It has all the promises of success: national attention, in-depth studies, earmarked funding and specific project timelines.
And yet, the new memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed by the U.S. and Mexico to solve the Tijuana sewage crisis – a decades-old public health hazard caused by sewage spilling into the Pacific Ocean, polluting beaches, sickening people and endangering wildlife – still has one key ingredient missing:
Teeth.
A collective sigh of relief was released when EPA administrator Lee Zeldin and Mexico’s environmental secretary, Alicia Bárcena, signed an MOU outlining a specific plan to solve the issue. It’s tangible, action-based, and timely – all terms that are a breath of fresh air to residents who have been living in (and breathing in) filth for far too long.
The public’s initial relief also came with a healthy skepticism, which is justifiable considering laws, bureaucracy and a history of failures have gotten in the way of a final solution for decades.
In the MOU, the U.S. agreed to expand treatment capacity at the South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant from 25 to 50 million gallons per day (mgd) by December 2027, with an interim expansion to 35 mgd by the end of August. Pump Station 1 and the Tijuana River collection pipes will also be fixed using EPA funding.
Mexico, in turn, agreed to get internal funding to divert 10 mgd of effluent entering the Tijuana River from the Arturo Herrera and La Morita wastewater plants to a site upstream of the Rodríguez Dam. Internal funding from Mexico will be used for the rehabilitation of the Parallel Gravity Line.
Mexico will commit the remaining funds from Minute 328, $93 million, to ensure projects are completed by Dec. 31, 2027.
Problem solved, right?
While the document is a great next step, it lacks the necessary insurance to make sure we are never in this situation again. Especially as Tijuana’s population continues to grow, and both sewage plants need to handle expanding capacity in the future.
Think of an MOU as a firm handshake. It’s only as successful as the integrity, trustworthiness and competence of both parties.
At best, it’s a gentleman’s agreement, bound by a mutual understanding and good faith that holds no legal weight if either player does not follow through. At this point, we can’t afford any more delays.
In the past decade, over 100 billion gallons of contaminated water have entered the U.S. because of Mexico’s failing infrastructure, threatening public health and forcing Navy SEALS to relocate training. In the last year, over 20% of SEAL and SWCC candidate swimming events had to be shifted to the bay. This complicates logistics, prolongs the schedule and negatively impacts training.
In return, the crisis has been met with a sluggish response from the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC), the binational agency tasked with boundary and water-related issues.
The IBWC is split between the U.S. section under the State Department and the Mexican section under CILA (Comision Internacional de Limites y Aguas). Both sides operate with independent staffing, infrastructure and funding, and are often misaligned. The result is an underperforming agency attempting to tackle technical work that could be better executed by other federal departments with expertise in engineering.
The IBWC is given a task that’s almost impossible, considering an operating budget that rose from $27.24 million to $64.8 million from 2005 to 2024, paired with a construction budget that expanded from $5.31 million to $156 million in the same time span. The commission is expected to manage major infrastructure without the tools or budget to meet the mark.
Repositioning the IBWC as a treaty clearinghouse, to solely focus on formal treaty obligations and coordination between the two countries, would shift technical responsibilities to agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Office of the Geographer, U.S. Geological Survey, and the Bureau of Reclamation.
A shift would help ensure the correct agencies are in place to tackle technical issues, equipping the commission to provide more insurance against future malfunctions.
Amending the existing 1944 Treaty with Mexico is where the teeth come in.
A treaty is a contractually-binding document that would enforce real consequences if either country did not follow through on the agreement. A breach of the contract could result in financial repercussions, economic penalties, or trade restrictions. An MOU just doesn’t have that authority.
If history is any indication, the MOU won’t stand the test of time with shifting administrations in both the U.S. and Mexico in the future. An amended treaty is crucial to not only reflect 21st century environmental realities, but also put permanence on the agreements between the two countries.
To make sure we are not in the same place in 30 years, this treaty needs new conditions and enforcement tools.
The agreement is a good step, but an amended treaty is needed to ensure it’s not the last.
