La Pampa filed a collective environmental protection lawsuit against the recent modification of the Glacier Law No. 26.639

Table of Contents

The Government of La Pampa, together with the National University of La Pampa, the Chadileuvú Foundation, and the Assembly for the Pampean Rivers, filed a collective environmental protection lawsuit against the recent modification of the Glacier Law No. 26.639. They argue that the reform violates constitutional rights related to the environment and access to water. The lawsuit was presented before the Federal Court of Santa Rosa and is accompanied by a precautionary measure requesting the immediate suspension of the law’s application until its constitutionality is resolved.

Legal Grounds
#

The reform allegedly violates collective rights such as the right to a healthy environment, water, health, property, and the rights of future generations (Articles 41, 43, and 75 inc. 22 of the National Constitution).
It breaches the principle of non-regression in environmental law, recognized in the Escazú Agreement, which prohibits reducing established levels of environmental protection without strict justification.
The modification narrows the scope of protection, fragments safeguards, and weakens uniform standards, constituting a verifiable normative setback.

Key Statements
#

Governor Sergio Ziliotto: warned that the law will mean “less water” and will affect all residents of La Pampa. He emphasized the province’s historic legitimacy in defending its rivers.

State Prosecutor Romina Schmidt: argued that the damage is “real and concrete,” criticized the legislative process, and requested the law’s absolute nullity.

Oscar Alpa (Rector, UNLPam): reaffirmed the university’s academic and territorial commitment to defending water.

Deputy Hernán Pérez Araujo: described the law’s approval as a “tragic day” and called for political unity to protect water resources.

Héctor Gómez (Chadileuvú Foundation): stressed that the Colorado River is “vital” and without it the province would be “unviable.”

Roberto Rodríguez (Assembly for the Pampean Rivers): warned that priorities could shift from human consumption to mining interests.

Strategic Importance
#

The Colorado River currently supplies 45% of La Pampa’s population and is essential for health and production.
The province lacks active internal rivers (the Atuel and Salado no longer flow through its territory), reinforcing dependence on the Colorado.
Water defense is presented as a cross-cutting, historical, and non-partisan policy.

Demands in the Lawsuit
#

The plaintiffs request:

Declaration of the reform’s unconstitutionality and incompatibility with international treaties.
Immediate suspension of the law’s application.
Continuation of the previous glacier protection regime.
Absolute nullity of any regulation or administrative act derived from the reform.

Questioned points of the modified Glacier Law
#

It harms collective rights and guarantees rooted in conventional and constitutional law, such as the right to a healthy environment, to water, to health, to property, the rights of future generations, among others, art. 41, 43, 75 sec. 22 CN.
Article 41.- All inhabitants enjoy the right to a healthy, balanced environment, suitable for human development and so that productive activities meet present needs without compromising those of future generations; and they have the duty to preserve it.
Article 43.- Any person may file a swift and expedited amparo action. They may file this action against any form of discrimination and in relation to the rights that protect the environment. Article 75, clause 22. Approve or reject treaties concluded with other nations and with international organizations, and concordats with the Holy See. Treaties and concordats have a hierarchy superior to that of laws. It violates the principle of non-regression. The modification is unconstitutional because it violates the principle of environmental non-regression recognized in the Escazú Agreement: once a certain threshold of protection of a strategic collective good has been reached, its exceptional reduction requires an especially strict justification and one compatible with the duty of progressivity.
The amendment is unconstitutional because it violates the principle of environmental non-regression recognized in the Escazú Agreement: once a certain threshold of protection for a strategic collective good is reached, its exceptional reduction requires a particularly strict justification compatible with the duty of progressivity.
The reform reduces the scope of the protected object, fragments the protection, and weakens the uniform standard typical of a minimum standards law, constituting an objectively verifiable normative regression.