Sarah Emery

“I would make scientific and technical expertise a regular part of my policymaking process, not something brought in only after a decision has essentially been made. That means seeking input from scientists, engineers, public health professionals, and other subject matter experts when legislation involves their areas of expertise.

I would look beyond a single source or perspective. I want to understand where there is broad scientific consensus, where legitimate disagreement exists, and what the quality of the available evidence tells us. I would ask experts to explain not only their conclusions, but also the limitations and uncertainties in the underlying research.

As a legislator, I would use committee hearings, stakeholder meetings, briefings from Colorado’s universities and research institutions, and consultation with relevant state agencies to make sure evidence is part of the decision making process. I would also support opportunities for scientists to communicate directly with policymakers and the public in accessible, understandable ways.

Elected officials still have to weigh values, costs, individual rights, and the needs of their communities. But when we are making decisions that affect people’s health, safety, environment, education, or economic future, those decisions should start with the best evidence available.”

“The state has a responsibility to help farmers adapt while protecting the natural resources that make agriculture possible in the first place.

Water has to be a major part of that conversation. I would support evidence based approaches to water conservation, agricultural efficiency, soil health, and drought resilience, while recognizing that farmers need reliable water to remain viable. That means working with agricultural producers, water experts, researchers, and local water communities rather than assuming a one size fits all solution will work across Colorado.

I would support ways the state can help farmers access research, technology, and technical assistance that can reduce input costs and improve productivity. Precision agriculture, improved irrigation, soil management, and crop research can all play a role, but adoption has to make economic sense for the people actually working the land.

Finally, I would support policies that encourage collaboration between Colorado’s agricultural community, universities, researchers, and state agencies. Farmers have generations of practical knowledge about our land and water, and that knowledge should be considered alongside scientific research when we make policy.

Protecting Colorado agriculture and protecting our natural resources are not competing goals. They are connected. If we want a strong agricultural economy for the next generation, we need to make decisions today that help farmers remain economically viable while preserving the soil, water, and other resources they depend on.”

“Colorado should welcome innovation and the economic opportunities that AI and data centers can bring, but not at the expense of our water supply, electric grid, taxpayers, or communities. The benefits need to be measured against the actual costs.

For new data centers, I would want transparent, evidence based analysis of their water and energy use, impacts on local infrastructure, and who ultimately pays for those costs. If a project requires significant new infrastructure, the company benefiting from that investment should bear an appropriate share of the cost rather than shifting it to existing residents and businesses.

Location is key. Local governments should regularly review and update zoning, building, and planning codes so they reflect today’s technology and the scale and resource demands of modern data centers. If our codes are outdated, a project could technically receive approval for a location that no longer makes sense for the surrounding community or infrastructure.

Colorado is a water limited state, and we should not approve projects without understanding their long term impact on our water resources and existing water users. Projects should be evaluated using the best available science and meaningful local input.

I do not want Colorado to close the door on an industry that could bring jobs, investment, and technological innovation. The goal should be responsible growth, not growth at any cost. Before we make major policy decisions, I want to see the data and understand both what we gain and what we are giving up.”

“Public health policy should start with evidence, prevention, and making sure people have access to the care and information they need. The measles outbreak is a good example of why strong public health systems matter. Vaccines are one of the most effective tools we have for preventing serious infectious diseases, and I support evidence based vaccination policies that protect individuals and our communities, particularly those who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons.

I support disease reporting and rapid communication between local health departments, health care providers, schools, and state agencies. When an outbreak occurs, we need accurate information quickly so communities can respond before a problem becomes larger.

Prevention means making basic health care accessible. Regular primary care, screenings, and treatment for chronic conditions can prevent small problems from becoming much more serious and expensive ones.

We have to communicate science in a way people can actually understand. Public health agencies should provide clear, transparent information about risks, benefits, and the evidence behind recommendations. People are more likely to trust information when they understand where it comes from and why recommendations are being made.

As a legislator, I would listen to public health professionals and researchers, use the best available evidence, and support policies that help Colorado communities prevent illness rather than simply reacting after people are already sick. Good public health is ultimately about protecting our neighbors and making sure our communities are resilient when new threats emerge.”

“Science literacy is less about knowing a long list of scientific facts and more about knowing how to ask good questions, evaluate information, understand evidence, and recognize the difference between a scientific finding and someone’s opinion. Those skills are increasingly important when we are surrounded by information, misinformation, and rapidly changing technology.

K-12 education needs to place more emphasis on how science works, not just the conclusions science has reached. Students should have opportunities to form hypotheses, evaluate evidence, understand uncertainty, recognize bias, and revise their thinking when the evidence changes. Those are skills that extend far beyond a science classroom.

We need to make science feel relevant to students’ everyday lives. Connecting lessons to things like water, wildfire, agriculture, public health, energy, technology, and the environment can help students understand why science matters to their families and communities.

As AI becomes more prevalent, this becomes even more important. Our kids need to develop problem solving, critical thinking, and decision making skills before relying on a tool that can do those things for them. They need to understand how to question the information a technology gives them, not simply accept an answer because it sounds confident.

Ultimately, I want Colorado students to leave school feeling that science is something they can engage with, not something reserved for scientists. Building that relationship early can create more informed citizens, better decision makers, and a stronger workforce for Colorado’s future.”