Editor’s note: In the coming weeks, The Coronado News is planning to ask each of this year’s City Council candidates questions about the most pressing topics concerning Coronado. The candidates’ responses will be presented in a different order each week to ensure fairness, starting alphabetical. The candidates are limited to 200 words for each response. There are two positions up for grabs on Coronado’s City Council in the November elections. Andrew Gade, Ricky Hoyt, Rebecca King and Kelly Purvis are vying for the open seats. Keith James pulled papers to run as well, but is not eligible to run since he didn’t officially submit them.
The first topic of discussion revolves around the Tijuana sewage crisis.
Andrew Gade
Q: Do you believe Coronado should advocate for drastic U.S. pressure on Mexico – such as tariffs, border blockage or water restrictions – to address the cross-border sewage crisis? Or do you think a cooperative partnership would get better results?
A: We need to take more than one approach when it comes to addressing this issue without relying solely on the federal government. The county of San Diego has the resources, and a legal obligation to protect our health and safety. I propose we earmark 1% of the county’s budget, bond against that revenue, and then we can finally fund a permanent solution.
Q: There was a 3-2 vote the first time the city declared a state of emergency. Some said it was needed to secure more funding and attention on the matter; others said the word “emergency” would damage the local economy and tourism. Where do you stand on this?
A: The city of Coronado should have declared a state of emergency when the county declared one back in June 2023. It’s not the word “emergency” that’s damaging the local economy and tourism; it’s the polluted water.
Q: What do you believe is the actual responsibility of Coronado when dealing with a crisis that is spilling over from across the border? What do you think about spending American dollars on a problem that emanates from Mexico?
A: We can all agree that this is Mexico‘s fault, but it’s our problem. All that it would have taken is an executive order signed by either Trump or Biden, and we could have solved this issue years ago. If we want this problem fixed, we will have to pay for it, but the good news is that we already are. The county already has the money, so I will hold them accountable to funding a permanent solution.
Ricky Hoyt
Q: Do you believe Coronado should advocate for drastic U.S. pressure on Mexico – such as tariffs, border blockage or water restrictions – to address the cross-border sewage crisis? Or do you think a cooperative partnership would get better results?
A: I don’t think this is a choice between cooperation and pressure. I believe in cooperation backed by accountability and leverage.
This crisis has gone on for decades, and American communities should not have to accept sewage crossing an international border and closing our beaches. Mexico has a responsibility to maintain the infrastructure necessary to prevent that from happening.
At the same time, Tijuana continues to grow, and the United States and Mexico are collaborating on projects like the new Otay Mesa East Port of Entry intended to expand trade and economic opportunity in the region. I support economic growth, but growth has to be supported by adequate infrastructure.
We shouldn’t give away our leverage for free. If Mexico wants American cooperation on projects that help facilitate additional growth, we should use that relationship to ensure Mexico continues meeting measurable commitments on wastewater infrastructure.
I would not support indiscriminate measures that hurt American businesses without producing results. My approach is straightforward: cooperate where cooperation works, use leverage when necessary, and judge both countries by results. Our objective is clean water, not political theater.
Q: There was a 3-2 vote the first time the city declared a state of emergency. Some said it was needed to secure more funding and attention on the matter; others said the word “emergency” would damage the local economy and tourism. Where do you stand on this?
A: I support Coronado declaring the sewage crisis an emergency.
I understand the argument on the other side. Coronado depends on tourism and local businesses, and we should always consider how our actions affect them. I also don’t believe declaring an emergency, by itself, accomplishes anything. A declaration doesn’t clean the water.
But we have had beaches repeatedly closed because of sewage and contaminated transboundary flows originating in Mexico. That affects public health, our environment, our businesses and our quality of life. If we are going to Washington, Sacramento and San Diego County asking them to treat this issue with urgency, I think Coronado has to be willing to do the same.
For me, the emergency declaration cannot become the accomplishment. It is a tool. The accomplishment is getting the infrastructure built, holding governments accountable and permanently stopping the sewage.
I’m very results-oriented. I care less about making the strongest political statement and more about whether our actions actually move us toward a permanent solution.
Declare the emergency, use every tool available to us, and then get to work solving it.
Q: What do you believe is the actual responsibility of Coronado when dealing with a crisis that is spilling over from across the border? What do you think about spending American dollars on a problem that emanates from Mexico?
A: The sewage driving this cross-border crisis originates in Mexico. The United States didn’t create this problem, but American communities are living with the consequences. Mexico has a responsibility to address its wastewater infrastructure, while the United States has a responsibility to protect Americans from its impacts.
Coronado cannot solve an international problem alone. Our responsibility is relentless advocacy for our residents, beaches, businesses, quality of life and our Navy community. Contaminated coastal waters impact SEAL and other Navy waterborne training in Coronado, making this a military readiness issue as well. The Navy and Department of Defense should have a seat at the table as we pursue a permanent solution.
As a fiscal conservative, I don’t support blank checks to Mexico. American investment should require Mexican participation, measurable commitments and accountability. But if targeted investment is the most cost-effective way to stop sewage before it reaches Americans, I can support it.
We also need stable, recurring federal funding and multiyear planning to properly operate and maintain the South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Protect the taxpayer, maintain our leverage, involve the Navy, demand accountability from both countries, and get results.
Rebecca King
Q: Do you believe Coronado should advocate for drastic U.S. pressure on Mexico – such as tariffs, border blockage or water restrictions – to address the cross-border sewage crisis? Or do you think a cooperative partnership would get better results?
A: This critical issue isn’t an either/or choice between pressure and cooperation: it’s the number one threat to Coronado’s public health, and as such, requires both. The toxic flow of sewage is making our Navy SEALs sick during training. It threatens our lifeguards, families, and visitors seeking to enjoy our beautiful beaches. It also endangers our economy, local businesses, and property values.
Coronado should lead on every front, from regional to state to federal. We must put increased pressure on Mexico through the State Department to demand a new treatment plant on its side of the border for the toxic runoff pouring into our ocean. We must coordinate our efforts with other coastal cities and the county so Washington and Sacramento hear one united voice.
But pressure must go hand in hand with cooperation. Binational cooperation has delivered binding commitments, and construction is underway to expand treatment capacity at both the San Antonio de los Buenos plant in Tijuana and the South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant. Abandoning that process for tariffs or closing the border would put those gains at risk and hurt our economy.
Q: There was a 3-2 vote the first time the city declared a state of emergency. Some said it was needed to secure more funding and attention on the matter; others said the word “emergency” would damage the local economy and tourism. Where do you stand on this?
A: I supported it at the time, and I’d support it again. I believe in calling something what it is, and what we have in our ocean and on our beaches is an emergency: a public health and economic crisis. Families come to Coronado for vacation without anyone warning them in advance that they may not be able to go in the ocean. That’s the kind of experience that damages our tourism economy — not the word “emergency” on a resolution. If we want to protect Coronado’s reputation as a family beach destination, we must be upfront about the risk and take a leadership role in finding a permanent solution.
Q: What do you believe is the actual responsibility of Coronado when dealing with a crisis that is spilling over from across the border? What do you think about spending American dollars on a problem that emanates from Mexico?
A: Mexico must fix its infrastructure, and I will absolutely keep up pressure to make that happen. However, the fact is that Mexico is not doing all that is necessary, and it’s harming Americans. This is a man-made disaster, and when disasters happen, our government steps in to protect Americans.
Tijuana’s population boom outpaced its sewage infrastructure largely because manufacturing grew rapidly after the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement, when American corporations expanded production across the border to make cheaper goods. Even on the U.S. side, our federal government underfunded maintenance at the South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant for decades.
That’s why Coronado and this region can’t keep waiting on Sacramento or Washington for a fix on someone else’s timeline; that’s effectively what we’ve been doing, and the flow hasn’t stopped. It’s why I support San Diego County’s new plan, approved earlier this month, to build a U.S.-side facility to capture and treat the toxic runoff flowing from the Tijuana River.
That’s not spending on “Mexico’s problem,” it’s investing in our own coastline, our health, our economy, and our future.
Kelly Purvis
Q: Do you believe Coronado should advocate for drastic U.S. pressure on Mexico – such as tariffs, border blockage or water restrictions – to address the cross-border sewage crisis? Or do you think a cooperative partnership would get better results?
A: The cross-border sewage crisis demands urgency, accountability and sustained pressure on Mexico, but broad tariffs, border closures or water restrictions must not be our first response. Those actions could harm families and businesses on both sides of the border and not stop the sewage.
The effective approach combines cooperation with firm, enforceable expectations. The US and Mexico must work together to repair failing infrastructure, expand treatment capacity and ensure facilities are properly operated and maintained. Funding agreements should include firm deadlines, transparent reporting, independent monitoring and consequences when commitments are not met.
The new Otay Mesa East Port of Entry also provides an opportunity for leverage. This major binational investment is intended to improve travel, reduce border delays and expand commerce. Our federal government should make clear that the benefits of greater cross-border mobility and economic cooperation must be accompanied by meaningful progress from Mexico on sewage infrastructure and pollution prevention. That is not closing the border; it is using the benefits of partnership to secure accountability.
Coronado must continue advocating forcefully through our congressional delegation, federal agencies, the state and regional partners. Our goal is clear: stop the pollution, protect public health and restore reliable access to our beaches.
Q: There was a 3-2 vote the first time the city declared a state of emergency. Some said it was needed to secure more funding and attention on the matter; others said the word “emergency” would damage the local economy and tourism. Where do you stand on this?
A: On my first day as your Council member, I cast the deciding vote that broke the 2-2 tie and resulted in the first emergency declaration by the Coronado City Council on this issue. Since then, the council has remained united in supporting that declaration.
The word “emergency” accurately describes a crisis that repeatedly closes our beaches, threatens public health, affects military readiness and diminishes our residents’ quality of life. Avoiding that word would not protect Coronado’s economy or tourism as pollution exists whether we acknowledge it or not. The first step toward solving any problem is acknowledging it. Our responsibility is to address this crisis honestly, communicate clearly and demand action.
The declaration strengthened Coronado’s ability to seek attention, resources and coordination from county, state and federal officials. It also made clear that this is not a routine water-quality issue. It is an ongoing environmental and public-health emergency requiring an extraordinary response.
I understand concerns, but our reputation is best protected through leadership and transparency. I will always work to accurately report conditions without unnecessarily alarming the public, while working relentlessly toward solutions. Protecting our beaches, residents and visitors is ultimately the best way to protect our local economy.
Q: What do you believe is the actual responsibility of Coronado when dealing with a crisis that is spilling over from across the border? What do you think about spending American dollars on a problem that emanates from Mexico?
A: Coronado did not create this crisis, and we cannot solve it alone. But solve it we must. When cross-border pollution reaches our beaches and threatens residents, visitors, military personnel and our economy, our city must act.
Our role is to document impacts, communicate honestly and advocate for science-based testing, timely warnings, dependable infrastructure and enforceable agreements. We must evaluate innovative treatment and water-reclamation technologies, including treatment capacity on our side of the border. Even as Mexico improves its infrastructure, we remain vulnerable when relying on facilities we don’t control or maintain.
Through my service as Coronado’s representative on the Metro Wastewater JPA, I have gained a deeper appreciation for long-term infrastructure planning, dependable treatment capacity and water reuse.
Water is a valuable resource and vital commodity. Whenever possible, it should be treated, reclaimed and reused not simply discharged into the ocean.
I understand concerns about spending American tax dollars on pollution originating in Mexico. Mexico must contribute its fair share. However, strategic U.S. investment is justified when it directly protects Americans. It must be accompanied by Mexican funding, firm deadlines, operational accountability and measurable results. Coronado must keep this crisis visible until safe, clean water is consistently restored.
