Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
1515815
label
Earthquakes - Meeting with Schleede, Barnes, Moore, and Kidd, August 4, 1976
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1515815
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Earthquakes - Meeting with Schleede, Barnes, Moore, and Kidd, August 4, 1976
citationUrl
collections
James M. Cannon Files (Ford Administration)
James Cannon's Issues Files
subjects
Earthquakes
Legislation
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1515815
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1976-08-31
month
8
year
1976
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1976-08-01
month
8
year
1976
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
0a772e0f55a1abb9
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 11, folder "Earthquakes - Meeting with
Schleede, Barnes, Moore, and Kidd, August 4, 1976" of the James M. Cannon Files at the
Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box 11 of the James M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
MEETING WITH SCHLEEDE, BARNES,
MOORE, KIDD
Wednesday, August 4, 1976
2:00 - 2:30 p.m.
Re: Earthquake Legislation
OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT
WASHINGTON
August 2, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR: JIM CANNON
FROM:
DICK ALLISON Orit
SUBJECT:
Earthquakes (Attached Correspondence)
This weekend I thought more about the earthquake
problem raised by the attached correspondence and believe
now more strongly than before that the Administration
should have a coherent and easily identifiable position
on each of the following aspects, any of which could
become a public issue in the next several months:
prediction;
managing reactions to predictions of disaster;
managing reactions to disasters.
I also believe that whatever position the Administration
develops should have some reference to the current Chinese
experience, so that, should all this become a matter of
public discussion, the public would immediately perceive
that the Administration was doing its best to take into
account what is happening in China.
I have discussed those views with Glenn Schleede, who
suggested that I send them directly to you, coincidental with
his memorandum to you, dated today, on the same subject.
Attachment
CC: Glenn Schleede
MEMORANDUM
OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT
WASHINGTON
July 26, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR: THE RECORD
FROM:
DICK ALLISON Did
SUBJECT:
Letter to the Vice President, as Chairman of
the Domestic Council, from Gilbert F. White
and J. Eugene Haas, Institute of Behavioral
Science, University of Colorado, July 6, 1976
(copy attached)
1. This letter was received by the Vice President's Office
on July 12, 1976, and by me on July 13. On the 13th, I furnished
copies to Jack Veneman, Glenn Schleede, and Glenn's assistant,
Dennis Barnes.
2. On July 14, I acknowledged receipt of the letter by phone
to Dr. White's office at the University of Colorado.
3. On July 16, I discussed the letter with Glenn Schleede,
who referred it to his assistant, Dennis Barnes, for the latter's
study. In this conversation with Glenn, we agreed that the study
recommended by the letter was a good idea. At the end of that
meeting, Glenn said that he would advise me regarding what action
to take next.
4. On July 26, Glenn and I discussed the letter again and agreed
that it should be formally referred to the Domestic Council for
evaluation as a study proposal.
5. On this date, I so referred the letter, and advised Dr.
White's office that a fuller reply would be ready about a week hence.
CC: James M. Cannon
Dennis Barnes
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO
Boulder, Colorado 80309
July 6, 1976
INSTITUTE OF BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE
The Honorable Nelson Rockefeller
Chairman, Domestic Council
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. Rockefeller:
During recent months we have been involved in studies relating to the
likely economic and social effects of earthquake prediction in the United
States, and are writing to suggest to you a problem which is of high
urgency and which would seem to lend itself to action by the Domestic
Council.
The rapid increase in prospective capacity for the U.S. Geological
Survey to issue warnings of earthquakes in selected parts of the United
States is well known to you and your staff. While not yet fully assured,
there are substantial prospects that it will be achieved for some areas
within months or years. The opportunities and problems produced by this
increased predictive capacity and the understanding of earthquake
mechanisms which it represents have been aired by hearings on both the
Senate and House sides of Congress, most recently by a subcommittee of the
House Committee on Science and Technology.
One aspect of the problem which we believe has not received sufficient
emphasis and which has the potential of constituting a major domestic
issue is that of the anticipation of the major social, economic and
political adjustments which will be required if and when a firm prediction
of an earthquake event is issued by a Federal agency. You will recall
that this is a distinct possibility for the Palmdale uplift area north
of Los Angeles.
Some of the major consequences which we anticipate will require early
response at the Federal level are the following:
1. Availability of earthquake insurance
When there is a prediction of a damaging earthquake
which is supported by broad scientific consensus, it will
be only a matter of days before new earthquake insurance
coverage will no longer be available. For this and other
reasons mortgage availability will be sharply curtailed for
the "target" area. A series of other negative economic
impacts may be expected to flow therefrom.
The Honorable Nelson Rockefeller
July 6, 1976
Page 2
What policies or programs, if any, need to be developed
and implemented so that earthquake insurance or some
functional equivalent may serve to soften the downward
economic spiral?
It should be recognized that there may be several
years between the release of the prediction and the earthquake
event, or its failure to occur, as predicted.
2. Clarification of legal liability in the face of an earthquake
prediction released by a Federal agency.
It is unclear what the liability may be for those
preparing and releasing earthquake predictions, those officially
acting on the basis of the prediction, those responsible for
structures frequented by the public and employers in the
private sector.
How can public officials act responsibly when their
vulnerability to liability suits is unknown?
3. Presidential declaration of emergency
Evidence to date suggests that there will be extraordinary
and extensive actions required by Federal agencies if they
are to act responsibly in the face of an earthquake prediction.
But to do SO will or may require special authorization and
funding not normally available. It is unclear whether the
1974 Disaster Assistance Act provides for the possibility of
a Presidential Declaration of Emergency prior to the occurrence
of the earthquake itself. Thus, many Federal agencies may
find their hands tied.
4. Stabilization of the economy, solvency of local government,
"pre-disaster" assistance
There is consistent evidence that unless counter
measures are taken, the local economy will be badly hurt,
especially over a period of several years. New construction
will largely cease, property values will decline, business
activity will slow, unemployment will rise sharply, and tax
revenues to local government will continue to fall.
How can drastically increased mitigation and preparedness
measures be financed by local government under these conditions?
Should special state and Federal "pre-disaster" financial
assistance be provided to local government? Should businesses
and families hard hit by the consequences of a prediction
coming from a Federal agency be assisted in any manner? Does
The Honorable Nelson Rockefeller
July 6, 1976
Page 3
the Federal government have any responsibility for those who
evacuate the area in anticipation of a predicted earthquake?
At present we see no mechanism within the Federal establishment to
anticipate how the Federal government will deal with these questions at
the time an earthquake prediction is being generated and before and
immediately after it is issued. Consideration of these aspects clearly
is not a responsibility of the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey,
and we are convinced that it would be a disservice to the Survey as well
as to the nation to allow the Survey to take the full responsibility for
issuing the warning on scientific grounds without enabling it to have the
benefit of responsible and informed judgement from other agencies which
inevitably must contend with the type of issues stated above.
We understand that the Administration position with respect to the
pending legislation on earthquake research is that there is already
adequate responsibility among Federal agencies to deal with earthquake
research problems. It would be a mistake, however, to assume that the
present organization of the government would permit an adequate considera-
tion of the policy issues at the time an earthquake prediction is
promulgated. We would like to suggest that the Domestic Council set up
some special kind of task group, including the Director of the U.S.
Geological Survey as well as a number of the key agencies involved in
political, economic and social reactions, with a view to working out
precisely what procedures would be followed in generating a prediction and
in issuing it to the affected population. There is now sufficient informa-
tion to predict many, but surely not all, of the social consequences; a
task group could deal with difficult questions of administrative
responsibility and public fiscal and administrative policy without asking
for an elaborate data collection effort.
If capacity for issuing a specific prediction were not to come to
fruition in the next few months this exercise might prove unnecessary in
the short run. However, it is highly likely that at some time in the next
few years and possibly within a matter of weeks or months it would be of
high importance in avoiding unnecessary social disruption in the United
States.
Sincerely,
Filbert 7white
GSugare Have
Gilbert F. White
J. Eugene Haas
GFW/ml
* U. 5. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1972 477-952
OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT
REFERRAL
To: The Honorable James M. Cannon
Date: July 26, 1976
Executive Director
Domestic Council
ACTION REQUESTED
Draft reply for:
Vice President's signature.
Undersigned's signature:
NOTE
Memorandum for use as enclosure to
reply.
Prompt action is essential.
XX Direct reply.
If more than 48 hours' delay is encountered,
XX
Furnish information copy-
please telephone the undersigned immediately.
Suitable acknowledgment or other
appropriate handling.
Basic correspondence should be returned when
Furnish copy of reply, if any.
draft reply. memorandum. or comment is re-
quested.
For your information.
For comment.
REMARKS: This letter has been discussed with Glenn Schleede and
Dennis Barnes; it was agreed that it should be formally referred to
Glenn Schleede through Domestic. Council channels. See attached
Memorandum for Record.
Description:
XX Letter:
Telegram: Other:
To: The Vice President as Chairman, Domestic Council
From:
Gilbert F. White and J. Eugene Haas, Behavioral Science Institute,
University of Colorado
Date: July 6, 1976
Subject: Need for a Domestic Council study of actions needed in the event
of the prediction of a major earthquake.
FORD
By direction of the Vice President
William
GERALD
BRARY
Assistant to the
Vice President
THE WHITE HOUSE
ACTION
DECISION
WASHINGTON
August 2, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CANNON
FROM:
GLENN SCHLEEDE
your
DENNIS BARNES
SUBJECT:
EARTHQUAKES
This memo is to:
1. Summarize recent Administration actions concerned
with earthquake prediction and damage mitigation.
2. Report on Congressional activities -- which may
lead to the passage of an unacceptable earthquake
bill this session.
3. Outline weaknesses in Executive Branch preparations
to date for either (a) handling preparations for
a major earthquake, or (b) justifying that additional
preparations are not desirable or a Federal
responsibility.
4. Recommend that a group be put together quickly ---
perhaps a Domestic Council Committee -- to:
-- Sort out the issues and determine the right
thing to do substantively;
-- Develop substantive proposals for the President's
consideration;
-- Get us in a position to respond to the Congressional
initiatives.
The underlying problem is that our interagency activities
have been confined largely to R&D. The broader questions
involved need attention by Administration officials who
are responsible for and knowledgeable about the Federal
role and preparations for potential disasters. The
Science Adviser, NSF, and Geological Survey people who
-2-
have been principally involved thus far are not the right
ones to address the larger issues now facing us.
ADMINISTRATION ACTION THUS FAR
1. Earthquake research and monitoring.
$2.6 million has been reprogrammed for monitoring the
uplift near Los Angeles.
An interagency group led by Dr. Stever is in the final
stages of preparing alternative program proposals for
research and monitoring for consideration in the FY 1978
Budget cycle. They will not deal with warnings,
preparations or post-disaster activities. Dr. Stever
also has appointed an outside advisory group, which
group consists primarily of people interested in
earthquake-related R&D. Alternative plans being
developed will call for large increases in R&D spending
(up to $100 million in 1978 compared to $22 million in
1977.)
2. Administration position with respect to preparation for
potential disasters seems mirky due to:
Cuts in funding for civil defense, for purposes other
than preparation for nuclear war, in the President's
1977 Budget request.
Absence of any clear assignment of leadership for sorting
out what the Federal Government should and should not do.
The inherent difficulties in deciding what should be
done to prepare for potential disasters.
3. The Federal Disaster Relief Act of 1974 requires a number
of actions by the Executive Branch in preparation for
earthquakes and other disasters. As I understand it,
most responsibility is assigned to HUD. HUD has delegated
the earthquake warning responsibility to Interior
(Geological Survey). Whether other responsibilities
assigned by the Act -- e.g., preparation beyond the warning
stage -- are being carried out is an open question.
CONGRESSIONAL ACTIONS
1. Senate. In May 1976, the Senate passed legislation sponsored
by Senator Cranston (S.1174) which would direct the
President to establish "a coordinated earthquake hazard
reduction program" to reduce loss of life and property and
would authorize $150 million over three years for increased
research by NSF and USGS.
-3-
2. House. Teague's Science and Technology Committee
(principally Charles Mosher) is pushing ahead with
some kind of bill. The latest version takes the
typical approach when a problem is not understood:
more R&D and more organizational arrangements.
Specifically, it calls for:
$30 to $35 million in additional NSF and GS research.
An Office of Earthquake Hazard Reduction to be placed
in the OSTP until the President designates an alternative
location in an existing Federal agency.
A National Advisory Committee on Earthquake Hazard
Reduction to advise the office.
An Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Board to evaluate
and authenticate earthquake predictions.
(our principal problem with this approach is that the
groups are almost certain to turn into pressure groups
for extensive Federal involvement. In the absence of
better preparations on our part, we are vulnerable to such
pressure.)
3. Outlook this Session. This is still unclear, but this
type of legislation is the kind that slips through easily
in an election year.
WEAKNESSES IN EXECUTIVE BRANCH PREPARATION
From what we have seen thus far in reviewing R&D proposals,
it seems that the Administration has not thought through several
critical questions, e.g.,
-- What responsibilities are now assigned to the Federal
Government (beyond research and prediction) and are we
carrying them out adequately?
-- What should be the Federal role beyond research and prediction?
-- If there should be essentially no other Federal role, how
do we (a) defend that position, and (b) encourage other
sectors to assume their appropriate roles?
Attached at TAB A is a rather well-thought out letter to the
Vice President from Drs. White and Haas of the University of
Colorado which raises additional questions with respect to
earthquakes and other disasters (including many that you have
raisedandI have been unable to answer). This letter still
needs a substantive response.
-4-
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Identifying the right substantive actions. The principal
need seems to be for attention to possible Federal actions
beyond research and prediction. To address these areas,
we recommend that some kind of temporary interagency task
force be set up immediately. This should be done by OMB,
Domestic Council, or both. A quick look by such a group
should provide the basis for deciding whether a longer
term group (perhaps a Domestic Council Committee) is
needed -- as suggested by the letter at TAB A. We have
discussed this approach with Lynn May and he concurs.
We discussed briefly the possibility of getting Tom Dunn
of HUD as the leader for such a group because of his
familiarity with disaster preparations and his orientation
toward minimizing the Federal role.
2. Position on Legislation. We recommend trying to head off
any legislation during the current session but this may be
impossible because (a) we don't appear to be organized to
deal with the issues beyond research and prediction, (b)
the legislation has yet to be focused upon at the policy
level in OMB or elsewhere in the Administration, and (c)
contacts that have occurred in recent days at the staff
level may have given the Committee the impression that we
would not oppose the bill now being considered.
3. Relative Priority. This subject should have high priority
because of: (a) the increasing chances for Congressional
action , (b) the great attention being focused upon earth-
quake prediction by the research community, (c) outstanding
questions on activities beyond research and prediction,
and (d) the heightened interest occuring as a result of
earthquakes in China.
4. Lead Responsibility. Because of the nature of the problems
that had to be addressed, we recommend that you consider
assigning lead responsibility to Lynn May and George Kidd
or -- recognizing the cross nature -- to Art Quern and
Alan Moore.
CC: Lynn May/George Kidd
Art Quern/Alan Moore
TAB A
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO
TAB A
Boulder, Colorado 80309
July 6, 1976
INSTITUTE OF BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE
The Honorable Nelson Rockefeller
Chairman, Domestic Council
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
l'ashington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. Rockefeller:
During recent months we have been involved in studies relating to the
likely economic and social effects of earthquake prediction in the United
States, and are writing to suggest to you a problem which is of high
urgency and which would seem to lend itself to action by the Domestic
Council.
The rapid increase in prospective capacity for the U.S. Geological
Survey to issue warnings of earthquakes in selected parts of the United
States is well known to you and your staff. While not yet fully assured,
there are substantial prospects that it will be achieved for some areas
within months or years. The opportunities and problems produced by this
increased predictive capacity and the understanding of earthquake
mechanisms which it represents have been aired by hearings on both the
Senate and House sides of Congress, most recently by a subcommittee of the
House Committee on Science and Technology.
One aspect of the problem which we believe has not received sufficient
emphasis and which has the potential of constituting a major domestic
issue is that of the anticipation of the major social, economic and
political adjustments which will be required if and when a firm prediction
of an earthquake event is issued by a Federal agency. You will recall
that this is a distinct possibility for the Palmdale uplift area north
of Los Angeles.
Some of the major consequences which we anticipate will require early
response at the Federal level are the following:
1. Availability of earthquake insurance
When there is a prediction of a damaging earthquake
which is supported by broad scientific consensus, it will
be only a matter of days before new earthquake insurance
coverage will no longer be available. For this and other
FORD LIBRARY is
reasons mortgage availability will be sharply curtailed for
the "target" area. A series of other negative economic
impacts may be expected to flow therefrom.
The Honorable Nelson Rockefeller
July 6, 1976
Page 2
What policies or programs, if any, need to be developed
and implemented so that earthquake insurance or some
functional equivalent may serve to soften the downward
economic spiral?
It should be recognized that there may be several
years between the release of the prediction and the earthquake
event, or its failure to occur, as predicted.
2. Clarification of legal liability in the face of an earthquake
prediction released by a Federal agency.
It is unclear what the liability may be for those
preparing and releasing earthquake predictions, those officially
acting on the basis of the prediction, those responsible for
structures frequented by the public and employers in the
private sector.
How can public officials act responsibly when their
vulnerability to liability suits is unknown?
3. Presidential declaration of emergency
Evidence to date suggests that there will be extraordinary
and extensive actions required by Federal agencies if they
are to act responsibly in the face of an earthquake prediction.
But to do SO will or may require special authorization and
funding not normally available. It is unclear whether the
1974 Disaster Assistance Act provides for the possibility of
a Presidential Declaration of Emergency prior to the occurrence
of the earthquake itself. Thus, many Federal agencies may
find their hands tied.
4. Stabilization of the economy, solvency of local government,
"pre-disaster" assistance
BERALO FORD VIBRARY
There is consistent evidence that unless counter
measures are taken, the local economy will be badly hurt,
especially over a period of several years. New construction
will largely cease, property values will decline, business
activity will slow, unemployment will rise sharply, and tax
revenues to local government will continue to fall.
How can drastically increased mitigation and preparedness
measures be financed by local government under these conditions?
Should special state and Federal pre-disaster" financial
assistance be provided to local government? Should businesses
and families hard hit by the consequences of a prediction
coming from a Federal agency be assisted in any manner? Does
The Honorable Nelson Rockefeller
July 6, 1976
Page 3
the Federal government have any responsibility for those who
evacuate the area in anticipation of a predicted earthquake?
At present we see nc mechanism within the Federal establishment to
anticipate how the Federal government will deal with these questions at
the time an earthquake prediction is being generated and before and
imediately after it is issued. Consideration of these aspects clearly
is not a responsibility of the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey,
and we are convinced that it would be a disservice to the Survey as well
as to the nation to allow the Survey to take the full responsibility for
issuing the warning on scientific grounds without enabling it to have the
benefit of responsible and informed judgement from other agencies which
inevitably must contend with the type of issues stated above.
We understand that the Administration position with respect to the
pending legislation on earthquake research is that there is already
adequate responsibility among Federal agencies to deal with earthquake
research problems. It would be a mistake, however, to assume that the
present organization of the government would permit an adequate considera-
tion of the policy issues at the time an earthquake prediction is
promulgated. We would like to suggest that the Domestic Council set up
some special kind of task group, including the Director of the U.S.
Geological Survey as well as a number of the key agencies involved in
political, economic and social reactions, with a view to working out
precisely what procedures would be followed in generating a prediction and
in issuing it to the affected population. There is now sufficient informa-
tion to predict many, but surely not all, of the social consequences; a
task group could deal with difficult questions of administrative
responsibility and public fiscal and administrative policy without asking
for an elaborate data collection effort.
If capacity for issuing a specific prediction were not to come to
fruition in the next few months this exercise might prove unnecessary in
the short run. However, it is highly likely that at some time in the next
few years and possibly within a matter of weeks or months it would be of
high importance in avoiding unnecessary social disruption in the United
States.
Sincerely,
Filbert Fwite
GSugare there
FORD LIBRARY
Gilbert F. White
J. Eugene Haas
GFW/ml