With much ballyhoo, the United States and Mexico last summer announced they had agreed to spend $474 million to collectively address the “Tijuana sewage problem.”
During an August ceremony, the two countries said the agreement outlined sanitation projects in San Diego County and Tijuana that would result in an “80% reduction in the volume of untreated wastewater discharged to the Pacific Ocean.” Among the plans was doubling the capacity at the South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant to handle at least 50 million gallons of raw sewage daily from Tijuana.
The Environmental Protection Agency and the International Boundary and Water Commission, a bifurcated arm of the two governments responsible for negotiating and resolving water conflicts on the border, said the U.S. would pay $330 million and Mexico would contribute $144 million.
When Congress transferred U.S. funds at the end of last year, more cheers came from local politicians.
“Bureaucratic red tape has prolonged the decades-long crisis in the Tijuana River Valley, preventing much-needed funding from getting to our communities,” said Congresswoman Sara Jacobs, a Democrat, in late December. “This funding will make an incredible difference for San Diegans, our economy, and our health.”
But, a review of documents suggests the total cost may be far more than advertised, and whether the entire plan can be carried out remains uncertain because of a lack of funding from Mexico. Further, Mexican officials told The Coronado News that some of its funding will come from “private participation.”
The financial aspect of the Tijuana sewage crisis is among the issues The Coronado News is investigating as a nearly century-long legacy of broken promises by both countries has resulted in a public health crisis that has exposed beachgoers, U.S. Border Patrol agents and U.S. Navy SEALS to a myriad of diseases from the fecal-exposed Pacific Ocean.
U.S. tab could hit $801 million
According to EPA’s website, the initial phase of renovations consists of short-term projects to be started this year and completed by 2027.
The agency predicts improvements will result in treatment of 43 million gallons per day of sewage that, presumably, is not getting sanitized today.
A second phase of development would add another $327 million in spending, for an overall price tag of $801 million – a sum not mentioned in any government press conferences or news releases.
The projects are to be overseen by the Boundary Commission, whose American and Mexican representatives signed the agreement spelling out project details.
However, the second-last paragraph in that 10-page document, known as Minute No. 328, hints at potential obstacles.
It says all efforts to carry out the plan are “subject to the availability of funds” and other resources, as well as laws and regulations of the United States and Mexico.
Replacement of a defunct treatment plant at Punta Bandera, six miles south of the border, is listed as part of Phase 1 and considered crucial to reducing the trans-border pollution.
Mexico has not allocated funds
Doug Eberhardt, EPA environmental engineer and chief of its regional infrastructure office, confirmed to The Coronado News that the Mexican government has not yet allocated funds for that $33 million project.
However, Eberhardt said he believes the endorsement of Minute No. 328 represents a formal diplomatic agreement.
“We can’t send the Army in to force them to do anything.”
Doug Eberhardt, EPA environmental engineer, on forcing Mexico to pay its share on sewage problems.
“We can’t send the Army in to force them to do anything,” Eberhardt added, “But it’s more than just a statement at a meeting.”
Asked about Mexico’s relatively small funding contribution, Eberhardt said, “It was really just a negotiation… It’s in the United States’ best interest to have those waters free of sewage. It’s not foreign aid.”
“It’s in the United States’ best interest to have those waters free of sewage. It’s not foreign aid.”
-Eberhardt.
Coronado Mayor Richard Bailey, whose city’s ocean shores have been closed regularly in the past year because of Tijuana sewage, said he worked behind the scenes to get Congress to allocate an initial $300 million. He’s optimistic the full plan will be executed.
“The good news is the EPA has enough work to do now,” Bailey said.
But Imperial Beach Mayor Paloma Aguirre worries that funding – especially from the Mexican side – remains a glaring uncertainty, and that’s now the No. 1 priority of her administration.
Top concern: New plant in Punta Bandera
Aguirre grew up in Mexico, got a degree in marine conservation and worked for the Wildcoast environmental group before becoming mayor.
Now, she said, her administration’s top concern is to see a new facility at Punta Bandera.
Aguirre said Baja California Gov. Marina del Pilar Ávila Olmeda has vowed to achieve that, but two predecessors made similar commitments and reneged.
“They both promised they would fix that plant, and nothing ever happened,” said Aguirre, who is working with Baja officials. “I’m navigating very important diplomatic messaging here. But my job, in very simple terms, will be to keep the pressure on her.”
Olmeda’s office referred questions to Baja California’s secretary for water treatment and Tijuana’s public services commissioner who said in a joint response that the sewage projects will take three to four years to complete.
Secretary for the Water Management, Treatment and Protection Agency for the State of Baja California (SEPROA) José Armando Fernández Samaniego and Director of the State Commission of Public Services of Tijuana (CESPT) Víctor Daniel Amador Barragán also declined to directly answer how Mexico will pay for its share of the projects.
They said Mexican federal funds would cover 49% of the costs for “San Antonio de los Buenos” or the new treatment plant at Punta Bandara, while 51% would come from “private participation.”
The officials, however, did not explain what private entities are poised to take part, how they would be compensated or what responsibility and control they would have over operations.
“These projects are joint investments, marking a turning point in the history of resource management.”
-Statement from Mexican officials on sewage projects.
“These projects are joint investments, marking a turning point in the history of resource management and binational commitment in recent years,” the two officials wrote. “These projects promote synergies in resource utilization.”
During a U.S. International Boundary and Water Commission meeting on March 2, Commissioner Maria-Elena Giner, said she recently met with Baja officials and discussed how each project identified in Minute No. 328 would be funded.
She said officials told her the Punta Bandera project would be federally funded. She did not mention a majority private investment.
Asked why the United States is covering roughly two-thirds of the costs to deal with sewage that is coming from homes, businesses and factories in Mexico, Aguirre said Americans are suffering from the contamination.
Meanwhile, she said leaders south of the border don’t feel politically compelled to solve the problem — even as pollution also damages health and beaches in Mexico.
Once that is understood, Aguirre said, it becomes clear why the International Treatment Plant was built on the U.S. side with American tax dollars, and why Americans will pay the lion’s share of a new project.
Cut Mexico’s water supply?
“If we hadn’t taken action on our side, we literally would have a river of feces coming across. It’s a matter of who has the greatest sense of urgency,” Aguirre said. “And if you live here, like me, and you are a surfer — and in the last year you only had access to your own beach once – wouldn’t you pay to fix it?”
That line of thinking doesn’t sit well with Baron Partlow, an Imperial Beach resident and leader of a grassroots group called “Stop the Poop.”
“Why can’t Mexico treat their own problem?” said Partlow, who has lived in Imperial Beach since 1980. “They never follow through on their funding commitment…So, it becomes an American problem.”
Fellow Imperial Beach resident Leon Benham, who has lived in the border city since 1963, said recent storms have resulted in massive amounts of smelly foam emerging from a “new river” near Saturn Boulevard and Leon Avenue. He said the billowing suds are coming from dirty, detergent-filled waters from Tijuana.
“Mexico is not a partner with us. Let’s face it,” he said. “They either lack the will or the lack the resources…We need to take care of the sewage on our side of the border.”
Partlow, meanwhile, said he believes the only way Mexico will address the problem is if the United States cuts off some of Mexico’s water supply from the Colorado River, expels the Mexican consulate or imposes economic sanctions.
Former Imperial Beach Mayor Brian Bilbray, who fought the same sewage battles as other political leaders, said he fears the new plan will be yet another waste of money whether it costs $474 million or $801 million.
He agrees one solution would be to cut off Baja’s current water supply from the Colorado River, which was granted on a condition that none of it would return to the U.S. in the form of sewage.
Another solution, he said, would be to shut down international border crossings.
“For every day sewage closes the beaches, the U.S. should close the border.”
-Former Imperial Beach Mayor Brian Bilbray.
“If you don’t have an enforcement clause, that’s where it fails,” Bilbray said. “For every day sewage closes the beaches, the U.S. should close the border. That’d solve it real quick.”
The economic and diplomatic ramifications of such a closure likely would be catastrophic not just for Mexico, but for businesses and consumers in the United States.
But Bilbray contends the alternative is an outbreak of disease that he views as inevitable given the volume of sewage pollution.
“It is probably worse than it has ever been, and there’s probably more money being made off it being a problem than ever before,” Bilbray said. “We’re facing a petri dish of problems. To this day I have hypersensitivity to just the smell of sewage.”
