SSMENT OF THE CURRENT STATE OF READINESS CAPABILITY OF FEDERAL,
STATE, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FOR EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE

A. INTRODUCTION

An earthquake of catastrophic magnitude, with or without credible
warning, happens suddenly. The potential for disaster, however, does
not occur suddenly. The degree of preparedness and commitment to
comprehensive planning and mitigation programs for the inevitable
event will largely determine the degree of hardship to be experienced
through loss of life, human suffering, property destruction, and the
other related economic, social, and psychological aspects of
disruption to day-to-day community activities. The impacts can be
reduced substantially from current expected levels through the
development and implementation of improved and more widely practiced
earthquake hazards reduction measures. These include _coordinated
emergency preparedness plans and procedures_, _earthquake prediction
and warning systems_, _improved construction techniques_, and
_effective public education and information programs_.

The State of California Office of Emergency Services (OES) and FEMA
conducted an analysis of the readiness capability for potential
catastrophic earthquakes in California at the Federal, State, and
local government levels. The planning of 22 counties and 38 cities, of
34 State agencies, and of 17 Federal organizations were reviewed with
the following objectives: (a) identify opportunities for improvement;
(b) provide a basis for making decisions that would strengthen program
direction and planning efforts; and (c) specify resource needs and
potential legislative initiatives. Annex 2 summarizes current Federal
and California earthquake planning.

The environment in which preparedness planning in California occurs is
characterized by the following observations of public expectations and
attitudes:

" There is widespread public support for government
action.

" Most people have some ideas as to what government should
be doing.

" There is understanding of the need for hazard reduction
as well as emergency response planning.

" People are willing, in the abstract, to have government
funds spent for hazard mitigation.

" The public is not very satisfied with what government
officials have done.

" Public officials perceive that current preparedness
plans and response are