← Environmental Law Center← Centro de Derecho Ambiental
Res. 00054-2014 Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección V · Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección V · 29/07/2014
OutcomeResultado
The claim for absolute nullity against Resolution R-196-2007-MINAE is dismissed; the lack-of-right defense is upheld.Se rechaza la demanda de nulidad absoluta contra la resolución R-196-2007-MINAE; se acoge la falta de derecho.
SummaryResumen
The Administrative Litigation Court, Section V, adjudged an ordinary proceeding regarding the lawfulness of Resolution No. R-196-2007-MINAE, by which the Ministry of Environment and Energy revoked a prior resolution (No. 430-2006-MINAE) that had annulled the environmental viability of the Monteverde Irrigation Project, originally granted in 2003. The plaintiff, a Monteverde resident, sought absolute nullity of the revocatory resolution, alleging it was improper due to exhaustion of administrative remedies, absence of new facts, deviation of power, and omission of the Comptroller's opinion, while also arguing the project caused significant environmental impact by being located in a wildlife refuge and protected areas. The Court rejected the defenses of expiration, prescription, and unchallengeable act. On the merits, it held that the revocation was lawful because it relied on new technical criteria from MINAE, SINAC, and the Environmental Administrative Tribunal—issued after the annulling resolution—demonstrating that the private refuge Curi Cancha was no longer in force, the works were outside the Arenal-Monteverde Protective Zone, and the water concession caused no harm to the water regime. The plaintiff failed to rebut these technical reports with objective evidence. The Court dismissed the claim, upheld the lack-of-right defense, but exempted the plaintiff from paying costs due to sufficient reason to litigate.El Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección V resolvió un proceso ordinario sobre la legalidad de la resolución N° R-196-2007-MINAE, mediante la cual el Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía revocó una resolución anterior (N° 430-2006-MINAE) que había anulado la viabilidad ambiental del Proyecto de Riego Monteverde, otorgada originalmente en 2003. La demandante, un vecino de Monteverde, solicitó la nulidad absoluta de la resolución revocatoria, alegando que era improcedente por agotamiento de la vía administrativa, falta de nuevos hechos, desviación de poder y omisión del dictamen de la Contraloría, además de sostener que el proyecto causaba un impacto ambiental significativo al ubicarse en un refugio de vida silvestre y zonas protegidas. El Tribunal rechazó las defensas de caducidad, prescripción y acto no impugnable. En el fondo, determinó que la revocación se ajustó a derecho porque se basó en nuevos criterios técnicos emitidos por dependencias del MINAE, el SINAC y el Tribunal Ambiental Administrativo, posteriores a la resolución anulatoria, que demostraron que el refugio privado Curi Cancha ya no estaba vigente, que las obras no se ubicaban en la Zona Protectora Arenal-Monteverde y que la concesión de agua no causaba daño al régimen hídrico. La parte actora no logró desvirtuar estos informes técnicos con prueba objetiva. El Tribunal declaró sin lugar la demanda, acogió la falta de derecho, pero exoneró a la actora del pago de costas por existir motivo suficiente para litigar.
Key excerptExtracto clave
In accordance with the foregoing, the Court considers that the challenged administrative act was issued in exercise of the revocation power established in the General Public Administration Law, under the presuppositions set out in the legal system, not only because new facts arose that were not considered when issuing the act that was revoked, but also because the facts were reassessed based on new technical criteria that were provided during the administrative proceedings. This Court further holds that the act in question was precisely motivated by the demonstration that the irrigation project would not cause the alleged damage, and this was duly substantiated in the revocation act. Consequently, in the absence of evidence to discredit that which the concerned Administration took into account to issue the challenged act, the appropriate course is to dismiss the claim in its entirety.De conformidad con todo lo dicho, el Tribunal considera que el acto administrativo impugnado fue emitido en ejercicio de la potestad de revocación establecida en la Ley General de la Administración Pública, bajo los presupuestos establecidos en el ordenamiento jurídico, no solo al presentarse nuevos hechos que no fueron tomados en cuenta al emitirse el acto que fue revocado, sino además, al valorarse los hechos, con fundamento en los nuevos criterios técnicos que fueron allegados dentro del procedimiento administrativo. Estima además este Órgano decisor, que el acto en cuestión tuvo como causa o motivo, precisamente la demostración en el sentido de que el proyecto de riego no causaría el acto alegado, y ello fue debidamente fundamentado en el acto de revocación. En consecuencia, y ante la ausencia de prueba que desacredite la que tuvo en cuenta la Administración concernida para dictar el acto impugnado, lo que corresponde es declarar sin lugar la demanda en todos sus extremos.
Pull quotesCitas destacadas
"De conformidad con todo lo dicho, el Tribunal considera que el acto administrativo impugnado fue emitido en ejercicio de la potestad de revocación establecida en la Ley General de la Administración Pública, bajo los presupuestos establecidos en el ordenamiento jurídico, no solo al presentarse nuevos hechos que no fueron tomados en cuenta al emitirse el acto que fue revocado, sino además, al valorarse los hechos, con fundamento en los nuevos criterios técnicos que fueron allegados dentro del procedimiento administrativo."
"In accordance with the foregoing, the Court considers that the challenged administrative act was issued in exercise of the revocation power established in the General Public Administration Law, under the presuppositions set out in the legal system, not only because new facts arose that were not considered when issuing the act that was revoked, but also because the facts were reassessed based on new technical criteria that were provided during the administrative proceedings."
Considerando X, apartado 1
"De conformidad con todo lo dicho, el Tribunal considera que el acto administrativo impugnado fue emitido en ejercicio de la potestad de revocación establecida en la Ley General de la Administración Pública, bajo los presupuestos establecidos en el ordenamiento jurídico, no solo al presentarse nuevos hechos que no fueron tomados en cuenta al emitirse el acto que fue revocado, sino además, al valorarse los hechos, con fundamento en los nuevos criterios técnicos que fueron allegados dentro del procedimiento administrativo."
Considerando X, apartado 1
"La Administración emitió la resolución N° R-196-2007-MINAE, a la luz de hechos que no conocía cuando emitió la N°R-430-2006-MINAE, y respecto de los cuales tuvo certeza a partir de los criterios técnicos vertidos, en el sentido de que el Refugio de Vida Silvestre privado Curi Cancha ya no se encontraba vigente... que las obras se encuentran fuera de la Zona Protectora Arenal Monteverde... que la concesión de aprovechamiento de agua... no causa daño al régimen hídrico y al ecosistema circundante."
"The Administration issued Resolution No. R-196-2007-MINAE in light of facts it did not know when it issued No. R-430-2006-MINAE, and about which it became certain based on the technical criteria provided, namely that the private Curi Cancha Wildlife Refuge was no longer in force... that the works are outside the Arenal-Monteverde Protective Zone... that the water use concession... does not harm the water regime or the surrounding ecosystem."
Considerando X, apartado 1
"La Administración emitió la resolución N° R-196-2007-MINAE, a la luz de hechos que no conocía cuando emitió la N°R-430-2006-MINAE, y respecto de los cuales tuvo certeza a partir de los criterios técnicos vertidos, en el sentido de que el Refugio de Vida Silvestre privado Curi Cancha ya no se encontraba vigente... que las obras se encuentran fuera de la Zona Protectora Arenal Monteverde... que la concesión de aprovechamiento de agua... no causa daño al régimen hídrico y al ecosistema circundante."
Considerando X, apartado 1
"La Administración puede revocar el acto 'por razones de oportunidad, conveniencia y mérito' cuando 'existe divergencia grave sobre los efectos del acto y el interés público pese al tiempo transcurrido', siendo por lo tanto una figura cuya aplicación es excepcional, que puede fundarse en la aparición de nuevas circunstancias de hecho o en una nueva valoración de las que se tomaron inicialmente."
"The Administration may revoke the act 'for reasons of opportunity, convenience or merit' when 'there is a serious divergence between the effects of the act and the public interest despite the passage of time,' thus being an exceptional device, which may be based on the emergence of new factual circumstances or a new assessment of those initially considered."
Considerando X, apartado 1
"La Administración puede revocar el acto 'por razones de oportunidad, conveniencia y mérito' cuando 'existe divergencia grave sobre los efectos del acto y el interés público pese al tiempo transcurrido', siendo por lo tanto una figura cuya aplicación es excepcional, que puede fundarse en la aparición de nuevas circunstancias de hecho o en una nueva valoración de las que se tomaron inicialmente."
Considerando X, apartado 1
Full documentDocumento completo
PROCESO ORDINARIO PLAINTIFF: Nombre114708 DEFENDANT: EL ESTADO, SOCIEDAD DE USUARIOS DE AGUA ROGUMECA.
COADJUVANTS: SERVICIO NACIONAL DE AGUAS SUBTERRÁNEAS, RIEGO Y AVENAMIENTO AND SISTEMA NACIONAL DE ÁREAS DE CONSERVACIÓN No. 54-2014-V TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO Y CIVIL DE HACIENDA. SECCIÓN QUINTA. SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ. Dirección144 . Goicoechea, at eleven hours and thirty minutes on the twenty-ninth of July, two thousand and fourteen.- Ordinary proceeding brought by Mr. Nombre114708 , of legal age, married, resident of Monteverde de Puntarenas, identity card number CED90670, against EL ESTADO, represented by the Procurador MAURICIO CASTRO LIZANO, of legal age, attorney, resident of Heredia, identity card number CED90671, Sociedad de Usuarios de Agua Rogumeca, represented by Mr. Nombre114709 , of legal age, married, attorney, resident of Puntarenas, identity card number CED29172. Acting as coadjuvant of the defendant party is the SERVICIO NACIONAL DE AGUAS SUBTERRÁNEAS RIEGO Y AVENAMIENTO (hereinafter SENARA), represented by Mr. Nombre36655 , of legal age, married, agricultural engineer and licentiate in agricultural economics, resident of San José, identity card number CED63256.
RESULTANDO
I.- By writ received by the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda at ten hours and forty-five minutes on the ninth of December, two thousand and nine, the plaintiff brought an ordinary lawsuit whose claims were definitively established at the preliminary hearing held starting at eight hours and fifty-five minutes on the twenty-seventh of August of the year two thousand and twelve, in the following manner: "Declare the nullity of resolution number R196-2007-MINAE, Withdraws claim 3 and 4. Furthermore, he requests an order for the payment of both sets of costs." (folios 1 to 90 and 308 and 309).
II.- By resolution of eleven hours and fifteen minutes on the twenty-ninth of January of the year two thousand and ten, the lawsuit was admitted and the defendant party was granted a transfer (folios 117 and 118).
III.- In a writ filed before the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda at thirteen hours and fifty-five minutes on the seventeenth of September of the year two thousand and ten, the representation of the Estado answered the lawsuit negatively and at that time raised the defenses of lack of right and lack of active standing (falta de legitimación ad causam activa). Later, at the preliminary hearing held starting at eight hours and fifty-five minutes on the twenty-seventh of August of two thousand and twelve, it also raised the preliminary defense of expiry (caducidad), the adjudication of which was deferred for the issuance of the final judgment (the latter according to the recording of the hearing, which differs from what is recorded in the minutes), (folios 166 to 171, 308 and 309). Furthermore, at the oral trial hearing, it raised the defense to the effect that the environmental viability constitutes an act not susceptible to challenge.- IV.- In a writ filed before the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda at ten hours and ten minutes on the twelfth of November of two thousand and ten, the representative of the company called Usuarios de Agua Rogumeca answered the lawsuit negatively (folios 204 to 211).
V.- In a writ filed before the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda at fourteen hours and fifteen minutes on the fourteenth of September of two thousand and eleven, the representative of the Sistema Nacional de Riego y Avenamiento, hereinafter SENARA), answered the lawsuit negatively and raised the defenses of lack of right, lack of passive standing (falta de legitimación pasiva), expiry (caducidad), and prescription (folios 224 to 228).
VI.- During the course of the proceeding, the following preliminary hearings were held: 1). Starting at eight hours and fifty-five minutes on the twenty-seventh of August of the year two thousand and twelve, at which the claims were set as indicated in resultando I and the request for partial withdrawal of the lawsuit against SINAC, SENARA, and the TRIBUNAL AMBIENTAL ADMINISTRATIVO was accepted, and from that moment on the first two were considered as coadjuvants; 2). Starting at thirteen hours and fifty minutes on the thirtieth of January of two thousand and thirteen; 3).- Starting at thirteen hours and forty minutes on the twenty-seventh of February of the year two thousand and thirteen. (See the minutes of each of the hearings at folios 308, 309, 344, 363 to 366) VII.- That by writ filed before the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda at ten hours and fifty-five minutes on the twelfth of March of two thousand and thirteen, the representation of SINAC withdrew its participation as coadjuvant (folio 367).
VIII.- That in a resolution of thirteen hours and forty-eight minutes on the nineteenth of July of two thousand and thirteen, the twenty-fifth of November was scheduled for the conduct of the oral trial, a date which was postponed to the ninth and tenth of December of that same year, and which in turn had to be moved due to the impossibility of one of the expert witnesses to attend on the established day and time, with the oral and public trial hearing finally being set for the eighth and ninth of July of two thousand and fourteen, said hearing being held on the 8th of July of two thousand and fourteen (folios 381, 382, 384, 387) IX.- In the proceeding, the legal prescriptions have been followed and no vices capable of invalidating what has been done are observed. This judgment is issued within the period of fifteen working days established in subsection 1 of article 111 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo for complex matters, after rigorous deliberation and by unanimity. Judges Vargas Vargas and González Segura concur with their vote. The Reporting Judge Sánchez Navarro drafts.
CONSIDERANDO
I.- REGARDING THE PROVEN FACTS: Of importance for resolving this matter, the following are listed: 1).- That on the twenty-sixth of February of the year two thousand and three, Mr. Sergio Salas Arias, representative of the Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento, presented before the Ministerio de Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones, the Preliminary Environmental Assessment Form (Formulario de Evaluación Ambiental Preliminar, hereinafter FEAP), consecutive number 133-2003, related to the Proyecto de Riego Monteverde, the objective of which is "to provide an irrigation system for the (sic) Monteverde 20 hectares of pastures and vegetables in the Town of Santa Elena." (see copy of the form at folios 1 to 11 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume I); 2).- That on the fifteenth of May of two thousand and three, the Sociedad de Usuarios de Agua Rogumeca, presented before the Departamento de Aguas of MINAE, a request to obtain a concession for the utilization of water from the Quebrada Cuecha, indicating that it would be used for irrigation (see copy of the request at folios 551 to 549 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume II); 3).- That by official letter SG-1562-2003, of the twenty-sixth of September of two thousand and three, the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental notified (SENARA) of the granting of environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) for the Proyecto de Riego Monteverde (see copy of the letter at folio 30 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume I); 4).- That in resolution No. R-254-AGUAS-MINAE, at ten hours on the eighth of September of two thousand and four, the Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía, Departamento de Aguas granted a water concession, for a term of ten years, to the Sociedad de Usuarios de Agua Rogumeca. Said resolution indicated that the source of the concession is the Quebrada Cuecha, with the authorized flow rate (caudal) being the quantity of 12.65 liters per second, and establishing that the use is irrigation (see copy of the indicated resolution at folios 249 verso to 251 of file of the Departamento de Aguas No. 11212); 5).- That in official letter No. OT-02-ACAT-2005 of the fourth of January of two thousand and five, Lic. Carlos Alberto González Rojas, of the Departamento de Ordenamiento Territorial ACAT, of the Área de Conservación Arenal-Tempisque of the Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación Arenal Tempisque, after an inspection carried out at the farm with Matrícula de Folio Real Placa21293, in the name of Curi Cancha Sociedad Anónima, indicated that said farm is located outside the Protected Wild Area (Área Silvestre Protegida), and the Zona Protectora Arenal Monteverde. He also stated: "(...) it is important to note that this farm was previously subject to the Refugio de Vida Silvestre Privado Curi Cancha, Sociedad Anónima, Decreto No. 26396-MINAE, dated October 24, 1997, Gaceta No. 205. According to Article II, there is no written request for an extension (prologa [sic]) of the Refugio, which means (sic) said category does not cover said farm." (see copy of the mentioned official letter at folio 35 of the SINAC file); 6).- That in official letter No. SG-633-2005, of the seventeenth of March of two thousand and five, issued by the Secretaría Técnica Ambiental and addressed to the Defensoría de los Habitantes de la República, it was concluded: "Quebrada Cuecha Intake Sector, no tree felling or significant environmental impacts to the vegetation are observed given that trails previously existed that gave access to the creek. The passage of the pipeline through the public roads is in total concordance with the typical engineering practices of the work and its treatment was carried out as established. Given the stoppage of construction works, the pipe laying has not been concluded, approximately 150 linear meters are missing on public roads, the user outlets and the intake works in the Quebrada Cuecha, therefore its final disposition cannot be assured. No remains of pipe or waste product of the installation of works along the route are observed. The earthworks (movimientos de suelos) on the bank of the Quebrada Cuecha, described by means of official letter ACAT-D-GMR-SCM-06 of January 24, 2005, are not related to the irrigation project and no conveyance works towards the property are observed. The users of the Monteverde irrigation project were visited and it was possible to verify that in the proposed farms there are spaces available for the indicated activities and some of them have vegetable cultivation areas on a small scale and pastures for animal husbandry. From the works observed, no significant environmental impacts are evident. Therefore, it is considered that the Monteverde irrigation project complies (sic) with the environmental commitments acquired in the Sworn Declaration of Environmental Commitments (Declaración Jurada de Compromisos Ambientales)" (see copy of the cited official letter at folios 553 and 554 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume II); 7).- That on the tenth of May of the year two thousand and five, several residents of the Monteverde area, among whom is Mrs. Nombre114710 , filed before the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental (hereinafter SETENA), a procedure with the purpose of obtaining the declaration of nullity of the environmental viability of the referenced irrigation project, an administrative procedure processed under file No. 144-2003 SETENA (see copy of said memorial at folios 171 to 149 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume I); 8).- That in Resolution No. 1960-2005, adopted by the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental in Ordinary Session No. 034-2005, of August 3, 2005, in article 59 it was agreed to: appoint the Directing Body of the Investigation Procedure (Órgano Director del Procedimiento de Investigación) for the Proyecto de Riego Monteverde (see copy of the indicated resolution at folios 336 to 346 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume I); 9).- That in resolution No. 1961-2005-SETENA, at eleven hours and ten minutes on the ninth of August of two thousand and five, issued within administrative procedure No. 144-2003 SETENA, and based on the precautionary principle (principio precautorio), the execution of the Proyecto de Riego de Monteverde was suspended (see copy of the mentioned resolution at folios 327 to 333 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume I); 10).- That in resolution No. 429-2006-SETENA, at ten hours and thirty minutes on the third of March of two thousand and six, the Plenary Commission of the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, resolved "FIRST: The nullity incident of evident and manifest nullity presented against the administrative act SG-1562-2003-SETENA, of the day September 26, 2003, is declared without merit. SECOND: The suspension of the execution of the administrative act issued in resolution 1961-2005-SETENA, of date August 9, 2005, with respect to the aforementioned administrative act is lifted. THIRD: Without prejudice to the foregoing, this Secretaría will proceed to order the involved Public Administrations -and will ensure- the realization of a Strategic Environmental Assessment (Evaluación Ambiental Estratégica) of the water resource in the corresponding hydrographic basin or sub-basin, as determined by preliminary analyses. (...)" (see copy of the cited resolution at folios 848 to 856 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume II and 955 to 963 of volume III); 11).- That to adopt the referenced resolution, SETENA considered the assessments and recommendations of the Directing Body of the Procedure to the effect that: "The information provided by SENARA through the FEAP, for the determination of the preliminary assessment, is considered sufficient as a preliminary analysis of the environmental situation of the project area and its area of influence, taking into account the following aspects, determined through the analysis of the information contained in the file and the observation given via the field trip: 1. The project entails the construction of a diversion intake (toma de derivación) in the Quebrada Cuecha, desander (desarenador), conveyance pipeline, regulation valves, and distribution pipelines to plots. 2. An adequate definition of the project area and the Direct Influence Area (AID) is laid out in the information provided by the user. The same is limited to the site where the different works, set forth above, were located, including the passage of the pipeline through some streets of Monteverde, as well as the distribution sites of the plots, determined as the project area. 3. The proposed project is categorized as low environmental impact, determined through the preliminary environmental assessment carried out by this Secretaría, which entailed the evaluation of the environmental characteristics of the project, regarding its location, determining the environmental significance of the same. 4. The environmental impacts to be generated are considered insignificant negative impacts. 5. The information contained in the FEAP was accurate and adjusted to the characteristics of the project and its area of influence, arguments that underpinned the decision-making of the Plenary Commission to request the Sworn Declaration of Environmental Commitments (Declaración Jurada de Compromisos Ambientales, DJCA) as an Assessment Instrument. THEREFORE, WE RECOMMEND TO THE PLENARY COMMISSION-SETENA 1. To maintain the Environmental Viability of the project. 2. To notify SENARA that it may begin the operation of the project, for the benefit of the beneficiaries or awardees of the service. 3. To reject the Nullity Incident presented by Lic. Agustín Atmelia Herrera on May 10, 2005, fundamentally because the arguments of the cited incident exceed the scope of what is technically considered as the Project Area (Ap) and Direct Influence Area (AID) of the project, whose construction phase, so far, does not reflect the production of significant negative environmental impacts that endanger other natural resources of the area, especially when the incident parties have tried to over-dimension it for the entire population or area of the District of Monteverde." (see copy of the cited document at folios 848 to 856 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume II and 955 to 963 of volume III); 12).- That the resolution referenced in the two preceding considerandos was appealed by Mrs. Nombre114710 and other persons (see copies of the appeal at folios 857 to 882 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume II); 13).- That by official letter of the third of October of two thousand and six, No. SITRA-269-06, the Secretary General of the Asociación Sindical de Trabajadores del Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía e Instituciones Afines de Conservación SITRAMINAE, filed a complaint before the Tribunal Ambiental Administrativo for the alleged invasion and environmental damage to the protection zone of the Quebrada Cuecha and requested the total closure of the Concession of the Proyecto de Riego Nombre114711 (see copy of the complaint at folios 1177 to 1196 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume III); 14).- That in official letter of the fourth of October of two thousand and six, No. SITRA-270-06, the Secretary General of the Asociación Sindical de Trabajadores del Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía e Instituciones Afines de Conservación SITRAMINAE, filed a complaint before the Procuraduría General de la República for the alleged invasion and environmental damage to the protection zone of the Quebrada Cuecha and requested the total closure of the Concession of the Proyecto de Riego Nombre114711 (see copy of the complaint at folios 1093 to 1217 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume III); 15)- That on the occasion of the complaint referenced in the immediately preceding fact, in a memorial dated the nineteenth of October of two thousand and six, Procurador Adjunto Mauricio Castro Lizano requested the Tribunal Ambiental Administrativo to proceed to carry out the necessary procedures to determine the existence or not of the reported infractions (see copy of the letter at folio 1213 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume III); 16).- That the Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía, in resolution No. 430-06-MINAE, at eleven hours and fifty minutes on the seventeenth of November of two thousand and six, declared with merit the appeal filed against the provisions of resolution No. 429-2006-SETENA, and declared the nullity, with retroactive effect, of official letter No. SG-1562-2003-SETENA of the twenty-sixth of September of two thousand and three, decreeing in turn the nullity of the acts issued subsequently and related to the referenced official letter. Furthermore, the Departamento de Aguas was ordered to initiate a procedure with the purpose of canceling the concession granted in resolution 254-2004-AGUAS-MINAE (see copy of the indicated resolution at folios 1088 to 1034 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume III); 17).- That in the resolution referenced in the immediately preceding fact, to accept the appeal it was considered that the Monteverde irrigation project would indeed cause considerable environmental impact, that it was located in a Wildlife Refuge (Refugio de Vida Silvestre), and that the act that authorized the project lacked the essential elements of the act because it was based on erroneous information. To issue these conclusions, the concerned Administration had as an essential evidentiary element a study prepared by several of the appellants (visible at folios 101 to 110 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume I), (see copy of the indicated resolution at folios 1088 to 1034 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume III); 18).- That through a memorial presented before MINAE on the twenty-ninth of November of two thousand and six, the representative of the Sociedad de Usuarios de Agua Rogumeca, filed an appeal for revocation against resolution R-430-MINAE, alluded to in the two preceding considerandos (see copy of the appeal at folios 1151 to 1155 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume III); 19).- That in resolution No. R-451-2006-MINAE, at eleven hours and fifty minutes on the twelfth of December of two thousand and six, the Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía rejected the appeal for revocation filed against resolution 430-2006-MINAE (see copy of said resolution at folios 1149 and 1150 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume III); 20).- That by official letter No. OT-ACA-107-2006, of the seventh of December of two thousand and six, Licenciado Carlos Alberto González Rojas certified: "(...) that through Decreto 26396, the Refugio Privado de Vida Silvestre Curi Cancha is created and named, dated June 26, 1997, located in the Monteverde District. In Article II it says 'Said property will be subject to the Wildlife Refuge category for a period of five years, extendable for equal periods, for which the owner must request it in writing, one month in advance of the completion of said contract.' The company called Curi Cancha Sociedad Anónima never complied with the transcribed article, therefore, as of today it is not under the country's private Wildlife Regime, since June 2002, the expiration date of Decreto 26396." (see copy of the referenced official letter at folio 33 of the SINAC file); 21).- That in a writ presented before the Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía on the twenty-fifth of January of two thousand and seven, the Sub-gerente of SENARA filed an appeal for revocation or reconsideration against resolution R-430-06-MINAE (see copy of said procedure at folios 1249 to 1256 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume III); 22).- That in official letter ACAT-D-058 of March 28, 2007, the Regional Directorate of the Área de Conservación Arenal-Tempisque of the Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, reported: "According to a field trip taken and points taken with GPS by technicians Elberth Vargas Masís and Miguel Jiménez, it can be determined that the constructed works are located outside the Zona Protectora Arenal Monteverde. (...) Based on the attached map, it can be observed that the Southern boundary of the Refuge is the Quebrada Cuecha and the works mentioned, in the case of the one built in said Creek, is located on the western boundary of the Refuge (see copy of the mentioned official letter at folio 46 of the SINAC file) That by official letter IMN-DA-0708-2007, of the ninth of April of two thousand and seven, the Departamento de Aguas of MINAE, rendered a hydrological evaluation (evaluación hídrica) of the water concession in the name of the Sociedad de Usuarios de Agua Rogumeca, in which the flow measurements (aforos) taken at the intake point were taken as a reference, which are detailed below:
| Fecha | Datos de Caudal (litros por segundo) | Origen del Dato | Método de aforo |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20 febrero 2002 | 50,54 | SENARA | Molinete |
| Marzo 2002 | 265.14 | SENARA | Molinete |
| 4 febrero 2005 | 194,00 | Dpto. Aguas | Molinete |
| Se indica como dato de época seca | 56,50 | Informe aportado al expediente por el Sr. Nombre114715 Sub Director del Instituto Monteverde | Sistema particular |
| 15 febrero 2007 | 51,22 | SENARA | Molinete |
| 14 marzo 2007 | 45,15 | SENARA | Molinete |
Based on these flow measurements, the following observations were made in the evaluation: "The micro-basin of the Quebrada Cuecha is a tributary of the basin of the río Guacimal. This Department has flow rate data for the basin of the río Guacimal, measured upstream from the bridge on the national route No. 1 during the years 1998-1999, 2000 and 2001 and they present positive variations during the months of March and April, and the technical explanation is that said flow rates were influenced by atmospheric phenomena coming from the Caribbean, the affectation is that the flow rates are higher from one month to the next, that is, a measurement (aforo) is taken in February and it is expected that in March it is (sic) lower and the opposite occurs. The flow rate of the Quebrada Cuecha, which is part of the basin of the río Guacimal, both make up the upper part of the basin, with another series of sources, and the phenomenon indicated in the previous point occurs in it, according to measurements (aforos) taken by SENARA, (see folio 31 of file 11212) during the months of February and March of 2002, they affirm the foregoing, because for the month of February a flow rate of 50.54 Lps is measured (afora) and for the month of March a flow rate of 265.14 is measured (afora), more than five times the flow rate of the month of January, how is this phenomenon explained, because said basin is influenced by the Caribbean. Downstream flow rate contributions: From the intake site of the concession at an estimated distance of 50 meters, there is the first point flow contribution, originated by a small unnamed creek that is a tributary of the creek, which always occurs within the property where the water is captured, namely on the property of Nombre114712 . , according to an inspection carried out on February 4, 2005, documented in official letter IMN-DA-0362-2005 of February 7, 2005. Although the contributed flow rate data is not available, an almost immediate contribution from the diversion site has been identified. Water availability: From the available information, discarding (sic) the extreme flow rates presented in February 2002 and March 2005, it is concluded that during the dry season (época de estiaje) a flow rate in the range of 45 to 60 liters per second is available. The valid water rights downstream in the micro-basin of the (sic) Quebrada Cuecha must be respected, where according to our Computer System of the National Registry of Concessions, there are no valid concessions. Pending are water requests from the same creek, at downstream sites by the Sociedad de Usuarios de Agua de Monte Verde Rock Smith and by Mr. Nombre114713 which must be evaluated. Considering the minimum measured flow rate of 45.15 liters per second, this is the available flow rate at the intake site. Calculation of needs. According to the technical report recommending the concession, official letter IMN-DA-2694-2004 (document that runs in the file), the needs are valued at a total flow rate of 12.65 liters per second. The same are estimated with the usage data verified in the field and based on the (sic) technical variables set forth in the Manual de Dotaciones of the Departamento de Agua published in Gaceta No. 98 of Thursday, May 20, 2004.
| Variable | Detalle |
|---|---|
| Uso | Riego |
| Area de riego | 23 hectáreas |
| Cultivos | Café, hortalizas y pastos |
| Dotación por hectárea | 0,55 litros por segundo |
| Período de uso | 18 horas diárias |
| Caudal requerido | 12,65 litros por segundo |
Given that, sufficient flow rate is available in the Quebrada Cuecha at the level of the intake point. The conceded flow rate represents, in summer (dry season at minimum flow rate), 28% of the minimum available flow rate of March and 4.7 of the maximum flow rate of March, at the intake site. There are verified flow rate contributions to the Quebrada Cuecha a mere 50 meters downstream of the intake. The concession right demands that the concessionaire must calibrate the assigned flow rate by means of a weir and orifice structure, this must guarantee that no more water than assigned will be diverted. Once the conceded flow rate has been diverted, a flow rate of 32.50 liters per second would be flowing downstream, which is greater than the 10% established at each intake as the Minimum Remnant Flow Rate (Caudal Mínimo Remanente, CMR) (known by others as environmental flow), thereby preserving the right of third parties to the common uses of water stipulated in article 11 of the Ley de Aguas, thus guaranteeing that a permanent flow of water exists in the dry season in the channel, which allows for supplying the ecosystem's needs, and likewise the protection of third-party persons with better rights by concessions is covered. It is the criterion of the undersigned that the water exploitation concession file 11212 in the name of the Sociedad de Usuarios de Agua Nombre114711 , which has been granted a flow rate of 12.65 liters per second from the Quebrada Cuecha, does not cause any harm to the water regime and ecosystem of the cited (sic) creek and is resolved in accordance with the principles of conservation and sustainable use of water stipulated in article 51 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente." (see copy of the cited official letter at folios 570 to 574 of the file of the Departamento de Aguas No. 11212, Legajo No. 3 and folios 1442 to 1446 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume III); 23).- That in resolution No. 374-07-TAA, at ten hours and twenty-nine minutes on the tenth of April of the year two thousand and seven, the Tribunal Ambiental Administrativo ordered "To Issue as a Provisional Resolution by only dismissing the complaint against the Sociedad de Usuarios de Agua Nombre114711 processed under the present administrative file, with said resolution being subject to being replaced by the Final Resolution, once the Sala Constitucional of the Corte Suprema de Justicia, rules on the Acción de Inconstitucionalidad No.
06-009493-0007-CO\" (See copy of the referenced resolution on folios 1447 to 1454 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume III); 24).- That to issue the resolution referenced in the immediately preceding fact, the Environmental Administrative Tribunal considered: "Fourth: That based on the foregoing and having analyzed the documents that make up said administrative file, especially the record of the 'in situ' ocular inspection at the place where the water resource use (aprovechamiento del recurso hídrico) of the company Rogumeca is located, visible on folios 834 and 835 of the administrative file, which establishes '(...) The water intake has a construction on the Quebrada Cuecha, in the form of a gaveta 25 centimeters wide, 25 centimeters deep, and 2.20 meters long; next to it is a tank from which the water flows to the desander (desarenador). The concession given by the Department of Water is 12.6 liters per second. The place has forest cover (cobertura boscosa) and no tree cutting is observed in the protection zone along the approximately eight hundred meters of road where the hoses that carry the water for consumption are located (...)', this Tribunal considers that since there is no significant negative environmental damage in the operation of the water concession granted to the company Sociedad Usuarios de Agua Nombre114711, coupled with the fact that there is currently water availability, in accordance with what was indicated by the Department of Water through official letter IMN-DA-0501-07, this complaint against the company called Nombre114711 must be dismissed." (See copy of the referenced resolution on folios 1447 to 1454 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume III); 25).- That in official letter CP-105-2007-SETENA, dated April thirteenth, two thousand seven, the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental communicated to the Minister of Environment and Energy the criteria on the Monteverde Irrigation Project, in which, as relevant, it was concluded: "2. The criteria of this Secretaría consist of the fact that the Sworn Declaration of Environmental Commitments (Declaración Jurada de Compromisos Ambientales), along with the technical information contained in the file, is sufficient to support the environmental viability of the project regarding the competencies of this Secretaría, in accordance with the cited regulations. 3. The foregoing is based on the following: The work carried out at the time is a subduction work, in which water transfer is performed, passing to a desander (desarenador), from which part of the water is sent to the farms for irrigation and the remaining part is sent back to the watercourse. When the project is not operating because irrigation is not needed, mainly during the winter, all the water is returned to the watercourse from the desander (desarenador). The works consist of the diversion intake (of only two meters long) on the Quebrada Cuecha, installation of the desander (desarenador) and pipeline, regulation valves, and distribution pipeline. The calibrating work regulates the excess water and possesses the dimensions and technical specifications issued by the Department of Water of MINAE, which guarantees that they will be fully complied with. These previously described works do not cause impacts on the aquatic fauna of the Quebrada Cuecha or on the nearby vegetation cover, and the project is categorized as a low environmental impact project, with insignificant environmental impacts. 4. Furthermore, SENARA, through the public administrative act issued by official letter number POE-573-03 (folios 0020 and 0026) signed by Eng. Edgar Mairena Navarro, project manager of the Central Pacific Region of SENARA, demonstrates that: 'With respect to the requested basin-level study: the flow to be diverted will not greatly affect the basin of the Quebrada Cuecha. The foregoing certified by Official Letter ASUB-367-03, which states that 3 capacity measurements were taken on February 20, 2002, March 20, 2002, and April 18, 2002, with flows of 50.54 L/sec., 265.14 L/sec., and 30.03 L/sec., respectively. The technical study is based on the Manual de dotaciones de agua for calculating the needs of water use applications prepared by the Department of Water-MINAE.' (...) 5. In turn, the Department of Water of MINAE determined, through official letter number IMN-DA-0362, dated February 7, 2005, the following: 'As of February 4, 2005, the streams maintained a flow of 61.4 l/sec. for La Máquina and 194 l/sec. for the Quebrada Cuecha, which are more than 10 times greater than the flows potentially to be used by the societies.' There are also a series of lateral contributions and other water sources below each proposed intake, flows that feed and result in the consequent increase in the flow of the sources." (...). 7. By Executive Decree (Decreto Ejecutivo) number 26396-MINAE, dated June 26, 1997, the Curi Cancha Private Wildlife Refuge (Refugio Privado de Vida Silvestre Curi Cancha) was created, in its Article 2, subsection II, it was determined that the refuge character of the property would cover a period of five years, which could be renewed. It is not stated in file 144-2013-SETENA whether such renewal has occurred. 8. In light of all the foregoing considerations, the resolutions of this SECRETARÍA can be reread, as well as the document appearing on folios 626 to 634 of file 144-2003SETENA, in which the technical foundations that lead to the following conclusion will be found developed: Even if the place is a wildlife refuge, the environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental) carried out for the project (article 82 LCVA) guarantees that it is environmentally viable as far as the competence of this Secretaría is concerned" (see copy of the cited official letter on folios 1455 to 1457 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume III); 26).- That in resolution No. R-196-2007-MINAE, issued by the Ministry of Environment and Energy at eleven hours on April twenty-fourth, two thousand seven, resolution No. 430-2006-MINAE, dated eleven hours fifty minutes on November seventeenth, two thousand six, was revoked (see copy of the referenced resolution on folios 1492 to 1514 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume III); 27).- That resolution No. R-196-MINAE was based on the following considerations: "SECOND: (...) The revocation, in the terms of our Ley General de la Administración Pública, is appropriate in cases where, for reasons of opportunity, among others, an administrative act can be withdrawn from legal life, not for reasons of invalidity, in which case nullity would apply, but in cases where there is a progressive divergence between the reasons that gave rise to the issuance of the act, and those that are subsequently evidenced as new or not appreciable at the time the revocable act was issued (the revocable act in this case would be resolution 430-2006-MINAE). In this sense, at the time of issuing resolution 430-2006-MINAE, there were no probative elements or technical-legal assessments, such as those produced by the technical departments of this Ministry (indicated in the resultandos of this resolution) after the issuance of that resolution; a situation that constitutes a substantial change in the factual scenario before which the Public Administration possesses discretionary power of action, circumscribed within the framework of legality and observance of public purposes, and never removed from them. In this sense, the new elements of judgment must be supported by technical and legal criteria that allow a change of criteria or appreciation of the same matter to be legally and technically viable. In the case under examination, the new elements produced by both the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental and the Department of Water, as well as what was indicated by SINAC, and the Environmental Administrative Tribunal, constitute the necessary inputs for the administration to proceed to a reassessment of the circumstances and antecedents that gave rise to the issuance of the original administrative act (in this case, resolution 430-2006-MINAE), through the legal institute of modification of administrative acts called 'revocation'. (...) The circumstances that would come to innovate the factual scenario with respect to that taken into account at the time of issuing resolution 430-2006-MINAE consist of the technical pronouncements of the various technical departments of this Ministry that specifically refer to the sufficient flow availability to satisfy the ecological needs inherent to the place where the water intake for the Monteverde Irrigation Project is located, and the non-affectation to the natural resources by the extraction of the flow subject to the concession, since previously the only thing that had been taken into account by those same technical departments of this Ministry (mainly by SETENA) was the discarding of affectation to the environment by the construction works for the water catchment, and not the catchment itself (that is, the use of the concessioned flow and its impact on the required ecological flow). In accordance with the foregoing, as there are new elements that evidence a progressive mismatch between what was acted upon and the current reality, shown by the technical and legal pronouncements of the departments of this Ministry, a need arises to readjust the administrative act issued (resolution 430-2006-MINAE) to the reality shown by the new probative elements. (...) THIRD: (...) when the competent technical instances, as in this case would be SETENA, Department of Water mainly, have cleared the reasonable doubts that existed from the beginning in this case, about the eventual affectation to the natural resources adjacent to the water catchment works for the project, there would now be no technical or legal reason that could be salvaged to prevent the realization of the project in question, since while the dubious state existed, the Administration assumed a preventive role as required by articles 13 and 109 of the Ley de la Biodiversidad: initially resolving the nullity of the environmental viability, but after the probative elements produced, it is determined that the activity they intend to develop through the Monteverde Irrigation Project, specifically regarding the water catchment, will not affect the natural resources of the place, therefore the Administration is legally empowered to reconcile its acts with the forensic reality presented by the aforementioned departments." (...) FOURTH: (...) It is clarified at this point that there would no longer be a technical doubt about the affectation to the environmental legal good, by the activity that La Sociedad de Usuarios de Agua Rogumeca intends to develop, as indicated above, by the different Technical Departments, and that furthermore, the existence of irregularities or omissions in the granting of environmental viability pointed out in resolution 430-2006-MINAE do not now present a degree of negative qualification or dangers for the achievement of the public purpose that concerns this Ministry, and which can be summarized as the protection of natural resources. In this sense, the claims of the opponents of the Monteverde Irrigation Project, regarding the defects of the act itself, and under the new factual scenario explained in the preceding considerandos, would be inappropriate." (see copy of the cited resolution on folios 1492 to 1514 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume III); 28).- That in resolution No. 584-07-TAA, of the Environmental Administrative Tribunal, issued at nine hours fifty-three minutes on June seventh, two thousand seven, it ordered "(...) To dismiss solely the complaint filed by Messrs. Nombre114714 and Nombre60482 against the Sociedad de Usuarios de Agua Nombre114711 processed under this administrative file. (...)", a decision which it substantiated as follows: "Third: That Executive Decree (Decreto Ejecutivo) No. 26396 that Declares and Names Curi Cancha Private Wildlife Refuge (Refugio Privado de Vida Silvestre Curi Cancha), was published by means of La Gaceta No. 205 of October twenty-fourth, nineteen ninety-seven, date from which the five-year validity period of the Curi Cancha Private Wildlife Refuge (Refugio Privado de Vida Silvestre Curi Cancha) begins, and taking into account what was indicated through official letter OT-ACA-107-2006 from the Territorial Planning Office of the Área de Conservación Arenal Tempisque, that the company called Curi Cancha S.A. did not comply with the stipulations in subsection II of article 2 of said Decree, this Tribunal considers that as of the date on which the FEAP. (Formulario de Evaluación Ambiental Preliminar) was filed with the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, that is, on February twenty-seventh, two thousand three, the property registered in the Folio Real system, under registration number Placa21292 (Placa21294) of the Partido de Puntarenas, with an area of eight hundred twelve thousand seven hundred one square meters and eight square decimeters, located in Dirección14110, Province of Puntarenas, was not subject to the regime of Private Wildlife Refuge (Refugio Privado de Vida Silvestre). (...) Fourth: (...) Due to the foregoing, and since the property on which the Monteverde Irrigation Project was to be developed was not subject to the Private Wildlife Refuge (Refugio Privado de Vida Silvestre), this Tribunal considers that the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental Nacional (sic) did not violate the environmental legislation in force at that time, since it did not exempt the project from the environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental). What said Secretaría determined, as the only competent body in the matter, by means of resolution No. 429-2003-SETENA of eight hours forty-five minutes on May sixth, two thousand three, is that the instrument for evaluating said project would be the Sworn Declaration of Environmental Commitments (Declaración Jurada de Compromisos Ambientales), subsequently granting Environmental Viability through official letter SG-1562-2003-SETENA. Fifth: That based on the foregoing and having analyzed the documents that make up said administrative file, especially the record of the 'in situ' ocular inspection at the place where the water resource use of the company Rogumeca is located, visible on folios 834 and 835 of the administrative file, which establishes '(...) The water intake has a construction on the Quebrada Cuecha, in the form of a gaveta 25 centimeters wide, 25 centimeters deep, and 2.20 meters long; next to it is a tank from which the water flows to the desander (desarenador). The concession given by the Department of Water is 12.6 liters per second. The place has forest cover (cobertura boscosa) and no tree cutting is observed in the protection zone along the approximately eight hundred meters of road where the hoses that carry the water for consumption are located. (...)', this Tribunal considers that since there is no significant negative environmental damage in the operation of the water concession granted to the company Sociedad de Usuarios de Agua Nombre114711, coupled with the fact that there is currently water availability, in accordance with what was indicated by the Department of Water through official letter IMN-DA-0501-07, this complaint against the company called Nombre114711 must be dismissed." (see copy of the cited resolution on folios 724 to 732 of administrative file number 11212 of the Department of Water, Docket 3); 29).- That through official letter No. IMN-DA-2296-2008, dated July thirtieth, two thousand eight, personnel from the Department of Water verified the measurements of the calibrating work, confirming that they were correct and in accordance with what was established in resolution No. R-254-2004-AGUAS-MINAE (see copy of the official letter crediting the review on folio 864 of administrative file number 11212 of the Department of Water, Docket 3).- II.- REGARDING THE UNPROVEN FACTS: 1).- The plaintiff does not demonstrate that the works for the water concession of the Monteverde Irrigation Project, granted to Nombre114711, are located in the Arenal-Monteverde Protective Zone (Zona protectora Arenal-Monteverde), or in the Curi Cancha Private Wildlife Refuge (Refugio de Vida Silvestre Privado Curi Cancha) (the case records); 2).- It was not proven that the water concession granted to Nombre114711, as well as the works that on the occasion of this concession were carried out on the Quebrada Cuecha, caused damage to the ecosystem and significant environmental impact in the areas where the irrigation project is located (the case records).- III.- REGARDING THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE PLAINTIFF: The plaintiff states that in February of two thousand six, SENARA initiated the procedure to obtain the environmental viability of the Monteverde irrigation project, which was granted by resolution SG-1562-2003-SETENA, dated September twenty-sixth, two thousand three, lacking, according to the plaintiff's criteria, proper substantiation, on the basis of a FEAP, a sworn declaration issued by a servant of SENARA, and in the absence of an environmental impact assessment (estudio de impacto ambiental). He alleges that, on the occasion of complaints filed by neighbors of the area, the Ministry of Environment and Energy issued resolution No. 430-2006-MINAE, dated eleven hours fifty minutes on November seventeenth, two thousand six, in which the nullity, with retroactive effect, of the environmental viability declared in official letter SG-1562-2003-SETENA was declared. He points out that said act had the effect of exhausting the administrative channel, and that despite this, the defendant Administration proceeded to review and subsequent revocation, by issuing resolution No. R-196-2007, dated eleven hours on April twenty-fourth, two thousand seven. He argues that this latter resolution is vitiated by nullity, and on the matter points out: 1- That resolution 430-2006 MINAE had already exhausted the administrative channel, which, according to his criteria, makes it impossible for the Administration to reopen the discussion on the point in question, making revocation for reasons of opportunity and convenience unfeasible when there are no modifications in the facts that constituted the motive for the resolution that was revoked. He maintains that in this case, the revocation occurred on the occasion of a meeting of a political nature, without the prerequisites ordered in the Ley General de la Administración Pública for revocation to be appropriate being met, and claims that this conduct of the Administration reflects an abuse of power. He says that because resolution R-430-2006-MINAE constitutes an act of encumbrance, it necessarily required a prior opinion from the Comptroller General of the Republic (Contraloría General de la República). 2- He adds that by issuing resolution No. R-196-2007, and through it, resurrecting the declaration of environmental viability declared in official letter SG-1562-2003-SETENA, environmental regulations are violated. In this regard, he points out that the information provided in the FEAP is erroneous, as it omits to indicate the area where the water intake for the stream would be located as the project area. He says that the FEAP omitted to indicate that the project area is located in aquifer recharge zones, that there are surface water bodies, that it is located in protected wildlife areas, (Curi Cancha Private Wildlife Refuge (Refugio de Vida Silvestre Privado Curi Cancha) and Arenal-Monteverde Protective Zone (Zona Protectora Arenal-Monteverde)), which, he affirms, made it mandatory to carry out an environmental impact assessment (estudio de impacto ambiental) and that it is a forested site. He says that the questioned conduct affects the natural resources surrounding the concession area and injures the right of citizens to enjoy a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.- IV.- REGARDING THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE STATE: The State's representative answered the complaint in the negative and raised the defenses of lack of right and the expiration of the action. Regarding the latter, he said that the plaintiff seeks the nullity of the environmental viability, which was granted on September twenty-sixth, two thousand three, causing the action to have already expired by the date of the filing of the complaint, on December eighth, two thousand nine. He also states that it is an act not susceptible to challenge, as he considers it a procedural act without its own effect. Regarding the merits of the matter, he alleges that, in accordance with the provisions of numeral 153 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, the Administration does have the power to revoke its own acts, when, as in this case, there are new elements that force its modification, and therefore he considers that resolution R-196-2007-MINAE does not present the procedural defects indicated by the plaintiff. On the other hand, and regarding the environmental impact assessment (estudio de impacto ambiental) that the plaintiff misses, he maintains that it was not necessary, because when the procedures to obtain environmental viability and grant the concession for the irrigation project began, the project area was not located within a protected zone, and he notes that the Curi Cancha Private Wildlife Refuge was no longer in force. He also expresses that the development of the project has not caused a significant environmental impact, which, he says, has been verified by the competent bodies in the matter.
V.- REGARDING THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE ASOCIACIÓN DE USUARIOS DEL AGUA ROGUMECA: The representative of said Association answered the complaint in the negative and raised the defenses of lack of right, expiration, lack of interest, and lack of standing to sue and be sued. He argues that the granting of environmental viability took place after all the requirements demanded by SETENA were fulfilled and that the project does not have a significant environmental impact and the installation of pipes was done following environmentally friendly practices. He maintains that the damage claimed by the plaintiff has not occurred and that his appreciations to the effect that the viability was finally ratified for political reasons are subjective arguments. He expresses that resolution R-430-2006-MINAE, which annulled the environmental viability, was adopted without taking into account the offered evidence, which subsequently forced its revocation.- VI.- REGARDING THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE SERVICIO NACIONAL DE AGUAS SUBTERRÁNEAS RIEGO Y AVENAMIENTO: For its part, the representation of SENARA also answered the complaint in the negative and formulated the defenses of lack of right, lack of standing to sue and be sued, expiration, and statute of limitations. Regarding the latter two, he expresses that resolution No. 196-2007-MINAE was issued on April twenty-fourth, two thousand seven, and that the complaint was not filed until December eighth, two thousand nine, thereby exceeding the term established in article 39 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo. Furthermore, SENARA says it was notified of this complaint on August third, two thousand eleven, therefore the claim is considered time-barred. Regarding the substantive allegations, he maintains that the plaintiff's affirmations amount to no more than mere statements, without any factual and probative foundation. He says that the complaint does not indicate how the constitutive elements of the act were affected. Finally, he alleges that the irrigation project in question is a work already built and that it has not generated the environmental impact claimed by the plaintiff.
VII.- REGARDING THE DEFENSE OF EXPIRATION: First, it is necessary to elucidate the defense of expiration raised by the different representations of each of the co-defendants, as well as the intervening party. In this regard, the Tribunal considers that said defense is inappropriate. According to the claims of the complaint, definitively established in the preliminary hearing (folio 308 verso), the action's sole claim is that the absolute nullity of resolution No. R-196-2007-MINAE be declared. Said act was issued by the Ministry of Environment and Energy at eleven hours on April twenty-fourth, two thousand seven, and had the effect of revoking resolution No. R-430-2006-MINAE, and consequently the validity of the environmental viability of the Monteverde irrigation project, which had been granted since September of two thousand three. The object of the process being the declaration of absolute nullity of an administrative act that was issued on April twenty-fourth, two thousand seven. Thus, at its core, what is being discussed is the legality or not of an act that is not exhausted at the moment it was issued, and on the contrary, its effects have not ceased and will remain in force as long as the environmental viability granted to the Monteverde irrigation project is maintained by the Administration. This particularity of the questioned act is sufficient reason for this Deciding Body to consider the raised defense inappropriate.
VIII.- REGARDING THE DEFENSE OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS: In the case under examination, no issue related to damages and losses is being discussed, as the plaintiff waived this claim of his complaint since the preliminary hearing (folios 308 and 309 of the judicial file), limiting the object of the process to determining the legality or illegality of the challenged administrative conduct, from which it follows that the opposed defense is inappropriate.
IX.- REGARDING THE DEFENSE TO THE EFFECT THAT IT IS AN UNCHALLENGEABLE ACT: The State's representative argues that the questioned act finally resolves on the environmental viability granted to the Monteverde irrigation project, and says that it is not susceptible to challenge because it is a procedural act without its own effect. On this matter, this Deciding Body must indicate first that it is not unaware of the precedent issued by the Court of Cassation No. 000104-F-2009, of eleven hours ten minutes on June first, two thousand nine, in which that Chamber indicated the preparatory nature of the environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental), and therefore its unchallengeable nature. However, the Tribunal must depart from this criterion because obtaining environmental viability, in a case such as the one at hand, constitutes an indispensable requirement for the execution of the project, from which it follows that if it is not obtained, continuing with the administrative procedure would be meaningless, since ultimately, in the absence of said essential prerequisite, even if the rest of the requirements demanded in the legal system are satisfied, it would be impossible to obtain the license to carry out the project, therefore, the granting of environmental viability does produce effects on those administered and, therefore, does constitute an act susceptible to challenge. On the other hand, it must be indicated that both resolution No. R-430-2006-MINAE and No. R-196-2007-MINAE were issued at a time when the obtainment of environmental viability had already led to the issuance of subsequent acts, such as the granting of the concession and the construction of the necessary works for the exploitation of the water resource, and evidently, as will be seen below, both resolutions affect those facts. Consequently, the defense of an act not susceptible to challenge formulated by the state representative is not accepted.
X.- ON THE MERITS OF THE MATTER: Once the defenses of expiration and statute of limitations have been resolved, we will proceed to analyze the merits of the matter, referring to each of the allegations made by the plaintiff against the challenged conduct: 1).- Possibility of revocation of administrative acts: In relation to this point, the plaintiff argues that in February of two thousand six, SENARA initiated the procedure to obtain the environmental viability of the Monteverde irrigation project, which was granted by resolution SG-1562-2003-SETENA, dated September twenty-sixth, two thousand three. He alleges that, on the occasion of complaints filed by neighbors of the area, the Ministry of Environment and Energy issued resolution No. 430-2006-MINAE, dated eleven hours fifty minutes on November seventeenth, two thousand six, in which the nullity, with retroactive effect, of the environmental viability declared in official letter SG-1562-2003-SETENA was declared. He points out that said act had the effect of exhausting the administrative channel, and that despite this, the defendant Administration proceeded to review and subsequent revocation, by issuing resolution No. R-196-2007, dated eleven hours on April twenty-fourth, two thousand seven. He argues that this latter resolution is vitiated by nullity, and on the matter he affirms: That resolution 430-2006 MINAE had already exhausted the administrative channel, which, according to his criteria, makes it impossible for the Administration to reopen the discussion on the point in question, making revocation for reasons of opportunity and convenience unfeasible when there are no modifications in the facts that constituted the motive for the resolution that was revoked. He maintains that in this case, the revocation occurred on the occasion of a meeting of a political nature, without the prerequisites ordered in the Ley General de la Administración Pública for revocation to be appropriate being met, and claims that this conduct of the Administration reflects an abuse of power. He says that because resolution R-430-2006-MINAE constitutes an act of encumbrance, it necessarily required a prior opinion from the Comptroller General of the Republic (Contraloría General de la República). On the revocation of administrative acts, numerals 152 and 153 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública provide: "Article 152.- 1. The administrative act may be revoked for reasons of opportunity, convenience, or merit, with the exceptions contemplated by law. 2.
Revocation must take place only when there is a serious divergence between the effects of the act and the public interest, despite the time elapsed, the rights created, or the nature and other circumstances of the legal relationship being terminated.-\" \"Article 153.- 1. Revocation may be based on the emergence of new factual circumstances not existing or not known at the time the original act was issued. 2. It may also be based on a different assessment of the same factual circumstances that gave rise to the act, or of the public interest affected.\" As can be seen, under the cited regulations, it must be concluded that the legislature expressly recognized the Administration's power of revocation, this being one of the two exceptions established by the Law to the principle of intangibility of one's own acts (the other being the declaration of absolute nullity of the act). According to these postulates, the Administration may revoke the act \"for reasons of opportunity, convenience, and merit\" when \"there is serious divergence between the effects of the act and the public interest despite the time elapsed,\" this therefore being a figure whose application is exceptional, which may be based on the emergence of new factual circumstances or on a new assessment of those initially taken into account or of the public interest affected (Article 153 LGAP), it being impossible to apply the figure of revocation to acts of a regulated nature (Article 156 of the cited Law). In this case, the Court has deemed it proven that resolution No. R-196-2007-MINAE, which revoked No. R-430-2006-MINAE, assessed a series of technical criteria that were not taken into consideration when it issued the act that was ultimately revoked. In this regard, the record shows that when issuing resolution No. R-430-2006-MINAE, the Administration concerned had as an essential evidentiary element a study on the effects of the irrigation project, which had been prepared by several of the persons who opposed it (this is recorded in the background mentioned in said resolution at folios 1088 to 1034 of administrative file 144-2003-SETENA, volume I). However, subsequently, when issuing resolution No. R-196-2007-MINAE, the Administration relied on new technical pronouncements, prepared by MINAE units, which demonstrated the availability of the resource and ruled out a significant environmental impact, which was expressly stated in the challenged resolution, which, in relevant part, stated: \"SECOND: (...) Revocation, under the terms of our General Law of Public Administration, is appropriate in cases where, for reasons of opportunity, among others, an administrative act may be removed from legal life, not for reasons of invalidity, in which case nullity would be appropriate, but in cases where there is a progressive divergence between the grounds that gave rise to the issuance of the act, and those that are subsequently shown to be new or not appreciable at the time the revocable act was issued (the revocable act in this case being resolution 430-2006-MINAE). In this sense, at the time resolution 430-2006-MINAE was issued, there were no evidentiary elements or technical-legal assessments, such as those produced by the technical units of this Ministry (indicated in the resultandos of this resolution) subsequent to the issuance of that resolution; a situation that constitutes a substantial change in the factual scenario before which the Public Administration possesses a discretionary power of action, circumscribed within the framework of legality and observance of public purposes, and never removed from them. In this sense, the new elements of judgment must be supported by technical and legal criteria that allow a change of criterion or assessment of the same matter to be legally and technically viable. In the case under examination, the new elements produced by both the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, SETENA) and the Department of Waters (Departamento de Aguas), as well as what was indicated by SINAC, and (sic) Administrative Environmental Tribunal (Tribunal Ambiental Administrativo), constitute the necessary inputs for the administration to proceed with a reassessment of the circumstances and background that gave rise to the issuance of the original administrative act (in this case, resolution 430-2006-MINAE), through the legal institute for modification of administrative acts called \"revocation.\" (...) The circumstances that would innovate the factual scenario with respect to that taken into account at the time resolution 430-2006-MINAE was issued consist of the technical pronouncements of the various technical units of this Ministry that refer specifically to the sufficient availability of flow to satisfy the ecological needs of the place where the water intake for the Monteverde Irrigation Project is located, and the non-affectation of natural resources by the extraction of the flow subject to the concession, since previously the only thing that had been taken into account by those same technical units of this Ministry (mainly by SETENA) was the discarding of affectation to the environment by the construction works for water intake, and not the intake itself (that is, the use of the concessioned flow and its impact on the required ecological flow). In accordance with the above, given the existence of new elements that show a progressive mismatch between what was done and the current reality, shown by the technical and legal pronouncements of the units of this Ministry, a need arises to readjust the administrative act issued (resolution 430-2006-MINAE) to the reality shown by the new evidentiary elements. (...) THIRD: (...) when the competent technical instances, as in this case would be SETENA, Department of Waters mainly, have cleared the reasonable doubts that existed from the beginning in this case, regarding the eventual affectation of the natural resources adjacent to the water intake works for the project, there would no longer be any technical or legal reason that could save the impediment to carrying out the project in question, since while the dubious state existed, the Administration assumed a preventive role as required by Article 13 and 109 of the Biodiversity Law (Ley de la Biodiversidad): initially resolving the nullity of the environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental), but after the evidentiary elements produced, it is determined that the activity they intend to develop through the Monteverde Irrigation Project, specifically regarding water intake, will not affect the natural resources of the place, and therefore the Administration is legally empowered to reconcile its acts to the forensic reality presented by the aforementioned units.\" (...) FOURTH: (...) It is clarified at this point that there would no longer be a technical doubt about the affectation of the environmental legal interest, by the activity that La Sociedad de Usuarios de Agua Rogumeca intends to develop, as indicated above, by the various Technical Departments that, on the other hand, the existence of irregularities or omissions in the granting of environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) indicated in resolution 430-2006-MINAE do not now present a degree of negative qualification or danger for the achievement of the public purpose that concerns this Ministry, and which can be summarized as the protection of natural resources. In this sense, the allegations of the opponents of the Monteverde Irrigation Project, regarding the defects of the act itself, and under the new factual scenario explained in the preceding recitals would be inappropriate.\" (see copy of the cited resolution at folios 1492 to 1514 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume III) (Bold emphasis supplied). From the transcribed resolution, it is clear then that the Administration issued resolution No. R-196-2007-MINAE, in light of facts it did not know when it issued No. R-430-2006-MINAE, and regarding which it had certainty based on the technical criteria rendered, to the effect that the Curi Cancha Private Wildlife Refuge (Refugio de Vida Silvestre privado Curi Cancha) was no longer in effect (Official Letter OT-ACA-107-2006 of December seven, two thousand six, issued by Lic. Carlos Alberto González Rojas, appearing at folio 33 of the SINAC file), that the works are located outside the Arenal Monteverde Protective Zone (Zona Protectora Arenal Monteverde) (official letter ACTA-D-058 of March twenty-eight, two thousand seven, issued by the Regional Directorate of the Arenal-Tempisque Conservation Area (Área de Conservación Arenal-Tempisque), at folio 46 of the SINAC file), that the water use concession in the name of Sociedad de Usuarios del Agua Nombre114711 does not cause damage to the water regime and the ecosystem surrounding Quebrada Cuecha (Official Letter IMN-DA-0708-2007, of April nine, two thousand seven, issued by the Department of Waters (Departamento de Aguas) of MINAE, and appearing at folios 1442 to 1446 of administrative file No. 144-2003 SETENA, volume III). Thus, through these expert reports, all issued after resolution No. R-430-2006-MINAE, the Administration was able to verify the nonexistence of the factual assumptions on which it had based said resolution, thereby verifying the prerequisites established in the Law (numerals 152 and 153 of the LGAP), for its revocation. The plaintiff alleges that the revocation procedure established in the legal system was violated, and on this point argues that it took place ex officio and that the authorization of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic (Contraloría General de la República) was omitted. Regarding the first of these criticisms, it must be noted that the plaintiff is mistaken, since the record shows, and the Court has deemed it so proven, that through a brief filed before MINAE on November twenty-nine, two thousand six, the representative of Sociedad de Usuarios de Agua Roguemeca filed an appeal for revocation (recurso de revocatoria) against resolution No. R-430-2006-MINAE (the copy of the appeal appears at folios 1151 to 1155 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA). Likewise, the appeal filed against the aforementioned resolution by the Deputy Manager of SENARA on January twenty-five, two thousand seven also appears (which appears at folios 1249 to 1256 of the aforementioned administrative file). Thus, the plaintiff's assertions to the effect that the Administration revoked its own act ex officio do not conform to the factual reality appearing in the record and that this decision-making Body has been able to corroborate. As for the second procedural criticism, the plaintiff claims to miss the favorable opinion of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic, provided for in numeral 155 of the LGAP. Certainly, said provision establishes the authorization of the Comptroller Entity to issue the revocation, but only for those cases in which the act subject to revocation had declared a subjective right. Conversely, when the act does not generate subjective rights, the Administration may exercise its power of revocation without the favorable opinion of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic. At this point, it is pertinent to clarify that a declaratory act of rights is one that enriches the patrimony of its recipients with a right that was previously nonexistent, or when a preexisting right is released from some limitation on its exercise. It is therefore an act that confers on the individual a verifiable patrimonial or extra-patrimonial advantage or benefit, which did not occur in this case through resolution R-430-2006-MINAE, since by its means no right whatsoever was declared in favor of any person (natural or legal), on the contrary, it was an abrogating act through which the right of a legal person to the exploitation of a concession was annulled. Consequently, the favorable opinion of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic was not a requirement to revoke resolution No. R-430-2006-MINAE, and its absence does not cause the nullity of No. R-196-2007-MINAE. 2).- Regarding the substantive allegations against resolution No. R-196-2007-MINAE: Basically, the arguments of the plaintiff against the challenged act focus on the claim that the environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) of the Monteverde irrigation project, and specifically the concession to exploit the water resource of Quebrada Cuecha, granted to Asociación de Usuarios del Agua Rogumeca, causes environmental damage and to support this theory, the plaintiff states that this work is located in protected wild areas, aquifer recharge areas, in a site where endemic species are located, and that the exploitation negatively impacts the flow of the Quebrada. Regarding the location of the concession area, this Court has deemed it duly proven that in official letter ACAT-D-058 of March 28, 2007, the Regional Directorate of the Arenal-Tempisque Conservation Area (Área de Conservación Arenal-Tempisque) of the National System of Conservation Areas (Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación), reported: \"According to a tour conducted and points taken with GPS by technicians Elberth Vargas Masís and Miguel Jiménez, it can be determined that the built works are located outside the Arenal Monteverde Protective Zone (Zona Protectora Arenal Monteverde). (...) Based on the attached map, it can be observed that the southern boundary of the Refuge is Quebrada Cuecha and the works mentioned, in the case of the one built on said Quebrada, are located on the western boundary of the Refuge (see copy of the mentioned official letter at folio 46 of the SINAC file). Additionally, the record also shows that through official letter No. OT-ACA-107-2006, of December seven, two thousand six, Licenciado Carlos Alberto González Rojas certified: \"(...) that through Decree 26396, the Curi Cancha Private Wildlife Refuge (Refugio Privado de Vida Silvestre Curi Cancha) is declared and named, dated June 26, 1997, located in the Monteverde District. Article II states \"Said property will be subject to the Wildlife Refuge category for a period of five years, renewable for equal periods, for which the owner must request it in writing, one month prior to the end of said contract.\" The company named Curi Cancha Sociedad Anónima never complied with the transcribed article, therefore, as of today, it is not under the country's private Wildlife regime, since June 2002, the expiration date of Decree 26396.\" (see copy of the reference official letter at folio 33 of the SINAC file). Then, based on both criteria issued by experts in the field related to protected zones, this Court must necessarily conclude that the areas influenced by the exploitation of the concession are not only located outside the Arenal Monteverde Protective Zone (Zona Protectora Arenal Monteverde), but are also not subject to the limitations inherent to a private wildlife refuge, in this case the refuge called Curi Cancha, since as certified by Mr. Carlos Alberto González Rojas, its validity would have already expired. Regarding the possible affectation of the water resource, this Body reviewed the evaluation conducted by the Department of Waters (Departamento de Aguas) of MINAE, detailed in official letter IMN-DA-0708-2007, of April nine, two thousand seven. This evaluation was based on the following flow measurements (aforos):
| Date | Flow Data (liters per second) | Data Origin | Measurement Method |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20 February 2002 | 50.54 | SENARA | Current meter (Molinete) |
| March 2002 | 265.14 | SENARA | Current meter (Molinete) |
| 4 February 2005 | 194.00 | Depto. Aguas | Current meter (Molinete) |
| Dry season data indicated | 56.50 | Report provided to the file by Mr. Nombre114715 Deputy Director of Instituto Monteverde | Private system |
| 15 February 2007 | 51.22 | SENARA | Current meter (Molinete) |
| 14 March 2007 | 45.15 | SENARA | Current meter (Molinete) |
As can be seen, these are several studies conducted at different times, and during the summer season. In addition, the report indicates that the Quebrada has several sources and water inputs, including some located downstream of the concession intake. It was also indicated that during the summer, a flow ranging between forty-five and sixty liters per second is available, which, as stated, represents 28% of the minimum available flow. Finally, the expert report concluded \"It is the criterion of the undersigned that the water use concession file 11212 in the name of Sociedad de Usuarios de Agua Nombre114711, which has been granted a flow of 12.65 liters per second from Quebrada Cuecha, does not cause any damage to the water regime and ecosystem of the cited (sic) quebrada and is resolved in accordance with the principles of conservation and sustainable use of water stipulated in Article 51 of the Organic Law of the Environment (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente).\" (see copy of the cited official letter at folios 570 to 574 of the Department of Waters (Departamento de Aguas) file No. Placa21295, File Folder No. 3 and folios 1442 to 1446 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume III). As a corollary of this technical study, which the plaintiff has not been able to refute with objective evidence (since the evidence offered is limited to the statement of a witness who, as the record shows, has opposed the project from the beginning), the Court cannot admit the plaintiff's allegations to the effect that the execution of the referenced irrigation project causes damage to the water resource. Nor are the statements to the effect that the intake is within the ten meters of protection admissible, since evidently in this case we are dealing with a concession of the water resource, for which the works under examination are indispensable. As for the affectation of endangered species, this decision-making Body cannot deem the existence of such an impact proven solely by what was said at trial by Mrs. Nombre114710, since despite being a Biologist, that fact alone does not accredit her as an expert before the Court, not only because she was not offered in that capacity before the Court, but also because the record shows that Mrs. Nombre114710 is a resident of the area and has opposed the irrigation project from the beginning, which undoubtedly allows the conclusion that her statements are permeated by a particular and direct interest in the matter. While it is true that the administrative file contains some photocopies related to environmental studies, none refer to the specific case, as they do not address the impact that the exploitation of the water Concession could effectively cause. At this point, it is pertinent to note that under Article 317 of the Civil Procedure Code (Código Procesal Civil), the burden of proof corresponds \"To whoever formulates a claim, regarding the affirmations of the facts constitutive of their right,\" which implies the duty, in this case of the plaintiff, to demonstrate their claim, which undoubtedly entailed their obligation to bring to the record the necessary evidentiary elements to prove the alleged environmental impact. The party has not fulfilled this obligation, since beyond their arguments, they have not provided objective evidence proving the existence of the alleged environmental damage. The record does not contain any expert report offered that demonstrates in a precise, clear, and technical manner that the flow of Quebrada Cuecha would be affected by the exploitation of the concession; on the contrary, as already indicated, there are evaluations conducted by the Administration that indicate exactly the opposite. Nor are evidentiary elements provided that, on a scientific basis, prove that the exploitation of the concession would cause a significant environmental impact in its area of influence. The evidence in the record says exactly the opposite, which was even assessed by the Administrative Environmental Tribunal (Tribunal Ambiental Administrativo) and the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (SETENA). Thus, in resolution No. 374-07-TAA, at ten hours and twenty-nine minutes on April tenth, two thousand seven, the Administrative Environmental Tribunal (Tribunal Ambiental Administrativo) ordered \"To issue as a Provisional Resolution by dismissing solely the complaint against Sociedad de Usuarios de Agua Nombre114711 processed under this administrative file,\" for which it considered: \"Fourth: That based on the foregoing and having analyzed the documents that make up said administrative file, especially the record of the ocular inspection 'in situ' at the place where the water resource use of the company Rogumeca is located, visible at folios 834 and 835 of the administrative file, through which it is established '(...) The water intake has a construction on Quebrada Cuecha, in the form of a box 25 centimeters wide, 25 centimeters deep, and 2.20 meters long, next to it there is a tank where the water flows that goes to the desander. The concession granted by the Department of Waters (Departamento de Aguas) is 12.6 liters per second. The place has forest cover (cobertura boscosa) and no tree cutting is observed in the protection zone along the approximately eight hundred meters of road, where the hoses that carry the water for consumption are located (...), this Court considers that since there is no significant negative environmental damage in the operation of the water concession granted to the company Sociedad Usuarios de Agua Nombre114711, coupled with the current availability of water, in accordance with what was indicated by the Department of Waters (Departamento de Aguas) through official letter IMN-DA-0501-07, this complaint must be dismissed against the company called Nombre114711.\" (See copy of the referenced resolution at folios 1447 to 1454 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume III), and for its part, SETENA, in official letter CP-105-2007-SETENA, of April thirteen, two thousand seven, stated: \"2. The criterion of this Secretariat is that the Sworn Declaration of Environmental Commitments, together with the technical information in the file, is sufficient to support the environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) of the project with respect to the competencies of this Secretariat, in accordance with the cited regulations. 3. The foregoing is based on the following: The work that was carried out at the time is a subduction work, in which water is transferred to a desander, from which part of the water is sent to the farms for irrigation and the remaining part is sent back to the channel. When the project does not operate because irrigation is not needed, mainly during winter, all the water is returned to the channel from the desander. The works consist of the diversion intake (only two meters long) on Quebrada Cuecha, installation of the desander and conduction pipeline, regulation valves, and distribution pipeline. The calibrating work regulates the excess water and has the dimensions and technical specifications issued by the Department of Waters (Departamento de Aguas) of MINAE, which guarantees that they will be fully complied with. These previously described works do not cause impacts on the aquatic fauna of Quebrada Cuecha or on the nearby plant cover, and the project is categorized as a low environmental impact project, with environmental impacts of little significance. 4. On the other hand, SENARA, through the public administrative act issued by official letter number POE-573-03 (folios 0020 and 0026) signed by Eng. Edgar Mairena Navarro, in charge of projects for the Central Pacific Region of SENARA, demonstrates that: 'Regarding the watershed-level study requested: the flow to be diverted will not significantly affect the Quebrada Cuecha watershed. The foregoing certified through Official Letter ASUB-367-03, showing that 3 flow measurements (aforos) were conducted on February 20, 2002, March 20, 2002, and April 18, 2002, with flows of 50.54 L/sec, 265.14 L/sec, and 30.03 L/sec, respectively. The technical study is based on the Manual of Water Allowances to calculate the needs for water use applications prepared by the Department of Waters (Departamento de Aguas)-MINAE.' (...) 5. In turn, the Department of Waters (Departamento de Aguas) of MINAE determined, through official letter number IMN-DA-0362, of February 7, 2005, the following: 'As of February 4, 2005, the quebradas maintained a flow of 61.4 l/sec. La Máquina and 194 l/sec for Quebrada Cuecha, and these are more than 10 times greater than the flows potentially to be used by the companies.' There are also a series of lateral inputs and other water sources below each proposed intake, flows that feed and result in a consequent increase in the flow of the sources.\" (...). 7. Through Executive Decree (Decreto Ejecutivo) number 26396-MINAE, of June 26, 1997, the Curi Cancha Private Wildlife Refuge (Refugio Privado de Vida Silvestre Curi Cancha) was created; in its article 2, subsection II, it was determined that the refuge character of the property would cover a period of five years, which could be renewed. It does not appear in file 144-2013-SETENA if such renewal has occurred. 8. In light of all the foregoing considerations, the resolutions of this SECRETARIAT can be reread, as well as the document appearing at folios 626 to 634 of file 144-2003SETENA, in which the technical foundations leading to the following conclusion will be found developed: Even if the place is a wildlife refuge, the environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental) carried out for the project (Article 82 LCVA) guarantees that it is environmentally viable in what concerns the competence of this Secretariat\" (see copy of the cited official letter at folios 1455 to 1457 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume III). It is observed then that the record contains reports from the Administration, as well as resolutions from the Administrative Environmental Tribunal (Tribunal Ambiental Administrativo) and SETENA, in which the environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) of the irrigation project related to Quebrada Cuecha is proven, without the plaintiff having taken care to provide evidence tending to refute those acts. Subsequently, the Administration concerned had as the basis for the act challenged here this same body of evidence, which constitutes the grounds for the act in question, since the environmental impact alleged by the opponents of the project was not proven, and on the contrary, the Administration having demonstrated that the works would not cause the alleged damage, the questioned revocation finds its cause or grounds precisely in the non-existence of the affectation, since the damages not being proven, there would be no reason whatsoever to maintain resolution No. R-430-2006-MINAE, as it had decreed the nullity of official letter SG-1562-2003-SETENA, of September twenty-six, two thousand three, in which environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) was granted to the irrigation project, nor would there be a reason to cancel the concession, as was ordered in the resolution that was ultimately revoked. In accordance with all that has been said, the Court considers that the challenged administrative act was issued in exercise of the power of revocation established in the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública), under the prerequisites established in the legal system, not only because new facts emerged that were not taken into account when issuing the act that was revoked, but also because the facts were assessed based on the new technical criteria that were provided within the administrative procedure. This decision-making Body also considers that the act in question had as its cause or grounds precisely the demonstration that the irrigation project would not cause the alleged harm, and this was duly substantiated in the revocation act. Consequently, and in the absence of evidence to discredit that which the Administration concerned took into account to issue the challenged act, the appropriate action is to dismiss the lawsuit in all its aspects.
XI.- ON THE DEFENSES: The State's representative raised the defenses of lack of right, lack of active standing to sue (falta de legitimación ad causam activa), and expiration (caducidad). In addition, at the trial hearing, he argued that environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) is an act not subject to challenge. The State's and SENARA's representatives raised the defense of lack of right, lack of passive standing, expiration (caducidad), and statute of limitations (prescripción). For its part, the co-defendant Nombre114711 did not formulate defenses. Regarding the expiration (caducidad) and statute of limitations (prescripción) alleged by the State's and SENARA's representatives, this must adhere to what was resolved in recitals VII and VIII of this judgment. The same applies to the defense of an act not subject to challenge, to which the Court referred in recital IX of this resolution. Regarding the defense of lack of passive standing raised by SENARA, it was addressed at the preliminary hearing held on August twenty-seven, two thousand twelve, from which point SENARA intervened as a voluntary passive coadjuvant. For its part, and under the preceding substantive recital, the lack of right, which encompasses the lack of active standing to sue (falta de legitimación ad causam activa), must be upheld.
XII.- ON COSTS: As provided in Article 193 of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo), the payment of personal and procedural costs is borne by the losing party. However, the Court may exempt from their payment when \"Given the nature of the issues debated, there has been, in the Court's judgment, sufficient reason to litigate.\" In the matter under examination, the administrative file contains two resolutions issued by the Administration concerned that are contradictory: one deems it proven that the Monteverde irrigation project causes environmental impact, and another, the one that has been challenged here, reaches the contrary conclusion.
In the Court's judgment, this circumstance is sufficient reason to litigate, and therefore, the plaintiff was placed in the scenario of exemption from costs established in subsection b of article 193 of the procedural code, which is why, despite his status as the losing party, the Court has decided to exempt him from such payment, with each party bearing their own costs.
THEREFORE
The defenses of expiration (caducidad), statute of limitations (prescripción), and act not subject to challenge are rejected. The defense of lack of right, encompassing the lack of active standing (falta de legitimación ad causam activa), is upheld. The claim brought by Mr. Nombre114708 against the State and the Rogumeca Water Users Society (Sociedad de Usuarios de Agua Rogumeca) is dismissed. This matter is resolved without a special award of costs.
Ileana Sánchez Navarro Ana Isabel Vargas Vargas Eduardo González Segura Drafted by Reporting Judge Sánchez Navarro **CONSIDERING** **I.- REGARDING THE PROVEN FACTS:** The following are listed as important for resolving this matter: **1).-** That on February twenty-sixth, two thousand three, Mr. Sergio Salas Arias, representing the Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento, submitted to the Ministerio de Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones the Preliminary Environmental Assessment Form (Formulario de Evaluación Ambiental Preliminar, hereinafter FEAP), consecutive number 133-2003, related to the Monteverde Irrigation Project, whose objective is *"to provide an irrigation system for the (sic) Monteverde 20 hectares of pasture and vegetables in the Poblado de Santa Elena."* (see copy of the form on folios 1 to 11 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume I); **2).-** That on May fifteenth, two thousand three, the Sociedad de Usuarios de Agua Rogumeca, submitted to the Department of Waters of MINAE, an application to obtain a concession for the use of water from the Quebrada Cuecha, indicating that it would be used for irrigation (see copy of the application on folios 551 to 549 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume II); **3).-** That by official letter SG-1562-2003, of September twenty-sixth, two thousand three, the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental notified (SENARA) of the granting of environmental viability for the Monteverde Irrigation project (see copy of the official letter on folio 30 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume I); **4).-** That in resolution N° R-254-AGUAS-MINAE, at ten o'clock on September eighth, two thousand four, the Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía, Department of Waters granted a water concession, for a term of ten years, to the Sociedad de Usuarios de Agua Rogumeca. This resolution indicated that the source of the concession is the Quebrada Cuecha, with the authorized flow rate being 12.65 liters per second, and establishing that the use is irrigation (see copy of the indicated resolution on the reverse of folio 249 to folio 251 of the Department of Waters file N° 11212); **5).-** That in official letter N° OT-02-ACAT-2005 of January fourth, two thousand five, Lic. Carlos Alberto González Rojas, of the Department of Land-Use Planning (Departamento de Ordenamiento Territorial) ACAT, of the Área de Conservación Arenal-Tempisque of the Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación Arenal Tempisque, after an inspection carried out at the property Folio Real Registration Plate 21293, in the name of Curi Cancha Sociedad Anónima, indicated that said property is located outside the Protected Wilderness Area (Área Silvestre Protegida), of the Zona Protectora Arenal Monteverde. He also stated: *"(...) it is important to note that this property was subject to the Curi Cancha Private Wildlife Refuge (Refugio de Vida Silvestre Privado Curi Cancha), Sociedad Anónima, Decreto N°.26396-MINAE, dated October 24, 1997, Gaceta N°.205. According to Article II, there is no written request for an extension (próloga, sic) of the Refuge, which means (sic) said category does not cover said property."* (see copy of the mentioned official letter on folio 35 of the SINAC file); **6).-** That in official letter N° SG-633-2005, of March seventeenth, two thousand five, issued by the Secretaría Técnica Ambiental and addressed to the Defensoría de los Habitantes de la República, it was concluded: *"Quebrada Cuecha Intake Sector, no tree felling or significant environmental impacts to vegetation are observed given that trails providing access to the quebrada previously existed. The pipeline's passage through public roads is in total concordance with typical engineering practices for the work and its treatment was carried out as established. Given the stoppage of construction works, the pipeline placement has not been completed; approximately 150 linear meters are missing on public roads, the connections to users and the intake works at the Quebrada Cuecha, therefore its final disposition cannot be assured. No pipeline remnants or debris resulting from the works' installation are observed along the route. The earthworks (movimientos de suelos) on the margin of the Quebrada Cuecha, described via official letter ACAT-D-GMR-SCM-06 of January 24, 2005, are not related to the irrigation project and no conveyance works towards the property are observed. The users of the Monteverde irrigation project were visited, and it was verified that on the proposed properties, there are spaces available for the indicated activities, and some of them have small-scale vegetable cultivation areas and pastures for animal husbandry. From the observed works, no significant environmental impacts are evident. Therefore, it is considered that the Monteverde irrigation project fulfills (sic) the environmental commitments acquired in the Sworn Declaration of Environmental Commitments (Declaración Jurada de Compromisos Ambientales)"* (see copy of the cited official letter on folios 553 and 554 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume II); **7).-** That on May tenth, two thousand five, several neighbors of the Monteverde area, among whom is Mrs. Nombre114710, filed a petition before the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental (hereinafter SETENA), with the purpose of obtaining a declaration of nullity of the environmental viability of the referenced irrigation project, an administrative procedure processed under file N°144-2003 SETENA (see copy of said brief on folios 171 to 149 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume I); **8).-** That in Resolution N° 1960-2005, adopted by the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental in Ordinary Session N° 034-2005, of August third, 2005, in article 59 it was agreed: to appoint the Directing Body of the Investigation Procedure for the Monteverde Irrigation Project (see copy of the indicated resolution on folios 336 to 346 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume I); **9).-** That in resolution N° 1961-2005-SETENA, at eleven hours and ten minutes on August ninth, two thousand five, issued within administrative procedure N°144-2003 SETENA, and based on the precautionary principle, the execution of the Monteverde Irrigation project was suspended (see copy of the mentioned resolution on folios 327 to 333 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume I); **10).-** That in resolution N° 429-2006-SETENA, at ten hours thirty minutes on March third, two thousand six, the Plenary Commission of the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, resolved *"FIRST: The motion of evident and manifest nullity filed against administrative act SG-1562-2003-SETENA, of September 26, 2003, is hereby declared without merit. SECOND: The suspension of the execution of the administrative act issued in resolution 1961-2005-SETENA, dated August 9, 2005, is hereby lifted, with respect to the aforementioned administrative act. THIRD: Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Secretaría will proceed to order the involved Public Administrations -and will ensure- the execution of a Strategic Environmental Assessment (Evaluación Ambiental Estratégica) of the water resource in the corresponding hydrographic basin or sub-basin, as determined by preliminary analyses. (...)"* (see copy of the cited resolution on folios 848 to 856 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume II and 955 to 963 of volume III); **11).-** That to adopt the referenced resolution, SETENA considered the assessments and recommendations of the Directing Body of the Procedure, to the effect that: *"The information provided by SENARA through the FEAP, for determining the preliminary evaluation, is considered sufficient as a preliminary analysis of the environmental situation of the project area and its area of influence, taking into account the following aspects, determined through analysis of the information contained in the file and observation made during the field visit: 1. The project entails the construction of the diversion intake on the Quebrada Cuecha, a desander, conveyance pipeline, regulation valves, and distribution pipelines to plots. 2. An adequate definition of the project area and the AID is proposed in the information provided by the user. It is circumscribed to the site where the different works, described above, were located, including the pipeline's passage through some Monteverde streets, as well as the plot distribution sites, determined as the project area. 3. The proposed project is categorized as having low environmental impact, determined through the preliminary environmental assessment carried out by this Secretaría, which involved evaluating the project's environmental characteristics with respect to its location, determining its environmental significance. 4. The environmental impacts to be generated are considered minor negative impacts. 5. The information contained in the FEAP was accurate and adjusted to the characteristics of the project and its area of influence, arguments that supported the Plenary Commission's decision to request the Sworn Declaration of Environmental Commitments (DJCA) as the Assessment Tool. THEREFORE, WE RECOMMEND TO THE PLENARY COMMISSION-SETENA 1. To maintain the Environmental Viability of the project. 2. To notify SENARA that it can initiate the project's operation, for the benefit of the beneficiaries or service recipients. 3. To reject the Motion of Nullity filed by Lic. Agustín Atmelia Herrera on May 10, 2005, fundamentally because the arguments of the cited motion exceed the scope of what is technically considered the Ap and AID of the project, whose construction phase, to date, does not reflect the production of significant negative environmental impacts that endanger other natural resources of the area, especially when the petitioners have sought to overstate it for the entire population or area of the Monteverde District."* (see copy of the cited document on folios 848 to 856 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume II and 955 to 963 of volume III); **12).-** That the resolution referred to in the two previous considering clauses was appealed by Mrs. Nombre114710 and other persons (see copies of the appeal on folios 857 to 882 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume II); **13).-** That through official letter of October third, two thousand six, N° SITRA-269-06, the General Secretary of the Asociación Sindical de Trabajadores del Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía e Instituciones Afines de Conservación SITRAMINAE, filed a complaint before the Tribunal Ambiental Administrativo for the alleged invasion and environmental damage of the protection zone of the Quebrada Cuecha and requested the total closure of the Concession of the Nombre114711 Irrigation Project (see copy of the complaint on folios 1177 to 1196 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume III); **14).-** That in official letter of October fourth, two thousand six, N° SITRA-270-06, the General Secretary of the Asociación Sindical de Trabajadores del Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía e Instituciones Afines de Conservación SITRAMINAE, filed a complaint before the Procuraduría General de la República for the alleged invasion and environmental damage of the protection zone of the Quebrada Cuecha and requested the total closure of the Concession of the Nombre114711 Irrigation Project (see copy of the complaint on folios 1093 to 1217 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume III); **15)-** That on the occasion of the complaint referred to in the immediately preceding fact, in a brief dated October nineteenth, two thousand six, Adjunto Procurador Mauricio Castro Lizano requested that the Tribunal Ambiental Administrativo proceed to carry out the necessary steps to determine the existence or not of the reported infractions (see copy of the official letter on folio 1213 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume III); **16).-** That the Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía, in resolution N° 430-06-MINAE, at eleven hours fifty minutes on November seventeenth, two thousand six, declared the appeal filed against the provisions of resolution N°429-2006-SETENA to have merit, and declared the nullity, with retroactive effect, of official letter N° SG-1562-2003-SETENA of September twenty-sixth, two thousand three, decreeing in turn the nullity of the acts issued subsequently and related to the referenced official letter. Furthermore, the Department of Waters was ordered to initiate a procedure for the purpose of canceling the concession granted in resolution 254-2004- AGUAS-MINAE (see copy of the indicated resolution on folios 1088 to 1034 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume III); **17).-** That in the resolution referred to in the immediately preceding fact, in order to uphold the appeal, it was considered that the Monteverde irrigation project would indeed cause considerable environmental impact, that it was in a Wildlife Refuge, and that the act authorizing the project lacks the essential elements of the act because it was based on erroneous information. To issue these conclusions, the concerned Administration had, as an essential evidentiary element, a study prepared by several of the appellants (visible on folios 101 to 110 of administrative file N° number 144-2003 SETENA, volume I), (see copy of the indicated resolution on folios 1088 to 1034 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume III); **18).-** That through a brief filed before MINAE on November twenty-ninth, two thousand six, the representative of the Sociedad de Usuarios de Agua Rogumeca filed a motion for reconsideration against resolution R-430-MINAE, alluded to in the two previous considering clauses (see copy of the motion on folios 1151 to 1155 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume III); **19).-** That in resolution N° R-451-2006-MINAE, at eleven hours fifty minutes on December twelfth, two thousand six, the Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía rejected the motion for reconsideration filed against resolution 430-2006-MINAE (see copy of said resolution on folios 1149 and 1150 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume III); **20).-** That through official letter N° OT-ACA-107-2006, of December seventh, two thousand six, Licenciado Carlos Alberto González Rojas certified: *"(...) that through Decreto 26396, the Curi Cancha Private Wildlife Refuge (Refugio Privado de Vida Silvestre Curi Cancha) is declared and named, dated June 26, 1997, located in the Monteverde District. Article II states 'Said property shall be subject to the Wildlife Refuge category for a period of five years, renewable for equal periods, for which the owner must request it in writing, one month prior to the end of said contract.' The company called Curi Cancha Sociedad Anónima never complied with the transcribed article; therefore, as of today, it is not under the country's private Wildlife regime, since June 2002, the expiration date of Decreto 26396."* (see copy of the referenced official letter on folio 33 of the SINAC file); **21).-** That in a writ filed before the Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía on January twenty-fifth, two thousand seven, the Deputy Manager of SENARA filed a motion for reconsideration or reinstatement against resolution R-430-06-MINAE (see copy of said petition on folios 1249 to 1256 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume III); **22).-** That in official letter ACAT-D-058 of March 28, 2007, the Regional Direction of the Área de Conservación Arenal-Tempisque of the Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, reported: *"According to the site visit conducted and points taken with GPS by technicians Elberth Vargas Masís and Miguel Jiménez, it can be determined that the constructed works are located outside the Zona Protectora Arenal Monteverde. (...) Based on the attached map, it can be observed that the southern limit of the Refuge is the Quebrada Cuecha and the mentioned works, in the case of the one built on said Quebrada, is located on the western limit of the Refuge (see copy of the mentioned official letter on folio 46 of the SINAC file) That through official letter IMN-DA-0708-2007, of April ninth, two thousand seven, the Department of Waters of MINAE, issued a water resource evaluation of the water concession in the name of the Sociedad de Usuarios de Agua Rogumeca, in which the stream gauging (aforos) performed at the intake point detailed below were taken as a reference:*
| Date | Flow Data (liters per second) | Origin of Data | Gauging Method |
|---|---|---|---|
| February 20, 2002 | 50.54 | SENARA | Current Meter (Molinete) |
| March 2002 | 265.14 | SENARA | Current Meter (Molinete) |
| February 4, 2005 | 194.00 | Dpto. Aguas | Current Meter (Molinete) |
| It is indicated as dry season data | 56.50 | Report provided to the file by Mr. |
Name114715</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101; -aw-import:spaces\">  </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">Sub Director of the Monteverde Institute</span></p></td><td style=\"width:105pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #010101; padding:2.25pt 2.25pt 2.25pt 2.5pt; vertical-align:top\"><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%; font-size:12pt\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">Private system</span></p></td></tr><tr><td style=\"width:105pt; border-right:1pt solid #010101; border-bottom:1pt solid #010101; padding:2.25pt; vertical-align:top\"><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%; font-size:12pt\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">15 February 2007</span></p></td><td style=\"width:105pt; border-right:1pt solid #010101; border-bottom:1pt solid #010101; padding:2.25pt 2.25pt 2.25pt 2.5pt; vertical-align:top\"><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%; font-size:12pt\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">51.22</span></p></td><td style=\"width:105pt; border-right:1pt solid #010101; border-bottom:1pt solid #010101; padding:2.25pt 2.25pt 2.25pt 2.5pt; vertical-align:top\"><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%; font-size:12pt\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">SENARA</span></p></td><td style=\"width:105pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #010101; padding:2.25pt 2.25pt 2.25pt 2.5pt; vertical-align:top\"><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%; font-size:12pt\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">Molinete</span></p></td></tr><tr><td style=\"width:105pt; border-right:1pt solid #010101; padding:2.25pt; vertical-align:top\"><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%; font-size:12pt\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">14 March 2007</span></p></td><td style=\"width:105pt; border-right:1pt solid #010101; padding:2.25pt 2.25pt 2.25pt 2.5pt; vertical-align:top\"><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%; font-size:12pt\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">45.15</span></p></td><td style=\"width:105pt; border-right:1pt solid #010101; padding:2.25pt 2.25pt 2.25pt 2.5pt; vertical-align:top\"><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%; font-size:12pt\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">SENARA</span></p></td><td style=\"width:105pt; padding:2.25pt 2.25pt 2.25pt 2.5pt; vertical-align:top\"><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%; font-size:12pt\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">Molinete</span></p></td></tr></table><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial; color:#010101\"> </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial; color:#010101\">Based on these flow measurements (aforos), the following observations were made in the assessment: </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">"The micro-watershed of the Cuecha stream is a tributary of the Guacimal river watershed. This Department has flow data for the Guacimal river watershed, measured upstream from the bridge on national route N° 1 during the years 1998-1999, 2000, and 2001, and they present positive variations during the months of March and April, and the technical explanation is that said flows were influenced by atmospheric phenomena coming from the Caribbean; the effect is that flows are greater from one month to the next, meaning that a flow measurement (aforo) is taken in February and it is expected that in March it will be lower, and the opposite occurs. The flow of the Quebrada Cuecha, which is part of the Guacimal river watershed, both forming the upper part of the watershed, along with another series of sources, exhibits the phenomenon indicated in the previous point, according to flow measurements (aforos) carried out by SENARA, (see folio 31 of expediente 11212) during the months of February and March 2002, they affirm the above, since for the month of February a flow of 50.54 Lps is measured (afora) and for the month of March a flow of</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">265.14 is measured (afora), more than five times the flow of the month of January; how is this phenomenon explained? The said watershed is influenced by the Caribbean. Downstream flow contributions: From the concession's intake site at an estimated distance of 50 meters, there is the first point-source flow contribution, originating from a small unnamed stream that is a tributary of the creek, which always occurs within the property where the water is captured, namely on the property of Nombre114712., according to the inspection carried out on 4 February 2005, recorded in official communication IMN-DA-0362-2005 of 7 February 2005. Although the contributed flow data is not available, an almost immediate contribution downstream of the diversion site has been identified. Water availability: From the available information, discarding the extreme flows presented in February 2002 and March 2005, it is concluded that during the dry season, a flow in the range of 45 to 60 liters per second may be available. The existing water rights downstream in the micro-watershed of the Quebrada Cuecha must be respected, and according to our National Register of Concessions Computer System, there are no active concessions. There are pending water applications from the same creek, at downstream sites, by the Sociedad de Usuarios de Agua de Monte Verde Rock Smith and by Mr. Nombre114713</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101; -aw-import:spaces\">   </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">which must be evaluated. Considering the minimum measured flow (caudal aforado) of 45.15 liters per second, this is the available flow at the intake site. Calculation of needs: According to the technical report recommending the concession, official communication IMN-DA-2694-2004 (document running in the expediente), the needs are assessed at a total flow of 12.65 liters per second. These are estimated based on use data verified in the field and based on the technical variables provided in the Water Department's Allocations Manual published in Gazette N° 98 of Thursday, 20 May 2004.</span></p><table cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" style=\"width:441.75pt; border:1pt solid #010101; border-collapse:collapse\"><tr><td style=\"width:215.25pt; border-right:1pt solid #010101; border-bottom:1pt solid #010101; padding:2.25pt; vertical-align:top\"><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%; font-size:12pt\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">Variable</span></p></td><td style=\"width:215.25pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #010101; padding:2.25pt 2.25pt 2.25pt 2.5pt; vertical-align:top\"><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%; font-size:12pt\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">Detail</span></p></td></tr><tr><td style=\"width:215.25pt; border-right:1pt solid #010101; border-bottom:1pt solid #010101; padding:2.25pt; vertical-align:top\"><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%; font-size:12pt\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">Use</span></p></td><td style=\"width:215.25pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #010101; padding:2.25pt 2.25pt 2.25pt 2.5pt; vertical-align:top\"><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%; font-size:12pt\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">Irrigation</span></p></td></tr><tr><td style=\"width:215.25pt; border-right:1pt solid #010101; border-bottom:1pt solid #010101; padding:2.25pt; vertical-align:top\"><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%; font-size:12pt\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">Irrigation area</span></p></td><td style=\"width:215.25pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #010101; padding:2.25pt 2.25pt 2.25pt 2.5pt; vertical-align:top\"><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%; font-size:12pt\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">23 hectares</span></p></td></tr><tr><td style=\"width:215.25pt; border-right:1pt solid #010101; border-bottom:1pt solid #010101; padding:2.25pt; vertical-align:top\"><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%; font-size:12pt\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">Crops</span></p></td><td style=\"width:215.25pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #010101; padding:2.25pt 2.25pt 2.25pt 2.5pt; vertical-align:top\"><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%; font-size:12pt\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">Coffee, vegetables, and pasture</span></p></td></tr><tr><td style=\"width:215.25pt; border-right:1pt solid #010101; border-bottom:1pt solid #010101; padding:2.25pt; vertical-align:top\"><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%; font-size:12pt\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">Allocation per hectare</span></p></td><td style=\"width:215.25pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #010101; padding:2.25pt 2.25pt 2.25pt 2.5pt; vertical-align:top\"><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%; font-size:12pt\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">0.55 liters per second</span></p></td></tr><tr><td style=\"width:215.25pt; border-right:1pt solid #010101; border-bottom:1pt solid #010101; padding:2.25pt; vertical-align:top\"><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%; font-size:12pt\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">Usage period</span></p></td><td style=\"width:215.25pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #010101; padding:2.25pt 2.25pt 2.25pt 2.5pt; vertical-align:top\"><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%; font-size:12pt\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">18 hours per day</span></p></td></tr><tr><td style=\"width:215.25pt; border-right:1pt solid #010101; padding:2.25pt; vertical-align:top\"><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%; font-size:12pt\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">Required flow</span></p></td><td style=\"width:215.25pt; padding:2.25pt 2.25pt 2.25pt 2.5pt; vertical-align:top\"><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%; font-size:12pt\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">12.65 liters per second</span></p></td></tr></table><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%\"><span> </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">Given that there is sufficient available flow in the Quebrada Cuecha at the height of the intake point. The concessioned flow represents, in summer (dry season at lowest flow), 28% of the minimum available flow in March and 4.7% of the maximum flow in March, at the intake site. There are proven flow contributions to the Quebrada Cuecha barely 50 meters downstream from the intake. The concession right demands that the concessionaire must calibrate the allocated flow by means of a weir and orifice structure; this must guarantee that no more water than allocated will be diverted. Once the concessioned flow is diverted, a flow of 32.50 liters per second would be running downstream, which is greater than the 10% established at each intake as the Minimum Remaining Flow (Caudal Mínimo Remanente, CMR) (known by others as environmental flow), thereby preserving the right of third parties to the common uses of water stipulated in Article 11 of the Water Law (Ley de Aguas), as well as guaranteeing that there is a permanent water flow in the channel during the dry season, which allows for meeting ecosystem needs, and likewise the protection of third parties with superior rights through concessions is covered. It is the opinion of the undersigned that the water use concession under expediente 11212 in the name of the Sociedad de Usuarios de Agua Nombre114711, which has been granted a flow of 12.65 liters per second from the Quebrada Cuecha, does not cause any damage to the water regime and ecosystem of the cited</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> (sic) creek and has been resolved in adherence to the principles of conservation and sustainable use of water stipulated in Article 51 of the Organic Environmental Law (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente)." </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; color:#010101\">(see copy of the cited official communication at folios 570 to 574 of the Water Department's expediente N° 11212, File N° 3 and folios 1442 to 1446 of administrative expediente number 144-2003 SETENA, volume III)</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">23).-</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; color:#010101\"> That in resolution N° 374-07-TAA, at ten hours and twenty-nine minutes on the tenth of April of the year two thousand seven, the Administrative Environmental Tribunal (Tribunal Ambiental Administrativo) ordered </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">"To Issue as a Provisional Resolution to dismiss only the complaint against the Sociedad de Usuarios de Agua Nombre114711</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> processed under the present administrative expediente, said resolution being subject to replacement by the Final Resolution, once the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice rules on the Unconstitutionality Action N°. 06-009493-0007-CO" </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; color:#010101\">(See copy of the referenced resolution at folios 1447 to 1454 of administrative expediente number 144-2003 SETENA, volume III); </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">24).- </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; color:#010101\">That to issue the resolution referred to in the immediately preceding fact, the Administrative Environmental Tribunal considered: </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">"Fourth: That based on the foregoing and after analyzing the documents that make up said administrative expediente, especially the record of the on-site ocular inspection at the place where the water resource use of the Rogumeca company is located, visible at folios 834 and 835 of the administrative expediente, through which it is established '(...) The water intake has a structure built over the Quebrada Cuecha, in the form of a drawer 25 centimeters wide, 25 centimeters deep, and 2.20 meters long; beside it is a tank where the water flows to the desander. The concession granted by the Water Department is 12.6 liters per second. The place has forest cover (cobertura boscosa)</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> and no tree cutting is observed in the protection zone along the road approximately</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> eight hundred meters, where</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> the hoses</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> that carry water for consumption are located (...)', this Tribunal considers that since there is no significant negative environmental damage</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> in the operation</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> of the water concession</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> granted to the company Sociedad Usuarios de Agua Nombre114711</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> coupled with the fact that water is currently available, in accordance with what was indicated by the Water Department through official communication IMN-DA-0501-07, this complaint against the company named Nombre114711 must be dismissed." </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; color:#010101\">(See copy of the referenced resolution at folios 1447 to 1454 of administrative expediente number 144-2003 SETENA, volume III); </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">25).- </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; color:#010101\">That in official communication CP-105-2007-SETENA, of thirteen April two thousand seven, the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental) communicated to the Minister of Environment and Energy the opinion on the Monteverde Irrigation Project, in which, as relevant, it concluded: </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">" 2. The opinion of this Secretariat is that the Sworn Declaration of Environmental Commitments (Declaración Jurada de Compromisos Ambientales), together with the technical information contained in the expediente, is sufficient to support the environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) of the project with regard to the competencies of this Secretariat, in accordance with the cited regulations. 3. The foregoing is based on the following: The work carried out at the time is a subduction structure, in which water is transferred to a desander, from which part of the water is sent to the farms for irrigation</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> and the remaining part is sent back to the channel. When the project is not operating because irrigation is not needed, mainly during the winter, all the water is returned to the channel from the desander. The works consist of the intake (measuring </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">only two meters long</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">) for diversion in the Quebrada Cuecha, installation of the desander and conveyance pipeline, regulation valves, and distribution pipeline. The calibrating structure regulates the excess water and has the dimensions and technical specifications issued by the Water Department of MINAE, which guarantees that they will be fully complied with. These previously described works do not cause impacts on the aquatic fauna of the Quebrada Cuecha or on the nearby vegetation cover, and the project is categorized as a low environmental impact project, with insignificant environmental impacts. 4. On the other hand, SENARA, through the public administrative act issued by official communication number POE-573-03 (folios 0020 and 0026) signed by Eng. Edgar Mairena Navarro, project manager of the Central Pacific Region of SENARA, demonstrates that: 'Regarding the requested watershed-level study: </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101\">the flow to be diverted will not significantly affect the Quebrada Cuecha watershed.</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> The foregoing certified by Official Communication ASUB-367-03, where it is recorded that 3 flow measurements (aforos) were taken on 20 February 2002, 20 March 2002, and 18 April 2002, with flows of 50.54 L/sec, 265.14 L/sec, and 30.03 L/sec, respectively. The technical study is based on the Water Allocations Manual for calculating the needs of water use applications, developed in the Water Department-MINAE.' (...) 5. In turn, the Water Department of MINAE determined, through official communication number IMN-DA-0362, of 7 February 2005, the following: ' As of 4 February 2005, the streams maintained a flow of 61.4 l/sec. La Máquina and 194 l/sec the Quebrada Cuecha, and these are more than 10 times greater than the flows potentially to be used by the societies.' There are also a series of lateral contributions and contributions from other water sources downstream of each proposed intake, flows that feed and consequently increase the flow of the sources.' (...). 7. Through Executive Decree number 26396-MINAE, of 26 June 1997, the Curi Cancha Private Wildlife Refuge was created; in its Article 2, section II, it was determined that the refuge status of the property would cover a period of five years, which could be renewed. It is not recorded in expediente 144-2013-SETENA whether such renewal has occurred. 8. In light of all the foregoing considerations, the resolutions of this SECRETARIAT can be reread, as well as the document appearing at folios 626 to 634 of expediente 144-2003SETENA, in which the technical foundations leading to the following conclusion are developed: Although the site is a wildlife refuge, the environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental) carried out for the project (Article 82 LCVA) guarantees that it is environmentally viable (ambientalmente viable) with regard to the competence of this Secretariat." </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; color:#010101\">( see copy of the cited official communication at folios 1455 to 1457 of administrative expediente number 144-2003 SETENA, volume III); </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">26).- </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; color:#010101\">That in resolution N° R-196-2007-MINAE, issued by the Ministry of Environment and Energy at eleven hours on twenty-four April two thousand seven, resolution N° 430-2006-MINAE, of eleven hours fifty minutes on seventeen November two thousand six, was revoked (see copy of the referenced resolution at folios 1492 to 1514 of administrative expediente number 144-2003 SETENA, volume III); </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">27).- </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; color:#010101\">That resolution N° R-196- MINAE was based on the following considerations: </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">" SECOND: (...) Revocation, under the terms of our General Public Administration Law (Ley General de la Administración Pública), is appropriate in cases where, for reasons of opportunity, among others, an administrative act may be withdrawn from legal life, not for reasons of invalidity, in which case nullity would be appropriate, but in cases where there is a progressive divergence between the reasons that originated the issuance of the act, and those that subsequently become evident as new or not appreciable at the time the revocable act was issued (the revocable act in this case being resolution 430-2006-MINAE). In this regard, at the time resolution 430-2006-MINAE was issued, there were no evidentiary elements or</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">technical-legal assessment, such as those produced by the technical departments of this Ministry (indicated in the resultandos of this resolution) subsequent to the issuance of that resolution; a situation that constitutes a substantial change in the factual scenario before which the Public Administration possesses a discretionary power of action, circumscribed within the framework of legality and observance of public purposes, and never detached from them. In this sense, the new elements of judgment must be supported by technical and legal criteria that allow a change of criterion or appreciation of the same matter to be legally and technically viable. In the case under review, the new elements produced by both the National Environmental Technical Secretariat and the Water Department, as well as what was indicated by SINAC, and Administrative Environmental Tribunal, constitute the necessary inputs for the administration to proceed to a reassessment of the circumstances and background that originated the issuance of the original administrative act (in this case, resolution 430-2006-MINAE), through the legal institution of</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> modification of administrative acts called 'revocation.' (...) The circumstances that would innovate the factual scenario with respect to that which was taken</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> into account at the time resolution 430-2006-MINAE was issued, consist of the technical pronouncements from the various technical departments of this Ministry that refer specifically to the sufficient flow availability to satisfy the ecological needs of the site where the water intake for the Monteverde Irrigation Project is located, and the lack of impact on natural resources from the extraction of the flow subject to the concession, since previously the only thing taken into account by those same technical departments of this Ministry, (mainly by SETENA) was the discarding of environmental impact from the construction works for water capture, and not the capture itself (i.e., the use of the concessioned flow and its impact on the required ecological flow). In accordance with the above, given the existence of new elements that demonstrate a progressive mismatch between what was acted upon and the current reality, shown by the technical and legal pronouncements of the departments of this Ministry, a need arises to readjust</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">the issued administrative act (resolution 430-2006-MINAE) to the reality shown by the new evidentiary elements. (...) THIRD: (...) when the competent technical bodies, as in this case would be mainly SETENA and the Water Department, have cleared</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> the reasonable doubts that existed from the beginning in this case, regarding the possible impact on the natural resources adjacent to the water capture works for the project, there would now be no surmountable technical or legal reason to prevent the realization of the project in question, since while the uncertain state existed, the Administration assumed a preventive role as required by Article 13 and 109 of the Biodiversity Law (Ley de la Biodiversidad): initially resolving the nullity of the environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental), but after the produced evidentiary elements it is determined that the activity sought to be developed through the Monteverde Irrigation Project, specifically regarding water capture, will not affect the natural resources of the site, so the Administration is legally empowered to reconcile its acts with the forensic reality presented by the aforementioned departments." (...) FOURTH: (...) It is clarified at this point that there would no longer be a technical doubt about the impact on the environmental legal asset, due to the activity that the Sociedad de Usuarios de Agua Rogumeca intends to develop, according to what was indicated above, by the different Technical Departments; furthermore, the existence of irregularities or omissions in the granting of environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) noted in resolution 430-2006-MINAE do not now carry a negative degree of qualification</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">or danger for the achievement of the public purpose that concerns this Ministry, and which can be summarized as the protection of natural resources."</span> In this regard, the arguments of the opponents of the Monteverde Irrigation Project, concerning the defects of the act itself, and under the new factual scenario explained in the preceding recitals, would be inadmissible." (see copy of the cited resolution on folios 1492 to 1514 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume III); 28).- That in resolution No. 584-07-TAA, of the Administrative Environmental Tribunal, issued at nine hours fifty-three minutes on June seventh of the year two thousand seven, it ordered " (...) To dismiss solely the complaint filed by Mr. Nombre114714 and Mr. Nombre60482 against the Water Users Association Nombre114711 processed under this administrative file. (...)" , a decision it based as follows: "Third: That Executive Decree No. 26396, which Declares and Designates Curi Cancha Private Wildlife Refuge, was published in Official Gazette No. 205 of October twenty-fourth, nineteen ninety-seven, a date from which the five-year validity of the Curi Cancha Private Wildlife Refuge began, and taking into account what was indicated by official communication OT-ACA-107-2006 from the Territorial Planning Office of the Arenal Tempisque Conservation Area, that the company known as Curi Cancha S.A. did not comply with the provisions of section II of article 2 of said Decree, this Tribunal considers that on the date on which the FEAP (Formulario de Evaluación Ambiental Preliminar [Preliminary Environmental Assessment Form]) was submitted to the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental [SETENA], that is, on February twenty-seventh of the year two thousand three, the property registered in the Folio Real system under the registered folio of the Canton of Puntarenas number Placa21292 (Placa21294), with an area of eight hundred twelve thousand seven hundred one square meters and eight tenths of a square meter, located in Dirección14110, Province of Puntarenas, was not subject to the Private Wildlife Refuge regime. (...) Fourth: (...) Due to the foregoing, and given that the property on which the Monteverde Irrigation Project was to be developed was not subject to a Private Wildlife Refuge, this Tribunal considers that the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental Nacional [sic] did not violate the environmental legislation in force at that time, since it did not exempt the project from the environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental, EIA); what said Secretariat, as the sole competent body in the matter, determined through resolution No. 429-2003-SETENA of eight hours forty-five minutes on May sixth of the year two thousand three, is that the instrument for evaluating said project would be the Sworn Statement of Environmental Commitments (Declaración Jurada de Compromisos Ambientales), subsequently granting Environmental Viability (Viabilidad Ambiental) through official communication SG-1562-2003-SETENA. Fifth: Based on the foregoing and having analyzed the documents that make up said administrative file, especially the record of the 'in situ' ocular inspection at the site where the water resource utilization by the company Rogumeca is located, visible on folios 834 and 835 of the administrative file, through which it is established '(...) The water intake has a construction on the Quebrada Cuecha, in the form of a box 25 centimeters wide, 25 centimeters deep, and 2.20 meters long; next to it is a tank where the water flows into the sand trap. The concession given by the Water Department is 12.6 liters per second. The site has forest cover (cobertura boscosa) and no tree cutting is observed in the protection zone along the approximately eight hundred meters of road, where the pipes that carry the water for consumption are located. (...)', this Tribunal considers that since no significant negative environmental damage exists in the operation of the water concession granted to the company Water Users Association Nombre114711, coupled with the fact that there is currently water availability, in accordance with what was indicated by the Water Department through official communication IMN-DA-0501-07, this complaint against the company named Nombre114711 must be dismissed." (see copy of the cited resolution on folios 724 to 732 of administrative file number 11212 of the Water Department, Dossier 3); 29).- That through official communication No. IMN-DA-2296-2008, of July thirtieth, two thousand eight, personnel from the Water Department carried out a verification of the measurements of the calibration structure, confirming that these were correct and in accordance with what was established in resolution No. R-254-2004- AGUAS-MINAE (see copy of the official communication attesting to the review on folio 864 of administrative file number 11212 of the Water Department, Dossier 3).- II.- REGARDING UNPROVEN FACTS: 1).- The plaintiff does not demonstrate that the works of the water concession for the Monteverde Irrigation project, granted to Nombre114711, are located in the Arenal-Monteverde Protective Zone (Zona Protectora Arenal-Monteverde), or in the Curi Cancha Private Wildlife Refuge (Refugio de Vida Silvestre Privado Curi Cancha) (the case file); 2).- It was not proven that the water concession granted to Nombre114711, as well as the works carried out on the Quebrada Cuecha on occasion of this concession, caused damage to the ecosystem and significant environmental impact in the zones where the irrigation project is located (the case file).- III.- REGARDING THE PLAINTIFF'S ARGUMENTS: The plaintiff states that in February of two thousand six, SENARA initiated the procedure to obtain environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) for the Monteverde irrigation project, which was granted through resolution SG-1562-2003-SETENA, of September twenty-sixth, two thousand three, without this, according to the plaintiff's opinion, having proper justification, on the basis of a FEAP, a sworn statement (declaración jurada) issued by a SENARA official, and in the absence of an environmental impact study (estudio de impacto ambiental). He alleges that, on the occasion of complaints filed by residents of the area, the Ministry of Environment and Energy issued resolution No. 430-2006-MINAE, of eleven hours fifty minutes on November seventeenth, two thousand six, in which the nullity, with retroactive effect, of the environmental viability declared in official communication SG-1562-2003-SETENA was declared. He points out that said act had the effect of exhausting the administrative channel, and that despite this, the respondent Administration proceeded to review and subsequently revoke it, by issuing resolution No. R-196-2007, of eleven hours on April twenty-fourth of the year two thousand seven. He argues that the latter is vitiated by nullity, and on this matter indicates: 1- That resolution 430-2006 MINAE had already exhausted the administrative channel, which, according to his opinion, makes it impossible for the Administration to reopen the discussion on the point in question, rendering revocation for reasons of opportunity and convenience unfeasible when there are no changes in the facts that constituted the grounds for the revoked resolution. He maintains that in this case, the revocation occurred on the occasion of a meeting of a political nature, without the prerequisites ordered in the General Public Administration Law (Ley General de la Administración Pública) being met for the revocation to be admissible, and he alleges that this conduct by the Administration reflects a misuse of power (desviación de poder). He says that because resolution R-430-2006-MINAE constitutes a burdensome act (acto de gravamen), it necessarily required a prior opinion from the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic (Contraloría General de la República). 2- He adds that by issuing resolution No. R-196-2007, and through it, reviving the declaration of environmental viability declared in official communication SG-1562-2003-SETENA, environmental regulations are violated. In this regard, he points out that the information provided in the FEAP is erroneous, as it fails to indicate the area where the water intake from the Quebrada would be located as part of the project area. He says that the FEAP omitted to indicate that the project area is located in aquifer recharge zones, that there are surface water bodies, that it is located in protected wild areas (Curi Cancha Private Wildlife Refuge and Arenal-Monteverde Protective Zone), which, he asserts, made it mandatory to carry out an EIA and that it is a forested site. He says that the questioned conduct affects the natural resources surrounding the concession area and harms the right of citizens to enjoy a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.- IV.- REGARDING THE STATE'S ARGUMENTS: The State representative answered the complaint negatively and raised the defenses of lack of right and expiration of the action (caducidad de la acción). Regarding the latter, he said that the plaintiff seeks the nullity of the environmental viability, which was granted on September twenty-sixth, two thousand three, which means that on the date the complaint was filed, December eighth, two thousand nine, the action had already expired. He also states that it is an act not subject to challenge, as he considers it to be a procedural act without its own effect (acto de trámite sin efecto propio). Regarding the merits of the case, he alleges that, in accordance with the provisions of section 153 of the General Public Administration Law, the Administration does have the power to revoke its own acts, when, as in this case, there are new elements that compel its modification, and therefore he considers that resolution R-196-2007-MINAE does not present the procedural defects indicated by the plaintiff. On the other hand, and regarding the EIA that the plaintiff misses, he maintains that it was not necessary, because when the procedures to obtain environmental viability and grant the concession for the irrigation project began, the project area was not located within a protected zone, and he notes that the Curi Cancha private refuge was no longer in force. He further states that the development of the project has not caused a significant environmental impact, which, he says, has been verified by the competent bodies in the matter.
V.- REGARDING THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ROGUMECA WATER USERS ASSOCIATION: The representative of said Association answered the complaint negatively and raised the defenses of lack of right, expiration (caducidad), lack of interest, and lack of active and passive standing (falta de legitimación activa y pasiva). He argues that the granting of environmental viability took place after all the requirements demanded by SETENA were met and that the project does not have a significant environmental impact and the installation of pipes was carried out following environmentally friendly practices. He maintains that the damage claimed by the plaintiff has not occurred and that his assessments to the effect that the viability was finally ratified for political reasons are subjective arguments. He states that resolution R-430-2006-MINAE, which annulled the environmental viability, was adopted without taking into account the evidence offered, which subsequently compelled its revocation.
VI.- REGARDING THE ARGUMENTS OF THE SERVICIO NACIONAL DE AGUAS SUBTERRÁNEAS RIEGO Y AVENAMIENTO [SENARA]: For its part, the representation of SENARA also answered the complaint negatively and formulated the defenses of lack of right, lack of active and passive standing, expiration (caducidad), and statute of limitations (prescripción). Regarding the latter, it states that resolution No. 196-2007-MINAE was issued on April twenty-fourth, two thousand seven and that the complaint was not filed until December eighth, two thousand nine, thus exceeding the term established in article 39 of the Code of Contentious Administrative Procedure (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo). Furthermore, SENARA states it was notified was notified on August 3, two thousand eleven, of this complaint, and therefore considers the claim barred by the statute of limitations. Regarding the merits arguments, it maintains that the plaintiff's statements are mere assertions, without factual and evidentiary basis. It says the complaint does not indicate how the constituent elements of the act were affected. Finally, it alleges that the irrigation project in question is an already built work and that it has not generated the environmental impact claimed by the plaintiff.
VII.- REGARDING THE DEFENSE OF EXPIRATION (CADUCIDAD): First, it is necessary to resolve the defense of expiration raised by the various representations of each of the co-defendants, as well as by the coadjuvant. In this regard, the Tribunal considers that said defense is inadmissible. According to the claims of the complaint, definitively established in the preliminary hearing (folio 308 verso), the action has as its sole claim the declaration of absolute nullity of resolution No. R-196-2007-MINAE. Said act was issued by the Ministry of Environment and Energy at eleven hours on April twenty-fourth of the year two thousand seven, and had the effect of revoking resolution No. R-430-2006-MINAE, and consequently restoring the validity of the environmental viability of the Monteverde irrigation project, which had been granted in September of the year two thousand three. The object of the process being the declaration of absolute nullity of an administrative act that was issued on April twenty-fourth of the year two thousand seven. Thus, what is fundamentally discussed is the legality or not of an act that is not exhausted at the moment it was issued, and on the contrary, its effects have not ceased and will continue in force as long as the environmental viability granted to the Monteverde irrigation project is maintained by the Administration. This particularity of the questioned act is sufficient reason for this Deciding Body to consider the defense raised inadmissible.
VIII.- REGARDING THE DEFENSE OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (PRESCRIPCIÓN): In the case under examination, no issue related to damages is being discussed, as the plaintiff waived this claim of his complaint since the preliminary hearing (folios 308 and 309 of the judicial file), limiting the object of the process to the determination of the legality or illegality of the challenged administrative conduct, from which it follows that the defense raised is inadmissible.
IX.- REGARDING THE DEFENSE THAT IT IS AN UNCHALLENGEABLE ACT: The State representative argues that the questioned act ultimately resolves on the environmental viability granted to the Monteverde irrigation project and says that it is not subject to challenge because it is a procedural act without its own effect. On this matter, this Deciding Body must first indicate that it does not ignore the precedent issued by the Court of Cassation No. 000104-F-2009, of eleven hours ten minutes on June first, two thousand nine, in which said Chamber pointed out the preparatory nature of the EIA, and consequently its unchallengeable nature. However, the Tribunal must depart from this criterion because the obtaining of environmental viability, in a case such as the one at hand, constitutes an indispensable requirement for the execution of the project, from which it follows that if it is not obtained, continuing with the administrative procedure would be meaningless, since finally, in the absence of said essential prerequisite, even if the rest of the requirements demanded by the legal system are satisfied, it would be impossible to obtain the license to carry out the project; therefore, the granting of environmental viability does produce effects on the administered parties and, consequently, it does constitute an act subject to challenge. On the other hand, it must be indicated that both resolution No. R-430-2006-MINAE and No. R-196-2007-MINAE were issued at a time when the obtaining of environmental viability had already led to the issuance of subsequent acts, such as the granting of the concession and the construction of the necessary works for the exploitation of the water resource, and evidently, as will be seen further on, both resolutions affect those facts. Consequently, the defense of an act not subject to challenge formulated by the state representative is not receivable.
X.- REGARDING THE MERITS OF THE CASE: Once the defenses of expiration and statute of limitations have been resolved, we will proceed to analyze the merits of the case, referring to each of the arguments made by the plaintiff against the challenged conduct: 1).- Possibility of revocation of administrative acts: In relation to this point, the plaintiff argues that in February of two thousand six, SENARA initiated the procedure to obtain environmental viability for the Monteverde irrigation project, which was granted through resolution SG-1562-2003-SETENA, of September twenty-sixth, two thousand three. He alleges that, on the occasion of complaints filed by residents of the area, the Ministry of Environment and Energy issued resolution No. 430-2006-MINAE, of eleven hours fifty minutes on November seventeenth, two thousand six, in which the nullity, with retroactive effect, of the environmental viability declared in official communication SG-1562-2003-SETENA was declared. He points out that said act had the effect of exhausting the administrative channel, and that despite this, the respondent Administration proceeded to review and subsequently revoke it, by issuing resolution No. R-196-2007, of eleven hours on April twenty-fourth of the year two thousand seven. He argues that the latter is vitiated by nullity, and on this matter he states: That resolution 430-2006 MINAE had already exhausted the administrative channel, which, according to his opinion, makes it impossible for the Administration to reopen the discussion on the point in question, rendering revocation for reasons of opportunity and convenience unfeasible when there are no changes in the facts that constituted the grounds for the revoked resolution. He maintains that in this case, the revocation occurred on the occasion of a meeting of a political nature, without the prerequisites ordered in the General Public Administration Law being met for the revocation to be admissible, and he alleges that this conduct by the Administration reflects a misuse of power.
It states that because resolution R-430-2006-MINAE constituted an encumbrance, it necessarily required a prior opinion from the Contraloría General de la República. Regarding the revocation of administrative acts, articles 152 and 153 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública provide: "Article 152.- 1. The administrative act may be revoked for reasons of opportunity, convenience, or merit, with the exceptions contemplated by law. 2. Revocation shall only take place when there is a serious divergence between the effects of the act and the public interest, despite the time elapsed, the rights created, or the nature and other circumstances of the legal relationship intended to be terminated.-" "Article 153.- 1. Revocation may be based on the appearance of new factual circumstances that did not exist or were not known at the time the original act was issued. 2. It may also be based on a different assessment of the same factual circumstances that gave rise to the act, or of the public interest affected." As can be seen, under the cited regulations, it must be concluded that the legislator expressly recognized the Administration's power of revocation, this being one of the two exceptions established by the Law to the principle of intangibility of one's own acts (the other being the declaration of absolute nullity of the act). According to these postulates, the Administration may revoke the act "for reasons of opportunity, convenience, and merit" when "there is a serious divergence between the effects of the act and the public interest despite the time elapsed," thus being a figure whose application is exceptional, which may be based on the appearance of new factual circumstances or on a new assessment of those initially taken into account or of the public interest affected (article 153 LGAP), making it impossible to apply the figure of revocation to acts of a regulated nature (article 156 of the cited Law). In this case, the Court has deemed it proven that resolution No. R-196-2007-MINAE, which revoked No. R-430-2006-MINAE, assessed a series of technical criteria that were not taken into consideration when it issued the act that was ultimately revoked. In that sense, it is on record that when issuing resolution No. R-430-2006-MINAE, the concerned Administration had as an essential evidentiary element a study on the effects of the irrigation project, which had been prepared by several of the persons who opposed it (this is noted in the background mentioned in said resolution at folios 1088 to 1034 of administrative file 144-2003-SETENA, volume I). However, subsequently, when issuing resolution No. R-196-2007-MINAE, the Administration based its decision on new technical pronouncements, prepared by MINAE departments, which demonstrated the availability of the resource and ruled out a significant environmental impact, as was expressly indicated in the challenged resolution, which, in relevant part, stated: "SECOND: (...) Revocation, in the terms of our Ley General de la Administración Pública, is appropriate in cases where, for reasons of opportunity, among others, an administrative act may be withdrawn from legal life, not for reasons of invalidity, in which case nullity would apply, but in cases where there is a progressive divergence between the reasons that originated the issuance of the act, and those that subsequently become evident as new or unassessable at the time the revocable act was issued (the revocable act in this case being resolution 430-2006-MINAE). In this regard, at the time resolution 430-2006-MINAE was issued, there were no evidentiary elements or technical-legal assessments, such as those produced by the technical departments of this Ministry (indicated in the recitals of this resolution) subsequent to the issuance of that resolution; a situation that constitutes a substantial change in the factual scenario before which the Public Administration possesses a discretionary power of action, circumscribed within the framework of legality and observance of public purposes, and never detached from these. In this sense, the new elements of judgment must be supported by technical and legal criteria that allow a change of criterion or assessment of the same matter to be legally and technically viable. In the case under examination, the new elements produced by both the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental and the Departamento de Aguas, as well as what was indicated by SINAC, and the Tribunal Ambiental Administrativo, constitute the necessary inputs for the administration to proceed with a reassessment of the circumstances and antecedents that originated the issuance of the original administrative act (in this case, resolution 430-2006-MINAE), through the legal institute of modification of administrative acts called "revocation". (...) The circumstances that would innovate the factual scenario with respect to that which was taken into account at the time resolution 430-2006-MINAE was issued, consist of the technical pronouncements from the various technical departments of this Ministry that refer specifically to the sufficient availability of flow to meet the ecological needs of the place where the water intake for the Monteverde Irrigation Project is located, and the non-impact on natural resources from the extraction of the flow subject to the concession, since previously the only thing that had been taken into account by those same technical departments of this Ministry (mainly by SETENA) was the ruling out of environmental impact from the construction works for water collection, and not the collection itself (that is, the use of the concessioned flow and its impact on the required ecological flow). In accordance with the above, given the existence of new elements that evidence a progressive mismatch between what was acted upon and the current reality, shown by the technical and legal pronouncements of the departments of this Ministry, a need arises to readjust the administrative act issued (resolution 430-2006-MINAE) to the reality shown by the new evidentiary elements. (...) THIRD: (...) when the competent technical bodies, as in this case would be SETENA, mainly the Departamento de Aguas, have cleared up the reasonable doubts that existed from the beginning in this case, regarding the potential impact on the natural resources adjacent to the water collection works for the project, there would now be no valid technical or legal reason to prevent the realization of the project in question, since while the state of doubt existed, the Administration assumed a preventive role as required by articles 13 and 109 of the Ley de la Biodiversidad: initially resolving the nullity of the environmental feasibility (viabilidad ambiental), but after the evidentiary elements produced, it is determined that the activity they intend to develop through the Monteverde Irrigation Project, specifically regarding water collection, will not affect the natural resources of the place, so the Administration is legally empowered to reconcile its acts with the forensic reality presented by the aforementioned departments." (...) FOURTH: (...) It is clarified at this point that there would no longer be any technical doubt about the impact on the environmental legal asset from the activity that La Sociedad de Usuarios de Agua Rogumeca intends to develop, according to what was indicated above by the different Technical Departments, and on the other hand, the existence of irregularities or omissions in the granting of environmental feasibility (viabilidad ambiental) noted in resolution 430-2006-MINAE do not now carry a degree of negative qualification or dangers for the achievement of the public purpose that concerns this Ministry, and which can be summarized as the protection of natural resources. In this sense, the allegations of the opponents of the Monteverde Irrigation Project, regarding the defects of the act itself, and under the new factual scenario explained in the preceding recitals, would be inappropriate." (see copy of the cited resolution at folios 1492 to 1514 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume III) (The bold highlighting is added). From the transcribed resolution, it is clear then that the Administration issued resolution No. R-196-2007-MINAE in light of facts it did not know when it issued No. R-430-2006-MINAE, and regarding which it gained certainty from the technical criteria expressed, in the sense that the private Refugio de Vida Silvestre Curi Cancha was no longer in effect (Official Letter OT-ACA-107-2006 of December seven, two thousand six, issued by Lic. Carlos Alberto González Rojas, found at folio 33 of the SINAC file), that the works are located outside the Zona Protectora Arenal Monteverde (official letter ACTA-D-058 of March twenty-eight, two thousand seven, issued by the Regional Directorate of the Área de Conservación Arenal-Tempisque, at folio 46 of the SINAC file), that the water use concession (concesión de aprovechamiento de agua) in the name of the Sociedad de Usuarios del Agua Nombre114711 does not cause damage to the water regime and the surrounding ecosystem of the Quebrada Cuecha (Official Letter IMN-DA-0708-2007, of April nine, two thousand seven, issued by the Departamento de Aguas of MINAE, and found at folios 1442 to 1446 of administrative file No. 144-2003 SETENA, volume III). Thus, through these expert reports, all issued subsequent to resolution No. R-430-2006-MINAE, the Administration was able to verify the non-existence of the factual assumptions on which it had based said resolution, thereby fulfilling the conditions established in the Law (articles 152 and 153 of the LGAP) for its revocation. The plaintiff argues that the revocation procedure established in the legal system was violated, and in this regard alleges that it took place ex officio and that the authorization of the Contraloría General de la República was omitted. In relation to the first of these objections, it must be noted that the plaintiff is mistaken, since it is on record, and this is how the Court has deemed it proven, that by means of a brief filed before MINAE on November twenty-nine, two thousand six, the representative of the Sociedad de Usuarios de Agua Roguemeca filed an appeal for revocation (recurso de revocatoria) against resolution No. R-430-2006-MINAE (the copy of the appeal is at folios 1151 to 1155 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA). Likewise, the appeal filed against the aforementioned resolution by the Deputy Manager of SENARA on January twenty-five, two thousand seven, is also on record (which is found at folios 1249 to 1256 of the mentioned administrative file). Thus, the plaintiff's assessments that the Administration revoked its own act ex officio do not conform to the factual reality found in the record and which this deciding Body has been able to corroborate.
Regarding the second procedural objection, the plaintiff says they miss the favorable opinion (dictamen) of the Contraloría General de la República, provided for in article 155 of the LGAP. Certainly, said precept establishes the authorization of the Controlling Entity to issue the revocation, but only for those cases in which the act subject to revocation had declared a subjective right. Conversely, when the act does not generate subjective rights, the Administration may exercise its power of revocation without the favorable opinion (dictamen) of the Contraloría General de la República. At this point, it is appropriate to clarify that a declaratory act of rights is one that enriches the patrimony of its recipients with a right that was previously non-existent, or when a pre-existing right is freed from some limit on its exercise. It is therefore an act that confers on the individual a verifiable advantage or a patrimonial or extra-patrimonial benefit, which did not occur in this case through resolution R-430-2006-MINAE, since by its means no right was declared in favor of any person (physical or legal), to their benefit; on the contrary, it was an ablative act through which the right of a legal person to the exploitation of a concession was annulled. Consequently, the favorable opinion (dictamen) of the Contraloría General de la República was not a requirement to revoke resolution No. R-430-2006-MINAE, and its absence does not cause the nullity of No. R-196-2007-MINAE. 2).- Regarding the substantive arguments against resolution No. R-196-2007-MINAE: Basically, the plaintiff's arguments against the challenged act focus on the fact that the environmental feasibility (viabilidad ambiental) of the Monteverde irrigation project, and specifically the concession to exploit the water resource of the Quebrada Cuecha, granted to the Asociación de Usuarios del Agua Rogumeca, causes environmental damage, and to support this theory, the plaintiff states that this work is located in protected wild zones, aquifer recharge areas, in a site where endemic species are located, and that the exploitation negatively affects the stream's flow. In relation to the location of the concession area, this Court has deemed it duly proven that in official letter ACAT-D-058 of March 28, 2007, the Regional Directorate of the Área de Conservación Arenal-Tempisque of the Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, reported: "According to the tour conducted and points taken with GPS by technicians Elberth Vargas Masís and Miguel Jiménez, it can be determined that the constructed works are located outside the Zona Protectora Arenal Monteverde. (...) Based on the attached map, it can be observed that the southern limit of the Refuge is the Quebrada Cuecha and the works mentioned, in the case of the one built in said stream, is located on the western limit of the Refuge (see copy of the mentioned official letter at folio 46 of the SINAC file). Additionally, it is also on record that through official letter No. OT-ACA-107-2006, of December seven, two thousand six, Licenciado Carlos Alberto González Rojas certified: "(...) that by means of Decree 26396, the Refugio Privado de Vida Silvestre Curi Cancha is declared and named, dated June 26, 1997, located in the Monteverde District. Article II states: 'Said property shall be subject to the Wildlife Refuge category for a period of five years, renewable for equal periods, for which the owner must request it in writing, one month prior to the end of said contract.' The company called Curi Cancha Sociedad Anónima never complied with the transcribed article, therefore, as of today it is not under the country's private Wildlife regime, since June 2002, the expiration date of Decree 26396." (see copy of the referenced official letter at folio 33 of the SINAC file). Therefore, based on both criteria issued by experts in matters related to protected zones, this Court must necessarily conclude that the areas influenced by the exploitation of the concession are not only located outside the Zona Protectora Arenal Monteverde, but are also not affected by the limitations inherent to a private wildlife refuge (refugio de vida silvestre privado), in this case the refuge called Curi Cancha, since as certified by Mr. Carlos Alberto González Rojas, its validity has already expired. In relation to the possible impact on the water resource, this Body was aware of the evaluation carried out by the Departamento de Aguas of MINAE, detailed in official letter IMN-DA-0708-2007, of April nine, two thousand seven. This evaluation was based on the following streamflow measurements (aforos):
| Date | Flow Data (liters per second) | Data Source | Measurement Method |
|---|---|---|---|
| February 20, 2002 | 50.54 | SENARA | Current meter |
| March 2002 | 265.14 | SENARA | Current meter |
| February 4, 2005 | 194.00 | Dpto. Aguas | Current meter |
| Indicated as dry season data | 56.50 | Report contributed to file by Mr. Nombre114715 Sub Director of the Monteverde Institute | Private system |
| February 15, 2007 | 51.22 | SENARA | Current meter |
| March 14, 2007 | 45.15 | SENARA | Current meter |
As can be seen, these are several studies conducted at different times, and during the summer season. Furthermore, the report indicates that the stream has several sources and water contributions, even located downstream of the concession intake. It was also indicated that during the summer, a flow of around forty-five to sixty liters per second is available, which, it is indicated, represents 28% of the minimum available flow. Finally, the expert report concluded: "It is the criterion of the undersigned that the water use concession (concesión de aprovechamiento de agua) file 11212 in the name of the Sociedad de Usuarios de Agua Nombre114711, which has been granted a flow of 12.65 liters per second from the Quebrada Cuecha, does not cause any damage to the water regime and ecosystem of the aforementioned stream and is resolved in adherence to the principles of conservation and sustainable use of water stipulated in article 51 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente." (see copy of the cited official letter at folios 570 to 574 of the Departamento de Aguas file No. Placa21295, Docket No. 3 and folios 1442 to 1446 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume III). As a corollary of this technical study, which the plaintiff has not been able to disprove with objective evidence (since the evidence offered is restricted to the statement of a witness who, as noted in the record, has opposed the project from the beginning), the Court cannot admit the plaintiff's allegations that the execution of the referenced irrigation project causes damage to the water resource.
Nor are the statements regarding the intake being within the ten meters of protection admissible, since evidently in this case we are dealing with a concession of water resources (concesión del recurso hídrico), for which the works under examination are indispensable. Regarding the impact on endangered species, this deciding Body cannot consider the existence of such impact proven solely by the testimony given in court by Mrs. Nombre114710 , since despite being a Biologist, that fact alone does not accredit her as an expert before the Tribunal, not only because she was not offered in that capacity before the Tribunal, but also because, furthermore, it is on record that Mrs. Nombre114710 is a resident of the area and has opposed the irrigation project from the beginning, which undoubtedly allows the conclusion that her statements are permeated by a particular and direct interest in the matter. While it is true that the administrative file contains some photocopies related to environmental studies, none of them refer to the specific case, as they do not address the impact that the exploitation of the water concession (Concesión de aguas) could actually cause. On this point, it is pertinent to indicate that pursuant to article 317 of the Código Procesal Civil, the burden of proof corresponds "To whom formulates a claim, regarding the affirmations of the constitutive facts of their right.", which implies the duty, in this case of the plaintiff, to demonstrate their claim, which undoubtedly entailed their obligation to submit to the record the necessary elements of proof to accredit the alleged environmental impact. The party has not fulfilled this obligation, since beyond their arguments, they have not provided objective proof that accredits the existence of the alleged environmental damage. No expert report (experticia) offered is on record that demonstrates in a precise, clear, and technical manner that the flow of the Quebrada Cuecha would be affected by the exploitation of the concession; on the contrary, as already indicated, there exist evaluations carried out by the Administration that indicate quite the opposite. Neither have elements of proof been provided that, on a scientific basis, accredit that the exploitation of the concession would cause a significant environmental impact in its area of influence. The proofs on record say quite the opposite, which was even assessed by the Administrative Environmental Tribunal (Tribunal Ambiental Administrativo) and by the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, SETENA). Thus, in resolution N° 374-07-TAA, at ten hours and twenty-nine minutes on April tenth, two thousand seven, the Administrative Environmental Tribunal ordered "To Issue as a Provisional Resolution by dismissing only the complaint against the Sociedad de Usuarios de Agua Nombre114711 processed under the present administrative file", for which it considered: "Fourth: That based on the foregoing and once the documents comprising said administrative file were analyzed, especially the record of the on-site ocular inspection ('in situ') at the location where the water resource use (aprovechamiento del recurso hídrico) of the Rogumeca company is found, visible at folios 834 and 835 of the administrative file, through which it is established '(...) The water intake (toma de agua) has a construction over the Quebrada Cuecha, in the form of a drawer (gaveta) 25 centimeters wide, 25 centimeters deep, and 2.20 meters long; next to it is a tank where the water flows that goes to the desander (desarenador). The concession (concesión) granted by the Departmento de Aguas is 12.6 liters per second. The place has forest cover (cobertura boscosa) and no tree cutting is observed in the protection zone along approximately eight hundred meters of the road, where the hoses that carry the water for consumption are located (...), this Tribunal considers that since there is no significant negative environmental damage in the operation of the water concession (concesión de agua) granted to the (sic) company Sociedad Usuarios de Agua Nombre114711 coupled with the fact that water is currently available, in accordance with what was indicated by the Departmento de Aguas via official letter IMN-DA-0501-07, the present complaint against the company named Nombre114711 must be dismissed.' (See copy of the referenced resolution at folios 1447 to 1454 of the administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume III), and for its part, SETENA, in official letter CP-105-2007-SETENA, of April thirteenth, two thousand seven, stated: '2. The criterion of this Secretariat is that the Sworn Declaration of Environmental Commitments (Declaración Jurada de Compromisos Ambientales), together with the technical information contained in the file, is sufficient to substantiate the environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) of the project regarding the competencies of this Secretariat, in accordance with the cited regulations. 3. The foregoing is based on the following: The work that was carried out at the time is a subduction work, in which the water transfer is performed, passing to a desander (desarenador), from which part of the water is sent to the farms for irrigation and the remaining part is sent back to the watercourse. When the project does not operate because irrigation is not needed, mainly during the winter, all the water is returned to the watercourse from the desander. The works consist of the intake (toma) (of only two meters long) for diversion in the Quebrada Cuecha, installation of the desander and conveyance pipeline, regulation valves, and distribution pipeline. The calibrating work regulates the excess water and possesses the dimensions and technical specifications issued by the Departmento de Aguas of MINAE, which guarantees that they will be fully complied with. These works described above do not cause impacts on the aquatic fauna of the Quebrada Cuecha or on the nearby vegetation cover, and the project is categorized as a Low Environmental Impact project, with insignificant environmental impacts. 4. On the other hand, SENARA, through the public administrative act issued via official letter number POE-573-03 (folios 0020 and 0026) signed by Ing. Edgar Mairena Navarro, project manager of the Central Pacific Region of SENARA, demonstrates that: "Regarding the requested basin-level study: the flow to be diverted will not greatly affect the basin of the Quebrada Cuecha. The foregoing certified via Official Letter ASUB-367-03, which states that 3 gaugings (aforos) were carried out on February 20, 2002, March 20, 2002, and April 18, 2002, with flows of 50.54 L/sec, 265.14 L/sec, and 30.03 L/sec, respectively. The technical study is based on the Manual of Water Allowances to calculate the needs of water use applications prepared in the Departmento de Aguas-MINAE." (...) 5. In turn, the Departmento de Aguas of MINAE determined, via official letter number IMN-DA-0362, of February 7, 2005, the following: "As of February 4, 2005, the streams maintained a flow of 61.4 l/sec. La Máquina and 194 l/sec the Quebrada Cuecha and these are more than 10 times greater than the flows potentially to be utilized by the societies. There also exists a series of lateral contributions and other water sources downstream of each proposed intake, flows that feed and with the consequent increase in the flow of the sources." (...). 7. By means of Decreto Ejecutivo number 26396-MINAE, of June 26, 1997, the Refugio Privado de Vida Silvestre Curi Cancha was created; in its article 2, subsection II, it was determined that the refuge character of the property would cover a period of five years, which could be renewed. The file 144-2013-SETENA does not show whether such renewal has occurred. 8. In light of all the foregoing considerations, the resolutions of this SECRETARÍA can be reread, as well as the document on folios 626 to 634 of file 144-2003SETENA, in which the technical foundations that lead to the following conclusion will be found developed: Although the place is a wildlife refuge (refugio de vida silvestre), the impact assessment carried out for the project (article 82 LCVA) guarantees that it is environmentally viable with respect to the competence of this Secretariat' (see copy of the cited official letter at folios 1455 to 1457 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume III). It is observed then that the record contains reports from the Administration, as well as resolutions from the Administrative Environmental Tribunal and from SETENA, in which the environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) of the irrigation project related to the Quebrada Cuecha is accredited, without the plaintiff having taken care to provide proof tending to refute those acts. Subsequently, the concerned Administration had as the basis for the act challenged here this same body of evidence, which constitutes the grounds for the act in question, since by not accrediting the environmental impact alleged by the opponents to the project, and on the contrary, the Administration having demonstrated that the works would not cause the alleged damage, the questioned revocation finds its cause or grounds precisely in the non-existence of the impact, since by not accrediting the damages, there would be no reason whatsoever to maintain resolution N° R-430-2006-MINAE, insofar as it had declared the nullity of official letter SG-1562-2003-SETENA, of September twenty-sixth, two thousand three, in which environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) was granted to the irrigation project, nor would there be reason to cancel the concession (concesión), as was ordered in the resolution that was ultimately revoked. In accordance with all the foregoing, the Tribunal considers that the challenged administrative act was issued in exercise of the power of revocation established in the Ley General de la Administración Pública, under the premises established in the legal system, not only due to the presentation of new facts that were not taken into account when issuing the act that was revoked, but also, by assessing the facts, based on the new technical criteria that were submitted within the administrative procedure. This deciding Body also deems that the act in question had as its cause or grounds, precisely the demonstration to the effect that the irrigation project would not cause the alleged damage, and this was duly substantiated in the act of revocation. Consequently, and given the absence of proof that discredits that which the concerned Administration took into account to issue the challenged act, the appropriate action is to dismiss the lawsuit in all its aspects.
XI.- ON THE DEFENSES (EXCEPCIONES): The representative of the State raised the defenses of lack of right, lack of active standing (legitimación ad causam activa), and expiration (caducidad). Additionally, at the trial hearing, he alleged that the environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) is an act not subject to challenge. The representatives of the State and SENARA raised the defense of lack of right, lack of passive standing (legitimación pasiva), expiration (caducidad), and statute of limitations (prescripción). For its part, the co-defendant Nombre114711 did not formulate defenses (excepciones). In relation to the expiration (caducidad) and statute of limitations (prescripción) alleged by the representatives of the State and SENARA, the ruling must adhere to what was resolved in Considerandos VII and VIII of this judgment. The same applies to the defense of an act not subject to challenge, which the Tribunal addressed in Considerando IX of this resolution. Regarding the defense of lack of passive standing (legitimación pasiva) raised by SENARA, it was acknowledged in the preliminary hearing held on August twenty-seventh, two thousand twelve, a moment from which SENARA intervened as a passive co-adjuvant voluntarily. For its part, and pursuant to the substantive Considerando that precedes, the defense of lack of right, which encompasses lack of active standing (legitimación ad causam activa), must be upheld.
XII.- ON COSTS: As provided by article 193 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, the payment of personal and procedural costs shall be borne by the losing party. However, the Tribunal may exonerate from their payment when "Due to the nature of the debated issues, there has existed, in the Tribunal's opinion, sufficient reason to litigate." In the matter under examination, the administrative file contains two resolutions issued by the concerned Administration that are contradictory: one accredits that the Monteverde irrigation project causes environmental impact, and the other, the one challenged here, reaches the opposite conclusion. In the Tribunal's opinion, this circumstance is sufficient reason to litigate, and therefore, the plaintiff was placed within the scenario of exoneration of costs established in subsection b of article 193 of the procedural Code (Código de rito), which is why, despite their status as the losing party, the Tribunal has decided to exonerate them from their payment, each party bearing their own costs.
POR TANTO
The defenses of expiration (caducidad), statute of limitations (prescripción), and act not subject to challenge are rejected. The defense of lack of right, inclusive of lack of active standing (legitimación ad causam activa), is upheld. The lawsuit filed by Mr. Nombre114708 against the State and the Sociedad de Usuarios de Agua Rogumeca is declared without merit. This matter is resolved without special condemnation for costs.
Ileana Sánchez Navarro Ana Isabel Vargas Vargas Eduardo González Segura
Section Five,
Central 2545-00-03 Fax 2545-00-33 Correo Electrónico ...01 ________________________________________________________________________ **PROCESO ORDINARIO** **ACTORA: Nombre114708** **DEMANDADO: EL ESTADO, SOCIEDAD DE USUARIOS DE AGUA ROGUMECA.** **COADYUVANTES: SERVICIO NACIONAL DE AGUAS SUBTERRÁNEAS, RIEGO Y AVENAMIENTO Y SISTEMA NACIONAL DE ÁREAS DE CONSERVACIÓN** **EXPEDIENTE Nº 09- 003302-1027-CA** **Nº 54-2014-V** **TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO Y CIVIL DE HACIENDA. SECCIÓN QUINTA. SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ. Dirección144 .** Goicoechea, at eleven hours thirty minutes on the twenty-ninth of July of the year two thousand fourteen.- Ordinary proceeding filed by Mr. Nombre114708, of legal age, married, resident of Monteverde de Puntarenas, identity card number CED90670, against the ESTADO, represented by the Procurador MAURICIO CASTRO LIZANO, of legal age, attorney, resident of Heredia, identity card number CED90671, Sociedad de Usuarios de Agua Rogumeca, represented by Mr. Nombre114709, of legal age, married, attorney, resident of Puntarenas, identity card number CED29172. The SERVICIO NACIONAL DE AGUAS SUBTERRÁNEAS RIEGO Y AVENAMIENTO (hereinafter SENARA) acts as a coadjuvant of the defendant party, represented by Mr. Nombre36655, of legal age, married, agricultural engineer and licentiate in agricultural economics, resident of San José, identity card number CED63256.
**RESULTANDO** **I.-** In a written submission received by the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda at ten hours forty-five minutes on the ninth of December of two thousand nine, the plaintiff filed an ordinary lawsuit whose claims were definitively established at the preliminary hearing held starting at eight hours fifty-five minutes on the twenty-seventh of August of the year two thousand twelve, as follows: *"Let the nullity of resolution number R196-2007-MINAE be declared. Withdraws claims 3 and 4. Furthermore, requests they be ordered to pay both costs."* (folios 1 to 90 and 308 and 309).
**II.-** By resolution at eleven hours fifteen minutes on the twenty-ninth of January of the year two thousand ten, the lawsuit was admitted and the responding party was given notice (folios 117 and 118).
III.- In a written submission presented before the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda at thirteen hours fifty-five minutes on the seventeenth of September of the year two thousand ten, the State's representation answered the lawsuit in the negative and at that time raised the defenses of lack of right and lack of active standing (falta de legitimación ad causam activa). Later, at the preliminary hearing held starting at eight hours fifty-five minutes on the twenty-seventh of August of two thousand twelve, it also raised the preliminary defense of expiration (caducidad), the consideration of which was deferred until the final judgment (the latter according to the recording of the hearing, which differs from what is recorded in the minutes), (folios 166 to 171, 308 and 309). Furthermore, at the oral trial hearing, it raised the defense that the environmental feasibility (viabilidad ambiental) constitutes an act not subject to challenge.- **IV.-** In a written submission presented before the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda at ten hours ten minutes on the twelfth of November of two thousand ten, the representative of the company named Usuarios de Agua Rogumeca answered the lawsuit in the negative (folios 204 to 211).
**V.-** In a written submission presented before the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda at fourteen hours fifteen minutes on the fourteenth of September of two thousand eleven, the representative of the Sistema Nacional de Riego y Avenamiento (hereinafter SENARA), answered the lawsuit in the negative and raised the defenses of lack of right, lack of passive standing, expiration (caducidad), and statute of limitations (prescripción) (folios 224 to 228).
**VI.-** In the course of the proceeding, the following preliminary hearings were conducted: 1). Starting at eight hours fifty-five minutes on the twenty-seventh of August of the year two thousand twelve, in which the claims were established as indicated in resultando I and the request for partial withdrawal of the lawsuit against SINAC, SENARA, and the TRIBUNAL AMBIENTAL ADMINISTRATIVO was accepted, and from that moment forward the first two were held as coadjuvants; 2). Starting at thirteen hours fifty minutes on the thirtieth of January of two thousand thirteen; 3).- Starting at thirteen hours forty minutes on the twenty-seventh of February of the year two thousand thirteen. (See the minutes of each of the hearings at folios 308, 309, 344, 363 to 366) **VII.-** That through a written submission presented before the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda at ten hours fifty-five minutes on the twelfth of March of two thousand thirteen, the representation of SINAC withdrew its participation as a coadjuvant (folio 367).
**VIII.-** That in a resolution at thirteen hours forty-eight minutes on the nineteenth of July of two thousand thirteen, the twenty-fifth of November was set for the oral trial, a date that was postponed to the ninth and tenth of December of that same year, and which in turn had to be moved due to the impossibility of one of the witness experts to attend on the established day and time, finally setting the oral and public trial hearing for the eighth and ninth of July of two thousand fourteen, with said hearing being held on the 8th of July of two thousand fourteen (folios 381, 382, 384, 387) **IX.-** In the proceeding, the prescriptions of law have been followed and no defects capable of invalidating the proceedings are observed. This judgment is issued within the fifteen-business-day period established in subsection 1 of Article 111 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo for complex matters, following rigorous deliberation and unanimously. Judge Vargas Vargas and Judge González Segura concur with their vote. Presiding Judge Sánchez Navarro drafts the judgment.
**CONSIDERANDO** **I.- ON THE PROVEN FACTS:** The following, of import for resolving this matter, are listed: **1).-** That on the twenty-sixth of February of the year two thousand three, Mr. Sergio Salas Arias, representative of the Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento, submitted to the Ministerio de Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones the Formulario de Evaluación Ambiental Preliminar (hereinafter FEAP), consecutive number 133-2003, related to the Proyecto de Riego Monteverde, the objective of which is *"to provide an irrigation system for Monteverde covering 20 hectares of pastures and vegetables in the Village of Santa Elena"* (see copy of the form at folios 1 to 11 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume I); **2).-** That on the fifteenth of May of two thousand three, the Sociedad de Usuarios de Agua Rogumeca submitted a request to the Departamento de Aguas of MINAE to obtain a concession for the exploitation of water from the Quebrada Cuecha, indicating that it would be used for irrigation (see copy of the request at folios 551 to 549 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume II); **3).-** That through official letter SG-1562-2003, of the twenty-sixth of September of two thousand three, the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental communicated to SENARA the granting of the environmental feasibility (viabilidad ambiental) for the Proyecto de Riego Monteverde (see copy of the official letter at folio 30 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume I); **4).-** That in resolution N° R-254-AGUAS-MINAE, at ten hours on the eighth of September of two thousand four, the Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía, Departamento de Aguas, granted a water concession, for a term of ten years, to the Sociedad de Usuarios de Agua Rogumeca. In said resolution, it was indicated that the source of the concession is the Quebrada Cuecha, the authorized flow rate being the quantity of 12.65 liters per second, and establishing that the use is irrigation (see copy of the indicated resolution at folios 249 back to 251 of the Departamento de Aguas file N° 11212); **5).-** That in official letter N° OT-02-ACAT-2005 of the fourth of January of two thousand five, Lic. Carlos Alberto González Rojas, from the Departamento de Ordenamiento Territorial ACAT, of the Área de Conservación Arenal-Tempisque of the Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación Arenal Tempisque, following an inspection carried out on the property Matrícula de Folio Real Placa21293, registered under the name of Curi Cancha Sociedad Anónima, indicated that said property is located outside the Área Silvestre Protegida, of the Zona Protectora Arenal Monteverde. He also stated: *"(...) it is important to note that this property was subject to the Refugio de Vida Silvestre Privado Curi Cancha, Sociedad Anónima, Decreto N°.26396-MINAE, dated 24 October 1997, Gaceta N°.205.* According to Article II, there is no written request for the extension (prologa, sic) of the Refuge, which means (sic) that category does not cover that property. (see copy of the mentioned official letter on folio 35 of the SINAC file); 6).- That in official letter No. SG-633-2005, of March seventeenth, two thousand five, issued by the Technical Environmental Secretariat and addressed to the Defensoría de los Habitantes de la República, it was concluded: "At the Quebrada Cuecha Intake Sector, no tree felling or significant environmental impacts to vegetation are observed given that trails providing access to the stream previously existed. The passage of the pipeline along public roads is in complete accordance with typical engineering practices for the work and its treatment was carried out as established. Given the halt to construction works, the pipeline placement has not been completed; approximately 150 linear meters on public roads, the user connections, and the intake works (obras de captación) on Quebrada Cuecha are still pending; therefore, its final disposition cannot be assured. No pipe remnants or waste resulting from the installation of the works were observed along the route. The earthworks (movimientos de suelos) on the bank of Quebrada Cuecha, described by official letter ACAT-D-GMR-SCM-06 of January 24, 2005, are unrelated to the irrigation project, and no conveyance works toward the property are observed. The users of the Monteverde irrigation project were visited, and it was verified that on the proposed farms, there are spaces available for the indicated activities, and some of them have small-scale vegetable cultivation areas and pastures for raising animals. From the works observed, no significant environmental impacts are evident. Therefore, it is considered that the Monteverde irrigation project complies (sic) with the environmental commitments assumed in the Sworn Statement of Environmental Commitments (Declaración Jurada de Compromisos Ambientales)." (see copy of the cited official letter on folios 553 and 554 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume II); 7).- That on May tenth, two thousand five, several residents of the Monteverde area, including Mrs. Nombre114710, filed a motion before the National Technical Environmental Secretariat (hereinafter SETENA) to obtain a declaration of nullity (nulidad) of the environmental feasibility (viabilidad ambiental) for the referenced irrigation project; an administrative procedure processed under file No. 144-2003 SETENA (see copy of said petition on folios 171 to 149 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume I); 8).- That in Resolution No. 1960-2005, adopted by the National Technical Environmental Secretariat in Ordinary Session No. 034-2005, of August third, 2005, it was agreed in Article 59: to appoint the Directing Body for the Investigation Procedure (Órgano Director del Procedimiento de Investigación) of the Monteverde Irrigation Project (see copy of the indicated resolution on folios 336 to 346 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume I); 9).- That in Resolution No. 1961-2005-SETENA, of eleven hours and ten minutes on August ninth, two thousand five, issued within administrative procedure No. 144-2003 SETENA, and based on the precautionary principle, the execution of the Monteverde Irrigation Project was suspended (see copy of the mentioned resolution on folios 327 to 333 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume I); 10).- That in Resolution No. 429-2006-SETENA, of ten hours thirty minutes on March third, two thousand six, the Plenary Commission (Comisión Plenaria) of the National Technical Environmental Secretariat resolved: "FIRST: The challenge of clear and manifest nullity (incidente de nulidad evidente y manifiesta) filed against administrative act SG-1562-2003-SETENA, of September 26, 2003, is hereby dismissed. SECOND: The suspension of the execution of the administrative act issued in Resolution 1961-2005-SETENA, dated August 9, 2005, is lifted with respect to the previously indicated administrative act. THIRD: Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Secretariat shall proceed to order the involved Public Administrations—and shall ensure—the conduct of a Strategic Environmental Assessment (Evaluación Ambiental Estratégica) of the water resource in the corresponding hydrographic basin (cuenca) or sub-basin (subcuenca), as determined by preliminary analyses. (...)" (see copy of the cited resolution on folios 848 to 856 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume II and 955 to 963 of volume III); 11).- That to adopt the referenced resolution, SETENA considered the assessments and recommendations of the Directing Body for the Procedure to the effect that: "The information provided by SENARA through the FEAP, for determining the preliminary evaluation, is considered sufficient as a preliminary analysis of the environmental situation of the project area and its area of influence (área de influencia), taking into account the following aspects, determined through the analysis of the information contained in the file and the observation made during the field inspection: 1. The project involves the construction of the diversion intake (toma de derivación) on Quebrada Cuecha, a desander (desarenador), conveyance pipeline, regulation valves, and distribution pipelines to plots. 2. The information provided by the user sets out an adequate definition of the project area and the AID. It is confined to the site where the different works, described above, were located, including the pipeline's passage along some Monteverde streets, as well as the distribution sites for the plots, determined as the project area. 3. The project as presented is categorized as having low environmental impact, determined by the preliminary environmental assessment (Evaluación Ambiental Preliminar) carried out by this Secretariat, which involved evaluating the project's environmental characteristics with respect to its location, determining its environmental significance. 4. The environmental impacts to be generated are considered to be negative impacts of little significance. 5. The information contained in the FEAP was accurate and adjusted to the characteristics of the project and its area of influence, arguments that supported the Plenary Commission's decision to request the Sworn Statement of Environmental Commitments (DJCA) as the Assessment Instrument. THEREFORE, WE RECOMMEND TO THE PLENARY COMMISSION-SETENA: 1. Maintain the Environmental Feasibility of the project. 2. Notify SENARA that it may begin the project's operation, for the benefit of the beneficiaries or service grantees. 3. Reject the Nullity Challenge filed by Lic. Agustín Atmelia Herrera on May 10, 2005, primarily because the arguments of said challenge exceed the scope of what is technically considered the Ap and AID of the project, whose construction phase, to date, does not reflect the production of significant negative environmental impacts that endanger other natural resources of the area, especially when the challengers have sought to over-dimension it for the entire population or area of the Monteverde District." (see copy of the cited document on folios 848 to 856 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume II and 955 to 963 of volume III); 12).- That the resolution referred to in the two preceding whereas clauses was appealed by Mrs. Nombre114710 and other persons (see copies of the appeal on folios 857 to 882 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume II); 13).- That by official letter of October third, two thousand six, No. SITRA-269-06, the General Secretary of the Trade Union Association of Workers of the Ministry of Environment and Energy and Related Conservation Institutions (Asociación Sindical de Trabajadores del Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía e Instituciones Afines de Conservación, SITRAMINAE), filed a complaint before the Administrative Environmental Tribunal (Tribunal Ambiental Administrativo) for the alleged invasion and environmental damage to the protection zone of Quebrada Cuecha and requested the total closure of the Concession for the Nombre114711 Irrigation Project (see copy of the complaint on folios 1177 to 1196 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume III); 14).- That in official letter of October fourth, two thousand six, No. SITRA-270-06, the General Secretary of the Trade Union Association of Workers of the Ministry of Environment and Energy and Related Conservation Institutions SITRAMINAE, filed a complaint before the Procuraduría General de la República for the alleged invasion and environmental damage to the protection zone of Quebrada Cuecha and requested the total closure of the Concession for the Nombre114711 Irrigation Project (see copy of the complaint on folios 1093 to 1217 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume III); 15)- That on the occasion of the complaint referred to in the immediately preceding fact, in a filing dated October nineteenth, two thousand six, Deputy Procurator Mauricio Castro Lizano requested the Administrative Environmental Tribunal to proceed with the necessary steps to determine the existence or not of the reported infractions (see copy of the official letter on folio 1213 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume III); 16).- That the Ministry of Environment and Energy, in Resolution No. 430-06-MINAE, of eleven hours fifty minutes on November seventeenth, two thousand six, granted the appeal filed against the provisions of Resolution No. 429-2006-SETENA, and declared the retroactive nullity (nulidad, con efecto retroactivo) of official letter No. SG-1562-2003-SETENA of September twenty-six, two thousand three, likewise decreeing the nullity of the acts issued subsequently and related to the referenced official letter. Furthermore, the Department of Water (Departamento de Aguas) was ordered to initiate a proceeding for the purpose of canceling the concession granted in Resolution 254-2004-AGUAS-MINAE (see copy of the indicated resolution on folios 1088 to 1034 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume III); 17).- That in the resolution referenced in the immediately preceding fact, in order to grant the appeal, it was considered that the Monteverde irrigation project would indeed cause considerable environmental impact, that it was in a Wildlife Refuge (Refugio de Vida Silvestre), and that the act authorizing the project lacked the essential elements of an act because it was based on erroneous information. To issue these conclusions, the concerned Administration took as essential probative element a study prepared by several of the appellants (visible on folios 101 to 110 of administrative file No. 144-2003 SETENA, volume I), (see copy of the indicated resolution on folios 1088 to 1034 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume III); 18).- That by means of a filing presented before MINAE on November twenty-ninth, two thousand six, the representative of the Sociedad de Usuarios de Agua Rogumeca filed a motion for reversal (revocatoria) against Resolution R-430-MINAE, alluded to in the two preceding whereas clauses (see copy of the motion on folios 1151 to 1155 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume III); 19).- That in Resolution No. R-451-2006-MINAE, of eleven hours fifty minutes on December twelfth, two thousand six, the Ministry of Environment and Energy rejected the motion for reversal filed against Resolution 430-2006-MINAE (see copy of said resolution on folios 1149 and 1150 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume III); 20).- That by official letter No. OT-ACA-107-2006, of December seventh, two thousand six, Licenciado Carlos Alberto González Rojas certified: "(...) that by Decree 26396, the Curi Cancha Private Wildlife Refuge is declared and named, dated June 26, 1997, located in the Monteverde District. Article II states: 'Said property shall be subject to the Wildlife Refuge category for a period of five years, renewable for equal periods, for which the owner must request it in writing, one month prior to the end of said contract.' The company called Curi Cancha Sociedad Anónima never complied with the transcribed article; therefore, as of today, it is not under the country's private Wildlife regime, since June 2002, the expiration date of Decree 26396." (see copy of the reference official letter on folio 33 of the SINAC file); 21).- That in a writing presented before the Ministry of Environment and Energy on January twenty-fifth, two thousand seven, the Deputy Manager of SENARA filed a motion for reversal or reconsideration (reposición) against Resolution R-430-06-MINAE (see copy of said motion on folios 1249 to 1256 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume III); 22).- That in official letter ACAT-D-058 of March 28, 2007, the Regional Directorate of the Arenal-Tempisque Conservation Area (Área de Conservación Arenal-Tempisque) of the National System of Conservation Areas (SINAC), reported: "According to an inspection conducted and GPS points taken by technicians Elberth Vargas Masís and Miguel Jiménez, it can be determined that the constructed works are located outside the Arenal Monteverde Protective Zone (Zona Protectora Arenal Monteverde). (...) Based on the attached map, it can be observed that the southern boundary of the Refuge is Quebrada Cuecha, and the mentioned works, in the case of the one built on said Quebrada, are located on the western boundary of the Refuge (see copy of the mentioned official letter on folio 46 of the SINAC file). That by official letter IMN-DA-0708-2007, of April nine, two thousand seven, the Department of Water of MINAE, rendered a hydrological evaluation of the water concession in the name of the Sociedad de Usuarios de Agua Rogumeca, in which the reference was the capacity measurements (aforos) taken at the intake point detailed below:
| Date | Flow Data (liters per second) | Origin of Data | Measurement Method |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20 February 2002 | 50.54 | SENARA | Current meter (Molinete) |
| March 2002 | 265.14 | SENARA | Current meter (Molinete) |
| 4 February 2005 | 194.00 | Dept. Water (Dpto. Aguas) | Current meter (Molinete) |
| Indicated as dry season data | 56.50 | Report provided to the file by Mr. Nombre114715, Sub-Director of the Monteverde Institute | Private system |
| 15 February 2007 | 51.22 | SENARA | Current meter (Molinete) |
| 14 March 2007 | 45.15 | SENARA | Current meter (Molinete) |
Based on these capacity measurements, the evaluation made the following observations: "The micro-basin of Quebrada Cuecha is a tributary of the Guacimal River basin. This Department has flow data for the Guacimal River basin, measured upstream of the bridge on national route No. 1 during the years 1998-1999, 2000, and 2001, and they present positive variations during the months of March and April. The technical explanation is that such flows were influenced by atmospheric phenomena coming from the Caribbean; the effect is that the flows are higher from one month to the next, that is, a measurement is taken in February and it is expected that in March it will be lower, and the opposite occurs. The flow of Quebrada Cuecha, which is part of the Guacimal River basin, both making up the upper part of the basin, along with another series of sources, and in it the phenomenon indicated in the previous point occurs, according to capacity measurements taken by SENARA (see folio 31 of file 11212) during the months of February and March 2002; they affirm the foregoing, since for the month of February a flow of 50.54 Lps was measured and for the month of March a flow of 265.14 was measured, more than five times the January flow. How is this phenomenon explained? It is because said basin is influenced by the Caribbean. Downstream flow contributions: From the concession's intake site at an estimated distance of 50 meters, there is the first specific flow contribution, originating from a small unnamed stream that is a tributary of the quebrada, which occurs entirely within the property from which water is drawn, namely the property of Nombre114712., as per an inspection carried out on February 4, 2005, recorded in official letter IMN-DA-0362-2005 of February 7, 2005. Although the contributed flow data is not available, an almost immediate contribution from the diversion site has been identified. Water availability: From the available information, discounting (sic) the extreme flows presented in February 2002 and March 2005, it is concluded that during the dry season, a flow in the range of 45 to 60 liters per second can be available. The existing downstream water rights in the micro-basin of Quebrada Cuecha must be respected; as per our Computer System of the National Registry of Concessions (Sistema Informático de Registro Nacional de Concesiones), there are no valid concessions. There are pending applications for water from the same quebrada, at downstream sites, by the Sociedad de Usuarios de Agua de Monte Verde Rock Smith and by Mr.
Nombre114713, which must be evaluated. Considering the minimum gauged flow of 45.15 liters per second, this is the available flow at the intake site. Needs Calculation According to the technical recommendation report for the concession, official letter IMN-DA-2694-2004 (document running in the file), the needs are assessed at a total flow of 12.65 liters per second. These are estimated with the data of uses verified in the field and based on the (sic) technical variables set forth in the Manual de Dotaciones of the Departamento de Agua published in Gaceta N° 98 of Thursday, May 20, 2004.
| Variable | Detalle |
|---|---|
| Use | Irrigation (Riego) |
| Irrigation area (Area de riego) | 23 hectares |
| Crops (Cultivos) | Coffee, vegetables, and pastures (Café, hortalizas y pastos) |
| Allocation per hectare (Dotación por hectárea) | 0.55 liters per second |
| Usage period (Período de uso) | 18 hours per day |
| Required flow (Caudal requerido) | 12.65 liters per second |
Given that, There is sufficient available flow in the Cuecha stream at the height of the intake point. The conceded flow represents, in summer (dry season at minimum flow), 28% of the minimum available flow in March and 4.7 of the maximum flow in March, at the intake site. There are proven flow contributions to the Cuecha stream barely 50 meters downstream of the intake. The concession right demands that the concessionaire must calibrate the assigned flow by means of a work of weirs and orifices; this must guarantee that no more water than assigned will be diverted. Once the conceded flow has been diverted, a flow of 32.50 liters per second would be running downstream, which is greater than the 10% stipulated at each intake as Minimum Remaining Flow (Caudal Mínimo Remanente, CMR) (known by others as environmental flow), thereby preserving the right of third parties to the common uses of water stipulated in Article 11 of the Water Law (Ley de Aguas), as well as guaranteeing that a permanent water flow exists in the dry season in the channel, which allows supplying the needs of the ecosystem; likewise, the protection of third parties with superior rights over concessions is covered. It is the opinion of the undersigned that the water use concession file 11212 in the name of Sociedad de Usuarios de Agua Nombre114711, which has been granted a flow of 12.65 liters per second from the Cuecha stream, does not cause any damage to the water regime and ecosystem of the mentioned (sic) stream and is resolved in adherence to the principles of conservation and sustainable use of water stipulated in Article 51 of the Organic Environmental Law (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente)." (see copy of the cited official letter on folios 570 to 574 of the file of the Departamento de Aguas N° 11212, Legajo N° 3 and folios 1442 to 1446 of the administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume III); 23).- That in resolution N° 374-07-TAA, at ten hours and twenty-nine minutes on April tenth, two thousand seven, the Tribunal Ambiental Administrativo ordered "To Dictate as a Provisional Resolution by dismissing only the complaint against the Sociedad de Usuarios de Agua Nombre114711 processed under this administrative file, said resolution remaining subject to being substituted by the Final Resolution, once the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia) rules on the Unconstitutionality Action N°. 06-009493-0007-CO" (See copy of the referenced resolution on folios 1447 to 1454 of the administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume III); 24).- That to issue the resolution referenced in the immediately preceding fact, the Tribunal Ambiental Administrativo considered: "Fourth: That based on the foregoing and having once analyzed the documents that make up this administrative file, especially the record of the on-site ('in situ') ocular inspection at the location where the water resource use by the company Rogumeca is found, visible on folios 834 and 835 of the administrative file, by which it is established '(...) The water intake has a construction over the Cuecha stream, in the form of a box (gaveta) 25 centimeters wide, 25 centimeters deep, and 2.20 meters long; beside it is a tank where the water that goes to the desander flows. The concession granted by the Departamento de Aguas is 12.6 liters per second. The place has forest cover (cobertura boscosa) and no tree felling is observed in the protection zone along the path of approximately eight hundred meters, where the hoses that carry the water for its consumption are found (...)', this Tribunal considers that since there is no significant negative environmental damage in the operation of the water concession granted to the (sic) company Sociedad Usuarios de Agua Nombre114711, coupled with the fact that water availability currently exists, in accordance with what was indicated by the Departamento de Aguas through official letter IMN-DA-0501-07, the present complaint against the company named Nombre114711 must be dismissed." (See copy of the referenced resolution on folios 1447 to 1454 of the administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume III); 25).- That in official letter CP-105-2007-SETENA, of April thirteenth, two thousand seven, the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental communicated to the Minister of Environment and Energy the criteria regarding the Monteverde Irrigation Project (Proyecto de Riego Monteverde), in which, as relevant, it was concluded: " 2. The criterion of this Secretariat is that the Sworn Statement of Environmental Commitments (Declaración Jurada de Compromisos Ambientales), together with the technical information contained in the file, is sufficient to substantiate the environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) of the project regarding the competencies of this Secretariat, in accordance with the cited regulations. 3. The foregoing is based on the following: The work that was carried out at the time involves a subduction work, in which the water transfer is made, passing to a desander, from which part of the water is sent to the farms for irrigation and the remaining part is sent back to the channel. When the project does not operate because irrigation is not needed, mainly during winter, all the water is returned to the channel from the desander. The works consist of the diversion intake (only two meters long) in the Quebrada Cuecha, installation of the desander and conduction piping, regulation valves, and distribution piping. The calibrating work regulates the excess water and has the dimensions and technical specifications issued by the Departamento de Aguas of MINAE, which guarantees that they will be fully complied with. These previously described works do not cause impacts on the aquatic fauna of the Quebrada Cuecha or on the nearby vegetation cover (cobertura vegetal), and the project is categorized as a low environmental impact project, with insignificant environmental impacts. 4. On the other hand, SENARA, through the public administrative act issued by official letter number POE-573-03 (folios 0020 and 0026) signed by Eng. Edgar Mairena Navarro, project manager of the Central Pacific Region of SENARA, demonstrates that: 'Regarding the requested basin-level study: the flow to be derived will not significantly affect the basin of the Quebrada Cuecha. The foregoing certified by Official Letter ASUB-367-03, where it is recorded that 3 measurements (aforos) were taken on February 20, 2002, March 20, 2002, and April 18, 2002, with flows of 50.54 L/sec, 265.14 L/sec, and 30.03 L/sec, respectively. The technical study is based on the Manual de dotaciones de agua to calculate the needs for water use applications prepared by the Departamento de Aguas-MINAE.' (...) 5. In turn, the Departamento de Aguas of MINAE determined, through official letter number IMN-DA-0362, of February 7, 2005, the following: ' As of February 4, 2005, the streams maintained a flow of 61.4 l/sec. La Máquina and 194 l/sec the Quebrada Cuecha, which are more than 10 times greater than the flows potentially to be used by the societies.' There are also a series of lateral contributions and other water sources below each proposed intake, flows that feed and consequently increase the flow of the sources.' (...). 7. By Decreto Ejecutivo number 26396-MINAE, of June 26, 1997, the Private Wildlife Refuge Curi Cancha (refugio Privado de Vida Silvestre Curi Cancha) was created; in its article 2, subsection II, it was determined that the refuge status of the property would cover a period of five years, which could be renewed. It is not recorded in file 144-2013-SETENA whether such renewal has occurred. 8. In light of all the above considerations, the resolutions of this SECRETARIAT can be re-read, as well as the document recorded on folios 626 to 634 of file 144-2003SETENA, in which the technical foundations leading to the following conclusion are developed: Although the site is a wildlife refuge, the impact assessment (evaluación de impacto) carried out for the project (article 82 LCVA) guarantees that it is environmentally viable (viable ambientalmente) concerning the competence of this Secretariat" (see copy of the cited official letter on folios 1455 to 1457 of the administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume III); 26).- That in resolution N° R-196-2007-MINAE, issued by the Ministry of Environment and Energy at eleven o'clock on April twenty-fourth, two thousand seven, resolution N° 430-2006-MINAE, of eleven hours fifty minutes on November seventeenth, two thousand six, was revoked (see copy of the referenced resolution on folios 1492 to 1514 of the administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume III); 27).- That resolution N° R-196- MINAE was based on the following considerations: " SECOND: (...) Revocation, under the terms of our General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública), proceeds in cases where, for reasons of opportunity, among others, an administrative act can be removed from legal life, not for reasons of invalidity, in which case nullity would proceed, but in cases where there is a progressive divergence between the reasons that originated the issuance of the act, and those that later become evident as new or not appreciable at the time the revocable act was issued (the revocable act in this case would be resolution 430-2006-MINAE). In this sense, at the time of issuing resolution 430-2006-MINAE, there were no evidentiary or technical-legal assessment elements, such as those produced by the technical dependencies of this Ministry (indicated in the resultandos of this resolution) after the issuance of that resolution; a situation that constitutes a substantial change in the factual scenario before which the Public Administration possesses a discretionary power of action, circumscribed within the framework of legality and observance of public purposes, and never removed from these. In this sense, the new elements of judgment must be supported by technical and legal criteria that allow a change of criterion or appreciation of the same matter to be legally and technically viable. In the case under examination, the new elements produced by the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, by the Departamento de Aguas, as well as what was indicated by SINAC, and the (sic) Tribunal Ambiental Administrativo, constitute the necessary inputs for the administration to proceed to a reassessment of the circumstances and background that originated the issuance of the original administrative act (in this case, resolution 430-2006-MINAE), through the legal institute of modification of administrative acts called 'revocation'. (...) The circumstances that would innovate the factual scenario with respect to the one taken into account at the time of issuing resolution 430-2006-MINAE, consist of the technical pronouncements from the different technical dependencies of this Ministry that refer specifically to the sufficient availability of flow to meet the ecological needs specific to the place where the water intake for the Monteverde Irrigation Project is located, and the non-affectation of natural resources by the extraction of the flow subject to the concession, since previously the only thing that had been taken into account by those same technical dependencies of this Ministry (mainly by SETENA) was the discarding of environmental affectation from the construction works for water catchment, and not the catchment itself (that is, the use of the conceded flow and its impact on the required ecological flow). In accordance with the above, as new elements exist that evidence a progressive mismatch between what was acted upon and the current reality, shown by the technical and legal pronouncements of the dependencies of this Ministry, a need arises to readjust the administrative act issued (resolution 430-2006-MINAE) to the reality shown by the new evidentiary elements. (...) THIRD: (...) when the competent technical instances, as in this case would be primarily SETENA, Departamento de Aguas, have cleared the reasonable doubts that were held from the beginning in this case, regarding the eventual affectation of the natural resources adjacent to the water catchment works for the project, there would now be no insurmountable technical or legal reason to prevent the realization of the project in question, since while the dubious state existed, the Administration assumed a preventive role as required by Articles 13 and 109 of the Biodiversity Law (Ley de la Biodiversidad): initially resolving the nullity of the environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental), but after the evidentiary elements produced, it is determined that the activity they intend to develop through the Monteverde Irrigation Project, specifically regarding water catchment, will not affect the natural resources of the place, for which the Administration is legally empowered to reconcile its acts with the forensic reality presented by the aforementioned dependencies." (...) FOURTH: (...) It is clarified at this point that there would no longer be a technical doubt about the affectation of the environmental legal asset by the activity that La Sociedad de Usuarios de Agua Rogumeca intends to develop, as indicated above by the different Technical Departments, and on the other hand, the existence of the irregularities or omissions in the granting of the environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) pointed out in resolution 430-2006-MINAE do not now hold a degree of negative qualification or dangers for the achievement of the public purpose that concerns this Ministry, which can be summarized as the protection of natural resources. In this sense, the arguments of the opponents to the Monteverde Irrigation Project, regarding the defects of the act itself, and under the new factual scenario explained in the previous considerandos would be inappropriate." (see copy of the cited resolution on folios 1492 to 1514 of the administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume III); 28).- That in resolution N° 584-07-TAA, of the Tribunal Ambiental Administrativo, issued at nine hours and fifty-three minutes on June seventh, two thousand seven, it ordered " (...) To dismiss only the complaint filed by Messrs. Nombre114714 and Nombre60482 against the Sociedad de Usuarios de Agua Nombre114711 processed under this administrative file. (...)" , a decision it grounded as follows: "Third: That the Decreto Ejecutivo N° 26396 that Declares and Names the Private Wildlife Refuge Curi Cancha was published in Gaceta N° 205 of October twenty-fourth, nineteen ninety-seven, a date from which the five-year validity of the Private Wildlife Refuge Curi Cancha runs, and taking into account what was indicated through official letter OT-ACA-107-2006 from the Land-Use Planning Office of the Arenal Tempisque Conservation Area (Oficina de Ordenamiento Territorial del Área de Conservación Arenal Tempisque), that the company named Curi Cancha S.A. did not comply with the stipulations of subsection II of Article 2 of said Decree, this Tribunal considers that on the date on which the FEAP (Preliminary Environmental Assessment Form) (Formulario de Evaluación Ambiental Preliminar) was presented to the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, being the twenty-seventh of February, two thousand three, the property registered in the Folio Real system, under registration number of the Partido de Puntarenas Placa21292 (Placa21294), with an area of eight hundred twelve thousand seven hundred one square meters and eight square decimeters, located in Dirección14110, of the Province of Puntarenas, was not affected by the Private Wildlife Refuge regime. (...) Fourth: (...) For the foregoing and since the property on which the Monteverde Irrigation Project was to be developed was not affected as a Private Wildlife Refuge, this Tribunal considers that the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental Nacional (sic) did not violate the environmental legislation in force at that time, since it did not exempt the project from the environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental), what said Secretariat determined as the sole competent body on the matter, by resolution N° 429-2003-SETENA at eight hours forty-five minutes on May sixth, two thousand three, is that the instrument for evaluating said (sic) project would be the Sworn Statement of Environmental Commitments (Declaración Jurada de Compromisos Ambientales), subsequently granting the Environmental Viability (Viabilidad Ambiental) through official letter SG-1562-2003-SETENA. Fifth: That based on the foregoing and having once analyzed the documents that make up this administrative file, especially the record of the on-site ('in situ') ocular inspection at the location where the water resource use by the company Rogumeca is found, visible on folios 834 and 835 of the administrative file, by which it is established '(...) The water intake has a construction over the Quebrada Cuecha, in the form of a box (gaveta) 25 centimeters wide, 25 centimeters deep, and 2.20 meters long; beside it is a tank where the water that goes to the desander flows. The concession granted by the Departamento de Aguas is 12.6 liters per second. The place has forest cover (cobertura boscosa) and no tree felling is observed in the protection zone along the path of approximately eight hundred meters, where the hoses that carry water for its consumption are found.' (...)", this Court considers that since there is no significant negative environmental damage in the operation of the water concession granted to the (sic) company Sociedad de Usuarios de Agua Nombre114711, coupled with the fact that water is currently available, in accordance with what was indicated by the Department of Waters (Departamento de Aguas) through official communication IMN-DA-0501-07, this complaint against the company called Nombre114711 must be dismissed." (see copy of the cited resolution at folios 724 to 732 of administrative file number 11212 of the Department of Waters, Legajo 3); 29).- That through official communication No. IMN-DA-2296-2008, dated July thirtieth, two thousand eight, personnel from the Department of Waters carried out a verification of the measurements of the calibration structure, confirming that they were correct and in accordance with what was established in resolution No. R-254-2004- AGUAS-MINAE (see copy of the official communication certifying the review at folio 864 of administrative file number 11212 of the Department of Waters, Legajo 3).- **II.- REGARDING THE UNPROVEN FACTS: 1).-** The plaintiff does not demonstrate that the works for the water concession of the Monteverde Irrigation project, granted to Nombre114711, are located in the Arenal-Monteverde Protected Zone (Zona protectora Arenal- Monteverde), or in the Curi Cancha Private Wildlife Refuge (los autos); **2).-** It was not proven that the water concession granted to Nombre114711, as well as the works carried out on the Quebrada Cuecha on the occasion thereof, caused damage to the ecosystem and a significant environmental impact in the zones where the irrigation project is located (los autos).- **III.- REGARDING THE PLAINTIFF'S ARGUMENTS:** The plaintiff states that in February of two thousand six, SENARA initiated the procedure to obtain the environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) of the Monteverde irrigation project, which was granted through resolution SG-1562-2003-SETENA, dated September twenty-sixth, two thousand three, without this, according to the plaintiff's criterion, having due substantiation, based on an FEAP, on a sworn statement issued by a SENARA employee and in the absence of an environmental impact study. They allege that, on the occasion of complaints filed by residents of the area, the Ministry of Environment and Energy issued resolution No. 430-2006-MINAE, at eleven hours fifty minutes on November seventeenth, two thousand six, in which the nullity, with retroactive effect, of the environmental viability declared in official communication SG-1562-2003-SETENA was declared. They point out that said act had the effect of exhausting the administrative channel (vía administrativo), and that despite this, the respondent Administration proceeded to review and subsequently revoke it, by issuing resolution No. R-196-2007, at eleven hours on April twenty-fourth, two thousand seven. They argue that the latter is vitiated by nullity, and on this matter point out: 1- That resolution 430-2006 MINAE had already exhausted the administrative channel, which, according to their criterion, makes it impossible for the Administration to reopen the discussion on the point in question, making revocation for reasons of opportunity and convenience unfeasible when there are no modifications in the facts that constituted the motive for the resolution that was revoked. They maintain that in this case, the revocation occurred on the occasion of a meeting of a political nature, without the prerequisites ordered in the General Law of Public Administration for revocation to be admissible having been met, and they allege that this conduct by the Administration reflects an abuse of power (desviación de poder). They say that because resolution R-430-2006-MINAE constitutes an act unfavorable to the person affected (acto de gravamen), it necessarily required a prior opinion from the Contraloría General de la República. 2- They add that when resolution No. R-196-2007 was issued, and through it, the declaration of environmental viability declared in official communication SG-1562-2003-SETENA was revived, environmental regulations are violated. On this point, they indicate that the information given in the FEAP is erroneous, as it omits to indicate as the project area the zone in which the water intake from the Quebrada would be located. They say that the FEAP omitted to indicate that the project area is in aquifer recharge zones, that there are surface water bodies, that it is located in protected wilderness areas (áreas silvestres protegidas), (Curi Cancha Private Wildlife Refuge and Arenal-Monteverde Protected Zone), which, they affirm, made an environmental impact assessment obligatory and that it is a forested site. They say that the questioned conduct affects the natural resources surrounding the concession area and harms the right of citizens to enjoy a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.- **IV.- REGARDING THE ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE:** The representative of the State answered the lawsuit negatively and alleged the defenses of lack of right and the expiration of the action (caducidad). In relation to the latter, they said that the plaintiff seeks the nullity of the environmental viability, which was granted on September twenty-sixth, two thousand three, meaning that by the date of filing of the lawsuit, December eighth, two thousand nine, the action had already expired. They also state that it is an act not susceptible to challenge, as they consider it to be a procedural act without its own effect (acto de trámite sin efecto propio). Concerning the merits of the case, they allege that, in accordance with the provisions of article 153 of the General Law of Public Administration, the Administration does have the power to revoke its own acts, when, as in this case, there are new elements requiring its modification, for which reason they consider that resolution R-196-2007-MINAE does not present the procedural defects indicated by the plaintiff. On the other hand, and regarding the environmental impact assessment that the plaintiff misses, they maintain that this was not necessary, because when the procedures began to obtain the environmental viability and grant the concession for the irrigation project, the project area was not located within a protected zone, and they point out that the Curi Cancha private refuge was no longer in force. They also state that the development of the project has not caused a significant environmental impact, which they say has been verified by the competent bodies in the matter.
**V.- REGARDING THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASOCIACIÓN DE USUARIOS DEL AGUA ROGUMECA:** The representative of said Association answered the lawsuit negatively, and raised the defenses of lack of right, expiration, lack of interest, and lack of active and passive standing (legitimación activa y pasiva). They argue that the granting of environmental viability took place after all the requirements demanded by SETENA were met and that the project does not have a significant environmental impact and the installation of pipes was done following environmentally friendly practices. They maintain that the damage alleged by the plaintiff has not occurred and that the latter's assessments, to the effect that the viability was finally ratified for political reasons, are subjective arguments. They state that resolution R-430-2006-MINAE, which annulled the environmental viability, was adopted without taking into account the evidence offered, which subsequently necessitated its revocation.
**VI.- REGARDING THE ARGUMENTS OF THE SERVICIO NACIONAL DE AGUAS SUBTERRÁNEAS RIEGO Y AVENAMIENTO:** For its part, the representation of SENARA also answered the lawsuit negatively and formulated the defenses of lack of right, lack of active and passive standing, expiration, and statute of limitations (prescripción). In relation to these latter defenses, they state that resolution No. 196-2007-MINAE was issued on April twenty-fourth, two thousand seven, and that the lawsuit was filed only on December eighth, two thousand nine, thus exceeding the term established in article 39 of the Code of Contentious Administrative Procedure (Código procesal Contencioso Administrativo). In addition, SENARA states that it was notified of this lawsuit on August third, two thousand eleven, for which reason it considers the claim time-barred. In relation to the arguments on the merits, they maintain that the plaintiff's affirmations are merely manifestations, without any factual and evidentiary basis. They say that the lawsuit does not indicate how the constitutive elements of the act were affected. Finally, they allege that the irrigation project in question is an already built work and that it has not generated the environmental impact claimed by the plaintiff.
**VII.- REGARDING THE DEFENSE OF EXPIRATION (CADUCIDAD):** First, it is necessary to elucidate the defense of expiration raised by the various representations of each of the co-defendants, as well as the intervening party (coadyuvante). In this regard, the Court considers that said defense is inadmissible. According to the claims of the lawsuit, definitively established in the preliminary hearing (folio 308 verso), the action has as its sole claim that the absolute nullity of resolution No. R-196-2007-MINAE be declared. Said act was issued by the Ministry of Environment and Energy at eleven hours on April twenty-fourth, two thousand seven, and had the effect of revoking resolution No. R-430-2006-MINAE, and consequently the validity of the environmental viability of the Monteverde irrigation project, which had been granted since September of two thousand three. The object of the proceeding being the declaration of the absolute nullity of an administrative act that was issued on April twenty-fourth, two thousand seven. Thus, in essence, what is being discussed is the legality or not of an act that is not exhausted at the moment it was issued, and on the contrary, its effects have not ceased and will continue in force as long as the environmental viability granted to the Monteverde irrigation project is maintained by the Administration. This particularity of the questioned act is sufficient reason for this Deciding Body to consider the defense presented inadmissible.
**VIII.- REGARDING THE DEFENSE OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (PRESCRIPCIÓN):** In the case under examination, no issue related to damages is being discussed, as the plaintiff waived this claim of their lawsuit starting from the preliminary hearing (folios 308 and 309 of the judicial record), limiting the object of the proceeding to the determination of the legality or illegality of the challenged administrative conduct, from which it follows that the defense opposed is inadmissible.
**IX.- REGARDING THE DEFENSE TO THE EFFECT THAT IT IS AN UNCHALLENGEABLE ACT:** The representative of the State argues that the questioned act finally resolves the environmental viability granted to the Monteverde irrigation project, and says that this is not susceptible to challenge as it is a procedural act without its own effect. On this matter, this Deciding Body must indicate first that it does not ignore the precedent issued by the Court of Cassation (Tribunal de Casación) No. 000104-F-2009, at eleven hours ten minutes on June first, two thousand nine, in which that Chamber indicated the preparatory nature of the environmental impact assessment, and consequently its unchallengeable nature. However, the Court must depart from this criterion because obtaining environmental viability, in a case such as the one that occupies us, constitutes an indispensable requirement for the execution of the project, from which it follows that if it is not obtained, continuing with the administrative procedure would lack meaning, since finally, in the absence of said essential prerequisite, even if the rest of the requirements demanded by the legal system are satisfied, it would be impossible to obtain the license to carry out the project; therefore, the granting of environmental viability does produce effects on the administered parties and, thus, does constitute an act susceptible to challenge. On the other hand, it must be indicated that both resolution No. R-430-2006-MINAE and No. R-196-2007-MINAE were issued at a time when the obtaining of environmental viability had already led to the issuance of subsequent acts, such as the granting of the concession and the construction of the works necessary for the exploitation of the water resource, and evidently, as will be seen later, both resolutions affect those facts. Consequently, the defense of an act not susceptible to challenge formulated by the State representative is not acceptable.
**X.- REGARDING THE MERITS OF THE CASE:** Once the defenses of expiration and statute of limitations have been resolved, the merits of the case will be analyzed next, referring to each of the arguments formulated by the plaintiff against the challenged conduct: *1).- Possibility of revocation (revocación) of administrative acts:* In relation to this point, the plaintiff argues that in February of two thousand six, SENARA initiated the procedure to obtain the environmental viability of the Monteverde irrigation project, which was granted through resolution SG-1562-2003-SETENA, dated September twenty-sixth, two thousand three. They allege that, on the occasion of complaints filed by residents of the area, the Ministry of Environment and Energy issued resolution No. 430-2006-MINAE, at eleven hours fifty minutes on November seventeenth, two thousand six, in which the nullity, with retroactive effect, of the environmental viability declared in official communication SG-1562-2003-SETENA was declared. They point out that said act had the effect of exhausting the administrative channel, and that despite this, the respondent Administration proceeded to review and subsequently revoke it, by issuing resolution No. R-196-2007, at eleven hours on April twenty-fourth, two thousand seven. They argue that the latter is vitiated by nullity, and on this matter affirm: That resolution 430-2006 MINAE had already exhausted the administrative channel, which, according to their criterion, makes it impossible for the Administration to reopen the discussion on the point in question, making revocation for reasons of opportunity and convenience unfeasible when there are no modifications in the facts that constituted the motive for the resolution that was revoked. They maintain that in this case, the revocation occurred on the occasion of a meeting of a political nature, without the prerequisites ordered in the General Law of Public Administration for revocation to be admissible having been met, and they allege that this conduct by the Administration reflects an abuse of power. They say that because resolution R-430-2006-MINAE constitutes an act unfavorable to the person affected, it necessarily required a prior opinion from the Contraloría General de la República. Regarding the revocation of administrative acts, articles 152 and 153 of the General Law of Public Administration provide: *"Article 152.- 1. The administrative act may be revoked for reasons of opportunity, convenience, or merit, with the exceptions contemplated by law. 2. Revocation shall only take place when there is a serious divergence between the effects of the act and the public interest, despite the time elapsed, the rights created, or the nature and other circumstances of the legal relationship intended to be terminated.-"* *"Article 153.- 1. Revocation may be based on the appearance of new factual circumstances not existing or not known at the time the original act was issued. 2. It may also be based on a different assessment of the same factual circumstances that gave rise to the act, or of the affected public interest."* As can be seen, according to the cited regulations, it must be concluded that the legislator expressly recognized the power of revocation for the Administration, this being one of the two exceptions established by Law to the principle of intangibility of one's own acts (the other is the declaration of absolute nullity of the act). According to these postulates, the Administration may revoke the act "for reasons of opportunity, convenience, and merit" when "there is a serious divergence regarding the effects of the act and the public interest despite the time elapsed," thus being a figure whose application is exceptional, which may be based on the appearance of new factual circumstances or on a new assessment of those initially taken into account or of the affected public interest (article 153 LGAP), making it impossible to apply the figure of revocation to acts of a regulated nature (article 156 of the cited Law). In the case at hand, the Court has deemed it proven that resolution No. R-196-2007-MINAE, which revoked No. R-430-2006-MINAE, assessed a series of technical criteria that were not taken into consideration when the act that was finally revoked was issued. In that sense, it is recorded in the record that when issuing resolution No. R-430-2006-MINAE, the concerned Administration had as an essential evidentiary element a study on the effects of the irrigation project, which had been prepared by several of the people who opposed it (this is recorded in the background mentioned in that resolution at folios 1088 to 1034 of administrative file 144-2003-SETENA, volume I). However, subsequently, when issuing resolution No. R-196-2007-MINAE, the Administration based itself on new technical pronouncements, prepared by MINAE dependencies, which evidenced the availability of the resource and ruled out a significant environmental impact, which was expressly indicated in the challenged resolution, which, in the relevant part, stated: *"SECOND: (...) Revocation, under the terms of our General Law of Public Administration, is admissible in cases where, for reasons of opportunity, among others, an administrative act can be withdrawn from legal life, not for reasons of invalidity, in which case nullity would be applicable, but in cases where there is a progressive divergence between the reasons that originated the issuance of the act and those that subsequently become evident as new or not appreciable at the time the revocable act was issued (the revocable act in this case would be resolution 430-2006-MINAE). In this sense, at the time resolution 430-2006-MINAE was issued, there were no evidentiary elements or technical-legal assessments, such as those produced by the technical dependencies of this Ministry (indicated in the resultandos of this resolution) after the issuance of that resolution; a situation that constitutes a substantial change in the factual scenario before which the Public Administration possesses a discretionary power of action, circumscribed within the framework of legality and observance of public ends, and never removed from these.* In this regard, the new elements of judgment must be based on technical and legal criteria that allow a change of criterion or assessment of the same matter to be legally and technically viable. In the case under examination, the new elements produced by both the National Environmental Technical Secretariat and the Department of Waters, as well as the information provided by SINAC, and (sic) Administrative Environmental Tribunal, constitute the necessary inputs for the administration to proceed with a reassessment of the circumstances and background that gave rise to the issuance of the original administrative act (in this case, resolution 430-2006-MINAE), through the legal mechanism of modification of administrative acts called "revocation." (...) The circumstances that would innovate the factual scenario with respect to that which was taken into account at the time resolution 430-2006-MINAE was issued consist of the technical pronouncements of the various technical units of this Ministry that refer specifically to the sufficient availability of flow to satisfy the ecological needs of the place where the water intake for the Proyecto de Riego Monteverde is located, and the non-affectation of natural resources by the extraction of the flow subject to the concession, since previously the only thing that had been taken into account by those same technical units of this Ministry, (mainly by SETENA) was the discarding of affectation to the environment by the construction works for water collection, and not the collection itself (that is, the use of the conceded flow and its impact on the required ecological flow). Pursuant to the foregoing, given the existence of new elements that demonstrate a progressive mismatch between what was acted upon and the current reality, shown by the technical and legal pronouncements of the units of this Ministry, a need arises to readjust the administrative act issued (resolution 430-2006-MINAE) to the reality shown by the new evidentiary elements. (...) THIRD: (...) when the competent technical bodies, as in this case would be SETENA, Department of Waters mainly, have cleared the reasonable doubts that existed from the beginning in this case, regarding the potential affectation to natural resources adjacent to the water collection works for the project, there would now be no technical or legal reason that can be overcome to prevent the execution of the project in question, since while the state of doubt existed, the Administration assumed a preventive role as required by Article 13 and 109 of the Biodiversity Law: initially resolving the nullity of the environmental viability, but after the evidentiary elements produced, it was determined that the activity sought to be developed through the Proyecto de Riego Monteverde, specifically regarding water collection, would not affect the natural resources of the place, and therefore the Administration is legally empowered to reconcile its acts with the forensic reality presented by the aforementioned units." (...) FOURTH: (...) It is clarified at this point that there would no longer be a technical doubt regarding the affectation of the environmental legal interest, by the activity that La Sociedad de Usuarios de Agua Rogumeca intends to develop, as indicated above, by the various Technical Departments; furthermore, the existence of irregularities or omissions in the granting of environmental viability noted in resolution 430-2006-MINAE does not now carry a negative degree of qualification or danger to the achievement of the public purpose that concerns this Ministry, which can be summarized as the protection of natural resources. In this sense, the allegations of the opponents of the Proyecto de Riego Monteverde, regarding the defects of the act itself, would be unfounded under the new factual scenario explained in the preceding recitals." (see copy of the cited resolution on pages 1492 to 1514 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume III) (The bold highlighting is supplied). From the transcribed resolution, it is therefore clear that the Administration issued resolution No. R-196-2007-MINAE in light of facts it did not know when it issued No. R-430-2006-MINAE, and regarding which it gained certainty from the technical criteria rendered, to the effect that the private Wildlife Refuge Curi Cancha was no longer in force (Official Letter OT-ACA-107-2006 of December seven, two thousand six, issued by Lic. Carlos Alberto González Rojas, appearing on page 33 of the SINAC file), that the works are located outside the Arenal Monteverde Protected Zone (official letter ACTA-D-058 of March twenty-eight, two thousand seven, issued by the Regional Directorate of the Arenal-Tempisque Conservation Area, on page 46 of the SINAC file), that the water use concession in the name of the Sociedad de Usuarios del Agua Nombre114711 does not cause damage to the water regime and the ecosystem surrounding the Quebrada Cuecha (Official Letter IMN-DA-0708-2007, of April nine, two thousand seven, issued by the Department of Waters of MINAE, and appearing on pages 1442 to 1446 of administrative file No. 144-2003 SETENA, volume III). Thus, by way of these expert opinions, all issued after resolution No. R-430-2006-MINAE, the Administration was able to verify the non-existence of the factual assumptions on which it had based said resolution, thereby fulfilling the prerequisites established in the Law (numerals 152 and 153 of the LGAP) for its revocation. The plaintiff argues that the revocation procedure established in the legal system was violated, and on this matter alleges that it took place on an ex officio basis and that the authorization of the Contraloría General de la República was omitted. Regarding the first of these reproaches, it is necessary to indicate that the plaintiff is in error, since it is recorded in the case file, and the Court has so accredited, that through a brief submitted to MINAE on November twenty-nine, two thousand six, the representative of the Sociedad de Usuarios de Agua Roguemeca filed an appeal for revocation against resolution No. R-430-2006-MINAE (the copy of the appeal appears on pages 1151 to 1155 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA). Likewise, the appeal filed against the aforementioned resolution by the Deputy Manager of SENARA on January twenty-five, two thousand seven, is also recorded (which appears on pages 1249 to 1256 of the aforementioned administrative file). Thus, the plaintiff's assertions that the Administration revoked its own act on an ex officio basis do not conform to the factual reality recorded in the case file and which this Deciding Body has been able to corroborate. Regarding the second procedural reproach, the plaintiff says it misses the favorable opinion of the Contraloría General de la República, provided for in numeral 155 of the LGAP. Certainly, said provision establishes the authorization of the Controlling Entity to issue the revocation, but only for those cases in which the act subject to revocation had declared a subjective right. To the contrary, when the act does not generate subjective rights, the Administration may exercise its power of revocation without the favorable opinion of the Contraloría General de la República. At this point, it is appropriate to clarify that a declaratory act of rights is one that enriches the patrimony of its recipients with a right that was previously non-existent, or when a pre-existing right is released from some limitation on its exercise. It is, therefore, an act that confers upon the individual a verifiable advantage or a patrimonial or extra-patrimonial benefit, which did not occur in the case at hand through resolution R-430-2006-MINAE, since through it no right was declared in favor of any person (physical or legal), on the contrary, it was an ablatory act through which the right of a legal entity to exploit a concession was annulled. Consequently, the favorable opinion of the Contraloría General de la República was not a requirement to revoke resolution No. R-430-2006-MINAE, and its absence does not cause the nullity of No. R-196-2007-MINAE. 2).- Regarding the substantive arguments against resolution No. R-196-2007-MINAE: Basically, the arguments of the plaintiff against the challenged act center on the assertion that the environmental viability of the Monteverde irrigation project, and specifically the concession to exploit the water resource of the Quebrada Cuecha, granted to the Asociación de Usuarios del Agua Rogumeca, causes environmental damage, and to support this theory, the plaintiff states that this work is located in protected wild zones, aquifer recharge areas, in a site where endemic species are located, and that the exploitation negatively affects the flow of the Quebrada. Regarding the location of the concession area, this Court has duly accredited that in official letter ACAT-D-058 of March 28, 2007, the Regional Directorate of the Arenal-Tempisque Conservation Area of the National System of Conservation Areas reported: "According to a field trip conducted and points taken with GPS by technicians Elberth Vargas Masís and Miguel Jiménez, it can be determined that the constructed works are located outside the Zona Protectora Arenal Monteverde. (...) Based on the attached map, it can be observed that the southern boundary of the Refuge is the Quebrada Cuecha and the works mentioned, in the case of the one built on said Quebrada, are located on the western boundary of the Refuge" (see copy of the aforementioned official letter on page 46 of the SINAC file). Additionally, it is also recorded in the case file that through official letter No. OT-ACA-107-2006, of December seven, two thousand six, Licenciado Carlos Alberto González Rojas certified: "(...) that through Decreto 26396, the Refugio Privado de Vida Silvestre Curi Cancha is declared and named, dated June 26, 1997, located in the Monteverde District. In Article II, it states: 'Said property shall be subject to the Wildlife Refuge category for a period of five years, renewable for equal periods, for which the owner must request it in writing, one month before the end of said contract.' The company called Curi Cancha Sociedad Anónima never complied with the transcribed article, therefore, as of today, it is not under the country's private Wildlife regime, since June 2002, the expiration date of Decreto 26396." (see copy of the reference official letter on page 33 of the SINAC file). Then, based on both criteria issued by experts in the field related to protected zones, this Court must necessarily conclude that the areas that will be influenced by the exploitation of the concession are not only located outside the Zona Protectora Arenal Monteverde, but also are not subject to the limitations of a private wildlife refuge, in this case the refuge called Curi Cancha, since, as Mr. Carlos Alberto González Rojas certified, its validity had already expired. Regarding the possible affectation to the water resource, this Body reviewed the evaluation carried out by the Department of Waters of MINAE, detailed in official letter IMN-DA-0708-2007, of April nine, two thousand seven. This evaluation was based on the following gaugings:
| Date | Flow Data (liters per second) | Data Origin | Gauging Method |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20 February 2002 | 50.54 | SENARA | Current meter (Molinete) |
| March 2002 | 265.14 | SENARA | Current meter (Molinete) |
| 4 February 2005 | 194.00 | Dpto. Aguas | Current meter (Molinete) |
| Indicated as dry season data | 56.50 | Report provided to the file by Mr. Nombre114715, Sub Director of the Instituto Monteverde | Particular system |
| 15 February 2007 | 51.22 | SENARA | Current meter (Molinete) |
| 14 March 2007 | 45.15 | SENARA | Current meter (Molinete) |
As can be seen, these are several studies carried out at different times, and during the summer season. Furthermore, the report indicates that the Quebrada has several sources and water inputs, including ones located downstream of the concession intake. It was also indicated that during the summer, a flow of around between forty-five and sixty liters per second is available, which, according to the report, represents 28% of the minimum available flow. Finally, the expert opinion concluded: "It is the undersigned's criterion that the water use concession file 11212 in the name of the Sociedad de Usuarios de Agua Nombre114711, which has been granted a flow of 12.65 liters per second from the Quebrada Cuecha, does not cause any damage to the water regime and ecosystem of the aforementioned (sic) quebrada and is resolved in accordance with the principles of conservation and sustainable use of water stipulated in Article 51 of the Organic Environmental Law." (see copy of the cited official letter on pages 570 to 574 of the Department of Waters file No. Placa21295, Legajo No. 3 and pages 1442 to 1446 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume III). As a corollary to this technical study, which the plaintiff has failed to refute with objective evidence (as the evidence offered is limited to the testimony of a witness who, as recorded in the case file, has opposed the project from the beginning), the Court cannot admit the plaintiff's allegations that the execution of the referenced irrigation project causes damage to the water resource. Nor are the statements that the intake is within the ten meters of protection acceptable, since evidently in this case we are dealing with a concession of the water resource, for which the works under examination are indispensable. Regarding the affectation of endangered species, this Deciding Body cannot consider the existence of such an impact proven solely by what Mrs. Nombre114710 said in court, since, despite being a Biologist, that fact alone does not accredit her as an expert before the Court, not only because she was not offered in that capacity before the Court, but also because it is recorded in the case file that Mrs. Nombre114710 is a resident of the area and has opposed the irrigation project from the beginning, which undoubtedly allows the conclusion that her statements are permeated by a particular and direct interest in the matter. While it is true that the administrative file contains some photocopies related to environmental studies, none refer to the specific case, as they do not deal with the impact that the exploitation of the Water Concession could actually cause. At this point, it is appropriate to indicate that pursuant to Article 317 of the Civil Procedure Code, the burden of proof corresponds "To whoever formulates a claim, regarding the affirmations of the facts constituting their right.", which implies the duty, in this case of the plaintiff, to demonstrate their claim, which undoubtedly entailed their obligation to provide the case file with the necessary evidentiary elements to prove the alleged environmental impact. The plaintiff has not fulfilled this obligation, since beyond their arguments, they have not provided objective evidence that proves the existence of the alleged environmental damage. The case file contains no expert opinion offered that demonstrates precisely, clearly, and technically that the flow of the Quebrada Cuecha would be affected by the exploitation of the concession; on the contrary, as already indicated, there are evaluations carried out by the Administration that indicate the complete opposite. Nor are evidentiary elements provided that, on a scientific basis, prove that the exploitation of the concession would cause a significant environmental impact in its area of influence. The evidence in the case file says quite the opposite, which was even assessed by the Administrative Environmental Tribunal and the National Environmental Technical Secretariat. Thus, in resolution No. 374-07-TAA, of ten hours and twenty-nine minutes of April ten, two thousand seven, the Administrative Environmental Tribunal ordered: "Issue as a Provisional Resolution dismissing solely the complaint against the Sociedad de Usuarios de Agua Nombre114711 processed under this administrative file", for which it considered: "Fourth: That based on the foregoing and having analyzed the documents that make up said administrative file, especially the record of the on-site ocular inspection at the location where the water resource use of the Rogumeca company is found, visible on pages 834 and 835 of the administrative file, through which it is established '(...) The water intake has a construction on the Quebrada Cuecha, in the form of a channel 25 centimeters wide, 25 centimeters deep, and 2.20 meters long, next to it is a tank where the water flows to the sand trap. The concession given by the Department of Waters is 12.6 liters per second.
The place has forest cover (cobertura boscosa) and no tree cutting is observed in the protection zone along approximately eight hundred meters of the road, where the hoses that carry water for consumption are located (...), this Court considers that since there is no significant negative environmental damage in the operation of the water concession granted to the company Sociedad Usuarios de Agua Nombre114711, coupled with the fact that water is currently available, in accordance with what was indicated by the Department of Waters (Departamento de Aguas) through official communication IMN-DA-0501-07, the present complaint against the company called Nombre114711 must be dismissed." (See copy of the referenced resolution at folios 1447 to 1454 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume III), and for its part, SETENA, in official communication CP-105-2007-SETENA, dated April thirteenth, two thousand seven, stated: "2. The criterion of this Secretariat is that the Sworn Declaration of Environmental Commitments (Declaración Jurada de Compromisos Ambientales), together with the technical information contained in the file, is sufficient to support the environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) of the project with regard to the competences of this Secretariat, in accordance with the cited regulations. 3. The foregoing is based on the following: The work carried out at the time is a diversion/subduction (subducción) work, in which the water is transferred, passing to a desander (desarenador), from which part of the water is sent to the farms for irrigation and the remaining part is returned to the watercourse. When the project is not operating because irrigation is not needed, mainly during the winter, all the water is returned to the watercourse from the desander. The works consist of the diversion intake (of only two meters in length) at the Quebrada Cuecha, installation of the desander and conduction pipeline, regulation valves, and distribution pipeline. The calibrating work regulates the excess water and has the dimensions and technical specifications issued by the Department of Waters of MINAE, which guarantees that they will be fully complied with. These works described above do not cause impacts to the aquatic fauna of the Quebrada Cuecha or to the nearby vegetation cover (cobertura vegetal), and the project is categorized as a low environmental impact (impacto ambiental) project, with very insignificant environmental impacts. 4. Furthermore, the SENARA, through the public administrative act issued by official communication number POE-573-03 (folios 0020 and 0026) signed by Ing. Edgar Mairena Navarro, project manager for the Central Pacific Region of SENARA, demonstrates that: "Regarding the basin-level study requested: the flow to be diverted will not greatly affect the basin of the Quebrada Cuecha. The foregoing is certified through Official Communication ASUB-367-03, which states that 3 flow measurements (aforos) were conducted on February 20, 2002, March 20, 2002, and April 18, 2002, with flows of 50.54 L/sec, 265.14 L/sec, and 30.03 L/sec, respectively. The technical study is based on the Manual for water allocations to calculate the needs for water use applications, prepared by the Department of Waters-MINAE." (...) 5. In turn, the Department of Waters of MINAE determined, through official communication number IMN-DA-0362, dated February 7, 2005, the following: "As of February 4, 2005, the streams maintained a flow of 61.4 L/sec, La Máquina, and 194 L/sec, Quebrada Cuecha, which are more than 10 times greater than the flows potentially to be used by the societies." There are also a series of lateral contributions and other water sources below each proposed intake, flows that feed and consequently increase the flow of the sources." (...). 7. Through Executive Decree number 26396-MINAE, dated June 26, 1997, the Curi Cancha Private Wildlife Refuge was created; its Article 2, section II, determined that the refuge status of the property would cover a five-year period, which could be renewed. The file 144-2013-SETENA does not show whether such a renewal has occurred. 8. In light of all the foregoing considerations, the resolutions of this SECRETARIAT can be reread, as well as the document found at folios 626 to 634 of file 144-2003SETENA, in which the technical basis leading to the following conclusion is developed: Even though the place is a wildlife refuge, the environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto) carried out for the project (Article 82 LCVA) guarantees that it is environmentally viable with regard to the competence of this Secretariat" (see copy of the cited official communication at folios 1455 to 1457 of administrative file number 144-2003 SETENA, volume III). It is observed, then, that in the records there are reports from the Administration, as well as resolutions from the Administrative Environmental Tribunal (Tribunal Ambiental Administrativo) and from SETENA, which certify the environmental viability of the irrigation project related to the Quebrada Cuecha, without the plaintiff having provided evidence tending to discredit those acts. Subsequently, the Administration concerned based the act challenged here on this same body of evidence, which constitutes the grounds (motivo) for the act in question, since, the environmental impact alleged by the project's opponents not being credited, and on the contrary, the Administration having demonstrated that the works would not cause the alleged damage, the challenged revocation finds its cause or grounds precisely in the non-existence of the impact, since, the damages not being proven, there would be no reason whatsoever to maintain resolution N° R-430-2006-MINAE, insofar as it had decreed the nullity of official communication SG-1562-2003-SETENA, dated September twenty-sixth, two thousand three, in which environmental viability was granted to the irrigation project, nor would there be any reason to cancel the concession, as was ordered in the resolution that was ultimately revoked. In accordance with all that has been said, the Court considers that the challenged administrative act was issued in exercise of the power of revocation established in the General Law of Public Administration, under the precepts established in the legal system, not only because new facts arose that were not taken into account when the act that was revoked was issued, but also because the facts were assessed based on the new technical criteria that were presented within the administrative proceeding. This Decision-Making Body also believes that the act in question had as its cause or grounds precisely the demonstration that the irrigation project would not cause the alleged damage, and this was duly substantiated in the revocation act. Consequently, and given the absence of evidence that discredits that which the Administration concerned took into account to issue the challenged act, the appropriate action is to declare the lawsuit dismissed in its entirety.
**XI.- ON THE EXCEPTIONS:** The representative of the State raised the defenses of lack of right, lack of active standing (legitimación ad causan activa), and expiry (caducidad). In addition, at the trial hearing, he argued that environmental viability is an act not subject to challenge. The representatives of the State and SENARA raised the defense of lack of right, lack of passive standing, expiry, and statute of limitations (prescripción). For her part, the co-defendant Nombre114711 did not formulate exceptions. With respect to the expiry and the statute of limitations alleged by the representatives of the State and SENARA, reference must be made to what was resolved in Considerandos VII and VIII of this judgment. The same applies to the defense of an act not subject to challenge, to which the Court referred in Considerando IX of this resolution. Regarding the defense of lack of passive standing raised by SENARA, it was heard at the preliminary hearing held on August twenty-seventh, two thousand twelve, a moment from which SENARA intervened as a voluntary passive coadjutant. For its part, and based on the substantive Considerando that precedes this, the lack of right, which encompasses the lack of active standing, must be granted.
**XII.- ON COSTS:** As provided by Article 193 of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code, payment of personal and procedural costs are borne by the losing party. However, the Court may exempt from payment when "Due to the nature of the issues debated, there has existed, in the Court's judgment, sufficient reason to litigate." In the matter under review, the administrative file contains two resolutions issued by the Administration concerned that are contradictory: one finds it proven that the Monteverde irrigation project causes environmental impact, and the other, the one that has been challenged here, reaches the opposite conclusion. In the Court's judgment, this circumstance is sufficient reason to litigate, and therefore, the plaintiff fell within the scenario of exemption from costs established in subsection b of Article 193 of the procedural Code. For this reason, despite his status as the losing party, the Court has decided to exempt him from payment, with each party bearing its own costs.
**POR TANTO** The defenses of expiry, statute of limitations, and act not subject to challenge are rejected. The defense of lack of right, which encompasses lack of active standing, is granted. The lawsuit brought by Mr. Nombre114708 against the State and the Sociedad de Usuarios de Agua Rogumeca is declared without merit. This matter is resolved without a special ruling on costs.
Ileana Sánchez Navarro Ana Isabel Vargas Vargas Eduardo González Segura
Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda. Sección Quinta, Central 2545-00-03 Fax 2545-00-33 Correo Electrónico ...01 ________________________________________________________________________ PROCESO ORDINARIO ACTORA: Nombre114708 DEMANDADO: EL ESTADO, SOCIEDAD DE USUARIOS DE AGUA ROGUMECA.
COADYUVANTES: SERVICIO NACIONAL DE AGUAS SUBTERRÁNEAS, RIEGO Y AVENAMIENTO Y SISTEMA NACIONAL DE ÁREAS DE CONSERVACIÓN Nº 54-2014-V TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO Y CIVIL DE HACIENDA. SECCIÓN QUINTA. SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ. Dirección144 . Goicoechea, a las once horas treinta minutos del veintinueve de julio del año dos mil catorce.- Proceso ordinario planteado por el señor Nombre114708 , mayor de edad, casado, vecino de Monteverde de Puntarenas, cédula de identidad número CED90670, contra el ESTADO, representado por el Procurador MAURICIO CASTRO LIZANO, mayor de edad, abogado, vecino de Heredia, cédula de identidad número CED90671, Sociedad de Usuarios de Agua Rogumeca, representada por el señor Nombre114709 , mayor de edad, casado, abogado, vecino de Puntarenas, cédula de identidad número CED29172. Actúa como coadyuvante de la parte demandada el SERVICIO NACIONAL DE AGUAS SUBTERRÁNEAS RIEGO Y AVENAMIENTO (en adelante SENARA), representada por el señor Nombre36655 , mayor de edad, casado, ingeniero agrónomo y licenciado en economía agrícola, vecino de San José, cédula de identidad número CED63256.
RESULTANDO
I.- Por escrito recibido en el Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda a las diez horas cuarenta y cinco minutos del nueve de diciembre de dos mil nueve, la parte actora planteó demanda ordinaria cuyas pretensiones fueron establecidas de forma definitiva en la audiencia preliminar celebrada a partir de las ocho horas cincuenta y cinco minutos del veintisiete de agosto del año dos mil doce, de la siguiente forma: "Se declare la nulidad de la resolución número R196-2007-MINAE, Desiste de la pretensión 3 y 4. Además, solicita se condene al pago de ambas costas." (folios 1 a 90 y 308 y 309).
II.- Mediante resolución de las once horas y quince minutos del veintinueve de enero del año dos mil diez, se dio curso a la demanda y se confirió traslado a la parte accionada (folios 117 y 118).
III.- En escrito presentado ante el Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda a las trece horas cincuenta y cinco minutos del diecisiete de setiembre del año dos mil diez, la representación del Estado contestó negativamente la demanda y en ese momento formuló las defensas de falta de derecho y falta de legitimación ad causam activa. Más adelante, en la audiencia preliminar celebrada a partir de las ocho horas cincuenta y cinco minutos del veintisiete de agosto del dos mil doce, planteó además, la defensa previa de caducidad, cuyo conocimiento fue diferido para el dictado de la sentencia de fondo (esto último conforme la grabación de la audiencia, la cual difiere de lo consignado en la minuta), (folios 166 a 171, 308 y 309). Además, en la audiencia de juicio oral, planteó la defensa en el sentido de que la viabilidad ambiental constituye un acto no susceptible de impugnación.- IV.- En escrito presentado ante el Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda a las diez horas diez minutos del doce de noviembre de dos mil diez, el representante de la sociedad denominada Usuarios de Agua Rogumeca, contestó la demanda negativamente (folios 204 a 211).
V.- En escrito presentado ante el Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda a las catorce horas quince minutos del catorce de septiembre de dos mil once, el representante del Sistema Nacional de Riego y Avenamiento, en adelante SENARA), contestó negativamente la demanda y planteó las defensas de falta de derecho, falta de legitimación pasiva, caducidad y prescripción (folios 224 a 228).
VI.- En el curso del procedimiento se llevaron a cabo las siguientes audiencias preliminares: 1). A partir de las ocho horas cincuenta y cinco minutos del veintisiete de agosto del año dos mil doce, en la cual se fijaron las pretensiones tal y como se indicó en el resultando I y se acogió la solicitud de desistimiento parcial de la demanda contra el SINAC, el SENARA y el TRIBUNAL AMBIENTAL ADMINISTRATIVO y se tuvo a partir de ese momento a los dos primeros como coadyuvantes; 2). A partir de las trece horas cincuenta minutos del treinta de enero de dos mil trece; 3).- A partir de las trece horas cuarenta minutos del veintisiete de febrero del año dos mil trece. ( Ver las minutas de cada una de las audiencias a folios 308, 309, 344, 363 a 366) VII.- Que mediante escrito presentado ante el Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda a las diez horas y cincuenta y cinco minutos del doce de marzo del dos mil trece, la representación del SINAC desistió de su participación como coadyuvante (folio 367).
VIII.- Que en resolución de las trece horas y cuarenta y ocho minutos del diecinueve de julio de dos mil trece, se señaló el veinticinco de noviembre para la realización del juicio oral, fecha que fue pospuesta para los días nueve y diez de diciembre de ese mismo año, y que a su vez debió trasladarse debido a la imposibilidad de uno de los testigo peritos para asistir el día y hora establecidos, fijándose finalmente la audiencia de juicio oral y público para los días ocho y nueve de julio del dos mil catorce, celebrándose dicha audiencia el día 8 de julio de dos mil catorce ( folios 381, 382, 384, 387) IX.- En el procedimiento se han seguido las prescripciones de ley y no se observan vicios capaces de invalidar lo actuado. Se dicta esta sentencia dentro del plazo de quince días hábiles establecido en el inciso 1 del artículo 111 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo para los asuntos complejos, previa deliberación de rigor y por unanimidad. Concurren con su voto la Jueza Vargas Vargas y el Juez González Segura. Redacta la Jueza Ponente Sánchez Navarro
CONSIDERANDO
I.- SOBRE LOS HECHOS PROBADOS: De importancia para resolver este asunto se enlistan los siguientes: 1).- Que el veintiséis de febrero del año dos mil tres, el señor Sergio Salas Arias, representante del Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento, presentó ante el Ministerio de Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones, el Formulario de Evaluación Ambiental Preliminar (en adelante FEAP), consecutivo 133-2003, relacionado con el Proyecto de Riego Monteverde, cuyo objetivo es "dotar de un sistema de riego para el (sic) Monteverde 20 hectáreas de pastos y hortalizas en el Poblado de Santa Elena." (ver copia del formulario a folios 1 a 11 del expediente administrativo número 144-2003 SETENA, tomo I); 2).- Que el quince de mayo del dos mil tres, la Sociedad de Usuarios de Agua Rogumeca, presentó ante el Departamento de Aguas del MINAE, una solicitud para obtener la concesión sobre el aprovechamiento del agua proveniente de la Quebrada Cuecha, indicando que se utilizaría para riego (ver copia de la solicitud a folios 551 a 549 del expediente administrativo número 144-2003 SETENA, tomo II); 3).- Que mediante oficio SG-1562-2003, de veintiséis de septiembre de dos mil tres, la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental comunicó al (SENARA) el otorgamiento de la viabilidad ambiental para el proyecto de Riego Monteverde (ver copia del oficio a folio 30 del expediente administrativo número 144-2003 SETENA, tomo I); 4).- Que en resolución N° R-254-AGUAS-MINAE, de las diez horas del ocho de setiembre de dos mil cuatro, el Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía, Departamento de Aguas otorgó una concesión de aguas, por un plazo de diez años, a la Sociedad de Usuarios de Agua Rogumeca. En dicha resolución se indicó que la fuente de la concesión es la Quebrada Cuecha, siendo el caudal autorizado la cantidad de 12.65 litros por segundo, y estableciendo que el uso es el riego (ver copia de la resolución indicada a folios 249 vuelto a 251 del expediente del Departamento de Aguas N° 11212); 5).- Que en oficio N° OT-02-ACAT-2005 de cuatro de enero de dos mil cinco, el Lic. Carlos Alberto González Rojas, del Departamento de Ordenamiento Territorial ACAT, del Área de Conservación Arenal-Tempisque del Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación Arenal Tempisque, luego de una inspección realizada a la finca Matrícula de Folio Real Placa21293, a nombre de Curi Cancha Sociedad Anónima, indicó que dicha finca se encuentra fuera del Área Silvestre Protegida, de la Zona Protectora Arenal Monteverde. Además manifestó: "(...) es importante acotar que esta finca estuvo sometida a Refugio de Vida Silvestre Privado Curi Cancha, Sociedad Anónima, Decreto N°.26396-MINAE, de fecha 24 de octubre de 1997, Gaceta N°.205. De acuerdo al Artículo II, no existe solicitud por escrito de prologa (sic) del Refugio, lo que significa (sic) dicha categoría no cobija a dicha finca." (ver copia del o9ficio mencionado a folio 35 del expediente del SINAC); 6).- Que en oficio N° SG-633-2005, de diecisiete de marzo de dos mil cinco. emitido por la Secretaría Técnica Ambiental y dirigido a la Defensoría de los Habitantes de la República, se concluyó: "Sector Toma Quebrada Cuecha, no se observa corta de árboles o impactos ambientales significativos de la vegetación dado que previamente existían trillos que daban acceso a la quebrada. El paso de la tubería por la vías públicas se encuentra en total concordancia con las prácticas ingenieriles típicas de la obra y su tratamiento se realizó según lo establecido. Dada la paralización de las obras de construcción, la colocación de tubería no se ha concluido, faltan aproximadamente 150 m lineales sobre vías públicas, las salidas a los usuarios y las obras de captación en la Quebrada Cuecha, por lo tanto no se puede asegurar su disposición final. No se observan restos de tubería o desechos producto de la instalación de las obras a lo largo del recorrido. Los movimientos de suelos en la margen de la Quebrada Cuecha, descritos por medio de oficio ACAT-D-GMR-SCM-06 del 24 de enero del 2005 no tienen relación con el proyecto de riego y no se observan obras de conducción hacia la propiedad. Se visitó a los usuarios del proyecto de riego Monteverde y se pudo verificar que en las fincas que se proponen se encuentran espacios disponibles para las actividades indicadas y algunas de ellas tiene áreas de cultivo de hortalizas en pequeña escala y pastos para cría de animales . De las obras observadas no se evidencian impactos ambientales significativos. Por lo tanto se considera que el proyecto de riego Monteverde cumplen (sic) con los compromisos ambientales adquiridos en la Declaración Jurada de Compromisos Ambientales" (ver copia del oficio citado a folios 553 y 554 del expediente administrativo número 144-2003 SETENA, tomo II); 7).- Que el diez de mayo del año dos mil cinco, varios vecinos de la zona de Monteverde, entre los cuales se encuentra la señora Nombre114710 , plantearon ante la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental (en adelante SETENA), una gestión con la finalidad de obtener la declaratoria de nulidad de la viabilidad ambiental del proyecto de riego de referencia, procedimiento administrativo tramitado bajo el expediente N°144-2003 SETENA (ver copia de dicho memorial a folios 171 a 149 del expediente administrativo número 144-2003 SETENA, tomo I); 8).- Que en Resolución N° 1960-2005, adoptada por la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental en Sesión Ordinaria N° 034-2005, de tres de agosto del 2005, en el artículo 59 se acordó: nombrar Órgano Director del Procedimiento de Investigación del Proyecto de Riego Monteverde (ver copia de la resolución indicada a folios 336 a 346 del expediente administrativo número 144-2003 SETENA, tomo I); 9).- Que en resolución N° 1961-2005-SETENA, de las once horas y diez minutos del nueve de agosto de dos mil cinco, dictada dentro del procedimiento administrativo N°144-2003 SETENA, y con fundamento en el principio precautorio, se suspendió la ejecución del proyecto de Riego de Monteverde (ver copia de la resolución mencionada a folios 327 a 333 del expediente administrativo número 144-2003 SETENA, tomo I); 10).- Que en resolución N° 429-2006-SETENA, de las diez horas treinta minutos del tres de marzo de dos mil seis, la Comisión Plenaria de la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, resolvió "PRIMERO: Se declara sin lugar el incidente de nulidad evidente y manifiesta presentado contra el acto administrativo SG-1562-2003-SETENA, del día 26 de setiembre del 2003. SEGUNDO: Se levanta la suspensión de la ejecución del acto administrativo emitido en resolución 1961-2005-SETENA, de fecha 9 de agosto del 2005, con respecto al acto administrativo antes indicado. TERCERO: Sin perjuicio de lo señalado anteriormente, esta Secretaría procederá a ordenar a las Administraciones Públicas involucradas -y velará por- la realización de una Evaluación Ambiental Estratégica del recurso hídrico en la cuenca o subcuenca hidrográfica correspondiente, según determinen los análisis preliminares. (...)" (ver copia de la resolución citada a folios 848 a 856 del expediente administrativo número 144-2003 SETENA, tomo II y 955 a 963 del tomo III); 11).- Que para adoptar la resolución referida, la SETENA consideró las apreciaciones y recomendaciones del Órgano Director del Procedimiento en el sentido de que: "La información suministrada por el SENARA mediante el FEAP, para la determinación de la evaluación preliminar, se considera suficiente como análisis preliminar de la situación ambiental del área del proyecto y su área de influencia, tomando en cuenta los siguientes aspectos, determinados mediante el análisis de la información contenida en el expediente y la observación dada mediante la gira de campo: 1. El proyecto conlleva la construcción de la toma de derivación en la Quebrada Cuecha, desarenador, tubería de conducción, válvulas de regulación y tuberías de distribución a parcelas. 2. Se plantea en la información otorgada por el usuario una adecuada definición del área del proyecto y del AID. la misma se circunscribe al sitio donde se ubicaron las diferentes obras, expuestas anteriormente, incluyendo el paso de la tubería por algunas calles de Monteverde, así como los sitios de distribución de las parcelas, determinadas como área del proyecto. 3. El proyecto planteado se categoriza como de bajo impacto ambiental, determinado mediante la evaluación ambiental preliminar llevada a cabo por esta Secretaría, la cual conllevó la evaluación de las características ambientales del proyecto, con respecto a su ubicación determinando la significancia ambiental del mismo. 4. Los impactos ambientales a generarse se consideran impactos negativos poco significativos. 5. La información contenida en el FEAP fue acertada y ajustada a las características del proyecto y su área de influencia, argumenhtos que fundamentaron la toma de la decisión de la Comisión Plenaria de solicitar la Declaración Jurada de Compromisos Ambientales (DJCA) como Instrumento de Evaluación. POR LO TANTO RECOMENDAMOS A LA COMISIÓN PLENARIA-SETENA 1. Mantener la Viabilidad Ambiental del proyecto. 2. Comunicar al SENARA que puede iniciar la operación del proyecto, en beneficio de los beneficiarios o adjudicatarios del servicio. 3. Rechazar el Incidente de nulidad presentado por el Lic. Agustín Atmelia Herrera el 10 de mayo del 2005, debido fundamentalmente a que los argumentos del citado incidente sobrepasan los alcances de lo que se considera técnicamente como Ap y AID del proyecto, cuya fase de construcción, hasta el momento, no refleja la producción de impactos ambientales negativos significativos, que pongan en peligro otros recursos naturales de la zona, sobre todo cuando los incidentistas lo han querido sobre dimensionar para toda la población o área del Distrito de Monteverde." (ver copia del documento citado a folios 848 a 856 del expediente administrativo número 144-2003 SETENA, tomo II y 955 a 963 del tomo III); 12).- Que la resolución referida en los dos considerando anteriores, fue apelada por la señora Nombre114710 y otras personas (ver copias del recurso a folios 857 a 882 del expediente administrativo número 144-2003 SETENA, tomo II); 13).- Que mediante oficio de tres de octubre de dos mil seis, N° SITRA-269-06, el Secretario General de la Asociación Sindical de Trabajadores del Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía e Instituciones Afines de Conservación SITRAMINAE, planteó una denuncia ante el Tribunal Ambiental Administrativo por la supuesta invasión y daño ambiental de la zona de protección de la Quebrada Cuecha y solicitaron la clausura total de la Concesión del Proyecto de Riego Nombre114711 (ver copia de la denuncia a folios 1177 a 1196 del expediente administrativo número 144-2003 SETENA, tomo III); 14).- Que en oficio de cuatro de octubre de dos mil seis, N° SITRA-270-06, el Secretario General de la Asociación Sindical de Trabajadores del Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía e Instituciones Afines de Conservación SITRAMINAE, planteó una denuncia ante la Procuraduría General de la República por la supuesta invasión y daño ambiental de la zona de protección de la Quebrada Cuecha y solicitaron la clausura total de la Concesión del Proyecto de Riego Nombre114711 (ver copia de la denuncia a folios 1093 a 1217 del expediente administrativo número 144-2003 SETENA, tomo III); 15)- Que con ocasión de la denuncia referida en el hecho inmediato anterior, en memorial con fecha de diecinueve de octubre de dos mil seis, el Procurador Adjunto Mauricio Castro Lizano solicitó al Tribunal Ambiental Administrativo preceder a realizar los tramites necesarios para determinar la existencia o no de las infracciones denunciadas (ver copia del oficio a folio 1213 del expediente administrativo número 144-2003 SETENA, tomo III); 16).- Que el Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía, en resolución N° 430-06-MINAE, de las once horas cincuenta minutos del diecisiete de noviembre del dos mil seis, declaró con lugar el recurso de apelación planteado contra lo dispuesto en la resolución N°429-2006-SETENA, y declaró la nulidad, con efecto retroactivo, del oficio N° SG-1562-2003-SETENA de veintiséis de setiembre de dos mil tres, decretando a su vez la nulidad de los actos emitidos con posterioridad y relacionados con el oficio referido. Además, se ordenó al Departamento de Aguas, iniciar un procedimiento con la finalidad de cancelar la concesión otorgada en resolución 254-2004- AGUAS-MINAE (ver copia de la resolución indicada a folios 1088 a 1034 del expediente administrativo número 144-2003 SETENA, tomo III); 17).- Que en la resolución referida en el hecho inmediato anterior, para acoger el recurso se consideró que el proyecto de riego Monteverde sí ocasionaría impacto ambiental considerable, que estaba en un Refugio de Vida Silvestre y que el acto que autorizó el proyecto carece de los elementos esenciales del acto pues se sustentó en una información errada. Para emitir dichas conclusiones, la Administración concernida tuvo como elemento probatorio esencial un estudio elaborado por varios de los recurrentes (visible a folios 101 a 110 del expediente N°administrativo número 144-2003 SETENA, tomo I), (ver copia de la resolución indicada a folios 1088 a 1034 del expediente administrativo número 144-2003 SETENA, tomo III); 18).- Que mediante memorial presentado ante el MINAE el veintinueve de noviembre de dos mil seis, el representante de la Sociedad de Usuarios de Agua Rogumeca, planteó recurso de revocatoria contra la resolución R-430-MINAE, aludida en los dos considerandos anteriores (ver copia del recurso a folios 1151 a 1155 del expediente administrativo número 144-2003 SETENA, tomo III); 19).- Que en resolución N° R-451-2006-MINAE, de once horas cincuenta minutos del doce de diciembre de dos mil seis, el Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía rechazó el recurso de revocatoria interpuesto contra la resolución 430-2006-MINAE (ver copia de la resolución dicha a folios 1149 y 1150 del expediente administrativo número 144-2003 SETENA, tomo III); 20).- Que mediante oficio N° OT-ACA-107-2006, de siete de diciembre de dos mil seis, el Licenciado Carlos Alberto González Rojas certificó: "(...) que mediante Decreto 26396, se declara y denomina Refugio Privado de Vida Silvestre Curi Cancha, de fecha 26 de junio del año 1997, ubicado en el Distrito Monteverde. En el Artículo II dice " Dicho inmueble estará sometido a la categoría de Refugio de Vida Silvestre durante un período de cinco años prorrogables por períodos iguales, para lo cual la propietaria deberá de solicitarlo por escrito, con un mes de antelación a la finalización de dicho contrato. La sociedad denominada Curi Cancha Sociedad Anónima nunca cumplió con el artículo transcrito, por lo tanto, al día de hoy no se encuentra bajo el régimen de Vida Silvestre privado del país, desde junio del 2002, fecha de vencimiento del Decreto 26396." (ver copia del oficio de referencia a folio 33 del expediente del SINAC); 21).- Que en escrito presentado ante el Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía el veinticinco de enero de dos mil siete, el Subgerente del SENARA planteó recurso de revocatoria o reposición contra la resolución R-430-06-MINAE (ver copia de la gestión dicha a folios 1249 a 1256 del expediente administrativo número 144-2003 SETENA, tomo III); 22).- Que en oficio ACAT-D-058 de 28 de marzo de 2007, la Dirección Regional del Área de Conservación Arenal-Tempisque del Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, informó: "De acuerdo a gira realizada y puntos tomados con GPS por los técnicos Elberth Vargas Masís y Miguel Jiménez se puede determinar que las obras construidas se encuentran fuera de la Zona Protectora Arenal Monteverde. (...) Con base al mapa adjunto se puede observar que el límite Sur del Refugio es la Quebrada Cuecha y las obras mencionadas en el caso de la construida en dicha Quebrada se ubica en el límite oeste del Refugio (ver copia del oficio mencionado a folio 46 del expediente del SINAC) Que mediante oficio IMN-DA-0708-2007, de nueve de abril de dos mil siete, el Departamento de Aguas del MINAE, rindió una evaluación hídrica de la concesión de agua a nombre de la Sociedad de Usuarios de Agua Rogumeca, en la cual se tuvo como referencia los aforos realizados al punto de toma que se detallan a continuación:
Fecha Datos de Caudal (litros por segundo) Origen del Dato Método de aforo 20 febrero 2002 50,54 SENARA Molinete Marzo 2002 265.14 SENARA Molinete 4 febrero 2005 194,00 Dpto. Aguas Molinete Se indica como dato de época seca 56,50 Informe aportado al expediente por el Sr. Nombre114715 Sub Director del Instituto Monteverde Sistema particular 15 febrero 2007 51,22 SENARA Molinete 14 marzo 2007 45,15 SENARA Molinete Con fundamento en estos aforos, en la evaluación se realizaron las siguientes observaciones: "La microcuenca de la quebrada Cuecha es afluente de la cuenca del río Guacimal. Este Departamento cuenta con datos de caudales de la cuenca del río Guacimal, medidos aguas arriba del puente sobre la ruta nacional N° 1 durante los años 1998-1999, 2000 y 2001 y presentan variaciones positivas durante los meses de marzo y abril, y la explicación técnica es que dicho caudales fueron influenciados por fenómenos atmosféricos provenientes del Caribe, la afectación es que los caudales son mayores de un mes a otro, o sea que se realiza un aforo en febrero y se espera que en marzo se (sic) menor y se presenta lo contrario. El caudal de la Quebrada Cuecha, que es parte de la cuenca del río Guacimal, ambas conforman la parte alta de la cuenca, con otra serie de fuentes, y en ella se presenta el fenómeno indicado en el punto anterior, según aforos realizados por el SENARA, (ver folio 31 del expediente 11212) durante los meses de febrero y marzo del 2002, afirman lo anterior, pues para el mes de febrero se afora un caudal de 50.54 Lps y para el mes de marzo se afora un caudal de 265.14, más de cinco veces el caudal del mes de enero, como se explica ese fenómeno, pues que dicha cuenca es influenciada por el Caribe. Aportes de caudal aguas abajo: Del sitio de toma de la concesión a una distancia estimada de 50 metros existe el primer aporte puntual de caudal, originado por una pequeña quebrada sin nombre que es afluente de la quebrada, lo cual se produce siempre dentro de propiedad de donde se capta, a saber en propiedad de Nombre114712 . , lo anterior conforme inspección realizada el 4 de febrero del 2005 levantado en el oficio IMN-DA-0362-2005 del 7 de febrero del 2005. Si bien no se tiene el dato de caudal aportado, se tiene identificado un aporte casi inmediato del sitio de derivación. Disponibilidad hídrica: De la información disponible, descantando (sic) los caudales extremos presentados en febrero 2002 y marzo 2005, se concluye que en la época de estiaje se puede disponer de un caudal en el rango de los 45 a los 60 litros por segundo. Se deben respetar los derechos de aguas vigentes aguas abajo en la micro cuenca de al (sic) quebrada Cuecha, siendo que conforme nuestro Sistema Informático de Registro Nacional de Concesiones, no existen concesiones vigentes. Se tiene en trámite solicitudes de agua de la misma quebrada, en sitios aguas abajo por parte de la Sociedad de Usuarios de Agua de Monte Verde Rock Smith y del Sr. Nombre114713 las cuales deberán evaluarse. Considerando el caudal mínimo aforado de 45,15 litros por segundo se tiene que este es el caudal disponible en el sitio de toma. Cálculo de necesidades Conforme informe técnico de recomendación de la concesión oficio IMN-DA-2694-2004 (documento que corre en el expediente) se valoran las necesidades en un caudal total de 12.65 litros por segundo. Las mismas se estiman con los datos de usos verificados en campo y con base en la (sic) variables técnicas dispuestas en el Manual de Dotaciones del Departamento de Agua publicado en la Gaceta N° 98 del jueve 20 de mayo 2004.
Variable Detalle Uso Riego Area de riego 23 hectáreas Cultivos Café, hortalizas y pastos Dotación por hectárea 0,55 litros por segundo Período de uso 18 horas diárias Caudal requerido 12,65 litros por segundo Siendo que, Existe caudal disponible suficiente en la quebrada Cuecha a la altura del punto de toma. El caudal concesionado representa en verano (época de estiaje a menor caudal), el 28% del caudal disponible mínimo de marzo y el 4,7 del caudal máximo de marzo, en el sitio de toma. Existen comprobados aportes de caudal a la quebrada Cuecha a escasos 50 metros aguas abajo de la toma. El derecho de concesión demanda que debe el concesionario calibrar el caudal asignado por medio de una obra de vertederos y orificios, esto debe garantizar que no derivará mayor agua de la asignada. Una vez derivado el caudal concesionado, estarían escurriendo aguas abajo un caudal de 32.50 litros por segundo que resulta mayor al 10% al que se dispone en cada toma como Caudal Mínimo Remanente (CMR) (conocido por otros como caudal ambiental), con lo cual se tiene preservado el derecho a terceros a los usos comunes del agua estipulado en el artículo 11 de la Ley de Aguas, así garantizar que exista un flujo de agua permanente en estiaje en el cauce, que permita abastecer las necesidades de ecosistema, así mismo se tiene cubierto la protección de terceras personas de mejor derecho con concesiones. Es criterio del suscrito que la concesión de aprovechamiento de agua expediente 11212 a nombre de la Sociedad de Usuarios de Agua Nombre114711 la cual tiene otorgado un caudal de 12.65 litros por segundo de la quebrada Cuecha no causa ningún daño al régimen hídrico y ecosistema de la cita (sic) quebrada y se encuentra resuelta en apego a los principios de conservación y uso sostenible del agua estipulados en el artículo 51 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente." (ver copia del oficio citado a folios 570 a 574 del expediente del Departamento de Aguas N° 11212, Legajo N° 3 y folios 1442 a 1446 del expediente administrativo número 144-2003 SETENA, tomo III); 23).- Que en resolución N° 374-07-TAA, de las diez horas con veintinueve minutos del diez de abril del año dos mil siete, el Tribunal Ambiental Administrativo dispuso "Dictar como Resolución Provisional al desestimar únicamente la denuncia en contra de la Sociedad de Usuarios de Agua Nombre114711 tramitada bajo el presente expediente administrativo, quedando dicha resolución sujeta a ser sustituida por la Resolución Final, una vez que la Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, se pronuncie sobre la Acción de Inconstitucionalidad N°. 06-009493-0007-CO" (Ver copia de la resolución referida a folios 1447 a 1454 del expediente administrativo número 144-2003 SETENA, tomo III); 24).- Que para emitir la resolución referida en el hecho inmediato anterior, el Tribunal Ambiental Administrativo consideró: "Cuarto: Que con base en lo anterior y una vez analizados los documentos que conforman dicho expediente administrativo, especialmente el acta de la inspección ocular "in situ" en el lugar en el cual se encuentra el aprovechamiento del recurso hídrico de la empresa Rogumeca, visible a los folios 834 y 835 del expediente administrativo, mediante la cual se establece "(...) La toma de agua tiene una construcción sobre la quebrada Cuecha, en forma de gaveta con 25 centímetros de ancho, 25 centímetros de fondo y 2.20 metros de largo, al lado se encuentra un tanque donde fluye el agua que va al desarenador. La concesión dada por el Departamento de Aguas es de 12.6 litros por segundo. El lugar tiene cobertura boscosa y no se aprecia corta de árboles en la zona de protección a lo largo del camino aproximadamente ochocientos metros, por donde se encuentran las mangueras que llevan el agua para su consumo (...)", este Tribunal considera que al no existir daño ambiental negativo significativo en la operación de la concesión de agua otorgada a las (sic) empresa Sociedad Usuarios de Agua Nombre114711 aunado a que existe disponibilidad de agua en la actualidad, de conformidad con lo indicado por el Departamento de Aguas mediante oficio IMN-DA-0501-07, se debe proceder a desestimar la presente denuncia en contra de la empresa denominada Nombre114711." (Ver copia de la resolución referida a folios 1447 a 1454 del expediente administrativo número 144-2003 SETENA, tomo III); 25).- Que en oficio CP-105-2007-SETENA, de trece de abril de dos mil siete, la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental comunicó al Ministro de Ambiente y Energía el criterio sobre el proyecto de Riego Monteverde, en el cual, en lo que interesa, se concluyó: " 2. El criterio de esta Secretaría consiste en que la Declaración Jurada de Compromisos Ambientales, junto a la información técnica que figura en el expediente, es suficiente para fundamentar la viabilidad ambiental del proyecto en lo que se refiere a las competencias de esta Secretaría, de conformidad con la normativa citada. 3. Lo anterior se basa en lo siguiente: La obra que en su momento se realizó trata de una obra de subducción, en la cual se realiza el trasvase de agua, que pasa a un desarenador, a partir del cual parte del agua es enviada a las fincas para riego y la parte restante es enviada de nuevo al cauce. Cuando el proyecto no opera por no necesitarse riego, principalmente durante el invierno, toda el agua es devuelta al cauce desde el desarenador. Las obras consisten en la toma (de únicamente dos metros de largo ) de derivación en la Quebrada Cuecha, instalación del desarenador y tubería de conducción, válvulas de regulación y tubería de distribución. La obra calibradora regula el excedente de agua y posee las dimensiones y especificaciones técnicas emitidas por el Departamento de Aguas del MINAE, lo cual garantiza que las mismas vayan a cumplirse a cabalidad. Estas obras anteriormente descritas no causan impactos en la fauna acuática de la Quebrada Cuecha ni en la cobertura vegetal cercana, y se categoriza el proyecto como un proyecto de bajo impacto ambiental, con impactos ambientales poco significativos. 4. Por otra parte, el SENARA, mediante el acto administrativo público emitido por el oficio número POE-573-03 (folios 0020 y 0026) firmado por el Ing. Edgar Mairena Navarro, encargado de proyectos de la Región Pacífico Central del SENARA, demuestra que: "Con respecto al estudio a nivel de cuenca solicitado: el caudal a derivar no afectará en gran medida a la cuenca de la Quebrada Cuecha. Lo anterior certificado mediante Oficio ASUB-367-03, den donde consta que se realizaron 3 aforos el 20 de febrero del 2002, 20 de marzo del 2002 y 18 de abril del 2002, con caudales de 50.54 L/seg. 265.14 L/seg y 30.03 L/seg. respectivamente. El estudio técnico es basado en el Manual de dotaciones de agua para calcular las necesidades de las solicitudes de aprovechamiento de aguas elaborado en el Departamento de Aguas-MINAE." (...) 5. A su vez el Departamento de Aguas del MINAE determinó, mediante oficio número IMN-DA-0362, del 7 de febrero del 2005, lo siguiente: " A la fecha 4 de febrero del 2005, las quebradas mantenían un caudal de 61.4 l/seg. La Máquina y de 194 l/seg la Quebrada Cuecha y que son más de 10 veces mayores que los caudales potencialmente a ser aprovechados por las sociedades". Existen además una serie de aportes laterales y de otras fuentes de aguas debajo de cada toma propuesta, caudales que alimentan y con el consecuente aumento del caudal de las fuentes." (...). 7. Mediante Decreto Ejecutivo número 26396-MINAE, del 26 de junio de 1997, se creó el refugio Privado de Vida Silvestre Curi Cancha, en su artículo 2, inciso II, se determinó que el carácter de refugio del inmueble abarcaría un período de cinco años, el cual se podría renovar. No consta en el expediente 144-2013-SETENA, si se ha producido tal renovación. 8. A la luz de todas las consideraciones anteriores, se pueden releer las resoluciones de esta SECRETARÍA, así como el documento que consta a folios 626 a 634 del expediente 144-2003SETENA, en las cuales se encontrarán desarrollados los fundamentos técnicos que llevan a la siguiente conclusión: Aunque el lugar sea un refugio de vida silvestre, la evaluación de impacto llevada a cabo para el proyecto (artículo 82 LCVA) garantiza que el mismo es viable ambientalmente en lo que concierne a la competencia de esta Secretaría" ( ver copia del oficio citado a folios 1455 a 1457 del expediente administrativo número 144-2003 SETENA, tomo III); 26).- Que en resolución N° R-196-2007-MINAE, emitida por el Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía a las once horas del veinticuatro de abril del dos mil siete, fue revocada la resolución N° 430-2006-MINAE, de las once horas cincuenta minutos del diecisiete de noviembre del dos mil seis (ver copia de la resolución referida a folios 1492 a 1514 del expediente administrativo número 144-2003 SETENA, tomo III); 27).- Que la resolución N° R-196- MINAE, se fundamentó en las siguientes consideraciones: " SEGUNDO: (...) La revocación, en los términos de nuestra Ley General de la Administración Pública, procede en los casos en que por motivos de oportunidad, entre otros, se pueda retirar un acto administrativo de la vida jurídica, no por razones de invalidez, caso en el cual procedería la nulidad, sino en los casos en que exista una divergencia progresiva entre los motivos que originaron el dictado del acto, y los que posteriormente se evidencia como nuevos o no apreciables al momento en que se dictó el acto revocable (el acto revocable en este caso lo sería la resolución 430-2006-MINAE). En este sentido, al momento de emitirse la resolución 430-2006-MINAE, no existían elementos probatorios o de valoración técnica-legal, como los producidos por las dependencias técnicas de este Ministerio (indicadas en los resultandos de esta resolución) con posterioridad al dictado de aquella resolución; situación que constituye un cambio sustancial en el escenario fáctico ante el cual la Administración Pública posee un poder discrecional de actuación, circunscrito dentro del marco de legalidad y de observancia de los fines públicos, y nunca alejados de éstos. En este sentido, los nuevos elementos de juicio deben estar sustentados en criterios técnicos y legales que permiten que un cambio de criterio o apreciación del mismo asunto, sea legal y técnicamente viable. En el caso bajo examen, los nuevos elementos producidos tanto por la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, como por el Departamento de Aguas, así como lo indicado por el SINAC, y (sic) Tribunal Ambiental Administrativo, constituyen los insumos necesarios para que la administración proceda a una revaloración de las circunstancias y antecedentes que originaron el dictado del acto administrativo original (en este caso, la resolución 430-2006-MINAE), a través del instituto jurídico de modificación de los actos administrativos denominado "revocación". (...) Las circunstancias que vendrían a innovar el escenario fáctico respecto al que se tomó en cuenta al momento de dictaminarse la resolución 430-2006-MINAE, consisten en los pronunciamientos técnicos de las distintas dependencias técnicas de este Ministerio que se refieren específicamente a la suficiente disposición de caudal para satisfacer las necesidades ecológicas propias del lugar en donde se encuentra la toma de agua para el Proyecto de Riego Monteverde, y la no afectación a los recursos naturales por la extracción del caudal objeto de la concesión, ya que con anterioridad lo único que se había tomado en cuenta por parte de esas mismas dependencias técnicas de este Ministerio, (principalmente por SETENA) era el descarte de afectación al medio ambiente por las obras de construcción para la captación del agua, y no así la captación misma (es decir la utilización del caudal concesionado y su impacto en el caudal ecológico requerido). De conformidad con lo indicado supra, al existir elementos nuevos que evidencian un desajuste progresivo entre lo actuado y la realidad actual, mostrada por los pronunciamientos técnicos y legales de las dependencias de este Ministerio, se produce una necesidad de readecuar el acto administrativo dictado (resolución 430-2006-MINAE) a la realidad que muestran los nuevos elementos probatorios. (...) TERCERO: (...) cuando las instancias técnicas competentes, como en este caso lo sería SETENA, Departamento de Aguas principalmente, han despejado las dudas razonables que desde un inicio se tenían en este caso, sobre la eventual afectación a los recursos naturales adyacentes a las obras de captación de agua para el proyecto, no existiría ahora razón técnica ni legal salvable para impedir la realización del proyecto en cuestión, ya que mientras existió el estado dubitativo, la Administración asumió un papel preventivo según lo exige así el artículo 13 y 109 de la Ley de la Biodiversidad: resolviéndose en un inicio la nulidad de la viabilidad ambiental, pero luego de los elementos probatorios producidos se logra determinar que la actividad que pretenden desarrollar mediante el Proyecto de Riego Monteverde, específicamente en cuanto a la captación del agua, no afectará los recursos naturales del lugar, por lo que la Administración se encuentra facultada legalmente para conciliar sus actos a la realidad forense presentadas por las dependencias supra mencionadas." (...) CUARTO: (...) Se aclara en este punto que no existiría ya una duda técnica sobre la afectación al bien jurídico ambiental, por la actividad que pretenden desarrollar La Sociedad de Usuarios de Agua Rogumeca, según lo indicado supra, por los distintos Departamentos Técnicos que por otra parte, la existencia de las irregularidades u omisiones en el otorgamiento de la viabilidad ambiental señaladas en la resolución 430-2006-MINAE no revisten ahora de un grado de calificación negativo o peligros para la consecución del fin público que atañe a este Ministerio, y que se puede resumir en la protección de los recursos naturales. En este sentido, los alegatos de los opositores la Proyecto de Riego Monteverde, en cuanto a los defectos del acto propiamente dicho, y banjo el nuevo escenario fáctico explicado en los anteriores considerandos resultaría improcedente." (ver copia de la resolución citada a folios 1492 a 1514 del expediente administrativo número 144-2003 SETENA, tomo III); 28).- Que en resolución N° 584-07-TAA, del Tribunal Ambiental Administrativo, emitida a las nueve horas con cincuenta y tres minutos del siete de junio del año dos mil siete, dispuso " (...) Desestimar únicamente la denuncia interpuesta por los señores Nombre114714 y Nombre60482 en contra de la Sociedad de Usuarios de Agua Nombre114711 tramitada bajo el presente expediente administrativo. (...)" , decisión que fundamento como sigue: "Tercero: Que el Decreto Ejecutivo N° 26396 que Declara y Denomina Refugio Privado de Vida Silvestre Curi Cancha, fue publicado mediante Gaceta N° 205 del veinticuatro de octubre del año mil novecientos noventa y siete, fecha a partir de la cual corre la vigencia de cinco años del Refugio Privado de Vida Silvestre Curi Cancha, y y tomando en cuenta lo indicado mediante oficio OT-ACA-107-2006 de la Oficina de Ordenamiento Territorial del Área de Conservación Arenal Tempisque, de que la sociedad denominada Curi Cancha S.A. no cumplió con lo estipulado en el inciso II del artículo 2 de dicho Decreto, este Tribunal considera que a la fecha en la cual se presenta el FEAP. (Formulario de Evaluación Ambiental Preliminar) a la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, sea el día veintisiete de febrero del año dos mil tres, la propiedad inscrita en el sistema de Folio Real, bajo matrícula del Partido de Puntarenas número Placa21292 (Placa21294), con una cabida de ochocientos doce mil setecientos un metros cuadrados con ocho decímetros cuadrados, situada en el Dirección14110 , , de la Provincia de Puntarenas, no se encontraba afectada al régimen de Refugio Privado de Vida Silvestre. (...) Cuarto: (...) Por lo anterior y siendo que la propiedad en la cual se iba a desarrollar el Proyecto de Riego Monteverde no se encontraba afectada a Refugio Privado de Vida Silvestre, considera este Tribunal que la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental Nacional (sic) no violentó la legislación ambiental vigente en ese momento, ya que no eximió al proyecto de la evaluación de la evaluación de impacto ambiental, lo que determinó dicha Secretaría como único órgano competente en la materia, mediante resolución N° 429-2003-SETENA de las ocho horas cuarenta y cinco minutos del día seis de mayo del año dos mil tres, es que el instrumento para evaluación dicho (sic) proyecto lo fuere la Declaración Jurada de Compromisos Ambientales, otorgando posteriormente la Viabilidad Ambiental mediante oficio SG-1562-2003-SETENA. Quinto: Que con base en lo anterior y una vez analizados los documentos que conforman dicho expediente administrativo, especialmente el acta de la inspección ocular "in situ" en el lugar en el cual se encuentra el aprovechamiento del recurso hídrico de la empresa Rogumeca, visible a los folios 834 y 835 del expediente administrativo, mediante la cual se establece "(...) La toma de agua tiene una construcción sobre la Quebrada Cuecha, en forma de gaveta con 25 centímetros de ancho, 25 centímetros de fondo y 2.20 metros de largo, al lado se encuentra un tanque donde fluye el agua que va la desarenador. La concesión dada por el departamento de Aguas es de 12.6 litros por segundo. El lugar tiene cobertura boscosa y no se aprecia corta de árboles en la zona de protección a lo largo del camino aproximadamente ochocientos metros, por donde se encuentran las mangueras que llevan al agua para su consumo. (...)", este Tribunal considera que al no existir daño ambiental negativo significativo en la operación de la concesión de agua otorgada a las (sic) empresa Sociedad de Usuarios de Agua Nombre114711 aunado a que existe disponibilidad de agua en la actualidad, de conformi8dad con lo indicado por el Departamento de Aguas mediante oficio IMN-DA-0501-07, se debe proceder a desestimar la presente denuncia en contra de la empresa denominada Nombre114711." (ver copia de la resolución citada a folios 724 a 732 del expediente administrativo número 11212 del Departamento de Aguas Legajo 3); 29).- Que mediante oficio N° IMN-DA-2296-2008, de treinta de julio de dos mil ocho, personal del Departamento de Aguas realizó una comprobación de las medidas de la obra calibradora, comprobado que las mismas estaban correctas y acorde con lo establecido en la resolución N° R-254-2004- AGUAS-MINAE (ver copia del oficio en el que se acredita la revisión a folio 864 del expediente administrativo número 11212 del Departamento de Aguas Legajo 3).- II.- SOBRE LOS HECHOS NO PROBADOS: 1).- No demuestra la parte actora que las obras de la concesión de aguas del proyecto de Riego Monteverde, otorgada a Nombre114711, se encuentre ubicada en la Zona protectora Arenal- Monteverde, o en el Refugio de Vida Silvestre Privado Curi Cancha (los autos); 2).- No se acreditó que la concesión de aguas otorgada a Nombre114711, así como las obras que con ocasión de ésta fueron realizadas en la Quebrada Cuecha, ocasionaron daños al ecosistema e impacto ambiental significativo en las zonas en las que se ubica el proyecto de riego (los autos).- III.- SOBRE LOS ALEGATOS DE LA PARTE ACTORA: El demandante manifiesta que en el mes de febrero del año dos mil seis, el SENARA, inició el procedimiento para obtener la viabilidad ambiental del proyecto de riego de Monteverde, la cual fue otorgada mediante resolución SG-1562-2003-SETENA, de veintiséis de setiembre de dos mil tres, sin contar ésta, según el criterio de la actora, con la debida fundamentación, sobre la base un FEAP, de una declaración jurada emitida por un servidor del SENARA y en ausencia de un estudio de impacto ambiental. Alega que, con ocasión de las denuncias planteadas por vecinos de la zona, el Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía emitió la resolución N° 430-2006-MINAE, de las once horas cincuenta minutos del diecisiete de noviembre del dos mil seis, en la cual se declaró la nulidad, con efecto retroactivo, de la viabilidad ambiental declarada en el oficio SG-1562-2003-SETENA. Señala que dicho acto tuvo como efecto el agotamiento de la vía administrativo, y que a pesar de ello, la Administración accionada procedió a la revisión y posterior revocatoria, al emitir la resolución N° R-196-2007, de las once horas del veinticuatro de abril del año dos mil siete. Aduce que ésta última se encuentra viciada de nulidad, y sobre el particular señala: 1- Que la resolución 430-2006 MINAE, ya había agotado la vía administrativa, lo que, según su criterio, imposibilita a la Administración a reabrir la discusión sobre el punto en cuestión, resultando inviable la revocatoria por razones de oportunidad y conveniencia cuando no hay modificaciones en los hechos que se constituyeron en el motivo de la resolución que fue revocada. Sostiene que en este caso, la revocatoria ocurrió con ocasión de una reunión de naturaleza política, sin que se cumpliesen los presupuestos ordenados en la Ley General de la Administración Pública para que resulte procedente la revocatoria, y alega que esta conducta de la Administración refleja una desviación de poder. Dice que por constituir la resolución R-430-2006-MINAE, un acto de gravamen, requería necesariamente un dictamen previo de la Contraloría General de la República. 2- Agrega que al dictarse la resolución N° R-196-2007, y por su medio, hacer resurgir la declaratoria de viabilidad ambiental declarada en el oficio SG-1562-2003-SETENA, se viola la normativa ambiental. Al respecto señala que la información dada en el FEAP es errada, pues omite indicar como área del proyecto la zona en la cual se ubicaría la toma de agua de la Quebrada. Dice que en la FEAP, se omitió indicar que el área del proyecto se encuentra en zonas de recarga acuífera, que existen cuerpos de agua superficiales, que se localiza en áreas silvestres protegidas, (Refugio de Vida Silvestre Privado Curi Cancha y Zona Protectora Arenal-Monteverde), lo cual, afirma, hacía obligatorio la realización de un estudio de impacto ambiental y que se trata de un sitio boscoso. Dice que la conducta cuestionada afecta los recursos naturales que rodean la zona de la concesión y lesiona el derecho de los ciudadanos a gozar de un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado.- IV.- SOBRE LOS ALEGATOS DEL ESTADO: El representante del Estado contestó negativamente la demanda y alegó las defensas de falta de derecho y la caducidad de la acción. En relación con esta última dijo que la demandante pretende la nulidad de la viabilidad ambiental, la cual fue otorgada el veintiséis de setiembre del dos mil tres, lo que ocasiona que para la fecha de la presentación de la demanda, el ocho de diciembre del dos mil nueve, la acción ya se encontraba caduca. Manifiesta además, que se trata de un acto no susceptible de impugnación, pues considera que se trata de un acto de trámite sin efecto propio. En lo que atañe al fondo del asunto, alega que que, de acuerdo con lo dispuesto en el numeral 153 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, la Administración sí tiene potestad de revocatoria de sus propias actos, cuando como en este caso, existen nuevos elementos que obligan a su modificación, por lo que estima que la resolución R-196-2007-MINAE, no presenta los vicios de procedimiento señalados por la demandante. Por otra parte, y en lo que toca al estudio de impacto ambiental que echa de menos la actora, sostiene que éste no era necesario, pues cuando se iniciaron los procedimientos para obtener la viabilidad ambiental y otorgar la concesión del proyecto de riego, el área del proyecto no se ubicaba dentro de una zona protegida, y apunta que el refugio privado Curi Cancha ya no se encontraba vigente. Expresa además, que el desarrollo del proyecto no ha causado un impacto ambiental significativo, lo cual dice, ha sido comprobado por los órganos competentes en la materia.
V.- SOBRE LOS ALEGATOS DE LA ASOCIACIÓN DE USUARIOS DEL AGUA ROGUMECA: El representante de dicha Asociación contestó de forma negativa la demanda, y planteó las defensas de falta de derecho, caducidad, falta de interés, y falta de legitimación activa y pasiva. Aduce que el otorgamiento de la viabilidad ambiental tuvo lugar luego de que se cumplieron todos los requisitos exigidos por la SETENA y que el proyecto no tiene un impacto ambiental significativo y la instalación de tuberías se hizo siguiendo las prácticas amigables con el ambiente. Sostiene que no se ha producido el daño que alega el demandante y que las apreciaciones de éste en el sentido de que la viabilidad finalmente fue ratificada por cuestiones de índole política, son argumento de tipo subjetivo. Expresa que la resolución R-430-2006-MINAE, que anuló la viabilidad ambiental, fue adoptada sin tomar en cuenta la prueba ofrecida, lo que obligó posteriormente a su revocatoria.
VI.- SOBRE LOS ALEGATOS DEL SERVICIO NACIONAL DE AGUAS SUBTERRÁNEAS RIEGO Y AVENAMIENTO: Por su parte, la representación del SENARA, también contesto negativamente la demanda y formuló las defensas de falta de derecho, falta de legitimación activa y pasiva, caducidad y prescripción. En relación con estas últimas expresa que la resolución N° 196-2007-MINAE se dictó el veinticuatro de abril de dos mil siete y que la demanda se interpuso hasta el ocho de diciembre del dos mil nueve, sobrepasando de este modo el plazo establecido en el artículo 39 del Código procesal Contencioso Administrativo. Además dice SENARA fue notificado fue notificado el 3 de agosto de dos mil once de esta demanda, por lo que considera prescrito el reclamo. En relación con los alegatos de fondo sostiene que las afirmaciones del demandante no pasan de ser meras manifestaciones, sin que tengan fundamento fáctico y probatorio. Dice que la demanda no indica cómo se afectaron los elementos constitutivos del acto. Finalmente alega que el proyecto de riego en cuestión es una obra ya construida y que no ha generado el impacto ambiental que reclama el demandante.
VII.- SOBRE LA DEFENSA DE CADUCIDAD: En primer término corresponde dilucidar la defensa de caducidad planteadas por las distintas representaciones de cada una de las codemandadas, así como del coadyuvante. Al respecto, el Tribunal estima que dicha defensa resulta improcedente. De acuerdo con las pretensión de la demanda, establecida de forma definitiva en la audiencia preliminar (folio 308 vuelto), la acción tiene como única pretensión que se declare la nulidad absoluta de la resolución N° R-196-2007- MINAE. Dicho acto fue emitido por el Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía a las once horas del veinticuatro de abril del año dos mil siete, y tuvo como efecto la revocatoria de la resolución N° R-430-2006-MINAE, y en consecuencia la vigencia de la viabilidad ambiental del proyecto de riego Monteverde, que había sido otorgada desde el mes de septiembre del año dos mil tres. Siendo el objeto del proceso la declaratoria de la nulidad absoluta de un acto administrativo que fue emitido el veinticuatro de abril del año dos mil siete. Así, en el fondo lo que se discute es la legalidad o no de un acto que no se agota en el momento en el cual fue dictado, y por el contrario, sus efectos no han cesado y continuarán vigentes en tanto la viabilidad ambiental otorgada al proyecto de riego Monteverde se mantenga por parte de la Administración. Esta particularidad del acto cuestionado es motivo suficiente para que este Órgano decisor considere improcedente la defensa expuesta.
VIII.- SOBRE LA DEFENSA DE PRESCRIPCIÓN: En el caso bajo examen no se está discutiendo ningún tema relacionado con daños y perjuicios, pues el demandante renunció a esta pretensión de su demanda desde la audiencia preliminar (folios 308 y 309 del expediente judicial), limitando el objeto del proceso a la determinación de la legalidad o ilegalidad de la conducta administrativa impugnada, de lo cual se sigue que la defensa opuesta resulta improcedente.
IX.- SOBRE LA DEFENSA EN EL SENTIDO DE QUE SE TRATA DE UN ACTO INIMPUGNABLE: El representante del Estado aduce que el acto cuestionado resuelve finalmente sobre la viabilidad ambiental otorgada al proyecto de riego Monteverde, y dice que éste no es susceptible de impugnación por tratarse de un acto de trámite sin efecto propio. Sobre el particular, este Órgano decisor debe indicar en primer término que no desconoce el antecedente emitido por el Tribunal de Casación N° 000104-F-2009, de las once horas diez minutos del primero de junio de dos mil nueve, en el cual esa Cámara señaló el carácter preparatorio de la evaluación de impacto ambiental, y por consiguiente su naturaleza inimpugnable. No obstante, el Tribunal debe apartarse de este criterio por cuanto la obtención de la viabilidad ambiental, en un caso como el que nos ocupa, se constituye en requisito indispensable para la ejecución del proyecto, de lo cual se sigue que en caso de que no se obtenga, continuar con el procedimiento administrativo carecería de sentido, ya que finalmente, en ausencia de dicho presupuesto esencial, aún y cuando se satisfagan el resto de los requerimientos exigidos en el ordenamiento jurídico, resultaría imposible obtener la licencia para realizar el proyecto, luego, el otorgamiento de la viabilidad ambiental sí produce efectos sobre los administrados y por lo tanto, si constituye un acto susceptible de impugnación. Por otro lado debe indicarse que tanto la resolución N° R-430-2006-MINAE, como la N° R-196-2007-MINAE, fueron dictadas en un momento en el que ya la obtención de la viabilidad ambiental había propiciado la emisión de actos posteriores, como el otorgamiento de la concesión y la construcción de las obras necesarias para la explotación del recurso hídrico, y evidentemente, como se verá más adelante, ambas resoluciones inciden en esos hechos. En consecuencia. no resulta de recibo la defensa de acto no susceptible de impugnación formulada por el personero estatal.
X.- SOBRE EL FONDO DEL ASUNTO: Una vez resueltas las defensas de caducidad y prescripción, se pasará de seguido a analizar el fondo del asunto, haciendo referencia a cada uno de los alegatos que formula la demandante en contra de la conducta impugnada: 1).- Posibilidad de revocación de los actos administrativos: En relación con este punto, la demandante aduce que en el mes de febrero del año dos mil seis, el SENARA, inició el procedimiento para obtener la viabilidad ambiental del proyecto de riego de Monteverde, la cual fue otorgada mediante resolución SG-1562-2003-SETENA, de veintiséis de setiembre de dos mil tres. Alega que, con ocasión de las denuncias planteadas por vecinos de la zona, el Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía emitió la resolución N° 430-2006-MINAE, de las once horas cincuenta minutos del diecisiete de noviembre del dos mil seis, en la cual se declaró la nulidad, con efecto retroactivo, de la viabilidad ambiental declarada en el oficio SG-1562-2003-SETENA. Señala que dicho acto tuvo como efecto el agotamiento de la vía administrativo, y que a pesar de ello, la Administración accionada procedió a revisión y posterior revocación, al emitir la resolución N° R-196-2007, de las once horas del veinticuatro de abril del año dos mil siete. Aduce que ésta última se encuentra viciada de nulidad, y sobre el particular afirma: Que la resolución 430-2006 MINAE, ya había agotado la vía administrativo, lo que, según su criterio, imposibilita a la Administración a reabrir la discusión sobre el punto en cuestión, resultando inviable la revocatoria por razones de oportunidad y conveniencia cuando no hay modificaciones en los hechos que se constituyeron en el motivo de la resolución que fue revocada. Sostiene que en este caso, la revocatoria ocurrió con ocasión de una reunión de naturaleza política, sin que se cumpliesen los presupuestos ordenados en la Ley General de la Administración Pública para que resulte procedente la revocatoria, y alega que esta conducta de la Administración refleja una desviación de poder. Dice que por constituir la resolución R-430-2006-MINAE, un acto de gravamen, requería necesariamente un dictamen previo de la Contraloría General de la República. Sobre la revocación de los actos administrativos, los numerales 152 y 153 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública disponen: "Artículo 152.- 1. El acto administrativo podrá revocarse por razones de oportunidad, conveniencia o mérito, con las excepciones que contempla la ley. 2. La revocación deberá tener lugar únicamente cuando haya divergencia grave entre los efectos del acto y el interés público, pese al tiempo transcurrido, a los derechos creados o la naturaleza y demás circunstancias de la relación jurídica a que se intenta poner fin.-" "Artículo 153.- 1. La revocación podrá fundarse en la aparición de nuevas circunstancias de hecho no existentes o no conocidas al momento de dictarse el acto originario. 2. También podrá fundarse en un distinta valoración de las mismas circunstancias de hecho que dieron origen al acto, o del interés público afectado." Como puede verse, a tenor de la normativa citada corresponde concluir que el legislador reconoció expresamente la potestad de revocación a la Administración, siendo ésta una de las dos excepciones que establece la Ley al principio de intangibilidad de los actos propios (la otra es la declaratoria de nulidad absoluta del acto). Según estos postulados la Administración puede revocar el acto "por razones de oportunidad, conveniencia y mérito" cuando "existe divergencia grave sobre los efectos del acto y el interés público pese al tiempo transcurrido", siendo por lo tanto una figura cuya aplicación es excepcional, que puede fundarse en la aparición de nuevas circunstancias de hecho o en una nueva valoración de las que se tomaron inicialmente en cuanta o del interés público afectado (artículo 153 LGAP), resultando imposible aplicar la figura de la revocación a actos de naturaleza reglada (artículo 156 de la Ley de cita). En la especie, el Tribunal ha tenido como acreditado que la resolución N° R-196-2007-MINAE, que revocó la N° R-430-2006-MINAE valoró una serie de criterios técnicos que no fueron tomados en consideración cuando emitió el acto que finalmente fue revocado. En ese sentido, consta en autos que al emitir la resolución N° R-430-2006-MINAE, la Administración concernida tuvo como elemento probatorio esencial un estudio sobre los efectos del proyecto de riego, que había sido elaborado por varias de las personas que se oponían a este (ello consta en los antecedentes que se mencionan en dicha resolución a folios 1088 a 1034 del expediente administrativo 144-2003-SETENA, tomo I). Sin embargo, posteriormente, al emitir la resolución N° R-196-2007-MINAE, la Administración se fundamentó en nuevos pronunciamientos técnicos, elaborados por las dependencias del MINAE, que evidenciaron la disponibilidad del recurso y descartaron un impacto ambiental significativo, lo cual se indicó expresamente en la resolución impugnada, la cual, en lo que interesa señaló: "SEGUNDO: (...) La revocación, en los términos de nuestra Ley General de la Administración Pública, procede en los casos en que por motivos de oportunidad, entre otros, se pueda retirar un acto administrativo de la vida jurídica, no por razones de invalidez, caso en el cual procedería la nulidad, sino en los casos en que exista una divergencia progresiva entre los motivos que originaron el dictado del acto, y los que posteriormente se evidencia como nuevos o no apreciables al momento en que se dictó el acto revocable (el acto revocable en este caso lo sería la resolución 430-2006-MINAE). En este sentido, al momento de emitirse la resolución 430-2006-MINAE, no existían elementos probatorios o de valoración técnica-legal, como los producidos por las dependencias técnicas de este Ministerio (indicadas en los resultandos de esta resolución) con posterioridad al dictado de aquella resolución; situación que constituye un cambio sustancial en el escenario fáctico ante el cual la Administración Pública posee un poder discrecional de actuación, circunscrito dentro del marco de legalidad y de observancia de los fines públicos, y nunca alejados de éstos. En este sentido, los nuevos elementos de juicio deben estar sustentados en criterios técnicos y legales que permiten que un cambio de criterio o apreciación del mismo asunto, sea legal y técnicamente viable. En el caso bajo examen, los nuevos elementos producidos tanto por la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, como por el Departamento de Aguas, así como lo indicado por el SINAC, y (sic) Tribunal Ambiental Administrativo, constituyen los insumos necesarios para que la administración proceda a una revaloración de las circunstancias y antecedentes que originaron el dictado del acto administrativo original (en este caso, la resolución 430-2006-MINAE), a través del instituto jurídico de modificación de los actos administrativos denominado "revocación". (...) Las circunstancias que vendrían a innovar el escenario fáctico respecto al que se tomó en cuenta al momento de dictaminarse la resolución 430-2006-MINAE, consisten en los pronunciamientos técnicos de las distintas dependencias técnicas de este Ministerio que se refieren específicamente a la suficiente disposición de caudal para satisfacer las necesidades ecológicas propias del lugar en donde se encuentra la toma de agua para el Proyecto de Riego Monteverde, y la no afectación a los recursos naturales por la extracción del caudal objeto de la concesión, ya que con anterioridad lo único que se había tomado en cuenta por parte de esas mismas dependencias técnicas de este Ministerio, (principalmente por SETENA) era el descarte de afectación al medio ambiente por las obras de construcción para la captación del agua, y no así la captación misma (es decir la utilización del caudal concesionado y su impacto en el caudal ecológico requerido). De conformidad con lo indicado supra, al existir elementos nuevos que evidencian un desajuste progresivo entre lo actuado y la realidad actual, mostrada por los pronunciamientos técnicos y legales de las dependencias de este Ministerio, se produce una necesidad de readecuar el acto administrativo dictado (resolución 430-2006-MINAE) a la realidad que muestran los nuevos elementos probatorios. (...) TERCERO: (...) cuando las instancias técnicas competentes, como en este caso lo sería SETENA, Departamento de Aguas principalmente, han despejado las dudas razonables que desde un inicio se tenían en este caso, sobre la eventual afectación a los recursos naturales adyacentes a las obras de captación de agua para el proyecto, no existiría ahora razón técnica ni legal salvable para impedir la realización del proyecto en cuestión, ya que mientras existió el estado dubitativo, la Administración asumió un papel preventivo según lo exige así el artículo 13 y 109 de la Ley de la Biodiversidad: resolviéndose en un inicio la nulidad de la viabilidad ambiental, pero luego de los elementos probatorios producidos se logra determinar que la actividad que pretenden desarrollar mediante el Proyecto de Riego Monteverde, específicamente en cuanto a la captación del agua, no afectará los recursos naturales del lugar, por lo que la Administración se encuentra facultada legalmente para conciliar sus actos a la realidad forense presentadas por las dependencias supra mencionadas." (...) CUARTO: (...) Se aclara en este punto que no existiría ya una duda técnica sobre la afectación al bien jurídico ambiental, por la actividad que pretenden desarrollar La Sociedad de Usuarios de Agua Rogumeca, según lo indicado supra, por los distintos Departamentos Técnicos que por otra parte, la existencia de las irregularidades u omisiones en el otorgamiento de la viabilidad ambiental señaladas en la resolución 430-2006-MINAE no revisten ahora de un grado de calificación negativo o peligros para la consecución del fin público que atañe a este Ministerio, y que se puede resumir en la protección de los recursos naturales. En este sentido, los alegatos de los opositores la Proyecto de Riego Monteverde, en cuanto a los defectos del acto propiamente dicho, y banjo el nuevo escenario fáctico explicado en los anteriores considerandos resultaría improcedente." (ver copia de la resolución citada a folios 1492 a 1514 del expediente administrativo número 144-2003 SETENA, tomo III) (El destacado en negrita es suplido). De la resolución transcrita, queda claro entonces que la Administración emitió la resolución N° R-196-2007-MINAE, a la luz de hechos que no conocía cuando emitió la N°R-430-2006- MINAE, y respecto de los cuales tuvo certeza a partir de los criterios técnicos vertidos, en el sentido de que el Refugio de Vida Silvestre privado Curi Cancha ya no se encontraba vigente (Oficio OT-ACA-107-2006 de siete de diciembre de dos mil seis, emitido por el Lic. Carlos Alberto González Rojas, que rola a folio 33 del expediente del SINAC), que las obras se encuentran fuera de la Zona Protectora Arenal Monteverde (oficio ACTA-D-058 de veintiocho de marzo de dos mil siete, emitido por la Dirección Regional del Área de Conservación Arenal- Tempisque, a folio 46 del expediente del SINAC), que la concesión de aprovechamiento de agua a nombre de la Sociedad de Usuarios del Agua Nombre114711 no causa daño al régimen hídrico y al ecosistema circundante a la Quebrada Cuecha (Oficio IMN-DA-0708-2007, de nueve de abril de dos mil siete, emitido por el Departamento de Aguas del MINAE, y que consta a folios 1442 a 1446 del expediente administrativo N° 144-2003 SETENA, tomo III). Así, por la vía de estas experticias, emitidas todas con posterioridad a la resolución N° R-430-2006-MINAE, la Administración pudo constatar la inexistencia de los supuestos fácticos en los que había sustentado dicha resolución, verifícándose de esta forma los presupuestos establecidos en la Ley (numerales 152 y y 153 de la LGAP), para su revocación. Aduce la demandante que se violentó el procedimiento de revocación establecido en el ordenamiento, y sobre el particular alega que ésta tuvo lugar de forma oficiosa y que se omitió la autorización de la Contraloría General de la República. En relación con el primero de los reproches corresponde indicar que incurre en error la accionante, pues consta en autos, y de este modo lo ha tenido como acreditado el Tribunal, que mediante memorial presentado ante el MINAE el veintinueve de noviembre de dos mil seis, el representante de la Sociedad de Usuarios de Agua Roguemeca, planteó recurso de revocatoria contra la resolución N° R-430-2006-MINAE (la copia del recurso consta a folios 1151 a 1155 del expediente administrativo número 144-2003 SETENA). Asimismo, también consta el recurso que contra la resolución aludida planteó el Sub Gerente del SENARA el veinticinco de enero de dos mil siete, (mismo que rola a folios 1249 a 1256 del mencionado expediente administrativo). Así, las apreciaciones de la parte actora en el sentido de que la Administración revocó su propio acto de forma oficiosa no se apegan a la realidad fáctica que consta en autos y que este Órgano decisor ha podido corroborar. En cuanto al segundo reproche por la forma, el demandante dice que echa de menos el dictamen favorable de la Contraloría General de la República, dispuesto en el numeral 155 de la LGAP. Ciertamente dicho precepto establece la autorización del Ente Contralor para emitir la revocación, pero únicamente para aquellos casos en los cuales el acto objeto de la revocación hubiese declarado un derecho subjetivo. A contrario, cuando el acto no genere derechos subjetivos, la Administración puede ejercer su potestad de revocación sin contar con el dictamen favorable de la Contraloría General de la República. En este punto es oportuno aclarar que un acto declarativo de derechos es aquel que enriquece el patrimonio de sus destinatarios con un derecho que anteriormente era inexistente, o bien cuando un derecho preexistente es liberado de algún limite para su ejercicio. Se trata entonces de un acto que confiere al particular una ventaja o un beneficio patrimonial o extrapatrimonial constatable, lo cual no ocurrió en la especie mediante la resolución R-430-2006-MINAE, pues por su medio no se declaró a favor de ninguna persona (física o jurídica), derecho alguno a su favor, por el contrario, se trató de un acto ablatorio mediante el cual se anuló el derecho de una persona jurídica a la explotación de una concesión. En consecuencia, el dictamen favorable de la Contraloría General de la República no era un requisito para revocar la resolución N°R-430-2006-MINAE, y su ausencia no ocasiona la nulidad de la N° R-196-2007-MINAE. 2).- Sobre los alegatos de fondo contra la resolución N° R-196-2007-MINAE: Básicamente, los argumentos de la parte actora contra el acto impugnado se centran en que la viabilidad ambiental del proyecto de riego Monverde, y concretamente la concesión para explotar el recurso hídrico de la Quebrada Cuecha, otorgado a la Asociación de Usuarios del Agua Rogumeca, ocasiona daño ambiental y para sostener esta teoría, la demandante dice que esta obra se localiza en zonas silvestres protegidas, áreas de recarga acuífera, en un sitio en el cual se localizan especies endémicas y que la explotación incide de forma negativa en el caudal de la Quebrada. En relación con la localización del área de concesión, este Tribunal ha tenido como debidamente acreditado que en oficio ACAT-D-058 de 28 de marzo de 2007, la Dirección Regional del Área de Conservación Arenal-Tempisque del Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, informó: "De acuerdo a gira realizada y puntos tomados con GPS por los técnicos Elberth Vargas Masís y Miguel Jiménez se puede determinar que las obras construidas se encuentran fuera de la Zona Protectora Arenal Monteverde. (...) Con base al mapa adjunto se puede observar que el límite Sur del Refugio es la Quebrada Cuecha y las obras mencionadas en el caso de la construida en dicha Quebrada se ubica en el límite oeste del Refugio (ver copia del oficio mencionado a folio 46 del expediente del SINAC). Adicionalmente, también consta en autos que mediante oficio N° OT-ACA-107-2006, de siete de diciembre de dos mil seis, el Licenciado Carlos Alberto González Rojas certificó: "(...) que mediante Decreto 26396, se declara y denomina Refugio Privado de Vida Silvestre Curi Cancha, de fecha 26 de junio del año 1997, ubicado en el Distrito Monteverde. En el Artículo II dice " Dicho inmueble estará sometido a la categoría de Refugio de Vida Silvestre durante un período de cinco año9s prorrogables por períodos iguales, para lo cual la propietaria deberá de solicitarlo por escrito, con un mes de antelación a la finalización de dicho contrato". La sociedad denominada Curi Cancha Sociedad Anónima nunca cumplió con el artículo transcrito, por lo tanto, al día de hoy no se encuentra bajo el régimen de Vida Silvestre privado del país, desde junio del 2002, fecha de vencimiento del Decreto 26396." (ver copia del oficio de referencia a folio 33 del expediente del SINAC). Luego, con fundamento en ambos criterios emitidos por expertos en la materia relacionada con las zonas protegidas, este Tribunal necesariamente debe concluir que las áreas en las cuales influirá la explotación de la concesión no solo se encuentra fuera de la Zona Protectora Arenal Monteverde, sino que además, tampoco se encuentra afectado a las limitaciones propias de un refugio de vida silvestre privado, en este caso el refugio denominado Curi Cancha, pues como certificó el señor Carlos Alberto González Rojas, la vigencia de éste ya se habría extinguido. En relación con la posible afectación al recurso hídrico, este Órgano conoció la evaluación realizada por el departamento de Aguas del MINAE, detallada en el oficio IMN-DA-0708-2007, de nueve de abril de dos mil siete. Esta evaluación tuvo como fundamento los siguientes aforos:
Fecha Datos de Caudal (litros por segundo) Origen del Dato Método de aforo 20 febrero 2002 50,54 SENARA Molinete Marzo 2002 265.14 SENARA Molinete 4 febrero 2005 194,00 Dpto. Aguas Molinete Se indica como dato de época seca 56,50 Informe aportado al expediente por el Sr. Nombre114715 Sub Director del Instituto Monteverde Sistema particular 15 febrero 2007 51,22 SENARA Molinete 14 marzo 2007 45,15 SENARA Molinete Como puede verse, se trata de varios estudios realizados en diferentes momentos, y durante la época de verano. Además, en el informe se indica que la Quebrada cuenta con varias fuentes y aportes de agua, incluso localizadas aguas abajo de la toma de concesión. Se indicó también que durante el verano se puede disponer de un caudal que ronda entre los cuarenta y cinco y sesenta litros por segundo, lo que según se indica, representa el 28% del caudal mínimo disponible. Finalmente en la experticia se concluyó "Es criterio del suscrito que la concesión de aprovechamiento de agua expediente 11212 a nombre de la Sociedad de Usuarios de Agua Nombre114711 la cual tiene otorgado un caudal de 12.65 litros por segundo de la quebrada Cuecha no causa ningún daño al régimen hídrico y ecosistema de la cita (sic) quebrada y se encuentra resuelta en apego a los principios de conservación y uso sostenible del agua estipulados en el artículo 51 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente." (ver copia del oficio citado a folios 570 a 574 del expediente del Departamento de Aguas N° Placa21295, Legajo N° 3 y folios 1442 a 1446 del expediente administrativo número 144-2003 SETENA, tomo III). Como corolario de este estudio técnico, que la parte actora no ha logrado desvirtuar con prueba objetiva (pues la prueba ofrecida se restringe a la declaración de una testigo que según consta en autos se ha opuesto desde el inicio al proyecto), el Tribunal no puede admitir los alegatos del demandante en el sentido de que la ejecución del referido proyecto de riego ocasiona daños al recurso hídrico. Tampoco son de recibo las manifestaciones en el sentido de que la toma está dentro de los diez metros de protección, pues evidentemente en este caso estamos ante una concesión del recurso hídrico, para lo cual resultan indispensables las obras bajo examen. En cuanto a la afectación de especies en vías de extinción, este Órgano decisor no puede tener por probada la existencia de tal impacto solamente con lo dicho en juicio por la señora Nombre114710 , ya que a pesar de ser Bióloga, ese solo hecho no la acredita como perito ante el Tribunal, no solamente porque no fue ofrecida en ese carácter ante el Tribunal, sino debido a que además, consta en autos que la señora Nombre114710 es vecina de la zona y desde el inicio se ha opuesto al proyecto de riego, lo cual indudablemente permite concluir que sus declaraciones se encuentran permeadas por un interés particular y directo en el asunto. Si bien es cierto en el expediente administrativo constan algunas fotocopias relativas a estudios ambientales, ninguno se refiere al caso concreto, pues no tratan sobre el impacto que la explotación de la Concesión de aguas podría efectivamente causar. En este punto es oportuno indicar que a tenor del artículo 317 del Código Procesal Civil, la carga de la prueba corresponde "A quien formula una pretensión, respecto a las afirmaciones de los hechos constitutivos de sus derecho.", lo cual implica el deber, en este caso de la parte actora, en orden a demostrar su dicho, lo cual indudablemente conllevaba su obligación de allegar a los autos los elementos de prueba necesarios para acreditar el impacto ambiental alegado. La parte no ha cumplido con esta obligación, pues más allá de sus argumentaciones, no ha aportado prueba objetiva que acredite la existencia del daño ambiental aducido. No consta en autos experticia alguna ofrecida que demuestre de forma precisa, clara y técnica que el caudal de la Quebrada Cuecha resultaría afectada por la explotación de la concesión, por el contrario, como ya se indicó, existen evaluaciones realizadas por la Administración que indican todo lo contrario. Tampoco se aportan elementos de prueba que sobre una base científica, acrediten que la explotación de la concesión ocasionaría un impacto ambiental significativo en su área de influencia. Las pruebas que constan en autos, dicen todo lo contrario, lo cual fue incluso valorado por el Tribunal Ambiental Administrativo y por la Secretaría Técnica Ambiental. Así, en resolución N° 374-07-TAA, de las diez horas con veintinueve minutos del diez de abril del año dos mil siete, el Tribunal Ambiental Administrativo dispuso "Dictar como Resolución Provisional al desestimar únicamente la denuncia en contra de la Sociedad de Usuarios de Agua Nombre114711 tramitada bajo el presente expediente administrativo", para lo cual consideró: "Cuarto: Que con base en lo anterior y una vez analizados los documentos que conforman dicho expediente administrativo, especialmente el acta de la inspección ocular "in situ" en el lugar en el cual se encuentra el aprovechamiento del recurso hídrico de la empresa Rogumeca, visible a los folios 834 y 835 del expediente administrativo, mediante la cual se establece "(...) La toma de agua tiene una construcción sobre la quebrada Cuecha, en forma de gaveta con 25 centímetros de ancho, 25 centímetros de fondo y 2.20 metros de largo, al lado se encuentra un tanque donde fluye el agua que va al desarenador. La concesión dada por el Departamento de Aguas es de 12.6 litros por segundo. El lugar tiene cobertura boscosa y no se aprecia corta de árboles en la zona de protección a lo largo del camino aproximadamente ochocientos metros, por donde se encuentran las mangueras que llevan el agua para su consumo (...), este Tribunal considera que al no existir daño ambiental negativo significativo en la operación de la concesión de agua otorgada a las (sic) empresa Sociedad Usuarios de Agua Nombre114711 aunado a que existe disponibilidad de agua en la actualidad, de conformidad con lo indicado por el Departamento de Aguas mediante oficio IMN-DA-0501-07, se debe proceder a desestimar la presente denuncia en contra de la empresa denominada Nombre114711." (Ver copia de la resolución referida a folios 1447 a 1454 del expediente administrativo número 144-2003 SETENA, tomo III), y por su parte, la SETENA, en oficio CP-105-2007-SETENA, de trece de abril de dos mil siete expresó: "2. El criterio de esta Secretaría consiste en que la Declaración Jurada de Compromisos Ambientales, junto a la información técnica que figura en el expediente, es suficiente para fundamentar la viabilidad ambiental del proyecto en lo que se refiere a las competencias de esta Secretaría, de conformidad con la normativa citada. 3. Lo anterior se basa en lo siguiente: La obra que en su momento se realizó trata de una obra de subducción, en la cual se realiza el trasvase de agua, que pasa a un desarenador, a partir del cual parte del agua es enviada a las fincas para riego y la parte restante es enviada de nuevo al cauce. Cuando el proyecto no opera por no necesitarse riego, principalmente durante el invierno, toda el agua es devuelta al cauce desde el desarenador. Las obras consisten en la toma (de únicamente dos metros de largo ) de derivación en la Quebrada Cuecha, instalación del desarenador y tubería de conducción, válvulas de regulación y tubería de distribución. La obra calibradora regula el excedente de agua y posee las dimensiones y especificaciones técnicas emitidas por el Departamento de Aguas del MINAE, lo cual garantiza que las mismas vayan a cumplirse a cabalidad. Estas obras anteriormente descritas no causan impactos en la fauna acuática de la Quebrada Cuecha ni en la cobertura vegetal cercana, y se categoriza el proyecto como un proyecto de bajo impacto ambiental, con impactos ambientales poco significativos. 4. Por otra parte, el SENARA, mediante el acto administrativo público emitido por el oficio número POE-573-03 (folios 0020 y 0026) firmado por el Ing. Edgar Mairena Navarro, encargado de proyectos de la Región Pacífico Central del SENARA, demuestra que: "Con respecto al estudio a nivel de cuenca solicitado: el caudal a derivar no afectará en gran medida a la cuenca de la Quebrada Cuecha. Lo anterior certificado mediante Oficio ASUB-367-03, den donde consta que se realizaron 3 aforos el 20 de febrero del 2002, 20 de marzo del 2002 y 18 de abril del 2002, con caudales de 50.54 L/seg. 265.14 L/seg y 30.03 L/seg. respectivamente. El estudio técnico es basado en el Manual de dotaciones de agua para calcular las necesidades de las solicitudes de aprovechamiento de aguas elaborado en el Departamento de Aguas-MINAE." (...) 5. A su vez el Departamento de Aguas del MINAE determinó, mediante oficio número IMN-DA-0362, del 7 de febrero del 2005, lo siguiente: " A la fecha 4 de febrero del 2005, las quebradas mantenían un caudal de 61.4 l/seg. La Máquina y de 194 l/seg la Quebrada Cuecha y que son más de 10 veces mayores que los caudales potencialmente a ser aprovechados por las sociedades". Existen además una serie de aportes laterales y de otras fuentes de aguas debajo de cada toma propuesta, caudales que alimentan y con el consecuente aumento del caudal de las fuentes." (...). 7. Mediante Decreto Ejecutivo número 26396-MINAE, del 26 de junio de 1997, se creó el refugio Privado de Vida Silvestre Curi Cancha, en su artículo 2, inciso II, se determinó que el carácter de refugio del inmueble abarcaría un período de cinco años, el cual se podría renovar. No consta en el expediente 144-2013-SETENA, si se ha producido tal renovación. 8. A la luz de todas las consideraciones anteriores, se pueden releer las resoluciones de esta SECRETARÍA, así como el documento que consta a folios 626 a 634 del expediente 144-2003SETENA, en las cuales se encontrarán desarrollados los fundamentos técnicos que llevan a la siguiente conclusión: Aunque el lugar sea un refugio de vida silvestre, la evaluación de impacto llevada a cabo para el proyecto (artículo 82 LCVA) garantiza que el mismo es viable ambientalmente en lo que concierne a la competencia de esta Secretaría" ( ver copia del oficio citado a folios 1455 a 1457 del expediente administrativo número 144-2003 SETENA, tomo III). Se observa entonces que en autos obran informes de la Administración, así como resoluciones del Tribunal Ambiental Administrativo y de la SETENA, en los cuales se acredita la viabilidad ambiental del proyecto de riego relacionado con la Quebrada Cuecha, sin que la parte actora se haya ocupado de aportar prueba tendente a desvirtuar esos actos. Luego, la Administración concernida tuvo como fundamento del acto que aquí se impugna este mismo acervo probatorio, que se constituye en el motivo del acto en cuestión, pues al no acreditarse el impacto ambiental alegado por los opositores al proyecto, y por el contrario, tener la Administración por demostrado que las obras no causarían el daño alegado, la revocación cuestionada encuentra su causa o motivo, precisamente en la inexistencia de la afectación, pues al no acreditarse los daños, no habría motivo alguno para mantener la resolución N° R-430-2006-MINAE, en cuanto ésta habría decretado la nulidad del oficio SG-1562-2003-SETENA, de veintiséis de setiembre de dos mil tres, en la cual se otorgó la viabilidad ambiental al proyecto de riego, como tampoco habría motivo para cancelar la concesión, tal y como se ordenó en la resolución que finalmente fue revocada. De conformidad con todo lo dicho, el Tribunal considera que el acto administrativo impugnado fue emitido en ejercicio de la potestad de revocación establecida en la Ley General de la Administración Pública, bajo los presupuestos establecidos en el ordenamiento jurídico, no solo al presentarse nuevos hechos que no fueron tomados en cuenta al emitirse el acto que fue revocado, sino además, al valorarse los hechos, con fundamento en los nuevos criterios técnicos que fueron allegados dentro del procedimiento administrativo. Estima además este Órgano decisor, que el acto en cuestión tuvo como causa o motivo, precisamente la demostración en el sentido de que el proyecto de riego no causaría el acto alegado, y ello fue debidamente fundamentado en el acto de revocación. En consecuencia, y ante la ausencia de prueba que desacredite la que tuvo en cuenta la Administración concernida para dictar el acto impugnado, lo que corresponde es declarar sin lugar la demanda en todos sus extremos.
XI.- SOBRE LAS EXCEPCIONES: El representante del Estado planteó las defensas de falta de derecho, falta de legitimación ad causan activa y caducidad. Además, en la audiencia de juicio alegó que la viabilidad ambiental es un acto no susceptible de impugnación. Los representantes del Estado y el SENARA planteó la defensa de falta de derecho, falta de legitimación pasiva, caducidad y prescripción. Por su parte, la codemandada Nombre114711, no formuló excepciones. En relación con la caducidad y la prescripción alegadas por los personeros del Estado y del SENARA, debe estarse a lo resuelto en los considerandos VII y VIII de esta sentencia. Lo mismo ocurre con la defensa de acto no susceptible de impugnación, a la cual se refirió el Tribunal en el considerando IX de esta resolución. En cuanto a la defensa de falta de legitimación pasiva planteada por el SENARA, la misma fue conocida en la audiencia preliminar celebrada el veintisiete de agosto del dos mil doce, momento a partir del cual el SENARA intervino como coadyuvante pasivo de forma voluntaria. Por su parte, y a tenor del considerando de fondo que antecede, corresponde acoger la falta de derecho, que comprende la falta de legitimación ad causam activa.
XII.- SOBRE LAS COSTAS: Según dispone el artículo 193 del Código procesal Contencioso Administrativo, el pago de las costas personales y procesales corren por cuenta del vencido. No obstante el Tribunal puede exonerar de su pago cuando "Por la naturaleza de las cuestiones debatidas haya existido, a juicio del Tribunal, motivo bastante para litigar." En el asunto bajo examen, constan en el expediente administrativo dos resoluciones emitidas por la Administración concernida que resultan contradictorias: una tiene por acreditado que el proyecto de riego de Monteverde causa impacto ambiental, y otra, la que aquí ha sido impugnada, en la cual se arriba la conclusión contraria. A juicio del Tribunal esta circunstancia es motivo suficiente para litigar, y por lo tanto, se colocó el demandante en el supuesto de exoneración en costas establecido en el inciso b del artículo 193 del Código de rito, motivo por el cual, a pesar de su carácter de vencido, el Tribunal ha decidido exonerarlo de su pago, debiendo cada parte correr con sus costas.
POR TANTO
Se rechazan las defensas de caducidad, prescripción y acto no susceptible de impugnación Se acoge la defensa de falta de derecho, compresiva de la falta de legitimación ad causam activa. Se declara sin lugar la demanda promovida por el señor Nombre114708 contra el Estado y la Sociedad de Usuarios de Agua Rogumeca. Se resuelve este asunto sin especial condenatoria en costas.
Ileana Sánchez Navarro Ana Isabel Vargas Vargas Eduardo González Segura
Document not found. Documento no encontrado.