Lents

0

On July 31 James Lents will leave his post as executive officer of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, a position he has held for 11 years.

His imminent departure follows a well-publicized split on the AQMD board , with half the board’s 12 directors pushing to retain Lents and the other half pushing to oust him. Without a clear consensus, the board at its July 11 meeting was even unable to agree on who to appoint as interim director while a national search is conducted for a permanent successor to Lents.

Critics charge that Lents did not properly interact with AQMD staff or its board members. But during his long tenure, Lents has turned the AQMD into one of the nation’s premier proponents of emissions reductions, implementing a series of programs and rules to clean up air in the L.A. basin and Inland Empire.

Lents met with the Business Journal last week to discuss the current state and future outlook of the AQMD and his personal feelings and plans as he prepares to leave the agency. The following excerpts are edited for clarity.

Question: Where does the AQMD go from here?

Answer: The board has got to resolve its divisions. The board is very divided right now. They’re at a standstill. When they get their consensus board, then they can move ahead. It’s difficult for me to project what their philosophy will be.

Q: How do they get a consensus board?

A: One way is to decide that clean air is important enough and we’ve got to work together. I’m hoping something like that will come about. The alternate way if that doesn’t work is over time new board members will come on. We will have a replacement on the board for (Lents supporter) Marvin Braude either in August or September. Gov. Wilson has got to appoint a new member to the board (to replace Cody Cluff, a Lents opponent). Those two new board members coming on depending on how they align themselves could create a majority on the board and could then potentially chart a new course for the agency.

Q: Is there any kind of unifying factor among your critics on the board?

A: Nobody ever expressed anything to me specifically. Everything I know I read in the paper. The bulk of the people who oppose me generally have a more conservative viewpoint. So I think most people interpreted that they felt I was being too aggressive for clean air.

Q: With the board divided this way, even if they can finally agree on someone to replace you, is that person going to have any clear mandate from the AQMD board?

A: I don’t know. The board has to jell. An executive officer in an agency like this has to have a board to reflect policy back to the staff. There has to be a consensus on the board of what that philosophy needs to be. Until that, they’ll struggle with executive officers, and they’ll be like one of those agencies that turn over executive officers every year.

Q: What caused the board to become so divided in recent years?

A: Change and changing membership. The board I came to power under was a very aggressive environmental board. They wanted us to be very aggressive. That was in the late ’80s, and we moved out with a pretty aggressive program. When the big recession started in ’91, I think we started trying to react (by easing emissions reductions rules), but there’s a lag time in board membership turnover. Board terms are about four years.

The terms of people appointed in ’89 or ’90 were not up until ’93 or ’94. So when we were getting our worst criticism in the early ’90s (for being too hard on businesses struggling during the recession), we still basically had the same (pro-environment) board out of the ’80s. It wasn’t until we got into the mid-’90s and the later ’90s that the board started to change.

Q: How has the split board affected morale at the agency?

A: Morale is not good right now. Anytime there’s a kind of uncertainty, people don’t know where to go, what the policy of the agency should be. So without a rudder, it’s just going to drift around here for a few months until some clear group coalesces on the board with a philosophy.

Q: Where do you personally go from here?

A: I don’t have any immediate things on the table. I’ve always been interested in academic areas, so I’ve been tending in that direction, though I wouldn’t rule out other possibilities. I’ve been doing regulatory work for 26 years, so it might be interesting to try something else.

Q: Would you contemplate becoming a lobbyist?

A: No. I spent 26 years trying to clean up the air. I don’t want to spend the remainder of my working life trying to get people out of controls. Every industry job isn’t like that. For example, I could help develop new fuel cells or new paints. I just don’t want to be lobbying against clean air standards.

Q: What should the AQMD be doing in the years ahead?

A: We have the cleanest air we’ve ever had right now. It’s my feeling that, generally speaking, the business community has pretty well been regulated, and there is not a need for a concerted effort after the traditional business polluters.

The remaining air pollution problems are associated with other sources and other types (of emissions). Buses, trucks and automobiles are the dominant source. The harbor is also highly unregulated with ships because there isn’t an easy way to do it. And what we call “area sources” are another big thing, like architectural coatings and paints. That’s where some of our toughest enemies are right now.

Consumer products are another area that’s turning out to be a big pollution source, like lawnmowers and leafblowers. Then all of the little things around the house from hair sprays, to deoderant, to vinyl cleaning solvents or paint thinners, spray cans of all types. My advice to the board, before I knew I was leaving, was that we had to find some way to effectively address those kinds of sources.

All these unregulated sources are where it’s easy for people to villanize the agency.

An example is when we tried to regulate barbecue grills. People put out signs, “Barbecue, go to jail.” People misrepresented, but the sound bites are wonderful in this type of thing: “We’re going to have straight hair in California because you can’t use hair spray.”

It’s not the technology that slows you down so much as the existing forces. Making further reductions in air emissions is not going to be easy, but I don’t think it’s impossible, and I don’t think it destroys the economy.

Q: What kind of a person would be mutually agreeable to both sides as a new director?

A: Right now they’re not in a mode to agree on the shape of the table. I’m hopeful that when I get out of the picture the polarization will go away. I want the district to succeed, and I respect their right to pick an executive officer they want. I’ve been there a long time, and it’s good for everyone sometimes to have people move on. So I’ve been hopeful that a faction will come together on the board that will give some direction.

No posts to display