Map of the Tijuana River Watershed

En Espanol ]

Proposals Pros

Cons

River Park ·1 Long-term planning for future

·2 Good for flood control

·3 Natural filtering of pollutants with vegetation

·4 Increased quality of life and green areas for residents

·5 Increased property values (see Mission Valley, San Diego)

·6 Increased functioning of Tecate-Cottonwood watershed and decreased dependence on costly imported water

·7 Erosion control with natural vegetation decreases sedimentation downstream and in the TJ Estuary

·8 Decreased cost to taxpayers of pollution/flood cleanups

·9 Shade decreases evaporation of surface water

·10 Slower drainage to the stream channel means more water quantity

·11 Vegetation improves air quality

·12 Habitat corridor for terrestrial and aquatic species

·13 More wetlands (worth $6600/acre†)

·14 Recreational and educational Opportunities

·15 Increase in tourism

·16 Potentially connected to Tijuana River Parks Crest to Coast (ie. San Dieguito River Park)

·17 Complies with Mexico’s Natural Water Commisson watershed council law and supported by U.S. (ie. Border Environmental Cooperation Commission BECC)

·1 Short-term flood problems while building park

·2 Costs of rezoning the area

·3 Less commercial development along river banks

·4 Costs of relocating current residents

·5 Costs of planting native vegetation and building recreational facilities

·6 Costs of creating laws for river park use

·7 Enforcement of new laws

·8 Short-term benefits are easier to sell to public and government

 

Channelize ·1 Short-term flood control

·2 More land for commercial development on banks

·1 Higher costs of project

·2 Increase in severity of floods (see Tijuana and Los Angeles††)

 ·3 Increased in cost to taxpayers of emergency flood and pollutant cleanups

·4 Concrete bottom minimizes exchange between river and groundwater

·5 Decreased shade allow evaporation

·6 Pollutants cannot be filtered by riparian vegetation

·7 Sedimentation of downstream areas and Estuary

·8 Increased dependence of Colorado River supply

·9 Decreased ecosystem functioning and associated economic benefits (local water supply, clean air)

·10 Division of city life with steep concrete channels

No Action ·1 No change in costs to government and taxpayers ·1 Continued costs of emergency cleanups after floods and pollution spills

·2 Continued decrease in water supply

·3 Continued decrease in ecosystem functioning

·4 Continued encroachment by humans on habitats

·5 Continued sand mining on banks

·6 Continued nitrogen input by cattle grazing on banks

·7 Continued unmitigated pollution by industry.

Husted, Rachel. 1997. Wetlands for Clean Water. How Wetlands Protect Rivers, Lakes and Coastal Waters from Pollution. Washington, D.C.: Clean Water Network and Natural Resources Defense Council.

†† Dallman, Suzanne, and Piechota, Tom. 2000. Storm Water: Asset not Liability. Los Angeles: The Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers Watershed Council.