer to be called a man of principles (who defends) a minority of large corporate farms or the overwhelming majority of Californians?”

Seymour took the same stance on the water and desert bills as his mentor, Wilson, who succeeded in killing Central Valley Project legislation a year ago. Like Wilson’s, Seymour’s campaign benefited from his pro-agriculture position. He took in $563,976 from Central Valley growers and residents through June 30.

The Central Valley Project bill is part of an omnibus water package introduced by House Interior Chairman George Miller (D-Martinez) and Sen. Bill Bradley (D-N.J.). The legislation, awaiting President Bush’s signature, would make federal water available to cities for the first time. It also would set aside 800,000 acre-feet of water and $50 million a year to help revive declining populations of threatened fish and wildlife.

Seymour was handicapped from the beginning in his opposition to the bill because it was attached to reclamation projects for 17 western states. This put him up against fellow western Republicans who supported those projects.

“I cannot think of anything else (Seymour) could have done to support his position,” Bradley said.

Sen. Malcolm Wallop (R-Wyo.), who helped negotiate the water package, said Seymour deserved credit for getting several concessions for California agriculture. These included retaining double discounts in the form of water and crop subsidies and access to more low-priced water than called for in the Miller-Bradley proposal.

“He’s had a tremendous influence by the fact that this is more unpleasant than unlivable (for agriculture interests),” Wallop said. “It’s a credit to him.”

Times staff writer Bill Stall contributed to this report.