PREPARING FOR

DROUGHT

IN THE

21ST CENTURY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

NATIONAL DROUGHT POLICY COMMISSION
Members of the National Drought Policy Commission

Dan Glickman, Chair

Secretary

U.S. Department of Agriculture

The Honorable Roy Barnes

Governor of Georgia

Robert C. “Bob” Brown

Executive Vice President

Farm Credit Bank of Texas

The Honorable Sam Kathryn Campana

Mayor of Scottsdale, Arizona

Ane D. Deister

Executive Assistant to the General Manager

Metropolitan Water District of

Southern California

John J. Kelly, Jr.

Assistant Administrator for Weather Services

U.S. Department of Commerce

Bernard Kulik

Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance

Small Business Administration

Eluid L. Martinez

Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation

U.S. Department of the Interior

The Honorable Ronald R. Morriss, Vice Chair

Supervisor

Santa Cruz County, Arizona

Robert L. Miller

Rancher and Past President of the

Intertribal Agriculture Council

Ernesto Rodriguez

State Director for Emergency Management,

New Mexico Department of Public Safety

Brian Schweitzer

Montana farmer/rancher/soil scientist

A. Leon Smothers

Manager of Water Resources

State of Kentucky

Joseph W. Westphal, Ph.D.

Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works)

Larry Zensinger

Director, Human Services Division

Federal Emergency Management Agency

MAY 2000
National Drought Policy Commission Report 1

The Challenge

Drought occurs somewhere every year in the

United States. It can and does extend over long

periods and large areas, and it brings hardship.

After a major drought, it is common to study the

causes and impacts. The resulting large body of

literature on this subject has many similar

themes. Two of them are especially relevant to

the work of the National Drought Policy Commission:

As a citizenry, we must remember the lessons

learned from past droughts and act on them

to prepare for the next drought.

The federal government must decide how to

coordinate its more than 80 drought-related

programs and how to integrate them with

ongoing nonfederal drought programs and

the efforts of individuals.

Unless and until these basic steps are taken, this

country will likely continue to rely on taxpayerfunded emergency relief after drought and then

forget to prepare for the next drought.

In 1998, Congress passed the National Drought

Policy Act, which created the National Drought

Policy Commission and challenged us to recommend a better way.

The Response

We met the Act’s challenge. First, we developed

a national drought policy statement with preparedness as its foundation. We ask Congress

and the President to endorse this policy through

a National Drought Preparedness Act. Second,

we outlined a course of action that includes a

preparedness initiative to help reduce the damages and costs of drought. Third, we envision a

nonfederal/federal partnership to ensure that

federal drought programs are better coordinated, that they are better integrated with

nonfederal programs, and that their services are

more efficient and effective and driven by customer needs.

It will take commitment and resolve to achieve

the goals of national drought policy. We therefore call on the President and Congress to provide sufficient resources to carry out the recommendations in this report. Allocation of funds

should be based on consideration of the costs

and benefits associated with drought preparedness, proactive mitigation, and response

measures.

“And it never failed that during the dry years

the people forgot about the rich years, and during the wet years

they lost all memory of the dry years. It was always that way.”

—John Steinbeck

East of Eden

Studies show that the federal government spent

$3.3 billion responding to the 1953-1956 drought,

at least $6.5 billion during the 1976-1977 drought,

and about $6 billion during the 1988-1989 drought.

The Commission contends that we can reduce this nation’s

vulnerability to the impacts of drought by making

preparedness the cornerstone of national drought policy.
2 National Drought Policy Commission Report

Policy Statement

The Commission developed the following statement as the basis of national drought policy.

National drought policy should use the resources of the federal government to support

but not supplant nor interfere with state,

regional, local, tribal, and personal efforts to

reduce drought impacts. The guiding principles of national drought policy should be:

1. Favor preparedness over insurance,

insurance over relief, and incentives over

regulation.

2. Set research priorities based on the potential of the research results to reduce

drought impacts.

3. Coordinate the delivery of federal services

through cooperation and collaboration

with nonfederal entities.

This policy requires a shift from the current

emphasis on drought relief. It means we must

adopt a forward-looking stance to reduce this

nation’s vulnerability to the impacts of drought.

Preparedness—including drought planning, plan

implementation, proactive mitigation, risk

management, resource stewardship, consideration of environmental concerns, and public

education—must become the cornerstone of

national drought policy.

Our recommendations are based on our findings

about the gaps among what is needed and what

is provided by state, regional, local, tribal, and

federal drought programs and laws. The findings

stem from information presented by witnesses at

our public hearings across the country and in

written comments submitted independently, as

well as from our own experience. Page 12

contains a list of appendices that summarize this

information.

In keeping with the law that established the

Commission, our recommendations relate

primarily to the federal government’s role in

national drought policy. We view the federal

government as one of many partners needed to

reduce the impacts of drought. Throughout our

deliberations, we heard often and forcefully from

nonfederal governments, citizen groups, and

individuals that much of the work appropriately

lies outside the federal government. As our

recommendations attest, federal resources

should be used to augment the vital droughtrelated programs of nonfederal entities.

Summary of Findings

Preparedness Is Key. The importance of preparedness was a central finding of the Senate

Task Force on Funding Disaster Relief in 1995,

among other studies. This basic concept was

universally supported within this Commission

and by the overwhelming majority of people

who commented on the draft version of our

report. It has been documented for years in

drought studies, which point out that preparedness—including drought planning, plan implementation, proactive mitigation measures, and

public education—may well reduce the social,

economic, and environmental impacts of

drought and the need for federal emergency

relief expenditures in drought-stricken areas.

Many studies also emphasize that preparedness

may lessen conflicts over competition for water

during drought.

Across the country, we learned that individuals,

citizen organizations, local and state governments, tribes, and regional bodies are actively

engaged in drought preparedness. In many

cases, these activities take place within the

broader framework of comprehensive water

management planning. Such planning is usually

conducted by entities that range from water

districts and large multi-county urban areas to

state water resources agencies and regional river

basin compacts and commissions.

In response to individual challenges over the

years, Congress has created federal programs to

lessen the impacts of drought. Our assessment

indicates that more than 80 federal programs—
National Drought Policy Commission Report 3

The definition of what drought

is and what drought is not has

profound implications for the

environment and all segments

of society, yet it may be different

for each. Many attempts have

been made to develop a

comprehensive and meaningful

definition. A generic definition

provides a starting point:

Drought is a persistent and

abnormal moisture deficiency

having adverse impacts on

vegetation, animals, or people.

spread across various departments and

agencies—are directly or indirectly related

to drought.

Witnesses at our hearings and written comments

submitted independently often criticized this ad

hoc federal approach to drought. We heard that

the federal government should provide a central

point of contact where people can find out

about programs to assist them in planning and

mitigation. We heard too that a pooling of

nonfederal and federal experience and the

establishment of nonfederal/federal partnerships

will go far to develop the tools needed to formulate drought preparedness strategies, including

incorporation of environmental concerns. We

were strongly advised that incentives, rather than

regulations, and models that can be adapted to

local conditions, rather than “one-size-fits-all”

prescriptions, will result in more positive outcomes.

Information and Research Support

Preparedness. This country has developed the

capability to produce a wealth of basic weather,

water, soil moisture, snow amount, and climate

observations. Many people told us that without

such information, they do not have the basis to

prepare for drought.

Across the nation, federal monitoring and prediction programs join Regional Climate Centers,

The Commission was informed of various proactive

drought mitigation activities developed at the local

level. In Los Angeles, “Second Nature: Adapting LA’s

Landscape for Sustainable Living” is a program run

by the nonprofit TreePeople organization. The

program involves young people in urban landscape

retrofits such as planting trees and also works with

citizens and businesses to install technology for

capturing storm water and adjusting runoff patterns

for residences and commercial buildings. Andy Lipkis,

Executive Director of TreePeople, is pictured here with

young friends.

state climatologists, universities, and private

institutions to develop the information needed

for effective drought preparedness. These programs provide data to private weather services

and other enterprises, which may opt to devise

detailed predictions tailored to individual needs.

Some private services, for example, are using

remote-sensing technology to show farmers

areas of crop stress so that the farmers can make

more efficient irrigation decisions.

We learned, however, that drought information

and data are not available for many rural areas

across the country, are often complex, and, for

the most part, are not presented in a standardized format. Such data can also be difficult to

find and interpret. This is especially true for

individuals, small businesses, and some communities and tribes that do not have ongoing

relationships with drought management entities.

Many people stated there is a need for such

information nationwide and for an accessible

“gateway” (point of contact) where standardized, comprehensible current information and

historical data are available.
4 National Drought Policy Commission Report

This country also reaps the benefits of highquality research geared to ensure continued

advances in the knowledge and technology that

are fundamental to drought preparedness. But

we heard that the results of research are not

always disseminated in a timely fashion or

through easily accessible modes. Research results

as well as technology transfers, we were told, are

needed for effective drought preparedness and

therefore must be made readily and widely

available.

Insuring Against Drought. It is evident from the

information we received and assessments we

conducted that even the best preparedness

measures will not adequately address some

drought-related risks. Small businesses such as

marinas and other water-based recreation enterprises, for example, are as vulnerable to the

impacts of drought as are farmers and ranchers.

Main Street enterprises that rely heavily on

income from agriculture or water-based recreation businesses suffer when those businesses

lose income.

Insurance is one approach that individuals can

choose to take on their own. But for drought,

the options are limited. The Small Business

Administration noted that business interruption

insurance is available in private insurance markets. However, it is generally not tailored to the

needs of small businesses in drought situations.

Small businesses may also lack access to information about the financial and business management strategies that are available to them.

Crop insurance has been a central feature of U.S.

agricultural policy for decades. And while farmers

and ranchers are among the first to feel the

impacts of drought, the current federal crop

The U.S. Department

of Commerce, U.S.

Department of

Agriculture, and

National Drought

Mitigation Center

publish a weekly,

Drought Monitor on

the Internet, posted at

http://enso.unl.edu/

monitor/monitor.html.

The Monitor serves as

an excellent example

of a collaborative

effort to pull together

the various sources of

weather data and

compile them in a

single, comprehensive,

national report. In

addition to the map,

the Monitor includes

a summary of recent

significant weather

as well as forecasts

of conditions that

could affect drought

intensities in

upcoming weeks.

April 11, 2000 Valid 7a.m. EST

U.S. Drought Monitor

D0 (A,F,W)-

D0 (A,F,W)-

D1 (A,F,W)-

D0 (A,F)-

D1 (A,F)

D1 (A,F)

Map focuses on widespread drought.

Local conditions may vary.

D0 Abnormally Dry

D1 Drought–First Stage

D2 Drought–Severe

D3 Drought–Extreme

D4 Drought–Exceptional

Delineates Overlapping Areas

Drought type: used only when impacts differ

A = Agriculture

W = Water

F = Wildfire danger

Plus (+) = Forecast to intensity next two weeks

Minus (-) = Forcast to diminish next two weeks

No sign = No change in drought classification forecast
National Drought Policy Commission Report 5

insurance program covers only major field crops

in all locations. It does not include all vegetable

and lesser field crops in all locations, nor does it

cover livestock. We heard from farmers, livestock

producers, and vegetable growers across the

country that a more comprehensive insurance

program is needed. Our full report summarizes

various strategies that were suggested.

Providing a Safety Net. We were cautioned that

it will take time for farmers, ranchers, local

businesses, communities, states, and tribes to

make the transition from relief-oriented drought

Shirley Gammon, Montana State Conservationist

for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and Mike

Tatsey of the Blackfeet Tribe, shown at the

Commission’s hearing in Billings, Montana. Ms.

Gammon described her Department’s Snowpack

Telemetry (SNOTEL) network in Montana, which

Research that has identified germplasm and

dominant genes in naturally occurring droughttolerant plants can help reduce drought impacts

to non-irrigated crop and forage production that is

totally dependent on rainfall. Research identifies

the characteristics of impacts resulting from

changes in weather patterns such as El Niño, La

Niña, and the North Atlantic Oscillation. Research

provides the basis for technology needed in longrange weather predicting. And research provides

the impetus for numerous technological improvements in irrigation efficiency, desalination, wastewater treatment, and household items such as

ultra-low flow toilets and horizontal-axis clothes

washers, among other technologies.

programs to drought preparedness. A safety net

is needed, we were told, to help overcome the

impacts of extreme occurrences of drought or

the impacts of multi-faceted disasters (for example, droughts followed immediately by flooding).

Our assessment indicates there are approximately 47 federal programs with elements of

drought-related relief, primarily for agricultural

droughts. One such authority is Title I of Public

Law 102-250. This authority allows the Bureau of

Reclamation to provide emergency response

assistance, including emergency well drilling.

However, Title I is temporary, and the assistance

it authorizes is available only within the 17 socalled “Reclamation” states in the West.

At our hearings in Austin and El Paso, Texas,

Atlanta, Georgia, Billings, Montana, and Washington, D.C., witnesses expressed many concerns about the relief programs of the U.S.

Department of Agriculture. The application

process for drought assistance is too cumbersome; it takes too long to make decisions, and

placing federal decision-making outside the local

level often results in disconnection among the

applicants and the programs. We believe that

consists of 123 automated sites. The Commission

heard from tribal representatives and additional

witnesses that SNOTEL and other systems such as

the U.S. Geological Survey’s streamgaging network

need to be expanded to cover tribal lands and

remote rural areas.
6 National Drought Policy Commission Report

part of this problem can be attributed to the fact

that the Department must wait for congressional

emergency appropriations before assistance can

be provided. Then the appropriation must be

prorated among applicants. We heard that such

assistance is often “too little, too late.”

We note that the Stafford Act and its implementation by the Federal Emergency Management

Agency is an effective, proven model for organizing and providing emergency assistance during

most catastrophic natural disasters. One reason

for this success is that the Agency can draw on

an annual appropriated fund to pay for disaster

assistance. The Stafford Act authorizes only

measures to protect health and safety, however,

and has rarely been used to respond to droughtcaused emergencies.

Need to Coordinate Drought-related

Programs. The need for coordination among

federal drought-related programs was a strong

and recurring theme in much of the testimony at

our hearings and in written comments submitted

independently to the Commission. Every analysis

of past responses to major droughts notes that

these programs need to be better coordinated

and integrated. The report prepared for the

Commission by the Western Drought Coordination Council strongly suggested establishing a

federal drought coordinating body. Service

delivery networks do exist for many federal

drought-related programs. However, we heard

that they are not well integrated, and the people

who need information about the programs are

not always well served. There is no central point

of contact concerning all federal programs and

even within the same federal department, we

were told, there may be many drought-related

programs but no one contact to help people

access programs, information, and products.

Recommendations

Our findings led us to conclude first that the

United States should embrace a national drought

policy with preparedness at its core. Federal

resources should be dedicated to assisting

nonfederal interests and the public at-large to

prepare for drought. We therefore recommend

that Congress pass a National Drought Preparedness Act, which would establish a nonfederal/

federal partnership through a National Drought

Council as described in Recommendation 5.1.

The primary function of the Council would be to

ensure that the goals of national drought policy

are achieved. The five goals and accompanying

recommendations are summarized below.

None of our recommendations should be construed as diminishing the rights of states to

control water through state law, as specifically

directed by the National Drought Policy Act, nor

The Georgia Water Management

Campaign’s mission is to enhance

the abilities of local governments

to manage and protect water

resources by translating water

management policies into local

government decision-making

Candler County (Georgia) Commissioner

George Bird described the Georgia Water

Management Campaign at the

Commission’s hearing in Atlanta.

capabilities, guidance, and technical assistance. To achieve this

mission, the Campaign developed

outreach tools such as public

service announcements, videos, and

case studies and convened summits

on water issues for local officials.

The Campaign’s 21 members of

the Local Government Advisory

Board serve as ambassadors and

provide overall guidance. The

Campaign was created through a

partnership among state and

county entities.
National Drought Policy Commission Report 7

as interfering in any way with state, local, and

tribal sovereignty. All of our recommendations

should be considered in light of the need to

protect the environment, which was also

required by the Act.

GOAL 1

Incorporate planning, implementation of

plans and proactive mitigation measures,

risk management, resource stewardship,

environmental considerations, and public

education as the key elements of effective

national drought policy.

In accordance with the law that established the

National Drought Policy Commission, we

strongly endorse preparedness as a key element

to reduce the impacts of drought on individuals,

communities, and the environment. We believe

that sound drought preparedness programs will

lessen the need for future emergency financial

and other assistance.

Specific Recommendations

1.1 Congress should adequately fund existing

drought preparedness programs such as the

U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Conservation Technical Assistance Program (Public

Law 46) and Environmental Quality Incentive Program (16 U.S.C. 3839) and the

Bureau of Reclamation’s drought planning

program (Public Law 102-250, Title II).

1.2 The President should direct the Bureau of

Reclamation and the Army Corps of Engineers to find an effective way to meet the

drought planning needs of those areas not

traditionally served by the Bureau of Reclamation. Congress should fund these agencies’ efforts to better serve the needs of the

eastern part of the country.

1.3 The President should direct all appropriate

federal agencies to cooperate fully and to

provide all assistance possible to encourage

development or revision and implementation of comprehensive drought preparedness plans by states, localities, tribes, regional entities such as watershed and river

basin organizations, and the private sector.

1.4 Federal agencies providing drought planning assistance should encourage state,

local, regional and tribal planners to use or

adapt existing planning materials and

resources. These include materials developed

by the National Drought Mitigation Center,

the Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S.

Department of Agriculture, the Western

Drought Coordination Council, the states,

and urban and rural water districts.

1.5 The President should direct all appropriate

federal agencies to develop and implement

drought management plans for federal

facilities such as military bases, federal

prisons, and large federal office complexes in

the United States. These plans should be

coordinated with local and state drought

planning and mitigation measures.

1.6 The President should direct all appropriate

federal agencies to study their programs for

potential impacts on drought. Where such

potential exists, the agencies need to integrate national drought policy into their

programs.

1.7 The President should direct federal agencies

with water resources management programs

to develop and promote comprehensive

public awareness efforts as part of an ongoing drought preparedness strategy.

GOAL 2

Improve collaboration among scientists

and managers to enhance the effectiveness of observation networks, monitoring,

prediction, information delivery, and

applied research and to foster public

understanding of and preparedness for

drought.
8 National Drought Policy Commission Report

Our findings and conclusions point out the value

of observation networks, monitoring, prediction,

information gateways and delivery, and research

to drought preparedness.

Specific Recommendations

2.1 The President should appropriately direct

and Congress, as necessary, should authorize

and fund a viable plan to maintain, modernize, expand, and coordinate a system of

observation networks that meets the needs

of the public at large. Priority should be

placed on filling the gaps on tribal lands and

in rural America. Examples of critical observation networks include:

Department of Commerce, National

Weather Service, Cooperative Observer

(COOP) Program Hydrometeorological

Network

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil

Climate Analysis (SCAN) and Snowpack

Telemetry (SNOTEL) networks

U.S. Forest Service, Remote Automated

Weather Station (RAWS) Network

U.S. Geological Survey, Streamgaging

and Groundwater Network

Other regional observation networks

2.2 The President should appropriately direct

and Congress, as necessary, should authorize

and fund continuation of the U.S. Drought

Monitor and exploration of opportunities for

its improvement and expansion.

2.3 The President should appropriately direct

and Congress, as necessary, should authorize

and fund continuation of Drought Predictions/Outlooks and development of techniques to improve their accuracy and frequency.

2.4 The President should appropriately direct

and Congress, as necessary, should authorize

and fund a comprehensive information

gateway (possibly through expansion of the

National Drought Mitigation Center’s

website or other similar approaches) to

provide users with free and open access to

observation network data and drought

monitoring, prediction, impact, assessment,

preparedness, and mitigation measures.

2.5 The President should direct the appropriate

federal agencies to develop an effective

drought information delivery system such as

the Unified Climate Access Network (UCAN)

to communicate drought conditions and

impacts to decision makers at the federal,

regional, state, tribal, and local levels and to

the private sector and general public.

2.6 The President should direct appropriate

federal agencies to expand technology

transfer of water conservation strategies and

innovative water supply techniques as part

of drought preparedness programs.

2.7 The President should direct and Congress

should continue to adequately fund existing

and future drought-related research. Existing

competitive research grant programs should

give high priority to drought.

2.8 The President should direct and Congress

should fund completion of the soil survey on

all lands, with special and immediate emphasis on tribal lands.

As the Western Drought

Coordination Council

advised the Commission,

basic weather, water, soil

moisture, mountain snow

amount, and climate

observations are the

foundation of the

monitoring and assessment

activity that alerts the

nation to impending

drought.
National Drought Policy Commission Report 9

GOAL 3

Develop and incorporate comprehensive

insurance and financial strategies into

drought preparedness plans.

We firmly believe that preparedness measures

will go far to reduce this country’s vulnerability

to drought. But we also recognize that prolonged drought causes risks that the best preparedness measures may not adequately address.

The most significant approach to such risks in

recent years is the federal government’s crop

insurance program for farmers. We had neither

the expertise nor the resources to investigate

thoroughly the various options to improve the

crop insurance program or the other proposals

that were presented during our deliberations and

that Congress has grappled with for many years.

(Our full report briefly describes several alternative plans.) Still, we are convinced that sound

insurance and financial strategies are essential if

the country is to move away from emergency

relief in response to widespread drought.

Specific Recommendations

3.1 We recommend that Congress authorize and

fund the U.S. Department of Agriculture to

evaluate different approaches to crop insurance, including a cost of production plan.

The evaluation should assess whether the

approaches are practicable and prudent for

all farmers, ranchers, and other stakeholders

in all regions of the country and whether

they set standards that encourage efficient

water use.

3.2 We recommend that the U.S. Department of

Agriculture, in cooperation with state and

local governments and the private sector,

expand training to rural communities,

farmers, and ranchers across the country on

various financial strategies.

3.3 We recommend that the Small Business

Administration, through its private-sector

partners, provide information and training to

small business owners on developing financial and business management strategies.

GOAL 4

Maintain a safety net of emergency relief

that emphasizes sound stewardship of

natural resources and self-help.

The Commission recognizes that over time,

efforts at drought preparedness, including risk

management, can greatly reduce, but not eliminate, drought-related emergencies. Response

measures for drought emergencies can also be

useful to respond to water shortages not caused

by drought. In all cases where emergency

response is required, it should be effective and

timely.

Specific Recommendations

4.1 Congress should authorize the Secretary of

Agriculture to borrow from the Commodity

Credit Corporation to implement the Department of Agriculture’s emergency programs.

Karen Neeley, General Counsel for the Independent

Bankers Association of Texas, suggested changes in

the federal crop insurance program at the

Commission’s hearing in Austin, Texas.
10 National Drought Policy Commission Report

4.2 Congress should amend the appropriate U.S.

Department of Agriculture’s emergency

programs to include livestock needs during

drought.

4.3 The U.S. Department of Agriculture should

establish a single procedure to trigger, in a

timely fashion, all of the Department’s

disaster programs.

4.4 We recommend that emergency assistance

acknowledge, encourage, and reward

natural resource stewardship and self-help

without discriminating against those truly in

need.

4.5 We recommend that Congress enact permanent authorization for Title 1 of Public Law

102-250, which gives the Bureau of Reclamation authority to provide emergency

drought assistance. Because the Bureau’s

authority is limited to the Reclamation

states, Congress should extend that authority or provide appropriate authority to the

Army Corps of Engineers to serve the nonReclamation states.

4.6 For those areas not covered by the Stafford

Act, Congress should appropriate an annual

fund, available until expended and similar to

that available under the Stafford Act, for

non-farm drought emergencies that affect

tribes, communities, businesses, and the

environment.

During a drought, the incidence of soil erosion

may increase.

GOAL 5

Coordinate drought programs and response effectively, efficiently, and in a

customer-oriented manner.

Federal drought programs are a collection of

initiatives run by different departments and

agencies. Every analysis of past responses to

major droughts notes that these programs need

to be better coordinated and integrated.

We strongly agree. In accordance with our policy

statement, we emphasize that coordination of

federal drought programs should ensure effective

service delivery in support of nonfederal drought

programs.

Specific Recommendations

5.1 Create Council. The President should

immediately establish an interim National

Drought Council through an executive order

and in combination with a Memorandum of

Understanding that provides adequate

staffing and funding. Congress should create

a long-term, continuing National Drought

Council. Both should be composed of

federal and regionally diverse nonfederal

members (see table on next page). The goal

is to implement the recommendations of

this report as soon as practicable.

5.2 Co-chairs. The President should appoint the

Secretary of Agriculture as co-chair of the

interim National Drought Council, with a

nonfederal co-chair elected by the

nonfederal interim Council members.

Congress should designate the Secretary

of Agriculture as the permanent federal

co-chair of the long-term Council, with a

nonfederal co-chair elected by the

nonfederal Council members.

5.3 Funding. The President should request and

Congress should provide administrative

funding to support the interim and longterm National Drought Councils.
National Drought Policy Commission Report 11

The six-county, multi-municipal

Metropolitan Water District of

Southern California incorporates

drought planning and preparedness

in its comprehensive Integrated

Resources Plan and Water Surplus

and Demand Management Plan.

This regional coordination of local

agencies is succeeding. The region is

using less water today than in 1975,

even though the population

increased by 5 million people

from 1975 to 1999.

5.4 Duties and process. The interim and longterm National Drought Councils will be

responsible for the tasks in the box on the

next page.

5.5 Authorization and appropriations. We

recommend that Congress provide federal

departments and agencies with appropriate

authority and funding needed to carry out

the recommendations in this report. As

noted at the beginning of this report, consideration should be given to the costs and

benefits associated with drought preparedness, mitigation, and response measures.

Table. Council membership and designation process

 Federal Council member Nonfederal Council member

 entity designated by: representation designated by:

Department of Agriculture Department East/West Governors National Governors’

Secretary Association

Department of the Interior Department County official National Association

Secretary of Counties

Department of Commerce Department City official U.S. Conference of Mayors

Secretary

Department of Energy Department Emergency National Emergency

Secretary management official Management Association

Department of the Army Department Business U.S. Chamber of

Secretary Commerce

Environmental Protection Agency head Urban water* *Designated by the

Agency Rural water* Secretary of Agriculture

Tribal* based on nominations

Small Business Agency head Environmental* from relevant broad-based

Administration Farm credit* groups

Agricultrual producers*

Federal Emergency Agency head

Management Agency
12 National Drought Policy Commission Report

The following information is available from the National Drought Policy Commission. You can access the

following appendix files as well as the Commission’s final report and executive summary at the Commission’s

web site: www.fsa.usda.gov/drought. The appendix files, final report, and executive summary can also be

ordered in electronic format and hard copy. Write: National Drought Policy Commission, USDA/FSA/AO, 1400

Independence Avenue SW, Mail Stop 0501, Washington, D.C. 20250-0501.

FILE A: Summary of Public Testimony at the Commission’s Hearings and Public Comments

Submitted Independently (by subject matter, entity, and place of business or residence)

FILE B: List of the Commission’s Five Working Groups and Members and Unedited Background Materials

FILE C: Summary of State Drought-related Programs

FILE D: Summary of Regional Drought-related Programs

FILE E: Summary of Local Government Drought-related Programs

FILE F: Summary of Tribal Drought Plans

FILE G: Summary of Federal Drought-related Programs

FILE H: Summary of Federal Drought-related Laws

Responsibilities of the National Drought Council

The Council would be responsible

for coordinating the following:

• Timely and efficient delivery of

existing federal drought

programs.

• Cooperation and participation

among federal, state, local,

and tribal interests and private

water systems in federal

drought assistance opportunities by example and through

facilitation.

• Program assessments of

drought-related assistance

efforts.

• Determination of which regions

have the most pressing need

and greatest opportunities to

coordinate and implement

drought preparedness assistance programs, recognizing

the special drought preparedness needs of tribes, small rural

water districts, and small

self-supplied water users.

• Development of an array of

coordination strategies to provide support for state, local, and

tribal drought planning and

mitigation measures.

• Support of state, local, and tribal

initiatives to coordinate with

current regional drought planning entities, perhaps within

watersheds or river basins, or to

establish new regional entities.

• An assessment of major river

basin initiatives and state programs to determine which

methods have proven most

effective in reducing conflicts

over water.

• Development of a handbook of

emergency drought preparedness measures.

• A survey of user groups to

ascertain drought monitoring,

prediction, and research needs

and expectations.

• Establishment of drought

impact assessment teams of

federal, state, and other experts

who are responsible, after

drought events occur, for

analyzing the causes and

aggravating factors that contribute to drought and its

social, economic, and environmental impacts.

• Development of a handbook on

water supply techniques,

including traditional and nontraditional strategies.

• Advocacy of drought-related

educational training programs

within universities, agencies,

and public sector programs.

The Council co-chairs should

report to the President and

Congress annually on the progress

of these activities.
Members of the Interagency Contacts Group

Warren Lee, Co-chair

NRCS (USDA)

Lorine Boardwine

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Deborah Braver

Water Management Consultant

Curtis Carleton

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Peter Carlson

Will & Carlson, Inc./Urban Water

Sarah Carlson

Midwestern Governors’ Conference

Michael B. Cook

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Bill Ewing

New Mexico Department of Public Safety

John Flowers

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Abigail Friedman

National Association of Counties

Gary Hudiburgh

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Murray Johnston

Southern Governors’ Association

Doralyn Kirkland

Georgia Environmental Protection Division

Jim Laver

National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration

Doug LeComte

National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration

Ants Leetmaa

National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration

Diana Marquez

Farm Credit Bank of Texas

Chris Kadas, Co-chair

National Governors’ Association

Jeri Marxman

National Association of Counties

Kevin McCarty

U.S. Conference of Mayors

Robert McCormick

National Associaton of Counties

Kimberly Miller

Office of Management and Budget

Ray Motha

World Agricultural Outlook Board (USDA)

Beth Osborne

Southern Governors’ Association

Jane Pease

Small Business Administration

Al Peterlin

World Agricultural Outlook Board (USDA)

Ross Racine

Intertribal Agriculture Council

Harold Reheis

Georgia Environmental Protection Division

Roseann Gonzales Schreiner

Bureau of Reclamation (USDOI)

Bruce Smith

Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army

Ralph Tabor

National Association of Counties

Bill Werick

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Leona Dittus

Executive Director

FSA (USDA)

Larry Adams

ARS (USDA)

Antona Bailey

FSA (USDA)

Shirley Bridges

FS (USDA)

George Cross

NRCS (USDA)

National Drought Policy Commission Staff

Anne Henderson

NRCS (USDA)

Maxine Levin

NRCS (USDA)

Patricia Lowe

NRCS (USDA)

Jim Maetzold

NRCS (USDA)

Lavonne Maas

FSA (USDA)

Tom Phillips

BOR (USDOI)

Pat Porter

DA (USDA)

Twanda Smith

FS (USDA)

Janice Watkins

FSA (USDA)

Consultants:

Deanne Kloepfer

Writer/editor

Fred Sibley

Project Analyst

This publication was coordinated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Office of Communications (Design and Printing Center) and the National Drought Policy

Commission staff.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age,

disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require

alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 202-720-2600 (voice

and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
Drought Snapshots from

20th Century America

1930s

The decade-long drought affected

more than 60% of the nation. It

turned millions of acres into the Dust

Bowl across the Great Plains, caused a

huge migration from the southern

Plains to California, and revolutionized

agriculture policy on the Plains.

1976

to

1977

Lack of winter snowfall resulted

in extreme drought conditions in

the Pacific Northwest and

California. This drought was

short lived. Nevertheless it placed

great stress on water supplies.

1950

to

1956

Drought across the Southwest and

southern Plains claimed millions of

cattle and forced hundreds of

ranchers to ship their livestock to

other regions of the country, then

moved northward to affect much of

the central United States. 1961

to

1966

Many parts of the Northeast

experienced a drought of record.

President Lyndon Johnson called

an emergency meeting to

mediate controversies between

New York and Pennsylvania over

water allocation along the

Delaware River.

Mid 1980s

to

mid 1990s

Prolonged drought lasting up to

seven years hit California and the

Pacific Northwest. The Midwest

and parts of the Southeast

experienced drought emergencies

in 1988.

Late

1990s

Hawaii faced several years of

drought, and the southeastern and

mid-Atlantic states felt the impacts

of one of the worst droughts in 100

years, which extended through parts

of the Northeast.