Eliz Markowitz

Texas cannot afford to let New World screwworm turn into a full-scale agricultural crisis. We know what happens when outbreaks are caught too late, so the state needs to act now.

I would make sure the Texas Animal Health Commission, Texas A&M AgriLife Extension, and local veterinarians have the resources to identify cases quickly and stop them from spreading. Ranchers and livestock owners also need clear, practical information about what to look for and where to report a suspected case.

Texas should work closely with USDA and use strategies that have already proven effective, including the sterile insect technique that helped eliminate screwworm from the United States before. This is not complicated: follow the science, use the tools that work, and respond quickly.

We also have to protect producers from taking the financial hit alone. Quarantines, treatment costs, livestock losses, and movement restrictions can be devastating, especially for smaller operations. Reporting a possible outbreak should not threaten someone’s livelihood.

The bottom line is simple: prevention costs less than crisis response. Texas should invest now, protect our livestock industry, support our producers, and stop this problem before it gets worse.

Keywords: The bottom line is simple: prevention costs less than crisis response.

Texas should be much more cautious about the rapid growth of data centers. These facilities can consume enormous amounts of electricity and water, while creating far fewer permanent jobs than many other large developments. I do not think the state should be handing out generous tax incentives without asking whether the long-term benefit to Texas communities actually justifies the cost.

My biggest concern is making sure regular Texans are not forced to subsidize this growth. If a data center requires new transmission, additional generation, or major upgrades to local infrastructure, the company should pay for the demand it is creating. Families and small businesses should not see higher utility bills because a massive corporation decided Texas was the cheapest place to operate.

I would also support much stronger disclosure and oversight of water use. Communities should know exactly how much water a project is expected to consume before incentives or major approvals are granted, especially in parts of the state already facing drought and water-supply concerns.

I would also reevaluate the tax incentives Texas currently offers data centers. Any incentive should come with strict requirements for local economic benefit, responsible resource use, and real accountability. If a project cannot demonstrate that it is worth the strain it places on our grid, water supply, and communities, Texas should not be subsidizing it.

Economic development matters, but growth at any cost is not a strategy. Texas should protect its residents and resources first.

Keywords: Economic development matters, but growth at any cost is not a strategy. Texas should protect its residents and resources first.

Texas needs to get much more serious about water. We have communities dealing with flooding, others worried about drought and falling groundwater levels, and still others where old pipes and outdated systems are wasting water that we cannot afford to lose.

Agriculture is a big part of this conversation, but I do not think farmers and ranchers should be treated like they are the problem. They are a huge part of the Texas economy, and many are already looking for ways to use water more efficiently. The state can help by making irrigation upgrades, conservation technology, and other water-saving practices more affordable and easier to access.

I would support putting more state funding into water and wastewater infrastructure, drainage, flood control, and repairing aging systems. We should also be doing more with water reuse and conservation instead of waiting until a community is in crisis before we act. I also do not think there is one statewide answer that works everywhere. Water needs in the Panhandle are different from what we see in Fort Bend County, and state policy needs to reflect that.

For me, the goal is pretty straightforward: stop wasting water, fix infrastructure before it breaks, keep our water clean, and work with farmers and ranchers to conserve without making it harder for them to make a living.

Keywords: For me, the goal is pretty straightforward: stop wasting water, fix infrastructure before it breaks, keep our water clean, and work with farmers and ranchers to conserve without making it harder for them to make a living.

Texas should not still be crossing its fingers every time we hit another heat wave. We know demand is growing, we know extreme weather puts more pressure on the grid, and we know data centers are adding even more strain. At some point, we have to stop acting surprised and start investing in the future that is already here.

I would support more investment in generation, transmission, and energy storage, while making it easier to bring new power sources online. I care less about which energy source gets the political credit and more about whether Texans can turn on the AC in August and know the power will stay on.

We also need to be exceedingly careful about who pays for new electricity demand. If a massive data center requires major grid upgrades or new components, homeowners and small businesses should not be stuck with the bill. The companies creating that demand should help pay for the infrastructure they require.

I also think Texas can do more to promote energy efficiency as part of the solution. Helping homes, schools, and businesses use less power during peak demand can reduce strain on the grid and lower costs at the same time. I don’t think anyone would argue with lower costs and a stronger grid.

Texans should be able to depend on the grid. Keeping the lights on during a Texas summer should not be treated like a victory. It should be the bare minimum.

Keywords: We know demand is growing, we know extreme weather puts more pressure on the grid, and we know data centers are adding even more strain. At some point, we have to stop acting surprised and start investing in the future that is already here.

Texas should not stand by while federal policy puts billions of dollars in research, jobs, and innovation at risk; doing so would be negligent and cost both research advancements and lives.

I would oppose arbitrary caps on NIH indirect costs that ignore what it actually takes to do research. Let’s be clear, labs do not run on grant money alone. Rather, institutions have to pay for facilities, equipment, compliance, utilities, and the staff who keep everything moving. Cutting that support does not make those costs disappear, but simply shifts the burden somewhere else.

At the state level, I would support strengthening Texas research funding so our universities and medical institutions are not completely at the mercy of Washington. CPRIT has already shown that Texas can make major investments in research and attract top scientists. We should build on that model where it makes sense. What I do not want is for Texas universities and hospitals to be forced to cut research, lay off staff, or walk away from promising work because of a sudden federal funding change.

This is bigger than academia. Research funding creates jobs, brings money into Texas, develops new treatments, and helps keep our state competitive. If we want Texas to lead in medicine, science, and innovation, then we have to protect the infrastructure that makes that work possible.

Keywords: Research funding creates jobs, brings money into Texas, develops new treatments, and helps keep our state competitive. If we want Texas to lead in medicine, science, and innovation, then we have to protect the infrastructure that makes that work possible.

I think the first step is listening and giving parents clear, factual answers without talking down to them. But we also cannot ignore what happened in Texas. Hundreds of measles cases and the deaths of two children are a reminder that this disease is serious and that falling vaccination rates have real consequences.

I would support stronger public health outreach, better access to vaccines, and more resources for local health departments to respond quickly when outbreaks happen. I also think the state should do more to support school-based vaccination clinics and partnerships with pediatricians, pharmacies, and community organizations so families can get reliable information and access vaccines without unnecessary barriers. I support school vaccination requirements and would be very cautious about expanding non-medical exemptions in ways that put others at risk.

For me, this is about trust, access, and responsibility. We should answer questions honestly, make accurate information easy to find, and keep protecting children from preventable disease.

Keywords: For me, this is about trust, access, and responsibility. We should answer questions honestly, make accurate information easy to find, and keep protecting children from preventable disease.

Facts matter. Experts matter. That does not mean every expert is always right, but it does mean policymakers should be looking at the weight of the evidence instead of cherry-picking whatever supports a political position.

When scientific claims conflict, I would look at where the evidence comes from, whether the findings have been replicated, who funded the research, and what happens if we get the decision wrong. We are not always going to have perfect information, but we still have to make decisions based on the best evidence available.

Public opinion matters, but it does not get to rewrite the facts. If the scientific consensus is clear and public opinion is somewhere else, the answer is not to ignore the science. The answer is to explain it better, be honest about what we know and what we do not, and listen to why people are skeptical.

I do not think policymaking should be driven by ideology first and evidence second. Start with the facts, ask tough questions, and change course when the evidence changes.

Keywords: I do not think policymaking should be driven by ideology first and evidence second.