← Environmental Law Center← Centro de Derecho Ambiental
Res. 22274-2026 Sala Constitucional · Sala Constitucional · 19/06/2026
OutcomeResultado
The Constitutional Chamber granted the amparo and ordered SENARA, the MINAE Water Directorate, AyA, and the Municipality of San Rafael de Heredia to immediately adopt protective measures for Pozo La Meseta (BA-689), create an interinstitutional coordinating body within five days, and design within one month a plan including review of permits issued in violation of water law and measures to guarantee water potability.La Sala declaró con lugar el amparo y ordenó a SENARA, la Dirección de Aguas del MINAE, el AyA y la Municipalidad de San Rafael de Heredia adoptar medidas inmediatas de protección del Pozo La Meseta (BA-689), crear en cinco días una instancia interinstitucional coordinadora, y diseñar en un mes un plan que incluya revisión de permisos otorgados y garantía de la calidad del agua.
SummaryResumen
Amparo filed by residents of San Rafael de Heredia against the Municipality, SENARA, AyA (ICAA), and the MINAE Water Directorate, arising from construction of a subdivision adjacent to Pozo La Meseta (BA-689), a drinking-water well serving approximately 32,000 people. The case exposed an inter-institutional conflict: SENARA and AyA argued for a 200-meter protection zone under Article 31 of the Water Law, while the MINAE Water Directorate held that only the 40-meter operational setback (ROP) under Decree 43053-MINAE applied. The Constitutional Chamber applied the precautionary principle and SENARA's binding authority under Article 3(h) of Law 6877 to adopt the broader 200-meter criterion. Finding that authorities had failed to act despite repeated complaints since 2023 and detection of fecal coliforms near the well, the Court granted the amparo and ordered immediate provisional measures, creation of an interinstitutional coordinating body within five days, and a comprehensive protection plan within one month.Amparo interpuesto por vecinos de San Rafael de Heredia contra la Municipalidad, el SENARA, el ICAA y la Dirección de Aguas del MINAE, por la construcción de un fraccionamiento contiguo al Pozo La Meseta (BA-689), fuente de agua potable para aproximadamente 32.000 personas. El caso expuso un conflicto interinstitucional: el SENARA y el AyA sostenían que el pozo requería una zona de protección de 200 metros conforme al artículo 31 de la Ley de Aguas, mientras que la Dirección de Aguas del MINAE argumentaba que solo aplicaba el retiro operacional (ROP) de 40 metros del Decreto 43053-MINAE. La Sala aplicó el principio precautorio y la potestad vinculante del SENARA (artículo 3 inciso h) de la Ley 6877) para adoptar el criterio más protector. Constató que, pese a denuncias desde 2023 y la detección de coliformes fecales, las autoridades no habían tomado medidas eficaces. Declaró el amparo con lugar y ordenó medidas inmediatas, la creación de una instancia interinstitucional en cinco días y un plan de protección en un mes.
Key excerptExtracto clave
Having clarified the foregoing, it must be noted that the precautionary principle must be applied in the instant case. That principle provides that when there are indicators that a certain activity could plausibly cause serious and irreversible harm to the environment, the absence of absolute scientific certainty does not exempt from the obligation to adopt all efficient and effective measures to prevent environmental harm. Therefore, in light of the precautionary principle and Article 3(h) of Law No. 6877, the SENARA criterion applies in this case, and accordingly the protection zone of the well in question is considered to be 200 meters, which is currently not being respected. This demonstrates the violation of fundamental rights by the respondent authorities, since despite complaints about the disregard of the said protection zone dating back at least to 2023, there is no evidence that all the legal tools available have been employed to safeguard it. For instance, both the Municipality of San Rafael de Heredia and the Water Directorate maintained a position contrary to that indicated by SENARA, while AyA carried out some internal and inter-institutional steps, but without verifiable effective protection of the well in question. In addition, the Court notes that reports issued by AyA in November 2024 stated that 'it is pertinent that the analyses provided by the National Laboratory be taken into account for this assessment, as some reports detect fecal coliforms,' yet there is no evidence in the record that steps were taken to ensure that Pozo La Meseta's water meets the quality parameters necessary to guarantee its potability.Aclarado lo anterior, adviértase que en el caso bajo estudio resulta menester aplicar el principio precautorio, el cual estatuye que cuando existan indicadores de que cierta actividad plausiblemente podría ocasionar daños graves e irreversibles al ambiente, la falta de certeza o evidencia científica absoluta al respecto no exime de la obligación de adoptar todas aquellas medidas eficientes y eficaces para impedir una vulneración al ambiente. Por lo que, en atención a lo establecido en el principio precautorio y en el inciso h) del artículo 3 de la ley nro. 6877, en el sub iudice resulte aplicable el criterio del Senara y, por ende, se considera que el área de protección del pozo en cuestión es de 200 metros, la cual actualmente no se está respetando. Esto evidencia la conculcación de los derechos fundamentales por parte de las autoridades recurridas, debido a que, pese a que al menos desde 2023 se denunció el irrespeto de la mencionada área de protección, no se evidencia que se hayan empleado todas las herramientas previstas por el ordenamiento jurídico para resguardarla. Verbigracia, tanto la Municipalidad de San Rafael de Heredia como la Dirección de Agua mantuvieron una postura contraria a la indicada por el Senara, en tanto que el ICAA realizó algunas gestiones internas e interinstitucionales, pero sin que se verifique que, efectivamente, se haya resguardado el pozo en cuestión. Aunado a lo anterior, el Tribunal observa que en informes emitidos por el ICAA en noviembre de 2024 se consignó que "es pertinente que tomen en cuenta para esta valoración, los análisis aportados por el LNA, donde en algunos informes se reporta coliformes fecales", pese a ello no consta en autos que se haya gestionado lo correspondiente para garantizar que el agua del pozo La Meseta cumpla los parámetros de calidad para asegurar su potabilidad.
Pull quotesCitas destacadas
"en el sub iudice resulte aplicable el criterio del Senara y, por ende, se considera que el área de protección del pozo en cuestión es de 200 metros, la cual actualmente no se está respetando."
"in this case the SENARA criterion applies and, therefore, the protection zone of the well in question is considered to be 200 meters, which is currently not being respected."
Considerando V – Sobre el caso concreto
"en el sub iudice resulte aplicable el criterio del Senara y, por ende, se considera que el área de protección del pozo en cuestión es de 200 metros, la cual actualmente no se está respetando."
Considerando V – Sobre el caso concreto
"Las decisiones que por ese motivo tome el Servicio, referentes a la perforación de pozos, y a la explotación, mantenimiento y protección de las aguas -que realicen las instituciones públicas y los particulares- serán definitivas y de acatamiento obligatorio."
"The decisions taken by the Service [SENARA] regarding the drilling of wells and the exploitation, maintenance, and protection of water by public institutions and private individuals shall be final and binding."
Considerando V – artículo 3 inciso h) Ley 6877
"Las decisiones que por ese motivo tome el Servicio, referentes a la perforación de pozos, y a la explotación, mantenimiento y protección de las aguas -que realicen las instituciones públicas y los particulares- serán definitivas y de acatamiento obligatorio."
Considerando V – artículo 3 inciso h) Ley 6877
"Estamos de cara a una condición incompatible del uso que tiene el inmueble donde se localiza dicha empresa en relación con las Áreas de Reservas de Dominio a favor de la Nación de tomas surtidoras de agua a poblaciones."
"We face an incompatible condition between the current use of the property where this project is located and the National Domain Reserve Areas established for population water supply intake sources."
Hecho probado d) – Oficio ICAA SG-GSGAM-2023-00777
"Estamos de cara a una condición incompatible del uso que tiene el inmueble donde se localiza dicha empresa en relación con las Áreas de Reservas de Dominio a favor de la Nación de tomas surtidoras de agua a poblaciones."
Hecho probado d) – Oficio ICAA SG-GSGAM-2023-00777
Full documentDocumento completo
Document Review CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at nine hours thirty minutes on the nineteenth of June, two thousand twenty-six.
Amparo action (recurso de amparo) filed under case number 25-010565-0007-CO, brought by [Nombre 001], national identity card (cédula de identidad) number [Valor 001], [Nombre 002], national identity card number [Valor 002], and [Nombre 003], national identity card number [Valor 003], against the MUNICIPALITY OF SAN RAFAEL DE HEREDIA, THE NATIONAL SERVICE OF GROUNDWATER, IRRIGATION, AND DRAINAGE (SENARA), AND THE COSTA RICAN WATER AND SEWAGE INSTITUTE (ICAA).
Background:
Based on this official letter, the MSRH continued to grant land-use permits for the construction of residential units, including ones sharing a wall with Pozo La Meseta. We wish to draw attention to an aspect that we consider of vital importance for resolving this case, namely that the aforementioned Article 86 states that "For construction projects on lots that border or that contain within them wells for water supply, it is mandatory to process the well-setback certificate before the Water Directorate of MINAE. The setback shall remain in effect for the period determined by the competent authority." (Emphasis ours) In our view, the competent authorities in this case are, on the one hand, AyA as the operator of the Pozo La Meseta drinking-water well and SENARA as the governing body (ente rector) for groundwater. In our opinion, the Water Directorate of MINAE is a bureaucratic or administrative office that does not conduct hydrogeological studies but rather delegates those functions to SENARA or AyA, as the case may be.
As already noted, both institutions agree that the 200-meter protection radius must be respected, and not as stated by MINAE or the MSRH: "Based on the foregoing, the well has a maximum setback to the property boundaries; therefore, its operational setback does not affect third-party properties." (Emphasis ours) ELEVENTH: On November 27, 2024, the municipal Mayor of the MSRH, Mr. Jorge Santamaría, issued Official Letter No. AM-1110-2024, forwarding to us the official letters of the Water Directorate of MINAE, which essentially indicate that Pozo La Meseta will have no protection beyond its property boundaries. TWELFTH: As my complaint was also submitted to the Municipal Council, on December 4, 2023, Lic. Jesús Sequeira Muñoz, who serves as Legal Advisor to the Municipal Council, stated the following to said Municipal Council: "Next, a reading of Article 17 of the Ley de Aguas, Law No. 276, provides: 'Article 17.- Authorization is required for the use (aprovechamiento) of public waters, especially those dedicated to enterprises of public or private interest.
Such authorization shall be granted by the Ministry of Environment and Energy in the manner prescribed in this law, which institution is responsible for determining and resolving matters related to the ownership, use, utilization, administration, or oversight of public-domain waters, pursuant to Law No. 258 of August 18, 1941. Exempt therefrom are drinking waters (aguas potables) intended for the construction of water pipelines for communities subject to the oversight of the Public Health Secretariat, pursuant to Law No. 16 of October 30, 1941.' In light of what is regulated by this article, the Reglamento de Construcciones of INVU, in its Article 86, mandates: 'ARTICLE 86. Well-setback certificates for water supply. For construction projects on lots that border or that contain within them wells for water supply, it is mandatory to process the well-setback certificate before the Water Directorate of MINAE.
The well-setback certificate issued must indicate the period of validity as determined by the competent authority.' (emphasis not in original) As a corollary to all of the foregoing, it follows that competence to rule on the matter underlying the complaint — namely, the well-setback certificate for water-supply wells, understood as the limit or maximum proximity of the well to third parties — lies with the Water Directorate of MINAE." Based on these statements, Lic. Sequeira Muñoz concludes: "Conclusions and Recommendations: Based on the factual and legal considerations developed above, it is clear that the competent institution — by law and regulation — to rule on the complaint before us is the Ministry of Energy, Mines, and Environment through its Water Directorate. From its technical opinion it may be concluded that the complainant's complaint is without merit, and therefore the archiving of the complaint is recommended." (Emphasis ours) Prayer for Relief: As matters currently stand, Pozo La Meseta has no protection radius whatsoever, given the reports of the Water Directorate of MINAE, which clearly contradict the position of AyA and SENARA, which in our view are the technical bodies legally obligated to issue groundwater protection measures, and which the Water Directorate is obligated to comply with, as it is a merely administrative dependency.
Therefore, I request: That it be determined which institution is the authorized, legally empowered, and obligated body to decide on the protection areas of drinking-water wells and of aquifers (mantos acuíferos) in general, for which it is necessary to identify to whom Article 86 of the Reglamento de Construcciones of INVU refers when it states: "The setback shall remain in effect for the period determined by the competent authority."
Following the assessment conducted, based on the information provided and in adherence to the policies for the prosecution of environmental offenses — which are guidelines used to determine whether there is merit to file a complaint — the Legal Directorate of AyA recommended filing the complaint.
The project with cadastral plan number H-1601028-2012 is located within the Strategic Aquifer Reserve Zone (Zona Estratégica de Reserva Acuífera) of Puente Mulas, within the Internal Absolute Reserve Zones (Zonas Internas de Reserva Absoluta) (specifically Zone E: Campo Pozos Norte) established by AyA (Board of Directors Agreements No. 67-048 and No. 67-049, La Gaceta of July 1, 1967, and amendment/update pursuant to Agreement No. 2010-023, La Gaceta of February 9, 2010).
Accordingly, by means of Official Letter SG-GSGAM-2023-00777 of April 30, 2023, the GAM Systems General Deputy Directorate proceeded accordingly, filing a formal complaint before the Water Directorate of MINAE. SECOND: Correct, consistent with the information set forth in the preceding point. THIRD: This is not a matter pertaining to the institution I represent. FOURTH: This is not a matter pertaining to the institution I represent. FIFTH: This is not a matter pertaining to the institution I represent. SIXTH: This is not a matter pertaining to the institution I represent. SEVENTH: Correct. It was precisely in response to the petitioner's requests that an interdisciplinary team of the institution undertook the follow-up of the case from the initial complaint. EIGHTH: This is not a matter pertaining to the institution I represent. However, it is noted that AyA received a copy of said submissions from the representatives of CONCEVERDE; and it is clarified that the written communication was not only not addressed to the institution I represent, but that this organization also attached AyA's complaint as supporting evidence for its own request.
NINTH: This is not a matter pertaining to the institution I represent. TENTH: This is not a matter pertaining to the institution I represent. ELEVENTH: This is not a matter pertaining to the institution I represent. TWELFTH: This is not a matter pertaining to the institution I represent.
With respect to the Prayer for Relief of the amparo action, [Nombre 001] states that Pozo La Meseta currently has no protection radius whatsoever, given the reports of the Water Directorate of MINAE, which clearly contradict the position of AyA and SENARA, which in his view are the technical bodies legally obligated to issue groundwater protection measures. He likewise asserts that the Water Directorate must comply with their resolutions as it is a merely administrative dependency.
He therefore REQUESTS that it be clearly determined which institution is the authorized, legally empowered, and obligated body to decide on the protection areas of drinking-water wells and of aquifers in general; and that, to this end, it is necessary to identify to whom Article 86 of the Reglamento de Construcciones of INVU refers when it states that the setback shall remain in effect for the period determined by the competent authority.
CONSIDERATIONS
SUBSTANTIVE CONSIDERATIONS As can be observed, AyA, from the moment of receipt of the complaint from [Nombre 001] regarding the construction of a subdivision adjacent to Pozo La Meseta, immediately proceeded to file the complaint before the Water Directorate of MINAE (Official Letter SG-GSGAM-2023-00777 of April 30, 2023).
AyA's technical position, based on all and each of the inputs provided by the institution's specialized units, is detailed below.
- The housing project is associated with cadastral plan number H-1601028-2012, Parcel 4-174543-000, covering an area of 31,805 square meters, located in PROVINCE: HEREDIA, CANTON: SAN RAFAEL, DISTRICT: SANTIAGO, between coordinates 525872–526090 East and 220805–221119 North (Lambert Norte).
- It is located within the Strategic Aquifer Reserve Zone of Puente Mulas, within the Internal Absolute Reserve Zones (specifically Zone E: Campo Pozos Norte) established by AyA (Board of Directors Agreements No. 67-048 and No. 67-049, La Gaceta of July 1, 1967, and amendment/update pursuant to Agreement No. 2010023, La Gaceta of February 9, 2010).
The preceding figure is a location map of cadastral plan H-1601028-2012 and the Strategic Aquifer Reserve Zone of Puente Mulas.
Part of the project with cadastral plan H-1601028-2012 is located within the 200-meter activity-baseline radius of AyA's water-use operations for the well known as Pozo La Meseta (Lambert Norte Coordinates X: 525981 / Y: 220836), belonging to the ME-A-15 San Pablo System.
By means of Official Letter DRyT-2021-00238, issued by AyA's GS GAM Collection and Treatment Directorate (Dirección Recolección y Tratamiento GS GAM), it is stated with respect to the wastewater (aguas residuales) treatment system that MINAE does not currently permit the discharge of treated wastewater into non-permanent or intermittent watercourses.
Likewise, the infiltration of treated wastewater in this zone should not be permitted, given the presence of a water-extraction well for human consumption, since current regulations are insufficient to protect such sources from the risks of nutrient contamination, for example, as no limits have even been established for those parameters.
The Regulations for the Approval and Acceptance of Sanitation Systems by ICAA (Agreement 2017-66), in its Article 22, states that ICAA shall not approve Sanitation System projects when they involve, among other situations, a single construction development combining two types of sanitary solutions, such as individual and collective systems; that is to say, the proposal set forth in said note is not viable.
Figure 2 is the location map of cadastral plan H-1601028-2012 and the 200-meter activity-baseline radius.
CONCLUSIONS
- Considering the location of property H-1601028-2012, Parcel No. 4-174543-000, in relation to AyA's population-supply well Pozo La Meseta, and in connection with the present amparo action, both this report and the position of the institution I represent are hereby submitted.
- The opinion of the Honorable Constitutional Chamber is requested in order to clarify the situation.
- We consider that, in accordance with the Ley de Aguas, the Ley General de Salud, and Article 50 of the COPOL, the protection of water as a human right takes precedence over the development of any other activity.
- We are faced with an incompatible condition between the use of the property where said company is located and the NATIONAL DOMAIN RESERVE AREAS (ÁREAS DE RESERVAS DE DOMINIO A FAVOR DE LA NACIÓN) designated for community water-supply intake works.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Based on the factual and legal grounds stated herein, I hereby submit the requested report. I expressly note, for the consideration of this Chamber, the actions taken by ICAA in fulfillment of its institutional purposes, it being evident that the institution has not disobeyed or violated any constitutional or environmental norms, guarantees, or principles, but has always acted responsibly in safeguarding and protecting the rights to a healthy environment, to health, and to life. Accordingly, the amparo action must be declared WITHOUT MERIT (SIN LUGAR) in all its claims against the institution I represent; and I so request" (sic).
This activity consists of projecting and tracing on the surface a demarcation beneath which an aquifer or part of it lies, in which a specific regime for the use of the hydraulic domain is established — organization and restriction of pre-existing water concessions, prohibition of granting new ones — and for controlling activities and installations that may affect it — through authorizations — (e.g., mines, quarries; urban activities including septic tanks, cemeteries, sanitary landfills — storage, transport and treatment of solid and liquid waste —; agricultural and livestock activities involving the deposit and distribution of fertilizers and pesticides, irrigation with wastewater, and farms; industrial activities involving storage, transport and treatment of liquid or gaseous hydrocarbons, chemical, pharmaceutical, and radioactive products, food industries and slaughterhouses, etc.). Evidently, the definition of perimeters by the national authorities — MINAE and ICAA — must be respected by local governments (Municipalities) and INVU (given its residual authority in urban planning matters in the absence of local regulatory plans) in order to harmonize, develop, and effectively reflect the conditions established in the definition of the protection perimeters within the regulations contained in the respective Regulatory Plans (Planes Reguladores) concerning land use or territorial planning (e.g., zoning regulations, construction regulations, etc.).
Obviously, the foregoing must be supplemented by protection around the intake areas (areas de captación) — wells (PPP: well protection perimeters — perímetros de protección de los pozos —), springs (manantiales), springs (nacientes), etc. — through the definition of a surrounding zone in which certain human activities are prohibited or restricted, thereby regulating and controlling land use. The determination of the perimeter depends on the capture zone or recharge zone of the well (ZOC), and its extent depends on the characteristics and properties of the intake area and the recharge land, since the regulations cannot be the same for permeable or fractured terrain as for those with impermeable formations. The definition of perimeters must be combined with mapping of the vulnerability or natural susceptibility of the supply aquifers to anthropogenic contamination loads, based on their hydrogeological and geochemical characteristics, in the face of anthropogenic contamination problems, which is achieved through the production of maps.
Both measures — protection perimeters and vulnerability mapping — are suitable for timely relocation of a particular type of activity, the supply source, or, as a last resort, for introducing technical methods and instruments for the treatment and disposal of pollutants. The measures to be taken based on the perimeters and vulnerability mapping vary depending on whether the area is: (a) an area without territorial occupation, in which case it is useful for defining the activities that may or may not be established in the future; (b) already occupied areas, in which case a mapping of natural vulnerability and areas with the greatest susceptibility to contamination is carried out, making it possible, in the face of a threat of a high contamination index, to relocate activities, supply sources, and introduce technology for the treatment and disposal of pollutants; (c) already contaminated areas, for which alternative sources may be sought, the spread of contamination plumes may be avoided, and if possible — given the high cost — the aquifer water may be treated after extraction; (d) areas for new intakes, in which case an inventory must be made of potentially contaminating activities and the area of impact of each of them." It must be noted that, as established by the Water Act (Ley de Aguas) No. 276, the following article governs the protection zones for intake sites:
Article 31. — The following are declared as national domain reserves in favor of the Nation (Water Act No. 276, La Gaceta No. 190 of August 2, 1942): a) The lands surrounding drinking water intake (captación) or supply extraction points, within a perimeter of no less than two hundred meters in radius; b) The forest zone that protects or must protect the set of lands in which the infiltration of drinking water occurs, as well as those that support hydrographic basins and deposit margins, supply springs (fuentes surtidoras), or permanent watercourses of the same waters.
Article 32. — When, in an area larger than that indicated above, there is a risk of contamination, whether in surface water or in groundwater, the Executive Branch, through the Drinking Water Section referred to in the following article, shall arrange within said area the measures it deems appropriate to avoid the risk of contamination.' For the analysis of the foregoing article, we will first define what an intake site is. This term refers to a site where water is extracted, whether naturally or mechanically by means of machinery and pumps. Thus, the term intake site encompasses not only springs (manantiales) but also wells, rivers, and streams (quebradas). Another aspect to consider from Article 31 of the Water Act concerns the concept of a drinking water supply extraction point, as defined in the "Technical Manual on Water Supply Quotas for Calculating Water Use Permit Needs" (Manual Técnico Dotaciones Agua Para Calcular las Necesidades de las Solicitudes de Aprovechamiento de Aguas), published in the Gaceta of May 20, 2004, which defines human consumption as domestic and population-based; in this case Article 31 refers to population-level use.
Accordingly, a well is an intake site, and therefore the 200-meter radius established in Article 31 (subsection a) applies; for each public water supply well, the operator must carry out a hydrogeological study of the protection perimeter; furthermore, the operator must establish different protective measures, setting more rigorous protection in all areas that feed the aquifer (capture zone), and less rigorous protection in those areas that do not affect the quality and quantity of the water resource.
With respect to the foregoing, the interpretation contained in SENARA OFFICIAL COMMUNICATION No. DJ-144-2016 (April 18, 2016) applies: "a technical flow-tube study does not have the effect of modifying the protection areas defined in the Water Act or the Ley Forestal. In other words, the existence of a technical flow-tube study for springs does not, by itself, have the effect of reducing or releasing areas that the Water Act defines as 'national domain reserves' (Article 31 of Water Act No. 276), nor the areas in which the Ley Forestal prohibits the felling of trees. (Article 33 of Ley Forestal No. 7575.) Through such a study it is legally viable, however, to establish different protective measures, setting more rigorous protection in all areas that feed the aquifer, and less rigorous protection in those areas that do not affect the quality and quantity of the water resource, all as determined by science and technology.
Likewise, SENARA is authorized by law to investigate and protect the use of water resources throughout the country, both surface and groundwater, and has among its legal functions the duty to monitor compliance with legal provisions in matters within its purview, being able to make decisions regarding the drilling of wells and the exploitation, maintenance, and protection of waters carried out by public institutions and private individuals; such decisions shall be final and binding, as established by Law No. 6877, Art. 3, subsections ch) and h)." It may also occur, as studies may demonstrate, that the 70- and 100-day isochrones fall outside the 200-meter radius, in which case Article 32 establishes that: "When, in an area larger than that indicated above, there is a risk of contamination, whether in surface water or in groundwater, the Executive Branch, through the Drinking Water Section referred to in the following article, shall arrange within said area the measures it deems appropriate to avoid the risk of contamination." This Article also establishes that the operator must implement protective measures in areas outside the 200-meter radius.
Land use in the 200-meter protection area of the La Meseta well and the incorporation of the protection area into the regulatory plans:
It can be observed from the figure below that the land uses, specifically to the east of the La Meseta well, constitute an urban development that, in the absence of a defined flow tube or capture zone, may be contaminating the unsaturated zone and consequently the aquifer. The definition of the aquifer protection perimeters by the national authorities must be respected by Municipalities.
PROTECTION OF GROUNDWATER THROUGH CAPTURE ZONES.
(…) a) Aquifer protection perimeters: (…) Evidently, the definition of perimeters by the national authorities — MINAE and ICAA — must be respected by local governments (Municipalities)… in order to harmonize, develop, and effectively reflect the conditions established in the definition of the protection perimeters within the regulations contained in the respective Regulatory Plans concerning land use or territorial planning (e.g., zoning regulations, construction regulations, etc.). Obviously, the foregoing must be supplemented by protection around the intake areas — wells (PPP: well protection perimeters), springs (manantiales), springs (nacientes), etc. — through the definition of a surrounding zone in which certain human activities are prohibited or restricted, thereby regulating and controlling land use. The determination of the perimeter depends on the capture zone or recharge zone of the well (ZOC), and its extent depends on the characteristics and properties of the intake area and the recharge land, since the regulations cannot be the same for permeable or fractured terrain as for those with impermeable formations (emphasis added) (Constitutional Chamber, Judgment 1923-2004)." The Protection Perimeters of the Regulatory Plan and other preventive measures must be adjusted, revised, and/or replaced as appropriate, both in the written documents and in the vulnerability mapping, and maps of the protection areas for wells, springs (manantiales), springs (nacientes), flow tubes, and capture zones must be produced.
In general terms, the definition of protection perimeters in the Regulatory Plan must be evidenced both in the written regulations of its bylaws and in the vulnerability mapping based on its hydrogeological and geochemical characteristics, which is achieved through the production of maps of said protection zones for wells, springs (manantiales), springs (nacientes), etc. This is of fundamental and decisive importance for the protection of water resources, since the measures to be taken in establishing norms based on the perimeters and vulnerability mapping vary depending on whether the area is: (a) an area without territorial occupation; (b) already occupied areas; (c) already contaminated areas; and (d) areas for new intakes.
PROTECTION OF GROUNDWATER THROUGH VULNERABILITY MAPPING.
(…) a) Aquifer protection perimeters: (…) The definition of perimeters must be combined with mapping of the vulnerability or natural susceptibility of the supply aquifers to anthropogenic contamination loads, based on their hydrogeological and geochemical characteristics, in the face of anthropogenic contamination problems, which is achieved through the production of maps. Both measures — protection perimeters and vulnerability mapping — are suitable for timely relocation of a particular type of activity, the supply source, or, as a last resort, for introducing technical methods and instruments for the treatment and disposal of pollutants. The measures to be taken based on the perimeters and vulnerability mapping vary depending on whether the area is: (a) an area without territorial occupation, in which case it is useful for defining the activities that may or may not be established in the future; (b) already occupied areas, in which case a mapping of natural vulnerability and areas with the greatest susceptibility to contamination is carried out, making it possible, in the face of a threat of a high contamination index, to relocate activities, supply sources, and introduce technology for the treatment and disposal of pollutants; (c) already contaminated areas, for which alternative sources may be sought, the spread of contamination plumes may be avoided, and if possible — given the high cost — the aquifer water may be treated after extraction; (d) areas for new intakes, in which case an inventory must be made of potentially contaminating activities and the area of impact of each of them (emphasis added) (Constitutional Chamber, Judgment 1923-2004)." Therefore, it is abundantly clear that the written regulations of the Regulatory Plan (such as the Zoning Regulations and others) and the maps produced that allow for the precise territorial location of springs (nacientes), wells, springs (manantiales), and their respective protection areas are legally inseparable.
Both elements are written and cartographic legal norms that form part of the Regulatory Plan and enable the effective protection of groundwater and surface water by the municipal officials responsible for implementing and applying it once approved. An example of the foregoing can be found, among many others, in Relevant Judgment No. 18896-2014, of November 21, 2014, Expediente N° 14-013819-0007-CO. The Constitutional Chamber ordered the Municipality of Nicoya, Guanacaste, to include in its Coastal Regulatory Plan the definition of protection perimeters for the "Mala Noche" Aquifer, establishing that the documents endorsed and approved by SENARA are technical inputs for the process of incorporating the environmental variable into its regulatory plan; accordingly, what is appropriate must be adjusted, revised, and/or replaced, both cartographically and in the written documents.
On the powers of SENARA and the proper protection of water resources:
It is important to note that water resources, being essential to human life, require effective actions by the State and its institutions for their preservation, for the benefit of present and future generations, and thus to give effect to the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment as provided in Article 50 of the Political Constitution. In this regard, SENARA received an express mandate in its Constitutive Law No. 6877 of July 4, 1983, to the effect that it must be the autonomous entity that carries out research, protection, and promotion of the country's water resources, both surface and groundwater (Art. 3, subsection ch)), and likewise has among its functions the duty to monitor compliance with legal provisions in matters within its purview; for such purposes, the law provided that the decisions made by SENARA regarding the drilling of wells and the exploitation, maintenance, and protection of waters carried out by public institutions and private individuals shall be final and mandatory (Art. 3, subsection h)).
From the foregoing it is concluded that:
1. SENARA, in the exercise of its competencies, established that the protection radius for a public water supply well, as defined by Water Act No. 272, is two hundred meters; an urban development is observed in the area, which may endanger the quality and quantity of groundwater; furthermore, the well does not have a mapped capture zone, meaning that areas requiring the highest degree of protection cannot be defined.
2. That the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados must carry out the capture zone study (under pumping conditions) for the La Meseta well and define the vulnerability, threat, and risk of contamination, as well as the land uses that are compatible with the protection of quantity and quality. It must also inform the Municipality of San Rafael de Heredia of the scope and zoning of same.
3. The Municipality of San Rafael, within its residual authority in urban planning matters, must take into account water resource intakes within the construction permit processes, especially where public water supply systems are concerned, which require maximum protection given that they relate to the care of water quality and, above all, to the health of the population. Therefore, it must not disregard, within its land-use regulations, the well protection perimeters defined by the national authorities, such as AyA, and these perimeters must be respected by local governments in order to harmonize, develop, and effectively reflect the conditions established in the definition of the protection perimeters within the regulations contained in the respective Regulatory Plans concerning land use or territorial planning.
On the basis of the foregoing, I respectfully request that, with respect to SENARA, it be declared that it has fulfilled its duty and that the present appeal be dismissed."
ON THE MERITS Before addressing the appellant's assertions, it is necessary to bear the following in mind: Mechanically drilled wells are not expressly regulated by the Ley de Aguas but rather by various executive decrees, the most recent of which is Decreto Ejecutivo 43053-MINAE, entitled "Reglamento para la Perforación de Pozos y Aprovechamiento de Aguas Subterráneas." It is this decree — not the Ley de Aguas — that establishes rules governing drilling (perforación) permits, as well as rules on drilling in aquifers (acuíferos) subject to regulated or special conditions, and all matters related to drilling, protection areas around streams and springs (nacientes), and setbacks between wells, among other aspects. It likewise provides, in article 34, for the studies to be submitted depending on the location of the authorized well. Those studies include interference studies between wells or bodies of water, the operational setback of the well (retiro operacional del pozo), and the application of distances pursuant to article 8 of the Ley de Aguas with respect to distances from buildings and roads, which may be reduced subject to MINAE's authorization through the Dirección de Agua.
It should be noted that wells drilled using specialized equipment are civil engineering works — and therefore anthropogenic in nature — designed and built for the extraction of groundwater in accordance with the particular hydrogeological conditions of the site. As such, a well is the property of the title-holder of the land on which it is authorized, although the same does not apply to the water itself, which, in order to be used, requires a concession (concesión) granted by the Minister of MINAE pursuant to Ley 276. Accordingly, the well's operational protection setback, known by the acronym ROP, must not encumber the land of third parties; therefore, it must not extend beyond the boundaries of properties adjacent to the well site authorized by MINAE.
To date, the Ley de Aguas has undergone no significant amendments, and the drilling of wells by machinery remains a matter not regulated by that law, in contrast to artisan wells (pozos artesanales), which the Ley de Aguas does expressly regulate. It therefore follows that it is not appropriate to associate Ley de Agua N°276 and its article 31 with the regulation and protection of groundwater in mechanically drilled wells. Well construction alone is not an element that causes harm to aquifers, provided that the drilling activity conforms to best practices and the elements regulated by Decreto Ejecutivo 43053-MINAE. The subsequent exploitation of the aquifer system must then be viewed holistically in relation to other wells. A factor of particular importance is direct contamination through the well itself, for which the design of every well incorporates sanitary seals (sellos sanitarios) as part of the civil works. In the case of wells, any "protection," setback, or operational area establishes an artificial encumbrance on the property of the well owner and of neighboring third parties — a condition that must be taken into account at the time of permitting, having regard to future human activities and proximity to neighboring properties.
This is not a minor matter. In order to illustrate the technical distinction between mechanically drilled wells — for which an administrative permit from MINAE exists — and the water sources that Ley de Agua 276 of 1942 seeks to protect through the surface-water protection provisions of article 31 — which applies to surface water: water from springs, rivers, and streams (quebradas) — the key point is that these are natural water sources or bodies of water that exist, emerge, and are managed according to the hydrological and geological conditions of the site. They constitute bodies of water and streambeds (cauces) that are in the public domain; both the catchment basin or streambed and the water itself are public goods belonging to the Nation, as expressly regulated in the Ley de Aguas in articles 69 and 70, read together with articles 3 and 4. Wells, by contrast, are private civil infrastructure not covered by the Ley de Aguas.
For its part, article 31 provides that "The lands surrounding the sites of intake (captación) or drinking-water supply intakes…" — note that it addresses land use around intakes, which are the types of interventions carried out on springs, rivers, and streams when a concession is granted for the use of water from those sources; intakes are water-abstraction works carried out in the streambeds of those types of sources. A drilled well is not an intake. Note the provision of the legal norm that regulates environmental flow (caudal ambiental) in surface water sources such as those mentioned:
Article 3 — Definitions. For the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions apply: (…) d) Artisanal or mobile intake: A structure whose function is the diversion of the authorized flow (caudal), built without the use of construction aggregates that fix it to the streambed or its banks. It is an easily removable structure that has a low impact on the streambed. Mobile pumping systems are included in this definition. e) Partial fixed intake: A structure whose function is the diversion of the authorized flow, built using a fixed structure with construction aggregates, which has a greater impact on flow and diversion of the discharge; it partially covers the cross-section of the streambed. Fixed pumping systems are included in this definition. f) Total fixed intake: A structure whose function is the diversion of the authorized flow, built using a fixed structure with construction aggregates, which has a greater impact on flow and diversion of the discharge; it covers the entire cross-section of the streambed.
(…) ("Reglamento para la selección de la metodología para el cálculo del caudal ambiental y evaluación del impacto hídrico acumulado" Decreto Ejecutivo 43242-MINAE) In order to establish the technical basis for understanding water behavior and relate it to the applicable legal norm — and to explain why the Ley de Aguas does not address the drilling of wells using specialized equipment, in contrast to the provision that same 1942 law does make for surface water sources (springs, rivers, streams) — the following technical reference analysis is provided.
Figures 1, provided for illustrative purposes, depict the behavior of a mechanically drilled well, showing the subsoil surrounding the well and the seepage of water toward it, which creates a depression that takes on a cone-like shape known as the cone of depression (cono de abatimiento). This occurs during the extraction phase and depends on the volume of water pumped from the well and the type of subsoil surrounding it. The cones of depression of different wells can compound their impact, but this is a localized effect that depends on the individual well, its design, and its extraction flow rate.
Figures 1 In contrast, the behavior of water from springs is such that the water originates from the subsoil and from upstream, following topography, slope, and hydrological and geological conditions along what are known as flow tubes (tubos de flujo), which discharge at a specific "break point" where, due to local topography and geology, the water emerges naturally. This is why the protection zones established by article 31 of the Ley de Aguas or by article 33 of the Ley Forestal are technically meaningful and legally grounded. The behavior and identification of the flow tubes upstream of the body of water are illustrated in Figure 2 below (Estudio Hidrogeológico para la Determinación de la Zona de Protección de la Naciente Guayabo Abajo de Turrialba. AyA, 2020). The green circle represents the 200-meter setback under article 31 of the Ley de Aguas; note that the technical-scientific protection area is larger than 200 meters, but is directed only upstream in the direction from which the water discharge originates (flow tubes).
Note also that, when comparing the circle generated by the law with the technically justified zone that must be protected, a large portion of the circle is left uncovered; for purposes of water protection, that area is neutral and the legal restriction should arguably not apply there — yet as currently drafted, the rule of law requires that the 200-meter-radius circle be applied in its entirety.
Along the same lines, Figure 3 illustrates a cross-sectional profile of spring discharge, from which it is concluded that the territory to be protected is upstream of the spring's point of emergence (afloramiento); the application of the 200-meter setback under article 31 is appropriate and fully technically justified — but clearly for springs, not wells. Note that, following the slope, the water flow (flow tube) becomes progressively closer to the surface until it emerges — a zone where there may be greater exposure to or vulnerability (vulnerabilidad) of the water supply — and thus the importance of protecting it through broad protection zones, as, it is reiterated, Ley de Aguas 276 of 1942 provides for these surface water sources.
Figure 3 Now, the appellant specifically refers to his interpretation that several entities — including SENARA and AyA — are the competent authorities to analyze and issue rulings on the content and scope of article 31 of the Ley de Aguas. The relevant statutory provision reads as follows:
"Article 31.- The following are declared national domain reserves in favor of the Nation: a) The lands surrounding the sites of intake or drinking-water supply intakes, within a perimeter of no less than two hundred meters in radius; (…)" To begin with, we must cite the position expressed in this regard by the Procuraduría General de la República in official letter OJ-064-2002, which has also analyzed the subject in various other opinions. The Procuraduría General de la República has stated:
"…the significance of the areas adjacent to drinking-water supply sources, and the need to secure that resource, has led various legal provisions to confer on them the character of public domain, as in article 7, subsection c), of the Ley de Tierras y Colonización, No. 2825 of October 14, 1961:
'Article 7.- While the State, of its own accord or at the direction of the Ministry of Agriculture or the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, and for reasons of national interest, has not determined which lands are to remain under its domain, the following shall be considered inalienable and incapable of being acquired by claim or possession, except those already under private domain with legitimate title: c) The lands of islands; those situated on the banks of rivers, streams, and, in general, of all water sources within hydrographic basins (cuencas u hoyas hidrográficas) in which springs emerge or in which any watercourses have their origin or headwaters from which a population draws its supply, or which it is advisable to reserve for that purpose. On flat or gently sloping land, a strip of two hundred meters on either side of said rivers, springs, or streams shall be considered inalienable; and in hydrographic basins, a strip of three hundred meters on either side of the maximum depression, along the entire line, measured from the nearest highest point;' This provision had already been regulated in the Código Fiscal, as amended by Ley No. 11 of October 22, 1926 (article 510, subsection 3), and in the Ley General sobre Terrenos Baldíos, No. 13 of January 10, 1939 (article 7); it is also taken up, in its own way, in article 31 of the Ley de Aguas, No. 276 of August 27, 1942, in the following terms:
'The following are declared national domain reserves in favor of the Nation: a) The lands surrounding the sites of intake or drinking-water supply intakes, within a perimeter of no less than two hundred meters in radius; b) The forest zone that protects or should protect all the lands where the infiltration of drinking water occurs, as well as those that form the basis of hydrographic basins and the banks of storage areas, supply sources, or permanent courses of the same waters.'" For its part, article 33 of the Ley Forestal states:
"(…) a. The areas bordering permanent springs, defined within a radius of 100 meters measured horizontally. b. An area of 50 meters measured horizontally along the banks of natural lakes and reservoirs and along lakes or artificial reservoirs built by the State and its institutions. Private artificial lakes and reservoirs are exempted. c. The recharge areas and aquifers of springs, whose boundaries shall be determined by the competent bodies established in the Reglamento de la Ley Forestal. d. The destruction of trees located less than 60 meters from springs arising on hillsides, or less than 50 meters from those arising on flat terrain, is prohibited, both in national forests and in private ones." It is clear and evident that what is being regulated and protected in all the foregoing provisions is surface water (springs, rivers, and streams), as part of the water resource — and this is expressly stated in every one of the quoted legal provisions.
It must also be noted that, as is the case with the Ley de Aguas, the earliest norms date from the beginning of the twentieth century, when the drilling of wells using specialized equipment or machinery did not exist and was not regulated; accordingly, associating article 31 of the Ley de Aguas with the protection of a mechanically drilled well — which constitutes civil infrastructure embedded within private land — is not consistent with the legislative intent of early twentieth-century lawmakers when establishing "setback" zones or protection areas.
To appreciate the scope of article 31 of the Ley de Aguas, this 200-meter radius — which, as stated, refers to the protection of surface water intakes (springs, also called manantiales, rivers, and streams) — generates an area equivalent to 12.60 hectares, which was entirely technically sound for that era in terms of protecting those surface water sources from land-use impacts; it does not follow the logic that this area should now be applied to a well. For the specific case of wells, these have their own regulatory framework, as indicated above.
Decreto Ejecutivo 43053-MINAE, in its article 34, states:
"Article 34.— (…) b) Operational setback of the well (ROP): In accordance with article 8 of the Ley de Aguas No. 276, every well for purposes of water use shall be subject to a setback distance of up to 40 meters, within which only activities directly related to water extraction, distribution, and well maintenance are permitted. This distance may be reduced with the authorization of MINAE through the Dirección de Agua, for which the applicant must provide a study demonstrating with technical and scientific certainty that the aquifer will not be affected or contaminated by activities carried out directly within the requested setback. The ROP must not extend beyond the boundaries of properties adjacent to the well site. These studies must be submitted within a maximum period of 30 working days following the completion of drilling and must use as their base the information generated by the authorized drilling." (Emphasis not in the original) This setback distance, as stated in the quoted provision, provides security and protection for the water resource extracted through the well, and may even be reduced if a technical study on contaminant transit is submitted.
On this basis, it may be concluded that the setback established in article 31 of the Ley de Aguas applies exclusively to sites of intake or drinking-water supply intakes for surface water, and not to groundwater extraction wells. Accordingly, for wells, the only distances to be respected are those specified in article 34 of Decreto 43053-MINAE, which in turn cross-references article 8 of the Ley de Aguas, which provides:
"Article 8.- The works referred to in the preceding article for well-boring (alumbramientos) may not be carried out at a distance of less than forty meters from buildings belonging to others, from a railway, or from a road, nor at a distance of less than one hundred meters from another borehole or source, river, canal, irrigation channel, or public water trough, without the corresponding permit from the Ministerio del Ambiente y Energía. Nor may these works be carried out within a mining concession without prior agreement for the compensation of damages." (Emphasis not in the original) Contrary to what the appellant argues — who misreads the applicable legal framework (regardless of his personal opinion) — MINAE, through the Dirección de Agua, evaluates and analyzes matters relating to groundwater and its potential impact, without needing to resort to AyA or SENARA.
It must be recalled that the Dirección de Agua is MINAE's technical body which, pursuant to article 177 of the Ley de Aguas N° 276 and article 41 of the Reglamento Orgánico del Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía, Decreto Ejecutivo N° 35669-MINAE and its amendments, is responsible for the national administration of the water resource and for issuing dispositions and rulings on its ownership and use. It is also called upon to coordinate the Comisión Técnica Interinstitucional para la Gestión del Agua Subterráneas, established pursuant to Decreto 42929-MINAE-MAG, with the objective of achieving sustainable groundwater management. This Dirección also administers the Sistema Nacional de Información para la Gestión Integrada del Recurso Hídrico (SINIGIRH), which includes the Registro Nacional de Pozos — a system that, pursuant to Decreto Ejecutivo 42015-MAG-MINAE-S-MIVAH, is the official system for the management of and access to water-related information.
This same decree contains the Reglamento de Coordinación Interinstitucional para la Protección de los Recursos Hídricos Subterráneos, which regulates coordination actions and the functions of Executive Branch agencies, as well as of decentralized institutions involved in groundwater protection, within the framework of their legal and constitutional competencies, so as to ensure sustainability. These actions extend to the private sector and other state institutions within the framework of their legal and constitutional competencies in matters of groundwater resources.
This norm mandates the involvement, in matters of groundwater, of all the bodies that regulate activities aimed at protecting groundwater — among them this Dirección de Agua of MINAE, as well as AyA and SENARA, among others — but all within the legal competencies assigned to them by law. The foregoing does not in any way conflict with the specific regulations governing the operation of wells in the country or with the competencies of AyA or SENARA. The authorization or delimitation of the operational radius corresponds exclusively, by norm, to MINAE through the Dirección de Agua.
The Sala Constitucional already indicated as much in voto 2004-1923, stating: "a) One of the most innovative instruments in the protection of water resources is the definition of protection perimeters for the conservation of the resource and its surroundings. This administrative intervention measure seeks to preserve the quality and quantity of the water contained but also of its container — that is, the geological formation known as the aquifer. Protection perimeters for aquifer layers (mantos acuíferos): (…) Obviously, to the foregoing must be added the protection around intake areas (wells — PPP: well protection perimeters —, springs, etc.), through the definition of a surrounding zone in which certain human activities are prohibited or restricted, thereby regulating or controlling land use. The determination of the perimeter depends on the well's capture or recharge zone (ZOC), and its extent depends on the characteristics and properties of the intake area and the recharge terrain, since the same rules cannot apply in the case of permeable or fractured terrain as for terrain with impermeable formations.
The definition of perimeters must be combined with mapping of the vulnerability or natural susceptibility of the aquifer layers supplying drinking water to anthropogenic contamination loads, based on their hydrogeological and geochemical characteristics in relation to anthropogenic contamination problems, which is achieved through the production of maps. Both measures — protection perimeters and vulnerability mapping — are appropriate tools for the timely relocation of a specific type of activity, the supply source, or, as a last resort, for introducing technical methods and instruments for the treatment and disposal of contaminants." It is important to conclude that, pursuant to the foregoing ruling, the Sala Constitucional itself ordered AyA not to carry out drilling works at the location indicated in that amparo [constitutional rights petition], unless technical studies exist that make it possible to reach a state of absolute certainty as to the harmlessness of the intended activity on the groundwater, taking into account the presence of residential homes and septic tanks within the perimeter established by article 8 of the Ley de Aguas. Such technical studies must be approved by MINAE through the Dirección de Agua.
It is also important to bear in mind that, during the well-drilling permit application process, the Dirección de Aguas grants SENARA and AyA a hearing regarding drilling permit applications; those bodies analyze what protection should apply to the surroundings of wells under the scenarios covered by article 8, which in itself constitutes an administrative intervention measure through the definition of a distance to preserve the quality and quantity of groundwater — and does not mean that AyA and/or SENARA are excluded from this assessment.
From a technical standpoint, the definition of the distance cannot be fixed, as the appellant interprets it; rather, it depends on the specific conditions of each site. It is therefore incorrect to interpret, as the appellant does, that article 31 of the Ley de Aguas must be applied to all mechanically drilled wells intended for human population consumption — a requirement that, it must be noted, is not set out in any legal provision.
Now, science and technical expertise take on particular relevance when establishing a distance with respect to a building belonging to others, a railway, or a road (in connection with article 8 of the Ley de Aguas), for which a setback of up to 40 meters from deep drilled wells is prescribed. And in fact, distance is not necessarily synonymous with protection of groundwater per se; rather, attention must be directed to the integrated management of the aquifer and its management during the recharge and discharge phases, where drilling does not carry a risk beyond the construction phase itself — but in terms of the well's operation and existence, defining a setback distance provides little or no guarantee of protection from a scientific and technical standpoint, which is why technical and scientific studies are of great importance in the case of wells.
When we speak of protection, we must focus on the aquifer area and not necessarily on the well (which is a civil engineering work consisting of a deep subsurface borehole that is conditioned, through its construction and assembly, to extract authorized groundwater). Let us therefore consider what is understood by an aquifer: "a geological formation capable of storing and transmitting water through it in significant quantities such that it can be extracted through abstraction works, presenting highly variable dimensions, from a few hectares in area to thousands of square kilometers, and from a few meters in thickness to hundreds of thousands of meters" (Las Aguas Subterráneas Un recurso natural del subsuelo, JA. López et al. Fundación Marcelino Botín, Instituto Geológico y Minero de España).
The only possibility of eventual contamination of an aquifer through a deep (non-artisan) well is if a direct event occurs at the wellhead itself (as may occur during construction) — that is, at the borehole — which is why well protection must be centered on the design and construction of the well. In that regard, the construction and design of wells — to render them ready for operation — is properly carried out with sanitary seals and cement grout at the surface, and in many cases with seals extending from 0 to 50–80 meters in depth, according to the geological conditions of the area and the location of the saturated zone of the aquifer. "Today very advanced technology is available that makes wells a true civil engineering work, requiring design, project planning, maintenance, and monitoring" (Las Aguas Subterráneas Un recurso natural del subsuelo, JA. López et al. Fundación Marcelino Botín, Instituto Geológico y Minero de España).
Accordingly, the management of protection is not centered on the well itself; rather, it must be directed according to the overall vulnerability of the aquifer, where preventive and protective measures must be established in accordance with the characterization of the aquifer layers, through the regulation of human activities and, above all, those that are potentially contaminating.
"There are two different approaches to establishing groundwater protection perimeters: quantity protection and quality protection." (Delimitación de Perímetros de Protección para captaciones de agua subterráneas, Diputación de Alicante España, 2008) For its part, "The delimitation of the zones defining quality protection perimeters can be carried out according to the following criteria: distance to the contamination source, drawdown, contaminant transit time, hydrogeological criteria, and the self-purification capacity of the terrain" (…) "However, the most common zoning is the one that distinguishes three areas: Immediate, Proximate, and Distal, which are in turn bounded by the aquifer itself." (Delimitación de Perímetros de Protección para captaciones de agua subterráneas, Diputación de Alicante España, 2008) The activities in each of these protection zones could be regulated by legal norms, as is the case with the rule established in article 8 of the Ley de Aguas, which sets a maximum distance of 40 meters (which may be set differently with MINAE's permit, based on technical criteria), equivalent to 5,000 square meters (half a hectare) if we model a circle with a radius of 40, or 1,600 square meters if we model a square.
In this regard, the document "Delimitación de Perímetros de Protección para captaciones de agua subterráneas" from the Diputación de Alicante, Spain, notes that the immediate zone corresponds to a small area around the intake of 100 to 400 square meters, or the equivalent distance of a one-day contaminant transit time.
With regard to quantity, this takes on particular importance given that this aspect does properly depend on the well itself and its extraction capacity, insofar as it is necessary to verify protection from the standpoint of the flow rate and volume of water extractable from the well. Hence the importance of the distinction between protecting a drilled well — governed by the special regulatory framework of the cited executive decree — and protecting surface water sources, springs, rivers, and streams, to which the provisions of article 31 of the Ley de Aguas apply.
"Necessarily, one extraction will affect another intake subject to protection, provided that it draws water from the same aquifer, both in terms of flow rate and extraction volume — with the exception, under certain circumstances, of the presence of constant recharge levels in the aquifer." (Delimitation of protection perimeters (perímetros de protección) for groundwater intakes (captaciones de agua subterráneas), Diputación de Alicante España, 2008) It is in this respect that conducting interference analyses between intakes is indeed relevant — an analysis that, while advantageous to consider when discussing well spacing, is not equally relevant to the topic of quality protection, as already set forth above. Vulnerability to contamination (vulnerabilidad a la contaminación) is a characteristic of aquifers (acuíferos) that is complex to determine; it depends on the interaction of different factors, such as the depth of the water table (nivel freático) or the aquifer roof (techo del acuífero), the attenuation capacity of the lithological layers overlying the aquifer, the recharge rate (tasa de recarga), the potential flow rate, and other factors.
Vulnerability, for its part, may be understood as the sensitivity of groundwater quality to an imposed contaminant load (carga contaminante), which is determined by the intrinsic characteristics of the aquifer. In the field of groundwater, contamination risk is the product of the interaction of two components: The passive component, represented by vulnerability, which does not depend on human activity and does not perceptibly change over time. The active component, represented by the hazard (amenaza), which depends directly on human activity on the surface or subsurface and may change over time.
Note that, with regard to this instrument of administrative intervention (intervención administrativa), the Sala Constitucional establishes in its case law that "the determination of the perimeter depends on the capture zone or wellhead protection zone (zona de captura o de carga del pozo, ZOC) of the well, and its extent depends on the characteristics and properties of the catchment area and the recharge zone, since the rules cannot be the same for permeable or fractured terrain as for terrain with impermeable formations…" (Sentencia nº 2008 - 015657 de la Sala Constitucional, de las 11 hora y 45 minutos del 17 de octubre de 2008). Although AyA and SENARA share competencies, MINAE is responsible for controlling and overseeing (fiscalización) the use and exploitation of groundwater resources to ensure their rational exploitation (explotación racional). This means that, in the case of wells licensed by MINAE, MINAE resolves and integrates the criteria of all three institutions to determine whether drilling is viable, and the appellant has presented no evidence to the contrary.
Furthermore, Sentencia nº 2008 - 015657 de la Sala Constitucional, de las 11 hora y 45 minutos del 17 de octubre de 2008, and Sentencia 2008 - 18934 de las 14:24 horas del 19 de diciembre de 2008, which clarifies the first ruling, introduce a restrictive criterion in the application of Article 8 of the Ley de Aguas, by providing that groundwater must be protected through application of the precautionary principle (principio precautorio), and that one instrument to ensure its application is the technique of administrative intervention through the definition of protection radii (radios de protección), recognizing that their definition depends on variables that must be analyzed, while equally recognizing that in the absence of certainty — that is, "when in doubt as to whether the source of drinking water at issue could or could not be contaminated, the technical position that affords it broader protection must be preferred, granting the amparo." This means that in cases where there is a risk of contamination, the maximum protection radius under Article 8 applies — namely a distance of 40 meters — whereas if the technical analysis determines that the aquifer is not impacted, the protection radius shall be defined on the basis of technical studies, as shown in the preceding Image 1.
In this manner, we may conclude that the distance specified in Article 31 of the Ley de Aguas is not applicable to drilled wells (pozos perforados), not only because the Ley de Aguas, which dates from 1942, does not contemplate it, but also for the technical and scientific reasons set forth above.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF In accordance with the foregoing, it is respectfully requested that the present writ of amparo (recurso de amparo) be dismissed and the case file (expediente) be archived.
The opinion is authored by Magistrate Hess Herrera; and,
Considering:
Before examining the merits of the case, it should be clarified that, beginning with judgment No. 2008002545 of 8:55 a.m. on February 22, 2008, this Chamber has referred to the contentious-administrative jurisdiction—with certain exceptions—those matters in which the question is whether or not the public administration has complied with the deadlines set by the General Law of Public Administration (Articles 261 and 325) or by sectoral laws governing special administrative procedures, in order to resolve by a final act an administrative proceeding—initiated ex officio or at a party's request—or to hear applicable administrative appeals. Precisely in the present case, an exceptional circumstance arises, as the matter involves complaints filed regarding the alleged violation of the protection zone of a well, which have allegedly not been addressed. With this clarification made, the specific situation raised in this writ of amparo is now examined.
Separately, having reviewed the written submission incorporated into the digital case file on June 2, 2026, through which the protected party files a motion for prompt disposition, it is determined that such a request is moot, given that this ruling resolves the appeal on the merits.
The petitioning party states that on March 28, 2023, it filed a complaint with ICAA regarding the construction of a subdivision (fraccionamiento) adjacent to the La Meseta well (or AB-689) and the resulting violation of its protection radius (radio de protección). It objects that, based on an interpretation made by the Directorate of Water of MINAE with respect to Article 8 of the Ley de Aguas, the Municipality of San Rafael de Heredia continues to grant land-use endorsements for the construction of dwellings—a position that even contradicts that of ICAA and SENARA regarding the 200-meter protection radius. It further objects that the residential project is discharging untreated wastewater (aguas residuales), thereby threatening the underground water resources of the area, and that the respondent authorities continue to fail to adopt measures to protect the water resource.
The following facts are considered duly established and relevant to the resolution of this matter:
"Part of the project with cadastral plan H-1601028-2012 is located within the 200 m baseline activity radius of the AyA water supply known as the La Meseta Well (…) considering the location of property H-1601028-2012 with Property No. 4-174543-000 in relation to the La Meseta AyA public-supply well, clarification and supplementation are requested with respect to point d of this communication (items 3 and 4) from your office, and based on the new information provided, the hydrogeological requirements for protecting the water resource will be indicated, given that the project is located in a Reserve and Strategy Zone for population water supply, which shall take priority (…)
Currently, the discharge of treated wastewater into non-permanently flowing or intermittent watercourses is not permitted by MINAE; likewise, the infiltration of treated wastewater in this area should not be permitted, as there is a public-supply well for human drinking water there, given that current regulations are insufficient to protect such sources against contamination risks—from nutrients, for example—since threshold limits for such parameters have not even been established (…)
We are faced with a condition that is incompatible between the use of the property where said company is located and the National Domain Reserve Areas for population water-supply intake points." (See documentary evidence.)
"(…) in the case of public water supply wells, the protection zone has a radius of 200 meters, and the water operator must establish the protection perimeter (capture zones [zonas de captura]) and the measures that reduce the risk of groundwater contamination. The following responses are provided to the questions raised: 1. Verify the location of the La Meseta well (Lambert North Coordinates: 525981-220836). 2. We should be informed of what the protection zone is, as measured by property boundaries and setbacks, and whether that zone has been violated or encroached upon. The coordinates of well AB-689 (best match in the SENARA Database), the La Meseta well, were searched in the SINIGIRH of the Directorate of Water, and its coordinates are 525981 Y-220836 X … As regards the defined 200-meter zone, it is located in an urbanized area; moreover, the site visit of December 4 included photographs evidencing construction in the vicinity of the well … 3.
If a vulnerability map exists, we should be informed of the level of vulnerability assigned to the area where the La Meseta well is located. As regards the defined 200-meter zone, it is located in an urbanized area; moreover, the site visit of December 4 included photographs evidencing construction in the vicinity of the well. 4. We should be informed whether there is—or, if not, what is—the risk analysis for the well in the event that residential or other construction is carried out within the protection zone of the La Meseta well on property with Folio Real 174543. The evaluation of the protection zone of the well known as La Meseta, as well as the vulnerability analyses, determination of contamination sources (threat), and contamination risk assessment, must be carried out by the service provider—in our case AyA—which must incorporate approved and existing methodologies based on science and technical knowledge. 5.
Within the scope of its competence and in the event that encroachment on the protection radius of the La Meseta well is determined, we request that appropriate action be taken so as not to affect the water resource in the construction development. SENARA defines within its competencies that a well is a catchment site, and therefore the provisions of Article 31 (subsection a) establishing a 200-meter radius would apply; in addition, for each public supply well the operator must conduct a hydrogeological study of the protection perimeter and establish various protective measures, establishing more rigorous protection in all areas that feed the aquifer (acuífero) (capture zone), and less rigorous protection in those that do not affect the quality and quantity of the water resource. 6. We should be informed of the current aquifer protection matrix in force. For the issuance of opinions to users, SENARA's 'Matrix of land-use criteria according to aquifer contamination vulnerability for the protection of the water resource' is applied, in combination with the methodology of contaminant transit times in the unsaturated zone.
This is done in compliance with the provisions of official communication SENARA-JD-SA-245-2019 of November 5, 2019, which communicates Agreement No. 6039 of the Board of Directors of SENARA, by which the 'Generic Aquifer Protection Matrix (…)' is repealed" (boldface in the original). (See documentary evidence.)
"(…) Based on a review of the applicable regulations under Water Law No. 276, official communication DA-0583-2018, and the Regulation on Well Drilling Decreto 43053-MINAE, wells are subject to an Operational Well Setback (Retiro Operacional del Pozo, ROP) of 40.0 m, which does not correspond to a protection zone sensu stricto, but rather to a setback for the operational functionality of the well, which may be reduced through a technical study making a clear determination. This study must be submitted by the well owner—in this case, AyA—demonstrating that the ROP is limited to the property boundary where the well is located. I note that the ROP cannot affect or encumber neighboring properties, as is the case being evaluated. Moreover, given that this is a well with a drilling permit issued prior to 2010 (La Meseta, case file 602R), the provisions of official communication DA-0583-2018, Chapter 3, apply, which states the following regarding the ROP: 'A well authorized before 2010 with a permit affecting development of a neighboring property due to the ROP: if the well was constructed in accordance with the permit (location, coordinates, depth), it is understood to have an intrinsic ROP license with respect to the authorized site, such that the ROP is limited to the boundary line with the neighboring property.
When land containing an authorized well is later subject to construction—whether before or after the permit—in such a way as to affect the development or the well, responsibility lies with the owner: either the well must be closed or the ROP must be relocated.' (boldface not in the original). Therefore, since the ROP is limited to the boundary of the property where the well is located, there is no impact on adjacent lands. (…) It is confirmed, pursuant to Executive Decree 42128-MINAE-S, that wastewater discharge must be directed into a permanently flowing public-domain watercourse, subject to prior authorization from MINAE. Accordingly, the future development will be required to apply to the Directorate of Water of MINAE for a permit in order to discharge water from the treatment plant. Regarding the implementation of a treatment system using a subsurface infiltration methodology for wastewater treatment and/or discharge, evaluation of these permits and procedures does not fall within the competence of this Directorate; therefore, no opinion is issued thereon. These procedures must be evaluated by the appropriate authorities (SENARA, AyA, SETENA, Ministry of Health, among others)." (See documentary evidence.)
On this point, it is important to note that, according to the Hydrogeological Studies for the canton of San Rafael de Heredia, which have been duly approved by your office through official communication No. SENARA-DIGH-0164-2022 of December 15, 2022, the area under study has low hydrogeological vulnerability (vulnerabilidad hidrogeológica) and very low aquifer recharge (recarga acuífera) due to the inherent characteristics of the aquifer in which the wells are located. On the other hand, and notwithstanding the foregoing, in order to further safeguard the water resource, the developer of the subdivision in question was required to submit a technical study demonstrating the absence of any impact on the well in question from the construction of buildings on the properties segregated from property with Folio Real registration number 4-174543, which determined a negligible hydrogeological vulnerability with a transit time of 180.78 days, which is sufficient for bacteriological agents to degrade, such that the water resource would not be at risk." (See documentary evidence.)
That ICAA must delineate the capture zone (pumping conditions) of the La Meseta well and define its vulnerability, threat, and contamination risk, as well as the land uses that are compatible with the protection of quantity and quality. It must also inform the Municipalidad de San Rafael de Heredia of the scope and zoning thereof. 3. The Municipalidad de San Rafael, within its residual competence in urban planning (planificación urbana) matters, must take into account water resource (recurso hídrico) intakes within construction permit (permisos constructivos) processes, especially when those intakes relate to public supply systems, which require maximum protection, given that they concern the safeguarding of water quality and, above all, the health of the population. Accordingly, the Municipalidad must not disregard, within its land-use regulations, the well-protection perimeters defined by national authorities, as is the case with ICAA; these perimeters must be respected by local governments in order to effectively harmonize, develop, and reflect the conditions established in the definition of protection perimeters within the land-use or territorial planning provisions of the respective regulatory land-use plans" (emphasis added). (See sworn report submitted by the general manager of Senara).
In judgment nro. 2026013335 of 9:20 a.m. on April 21, 2026, this Tribunal addressed the constitutional principles applicable in environmental matters in the following terms:
"Recently, the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) referred to environmental principles and inter-administrative coordination in the following terms:
"In the sub lite, the constitutional principles in environmental matters are first invoked. Thus, for example, in judgment nro. 2021024807 of 9:20 a.m. on November 5, 2021, this Chamber stated:
"In this connection, specialized legal doctrine has noted that the preventive principle (principio preventivo) demands that, when there is certainty of possible environmental harm, the offending activity must be prohibited, limited, or made conditional upon compliance with certain requirements. In general, this principle applies when risks are clearly defined and identified as at least probable; this principle is likewise useful when there are no technical reports or administrative permits guaranteeing the sustainability of an activity, yet there are sufficient elements to foresee potential negative impacts. On the other hand, the precautionary principle (principio precautorio) states that, when there is a danger of serious or irreversible harm, the lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason to postpone the adoption of cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.
From the foregoing, it is apparent that the principle begins with a reasonable scientific uncertainty in conjunction with the threat of serious and irreversible environmental harm. In general terms, a relevant distinction between the preventive principle and the precautionary principle lies in the degree of knowledge and certainty regarding the risks that an activity or project may cause. Whereas certainty exists in the former, the latter reflects a state of doubt resulting from scientific information or technical studies (…)" Specifically, the precautionary principle must be understood as set forth in Principle XV of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development: "Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation." In other words, this is not a matter of requiring scientific studies to arrive at 'absolute certainty' regarding an activity's harmlessness to the environment (in principle, total certainty is hardly achievable); rather, even if the danger of serious or irreversible environmental harm is not entirely established, such uncertainty will never justify or excuse the postponement of effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.
In this regard, it should be noted, on the one hand, that the threat in question is not just any type of threat, as it must plausibly involve a serious danger, and, on the other, that the measure calls for efficient and effective use of the resources employed. As stated above, even though the precautionary principle is linked to a certain level of scientific uncertainty, this does not mean it may be invoked without restriction on the grounds that any activity could potentially cause environmental harm — for that would undermine its very purpose — but rather that there must be some degree of identification of the risks of serious or irreversible harm that could be generated, the determination of which varies depending on the specific circumstances of each case. Thus, when faced with a situation that calls for application of the precautionary principle, public entities and agencies must refrain from authorizing, approving, or allowing any new or modification request that reasonably entails a serious risk; they are even obligated to suspend ongoing activities. At the same time, they must efficiently and effectively adopt all measures required for the preservation of a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.
The aforementioned principle is equally enshrined in a source of hard law, given that Principle 3 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change — ratified by Costa Rica through law nro. 7414 of June 13, 1994, and by all member states of the OEA — provides:
"3. The Parties should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or minimize the causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such measures, taking into account that policies and measures to deal with climate change should be cost-effective so as to ensure global benefits at the lowest possible cost. To achieve this, such policies and measures should take into account different socio-economic contexts, be comprehensive, cover all relevant sources, sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases and adaptation, and comprise all economic sectors. Efforts to address climate change may be carried out cooperatively by interested Parties." The precautionary principle is also set forth in the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, which has been ratified by 32 Member States of the OEA, including Costa Rica. In this regard, see law nro. 8538 of August 23, 2006, which reads:
"ARTICLE 1 Objective Mindful of the precautionary principle as set out in Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, the objective of this Convention is to protect human health and the environment from persistent organic pollutants (…)." Likewise, this principle is contained in the Convention on Biological Diversity, ratified by 34 Member States of the OEA, including Costa Rica, through law nro. 7416 of June 30, 1994, the preamble of which states: "(…) Noting that it is vital to anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of significant reduction or loss of biological diversity at source. Noting also that where there is a threat of significant reduction or loss of biological diversity, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to avoid or minimize such a threat (…)." Consistent with the aforementioned legislation in force in Costa Rica, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (Corte IDH) also addressed the precautionary principle in Advisory Opinion OC-23/17 of November 15, 2017:
"180. (…) Therefore, this Court understands that States must act in accordance with the precautionary principle, for the purpose of protecting the right to life and to personal integrity, in cases where there are plausible indicators that an activity could cause serious and irreversible harm to the environment, even in the absence of scientific certainty. Therefore, States must act with due caution to prevent potential harm. Indeed, in the context of the protection of the rights to life and to personal integrity, the Court considers that States must act in accordance with the precautionary principle, and thus, even in the absence of scientific certainty, must adopt measures that are 'effective' to prevent serious or irreversible harm." Subsequently, by means of a judgment in Comunidades Indígenas miembros de la Asociación Lhaka Honhat (nuestra tierra) vs. Argentina, the Corte IDH ruled on February 6, 2020 as follows: "the right to a healthy environment 'must be considered included among the rights [...] protected by Article 26 of the American Convention,' given the obligation of States to achieve 'integral development' of their peoples, which arises from Articles 30, 31, 33 and 34 of the Charter." Of great significance, it should be emphasized that, in this ruling, the Corte IDH refers to Advisory Opinion nro. OC-23/17 in order to develop the content and scope of this right, with the result that the legal considerations of the latter have logically come to acquire the binding legal force of a judgment.
In that regard, the international judicial body reiterates "that the right to a healthy environment 'constitutes a universal interest' and 'is a fundamental right for the existence of humanity,' and that 'as an autonomous right [...] it protects the components of the [...] environment, such as forests, seas, rivers and others, as legal interests in themselves, even in the absence of certainty or evidence of risk to specific individuals. The aim is to protect nature,' not only for its 'utility' or 'effects' with respect to human beings, 'but for its importance to the other living organisms with whom it is shared on this planet.' This does not, of course, preclude other human rights from being violated as a consequence of environmental harm." Precisely, in developing the conceptualization of the right to environment, the Corte IDH clearly details States' obligations in the face of potential environmental harm, such as the duty of prevention, the precautionary principle, the obligation of cooperation, and access to information.
In sum, the application of the precautionary principle implies that when there are indicators that a certain activity could plausibly cause serious and irreversible environmental harm, the lack of absolute scientific certainty or evidence in this regard does not exempt States from the obligation to adopt all efficient and effective measures to prevent harm to the environment.
Regarding the preventive principle, the first UN report on the state of international environmental law, document A/73/419 of November 30, 2018, prepared by the Secretary-General in fulfillment of the UN General Assembly resolution of May 10, 2018 (nro. A/72/L.51), conceptualizes it as a normative guideline of customary international law "confirmed by relevant practice in many environmental treaties and major codification projects." Now, while the aforementioned report emphasizes the prevention of transboundary harm, the truth is that this general principle of law, as duly recorded in the document '95 Environmental Legal Principles for Ecologically Sustainable Development' (approved at the XIX Edition of the Cumbre Judicial Iberoamericana-2018 and by the Corte Plena under Article XIX of session nro. 28-2020 of May 25, 2020), has a much broader scope, since, as a hermeneutical guide, it leads to the rule that "the causes and sources of environmental problems shall be addressed in a priority and integrated manner, seeking to prevent the negative effects that may be produced on the environment.
The criterion of prevention shall thus prevail over any other consideration in the public and private management of the environment and natural resources." This makes full sense, as it is consistent with the duty to prevent the occurrence of environmental harm, rather than limiting action to deciding on the remediation of harmful consequences already verified, including ordering the cessation of damaging effects.
This principle is reflected, among other provisions, in Articles 194.1 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (ratified by Costa Rica through law nro. 7291) and 5 and Annex II of the United Nations Agreement on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (ratified through law nro. 8059), as well as in constitutional jurisprudence (see judgments nros. 2021024807 of 9:20 a.m. on November 5, 2021, and 2018016383 of 5:00 p.m. on September 28, 2018, among many others) and in conventional jurisprudence, for example, in Advisory Opinion nro. OC-23/17 of November 15, 2017, paragraphs 127 to 174 and subparagraphs a) and b) of paragraph 242, and in the judgment of November 24, 2022, Nombre05 vs. Chile. Precisely, in the latter, the Corte IDH expressly states:
"208. Without prejudice to the foregoing, in the specific area of environmental law, it must be highlighted that the principle of prevention of environmental harm forms part of customary international law and entails the obligation of States to carry out the necessary measures ex ante the production of environmental harm, bearing in mind that, due to its particular characteristics, once such harm has occurred it will frequently not be possible to restore the previously existing situation. By virtue of the duty of prevention, the Court has held that 'States are obliged to use all available means in order to prevent activities carried out under their jurisdiction from causing significant damage to the [...] environment.' This obligation must be met under a standard of due diligence, which must be appropriate and proportional to the degree of risk of environmental harm. On the other hand, while it is not possible to provide a detailed enumeration of all the measures that States might take to fulfill this duty, some may be identified in relation to potentially harmful activities: i) regulate; ii) supervise and monitor; iii) require and approve environmental impact studies; iv) establish contingency plans; and v) mitigate in cases where environmental harm occurs." For its part, the in dubio pro natura principle means, according to the 'World Declaration of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) on the Rule of Law in Environmental Matters,' that "in case of doubt, all processes before tribunals, administrative bodies and other decision-makers shall be resolved in a manner that favours the protection and conservation of the environment, giving preference to the least harmful alternatives. Actions shall not be taken when their potential adverse effects are disproportionate or excessive in relation to the benefits derived therefrom" (see Principle V).
In that regard, according to the document '95 Environmental Legal Principles for Ecologically Sustainable Development' (approved at the XIX Edition of the Cumbre Judicial Iberoamericana-2018 and by the Corte Plena under Article XIX of session nro. 28-2020 of May 25, 2020), "Every operator of environmental rules must always bear in mind the pro natura principle, pursuant to which risks shall be avoided, collective general interests shall be prioritized over individual ones, the preservation of the environment shall be favored, and in case of doubt, the interpretation that most broadly protects the environment shall be preferred." An evolution of the foregoing has led to the establishment of the "pro natura principle," in which the "in dubio" element is set aside, so that its scope of application is broadened to cover situations in which legal uncertainty does not necessarily exist. Thus, the application of the pro natura principle does not depend on the existence of a danger of serious or irreversible harm — as is the case with the precautionary principle — but rather implies a "general rule of conduct for the relationship between the State — and society at large — and the environment, applicable to all decision-making areas where there is a risk of harm to the environment, and which obliges us to avoid opting for conduct that may cause harm to the environment when other options are available" (Nombre06 and Nombre07, 2018).
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights referred to this principle for the first time in Advisory Opinion OC-32/25 of May 29, 2025, in which it determined that, within the framework of protecting nature as a subject of rights, the pro natura principle must be interpreted harmoniously with the pro persona principle — see paragraph 281. The Corte IDH also linked the pro natura principle to other procedural principles, namely "the principles of availability of evidence, procedural cooperation, pro persona (…) and pro actione," as part of the evidentiary rules to be applied with respect to the right of access to justice — see paragraph 582 in this regard.
In sum, the pro natura principle establishes that, in any legal conflict, the interpretation that best favors the protection of nature and the full enjoyment of environmental rights must always prevail, even when the situation does not involve uncertainty. This hermeneutical guideline must be followed in every relationship between State, society, and the environment, so that the solution that best protects nature is always chosen.
On the other hand, in judgment nro. 2012013367 of 11:33 a.m. on September 21, 2012, this Constitutional Tribunal addressed the principles of progressivity (progresividad) and non-regression (no regresión) in environmental matters in the following terms:
"V. On the principles of progressivity and non-regression in environmental protection. The principle of progressivity of human rights has been recognized by International Human Rights Law; among other international instruments, it is embodied in Article 2 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 1 and Article 26 of the American Convention on Human Rights, and Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Under these provisions, the State assumes the obligation to progressively increase, to the extent of its possibilities and development, the levels of protection of human rights, with special consideration given to those rights — such as the right to the environment (Article 11 of the Protocol) — that require multiple positive State actions for their protection and full enjoyment by all rights-holders.
From the principle of progressivity of human rights and the principle of non-retroactivity of legal provisions to the detriment of acquired rights and consolidated legal situations, enshrined in Article 34 of the Constitution (Carta Magna), the principle of non-regression or irreversibility of the benefits or level of protection already achieved is derived. This principle stands as a substantive guarantee of rights — in this case, the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment — by virtue of which the State is obligated not to adopt measures, policies, or legal rules that worsen, without reasonable and proportionate justification, the level of protection of rights already attained. This principle does not imply absolute irreversibility, since all States face national situations of an economic, political, social, or natural character that negatively impact the achievements thus far and necessitate recalibrating the level of protection downward.
In such cases, Constitutional Law and the principles under examination require that the reduction of protection levels be justified in light of the constitutional standards of reasonableness and proportionality. In this regard, the Constitutional Chamber has expressed in its jurisprudence, in connection with the right to health: '…in accordance with THE PRINCIPLE OF NON-REGRESSION, it is prohibited to take measures that diminish the protection of fundamental rights. Thus, if the Costa Rican State, in order to protect the right to health and the right to life, has a policy of openness to access to medicines, it cannot — and certainly not through an International Treaty — reduce such access and make it more restrictive, under the pretext of protecting trade. (Constitutional Chamber Judgment Nº 9469-07). Regarding the right to the environment, the Chamber stated: "The foregoing constitutes an evolutionary interpretation of environmental protection in accordance with Constitutional Law, which does not admit a regression to its detriment." (Constitutional Chamber Judgment Nº 18702-10)'.
(Emphasis added). (In the same vein, judgments 2014-012887, 2017-002375, 2017-005994, 2019-012745 and 2019-017397)." Accordingly, under the principle of progressivity, the State assumes the obligation to increase, to the extent possible, the levels of protection of human rights, including the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. For its part, the application of the principle of non-regression consists of a guarantee that constrains the State from adopting measures, policies, or rules that worsen, without reasonable and proportionate justification, the degree of protection of fundamental rights already attained, and, should such a case arise, requires weighing the corresponding compensatory measures.
Finally, this Tribunal explained the principle of objectification of environmental protection (principio de objetivación de la tutela ambiental) in the following terms:
"As regards the environment, the object of the fundamental right described, our Constitution additionally requires that it be 'healthy.' The requirement of 'healthy' leads us to 'regenerative capacity' and 'succession capacity' to guarantee life. From both requirements — 'healthy' and 'balanced' — the need for sustainable and sustentable development arises; quality of life and environmental quality depend on them. Now, with the concepts of 'environment,' 'healthy,' and 'ecologically balanced,' the constitutional provision introduced science and technology into environmental decision-making, whether legislative or administrative, such that, under the terms of Articles 16 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública and 38 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, State actions in environmental matters must be grounded in — and may not contradict — the unequivocal rules of science and technology, with a view to achieving the full and universal enjoyment of a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and, furthermore, 'greater wellbeing for all inhabitants of the country.' As regards the subjection of legislative and administrative decisions to the unequivocal rules of science and technology, the Constitutional Chamber has termed this the principle of objectification of environmental protection: 'The objectification of environmental protection (…) is a principle that cannot in any way be confused with the foregoing [precautionary principle or "principle of prudent avoidance"], in that, as derived from the provisions of Articles 16 and 160 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, it translates into the need to substantiate decision-making in this area with technical studies, both with respect to individual acts and to provisions of a general nature — whether statutory or regulatory — from which derives the requirement of adherence to science and technology, thereby conditioning the Administration's discretionary authority in this area.
Thus, based on the results derived from those technical studies — such as environmental impact studies (estudios de impacto ambiental) — if an objective technical criterion is evident that indicates the probability of clear harm to the environment, natural resources, or the health of persons, the proposed project, work, or activity must be rejected; and in cases of "reasonable doubt," decisions must be made in favor of the environment (pro natura principle), which may translate into the adoption of both compensatory and precautionary measures, in order to adequately protect the environment.' (Constitutional Chamber judgments nros. 21258-2010, 17126-2006, 14293-2005)" (emphasis added). (Resolution nro. 2012-13367 of 11:33 a.m. on September 21, 2012)." (Judgment nro. 2025-038435 of 9:15 a.m. on November 21, 2025)."
In the sub lite, the petitioner notes that on March 28, 2023, a complaint was filed with ICAA regarding the construction of a subdivision (fraccionamiento) adjacent to the La Meseta well (or AB-689) and the resulting violation of its protection radius. The petitioner argues that, based on an interpretation made by the Dirección de Aguas of MINAE with respect to Article 8 of the Ley de Aguas, the Municipalidad de San Rafael de Heredia continues to grant land-use permits (permisos de uso de suelo) for the construction of dwellings, which even contradicts the position held by ICAA and SENARA regarding the 200-meter protection radius. The petitioner further argues that the residential project is discharging untreated wastewater (aguas residuales) without any treatment whatsoever, thereby threatening the groundwater resources of the area, and that the respondent authorities continue to fail to adopt measures to protect the water resource.
The Court confirms that the La Meseta well is one of the most important water sources in the ME-A-15 San Pablo drinking water system and supplies approximately 32,000 people with that resource. SENARA's databases record the water body under study as well BA-689 and classify it as having a public supply use. On March 30, 2023, the petitioner (recurrente) [Nombre 001] filed a complaint with ICAA alleging the construction of a subdivision (fraccionamiento) adjacent to the La Meseta well, also identified as AB-689. By official communication SG-GSGAM-2023-00777 dated May 30, 2023, from the GAM System Management Sub-Directorate of ICAA, complaint no. DE-016-2023 was forwarded to the MINAE Water Directorate. That communication stated the following: "Part of the project with cadastral plan H-1601028-2012 is located within the 200-meter baseline activity setback radius of the AyA water source known as the La Meseta Well (…) considering the location of property H-1601028-2012 with Registry No. 4-174543-000 in relation to the AyA public water supply well La Meseta, clarification and addition is requested regarding point d of this communication (items 3 and 4) from your entity, and based on the new information provided, the requirements from a hydrogeological standpoint for protecting the water resource will be indicated, given that the project is located in a Reserve and Strategy zone for public water supply, which will take priority (…) Currently, the discharge of treated wastewater (aguas residuales) into non-permanent or intermittent flow channels is not permitted by MINAE; likewise, infiltration of treated wastewater into this zone should not be permitted, given the presence of a well used for human drinking water, since current regulations are insufficient to protect such sources against the risk of nutrient contamination, for example, as limits for such parameters have not even been established (…) We are facing an incompatible use condition between the land on which the company is located and the National Reserve Areas (Áreas de Reservas de Dominio) established in favor of the Nation for public water supply intake points." By communication dated June 28, 2023, the petitioner [Nombre 001] requested that the Municipality of San Rafael de Heredia cease issuing land-use visas (visados para uso de suelo) within the 200-meter protection radius of the La Meseta well.
On July 28, 2023, the petitioner [Nombre 001] sent official communication CCZ-28-07-2023 to ICAA, requesting its intervention and reiterating that more than four months after the complaint was filed, it remained unresolved. On an undetermined date, the Urban and Territorial Planning Directorate of the Municipality of San Rafael de Heredia requested a technical opinion from the MINAE Water Directorate regarding the protection radius of wells. By official communication DA-UHTPCOSJ-1701-2023 dated August 30, 2023, the Tárcoles – Pacific Central Hydrological Unit of the Water Directorate informed the Urban and Territorial Planning Directorate of the Municipality of San Rafael de Heredia of the following: "Regarding the inquiry in the referenced communication, it is clarified that wells have a maximum setback of a 40-meter radius (Article 8 of the Ley de Aguas). This setback may be reduced through studies; the maximum setback, in the event that 40 meters is exceeded, is the distance to property boundaries.
In no case may a well, as an artificial structure, affect third-party properties." By official communication DA-UHTPCOSJ-1701-2023 dated August 30, 2023, the MINAE Water Directorate maintained that "wells have a maximum setback of a 40-meter radius (Article 8 of the Ley de Aguas). This setback may be reduced through studies; the maximum setback, in the event that 40 meters is exceeded, is the distance to property boundaries. In no case may a well, as an artificial structure, affect third-party properties." By official communication Senara-GG-0136-2024 dated February 5, 2024, the General Manager's Office of SENARA requested opinions from various officials regarding a construction project in San Rafael, Heredia, and the alleged violation of the protection area of the La Meseta well. By official communication SENARA-DIGH-0013-2024 dated February 5, 2024, the Director of Water Research and Management of SENARA issued an opinion to the Director of that Service regarding the protection area of the La Meseta well, in the following terms: "(…) in the case of public water supply wells, the protection area is a 200-meter radius, and the water operator must establish the protection perimeter (perímetro de protección) (capture zones (zonas de captura)) and measures that reduce the risk of groundwater (aguas subterráneas) contamination.
With respect to the questions raised, the following is set out: 1. Verify the location of the La Meseta well (Lambert North Coordinates: 525981-220836). 2. Inform us what the protection area is, measured from property boundaries and setbacks, and whether that area has been violated or encroached upon. The coordinates of well AB-689 (best match in the SENARA Database), the La Meseta well, were searched in the SINIGIRH of the Water Directorate, and it has coordinates 525981 Y-220836 X … With respect to the defined 200-meter zone, it is located in an urbanized area, and a site visit on December 4 produced photographs evidencing construction near the well … 3. If a vulnerability map exists, inform us of the vulnerability classification for the area where the La Meseta well is located. With respect to the defined 200-meter zone, it is located in an urbanized area, and the visit on December 4 produced photographs evidencing construction near the well. 4.
Inform us whether there is, or failing that, what is, the risk analysis for the well in the event that residential or other construction is carried out within the protection area of the La Meseta well on Folio Real 174543. The evaluation of the protection area of the well known as La Meseta, including vulnerability analyses, identification of contamination sources (threat), and contamination risk assessment, must be carried out by the service provider, in our case A y A, which must incorporate the approved and existing methodologies based on science and technology. 5. Within the scope of your competence, and should it be determined that the protection radius of the La Meseta well has been encroached upon, we request that appropriate action be taken to prevent any impact to the water resource from the construction development. SENARA determines, within its competencies, that a well is a water intake site (sitio de captación), and therefore the provisions of Article 31 (paragraph a) concerning the 200-meter radius would apply; furthermore, for each public water supply well, the operator must conduct a hydrogeological study of the protection perimeter and establish various protective measures, providing more stringent protection for all areas that feed the aquifer (acuífero) (capture zone), and less stringent protection for those that do not affect the quality or quantity of the water resource. 6.
Inform us what the current aquifer protection matrix is. For the purpose of issuing opinions to users, the 'Land-Use Criteria Matrix According to Aquifer Contamination Vulnerability for the Protection of Water Resources' prepared by SENARA is applied, in combination with the methodology of contaminant transit times in the unsaturated zone (zona no saturada). This is done in compliance with official communication SENARA-JD-SA-245-2019 of November 5, 2019, which communicates Agreement No. 6039 of the SENARA Board of Directors, by which the 'Generic Aquifer Protection Matrix (…)' is repealed" (emphasis in original).
By official communication DA-UHTPCOSJ-1308-2024 dated June 17, 2024, the Water Directorate provided the report requested by the GAM System Management Sub-Directorate of ICAA and stated: "(…) Based on a review of the applicable regulations under the Ley de Agua No. 276, official communication DA-0583-2018, and the Well Drilling Regulations under Decreto 43053-MINAE, wells are subject to a well operational setback (retiro operacional del pozo, ROP) of 40.0 meters, which does not correspond to a protection zone sensu stricto, but rather to a setback for the operational functioning of the well, which may be reduced through a technical study that clearly establishes this. Such a study must be submitted by the well owner, in this case AyA, demonstrating that the ROP is limited to the boundaries of the property on which it is located. I must note that the ROP may not affect or encumber neighboring properties, as in the case under evaluation.
Furthermore, since this is a well with a drilling permit issued prior to 2010 (La Meseta, expediente 602R), the provisions of official communication DA-0583-2018, chapter 3, apply, which states the following regarding the ROP: 'A well authorized before 2010 with a permit that affects the development of a neighboring property due to the ROP: if the well was constructed in accordance with the permit (location, coordinates, depth), it is understood to have an intrinsic ROP license relative to the site where it was authorized, such that the ROP is limited to the boundary line with the neighboring property. When land containing an authorized well subsequently has buildings constructed on it in such a way as to affect the development or the well, the responsibility lies with the property owner: the well must either be closed or the ROP relocated.' (emphasis not in original). Therefore, since the ROP is limited to the boundary where the well is located, there is no impact on adjacent parcels.
(…) It is confirmed, based on Decreto Ejecutivo 42128-MINAE-S, that the discharge of wastewater must take place into a permanently flowing public-domain watercourse, subject to prior authorization from MINAE. Therefore, the future development must obtain the corresponding permit from the MINAE Water Directorate in order to discharge water from the treatment plant (planta de tratamiento). Regarding the implementation of a treatment system using a subsurface infiltration methodology for the treatment of wastewater and/or discharge of effluent, the evaluation of such procedures or permits does not fall within the competence of this Directorate; accordingly, no opinion is issued. These procedures must be assessed by the relevant authorities (SENARA, AyA, SETENA, the Ministry of Health, and others)." On an undetermined date, Conceverde filed a complaint with ICAA regarding a possible source of contamination of the water resource and the alleged non-compliance with the protection zone of the La Meseta well.
By official communication SENARA-DIGH-0083-2024 dated September 3, 2024, the Water Research and Management Directorate of SENARA requested the intervention of the Municipality of San Rafael de Heredia in order to ensure the protection of groundwater resources and the quality of the La Meseta well. On September 5, 2024, the Conceverde collective filed a complaint with the Municipality of San Rafael de Alajuela regarding the violation of the protection area of the La Meseta well. On October 30, 2024, ICAA issued the inspection report on the La Meseta well pertaining to complaint SN-PE-2024-0326, which stated: "Conclusions • The structures identified by the complainant were located at the site: the La Meseta well at CRTM05 coordinates 489644 E / 1106203 N, the La Meseta tank at central CRTM05 coordinates 489646 E / 1106215 N, and a 'concrete box' (storing wastewater) at CRTM05 coordinates 49652 E / 1106190 N. • The distance between the La Meseta well and the 'concrete box' (storing wastewater) referenced in the complaint is 15 meters. • Based on the findings of the field visit conducted on October 31, 2024, by the Legal Directorate, the Environmental Management UEN of SAID, and the Production and Distribution UEN of the GAM Sub-Directorate, the Environmental Management UEN determines that a technical assessment must be conducted by the GAM Collection and Treatment Directorate, with the objective of evaluating the compliance of the 'concrete box' (storing wastewater) with Decreto 42075-S-MINAE.
Furthermore, it is relevant that, for this assessment, the analyses provided by LNA be taken into account, as some reports therein record fecal coliforms (coliformes fecales) (…)." On November 4, 2024, ICAA issued a new inspection report on the La Meseta well in connection with complaint SN-PE-2024-0326, which states: "(…) This report contains the technical response of the Production and Distribution UEN regarding complaint SN-PE-2024-0326, which corresponds to the inspection carried out on October 30, 2024, of the La Meseta Well and Re-pumping Component, corresponding to System 1-0000-ME-A-15-San Pablo. The purpose of the inspection was to assess the current situation regarding the disposal of domestic wastewater in the area in question (…) Conclusions It is identified that what is located in the area in question is a concrete box storing wastewater, such that there is no subsurface infiltration that could generate an impact on the water resource.
VI. Recommendations The Production and Distribution UEN will request an assessment from colleagues in the Collection and Treatment Directorate and the Civil Maintenance Directorate to determine whether any improvement to the concrete box is required, with the objective of ensuring its current integrity and preventing any impact on the water resource." By official communication DPUT-251-2024 dated November 21, 2024, the Urban and Territorial Management Unit of the Municipality of San Rafael de Heredia provided an opinion to the Water Research and Management Directorate of that same local authority regarding the intervention requested by SENARA. In summary, it was stated that: "taking into account the ruling issued by the MINAE Water Directorate and the information set out above, it can be concluded that wells may in no case have a protection or exploitation zone of more than 40 meters; this is quite different from artesian springs (alumbramientos) or springs (nacientes), which have protection zones ranging from 100 to 200 meters depending on whether they are being captured or not.
Furthermore, it must be taken into account that, unlike a spring, a well has a casing or solid structure that allows not only its capture but also the protection of the resource against contaminants in surrounding areas. At this point it is important to mention that, according to the Hydrogeological Studies for the canton of San Rafael de Heredia, which have been duly approved by your entity by means of official communication N°SENARA-DIGH-0164-2022 dated December 15, 2022, the area under study is classified as having low hydrogeological vulnerability (vulnerabilidad hidrogeológica) and very low aquifer recharge due to the inherent characteristics of the aquifer in which they are located. Furthermore, notwithstanding the foregoing and with the aim of further safeguarding the water resource, the developer of the subdivision in question was asked to submit a technical study demonstrating that the development of construction on the parcels segregated from property registration 4-174543 would not affect the well in question; this study establishes a negligible hydrogeological vulnerability with a transit time of 180.78 days, which is sufficient for bacteriological agents to degrade, and therefore the water resource would not be at risk." At the regular session of the Municipal Council (Concejo) of San Rafael de Heredia No. 55, held on December 9, 2024, a response was provided to Roberto Ramírez regarding municipal intervention with respect to resource protection measures related to the quantity and quality of the water from the La Meseta well.
By official communication DPUT-072-2025 dated May 13, 2025, the Municipality of San Rafael de Alajuela clarified that "in the area adjacent to the well, no urbanization or urban development project as such has been authorized, but rather a simple subdivision and a subdivision with exceptional access—subdivisions that had the potable water availability certification from AyA as one of the requirements for their approval, among others." By official communication DPUT-175-2025 dated September 9, 2025, the Urban and Territorial Planning Directorate of the Municipality of San Rafael de Heredia states: "Taking into account the ruling issued by the MINAE Water Directorate and the information set out above, it can be concluded that wells may in no case have a protection or exploitation zone of more than 40 meters; this is quite different from artesian springs or springs, which have protection zones ranging from 100 to 200 meters depending on whether they are being captured or not.
Furthermore, it must be taken into account that, unlike a spring, a well has a casing or solid structure that allows not only its capture but also the protection of the resource against contaminants in surrounding areas. In the specific case at hand, it is concluded that the well in question has a maximum setback to the property boundaries, and therefore its operational setback does not affect third-party properties." The General Manager of SENARA explains: "Land use within the 200-meter protection area of the La Meseta well and the incorporation of the protection area into land-use plans (planes reguladores): As can be observed in the figure below, land use specifically to the east of the La Meseta well consists of urban development; since the flow tube or capture zone has not been defined, these constructions may be contaminating the unsaturated zone and consequently the aquifer (…) IV CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the following conclusions are reached: 1.
SENARA, within the scope of its competencies, determined that the protection radius of a public water supply well is defined by the Ley de Aguas N.272 as two hundred meters; urban development is observed in the area, which may jeopardize the quality and quantity of groundwater, and furthermore the well does not have a mapped capture zone, making it impossible to define areas requiring a higher degree of protection. 2. The Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados must carry out the capture zone study (pumping state) for the La Meseta well and define the vulnerability, threat, and contamination risk, as well as the land uses compatible with the protection of water quantity and quality, and must inform the Municipality of San Rafael de Heredia of the scope and zoning thereof. 3. The Municipality of San Rafael, within its residual competence in urban planning matters, must take into account water resource intake works within the construction permitting processes, especially when they concern public water supply systems, which require maximum protection given that they pertain to water quality and, above all, to public health.
Accordingly, it must not overlook, within its land-use regulations, the well protection perimeters defined by national authorities, such as A y A, and these perimeters must be respected by local governments in order to effectively align with, develop, and reflect the conditions established in the definition of protection perimeters in the regulations contained in the respective land-use plans or territorial planning instruments regarding land uses or territorial planning." (emphasis added).
Now, from the case record (autos) it is apparent that there is a divergence of criteria between the MINAE Water Directorate, on one hand, and SENARA and ICAA, on the other. The MINAE Water Directorate considers that the well at issue in this matter is governed by the provisions of the Regulations for the Drilling of Wells and the Use of Groundwater (Reglamento para la perforación de pozos y aprovechamiento de aguas subterráneas)—namely, the provisions concerning the well operational setback, as set out in Article 34 of that regulatory framework as follows: "b) Well operational setback (ROP): In accordance with Article 8 of the Ley de Aguas No. 276, every well intended for water use is subject to a setback distance of up to 40 meters, within which only activities directly related to water extraction, distribution, and well maintenance are permitted. This distance may be reduced with the authorization of MINAE through the Water Directorate, for which purpose the applicant must submit a study demonstrating with technical and scientific certainty that the aquifer will not be affected or contaminated by the activities carried out directly within the requested setback.
The ROP must not cross the property boundaries of properties adjacent to the well site." ICAA and SENARA, however, maintain that what actually applies is the 200-meter protection area established under Article 31 of the Ley de Aguas, which reads: "Article 31.- The following are declared as national reserve domains in favor of the Nation: a) The lands surrounding the sites of intake works or water supply intakes for potable water, within a perimeter of no less than two hundred meters in radius." In this regard, by official communication SENARA-DIGH-0013-2024 dated February 5, 2024, the Director of Water Research and Management of SENARA issued an opinion to the Director of that Service regarding the protection area of the La Meseta well, in the following terms: "(…) in the case of public water supply wells, the protection area is a 200-meter radius, and the water operator must establish the protection perimeter (capture zones) and measures that reduce the risk of groundwater contamination.
With respect to the questions raised, the following is set out: 1. Verify the location of the La Meseta well (Lambert North Coordinates: 525981-220836). 2. Inform us what the protection area is, measured from property boundaries and setbacks, and whether that area has been violated or encroached upon. The coordinates of well AB-689 (best match in the SENARA Database), the La Meseta well, were searched in the SINIGIRH of the Water Directorate, and it has coordinates 525981 Y-220836 X … With respect to the defined 200-meter zone, it is located in an urbanized area, and the site visit on December 4 produced photographs evidencing construction near the well … 3. If a vulnerability map exists, inform us of the vulnerability classification for the area where the La Meseta well is located. With respect to the defined 200-meter zone, it is located in an urbanized area, and the visit on December 4 produced photographs evidencing construction near the well. 4.
Inform us whether there is, or failing that, what is, the risk analysis for the well in the event that residential or other construction is carried out within the protection area of the La Meseta well on Folio Real 174543. The evaluation of the protection area of the well known as La Meseta, including vulnerability analyses, identification of contamination sources (threat), and contamination risk assessment, must be carried out by the service provider, in our case A y A, which must incorporate the approved and existing methodologies based on science and technology. 5. Within the scope of your competence, and should it be determined that the protection radius of the La Meseta well has been encroached upon, we request that appropriate action be taken to prevent any impact to the water resource from the construction development. SENARA determines, within its competencies, that a well is a water intake site, and therefore the provisions of Article 31 (paragraph a) concerning the 200-meter radius would apply; furthermore, for each public water supply well, the operator must conduct a hydrogeological study of the protection perimeter and establish various protective measures, providing more stringent protection for all areas that feed the aquifer (capture zone), and less stringent protection for those that do not affect the quality or quantity of the water resource. 6.
Inform us what the current aquifer protection matrix is. For the purpose of issuing opinions to users, the 'Land-Use Criteria Matrix According to Aquifer Contamination Vulnerability for the Protection of Water Resources' prepared by SENARA is applied, in combination with the methodology of contaminant transit times in the unsaturated zone. This is done in compliance with official communication SENARA-JD-SA-245-2019 of November 5, 2019, which communicates Agreement No. 6039 of the SENARA Board of Directors, by which the 'Generic Aquifer Protection Matrix (…)' is repealed" (emphasis in original).
In this manner, SENARA considers that the well at issue in this matter is subject to a 200-meter protection area in accordance with Article 31 of the Ley de Aguas—an area that, at the time the writ (recurso) was filed, was not being respected. In this regard, it should be recalled that the report submitted by the General Manager of SENARA stated that "land use specifically to the east of the La Meseta well consists of urban development; since the flow tube or capture zone has not been defined, these constructions may be contaminating the unsaturated zone and consequently the aquifer." That being the case, it should be noted that ley nro. 6877 of July 18, 1982, "Creating SENARA (Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas Riego y Avenamiento)," provides, as part of SENARA's functions: "h) To oversee compliance with the legal provisions within its areas of responsibility. The decisions made by the Service for this purpose, regarding the drilling of wells and the exploitation, maintenance, and protection of water resources—carried out by public institutions and private parties—shall be final and binding. Nevertheless, such decisions may be appealed within ten days on grounds of illegality before the Superior Administrative Contentious Tribunal (Tribunal Superior Contencioso Administrativo). The Tribunal shall rule within a period not to exceed ninety days"—see Article 3 eiusdem.
Having clarified the foregoing, it should be noted that the case under study requires the application of the precautionary principle (principio precautorio), which establishes that when there are indicators that a given activity could plausibly cause serious and irreversible environmental harm, the absence of absolute scientific certainty or evidence on the matter does not exempt the obligation to adopt all efficient and effective measures to prevent environmental damage.
Therefore, in light of the precautionary principle and Article 3(h) of ley nro. 6877, the SENARA criterion applies in the sub iudice matter, and accordingly it is held that the protection area of the well in question is 200 meters, which is not currently being respected. This evidences the violation of fundamental rights by the respondent authorities, given that, despite the fact that non-compliance with the aforementioned protection area was reported at least as early as 2023, there is no evidence that all the legal tools available under the legal system were employed to safeguard it. For example, both the Municipality of San Rafael de Heredia and the Water Directorate maintained a position contrary to that held by SENARA, while ICAA undertook some internal and inter-institutional steps, without it being verified that the well in question was effectively protected. Likewise, even though SENARA confirmed the violation of the protection area under study, there is no evidence that it took the corresponding steps to protect the well—a situation made more serious by the fact that SENARA itself considers the well to be at risk of contamination.
In addition to the foregoing, the Court notes that ICAA reports issued in November 2024 recorded that "it is relevant that, for this assessment, the analyses provided by LNA be taken into account, as some reports therein record fecal coliforms"; yet there is no evidence in the case record that the appropriate steps were taken to ensure that the water from the La Meseta well meets the quality parameters required to guarantee its potability.
In sum, the writ must be granted in the terms set out in the operative section (parte dispositiva) of this matter. This ruling is issued without prejudice to the possibility that, should the SENARA criterion be considered incorrect, the corresponding proceedings may be initiated before the administrative courts (jurisdicción contenciosa-administrativa), as established in Article 3 of ley nro. 6877.
I have supported the position of this Court that when a party before the court (justiciable) alleges a violation of the right to prompt and complete justice in the administrative jurisdiction (sede administrativa), the legal dispute must be heard by the Administrative Courts (Tribunales de lo Contencioso-Administrativo) and not by this Chamber. However, with the recent enactment of Ley n.° 9097, Law Regulating the Right of Petition, it has been established that this right is amenable to judicial protection by means of the writ of amparo (recurso de amparo) provided for under artículo 32 of the Law on Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional), read in conjunction with artículo 27 of the Political Constitution of the Republic of Costa Rica, in those cases where the petitioner considers that the material acts (actuaciones materiales) of the Administration, its administrative acts (actos administrativos), or its response are affecting his or her fundamental rights (derechos fundamentales).
In my view, the recently enacted legislation does not mean that this Court must modify its jurisprudential line (línea jurisprudencial); this Court, pursuant to numeral 7 of its governing Law, has the exclusive authority to define its own jurisdiction (competencia). Therefore, except for those constitutional-legal disputes that this very Chamber has recognized as exceptional cases (supuestos de excepción)—which may indeed be heard in this jurisdiction through the constitutional amparo proceeding—in all other cases, and for the reasons given by this Court (sentencia N° 2008-02545 of 8:55 hours on 22 de febrero de 2008), the competent adjudicators are the judges of the administrative-contentious jurisdiction, all of which is consistent with numeral 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights, the Law of the Constitution (values, principles, and norms), and the corresponding statutory provisions, based on a logical, systemic, and teleological interpretation of the legal order (ordenamiento).
The parties are hereby given notice that, should they have submitted any paper documents, objects, or evidence contained on any additional electronic, computer-based, magnetic, optical, telematic, or new-technology device, these must be retrieved within a maximum period of 30 business days (días hábiles), counted from notification of this judgment. All materials not collected within that period shall be destroyed, pursuant to the "Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial" (approved by the Corte Plena under artículo XXVI of session nro. 27-11 of 22 de agosto de 2011 and published in the Boletín Judicial nro. 19 of 26 de enero de 2012) and under artículo LXXXI of session of the Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial nro. 43-12 of 3 de mayo de 2012.
Por tanto:
The writ of amparo is granted. Osvaldo Quirós Arias, José Miguel Zeledón Calderón, and María Alejandra Mora Segura, each acting respectively as general manager of the Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento, director of the Dirección de Agua del Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía, and general manager of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, as well as Jorge Eduardo Arias Santamaría and Minor Robles Vargas, serving respectively as mayor and president of the Concejo Municipal of the Municipalidad de San Rafael de Heredia, or whoever holds those positions, are hereby ordered to coordinate what is necessary, take appropriate measures, and issue the corresponding directives within the scope of their respective competencies, so that: i) IMMEDIATELY, sufficient provisional measures are adopted to protect the protection zone (área de protección) of well (pozo) BA-689; ii) within a maximum period of FIVE DAYS, counted from notification of this ruling, an interinstitutional body is established to address the problems raised by the petitioning party regarding the encroachment upon the protection zone of the aforementioned well and the possible infiltration of wastewater (infiltración de aguas residuales); and iii) within ONE MONTH, counted from the creation of the aforementioned interinstitutional body, a plan is designed to address the problem that is the subject of this writ, which must include measures to guarantee the quality of the drinking water (agua potable) of well BA-689, as well as a review of the permits granted in violation of the applicable water regulations (normativa hídrica).
The foregoing is issued with the admonishment that, pursuant to artículo 71 of the Law on Constitutional Jurisdiction, imprisonment of three months to two years, or twenty to sixty day-fines (días multa), shall be imposed on those who receive an order that they must comply with or cause to be complied with, issued in an amparo proceeding, and who fail to comply with it or to cause it to be complied with, provided that the offense is not more severely penalized under other provisions. The State, the Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento, the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, and the Municipalidad de San Rafael de Heredia are ordered to pay the costs (costas), damages, and losses (daños y perjuicios) caused by the acts underlying this declaration, which shall be assessed in enforcement proceedings (ejecución de sentencia) before the administrative-contentious jurisdiction. Magistrate Castillo Víquez appends a note. Notify the parties.
Fernando Castillo V. President Fernando Cruz C.
Paul Rueda L. Luis Fdo. Salazar A.
Jorge Araya G. Anamari Garro V.
Ingrid Hess H.
Telephone numbers: 2549-1500 / 800-SALA-4TA (800-7252-482). Fax: 2220-4607 / 2220-4844. Website: www.poder-judicial.go.cr/salaconstitucional. Address: (Sabana Sur, Calle Morenos, 100 mts. South of the Iglesia del Perpetuo Socorro).
Revisión del Documento SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las nueve horas treinta minutos del diecinueve de junio de dos mil veintiseis .
Recurso de amparo que se tramita en expediente número 25-010565-0007-CO, interpuesto por [Nombre 001], cédula de identidad [Valor 001], [Nombre 002], cédula de identidad [Valor 002] Y [Nombre 003], cédula de identidad [Valor 003], contra la MUNICIPALIDAD DE SAN RAFAEL DE HEREDIA, SERVICIO NACIONAL DE AGUAS SUBTERRÁNEAS, RIEGO Y AVENAMIENTO (SENARA) Y EL INSTITUTO COSTARRICENSE DE ACUEDUCTOS Y ALCANTARILLADOS (ICAA).
Resultando:
Redacta la Magistrada Hess Herrera; y,
Considerando:
Antes de analizar el fondo del asunto debe aclararse que, a partir de la sentencia nro. 2008002545 de las 8:55 horas del 22 de febrero de 2008, esta Sala ha remitido a la jurisdicción contencioso administrativa –con algunas excepciones aquellos asuntos en los que se discute si la administración pública ha cumplido o no los plazos pautados por la Ley General de la Administración Pública (artículos 261 y 325) o las leyes sectoriales para los procedimientos administrativos especiales, para resolver por acto final un procedimiento administrativo –instruido de oficio o a instancia de parte– o conocer de los recursos administrativos procedentes. Precisamente, en el sub lite se plantea un supuesto de excepción, pues se está ante denuncias formuladas por la presunta vulneración del área de protección de un pozo, las cuales presuntamente no han sido atendidas. Aclarado el punto, se entra a resolver, la situación concreta planteada en este amparo.
De otro lado, visto el escrito incorporado al expediente digital el 2 de junio de 2026, por medio del cual la parte tutelada plantea una solicitud de pronto despacho, se estima que tal requerimiento carece de interés, por cuanto mediante este pronunciamiento se está resolviendo por el fondo el recurso.
II-. OBJETO DEL RECURSO. La parte recurrente acota que el 28 de marzo de 2023 formuló una denuncia ante el ICAA por la construcción de un fraccionamiento contiguo al pozo La Meseta (o AB-689) y la consecuente violación de su radio de protección. Reprocha que con una interpretación que hizo la Dirección de Aguas del MINAE respecto del artículo 8 Ley de Aguas, la Municipalidad de San Rafael de Heredia continúa otorgando permisos de uso de suelo para construcción de viviendas, lo que incluso contradice la posición que tienen el ICAA y el Senara, respecto del radio de protección de 200 metros. Reprocha que el proyecto habitacional se encuentra vertiendo aguas residuales sin tratamiento alguno, lo que amenaza los recursos subterráneos de la zona, así como que las autoridades recurridas, continúan sin adoptar medidas para proteger el recurso hídrico.
De importancia para la decisión de este asunto, se estiman como debidamente demostrados los siguientes hechos:
“Parte del proyecto con plano catastral H-1601028-2012, se encuentra ubicado dentro del radio de los 200 m de línea base de actividades, del aprovechamiento del AyA denominado Pozo La Meseta (…) considerando la ubicación del inmueble H-1601028-2012 con N° Finca 4- 174543-000, con respecto al pozo de abastecimiento poblacional La Meseta del AyA, se solicita aclaración y adición en lo correspondiente al punto d del presente oficio (ítem 3 y 4) por parte de su representada y a partir de la nueva información aportada, se indicarán los requerimientos desde el punto de vista hidrogeológico para proteger el recurso hídrico, esto debido a que el proyecto se ubica en una zona de Reserva y Estrategia para abastecimiento poblacional, lo cual tendrá prioridad (…)
Actualmente no está permitido el vertido de aguas residuales tratadas en cauces de flujo no permanente o intermitente por parte del MINAE, asimismo, no se debería permitir la infiltración del agua residual tratada en esta zona por encontrase un pozo de aprovechamiento para agua de consumo humano, dado que la normativa actual no es suficiente para proteger dichas fuentes ante riesgos de contaminación de nutrientes por ejemplo, ya que no se tienen ni siquiera establecidos límites ante dichos parámetros (…)
Estamos de cara a una condición incompatible del uso que tiene el inmueble donde se localiza dicha empresa en relación con las Áreas de Reservas de Dominio a favor de la Nación de tomas surtidoras de agua a poblaciones”. (Ver prueba documental).
“(…) para el caso de pozos de abastecimiento público el área de protección es de 200 metros de radio y debe el operador de agua realizar el perímetro de protección (zonas de captura) y las medidas que disminuyen el peligro de contaminación de las aguas subterráneas. Con respecto a las consultas realizadas, se definen a continuación: 1. Verificar la ubicación del pozo la Meseta (Coordenadas Lambert Norte: 525981-220836). 2. Se nos informe cuál es el área de protección con medición de linderos y retiros y si dicha área ha sido violentada o invadida. Las coordenadas del pozo AB-689, (mejor coincidencia de la Base de Datos del SENARA) Pozo la Meseta, mismas se buscó en el SINIGIRH de la Dirección de Agua, y tiene las coordenadas 525981 Y-220836 X … Con respecto a la zona definida de los 200 metros, se encuentra en una zona con urbanización, como también la visita del día 4 de diciembre se tomó fotos que evidencian las construcciones en las cercanías del pozo … 3.
En el caso que exista mapa de vulnerabilidad, indicarnos cual es la vulnerabilidad que le corresponde a la zona donde se ubica el pozo La Meseta. Con respecto a la zona definida de los 200 metros, se encuentra en una zona con urbanización, como también la visita del día 4 de diciembre se tomó fotos que evidencian las construcciones en las cercanías del pozo. 4. Informarnos si existe o en su defecto cual es el análisis de riesgo del pozo en caso de llevarse a cabo dentro del área de protección del pozo La Meseta el desarrollo constructivo de viviendas u otras construcciones en la finca Folio Real 174543. La evaluación del área de protección del Pozo denominado La Meseta, como los análisis de vulnerabilidad, determinación de las fuentes de contaminación (amenaza) y riesgo de contaminación, debe ser desarrollado por el prestador del servicio, en nuestro caso A y A, que debe incorporar las metodologías aprobadas y existentes en función de la ciencia y la técnica. 5.
Dentro de lo corresponde según su competencia y en caso de que se determine invasión del radio de protección del pozo La Meseta, solicitamos se actué como corresponde a efecto de no afectar el recurso hídrico en el desarrollo constructivo. El SENARA define dentro de las competencias, que un pozo es un sitio de captación, por lo que se aplicarías (sic) lo establecido en el Artículo 31 (inciso a) de los 200 metros de radio, además cada pozo de abastecimiento público el operador debe realizar un estudio hidrogeológico de perímetro de protección y establecer diferentes medidas de protección, estableciendo una protección más rigurosa en todas aquellas áreas que alimentan el acuífero (zona de captura), y una protección menos rigurosa, en aquellas que no interfieren con la calidad y cantidad del recurso hídrico. 6. Se nos informe, cual es la matriz de protección de acuíferos vigente al día de hoy.
Para la atención de dictámenes a los usuarios, se aplica la “Matriz de criterios de uso del suelo según la vulnerabilidad a la contaminación de acuíferos para la protección del recurso hídrico” de SENARA, en combinación con la metodología de tiempos de tránsito de contaminantes en la zona no saturada. Lo anterior, en acatamiento a lo indicado en el oficio SENARA-JD-SA-245-2019 del 05 de noviembre del 2019, en el cual se comunica el Acuerdo No. 6039 de la Junta Directiva de SENARA, mediante el cual se deroga la “Matriz Genérica de Protección de Acuíferos (…)” (la negrita corresponde al original). (Ver prueba documental).
“(…) Con base en la revisión de la normativa vigente de la Ley de Agua N° 276, el oficio DA-0583-2018 y el Reglamento de perforación de Pozos Decreto 43053-MINAE, a los pozos se les aplica un Retiro Operacional del Pozo (ROP), de 40,0 m, el cual no corresponde con una zona de protección sensu stricto, sino a un retiro para la operabilidad del pozo, el cual puede ser reducido mediante el estudio técnico, donde se establezca con claridad. Este debe ser presentado por el propietario del pozo, en este caso por el AyA, donde se demuestre que ROP se limita a los linderos donde se localiza. No omito manifestar que el Retiro Operacional del Pozo (ROP) no puede afectar o gravar propiedades vecinas, como el caso evaluado. Además, al tratarse de un pozo con permiso de perforación anterior al 2010 (Meseta, expediente 602R), se aplica lo definido en el oficio DA-0583-2018, capítulo 3, el cual reporta lo siguiente en cuanto al Retiro Operacional del Pozo (ROP), “Pozo autorizado antes del 2010 con permiso que afecta un desarrollo de propiedad vecina por el ROP, si el pozo se hizo conforme el permiso (ubicación coordenadas, profundidad) se entiende tiene licencia del ROP intrínseco respecto al sitio donde se autorizó de tal forma que el ROP se limita a la línea de colindancia con la propiedad vecina.
Cuando el terreno tenga un pozo autorizado y posterior al permiso se pretenda hacer o se haga edificaciones de tal forma que se afecte el desarrollo o el pozo, es responsabilidad del propietario: procede el cierre del pozo o correrse el ROP.” (el resaltado en negrita no es del original). Por ende, al limitarse el ROP al lindero donde se localice el pozo, no hay afectación de los terrenos contiguos. (…) Se confirma, con base el Decreto Ejecutivo 42128-MINAE-S que, el vertido de aguas residuales se debe realizar a un cauce del dominio público de carácter permanente, previa autorización del MINAE. Por tanto, el futuro desarrollo deberá tramitar el permiso ante la Dirección de Agua del MINAE, para poder realizar la descarga de agua de planta de tratamiento. Respecto a la implementación de un sistema de tratamiento que realice una metodología de infiltración en el subsuelo para el tratamiento de aguas residuales y/o descarga del vertido, no es competencia de esta Dirección la evaluación de estos trámites o permisos; por lo que, no se emite criterio alguno. Estos trámites deberán ser valorados ante los entes correspondientes (SENARA, AyA, SETENA, Ministerio de Salud, entre otros)”. (Ver prueba documental).
En este punto es importante mencionar que, según los Estudio Hidrogeológicos para el cantón de San Rafael de Heredia, los cuales se encuentran debidamente aprobados por su representada, mediante oficio N°SENARA-DIGH-0164-2022 de fecha 15 de diciembre del 2022, la zona en estudio se encuentra en baja vulnerabilidad hidrogeológica y en muy baja recarga acuífera debido a las características propias del acuífero donde localizan. Por otro lado, a pesar de lo expuesto anteriormente y con el fin de salvaguardar aún más el recurso hídrico se solicitó al desarrollador del fraccionamiento en cuestión un estudio técnico que demuestre la no afectación del pozo en cuestión con el desarrollo de construcciones en las propiedades segregadas de la finca matrícula 4-174543, donde se determina una vulnerabilidad hidrogeológica despreciable con un tiempo de tránsito de 180,78 días, lo cual es suficiente para que los agentes bacteriológicos se degraden, por lo que no estaría en riesgo el recurso hídrico”. (Ver prueba documental).
Que el Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados debe realizar la zona de captura (estado de bombeo) del pozo La Meseta y definir la vulnerabilidad, amenaza y peligro de contaminación, como los usos del suelo que sean compatibles con la protección de la cantidad y la calidad. Como informar a la Municipalidad de San Rafael de Heredia, sobre los alcances y zonificación del mismo. 3. La Municipalidad de San Rafael dentro de su competencia residual en materia de planificación urbana, debe contemplar las captaciones del recurso hídrico dentro de los procesos de permisos constructivos, más cuando se refiere a sistemas de abastecimiento público, que requiere una protección máxima, debido que se refiere al cuidado de la calidad del agua y sobre todo a la salud de la población. Por lo que no debe obviar dentro de las regulaciones de uso de suelo, los perímetros de protección de pozos definidos por las autoridades nacionales, como es el caso de A y A, y este perímetro debe ser respetada por los gobiernos locales para compatibilizar, desarrollar y reflejar efectivamente los condicionamientos establecidos en la definición de los perímetros de protección en la normativa contenida en los respectivos Planes Reguladores sobre los usos de suelo o de ordenación del territorio” (el resaltado fue añadido). (Ver informe rendido bajo juramento por el gerente general del Senara).
En la sentencia nro. 2026013335 de las 9:20 horas del 21 de abril de 2026, este Tribunal se refirió a los principios constitucionales aplicables en materia ambiental en los siguientes términos:
“Recientemente, la Sala se refirió a los principios ambientales y la coordinación interadministrativa en los siguientes términos:
“En el sub lite, de primero se traen a colación los principios constitucionales en materia ambiental. Así, verbigracia, en la sentencia nro. 2021024807 de las 9:20 horas del 5 de noviembre de 2021 precisó esta Sala:
“En este orden de ideas, la doctrina especializada ha señalado que el principio preventivo demanda que, cuando haya certeza de posibles daños al ambiente, la actividad afectante deba ser prohibida, limitada, o condicionada al cumplimiento de ciertos requerimientos. En general, este principio aplica cuando existen riesgos claramente definidos e identificados al menos como probables; asimismo, tal principio resulta útil cuando no existen informes técnicos o permisos administrativos que garanticen la sostenibilidad de una actividad, pero hay elementos suficientes para prever eventuales impactos negativos. Por otra parte, el principio precautorio señala que, cuando haya peligro de daño grave e irreversible, la falta de certeza científica absoluta no deberá utilizarse como razón para postergar la adopción de medidas eficaces en función de los costos para impedir la degradación del medio ambiente.
De lo anterior, se advierte que el principio parte de una incertidumbre científica razonable en conjunto con la amenaza de un daño ambiental grave e irreversible. En términos generales, una diferencia relevante entre el principio preventivo y el precautorio radica en el nivel de conocimiento y certeza de los riesgos que una actividad u obra provoque. Mientras que en el primero existe tal certeza, en el segundo lo que se advierte es un estado de duda resultado de informaciones científicas o estudios técnicos (…)” Justamente, el principio precautorio debe ser entendido como se contempla en el principio XV de la Declaración de Río sobre el Medio Ambiente y el Desarrollo: “Cuando haya peligro de daño grave o irreversible, la falta de certeza científica absoluta no deberá utilizarse como razón para postergar la adopción de medidas eficaces en función de los costos para impedir la degradación del medio ambiente”.
Es decir, no se trata de la exigencia de tener estudios científicos para arribar a la ‘certeza absoluta’ de la inocuidad de una actividad para con el ambiente (en tesis de principio una seguridad total difícilmente es alcanzable), sino, más bien, de que, aunque el peligro de un daño grave o irreversible al ambiente no esté del todo asegurado, tal incertidumbre jamás justificará ni excusará que se postergue la ejecución de medidas efectivas para impedir la degradación del ambiente. Al respecto, obsérvese, por un lado, que no se está ante cualquier tipo de amenaza, pues plausiblemente debe involucrar un peligro serio, y, por otro, que la medida demanda un uso eficaz y eficiente de los recursos empleados. En el sentido expuesto, aun cuando el principio precautorio está ligado a un cierto nivel de incerteza científica, ello no implica que se pueda emplear de forma irrestricta con el argumento de que cualquier actividad podría generar daños al ambiente lo que desnaturalizaría su razón de ser, sino que es menester que se cuente con cierto grado de identificación de los peligros de un daño grave o irreversible que se podría generar, cuya determinación varía en atención de las particularidades propias del caso concreto.
Así, cuando se está ante una situación que exige la aplicación del principio precautorio, los entes y órganos públicos deben abstenerse de autorizar, aprobar o permitir toda solicitud nueva o de modificación que razonablemente conlleve un riesgo grave; incluso, se encuentran obligados a suspender las actividades que se estén desarrollando. Paralelamente tienen que adoptar con eficiencia y efectividad todas las medidas requeridas para la preservación de un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado.
El referido principio se recoge de igual modo en una fuente jurídica del hard law, toda vez que el principio 3 de la Convención Marco de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Cambio Climático ratificada por Costa Rica mediante la ley nro. 7414 del 13 de junio de 1994 y por todos los estados miembros de la OEA- estatuye:
“3. Las Partes deberían tomar medidas de precaución para prever, prevenir o reducir al mínimo las causas del cambio climático y mitigar sus efectos adversos. Cuando haya amenaza de daño grave o irreversible, no debería utilizarse la falta de total certidumbre científica como razón para posponer tales medidas, teniendo en cuenta que las políticas y medidas para hacer frente al cambio climático deberían ser eficaces en función de los costos a fin de asegurar beneficios mundiales al menor costo posible. A tal fin, esas políticas y medidas deberían tener en cuenta los distintos contextos socioeconómicos, ser integrales, incluir todas las fuentes, sumideros y depósitos pertinentes de gases de efecto invernadero y abarcar todos los sectores económicos. Los esfuerzos para hacer frente al cambio climático pueden llevarse a cabo en cooperación entre las Partes interesadas”.
El principio precautorio también se encuentra previsto en el Convenio de Estocolmo sobre Contaminantes Orgánicos Persistentes, el cual se encuentra ratificado por 32 Estados Miembros de la OEA, entre ellos, Costa Rica. En ese sentido véase ley nro. 8538 del 23 de agosto de 2006, en la que se lee:
“ARTÍCULO 1 Objetivo Teniendo presente el principio de precaución consagrado en el principio 15 de la Declaración de Río sobre el Medio Ambiente y el Desarrollo, el objetivo del presente Convenio es proteger la salud humana y el medio ambiente frente a los contaminantes orgánicos persistentes (…)”.
Igualmente, tal principio está contemplado el Convenio sobre la Diversidad Biológica ratificado por 34 Estados Miembros de la OEA, incluido Costa Rica, por medio de la ley nro. 7416 del 30 de junio de 1994, en cuyo preámbulo se establece: “(…) Observando que es vital prever, prevenir y atacar en su fuente las causas de reducción o pérdida de la diversidad biológica. Observando también que cuando exista una amenaza de reducción o pérdida sustancial de la diversidad biológica no debe alegarse la falta de pruebas científicas inequívocas como razón para aplazar las medidas encaminadas a evitar o reducir al mínimo esa amenaza (…)”.
En consonancia con la referida normativa vigente en el país, la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos también se refirió al principio precautorio en la OC 23/17 del 15 de noviembre de 2017:
“180. (…) Por tanto, esta Corte entiende que, los Estados deben actuar conforme al principio de precaución, a efectos de la protección del derecho a la vida y a la integridad personal, en casos donde haya indicadores plausibles que una actividad podría acarrear daños graves e irreversibles al medio ambiente, aún en ausencia de certeza científica. Por tanto, los Estados deben actuar con la debida cautela para prevenir el posible daño. En efecto, en el contexto de la protección de los derechos a la vida y a la integridad personal, la Corte considera que los Estados deben actuar conforme al principio de precaución, por lo cual, aún en ausencia de certeza científica, deben adoptar las medidas que sean “eficaces” para prevenir un daño grave o irreversible”.
Posterior a tal resolución y por medio de una sentencia, en Comunidades Indígenas miembros de la Asociación lhaka Honhat (nuestra tierra) vs. Argentina, la Corte IDH se pronunció el 6 de febrero de 2020 de esta forma: “el derecho a un medio ambiente sano “debe considerarse incluido entre los derechos [...] protegidos por el artículo 26 de la Convención Americana”, dada la obligación de los Estados de alcanzar el “desarrollo integral” de sus pueblos, que surge de los artículos 30, 31, 33 y 34 de la Carta”. De alta significación, se debe subrayar que, en este pronunciamiento, la Corte IDH remite a la opinión consultiva nro. OC-23/17 con la finalidad de desarrollar el contenido y alcance de tal derecho, merced a lo cual las consideraciones jurídicas de la última lógicamente han venido a alcanzar la obligatoriedad jurídica propia de una sentencia. En tal sentido, el órgano jurisdiccional internacional reitera “que el derecho a un medio ambiente sano “constituye un interés universal” y “es un derecho fundamental para la existencia de la humanidad”, y que “como derecho autónomo [...] protege los componentes del [...] ambiente, tales como bosques, mares, ríos y otros, como intereses jurídicos en sí mismos, aun en ausencia de certeza o evidencia sobre el riesgo a las personas individuales.
Se trata de proteger la naturaleza”, no solo por su “utilidad” o “efectos” respecto de los seres humanos, “sino por su importancia para los demás organismos vivos con quienes se comparte el planeta”. Lo anterior no obsta, desde luego, a que otros derechos humanos puedan ser vulnerados como consecuencia de daños ambientales”. Precisamente, en el desarrollo de la conceptualización del derecho al ambiente, la Corte IDH con toda claridad detalla las obligaciones estatales frente a posibles daños al ambiente, tales como el deber de prevención, el principio de precaución, la obligación de cooperación y el acceso a la información.
En suma, la aplicación del principio precautorio implica que cuando existan indicadores de que cierta actividad plausiblemente podría ocasionar daños graves e irreversibles al ambiente, la falta de certeza o evidencia científica absoluta al respecto no exime de la obligación de adoptar todas aquellas medidas eficientes y eficaces para impedir una vulneración al ambiente.
Concerniente al principio preventivo, en el primer informe de la ONU sobre el estado del derecho ambiental internacional, documento A/73/419 de 30 de noviembre de 2018 elaborado por su secretario general en cumplimiento de la resolución de la asamblea general de 10 de mayo de 2018 (nro. A/72/L.51), se le conceptualiza como pauta normativa del derecho internacional consuetudinario “confirmada por la práctica pertinente en muchos tratados relativos al medio ambiente y los principales proyectos de codificación”.
Ahora, si bien en el informe antedicho se subraya la prevención del daño transfronterizo, lo cierto es que este principio general de derecho, como bien se consigna en el documento ‘95 Principios Jurídicos Medioambientales para un Desarrollo Ecológicamente Sustentable’ (aprobados en la XIX Edición de la Cumbre Judicial Iberoamericana‑2018 y por la Corte Plena en el artículo XIX de la sesión nro. 28-2020 del 25 de mayo de 2020), tiene un alcance mucho mayor, toda vez que, como guía hermenéutica, conduce a que “las causas y las fuentes de los problemas ambientales se atenderán en forma prioritaria e integrada, tratando de prevenir los efectos negativos que sobre el ambiente se puedan producir. El criterio de prevención prevalecerá entonces, sobre cualquier otro en la gestión pública y privada del medio ambiente y los recursos naturales”. Lo anterior tiene todo sentido, pues es consecuente con el deber de prevenir la consumación de un daño ambiental, y no limitarse a decidir acerca de la reparación de las consecuencias perjudiciales ya corroboradas, incluso disponiendo la paralización de los efectos dañinos.
Tal instituto se refleja, entre otras normas, en los ordinales 194.1 de la Convención de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Derecho del Mar (ratificada por Costa Rica mediante ley nro. 7291) y 5 y Anexo II del Acuerdo de las Naciones Unidas sobre Peces Transzonales y Altamente Migratorios (ratificado mediante ley nro. 8059), así como en la jurisprudencia constitucional (ver sentencias nros. 2021024807 de las 9:20 horas del 5 de noviembre de 2021 y 2018016383 de las 17:00 horas del 28 de setiembre de 2018, entre muchas otras) y en la convencional, verbigracia, en la opinión consultiva nro. OC-23/17 de 15 de noviembre de 2017, párrafos: 127 a 174 e incisos a) y b) del párrafo 242 y la sentencia de 24 de noviembre de 2022 Nombre05 vs. Chile. Justamente, en la última señala la Corte IDH de manera expresa:
“208. Sin perjuicio de lo anterior, en materia específica ambiental, debe destacarse que el principio de prevención de daños ambientales, forma parte del derecho internacional consuetudinario, y entraña la obligación de los Estados de llevar adelante las medidas que sean necesarias ex ante la producción del daño ambiental, teniendo en consideración que, debido a sus particularidades, frecuentemente no será posible, luego de producido tal daño, restaurar la situación antes existente. En virtud del deber de prevención, la Corte ha señalado que “los Estados están obligados a usar todos los medios a su alcance con el fin de evitar que las actividades que se lleven a cabo bajo su jurisdicción, causen daños significativos al […] ambiente”. Esta obligación debe cumplirse bajo un estándar de debida diligencia, la cual debe ser apropiada y proporcional al grado de riesgo de daño ambiental. Por otro lado, si bien no es posible realizar una enumeración detallada de todas las medidas que podrían tomar los Estados con el fin de cumplir este deber, pueden señalarse algunas, relativas a actividades potencialmente dañosas: i) regular; ii) supervisar y fiscalizar; iii) requerir y aprobar estudios de impacto ambiental; iv) establecer planes de contingencia, y v) mitigar en casos de ocurrencia de daño ambiental”.
Por su parte, el principio in dubio pro natura significa, según la ‘Declaración Mundial de la Unión Internacional para la Conservación de la Naturaleza (UICN) acerca del Estado de Derecho en materia ambiental’ que “en caso de duda, todos los procesos ante tribunales, órganos administrativos y otros tomadores de decisión deberán ser resueltos de manera tal que favorezcan la protección y conservación del medio ambiente, dando preferencia a las alternativas menos perjudiciales. No se emprenderán acciones cuando sus potenciales efectos adversos sean desproporcionados o excesivos en relación con los beneficios derivados de los mismos” (ver principio V).
En tal sentido, según el documento ‘95 Principios Jurídicos Medioambientales para un Desarrollo Ecológicamente Sustentable’ (aprobados en la XIX Edición de la Cumbre Judicial Iberoamericana‑2018 y por la Corte Plena en el artículo XIX de la sesión nro. 28-2020 del 25 de mayo de 2020), “Todo operador de las normas ambientales deberá tener siempre presente el principio pro naturaleza, conforme al cual se evitarán los riesgos, se privilegiarán los intereses colectivos generales sobre los particulares, se favorecerá la preservación del medio ambiente y en caso de duda se preferirá la interpretación que en forma más amplia proteja el entorno”.
Una evolución de lo antedicho ha desembocado en la instauración del “principio pro natura”, en la cual se deja de lado la parte de “in dubio”, de manera que su ámbito de aplicación se ensancha y cubre situaciones en las cuales no necesariamente existe incertidumbre jurídica. De este modo, la aplicación del principio pro natura no depende de que haya peligro de daño grave o irreversible -como sucede con el principio precautorio‑, sino que implica una “regla general de comportamiento, para la relación del Estado -y la sociedad en general- con el medio ambiente, aplicable a todos los ámbitos de decisiones en que exista un riesgo de afectación al medio ambiente, y que nos obliga a evitar optar por aquellas conductas que puedan causar daño al medio ambiente, cuando existan otras opciones” (Nombre06 y Nombre07, 2018).
La Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos se refirió por primera vez a este principio en la Opinión Consultiva OC-32/25 del 29 de mayo de 2025, en la cual determinó que, en el marco de protección de la naturaleza como sujeto de derechos, el principio pro natura debe interpretarse de manera armónica con el principio pro persona -véase párr. 281-. Asimismo, la Corte IDH vinculó el principio pro natura con otros procesales, a saber “los principios de disponibilidad de la prueba, cooperación procesal, pro persona (…) y pro actione” como parte de las reglas probatorias a emplearse en cuanto al derecho de acceso a la justicia -en tal sentido obsérvese el párr. 582-.
En suma, el principio pro natura estatuye que, ante cualquier conflicto jurídico, siempre debe prevalecer aquella interpretación que mejor favorezca la protección de la naturaleza y el pleno disfrute de los derechos ambientales, aun cuando no se esté ante una situación en la que medie incertidumbre. Esta pauta hermenéutica debe seguirse en toda relación entre Estado, sociedad y ambiente, de manera que siempre se elija la solución que mejor proteja a la naturaleza.
Por otra parte, en la sentencia nro. 2012013367 de las 11:33 horas del 21 de setiembre de 2012, este Tribunal Constitucional se refirió a los principios de progresividad y de no regresión en materia ambiental en este sentido:
“V. Sobre los principios de progresividad y no regresión de la protección ambiental. El principio de progresividad de los derechos humanos ha sido reconocido por el Derecho Internacional de los Derechos Humanos; entre otros instrumentos internacionales, se encuentra recogido en los artículos 2 del Pacto Internacional de Derechos Económicos Sociales y Culturales, artículo 1 y 26 de la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos y artículo 1 del Protocolo Adicional a la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos en materia de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales. Al amparo de los (sic) estas normas, el Estado asume la obligación de ir aumentando, en la medida de sus posibilidades y desarrollo, los niveles de protección de los derechos humanos, de especial consideración aquellos, que como el derecho al ambiente (art. 11 del Protocolo), requieren de múltiples acciones positivas del Estado para su protección y pleno goce por todos sus titulares.
Del principio de progresividad de los derechos humanos y del principio de irretroactividad de las normas en perjuicio de derechos adquiridos y situaciones jurídicas consolidadas, recogido en el numeral 34 de la Carta Magna, se deriva el principio de no regresividad o de irreversibilidad de los beneficios o protección alcanzada. El principio se erige como garantía sustantiva de los derechos, en este caso, del derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, en virtud del cual el Estado se ve obligado a no adoptar medidas, políticas, ni aprobar normas jurídicas que empeoren, sin justificación razonable y proporcionada, la situación de los derechos alcanzada hasta entonces. Este principio no supone una irreversibilidad absoluta pues todos los Estados viven situaciones nacionales, de naturaleza económica, política, social o por causa de la naturaleza, que impactan negativamente en los logros alcanzados hasta entonces y obliga a replantearse a la baja el nuevo nivel de protección.
En esos casos, el Derecho a la Constitución y los principios bajo examen obligan a justificar, a la luz de los parámetros constitucionales de razonabilidad y proporcionalidad, la reducción de los niveles de protección. En este sentido, la Sala Constitucional ha expresado en su jurisprudencia, a propósito del derecho a la salud: “…conforme al PRINCIPIO DE NO REGRESIVIDAD, está prohibido tomar medidas que disminuyan la protección de derechos fundamentales. Así entonces, si el Estado costarricense, en aras de proteger el derecho a la salud y el derecho a la vida, tiene una política de apertura al acceso a los medicamentos, no puede -y mucho menos por medio de un Tratado Internacional- reducir tal acceso y hacerlo más restringido, bajo la excusa de proteger al comercio. (Sentencia de la Sala Constitucional Nº 9469-07). En relación con el derecho al ambiente dijo: “Lo anterior constituye una interpretación evolutiva en la tutela del ambiente conforme al Derecho de la Constitución, que no admite una regresión en su perjuicio.” (Sentencia de la Sala Constitucional Nº 18702-10)”. (Lo destacado no corresponde al original). (En el mismo sentido, las sentencias 2014-012887, 2017-002375, 2017-005994, 2019-012745 y 2019-017397)”.
De este modo, de acuerdo con el principio de progresividad, el Estado asume la obligación de aumentar, en la medida de lo posible, los niveles de protección de los derechos humanos, incluido el derecho al ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. Por su parte, la aplicación del principio de no regresión consiste en una garantía que constriñe al Estado a abstenerse de adoptar medidas, políticas o normas que empeoren, sin una justificación razonable y proporcionada, el grado de protección a los derechos fundamentales ya alcanzado, y que, dado el caso, se tienen que ponderar las medidas de compensación que correspondan.
Finalmente, este Tribunal explicó el principio de objetivación de la tutela ambiental en estos términos:
“En cuanto al ambiente, objeto del derecho fundamental expuesto, nuestra Carta Magna exige además que sea “sano”. La exigencia “sano” nos conduce a la “capacidad regenerativa” y a la “capacidad de sucesión” para garantizar la vida. De ambos requisitos: “sano” y equilibrado” se desprende la necesidad de un desarrollo sostenible y sustentable; la calidad de vida y la calidad ambiental dependen de ello. Ahora bien, con los conceptos de “ambiente”, “sano” “ecológicamente equilibrado”, la norma constitucional introdujo la ciencia y la técnica en las decisiones ambientales, sean estas legislativas o administrativas, de tal manera que, en los términos de los ordinales 16 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública y 38 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, las actuaciones estatales en materia ambiental deben fundarse y no pueden contradecir las reglas unívocas de la ciencia y la técnica en aras de lograr el goce pleno y universal a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado y, además, un “mayor bienestar para todos los habitantes del país”.
En cuanto al sometimiento de las decisiones legislativas y administrativas a las reglas unívocas de la ciencia y la técnica, la Sala lo ha denominado principio de objetivación de la tutela ambiental: “De la objetivación de la tutela ambiental (…) es un principio que en modo alguno puede confundirse con el anterior [principio precautorio o “principio de la evitación prudente”], en tanto, como derivado de lo dispuesto en los artículos 16 y 160 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, se traduce en la necesidad de acreditar con estudios técnicos la toma de decisiones en esta materia, tanto en relación con actos como de las disposiciones de carácter general –tanto legales como reglamentarias–, de donde se deriva la exigencia de la vinculación a la ciencia y a la técnica con lo cual, se condiciona la discrecionalidad de la Administración en esta materia. De manera que en atención a los resultados que se deriven de esos estudios técnicos –tales como los estudios de impacto ambiental–, si se evidencia un criterio técnico objetivo que denote la probabilidad de un evidente daño al ambiente, los recursos naturales o a la salud de las personas, es que resulta obligado desechar el proyecto, obra o actividad propuestas; y en caso de una "duda razonable" resulta obligado tomar decisiones en pro del ambiente (principio pro-natura), que puede traducirse en la adopción, tanto de medidas compensatorias como precautorias, a fin de proteger de la manera adecuada el ambiente.” (sentencias de la Sala Constitucional nros. 21258-2010, 17126-2006, 14293-2005)” (el resaltado fue agregado). (Resolución nro. 2012-13367 de las 11:33 horas del 21 de setiembre de 2012)”. (Sentencia nro. 2025-038435 de las 9:15 horas del 21 de noviembre de 2025)”.
En el sub lite, la parte recurrente acota que el 28 de marzo de 2023 formuló una denuncia ante el ICAA por la construcción de un fraccionamiento contiguo al pozo La Meseta (o AB-689) y la consecuente violación de su radio de protección. Reprocha que con una interpretación que hizo la Dirección de Aguas del MINAE respecto del artículo 8 Ley de Aguas, la Municipalidad de San Rafael de Heredia continúa otorgando permisos de uso de suelo para construcción de viviendas, lo que incluso contradice la posición que tienen el ICAA y el Senara, respecto del radio de protección de 200 metros. Reprocha que el proyecto habitacional se encuentra vertiendo aguas residuales sin tratamiento alguno, lo que amenaza los recursos subterráneos de la zona, así como que las autoridades recurridas, continúan sin adoptar medidas para proteger el recurso hídrico.
La Sala corrobora que el pozo La Meseta es uno de los aprovechamientos más importantes del sistema de agua potable ME-A-15 San Pablo y abastece de ese líquido a aproximadamente 32000 personas. En las bases de datos del Senara se registra el cuerpo de agua bajo estudio correspondiente al pozo BA-689 y tiene uso de abastecimiento público. El 30 de marzo de 2023, el recurrente [Nombre 001] formuló una denuncia ante el ICAA, por la presunta construcción de un fraccionamiento contiguo al pozo La Meseta o AB-689. Mediante oficio SG-GSGAM-2023-00777 del 30 de mayo de 2023 de la Subgerencia Gestión de Sistema GAM del ICAA se dio traslado de esa denuncia nro. DE-016-2023 a la Dirección de Aguas del MINAE. En tal memorial se consignó que: “Parte del proyecto con plano catastral H-1601028-2012, se encuentra ubicado dentro del radio de los 200 m de línea base de actividades, del aprovechamiento del AyA denominado Pozo La Meseta (…) considerando la ubicación del inmueble H-1601028-2012 con N° Finca 4- 174543-000, con respecto al pozo de abastecimiento poblacional La Meseta del AyA, se solicita aclaración y adición en lo correspondiente al punto d del presente oficio (ítem 3 y 4) por parte de su representada y a partir de la nueva información aportada, se indicarán los requerimientos desde el punto de vista hidrogeológico para proteger el recurso hídrico, esto debido a que el proyecto se ubica en una zona de Reserva y Estrategia para abastecimiento poblacional, lo cual tendrá prioridad (…) Actualmente no está permitido el vertido de aguas residuales tratadas en cauces de flujo no permanente o intermitente por parte del MINAE, asimismo, no se debería permitir la infiltración del agua residual tratada en esta zona por encontrase un pozo de aprovechamiento para agua de consumo humano, dado que la normativa actual no es suficiente para proteger dichas fuentes ante riesgos de contaminación de nutrientes por ejemplo, ya que no se tienen ni siquiera establecidos límites ante dichos parámetros (…) Estamos de cara a una condición incompatible del uso que tiene el inmueble donde se localiza dicha empresa en relación con las Áreas de Reservas de Dominio a favor de la Nación de tomas surtidoras de agua a poblaciones”.
Por memorial de 28 de junio de 2023, el recurrente [Nombre 001] requirió a la Municipalidad de San Rafael de Heredia que cesara el otorgamiento de visados para uso de suelo dentro del radio de protección de 200 metros del pozo La Meseta. El 28 de julio de 2023, el accionante [Nombre 001] remitió el oficio CCZ-28-07-2023 al ICAA, requiriendo su intervención y reiterando que más de cuatro meses de planteada la denuncia continúa sin resolverse. En fecha indeterminada, la Dirección de Planificación Urbana y Territorial de la Municipalidad de San Rafael Heredia requirió un criterio técnico a la Dirección de Agua del MINAE respecto del radio de protección de los pozos. Por oficio DA-UHTPCOSJ-1701-2023 del 30 de agosto de 2023, la Unidad Hidrológica Tárcoles – Pacífico Central Dirección de Agua comunicó a la Dirección de Planificación Urbana y Territorial Municipalidad de San Rafael Heredia, lo siguiente: “Con relación a la consulta de oficio de referencia se aclara que los pozos tiene (sic) un retiro máximo de 40 metros de radio (artículo 8 Ley de Aguas).
Este retiro puede reducirse mediante estudios siendo que el retiro máximo en caso de que se sobrepase los 40 metros es la distancia a linderos. En ningún caso un pozo, estructura artificial, podrá afectar propiedades de terceros”. Por oficio DA-UHTPCOSJ-1701-2023 del 30 de agosto de 2023, la Dirección de Aguas del MINAE sostuvo que “los pozos tienen un retiro máximo de 40 metros de radio (artículo 8 Ley de Aguas). Este retiro puede reducirse mediante estudios siendo que el retiro máximo en caso de que se sobrepase los 40 metros es la distancia a linderos. En ningún caso un pozo, estructura artificial, podrá afectar propiedades de terceros”. Por oficio Senara-GG-0136-2024 del 5 de febrero de 2024 de la Gerencia General del Senara se requirió un criterio a distintos funcionarios, respecto de un proyecto constructivo San Rafael, Heredia y la presunta violación del área de protección del pozo La Meseta.
Por oficio SENARA-DIGH- 0013-2024 del 5 de febrero de 2024, el director de Investigación y Gestión Hídrica del Senara emitió un criterio al director de ese Servicio, respecto del área de protección del pozo La Meseta en los siguientes términos: “(…) para el caso de pozos de abastecimiento público el área de protección es de 200 metros de radio y debe el operador de agua realizar el perímetro de protección (zonas de captura) y las medidas que disminuyen el peligro de contaminación de las aguas subterráneas. Con respecto a las consultas realizadas, se definen a continuación: 1. Verificar la ubicación del pozo la Meseta (Coordenadas Lambert Norte: 525981-220836). 2. Se nos informe cuál es el área de protección con medición de linderos y retiros y si dicha área ha sido violentada o invadida. Las coordenadas del pozo AB-689, (mejor coincidencia de la Base de Datos del SENARA) Pozo la Meseta, mismas se buscó en el SINIGIRH de la Dirección de Agua, y tiene las coordenadas 525981 Y-220836 X …
Con respecto a la zona definida de los 200 metros, se encuentra en una zona con urbanización, como también la visita del día 4 de diciembre se tomó fotos que evidencian las construcciones en las cercanías del pozo … 3. En el caso que exista mapa de vulnerabilidad, indicarnos cual es la vulnerabilidad que le corresponde a la zona donde se ubica el pozo La Meseta. Con respecto a la zona definida de los 200 metros, se encuentra en una zona con urbanización, como también la visita del día 4 de diciembre se tomó fotos que evidencian las construcciones en las cercanías del pozo. 4. Informarnos si existe o en su defecto cual es el análisis de riesgo del pozo en caso de llevarse a cabo dentro del área de protección del pozo La Meseta el desarrollo constructivo de viviendas u otras construcciones en la finca Folio Real 174543. La evaluación del área de protección del Pozo denominado La Meseta, como los análisis de vulnerabilidad, determinación de las fuentes de contaminación (amenaza) y riesgo de contaminación, debe ser desarrollado por el prestador del servicio, en nuestro caso A y A, que debe incorporar las metodologías aprobadas y existentes en función de la ciencia y la técnica. 5.
Dentro de lo corresponde según su competencia y en caso de que se determine invasión del radio de protección del pozo La Meseta, solicitamos se actué como corresponde a efecto de no afectar el recurso hídrico en el desarrollo constructivo. El SENARA define dentro de las competencias, que un pozo es un sitio de captación, por lo que se aplicarías (sic) lo establecido en el Artículo 31 (inciso a) de los 200 metros de radio, además cada pozo de abastecimiento público el operador debe realizar un estudio hidrogeológico de perímetro de protección y establecer diferentes medidas de protección, estableciendo una protección más rigurosa en todas aquellas áreas que alimentan el acuífero (zona de captura), y una protección menos rigurosa, en aquellas que no interfieren con la calidad y cantidad del recurso hídrico. 6. Se nos informe, cual es la matriz de protección de acuíferos vigente al día de hoy.
Para la atención de dictámenes a los usuarios, se aplica la “Matriz de criterios de uso del suelo según la vulnerabilidad a la contaminación de acuíferos para la protección del recurso hídrico” de SENARA, en combinación con la metodología de tiempos de tránsito de contaminantes en la zona no saturada. Lo anterior, en acatamiento a lo indicado en el oficio SENARA-JD-SA-245-2019 del 05 de noviembre del 2019, en el cual se comunica el Acuerdo No. 6039 de la Junta Directiva de SENARA, mediante el cual se deroga la “Matriz Genérica de Protección de Acuíferos (…)” (la negrita corresponde al original). Por oficio DA-UHTPCOSJ-1308-2024 del 17 de junio de 2024, e la Dirección de Agua brindó el informe pedido a la Subgerencia Gestión de Sistema GAM del ICAA y señaló: “(…) Con base en la revisión de la normativa vigente de la Ley de Agua N° 276, el oficio DA-0583-2018 y el Reglamento de perforación de Pozos Decreto 43053-MINAE, a los pozos se les aplica un Retiro Operacional del Pozo (ROP), de 40,0 m, el cual no corresponde con una zona de protección sensu stricto, sino a un retiro para la operabilidad del pozo, el cual puede ser reducido mediante el estudio técnico, donde se establezca con claridad.
Este debe ser presentado por el propietario del pozo, en este caso por el AyA, donde se demuestre que ROP se limita a los linderos donde se localiza. No omito manifestar que el Retiro Operacional del Pozo (ROP) no puede afectar o gravar propiedades vecinas, como el caso evaluado. Además, al tratarse de un pozo con permiso de perforación anterior al 2010 (Meseta, expediente 602R), se aplica lo definido en el oficio DA-0583-2018, capítulo 3, el cual reporta lo siguiente en cuanto al Retiro Operacional del Pozo (ROP), “Pozo autorizado antes del 2010 con permiso que afecta un desarrollo de propiedad vecina por el ROP, si el pozo se hizo conforme el permiso (ubicación coordenadas, profundidad) se entiende tiene licencia del ROP intrínseco respecto al sitio donde se autorizó de tal forma que el ROP se limita a la línea de colindancia con la propiedad vecina. Cuando el terreno tenga un pozo autorizado y posterior al permiso se pretenda hacer o se haga edificaciones de tal forma que se afecte el desarrollo o el pozo, es responsabilidad del propietario: procede el cierre del pozo o correrse el ROP.” (el resaltado en negrita no es del original).
Por ende, al limitarse el ROP al lindero donde se localice el pozo, no hay afectación de los terrenos contiguos. (…) Se confirma, con base el Decreto Ejecutivo 42128-MINAE-S que, el vertido de aguas residuales se debe realizar a un cauce del dominio público de carácter permanente, previa autorización del MINAE. Por tanto, el futuro desarrollo deberá tramitar el permiso ante la Dirección de Agua del MINAE, para poder realizar la descarga de agua de planta de tratamiento. Respecto a la implementación de un sistema de tratamiento que realice una metodología de infiltración en el subsuelo para el tratamiento de aguas residuales y/o descarga del vertido, no es competencia de esta Dirección la evaluación de estos trámites o permisos; por lo que, no se emite criterio alguno. Estos trámites deberán ser valorados ante los entes correspondientes (SENARA, AyA, SETENA, Ministerio de Salud, entre otros)”.
En fecha indeterminada, Conceverde formuló una denuncia ante el ICAA respecto de un posible foco de contaminación del recurso hídrico y el supuesto irrespeto a la zona de protección del pozo La Meseta. Mediante oficio SENARA-DIGH-0083-2024 del 3 de setiembre de 2024. la Dirección de Investigación y Gestión Hídrica del Senara se requirió la intervención de la Municipalidad de San Rafael de Heredia, a fin de garantizar la protección de los recursos subterráneos y la calidad del pozo La Meseta. El 5 de setiembre de 2024, el colectivo Conceverde formuló una denuncia ante la Municipalidad de San Rafael de Alajuela por la vulneración del área de protección del pozo La Meseta. El 30 de octubre de 2024, el ICAA emitió el informe de inspección al pozo La Meseta atinente a la denuncia SN-PE-2024-0326, mediante el cual se indicó: “Conclusiones • En el sitio se ubicaron las estructuras indicadas por el denunciante, el pozo La Meseta en las coordenadas CRTM05 489644 E / 1106203 N, el tanque La Meseta en las coordenadas centrales CRTM05 489646 E / 1106215 N y una “caja de concreto” (que almacena aguas residuales) en las coordenadas CRTM05 49652 E / 1106190 N. • La distancia entre el pozo La Meseta y la “caja de concreto” (que almacena aguas residuales), al que se hace referencia en la denuncia es de 15 m. • A partir de los hallazgos encontrados en la visita de campo realizada el día 31 de octubre de 2024, por parte de la Dirección Jurídica, UEN Gestión Ambiental de la SAID y la UEN de Producción y Distribución de la Subgerencia GAM; la UEN Gestión Ambiental determina que se deberá realizar una valoración técnica por parte de la Dirección de Recolección y Tratamiento de la GAM, con el objetivo de que se defina el cumplimiento de la “caja de concreto” (que almacena aguas residuales) a partir del Decreto 42075-S-MINAE.
Además, es pertinente que tomen en cuenta para esta valoración, los análisis aportados por el LNA, donde en algunos informes se reporta coliformes fecales (…)”.El 4 de noviembre de 2024, el ICAA emitió un nuevo informe de inspección al pozo La Meseta relacionado con la denuncia SN-PE-2024-0326, en el que se señala: “(…) El presente informe contiene la respuesta técnica de la UEN PyD en relación con la denuncia SNPE-2024-0326, la cual responde a la inspección realizada el 30 de octubre de 2024 en el componente Pozo y Rebombeo La Meseta, correspondiente al Sistema 1-0000-ME-A-15-San Pablo. La inspección tuvo como propósito evaluar la situación actual de la evacuación de aguas residuales domésticas en el área en cuestión (…) Conclusiones Se identifica que en el área en cuestión lo que se localiza es una caja de concreto que almacena aguas residuales, por lo que no hay una infiltración al subsuelo que pueda generar una afectación al recurso hídrico.
VI. Recomendaciones Por parte de la UEN PyD, se solicitará la valoración de los compañeros de la Dirección de Recolección y Tratamiento y de la dirección de Mantenimiento Civil para determinar si se requiere alguna mejora en la caja de concreto, con el objetivo de asegurar el estado actual de este y prevenir cualquier afectación al recurso hídrico”. Mediante oficio DPUT-251-2024 del 21 de noviembre de 2024, la Unidad de Gestión Urbana y Territorial de la Municipalidad de San Rafael de Heredia brindó un criterio a la Dirección de Investigación y Gestión Hídrica de ese mismo ente local, respecto de la intervención solicitada por el SENARA. En síntesis, se indicó que: “en cuenta lo dictaminado por la Dirección de Aguas del MINAE, y la información anteriormente expuesta, puede deducirse que los pozos en ningún caso podrán tener una zona de protección o aprovechamiento mayor a los 40 metros, caso muy diferente para los alumbramientos o nacientes cuya protección va desde los 100 hasta los 200m dependiendo de si está siendo captada o no. Además, se debe tomar en cuenta, que, a diferencia de una naciente, un pozo tiene un armado, o una estructura sólida que permite no solo su captación, sino también la protección del recurso ante contaminantes en áreas circundantes.
En este punto es importante mencionar que, según los Estudio Hidrogeológicos para el cantón de San Rafael de Heredia, los cuales se encuentran debidamente aprobados por su representada, mediante oficio N°SENARA-DIGH-0164-2022 de fecha 15 de diciembre del 2022, la zona en estudio se encuentra en baja vulnerabilidad hidrogeológica y en muy baja recarga acuífera debido a las características propias del acuífero donde localizan. Por otro lado, a pesar de lo expuesto anteriormente y con el fin de salvaguardar aún más el recurso hídrico se solicitó al desarrollador del fraccionamiento en cuestión un estudio técnico que demuestre la no afectación del pozo en cuestión con el desarrollo de construcciones en las propiedades segregadas de la finca matrícula 4-174543, donde se determina una vulnerabilidad hidrogeológica despreciable con un tiempo de tránsito de 180,78 días, lo cual es suficiente para que los agentes bacteriológicos se degraden, por lo que no estar ía en riesgo el recurso hídrico”.
En la sesión ordinaria del Concejo de San Rafael de Heredia No. 55, celebrada el 9 de diciembre de 2024 se brindó respuesta a Roberto Ramírez sobre la intervención municipal con respecto a medidas de protección de recursos en función de la cantidad y calidad del agua del pozo La Meseta. Mediante oficio DPUT-072-2025 del 13 de mayo de 2025, la Municipalidad de San Rafael de Alajuela aclara que “en la zona colindante al pozo no se ha autorizado una urbanización o proyecto urbanísticos como tal, sino un fraccionamiento simple y un fraccionamiento con acceso excepcional, fraccionamientos que contaron con la disponibilidad de agua potable por parte del AyA para su aprobación, entre otros requisitos”. Por oficio DPUT-175-2025 del 9 de setiembre de 2025, la Dirección de Planificación Urbana y Territorial de la Municipalidad de San Rafael de Heredia indica: “Tomando en cuenta lo dictaminado por la Dirección de Aguas del MINAE, y la información anteriormente expuesta, puede deducirse que los pozos en ningún caso podrán tener una zona de protección o aprovechamiento mayor a los 40 metros, caso muy diferente para los alumbramientos o nacientes cuya protección va desde los 100 hasta los 200m dependiendo de si está siendo captada o no. Además, se debe tomar en cuenta, que, a diferencia de una naciente, un pozo tiene un armado, o una estructura sólida que permite no solo su captación, sino también la protección del recurso ante contaminantes en áreas circundantes.
En el caso concreto se concluye que el pozo en cuestión tiene un retiro máximo a linderos de la propiedad, por tanto, su retiro operacional no afecta a propiedades de terceros”. El gerente general del Senara explica: “Uso del suelo en la zona de los 200 metros de área de protección del pozo La Meseta y la incorporación de área de protección en los planes reguladores: Se puede observar de la figura a continuación, que los usos del suelo, específicamente al este del pozo La Meseta es un desarrollo urbano, que la (sic) no estar definido el tubo de flujo o zona de captura, estas construcciones pueden estar contaminando la zona no saturada y por ende el acuífero (…) IV CONCLUSIÓN De lo expuesto se concluye que: 1. El SENARA en función de sus competencias definió que el radio de protección de un pozo de abastecimiento público es definido por la Ley de Aguas N.272, es definido como de doscientos metros, se observa un desarrollo urbano, lo que puede poner en peligro el tema de calidad y cantidad de las aguas subterráneas, además que el pozo no tiene mapeo una zona de captura, por lo que no se pueden definir las áreas con mayor grado de protección. 2.
Que el Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados debe realizar la zona de captura (estado de bombeo) del pozo La Meseta y definir la vulnerabilidad, amenaza y peligro de contaminación, como los usos del suelo que sean compatibles con la protección de la cantidad y la calidad. Como informar a la Municipalidad de San Rafael de Heredia, sobre los alcances y zonificación del mismo. 3. La Municipalidad de San Rafael dentro de su competencia residual en materia de planificación urbana, debe contemplar las captaciones del recurso hídrico dentro de los procesos de permisos constructivos, más cuando se refiere a sistemas de abastecimiento público, que requiere una protección máxima, debido que se refiere al cuidado de la calidad del agua y sobre todo a la salud de la población. Por lo que no debe obviar dentro de las regulaciones de uso de suelo, los perímetros de protección de pozos definidos por las autoridades nacionales, como es el caso de A y A, y este perímetro debe ser respetada por los gobiernos locales para compatibilizar, desarrollar y reflejar efectivamente los condicionamientos establecidos en la definición de los perímetros de protección en la normativa contenida en los respectivos Planes Reguladores sobre los usos de suelo o de ordenación del territorio” (el resaltado fue añadido).
Ahora bien, de los autos se colige que existe una divergencia de criterios entre la Dirección de Agua del MINAE por un lado y por el Senara y el ICAA por el otro, ya que la primera considera que al pozo objeto de este asunto le resulta aplicable lo dispuesto en el Reglamento para la perforación de pozos y aprovechamiento de aguas subterráneas, sea, lo previsto en cuanto al retiro operacional del pozo, lo que en el artículo 34 de ese cuerpo normativo se establece como “b) Del retiro operacional del pozo (ROP): De conformidad con el artículo 8º de la Ley de Aguas Nº 276, a todo pozo con fines de aprovechamiento de agua, se le establece una distancia de retiro de hasta 40 metros, dentro de la cual, se permiten únicamente actividades directamente relacionadas con la extracción, distribución del agua y mantenimiento del pozo. Esta distancia puede ser menor con la autorización del MINAE a través de la Dirección de Agua, para lo cual deberá aportar el interesado estudio que demuestre con certeza técnico-científica que el acuífero no será afectado ni contaminado por las actividades directamente realizadas dentro de este retiro solicitado.
El ROP no debe traspasar los linderos de propiedades circunvecinas al sitio del pozo”. En tanto que el ICAA y el Senara sostienen en realidad resulta aplicable el área de protección de 200 metros establecida en el ordinal 31 de la Ley de Aguas, en el que se lee: “Artículo 31.- Se declaran como reserva de dominio a favor de la Nación: a) Las tierras que circunden los sitios de captación o tomas surtidoras de agua potable, en un perímetro no menor de doscientos metros de radio”.
Al respecto, mediante oficio SENARA-DIGH- 0013-2024 del 5 de febrero de 2024, el director de Investigación y Gestión Hídrica del Senara emitió un criterio al director de ese Servicio, respecto del área de protección del pozo La Meseta en los siguientes términos:“(…) para el caso de pozos de abastecimiento público el área de protección es de 200 metros de radio y debe el operador de agua realizar el perímetro de protección (zonas de captura) y las medidas que disminuyen el peligro de contaminación de las aguas subterráneas. Con respecto a las consultas realizadas, se definen a continuación: 1. Verificar la ubicación del pozo la Meseta (Coordenadas Lambert Norte: 525981-220836). 2. Se nos informe cuál es el área de protección con medición de linderos y retiros y si dicha área ha sido violentada o invadida. Las coordenadas del pozo AB-689, (mejor coincidencia de la Base de Datos del SENARA) Pozo la Meseta, mismas se buscó en el SINIGIRH de la Dirección de Agua, y tiene las coordenadas 525981 Y-220836 X …
Con respecto a la zona definida de los 200 metros, se encuentra en una zona con urbanización, como también la visita del día 4 de diciembre se tomó fotos que evidencian las construcciones en las cercanías del pozo … 3. En el caso que exista mapa de vulnerabilidad, indicarnos cual es la vulnerabilidad que le corresponde a la zona donde se ubica el pozo La Meseta. Con respecto a la zona definida de los 200 metros, se encuentra en una zona con urbanización, como también la visita del día 4 de diciembre se tomó fotos que evidencian las construcciones en las cercanías del pozo. 4. Informarnos si existe o en su defecto cual es el análisis de riesgo del pozo en caso de llevarse a cabo dentro del área de protección del pozo La Meseta el desarrollo constructivo de viviendas u otras construcciones en la finca Folio Real 174543. La evaluación del área de protección del Pozo denominado La Meseta, como los análisis de vulnerabilidad, determinación de las fuentes de contaminación (amenaza) y riesgo de contaminación, debe ser desarrollado por el prestador del servicio, en nuestro caso A y A, que debe incorporar las metodologías aprobadas y existentes en función de la ciencia y la técnica. 5.
Dentro de lo corresponde según su competencia y en caso de que se determine invasión del radio de protección del pozo La Meseta, solicitamos se actué como corresponde a efecto de no afectar el recurso hídrico en el desarrollo constructivo. El SENARA define dentro de las competencias, que un pozo es un sitio de captación, por lo que se aplicarías (sic) lo establecido en el Artículo 31 (inciso a) de los 200 metros de radio, además cada pozo de abastecimiento público el operador debe realizar un estudio hidrogeológico de perímetro de protección y establecer diferentes medidas de protección, estableciendo una protección más rigurosa en todas aquellas áreas que alimentan el acuífero (zona de captura), y una protección menos rigurosa, en aquellas que no interfieren con la calidad y cantidad del recurso hídrico. 6. Se nos informe, cual es la matriz de protección de acuíferos vigente al día de hoy.
Para la atención de dictámenes a los usuarios, se aplica la “Matriz de criterios de uso del suelo según la vulnerabilidad a la contaminación de acuíferos para la protección del recurso hídrico” de SENARA, en combinación con la metodología de tiempos de tránsito de contaminantes en la zona no saturada. Lo anterior, en acatamiento a lo indicado en el oficio SENARA-JD-SA-245-2019 del 05 de noviembre del 2019, en el cual se comunica el Acuerdo No. 6039 de la Junta Directiva de SENARA, mediante el cual se deroga la “Matriz Genérica de Protección de Acuíferos (…)” (la negrita corresponde al original).
De este modo, el Senara considera que al pozo objeto de este asunto le aplica un área de protección de 200 metros, de acuerdo con el artículo 31 de la Ley de Aguas, área que, al momento de interposición del recurso, no estaba siendo respetada. En ese sentido, recuérdese que en el informe rendido por el gerente general del Senara se indicó que “los usos del suelo, específicamente al este del pozo La Meseta es un desarrollo urbano, que la (sic) no estar definido el tubo de flujo o zona de captura, estas construcciones pueden estar contaminando la zona no saturada y por ende el acuífero”.
Así las cosas, adviértase que la ley nro. 6877 del 18 de julio de 1982 ‘Crea SENARA (Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas Riego y Avenamiento)’ prevé como parte de las funciones del Senara “h) Vigilar el cumplimiento de las disposiciones legales en las materias de su incumbencia. Las decisiones que por ese motivo tome el Servicio, referentes a la perforación de pozos, y a la explotación, mantenimiento y protección de las aguas -que realicen las instituciones públicas y los particulares- serán definitivas y de acatamiento obligatorio. No obstante, tales decisiones podrán apelarse dentro del décimo día por razones de ilegalidad, para ante el Tribunal Superior Contencioso Administrativo. El Tribunal resolverá en un plazo no mayor de noventa días” -véase el ordinal 3 eiusdem-.
Aclarado lo anterior, adviértase que en el caso bajo estudio resulta menester aplicar el principio precautorio, el cual estatuye que cuando existan indicadores de que cierta actividad plausiblemente podría ocasionar daños graves e irreversibles al ambiente, la falta de certeza o evidencia científica absoluta al respecto no exime de la obligación de adoptar todas aquellas medidas eficientes y eficaces para impedir una vulneración al ambiente.
Por lo que, en atención a lo establecido en el principio precautorio y en el inciso h) del artículo 3 de la ley nro. 6877, en el sub iudice resulte aplicable el criterio del Senara y, por ende, se considera que el área de protección del pozo en cuestión es de 200 metros, la cual actualmente no se está respetando. Esto evidencia la conculcación de los derechos fundamentales por parte de las autoridades recurridas, debido a que, pese a que al menos desde 2023 se denunció el irrespeto de la mencionada área de protección, no se evidencia que se hayan empleado todas las herramientas previstas por el ordenamiento jurídico para resguardarla. Verbigracia, tanto la Municipalidad de San Rafael de Heredia como la Dirección de Agua mantuvieron una postura contraria a la indicada por el Senara, en tanto que el ICAA realizó algunas gestiones internas e interinstitucionales, pero sin que se verifique que, efectivamente, se haya resguardado el pozo en cuestión. En igual sentido, aun cuando el Senara corroboró el irrespeto del área de protección bajo estudio, no se acredita que haya gestionado lo correspondiente a fin de proteger el pozo, lo que se agrava al tomar en cuenta que el propio Senara considera que este puede ser objeto de contaminación.
Aunado a lo anterior, el Tribunal observa que en informes emitidos por el ICAA en noviembre de 2024 se consignó que “es pertinente que tomen en cuenta para esta valoración, los análisis aportados por el LNA, donde en algunos informes se reporta coliformes fecales”, pese a ello no consta en autos que se haya gestionado lo correspondiente para garantizar que el agua del pozo La Meseta cumpla los parámetros de calidad para asegurar su potabilidad.
En suma, procede acoger el recurso en los términos en que se indica en la parte dispositiva de este asunto. Lo cual se dicta sin perjuicio de que, en caso de que se considere que el criterio suscrito por el Senara no es el correcto, tal como se establece en el artículo 3 de la ley nro. 6877, se formule el proceso correspondiente ante la jurisdicción contenciosa-administrativa.
He apoyado la tesis de este Tribunal, de que cuando el justiciable alega una vulneración al derecho a una justicia pronta y cumplida en sede administrativa, quienes deben conocer la controversia jurídica son los Tribunales de lo Contencioso-Administrativo y no esta Sala. Ahora bien, con la reciente promulgación de la Ley n.° 9097, Ley de Regulación del Derecho de Petición, se ha establecido que ese derecho es susceptible de tutela judicial por medio del recurso de amparo establecido por el artículo 32 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, en relación con el artículo 27 de la Constitución Política de la República de Costa Rica, en aquellos casos en que el peticionario considere que las actuaciones materiales de la Administración, sus actos administrativos o su respuesta le estén afectando sus derechos fundamentales. A mi modo de ver, la normativa recién promulgada no implica que este Tribunal deba modificar su línea jurisprudencial, quien, con base en el numeral 7 de su Ley, le corresponde definir exclusivamente su propia competencia.
Por ende, salvo aquellas controversias jurídico-constitucionales que han sido reconocidas por esta misma Sala como supuestos de excepción, que sí proceden ser conocidas en esta jurisdicción a través del proceso constitucional de garantía del amparo, en los demás casos, y por las razones que ha dado este Tribunal (sentencia N° 2008-02545 de las 8:55 horas de 22 de febrero de 2008), los competentes son los Jueces de la jurisdicción de lo contencioso-administrativo, todo lo cual es conforme al numeral 25, de la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos, el Derecho de la Constitución (valores, principios y normas) y las normas legales correspondientes con base en una interpretación lógica, sistémica y teleológica del ordenamiento.
Se previene a las partes que, de haber aportado algún documento en papel u objetos o pruebas contenidos en algún dispositivo adicional de carácter electrónico, informático, magnético, óptico, telemático o producido por nuevas tecnologías, estos deberán ser retirados en un plazo máximo de 30 días hábiles, contado a partir de la notificación de esta sentencia. Se advierte que será destruido todo material que no sea recogido dentro de ese lapso, con base en el "Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial" (aprobado por la Corte Plena en el artículo XXVI de la sesión nro. 27-11 de 22 de agosto de 2011 y publicado en el Boletín Judicial nro. 19 del 26 de enero de 2012) y en el artículo LXXXI de la sesión del Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial nro. 43-12 de 3 de mayo de 2012.
Por tanto:
Se declara con lugar el recurso. Se les ordena a Osvaldo Quirós Arias, José Miguel Zeledón Calderón y María Alejandra Mora Segura, cada uno en su condición de gerente general del Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento, director de la Dirección de Agua del Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía y gerenta general del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, así como a Jorge Eduardo Arias Santamaría y Minor Robles Vargas, por su orden alcalde y presidente del Concejo Municipal, ambos de la Municipalidad de San Rafael de Heredia, o a quienes ocupen esos cargos, coordinar lo necesario, tomar las medidas adecuadas y girar las órdenes que correspondan dentro del ámbito de sus competencias respectivas, a fin de que: i) DE FORMA INMEDIATA, se adopten medidas provisionales suficientes para resguardar el área de protección del pozo BA-689; ii) en plazo pazo máximo de CINCO DÍAS, contado a partir de la notificación de este pronunciamiento, se cree una instancia interinstitucional que se encargue de abordar la problemática expuesta por la parte accionante en cuanto a la invasión del área de protección del mencionado pozo y la posible infiltración de aguas residuales; y iii) en el plazo de UN MES, contado a partir de la creación de la instancia interinstitucional supramencionada, se diseñe un plan para atender el problema objeto de este recurso, el cual debe incluir medidas para garantizar la calidad del agua potable del pozo BA-689, así como la revisión de los permisos otorgados en contravención de la normativa hídrica aplicable.
Lo anterior se dicta con el apercibimiento de que con base en lo establecido en el artículo 71 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, se impondrá prisión de tres meses a dos años, o de veinte a sesenta días multa, a quienes recibieren una orden que deban cumplir o hacer cumplir, dictada en un recurso de amparo y que no la cumplieren o no la hicieren cumplir, siempre que el delito no esté más gravemente penado. Se condena al Estado, al Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento, al Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados y a la Municipalidad de San Rafael de Heredia al pago de las costas, daños y perjuicios causados con los hechos que sirven de base a esta declaratoria, los que se liquidarán en ejecución de sentencia de lo contencioso-administrativo. El magistrado Castillo Víquez consigna nota. Notifíquese.
Fernando Castillo V.
Fernando Cruz C.
Paul Rueda L.
Luis Fdo. Salazar A.
Jorge Araya G.
Anamari Garro V.
Ingrid Hess H.
Document not found. Documento no encontrado.