Timely topic, I think.
Over here in the PNW, earthquakes are the main natural disaster - other than wildfire, for rural areas.
Having been in multiple large earthquakes while living in California, I’m not that concerned about them. At least as far as personal risk of death/injury, or risk of losing house/contents, goes. I have bolted the house, carry earthquake insurance, have lots of food, 80 gallons in the strapped-down hot water heater, etc.
However, our particular “Big One” earthquake risk comes with . . . tsunami risk. The big fault is the “Cascadia subduction zone” about 100 miles offshore, and in the event of a CSZ rupture tidal waves will hit the Oregon and Washington coast about 15-20 minutes later. Up to 60 foot tidal waves, at the extreme. Which is why all up and down the Oregon coast there are signs for the closest tsunami escape routes; the sirens go off, you head immediately to high ground. Stay in your lovely oceanfront home, and you may die.
Of course, who knows when the next CSZ rupture will come. It is overdue, per historical geological data, but human lifetimes are short, probability of next CSZ rupture in my lifetime and my kids’ lifetimes is . . . 10%? 30%?
So, I’ve been looking at places to get a second home, with an eye towards eventual retirement and until then, being able to take a break from city life. Here’s a tsunami inudation model map of one possible area:
It looks like, most of the spit will be inundated, some areas probably violently so, and naturally those parts are where most of the houses are. Can you get to high ground in 10-15 minutes? There’s like one road; I guess you could flee on foot, run east, hope to reach a gray shaded area.
I was pointing out to my daughter last night that, if we had a second home there, our entire family could potentially be wiped out and there goes the bloodline. She said no problem, her brother will simply be barred from ever visiting.
Question is: what would you do? Would you take the risk of living there? Staying there part time? Or avoid?