{ "id": "nexus-ext-1-0007-136531", "citation": "Res. 01034-2011 Sala Constitucional", "section": "nexus_decisions", "doc_type": "constitutional_decision", "title_es": "Amparo contra autorización municipal de captación de agua en naciente privada", "title_en": "Amparo against municipal authorization for water catchment on private spring", "summary_es": "La Sala Constitucional conoció un recurso de amparo contra el alcalde de la Municipalidad de León Cortés por haber autorizado a la comunidad de Montes de Oro realizar trabajos de captación de agua en una naciente ubicada dentro de una finca privada. La parte recurrente alegó que el alcalde carecía de competencia para emitir tal autorización, que no se siguió el procedimiento legal y que no se realizaron estudios técnicos para proteger el recurso hídrico. La Sala determinó que, si bien el agua es un bien de dominio público, la competencia para otorgar autorizaciones o concesiones de aprovechamiento de aguas públicas corresponde exclusivamente al Ministerio de Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones, conforme a los artículos 17, 27 y 176 de la Ley de Aguas. El tribunal concluyó que el actuar del alcalde infringió los artículos 21, 39, 45 y 50 de la Constitución Política, al generar un riesgo indebido para el recurso hídrico y dejar en indefensión a la propietaria. Se declaró con lugar el amparo, sin perjuicio de que la Municipalidad pueda utilizar otros mecanismos legales para asegurar el abastecimiento de agua potable.", "summary_en": "The Constitutional Chamber heard an amparo action against the mayor of the Municipality of León Cortés for authorizing the community of Montes de Oro to carry out water catchment works on a spring located within a private farm. The petitioners argued that the mayor lacked the authority to grant such authorization, that the legally established procedure was not followed, and that no technical studies were conducted to protect the water resource. The Chamber found that, while water is a public domain good, the authority to grant permits or concessions for the use of public waters lies exclusively with the Ministry of Environment, Energy and Telecommunications, pursuant to Articles 17, 27, and 176 of the Water Law. The court concluded that the mayor's actions violated Articles 21, 39, 45, and 50 of the Political Constitution, creating an undue risk to the water resource and leaving the property owner defenseless. The amparo was granted, without prejudice to the Municipality's ability to use other legal mechanisms to ensure drinking water supply.", "court_or_agency": "Sala Constitucional", "date": "2011", "year": "2011", "topic_ids": [ "water-law" ], "primary_topic_id": "water-law", "es_concept_hints": [ "recurso de amparo", "dominio público", "aprovechamiento de aguas", "concesión de aguas", "Sala Constitucional", "naciente", "Municipalidad de León Cortés" ], "concept_anchors": [ { "article": "Art. 17", "law": "Ley 276" }, { "article": "Art. 27", "law": "Ley 276" }, { "article": "Art. 176", "law": "Ley 276" }, { "article": "Art. 50", "law": "Constitución Política" } ], "keywords_es": [ "amparo", "agua", "dominio público", "Ley de Aguas", "competencia", "Municipalidad", "MINAE", "Sala Constitucional" ], "keywords_en": [ "amparo", "water", "public domain", "Water Law", "jurisdiction", "Municipality", "MINAE", "Constitutional Chamber" ], "excerpt_es": "Con lo que se corrobora que es el Ministerio de Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones -y no la Municipalidad recurrida- la instancia competente para otorgar una autorización o concesión para el aprovechamiento de aguas públicas, previa observancia del procedimiento establecido al efecto en la Ley de Aguas. A lo que se añade que esta Sala ha indicado que dicho procedimiento tiene por objeto proteger el recurso hídrico –como así se desprende de los precedentes parcialmente transcritos-, así como otorgarle a los propietarios de los inmuebles, en donde se ubican las fuentes o nacientes de agua a utilizar, la posibilidad de ejercer la defensa de sus derechos e intereses (ver, al efecto, sentencia número 2009-009936 de las 14:08 horas del 19 de junio del 2009). En el caso en estudio no se han cumplido tales exigencias, con lo que se ha generado un riesgo indebido para la protección del recurso hídrico, y se ha dejado a la amparada en un estado de indefensión, por lo que esta Sala concluye que se han infringido los artículos 21, 39, 45 y 50 de la Constitución Política.", "excerpt_en": "Thus it is confirmed that the Ministry of Environment, Energy and Telecommunications – and not the respondent Municipality – is the competent authority to grant an authorization or concession for the use of public waters, following the procedure established for that purpose in the Water Law. To this it is added that this Chamber has indicated that said procedure is intended to protect the water resource – as can be seen from the partially transcribed precedents – as well as to grant the owners of the properties where the water sources or springs to be used are located, the possibility of defending their rights and interests (see, to that effect, judgment number 2009-009936 of 2:08 p.m. on June 19, 2009). In the case under study, such requirements have not been met, thus generating an undue risk for the protection of the water resource, and leaving the protected party in a state of defenselessness; therefore, this Chamber concludes that Articles 21, 39, 45, and 50 of the Political Constitution have been violated.", "outcome": { "label_en": "Granted", "label_es": "Con lugar", "summary_en": "The Constitutional Chamber grants the amparo and annuls the municipal authorization, finding the municipality lacked competence to grant public water use concessions, which are reserved to MINAE.", "summary_es": "La Sala Constitucional declara con lugar el amparo y anula la autorización municipal por ser incompetente para otorgar concesiones de aprovechamiento de aguas públicas, que corresponde al MINAE." }, "pull_quotes": [ { "context": "Sentencia citada 2005-16513, apartado IV", "quote_en": "water is a public domain good for which authorizations for its use may be granted, and it is precisely the Ministry of Environment and Energy that is called upon to grant such authorizations, after evaluating the opportunity and convenience of its granting through a water use concession procedure", "quote_es": "el agua es un bien de dominio público respecto del que se pueden otorgar autorizaciones para su aprovechamiento, siendo precisamente el Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía el llamado a conceder tales autorizaciones, previa valorización de la oportunidad y conveniencia de su otorgamiento en un procedimiento de concesión de aprovechamiento de aguas" }, { "context": "Considerando III", "quote_en": "it is the Ministry of Environment, Energy and Telecommunications – and not the respondent Municipality – that is the competent authority to grant an authorization or concession for the use of public waters", "quote_es": "es el Ministerio de Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones -y no la Municipalidad recurrida- la instancia competente para otorgar una autorización o concesión para el aprovechamiento de aguas públicas" }, { "context": "Considerando III", "quote_en": "said procedure is intended to protect the water resource (...), as well as to grant the owners of the properties where the water sources or springs to be used are located, the possibility of defending their rights and interests", "quote_es": "dicho procedimiento tiene por objeto proteger el recurso hídrico (...), así como otorgarle a los propietarios de los inmuebles, en donde se ubican las fuentes o nacientes de agua a utilizar, la posibilidad de ejercer la defensa de sus derechos e intereses" } ], "cites": [], "cited_by": [], "references": { "internal": [ { "target_id": "norm-11950", "kind": "concept_anchor", "label": "Ley 276 Art. 17" } ], "external": [] }, "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/ext-1-0007-136531", "tier": 2, "_editorial_citation_count": 0, "regulations_by_article": null, "amendments_by_article": null, "dictamen_by_article": null, "concordancias_by_article": null, "afectaciones_by_article": null, "resoluciones_by_article": null, "cited_by_votos": [], "cited_norms": [], "cited_norms_inverted": [ { "doc_id": "norm-11950", "norm_num": "276", "norm_name": "Ley de Aguas", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "27/08/1942" }, { "doc_id": "norm-15437", "norm_num": "", "norm_name": "Código Civil de Costa Rica", "tipo_norma": "", "norm_fecha": "" }, { "doc_id": "norm-48839", "norm_num": "6797", "norm_name": "Código de Minería", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "04/10/1982" }, { "doc_id": "norm-871", "norm_num": "0", "norm_name": "Derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado — Artículo 50 de la Constitución Política", "tipo_norma": "Constitución Política", "norm_fecha": "07/11/1949" } ], "sentencias_relacionadas": [], "temas_y_subtemas": [], "cascade_only": false, "amendment_count": 0, "body_es_text": "“I.- OBJETO\r\nDEL RECURSO. Los recurrentes acusan que el Alcalde de la Municipalidad de\r\nLeón Cortés dictó un acto administrativo en el que autorizó a la comunidad de Montes\r\nde Oro para que realizara trabajos de captación de agua en una naciente ubicada\r\ndentro de una finca propiedad de la amparada, pese que el Alcalde Municipal\r\ncarece de competencia para emitir tal autorización, no se observó el\r\nprocedimiento legalmente establecido para tales efectos, ni se realizaron los\r\ncorrespondientes estudios técnicos para garantizar la protección del recurso\r\nhídrico.\n\r\n\r\n\nIII.- SOBRE EL FONDO. Según se\r\ndesprende de la anterior relación de hechos probados, se tiene por plenamente\r\nacreditado que el Alcalde de la Municipalidad de León Cortés emitió resolución de\r\nlas 10 horas del 17 de agosto del 2010, en la que “autoriza a la comunidad\r\nde El Montes de Oro para que realice los trabajos de captación de agua de la\r\nindicada naciente. […] ubicada en la finca número 88765-A-000, propiedad\r\nde la empresa denominada Agropecuaria Hermanos Quirós Sánchez tres mil cuatro\r\nsociedad anónima”. A lo que se añade que el Alcalde de la Municipalidad de\r\nLeón Cortés pretende justificar tal determinación en la necesidad de garantizar\r\nel suministro de agua potable a la comunidad de Montes de Oro y en el hecho que\r\nel agua es un bien de dominio público. En cuyo caso, si bien esta Sala entiende\r\nla preocupación de la\r\n Municipalidad de León Cortés por procurar que los habitantes\r\nde su cantón tengan acceso al agua, ello no puede justificar que la Municipalidad asuma\r\ncompetencias que no le han sido atribuidas por el ordenamiento jurídico y que\r\ndesaplique la normativa que rige la materia –en específico, lo dispuesto en los\r\nartículos 17, 27, 176 y siguientes de la\r\n Ley de Aguas (Ley No. 276 de 27 de agosto de 1942), en lo\r\nreferente al otorgamiento de autorizaciones o concesiones para aprovechamiento\r\nde aguas públicas-. Máxime que tal normativa tiene por propósito garantizar el\r\ndebido uso y disfrute del recurso hídrico –y, con ello, la protección de los\r\nderechos fundamentales a la vida, a la salud y a un ambiente sano y\r\necológicamente equilibrado-. En cuanto a este tema, en sentencia número\r\n2005-16513 de las 20:04 horas del 29 de noviembre del 2005, esta Sala resolvió\r\n–en lo que interesa- que: \n\r\n\r\n\n“II.-\r\nSobre el agua como bien de dominio público. Los bienes de dominio\r\npúblico -tales como el agua- han sido estudiados y analizados por este Tribunal\r\nde manera exhausta, y en lo que interesa se ha señalado: \n\r\n\r\n\n\"... la naturaleza y régimen\r\njurídicos son diferentes tratándose de propiedad privada o de propiedad pública\r\no del Estado, ello por cuanto la primera es regulada de conformidad con el\r\nartículo 45 Constitucional y la normativa del Código Civil pertinente, de manera\r\nque se protege la inviolabilidad de la misma, introduciéndose el concepto de\r\nfunción social, de manera que no se puede privar a nadie de la suya si no es\r\nmotivado en un interés social y mediante ley aprobada por la Asamblea Legislativa\r\ncon el voto de las dos terceras partes de sus miembros. Por su parte, la\r\nregulación de la propiedad demanial se fundamenta en\r\nel inciso 14) del artículo 121 Constitucional, como ya lo indicó esta Sala por\r\nresolución número 2306-91, de las catorce horas cuarenta y cinco minutos del\r\nseis de noviembre, de modo que su naturaleza jurídica es virtualmente\r\ndiferente, la cual indicó que: \"El dominio público se encuentra integrado\r\npor bienes que manifiestan, por voluntad expresa del legislador, un destino\r\nespecial de servir a la comunidad, al interés público. Son llamados bienes\r\ndominicales, bienes demaniales, bienes o cosas\r\npúblicos, que no pertenecen individualmente a los particulares y que están\r\ndestinados a un uso público y sometidos a un régimen\r\nespecial, fuera del comercio de los hombres. Es decir, afectados por su\r\nnaturaleza y vocación. En consecuencia, esos bienes pertenecen al Estado en el\r\nsentido más amplio del concepto, están afectados al servicio que prestan y que\r\ninvariablemente es esencial en virtud de norma expresa. Notas características\r\nde estos bienes, es que son inalienables, imprescriptibles, inembargables, no\r\npueden hipotecarse ni ser susceptibles de gravámen en\r\nlos términos de Derecho Civil y la acción administrativa sustituye a los\r\ninterdictos para recuperar el dominio. Como están fuera del comercio, estos\r\nbienes no pueden ser objeto de posesión, aunque se puede adquirir un derecho al\r\naprovechamiento, aunque no un derecho a la propiedad, el permiso de uso es un\r\nacto jurídico unilateral que lo dicta la Administración, en\r\nel uso de sus funciones y lo que se pone en manos del particular, es el dominio\r\nútil del bien, reservándose siempre el Estado, el dominio directo sobre la\r\ncosa. La precariedad de todo derecho o permiso de uso, es consustancial a la\r\nfigura y alude a la posibilidad que la administración, en cualquier momento lo\r\nrevoque, ya sea por la necesidad del Estado de ocupar plenamente el bien, por\r\nla construcción de una obra pública al igual que por razones de seguridad, higiéne, estética, todo ello en la medida que si llega a\r\nexistir una contraposición de intereses entre el fin del bien y el permiso\r\notorgado, debe prevalecer el uso natural de la cosa pública. En consecuencia,\r\nel régimen patrio de los bienes de dominio público, ...\r\nlos coloca fuera del comercio de los hombres y por ello los permisos que se\r\notorguen serán siempre a título precario y revocables por la Administración,\r\nunilateralmente, cuando razones de necesidad o de interés general así lo\r\nseñalan.\" (sentencia número 5976-93, de las\r\nquince horas cuarenta y dos minutos del dieciséis de noviembre de mil\r\nnovecientos noventa y tres.) \n\r\n\r\n\nPor otra parte, también se ha\r\nseñalado que, sobre tales bienes, \n\r\n\r\n\n\"... el Estado tiene plena\r\npotestad, y más tratándose de la protección de los recursos naturales de nuestro\r\npaís, bien sobre el que la accionante ni particular\r\nalguno tiene derecho, sea de posesión, de explotación, y mucho menos de\r\npropiedad. \n\r\n\r\n\n ...\n\r\n\r\n\nno\r\nes posible tener por violado el artículo 45 Constitucional, ... ya que no se\r\nimponen limitaciones a la propiedad privada, sino que al regularse el dominio\r\npúblico, la ley lo que hace es establecer condiciones mediante las que es\r\nposible el uso y disfrute ..., por parte de los particulares. Así quien\r\npretenda por medios no autorizados ejercer un uso privativo de esa zona tendrá\r\nvedada la posibilidad de consumarlo, pues es aceptable también, desde tiempo\r\ninmemorial, que se trata de bienes imprescriptibles en favor de particulares y\r\nque están fuera de comercio.\" (sentencia número\r\n5399-93, de las dieciséis horas treinta y nueve minutos del veintisésis\r\nde octubre de mil novecientos noventa y tres.) \n\r\n\r\n\nIII.-\r\nSobre el caso concreto. En el caso particular acusa el recurrente\r\nque el Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía ha permitido, de forma irregular, la extracción\r\no explotación de fuentes de agua en la zona protegida de Monteverde, con lo\r\ncual se beneficia solo a un pequeño grupo de personas en detrimento de la\r\ncolectividad y es por ello que pide la intervención de este Tribunal. Sobre el\r\nparticular debe recordarse que el agua es de naturaleza pública, tal y como se\r\nha reconocido en el artículo 4 del Código de Minería que establece: \n\r\n\r\n\n\"…las fuentes y aguas\r\nminerales y las aguas subterráneas y superficiales se reservan para el\r\nEstado…\" \n\r\n\r\n\nBajo la misma línea el artículo 50\r\nde la Ley Orgánica\r\ndel Ambiente indica: \n\r\n\r\n\n\"El agua es de dominio\r\npúblico, su conservación y uso sostenible son de interés social\". \n\r\n\r\n\nDebido a la naturaleza pública\r\ndel agua, la titularidad que ostenta el Estado se ejerce a través del\r\nMinisterio de Ambiente y Energía según lo establece el artículo 17 de la Ley de Aguas: \n\r\n\r\n\n\"Es necesaria autorización\r\npara el aprovechamiento de las aguas públicas, especialmente dedicadas a\r\nempresas de interés público o privado. Esa autorización la concederá el Ministerio\r\ndel Ambiente y Energía en la forma que se prescribe en la presente ley,\r\ninstitución a la cual corresponde disponer y resolver sobre el dominio,\r\naprovechamiento, utilización, gobierno o vigilancia sobre las aguas de dominio\r\npúblico, conforme a la ley N° 258 de 18 de agosto de\r\n1941…\" \n\r\n\r\n\nIV.-\r\nDe lo artículos trascritos se desprende entonces que el agua es\r\nun bien de dominio público respecto del que se pueden otorgar autorizaciones\r\npara su aprovechamiento, siendo precisamente el Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía\r\nel llamado a conceder tales autorizaciones, previa valorización de la\r\noportunidad y conveniencia de su otorgamiento en un procedimiento de concesión\r\nde aprovechamiento de aguas; procedimiento que se justifica debido a la\r\nnaturaleza vital y necesaria del agua para el óptimo desarrollo de la humanidad\r\ny porque se trata de un bien escaso lo que incrementa su valor económico y\r\nsocial. El procedimiento de concesión de aprovechamiento de aguas se encuentra\r\nestablecido en la Ley\r\nde Aguas y el mismo debe ser seguido a cabalidad porque establece una serie de\r\nrequisitos que pretenden, en última instancia, proteger ese recurso y el\r\nambiente en general.” (el subrayado no\r\ncorresponde al original)\n\r\n\r\n\nMientras que en\r\nla resolución número 2007-000649, de las 11:40 horas del 19 de enero del 2007,\r\nesta Sala reiteró: \n\r\n\r\n\n\"(…) Evidentemente, el\r\nderecho a la vida implica -entre otros múltiples aspectos- el derecho del\r\nindividuo a abastecerse del agua que requiere para una existencia digna. Sin\r\nembargo, este derecho no puede ser tergiversado de la forma en que pretende el accionante cuando manifiesta que tienen un derecho\r\nfundamental sobre el aprovechamiento de las aguas de una servidumbre que dice\r\nempezó a utilizar desde los años 60’,\r\npara abastecer su finca de agua. Por el contrario, de conformidad con lo\r\ndispuesto en el artículo 50 de la Constitución Política,\r\nel Estado está obligado a garantizar, defender y preservar los recursos\r\nnaturales de la nación, -entre ellos las nacientes de agua- con la finalidad de\r\nhacer efectivo el derecho que tienen todos los habitantes a un ambiente sano y\r\necológicamente equilibrado. De manera que si el accionante\r\ndesea aprovechar alguna naciente o río cerca de su propiedad, deberá solicitar\r\nal Ministerio del Ambiente y Energía la concesión respectiva, de conformidad\r\ncon lo dispuesto en la ley. Al respecto establecen los artículos 27 y 176\r\nde la Ley de\r\nAguas número 276: \n\r\n\r\n\n\" Artículo\r\n27.-\n\r\n\r\n\nEn la concesión de\r\naprovechamientos especiales de aguas públicas, se observará el siguiente orden\r\nde preferencia: \n\r\n\r\n\n1. Cañerías para poblaciones\r\ncuyo control quede a cargo de la\r\n Secretaría de Salubridad Pública: \n\r\n\r\n\n11-. Abastecimiento de\r\npoblaciones, servicios domésticos, abrevaderos, lecherías y baños; .. .\" \n\r\n\r\n\n\"\r\nArtículo 176. - El Ministerio del Ambiente y\r\nEnergía ejercerá el dominio y control de las aguas públicas para otorgar\r\no denegar concesiones a quienes lo soliciten, de acuerdo con las\r\nsiguientes reglas: \n\r\n\r\n\n1.-…\n\r\n\r\n\n11-Para los demás\r\naprovechamientos, conforme a las reglas de la presente ley...\". (el subrayado no corresponde al\r\noriginal)\n\r\n\r\n\nCon lo que se\r\ncorrobora que es el Ministerio de Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones -y no la Municipalidad\r\nrecurrida- la instancia competente para otorgar una autorización o concesión\r\npara el aprovechamiento de aguas públicas, previa observancia del procedimiento\r\nestablecido al efecto en la Ley\r\nde Aguas. A lo que se añade que esta Sala ha indicado que dicho procedimiento\r\ntiene por objeto proteger el recurso hídrico –como así se desprende de los\r\nprecedentes parcialmente transcritos-, así como otorgarle a los propietarios de\r\nlos inmuebles, en donde se ubican las fuentes o nacientes de agua a utilizar,\r\nla posibilidad de ejercer la defensa de sus derechos e intereses (ver, al\r\nefecto, sentencia número 2009-009936 de las 14:08 horas del 19 de junio del\r\n2009). En el caso en estudio no se han cumplido tales exigencias, con lo que se\r\nha generado un riesgo indebido para la protección del recurso hídrico, y se ha\r\ndejado a la amparada en un estado de indefensión, por lo que esta Sala concluye\r\nque se han infringido los artículos 21, 39, 45 y 50 de la Constitución Política.\r\nLo que no obsta para que la\r\n Municipalidad pueda acudir a otros mecanismos, debidamente\r\nautorizados por el ordenamiento jurídico, para procurar por el debido\r\nabastecimiento de agua potable para los habitantes del cantón. Por ende,\r\nprocede estimar el amparo en estudio, como así se dispone.”", "body_en_text": "**I.- PURPOSE OF THE APPEAL.** The appellants allege that the Mayor of the Municipality of León Cortés issued an administrative act authorizing the community of Montes de Oro to carry out water catchment (captación) works at a spring (naciente) located within a farm owned by the petitioner, despite the fact that the Municipal Mayor lacks the competence to issue such authorization, the legally established procedure for such purposes was not followed, nor were the corresponding technical studies conducted to guarantee the protection of water resources.\n\n**III.- ON THE MERITS.** As can be deduced from the preceding statement of proven facts, it is considered fully accredited that the Mayor of the Municipality of León Cortés issued a resolution at 10:00 a.m. on August 17, 2010, in which he “authorizes the community of El Montes de Oro to carry out the water catchment works for the indicated spring. […] located on farm number 88765-A-000, owned by the company named Agropecuaria Hermanos Quirós Sánchez tres mil cuatro sociedad anónima”. To this is added that the Mayor of the Municipality of León Cortés seeks to justify this determination based on the need to guarantee the supply of drinking water to the community of Montes de Oro and on the fact that water is a public domain asset. In which case, although this Chamber understands the concern of the Municipality of León Cortés to ensure that the inhabitants of its canton have access to water, this cannot justify the Municipality assuming powers that have not been attributed to it by the legal system and disregarding the regulations governing the matter –specifically, the provisions of Articles 17, 27, 176 and following of the Ley de Aguas (Law No. 276 of August 27, 1942), regarding the granting of authorizations or concessions for the use of public waters. This is especially so given that such regulations are intended to guarantee the proper use and enjoyment of water resources –and, with this, the protection of the fundamental rights to life, health, and a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. Regarding this issue, in judgment number 2005-16513 of 8:04 p.m. on November 29, 2005, this Chamber resolved –as pertinent– that:\n\n“**II.- On water as a public domain asset.** Public domain assets –such as water– have been exhaustively studied and analyzed by this Court, and in relevant part it has been noted:\n\n\"... the legal nature and regime are different when dealing with private property or public or State property, as the former is regulated in accordance with Article 45 of the Constitution and the pertinent rules of the Civil Code, such that its inviolability is protected, introducing the concept of social function, so that no one can be deprived of their property except for reasons of social interest and by means of a law approved by the Legislative Assembly with the vote of two-thirds of its members. For its part, the regulation of public domain property (propiedad demanial) is based on subsection 14) of Article 121 of the Constitution, as this Chamber already indicated in resolution number 2306-91, at two forty-five p.m. on November sixth, so that its legal nature is virtually different, which indicated that: 'The public domain is composed of assets which manifest, by the express will of the legislator, a special purpose of serving the community, the public interest. They are called dominical assets (bienes dominicales), demanial assets (bienes demaniales), public goods or things, which do not belong individually to private parties and are intended for public use and subject to a special regime, outside the commerce of men. That is, affected by their nature and vocation. Consequently, these assets belong to the State in the broadest sense of the concept, they are affected to the service they provide and which is invariably essential by virtue of an express norm. Characteristic notes of these assets are that they are inalienable, imprescriptible, unattachable, cannot be mortgaged nor be subject to any lien (gravamen) under the terms of Civil Law, and administrative action replaces interdicts to recover the domain. Since they are outside commerce, these assets cannot be the object of possession, although a right to use (aprovechamiento) can be acquired, though not a right to property; the use permit is a unilateral legal act issued by the Administration, in the exercise of its functions, and what is placed in the hands of the private party is the beneficial domain of the good, the State always reserving the direct domain over the thing. The precariousness of any right or use permit is inherent to the figure and alludes to the possibility that the administration may revoke it at any time, whether due to the State's need to fully occupy the good, for the construction of a public work, as well as for reasons of safety, hygiene, aesthetics, all to the extent that if a conflict of interests arises between the purpose of the good and the granted permit, the natural use of the public thing must prevail. Consequently, the national regime of public domain goods, ... places them outside the commerce of men and therefore the permits that are granted will always be under precarious title and revocable by the Administration, unilaterally, when reasons of necessity or general interest so dictate.' (judgment number 5976-93, at three forty-two p.m. on November sixteenth, nineteen ninety-three.)\n\nFurthermore, it has also been noted that, over such goods,\n\n\"... the State has full power, and especially concerning the protection of the natural resources of our country, a good over which the plaintiff (accionante) nor any individual has a right, be it possession, exploitation, and much less ownership.\n\n...\n\nit is not possible to consider Article 45 of the Constitution violated, ... since no limitations are imposed on private property, but rather, in regulating the public domain, the law establishes conditions through which use and enjoyment ... by private parties is possible. Thus, anyone who attempts by unauthorized means to exercise private use of that zone will be barred from consummating it, as it is also acceptable, since time immemorial, that these are goods which are imprescriptible in favor of private parties and are outside commerce.\" (judgment number 5399-93, at four thirty-nine p.m. on October twenty-sixth, nineteen ninety-three.)\n\n**III.- On the specific case.** In the particular case, the appellant alleges that the Ministry of Environment and Energy has irregularly permitted the extraction or exploitation of water sources in the protected zone of Monteverde, thereby benefiting only a small group of people to the detriment of the community, and it is for this reason that they request the intervention of this Court. On this matter, it must be remembered that water is of a public nature, as has been recognized in Article 4 of the Mining Code, which establishes:\n\n\"… mineral water sources and underground and surface waters are reserved for the State…\"\n\nAlong the same lines, Article 50 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente states:\n\n\"Water is of public domain, its conservation and sustainable use are of social interest.\"\n\n**IV.-** From the transcribed articles, it follows then that water is a public domain good for which authorizations for its use can be granted, the Ministry of Environment and Energy being precisely the entity called to grant such authorizations, after assessing the opportunity and convenience of their granting in a water use concession (aprovechamiento de aguas) procedure; a procedure justified due to the vital and necessary nature of water for the optimal development of humanity and because it is a scarce good, which increases its economic and social value. The water use concession procedure is established in the Ley de Aguas and must be followed in its entirety because it establishes a series of requirements intended, ultimately, to protect that resource and the environment in general.” (the underlining does not correspond to the original)\n\nMeanwhile, in resolution number 2007-000649, at 11:40 a.m. on January 19, 2007, this Chamber reiterated:\n\n“(…) Evidently, the right to life implies –among other multiple aspects– the right of the individual to obtain the water required for a dignified existence. However, this right cannot be distorted in the manner intended by the petitioner when he states he has a fundamental right over the use of water from an easement (servidumbre) he claims to have begun using in the 60s to supply his farm with water. On the contrary, in accordance with the provisions of Article 50 of the Political Constitution, the State is obligated to guarantee, defend, and preserve the nation's natural resources –among them water springs– for the purpose of making effective the right of all inhabitants to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. Thus, if the petitioner wishes to make use of any spring or river near his property, he must request the respective concession from the Ministry of Environment and Energy, in accordance with the provisions of the law. In this regard, Articles 27 and 176 of the Ley de Aguas number 276 establish:\n\n\" Article 27.-\n\nIn granting concessions for special uses of public waters, the following order of preference shall be observed:\n\n1. Piped water systems for populations whose control shall be in charge of the Secretariat of Public Health:\n\n11-. Supply of populations, domestic services, watering troughs, dairies, and baths; ...\"\n\n\" Article 176. - The Ministry of Environment and Energy shall exercise dominion and control over public waters to grant or deny concessions to those who request them, in accordance with the following rules:\n\n1.-…\n\n11-For other uses, in accordance with the rules of this law...\". (the underlining does not correspond to the original)\n\nThus, it is corroborated that it is the Ministry of Environment, Energy, and Telecommunications –and not the respondent Municipality– which is the competent instance to grant an authorization or concession for the use of public waters, following prior compliance with the procedure established for this purpose in the Ley de Aguas. To this is added that this Chamber has indicated that said procedure is intended to protect water resources –as is evident from the partially transcribed precedents–, as well as to grant the owners of the properties where the water sources or springs to be used are located the possibility of exercising the defense of their rights and interests (see, to this effect, judgment number 2009-009936 at 2:08 p.m. on June 19, 2009). In the case under study, such requirements have not been met, thereby generating an undue risk to the protection of water resources, and leaving the petitioner in a state of defenselessness, for which this Chamber concludes that Articles 21, 39, 45, and 50 of the Political Constitution have been violated. This does not prevent the Municipality from resorting to other mechanisms, duly authorized by the legal system, to secure the proper supply of drinking water for the inhabitants of the canton. Therefore, it is appropriate to grant the amparo appeal under study, as hereby ordered.\n\n

\n\n

Due to the public nature\nof water, the ownership held by the State is exercised through the\nMinistry of Environment and Energy (Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía) as established by Article 17 of the Water Law (Ley de Aguas):

\n\n

\"Authorization is required\nfor the use (aprovechamiento) of public waters, especially those dedicated to\nenterprises of public or private interest. Such authorization shall be granted by the Ministry\nof Environment and Energy in the manner prescribed in this law, an\ninstitution which has the authority to decide and resolve on the domain,\nuse, utilization, governance, or surveillance of public domain waters,\nin accordance with Law No. 258 of August 18,\n1941…\"

\n\n

IV.-\nFrom the transcribed articles, it follows that water is\na public domain asset for which authorizations for its use can be granted, and it is precisely the Ministry of Environment and Energy\nthat is called upon to grant such authorizations, after assessing the\ntimeliness and convenience of granting them in a water use concession (concesión de aprovechamiento de aguas) procedure; a procedure justified by\nthe vital and necessary nature of water for the optimal development of humanity\nand because it is a scarce resource, which increases its economic and\nsocial value. The water use concession procedure is\nestablished in the Water Law and must be fully followed because it establishes a series of\nrequirements that ultimately aim to protect this resource and the\nenvironment in general.\" (the underlining does not\ncorrespond to the original)

\n\n

Meanwhile, in\nruling number 2007-000649, at 11:40 a.m. on January 19, 2007,\nthis Chamber reiterated:

\n\n

"(…) Evidently, the\nright to life implies -among many other aspects- the right of the\nindividual to supply themselves with the water required for a dignified existence. However,\nthis right cannot be distorted in the way the petitioner claims when stating they have a fundamental\nright over the use of the waters of an easement (servidumbre) they say\nbegan using since the 60’s,\nto supply their farm with water. On the contrary, in accordance with\nthe provisions of Article 50 of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política),\nthe State is obliged to guarantee, defend, and preserve the natural\nresources of the nation, -including water springs (nacientes)- with the purpose of\nmaking effective the right of all inhabitants to a healthy and\necologically balanced environment. Therefore, if the petitioner\nwishes to use any spring or river near their property, they must request\nthe respective concession from the Ministry of Environment and Energy, in accordance\nwith the provisions of the law. In this regard, Articles 27 and 176\nof the Water Law number 276 establish:

\n\n

" Article\n27.-

\n\n

In the concession of\nspecial uses of public waters, the following order\nof preference shall be observed:

\n\n

1. Water pipes for populations\nwhose control is the responsibility of the Secretariat of Public Health:

\n\n

11-. Supply of\npopulations, domestic services, watering places, dairies, and baths; .. ."

\n\n

"\nArticle 176. - The Ministry of Environment and\nEnergy shall exercise the domain and control of public waters to grant\nor deny concessions to those who request them, in accordance with the following\nrules:

\n\n

1.-…

\n\n

11-For other\nuses, in accordance with the rules of this law...". (the underlining does not correspond to\nthe original)

\n\n

This corroborates that it is the Ministry of Environment, Energy and Telecommunications (Ministerio de Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones) -and not the\nappellee Municipality (Municipalidad)- that is the competent body to grant an authorization or concession\nfor the use of public waters, following prior observance of the procedure\nestablished for this purpose in the Water Law. To which it is added that this Chamber has indicated that said procedure\naims to protect water resources –as is evident from the\npartially transcribed precedents–, as well as to grant the owners of\nthe properties, where the water sources or springs to be used are located,\nthe possibility of exercising the defense of their rights and interests (see, to that\neffect, ruling number 2009-009936 at 2:08 p.m. on June 19,\n2009). In the case under study, such requirements have not been met, which has\ngenerated an undue risk to the protection of water resources, and has\nleft the protected party in a state of defenselessness, therefore this Chamber concludes\nthat Articles 21, 39, 45, and 50 of the Political Constitution have been violated.\nThis does not prevent the Municipality\nfrom resorting to other mechanisms, duly\nauthorized by the legal system, to ensure the due\nsupply of drinking water for the inhabitants of the canton. Therefore,\nit is appropriate to grant the amparo (amparo) under study, as hereby ordered.”

\n\n

 

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nRegarding this matter, it must be remembered that water is of a public nature, as recognized in Article 4 of the Mining Code, which establishes:

\n\n

\"…mineral sources and waters and subterranean and surface waters are reserved for the State…\"

\n\n

Along the same lines, Article 50 of the Organic Environmental Law (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente) states:

\n\n

\"Water is in the public domain; its conservation and sustainable use are matters of social interest\".

\n\n

Due to the public nature of water, the ownership held by the State is exercised through the Ministry of Environment and Energy as established in Article 17 of the Water Law (Ley de Aguas):

\n\n

\"Authorization is required for the use of public waters, especially those dedicated to public or private interest enterprises. Said authorization shall be granted by the Ministry of Environment and Energy in the manner prescribed in this law, the institution to which it corresponds to provide for and resolve on the domain, use, utilization, governance, or surveillance over waters in the public domain, in accordance with Law N° 258 of August 18, 1941…\"

\n\n

IV.-\nFrom the transcribed articles, it follows then that water is a public-domain good for which authorizations for use can be granted, it being precisely the Ministry of Environment and Energy that is called upon to grant such authorizations, following an assessment of the timeliness and suitability of granting it in a water-use concession procedure; a procedure that is justified due to the vital and necessary nature of water for the optimal development of humanity and because it is a scarce good, which increases its economic and social value. The water-use concession procedure is established in the Water Law and it must be followed completely because it establishes a series of requirements that are intended, ultimately, to protect that resource and the environment in general.\" (the underlining is not from the original)

\n\n

While in ruling number 2007-000649, at 11:40 a.m. on January 19, 2007, this Chamber reiterated:

\n\n

"(…) Evidently, the right to life implies -among many other aspects- the right of the individual to supply themselves with the water they require for a dignified existence. However, this right cannot be distorted in the manner intended by the petitioner when he states that he has a fundamental right over the use of the waters of an easement (servidumbre) that he says he began using in the 60's, to supply his farm with water. On the contrary, in accordance with the provisions of Article 50 of the Political Constitution, the State is obligated to guarantee, defend, and preserve the natural resources of the nation -including water springs (nacientes)- for the purpose of making effective the right that all inhabitants have to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. Therefore, if the petitioner wishes to use any spring (naciente) or river near his property, he must request the respective concession from the Ministry of Environment and Energy, in accordance with the provisions of the law. In this regard, Articles 27 and 176 of the Water Law number 276 establish:

\n\n

" Article\n27.-

\n\n

In granting concessions for special uses of public waters, the following order of preference shall be observed:

\n\n

1. Pipelines for towns, whose control shall be in charge of the Secretariat of Public Health:

\n\n

11-. Supply of towns, domestic services, watering troughs, dairies and baths; .. ."

\n\n

"\nArticle 176. - The Ministry of Environment and Energy shall exercise domain and control over public waters to grant or deny concessions to those who request them, in accordance with the following rules:

\n\n

1.-…

\n\n

11-For other uses, in accordance with the rules of this law...". (the underlining is not from the original)

\n\n

This corroborates that it is the Ministry of Environment, Energy and Telecommunications -and not the respondent Municipality- that is the competent instance to grant an authorization or concession for the use of public waters, subject to compliance with the procedure established for that purpose in the Water Law. To which it is added that this Chamber has indicated that said procedure is intended to protect water resources –as is evident from the partially transcribed precedents–, as well as to give the owners of the properties where the water sources or springs (nacientes) to be used are located the possibility of defending their rights and interests (see, to that effect, judgment number 2009-009936 at 2:08 p.m. on June 19, 2009). In the case under study, such requirements have not been met, thereby generating an undue risk for the protection of water resources, and leaving the protected party in a state of defenselessness, for which reason this Chamber concludes that Articles 21, 39, 45, and 50 of the Political Constitution have been infringed. This does not prevent the Municipality from resorting to other mechanisms, duly authorized by the legal system, to procure the proper supply of potable water for the inhabitants of the canton. Therefore, the amparo under study is to be granted, as is hereby ordered.

\n\n

 

\n\n\n\n\n\n" }