Earthquake Risk in Sacramento (San Diego, San Jose: insurance, living, safe)

[ndfmnlf]

How does it compare with the rest of the state? Where do I get the data to back this up? Thanks.

[Majin]

Zero.

[shelato]

Your insurance agent will break down the costs.

You might also spend some time poking around here.

California Earthquake Authority (CEA) Version 2.0

In general, the major faults are along the coast where the Pacific plate runs into the North American plate and again there are some additional faults in the Sierra Nevada mountains, but for California, Sacramento has fewer earthquake faults in this area.

That said certain soils are much more vulnerable to earthquakes than other soils. Areas built on landfill tends to liquify in earthquakes. In the Loma Prieta earthquake, the Marina district of San Francisco that is built on landfill was hit particularly hard, whereas Nob Hill which is adjacent but built on bedrock escaped much of the damage. In this region the big risks aren't faults but areas built using landfill. A lot of the levees in this area were built after the gold rush by Chinese labors using dredged soil. Some have argued that the levees in this area my liquify in a major earthquake disrupting water supplies statewide and possibly causing local flooding depending on when it hit. I know parts of downtown Sacramento were built up to avoid flooding during the gold rush era and if you were considering living there, I would again make inquiries with your insurance agent about earthquake insurance premiums.

[Des-Lab]

There isn't a single building in the state that can truly claim to be "100% safe from earthquakes".

But yes. Certain areas of the state ARE more vulnerable than others.

From what I've read on the subject, the areas at MOST risk unfortunately are the most populated ones including most of the greater LA area south of the San Gabriel mountains (which means basically all of it-basically Santa Monica to Montclair to Ontario to Long Beach to Whittier), all of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Imperial counties which includes Riverside, San Bernardino, Victorville, Palm Springs, El Centro, etc. And then pretty much the entire beltway between the 101 and 5 corridors including Ventura, Santa Barbara, Monterey, Gilroy, etc. And then of course the entire Bay area itself incling San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland.

The LEAST risk (which is not to be confused with NO risk) is probably the middle San Joaquin Valley. Think Tulare, Fresno, Stockton, etc. Basically the Hwy 99 corridor.

Bakersfield is, geologically speaking, pretty close to the San Andreas and could probably get shaken pretty good in the event of a rupture. Though I don't know how or if it could take a direct hit.

And Orange County and San Diego fall within those extremes. They might not have a high risk of a direct hit, but if the San Andreas or San Jacinto faults rupture, they will definitely get a good shaking.

[NewToCA]

Some more info indicating risk of secondary impact in Sacramento:

Sacramento may be affected by large earthquakes elsewhere

[Rob98LS1]

I don't know the exact numbers or history of quakes being felt in sac but I remember in a ca geology class I took we spent alot of time talking about the foothill fault system in the lower sierras. Seems alot of the general public knows about the san andreas but not much about the foothill faults. I recall a strong eq in quincy in the past, but nothing in sac. Overall I wouldn't be too worried about it if you were.

[NewToCA]

Guys...discuss topic, not each other.

[misc916]

Earthquake risk should be none...I've lived in Sacramento since 1993 and have never felt an earthquake...There are no active fault zones in the Sacramento area as far as I know...However I have friends who lived here in 1989 and said they felt some shaking all the way from the Loma Prieta quake in the SF bay area