Leilani Barnett

I would strongly support expanding the sterile insect technique, which helped eradicate screwworm from the United States previously and remains the primary proven control strategy. USDA is already expanding sterile-fly capacity, including a Texas production facility planned to produce as many as 300 million sterile flies per week and an operational Texas dispersal facility capable of releasing up to 100 million per week. Texas should also maintain surveillance at the border, ports, livestock facilities, and other high-risk locations; TDA currently uses trapping and weekly monitoring in these areas to provide early detection.

I would also support financial assistance for producers who suffer documented losses because of government-ordered quarantine, treatment, or livestock destruction, along with expanded education and veterinary assistance so producers can identify and report infections quickly. Any new drug or pesticide treatment should be approved based on demonstrated safety and effectiveness rather than political pressure.

My approach would be guided by veterinarians, livestock producers, Texas A&M AgriLife researchers, the Texas Animal Health Commission, USDA APHIS, and the experience of the successful earlier eradication program. The economic case for prevention is compelling: Texas agricultural officials cite USDA estimates that a major outbreak could cost cattle producers approximately $732 million and reduce Texas economic activity by about $1.8 billion. The most responsible policy is therefore to invest heavily in early detection and eradication before screwworm becomes permanently established in Texas.

Keywords: sterile insect technique, trapping and weekly monitoring, financial assistance for those who experience loss, returning surveillance methods cut by the Trump administration

I do not support continued expansion of large-scale data centers in Texas under our current policies. These facilities can consume enormous amounts of electricity and water while receiving substantial tax advantages, and I do not believe Texas families, farmers, ranchers, and small businesses should bear those costs so some of the world’s wealthiest corporations can build increasingly resource-intensive facilities here.

I would support a statewide pause on new tax incentives for large data centers and a comprehensive review of the exemptions already available to the industry. Texas should not subsidize an industry simply because it promises large capital investments when those investments may also require Texans to finance additional generation, transmission, water, and other infrastructure.

I would also require data centers to pay the full infrastructure costs attributable to their enormous electrical demand and prohibit those costs from being shifted to residential and small-business ratepayers. ERCOT’s forecasts demonstrate the scale of the problem. Its 2025 forecast increased projected data-center demand for 2030 from 29,614 megawatts to 77,965 megawatts in only one year. That extraordinary growth should cause us to ask whether continually expanding electricity supply to accommodate data centers is in the best interest of existing Texans.

Water is equally important, particularly in rural Texas. I would require full public disclosure of proposed water consumption before a project is approved and would protect agricultural, municipal, and residential water needs ahead of data-center cooling demands. I would also support giving counties greater authority to regulate the location and resource impacts of large industrial developments, including data centers. Rural Texans should have a meaningful voice before a project capable of dramatically changing local water and electricity demand is placed in their community.

Texas does not have to accept unlimited data-center development simply because companies want to build here. Our water, electric grid, agricultural land, and communities are resources we have an obligation to protect. Until Texas can demonstrate that additional data centers will not threaten water supplies, increase utility costs for existing customers, undermine grid reliability, or leave taxpayers responsible for their infrastructure needs, I would oppose additional large-scale data-center development and the tax incentives being used to attract it.

Keywords: use of water, zoning power for counties, stop large-scale data-center development, “They profit; we pay” has to stop, no tax incentives for millionaires

Texas needs a water policy that recognizes two realities at once: we must prepare for both devastating floods and increasingly serious water shortages. I would support major investment in repairing aging water systems, reducing leaks, improving drainage and flood-control infrastructure, expanding wastewater reuse, and developing conservation projects that extend our existing water supplies. The Texas Water Development Board has identified conservation as an important part of meeting future demand, and the state’s first comprehensive flood plan also demonstrates the enormous need for coordinated investment in flood protection.

Agriculture must be prioritized along with household use of water. Irrigation accounted for approximately 53% of Texas water demand in 2020, but the Texas Water Development Board projects agricultural irrigation demand will decline as irrigation becomes more efficient. I would support voluntary conservation programs, grants and low-interest financing that help farmers and irrigation districts replace aging equipment, line or repair leaking canals, adopt more efficient irrigation technology, and conserve groundwater while keeping farms economically viable.

At the same time, Texas must establish clearer priorities for scarce water. Household drinking water, existing communities, agriculture, livestock, and the long-term sustainability of our aquifers should take precedence over new, extremely water-intensive industrial developments. I would oppose allowing projects such as large data centers to consume enormous quantities of groundwater in areas already facing depletion or drought while farmers and rural residents are being asked to conserve.

Keywords: opposing data center use of water, prioritizing use, excluding use by data centers from our decreasing Texas sources; water for people and farms/ranches, no Texas water for data centers

Texas must make the reliability and affordability of electricity for existing residents and businesses its first priority. I would support continued investment in weatherizing power plants and natural-gas infrastructure, strengthening transmission, expanding energy storage and distributed generation, and improving conservation and demand-response programs that reduce strain during extreme heat and winter weather.

I am particularly concerned about the rapidly increasing electricity demands of data centers. Texas should not build an increasingly expensive electric system around the needs of an industry whose facilities can consume as much electricity as entire communities while creating relatively few permanent jobs. I would oppose additional large-scale data center development until Texas can demonstrate that it will not jeopardize grid reliability or increase electricity costs for existing consumers.

I would also require extremely large electricity users to pay the full costs of the generation, transmission, interconnection, and other infrastructure needed to serve them. Residential customers, farmers, and small businesses should not see higher electric bills because the grid must be expanded to accommodate new industrial loads. Nor should taxpayers subsidize those facilities through tax incentives while simultaneously paying for the infrastructure necessary to power them.

Texas also needs a diverse and resilient energy portfolio. I support using our abundant natural gas resources while continuing to expand wind, solar, battery storage, and other technologies when they improve reliability and lower costs without interfering with our farm and ranch land. Texas should not allow energy policy to become an ideological contest between fossil fuels and renewables; the standard should be whether a resource can provide Texans with reliable and affordable electricity when they need it.

Finally, I would demand greater transparency from ERCOT and state regulators regarding proposed large-load connections and their expected effects on electricity demand, transmission needs, reliability, and consumer prices. Texans should know how much electricity these projects will require and who will pay for the infrastructure needed to serve them before commitments are made. Again, I think counties should have zoning authority in their unincorporated areas similar to those of cities.

The Texas grid exists first and foremost to serve the people of Texas. We should strengthen it for our homes, farms, hospitals, schools, and existing businesses—not continually increase its burden to accommodate an unlimited number of massive new electricity consumers. And, NEVER, should Texans pay extra to support multi-billion-dollar data-center projects.

Keywords: Texans first, transparency, stop “They profit; we pay” approaches regarding data center development, no free rides for data centers

I would support protecting the long-term stability of Texas’s research universities, medical centers, and hospitals by opposing arbitrary federal limits on reimbursement for legitimate research costs. Federal research grants do not pay only for a scientist and a laboratory experiment. They also depend on laboratories, utilities, information technology, regulatory compliance, grant administration, equipment maintenance, security, and other infrastructure that makes the research possible.

For that reason, I would oppose replacing independently negotiated indirect-cost rates with a one-size-fits-all 15% cap. NIH announced such a policy in February 2025, even though institutions have historically negotiated these rates based on documented costs. Research examining the proposal concluded that the cap could leave universities billions of dollars short nationwide and threaten the sustainability of research programs.

I would hope our federal-level representatives would support stable, predictable NIH funding and a transparent process for determining reasonable facilities and administrative costs.

But, Texas should also prepare for uncertainty in federal research funding. I would support targeted state matching funds, research infrastructure grants, and public-private partnerships that help Texas institutions compete for federal grants and preserve strategically important research programs. However, I would not support asking Texas taxpayers simply to replace every dollar withdrawn by the federal government. State investments should be targeted toward research with clear benefits for Texans, including medicine, agriculture, water, energy, public health, and technologies that strengthen the state’s economy.

This is also an economic-development issue. Research funding supports scientists, physicians, technicians, students, laboratories, hospitals, suppliers, and businesses while helping Texas attract highly skilled workers and develop new treatments and technologies. Allowing established research infrastructure to deteriorate can be far more expensive than maintaining it because laboratories, research teams, and specialized expertise are difficult to rebuild once they are lost.

Keywords: cheaper to invest in research, matching funds, prioritize research benefitting Texans

I believe vaccines are one of the most effective public-health tools we have, and Texas policy should be guided by sound medical evidence. The 2025 measles outbreak demonstrated what can happen when vaccination rates fall. Texas reported 762 cases, 99 hospitalizations, and two deaths among unvaccinated school-age children.

I would support making recommended childhood vaccines readily available and affordable throughout Texas, particularly in rural communities where access to pediatricians and healthcare facilities may be limited. I would also support adequately funding local public-health departments, disease surveillance, rapid outbreak response, and public education so Texas can identify and contain infectious diseases before they spread.

I would oppose efforts to weaken evidence-based vaccination requirements for children attending public schools. Vaccination is not solely an individual matter when a highly contagious disease can spread through a classroom and endanger infants, medically vulnerable children, pregnant women, and people who cannot safely receive certain vaccines.

Texans should be able to expect their government to distinguish between legitimate scientific debate and claims that have been repeatedly disproven. Public-health decisions should be based on evidence from qualified medical researchers, physicians, epidemiologists, and established scientific institutions—not political ideology.

Keywords: science, not political ideology; only listen to medical experts, it’s not just about you

Scientific evidence should play a central role in policymaking, particularly when decisions affect public health, water, agriculture, energy, and the environment. Elected officials should seek the advice of qualified scientists, physicians, engineers, farmers, economists, and other professionals who understand the issues affected by our decisions. Good policymaking begins with listening to people who know more about a subject than we do.

At the same time, expert advice should inform democratic decision-making rather than replace it. Policymakers must consider scientific evidence alongside economic consequences, individual rights, costs, feasibility, and the experiences of the people affected by a policy.

When scientific claims conflict, I would look at the quality and quantity of the evidence rather than simply counting voices on each side. I would consider whether findings have been independently replicated, whether research has undergone credible peer review, whether multiple studies reach similar conclusions, whether researchers have disclosed potential conflicts of interest, and whether respected scientific and professional organizations have reached a consensus based on the available evidence. I would also distinguish legitimate scientific uncertainty from misinformation or isolated claims unsupported by the larger body of research. As a Ph.D. student currently completing my own research dissertation, I feel especially qualified to distinguish between valid research and anomalies or opinion.

Scientific uncertainty should not become an excuse for doing nothing when the potential consequences are serious. Sometimes policymakers must act before every question has been answered. In those situations, I would favor reasonable precautions based on the best evidence available, monitor the results, and be willing to change course as new evidence emerges.

When scientific consensus and public opinion diverge, government should listen carefully to the public and understand the reasons for that disagreement. But public opinion cannot determine whether a vaccine prevents disease, whether an aquifer is being depleted, whether a pollutant causes harm, or how much electricity the grid can reliably provide. Those are questions of evidence. Our responsibility as elected officials is not to tell people that their concerns do not matter, but to explain the evidence honestly, make the decision-making process transparent, and earn public trust.

Keywords: best information, expert information, understanding opinions, ability to explain, transparent decision-making