Bill Overview
Title: Resilient Defense Assistance Act of 2022
Description: This bill authorizes the Department of Defense to utilize various funds and programs to contribute to military climate resilience, including by authorizing funding from the Combatant Commander Initiative Fund to be used for climate resilience of military installations and essential civilian infrastructure.
Sponsors: Rep. Peters, Scott H. [D-CA-52]
Target Audience
Population: People living on or near military installations that will be affected by climate resilience funding
Estimated Size: 50000000
- The bill focuses on military climate resilience, affecting military installations globally.
- All military personnel stationed at these installations would be impacted.
- Communities around these military installations would benefit from improved climate resilience.
- The bill also refers to essential civilian infrastructure, thus impacting civilians working on or near military installations.
- Families of military personnel living on or near these bases would also be affected.
- Military contractors and related industry workers who provide services related to infrastructure resilience will be impacted.
Reasoning
- The policy predominantly impacts military personnel, their families, and civilian workers at military installations both in the US and globally.
- Due to the limited budget, only a fraction of the overall target population will be directly impacted initially, possibly those in regions most vulnerable to climate risks.
- The enhancement of military climate resilience could lead to better living conditions on base and a bolstering of surrounding infrastructure, which might improve overall wellbeing scores.
- Given the size of the US military and civilian population involved in military operations, the effect is extensive, but the degree per individual is varied.
- Some individuals may not feel a direct impact, especially in regions not deemed climate high-risk initially, but can see indirect benefits over time.
Simulated Interviews
Navy personnel (San Diego, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might improve living conditions and security on the base, which is always welcome.
- I'm concerned with how climate threats could affect my family's safety, so any initiative to enhance resilience is beneficial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Civil engineer (Norfolk, VA)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is an exciting opportunity for our company and employees, ensuring job security and engaging projects.
- Environmentally, it's crucial that military installations can withstand climate threats; this policy seems like a positive step in that direction.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 4 |
Military spouse (Fayetteville, NC)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Anything that makes the base more secure and resilient is a win, particularly considering recent weather challenges.
- I'll be looking for how these funds are spent; there's always concern with accountability in large budgets.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Air Force personnel (Okinawa, Japan)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Anything to improve base defenses and infrastructure should be a priority. The climate is an immediate concern here.
- Improved infrastructure might also improve morale and enable better work conditions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 2 |
Veteran affairs volunteer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This seems to be a much-needed piece of legislation, but I wonder how much of it will impact veterans or if it's mostly for active installations.
- If this makes current military careers more stable, that's positive even if veterans see less immediate benefit.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
City Infrastructure Planner (New Orleans, LA)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Partnering with military on these matters brings in crucial resources and attention to areas that can benefit the whole community.
- I hope the funds are distributed wisely and not concentrated on a few projects that might not serve the larger population.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Military contractor (Colorado Springs, CO)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could lead to new contracts and projects, which is positive for my company and employees.
- There's a lot of potential for mismanagement in initiatives of this scale, so I hope execution aligns with its objectives.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Civilian technician on Air Force base (Anchorage, AK)
Age: 23 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Optimizing base resilience would lessen downtime and utility disruptions, so I'm supportive.
- The budget seems tight for extensive improvements, so prioritization is key.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Retired military (Huntsville, AL)
Age: 61 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned about protecting military infrastructure from climate-related threats; this policy seems to address some of those issues.
- Given my retired status, I don't see much direct impact, but I'm hopeful for future stability for active personnel.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 2 |
Policy analyst (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 31 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a pivotal measure intertwining defense and climate resilience policy, which is overdue.
- Close monitoring and analysis will define its success; there are many intertwined factors that will dictate the outcome.
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 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1000000000 (Low: $750000000, High: $1250000000)
Year 2: $1000000000 (Low: $750000000, High: $1250000000)
Year 3: $1000000000 (Low: $750000000, High: $1250000000)
Year 5: $1000000000 (Low: $750000000, High: $1250000000)
Year 10: $1000000000 (Low: $750000000, High: $1250000000)
Year 100: $1000000000 (Low: $750000000, High: $1250000000)
Key Considerations
- The exact implementation and coordination with local agencies may increase administrative costs.
- The breadth of impacted installations spans both domestic and international locations, complicating and potentially increasing logistical costs.
- Potential savings depend on effective and timely implementation of climate resilience strategies.
- The policy's success relies heavily on administrative efficiency in deploying funds.