Cross-border water pollution and sewage treatment facilities in the Tijuana River Valley, San Diego, California

View of the Tijuana River Valley, looking east. City of Tijuana (in Baja California, Mexico) is visible to the right (south), International Wastewater Treatment Plant (IWTP) facilities are in the center, and river (green area) is to the left (north)

STATUS REPORT: Fall 2002

After nearly 3 years of delays in implementing the Record of Decision anounced below, and despite ongoing  toxicity problems, bacteria exceedances, and other pollution problems identified near this plant's ocean outfall, on Sept. 11, 2002, the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board voted at their meeting to enter into a consent decree with the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) to avoid a protracted legal battle. (Background information is provided below.)

As their website explains, the Consent Decree shall be used for: 

"...establishing a deadline for the International Boundary and Water Commission, United States Section to select, and initiate implementation of, a strategy to provide secondary treatment for wastewater from the International Wastewater Treatment Plant (IWTP), San Diego County."
The unanswered question remains: can a state force a federal agency to comply with the Clean Water Act? Can they force the federal government to pay fines for ongoing violations? (Note- in recent years, 75% of water pollution violations in San Diego County were the result of discharges from FEDERAL wastewater treatment facilities).

Instead of answering this question in a timely manner, this decree (a legally binding agreement done in place of a court trial)  requires the IBWC to complete secondary level sewage treatment facilities for the IWTP by 2007. It does not define exactly what type of secondary level facility must be build, nor does it state the location of the facility. 

Most speakers at the hearing opposed this timeline, claiming it allows too much delay for compliance while pollution problems continue in the ocean, and includes "force majeure" clauses which may cause indefinite delays beyond the 2007 deadline.

Diane Rose, Mayor of Imperial Beach, spoke against the decree, claiming that the "proposed Consent Decree does not meet the priority for public health and safety."  In her statement she noted:

"Most importantly, the City of Imperial Beach objects to the vague provisions of the force majeure. Either this loophole for noncompliance must be closed, or reparations in the form of monetary damages should be paid to Imperial Beach and the other affected communities."
Interim measures and public warnings regarding potential health risks were also not fully addressed in the consent decree. Such measures could include:
  • Using the Pt. Loma Wastewater Treatment Facility, operated by the city of San Diego, to provide higher treatment levels. 
    • For many years, this facility accepted up to 10 million gallons/day of Tijuana sewage, but the city is balking at continuing this practice, noting the ongoing problems with industrial waste and toxicity. In 1998, the Pt. Loma facility had problems with toxicity exceedances that they attributed to the Tijuana sewage.
       
  • Using the new South Bay Water Reclamation Plant, located less than a mile from the IWTP. 
    • This facililty could provide secondary level treatment for up to 14 million gallons of sewage/day, once it is fully expanded (it is currently operating at only 7 MGD). The Border Environment Cooperation Commission certified this project in 1997, so that it qualified for receiving $17 million in US-Mexico border grant funds from the USEPA. However, they have only a few buyers for this reclaimed water (including the IWTP, which uses about 500,000 gallons/day for plant operations). Options for using their excess capacity for treating sewage from the IWTP are being explored by the city of San Diego and state of California.
       
  • Post Prop. 65 advisories to alert people to potential health risks from exposure to toxics near the outfall.
    • The area around the outfall is popular with commercial and private sportfishing boats. Given the toxic discharge from this facility, it was suggested that the relevant state and federal agencies post advisory notices, similar to state of California Proposition 65 warnings, at local sportfishing shops and on buoys moored near the outfall. 

      People engaging in recreational boating and fishing activities near this outfall need to be aware of the potential health risks they face from coming in contact with sewage, bacteria, toxics and other wastes during the months when the sewage rises to the surface.

      (For more information about Prop. 65, visit: http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65.html). It explains: "In November 1986, California voters approved an initiative to address growing concerns about exposures to toxic chemicals. That initiative became The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, better known by its original name: Proposition 65.")


NEW RESEARCH: COASTAL OCEAN OBSERVATION SYSTEM (COOS)

Meanwhile, more research is being done to document the pollution and related impacts observed in the ocean over the outfall connected to this facility, thanks in part to pressure from the city of Imperial Beach and a collaborative effort with investigators from Scripps Institution of Oceanography. State funding provided under the Clean Water Initiative will help pay for a this new "Coastal Ocean Observations System" now under development at Scripps. A new website, which eventually will include real-time ocean data from remote sensing devices located near the ocean outfall, will be online later this year, and will be located at www.sdcoos.ucsd.edu

For information on similar programs operating around the United States, visit: http://www.csc.noaa.gov/cots/presentations.html

IMPROVEMENTS TO TIJUANA'S WATER & WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS

With help from the Border Environment Cooperation Commission and USEPA, the city of Tijuana is embarking on several plans to upgrade their water and wastewater system. This will help control the flow of sewage into the Tijuana River. Details on a long-term, comprehensive Master Plan and other projects are available at the USEPA website.

Return to home | Return to top



ARCHIVES: 
U.S. EPA MAKES WASTEWATER TREATMENT DECISION
Hofer Site selected for wastewater treatment ponds

SAN FRANCISCO, December 8 1999
-- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. International Boundary and Water Commission today released a record of decision for secondary treatment at the South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant, selecting completely mixed aerated ponds at the Hofer site as the preferred treatment alternative.

"It's time to finish this job and look toward the future," said Felicia Marcus, the EPA's regional administrator.  "All of us have a lot of work to do to address border sewage treatment needs."

more


DECISION ANNOUNCED FOR BORDER SEWAGE TREATMENT

The U.S. Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission issued the following press release today regarding secondary treatment at the South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant:

For immediate release       December 8, 1999

The United States Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission (USIBWC) and the Environmental Protection Agency today released a Record of Decision (ROD) to move forward with construction of secondary treatment ponds adjacent to the South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant (SBIWTP).  The plant has been providing
advanced primary treatment for sewage from Tijuana since April of 1998.

 Under the ROD, the agencies will move forward with construction of the Completely Mixed Aerated (CMA) Pond System at the Hofer Site to provide secondary treatment for 25 million gallons a day at the SBIWTP.   The project covers 36 acres and features a total of six ponds, one control building, and related pump stations and distribution structures.

 John M. Bernal, U.S. Section Commissioner of the IBWC, said, “Selection of a secondary treatment approach is a critical stage in fulfilling our obligations under international agreements in place with the Mexican government.”

more


BACKGROUND SUMMARY: For over 8 years, the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) and United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) have been unable to decide what type of secondary-level wastewater treatment facilities should be constructed in the Tijuana River Valley in the United States. The valley is on the border of Mexico, approximately 15 miles south of downtown San Diego. In the photo above, the city of Tijuana can be seen across the border fence.

Historically, the Tijuana River has been contaminated by renegade sewage flows from Tijuana, Mexico. The city's rapid growth rate (recently estimated at nearly 6% annually) has made it difficult  for the city to construct and maintain an adequate sewage collection system to control these flows. Sewage which exceeds this system's capacity, as well as sewage that leaks from broken pipelines, crosses the border and often closes the beaches to the west, in the town of Imperial Beach in the United States. (see map)

In 1989, Congress authorized funds to construct a secondary-level treatment facility in the valley, to treat sewage from Tijuana. The project was estimated to cost $239 million, and the funds were to be administered by the USEPA, with the construction contracts to be awarded by the IBWC.

The project's Environmental Impact Statement, issued in 1994, chose Activated Sludge as the preferred secondary treatment method, but this document was challenged in court for failure to consider ponding treatment methods. Ponds were considered a better choice for removing heavy metals and industrial wastes, which are common in Tijuana's wastewater because the city lacks an effective industrial pretreatment program.

In addition, ponds cost less, are faster to construct, and produce much less sludge (the solid waste remaining after treatment) that requires considerable land for disposal.

In 1995, the EPA and IBWC settled the lawsuit, which had been filed by the Sierra Club and Surfrider Foundation, and agreed to study ponds. In 1998, they issued a second Environmental Impact Statement which included the analysis of two ponding methods.

In May, 1999, the EPA attempted to issue a Record of Decision, identifying one of the ponding methods as the preferred alternative for the project.  However, to date, they were blocked from doing so until December 1999.

Despite this decision, the plant continues operating at only advanced primary treatment levels, and is in violation of its operating permit. The California Attorney General began investigating these delays in 1999, and entered into a Consent Decree in 2002.

Next page: Construction to date, options and costs of secondary treatment



Diagram of treatment facilities from EPA website

Return to top of page

Additional pages:
Action alert
Views of the Tijuana River Valley
Toxicity problems
This page created October 1999 | Updated Oct. 2001
Copyright 2001/All Rights Reserved
Use of text, images or other information allowed only with author's permission. 
For more information please contact Lori Saldana

http://www.netconnection.com/IWTP