Federal Judge Juan José Baric from Santa Rosa has declared himself competent to intervene in the collective environmental protection presented by the province of La Pampa, the National University of La Pampa, the Chadileuvú Foundation, and the Assembly for the Rivers of La Pampa against the reform of the Glacier Law approved in April 2026.
The action was registered in the Supreme Court’s Collective Processes Registry, which means that any similar protection in the country must be processed in this court. The case has already advanced to the second instance, and the magistrate must decide on the requested precautionary measure, which seeks to suspend the application of the reform until its constitutional validity is defined.
Arguments of the lawsuit
The plaintiffs argue that the reform introduces a “verifiable regulatory setback” by transferring to the provinces the definition of technical protection criteria. This would fragment national standards and could enable mining projects in areas of Mendoza glaciers, with a direct impact on the Colorado River.
The protection claims that the law is unconstitutional, violating articles 41, 43, and 75 subsection 22 of the National Constitution, which guarantee the right to a healthy environment, effective judicial protection, and compliance with international treaties with constitutional hierarchy.
Changes introduced by the reform
The new law redefines the protected object, limiting coverage to glaciers and periglacial environments that fulfill “specific hydric functions”. Among the most controversial points:
- Change of jurisdiction: the authority to decide on protection shifts from the Nation to the provinces.
- Non-binding inventory: although IANIGLA maintains the National Glacier Inventory, provinces can decide on their protection without the institute being able to veto decisions.
- Permitted activities: exploration and exploitation of mining and hydrocarbons are allowed in areas previously considered strictly protected, such as debris glaciers.
- Environmental assessment: projected activities must undergo impact studies, albeit under local criteria.
Risks and controversies
Environmental organizations and scientists warn that the reform implies a lack of protection for strategic water sources, which has generated protests and collective lawsuits. They point out that the law favors mining investments in Andean areas of copper, gold, and silver, but at the expense of fragile ecosystems and communities that depend on these water resources.
The previous law (26.639), enacted in 2010, established national minimum standards and prohibited mining in glacier and periglacial areas, with IANIGLA as the decisive scientific authority. The reform eliminates that binding nature and transfers management to the provinces.
The case of La Pampa sets a key precedent: any collective action against the reform must be processed in the Santa Rosa court. The discussion reflects the tension between environmental protection and extractive development and opens a national debate on the scope of constitutional rights versus the exploitation of strategic resources.
