← Environmental Law Center← Centro de Derecho Ambiental
Res. 00474-2005 Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección II · Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección II · 12/10/2005
OutcomeResultado
The court suspends the full work-stoppage order and the concession cancellation for mining concession No. 1547, but authorizes extraction only in Zone F of the Western Sector, subject to strict Colima Superior aquifer protection conditions, unrestricted regulatory inspection access, and monthly reporting obligations.El Tribunal suspende las resoluciones que ordenaron la paralización total y la cancelación de la concesión minera Nº 1547, pero autoriza extracción únicamente en la Zona F del Sector Oeste, sujeta a condiciones estrictas de protección del acuífero Colima Superior, acceso irrestricto a inspectores e informes mensuales.
SummaryResumen
The Second Section of the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo resolves a precautionary measure sought by quarry operator Productos Pedregal S.A. in an ordinary mining lawsuit against the State. The company had operated a non-metallic quarry in San Antonio de Belén, Heredia (concession No. 1547), suspended in 2001 by the Dirección de Geología y Minas after inspections confirmed breaching of the Colima Superior aquifer and violation of riparian protection zones under Article 33(a) of Forestry Law 7575. The concession was subsequently cancelled in 2002. The court partially grants the precautionary measure: it suspends the full work-stoppage order and the concession cancellation, but restricts all extraction to "Zone F" of the Western Sector—the only technically safe zone for the aquifer—subject to compliance with four hydrogeological and environmental management plans, eleven specific technical conditions, unrestricted inspection access for MINAE, SENARA, and ICAA officials, and monthly progress reports.La Sección Segunda del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo resuelve la medida cautelar solicitada por Productos Pedregal S.A. dentro de un proceso ordinario minero contra el Estado. La empresa operaba una cantera de materiales no metálicos en San Antonio de Belén, Heredia (concesión Nº 1547), suspendida en 2001 por la Dirección de Geología y Minas tras comprobarse el rompimiento del acuífero Colima Superior y la afectación de zonas de protección bajo el artículo 33 inciso a) de la Ley Forestal 7575. En 2002, la concesión fue cancelada definitivamente. El Tribunal declara parcialmente con lugar la cautelar: suspende los efectos de la suspensión total y de la cancelación de la concesión, pero circunscribe cualquier extracción a la "Zona F" del Sector Oeste, la única técnicamente viable sin riesgo para el acuífero, condicionada al cumplimiento de cuatro planes hidrogeológicos y ambientales y once condiciones técnicas específicas, acceso irrestricto de inspectores de MINAE, SENARA e ICAA, e informes mensuales de avance.
Key excerptExtracto clave
The observations indicate damage to the Colima Superior aquifer in the eastern sector of the concession area. Pursuant to Article 33(a) of Forestry Law 7575, the protection zone was affected. Non-compliance with Articles 8 and 11 of Biodiversity Law 7788; all of this evidences the negative environmental impact and resulting negative externality. Starting from the zoning described in the previous Finding, it is noted that exploitation without risk to the aquifer—according to the studies on record—could only occur in zones designated A, E, and F; however, this tribunal considers that, for greater safety and for purposes of this measure, extraction must take place as far as possible from the upwelling and from Fuente Zamora, and at the greatest possible distance from the bank of the Río Virilla. Accordingly, operations must be confined solely to the zone in the Western Sector designated as "F," and in accordance with the Plans and studies indicated. The precautionary measure requested by the plaintiffs is partially granted. The execution of Dirección de Geología y Minas, Registro Nacional Minero resolutions No. 590 of August 3, 2001—insofar as it ordered the stoppage of all activity on mining concession No. 1547—and No. 451 of July 16, 2002—which cancelled that concession—and all dependent measures, is hereby suspended. The concessionaire is authorized to carry out extraction on the property solely in 'Zone F' of the Western Sector of the concession, provided this is done in strict accordance with the hydrogeological studies of Losilla & Agudelo (2001), Rodríguez & Gómez (2001), the 'Mining Extraction Plan' (Garro 2002), and the 'Environmental Management Plan and its Supplement' Astorga (2003).De las observaciones se desprende la afectación del acuífero Colima Superior en el sector Este del área concesionada. De acuerdo al artículo 33 inciso a) de la Ley Forestal 7575 se afectó la zona de protección. Incumplimiento del artículo 8 y 11 de la Ley de Biodiversidad 7788, todo lo anterior pone de manifiesto el impacto Ambiental negativo trayendo consigo una externalidad negativa. Partiendo de la zonificación indicada en el Considerando anterior, se advierte que la explotación sin riesgo para el acuífero -según los estudios que constan en autos-, sólo podría darse en las zonas designadas como A, E y F, pero este órgano estima que para mayor seguridad, y para los efectos de esta medida, debe tomarse en cuenta que las labores de extracción deben darse lo más lejos posible del afloramiento y de la Fuente Zamora, y además, a la mayor distancia de la margen del Río Virilla. Con lo cual, los trabajos deberán reducirse a la zona del Sector Oeste de la concesión, denominada como "F", únicamente, y de acuerdo con los Planes y estudios indicados. Se declara parcialmente con lugar la solicitud de medida cautelar interpuesta por las demandantes.- Se suspende la ejecución de las resoluciones de la Dirección de Geología y Minas, Registro Nacional Minero, números 590 de las quince horas treinta minutos del tres de agosto de dos mil uno -en cuanto ordenó la paralización de toda actividad en los terrenos de la concesión minera Nº1547-, y 451 de las trece horas diez minutos del dieciséis de julio del dos mil dos -que canceló esa concesión-, así como las que de ellas dependen.- Se autoriza a la concesionaria para realizar labores de extracción en el inmueble, únicamente en la "Zona F" del Sector Oeste de la concesión, siempre y cuando ello se haga con absoluto arreglo a los estudios hidrogeológicos de Losilla & Agudelo (2001), Rodríguez & Gómez (2001), "Plan de Extracción Minero" (Garro 2002), y el "Plan de Gestión Ambiental y su Complementación" Astorga (2003).
Pull quotesCitas destacadas
"se observó un frente de remoción de material reciente, con taludes de 15 a 20 metros de altura y en los niveles inferiores de dicho talud se observó el afloramiento del manto acuífero, con un caudal regular que fue drenado o encausado en dirección al Río Virilla, lo que podría evidenciar efectivamente el rompimiento del nivel freático producto de las labores de remoción."
"A recent material-removal face was observed, with slopes of 15 to 20 metres in height, and at the lower levels of that slope the upwelling of the aquifer was observed, with a regular flow drained or channelled toward the Río Virilla, which could effectively evidence the breaching of the water table as a result of removal operations."
Memorándum DGM-DC-803-2001, informe de campo 3 agosto 2001 (Considerando I, hecho 5)
"se observó un frente de remoción de material reciente, con taludes de 15 a 20 metros de altura y en los niveles inferiores de dicho talud se observó el afloramiento del manto acuífero, con un caudal regular que fue drenado o encausado en dirección al Río Virilla, lo que podría evidenciar efectivamente el rompimiento del nivel freático producto de las labores de remoción."
Memorándum DGM-DC-803-2001, informe de campo 3 agosto 2001 (Considerando I, hecho 5)
"Las accionantes deberán permitir de forma irrestricta, el acceso a los funcionarios de la Dirección de Geología y Minas o cualesquiera otra Oficina del Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía, del Servicio de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento (SENARA) y del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, a sus instalaciones, a fin de verificar el respeto de las condiciones indicadas."
"The plaintiffs must unreservedly allow access by officials of the Dirección de Geología y Minas or any other office of the Ministry of Environment and Energy, the Groundwater, Irrigation and Drainage Service (SENARA), and the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers, to their facilities, in order to verify compliance with the stated conditions."
Considerando X
"Las accionantes deberán permitir de forma irrestricta, el acceso a los funcionarios de la Dirección de Geología y Minas o cualesquiera otra Oficina del Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía, del Servicio de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento (SENARA) y del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, a sus instalaciones, a fin de verificar el respeto de las condiciones indicadas."
Considerando X
"lo aquí dispuesto es sin perjuicio de las potestades generales que confiere la legislación nacional a todas las entidades y órganos encargados de velar por la protección de los recursos ambientales de la Nación."
"What is hereby ordered is without prejudice to the general powers that national legislation confers on all entities and organs charged with safeguarding the protection of the Nation's environmental resources."
Por Tanto
"lo aquí dispuesto es sin perjuicio de las potestades generales que confiere la legislación nacional a todas las entidades y órganos encargados de velar por la protección de los recursos ambientales de la Nación."
Por Tanto
Full documentDocumento completo
-2001 N°474-2005 ADMINISTRATIVE COURT (TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO). SECTION TWO. SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF SAN JOSÉ. Goicoechea, at eleven hours and twenty minutes on the twelfth of October of two thousand and five.
Precautionary measure (medida cautelar), requested by the plaintiff companies within the ordinary mining proceeding of "Productos Pedregal, Sociedad Anónima" and others, represented by their general attorney-in-fact with unlimited authority (apoderado generalísimo sin límite de suma), Rafael Angel Zamora Fernández, businessman, resident of San Antonio de Belén, national ID (cédula) 1-563-370, against the State, represented by Deputy Attorney General Julio Jurado Fernández, resident of San José, national ID 1-501-905. The special judicial attorney-in-fact (apoderado especial judicial) for the plaintiffs is attorney Aldo Milano Sánchez, resident of Montes de Oca, national ID 1-688-989. The persons named above are of legal age, married, and—with the noted exception—attorneys.
BACKGROUND:
1. The representative of the plaintiffs files this petition requesting that the court order the following: "a. to adopt, as a precautionary measure, the suspension of the effects of the challenged acts that prevent the extraction of non-metallic minerals from the quarry originally granted by concession to Productos Pedregal S.A.; b. to declare that the effectiveness of this measure is subject, in the public interest, to the following conditions: i. compliance with the Environmental Management Plan voluntarily designed by the plaintiffs (ASTORGA 2003); ii. compliance with the Mining Extraction Plan submitted by the plaintiff, Productos Pedregal S.A. (GARRO 2002). c. the measure decreed does not affect the effectiveness of the resolutions adopted by the Technical Environmental Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Ambiental), which shall be subject to assessment in the appropriate proceeding." 2. Upon granting the mandatory hearing, the defendant opposed the petition.
3. The required procedural formalities have been observed throughout the proceedings, and no grounds for nullity capable of invalidating the actions taken have been noted. This ruling is issued within the statutory time limit.
Drafted by Judge Fernández Argüello; and
CONSIDERING:
I).- For the resolution of this precautionary measure (medida cautelar), the following has been duly established:
Consequently, the request for suspension of the effects of the administrative act ordered in Resolution Nº590 of 15:30 hours on 3 August 2001 is rejected …" (folios 697 bis to 699 bis, Volume IV of the administrative case file (expediente administrativo));
Further evidence is the grade differential (desnivel) in the Southwest sector of up to 1.8 meters, as indicated in this report. 7. Earthworks (movimiento de materiales) were carried out in the East sector, with an access route to the upper terrace constructed, where the tuff deposits (tobas) are located. 8. The springs (nacientes) exposed in the East sector were obstructed with in-situ rock materials and without any technical recommendation. 9. In the East sector, the evidence shows recent use of explosives. 10. Furthermore, water is being reused without any permit. Recommendations. It is recommended that the National Mining Registry proceed as stipulated by law" (folios 1368 to 1372, Volume VI of the administrative file);
· Isolate the floor of the quarry pit over the area of influence of the Fuente Zamora infiltration gallery with an impermeable material that ensures no infiltration of rainwater or ponding (encharcamientos) over that area shown on the map in figure No. 4: Vulnerability zones for the PM water intakes (captaciones de PM). The insulating material may be a high-density geotextile material and/or a concrete slab on a base of compacted clay material.
· Pipe or channel in concrete all runoff (aguas de escorrentía) that reaches and flows over the floor of the quarry pit. The floor of the quarry pit must be properly leveled to avoid ponding of water and any other liquid. The leveling must direct runoff or accidental spillages to concrete drainage channels (cunetas) that carry the water to one or two discharge points into the Río Virilla. These discharge points into the river must be equipped with a structure that dissipates the hydraulic energy of the water and prevents erosion of the riverbank and riverbed.
· It must be ensured that all processing and domestic activities (sewage and wastewater [aguas negras y servidas]) carried out in the quarry pit do not produce solid or liquid waste that comes into contact with the area of influence of the Fuente Zamora infiltration gallery water intake. If this cannot be guaranteed, the activity must be relocated outside the area of influence delineated in figure No. 4.
· No domestic or industrial contaminating activity may be located at the NW corner of the quarry pit yard, at the base of the new extraction face (frente de explotación), where local flow network evidence from figure No. 12 indicates a direction of groundwater flow toward the PM intakes.
· The West channel that discharges the groundwater surfacing at the central and East extraction faces of the quarry pit must be protected, and no service activity (loading or unloading water from tanker trucks), industrial processing, or domestic activity may be carried out within a 10 m strip of the edge of its channel, up to approximately 50 m before its discharge into the Río Virilla, from which point it must be piped for discharge into the river through an appropriate hydraulic energy dissipation structure. It must be ensured that runoff does not reach the groundwater discharge channel. The groundwater discharging into the channel could subsequently be captured for use in human consumption.
· Study and design a protective shield and dyke (dique) for the slope (talud) of the right bank of the Río Virilla on the East side of the quarry pit yard to prevent erosion of the river slope and flooding of the East sector of the yard during Río Virilla flood events (crecidas del río). The height of this shield/dyke must be at least up to elevation 876 m above sea level (m snm), in anticipation of an extraordinary flood event (avenida extraordinaria) of the river that could underground-contaminate the Fuente Zamora infiltration gallery and the new surfacings at the East extraction face of the quarry pit.
· All of these works must have hydrogeological, hydrological, and geological studies, and must have design plans prior to their construction. They must not be improvised. · The waters of the infiltration gallery (galería de infiltración) of Fuente Zamora must be monitored for quality and quantity, and must be treated (disinfection and filtering to retain/absorb other possible toxic substances) independently from the other sources at the PM pumping station. · The collection tank (tanque de captación) of the Fuente Zamora gallery and its access point must be restricted and protected. · The wells of the executed piezometer network must be fitted with the construction of a small cement curb (brocal) and cover, in order to prevent the entry of runoff water and other substances that could contaminate the aquifer and to allow their use in subsequent studies; or they must be backfilled with fine sand when they are no longer needed.
4.7- Upon evaluating the information relating to the Extraction Plan prepared by Geologist Emilio Garro Rojas, as well as the technical document prepared by Dr. Allan Astorga Gatgens (2003), entitled Complementación Ambiental del Plan de Extracción del Tajo Pedregal, I find that a phased extraction is proposed, beginning by working blocks A, E, and F, and that in the remaining cases, detailed hydrogeological studies will be developed to rule out or include other blocks as work progresses. Nevertheless, I consider and recommend the following:
First: In my professional judgment, it is possible to exploit the quarry (tajo) without risk of harm to the water resource, provided that throughout the continuation of the quarry's extraction operations the recommendations arising from the hydrogeological studies by Losilla & Agudelo and Rodríguez Gómez are rigorously applied from the outset.
Second: For each extraction site proposed by Rodríguez and Gómez, a detailed study must be carried out concerning the hydrogeological conditions identified in the Losilla & Agudelo study, taking into account, among other aspects, the depth of the water table (nivel freático), the direction of the flow lines (líneas de flujo), and the risks of affecting water quality, so as to guarantee permanent protection of the water resource in relation to the intakes maintained by the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados at Puente Mulas" (report at folios 868 to 873 of the precautionary-measure file); 24) Whereas, after the required hearing was granted, the parties requested clarification of the foregoing report, and the expert, by brief dated the twenty-fourth of January two thousand and five, stated, insofar as relevant: "… I consider that the proposal made by Productos Pedregal S.A. in what they have called the "Protocolo para estudio geológico-hidrogeológico ambiental para bloques de explotación en el tajo Pedregal, Belén, Heredia, Costa Rica" is very comprehensive and complies with the recommendations set forth in the various hydrogeological studies that were analyzed through this expert examination, as well as with my own conclusions, recommendations, and expectations (…) In the event that the proposal to continue with the exploitation of the quarry is approved, the responsibility and obligation of the developing company to prepare monthly hydrogeological reports must be established; those reports shall be sent to the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, to the Water Department (Departamento de Aguas) of MINAE, and to SENARA.
It will also be necessary for periodic inspections of the extraction site to be carried out by officials from those institutions" (expert clarification, folios 904 to 907); 25) Whereas, with respect to the plaintiff companies, certified public accountant Mailo A. González Alvarez prepared in February two thousand and three a document entitled "Análisis del Impacto sufrido, y perspectivas futuras, de la clausura de la fuente de materiales de LAS EMPRESAS (concesión #1547) por parte de la Dirección de Geología y Minas del Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía (MINAE)", in which, among other considerations, he stated: "…As a fundamental result. The Projected Condensed Income Statement for the period from December 1, 2002 through November 30, 2003 allows the inference that LAS EMPRESAS will continue the trend of generating losses and will obtain net losses in the substantial sum of approximately ¢1,338,000,000.00 (one billion three hundred thirty-eight million colones, 00/100).
Projected losses of this magnitude, together with a projected cash shortfall (faltante de efectivo) of -¢1,435,500,000.00 (one billion four hundred thirty-five million five hundred thousand colones) for the period analyzed, lead to the conclusion that LAS EMPRESAS will find themselves in a precarious financial situation, rendering them unable to continue efficiently carrying out their normal productive and commercial activities. This means that, technically, the accounting principle of Going Concern (principio contable de Negocio en Marcha) (an accounting principle defined as the presumption that a company will have permanent existence, implying that there is reasonable certainty that the company will not have to suspend its operations due to insolvency, since it is not capable of meeting its short-term obligations because it is operating with cash shortfalls) is compromised…" (cited document and its annexes, visible at folios 163 to 349 of the precautionary-measure file; specifically, folio 171); 27) Whereas Productos Pedregal maintains a large payroll of workers (see copy of monthly payroll records for worker movement, issued by the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social, folios 353 to 392).
II). The incidental claimant (incidentista) states that Mining Project No. 1547, also known as "Tajo Pedregal," was originally dedicated to the extraction of mineral aggregates (agregados minerales) located near San Antonio de Belén, a non-metallic extraction activity that has been carried out on those lands for more than sixty years. With the enactment of the Mining Code (Código de Minería) in nineteen eighty-two, he explains, the company Productos Pedregal S.A. began the proceedings to obtain a concession before the Directorate of Geology and Mines (Dirección de Geología y Minas), and that in nineteen ninety-one, in the course of the exploitation, upon reaching the lowest level of the operation in the central part of the quarry, work continued advancing from South to North, and because the extraction base was very close to the groundwater level of the Acuífero Colima Superior, it was intercepted by the working face, causing a water spring to emerge.
By virtue of that situation, he adds, officials from Aqueducts and Sewers (Acueductos y Alcantarillados) proposed capturing the flowing water to supplement the flow at Puente de Mulas, so that, under the mediation of an official from the aforementioned Directorate, the water intake point was defined at the lower part of the working face, with the plaintiff undertaking to cooperate with A y A in the infrastructure works necessary to convey the water to Puente Mulas, in such a way as not to interfere with the progress of the extraction operation or the use of the water resource. As a result of the foregoing, he continues, an infiltration gallery (galería de infiltración)—named Fuente Zamora—was built in the central part of the quarry, and since then, the water from Fuente Zamora flows through an underground pipeline to the Puente de Mulas Station, where it undergoes chlorination treatment before being pumped into the urban aqueduct system of the Gran Área Metropolitana.
That once the concession was obtained, a productive structure was developed involving the plaintiff companies herein—"Productos Pedregal, S.A.," "Asfaltos Pedregal S.A.," "Bloques Pedregal S.A.," "Concretos Pedregal S.A.," "Constructora Pedregal S.A.," "Quebradores Pedregal S.A.," "Transporte Pedregal S.A." and "Servicios y Acarreos Belén S.A."—companies formed to serve different market niches, all related to the construction industry. The extraction, he asserts, reached forty-six thousand and one cubic meters per month, and in order to position themselves in the market, investments were made in productive fixed assets totaling approximately four thousand three hundred and seventy-eight million colones, and the companies jointly generated a total of four hundred and twenty-five direct employment positions. He states that in the month of July of two thousand and one, multiple health problems were reported in a sector of the capital's population, which were later linked to the supply of drinking water, a population made up in part of those who obtained their water from the water pumped from Puente Mulas.
The studies conducted, he argues, determined that there was an extremely high level of bacteriological contamination in the water, which was attributed, according to a complaint filed by the then Executive President of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, to the activities carried out by the plaintiffs herein. He notes that, following a field visit, "on the basis of an a priori assessment of the reality of the situation," by resolution number 590 of fifteen hours thirty minutes on the third of August of two thousand and one, the Directorate of Geology and Mines abruptly ordered the suspension of quarry material extraction and processing operations. He states that there are scientific studies demonstrating that the contamination of the water at Puente de Mulas could not have been caused by the plaintiffs, the foregoing "... in view of the interaction of infectious agents (fecal pathogens) in the diarrhea outbreak that occurred among users of the drinking water service.
It was established that said pathogens were not present in the water of Fuente Zamora nor could they have been generated by the activities of the companies in the area adjacent to the spring, in view of the extraction methodology and the nature of the processing activities, as well as their location in relation to the aforementioned spring …." That at the time the aforementioned suspension was ordered, the company maintained multiple contractual obligations with various state entities for several public works, including the Projects "Tournón-Uruca," "Cruce Moravia-Cruce Ipís," "El Carmen-Jaboncillal," "Construcción Intersección a desnivel Rotonda Y Griega," and "Conservación Vial de la Ruta Nacional Nº 1, General Cañas," cases in which delivery dates had already been established, performance bonds posted for amounts exceeding one hundred sixty-two million colones and more than three hundred thousand dollars, as well as a marked public urgency to deliver the works on time.
It was for that reason, he argues, that Productos Pedregal S.A. was compelled to disobey that act and extracted material from the areas of the concession area, thereby causing, he contends, no environmental damage whatsoever. He alleges that through the resolutions challenged in the main proceeding (from the National Mining Registry (Registro Nacional Minero) of the Directorate of Geology and Mines, numbers 590 of the third of August and 784 of the sixteenth of October, both of two thousand and two; 077 of the twenty-eighth of January, 451 of the sixteenth of July; 482 of the thirty-first of July, these of two thousand and two; and those of the Minister of Environment and Energy, numbers R-234-2002 MINAE of the twenty-ninth of April and R-388-2002-MINAE of the nineteenth of September, both of two thousand and two), the General Directorate of Mines (Dirección General de Minas) decided to extinguish the concession granted in nineteen eighty-three to the company Productos Pedregal S.A., and in parallel, SETENA ordered the staged closure of the rest of its productive activities.
That without that source of materials, the companies saw their competitive advantage over other market competitors disappear, their productive assets are being underutilized, and they have had to absorb losses in two thousand and two alone of approximately one hundred and fifty-six million colones. Financially, "… according to the cash flow projections of the companies for the period from December 1, 2002 to November 30, 2003, there will be a shortfall of ¢1,435,500,000.00 (one thousand four hundred and thirty-five million five hundred thousand colones). Furthermore, losses can be projected for that same period of ¢1,338,000,000.00 (one thousand three hundred and thirty-eight million colones). Finally, it can be estimated that the companies will see their revenues reduced, by November 30, 2003, by up to ¢4,665,000,000.00 (four thousand six hundred and sixty-five million colones)," indicators that, in his view, allow one to technically affirm a serious compromise of the accounting going-concern principle (negocio en marcha), defined as the presumption that a company will have a permanent existence, such that there is no reasonable certainty that productive operations will not be suspended in the short term due to insolvency.
That furthermore, to support this application for precautionary relief (tutela cautelar), and to ensure the absence of any risk of environmental harm, they opted to define an Environmental Management Plan (Plan de Gestión Ambiental), which they undertake to comply with. On the other hand, they assert that to date there are no scientific arguments (technical or environmental) to support a cessation of mining operations, thus: "… apart from the negative environmental effects generated by a mining project such as the one analyzed here, which would be addressed through the application of the aforementioned Environmental Management Plan, the most significant environmental problem facing the Project relates to the interaction between the mining activity and the management of the groundwater resources present in its subsoil (Acuífero Colima Superior) … Based on that environmental impact, an Extraction Plan was designed that encompasses only those areas within the concession area that could be exploited without causing any impact on the Acuífero Colima Superior or Fuente Zamora itself, subject to prior compliance with the environmental commitments arising from the aforementioned Environmental Management Plan." In the specific case at hand, he argues, the requirements for granting the requested precautionary measure (medida cautelar) are fully met.
The foregoing because the challenged act lacks sufficient grounds, there is no legal basis for decreeing the lapse of the concession (caducidad de la concesión), the Administration's conduct is disproportionate, and the non-compliance with the work suspension order caused no environmental damage whatsoever—fumus boni iuris. He further alleges that the execution of the challenged acts causes real and effective harm, including the loss of productive and competitive capacity, an impact on financial stability, and the risk of entering a process of insolvency and cessation of operations, placing the jobs of more than four hundred workers in jeopardy, such that it is evident that: "… since the acts challenged in the main proceeding have, as their legal effect, the impossibility of extracting the non-metallic mineral resource indispensable to the plaintiffs' productive activity, we are faced with damages and losses that are impossible or very difficult to remedy.
It has been explained and demonstrated that this legal effect, causally and directly, entails the imminent closure of the plaintiffs' businesses …"—periculum in mora. Finally, he states that in order to avoid harm to the public interest, an "Environmental Management Plan" is submitted, containing commitments to manage the typical environmental impact of a mining operation and to address aspects such as those relating to air quality, ordinary and special solid waste, wastewater, protection areas along the Río Virilla, management of natural hazards, management and protection of groundwater and soil, landscape protection, and social management, as well as a "Mining Extraction Plan (Plan de Extracción Minera)," prepared by experts in hydrogeology (hidrogeología), which ensures that such extraction is not capable of causing damage to the water resource. In any event, they consent to the establishment of "… an effectiveness clause whereby, automatically, in the eventual case that exploitation practices are demonstrated that seriously breach the proposed Environmental Management Plan and/or the Extraction Plan, causing environmental damage, the precautionary measure shall cease to be effective …." III). — The state representative, for his part, considers that in this specific case, among the prerequisites that the legal order requires for granting precautionary measures (medidas cautelares) such as those requested here, the most important one to consider is the public interest, because what matters is to bear in mind the reasons that led to the order suspending operations, and not the grounds for the cancellation of the concession, "… because even if the act ordering the cancellation had not been issued, the plaintiff could not operate the open-pit quarry (tajo) by virtue of resolution number 590 [of the Dirección de Geología y Minas] already cited.
In other words, for the purposes of the precautionary measure being requested, the reasons that ultimately led to the cancellation of the concession—which were more than sufficient to esa (sic) make that decision (…)—matter little, because what the precautionary measure seeks is, precisely, to resume those extractive activities." This being the case, he states, resolution 590 is grounded in the environmental damage caused by the company's operations, which primarily affected the water resource present in the Colima aquifer (acuífero), and the fact that caused such damage was the aquifer's exposure as a result of the quarry's exploitation. Furthermore, he adds, those operations also affected the health of the population, which would be at risk if the extractive activities were allowed to continue. The actions taken do have a technical basis, as determined by SETENA, the body that indicated that, due to the proximity to the exposed aquifer, the rock crusher (quebrador) should not be used, as it is vulnerable to contamination, and that the current location of the industrial facilities compromises the water resource, precisely because of the exposure of the aquifer layer (manto acuífero); in light of which SETENA also ordered the gradual and phased technical closure of the industrial activities, including the asphalt plant, the concrete plant, the block-making plant, rock crushers, workshops, etc. In his view, at stake are the fundamental rights "to health" and "to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment," set forth in Articles 21 and 50 of the Constitución Política, which carry the same rank as the precautionary protection (tutela cautelar) being sought here, and that circumstances compel giving precedence to the "precautionary" principle and the "in dubio pro natura" principle, and that the challenged acts must therefore be upheld.
As to the other prerequisites of the application, he argues that it is debatable whether there exists a real and imminent danger that the company will suffer irreversible harm as a result of the suspension of quarry operations, and that the loss of comparative advantages is not, within the context in which the company operates, harm that is difficult or impossible to remedy—unlike the harm that the aquifer could suffer. He argues that the Management Plan is insufficient, because "What guarantees can a company offer, in this regard, that expressly acknowledged through its officers having disobeyed an order to suspend operations on account of the environmental damage caused and the risk of continuing to cause it?" Likewise, the state official considers that the challenge to the resolutions ordering the work stoppage—which the plaintiff ignored—borders on bad faith, since not only was that order disobeyed, but also the technical recommendations issued; and that there is a clear constitutional and legal basis for issuing the challenged acts, and consequently, the petition lacks the appearance of good law (apariencia de buen derecho); and finally, that if this Tribunal "… grants this motion, it would be granting through an incidental proceeding the substance of the main claim, allowing the plaintiff to do what it in any case did (until the concession was cancelled) in defiance of and in open disobedience of an administrative decision issued in the exercise of legally conferred powers and for the purpose of protecting the environment and human health, which would distort the purposes of a precautionary measure such as the one being requested." IV). — First of all, it is considered appropriate to recall that in the area of precautionary measures, the Costa Rican legal order grants the Administrative Contentious Jurisdiction broad powers, as its primary purpose is to guarantee, through their reasonable use, the final outcome of the proceedings and, consequently, the effective administration of justice.
The body of procedural guarantees set forth in the Constitución Política, particularly from Article 41 onward, and their development through case law, reveal the existence of a broad, flexible, and expeditious regime of precautionary protection, which forms part of the essential content of the right to prompt and effective justice. This is, as the Sala Constitucional recently noted, a fundamental right that encompasses "… the right to request and obtain from the court the necessary, suitable, and pertinent precautionary measures to guarantee the effectiveness of the judgment on the merits—the essential function of precautionary protection—if the prerequisites therefor are met (the appearance of good law—fumus boni iuris—and the danger of delay—periculum in mora). Correspondingly, the court has the obligation to order or issue the provisional measure if the prerequisites for its adoption are present …" (sentencia Nº2005-6224, of 15:16 hours of May 25, two thousand and five).
The granting of this type of protection is attributed to the Judge, as part of the jurisdictional function constitutionally assigned to the judiciary, and extends—with the exceptions validly provided by law—to any type of matter brought before the courts. In the field of administrative contentious proceedings, the law governing this subject matter—Nº 3667 of March 1966—consistent with the system of review of acts and provisions from which it derives, establishes as the basic precautionary measure the suspension of execution of the challenged acts, in Articles 91, 92, and 93 thereof; however, alongside it there coexists an unnamed regime, far more generous, which results from the referral permitted by Article 103 of the same law to the civil procedural legislation, whose Code, in Article 242, enables the court to adopt any type of measure when deemed appropriate to the purposes and when the requirements already indicated are met.
The application of such rules to matters relating to environmental subject matter is entirely possible. Acts, provisions—and even omissions—issued by the public authorities responsible for protecting the Nation's environmental resources, including the Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía and all of its bodies, the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, the Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento (SENARA), or the municipalities, to name just a few, partake of an "administrative" nature, and are therefore challengeable and their legality reviewable before this court, by virtue of the principle of universality of judicial review set forth in Articles 49 and 153 of the Carta Magna. Such bodies and institutions are subject to the principle of legality, and their actions may not exceed the legal provisions that regulate them, including those imposed by Article 11 of the latter and Article 11 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, so that even decisions taken in the exercise of the powers derived from Article 50 of the Constitución Política may be subject to precautionary measures, if the legal prerequisites therefor are met.
This clarification, though it may seem self-evident, is considered necessary in light of the fact that, during the processing of this matter, one of the parties has argued that it is not possible to grant what is requested here—authorizing the extraction of materials from a quarry (cantera)—because any decision that is taken and that involves an aquifer layer or the exploitation of a quarry must necessarily be preceded by an authorization from SETENA or the Dirección de Geología y Minas, which this court does not accept. To accept that position would mean subjecting the Judge's powers to a prior administrative authorization, which in the specific case would have to come precisely from the bodies that issued the acts whose validity is being contested within the proceedings, under the pretext or argument that those are the technically competent bodies in the matter. And it would undoubtedly mean completely emptying the content of the right to precautionary protection, as well as an undue reduction of the Judge's powers, which cannot be countenanced.
This collegiate body understands that this is a particular, specific, and highly sensitive area, and that at stake are other fundamental rights, such as the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and, alongside it, the rights to life and health, which requires careful study and a well-considered solution, so as not to harm the public and private interests involved. Any decision taken must not be made lightly, and no effort should be spared in seeking the essential elements needed to resolve the matter, including consultation with technicians and experts in the field. This also entails greater responsibility when issuing the ruling; however, for that reason alone, the possibility of suspending—by this means—even those measures taken with a view to protecting the country's environmental interests should not be entirely ruled out, if, as stated, the legal prerequisites are present and sufficient guarantees exist to ensure that those natural elements are not left unprotected.
V). — Having stated the foregoing, it is noted that what is sought through this motion is the suspension of the effects of the acts challenged within the ordinary mining proceedings (ordinario minero) brought by the plaintiffs, particularly the resolutions of the Dirección de Geología y Minas, Registro Nacional Minero, numbers 590 of fifteen hours thirty minutes on August 3, two thousand and one, and 451 of thirteen hours ten minutes on July 16, two thousand and two, as well as those dependent on them. The first ordered the precautionary suspension of the activities carried out by the plaintiffs on the land covered by mining concession Nº1547 in San Antonio de Belén, known as Tajo Pedregal, and the second ordered the cancellation of that act. As a consequence of the foregoing, the plaintiffs also request that the concessionaire be permitted to extract non-metallic minerals from that quarry, subject to an Environmental Management Plan (Plan de Gestión Ambiental) and a Mining Extraction Plan (Plan de Extracción Minero), proposed by them and submitted to the case file.
VI). — The Tribunal has carefully reviewed the arguments of the parties, the documentation submitted by them, and the extensive information contained in the administrative file (expediente administrativo). The hydrogeological studies submitted by the plaintiffs, as well as the Environmental Management and Mining Extraction Plans, were submitted for review by an official expert — a geologist specializing in hydrogeology, selected from a list of three candidates submitted, at the request of the Office, by the Colegio de Geólogos de Costa Rica — and, in addition, a judicial site inspection (reconocimiento judicial) was conducted at the site of concesión Nº 1547, with the full participation of the members of this collegiate body, the representatives of the parties, the aforementioned experts, and officials from the Dirección de Geología y Minas. The results of that proceeding, together with the other evidentiary elements mentioned, the study of the applicable regulations, and the balancing of the high-stakes interests at play, allow the following observations to be drawn.
As a starting point, and without prejudging the merits of the case, it is noted that the actions taken by the Dirección de Geología y Minas and MINAE had as their primary antecedent a complaint filed by the Executive President of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados regarding the possible contamination, in mid-2001, of the "Fuente Zamora," located at the said Tajo, and more specifically, an ocular inspection (inspección ocular) conducted on August 3rd of that year at that site by employees of the aforementioned Dirección. During that visit, it was found that in the first extraction face, in the eastern sector of the concession, an emergence of the aquifer layer (afloramiento del manto acuífero) had occurred, and that the company had diverted the runoff (escorrentía) toward the río Virilla and had backfilled part of that area with materials from the quarry itself. It was also noted that the riparian buffer zones (zonas de protección del cauce) of the River, provided for in the Ley Forestal, were not being observed, and that the activities being carried out there posed a contamination risk to the acuífero Colima Superior and the aforementioned Fuente.
In the report drawn up from that proceeding, it was recommended, among other things, that several hydrogeological studies be conducted, as well as a temporary suspension of the company's operations, which was acted upon by the Dirección de Geología y Minas, Registro Nacional Minero, in resolución 590. Subsequently, in Nº 784, that measure was moderated and use of the stone crusher (quebrador) was authorized until early June 2002, on the condition that no work of any kind be carried out in the sector where the emergence had occurred. After that date, specifically on June 12, 2002, a new inspection was conducted, and it was determined that materials were being extracted on site, despite the prohibition that had been issued to that effect. This situation was deemed a serious breach of the concessionaire's obligations and led to the cancellation of concesión Nº 1547 held by Productos Pedregal S.A. through resolución 451 of the following July 16th. Ordinary appeals were filed against that ruling and were dismissed, and subsequently this proceeding was initiated.
VII). — Regarding the legal requirements for the granting of a precautionary measure (medida cautelar) such as the one requested, it must first be noted that, as the plaintiffs contend, the effects of revoking the mining exploitation concession and the total shutdown of operations that this entails certainly cause the companies damages of considerable magnitude and scope. The challenged administrative decision prevents the extraction and processing of their primary source of non-metallic materials, which undoubtedly jeopardizes the proper functioning of the business. The record contains a study by a certified public accountant that describes the economic impact of the work stoppage on these companies and quantifies it at several billion colones, for the period between late 2002 and 2003 alone. There is also evidence of the large number of workers on their payroll who will face certain risk to their employment, and thereby to their own livelihood and that of their families; and furthermore, it is publicly known that Productos Pedregal S.A. and its affiliated companies are party to numerous public contracts (contratos administrativos), primarily for the construction and maintenance of public works, which could be left unfulfilled, with the consequent damage to the company's reputation and to its prospects of continuing to be a major participant in that type of relationship, which also involve a high public interest.
In sum, it is found that the execution of the challenged acts, combined with the foreseeable wait for a final ruling in this proceeding, would produce damages that are difficult or impossible to repair, in the terms provided in numeral 91 of the Ley Reguladora de la Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa. On the other hand, having summarily reviewed the main complaint and the arguments advanced therein, the seriousness of the case cannot be denied. The action is well-founded, and the legal questions debated by both parties — both constitutional and statutory in nature — will need to be analyzed at the time of the ruling on the merits, once all relevant evidence in the main proceeding has been received and all stages provided for in the applicable procedural legislation have been duly completed.
VIII). — It remains to be determined, therefore, whether there exists an overriding public interest that would preclude granting what is requested. It is clear, as evidenced by both the facts on the ground and the record, that the Tajo land is located on the right bank of the Río Virilla, near San Antonio de Belén, Heredia, above an aquifer system known as Colima. Likewise, that it borders the springs (manantiales) known as Puente de Mulas, which discharge a significant flow captured through tunnels and galleries (galerías), and which is or has been used by the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados for public water supply. This collegiate body was able to verify this in situ during the judicial site inspection that was duly ordered. The inspection also confirmed the existence of the emergence in the eastern sector of the concession and the significant quantity of water that flows from it.
The site known as Fuente Zamora was also visited, along with the gallery constructed years earlier as a result of a prior emergence, and the facilities, including the stone crusher, administrative buildings, the asphalt mixing plant, and the block factory. Regardless of whether those outflows occurred due to the company's fault or for unrelated reasons — that is to say, whether or not the site was exploited beyond the permitted elevations (cotas) set by the Administration, as that is a matter to be addressed in the main proceeding and not here — it is not possible to deny either the existence of the groundwater (aguas subterráneas) or that of the emergences, and still less, the risk that carrying out extractive activities on the site poses to the water resource (recurso hídrico), activities that are carried out even through the use of explosives. The importance of this resource, essential to the life and health of the population and to the country's overall development, is beyond question, as is the duty to protect it at all costs.
The vulnerability of aquifer layers (mantos acuíferos) and the difficulty that, on many occasions, timely detection of the purity or contamination of the waters they hold presents, require particular rigor with respect to productive activities conducted in their vicinity and the taking of preventive measures to ensure that this risk of harm does not become a reality. On the matter of groundwater and its protection, the Sala Constitucional, in its ruling number 2004-1923 of 2:55 p.m. on February 25, 2004, stated:
GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION. Unlike surface water (aguas superficiales) pollution, which is typically obvious and visible—thereby permitting environmental action aimed at mitigating or eradicating it—groundwater (aguas subterráneas) contamination, by its very nature, tends to go unnoticed and becomes evident only once it has reached significant proportions. Aquifer layers (mantos acuíferos), owing to the slow movement of water through them, the absorption capacity of the soil, and other factors, may take a very long time to show signs of contamination. In addition, the large volume of water contained means that extensive contamination may take a prolonged period to manifest itself, or, in the case of localized contamination, it is detected only when it surfaces at some point of extraction. Certainly, this type of water possesses a resistance to contamination; however, once contamination does occur, its regeneration can be extraordinarily slow and is sometimes irreversible due to the high cost of the means required to achieve it.
It has been demonstrated that attempts to repair damage caused by contamination to an aquifer in order to restore drinking-water quality levels have not been successful; cleanup technologies have contributed little to reducing the damage, and the methods involved are economically very costly. To the foregoing must be added the lack of organizational infrastructure and of the material, financial, and human resources—in the latter case, personnel properly trained to assess, measure, and, in general, monitor the quality of this water and the precise extent of its contamination. The degradation and contamination of aquifer layers imposes upon the legislature and public administrations the urgent and unavoidable task of protecting them. Groundwater contamination may be direct or indirect: it is of the first type when polluting substances are introduced directly into the aquifer, as in the case of cesspools (pozos negros) or injection wells (pozos de inyección); it is of the second type when, through dilution, it results from contamination of the natural recharge (recarga natural).
Contaminating agents may be of very diverse kinds—namely, mineral; degradable organic (excreta and slurry (purinas)); poorly or non-degradable organic (pesticides, detergents, hydrocarbons); biological (bacteria, viruses, algae); radioactive; and gaseous. Aquifer contamination depends on the geological, hydraulic, and chemical conditions of each location or site, and is therefore a function of local factors—which is why knowledge of each area and the study of similar cases is required. The sources of aquifer contamination may be of very diverse kinds, including the following: a) contamination from domestic activity, which is organic and biological in nature and originates from septic tanks (tanques sépticos), leaks in the sewage network (red de alcantarillado), and the discharge of sewage (aguas negras), to which must be added the increasing use of household chemical products such as detergents; b) contamination from agricultural activities, including the use of artificial fertilizers based on nitrates, phosphates, and potash, or natural fertilizers—based on manure—, irrigation with wastewater and high-salinity water, and the use of pesticides (insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides); c) contamination from livestock farming, which is essentially organic and biological in nature, similar to domestic contamination but more intense in the case of intensive farms; d) contamination from surface water, when it recharges aquifer layers and is itself contaminated; e) contamination from saltwater intrusion (intrusión salina), which occurs when marine and saline waters penetrate coastal regions through the over-exploitation, via wells, of coastal aquifers; f) contamination from mining activities—mineral—, associated with the discharge of mine water and mineral washing operations; g) contamination from industrial activities, which is as varied as the type of industry that originates it, with particularly harmful contamination coming from heavy metals produced by the metallurgical industry, as well as from chemical, petrochemical, food-processing (organic substances), and beverage (detergents) industries; h) contamination from nuclear activities, which, although exceptional in our context, may come from irradiated fuel treatment plants, from radioactive minerals, and from medical activities; i) contamination through poorly constructed wells, which can interconnect several aquifer layers and, when they have broken or corroded casings at levels of poor-quality water, or that allow surface water to enter, can cause such contamination; j) contamination through the discharge of wastewater by means of cesspools, septic tanks, leaks in the sewage network, or indiscriminate discharge into river basins (cuencas hidrográficas); k) contamination from the disposal of solid waste, which occurs when a sanitary landfill (relleno sanitario) is built on permeable or non-waterproofed terrain, through leachate (lixiviados); l) contamination through injection wells—a form of use of the subsoil as a waste storage facility—that are poorly designed, constructed, or operated…
PROTECTION OF GROUNDWATER. Given the characteristics of the contamination of aquifer layers intended for public supply and the difficulty of their regeneration, measures to prevent contamination must be preventive and protective in nature, through the prohibition of certain human activities in specific areas or by requiring safety measures for certain potentially contaminating activities. Our legal and administrative framework (legislation, regulations, and decrees) unfortunately lacks precise, clear, and comprehensive regulation for the protection of aquifer layers, recharge zones (zonas de recarga), and catchment areas (áreas de captación) of groundwater. Foreign legislation (e.g., the Spanish Water Law 29/1985 of August 2) provides for certain extraordinary administrative powers of intervention in the water economy that directly relate to the protection of aquifer layers, with a view to achieving the sustained use (aprovechamiento sostenido) of water resources—that is, to guarantee the availability of water in sufficient quantity and at the required quality to meet present and future human and ecological needs.
These extraordinary administrative powers, which must be recognized in our legal framework—despite their lack of explicit regulation—as implicit in the express and general competence for the protection and conservation of groundwater assigned to the State and to the decentralized entities of the water sector, are grounded in the need to achieve a rational and balanced use of water. The scarcity and degradation of the natural conditions of the water resource render it administratively possible to adopt such measures to prevent the resource's exhaustion or irreversible deterioration and to temporarily overcome the harmful effects that a water crisis may generate. Such administrative measures entail various restrictions and drastic controls over the multiple uses or exploitation rights (aprovechamientos) of water—particularly general or special uses of a private nature—and over pre-existing activities that may affect the resource, insofar as they are justified by a public interest; they therefore do not affect the right to property or the integrity of assets.
In essence, such measures must be regarded as limitations in the social interest that neither hollow out the content of the right to property nor expand the public domain over groundwater without prior compensation, but rather shape its essential content; they must therefore be borne, as a general sacrifice or burden, by all users, who are, ultimately, the beneficiaries of these measures, given that they are aimed at correcting a conjunctural situation of scarcity or imminent contamination affecting the water resource economy in a given area. Such administrative intervention measures, virtually contained in Articles 32 of the Ley de Aguas of 1942 and 10 of the Reglamento de Perforación y Explotación de Aguas Subterráneas (Decreto Ejecutivo No. 30387 del 29 de abril del 2002), may include the following:
Evidently, the definition of perimeters by the national authorities—MINAE and ICAA—must be respected by local governments (Municipalidades) and INVU (given INVU's residual competence in urban planning matters in the absence of local regulatory plans), in order to make compatible, develop, and effectively reflect the conditions established in the definition of protection perimeters within the regulations contained in the respective Planes Reguladores regarding land use and territorial planning (e.g., zoning regulations (reglamento de zonificación), construction regulations, etc.). Obviously, the foregoing must also include protection around intake areas (wells (pozos)—PPP: well protection perimeters (perímetros de protección de los pozos)—springs (manantiales), springs (nacientes), etc.), by defining a surrounding zone in which certain human activities are prohibited or restricted and in which land use is regulated or controlled.
The determination of the perimeter depends on the well capture or recharge zone (zona de captura o de carga del pozo, ZOC), and its extent depends on the characteristics and properties of the intake area and the recharge terrain, since the standards cannot be the same for permeable or fissured terrain as for terrain with impermeable formations. The definition of perimeters must be combined with vulnerability or natural susceptibility mapping (cartografía de vulnerabilidad o susceptibilidad natural) of water-supply aquifer layers to anthropogenic contamination loads, based on their hydrogeological and geochemical characteristics, in the face of anthropogenic contamination problems—an objective achieved through the preparation of maps. Both measures—protection perimeters and vulnerability mapping—are well suited to enabling the timely relocation of a given type of activity or supply source, or, as a last resort, the introduction of technical methods and instruments for the treatment and disposal of contaminants.
The measures to be taken based on perimeters and vulnerability mapping vary depending on whether the situation involves: (a) an area without territorial occupation, in which case they are useful for defining which activities may or may not be established in the future; (b) areas already occupied, in which case a mapping of natural vulnerability and areas with greater susceptibility to contamination is carried out—and, in the face of a threat of a high contamination index, activities and supply sources may be relocated and technology introduced for the treatment and disposal of contaminants; (c) areas already contaminated, for which alternative sources may be sought, the spread of contamination plumes (plumas de contaminación) may be prevented, and, where feasible given the high cost involved, the aquifer water treated after extraction; (d) areas designated for new intakes, in which case potentially contaminating activities and the impact area of each must be inventoried…" To the foregoing it should be added that, in keeping with the most modern doctrine and the prevailing environmental principles, Costa Rican legislation—including the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente and the Ley de Biodiversidad, to cite only the most recent—incorporates a series of interpretive criteria, such as the preventive criterion, the precautionary or indubio pro natura criterion, the criterion of environmental public interest, and the criterion of integration. Of these, the first two are especially significant, and the following has been stated regarding them:
"…One of the guiding principles of Environmental Law is the precautionary or prudent avoidance principle (principio precautorio o de evitación prudente). This principle is enshrined in the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, or the Rio Declaration, which literally states: 'Principle 15.— In order to protect the environment, States shall apply the precautionary approach widely according to their capabilities. 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 the domestic legal order, the Ley de Biodiversidad (No. 7788 of April 30, 1998), in its Article 11, incorporates the following interpretive parameters (criterios hermenéuticos) as principles: '1.— Preventive criterion (Criterio preventivo): It is recognized that it is of vital importance to anticipate, prevent, and address the causes of biodiversity loss or the threats thereto. 2.— Precautionary or indubio pro natura criteria (Criterios precautorio o indubio pro natura): Where there is a danger or threat of serious or imminent harm to biodiversity elements and to knowledge associated with them, the absence of scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing the adoption of effective protective measures.' In Voto No. 1250-99 of this Chamber, issued at 11:24 hours on February 19, 1999 (reiterated in Votos Nos. 9773-00 of 9:44 hours on November 3, 2000, 1711-01 of 16:32 hours on February 27, 2001, and 6322-03 of 14:14 hours on July 3, 2003), this Tribunal held as follows: '(…) Prevention aims to anticipate negative effects and to ensure the protection, conservation, and proper management of resources.
Consequently, the guiding principle of prevention is grounded in the need to take and assume all precautionary measures to avoid and contain the possible impact on the environment or on human health. Thus, where a risk of serious or irreversible harm exists—or where doubt exists in this regard—a precautionary measure must be adopted and, where applicable, the activity in question must be suspended. This is because, in environmental matters, post hoc enforcement (coacción a posteriori) is ineffective: once the socially harmful biological consequences have already occurred, repression may carry moral weight, but it will rarely compensate for the damage caused to the environment.' Subsequently, in Voto No. 3480-03 of 14:02 hours on May 2, 2003, this Tribunal stated that 'Properly understood, the precautionary principle concerns the adoption of measures not in the face of ignorance of the risk-generating facts, but rather in the face of the lack of certainty that such facts will in fact produce harmful effects on the environment.' In the case of groundwater (aguas subterráneas) contained in aquifer layers and recharge and discharge areas (áreas de carga y descarga), the precautionary or indubio pro natura principle means that where no studies or reports have been conducted in accordance with the unequivocal and exact rules of science and technology that would allow a state of absolute certainty to be reached regarding the harmlessness of the activity intended to be developed on the environment, or where such studies are contradictory with one another, the bodies and organs of the central and decentralized administration must refrain from authorizing, approving, or permitting any new request or any modification request, must suspend those currently in progress until the state of doubt is resolved, and must simultaneously adopt all measures aimed at the protection and preservation of the resource in order to guarantee the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.
In essence, environmentally sound management of groundwater requires protecting the resource before contamination or degradation occurs." (Sala Constitucional, ruling (sentencia) 2004-1923, already cited).— The foregoing allows us to affirm that, in this case, a preponderant public interest is indeed at stake, manifested in the need to protect the water resource by all means available to the country and through the imposition of reasonable and pertinent measures to prevent its deterioration or contamination.— IX).— At this stage, the question is whether it is possible to provisionally allow the continuation of all or some of the extractive operations at the Tajo Pedregal, or whether, on the contrary, with a view to protecting the aquifer layers that traverse the terrain and the public interest this entails, such continuation must be denied.— The company submitted a Mining Extraction Plan (Plan de Extracción Minero), prepared by a geologist; two hydrogeological studies (Losilla & Agudelo —2001— and Rodríguez y Gómez —2001—), as well as an Environmental Management Plan (Plan de Gestión Ambiental) and its supplement, according to which, they argue, quarry (cantera) operations may be maintained without endangering the water resource involved.— The last-cited document contains a "Zoning Map of Areas According to Their Feasibility of Mineral Extraction at the Tajo Pedregal, Derived from the Hydrogeological Investigations of Rodríguez & Gómez (2001)" ("Mapa de Zonificación de áreas según su factibilidad de explotación mineral en el Tajo Pedregal, obtenido a partir de las investigaciones hidrogeológicas de Rodríguez & Gómez (2001)"), which is as follows:
Therein it states: "Zones A, E, and F: no impediments to extraction; Zones C and G: subject to additional investigation; Zone B: no impediment if a temporary additional water source is provided; Zone D: extraction not recommended" (see figure No. 3, folio 702, and explanation at folio 700, both in the precautionary measure (medida cautelar) file).— As this is a highly specialized and technical subject matter, it was decided to request a list of three expert candidates (terna de expertos) from the Colegio de Geólogos de Costa Rica, from which an expert witness (perito), a geologist specializing in hydrogeology, was appointed to review those documents and conduct an on-site study and shed light on the matter.— The appointed professional, licenciado Ernesto Echandi Echeverría, rendered his expert opinion (dictamen) in late June of last year, and stated, insofar as is relevant:
4- CONCLUSIONS:
4.1- In the area where the open-pit quarry (tajo) of mining project No. 1547 is located, there are very significant groundwater resources represented by the Colima Superior and Colima Inferior aquifers (acuíferos). At that site, the Colima Superior aquifer lies very close to the surface and gives rise to the springs (manantiales) of Puente Mulas, which are being tapped by the A y A. This same aquifer is also tapped at the Puente Mulas site through tunnels and galleries (galerías).
4.2- Many years ago it was established that the extraction of materials in the southern sector of the quarry was causing the surfacing (afloramiento) of water from the Colima Superior aquifer. Reports on this matter exist dating back to 1978, prepared by SENAS, and to 1980, prepared by Hydrogeologist Daniel Mora; however, neither the state institutions directly involved in the matter nor the competent authorities followed up on the complaints filed at that time. When the A y A became aware of the enormous quantity of water surfacing in the quarry due to the displacement of the upper cover (cubierta superior) of the aquifer, it limited itself to extracting the water by constructing the necessary infrastructure, without taking any further preventive measures.
4.3- The Colima Superior aquifer naturally exhibited high vulnerability (vulnerabilidad alta) in the San Antonio de Belén area, including the Pedregal quarry and Puente Mulas. The extraction of rocky materials from the quarry increased the degree of vulnerability by eliminating part of the natural cover (cobertura natural) of the aquifer, in addition to the probable risks introduced by any anthropogenic activity in the environment.
4.4- A very serious problem arising from the contamination of the water extracted at Puente Mulas had to occur — under circumstances that have still not been fully clarified — before awareness was raised about the existing situation at that site and corrective actions were initiated.
4.5- As a first measure, the water supply derived from Fuente Zamora, obtained from the gallery constructed in the quarry, as well as from source 3, was suspended; quarry operations were also halted. Various research works were carried out, including the hydrogeological studies (estudios hidrogeológicos) by Losilla & Agudelo and by Rodríguez y Gómez. Both works rigorously adhere to the scientific method, are highly accurate and thorough, and make it possible to identify the hydrogeological conditions that prevail in the area between the Pedregal quarry and Puente Mulas. They also explain in detail the reasons why water surfaced artificially in the quarry, and the high vulnerability presented by the Colima Superior aquifer in that area. The recommendations arising from both works should be fully complied with, particularly if the possibility of continuing quarry operations is being considered.
4.6. I consider the Environmental Management Plan (Plan de Gestión Ambiental) prepared by Dr. Allan Astorga Gatgens to be highly sound in most of its content. In fact, with regard to the protection of the water resource (recurso hídrico), it adopts the recommendations arising from the studies by professionals Losilla & Agudelo and Rodríguez y Gómez, which are:
· Seal the floor of the quarry over the area of influence of the Fuente Zamora infiltration gallery (galería de infiltración) with an impermeable material that guarantees no infiltration of rainwater or ponding (encharcamientos) over that area, as shown on the map in figure Nº4: Vulnerability zones for the PM water intakes (captaciones). The sealing material may be a high-density geotextile material (material geotextil de alta densidad) and/or a concrete slab on a base of compacted clay material.
· Pipe or channel in concrete all runoff (aguas de escorrentía) that reaches and flows over the floor of the quarry. The floor of the quarry must be properly graded to prevent ponding of water and any other liquid. The grading must direct runoff or accidental spills to concrete drainage channels (cunetas de concreto) that convey the water to one or two discharge points into the Río Virilla. These river discharge points must be constructed through a structure that dissipates the hydraulic energy of the water and prevents erosion of the riverbank and channel.
· It must be guaranteed that all industrial-process and domestic activities (including blackwater and greywater [aguas negras y servidas]) carried out in the quarry do not generate solid or liquid waste that comes into contact with the area of influence of the Fuente Zamora infiltration gallery water intake. If this cannot be guaranteed, the activity must be relocated outside the area of influence delineated in figure Nº4.
· No domestic or industrial polluting activity shall be located at the NW corner of the quarry yard, at the base of the new extraction face, where the local flow network shown in figure Nº12 indicates the existence of a groundwater flow direction toward the PM water intakes.
· The West channel that discharges the groundwater surfacing at the central and eastern extraction faces of the quarry must be protected, and no service activity (loading or unloading water from tanker trucks), industrial process activity, or domestic activity shall be carried out within a 10 m strip from the edge of its channel, up to approximately 50 m before its discharge into the Río Virilla, from which point it must be piped for discharge into the river through an appropriate hydraulic energy dissipation structure. It must be guaranteed that runoff does not reach the groundwater discharge channel. The groundwater discharging into the channel could subsequently be tapped for human consumption.
· Study and design a protective barrier and dike for the slope (talud) of the right bank of the Río Virilla on the eastern side of the quarry yard, to prevent erosion of the river slope and flooding of the eastern sector of the yard during Río Virilla flood events. The height of this barrier/dike must reach at least elevation 876 m snm, in anticipation of an extraordinary flood event (avenida extraordinaria) on the river that could contaminate, through underground pathways, the Fuente Zamora infiltration gallery and the new groundwater outcroppings at the eastern extraction face of the quarry.
· All of these works must be supported by hydrogeological, hydrological, and geological studies and must have design plans prior to their construction. They must not be improvised.
· The waters from the Fuente Zamora infiltration gallery must be monitored for quality and quantity, and must be treated (disinfection and filtration to retain/absorb other possible toxic substances) independently of the other sources at the PM pumping station.
· The collection tank of the Fuente Zamora gallery and its access must be restricted and protected.
· The wells of the piezometer network (red de piezómetros) that have been constructed must be [equipped] with a small cement well cap (brocal) and cover, to prevent the entry of runoff and other substances that could contaminate the aquifer and to enable their use in subsequent studies; or they must be filled with fine sand when they are no longer needed.
4.7- Upon evaluating the information relating to the Extraction Plan prepared by Geologist Emilio Garro Rojas, as well as the technical document prepared by Dr. Allan Astorga Gatgens (2003), entitled Complementación Ambiental del Plan de Extracción del Tajo Pedregal, I find that a phased extraction is proposed, beginning with the extraction of blocks A, E, and F, and that in the remaining cases, detailed hydrogeological studies will be developed to exclude or include other blocks as conclusions are reached. However, I consider and recommend the following:
First: In accordance with my professional judgment, it is possible to operate the quarry without risk of damage to the water resource, provided that the recommendations arising from the hydrogeological studies by Losilla & Agudelo and Rodríguez Gómez are rigorously applied from the outset in the continuation of quarry extraction works.
Second: For each extraction site proposed by Rodríguez y Gómez, a detailed study must be conducted relating to the hydrogeological conditions indicated by the Losilla & Agudelo study, taking into account, among other aspects, the depth of the water table (nivel freático), the direction of the flow lines (líneas de flujo), and the risks of affecting water quality, so as to guarantee permanent protection of the water resource with respect to the water intakes maintained by the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados at Puente Mulas.
The Tribunal finds that report to be credible, both because it comes from a qualified expert in the field and because the expert was able to personally explain his observations during the judicial inspection (reconocimiento judicial) conducted in these proceedings, as recorded in the video prepared for that purpose, a copy of which is in the possession of each of the parties and to the content of which they were also able to refer in due course.- The expert witness's (perito) findings are, furthermore, supported by recently conducted hydrogeological studies by other professionals in the field, and therefore do constitute a sufficient technical and scientific basis for deciding the matter raised.- It is the view of the Court (Despacho) that if the conditions established in those studies, together with the recommendations of licenciado Echandi, are fully complied with, it is indeed possible to grant, at least in part, the precautionary measure (cautelar) requested, as explained below..- X).- Based on the zoning (zonificación) indicated in the preceding Considerando, it is noted that risk-free exploitation of the aquifer — according to the studies in the record — could only occur in the areas designated as A, E, and F; however, this body considers that, for greater security and for the purposes of this measure, it must be taken into account that extraction works must occur as far as possible from the groundwater surfacing and from Fuente Zamora, and also at the greatest possible distance from the bank of the Río Virilla.
Accordingly, the works shall be limited exclusively to the Western Sector zone of the concession, designated as "F", and in accordance with the Plans and studies indicated.- As expressed by the plaintiffs themselves, "… the effectiveness of the precautionary measure is subject, in the public interest, to the following conditions: i. Compliance with the Environmental Management Plan voluntarily designed by the plaintiffs (ASTORGA 2003); ii. Compliance with the Mining Extraction Plan presented by the plaintiff, Productos Pedregal S.A. (Garro 2002)."- The plaintiffs must unreservedly allow access to their facilities by officials from the Directorate of Geology and Mines (Dirección de Geología y Minas) or any other Office of the Ministry of Environment and Energy, from SENARA, and from the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, for the purpose of verifying compliance with the conditions indicated; and those officials, in the event of non-compliance with any of the conditions set forth herein, must duly report such non-compliance to the Tribunal, so that the appropriate determination may be made regarding the said activity.- The company must also submit to those bodies a monthly report on the progress of the works being carried out, in order to prevent any risk of contamination.- It is additionally clarified that the commencement of any work is subject not only to compliance with what has already been indicated, but also to the existence of operating permits from the Ministry of Health (Ministerio de Salud), in accordance with the applicable health legislation.-
POR TANTO:
The request for a preliminary injunction (medida cautelar) filed by the plaintiffs is hereby partially granted. The enforcement of the resolutions issued by the Dirección de Geología y Minas, Registro Nacional Minero, numbers 590 of fifteen hours thirty minutes on August 3, 2001 —insofar as it ordered the suspension of all activity on the lands of mining concession Nº1547— and 451 of thirteen hours ten minutes on July 16, 2002 —which cancelled that concession— is hereby suspended, as are any resolutions dependent upon them. The concession holder is authorized to carry out extraction works on the property, exclusively within "Zona F" of the Sector Oeste, as shown in the "Zoning Map of Areas According to Mineral Extraction Feasibility at Tajo Pedregal, Derived from the Hydrogeological Investigations of RODRÍGUEZ & GÓMEZ (2001)," provided that such works are carried out in strict accordance with the hydrogeological studies by Losilla & Agudelo (2001), Rodríguez & Gómez (2001), the "Plan de Extracción Minero" (Garro 2002), and the "Plan de Gestión Ambiental y su Complementación" Astorga (2003), and with the following provisions, which the companies shall comply with at their own expense in protection of the water resource (recurso hídrico):
Additionally, the companies must unconditionally permit access by officials of the Dirección de Geología y Minas or any other office of the Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía, of the Servicio de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento (SENARA), and of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, to all of their facilities, at any time, in order to verify compliance with the conditions set forth herein; and those officials, in the event of non-compliance with any of them, shall duly notify the Tribunal, setting forth the grounds, so that appropriate action may be determined with respect to the indicated activity. The plaintiffs must also submit to those entities a monthly report on the progress of the activities being carried out, in order to prevent any risk of contamination. Finally, it is clarified that the commencement of any work is subject not only to compliance with what has already been set forth herein, but also to the existence of operating permits issued by the Ministerio de Salud in accordance with applicable health legislation, and that what is ordered herein is without prejudice to the general powers conferred by national legislation upon all entities and bodies responsible for overseeing the protection of the Nation's environmental resources.
This resolution shall be notified to the parties and communicated in full to the Minister of Environment and Energy, to SETENA, to the Dirección de Geología y Minas, Registro Nacional Minero, to the Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento (SENARA), and to the Executive President of ICAA.
Sonia Ferrero Aymerich Cristina Víquez Cerdas Hubert Fernández Argüello Preliminary Injunction Incident Productos Pedregal S.A. v. El Estado Aartavia
-2001 N°474-2005 TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO. SECCIÓN SEGUNDA. II CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ. Goicoechea, a las once horas veinte minutos del doce de octubre del dos mil cinco.- Medida cautelar, solicitada por las actoras dentro del proceso ordinario minero de "Productos Pedregal, Sociedad Anónima" y otras, representadas por su apoderado generalísimo sin límite de suma, Rafael Angel Zamora Fernández, empresario, vecino de San Antonio de Belén cédula 1-563-370, contra el Estado, representado por el Procurador General Adjunto Julio Jurado Fernández, vecino de San José, cédula 1-501-905.- Como apoderado especial judicial de las actoras figura el licenciado Aldo Milano Sánchez, vecino de Montes de Oca cédula 1-688-989.- Las personas citadas son mayores, casadas y con la excepción dicha abogados.-
RESULTANDO:
Redacta el Juez Fernández Argüello; y
CONSIDERANDO:
I).- Para la resolución de esta medida cautelar, se tiene como debidamente acreditado lo siguiente:
… PROTECCIÓN DE LAS AGUAS SUBTERRÁNEAS. Por las características de la contaminación de los mantos acuíferos destinados al abastecimiento público y su difícil regeneración, las medidas para evitar la contaminación deben ser preventivas y protectoras, mediante la prohibición de ciertas actividades humanas en determinadas zonas u ordenando medidas de seguridad sobre ciertas actividades potencialmente contaminantes. Nuestro ordenamiento jurídico-administrativo (legislación, reglamentos y decretos) carece, lamentablemente, de una regulación precisa, clara y completa para la protección de los mantos acuíferos, zonas de recarga y áreas de captación de aguas subterráneas. En la legislación extranjera (v. gr. Ley de Aguas española 29/1985 del 2 de agosto) se prevén algunas potestades extraordinarias de intervención administrativa en la economía del agua que atañen directamente a la protección de los mantos acuíferos, en aras de lograr un aprovechamiento sostenido de los recursos hídricos, esto es, para garantizar una disponibilidad de agua en cantidad suficiente y calidad requerida para atender la necesidades humanas y ecológicas presentes y futuras.
Estas potestades administrativas extraordinarias, que deben ser admitidas en nuestro ordenamiento jurídico -pese a su falta de regulación- como implícitas en la competencia expresa y general de protección y conservación de las aguas subterráneas que tienen atribuidas el Estado y los entes descentralizados del sector hídrico, tienen sustento en la necesidad de lograr una utilización racional y equilibrada del agua. La escasez y degradación de las condiciones naturales del recurso hídrico imponen la posibilidad administrativa de adoptar tales medidas para evitar su agotamiento o deterioro irreversible y de superar, temporalmente, los efectos nocivos que pueda generar una crisis hídrica. Este tipo de medidas administrativas suponen diversas restricciones y controles drásticos sobre los múltiples usos o aprovechamientos de agua –en especial los generales o especiales de carácter privado- y sobre las actividades preexistentes que puedan afectar el recurso en cuanto se justifican en un interés público, por lo que no afectan el derecho de propiedad o la integridad del patrimonio.
En esencia, tales medidas deben ser reputadas como limitaciones de interés social que no vacían de contenido el derecho de propiedad o amplían el dominio público sobre las aguas subterráneas sin previa indemnización sino que moldean su contenido esencial por lo que deben ser soportadas, al tratarse de un sacrificio o una carga general, por todos los usuarios, los que, en último término, son los beneficiarios de éstas, en tanto están orientadas a corregir una situación coyuntural de carestía o contaminación inminente que afecta la economía del recurso hídrico en una zona determinada. Tales medidas administrativas de intervención, virtualmente contenidas en los artículos 32 de la Ley de Aguas de 1942 y 10° del Reglamento de Perforación y Explotación de Aguas Subterráneas (Decreto Ejecutivo No. 30387 del 29 de abril del 2002), pueden ser las siguientes:
Evidentemente, la definición de perímetros por las autoridades nacionales –MINAE e ICAA- debe ser respetada por los gobiernos locales (Municipalidades) y el INVU (dada su competencia residual en materia de planificación urbana en ausencia de planes reguladores 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 (v. gr. reglamento de zonificación, de construcciones, etc.). Obviamente, a lo anterior debe añadirse la protección alrededor de las áreas de captación (pozos -PPP: perímetros de protección de los pozos-, manantiales, nacientes, etc.-), mediante la definición de una zona alrededor en la que se prohíban o limiten determinadas actividades humanas regulándose o controlándose el uso del suelo.
La determinación del perímetro depende de la zona de captura o de carga del pozo (ZOC) y su extensión depende de las características y propiedades del área de captación y del terreno de recarga, puesto que, las normas no pueden ser iguales para el caso de terrenos permeables o fisurados que para los que tengan formaciones impermeables. La definición de perímetros debe conjugarse con la cartografía de vulnerabilidad o susceptibilidad natural de los mantos acuíferos de abastecimiento a las cargas de contaminación antrópica, en función de sus características hidrogeológicas y geoquímicas, ante problemas de contaminación antropogénica, lo que se logra mediante el levantado de mapas. Sendas medidas, perímetros de protección y la cartografía de vulnerabilidad son idóneas para poder reubicar a tiempo un determinado tipo de actividad, la fuente de abastecimiento o, en último término, introducir métodos e instrumentos técnicos para el tratamiento y disposición de los agentes contaminantes.
Las medidas a tomar a partir de los perímetros y cartografía de vulnerabilidad varían según se trate de una (a) área sin ocupación territorial, siendo útil para definir las actividades que en el futuro puedan instalarse o no; (b) áreas ya ocupadas, en cuyo caso se efectúa un mapeo de la vulnerabilidad natural y de las áreas con mayor susceptibilidad a la contaminación, pudiéndose, ante la amenaza de un índice elevado de contaminación, reubicar las actividades, las fuentes de abastecimiento e introducir tecnología para el tratamiento y disposición de contaminantes; (c) áreas ya contaminadas, para lo cual se podrán buscar fuentes alternas, evitar la propagación de las plumas de contaminación y, de ser posible, por su elevado costo, tratar las aguas del acuífero después de su extracción; (d) áreas para nuevas captaciones, supuesto en el cual se debe inventariar las actividades potencialmente contaminantes y el área de impacto de cada una de éstas…" A lo anterior cabe agregar, que a tono con la más moderna doctrina y los principios ambientales en boga, la legislación costarricense -entre las que están la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente y la Ley de Biodiversidad, por citar sólo las más recientes-, recoge una serie de criterios de interpretación, como el preventivo, el precautorio o indubio pro natura, el del interés público ambiental, y el de integración. De ellos, resultan especialmente significativos los dos primeros, y sobre los cuales se ha indicado lo siguiente:
"…Uno de los principios rectores del Derecho Ambiental lo constituye el precautorio o de evitación prudente. Este principio se encuentra recogido en la Conferencia de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Medio Ambiente y el Desarrollo o Declaración de Río, la cual literalmente indica “Principio 15.- Con el fin de proteger el medio ambiente, los Estados deberán aplicar ampliamente el criterio de precaución conforme a sus capacidades. 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”. En el ordenamiento jurídico interno la Ley de Biodiversidad (No. 7788 del 30 de abril de 1998), en su artículo 11 recoge como parámetros hermenéuticos los siguientes principios: “1.- Criterio preventivo: Se reconoce que es de vital importancia anticipar, prevenir y atacar las causas de la pérdida de biodiversidad o sus amenazas. 2.- Criterios precautorio o indubio pro natura: Cuando exista peligro o amenaza de daños graves o inminentes a los elementos de la biodiversidad y al conocimiento asociado con estos, la ausencia de certeza científica no deberá utilizarse como razón para postergar la adopción de medidas eficaces de protección”.
En el Voto de esta Sala No. 1250-99 de las 11:24 horas del 19 de febrero de 1999 (reiterado en los Votos Nos. 9773-00 de las 9:44 horas del 3 de noviembre del 2000, 1711-01 de las 16:32 horas del 27 de febrero del 2001 y 6322-03 de las 14:14 horas del 3 de julio del 2003) este Tribunal estimó lo siguiente: “(...) La prevención pretende anticiparse a los efectos negativos, y asegurar la protección, conservación y adecuada gestión de los recursos. Consecuentemente, el principio rector de prevención se fundamenta en la necesidad de tomar y asumir todas las medidas precautorias para evitar contener la posible afectación del ambiente o la salud de las personas. De esta forma, en caso de que exista un riesgo de daño grave o irreversible –o una duda al respecto-, se debe adoptar una medida de precaución e inclusive posponer la actividad de que se trate. Lo anterior debido a que en materia ambiental la coacción a posteriori resulta ineficaz, por cuanto de haberse producido ya las consecuencias biológicas socialmente nocivas, la represión podrá tener una trascendencia moral, pero difícilmente compensará los daños ocasionados en el ambiente”.
Posteriormente, en el Voto No. 3480-03 de las 14:02 horas del 2 de mayo del 2003, este Tribunal indicó que “Bien entendido el principio precautorio, el mismo se refiere a la adopción de medidas no ante el desconocimiento de hechos generadores de riesgo, sino ante la carencia de certeza respecto de que tales hechos efectivamente producirán efectos nocivos en el ambiente”. Para el caso de las aguas subterráneas contenidas en los mantos acuíferos y áreas de carga y descarga, el principio precautorio o de indubio pro natura, supone que cuando no existan estudios o informes efectuados conforme a las regla unívocas y de aplicación exacta de la ciencia y de la técnica que permitan arribar a un estado de certeza absoluta acerca de la inocuidad de la actividad que se pretende desarrollar sobre el medio ambiente o éstos sean contradictorios entre sí, los entes y órganos de la administración central y descentralizada deben abstenerse de autorizar, aprobar o permitir toda solicitud nueva o de modificación, suspender las que estén en curso hasta que se despeje el estado dubitativo y, paralelamente, adoptar todas las medidas tendientes a su protección y preservación con el objeto de garantizar el derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado.
En esencia, una gestión ambiental segura de las aguas subterráneas pasa por proteger el recurso antes de su contaminación o degradación" (Sala Constitucional, sentencia 2004-1923, ya citada).- Lo expuesto permite afirmar que en la especie, sí está de por medio un interés público preponderante, que se manifiesta en la necesidad de proteger el recurso hídrico, con todos los medio al alcance del país, y mediante la imposición de medidas razonables y pertinentes para evitar su deterioro o contaminación.- IX).- A estas alturas, la cuestión radica en determinar si es posible permitir cautelarmente, la continuación de todas o algunas de las labores extractivas en el Tajo Pedregal, o si por el contrario, con vistas a la protección de los mantos acuíferos que atraviesan el terreno y el interés público que ello encierra, debe denegarse.- La empresa presentó un Plan de Extracción Minero, elaborado por un geólogo; dos estudios hidrogeológicos (Losilla & Agudelo -2001- y Rodríguez y Gómez -2001), así como un "Plan de Gestión Ambiental" y su complementación, conforme a los cuales, señalan, se pueden mantener la explotación de la cantera, sin peligro para el recurso hídrico involucrado.- El último documento que se citó, contiene un "Mapa de Zonificación de áreas según su factibilidad de investigaciones hidrogeológicas de Rodríguez & Gómez (2001)", que es el siguiente:
Allí se indica que: "Zonas A, E y F sin inconvenientes para la explotación, Zonas C y G- Sujeta a investigación adicional; Zona B Sin inconveniente si se brinda fuente adicional de agua temporalmente; Zona D No se recomienda la explotación" (ver figura N º 3, folio 702 y explicación a folio 700, ambos de la medida cautelar).- Por tratarse de una materia altamente especializada y técnica, se optó por solicitar una terna de expertos al Colegio de Geólogos de Costa Rica, y de ella, se designó como perito, a un geólogo especialista en hidrogeología, para que con vista de esos documentos y del estudio del lugar, diera luz al respecto.- El profesional nombrado, licenciado Ernesto Echandi Echeverría, rindió su dictamen a finales de junio pasado, y en lo que interesa dijo:
"4- CONCLUSIONES: 4.1- En la zona donde se ubica el tajo del proyecto minero No. 1547 existen recursos de agua subterránea muy importante representados por los acuíferos Colima Superior y Colima Inferior. En ese sitio, el acuífero Colima Superior se encuentra muy cerca de la superficie y da origen a los manantiales de Puente Mulas, los que están siendo captados por el A y A. Este mismo acuífero es captado también en el sitio Puente Mulas, por medio de túneles y galerías. 4.2- Desde hace muchos años se comprobó que la extracción de materiales en el sector sur del tajo, estaba provocando el afloramiento del agua del acuífero Colima Superior. Existen informes al respecto desde el año 1978 realizados por SENAS y en el año 1980 por el Hidrogeólogo Daniel Mora, sin embargo, ni las instituciones estatales directamente involucradas en la problemática, ni las autoridades competentes, dieron seguimiento a las denuncias formuladas en esos momentos.
El A y A cuando se percató de la cantidad enorme de agua que afloraba en el tajo debido al desplazamiento de la cubierta superior del acuífero, se limitó a explotar el agua construyendo la infraestructura necesaria, pero sin tomar otras medidas de prevención futuras. 4.3- El acuífero Colima Superior mostraba naturalmente una vulnerabilidad alta en la zona de San Antonio de Belén, incluyendo el tajo Pedregal y Puente Mulas. La explotación de materiales rocosos desde el tajo, aumentó el grado de vulnerabilidad al eliminar parte de la cobertura natural del acuífero, además de los probables riesgos que aporta cualquier actividad antropogénica en el medio. 4.4- Debió de ocurrir un problema muy serio derivado por la contaminación del agua que se explota en Puente Mulas, bajo circunstancias que aún no están totalmente aclaradas, para que se tomara conciencia sobre la problemática existente en ese sitio y se iniciaran las acciones correctivas. 4.5- Como primera medida se suspendió el suministro de agua derivado de la Fuente Zamora obtenida de la galería construida en el tajo así como de la fuente 3; además se detuvo la explotación del tajo.
Además se realizaron diversos trabajos de investigación, que incluyeron los estudios hidrogeológicos de Losilla & Agudelo y de Rodríguez y Gómez. Los dos trabajos se apegan con rigurosidad al método científico, son muy acertados y completos, y permiten identificar las condiciones hidrogeológicas que prevalecen en la zona comprendida entre el tajo de Pedregal y Puente Mulas. Además explican con detalle las causas por las que afloró de manera artificial el agua en el tajo, y la alta vulnerabilidad que presenta el acuífero Colima Superior en esa zona. Las recomendaciones emanadas de ambos trabajos deberían de ser cumplidas en su totalidad, máxime si se considera la posibilidad de continuar con la explotación del tajo. 4.6. El Plan de Gestión Ambiental elaborado por el Dr. Allan Astorga Gatgens lo considero como muy acertado en la mayor parte de su contenido. De hecho, en lo que a la protección del recurso hídrico se refiere, acepta las recomendaciones emanadas de los estudios de los profesionales Losilla & Agudelo y Rodríguez y Gómez que son · Aislar el piso del tajo sobre el área de influencia de la galería de infiltración de Fuente Zamora con algún material impermeable que garantice la no infiltración de aguas de lluvia o encharcamientos sobre esa área mostradoa en el mapa de la figura Nº4: Zonas de vulnerabilidad a las captaciones de PM.
El material aislante puede ser un material geotextil de alta densidad y/o planche de concreto sobre una base de material arcilloso compactado. · Entubar o canalizar en concreto todas las aguas de escorrentía que lleguen y corran sobre el piso del tajo. El piso del tajo debe nivelarse adecuadamente para evitar encharcamientos de agua y cualquier otro líquido. La nivelación debe conducir las aguas de escorrentía o de derrames accidentales a cunetas de concreto que conduzcan el agua a uno o dos sitios de descarga al río Virilla. Éstos sitios de descarga al río deben hacerse a través de una estructura que disipe la energía hidráulica del agua y evite la erosión de la margen y cauce del río. · Debe garantizarse que todas las actividades de proceso y domésticas (aguas negras y servidas) que se utilizan en el tajo no produzcan desechos sólidos ni líquidos que estén en contacto con el área de influencia de captación de aguas de la galería de infiltración de Fuente Zamora.
Si esto no se puede garantizar, la actividad deberá trasladarse fuera del área de influencia delimitada en la figura Nº4. · Ninguna actividad contaminante doméstica o industrial debe ubicarse en la esquina NO del patio del tajo, en la base del nuevo frente de explotación, donde hay indicios por la red de flujos local de la figura Nº12, que existe una dirección de flujo de aguas subterráneas hacia las captaciones de PM. · El canal Oeste que descarga las aguas subterráneas que afloran en el frente de explotación central y Este del tajo, deben protegerse, y ninguna actividad de servicios (cargar o descargar agua de camiones cisterna), proceso industrial o doméstica debe hacerse en una franja de 10 m del borde de su cauce, hasta unos 50 m antes de su descarga en el río Virilla, a partir de donde debe entubarse para su descarga al río a través de una estructura disipadora de energía hidráulica adecuada.
Debe garantizarse que las aguas de escorrentía no lleguen al canal de descarga de aguas subterráneas. Las aguas subterráneas que descargan al canal podrían captarse posteriormente para su uso en consumo humano. · Estudiar y diseñar un escudo y dique protector del talud de la margen derecha del río Virilla al lado Este del patio del tajo para evitar la erosión del talud del río y la inundación del sector Este del patio durante las crecidas del río Virilla. La altura de este escudo / dique, debe ser al menos hasta la cota 876 m snm, pensando en una avenida extraordinaria del río que pueda contaminar subterráneamente la galería de infiltración de Fuente Zamora y los nuevos afloramientos en el frente de Todas estas obras deben tener estudios hidrogeológicos, hidrológicos y geológicos y tener planos de diseño antes de su construcción. No deben improvisarse. · Las aguas de la galería de infiltración de la Fuente Zamora deben monitorearse en calidad y cantidad, así como tratarse (desinfección y filtrado para retener /absorber otras posibles sustancias tóxicas) en forma independiente de las demás fuentes de la estación de bombeo de PM. · El tanque de captación de la galería de Fuente Zamora y su acceso debe ser restringido y protegido. · Los pozos de la red de piezómetros ejecutados deben ser idos con la construcción de un pequeño brocal de cemento y tapa, para evitar la entrada de agua de escorrentía y otra sustancias que puedan contaminar el acuífero y para su uso en estudios posteriores; o deben ser rellenados con arena fina cuando estos ya no sean necesarios. 4.7- Al evaluar la información relativa al Plan de extracción preparado por el Geólogo Emilio Garro Rojas, así como el documento técnico preparado por el Dr. Allan Astorga Gatgens (2003), llamado Complementación Ambiental del Plan de Extracción del Tajo Pedregal, compruebo que se propone una explotación por etapas, explotando al inicio los bloques A, E, y F y que en los demás casos, se irá desarrollando estudios hidrogeológicos detallados para descartar o incluir otros bloques, según se vaya concluyendo.
No obstante considero y recomiendo lo siguiente: Primero: Conforme a mi criterio profesional, es posible explotar el tajo sin riesgo de daño al recurso hídrico, siempre y cuando en la continuación de los trabajos de explotación del tajo se apliquen rigurosamente y desde el inicio las recomendaciones emanadas de los estudios hidrogeológicos de Losilla & Agudelo y Rodríguez Gómez. Segundo: Para cada sitio de extracción propuesto por Rodríguez y Gómez, se debe de efectuar un estudio detallado relacionado con las condiciones hidrogeológicas que señala el estudio de Losilla & Agudelo, considerando entre otros aspectos la profundidad del nivel freático, la dirección de las líneas de flujo y los riesgos de afección de la calidad del agua, de manera que se garantice una protección permanente del recurso hídrico con relación a las captaciones que mantiene el Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados en Puente Mulas" Al Tribunal le merece fe ese informe, por provenir de un experto calificado en la materia, y además, porque éste pudo explicar personalmente sus observaciones durante el reconocimiento judicial efectuado en autos, tal y como consta en el vídeo que se elaboró al efecto, cuya copia se encuentra en poder de cada una de las partes, y a cuyo contenido pudieron referirse también en su oportunidad.- Las apreciaciones del perito, además, están respaldadas por estudios hidrogeológicos de data reciente, efectuados por otros profesionales del ramo, de manera que sí constituyen un sustento técnico y científico suficiente, para decidir la cuestión planteada.- Es criterio del Despacho, que si se cumplen a cabalidad las condiciones establecidas en tales estudios, más las recomendaciones del licenciado Echandi, sí es posible conceder, al menos en parte, la cautelar pedida, según se explica de seguido..- X).- Partiendo de la zonificación indicada en el Considerando anterior, se advierte que la los estudios que constan en autos-, sólo podría darse en las zonas designadas como A, E y F, pero este órgano estima que para mayor seguridad, y para los efectos de esta medida, debe tomarse en cuenta que las labores de extracción deben darse lo más lejos posible del afloramiento y de la Fuente Zamora, y además, a la mayor distancia de la margen del Río Virilla.
Con lo cual, los trabajos deberán reducirse a la zona del Sector Oeste de la concesión, denominada como "F", únicamente, y de acuerdo con los Planes y estudios indicados.- Tal y como lo la eficacia de la cautelar queda sujeta, en beneficio del interés público, a las siguientes condiciones: i. El cumplimiento del Plan de Gestión Ambiental que de forma voluntaria diseñaron las actoras (ASTORGA 2003); ii. El cumplimiento del Plan de Extracción minero planteado por la actora, Productos Pedregal.S.A. (Garro 2002)".- Las accionantes deberán permitir de forma irrestricta, el acceso a los funcionarios de la Dirección de Geología y Minas o cualesquiera otra Oficina del Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía, del Servicio de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento (SENARA) y del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, a sus instalaciones, a fin de verificar el respeto de las condiciones indicadas, y quienes en caso de incumplimiento de cualesquiera de las condiciones aquí previstas, deberán hacerlo saber fundadamente al Tribunal, para determinar lo que corresponda respecto de la actividad indicada.- La empresa deberá además, rendir a esos órganos, un informe mensual sobre el avance de los trabajos que se lleven a cabo, a fin de prevenir cualquier riesgo de contaminación.- Adicionalmente se aclara que el inicio de cualquier labor queda sujeto no sólo al cumplimiento de lo ya indicado, sino también a la existencia de los permisos de funcionamiento del Ministerio de Salud, conforme a la legislación sanitaria correspondiente.-
POR TANTO:
Se declara parcialmente con lugar la solicitud de medida cautelar interpuesta por las demandantes.- Se suspende la ejecución de las resoluciones de la Dirección de Geología y Minas, Registro Nacional Minero, números 590 de las quince horas treinta minutos del tres de agosto de dos mil uno -en cuanto ordenó la paralización de toda actividad en los terrenos de la concesión minera Nº1547-, y 451 de las trece horas diez minutos del dieciséis de julio del dos mil dos -que canceló esa concesión-, así como las que de ellas dependen.- Se autoriza a la concesionaria para realizar labores de extracción en el inmueble, únicamente en la "Zona F" del Sector Oeste, según consta en el "Mapa de Zonificación de áreas según factibilidad de explotación mineral en el Tajo Pedregal, obtenido a partir de las investigaciones hidrogeológicas de RODRÍGUEZ & GÓMEZ (2001)", siempre y cuando ello se haga con absoluto arreglo a los estudios hidrogeológicos de Losilla & Agudelo (2001), Rodríguez & Gómez (2001), "Plan de Extracción Minero" (Garro 2002), y el "Plan de Gestión Ambiental y su Complementación" Astorga (2003), y las siguientes disposiciones, que deberán cumplir por su cuenta las empresas, en protección del recurso hídrico:
Adicionalmente, las empresas deberán permitir de forma irrestricta, el acceso a los funcionarios de la Dirección de Geología y Minas o cualesquiera otra Oficina del Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía, del Servicio de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento (SENARA) y del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, a todas sus instalaciones, en cualquier momento, a fin de verificar el respeto de las condiciones indicadas, y quienes en caso de incumplimiento de cualesquiera de ellas, deberán hacerlo saber fundadamente al Tribunal, para determinar lo que corresponda respecto de la actividad indicada.- Deberán las demandantes, además, rendir a esos órganos, un informe mensual sobre el avance de las actividades que se lleven a cabo, a fin de prevenir cualquier riesgo de contaminación.- Finalmente, se aclara, que el inicio de cualquier labor queda sujeto no sólo al cumplimiento de lo ya indicado, sino también a la existencia de los permisos de funcionamiento del Ministerio de Salud, conforme a la legislación sanitaria correspondiente y que lo aquí dispuesto es sin perjuicio de las potestades generales que confiere la legislación nacional a todas las entidades y órganos encargados de velar por la protección de los recursos ambientales de la Nación.- Notifíquese esta resolución a las partes y comuníquese íntegramente al Ministro de Ambiente y Energía, a la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental (SETENA), a la Dirección de Geología y Minas, Registro Nacional Minero, al Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento (SENARA) y al Presidente Ejecutivo del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados (ICAA).- Sonia Ferrero Aymerich Cristina Víquez Cerdas Hubert Fernández Argüello Incidente de Medida Cautelar Productos Pedregal S.A. c/ El Estado Aartavia
Document not found. Documento no encontrado.