Joe P. Herrera

Texas agriculture is critical to our economy, our rural communities, and our food supply, and protecting livestock from invasive pests and disease should be treated as a serious state responsibility.

In response to the current New World screwworm outbreak, I would support strong coordination between the Texas Animal Health Commission, Texas A&M AgriLife, USDA, veterinarians, ranchers, and local officials. That should include increased surveillance and testing, rapid reporting of suspected cases, trained livestock inspectors, appropriate animal-movement safeguards in affected areas, and continued support for proven tools such as sterile-fly releases.

I would also support additional resources to help farmers and ranchers strengthen voluntary on-farm biosecurity, including better access to veterinary services, education on wound inspection and treatment, sanitation practices, and assistance with the costs associated with disease prevention or an outbreak response. Small and family-owned operations should not be financially devastated because they do the responsible thing and report a suspected case.

My approach would be guided by recommendations from veterinarians, agricultural scientists, producers, and agencies such as the Texas Animal Health Commission and USDA, along with evidence about how a disease or pest is actually spreading. Biosecurity measures should be targeted, scientifically justified, regularly reviewed, and no more restrictive than necessary to protect Texas livestock.

The goal should be straightforward: identify threats early, contain them quickly, protect our producers, and prevent a localized outbreak from becoming a statewide agricultural crisis.

I support economic development and technological investment in Texas, but I do not believe Texas families, farmers, ranchers, or small businesses should be asked to subsidize data centers while bearing the costs of the water, electricity, and infrastructure those facilities require.

I would support requiring large data center projects to demonstrate that adequate water and electric capacity exists before receiving state incentives or approval for major utility connections. In water-stressed communities, drinking water, existing residents, agriculture, and locally established businesses should receive priority. I would also encourage the use of reclaimed or recycled water and cooling technologies that reduce freshwater consumption.

On electricity, large data centers should pay their fair share of the generation, transmission, and infrastructure costs created by their demand. Those costs should not simply be shifted to residential ratepayers. Texas should welcome investment, but companies proposing extremely large electrical needs should be expected to contribute toward the infrastructure necessary to serve them and participate in reliability measures when the grid is under stress.

I would also reevaluate Texas’s existing data center tax incentives. Incentives should be tied to measurable public benefits such as permanent Texas jobs, infrastructure investment, responsible water use, and contributions to the communities hosting these facilities. Texas taxpayers should not provide decades of tax advantages simply because a project represents a large capital investment.

My position is informed by Texas’s growing electricity demand, concerns about future water availability, and the relatively small number of permanent jobs some highly automated data centers can create compared with their infrastructure requirements. It is also informed by what I hear from rural Texans who are concerned about protecting their water, property rights, electric bills, and quality of life.

I am not opposed to technology or economic development. I am opposed to putting corporate development ahead of the people who already live and work here. Texas can lead in technology while still requiring responsible growth. My standard would be simple: Texans and their essential resources come first.

Water is one of the most important long-term challenges facing Texas. We need to prepare for both extremes—too little water during drought and too much water during major storms and floods.

I would support sustained state investment in repairing aging and leaking water systems, expanding wastewater reuse and conservation, improving flood-control and drainage infrastructure, protecting water quality, and developing new water supplies where they are economically and environmentally responsible. Small and rural communities must have meaningful access to these investments and not be left behind because they lack the resources of our largest cities.

Agriculture must also be part of the solution, but I do not believe the answer is simply restricting farmers and ranchers who help feed Texas and sustain our rural economies. I would expand voluntary agricultural water-conservation programs that help producers afford more efficient irrigation systems, water measurement technology, soil-management practices, and other improvements that conserve groundwater while keeping agricultural land productive.

I would also prioritize protecting our aquifers and watersheds from contamination and strengthening monitoring and enforcement when pollution threatens drinking water, agriculture, wildlife, or public health.

My approach would be guided by regional water availability, groundwater conditions, population growth, agricultural needs, infrastructure conditions, and sound science. Water policy also has to recognize that Texas is a diverse state, and a solution appropriate for a rapidly growing metropolitan area may not be appropriate for a rural agricultural community.

Finally, as Texas considers major new industrial developments with significant water demands, we should account for those demands before approving incentives or infrastructure commitments. Farmers, ranchers, and existing communities should not be expected to conserve water only to see those savings consumed by new developments without adequate planning.

Texas can protect agriculture while conserving water. I believe the better approach is to give producers the tools and incentives to become even more efficient, invest in the infrastructure our communities need, protect the quality of the water we already have, and make sure future growth does not come at the expense of the Texans who are already here.

I am committed to ensuring that all Texans have access to reliable and affordable electricity. Reliable and affordable electricity is essential to Texas families, businesses, agriculture, and our continued economic growth. I believe Texas needs an all-of-the-above energy strategy that strengthens reliability without unnecessarily increasing costs for consumers.

I would support continued investment in dependable generation, including natural gas and nuclear power, while also expanding wind, solar, battery storage, and other technologies where they can economically strengthen the grid. Texas should not become overly dependent on any single source of electricity. A diverse energy portfolio makes our grid more resilient.

Generation alone is not enough. I would support accelerating necessary transmission improvements, strengthening weatherization and emergency preparedness, and investing in technologies that allow electricity to move more efficiently from where it is generated to where Texans need it.

Finally, I believe grid reliability and affordability must be considered together. Texans should not have to choose between keeping the lights on and being able to afford their electric bill. Any major change to our electricity market should be evaluated based on whether it improves reliability, what it will cost consumers, and whether there is a less expensive way to achieve the same result.

Texas has tremendous energy resources and expertise. With better long-term planning, a diverse generation portfolio, stronger transmission infrastructure, and responsible management of new large electricity users, we can build a grid that is reliable, affordable, and capable of supporting Texas’s future growth.

Texas should view medical and scientific research as both an investment in better health outcomes and an important part of our state’s economy. Our universities, hospitals, and research institutions bring billions of federal research dollars into Texas, support high-skilled jobs, develop new treatments and technologies, and help attract private investment.

At the federal level, I would support maintaining a stable and predictable NIH funding system, including reasonable reimbursement for the facilities and infrastructure necessary to conduct federally funded research. I would oppose arbitrary, across-the-board reductions in indirect-cost reimbursement that do not account for the actual costs of maintaining laboratories, research facilities, regulatory compliance, cybersecurity, specialized equipment, and other infrastructure required to conduct modern medical research. At the same time, I support transparency and accountability so taxpayers can see how both direct and indirect research dollars are being used.

At the state level, Texas should continue investing in research capacity and develop contingency strategies to protect critical research infrastructure when significant changes in federal policy threaten projects of particular importance to Texas. State resources should be targeted strategically rather than simply replacing every lost federal dollar, with priority given to research that has demonstrated scientific merit, economic value, opportunities for additional federal or private investment, and potential benefits for Texans.

I would also support stronger partnerships among universities, hospitals, biotechnology companies, private foundations, and the state so Texas is not unnecessarily dependent on any single source of research funding.

My guiding principle would be protecting Texas’s long-term competitiveness. Once laboratories close, researchers leave, or major projects relocate to another state, rebuilding that capacity can be far more expensive than maintaining it. Texas should insist on accountability for taxpayer dollars while recognizing that medical and scientific research is infrastructure that creates jobs, attracts investment, trains our future workforce, and can ultimately improve and save lives.

I believe public health policy should be based on sound science, transparency, and trust. Parents who have questions about vaccines deserve to be heard and provided clear information from qualified medical professionals, not dismissed or judged.

At the same time, the 2025 measles outbreak demonstrated that infectious diseases can have serious consequences for children and entire communities. I would support maintaining appropriate school vaccination requirements with legitimate medical exemptions, while ensuring policies are guided by credible medical evidence rather than politics.

I would also support expanding access to vaccinations in rural and underserved communities, strengthening outbreak monitoring and response, and providing families with timely, transparent information about vaccine effectiveness and potential risks.

Texans should be encouraged to ask questions and receive trustworthy answers. My responsibility as a policymaker would be to respect those concerns while protecting children, vulnerable Texans, and our communities from preventable disease.

Scientific evidence and expert input should play an important role in policymaking, particularly in areas such as public health, agriculture, water, energy, and environmental protection. Good policy should begin with the best available facts, not a predetermined political outcome.

When scientific claims conflict or remain uncertain, I would seek input from multiple qualified experts, examine the quality and independence of the research, and consider where the weight of credible evidence lies. I also believe policymakers should acknowledge uncertainty rather than presenting evolving science as absolute.

When scientific consensus and public opinion diverge, neither should simply be ignored. I would listen to the public and understand the concerns driving their views while clearly communicating what the evidence tells us.

Ultimately, experts should inform policy, but elected officials must make the decisions. My responsibility would be to balance credible scientific evidence with economic impacts, individual rights, practical realities, and the needs of the Texans I represent.