Utah quake not as bad as Katrina?

Utah's version of Katrina is the "big one" seismologists remind us is always looming along the Wasatch Fault. But it's unlikely that a magnitude 7.5 earthquake — the maximum that experts predict for Utah — would create the kind of widespread destruction that has shut down New Orleans following last week's hurricane.

To produce that kind of damage, says Walter Arabasz, director of the University of Utah's seismograph stations, would require an earthquake in the upper 7 or 8 range. With a 7.5 earthquake there would probably be "isolated pockets of destruction," he says. "We wouldn't expect every building to be destroyed."

Still, there could be a significant loss of life and property. The state's Division of Emergency Services uses these estimates from the federal government's HAZUS studies: almost 1,900 deaths and $27 billion in economic losses for a 7-plus-size quake in Utah, says Bob Carey, earthquake emergency program manager.

There are currently 65,000 masonry buildings in Salt Lake County that lack reinforcement, according to an inventory by the Applied Technology Council, and it is these structures that would be hit hardest. Most of these are residential buildings, which don't have the advantage of retrofits like those at the state Capitol, Questar and the U.'s Marriott Library.

"We're taking lots of good steps," says Arabasz, pointing to these seismic upgrades plus the emergency planning before the 2002 Winter Olympics and after Sept. 11. But there are still all those unreinforced masonry buildings, and no one has paid much attention to the ability to recover economically from a natural disaster, he says.

"In general, it's 'out of sight, out of mind . . . .' There needs to be a mindfulness of long-term dangers, dangers that have a frequency that maybe in some cases are longer than a lifetime," he says.

"Living in a state where we don't have a good memory of this stuff is a detriment," adds Barry Welliver, chairman of Utah's Seismic Safety Commission. Earthquake retrofitting "is a hard sell when you don't have the damage staring you in the face."

The main difference between the destruction from Katrina and the projected destruction from a massive earthquake, Carey says, is the pervasive damage caused by water. In an earthquake, he says, people can have fairly immediate access to damaged areas. On the other hand, the problem with an earthquake is that "you can't see it coming."

As individual citizens, says Arabasz, people can prepare in small ways for an earthquake: by making sure that there aren't heavy items — on shelves, over beds — that can fall; by securing water heaters, knowing where the gas shut-off valve is and having a 72-hour emergency kit.

It's a good idea, he suggests, to have an adequate supply of prescription medicines that need to be taken routinely — although many people are limited by their insurance companies to only a month's supply at a time. "Hopefully the policymakers, if they're observing what's going on after this hurricane, might decide to deal with that issue."

---

E-mail: jarvik@desnews.com