Preparing for the "Big One" -- Saving Lives Through Earthquake Mitigation in Los Angeles, CA

THE REMAINING CHALLENGE

I. Introduction

Los Angeles is generally well-prepared for earthquakes, with numerous seismic safety measures already in place. This resilience was on full display after the Northridge earthquake. According to most sources, residential structures performed well in minimizing loss of life. Hospitals continued to function heroically under difficult conditions. Lifelines were rapidly repaired and services restored to area residents. Schools reopened quickly and damaged freeways were returned to service in record time.

Nonetheless, significant gaps remain in the region's earthquake mitigation capacity. The stakes could not be higher it is acknowledged that, in the absence of aggressive mitigation effort, the number of deaths and injuries will be much higher in the next major earthquake. A clear challenge confronts those committed to improving the area's seismic safety-balancing limited knowledge, finite resources, and competing priorities with the urgent need for ongoing mitigation. This section presents possible strategies for addressing deficiencies in the current earthquake mitigation system.

II. Agenda for Future Action

Although Federal, State, and local agencies have mobilized vast resources for natural disaster response and recovery efforts, the findings of this report strongly suggest the need for a more proactive commitment to disaster mitigation strategies that would save lives. The analysis of mitigation needs presented here reveals a number of opportunities to facilitate earthquake mitigation. The sheer diversity of these potential actions reflect the breadth of Los Angeles' identified mitigation needs.

Some of the ideas offered below are specific responses to the situation in Los Angeles; others are applicable to any community at risk of earthquakes or other natural disasters. Some actions can be taken independently; others require partnership among Federal, State and/or local agencies. Some actions require Federal agencies to take a leadership role; others are supportive or supplementary in nature. Finally, some of these actions involve programmatic changes, while others are regulatory, and still others rely on research or outreach.

Ongoing mitigation efforts in at-risk communities could minimize the loss of life and property caused by future disasters. Inevitably, post-disaster efforts focus more on essential recovery and places less emphasis on mitigation measures. The long-term effectiveness of the current Federal "mitigation" effort is diminished by being limited to the immediate post-disaster period, when the more pressing needs of response and recovery efforts often take precedence. An approach that provides mitigation assistance to at-risk areas before a disaster may be warranted.

Although FEMA makes available funding for repairs and mitigation, State and local entities have not fully utilized these funds, perhaps because they cannot meet the Federal requirement for matching funds. However, an innovative strategy has been proposed by OES to allow for existing and budgeted investments in mitigation projects at the state and local level be considered as allowable match for grant program funds. This concept is a departure from past practice in meeting cost share requirements on a project by project basis and recognizes the ongoing commitment to mitigation.

Relevant Federal assistance programs should be reviewed to identify and reduce barriers to their use in disaster recovery and mitigation. State and local efforts to mount needed mitigation efforts may have been slowed by Federal program rules that make it difficult to apply some forms of assistance to mitigation or to coordinate their use with other public and private funds. Even before the Northridge earthquake, HUD launched a review intended to assess and remove obstacles to the use of CDBG and HOME for mitigation-related activities. More recently, in November 1994 FEMA convened an interagency Mitigation Task Force to develop a coordinated Federal Mitigation Plan.

Financial incentives should be considered to encourage mitigation efforts. The absence of financial incentives impedes mitigation activities on several fronts, but most particularly among owners of single-family and multifamily residential properties. Financial inducements such as lowered insurance premiums, tax credits, low- or no-interest loans, mortgages, and grants, can make the implementation of mitigation measures more palatable to building owners and much easier for regional and local jurisdictions to enact and enforce.

Los Angeles needs a computerized inventory of buildings within its jurisdiction, complete with such information as location and type of construction, that would be useful to planners, seismic safety officials, and code enforcement inspectors. Because a reliable, automated inventory of the Los Angeles building stock does not exist, accurate assessments of the number and types of buildings requiring seismic retrofit cannot be made. This diminishes the ability of planners and decisionmakers to identify mitigation needs and priorities.

Further research on vulnerable building types and their seismic performance needs to be undertaken. Construction types for which research is urgently needed include steel moment-frame buildings, hillside homes, and split-level homes. In support of this effort, the creation of an automated building inventory would enhance the city's ability to locate and assess earthquake risks and mitigation needs.

A higher level of building inspection and construction code enforcement is needed. Local governments should insist upon adequate inspection and enforcement of construction regulations and standards-thus, they have an obligation to provide qualified and properly trained building inspectors who have adequate resources to carry out their responsibilities.

Currently, however, there is a lack of resources to conduct inspections and educate inspectors about current codes and principles of seismic design. Relevant professional education should be mandatory for building inspectors. Moreover, structural engineers should be required to observe construction in order to ensure seismic safety.

III. Conclusion

In the end, perhaps the most important insight that can be gleaned from this report is also the simplest: while the disaster recovery period may be the most propitious time to undertake mitigation activities, these efforts must not end when the brief spasm of emergency relief and recovery programs winds down.

Because mitigation is only one of many problems competing for funds and resources in Los Angeles and other large urban centers, leadership is needed to ensure that seismic safety remains an important priority for creating communities of opportunity. Regardless of which specific courses of action they choose, Federal, State, and local governments must be steadfast in their commitment to supporting mitigation activities that will minimize loss of life in future earthquakes and make Los Angeles a more resilient community. The lives of many of their citizens hang in the balance.