WSSPC Newsletter - Western States Seismic Policy Council

Since the last issue of EQ:Earthquake Quarterly, WSSPC has hired a new Program Manager, Todd Fleming, who will start July 10. Todd has run several large-scale visitor programs at Carleton College, where he is an Admissions Officer, and WSSPC will be counting on his transference of that meeting expertise to the National Earthquake Risk Management Conference.

As you can see from this issue of EQ, conference planning has progressed significantly. Jim Davis has been working diligently with input from his committee to craft the themes for the policy sessions. WSSPC has involved CUSEC, NESEC, CREW, USGS, and FEMA in the program development. Our Washington State hosts have been searching for featured speakers, planning field trips, finding exhibitors and otherwise helping the office to handle the myriad of details that go into holding a conference. Ron Lynn, Chair of the Nevada Earthquake Safety Council, will chair the Seismic Safety Advisory Boards invitational meeting held September 17^th to start the conference activities. Two concurrent and equally interesting field trips are planned for Monday September 18. Following that, there will be three days of policy sessions culminating in an interactive session on policy development led by a professional facilitator. Ron Simms, King County Executive, Mike Armstrong of FEMA and Chip Groat of the USGS are confirmed featured speakers. There are plans to hold an Exhibitor Fair and Public Day, where the public will be invited to attend the exhibits for free. So, register online and see you in Seattle!

MCEER combines problem-focused, multidisciplinary team research with education and outreach activities to help communities stand better prepared and increasingly resilient when faced with earthquakes. Recent center activities have included:

*the announcement of an NSF-sponsored summer internship program for undergraduate students;

*progress on the FEMA-sponsored New York City earthquake consortium project; and

*MCEER contributions to a California Seismic Safety Commission document on earthquake risk management.

MCEER, MAE and PEER Centers Coordinate Research "Internships" for Undergrads

MCEER, MAE and PEER invite undergraduate students to explore new directions in earthquake studies this summer through the National Science Foundation (NSF) sponsored Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) Program in earthquake engineering and related studies. The program offers opportunities for undergraduate students to spend ten weeks conducting research at one of NSF's three earthquake engineering research centers: Mid-America Earthquake (MAE) Center, Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (MCEER), and the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center.

MCEER Seeks Alliances with Business, Industry and Government
MCEER has introduced its Strategic Partnerships Network to unite business, industry and government participants to enhance study, development and application of advanced technologies to reduce earthquake damage and losses.

The program features three levels of membership: Flagship Partner, Premier Partner, and Partner, and includes Specialty Interest Groups (SIGs) centered around technologies studied by MCEER researchers. The center seeks membership comprising the technology "application chain" manufacturers, consultants, architects, engineers and other practitioners, computer software developers, technology end-users and facility owners in business, industry and government. The program encourages networking and development of mutually-beneficial initiatives among participants and center researchers.

MCEER Coordinates FEMA NYC Earthquake Consortium Project
A forecast of the type of losses that the New York City metropolitan area could suffer following an earthquake is the subject of an MCEER-coordinated study funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The study is part of FEMA's "Project Impact," a nationwide initiative to build disaster-resistant communities.

The project involves a New York City Area Consortium for Earthquake-Loss Mitigation (NYCEM), comprising representatives of local and state agencies and public service industries, private-sector organizations, as well as academic experts. Members work to provide and prepare scientific and technical data for FEMA's HAZUS database. Thus far the project has focused on the development of earthquake loss estimations for Manhattan, below 59^th Street. When completed, the database will enable emergency management officials, businesses and others throughout the New York City area and parts of New Jersey, to project possible losses and develop plans to reduce exposure to earthquake risk.

MCEER Research Contributes to CSSC Proposition
MCEER research on nonstructural components is providing the foundation for the equipment section of "Earthquake Risk Management: A Tool for Decision Makers," a 100-page publication being developed by EQE International, for the California Seismic Safety Commission (CSSC). The publication will provide city, town and county public works directors with information on developing earthquake risk reduction programs. Two MCEER technical reports are referenced in the publication: "Appropriate Seismic Reliability for Critical Equipment Systems: Recommendations Based on Regional Analysis of Financial and Life Loss" (MCEER-98-0016); and "Seismic Reliability Assessment of Critical Facilities: A Handbook, Supporting Documentation and Model Code Provisions" (MCEER-99-0008).

CUSEC Update: Introducing the Central U.S. Partnership
The Central U.S. Earthquake Consortium (CUSEC) is working to refine its role as a coordinating organization for earthquake hazard reduction in the Central U.S., through involvement with a new initiative known as the Central U.S. Partnership or CUSP. The goal of the partnership is to link various public and private sector organizations so they might help one another in dealing with hazards affecting the region, with an emphasis on earthquakes. Core organizations include CUSEC, Association of CUSEC State Geologists, Mid-America Earthquake Center (MAEC), Institute for Business and Home Safety (IBHS), FEMA, and the USGS. A diverse group of other organizations have agreed to become partners, and more will be added as plans and programs are defined.

Developing a regional seismic advisory council is an initial goal of the coalition. The role of the council will be to advise the partners on developing long-term plans and programs to best coordinate their various strengths to benefit the entire region, by seeking new and innovative ways to make earthquake loss reduction a public value in the Central U.S.

A workshop was held May 22-24 to develop plans and define associations for the partnership around the key issues of Learning from Earthquakes, Living with Earthquakes, and Building for Earthquakes.

For more information about CUSP contact CUSEC, 2630 East Holmes Road, Memphis, TN, 28118-8001; (901) 544-3570; fax: (901) 544-0544; e-mail: cusec@cusec.org.

Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI)
EERI is gearing up for the 52nd Annual EERI Meeting to be held in St. Louis, Mo. May 31 - June 3rd, 2000. The focus is on reducting losses for infrequent but high consequence earthquakes. There has been a good deal of discussion in the professional literature about the frequency and magnitude of earthquakes that are expected in the New Madrid region and this topic will be among those considered at this meeting. This should be of considerable interest to the state geologists in WSSPC. We are working with CUSEC to attract earth scientists and those involved with emergency management in the midwest to this meeting. On Saturday, June 3rd, there will be a special tribute to Otto Nuttli, the father of seismic research in the New Madrid Region, and discussions throughout the meeting on past and future seismic mitigation approaches in mid America. We would be happy to provide more information to members of WSSPC via email and will shortly have the complete registration form and flyer on our web site at www.eeri.org.

National Youth Services Day helps out Project Impact: Project Safe prevention programs

On “National Youth Services Day,” Saturday, April 15, more than 50 American Red Cross youth volunteers will be visiting homes and apartments of elderly and low-income people in Oakland to do nonstructural earthquake retrofitting and to remove various fire hazards.

The volunteers will install water heater straps, cabinet latches and smoke detectors, and identify window security bars that need safety releases. They will also educate residents on the importance of emergency preparedness.

“This project is a unique opportunity for youth to work with local agencies to make their community safer in the event of a local earthquake. As part of this Project Community Quake Safe, youth volunteers (ages 14 – 18) will have a chance to put their knowledge to work and advocate service to youth and adults alike,” stated Anne Chan, Director, Youth Services, American Red Cross Bay Area.

The youth volunteers will be partnering with the City of Oakland Fire Department, Office of Emergency Services, the American Red Cross Bay Area Chapter, CARD (Collaborating Agencies Respond to Disasters), CORE (Citizens of Oakland Respond to Emergencies) and firefighters from Firefighters Union Local 55 to provide this free service.

“The Oakland Fire Department is happy to work in concert with FEMA, American Red Cross Youth Services, CORE, CARD, and members of IAFF Local 55 to assist our community, especially our seniors and other residents, in making Oakland resistant to disasters,” said OFD Battalion Chief Jim Williams.

This is the third annual April event for the City of Oakland’s Project SAFE (Safety And Future Empowerment) program, one of many innovative programs the city has undertaken since it was named as a pilot community for Project Impact, a nationwide initiative led by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

Project Impact is aimed at building disaster-resistant communities. In Oakland and elsewhere, Project Impact is based on three common-sense principles: preventive actions must be decided at the local level; private sector participation is vital; and long-term efforts and investments in damage prevention are essential.

Further information on Project Impact is available on the Internet from FEMA’s homepage at www.fema.gov. Information also is available through FEMA’s 24-hour Fax-on-Demand service by calling (202) 646-FEMA.

The 1994 Northridge earthquake caused a seismic shift in California’s earthquake insurance market and the state, insurers and homeowners are still sorting out the changes. After some intense political negotiations, a period of sometimes painful adjustment, and no major earthquakes, the California Earthquake Authority has emerged as the world’s largest insurer against earthquake risk and a unique model for catastrophic insurance that is being emulated around the world.

In a few terrifying seconds, Northridge demonstrated that California property and casualty insurers had dramatically underestimated their exposure to a moderate earthquake. In less than a minute, the insurance industry saw over $9 billion in insured losses to residential property – far more than all of the earthquake premiums collected in the preceding decades. Some insurers face insolvency as a result. Others, including some major companies, would not have been able to cover the damages from a second major earthquake on the heels of the Northridge disaster.

Taking note of this dangerous overexposure, insurance rating services downgraded many insurers.

The insurance industry’s initial reaction to the crisis was to seek relief in the California Legislature. Since the 1980’s, state law required all residential property insurers to offer earthquake insurance to their customers. Unwilling to take on any new earthquake risk, companies in 1994 asked the Legislature to repeal the “linkage” between homeowners insurance and earthquake insurance. (Regular homeowners’, condominium, mobile home and renters’ insurance policies do not generally cover earthquake damage.) While it would have solved the industry’s immediate problem, such an unlinking would have left millions of California property owners who wanted to insure against earthquake damage with few options.

When the Legislature refused to unlink homeowners’ insurance and earthquake insurance, companies opted to reduce their earthquake risk by seriously curtailing the sale of new residential insurance policies. At the height of the homeowners’ insurance availability crisis in 1995, insurers representing 93 percent of the California homeowners’ insurance market had severely restricted sales or refused to write new policies altogether.

In an attempt to alleviate the crisis, the California Legislature enacted a reduced-coverage catastrophic residential earthquake insurance policy that was designed to protect a policyholder’s dwelling while excluding detached-structure coverage and other nonessential provisions. This new policy, called the “mini-policy,” established a new minimum standard for coverage that must be offered to every residential policyholder. The mini-policy elements included a 15-percent deductible, $5,000 in contents coverage and $1500 in emergency living expenses.

Despite support from a wide range of groups including insurers, insurance agents and responsible consumer organizations such as the Consumers Union, the mini-policy was not enough to entice insurers back into California’s residential market. By mid-1996, the availability crisis was threatening the vitality of the state’s housing market and California’s economic recession recovery was stalling.

After some of the most protracted negotiations in the history of the Legislature, lawmakers responded in September 1996 by creating the California Earthquake Authority (CEA). In exchange for pledging to put up some $3.5 billion to cover claims after an earthquake, insurers transferred their earthquake risk to the newly formed Earthquake Authority.

To augment those resources, the CEA entered into the largest single placement of reinsurance ever when it purchased approximately $2.5 billion in reinsurance. An additional $716 million line of credit and accrued policyholder premiums brought the total amount available to pay claims to over $7.2 billion. Under the newly revised coverage limits, these resources give the CEA sufficient resources to cover all claims from more than two earthquakes the size of the Northridge disaster.

No public money and no funds from the state’s General Fund are pledged to cover losses incurred by CEA policyholders.

The CEA in December 1996 began to provide earthquake coverage to residential property owners, condominium owners, mobile homeowners and renters throughout California. Just six months after the inception of the CEA, a California Department of Insurance study found that more insurance companies were freely writing homeowners’ insurance with fewer underwriting restrictions than even before the Northridge earthquake – a dramatic market recovery by any measure.

With more than 900,000 policyholders and $163 billion in insured risk, the CEA is today the largest provider of residential earthquake insurance in the world.

Headquartered in Sacramento, the CEA is governed by a five-member Board made up of the Governor, Treasurer, Insurance Commissioner, Speaker of the State Assembly and Chair of the State Senate Rules Committee.

Participation in the CEA by insurers is voluntary. Insurers representing approximately two-thirds of the market are members. Participating insurance companies are Allstate Insurance Company, Armed Forces Insurance Exchange, California FAIR Plan, CAN, CSAA, Farmers Insurance Group, Golden Eagle, GuideOne Insurance, Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club, Liberty Mutual, Merastar, Mercury, Prudential, State Farm Insurance, and USAA.

One of the more innovative features of the CEA is a lean management and overhead structure that places responsibility for policy processing and adjusting claims on the CEA’s member insurance companies.

Since its inception, improved science and a better-than-expected risk profile have allowed the CEA to reduce rates twice. The average statewide rate for earthquake insurance is 15 percent less today than when the CEA opened for business almost three and a half years ago.

Market surveys have found the CEA’s rates to be generally competitive on a statewide basis with those offered by non-CEA insurers. Rates range from an average of $0.95 per $1,000 of insured value up to $4.70 per $1,000, depending on the degree of risk associated with the property. The average rate for CEA policies on a statewide basis is $2.79 per $1,000 of coverage while the average for the largest insurers who do not participate in the CEA is $2.92 per $1,000.

The CEA uses 19 separate rating territories to differentiate rates for its policies. Scientific data concerning earthquake faults, soil types and conditions, and other factors determine the degree of risk faced by the territories. Findings were subjected to extensive peer review and new scientific information concerning seismic risk is regularly reviewed and incorporated into the CEA’s rate model.

Since the creation of the mini-policy, many consumers have expressed a desire to purchase coverage beyond what is available in that catastrophic policy. As a means of addressing these concerns, the CEA in June of 1999 introduced a line of supplemental coverages that allow policyholders to buy down their deductibles to 10 percent and/or increase their contents coverage to $100,000 and their emergency living allowance to $15,000. Consumer response to the supplemental options has been outstanding and the CEA has written over 45,000 supplemental policies since they were announced.

A key step in the creation of the CEA was a determination by the Internal Revenue Service that the Authority could operate as a nonprofit entity, thereby exempting from taxation the pool of premiums from which claims can be paid after earthquakes. One of the reasons for this determination was the CEA’s pledge to offer earthquake mitigation programs to all Californians, including those without CEA insurance.

In an effort to fulfill this mandate, the CEA in June of 1998 created a pilot Residential Retrofit Program in Ventura and Santa Clara counties. The program offered low-cost inspections and assessments prepared by structural engineers of wood-frame homes built before 1979.

In September 1999, the CEA unveiled a more extensive mitigation program in eight San Francisco Bay Area counties. This program, called State Assistance For Earthquake Retrofitting, or SAFER, offered free home inspections and referrals to contractors who have received training in residential retrofitting. SAFER also offered low-interest loans through the Federal Emergency Management Agency and Fannie Mae to help pay for the seismic safety improvements identified by the inspections.

The program drew nearly 16,000 responses from Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara and Sonoma counties, and was clearly a successful tool for educating Bay Area homeowners about the need for residential earthquake safety. The CEA is currently evaluating this phase of the SAFER pilot program and hopes to expand the program to additional areas in the near future.

In October 1999, the CEA joined Oakland’s KTVU Television to sponsor a major public awareness program focused on the tenth anniversary of the Loma Prieta Earthquake. Bringing private sector sponsors to the program, the CEA worked closely with KTVU to develop a range of activities and materials that increased awareness of and preparedness for earthquakes. The project culminated in a 90-minute television program that examined the effects of Loma Prieta and the steps Bay Area residents could take to avoid harm in the next serious earthquake.

Continuing in its consumer-oriented role, the CEA in February of this year launched a menu of new services that would allow Californians more convenient access to information on earthquake insurance and earthquake preparedness. A web site (www.earthquakeauthority.com) enables insurance consumers and agents to obtain complete information about the CEA and its insurance products, calculate rates and premiums, get tips on filing insurance claims, and learn more about retrofitting their homes and being prepared for an earthquake. A toll-free telephone hotline (877-797-4300) offers consumers an additional method of finding out about earthquake insurance.

As it geared up for the demands of a new century, the CEA created a prominent new logo that better identified its services with the theme, “We can’t predict the future - we can only protect it.” And the Authority developed a comprehensive strategic plan to guide its activities. A part of that plan was a new mission statement that identifies the CEA’s core function as “providing Californians the ability to protect themselves, their homes, and their loved ones from earthquake loss. In support of this mission, the CEA is committed to:

§ Maintaining and enhancing the financial ability of the Authority to meet its claims-paying obligations.

§ Using the best science available to provide actuarially sound insurance coverage, while striving to make policies accessible and competitively priced.

§ Assuring the Authority’s readiness and capability to handle claims promptly, fairly, and consistently.

§ Educating Californians about earthquake risk and about options, particularly CEA products, available to them to reduce that risk.”

Having survived a difficult birth and early childhood, the CEA today is a mature and respected presence in the California political and business landscape. More importantly, it has earned acceptance among homeowners as a dependable source of insurance and a resource to help them protect their property and their families when the next big earthquake strikes.

The primary goal of establishing a congressional natural hazards caucus is to develop a wider understanding within Congress that reducing the risks and costs of natural disasters is a public value. That requires educating Members and staff about the costs of natural disasters to their districts and states, and the benefits their constituents will realize through greater efforts to understand, prevent, and mitigate natural disasters. The caucus would provide Members with an opportunity to demonstrate their concern and commitment to reducing hazard losses.

Jurisdiction for natural hazards programs is spread among many committees in Congress. Each committee only handles a piece of the overall efforts to prevent and mitigate natural disasters. A caucus can provide the "big picture" to interested lawmakers and their staff, and give them the opportunity to see how the issues that fall within individual committee jurisdictions fit within a larger national effort. Typical caucus events include Capitol Hill luncheon briefings, roundtable discussions, special forums, receptions, and events targeted to a subgroup of the caucus. Events can also be structured so that they also provide a forum for raising the visibility of a hazards-related topic with the media and American public.

A successful caucus reflects a strong partnership between its congressional members and groups outside Congress that share similar interests. A working group of organizations has come together with a common desire to reduce the toll-- both human and financial-- of natural hazards and to enhance the nation's ability to recover from those events. We plan to work together to help our nation become more resilient to natural hazards.

Shared objectives for the caucus include:

· Focus greater attention in Congress on the natural and man-made hazards facing the nation and improve understanding of the need to mitigate against the impacts of floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, landslides and land subsidence, tornadoes, volcanoes, wind storms, drought, fire, and tsunamis.

· Foster better land-use planning and optimize building codes.

· Strengthen public and private support for science and engineering research by demonstrating how application of advances in science and engineering research can contribute to saving lives and money.

· Support the implementation of new technologies, such as geographic information systems, to address societal challenges faced by state and local government and the private sector.

· Identify additional areas of consensus and common interests related to natural hazards.

The working group is currently seeking charter members of this caucus. We would be happy to discuss this proposal further or provide additional information. Please contact David Applegate at the American Geological Institute (703-379-2480, ext. 228; applegate@agiweb.org) or Peter Folger at the American Geophysical Union (202-777-7509; pfolger@agu.org).

The cost of natural disasters is rising. During the past two decades, natural disaster damage costs have exceeded the $500 billion mark. Only 17 percent of that figure was covered by insurance. (Dennis S. Mileti, Disasters by Design)

Natural Hazards Facts
The cost of natural disasters is rising. During the past two decades, natural disaster damage costs have exceeded the $500 billion mark. Only 17 percent of that figure was covered by insurance. (Dennis S. Mileti, Disasters by Design)

Almost 135 million people, which accounts for almost half of the U.S. population, are now living on or near the nation's coastline. (Amanda Levin, The National Underwriter Company). Noted hurricane forecaster William Gray, Colorado State University professor, predicts hurricanes will be the nation's greatest threat during the next 20 to 30 years.

From 1976 to 1998, the U.S. experienced almost 800 declared major disasters (Federal Emergency Management Agency statistics)

From FY1990 to FY1997, damage from U.S. flooding alone topped $33 billion. (FEMA statistics)

One of the nation's most expensive disasters, the 1994 Northridge Earthquake, cost FEMA more than $5.5 billion in relief funds alone. (FEMA statistics)

1998 was one of the costliest for the U.S. That year, the U.S. sustained seven disasters, each costing more than $1 billion. (The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)

Not only did the eastern drought and heat wave of the summer of 1999 result in more than $1 billion in agriculture losses, but 256 people lost their lives. Just one year before, the Southern drought and heat wave resulted in almost $9 billion in agriculture and ranching damage. Two hundred people perished that summer. (NOAA)

The Congressional Natural Hazards Caucus Work Group
American Geological Institute· American Geophysical Union ·American Meteorological Society ·American Red Cross ·American Society of Civil Engineers· Association of American State Geologists ·Association of State Flood Plain Managers ·Geo-Institute of ASCE ·Institute for Business & Home Safety ·IRIS Consortium ·National Emergency Management Association ·Reinsurance Association of America· Seismological Society of America· Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE· University Corporation for Atmospheric Research ·USAA

Conference Overview
In its series of policy theme discussions, WSSPC's National Earthquake Risk Management Conference first reviews the significant lessons learned from earlier natural disaster experiences that offer the greatest opportunities for risk reduction today. Opportunities for further risk reduction derived from the application of emerging technologies are investigated next. This is followed by examination of methodologies of estimating the extent and dimensions of loss/risk and the means of increasing citizens' awareness regarding the extent of their exposure. The potential effectiveness of an array of loss-reduction and mitigation strategies is reviewed to identify priorities that can be employed in future public policies. The current status and potential application of earthquake building codes are considered to seek insights to increase their effectiveness and to evaluate how to make other mitigation strategies more effective. Finally, a facilitated, interactive discussion will explore the most promising policy issues that conference participants and the Western States Seismic Policy Council can pursue further to endorse and to employ in future earthquake risk management.

1. Lessons Learned
As a matter of course, the patterns of loss of life and damage resulting from earthquakes are scrutinized to learn lessons regarding how future losses from seismic events can be reduced. Residents of Turkey, Taiwan, and Kobe, Japan have recently suffered disasters. Much of their losses could have been avoided if understanding from past earthquakes had been employed in building design and placement, construction quality control, and land-use planning and regulation. There are always, however, new lessons to be learned from every damaging earthquake because new insights of construction performance, site condition effects, etc. can be derived from new observations. These observations, taken together with earlier experiences that have been associated with the impacts of tsunamis in Chile, Hawaii and Japan and volcanic eruptions in the Pacific Northwest, can be used by committed citizens and their governments to manage risk and vulnerability.
Each area in North America with earthquake potential can benefit from lessons learned in previous earthquakes throughout the world. In this session we will explore the implications of recent lessons learned in managing our risk in the Pacific Northwest and in the Central U.S. The similarities in tectonic settings as well as the built environment are taken into account.

2. New Technologies - New Opportunities
Recently developed and nascent capabilities for disseminating scientific and technical information will facilitate applications for managing earthquakes and other disasters before, during, and after they strike. These capabilities vary for different natural perils, but both common and unique elements may be found in the case of earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, tornadoes, hurricanes, and floods. Immediate dissemination of parametric information, including spatial distribution of effects, and rapid loss estimation are some examples of capabilities currently in place in certain locales, and are being considered or are under development in others - including the Pacific Northwest and the central U.S. Early warning is already online for floods and weather disasters. Early warning of residents regarding ground shaking from earthquakes in progress and volcanoes experiencing unrest are still evolving technology applications.
The purposes of this session are to explore common themes and issues among the experiences of the presenters and the participants; to examine lessons that may transfer between different situations; suggest policy direction associated with the opportunities that these new technologies present; and to explore the best manner of assuring that real-time monitoring can fulfill the needs of those utilizing the new technology to reduce natural disaster losses.

3. Strategies to Reduce Impacts of Disasters
Natural disasters cast a significant shadow on national economic growth and well being. The most severe disasters are infrequent and have profound direct and indirect economic effects that defy traditional actuarial analysis. Policies necessary to deal with the costs of disasters require:
Consensus on the best models to determine future disaster costs, given their limitations and uncertainties; Methods of increasing the awareness of the public and its policy makers regarding the costs of future disasters in order to achieve commitment to loss-reduction policies; Consensus on the roles of state and federal governments, lending institutions, insurers and the business community in implementing policies that can limit disaster costs and hasten post-disaster recovery.
This session focuses on risk analysis, loss estimation and means to communicate this understanding in the selections and adoption of policies in public and private quarters that will reduce future losses from earthquakes and other perils.

4. Identifying Effective Loss Reduction Strategies
The understandings that certain types of disasters will recur and that our built environment has specific components that can fail are not causing comprehensive spontaneous efforts to reduce future losses. Neither public mitigation policies such as regulating land-use placement of structures, building codes and emergency preparedness, nor private voluntary actions such as insurance, structural retrofitting and personal preparedness are optimally utilized. Since these mitigation efforts make sense as abstractions, what public and private strategies can encourage more extensive action? What are the most effective collaborative strategic and tactical roles of the federal, state, and local governments and private institutions in achieving improved future loss reduction? How can the citizen consensus that is required to create public mitigation policies be reached nationally and locally in regions that are most at risk? How can we prioritize prospective options? What are the most promising approaches based upon our experience?
This session will address these issues and questions based upon experience and analysis of the potential outcomes of new approaches.

5. Earthquake Building Codes in the 21st Century
During the last half of the 20th century, construction that has complied with building codes is generally credited with significantly reducing earthquake losses in jurisdictions where codes exist. Consensus-based engineering judgments used in code development consider past structural performance and estimation of effects of anticipated earthquakes. Emerging technologies continue to offer challenges to design adequate resistance into new types of construction as well as to offer opportunities to design foundations and other elements that can minimize structural responses.
At the beginning of the new century, International Building Code 2000 will be the standard across the nation. The 2000 Code is performance-based so that the level of design resistance can be matched to the past earthquake functional capability intended by the owner. Avoidance of collapse hazard is no longer the single criterion for the threshold design.
Mitigation through the medium of building codes in the 21st century can be advanced by: extending the use of codes in more jurisdictions with appreciable risk; improving code compliance and quality of construction; and further improvements in engineering design requirements.
In this discussion we address the following questions: Why do some exposed jurisdictions have codes and others do not? How can the code development process itself be improved? What are the most promising directions for future code evolution? How can codes more effectively address retrofitting existing structures?

6. Policy Development
Policy Session 6 is an interactive and facilitated forum for discussion of the policy issues emerging from the conference and consideration of actions to be taken. WSSPC members will consider the outcomes of these discussions in formulating future policy recommendations for the earthquake loss reduction community.

Todd Fleming graduated in 1998 with a BA in geology from Carleton College, a liberal arts college located in Northfield, Minnesota. As an intern undergraduate researcher at NASA/ Cal Tech Jet Propulsion Laboratory, he performed significant research in Venusian geology. He has worked for the last two years as an admissions counselor at Carleton College, where his primary projects have included coordinating large visit programs, overseeing the student volunteer group, and numerous other tasks related to student recruitment.

Todd will join WSSPC as Program Manager July 10, upon completion of his responsibilities to Carleton College. He brings a strong writing and seismic interest background, and is excited to join WSSPC. He'll settle in Alameda, California, where he will be watchful for ultimate frisbee tournaments!

Todd can be reached at tfleming@wsspc.org.

The March 2000 WSSPC Board of Directors' meeting was held in FEMA headquarters in Washington, D.C. in order to meet with a large number of FEMA, USGS, and NSF officials. During the two-day meeting the Board met with Mike Armstrong, Craig Wingo, Margaret Lawless, Maria Vorel, Stuart Nishenko, Claire Drury, Elizabeth Lemersal, and Ted Litty of FEMA; John Filson and Jill McCarthy of the USGS; and Herman Zimmerman of NSF. In addition to taking the pulse of these agencies, the Board devoted much if its meeting time to updating the WSSPC Strategic Plan and planning The National Earthquake Risk Management Conference. The next Board meeting will be held in Reno, Nevada June 28-29, 2000.