EARTHQUAKE RISKS

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 77, Issue 156, 4 July 1934, Page 11

EARTHQUAKE RISKS

ACTION IMPERATIVE ROYAL SOCIETY’S PLEA SOUND, UNIFORM POLICY WELLINGTON, July 3. “The facts of the case seem to it so clear and the danger of the present practice so serious, that it feels it to be its duty as an independent scientific body to call the attention of the public, and especially those' in authority, to the situation. It urges you most strongly to do your utmost towards the placing on the Statute Book as early as possible of both adequate building regulations and machinery for their enforcement by the central Government itself. The above is the concluding paragraph of a circular on the risk of occurrence of destructive earthquakes in New Zealand which the Roya x Society of New Zealand is sending to all members of Parliament and civic authorities throughout tho country. The Royal Society, it is pointed out, has no selfish interest to serve. It has given earnest consideration to the question of tho degree of susceptibility of great intensity and the extent to which any portion of the, country may be considered likely to be immune from them. AU Parts Equally Susceptible. “We are forced to the •conclusion,” says the circular, “that New Zealand must be classed with such regions as Italy, Japan, and the west coast of America as country which is subject to seismic disturbances of major intensity. The more frequent occurrence of severe earthquakes within recent times in the middle portions of the Dominion may give the impression that though these parts are liable to destructive shocks such is not the case with the northern and southern extremities. A critical analysis of the position, however, indicates that with the possible exception of tho Auckland Peninsula, north, say, of Helcnsville, it is quite unsafe to consider any port as immune from their effects. Doubtless there are some slight variations in the risk in different localities, but they are impossible to define, and the only rational policy is to regard all parts of the area mentioned as equally susceptible. “As regards tho Auckland Peninsula, the situation is somewhat less definite, and some authorities are of the opinion that, so far at least as is at present known, the evidences of recent activity found in other parts of the Country are lacking. Furthermore, there is no record of very severe shocks in that, district within historical times, Even there, however, earthquakes are known to occur and earth movements on a large scale have clearly taken place in recent geological epochs. It cannot, therefore, be said with confidence that the future risk is definitely less than elsewhere in tho Dominion.” Fate of the Bill Tho circular then proceeds to review in detail the fate of the Building Construction Bill which was introduced into Parliament towards the end of 1931, at a time when the Hawke’s Bay earthquake was fresh in everyone’s mind. Most people at that time realised that much of tho loss in life and property which was sustained could have been avoided had buildings and public utilities been designed to resist damage by earthquake and to prevent the spread of fire. This Bill, however, was shelved and it was among the measures abandoned at the end of the following session. “In October 1933,” the circular goes on to point out, “a deputation organised by the New Zealand Institute and led by its president, and representing, in addition, the New Zealand •Society of Civil Engineers, tho New Zealand Institute of Architects, and the New Zealand Federated Builders’ and Contractors’ Industrial Association of Employers, urged upon the Prime Minister that the Bill be proceeded with at an early date. This deputation had the unanimous backing of scientists and of the technical bodies concerned with the building trade. The Prime Minister in his reception of the deputation expressed his realisation of the facts that earthquake losses could be greatly reduced and that iit was the duty of those in authority to take the necessary steps to secure this reduction. Failure to do so would involve a very grave responsibility which he personally was unable to accept. He promised to reintroduce the Bib, which in the meantime had been amended somewhat, and to give the House an opportunity to consider it. Unfortunately, for reasons beyond our knowledge or comprehension, the Bill was again dropped.” Municipal Control Insufficient. “It is true,” says the Royal Society, “ that it has been stated that the municipalities already have power to introduce the necessary reforms by means of bylaws and tuat a set oi model regulations on which, to base these bylaws has been promised. But this procedure leaves the final enforcement to the municipalities. Some of these are alive to tneir responsibilities in this direction and others are not. Under the existing system there is practically no chance of” the carrying-out of a sound, uniform policy. The measures adopted are likely to vary widely from p.ace to place and the efficiency of their enforcement still more so. Indeed, it would seem that it is tho laxity and inefficiency which they expect to meet with under the existing system which constitutes its attraction to its supporters. It Is inconceivable that the system of municipal control, if it is to be effective, can bo as economical as a uniform national sysitem controlled by a Government Department with the" proper experience and free from the pressure of local-vested interests. “Fur fiber mo re, the existing legislation ignores the fact Xhat earthquake risks are not confined to municipalities. Loss of life and property may occur without as well as within municipal boundaries. One need only recall what happesed at freezing works in Hawke’s Bay to be convinced that any system of "control which applies only -to municipalities cannot be regarded as more than a partial measure. It is scarcely necessary to emphasise tho duty of the Government to protect the lives ol citizens in whatever part of the country they may be. Even from the basest point of view, the adoption by the Government of mandatory legislation for universal good building cannot be regarded as more than prudent. The Government cannot afford to neglect

so self-evident a safeguard since, in case of a cataclysm, the major portion of the burden of financial loss must inevitably be borne by it. “One of the objection of the Bill is that its proposals will bo costly. Those best qualified to know say that the cost will be trifling. The greater part of it will be recovered, also, in reduced insurance rates. The regulations will ensure sounder building and that in itself will give the public a good return for the increased initial cost. It cannot be said that procedure in the past in New Zealand has been economical. Nor has any more economical way of procuring the necessary results been proposed than that given in the Bill. The only persons who need fear the Bill are the in-/ efficient designer and the jerry builder. ” |