Amparo Over AyA Denial of Potable Water AvailabilityAmparo por denegación de disponibilidad de agua potable por AyA

Res. Nº 2026013437 CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at nine hours and twenty minutes on the twenty-first of April two thousand and twenty-six.

Writ of amparo (recurso de amparo) processed under case file number 26-007401-0007-CO, filed by Nombre01, national identity number CED01, against the INSTITUTO COSTARRICENSE DE ACUEDUCTOS Y ALCANTARILLADOS (Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers, ICAA).

RECITALS:

1.- By written petition received in the Chamber's Secretariat at 12:40 hours on March 2, 2026, the appellant (recurrente) files a writ of amparo against ICAA and states that he is a resident of San Antonio de Alajuelita, owner of a dwelling located on the property registered under property registry folio (folio real) number 1-0169293-005 with cadastral plan (plano catastrado) SJ-586846-1985. He explains that potable water supply in the area is provided by AyA; however, it is delivered through a single meter shared among several property owners, causing unequal distribution, low pressure, intermittent supply, and at times a complete absence of service for extended periods of the day, making it difficult to use for human consumption, hygiene, food preparation, and other basic needs. For this reason, on September 25, 2025, he submitted a formal request to AyA for a certificate of potable water service availability to regularize access to his dwelling. He claims that notwithstanding the foregoing, on October 9, 2025, through official communication SIGDD-2025-00101562-1-2-NN, AyA denied technical feasibility (factibilidad técnica), citing insufficient infrastructure in the ME-A-19 Puente de Mulas system and the absence of a sanitary sewer (alcantarillado sanitario) network in the area. He argues that this denial was not accompanied by alternative measures to guarantee effective and adequate access to potable water, leaving the supply disruption unresolved. He therefore considers that the situation described constitutes a current, concrete, and ongoing violation, as the dwelling is occupied and lacks regular water supply. He notes that the structural deficiency of the shared system prevents the access necessary for daily subsistence. Accordingly, he asks that AyA be ordered to adopt the necessary technical measures to guarantee effective access to potable water, including service individualization (individualización del servicio) through the installation of an individual meter, given that the shared system does not permit equitable or sufficient access. For the foregoing reasons, he requests that the writ of amparo be granted and that the respondent Institute be ordered to guarantee continuous, sufficient, and potable water supply to his dwelling; that the necessary technical measures for service individualization with an individual meter be put in place; and that AyA be warned against again engaging in omissions that affect this right.

2.- Under oath, José Darío Guzmán Álvarez, in his capacity as General Manager of ICAA, reports that, based on the technical reports prepared by Jorge Mauricio Matamoros Pérez, an official of the UEN Customer Service Zone III GAM (UEN Servicio al Cliente Zona III GAM), report No. UEN-SCZIII-GAM-2026-00219 dated March 25, 2026, and Yeilin Jimenez Venegas, an official of the UEN Customer Service Metering GAM (UEN Servicio al Cliente Medición GAM), report No. UEN-SCMED-GAM-2026-00519 dated March 27, 2026, both of which are attached as evidence and form an integral part of the administrative record, the following has been demonstrated:

"1. On September 25, 2025, a request for a Certificate of Potable Water Availability (Constancia de Disponibilidad de Agua Potable) was received in the name of Nombre01, national identity number CED02, for the property registered under Property Registry Folio No. and Cadastral Plan SJ-586846-1985 in the Province of San José, Canton of Alajuelita, District of San Antonio, for the individualization of a service that would supply a family barbecue shelter (rancho parrillero) for weekend recreational use; this request was entered into the Integrated System for Management and Development (Sistema Integrado para la Gestión y Desarrollos, SIGDD), generating request number No. 2025-00101562-1. (See technical reports No. UEN-SCZIII-GAM-2026-00219 dated March 25, 2026 and No. UEN-SCMED-GAM-2026-00519 dated March 27, 2026). 2. The request for a Certificate of Potable Water Availability in the name of Nombre01, national identity number ED03.. 110700094, for the property registered under Property Registry Folio No., Cadastral Plan No. SJ-586846-1985 located in the Province of San José, Canton of Alajuelita, District of San Antonio, for the individualization of a service that would supply a family barbecue shelter for weekend recreational use, was considered and resolved negatively for both potable water service and sanitary sewer service, based on the technical study conducted, which stated: "The production and distribution infrastructure in the sector is insufficient for this type of development, which falls within the ME-A-19 Puente de Mulas system of AyA; this system corresponds to areas where, due to their location and deficiencies in the water capacity (capacidad hídrica) and hydraulic capacity (capacidad hidráulica) of the supply systems, water availability for more than one consumption unit (unidad de consumo) per property is not available." This was duly notified on October 9, 2025 to the email address designated for this purpose by the applicant, namely: ...01. (See technical report No. UEN-SCMED-GAM-2026-00519 dated March 27, 2026). 3. The denial of the Certificate of Potable Water Availability in the name of appellant Nombre01 was based on purely technical grounds, namely, that the production and distribution infrastructure in the sector is insufficient for this type of development, which falls within the ME-A-19 Puente Mulas system of the AyA Metropolitan Aqueduct, which is in a deficit/surplus state; moreover, it is located in operational zone 12 de Julio, which currently presents water and hydraulic deficits. The purpose of issuing administrative acts that grant or deny services in a given area is to inform the applicant about the actual conditions regarding water capacity, collection capacity, and environmental conditions of AyA's systems at a given point, based on 'basic studies' and, depending on the nature of the project, more specific studies, which form the basis for issuing the administrative act and must address, among other aspects: project location, analysis in relation to the water inventory of the area, project vulnerability, scale, nature, projected flow in liters per second, type of activity, population growth, environmental factors that could be affected, and other aspects that must be assessed at the technical level. Likewise, according to memorandum No. UEN-OS-GAM-2025-00160 from the UEN Systems Optimization GAM (UEN Optimización de Sistemas GAM) dated May 5, 2025, the ME-A-19 Puente Mulas system currently shows a water capacity deficit of approximately (-9.8 l/s); on the other hand, the water capacity analysis report for GAM systems No. UEN-OS-GAM-2025-00592 dated December 4, 2025 indicates that this system is in a surplus state and has a positive balance of 18.1 l/s, although it has vulnerabilities associated primarily with its topographic configuration, high population density, non-revenue water losses (pérdidas ANC), and dependence on specific infrastructure; for this reason, preventive restrictions are established in sectors dependent on critical infrastructure (such as Bello Horizonte and Monasterio), and until their hydraulic behavior under actual operating conditions can be validated, positive availability approvals cannot be granted for developments of more than 1 housing unit (unidad habitacional) in the zones of 12 de Julio, Alto Carrizal, Alto Raicero, Bebedero, Bello Horizonte Desamparados, Bello Horizonte La Verbena, Bello Horizonte Monte Alto, Bello Horizonte Tejarcillos, Dirección01, Dirección02, El Alto de Alajuelita, El Carmen de Escazú, Monasterio, Naranjal. The remaining supply zones of the Puente Mulas system have no restrictions, but since they currently show deficiencies in their water and hydraulic capacities, they are considered deficit zones (zonas deficitarias), in accordance with the Regulation for the Provision of Services (Reglamento para la Prestación de los Servicios) in articles 7 and 10, which state that consumption in deficit zones may not exceed the consumption of a single-family dwelling or individual business. Upon verifying the conditions of the property, it was determined that there is one (1) service associated with the property identified with NIS 5554684 under the Residential Metropolitan rate (tarifa Metropolitano Residencial) (M1). (See technical report No. UEN-SCMED-GAM-2026-00519 dated March 27, 2026).

II.APPLICABLE LEGAL FRAMEWORK AyA's actions are grounded in Article 11 of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política); Article 11 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública); and Articles 1, 2, 3, 7, 10, 14, and 74 of the Regulation for the Provision of AyA Services.

III.CONCLUSIONS In the present case, it has been demonstrated that AyA has carried out all actions within its competence and within the applicable legal framework by denying the Certificate of Potable Water Availability in the name of appellant Nombre01, based on the demonstrated actual and current lack of water and/or hydraulic capacity of the ME-A-19 Puente Mulas potable water system, showing through science and technical expertise that there is no technical feasibility for granting a positive availability for potable water supply because this system, while in a surplus state, is located in operational zone 12 de Julio, which currently presents water and hydraulic deficits; accordingly, from the analysis of the documents submitted by the appellant, it is concluded that Certificate No. SIGDD-2025-001015621-1-1-NRT is grounded in Articles 7 (subsections 12, 129, and 131), 8, 9, 10, 14, and 74 of the Regulation for the Provision of AyA Services, regarding the absence of technical feasibility due to deficiencies in the ME-A-19 Puente Mulas potable water system, operational zone 12 de Julio; therefore, based on the foregoing, it is concluded that this writ lacks technical, legal, and regulatory basis, as AyA has fulfilled its obligations imposed by law within the constitutional and legal framework under the principle of legality, and accordingly no constitutional right of the appellant has been violated."

The respondent requests that the writ be dismissed.

3.- The prescribed legal procedures have been observed throughout the proceedings.

Opinion drafted by Justice Garro Vargas; and,

CONSIDERING:

I.- SUBJECT MATTER OF THE WRIT. The appellant, a resident of San Antonio de Alajuelita, states that he is the owner of a dwelling located on the property registered under property registry folio number 1-0169293-005 with cadastral plan SJ-586846-1985. He explains that potable water supply in the area is provided by ICAA; however, it is delivered through a single meter shared among several property owners, causing unequal distribution, low pressure, intermittent supply, and at times a complete absence of service for extended periods of the day, making it difficult to use for human consumption, hygiene, food preparation, and other basic needs. He therefore states that on September 25, 2025, he submitted a formal request to ICAA for a certificate of service availability to regularize access to his dwelling. However, he claims that on October 9, 2025, through official communication SIGDD-2025-00101562-1-2-NN, technical feasibility was denied, citing insufficient infrastructure in the ME-A-19 Puente de Mulas system and the absence of a sanitary sewer network in the area. He considers that this denial was not accompanied by alternative measures to guarantee effective and adequate access to potable water, leaving the supply disruption unresolved.

II.- ESTABLISHED FACTS. For purposes of this decision, the following facts are considered duly established, either because they have been proven or because the respondent failed to address them as required by the initial order (auto inicial):

• a)On September 25, 2025, ICAA received a request for a Certificate of Potable Water Availability in the name of the appellant for the property registered under Property Registry Folio No. and Cadastral Plan SJ-586846-1985 located in the Province of San José, Alajuelita, San Antonio, for the individualization of a service that would supply a family barbecue shelter for weekend recreational use (see the report and attached evidence).
• b)The petitioner's (amparado) request was entered into SIGDD generating request No. 2025-00101562-1 (see the report and attached evidence).
• c)By resolution No. SIGDD-2025-00101562-1-1-1, the request for a Certificate of Potable Water Availability filed by the applicant for the individualization of a service that would supply a family barbecue shelter for weekend recreational use was considered and resolved negatively for both potable water service and sanitary sewer service; this was based on the technical study conducted, which stated: "The production and distribution infrastructure in the sector is insufficient for this type of development, which falls within the ME-A-19 Puente de Mulas system of AyA; this system corresponds to areas where, due to their location and deficiencies in the water capacity and hydraulic capacity of the supply systems, water availability for more than one consumption unit per property is not available." This was duly notified on October 9, 2025 to the designated email address, namely: ...01 (see the report and attached evidence).
• d)Upon verifying the conditions of the petitioner's property, ICAA determined that there is one associated service identified with NIS 5554684 under the Residential Metropolitan rate (M1) (see the report and attached evidence).
• e)According to memorandum No. UEN-OS-GAM-2025-00160 from the UEN Systems Optimization GAM dated May 5, 2025, the ME-A-19 Puente Mulas system currently shows a water capacity deficit of approximately (-9.8 l/s); the water capacity analysis report for GAM systems No. UEN-OS-GAM-2025-00592 dated December 4, 2025 indicates that this system is in a surplus state and has a positive balance of 18.1 l/s, although it has vulnerabilities associated primarily with its topographic configuration, high population density, non-revenue water losses (ANC), and dependence on specific infrastructure; for this reason, preventive restrictions are established in sectors dependent on critical infrastructure (such as Bello Horizonte and Monasterio), and until their hydraulic behavior under actual operating conditions can be validated, positive availability approvals cannot be granted for developments of more than one housing unit in the zones of 12 de Julio, Alto Carrizal, Alto Raicero, Bebedero, Bello Horizonte Desamparados, Bello Horizonte La Verbena, Bello Horizonte Monte Alto, Bello Horizonte Tejarcillos, Dirección01, Dirección02, El Alto de Alajuelita, El Carmen de Escazú, Monasterio, Naranjal; the remaining supply zones of the Puente Mulas system have no restrictions, but since they currently show deficiencies in their water and hydraulic capacities, they are considered deficit zones, in accordance with the Regulation for the Provision of Services in articles 7 and 10, which state that consumption in deficit zones may not exceed the consumption of a single-family dwelling or individual business (see the report and attached evidence).

III.- ON THE MERITS. After analyzing the evidentiary elements submitted and the sworn report from the respondent authority, with timely notice of the consequences set forth in Article 44 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional), this Tribunal finds the following established: on September 25, 2025, ICAA received a request for a Certificate of Potable Water Availability in the name of the appellant for the property registered under Property Registry Folio No. and Cadastral Plan SJ-586846-1985 located in the Province of San José, Alajuelita, San Antonio, for the individualization of a service that would supply a family barbecue shelter for weekend recreational use. The petitioner's request was entered into SIGDD generating request No. 2025-00101562-1. However, it is clear that by resolution No. SIGDD-2025-00101562-1-1-1 the request for a Certificate of Potable Water Availability filed by the applicant for the individualization of a service that would supply a family barbecue shelter for weekend recreational use was considered and resolved negatively for both potable water service and sanitary sewer service; this was based on the technical study conducted, which stated: "The production and distribution infrastructure in the sector is insufficient for this type of development, which falls within the ME-A-19 Puente de Mulas system of AyA; this system corresponds to areas where, due to their location and deficiencies in the water capacity and hydraulic capacity of the supply systems, water availability for more than one consumption unit per property is not available." This was duly notified on October 9, 2025 to the designated email address, namely: ...01. In this regard, it is further noted that upon verifying the conditions of the petitioner's property, ICAA determined that there is one associated service identified with NIS 5554684 under the Residential Metropolitan rate (M1). Consistent with the foregoing, the attached report confirms the following: according to memorandum No. UEN-OS-GAM-2025-00160 from the UEN Systems Optimization GAM dated May 5, 2025, the ME-A-19 Puente Mulas system currently shows a water capacity deficit of approximately (-9.8 l/s); the water capacity analysis report for GAM systems No. UEN-OS-GAM-2025-00592 dated December 4, 2025 indicates that this system is in a surplus state and has a positive balance of 18.1 l/s, although it has vulnerabilities associated primarily with its topographic configuration, high population density, non-revenue water losses (ANC), and dependence on specific infrastructure; for this reason, preventive restrictions are established in sectors dependent on critical infrastructure (such as Bello Horizonte and Monasterio), and until their hydraulic behavior under actual operating conditions can be validated, positive availability approvals cannot be granted for developments of more than one housing unit in the zones of 12 de Julio, Alto Carrizal, Alto Raicero, Bebedero, Bello Horizonte Desamparados, Bello Horizonte La Verbena, Bello Horizonte Monte Alto, Bello Horizonte Tejarcillos, Dirección01, Dirección02, El Alto de Alajuelita, El Carmen de Escazú, Monasterio, Naranjal; the remaining supply zones of the Puente Mulas system have no restrictions, but since they currently show deficiencies in their water and hydraulic capacities, they are considered deficit zones, in accordance with the Regulation for the Provision of Services in articles 7 and 10, which state that consumption in deficit zones may not exceed the consumption of a single-family dwelling or individual business.

Based on the facts described, this Chamber, in judgment No. 07779-2019 of 09:15 hours of May 3, 2019, when addressing a matter similar to the one in this case file, ruled as follows:

"I.- SUBJECT MATTER OF THE WRIT. The appellant states that she owns a parcel of land for construction located in San Antonio de Puriscal. She notes that she initiated the process to build a residential dwelling on said parcel and approached the respondent institution to request potable water service, which was denied on the grounds that there is no availability of potable water or a sewer system in front of her property. She argues that this is incorrect because there is in fact a sewer and potable water system, as it is a main road where dozens of neighbors enjoy water availability, and therefore requests that the writ be granted. 18 II.- ESTABLISHED FACTS. For purposes of this decision, the following facts are considered duly established, either because they have been proven or because the respondent authorities failed to address them as required by the initial order: a) On February 5, 2019, the appellant appeared before the respondent authority to process the request for potable water availability No. 2019-1405 for the Property Registry Folio No. (see electronic record). b) The availability request was denied by the certificate of non-availability of aqueduct and sewer services UND-GAM-0694-2019-1405, issued on February 28, 2019, which stated that in front of the Property Registry Folio No., the necessary production infrastructure to approve the availability requested by the appellant does not currently exist (see electronic record). c) The respondent authority informed the appellant in the aforementioned resolution that, as a consequence of the water capacity shortage currently registered in the Puriscal System, it is not feasible for AyA to approve any request for service availability in the sector where the appellant's property is located, as approving new requests would lead to a deterioration in the quantity and continuity of service provision for current Aqueduct customers (see electronic record). d) There are currently projects in the canton of Puriscal that will help resolve the water capacity shortage in the area indicated by the appellant (see electronic record). III.- ON TECHNICAL IMPOSSIBILITIES THAT OBSTRUCT THE SUPPLY OF POTABLE WATER. This Tribunal has repeatedly stated that a technical, legal, or formal impossibility to provide potable water service does not constitute a violation of fundamental rights; and that it is reasonable to decline service requests or to require the interested party to bear installation costs when there is no potable water distribution network and the construction of infrastructure is required. Thus, in these cases it has been consistently held that the issue is not one of a refusal of access to potable water service, but rather an impossibility of providing it or the need for the interested party's participation in overcoming a technical impossibility, namely the lack of infrastructure. Of course, the responsible authorities have an obligation to continue expanding their infrastructure to guarantee public access to services, but until those gaps are filled, collaboration from interested parties is essential. In other words, as long as the failure to provide potable water service is not capricious, arbitrary, or unfounded, but is instead justified by a legal or material impossibility, a violation of fundamental rights is ruled out (see judgments 2010-001516, 2017-6701, 2007-11190, and 2006-014218, among others). 19 IV.- ON THE SPECIFIC CASE. In this regard, this Tribunal finds that the appellant's claim is inadmissible because, according to the sworn report and the evidence submitted by the respondent authority, the challenged action is neither arbitrary nor illegitimate, given that the petitioner's request was addressed, and her underlying disagreement pertains to the denial of the requested service. With respect to the arguments and claims raised, it must be noted that this Chamber does not review the legality of administrative acts or resolutions, and therefore does not have jurisdiction to determine whether the relief sought by the petitioner is appropriate or whether it complies with applicable statutory law — that being the proper function of ordinary administrative or judicial proceedings. According to what was reported under the solemnity of oath, said availability request was denied by the certificate of non-availability of aqueduct and sewer services UND-GAM-0694-2019-1405, issued on February 28, 2019, communicated to the appellant, which stated that in front of Property Registry Folio No. -001 the necessary production infrastructure to approve the availability requested by the appellant does not currently exist. In administrative proceedings, the certificate of availability of aqueduct and sanitary sewer services is a prerequisite that Municipalities, INVU, and other competent entities require prior to approving the corresponding subdivision (fraccionamiento) and construction permits. In this specific case, it was determined that the water capacity shortage currently registered in the Puriscal System makes it not feasible for AyA to approve any service availability request in the sector where the appellant's property is located, as approving new requests would lead to a deterioration in the quantity and continuity of service provision for current Aqueduct customers. It is noted that there are currently projects in the canton of Puriscal that will help resolve the water capacity shortage in the area indicated by the appellant in the short, medium, and long term. Whether or not the requested service is appropriate is not a matter to be resolved in this Jurisdiction, as it falls outside the scope of its competence; and it is worth adding that this Tribunal has repeatedly held that it is permissible to dismiss petitions for the grant of potable water service when technical impossibilities exist, when infraconstitutional requirements have not been met, or when there are technical and/or legal criteria that justify such a denial. Furthermore, it should be noted that this Chamber has repeatedly stated that in cases where a violation of Article 33 of the Political Constitution is alleged, it is insufficient for the appellant to merely assert that two persons have been treated differently in order to establish a breach of the constitutional provision, since whoever alleges a violation of this principle is obligated to provide ab initio sufficient elements suggesting — with a reasonable degree of probability — that an unjustified differential treatment has been given to equal situations. Based on the foregoing, and after reviewing the filing, this Tribunal finds that in the sub lite there are insufficient elements to identify a possible violation of the principle of equality alleged by the 20 appellant. Based on the foregoing, and should the petitioner's disagreement persist, she may raise her objections or claims before the respondent authority or in the competent judicial forum, where she will be able to fully argue the substance of the matter and pursue her claims. Accordingly, the writ is inadmissible and is so declared." In this regard, this jurisdiction has repeatedly recognized that ICAA, the ASADAs (community water and sewer system associations), and the municipalities that provide potable water supply services have full authority, prior to approving or rejecting requests for potable water availability submitted to them, to require compliance with requirements established in the legal framework and to weigh legal and technical considerations. That being said, while a fundamental right to water exists that may be asserted against the relevant administrative authority, the provision of the service may properly be conditioned on compliance with established requirements and on the material possibility of supply. In accordance with the foregoing, it is evident that the reason potable water availability and sewer service have not been granted stems from purely technical grounds, given that it was determined that "the production and distribution infrastructure in the sector is insufficient for this type of development, which falls within the ME-A-19 Puente Mulas system of the AyA Metropolitan Aqueduct, which is in a deficit/surplus state; moreover, it is located in operational zone 12 de Julio, which currently presents water and hydraulic deficits." Accordingly, the Chamber concludes that the denials of potable water service and sewer service for the property in question are neither illegitimate nor arbitrary, but are justified by technical and legal impossibilities that were duly notified to the applicant. On another point, it is considered that the denial in question is grounded in objective criteria and, therefore, the actions of the respondent institute present no constitutional concerns.

Finally, it must be made clear to the petitioning party that this Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to analyze — as this is a matter of mere legality (mera legalidad) — whether the grounds stated by ICAA with respect to granting the services demanded are without legal merit. Accordingly, that dispute must be raised, should the claimant see fit, before the agency itself or before whichever ordinary courts (vía jurisdiccional ordinaria) have competent jurisdiction. The same applies if the claimant considers that ICAA must guarantee the water supply to her property and/or that the necessary technical measures should be ordered for the individualization of service with a dedicated meter. In view of the foregoing, given that the alleged facts have not been found to violate the claimant's fundamental rights (derechos fundamentales), the amparo petition (amparo) is dismissed, and it is so declared.

IV.- DISSENTING VOTE (VOTO SALVADO) OF JUSTICE CRUZ CASTRO. I dissent from the majority opinion. In this case, the Administration's refusal to provide an essential service is validated on the basis of technical considerations relating to the insufficiency of the water infrastructure; however, it fails to give adequate weight to the fact that access to drinking water constitutes a fundamental right, indispensable to life, health, and human dignity.

Article 21 of the Political Constitution protects human life, and this Tribunal has recognized that access to water for human consumption is a material precondition of that right. Likewise, Article 50 of the Constitution imposes on the State the duty to guarantee the well-being of all inhabitants, which necessarily includes effective, sufficient, and continuous access to drinking water. At the international level, instruments such as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, interpreted by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Comité DESC) in its General Comment No. 15, recognize the human right to water, obligating States to adopt positive measures for its full realization. There is a heightened obligation imposed on the State within a social democratic state governed by the rule of law (estado social y democrático de derecho); for this reason, the supply of water is a priority obligation of the public authorities.

From this perspective, the invocation of technical limitations cannot serve as an absolute justification for failing to attend to a basic subsistence need. The Administration cannot merely note the insufficiency of the system; it has the legal duty to plan, anticipate, and execute the necessary actions to progressively guarantee access to the water service, especially where human consumption is involved.

The majority approach normalizes a structural omission: it accepts that a lack of infrastructure relieves the State of its obligation, when that very deficiency reveals a failure to fulfill its duty of foresight. This is not a matter of demanding the impossible, but of requiring the Administration to adopt reasonable, alternative, or progressive measures so that individuals are not left without protection.

Water is not an ordinary service; it is an essential human right. Accordingly, the responding authority cannot shirk its duty to guarantee it by invoking technical limitations without offering effective solutions.

For these reasons, I am of the opinion that the petition should have been granted, at a minimum to order the Administration to adopt specific and progressive measures to guarantee, within a reasonable time, the effective access of the petitioner to drinking water. Water is a good and a fundamental right whose continued enjoyment must be effectively secured; it is an inescapable duty.

V.- DOCUMENTATION SUBMITTED TO THE CASE FILE. The parties are advised that if any document in paper form, as well as objects or evidence contained in any additional device of an electronic, computer, magnetic, optical, telematic, or new-technology nature, has been submitted, such materials must be collected from the court offices within a maximum period of 30 business days counted from notification of this judgment. Otherwise, all material not retrieved within this period will be destroyed, pursuant to the provisions of the "Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial," approved by the Corte Plena in session N° 27-11 of August 22, 2011, Article XXVI, and published in Boletín Judicial number 19 of January 26, 2012, as well as the agreement approved by the Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial in session N° 43-12 held on May 3, 2012, Article LXXXI.

Por tanto:

The petition is dismissed. Justice Cruz Castro files a dissenting vote and would grant the amparo petition, ordering that specific measures be adopted and that the protected party (parte amparada) be given a definite date for satisfying the water supply.

Fernando Castillo V.

President Fernando Cruz C.

Paul Rueda L.

Luis Fdo. Salazar A.

Jorge Araya G.

Anamari Garro V.

Ingrid Hess H.

Digitally Signed Document -- Verification Code -- 1 ...SIGDD-2025-001015621-1-1-NRT is grounded in articles 7 (subsections 12, 129, and 131), 8, 9, 10, 14, and 74 of the Reglamento para la Prestación de los Servicios del AyA, regarding the absence of technical feasibility (factibilidad técnica) due to deficiencies in the potable water system ME-A-19 Puente Mulas, operative zone 12 de Julio; and therefore, based on the foregoing, it is concluded that this Petition lacks technical, legal, and regulatory basis, since AyA has fulfilled the obligations imposed by force of law within the constitutional and legal framework under the principle of legality (principio de legalidad), and accordingly no constitutional right of the petitioner has been violated." Requests that the petition be dismissed.

3.- The legal requirements have been observed in the proceedings followed.

Drafted by Magistrate Garro Vargas; and,

CONSIDERING:

I.- SUBJECT OF THE PETITION. The petitioner, a resident of San Antonio de Alajuelita, states that he is the owner of a dwelling located on the property registered under property registry folio (folio real) No. 1-0169293-005 with cadastral survey plan (plano catastrado) SJ-586846-1985. He explains that in the locality, the potable water supply is provided by ICAA; however, delivery is made through a single meter shared among several property owners, which causes unequal distribution, low pressure, intermittent service, and at times a complete absence of service for extended periods of the day, making it difficult to use for human consumption, hygiene, food preparation, and other basic needs. For this reason, he states that on 25 September 2025 he filed a formal request with ICAA for a certificate of potable water availability (Constancia de Disponibilidad de Agua Potable) in order to regularize access to his dwelling. He claims, however, that on 09 October 2025, through official communication SIGDD-2025-00101562-1-2-NN, technical feasibility was denied on the grounds of insufficient infrastructure in system ME-A-19 Puente de Mulas and the absence of a sanitary sewer system (alcantarillado sanitario) in the area. He maintains that this denial was not accompanied by alternative measures to guarantee effective and sufficient access to potable water, and that the disruption to supply has continued.

II.- PROVEN FACTS. Of importance to the decision in this matter, the following facts are deemed duly established, either because they have been substantiated or because the respondent failed to address them as required by the initial writ (auto inicial):

• a)On 25 September 2025, ICAA received a request for a certificate of potable water availability in the petitioner's name for the property registered under Folio Real No. [blank] and Cadastral Survey Plan SJ-586846-1985, located in the Province of San José, Alajuelita, San Antonio, to individualize a service that would supply a family barbecue ranch for weekend recreational use (see the report and attached evidence).
• b)The applicant's request was entered into the Sistema Integrado para la Gestión y Desarrollos (SIGDD), generating request No. 2025-00101562-1 (see the report and attached evidence).
• c)Through resolution No. SIGDD-2025-00101562-1-1-1, the request for a certificate of potable water availability filed by the applicant to individualize a service that would supply a family barbecue ranch for weekend recreational use was reviewed and denied for both potable water service and sanitary sewer service; this decision was based on the technical study carried out, which stated: "Production and distribution infrastructure in the sector is insufficient for this type of development, which falls within AyA's system ME-A-19 Puente de Mulas; this system covers areas where, due to their location and deficiencies in the water supply capacity (capacidad hídrica) and hydraulic capacity (capacidad hidráulica) of the supply systems, water availability cannot be provided for more than one consumption unit per property." The foregoing was duly notified on 09 October 2025 to the designated email address: ...01 (see the report and attached evidence).
• d)Upon verifying the conditions of the applicant's property, ICAA determined that an associated service exists, identified by NIS 5554684 under the Metropolitan Residential rate (Tarifa Metropolitano Residencial) (M1) (see the report and attached evidence).
• e)According to memorandum No. UEN-OS-GAM-2025-00160 from the UEN Optimización de Sistemas GAM dated 05 May 2025, system ME-A-19 Puente Mulas currently shows a water supply capacity deficit of approximately (-9.8 l/s); the hydraulic capacity analysis report for GAM systems No. UEN-OS-GAM-2025-00592, dated 04 December 2025, indicates that this system is currently in a surplus state and has a positive balance of 18.1 l/s, although it has vulnerabilities associated primarily with its topographic configuration, high population density, non-revenue water losses (ANC), and dependence on specific infrastructure; accordingly, preventive restrictions are established in sectors dependent on critical infrastructure (such as Bello Horizonte and Monasterio), and until its hydraulic performance under real operating conditions is validated, positive availability cannot be granted for developments exceeding one residential unit in the zones of 12 de Julio, Alto Carrizal, Alto Raicero, Bebedero, Bello Horizonte Desamparados, Bello Horizonte La Verbena, Bello Horizonte Monte Alto, Bello Horizonte Tejarcillos, Dirección01, Dirección02, El Alto de Alajuelita, El Carmen de Escazú, Monasterio, Naranjal; the remaining supply zones of the Puente Mulas system have no restrictions, but given their current deficiencies in water supply and hydraulic capacity, they are classified as deficit zones (zonas deficitarias), pursuant to the Reglamento para la Prestación de los Servicios under articles 7 and 10, which provide that consumption in deficit zones may not exceed that of a single-family dwelling or individual business (see the report and attached evidence).

III.- ON THE MERITS. After analyzing the evidentiary elements submitted and the sworn report filed by the respondent authority, with timely notice of the consequences set forth in article 44 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, this Tribunal finds the following to be established: on 25 September 2025, ICAA received a request for a certificate of potable water availability in the petitioner's name for the property registered under Folio Real No. [blank] and Cadastral Survey Plan SJ-586846-1985, located in the Province of San José, Alajuelita, San Antonio, to individualize a service that would supply a family barbecue ranch for weekend recreational use. The applicant's request was entered into the Sistema Integrado para la Gestión y Desarrollos (SIGDD), generating request No. 2025-00101562-1. It follows, however, that through resolution No. SIGDD-2025-00101562-1-1-1, the request for a certificate of potable water availability filed by the applicant to individualize a service that would supply a family barbecue ranch for weekend recreational use was reviewed and denied for both potable water service and sanitary sewer service; this decision was based on the technical study carried out, which stated: "Production and distribution infrastructure in the sector is insufficient for this type of development, which falls within AyA's system ME-A-19 Puente de Mulas; this system covers areas where, due to their location and deficiencies in the water supply capacity and hydraulic capacity of the supply systems, water availability cannot be provided for more than one consumption unit per property." The foregoing was duly notified on 09 October 2025 to the designated email address: ...01. In that regard, it was verified that upon examining the conditions of the applicant's property, ICAA determined that an associated service exists, identified by NIS 5554684 under the Metropolitan Residential rate (M1). In accordance with the foregoing, the attached report confirmed the following: according to memorandum No. UEN-OS-GAM-2025-00160 from the UEN Optimización de Sistemas GAM dated 05 May 2025, system ME-A-19 Puente Mulas currently shows a water supply capacity deficit of approximately (-9.8 l/s); the hydraulic capacity analysis report for GAM systems No. UEN-OS-GAM-2025-00592, dated 04 December 2025, indicates that this system is currently in a surplus state and has a positive balance of 18.1 l/s, although it has vulnerabilities associated primarily with its topographic configuration, high population density, non-revenue water losses (ANC), and dependence on specific infrastructure; accordingly, preventive restrictions are established in sectors dependent on critical infrastructure (such as Bello Horizonte and Monasterio), and until its hydraulic performance under real operating conditions is validated, positive availability cannot be granted for developments exceeding one residential unit in the zones of 12 de Julio, Alto Carrizal, Alto Raicero, Bebedero, Bello Horizonte Desamparados, Bello Horizonte La Verbena, Bello Horizonte Monte Alto, Bello Horizonte Tejarcillos, Dirección01, Dirección02, El Alto de Alajuelita, El Carmen de Escazú, Monasterio, Naranjal; the remaining supply zones of the Puente Mulas system have no restrictions, but given their current deficiencies in water supply and hydraulic capacity, they are classified as deficit zones, pursuant to the Reglamento para la Prestación de los Servicios under articles 7 and 10, which provide that consumption in deficit zones may not exceed that of a single-family dwelling or individual business.

In light of the foregoing facts, this Court, through judgment No. 07779-2019 of 09:15 hours on 03 May 2019, having considered a matter similar to the present case, ruled as follows:

"I.- SUBJECT OF THE PETITION. The petitioner states that she owns a plot of land for construction located in San Antonio de Puriscal. She notes that she began the process of building a home on that plot and approached the respondent institution to request potable water service, which was denied on the grounds that there is no potable water availability or sewer system in front of her property. She argues that this denial is unjustified because a sewer system and potable water do exist, as it is a main road where dozens of neighbors enjoy access to the water supply, and accordingly requests that the petition be granted. 18 II.- PROVEN FACTS. Of importance to the decision in this matter, the following facts are deemed duly established, either because they have been substantiated or because the respondent authorities failed to address them as required by the initial writ: a) The petitioner appeared before the respondent authority on 05 February 2019 to file potable water availability request No. 2019-1405 for Property Folio Real Registry [blank] (see electronic record). b) The availability request was denied through non-availability certificate for aqueduct and sewage services UND-GAM-0694-2019-1405, issued on 28 February 2019, which detailed that in front of Property Folio Real Registry [blank], the production infrastructure currently necessary to approve the availability requested by the petitioner does not exist (see electronic record). c) The respondent authority informed the petitioner in that resolution that, as a consequence of the water supply capacity shortage currently recorded in the Sistema Puriscal, it is not feasible for AyA to approve any request for service availability in the sector where the petitioner's property is located, since approving new requests would result in a deterioration in the quantity and continuity of service delivery to the current customers of the Acueducto (see electronic record). d) Projects currently exist in the canton of Puriscal that will help address the water supply capacity shortage in the area indicated by the petitioner (see electronic record). III.- ON THE TECHNICAL IMPOSSIBILITIES THAT OBSTRUCT POTABLE WATER SUPPLY. This Tribunal has held on repeated occasions that a technical, legal, or formal impossibility in providing potable water service does not constitute a violation of fundamental rights; and that it is reasonable to decline service requests or to require the interested party to assume the costs of installation when no potable water distribution network exists and infrastructure construction is required. In these cases it has been clearly established that the issue is not a refusal to provide access to potable water service, but rather an inability to provide it, or the necessary participation of the interested party in overcoming a technical impossibility -- specifically, the lack of infrastructure. Of course, the responsible authorities have the obligation to progressively expand their infrastructure in order to guarantee the population's access to the service, but while gaps remain, the collaboration of interested parties is indispensable. In other words, as long as the failure to provide potable water service is not capricious, arbitrary, or unsubstantiated, but is instead justified by a legal or material impossibility, a violation of fundamental rights is ruled out (see judgments 2010-001516, 2017-6701, 2007-11190, and 2006-014218, among others). 19 IV.- ON THE SPECIFIC CASE. In this regard, this Tribunal finds the petitioner's claim to be without merit, since, based on the report filed under oath and the evidence submitted by the respondent authority, the challenged action is neither arbitrary nor illegitimate, given that the applicant's request was addressed, and her substantive disagreement concerns the denial of the requested service. With respect to the arguments and claims presented, it must be noted that this Court does not review the legality of the Administration's actions or decisions, and it is accordingly not within its jurisdiction to assess whether the relief sought by the petitioner is appropriate or whether it conforms to applicable legislation -- a task proper to the ordinary, administrative, or jurisdictional venues. As reported under oath, said availability request was denied through non-availability certificate for aqueduct and sewage services UND-GAM-0694-2019-1405, issued on 28 February 2019 and communicated to the petitioner, which detailed that in front of Property Folio Real Registry [blank]-001, the production infrastructure currently necessary to approve the availability requested by the petitioner does not exist; in the administrative venue, the certificate of availability of aqueduct and sanitary sewer services is a requirement that municipalities, INVU, and other competent entities require in advance for the approval of the corresponding subdivision (fraccionamiento) and construction permits; in the specific case of the petitioner, it was determined that the water supply capacity shortage currently recorded in the Sistema Puriscal does not make it feasible for AyA to approve any request for service availability in the sector where the petitioner's property is located, since approving new requests would result in a deterioration in the quantity and continuity of service delivery to the current customers of the Acueducto. The institution notes that projects currently exist in the canton of Puriscal that will help address the water supply capacity shortage in the area indicated by the petitioner in the short, medium, and long term. Now, whether the requested service is appropriate is not a matter to be decided in this Jurisdiction, as it falls outside its scope of competence; and it should be added that this Tribunal has consistently held that it is permissible to dismiss requests for the granting of potable water service when technical impossibilities arise, when sub-constitutional requirements are not met, or when technical and/or legal criteria so justify. Furthermore, it should be noted that this Court has held on repeated occasions that in cases where a violation of Article 33 of the Constitución Política is alleged, it is not sufficient for the petitioner merely to assert that two parties have been treated differently for the violation of the constitutional provision to be established, since the party alleging a breach of this principle is required to submit from the outset sufficient elements suggesting -- with a reasonable degree of probability -- that an unjustified differential treatment of equal situations has occurred. Based on the foregoing, and after reviewing the filing, this Tribunal finds that in the case at hand there are insufficient elements from which to infer a possible injury to the principle of equality alleged by the 20 petitioner. Based on the foregoing, should the applicant's disagreement persist, she may raise her objections or claims before the respondent authority or in the competent jurisdictional venue, forums in which she may fully and comprehensively argue the merits of the matter and assert her claims. Accordingly, the petition is inadmissible and is so declared." In this regard, this jurisdiction has consistently recognized that ICAA, ASADAS, and the municipalities that provide potable water supply services are fully empowered, prior to approving or rejecting any potable water availability requests submitted to them, to require compliance with the requirements established in the legal system and to weigh legal and technical considerations. That being said, while there is a fundamental right to water that may be asserted against the corresponding Administration, the provision of the service may well be conditioned on compliance with the requirements established for its granting and on the material feasibility of supply. Based on the foregoing, it is evident that the reason potable water and sewer availability has not been granted is the existence of purely technical factors, since it was determined that "the production and distribution infrastructure in the sector is insufficient for this type of development, which falls within System ME-A-19 Puente Mulas of the Metropolitan Aqueduct AyA, which is in a deficit-surplus (deficitario superavitario) state; furthermore, it is located in operative zone 12 de Julio, which currently presents a water supply and hydraulic deficit." Accordingly, the Court concludes that the denials of potable water and sewer service for the property in question are neither illegitimate nor arbitrary, but are justified by technical and legal impossibilities that were duly notified to the applicant. Along a separate line of analysis, the denial in question is found to be grounded in objective premises and, accordingly, the actions of the respondent institution present no issues of a constitutional nature.

Finally, it must be clarified to the petitioning party that this Tribunal lacks jurisdiction — as the matter is one of mere legality — to analyze whether the grounds offered by ICAA for granting the requested services are improper. Accordingly, that dispute must be raised, should the petitioner choose to do so, before the agency itself or before the ordinary judicial forum with competent jurisdiction. The same applies if the petitioning party believes that ICAA must guarantee the water supply to its property and/or if it considers that the technical measures necessary to individualize the service with a dedicated meter must be ordered. In light of the foregoing, given that the alleged facts do not constitute a violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioning party, the constitutional protection action (amparo) is declared without merit, and is so held.

**IV.- DISSENTING VOTE OF JUSTICE CRUZ CASTRO.** I dissent from the majority opinion. In the present case, the Administration's refusal to provide an essential service is upheld on the basis of technical considerations regarding the insufficiency of the water infrastructure; however, the majority fails to give adequate weight to the fact that access to drinking water constitutes a fundamental right, indispensable for life, health, and human dignity.

Article 21 of the Political Constitution protects human life, and this Tribunal has recognized that access to water for human consumption is a material precondition of that right. Likewise, Article 50 of the Constitution imposes on the State the duty to guarantee the well-being of all inhabitants, which necessarily includes effective, sufficient, and continuous access to drinking water. At the international level, instruments such as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights — interpreted by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Comité DESC) in its General Comment No. 15 — recognize the human right to water, obligating States to adopt positive measures toward its full realization. There is a heightened obligation imposed on the State in a social and democratic state governed by the rule of law; for this reason, the provision of water is a priority obligation of the public authorities.

From this perspective, the invocation of technical limitations cannot serve as an absolute justification for disregarding a basic subsistence need. The Administration cannot merely note the insufficiency of the system; it has a legal duty to plan, anticipate, and carry out the actions necessary to progressively guarantee access to water service, particularly when the matter concerns human consumption.

The majority approach normalizes a structural omission: it accepts that the lack of infrastructure relieves the State of its obligation, when precisely that deficiency demonstrates a failure to fulfill its duty of foresight. This is not about demanding the impossible, but about requiring the Administration to adopt reasonable, alternative, or progressive measures so as not to leave people without protection.

Water is not an ordinary service — it is an essential human right; therefore, the respondent authority cannot absolve itself of its duty to guarantee it by invoking technical limitations without offering effective solutions.

For these reasons, I believe the petition should have been granted, at minimum to order the Administration to adopt concrete and progressive measures to guarantee, within a reasonable timeframe, the petitioner's effective access to drinking water. Water is a resource and a fundamental right whose effective protection must be ensured — it is an inescapable duty.

**V.- DOCUMENTATION SUBMITTED TO THE CASE FILE.** The parties are hereby notified that any paper documents, as well as objects or evidence contained in any additional device of an electronic, computer-based, magnetic, optical, telematic, or new-technology nature that they have submitted, must be retrieved from the clerk's office within a maximum period of 30 business days counted from the notification of this judgment. Otherwise, all material not retrieved within this period will be destroyed, pursuant to the provisions of the "Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial," approved by the Corte Plena at session N° 27-11 of August 22, 2011, Article XXVI, and published in the Boletín Judicial number 19 of January 26, 2012, as well as the resolution approved by the Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial at session N° 43-12 held on May 3, 2012, Article LXXXI.

**Por tanto:** The petition is denied.

Justice Cruz Castro dissents and would grant the amparo proceeding (proceso de amparo), ordering that concrete measures be adopted and that a definite date be communicated to the protected party (parte amparada) by which the water supply will be satisfied.

 

The content you sent appears to be binary or base64-encoded data rather than readable Spanish text — likely a document that was accidentally pasted in encoded form. The only legible fragment at the end is a partial HTML snippet ending with "Luis Fdo." which is too incomplete to translate meaningfully.

Could you paste the actual Spanish legal text you'd like translated? Plain text works best — you can copy directly from the source document or PDF.

Salazar A.

Digitally Signed Document -- Verification Code -- --- Res. Nº 2026013437 CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at nine hours and twenty minutes on the twenty-first of April, two thousand twenty-six.

Amparo petition (recurso de amparo) proceeding under case number **26-007401-0007-CO**, filed by **Nombre01, national identity card (cédula de identidad) CED01**, against the **INSTITUTO COSTARRICENSE DE ACUEDUCTOS Y ALCANTARILLADOS.**

FINDINGS:

**1.-** By written submission received in the Chamber's Secretariat at 12:40 hours on March 2, 2026, the petitioner files an amparo petition against **ICAA** and states that he is a resident of San Antonio de Alajuelita, owner of a dwelling located on the property registered under property registry record (folio real) no. 1-0169293-005 with cadastral survey plan (plano catastrado) SJ-586846-1985. He explains that potable water supply in the area is provided by AyA; however, it is delivered through a single shared meter among several property owners, which causes unequal distribution, low pressure, intermittent service, and at times a complete absence of service for extended periods of the day, making it difficult to use for human consumption, hygiene, food preparation, and other basic needs. For this reason, on September 25, 2025, he submitted a formal request to AyA for service availability in order to regularize access to his dwelling. He claims that despite the foregoing, on October 9, 2025, through official communication SIGDD-2025-00101562-1-2-NN, AyA denied technical feasibility, citing insufficient infrastructure in system ME-A-19 Puente de Mulas and the absence of a sanitary sewer (alcantarillado sanitario) network in the area. He argues that the denial was not accompanied by alternative measures to guarantee effective and sufficient access to potable water, leaving the supply deficiency unaddressed. In light of the above, he considers that the situation described constitutes a current, concrete, and ongoing harm, as it involves an occupied dwelling lacking regular water supply. He notes that the structural deficiency of the shared system prevents access necessary for daily subsistence. Accordingly, he requests that AyA be ordered to adopt the technical measures necessary to guarantee effective access to potable water, including individualization of service through the installation of an independent meter, given that the shared system does not permit equitable or sufficient access. For the foregoing reasons, he requests that the amparo petition be declared well-founded; that the respondent Institute be ordered to guarantee a continuous, sufficient, and potable water supply to his dwelling; that the necessary technical measures for service individualization with a separate meter be directed; and that AyA be warned against again incurring in omissions that affect that right.

**2.-** José Darío Guzmán Álvarez, in his capacity as General Manager of ICAA, reports under oath that, based on the technical reports prepared by Jorge Mauricio Matamoros Pérez, an official of UEN Servicio al Cliente Zona III GAM, No. UEN-SCZIII-GAM-2026-00219, dated March 25, 2026, and Yeilin Jimenez Venegas, an official of UEN Servicio al Cliente Medición GAM, No. UEN-SCMED-GAM-2026-00519, dated March 27, 2026, which are attached as evidence and form an integral part of the administrative file, the following has been established:

"**1.** On September 25, 2025, a request for a Potable Water Availability Certificate (Constancia de Disponibilidad de Agua Potable) was received in the name of Nombre01, identity card No.

CED02, for the property registered under property registry entry (folio real) No. and cadastral plan SJ-586846-1985 in the Province of San José, Canton of Alajuelita, District of San Antonio, **for the individualization of a service connection (individualización de un servicio) that would supply a family grill shelter for weekend recreational use**, which was entered into the Integrated Management and Development System (Sistema Integrado para la Gestión y Desarrollos, SIGDD), generating request No. 2025-00101562-1. **(See technical reports No. UEN-SCZIII-GAM-2026-00219 dated 25 March 2026 and No. UEN-SCMED-GAM-2026-00519 dated 27 March 2026.)** **2.** The request for a Certificate of Potable Water Availability (Constancia de Disponibilidad de Agua Potable) in the name of Nombre01, identification number ED03.. 110700094, for the property registered under folio real No. , cadastral plan No. SJ-586846-1985, located in the Province of San José, Canton of Alajuelita, District of San Antonio, for the **individualization of a service connection that would supply a family grill shelter for weekend recreational use**, was considered and resolved through resolution SIGDD-2025-00101562-1-1-1, which denied both potable water service and sanitary sewerage (alcantarillado sanitario), based on the technical study conducted, which stated: "The production and distribution infrastructure in the sector is insufficient for this type of development, which falls within the AyA system ME-A-19 Puente de Mulas; that system corresponds to areas in which, due to their location and deficiencies in the water supply capacity (capacidad hídrica) and hydraulic capacity (capacidad hidráulica) of the supply systems, water availability does not exist for more than one consumption unit per property." This was duly notified on 09 October 2025 to the email address designated by the applicant for that purpose: ...01. **(See technical report No. UEN-SCMED-GAM-2026-00519 dated 27 March 2026.)** **3.** The denial of the Certificate of Potable Water Availability in the name of appellant Nombre01 was based on strictly technical grounds, namely that the production and distribution infrastructure in the sector **is insufficient for this type of development**, which falls within system ME-A-19 Puente Mulas of the AyA Metropolitan Aqueduct, and which is in a **deficit-surplus status (estado deficitario superavitario)**; furthermore, the property is located in operational zone 12 de Julio, which currently **presents a water supply and hydraulic deficit**. It should be noted that the purpose of issuing administrative acts (actos administrativos) that grant or deny services in a given zone is to inform the interested party of the existing reality with respect to water supply capacity, collection capacity, and environmental conditions that AyA's systems offer or are subject to at a given point, drawing on "basic studies" and, depending on the nature of the project, even more specific studies, which form the basis for issuing the act and must address, among other aspects: the project's location, analysis in relation to the water inventory of the zone, project vulnerability, scale, nature, projected flow in liters per second, type of activity, population growth, environmental factors that could be affected, and other aspects requiring technical assessment. Likewise, according to memorandum No. UEN-OS-GAM-2025-00160 from the UEN Optimización de Sistemas GAM dated 05 May 2025, system ME-A-19 Puente Mulas currently shows a **water supply capacity deficit of (-9.8 l/s)** approximately; on the other hand, the water supply capacity analysis report for GAM systems No. UEN-OS-GAM-2025-00592 dated 04 December 2025 indicates that this system is in a surplus condition with a positive balance of 18.1 l/s, **although it has vulnerabilities associated primarily with its topographical configuration, high population density, non-revenue water losses (ANC), and dependence on specific infrastructure**, for which reason preventive restrictions are established in sectors dependent on critical infrastructure (such as Bello Horizonte and Monasterio); until hydraulic behavior under actual operating conditions is validated, positive water availability for developments exceeding 1 residential unit cannot be granted in zones 12 de Julio, Alto Carrizal, Alto Raicero, Bebedero, Bello Horizonte Desamparados, Bello Horizonte La Verbena, Bello Horizonte Monte Alto, Bello Horizonte Tejarcillos, Dirección01, Dirección02, El Alto de Alajuelita, El Carmen de Escazú, Monasterio, Naranjal. The remaining supply zones of the Puente Mulas system have no restrictions; however, since they currently present deficiencies in their water supply and hydraulic capacities, they are classified as deficit zones, in accordance with the Service Provision Regulations (Reglamento para la Prestación de los Servicios) under articles 7 and 10, which provide that consumption in deficit zones may not exceed the consumption of a single-family dwelling or an individual commercial establishment. Upon verifying the conditions of the property, it was possible to determine that there is one (1) service associated with the property, identified as NIS 5554684 under the Metropolitan Residential tariff (M1). **(See technical report No. UEN-SCMED-GAM-2026-00519 dated 27 March 2026.)** **II. APPLICABLE LEGAL FRAMEWORK.** AyA's actions are grounded in article 11 of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política); article 11 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública); and articles 1, 2, 3, 7, 10, 14, and 74 of the Service Provision Regulations of AyA.

**III. CONCLUSIONS.** In the present case, it has been established that AyA has carried out all actions within its sphere of competence and within the legal framework governing it in denying the Certificate of Potable Water Availability in the name of appellant Nombre01, on account of the demonstrated, real, and current absence of water supply and/or hydraulic capacity in potable water system ME-A-19 Puente Mulas, showing through science and technical analysis that there is no technical feasibility for granting positive water availability for potable water supply, given that this system — while currently in a surplus condition — falls within operational zone 12 de Julio, which currently presents a water supply and hydraulic deficit. Therefore, from the analysis of the documents submitted by the appellant, it is concluded that Certificate No. SIGDD-2025-001015621-1-1-NRT is grounded in articles 7 (subsections 12, 129, and 131), 8, 9, 10, 14, and 74 of the Service Provision Regulations of AyA, with respect to the absence of technical feasibility due to deficiencies in potable water system ME-A-19 Puente Mulas, operational zone 12 de Julio; accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is concluded that this appeal lacks technical, legal, and regulatory foundation, since AyA has complied with the obligations imposed by operation of law within the constitutional and legal framework under the principle of legality, and therefore no constitutional right of the appellant has been violated." It requests that the appeal be dismissed.

**3.-** The legal requirements have been observed in the proceedings followed.

The opinion is authored by Magistrate Garro Vargas; and, **CONSIDERING:** **I.- OBJECT OF THE APPEAL.** The appellant, a resident of San Antonio de Alajuelita, states that he is the owner of a dwelling located on the property registered under folio real No. 1-0169293-005 with cadastral plan SJ-586846-1985. He explains that in the locality, potable water supply is provided by ICAA; however, it is delivered through a single meter shared among several property owners, which causes unequal distribution, low pressure, intermittency, and, at times, complete absence of service for extended periods during the day, making it difficult to use for human consumption, hygiene, food preparation, and other basic needs. For this reason, he states that on 25 September 2025 he submitted a formal request to ICAA for a service availability certificate in order to regularize water access to his dwelling. However, he asserts that on 09 October 2025, through official notice SIGDD-2025-00101562-1-2-NN, technical feasibility was denied on the grounds of insufficient infrastructure in system ME-A-19 Puente de Mulas and the absence of a sanitary sewerage network in the area. He contends that the denial was not accompanied by alternative measures to guarantee effective and sufficient access to potable water, leaving the supply disruption unaddressed.

**II.- PROVEN FACTS.** Of relevance to the decision in this matter, the following facts are considered duly established, either because they have been so certified or because the respondent failed to address them as required in the initial order:

• a)On 25 September 2025, ICAA received a request for a Certificate of Potable Water Availability in the name of the appellant for the property registered under folio real No. and cadastral plan SJ-586846-1985, located in the Province of San José, Alajuelita, San Antonio, for the individualization of a service connection that would supply a family grill shelter for weekend recreational use (see the report and attached evidence).
• b)The petitioner's request was entered into SIGDD, generating request No. 2025-00101562-1 (see the report and attached evidence).
• c)Through resolution No. SIGDD-2025-00101562-1-1-1, the request for a Certificate of Potable Water Availability filed by the applicant for the individualization of a service connection that would supply a family grill shelter for weekend recreational use was considered and resolved in the negative with respect to both potable water service and sanitary sewerage; this was based on the technical study conducted, which stated: "*The production and distribution infrastructure in the sector is insufficient for this type of development, which falls within the AyA system ME-A-19 Puente de Mulas; that system corresponds to areas in which, due to their location and deficiencies in the water supply and hydraulic capacity of the supply systems, water availability does not exist for more than one consumption unit per property.*" This was duly notified on 09 October 2025 to the designated email address: ...01 (see the report and attached evidence).
• d)Upon verifying the conditions of the petitioner's property, ICAA determined that there is one associated service identified as NIS 5554684 under the Metropolitan Residential tariff (M1) (see the report and attached evidence).
• e)According to memorandum No. UEN-OS-GAM-2025-00160 from the UEN Optimización de Sistemas GAM dated 05 May 2025, system ME-A-19 Puente Mulas currently shows a water supply capacity deficit of (-9.8 l/s) approximately; in the water supply capacity analysis report for GAM systems No.

UEN-OS-GAM-2025-00592 of December 4, 2025 indicates that this system is currently in a surplus state (estado superavitario) and has a positive balance of 18.1 l/s; however, it presents vulnerabilities associated primarily with its topographic configuration, high population density, losses (non-revenue water, ANC), and dependence on specific infrastructure. For this reason, preventive restrictions are established in sectors dependent on critical infrastructure (such as Bello Horizonte and Monasterio). Until hydraulic performance under actual operating conditions can be validated, positive availability certifications cannot be issued for developments exceeding one residential unit in the zones of: 12 de Julio, Alto Carrizal, Alto Raicero, Bebedero, Bello Horizonte Desamparados, Bello Horizonte La Verbena, Bello Horizonte Monte Alto, Bello Horizonte Tejarcillos, Dirección01, Dirección02, El Alto de Alajuelita, El Carmen de Escazú, Monasterio, and Naranjal. The remaining supply zones of the Puente Mulas system have no restrictions, but because they currently present deficiencies in their water supply and hydraulic capacities, they are classified as a deficit zone (zona deficitaria), in accordance with the Reglamento para la Prestación de los Servicios under articles 7 and 10, which state that consumption in deficit zones may not exceed the consumption of a single-family dwelling or individual commercial establishment (see the attached report and supporting evidence).

III.- ON THE MERITS. After analyzing the evidentiary elements submitted and the sworn report rendered by the respondent authority, with timely warning of the consequences set forth in article 44 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, this Court finds the following to be established: on September 25, 2025, ICAA received a request for a Certificate of Potable Water Availability (Constancia de Disponibilidad de Agua Potable) in the name of the petitioner for the property registered under Folio Real No. [blank] and Plano Catastro SJ-586846-1985, located in the Province of San José, Alajuelita, San Antonio, for the individualization of a service that would supply a family barbecue lodge for weekend recreational use. The petitioner's request was entered into the Integrated Management and Development System (SIGDD), generating request No. 2025-00101562-1. However, it is established that through resolution No. SIGDD-2025-00101562-1-1-1, the request for a Certificate of Potable Water Availability submitted by the applicant for the individualization of a service to supply a family barbecue lodge for weekend recreational use was reviewed and resolved adversely for both the potable water service and sanitary sewerage (alcantarillado sanitario); this, on the basis of the technical study conducted, which stated: "The production and distribution infrastructure in the sector is insufficient for this type of development, which is included within system ME-A-19 Puente de Mulas of AyA; this system corresponds to the areas in which, due to their location and deficiencies in the water supply capacity and hydraulic capacity of the supply systems, water is not available for more than one consumption unit per property." The foregoing was duly notified on October 9, 2025, to the email address designated for that purpose, namely: [email protected]. In that regard, upon verifying the conditions of the applicant's property, ICAA determined that there is an associated service identified as NIS 5554684 under the Metropolitan Residential rate (M1). In accordance with the foregoing, the attached report further established the following: according to memorandum No. UEN-OS-GAM-2025-00160 of the UEN Optimización de Sistemas GAM, dated May 5, 2025, system ME-A-19 Puente Mulas currently presents a deficit in water supply capacity of approximately (-9.8 l/s); the report on water supply capacity analysis in GAM systems No. UEN-OS-GAM-2025-00592 of December 4, 2025 indicates that this system is currently in a surplus state with a positive balance of 18.1 l/s, although it presents vulnerabilities associated primarily with its topographic configuration, high population density, losses (ANC), and dependence on specific infrastructure. For this reason, preventive restrictions are established in sectors dependent on critical infrastructure (such as Bello Horizonte and Monasterio). Until hydraulic performance under actual operating conditions can be validated, positive availability certifications cannot be issued for developments exceeding one residential unit in the zones of: 12 de Julio, Alto Carrizal, Alto Raicero, Bebedero, Bello Horizonte Desamparados, Bello Horizonte La Verbena, Bello Horizonte Monte Alto, Bello Horizonte Tejarcillos, Dirección01, Dirección02, El Alto de Alajuelita, El Carmen de Escazú, Monasterio, and Naranjal. The remaining supply zones of the Puente Mulas system have no restrictions, but because they currently present deficiencies in their water supply and hydraulic capacities, they are classified as a deficit zone, in accordance with the Reglamento para la Prestación de los Servicios under articles 7 and 10, which state that consumption in deficit zones may not exceed the consumption of a single-family dwelling or individual commercial establishment.

In light of the facts described, this Court, in ruling No. 07779-2019 of 09:15 hours on May 3, 2019, upon reviewing a matter similar to the present case file, issued the following ruling:

"I.- OBJECT OF THE APPEAL. The appellant states that she owns a plot of land for construction located in San Antonio de Puriscal. She notes that she initiated the procedures for the construction of a dwelling on said land and approached the respondent institution to request potable water service, which was denied on the grounds that there is no potable water availability or sewerage system in front of her property. She argues that this is incorrect because a sewerage system and potable water do exist, as the property fronts a main road where dozens of neighbors enjoy access to the water, and she therefore requests that the appeal be granted. 18 II.- PROVEN FACTS. For the purposes of deciding this matter, the following facts are considered to have been duly established, either because they were demonstrated as such or because the respondent authorities failed to address them as required by the initial order: a) The appellant appeared before the respondent authority on February 5, 2019, to process potable water availability request No. 2019-1405 for Finca Folio Real Matricula [blank] (see electronic record). b) The availability request was denied by means of non-availability certification for water and sewerage services UND-GAM-0694-2019-1405, issued on February 28, 2019, which detailed that in front of Finca Folio Real Matricula [blank], the production infrastructure currently required to approve the availability requested by the appellant does not exist (see electronic record). c) The respondent authority informed the appellant in the aforementioned resolution that, as a result of the current water supply capacity deficit in the Puriscal System, it is not feasible for AyA to approve any availability request for services in the sector where the appellant's property is located, since approving new requests would result in a deterioration in the quantity and continuity of service delivery for the current users of the Acueducto (see electronic record). d) There are currently projects in the canton of Puriscal that will help address the water supply capacity deficit in the area identified by the appellant (see electronic record). III.- ON THE TECHNICAL IMPOSSIBILITIES THAT OBSTRUCT THE SUPPLY OF POTABLE WATER. This Court has stated on repeated occasions that technical, legal, or formal impossibility to provide potable water service does not constitute a violation of fundamental rights; and that it is reasonable to decline service requests or to ask the interested party to bear installation costs when there is no potable water distribution network and construction of infrastructure is required. Thus, in these cases, it has been understood that the issue is not a denial of access to potable water service, but rather an impossibility of providing it, or the necessary participation of the interested party in overcoming a technical impossibility — namely, the lack of infrastructure. Of course, the responsible authorities have an obligation to progressively expand their infrastructure in order to guarantee the population access to the service, but as long as gaps remain, the collaboration of interested parties is essential. In other words, provided that the failure to supply potable water service is not capricious, arbitrary, or unsubstantiated, but is justified by a legal or material impossibility, a violation of fundamental rights is ruled out (see rulings 2010-001516, 2017-6701, 2007-11190, and 2006-014218, among others). 19 IV.- ON THE SPECIFIC CASE. In this regard, this Court finds that the appellant's claim is inadmissible, since, according to the sworn report and supporting evidence submitted by the respondent authority, the challenged action is not arbitrary or illegitimate, given that the petitioner's request was addressed and her substantive disagreement lies with the denial of the requested service. With respect to the arguments and claims presented, it must be noted that this Court is not an oversight body for the legality of administrative actions or resolutions, and therefore it is not within its competence to review whether the relief sought by the petitioner is appropriate or whether it conforms to applicable legal norms — a task proper to the ordinary, administrative, or judicial proceedings. According to the information provided under oath, said availability request was denied by means of non-availability certification for water and sewerage services UND-GAM-0694-2019-1405, issued on February 28, 2019, communicated to the appellant, which detailed that in front of Finca Folio Real Matricula -001, the production infrastructure currently required to approve the availability requested by the appellant through administrative channels does not exist; the certificate of availability of water and sanitary sewerage services is a requirement that municipalities, INVU, and other competent entities require as a prior condition for the approval of the corresponding subdivision (fraccionamiento) and construction permits. In the specific case of the appellant, it was determined that the current water supply capacity deficit in the Puriscal System makes it unfeasible for AyA to approve any availability request for services in the sector where the appellant's property is located, since approving new requests would result in a deterioration in the quantity and continuity of service delivery for the current users of the Acueducto. It indicates that there are currently projects in the canton of Puriscal that will help, in the short, medium, and long term, to address the water supply capacity deficit in the area identified by the appellant. Now, whether or not the requested service is appropriate is not a matter to be decided in this jurisdiction, as it falls outside its scope of competence, and it should be added that this Court has repeatedly held that it is possible to deny requests for the provision of potable water service when technical impossibilities arise, when infraconstitutional requirements are not met, or when technical and/or legal criteria exist that justify such a denial. On the other hand, it must be noted that, on repeated occasions, this Court has held that in cases where a violation of article 33 of the Constitución Política is alleged, it is not sufficient for the appellant to merely assert that two individuals have been treated differently in order to establish a breach of the constitutional provision, since the party alleging a violation of this principle is required to furnish ab initio sufficient elements that suggest — with a reasonable degree of probability — that a differentiated treatment has been unjustifiably applied to identical situations. Based on the foregoing, and after reviewing the filing of the appeal, this Court finds that in the instant case there are insufficient elements to indicate a possible violation of the equality principle invoked by the 20 appellant. Based on the foregoing, and should the petitioner's disagreement persist, she may submit her complaints or claims to the respondent authority or to the competent judicial forum, where she will be able, fully, to argue the merits of the matter and assert her claims. Consequently, the appeal is inadmissible and is so declared." In this regard, this Court has repeatedly recognized that ICAA, the ASADAS, and the municipalities that provide potable water supply services are fully empowered, prior to approving or rejecting potable water availability requests submitted to them, to require compliance with requirements established by the legal order and to weigh legal and technical considerations. That said, while there is a fundamental right to water that may be asserted against the corresponding Administration, the provision of the service may well be subject to compliance with the requirements established for its grant and to the material possibility of supply. In accordance with the foregoing, it is evident that the reason potable water and sewerage availability has not been provided is due to purely technical matters, since it was determined that "the production and distribution infrastructure in the sector is insufficient for this type of development, which is included within System ME-A-19 Puente Mulas of the Acueducto Metropolitano AyA, which is in a deficit surplus state; furthermore, it is located in operating zone 12 de Julio, which currently presents a water supply and hydraulic deficit." That said, the Court concludes that the denials of potable water and sewerage service for the property in question are neither illegitimate nor arbitrary, but are justified by technical and legal impossibilities that were duly communicated to the applicant. In addition, it is considered that the denial in question is grounded in objective premises and therefore the actions of the respondent institution raise no constitutional concerns. Finally, it is necessary to clarify to the appellant that this Court lacks jurisdiction, this being a matter of mere legality, to analyze whether the grounds put forward by ICAA for granting the requested services are inadequate. Such discussion must therefore be raised, if the applicant sees fit, before the authority itself or before the competent ordinary judicial forum. The same applies if the applicant considers that ICAA must guarantee the water supply to her property and/or believes that the necessary technical measures should be taken for the individualization of the service with its own meter. On the merits of the foregoing, since it is considered that the alleged facts do not constitute a violation of the fundamental rights of the applicant, the amparo (constitutional rights petition) is inadmissible and is so declared.

IV.- DISSENTING VOTE OF JUSTICE CRUZ CASTRO. I dissent from the majority opinion. In the present case, the Administration's refusal to provide an essential service is validated on the basis of technical considerations relating to the insufficiency of water infrastructure; however, the majority fails to adequately weigh the fact that access to potable water constitutes a fundamental right, indispensable to life, health, and human dignity.

Article 21 of the Constitución Política protects human life, and this Court has recognized that access to water for human consumption is a material precondition of that right. Likewise, article 50 of the Constitution imposes on the State the duty to guarantee the well-being of all inhabitants, which necessarily includes effective, sufficient, and continuous access to potable water. At the international level, instruments such as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights — interpreted by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Comité DESC) in its General Comment No. 15 — recognize the human right to water, obligating States to adopt positive measures for its full realization. There is a heightened obligation imposed on the State under a social and democratic rule-of-law system; for this reason, the supply of water is a priority obligation of the public authorities.

From this perspective, the invocation of technical limitations cannot be erected into an absolute justification for disregarding a basic subsistence need. The Administration cannot merely note the insufficiency of the system; it has the legal duty to plan, anticipate, and carry out the necessary actions to progressively guarantee access to water service, especially when the use involves human consumption.

The majority approach normalizes a structural omission: it accepts that the lack of infrastructure exempts the State from its obligation, when precisely that deficiency evidences a failure of its duty of foresight. The issue is not requiring the impossible, but demanding that the Administration adopt reasonable, alternative, or progressive measures so as not to leave individuals without protection.

Water is not just any service — it is an essential human right; therefore, the respondent authority cannot shirk its duty to guarantee it by sheltering behind technical limitations without offering effective solutions.

For these reasons, I consider that the appeal should have been granted, at a minimum to order the Administration to adopt concrete and progressive measures to guarantee, within a reasonable period, the effective access of the petitioner to potable water. Water is a fundamental asset and right whose effective force must be assured — it is an inescapable duty.

V.- DOCUMENTATION SUBMITTED TO THE CASE FILE. The parties are hereby notified that any documents submitted in paper form, as well as objects or evidence contained in any additional electronic, computer-based, magnetic, optical, telematic, or technologically produced device, must be retrieved from the court office within a maximum period of 30 business days counted from the notification of this judgment. Otherwise, all material not retrieved within this period will be destroyed, in accordance with the provisions of the "Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial," approved by the Corte Plena in session N° 27-11 of August 22, 2011, article XXVI, and published in the Boletín Judicial number 19 of January 26, 2012, as well as the agreement approved by the Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial in session N° 43-12 held on May 3, 2012, article LXXXI.

Por tanto:

The appeal is denied.

Justice Cruz Castro dissents and would grant the amparo proceeding (proceso de amparo), ordering that concrete measures be adopted and that a definite date be communicated to the protected party (parte amparada) by which the water supply will be satisfied.

 

The content you sent appears to be binary or base64-encoded data rather than readable Spanish text — likely a document that was accidentally pasted in encoded form. The only legible fragment at the end is a partial HTML snippet ending with "Luis Fdo." which is too incomplete to translate meaningfully.

Could you paste the actual Spanish legal text you'd like translated? Plain text works best — you can copy directly from the source document or PDF.

Digitally Signed Document -- Verification Code --

Revisión del Documento  Res. Nº 2026013437 SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las nueve horas veinte minutos del veintiuno de abril de dos mil veintiseis .

Recurso de amparo que se tramita en expediente número 26-007401-0007-CO, interpuesto por Nombre01, cédula de identidad CED01, contra INSTITUTO COSTARRICENSE DE ACUEDUCTOS Y ALCANTARILLADOS.

RESULTANDO:

1.- Por escrito recibido en la Secretaría de la Sala a las 12:40 horas del 02 de marzo de 2026, el recurrente interpone recurso de amparo contra el ICAA y manifiesta que es vecino de San Antonio de Alajuelita, propietario de una vivienda ubicada en la finca inscrita bajo folio real nro. 1-0169293-005 con plano catastrado SJ-586846-1985. Explica que en la localidad el abastecimiento de agua potable es suministrado por el AyA; sin embargo, se realiza mediante un único medidor compartido entre varios propietarios, lo que provoca distribución desigual, baja presión, intermitencia y, en ocasiones, ausencia total del servicio durante amplios periodos del día, dificultando el uso para consumo humano, higiene, preparación de alimentos y demás necesidades básicas. Por tal motivo, el 25 de setiembre de 2025 gestionó ante el AyA solicitud formal de disponibilidad del servicio para regularizar el acceso a su vivienda. Reclama que pese a lo anterior, el 09 de octubre de 2025, mediante oficio SIGDD-2025-00101562-1-2-NN, el AyA negó la factibilidad técnica alegando insuficiencia en la infraestructura del sistema ME-A-19 Puente de Mulas y ausencia de red de alcantarillado sanitario en la zona. Discute que tal negativa no fue acompañada de medidas alternativas para garantizar el acceso efectivo y suficiente al agua potable, manteniéndose la afectación en el suministro. Por lo anterior, considera que la situación descrita constituye una afectación actual, concreta y continuada, pues se trata de una vivienda habitada que no cuenta con abastecimiento regular. Señala que la deficiencia estructural del sistema compartido impide el acceso necesario para la subsistencia diaria. Ante ello, pide que se ordene al AyA adoptar las medidas técnicas necesarias para garantizar el acceso efectivo al agua potable, que incluye la individualización del servicio mediante la instalación de un medidor independiente, dado que el sistema compartido no permite el acceso equitativo ni suficiente. Por lo expuesto, solicita que se declare con lugar el recurso de amparo y se ordene al Instituto accionado garantizar el suministro de agua continuo, suficiente y apto para consumo humano en su vivienda; que se dispongan las medidas técnicas necesarias para la individualización del servicio con medidor propio; y que se prevenga al AyA de incurrir nuevamente en omisiones que afecten dicho derecho.

2.- Informa bajo juramento José Darío Guzmán Álvarez, en su condición de Gerente General del ICAA, que con fundamento en los informes técnicos elaborados por Jorge Mauricio Matamoros Pérez, funcionario de la UEN Servicio al Cliente Zona III GAM No. UEN-SCZIII-GAM-2026-00219 de fecha 25 de marzo del 2026 y Yeilin Jimenez Venegas, funcionaria de la UEN Servicio al Cliente Medición GAM No. UEN-SCMED-GAM-2026-00519 de fecha 27 de marzo del 2026, que son agregados como prueba y forma parte integral del expediente administrativo, queda demostrado lo siguiente:

“1. El día 25 de setiembre de 2025 se recibe solicitud de Constancia de Disponibilidad de Agua Potable a nombre de Nombre01, cédula No. CED02, para la finca matricula Folio Real No. y Piano Catastro SJ-586846-1985 en la Provincia San José, Cantón Alajuelita, Distrito San Antonio, para la individualización de un servicio que abastecería un rancho parrillero familiar para uso fines de semana recreativo, misma que se ingresa al Sistema Integrado para la Gestión y Desarrollos (SIGDD), generando el número de solicitud No. 2025-00101562-1. (Ver informes técnicos No. UEN-SCZIII-GAM-2026-00219 de fecha 25 de marzo del 2026 y No. UEN-SCMED-GAM-2026-00519 de fecha 27 de marzo del 2026). 2. La solicitud de Constancia de Disponibilidad de Agua Potable a nombre de Nombre01, cédula ED03.. 110700094, para la finca matricula Folio Real No. , Plano Catastro No. SJ-586846-1985 ubicado en la Provincia de San José, Cantón Alajuelita, Distrito San Antonio, para la individualización de un servicio que abastecería un rancho parrillero familiar para uso fines de semana recreativo, se conoció y resolvió mediante resolución SIGDD-2025-00101562-1-1-1 de manera negativa para el servicio de agua potable y para alcantarillado sanitario, con fundamento en el estudio técnico realizado, que indicó: “Infraestructura de producción y de distribución en el sector es insuficiente para este tipo de desarrollo mismo que está incluido dentro del sistema ME-A-19 Puente de Mulas del AyA; el cual corresponde a las áreas en los que, por su ubicación y por deficiencias en la capacidad hídrica y capacidad hidráulica de los sistemas de abastecimiento, no se tiene disponibilidad de agua para más de una unidad de consumo por inmueble”, notificada el día 09 de octubre del 2025 a la dirección de correo electrónico señalado al efecto por el solicitante, sea: ...01. (Ver informe técnico No. UEN-SCMED-GAM-2026-00519 de fecha 27 de marzo del 2026). 3. Señalar que la denegatoria de la solicitud de Constancia de Disponibilidad de Agua Potable a nombre del recurrente Nombre01, se fundamentó en aspectos eminentemente técnicos, sean, la infraestructura de producción y de distribución en el sector es insuficiente para este tipo de desarrollo, mismo que está incluido dentro del Sistema ME-A-19 Puente Mulas del Acueducto Metropolitano AyA, que se encuentra en estado deficitario superavitario, además, el mismo se ubica en la zona operativa 12 de Julio, la cual actualmente presenta déficit hídrico e hidráulico. Indicar que el objetivo de la emisión de actos administrativos que otorgan o deniegan servicios en una zona determinada, es informar al administrado sobre la realidad existente en cuanto a capacidad hídrica, capacidad de recolección y condiciones de orden ambiental que ofrecen o padecen los sistemas de AyA en un punto determinado, tomando como fundamento los “estudios básicos” e incluso estudios de naturaleza más específica dependiendo de la naturaleza del proyecto, los cuales se constituyen en la base para dictar el acto y que debe contemplar entre otros aspectos: ubicación del proyecto, análisis en relación con el inventario hídrico de la zona, vulnerabilidad del proyecto, dimensión, naturaleza, proyección en litros por segundo, tipo de actividad, crecimiento poblacional, factores de orden ambiental que podrían afectarse y demás aspectos que se deban valorar a nivel técnico. Asimismo, según memorando No. UEN-OS-GAM-2025-00160 de la UEN Optimización de Sistemas GAM de fecha 05 de mayo del 2025, el sistema ME-A-19 Puente Mulas presenta a la fecha un déficit en la capacidad hídrica de (-9.8 l/s) aproximadamente, por otra parte, mediante el informe de análisis de la capacidad hídrica en sistemas GAM No. UEN-OS-GAM-2025-00592 con fecha del 04 de diciembre 2025, indica que este sistema se encuentra en estado superavitario y posee un balance positivo de 18.1 l/s, aunque posee vulnerabilidades asociadas principalmente a su configuración topográfica, alta densidad poblacional, pérdidas (ANC) y dependencia de infraestructuras específicas, por lo que se establecen restricciones preventivas en sectores dependientes de infraestructuras críticas (como Bello Horizonte y Monasterio), hasta validar su comportamiento hidráulico bajo operación real no se podrán dar disponibilidades positivas a desarrollos mayores a 1 unidad habitacional en las zonas 12 de Julio, Alto Carrizal, Alto Raicero, Bebedero, Bello Horizonte Desamparados, Bello Horizonte La Verbena, Bello Horizonte Monte Alto, Bello Horizonte Tejarcillos, Dirección01, Dirección02, El Alto de Alajuelita, El Carmen de Escazú, Monasterio, Naranjal. Las demás zonas de abastecimiento del sistema Puente Mulas no tienen restricciones, pero al presentar actualmente deficiencias en sus capacidades hídricas e hidráulicas se considera como zona deficitaria, de acuerdo con el Reglamento para la Prestación de los Servicios en los artículos 7 y 10 que indican que el consumo en zonas deficitarias no puede ser mayor al consumo de una vivienda unifamiliar O comercio individual al verificar las condiciones del inmueble, fue posible determinar que existe un (1) servicio asociado al inmueble que se identifica con el NIS 5554684 en tarifa Metropolitano Residencial (M1). (Ver informe técnico No. UEN-SCMED-GAM-2026-00519 de fecha 27 de marzo del 2026).

II.NORMATIVA APLICABLE El accionar de AyA se fundamenta en el artículo 11 de la Constitución Política; artículo 11 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública; artículos 1, 2, 3, 7, 10, 14 y 74 del Reglamento para la Prestación de los Servicios de AyA.

III.CONCLUSIONES En el presente caso queda demostrado que AyA ha ejecutado y realizado todas las acciones que corresponden al ámbito de su competencia y dentro del marco de legalidad que nos rige al denegar la solicitud de Constancia de Disponibilidad de Agua Potable a nombre del recurrente Nombre01 por la evidenciada falta real y actual de capacidad hídrica y/o hidráulica del sistema de agua potable ME-A-19 Puente Mulas, demostrando de la mano de la ciencia y la técnica que no existe factibilidad técnica para otorgar la disponibilidad positiva para abastecimiento de agua potable debido a que actualmente este sistema en estado superavitario, se encuentra en la zona operativa 12 de Julio, la cual actualmente presenta déficit hídrico e hidráulico, por lo que del análisis de los documentos presentados por el recurrente, se concluye que la Constancia No. SIGDD-2025-001015621-1-1-NRT tiene su fundamento en los artículos 7 (inciso 12, 129 y 131), 8, 9, 10, 14 y 74 del Reglamento para la Prestación de los Servicios del AyA, en cuanto a la inexistencia de factibilidad técnica por deficiencias en el sistema de agua potable ME-A-19 Puente Mulas, zona operativa 12 de Julio, por lo que con fundamento en lo expuesto, se concluye que este Recurso carece de fundamento técnico, legal y reglamentario, ya que AyA ha cumplido con las obligaciones impuestas por imperio de ley en el marco constitucional y legal por el principio de legalidad, por ende, no se ha violentado ningún derecho constitucional a la recurrente”.

Solicita que se declare sin lugar el recurso.

3.- En los procedimientos seguidos se ha observado las prescripciones legales.

Redacta la Magistrada Garro Vargas; y,

CONSIDERANDO:

I.- OBJETO DEL RECURSO. El recurrente, quien es vecino de San Antonio de Alajuelita, manifiesta que es propietario de una vivienda ubicada en la finca inscrita bajo folio real nro. 1-0169293-005 con plano catastrado SJ-586846-1985. Explica que en la localidad el abastecimiento de agua potable es suministrado por el ICAA; sin embargo, se realiza mediante un único medidor compartido entre varios propietarios, lo que provoca distribución desigual, baja presión, intermitencia y, en ocasiones, ausencia total del servicio durante amplios periodos del día, dificultando el uso para consumo humano, higiene, preparación de alimentos y demás necesidades básicas. Por lo anterior, señala que el 25 de setiembre de 2025 gestionó ante el ICAA una solicitud formal de disponibilidad del servicio para regularizar el acceso a su vivienda. No obstante, reclama que el 09 de octubre de 2025, mediante oficio SIGDD-2025-00101562-1-2-NN, se negó la factibilidad técnica alegando insuficiencia en la infraestructura del sistema ME-A-19 Puente de Mulas y ausencia de red de alcantarillado sanitario en la zona. Estima que tal negativa no fue acompañada de medidas alternativas para garantizar el acceso efectivo y suficiente al agua potable, manteniéndose la afectación en el suministro.

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 el recurrido haya omitido referirse a ellos según lo prevenido en el auto inicial:

• a)El 25 de setiembre de 2025, el ICAA recibió una solicitud de Constancia de Disponibilidad de Agua Potable a nombre del recurrente para la finca matrícula Folio Real No. y Plano Catastro SJ-586846-1985 ubicada en la Provincia San José, Alajuelita, San Antonio, para la individualización de un servicio que abastecería un rancho parrillero familiar para uso fines de semana recreativo (véase el informe y la prueba adjunta).
• b)La solicitud del amparado fue ingresada al Sistema Integrado para la Gestión y Desarrollos (SIGDD) generando la solicitud No. 2025-00101562-1 (véase el informe y la prueba adjunta).
• c)Mediante resolución No. SIGDD-2025-00101562-1-1-1, la solicitud de Constancia de Disponibilidad de Agua Potable interpuesta por el gestionante para la individualización de un servicio que abastecería un rancho parrillero familiar para uso fines de semana recreativo se conoció y resolvió de manera negativa para el servicio de agua potable y para alcantarillado sanitario; esto, con fundamento en el estudio técnico realizado, el cual indicó: “Infraestructura de producción y de distribución en el sector es insuficiente para este tipo de desarrollo mismo que está incluido dentro del sistema ME-A-19 Puente de Mulas del AyA; el cual corresponde a las áreas en los que, por su ubicación y por deficiencias en la capacidad hídrica y capacidad hidráulica de los sistemas de abastecimiento, no se tiene disponibilidad de agua para más de una unidad de consumo por inmueble”. Lo anterior le fue debidamente notificado el 09 de octubre del 2025 a la dirección de correo electrónico señalado al efecto, sea: ...01 (véase el informe y la prueba adjunta).
• d)Al verificar las condiciones del inmueble del promovente, el ICAA determinó que existe un servicio asociado que se identifica con el NIS 5554684 en tarifa Metropolitano Residencial (M1) (véase el informe y la prueba adjunta).
• e)Según memorando No. UEN-OS-GAM-2025-00160 de la UEN Optimización de Sistemas GAM del 05 de mayo del 2025, el sistema ME-A-19 Puente Mulas presenta a la fecha un déficit en la capacidad hídrica de (-9.8 l/s) aproximadamente; en el informe de análisis de la capacidad hídrica en sistemas GAM No. UEN-OS-GAM-2025-00592 del 04 de diciembre 2025 se indica que este sistema se encuentra en estado superavitario y posee un balance positivo de 18.1 l/s, aunque posee vulnerabilidades asociadas principalmente a su configuración topográfica, alta densidad poblacional, pérdidas (ANC) y dependencia de infraestructuras específicas, por lo que se establecen restricciones preventivas en sectores dependientes de infraestructuras críticas (como Bello Horizonte y Monasterio), hasta validar su comportamiento hidráulico bajo operación real no se podrán dar disponibilidades positivas a desarrollos mayores a una unidad habitacional en las zonas 12 de Julio, Alto Carrizal, Alto Raicero, Bebedero, Bello Horizonte Desamparados, Bello Horizonte La Verbena, Bello Horizonte Monte Alto, Bello Horizonte Tejarcillos, Dirección01, Dirección02, El Alto de Alajuelita, El Carmen de Escazú, Monasterio, Naranjal; las demás zonas de abastecimiento del sistema Puente Mulas no tienen restricciones, pero al presentar actualmente deficiencias en sus capacidades hídricas e hidráulicas se considera como zona deficitaria, de acuerdo con el Reglamento para la Prestación de los Servicios en los artículos 7 y 10 que indican que el consumo en zonas deficitarias no puede ser mayor al consumo de una vivienda unifamiliar o comercio individual (véase el informe y la prueba adjunta).

III.- SOBRE EL FONDO. Después de analizar los elementos probatorios aportados y el informe rendido bajo juramento por la autoridad recurrida, con oportuno apercibimiento de las consecuencias previstas en el artículo 44 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, este Tribunal tiene por acreditado lo siguiente: el 25 de setiembre de 2025 el ICAA recibió una solicitud de Constancia de Disponibilidad de Agua Potable a nombre del recurrente para la finca matrícula Folio Real No. y Plano Catastro SJ-586846-1985 ubicada en la Provincia San José, Alajuelita, San Antonio, para la individualización de un servicio que abastecería un rancho parrillero familiar para uso fines de semana recreativo. La solicitud del amparado fue ingresada al Sistema Integrado para la Gestión y Desarrollos (SIGDD) generando la solicitud No. 2025-00101562-1. No obstante, se colige que mediante resolución No. SIGDD-2025-00101562-1-1-1 la solicitud de Constancia de Disponibilidad de Agua Potable interpuesta por el gestionante para la individualización de un servicio que abastecería un rancho parrillero familiar para uso fines de semana recreativo se conoció y resolvió de manera negativa para el servicio de agua potable y para alcantarillado sanitario; esto, con fundamento en el estudio técnico realizado, el cual indicó: “Infraestructura de producción y de distribución en el sector es insuficiente para este tipo de desarrollo mismo que está incluido dentro del sistema ME-A-19 Puente de Mulas del AyA; el cual corresponde a las áreas en los que, por su ubicación y por deficiencias en la capacidad hídrica y capacidad hidráulica de los sistemas de abastecimiento, no se tiene disponibilidad de agua para más de una unidad de consumo por inmueble”. Lo anterior le fue debidamente notificado el 09 de octubre del 2025 a la dirección de correo electrónico señalado al efecto, sea: ...01. En ese sentido, se coteja que al verificar las condiciones del inmueble del promovente, el ICAA determinó que existe un servicio asociado que se identifica con el NIS 5554684 en tarifa Metropolitano Residencial (M1). En concordancia con lo anterior, del informe adjunto se verificó lo siguiente: según memorando No. UEN-OS-GAM-2025-00160 de la UEN Optimización de Sistemas GAM del 05 de mayo del 2025 el sistema ME-A-19 Puente Mulas presenta a la fecha un déficit en la capacidad hídrica de (-9.8 l/s) aproximadamente; en el informe de análisis de la capacidad hídrica en sistemas GAM No. UEN-OS-GAM-2025-00592 del 04 de diciembre 2025 se indica que este sistema se encuentra en estado superavitario y posee un balance positivo de 18.1 l/s, aunque posee vulnerabilidades asociadas principalmente a su configuración topográfica, alta densidad poblacional, pérdidas (ANC) y dependencia de infraestructuras específicas, por lo que se establecen restricciones preventivas en sectores dependientes de infraestructuras críticas (como Bello Horizonte y Monasterio), hasta validar su comportamiento hidráulico bajo operación real no se podrán dar disponibilidades positivas a desarrollos mayores a una unidad habitacional en las zonas 12 de Julio, Alto Carrizal, Alto Raicero, Bebedero, Bello Horizonte Desamparados, Bello Horizonte La Verbena, Bello Horizonte Monte Alto, Bello Horizonte Tejarcillos, Dirección01, Dirección02, El Alto de Alajuelita, El Carmen de Escazú, Monasterio, Naranjal; las demás zonas de abastecimiento del sistema Puente Mulas no tienen restricciones, pero al presentar actualmente deficiencias en sus capacidades hídricas e hidráulicas se considera como zona deficitaria, de acuerdo con el Reglamento para la Prestación de los Servicios en los artículos 7 y 10 que indican que el consumo en zonas deficitarias no puede ser mayor al consumo de una vivienda unifamiliar o comercio individual.

En virtud de los hechos descritos, esta Sala mediante sentencia No. 07779-2019 de las 09:15 horas del 03 de mayo de 2019, al conocer un asunto similar al de este expediente, se pronunció en los siguientes términos:

“I.- OBJETO DEL RECURSO. Señala la recurrente que posee un terreno para construcción ubicado en San Antonio de Puriscal. Acota que inició los trámites para la construcción en una casa de habitación en dicho terreno y acudió ante la institución recurrida para solicitar el servicio de agua potable, el cual le fue negado indicándole que no hay disponibilidad de agua potable y sistema de alcantarillado frente a su propiedad. Señala que lo anterior, no lleva razón debido a que sí existe un sistema de alcantarillado y agua potable ya que se trata de una carretera principal donde decenas de vecinos gozan de la disponibilidad del líquido, por lo que solicita se declare con lugar el recurso. 18 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 las autoridades recurridas hayan omitido referirse según lo prevenido en el auto inicial: a) La recurrente se apersonó ante la autoridad recurrida el día 05 de febrero de 2019, para tramitar la solicitud de disponibilidad de agua potable N°2019-1405, para la Finca Folio Real Matricula (ver registro electrónico). b) La solicitud de disponibilidad fue denegada mediante la certificación de no disponibilidad de servicios de acueducto y alcantarillado UND-GAM- 0694- 2019-1405, emitida en fecha 28 de febrero de 2019, que detalló que frente a la Finca Folio Real Matricula , actualmente no existe la infraestructura de producción necesaria para aprobar la disponibilidad requerida por la recurrente (ver registro electrónico). c) La autoridad recurrida le informó en la anterior resolución que como consecuencia de la falta de capacidad hídrica que actualmente registra el Sistema Puriscal, no es factible para AyA, aprobar ninguna solicitud de disponibilidad de servicios en el sector en que se ubica la Finca de la recurrente, pues de aprobarse nuevas peticiones, se generaría un desmejoramiento en la cantidad y continuidad de prestación del servicio para los clientes actuales del Acueducto (ver registro electrónico). d) Actualmente existen proyectos en el cantón de Puriscal que ayudaran a solventar la falta de capacidad hídrica en la zona indicada por la recurrente (ver registro electrónico). III.- SOBRE LAS IMPOSIBILIDADES TÉCNICAS QUE OBSTACULIZAN EL ABASTECIMIENTO DE AGUA POTABLE. Este Tribunal ha señalado en reiteradas ocasiones que la imposibilidad técnica, jurídica o formal para dotar el servicio de agua potable no es violatorio de derechos fundamentales; y que resulta razonable no atender las solicitudes de servicio o solicitar que el interesado asuma los costos de instalación cuando no exista red de distribución de agua potable y se necesite la construcción de infraestructura. Así, en estos casos se ha tenido claro que no es que se trate de una negativa al acceso al servicio de agua potable, sino de la imposibilidad para brindarlo o de la necesaria participación del interesado en el levantamiento de una imposibilidad técnica, cual es, la falta de infraestructura. Por supuesto, las autoridades encargadas tienen la obligación de ir expandiendo su infraestructura para garantizar a la población el acceso al servicio, pero mientras queden vacíos resulta indispensable la colaboración de los interesados. En otras palabras, siempre que la falta de dotación del servicio de agua potable no sea una actuación antojadiza, arbitraria o sin fundamento, sino que esté justificada en una imposibilidad jurídica o material; se descarta la violación de derechos fundamentales (véanse las sentencias 2010-001516, 2017-6701, 2007-11190, y 2006-014218, entre otras). 19 IV.- SOBRE EL CASO CONCRETO. Al respecto, estima este Tribunal que el reclamo de la recurrente resulta improcedente toda vez que de acuerdo al informe rendido bajo la fe de juramento y a la prueba aportada por la autoridad recurrida, se tiene que la actuación impugnada no resulta arbitraria o ilegítima, dado que la solicitud de la amparada fue atendida, y su disconformidad de fondo radica en la denegatoria del servicio pretendido. En relación con los alegatos y pretensiones expuestas, se impone advertir que 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 la pretensión requerida por la amparado es procedente, o si se ajusta o no a la normativa legal vigente, labor propia de la vía común, administrativa o jurisdiccional. Según lo informado bajo la solemnidad de juramento, dicha solicitud de disponibilidad fue denegada mediante la certificación de no disponibilidad de servicios de acueducto y alcantarillado UND-GAM- 0694-2019-1405, emitida en fecha 28 de febrero de 2019, comunicada a la recurrente en la cual se detalló que frente a la Finca Folio Real Matricula -001, actualmente no existe la infraestructura de producción necesaria para aprobar la disponibilidad requerida por la recurrente en vía administrativa, la constancia de disponibilidad de servicios de acueducto y alcantarillado sanitario, es un requisito que las Municipalidades, INVU y demás entidades competentes, requieren de manera previa para la aprobación de los permisos de fraccionamiento y construcción correspondientes, en el caso concreto de la recurrente se determinó que la falta de capacidad hídrica que actualmente registra el Sistema Puriscal, no hace factible para el AyA, aprobar ninguna solicitud de disponibilidad de servicios en el sector en que se ubica la finca de la recurrente, pues de aprobarse nuevas peticiones, se generaría un desmejoramiento en la cantidad y continuidad de prestación del servicio para los clientes actuales del Acueducto, Indica que actualmente existen proyectos en el cantón de Puriscal que ayudaran a corto, mediano y largo plazo a solventar la falta de capacidad hídrica en la zona indicada por la recurrente. Ahora bien, la procedencia o no del servicio solicitado no es un asunto que deba discutirse en esta Jurisdicción, ya que es ajeno al ámbito de su competencia, y cabe agregar que ya 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. Por otro lado, adviértase que, en reiteradas ocasiones, esta Sala ha señalado que en aquellos casos en que se acuse vulneración al numeral 33 de la Constitución Política, no basta con que la parte recurrente afirme que se ha producido un trato distinto entre dos sujetos para tener por demostrado el quebranto a la norma constitucional, toda vez que quien alega la violación a este principio está obligado a aportar ab initio elementos suficientes que sugieran -con un grado de probabilidad razonable- que de modo injustificado se ha dado un trato diferenciado a situaciones iguales. Partiendo de lo expuesto, y luego de revisado el escrito de interposición, este Tribunal estima que en el sub lite no se infieren elementos suficientes que permitan denotar una posible lesión al principio de igualdad alegado por la 20 recurrente. Con base en lo expuesto y de mantenerse la disconformidad de la amparada, esta podrá plantear sus inconformidades o reclamos ante la autoridad recurrida o en la vía jurisdiccional competente, vías en las cuales podrá, en forma amplia, discutir el fondo del asunto y hacer valer sus pretensiones. En consecuencia, el recurso es inadmisible y así se declara”.

Al respecto, esta jurisdicción ha reconocido, reiteradamente, que el ICAA, las ASADAS y las municipalidades que prestan el servicio de suministro de agua potable, de previo a aprobar o rechazar las posibilidades de disponibilidad de agua potable que les sean formuladas, están en plena capacidad de exigir el cumplimiento de requisitos establecidos en el ordenamiento jurídico, y ponderar razones de orden legal y técnico. Así las cosas, si bien existe un derecho fundamental al agua que puede ser exigido a la Administración correspondiente, la prestación del servicio bien puede sujetarse al cumplimiento de los requisitos establecidos para su otorgamiento y a que exista posibilidad material de suministro. De acuerdo con lo señalado anteriormente, resulta evidente que la razón por la cual no se le ha brindado la disponibilidad de agua potable y alcantarillado se debe a la existencia de aspectos eminentemente técnicos, debido a que se determinó que “la infraestructura de producción y de distribución en el sector es insuficiente para este tipo de desarrollo, mismo que está incluido dentro del Sistema ME-A-19 Puente Mulas del Acueducto Metropolitano AyA, que se encuentra en estado deficitario superavitario, además, el mismo se ubica en la zona operativa 12 de Julio, la cual actualmente presenta déficit hídrico e hidráulico”. Así las cosas, la Sala concluye que las denegatorias del servicio de agua potable y alcantarillado en el inmueble en cuestión no resulta ilegítima ni arbitraria, sino que se justifica en imposibilidades técnicas y legales que le fueron debidamente notificadas a la solicitante. En otra línea de ideas, se estima que la negativa en cuestión se fundamenta en presupuestos objetivos y, por ende, la actuación del instituto accionado no presenta roces de índole constitucional. Finalmente, es menester aclararle a la parte recurrente que este Tribunal resulta incompetente, por ser un tema de mera legalidad, analizar si los argumentos emitidos por el ICAA para otorgar los servicios que demanda son improcedentes. De manera que dicha discusión, deberá ser planteada, si a bien lo tiene la accionante, ante la propia autoridad, o bien ante la vía jurisdiccional ordinaria que resulte competente. Lo mismo ocurre si la parte accionante estima que el ICAA debe garantizarle el suministro de agua en su propiedad y/o si considera que se debe disponer las medidas técnicas necesarias para la individualización del servicio con medidor propio. En mérito de lo expuesto, al considerarse que con los hechos alegados no se han violado los derechos fundamentales de la parte accionante, el amparo resulta improcedente y así se declara.

IV.- VOTO SALVADO DEL MAGISTRADO CRUZ CASTRO. Disiento del criterio de mayoría. En el presente caso, se valida la negativa de la Administración de brindar un servicio esencial, con base en consideraciones técnicas relativas a la insuficiencia de la infraestructura hídrica; sin embargo, se omite ponderar adecuadamente que el acceso al agua potable constituye un derecho fundamental, indispensable para la vida, la salud y la dignidad humana.

El artículo 21 de la Constitución Política protege la vida humana, y este Tribunal ha reconocido que el acceso al agua para consumo humano es un presupuesto material de ese derecho. Asimismo, el artículo 50 constitucional impone al Estado el deber de garantizar el bienestar de todos los habitantes, lo cual incluye necesariamente el acceso efectivo, suficiente y continuo al agua potable. En el ámbito internacional, instrumentos como el Pacto Internacional de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales –interpretado por el Comité DESC en su Observación General No. 15– reconocen el derecho humano al agua, obligando a los Estados a adoptar medidas positivas para su plena realización. Hay una obligación reforzada impuesta al Estado en un estado social y democrático de derecho, por esta razón el suministro de agua, es una obligación prioritaria de los poderes públicos.

Desde esta perspectiva, la invocación de limitaciones técnicas no puede erigirse en una justificación absoluta para desatender una necesidad básica de subsistencia. La Administración no puede limitarse a constatar la insuficiencia del sistema; tiene el deber jurídico de planificar, prever y ejecutar las acciones necesarias para garantizar progresivamente el acceso al servicio al agua, especialmente cuando se trata de consumo humano.

El enfoque mayoritario normaliza una omisión estructural: acepta que la falta de infraestructura exonera al Estado de su obligación, cuando precisamente esa carencia evidencia un incumplimiento de su deber de previsión. No se trata de obligar a lo imposible, sino de exigir que la Administración adopte medidas razonables, alternativas o progresivas para no dejar en desprotección a las personas.

El agua no es un servicio cualquiera, es un derecho humano esencial, por ello, la autoridad accionada no puede desentenderse de su deber de garantizarlo, escudándose en limitaciones técnicas sin ofrecer soluciones efectivas.

Por estas razones, estimo que el recurso debió declararse con lugar, al menos para ordenar a la Administración la adopción de medidas concretas y progresivas que garantice, en un plazo razonable, el acceso efectivo al agua potable del recurrente. El agua es un bien y un derecho fundamental cuya vigencia debe asegurarse efectivamente, es un deber ineludible.

V.- 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. El Magistrado Cruz Castro salva el voto y declara con lugar el proceso de amparo, ordenando que se adopten medidas concretas y se le indique a la parte amparada una fecha cierta para satisfacer el abastecimiento de agua.

Fernando Castillo V.

Fernando Cruz C.

Paul Rueda L.

Luis Fdo. Salazar A.

Jorge Araya G.

Anamari Garro V.

Ingrid Hess H.

Documento Firmado Digitalmente -- Código verificador --  1