Reply [to “Comment on ‘Crustal deformation measured in Southern California’”]



Rydelek and Sacks do not dispute the correctness of our method and results. Rather they question whether our result is a new discovery, and whether we have given enough review to the previous literature on the phenomena and modeling of post-seismic viscoelastic relaxation.

We agree that others before us found evidence for non-elastic deformation following earthquakes. We cited Thatcher [1983] as an example of such previous studies. Because Eos policy allows no more than 10 references per article, we never set out to do an extensive review on any subject our article covered, including post-seismic deformation. Had we intended to write a review, there would have been many other relevant papers besides those mentioned by Rydelek and Sacks. Instead, we reported newly available data, remarkable because of their precision, consistency, and spatial resolution, and because the measurements span nearly the entire width of the plate boundary.