Adrian Reyna

Texas must respond to New World screwworm with the urgency of an emergency, with science-based discipline, and with adequate resourcing. I would support emergency state funding for the Texas Animal Health Commission, veterinary diagnostic capacity, trapping and surveillance, rapid-response teams, and coordination with USDA, local governments, veterinarians, livestock producers, wildlife officials, and Mexico. Texas should also make reporting easy and financially realistic for producers. We also know screwworm can infect pets and wildlife, the state should provide veterinarians, shelters, animal-control agencies, hunters, pet owners, and rural communities with clear information about wound inspection, symptoms, reporting, and prevention. In San Antonio and HD 125, that means bilingual public education and coordination with shelters and veterinary providers. My approach would be guided by USDA and Texas Animal Health Commission surveillance data, veterinary and entomological expertise, outbreak modeling, the experience of the successful U.S. eradication program, and continuous evaluation of which interventions are actually reducing transmission.

I believe technological growth and innovation should be responsible and reflective of the needs and aspirations of that specific community. And it should pay its own way. That is especially important in San Antonio and HD 125. Our region depends heavily on the Edwards Aquifer and has repeatedly experienced drought restrictions. We must look at actual water availability, not simply the size of the investment being proposed. I would support mandatory disclosure of projected and actual water and electricity use; water-impact assessments in water-stressed regions; conservation and recycling requirements; regulations for reclaimed or non-potable water and closed-loop or low-water cooling systems; and stronger consideration of cumulative impacts when multiple facilities are proposed in the same watershed or utility territory. The same principle applies to electricity. I believe large-load customers should bear appropriate interconnection costs so families and small businesses are not left paying for infrastructure for these data centers. I would also support reliability requirements and compensated demand-response agreements to reduce consumption during genuine grid emergencies. Lastly, public incentives should be tied to measurable public benefits: permanent Texas jobs, wages and benefits, local hiring, infrastructure contributions, water efficiency, grid reliability, and transparent economic returns. A multibillion-dollar project that creates relatively few permanent jobs while increasing utility or infrastructure costs for its neighbors should not automatically receive a taxpayer subsidy simply because it involves cutting-edge technology.

I would support sustained state investment in drinking-water and wastewater systems, replacement of leaking and aging infrastructure, flood-control projects, aquifer recharge and conservation, rural water systems, watershed restoration, and projects identified through Texas’s state water and flood planning processes. For San Antonio and HD 125, protecting the Edwards Aquifer must remain a priority. I would support strong groundwater science, monitoring and enforcement, conservation during drought, greater use of reclaimed water, infrastructure that reduces water loss, and appropriate requirements for exceptionally large new industrial users. Alongside drainage and flood-control infrastructure, I support nature-based solutions such as preserving or restoring floodplains, watersheds, and wetlands, and expanding appropriate tree canopy and green infrastructure. These investments can provide flood protection while improving water quality, reducing heat, and creating community amenities.

As a public school teacher in San Antonio during winter storm Uri, my students and families know that during extreme heat or cold, reliable electricity can be a matter of life and death. No Texas family should not have to choose between affordable electricity and a dependable grid. I support an all-of-the-above reliability strategy based on performance and evidence, rather than favoring one technology for political reasons. Texas should maintain their generation while continuing to take advantage of our enormous wind and solar resources, rapidly expanding battery storage, modernizing transmission, improving energy efficiency, and deploying distributed resources such as rooftop solar, batteries, and microgrids. I will support investments in energy-efficiency programs, weatherization, smart demand response, and voluntary programs that compensate homes and businesses for reducing load. Lastly, I will oppose policies that solve industrial growth by simply shifting costs onto residential customers. Reliability investments should provide transparent cost-benefit analysis, and consumers should have a meaningful voice at the Public Utility Commission.

At the federal level, I would urge Texas’s congressional delegation to maintain robust, predictable NIH and other federal science funding; preserve a transparent process for determining legitimate indirect costs; and resist abrupt funding changes that disrupt multiyear research. At the state level, I believe, Texas should sustain and strengthen its position as a national research leader. I would support competitive state research investments, matching funds that help institutions win federal grants, shared research infrastructure, commercialization and technology-transfer initiatives, graduate and postdoctoral training, and targeted bridge mechanisms. I would also support accountability for public research dollars which should be accompanied by transparent financial standards, rigorous peer review, conflict-of-interest protections, and evaluation of outcomes.

Texas’s 2025 measles outbreak demonstrated the stakes. As a teacher during the COVID-19 pandemic and the parent to a current Kindergartner with asthma, I support making accurate information and vaccination easier to access. Texas must adequately fund DSHS and local public-health departments for disease surveillance, laboratory capacity, outbreak response, vaccination clinics, and rapid communication. I support evidence-based school immunization requirements and medical exemptions when clinically appropriate. I would oppose weakening those requirements in ways that create avoidable risks for children who cannot be vaccinated or who are especially vulnerable to infection. Lastly, I believe that during outbreaks, state and local officials should follow epidemiological evidence regarding testing, isolation, exposure notifications, vaccination campaigns and other interventions.

Scientific evidence should be a foundational part of policymaking whenever a policy depends on factual questions about health, energy, agriculture, infrastructure, the environment, or technology. Science cannot decide every question for elected officials because policymaking also requires judgments about values, costs, fairness, and competing priorities. But elected officials should not invent their own facts. I will continue to seek input from researchers with relevant expertise; universities and public research institutions; state technical agencies; practitioners working in the field; affected communities; and, when appropriate, independent scientific organizations. The answer to a divide between evidence and public opinion is not to discard either the public or the evidence. It is to communicate more clearly, disclose uncertainties and tradeoffs, invite meaningful public participation, and make decisions grounded in the strongest evidence available. Good government asks hard questions, follows the evidence wherever it leads, and changes course when better evidence proves us wrong.