Clearwater County

Clearwater County scores 68 overall and ranks first in Idaho out of 43 counties, placing it in the 77th percentile nationally. The median home price sits at $313,766, up 4.78% year-over-year, which signals meaningful price momentum for a county of 8,810 people. The cash flow score is zero, which tells you directly that this is not a market where you buy on day one and watch the rent check cover all your costs. The appreciation score of 85, by contrast, is one of the stronger readings you'll find in the state. This is unambiguously an appreciation-first market, and you should underwrite it that way.

The appreciation thesis here is grounded in price growth rather than rent yield. With a cash-on-cash return and cap rate both zeroed out in the data, an investor expecting a meaningful spread between gross rent and debt service will likely be disappointed at today's prices and a 6.85% interest rate. The affordability index of 63 suggests the market is not cheap relative to local incomes, but it is meaningfully more accessible than several neighboring counties. Stability scores at 50, which is middling, and that matters for a buy-and-hold thesis: you are banking on continued appreciation in a small, rural county with a limited tenant pool. The 4.78% year-over-year price gain is encouraging, but in a market this size, a single employer disruption or seasonal softness can move vacancy in ways that aggregate numbers won't capture until it's too late.

The economic anchor and employer data were not provided for Clearwater County, so the analysis cannot speak to specific job drivers or industry concentration. What the population figure alone does tell you is that 8,810 residents is a thin base for a rental portfolio of any scale. Tenant turnover in a market this small can take longer to resolve, and rent-setting is less a function of broad market comparables and more a function of what individual households in a narrow geography can pay. If you are building a multi-property portfolio, the depth of the tenant market here is a constraint worth taking seriously before committing capital.

On carry costs, the combined monthly tax and insurance figure of $230 is a genuine tailwind relative to what investors encounter in higher-cost states. The state-average effective property tax rate of 0.69% is low, and while the caveat applies, that actual county and township rates may differ from the state average, the directional read is favorable. At $2,165 annually in estimated property tax and $596 in estimated insurance, these line items together land well below what a comparable purchase in many other markets would generate. That won't rescue a deal where the income side doesn't pencil, but it does reduce the monthly drag for an investor willing to hold long and bet on the appreciation score delivering.

The primary risk here is concentration in a single dimension: appreciation. A county with 8,810 people, a stability score of 50, and zero cash flow score has very little margin of error if price growth flattens. There is no income cushion, no density to spread vacancy risk across a large pool of renters, and no data in this set pointing to a diversified economic base that would support sustained rental demand through a downturn. Rural Idaho markets can run hot for stretches and then sit quiet, and at a 6.85% rate you are carrying real cost while waiting for the appreciation thesis to play out.

Against its neighbors, Clearwater is the most affordable option in this comparison set and the highest-scoring one. Caribou County is nearly price-equivalent at $317,335 but scores a point lower overall at 67. Cassia County at $335,334 and a score of 64, Custer at $356,329 with a 61, and Nez Perce at $374,862 with a 60 are all more expensive and lower-rated. Fremont County is the outlier at $482,699 and a 62 overall, making it a harder underwrite at a higher entry point. If you are choosing among these Idaho rural markets for appreciation exposure, Clearwater's combination of the lowest median price, the highest score, and the lowest carry costs makes it the logical pick, provided you accept that the income return is essentially zero and your hold period needs to be long enough for price appreciation to do the work.