City of Imperial Beach divided over changes to a sewage crisis bill

Changes to a bill that could have paved a path to pay for environmental restoration projects in the Tijuana River Valley have formed a rift among Imperial Beach officials.

The City Council signed a letter of unanimous support for the bill in February. But a heated meeting Wednesday night showed that support has fractured, as councilmembers discussed for more than an hour whether to repeal their backing. The discussion will continue at their next meeting.

The bill, sponsored by Sen. Steve Padilla, D-Chula Vista, initially proposed allowing the San Diego Association of Governments to use a portion of toll revenue from the future Otay Mesa East Port of Entry to clean up polluted lands in the valley along the U.S.-Mexico border. 

The latest revisions would instead allow SANDAG to use a portion of funds from the future port of entry to help maintain the federally owned South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant.

While the council agreed that solutions to the pollution crisis will require numerous initiatives on both sides of the border, some see the changes to the bill as a lost chance to establish a first-of-its-kind fund to restore the valley.

“The effects of 90 years of sewage coming down that river valley has never been addressed, and it pisses me off,” said Councilmember Jack Fisher.

Padilla has called the changes a “refinement,” and told inewsource that the bill’s original intent remained intact. He said that while funding for building out the international treatment plant has been secured, monies for long-term maintenance have not.

“Deferred maintenance, as you know, over time, adds up to problems and higher costs,” Padilla said, adding that lack of funding for repairs is partly to blame for the pollution crisis.

The council originally spawned the idea of using toll fees for environmental mitigation projects, which Padilla then took up in SB10.

Ian Fregosi, a district director for Padilla, came to answer the council’s questions, and argued that legislators amended the bill so that it would comply with federal law.

“We’re trying to give SANDAG something that is real and that can actually be implemented,” Fregosi said.

Fisher said that not only did the new language stray from their idea, but that he had reached out to Padilla’s office to ask why the council was not consulted about the changes.

“I found out some of our city staff and the mayor were involved in conversations, which I think I’m OK with, but it wasn’t one person who approved the letter of support,” Fisher said.

Councilmember Mitch McKay said that money generated regionally should not be used to fund a federal plant and accused the senator of mishandling their hopes for the toll revenue.

“Senator Padilla has taken a great idea and turned it into a political football,” McKay said.

Mayor Paloma Aguirre pushed back.

“I do take offense that the allegation of political punting is being made, I think we owe nothing but gratitude to Senator Padilla,” Aguirre said, adding that ultimately the decision of how to use the funds is in the hands of regional transportation authorities.

“I’m still waiting on the SANDAG Board of Directors to actually make a decision.”

Another more recent change says SANDAG, the regional transportation and planning agency, would have to prioritize repaying its bonds before other uses of the toll revenue. Three of the five councilmembers — Fisher, McKay and Carol Seabury — indicated early opposition to the bill’s changes.

“As it exists today, a penny may never come to the mitigation and restoration of Tijuana River Valley, and for that reason, I withdraw my support as a councilmember of SB 10,” McKay said.

Padilla’s office announced this week that the bill has passed the Transportation Committee and is now headed to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Fregosi said the process could still take months.