← Environmental Law Center← Centro de Derecho Ambiental
Res. 00239-2011 Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección III · Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección III · 2011
OutcomeResultado
The Court annulled the Paraíso Municipal Council's agreement approving water supply for the Las Terrazas project due to a lack of the mandatory AyA technical ruling, declaring the act absolutely null for a defect in its reasoning.El Tribunal anula el acuerdo del Concejo Municipal de Paraíso que aprobó la dotación de agua potable para el proyecto Las Terrazas por carecer del dictamen técnico obligatorio del AyA, declarando la nulidad absoluta del acto por vicio en el motivo.
SummaryResumen
The Administrative Contentious Court, Section III, annulled the Paraíso Municipal Council's agreement that approved water supply for the “Las Terrazas” urban development. The ruling is based on the fact that the municipality granted approval without the mandatory prior authorization from the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers (AyA), the body legally required to certify the technical feasibility of water supply for any urban project. The court dismissed a generic “Optimization Study” by AyA as a substitute for the required project-specific ruling, emphasizing that this same study had already warned of a deficit in the Paraíso aqueduct, imminent future shortages, and the urgent need for infrastructure such as the Páez Tank before allowing new developments. The court concluded the municipal act lacked technical foundation, violating Articles 15 and 16 of the General Public Administration Law, and was therefore absolutely null due to a serious defect in its reasoning. The appeal was granted and the administrative route exhausted.El Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, Sección III, anula un acuerdo del Concejo Municipal de Paraíso que aprobó la dotación de agua potable para el proyecto urbanístico “Las Terrazas”. La decisión se fundamenta en que la municipalidad otorgó el aval sin contar con la aprobación previa y obligatoria del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados (AyA), entidad que por ley debe certificar la factibilidad técnica del abastecimiento de agua para cualquier desarrollo urbano. El tribunal descarta un “Estudio de Optimización” genérico del AyA como sustituto del dictamen específico requerido, y resalta que ese mismo estudio advertía sobre el estado deficitario del acueducto de Paraíso, con riesgos inminentes de desabastecimiento futuro y la urgente necesidad de obras de infraestructura como el Tanque Páez antes de autorizar nuevos proyectos. Concluye que el acuerdo municipal carece de sustento técnico y viola los artículos 15 y 16 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, por lo que es absolutamente nulo por un vicio grave en su motivo. La apelación se acoge y se agota la vía administrativa.
Key excerptExtracto clave
“Thus, based on this technical report from AyA, there is no doubt that the Municipal Council's decision to approve the water supply for the Las Terrazas urban development was extremely premature and was never supported by the approval of the preliminary project plans by the Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers, in its capacity as a specialized technical entity, as required by the legal system. [...] Let us remember that the Administration’s actions are limited by the correct application of the unequivocal rules of science or technique, in accordance with Articles 15 and 16 of the General Public Administration Law, and it may never adopt acts that violate or disregard such rules, under penalty of being absolutely null due to a serious defect in the act’s rationale. In this case, that is what has occurred, and therefore it constitutes more than sufficient reason to annul the appealed agreement, for lacking the technical foundation needed to adopt the contested decision.”“Pues bien, a partir de este informe técnico del AyA, no queda duda de que la decisión del Concejo Municipal de aprobar la dotación de agua potable para el proyecto urbanístico Las Terrazas, resultó sumamente prematura y en ningún momento estuvo amparada en la aprobación por parte del Instituto de Acueductos y Alcantarillados de los planos del anteproyecto, en su carácter de ente técnico especializado en la materia, tal y como lo exige el ordenamiento jurídico. [...] Recordemos que la Administración tiene como límite a sus actuaciones, la correcta aplicación de las reglas unívocas de la ciencia o de la técnica, de conformidad con el artículos 15 y 16 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, no pudiendo en ningún momento adoptar actos que violenten o desconozcan tales reglas, so pena de resultar absolutamente nulos, por tener un vicio grave en el motivo del acto. En este caso ello es lo que ha ocurrido, y por tanto, constituye razón más que suficiente para anular el acuerdo venido en alzada, por carecer de sustento técnico que permitiera adoptar la decisión impugnada.”
Pull quotesCitas destacadas
"La verificación de este componente del proyecto resulta imprescindible, por tratarse de un servicio que está directamente vinculado con el derecho fundamental a la salud y a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado (artículo 50 de la Constitución Política)."
"Verification of this project component is essential, as it is a service directly linked to the fundamental right to health and to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment (Article 50 of the Political Constitution)."
Considerando V
"La verificación de este componente del proyecto resulta imprescindible, por tratarse de un servicio que está directamente vinculado con el derecho fundamental a la salud y a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado (artículo 50 de la Constitución Política)."
Considerando V
"Dicha aprobación previa será obligatoria en todos los casos de construcción de fraccionamientos, urbanizaciones o lotificaciones en cualquier parte del país y ningún otro organismo estatal otorgará permisos o aprobaciones de construcción sin tal aprobación por parte del Instituto."
"Such prior approval shall be mandatory in all cases of construction of subdivisions, urbanizations, or lotifications anywhere in the country, and no other state agency shall grant construction permits or approvals without such approval from the Institute."
Artículo 21 Ley 2726 citado en Considerando VI
"Dicha aprobación previa será obligatoria en todos los casos de construcción de fraccionamientos, urbanizaciones o lotificaciones en cualquier parte del país y ningún otro organismo estatal otorgará permisos o aprobaciones de construcción sin tal aprobación por parte del Instituto."
Artículo 21 Ley 2726 citado en Considerando VI
"La Administración tiene como límite a sus actuaciones, la correcta aplicación de las reglas unívocas de la ciencia o de la técnica, de conformidad con el artículos 15 y 16 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, no pudiendo en ningún momento adoptar actos que violenten o desconozcan tales reglas, so pena de resultar absolutamente nulos, por tener un vicio grave en el motivo del acto."
"The Administration's actions are limited by the correct application of the unequivocal rules of science or technique, in accordance with Articles 15 and 16 of the General Public Administration Law, and it may never adopt acts that violate or disregard such rules, under penalty of being absolutely null due to a serious defect in the act’s rationale."
Considerando VII
"La Administración tiene como límite a sus actuaciones, la correcta aplicación de las reglas unívocas de la ciencia o de la técnica, de conformidad con el artículos 15 y 16 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, no pudiendo en ningún momento adoptar actos que violenten o desconozcan tales reglas, so pena de resultar absolutamente nulos, por tener un vicio grave en el motivo del acto."
Considerando VII
Full documentDocumento completo
V.- On the merits.- The challenged agreement must be annulled.- The materialization of an Urban Development Project requires, pursuant to our legal system, compliance with a series of prior requirements that must be fully satisfied, in order to ultimately obtain the granting of the municipal permit for development (urbanizar). Among those many requirements, the developer must demonstrate that on all the lots where the construction of homes and premises is conceptually planned, access to a safe and efficient potable water supply service is technically feasible. Verification of this project component is essential, as it concerns a service that is directly linked to the fundamental right to health and to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment (Article 50 of the Constitución Política). Precisely, the protection of this right and its harmonization with the local-level territorial planning of populations corresponds to the municipalities, insofar as they are responsible, by constitutional and legal mandate, for the planning and control of the urban development of their respective canton, a task within which they have the legal duty to ensure the protection of the interests of the health, safety, comfort, and well-being of the community (Articles 169 of the Constitution, 28 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, 15 and 19 of the Ley de Planificación Urbana, and 1 of the Ley de Construcciones).
VI.- Now, regarding the determination of the feasibility of an adequate potable water supply service for a housing project, we must be clear that, since this is an eminently technical matter, the legal competence to issue a pronouncement on this particular has been conferred upon the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, as derived from its Constitutive Law (N°2726 of April 14, 1961), whose Articles 2 and 21 establish, in order, the following:
"Article 2. The Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados is responsible for:
VII.- Well then, with the foregoing clear, this Court finds that the appellant is correct in arguing that the challenged agreement, by which the request for potable water allocation for the Las Terrazas Project was approved, lacks technical support. This is because, as seen from the court record, there is no evidence that the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados granted its approval to the project in question, certifying the feasibility of the potable water supply for this urban development. In this regard, we must remember that it is the developer's obligation to present the preliminary project plans, so that the technical entity can evaluate the construction design in its entirety - dimension, number of lots, site location, water management systems, among others - and, based on that review, issue a technical determination on whether it is feasible for the future inhabitants of the land to be developed to enjoy the supply of the vital liquid, but also determine whether such provision will generate a negative impact on the potable water service received by other citizens residing in the area. Here it is important to clarify that the report in the record, called: "Estudio de Optimización Acueducto Municipal de Paraíso de Cartago", prepared in September 2007 by the Department of Physical Development of AyA (pages 47 to 77), does not constitute - nor could it constitute - the technical opinion that is found lacking for the case of the Las Terrazas urban development project, under the terms described above, given that the aforementioned document clearly indicates that its general objective is the following: "To prepare a technical proposal, through which an efficient water supply is guaranteed for the entire population covered by the Acueducto Municipal de Paraíso de Cartago during the design period (2002-2022); that is, this study was not carried out as a consequence of the presentation of the urban development proposal discussed here, it being evident that it is, on the contrary, a report intended to address a much more general and regional problem, which is the need to avoid a future shortage situation in the Paraíso aqueduct, a topic on which AyA issued a series of measures to be implemented by the Municipalidad de Paraíso. It is necessary to point out that this document, in the Court's opinion, makes even more evident the lack of technical grounds that would have authorized the Council to adopt the agreement being challenged here. Note that in its content, the optimization study reveals that in the Paraíso region there is a very critical situation regarding future supply due to population growth, stating in that study that the Paraíso potable water system is currently at its equilibrium point, as it is slightly deficient during the dry season, and in some areas, pressures operate below the standard. Likewise, the report expressly advises the Municipality that it must define an implementation and maintenance plan during the 2002-2022 period, and indicates that it must execute a series of large-scale measures, among which the construction of a tank in the Páez sector stands out; however, none of such technical actions have been demonstrated here to have been fulfilled by the respondent Municipality, or at least that the interested developer has supplied them. In this sense, as stated in proven fact number two of this ruling, among many other things, the AyA's analysis warns of the following: "According to the Optimization Study (1st part), the district of Paraíso shows a main growth trend towards the west and northwest (zones 1 and 5: Llanos de Santa Ana, Lucía, Estadio and surroundings). The topography of this sector, and its convenient location have allowed sustained urban growth. Therefore, it is expected that the district's expansion will continue in the rest of the flatter lands in this zone. However, in this sector of potential future growth, there are supply problems during much of the day. These are mainly due to the fact that the MUCAP tank (1365 m.a.s.l.) that supplies it is at an inadequate height to deliver water at admissible pressures. Most of Llanos de Santa Lucía is located between elevations 1340 and 1360 m.a.s.l. For this reason, the construction of a tank above the 1400 m.a.s.l. contour line is required to cover the western zone of the Paraíso Aqueduct. The location of this new tank is proposed in the Páez sector, north of Paraíso ... 5.2.1 Future Scenario: Year 2022. ... Note that most of the improvements for the current scenario (2007) are repeated for the future scenario (2022), but with larger diameters. These latter (2022) are the definitive improvements to guarantee the network's service quality during the entire design period. However, both proposals have been presented, as the Municipalidad de Paraíso must define an implementation and maintenance plan according to its projected cash flow during the design period (2002-2022) ..." Among its many recommendations, without this implying that the remaining ones are not of interest, the following are cited: "(...) 7. It is recommended that the Municipalidad de Paraíso limit construction permits to the areas of influence of the tanks (previously indicated). Since the main growth of the city is towards the west, it is important not to allow urban development outside the area of influence of the Páez Tank (see figure 2.3). 8. The order of priorities for works to be constructed in the short term is as follows: a. Construction of the Páez Tank. b. Interconnection of Boquerón and Paso Ancho Sources-Páez Tank. c. Direct connection Páez Tank-Zones 1 and 5 (distribution). d. Direct connection MUCAP Tank-Zones 2 and 3. e. Installation of pressure-reducing valves. d. Changes of indicated diameters, and closing of rings in the central core network. (...) 12. As of the year 2010, demand will be greater than the system's production capacity, for which the intake of 86.6 L/s from the Río Naranjo will be necessary. This would cover demand until the end of the design period (2022). The respective hydraulic and economic analyses must be carried out to estimate the costs of this work. 13. The sustainability of current water production must be guaranteed. For this, the Municipalidad de Paraíso must launch a monitoring and protection program for the captured aquifers and their recharge zones, as well as the intake sites. It is of vital importance to protect the forested areas (zonas boscosas) surrounding the intakes and covering the exploited aquifers." Well then, from this technical report by AyA, there is no doubt that the decision of the Municipal Council to approve the potable water allocation for the Las Terrazas urban development project was extremely premature and was at no time supported by the approval by the Instituto de Acueductos y Alcantarillados of the preliminary project plans, in its capacity as the specialized technical entity in the matter, as required by the legal system. Far from it, the appealed agreement itself reveals that the Council acknowledges the need to implement the measures proposed by AyA in its 2007 optimization study, especially the construction of the Páez Tank; however, with a rather hypothetical discourse, it ends up indicating that those actions are to be executed by the local government while the Development (Urbanización) project is underway, an argument that not only lacks any possible logic but also reveals the Municipal Council's disregard for the technical warnings issued at the time by the competent entity in the matter, specifically regarding the potable water supply problem in the district of Paraíso. Let us recall that the Administration's actions are limited by the correct application of the unequivocal rules of science or technology, in accordance with Articles 15 and 16 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, and it cannot at any time adopt acts that violate or disregard such rules, under penalty of being absolutely null, due to a serious defect in the grounds (motivo) of the act. In this case, that is what has occurred, and therefore, it constitutes more than sufficient reason to annul the appealed agreement, for lacking the technical support that would have allowed the challenged decision to be adopted.
VIII.- That being the case, it is appropriate to grant the appeal (recurso de apelación) filed and annul the challenged agreement, the administrative channel being deemed exhausted.-” In this regard, we must remember that it is the developer's obligation to submit the preliminary project (anteproyecto) plans, so that the technical entity can evaluate the construction design in its entirety <i>-dimension, number of lots, land location, water management systems, among others-,</i> and based on that review, issue a technical determination as to whether it is viable for the future inhabitants of the land to be urbanized to enjoy the supply of the vital liquid, and also determine whether such provision will not generate a negative impact on the potable water service received by other citizens residing in the area. Here it is important to clarify that the report contained in the case file, called: "Optimization Study of the Municipal Aqueduct of Paraíso de Cartago" ("Estudio de Optimización Acueducto Municipal de Paraíso de Cartago"), prepared in September 2007 by the Physical Development Department of AyA (folios 47 to 77), does not constitute -nor could it constitute- the technical criterion that is missing for the case of the Las Terrazas urban development project, in the terms previously stated, given that, clearly, the mentioned document indicates that its general objective is the following: <i>"To make a technical proposal, through which an efficient water supply is guaranteed for the entire population covered by the Municipal Aqueduct of Paraíso de Cartago during the design period (2002-2022); </i>that is to say, this study was not carried out as a consequence of the presentation of the urban development proposal discussed here, it being notorious that it is, on the contrary, a report intended to address a much more general and regional problem, which is the need to avoid a future shortage situation in the Paraíso aqueduct, an issue on which AyA issued a series of measures to be implemented by the Municipality of Paraíso. It is necessary to indicate that this document, in the Court's judgment, makes the lack of technical grounds that would have enabled the Council to adopt the agreement challenged here even more evident. Note that in its content, the optimization study reveals that in the Paraíso region there is a very critical situation regarding future supply due to population growth, with that study pointing out that the Paraíso potable water system is currently at its equilibrium point, as it is slightly deficient during the dry season, and in some areas the pressures operate below the standard. Likewise, the report expressly makes the Municipality aware that it must define an implementation and maintenance plan during the 2002-2022 period, and indicates that it must execute a series of major measures, among which the construction of a tank in the Páez sector stands out; however, none of such technical actions have been demonstrated here to have been fulfilled by the appellant Municipality, or at least that the interested developer has supplied them. In this sense, as stated in proven fact number two of this resolution, among many other things, the AyA analysis warns of the following: <i>"According to the Optimization study (1st part), <b>the district of Paraíso shows a main growth trend towards the west and northwest (zones 1 and 5: Llanos de Santa Ana, Lucía, Estadio and surroundings)</b>. The topography of this sector, and its convenient location have allowed sustained urban growth. <b>Therefore, it is to be expected that the expansion of the district will continue in the rest of the flatter lands of this area. However, in this sector of potential future growth, supply problems occur during a large part of the day.</b> These are mainly due to the fact that the MUCAP tank (1365 m.a.s.l.) that supplies it is at an inadequate height to deliver water at admissible pressures. Most of the Llanos de Santa Lucía is between the elevations 1340 and 1360 m.a.s.l. For this reason, the construction of a tank above the 1400 m.a.s.l. level is required to cover the west zone of the Paraíso Aqueduct. The location of this new tank is proposed in the Páez sector, north of Paraíso ... <b>5.2.1 Future Scenario: Year 2022. </b>... Note that most of the improvements for the current scenario (2007) are repeated for the future scenario (2022), but with larger diameters. These latter (2022) are the definitive improvements to guarantee the quality of the network service throughout the entire design period. <b>However, both proposals have been presented, as the Municipality of Paraíso must define an implementation and maintenance plan according to its projected cash flow during the design period (2002-2022) ..." </b></i>Among its many recommendations, without this implying that the rest are not of interest, the following are cited: <i>"(...) <b>7. It is recommended that the Municipality of Paraíso limit construction permits to the areas of influence of the tanks (indicated above). Because the main growth of the city is westward, it is important not to allow urban development outside the zone of influence of the Páez Tank (see figure 2.3). 8. The order of priorities for works to be built in the short term is as follows: a. Construction of the Páez Tank. b. Interconnection of the Boquerón and Paso Ancho Sources-Páez Tank. c. Direct connection Páez Tank-Zones 1 and 5 (distribution). d. Direct connection MUCAP Tank-Zones 2 and 3. e. Installation of pressure-reducing valves. d. Changes of indicated diameters, and closure of loops in the central core network. (...) 12. As of the year 2010, the demand will be greater than the production capacity of the system, for which the capture of 86.6 L/s from the Naranjo River will be necessary. This would cover the demand until the end of the design period (2022). The respective hydraulic and economic analyses must be conducted to estimate the costs of this work. 13. The sustainability of the current water production must be guaranteed. For this, the Municipality of Paraíso must implement a monitoring and protection program for the captured aquifers and their recharge areas, as well as the intake sites. It is of vital importance to protect the forested areas (zonas boscosas) surrounding the intakes and covering the exploited aquifers."</b> </i>Well, from this technical report by AyA, there is no doubt that the decision of the Municipal Council to approve the provision of potable water for the Las Terrazas urban development project was extremely premature and was never supported by the approval by the Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers of the preliminary project (anteproyecto) plans, in its capacity as the specialized technical entity on the matter, as required by the legal system. Far from it, from the appealed agreement itself it is evident that the Council recognizes the need to implement the measures proposed by AyA in its 2007 optimization study, especially the construction of the Páez Tank; however, with a rather hypothetical reasoning, it ends up indicating that those actions will have to be executed by the local government while the Urbanization project is being carried out, an argument that not only lacks any possible logic, but also reveals the Municipal Council's disrespect for the technical warnings issued at the time by the competent entity on the matter, specifically in relation to the problem of potable water supply in the district of Paraíso. Let us remember that the Administration has as a limit to its actions, the correct application of the univocal rules of science or technique, in accordance with articles 15 and 16 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública), and may at no time adopt acts that violate or ignore such rules, under penalty of being absolutely null, for having a serious defect in the grounds of the act. In this case, that is what has occurred, and therefore, it constitutes more than sufficient reason to annul the appealed agreement, because it lacks technical support that would have allowed the challenged decision to be adopted.
VIII.- Therefore, it is appropriate to uphold the appeal filed and annul the challenged agreement, exhausting the administrative remedy.-" Precisely, the protection of this right and its harmonization with the territorial planning of populations at the local level falls to the municipalities, insofar as they are responsible, by constitutional and legal mandate, for the planning and control of urban development in their respective canton, a task within which they have the legal duty to ensure the **protection of the interests of health, safety, comfort, and well-being of the community** (Article 169 of the Constitution, 28 of the Organic Law of the Environment, 15 and 19 of the Urban Planning Law, and 1 of the Construction Law).
**VI.-** Now, regarding the determination of the feasibility of an adequate drinking water supply service for a housing project, we must be clear that, as it is an eminently technical matter, the legal competence to issue a pronouncement on this particular has been conferred upon the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers (Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados), as derived from its Constitutive Law (No. 2726 of April 14, 1961), whose Articles 2 and 21 establish, respectively, the following:
"Article 2. The Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers is responsible for:
**a) Directing and supervising** everything concerning providing the inhabitants of the republic with a drinking water service, collection and evacuation of black water and liquid industrial waste **and stormwater in urban areas**; **b) <u>Determining the priority, convenience, and viability</u> of the different projects proposed to construct, reform, expand, or modify aqueduct and sewer works; <u>which may not be executed without its approval</u>;** ...
**d) Advising the other State bodies** and coordinating public and private activities in all matters relating to the establishment of aqueducts and sewers and the control of water resource contamination, **<u>its consultation being mandatory, in all cases, and compliance with its recommendations being inexcusable</u>;** (...)" "Article 21. **Every project for the construction, expansion, or modification of <u>drinking water supply systems</u>** and disposal of sewage and stormwater, public or private, **must be previously approved by the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers,** which may carry out the inspection it deems appropriate to verify that the works are carried out in accordance with the approved plans. **Said prior approval shall be <u>mandatory</u>** in all cases of construction of subdivisions (fraccionamientos), **developments (urbanizaciones)** or lotifications in any part of the country and no other state body shall grant construction permits or approvals without such approval from the Institute. **The violation of this mandate shall cause the nullity of any construction permit** granted in contravention of this prohibition, the parceling or the project, as the case may be, being considered legally non-existent, with the consequences, regarding third parties, provided for in Article 35 of the Urban Planning Law, No. 4240 of November 15, 1968." As we can see, the Law is clear in conferring upon this autonomous entity the technical advisory competence regarding the viability, control, and approval of water disposal systems for urban development projects. The foregoing is fully confirmed when the Urban Planning Law (No. 4240 of November 15, 1968) establishes in its Article 38, subsection a), that permission to urbanize land shall not be granted: "*When the minimum regulatory standards are not satisfied, or the interested parties have not completed the pertinent procedures, among which is **the indispensable approval of the plans by the Directorate of Urbanism and the National Aqueduct and Sewer Service**.*" In the same vein, the Regulation for the National Control of Subdivisions (Fraccionamientos) and Developments (Urbanizaciones) clearly provides that "*the **drinking water supply** and stormwater evacuation **shall conform to the standards of the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers***" (Article III.3.11).
**VII.-** Well, having made the foregoing clear, this Tribunal considers that in the specific case, the appellant is correct in arguing that the contested agreement, by which the request for drinking water provision for the Proyecto Las Terrazas was approved, lacks technical basis. This is because, as can be seen from the case file, there is no record that the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers granted its approval to the project in question, certifying the feasibility of the drinking water supply for this urban development. In this regard, we must remember that it is the developer's obligation to present the preliminary project plans, so that the technical entity may assess the constructive design in its entirety *-dimension, number of lots, land location, water management systems, among others-*, and based on that review, technically rule on whether it is viable for the future inhabitants of the land to be urbanized to enjoy the supply of the vital liquid, and also determine if such provision will not generate a negative impact on the drinking water service received by the other citizens residing in the area. It is important to clarify here that the report appearing in the file, called: "Optimization Study, Municipal Aqueduct of Paraíso de Cartago," prepared in September 2007 by the Department of Physical Development of AyA (folios 47 to 77), does not constitute—nor could it constitute—the technical criterion that is lacking for the case of the Las Terrazas urban development project, in the terms previously stated, given that, clearly, the mentioned document indicates that its general objective is the following: "*To carry out a technical proposal, by which an efficient water supply is guaranteed for the entire population covered by the Municipal Aqueduct of Paraíso de Cartago during the design period (2002-2022);*" that is, this study was not carried out as a consequence of the presentation of the urban development proposal discussed here, it being evident that it is, on the contrary, a report that seeks to address a much more general and regional problem, which is the need to avoid a situation of future shortage in the Paraíso aqueduct, a topic on which AyA issued a series of measures to be implemented by the Municipality of Paraíso. It is necessary to indicate that this document, in the Tribunal's judgment, makes even more evident the lack of technical grounds that enabled the Council to adopt the agreement contested here. Observe that in its content, the optimization study reveals that in the Paraíso region there is a very critical situation regarding future supply due to population growth, pointing out in that study that the Paraíso drinking water system is currently at its equilibrium point, since it is slightly deficient during the dry season, and in some areas the pressures operate below the norm. Likewise, the report expressly makes it clear to the Municipality that it must define an implementation and maintenance plan during the period 2002-2022, and it is indicated that a series of large-scale measures must be executed, among which the construction of a tank in the Páez sector stands out; nevertheless, none of such technical actions have been demonstrated here to have been fulfilled by the respondent Municipality, or at least that the interested developer has supplied them. In this sense, as recorded in proven fact number two of this resolution, among many other things, the AyA analysis warns the following: "*According to the Optimization study (1st part), **the district of Paraíso shows a main growth trend towards the west and northwest (zones 1 and 5: Llanos de Santa Ana, Lucía, Estadio and surroundings)**. The topography of this sector, and its convenient location have allowed sustained urban growth. **Therefore, it is to be expected that the expansion of the district continues in the rest of the flatter lands of this area. However, in this sector of potential future growth, supply problems occur during much of the day.** These are mainly due to the fact that the MUCAP tank (1365 m.a.s.l.) that supplies it, is at an inadequate height to deliver water at admissible pressures. Most of Llanos de Santa Lucía is between the elevations 1340 and 1360 m.a.s.l. For this reason, the construction of a tank above the 1400 m.a.s.l. elevation is required to cover the west zone of the Paraíso Aqueduct. The location of this new tank is proposed in the Páez sector, north of Paraíso ... **5.2.1 Future Scenario: Year 2022.** ... Note that most of the improvements for the current scenario (2007) are repeated for the future scenario (2022), but with larger diameters. These latter (2022) are the definitive improvements to guarantee the quality of the network service during the entire design period. **However, both proposals have been presented, since the Municipality of Paraíso must define an implementation and maintenance plan according to its projected cash flow during the design period (2002-2022) ...** *" Among its many recommendations, without this implying that the remaining ones are not of interest, the following are cited: "* (...) **7. It is recommended that the Municipality of Paraíso limit construction permits to the areas of influence of the tanks (previously indicated). Since the main growth of the city is towards the west, it is important not to allow urban development outside the influence zone of the Páez Tank (see figure 2.3). 8. The order of priorities for works to be built in the short term is as follows: a. Construction Páez Tank. b. Interconnection Boquerón and Paso Ancho Sources-Páez Tank. c. Direct connection Páez Tank-Zones 1 and 5 (distribution). d. Direct connection MUCAP Tank-Zones 2 and 3. e. Installation of pressure reducing valves. d. Changes of indicated diameters, and loop closures in the central core network. (...) 12. As of the year 2010, the demand will be greater than the production capacity of the system, for which the intake of 86.6 L/s from the Río Naranjo will be necessary. This would cover the demand until the end of the design period (2022). The respective hydraulic and economic analyses must be carried out to estimate the costs of this work. 13. The sustainability of the current hydrological production must be guaranteed. For this, the Municipality of Paraíso must launch a program for monitoring and protecting the captured aquifers and their recharge zones, as well as the intake sites. It is vitally important that the forested areas surrounding the intakes and covering the exploited aquifers be protected.*" **" Well, based on this technical report from AyA, there is no doubt that the decision of the Municipal Council to approve the drinking water provision for the Las Terrazas urban development project was extremely premature and was never supported by the approval from the Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers of the preliminary project plans, in its capacity as a specialized technical entity in the matter, as required by the legal system. Far from it, it can be inferred from the agreement itself on appeal that the Council recognizes the need to implement the measures proposed by AyA, in its 2007 optimization study, especially the construction of the Páez Tank; however, with a rather hypothetical discourse, it ends up indicating that those actions will be executed by the local government while the Development (Urbanización) project is carried out, an argument that not only lacks any possible logic, but also reveals the Municipal Council's disrespect for the technical warnings that the competent entity on the matter issued at the time, specifically regarding the drinking water supply problem in the Paraíso district. Let us remember that the Administration has as a limit to its actions, the correct application of the univocal rules of science or technique, in accordance with Articles 15 and 16 of the General Law of Public Administration, being unable at any time to adopt acts that violate or disregard such rules, under penalty of being absolutely null, due to having a serious defect in the reason for the act. In this case, this is what has occurred, and therefore, it constitutes more than sufficient reason to annul the agreement on appeal, for lacking the technical basis that allowed the contested decision to be adopted.
**VIII.-** This being the case, it is appropriate to grant the appeal filed and annul the contested agreement, the administrative channel being thereby exhausted.-"
“V.- En cuanto al fondo.- El acuerdo impugnado debe ser anulado.- La materialización de un Proyecto Urbanístico requiere, conforme nuestro ordenamiento jurídico, del cumplimiento de una serie de requisitos previos que deben ser plenamente satisfechos, en aras de obtener finalmente el otorgamiento del permiso municipal para urbanizar. Entre esos muchos requerimientos, el desarrollador debe demostrar que en todos los lotes donde conceptualmente se prevé la construcción de viviendas y locales, es técnicamente factible el acceso a un servicio de abastecimiento de agua potable seguro y eficiente. La verificación de este componente del proyecto resulta imprescindible, por tratarse de un servicio que está directamente vinculado con el derecho fundamental a la salud y a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado (artículo 50 de la Constitución Política). Precisamente, la tutela de este derecho y su armonización con el ordenamiento territorial de las poblaciones a nivel local, corresponde a las municipalidades, en tanto les compete a éstas, por mandato constitucional y legal, la planificación y el control del desarrollo urbano de su respectivo cantón, tarea dentro de la cual tienen el deber legal de velar por la protección de los intereses de la salud, seguridad, comodidad y bienestar de la comunidad (artículo 169 constitucional, 28 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, 15 y 19 de la Ley de Planificación Urbana y 1 de la Ley de Construcciones).
VI.- Ahora, en lo que atañe a la determinación de la factibilidad de un adecuado servicio de abastecimiento de agua potable para un proyecto habitacional, debemos tener claro que por tratarse de un tema eminentemente técnico, la competencia legal para emitir un pronunciamiento sobre ese particular le ha sido conferida al Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, tal y como se deriva de su Ley Constitutiva (N°2726 del 14 de abril de 1961), cuyos artículos 2 y 21 establecen por su orden lo siguiente:
"Artículo 2. Corresponde al Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados:
VII.- Pues bien, teniendo claro lo anterior, este Tribunal estima que en el caso concreto lleva razón la apelante al argumentar que el acuerdo impugnado, mediante el cual se aprobó la solicitud de dotación de agua potable para el Proyecto Las Terrazas, es ayuno de sustento técnico. Esto por cuanto según se aprecia de los autos, no consta que el Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados haya otorgado su aprobación al proyecto en cuestión, certificando la factibilidad del abastecimiento de agua potable para este desarrollo urbanístico. En este sentido debemos recordar que es obligación del desarrollador presentar los planos del anteproyecto, con el fin de que el ente técnico valore el diseño constructivo en su integralidad -dimensión, cantidad de lotes, ubicación del terreno, sistemas de manejo de agua, entre otros-, y a partir de esa revisión dictamine, técnicamente, si resulta viable que los futuros habitantes del terreno a urbanizar puedan gozar del suministro del vital líquido, sino además determinar si tal provisión no generará un impacto negativo en el servicio de agua potable que reciben los demás ciudadanos que residen en la zona. Aquí es importante aclarar que el informe que consta en autos, denominado: "Estudio de Optimización Acueducto Municipal de Paraíso de Cartago", elaborado en setiembre del 2007 por el Departamento de Desarrollo Físico del AyA (folios 47 a 77), no constituye -ni podría constituir- el criterio técnico que se echa de menos para el caso del proyecto urbanístico Las Terrazas, en los términos antes expuestos, dado que, con claridad, el mencionado documento indica que su objetivo general es el siguiente: "Realizar una propuesta técnica, mediante la cual se garantice un abastecimiento eficiente de agua para toda la población cubierta por el Acueducto Municipal de Paraíso de Cartago durante el período de diseño (2002-2022); es decir, este estudio no se realizó como consecuencia de la presentación de la propuesta del desarrollo urbanístico que aquí se discute, siendo notorio que se trata, por el contrario, de un informe que pretende atender un problema de carácter mucho más general y regional, cual es la necesidad de evitar una situación de futuro desabastecimiento en el acueducto de Paraíso, tema en el cual el AyA emitió una serie de medidas a implementar por parte de la Municipalidad de Paraíso. Es preciso indicar que este documento, a juicio del Tribunal, hace más evidente aún la carencia de motivos técnicos que habilitaran al Concejo a tomar el acuerdo que aquí se impugna. Véase que en su contenido, el estudio de optimización hace ver que en la región de Paraíso existe una situación muy crítica en lo que respecta al abastecimiento futuro por crecimiento de la población, señalándose en ese estudio que el sistema de agua potable de Paraíso se encuentra actualmente en su punto de equilibrio, ya que es ligeramente deficitario durante la estación seca, y en algunas zonas las presiones funcionan por debajo de la norma. Asimismo, en el informe expresamente se le hace ver a la Municipalidad que debe definir un plan de implementación y mantenimiento durante el período 2002-2022, y se le indica que debe ejecutar una serie de medidas de gran magnitud, entre las cuales destaca la construcción de un tanque en el sector de Páez; no obstante, ninguna de tales acciones de carácter técnico se ha demostrado aquí que hayan sido cumplidas por la Municipalidad recurrida, o al menos que el desarrollador interesado las haya suplido. En este sentido, tal y como consta en el hecho probado número dos de esta resolución, entre otras muchas cosas, el análisis del AyA advierte lo siguiente: "Según el estudio de Optimización ( 1° parte), el distrito de Paraíso muestra una tendencia principal de crecimiento hacia el oeste y noroeste (zonas 1 y 5: Llanos de Santa Ana, Lucía, Estadio y alrededores). La topografía de este sector, y su conveniente ubicación han permitido el crecimiento urbano sostenido. Por lo tanto es de esperar que la expansión del distrito continué en el resto de los terrenos más planos de esta zona. Sin embargo, en este sector de potencial crecimiento futuro se presentan problemas de abastecimiento durante gran parte del día. Estos se deben principalmente a que el tanque MUCAP (1365 m.s.n.m.) que lo abastece, se encuentra a una altura inadecuada para entregar agua a presiones admisibles. La mayor parte de los Llanos de Santa Lucía se encuentra entre las elevaciones 1340 y 1360 m.s.n.m. Por esta razón, se requiere de la construcción de un tanque por encima de la cota 1400 m.s.n.m. para cubrir la zona oeste del Acueducto de Paraíso. Se propone la ubicación de este nuevo tanque en el sector de Páez, al norte de Paraíso ... 5.2.1 Escenario Futuro: Año 2022. ... Notése que la mayoría de las mejoras para el escenario actual (2007) se repiten para el escenario futuro (2022), pero con diámetros mayores. Estas últimas (2022) son las mejoras definitivas para garantizar la calidad del servicio de la red durante todo el período de diseño. No obstante, se ha presentado ambas propuestas, pues la Municipalidad de Paraíso deberá definir un plan de implementación y mantenimiento acorde a su flujo de caja proyectado durante el período de diseño (2002-2022) ..." Entre sus muchas recomendaciones, sin que esto implique que las restantes no son de interés, se citan las siguientes: "(...) 7. Se recomienda que la Municipalidad de Paraíso limite los permisos de construcción a las áreas de influencia de los tanques (antes señalados). Ya que el crecimiento principal de la ciudad se da hacia el oeste, es importante no permitir el desarrollo urbanístico fuera de la zona de influencia del Tanque Páez (ver figura 2.3). 8. El orden de prioridades de las obras a construir a corto plazo es el siguiente: a. Construcción Tanque Paez. b. Interconexión Fuentes Boquerón y Paso Ancho-Tanque Páez. c. Conexión directa Tanque Páez-Zonas 1 y 5 (distribución). d. Conexión directa Tanque MUCAP-Zonas 2 y 3. e. Instalación de válvulas reductoras de presión. d. Cambios de diámetros indicados, y cierre de anillos en red de casco central. (...) 12. A partir del año 2010, la demanda será mayor a la capacidad de producción del sistema, para lo cual será necesaria la captación de 86.6 L/s del Río Naranjo. Esto cubriría la demanda hasta el final del período de diseño (2022). Deberán realizarse los análisis hidráulico y económico respectivos, para estimar los costos de esta obra. 13. Ha de garantizarse la sostenibilidad de la producción hídrica actual. Para esto, la Municipalidad de Paraíso deberá poner en marcha un programa de monitoreo y protección de los acuíferos captados y sus zonas de recarga, así como de los sitios de toma. Es de vital importancia que se protejan las zonas boscosas que circundan la tomas y cubren los acuíferos explotados." Pues bien, a partir de este informe técnico del AyA, no queda duda de que la decisión del Concejo Municipal de aprobar la dotación de agua potable para el proyecto urbanístico Las Terrazas, resultó sumamente prematura y en ningún momento estuvo amparada en la aprobación por parte del Instituto de Acueductos y Alcantarillados de los planos del anteproyecto, en su carácter de ente técnico especializado en la materia, tal y como lo exige el ordenamiento jurídico. Lejos de ello, del propio acuerdo venido en alzada se desprende que el Concejo reconoce la necesidad de implementar las medidas propuestas por el AyA, en su estudio de optimización del año 2007, especialmente la construcción del Tanque Páez, sin embargo, con un discurso bastante hipotético, termina indicando que esas acciones habrán de ser ejecutadas por el gobierno local mientras se realiza el proyecto de la Urbanización, argumento que no solo carece de toda lógica posible, sino que además revela el irrespeto del Concejo Municipal por las advertencias de naturaleza técnica que en su momento emitió el ente competente en la materia, concretamente relación con el problema de abastecimiento de agua potable en el distrito de Paraíso. Recordemos que la Administración tiene como límite a sus actuaciones, la correcta aplicación de las reglas unívocas de la ciencia o de la técnica, de conformidad con el artículos 15 y 16 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, no pudiendo en ningún momento adoptar actos que violenten o desconozcan tales reglas, so pena de resultar absolutamente nulos, por tener un vicio grave en el motivo del acto. En este caso ello es lo que ha ocurrido, y por tanto, constituye razón más que suficiente para anular el acuerdo venido en alzada, por carecer de sustento técnico que permitiera adoptar la decisión impugnada.
VIII.- Así las cosas, procede acoger el recurso de apelación interpuesto y anular el acuerdo impugnado, dándose por agotada la vía administrativa.-”
Document not found. Documento no encontrado.