Infrastructure: Proposal To Build Plant in Mexico Gets Mixed Reception
For more than 70 years, untreated sewage from Mexico has been carried northward into the United States by the Tijuana River. As the river empties into the sea, and ocean currents spread the sewage northward, beaches from Imperial Beach to Coronado have had to deal with increasing amounts of pollution washing ashore. A water treatment plant built at the border has been only partly successful at solving the problem. Now, a San Marcos investor is hoping to build a project that may be the answer everyone’s looking for. Jim Simmons’ “Bajagua” proposal has already gained some support from both Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-San Diego, and Rep. Bob Filner, D-San Diego. But the Environmental Protection Agency, the city of Imperial Beach and other organizations have raised some objections.
Simmons is a principal in Aguaclara, LLC, the company floating the Bajagua proposal to build a $83 million sewage treatment plant in Mexico. The plant will be capable of providing primary and secondary treatment for at least 50 million gallons of sewage a day, he said.
This would be on top of the already existing International Wastewater Treatment Plant off Dairy Mart Road near the international border. The plant provides primary treatment for 25 million gallons of sewage a day, Simmons said.
Would Meet Future Needs. Those 25 million gallons would be shipped back across the border for the more advanced “secondary treatment” at Bajagua, which would also provide primary and secondary treatment for an additional 25 million gallons a day, he said.
Together with other measures, this would meet the need of 100 million gallons a day of sewage treatment projected for 2010, Simmons said. The treatment facility would be financed through private funding, with bonds raised to pay for the capital costs and construction. Cost for the operation of the plant will be recouped through a fee-for-service plan, with payment dependent on the amount of sewage treated at the facility, Simmons said. In the early stages, the federal EPA or the U.S. International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) would pay for sewage treatment operations as part of their “avoidance costs,” the amount they save by not having to pay for the sewage treatment themselves, he said.
U.S. Subsidy
Simmons conceded U.S. taxpayers would in effect be subsidizing the operation of a plant in Mexico. But he stressed with sewage washing up on San Diego County shores, it’s an American health and safety problem as well. At a later date, the Mexican government would take over funding the operation of the plant, Simmons said. The Bajagua proposal is supported by Bilbray and Filner, who have jointly sponsored legislation, HR-3378, to authorize negotiations on the project. Filner recalled that the EPA-built International Water Treatment Plant was billed as the solution to the cross-border sewage problem when it went on line in January 1999. But the amount of sewage coming across the border has grown with each passing year as the population of Tijuana increases and is projected to reach about 100 million gallons a day by 2010, he said. The IBWC and the EPA have an agreement with Mexico to jointly build sewage ponds that provide secondary treatment. But these are not enough, he said.
Bajagua would go a long way toward dealing with the increased need, Filner said.
Win-Win-Win’ Situation
“We have a small but historic window of opportunity to completely solve this problem now,” he said. “This is a win-win-win-win-win-win-win situation.” The private-sector proposal will build a plant capable of handling at least 50 million gallons a day, using the latest environmentally sound and sustainable technology, Filner said. It would be built in Mexico, so raw sewage doesn’t cross the border, while Mexico would be able to take advantage of reclaimed water from the plant, he added. If the agreement is left as is, it could be 30 or 40 years before the sewage problem is fully taken care of, he said. Bilbray echoed those sentiments. “Mexico has already projected in six years, they will be over capacity again, after all their projects are built. So what we’re talking about now is what we need to do, to be building the infrastructure to be ready at the time that the crisis comes again, rather than doing the catch-up,” he said.
The “best alternative on the horizon” is to build the capacity in Mexico, so Mexicans can treat it themselves and the pollution doesn’t end up on U.S. shores, Bilbray said.
Potential Problems
However, the proposal could lead to serious holdups, argued Barry Johnson, city manager for Imperial Beach. First, there is the question of whether there is any support for this project in Mexico. Second, the currently existing treaty with Mexico would have to be changed for Bajagua to go ahead. As the treaty stands, the United States is required to provide the first 25 million gallons a day of secondary treatment. But Bajagua would be built in Mexico , a change in terms in the treaty, he said. Also, the company building Bajagua would have a 50-year franchise on the operation of the facility. There are questions of the legality of a private American company operating a public utility in Mexico, Johnson said. “All these things added together spell delay, delay, delay,” he said. The preferred alternative, as proposed by the IBWC and the EPA, is a series of ponds adjacent to the International Water Treatment Plant that will provide secondary treatment for the facility. That proposal is already in the design stage, Johnson said. Currently, the treatment plant is operating outside its permit because secondary treatment is not in place. The plant was only opened with the promise that secondary treatment would be added , treatment that should have been in place by now, he said. Johnson stressed that Bajagua and the ponds are not mutually exclusive. But the city cannot allow any more delays, he said.
Lori Salda & #324;a, member of the Border Environment Cooperation Commission’s advisory council, echoed some of those concerns. There has been no attempt to get the support of the people of Mexico, where the project would be built, she said. The project would be built in a watershed, where people have wells and get their drinking water, Salda & #324;a added. Also, there is the possibility that Bajagua would delay secondary treatment indefinitely. The Bajagua bill would force Mexico to renegotiate its treaty, when the previous treaty took years to hammer out. The operating permit for the International Wastewater Treatment Plant, issued in 1996 by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, called on the plant to install secondary treatment by Dec. 31, 2000, Salda & #324;a said. Robert Ortega, principal engineer with the IBWC, noted the design phase of the ponds would be completed by December. The IBWC and the EPA had reviewed the Bajagua proposal in April 1999 and at that time decided it was not feasible. It required sole-source contracting rather than a bid for proposals, and the costs for it would be spread out over 30 years. Both these provisions are beyond the commission’s authority, Ortega said. Also, work in Tijuana requires the agreement of the Mexican government , which is also beyond the commission’s authority, he said. Ortega agreed that Bajagua could be feasible as a project to handle future flows. His figures show that by 2010, there would be a projected need to process at least 75 million gallons a day of sewage. But Filner’s higher figure of 100 million gallons a day is a possibility, requiring additional facilities, he said. Liz Borowiec, environmental planner for the EPA, said they considered Bajagua not to be feasible since it did not have the support of the Mexican government. For that reason, the agency declared the ponds to be the best alternative, she said. The EPA has no position on Bajagua as a future project, Borowiec said.
