← Environmental Law Center← Centro de Derecho Ambiental
Res. 12084-2021 Sala Constitucional · Sala Constitucional · 28/05/2021
OutcomeResultado
The Chamber denied the amparo because no threat to existing access to water was proven and left the technical and legality dispute to ordinary proceedings, while directing ICAA to help the ASADA overcome the water-deficient condition within a reasonable period.La Sala rechazó el amparo porque no comprobó una amenaza al acceso actual al agua y remitió la controversia técnica y de legalidad a la vía ordinaria, aunque indicó al ICAA que debe ayudar a la ASADA a superar la condición deficitaria en un plazo razonable.
SummaryResumen
The Constitutional Chamber denied the amparo filed by the Playa Grande ASADA against the designation of its water-system service area as water-deficient and the suspension of new water-availability certificates. It held that determining administrative authority, the formal validity of the measures, the soundness of technical studies, and the system’s actual water capacity would require examination of ordinary legislation and technical evidence—matters for administrative proceedings or ordinary courts rather than summary amparo review. The Chamber also found no violation or threat to the fundamental right of access to drinking water because service continued for existing subscribers and the restriction concerned only permitted future growth. Nevertheless, under Article 50 of the Constitution and the human right to water, the Chamber directed ICAA authorities to assist the ASADA in addressing the potential future shortage so that the water-deficient designation may be lifted and the issuance of water-availability letters may resume within a reasonable period.La Sala Constitucional rechazó el amparo presentado por la ASADA de Playa Grande contra la declaratoria del área de cobertura de su acueducto como zona deficitaria y la suspensión de nuevas constancias de disponibilidad hídrica. Determinó que revisar la competencia administrativa, la validez formal de los actos, los estudios técnicos y la capacidad real del sistema exige analizar normativa infraconstitucional y prueba técnica, materias propias de la vía administrativa u ordinaria y no del proceso sumario de amparo. Tampoco encontró una lesión o amenaza al derecho fundamental de acceso al agua potable, porque el servicio continuaba prestándose a los abonados existentes y la restricción afectaba únicamente el crecimiento futuro permitido. No obstante, a la luz del artículo 50 constitucional y del derecho humano al agua, ordenó a las autoridades del ICAA tomar medidas para colaborar con la ASADA en la solución del posible faltante, de modo que pueda levantarse la condición deficitaria y reanudarse, en un plazo razonable, la emisión de cartas de disponibilidad.
Key excerptExtracto clave
The challenge to that designation cannot properly be heard because this Chamber is not an overseer of the legality of administrative actions or decisions. It is therefore not for the Chamber to determine, under the applicable subconstitutional rules, whether the order designating the Playa Grande water-system service area as water-deficient was warranted on the ground that it lacks demonstrated water capacity for future new services, much less whether new drinking-water service availability should be granted as requested, since these are matters of ordinary legality. Amparo is, essentially, a summary proceeding. Consequently, when various administrative actions—procedures and formal acts embodied in an administrative record—must be reviewed, the matter falls outside amparo and must be brought in a full adjudicative proceeding available only before the ordinary courts. Amparo is not designed to compare or review technical or legal opinions under subconstitutional law or to take new evidence to test existing evidence, as would be necessary regarding the water system at issue. The respondent authorities report that their technical assessment remains in effect because, to date, the Playa Grande ASADA has presented ICAA with no evidence demonstrating its system’s water capacity, showing that this is fundamentally an evidentiary dispute. Nor has any impairment of or threat to residents’ fundamental right of access to drinking water been established, since service continues to be supplied to current subscribers; the restriction concerns not existing service but the growth of potential single-family homes, the only growth allowed throughout the area. The petitioner must therefore, if she so chooses, present her arguments to the respondent authorities themselves—as she reportedly did through ordinary appeals that have already been decided—or before the ordinary courts, where she may fully litigate the merits and pursue her claims. V.- Nevertheless, the ICAA authorities must take appropriate measures to assist the Playa Grande ASADA in the process it initiated to resolve a potential future water shortage. This assistance must make it possible, within a reasonable period, not only to lift the water-deficient designation but also to issue the required water-availability letters. This is required by Article 50 of the Political Constitution, as supplemented by Article 1 of Law No. 9849 of June 5, 2020, "Recognition and Guarantee of the Human Right of Access to Water," published in La Gaceta No. 159 of July 2, 2020 (Article 50. Every person has the basic and inalienable human right of access to drinking water as a good essential to life. Water is a national good indispensable for protecting that human right. Its use, protection, sustainability, conservation, and exploitation shall be governed by the law enacted for those purposes, and the supply of drinking water for individuals and communities shall have priority). VI.- Conclusion. For the reasons stated, and because no violation of fundamental rights to the detriment of the petitioner or the association she represents has been established, the amparo must be denied in all respects, as hereby ordered.Es improcedente conocer la inconformidad por tal declaratoria, pues esta Sala no es un contralor de la legalidad de las actuaciones o resoluciones de la Administración, de modo que no le compete revisar si procede o no, de conformidad con la normativa infraconstitucional vigente, la orden emanada de considerar la zona de cobertura del acueducto de Playa Grande como zona deficitaria, ya que se estima que no cuenta con capacidad hídrica comprobada para dar cobertura a futuros nuevos servicios, mucho menos si corresponde otorgar disponibilidad de nuevos servicios de agua potable como se demanda, pues se trata de cuestiones de legalidad común. Se advierte que el recurso de amparo es, esencialmente, un proceso sumario. Consecuentemente, cuando es menester revisar diversas actuaciones administrativas –procedimientos y actos formales que se traducen y materializan en un expediente administrativo- el asunto deja de ser materia del amparo, por cuanto, debe acudirse a un proceso de cognición plenaria, sea un proceso de conocimiento pleno, que solo es posible sustanciarlo ante la jurisdicción ordinaria. El amparo no está diseñado para contrastar o revisar criterios técnicos o jurídicos vertidos a la luz del ordenamiento jurídico infraconstitucional o para evacuar nuevos elementos de convicción para contrastar los existente, como sería lo acontecido con el acueducto de interés. Nótese que las autoridades recurridas informan que el criterio técnico emitido se mantiene debido que, a la fecha, la ASADA de Playa Grande no ha presentado al ICAA ninguna prueba que demuestre la capacidad hídrica de su sistema, lo que denota que en el fondo se trata de un asunto probatorio. Aunado a que no ha sido posible determinar alguna afectación o amenaza al derecho fundamental del acceso al agua potable de los pobladores del lugar, como refiere la recurrente, pues se ha informado que se sigue brindando el servicio a sus abonadas y abonados, puesto que la restricción no es para el servicio actual, sino para el crecimiento de posibles viviendas unifamiliares, que es el único crecimiento permitido para toda la zona. Por consiguiente, deberá la recurrente, si a bien lo tiene, plantear sus alegatos ante las propias autoridades accionadas (como se indica que lo hizo mediante la interposición de los recursos ordinarios que ya fueron resueltos) o, en su defecto, en la vía jurisdiccional ordinaria, sedes en las cuales podrá, en forma amplia discutir el fondo del asunto y hacer valer sus pretensiones V.- Ahora bien, deberán las autoridades del ICAA tomar las medidas pertinentes a fin de coadyuvar a la ASADA de Playa Grande en el proceso que iniciaron para solventar un futuro problema de faltante de agua. De manera que permita -en un plazo razonable- no solamente levantar el estado de zona deficitaria, sino también la emisión de las cartas de disponibilidad de agua que se requieran. Lo anterior en cumplimiento del artículo 50 de la Constitución Política, adicionado por el artículo 1° de la Ley No. 9849, del 5 de junio de 2020, "Reconocer y garantizar el derecho humano de acceso al agua", publicado en La Gaceta #159, del 02 de julio de 2020 (Artículo 50. Toda persona tiene el derecho humano, básico e irrenunciable de acceso al agua potable, como bien esencial para la vida. El agua es un bien de la nación, indispensable para proteger tal derecho humano. Su uso, protección, sostenibilidad, conservación y explotación se regirá por lo que establezca la ley que se creará para estos efectos y tendrá prioridad el abastecimiento de agua potable para consumo de las personas y las poblaciones). VI.- Conclusión. Por las razones expuestas y al descartarse alguna infracción de derechos fundamentales en perjuicio de la recurrente o de su representada, lo pertinente es desestimar el recurso de amparo en todos sus extremos, como en efecto se dispone.
Pull quotesCitas destacadas
"La condición de zona deficitaria es temporal, y se deben basar en las recomendaciones brindadas en el oficio para poder levantar la condición."
"The water-deficient designation is temporary, and the recommendations provided in the official communication must be followed in order to lift it."
Informe de la autoridad recurrida
"La condición de zona deficitaria es temporal, y se deben basar en las recomendaciones brindadas en el oficio para poder levantar la condición."
Informe de la autoridad recurrida
"Adicionalmente debe incorporarse al cálculo de balance hídrico, el caudal proveniente del Proyecto Nimboyores, de manera que se pueda cuantificar exactamente el caudal disponible total, para la prestación del servicio de agua potable, a los usuarios del acueducto en tiempo presente y en tiempo futuro (25 años)."
"The flow supplied by the Nimboyores Project must also be incorporated into the water-balance calculation so that the total available flow for providing drinking-water service to current and future users of the system over a 25-year period can be quantified accurately."
Fundamento técnico de la declaratoria
"Adicionalmente debe incorporarse al cálculo de balance hídrico, el caudal proveniente del Proyecto Nimboyores, de manera que se pueda cuantificar exactamente el caudal disponible total, para la prestación del servicio de agua potable, a los usuarios del acueducto en tiempo presente y en tiempo futuro (25 años)."
Fundamento técnico de la declaratoria
"Sin embargo, pese a lo descrito en la minuta CTI-002-2018, con el Estudio Técnico aportado, no se demuestra con certeza la capacidad hídrica del acueducto, como para otorgar nuevos servicios del tipo vivienda unifamiliar o necesidad insoslayable."
"Nevertheless, despite what is stated in memorandum CTI-002-2018, the submitted technical study does not establish with certainty that the water system has sufficient capacity to grant new services for single-family homes or unavoidable needs."
Fundamento técnico de la declaratoria
"Sin embargo, pese a lo descrito en la minuta CTI-002-2018, con el Estudio Técnico aportado, no se demuestra con certeza la capacidad hídrica del acueducto, como para otorgar nuevos servicios del tipo vivienda unifamiliar o necesidad insoslayable."
Fundamento técnico de la declaratoria
"Se declara sin lugar el recurso. Tomen nota las autoridades recurridas de lo indicado en el considerando V de esta sentencia."
"The amparo is denied. The respondent authorities shall take note of the directions stated in section V of this judgment."
Por tanto
"Se declara sin lugar el recurso. Tomen nota las autoridades recurridas de lo indicado en el considerando V de esta sentencia."
Por tanto
Full documentDocumento completo
*210002450007CO* Decision No. 2021012084 CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at eight thirty in the morning on 28 de mayo de dos mil veintiuno.
Application for constitutional relief (recurso de amparo) filed by [Nombre01 001], of legal age, divorced, President of the protected association, identity card No. [CED01], on behalf of Asociación de Acueducto y Alcantarillado Sanitario Vecinos de Playa Grande, legal entity identification No. CED02, against the Director of UEN Gestión de ASADAS and the Head of Oficina de Atención de ASADAS de la Región Chorotega, both of Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados.
Findings of Fact:
Notify the Dirección de Aguas del MINAE, the body responsible for granting water concessions (concesiones de agua), that, in view of the current drought conditions and the current overexploitation of the aquifer (sobreexplotación del acuífero), as evidenced during the last four years of the Huacas–Tamarindo Aquifer monitoring period, it is not technically possible to increase exploitation of this aquifer through wells (new wells or increases in current flow rates). This restriction shall remain in effect until sustainable aquifer-management technical studies demonstrate that the current situation has changed such that current exploitation may be increased without the risk of once again resulting in overexploitation.” (Boldface and underlining are not in the original). In other words, the aquifer may not continue to be overexploited because of the risk of salinization, whether through an increase in its flow rates or the granting of concessions for new wells.
In 2017, an amparo petition (recurso de amparo) was filed, in the proceedings conducted under expediente 17-004535-0007-CO. This petition concerned avoiding placing the aquifer at risk by granting service-availability approvals (disponibilidades de servicio) or new services without proper controls. In this case, the Sala Constitucional ruled through decision No. 2018-002898, whose Por tanto states: “The petition is granted. Sophia Beliard Mora, in her capacity as Administrator of ASADA Playa Potrero-Surfside, and Víctor Reyes Vargas, in his capacity as Head of the Santa Cruz Regional Office of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, or whoever holds those positions, are ordered to refrain from granting new water-availability approvals originating from the Playa Potrero water-supply system until authorized to do so by SENARA” (Boldface and underlining are not in the original).
Although the decision refers to ASADA Playa Potrero Surfside, the condition was subsequently extended, through a later opinion, to all ASADAS supplied by the Acuíferos Huacas-Tamarindo y Potrero-Brasilito, particularly in view of the binding nature of constitutional rulings. The documentation referred to by the petitioner cannot be taken as reflecting the current reality of the water-supply systems. As noted, the CTI CI-002-2018 minutes issued in 2018 assess the current condition of the aquifers and conclude that their exploitation cannot continue. Nor may it be assumed that the concessioned flow rates are those currently being produced by the ASADA’s sources, because the technical study provides no pumping test (prueba de bombeo). Considering them without this information would therefore pose a risk, since exact data, obtained in compliance with applicable regulations and scientific principles, are essential for developing a scientific assessment of the water-supply system’s actual condition.
Regarding the water balance (balance hídrico) of ASADA de Playa Grande, the water-supply system has available, during the first stage of the Nimboyores coastal water-supply system, a flow rate of 4 liters per second (l/s), in addition to a total flow rate concessioned by MINAE under expediente 416-R for 5 registered wells amounting to 16.84 l/s. Nevertheless, the ASADA requires a flow rate of 16.56 l/s for the system to operate properly. It should be noted that, because of climate change and because the flow measurements used for the concession before MINAE were taken between 2004 and 2009, these flow rates do not account for the impacts experienced in the area between 2015 and 2016, when the area’s aquifers were affected, as recorded in decision No. 2018-002898 of the Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia. For this reason, although documents indicate that ASADA de Playa Grande has sufficient flow to supply its population, there is no reliable record that these supply sources are producing the quantities indicated in the flow allocation.
In other words, the flow-allocation documents may indicate that the wells have a specified flow allocated to the association; however, it is currently unknown whether those wells are producing the same quantity of water that was allocated to the ASADA. Accordingly, to demonstrate that the system has the water capacity (capacidad hídrica) to supply current and future users without causing harm, 72-hour pumping tests are required for each of the 5 wells for which flow rates have been allocated to the ASADA. No well lacking an allocation granted by the Dirección de Aguas del MINAE may be included in the calculation. In addition, the ASADA uses 3 wells that have no flow allocated by MINAE, and it is not currently feasible for it to be supplied solely by the coastal project because the system would have a shortfall of approximately 12.56 l/s, in violation of Articles 5, 6, and 7 of the Reglamento de Prestación de Servicios del ICAA.
The technical document “Hydrogeological Methodologies for Water Resources for the Evaluation of Water Resources,” issued on 12 de junio del 2012, states in Article 6(a) that 72-hour pumping tests must be performed on wells intended for urban-development use (uso urbanístico). This is confirmed by oficio GSD-UEN-GAR-2020-05403 (Anexo 4), prepared by Rodolfo Ramírez Villalba, Director of the UEN ASADAS of the ICAA. Because ASADA de Playa Grande cannot confirm whether the flow extracted from its sources is sufficient to supply its population, it is recommended that 72-hour pumping tests be conducted to confirm whether the allocated flow corresponds to the flow supplied by the 5 wells whose flow allocations were granted by MINAE. As stated in the fourth factual allegation of this report, Orac Región Chorotega responded to the motion for reconsideration (recurso de revocatoria) filed by ASADA de Playa Grande, and the Gerencia General ruled on the appeal (recurso en alzada).
However, the decisions and opinions issued as grounds for rejecting the technical study and subsequently declaring a Deficient Area (Zona Deficitaria) are based on the actual capacities of a water-supply system. Specifically, in analyzing the technical study submitted by ASADA de Playa Grande, engineer Oscar Ampié of the Área de Ingeniería de la Orac Región Chorotega, who has the expertise required to analyze such studies, determined that the technical study in question contains several deficiencies and areas for improvement that the ASADA must address or submit, as applicable. In addition, since 30 de junio de 2020, ASADA de Playa Grande has been informed, through oficio GSD-UEN-GAR-2020-02733, of the actions it must take for the Deficient Area declaration to be lifted. Nevertheless, almost seven months later, it has not demonstrated that those improvements have been completed and, instead, has spent its time pursuing administrative and now judicial proceedings in which it provides no technical evidence that the system is capable of granting new services or new service-availability approvals.
It is untrue that the provisions issued by the ICAA that are the subject of this petition flagrantly violate the rights of ASADA de Playa Grande subscribers, as the petitioner asserts. On the contrary, the challenged administrative acts (actos administrativos) were issued to safeguard those rights and interests by protecting the system’s current users and ensuring that no new services or service-availability approvals are granted until the improvements that the ASADA must implement have been completed. The ASADA administers, operates, maintains, and develops the system delegated to it by the ICAA and, to date, has shown no interest in complying, since it has provided no evidence that even some of the stated recommendations have been addressed. Legal argument. Nationalization of the service. The State has exclusively delegated part of its powers to the ICAA. These powers concern the administration, operation, maintenance, and development of water-supply and sewerage systems throughout the country, leading to the conclusion that this public service is nationalized.
This is based on the fact that these services are essential public services (see opinion C-373-03 of 26 de noviembre del 2003 and numerous decisions of the Sala Constitucional establishing access to drinking water as a fundamental right). This means that the ICAA, the Municipalidades, and enterprises authorized by law are the only entities with authority to provide public services directly, together with any private entities to which the ICAA has delegated their provision (indirect provision of public services). In this specific case, ASADA de Playa Grande submitted to the ICAA the Technical Study entitled “Drinking-water supply project administered by the Asociación Administradora del acueducto de Playa Grande.” It was analyzed by engineer Oscar Ampié Bermúdez of the Área de Ingeniería de la Orac Región Chorotega and was not approved because several improvements to the system must be completed, as identified in that study.
The ASADA was so informed through memorandum No. GSD-UEN-GAR-2020-2718, dated 26 de junio de 2020. Consequently, engineer Ampié Bermúdez determined, based on the results of the technical study at issue, that ASADA de Playa Grande must be declared a Deficient Area because the water-supply system lacks demonstrated water capacity to cover future new services. It was therefore recommended that no certificates of service availability (constancias de disponibilidad de servicio) or certificates of water capacity (constancias de capacidad hídrica) be issued while that condition persists. It is important to clarify that Deficient Area status is temporary and contingent on the performance of the works and actions needed to address the area’s needs, as stated in Article 5 of the Reglamento para la Prestación de los Servicios del ICAA. For that purpose, Orac Región Chorotega provided ASADA de Playa Grande with a series of recommendations with which it must comply to emerge from that status; to date, it has not demonstrated compliance.
Another important point is that the provision cited above allows an area declared deficient to grant services for individual residential and commercial units resulting from application of the concept of maximum growth development (desarrollo máximo de crecimiento). However, that maximum growth development must be determined on the understanding that granting new service-availability approvals or new services must not adversely affect service quality and continuity to the detriment of existing services. Right to health and life. Articles 21 and 50 of the Constitución Política establish the rights of persons to life and health, which are closely connected, since life, as the supreme value of the Constitución, entails special protection because, without life, protecting the other fundamental rights would be of little use. Accordingly, life must be protected in all its dimensions—physical, mental, and environmental—and it is precisely here that the importance of protecting both the environment and natural resources arises, in order to promote people’s well-being.
Among other things, that well-being is achieved by protecting and preserving the quality and quantity of water resources so that the water is fit for human consumption, thereby protecting people’s health. Because water is a resource necessary for hygiene, food preparation, and drinking, its contamination or mismanagement can cause serious harm to public health.
In this regard, the protection, conservation, and management of the services must be provided by the State (ICAA, Municipalidades, or ASADAS under a delegation agreement), in order to guarantee access to that resource for all persons and to ensure compliance with these obligations. It is within this framework that the right to water arises, which is protected by the Constitutional Court. It is reiterated that the State has delegated to ICAA the responsibility to “Direct and oversee all matters concerning the provision to the inhabitants of the Republic of drinking-water service, the collection and disposal of sewage and liquid industrial waste, and stormwater in urban areas,” and it must guarantee this right to health and life. For this reason, the Orac Región Chorotega, through official letter No. GSD-UEN-GAR-2020-02737 dated 29 de junio de 2020 and signed by you, informed the ASADA de Playa Grande that the service area of the aqueduct administered by that operator was provisionally declared a water-deficient area (zona deficitaria), and that such declaration was contingent upon the ASADA demonstrating, through a water balance (balance hídrico), the aqueduct’s actual water capacity (capacidad hídrica).
The foregoing was based on technical report No. GSD-UEN-GAR-2020-02733, prepared on 26 de junio del 2020 by engineer Oscar Ampié. Nevertheless, to date, the ASADA de Playa Grande has not submitted to ICAA any evidence demonstrating its system’s water capacity; consequently, the technical opinion issued by the Orac Región Chorotega must remain in effect. Regarding operators of aqueduct and sewerage services: ICAA, the Municipalidades, and companies authorized by law are the only entities with jurisdiction to provide public services directly, together with the ASADAS to which ICAA has delegated such provision (indirect provision of public services through a delegation agreement). All of the foregoing are subject to the principle of legality (principio de legalidad) and may do no more than the law permits them to do; therefore, they may not disregard the requirements established in the regulations governing this subject matter.
The Constitutional Chamber has ruled on cases in which valid reasons exist for denying service, concluding that service may be denied when infrastructure is unavailable, when the service currently enjoyed by system users would be adversely affected, and when the requirements have not been met. “Accordingly, its status as a fundamental right does not entail unrestricted access to water services, because the administration may validly establish general requirements that every applicant must satisfy in order for the applicant’s particular request to be evaluated. Thus, the possibility of limiting the granting of new water service connections (pajas de agua) is recognized for the purpose of ensuring continuity in the provision of the public drinking-water supply service to current users and residences receiving that service—see judgments numbers 2007-17475, of eleven hours and five minutes on treinta de noviembre de dos mil siete, and 2008-11390, of eleven hours and twenty-nine minutes on veintidós de julio de dos mil ocho.” (Boldface and underlining are not in the original.) It is therefore understood that, although there is a fundamental right of access to drinking water that may be asserted against the corresponding administration, the provision of the service may properly be made subject to the existence of a material and formal ability to supply it and to the absence of technical circumstances that prevent or counsel against the administration’s provision of drinking-water service (Voto No. 2009-009936).
Regarding the enforceability of the administrative act (ejecutoriedad del acto administrativo). The enforceability of an administrative act is its capacity to produce effects, even against the will of the obligated party, without the Administration having to resort to the courts to obtain an order requiring compliance. As the governing entity, ICAA has the authority required under the legal system currently in force to issue opinions and directives to the ASADAS regarding the public service they provide by delegation. Such opinions and directives are mandatory pursuant to sections 2, subsections 27 and 28; 37, subsections c) and f); and 105 of the Reglamento de ASADAS, under penalty of the corresponding civil and/or criminal sanctions being imposed on members of the Board of Directors, the Oversight Office, or employees of the ASADAS who fail to comply with those guidelines, as established in section 21 of the same body of regulations.
Por tanto, the administrative act issued by the ORAC Región Chorotega through official letter No. GSD-UEN-GAR-2020-02722, communicating that the Technical Study submitted by the ASADA de Playa Grande had not been approved, and the administrative act communicated through official letter No. GSD-UEN-GAR-2020-02737, concerning the declaration of the water-deficient area, were issued in accordance with law and are immediately enforceable, because they have the technical support of the Engineering Department of the ORAC. Regarding the appellant’s specific request. On 12 de julio de 2019, the ORAC Región Chorotega of ICAA received the technical study entitled “Documentation and Analysis of the Drinking-Water Supply System in the Comunidad de Playa Grande de Santa Cruz,” prepared by the consulting firm Hidrotec Internacional Tecnología Líquida S.A. The ORAC Engineering Department analyzed and reviewed that technical study, after which recommendations were issued in memorandum GSD-UEN-GAR-2020-02718, issued on 26 de junio del 2020 by engineer Oscar Ampié.
The purpose of that technical study was to determine whether the aqueduct system of the ASADA de Playa Grande has sufficient water and hydraulic capacity (capacidad hídrica e hidráulica) to supply its users efficiently and in compliance with public-service principles, both at present and in the future. Additionally, as part of the evaluation of the system’s existing hydraulic infrastructure, water quality was assessed to ensure that the water was fit for human consumption. The proposed improvements set forth in the study were also assessed to confirm whether they represented the best and most suitable solutions for the aqueduct, provided that it was technically feasible to implement them. Finally, other significant improvements that had not been considered in the submitted technical study were added to the hydraulic-infrastructure improvements. Based on the analysis and review of that technical study submitted by the ASADA de Playa Grande, engineer Oscar Ampié determined that the data provided regarding the flow rates of the wells used by the ASADA to supply its users came from flow measurements (aforos), rather than pumping tests (pruebas de bombeo).
In such a case, the flow-measurement values represent an extraction rate over a very short period and do not correspond to advisable extraction rates established through a 72-hour pumping test, which is the required testing period under Article 6(a) of the standard Metodologías Hidrogeológicas para la Evaluación del Recurso Hídrico and memorandum No. GSD-UEN-GAR-2020-05403, dated 17 de diciembre de 2020, issued by Lic. Rodolfo Ramírez Villalba, Director de la UEN Gestión de ASADAS. A pumping test represents a well’s extraction capacity within the aqueduct system. It is reiterated that Article 6(a) of the standard Metodologías Hidrogeológicas para la Evaluación del Recurso Hídrico states that the pumping period for population-supply purposes must be 72 hours. If flow-measurement rates are used to estimate an aqueduct’s water capacity, the result or conclusion used to determine whether sufficient water exists to meet the system’s water demand will not be reliable, because it will reflect the extraction capacity of the system’s wells only over a short time interval.
The Norma Técnica para Diseño y Construcción de Sistemas de Abastecimiento de Agua Potable, Saneamiento y Pluvial 2017 states in subsection 4.8 that projects with their own supply must submit a copy of the concession document authorizing exploitation of the well or other supply source. At a minimum, the concessioned flow rate (caudal concesionado) must equal the maximum daily flow rate when the project includes storage and the maximum hourly flow rate when the project does not include storage. In addition, the pumping test or flow measurements for the other supply sources, as applicable, and the corresponding technical studies must be provided. Accordingly, because the technical study submitted by the appellant does not contain reliable data for determining whether the Playa Grande aqueduct has sufficient water capacity, it is recommended that no new water-availability approvals (disponibilidades de agua) be granted provisionally unless and until the ASADA demonstrates otherwise.
The ORAC does not have pumping-test data or results from the last four years with which to establish the available flow rate of the ASADA de Playa Grande; therefore, it cannot be guaranteed that the association is complying with section 28(c) of the Reglamento de ASADAS. Although the submitted technical study included no documentation concerning the flow-rate concession granted by MINAE for the ASADA’s wells, the concession for those wells, according to expediente 416-R MINAE, is 16.84l/s. To establish that this concessioned flow rate corresponds to the actual extraction performed by the ASADA or the potential extraction performed by the operating entity, the flow-measurement figure is insufficient for the reasons stated above. Instead, pumping-test data are required in order to determine whether the system has sufficient capacity. The Reglamento para la prestación de los servicios del ICAA, which is binding on the ASADAS, establishes the obligation to issue water-capacity certificates (constancias de capacidad hídrica), service-availability certificates (disponibilidad de servicios), or new services whenever technical feasibility (factibilidad técnica) exists, as defined in section 5 of that body of regulations.
Upon review and/or analysis of the technical study for the Playa Grande aqueduct, the data provided do not make it possible to verify or establish whether the aqueduct administered by the ASADA has sufficient available water capacity to supply its users at present and in the future (25 years); that is, no proven technical feasibility exists. On the contrary, the information submitted—which does not conform to the prescribed technical methodology—shows an available flow rate lower than the registered rate. It is reiterated that, for any ASADA to provide new services, the system must have the actual capacity to comply with public-service principles, in addition to satisfying legal and environmental requirements that do not adversely affect the provision of existing services. For a supply source to be lawfully exploited, it must be registered with the competent authority, specifically the Dirección de Agua del MINAE. However, the technical study submitted by the ASADA de Playa Grande does not indicate whether the operator has been assigned the stated flow rate from the wells for human consumption.
Although the terms set forth herein are more closely related to service provision, the essential preliminary step is obtaining service availability (disponibilidad de servicios), as regulated in Article 20 of the Reglamento para la prestación de los servicios del ICAA, and the technical opinion supporting the certificate must refer, at a minimum, to the water capacity (capacidad hídrica) and hydraulic capacity (capacidad hidráulica) of the systems whose coverage corresponds to the application; it must also include verification of compliance with the urban-planning and construction regulations governing real-estate development. In summary, for an ASADA to grant new services or new service availabilities, its sources must have a permitted flow rate (caudal concesionado), its systems must have demonstrated water and hydraulic capacity, and the new applications must also satisfy the basic processing requirements.
Article 5 of the Reglamento para la Prestación de Servicios del ICAA defines water capacity as the “existence of water resources with the technical and operational feasibility required for the production of drinking water to be supplied by the ICAA”; in the case of the Playa Grande water-supply system (acueducto), the data and information provided in the Technical Study submitted by the ASADA do not demonstrate the existence of the water resources, and therefore, in this case, it is not advisable for that operator to continue issuing new certificates of service availability (constancias de disponibilidad de servicios), certificates of water capacity (constancias de capacidad hídrica), or new services until the requirements identified by engineer Oscar Ampié in memoranda No. GSD-UEN-GAR-2020-02718 and GSD-UEN-GAR-2020-2733, both dated 26 de junio del 2020, have been addressed. The aforementioned provision also states that service availability for water supply is the “actual and present, rather than future or potential, existence of the works and overall infrastructure required, as well as sufficient water-supply capacity to meet the service needs of a given population” (boldface not in the original).
Finally, the provision in question states that technical feasibility (factibilidad técnica) is an indispensable requirement for granting a service; therefore, the systems must have sufficient water, hydraulic, drinking-water treatment, and wastewater-treatment capacity to serve new connections, the system must comply with the established quality standards, and the service must be legally and environmentally feasible. At present, these matters have not been verified through the Technical Study submitted by the ASADA de Playa Grande to the Orac Región Chorotega, and, nearly seven months after the ASADA was notified, no new evidence has been submitted demonstrating that the operator has begun implementing the improvements recommended in memoranda No. GSD-UEN-GAR-2020-02718 and GSD-UEN-GAR-2020-02733, both dated 26 de junio del 2020 and issued by engineer Oscar Ampié. For all the foregoing reasons, the technical study is not approved by the Área de Ingeniería de la ORAC Región Chorotega because the information and data provided are neither reliable nor sufficient to issue the corresponding opinion regarding the water capacity of the water-supply system, the legality of the wells, the use of the wells (aprovechamiento de los pozos), water quality, and corrective actions or procedures concerning the land and/or access and pipeline easements (servidumbres de paso y de tubería) in favor of the ASADA.
Additionally, emphasis must be placed on the statements in official letter/minutes CTI-002-2018, prepared by the Comisión Técnica Interinstitucional composed of SENARA, MINAE, and the ICAA, concerning the management of water resources in the area and the recommendation against excessive overexploitation of the aquifers located in the Potrero-Caimital-Huacas-Tamarindo area. The Comisión Técnica Interinstitucional para la Gestión de Acuíferos held a meeting at which it analyzed the scope of Resolution No. 2018-002898 in expediente 17-0004535-007-CO of the Sala Constitucional. “As the sole item, it was agreed that the Comité Técnico Interinstitucional para la Gestión de Acuíferos, hereinafter CTI, shall establish a working strategy to implement the orders of this Constitutional Court in order to address the supply needs arising from natural population growth (crecimiento vegetativo) in the communities located within the coastal aquifers of Santa Cruz (Huacas-Tamarindo, Potrero, Brasilito).” The following was established as a conclusion of this analysis: “Considering that, from a technical standpoint, it is not advisable to maintain unlimited water extraction from the aforementioned coastal aquifers, and taking into account the aquifers’ current technical conditions, the CTI does not recommend increasing their extraction levels except to serve the following activities: Low-consumption activities, such as: • Supplying water to new single-family homes for domestic use on a lot, provided that they are not located within new urban developments or within a subdivision (fraccionamiento) of the same property.
Unavoidable needs, such as: • Permanent public needs (educational centers, police stations, health centers) and temporary public activities duly authorized by the competent entities (mass events, fairs, emergency shelters).” Regarding the referenced minutes, the Presidencia Ejecutiva del ICAA prepared official letter PRE-2018-00960, which explained the issue of these service availabilities and the new services that may be granted by the ASADAS affected by the CTI’s opinion, and also stated that the coastal water-supply system was expected to begin operating during the first quarter of 2019 in order to reduce pressure on the aquifers. Although the coastal water-supply system is now operational, the CTI has not yet issued any opinion modifying the provisions of Minuta No. CTI-002-2018; therefore, the ASADAS may issue service availabilities or grant new services only as stated therein. The conclusions set forth in the minutes also make clear that “increasing their extraction levels is not recommended”; with respect to the existing sources in the area, this means that no operator will be permitted to increase flow rates or establish new sources under the aquifers’ current conditions.
The ASADA de Playa Grande has provided no evidence of any grounds for modifying the recommendation against issuing certificates of water capacity, certificates of service availability, or new services. According to the technical study that it conducted, which was reviewed by the Área de Ingeniería de la ORAC, certain matters in the report must be corrected and improvements must be made to the system in order to guarantee optimal water-supply service; moreover, the data provided in that study do not establish the system’s water capacity. Memorandum No. GSD-UEN-GAR-2020-02718 lists all the improvements that the ASADA must complete before the referenced technical study may be approved. As a consequence of determining that essential information was missing from the technical report submitted by the ASADA de Playa Grande, the Área de Ingeniería issued memorandum No. GSD-UEN-GAR-2020-2733, declaring the area a deficit zone (zona deficitaria) because the system lacks “demonstrated water capacity to provide coverage for future new services,” pursuant to section 5 of the Reglamento para la prestación de los servicios del ICAA.
Additionally, with respect to the flow rate allocated from the Proyecto Nimboyores to the ASADA de Playa Grande, on 21 de agosto del 2020, the Área de Ingeniería de la ORAC Región Chorotega issued technical opinion No. GSD-UEN-GAR-2020-03500, which states: “The flow rate supplied to the ASADA de Playa Grande by Phase I of the ICAA’s Proyecto Nimboyores is insufficient to cover the existing services of the water-supply system in 2020. The flow rate provided by the wells used by the ASADA must be added; however, the wells’ water capacity must be demonstrated through the pumping tests (pruebas de bombeo) requested in the Technical Study. By 2023, the flow rate from Phase I of the Proyecto Nimboyores, together with the flow rate from Phase II of the same Project, could provide coverage for the ASADA’s services. It should be clarified that, based on the Executive Summary of the ICAA’s Proyecto Ampliación y Mejoramiento del Acueducto Costero de Santa Cruz del 2020 and its construction schedule, the Proyecto Nimboyores is expected to be completed in its entirety in marzo del 2023.
According to the Executive Summary of the ICAA’s Proyecto Ampliación y Mejoramiento del Acueducto Costero de Santa Cruz del 2020, the following is estimated for the ASADA Playa Grande de Santa Cruz: Phase I: 4 l/s. Phase II: 10 l/s.” The opinion in question concludes: “Therefore, beginning in 2023, the ASADA Playa Grande de Santa Cruz could cease to be in deficit status with respect to water resources, provided that the projected completion schedule for the ICAA’s entire Proyecto Nimboyores is fully met. Additionally, the ASADA must undertake the tank repair or construction work needed to improve its storage capacity.” Regarding the declaration of a deficit zone applicable to the ASADA de Playa Grande, it is necessary to note that Article 5 of the Reglamento para la Prestación de los Servicios del ICAA provides: “In this type of area, services shall be approved only for individual housing units and individual businesses resulting from the application of the concept of ‘maximum growth development’ (desarrollo máximo de crecimiento).” In defining maximum growth development, the same provision states: “It must be determined that granting service availability and any resulting connections does not adversely affect service quality and continuity to the detriment of existing services.” (boldface and underlining not in the original).
In other words, under the provision in question, only services for individual housing units and individual businesses resulting from the concept of maximum growth development may be approved in areas declared to be deficit zones. Before doing so, however, it must be determined that granting such services or service availabilities will not adversely affect the quality or continuity of existing services or otherwise impair them. Consequently, services for individual housing units and individual businesses cannot always be granted in a deficit zone, since it must first be demonstrated that existing users will not be affected, which the ASADA de Playa Grande has not done to date. It bears repeating that the appellant is incorrect in asserting that the declaration of the Playa Grande water-supply system as a deficit zone flagrantly violates its users’ rights. On the contrary, through these measures, the ICAA seeks to safeguard the rights and interests of current users by ensuring that no new services or service availabilities are granted until the ASADA has implemented the required improvements.
The ASADA administers, operates, maintains, and develops the system delegated to it by the ICAA and, to date, has shown no interest in complying, as it has submitted no evidence that even some of the identified recommendations have been addressed.
In conclusion, the data presented by the Playa Grande ASADA in the Technical Study entitled “Drinking Water Supply Project Administered by the Playa Grande Aqueduct Administration Association” are neither reliable nor sufficient to determine whether the Playa Grande aqueduct has water-supply capacity (capacidad hídrica). Therefore, it is recommended that no new provisional water-availability approvals (disponibilidades de agua) be granted until evidence to the contrary is provided, given that the Chorotega Regional Office (Orac Región Chorotega) has no pumping-test data or results from the past four years with which to determine the flow rate (caudal) available to that operator. In view of all the foregoing, the technical study is not approved by the Engineering Department of the ORAC Región Chorotega because, as reiterated, the information and data provided are neither reliable nor sufficient regarding the aqueduct’s water-supply capacity, the legality of the wells, use of the wells, water quality, and corrective actions or measures concerning the land and/or rights-of-way and pipeline easements (servidumbres de paso y de tubería) in favor of the ASADA.
For this reason, it was determined that there are issues in the technical report and the system that must be remedied to ensure the optimal provision of aqueduct service; furthermore, the data provided in that study do not make it possible to determine the system’s water-supply capacity. Memorandum No. GSD-UEN-GAR-2020-02718 sets forth all the improvements that the ASADA must make before the aforementioned technical study may be approved. As a result of identifying the irregularities in the technical study submitted, the Engineering Department issued Memorandum No. GSD-UEN-GAR-2020-2733, declaring the area a supply-deficient zone (zona deficitaria) because the system does not have “demonstrated water-supply capacity to provide coverage for future new services,” pursuant to section 5 of the Reglamento para la prestación de los servicios del ICAA. In the present case, the ASADA seeks an exemption (eximente), but the ICAA cannot depart from the legal system or from scientific and technical principles in a manner that would allow it to disregard the legal system in order to accept assertions lacking sufficient technical or legal support.
Specifically, the reasoning and justification are that the supply system serving the sector does not meet the conditions necessary to guarantee the basic principles of public service. This is not arbitrary information from the Institution; technical studies support the decision, and the system cannot be further degraded by granting availability approvals and/or services and water-supply-capacity letters (cartas de capacidad hídrica) without restriction. It would be irresponsible for the ICAA to grant the request under those conditions while disregarding, once again, technical and legal considerations. The Playa Grande ASADA requests that the determination not to grant further service-availability approvals or new services be annulled, alleging that the lives of the residents of the Playa Grande community are being adversely affected. However, the ASADA continues providing service to its customers, since the restriction does not apply to current service but rather to the development of potential single-family homes (which is the only development permitted throughout the area, as determined in minutes 002-2018-CTI).
The potential effect on residents who depend on tourism should not be conflated with the rejection of a deficient technical study that results in a restriction on granting availability approvals and new services (declaration of a supply-deficient zone), because the technical and evidentiary criteria demonstrating that the system is capable of expansion have not been met. It would be irresponsible for the Institution to allow a system to expand without the elements necessary to do so without posing a risk. The Sala Constitucional would err in granting the relief sought by the petitioner ASADA, as doing so would be contrary to the Principle of Legality (Principio de Legalidad) and to the scientific and technical principles set forth in Articles11 and 16 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, because no exemption exists that would relieve the Playa Grande ASADA from complying with the recommendations issued by the Engineering Department of the Región Chorotega through Memoranda No. GSD-UEN-GAR-2020-02718 and GSD-UEN-GAR-2020-02733, both dated June 26, 2020 and issued by engineer Oscar Ampié, given that the directives issued by the Institution are mandatory.
Based on the foregoing factual and legal arguments, it requests: 1. That the present appeal (recurso) be denied in its entirety. 2. That the ICAA not be ordered to pay costs, damages, or losses, since its actions have been lawful and grounded in the regulations currently in force and in administrative and judicial case law. 3. That the case file (expediente) be closed.
Regarding the agreement adopted by the Comisión Técnica Interinstitucional, which describes the scopes of application concerning the regulated use of water resources (uso racionado del recurso hídrico) in the coastal sector of Santa Cruz, it should be noted that since the agreement adopted through minute CI-002-2018 entered into force and since mid-February 2020, when the Santa Cruz coastal aqueduct (acueducto costero) began operating, that Comisión Técnica has not issued any further decision, nor has the restriction on the unlimited use of the available flow rates (caudales) from the Huacas-Tamarindo, Potrero and Brasilito aquifers (acuíferos) been lifted; therefore, the agreement described in minute CI-002-2018 remains in force unless that Comisión indicates otherwise. The report responding to the amparo appeal (recurso de amparo) further stated that there is a ruling of the Sala Constitucional concerning this coastal aqueduct, namely vote No. 2018-002898, whose Por tanto states: “The appeal is granted.
Sophia Beliard Mora, in her capacity as Administrator of ASADA Playa Potrero-Surfside, and Víctor Reyes Vargas, in his capacity as Head of the Oficina Regional de Santa Cruz del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, or whoever may hold those positions, are ordered to refrain from granting new water availability approvals (disponibilidades de agua) originating from the Playa Potrero aqueduct until SENARA authorizes them to do so.” Although the vote refers to ASADA Playa Potrero Surfside, the condition was subsequently extended, through a later opinion, to all ASADAS supplied by the Huacas-Tamarindo and Potrero-Brasilito aquifers, particularly given the binding nature of constitutional rulings. ICAA has not exceeded its authority; on the contrary, it is exercising its powers as Governing Authority (Ente Rector) to ensure compliance with the principles governing public services and the provision of service without detriment to the system’s current users, because ASADA de Playa Grande has neither implemented the improvements referenced in memorandum No. GSD-UEN-GAR-2020-02718, dated 26 June 2020, nor submitted the relevant technical evidence or information in the technical study (estudio técnico) concerning the water capacity (capacidad hídrica) of the system it operates.
Consequently, this institution is required to maintain the area’s designation as a deficit zone (declaratoria de zona deficitaria). With respect specifically to the “evidence for further adjudication” (“prueba para mejor resolver”) submitted by the appellant, it is concluded that the evidence submitted at that time was not part of the information presented in the technical-study document received by ICAA on 12 July 2019, nor was it submitted to ICAA before the Deficit Zone designation. Most of the images of the water-quality analyses submitted in the “evidence for further adjudication” document are blurry and insufficiently legible overall to verify which well they came from and determine whether they comply with the Reglamento de Calidad de Agua. The pumping tests (pruebas de bombeo) submitted in the “evidence for further adjudication” document for well 1, well 2, well 3, well 4, well 5, well 7, well 8, and well 9 were conducted for 24 hours rather than 72 hours, as established in Article 6(a) of the Metodologías Hidrogeológicas para la Evaluación del Recurso Hídrico standard; therefore, those tests do not satisfy the requirements for determining the actual production capacity of the wells described.
For this reason, and because ASADA de Playa Grande has not submitted evidence to ICAA showing that it complied with the matters referenced in memorandum No. GSD-UEN-GAR-2020-02718, dated 26 June 2020, its status as a deficit zone could not be changed. If this honorable Court orders ICAA to lift that designation, it would be compelling ICAA to breach its duties as Governing Authority and contravene its own regulations, without overlooking the fact that this could seriously harm the system’s current users. Based on the foregoing factual and legal arguments, it requests: 1. That this appeal be dismissed in its entirety. 2. That ICAA not be ordered to lift the ICAA to pay costs, damages, and losses, given that the actions taken have been lawful and grounded in the regulations currently in force and in administrative and judicial case law. 4. That the case file (expediente) be closed.
Justice Garro Vargas writes; and,
Whereas:
I.Subject matter of the appeal. The appellant alleges that ICAA’s designation of the service area of the Playa Grande ASADA as a water-deficient area (zona deficitaria), and its suspension of the issuance of new certificates of availability of potable-water services (constancias de disponibilidad de servicios de agua potable) and water-capacity certificates (constancias de capacidad hídrica) for single-family homes and commercial establishments, constitute a threat to the fundamental right of local residents to access potable water.
II.Proven facts. For purposes of deciding this matter, the following facts are deemed duly established, either because they have been proven or because the respondents failed to address them as ordered in the initial ruling:
III.Provision of potable-water service. One of the most important public services is the supply of potable water, since its relationship to the protection of the rights to health and life is beyond dispute. The State is therefore obligated to guarantee both the purity of water for human consumption and the continuity of its supply as essential elements in the provision of this public service, all for the purpose of protecting users’ well-being. In our country, responsibility for providing this public service lies with ICAA pursuant to subsection a) of Article 2 of Law 2726 of catorce de abril de mil novecientos sesenta y uno, without prejudice to the provisions of subsection g) of that Article.
IV.The specific case. The reports submitted under oath by the respondent authorities, after due warning of the consequences set forth in Article 44 of the Law on Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional), together with the evidence entered into the case record (expediente), show that, before ICAA designated the Playa Grande ASADA as a water-deficient area, the Engineering Department of Orac Región Chorotega evaluated the technical study submitted by that operator, entitled “Potable-Water Supply Project Administered by the Playa Grande Aqueduct Administration Association.” By memorandum No. GSD-UEN-GAR-2020-02718, dated 26 de junio de 2020, engineer Oscar Ampié Bermúdez declined to approve it and stated that, in order to receive a favorable technical opinion, the ASADA had to remedy 10 specific issues detailed in that memorandum. Those issues are as follows: “1. The water-quality analyses for the wells used by the Playa Grande ASADA must be submitted, including Operational Control and levels N1, N2 and N3. 2.
It must be clarified whether the wells are registered with the Water Directorate of MINAE (location and elevation coordinates), and the concession flow rate for human consumption must be stated. 3. A 24-hour pumping test (prueba de bombeo) must be submitted for the wells used by the Playa Grande ASADA in order to determine the actual production capacity of each source, preferably during the most critical month of the dry season. 4. The flow supplied by Proyecto Nimboyores must be incorporated into the water-balance calculation in order to determine the total actual water capacity of the Playa Grande ASADA. 5. It must be stated whether the land on which the wells and tank are located belongs to the ASADA or to private parties; if it belongs to the ASADA, land-registry documentation must also be submitted. Otherwise, action plans should be recommended for registering the land in the name of the ASADA. 6.
The construction plans must be updated to include recent changes to the pipeline network. 7. Any proposed improvements to the aqueduct’s hydraulic infrastructure network must be shown in detail on the construction plans, including pipe anchors, if necessary, as well as details of any culvert crossings or other features, and must be reflected in the construction budget. 8. For wells that lack an adequate pump house, construction of such facilities must be recommended, together with the installation of new control panels, wellheads, well manifolds, and components of the discharge pipeline leading to the tanks, including pressure gauges, valves, etc.; these items must be reflected in the improvement costs. 9. For the land on which the wells and tank are located, a perimeter chain-link fence 2m high with three strands of barbed wire must be recommended and reflected in the construction budget. 10.
With regard to the existing storage tank, the recommended solution is to construct a new tank at sufficient elevation to supply all aqueduct services, thereby eliminating booster pumping or direct pumping into the network. Standard ICAA designs may be used.” It has been established that the results of this technical study were communicated to the Playa Grande ASADA through official letter No. GSD-UEN-GAR-2020-02722, dated 26 de junio de 2020 and issued by the reporting official, which was sent to email address ...01 on 29 de junio de 2020. Likewise, the memorandum in which engineer Ampié Bermúdez designated the Playa Grande ASADA as a water-deficient area was No. GSD-UEN-GAR-2020-02733, dated 26 de junio del 2020; it was communicated to that operator through official letter No. GSD-UEN-GAR-2020-02737, dated 29 de junio de 2020 and issued by the reporting official, with notice given on 30 de junio de 2020.
Indeed, technical report No. GSD-UEN-GAR-2020-02733, dated 26 de junio de 2020, shows that engineer Oscar Ampié Bermúdez determined that the Playa Grande aqueduct’s service area had to be designated a water-deficient area because it lacked proven water capacity to cover potential new services, in accordance with official letter No. GSD-UEN-GAR-2020-02718. He further recommended that no certificates of service availability or water-capacity certificates be issued while that status remained in effect. He clarified that the water-deficient-area designation was temporary and contingent upon the completion of the works and actions required to address the area’s needs, adding the following in support:
“With respect to water capacity, the ASADA must conduct 24-hour pumping tests on the wells authorized or licensed by the Water Directorate of MINAE for human consumption in order to determine the actual capacity of each source for evaluation in the system’s water balance.
Additionally, the flow originating from Proyecto Nimboyores must be incorporated into the water-balance calculation so that the total available flow for providing potable-water service to the aqueduct’s users, both at present and in the future (25 years), may be quantified accurately.
Additionally, official letter/minutes CTI-002-2018 addresses water-resource management (manejo del recurso hídrico) and recommends against the excessive exploitation of the aquifers located in the Potrero-Caimital-Huacas-Tamarindo area. Accordingly, it is not recommended that levels of use be increased by granting water-availability approvals to new projects or urban developments, to lots within existing urban developments, or to lots resulting from the subdivision (fraccionamiento) of a single property. Only low consumption for single-family housing or unavoidable needs is permitted, including permanent public needs such as educational centers, police stations, health centers, and temporary public activities duly authorized by the competent authority.
However, notwithstanding what is described in minutes CTI-002-2018, the Technical Study submitted does not establish with certainty the water-supply capacity (capacidad hídrica) of the aqueduct so as to grant new services for single-family housing or unavoidable necessity. Therefore, as a provisional measure, granting availability for services of this type is likewise not recommended, so as not to jeopardize the provision of drinking-water service to the ASADA’s existing customers, unless evidence to the contrary is provided.” The appellant, in her capacity as President of that Association, expresses disagreement with the declaration of the aqueduct managed by the ASADA de Playa Grande as a water-deficient zone (zona deficitaria). She states that the governing authority is attempting to apply the conditions and guidelines applicable to a restricted zone (zona de restricción) to a water-deficient zone as though they were the same, without complying with the formalities established in its own regulations to safeguard the right of defense and due administrative process (debido procedimiento administrativo).
This also results in a restriction on the drinking-water supply service provided by the respondent institution under a delegation agreement, even though the substantive and procedural requirements for that act to have the corresponding enforceability and executory effect (ejecutividad y ejecutoriedad) have not been met. She asserts that the respondent institute ordered the suspension of approvals for water-availability certificates (constancias de disponibilidad de agua), water-supply-capacity certificates (constancias de capacidad hídrica), and new services; however, this was done not through a reasoned decision but by means of a simple official communication that was not even addressed to the ASADA. She considers that maintaining the effects of the declaration of a water-deficient zone and suspending the issuance of service-availability and water-supply-capacity certificates constitute a threat to the fundamental right of the local residents to access drinking water.
She requests that the petition be granted and that “the respondents be ordered to take immediate and appropriate action to revoke the declaration of a restricted zone affecting the territorial jurisdiction of this operating entity or, should that restriction remain in place, to permit the issuance of service-availability certificates for individual residential units and individual businesses, as provided by the regulations in force.” Review of the disagreement with that declaration is inadmissible because this Chamber is not a supervisory body charged with reviewing the legality of administrative actions or decisions. It is therefore not for this Chamber to determine whether, under the applicable subconstitutional regulations, the order designating the service area of the Playa Grande aqueduct as a water-deficient zone is proper, on the ground that it is deemed not to have demonstrated water-supply capacity to cover potential new services, much less whether availability for new drinking-water services must be granted as requested, since these are matters of ordinary legality.
It should be noted that the petition for constitutional relief (recurso de amparo) is essentially a summary proceeding. Consequently, when various administrative actions must be reviewed—procedures and formal acts reflected and embodied in an administrative case file (expediente administrativo)—the matter ceases to fall within the scope of constitutional relief, because recourse must be had to plenary proceedings, that is, full adjudicatory proceedings, which may be conducted only before the ordinary courts. Constitutional relief is not designed to compare or review technical or legal opinions rendered under the subconstitutional legal framework, or to receive new evidence to weigh against the existing evidence, as would be the case with the aqueduct at issue. It should be noted that the respondent authorities report that the technical opinion issued remains in effect because, to date, the ASADA de Playa Grande has not submitted any evidence to the ICAA demonstrating its system’s water-supply capacity, which shows that the matter is fundamentally evidentiary.
Moreover, it has not been possible to establish any impairment of or threat to the fundamental right of local residents to access drinking water, as the appellant claims, since it has been reported that service continues to be provided to its female and male customers; the restriction does not apply to current service, but rather to the development of potential single-family homes, which is the only development permitted throughout the area. Accordingly, if she deems it appropriate, the appellant must submit her arguments to the respondent authorities themselves—as she reportedly did by filing the ordinary administrative appeals, which have already been decided—or, alternatively, before the ordinary courts, where she may fully argue the merits of the matter and assert her claims.
V.Nevertheless, the ICAA authorities must take the appropriate measures to assist the ASADA de Playa Grande in the process it initiated to address a potential future water shortage. This assistance must make it possible—within a reasonable period—not only to lift the water-deficient-zone designation, but also to issue any required water-availability letters (cartas de disponibilidad de agua). This is required pursuant to Article 50 of the Constitución Política, as supplemented by Article 1° of Ley No. 9849, of 5 de junio de 2020, “Recognize and Guarantee the Human Right of Access to Water,” published in La Gaceta #159, of 02 de julio de 2020 (Article 50. Every person has the basic and inalienable human right of access to drinking water as an essential resource for life. Water is an asset of the nation and is indispensable for protecting that human right. Its use, protection, sustainability, conservation, and exploitation shall be governed by the law enacted for those purposes, and the supply of drinking water for consumption by individuals and communities shall have priority).
VI.Conclusion. For the reasons stated, and because no violation of fundamental rights to the detriment of the appellant or the entity she represents has been established, the appropriate disposition is to deny the petition for constitutional relief in its entirety, as is hereby ordered.
VII.Documentation submitted to the case file. The parties are advised that if they submitted any paper document, as well as any objects or evidence contained on any additional electronic, computer, magnetic, optical, or telematic device, or produced using new technologies, they must retrieve those items from the Clerk’s Office within a maximum period of thirty business days from notification of this judgment. Otherwise, any material not retrieved within that period shall be destroyed, pursuant to the “Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial,” approved by the Corte Plena at Session No. 27-11 of 22 de agosto del 2011, Article XXVI, and published in Boletín Judicial No. 19 of 26 de enero del 2012, as well as the resolution approved by the Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial at Session No. 43-12, held on 3 de mayo del 2012, Article LXXXI.
Therefore (Por tanto):
The petition is denied. The respondent authorities shall take note of the provisions of recital V (considerando V) of this judgment.
Fernando Castillo V.
President Paul Rueda L.
Nancy Hernández L.
Luis Fdo. Salazar A.
Jorge Araya G.
Anamari Garro V.
Ana María Picado B.
*3Z47RUTKQVTG61* Telephone numbers: Telf01/ ALA-4TA (800-7252-482). Fax: Telf02 / Telf03. Website: www.poder-judicial.go.cr/salaconstitucional. Address: (Dirección01, Dirección02, 100 meters south of the Perpetuo Socorro church). Filing office for matters involving vulnerable groups: Dirección03, San José, Distrito Catedral, Dirección04, streets 19 and 21, Dirección05
*210002450007CO* SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las ocho horas treinta minutos del veintiocho de mayo de dos mil veintiuno .
Recurso de amparo interpuesto por [Nombre01 001], mayor, divorciada, Presidenta de la asociación amparada, cédula de identidad No. [CED01] , a favor de la Asociación de Acueducto y Alcantarillado Sanitario Vecinos de Playa Grande, cédula jurídica No. CED02, contra el Director de la UEN Gestión de ASADAS y la Jefa de la Oficina de Atención de ASADAS de la Región Chorotega, ambos del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados.
Resultando:
Redacta la Magistrada Garro Vargas; y,
Considerando:
I.Objeto del recurso. La recurrente alega que la declaratoria de zona deficitaria realizada a la ASADA de Playa Grande y el hecho de suspender el otorgamiento de nuevas constancias de disponibilidad de servicios de agua potable y capacidad hídrica para viviendas unifamiliares y comercio, por parte del ICAA, constituye una amenaza al derecho fundamental del acceso al agua potable de los pobladores del lugar.
II.Hechos probados. De importancia para la decisión de este asunto, se estiman como debidamente demostrados los siguientes hechos, sea porque así han sido acreditados o bien porque los recurridos hayan omitido referirse a ellos según lo prevenido en el auto inicial:
III.Sobre la prestación del servicio de agua potable. Uno de los servicios públicos de mayor relevancia, es el del suministro de agua potable, pues la relación que el mismo tiene con la protección del derecho a la salud y a la vida de las personas, es incuestionable. De este modo, existe una obligación por parte del Estado de garantizar la pureza del líquido para consumo humano, así como la continuidad en el suministro de éste, como elementos esenciales de la prestación del servicio público, todo ello con el fin de proteger la integridad de los usuarios. En nuestro país, la prestación del servicio público mencionado, corresponde al ICAA, conforme lo dispuesto por el inciso a) del artículo 2 de la ley 2726 del catorce de abril de mil novecientos sesenta y uno, sin perjuicio de lo establecido en el inciso g) del artículo señalado.
IV.Sobre el caso concreto. De los informes rendidos por las autoridades recurridas, dados bajo juramento, con oportuno apercibimiento de las consecuencias previstas en el artículo 44 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, así como de la prueba traída al expediente, se desprende que, de previo a que el ICAA emitiera la declaratoria de zona deficitaria a la ASADA de Playa Grande, el Área de Ingeniería de la Orac Región Chorotega realizó la valoración del estudio técnico presentado por dicho operador denominado “ Proyecto de abastecimiento de agua potable administrado por parte de la Asociación Administradora del acueducto de Playa Grande” y mediante memorando No. GSD-UEN-GAR-2020-02718, de fecha 26 de junio de 2020, el ingeniero Oscar Ampié Bermúdez resuelve no aprobarlo y señala que, para poder emitir un criterio técnico positivo, la ASADA requiere subsanar 10 puntos específicos detallados en dicho memorando.
Extremos que constituyen los siguientes: “1. Debe aportarse los análisis de calidad de agua de los pozos que aprovecha la ASADA Playa Grande; Control Operativo, y niveles N1, N2 y N3. 2. Aclarar si los pozos cuentan con registro de la Dirección de Agua del MINAE (coordenadas de ubicación y elevación) e indicar el caudal de consumo humano concesionado. 3. Debe aportarse prueba de bombeo por 24 horas de los pozos que aprovecha la ASADA Playa Grande para determinar la capacidad real de producción de cada fuente, recomendable en el mes más crítico de la época seca. 4. Incorporar en el cálculo de balance hídrico, el caudal suministrado desde el Proyecto Nimboyores, para determinar la capacidad hídrica real total de la ASADA Playa Grande. 5. Señalar si los terrenos donde se ubican pozos y tanque son propiedad de la ASADA o de particulares, adicionalmente aportar documentación registral en caso de ser propiedad de la ASADA.
Caso contrario, recomendar planes de acción para registrar los terrenos a Nombre01 de la ASADA. 6. Los planos constructivos deben actualizarse de manera que se incluya los cambios recientes en la red de tuberías. 7. Para las eventuales mejoras a considerar en la red de infraestructura hidráulica del acueducto, debe indicarse en planos constructivos de forma detallada, anclajes en tuberías si son necesarios, así como cualquier detalle de paso de alcantarilla u otros, y reflejar en presupuesto de obra. 8. Para el caso de los pozos que no cuentan con caseta de bombeo adecuada, recomendar la construcción de estas, así como la instalación de nuevos paneles de control, brocal de pozo, cachera de pozo, componentes de la tubería de salida de impulsión a tanques; manómetros, válvulas, etc., y reflejar en costos de mejoras. 9. Para el caso de los terrenos donde se ubican pozos y tanque, recomendar malla ciclón perimetral de 2m de altura con tres hilos de alambre con púas, y reflejar en el presupuesto de obra. 10.
Para el caso del tanque de almacenamiento existente, lo recomendable es la construcción de un tanque nuevo con elevación suficiente para abastecer todos los servicios del acueducto, de manera que se eliminen los rebombeos, o los bombeos directo a la red. Pueden utilizarse diseños típicos del ICAA”. Se acredita que este resultado del estudio técnico le fue comunicado a la ASADA de Playa Grande mediante oficio No. GSD-UEN-GAR-2020-02722, fecha 26 de junio de 2020, emitido por la informante, al correo electrónico ...01 el día 29 de junio de 2020. Igualmente, el memorando mediante el cual el ingeniero Ampié Bermúdez realiza la declaratoria de zona deficitaria de la ASADA de Playa Grande corresponde al No. GSD-UEN-GAR-2020-02733, de fecha 26 de junio del 2020, mismo que fue comunicado a dicho operador por medio del oficio No. GSD-UEN-GAR-2020-02737, de fecha 29 de junio de 2020, emitido por la informante, comunicado el 30 de junio de 2020.
En efecto, se colige que en el informe técnico No. GSD-UEN-GAR-2020-02733, del 26 de junio de 2020, el ingeniero Oscar Ampié Bermúdez determina necesario declarar la zona de cobertura del acueducto de Playa Grande como zona deficitaria, pues no cuenta con capacidad hídrica comprobada para dar cobertura a futuros nuevos servicios, de acuerdo al oficio No. GSD-UEN-GAR-2020-02718. Además, recomienda no brindar constancias de disponibilidad de servicio o constancias de capacidad hídrica, mientras se mantenga dicho estado. Aclara que la zona deficitaria tiene una condición de temporalidad, supeditada a la ejecución de las obras y acciones que solventen las necesidades de la zona, procediendo a agregar lo siguiente en su sustento:
“Para el caso de la capacidad hídrica, la ASADA deberá realizar las pruebas de bombeo por 24 horas, de los pozos que tienen autorización/concesión para consumo humano, por parte de la Dirección de Agua del MINAE, para determinar la capacidad real de cada fuente para evaluar en el balance hídrico del sistema.
Adicionalmente debe incorporarse al cálculo de balance hídrico, el caudal proveniente del Proyecto Nimboyores, de manera que se pueda cuantificar exactamente el caudal disponible total, para la prestación del servicio de agua potable, a los usuarios del acueducto en tiempo presente y en tiempo futuro (25 años).
Adicionalmente, se determina en el oficio/minuta CTI-002-2018, el manejo del recurso hídrico, y la recomendación de la no explotación desmedida de los acuíferos comprendidos en la zona Potrero-Caimital-Huacas-Tamarindo, en cuyo caso no se recomienda incrementar los niveles de aprovechamiento mediante la otorgación de disponibilidades de agua a nuevos Proyectos o desarrollos urbanísticos, ni lotes que se encuentren dentro de desarrollos urbanísticos existentes, y tampoco a lotes que provengan del fraccionamiento de una misma finca. Únicamente se permite el bajo consumo para vivienda unifamiliar o necesidad insoslayable como necesidades públicas permanentes como centros educativos, delegaciones de policía, centros de salud y actividades públicas transitorias debidamente autorizada por el ente competente.
Sin embargo, pese a lo descrito en la minuta CTI-002-2018, con el Estudio Técnico aportado, no se demuestra con certeza la capacidad hídrica del acueducto, como para otorgar nuevos servicios del tipo vivienda unifamiliar o necesidad insoslayable. Por tanto, de forma provisional tampoco se recomienda otorgar disponibilidad de servicios de este tipo, para no comprometer la prestación del servicio de agua potable a los servicios existentes de la ASADA, a menos que se demuestre lo contrario”.
Es contra la declaratoria de zona deficitaria del acueducto que administra la ASADA de Playa Grande que manifiesta inconformidad la recurrente, en su condición de Presidenta de esa Asociación. Dice que el ente rector está pretendiendo aplicar las condiciones y lineamientos de una zona de restricción a una zona deficitaria, como si se tratará de lo mismo y sin cumplir con los formalismos previstos en su propia normativa para efectos de resguardar el derecho de defensa y el debido procedimiento administrativo. También deviene en una restricción al servicio de abastecimiento de agua potable que brinda la institución accionada por medio de un convenio de delegación, lo anterior, sin haberse cumplido los requisitos de fondo y forma para ese acto que pudiese surtir los efectos ejecutividad y ejecutoriedad pertinentes. Asegura que el instituto accionado ordenó suspender la aprobación de constancias de disponibilidad de agua, constancias de capacidad hídrica y nuevos servicios; empero, no fue a través de una resolución fundamentada, sino mediante un simple oficio que ni siquiera iba dirigido a la ASADA.
Considera que mantener los efectos de la declaratoria de zona deficitaria y el hecho de suspender el otorgamiento de constancias de disponibilidad de servicios y capacidad hídrica, constituye una amenaza al derecho fundamental del acceso al agua potable de los pobladores del lugar. Solicita declarar con lugar y se “ordene a las recurridas a realizar inmediatamente las acciones pertinentes para dejar sin efecto la declaratoria de zona de restricción que afecta la jurisdicción territorial de este ente operador o, de mantenerse tal restricción, se permita el otorgamiento de constancias de disponibilidad de servicios para unidades de vivienda individual y comercio individual, según lo previsto en la normativa vigente”.
Es improcedente conocer la inconformidad por tal declaratoria, pues esta Sala no es un contralor de la legalidad de las actuaciones o resoluciones de la Administración, de modo que no le compete revisar si procede o no, de conformidad con la normativa infraconstitucional vigente, la orden emanada de considerar la zona de cobertura del acueducto de Playa Grande como zona deficitaria, ya que se estima que no cuenta con capacidad hídrica comprobada para dar cobertura a futuros nuevos servicios, mucho menos si corresponde otorgar disponibilidad de nuevos servicios de agua potable como se demanda, pues se trata de cuestiones de legalidad común. Se advierte que el recurso de amparo es, esencialmente, un proceso sumario. Consecuentemente, cuando es menester revisar diversas actuaciones administrativas –procedimientos y actos formales que se traducen y materializan en un expediente administrativo- el asunto deja de ser materia del amparo, por cuanto, debe acudirse a un proceso de cognición plenaria, sea un proceso de conocimiento pleno, que solo es posible sustanciarlo ante la jurisdicción ordinaria.
El amparo no está diseñado para contrastar o revisar criterios técnicos o jurídicos vertidos a la luz del ordenamiento jurídico infraconstitucional o para evacuar nuevos elementos de convicción para contrastar los existente, como sería lo acontecido con el acueducto de interés. Nótese que las autoridades recurridas informan que el criterio técnico emitido se mantiene debido que, a la fecha, la ASADA de Playa Grande no ha presentado al ICAA ninguna prueba que demuestre la capacidad hídrica de su sistema, lo que denota que en el fondo se trata de un asunto probatorio. Aunado a que no ha sido posible determinar alguna afectación o amenaza al derecho fundamental del acceso al agua potable de los pobladores del lugar, como refiere la recurrente, pues se ha informado que se sigue brindando el servicio a sus abonadas y abonados, puesto que la restricción no es para el servicio actual, sino para el crecimiento de posibles viviendas unifamiliares, que es el único crecimiento permitido para toda la zona.
Por consiguiente, deberá la recurrente, si a bien lo tiene, plantear sus alegatos ante las propias autoridades accionadas (como se indica que lo hizo mediante la interposición de los recursos ordinarios que ya fueron resueltos) o, en su defecto, en la vía jurisdiccional ordinaria, sedes en las cuales podrá, en forma amplia discutir el fondo del asunto y hacer valer sus pretensiones
V.Ahora bien, deberán las autoridades del ICAA tomar las medidas pertinentes a fin de coadyuvar a la ASADA de Playa Grande en el proceso que iniciaron para solventar un futuro problema de faltante de agua. De manera que permita -en un plazo razonable- no solamente levantar el estado de zona deficitaria, sino también la emisión de las cartas de disponibilidad de agua que se requieran. Lo anterior en cumplimiento del artículo 50 de la Constitución Política, adicionado por el artículo 1° de la Ley No. 9849, del 5 de junio de 2020, "Reconocer y garantizar el derecho humano de acceso al agua", publicado en La Gaceta #159, del 02 de julio de 2020 (Artículo 50. Toda persona tiene el derecho humano, básico e irrenunciable de acceso al agua potable, como bien esencial para la vida. El agua es un bien de la nación, indispensable para proteger tal derecho humano. Su uso, protección, sostenibilidad, conservación y explotación se regirá por lo que establezca la ley que se creará para estos efectos y tendrá prioridad el abastecimiento de agua potable para consumo de las personas y las poblaciones).
VI.Conclusión. Por las razones expuestas y al descartarse alguna infracción de derechos fundamentales en perjuicio de la recurrente o de su representada, lo pertinente es desestimar el recurso de amparo en todos sus extremos, como en efecto se dispone.
VII.Documentación aportada al expediente. Se previene a las partes que, de haber aportado algún documento en papel, así como objetos o pruebas contenidas en algún dispositivo adicional de carácter electrónico, informático, magnético, óptico, telemático o producido por nuevas tecnologías, estos deberán ser retirados del despacho en un plazo máximo de treinta días hábiles contados a partir de la notificación de esta sentencia. De lo contrario, será destruido todo aquel material que no sea retirado dentro de este plazo, según lo dispuesto en el "Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial ", aprobado por la Corte Plena en Sesión No. 27-11 del 22 de agosto del 2011, artículo XXVI y publicado en el Boletín Judicial No. 19 del 26 de enero del 2012, así como en el acuerdo aprobado por el Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial, en la Sesión No. 43-12 celebrada el 3 de mayo del 2012, artículo LXXXI.
Por tanto:
Se declara sin lugar el recurso. Tomen nota las autoridades recurridas de lo indicado en el considerando V de esta sentencia.
Fernando Castillo V.
Paul Rueda L.
Nancy Hernández L.
Luis Fdo. Salazar A.
Jorge Araya G.
Anamari Garro V.
Ana María Picado B.
*3Z47RUTKQVTG61*
Document not found. Documento no encontrado.