SB 135, as amended, Padilla. Earthquake early warning system.
There is in state government, pursuant to the Governor’s Reorganization Plan No. 2, operative July 1, 2013, the Office of Emergency Services. Existing law requires the office to develop and distribute an educational pamphlet for use by kindergarten, any of grades 1 to 12, inclusive, and community college personnel to identify and mitigate the risks posed by nonstructural earthquake hazards.
This bill would require the office, in collaboration with various entities, including the United States Geological Survey, to develop a comprehensive statewide earthquake early warning system in California through a public-private partnership and would require the system to include certain features, including the installation of field sensors. The bill would require the office to develop an approval mechanism, as provided, to review compliance with
earthquake early warning standards as they are developed. The bill would require the office to identify funding sources
begin delete andend delete would prohibit the office from identifying begin delete as a funding source, or expending, any state fundsend delete to establish the system. The bill would make these provisions contingent upon the office identifying funding sources for the system, as provided. If no funding sources are identified by
January 1, 2016, the bill would repeal these provisions.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
(a) The Legislature finds and declares all of the
3(1) According to the United States Geological Survey, California
4is one of the most seismically active states, second only to Alaska.
5(2) California has experienced dozens of disastrous earthquakes,
6which have caused loss of life, injury, and economic loss. Some
7of the most significant earthquakes in California’s history include:
8(A) The 1906 San Francisco earthquake, which, at a magnitude
9of 7.8, resulted in an estimated 3,000 deaths and over $500 million
10in property losses.
11(B) The 1971 San Fernando earthquake, which, at a magnitude
12of 6.7, resulted in at least 65 deaths and caused property damage
13of over $500 million.
14(C) The 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, which, at a magnitude
15of 6.9, caused 63 fatalities and over $6 billion in property damage.
16(D) The 1994 Northridge earthquake, which, at a magnitude of
176.7, claimed the lives of 60 people and caused estimated property
18damage of between $13 and $32 billion.
19(3) About 90 percent of the world’s earthquakes and over 80
20 percent of the world’s largest earthquakes occur along the
21Circum-Pacific Belt, also known as the Pacific Ring of Fire. The
22Pacific Ring of Fire includes the very active San Andreas Fault
23Zone in California.
P3 1(4) The Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast
2(UCERF) released in 2008 predicted a 99.7 percent likelihood of
3a magnitude 6.7 or larger earthquake in California in the next 30
5(5) A 2013 study published by the California Institute of
6Technology (Caltech) and the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth
7Science and Technology discovered that a statewide California
8earthquake involving both the Los Angeles and San Francisco
9metropolitan areas may be possible.
10(6) Japan, Taiwan, Mexico, Turkey, Romania,
Italy, and China
11either have or are working on earthquake early warning systems
12that are capable of saving lives and helping to mitigate loss.
13(7) The Office of Emergency Services, Caltech, California
14Geological Survey, University of California, United States
15Geological Survey, and others have been conducting earthquake
16early warning research and development in California. They operate
17the California Integrated Seismic Network, which has a
18demonstration earthquake early warning capability.
19(8) By building upon the California Integrated Seismic Network
20and processing data from an array of sensors throughout the state,
21a fully developed earthquake early warning system would
22effectively detect some strength and progression of earthquakes
23and alert the public within seconds, sometimes up to 60 seconds,
24before potentially damaging ground shaking is felt.
25(9) An earthquake early warning system should disseminate
26earthquake information in support of public safety, emergency
27response, and loss mitigation.
28(b) It is the intent of the Legislature that the establishment of
29an earthquake early warning system pursuant to this act shall not
30result in any undue burden upon the General Fund and that, to the
31maximum extent possible, the Office of Emergency Services shall
32seek other sources for funding the implementation of Section
338587.8 of the Government Code.
Section 8587.8 is added to the Government Code, to
(a) The Office of Emergency Services, in collaboration
37with the California Institute of Technology (Caltech), the California
38Geological Survey, the University of California, the United States
39Geological Survey, the Alfred E. Alquist Seismic Safety
40Commission, and other stakeholders, shall develop a
P4 1comprehensive statewide earthquake early warning system in
2California through a public-private partnership, which shall include,
3but not be limited to, the following features:
4(1) Installation of field sensors.
5(2) Improvement of field telemetry.
6(3) Construction and testing of central processing and
8(4) Establishment of warning notification distribution paths to
10(5) Integration of earthquake early warning education with
11general earthquake preparedness efforts.
12(b) In consultation with stakeholders, the Office of Emergency
13Services shall develop an approval mechanism to review
14compliance with earthquake early warning standards as they are
15developed. The development of the approval mechanism shall
16include input from a broad representation of earthquake early
17warning stakeholders. The approval mechanism shall accomplish
18all of the following:
19(1) Ensure the standards are appropriate.
20(2) Determine the degree to which the standards apply to
21providers and components of the system.
22(3) Determine methods to ensure compliance with the standards.
23(4) Determine requirements for participation in the system.
24(c) The Office of Emergency Services shall identify funding
25for the system described in subdivision (a) through single or
26multiple sources of revenue that shall be limited to federal funds,
27funds from revenue bonds, local funds, and private grants. The
28Office of Emergency Services shall not identify
29 as a funding source
begin delete any state funds or expend state fundsend delete for the
30purpose of establishing the system described in subdivision (a).
32(d) Subdivisions (a) and (b) shall not become operative until
33the Office of Emergency Services identifies funding pursuant to
35(e) (1) If funding is not identified pursuant to subdivision (c)
36by January 1, 2016, this section is repealed unless a later enacted
37statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2016, deletes or extends
P5 1(2) The Office of Emergency Services shall file with the
2Secretary of State its determination that funding was not identified
3pursuant to subdivision (c) by January 1, 2016.