CA: Hayward Fault More Stressed Than Expected

As if we Northern Califorinans don't have enough to deal with, it looks like the ground beneath us may pop sooner then expected. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the fault is seriously stressed and it may result in a worse earthquke than previously forecast.

Some scientists say the Hayward fault, long focused upon by geologists as the most likely candidate for the San Francisco Bay area's next big earthquake, might be even more dangerous than thought.

Geologists analyzed gradual changes in stress on the deepest parts of faults in the area. They found that several faults, including the southern portion of the Hayward fault, might be more prepared to rupture than previously estimated.

The new research suggests current earthquake forecasts for the area also might underestimate the danger on two other faults the Rodgers Creek fault that runs from San Pablo Bay north past Santa Rosa, and the northern portion of the Calaveras fault from Sunol to the Danville area.

We are all aware of the dangers we face as a price for living here and needless to say, we all should be prepared. The big question is just how prepared are the Federal Government, the State of California and local communities prepared to deal with the aftermath. Cities will no doubt be overwhelmed and the state demonstrated during last year's fires that they know what they are doing. However, nothing has happened since the hurricaine season of 2005 to convince me that FEMA is any more prepared for a massive disaster than they were then. As individuals and as a community, we better be ready to help ourselves and each other.

•  i was told long ago

  that it was potentially more dangerous to the bay area than is san andreas.

  by Turkana on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 07:59:19 PM PDT

  •  No big one for 140 years on it

    The San Andreas had its big one 102 years ago, less time to build up.

    by jfern on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:04:49 PM PDT

    •  The Hayward fault is constantly creeping

      The west side creeps along and after a few years a curb across it will be six inches out of alignment.

      what's also nes is that it may be that the Calaveras fault in the next valley east may actually be the same fault connected down in the earth.  It appears thath the Rogers Creek Fault north of and across San Pablo Bay from the Hayward Fault is really the same fault.  The rogers Creek Fault is a big danger in Sonoma County. The 1969 big quake on it destroyed most of Santa Rosa's historic downtown area.

      by Rolfyboy6 on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:17:09 PM PDT

  •  I literally lived atop it in Berkeley

    When I was a student there in the late '90s.

    One night we had a quake, mid-3's, and I woke up and thought "oh fuck." Then I thought "oh wait, this old building's not collapsing around me, I'll be fine."

    Didn't calm the out-of-staters any...

    by eugene on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:47:30 PM PDT

    •  live in california long enough

      you stop even getting the adrenaline rush.

      by Turkana on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:56:04 PM PDT

      •  Instead you get the

        "goddammit, I was sleeping soundly."

        by eugene on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:57:28 PM PDT

      •  I've lived in California

        almost my entire life (50+ years) and quakes ALWAYS scare the shit out of me.

        by internationaljock on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 09:53:31 PM PDT

•  Wait, they can forecast earthquakes now?

  I didn't realize that.

  by DemocraticLuntz on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:00:45 PM PDT

  •  nope

    they can only tell how stressed a fault is, but they can't come close to forecasting when it will give.

    by Turkana on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:02:03 PM PDT

  •  It's not like a daily forecast

    But geologists look in terms of decades.

    by RandySF on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:02:37 PM PDT

    •  so, what are the probabilities now?

      Sitting 1/4 mile from the Hayward as I type this...

      Last I heard, from a couple of years ago, it was about a 30% chance of a 7.0 on the Hayward within 20 - 25 years.  

      Now you're saying a larger quake is likely, and it's likely to happen sooner.  But the quotes you posted don't put numbers on it.  

      Have you seen any revised numbers, and if so, what are they?  

      by G2geek on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:06:16 PM PDT

      •  See below.

        by RandySF on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:12:53 PM PDT

        •  found your below, got question.

          See below, I have a question about what you said (phrasing was unclear).

          by G2geek on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 09:25:10 PM PDT

  •  Not really.

    They can't even forecast the weather correctly half the time.

    by internationaljock on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 09:54:23 PM PDT

•  I know how it feels.

  I'm more stressed than expected too.

  by phenry on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:09:00 PM PDT

  •  USGS

    Will put out a report this srping. The Loma Prieta quake transferred power to the Hayward Fault. Southern part will slip 45-75% chance increase in the next 30 years.

    Link

    by RandySF on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:12:33 PM PDT

    •  Have they moved the hospitals

      and schools off the fault line yet?

      by Overseas on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:22:08 PM PDT

      •  Of course not.

        That's called planning ahead. No community on the East Bay appears smart enough. One city even built it's brand spanking new city hall as close to the fault as possible.

        by RandySF on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:23:52 PM PDT

        •  I lived there 30 years ago

          and they knew then that they HAD to be moved.

          by Overseas on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:26:26 PM PDT

        •  Well, to be fair

          The fault runs right beneath Piedmont Drive, which is the eastern edge of the UC Berkeley campus. The entire campus is within yards of the thing.

          Now, you can't move UCB. But they've spent the last 15 years undertaking a truly massive seismic retrofit project. It's the best that can be done, and it's better than sitting on their ass.

          by eugene on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:49:27 PM PDT

          •  but if we're facing 75% probability of a 7...

            ...I see the retrofits when I drive by there: buildings encased in girders in X formations... but is that stuff enough to stand up to a 7...?   Personally I have my doubts.  What says y'all?

            by G2geek on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 09:19:37 PM PDT

            •  That's only part of the retrofit

              For the dorms, especially the Units (1-2-3) there was also underground work done to stabilize foundations.

              Many of the core buildings were almost totally gutted and retrofitted, such as the Hearst Mining Building.

              The campus was undergoing massive retrofit work when I was there from '97 to '00. While you can't guarantee that a building will stand in a major quake, especially when the fault is right next to you, they've done almost all they can do.

              by eugene on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 09:31:21 PM PDT

      •  Um

        Try moving the entirety of UC Berkeley.

        by eugene on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:48:11 PM PDT

        •  lots of room out east

          just rename it UCB at D.

          we can make the berkeley campus into the university farm.

          hee.

          by wu ming on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 12:55:12 AM PDT

    •  clarification..?

      Where you said, "Southern part will slip 45-75% chance increase in the next 30 years."  
      What I think you mean is:  

      The probablity has been increased from 45% to 75% that the Southern part of the Hayward will slip within 30 years.   And by "slip" you mean 7.0 or greater.

      Is that correct?  Or if not, then what?  

      by G2geek on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 09:23:29 PM PDT

      •  yeah

        by RandySF on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 09:26:25 PM PDT

•  I forget where I heard it but there was something

  saying that the 3 great disasters facing this country at the beginning of the century were a terrorist attack, hurricane in NO and big earthquake in Cali, and it looked like we were going to get all 3 this decade.

  by chrismorgan on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:12:35 PM PDT

  •  And thus far

    Bush fucked up 2 out of three. We need s new president fast.

    by RandySF on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:13:58 PM PDT

    •  This has worried me a lot

      One reason that Northern and Southern California, while fighting like dogs about some things, are fanatical about taking care of each other in disasters is that WE KNOW we have to rely on each other, the Feds are Slow and most folks need big help after three days.  We have the best disaster planning and coordination in the Country and are tied with Japan for in the world.

      Does anyone NOT believe that one of the things we are fighting for in this election is a REAL disaster service from the Feds?

      by Rolfyboy6 on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:29:39 PM PDT

      •  hell, at this point

        being left alone to respond might be a step up from that the feds have planned for us. there's a reason for that blackwater base they're trying to push in potrero.

        by wu ming on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 12:56:21 AM PDT

  •  Odds are against it

    But unlike the other two, we can't predict the big one in advance (unless you're aways from the epicenter). The other two had a lot more advanced warning/prevention that could have been done, but we have a disaster in the White House.

    by jfern on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:14:36 PM PDT

•  Wouldn't you be stressed too?

  The Hayward Fault doesn't have any health insurance and all of its pension money was in Enron stock.

  </ba-da-bum>

  by tiggers thotful spot on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:18:07 PM PDT

•  Here is a link to the USGS Cal/Nev

  recent activity map. I've been looking at this since I rode out the Northridge quake in '94.
    The USGS site has a lot of good info about preparedness.

  by jnhobbs on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:23:04 PM PDT

•  Personally, I'd be too nervous about living in

  such an area.

  At least with Hurricanes or other storms, you can prepare.

  by AUBoy2007 on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:26:36 PM PDT

  •  No. Having lived in some of the best

    natural disaster areas including the Bay Area and the Caribbean for hurricanes and earthquakes as a two-fer - there really is no difference.  They are both just as random and unpredictable.

    But having said that I've had people who live in tornado alley that they wouldn't live in an earthquake zone and in my opinion tornodos are far more threatening than earthquakes.  At least in an earthquake if you can get to a place where nothing is going to fall on you, you're going to be okay once it is over - which is usually minutes as opposed to hours.  A tornado or a hurricane on the other hand, there is no immediate escape route you can take and the storms can go on and on for hours.

    by inclusiveheart on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:45:07 PM PDT

    •  I've been through both

      I went through the small quake a few months ago and I was caught drving close to a tornado touchdown a few years ago. For shear terror, nothing matches a tornado.

      by RandySF on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:47:43 PM PDT

      •  That's my feeling.

        I've been through hundreds of quakes - some of reasonable size - but the night I was caught at anchor on a deep keeled boat that got swept into a small tornado/water spout - that was one hell of a ride for me and the cats.  It wasn't all that strong either and so I can only imagine what it would be like to be inside a real tornado.  I'll take an earthquake over that experience any day.

        by inclusiveheart on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:55:04 PM PDT

    •  Hurricanes can be unpredicable, but you have some

      warning as opposed to none.

      You do have a point with the timing though.

      Tornadoes scare the living day lights out of me, more so than anything else.

      by AUBoy2007 on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:57:25 PM PDT

      •  If you grow up in an earthquake zone

        like I did, you develop a sensitivity to the rumblings that generally precede a quake and the response is pretty automatic.  We had a big quake a few years ago in the islands and the house we lived in with its concete roof was always a bit troubling - in any case from the time the first little shake happened - within five seconds I had gone from the innermost part of the house picked up three cats along the way and was outside over the balcony in the yard.  It was amazing to me that I had done it, but that's what years of practice will do I guess.

        by inclusiveheart on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 09:08:12 PM PDT

    •  storms are seasonal

      i'll take the random earthquake, but i do wish they had warning!

      tornados i can see catching some folks by surprise, but not hurricanes. maybe it's just a US thing (?), but we seem to have plenty of warning. i even get tornado alerts in NYC, which we kinda laughed about 'til last summer.

      by nycstray on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 09:03:12 PM PDT

      •  Real hurricanes - warning or no are scary as

        hell and I think the fact that they last for hours and hours - grating on your psyche as well as the fixed objects that often fall apart under the stress - well that is pretty intense.  Some people in Grenada had a woodshop that was destroyed during Ivan.  Their tools were found sticking perpendicularly imbedded in the sides of trees.  I guess my perspective is different on those storms in part because where I was living - on an island - there really was no escape if a storm was coming.  In the states people just drive away, but on islands the planes are all full and they don't get sent back because the airlines don't want equipment in harm's way.  The only other route is by boat and that is usually impractical for various reasons unless you're tryint to save the boat and you get a good head start - and you are lucky enough to predict correctly the direction the storm won't go in.

        by inclusiveheart on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 09:15:13 PM PDT

        •  that's why i said US thing :)

          island is a whole 'nother deck of cards!!

          and i'll still take earthquakes cause they don't have seasons :) i'm not looking forward to moving back to wildfire/flood/mudslide seasons. here, we have the rocking storms in the summer and the winter blizzards, but are somewhat blanketed by the city.  i was born and raised in CA and now live in NY, so i've gotten a few 'events' in. gonna try and avoid a few more when i move back :)

          gotta give ya major props for keeping your cats safe! and scooping up 3 during an earthquake?! wow! i got lucky and mine were out the window into the yard before i could get out from behind my desk, lol!~

          by nycstray on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 09:55:55 PM PDT

  •  Eh.

    The price we pay for beauty, I guess.

    by eugene on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:50:12 PM PDT

•  Who has earthquake insurance?

  Not me.

  by denise b on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:26:43 PM PDT

  •  I have renter's insurance

    And a "nuclear football" of cash, passports, and other essentials to use in the event of a major emergency.

    by eugene on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:51:01 PM PDT

    •  Believe it or not

      After 36 years in the Bay Area, I don't have one.

      by denise b on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:56:11 PM PDT

      •  Well...

        ...I lived in CA for 22 years and WA for another 6 (which is just as susceptible to quakes, and volcanoes too) and had nothing. The only reason I started building anything up was my worry that the banking system was going to collapse, and I wanted some cash here just to be sure. Over the last few months my fiancee and I have been building up an emergency kit. That big storm that came through right after new year's was a particular spur for me.

        One extremely valuable thing we got was a hand-cranked radio. The model we bought also had a flashlight and cell phone charger attached. Well worth the money.

        by eugene on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 09:00:11 PM PDT

  •  I do!

    on top of my renter's insurance, and I've had it since I lived on my own in California since 1996.

    by norm on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 09:22:41 PM PDT

•  What'll happen to the Rincon tower?

  That thing is practically touching the Bay Bridge. I can just imagine it swaying to and fro, banging into the bridge repeatedly bang bang bang.

  by catfish on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:28:27 PM PDT

  •  Then you will hear

    Chris Daley's head banging against his desk.

    by RandySF on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:31:41 PM PDT

  •  Rincon Tower sits on a piece of solid

    rock deeply rooted.  One hundred and eighty years ago Rincon Hill stuck way out into the Bay and was a rock promentory. The surrounding flatlands are all bay fill and will liquify in a big one.

    by Rolfyboy6 on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:33:23 PM PDT

    •  Okay, quit it with the facts already :-) n/t

      by MarkInSanFran on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:49:15 PM PDT

      •  It's horibbly instructive to look at old maps

        and new studies.

        New Geologic Maps Highlight Bay Area Earthquake Hazards

        Save the Bay

        Wikipedia:  San Francisco Bay

        by Rolfyboy6 on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 09:32:29 PM PDT

      •  Oh Right! This is a Candidate Diary! :-)

        Facts, Pffft!

        by Rolfyboy6 on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 10:40:56 PM PDT

  •  It hasan 50,000 gallon tank on the roof

    Made for wind...not sure how it will help during an equake:

    http://www.sfgate.com/...

    by Volvo Liberal on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 09:00:35 PM PDT

•  thanks for this!

  moving back to the area (prob north bay) in a year or so. was planning on checking fault lines, but forgot about activity etc.

  OY! i've had enough disasters TYVM!

  by nycstray on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 09:05:44 PM PDT

•  I should also add

  That in Ch 7's report, geologists no longer say that the northern portion of the fault is most at risk. They now say that the San Leandro-Fremont portion is experiencing the most pressure

  by RandySF on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 09:22:04 PM PDT

  •  and when that part rips...

    ....it will probably cause the northern part, or at least the rest of Oakland and Berkeley, to rip as well.  

    by G2geek on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 09:53:20 PM PDT

•  I watched the History Channel

  show on "Life after Humans" (or whatever they called it), and noted an emphasis on relatively uniform decay of urban landscapes over time.  For instance, by their estimate bridges and skyscrapers would last (as windowless, vine-encrusted shells, at least) 50-150 years before completely collapsing.  If they included major earthquake probabilities, some cities might not "stand" as long as they estimated...

  Interesting show, though.

  by El Sobrante on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 09:29:02 PM PDT

•  Again?

  They come out with a new article about the VAST AND DANGEROUS Hayward fault every month.

  Yawn.

  by sideofzen on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 09:36:12 PM PDT

•  We're all kinda stressed

  gas prices are up, stock market is down, people can't afford their home loans, no end in sight to the war in Iraq...we're all stressed more than usual.

  by Paul in Berkeley on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 10:23:19 PM PDT

•  in the central valley

  if you're not next to a levee, the only thing you have to worry about is terminal boredom.

  but seriously, though, if you haven't bookmarked AlphaGeek's series on disaster preparedness (or better yet, printed it out), and you live in earthquake country, this might not be a bad time to check it out. tons of good stuff in there, wish he had made it into a .pdf

  by wu ming on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 01:01:25 AM PDT

  •  Terminal boredom and foreclosures

    by RandySF on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:34:12 AM PDT

    •  indeed n/t

      by wu ming on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 12:47:48 PM PDT