AN ASSESSMENT OF THE SOCIAL IMPACTS
Often, it is assumed that disasters leave masses of the population in
the impacted areas dazed and helpless and unable to cope with the new
conditions, or that those not so immobilized panic or display
antisocial behavior. Another common assumption is that local
communities and organizations are rendered ineffective to handle the
many problems, leading to further disorganization, loss of morale, and
requiring the quick assertion of "strong" outside leadership and
control.
Practical experience and field studies of disasters indicate that
these assumptions are not necessarily correct. The widespread sharing
of danger, loss, and deprivation produces an intimate cooperativeness
among the survivors, which overcomes social isolation and provides a
channel for very close communication and expression and a major source
of physical and emotional support and reassurance. This capacity seems
to account for the resiliency of personality and social organization
in dealing with threat and danger. It is also at the base of the
ability of social life to regenerate.
In addition, a good case can be made in that community systems
experiencing impact may be more efficient and rational than they are
in "normal" circumstances. Normal (pre-disaster) community life
traditionally operates at a low level of effectiveness and efficiency.
Activities are directed toward a very diffuse set of goals, just as
human resources within the community are inadequately utilized. Upon
disaster impact, certain community goals--care for victims and the
restoration of essential services--develop a high priority while
others are ignored or held in abeyance. Thus, the entire range of
community resources, even taking into account "losses," can be
allocated to the accomplishment of the more critical goals. Also,
human resources are better utilized. Many women, older persons,
younger persons, and members of minorities now become "productive;"
the "labor" market after impact is open to those underutilized
resources. In effect, then, disasters create the conditions for the
more efficient utilization of material resources and the more
effective mobilization of human resources.
To accomplish this, certain modifications have to occur in the normal
community structure, since the usual decision-making structures are
designed for a different range and type of problem. Outsiders see this
restructuring process as disorganized, chaotic, and creating the
necessity for the imposition of some strong outside authority. On the
contrary, this restructuring process is functional and adaptive. Its
consequences are seen in communities and societies that rebound
dramatically from the disruption and destruction to levels of
integration, productivity, and growth capacity far beyond the
pre-disaster state.
In summary, the picture drawn points to the capacity of individuals
and institutions to deal with difficult problems created by disaster
impact. It also points to the adaptive capacity of social organization
within communities to deal with unique and dramatic problems. These
findings are not an argument against planning nor against "outside"
assistance, but they should condition both the nature of planning and
the direction of assistance.
ANNEX 1
LETTERS OF CORRESPONDENCE
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 19, 1980
To Governor Jerry Brown
As you know, following my trip to view the destructive impacts of the
volcanic eruption of Mt. St. Helens in the State of Washington, I
directed that an assessment be undertaken of the consequences and
state of preparedness for a major earthquake in California. This
review, chaired by my Science and Technology Advisor, Frank Press, is
now complete. We are grateful for the assistance provided by your
staff and the other State, and local officials in this effort.
Although current response plans are generally adequate for moderate
earthquakes, Federal, State, and local officials agree that additional
preparation is required to cope with a major earthquake. Prudence
requires, therefore, that we take steps to improve our preparedness.
While the primary responsibility for preparedness rests with the State
of California, its local governments and its people, the magnitude of
human suffering and loss of life that might occur and the importance
of California to the rest of the Nation require increased Federal
attention to this important issue. Accordingly, I have directed that
the Federal government increase its work with you to supplement your
efforts. The Federal efforts will be led by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency and include the Department of Defense and other
Departments and agencies as appropriate.
As a Nation, we must reduce the adverse impacts of a catastrophic
earthquake to the extent humanly possible by increasing our
preparedness for this potential eventuality.
Sincerely,
[signed] Jimmy Carter
The Honorable Edmund G. Brown, Jr.
Governor of California
Sacramento, California 95814
September 26, 1980
The Honorable Jimmy Carter
The President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
Let me take this opportunity to review our conversations over the last
few months regarding increased seismic activity in California.
When we met in Oakland on July 4 I raised the issue of seismic
hazards. I was concerned then with the steady increase in seismic
activity in California since 1978. Sharing my concern, you directed
that the National Security Council join with my staff and certain
local experts to conduct a quick study on the potential for a great
earthquake in California.
As you know, significant theoretical and public policy research had
already been completed by our Seismic Safety Commission, State
Geologist, Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council and the Office of
Emergency Services. Together with the U.S. Geological Survey and the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), they had clearly been
keeping abreast of the state of the art of earthquake prediction.
Indeed, combined state and federal efforts, founded on major
theoretical advances in American, Russian and Chinese seismic and
geological theory since the early 1970s, had shifted the language of
earthquake prediction in California from "if" to "when"!
In light of my personal interest in this subject, I have signed into
law Assemblyman Frank Vicencia's AB 2202, a jointly funded
state-federal project to design a comprehensive earthquake
prediction-response plan. It is the state's intention to prepare a
plan for the greater Los Angeles area as quickly as feasible. In my
view, such a fullscale prediction-response program had become possible
only after the research findings of both physical and policy
scientists during the past five years. It is my conviction that such a
plan is now timely--neither too early nor too late.
In this context, your recognition of this issue in our conversation of
September 22 in Los Angeles was a welcome personal reinforcement of
our state and local efforts. I am also grateful for the September 3
briefing in Sacramento by Mr. John Macy, Director of FEMA, regarding
the latest U.S. Geological Survey interpretations of anomalies around
California's system of geological faults. As soon as we have received
the final FEMA report on the details of those anomalies, I will ask
the state geologist to evaluate the report, confer with colleagues in
the Geological Survey and have all state and local officials fully
briefed.
At that time, I would be grateful for an early opportunity to meet
with you and explore next steps. I am confident that a heightened
state of awareness among my fellow Californians will so deploy the
resources of the state, plus available federal supplementary
assistance, as to minimize the loss of life and property in the event
of a great earthquake.
Sincerely,
/s/
Edmund G. Brown, Jr.
Governor
ANNEX 2
CURRENT CALIFORNIA AND FEDERAL EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLANNING
A. NATURE OF EMERGENCY PLANNING
An emergency, as used in this report, is defined as an unexpected,
sudden or out-of-the-ordinary event or series of events adversely
affecting lives and property which, because of its magnitude, cannot
be handled by normal governmental processes. Emergency response
planning is the process that addresses preparedness for and response
to an emergency.
Emergency response planning is an evolutionary, ongoing process and is
prerequisite to all other emergency readiness activities. It is a
comprehensive process that identifies the potential hazardous events,
and the vulnerability to such hazards, estimates expected losses, and
assesses impacts of such events. The development of written plans is
followed by placement of capabilities to implement the response plan
and by the conduct of periodic tests and exercises. The most difficult
task in the development of an emergency plan is to anticipate as many
of the problems and complications resulting from a given disaster
situation as possible and to provide a basis for response to those not
anticipated.
The objective of emergency planning is to create the capacity for
government to:
» Save the maximum number of lives in the event of an
emergency
» Minimize injuries and protect property
» Preserve the functions of civil government
» Maintain and support economic and social activities
essential for response and the eventual long-term
recovery from the disaster
Emergency planning is a logical and necessary pre-emergency activity
for governmental (and other organizational) entities likely to be
affected by a disaster's occurrence. To be successful, such planning
must be accomplished within the framework of the day-to-day
governmental structure and activity but at the same time provide for
response to the extraordinary circumstances and requirements inherent
in disaster situations.
Emergency plans include the preparation of guidelines, policy
directives, and procedures to be utilized in preparing for and
conducting disaster operations, training, and test exercises. They
should also contain clear statements of authorities, responsibilities,
organizational relationships, and operating procedures necessary for
the accomplishment of disaster response and recovery activities.
Further, they should address the four elements of mitigation,
preparedness, response, and recovery (immediate and long-term).
Once plans are established they must be periodically updated as
conditions change. Updating may become necessary for a number of
reasons: increased scientific, technical, and managerial knowledge;
feedback from evaluation of exercises; better understanding of
vulnerability; shifts in population and economic activities;
construction of new critical facilities; and changes in personnel,
organization, and legislation.
Emergency planning is a shared responsibility at all levels--in this
case from the Federal through the State and local jurisdictional
levels. It should include business, industry, research and scientific
institutions, practicing professions, and the individuals. By
involving all functions of government, the planning process enhances
the capability for implementing the plans through the realistic
consideration of available capabilities and elimination of conflicts
and inconsistencies of roles and task assignments.
Further, by being a part of the planning decision-making process and
having identified the needs and areas of consideration, individuals,
organizations, and officials responsible for emergency operations are
better able to relate to the expected impact and the operational
environment. The written plans also serve valuable purposes for
training and familiarization of new organizations, individuals, and
public officials. Experience has shown repeatedly that when emergency
operations are conducted in accordance with existing plans, reaction
time is reduced and coordination improved, with fewer casualties, less
property damage, and a higher surviving socioeconomic capability to
undertake recovery. Other benefits that accrue from planning include
the enhancement of hazard awareness.
B. CALIFORNIA EMERGENCY PLANNING RESPONSE
The State of California emergency response planning is a series of
related documents, each of which serve a specific purpose. (See
figures 1 and 2.)
The basic plan of a jurisdiction (item (1) in figures 1 and 2) is the
foundation of this planning process. It is an essential administrative
(rather than operational) document, and as such it:
» Provides the basis (including legal authority) for and
the objectives of emergency planning and operations
» Outlines contingencies (emergency situations) to be
planned and prepared for and establishes the general
principles and policies (concepts of operations) to be
applied to each
» Describes the emergency organization in terms of who is
responsible for what actions
» Defines interjurisdictional and interservice
relationships and the direction and control structure to
make assignments and resolve conflicts
» Contains or refers to information of common interest
about supporting facilities, such as the Emergency
Operations Center and warning and communications systems
» Provides the planning basis for other supporting
documents which are more operationally oriented
The basic plan is supported by a Direction and Control annex and by
functional annexes (see (2) and (3) respectively in figures 1 and 2).
The Direction and Control annex details how overall responses to an
emergency will be managed and coordinated. Functional annexes (for
both staff and services) are designed to address the extraordinary
requirements created by emergencies. They identify the specific needs,
the organizational resources available to meet those needs, and the
scheme or "concept of operations" for their application. It should be
noted that, because of unique requirements, annexes often do not
reflect normal departmental structure. An annex becomes a departmental
plan only when an agency represents the sole resource for meeting the
stated need and when satisfying that need is the only task assigned to
that agency by the basic plan.
The second major portion of the California State planning structure
consists of specific contingency plans (see (4) in figures 1 and 2).
One such plan is prepared for each extraordinary emergency or
disaster, likely to occur, detailing the probable effects of the
emergency on the jurisdiction and the actions to be taken in
offsetting these effects. It is also called a "response plan" since it
describes the operations to be undertaken to deal with catastrophic
situations. Contingency plans include service support plans and
checklists (see (5) and (6) respectively in figures 1 and 2). Each
involved element of the emergency organization details its response
actions in Service Support Plans and itemizes functions appropriate to
the specific contingency. The contingency plans, service support
plans, and related checklists and standard operating procedures
constitute the "operational" portions of the overall emergency plan.
They address internal procedures to accomplish stated objectives and
document, in advance, the specific organizational elements that will
respond to each type of disaster or "need," with identification of
procedures and resources.
The third major part of California's overall State plan is a
compendium of information and resources needed to cope with
emergencies (see (7) in figures 1 and 2). This includes references
describing the control structure (Emergency Operations Center
locations, communications, key facilities, personnel lists, and
equipment source listings).
C. FEDERAL EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLANNING
Most Federal agencies operating within the State have a generic
emergency response plan that establishes their internal procedures for
responding to disasters. Certain agencies such as the Corps of
Engineers and the Federal Highway Administration, which provide
services and support that are used on a regular and fairly extensive
basis in disaster, tend to have more highly developed disaster
response plans. Some of them even have rather basic earthquake
response segments included in their basic plans. Thus, for moderate
earthquakes these plans are relatively effective and the Federal
response can be expected to be at least adequate. Few Federal
agencies, however, have developed any specific plan that is adequate
to respond to the demands of a catastrophic event causing property
damage exceeding the $2 billion range. Of 24 Federal agencies whose
earthquake planning status were recently evaluated by FEMA Region IX,
only the Sixth U.S. Army was determined to have developed a
comprehensive capability that is in acceptable detail, has been
exercised, and appears to be operationally adequate and reliable.
Other Federal agencies are now beginning to perceive the need to
improve their planning and response capability following the expected
event, and are gradually responding to this need.
Providing impetus to this expanded planning activity has been the
emergence of the FEMA Region IX Earthquake Response Plan for the San
Francisco Bay Area. This is a site-specific FEMA plan based on a 1974
draft that provided for a full range of Federal assistance during the
emergency lifesaving phase following the earthquake. Although this
plan never proceeded beyond the draft stage (because of evolving FEMA
disaster field operations policy), it served as the basic guide for
the development of the Sixth U.S. Army Plan, and has remained a core
document for identifying expected Federal agency activities for
earthquake recovery in the San Francisco Bay area. In 1979, the
emergency response portion of the 1974 FEMA Region IX draft was
restructured. The conduct of the post-event response program was
shifted from being a centrally directed FEMA activity under the
operational control of the Regional Director to a decentralized
operation which provides for functional disaster support activities to
be assigned by the Regional Director to certain Federal agencies by
Mission Assignment Letters. Table 1 indicates functional task
assignment areas. Those with the designation "Emergency Support
Function (ESF)," have been assigned to other Federal agencies. Table 2
reviews the principal and support agency assignments for each of the
ESF functions.
On the basis of these anticipated mission assignments, the tasked
Federal agencies participated in the development of operational
annexes in the 1979 version of the San Francisco Earthquake Response
Plan. Upon completion of the annexes, all agencies were then required
to develop the necessary agency support plans and standard operating
procedures for accomplishing the mission assignment tasks.
Additionally, those Federal agencies designated in the plan as
principal agencies were tasked with the responsibility of organizing
and coordinating the activities of Federal agencies designated as
support.
The rationale for this approach was to identify the various functional
areas of disaster response for which a Federal activity could
reasonably be expected to maintain after the occurrence of the event.
With the functional areas identified, the range of Federal agency
talent was evaluated and Federal response capabilities matched to
expected functional demands. By the development of a matrix (figure
2), a total of 16 functional response areas (such as transportation,
mass care, and debris removal) were identified, and 20 Federal
agencies, plus volunteer organizations such as the American National
Red Cross, were designated as having appropriate disaster response
capabilities. Subsequently, all agencies were rated on their
capability for functioning in a principal or a support capacity. These
agencies were then provided specific FEMA Region IX Mission
Assignments or tasking statements which, when triggered by a
Presidential disaster declaration, provide the legal basis for
delivering the authorized assistance in response to State and local
government needs.
The end result of this approach has been to create a much more
effective and reliable capability to respond to the needs of an
earthquake disaster by those Federal agencies from which a significant
response would be required.
+----------+
|Basic Plan| .
| (1) | .
+----------+ .
| | | .
| | | . +-----------------+
| | +----------------------------|Contingency Plans|
| | . | (4) |
| | . +-----------------+
| | Administrative . Operational |
| +-------------+ . |
| |Direction and| . |
| |Control Annex| . |
| | (2) | . |
| +-------------+ . |
+------+------+ . |
| | . |
+-------+ +-------+ . +-----------------------+
| Staff | |Service| . | Service Support Plans |
|Annexes| |Annexes|----------------------| (5) |
| (3) | | (3) | . | Response Checklists |
+-------+ +-------+ . | and SOP's (6) |
. +-----------------------+
. |
. |
. |
+--------------------+
|Resources Compendium|
| (7) |
+--------------------+
[Illustration: =Figure 1: Emergency Plans
(Description of and Relationship Between Plan Components)=]
+-------------------------+ +-------------------------+
| BASIC PLAN (1) | | |
| |-+ | |-+
| Authorities | | | RESOURCES MANUAL(S) | |
| Policies | |-+ | (7) | |-+
| Responsibilities | | | | | | |
| System Interfaces | | |-+ | | | |-+
| | | | | | | | | |
+-------------------------+ | | |-+ +-------------------------+ | | |-+
|Direction and Control (2) | | | | |Communication Capabilities| | | |
+--------------------------+ | | |-+ +--------------------------+ | | |-+
|Public Safety (3) | | | | |Law Enforcement/Fire | | | |
+---------------------------+ | | | +---------------------------+ | | |
|People Care (3) | | | |Medical-Health/Welfare | | |
+----------------------------+ | | +----------------------------+ | |
|System Restoration (3) | | |Engineering/Utilities | |
+-----------------------------+ | +-----------------------------+ |
|Resource Management (3) | |Transportation, etc. |
+------------------------------+ +------------------------------+
+----------------+ +----------------+
| | | |
| | | |
| EARTHQUAKE |-+ | FLOOD |-+
| Response Plan | | | Response Plan | |
| (4) | | | (4) | |
| | | | | |
| | |-+ | | |-+
+----------------+ | | +----------------+ | |
| | | | | |
| D & C Checklist | | | D & C Checklist | |
+-----------------+ | +-----------------+ |
|Svcs. Sup. | |Svcs. Sup. |
| Plans (5) | | Plans (5) |
|Checklists & | |Checklists & |
| SOP's (6) | | SOP's (6) |
+-----------------+ +-----------------+
+----------------+ +----------------+
| | | WAR |
| |-+ | |-+
| WAR | | | | |
| Response Plan | | | Response Plan | |
| (4) | | | (4) | |
| In-Place | | | Crisis | |
| Protection | |-+ | Relocation | |-+
+----------------+ | | +----------------+ | |
| | | | | |
| D & C Checklist | | | D & C Checklist | |
+-----------------+ | +-----------------+ |
|Svcs. Sup. | | Svcs. Sup. |
| Plans (5) | | Plans (5) |
|Checklists & | | Checklists & |
| SOP's (6) | | SOP's (6) |
+-----------------+ +-----------------+
[Illustration: =Figure 2: Emergency Planning Format
(A Partial Illustration of the Component Parts of a Jurisdictional
Emergency Plan)=]
TABLE 1
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY REGION IX EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE AND
ASSISTANCE TASKS
(San Francisco Bay Area)
ANNEXES TO BASIC PLAN
Disaster Field Activities
Disaster Field Location
Mission Assignments
Emergency Transportation (ESF-1)[1]
Communication (ESF-2)
Emergency Debris Clearance (ESF-3)
Fire Fighting (ESF-4)
Emergency Roads, Airfields, and Bridges (ESF-5)
Emergency Demolition (ESF-6)
Administrative Logistical Support (ESF-7)
Emergency Medical Care (ESF-8)
Search and Rescue (ESF-9)
Identification and Disposal of Dead (ESF-10)
Warnings of Risks and Hazards (ESF-11)
Emergency Distribution of Medicine (ESF-12)
Emergency Distribution of Food (ESF-13)
Emergency Distribution of Consumable Supplies (ESF-14)
Emergency Shelter & Mass Care (ESF-15)
Damage Reconnaissance (ESF-16)
Isoseismal Analysis
Authorities Referral
Administration
[1] Emergency Support Functions (ESF) are cross-referenced by
number in table 2.
TABLE 2
EMERGENCY SUPPORT FUNCTIONS
KEY:
a: Emergency Transportation
b: Emergency Communications
c: Emergency Debris Clearance
d: Fire Fighting
e: Emerg. Roads, Air Fields & Bridges
f: Emergency Demolition
g: Logistical Support
h: Emergency Medical Care
i: Search and Rescue
j: Identif. & Disposal of Dead
k: Warnings of Risks & Hazards
l: Emergency Dist. of Medicine
m: Emergency Dist. of Food
n: Emergency Dist. of Consum. Supplies
o: Emerg. Shelter, Feed, & Mass Care
p: Damage Reconnaissance
+--------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|ESF | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10| 11| 12| 13| 14| 15| 16|
+--------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|ANNEX |(D)|(E)|(F)|(G)|(H)|(I)|(J)|(K)|(L)|(M)|(N)|(O)|(P)|(Q)|(R)|(S)|
+--------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| FEDERAL | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| AGENCIES | a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | i | j | k | l | m | n | o | p |
+--------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|DOT - FAA | S | | | | | | | | S | | | | | | | S |
+--------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|DOT - FHWA | S | | | | S | | | | | | | | | | | S |
+--------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|DOT - FRA | S | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | S |
+--------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|DOT - RETCO-9 | P | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
+--------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|DOT - UMTA | S | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | S |
+--------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|DOT - USCC | S | S | | S | | S | | | S | | | | | | | S |
+--------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|DOD - 6th USA | S | S | S | S | S | S | S | P | P | P | | S | S | S | S | P |
+--------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|DOD - COE | | S | P | S | P | P | | | | | | | | | | |
+--------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|ICC | S | | | | | | | | | | | | S | S | | |
+--------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|DA - USFS | | S | | P | S | | | | S | | | | | | S | S |
+--------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|DA - FNS | | | | | | | | | | | | | P | | | |
+--------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|DOC - MARAD | S | | | | | S | | S | | | | | | | | |
+--------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|NCS | | P | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
+--------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|AYRC | | | | | | | | S | | | | S | | | P | |
+--------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|Volunteer | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Agencies | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | S | |
| (Various) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
+--------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|HEW | | | | | | | S | | | | | P | | | S | |
+--------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|US ATTY | | | | | | | | | | S | | | | | | |
+--------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|DOL - OSHA | | | S | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
+--------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|USPS | S | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
+--------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|FBI | | | | | | | | | | S | | | | | | |
+--------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|VA | | | | | | | | S | | S | | S | S | | S | |
+--------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|GSA | S | S | | | | S | P | | | | | S | | P | | |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
P - Principal Agencies
S - Support Agencies
ANNEX 3
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 2202
The Governor of California signed into law Assembly Bill 2202 on
September 25, 1980, which, among others, provides for State
participation in a joint Federal, State, and local program to prepare
a comprehensive program for responding to a major earthquake
prediction. This action was initiated in January 1980 through the
actions of the Assembly Committee on Government Organization, Frank
Vicencia, Chairman. Inclusions of specific funds for preparedness was
included following a subcommittee on Emergency Planning and Disaster
Relief hearing on possible earthquake prediction on April 22, 1980.
The text of the Law follows:
Assembly Bill No. 2202