Heather Wallace

I would support rapid detection, expanded livestock surveillance, and close coordination between Texas, USDA, ranchers, and veterinarians. I’d fund sterile-insect programs, testing, quarantine when necessary, and producer assistance. Policies should be science-based and informed by past outbreaks, economic impacts, veterinary expertise, and regular monitoring to ensure measures protect Texas agriculture without imposing unnecessary burdens on producers.

I support policies that balance economic growth with responsible use of Texas’s water and energy resources. Decisions should rely on scientific assessments of water availability, grid capacity, environmental impacts, and long-term community needs. I would favor efficient water use, conservation, reliable energy infrastructure, and incentives tied to measurable public benefits while protecting taxpayers and ratepayers.

I would support a long-term, science-based strategy to strengthen Texas’s water infrastructure while protecting the agricultural economy that depends on reliable water supplies. Texas needs to address both extremes, drought and flooding, by investing in infrastructure that captures and stores water when it is available and delivers it efficiently when communities and farms need it.

I would prioritize repairing aging water systems, expanding conservation and water-reuse projects, improving reservoirs and groundwater management, and investing in flood-control infrastructure where scientifically justified. I would also support better monitoring of groundwater levels and water quality so policymakers and local groundwater conservation districts can make decisions based on current data rather than reacting after supplies become critically depleted.

Agriculture should be treated as a partner in conservation, not simply as a source of water demand. Farmers and ranchers should have access to incentives and technical assistance for efficient irrigation, soil-health practices, drought-resistant crops, improved irrigation technology, and other methods that reduce water use without undermining agricultural production. Conservation programs should be voluntary and designed around measurable water savings whenever possible.

I would also support stronger protection of rivers, aquifers, and drinking-water sources from pollution. Preventing contamination is often more cost-effective than trying to restore a damaged water supply later. Policies should be based on sound hydrology, agricultural science, and local conditions rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.

Most importantly, Texas should balance conservation with economic realities. Agriculture is essential to rural communities and the state’s economy, so water policies should not unintentionally make farming and ranching financially unsustainable. I would use scientific evidence, input from farmers and water experts, projected population growth, drought conditions, and long-term groundwater data to guide decisions. The goal should be a resilient water system that protects communities, supports agriculture, prepares for extreme weather, and preserves Texas’s water resources for future generations.

I would support a balanced approach to strengthening the Texas power grid by investing in transmission, generation, energy storage, and grid resilience. Extreme heat can increase electricity demand while also reducing the efficiency of some power infrastructure, so Texas needs sufficient capacity and reserves to handle periods of peak demand.

I would support upgrading aging transmission lines, expanding battery storage, and encouraging a diverse energy portfolio that includes natural gas, nuclear, wind, and solar. No single energy source should carry the entire burden of reliability. A diverse grid can reduce the risk that a failure or extreme weather event affecting one resource creates widespread problems.

I would also support stronger incentives for weatherization and grid hardening, including protecting critical infrastructure from extreme heat, winter storms, flooding, and other hazards. Utilities and power generators should be held accountable for meeting reliability standards, while consumers should not be forced to absorb unnecessary costs.

Texas should also improve forecasting and planning as electricity demand grows. ERCOT should regularly evaluate population growth, industrial development, extreme-weather risks, and emerging technologies when determining how much generation and transmission capacity will be needed. Large new electricity users should contribute fairly to the infrastructure required to serve them rather than shifting those costs onto existing ratepayers.

Finally, I would expand energy-efficiency programs that help households and businesses reduce consumption during periods of extreme demand. Lowering peak demand can improve reliability while reducing electricity costs.

My approach would be guided by engineering evidence, ERCOT reliability data, weather and climate trends, consumer costs, and the long-term needs of Texas communities. The goal should be a grid that is reliable during extreme conditions, affordable for consumers, and flexible enough to support Texas’s continued economic growth.

I would support protecting Texas’s research infrastructure because universities and hospitals are not only centers of scientific discovery but also major employers and drivers of economic growth. Reductions in federal research funding can affect laboratories, clinical trials, graduate education, and the highly skilled workforce that Texas needs to remain competitive.

At the federal level, I would support maintaining a predictable, competitive system for reimbursing legitimate indirect research costs. Institutions should be accountable for demonstrating that these funds support research infrastructure, facilities, compliance, and administration, but broad funding caps should not undermine the infrastructure necessary to conduct federally supported research. Federal agencies should work with institutions to establish sustainable reimbursement policies based on actual costs and transparent reporting.

At the state level, Texas should strengthen its commitment to research by providing competitive grants, matching funds for federal awards, and targeted support for laboratories and research facilities. I would prioritize investments that leverage federal funding rather than simply replace it. Texas could also create emergency or bridge-funding mechanisms to help institutions maintain critical research programs when federal funding changes unexpectedly.

I would especially support partnerships among universities, hospitals, private industry, and state agencies to translate research into new treatments, technologies, businesses, and high-paying jobs. Investments should be evaluated based on scientific merit, economic impact, healthcare benefits, workforce development, and the potential to attract additional outside funding.

My approach would be guided by evidence and fiscal responsibility. Texas should protect research programs that demonstrate measurable public value while maintaining strong accountability for how taxpayer dollars are spent. Stable research funding benefits more than individual universities—it strengthens Texas’s healthcare system, economy, workforce, and ability to compete nationally and globally in science and innovation.

I would approach vaccine policy with respect, transparency, and a commitment to science. When communities have concerns about vaccine safety, policymakers should listen rather than dismiss those concerns. I would support accessible public forums where parents can ask questions directly to physicians, epidemiologists, and public health officials, with clear information about both vaccine benefits and potential risks.

Because measles is highly contagious and can cause serious illness, I support maintaining strong school immunization requirements while preserving appropriate medical exemptions. I would also support improving access to vaccinations through schools, pediatric offices, pharmacies, and community health centers so cost, transportation, or scheduling do not become barriers.

Public health agencies should provide timely, transparent information during outbreaks, including where cases are occurring, how transmission is happening, and what precautions families can take. I would also support investments in disease surveillance, laboratory capacity, contact tracing, and rapid response so outbreaks can be identified and contained early.

Trust is essential. Government should not rely solely on mandates or messaging from Austin. Local physicians, nurses, school officials, faith and community leaders, and trusted local organizations can help communicate accurate information in ways that respect different communities.

My policies would be guided by the best available medical and epidemiological evidence, while recognizing that parents deserve honest answers about vaccine benefits and risks. The goal should be to protect children and vulnerable Texans, reduce preventable disease, and maintain public confidence through transparency, accessibility, and respectful engagement rather than fear or misinformation.

Scientific evidence and expert input should play a central role in my policymaking process, particularly when decisions involve public health, energy, agriculture, environmental protection, and other areas where technical expertise matters. However, science should inform policy rather than replace the role of elected representatives and the public.

When evaluating competing scientific claims, I would consider the quality of the underlying research, whether findings have been independently replicated, the strength of the evidence, potential conflicts of interest, and the level of agreement among qualified experts. I would also distinguish between established scientific findings and areas where legitimate uncertainty remains. When evidence is incomplete, policymakers should acknowledge that uncertainty rather than presenting assumptions as facts.

I would seek input from researchers, universities, professional organizations, industry experts, and affected communities. I would also favor transparent review processes so the public can understand what evidence is being considered and why a particular policy was chosen.

When scientific consensus and public opinion diverge, I believe policymakers have a responsibility to listen respectfully to the public while still relying on the strongest available evidence. Public concerns should be taken seriously, especially when policies affect people’s livelihoods, health, or communities. However, popular opinion should not determine whether an established scientific fact is true.

At the same time, scientific consensus should not be treated as permanently unquestionable. Science advances by testing assumptions, challenging conclusions, and incorporating new evidence. Policymakers should therefore remain willing to revise policies when credible new evidence emerges.

My goal would be evidence-based but not evidence-only policymaking: use the best available science to understand likely consequences, listen to the people affected, consider economic and ethical factors, and make decisions transparently. That approach allows government to respect both scientific integrity and democratic accountability.