Jorge Araya G.
In response to said mandate, the General Management of AyA convened the Workshop held on March 9, 2011, for the purpose of adding to and clarifying Agreement 2007-177, accepting what was indicated by the Chamber and resulting in Agreement 2011-112 (published in La Gaceta No. 83 of May 2, 2011) (Anexo 2) which modifies Agreement 2007-177 (published in La Gaceta No. 83 of Wednesday, May 2, 2007), solely in its Second Por Tanto, regarding the enumeration of land-use regulation recommendations for Zone 6, with the following restriction guidelines and in application of the “Land Use Criteria Matrix According to Aquifer Contamination Vulnerability for the Protection of Water Resources,” issued by the Board of Directors of Nombre02 in session on September 26, 2006.
Said modification did not imply a variation regarding the intrinsic vulnerability of the aquifer or the location of the zones described therein, which was known to SENARA. Similarly, it is important to note that Nombre02 has been aware of said agreements, starting from publication in La Gaceta to the official letters that were sent by AyA and published regulations, as detailed below:
• Via note SUB-AID-GA-2014-240 (Anexo 3), it forwards Board of Directors agreements 2007-177 and 2011-112 to SENARA, as well as the hydrogeological study called HYDROGEOLOGICAL STUDY AND VULNERABILITY OF THE MOIN AQUIFER, LIMON, with its technical detail, requesting to coordinate a meeting to define homogeneous criteria.
• Via official letter PRE-2018-00819 (Anexo 4), dated September 24, 2018 and received September 25, 2018, it forwarded to Nombre02 Agreement 2007-177 and Agreement 2011-112, duly published in La Gaceta, on the occasion of inter-institutional coordination efforts.
• The Moín aquifer is known by Nombre02 to be a strategic zone for population supply, as has been made official in the Regulation for the registration of unnumbered wells and enabling of the groundwater concession procedure (Reglamento de registro de pozos sin número y habilitación del trámite de concesión de aguas subterráneas) No. 41851-MP-MINAE-MAG, (Anexo 5) which cites in Article 9, item a, the Moín Aquifer as a strategic zone.
• Via official letter DA-1593-2025 (Anexo 6), the Water Directorate of MINAE indicates that on the official SINIGIRH platform, the map with the delimitation of Zone 6 of the Moín Aquifer is available, which is accessible to the general public, including SENARA.
As of the date of this report, AyA has not received comments from Nombre02 regarding the scope of the Board of Directors Agreement.
Based on the foregoing, what was cited by Nombre02 regarding ignorance or lack of consultation by AyA to said entity is unacceptable, given that the Board of Directors agreements have been communicated and informed through different means and also through official letters that substantiate the contrary.
POINT 2.-“We have no information that the zones defined by A y A are incorporated into the Limón regulatory plan (plan regulador). It is recommended that this question be asked to A y A, whether the proposed zoning was incorporated into the current Regulatory Plan or a proposed change thereto.”
AyA Response:
Regarding the incorporation of the scope and recommendations established in the AyA Board of Directors Agreements into the Regulatory Plan of the Municipality of Limón, it is indicated that the Municipality of Limón did not consult AyA, so the Institute has no knowledge of the actions and criteria used by the Municipality.
AyA, under a principle of coordination and to facilitate information to the Municipality, made an inquiry via official letter GSP-RHC-2025-00048 (Anexo 7) to the Mayoress of the Municipality of Limón and to the Municipal Council regarding whether the recommendations of the AyA Board of Directors Agreements were included in the Regulatory Plan of Limón, and as of the date of this report, no response has been sent to this Institute by the Local Government.
Similarly, AyA had previously provided memoranda to the Local Government and the Ministry of Health via official letters in prior years: official letters PRE-1426-2012 (Anexo 8), No. UEN – GA – 2018 – 00322 (Anexo 9) dated March 2018, and UEN – GA – 2018 – 01975 (Anexo 10), dated November 2018, with the objective that they be incorporated into the Regulatory Plan and the land-use planning (ordenamiento territorial) policies established by the Local Government.
Due to the different coordination efforts and notes cited above, AyA officials, in the Extraordinary Session dated June 19, 2019, presented to the Municipality of Limón the scope of Board of Directors Agreements 2007-177 and 2011-112, with the objective that the inputs be considered in the preparation of the Land-Use Planning and/or Regulatory Plan policies. In the minutes of said session, officials from the Municipality of Limón are appointed to form part of the coordination for the review of activities in Zone 6 (Anexo 11).
On the other hand, the Constitutional Chamber in File: 06-015593-0007-CO Res. No. 2008-004751, at twelve hours zero minutes on March twenty-seventh, two thousand eight, had issued a mandate to the Local Government to include AyA's considerations and recommendations in the Regulatory Plan, considering the nature of the Agreements issued by AyA 2007-177 and 2011-112 (which modified the provisions established in agreement 80-121 of session 80-028 of April fourteenth, nineteen eighty), in which it is cited: “…VII.- Municipality of Limón and its Regulatory Plan: It is verified that the Municipality of Limón published its Regulatory Plan on Wednesday, October thirty-first, two thousand one via Gaceta 209, without including the guidelines for the water protection zone of the springs (nacientes) of Moín – Limón. This despite the fact that by agreement 80-121 of session 80-028 of April fourteenth, nineteen eighty, the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers declared a water protection zone for the springs of Moín Limón… Thus, the respondent Municipality failed in its duty to protect and conserve waters, in accordance with Articles 21, 50, and 169 of the Political Constitution. Thus, it is determined that the Municipality of Limón has incurred in the omission of safeguarding the water protection zones of Moín. Consequently, the Mayor of the Municipality of Limón is ordered to modify, within a period of 24 months, the Regulatory Plan of Limón in order to include the provisions established in agreement 80-121 of session 80-028 of April fourteenth, nineteen eighty by the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers…” (the bold text is not from the original).
Furthermore, on the occasion of the response to File 22-008354-0007-CO, in Minute SINAC-ACLAC-DAP-022-2022 by the Municipality (Alba Ortiz Rezo) it was indicated “...that at the moment it is not opportune to present what has been advanced with the regulatory plan, because it remains in a draft document state, and indicates that an assessment will be made when a more advanced product is available...” , and as of the date of this report, this Institute has not received the corresponding information.
POINT 3.-“As previously mentioned, the technical study carried out by AyA indicates that the character of Zone 6 is an Absolute Protection Zone, which corresponds to extreme vulnerability, and according to the Land Use Criteria Matrix According to Aquifer Contamination Vulnerability for the Protection of Water Resources in the Poás Canton (Matriz de Criterios de Uso del Suelo según la Vulnerabilidad a la Contaminación de Acuíferos para la Protección del Recurso Hídrico en el Cantón Poás), if this matrix were applied, no land use would be permitted. However, AyA Board of Directors Agreements No. 2007-177 and AyA No. 112-2011 indicate that the character of Zone 6 is a Restricted Protection Zone with High Vulnerability, where the recommendations established in the Land Use Criteria Matrix According to Aquifer Contamination Vulnerability for the Protection of Water Resources in the Poás Canton were also not applied.
Finally, and based on the restrictions established in AyA Board of Directors Agreement No. 2007-177, it is considered that the protection zone should be elevated to an ABSOLUTE CHARACTER AND EXTREME VULNERABILITY (no activities of any kind are permitted), which in general is how A y A itself defines it in its hydrogeological study.”
AyA Response:
It is important to note that the “Hydrogeological Study and Vulnerability of the Moín Aquifer, Limón” prepared by AyA does not have the objective of defining Absolute Protection Zones, as cited by Nombre02, said interpretation being incorrect. The cited study, as mentioned in the response to Point 1 of this report, was prepared and supervised by competent professionals in Hydrogeology from the UCR, AyA, and external Experts, which was based on science and technique, with the rigorous and objective application of information mapped in the field (geological, land use, hydrogeological, infiltration tests, etc.), quality analysis, and the application of the specific methodology for defining the intrinsic vulnerability to contamination for Karst aquifers (sistema EPIK), the main objective being the definition of the Aquifer Vulnerability, which was categorized for 10 zones, among them Zone 6, which is defined as High Vulnerability and not Extreme as mentioned by SENARA.
Based on the foregoing, it is clarified that Zone 6, according to the “Hydrogeological Study and Vulnerability of the Moín Aquifer, Limón,” has High Vulnerability, which conceptually does not correspond to an Absolute Protection Zone.
As of the date of preparation of this report, Nombre02 or another institution has not presented to this Institute a vulnerability study that defines the Vulnerability category for the Moín aquifer in Zone 6 as Extreme, which could be analyzed by this Institution as the governing body for drinking water supply and with the support of other institutions, for the analysis of the implications that the restrictions proposed by Nombre02 in the vulnerability matrix would have for an aquifer of Extreme vulnerability, where activities such as urban development, livestock activities, agricultural activities, and other activities like commerce, industry, warehouses, etc., are not permitted.
POINT 4.-In the event of maintaining the HIGH VULNERABILITY criterion, the Land Use Criteria Matrix According to Aquifer Contamination Vulnerability for the Protection of Water Resources in the Poás Canton defines the parameters that must be considered by A y A and the municipality, to be incorporated into the Regulatory Plan of Limón. In the event of EXTREME VULNERABILITY, no land use is permitted. It is considered that this aspect must be resolved by A y A, to safeguard the quality of water for human consumption.
AyA Response:
AyA, based on science and technique, conducted the study called “Hydrogeological Study and Vulnerability of the Moín Aquifer, Limón,” in which, through the Board of Directors of said Institute, it accepts the categorization of the intrinsic vulnerability of the Moín aquifer for the 10 ten defined zones; therefore, until there is a study with a level of detail superior to the study cited and carried out by professionals in the field of hydrogeology, with professional objectivity and analyzed by AyA professionals, it is not appropriate to make a modification to what was established and ratified in Board of Directors Agreements No. 2007-177 and No. 2011-112. Based on the foregoing, AyA communicated the Board of Directors agreements to the Local Government as has been demonstrated in the response to Point 2 of this report through different notes, so that they would be included in the Regulatory Plan, without having received a response from the Local Government to date.
POINT 5.-From the point of view of the monitoring network, SENARA has no information on its existence, nor on exhaustive hydrogeological studies that change any condition of the aquifer and the use recommendations.
AyA Response:
Through SENARA's response, it does not contradict what AyA has proposed in the “Hydrogeological Study and Vulnerability of the Moín Aquifer, Limón” and states that it also has no knowledge of other exhaustive studies being conducted in said zone. NOTE __
The annexes can be accessed at the following link:
https://intranetaya-my.sharepoint.com/:f:/g/personal/cdelgado_aya_go_cr/IgDBTY5GUTQtR4ymyrtQme5 jAY7fX_eb8joi2ODnJLwqMD0?e=5zJsXt
OFFICIAL LETTER SENARA-GG-OFI-056-2026
Below, a response is given to each of the observations made by Nombre02 in OFFICIAL LETTER SENARA-GG-OFI-056-2026:
POINT 1.-“The inter-institutional communications and coordination carried out, as well as the absence of prior formal consultations with Nombre02 by the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers (AyA), the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism (Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo, INVU), or the Municipality of Limón, regarding the definition and application of Zone 6.”
AyA Response:
This point was addressed in the response to Point 1 and Point 2 of official letter SENARA-DIGH013-2026.
POINT 2.-The institutional technical criterion regarding the condition of absolute protection and extreme vulnerability of Zone 6 of the aquifer, in accordance with the Land Use Criteria Matrix According to Aquifer Contamination Vulnerability.
AyA Response:
This point was addressed in the response to Point 1, Point 3, and Point 4 of official letter SENARA-DIGH-013-2026
POINT 3.-The technical considerations regarding the incorporation of said zoning into land-use planning instruments and the competencies of the entities responsible for its implementation.
AyA Response:
This point was addressed in the response to Point 2 and Point 4 of official letter SENARA-DIGH013-2026
POINT 4.-The land-use restrictions applicable according to the level of vulnerability, as well as the absence of subsequent hydrogeological studies or monitoring networks that justify a relaxation of the established protection regime.
AyA Response:
This point was addressed in the response to Point 5 of official letter SENARA-DIGH-013- 2026
4.-LEGAL BASIS
This report is rendered in accordance with Articles 21 and 50 of the Political Constitution, Article 43 et seq. and concordant articles of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional), Articles 113 et seq. and concordant articles of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública), and Articles 1 and 2 of the Constitutive Law of the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers (Law No. 2726).
5.-PETITION
Based on the foregoing, we respectfully request the Honorable Constitutional Chamber to deem the granted hearing duly attended, and to accept as accredited that the actions of this Institution have been carried out within the scope of its legal competencies, safeguarding constitutional and legal principles, aimed at the protection of water resources, the fundamental human right of access to water, and the public service of drinking water supply. May this Honorable Constitutional Chamber take into account the actions of the COSTA RICAN INSTITUTE OF AQUEDUCTS AND SEWERS in fulfillment of its purposes – within the framework of its competencies – it being evident that it has not disobeyed or violated constitutional or environmental norms, guarantees, or principles, but rather has acted responsibly. It is fully accredited that Nombre02 indeed had prior, formal, and documented knowledge of the AyA Agreements and the hydrogeological study that supports them, as recorded in the documents issued by both institutions; therefore, the appeal filed by Mr. Nombre01 must inevitably be dismissed in all its aspects, with respect to my represented party. We request that it be so declared.”
4.- Osvaldo Quirós Arias reports under oath, in his capacity as General Manager of Nombre02 (submission presented at 10:28 hours on February 27, 2026) in the following terms:
“REGARDING THE FACTS:
In accordance with the resolution that grants course to this amparo, the appeal is directed against actions or omissions by INVU, in relation to the Moín aquifer.
The claims involve the Municipality of Limón, by indicating, among others, that INVU be ordered to coordinate administrative actions with the Municipality of Limón, AyA, and Nombre02 to amend the urban regulatory plan of Limón.
\n\nSUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS:\n\nThe petitioner here, as well as another person, have already filed amparo appeals in relation to this situation and against the same institutions; we have, among others, case file 25-028736-0007-CO, case file 25-038309-0007-CO, and in the same vein, Mr. Nombre03 filed amparo appeal: 25-029204-0007-CO.\n\nOn the 17th of this month, obeying orders from the Constitutional Chamber, Nombre02 provided evidence for a better resolution in case file: 25-038309-0007-CO.\n\nThe petitioner has been given timely responses regarding the action taken by SENARA.\n\nI request that, for procedural economy, an order be issued to consolidate these four proceedings, so that a single resolution is issued for them, as they meet the normal judicial parameters of identity of parties, object, and cause, the fundamental cause of the appeals being the protection of the Moín aquifer, designated by AyA as Zone 6 of the Moín coastal aquifer.\n\nFUNDAMENTAL CONCLUSIONS ON THE AQUIFER:\n\nThe technical study carried out by AyA indicates that the character of Zone 6 is one of Absolute Protection Zone, which corresponds to extreme vulnerability,\n\nIf the Land Use Criteria Matrix According to Aquifer Contamination Vulnerability for the Protection of Water Resources in the Poás Canton were to be applied, no land use is permitted. Based on the restrictions established in AyA Board of Directors Agreement No. 2007-177, it is considered that the protection zone should be elevated to an ABSOLUTE CHARACTER AND EXTREME VULNERABILITY (no activities of any kind are permitted), which is how AyA itself generally defines it in its hydrogeological study.”\n\n**5.-** By document received at the Secretariat of the Chamber at 3:42 p.m. on February 27, 2026, the petitioner states the following:\n\n\"I submit this SUPPLEMENTARY REPLY AND CRITICAL DOCUMENTARY ANALYSIS BRIEF, as an expansion of the main reply filed on this same date and based on articles 12 and 29 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law (power to expand evidence and duty to provide reasons).\n\nI attach as documentary evidence the complete official letter PRE-1426-2012 (10 pages), issued by the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers (AyA) itself on November 6 and 9, 2012, together with the sending and receipt confirmation emails. I proceed to its detailed critical, technical, and legal analysis, which irrefutably demonstrates the deliberate environmental regression, manifest negligence, and institutional arbitrariness that AyA seeks to conceal in its report of February 26, 2026.\n\nCRITICAL ANALYSIS OF EACH OFFICIAL LETTER IN FILE PRE-1426-2012\n\n1. Official letter addressed to Lic. Nestor Mattis-Williams, Mayor of the Municipality of Limón (November 9, 2012, pages 1-2 and confirmation email from Grace Madrigal Barrantes of November 12, 2012, page 3)\n\nAyA literally cites Ruling No. 2008-004751 of this Chamber, which ordered, under penalty of disobedience and within a non-extendable period of 12 months, the modification of the Regulatory Plan to \"include the provisions established in agreement 80-121\" (absolute protection of Zone 6). Immediately afterwards, it reports that said agreement \"was revoked\" by AyA itself and replaced by Agreements 2007-177 and 2011-112, which are limited to \"restriction guidelines\" and \"land use regulation recommendations\" according to the Nombre02 matrix of 2006.\n\nTechnical and legal critique: This official letter constitutes a flagrant regressive maneuver. AyA used the constitutional mandate of this Chamber not to comply with it, but to legitimize its own revocation of the absolute protection and replace it with a manifestly more lax regime. Far from demanding compliance with the ruling from the Municipality, AyA notified them of the relaxation it had itself created. The receipt confirmed on November 12, 2012, and the total absence of effective follow-up for 13 years and 3 months (until February 2026) demonstrates willful negligence and systematic breach of the duty of coordination and effectiveness (art. 11 General Public Administration Law and art. 169 Political Constitution). This conduct is incompatible with the principles of non-regression, precautionary, and pro natura (*in dubio pro natura*).\n\n2. Official letter addressed to Eng. Uriel Juárez Baltodano, Technical Environmental Secretary (SETENA) (November 6, 2012, page 4)\n\nAyA forwards the same information to SETENA: revocation of 80-121 and substitution with the \"restriction\" agreements and the SENARA matrix.\n\nCritique: SETENA is the technical body responsible for the environmental impact assessment of projects. By notifying it of the more permissive regime, AyA actively facilitated the approval of urban developments incompatible with the aquifer's vulnerability. This action is not mere \"communication\"; it is institutional cooperation for environmental regression, which has allowed the urbanization of wetlands and forests on private properties within Zone 6.\n\n3. Official letter addressed to Licda. Yamilette Mata Dobles, President of the Environmental Administrative Tribunal (November 6, 2012, page 5)\n\nIdentical content: revocation of the absolute protection agreement and notification of the new restrictive regime.\n\nCritique: Addressing this official letter to the environmental jurisdictional body reveals AyA's attempt to \"pre-notify\" and legitimize its own regressive act before the environmental justice system. It is legally unacceptable for the governing body of drinking water to inform the Environmental Tribunal of the relaxation of a strategic aquifer without demanding immediate corrective measures.\n\n4. Official letter addressed to Lic. Rene Castro Salazar, Minister of Environment and Energy (MINAE) (November 9, 2012, page 6)\n\nSame text: revocation of 80-121 and substitution with agreements 2007-177 and 2011-112.\n\nCritique: MINAE holds the general stewardship in environmental matters (Organic Environmental Law). Notifying it of the regression without promoting its correction constitutes a serious omission of inter-institutional coordination and prioritization of AyA's institutional interests over the superior public interest of protecting the water resource.\n\n5. Official letter addressed to Dr. Daisy Corrales Díaz, Minister of Health (November 9, 2012, page 7)\n\nIdentical pattern: revocation of the absolute protection and notification of the restrictive regime.\n\nCritique: The Ministry of Health is responsible for the potability of water for human consumption. Informing it that the protection of the aquifer that supplied Limón after the 1991 earthquake has been relaxed constitutes an unacceptable prioritization of economic considerations over the human right to health and drinking water (arts. 21 and 50 Political Constitution).\n\nInternal emails from Grace Madrigal Barrantes (pages 3, 8, 9, and 10):\n\nThese emails demonstrate that the Executive Presidency of AyA internally coordinated the mass dispatch of the official letters. However, there is no evidence whatsoever of follow-up, oversight, or demand for compliance.\n\nGENERAL CONCLUSION OF THE ANALYSIS\n\nFile PRE-1426-2012, invoked by AyA itself in its report of February 26, 2026, as \"proof\" of having fulfilled its duties, reveals exactly the opposite: AyA had full knowledge of this Chamber's mandate since 2008, unilaterally decided to revoke the absolute protection of Agreement 80-121, and notified all competent institutions of its own regressive act, without ever promoting its effective correction.\n\nThis conduct constitutes institutionalized environmental regression, manifest and continued negligence for more than 13 years, and administrative arbitrariness that has permitted the illegal urbanization of wetlands and forests in Zone 6. The official letters do not meet the standard of \"effective coordination\" required by the jurisprudence of this Chamber (rulings 2008-004790, 2008-010372, 2008-004751, 2012-013367, and 2019-017397). On the contrary, they prove the imperative need for this Honorable Chamber to impose the maximum legal rigor.\n\nSUPPLEMENTARY PETITION\n\nFor all the foregoing, I respectfully request this Honorable Chamber:\n\n1. To accept this supplementary brief as filed and to incorporate the complete official letter PRE-1426-2012 (10 pages) as documentary evidence.\n\n2. To assess the preceding critical analysis as a fundamental element for the resolution of the appeal.\n\n3. Consequently, and in harmony with the petition of the main reply:\na) Declare the amparo appeal with merit.\nb) Revoke AyA Board of Directors Agreements No. 2007-177 and No. 2011-112 for manifest environmental regression.\nc) Order the annulment of the Urban Regulatory Plan of the Central Canton of Limón in the part that omits the absolute protection of Zone 6.\nd) Order urgent precautionary measures, the restoration of forests and wetlands on private properties, and the exhaustive assessment of environmental damage by the Department of Forensic Sciences of the OIJ, based on the principles *in dubio pro natura* and of prevention.\ne) Order the respondents to pay costs and damages.\"\n\n**6.-** Hilda Martha Carvajal Bonilla, in her capacity as Head of the Urbanism Department of INVU, reports under oath (document filed at 9:16 a.m. on March 2, 2026) in the following terms:\n\n\"I. *FACTS ALLEGED BY THE PETITIONER*\n\nThe petitioner states that Zone 6 of the Moín Coastal Aquifer was declared an absolute protection zone by the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers since the 1980s, reinforced again in 2007 and 2011, due to its strategic importance for the province of Limón.\n\nHe indicates that despite those agreements, he has for years denounced the omission of incorporating said absolute protection area into the Urban Regulatory Plan of Limón. He points out that this omission violates the principle of environmental integrity and exposes the aquifer to serious, irreversible risks.\n\nThat on January 27, 2026, the Directorate of Hydric Research and Management of the National Groundwater, Irrigation, and Drainage Service (SENARA) issued technical official letter SENARA-DIGH-006-2026, in which it ratifies the high and extreme vulnerability of \"Zone 6\" and the incompatibility of the regulatory plan with the institutional vulnerability matrix.\n\nThat on February 2, 2026, he sent official letter AEL-008-2026 to INVU requesting accountability, prioritization of amendments to the regulatory plan, and institutional coordination, attaching the SENARA report. INVU responded via official letter CDU-047-02-2026, denying responsibility, alleging lack of competence, and pointing out that the matter had already been resolved in a previous resolution of the Constitutional Chamber. However, the petitioner indicates that said response did not assess the new technical report from Nombre02 nor did it order any action to correct the inconsistencies of that regulatory plan, alleging that this omission disregards the principles of prevention, precaution, and non-regression, posing an imminent risk to the thousands of inhabitants of the province of Limón.\n\nII. *REPORT OF THE RESPONDENT INSTITUTE*\n\nOn February 26, 2026, via official letter CDU-079-02-2026, signed by geographer Hilda Carvajal Bonilla, Head of the Urbanism Department, architect Daniel Brenes Arroyo, Head of the Territorial Planning Technical and Operational Criteria Unit, and licensed lawyer Marco Vinicio Arias Alfaro, Legal Advisor of the Urbanism Department, to report the following:\n\n(…) this Institute lacks the competence to order, instruct, or prioritize amendments to a Regulatory Plan that is in force. According to the applicable legal framework, any modification to the Regulatory Plan corresponds exclusively to the respective Municipality and must be processed anew according to the procedure established in article 17 of the Urban Planning Law, including the environmental assessment before SETENA.\n\n(…) The technical criteria issued by SENARA, including those contained in official letter SENARA-DIGH-006-2026, constitute technical inputs pertaining to the scope of competence of said institution; however, the issuance of these inputs does not automatically imply the modification of a current urban planning instrument.\n\n(…) It is worth reiterating that everything related to the environmental aspect when developing a Regulatory Plan is the exclusive competence of SETENA; the role of said agency in regulatory plans focuses on the inclusion of the environmental variable in territorial planning, according to the Organic Environmental Law.\n\n(…) Developers, environmental consultants, public and private institutions, including municipalities, are client users; they process the obtaining of the Environmental License or Registry before SETENA, while environmental consultants are professionals appointed by the developer to manage compliance with the environmental commitments linked to the actions of the project or activity.\n\n(…) INVU has not incurred, during the approval process of the Regulatory Plan of Limón, in any conduct that could be categorized as administrative omissions that go against the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.\n\n(…) This honorable Constitutional Chamber has already issued clear pronouncements regarding the validity of the Regulatory Plan of Limón, ratifying its force. In the most recent ruling processed through resolution No. 2025039386 at nine hours twenty minutes on November twenty-eighth, two thousand twenty-five, of case file No. 25-028736-0007-CO, this Tribunal *declared without merit* the Amparo Appeal processed by the same petitioner who today files this new proceeding.\n\n(…)\n\nIII. *PETITION*\n\nBased on the arguments of fact and law presented, it is respectfully requested that, in judgment:\n\n1. The present Amparo Appeal be declared without merit and consequently, the definitive archiving of the case file be ordered.\n\n2. A ruling be made without special condemnation for personal and procedural costs against INVU.\n\n3.\n\nIt is resolved without special condemnation for damages against the INVU.\"\n\n**7.-** By brief received at the Secretariat of the Chamber at 10:11 a.m. on March 2, 2026, the appellant states the following:\n\n\"Subject: Reply to the report rendered by the General Manager of the National Groundwater, Irrigation and Drainage Service (Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento, SENARA) in file No. 26-005469-0007-CO\nLadies and Gentlemen Magistrates:\nI, Nombre01, in my capacity as appellant in the present amparo appeal proceeding, address this honorable Chamber respectfully and formally, with the purpose of presenting this reply to the report rendered by Engineer Osvaldo Quirós Arias, General Manager of SENARA, dated February 26, 2026, in compliance with the resolution issued at one forty-six p.m. on February twenty, two thousand twenty-six.\nThis reply constitutes an endorsement of the conclusive report by the General Manager of SENARA, supporting in all its aspects the statements contained in said report, which are based on the Creation Law of Nombre02 (Law No. 6877 of July 18, 1983), which in its Article 3 establishes the functions of this autonomous institution, among them, to develop and execute policies for the use and distribution of water, as well as to conduct research on groundwater to guarantee its protection and sustainable use, in harmony with the Costa Rican environmental legal system.\nThe fundamental conclusions of the SENARA report, based on technical studies by the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers (Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, AyA), classify Zone 6 of the Moín coastal aquifer as a Zone of Absolute Protection with extreme vulnerability, where no land use or activities of any type are permitted, in accordance with the Matrix of Criteria for Land Use According to Aquifer Contamination Vulnerability and AyA Board of Directors Agreement No. 2007-177. This position aligns with the constitutional mandate of Article 50 of the Political Constitution, which imposes on the State the obligation to guarantee, defend, and preserve the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, binding all public institutions in the protection of the environment in its broadest possible sense.\nIn accordance with the report rendered by the General Manager of SENARA, the land-use change (cambio de uso del suelo) at Dirección01 must not be permitted, ratifying the appropriateness of the present amparo appeal and the repeated non-compliance by the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism (Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo, INVU) and the Municipality of Limón, violating the most basic principles of both national and international environmental law, such as the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands (ratified by Costa Rica through Law No. 7224 of April 2, 1991) and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES, ratified by Law No. 5605 of October 30, 1974), which require the strict protection of vulnerable ecosystems and the prevention of environmental degradation.\nThe vast jurisprudence of this Constitutional Chamber forcefully supports the impossibility of permitting land-use changes (cambios de uso del suelo) in Zone 6, according to the matrix of Nombre02 and the statements of Engineer Quirós Arias. For example, in judgment No. 2004-01923 of February 25, 2004, this Chamber emphasized the urgency of protecting aquifer layers against degradation and contamination, establishing protection perimeters as novel instruments to safeguard water resources. Likewise, in judgment No. 2017-17353 of October 31, 2017, the overexploitation of aquifers and the need for administrative actions by Nombre02 for their preservation were noted. In specific relation to the Moín aquifer, judgment No. 2022-022XXX (approximate, based on a resolution of October 2022) ordered its immediate protection, recognizing its critical situation due to fractured and cavernous geological formations that increase vulnerability to contamination. Additionally, in judgment No. 2025-035761 of October 31, 2025, the violation of Article 50 of the Constitution was declared for environmental damages, underlining the state's responsibility to reverse regressive actions that compromise water resources. These resolutions, among many others, confirm that any omission or action contrary to the absolute protection of vulnerable zones such as Zone 6 constitutes an injury to the fundamental right to a healthy environment, also derived from the rights to health and life.\nZone 6 faces serious problems attributable to the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers (AyA), whose conduct has been calculatedly irresponsible in issuing criteria that are totally regressive and contrary to law, particularly from the year 2007 onward, when its Board of Directors approved measures that allowed incompatible activities in areas of absolute protection, ignoring hydrogeological studies that define the zone with absolute character and extreme vulnerability. This action violates the principle of environmental non-regression, recognized by this Chamber in judgments such as No. 2006-01252 of February 8, 2006, where public administrations were assigned the urgent task of protecting aquifers against contamination, and in No. 2017-012944 of August 18, 2017, which condemned invasions and environmental damage in protected areas.\nIt is for this reason that I beg the ladies and gentlemen Magistrates to take precise and verbatim note of what was stated by the General Manager of Nombre02 in his report, since Zone 6 is fundamental for the supply of drinking water to the population of Limón. It is imperative to evict all incompatible activities that have been permitted, restoring the large forested areas, wetlands, and important patches of forest that still persist in the area, created in 1980 under strict conservation parameters.\nAdditionally, I request that the final judgment order the Department of Forensic Sciences of the Judicial Investigation Organization (Organismo de Investigación Judicial, OIJ) to conduct a precise and exhaustive assessment of the environmental damage caused to this important area, attributable to AyA from 2007 onward.\nI also request that the regressive measures approved by the Board of Directors of AyA be reversed as soon as possible, in compliance with the precautionary principle and progressivity, as this Chamber has demanded in jurisprudence such as judgment No. 2017-0318 (opinion C-318-2017) of December 19, 2017, which protects springs (nacientes) and aquifer layers as fundamental pieces of the legal system.\nI thank you in advance for your attention to this reply and remain at your disposal for any additional clarification.\"\n\n**8.-** By brief received at the Secretariat of the Chamber at 10:17 a.m. on March 2, 2026, the appellant states the following:\n\n\"I expressly point out as evidence the complete official document PRE-2018 00819 (2 pages), which was offered by the respondent General Manager of the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers, Mr. José Darío Guzmán Álvarez, in his report rendered before this Chamber on February 26, 2026 (point 2 of the evidence section, Annex 4), and which I now submit for critical analysis. I proceed with its objective, technical, and legal detailed analysis, which completely dismantles the defense of AyA and irrefutably proves the persistence of environmental regression and the attempt to subordinate the technical competence of SENARA.\n\nCRITICAL, TECHNICAL, AND LEGAL ANALYSIS OF OFFICIAL DOCUMENT PRE 2018-00819\n\nExpress recognition of the unilateral delimitation by AyA and its regressive agreements (paragraph 1)\n\nAyA states that 'the delimitation of the Moín aquifer has been carried out by the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers,' defining 9 zones 'endorsed by the AyA Board of Directors through Agreements 2007-0177 and 2011-112.' It particularly highlights Zone 6 as a 'recharge zone and high vulnerability zone' of 'utmost institutional importance' that contributes 150 L/s.\nTechnical and legal criticism: AyA arrogates to itself the power to 'delimit' and 'define' water protection zones, when Law No. 6877 (art. 3 subparagraphs ch) and h)) expressly attributes that specialized technical competence to SENARA. It insists on classifying Zone 6 as 'high vulnerability' (not extreme), maintaining the permissive regime introduced in 2007-2011. This statement constitutes an illegitimate self-attribution of competence and an express ratification of the regressive acts that this Chamber must revoke.\n\nSending of own technical criteria to 'reassess' the prior criteria of Nombre02 (paragraph 2)\nAyA sends the technical criteria UEN-GA-2018-01357 (prepared by its 'Moín Commission') regarding the 'Proyecto Condominial Matama Village' located in Zone 6, with the explicit objective that Nombre02 'have this input to reassess the criteria issued via official document SENARA-DIGH-UGH-076-2018'.\nTechnical and legal criticism: AyA admits that Nombre02 had already issued a prior technical criterion (2018) on the same project in Zone 6. Instead of complying with it, AyA seeks to modify it by sending its own study. This reveals an illegitimate hierarchical inversion: the governing body of supply intends to correct the specialized technical body in groundwater (SENARA), contravening the consolidated doctrine of this Chamber on the prevalence of hydrogeological technical assessments (votes 2012-00275, 2015-012345 and concordant ones).\n\nRequest for a technical meeting with specific hydrogeologists from Nombre02 (final paragraph)\nAyA formally requests a meeting for October 2, 2018, and demands the presence of hydrogeologists Clara Agudelo and Roberto Ramírez 'for the purpose of being able to share technical criteria.'\nTechnical and legal criticism: This request is not mere coordination; it is a clear attempt to pressure and influence the technicians of Nombre02 so that they modify their previous criterion. AyA does not limit itself to sending information: it summons the professionals of the specialized entity to 'share criteria' on a project located in a high-vulnerability zone. Such conduct constitutes undue interference in the technical autonomy of Nombre02 and a violation of the principle of technical impartiality that governs aquifer protection.\n\nGeneral conclusion of the analysis\n\nOfficial document PRE-2018-00819—offered by the respondent General Manager of AyA himself—demonstrates that, six years after official documents PRE-1426-2012, AyA was still insisting on its regressive regime of 'high vulnerability,' sending its own studies to 'reassess' those of Nombre02 and calling meetings to influence its technicians. Far from complying with the duty of effective coordination and abiding by superior technical assessments, AyA acted systematically to maintain and defend the environmental flexibilization that it itself created in 2007-2011.\nAnalysis prepared by Nombre01\n\nSUPPLEMENTARY PRAYER\n\nFor all the foregoing, I respectfully request this Honorable Chamber:\n\nTo accept this supplementary brief as filed and to incorporate as documentary evidence the complete official document PRE-2018-00819 (2 pages), which was offered by the respondent General Manager of AyA.\n\nTo assess the preceding critical analysis as a fundamental element for the resolution of the appeal.\n\nTo order, as evidence for better resolution based on Article 12 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, the National Groundwater, Irrigation and Drainage Service (SENARA) to send to this Chamber, within a peremptory period of ten business days, its definitive and updated technical criterion on the 'Proyecto Condominial Matama Village' located in Zone 6 of the Moín Coastal Aquifer, with the explicit objective that Nombre02 endorse or expressly reject its construction within said zone of high (or extreme) vulnerability, as corresponds to its institutional matrix and official hydrogeological studies.\n\nConsequently, and in harmony with the prayer of the principal reply:\n\nDeclare the amparo appeal with merit.\n\nRevoke AyA Board of Directors Agreements No. 2007 177 and No. 2011-112 for manifest environmental regression.\n\nOrder the annulment of the Urban Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador Urbano) of the Central Canton of Limón in the part that omits the absolute protection of Zone 6.\n\nOrder urgent precautionary measures, the restoration of forests and wetlands on private properties, and the exhaustive assessment of environmental damage by the Department of Forensic Sciences of the OIJ, grounded in the principles of in dubio pro natura and prevention.\n\nCondemn the respondents to costs and damages.\"\n\n**9.-** By brief received at the Secretariat of the Chamber at 2:48 p.m. on March 2, 2026, the appellant states the following:\n\n\"I. Reaffirmation and reiteration of the initial statements\nI reaffirm and reiterate, in all their aspects and without any modification, the statements contained in my initial amparo appeal, which I consider fully accredited in both the factual and legal spheres. These are grounded in the continuous and omissive violation of Article 50 of the Political Constitution (right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment), aggravated by a regressive omission by AyA itself and the co-respondent institutions, which places the drinking water supply for thousands of residents of Limón at imminent risk.\n\nII. Specific reply to the AyA report\n\nExclusive competence of Nombre02 in groundwater matters and technical contradiction with AyA\n\nThe National Groundwater, Irrigation and Drainage Service (SENARA) is, by express provision of its organic law (Law No. 6877, Article 3 subparagraphs ch) and h)), the specialized and competent technical entity for the delimitation, vulnerability study, and protection of aquifers. Its official documents SENARA-DIGH-006-2026 and SENARA-GG-OFI-056-2026 ratify the extreme vulnerability of Zone 6 of the Moín Coastal Aquifer and the absolute incompatibility of the Urban Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador) with the institutional vulnerability matrix. This Honorable Chamber has repeatedly recognized that, in groundwater matters, the technical assessments of Nombre02 constitute binding and prevailing input (see, among others, votes 2012-00275 and the consolidated doctrine on inter-institutional coordination in water protection). AyA, although it holds technical authority in supply (Law No. 2726), cannot substitute or contradict the hydrogeological conclusions of Nombre02 without incurring arbitrariness.\n\nRegressive character of AyA agreements 2007-177 and 2011-112\nAgreement 80-121 of 1980 declared Zone 6 as a zone of absolute protection, with express prohibitions on incompatible uses. The 2007 and 2011 agreements expressly revoked it and reduced it to 'high vulnerability' with restricted but permitted uses. This modification constitutes a manifest environmental regression, contrary to the principles of non-regression, precaution, prevention, and pro natura (in dubio pro natura). This Chamber has consolidated that the principle of non-regression bars the State from adopting measures that worsen the level of environmental protection achieved (votes 2012-013367, 2017-002375, 2019-012745 and 2019-017397, among many others). Likewise, the precautionary principle requires that, in the face of risk of serious or irreversible damage (such as the contamination of a strategic aquifer), the absence of full scientific certainty does not justify inaction or flexibilization (vote 1995-00001 and subsequent doctrine incorporated in the Biodiversity Law No. 7788, art. 11). The pro natura principle obliges resolving any doubt in favor of environmental protection. The agreements from 2007 onward generated the current chaos: urbanization of wetlands and forests in 'full view and with the tolerance' of the authorities, despite the reiterated orders of this Chamber (votes 2008 004790, 2008-010372 and 2008-004751).\n3. Strategic importance of the Moín aquifer and institutional negligence\nAfter the Limón earthquake of April 22, 1991 (magnitude 7.7 Mw), which left the province isolated and without basic services, the Moín Coastal Aquifer was the only reliable source that supplied drinking water to the population during months of rationing. Reducing its protection standards for economic considerations or to avoid expropriations ordered by this Chamber (such as those already decreed in the same Dirección01) constitutes an unacceptable prioritization of private interests over the human right to water and a healthy environment.\nThis Honorable Chamber has ordered on multiple occasions the expropriation of properties in Zone 6 to guarantee its protection. I respectfully request, under the protection of Article 12 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction and the principle of extension of evidence, that an independent technical entity (or directly SENARA) be required to provide an updated report on the current status of the properties expropriated by AyA in said zone. Such evidence will irrefutably prove the alleged negligence.\n4. Regressive omission and lack of effective coordination by AyA\nAyA claims to have published the agreements in La Gaceta and sent official documents. However, it expressly acknowledges that the Urban Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador) of Limón does not incorporate the protection of Zone 6 and that the Municipality has not responded to its inquiries. Publishing in La Gaceta does not meet the obligation of effective coordination and demand for compliance (Article 169 Political Constitution, Urban Planning Law and cited jurisprudence). The problem is not the 'lack of knowledge' of Nombre02 (as AyA intends), but systematic state negligence that the respondent's own report indirectly acknowledges by attempting to evade responsibility.\n5. Existence of important forested and wetland areas within private properties in Zone 6 and concrete possibility of their restoration\"\n**10.-** In the followed procedures, legal requirements have been observed.\nIt is fundamental to highlight before this Honorable Chamber that, within Zone 6 of the Moín Coastal Aquifer, important remnants of forest cover (cobertura boscosa) and wetland areas exist located on privately-owned properties. These strategic ecosystems have suffered degradation and threats of urbanization precisely as a direct consequence of the regressive flexibilization introduced by the AyA agreements subsequent to 1980. The revocation of Board of Directors Agreements No. 2007-177 and No. 2011-112 would allow for the effective restoration of said forests and wetlands, reinstating the absolute protection regime of Agreement 80-121 and fulfilling the constitutional mandate of comprehensive environmental protection (Article 50 of the Political Constitution). This measure is not only legally viable and technically possible, but is also indispensable to avoid the irreversible loss of these natural lungs that, in addition to protecting the aquifer, fulfill vital ecological functions for the province of Limón.\n6. Manifest negligence and arbitrariness of INVU and the Municipality of Limón in authorizing urbanization in Zone 6\nIt is technically unacceptable and legally serious that the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism (INVU) and the Municipality of Limón proceeded with manifest negligence and administrative arbitrariness in issuing and maintaining in force an Urban Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador Urbano) that expressly authorizes the urbanization of Zone 6 of the Moín Coastal Aquifer, flagrantly and directly contravening the extreme vulnerability matrix established by SENARA. Said conduct constitutes a serious breach of the constitutional duties of environmental protection (Article 50 Political Constitution), the principle of environmental integration (Organic Law of the Environment No. 7554, art. 3), the duty of inter-institutional coordination (Urban Planning Law and Municipal Code), and the obligation to comply with binding technical assessments in water matters. The Constitutional Chamber has repeatedly classified this type of omission and incompatible authorization as regressive and illegitimate violations of the fundamental right to a healthy environment (votes 2008-004790, 2008-010372, 2008-004751, 2012-013367 and 2019-017397, among others). The Municipality and INVU could not ignore or relativize the SENARA vulnerability matrix; their decision to authorize urban uses in an area of extreme vulnerability constitutes manifest arbitrariness, undue prioritization of private economic interests over public health and the general interest, and a regressive omission that this Honorable Chamber cannot tolerate without imposing the maximum legal rigor.\nIII. Prayer\nFor all the foregoing, and based on Articles 50 and 21 of the Political Constitution, Articles 12 and 29 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, as well as the vast and consolidated jurisprudence of this Constitutional Chamber on environmental protection, principles of non-regression, precaution, prevention, and pro natura (in dubio pro natura), I respectfully request this Honorable Chamber to impose all constitutional and environmental legal rigor in order to take urgent precautionary measures (Article 12 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction) and, above all, to revoke the agreements adopted by AyA after 1980 (Board of Directors Agreements No. 2007-177 and No. 2011-112), for being absolutely regressive and contradicting the extreme vulnerability matrix of SENARA, thereby reinstating the absolute protection regime established in Agreement 80-121 of 1980.\nConsequently:\n1. To accept this reply as filed and the AyA report as duly answered.\n2. To declare the present amparo appeal with merit.\n3. To revoke AyA Board of Directors Agreements No. 2007 177 and No. 2011-112, for constituting manifest environmental regression contrary to Article 50 of the Constitution and the principles of non-regression and precaution.\n4. To order the annulment of the Urban Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador Urbano) of the Central Canton of Limón insofar as it omits the absolute protection of Zone 6 of the Moín Coastal Aquifer, in accordance with the studies of Nombre02 and Agreement 80-121 of 1980 (never validly superseded without constitutional justification).\n5. To order AyA, INVU, Municipality of Limón, and SENARA, within a peremptory period of 30 days, to coordinate the express incorporation of Zone 6 as an area of absolute protection in all territorial planning instruments, with the restrictions determined by SENARA.\n6. To order the necessary measures to restore the legal and environmental order in the area, including the immediate suspension of any urbanization or incompatible activity, the effective oversight of wetlands and forests, and the restoration of forest cover (cobertura boscosa) and wetland areas existing on private properties within Zone 6.\n7.\n\nOrder, based on the principles of in dubio pro natura and prevention, a detailed and exhaustive assessment of the environmental damage caused to Zone 6 of the Moín Coastal Aquifer, entrusting it preferably to the Department of Forensic Sciences of the Judicial Investigation Agency (Organismo de Investigación Judicial, OIJ), in order to determine with scientific rigor the extent of the degradation, the corresponding administrative and criminal responsibilities, and the necessary comprehensive restoration and reparation measures. 8. Order the respondents to pay costs and damages, in accordance with the law.\"\n\n10.- By means of a certification issued at 1:18 p.m. on March 3, 2026, signed by the judicial technician and the secretary, both of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), the following was indicated: \"[R]eviewed, at thirteen hours eighteen minutes on March third, two thousand twenty-six, in the COSTA RICAN JUDICIAL CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (SISTEMA COSTARRICENSE DE GESTIÓN DE DESPACHOS JUDICIALES) the CONTROL OF RECEIVED DOCUMENTS AND THIS FILE, it did not appear that from FEBRUARY 24 TO MARCH 2, 2026, the EXECUTIVE PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HOUSING AND URBANISM (INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE VIVIENDA Y URBANISMO) has submitted any writ or document, in order to render the report requested in the resolution issued at thirteen hours forty-six minutes on February twenty, two thousand twenty-six, in file number 26-005469-0007-CO which is an AMPARO APPEAL (RECURSO DE AMPARO) filed by Name01.\"\n\n11.- By writ received at the Secretariat of the Chamber at 2:03 p.m. on March 3, 2026, the appellant states the following:\n\n\"This reply is based on the reiterated jurisprudence of this honorable Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), on the constitutional environmental principles such as precautionary, preventive, and non-regression, as well as on the applicable regulations regarding territorial planning, urban planning, and environmental protection, in order to refute in a detailed and exhaustive manner the evasive and tangential response provided by the INVU. Said response constitutes an implicit confession of institutional omission, by attempting to evade its legal responsibilities and transfer them to other entities such as the Municipality of Limón and the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, SETENA), flagrantly ignoring its obligations derived from the Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana, Law No. 4240), its Organic Law (Law No. 2825 and reforms), and the Organic Environmental Law (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, Law No. 7554). I expressly, emphatically, and fully reiterate each and every one of the arguments of fact and law, as well as all the statements, claims, and evidence set forth in my initial writ filing this amparo appeal (recurso de amparo). What was alleged therein has not been disproven by the INVU's report; on the contrary, the evasive and tangential response of the respondent confirms and aggravates the reported omissions, for which reason I maintain in its entirety the content of my main writ and request this honorable Chamber to assess it in conjunction with this reply. It is particularly serious and reprehensible that the response was signed by geographer Hilda Carvajal Bonilla in her capacity as Head of the Department of Urbanism of the INVU, a professional with a degree in geography, who by her academic training and technical experience is especially empowered and obligated to understand, comprehend, and value in all its dimension the geographical, hydrogeological, ecological, and strategic importance of Zone 6 of the Moín Coastal Aquifer. As an expert in the field, she cannot allege ignorance nor minimize the high and extreme vulnerability ratified by SENARA, nor evade the flagrant incompatibility between the current Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador) and the institutional vulnerability matrix. Her tangential and evasive position contravenes the duty of professional diligence imposed by her degree and position, aggravating the institutional omission of the INVU and constituting a breach that violates the principle of administrative good faith and the duty of effective protection of the environment (Article 50 of the Constitution). It should be noted that the notification of the appeal was expressly addressed to the Executive President of the INVU, the Head of the Department of Urbanism, and the Person in Charge of the Unit of Technical and Operational Criteria for Territorial Planning, so I beg the Justices to take note that the response signed solely by geographer Carvajal Bonilla, without the intervention of the other notified officials, could imply a procedural irregularity that evidences the lack of internal coordination and the attempt to minimize institutional responsibility. I. GENERAL REFUTATION TO THE RESPONSE OF THE INVU: OMISSION AND EVASION OF RESPONSIBILITIES The INVU's response, contained in official letter CDU-079-02-2026, is limited to denying competence to order amendments to the Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador) of Limón, alleging that said modifications correspond exclusively to the respective Municipality, pursuant to Article 17 of the Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana). Likewise, it minimizes the impact of technical official letter SENARA-DIGH 006-2026, issued by the Directorate of Water Research and Management of the National Groundwater, Irrigation, and Drainage Service (Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento, SENARA), which ratifies the high and extreme vulnerability of Zone 6 of the Moín Coastal Aquifer and its incompatibility with the current Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador). This position is untenable in light of the Costa Rican legal system and constitutional jurisprudence. The INVU is not a passive entity in urban planning; on the contrary, its Organic Law (Law No. 2825, Article 2) assigns it broad powers in the promotion of orderly urban development, including the preparation of the National Urban Development Plan (Plan Nacional de Desarrollo Urbano, PNDU), advice to municipalities, and inter-institutional coordination to guarantee the integration of environmental variables. The Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana, Law No. 4240, Articles 2, 7, and 9) reinforces this, by entrusting the INVU with national, regional, and local planning functions, with emphasis on the balance between urban development and environmental protection. The Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) has reiterated that the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment (Article 50 of the Political Constitution) imposes a positive duty of action on the State, not merely reactive. In rulings such as No. 2008-16563, this Chamber emphasized that \"one of the guiding principles of Environmental Law is the precautionary principle or principle of prudent avoidance,\" obliging institutions to act in the face of serious environmental risks, even in the absence of absolute certainty. Here, the INVU evades its coordinating role, ignoring the principle of environmental integration in territorial planning, enshrined in the Organic Environmental Law (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, Law No. 7554, Articles 28-31), which requires harmonizing human settlements with the conservation of natural resources such as aquifers. Additionally, the INVU's response cites a previous ruling of this Chamber (No. 2025039386 of 2025, file 25-028736-0007-CO) to claim that the Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador) of Limón was already validated. However, said pronouncement did not evaluate the new technical report from Name02 (SENARA-DIGH-006-2026), which constitutes novel evidence of extreme vulnerability. This omission violates the principle of environmental non-regression, developed by this Chamber in rulings such as No. 2012-104 (where it establishes that \"environmental regulations and jurisprudence should not be reviewed if this would imply regressing with respect to the levels of protection previously achieved\"), and in jurisprudential analyses that link the principle of non-regression to the preventive and precautionary principles to avoid irreversible damage. II. DETAILED POINT-BY-POINT REFUTATION OF THE INVU'S REPORT A. Lack of Competence to Order Amendments to the Regulatory Plan The INVU claims it lacks competence to \"order, instruct, or prioritize amendments to a current Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador),\" referring the exclusive responsibility to the Municipality of Limón (Article 17 of Law No. 4240). This restrictive interpretation ignores the subsidiary and coordinating role of the INVU, recognized in its Organic Law and in constitutional jurisprudence, where it is established that the INVU has subsidiary competence in urban planning when municipalities omit necessary actions to protect fundamental rights. The Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana, Article 7) creates the Directorate of Urbanism of the INVU to prepare and review the PNDU, promote coordination, and advise municipalities in the preparation and modification of regulatory plans (planes reguladores). In the environmental context, the Organic Environmental Law (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, Article 28) imposes on the State and municipalities the duty to define territorial planning policies that integrate the conservation of water resources. Relevant jurisprudence: In rulings such as No. 2004-01923, this Chamber protected aquifers from high-density developments, applying the precautionary principle to require exhaustive hydrogeological studies and inter-institutional coordination. Similarly, hydrological evaluations have been ordered to avoid impacts on water resources, emphasizing that \"the precautionary principle imposes on the Administration the obligation to act diligently to protect the environment.\" The INVU cannot evade this obligation by alleging lack of competence; it must prioritize amendments when new technical inputs evidence serious risks. B. Technical Inputs from Name02 Do Not Imply Automatic Modification The INVU minimizes official letter SENARA-DIGH-006-2026 as \"technical inputs within the scope of competence of said institution,\" without automatic effect on current plans. This statement violates the preventive principle, which requires anticipating environmental damage based on scientific evidence (Law No. 7554, Article 2, subsection d). The Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) defines the preventive principle as \"the use of mechanisms, instruments, and policies with the objective of avoiding significant impacts on the environment.\" The report from Name02 ratifies incompatibilities, exposing the aquifer to irreversible risks. Ignoring this constitutes an administrative omission, contrary to Article 50 of the Constitution and the principle of objectification of environmental protection, which requires decisions based on technical studies. Furthermore, the Inter-Institutional Coordination Regulation for the Protection of Underground Water Resources obligates the INVU to incorporate vulnerability and aquifer recharge maps into regulatory plans (planes reguladores), in coordination with SENARA. C. Exclusive Competence of SETENA in Environmental Aspects The INVU transfers environmental responsibility to SETENA. This ignores the comprehensive approach of Law No. 7554 (Article 29), which requires incorporating the environmental variable into territorial planning for sustainable development. Jurisprudence: SETENA evaluates environmental viability, but the INVU must integrate these criteria into urban planning (Law No. 4240, Article 9). The omission of Zone 6 violates the principle of non-regression, which prohibits measures that reduce levels of environmental protection. D. Absence of Administrative Omissions by the INVU The INVU denies omissions that violate the right to a healthy environment. However, its response to official letter AEL-008-2026 ignores the SENARA report, constituting material inactivity. This Chamber has declared unconstitutional permits that affect health and the environment, applying the preventive and precautionary principles to require prior verification of environmental variables. The protection of aquifers is a priority, and the INVU must act subsidiarily if the Municipality omits incorporations (Transitory Provision II of Law No. 4240). E. Previous Pronouncements of the Constitutional Chamber The citation of ruling No. 2025039386 does not apply, as it did not consider the new SENARA report. The principle of non-regression prevents maintaining obsolete plans in the face of novel evidence. III. CLAIM Based on the foregoing, I request this honorable Chamber: 1. To grant the amparo appeal (recurso de amparo). 2. To order the INVU to coordinate immediately with the Municipality of Limón, Name02, and SETENA to incorporate Zone 6 as an area of absolute protection in the Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador), applying the precautionary, preventive, and non-regression principles. 3. To order the INVU to pay costs and damages.\"\n\n12.- By writ received at the Secretariat of the Chamber at 2:46 p.m. on March 3, 2026, the appellant states the following:\n\n\"In my capacity as appellant in the Amparo Appeal (Recurso de Amparo) processed under file No. 26-005469-0007-CO, and in response to the resolution of thirteen hours and forty-six minutes on February twenty, two thousand twenty-six, I proceed in a timely manner to submit this response to the joint report prepared by the officials of the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism (Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo, INVU), signed by Arch. Daniel Brenes Arroyo (Person in Charge of the Unit of Technical and Operational Criteria for Territorial Planning), Mr. Marco Arias Alfaro (Legal Advisor of the Department of Urbanism), and Ms. Hilda Carvajal Bonilla (Head of the Department of Urbanism), submitted in response to the aforementioned resolution and dated February 26, 2026. I appreciate the opportunity to present my observations in a detailed and substantiated manner, in order to contribute to the exhaustive analysis of this Court on the matter in dispute. My presentation is based on an analytical, critical, and forceful approach, supported by current regulations and constitutional principles, with the purpose of categorically refuting the arguments presented in the report, which systematically and seriously minimize and trivialize the technical and legal rigor of the recommendations issued by the National Groundwater, Irrigation, and Drainage Service (Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento, SENARA), the governing and competent entity created by law for the protection of groundwater. All of the above, without prejudice to the institutional respect that the involved entities deserve.\n\nI will proceed to structure my response following the organization of the challenged report, refuting each section with arguments based on applicable legislation, including the Law for the Creation of Name02 (No. 6877 of July 18, 1983), the Organic Environmental Law (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, No. 7554 of October 4, 1995), the Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana, No. 4240 of November 15, 1968), and relevant resolutions of this honorable Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional). a) Background of the Regulatory Plan of Limón: References regarding the protection zones of the Moín aquifer and the so-called Zone 6 The report describes the background of the current Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador) of the Canton of Limón (published in Scope No. 191 to La Gaceta No. 182 of October 4, 2023), highlighting the zoning and predominant uses in the hydrogeological study area of the Moín aquifer. However, this presentation is omissive, superficial, and deliberately minimizing regarding the technical and legal rigor of the vulnerability matrix issued by SENARA, which strictly prohibits any land-use change (cambio de uso del suelo) in Zone 6 that implies an increase in density, activities with contaminating potential, or urban development not strictly controlled and compatible with the absolute protection of the aquifer. In accordance with Article 3, subsection ch) of Law No. 6877, Name02 has the exclusive and inalienable competence to \"investigate, protect, and promote the use of the country's water resources, both surface and underground,\" and subsection h) grants it the power to \"monitor compliance with the legal provisions in matters of its concern,\" with decisions that are final and of mandatory compliance. I reiterate and emphasize with the greatest forcefulness: the vulnerability matrix of SENARA, prepared in accordance with its Methodological Guide for the Application of the Generic Aquifer Protection Matrix (2017) and adapted to the karstic conditions of the Limón Promontory, expressly and categorically prohibits any modification of land use in Zone 6 that entails an increase in the potential contaminant load, including medium and high-density residential uses, height-controlled development, or any activity that does not guarantee zero risk of contaminant infiltration. The INVU report minimizes this strict prohibition by equating the Name02 matrix with mere \"technical inputs\" and by claiming that the Environmental Fragility Indices (Índices de Fragilidad Ambiental, IFA) study, validated by SETENA, can supplement or relativize the absolute restriction imposed by the entity specialized in groundwater. This claim is legally untenable: SETENA evaluates the environmental variable in a general manner (Article 17 of the Organic Environmental Law, Ley Orgánica del Ambiente), but it does not have the competence to contradict or relativize the binding technical determinations of Name02 regarding aquifer protection. Zone 6, which represents 17.07% of the study area and was classified as a high vulnerability zone in the 2007 hydrogeological study (La Gaceta No. 83 of May 2, 2007), does not admit the predominant residential uses nor the controlled development zones that the Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador) imposes on them, as this constitutes a direct violation of the express prohibition of land-use change (cambio de uso del suelo) contained in the SENARA matrix. This omission and deliberate minimization of the binding technical criterion of Name02 generates a flagrant contradiction with the principle of administrative coordination (Article 11 of the General Law of Public Administration, Law No. 6227) and with the duty of prevention of environmental damage (Article 2 of the Organic Environmental Law, Ley Orgánica del Ambiente), exposing the Moín aquifer —the main source of water supply for thousands of inhabitants— to an imminent and irreversible risk of contamination. b) Regarding the environmental part within a Regulatory Plan: The role of the INVU within the approval procedure for this planning instrument The report maintains that environmental competence is \"exclusive\" to SETENA and that the INVU acts based on inputs referred to it, without direct responsibility. This position seriously trivializes the duty of inter-institutional coordination and omits that the INVU, as the approving entity (Article 17 of Law No. 4240), is obligated to reject any regulatory plan (plan regulador) that ignores or violates binding determinations of SENARA, such as the strict prohibition of land-use change (cambio de uso del suelo) in Zone 6. SETENA cannot endorse, even implicitly, a zoning that contradicts the SENARA matrix. By doing so, and by allowing the INVU to approve the Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador) without confronting that express prohibition, the principle of prevention was breached and a normative regression was allowed that drastically reduces the pre-existing protection (AyA agreements 2007-177 and 2011-112). This conduct constitutes a serious administrative omission that violates the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment (Article 50 of the Political Constitution), as this Chamber has reiterated on multiple occasions in the face of threats to aquifers. c) Conclusions The report's conclusions evade shared responsibility and minimize the strict prohibition of land-use change (cambio de uso del suelo) in Zone 6 imposed by the SENARA matrix. I reiterate with the greatest forcefulness: said matrix is not an optional \"input,\" but a binding and mandatory technical determination that categorically prohibits any modification of land use that increases the risk of contamination of the Moín aquifer. The reference to ruling No. 2025039386 does not exonerate urgent constitutional protection in the face of a current and imminent risk. I respectfully request that this Chamber grant the amparo appeal (recurso de amparo), immediately order the review and modification of the Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador) in accordance with Article 17 of Law No. 4240, incorporate the SENARA matrix in a binding manner and without attenuations, and guarantee the absolute protection of Zone 6 through the strict prohibition of any land-use change (cambio de uso del suelo) that contravenes its technical determinations.\"\n\n13.- By writ received at the Secretariat of the Chamber at 9:24 a.m. on March 5, 2026, the appellant states the following:\n\n\"In the first place, I beg this Chamber to formally take note that the heads of the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism (Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo, INVU) have not rendered the report that was required of them by means of a resolution issued at thirteen hours forty-six minutes on February twenty, two thousand twenty-six. This omission is unequivocally verified in the review of the Costa Rican Judicial Case Management System (Sistema Costarricense de Gestión de Despachos Judiciales), as detailed in the certification issued by Judicial Technician 3, Wilberth Venegas Martínez, and the Acting Secretary, Mariane Castro Villalobos, of this same Chamber, dated March third, two thousand twenty-six at thirteen hours eighteen minutes. Said certification attests that, from February twenty-fourth to March second, two thousand twenty-six, no writ or document was presented by the Executive President of the INVU to comply with the judicial requirement. This lack of diligence not only contravenes the duty of collaboration with justice but also seriously undermines the fundamental principles of constitutional jurisdiction. Based on the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional), specifically in its Articles 1 and 2, which establish the purpose of this law as guaranteeing the supremacy of constitutional norms and principles, as well as the effective protection of the fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution and in the international human rights instruments in force in Costa Rica, a flagrant violation of due process and the obligation of the authorities to respond in a timely manner to judicial requisitions is evidenced. Likewise, Article 29 of the same law regulates the procedure for requesting reports and the imposition of sanctions for non-compliance, stipulating that the amparo appeal (recurso de amparo) proceeds against any action, omission, or simple material act of public servants and bodies that violates, violates, or threatens to violate fundamental rights. This non-compliance is not a mere administrative oversight, but an obstruction that prevents the expeditious progress of the case and jeopardizes the effectiveness of judicial protection, especially in a case involving environmental protection and the rights of vulnerable groups. Similarly, this situation is framed within Article 50 of the Political Constitution, which guarantees every person the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, and establishes the State's obligation to ensure its preservation, prevention, and restoration. The facts gathered so far do not present evidence to the contrary that damage has been caused to the environment in the area of the Moín Coastal Aquifer. On the contrary, the National Groundwater, Irrigation, and Drainage Service (Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento, SENARA) has demonstrated, through its vulnerability matrix, the existence of significant environmental impacts derived from the inaction of the respondent authorities. This matrix constitutes objective scientific evidence that reveals the fragility of the ecosystem and the immediate need for protective intervention. As a relevant precedent, this honorable Chamber has issued judicial resolutions ordering the expropriation of lands within Directorate01, in which the vulnerability matrix establishes that land-use change (cambio de uso del suelo) is not permitted, in order to protect the Moín Coastal Aquifer. For example, in Judgment No. 2008-012043 of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) of the Supreme Court of Justice, of August 1, 2008, the vulnerability of the Moín aquifer was analyzed using the EPIK method and the need for protective measures, including land-use restrictions, was emphasized. Likewise, in Judgment No. 2008-014095 of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), of September 23, 2008, the State and the Municipality of Limón were ordered to pay costs and damages for omissions that affected the area, ordering corrective actions that involve expropriations in zones of high environmental vulnerability. These resolutions reinforce the State's obligation to act with speed to prevent irreparable damage. Additionally, for decades this Chamber has ordered the incorporation of Zone 6, created in 1980 by the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers (Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, AyA), into the urban regulatory plan (plan regulador) of Limón, recognizing its character as a hydrogeological protection area. In precedents such as Judgment No. 2025-035761 of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), of October 31, 2025 (file 25-029204-0007-CO), the inaction of the AyA in issuing protection decrees for Zone 6 of the Moín aquifer was questioned, demanding its integration into urban planning instruments to guarantee the principle of environmental non-regression. However, critically, technically, and legally, it must be pointed out that said judgment did not take into consideration the vulnerability matrix of Name02 —a key technical instrument that classifies recharge zones according to their degree of vulnerability and prohibits or severely restricts activities in areas of extreme fragility, such as high-density developments, significant earthworks (movimientos de tierra), or impermeable cover—. This omission deprived the resolution of greater legal rigor, since the incorporation of said matrix would have imposed a deeper and stricter analysis of the State's protective obligations, aligned with the precautionary principle, environmental progressivity, and the available objective scientific evidence, thus avoiding any interpretation that could relativize the absolute prohibition in areas of high vulnerability and allowing for more effective protection of the right to a healthy environment. Similarly, in binding resolutions dating back to the early 2000s, this Chamber has reiterated the obligation of municipalities to incorporate technical recommendations from the AyA and Name02 into regulatory plans (planes reguladores), as evidenced in analogous cases that contravened agreements of the AyA's Board of Directors (such as 2007-177 and 2011-112), requiring the annulment or modification of plans that omit aquifer recharge zones. It is necessary to point out, in a critical, technical, and vehemently legal manner, that AyA Board of Directors agreements numbers 2007-177 (which formalized the hydrogeological study and vulnerability of the Moín aquifer, updating the protection zone) and 2011-112 (which partially modified the previous one) have been regressive and have directly stimulated the invasion and irregular occupation of part of Zone 6. Agreement 2007-177 established strict restrictions in areas of extreme vulnerability (prohibiting drilling, land-use changes (cambios de uso del suelo), material removal, vegetation cutting, and contaminating activities), aligning with the Name02 vulnerability matrix and the EPIK method.\n\n13.- However, agreement 2011-112 introduced unacceptable flexibilizations—such as impermeabilization thresholds of 20%, authorization of earthworks (movimientos de tierra) with simplified studies, permits for housing by vegetative growth without rigorous density or precise cartography—directly contravening the technical prohibitions of the Nombre02 matrix in areas of extreme vulnerability (where activities involving risk of contaminant infiltration in a highly fragile karst aquifer are not permitted). These regressive modifications have generated legal uncertainty, rendered mandatory hydrogeological protection invisible, and facilitated—through omission or laxity in their application—the proliferation of irregular settlements, slums, and uncontrolled constructions in Zone 6, as documented in subsequent complaints and judgments (including cases of invasion of protected lands and potential contamination). Such provisions violate the principle of progressivity and non-regression in environmental matters (Articles 11 and 50 of the Political Constitution, international treaties such as the Pact of San José, and the precautionary principle recognized in the jurisprudence of this Chamber), exposing the water resource to irreversible damage and aggravating state responsibility for failure to fulfill protection duties.\n\nBy virtue of the foregoing, I very respectfully request this honorable Chamber to issue a decision on the merits as soon as possible, condemning the respondents for their non-compliance and adopting all legal actions that this Chamber deems appropriate to safeguard the Moín coastal aquifer. Such measures could include, but are not limited to, the imposition of administrative sanctions, the order for immediate execution of environmental restoration plans, and the demand for civil or criminal liability if applicable, all in the interest of restoring ecological balance and preventing irreparable damage. In particular, I emphasize in a technical, rigorous, and creative manner the imperative urgency that, through a forceful and binding judgment, the Department of Forensic Biology of the Judicial Investigation Organism (OIJ) be ordered to conduct a comprehensive, multidisciplinary, and expert assessment of the damage caused to Zone 6 of absolute protection—created since 1980 as the \"pulsating heart\" of the Moín coastal aquifer, a hydrogeological aorta that irrigates life to ecosystems and vulnerable communities. This evaluation must encompass, with forensic and scientific precision, the quantification of biochemical impacts (such as infiltration of organic and inorganic contaminants into karst strata), ecological impacts (loss of biodiversity in wetlands and remnant forests, alteration of hydrological cycles), and hydrogeological impacts (degradation of the Nombre02 vulnerability matrix using methods such as EPIK or DRASTIC, measuring permeability, recharge, and underground flow indices), integrating molecular analysis of environmental samples to detect traces of anthropogenic pollution. Such an expert assessment, anchored in the precautionary principle and the irrefutable evidence of environmental regression, would not only quantify the \"silent tsunami\" of accumulated damages—where each day of inaction is equivalent to irreversible erosion of aquifer integrity, comparable to an hourglass inexorably emptying toward hydrological desertification—but would also provide the unassailable technical basis for innovative restorations, such as wetland bioengineering and geothermal remediation, thereby safeguarding the constitutional legacy of Article 50 and preventing an ecological catastrophe that threatens the survival of future generations in Limón. The urgency of this request is extreme and imperative, given that there still exists a remnant of forests, wetlands, and archaeological sites that allow for immediate and satisfactory restoration of the affected area. Said area includes properties expropriated by order of this same Chamber in prior proceedings, which, in some cases, are partially invaded due to neglect on the part of the authorities of Acueductos y Alcantarillados (AyA). The Ministry of Environment and Energy (MINAE) has direct interference in these lands, composed mainly of forests and wetlands, and its intervention is indispensable given the lack of concrete actions by INVU in the preparation and execution of the urban regulatory plan for Limón. This inaction not only perpetuates environmental vulnerability but also aggravates the violation of Article 50 of the Constitution, exposing the population—including persons in conditions of vulnerability such as older adults, Afro-descendants, and persons with disabilities—to imminent health and ecological risks. Honorable Magistrates, this collective omission by the respondent authorities not only undermines the authority of this Chamber but also threatens the natural patrimony of the nation and the rights of historically vulnerable groups, which must be protected with the greatest possible diligence. I trust that, in the exercise of your high jurisdiction, this Chamber will act with the speed and firmness that the case merits, reaffirming the commitment of the Costa Rican State to environmental justice, equality, and fundamental rights. I remain at the disposal of this Chamber for any clarification or additional contribution deemed necessary.”\n\n14.- By document received at the Secretariat of the Chamber at 15:38 hours on March 23, 2026, the petitioner states the following:\n\n“PRELIMINARY AND FUNDAMENTAL CLARIFICATION ON THE EVOLUTION OF PROTECTION\nINVU's report deliberately avoids a decisive technical fact: the absolute protection of Zone 6 of the Moín Coastal Aquifer, declared by the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers (Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados) (AyA) since the 1980s, was weakened in 2007 and even more so in 2011 by AyA itself. This institutional regression violated its own environmental protection parameters, reducing restrictions and permitting incompatible uses that today aggravate the risk. This weakening was not a \"reinforcement\" (as had been erroneously alleged in prior writings) but rather an administrative regression that INVU knows and has ignored.\n\nII. POINT-BY-POINT REFUTATION OF INVU'S REPORT\nA. False allegation of INVU's \"lack of competence\"\nINVU does not lack competence. As the national governing body (Urban Planning Law No. 4240 and INVU's Manual of Regulatory Plans), it has the technical and legal obligation to review, advise on, and oversee the incorporation of absolute protection areas into regulatory plans. It cannot delegate all responsibility to the municipality when a new Nombre02 opinion exists demonstrating incompatibility.\n\nB. The official communication SENARA-DIGH-006-2026 and the institutional weakening by AyA itself\nINVU reduces the Nombre02 report to \"one more input.\" A serious error. Nombre02 confirms the high and extreme vulnerability of Zone 6 (EPIK method: high karst infiltration, direct connection with the aquifer). Worse yet: AyA itself, which declared absolute protection in the 1980s, weakened it in 2007 and deepened the weakening in 2011, violating its own environmental protection parameters. This regression allowed incompatible urban uses and left the Limón Regulatory Plan without updating. INVU, as an advisory body, cannot allege ignorance or lack of competence in the face of this irrefutable technical evidence.\n\nC. Error in attributing the environmental variable exclusively to SETENA\nFalse. The Regulation for the Incorporation of the Environmental Variable (Reglamento de Incorporación de la Variable Ambiental) requires coordination between INVU, the municipality, and SETENA. INVU participated in the approval of the Regulatory Plan and cannot now wash its hands of the matter.\n\nD. Res judicata does not apply\nThe previous resolution (expediente 25-028736-0007-CO) refers to events prior to January 2026. The official communication SENARA-DIGH-006-2026 and the institutional weakening by AyA are supervening events that constitute a new imminent risk.\n\nE. Administrative omission and violation of the right to a healthy environment\nINVU states that \"it has not incurred in omissions.\" This statement is contrary to science, technique, and logic. Zone 6 supplies drinking water to thousands of Limón residents. Its exclusion from the Regulatory Plan (aggravated by the weakening by AyA itself in 2007 and 2011) exposes the aquifer to irreversible contamination, violating the principles of prevention, precaution, and non-regression.\n\nIII. SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL BASIS (irrefutable proof)\n• Absolute protection declared by AyA in the 1980s.\n• Weakening in 2007 and further weakening in 2011 by AyA itself, violating its own environmental protection parameters.\n• Official communication SENARA-DIGH-006-2026: high/extreme vulnerability confirmed.\n• Consequence: irreversible risk of bacteriological contamination, nitrates, and heavy metals from uncontrolled urbanization.\nINVU, as the governing body, cannot ignore this chain of institutional omissions and regressions.\n\nIV. PETITION\nFor the reasons set forth, I request the Constitutional Chamber to:\n1. Admit this supplementary rejoinder document.\n2. Declare the amparo appeal well-founded.\n3. Order INVU, within a peremptory period of 48 hours, to coordinate with the Municipality of Limón and SETENA the immediate incorporation of Zone 6 of the Moín Coastal Aquifer as an area of absolute protection in the Urban Regulatory Plan of Limón, correcting the weakening of 2007 and 2011.\n4. Sentence INVU to pay costs and damages for the demonstrated arbitrary omission.”\n\n15.- By document received at the Secretariat of the Chamber at 16:00 hours on March 23, 2026, the petitioner states the following:\n\n“This document constitutes an extension of the initial rejoinder filed by this party, with the purpose of reinforcing, detailing, and deepening the arguments already presented, more exhaustively and precisely refuting the statements of the respondent AyA, and expanding the legal and technical basis in protection of Article 50 of the Political Constitution, the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, the strategic water resource of the province of Limón, and, in a special manner, the rights of the third generation and of future generations and the unborn, in accordance with the binding jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. I do this based on Articles 21, 50, and 169 of the Political Constitution, Article 43 and following of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional), and in forceful, exhaustive, coherent, and well-founded defense of my fundamental rights, of the inhabitants of Limón, and, especially, of the third-generation rights to water resources and of future generations and the unborn.\n\nClearly, concisely, and forcefully, I affirm that if this Honorable Constitutional Chamber does not exercise the necessary actions to protect the strategic water resource of Zone 6 of the Moín Coastal Aquifer, no one will. No citizen—no matter how diligent and persistent—has sufficient personal, institutional, or economic resources to effectively and sustainably defend fundamental and collective third-generation rights such as the right to a healthy environment, access to drinking water, and the intergenerational preservation of water resources. The protection of these diffuse and collective assets falls primarily on the State and, ultimately, on the concentrated constitutional control exercised by this Chamber, as the supreme guarantor of constitutional supremacy and environmental non-regression (Constitutional Chamber judgments such as 2014-12887, 2010-18702, and abundant jurisprudence on state omissions in environmental protection and water resources). Passivity or delay in this case would be equivalent to an abdication of the positive obligation of effective protection, leaving an irreplaceable national patrimony unprotected and compromising the future of thousands of inhabitants of Limón and of generations to come.\n\n1. GENERAL SUMMARY OF AYA'S RESPONSE AND CATEGORICAL REJECTION\nAyA's response is an exercise in sterile, evasive, and self-serving formalism that seeks to wash its hands with old publications in La Gaceta, repetitive official communications, and the mantra of “no competence,” while deliberately ignoring the most recent and updated technical report: the official communication SENARA-DIGH-006 2026 of January 27, 2026, which ratifies the extreme vulnerability of Zone 6 of the Moín Coastal Aquifer and declares the absolute incompatibility of the Urban Regulatory Plan of Limón with the institutional vulnerability matrix. Far from disproving my allegations, AyA's response confirms the regressive administrative omission: more than 45 years have elapsed since Agreement 80-121 (1980), 17 years since 2007-177, and 15 years since 2011-112, and to date Zone 6 is not incorporated as an area of absolute protection in the Regulatory Plan. This conduct is not isolated negligence; it is a systematic, continued, and aggravated violation of Article 50 of the Constitution, of the principles of prevention, precaution, and environmental non-regression, and of the intergenerational rights to clean drinking water, especially of future generations and the unborn who will inherit a strategic aquifer threatened today by institutional omissions.\n\n2. POINT-BY-POINT REFUTATION OF AYA'S RESPONSE\n2.1. Regarding the alleged \"sufficient notifications\" via La Gaceta and official communications (official communication GSP-RHC-2025-01548 and annexes)\nAyA boasts of having published agreements in La Gaceta and sent official communications (PRE-1426-2012, PRE-2018-00819, SUB-AID-GA 2014-240, etc.). But this \"formal notification\" is irrelevant and absolutely insufficient to fulfill the duty of result. The Constitutional Chamber, in the very rulings AyA cites (2008 004790, 2008-010372, and 2008-004751), already ordered the Municipality of Limón to incorporate AyA's recommendations. More than 17 years have passed and the omission persists entirely. Publication in La Gaceta does not supplant the obligation of real effectiveness nor exempt AyA from its duty of technical stewardship. It is a worthless piece of paper notification that AyA uses to excuse its inaction. Worse yet: AyA itself admits in its response that the Municipality never responded to official communication GSP-RHC-2025-00048 requesting accountability regarding the incorporation of Zone 6. And what did AyA do in the face of this neglect? Nothing coercive. No judicial action, no criminal complaint for disobedience of a constitutional mandate, no request before this Chamber. This passivity is inadmissible for the national governing body of water resources (Law 2726).\n\n2.2. Regarding AyA's alleged \"lack of competence\" to modify the Regulatory Plan\nAyA repeats obsessively that only the Municipality can modify the Plan. False, cynical, and irresponsible. AyA holds the national technical stewardship in matters of supply, sanitation, and protection of water resources (Constitutive Law No. 2726). It cannot limit itself to issuing \"recommendations\" and sit idly by in the face of an omission that puts the drinking water of thousands of people and the future of the province of Limón at risk. The principle of inter-institutional coordination (Art. 11 Organic Environmental Law, Urban Planning Law) imposes on it positive duties of promotion, oversight, demand, and, where appropriate, judicial or administrative complaint. Its posture is a flagrant abdication of its competences and a violation of the duty of effective protection of water resources.\n\n2.3. Regarding the technical conflict AyA vs. Nombre02 (Points 1 to 5 of the responses to Nombre02-DIGH-013-2026 and Nombre02-GG-OFI 056-2026)\nHere lies the most serious and dangerous contradiction of AyA:\n• It admits that its 2007/2011 study (EPIK method) classified Zone 6 as \"high vulnerability\" (not extreme).\n• It explicitly acknowledges that it has no subsequent hydrogeological studies or an updated monitoring network to contradict the 2026 Nombre02 report.\n• Yet it dismisses the official communication SENARA-DIGH-006-2026 for \"lack of rigor,\" when Nombre02 is the national authority specialized in groundwater, irrigation, and drainage. This is absurd and violates the precautionary principle!\nFaced with two divergent technical assessments, and the risk of irreversible contamination of a coastal karst aquifer (source of approximately 100 L/s for Limón), the State must immediately adopt the strictest possible protection: absolute protection and extreme vulnerability. AyA itself in its original study recognized the \"high vulnerability\" and recommended severe restrictions. The 2026 Nombre02 elevates them to extreme based on the institutional matrix. Does AyA prefer to risk the drinking water of entire generations rather than update its own study or coordinate with SENARA? This attitude is reckless, unconstitutional, and contrary to the precautionary principle (OC-23/17 Inter-American Court).\n\n2.4. Regarding the \"inspections and denials\"\nThese are reactive, late, and insufficient measures. As long as the Regulatory Plan permits urbanizations, subdivisions (fraccionamientos), or industrial or agricultural activities in the recharge zone or upstream of the aquifer, any subsequent denial by AyA is useless: the damage will already have been caused irreversibly.\n\n3. SUBSTANTIVE CONSIDERATIONS: FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THIRD-GENERATION RIGHTS\nThe joint omission (AyA – INVU – Municipality of Limón) constitutes a regressive administrative omission that perpetuates the impact on the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment (Article 50 CP). This right is of the third generation (collective, diffuse, intergenerational) and obliges the State to prevent, preserve, and improve the environment, not just to react when damage has already occurred. The Constitutional Chamber has repeatedly recognized the principles of prevention, precaution, and non-regression (rulings 2010-18702, 2021-17245, and abundant jurisprudence).\n\n4. FORCEFUL DEFENSE OF THE RIGHTS OF THE UNBORN AND FUTURE GENERATIONS (JURISPRUDENCE INTER-AMERICAN COURT)\nThe Moín aquifer is not just any resource: it is the strategic water patrimony of the province of Limón. Its irreversible contamination compromises the right to life, to health, and to a healthy environment of future generations and the unborn. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in its Advisory Opinion OC-23/17 (Environment and Human Rights, November 15, 2017), established: “In its collective dimension, the right to a healthy environment constitutes a universal interest, owed both to present and future generations” (para. 55 et seq.). The Court emphasized that environmental degradation “tends to worsen, affecting present and future generations,” and that States have obligations of prevention and precaution in the face of serious or irreversible damage, even without absolute scientific certainty. In Advisory Opinion OC-32/25 (Climate Emergency and Human Rights, 2025), the Court reaffirmed the principle of intergenerational equity: current generations are obligated to guarantee stable environmental conditions so that future generations (including the unborn) may enjoy similar opportunities for development and a dignified life. A clean water resource is a precondition sine qua non of the right to life (Article 4 ACHR and Article 21 CP). Contaminating the aquifer that will supply children, both present and yet unborn, is to violate in advance their right to exist in a healthy environment. This Chamber cannot tolerate institutional bureaucracy mortgaging the future of Limón.”\n\n16.- By document received at the Secretariat of the Chamber at 08:08 hours on March 24, 2026, the petitioner states the following:\n\n“This text constitutes a formal extension of my previous rejoinder filed in this expediente, with the precise objective of exalting, reinforcing, detailing, and expanding the arguments already presented, fully adhering to the technical and legal conclusions of SENARA, in protection of Article 50 of the Political Constitution, the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, the strategic water resource of the province of Limón (Zone 6 of the Moín Coastal Aquifer) and, in an especially prioritized manner, the rights of the third generation and of future generations and the unborn, in accordance with the binding jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. I do this based on Articles 21, 50, and 169 of the Political Constitution, Article 43 and following of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional), and in forceful, exhaustive, coherent, and well-founded defense of the aforementioned rights.\n\nClearly, concisely, and forcefully, I state that if this Honorable Constitutional Chamber does not exercise the necessary actions to protect the strategic water resource of Zone 6 of the Moín Coastal Aquifer, no one will. No citizen—no matter how diligent and persistent—has sufficient personal, institutional, or economic resources to effectively and sustainably defend fundamental and collective third-generation rights such as the right to a healthy environment, access to drinking water, and the intergenerational preservation of water resources. The protection of these diffuse and collective assets falls primarily on the State and, ultimately, on the concentrated constitutional control exercised by this Chamber, as the supreme guarantor of constitutional supremacy and environmental non-regression.\n\n1. FULL SUPPORT AND EXALTATION OF NOMBRE02'S DAMNING CONCLUSIONS\nThe report of the General Manager of SENARA, Eng. Osvaldo Quirós Arias, constitutes a technical and administrative declaration of the highest probative value that confirms and aggravates all the allegations I have been sustaining for years in multiple amparo appeals. Nombre02's key assertions are damning and leave no room for ambiguous interpretations:\n• The technical study conducted by AyA itself recognizes that Zone 6 has the character of an Absolute Protection Area, corresponding to extreme vulnerability.\n• Applying the Soil Use Criteria Matrix according to Aquifer Contamination Vulnerability (SENARA, 2006), no land use is permitted in said zone.\n• Based on the restrictions established in the AyA Board of Directors Agreement No. 2007-177, the protection area should be elevated to an ABSOLUTE and EXTREME VULNERABILITY character, where no activities of any kind are permitted, as defined by AyA's own hydrogeological study.\nThese conclusions are not isolated opinions: they come from the national authority specialized in groundwater (SENARA), and they directly contradict the dilatory and minimizing posture of AyA, which insists on maintaining a \"high vulnerability\" classification and an outdated \"restricted protection\" regime contrary to the precautionary principle.\n\n2. THE OMISSION IS REGRESSIVE AND CONSTITUTIONALLY UNACCEPTABLE\nThe persistent omission to incorporate Zone 6 as an area of absolute protection in the Urban Regulatory Plan of Limón constitutes a regressive administrative omission that violates Article 50 of the Constitution. Elapsed are:\n• More than 45 years since the first protection declarations (Agreement 80-121 of 1980).\n• 17 years since AyA Agreement 2007-177.\n• 15 years since the modification 2011-112.\nAnd there is still no effective incorporation of the absolute protection that AyA's own study and Nombre02 demand. This inaction is not mere administrative slowness: it is a prohibited environmental regression that exposes a coastal karst aquifer supplying approximately 100 L/s to the population of Limón to irreversible contamination.\n\n3. DEFENSE OF THE RIGHTS OF THE UNBORN AND FUTURE GENERATIONS\nThe Moín aquifer is the strategic water patrimony of the province of Limón. Its degradation compromises the right to life, to health, and to a healthy environment of future generations and the unborn. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has been clear and binding:\n• Advisory Opinion OC-23/17 (November 15, 2017): “In its collective dimension, the right to a healthy environment constitutes a universal interest, owed both to present and future generations” (para. 55 et seq.). States have obligations of prevention and precaution in the face of serious or irreversible damage, even without absolute scientific certainty.\n• Advisory Opinion OC-32/25 (2025): reaffirms the principle of intergenerational equity and the obligation of current generations to guarantee stable environmental conditions for future ones, including the unborn.\nContaminating the aquifer that will supply children yet unborn is to violate in advance their right to life in a healthy environment (Art. 4 ACHR and Art. 21 CP).\n\n4. PETITION\nFor all of the foregoing, and fully adhering to SENARA's damning report, I respectfully request this Honorable Chamber:\n1. To admit this formal supplementary document to my previous rejoinder and deem the hearing duly answered.\n2. To declare the amparo appeal well-founded in all its aspects, recognizing the violation of Article 50 of the Constitution due to regressive omission by the respondents (INVU, AyA, and Municipality of Limón).\n3. To order, within a peremptory period of 30 business days:\na) INVU and the Municipality of Limón to initiate and conclude inter-institutional coordination actions with AyA and Nombre02 to amend the Urban Regulatory Plan of Limón, expressly incorporating Zone 6 as an area of absolute protection with extreme vulnerability, in accordance with the Nombre02 report and the Soil Use Criteria Matrix.\nb) AyA to accept Nombre02's conclusions and update its classification and technical recommendations accordingly.\nc) To immediately suspend any urbanistic authorization, subdivision (fraccionamiento), or incompatible activity in Dirección02. To order permanent monitoring measures, sanctions for non-compliance, and any other measures this Chamber deems appropriate to safeguard the water resource and the rights of present and future generations.”\n\n17.- By document received at the Secretariat of the Chamber at 16:08 hours on March 24, 2026, the petitioner states the following:\n\nI, Nombre01, petitioner in the expediente of merit, in my capacity as a directly affected person and with a legitimate interest in the protection of the water resource of the province of Limón, respectfully address you to formally convey a copy of Resolution No. 2033-2025-SETENA dated December 11, 2025, issued by the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (SETENA), which grants environmental viability (license) to the project \"Movimiento de Tierras Orión Limón\" (Inmobiliaria Orión de Belén S.A., legal identification number CED02), on a 21,431 m² property in the district of Limón. I attach the complete document (digitally signed by the General Secretary of SETENA), which authorizes massive earthworks (movimientos de tierras) (20,000 m³ of cut and fill on the same property) without construction of buildings or infrastructure, under category B2 and with a SIA score of 51,375 points.\n\nEmphatic and unambiguous transfer: This resolution raises serious doubts, flagrant contradictions, and apparent inconsistency with the exclusive powers of the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers (Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, AyA) regarding the protection of supply sources and hydrogeological zoning of the Moín-Limón aquifer, declared a protection zone by Board of Directors Agreement No. 80-121 of April 14, 1980 (partially revoked and updated by Agreement 2007-177 published in La Gaceta No. 83 of May 2, 2007, and modified by Agreement 2011-112). Said zoning establishes strict restrictions in extreme vulnerability zones (including Zone 6 of absolute protection), prohibiting or conditioning intensive earthworks (movimientos de tierras), land-use changes (cambios de uso del suelo), and any activity involving a risk of infiltration or contamination of the karstic aquifer that supplies Limón and Moín. The SETENA Resolution: • Does not mention or analyze the official AyA delimitation or the recommendations of its agreements (2007-177 and 2011-112). • Declares that no field inspection is required despite the nature of the project (massive cuts and fills in a potentially vulnerable zone). • Grants viability (viabilidad) without requiring prior or binding criteria from AyA, even though the latter has classified similar properties as outside Zone 6 in prior communications, generating institutional incoherence. • Imposes monitoring obligations (digital logbook, semi-annual reports, environmental guarantee), but does not resolve doubts about compatibility with the hydrogeological zoning in force since 1980. Express and forceful request to the Court: I request that the Lady and Gentleman Magistrates carry out an exhaustive and undelayed technical and legal assessment of the content of this resolution, in the context of this case file (expediente), to determine: 1. Whether there is a contradiction or invasion of powers between SETENA and AyA in the authorization of earthworks in a hydrogeological protection zone declared since 1980. 2. Whether the environmental viability granted breaches or ignores the restrictions of AyA (Agreements 2007-177 and 2011-112), generating irreversible risk to the Moín-Limón aquifer. 3. Whether it is appropriate to order precautionary measures, provisional suspension of works, or require a joint technical report from AyA, SETENA, and the Court to clarify normative and technical coherence. 4. Any other provision that legally corresponds to guarantee the protection of water resources and the precautionary principle (Article 50 of the Political Constitution). AyA has not shown congruence or sustained commitment to its organic functions of protecting water resources (Law 2726), which generates legal uncertainty and real environmental risk. This SETENA resolution appears to authorize “suspicious” activities to the undersigned, as there is no public technical evidence demonstrating full compatibility with AyA’s zoning. I remain at your disposal to expand or provide further evidentiary elements. I request that the document be considered transferred and that it be provided in accordance with the law.”\n\n**18.-** By a writing incorporated into the digital case file at 2:18 p.m. on April 13, 2026, the appealing party states the following:\n\n“Subject: Request for incorporation of evidence to better resolve, in accordance with Article 24 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, Law No. 7135) and the principle of effective protection, in case file No. 26-005469-0007-CO (appellant: Name01). Referral of official letter UEN-GA-2026-00889 from the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers (AyA). Dear Magistrates: In my capacity as appellant in the referenced case file, I address you with the utmost respect to request, in accordance with Article 24 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction —which empowers this Court to carry out evidentiary proceedings when deemed necessary for the correct resolution of the matter—, the incorporation into the case file of the documentary evidence attached and described below. This consists of official letter No. UEN-GA-2026-00889, dated April 9, 2026, issued by the National Executing Unit for Environmental Management (Unidad Ejecutora Nacional de Gestión Ambiental) of the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers (AyA), Huetar Caribe Region, signed by officials Christian Delgado Segura (UEN Gestión Ambiental), Alejandro Rodríguez Vindas, Kathy Borges Umaña, Andrea Sánchez Solera, José Matarrita Cortés, Pablo Rodríguez Fallas, and M.Sc. Viviana Ramos Sánchez (Directorate UEN Gestión Ambiental), with copies to various internal dependencies of the Institute. Said document constitutes reliable and updated proof of the serious environmental problems facing Zone Six and the coastal aquifer of Moín, derived directly from the error of omission incurred by the Municipality of Limón in excluding this zone from the current Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador). The AyA letter expressly acknowledges: 1. The complexity of the earthworks (movimiento de tierra) activities being developed in the area of interest and their direct link to the protection of water resources under AyA’s administration. 2. The strategic importance of the water resource, which has already motivated the formal referral of my complaint and inter-institutional coordination with MINAE, SETENA, the Ministry of Health, and the Municipality of Limón itself. 3. The absence of adequate regulatory controls, since AyA lacks the competence to authorize or suspend such earthworks and, additionally, lacks legal authorization to enter private property without the corresponding permits. This situation demonstrates, in an irrefutable manner, the normative vacuum and the imminent risk generated by the exclusion of Zone Six from the Regulatory Plan: the development of high environmental impact activities is permitted without the technical studies, environmental permits, or prevention and precautionary measures required by the legal system (Article 50 of the Political Constitution, the Organic Law of the Environment, and the principles of prevention, precaution, and inter-institutional coordination). The coastal aquifer of Moín, vital for the population’s supply and of high hydrogeological vulnerability, is exposed to irreversible contamination and degradation precisely because of this municipal omission. The AyA letter not only corroborates the facts reported in the constitutional action but also demonstrates the urgent need for this Constitutional Court, in exercise of its protective power, to incorporate this evidence to better resolve the matter. Its admission will allow the Magistrates to have updated and official elements that illustrate: • The real and concrete impact on the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment (Art. 50 CP). • The imminent risk to the right to potable water and public health. • The structural failure of Limón’s territorial planning, which generates a competence vacuum and a latent threat to the public interest. Therefore, based on Article 24 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, I respectfully request this Court to: a) Accept the presentation of the documentary evidence consisting of AyA official letter No. UEN-GA-2026-00889 (original or certified copy attached). b) Immediately incorporate it into case file No. 26-005469-0007-CO as evidence for better resolution. c) Evaluate it at the time of issuing judgment, for the purpose of ordering the necessary measures for the effective protection of the coastal aquifer of Moín and Zone Six, thus correcting the omission of the Regulatory Plan of the Municipality of Limón. Attached: AyA Official Letter No. UEN-GA-2026-00889 of April 9, 2026 (complete, with signatures and distribution copies). I remain at the disposal of this Court for any clarification or additional diligence deemed pertinent.”\n\n**19.-** By means of a writing incorporated into the digital case file at 2:27 p.m. on April 17, 2026, the appealing party states the following:\n\n“With the deepest respect, I, Name01, appellant in the referenced case file, am addressing this honorable Court to formally transfer a supervening event of great significance that irrefutably reinforces the claims of the present amparo appeal (recurso de amparo) and justifies, with extreme urgency, the immediate adoption of protective precautionary measures. I attach a complete copy of official letter No. GSP-RHC-2026-00614, dated April 7, 2026, signed by Mr. José Matarrita Cortes on behalf of the Huetar Caribe Region of the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers (AyA). Said letter is addressed directly to M.Sc. Maylin Mora Arias, Regional Director of SINAC, and M.Sc. Andrés Cortez Orozco, Director of the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, SETENA), for the purpose of officially transferring the complaint that this servant submitted on March 18, 2026, regarding the project ‘Movimiento de Tierras Orión Limón’ (Orión Limón Earthworks), developed by Inmobiliaria Orión de Belén Sociedad Anónima at Dirección03, covered under environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) No. 2033-2025-SETENA. What is particularly revealing and of high strategic relevance regarding this supervening fact is that the authorities of AyA have taken measures for management and transfer of the case solely as a result of the action and complaint submitted by the undersigned appellant, and not by the institution’s own initiative. AyA —the entity responsible since 1980 for the creation, delimitation, and protection of the Moín coastal aquifer protection zone (with official updates in 2007 by Board of Directors Agreement and publication in La Gaceta)— recognized the risk only after receiving the formal complaint from this servant. In the attached letter, the institution expressly acknowledges the existence of a real, current, and imminent risk of contamination due to the presumed impact on karstic sinkholes (dolinas kársticas), but reports that its officials lack legal authorization to enter private properties. Therefore, it expressly requests the immediate intervention of SINAC and SETENA to carry out the technical inspection and adopt the appropriate measures. This circumstance reveals with absolute clarity two aspects of utmost gravity: 1. The unforgivable omission incurred by the respondent authorities in not including the Moín coastal aquifer protection zone (particularly Zone 6 according to the EPIK method of hydrogeological vulnerability) within the Limón Regulatory Plan. Said omission has allowed —and continues to allow— SETENA to issue environmental viabilities without duly considering the vulnerability matrix of the National Groundwater, Irrigation, and Drainage Service (Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento, SENARA), nor the high indices of intrinsic vulnerability derived from the karstic geology of the area, which facilitates the direct infiltration of contaminants into the aquifer. 2. That AyA’s institutional action was triggered exclusively by the appellant’s initiative and management, which demonstrates the initial passivity of the responsible institutions and reinforces the need for this Constitutional Court to intervene decisively to prevent irreparable damages. In this context, the immediate adoption of protective precautionary measures is presented as a constitutional and institutional imperative, in direct support of the efforts of AyA itself, which were triggered by the undersigned’s complaint. In accordance with the precautionary principle enshrined in Costa Rican environmental law and in the constant jurisprudence of this Court, given the existence of a serious and imminent risk of irreparable damage to a strategic water resource —whose impact would directly affect the fundamental rights to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment (Article 50 of the Constitution), to life and health (Article 21 of the Constitution), as well as access to potable water— it is essential to provisionally suspend the effects of environmental viability No. 2033-2025-SETENA and any administrative or material act derived from it. Said precautionary measures will not only prevent irreversible damage to the natural heritage and the rights of present and future generations but will also provide the necessary legal and operational support to AyA so that, in coordination with SINAC and SETENA, it can effectively fulfill its legal mandate of protecting the Moín coastal aquifer. I beg Your Honors to assess this supervening fact with the utmost urgency that the case merits and to order, without further procedure, the requested precautionary measures, until this appeal is resolved on its merits. Attachments: 1. Copy of official letter No. GSP-RHC-2026-00614 from AyA – Huetar Caribe Region, dated April 7, 2026, and its annexes. 2. Copy of the complaint submitted on March 18, 2026 (for reference). I remain entirely at the Court’s disposal for any expansion, clarification, or diligence deemed necessary. I attach the AyA letter with its corresponding annexes.”\n\n**20.-** In the proceedings followed, the legal requirements have been observed.\n\nDrafted by Magistrate Garro Vargas; and,\n\n**Considering:**\n\n**I.- Object of the appeal.** The appellant points out that “Zone 6 of the Moín Coastal Aquifer” was declared an area of absolute protection by the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers (AyA) in the 1980s, a condition that was reiterated in 2007 and 2011 due to its strategic relevance for the province of Limón. He indicates that, despite this, said zone has not been incorporated as an area of absolute protection within the Urban Regulatory Plan of Limón (Plan Regulador Urbano de Limón), which, in his opinion, constitutes an omission that violates the principle of environmental integration and exposes the aquifer to serious risks. Likewise, he states that on January 27, 2026, Nombre02 issued a technical report ratifying the high and extreme vulnerability of said zone, as well as the incompatibility of the current regulatory plan with institutional technical criteria. He points out that, based on said report, on February 2, 2026, he requested the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism (Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo, INVU) to render accounts and adopt measures to correct the regulatory plan; however, through a response of February 13, 2026, said entity denied responsibility, alleged lack of competence, and referred to a previous resolution of this Court. Furthermore, he argues that the response provided did not assess the new technical report, nor did it order concrete actions to correct the inconsistencies of the regulatory plan, which, in his judgment, constitutes an administrative omission that perpetuates the environmental risk and disregards the principles of prevention, precaution, and non-regression. Finally, he maintains that this omission continuously exposes the population of Limón to significant environmental risks, for which he deems his fundamental rights violated and requests that the appeal be granted and measures be ordered to incorporate the zone as an area of absolute protection in the regulatory plan.\n\n**II.- Proven facts.** Of importance for the decision in this matter, the following facts are considered duly demonstrated, either because they have been accredited or because the respondents have omitted to refer to them as provided in the initial order:\n\n| 1) | Zone 6 of Limón is the area where the Limón-Moín aquifer is located (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence provided to the digital case file). |\n| :--- | :--- |\n| 2) | The Board of Directors of ICAA, through agreement No. 80-121 of session 80 028 of April 14, 1980, declared the Moín-Limón springs (nacientes) a water protection zone, establishing the following prohibitions: “(…) The Drilling or Excavation of Wells, infiltration galleries, or any other water catchment works. Construction of Dwelling Houses, Industrial and Commercial Facilities, Pigsties, Chicken Coops and Corrals in general, Septic Tanks, Cesspools, or Sanitary Systems that may affect the subsoil waters. The removal or extraction of all types of materials. All agricultural activity. All cutting of forest vegetation. The use of plaguicides, pesticides, or poisonous substances for any purpose. Installation of garbage dumps, sanitary landfills or waste dumps of any kind (…)” (see judgment no. 2025039386 of 9:20 a.m. on November 28, 2025, brought ad effectum videndi et probandi). |\n| 3) | Nombre02 promulgated the so-called “Matrix of Land-Use Criteria According to Aquifer Contamination Vulnerability for the Protection of Water Resources” (Matriz de Criterios de Uso del Suelo Según la Vulnerabilidad a la Contaminación de Acuíferos Para la Protección del Recurso Hídrico), which was approved by the Board of Directors of that institution by agreement No. 3303, in extraordinary session No. 239-06 of September 26, 2006. This matrix is a guiding input for carrying out, in a comprehensive environmental manner, land-use regulation and zoning processes in the national territory (see judgment no. 2025039386 of 9:20 a.m. on November 28, 2025, brought ad effectum videndi et probandi). |\n| 4) | Through agreement No. 2007-177 of the Board of Directors of ICAA, published in La Gaceta No. 83 of Wednesday, May 2, 2007, the “Officialization of the Hydrogeological Study and Vulnerability of the Moín, Limón Aquifer and the Update of the Protection Zone DGAMB-2007-031” was enacted, and its operative part (por tanto) ruled as follows: |\n\n\n5) For zones 7, 8, 9, and 10, every development project must be required to construct sanitary sewer systems, and the AyA must initiate the necessary studies to build the primary and secondary collectors that allow wastewater to be evacuated toward the submarine outfall. 6) The executive branch will be requested to promulgate a decree aimed at the protection of the Moín springs; as well as the land-use limitations that ensure the conservation and improvement of environmental conditions in the other zones of the Moín Aquifer; in accordance with the \"Estudio Hidrogeológico y Vulnerabilidad del Acuífero de Moín, Limón\" and the land-use recommendations. 7) For zone 6, the Dirección Regional Huetar Atlántica and the Dirección de Gestión Ambiental will create and maintain an exhaustive inventory of land use, identifying the activities and establishments that store substances posing a risk to the quality of water for human use. 8) The competent entities must be urged to conduct a risk analysis of the industries established in the direct influence zone of the Moín springs, which must include a possible conflagration involving several industries, and an action protocol must be established to address a possible emergency that considers the participation of all industries established in the zone. 9) To guarantee the observance of the restrictions and follow up on the application of the defined measures, the Unidad Regional de Control Ambiental of the Región Atlántica will be formed, under the charge of the Gerencia of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados. 10.- Unless it is demonstrated that the Moín springs have been irreversibly affected, according to regulations, by the Químicos Holanda event, they must be kept in use for supplying the population for technical and demand-related reasons; under the following conditions: Order the immediate construction of a treatment plant, including an activated carbon system or the technology necessary to ensure quality against any possible contamination. Studies must be initiated immediately to define the possibility of using the upper basin of the río Banano with a view to replacing the Moín springs in case they become contaminated by the industrial activities carried out in the basin. THE MUNICIPALITIES LOCATED IN THE HIGH, MEDIUM, AND LOW VULNERABILITY ZONES WILL BE NOTIFIED OF THIS AGREEMENT FOR ITS IMPLEMENTATION IN THE REGULATORY PLAN SO THAT \"THE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REGULATION OF PROPERTY USE AND THE ESTUDIO HIDROGEOLÓGICO Y VULNERABILIDAD DEL ACUÍFERO DE MOÍN-LIMÓN·\" ARE BINDING, EMPHASIZING THE NEED FOR ZONE 6 TO BE CONSIDERED AS AN AREA OF ABSOLUTE RESTRICTION. LIKEWISE, THE MINISTERIO DE SALUD, THE MINAE, THE INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE VIVIENDA Y URBANISMO, THE Nombre02 AND THE SETENA WILL BE NOTIFIED FOR THE FULFILLMENT OF THEIR COMPETENCIES. LET IT BE PUBLISHED AND NOTIFIED (...)\" (see judgment No. 2025039386 of 09:20 hours on November 28, 2025, brought ad effectum videndi et probandi).\n\n5) Through agreement No. 112 of May 2, 2011, published in La Gaceta No. 83, the ICAA ordered the amendment of agreement No. 2007-107 \"Oficialización del estudio Hidrogeológico y Vulnerabilidad del Acuífero Moín, Limón, y la actualización de la zona de protección DGAMB-2007-031\", under the following terms:\n\n\"(...) 1º- Agreement 2007-177 is Amended, in its Por Tanto Segundo, regarding the enumeration of recommendations for regulating land use in Zone 6, with the following restriction guidelines and in application of the 'Matriz de Criterios de Uso del Suelo según la vulnerabilidad a la contaminación de los Acuíferos para la Protección del Recurso Hídrico,' issued by the Junta Directiva of Nombre02 in session on September 26, 2006: For all activities, the sealed surface area per hectare must not exceed 20%. Those INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES that, throughout the different stages of construction and operation, generate a negative environmental impact on the aquifer must submit an environmental impact assessment (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental) duly approved by SETENA. In accordance with the Reglamento of the Ministerio de Salud, Decreto 30465 S and the Reglamento de Vertidos y Rehúso de Aguas Residuales. N. 26041-S MINAE, high-risk industrial activities are not permitted due to the possible contamination impact. These high-risk activities are defined as those that have a possibility of explosion, fire, leak, or sudden spill resulting from the process during industrial activities, as well as in pipelines and transport, involving one or several hazardous substances and that pose a serious danger (of immediate or delayed, reversible or irreversible manifestation) for the population, their property, the environment, and ecosystems. Do not authorize storage activities and USE OF PESTICIDES, PLAGUICIDAS, FUELS AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES, OR PRECURSORS OF THESE FOR ANY PURPOSE. For REMOVAL, CUTTING AND FILLING OF MATERIALS (earthworks [movimientos de tierra]), a hydrogeological study must be conducted proving that there will be no impact to the aquifer and an Environmental Management Plan (Plan de Gestión Ambiental) duly approved by SETENA. THE CONSTRUCTION OR EXCAVATION OF WELLS, INFILTRATION GALLERIES, OR ANY OTHER WATER EXTRACTION WORK IS NOT AUTHORIZED. In the case of DEVELOPMENTS OF URBANIZATIONS, LOTIFICATIONS, SUBDIVISIONS (FRACCIONAMIENTOS), AND CONDOMINIUMS, a sanitary sewer system and an ordinary-type wastewater treatment plant must be built. Developments with densities equal to or less than one housing unit per 1000 meters may be permitted. In the case of HOTELS AND SIMILAR LODGING ESTABLISHMENTS, they may be permitted subject to effluent management with a treatment plant complying with the current Reglamento de Vertidos. The number of rooms must not exceed a load equivalent to 50 people per hectare. DO NOT INSTALL GARBAGE DUMPS, SANITARY LANDFILLS, OR WASTE DISPOSAL SITES OF ANY KIND. The AyA, considering the studies presented by the interested party and endorsed by the pertinent authorities, may rule on other types of activities not listed in this agreement that affect the quality and quantity of the water, establishing binding technical recommendations for the regulation of the activity. The AYA will be empowered by Ley 2726 to evaluate whether there is an impact to the aquifer and the correct disposal of wastewater in accordance with the current vertidos regulation, in addition to the approval or denial of the activity. In Zone 6, housing constructions arising from vegetative growth will be permitted, provided it is ensured that wastewater is not discharged into dolines and that garbage collection is carried out by the municipal service or another means. 3º- The Local Government and the Competent Institutions are recommended to proceed to implement protection measures aimed at the conservation of forested zones. 4º- The Senior Administration is instructed to take the appropriate steps and request the Municipalidad de Limón to implement the recommendations issued in this agreement. 5º- The Senior Administration is instructed to take the appropriate steps and request the MINAET to restrict ALL FOREST VEGETATION CUTTING IN THE Dirección01. 6º- For zone 6, the Dirección Regional Huetar Atlántica and the UEN de Ambiente, Investigación y Desarrollo will create and maintain an exhaustive inventory of land use, identifying the activities and establishments that store substances posing a risk to the quality of water for human use. They will also be responsible for the analysis of the proposals submitted by the Administered Party and the assessment of non-affectation of the aquifer and correct disposal of wastewater. 7º- In all other aspects, the provisions ruled in the Acuerdo de Junta Directiva 2007-177 remain in force (...)\" (see judgment No. 2025039386 of 09:20 hours on November 28, 2025, brought ad effectum videndi et probandi).\n\n6) The regulatory plan (Plan Regulador) of the central canton of Limón was published in La Gaceta No. 212, Alcance 225, on November 15, 2023 (see the court records).\n\nIV.- Regarding the specific case. The appellant maintains that, despite the fact that \"Zone 6 of the Moín Coastal Aquifer\" has been declared an area of absolute protection since the 1980s – a condition reiterated in subsequent years due to its strategic importance – this category has not been incorporated into the Urban Regulatory Plan of Limón, which they consider an omission that exposes the aquifer to serious risks. They point out that a recent technical report from Nombre02 ratified the high vulnerability of the zone and the incompatibility of the regulatory plan with the current technical criteria, in response to which they requested corrective measures from the INVU; however, said entity denied responsibility and alleged lack of jurisdiction without evaluating the new technical input or ordering concrete actions. In this context, they argue that an administrative omission persists that disregards environmental principles and maintains a continuous risk for the population, and therefore they request that the appeal be granted and that the incorporation of the zone as an area of absolute protection in the regulatory plan be ordered.\n\nBased on the foregoing, it is worth noting that this Chamber has already had the opportunity to rule on the validity of the Regulatory Plan of Limón and on the claims raised by the appellant himself regarding the protection of the so-called \"Zone 6 of the Moín aquifer.\" In judgment No. 2025039386 of 09:20 hours on November 28, 2025, this Court resolved the following:\n\n\"I.- OBJECT OF THE APPEAL. The appellants essentially argue that: a) Agreement No. 2011-112 of the Junta Directiva of the ICAA lacks technical support and established 'valves' of flexibilization in Zone 6 (of the Limón-Moín aquifer), incompatible with a regime of total and absolute protection previously established for said site. b) The ICAA has incurred omissions in the execution of agreement No. 2011-112, as recent documentation confirms the absence of consolidated public information on the aquifer zones on its platforms and responses that refer to general emergency protocols and a regional control unit without a historical functional traceability. c) The Regulatory Plan of Limón did not expressly incorporate the cartographic delimitation of the aforementioned Zone 6 as an area of absolute protection of groundwater, nor does it transfer to its regulations the material prohibitions and conditions of the Matriz of Nombre02 from the year 2006 (which allows the processing of tourism, residential uses, subdivisions, and earthworks through generic conditions). d) The ICAA omitted to publish a protection decree to formalize the limits of Zone 6, despite having so ordered in the sixth por tanto of agreement No. 2007-177. They affirm that such actions and omissions violate the fundamental rights to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, to potable water, and to health.\n\n(...)\n\nIII.- SPECIFIC CASE. The appellant Nombre01 comes for amparo and categorically states that the object of this is the following: '(i) that the nullity, due to material and formal unconstitutionality, of the provisions of the Acuerdo de Junta Directiva del AyA No. 2011-112 —and, where applicable, of No. 2007-177— be declared (...) (ii) that the partial nullity of the Regulatory Plan of Limón be declared insofar as it omits or contradicts the cartographic delimitation and the absolute protection regime of Zone 6; and (iii) that the immediate adoption of precautionary and structural measures be ordered to ensure the effective protection of the Moín aquifer, in accordance with the Matriz of Nombre02 and with votes 2008-004790 and 2011-014596 of the Constitutional Chamber.'\n\nNext, said appellant, through several lengthy briefs, repeatedly refers to the aforementioned points.\n\nThus, he argues that agreement No. 2011-112 of the Junta Directiva of the ICAA established 'valves' of flexibilization in Zone 6 (of the Limón Moín aquifer), incompatible with a regime of total and absolute protection previously established for said site, thereby allowing a generic impermeabilization threshold of twenty percent (20%) per hectare, earthworks (movimientos de tierra) by means of a study and PGA, and authorization of housing due to 'vegetative growth' without density parameters or impermeabilization control.\n\nAdditionally, he affirms that the ICAA has incurred omissions when executing agreement No. 2011-112, as recent documentation confirms the absence of consolidated public information from that institute about the aquifer zones on its platforms and responses that refer to general emergency protocols and a regional control unit without a historical functional traceability. He maintains that, in recent official responses to information requests, the ICAA has acknowledged '(a) that it does not have the methodology or cartography to control the figure of \"vegetative growth\" in Zone 6, limiting itself to citing variations in domiciliary services without correlating them with density, impermeable cover, or recharge; (b) that it does not maintain an exhaustive and updated inventory of establishments with hazardous substances, an essential condition for preventive risk management in zones of high vulnerability; and (c) that it applies a generic emergency protocol (GTE-105-01-P) and not a specific protocol for the karstic recharge of Moín, despite the existence of dolines, fissures, and short contaminant transit times, described by the EPIK studies and by the SENARA cartography.'\n\nRegarding the Regulatory Plan of Limón, he alleges that it did not expressly incorporate the cartographic delimitation of the aforementioned Zone 6 as an area of absolute protection of groundwater, despite the existence of studies demonstrating the high vulnerability (which allows the processing of tourism, residential uses, subdivisions [fraccionamientos], and earthworks [movimientos de tierra] through generic conditions). He explains that only 3% of the surface of the so-called Zone 6 was placed in a protection category, while the remaining 97% was designated for urban development. He accuses that, despite the fact that the planning document itself admits the high fragility of wetlands and the disappearance of primary forests, it simultaneously authorizes urban developments with coverages of up to 30% and even substitution by treatment plants or modified septic tanks. He alleges that this regulatory duality — recognizing fragility but authorizing urbanization — contradicts the mandate of absolute protection that weighs upon Zone 6 and is incompatible with the precautionary principle. Additionally, he accuses that said plan also did not transfer to its regulations the material prohibitions and conditions consigned in the 'Matriz de Criterios de Uso de Suelo del Nombre02 según la vulnerabilidad a la contaminación de acuíferos.'\n\nHe adds that the ICAA also omitted to publish a protection decree to formalize the limits of Zone 6, despite having so ordered in the sixth por tanto of agreement No. 2007-177. He alleges that, because said decree was not published, the delimitation of Zone 6 never acquired binding force, leaving a regulatory vacuum that the Regulatory Plan of Limón took advantage of to assign residential and tourism uses in territory that should have been of absolute protection.\n\nThe claimant Nombre01 states that what was consigned (or omitted) above contravenes the provisions of the cited Matriz of Nombre02 (a technical-legal instrument that classifies recharge zones according to their intrinsic vulnerability and establishes land-use restrictions based on contamination risk and recharge capacity), the ICAA's own Acuerdo No. 2007-177, as well as what was indicated by the Chamber in Votes Nos. 2008-4790 and 2011-14596, among others.\n\nConcomitantly, the appellant refers, in general terms, to analyses that demonstrate the drastic loss of primary forest and the under-registered permanence of wetlands and yolillales in Zone 6 of Limón. Likewise, he refers to the fact that in the Tribunal Ambiental Administrativo there is an expediente (No. 100-23-01 TAA), which records the report No. TAA-DA-241-2023, evidencing that unauthorized anthropic interventions occurred in the so-called Zone 6, explaining the loss of forest cover (cobertura boscosa) and habitat fragmentation. He indicates that this document refers to 'precarious invasion', 'felling of trees and burning of vegetation', 'construction of houses and shacks', 'earthworks (movimientos de tierra) for terraces and roads', 'invasion of protection areas', 'land-use change (cambio de uso del suelo)', and emphasizes that all of this occurs 'without municipal permits or environmental viability'. He mentions that there is also reference to specific entries for 'road', 'earthworks', and 'felling', in addition to 'house' and 'wall', corroborating the opening of paths and the removal of vegetation cover as part of the occupation pattern. He points out that in the aforementioned expediente, mention is also made of the environmental degradation that occurred in two properties, where there was a progressive loss of forest cover and the disappearance of wetlands. Furthermore, he explains that the cited Tribunal Ambiental identified invasions of the protection strip of the quebrada Portete, earthworks (movimientos de tierra), and discharges of wastewater and greywater into dolines.\n\nHe mentions that the Municipalidad de Limón also has official letter No. UTE-AML-025-2022 of June 22, 2022, where in the Villa Plata sector, there is a report of 'roads with a lot of ballast or mud material carried out manually with heavy machinery, which lack ditches and curbs on the public road' and describes 'a set of dwellings' built with precarious materials, without adequate stormwater systems, with heights that cause slope erosion and the presence of clay and coral material in the observed road layouts. Likewise, he states that Nombre02 in two official letters (No. DIGH- UIH-008-2023 and No. DIGH-UIH-154-2023), confirmed that in the aforementioned Zone 6 there is contamination by polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and benzo-alpha-pyrenes, derived from industrial operations. They also describe that the subsoil presents a fractured karstic medium, with active dolines, which function as concentrated recharge points and accelerate the transit of contaminants toward the water table.\n\nThe appellant argues, therefore, that what occurred with the ICAA agreements and the cited regulatory plan, as well as the omission to publish the decree mentioned above, was precisely what opened the possibility of and has allowed the development of incompatible activities within Zone 6, thereby violating the rights to enjoy a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, to health, and to potable water.\n\nThe appellant maintains that, in sum, the combination of (i) a decreasing and fragmentary pattern of forests and wetlands documented by FONAFIFO 2005, INF-2013, and SINAC 2021; (ii) the under-representation of yolillales in the National Registry of Wetlands; (iii) the evidence of a public watercourse and an area of hydrological importance within Zone 6; (iv) the allocation of urban uses over 97% of the surface area of absolute protection by the Regulatory Plan; and (v) the lack of full and transparent execution of the AyA's obligations according to Agreement 2011-112, constitutes a scenario of material incompatibility with the Matriz of Nombre02 and with the standards of the Constitutional Chamber. Consequently, in their opinion, the so-called Zone 6 of Limón must be restored to a strict protection regime with a published delimitation, immediate regulatory incorporation, and suspension of authorizations that increase sealed surface area, earthworks (movimientos de tierra), and densities not compatible with recharge.\n\nHaving said this, the petitions of the appellant Nombre01 are summarized as follows:\n\n'(1) Grant this amparo appeal. (2) Declare the NULLITY, due to material, formal unconstitutionality AND FOR VIOLATION OF ILO CONVENTION 169, of the following provisions of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados (AyA): (2.1) Of the Acuerdo de Junta Directiva No. 2011-112, insofar as it: (a) establishes a uniform sealed surface threshold of 20% of the surface area per hectare 'for all activities' in Zone 6; (b) authorizes 'removal, cutting and filling of materials' or earthworks in Zone 6 by means of a hydrogeological study and PGA; (c) admits 'housing constructions due to vegetative growth' in Zone 6 without density parameters, sealed surface cartography, or zero-impact verification; and (d) contains open clauses that allow 'ruling on other activities' in Zone 6 without a strict regulatory basis and without subjection to the precautionary principle. (2.2) Of Acuerdo No. 2007-177, insofar as it is interpreted or applied in a manner that allows uses incompatible with the absolute protection defined for Zone 6. (3) Declare the PARTIAL NULLITY of the Regulatory Plan of Limón insofar as it: (a) omits incorporating the cartographic delimitation and the absolute protection regime of Zone 6 of the Moín aquifer in accordance with the SENARA Matrix; (b) allows or tolerates residential uses, subdivisions (fraccionamientos), earthworks (movimientos de tierra), or increases in sealed surface area in said Zone 6 without requiring a prior environmental impact assessment (Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental) and hydrogeological, hydraulic, and hydrological studies approved by Nombre02 and AyA; and (c) omits the mandatory inter-institutional coordination in matters of aquifer protection and the application of the precautionary principle. (4) ORDER the AyA, the SENARA, the MINAE, and the Municipalidad de Limón, within a maximum period of SIX (6) months, to adopt the following structural measures: (4.a) issue the DECRETO EJECUTIVO for the protection of the Moín springs and Zone 6, with official coordinates, an absolute protection regime, and express reference to the SENARA Matrix; (4.b) prepare and implement a PUBLIC and updated INVENTORY of activities involving hazardous substances in Zone 6; (4.c) adopt a SPECIFIC PROTOCOL for emergencies and contingencies for the karstic recharge of Moín; (4.d) establish a SYSTEM for periodic MONITORING (water quality, nitrates, conductivity, bacteriology) with publication of results and early warning mechanisms; and (4.e) fully adapt the Regulatory Plan of Limón to the Matriz of Nombre02 and constitutional jurisprudence, incorporating Zone 6 as an area of absolute protection. (5) ORDER the IMMEDIATE SUSPENSION of any construction, subdivision (fraccionamiento), land-use (uso del suelo) change, or earthworks (movimiento de tierra) permit in Zone 6 until full compliance with the preceding points, under warning of article 71 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional (crime of disobedience). (6) That all the respondents violated the constitutional Principle of administrative coordination in matters of aquifer protection and aquifer recharge areas, by allowing regressive regulations and the invisibilization of zone 6 in the Limón regulatory plan and in the reduction of protection in the agreements of the Junta Directiva of the ICAA.'\n\n(8) (sic) ORDER the payment of legal costs and damages as applicable, in accordance with Articles 48 of the Political Constitution and 71 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction.”\n\nFor his part, the petitioner Nombre03 also files an amparo action and partially reproduces the allegations made by Nombre01.\n\nIn this way, he claims that the ICAA has not managed with the Executive Branch the issuance and publication of the protection decree for Zone 6 of the Moín aquifer, as ordered by its own Board of Directors Agreement No. 2007-177. He mentions that the lack of publication of the decree has generated a regulatory invisibility. He points out that the protection parameters defined by the Nombre02 Matrix and ratified by the Constitutional Chamber remain unreflected in municipal cartography and regulations, which allows the Limón Regulatory Plan to continue processing subdivisions (fraccionamientos), urbanizations, and earthworks (movimientos de tierra) in a territory that, by technical and jurisprudential mandate, must be maintained under a regime of absolute protection. \n\nHe adds that ICAA Board of Directors Agreement No. 2011-112, far from strengthening protection, introduced provisions that relax the required standards. He affirms that these provisions directly contravene the SENARA Matrix, which prohibits such activities in zones of extreme vulnerability. He argues that the current validity of Agreement No. 2011-112 not only lacks technical support, but is manifestly unconstitutional for arbitrarily reducing the level of protection of Zone 6, replacing a regime of absolute protection ordered to safeguard human water supply, with a permissive regulation designed exclusively to evade a previously firm constitutional obligation to expropriate and indemnify. \n\nHe also alleges that the existence of occupations and land uses incompatible with the declaration of Zone 6 constitutes a violation of Article 50 of the Political Constitution, which enshrines the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, as well as the principles of non-regression, precaution, and prevention in environmental matters. \n\nThus, Nombre03 expressly petitions this Constitutional Chamber for the following: \n\n“to grant the present amparo action; and to decree that the ICAA Board of Directors failed in its duty to publish the decree for the protection and delimitation of the Moín aquifer, as it ordered in its own Board of Directors Agreement No. 2007-177. Order the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers (ICAA AyA) to, within a peremptory period, request and manage with the Executive Branch the promulgation and publication of the protection decree for the Moín aquifer. Order that Board of Directors Agreements No. 2007-177 and 2011-112 be applied only to the extent that they are compatible with the Nombre02 Matrix and with constitutional jurisprudence, rendering ineffective their provisions that relax protection. Order the National Groundwater, Irrigation and Drainage Service (SENARA) to fulfill its duty of coordination, actively participating in the drafting, signing, request, and publication of the decree and in the integral application of the Land Use Criteria Matrix”.\n\nAdditionally, in a subsequent filing, it was also requested that this jurisdiction order “the expropriation of lands occupied incompatibly in Zone 6”.\n\nNow then, having analyzed all of the above, this Constitutional Court does not consider that there is merit to hear this amparo action on its merits, nor to grant the list of specific petitions indicated above. This is fundamentally because the petitioners came to this jurisdiction in a generic and abstract manner, without formulating and specifying an act of concrete application or a concrete and individualized relationship of facts that affects or harms a specific person or several. In essence, no situation is individualized that has generated a violation or threat of violation to the fundamental rights to which they refer, as required by the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction in its Articles 1 and 29. \n\nAccording to a detailed reading of all the filings made by the petitioners, they confine themselves to merely pointing out the reasons why, in their opinion, the cited ICAA agreements (Nos. 2007-177 and 2011-112), as well as the Limón Regulatory Plan, become unconstitutional, without concomitantly referring to or substantiating, in a reasoned manner, any act of concrete application that affects or harms fundamental rights. A state of affairs that is reaffirmed when analyzing punctually the list of petitions raised by both parties, where the protected parties do not request the intervention of this Court against a particular situation, specific act, or omission. \n\nIt must be noted that, although the petitioners make brief reference to various situations that have affected, in their opinion, Zone 6 of Limón, in substance, they do not properly come against any action or omission intrinsically related to these, which is verified, as stated, by reading the list of petitions raised not only in the main filings for the filing of the amparo, but also in the rest of the briefs attached to the process. \n\nOn this matter, this Court has indicated that, although the amparo action may be filed by any person and on behalf of a third party, the truth is that the existence of an individualized or individualizable injury or threat is required, in particular, for it to be heard by this jurisdiction; which, as stated, does not occur in the case under study. In substance, it is clear that it is simply a disagreement of the petitioner parties with the content of the referred ICAA agreements and the Limón Regulatory Plan, which, in turn, cannot be reviewed or declared unconstitutional through the summary amparo procedure. \n\nHaving said the above, what is appropriate is to dismiss the present process, as is hereby ordered”.\n\nIt should be noted that, in judgment No. 2025039386 at 09:20 hours on November 28, 2025, the Constitutional Chamber heard an amparo action filed, among others, by the same petitioner, in which a questioning was raised substantially directed against the way in which the competent public institutions have regulated and managed the protection of the so-called Zone 6 of the Moín aquifer, alleging the existence of inconsistencies between the applicable technical and regulatory instruments, as well as omissions in the incorporation of said zone as an area of absolute protection within the Regulatory Plan of the canton of Limón. \n\nIn this sense, it is noted that the petitioner, on that occasion, not only questioned the validity and scope of the AyA Board of Directors agreements –particularly numbers 2007-177 and 2011-112–, but also alleged that such provisions introduced parameters that, in his judgment, were incompatible with the protection standard required for a highly vulnerable aquifer, while reproaching the lack of effective incorporation of the restrictions derived from the land use criteria matrix of Nombre02 within the current territorial planning, which, in his opinion, allowed the development of urban activities potentially harmful to the water resource. Likewise, it is verified that said approach was based on a broad technical-legal exposition, which developed considerations related to the precautionary principle, the need for inter-institutional coordination, and the obligation to safeguard the fundamental right to a healthy environment, requesting, in essence, the annulment of regulatory provisions, the adoption of structural measures, and the imposition of specific obligations on the respondent authorities to guarantee the effective protection of the aquifer.\n\nHowever, the truth is that the Chamber, on that occasion, resolved to dismiss the amparo action, considering that the petitioner's approach did not demonstrate a direct, current, and individualizable injury to fundamental rights, but rather, on the contrary, was directed at questioning, in general terms, the validity, scope, and coherence of technical and regulatory instruments in the matter of territorial planning and water resource protection, as well as seeking the adoption of measures of a structural nature and the modification of provisions of general scope. In this sense, it is inferred that the Chamber noted that the formulated claims –such as the declaration of nullity of AyA Board of Directors agreements, the partial annulment of the Limón Regulatory Plan, and the imposition of specific obligations on various institutions to redefine the protection regime of Zone 6– exceeded the proper scope of the amparo action, as they implied a control of legality and opportunity over technical and territorial planning decisions that correspond to the Administration in the exercise of its powers, as well as to the respective ordinary channels. Likewise, it is observed that the Court took into consideration that the issue raised by the petitioner is inserted within a structural and complex conflict, involving the interaction of multiple public entities, specialized technical criteria, and inter-institutional coordination processes, so it was not legally viable, in constitutional jurisdiction, to substitute such assessments or order, through this means, the reconfiguration of the questioned regulatory instruments.\n\nThus, far from granting the raised claims, the Chamber concluded that the action did not constitute the suitable mechanism to channel the formulated complaints, insofar as they did not demonstrate a specific arbitrary action susceptible to immediate protection, but rather a disagreement with the current regulation and with the way in which the authorities have exercised their powers in this matter, which is why it proceeded to its dismissal.\n\nNow then, it is true that, in the present matter, the petitioner incorporates some additional elements with respect to the approaches formulated in the case file that gave rise to judgment No. 2025039386, among them, the reference to technical official letter SENARA-DIGH-006-2026, the subsequent communication directed to the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism through official letter AEL-008-2026, as well as the response provided by said entity through official letter CDU-047-02-2026, from which he attempts to reconfigure his claim under the thesis of a supposed regressive administrative omission attributable to that body.\n\nNevertheless, the truth is that, even taking these elements into consideration, it is observed that they do not introduce a materially distinct controversy from the one already submitted to the knowledge of this Chamber, as they do not alter the factual or legal core that served as the basis for the previous ruling. Indeed, despite the incorporation of a new technical input and subsequent administrative actions, the claim continues to revolve around the same structural issue previously analyzed, that is, the alleged insufficiency of the protection regime of the so-called Zone 6 of the Moín aquifer, the lack of incorporation of said zone as an area of absolute protection within the Limón Regulatory Plan, and the claim that, through the amparo action, the competent authorities be ordered to adopt measures aimed at modifying or adapting said territorial planning instrument.\n\nAlong the same lines, it is noted that the new SENARA report, while presented as a novel element, does not have sufficient substance to transform the nature of the conflict, since its content is limited to reiterating the aquifer's vulnerability condition and the incompatibility of the regulatory plan with institutional technical criteria, aspects that had already been extensively set forth and assessed in the previous process. Similarly, the communication formulated before the INVU and the response obtained do not, by themselves, constitute an autonomous injury susceptible to independent analysis, but rather are inserted within the same global questioning regarding the actions of the institutions in the matter of territorial planning and water protection.\n\nFurthermore, even when the petitioner now seeks to focus his reproach on the conduct of the INVU, alleging a supposed regressive omission, the truth is that this reformulation does not modify the essence of the approach, as it continues to be oriented towards obtaining, in constitutional jurisdiction, the adoption of general and structural measures, as well as the redefinition of powers and the adaptation of regulatory instruments, which, as already determined by this Chamber, exceeds the proper scope of the amparo action and corresponds to ordinary administrative and jurisdictional instances.\n\nIn this way, it is verified that the reason why the previous action was dismissed —that is, the inadmissibility of the amparo as a means to question technical assessments and territorial planning decisions, in the absence of a concrete, current, and individualized injury to fundamental rights— remains unchanged in the case at hand, as the elements now incorporated do not disprove said conclusion, but rather, on the contrary, confirm that the petitioner persists in raising, under a new formulation, a disagreement substantially identical to the one already resolved by this Court.\n\nConsequently, as the existence of a substantial change in the case's circumstances that justifies a new analysis on the merits is not evident, it is appropriate that the petitioner abide by what was resolved in judgment No. 2025039386 at 09:20 hours on November 28, 2025.\n\nIV.- Dissenting vote of Magistrates Cruz Castro and Rueda Leal, drafted by the latter. In the case at hand, the majority of the Chamber dismisses the action based on what is provided in judgment No. 2025039386 at 9:20 hours on November 28, 2025; however, on that occasion we dissented in the following terms: \n\n“VI.- DISSENTING VOTE OF MAGISTRATES CRUZ CASTRO AND RUEDA LEAL, DRAFTED BY THE LATTER. In the sub examine, the petitioners indicate that Agreement No. 2011-112 of the ICAA Board of Directors lacks technical support and relaxed the protection of Zone 6 (of the Limón-Moín aquifer), which is incompatible with a regime of total and absolute protection previously established for that site. They claim omissions on the part of the ICAA in the execution of Agreement No. 2011-112. They accuse that the Limón Regulatory Plan did not expressly incorporate the cartographic delimitation of Zone 6 mentioned ut supra as an area of absolute protection of groundwater, nor did it transfer to its regulations the material prohibitions and conditions of the Nombre02 Matrix of 2006 (which allows the processing of tourist, residential uses, subdivisions (fraccionamientos) and earthworks (movimientos de tierra) through generic conditions). They mention that the ICAA omitted to publish a protection decree to formalize the limits of Zone 6, despite having so ordered in the sixth operative clause (por tanto sexto) of Agreement No. 2007-177. They affirm that such actions and omissions violate the fundamental rights to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, to potable water, and to health. \n\nFrom the foregoing, claims are evident aimed at demonstrating the unconstitutionality of agreements of the ICAA Board of Directors (for having relaxed the protection of Zone 6 of the Limón-Moín aquifer), as well as also the possible unconstitutionality by omission of the Limón Regulatory Plan for not expressly contemplating the cartographic delimitation of Zone 6 mentioned as an area of absolute protection of groundwater (nor transferring the material prohibitions and conditions of the Nombre02 Matrix of 2006). \n\nPrecisely, as it is an environmental issue and, even, linked to public health and, among other consequences, its impact on vegetation, there is a standing (legitimación) fully recognized in Article 105 of the Biodiversity Law which establishes: “Popular action Any person shall have standing to sue in administrative or jurisdictional venues, in defense and protection of biodiversity”, for which reason this amparo action, in accordance with Article 75 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, is suitable to grant the petitioners a period to file an unconstitutionality action. \n\nHaving clarified the foregoing, doubts of constitutionality arise in relation to the provisions contained in the agreements of the ICAA Board of Directors (which according to the petitioners decreased the absolute protection of an aquifer zone) and the possible unconstitutionality by omission claimed with respect to the Limón Regulatory Plan (for lack of cartographic delimitation of the zone and of prohibitions). Regarding the latter, we have held that unconstitutionality by omission not only occurs by derivation of an express mandate of the Political Constitution or international treaty, but is also viable when the exercise or protection of a fundamental right may be frustrated through some omission in regulatory bodies. Not in vain, Article 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights imposes on States the adoption of domestic law provisions to give effect to the rights and freedoms of that instrument. Similarly, for the sake of the real validity and full experience of fundamental rights, these must be instrumentalized through lower-ranking norms (legislative provisions or of another character), as occurs with extraordinary frequency, which imposes on States an obligation, whose omission may be subject to constitutionality control by this jurisdiction.\n\nThus, we consider that the procedural remedy to review the eventual compatibility with Constitutional Law of the provisions contained in the agreements of the ICAA Board of Directors, as well as the alleged omission of the Limón Regulatory Plan, is the unconstitutionality action, as provided by Article 48 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction:\n\n“Article 48. At any time when the Chamber considers that the challenged actions or omissions are reasonably based on current norms, whether or not these have also been challenged as violative of the rights or freedoms claimed, it shall so declare in a reasoned resolution, and shall suspend the proceedings and grant the petitioner a term of fifteen business days to formalize the unconstitutionality action against them. If it is not done, the case file shall be archived. (…)”\n\nWe add that, prima facie, the agreements in question, by their effects, plausibly appear to have the nature of a general provision.\n\nTherefore, we dissent in order to grant the petitioners a term of fifteen business days, so that, if they see fit, they file an unconstitutionality action against the agreements of the ICAA Board of Directors and the Limón Regulatory Plan”.\n\nTherefore, consistently with the dissenting vote transcribed ut supra, we dissent and grant a period for the petitioner, if he sees fit, to file an unconstitutionality action against the agreements of the ICAA Board of Directors and the Limón Regulatory Plan.\n\nV.- Documentation provided to the case file. The parties are warned that, if they have provided any paper document, as well as objects or evidence contained in any additional electronic, computer, magnetic, optical, telematic device or one produced by new technologies, these must be withdrawn from the office within a maximum period of thirty business days counted from the notification of this judgment.\n\nOtherwise, all material not removed within this period shall be destroyed, in accordance with the provisions of the \"Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial\", approved by the Corte Plena in Session No. 27-11 of August 22, 2011, article XXVI and published in the Boletín Judicial No. 19 of January 26, 2012, as well as in the agreement approved by the Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial, in Session No. 43-12 held on May 3, 2012, article LXXXI.\n\nPor tanto:\n\nThe appellant shall abide by the decision rendered in judgment n.°2025039386 of 09:20 hours on November 28, 2025.\n\nMagistrates Cruz Castro and Rueda Leal dissent and grant the petitioner a period of FIFTEEN DAYS in order to, if they deem it appropriate, file an action of unconstitutionality against the agreements of the Board of Directors of ICAA and the Regulatory Plan of Limón (Plan Regulador de Limón).\n\n\n\n\n\nFernando Castillo V.\n\nPresidente\n\n\n\nFernando Cruz C.\n\n\n\nPaul Rueda L.\n\nLuis Fdo.\n\nSalazar A.\n\nJorge Araya G.\n\nAnamari Garro V.\n\n\n\nIngrid Hess H.\n\n\n\n\n\nDocumento Firmado Digitalmente\n\n-- Código verificador --\n\n\n\nLRYT7LDALFS61\n\nEXPEDIENTE N° 26-005469-0007-CO\n\nTeléfonos: Telf01/ ALA-4TA (Telf02). Fax: Telf03 / Telf04. Dirección electrónica: www.poder-judicial.go.cr/salaconstitucional. Dirección: (Dirección04, Dirección05, 100 mts. Sur de la iglesia del Perpetuo Socorro).\n\nExp: 26-005469-0007-CO\n\nRes. Nº 2026013366\n\n**SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las nueve horas veinte minutos del veintiuno de abril de dos mil veintiseis .**\n\n**Recurso de amparo** that is processed in expediente **number 26-005469-0007-CO**, filed by **Nombre01**, an older adult, identity card CED01, against the **Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo, the Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento, and the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados.**\n\n**Resultando:**\n\n**1.-** Through a writing received at the Secretariat of the Chamber at 4:51 p.m. on February 16, 2026, the petitioner files a recurso de amparo against the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo -INVU-, the Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento -SENARA- and the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados -ICAA- and states that the \"*Zona 6 del Acuífero Costero de Moín*\" was declared a zone of absolute protection by the ICAA since the 1980s, reinforced again in 2007 and 2011, due to its strategic importance for the province of Limón. He indicates that despite those agreements he has denounced for years the omission of incorporating said absolute protection area within the Plan Regulador Urbano de Limón. He points out that this omission violates the principle of environmental integration and exposes the aquifer to serious and irreversible risks. He comments that on January 27, 2026, the Dirección de Investigación y Gestión Hídrica of the Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento (SENARA) issued official technical communication SENARA-DIGH-006-2026, in which the high and extreme vulnerability of \"Zona 6\" and the incompatibility of the regulatory plan with the institutional vulnerability matrix are ratified. He mentions that on February 2, 2026, he sent official communication AEL-008-2026 to the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo (INVU) requesting accountability, prioritization of amendments to the regulatory plan, and inter-institutional coordination, attaching the SENARA technical report. He adds that on February 13, 2026, the INVU responded through official communication CDU-047-02-2026 denying responsibility, alleging lack of competence, and pointing out that the matter had already been resolved in a prior resolution of the Sala Constitucional. However, he claims that said response did not assess the new technical report from Nombre02 nor did it order any action to correct the inconsistencies of the regulatory plan. He emphasizes that such conduct constitutes a regressive administrative omission that perpetuates the violation of the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. He alleges that this omission disregards the principles of prevention, precaution, and non-regression, and moreover generates an imminent and continuous risk for thousands of inhabitants of the province of Limón. By virtue of the foregoing, he considers that his fundamental rights and those of the other inhabitants of the area have been violated, and therefore, he requests that the recurso de amparo be granted and that the following be ordered: \"*1. Admit this recurso de amparo. 2. Grant the recurso, recognizing the violation of Article 50 of the Political Constitution due to regressive omission by the INVU. 3. Order the INVU, within a peremptory period, to initiate administrative coordination actions with the Municipality of Limón, AyA and Nombre02 to amend the Plan Regulador Urbano de Limón, expressly incorporating Zona 6 as an absolute protection area in accordance with the Nombre02 Vulnerability Matrix and the technical criteria of official communication SENARA-DIGH-006-2026*.\"\n\n**2.-** Through a resolution at 1:46 p.m. on February 20, 2026, the Presidency of the Chamber granted leave to proceed with this amparo and requested a report from the Executive President, the Head of the Department of Urbanism, and the Person in Charge of the Unit of Technical and Operational Criteria for Territorial Planning, all of the INVU, as well as from the General Manager of Nombre02 and the General Manager of the ICAA, regarding the facts alleged by the petitioner.\n\n3.- José Darío Guzmán Álvarez, in his capacity as General Manager of ICAA, reports under oath (filing submitted at 4:21 p.m. on February 26, 2026) in the following terms:\n\n“1.-SUMMARY OF THE APPELLANT'S ALLEGATIONS\n\n(…)\n\n2.-RESPONSE FROM AyA\n\nRegarding the plaintiff’s statements, this representation considers it pertinent to clarify (based on official communication GSP-RHC-2025-01548 as well as on previously formalized actions and regulations) that AyA has at all times informed both Nombre02 and the Municipality of Limón and other State institutions of the definition, delimitation, technical scope, and legal effects of Zone 6 of the Moín Coastal Aquifer (Acuífero Costero de Moín), as well as the obligation to comply with the Board of Directors' agreements and the hydrogeological study that supports them.\n\nAs detailed in the aforementioned official communication GSP-RHC-2025-01548, Board of Directors Agreements 2007-177 and 2011-112 were published in the Official Gazette (Diario Oficial la Gaceta), a mechanism through which not only the involved municipalities were notified but also multiple sectoral institutions, including SENARA, MINAE, the Ministry of Health, INVU, and SETENA.\n\nPublication in the Gazette, in addition to constituting formal notification under the General Law of Public Administration, was accompanied by direct notifications to the Local Government via official communication PRE-1426-2012, the receipt of which is recorded in AyA's institutional files. These actions completely invalidate any claim of a lack of communication or consultation with Nombre02 or other public institutions regarding the definition and application of Zone 6.\n\nLikewise, as set forth in the same document, this Institute has reiterated to the Municipality of Limón, on various occasions and through multiple official communications, its legal obligation to incorporate Zone 6 and its land-use (uso del suelo) recommendations into the Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador), as required by the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) (votes 2008-004790, 2008-010372, and 2008-004751), Law No. 2726, and the consolidated doctrine on aquifer protection.\n\nIt is also detailed that since 2012, AyA has sent formal communications regarding the technical regime applicable to Zone 6 to SETENA and to the same Municipality, as well as to other State entities, through documents signed by the Executive Presidency of the Institute, which demonstrates a complete and verifiable administrative traceability.\n\nOfficial communication GSP-RHC-2025-01548 further records that the Institute has acted responsibly to ensure aquifer protection by conducting technical inspections, issuing denials of service availability when there is incompatibility with Board of Directors agreements, addressing environmental complaints, sending reports to administrative and judicial authorities, and managing inter-institutional coordination with the Ministry of Health, SENARA, MINAE, INVU, and SETENA.\n\nSimilarly, the need was reiterated to the Municipality of Limón to verify whether its current territorial planning instruments included AyA's recommendations, a matter which to date has not been answered by the local authority, despite the formal inquiry made via official communication GSP-RHC-2025-00048.\n\nIt is also relevant to note that official communication GSP-RHC-2025-01548 documents that the technical information on the extreme vulnerability of Zone 6 and the need to maintain a strict protection regime has never been unknown to the competent institutions. On the contrary, such information is recorded in the Hydrogeological Study of the Moín Aquifer (Estudio Hidrogeológico del Acuífero Moín) —formalized through the cited agreements—, in AyA's methodological guidelines, and in the reiterated constitutional jurisprudence that recognizes the binding nature of the technical recommendations of AyA and SENARA.\n\nAll of this was brought to the attention of the corresponding public institutions, both through formal notification channels and through the systematic submission of technical criteria for over a decade.\n\nRegarding Mr. Nombre01 (a repeat appellant), this Institute has extensively and repeatedly addressed his requests, providing technical, legal, and operational responses in a timely manner, including official communication GSP-RHC-2025-01548 itself, in which the applicable regulatory framework, the history of institutional notifications and coordination, the environmental, social, and health impacts derived from the municipal omission, and the corresponding competencies of each involved public entity are developed in detail.\n\nThe appellant has received complete and sufficient information that demonstrates AyA's diligent and continuous performance in protecting the Moín aquifer and in demanding compliance with the legal system by the Municipality and other State institutions.\n\nConsequently, it is improper to claim that this Institute has not informed SENARA, the Municipality of Limón, or other State bodies of the definition, scope, and legal regime of Zone 6.\n\nOn the contrary, the documentary evidence demonstrates that AyA has broadly, timely, and repeatedly fulfilled its duties of communication, coordination, and technical defense of the water resource, it being fully proven that every related public institution has for years possessed the necessary information to assume the responsibilities imposed on them by the legal system regarding the protection of the Moín aquifer.\n\nNombre02 must bear in mind that the Agreements were published in the Official Gazette (Diario Oficial la Gaceta): Agreement 2007-177, approved in an ordinary session on April 10, 2007, and published in Gazette No. 83 of May 2, 2007, formalized the Hydrogeological Study and Vulnerability of the Moín-Limón Aquifer (Estudio Hidrogeológico y Vulnerabilidad del Acuífero Moín-Limón), delimiting vulnerability areas, within which Zone 6 is classified as high vulnerability, in which recommendations are issued whereby, depending on the activity to be carried out, adaptability and a design proposal will be required for the corresponding assessment. Agreement 80-121, adopted on April 14, 1980, was revoked by Agreement 2007-177; this means that the previous provisions on the classification and regulation of the area were rendered void and were replaced by the new measures established in Agreement 2007-177. Its purpose is to guarantee drinking water supply and aquifer protection through technical recommendations on land use (uso del suelo).\n\nThe rationale is based on the accreditation of certainty through scientific studies that evidence the aquifer's vulnerability and the need to prevent contamination and degradation of the water resource.\n\nFor its part, Agreement 2011-112, approved in an ordinary session on April 7, 2011, and published in Gazette No. 83 of May 2, 2011, partially modified the Second \"Por Tanto\" of Agreement 2007-177, incorporating guidelines in accordance with the Matrix of Land-Use Criteria According to Aquifer Contamination Vulnerability for Water Resource Protection (Matriz de Criterios de Uso del Suelo según la Vulnerabilidad a la Contaminación de Acuíferos para la Protección del Recurso Hídrico) (SENARA, 2006), in compliance with the orders of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) through Votes No. 2008-004790 and 2008-010372.\n\nPublication in the Gazette – we reiterate – constitutes sufficient public notification, both for any institution and for SENARA. Said publication is considered a valid form of communication to produce legal effects. Therefore, the existence of the zone and its definition were indeed in the public domain.\n\nThe discussion and application of Zone 6 were studied in institutional spaces, including AyA, Municipalities, and the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional). Hence, it is difficult to maintain that Nombre02 was unaware of the existence of the agreements or the definition of Zone 6.\n\nThis representation categorically states that Nombre02 had knowledge (previously and expressly) of both the existence of AyA's Board of Directors Agreements that formalized the Hydrogeological Study of the Moín Aquifer (Estudio Hidrogeológico del Acuífero Moín) and the content of said study, as evidenced by official communication PRE-2018-00819, in which the Executive Presidency of AyA formally notified the General Management of Nombre02 that the aquifer delimitation and the definition of the nine zones —including Zone 6— were endorsed through Agreements 2007-177 and 2011-112, and further provided the technical criterion UEN-GA-2018-01357 as input for institutional review regarding a project located in said zone.\n\nThat same official communication even requests a technical meeting for joint analysis purposes, which demonstrates active, direct, and prior communication regarding the scope of the formalized study. Likewise, resolution SENARA-DIGH-UGH-076-2018 itself confirms that Nombre02 expressly recognizes that Zone 6 and Zone 9 are defined \"according to AyA Board of Directors Agreements No. 2007-177 and 2011-112,\" which demonstrates that not only had it received this information previously, but it also used it as a technical reference within its own administrative acts. Consequently, it is fully proven that Nombre02 did possess prior, formal, and documented knowledge of AyA's Agreements and the hydrogeological study that supports them, as recorded in the documents issued by both institutions.\n\n3.-SUBSTANTIVE CONSIDERATIONS\n\nBased on current regulations and what is set forth in official communication GSP-RHC-2025-01548, it must be stated with all due respect that it is not the responsibility of the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers (AyA) to make amendments, modifications, or corrections to the Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador) of the Canton of Limón, nor that of any other local government, as this authority is not part of its legal competencies and is attributed exclusively to the Municipality, as the governing body of territorial planning within its jurisdiction.\n\nCosta Rican law clearly establishes that urban planning and the definition of land use (uso del suelo) are functions inherent to the Local Government, pursuant to Article 169 of the Political Constitution, the Urban Planning Law, the Organic Law of the Environment, and the Municipal Code, which determine that it is the Municipality's responsibility to approve, modify, and execute the Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador), as well as to ensure its effective implementation in protection of the environment and the canton's sustainable development.\n\nSuch competencies include the exclusive power to incorporate protection zones, territorial classifications, land-use (uso del suelo) restrictions, and urban planning regulations, without any other institution being able to substitute or assume these functions.\n\nIn accordance herewith, official communication GSP-RHC-2025-01548 itself expressly notes that, although AyA holds the technical stewardship in matters of drinking water supply, sanitation, and water pollution control, it is not its responsibility to define or regulate land use (uso del suelo), nor to impose urban planning limitations, nor to exercise competencies inherent to municipal territorial planning. Its role is limited to issuing technical recommendations, derived from hydrogeological studies and Board of Directors agreements —such as Agreements 2007-177 and 2011-112—, which must be considered and applied by the Local Government when formulating or reforming its Regulatory Plan.\n\nConsequently, the obligation to incorporate Zone 6 and AyA's technical recommendations does not fall upon this Institute, but upon the Municipality of Limón, which is the entity that holds the exclusive competence to modify the Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador), as has been reiterated by the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) in firm jurisprudence —including votes 2008-004790, 2008-010372, and 2008-004751— which establish the obligation for municipalities to integrate the technical recommendations of AyA and Nombre02 into their planning instruments when dealing with water protection areas.\n\nThus, AyA has fully complied with its legal duty to issue, communicate, and technically substantiate the criteria related to the hydrogeological vulnerability of Zone 6, in accordance with Law 2726 and other sectoral regulations. However, the correction, amendment, or updating of the Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador) is not attributable to this Institute, as the law does not grant it such power, either directly or indirectly.\n\nThis responsibility falls strictly upon the Local Government, as the entity constitutionally empowered to administer the cantonal territory and guarantee environmental protection through adequate land-use planning.\n\nFinally, it is important to note that the assessment made by Nombre02 regarding the vulnerability category attributed to Zone 6 is not based on a specific technical study prepared by said entity, nor does it have a hydrogeological investigation of the magnitude, methodology, or rigor of the study formalized by AyA, which was duly adopted through Board of Directors Agreements 2007-177 and 2011-112, published in the Official Gazette (Diario Oficial La Gaceta), and therefore vested with normative force and binding character.\n\nAs detailed in official communication GSP-RHC-2025-01548, the delimitation of Zone 6 and its classification are based on an exhaustive study that applied the EPIK method, as well as on technical recommendations that AyA formally established for the protection of the Moín aquifer, while Nombre02 acknowledges not having subsequent hydrogeological studies or a monitoring network that would justify a different reclassification. Therefore, the vulnerability assessment carried out by Nombre02 lacks equivalent technical support and does not conform to the standard established in AyA's official study, which constitutes the only technically validated and formalized instrument to define the applicable vulnerability category for Zone 6.\n\nFurthermore, by official communication UEN-GA-2026-00437 dated February 26, 2026, the UEN Gestión Ambiental of AyA, as a specialized unit, which is also part of the so-called Moín Commission (Comisión Moín), issues the following textual considerations to be taken into account in response to this appeal in defense of my represented party; namely:\n\nOFFICIAL COMMUNICATION SENARA-DIGH-013-2026\n\n\"The observations made by Nombre02 in OFFICIAL COMMUNICATION SENARA-DIGH-013-2026 are answered point by point below:\n\nPOINT 1.- 'SENARA has not been consulted on the definition of Zone 6 by the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers (AyA), nor has the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism (INVU); however, the instrument Matrix of Land-Use Criteria According to Aquifer Contamination Vulnerability for Water Resource Protection (Matriz de Criterios de Uso del Suelo según la Vulnerabilidad a la Contaminación de Acuíferos para la Protección del Recurso Hídrico) in the Canton of Poás could have been used to recommend land uses, such as different activities, works, and projects.'\n\nAyA Response:\n\nSince 1980, AyA prepared the first technical study that supported Agreement 80-121, with the objective of defining a strategic zone for population supply, in accordance with its legal and technical competencies.\n\nSubsequently, at the request of the General Management and the Huetar Caribe Regional Directorate, a hydrogeological study was conducted, with the objective of defining the intrinsic vulnerability of the aquifer (EPIK method) covering an area of 72 km2, in which 10 zones were delimited, as well as defining recharge based on the water balance in the research area for a Karstic Aquifer (Acuífero Kárstico), which is only found in this area of Limón.\n\nThe study was conducted and supervised by professionals from the Central American School of Geology at the UCR, who are experts and competent in this subject nationally, as well as technical and professional personnel specialized in Hydrogeology from AyA and external specialists in Hydrogeology.\n\nRegarding specifically zone 6, which corresponds to one of the 10 zones delimited in the study for the Moín aquifer, it should be highlighted that the AyA supply sources (Fuentes Moín) are located there, with a flow of approximately 100 L/s.\n\nPossessing the previous technical basis, duly endorsed by professionals in the field, motivated Agreement 2007-177 (Annex 1) which formalizes the HYDROGEOLOGICAL STUDY AND VULNERABILITY OF THE MOIN AQUIFER, LIMON (ESTUDIO HIDROGEOLOGICO Y VULNERABILIDAD DEL ACUIFERO MOIN, LIMON), establishing 10 vulnerability zones, generating location maps, and recommending, in each one, specific guidelines for activities, in accordance with the Constitutive Law of AyA and its legal and technical competencies. It is important to note that with this formalization, Agreement 80-121 was rendered void.\n\nSubsequently, through Vote No. 2008-004790, at twelve hours and thirty-nine minutes on March twenty-seventh, two thousand eight, and Vote No.\n\n2008-010372 at seventeen hours thirty-seven minutes on June nineteenth, two thousand eight; both from the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, order the application of the “Land Use Criteria Matrix According to Aquifer Contamination Vulnerability for the Protection of Water Resources, issued by the Board of Directors of Nombre02 in session on September 26, 2006.
In response to said mandate, the General Management of AyA convened the Workshop held on March 9, 2011, for the purpose of adding to and clarifying Agreement 2007-177, accepting what was indicated by the Chamber and resulting in Agreement 2011-112 (published in La Gaceta No. 83 of May 2, 2011) (Anexo 2) which modifies Agreement 2007-177 (published in La Gaceta No. 83 of Wednesday, May 2, 2007), solely in its Second Por Tanto, regarding the enumeration of land-use regulation recommendations for Zone 6, with the following restriction guidelines and in application of the “Land Use Criteria Matrix According to Aquifer Contamination Vulnerability for the Protection of Water Resources,” issued by the Board of Directors of Nombre02 in session on September 26, 2006.
Said modification did not imply a variation regarding the intrinsic vulnerability of the aquifer or the location of the zones described therein, which was known to SENARA. Similarly, it is important to note that Nombre02 has been aware of said agreements, starting from publication in La Gaceta to the official letters that were sent by AyA and published regulations, as detailed below:
• Via note SUB-AID-GA-2014-240 (Anexo 3), it forwards Board of Directors agreements 2007-177 and 2011-112 to SENARA, as well as the hydrogeological study called HYDROGEOLOGICAL STUDY AND VULNERABILITY OF THE MOIN AQUIFER, LIMON, with its technical detail, requesting to coordinate a meeting to define homogeneous criteria.
• Via official letter PRE-2018-00819 (Anexo 4), dated September 24, 2018 and received September 25, 2018, it forwarded to Nombre02 Agreement 2007-177 and Agreement 2011-112, duly published in La Gaceta, on the occasion of inter-institutional coordination efforts.
• The Moín aquifer is known by Nombre02 to be a strategic zone for population supply, as has been made official in the Regulation for the registration of unnumbered wells and enabling of the groundwater concession procedure (Reglamento de registro de pozos sin número y habilitación del trámite de concesión de aguas subterráneas) No. 41851-MP-MINAE-MAG, (Anexo 5) which cites in Article 9, item a, the Moín Aquifer as a strategic zone.
• Via official letter DA-1593-2025 (Anexo 6), the Water Directorate of MINAE indicates that on the official SINIGIRH platform, the map with the delimitation of Zone 6 of the Moín Aquifer is available, which is accessible to the general public, including SENARA.
As of the date of this report, AyA has not received comments from Nombre02 regarding the scope of the Board of Directors Agreement.
Based on the foregoing, what was cited by Nombre02 regarding ignorance or lack of consultation by AyA to said entity is unacceptable, given that the Board of Directors agreements have been communicated and informed through different means and also through official letters that substantiate the contrary.
POINT 2.-“We have no information that the zones defined by A y A are incorporated into the Limón regulatory plan (plan regulador). It is recommended that this question be asked to A y A, whether the proposed zoning was incorporated into the current Regulatory Plan or a proposed change thereto.”
AyA Response:
Regarding the incorporation of the scope and recommendations established in the AyA Board of Directors Agreements into the Regulatory Plan of the Municipality of Limón, it is indicated that the Municipality of Limón did not consult AyA, so the Institute has no knowledge of the actions and criteria used by the Municipality.
AyA, under a principle of coordination and to facilitate information to the Municipality, made an inquiry via official letter GSP-RHC-2025-00048 (Anexo 7) to the Mayoress of the Municipality of Limón and to the Municipal Council regarding whether the recommendations of the AyA Board of Directors Agreements were included in the Regulatory Plan of Limón, and as of the date of this report, no response has been sent to this Institute by the Local Government.
Similarly, AyA had previously provided memoranda to the Local Government and the Ministry of Health via official letters in prior years: official letters PRE-1426-2012 (Anexo 8), No. UEN – GA – 2018 – 00322 (Anexo 9) dated March 2018, and UEN – GA – 2018 – 01975 (Anexo 10), dated November 2018, with the objective that they be incorporated into the Regulatory Plan and the land-use planning (ordenamiento territorial) policies established by the Local Government.
Due to the different coordination efforts and notes cited above, AyA officials, in the Extraordinary Session dated June 19, 2019, presented to the Municipality of Limón the scope of Board of Directors Agreements 2007-177 and 2011-112, with the objective that the inputs be considered in the preparation of the Land-Use Planning and/or Regulatory Plan policies. In the minutes of said session, officials from the Municipality of Limón are appointed to form part of the coordination for the review of activities in Zone 6 (Anexo 11).
On the other hand, the Constitutional Chamber in File: 06-015593-0007-CO Res. No. 2008-004751, at twelve hours zero minutes on March twenty-seventh, two thousand eight, had issued a mandate to the Local Government to include AyA's considerations and recommendations in the Regulatory Plan, considering the nature of the Agreements issued by AyA 2007-177 and 2011-112 (which modified the provisions established in agreement 80-121 of session 80-028 of April fourteenth, nineteen eighty), in which it is cited: “…VII.- Municipality of Limón and its Regulatory Plan: It is verified that the Municipality of Limón published its Regulatory Plan on Wednesday, October thirty-first, two thousand one via Gaceta 209, without including the guidelines for the water protection zone of the springs (nacientes) of Moín – Limón. This despite the fact that by agreement 80-121 of session 80-028 of April fourteenth, nineteen eighty, the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers declared a water protection zone for the springs of Moín Limón… Thus, the respondent Municipality failed in its duty to protect and conserve waters, in accordance with Articles 21, 50, and 169 of the Political Constitution. Thus, it is determined that the Municipality of Limón has incurred in the omission of safeguarding the water protection zones of Moín. Consequently, the Mayor of the Municipality of Limón is ordered to modify, within a period of 24 months, the Regulatory Plan of Limón in order to include the provisions established in agreement 80-121 of session 80-028 of April fourteenth, nineteen eighty by the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers…” (the bold text is not from the original).
Furthermore, on the occasion of the response to File 22-008354-0007-CO, in Minute SINAC-ACLAC-DAP-022-2022 by the Municipality (Alba Ortiz Rezo) it was indicated “...that at the moment it is not opportune to present what has been advanced with the regulatory plan, because it remains in a draft document state, and indicates that an assessment will be made when a more advanced product is available...” , and as of the date of this report, this Institute has not received the corresponding information.
POINT 3.-“As previously mentioned, the technical study carried out by AyA indicates that the character of Zone 6 is an Absolute Protection Zone, which corresponds to extreme vulnerability, and according to the Land Use Criteria Matrix According to Aquifer Contamination Vulnerability for the Protection of Water Resources in the Poás Canton (Matriz de Criterios de Uso del Suelo según la Vulnerabilidad a la Contaminación de Acuíferos para la Protección del Recurso Hídrico en el Cantón Poás), if this matrix were applied, no land use would be permitted. However, AyA Board of Directors Agreements No. 2007-177 and AyA No. 112-2011 indicate that the character of Zone 6 is a Restricted Protection Zone with High Vulnerability, where the recommendations established in the Land Use Criteria Matrix According to Aquifer Contamination Vulnerability for the Protection of Water Resources in the Poás Canton were also not applied.
Finally, and based on the restrictions established in AyA Board of Directors Agreement No. 2007-177, it is considered that the protection zone should be elevated to an ABSOLUTE CHARACTER AND EXTREME VULNERABILITY (no activities of any kind are permitted), which in general is how A y A itself defines it in its hydrogeological study.”
AyA Response:
It is important to note that the “Hydrogeological Study and Vulnerability of the Moín Aquifer, Limón” prepared by AyA does not have the objective of defining Absolute Protection Zones, as cited by Nombre02, said interpretation being incorrect. The cited study, as mentioned in the response to Point 1 of this report, was prepared and supervised by competent professionals in Hydrogeology from the UCR, AyA, and external Experts, which was based on science and technique, with the rigorous and objective application of information mapped in the field (geological, land use, hydrogeological, infiltration tests, etc.), quality analysis, and the application of the specific methodology for defining the intrinsic vulnerability to contamination for Karst aquifers (sistema EPIK), the main objective being the definition of the Aquifer Vulnerability, which was categorized for 10 zones, among them Zone 6, which is defined as High Vulnerability and not Extreme as mentioned by SENARA.
Based on the foregoing, it is clarified that Zone 6, according to the “Hydrogeological Study and Vulnerability of the Moín Aquifer, Limón,” has High Vulnerability, which conceptually does not correspond to an Absolute Protection Zone.
As of the date of preparation of this report, Nombre02 or another institution has not presented to this Institute a vulnerability study that defines the Vulnerability category for the Moín aquifer in Zone 6 as Extreme, which could be analyzed by this Institution as the governing body for drinking water supply and with the support of other institutions, for the analysis of the implications that the restrictions proposed by Nombre02 in the vulnerability matrix would have for an aquifer of Extreme vulnerability, where activities such as urban development, livestock activities, agricultural activities, and other activities like commerce, industry, warehouses, etc., are not permitted.
POINT 4.-In the event of maintaining the HIGH VULNERABILITY criterion, the Land Use Criteria Matrix According to Aquifer Contamination Vulnerability for the Protection of Water Resources in the Poás Canton defines the parameters that must be considered by A y A and the municipality, to be incorporated into the Regulatory Plan of Limón. In the event of EXTREME VULNERABILITY, no land use is permitted. It is considered that this aspect must be resolved by A y A, to safeguard the quality of water for human consumption.
AyA Response:
AyA, based on science and technique, conducted the study called “Hydrogeological Study and Vulnerability of the Moín Aquifer, Limón,” in which, through the Board of Directors of said Institute, it accepts the categorization of the intrinsic vulnerability of the Moín aquifer for the 10 ten defined zones; therefore, until there is a study with a level of detail superior to the study cited and carried out by professionals in the field of hydrogeology, with professional objectivity and analyzed by AyA professionals, it is not appropriate to make a modification to what was established and ratified in Board of Directors Agreements No. 2007-177 and No. 2011-112. Based on the foregoing, AyA communicated the Board of Directors agreements to the Local Government as has been demonstrated in the response to Point 2 of this report through different notes, so that they would be included in the Regulatory Plan, without having received a response from the Local Government to date.
POINT 5.-From the point of view of the monitoring network, SENARA has no information on its existence, nor on exhaustive hydrogeological studies that change any condition of the aquifer and the use recommendations.
AyA Response:
Through SENARA's response, it does not contradict what AyA has proposed in the “Hydrogeological Study and Vulnerability of the Moín Aquifer, Limón” and states that it also has no knowledge of other exhaustive studies being conducted in said zone. NOTE __
The annexes can be accessed at the following link:
https://intranetaya-my.sharepoint.com/:f:/g/personal/cdelgado_aya_go_cr/IgDBTY5GUTQtR4ymyrtQme5 jAY7fX_eb8joi2ODnJLwqMD0?e=5zJsXt
OFFICIAL LETTER SENARA-GG-OFI-056-2026
Below, a response is given to each of the observations made by Nombre02 in OFFICIAL LETTER SENARA-GG-OFI-056-2026:
POINT 1.-“The inter-institutional communications and coordination carried out, as well as the absence of prior formal consultations with Nombre02 by the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers (AyA), the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism (Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo, INVU), or the Municipality of Limón, regarding the definition and application of Zone 6.”
AyA Response:
This point was addressed in the response to Point 1 and Point 2 of official letter SENARA-DIGH013-2026.
POINT 2.-The institutional technical criterion regarding the condition of absolute protection and extreme vulnerability of Zone 6 of the aquifer, in accordance with the Land Use Criteria Matrix According to Aquifer Contamination Vulnerability.
AyA Response:
This point was addressed in the response to Point 1, Point 3, and Point 4 of official letter SENARA-DIGH-013-2026
POINT 3.-The technical considerations regarding the incorporation of said zoning into land-use planning instruments and the competencies of the entities responsible for its implementation.
AyA Response:
This point was addressed in the response to Point 2 and Point 4 of official letter SENARA-DIGH013-2026
POINT 4.-The land-use restrictions applicable according to the level of vulnerability, as well as the absence of subsequent hydrogeological studies or monitoring networks that justify a relaxation of the established protection regime.
AyA Response:
This point was addressed in the response to Point 5 of official letter SENARA-DIGH-013- 2026
4.-LEGAL BASIS
This report is rendered in accordance with Articles 21 and 50 of the Political Constitution, Article 43 et seq. and concordant articles of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional), Articles 113 et seq. and concordant articles of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública), and Articles 1 and 2 of the Constitutive Law of the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers (Law No. 2726).
5.-PETITION
Based on the foregoing, we respectfully request the Honorable Constitutional Chamber to deem the granted hearing duly attended, and to accept as accredited that the actions of this Institution have been carried out within the scope of its legal competencies, safeguarding constitutional and legal principles, aimed at the protection of water resources, the fundamental human right of access to water, and the public service of drinking water supply. May this Honorable Constitutional Chamber take into account the actions of the COSTA RICAN INSTITUTE OF AQUEDUCTS AND SEWERS in fulfillment of its purposes – within the framework of its competencies – it being evident that it has not disobeyed or violated constitutional or environmental norms, guarantees, or principles, but rather has acted responsibly. It is fully accredited that Nombre02 indeed had prior, formal, and documented knowledge of the AyA Agreements and the hydrogeological study that supports them, as recorded in the documents issued by both institutions; therefore, the appeal filed by Mr. Nombre01 must inevitably be dismissed in all its aspects, with respect to my represented party. We request that it be so declared.”
4.- Osvaldo Quirós Arias reports under oath, in his capacity as General Manager of Nombre02 (submission presented at 10:28 hours on February 27, 2026) in the following terms:
“REGARDING THE FACTS:
In accordance with the resolution that grants course to this amparo, the appeal is directed against actions or omissions by INVU, in relation to the Moín aquifer.
The claims involve the Municipality of Limón, by indicating, among others, that INVU be ordered to coordinate administrative actions with the Municipality of Limón, AyA, and Nombre02 to amend the urban regulatory plan of Limón.
\n\nSUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS:\n\nThe petitioner here, as well as another person, have already filed amparo appeals in relation to this situation and against the same institutions; we have, among others, case file 25-028736-0007-CO, case file 25-038309-0007-CO, and in the same vein, Mr. Nombre03 filed amparo appeal: 25-029204-0007-CO.\n\nOn the 17th of this month, obeying orders from the Constitutional Chamber, Nombre02 provided evidence for a better resolution in case file: 25-038309-0007-CO.\n\nThe petitioner has been given timely responses regarding the action taken by SENARA.\n\nI request that, for procedural economy, an order be issued to consolidate these four proceedings, so that a single resolution is issued for them, as they meet the normal judicial parameters of identity of parties, object, and cause, the fundamental cause of the appeals being the protection of the Moín aquifer, designated by AyA as Zone 6 of the Moín coastal aquifer.\n\nFUNDAMENTAL CONCLUSIONS ON THE AQUIFER:\n\nThe technical study carried out by AyA indicates that the character of Zone 6 is one of Absolute Protection Zone, which corresponds to extreme vulnerability,\n\nIf the Land Use Criteria Matrix According to Aquifer Contamination Vulnerability for the Protection of Water Resources in the Poás Canton were to be applied, no land use is permitted. Based on the restrictions established in AyA Board of Directors Agreement No. 2007-177, it is considered that the protection zone should be elevated to an ABSOLUTE CHARACTER AND EXTREME VULNERABILITY (no activities of any kind are permitted), which is how AyA itself generally defines it in its hydrogeological study.”\n\n**5.-** By document received at the Secretariat of the Chamber at 3:42 p.m. on February 27, 2026, the petitioner states the following:\n\n\"I submit this SUPPLEMENTARY REPLY AND CRITICAL DOCUMENTARY ANALYSIS BRIEF, as an expansion of the main reply filed on this same date and based on articles 12 and 29 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law (power to expand evidence and duty to provide reasons).\n\nI attach as documentary evidence the complete official letter PRE-1426-2012 (10 pages), issued by the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers (AyA) itself on November 6 and 9, 2012, together with the sending and receipt confirmation emails. I proceed to its detailed critical, technical, and legal analysis, which irrefutably demonstrates the deliberate environmental regression, manifest negligence, and institutional arbitrariness that AyA seeks to conceal in its report of February 26, 2026.\n\nCRITICAL ANALYSIS OF EACH OFFICIAL LETTER IN FILE PRE-1426-2012\n\n1. Official letter addressed to Lic. Nestor Mattis-Williams, Mayor of the Municipality of Limón (November 9, 2012, pages 1-2 and confirmation email from Grace Madrigal Barrantes of November 12, 2012, page 3)\n\nAyA literally cites Ruling No. 2008-004751 of this Chamber, which ordered, under penalty of disobedience and within a non-extendable period of 12 months, the modification of the Regulatory Plan to \"include the provisions established in agreement 80-121\" (absolute protection of Zone 6). Immediately afterwards, it reports that said agreement \"was revoked\" by AyA itself and replaced by Agreements 2007-177 and 2011-112, which are limited to \"restriction guidelines\" and \"land use regulation recommendations\" according to the Nombre02 matrix of 2006.\n\nTechnical and legal critique: This official letter constitutes a flagrant regressive maneuver. AyA used the constitutional mandate of this Chamber not to comply with it, but to legitimize its own revocation of the absolute protection and replace it with a manifestly more lax regime. Far from demanding compliance with the ruling from the Municipality, AyA notified them of the relaxation it had itself created. The receipt confirmed on November 12, 2012, and the total absence of effective follow-up for 13 years and 3 months (until February 2026) demonstrates willful negligence and systematic breach of the duty of coordination and effectiveness (art. 11 General Public Administration Law and art. 169 Political Constitution). This conduct is incompatible with the principles of non-regression, precautionary, and pro natura (*in dubio pro natura*).\n\n2. Official letter addressed to Eng. Uriel Juárez Baltodano, Technical Environmental Secretary (SETENA) (November 6, 2012, page 4)\n\nAyA forwards the same information to SETENA: revocation of 80-121 and substitution with the \"restriction\" agreements and the SENARA matrix.\n\nCritique: SETENA is the technical body responsible for the environmental impact assessment of projects. By notifying it of the more permissive regime, AyA actively facilitated the approval of urban developments incompatible with the aquifer's vulnerability. This action is not mere \"communication\"; it is institutional cooperation for environmental regression, which has allowed the urbanization of wetlands and forests on private properties within Zone 6.\n\n3. Official letter addressed to Licda. Yamilette Mata Dobles, President of the Environmental Administrative Tribunal (November 6, 2012, page 5)\n\nIdentical content: revocation of the absolute protection agreement and notification of the new restrictive regime.\n\nCritique: Addressing this official letter to the environmental jurisdictional body reveals AyA's attempt to \"pre-notify\" and legitimize its own regressive act before the environmental justice system. It is legally unacceptable for the governing body of drinking water to inform the Environmental Tribunal of the relaxation of a strategic aquifer without demanding immediate corrective measures.\n\n4. Official letter addressed to Lic. Rene Castro Salazar, Minister of Environment and Energy (MINAE) (November 9, 2012, page 6)\n\nSame text: revocation of 80-121 and substitution with agreements 2007-177 and 2011-112.\n\nCritique: MINAE holds the general stewardship in environmental matters (Organic Environmental Law). Notifying it of the regression without promoting its correction constitutes a serious omission of inter-institutional coordination and prioritization of AyA's institutional interests over the superior public interest of protecting the water resource.\n\n5. Official letter addressed to Dr. Daisy Corrales Díaz, Minister of Health (November 9, 2012, page 7)\n\nIdentical pattern: revocation of the absolute protection and notification of the restrictive regime.\n\nCritique: The Ministry of Health is responsible for the potability of water for human consumption. Informing it that the protection of the aquifer that supplied Limón after the 1991 earthquake has been relaxed constitutes an unacceptable prioritization of economic considerations over the human right to health and drinking water (arts. 21 and 50 Political Constitution).\n\nInternal emails from Grace Madrigal Barrantes (pages 3, 8, 9, and 10):\n\nThese emails demonstrate that the Executive Presidency of AyA internally coordinated the mass dispatch of the official letters. However, there is no evidence whatsoever of follow-up, oversight, or demand for compliance.\n\nGENERAL CONCLUSION OF THE ANALYSIS\n\nFile PRE-1426-2012, invoked by AyA itself in its report of February 26, 2026, as \"proof\" of having fulfilled its duties, reveals exactly the opposite: AyA had full knowledge of this Chamber's mandate since 2008, unilaterally decided to revoke the absolute protection of Agreement 80-121, and notified all competent institutions of its own regressive act, without ever promoting its effective correction.\n\nThis conduct constitutes institutionalized environmental regression, manifest and continued negligence for more than 13 years, and administrative arbitrariness that has permitted the illegal urbanization of wetlands and forests in Zone 6. The official letters do not meet the standard of \"effective coordination\" required by the jurisprudence of this Chamber (rulings 2008-004790, 2008-010372, 2008-004751, 2012-013367, and 2019-017397). On the contrary, they prove the imperative need for this Honorable Chamber to impose the maximum legal rigor.\n\nSUPPLEMENTARY PETITION\n\nFor all the foregoing, I respectfully request this Honorable Chamber:\n\n1. To accept this supplementary brief as filed and to incorporate the complete official letter PRE-1426-2012 (10 pages) as documentary evidence.\n\n2. To assess the preceding critical analysis as a fundamental element for the resolution of the appeal.\n\n3. Consequently, and in harmony with the petition of the main reply:\na) Declare the amparo appeal with merit.\nb) Revoke AyA Board of Directors Agreements No. 2007-177 and No. 2011-112 for manifest environmental regression.\nc) Order the annulment of the Urban Regulatory Plan of the Central Canton of Limón in the part that omits the absolute protection of Zone 6.\nd) Order urgent precautionary measures, the restoration of forests and wetlands on private properties, and the exhaustive assessment of environmental damage by the Department of Forensic Sciences of the OIJ, based on the principles *in dubio pro natura* and of prevention.\ne) Order the respondents to pay costs and damages.\"\n\n**6.-** Hilda Martha Carvajal Bonilla, in her capacity as Head of the Urbanism Department of INVU, reports under oath (document filed at 9:16 a.m. on March 2, 2026) in the following terms:\n\n\"I. *FACTS ALLEGED BY THE PETITIONER*\n\nThe petitioner states that Zone 6 of the Moín Coastal Aquifer was declared an absolute protection zone by the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers since the 1980s, reinforced again in 2007 and 2011, due to its strategic importance for the province of Limón.\n\nHe indicates that despite those agreements, he has for years denounced the omission of incorporating said absolute protection area into the Urban Regulatory Plan of Limón. He points out that this omission violates the principle of environmental integrity and exposes the aquifer to serious, irreversible risks.\n\nThat on January 27, 2026, the Directorate of Hydric Research and Management of the National Groundwater, Irrigation, and Drainage Service (SENARA) issued technical official letter SENARA-DIGH-006-2026, in which it ratifies the high and extreme vulnerability of \"Zone 6\" and the incompatibility of the regulatory plan with the institutional vulnerability matrix.\n\nThat on February 2, 2026, he sent official letter AEL-008-2026 to INVU requesting accountability, prioritization of amendments to the regulatory plan, and institutional coordination, attaching the SENARA report. INVU responded via official letter CDU-047-02-2026, denying responsibility, alleging lack of competence, and pointing out that the matter had already been resolved in a previous resolution of the Constitutional Chamber. However, the petitioner indicates that said response did not assess the new technical report from Nombre02 nor did it order any action to correct the inconsistencies of that regulatory plan, alleging that this omission disregards the principles of prevention, precaution, and non-regression, posing an imminent risk to the thousands of inhabitants of the province of Limón.\n\nII. *REPORT OF THE RESPONDENT INSTITUTE*\n\nOn February 26, 2026, via official letter CDU-079-02-2026, signed by geographer Hilda Carvajal Bonilla, Head of the Urbanism Department, architect Daniel Brenes Arroyo, Head of the Territorial Planning Technical and Operational Criteria Unit, and licensed lawyer Marco Vinicio Arias Alfaro, Legal Advisor of the Urbanism Department, to report the following:\n\n(…) this Institute lacks the competence to order, instruct, or prioritize amendments to a Regulatory Plan that is in force. According to the applicable legal framework, any modification to the Regulatory Plan corresponds exclusively to the respective Municipality and must be processed anew according to the procedure established in article 17 of the Urban Planning Law, including the environmental assessment before SETENA.\n\n(…) The technical criteria issued by SENARA, including those contained in official letter SENARA-DIGH-006-2026, constitute technical inputs pertaining to the scope of competence of said institution; however, the issuance of these inputs does not automatically imply the modification of a current urban planning instrument.\n\n(…) It is worth reiterating that everything related to the environmental aspect when developing a Regulatory Plan is the exclusive competence of SETENA; the role of said agency in regulatory plans focuses on the inclusion of the environmental variable in territorial planning, according to the Organic Environmental Law.\n\n(…) Developers, environmental consultants, public and private institutions, including municipalities, are client users; they process the obtaining of the Environmental License or Registry before SETENA, while environmental consultants are professionals appointed by the developer to manage compliance with the environmental commitments linked to the actions of the project or activity.\n\n(…) INVU has not incurred, during the approval process of the Regulatory Plan of Limón, in any conduct that could be categorized as administrative omissions that go against the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.\n\n(…) This honorable Constitutional Chamber has already issued clear pronouncements regarding the validity of the Regulatory Plan of Limón, ratifying its force. In the most recent ruling processed through resolution No. 2025039386 at nine hours twenty minutes on November twenty-eighth, two thousand twenty-five, of case file No. 25-028736-0007-CO, this Tribunal *declared without merit* the Amparo Appeal processed by the same petitioner who today files this new proceeding.\n\n(…)\n\nIII. *PETITION*\n\nBased on the arguments of fact and law presented, it is respectfully requested that, in judgment:\n\n1. The present Amparo Appeal be declared without merit and consequently, the definitive archiving of the case file be ordered.\n\n2. A ruling be made without special condemnation for personal and procedural costs against INVU.\n\n3.\n\nIt is resolved without special condemnation for damages against the INVU.\"\n\n**7.-** By brief received at the Secretariat of the Chamber at 10:11 a.m. on March 2, 2026, the appellant states the following:\n\n\"Subject: Reply to the report rendered by the General Manager of the National Groundwater, Irrigation and Drainage Service (Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento, SENARA) in file No. 26-005469-0007-CO\nLadies and Gentlemen Magistrates:\nI, Nombre01, in my capacity as appellant in the present amparo appeal proceeding, address this honorable Chamber respectfully and formally, with the purpose of presenting this reply to the report rendered by Engineer Osvaldo Quirós Arias, General Manager of SENARA, dated February 26, 2026, in compliance with the resolution issued at one forty-six p.m. on February twenty, two thousand twenty-six.\nThis reply constitutes an endorsement of the conclusive report by the General Manager of SENARA, supporting in all its aspects the statements contained in said report, which are based on the Creation Law of Nombre02 (Law No. 6877 of July 18, 1983), which in its Article 3 establishes the functions of this autonomous institution, among them, to develop and execute policies for the use and distribution of water, as well as to conduct research on groundwater to guarantee its protection and sustainable use, in harmony with the Costa Rican environmental legal system.\nThe fundamental conclusions of the SENARA report, based on technical studies by the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers (Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, AyA), classify Zone 6 of the Moín coastal aquifer as a Zone of Absolute Protection with extreme vulnerability, where no land use or activities of any type are permitted, in accordance with the Matrix of Criteria for Land Use According to Aquifer Contamination Vulnerability and AyA Board of Directors Agreement No. 2007-177. This position aligns with the constitutional mandate of Article 50 of the Political Constitution, which imposes on the State the obligation to guarantee, defend, and preserve the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, binding all public institutions in the protection of the environment in its broadest possible sense.\nIn accordance with the report rendered by the General Manager of SENARA, the land-use change (cambio de uso del suelo) at Dirección01 must not be permitted, ratifying the appropriateness of the present amparo appeal and the repeated non-compliance by the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism (Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo, INVU) and the Municipality of Limón, violating the most basic principles of both national and international environmental law, such as the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands (ratified by Costa Rica through Law No. 7224 of April 2, 1991) and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES, ratified by Law No. 5605 of October 30, 1974), which require the strict protection of vulnerable ecosystems and the prevention of environmental degradation.\nThe vast jurisprudence of this Constitutional Chamber forcefully supports the impossibility of permitting land-use changes (cambios de uso del suelo) in Zone 6, according to the matrix of Nombre02 and the statements of Engineer Quirós Arias. For example, in judgment No. 2004-01923 of February 25, 2004, this Chamber emphasized the urgency of protecting aquifer layers against degradation and contamination, establishing protection perimeters as novel instruments to safeguard water resources. Likewise, in judgment No. 2017-17353 of October 31, 2017, the overexploitation of aquifers and the need for administrative actions by Nombre02 for their preservation were noted. In specific relation to the Moín aquifer, judgment No. 2022-022XXX (approximate, based on a resolution of October 2022) ordered its immediate protection, recognizing its critical situation due to fractured and cavernous geological formations that increase vulnerability to contamination. Additionally, in judgment No. 2025-035761 of October 31, 2025, the violation of Article 50 of the Constitution was declared for environmental damages, underlining the state's responsibility to reverse regressive actions that compromise water resources. These resolutions, among many others, confirm that any omission or action contrary to the absolute protection of vulnerable zones such as Zone 6 constitutes an injury to the fundamental right to a healthy environment, also derived from the rights to health and life.\nZone 6 faces serious problems attributable to the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers (AyA), whose conduct has been calculatedly irresponsible in issuing criteria that are totally regressive and contrary to law, particularly from the year 2007 onward, when its Board of Directors approved measures that allowed incompatible activities in areas of absolute protection, ignoring hydrogeological studies that define the zone with absolute character and extreme vulnerability. This action violates the principle of environmental non-regression, recognized by this Chamber in judgments such as No. 2006-01252 of February 8, 2006, where public administrations were assigned the urgent task of protecting aquifers against contamination, and in No. 2017-012944 of August 18, 2017, which condemned invasions and environmental damage in protected areas.\nIt is for this reason that I beg the ladies and gentlemen Magistrates to take precise and verbatim note of what was stated by the General Manager of Nombre02 in his report, since Zone 6 is fundamental for the supply of drinking water to the population of Limón. It is imperative to evict all incompatible activities that have been permitted, restoring the large forested areas, wetlands, and important patches of forest that still persist in the area, created in 1980 under strict conservation parameters.\nAdditionally, I request that the final judgment order the Department of Forensic Sciences of the Judicial Investigation Organization (Organismo de Investigación Judicial, OIJ) to conduct a precise and exhaustive assessment of the environmental damage caused to this important area, attributable to AyA from 2007 onward.\nI also request that the regressive measures approved by the Board of Directors of AyA be reversed as soon as possible, in compliance with the precautionary principle and progressivity, as this Chamber has demanded in jurisprudence such as judgment No. 2017-0318 (opinion C-318-2017) of December 19, 2017, which protects springs (nacientes) and aquifer layers as fundamental pieces of the legal system.\nI thank you in advance for your attention to this reply and remain at your disposal for any additional clarification.\"\n\n**8.-** By brief received at the Secretariat of the Chamber at 10:17 a.m. on March 2, 2026, the appellant states the following:\n\n\"I expressly point out as evidence the complete official document PRE-2018 00819 (2 pages), which was offered by the respondent General Manager of the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers, Mr. José Darío Guzmán Álvarez, in his report rendered before this Chamber on February 26, 2026 (point 2 of the evidence section, Annex 4), and which I now submit for critical analysis. I proceed with its objective, technical, and legal detailed analysis, which completely dismantles the defense of AyA and irrefutably proves the persistence of environmental regression and the attempt to subordinate the technical competence of SENARA.\n\nCRITICAL, TECHNICAL, AND LEGAL ANALYSIS OF OFFICIAL DOCUMENT PRE 2018-00819\n\nExpress recognition of the unilateral delimitation by AyA and its regressive agreements (paragraph 1)\n\nAyA states that 'the delimitation of the Moín aquifer has been carried out by the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers,' defining 9 zones 'endorsed by the AyA Board of Directors through Agreements 2007-0177 and 2011-112.' It particularly highlights Zone 6 as a 'recharge zone and high vulnerability zone' of 'utmost institutional importance' that contributes 150 L/s.\nTechnical and legal criticism: AyA arrogates to itself the power to 'delimit' and 'define' water protection zones, when Law No. 6877 (art. 3 subparagraphs ch) and h)) expressly attributes that specialized technical competence to SENARA. It insists on classifying Zone 6 as 'high vulnerability' (not extreme), maintaining the permissive regime introduced in 2007-2011. This statement constitutes an illegitimate self-attribution of competence and an express ratification of the regressive acts that this Chamber must revoke.\n\nSending of own technical criteria to 'reassess' the prior criteria of Nombre02 (paragraph 2)\nAyA sends the technical criteria UEN-GA-2018-01357 (prepared by its 'Moín Commission') regarding the 'Proyecto Condominial Matama Village' located in Zone 6, with the explicit objective that Nombre02 'have this input to reassess the criteria issued via official document SENARA-DIGH-UGH-076-2018'.\nTechnical and legal criticism: AyA admits that Nombre02 had already issued a prior technical criterion (2018) on the same project in Zone 6. Instead of complying with it, AyA seeks to modify it by sending its own study. This reveals an illegitimate hierarchical inversion: the governing body of supply intends to correct the specialized technical body in groundwater (SENARA), contravening the consolidated doctrine of this Chamber on the prevalence of hydrogeological technical assessments (votes 2012-00275, 2015-012345 and concordant ones).\n\nRequest for a technical meeting with specific hydrogeologists from Nombre02 (final paragraph)\nAyA formally requests a meeting for October 2, 2018, and demands the presence of hydrogeologists Clara Agudelo and Roberto Ramírez 'for the purpose of being able to share technical criteria.'\nTechnical and legal criticism: This request is not mere coordination; it is a clear attempt to pressure and influence the technicians of Nombre02 so that they modify their previous criterion. AyA does not limit itself to sending information: it summons the professionals of the specialized entity to 'share criteria' on a project located in a high-vulnerability zone. Such conduct constitutes undue interference in the technical autonomy of Nombre02 and a violation of the principle of technical impartiality that governs aquifer protection.\n\nGeneral conclusion of the analysis\n\nOfficial document PRE-2018-00819—offered by the respondent General Manager of AyA himself—demonstrates that, six years after official documents PRE-1426-2012, AyA was still insisting on its regressive regime of 'high vulnerability,' sending its own studies to 'reassess' those of Nombre02 and calling meetings to influence its technicians. Far from complying with the duty of effective coordination and abiding by superior technical assessments, AyA acted systematically to maintain and defend the environmental flexibilization that it itself created in 2007-2011.\nAnalysis prepared by Nombre01\n\nSUPPLEMENTARY PRAYER\n\nFor all the foregoing, I respectfully request this Honorable Chamber:\n\nTo accept this supplementary brief as filed and to incorporate as documentary evidence the complete official document PRE-2018-00819 (2 pages), which was offered by the respondent General Manager of AyA.\n\nTo assess the preceding critical analysis as a fundamental element for the resolution of the appeal.\n\nTo order, as evidence for better resolution based on Article 12 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, the National Groundwater, Irrigation and Drainage Service (SENARA) to send to this Chamber, within a peremptory period of ten business days, its definitive and updated technical criterion on the 'Proyecto Condominial Matama Village' located in Zone 6 of the Moín Coastal Aquifer, with the explicit objective that Nombre02 endorse or expressly reject its construction within said zone of high (or extreme) vulnerability, as corresponds to its institutional matrix and official hydrogeological studies.\n\nConsequently, and in harmony with the prayer of the principal reply:\n\nDeclare the amparo appeal with merit.\n\nRevoke AyA Board of Directors Agreements No. 2007 177 and No. 2011-112 for manifest environmental regression.\n\nOrder the annulment of the Urban Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador Urbano) of the Central Canton of Limón in the part that omits the absolute protection of Zone 6.\n\nOrder urgent precautionary measures, the restoration of forests and wetlands on private properties, and the exhaustive assessment of environmental damage by the Department of Forensic Sciences of the OIJ, grounded in the principles of in dubio pro natura and prevention.\n\nCondemn the respondents to costs and damages.\"\n\n**9.-** By brief received at the Secretariat of the Chamber at 2:48 p.m. on March 2, 2026, the appellant states the following:\n\n\"I. Reaffirmation and reiteration of the initial statements\nI reaffirm and reiterate, in all their aspects and without any modification, the statements contained in my initial amparo appeal, which I consider fully accredited in both the factual and legal spheres. These are grounded in the continuous and omissive violation of Article 50 of the Political Constitution (right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment), aggravated by a regressive omission by AyA itself and the co-respondent institutions, which places the drinking water supply for thousands of residents of Limón at imminent risk.\n\nII. Specific reply to the AyA report\n\nExclusive competence of Nombre02 in groundwater matters and technical contradiction with AyA\n\nThe National Groundwater, Irrigation and Drainage Service (SENARA) is, by express provision of its organic law (Law No. 6877, Article 3 subparagraphs ch) and h)), the specialized and competent technical entity for the delimitation, vulnerability study, and protection of aquifers. Its official documents SENARA-DIGH-006-2026 and SENARA-GG-OFI-056-2026 ratify the extreme vulnerability of Zone 6 of the Moín Coastal Aquifer and the absolute incompatibility of the Urban Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador) with the institutional vulnerability matrix. This Honorable Chamber has repeatedly recognized that, in groundwater matters, the technical assessments of Nombre02 constitute binding and prevailing input (see, among others, votes 2012-00275 and the consolidated doctrine on inter-institutional coordination in water protection). AyA, although it holds technical authority in supply (Law No. 2726), cannot substitute or contradict the hydrogeological conclusions of Nombre02 without incurring arbitrariness.\n\nRegressive character of AyA agreements 2007-177 and 2011-112\nAgreement 80-121 of 1980 declared Zone 6 as a zone of absolute protection, with express prohibitions on incompatible uses. The 2007 and 2011 agreements expressly revoked it and reduced it to 'high vulnerability' with restricted but permitted uses. This modification constitutes a manifest environmental regression, contrary to the principles of non-regression, precaution, prevention, and pro natura (in dubio pro natura). This Chamber has consolidated that the principle of non-regression bars the State from adopting measures that worsen the level of environmental protection achieved (votes 2012-013367, 2017-002375, 2019-012745 and 2019-017397, among many others). Likewise, the precautionary principle requires that, in the face of risk of serious or irreversible damage (such as the contamination of a strategic aquifer), the absence of full scientific certainty does not justify inaction or flexibilization (vote 1995-00001 and subsequent doctrine incorporated in the Biodiversity Law No. 7788, art. 11). The pro natura principle obliges resolving any doubt in favor of environmental protection. The agreements from 2007 onward generated the current chaos: urbanization of wetlands and forests in 'full view and with the tolerance' of the authorities, despite the reiterated orders of this Chamber (votes 2008 004790, 2008-010372 and 2008-004751).\n3. Strategic importance of the Moín aquifer and institutional negligence\nAfter the Limón earthquake of April 22, 1991 (magnitude 7.7 Mw), which left the province isolated and without basic services, the Moín Coastal Aquifer was the only reliable source that supplied drinking water to the population during months of rationing. Reducing its protection standards for economic considerations or to avoid expropriations ordered by this Chamber (such as those already decreed in the same Dirección01) constitutes an unacceptable prioritization of private interests over the human right to water and a healthy environment.\nThis Honorable Chamber has ordered on multiple occasions the expropriation of properties in Zone 6 to guarantee its protection. I respectfully request, under the protection of Article 12 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction and the principle of extension of evidence, that an independent technical entity (or directly SENARA) be required to provide an updated report on the current status of the properties expropriated by AyA in said zone. Such evidence will irrefutably prove the alleged negligence.\n4. Regressive omission and lack of effective coordination by AyA\nAyA claims to have published the agreements in La Gaceta and sent official documents. However, it expressly acknowledges that the Urban Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador) of Limón does not incorporate the protection of Zone 6 and that the Municipality has not responded to its inquiries. Publishing in La Gaceta does not meet the obligation of effective coordination and demand for compliance (Article 169 Political Constitution, Urban Planning Law and cited jurisprudence). The problem is not the 'lack of knowledge' of Nombre02 (as AyA intends), but systematic state negligence that the respondent's own report indirectly acknowledges by attempting to evade responsibility.\n5. Existence of important forested and wetland areas within private properties in Zone 6 and concrete possibility of their restoration\"\n**10.-** In the followed procedures, legal requirements have been observed.\nIt is fundamental to highlight before this Honorable Chamber that, within Zone 6 of the Moín Coastal Aquifer, important remnants of forest cover (cobertura boscosa) and wetland areas exist located on privately-owned properties. These strategic ecosystems have suffered degradation and threats of urbanization precisely as a direct consequence of the regressive flexibilization introduced by the AyA agreements subsequent to 1980. The revocation of Board of Directors Agreements No. 2007-177 and No. 2011-112 would allow for the effective restoration of said forests and wetlands, reinstating the absolute protection regime of Agreement 80-121 and fulfilling the constitutional mandate of comprehensive environmental protection (Article 50 of the Political Constitution). This measure is not only legally viable and technically possible, but is also indispensable to avoid the irreversible loss of these natural lungs that, in addition to protecting the aquifer, fulfill vital ecological functions for the province of Limón.\n6. Manifest negligence and arbitrariness of INVU and the Municipality of Limón in authorizing urbanization in Zone 6\nIt is technically unacceptable and legally serious that the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism (INVU) and the Municipality of Limón proceeded with manifest negligence and administrative arbitrariness in issuing and maintaining in force an Urban Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador Urbano) that expressly authorizes the urbanization of Zone 6 of the Moín Coastal Aquifer, flagrantly and directly contravening the extreme vulnerability matrix established by SENARA. Said conduct constitutes a serious breach of the constitutional duties of environmental protection (Article 50 Political Constitution), the principle of environmental integration (Organic Law of the Environment No. 7554, art. 3), the duty of inter-institutional coordination (Urban Planning Law and Municipal Code), and the obligation to comply with binding technical assessments in water matters. The Constitutional Chamber has repeatedly classified this type of omission and incompatible authorization as regressive and illegitimate violations of the fundamental right to a healthy environment (votes 2008-004790, 2008-010372, 2008-004751, 2012-013367 and 2019-017397, among others). The Municipality and INVU could not ignore or relativize the SENARA vulnerability matrix; their decision to authorize urban uses in an area of extreme vulnerability constitutes manifest arbitrariness, undue prioritization of private economic interests over public health and the general interest, and a regressive omission that this Honorable Chamber cannot tolerate without imposing the maximum legal rigor.\nIII. Prayer\nFor all the foregoing, and based on Articles 50 and 21 of the Political Constitution, Articles 12 and 29 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, as well as the vast and consolidated jurisprudence of this Constitutional Chamber on environmental protection, principles of non-regression, precaution, prevention, and pro natura (in dubio pro natura), I respectfully request this Honorable Chamber to impose all constitutional and environmental legal rigor in order to take urgent precautionary measures (Article 12 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction) and, above all, to revoke the agreements adopted by AyA after 1980 (Board of Directors Agreements No. 2007-177 and No. 2011-112), for being absolutely regressive and contradicting the extreme vulnerability matrix of SENARA, thereby reinstating the absolute protection regime established in Agreement 80-121 of 1980.\nConsequently:\n1. To accept this reply as filed and the AyA report as duly answered.\n2. To declare the present amparo appeal with merit.\n3. To revoke AyA Board of Directors Agreements No. 2007 177 and No. 2011-112, for constituting manifest environmental regression contrary to Article 50 of the Constitution and the principles of non-regression and precaution.\n4. To order the annulment of the Urban Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador Urbano) of the Central Canton of Limón insofar as it omits the absolute protection of Zone 6 of the Moín Coastal Aquifer, in accordance with the studies of Nombre02 and Agreement 80-121 of 1980 (never validly superseded without constitutional justification).\n5. To order AyA, INVU, Municipality of Limón, and SENARA, within a peremptory period of 30 days, to coordinate the express incorporation of Zone 6 as an area of absolute protection in all territorial planning instruments, with the restrictions determined by SENARA.\n6. To order the necessary measures to restore the legal and environmental order in the area, including the immediate suspension of any urbanization or incompatible activity, the effective oversight of wetlands and forests, and the restoration of forest cover (cobertura boscosa) and wetland areas existing on private properties within Zone 6.\n7.\n\nOrder, based on the principles of in dubio pro natura and prevention, a detailed and exhaustive assessment of the environmental damage caused to Zone 6 of the Moín Coastal Aquifer, entrusting it preferably to the Department of Forensic Sciences of the Judicial Investigation Agency (Organismo de Investigación Judicial, OIJ), in order to determine with scientific rigor the extent of the degradation, the corresponding administrative and criminal responsibilities, and the necessary comprehensive restoration and reparation measures. 8. Order the respondents to pay costs and damages, in accordance with the law.\"\n\n10.- By means of a certification issued at 1:18 p.m. on March 3, 2026, signed by the judicial technician and the secretary, both of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), the following was indicated: \"[R]eviewed, at thirteen hours eighteen minutes on March third, two thousand twenty-six, in the COSTA RICAN JUDICIAL CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (SISTEMA COSTARRICENSE DE GESTIÓN DE DESPACHOS JUDICIALES) the CONTROL OF RECEIVED DOCUMENTS AND THIS FILE, it did not appear that from FEBRUARY 24 TO MARCH 2, 2026, the EXECUTIVE PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HOUSING AND URBANISM (INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE VIVIENDA Y URBANISMO) has submitted any writ or document, in order to render the report requested in the resolution issued at thirteen hours forty-six minutes on February twenty, two thousand twenty-six, in file number 26-005469-0007-CO which is an AMPARO APPEAL (RECURSO DE AMPARO) filed by Name01.\"\n\n11.- By writ received at the Secretariat of the Chamber at 2:03 p.m. on March 3, 2026, the appellant states the following:\n\n\"This reply is based on the reiterated jurisprudence of this honorable Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), on the constitutional environmental principles such as precautionary, preventive, and non-regression, as well as on the applicable regulations regarding territorial planning, urban planning, and environmental protection, in order to refute in a detailed and exhaustive manner the evasive and tangential response provided by the INVU. Said response constitutes an implicit confession of institutional omission, by attempting to evade its legal responsibilities and transfer them to other entities such as the Municipality of Limón and the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, SETENA), flagrantly ignoring its obligations derived from the Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana, Law No. 4240), its Organic Law (Law No. 2825 and reforms), and the Organic Environmental Law (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, Law No. 7554). I expressly, emphatically, and fully reiterate each and every one of the arguments of fact and law, as well as all the statements, claims, and evidence set forth in my initial writ filing this amparo appeal (recurso de amparo). What was alleged therein has not been disproven by the INVU's report; on the contrary, the evasive and tangential response of the respondent confirms and aggravates the reported omissions, for which reason I maintain in its entirety the content of my main writ and request this honorable Chamber to assess it in conjunction with this reply. It is particularly serious and reprehensible that the response was signed by geographer Hilda Carvajal Bonilla in her capacity as Head of the Department of Urbanism of the INVU, a professional with a degree in geography, who by her academic training and technical experience is especially empowered and obligated to understand, comprehend, and value in all its dimension the geographical, hydrogeological, ecological, and strategic importance of Zone 6 of the Moín Coastal Aquifer. As an expert in the field, she cannot allege ignorance nor minimize the high and extreme vulnerability ratified by SENARA, nor evade the flagrant incompatibility between the current Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador) and the institutional vulnerability matrix. Her tangential and evasive position contravenes the duty of professional diligence imposed by her degree and position, aggravating the institutional omission of the INVU and constituting a breach that violates the principle of administrative good faith and the duty of effective protection of the environment (Article 50 of the Constitution). It should be noted that the notification of the appeal was expressly addressed to the Executive President of the INVU, the Head of the Department of Urbanism, and the Person in Charge of the Unit of Technical and Operational Criteria for Territorial Planning, so I beg the Justices to take note that the response signed solely by geographer Carvajal Bonilla, without the intervention of the other notified officials, could imply a procedural irregularity that evidences the lack of internal coordination and the attempt to minimize institutional responsibility. I. GENERAL REFUTATION TO THE RESPONSE OF THE INVU: OMISSION AND EVASION OF RESPONSIBILITIES The INVU's response, contained in official letter CDU-079-02-2026, is limited to denying competence to order amendments to the Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador) of Limón, alleging that said modifications correspond exclusively to the respective Municipality, pursuant to Article 17 of the Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana). Likewise, it minimizes the impact of technical official letter SENARA-DIGH 006-2026, issued by the Directorate of Water Research and Management of the National Groundwater, Irrigation, and Drainage Service (Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento, SENARA), which ratifies the high and extreme vulnerability of Zone 6 of the Moín Coastal Aquifer and its incompatibility with the current Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador). This position is untenable in light of the Costa Rican legal system and constitutional jurisprudence. The INVU is not a passive entity in urban planning; on the contrary, its Organic Law (Law No. 2825, Article 2) assigns it broad powers in the promotion of orderly urban development, including the preparation of the National Urban Development Plan (Plan Nacional de Desarrollo Urbano, PNDU), advice to municipalities, and inter-institutional coordination to guarantee the integration of environmental variables. The Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana, Law No. 4240, Articles 2, 7, and 9) reinforces this, by entrusting the INVU with national, regional, and local planning functions, with emphasis on the balance between urban development and environmental protection. The Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) has reiterated that the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment (Article 50 of the Political Constitution) imposes a positive duty of action on the State, not merely reactive. In rulings such as No. 2008-16563, this Chamber emphasized that \"one of the guiding principles of Environmental Law is the precautionary principle or principle of prudent avoidance,\" obliging institutions to act in the face of serious environmental risks, even in the absence of absolute certainty. Here, the INVU evades its coordinating role, ignoring the principle of environmental integration in territorial planning, enshrined in the Organic Environmental Law (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, Law No. 7554, Articles 28-31), which requires harmonizing human settlements with the conservation of natural resources such as aquifers. Additionally, the INVU's response cites a previous ruling of this Chamber (No. 2025039386 of 2025, file 25-028736-0007-CO) to claim that the Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador) of Limón was already validated. However, said pronouncement did not evaluate the new technical report from Name02 (SENARA-DIGH-006-2026), which constitutes novel evidence of extreme vulnerability. This omission violates the principle of environmental non-regression, developed by this Chamber in rulings such as No. 2012-104 (where it establishes that \"environmental regulations and jurisprudence should not be reviewed if this would imply regressing with respect to the levels of protection previously achieved\"), and in jurisprudential analyses that link the principle of non-regression to the preventive and precautionary principles to avoid irreversible damage. II. DETAILED POINT-BY-POINT REFUTATION OF THE INVU'S REPORT A. Lack of Competence to Order Amendments to the Regulatory Plan The INVU claims it lacks competence to \"order, instruct, or prioritize amendments to a current Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador),\" referring the exclusive responsibility to the Municipality of Limón (Article 17 of Law No. 4240). This restrictive interpretation ignores the subsidiary and coordinating role of the INVU, recognized in its Organic Law and in constitutional jurisprudence, where it is established that the INVU has subsidiary competence in urban planning when municipalities omit necessary actions to protect fundamental rights. The Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana, Article 7) creates the Directorate of Urbanism of the INVU to prepare and review the PNDU, promote coordination, and advise municipalities in the preparation and modification of regulatory plans (planes reguladores). In the environmental context, the Organic Environmental Law (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, Article 28) imposes on the State and municipalities the duty to define territorial planning policies that integrate the conservation of water resources. Relevant jurisprudence: In rulings such as No. 2004-01923, this Chamber protected aquifers from high-density developments, applying the precautionary principle to require exhaustive hydrogeological studies and inter-institutional coordination. Similarly, hydrological evaluations have been ordered to avoid impacts on water resources, emphasizing that \"the precautionary principle imposes on the Administration the obligation to act diligently to protect the environment.\" The INVU cannot evade this obligation by alleging lack of competence; it must prioritize amendments when new technical inputs evidence serious risks. B. Technical Inputs from Name02 Do Not Imply Automatic Modification The INVU minimizes official letter SENARA-DIGH-006-2026 as \"technical inputs within the scope of competence of said institution,\" without automatic effect on current plans. This statement violates the preventive principle, which requires anticipating environmental damage based on scientific evidence (Law No. 7554, Article 2, subsection d). The Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) defines the preventive principle as \"the use of mechanisms, instruments, and policies with the objective of avoiding significant impacts on the environment.\" The report from Name02 ratifies incompatibilities, exposing the aquifer to irreversible risks. Ignoring this constitutes an administrative omission, contrary to Article 50 of the Constitution and the principle of objectification of environmental protection, which requires decisions based on technical studies. Furthermore, the Inter-Institutional Coordination Regulation for the Protection of Underground Water Resources obligates the INVU to incorporate vulnerability and aquifer recharge maps into regulatory plans (planes reguladores), in coordination with SENARA. C. Exclusive Competence of SETENA in Environmental Aspects The INVU transfers environmental responsibility to SETENA. This ignores the comprehensive approach of Law No. 7554 (Article 29), which requires incorporating the environmental variable into territorial planning for sustainable development. Jurisprudence: SETENA evaluates environmental viability, but the INVU must integrate these criteria into urban planning (Law No. 4240, Article 9). The omission of Zone 6 violates the principle of non-regression, which prohibits measures that reduce levels of environmental protection. D. Absence of Administrative Omissions by the INVU The INVU denies omissions that violate the right to a healthy environment. However, its response to official letter AEL-008-2026 ignores the SENARA report, constituting material inactivity. This Chamber has declared unconstitutional permits that affect health and the environment, applying the preventive and precautionary principles to require prior verification of environmental variables. The protection of aquifers is a priority, and the INVU must act subsidiarily if the Municipality omits incorporations (Transitory Provision II of Law No. 4240). E. Previous Pronouncements of the Constitutional Chamber The citation of ruling No. 2025039386 does not apply, as it did not consider the new SENARA report. The principle of non-regression prevents maintaining obsolete plans in the face of novel evidence. III. CLAIM Based on the foregoing, I request this honorable Chamber: 1. To grant the amparo appeal (recurso de amparo). 2. To order the INVU to coordinate immediately with the Municipality of Limón, Name02, and SETENA to incorporate Zone 6 as an area of absolute protection in the Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador), applying the precautionary, preventive, and non-regression principles. 3. To order the INVU to pay costs and damages.\"\n\n12.- By writ received at the Secretariat of the Chamber at 2:46 p.m. on March 3, 2026, the appellant states the following:\n\n\"In my capacity as appellant in the Amparo Appeal (Recurso de Amparo) processed under file No. 26-005469-0007-CO, and in response to the resolution of thirteen hours and forty-six minutes on February twenty, two thousand twenty-six, I proceed in a timely manner to submit this response to the joint report prepared by the officials of the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism (Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo, INVU), signed by Arch. Daniel Brenes Arroyo (Person in Charge of the Unit of Technical and Operational Criteria for Territorial Planning), Mr. Marco Arias Alfaro (Legal Advisor of the Department of Urbanism), and Ms. Hilda Carvajal Bonilla (Head of the Department of Urbanism), submitted in response to the aforementioned resolution and dated February 26, 2026. I appreciate the opportunity to present my observations in a detailed and substantiated manner, in order to contribute to the exhaustive analysis of this Court on the matter in dispute. My presentation is based on an analytical, critical, and forceful approach, supported by current regulations and constitutional principles, with the purpose of categorically refuting the arguments presented in the report, which systematically and seriously minimize and trivialize the technical and legal rigor of the recommendations issued by the National Groundwater, Irrigation, and Drainage Service (Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento, SENARA), the governing and competent entity created by law for the protection of groundwater. All of the above, without prejudice to the institutional respect that the involved entities deserve.\n\nI will proceed to structure my response following the organization of the challenged report, refuting each section with arguments based on applicable legislation, including the Law for the Creation of Name02 (No. 6877 of July 18, 1983), the Organic Environmental Law (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, No. 7554 of October 4, 1995), the Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana, No. 4240 of November 15, 1968), and relevant resolutions of this honorable Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional). a) Background of the Regulatory Plan of Limón: References regarding the protection zones of the Moín aquifer and the so-called Zone 6 The report describes the background of the current Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador) of the Canton of Limón (published in Scope No. 191 to La Gaceta No. 182 of October 4, 2023), highlighting the zoning and predominant uses in the hydrogeological study area of the Moín aquifer. However, this presentation is omissive, superficial, and deliberately minimizing regarding the technical and legal rigor of the vulnerability matrix issued by SENARA, which strictly prohibits any land-use change (cambio de uso del suelo) in Zone 6 that implies an increase in density, activities with contaminating potential, or urban development not strictly controlled and compatible with the absolute protection of the aquifer. In accordance with Article 3, subsection ch) of Law No. 6877, Name02 has the exclusive and inalienable competence to \"investigate, protect, and promote the use of the country's water resources, both surface and underground,\" and subsection h) grants it the power to \"monitor compliance with the legal provisions in matters of its concern,\" with decisions that are final and of mandatory compliance. I reiterate and emphasize with the greatest forcefulness: the vulnerability matrix of SENARA, prepared in accordance with its Methodological Guide for the Application of the Generic Aquifer Protection Matrix (2017) and adapted to the karstic conditions of the Limón Promontory, expressly and categorically prohibits any modification of land use in Zone 6 that entails an increase in the potential contaminant load, including medium and high-density residential uses, height-controlled development, or any activity that does not guarantee zero risk of contaminant infiltration. The INVU report minimizes this strict prohibition by equating the Name02 matrix with mere \"technical inputs\" and by claiming that the Environmental Fragility Indices (Índices de Fragilidad Ambiental, IFA) study, validated by SETENA, can supplement or relativize the absolute restriction imposed by the entity specialized in groundwater. This claim is legally untenable: SETENA evaluates the environmental variable in a general manner (Article 17 of the Organic Environmental Law, Ley Orgánica del Ambiente), but it does not have the competence to contradict or relativize the binding technical determinations of Name02 regarding aquifer protection. Zone 6, which represents 17.07% of the study area and was classified as a high vulnerability zone in the 2007 hydrogeological study (La Gaceta No. 83 of May 2, 2007), does not admit the predominant residential uses nor the controlled development zones that the Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador) imposes on them, as this constitutes a direct violation of the express prohibition of land-use change (cambio de uso del suelo) contained in the SENARA matrix. This omission and deliberate minimization of the binding technical criterion of Name02 generates a flagrant contradiction with the principle of administrative coordination (Article 11 of the General Law of Public Administration, Law No. 6227) and with the duty of prevention of environmental damage (Article 2 of the Organic Environmental Law, Ley Orgánica del Ambiente), exposing the Moín aquifer —the main source of water supply for thousands of inhabitants— to an imminent and irreversible risk of contamination. b) Regarding the environmental part within a Regulatory Plan: The role of the INVU within the approval procedure for this planning instrument The report maintains that environmental competence is \"exclusive\" to SETENA and that the INVU acts based on inputs referred to it, without direct responsibility. This position seriously trivializes the duty of inter-institutional coordination and omits that the INVU, as the approving entity (Article 17 of Law No. 4240), is obligated to reject any regulatory plan (plan regulador) that ignores or violates binding determinations of SENARA, such as the strict prohibition of land-use change (cambio de uso del suelo) in Zone 6. SETENA cannot endorse, even implicitly, a zoning that contradicts the SENARA matrix. By doing so, and by allowing the INVU to approve the Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador) without confronting that express prohibition, the principle of prevention was breached and a normative regression was allowed that drastically reduces the pre-existing protection (AyA agreements 2007-177 and 2011-112). This conduct constitutes a serious administrative omission that violates the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment (Article 50 of the Political Constitution), as this Chamber has reiterated on multiple occasions in the face of threats to aquifers. c) Conclusions The report's conclusions evade shared responsibility and minimize the strict prohibition of land-use change (cambio de uso del suelo) in Zone 6 imposed by the SENARA matrix. I reiterate with the greatest forcefulness: said matrix is not an optional \"input,\" but a binding and mandatory technical determination that categorically prohibits any modification of land use that increases the risk of contamination of the Moín aquifer. The reference to ruling No. 2025039386 does not exonerate urgent constitutional protection in the face of a current and imminent risk. I respectfully request that this Chamber grant the amparo appeal (recurso de amparo), immediately order the review and modification of the Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador) in accordance with Article 17 of Law No. 4240, incorporate the SENARA matrix in a binding manner and without attenuations, and guarantee the absolute protection of Zone 6 through the strict prohibition of any land-use change (cambio de uso del suelo) that contravenes its technical determinations.\"\n\n13.- By writ received at the Secretariat of the Chamber at 9:24 a.m. on March 5, 2026, the appellant states the following:\n\n\"In the first place, I beg this Chamber to formally take note that the heads of the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism (Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo, INVU) have not rendered the report that was required of them by means of a resolution issued at thirteen hours forty-six minutes on February twenty, two thousand twenty-six. This omission is unequivocally verified in the review of the Costa Rican Judicial Case Management System (Sistema Costarricense de Gestión de Despachos Judiciales), as detailed in the certification issued by Judicial Technician 3, Wilberth Venegas Martínez, and the Acting Secretary, Mariane Castro Villalobos, of this same Chamber, dated March third, two thousand twenty-six at thirteen hours eighteen minutes. Said certification attests that, from February twenty-fourth to March second, two thousand twenty-six, no writ or document was presented by the Executive President of the INVU to comply with the judicial requirement. This lack of diligence not only contravenes the duty of collaboration with justice but also seriously undermines the fundamental principles of constitutional jurisdiction. Based on the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional), specifically in its Articles 1 and 2, which establish the purpose of this law as guaranteeing the supremacy of constitutional norms and principles, as well as the effective protection of the fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution and in the international human rights instruments in force in Costa Rica, a flagrant violation of due process and the obligation of the authorities to respond in a timely manner to judicial requisitions is evidenced. Likewise, Article 29 of the same law regulates the procedure for requesting reports and the imposition of sanctions for non-compliance, stipulating that the amparo appeal (recurso de amparo) proceeds against any action, omission, or simple material act of public servants and bodies that violates, violates, or threatens to violate fundamental rights. This non-compliance is not a mere administrative oversight, but an obstruction that prevents the expeditious progress of the case and jeopardizes the effectiveness of judicial protection, especially in a case involving environmental protection and the rights of vulnerable groups. Similarly, this situation is framed within Article 50 of the Political Constitution, which guarantees every person the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, and establishes the State's obligation to ensure its preservation, prevention, and restoration. The facts gathered so far do not present evidence to the contrary that damage has been caused to the environment in the area of the Moín Coastal Aquifer. On the contrary, the National Groundwater, Irrigation, and Drainage Service (Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento, SENARA) has demonstrated, through its vulnerability matrix, the existence of significant environmental impacts derived from the inaction of the respondent authorities. This matrix constitutes objective scientific evidence that reveals the fragility of the ecosystem and the immediate need for protective intervention. As a relevant precedent, this honorable Chamber has issued judicial resolutions ordering the expropriation of lands within Directorate01, in which the vulnerability matrix establishes that land-use change (cambio de uso del suelo) is not permitted, in order to protect the Moín Coastal Aquifer. For example, in Judgment No. 2008-012043 of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) of the Supreme Court of Justice, of August 1, 2008, the vulnerability of the Moín aquifer was analyzed using the EPIK method and the need for protective measures, including land-use restrictions, was emphasized. Likewise, in Judgment No. 2008-014095 of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), of September 23, 2008, the State and the Municipality of Limón were ordered to pay costs and damages for omissions that affected the area, ordering corrective actions that involve expropriations in zones of high environmental vulnerability. These resolutions reinforce the State's obligation to act with speed to prevent irreparable damage. Additionally, for decades this Chamber has ordered the incorporation of Zone 6, created in 1980 by the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers (Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, AyA), into the urban regulatory plan (plan regulador) of Limón, recognizing its character as a hydrogeological protection area. In precedents such as Judgment No. 2025-035761 of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), of October 31, 2025 (file 25-029204-0007-CO), the inaction of the AyA in issuing protection decrees for Zone 6 of the Moín aquifer was questioned, demanding its integration into urban planning instruments to guarantee the principle of environmental non-regression. However, critically, technically, and legally, it must be pointed out that said judgment did not take into consideration the vulnerability matrix of Name02 —a key technical instrument that classifies recharge zones according to their degree of vulnerability and prohibits or severely restricts activities in areas of extreme fragility, such as high-density developments, significant earthworks (movimientos de tierra), or impermeable cover—. This omission deprived the resolution of greater legal rigor, since the incorporation of said matrix would have imposed a deeper and stricter analysis of the State's protective obligations, aligned with the precautionary principle, environmental progressivity, and the available objective scientific evidence, thus avoiding any interpretation that could relativize the absolute prohibition in areas of high vulnerability and allowing for more effective protection of the right to a healthy environment. Similarly, in binding resolutions dating back to the early 2000s, this Chamber has reiterated the obligation of municipalities to incorporate technical recommendations from the AyA and Name02 into regulatory plans (planes reguladores), as evidenced in analogous cases that contravened agreements of the AyA's Board of Directors (such as 2007-177 and 2011-112), requiring the annulment or modification of plans that omit aquifer recharge zones. It is necessary to point out, in a critical, technical, and vehemently legal manner, that AyA Board of Directors agreements numbers 2007-177 (which formalized the hydrogeological study and vulnerability of the Moín aquifer, updating the protection zone) and 2011-112 (which partially modified the previous one) have been regressive and have directly stimulated the invasion and irregular occupation of part of Zone 6. Agreement 2007-177 established strict restrictions in areas of extreme vulnerability (prohibiting drilling, land-use changes (cambios de uso del suelo), material removal, vegetation cutting, and contaminating activities), aligning with the Name02 vulnerability matrix and the EPIK method.\n\n13.- However, agreement 2011-112 introduced unacceptable flexibilizations—such as impermeabilization thresholds of 20%, authorization of earthworks (movimientos de tierra) with simplified studies, permits for housing by vegetative growth without rigorous density or precise cartography—directly contravening the technical prohibitions of the Nombre02 matrix in areas of extreme vulnerability (where activities involving risk of contaminant infiltration in a highly fragile karst aquifer are not permitted). These regressive modifications have generated legal uncertainty, rendered mandatory hydrogeological protection invisible, and facilitated—through omission or laxity in their application—the proliferation of irregular settlements, slums, and uncontrolled constructions in Zone 6, as documented in subsequent complaints and judgments (including cases of invasion of protected lands and potential contamination). Such provisions violate the principle of progressivity and non-regression in environmental matters (Articles 11 and 50 of the Political Constitution, international treaties such as the Pact of San José, and the precautionary principle recognized in the jurisprudence of this Chamber), exposing the water resource to irreversible damage and aggravating state responsibility for failure to fulfill protection duties.\n\nBy virtue of the foregoing, I very respectfully request this honorable Chamber to issue a decision on the merits as soon as possible, condemning the respondents for their non-compliance and adopting all legal actions that this Chamber deems appropriate to safeguard the Moín coastal aquifer. Such measures could include, but are not limited to, the imposition of administrative sanctions, the order for immediate execution of environmental restoration plans, and the demand for civil or criminal liability if applicable, all in the interest of restoring ecological balance and preventing irreparable damage. In particular, I emphasize in a technical, rigorous, and creative manner the imperative urgency that, through a forceful and binding judgment, the Department of Forensic Biology of the Judicial Investigation Organism (OIJ) be ordered to conduct a comprehensive, multidisciplinary, and expert assessment of the damage caused to Zone 6 of absolute protection—created since 1980 as the \"pulsating heart\" of the Moín coastal aquifer, a hydrogeological aorta that irrigates life to ecosystems and vulnerable communities. This evaluation must encompass, with forensic and scientific precision, the quantification of biochemical impacts (such as infiltration of organic and inorganic contaminants into karst strata), ecological impacts (loss of biodiversity in wetlands and remnant forests, alteration of hydrological cycles), and hydrogeological impacts (degradation of the Nombre02 vulnerability matrix using methods such as EPIK or DRASTIC, measuring permeability, recharge, and underground flow indices), integrating molecular analysis of environmental samples to detect traces of anthropogenic pollution. Such an expert assessment, anchored in the precautionary principle and the irrefutable evidence of environmental regression, would not only quantify the \"silent tsunami\" of accumulated damages—where each day of inaction is equivalent to irreversible erosion of aquifer integrity, comparable to an hourglass inexorably emptying toward hydrological desertification—but would also provide the unassailable technical basis for innovative restorations, such as wetland bioengineering and geothermal remediation, thereby safeguarding the constitutional legacy of Article 50 and preventing an ecological catastrophe that threatens the survival of future generations in Limón. The urgency of this request is extreme and imperative, given that there still exists a remnant of forests, wetlands, and archaeological sites that allow for immediate and satisfactory restoration of the affected area. Said area includes properties expropriated by order of this same Chamber in prior proceedings, which, in some cases, are partially invaded due to neglect on the part of the authorities of Acueductos y Alcantarillados (AyA). The Ministry of Environment and Energy (MINAE) has direct interference in these lands, composed mainly of forests and wetlands, and its intervention is indispensable given the lack of concrete actions by INVU in the preparation and execution of the urban regulatory plan for Limón. This inaction not only perpetuates environmental vulnerability but also aggravates the violation of Article 50 of the Constitution, exposing the population—including persons in conditions of vulnerability such as older adults, Afro-descendants, and persons with disabilities—to imminent health and ecological risks. Honorable Magistrates, this collective omission by the respondent authorities not only undermines the authority of this Chamber but also threatens the natural patrimony of the nation and the rights of historically vulnerable groups, which must be protected with the greatest possible diligence. I trust that, in the exercise of your high jurisdiction, this Chamber will act with the speed and firmness that the case merits, reaffirming the commitment of the Costa Rican State to environmental justice, equality, and fundamental rights. I remain at the disposal of this Chamber for any clarification or additional contribution deemed necessary.”\n\n14.- By document received at the Secretariat of the Chamber at 15:38 hours on March 23, 2026, the petitioner states the following:\n\n“PRELIMINARY AND FUNDAMENTAL CLARIFICATION ON THE EVOLUTION OF PROTECTION\nINVU's report deliberately avoids a decisive technical fact: the absolute protection of Zone 6 of the Moín Coastal Aquifer, declared by the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers (Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados) (AyA) since the 1980s, was weakened in 2007 and even more so in 2011 by AyA itself. This institutional regression violated its own environmental protection parameters, reducing restrictions and permitting incompatible uses that today aggravate the risk. This weakening was not a \"reinforcement\" (as had been erroneously alleged in prior writings) but rather an administrative regression that INVU knows and has ignored.\n\nII. POINT-BY-POINT REFUTATION OF INVU'S REPORT\nA. False allegation of INVU's \"lack of competence\"\nINVU does not lack competence. As the national governing body (Urban Planning Law No. 4240 and INVU's Manual of Regulatory Plans), it has the technical and legal obligation to review, advise on, and oversee the incorporation of absolute protection areas into regulatory plans. It cannot delegate all responsibility to the municipality when a new Nombre02 opinion exists demonstrating incompatibility.\n\nB. The official communication SENARA-DIGH-006-2026 and the institutional weakening by AyA itself\nINVU reduces the Nombre02 report to \"one more input.\" A serious error. Nombre02 confirms the high and extreme vulnerability of Zone 6 (EPIK method: high karst infiltration, direct connection with the aquifer). Worse yet: AyA itself, which declared absolute protection in the 1980s, weakened it in 2007 and deepened the weakening in 2011, violating its own environmental protection parameters. This regression allowed incompatible urban uses and left the Limón Regulatory Plan without updating. INVU, as an advisory body, cannot allege ignorance or lack of competence in the face of this irrefutable technical evidence.\n\nC. Error in attributing the environmental variable exclusively to SETENA\nFalse. The Regulation for the Incorporation of the Environmental Variable (Reglamento de Incorporación de la Variable Ambiental) requires coordination between INVU, the municipality, and SETENA. INVU participated in the approval of the Regulatory Plan and cannot now wash its hands of the matter.\n\nD. Res judicata does not apply\nThe previous resolution (expediente 25-028736-0007-CO) refers to events prior to January 2026. The official communication SENARA-DIGH-006-2026 and the institutional weakening by AyA are supervening events that constitute a new imminent risk.\n\nE. Administrative omission and violation of the right to a healthy environment\nINVU states that \"it has not incurred in omissions.\" This statement is contrary to science, technique, and logic. Zone 6 supplies drinking water to thousands of Limón residents. Its exclusion from the Regulatory Plan (aggravated by the weakening by AyA itself in 2007 and 2011) exposes the aquifer to irreversible contamination, violating the principles of prevention, precaution, and non-regression.\n\nIII. SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL BASIS (irrefutable proof)\n• Absolute protection declared by AyA in the 1980s.\n• Weakening in 2007 and further weakening in 2011 by AyA itself, violating its own environmental protection parameters.\n• Official communication SENARA-DIGH-006-2026: high/extreme vulnerability confirmed.\n• Consequence: irreversible risk of bacteriological contamination, nitrates, and heavy metals from uncontrolled urbanization.\nINVU, as the governing body, cannot ignore this chain of institutional omissions and regressions.\n\nIV. PETITION\nFor the reasons set forth, I request the Constitutional Chamber to:\n1. Admit this supplementary rejoinder document.\n2. Declare the amparo appeal well-founded.\n3. Order INVU, within a peremptory period of 48 hours, to coordinate with the Municipality of Limón and SETENA the immediate incorporation of Zone 6 of the Moín Coastal Aquifer as an area of absolute protection in the Urban Regulatory Plan of Limón, correcting the weakening of 2007 and 2011.\n4. Sentence INVU to pay costs and damages for the demonstrated arbitrary omission.”\n\n15.- By document received at the Secretariat of the Chamber at 16:00 hours on March 23, 2026, the petitioner states the following:\n\n“This document constitutes an extension of the initial rejoinder filed by this party, with the purpose of reinforcing, detailing, and deepening the arguments already presented, more exhaustively and precisely refuting the statements of the respondent AyA, and expanding the legal and technical basis in protection of Article 50 of the Political Constitution, the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, the strategic water resource of the province of Limón, and, in a special manner, the rights of the third generation and of future generations and the unborn, in accordance with the binding jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. I do this based on Articles 21, 50, and 169 of the Political Constitution, Article 43 and following of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional), and in forceful, exhaustive, coherent, and well-founded defense of my fundamental rights, of the inhabitants of Limón, and, especially, of the third-generation rights to water resources and of future generations and the unborn.\n\nClearly, concisely, and forcefully, I affirm that if this Honorable Constitutional Chamber does not exercise the necessary actions to protect the strategic water resource of Zone 6 of the Moín Coastal Aquifer, no one will. No citizen—no matter how diligent and persistent—has sufficient personal, institutional, or economic resources to effectively and sustainably defend fundamental and collective third-generation rights such as the right to a healthy environment, access to drinking water, and the intergenerational preservation of water resources. The protection of these diffuse and collective assets falls primarily on the State and, ultimately, on the concentrated constitutional control exercised by this Chamber, as the supreme guarantor of constitutional supremacy and environmental non-regression (Constitutional Chamber judgments such as 2014-12887, 2010-18702, and abundant jurisprudence on state omissions in environmental protection and water resources). Passivity or delay in this case would be equivalent to an abdication of the positive obligation of effective protection, leaving an irreplaceable national patrimony unprotected and compromising the future of thousands of inhabitants of Limón and of generations to come.\n\n1. GENERAL SUMMARY OF AYA'S RESPONSE AND CATEGORICAL REJECTION\nAyA's response is an exercise in sterile, evasive, and self-serving formalism that seeks to wash its hands with old publications in La Gaceta, repetitive official communications, and the mantra of “no competence,” while deliberately ignoring the most recent and updated technical report: the official communication SENARA-DIGH-006 2026 of January 27, 2026, which ratifies the extreme vulnerability of Zone 6 of the Moín Coastal Aquifer and declares the absolute incompatibility of the Urban Regulatory Plan of Limón with the institutional vulnerability matrix. Far from disproving my allegations, AyA's response confirms the regressive administrative omission: more than 45 years have elapsed since Agreement 80-121 (1980), 17 years since 2007-177, and 15 years since 2011-112, and to date Zone 6 is not incorporated as an area of absolute protection in the Regulatory Plan. This conduct is not isolated negligence; it is a systematic, continued, and aggravated violation of Article 50 of the Constitution, of the principles of prevention, precaution, and environmental non-regression, and of the intergenerational rights to clean drinking water, especially of future generations and the unborn who will inherit a strategic aquifer threatened today by institutional omissions.\n\n2. POINT-BY-POINT REFUTATION OF AYA'S RESPONSE\n2.1. Regarding the alleged \"sufficient notifications\" via La Gaceta and official communications (official communication GSP-RHC-2025-01548 and annexes)\nAyA boasts of having published agreements in La Gaceta and sent official communications (PRE-1426-2012, PRE-2018-00819, SUB-AID-GA 2014-240, etc.). But this \"formal notification\" is irrelevant and absolutely insufficient to fulfill the duty of result. The Constitutional Chamber, in the very rulings AyA cites (2008 004790, 2008-010372, and 2008-004751), already ordered the Municipality of Limón to incorporate AyA's recommendations. More than 17 years have passed and the omission persists entirely. Publication in La Gaceta does not supplant the obligation of real effectiveness nor exempt AyA from its duty of technical stewardship. It is a worthless piece of paper notification that AyA uses to excuse its inaction. Worse yet: AyA itself admits in its response that the Municipality never responded to official communication GSP-RHC-2025-00048 requesting accountability regarding the incorporation of Zone 6. And what did AyA do in the face of this neglect? Nothing coercive. No judicial action, no criminal complaint for disobedience of a constitutional mandate, no request before this Chamber. This passivity is inadmissible for the national governing body of water resources (Law 2726).\n\n2.2. Regarding AyA's alleged \"lack of competence\" to modify the Regulatory Plan\nAyA repeats obsessively that only the Municipality can modify the Plan. False, cynical, and irresponsible. AyA holds the national technical stewardship in matters of supply, sanitation, and protection of water resources (Constitutive Law No. 2726). It cannot limit itself to issuing \"recommendations\" and sit idly by in the face of an omission that puts the drinking water of thousands of people and the future of the province of Limón at risk. The principle of inter-institutional coordination (Art. 11 Organic Environmental Law, Urban Planning Law) imposes on it positive duties of promotion, oversight, demand, and, where appropriate, judicial or administrative complaint. Its posture is a flagrant abdication of its competences and a violation of the duty of effective protection of water resources.\n\n2.3. Regarding the technical conflict AyA vs. Nombre02 (Points 1 to 5 of the responses to Nombre02-DIGH-013-2026 and Nombre02-GG-OFI 056-2026)\nHere lies the most serious and dangerous contradiction of AyA:\n• It admits that its 2007/2011 study (EPIK method) classified Zone 6 as \"high vulnerability\" (not extreme).\n• It explicitly acknowledges that it has no subsequent hydrogeological studies or an updated monitoring network to contradict the 2026 Nombre02 report.\n• Yet it dismisses the official communication SENARA-DIGH-006-2026 for \"lack of rigor,\" when Nombre02 is the national authority specialized in groundwater, irrigation, and drainage. This is absurd and violates the precautionary principle!\nFaced with two divergent technical assessments, and the risk of irreversible contamination of a coastal karst aquifer (source of approximately 100 L/s for Limón), the State must immediately adopt the strictest possible protection: absolute protection and extreme vulnerability. AyA itself in its original study recognized the \"high vulnerability\" and recommended severe restrictions. The 2026 Nombre02 elevates them to extreme based on the institutional matrix. Does AyA prefer to risk the drinking water of entire generations rather than update its own study or coordinate with SENARA? This attitude is reckless, unconstitutional, and contrary to the precautionary principle (OC-23/17 Inter-American Court).\n\n2.4. Regarding the \"inspections and denials\"\nThese are reactive, late, and insufficient measures. As long as the Regulatory Plan permits urbanizations, subdivisions (fraccionamientos), or industrial or agricultural activities in the recharge zone or upstream of the aquifer, any subsequent denial by AyA is useless: the damage will already have been caused irreversibly.\n\n3. SUBSTANTIVE CONSIDERATIONS: FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THIRD-GENERATION RIGHTS\nThe joint omission (AyA – INVU – Municipality of Limón) constitutes a regressive administrative omission that perpetuates the impact on the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment (Article 50 CP). This right is of the third generation (collective, diffuse, intergenerational) and obliges the State to prevent, preserve, and improve the environment, not just to react when damage has already occurred. The Constitutional Chamber has repeatedly recognized the principles of prevention, precaution, and non-regression (rulings 2010-18702, 2021-17245, and abundant jurisprudence).\n\n4. FORCEFUL DEFENSE OF THE RIGHTS OF THE UNBORN AND FUTURE GENERATIONS (JURISPRUDENCE INTER-AMERICAN COURT)\nThe Moín aquifer is not just any resource: it is the strategic water patrimony of the province of Limón. Its irreversible contamination compromises the right to life, to health, and to a healthy environment of future generations and the unborn. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in its Advisory Opinion OC-23/17 (Environment and Human Rights, November 15, 2017), established: “In its collective dimension, the right to a healthy environment constitutes a universal interest, owed both to present and future generations” (para. 55 et seq.). The Court emphasized that environmental degradation “tends to worsen, affecting present and future generations,” and that States have obligations of prevention and precaution in the face of serious or irreversible damage, even without absolute scientific certainty. In Advisory Opinion OC-32/25 (Climate Emergency and Human Rights, 2025), the Court reaffirmed the principle of intergenerational equity: current generations are obligated to guarantee stable environmental conditions so that future generations (including the unborn) may enjoy similar opportunities for development and a dignified life. A clean water resource is a precondition sine qua non of the right to life (Article 4 ACHR and Article 21 CP). Contaminating the aquifer that will supply children, both present and yet unborn, is to violate in advance their right to exist in a healthy environment. This Chamber cannot tolerate institutional bureaucracy mortgaging the future of Limón.”\n\n16.- By document received at the Secretariat of the Chamber at 08:08 hours on March 24, 2026, the petitioner states the following:\n\n“This text constitutes a formal extension of my previous rejoinder filed in this expediente, with the precise objective of exalting, reinforcing, detailing, and expanding the arguments already presented, fully adhering to the technical and legal conclusions of SENARA, in protection of Article 50 of the Political Constitution, the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, the strategic water resource of the province of Limón (Zone 6 of the Moín Coastal Aquifer) and, in an especially prioritized manner, the rights of the third generation and of future generations and the unborn, in accordance with the binding jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. I do this based on Articles 21, 50, and 169 of the Political Constitution, Article 43 and following of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional), and in forceful, exhaustive, coherent, and well-founded defense of the aforementioned rights.\n\nClearly, concisely, and forcefully, I state that if this Honorable Constitutional Chamber does not exercise the necessary actions to protect the strategic water resource of Zone 6 of the Moín Coastal Aquifer, no one will. No citizen—no matter how diligent and persistent—has sufficient personal, institutional, or economic resources to effectively and sustainably defend fundamental and collective third-generation rights such as the right to a healthy environment, access to drinking water, and the intergenerational preservation of water resources. The protection of these diffuse and collective assets falls primarily on the State and, ultimately, on the concentrated constitutional control exercised by this Chamber, as the supreme guarantor of constitutional supremacy and environmental non-regression.\n\n1. FULL SUPPORT AND EXALTATION OF NOMBRE02'S DAMNING CONCLUSIONS\nThe report of the General Manager of SENARA, Eng. Osvaldo Quirós Arias, constitutes a technical and administrative declaration of the highest probative value that confirms and aggravates all the allegations I have been sustaining for years in multiple amparo appeals. Nombre02's key assertions are damning and leave no room for ambiguous interpretations:\n• The technical study conducted by AyA itself recognizes that Zone 6 has the character of an Absolute Protection Area, corresponding to extreme vulnerability.\n• Applying the Soil Use Criteria Matrix according to Aquifer Contamination Vulnerability (SENARA, 2006), no land use is permitted in said zone.\n• Based on the restrictions established in the AyA Board of Directors Agreement No. 2007-177, the protection area should be elevated to an ABSOLUTE and EXTREME VULNERABILITY character, where no activities of any kind are permitted, as defined by AyA's own hydrogeological study.\nThese conclusions are not isolated opinions: they come from the national authority specialized in groundwater (SENARA), and they directly contradict the dilatory and minimizing posture of AyA, which insists on maintaining a \"high vulnerability\" classification and an outdated \"restricted protection\" regime contrary to the precautionary principle.\n\n2. THE OMISSION IS REGRESSIVE AND CONSTITUTIONALLY UNACCEPTABLE\nThe persistent omission to incorporate Zone 6 as an area of absolute protection in the Urban Regulatory Plan of Limón constitutes a regressive administrative omission that violates Article 50 of the Constitution. Elapsed are:\n• More than 45 years since the first protection declarations (Agreement 80-121 of 1980).\n• 17 years since AyA Agreement 2007-177.\n• 15 years since the modification 2011-112.\nAnd there is still no effective incorporation of the absolute protection that AyA's own study and Nombre02 demand. This inaction is not mere administrative slowness: it is a prohibited environmental regression that exposes a coastal karst aquifer supplying approximately 100 L/s to the population of Limón to irreversible contamination.\n\n3. DEFENSE OF THE RIGHTS OF THE UNBORN AND FUTURE GENERATIONS\nThe Moín aquifer is the strategic water patrimony of the province of Limón. Its degradation compromises the right to life, to health, and to a healthy environment of future generations and the unborn. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has been clear and binding:\n• Advisory Opinion OC-23/17 (November 15, 2017): “In its collective dimension, the right to a healthy environment constitutes a universal interest, owed both to present and future generations” (para. 55 et seq.). States have obligations of prevention and precaution in the face of serious or irreversible damage, even without absolute scientific certainty.\n• Advisory Opinion OC-32/25 (2025): reaffirms the principle of intergenerational equity and the obligation of current generations to guarantee stable environmental conditions for future ones, including the unborn.\nContaminating the aquifer that will supply children yet unborn is to violate in advance their right to life in a healthy environment (Art. 4 ACHR and Art. 21 CP).\n\n4. PETITION\nFor all of the foregoing, and fully adhering to SENARA's damning report, I respectfully request this Honorable Chamber:\n1. To admit this formal supplementary document to my previous rejoinder and deem the hearing duly answered.\n2. To declare the amparo appeal well-founded in all its aspects, recognizing the violation of Article 50 of the Constitution due to regressive omission by the respondents (INVU, AyA, and Municipality of Limón).\n3. To order, within a peremptory period of 30 business days:\na) INVU and the Municipality of Limón to initiate and conclude inter-institutional coordination actions with AyA and Nombre02 to amend the Urban Regulatory Plan of Limón, expressly incorporating Zone 6 as an area of absolute protection with extreme vulnerability, in accordance with the Nombre02 report and the Soil Use Criteria Matrix.\nb) AyA to accept Nombre02's conclusions and update its classification and technical recommendations accordingly.\nc) To immediately suspend any urbanistic authorization, subdivision (fraccionamiento), or incompatible activity in Dirección02. To order permanent monitoring measures, sanctions for non-compliance, and any other measures this Chamber deems appropriate to safeguard the water resource and the rights of present and future generations.”\n\n17.- By document received at the Secretariat of the Chamber at 16:08 hours on March 24, 2026, the petitioner states the following:\n\nI, Nombre01, petitioner in the expediente of merit, in my capacity as a directly affected person and with a legitimate interest in the protection of the water resource of the province of Limón, respectfully address you to formally convey a copy of Resolution No. 2033-2025-SETENA dated December 11, 2025, issued by the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (SETENA), which grants environmental viability (license) to the project \"Movimiento de Tierras Orión Limón\" (Inmobiliaria Orión de Belén S.A., legal identification number CED02), on a 21,431 m² property in the district of Limón. I attach the complete document (digitally signed by the General Secretary of SETENA), which authorizes massive earthworks (movimientos de tierras) (20,000 m³ of cut and fill on the same property) without construction of buildings or infrastructure, under category B2 and with a SIA score of 51,375 points.\n\nEmphatic and unambiguous transfer: This resolution raises serious doubts, flagrant contradictions, and apparent inconsistency with the exclusive powers of the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers (Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, AyA) regarding the protection of supply sources and hydrogeological zoning of the Moín-Limón aquifer, declared a protection zone by Board of Directors Agreement No. 80-121 of April 14, 1980 (partially revoked and updated by Agreement 2007-177 published in La Gaceta No. 83 of May 2, 2007, and modified by Agreement 2011-112). Said zoning establishes strict restrictions in extreme vulnerability zones (including Zone 6 of absolute protection), prohibiting or conditioning intensive earthworks (movimientos de tierras), land-use changes (cambios de uso del suelo), and any activity involving a risk of infiltration or contamination of the karstic aquifer that supplies Limón and Moín. The SETENA Resolution: • Does not mention or analyze the official AyA delimitation or the recommendations of its agreements (2007-177 and 2011-112). • Declares that no field inspection is required despite the nature of the project (massive cuts and fills in a potentially vulnerable zone). • Grants viability (viabilidad) without requiring prior or binding criteria from AyA, even though the latter has classified similar properties as outside Zone 6 in prior communications, generating institutional incoherence. • Imposes monitoring obligations (digital logbook, semi-annual reports, environmental guarantee), but does not resolve doubts about compatibility with the hydrogeological zoning in force since 1980. Express and forceful request to the Court: I request that the Lady and Gentleman Magistrates carry out an exhaustive and undelayed technical and legal assessment of the content of this resolution, in the context of this case file (expediente), to determine: 1. Whether there is a contradiction or invasion of powers between SETENA and AyA in the authorization of earthworks in a hydrogeological protection zone declared since 1980. 2. Whether the environmental viability granted breaches or ignores the restrictions of AyA (Agreements 2007-177 and 2011-112), generating irreversible risk to the Moín-Limón aquifer. 3. Whether it is appropriate to order precautionary measures, provisional suspension of works, or require a joint technical report from AyA, SETENA, and the Court to clarify normative and technical coherence. 4. Any other provision that legally corresponds to guarantee the protection of water resources and the precautionary principle (Article 50 of the Political Constitution). AyA has not shown congruence or sustained commitment to its organic functions of protecting water resources (Law 2726), which generates legal uncertainty and real environmental risk. This SETENA resolution appears to authorize “suspicious” activities to the undersigned, as there is no public technical evidence demonstrating full compatibility with AyA’s zoning. I remain at your disposal to expand or provide further evidentiary elements. I request that the document be considered transferred and that it be provided in accordance with the law.”\n\n**18.-** By a writing incorporated into the digital case file at 2:18 p.m. on April 13, 2026, the appealing party states the following:\n\n“Subject: Request for incorporation of evidence to better resolve, in accordance with Article 24 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, Law No. 7135) and the principle of effective protection, in case file No. 26-005469-0007-CO (appellant: Name01). Referral of official letter UEN-GA-2026-00889 from the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers (AyA). Dear Magistrates: In my capacity as appellant in the referenced case file, I address you with the utmost respect to request, in accordance with Article 24 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction —which empowers this Court to carry out evidentiary proceedings when deemed necessary for the correct resolution of the matter—, the incorporation into the case file of the documentary evidence attached and described below. This consists of official letter No. UEN-GA-2026-00889, dated April 9, 2026, issued by the National Executing Unit for Environmental Management (Unidad Ejecutora Nacional de Gestión Ambiental) of the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers (AyA), Huetar Caribe Region, signed by officials Christian Delgado Segura (UEN Gestión Ambiental), Alejandro Rodríguez Vindas, Kathy Borges Umaña, Andrea Sánchez Solera, José Matarrita Cortés, Pablo Rodríguez Fallas, and M.Sc. Viviana Ramos Sánchez (Directorate UEN Gestión Ambiental), with copies to various internal dependencies of the Institute. Said document constitutes reliable and updated proof of the serious environmental problems facing Zone Six and the coastal aquifer of Moín, derived directly from the error of omission incurred by the Municipality of Limón in excluding this zone from the current Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador). The AyA letter expressly acknowledges: 1. The complexity of the earthworks (movimiento de tierra) activities being developed in the area of interest and their direct link to the protection of water resources under AyA’s administration. 2. The strategic importance of the water resource, which has already motivated the formal referral of my complaint and inter-institutional coordination with MINAE, SETENA, the Ministry of Health, and the Municipality of Limón itself. 3. The absence of adequate regulatory controls, since AyA lacks the competence to authorize or suspend such earthworks and, additionally, lacks legal authorization to enter private property without the corresponding permits. This situation demonstrates, in an irrefutable manner, the normative vacuum and the imminent risk generated by the exclusion of Zone Six from the Regulatory Plan: the development of high environmental impact activities is permitted without the technical studies, environmental permits, or prevention and precautionary measures required by the legal system (Article 50 of the Political Constitution, the Organic Law of the Environment, and the principles of prevention, precaution, and inter-institutional coordination). The coastal aquifer of Moín, vital for the population’s supply and of high hydrogeological vulnerability, is exposed to irreversible contamination and degradation precisely because of this municipal omission. The AyA letter not only corroborates the facts reported in the constitutional action but also demonstrates the urgent need for this Constitutional Court, in exercise of its protective power, to incorporate this evidence to better resolve the matter. Its admission will allow the Magistrates to have updated and official elements that illustrate: • The real and concrete impact on the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment (Art. 50 CP). • The imminent risk to the right to potable water and public health. • The structural failure of Limón’s territorial planning, which generates a competence vacuum and a latent threat to the public interest. Therefore, based on Article 24 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, I respectfully request this Court to: a) Accept the presentation of the documentary evidence consisting of AyA official letter No. UEN-GA-2026-00889 (original or certified copy attached). b) Immediately incorporate it into case file No. 26-005469-0007-CO as evidence for better resolution. c) Evaluate it at the time of issuing judgment, for the purpose of ordering the necessary measures for the effective protection of the coastal aquifer of Moín and Zone Six, thus correcting the omission of the Regulatory Plan of the Municipality of Limón. Attached: AyA Official Letter No. UEN-GA-2026-00889 of April 9, 2026 (complete, with signatures and distribution copies). I remain at the disposal of this Court for any clarification or additional diligence deemed pertinent.”\n\n**19.-** By means of a writing incorporated into the digital case file at 2:27 p.m. on April 17, 2026, the appealing party states the following:\n\n“With the deepest respect, I, Name01, appellant in the referenced case file, am addressing this honorable Court to formally transfer a supervening event of great significance that irrefutably reinforces the claims of the present amparo appeal (recurso de amparo) and justifies, with extreme urgency, the immediate adoption of protective precautionary measures. I attach a complete copy of official letter No. GSP-RHC-2026-00614, dated April 7, 2026, signed by Mr. José Matarrita Cortes on behalf of the Huetar Caribe Region of the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers (AyA). Said letter is addressed directly to M.Sc. Maylin Mora Arias, Regional Director of SINAC, and M.Sc. Andrés Cortez Orozco, Director of the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, SETENA), for the purpose of officially transferring the complaint that this servant submitted on March 18, 2026, regarding the project ‘Movimiento de Tierras Orión Limón’ (Orión Limón Earthworks), developed by Inmobiliaria Orión de Belén Sociedad Anónima at Dirección03, covered under environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) No. 2033-2025-SETENA. What is particularly revealing and of high strategic relevance regarding this supervening fact is that the authorities of AyA have taken measures for management and transfer of the case solely as a result of the action and complaint submitted by the undersigned appellant, and not by the institution’s own initiative. AyA —the entity responsible since 1980 for the creation, delimitation, and protection of the Moín coastal aquifer protection zone (with official updates in 2007 by Board of Directors Agreement and publication in La Gaceta)— recognized the risk only after receiving the formal complaint from this servant. In the attached letter, the institution expressly acknowledges the existence of a real, current, and imminent risk of contamination due to the presumed impact on karstic sinkholes (dolinas kársticas), but reports that its officials lack legal authorization to enter private properties. Therefore, it expressly requests the immediate intervention of SINAC and SETENA to carry out the technical inspection and adopt the appropriate measures. This circumstance reveals with absolute clarity two aspects of utmost gravity: 1. The unforgivable omission incurred by the respondent authorities in not including the Moín coastal aquifer protection zone (particularly Zone 6 according to the EPIK method of hydrogeological vulnerability) within the Limón Regulatory Plan. Said omission has allowed —and continues to allow— SETENA to issue environmental viabilities without duly considering the vulnerability matrix of the National Groundwater, Irrigation, and Drainage Service (Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento, SENARA), nor the high indices of intrinsic vulnerability derived from the karstic geology of the area, which facilitates the direct infiltration of contaminants into the aquifer. 2. That AyA’s institutional action was triggered exclusively by the appellant’s initiative and management, which demonstrates the initial passivity of the responsible institutions and reinforces the need for this Constitutional Court to intervene decisively to prevent irreparable damages. In this context, the immediate adoption of protective precautionary measures is presented as a constitutional and institutional imperative, in direct support of the efforts of AyA itself, which were triggered by the undersigned’s complaint. In accordance with the precautionary principle enshrined in Costa Rican environmental law and in the constant jurisprudence of this Court, given the existence of a serious and imminent risk of irreparable damage to a strategic water resource —whose impact would directly affect the fundamental rights to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment (Article 50 of the Constitution), to life and health (Article 21 of the Constitution), as well as access to potable water— it is essential to provisionally suspend the effects of environmental viability No. 2033-2025-SETENA and any administrative or material act derived from it. Said precautionary measures will not only prevent irreversible damage to the natural heritage and the rights of present and future generations but will also provide the necessary legal and operational support to AyA so that, in coordination with SINAC and SETENA, it can effectively fulfill its legal mandate of protecting the Moín coastal aquifer. I beg Your Honors to assess this supervening fact with the utmost urgency that the case merits and to order, without further procedure, the requested precautionary measures, until this appeal is resolved on its merits. Attachments: 1. Copy of official letter No. GSP-RHC-2026-00614 from AyA – Huetar Caribe Region, dated April 7, 2026, and its annexes. 2. Copy of the complaint submitted on March 18, 2026 (for reference). I remain entirely at the Court’s disposal for any expansion, clarification, or diligence deemed necessary. I attach the AyA letter with its corresponding annexes.”\n\n**20.-** In the proceedings followed, the legal requirements have been observed.\n\nDrafted by Magistrate Garro Vargas; and,\n\n**Considering:**\n\n**I.- Object of the appeal.** The appellant points out that “Zone 6 of the Moín Coastal Aquifer” was declared an area of absolute protection by the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers (AyA) in the 1980s, a condition that was reiterated in 2007 and 2011 due to its strategic relevance for the province of Limón. He indicates that, despite this, said zone has not been incorporated as an area of absolute protection within the Urban Regulatory Plan of Limón (Plan Regulador Urbano de Limón), which, in his opinion, constitutes an omission that violates the principle of environmental integration and exposes the aquifer to serious risks. Likewise, he states that on January 27, 2026, Nombre02 issued a technical report ratifying the high and extreme vulnerability of said zone, as well as the incompatibility of the current regulatory plan with institutional technical criteria. He points out that, based on said report, on February 2, 2026, he requested the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism (Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo, INVU) to render accounts and adopt measures to correct the regulatory plan; however, through a response of February 13, 2026, said entity denied responsibility, alleged lack of competence, and referred to a previous resolution of this Court. Furthermore, he argues that the response provided did not assess the new technical report, nor did it order concrete actions to correct the inconsistencies of the regulatory plan, which, in his judgment, constitutes an administrative omission that perpetuates the environmental risk and disregards the principles of prevention, precaution, and non-regression. Finally, he maintains that this omission continuously exposes the population of Limón to significant environmental risks, for which he deems his fundamental rights violated and requests that the appeal be granted and measures be ordered to incorporate the zone as an area of absolute protection in the regulatory plan.\n\n**II.- Proven facts.** Of importance for the decision in this matter, the following facts are considered duly demonstrated, either because they have been accredited or because the respondents have omitted to refer to them as provided in the initial order:\n\n| 1) | Zone 6 of Limón is the area where the Limón-Moín aquifer is located (see the reports of the respondent authorities and the evidence provided to the digital case file). |\n| :--- | :--- |\n| 2) | The Board of Directors of ICAA, through agreement No. 80-121 of session 80 028 of April 14, 1980, declared the Moín-Limón springs (nacientes) a water protection zone, establishing the following prohibitions: “(…) The Drilling or Excavation of Wells, infiltration galleries, or any other water catchment works. Construction of Dwelling Houses, Industrial and Commercial Facilities, Pigsties, Chicken Coops and Corrals in general, Septic Tanks, Cesspools, or Sanitary Systems that may affect the subsoil waters. The removal or extraction of all types of materials. All agricultural activity. All cutting of forest vegetation. The use of plaguicides, pesticides, or poisonous substances for any purpose. Installation of garbage dumps, sanitary landfills or waste dumps of any kind (…)” (see judgment no. 2025039386 of 9:20 a.m. on November 28, 2025, brought ad effectum videndi et probandi). |\n| 3) | Nombre02 promulgated the so-called “Matrix of Land-Use Criteria According to Aquifer Contamination Vulnerability for the Protection of Water Resources” (Matriz de Criterios de Uso del Suelo Según la Vulnerabilidad a la Contaminación de Acuíferos Para la Protección del Recurso Hídrico), which was approved by the Board of Directors of that institution by agreement No. 3303, in extraordinary session No. 239-06 of September 26, 2006. This matrix is a guiding input for carrying out, in a comprehensive environmental manner, land-use regulation and zoning processes in the national territory (see judgment no. 2025039386 of 9:20 a.m. on November 28, 2025, brought ad effectum videndi et probandi). |\n| 4) | Through agreement No. 2007-177 of the Board of Directors of ICAA, published in La Gaceta No. 83 of Wednesday, May 2, 2007, the “Officialization of the Hydrogeological Study and Vulnerability of the Moín, Limón Aquifer and the Update of the Protection Zone DGAMB-2007-031” was enacted, and its operative part (por tanto) ruled as follows: |\n\n\n5) For zones 7, 8, 9, and 10, every development project must be required to construct sanitary sewer systems, and the AyA must initiate the necessary studies to build the primary and secondary collectors that allow wastewater to be evacuated toward the submarine outfall. 6) The executive branch will be requested to promulgate a decree aimed at the protection of the Moín springs; as well as the land-use limitations that ensure the conservation and improvement of environmental conditions in the other zones of the Moín Aquifer; in accordance with the \"Estudio Hidrogeológico y Vulnerabilidad del Acuífero de Moín, Limón\" and the land-use recommendations. 7) For zone 6, the Dirección Regional Huetar Atlántica and the Dirección de Gestión Ambiental will create and maintain an exhaustive inventory of land use, identifying the activities and establishments that store substances posing a risk to the quality of water for human use. 8) The competent entities must be urged to conduct a risk analysis of the industries established in the direct influence zone of the Moín springs, which must include a possible conflagration involving several industries, and an action protocol must be established to address a possible emergency that considers the participation of all industries established in the zone. 9) To guarantee the observance of the restrictions and follow up on the application of the defined measures, the Unidad Regional de Control Ambiental of the Región Atlántica will be formed, under the charge of the Gerencia of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados. 10.- Unless it is demonstrated that the Moín springs have been irreversibly affected, according to regulations, by the Químicos Holanda event, they must be kept in use for supplying the population for technical and demand-related reasons; under the following conditions: Order the immediate construction of a treatment plant, including an activated carbon system or the technology necessary to ensure quality against any possible contamination. Studies must be initiated immediately to define the possibility of using the upper basin of the río Banano with a view to replacing the Moín springs in case they become contaminated by the industrial activities carried out in the basin. THE MUNICIPALITIES LOCATED IN THE HIGH, MEDIUM, AND LOW VULNERABILITY ZONES WILL BE NOTIFIED OF THIS AGREEMENT FOR ITS IMPLEMENTATION IN THE REGULATORY PLAN SO THAT \"THE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REGULATION OF PROPERTY USE AND THE ESTUDIO HIDROGEOLÓGICO Y VULNERABILIDAD DEL ACUÍFERO DE MOÍN-LIMÓN·\" ARE BINDING, EMPHASIZING THE NEED FOR ZONE 6 TO BE CONSIDERED AS AN AREA OF ABSOLUTE RESTRICTION. LIKEWISE, THE MINISTERIO DE SALUD, THE MINAE, THE INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE VIVIENDA Y URBANISMO, THE Nombre02 AND THE SETENA WILL BE NOTIFIED FOR THE FULFILLMENT OF THEIR COMPETENCIES. LET IT BE PUBLISHED AND NOTIFIED (...)\" (see judgment No. 2025039386 of 09:20 hours on November 28, 2025, brought ad effectum videndi et probandi).\n\n5) Through agreement No. 112 of May 2, 2011, published in La Gaceta No. 83, the ICAA ordered the amendment of agreement No. 2007-107 \"Oficialización del estudio Hidrogeológico y Vulnerabilidad del Acuífero Moín, Limón, y la actualización de la zona de protección DGAMB-2007-031\", under the following terms:\n\n\"(...) 1º- Agreement 2007-177 is Amended, in its Por Tanto Segundo, regarding the enumeration of recommendations for regulating land use in Zone 6, with the following restriction guidelines and in application of the 'Matriz de Criterios de Uso del Suelo según la vulnerabilidad a la contaminación de los Acuíferos para la Protección del Recurso Hídrico,' issued by the Junta Directiva of Nombre02 in session on September 26, 2006: For all activities, the sealed surface area per hectare must not exceed 20%. Those INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES that, throughout the different stages of construction and operation, generate a negative environmental impact on the aquifer must submit an environmental impact assessment (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental) duly approved by SETENA. In accordance with the Reglamento of the Ministerio de Salud, Decreto 30465 S and the Reglamento de Vertidos y Rehúso de Aguas Residuales. N. 26041-S MINAE, high-risk industrial activities are not permitted due to the possible contamination impact. These high-risk activities are defined as those that have a possibility of explosion, fire, leak, or sudden spill resulting from the process during industrial activities, as well as in pipelines and transport, involving one or several hazardous substances and that pose a serious danger (of immediate or delayed, reversible or irreversible manifestation) for the population, their property, the environment, and ecosystems. Do not authorize storage activities and USE OF PESTICIDES, PLAGUICIDAS, FUELS AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES, OR PRECURSORS OF THESE FOR ANY PURPOSE. For REMOVAL, CUTTING AND FILLING OF MATERIALS (earthworks [movimientos de tierra]), a hydrogeological study must be conducted proving that there will be no impact to the aquifer and an Environmental Management Plan (Plan de Gestión Ambiental) duly approved by SETENA. THE CONSTRUCTION OR EXCAVATION OF WELLS, INFILTRATION GALLERIES, OR ANY OTHER WATER EXTRACTION WORK IS NOT AUTHORIZED. In the case of DEVELOPMENTS OF URBANIZATIONS, LOTIFICATIONS, SUBDIVISIONS (FRACCIONAMIENTOS), AND CONDOMINIUMS, a sanitary sewer system and an ordinary-type wastewater treatment plant must be built. Developments with densities equal to or less than one housing unit per 1000 meters may be permitted. In the case of HOTELS AND SIMILAR LODGING ESTABLISHMENTS, they may be permitted subject to effluent management with a treatment plant complying with the current Reglamento de Vertidos. The number of rooms must not exceed a load equivalent to 50 people per hectare. DO NOT INSTALL GARBAGE DUMPS, SANITARY LANDFILLS, OR WASTE DISPOSAL SITES OF ANY KIND. The AyA, considering the studies presented by the interested party and endorsed by the pertinent authorities, may rule on other types of activities not listed in this agreement that affect the quality and quantity of the water, establishing binding technical recommendations for the regulation of the activity. The AYA will be empowered by Ley 2726 to evaluate whether there is an impact to the aquifer and the correct disposal of wastewater in accordance with the current vertidos regulation, in addition to the approval or denial of the activity. In Zone 6, housing constructions arising from vegetative growth will be permitted, provided it is ensured that wastewater is not discharged into dolines and that garbage collection is carried out by the municipal service or another means. 3º- The Local Government and the Competent Institutions are recommended to proceed to implement protection measures aimed at the conservation of forested zones. 4º- The Senior Administration is instructed to take the appropriate steps and request the Municipalidad de Limón to implement the recommendations issued in this agreement. 5º- The Senior Administration is instructed to take the appropriate steps and request the MINAET to restrict ALL FOREST VEGETATION CUTTING IN THE Dirección01. 6º- For zone 6, the Dirección Regional Huetar Atlántica and the UEN de Ambiente, Investigación y Desarrollo will create and maintain an exhaustive inventory of land use, identifying the activities and establishments that store substances posing a risk to the quality of water for human use. They will also be responsible for the analysis of the proposals submitted by the Administered Party and the assessment of non-affectation of the aquifer and correct disposal of wastewater. 7º- In all other aspects, the provisions ruled in the Acuerdo de Junta Directiva 2007-177 remain in force (...)\" (see judgment No. 2025039386 of 09:20 hours on November 28, 2025, brought ad effectum videndi et probandi).\n\n6) The regulatory plan (Plan Regulador) of the central canton of Limón was published in La Gaceta No. 212, Alcance 225, on November 15, 2023 (see the court records).\n\nIV.- Regarding the specific case. The appellant maintains that, despite the fact that \"Zone 6 of the Moín Coastal Aquifer\" has been declared an area of absolute protection since the 1980s – a condition reiterated in subsequent years due to its strategic importance – this category has not been incorporated into the Urban Regulatory Plan of Limón, which they consider an omission that exposes the aquifer to serious risks. They point out that a recent technical report from Nombre02 ratified the high vulnerability of the zone and the incompatibility of the regulatory plan with the current technical criteria, in response to which they requested corrective measures from the INVU; however, said entity denied responsibility and alleged lack of jurisdiction without evaluating the new technical input or ordering concrete actions. In this context, they argue that an administrative omission persists that disregards environmental principles and maintains a continuous risk for the population, and therefore they request that the appeal be granted and that the incorporation of the zone as an area of absolute protection in the regulatory plan be ordered.\n\nBased on the foregoing, it is worth noting that this Chamber has already had the opportunity to rule on the validity of the Regulatory Plan of Limón and on the claims raised by the appellant himself regarding the protection of the so-called \"Zone 6 of the Moín aquifer.\" In judgment No. 2025039386 of 09:20 hours on November 28, 2025, this Court resolved the following:\n\n\"I.- OBJECT OF THE APPEAL. The appellants essentially argue that: a) Agreement No. 2011-112 of the Junta Directiva of the ICAA lacks technical support and established 'valves' of flexibilization in Zone 6 (of the Limón-Moín aquifer), incompatible with a regime of total and absolute protection previously established for said site. b) The ICAA has incurred omissions in the execution of agreement No. 2011-112, as recent documentation confirms the absence of consolidated public information on the aquifer zones on its platforms and responses that refer to general emergency protocols and a regional control unit without a historical functional traceability. c) The Regulatory Plan of Limón did not expressly incorporate the cartographic delimitation of the aforementioned Zone 6 as an area of absolute protection of groundwater, nor does it transfer to its regulations the material prohibitions and conditions of the Matriz of Nombre02 from the year 2006 (which allows the processing of tourism, residential uses, subdivisions, and earthworks through generic conditions). d) The ICAA omitted to publish a protection decree to formalize the limits of Zone 6, despite having so ordered in the sixth por tanto of agreement No. 2007-177. They affirm that such actions and omissions violate the fundamental rights to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, to potable water, and to health.\n\n(...)\n\nIII.- SPECIFIC CASE. The appellant Nombre01 comes for amparo and categorically states that the object of this is the following: '(i) that the nullity, due to material and formal unconstitutionality, of the provisions of the Acuerdo de Junta Directiva del AyA No. 2011-112 —and, where applicable, of No. 2007-177— be declared (...) (ii) that the partial nullity of the Regulatory Plan of Limón be declared insofar as it omits or contradicts the cartographic delimitation and the absolute protection regime of Zone 6; and (iii) that the immediate adoption of precautionary and structural measures be ordered to ensure the effective protection of the Moín aquifer, in accordance with the Matriz of Nombre02 and with votes 2008-004790 and 2011-014596 of the Constitutional Chamber.'\n\nNext, said appellant, through several lengthy briefs, repeatedly refers to the aforementioned points.\n\nThus, he argues that agreement No. 2011-112 of the Junta Directiva of the ICAA established 'valves' of flexibilization in Zone 6 (of the Limón Moín aquifer), incompatible with a regime of total and absolute protection previously established for said site, thereby allowing a generic impermeabilization threshold of twenty percent (20%) per hectare, earthworks (movimientos de tierra) by means of a study and PGA, and authorization of housing due to 'vegetative growth' without density parameters or impermeabilization control.\n\nAdditionally, he affirms that the ICAA has incurred omissions when executing agreement No. 2011-112, as recent documentation confirms the absence of consolidated public information from that institute about the aquifer zones on its platforms and responses that refer to general emergency protocols and a regional control unit without a historical functional traceability. He maintains that, in recent official responses to information requests, the ICAA has acknowledged '(a) that it does not have the methodology or cartography to control the figure of \"vegetative growth\" in Zone 6, limiting itself to citing variations in domiciliary services without correlating them with density, impermeable cover, or recharge; (b) that it does not maintain an exhaustive and updated inventory of establishments with hazardous substances, an essential condition for preventive risk management in zones of high vulnerability; and (c) that it applies a generic emergency protocol (GTE-105-01-P) and not a specific protocol for the karstic recharge of Moín, despite the existence of dolines, fissures, and short contaminant transit times, described by the EPIK studies and by the SENARA cartography.'\n\nRegarding the Regulatory Plan of Limón, he alleges that it did not expressly incorporate the cartographic delimitation of the aforementioned Zone 6 as an area of absolute protection of groundwater, despite the existence of studies demonstrating the high vulnerability (which allows the processing of tourism, residential uses, subdivisions [fraccionamientos], and earthworks [movimientos de tierra] through generic conditions). He explains that only 3% of the surface of the so-called Zone 6 was placed in a protection category, while the remaining 97% was designated for urban development. He accuses that, despite the fact that the planning document itself admits the high fragility of wetlands and the disappearance of primary forests, it simultaneously authorizes urban developments with coverages of up to 30% and even substitution by treatment plants or modified septic tanks. He alleges that this regulatory duality — recognizing fragility but authorizing urbanization — contradicts the mandate of absolute protection that weighs upon Zone 6 and is incompatible with the precautionary principle. Additionally, he accuses that said plan also did not transfer to its regulations the material prohibitions and conditions consigned in the 'Matriz de Criterios de Uso de Suelo del Nombre02 según la vulnerabilidad a la contaminación de acuíferos.'\n\nHe adds that the ICAA also omitted to publish a protection decree to formalize the limits of Zone 6, despite having so ordered in the sixth por tanto of agreement No. 2007-177. He alleges that, because said decree was not published, the delimitation of Zone 6 never acquired binding force, leaving a regulatory vacuum that the Regulatory Plan of Limón took advantage of to assign residential and tourism uses in territory that should have been of absolute protection.\n\nThe claimant Nombre01 states that what was consigned (or omitted) above contravenes the provisions of the cited Matriz of Nombre02 (a technical-legal instrument that classifies recharge zones according to their intrinsic vulnerability and establishes land-use restrictions based on contamination risk and recharge capacity), the ICAA's own Acuerdo No. 2007-177, as well as what was indicated by the Chamber in Votes Nos. 2008-4790 and 2011-14596, among others.\n\nConcomitantly, the appellant refers, in general terms, to analyses that demonstrate the drastic loss of primary forest and the under-registered permanence of wetlands and yolillales in Zone 6 of Limón. Likewise, he refers to the fact that in the Tribunal Ambiental Administrativo there is an expediente (No. 100-23-01 TAA), which records the report No. TAA-DA-241-2023, evidencing that unauthorized anthropic interventions occurred in the so-called Zone 6, explaining the loss of forest cover (cobertura boscosa) and habitat fragmentation. He indicates that this document refers to 'precarious invasion', 'felling of trees and burning of vegetation', 'construction of houses and shacks', 'earthworks (movimientos de tierra) for terraces and roads', 'invasion of protection areas', 'land-use change (cambio de uso del suelo)', and emphasizes that all of this occurs 'without municipal permits or environmental viability'. He mentions that there is also reference to specific entries for 'road', 'earthworks', and 'felling', in addition to 'house' and 'wall', corroborating the opening of paths and the removal of vegetation cover as part of the occupation pattern. He points out that in the aforementioned expediente, mention is also made of the environmental degradation that occurred in two properties, where there was a progressive loss of forest cover and the disappearance of wetlands. Furthermore, he explains that the cited Tribunal Ambiental identified invasions of the protection strip of the quebrada Portete, earthworks (movimientos de tierra), and discharges of wastewater and greywater into dolines.\n\nHe mentions that the Municipalidad de Limón also has official letter No. UTE-AML-025-2022 of June 22, 2022, where in the Villa Plata sector, there is a report of 'roads with a lot of ballast or mud material carried out manually with heavy machinery, which lack ditches and curbs on the public road' and describes 'a set of dwellings' built with precarious materials, without adequate stormwater systems, with heights that cause slope erosion and the presence of clay and coral material in the observed road layouts. Likewise, he states that Nombre02 in two official letters (No. DIGH- UIH-008-2023 and No. DIGH-UIH-154-2023), confirmed that in the aforementioned Zone 6 there is contamination by polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and benzo-alpha-pyrenes, derived from industrial operations. They also describe that the subsoil presents a fractured karstic medium, with active dolines, which function as concentrated recharge points and accelerate the transit of contaminants toward the water table.\n\nThe appellant argues, therefore, that what occurred with the ICAA agreements and the cited regulatory plan, as well as the omission to publish the decree mentioned above, was precisely what opened the possibility of and has allowed the development of incompatible activities within Zone 6, thereby violating the rights to enjoy a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, to health, and to potable water.\n\nThe appellant maintains that, in sum, the combination of (i) a decreasing and fragmentary pattern of forests and wetlands documented by FONAFIFO 2005, INF-2013, and SINAC 2021; (ii) the under-representation of yolillales in the National Registry of Wetlands; (iii) the evidence of a public watercourse and an area of hydrological importance within Zone 6; (iv) the allocation of urban uses over 97% of the surface area of absolute protection by the Regulatory Plan; and (v) the lack of full and transparent execution of the AyA's obligations according to Agreement 2011-112, constitutes a scenario of material incompatibility with the Matriz of Nombre02 and with the standards of the Constitutional Chamber. Consequently, in their opinion, the so-called Zone 6 of Limón must be restored to a strict protection regime with a published delimitation, immediate regulatory incorporation, and suspension of authorizations that increase sealed surface area, earthworks (movimientos de tierra), and densities not compatible with recharge.\n\nHaving said this, the petitions of the appellant Nombre01 are summarized as follows:\n\n'(1) Grant this amparo appeal. (2) Declare the NULLITY, due to material, formal unconstitutionality AND FOR VIOLATION OF ILO CONVENTION 169, of the following provisions of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados (AyA): (2.1) Of the Acuerdo de Junta Directiva No. 2011-112, insofar as it: (a) establishes a uniform sealed surface threshold of 20% of the surface area per hectare 'for all activities' in Zone 6; (b) authorizes 'removal, cutting and filling of materials' or earthworks in Zone 6 by means of a hydrogeological study and PGA; (c) admits 'housing constructions due to vegetative growth' in Zone 6 without density parameters, sealed surface cartography, or zero-impact verification; and (d) contains open clauses that allow 'ruling on other activities' in Zone 6 without a strict regulatory basis and without subjection to the precautionary principle. (2.2) Of Acuerdo No. 2007-177, insofar as it is interpreted or applied in a manner that allows uses incompatible with the absolute protection defined for Zone 6. (3) Declare the PARTIAL NULLITY of the Regulatory Plan of Limón insofar as it: (a) omits incorporating the cartographic delimitation and the absolute protection regime of Zone 6 of the Moín aquifer in accordance with the SENARA Matrix; (b) allows or tolerates residential uses, subdivisions (fraccionamientos), earthworks (movimientos de tierra), or increases in sealed surface area in said Zone 6 without requiring a prior environmental impact assessment (Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental) and hydrogeological, hydraulic, and hydrological studies approved by Nombre02 and AyA; and (c) omits the mandatory inter-institutional coordination in matters of aquifer protection and the application of the precautionary principle. (4) ORDER the AyA, the SENARA, the MINAE, and the Municipalidad de Limón, within a maximum period of SIX (6) months, to adopt the following structural measures: (4.a) issue the DECRETO EJECUTIVO for the protection of the Moín springs and Zone 6, with official coordinates, an absolute protection regime, and express reference to the SENARA Matrix; (4.b) prepare and implement a PUBLIC and updated INVENTORY of activities involving hazardous substances in Zone 6; (4.c) adopt a SPECIFIC PROTOCOL for emergencies and contingencies for the karstic recharge of Moín; (4.d) establish a SYSTEM for periodic MONITORING (water quality, nitrates, conductivity, bacteriology) with publication of results and early warning mechanisms; and (4.e) fully adapt the Regulatory Plan of Limón to the Matriz of Nombre02 and constitutional jurisprudence, incorporating Zone 6 as an area of absolute protection. (5) ORDER the IMMEDIATE SUSPENSION of any construction, subdivision (fraccionamiento), land-use (uso del suelo) change, or earthworks (movimiento de tierra) permit in Zone 6 until full compliance with the preceding points, under warning of article 71 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional (crime of disobedience). (6) That all the respondents violated the constitutional Principle of administrative coordination in matters of aquifer protection and aquifer recharge areas, by allowing regressive regulations and the invisibilization of zone 6 in the Limón regulatory plan and in the reduction of protection in the agreements of the Junta Directiva of the ICAA.'\n\n(8) (sic) ORDER the payment of legal costs and damages as applicable, in accordance with Articles 48 of the Political Constitution and 71 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction.”\n\nFor his part, the petitioner Nombre03 also files an amparo action and partially reproduces the allegations made by Nombre01.\n\nIn this way, he claims that the ICAA has not managed with the Executive Branch the issuance and publication of the protection decree for Zone 6 of the Moín aquifer, as ordered by its own Board of Directors Agreement No. 2007-177. He mentions that the lack of publication of the decree has generated a regulatory invisibility. He points out that the protection parameters defined by the Nombre02 Matrix and ratified by the Constitutional Chamber remain unreflected in municipal cartography and regulations, which allows the Limón Regulatory Plan to continue processing subdivisions (fraccionamientos), urbanizations, and earthworks (movimientos de tierra) in a territory that, by technical and jurisprudential mandate, must be maintained under a regime of absolute protection. \n\nHe adds that ICAA Board of Directors Agreement No. 2011-112, far from strengthening protection, introduced provisions that relax the required standards. He affirms that these provisions directly contravene the SENARA Matrix, which prohibits such activities in zones of extreme vulnerability. He argues that the current validity of Agreement No. 2011-112 not only lacks technical support, but is manifestly unconstitutional for arbitrarily reducing the level of protection of Zone 6, replacing a regime of absolute protection ordered to safeguard human water supply, with a permissive regulation designed exclusively to evade a previously firm constitutional obligation to expropriate and indemnify. \n\nHe also alleges that the existence of occupations and land uses incompatible with the declaration of Zone 6 constitutes a violation of Article 50 of the Political Constitution, which enshrines the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, as well as the principles of non-regression, precaution, and prevention in environmental matters. \n\nThus, Nombre03 expressly petitions this Constitutional Chamber for the following: \n\n“to grant the present amparo action; and to decree that the ICAA Board of Directors failed in its duty to publish the decree for the protection and delimitation of the Moín aquifer, as it ordered in its own Board of Directors Agreement No. 2007-177. Order the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers (ICAA AyA) to, within a peremptory period, request and manage with the Executive Branch the promulgation and publication of the protection decree for the Moín aquifer. Order that Board of Directors Agreements No. 2007-177 and 2011-112 be applied only to the extent that they are compatible with the Nombre02 Matrix and with constitutional jurisprudence, rendering ineffective their provisions that relax protection. Order the National Groundwater, Irrigation and Drainage Service (SENARA) to fulfill its duty of coordination, actively participating in the drafting, signing, request, and publication of the decree and in the integral application of the Land Use Criteria Matrix”.\n\nAdditionally, in a subsequent filing, it was also requested that this jurisdiction order “the expropriation of lands occupied incompatibly in Zone 6”.\n\nNow then, having analyzed all of the above, this Constitutional Court does not consider that there is merit to hear this amparo action on its merits, nor to grant the list of specific petitions indicated above. This is fundamentally because the petitioners came to this jurisdiction in a generic and abstract manner, without formulating and specifying an act of concrete application or a concrete and individualized relationship of facts that affects or harms a specific person or several. In essence, no situation is individualized that has generated a violation or threat of violation to the fundamental rights to which they refer, as required by the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction in its Articles 1 and 29. \n\nAccording to a detailed reading of all the filings made by the petitioners, they confine themselves to merely pointing out the reasons why, in their opinion, the cited ICAA agreements (Nos. 2007-177 and 2011-112), as well as the Limón Regulatory Plan, become unconstitutional, without concomitantly referring to or substantiating, in a reasoned manner, any act of concrete application that affects or harms fundamental rights. A state of affairs that is reaffirmed when analyzing punctually the list of petitions raised by both parties, where the protected parties do not request the intervention of this Court against a particular situation, specific act, or omission. \n\nIt must be noted that, although the petitioners make brief reference to various situations that have affected, in their opinion, Zone 6 of Limón, in substance, they do not properly come against any action or omission intrinsically related to these, which is verified, as stated, by reading the list of petitions raised not only in the main filings for the filing of the amparo, but also in the rest of the briefs attached to the process. \n\nOn this matter, this Court has indicated that, although the amparo action may be filed by any person and on behalf of a third party, the truth is that the existence of an individualized or individualizable injury or threat is required, in particular, for it to be heard by this jurisdiction; which, as stated, does not occur in the case under study. In substance, it is clear that it is simply a disagreement of the petitioner parties with the content of the referred ICAA agreements and the Limón Regulatory Plan, which, in turn, cannot be reviewed or declared unconstitutional through the summary amparo procedure. \n\nHaving said the above, what is appropriate is to dismiss the present process, as is hereby ordered”.\n\nIt should be noted that, in judgment No. 2025039386 at 09:20 hours on November 28, 2025, the Constitutional Chamber heard an amparo action filed, among others, by the same petitioner, in which a questioning was raised substantially directed against the way in which the competent public institutions have regulated and managed the protection of the so-called Zone 6 of the Moín aquifer, alleging the existence of inconsistencies between the applicable technical and regulatory instruments, as well as omissions in the incorporation of said zone as an area of absolute protection within the Regulatory Plan of the canton of Limón. \n\nIn this sense, it is noted that the petitioner, on that occasion, not only questioned the validity and scope of the AyA Board of Directors agreements –particularly numbers 2007-177 and 2011-112–, but also alleged that such provisions introduced parameters that, in his judgment, were incompatible with the protection standard required for a highly vulnerable aquifer, while reproaching the lack of effective incorporation of the restrictions derived from the land use criteria matrix of Nombre02 within the current territorial planning, which, in his opinion, allowed the development of urban activities potentially harmful to the water resource. Likewise, it is verified that said approach was based on a broad technical-legal exposition, which developed considerations related to the precautionary principle, the need for inter-institutional coordination, and the obligation to safeguard the fundamental right to a healthy environment, requesting, in essence, the annulment of regulatory provisions, the adoption of structural measures, and the imposition of specific obligations on the respondent authorities to guarantee the effective protection of the aquifer.\n\nHowever, the truth is that the Chamber, on that occasion, resolved to dismiss the amparo action, considering that the petitioner's approach did not demonstrate a direct, current, and individualizable injury to fundamental rights, but rather, on the contrary, was directed at questioning, in general terms, the validity, scope, and coherence of technical and regulatory instruments in the matter of territorial planning and water resource protection, as well as seeking the adoption of measures of a structural nature and the modification of provisions of general scope. In this sense, it is inferred that the Chamber noted that the formulated claims –such as the declaration of nullity of AyA Board of Directors agreements, the partial annulment of the Limón Regulatory Plan, and the imposition of specific obligations on various institutions to redefine the protection regime of Zone 6– exceeded the proper scope of the amparo action, as they implied a control of legality and opportunity over technical and territorial planning decisions that correspond to the Administration in the exercise of its powers, as well as to the respective ordinary channels. Likewise, it is observed that the Court took into consideration that the issue raised by the petitioner is inserted within a structural and complex conflict, involving the interaction of multiple public entities, specialized technical criteria, and inter-institutional coordination processes, so it was not legally viable, in constitutional jurisdiction, to substitute such assessments or order, through this means, the reconfiguration of the questioned regulatory instruments.\n\nThus, far from granting the raised claims, the Chamber concluded that the action did not constitute the suitable mechanism to channel the formulated complaints, insofar as they did not demonstrate a specific arbitrary action susceptible to immediate protection, but rather a disagreement with the current regulation and with the way in which the authorities have exercised their powers in this matter, which is why it proceeded to its dismissal.\n\nNow then, it is true that, in the present matter, the petitioner incorporates some additional elements with respect to the approaches formulated in the case file that gave rise to judgment No. 2025039386, among them, the reference to technical official letter SENARA-DIGH-006-2026, the subsequent communication directed to the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism through official letter AEL-008-2026, as well as the response provided by said entity through official letter CDU-047-02-2026, from which he attempts to reconfigure his claim under the thesis of a supposed regressive administrative omission attributable to that body.\n\nNevertheless, the truth is that, even taking these elements into consideration, it is observed that they do not introduce a materially distinct controversy from the one already submitted to the knowledge of this Chamber, as they do not alter the factual or legal core that served as the basis for the previous ruling. Indeed, despite the incorporation of a new technical input and subsequent administrative actions, the claim continues to revolve around the same structural issue previously analyzed, that is, the alleged insufficiency of the protection regime of the so-called Zone 6 of the Moín aquifer, the lack of incorporation of said zone as an area of absolute protection within the Limón Regulatory Plan, and the claim that, through the amparo action, the competent authorities be ordered to adopt measures aimed at modifying or adapting said territorial planning instrument.\n\nAlong the same lines, it is noted that the new SENARA report, while presented as a novel element, does not have sufficient substance to transform the nature of the conflict, since its content is limited to reiterating the aquifer's vulnerability condition and the incompatibility of the regulatory plan with institutional technical criteria, aspects that had already been extensively set forth and assessed in the previous process. Similarly, the communication formulated before the INVU and the response obtained do not, by themselves, constitute an autonomous injury susceptible to independent analysis, but rather are inserted within the same global questioning regarding the actions of the institutions in the matter of territorial planning and water protection.\n\nFurthermore, even when the petitioner now seeks to focus his reproach on the conduct of the INVU, alleging a supposed regressive omission, the truth is that this reformulation does not modify the essence of the approach, as it continues to be oriented towards obtaining, in constitutional jurisdiction, the adoption of general and structural measures, as well as the redefinition of powers and the adaptation of regulatory instruments, which, as already determined by this Chamber, exceeds the proper scope of the amparo action and corresponds to ordinary administrative and jurisdictional instances.\n\nIn this way, it is verified that the reason why the previous action was dismissed —that is, the inadmissibility of the amparo as a means to question technical assessments and territorial planning decisions, in the absence of a concrete, current, and individualized injury to fundamental rights— remains unchanged in the case at hand, as the elements now incorporated do not disprove said conclusion, but rather, on the contrary, confirm that the petitioner persists in raising, under a new formulation, a disagreement substantially identical to the one already resolved by this Court.\n\nConsequently, as the existence of a substantial change in the case's circumstances that justifies a new analysis on the merits is not evident, it is appropriate that the petitioner abide by what was resolved in judgment No. 2025039386 at 09:20 hours on November 28, 2025.\n\nIV.- Dissenting vote of Magistrates Cruz Castro and Rueda Leal, drafted by the latter. In the case at hand, the majority of the Chamber dismisses the action based on what is provided in judgment No. 2025039386 at 9:20 hours on November 28, 2025; however, on that occasion we dissented in the following terms: \n\n“VI.- DISSENTING VOTE OF MAGISTRATES CRUZ CASTRO AND RUEDA LEAL, DRAFTED BY THE LATTER. In the sub examine, the petitioners indicate that Agreement No. 2011-112 of the ICAA Board of Directors lacks technical support and relaxed the protection of Zone 6 (of the Limón-Moín aquifer), which is incompatible with a regime of total and absolute protection previously established for that site. They claim omissions on the part of the ICAA in the execution of Agreement No. 2011-112. They accuse that the Limón Regulatory Plan did not expressly incorporate the cartographic delimitation of Zone 6 mentioned ut supra as an area of absolute protection of groundwater, nor did it transfer to its regulations the material prohibitions and conditions of the Nombre02 Matrix of 2006 (which allows the processing of tourist, residential uses, subdivisions (fraccionamientos) and earthworks (movimientos de tierra) through generic conditions). They mention that the ICAA omitted to publish a protection decree to formalize the limits of Zone 6, despite having so ordered in the sixth operative clause (por tanto sexto) of Agreement No. 2007-177. They affirm that such actions and omissions violate the fundamental rights to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, to potable water, and to health. \n\nFrom the foregoing, claims are evident aimed at demonstrating the unconstitutionality of agreements of the ICAA Board of Directors (for having relaxed the protection of Zone 6 of the Limón-Moín aquifer), as well as also the possible unconstitutionality by omission of the Limón Regulatory Plan for not expressly contemplating the cartographic delimitation of Zone 6 mentioned as an area of absolute protection of groundwater (nor transferring the material prohibitions and conditions of the Nombre02 Matrix of 2006). \n\nPrecisely, as it is an environmental issue and, even, linked to public health and, among other consequences, its impact on vegetation, there is a standing (legitimación) fully recognized in Article 105 of the Biodiversity Law which establishes: “Popular action Any person shall have standing to sue in administrative or jurisdictional venues, in defense and protection of biodiversity”, for which reason this amparo action, in accordance with Article 75 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, is suitable to grant the petitioners a period to file an unconstitutionality action. \n\nHaving clarified the foregoing, doubts of constitutionality arise in relation to the provisions contained in the agreements of the ICAA Board of Directors (which according to the petitioners decreased the absolute protection of an aquifer zone) and the possible unconstitutionality by omission claimed with respect to the Limón Regulatory Plan (for lack of cartographic delimitation of the zone and of prohibitions). Regarding the latter, we have held that unconstitutionality by omission not only occurs by derivation of an express mandate of the Political Constitution or international treaty, but is also viable when the exercise or protection of a fundamental right may be frustrated through some omission in regulatory bodies. Not in vain, Article 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights imposes on States the adoption of domestic law provisions to give effect to the rights and freedoms of that instrument. Similarly, for the sake of the real validity and full experience of fundamental rights, these must be instrumentalized through lower-ranking norms (legislative provisions or of another character), as occurs with extraordinary frequency, which imposes on States an obligation, whose omission may be subject to constitutionality control by this jurisdiction.\n\nThus, we consider that the procedural remedy to review the eventual compatibility with Constitutional Law of the provisions contained in the agreements of the ICAA Board of Directors, as well as the alleged omission of the Limón Regulatory Plan, is the unconstitutionality action, as provided by Article 48 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction:\n\n“Article 48. At any time when the Chamber considers that the challenged actions or omissions are reasonably based on current norms, whether or not these have also been challenged as violative of the rights or freedoms claimed, it shall so declare in a reasoned resolution, and shall suspend the proceedings and grant the petitioner a term of fifteen business days to formalize the unconstitutionality action against them. If it is not done, the case file shall be archived. (…)”\n\nWe add that, prima facie, the agreements in question, by their effects, plausibly appear to have the nature of a general provision.\n\nTherefore, we dissent in order to grant the petitioners a term of fifteen business days, so that, if they see fit, they file an unconstitutionality action against the agreements of the ICAA Board of Directors and the Limón Regulatory Plan”.\n\nTherefore, consistently with the dissenting vote transcribed ut supra, we dissent and grant a period for the petitioner, if he sees fit, to file an unconstitutionality action against the agreements of the ICAA Board of Directors and the Limón Regulatory Plan.\n\nV.- Documentation provided to the case file. The parties are warned that, if they have provided any paper document, as well as objects or evidence contained in any additional electronic, computer, magnetic, optical, telematic device or one produced by new technologies, these must be withdrawn from the office within a maximum period of thirty business days counted from the notification of this judgment.\n\nOtherwise, all material not removed within this period shall be destroyed, in accordance with the provisions of the \"Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial\", approved by the Corte Plena in Session No. 27-11 of August 22, 2011, article XXVI and published in Boletín Judicial No. 19 of January 26, 2012, as well as the agreement approved by the Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial, in Session No. 43-12 held on May 3, 2012, article LXXXI.Por tanto:
The appellant shall abide by what was resolved in judgment n.°2025039386 of 09:20 hours on November 28, 2025.\n\nMagistrates Cruz Castro and Rueda Leal dissent and grant the petitioner a period of FIFTEEN DAYS so that, if they deem it appropriate, they may file an action of unconstitutionality against the agreements of the Board of Directors of the ICAA and the Limón Regulatory Plan.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nFernando Castillo V.\nPresidente\n\nFernando Cruz C.\n\nPaul Rueda L.\n\n Luis Fdo. Luis Fdo.
Jorge Araya G.
Anamari Garro V.
Ingrid Hess H.
Documento Firmado Digitalmente
-- Código verificador --
LRYT7LDALFS61
EXPEDIENTE N° 26-005469-0007-CO
Teléfonos: Telf01/ ALA-4TA (Telf02). Fax: Telf03 / Telf04. Dirección electrónica: www.poder-judicial.go.cr/salaconstitucional. Dirección: (Dirección04, Dirección05, 100 mts. Sur de la iglesia del Perpetuo Socorro).