Residents urge San Antonio council to reject utility district for Guajolote Ranch over aquifer and safety concerns

San Antonio city staff opened a special Jan. 22 session with a briefing on a developer request for city consent to create a municipal utility district (MOD) and to provide municipal utility services for the proposed Guajolote Ranch, a roughly 1,159-acre development north of Bexar County near the intersection of Ciniglue and Babcock Road. Staff said the application was submitted in November 2025 and described proposed public improvements including potable water service, stormwater measures, wastewater treatment and park space; infrastructure costs were presented to the council as approximately $150,000,000 and an anticipated developer return figure was discussed in the staff presentation.

The council heard more than two hours of public comment from residents, neighborhood leaders and experts who urged denial of consent. Speakers repeatedly raised hydrogeologic and public‑health concerns for the Edwards and Trinity aquifers, argued that nearby treatment plants have a record of permit noncompliance, and warned that wastewater discharge in the recharge area could pose long‑term, irreversible risks to regional drinking water. "Protect our clean water or allow avoidable harm," one resident told the council, and another said the ranch area feeds water used by millions of people in the region.

Public commenters also pressed financial and governance risks tied to the MOD structure. Several residents said special‑district debt and service fees typically shift long‑term infrastructure costs to homeowners and that developer‑controlled boards initially govern many MODs. Jim Verbiglia, who identified himself as a member of an existing MUD board, told the council the board formation process can leave residents responsible for large debt service without effective local oversight.

Safety and access emerged as a second major theme: neighborhood speakers said the proposed project would rely on very few access points, creating wildfire and emergency‑evacuation hazards and placing expensive road and drainage upgrades onto surrounding communities. Multiple speakers asked why the developer had not provided documented safety analyses or contacted local fire officials; they urged the council to deny consent to avoid placing a large, dense neighborhood where emergency access is limited.

City staff and legal advisers told the council they had sought outside technical review of some analyses and that a contact at an outside research organization indicated it would not do additional work for the city. Staff explained the statutory timeline in which the council must act: the application starts a statutory clock (90 days referenced in the presentation; staff and counsel discussed related 120‑day negotiation periods and the conditions that follow denial, consent or no action). Staff said some negotiated protections in the developer's agreement with the utility provider would remain even if the council denies consent, but they asked the council to identify which terms it wanted preserved so staff could produce a detailed list.

A city representative identified a set of negotiated controls the developer had proposed, and councilmembers asked staff to produce a written list of the controls that would survive a denial. Several councilmembers — including Meza González, Spears and Castillo — said in council remarks that they did not intend to support consent at the Feb. 5 meeting and emphasized the need to protect the aquifer and public safety. Council members and staff also reiterated the legal options available to the developer if the council denies consent, including negotiation with the municipal utility/utility provider or pursuing state regulatory processes.

The meeting concluded with requests from council members for specific written clarifications (which negotiated protections would remain, which articles of the developer agreement would be voided if the council denies consent) and a reminder that device/agenda item 6 is scheduled for Feb. 5, when the council will vote to consent, deny or take no action. No formal vote on the MOD consent occurred during the Jan. 22 special session.