By Edmond Ortiz
Heading into 2026, opponents of a controversial residential development proposed for northwest Bexar County are gearing up for a legal fight against the massive community.
What is happening
Scenic Loop Helotes Creek Alliance, Greater Edwards Aquifer Alliance and the city of Grey Forest plan to appeal by the end of January the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality’s decision not to reconsider a wastewater permit for Lennar Corp.’s envisioned Guajolote Ranch residential development.
The Florida-based developer has spent years answering questions about its plan to build 2,900 homes across 1,160 acres in the Guajolote Ranch area, which lies within San Antonio’s extraterritorial jurisdiction, and north of the towns of Helotes and Grey Forest.
A range of area elected officials, grassroots groups and environmental advocates remain strongly opposed to the proposed residential development, or at least its scale and possible impact on the local ecology and nearby communities.
It was Dec. 26 when attorneys representing the opponents confirmed that TCEQ opted not to take another look at its October 2025 approval of a wastewater treatment permit; if fully realized, the Guajolote Ranch development could release a daily average of 1 million gallons of treated sewage into the Helotes Creek watershed. The creek recharges into the Edwards and Trinity-Glen Rose aquifers.
TCEQ’s decision came after Bexar County Commissioners voted Dec. 17 pass a resolution requesting the state agency’s reconsideration of the permit.
Pct. 3 Commissioner Grant Moody and Pct. 4 Commissioner Tommy Calvert, who co-introduced the resolution, said many scientific analyses counter Lennar’s experts who claim that the Guajolote Ranch development will have minimal effect on the local environment or neighboring communities.
“We wanted to affirm in this resolution our support for this process, which is already set in state law for those who would like to have a rehearing of the facts of the science and the impact on the community,” Calvert said. “The bottom line is that you don’t have water, you don’t have an economy. You can’t grow an environment without water.”
Moody said a new rehearing on the wastewater permit could allow the developer to address purported discrepancies in the science of the Guajolote Ranch proposal.
“Water is so critical to our community, and the (Edwards Aquifer) must be protected,” Moody said. “There’s some conflicting information out there, and it’s hard when you have scientists tell you one thing and scientists on the other side tell you something else.”
A public call for a new TCEQ hearing did have the backing of State Sen. Donna Campbell (R-New Braunfels), whose office sent a Dec. 2 letter to TCEQ Chair Brooke Paup along with letters from Grey Forest Mayor Paul Garro and landowner Ann Toepperwein.
Campbell expressed concern that the administrative record for the approved wastewater permit contains “substantial and material deficiencies.” Other state lawmakers from both parties have also officially submitted letters of opposition.
Other opportunities for opposition
While awaiting to see what happens with TCEQ, oppositional groups are focused on the Jan. 16 San Antonio Planning Commission meeting, where attendees will hear about Lennar’s application for a municipal utility district, which a developer can ask to be created to provide essential utilities and roads within that district, which is usually outside city limits.
MUDs are financed by property taxes that pay off bonds for such infrastructure. Bonds to be sold in a Guajolote Ranch MUD would cost $150 million, according to preliminary estimates.
In many cases, MUDs also help developers to build new, affordable communities, but opponents of the Guajolote Ranch proposal call the idea of Lennar possibly building affordable homes there a ruse and an effort to merely curry favor with decision-makers.
The planning commission meeting starts at 9 a.m. The City Council is tentatively expected to consider Lennar’s MUD petition on Feb. 5.
Regardless, San Antonio city leaders are already doing what they can to question Lennar’s efforts to advance the project. City Council members Marina Alderete Gavito and Ivalis Meza Gonzalez filed a council consideration request in October to formally assess the potential effects of building Guajolote Ranch, and evaluate possible sources of funding to acquire or conserve the property.
More recently, in early December, District 10 Councilmember Marc Whyte issued a press release, supporting public calls for further evaluation of all aspects of the proposed Guajolote Ranch development.
Whyte said he backs private property rights, but if the massive development may prove threatening to the Edwards Aquifer and neighboring communities, there should be consideration of rigorous environmental protections, increased monitoring, and governmental transparency.
“The Edwards Aquifer is the lifeline of San Antonio and protecting it is paramount to the health and safety of our residents,” Whyte said in a statement. “Even when a project receives state approval, we have a responsibility to independently evaluate its long-term impacts. In our view, any development—regardless of its size or scope—must meet the highest environmental safeguards.”
Lennar representatives have not offered any public comments regarding the latest moves by critics of the proposed Guajolote Ranch development. But opponents continue to hammer away at potential risks that they say the project might pose to the local ecology, including the company’s promise to reuse some treated wastewater in irrigating half of the development.
“What’s labeled ‘beneficial reuse’ risks turning land application into a long-term contamination and flooding pathway rather than a sustainable water solution,” Scenic Loop Helotes Creek Alliance representatives said on their Facebook page on Dec. 23.
Upon having its Jan. 16 public hearing on Lennar’s MUD application, the San Antonio Planning Commission would have to vote on the application and forward that recommendation to the City Council. If denied, the company could still appeal to the state.
