https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2025JB033213

"Present-day modeled stress levels exceed historical maxima on multiple segments, particularly on segment SJB (3.6 MPa), suggesting that the system is critically stressed. Given the elapsed time since these faults have ruptured, the probability of an earthquake in the near future is high..." ETA - stress is at maximal levels over the last 1000 years.

The next "big one", which is long overdue, will be a tragedy for California and our country. FEMA and the state will be on the hook. Between fire, quake, and soil liquification - damages could easily be more than $1 Trillion. And that doesn't count the loss of income (business and worker).

Fewer than 10% of CA homeowners (and businesses) carry earthquake insurance.
Shouldn't most Californians be required to buy earthquake insurance, the same way that many here are required to buy flood insurance?

Another example of blue states shifting costs to red states. Bonus - I can hear the screaming from Sacramento. :-)

Hopefully the redundant cloud deployments will allow corporate America to continue to operate when it happens. Everything we do now is SaaS in the cloud.

Insurance is either prohibitively expensive or not offered at all.

The good news is that just the plot of land where one could build a ~1500sqft house costs more of $3mill where we will (and for almost anywhere around it). So even without federal help, people can just sell and move.

But this will be tougher for LA, and Riverside, and San Bernardino counties which are cheaper and where the poor people live in California.

I lived out there and owned a home. No one buys earthquake insurance because it was obscenely expensive and the odds of it happening are so low.

Besides, if a quake did knocked down everything it would take years for infrastructure to be repaired. It'd be better to take the L and move to another state.

AlaskanAg99 said:

---

I lived out there and owned a home. No one buys earthquake insurance because it was obscenely expensive and the odds of it happening are so low.

Besides, if a quake did knocked down everything it would take years for infrastructure to be repaired. It'd be better to take the L and move to another state.

---

Agreed. I wouldn't buy it.

Many people don't buy flood insurance for same reason on Texas coast although flooding is more likely than earthquake.

Predicting that California will have a big earthquake is the safest prediction in history.

No matter when the quake happens, the person(s) make it can say "see, we were right."

AozorAg said:

---

Learn to swim! Learn to swim! Learn to swim! Learn to swim!

---

Tool

VegasAg86 said:

---

IIIHorn said:

---

Who's at fault?

---

Trump.

---

This goes without saying at this point.

PascalsWager said:

---

Insurance is either prohibitively expensive or not offered at all.

The good news is that just the plot of land where one could build a ~1500sqft house costs more of $3mill where we will (and for almost anywhere around it). So even without federal help, people can just sell and move.

But this will be tougher for LA, and Riverside, and San Bernardino counties which are cheaper and where the poor people live in California.

---

Insurance is the biggest scam on earth besides anything the dems do.

California is big. Chances are, any given earthquake is going to have an epicenter in a relatively remote area. Earthquake damage is highly localized around the epicenter. I've been rolling the dice (going without earthquake insurance) for about 40 years in socal. We've had (arguably) three major quakes in that time (Whittier-narrows, Big Bear/Landers and Northridge)...I've lost a grand total of one picture frame in all three quakes.

...But that could all change in an instant...

ts5641 said:

---

PascalsWager said:

---

Insurance is either prohibitively expensive or not offered at all.

The good news is that just the plot of land where one could build a ~1500sqft house costs more of $3mill where we will (and for almost anywhere around it). So even without federal help, people can just sell and move.

But this will be tougher for LA, and Riverside, and San Bernardino counties which are cheaper and where the poor people live in California.

---

Insurance is the biggest scam on earth besides anything the dems do.

---

I understand your point, but will disagree. There is a cost associated with reducing your risk - insurance premium. On average everyone has to lose, because otherwise insurance companies would fold. If the premium is more than you want to pay - just don't buy insurance.

Sid Farkas said:

---

California is big. Chances are, any given earthquake is going to have an epicenter in a relatively remote area. Earthquake damage is highly localized around the epicenter. I've been rolling the dice (going without earthquake insurance) for about 40 years in socal. We've had (arguably) three major quakes in that time (Whittier-narrows, Big Bear/Landers and Northridge)...I've lost a grand total of one picture frame in all three quakes.

...But that could all change in an instant...

---

Would be great if it hit where the minimal light rail tracks are set. Knock down the untold billions spent on a few hundred feet of track.

Tea Party said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

This is seismic news

---

Really ground breaking

---

Earth-shattering, even.

Just curious, how expensive is that kind of insurance coverage on a relative basis?

YouBet said:

---

Quote:

---

The next "big one", which is long overdue, will be a tragedy for California and our country.

---

Is it though?

---

With some of the responses on the McConnell thread I felt I had to say this. As much as it hurt to do so.

I thought it was interesting when were were buying our house in Eugene, OR in 2021 that we had to have the sellers add "earthquake straps" to the electric water heater to bring it up to code for the sale.

Then I learned about the whole "Cascadia Subsidence Zone" thing.

We sold the house last year and moved back to TX and the people we sold it to were adamant that the house (built in 1957) was earthquake compliant. Luckily we didn't have to do any extra work since the water heater straps were the only things required by code.

The big issue isnt shaking for a home.
Its loss of power and water service. Followed by an uncontained fire that would spread rapidly esp if having multiple origination points and the inability to contain it in an urban/suburban environment.

Rockdoc said:

---

Just curious, how expensive is that kind of insurance coverage on a relative basis?

---

~$2500/yr with a 15% deductible. I live in an average, single story 1500 sf home built in 1969 in an unremarkable close-in suburb to LA.

Over_ed said:

---

ts5641 said:

---

PascalsWager said:

---

Insurance is either prohibitively expensive or not offered at all.

The good news is that just the plot of land where one could build a ~1500sqft house costs more of $3mill where we will (and for almost anywhere around it). So even without federal help, people can just sell and move.

But this will be tougher for LA, and Riverside, and San Bernardino counties which are cheaper and where the poor people live in California.

---

Insurance is the biggest scam on earth besides anything the dems do.

---

I understand your point, but will disagree. There is a cost associated with reducing your risk - insurance premium. On average everyone has to lose, because otherwise insurance companies would fold. If the premium is more than you want to pay - just don't buy insurance.

---

Arguable. Did you happen to see thread posted a couple of weeks ago about insurance payouts? (I think I even posted it).

Insurance companies are now only paying out about half of claims. My brother's house flooded. Insurance company only wanted to pay $20k for $140k in damage. After about 15 months of fighting and arbitration they agreed to pay $100k.

AlaskanAg99 said:

---

The big issue isnt shaking for a home.
Its loss of power and water service. Followed by an uncontained fire that would spread rapidly esp if having multiple origination points and the inability to contain it in an urban/suburban environment.

---

Those things can be managed pretty easy here in coastal socal (and much of calif). You don't need whole home electricity to protect yourself from the environment (b/c moderate weather)...I keep a month's worth of food and water and have small scale solar/battery back up for essentials...and ammo...lots and lots of ammo. tbh, breakdown of social order in urban areas is the biggest threat....again tho, damage will almost for sure be highly localized around the epicenter.

Sid Farkas said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

Just curious, how expensive is that kind of insurance coverage on a relative basis?

---

~$2500/yr with a 15% deductible. I live in an average, single story 1500 sf home built in 1969 in an unremarkable close-in suburb to LA.

---

Thanks. That's a big chunk (maybe not for California but it would be for Texas)

Sid Farkas said:

---

AlaskanAg99 said:

---

The big issue isnt shaking for a home.
Its loss of power and water service. Followed by an uncontained fire that would spread rapidly esp if having multiple origination points and the inability to contain it in an urban/suburban environment.

---

Those things can be managed pretty easy here in coastal socal (and much of calif). You don't need whole home electricity to protect yourself from the environment (b/c moderate weather)...I keep a month's worth of food and water and have small scale solar/battery back up for essentials...and ammo...lots and lots of ammo. tbh, breakdown of social order in urban areas is the biggest threat....again tho, damage will almost for sure be highly localized around the epicenter.

---

Where you are this is absolute the biggest threat. You need to have a side deal with Roof Koreans.

YouBet said:

---

Sid Farkas said:

---

AlaskanAg99 said:

---

The big issue isnt shaking for a home.
Its loss of power and water service. Followed by an uncontained fire that would spread rapidly esp if having multiple origination points and the inability to contain it in an urban/suburban environment.

---

Those things can be managed pretty easy here in coastal socal (and much of calif). You don't need whole home electricity to protect yourself from the environment (b/c moderate weather)...I keep a month's worth of food and water and have small scale solar/battery back up for essentials...and ammo...lots and lots of ammo. tbh, breakdown of social order in urban areas is the biggest threat....again tho, damage will almost for sure be highly localized around the epicenter.

---

Where you are this is absolute the biggest threat. You need to have a side deal with Roof Koreans.

---

coincidentally, I live in one of the biggest Korean immigrant areas (after Koreatown itself). Every time I'm at Turner's (the gun store), I'm surrounded by dozens of these smart guys exercising their 2nd amendment rights. The Yutes better watch out if they think my town is easy pickins'

Sid Farkas said:

---

AlaskanAg99 said:

---

The big issue isnt shaking for a home.
Its loss of power and water service. Followed by an uncontained fire that would spread rapidly esp if having multiple origination points and the inability to contain it in an urban/suburban environment.

---

Those things can be managed pretty easy here in coastal socal (and much of calif). You don't need whole home electricity to protect yourself from the environment (b/c moderate weather)...I keep a month's worth of food and water and have small scale solar/battery back up for essentials...and ammo...lots and lots of ammo. tbh, breakdown of social order in urban areas is the biggest threat....again tho, damage will almost for sure be highly localized around the epicenter.

---

i used to work for San Diego County government and was on disaster preparedness teams.

None of that matters when everything is burned to the ground. And if bridges are damaged and destroyed your ability to run is greatly reduced.