National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program

Testimony presented April 14, 1997, before the Basic Science subcommittee of the Committee on Science, House of Representatives, U.S. Congress

In discussions of NEHRP we frequently hear references to "the lessons learned" from earthquakes such as Loma Prieta, Northridge and Kobe. As a reminder that no modern US city, in fact no modern city anywhere in the world, has yet experienced the direct effects of a truly great earthquake, I suggest that it is more appropriate to consider the experience of the recent earthquakes in California and Japan as "warnings given" rather than "lessons learned". We must resist developing a sense of false security from the relatively low loss of life and property that these earthquakes produced.

Loma Prieta and Northridge were not large earthquakes. Both of them occurred outside the highly developed urban centers of San Francisco and Los Angeles. The loss of life and property were significant, but they were mere harbingers of what can follow a great earthquake in a modern urban area.

Strategies to reduce earthquake risk demand a close coordination between earth scientists, engineers, civic planning officials and those responsible for disaster mitigation and response. NEHRP has been exemplary in the foundation it provides for an interagency and interdisciplinary approach to earthquake hazard mitigation.

NEHRP is succeeding.

It has forever changed the way in which the public perceives earthquakes and, over the past 20 years, it has impacted in fundamental ways the course of research in seismology, earthquake engineering and disaster planning. At the core of NEHRP lies a concerned and dedicated group of scientists, engineers and civil servants who are proud of our accomplishments, but critically aware of the inadequacies of the current program.

There is a growing frustration that, within the current funding levels appropriated for NEHRP, we simply cannot accomplish the important work that needs to be done to reach the significant and attainable goals of this program.

Following the Kobe earthquake, Japan realized that its earthquake mitigation program - already superior in many ways to the US program - was in serious need of improvement. As a result, Japan has embarked on a major upgrade of its earthquake monitoring network and a strengthening of its research programs in earthquake studies.

To reach our potential to reduce earthquake losses in the US, NEHRP is in critical need of similar attention. In the spirit of "lessons learned" and "warnings given", I strongly encourage your committee to carefully review the level of support proposed for NEHRP during this reauthorization, and consider the lasting return that would result from a significant acceleration of investment in this program. If we heed the "warnings given" by these recent earthquakes, as Japan has, we should be investing in hazard mitigation research and implementation at several times the rate that we are today. The current investment in NEHRP of less than $100 million per year is only a small fraction of the loss suffered in even a moderate event like Northridge. Sums well in excess of the NEHRP budget are being spent to retrofit bridges, buildings and other structures in California for which there is virtually no quantitative data with which to evaluate their performance in strong ground shaking.

In my written testimony, and in the accompanying letter from the Seismological Society, we provide examples of areas where increased federal support for NEHRP would have a measurable impact over the next decade. Let me summarize only a few of these here.

The infrastructure for the collection of basic earthquake data requires a major upgrade.

NEHRP seismologists and engineers have reached a state where data essential for their research simply do not exist. The necessary technologies are available, but funding constraints prevent the deployment of much needed strong motion sensors and upgrades to regional networks.

Interdisciplinary research needs to be encouraged through all components of NEHRP.

With increasing concern about the specification of strong ground motions, the intersection between engineering and seismology is especially ripe for expanded joint effort.

As a source of new ideas and the training for future professionals, both in research and applied fields, the health of university research programs is critical to the future health of NEHRP. At current funding levels that future health does not look good. I encourage restoration of funds recently lost to the USGS grants program and expansion of the fundamental studies program at NSF.

Earthquakes cannot be prevented. We cannot completely eliminate losses from earthquakes. We cannot promise that earthquakes can be predicted. We can, however, assure you that the continuation of a healthy and expanded NEHRP will improve our understanding of earthquakes, their mode of occurrence and the motions they produce.

Translated into engineering design and practice, this knowledge will enhance the seismic resistance of buildings and structures and significantly reduce losses in earthquakes. Incorporated in disaster planning, this knowledge will aid in preparing the response to inevitable earthquakes as they occur. Transmitted to the public, this knowledge will increase awareness of earthquake hazards and the means that individuals can take to prepare for earthquakes and protect their own lives and property.

While I am here today representing the seismological community, I cannot plead for a special case for the Earth Sciences and our research programs alone. Increased support is required throughout all sectors of NEHRP. I say this acutely aware of the pressures you are under to balance the federal budget. In NEHRP, however, we are not preparing for some hypothetical threat to our national security, but rather to an inevitable occurrence. The time between major earthquakes in the US is much longer than the federal budget cycle, and it may be tempting to put off investment in earthquake research in order to respond to more immediate short-term pressures. A major earthquake will occur within the United States, and if we are not prepared, the financial and human consequences of this single event will be more comparable to the ravages of war than to the impact of other natural disasters such as the flooding we now witness in North Dakota.

I again stress that NEHRP is working - but more needs to be done. We look for your support to allow this important program to continue to contribute to the well being of the nation - now and in the future.

The expanded text of the full version of this testimony can be found on the Web at http://www.house.gov/science/hearing.htm#Basic_Research along with the testimony of the other witnesses at this hearing:

Richard W. Krimm	Federal Emergency Management Agency
Patrick Leahy	U.S. Geological Survey
Kerry Sieh	California Institute of Technology
Elbert L. Marsh	National Science Foundation
Joanne Nigg	Earthquake Engineering Research Institute
Robert Hebner	National Institute for Standards and Technology
Daniel P. Abrams	The NEHRP Coalition
George Lee	National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research