to protect the public and minimize damage depend 
upon State and local authorities. 
The prediction of volcanic eruptions on Hawaii 
has been relatively successful. The Hawaiian Vol- 
cano Observatory (U.S. Geological Survey) has a 
working warning system and the less-violent types 
of eruptions that occur there allow adequate time 
for evacuation when necessary. Predictive capabili- 
ties for the Cascades and Alaskan volcanoes are 
minimal, nor has the warning system on the continen- 
tal United States been tested for this type of crisis. 
The U.S. Geological Survey is planning a system of 
surveillance of the inactive volcanoes of the Pacific 
Northwest using infrared sensing, and the 12 exist- 
ing volcanoes will be monitored intermittently by 
instruments.**" 
Subsidence has, on occasion, caused failures of 
levees or dams; however, the largest number of cases 
are gradual and the direct hazard is economic loss 
rather than the loss of life. Because the problem is 
usually caused by man’s removal of liquid or solid 
materials from the earth’s crust, the ability to predict 
where the problem might occur exists through the 
examination of these activities and relating them to 
soil and subsoil conditions. The U.S. Geological 
Survey and the Bureau of Reclamation have looked 
into subsidence; however, little effort has been ex- 
pended in this direction to date. Gilbert White, 
et al.,1** note that few subsidence studies have been 
done at the Federal level. 
“At present, no national policy deals with 
land subsidence. However, because of the 
widespread nature of this hazard, such a 
policy may be needed. Justification for a 
subsidence warning program lies in the 
Disaster Reliet Act of 1974, which declares 
the need for disaster warning with respect 
to geological catastrophes.” 
The prediction of erosion creates a peculiar set 
of problems. White and Haas argue that warnings 
against imminent erosion should be made only when 
unrelated to wind or flood hazards. Even then, there 
is little that can be done, on short notice, to prevent 
erosion. Given the cost and difficulty of emergency 
measures and the relatively small number of struc- 
tures affected at any one time, it is probably desir- 
able to focus activity on forecasting long-term ero- 
sion possibilities.°° Then appropriate planning and 
mitigation programs can attack the problem. 
137 U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration. A Federal Plan for Natural Dis- 
aster Warning and Preparedness. Washington, D.C., June 1973, 
p. 53. 
138 U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, Office of Coastal 
Zone Management. op. cit. note 133, p. II-73. 
139 Gilbert F. White and J. Eugene Haas, op. cit. note 136, 
p. 360. 
Once again, the primary types of predictions and 
warnings are long-range forecasts in the form of 
risk maps that generally depict average rates of 
historical shoreline change as determined from earlier 
maps, charts, surveys, aerial photographs, and similar 
sources. The Federal Insurance Administration, 
Natural Ocean Survey-Coastal Mapping Division, 
and the Corps of Engineers all have an interest in 
this area and either produce Storm Evaluation Maps 
or other types of information such as Flood Plain 
Information Reports. Joe Moseley and Sally Daven- 
port point out that much of the information pro- 
duced does not reach the hands of citizens buying 
the land; for example, developers in Texas have not 
made the information available and have opposed 
State laws requiring disclosure of natural hazards.1*° 
The final effect of hazard mapping and similar work 
depends on the cooperation of, and its use by, the 
States and local governments in the various trans- 
actions and decisions involving erosion-threatened 
areas. It is up to these governments as to how they 
involve developers, buyers, and other interested 
parties in the decision-making process. 
Prediction and warning systems are essential in 
minimizing losses due to catastrophic events (those 
in which damages to property, human health, and 
social structure or processes are of such severity 
that recovery and rehabilitation is a long and trying 
process). Obviously, both the ability to predict the 
occurrence of such hazards and to warn the public 
of the impending dangers are important; research is 
necessary in the area of citizen reaction to warnings, 
because many people do not adequately respond to 
the warnings that they receive.14!)14? 
Research has also shown that prediction warnings 
are just the first step in the chain that includes dis- 
semination and response. To ensure appropriate 
response, local authorities must develop local plans 
to change warnings into specific actions.1‘?*4 The 
plans are ultimately no better than the reactions 
that they generate among the public. The only way 
natural hazard management systems will work is if 
people understand the hazards and the plans and 
140 Joe C. Moseley, Ii, and Sally S. Davenport, “Hurricane 
Damage Reduction and Coastal Management,” paper presented 
at Coastal Zone °78, conference sponsored by Conservation 
Foundation, American Society of Civil Engineers, and U.S. 
Department of Commerce, NOAA, Office of Coastal Zone Man- 
agement, March 14-16, 1978, p. 16. 
141 U.S. Executive Office of the President. op. cit. note 135, 
Hazard Reduction, pp. 8-9. . 
142 Gilbert F. White. Flood Hazard in the United States: A 
Research Assessment. Boulder, Colo., University of Colorado, 
Institute of Behavior Science, 1975, pp. 83-85. 
143 Benjamin F. McLuckie. The Warning System in Disaster 
Situations: A Selective Analysis. Research Report No. 9 Colum- 
bus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Disaster Research Center, 
1970. 
144 Dennis S. Mileti. Natural Hazards Warning Systems in the 
United States. Boulder, Colo., University of Colorado, Institute 
of Behavior Science, 1975. 
IV-63 
