CLUSTER Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Gallagher, James [R-CA-1]
- Committees
- Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Aug 3, 2026
Bottom line
The CLUSTER Act expands federal disaster mitigation funding eligibility to explicitly cover community-wide resilience projects, including those involving multiple private homes.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to explicitly include "community hardening or cluster hardening" as an eligible use for hazard mitigation assistance under Section 404. This means federal funds could be used for coordinated mitigation efforts across private residential structures to make communities more resilient to disasters.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that proactively investing in community hardening reduces the long-term costs of disaster recovery, saves lives, and protects property by making communities more resilient before a disaster strikes. They contend that coordinated efforts across residential structures are more effective than piecemeal approaches and represent a smart investment of federal resources.
Opponents contend
Critics might express concerns that expanding eligible uses for federal disaster funds could lead to increased federal spending without clear budgetary offsets, potentially shifting costs from local governments and private insurers to federal taxpayers. They may also raise questions about the definition and oversight of "community hardening" to ensure efficient and equitable allocation of funds.
The bill text is very short and easy to read, allowing ample time for a thorough evaluation of its implications.
Section 2, Paragraph (15)
Inclusion of Community and Cluster Hardening as Eligible Mitigation Activities
This provision amends Section 404(f) of the Stafford Act, which outlines eligible hazard mitigation measures. It adds "community hardening or cluster hardening, including coordinated mitigation across private residential structures" to the list. This means that federal funds provided under Section 404 can now be explicitly used for projects that strengthen entire communities or groups of homes against natural disasters, rather than just individual structures or public infrastructure.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that this provision is crucial for shifting disaster management from reactive recovery to proactive resilience. They believe that by explicitly allowing funding for coordinated community-level hardening, the bill enables more comprehensive and cost-effective protection against future disasters, ultimately saving lives and reducing overall federal expenditures on post-disaster aid.
Critics contend
Opponents might argue that while the intent is good, this expansion could lead to an uncapped increase in federal liabilities and potentially fund projects that should be the responsibility of state, local, or private entities. Concerns could also be raised about the potential for federal funds to be used for projects that are not truly cost-effective or that could be better managed at a local level.
Tradeoffs
The bill balances the desire for increased community resilience and reduced long-term disaster costs against concerns about expanding federal spending and potential federal overreach into local planning and private property. It aims to encourage proactive measures but introduces questions about the scope and oversight of these new eligible activities.