← Environmental Law Center← Centro de Derecho Ambiental
Res. 03603-2026 Sala Constitucional · Sala Constitucional · 30/01/2026
OutcomeResultado
The Chamber denied the amparo because the lack of a connection, supported by missing site-specific studies and technical, legal, and environmental restrictions, was not shown to be arbitrary or discriminatory, although it instructed the authorities to coordinate a solution within a reasonable time.La Sala rechazó el amparo porque no acreditó arbitrariedad ni discriminación en la falta de conexión, sustentada en la ausencia de estudios específicos y en restricciones técnicas, jurídicas y ambientales, aunque instó a las autoridades a coordinar una solución en un plazo razonable.
SummaryResumen
The Constitutional Chamber denied an amparo filed against AyA and the Buenos Aires Sur ASADA over the lack of drinking-water availability for two properties in northern Valle Verde, Guápiles. The majority recognized the fundamental right to drinking water but held that it does not create an automatic right to a connection when feasibility studies are missing or duly supported technical, legal, or environmental obstacles exist. The properties were not included in the specifically delimited project serving forty homes in the southern sector; there was no record of a formal application or a site-specific study for an urban development, lot division, or subdivision; and the area was subject to restrictions related to aquifer vulnerability and protection of the Numancia well. The Chamber found no proven arbitrary or discriminatory conduct. Nevertheless, it instructed the respondent authorities to act within their respective powers, coordinate as necessary, and seek a solution to the identified technical impossibility within a reasonable time. Two justices dissented and would have requested a report from Aresep.La Sala Constitucional declaró sin lugar el amparo interpuesto contra el AyA y la ASADA Buenos Aires Sur por la falta de disponibilidad de agua potable para dos fincas ubicadas en el sector norte de Valle Verde, Guápiles. La mayoría reconoció el derecho fundamental al agua potable, pero precisó que este no confiere una conexión automática cuando faltan estudios de factibilidad o existen impedimentos técnicos, jurídicos o ambientales acreditados. Las propiedades no formaban parte del proyecto delimitado para cuarenta viviendas del sector sur, no constaba una solicitud formal ni un estudio específico para urbanizaciones, lotificaciones o segregaciones y el área presentaba restricciones relacionadas con la vulnerabilidad del acuífero y la protección del pozo Numancia. La Sala no tuvo por demostrada una actuación arbitraria o discriminatoria. No obstante, indicó a las autoridades recurridas que, dentro de sus competencias y mediante la coordinación necesaria, ejecutaran actuaciones para solucionar la imposibilidad técnica en un plazo razonable. Dos magistrados salvaron el voto para solicitar informe a la Aresep.
Key excerptExtracto clave
In this connection, this Chamber’s case law has consistently held that, although there is a fundamental right to drinking water, its exercise is not unrestricted and does not, under every circumstance, impose an obligation to provide the service when a duly established technical, legal, or environmental impossibility exists, or when the applicant has not fulfilled the general requirements needed to assess supply feasibility. Accordingly, when denial or inability to provide the service rests on objective technical and environmental criteria, rather than on arbitrary or discriminatory conduct, no violation of fundamental rights occurs. Finally, the respondent party must be instructed to carry out the appropriate actions within the scope of its powers and to coordinate as necessary, so that the problem caused by the identified technical impossibility is resolved within a reasonable time and without undue delay. For the foregoing reasons, the present proceeding is denied, as stated in the operative part of this judgment.En este orden de ideas, la jurisprudencia de esta Sala ha sido constante en señalar que, si bien existe un derecho fundamental al agua potable, su ejercicio no es irrestricto ni impone, en cualquier circunstancia, una obligación de dotar el servicio cuando exista imposibilidad técnica, jurídica o ambiental debidamente acreditada o cuando el solicitante no haya cumplido los requisitos generales exigibles para valorar la factibilidad de abastecimiento. Bajo ese entendido, cuando la denegatoria o la imposibilidad de prestación se sustenta en criterios objetivos, técnicos y ambientales, y no en una actuación arbitraria o discriminatoria, no se configura violación de derechos fundamentales. Finalmente, debe indicarse a la parte accionada que debe ejecutar las actuaciones pertinentes dentro del ámbito de sus competencias y coordinando lo necesario, de tal forma que se solucione el problema que genera la imposibilidad técnica apuntada, dentro de un plazo razonable, sin dilaciones indebidas. En virtud de lo expuesto, se declara sin lugar el presente proceso, tal como se indica en la parte dispositiva de esta sentencia.
Pull quotesCitas destacadas
"La sola proximidad física a infraestructura del AyA no genera derecho automático a la conexión."
"Mere physical proximity to AyA infrastructure does not create an automatic right to a connection."
Informe técnico citado en el considerando IV
"La sola proximidad física a infraestructura del AyA no genera derecho automático a la conexión."
Informe técnico citado en el considerando IV
"El criterio ambiental UEN-GA-2025- 03793 establece que el área se encuentra parcialmente dentro de la zona de protección absoluta del Pozo Numancia, lo cual impone severas restricciones para desarrollos habitacionales y nuevas conexiones."
"Environmental criterion UEN-GA-2025-03793 establishes that the area lies partially within the absolute protection zone of the Numancia well, which imposes severe restrictions on residential development and new connections."
Informe técnico citado en el considerando IV
"El criterio ambiental UEN-GA-2025- 03793 establece que el área se encuentra parcialmente dentro de la zona de protección absoluta del Pozo Numancia, lo cual impone severas restricciones para desarrollos habitacionales y nuevas conexiones."
Informe técnico citado en el considerando IV
"En consecuencia, salvamos el voto y ordenamos continuar la tramitación del recurso a los efectos de que se solicite informe al regulador general de la Autoridad Reguladora de los Servicios Públicos."
"Accordingly, we dissent and order that the proceeding continue so that a report may be requested from the General Regulator of the Public Services Regulatory Authority."
Voto salvado de los magistrados Cruz Castro y Rueda Leal
"En consecuencia, salvamos el voto y ordenamos continuar la tramitación del recurso a los efectos de que se solicite informe al regulador general de la Autoridad Reguladora de los Servicios Públicos."
Voto salvado de los magistrados Cruz Castro y Rueda Leal
"La revisión de las actuaciones administrativas llevadas a cabo en torno a un tema ambiental que requiera, para su correcta valoración, de un proceso de conocimiento pleno, solo es posible en la jurisdicción ordinaria."
"Review of administrative actions concerning an environmental matter that requires full evidentiary proceedings for its proper assessment is possible only before the ordinary courts."
Razones diferentes del magistrado Salazar Alvarado
"La revisión de las actuaciones administrativas llevadas a cabo en torno a un tema ambiental que requiera, para su correcta valoración, de un proceso de conocimiento pleno, solo es posible en la jurisdicción ordinaria."
Razones diferentes del magistrado Salazar Alvarado
Full documentDocumento completo
Document Review Decision No. 2026003603 CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at nine twenty a.m. on treinta de enero de dos mil veintiseis.
Writ of amparo (recurso de amparo) being processed under expediente número 25-039977-0007-CO, filed by [Nombre 001], identity card [Valor 001], on behalf of [Nombre 002], identity card [Valor 002], against the ASOCIACIÓN DE ACUEDUCTO RURAL DE BUENOS AIRES SUR DE JIMÉNEZ AND THE INSTITUTO COSTARRICENSE DE ACUEDUCTOS Y ALCANTARILLADOS.
BACKGROUND:
That it complies with the applicable environmental regulations.” Likewise, according to the technical report submitted by the RHC-Pococí-AyA Cantonal Unit through memorandum N° GSP-RHC-P- 2026-00022 of 8 de enero del 2026, it states: “…the protected party does indeed have the right to apply for a water supply, provided that he complies with the established procedures. It is reiterated that Región Huetar Caribe has not issued service availability certificates (constancias de disponibilidad de servicios), since the area is not within its service coverage area.” In this regard, it is also appropriate to cite the provisions of Article 7, subsection 134, of the Reglamento para la Prestación de los Servicios del AyA, which states: “…134. Environmental restriction zone (zona de restricción ambiental): A territorial area delimited by geomorphological conditions or risk zones, protection zones, and protected areas or State-owned heritage reserves where, pursuant to legal provisions or local, regional, or national land-use planning, service availability or connections for the provision of water-supply or sanitary-sewer services, or both, by a public service provider must not be approved.” Furthermore, as stated by the petitioner, the requirements established for the issuance of a favorable service availability certificate have not been met, because the interested parties have not completed the technical studies and improvement works necessary to qualify for service.
SIXTH: This is untrue. According to the technical report submitted by the Subgerencia Gestión de Sistemas Delegados-AyA through memorandum N° SG- GSD-2026-00009 of 8 de enero del 2026, it states: “…AyA has no knowledge of any arbitrary action. The petitioner’s situation is not comparable to that of the 40 homes in the southern sector, which were the subject of a specific, clearly defined, and duly evaluated technical project.” Likewise, the technical report submitted by the RHC-Pococí-AyA Cantonal Unit through memorandum N° GSP-RHC-P-2026- 00022 of 8 de enero del 2026 states: “…no further comments are made, since Región Huetar Caribe has not undertaken any action in the Valle Verde sector. It should be noted that under AyA’s regulations and procedures, interested parties are never asked to make financial contributions.” SEVENTH: We have no knowledge of this. According to the technical report submitted by the Subgerencia Gestión de Sistemas Delegados-AyA through memorandum N° SG- GSD-2026-00009 of 8 de enero del 2026, it states: “…AyA has no knowledge of any arbitrary action.
The petitioner’s situation is not comparable to that of the 40 homes in the southern sector, which were the subject of a specific, clearly defined, and duly evaluated technical project.” Likewise, the technical report submitted by the RHC-Pococí-AyA Cantonal Unit through memorandum N° GSP-RHC-P-2026- 00022 of 8 de enero del 2026 states: “…it is reiterated that AyA – Región Huetar Caribe has not undertaken any action approving or denying the water supply in the Valle Verde sector, since it lies outside the service coverage area.” EIGHTH: This section does not allege a fact. Nevertheless, it is appropriate to cite the technical report submitted by the Subgerencia Gestión de Sistemas Delegados-AyA through memorandum N° SG-GSD-2026-00009 of 8 de enero del 2026, which states: “Constitutional case law has consistently held that the right to water does not entail an obligation to provide the service when a duly substantiated technical, legal, or environmental impossibility exists.
In this case, the denial is based on objective technical and environmental criteria, particularly the protection of strategic supply sources.” Likewise, the technical report submitted by the RHC-Pococí-AyA Cantonal Unit through memorandum N° GSP-RHC-P-2026- 00022 of 8 de enero del 2026 states: “…although these concern case law from the Constitutional Chamber, the excerpts show that in both decisions (2016-006027 and 2017- 005245), the Chamber indicates that no omission or arbitrary action by the respondent authority was established, since the actions were not capricious but were based on technical considerations, such as the lack of potable-water availability in the sectors. Additionally, it is important to note that the Valle Verde sector and surrounding areas lie above an aquifer vulnerable to contamination, as shown by reports SUB-AID-GA-2015-432 and UEN-GA-2025- 03793 prepared by the Dirección de Gestión Ambiental de AyA (attached).
As shown in image number 2 of this document, AyA maintains its principal water sources for the HC-A-14 Guápiles-La Rita- Roxana-Jiménez system in the area adjacent to Valle Verde (Nacientes Numancia, Pozo Numancia and Pozo Los Ángeles 1 and 2). Accordingly, when conducting the study to supply potable water to the sector, the system for collecting and treating the wastewater generated must be evaluated so as to ensure the protection of the quantity and quality of the aquifer underlying this land, which is used to provide service to more than 60 mil people in the cantón de Pococí. In these cases, the recommendation is to apply the Matriz de Criterios de Uso del Suelo Según la Vulnerabilidad a la Contaminación de Acuíferos para la Protección del Recurso Hídrico (Matriz de SENARA), since no specific matrix exists for the sector. In light of the foregoing, the petitioner’s assertions are considered unrelated to the actions of Región Huetar Caribe, since the community of Valle Verde lies outside the service coverage area of the water-supply systems administered by AyA, and what is sought is for the ASADA de Buenos Aires Sur to grant potable-water availability.” It is reiterated that, for the operator acting under delegation from AyA—in the present case, ASADA Buenos Aires Sur de Jiménez—to issue a favorable service availability certificate to the interested parties, they must comply with all requirements established for that purpose.
In cases such as this one, where no network exists, they must conduct the technical studies and carry out the improvement works necessary for such a certificate to be issued in the area, pursuant to Article 14 of the Reglamento para la Prestación de los Servicios and Article 46 of the Reglamento de ASADAS (Decreto Ejecutivo N° 42582-S-MINAE) III. LEGAL BASIS AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS I. Regarding the technical and legal impossibility of issuing a favorable service availability certificate As set forth above, it is evident that, in the case at hand, there is a technical impossibility of providing potable-water service to the petitioner, without this constituting a violation of constitutional rights. In this regard, the Honorable Chamber has repeatedly held (decisions number 2009-011529 and number 2010-013690) that fundamental rights are not violated when there is a legal or material impossibility of providing a service.
In decision 2017-009581, it stated the following regarding the matter under discussion: “(…) It must be recalled that the case law of this Court has been clear as follows: ‘provided that the failure to provide potable-water service is not capricious, arbitrary, or unfounded, but is justified by a legal or material impossibility, there is no violation of fundamental rights’ (see, in this regard, judgment 2010-1516 of 18:36 on 26 de enero de 2010, as well as judgment 2015-8177 of 10:05 on 05 de junio de 2015). In this specific case, there is a technical or material impossibility due to the reasons set forth by the respondent authority (lack of infrastructure and serious limitations on water resources in that area). In light of all the foregoing, because the denial is neither capricious nor arbitrary and is supported by technical criteria, the proper course is to dismiss this petition for constitutional relief (recurso de amparo).” In the same vein, through decision N° 2019009789, of 31 de mayo del 2019, the Constitutional Chamber stated: (…) “V.- REGARDING THE DENIAL OF POTABLE-WATER SERVICE.
This Chamber has held that, although there is a fundamental right to potable water, its exercise is not unrestricted to the point that entities providing that service are obligated to provide it under any conditions and at any time. Specifically, this Chamber has recognized that the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, municipalities, or associations administering water-supply and sewer systems may deny potable-water availability when technical reasons justify doing so. In this regard, through Judgment N° 2009-003825 of 16:49 on 10 de marzo de 2009, this Chamber ruled as follows: ‘(...) It is therefore understood that, although there is a fundamental right to water that may be asserted against the corresponding administrative authority, the provision of the service may properly be made subject to compliance with the requirements established for granting it and to the material possibility of supply; that is, there must be no technical circumstances that prevent or counsel against the administrative authority providing potable-water service.
Consequently, the administrative authority has no obligation to provide potable-water service when technical reasons counsel against or prevent it, and it must adequately inform the applicant of the reasons why the application cannot be granted…’.” More recently, we may cite decision N° 2020010679, of nueve horas quince minutos on doce de junio del 2020, in which the Constitutional Chamber ruled: “IV.- REGARDING THE DENIAL OF POTABLE-WATER SERVICE. This Chamber has held that, although there is a fundamental right to potable water, its exercise is not unrestricted such that entities providing that service are obligated to provide it under any conditions and at any time. Specifically, this Chamber has recognized that the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, municipalities, or associations administering water-supply and sewer systems may deny potable-water availability when technical reasons justify doing so.
In judgment number 2009-003825 of 16:49 on 10 de marzo de 2009, reiterated in judgment No. 2016-005382 of 9:05 on 22 de abril de 2016, this Chamber ruled as follows: ‘(... ) It is therefore understood that, although there is a fundamental right to water that may be asserted against the corresponding administrative authority, the provision of the service may properly be made subject to compliance with the requirements established for granting it and to the material possibility of supply; that is, there must be no technical circumstances that prevent or counsel against the administrative authority providing potable-water service. Consequently, the administrative authority has no obligation to provide potable-water service when technical reasons counsel against or prevent it, and it must adequately inform the applicant of the reasons why the application cannot be granted’ (emphasis not in the original; see judgment N° 2018-7781 of 09:15 hrs. on 18 de mayo de 2018).
Consequently, it is considered that there are technical reasons justifying the denial of the drinking-water service sought by the petitioner.” (…) In this specific case, as explained in the referenced reports, it is technically impossible to issue a positive certificate of service availability (constancia de disponibilidad de servicios), given that there is no aqueduct system in the area. To carry out an extension, the interested parties must complete the necessary technical studies and works, subject to prior approval by AyA, and comply with the requirements established in the AyA Service Provision Regulations. III. Regarding compliance with the requirements for issuing a positive certificate of service availability and a permanent connection. In this regard, the Constitutional Chamber, by Resolution N° 2022014900 of July 1, 2022, ruled as follows: “(…) IV.- REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCESS TO DRINKING-WATER SERVICE.
The Chamber’s case law has recognized the so-called fundamental right to water, under which all persons must be afforded the opportunity to access drinking-water services on equal terms, since water is essential to human life and health. Nevertheless, its status as a fundamental right does not entail unrestricted access to water services, since the administrative authority may establish general requirements that each applicant must satisfy in order for the applicant’s particular request to be assessed. Thus, in Judgment No 2006- 1898 at 09:53 hrs. on February 17, 2006, this Court held as follows: “(…) The appellant alleges (…) that, despite the requests and efforts made, the respondent Institute has refused to provide them with drinking-water service, arguing that it is a precarious settlement (precario) and that its inhabitants do not have a subdivision plan (plano de segregación) establishing that they own the properties.
In this regard, the record establishes, based on the report submitted under oath by the respondent authority, that it is impossible to install residential drinking-water services in the community where the appellant resides for two specific reasons: the lack of adequate infrastructure and the failure of the interested parties to submit applications that comply with legal requirements (...). In Judgment No. 2004-12185 at 13:31 hours on October 29, 2004, in a case similar to the present one, this Chamber stated that the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados could not be compelled to disregard the provisions of its Customer Service Provision Regulations or the General Drinking Water Law. Therefore, as long as the protected party does not meet the conditions and requirements established therein, drinking-water service cannot be provided to him on a regular basis, even though such service must be accessible to everyone because it is an essential service.
Given the existence of these two objective reasons why regular drinking-water service cannot be supplied to the petitioner—his failure to comply with the requirements for connecting a new service, beginning with the submission of an application, and the absence of adequate infrastructure in the area—there is no basis for concluding that the respondent Institute’s denial of regular service is due to the fact that the protected party and his neighbors do not hold title to the properties they possess. (…)”. More recently, in Voto No. 2020-5049 at 09:45 hrs. on March 13, 2020, the Chamber stated: “(…) IV.- Regarding the specific case. In the case under review, the Chamber considers it established that the respondent authorities have not acted upon the protected party’s request for drinking water because the applicant has not complied with the requirements imposed by the legal system, which were duly communicated to her.
It should be noted that the respondent Institute informed the appellant, as well as other officials who attempted to assist with her case, that in order to provide her with water service, the application form must be signed by the registered owner (propietario registral), the possessor, or the legal representative or authorized person, a requirement with which the appellant has not complied. In view of the foregoing, it is established that the appellant’s lack of water service is due to her failure, as of the filing date of this appeal, to comply with the necessary requirements. Therefore, the denial is not arbitrary or capricious, since drinking-water service cannot be provided to the appellant until she complies with the necessary requirements. In this regard, it should be emphasized that the protected party’s application has not been acted upon because the property for which she requested service has a registered owner other than the appellant, and no authorization from that owner to request the service has been provided.
In this Chamber’s view, the foregoing is consistent with Article 32 of the Regulations for the Provision of Services by the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, which establishes the requirements for requesting a water connection in the case of occupants of properties located within farms or land occupied under precarious-tenure conditions (condición precaria), as is the appellant’s case. Subsection e) of Article 32 of those Regulations expressly provides that authorization from the property’s registered owner is required in order to submit an application for drinking-water service. Accordingly, the challenged denial of service is sufficiently substantiated, and the appeal filed must therefore be dismissed with respect to this issue. (…)” It should be noted that, in response to the request for drinking-water service submitted by residents of the community of Valle Verde, the Unidad Cantonal RHC-Pococí-AyA, through official Miguel Badilla Ugalde, informed Maria Cecilia Bonilla Gómez, representative of the Comunidad de Valle Verde, by official letter N° GSP-RHC-P-2017-00781 dated July 20, 2017, as follows: “There is no drinking-water network from the Guápiles system in this area.
Moreover, the Numancia tank is located at a lower elevation than your community, which means that the area where your community is located is higher than the Numancia tank that supplies Guápiles. Furthermore, subsequently, in 2021, following a request received from the Valle Verde committee to explore the possibility of having the drinking-water supply in the Valle Verde area assumed by ASADA Buenos Aires, official letter N° GSD-UEN-GAR- 2021-00953 of March 5, 2021, prepared by Eng. José Antonio Arias Arias of UEN Gestión de Acueductos Rurales- AyA, advised them that ASADA Buenos Aires was willing to assume responsibility for supplying water to the community in the Valle Verde area. However, the technical assessments determined that a potential pipeline to supply the area would have to cross private property reportedly owned by the company El Colono. Accordingly, the appropriate procedures would have to be completed for the proper establishment of an aqueduct easement (servidumbre de acueducto) over that land belonging to El Colono in favor of ASADA Buenos Aires, so that the project would be technically feasible.
It was clarified that the project could not proceed without this easement and that, according to the information supplied by the comité Pro-Mejoras Valle Verde, only 40 properties would be included in the aforementioned project. Therefore, it is neither technically nor legally possible to issue a positive certificate of drinking-water service availability unless the interested parties comply with the requirements established by the RPS and the RASADAS for the provision of public drinking-water and sanitary-sewerage services; in this specific case, the appellant and his neighbors in Valle Verde have not complied with those requirements.”
Justice Castillo Víquez drafts the opinion; and,
Whereas:
Given its exceptional nature, the ordinary processing of amparo proceedings against private-law entities requires first examining whether the case falls within any of the circumstances that make such a proceeding admissible and, subsequently, if so, determining whether it should be granted. In this regard, Article 57 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law specifies the circumstances under which an amparo proceeding against the acts or omissions of private-law entities is admissible, namely, when they act or are required to act in the exercise of public functions or powers, or when, either legally or factually, they occupy a position of power in relation to which ordinary judicial remedies are clearly insufficient or untimely to guarantee the fundamental rights or freedoms referred to in Article 2°, subsection a), of that same Law. In light of the foregoing, in this specific case, it is deemed appropriate to address the merits of the matter, considering that one of the respondent parties (Buenos Aires Sur Rural Aqueduct Association) occupies a position of power in relation to which ordinary judicial remedies are clearly insufficient or untimely to guarantee the fundamental rights or freedoms alleged to have been infringed. Accordingly, the merits of the amparo proceeding shall be considered.
The petitioner files an amparo proceeding and states that, since the year 2015, the protected party has owned two lots located on Calle Valle Verde, Guápiles, duly registered and near a Judicial Branch building, and since then has unsuccessfully sought access to drinking water service. Despite multiple requests and the establishment of the ASADA Buenos Aires Sur together with other residents, AyA has repeatedly denied service availability without sufficient technical support, authorizing it only for 40 homes. The denials have been based on arguments that the protected party considers unfounded and discriminatory, despite the existence of installed infrastructure, water availability certified by the ASADA, and a nearby AyA tank. He adds that, even though the residents incurred significant expenses at AyA’s request, the service still has not been provided, leaving him in a prolonged state of helplessness and subject to arbitrary treatment.
The following facts, which are relevant to the resolution of this matter, are deemed duly proven:
Facts related to the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers:
On 28 de abril de 2015, the Environmental Directorate of the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers issued technical opinion SUB-AID-GA-2015-432, in which, from the standpoint of hydrogeology and aquifer protection, it did not recommend exempting the “Nuevo Guápiles” housing development project, located in the Valle Verde area, because it involves an aquifer that is highly vulnerable to contamination (see report submitted by the respondent authorities).
On 20 de julio de 2017, AyA’s RHC-Pococí Cantonal Unit informed representatives of the Valle Verde community that there was no drinking water network from the Guápiles system in that sector and that the Numancia tank was located at a lower elevation, making supply from that system technically unfeasible (see report submitted by the respondent authorities).
On 05 de marzo de 2021, through official letter N.° GSD-UEN-GAR-2021-00953, AyA’s UEN Rural Aqueduct Management stated that the ASADA Buenos Aires was willing to undertake the supply of drinking water to the Valle Verde sector, clarifying that the technical project was limited to 40 properties in the southern sector and did not provide for extending service to the northern sector, near Green Valley School, where the petitioner’s properties are located (see report submitted by the respondent authorities).
On 05 de marzo de 2021, AyA stated that any expansion of service by the ASADA Buenos Aires required the prior establishment of an aqueduct easement over private property belonging to the company El Colono, without which the project was neither technically nor legally feasible (see report submitted by the respondent authorities).
The institutional records contained no formal request for drinking water availability for the northern sector of Valle Verde, where the petitioner’s properties are located, nor any submission of specific technical studies for housing developments, subdivisions, or lot segregations (see report submitted by the respondent authorities).
The Valle Verde sector was outside the coverage area of the aqueduct systems directly administered by AyA in the Huetar Caribe Region, and therefore no water-availability certificates had been issued for that sector (see report submitted by the respondent authorities).
The area where the petitioner’s properties are located lies partially within an environmental restriction zone associated with the protection of the Numancia Well, which imposes severe limitations on new drinking water connections and housing developments (see report submitted by the respondent authorities).
The mere physical proximity of the petitioner’s property to institutional infrastructure, such as the Numancia tank, does not automatically create a right to a service connection, particularly because that tank is located at a lower elevation than the Valle Verde sector, which technically prevents the expansion of coverage (see report submitted by the respondent authorities).
The petitioner’s situation is not comparable to that of the 40 homes in the southern sector of Valle Verde, and the denial of water availability is based on objective technical, legal, and environmental criteria (see report submitted by the respondent authorities).
For the ASADA Buenos Aires Sur to issue a favorable service-availability certificate, the interested parties were required to satisfy the regulatory requirements, including the submission of technical feasibility studies and the execution of improvement works, compliance with which had not been established in the petitioner’s case (see report submitted by the respondent authorities).
Facts related to the Buenos Aires Sur Rural Aqueduct Association:
Around the year 2000, due to the inability of the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers to provide drinking water service in the area, the aqueduct that would later be administered by the Buenos Aires Sur, Jiménez Rural Aqueduct Administrative Association originated as a community initiative (see report submitted by the respondent authorities).
In septiembre de 2007, the constituent assembly was held through which the Buenos Aires Sur, Jiménez Rural Aqueduct Administrative Association was formalized; that entity subsequently entered into the respective delegation agreement with the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers to regulate its operation (see report submitted by the respondent authorities).
In 2020, the Asociación Administradora del Acueducto Rural Buenos Aires Sur, Jiménez, conducted a comprehensive technical study to assess the water availability and hydraulic condition of the water-supply system, which identified part of the Green Valley community as a possible area for future development, specifically the sector extending from the central block to the vicinity of Colegio Green Valley (see report submitted by the respondent authorities).
In 2020, the comprehensive technical study conducted by ASADA Buenos Aires Sur was reviewed and approved by the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados and served as the basis for evaluating a potential expansion of drinking-water service to part of the Green Valley community (see report submitted by the respondent authorities).
ASADA Buenos Aires Sur supplied approximately 650 active customers and provided drinking-water service to the community of Buenos Aires Sur and part of the southern sector of the Green Valley community (see report submitted by the respondent authorities).
The Green Valley community is divided into three distinct sectors: a southern sector supplied by ASADA Buenos Aires Sur, a northern sector supplied by the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, and a central sector that had no drinking-water service operator (see report submitted by the respondent authorities).
Access to drinking-water service was never arbitrarily denied to the residents of Green Valley’s central sector, and ASADA Buenos Aires Sur had expressed its willingness and readiness to assist in seeking solutions, subject to the approval and support of the competent institutions, particularly the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados (see report submitted by the respondent authorities).
After analyzing the evidence submitted, this Court finds no violation of the protected party’s fundamental rights. The reports submitted by the representatives of the respondent authorities—which are deemed to have been given under oath, subject to the consequences, including criminal consequences, provided for in Article 44 of the Law governing this Jurisdiction—and the evidence submitted for resolution of the matter have duly established, first, that the sector where the protected party’s properties are located (Valle Verde, specifically the area near Colegio Green Valley) does not form part of the service area of the water-supply systems directly administered by the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, Región Huetar Caribe. It was also established that the nearest institutional water-supply system (HC-A-14 Guápiles-La Rita-Roxana-Jiménez system) does not extend to the area where the protected party’s properties are located and that, in particular, the Numancia tank is situated at a lower elevation than the Valle Verde sector, making it technically unfeasible to extend service from that infrastructure. Consequently, the property’s mere proximity to that tank or to other infrastructure does not create an automatic right to a connection, because provision of the service is subject to technical criteria and the actual capacity of the existing systems.
Second, it was established that the area is subject to significant environmental restrictions related to the protection of strategic supply sources and the vulnerability of the aquifer, which impose severe limitations on the approval of new connections or confirmations of service availability, particularly in connection with urban development (urbanización), parceling (lotificación), or partition (segregación) processes that could jeopardize the quality and quantity of water resources. On this point, the technical assessments submitted by the respondent authorities showed that, because this is an environmentally sensitive area, the feasibility assessment cannot omit a comprehensive analysis of water availability and hydraulic capacity, as well as sanitation and environmental considerations, particularly the proper management and potential treatment of wastewater.
Third, it was established that, with respect to the northern sector of Valle Verde where the protected party’s properties are located, AyA’s records contained neither a formal application for confirmation of drinking-water availability nor specific technical studies concerning urban developments, parceling, or partitions that would permit a technical and legal feasibility analysis. This is decisive because the legal framework governing service provision imposes general and objective requirements that the Administration or delegated operator must consider when evaluating supply, including the existence of networks, actual hydraulic capacity and water availability, the legal feasibility of the proposed route (easements (servidumbres) or access), and compliance with applicable environmental regulations. Accordingly, until those requirements are substantiated through the corresponding study, there is no legal basis for demanding a positive certificate of availability or a permanent connection.
Nevertheless, the Chamber has held that denying a person drinking-water service does not constitute a violation of that person’s rights when technical impediments justify the denial:
“II.-Regarding the specific case. The evidence submitted includes a certificate of water unavailability dated July 15, 2021, through which AyA notified the petitioner that his application for drinking-water availability for the individual metering of services for an apartment located on his property had been denied. The denial was based on a lack of technical feasibility because the area’s supply system had insufficient water availability and hydraulic capacity; therefore, drinking-water service was unavailable for new development projects.
Accordingly, it is established that the sub judice matter does not concern an arbitrary denial of drinking-water service, as the denial was based on a lack of technical feasibility. In this regard, it should be noted that this Constitutional Court does not review the legality of the actions or decisions of the respondent authority, nor may it replace the active Administration in exercising its powers; consequently, it may not usurp the authority legally conferred upon other departments, bodies, or entities, such as AyA. Nor does this Court act as a mediator before any particular natural or legal person—whether governed by public or private law—to intervene so that the petitioner may obtain the relief sought, in this case, the installation of a new meter for the apartment he built for his daughter. However, if the petitioner disagrees with the reasons supporting AyA’s denial of the new meter, he must submit his grievances and claims through the ordinary legality proceedings so that the legally appropriate determination may be made there.” (Judgment no. 2021018977 issued at 11:50 a.m. on August 24, 2021).
The Chamber finds no reason to depart from the quoted precedent. Indeed, the denial is not considered unreasonable or capricious when it is based on a technical justification, as in this case, namely the water-supply system’s inadequate hydraulic capacity. The underlying issue may be raised through the ordinary legality proceedings.
It bears noting that, when deciding a matter similar to the present one, this Court held as follows in Judgment No. 2020-19832 issued at 09:30 a.m. on October 16, 2020:
“(…) the feasibility tests conducted in the locality established that water service was unavailable because of insufficient storage capacity in the community of Pijije de Bagaces; however, it is asserted that a series of measures are being undertaken to increase capacity so that the respondent ASADA can provide drinking water to this community. It should be emphasized that whether the requested service should be granted is not a matter to be litigated in this jurisdiction, as it falls outside the scope of this Chamber’s jurisdiction. This Court has repeatedly held that applications for drinking-water service may be denied when technical impossibilities arise, subconstitutional requirements have not been met, or technical and/or legal assessments justify such denial. Likewise, it is not for this Chamber to determine whether the petitioner satisfies the legal or technical requirements for approval of the application, because verification thereof is a function of the corresponding administrative authorities, and this Chamber may not intrude upon that subject matter, as it involves issues of ordinary legality outside its jurisdiction (…)” (emphasis not in the original).
In addition to the foregoing, with respect to the Asociación Administradora del Acueducto Rural Buenos Aires Sur, Jiménez, it was established that it provides service to the community of Buenos Aires Sur and part of Green Valley’s southern sector, supplying approximately 650 customers. It was also established that the Green Valley community is divided into three sectors and that the central sector lacks a formal operator. In that context, ASADA reported that it has not arbitrarily refused to assist in finding solutions and that its actions are contingent upon AyA’s institutional involvement and approval, as well as compliance with health and environmental regulations. In particular, it was established that the comprehensive technical study conducted by ASADA in 2020 contemplated a potential expansion into part of Green Valley and was reviewed and approved by AyA; however, that fact does not, by itself, constitute an immediate and absolute mandate to connect every property in the sector, because the expansion requires specific delineation of the project, verification of networks in the particular area, and, where applicable, the infrastructure and easements necessary for its implementation.
Indeed, it was also established that the application processed in 2021 by the neighborhood committee was planned for a group of 40 properties in the southern sector and expressly did not contemplate extending service into the northern sector near Colegio Green Valley, where the protected party’s properties are located; consequently, the petitioner’s situation is not comparable to that group of homes, which was the subject of a specific and clearly delineated technical project.
In this regard, the case law of this Chamber has consistently held that, although there is a fundamental right to drinking water, its exercise is not unrestricted and does not, under all circumstances, impose an obligation to provide service when a duly established technical, legal, or environmental impossibility exists, or when the applicant has not met the general requirements necessary for assessing supply feasibility. Accordingly, when denial or inability to provide service is based on objective technical and environmental criteria rather than arbitrary or discriminatory action, there is no violation of fundamental rights.
Finally, the respondent party must be advised that it must take the appropriate actions within the scope of its powers and coordinate as necessary so that the problem caused by the identified technical impossibility is resolved within a reasonable period and without undue delay.
In view of the foregoing, this proceeding is dismissed, as set forth in the operative portion of this judgment.
In the sub examine matter, the petitioner complains of the inadequate provision of drinking water services in the place where the petitioner resides.
In this regard, as has occurred in other matters in which supply problems of that magnitude have been alleged (for example, expediente nro. 20-004883-0007-CO), we consider it essential to include the Public Services Regulatory Authority (Aresep) as a party. Indeed, in the judgment issued in the referenced proceeding (nro. 2020007754 de las 9:45 horas de 24 de abril de 2020), the Chamber noted that Aresep, in submitting its report, identified a series of problems at the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers relating to infrastructure investment, losses due to unaccounted-for water, and implementation capacity. On that occasion, this Court held: “In this regard, the record shows not only that the water-supply shortage problem had been evident since 2017, but also that ARESEP specified that ICAA had fallen behind in infrastructure investment and, furthermore, had sustained significant losses due to unaccounted-for water. Likewise, the regulatory authority also stated that the capacity of drinking water service operators to implement projects had not been as desired.” Consequently, we dissent and order that the processing of the appeal continue so that a report may be requested from the General Regulator of the Public Services Regulatory Authority.
In this case, I concur with the majority opinion denying the appeal; however, I do so for the following reasons:
The protection of a healthy and ecologically balanced environment under the Costa Rican Legal System is safeguarded not only by Article 50 of the Political Constitution, but also by a series of laws and executive decrees (regulations) currently in force, such as the Organic Law of the Environment, Ley N° 7554 de 4 de octubre de 1995; the Biodiversity Law, Ley N° 7788 de 30 de abril de 1998; the Wildlife Conservation Law, Ley N° 7317 de 21 de octubre de 1992; and Decreto Ejecutivo N° 31849 de 24 de mayo de 2004, General Regulations on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Procedures, to cite only a few. In environmental matters, this makes it necessary to distinguish constitutional review from legality review. In this regard, it is the undersigned’s position that this Chamber, through an amparo proceeding, should hear a matter alleging a violation of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment only if the Administration has not yet intervened and the violation of that right is manifest and evident, readily ascertainable, of some importance or seriousness, and directly affects a specific person or community.
Otherwise, the issue must be raised and litigated through legality proceedings. Therefore, mere noncompliance with obligations and duties legally imposed on the various public administrative bodies in environmental matters is properly heard through legality proceedings—whether administrative or judicial—where the alleged breaches or omissions may be reviewed much more comprehensively. It must be borne in mind that an amparo appeal is a summary, informal, straightforward, and expedited proceeding; accordingly, from the very moment the Administration intervenes in an environmental matter in the exercise of its powers and conducts a proceeding through the issuance of administrative acts, review thereof falls outside the scope of action of this specialized jurisdiction. Therefore, review of administrative actions undertaken in connection with an environmental issue that, for proper assessment, requires a full evidentiary proceeding is possible only in the ordinary jurisdiction, since the design of the amparo proceeding is incompatible with comparing or reviewing technical or legal criteria developed pursuant to the legal or regulatory provisions in force, or with the taking of new and additional evidence needed to compare or review the criteria already contained in the administrative record of the case.
The contrary would entail transforming the amparo into an ordinary proceeding for full adjudication, thereby distorting it and frustrating the purposes for which it was designed, as a result of which it would lose its status as an instrument for the effective protection of fundamental rights. Consequently, I consider that when a public entity or body has intervened in various ways or has issued administrative acts in relation to an environmental matter, review and oversight thereof fall within the jurisdiction of the administrative courts. It is precisely the verification of the existence of such administrative intervention that determines that the matter falls within the jurisdiction of legality proceedings. Consequently, this appeal should have been summarily dismissed, since its subject matter is a question properly litigated, analyzed, and decided through legality proceedings. However, since that was not done, the appropriate disposition is to deny the appeal without ruling on the merits of the issue raised, because it is for the ordinary jurisdiction—specifically, the administrative courts—to determine whether the challenged administrative actions and conduct substantively comply with the provisions of the legal system at the statutory level concerning the protection, safeguarding, and conservation of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.
VII- DOCUMENTATION SUBMITTED TO THE CASE FILE. The parties are hereby advised that, if they have submitted any paper document, as well as objects or evidence contained on any additional electronic, computer, magnetic, optical, or telematic device, or produced using new technologies, these must be retrieved from the court within a maximum period of 30 business days counted from notification of this judgment. Otherwise, any material not retrieved within this period will be destroyed, pursuant to the “Regulations on Electronic Case Files before the Judiciary,” approved by the Full Court at session N° 27-11 del 22 de agosto del 2011, Article XXVI, and published in Judicial Bulletin number 19 del 26 de enero del 2012, as well as the resolution approved by the Superior Council of the Judiciary at session N° 43-12 celebrada el 3 de mayo del 2012, Article LXXXI.
POR TANTO:
The appeal is DENIED. LOURDES MARÍA SÁUREZ BARBOZA, in her capacity as Executive President of the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers, and CARLOS BARQUERO LÓPEZ, in his capacity as Legal Representative of the Buenos Aires Sur Rural Aqueduct Association, or whoever may hold those offices, shall take note of the matters stated in recital IV of this judgment. Justices Cruz Castro and Rueda Leal dissent and order that the processing of the appeal continue so that a report may be requested from the General Regulator of the Public Services Regulatory Authority. Justice Salazar Alvarado denies the appeal because it is for the ordinary jurisdiction—specifically, the administrative courts—to determine whether the challenged administrative actions and conduct substantively comply with the provisions of the legal system at the statutory level concerning the protection, safeguarding, and conservation of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. Let notice be given.
Fernando Castillo V.
President Fernando Cruz C.
Paul Rueda L.
Luis Fdo. Salazar A.
Jorge Araya G.
Anamari Garro V.
Ingrid Hess H.
Telephone numbers: 2549-1500 / 800-SALA-4TA (800-7252-482). Fax: 2220-4607 / 2220-4844. Website: www.poder-judicial.go.cr/salaconstitucional. Address: (Sabana Sur, Calle Morenos, 100 mts. south of the Perpetuo Socorro Church).
Revisión del Documento SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las nueve horas veinte minutos del treinta de enero de dos mil veintiseis .
Recurso de amparo que se tramita en el expediente número 25-039977-0007-CO interpuesto por [Nombre 001], cédula de identidad [Valor 001], a favor de [Nombre 002], cédula de identidad [Valor 002], contra la ASOCIACIÓN DE ACUEDUCTO RURAL DE BUENOS AIRES SUR DE JIMÉNEZ Y EL INSTITUTO COSTARRICENSE DE ACUEDUCTOS Y ALCANTARILLADOS.
RESULTANDO:
Redacta el Magistrado Castillo Víquez; y,
Considerando:
Por su excepcional naturaleza, el trámite ordinario de los recursos de amparo contra sujetos de derecho privado exige comenzar por examinar si, en la especie, estamos o no ante alguno de los supuestos que lo hacen admisible, para —posteriormente y en caso afirmativo—, dilucidar si es estimable o no. En ese particular, la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, en su artículo 57, estipula bajo qué supuestos es admisible el amparo contra las acciones u omisiones de sujetos de derecho privado, es decir, cuando éstos actúen o deban actuar en ejercicio de funciones o potestades públicas, o, se encuentren, de derecho o de hecho, en una posición de poder frente a la cual los remedios jurisdiccionales comunes resulten claramente insuficientes o tardíos para garantizar los derechos o libertades fundamentales a que se refiere el artículo 2°, inciso a), de la misma Ley. Visto lo anterior, en el caso concreto, se estima procedente entrar a conocer el fondo del asunto, considerando que la una de las partes accionadas (Asociación de Acueducto Rural Buenos Aires Sur) se encuentra en una posición de poder frente a la cual los remedios jurisdiccionales comunes resultan claramente insuficientes o tardíos para garantizar los derechos o libertades fundamentales que se reclaman como lesionados. En consecuencia, procede conocer el recurso por el fondo.
La parte recurrente interpone recurso de amparo y expone que, desde el año 2015, el amparado adquirió dos lotes ubicados en Calle Valle Verde, Guápiles, debidamente inscritos y cercanos a un edificio del Poder Judicial, y desde entonces ha gestionado sin éxito el acceso al servicio de agua potable. Pese a múltiples solicitudes y a la constitución de la ASADA Buenos Aires Sur junto con otros vecinos, el AyA ha negado reiteradamente la disponibilidad del servicio sin respaldo técnico suficiente, autorizándolo únicamente para 40 viviendas. Las negativas se han sustentado en argumentos que el amparado considera infundados y discriminatorios, pese a existir infraestructura instalada, disponibilidad de agua acreditada por la ASADA y un tanque del AyA cercano. Añade que, aun cuando los vecinos asumieron costos económicos significativos a solicitud del AyA, el servicio sigue sin brindarse, manteniéndolo en una situación prolongada de indefensión y trato arbitrario.
De importancia para la decisión de este asunto, se estiman como debidamente demostrados los siguientes hechos:
Hechos relacionados con el Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados:
El 28 de abril de 2015, la Dirección Ambiental del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados emitió el criterio técnico SUB-AID-GA-2015-432, en el cual no recomendó, desde el punto de vista hidrogeológico y de protección del acuífero, la exoneración del proyecto urbanístico “Nuevo Guápiles”, ubicado en el área de Valle Verde, por tratarse de un acuífero altamente vulnerable a la contaminación (ver informe rendido por parte de las autoridades accionadas).
El 20 de julio de 2017, la Unidad Cantonal RHC-Pococí del AyA informó a representantes de la comunidad de Valle Verde que en dicho sector no existía red de agua potable del sistema de Guápiles y que el tanque Numancia se encontraba a una elevación menor, lo que hacía técnicamente inviable el abastecimiento desde ese sistema (ver informe rendido por parte de las autoridades accionadas).
El 05 de marzo de 2021, mediante oficio N.° GSD-UEN-GAR-2021-00953, la UEN Gestión de Acueductos Rurales del AyA indicó que la ASADA Buenos Aires tenía disposición de asumir el suministro de agua potable para el sector Valle Verde, aclarando que el proyecto técnico se limitaba a 40 propiedades del sector sur y que no contemplaba la extensión del servicio hacia el sector norte, cercano al Colegio Green Valley, donde se ubican las propiedades del recurrente (ver informe rendido por parte de las autoridades accionadas).
El 05 de marzo de 2021, el AyA señaló que la eventual ampliación del servicio por parte de la ASADA Buenos Aires requería la constitución previa de una servidumbre de acueducto sobre una propiedad privada perteneciente a la empresa El Colono, sin la cual el proyecto no resultaba técnica ni legalmente viable (ver informe rendido por parte de las autoridades accionadas).
No constaba en los registros institucionales una solicitud formal de disponibilidad de agua potable para el sector norte de Valle Verde, donde se ubican las propiedades del recurrente, ni la presentación de estudios técnicos específicos para urbanizaciones, lotificaciones o segregaciones (ver informe rendido por parte de las autoridades accionadas).
El sector de Valle Verde se encontraba fuera del área de cobertura de los sistemas de acueductos administrados directamente por el AyA en la Región Huetar Caribe, razón por la cual no se habían emitido constancias de disponibilidad de agua para dicho sector (ver informe rendido por parte de las autoridades accionadas).
El área donde se ubican las propiedades del recurrente se encuentra parcialmente dentro de una zona de restricción ambiental asociada a la protección del Pozo Numancia, lo que impone limitaciones severas para nuevas conexiones de agua potable y desarrollos habitacionales (ver informe rendido por parte de las autoridades accionadas).
La sola cercanía física del inmueble del recurrente a infraestructura institucional, como el tanque Numancia, no genera un derecho automático a la conexión del servicio, máxime cuando dicho tanque se encuentra a una elevación inferior respecto al sector de Valle Verde, lo que impide técnicamente la ampliación de la cobertura (ver informe rendido por parte de las autoridades accionadas).
La situación del recurrente no es comparable con la de las 40 viviendas del sector sur de Valle Verde y la negativa al otorgamiento de disponibilidad de agua se fundamenta en criterios técnicos, legales y ambientales objetivos (ver informe rendido por parte de las autoridades accionadas).
Para que la ASADA Buenos Aires Sur pudiera otorgar una constancia de disponibilidad de servicios de forma positiva, los interesados debían cumplir con los requisitos reglamentarios, incluidos la presentación de estudios técnicos de factibilidad y la ejecución de obras de mejora, lo cual no había sido acreditado en el caso del recurrente (ver informe rendido por parte de las autoridades accionadas).
Hechos relacionados con la Asociación de Acueducto Rural Buenos Aires Sur:
El alrededor del año 2000, ante la imposibilidad del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados de brindar el servicio de agua potable en la zona, surgió como iniciativa comunal el acueducto que posteriormente sería administrado por la Asociación Administradora del Acueducto Rural Buenos Aires Sur, Jiménez (ver informe rendido por parte de las autoridades accionadas).
En septiembre de 2007, se celebró la asamblea constitutiva mediante la cual se formalizó la Asociación Administradora del Acueducto Rural Buenos Aires Sur, Jiménez, entidad que con posterioridad suscribió el respectivo convenio de delegación con el Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados para regular su operación (ver informe rendido por parte de las autoridades accionadas).
En el año 2020, la Asociación Administradora del Acueducto Rural Buenos Aires Sur, Jiménez, realizó un estudio técnico integral para evaluar la condición hídrica e hidráulica del sistema de acueducto, el cual contempló como posible área de desarrollo futuro una parte de la comunidad de Green Valley, específicamente el sector comprendido desde el cuadrante hasta las cercanías del Colegio Green Valley (ver informe rendido por parte de las autoridades accionadas).
En el año 2020, el estudio técnico integral realizado por la ASADA Buenos Aires Sur fue conocido y aprobado por el Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, sirviendo de base para valorar una eventual ampliación del servicio de agua potable en parte de la comunidad de Green Valley (ver informe rendido por parte de las autoridades accionadas).
La ASADA Buenos Aires Sur abastecía aproximadamente a 650 abonados activos y brindaba el servicio de agua potable a la comunidad de Buenos Aires Sur y a una parte del sector sur de la comunidad de Green Valley (ver informe rendido por parte de las autoridades accionadas).
La comunidad de Green Valley está dividida en tres sectores diferenciados: un sector sur abastecido por la ASADA Buenos Aires Sur, un sector norte abastecido por el Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados y un sector central que no contaba con un ente operador del servicio de agua potable (ver informe rendido por parte de las autoridades accionadas).
Nunca se negó de forma arbitraria el acceso al servicio de agua potable a los habitantes del sector central de Green Valley y que había mostrado su anuencia y disposición para colaborar en la búsqueda de soluciones, condicionadas a la aprobación y acompañamiento de las instituciones competentes, particularmente el Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados (ver informe rendido por parte de las autoridades accionadas).
Después de analizar los elementos probatorios aportados, este Tribunal descarta la lesión a los derechos fundamentales de la parte amparada. De los informes rendidos por los representantes de las autoridades recurridas -que se tienen dados bajo juramento con las consecuencias, incluso penales, previstas en el artículo 44 de la Ley que rige esta Jurisdicción- y la prueba aportada para la resolución del asunto ha sido debidamente acreditado que, en primer término, el sector en el que se ubican las propiedades del amparado (Valle Verde, específicamente el área cercana al Colegio Green Valley) no forma parte del área de cobertura de los sistemas de acueducto administrados directamente por el Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, Región Huetar Caribe. Asimismo, se comprobó que el acueducto institucional más cercano (sistema HC-A-14 Guápiles-La Rita-Roxana-Jiménez) no alcanza a cubrir la zona donde se encuentran las fincas del amparado y que, en particular, el tanque Numancia se ubica a una elevación inferior respecto del sector Valle Verde, por lo que no resulta técnicamente viable extender el servicio desde dicha infraestructura. En consecuencia, la sola cercanía del inmueble a ese tanque o a otras obras no genera un derecho automático a la conexión, pues la prestación del servicio está sujeta a criterios técnicos y a la capacidad real de los sistemas existentes.
En segundo término, se tuvo por demostrado que el área presenta restricciones ambientales relevantes, vinculadas a la protección de fuentes estratégicas de abastecimiento y a la vulnerabilidad del acuífero, lo cual impone límites severos para la aprobación de nuevas conexiones o disponibilidades de servicio, particularmente cuando se trate de procesos de urbanización, lotificación o segregación que puedan comprometer la calidad y la cantidad del recurso hídrico. En este punto, los criterios técnicos aportados por las autoridades accionadas evidenciaron que, tratándose de una zona ambientalmente sensible, la evaluación de factibilidad no puede prescindir del análisis integral de la capacidad hídrica e hidráulica, así como del componente sanitario-ambiental, en especial del manejo adecuado de aguas residuales y su eventual tratamiento.
En tercer lugar, se acreditó que, respecto del sector norte de Valle Verde donde se ubican las propiedades del amparado, no constaba en los registros del AyA el ingreso de una solicitud formal de disponibilidad de agua potable, ni la presentación de estudios técnicos específicos orientados a urbanizaciones, lotificaciones o segregaciones que habilitaran un análisis técnico-jurídico de factibilidad. Ello resulta determinante, puesto que el ordenamiento que regula la prestación del servicio impone requisitos generales y objetivos para que la Administración o el operador por delegación valoren el abastecimiento, entre ellos, la existencia de redes, la capacidad hidráulica e hídrica real, la viabilidad legal del trazado (servidumbres o accesos) y el cumplimiento de la normativa ambiental aplicable. Así, mientras tales requisitos no se acrediten mediante el estudio correspondiente, no es jurídicamente procedente exigir una constancia positiva de disponibilidad, ni una conexión definitiva.
Ahora bien, la Sala ha determinado que no constituye una lesión a los derechos de una persona que se niegue el servicio de agua potable cuando existen impedimentos técnicos que lo justifiquen:
“II.-Sobre el caso concreto. Entre la prueba aportada, se aprecia una certificación de no disponibilidad de agua del 15 de julio de 2021, mediante la que el AyA le notificó al accionante el rechazo de su solicitud de disponibilidad de agua potable para la individualización de servicios para un apartamento ubicado en el inmueble de su propiedad. La denegatoria se sustentó en la falta de factibilidad técnica debido a la insuficiencia de capacidad hídrica e hidráulica en el sistema de abastecimiento de la zona, por lo que no se tiene disponibilidad del servicio de agua potable para nuevos proyectos de desarrollo.
Así las cosas, se acredita que el sub lite no versa sobre una denegatoria arbitraria del servicio de agua potable, pues esta se fundamentó en la falta de factibilidad técnica. En esta línea, adviértase que este Tribunal Constitucional no es un contralor de la legalidad de las actuaciones o resoluciones de la autoridad recurrida y tampoco puede reemplazar a la Administración activa en la gestión de sus competencias, de modo que no le corresponde usurpar las atribuciones que le han sido legalmente conferidas a otras dependencias, órganos o entes, como el AyA. Tampoco este Tribunal funge como mediador ante una determinada persona física o jurídica -ya sea de derecho público o privado-, para interceder a fin de que se le conceda lo que la parte recurrente pretende, en este caso, que se le instale un nuevo medidor para el apartamento que construyó para su hija. Ahora bien, si lo que ocurre es que el recurrente está inconforme con las razones que justificaron la denegatoria del nuevo medidor por parte del AyA, deberá plantear sus agravios y pretensiones ante la vía ordinaria de legalidad, para que allí se determine lo que en derecho corresponde”. (Sentencia nro. 2021018977 de las 11:50 horas de 24 de agosto de 2021).
La Sala no observa motivos para cambiar el criterio transcrito. En efecto, no se estima que la denegatoria sea irrazonable ni antojadiza cuando se basa en una justificación técnica como es, en este caso, la deficiente capacidad hidráulica del acueducto. La discusión del tema de fondo puede ser planteada en la vía de legalidad.
Valga acotar que al resolver un asunto similar al presente, este Tribunal en la sentencia No. 2020-19832 de las 09:30 horas de 16 de octubre de 2020, dispuso:
“(…) de las pruebas de factibilidad realizadas en la localidad, se determinó la indisponibilidad del servicio de agua por falta de capacidad de almacenamiento en la comunidad de Pijije de Bagaces; sin embargo, alega que se están realizando una serie de acciones tendientes a aumentar la capacidad, para lograr la dotación de agua potable en esta comunidad por parte de la ASADA recurrida. Cabe destacar, que la procedencia o no del servicio solicitado no es un asunto que deba discutirse en esta jurisdicción, ya que es ajeno al ámbito de competencia de esta Sala. En reiteradas ocasiones, este Tribunal ha sostenido que resulta posible desestimar las gestiones presentadas para el otorgamiento del servicio de agua potable, cuando se presenten imposibilidades técnicas, incumplimiento de requisitos infraconstitucionales o existan criterios técnicos y/o legales que así lo justifiquen. Asimismo, no le corresponde a esta Sala definir si el recurrente cumple o no los requisitos legales o técnicos para que la solicitud sea aprobada, ya que su verificación es una función de las autoridades administrativas correspondientes, sin que esta Sala pueda incursionar en la materia, por tratarse de aspectos de legalidad ordinaria ajenos a su competencia (…)” (el énfasis no pertenece al original).
Aunado a lo anterior, en lo relativo a la Asociación Administradora del Acueducto Rural Buenos Aires Sur, Jiménez, se comprobó que esta presta el servicio a la comunidad de Buenos Aires Sur y a una parte del sector sur de Green Valley, abasteciendo aproximadamente 650 abonados. También se acreditó que la comunidad de Green Valley se encuentra dividida en tres sectores y que el sector central carece de un ente operador formal. En ese contexto, la ASADA informó que no se ha negado de manera arbitraria a colaborar para encontrar soluciones y que su actuación se encuentra condicionada por la necesidad de intervención y aprobación institucional del AyA, así como por el cumplimiento de la normativa sanitaria y ambiental. De manera particular, se probó que el estudio técnico integral realizado en 2020 por la ASADA contempló una eventual ampliación hacia parte de Green Valley y fue conocido y aprobado por el AyA; sin embargo, ello no equivale, por sí mismo, a un mandato inmediato y absoluto de conexión para cualquier inmueble del sector, pues la ampliación requiere la delimitación concreta del proyecto, la verificación de redes en el área específica y, en su caso, las obras y servidumbres necesarias para su ejecución.
De hecho, también se acreditó que la gestión tramitada en 2021 por el comité de vecinos se proyectó para un conjunto de 40 propiedades del sector sur y que expresamente no consideró la extensión hacia el sector norte cercano al Colegio Green Valley, donde se ubican las fincas del amparado; de modo que la situación del recurrente no es equiparable a la de ese grupo de viviendas, que fue objeto de un proyecto técnico específico y delimitado.
En este orden de ideas, la jurisprudencia de esta Sala ha sido constante en señalar que, si bien existe un derecho fundamental al agua potable, su ejercicio no es irrestricto ni impone, en cualquier circunstancia, una obligación de dotar el servicio cuando exista imposibilidad técnica, jurídica o ambiental debidamente acreditada o cuando el solicitante no haya cumplido los requisitos generales exigibles para valorar la factibilidad de abastecimiento. Bajo ese entendido, cuando la denegatoria o la imposibilidad de prestación se sustenta en criterios objetivos, técnicos y ambientales, y no en una actuación arbitraria o discriminatoria, no se configura violación de derechos fundamentales.
Finalmente, debe indicarse a la parte accionada que debe ejecutar las actuaciones pertinentes dentro del ámbito de sus competencias y coordinando lo necesario, de tal forma que se solucione el problema que genera la imposibilidad técnica apuntada, dentro de un plazo razonable, sin dilaciones indebidas.
En virtud de lo expuesto, se declara sin lugar el presente proceso, tal como se indica en la parte dispositiva de esta sentencia.
En el sub examine, la parte accionante reclama la inadecuada prestación del servicio de agua potable en el lugar donde vive.
Al respecto, tal y como ha ocurrido en otros asuntos en los que se han alegado problemas de abastecimiento de esa magnitud (por ejemplo, el expediente nro. 20-004883-0007-CO), consideramos imprescindible tener como parte a la Autoridad Reguladora de Servicios Públicos (Aresep). Incluso, en la sentencia dictada en el proceso referido (nro. 2020007754 de las 9:45 horas de 24 de abril de 2020), la Sala valoró que Aresep, al rendir su informe, puntualizó una serie de problemas del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados en relación con la inversión en infraestructura, pérdidas por agua no contabilizada y capacidad de ejecución. En esa oportunidad, este Tribunal consideró: “Al respecto, no solo consta que la problemática de desabastecimiento de agua se venía reflejando desde el 2017, sino que la ARESEP puntualizó que el ICAA tenía un rezago en la inversión en infraestructura y, además, significativas pérdidas por concepto de agua no contabilizada. Asimismo, el ente regulador también afirmó que la capacidad de ejecución de los proyectos por parte de los operadores del servicio de agua potable no ha sido la deseable”.
En consecuencia, salvamos el voto y ordenamos continuar la tramitación del recurso a los efectos de que se solicite informe al regulador general de la Autoridad Reguladora de los Servicios Públicos.
En este caso, coincido con el voto de mayoría que declara sin lugar el recurso, sin embargo, de conformidad con las siguientes razones:
La protección a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, en el Ordenamiento Jurídico Costarricense, está tutelado no solo en el artículo 50, de la Constitución Política, sino también en una serie de leyes y decretos ejecutivos (reglamentos) vigentes, tales como la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, Ley N° 7554 de 4 de octubre de 1995; la Ley de Biodiversidad, Ley N° 7788 de 30 de abril de 1998; la Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre, Ley N° 7317 de 21 de octubre de 1992; y el Decreto Ejecutivo N° 31849 de 24 de mayo de 2004, Reglamento General sobre los Procedimientos de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental (EIA), para citar solo algunos. Esto hace necesario, en materia ambiental, separar el control de constitucionalidad del control de legalidad. En este sentido, es criterio del suscrito que esta Sala, por vía de amparo, solo debe conocer un asunto en que se alega violación al derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, si la Administración no ha intervenido aún y cuando la violación a ese derecho sea manifiesta y evidente, de fácil constatación, de cierta importancia o gravedad y que afecte, de forma directa, a alguna persona o comunidad en concreto.
De lo contrario, el tema debe plantearse y discutirse en la vía de legalidad. Por ello, el simple incumplimiento de obligaciones y deberes impuestos legalmente a las diversas administraciones públicas en materia ambiental es propio de ser conocido en la vía de legalidad –administrativa o jurisdiccional-, donde, con mucha mayor amplitud, podrán fiscalizarse los incumplimientos u omisiones que se acusen. Debe tenerse presente que el recurso de amparo es un proceso sumario, informal, sencillo y rápido, de manera tal, que desde el momento mismo en que la Administración interviene en un asunto ambiental, en ejercicio de sus competencias, y sustancia un procedimiento, con el dictado de actos administrativos, su conocimiento resulta ajeno al ámbito de acción de esta jurisdicción especializada. Por ello, la revisión de las actuaciones administrativas llevadas a cabo en torno a un tema ambiental que requiera, para su correcta valoración, de un proceso de conocimiento pleno, solo es posible en la jurisdicción ordinaria, toda vez que el diseño del proceso de amparo es incompatible con la contrastación o revisión de criterios técnicos o jurídicos elaborados al amparo de las normas legales o reglamentarias vigentes o con la evacuación de nuevos y mayores elementos de convicción necesarios para la contrastación o revisión de los criterios que ya consten en el expediente administrativo del caso.
Lo contrario implicaría transformar el amparo en un proceso ordinario de pleno conocimiento, con lo cual se desnaturalizaría y se tornarían nugatorios los fines para los cuales ha sido diseñado, con lo cual, perdería su condición de instrumento para la tutela eficaz de los derechos fundamentales. Como consecuencia de lo anterior, estimo que cuando un ente u órgano público ha intervenido, en diversas formas, o ha dictado actos administrativos en relación con un asunto ambiental, su conocimiento y fiscalización corresponde a la jurisdicción de lo contencioso-administrativo. Es, precisamente, la verificación de la existencia de esa intervención administrativa lo que determina que el asunto sea competencia de la vía legalidad. En consecuencia, este recurso debió haberse rechazado de plano, ya que su objeto es una cuestión propia de ser discutida, analizada y resuelta en la vía de legalidad. Empero, como no se hizo así, lo procedente es declararlo sin lugar, sin hacer pronunciamiento alguno con respecto al fondo de la cuestión planteada por corresponderle a la jurisdicción ordinaria, en específico, a la contencioso-administrativa, determinar si las actuaciones y conductas administrativas acusadas se ajustan o no, en sustancia, a lo preceptuado en el ordenamiento jurídico de rango legal, en cuanto a la protección, tutela y conservación del derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado.
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 30 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 N° 27-11 del 22 de agosto del 2011, artículo XXVI y publicado en el Boletín Judicial número 19 del 26 de enero del 2012, así como en el acuerdo aprobado por el Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial, en la sesión N° 43-12 celebrada el 3 de mayo del 2012, artículo LXXXI.
POR TANTO:
Se declara SIN LUGAR el recurso. Tomen nota LOURDES MARÍA SÁUREZ BARBOZA, en condición de Presidenta Ejecutiva del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, así como, CARLOS BARQUERO LÓPEZ, en condición de Representante legal de la Asociación de Acueducto Rural Buenos Aires Sur o quienes ocupen esos cargos, de lo indicado en el considerando IV de esta sentencia. Los magistrados Cruz Castro y Rueda Leal salvan el voto y ordenan continuar la tramitación del recurso a los efectos de que se solicite informe al regulador general de la Autoridad Reguladora de los Servicios Públicos. El Magistrado Salazar Alvarado declara sin lugar el recurso, por corresponderle a la jurisdicción ordinaria, en específico, a la contencioso-administrativa, determinar si las actuaciones y conductas administrativas acusadas se ajustan o no, en sustancia, a lo preceptuado en el ordenamiento jurídico de rango legal, en cuanto a la protección, tutela y conservación del derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. Notifíquese.
Fernando Castillo V.
Fernando Cruz C.
Paul Rueda L.
Luis Fdo. Salazar A.
Jorge Araya G.
Anamari Garro V.
Ingrid Hess H.
Document not found. Documento no encontrado.