By Jose E. Navarro
San Diego County finally has a number for what the Tijuana River sewage crisis costs the region: between $125 million and $500 million in lost economic activity every year. The county’s response so far is a $1.8 million planning study. In November, voters will decide whether to fund what comes after it.
The estimate comes from a preliminary analysis that consultants presented to the Board of Supervisors on Sept. 15. It is the first time the county has put a dollar figure on the damage, and the distance between that figure and the money committed so far frames the choice voters face this fall.
What the analysis found
ECOnorthwest, the firm the county hired, said losses could reach $1.9 billion to $7.9 billion over 20 years if the crisis goes unmitigated. Its partner, Chris Blakney, told supervisors the estimates could climb if conditions worsen. The analysis draws on a survey of more than 200 residents and businesses. Tourism tax revenue in Imperial Beach fell nearly 30 percent between 2017 and 2024, a steeper drop than the regional average. Affected school districts also lost more enrollment and daily attendance than schools elsewhere in the county.
The range is wide, a fourfold spread between low and high, and the findings are preliminary. A fuller report covering tourism, recreation and property values is due before the board in October. Until now, the county’s evidence was thin: a 2023 survey of roughly 60 Imperial Beach businesses, several of which reported losing at least $100,000 a year. That survey called for a full accounting, but no follow-up was done.
What the county has committed
On Sept. 1, supervisors voted 4-1 for a three-phase plan to explore building infrastructure that would treat Tijuana River flows on the U.S. side before they reach the ocean. Phase one, about 18 months of work funded by $1.8 million in county reserves, will examine engineering, treatment levels, costs, sites and financing. Phase two would bring a preferred project to the board for a vote. Phase three covers permitting and environmental review. The UCSD Guardian reported that the board also unanimously approved $4 million for infrastructure to divert wastewater at the Saturn Boulevard hotspot.
Supervisors Terra Lawson-Remer and Paloma Aguirre, who led the proposal, argue that after 60 years the U.S. side of the river receives no treatment at all, and that the county cannot wait on Mexico’s funding and timelines. Supervisor Joel Anderson cast the lone no vote, warning that costs could reach the billions and that the state and federal governments should share the responsibility.
Set against the loss estimate, $1.8 million equals between 0.4 percent and 1.4 percent of a single year’s damage. Adding the $4 million for diversion brings the total to about $5.8 million, or roughly 1 to 5 percent. A planning budget is small by design, and nobody expects a study to stop the sewage. But the comparison shows how much of the eventual answer depends on money the county has not yet secured.
The ballot question
That money is on the November ballot. The San Diego County Health and Safety Act, listed as Measure B, would raise the county sales tax from 7.75 percent to 8.25 percent and generate an estimated $360 million a year. Its backers, a coalition of labor unions and health and child-care advocates, would direct 60 percent to health care and child care, 22.5 percent (roughly $80 million a year) to the Tijuana River, and 17.5 percent to public safety and wildfire prevention. CalMatters reported that supervisors have also discussed using local revenue to back close to $1 billion in bonds for a treatment plant.
Critics raise two objections. Voice of San Diego reported in May that backers could name few specific projects beyond fixing a sewage culvert and a distant goal of diverting the river. And Supervisor Jim Desmond has argued that the river is a matter for the federal government.
What voters should ask
Three questions follow from the numbers. First, does about $80 million a year match a problem estimated at $125 million to $500 million a year, and a plant that could cost far more? Second, what will the money buy before the study finishes, given that phase-one concepts are not due for about 18 months? Third, who pays when the U.S. treatment plant or the pipes on the Mexican side fail, as they have after heavy rains and a pipeline collapse in Tijuana in June?
The October report should sharpen the first question, arriving weeks before Election Day. Residents of Imperial Beach, San Ysidro and the rest of the South Bay have waited decades for answers. They deserve to see the arithmetic before they vote.
Sources
KPBS, Sept. 15, 2026: county economic analysis of Tijuana River pollution
KPBS, Sept. 1, 2026: county vote on Tijuana River treatment plan
UCSD Guardian, Sept. 28, 2026: Board of Supervisors approves capture and cleanup initiative
CalMatters/The Almanac, Sept. 1, 2026: county treatment plant and bond plan
Voice of San Diego, May 2026: county sales tax measure and Tijuana sewage fixes
Times of San Diego and FOX 5, May 2026: sales tax measure qualifies for ballot