Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/18/2002 03:40 PM Senate STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 53-SEISMIC HAZARDS SAFETY COMMISSION
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES, sponsor, explained the bill would
create an Alaska Seismic Safety Commission. This is necessary
because although there are current ongoing efforts to mitigate
hazards and risks of earthquakes, the efforts are spread among
agencies. This high level commission would look across agency
boundaries. It is important to have an ongoing effort to
continuously improve the state's preparedness.
Building codes and earthquake insurance are the kinds of issues
that need more attention and require a long-term view. Large
magnitude earthquakes are a rare event, but an extreme hazard
nonetheless. This type of commission is needed to remind people
that we need to be worried about them. It's easy to forget how
devastating an earthquake can be because the catastrophic ones
are infrequent.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT noted a number of other states have a safety
council or a consortium. He asked whether the proposed structure
and the level of the structure was the same as a consortium or an
advisory panel in other states.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES replied it varies between states. What he
refers to as a commission is a panel of people that represent
specific areas of expertise. He would like to see a coordinated
effort to use the expertise in the various state agencies and
bring it together at the governor's level so it is possible to
look across the agency boundaries. Other states have a variety of
models for how to proceed.
MILTON WILTSE, Director of Alaska Geological & Geophysical
Surveys, testified via teleconference. They have followed the
legislation for a number of years and are very supportive.
Similar bodies in other states were begun as a consequence of the
1964 earthquake in Alaska. Over the years, there has been
progress in building codes and mitigating various types of
structures to decrease the magnitude of emergency response that
would be necessary after an event. They believe a commission or
panel that will have the view of trying to balance the many
issues that have to be addressed for mitigation of these types of
events is a very good step. It is a complex issue and takes a
balanced panel to bring the various issues and organizations
forward.
To this point, much of the mitigation work that has been done has
been focused in Anchorage, but there are other municipalities
with different types of events that might occur from a seismic
event. This legislation is very encouraging to get a reviewing
body in place.
ROD COMBELLICK, Engineering Geology Chief with the Alaska
Geological & Geophysical Surveys, testified via teleconference.
He has looked at this problem and how other states deal with
their earthquake hazards during his 20 years with the department.
The 1964 Alaskan earthquake is what caused other states, notably
California, to begin their efforts to coordinate their earthquake
hazard mitigation. As a result of those efforts they have saved
many lives and millions to billions of dollars in property
damage.
He just returned from the State Emergency Management Conference
in Anchorage and representatives from Washington, Oregon and
California were present. About a year ago there was a magnitude
6.7 earthquake near Seattle and although it was the same size as
the Northridge earthquake in California in 1994, the damage was
surprisingly minimal. Some is attributed to luck in terms of the
depth of the earthquake and the time of day it occurred, but much
is attributed to the efforts Washington State has taken over the
past ten years. Their seismic safety committee, which is the same
level as the one proposed here, recommended many of the changes
that kept that quake from being devastating. They have instituted
seismic retrofitting of their highways and bridge systems,
instituted more stringent building codes and coordinated the
efforts of state and local governments.
Alaska has gone almost 40 years without any major structural
damage from an earthquake, but this doesn't mean there won't be a
big event that strikes a populated area and exceeds all the
disasters we've had so far. This is something that shouldn't be
ignored. A little over a year ago the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) put out a report that projected state's
annual losses from earthquakes. Alaska ranked number eight with
annual losses in the neighborhood of $42 million or $70.00 per
person. In terms of the annualized cost of earthquakes in
relation to the value of its infrastructure, Alaska ranks number
two and has the distinction of being the only state that does not
have a state level seismic safety commission. This bill would
establish that ability.
There was no further testimony.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT noted the e-mail from Dr. John L. Aho. Copies
were in members' packets.
He said there was no prepared CS and no amendments were offered.
There were two fiscal notes.
SENATOR HALFORD asked whether there was a sunset review. He
thought the referenced section was the sunset schedule.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said it's not a sunset that would have to be
reviewed by the auditors; it would just have to be reauthorized.
SENATOR STEVENS asked Representative Davies about page 2, lines
29 and 30 that said, "(a) The commission shall (1) recommend
goals and priorities for seismic hazard mitigation to the public
and private sectors;". He asked what some of those
recommendations might entail.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said primarily they would relate to
building codes and practices. Private sector associations of
engineers generally develop building codes. It's important for
the state seismologist to review those recommendations from time
to time because they are primarily made in other states and they
aren't always appropriate for Alaska.
A secondary concern has to do with earthquake insurance. Many
people are priced out of this market because earthquake insurance
in Alaska is set by the experience in Anchorage. It is his hope
that one of the goals of the group would be to rationalize this
type of insurance for Alaska so the price would become affordable
in places where the risk is low.
SENATOR STEVENS referred to the dedicated seats on the commission
and noted there was a seat for industry and insurance but the
seat for a structural or architectural engineer was optional.
[Page 2, lines 11-21] If the commission was going to make
building recommendations for mitigation, it seemed logical to
include more scientists.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES replied many of the representatives from
the different agencies could be scientists. He singled out
insurance because it is a large and critical piece when there is
a catastrophic event. It's also critical in terms of reducing
hazard. If insurance were to be rationalized over the long term
so that people that move into an area with a higher risk would
pay more, people would look for low risk areas and avoid the
higher risk areas and thus reduce losses. Insurance can play a
central role in hazard mitigation, but it must be done carefully
and over the long term.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT acknowledged that Senator Halford was
correct; section 44.19.635 is the section dealing with
termination of state boards and commissions. If it's not extended
by the cutoff date, it goes into a sunset year. It would be in
the category of boards and commissions that are audited to get a
recommendation of whether they should be extended or not.
He asked for the will of the committee.
SENATOR DAVIS made a motion to move CSHB 53(STA) and attached
fiscal notes from committee with individual recommendations.
There being no objection, it was so ordered.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|