Diana Loya

Our farmers and ranchers are not only feeding Texas, they are holding together the economies of our rural communities. When something like New World screwworm threatens their livestock and livelihoods, I believe the state has a responsibility to respond quickly, transparently, and with the people actually working the land at the center of that response.

I would support strong coordination between the Texas Animal Health Commission, Texas Department of Agriculture, USDA, veterinarians, local officials, and livestock producers. That includes fully funding surveillance and rapid testing, making sure producers know exactly how and where to report suspected cases, and ensuring state veterinary and animal-health personnel have the resources to respond immediately when a case is identified.

I would also support continued use and expansion of proven eradication tools, including the sterile insect technique, which has historically been critical in controlling New World screwworm. Texas should work aggressively with federal partners to ensure adequate sterile-fly production and deployment wherever surveillance indicates it is needed. I do not want Austin making agricultural policy from behind a desk without listening to the people who raise our cattle and work our land. My approach would be to listen to producers, veterinarians, and agricultural experts; follow the best available science; act early; and make sure Texas farmers and ranchers are never expected to shoulder a statewide biosecurity crisis alone.

I support economic development, but economic development cannot come at the expense of the natural resources that sustain our communities. For me, water comes first. In rural Texas, water is not simply another resource to allocate. It is the foundation of our farms, ranches, communities, and future generations.

As a state representative, I would support requiring large data center developments to provide transparent, independently reviewed assessments of their projected water and energy needs BEFORE receiving approvals. Communities deserve to know how much water a project will use, where that water will come from, what effect that withdrawal could have on local aquifers and existing users, and what additional electricity infrastructure will be required.

This is particularly important in rural Texas, where groundwater supplies can already be under pressure. I would support stronger conservation requirements for high-volume industrial users, including water-efficient or closed-loop cooling systems where feasible, water reuse, and limits or additional safeguards in areas where groundwater availability cannot sustainably support the proposed demand. I do not believe we should sacrifice a resource that our communities will need for generations in exchange for short-term economic development.

I would also insist on meaningful local input and transparency before these projects are approved. Rural communities should not learn about a massive development after agreements have already been negotiated behind closed doors. Farmers, ranchers, landowners, municipalities, groundwater districts, school districts, and residents deserve a seat at the table before decisions are made that could permanently affect their water, land, infrastructure, and quality of life.

On energy, I believe large data centers should pay their fair share (if not more) of the infrastructure necessary to serve them. Texas families and small businesses should not see their utility bills increase because the state has attracted enormous new industrial loads. When new transmission, generation, substations, or other infrastructure is primarily necessary to serve these facilities, we should examine policies that appropriately assign those costs to the companies creating the demand rather than automatically spreading them across ordinary ratepayers.

I would also do away with Texas’ data center tax incentives. Texas currently provides qualifying data centers with significant sales-tax exemptions that can last 10 or 15 years, while qualifying large data center projects can receive exemptions for 20 years. I do not believe taxpayers should provide substantial incentives simply because a company promises a large capital investment. There should be no incentives because they should want to bring measurable benefits to the community. This includes permanent jobs, responsible water use, infrastructure investment, environmental safeguards, and protections for local taxpayers, and there should be accountability when those commitments are not met.

My position is not that Texas should reject technology or economic development. It is that growth must be responsible and sustainable. A project may bring investment today, but we have to ask what that community will look like 20, 30, or 50 years from now.

When making these decisions, I would rely on groundwater availability and aquifer data, projected electricity demand, infrastructure costs, independently verified water-use projections, the number and quality of permanent jobs created, and, most importantly, the voices of the people who actually live in the affected communities.

The people of rural Texas should NEVER be told that sacrificing their water, paying higher utility costs, or changing the character of their communities is simply the price of progress. Our natural resources belong in the conversation before the contracts are signed, not after.

Keywords: Transparency, no incentives, voices, never

Water is life in Texas, and nowhere is that more apparent than in our rural communities. We cannot talk about the future of Texas without talking about the future of our water.

I would support a comprehensive approach that focuses first on conservation, infrastructure, and long-term planning. Texas needs to invest in repairing aging and leaking water systems, improving wastewater infrastructure, expanding water reuse and conservation, protecting water quality, and building flood-control infrastructure that protects communities while looking for opportunities to capture and beneficially use water when possible.

I also believe rural Texas must receive its fair share of those investments. Small communities often do not have the tax base or staff capacity of our major metropolitan areas, but a failing water system in a town of 3,000 people is no less important to those families than one affecting hundreds of thousands of people in a city.

When it comes to agriculture, I would not approach conservation by simply telling our farmers and ranchers to use less water. Agriculture is fundamental to our economy, our food supply, and the identity of rural Texas. Farmers are also some of the people with the greatest interest in ensuring that our groundwater is available for future generations.

Instead, I would make farmers and ranchers partners in conservation. I would support expanding grants, low-interest loans, and cost-sharing programs that help producers adopt more efficient irrigation systems, soil-moisture technology, metering, drought-resistant practices, and other proven conservation strategies. We should reward conservation and innovation rather than impose unfunded mandates on producers who are already dealing with high input costs and unpredictable weather.

We also need to protect our groundwater with the future in mind. That means decisions about large new industrial water users should consider the cumulative impact on an aquifer, not simply whether water is available today. Our agricultural producers and rural communities should not be asked to conserve while enormous new developments are allowed to withdraw groundwater without the same expectation of conservation and accountability.

I support an all of the above approach to strengthening the Texas grid. We need reliable generation, renewable energy, battery storage, improved transmission infrastructure, energy efficiency, and continued investment in technologies that make our grid more resilient. My priority would not be choosing winners and losers among energy sources. It would be building a system that Texans can depend on during both extreme heat and extreme cold.

We also have to recognize that the demands being placed on our grid are changing. Large industrial users and data centers can consume enormous amounts of electricity. Economic development is important, but we should not approve massive new loads without knowing whether the generation and transmission infrastructure exists to support them.

I support requiring large electricity users to pay their fair share (if not more) of the infrastructure necessary to serve them. Working families, farmers, ranchers, and small businesses should NOT see their utility bills increase because the grid needs billions of dollars in new infrastructure to serve a massive corporate development.

Texas must also continue strengthening and weatherizing critical generation, transmission, and natural-gas infrastructure. Winter Storm Uri demonstrated what happens when failures across interconnected systems occur at the same time. Reliability planning has to account for extreme heat, extreme cold, drought, population growth, and rapidly increasing industrial demand.

I would oppose abrupt federal policies that substantially reduce support for research infrastructure without a careful evaluation of what those cuts would mean for patients, researchers, universities, and taxpayers. Indirect costs are not simply administrative overhead. They help pay for the laboratories, utilities, cybersecurity, regulatory compliance, research administration, equipment, and other infrastructure required to conduct federally funded research safely and effectively.

As a state legislator, I would want Texas to examine how we can strengthen our own research infrastructure. That includes protecting investments in our public universities and health institutions, supporting competitive research programs, developing partnerships between universities, medical centers, and the private sector, and strengthening the pipeline of scientists, physicians, nurses, engineers, and other highly skilled workers Texas will need in the future.

I would also insist on accountability. Public research dollars should be spent responsibly, indirect costs should be transparent and justifiable, and institutions receiving taxpayer funding should be able to demonstrate how those dollars support the research mission. But accountability and fiscal responsibility should not mean weakening the infrastructure that makes groundbreaking research possible.

I would be especially concerned about what large funding reductions could mean outside our largest metropolitan areas. Rural Texans already face significant barriers to health care. Research conducted in Texas can help us address issues such as cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, infectious disease, maternal health, mental health, agricultural health, and the shortage of health professionals in rural communities. We should be looking for ways to connect Texas research investments to the needs of communities across the entire state.

Public health works best when there is trust between families, health professionals, schools, and government. When parents have questions about vaccines or infectious diseases, I don’t believe our response should be to dismiss them or shame them. We should listen to their concerns, provide accurate information, and make sure they have access to trusted medical professionals who can answer their questions.

At the same time, as policymakers, we have a responsibility to take infectious diseases seriously. Texas experienced its largest measles outbreak in decades in 2025, with hundreds of confirmed cases and the deaths of two unvaccinated school-age children. Those are not statistics we should ignore.

I support making vaccines readily accessible and affordable throughout Texas, particularly in rural communities where families may have fewer pediatricians, pharmacies, clinics, or transportation options. I would invest in our local public health infrastructure and make sure rural health departments, schools, physicians, and community organizations have the resources they need to educate families and respond quickly when an outbreak occurs.

I also support greater transparency around vaccine safety. Parents should have access to clear information about the benefits and potential risks of vaccines, how vaccines are evaluated and monitored for safety, and what we know from scientific evidence. If legitimate safety concerns arise, they should be investigated openly and communicated honestly.

During an infectious disease outbreak, I believe decisions should be guided by the severity and transmissibility of the disease, the best available medical evidence, and the responsibility to protect people who are especially vulnerable. That includes babies who are too young to receive certain vaccines and people who cannot be vaccinated for legitimate medical reasons.

Schools also have a responsibility to protect students and staff. As an educator, I understand how quickly illness can spread through a classroom. I would support clear, evidence-based outbreak protocols developed with public health professionals so that schools and parents know what to expect before a crisis occurs.

I also believe we have to address why vaccination rates are declining rather than simply arguing with families about it. Is it misinformation? Lack of access to health care? Different problems require different solutions. Government cannot rebuild trust by demanding it. We rebuild trust through transparency, consistency, accessibility, and honest communication.

Scientific evidence should play an important role in policymaking because the decisions we make in Austin have real consequences for people’s health, livelihoods, communities, and futures. Whether we are talking about water, agriculture, energy, education, or public health, I want decisions to be informed by the best evidence available rather than political pressure or whoever has the most influence in the room.

Scientific evidence, however, is one part of policymaking. Evidence can help tell us what is happening and predict the likely consequences of different choices, but elected officials must also consider costs, individual rights, economic impacts, feasibility, local circumstances, and the experiences of the people affected by a policy.

That is particularly important in rural Texas. An expert in Austin may understand the science behind groundwater depletion, for example, but the farmer who has depended on that aquifer for generations understands realities on the ground that also need to be part of the conversation. I want both of those voices at the table.