Patrick Southerland

Oklahoma’s research universities are an important part of our state’s economy, workforce, healthcare system, and ability to compete for new industries. I would not support an arbitrary, across-the-board cap on research infrastructure reimbursement that fails to account for the actual costs of conducting research. At the same time, I believe universities receiving public funding should be able to demonstrate where those dollars are going and what Oklahoma is receiving in return.

At the federal level, I support a transparent, negotiated approach to indirect research costs rather than a one-size-fits-all percentage. Research does not happen only at a laboratory bench; it requires facilities, technology, safety and compliance systems, administration, and other infrastructure necessary to support the work.

As a state legislator, I would support efforts that help Oklahoma universities compete for federal and private research dollars, including responsible state matching investments and partnerships with Oklahoma businesses and healthcare institutions. I would also want strong transparency and performance reporting attached to state research investments.

My goal would not be for Oklahoma taxpayers simply to replace every federal dollar that might be lost. It would be to protect strategically important research capacity, leverage state dollars to bring additional investment into Oklahoma, and make sure the discoveries happening at our universities translate into jobs, innovation, better healthcare, and opportunities for Oklahomans.

Keywords: * Protect Oklahoma’s research infrastructure * Reject one-size-fits-all funding caps * Transparency and accountability * Strategic Investments

I would support policies that strengthen tribal capacity in environmental science, land management, and water monitoring, including state grants and matching funds where appropriate. Tribal nations are important governmental partners in Oklahoma, and many environmental challenges—especially those involving water, pollution, drought, and land management—do not stop at jurisdictional boundaries.

I would also support stronger partnerships between tribal nations, state agencies, and Oklahoma universities. Sharing access to research, laboratories, equipment, environmental data, and technical expertise can help stretch public dollars further while improving the quality of information available to everyone making decisions about Oklahoma’s natural resources.

At the same time, I believe these partnerships must respect tribal sovereignty. The state should not dictate a one-size-fits-all environmental program to tribal governments. Tribal nations should have the ability to determine their own priorities and how programs are implemented within their jurisdictions.

Water is an area where I believe cooperation is especially important. When decisions involving rivers, groundwater, contamination, drought, or other shared resources affect both tribal and non-tribal communities, tribal nations should have a meaningful role in those discussions and decisions.

My goal would be to build stronger government-to-government partnerships that improve environmental monitoring, protect shared resources, and make sure communities across Oklahoma have access to reliable science and data when decisions are being made.

Keywords: * Tribal sovereignty * Government-to-government partnership * Collaborative land management

I do not believe Oklahoma’s current policies are doing enough to protect our long-term water resources. Recent changes to reporting and enforcement may provide better information, and I strongly support collecting accurate water-use data, but better reporting alone does not solve the underlying problem. We need to make sure the decisions we make today do not leave our communities and agricultural producers without reliable water tomorrow.

My priority would be simple: the people who already live here and the farms and ranches that sustain our communities should come first. Reliable drinking water for Oklahoma families and dependable access for agricultural producers should take priority when the state considers large new industrial water users.

I am particularly opposed to bringing in large data centers that place significant demands on local water supplies. I support economic development and bringing good jobs to Oklahoma, but not every development is a good deal simply because it represents new investment. If a project threatens the long-term water security of the surrounding community or agricultural producers, I do not believe the state should sacrifice those existing needs in the name of economic development.

I would support stronger requirements for major water users to disclose how much water they expect to use and where that water will come from. Oklahoma also needs accessible, reliable data showing actual water consumption so policymakers, communities, and producers can understand what is happening to our water resources rather than making decisions based on incomplete information.

I would also support incentives that help farmers, municipalities, and businesses invest in water conservation. Producers who voluntarily conserve water should not be penalized for doing so. At the same time, the state should invest in rural water infrastructure, including repairing aging systems, reducing leaks, improving storage, and helping smaller communities modernize their water systems.

Oklahoma absolutely should pursue economic development, but that development must be sustainable. Our water belongs at the center of that conversation, not as an afterthought. Local communities and agriculture should come first, and development should proceed only when we know our existing water needs are protected for the long term.

Keywords: * Reliable drinking water before industrial expansion * Accurate and transparent water-use data * Reward conservation, don’t punish it

I believe the first responsibility for remediating an abandoned or orphaned well should rest with the company that created the damage whenever that company can still be held accountable. If a company comes onto someone’s land, drills, and leaves behind infrastructure or environmental damage, it should be responsible for restoring that property and removing what it no longer needs. If there is a reasonable compromise regarding what remains on the property, that should be negotiated with the landowner rather than decided unilaterally by the company.

I would support stronger bonding and financial-assurance requirements so that companies are setting aside enough resources to properly plug wells and restore land when operations end. Oklahoma should not routinely leave taxpayers responsible for cleanup after a private company has benefited from the resource.

For wells where no responsible operator remains, I support using state or federal resources for remediation, but I would prioritize those funds carefully. Wells that present an immediate threat to public health, groundwater, nearby homes, farmland, or the environment should be addressed as quickly as possible. Lower-risk wells can be scheduled over a longer period as resources become available. Protecting the health and safety of Oklahoma communities should come first.

I am also very open to safely repurposing suitable wells. If an unused well can be converted into geothermal energy, energy storage, or another beneficial use without creating new risks, I see that as an opportunity to turn an existing liability into something useful. However, repurposing should never become a loophole for avoiding cleanup obligations. It should require proper engineering review, monitoring, financial assurance, and a clear plan for eventual closure if the new use ends.

Oil and gas remains an important part of Oklahoma’s economy and identity, but I also believe we should continue diversifying our energy portfolio. Developing alternative energy sources while preserving our traditional resources gives Oklahoma greater long-term security and flexibility. A diverse energy strategy can help us remain economically competitive while also protecting the reserves and resources we may need in the future.

Keywords: * Protect groundwater and public health * No loopholes around cleanup obligation

I strongly support continued investment in severe weather research and forecasting. Oklahoma experiences some of the most dangerous severe weather in the country, and the research conducted here directly affects public safety, preparedness, and our ability to give people as much warning as possible when dangerous storms are approaching.

At the federal level, I support continued funding for NOAA, the National Severe Storms Laboratory, and other severe-weather research programs based in Oklahoma. These facilities are national assets, but they are also an important part of Oklahoma’s research economy and scientific workforce.

At the state level, I would support investments in our universities and research institutions when those investments have a clear public-safety benefit. I would also support using state funding strategically when it can help Oklahoma attract additional federal or private research dollars.

We should continue improving radar systems, weather-monitoring equipment, forecasting technology, and emergency-warning systems. I would place particular emphasis on rural communities, where residents may have fewer warning resources or communications options available to them. Every Oklahoma community should have reliable access to timely severe-weather information.

I would also support workforce programs that encourage meteorologists, engineers, computer scientists, emergency-management professionals, and other researchers to study and build their careers here in Oklahoma. Keeping that expertise in our state strengthens both our economy and our ability to protect our communities.

Finally, I support stronger partnerships among Oklahoma universities, federal researchers, state and local emergency managers, and tribal nations. Research has the greatest public value when discoveries are translated into better forecasts, stronger preparedness, and practical tools that communities can actually use.

We cannot prevent severe weather from occurring, but we can invest in the science, technology, and people that give Oklahomans better information and more time to protect themselves.

Keywords: * Protect Oklahoma’s forecasting infrastructure * Keep scientific talent in Oklahoma

I have serious concerns about the continued expansion of large data centers in Oklahoma because of the enormous demands they can place on electricity, water, and local infrastructure. I do not support providing state incentives to attract these facilities.

If a data center does locate in Oklahoma, I believe it should bear the costs associated with serving its operation. Residential customers, farmers, small businesses, schools, hospitals, and other existing ratepayers should not see higher utility bills because a private company requires new substations, transmission infrastructure, generation capacity, or other major utility investments.

I would support creating separate utility-rate structures for extremely large electricity users and requiring long-term contracts, financial guarantees, or other protections so Oklahoma ratepayers are not left paying for infrastructure if a project closes, scales back, or fails to materialize.

I also believe these facilities should be subject to strong and continuing oversight. Utilities and developers should disclose projected energy demand, infrastructure requirements, expected impacts on rates, and any public incentives associated with a project. If the electric grid does not have the capacity to serve a proposed facility without threatening reliability or significantly increasing costs for existing customers, regulators should have the ability to delay or deny that development.

Existing Oklahoma communities must come first. Homes, farms, hospitals, schools, and businesses already here deserve reliable and affordable electricity before enormous amounts of new capacity are committed to serving a data center.

When projects are approved, I would support requiring or encouraging developers to reduce their burden on existing infrastructure through energy-efficient technology, investments in additional generation, alternative energy, or other measures that offset the demand they create.

Local communities must also have a meaningful voice. A development of this scale should not be placed in a community without the people who live there having an opportunity to understand its effects on electricity, water, infrastructure, land use, and local finances and to participate in the decision-making process.

I am not opposed to technological development, but I do not believe Oklahoma residents should have to sacrifice affordable utilities, water security, or infrastructure for data centers. If one is built here, it should pay its own costs, be subject to strong oversight, and the local community should have a meaningful say.

Keywords: * Existing Oklahoma communities come first

I believe every Oklahoman should have access to reliable, affordable healthcare, and I would support protecting and, where possible, expanding access through SoonerCare and other programs that help people receive the care they need.

Rural healthcare requires particular attention because when a hospital or clinic closes, the impact is not limited to that facility. It can mean families have to travel significantly farther for emergency care, maternity care, routine treatment, or specialist services. I believe we should make sure rural hospitals and healthcare facilities are located within a reasonable and safe distance for the communities they serve, and we should take rural hospital closures seriously before access reaches a crisis point.

I would support targeted efforts to strengthen rural hospitals and healthcare systems, particularly when a facility is essential to an underserved area. I would also support aggressively pursuing federal rural-health funding and using state matching dollars when doing so can bring additional healthcare resources into Oklahoma.

Oklahoma also needs to address the shortage of healthcare professionals in rural communities. I would support incentives such as loan repayment, scholarships, residency programs, and other workforce initiatives that encourage doctors, nurses, mental-health professionals, dentists, and other providers to practice in underserved areas.

Telehealth should continue to be part of the solution as well. It cannot replace every in-person service, but it can give rural patients access to specialists and other providers who may otherwise be hours away. That also means continuing to improve the broadband and technology infrastructure necessary to make telehealth practical.

I would support additional investment in rural EMS and ambulance services, maternal and maternity care, mental-health and substance-use treatment, and preventive healthcare. Providing access to screenings, prenatal care, chronic-disease management, and other preventive services can help address health problems earlier rather than waiting until they become emergencies.

Where someone lives in Oklahoma should not determine whether they can see a doctor, safely have a baby, receive emergency treatment, or get help before a health problem becomes a crisis. Rural healthcare is essential community infrastructure, and protecting it should be treated that way.

Keywords: * Reliable healthcare for every Oklahoman * Prevent harmful rural hospital closures