Stephen Stanley

Texas agriculture is far too important to our state to wait until the screwworm problem becomes a full-scale crisis. I believe Texas should work closely with the USDA, Texas Animal Health Commission, veterinarians, ranchers, and local officials to identify outbreaks quickly, contain them, and use sterile-fly technology that has worked successfully in the past.

We also need to look beyond this particular outbreak. Texas should have the diagnostic capabilities, trained personnel, emergency plans, and other resources ready before the next agricultural threat reaches our livestock. With an industry as important as agriculture, being prepared is a lot less expensive than reacting after an outbreak gets out of control.

I also believe we need to listen to the ranchers and livestock producers who are dealing with this firsthand. Any restrictions on livestock movement need to be based on actual conditions and lifted when they are no longer necessary. If the government requires producers to take costly actions for the benefit of the entire livestock industry, we should also look at reasonable assistance for those producers.

This should not be about creating another government bureaucracy. It should be about using methods that work, getting resources where they are needed, and protecting Texas agriculture before the economic damage becomes much greater.

Personal takeaways: Protect Texas agriculture before an outbreak becomes a crisis; use methods that have already proven successful; listen to Texas ranchers and livestock producers; preparedness costs less than an uncontrolled outbreak.

Keywords: Agriculture; livestock; biosecurity; screwworm; ranchers; sterile-fly technology; disease prevention.

I want Texas to continue attracting new businesses and investment, and data centers can certainly be part of that growth. But we also have to ask a basic question: who is paying for the additional electricity, water, transmission, and infrastructure these massive facilities require? The answer should not automatically be Texas homeowners and small businesses.

Before state or local governments provide major tax incentives, we need to know what Texans are actually getting in return. How many permanent jobs will be created? How much private investment is being made? How much water and electricity will the project use? What additional infrastructure will taxpayers and ratepayers have to support? Those are reasonable questions to ask before committing public resources.

I also believe extremely large power users should be responsible for a fair share of the infrastructure costs they create. If data centers can provide their own generation, storage, backup capacity, or participate in programs that reduce demand when the grid is under stress, we should encourage that. Water use should also be evaluated based on the actual supply available in the community where the facility will be located.

I welcome economic development, but an incentive is only worthwhile if taxpayers receive a real return on their investment. Growth should benefit the communities where it occurs, not simply leave existing residents with a larger utility bill.

Personal takeaways: Texas should welcome investment without subsidizing excessive infrastructure costs; taxpayers deserve a return on incentives; large power users should pay their fair share; growth should benefit the communities where it occurs.

Keywords: Data centers; economic development; electricity; water; tax incentives; ERCOT; utility costs; taxpayers.

Water is going to be one of the biggest infrastructure challenges Texas faces over the next several decades. We are dealing with population growth, drought, flooding, groundwater concerns, aging pipes, and water-quality issues at the same time. We need to start treating water infrastructure with the same long-term seriousness that we give highways and the electric grid.

That means investing in new supply where it makes sense, repairing aging water and wastewater systems, expanding reuse and conservation, improving flood-control projects, and protecting groundwater and water quality. We also need to prioritize projects carefully. There is not an unlimited amount of taxpayer money available, so we should put resources toward projects that provide the greatest long-term benefit.

Agriculture needs to be at the table when these decisions are made. Farmers and ranchers are not only major water users; they are also important partners in conservation. Better irrigation technology, voluntary conservation programs, groundwater recharge, and improved land-management practices can save water while allowing Texas agriculture to remain productive.

I would also like to see us do a better job of connecting flood planning with water planning. When possible, we should find ways to capture, store, recharge, or reuse some of the water we currently spend enormous amounts of money trying to move away during floods. Texas needs a water strategy that works for our cities and our farms and makes sense for taxpayers.

Personal takeaways: Treat water as critical Texas infrastructure; agriculture needs a seat at the table; repair what we already have; connect flood planning with future water supply.

Keywords: Water; infrastructure; agriculture; drought; flooding; groundwater; conservation; water reuse; aging infrastructure.

For me, the starting point is simple: when Texans flip the switch, the power needs to come on. Families need dependable electricity during a 105-degree summer afternoon, and businesses need confidence that the grid can support their operations.

I support using every reliable energy resource Texas has available. That includes natural gas, nuclear, wind, solar, battery storage, improved transmission, demand-response programs, and new technologies as they become practical. I don’t think our energy policy should be built around picking political favorites. We should be looking at what keeps the grid reliable and electricity affordable.

Texas also needs additional transmission and dependable generation as our population and economy continue to grow. At the same time, we cannot ignore the enormous amount of new electricity being requested by data centers and other large facilities. If a project creates the need for major new grid infrastructure, that project should pay an appropriate share of the cost instead of automatically passing it along to existing customers.

The goal is not complicated: enough dependable power to meet our needs, reasonable reserves when conditions get difficult, and electric bills Texas families and businesses can afford.

Personal takeaways: When Texans flip the switch, the power needs to come on; use every reliable energy resource available; don’t pick political winners and losers; protect existing customers from unfair costs.

Keywords: ERCOT; electricity; reliability; natural gas; nuclear; renewables; transmission; generation; utility costs.

Texas has some of the finest universities, hospitals, medical schools, and research institutions anywhere in the country. The research taking place at these institutions creates jobs, trains doctors and scientists, attracts private investment, and leads to medical advances that can improve people’s lives. We should recognize that as an important Texas asset.

At the same time, federal research money is taxpayer money, and institutions receiving it should be able to explain where it goes. There should be transparency and accountability for both direct research expenses and the indirect costs associated with laboratories, facilities, cybersecurity, compliance, administration, and other support needed to conduct that research.

What I don’t support is pretending legitimate expenses disappear because Washington decides to impose an arbitrary percentage. If there is waste in the system, identify it and eliminate it. If reimbursement rates need to be changed, make the process transparent and give institutions enough predictability to plan responsibly.

I also don’t believe Texas taxpayers should simply write a check every time Washington reduces federal spending. We should determine which research is particularly important to Texas and look for partnerships among universities, hospitals, private industry, philanthropy, and the state. We can protect important Texas research while still demanding accountability for taxpayer dollars.

Personal takeaways: Texas research is an economic and medical asset; taxpayer money requires accountability; eliminate actual waste instead of using arbitrary cuts; Texas should not automatically replace every lost federal dollar.

Keywords: NIH; medical research; universities; hospitals; innovation; taxpayer accountability; research funding.

I think one mistake government makes on issues like vaccines is assuming that anyone asking questions is automatically against vaccines or against science. Parents have every right to ask questions about something involving their children, and they deserve straightforward answers rather than being dismissed or talked down to.

We also can’t ignore what happens when serious infectious diseases spread. Texas experienced hundreds of measles cases, hospitalizations, and the deaths of two school-age children during the recent outbreak. Those are real consequences, and public officials have a responsibility to take them seriously.

My preference is to start with good information, access to qualified healthcare professionals, transparency about benefits and risks, and a strong ability to respond quickly when an outbreak occurs. When government action becomes necessary during a serious outbreak, it should be based on credible evidence, proportional to the actual risk, and reevaluated as circumstances change.

Trust is something government has to earn. The best way to do that is to give people the facts, admit when there are uncertainties, answer legitimate questions, and treat parents with respect while still protecting children and other vulnerable Texans.

Personal takeaways: Parents have a right to ask questions; don’t dismiss legitimate concerns; give people the facts; protect vulnerable Texans; government has to earn public trust.

Keywords: Measles; vaccines; parents; public health; transparency; children; outbreak response; trust.

I want good information before I make a decision. Whether we are talking about healthcare, agriculture, water, electricity, or environmental issues, scientific evidence and qualified experts can help lawmakers understand the likely consequences of the choices we make.

That doesn’t mean an expert makes the policy decision for us. Science may tell us what is happening or what the likely outcome of a particular action will be, but elected officials still have to weigh costs, individual rights, economic impacts, practical considerations, and the proper role of government. That’s part of the job we are elected to do.

When experts disagree, I want to know why. I would look at the quality of the research, whether the findings have been repeated, whether the underlying data and methods stand up to scrutiny, and how much uncertainty actually exists. I also think it is important to hear from more than one qualified source, particularly when a decision could have major consequences.

Public opinion matters because elected officials represent the public, but public opinion can’t change a scientific fact. At the same time, scientific consensus shouldn’t be used as a reason to stop asking legitimate questions. My approach is to follow the best evidence available, listen to the people affected by the decision, be honest about what we don’t know, and be willing to change course when better information comes along.

Personal takeaways: Get good information before making decisions; experts inform policy but don’t make it; ask questions when experts disagree; public opinion matters, but it can’t change scientific facts; be willing to change course when the evidence changes.

Keywords: Science; evidence; experts; policymaking; public opinion; transparency; uncertainty; accountability.