Katie O'Brien Duzan
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?
We need to invest in the agriculture extension offices at Texas’s public colleges and universities so ranchers statewide are trained to spot New World Screwworm early, adopt practices that reduce the risk of infection, and know how to quarantine and report when infections occur. These extension offices are a trusted source of hands-on training for rural communities that otherwise couldn’t access it, and as federal funding to them shrinks, the state should be stepping up rather than considering deeper cuts.
We also need to prepare for the next threat, not just this one. We have already seen bad actors try to introduce biological threats into the food supply, and as AI tools make those threats easier to synthesize, Texas needs to take biosecurity seriously. Alongside rebuilding trust among producers, scientists, and state government, I would look at expanding our animal disease reporting mechanisms to cover plants, and at piloting approaches at the state level that could scale nationally.
Keywords: New World Screwworm, agricultural biosecurity, livestock disease reporting, public trust in science, agriculture extension services, biosecurity preparedness
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?
I have real concerns about the rapid expansion of data centers in Texas without accountability or safeguards for the people who live here. As a professional with a tech background, I understand the benefits emerging technology can bring, but that can’t come at the expense of residents through rising energy costs and strained water reserves.
My approach starts with local control and public health. Community members vote on tax increases, and they should have a say on new data centers in their community, too. For new and existing data centers, the entity gaining economic benefit should bear all costs, including funding its own water and power supply, independent pollution monitoring, and any changes in local property value. Virginia is the cautionary tale on the cost side: even after regulators there created a new rate class requiring data centers to cover the bulk of grid upgrade costs, residential customers still saw their bills rise about $16 a month in a single rate case, and analysis found ratepayers would still be left covering an estimated 61 percent of those upgrade costs over time (Inside Climate News, 2026). Texas shouldn’t repeat that mistake. The community’s water and energy needs should take priority over data centers during shortages or grid stress, and we must keep investing in energy efficiency and renewables to remain a leader in the energy industry.
Keywords: Data centers, local control, grid capacity, water allocation, energy costs, accountability, renewable energy
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?
Texas just got a real opportunity to fix this: SB 7 and the voter-approved Prop 4 put $1 billion toward water infrastructure. That money should go toward conservation, infrastructure repair, and drought and flood preparedness. Texas loses about 572,000 acre-feet of water a year to leaky pipes alone, enough to meet the combined annual needs of Fort Worth, El Paso, Austin, Lubbock, and Laredo. Fixing what we already have, especially in the communities that need it most, should come before chasing expensive new supply.
Water quality is just as important as water quantity. Hundreds of Texas waterways are already listed as impaired, and the state’s surface water quality standards haven’t kept pace, including pre-production plastics in water. I’ll support requiring TCEQ to adopt more stringent surface water quality standards.
On agriculture, which uses the largest share of the state’s groundwater, there are proven paths that conserve water and benefit farmers at the same time. Drip irrigation and other precision agriculture techniques significantly cut water use without hurting yields, but educational and financial barriers mean most Texas acreage still isn’t using them. Investing in our land grant colleges lets us put their agricultural extension services to work closing that gap, and incentives modeled on what used to exist through the USDA’s Commodity Credit Corporation would let Texas farmers and ranchers act as stewards of our water resources without sacrificing yield.
Keywords: Water infrastructure, SB 7 and Prop 4, TCEQ water quality standards, drought and flood preparedness, groundwater conservation
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?
On the supply side, the last two legislative sessions saw many legislators push subsidies for new natural gas and nuclear plants as the fix for grid reliability. I also support renewable energy and battery storage at both the utility and distributed scale, along with energy savings programs. We should also keep expanding transmission capacity so the power our solar and wind resources are already generating can actually reach the grid reliably, creating good jobs in a growing sector along the way.
Grid management itself is a complex technical task, and I look forward to working with ERCOT on the details. But Texans can be confident of my priorities going into those discussions: we cannot have another outage like 2021, and Texas households should never be the ones left holding the bill for keeping the lights on.
Keywords: Grid reliability, ERCOT, renewable energy, ratepayer protection
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?
Here in Texas, there’s more we can do to keep our research institutions strong. That starts with giving universities a stable, predictable environment to do their work: state oversight should focus on genuine accountability, not investigations driven by politics rather than academic quality. A stable environment is what keeps top researchers choosing Texas and keeps the administrative infrastructure that supports their work intact.
We also have medical innovation facilities like CPRIT for cancer prevention, which we should continue to strongly support.
Keywords: Research infrastructure, STEM workforce
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?
I support engaging with communities to meet them where they are. People don’t want to be preached at. I support sustained and open public education, led by medical professionals and delivered through messengers people already trust, community health workers, faith leaders, and local providers, not just a press release when case counts spike. Policy also has to be rooted in science and public health data. I support maintaining immunization requirements for school attendance while making sure legitimate medical exemptions remain available for the Texans who truly need them.
Keywords: Public health communication
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?
Scientific evidence should play a central role in the policymaking process. As a candidate for the Texas House, I believe sound public policy, whether in public health, energy, agriculture, or environmental regulation, has to be grounded in rigorous, up to date research and expert analysis. Science gives us the tools to understand risks, weigh trade-offs, and predict the outcomes of our decisions, and ignoring that would be a disservice to Texans.
When claims conflict or the evidence is still uncertain, I look to the weight of evidence, not a single study, and to independent, peer reviewed research over claims pushed by whoever has the loudest microphone or the biggest financial stake in the outcome. That means consulting the experts closest to the issue,, and being honest when the science itself is still evolving rather than pretending more certainty exists than it does.
My role is to listen to all of my constituents, weigh that input against the best available evidence, and clearly explain the reasoning behind my decisions. That is what ensures transparency, builds trust, and produces policy that actually serves our community.
When scientific consensus and public opinion diverge, I believe policymakers have a responsibility to lead with integrity, not just follow whichever way the political wind is blowing.
Keywords: Evidence-based policymaking, peer review, transparency