What should never say on Crucitas SENARA Manager • Miguel Ramírez Hernández (*)
In the extensive record Crucitas (21 volumes) have sought and have found nowhere a technical study SENARA officials to endorse the mining project located in Las Crucitas. Greatly surprised that the President of the Constitutional Court, Ana Virginia Calzada, say to the media that the project has the backing of SENARA, when this is totally false and not resting on any technical document SENARA.
La Sala IV was induced in error by a note signed by Mr. Bernal Soto Zuniga, Manager of SENARA (volume 3707 folio XI V), saying that official a document which, as manager, "endorse" the study of a company hired by the developer of the project Crucitas, but these have been endorsed and corroborated field visit by technical staff of the institution. In the case of a mining project of this importance, which also provides a depth of 67 meters, in two pits, it is surprising that the technical criteria of our institution has been managed in this way, referring to studies of others. In a note
SUB-543-2008, the Research and Water Management of SENARA, dated December 3, 2008 (folio Volume V 1148), this Office stated "The SENARA no information to define the recharge and discharge areas and the impact of mining on groundwater and surface water. Therefore, it is considered that it takes the development of detailed hydrogeological studies for the assessment of the impacts that mining may have on groundwater, which is estimated to require an estimated time of 10 to 12 months in its execution. " This, in order to have complete information of the status of groundwater in the area of \u200b\u200bCrucitas and evaluate the impact of this mining project. This note was taken by management and transmitted according to the Constitutional Court (folio1143 volume V). However, the resources requested were not for that study, which was never made. We
this respect to recall that the Research and Water Management has never been directly invited to participate or the inspection of the site on September 11, 2009 or the hearing at the Board in November 2009 but Manager "urged" an official of that agency to accompany him. During the inspection even SENARA officials could not enter most of the sites inspected due to lack of coordination with the security services of the Company Infinite Gold, so that the magistrates in charge of the inspection did not have a hydrogeologist SENARA to address questions during this visit of recognition. And we must also note that SENARA Manager, an agronomist by profession, was the one who answered most of the doubts of Mr. and Mrs. Judge during the hearing in November 2009. This procedure clearly contrary to a recommendation of the Comptroller General of the Republic (Report DFOE-PGAA-11-2009 of July 17, 2009) which, when it became apparent inconsistencies between the statement made by the Technical and Management SENARA this institution in the case of aquifers in coastal areas, specifically warned that "the Research and Water Management / ... / corresponds to communicate through the media and established formal channels, studies, criteria and recommendations to the appropriate, without it means to be subject to approval or review in informal technical and administrative bodies, as if the management or the Board "(p. 10 of the aforementioned report.)
Therefore, as a Costa Rican official of this institution unbecoming categorically stated by Mr. Manager SENARA on Crucitas mining project. I affirm without fear that the Research and Water Management, there is no technical study conducted by the Directorate, and this was never directly called to give their views during the inspection on site or at the hearing held in November 2009. Respectfully but publicly urge Mr. Manager quoting the folio number in the 21 volumes of records of the Constitutional Court that has a technical review of our institution approved by the Research and Water Management to endorse the Crucitas mining project in entirety.
*
