An Assessment of the Consequences and Preparations for a Catastrophic California Earthquake: Findings and Actions Taken — Context and Discussion

A Presidential Mandate and Committee Structure

The report originates from President Carter's direct concern after witnessing the Mount St. Helens eruption in May 1980. An ad hoc committee of the National Security Council was formed, including FEMA, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the U.S. Geological Survey, the Department of Defense, the Department of Transportation, and the National Communications System. State of California agencies and local governments also participated, along with private-sector consultants. The committee's findings were reviewed with Governor Jerry Brown, and the President approved the resulting recommendations. This high-level involvement underscores the perceived national security implications of a major California earthquake.

Quantitative Gaps in Local and State Planning

The report includes a survey of local jurisdictions that reveals stark gaps: approximately 93 percent had basic plans, but only 50 percent had completed operational annexes. Just 28 percent of basic plans addressed earthquake hazard vulnerability, 35 percent had earthquake contingency plans, and a mere 1 percent (one city) had a plan to respond to an earthquake prediction. At the state level, a quantitative assessment of 34 agencies showed that while 94 percent had operational capability, only 29 percent conducted public education activities. Qualitative ratings on a 1-to-5 scale placed public education at 1.44 and public information at 1.50, indicating severe inadequacy for a magnitude 8 event.

The Structure of Emergency Planning Documents

The report details the typical structure of local emergency plans in California: a basic plan establishing authority, hazard vulnerability, planning assumptions, and an emergency services organization, followed by separate contingency plans for specific hazards. These contingency plans include service support plans with standard operating procedures. The California Emergency Plan (CEP) at the state level follows a similar model, with operational annexes covering areas such as earthquake, fire and rescue, law enforcement, medical, nuclear, and flood response. The report notes that a plan is not considered complete without these annexes, yet the survey found that only half of local jurisdictions had completed them.

Readers should note that this report reflects the state of planning in 1980, before major earthquakes like the 1989 Loma Prieta and 1994 Northridge events prompted significant changes. The document's value lies in its detailed, quantitative snapshot of preparedness gaps, particularly the low ratings for public education and information. It serves as a historical benchmark for evaluating subsequent improvements in earthquake readiness.

I think of that 1980 report sometimes, its cautious pages measuring what we had not yet done—one percent ready, a lonely whisper of foresight. It reminds me of a quieter volume on my shelf, The Old Masters and Their Pictures, For the Use of Schools and Learners in Art — A Reader’s Guide, where the artists, too, were teaching a slow, careful looking. Both speak of preparation as a patient art.