The Peripheral Canal: who backed it, who fought it Powerful pro- and anti- Douglas Gwynn 0 Orville E.Thompson 0 Kathleen L‘Ecluse canal alliances formed in this battle over water

Thebattle over Proposition 9, the Pe- water and uses 85 percent of all water accounted for the majority of funds ripheral Canal referendum, is over. But supplies in the state. Both the Central spent in the battle over Proposition 9. who actually won and lost the fight is Valley Project and the State Water Pro- The dissention within agriculture re- not so clear. ject were developed to transport water sulted from a multiplicity of causes, all Proposition 9 on the June 8, 1982, south and ease this dependence. The interrelated and interactive. But five ballot would have allowed the construc- San Joaquin Valley region of Kern issues emerge as the major reasons for tion of a canal and other water facilities County is particularly dependent on im- these splits. to divert water from northern California ported state water. Increased overdraft Propostion 9 included provisions for rivers around the Sacramento-San Joa- of groundwater in recent years has led the protection of water quality in the quin Delta into the California State Wa- to this need. Delta and prevention of further state ter Project feeding . Farmers in the San Joaquin Valley as a development of North Coast rivers. Ac- Numerous interest groups were in- whole mine nearly 1.5 million acre-feet cording to statements reported by the volved in financing the campaigns on (489 billion gallons) each year. Ground- press, some large agricultural interests, both sides of the issue. water accounts for 40 percent of the such as the J. G. Boswell Company and The major participants included large water used by agriculture during dry the Salyer Land Company, felt that farming interests and multinational oil years in this area. In the drought of these provisions were too restrictive. corporations a well as large southern- 1977, it accounted for up to 80 percent of They donated large amounts of money based industrial firms, utility com- the water used (according to California to the anti-canal campaign, not because panies, financial institutions, retail Water Atlas, California State Office of they were anti-canal but because they businesses, and food processing organi- Planning and Research, Sacramento, were against these environmental con- zations. Even recreation-based enter- 1978). Since the 1920s, land has sunk as trols. prises such as Walt Disney, Sea World, much as 28 feet in selected places, al- Some farmers in the Sacramento/San Pacific Drive-In Theaters, TraveLodge, though this, as an extreme example, Joaquin Delta benefit from the cost-free, Atlas Hotels, and Vagabond Hotels took would not be typical (California’s fresh water that now flows by their part. Groundwater, Bulletin 118, State De- land. A Peripheral Canal would have Analysis of the contributions that partment of Water Resources, Sacra- removed most of this water, which also these and other groups made suggests mento, 1975). would have been controlled by a state not only what interests are presently In 1981, 62.4 percent of State Water agency. Delta farmers feared that this strong enough to influence public deci- Project deliveries were made to San would increase salinity problems, sion-making, but also what new inter- Joaquin water districts. The Peripheral should a disproportionate amount of ests are emerging that may determine Canal, a 43-mile, 500-foot-wide unlined water be shipped south instead of being the direction of the future develop- channel, would have increased the ca- used to flush the Delta. Proponents of ments of California water resources. We pacity of the water project system and the canal, such as the California Depart- believe that research of this sort is es- improved the quality of the water deliv- ment of Water Resources, claimed that sential for public understanding and in- ered. It is not surprising, therefore, that the canal would allow for a more effi- formal participation in trends affecting most Kern County farmers supported cient flushing action through controlled their lives. A primary source of data for development of such a canal. outlets. this study was reports filed within spe- Other agricultural interests, such as Some landowners opposed the Pe- cific time intervals with the Division of the J. G. Boswell Company and the Sal- ripheral Canal because the planned Political Reform Office of the Secretary yer Land Company, two of California’s route divided their land. The canal of State of California. Key-informant in- largest farming corporations, opposed would have crossed secondary high- terviews, an examination of major the canal. Major farm organizations, ways at five points and light-duty or newspaper clipping files, and a review such as the Farm Bureau Federation, unimproved roads at approximately 35 of over 700 publications related to the the Grange, and the Cattlemen’s Associ- points. Farmers would have had some social aspects of this issue were also ation, also declared publicly that they difficulty in transporting large equip- made. opposed the canal early in the cam- ment to points of crossing, which were The groups involved in the battle can paign. These actions created dissention tentatively placed at five-mile intervals. be divided into two general interest within these organizations and within Much of the disagreement became a areas, agricultural and nonagricultural. agriculture in general, and raised ques- tug-of-war between Kern County and Even this distinction has its grey areas, tions about the real interests of agricul- northern California farming interests since many large companies own both ture. for future water supplies. Kern County farms and housing developments and The disagreement did not prevent an farmers wanted water both to supple- industries. opening of pocketbooks, however. Half ment their decreasing groundwater sup- of the 17 largest California farm opera- ply and to develop new farmlands. Agricultural interests tors contributed from $5,000 to approxi- Some northern agricultural interests not The number one industry in Califor- mately $I,OOO,OOO to the Peripheral Ca- only did not want this water taken away nia - agriculture - is dependent on nal campaign. These donations from them, but also did not like the

22 CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURE, JANUARY-FEBRUARY I983 TABLE 1. Contributions of $1,000 or more for or against the Peripheral TABLE 2. Donors by size of contribution for and against the Peripheral Canal by economic sector’ Canal’

Fort Againstt Percentaae land number) of donors Percent Percent Percent Percent Size of contributionst For Against Sector donors donated donors donated $ Manufacturing/industrial 41.1% 14.9% 4.1% 0.5% 100-500 67.5% 80.9% (492) (1,014) (74) (374) (3) (14) Farming 17.4 58.9 94.3 501 -1,000 (436) (43) (2.686) Land development/ 1,001 -5,000 real estate 19.7 19.2 2.4 (493) (14) (67) 5,001-10,000 Utilities 5.2 2.7 0.1 (131) (2) (3) 10,001-20,000 Oil/natural resources 35.6 0 0 (891) 20,001 -30,000 Banks/financial institutions 2.7 12.3 2.7 (67) (9) (77) 30,001 -40,000 0.7 Food processing 1.8 0 0 (5) (46) 40,001 -50,000 0.4 Retail 1.6 2.7 0.1 (3) (40) (2) (2) Over 50,000 1.o Entertainment 1.o 0 0 (7) (25) TOTAL 100.1 0% 100.1% (729) (1,254) TOTAL 99.9% (73) ‘Information was taken from records on political action committees and major donors by the Division of Political Reform in the Office of the Secretary of State. State of California. ~~ ‘Compiled from reports filed with the Division of Political Reform. Office of the Secretary Figures were corrected for inflation due to cross contributions between political action of State of the State of California. Contributions of $1.000 or more were counted to committees. Nonmonetarv contributionswere also added accordina to their estimated estimate the relative importance of each sector in this campaign. Total percentages do value in dollars. not always equal exactly 100 percent because of founding. tOnly contributionsover $100 are reported, since the Political Reform Act of 1974 does tThe number of donors and amount of money spent (in thousands of dollars) are given in not require smaller amounts to be itemized. raw numbers as shown within the brackets. provision that prohibited development cording to these groups, adding environ- Company, and Fluor, Inc. (according to of North Coast rivers as suppliers of mental safeguards to a project that is G. Baker, “Powerful Groups Battle Over water. itself environmentally unsound is a Peripheral Canal Bill,” Sacramento Bee, The division in agriculture exempli- mistake. A minority of the environmen- March 18,1981). These companies make fied the north/south division in the talists supported the proposition, be- up a large proportion of the major do- state. This can be illustrated by the split cause they assumed it was the best nors who supported the Peripheral Ca- within farming organizations, such as environmental deal they were going to nal campaign. the Farm Bureau Federation and the get. The California Department of Water Grange. The small amount of money Over 1,000 public and private agen- Resources and the California Depart- these groups donated to either side may cies administer the water resources of ment of Fish and Game were other gov- be attributed to this split. A 1982 poll by California. These include both federal ernment agencies active in supporting the Field Institute also showed that the and state agencies and also municipal the canal. In contrast, the U.S Fish and public tended to perceive this issue de- water departments operated by such Wildlife Service, the federal counter- pending on where they lived. The south governments of general jurisdiction as part of the California Department of supported the canal. The north did not. cities and counties. Special districts that Fish and Game, officially opposed the Farmers merely reflected the greater conduct water utility operations are also Peripheral Canal. Its reasons paralleled public feeling. involved. The largest of these is the those of the Sierra Club, which was Metropolitan Water District of Southern wary of the potential for siphoning off Nonagricultural interests California (MWD), which serves half of too much water and improper operation Nonagricultural interest groups in- California’s population in six counties of the canal. volved in the Proposition 9 campaign that cover 5,100 square miles. Extractive industries actively sup- included conservationists, recreation- The Metropolitan Water District was ported the canal. These companies fre- ists, urban-based industries, industries central in organizing support for the quently require large amounts of inex- engaged in extraction of natural re- Peripheral Canal. It was particularly ac- pensive water to operate efficiently. Oil spurces, government bureaucracies, and tive in using political strategists and companies in the San Joaquin Valley labor unions. lobbyists in this campaign and also was need to generate large amounts of steam Environmentalist groups, particularly instrumental in starting the major pro- to use the particular type of crude oil those in northern California, had the canal organization, “Californians for available in that area. largest number of people actively in- Water.” This group includes such mem- The overlap between strictly agricul- volved in this conflict. The Sierra Club, bers as the Irvine Company, Bixby Land tural and nonagricultural interests Friends of the Earth, the Mono Lake Company (whose president is a director makes it difficult to estimate the rela- Committee, and the Environmental De- of MWD), Mission Viejo Company tive importance of purely urban-based fense Fund publicly opposed building (whose president is a former MWD di- interest groups. The Newhall Land and the canal, despite attached legislation to rector), Newhall Land and Farming Farming Company, for example, has protect the wild and scenic rivers of the Company, Pacific Mutual Insurance, about 40,000 residential acres on the north and the . Ac- Union Oil Company, Pacific Lighting outskirts of Los Angeles and farms an

CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURE, JANUARY-FEBRUARY 1983 23 equal amount in the San Joaquin and fornia Chamber of Commerce, the West, Inc. ($30,145), Gulf Oil Corpora- Sacramento valleys. Similarly, the Ir- Council for Economic and Environmen- tion [$25,000), Union Pacific Corpora- vine Company is subdividing about tal Balance, the Association of Califor- tion ($25,000), and Kaiser Steel Corpora- 77,000 acres of farmland in Orange nia Water Agencies, the Association of tion ($20,000). County. It is difficult to determine if State Water Project Agencies, and the such companies took a particular stand California Municipal Utilities Associ- Conclusions on the canal because of their urban or ation all backed construction of the ca- One cannot drive through most arid their rural investments. nal. Three major labor groups including parts of the western United States with- the Teamsters favored the canal, but the out gaining an appreciation of the great Economic sectors AFL-CIO came out against it, stating benefits large water projects of the past For a rough indicator of the relative that the creation of jobs should not be have brought to people’s lives. The suc- importance of the economic sectors in the prime criterion for their support in cess of these projects has helped to cre- this controversy, we tabulated the num- this issue. Most of these groups, except ate new and powerful vested interests, ber and types of businesses that donated for the utility associations and water not only in large agriculture but also in at least $1,000 to the campaign for or agencies, contributed relatively small public bureaucracies. Californians, against the Peripheral Canal as well as amounts to political action committees. however, have also become increasingly the total amount of money they spent More than twice the number of oppo- aware of possible ecological disasters (table 1). nents as proponents gave donations of associated with some of these develop- Opponents charged that the primary less than $500 (table 2). However, as the ments. This awareness is likely to have beneficiaries would be large oil com- size of the individual contributions in- lasting effects on the construction and panies with large agricultural holdings creased, a greater proportion of contri- planning of water projects. in areas that would obtain most of the butions supported the canal. In fact, It was not the environment, however, water sent through the canal. These there were almost four times as many but the cost of the proposed canal pro- companies were among the largest do- individual donors giving over $5,000 ject that in the end proved to be its nors, contributing over 35 percent of the supporting the canal as there were op- downfall, according to polls conducted total sum of contributions over $1,000, posing it. by the Field Institute. but manufacturing and industrial com- Major donors contributed more than Various researchers have shown that panies were also important canal propo- $100,000 each to their respective sides. the imbalance between growing popula- nents. They were the most numerous Reports to the State Division of Political tions and dwindling water resources has contributors of $1,000 or more, repre- Reform show that, together, Getty Oil shifted power to urban, industrial areas. senting over 40 percent of the canal Company, Shell Oil Company, and Development of new water uses, prob- proponents - 10 times the number of Newhall Land and Farming Company lems associated with urban population opponents in the same sector. contributed over $750,000, or about a growth, and increased corporate con- Retail, entertainment, and recreation third of the reported $2.5 million sup- centration of wealth suggest the emer- sectors tended to support the canal. porting the canal. J.G. Boswell Company gence of new powerful coalitions in the Food processing businesses, such as and Salyer Land Company contributed fight over water. Urban-based industrial Mission Viejo Company, Colony Foods, over $1.5 million or slightly under a half corporations in southern California are Inc., Coca Cola, Pepsi Cola, and Royal (45 percent) of the reported $3.3 million the most recent examples: Crown Beverage Company, also may in funds opposing the proposition. Al- On the day after the June 8 election, have supported the canal in the belief though these two companies were the hints of a new and more powerful coali- that it would encourage growth in the largest contributors in this campaign, tion of interest groups to bring more south. they were aligned with the majority of water to southern Real estate and land development contributors who gave less than $500 California began to appear. The attorney firms were almost evenly split on this each. This curious pattern would be for the Salyer Land Company (one of the issue, depending on whether they were accentuated if contributions less than two principal donors opposed to the in northern or southern California. $100 were also considered; however, canal) stated that this was not a vote Those who favored the canal contribut- such information is not available, since against water development, and the as- ed over seven times the amount of mon- the Political Reform Act of 1974 does sistant general manager of the Metro- ey spent by those who opposed it. not require amounts of less than $100 to politan Water District (one of the princi- Farming interests accounted for over be itemized. pal proponents of the canal) agreed. 94 percent of the total contributions More canal backers made $1,000 to Both stressed the need to move more against the canal in the $l,OoO-or-above $50,000 contributions. Many of the con- water south to large farms of the south- range. Almost 60 percent of the donors tributors were major corporations en- ern San Joaquin Valley and for residen- giving more than $1,000 to the campaign gaged in extraction of natural resources tial use in southern California. were engaged in farming. This compares or industrial production: TRW, Kaiser It is too early to predict the nature of with only about 12 percent in the same Steel Company, Litton Industries, the new coalition of interests to increase category supporting the canal. Hughes Aircraft Company, General the export of water south. There is Differences in different economic sec- Dynamics, Weyerhaeuser, Union Oil bound to be more resistance, but given tors were accentuated in the two Company of California, US Borax, Lock- the financial investments and the will- months preceding the referendum vote. heed Corporation, Atlantic Richfield ingness of powerful interests to spend Supporters of the canal from the manu- Company, Gulf Oil Corporation, Con- money in the attempt, there is an excel- facturing sector and opponents from the oco, and Shell Oil. Many large corpora- lent chance that they will succeed. farming sector increased their respec- tions that supported the canal seemed to tive numbers by about 10 percent. From hold back from making substantial con- March 18 to May 18, the total money tributions early in the campaign, possi- Douglos Gwynn is Reseorch Sociologist. Orville E. Thompson is Professor, ond Kothleen L’Ecluse is contributed for and against the Periph- bly to avoid becoming an issue. Over 20 Reseorch Assistont. Deportment of Applied Behov- eral Canal increased by 40 percent. corporations contributed more than iorol Sciences, Universitv of California, Davis. This Unlike the split within farming orga- research was conducted under Grant #3559 from $5,000 each after March 17, including the Agricultural Experiment Station, University of nizations, associations such as the Cali- Litton Industries ($25,000), Tenneco Californio, Dovis.

24 CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURE. JANUARY-FEBRUARY 1983