ALLcrimesfood&drugstaxestelecomcommercehealthconservationtransportationagricultureveteransbrowse all titles »
0

42 U.S.C. § 7701 — Congressional findings

submitted 49 years ago by Pub. L. 95-124 to r/title-42-THE-PUBLIC-HEALTH-AND-WELFARE · 695 words · no verdicts yet

in plain englishAI-generated · not legal advice

Congress finds that most U.S. states face earthquake risk, and earthquakes can cause huge losses. It finds that research, better building design, and coordinated planning can greatly reduce future damage. It also finds that earthquake preparedness helps guard against other disasters too.

Congress makes 13 findings to explain why this earthquake hazards law is needed.

(1) All 50 states and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico face earthquake hazards. At least 39 of them — including Alaska, California, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, and Washington — face major or moderate earthquake risk. A large part of the U.S. population lives in areas at risk from earthquakes.

(2) Earthquakes have caused, and can cause again, huge loss of life, injury, property destruction, and economic and social disruption. Future losses like these can be greatly reduced through earthquake hazards reduction measures, including: (A) better design and construction methods and practices; (B) land-use controls and redevelopment; (C) early-warning systems; (D) coordinated emergency preparedness plans; and (E) public education and involvement programs.

(3) A well-staffed, well-funded earthquake hazards reduction program — built on federal, state, local, and private research, planning, decisionmaking, and funding — would reduce the risk of such loss, destruction, and disruption in earthquake-prone areas by far more than the program would cost.

(4) A well-funded seismology research program could provide the scientific understanding needed to fully build an effective earthquake early-warning system.

(5) Studying active geological faults can show how recently and how often major earthquakes have struck those faults, and how much risk they pose. These long-term risk assessments matter for nearly every part of earthquake hazard management — emergency planning, government regulation, detailed building design, insurance pricing, and investment decisions.

(6) Buildings, lifeline infrastructure, public works, and industrial and emergency facilities can become less vulnerable through proper earthquake-resistant design and construction. Research and development can make these practices both more affordable and more effective.

(7) Programs and practices of federal departments and agencies matter to the communities they serve. Some functions — such as emergency communications and national defense — and some lifeline infrastructure — such as dams, bridges, and public works — must keep working during and after an earthquake. Federally owned, operated, and influenced structures and infrastructure should serve as models for how communities can reduce and minimize earthquake hazards.

(8) Reducing earthquake hazards would, as an added benefit, also reduce the risk of loss, destruction, and disruption from other natural and human-caused hazards, including hurricanes, tornadoes, accidents, explosions, landslides, building and structural collapses, and fires.

(9) Reducing loss, destruction, and disruption from earthquakes depends on the actions of individuals and organizations in the private sector, and government units at the federal, state, and local levels. The current ability to share knowledge and information with these groups is not good enough. Better tools are needed to turn existing research and findings into practical, usable guidance, so people, organizations, and governments can make informed decisions and take the right action.

(10) Severe earthquakes are a worldwide problem. Because damaging earthquakes happen only rarely in any one country, international cooperation is valuable so everyone can learn from each other's limited experience.

(11) An effective federal earthquake hazards program needs input from, and review by, people outside the federal government who are experts in the science of earthquake hazards reduction and in applying earthquake hazards reduction measures in practice.

(12) Buildings and other structures are generally built and maintained to meet everyday needs under normal conditions. When earthquakes happen, these structures are generally designed to prevent serious injury or loss of life — but they are not expected to keep working, or to be repaired on any set schedule, afterward.

(13) The National Research Council published a study on reducing earthquake hazards and risks, based on the goals in the "Strategic Plan for the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program." That study, and an accompanying report, called for work on 18 tasks focused on research, preparedness, and mitigation, with about $300,000,000 a year in funding for 20 years.

the actual law source: uscode.house.gov ↗public domain

The Congress finds and declares the following:

(1)

All 50 States, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, are vulnerable to the hazards of earthquakes, and at least 39 of them are subject to major or moderate seismic risk, including Alaska, California, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, South Carolina Tennessee,,1 Utah, and Washington. A large portion of the population of the United States lives in areas vulnerable to earthquake hazards.

(2)

Earthquakes have caused, and can cause in the future, enormous loss of life, injury, destruction of property, and economic and social disruption. With respect to future earthquakes, such loss, destruction, and disruption can be substantially reduced through the development and implementation of earthquake hazards reduction measures, including (A) improved design and construction methods and practices, (B) land-use controls and redevelopment, (C) early-warning systems, (D) coordinated emergency preparedness plans, and (E) public education and involvement programs.

(3)

An expertly staffed and adequately financed earthquake hazards reduction program, based on Federal, State, local, and private research, planning, decisionmaking, and contributions would reduce the risk of such loss, destruction, and disruption in seismic areas by an amount far greater than the cost of such program.

(4)

A well-funded seismological research program could provide the scientific understanding needed to fully implement an effective earthquake early warning system.

(5)

The geological study of active faults and features can reveal how recently and how frequently major earthquakes have occurred on those faults and how much risk they pose. Such long-term seismic risk assessments are needed in virtually every aspect of earthquake hazards management, whether emergency planning, public regulation, detailed building design, insurance rating, or investment decision.

(6)

The vulnerability of buildings, lifeline infrastructure, public works, and industrial and emergency facilities can be reduced through proper earthquake resistant design and construction practices. The economy and efficacy of such procedures can be substantially increased through research and development.

(7)

Programs and practices of departments and agencies of the United States are important to the communities they serve; some functions, such as emergency communications and national defense, and lifeline infrastructure, such as dams, bridges, and public works, must remain in service during and after an earthquake. Federally owned, operated, and influenced structures and lifeline infrastructure should serve as models for how to reduce and minimize hazards to the community.

(8)

The implementation of earthquake hazards reduction measures would, as an added benefit, also reduce the risk of loss, destruction, and disruption from other natural hazards and manmade hazards, including hurricanes, tornadoes, accidents, explosions, landslides, building and structural cave-ins, and fires.

(9)

Reduction of loss, destruction, and disruption from earthquakes will depend on the actions of individuals, and organizations in the private sector and governmental units at Federal, State, and local levels. The current capability to transfer knowledge and information to these sectors is insufficient. Improved mechanisms are needed to translate existing information and research findings into reasonable and usable specifications, criteria, and practices so that individuals, organizations, and governmental units may make informed decisions and take appropriate actions.

(10)

Severe earthquakes are a worldwide problem. Since damaging earthquakes occur infrequently in any one nation, international cooperation is desirable for mutual learning from limited experiences.

(11)

An effective Federal program in earthquake hazards reduction will require input from and review by persons outside the Federal Government expert in the sciences of earthquake hazards reduction and in the practical application of earthquake hazards reduction measures.

(12)

The built environment has generally been constructed and maintained to meet the needs of the users under normal conditions. When earthquakes occur, the built environment is generally designed to prevent severe injuries or loss of human life and is not expected to remain operational or able to recover under any specified schedule.

(13)

The National Research Council published a study on reducing hazards and risks associated with earthquakes based on the goals and objectives for achieving national earthquake resilience described in the strategic plan entitled “Strategic Plan for the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program”. The study and an accompanying report called for work in 18 tasks focused on research, preparedness, and mitigation and annual funding of approximately $300,000,000 per year for 20 years.

Source credit: (Pub. L. 95–124, § 2, Oct. 7, 1977, 91 Stat. 1098; Pub. L. 101–614, § 2, Nov. 16, 1990, 104 Stat. 3231; Pub. L. 115–307, § 2(a), Dec. 11, 2018, 132 Stat. 4408.)

history & why it existsrecord from the source credit
  • 1977Enacted · Pub. L. 95-124 · 91 Stat. 1098
  • 1990Amended · Pub. L. 101-614 · 104 Stat. 3231
  • 2018Amended · Pub. L. 115-307 · 132 Stat. 4408

A history note hasn’t been published yet. The record shows enactment by Pub. L. 95-124 on 1977-10-07.

all 0 arguments · sorted by: best

0/280

no arguments yet — make the first case