Josh Wallenstein
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?
Texas’s agricultural industry is a cornerstone of our state’s economy, and we cannot afford to take this outbreak lightly. The New World screwworm threatens ranchers, livestock producers, local businesses, and further drives up cost for working families.
My approach would be guided by science and the recommendations of experts at the USDA, the Texas Animal Health Commission, veterinarians, and producers on the ground. Texas should work in close partnership with the federal government to ensure the state has the resources necessary to contain the outbreak and respond quickly to prevent further spread.
As a state representative, I believe my responsibility is to ensure experts have the resources they need and to act quickly.
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?
Communities should have a voice in deciding whether data centers are built in their neighborhoods, because local residents are the ones who will live with the long-term impacts. Economic development should not be something imposed on a community from Austin or by large corporations.
If a community chooses to welcome a data center, Texas must ensure that working families are protected. Residential utility bills should not increase to subsidize the massive energy demands of these facilities, and strong safeguards should be in place to protect local water supplies and preserve land and water quality.
I would also closely scrutinize any tax incentives offered to data center developers. Texas can support innovation and economic growth, but corporations should not receive special treatment while local communities are left to absorb the costs.
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?
Water policy in Texas cannot be separated from flooding, especially in Harris County, where families continue to face the devastating consequences of major storms and inadequate infrastructure. Protecting our communities from flooding must be a top priority.
I strongly oppose efforts by Governor Abbott and state leaders to undermine local control of the Harris County Flood Control District. Decisions about flood mitigation and infrastructure should be made by the local communities that understand these challenges best, not dictated by politicians in Austin.
I would also fight for Harris County to receive its fair share of state and federal resources. Too often, our region is left competing for limited funding while critical flood control projects remain unfinished. We need stronger partnerships between state and local governments, increased investment in flood mitigation projects, and long-term planning that protects both our communities and our water resources.
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?
Texas families should never have to worry about whether the lights will stay on during a winter storm or a summer heat wave. The failures we saw during Winter Storm Uri, and the widespread outages many Houstonians experienced after Hurricane Beryl, made it clear that our grid needs stronger oversight, better planning, and greater accountability.
House District 133 is home to the Energy Corridor, and the people who live and work here understand better than most how important a reliable energy system is to Texas’s economy. Our district is uniquely positioned to help shape the future of energy policy in Texas.
I support investing in a more reliable and resilient electric grid, including modernizing infrastructure and ensuring our energy system can keep pace with Texas’s rapid growth. Large industrial users, including data centers, should be responsible for paying for the additional infrastructure and electricity they require rather than shifting those costs onto residential customers.
At the same time, utility companies must be held accountable. Many Houstonians spent days without power while CenterPoint reported record profits. Texans deserve a system that puts reliability and consumers first, not one that rewards utilities while families are left in the dark.
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?
Texas’s universities, hospitals, and research institutions are engines of innovation that drive economic growth, create jobs, and improve the lives of millions of Texans. The discoveries made in our laboratories today often become the medical treatments, technologies, and businesses that shape our future.
The proposed federal cuts to NIH funding are deeply concerning. Reducing support for research infrastructure would undermine ongoing projects, threaten jobs, and make it harder for Texas institutions to compete for top researchers and future investment. Scientific research depends on stable, predictable funding, and abrupt cuts can disrupt years of work and delay life-saving discoveries.
As a state representative, I would advocate for consistent federal investment in research and work to strengthen partnerships between the state, universities, hospitals, and the private sector. Investing in research isn’t a partisan issue. It’s an investment in better healthcare, a stronger economy, and Texas’s long-term competitiveness.
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?
As a father, nothing is more important to me than protecting the health and safety of our children. Vaccines have played a critical role in preventing the spread of dangerous diseases, and public health decisions should continue to be guided by medical professionals and scientific evidence.
At the same time, I believe it is important to engage with parents respectfully and address their concerns with facts, transparency, and clear communication. Dismissing or talking down to people who have questions only undermines public trust.
My role as a policymaker would be to ensure that public health agencies, physicians, and local communities have the resources they need to respond quickly to outbreaks, provide accurate information, and keep Texans safe. Public health policies should be based on evidence, while recognizing that building trust is just as important as delivering information.
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?
Policy decisions should be guided by facts, evidence, and the expertise of the people who have dedicated their careers to studying these issues. Whether we’re discussing public health, energy, education, agriculture, or flooding, elected officials have a responsibility to listen to experts and follow the best available evidence.
At the same time, policymaking is rarely as simple as following a single study or report. Good policy requires evaluating competing evidence, listening to stakeholders, and remaining willing to adjust when new information becomes available. I believe leaders should be honest about uncertainty rather than ignoring it or allowing politics to override science.
When scientific consensus and public opinion differ, elected officials have a responsibility to communicate the evidence clearly, explain the tradeoffs involved, and engage communities in the decision-making process. Public trust is built through transparency and accountability, not by dismissing either science or the concerns of the people we represent.