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.