Overview
Title
To amend title 23, United States Code, to establish a grant program to rebuild and improve transportation infrastructure at urban waterfronts, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
The CREW Act is a plan to give money to fix and make better the transportation areas near water in cities. It promises to give out a big chunk of change each year starting in 2027, but it has some rules that might be a bit tough for small projects to get in on the action.
Summary AI
The bill, titled the “Constructing Resilient and Enduring Waterfronts Act” or the “CREW Act,” aims to amend title 23 of the United States Code to create a grant program for enhancing transportation infrastructure at urban waterfronts. This program will provide competitive grants to improve resilience against weather challenges, enhance public access, and support economic development on urban waterfronts. Eligible entities include state and local governments, planning organizations, and certain nonprofit entities, requiring them to have a development plan in place. The bill authorizes $300 million annually for this program from 2027 to 2031.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
Overview of the Bill
The "Constructing Resilient and Enduring Waterfronts Act" (CREW Act) seeks to amend title 23 of the United States Code to create a grant program aimed at improving transportation infrastructure in urban waterfront areas. The program is designed to distribute competitive grants to eligible entities, such as state governments, local municipalities, and certain nonprofit organizations, with the ultimate goal of enhancing these areas' resilience to extreme weather events, improving public access and circulation, and supporting environmental and economic well-being.
Significant Issues
One of the most notable issues with the bill is the financial threshold for participation. The requirement for an urban waterfront development plan to demonstrate a need for at least $200 million in investments could exclude smaller municipalities or projects that do not require such large-scale funding. This high threshold may favor larger projects, potentially leading to inefficient allocation of resources and the exclusion of deserving smaller-scale initiatives.
Additionally, the minimum grant size of $30 million may be too large for many projects, further limiting access for a substantial number of communities. This decision could result in fewer projects being funded overall, which may not effectively address localized or smaller-scale needs.
The lack of clear guidelines for the "competitive basis" on which grants are awarded could lead to confusion and inconsistency in how projects are selected. Transparency and fairness might become concerns if criteria for selecting recipients are not well-defined.
Potential Impact on the Public
Broadly, the bill aims to enhance the resilience and economic potential of urban waterfronts, which could lead to improved quality of life for people living in or near these areas. By targeting extreme weather resilience and public infrastructure improvements, the program could provide long-term benefits to communities facing climate change-related challenges.
However, the significant financial requirements and grant size may limit these benefits to larger, more developed urban areas, leaving smaller communities without the means to compete effectively for funding. This discrepancy could widen the gap between well-resourced urban centers and less affluent areas.
Impact on Stakeholders
Government and Nonprofit Entities: State governments, local municipalities, and qualified nonprofits stand to benefit from the grant opportunities provided by the program. However, only those with the capacity to plan for and justify a $200 million investment may realistically access these funds, potentially sidelining smaller entities.
Urban Waterfront Communities: For those communities that can qualify for and receive grants, the program could bring about substantial improvements in infrastructure, environmental resilience, and economic vitality. Positive impacts would include enhanced public spaces, better transportation networks, and increased safety against flooding and extreme weather events.
Environmental Advocates: While the program does focus on enhancing resilience to flooding and environmental improvements, it primarily emphasizes economic and infrastructural benefits. This focus could be a point of contention for environmental advocates who may feel that ecological and social considerations should receive equal, if not more, attention in such initiatives.
Smaller Communities: The high financial thresholds and minimum grant sizes may unintentionally exclude smaller communities from benefiting directly from the program. These places may find it challenging to justify the large investments required, potentially leading to decreased support for their waterfront development needs.
Ultimately, while the CREW Act has the potential to foster significant developments along urban waterfronts, it also risks excluding diverse communities by imposing stringent financial criteria that favor larger, more affluent areas.
Financial Assessment
The "Constructing Resilient and Enduring Waterfronts Act" (CREW Act) introduces a grant program aimed at enhancing transportation infrastructure on urban waterfronts. Financial expectations and allocations are a crucial part of this bill, impacting how projects will be funded and implemented.
Financial Allocations
The bill authorizes an annual appropriation of $300 million from the Highway Trust Fund (excluding the Mass Transit Account) for each fiscal year from 2027 through 2031. These funds are intended to support grants designed to rebuild and improve transportation infrastructure at urban waterfronts.
Minimum Grant and Investment Requirements
The bill specifies that each grant awarded under this program shall not be less than $30 million. Furthermore, any urban waterfront development plan submitted to qualify for these grants must identify a need for at least $200 million in investments for transportation, public spaces, and infrastructure.
Financial Commentary Related to Issues
Minimum Grant Amount: By setting a minimum grant of $30 million, the bill potentially limits the number of projects that can receive funding. This requirement may lead to an inefficient allocation of resources, particularly for smaller projects that do not need such large amounts. Communities may struggle to propose viable projects if they lack the financial capacity to meet this scale.
Investment Threshold for Plans: Requiring development plans to outline at least $200 million in investments could be exclusionary. Smaller but important projects might be sidelined due to not meeting this financial threshold, leading to an emphasis on larger, possibly urban-centric projects, while overlooking smaller communities.
Competitive Grant Allocation: The bill states that grants will be awarded on a competitive basis but does not specify criteria for competition clearly. If financial considerations aren't transparently defined, it could result in ambiguity, inconsistency, and concerns over fairness in the allocation of funds.
Accountability and Monitoring: Although $300 million annually is authorized, the bill does not detail how these funds will be monitored or evaluated for effectiveness across the lifecycle of the program. This raises potential concerns about accountability and financial oversight.
Use of Funds: The broad language concerning eligible costs for these grants could lead to varying interpretations about what activities qualify for funding. This might cause inconsistencies, impacting how financial resources are distributed and utilized across different projects.
In summary, while the CREW Act directs substantial funding toward urban waterfront development, the financial criteria and provisions in the bill raise important questions about resource distribution, equitable access to funding, and financial management. These are key considerations as projects move from proposal to execution.
Issues
The minimum grant amount of $30,000,000 specified in Sections 2 and 180 may limit the number of projects able to receive funding, potentially leading to inefficient allocation if smaller projects do not require such large sums. This could be a significant concern for communities with less financial capacity to propose large-scale projects.
The requirement in Sections 2 and 180 for an urban waterfront development plan to identify at least $200,000,000 in investments may exclude smaller but significant projects that do not meet this high financial threshold. This could lead to favoritism towards larger projects and disadvantage smaller communities or initiatives.
The broad definition of 'urban waterfront' in Section 180(a)(2) might encompass a wide variety of areas, which could dilute the program's effectiveness if not clearly scoped, leading to potential misallocation of funds.
The lack of specified criteria or guidelines in Section 2(b) on how grants are awarded on a 'competitive basis' could lead to ambiguity and inconsistency in the selection process, raising concerns about transparency and fairness.
The authorization of appropriations in Section 180(i) does not specify how the funds will be monitored or assessed for efficacy, which could lead to concerns about accountability and financial oversight.
The focus of the program in Sections 2(c) and 180 on infrastructure and economic benefits, with less emphasis on environmental or social impacts, could be a concern for those advocating for sustainability-focused projects. This could lead to criticism that the program inadequately addresses environmental and social considerations.
The language regarding eligible costs under Section 180(f) is broad and could lead to varied interpretations about what specific activities and improvements qualify for funding, leading to potential inconsistencies in funding decisions.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the bill is titled "Short title," which states that the Act can be called the "Constructing Resilient and Enduring Waterfronts Act" or the "CREW Act."
2. Constructing Resilient and Enduring Waterfronts program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The "Constructing Resilient and Enduring Waterfronts program" is designed to improve transportation infrastructure in urban waterfront areas by providing grants to eligible entities like states, local governments, and nonprofits. The program aims to enhance resilience to extreme weather and flooding, improve access and circulation, and boost the economic and environmental quality of waterfronts, with a specific focus on projects that demonstrate a need for substantial investment and align with an urban waterfront development plan.
Money References
- “(3) URBAN WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT PLAN.—The term ‘urban waterfront development plan’ means a plan that— “(A) considers the improvement of all, or 1 or more parts, of an urban waterfront for the purposes of economic development, housing, safety, and resilience to flooding and extreme weather; and “(B) identifies a need for not less than $200,000,000 in investments for transportation, public spaces, and other infrastructure at the urban waterfront.
- “(h) Grant amount.—A grant provided under the program shall be not less than $30,000,000.
- “(i) Authorization of appropriations.—There is authorized to be appropriated out of the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account) to carry out the program $300,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2027 through 2031.”. (b) Clerical amendment.—The analysis for chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 179 the following: “180.
180. Constructing Resilient and Enduring Waterfronts program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Constructing Resilient and Enduring Waterfronts program aims to improve urban waterfronts by funding projects that enhance public access, resilience against weather events, and environmental quality. It offers competitive grants to eligible government and nonprofit entities, with a minimum grant amount of $30 million, to support infrastructure improvements, green spaces, and flood protection, requiring a development plan that considers local vulnerabilities and public engagement.
Money References
- (3) URBAN WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT PLAN.—The term “urban waterfront development plan” means a plan that— (A) considers the improvement of all, or 1 or more parts, of an urban waterfront for the purposes of economic development, housing, safety, and resilience to flooding and extreme weather; and (B) identifies a need for not less than $200,000,000 in investments for transportation, public spaces, and other infrastructure at the urban waterfront.
- (h) Grant amount.—A grant provided under the program shall be not less than $30,000,000.
- (i) Authorization of appropriations.—There is authorized to be appropriated out of the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account) to carry out the program $300,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2027 through 2031.