In the Turkestan Region, a dispute continues over well TP-32 in the village of Derbisek, Saryagash District, Turkestan Region, where the interests of local authorities and the mineral water producer Rauan LLP have clashed. The company, which has been operating on the basis of state-issued permits for more than 25 years, claims there are risks to production and investment, while local executive bodies emphasise the priority of providing the population with drinking water.
HOW THE DISPUTE AROSE
According to Exclusive.kz, the trigger for public discussion was a press conference dedicated to an appeal by Rauan LLP employees to the President of Kazakhstan asking him to intervene in the situation.
The enterprise is engaged in the extraction and bottling of mineral water under the brand 'Saryagash'. According to the company's lawyer, Aliya Aralbayeva, the history of well TP-32 dates back to 1968, when a thermal spring was discovered, which was used for domestic and drinking purposes. After the dissolution of the USSR, the well was left ownerless, and later Rauan LLP won the tender for the exploration and extraction of groundwater.
Company representatives note that the industrial exploitation of the deposit has been carried out since 2001 on the basis of documents issued by state bodies. According to the company, questions about the legality of its activities began to arise over the last six months.
THE COMPANY'S POSITION
Representatives of Rauan LLP state that two wells were previously drilled using budgetary funds to provide the population with water, but, according to them, they did not produce the expected result. A company press release states that in 2022–2024, nearly 2 billion tenge was allocated for the construction of a water pipeline, and a project worth 130 million tenge related to connecting water from well TP-32 is also being considered.
According to Aliya Aralbayeva, studies and conclusions from the Ministry of Health indicate that the water from the well has a special mineral composition and requires additional expert assessment before being used for domestic and drinking purposes.
The company's Deputy General Director, Gulim Smailova, stated that the enterprise produces more than 100 product lines, annually pays over 500 million tenge in taxes to the budget, and exports products to Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, China and Mongolia.
According to her, at the beginning of 2025, the enterprise took out a bank loan at 22% per annum, and the total volume of investment in production modernisation amounted to about 1.2 billion tenge. The production site directly employs more than 160 people, and together with distribution companies, around 240 people are employed.
WHAT THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES SAY
The Akim of the Saryagash District, Arman Abdullayev, stated at a meeting with residents and media representatives that the situation is being considered solely within the framework of current legislation.
According to him, providing the population with drinking water is under constant monitoring by district and regional authorities. The local executive bodies refer to the norms of the Water Code and provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan, according to which natural resources belong to the people, and providing citizens with drinking water has priority.
The Akim also reported that a centralised water supply system is operating in the village, to which more than 3,000 subscribers are connected, and the available water reserves are sufficient for the population and business entities.
According to the Akimat, the validity period of some title documents has expired, and authorised bodies have identified circumstances preventing the extension of permits. In particular, this concerns comments related to the sanitary protection zone and certain permitting procedures. These decisions are being contested in court.
WHAT QUESTIONS REMAIN UNANSWERED
The parties assess the reasons for the dispute differently. The authorities view the situation as a legal matter that should be resolved through court procedures. Representatives of the enterprise, for their part, draw attention to the fact that all permit documents and decisions were made by state bodies over decades.