The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has denied a request from local leaders to analyze if the Tijuana River Valley qualifies for Superfund designation – a verdict determined based on a 6-year-old study.
The EPA said in a Jan. 3 letter to local officials that inspecting for Superfund designation – which could allow the EPA to clean up contaminated sites and ensure the funding to do so – is not warranted for a myriad of reasons.
In early October, Terra Lawson-Remer, the vice chair of the San Diego Board of Supervisors, urged her fellow supervisors to join her in formally requesting federal Superfund designation. While the board did not back that call, Lawson-Remer still filed a request and petition to the EPA along with Imperial Beach Mayor Paloma Aguirre, National City Council member Marcus Bush and La Mesa City Council member Jack Shu.
“I am here in strong support of the Superfund designation site given all of the pollutants that our communities have been exposed to for years,” Aguirre said about their request in October.
The written appeal, along with over 500 signatures from residents in the area, did not sway the EPA to perform an analysis of the Tijuana River Valley.
The Jan. 3 letter written by Michael Montgomery, the division director of the EPA’s Superfund and Emergency Management System, acknowledged how the “transboundary flows of sewage have negatively impacted surrounding communities” and noted the recent federally funded projects that are underway to solve the issue.
The letter also stated that while the EPA has the authority to address the release of hazardous substances, they “prioritize its Superfund remedial resources on sites which pose a higher risk and can be linked to releases from a specific location or source that can be controlled.”
The letter added that, after the EPA received the petition, agency officials conducted extensive research using data made available to them from local, state and federal agencies. Montgomery specifically cited a study by the IBWC – from 2018 – that tested for the level of contaminants in channels of the river basin.
“… None of these contaminants exceeded EPA’s regional screening levels for human health in residential soil and are commonly associated with urban stormwater runoff at these concentrations,” Montgomery said about the 6-year-old study in the letter.
In response, Lawson-Remer said she is disappointed the EPA will not conduct a site assessment.
“It is troubling that the EPA didn’t even visit the site and instead based its decision on samples collected years ago — when the reality is that things have gotten much worse since then,” she added. “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
Lawson-Remer echoed her disappointment in the agency’s decision at a board of supervisors meeting on Jan. 8, noting that all she wants is for the EPA to come out to take soil samples.
Montgomery joined the meeting and in response, said the Superfund program “is geared towards dealing with hazardous waste, not human waste.”
Additionally, a Superfund designation also has the potential to decrease property values, which was a concern voiced during the public comment section.
A county report, submitted by Dahvia Lynch, the county’s deputy chief administrative officer, cites a finding from 2000 that property values in Superfund designated sites can drop anywhere from 2% to 8% until cleanup completion.
During public comment, Aguirre urged the county to re-petition the federal agency for a Superfund site designation.
“We know because of scientific research there are at least 172 toxic chemicals present in this area that can be carcinogenic, biocumulative and can be resuspended in the air, in the water and the soil,” Aguirre said. “Who is going to protect our health?”
Montgomery said he was not at the meeting to discourage the board from taking action.
“If there is a revised petition, we’ll take a look at that,” Montgomery added.
“The Biden administration has failed us on this issue, they failed to declare an emergency, and our governor, I believe, has failed us to declare an emergency,” said Bush, who is open to supporting a subsequent petition. “I know that there are concerns with it, [the Superfund], but I think it’s an opportunity to really send a message that this is a crisis, that we should address it.”
The board approved the report from Lynch that informs the county on options to unlock more funding for the sewage crisis. This does not include the decision to submit a new petition to the EPA.
According to Lynch, counsel is to present the board with additional information regarding filing or joining potential litigation during closed session at a later date this month.
Supervisor Jim Desmond sided with Lawson-Remer about the urgency for intervention from the federal government to help cities like Imperial Beach and Coronado.
“This is an international border, this is not within the state itself, so we’re kind of turning to you and other entities and saying ‘help us,’” said Desmond. “The state points a finger to you and you point the finger at them and that’s where we’re stuck at. We want our beaches open.”
