Special City Council Briefing on Wahalote Ranch MUD - January 22, 2026

On January 22, 2026, the San Antonio City Council held a special session to receive a briefing on the proposed Wahalote Ranch Municipal Utility District (MUD). The meeting began at 9:06 AM and adjourned at 11:41 AM. The MUD would serve a 1,160-acre development in the city's extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) near Scenic Loop and Babcock Roads, planned by Lenar Homes for 3,000 single-family homes. The developer submitted a petition on November 10, 2025, triggering a 90-day consideration period; the meeting was on day 73. The City Council must decide by February 5, 2026, whether to consent to the MUD creation, deny it, or take no action. The Planning Commission recommended denial on January 16, 2026, by a 5-4 vote.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Kate Hallfeist (Grey Forest resident, Scenic Loop Holotus Creek Alliance) urged denial, citing risks to the Edwards Aquifer, and noted that over 1,500 residents opposed the project at TCEQ and 150 opposed the MUD at the Planning Commission. She quoted Councilman Mungia's motion to deny.
• Jane Sams (Sam's Ranch Road resident) described MUDs as a scheme that burdens homeowners with high taxes and fees, citing her sister's experience in a Katy MUD paying nearly $3,000/year in additional taxes, and a neighbor's shock at MUD taxes being half the mortgage. She argued it would not provide affordable housing.
• Jim Burbiglia (MUD board member, MUD No. 1) spoke from personal experience, stating the developer borrowed $150 million at 9% interest, leaving residents paying for 39 years, and that MUD boards are autonomous, allowing self-dealing.
• Diana Duncan (San Antonio resident) opposed the MUD, noting the city invested $50 million to protect the aquifer since 2000, and that 16 wastewater plants over the contributing zone have compliance issues; only four meet drinking water standards, and three of those were out of compliance in the last three years.
• Stuart Burnbaum (UTSA geology professor, Trinity Glen Rose Groundwater Conservation District board member) provided expert testimony that the Trinity Glen Rose Aquifer recharges the Edwards Aquifer via faults and fractures, contradicting SAWS claims, and that the proposed plant would introduce contamination.
• Steve Lee (Grey Forest area resident) stated the development would release 1 million gallons/day of treated sewage into the Holotus Creek watershed, which contributes up to 15% of Edwards Aquifer recharge. He cited EPA data showing half of the 14 wastewater plants in the contributing zone violated discharge limits in the past three years, and that Lenar's 4S Ranch development violated a settlement agreement with TCEQ in 2019.
• Lynette Munson (Scenic Loop Holotus Creek community) reported that a public records request revealed the Bear County Fire Marshal had no contact with the developer, meaning no fire safety review for a single ingress/egress point for 3,000 units.
• Austin Browning (Scenic Loop Holotus Creek Alliance treasurer) argued the developer's traffic study underestimates impacts, projecting 30,000 daily trips on a road designed for 5,500, and that the developer would not pay for road widening.
• Michael Schick (Canyons at Scenic Loop resident) stated that the developer's claim of permanent emergency access through neighboring properties is false; the gated community to the north refuses access, and neighboring ranches also refuse.
• Ken Kemp (Canyons at Scenic Loop board president) confirmed that no permission will be granted for Lenar to use private streets.
• Michael Phillips (Grey Forest councilman) warned that doubling effective rainfall from the plant would increase flood risk, costing $10 million for one low-water crossing and $40 million for another, and that one-third of Grey Forest homes are at risk, with a history of near misses and loss of life.
• Lisa Pack (Scenic Loop resident, Holotus Creek Alliance secretary) noted that the Edwards Aquifer Protection Program spent $50 million to protect the watershed, and that a 1996 Pape Dawson report (Lenar's engineers) called the area environmentally sensitive. She suggested a conservation easement instead.
• Philip Manna (Alamo Farmsteads Babcock Road Neighborhood Association president) criticized Lenar for bypassing city review by using the ETJ, violating the North Sector Plan's recommendation of 1 lot per 10 acres, and noted that the City of Midlothian passed a resolution opposing all MUDs in their ETJ.
• Randy Newman (speaker) highlighted the lawsuit filed against TCEQ's wastewater permit, argued that denial gives the city leverage, and that MUD board control remains with the developer for up to 12 years. He delivered a poetic appeal to "remember the aquifer."
• Alan Montemayor (Sierra Club, Alamo Group chair) cited the Southwest Research Institute's finding that additional wastewater systems would significantly degrade the watershed, and urged applying the precautionary principle.
• Isabel Hadetta opposed the MUD, noting the J17 well is 40 feet lower than normal, and that San Antonio has 11,000 vacant homes and 4,000 homeless, so the development is not needed.
• Patricia Seidenberger stated that 14 legislators, Bear County Commissioners, Mayor Ron Nirenberg, and state senators oppose the project, and that the only egress is a two-lane road with no right-of-way for widening.
• Paul Garrow (Grey Forest mayor) drew parallels to historical public health failures (DDT, Flint water crisis, Johnson County PFAS disaster), warning of forever chemicals and urging the council to vote no.

Discussion Items

• Staff Presentation: Bridget White presented the MUD request, including a $150 million infrastructure cost, $106.5 million in revenue, 3,000 lots, an on-site wastewater treatment plant, and a proposed development agreement with 15 development controls. The 90-day clock ends February 8, 2026. The city has three options: approve consent with development agreement, deny, or take no action.
• Council Questions and Comments:
  • The Mayor noted that the city reached out to Southwest Research Institute for updated analysis, but they declined to engage further.
  • Councilmember Aldrete Gavito clarified the process: if the council denies or takes no action, the developer can submit a petition triggering a 120-day negotiation period with SAWS. She asked which development controls would survive if the MUD is denied. Staff will provide a list by the end of the week.
  • Councilmember Castillo expressed concerns about MUDs siphoning $12.7 billion from the state (per Texas Comptroller), and that homeowners in MUDs pay triple property taxes. He noted that neither option is favorable, but the city must protect the aquifer.
  • Councilmember Mesa Gonzalez stated she will not support the MUD. She noted the county took no action on a PID application submitted in 2023, and that the city has never approved a MUD consent request.
  • Councilmember Spears asked clarifying questions: MUDs levy separate ad valorem taxes, can continue indefinitely, can issue new bonds, and the developer controls the board for potentially 12 years. She highlighted that the city would assume MUD debt if annexed.
  • Councilmember Viagran noted the tension between local control and private property rights, but criticized the developer for lack of transparency. He said he does not want to preclude future MUDs but this project is not forthcoming.
  • Councilmember White stated he will not support the MUD due to aquifer contamination risks, despite supporting private property rights generally.
  • Councilmember Galvan noted the development contradicts the city's efforts to reduce suburban sprawl and environmental impacts.
  • Councilmember Mungia credited the advocacy and said he will vote no, citing concerns about long-term operation of the wastewater plant by an HOA and TCEQ's inability to enforce fines.
• SAWS Comments: Donovan Burton stated SAWS takes no position on the MUD but believes water quality risks have been mitigated through conditions like impervious cover limits, enhanced nutrient removal, and monitoring. He acknowledged the geology is complex but asserted the drinking water source is protected. The enhanced treatment for nutrient removal is a first for such plants.

Key Outcomes

• No vote was taken; the briefing served to inform the council ahead of the February 5, 2026, meeting.
• The council directed staff to provide:
  1. A list of which of the 15 development controls would remain if the MUD is denied (i.e., those from the SAWS agreement and the settlement vs. those in the development agreement).
  2. Information on TCEQ's track record with similar MUD applications after city denial.
• Multiple council members indicated they will vote against the MUD on February 5. The Mayor acknowledged the city's limited leverage if the MUD is denied and the developer goes to TCEQ, but noted that denial preserves the option for SAWS negotiation and keeps some protections in place.