Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tijuana River Valley Superfund topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board presses for more action after EPA declines Superfund site investigation for Tijuana River Valley
Summary
San Diego County supervisors pressed the EPA for further steps after the agency declined a petition to investigate Superfund designation for the Tijuana River Valley; the board accepted staff's report and asked for continued coordination with state agencies and the EPA.
San Diego County supervisors on Jan. 8, 2025, received a staff report and a U.S. EPA response on whether the Tijuana River Valley should be designated a Superfund (CERCLA) site. The EPA’s Region 9 Superfund director said the agency would not open a Superfund site investigation based on the petition submitted, and the board accepted staff’s report and directed staff to pursue further collaborative options.
The item returned to the board after earlier direction to explore a Superfund petition and other avenues to unlock state and federal remediation funds for longstanding pollution and sewage impacts in the Tijuana River Valley. The board heard from municipal officials, local elected leaders and community members who described health complaints, air and water contamination concerns, and impacts to beaches and schools.
Mayor Paloma Madera of Imperial Beach (identified in public comment as the city’s mayor) urged the board to “repetition” — to refile or press the EPA — noting studies and community health complaints. Marcus Bush, National City councilmember, called the situation “the biggest and the worst environmental crisis in the county” and urged renewed federal and state attention. Board members and staff acknowledged the scale of public health concerns while noting legal and technical distinctions about agency authorities.
Mike Montgomery, director of the Superfund and Emergency Management Division for EPA Region 9, told the board the Superfund program focuses on hazardous waste sites with population‑scale exposure to long‑lasting toxicants, and that the agency assessed the petition and existing data. Montgomery said EPA had examined available studies, met with the State Water Resources Control Board and the Tijuana River Recovery Task Force, and concluded the petition did not demonstrate conditions that warrant a Superfund listing; he said the Clean Water Act and state authorities are better suited to address the human‑waste and stormwater hazardous‑substance issues in the river.
County staff outlined other statutory and regulatory tools—Clean Water Act authorities, the regional water board, the California Air Resources Board and the Department of Toxic Substances Control—that could be used alongside EPA technical support to pursue site assessment, enforcement and remediation. Staff and the EPA estimated focused sediment and soil sampling programs could be scoped with the state and might be conducted within modest budgets (EPA said a targeted sampling campaign could be under $100,000, depending on scope), but also noted funding and prioritization constraints at state agencies. Staff also said that legal options, including possible litigation against potential responsible parties, are being explored through closed‑session counsel.
Supervisor Jim Desmond moved to accept the staff report; the motion passed unanimously. Supervisors said they want follow‑up in the near term and asked staff to work with EPA, the regional water board and the state to develop a coordinated plan for targeted sampling and regulatory action where warranted.
The board did not direct a Superfund petition resubmission at this meeting; members said they will pursue a multi‑pronged approach—coordinated technical sampling, state action under the Clean Water Act and continued federal engagement—to seek both short‑term mitigation and long‑term remediation funding.
