Cecilia Castellano
DemocraticQ1 In June 2026, USDA confirmed New World screwworm in Texas livestock for the first time in decades; as of early July, dozens of infestations have been confirmed across South Texas (USDA APHIS , 2026). USDA estimates a full-scale outbreak comparable to past infestations could cost the regional economy billions of dollars (USDA APHIS). What policies, if any, would you support to respond to the current outbreak and improve Texas’s agricultural biosecurity (practices and safeguards that prevent pests and diseases from spreading through livestock populations), and what evidence or considerations would inform that approach?
I support fully funding USDA and APHIS so they have the resources to contain and eradicate New World screwworm quickly. That means investing in surveillance, sterile-fly production, veterinary response, research, and strong coordination with Texas officials and livestock producers. I also support assistance for ranchers who suffer documented losses or costs because of quarantines and required biosecurity measures. We know early detection and rapid response work, and protecting our livestock industry is far less costly than allowing an outbreak to spread.
Q2 Texas is on track to become the nation’s leading data center market within the next three years (Bloom Energy, 2026). The state’s grid operator has more than doubled its 2030 forecast for data center power demand over the past year (ERCOT, 2025). Such growth brings economic opportunity while placing significant demands on water, land, and energy systems, raising questions about tax incentives, utility costs, and local community impacts. What policies, if any, would you support around water/energy allocation, tax incentives, or utility costs for data center development in Texas, and what evidence informs that position?
I oppose expanding data centers in Texas when they place additional strain on our electric grid, water supply, and local communities while receiving significant tax incentives. Texas families and small businesses should not see higher utility costs or reduced access to limited water resources so that extremely large energy users can operate here. ERCOT is already implementing special review processes for large loads such as data centers because of their potential impact on grid reliability.
I would oppose additional tax incentives for data centers and support requiring these facilities to pay the full infrastructure costs associated with their electricity and water demands. Texas currently provides qualifying data centers with state sales-tax exemptions, which makes it even more important that we examine whether these projects provide enough long-term jobs and community benefits to justify those subsidies.
My priority is protecting reliable, affordable electricity and our water resources for Texas families, agriculture, and existing businesses first.
Q3 Texas faces flooding while simultaneously experiencing water scarcity driven by drought, groundwater depletion, and population growth (TWDB, 2024). Hundreds of Texas waterways are listed as impaired for bacteria, mercury, and other pollutants, threatening water quality for communities across the state (TCEQ, 2024). Agriculture is the largest consumer of the state’s groundwater, yet it is also well positioned to be a valuable partner in conservation efforts. What policies, if any, would you support to improve Texas’s water infrastructure, and what considerations would guide your approach to the state’s agricultural economy?
I support investing in replacing aging water infrastructure, especially in rural communities, with modern systems that reduce leaks, improve water quality, and provide a more reliable water supply during droughts. I would also support investments in water conservation, reuse, groundwater monitoring, and flood-control infrastructure.
When it comes to agriculture, I believe our farmers and ranchers must be treated as partners, not burdened with one-size-fits-all mandates. I support voluntary conservation programs, incentives for efficient irrigation and water technology, and technical and financial assistance that helps producers conserve water while protecting their ability to make a living.
My approach would be guided by protecting rural communities, strengthening our agricultural economy, maintaining affordable and reliable water, and making sure Texas replaces outdated infrastructure and plans responsibly for future generations.
Q4 The Texas power grid continues to face strain from extreme heat and increasing demand, including from data centers. What policies, if any, would you support to improve grid reliability for Texas consumers and businesses?
I support policies that strengthen Texas’s electric grid, expand transmission capacity, and ensure we have enough reliable generation to meet growing demand. Texas families and businesses should be able to depend on affordable electricity during extreme heat, winter storms, and periods of high demand.
I also believe large energy users, including data centers, should pay the full cost of the infrastructure and additional capacity their operations require rather than shifting those costs onto residential customers and small businesses. ERCOT is already developing additional tools and processes to manage rapidly growing large loads and protect grid reliability.
My priority would be maintaining a reliable grid, investing in necessary transmission and resiliency improvements, and making sure everyday Texans are not asked to subsidize massive new electricity users. ERCOT’s 2026 planning continues to identify extreme weather, rapid load growth, and transmission constraints as significant reliability considerations.
Q5 Texas universities and hospitals receive approximately $1.9 billion annually in NIH funding across 118 research sites, supporting tens of thousands of jobs and driving medical and scientific innovation (FASEB, 2025). NIH grants reimburse institutions for both direct research costs and indirect costs, the facilities, administration, and support infrastructure that make research possible. A 15% indirect cost cap proposed by NIH in 2025, currently blocked by federal courts, would sharply reduce this reimbursement below the rates Texas institutions have negotiated, cutting an estimated $300 million in annual support that institutions would need to absorb or backfill (Kamerlin & Elias, 2025). What policies, if any, would you support at the state or federal level to protect the long-term stability of Texas’s research infrastructure, and why?
I support protecting stable federal investment in NIH and opposing arbitrary funding cuts that could undermine Texas universities, hospitals, medical research, and the thousands of jobs they support. Texas receives about $1.9 billion in NIH funding across 118 research sites, making biomedical research an important part of our state’s economy and healthcare infrastructure.
I also believe federal reimbursement for research infrastructure should reflect the legitimate costs of laboratories, facilities, compliance, technology, and administrative support rather than imposing a one-size-fits-all cap. NIH’s proposed policy would replace negotiated indirect-cost rates with a 15% rate, a significant change in how research institutions are reimbursed.
At the state level, I would support strategic investments that help Texas remain competitive for federal research dollars, recruit talented researchers, and strengthen institutions conducting lifesaving medical research. Texas already has successful models such as CPRIT, which has leveraged state investment to support research, clinical trials, and recruitment of scientists.
My priority is making sure Texas remains a leader in medical and scientific innovation while protecting taxpayers and ensuring research dollars are used responsibly.
Q6 Texas kindergartners’ measles vaccination rate fell to 93.24% in the 2024-2025 school year, a decline from prior years amid a national resurgence (Texas Department of State Health Services, 2025). That year, Texas recorded 762 confirmed measles cases, including the deaths of two unvaccinated school-age children, in the state’s largest outbreak since 1992 (Texas DSHS, 2025). Measles can cause serious complications: roughly 1 in 5 unvaccinated people who contract it are hospitalized, and it can lead to pneumonia, brain swelling, or death (CDC). As a policymaker, how do you approach engaging with communities that have concerns about infectious disease outbreaks and vaccine safety, and what policies, if any, would you support related to these issues, and why?
I believe the first step is listening to communities and making sure people have access to clear, accurate information from trusted healthcare professionals. Parents should be able to ask questions about vaccine safety and receive factual answers without being dismissed or talked down to.
At the same time, policymakers have a responsibility to protect children and communities from preventable infectious diseases. Texas’s 2025 measles outbreak resulted in 762 confirmed cases, 99 hospitalizations, and two deaths of unvaccinated school-age children.
I would support strong public-health education, readily available and affordable vaccinations, adequate funding for local health departments, and rapid testing and response when outbreaks occur. I would also rely on physicians, epidemiologists, public-health data, and established vaccine-safety research when evaluating policy. The CDC continues to identify two doses of MMR vaccine as highly effective protection against measles, while measles itself can cause hospitalization, pneumonia, brain swelling, and death.
My goal would be to rebuild trust, make reliable information and healthcare accessible, and protect our communities—especially children and people who are medically vulnerable.
Q7 Scientific evidence is generated through the systematic testing and evaluation of ideas. It provides knowledge the helps us understand the world and predict the likely consequences of different choices, such policy making related to public health, energy, agriculture, and environmental regulation. What role, if any, should scientific evidence and expert input play in your policymaking process, and how would you evaluate competing or uncertain scientific claims when making policy decisions? What role, if any, should that process play when scientific consensus and public opinion diverge?
I believe scientific evidence and expert input should play an important role in policymaking, particularly on issues such as public health, agriculture, water, energy, and the environment. Good policy should be based on reliable data, real-world impacts, and the best information available—not politics alone.
When scientific claims conflict or the evidence is uncertain, I would look at the quality of the research, whether findings have been independently reviewed or replicated, the credibility of the experts involved, and the potential consequences of acting or failing to act. I would also seek input from the people directly affected by the policy, including local communities, businesses, farmers, healthcare professionals, and other stakeholders.
When scientific consensus and public opinion differ, I believe policymakers have a responsibility to listen respectfully to public concerns while also being honest about what the evidence shows. Public trust matters, but difficult facts should not be ignored simply because they are unpopular. My approach would be to communicate clearly, remain open to new evidence, and make decisions that are responsible, transparent, and focused on protecting the long-term interests of Texans.