FLOOD06042 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The overall consequences of these decisions to in- dividuals. professionals, and governments are illustrated by a recent earthmoving damage case. In this case, . 'The California Court of Appeals FlI'St District . . . has held that it is the duty of a real-estate broker selling a house to conduct a reasonably competent and diligent inspection of the property and disclose to the buyer any defects revealed by the inspection" (Kockelman, 1986, p.38). In view of the many elements of society that can be held liable following a landslide, it is logical that this liability be perceived as a sigJ'mMlnt threat and serve as an incentive to take mitigative action. As the public becomes more aware of the landslide hazard and the resulting consequences, the chances are increased that individuals and governments will take positive action to prevent excessive exposure to liability. Information Dissemination Most important in instituting an active mitigation pro- gram is the heightening of public awareness about the problem. There is an inconsistency of information and hazard awareness among the public and in local govern- ments across the state. Many people are unaware that they live where natural disasters could destroy or damage their homes. Many governments are unaware that landslides threaten roads, bridges, utilities, and buildings. In addition, few, if any, legal and statutory mechanisms guarantee the transmission of known hazard information to prospective buyers, and even if owners have access to hazard information, renters are not necessarily informed of a hazard threatening their lives and personal property. Compounding the problem, land-use planning and building-permit agencies serving the public do not always act upon such information even when they have it. Furthermore, it is unlikely that cities or counties will be found liable for landslide damages that result from planning decisions, as long as they make those decisions taking all available information into account. Fmal1y, even if the information is gathered, made understandable to the lay person, and disseminated to the community, citizens may not incor- porate the information into their actions (Olshansky and Rogers, 1987). However, information about Iandsliding as a hazard becomes a powerfu1 determinant of the choice of means to mitigate landslide impacts. Private lending and in- surance have been identified as two important means of impact modification (Olshansky and Rogers, 1987). financial Aid Federal and state financial assistance Kockelman 0986, p. ~ states: 34 aD stale programs that provide grants, loans, loan . tax credits, tax deductions, depreciation . insurance. revenue sharing, or other financial have a tremendous effect on public and private . Obviously, lbe eD2h1ing 1egisIation for these be amended by lbe U.S. Congress or stale 'to provide for site investigations in IandsJide of hazardous areas, or stabilization of areas, among e1ecte<l ofIiciaIs, but equally effec- . . 'disincentives" which act as deterrents and development of hazardous areas. A " could reduce the federal sbare of a gr.mt if to be funded were to be located in a landslide , lbe U.S. Congress. . . introduced pro- lbe Flood Disaster Protedion Act of 1913 for federal benefits from Oood-prone communities not to participate in lbe National Flood In- . In providing loans and gr.mls for disaster e U.S. Congress . . . requires local and stale to eva1uate and mitigate hazards. itigation as a condition of disaster aid dslide damage costs governments hun- ons of dollars per year. Governments pay through direct assistance, tax deductions losses, and low-cost loans for recovery. , the state and federal government shares ster recovery costs has risen sharply. The . aster Act of 1973 and the Federal Disaster 1974 (Public Law 93-288) address this in- en by attaching hazard-reduction conditions . d. Section 406 of Public Law 93-288 was enacted in i4 to encourage identification, evaluation, and mitigati n of hazards at all levels of government. The require ents of Section 406 are triggered by a ma- jor disaster r emergency declared by the President and apply to all s of declared emergencies and disasters. A hazard .. tion clause is incorporated into the Federal Em ency Management Agency (FEMA)/state agreement r disaster assistance, thereby establishing the identifi . on of hazards and the evaluation of hazard mitigation portunities as a condition for receiving federal assi ceo FEMA is sponsible for administering the Section 406 require nts and has prepared implementing regulations 44 CFR 205, Subpart M) that spell out federal, sta ,and local responsibilities under Section 406. Under the regulation a state hazard mitigation coor- dinator is d signated by a governor's authorized representa e to prepare a hazard-mitigation plan and to ensure its . lementation. The state may establish a group of in . . duals from state and local agencies to assist in p paring the "406 plan:' which must be com- pleted and ubmitted to FEMA within 180 clays after the Presiden' disaster or emergency declaration (FEMA, 1986).