Vikki Goodwin

“We have gotten rid of screwworm before, so I would start with what we already know works. The state needs to work with USDA, veterinarians and ranchers on finding cases early, inspecting livestock and getting sterile flies where they are needed. If the Texas Animal Health Commission needs more people or resources to do that work, we should provide them.

I also want ranchers to know what is happening and what is expected of them. They need to know what to look for, who to call if they find something and what restrictions are in place. And those restrictions need to make sense. If livestock movement has to be limited to stop the spread, then we should do it. But when an area is clear, we should not leave restrictions in place just because it takes the state another month to catch up. Once we get through the immediate outbreak, I think we need to look at where we were caught short. Do we have enough large-animal veterinarians in rural Texas? Are the state and federal agencies sharing information quickly enough? Can we identify a new disease or pest before it has already spread across several counties? Those are questions worth answering now, while we have a very real example in front of us. I would listen to the veterinarians, entomologists and producers who deal with this every day. Screwworm can do tremendous damage if we let it spread. I would rather Texas spend the money to find it and stop it early than spend a whole lot more trying to clean up the damage later.

Keywords:

• “We have gotten rid of screwworm before, so I would start with what we already know works.”
• “Early detection is how we keep an outbreak from becoming a much bigger problem.”
• “If livestock movement has to be limited to stop the spread, then we should do it.”
• “When an area is clear, we should not leave restrictions in place just because it takes the state another month to catch up.”
• “We need to look at where we were caught short.”
• “Do we have enough large-animal veterinarians in rural Texas?”
• “I would rather Texas spend the money to find it and stop it early than spend a whole lot more trying to clean up the damage later.”

I have been raising concerns about data centers for months because Texas is allowing these projects to move forward faster than we are answering some pretty basic questions about them. How much electricity will they use? Where is their water coming from? Who is paying for the new transmission lines, substations and other infrastructure they need? And what happens to the people who already live there when several of these facilities are built in the same area? I called for a pause on new data centers and a special session in July because I think we need answers before we keep approving more of them. Companies should disclose how much water and electricity they expect to use, where those resources will come from and what their expansion plans are. Counties also need more authority to decide whether a project makes sense for their community. I do not think Texas taxpayers should be subsidizing this growth. I support ending the state sales tax exemption for data centers. These are some of the largest companies in the world. If a project needs new power lines, substations or water infrastructure, the cost should not simply show up on everybody else’s utility bill. There is certainly an economic benefit to new investment in Texas, and I am not against new technology. But we need to know that our electric grid and water supply can handle what we are approving. ERCOT itself is now looking at data centers together because the amount of power they are requesting is too large to look at each project in isolation. The state is also finally asking developers for information about water use, tax benefits and community impacts. Those are questions we should have been asking before we got this far. I want Texas to grow. I just don’t think Texans should have to subsidize that growth and then pay more on their electric and water bills because of it.

Texas has always had to worry about water, but with the number of people moving here, we can’t put these decisions off anymore. We need to repair old water systems, build what communities are going to need in the future and do a better job preparing for floods. We also need to pay attention to water quality. Having water doesn’t do much good if people can’t safely use it. I think we have to be thoughtful when we talk about agriculture and water use. Farmers and ranchers aren’t using water for the sake of using it. They’re growing our food and raising livestock, and their livelihood depends on having a reliable water supply. I support helping producers move to more efficient irrigation and other practices that save water, particularly when the cost of making those changes would otherwise fall entirely on them. But agriculture can’t be the only place we look for savings. Texas is recruiting industries that use a tremendous amount of water, and in some cases we’re giving them tax incentives to come here. Before we do that, we ought to know whether the community has the water to support them. I don’t think it’s reasonable to ask a farmer to conserve water so we can turn around and give it to a new industrial development. There won’t be one answer for the entire state. What works in East Texas may not work in the Panhandle. I want the state helping communities plan ahead and paying its share of the infrastructure we know we’re going to need, while giving the people who depend on that water a real say in those decisions.

We were supposed to fix the grid after Winter Storm Uri. Texans have spent a lot of money since then, and their electric bills certainly haven’t gone down. I want to know that what we’re paying for is actually making the grid more reliable. We’re going to need more electricity. I support wind and solar, and we’ve seen how useful batteries can be when demand is high. I don’t understand why we would take any of those options away when we need more power, not less. Natural gas is also an abundant source of power, however, we need to be sure we are minimizing emissions to the greatest extent possible. There are other problems we need to fix too. It can take too long to get new generation connected, and in some places we don’t have enough transmission to move the electricity where it’s needed. Now we’re also talking about adding data centers that can use an enormous amount of power. I called for a pause on new data centers in July. Before we keep adding them, I’d like to know where that electricity is coming from. I’d also like to know who’s paying for everything they need to connect. If the answer is the people who already live there, through higher electric bills, I have a problem with that. These companies can pay their share of the infrastructure they need. And when ERCOT is asking people to conserve, that can’t just mean somebody at home turning up their thermostat. The largest users on the grid need to be part of that too.

I think calling these “indirect costs” can be a little misleading. A researcher still needs a lab to work in. The lights have to be on, equipment has to be maintained and somebody has to handle the administration that comes with a federal grant. Those costs don’t disappear because the federal government decides it doesn’t want to reimburse as much of them. I would oppose an arbitrary cap that doesn’t take into account what it actually costs an institution to do the research. If there are concerns about how those costs are calculated, then let’s look at them. I don’t have a problem with requiring universities to show where the money is going. But setting one rate for everybody and leaving universities to make up the difference could mean less research gets done. Texas has a lot at stake here. Our universities and medical institutions do research that leads to new treatments and brings federal dollars and jobs into the state. I don’t want Texas taxpayers having to replace hundreds of millions of federal dollars because Washington changed the rules. At the state level, I would continue investing in our public universities and research institutions, particularly where state funding can help Texas compete for federal and private research dollars. But I don’t think the state can or should simply backfill every federal cut. We should be making the case in Washington that if the federal government wants this research done, it also has to pay the real cost of doing it.

I support vaccinations and I recognize we must continually educate people about the benefits and safety. We need our trusted medical professionals to educate parents. It’s natural to have concerns and questions, and we should address those concerns and questions using data and science. We can’t forget why we vaccinate against these diseases in the first place. We had 762 measles cases in Texas last year. Two children died. Measles had become something most parents in Texas didn’t have to spend much time worrying about, and I’d like to get back to that. When there is an outbreak, local health departments need to be able to find out where it’s spreading, contact people who may have been exposed and get vaccines to people who want them. Schools need good information too, because that’s where a disease like measles can spread very quickly. I support vaccinations and the school requirements we have for them. I also think people are much more likely to listen to a doctor they know than somebody in Austin telling them what to believe. We ought to make it easier for doctors and local health officials to do that work.

Data should play a large role in decision-making and law-making. As lawmakers, we should listen to the experts, people who know more about the subject than we do. We are making laws about a wide variety of subjects everyday. We may be voting on issues around healthcare one day and water or the electric grid the next. Nobody is an expert on all subjects. If the experts don’t agree, I want to know why. Sometimes there isn’t enough research yet. Sometimes they’re looking at different information. And sometimes they agree about the science but disagree about what the Legislature should do with it. I also listen to the people I represent. They may be seeing something on the ground that we need to know about. There are times when what people want conflicts with what the research is shows us. We can’t just disregard the research when that happens.