BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 135|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 135
Author: Padilla (D), et al.
Amended: 5/24/13
Vote: 21
SENATE GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION COMMITTEE : 11-0, 4/9/13
AYES: Wright, Nielsen, Berryhill, Calderon, Cannella, Correa,
De Le�n, Galgiani, Hernandez, Lieu, Padilla
SENATE NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER COMMITTEE : 9-0, 4/23/13
AYES: Pavley, Cannella, Evans, Fuller, Hueso, Jackson, Lara,
Monning, Wolk
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 7-0, 5/23/13
AYES: De Le�n, Walters, Gaines, Hill, Lara, Padilla, Steinberg
SUBJECT : Earthquake early warning system
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill makes various findings and declarations
relative to the nature of earthquakes and early warning
technology and requires the Office of Emergency Services (OES),
in collaboration with the California Institute of Technology
(Caltech), the California Geological Survey (CGS), the
University of California (UC), the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS), and others, to develop a comprehensive statewide
earthquake early warning (EEW) system in California and requires
the system to include certain features, including the
installation of field sensors; and makes these provisions
CONTINUED
SB 135
Page
2
contingent upon OES identifying funding sources for the system,
as provided. If no funding sources are identified by January 1,
2016, these provisions are repealed.
ANALYSIS :
Existing law:
1. Provides for the California Emergency Services Act requiring
the Director of OES to coordinate the emergency activities of
all state agencies during an emergency.
2. Provides for the establishment of a Standardized Emergency
Management System for use by all emergency response agencies.
3. Provides that OES shall coordinate the activities of all
state agencies relating to preparation and implementation of
the State Emergency Plan, the response efforts of state and
local agencies and the integration of federal resources into
state and local response and recovery operations.
4. Establishes the CGS which provides scientific products and
services about the state's geology, seismology and mineral
resources including their related hazards, which affect the
health, safety, and business interests of the people of
California. The CGS creates and maintains the California
Integrated Seismic Network (CISN) "ShakeMaps."
5. Requires that safety elements of local general plans protect
communities from any unreasonable risks associated with the
effects of, amongst others, earthquakes and tsunamis, and
include mapping of known seismic and other geological
hazards.
6. Provides for the 20-member Alfred E. Alquist Seismic Safety
Commission which was established with the passage of the
Seismic Safety Commission Act of 1975, in response to the
devastation following the Sylmar Earthquake of 1971, after an
ad hoc committee recognized the need for a continuing effort
to build the state's infrastructure to resist future
earthquakes. The Commission is charged with investigating
earthquakes, advising the Governor, Legislature and state and
local government on ways to reduce earthquake risk and
ensuring a coordinated framework for establishing earthquake
CONTINUED
SB 135
Page
3
safety policies and programs in California.
This bill:
1. Makes legislative findings and declarations relating to
California seismic activity/forecast, the Pacific Ring of
Fire, and EEW systems.
2. Requires OES, in collaboration with Caltech, UC, USGS, and
CGS to develop a comprehensive statewide EEW system in
California that includes, but is not limited to, (a)
installation of field sensors, (b) improvement of field
telemetry, (c) construction and testing of central processing
and notification centers, (d) establishment of warning
notification distribution paths to the public, and (e)
integration of earthquake early warning education with
general earthquake preparedness efforts.
3. Requires OES to identify funding for the system through
single or multiple sources of revenue, including, but not
limited to, federal funds, funds from revenue bonds, local
funds, and private grants.
4. Provides that #2 above shall not become operative until OES
identifies funding pursuant to #3 above.
5. Provides that if funding is not identified, as specified, by
January 1, 2016, the provisions of the bill are repealed
unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before
January 1, 2016, deletes or extends that date.
6. Requires OES to file with the Secretary of State its
determination that funding was not identified, as specified.
Background
EEW system . When an earthquake occurs, seismic waves radiate
from the epicenter like waves on a pond - it is these waves we
feel as earthquake shaking which causes damage to structures.
The technology exists to detect moderate to large earthquakes so
quickly that a warning can be sent to locations outside the area
where the earthquake begins before these destructive waves
arrive. The amount of warning time at a particular location
depends on the distance from the earthquake epicenter.
CONTINUED
SB 135
Page
4
Locations very close to the earthquake epicenter will receive
relatively little or no warning whereas locations far removed
from the earthquake epicenter would receive more warning time
but may not experience damaging shaking. For those locations in
between, the warning time could range from seconds to minutes.
Currently, there are two approaches to EEW - the "single
station" (or on-site) approach and the "network" approach. In
the single-station approach, a single sensor detects the arrival
of the faster but weaker seismic wave (P-wave) and warns before
the arrival of the slower, more destructive seismic wave
(S-wave). This approach is relatively simple, but some would
argue it is less accurate and more prone to false alerts
compared to the network approach.
The network approach utilizes many seismic sensors that are
distributed across a wide area where earthquakes are likely to
occur. This network of sensors sends data to a central site
where ground motion signals are analyzed, earthquakes are
detected and warnings are issued. The network approach is
considered to be slower, but more reliable than the on-site
approach. This is because it uses information from many
stations to confirm that the ground motion detected is actually
from an earthquake and not from some other source of vibration.
CISN . The CISN, a collaborative effort between Caltech, UC
Berkeley, USGS, California Emergency Management Agency (CalEMA)
and CGS, currently operates a network of hundreds of seismic
sensors in California to monitor and notify earthquake activity
in this State. The CISN is primarily funded by USGS, CalEMA,
and CGS. The CISN generates and distributes ShakeMaps and
other products for emergency response, post-earthquake recovery,
earthquake engineering, and seismological research.
Ring of Fire . California is in the heart of the Pacific Ring of
Fire which includes the very active San Andreas Fault zone which
is more than 800 miles long and extends to depths of at least 10
miles within the Earth. Geological studies show that over the
past 1,400 to 1,500 years large earthquakes have occurred at
about 150-year intervals on the southern San Andreas Fault - the
last such large quake in 1857.
According to a 2008 analysis from the Uniform California
Earthquake Rupture Forecast, California has a 99.7% chance of
CONTINUED
SB 135
Page
5
having a 6.7 magnitude earthquake and a 94% likelihood of a 7.0
magnitude earthquake during the next 30 years. In addition, the
USGS released a report that showed a 7.8 magnitude earthquake on
the southern Andreas Fault would cause 2,000 deaths and $200
billion in damage, with severe and long lasting disruption.
Early warning systems are in place, or in the works, in a number
of earthquake prone nations including Japan, Taiwan, Mexico,
Turkey, Italy, China, and Romania. Japan turned on the first
publicly available nationwide EEW system in 2007, and on March
11, 2011, it had its first true test during the 9.0 magnitude
Tohoku earthquake off the coast of Sendai. Earthquake warnings
were automatically broadcast on television and radio and 52
million people received their warning via smartphones - millions
more downloaded the early warning app after the quake to receive
warnings in advance of large aftershocks.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Initial estimated costs of approximately $80 million over five
years (likely $20-$25 million in the first year, and $12-$15
million for the remaining four years) to establish a statewide
EEW system (federal/local/private). This assumes an expansion
of the current CISN, rather than building a warning system
from the ground up.
Initial OES staffing costs of $399,000 annually (two Research
Specialist II positions) to support the development of the
system.
Unknown, ongoing costs to operate and maintain the system
(General Fund).
Strong Motion Instrumentation Program, as well as the Seismic
Hazard Mapping Program, is supported by residential construction
fees of $10 per $100,000 of value and commercial building permit
fees of $21 per $100,000 of value. These fees, which are
deposited in the Strong Motion Instrumentation and Seismic
Hazards Mapping Fund, have not been raised since 1990. Since
the 2000-01 fiscal year, revenues from the fees have ranged from
$3.5 to $8.8 million, depending on building and construction
CONTINUED
SB 135
Page
6
activity. Fee revenues have not met current program costs since
the 2006-07 fiscal year, falling nearly $1 million short in
fiscal year 2011-12, and nearly $750,000 short in 2012-13. The
program's current funding source would not support the expansion
of staff and instrumentation required by an EEW system. As
such, General Fund support would be required to develop and
implement an EEW system.
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/24/13)
California Institute of Technology
Cities of Baldwin Park, Bell Gardens, Beverly Hills, Coalinga,
Encinitas, Grover
Beach, Irvine, Los Angeles, Rancho Cordova, South El Monte,
Watsonville,
and Winters
City of Chula Vista, Councilman Rudy Ramirez
City of Culver City, Mayor Andrew Weissman
City of Martinez, Mayor Rob Schroder
City of Pasadena, Mayor Bill Bogaard
City of Walnut Creek, Mayor Cindy Silva
City of West Hollywood, Mayor Abbe Land
County of San Mateo
Metropolitan Water District of California
Town of Los Altos Hills
University of California
University of California, Berkeley
OPPOSITION : (Verified 5/24/13)
Department of Finance
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author, "while
earthquakes cannot be predicated or prevented, using advanced
science and technology we can detect seismic activity to provide
an advanced warning, save lives and help mitigate damage.
California currently has the California Integrated Seismic
Network (CISN), which is a demonstration earthquake early
warning system. A fully developed system would process data
from an array of sensors throughout the state. The system would
effectively detect the strength and the progression of
earthquakes, alert the public within seconds and provide up to
60 seconds advanced warning before potentially damaging ground
shaking is felt. Earthquake early warning systems not only
CONTINUED
SB 135
Page
7
alert the public, they also speed the response of police, fire
and other safety personnel by quickly identifying areas hardest
hit by the quake."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The Department of Finance states
that this bill will result in additional General Fund costs that
are not included in the Administration's current fiscal plan.
MW:d 5/24/13 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED