Establishing a Federal Earthquake Risk Management Standard

Overview

Executive Order 13717, issued by President Barack Obama on February 2, 2016, establishes a comprehensive federal standard for earthquake risk management. The order emphasizes enhancing resilience and reducing risks associated with earthquakes, specifically targeting federal buildings. This EO mandates that new federal buildings and alterations to existing ones adhere to the latest earthquake-resistant design and construction standards, such as the International Building Code (IBC) and the International Residential Code (IRC).

In issuing this order, the Federal Government acknowledges that existing building codes primarily focus on ensuring minimum safety levels for occupants during earthquakes. However, this EO aims for increased resilience by encouraging federal agencies to exceed minimum codes where necessary. This includes enhancing the post-earthquake performance of buildings, ensuring that essential functions can continue. Through this directive, the Federal Government demonstrates its commitment to public safety, economic stability, and national security in the face of natural disasters.

The directive also provides a structured approach for federal agencies in managing the earthquake risks in federally owned and leased buildings. This involves adopting standards from the Interagency Committee on Seismic Safety in Construction (ICSSC) and ensuring compliance of federally financed or regulated buildings. By requiring agencies to report biennially on their compliance with this order, the EO sets a clear accountability framework while enhancing transparency in federal building and leasing practices.

Legal and Policy Implications

Legally, EO 13717 rescinds previous executive orders related to seismic safety: EO 12699 and EO 12941, which focused on the seismic safety of federally assisted, regulated, and existing federal buildings respectively. By doing so, it consolidates and modernizes the regulatory framework governing the seismic safety of federal infrastructure, streamlining responsibilities and ensuring contemporary building codes are adhered to.

The EO builds upon the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977, affirming the federal government's proactive stance in minimizing earthquake risks through stringent building standards. This enactment signals a progressive shift in the regulatory landscape by requiring federal agencies to incorporate the latest seismic standards, ensuring federal properties are equipped to handle seismic events effectively, thereby setting a precedent for state and local governments.

From a policy standpoint, this order aligns with the Obama administration's broader emphasis on resilience in infrastructure, emphasizing not only life safety but also maintaining functionality post-disaster. This is a departure from previous policies focused solely on life safety, representing a nuanced understanding of resilience as a multifaceted goal consisting of life preservation, economic continuity, and security enhancement.

Who Benefits

The EO primarily benefits federal agencies and their employees by ensuring that the buildings they occupy are designed to withstand seismic activities, providing safety and security during such events. The requirement for agencies to exceed minimum building codes means that occupants of these buildings have a greater likelihood of continued operation, reducing downtime and improving federal continuity efforts after an earthquake.

The construction industry, especially companies specializing in earthquake-resistant design and construction, stands to gain from this EO. By mandating adherence to the latest standards, it opens up opportunities for businesses to engage in retrofitting and constructing new seismic-compliant federal buildings, fostering innovation and stimulating economic growth within the sector.

Additionally, local communities surrounding federal buildings could see indirect benefits. By reducing the seismic risk to federal buildings, there could be a decrease in potential secondary disaster impacts, such as structural failures that may pose threats to neighboring properties. This could also ease the strain on local emergency services during post-earthquake recovery efforts.

Technical professionals, including architects and engineers, benefit from EO 13717's emphasis on enhanced building standards, as it encourages continuous professional development and innovation in seismic safety technologies. This also bolsters industry standards, benefitting the broader national context by elevating overall construction quality despite the specific focus on federal projects.

Finally, the general public benefits through increased safety and operational continuity of federal facilities that provide critical services, such as medical centers, emergency operations centers, and military installations. The EO promotes a safer, more resilient infrastructure that supports community recovery and stability following an earthquake.

Who Suffers

The new regulations may result in increased costs for seismic upgrades and maintenance, potentially straining the budgets of federal agencies tasked with implementing the changes. These agencies may need to reallocate funds from existing programs to comply with the EO, potentially impacting other services or project timelines.

Contractors and developers who are unprepared or unwilling to adapt to the stringent seismic standards might experience challenges. The need for specialized seismic risk mitigation might also elevate entry barriers for smaller construction firms or those not specializing in high-standard earthquake-resistant designs, leading to unequal competition.

Agencies overseeing federal assistance programs for housing and infrastructure development could face hurdles in streamlining funding to meet these updated standards, potentially slowing down response times or circumventing existing priorities for program beneficiaries in urgent need of new or retrofitted facilities.

Certain federally regulated buildings previously grandfathered under less stringent criteria may now require costly updates or renovations to meet the current standards. Building owners and stakeholders may bear significant financial burdens without federal aid, possibly creating friction between private interests and government mandates.

Communities heavily reliant on older federally leased buildings that require extensive retrofitting might experience disruptions if buildings are temporarily closed for upgrades. This could limit accessibility to essential services and impact community operations, especially in regions with limited alternatives.

Historical Context

EO 13717 continues a long-standing federal focus on earthquake preparedness dating back to the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977, which sought to mitigate earthquake risks through research, education, and improved safety standards. This executive order represents a significant progression in that effort, by focusing not just on preserving human life during seismic events, but also on ensuring the federal government can maintain essential functions thereafter.

The Obama administration's emphasis on resilience can be viewed alongside its broader agenda for infrastructure modernization and climate adaptation, seeing infrastructure not just as physical buildings, but as vital assets that underpin national security and economic stability. EO 13717 reflects these interconnected priorities, informed by lessons from past natural disasters and the growing awareness of climate-related and geological vulnerabilities.

In the past few decades, the importance of earthquake readiness has risen on the agenda due in part to historical seismic events that highlighted vulnerabilities within existing federal infrastructure. The Northridge earthquake in 1994, for example, prompted previous administrations to incorporate stricter seismic standards and risk assessments across federal buildings and projects.

The revocation and replacement of earlier orders also signal an evolution in federal seismic policy, streamlining regulation and efforts under a single, coherent directive. This shift towards a unified federal approach reflects the changing dynamics of risk, governmental responsibilities, and heightened advocacy for sustainable, resilient building practices.

Moreover, the EO reflects a notable shift in federal priorities from regulatory fragmentation towards a more declarative, top-down approach to disaster resilience. This trend underscores a demand for creating infrastructure systems that secure public safety while balancing economic implications, tasking federal agencies with a clearer framework for compliance and long-term planning.

Potential Controversies or Challenges

As with many federal mandates, there may be resistance either from within government agencies or from industries impacted by increased regulatory requirements. Questions regarding appropriations might arise, as executing the order's mandates without escalating costs or creating fiscal imbalances across agencies remains a complex challenge.

Legal controversies could emerge concerning agency compliance, particularly around buildings that might be exempted under the EO's provisions. Discretion afforded to agency heads to exempt structures for law enforcement or national security reasons might lead to inconsistent application and potentially spark disputes over enforcement or interpretation.

The requirement for biennial reporting introduces layers of accountability, but also additional bureaucratic responsibilities that could be seen as cumbersome by some federal entities. The necessity for detailed compliance and oversight could strain agencies already managing complex workloads, creating friction over the allocation of human and financial resources.

Opposition may also arise from jurisdictions or sectors questioning the EO's emphasis on federal property and its exclusion of non-federal properties. Some state and local governments might view this as a lack of federal initiative in coordinating broader national resilience, emphasizing federal properties while neglecting larger societal readiness.

Challenges could also materialize around the EO's stipulation for agencies to potentially exceed standard building codes. The necessity to justify higher expenditure levels could be met with scrutiny from budget-conscious lawmakers, prompting debates about the EO's scalability across diverse geographic and fiscal environments.