San Diego and Tijuana co-exist in the same ecosystem. We breathe the same air, drink the same water, and – as is increasingly evident – confront the same environmental problems, including sewage spills in our canyons, rivers and beaches. Residents in Tijuana and San Diego are grappling with preventing sewage spills. But after years of hearings and hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars, we are no closer to a comprehensive solution for preventing these problems than we were a decade ago. In fact, we are slipping behind.
On Aug. 19, the Assembly's Natural Resources Committee met in San Diego to review cost overruns and explore ways to prevent repetitions at a federal binational treatment facility at the border, known as the International Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Consider this assessment:
"The critically important border sewage plant project, which someday will clean up the fetid waters of the Tijuana River, currently has no one in charge of it. "The commissioner of the IBWC (International Boundary and Water Commission), a binational agency that is building the plant, has retired amid harsh criticism of his handling of the project – (and) the IBWC was not responsive to the complaints of citizens and critics. When the city of San Diego and the Sierra Club charged that the facility was going to exceed the federal spending limit –the IBWC refused to reveal its cost estimates."
This assessment is accurate – and also more than 10 years old. It appeared in an editorial entitled "Time to start over / Border sewage project needs new direction," in the Union-Tribune on June 5, 1994. And it is nearly identical to the situation we face today.
The IBWC's commissioner has again been asked to resign. Mexico has rejected the latest proposal, citing lack of cross-border communication. Cost overruns now exceed estimates by over $100 million. And financial details for a 20-year lease to be paid to anonymous private landowners in Mexico remain secret.
The bottom line is that after 10-plus years of work and $500 million spent by U.S. taxpayers, the project is no closer to cleaning up cross-border pollution than it was a decade ago.
What happened to make this project go so terribly wrong?
Fact 1: Sewage collection is more important than treatment capacity.
The IBWC squandered $500 million on one large sewage plant and outfall, and ignored desperately needed funds for sewage collection infrastructure in Tijuana. No treatment plant can operate without first receiving sewage. In Tijuana, an estimated 30 percent to 40 percent of the 1 million residents have no sewage connections. And much of Tijuana's system is old and leaks during heavy rains – just as in San Diego.
Moreover, Tijuana is the fastest-growing city in Mexico. Nearly 75,000 new residents are added every year. Despite investments of nearly $50 million since 1999, leaks still occur and more hookups are needed. Expansion and rehabilitation of old pipes will contribute more to cleaning up water problems at the border than paying a private company over $500 million to build one massive sewage plant. Fact 2: The IBWC cannot do this alone.
This project needs experts from other border cities to bring in valuable practical experience and funding from other sources such as the Border Environment Cooperation Commission and North American Development Bank, which have leveraged over $2 billion for infrastructure projects in the past decade.
Also, the IBWC must work with Mexico to develop this project. So far, Mexican agencies have rejected the IBWC's proposal due to a lack of cross-border participation and planning. There are many good examples of successful binational collaborations. El Paso/Ciudad Juarez expanded their sanitation system together in the 1990s, and a binational treatment facility in Nogales, Ariz., now treats sewage from Nogales in Sonora, Mexico.
Fact 3: The IBWC needs public input and community participation.
Taxpayers expect and deserve full disclosures of publicly funded projects. San Diego's Wastewater Department learned years ago that community participation and outreach are essential for developing successful public projects, since residents understand what works best for their neighborhoods. That's why the city's Wastewater Department held numerous public hearings in the mid-'90s, when it relocated sludge pipelines through Clairemont and Linda Vista, and relocated the sludge-handling facility from Fiesta Island to Kearny Mesa.
In contrast, the public hearings for this treatment plant have only taken place in San Diego. At one hearing, a Tijuana landowner attended and asked about the proposed project location, which appeared to be on land she had inherited from her father. Imagine the outrage if a Mexican agency decreed a project would be built in San Diego, without first consulting with residents and local government. But more problems remain, including:
Privatization vs. public transparency: The IBWC should not negotiate with a private company to build a project before completing public reviews, and without going through normal competitive bidding processes.
Best available technology: The same treatment technology rejected as "experimental" a few years ago is now being considered on an even larger scale for Tijuana. Newer, cleaner technology has since been developed; let's use it.
Eminent domain abuse: The IBWC refuses to identify the precise location and ownership of the land where this plant would be located. The commission proposes paying a mystery owner in Mexico millions in a 20-year lease agreement – at U.S. taxpayer expense. Who will profit, especially after land in San Diego was purchased for this project in 1996?
Until taxpayers have answers to these basic questions, we need to heed the Union-Tribune's recommendation from 1994: "Time to start over / Border sewage project needs new direction."
Saldaña represents the 76th Assembly District. She was a Clinton appointee to the Border Environment Cooperation Commission and currently serves on the Assembly Natural Resources and Water, Parks and Wildlife Committees. Ducheny represents portions of San Diego and Riverside counties and all of Imperial County.