Bill Overview
Title: CLEAR Act of 2022
Description: This bill directs the Department of Housing and Urban Development to award grants to states, Indian tribes, and territories for establishing or maintaining (or both) an office responsible for planning, program implementation, technical assistance, and related efforts to address community resilience (i.e., the ability to rebound, positively adapt to, or thrive amidst changing conditions or challenges, including natural disasters, and maintain quality of life, healthy growth, and economic vitality for present and future generations).
Sponsors: Rep. Crow, Jason [D-CO-6]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals living in communities worldwide
Estimated Size: 331000000
- The bill focuses on enhancing community resilience, which is a broad concept that can impact every community member.
- Community resilience involves addressing challenges such as natural disasters. This means areas prone to such events will see heightened impact.
- The grants are to be awarded to states, Indian tribes, and territories, indicating a wide national scope, impacting people across various states and regions.
- By enhancing resilience, the bill aims at maintaining quality of life and economic vitality - elements affecting the entire population of an area.
Reasoning
- The CLEAR Act provides specific funding which can impact communities differently depending on their risk and resilience needs.
- The scope covers all U.S. states and territories, enhancing resilience broadly, though specific impacts vary by local conditions.
- Urban areas with diverse infrastructures may benefit differently compared to rural and tribal areas. Possible impact differences need consideration.
- Although the grants aim to benefit whole communities, direct visibility might skew towards state and local governments directly implementing initiatives.
Simulated Interviews
Small Business Owner (New Orleans, LA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is good because our area is prone to hurricanes and floods.
- It could help my business prepare better and reduce potential losses.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Civil Engineer (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The increase in funding to address resilience is critical for our desert city.
- We face water scarcity and heat waves, so planning for resilience is a priority.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Environmental Scientist (Salt Lake City, UT)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am hopeful this will lead to more employment opportunities in my field.
- Creating sustainable communities is essential for long-term resilience.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Retired (Miami, FL)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If the policy results in better hurricane preparedness, that would bring peace of mind.
- The cost of potential evacuation is a worry.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Farmer (Rural Nebraska)
Age: 67 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Resilience programs should include rural infrastructure improvements.
- Hopeful for better drought management support.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Graduate Student (Seattle, WA)
Age: 23 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The focus on resilience aligns with my academic pursuits.
- Could provide more research opportunities and practical applications.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Public School Teacher (Chicago, IL)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Community resilience is crucial for schools to be safe during emergencies.
- The funding could drastically improve local preparedness efforts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
City Planner (New York, NY)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- New York has a pressing need for improved resilience initiatives.
- This policy might enhance city-wide sustainability efforts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Fisherman (Anchorage, AK)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could safeguard our fishing communities against extreme weather.
- Investment in resilience is essential for our economic survival.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
IT Specialist (Austin, TX)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Local resilience plays a part in sustaining internet and IT infrastructure.
- Hope the policy includes cyber resilience considerations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1500000000 (Low: $1300000000, High: $1700000000)
Year 2: $1500000000 (Low: $1300000000, High: $1700000000)
Year 3: $1500000000 (Low: $1300000000, High: $1700000000)
Year 5: $1500000000 (Low: $1300000000, High: $1700000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The policy may require additional funding beyond the initial five years to sustain resilience efforts.
- The effectiveness of resilience measures in reducing future disaster-related costs.
- Coordination between federal, state, tribal, and territorial levels is crucial.
- Long-term productivity gains from the stabilization effects of improved resilience on local economies.