PREPARING FOR

DROUGHT

IN THE

21ST CENTURY

REPORT OF THE 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 i

Foreword

In July 1998, the 105th Congress enacted Public Law 105-199, the

National Drought Policy Act (Appendix A). This law established “an

advisory commission to provide advice and recommendations on the

creation of an integrated, coordinated Federal policy designed to prepare

for and respond to serious drought emergencies.” The law directed the

Commission to “conduct a thorough study and submit a report on

national drought policy.”

Commission members were chosen according to provisions in the Act,

which required representation of federal and nonfederal government

entities and the private sector. The Act directed the current Secretary of

the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Dan Glickman, to chair the Commission. Members of the Commission selected Ronald R. Morriss, County

Supervisor of Santa Cruz County, Arizona, and representing the National

Association of Counties, as Vice Chair.

This document constitutes the report of the National Drought Policy

Commission. The report presents the basis for national drought policy

and calls for commitment and resolve in providing sufficient resources to

achieve the policy goals.

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 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, as also

required by the National Drought Policy Act.
ii National Drought Policy Commission Report

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.
National Drought Policy Commission Report iii

Contents

SUMMARY.................................................................................. Page v

FROM RELIEF TO READINESS ...................................................... Page 1

OPPORTUNITY FOR ACTION ...................................................... Page 2

CONSEQUENCES OF DROUGHT ................................................ Page 3

DEFINING DROUGHT ................................................................. Page 4

Stored Water and Natural Water Droughts .......................... Page 5

FINDINGS .................................................................................. Page 8

Drought Programs .............................................................. Page 9

States .......................................................................... Page 9

Regional Entities .......................................................... Page 10

Localities ..................................................................... Page 12

Tribes .......................................................................... Page 14

Federal Government ................................................... Page 16

Planning .............................................................. Page 16

Mitigation ........................................................... Page 18

Monitoring/prediction and Research.................... Page 20

Insurance............................................................. Page 22

Relief ................................................................... Page 24

Need to Coordinate Drought-related Programs .................. Page 26

Need for Public Education .................................................. Page 27

Need to Address Environmental Concerns .......................... Page 28

Need to Address Drought-related Wildfires ......................... Page 30

Need for Training and Technical Assistance ......................... Page 31

Need to Address International Drought-related Issues ......... Page 32

CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................... Page 33

RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................ Page 35

APPENDIX A: The National Drought Policy Act ........................... Page 43

APPENDIX B: Information Available

 from the National Drought Policy Commission........................ Page 47
iv National Drought Policy Commission Report
National Drought Policy Commission Report v

SUMMARY

Drought will occur at some time every year in the United States. It can

and does extend over long periods and large areas, and it brings hardship.

Each time drought occurs, many of the same issues are raised. Principally,

how much damage was inflicted, on whom, and where? Who is going to

pay for it? How can we prevent or at least reduce damages and their

costs in the future?

In 1998, Congress passed the National Drought Policy Act. The Act stated

that this nation would benefit from national drought policy based on

preparedness and mitigation to reduce the need for emergency relief. It

acknowledged that this country has no consistent, comprehensive policy

driving the federal role to help reduce the impacts of drought. The Act

also created the National Drought Policy Commission to advise Congress

on how best to:

Integrate federal drought laws and programs with ongoing state,

local, and tribal programs into a comprehensive national policy to

mitigate the impacts of and respond to drought.

Improve public awareness of the need for drought mitigation.

Achieve a coordinated approach to drought mitigation and response

by governments and nongovernmental entities, including academic,

private, and nonprofit interests.

Policy Statement

The Commission believes that national drought policy should use the

resources of the federal government to support but not supplant nor

interfere with state, tribal, regional, local, and individual 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—especially drought

planning, plan implementation, and proactive mitigation—must become

the cornerstone of national drought policy. This basic concept was the

The Commission

contends that we can

reduce this nation’s

vulnerability to the

impacts of drought by

making preparedness—

especially drought

planning, plan

implementation,

and proactive

mitigation—

the cornerstone of

national drought policy.
vi National Drought Policy Commission Report

conclusion reached by the Senate Task Force on Funding Disaster Relief in

March 1995, among other entities. It was universally supported within

the Commission and by the overwhelming majority of people who

commented on the draft version of this report.

Basis of Recommendations

The Commission’s 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.

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. Much of the work must be

accomplished by state, local, and tribal governments and regional entities

such as river basin planning commissions and water districts. As our

recommendations attest, federal resources should be used to augment

the vital drought-related programs of these other entities.

Summary of Recommendations

We recommend first that Congress pass a National Drought Preparedness

Act to establish a nonfederal/federal partnership through a National

Drought Council as described in Recommendation 5.1 in the recommendations section of this report. The primary function of the Council is to

ensure that the goals of national drought policy are achieved. Our five

goals are:

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.

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.

3. Develop and incorporate comprehensive insurance and financial

strategies into drought preparedness plans.

4. Maintain a safety net of emergency relief that emphasizes sound

stewardship of natural resources and self-help.

5. Coordinate drought programs and response effectively, efficiently,

and in a customer-oriented manner.
National Drought Policy Commission Report vii

Commitment is required to achieve the goals of national drought policy.

That commitment must include resolve by the federal government to

provide dependable, long-term funding of the required work and the

personnel to carry out the work. Allocation of the funds needed to fulfill

such a commitment should be based on consideration of the costs and

benefits associated with drought impact-reduction measures.

In identifying drought as the

top weather event of the

20th century, the climate

periodical Weatherwise

(November/December 1999)

had this to say: “More than

any other weather or climate

event, the 1930s drought

shaped American society. The

Dust Bowl caused a legendary and influential migration

from the Southern Plains to

California, revolutionized

agricultural policy on the

Plains, and synchronized with

the Great Depression to

compound that event’s

misery for millions. Even now,

hundreds of heat records

from the 1930s still stand

across the Plains, and no

drought this century attacked

so much of the country for so

long. At its height in July

1934, nearly two-thirds of

the nation was considered to

be in a severe to extreme

drought.”
viii National Drought Policy Commission Report
National Drought Policy Commission Report 1

FROM RELIEF TO READINESS

For years, farmers and ranchers, tribes, public

land managers, scientists, economists, small

business owners, conservationists and wildlife

managers, small and large municipalities, counties, states, regional entities, and the federal

government have grappled with the far-reaching

consequences of drought. Numerous papers,

reports, and books have recorded and analyzed

the impacts of drought. They have pointed out

over and over again that drought planning and

proactive mitigation programs may well reduce

the need for huge federal emergency relief

expenditures in drought-stricken regions—

usually to assist farmers and ranchers and rebuild

local economies. They have also indicated that

planning and proactive mitigation may lessen

conflicts over competition for water during

drought.

Many states and local governments include

drought in their comprehensive water management, land-use, and long-term planning strategies. Some have devised separate drought plans.

These government entities know best about local

resources and local priorities, and they know

how to communicate with their constituencies

and stimulate people to action. Some farmers,

ranchers, and other businesses also incorporate

drought concerns into their risk-management

assessments. Private entrepreneurs and nonprofit

groups with an interest in water management

and environmental issues work with governments to carry out drought education projects

and water conservation initiatives that rely on

the cooperation of the general public. In response to individual challenges over the years,

Congress has enacted laws to create federal

programs aimed at lessening the impacts of

drought, and special congressional appropriations of federal taxpayer dollars underwrite much

of the drought relief.

Despite such well-intentioned efforts, from a

national perspective this country relies on a

patchy approach to reduce the impacts of

drought. And despite the major role that the

federal government plays in responding to

drought events, no single federal agency is in a

lead or coordinating position regarding drought.

State, local, and tribal governments must deal

individually and separately with each federal

agency involved in drought assistance. Crisis

management—rather than planning and proactive mitigation measures—often characterizes the

federal response to drought emergencies.

Droughts can last for years. This is

one reason why it is difficult to

determine if a loss in, say, landscape investments is because of

drought or because of declining

disposable income from an

economic downturn. But even the

most conservative estimates of the

impacts of drought are large. The

Commission found several studies

of the federal government’s

response to the major post-World

War II droughts. We updated those

findings of federal drought expenditures to 1998 dollars and include

them here. “Government Response to Drought in the United

States: Lessons from the Mid1970’s” (June 1984), a report

funded by the National Science

Foundation, indicated the federal

government spent $3.3 billion

responding to the 1953-1956

drought. That study and “Managing Resource Scarcity” by the

Western Governors’ Policy Office

also indicated that federal drought

response cost at least $6.5 billion

during the 1976-1977 drought and

about $6 billion during the 1988-

1989 drought. The last figure does

not include crop insurance payments. Thus, extraordinary federal

expenses for drought alone over

the 1952-1988 period averaged at

least half a billion dollars per year.

Clearly there were other costs.

“Drought and Natural Resources

Management in the United States:

Impacts and Implications of the

1987-1989 Drought” (Riebsame,

Changnon, and Karl) documented

a reduction in crop production of

nearly $20 billion and an increase

in food prices of more than $12

billion because of the 1988

drought. The report also noted that

low flows on the Mississippi in

1988 caused barge shipping prices

to double and triple, leading to an

estimated $1 billion in increased

transportation costs. At the

Commission’s Austin hearing, Texas

Agriculture Commissioner Susan

Combs stated that the 1996 and

1998 droughts in her state caused

a loss of $4 billion in direct income,

with the total impact to the state’s

economy close to $11 billion.
2 National Drought Policy Commission Report

Drought near

Bracketville, Texas, in

1980 ravaged the

landscape, almost

drying up this

livestock watering

pond.

The law that created the

National Drought Policy

Commission called for

national drought policy

based on preparedness

rather than on crisis

management, which is the

cornerstone of current

federal responses to

drought.

OPPORTUNITY FOR ACTION

In the National Drought Policy Act of 1998,

Congress presented this country with a significant opportunity. The law recognized the need

to prepare for and lessen the severe impacts of

drought on the American people and the environment. It created the National Drought Policy

Commission to advise Congress on formulation

of national drought policy based on preparedness, mitigation, and risk management rather

than on crisis management, which is the cornerstone of current federal responses to drought.

The Act also directed the Commission to present

a strategy that shifts from ad hoc federal action

toward a “systematic process similar to those for

other natural disasters” and to integrate federal

programs with “ongoing state, local, and tribal

programs.”

The National Drought Policy Act assigned eight

tasks to the Commission, listed on the next

page. The remainder of the report describes the

consequences of drought, discusses drought

definitions, and presents our findings of needs

related to droughts, followed by conclusions of

unmet needs and lack of coordination, and

recommendations for action.
National Drought Policy Commission Report 3

• Determine, in consultation

with the National Drought

Mitigation Center in Lincoln,

Nebraska, and other appropriate entities, what needs exist

on the federal, state, local,

and tribal levels to prepare

for and respond to drought

emergencies.

• Review all existing federal laws

and programs relating to

drought.

• Review pertinent state, local,

and tribal laws and programs

relating to drought.

• Determine what differences

exist between the needs of

those affected by drought and

Charge to the National Drought Policy Commission

federal laws and programs

designed to mitigate the impacts

of and respond to drought.

• Collaborate with the Western

Drought Coordination Council

and other appropriate entities to

consider regional drought

initiatives and the application of

such initiatives at the national

level.

• Recommend how federal

drought laws and programs can

be better integrated with ongoing state, local, and tribal

programs into a comprehensive

national policy to mitigate the

impacts of and respond to

drought emergencies without

diminishing the right of states to

control water through state

law and considering the need

to protect the environment.

• Recommend how to improve

public awareness of the need

for drought mitigation and

develop a coordinated approach to drought mitigation

and response by governmental

and nongovernmental entities,

including academic, private,

and nonprofit interests.

• Recommend whether all

federal drought preparation

and response programs should

be consolidated under one

existing federal agency and, if

so, identify such agency.

CONSEQUENCES OF DROUGHT

Drought is perhaps the most obstinate and

pernicious of the dramatic events that Nature

conjures up. It can last longer and extend across

larger areas than hurricanes, tornadoes, floods,

and earthquakes. At its most severe, drought

creates vast, windblown dust bowls—eroding

the landscape, damaging terrestrial and aquatic

wildlife habitat, contributing to widespread

wildfire, causing hundreds of millions of dollars

in losses, and dashing hopes and dreams.

Drought may be the last straw in driving farm

and ranch families off their land and livestock

producers out of business. It brings hardship to

water-dependent enterprises such as commercial

fishing, marinas, river outfitters and guides,

landscapers, golf courses, and water theme

parks. In many small communities, downturns in

farming, ranching, and recreation have a rippling

effect, causing loss of income for seed and

implement retailers, recreation equipment

suppliers, and Main Street businesses—from

grocery stores to clothing outlets, entertainment

operations, restaurants, and banks. This in turn

creates revenue shortfalls for local governments.

Drought can have devastating impacts on the

lives of migrant agricultural workers and people

employed in seasonal, recreation-dependent

jobs. Drought can lead to tough decisions regarding allocation of water and result in stringent water-use limitations. Drought can also

cause problems in ensuring safe drinking water

as well as adequate water supplies for municipal,

county, and rural fire-fighting efforts and for the

dilution of wastewater effluent.

In large managed river basins and water systems

such as the Columbia, Missouri, the state and

federal California reservoir systems, the Colorado

River, the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint, and

others, drought creates or exacerbates conflicts

about who should get water. The most common

conflicts pit older, established uses such as

agriculture and navigation against newer uses

such as recreation and water for growing municipal populations, and water for direct human use

against water for ecosystems.
4 National Drought Policy Commission Report

DEFINING DROUGHT

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.”

The public perceives “drought” as a serious

departure from normal water conditions, a

departure that requires a public response to

reduce negative impacts. For that reason, public

declarations of drought are often triggered by

specific and well-defined conditions, such as a

specific reservoir elevation on a specific date. In

some cases, there are well-defined exit points

that trigger a resumption of normal activity.

These “drought triggers” become the practical

definition of drought for a particular region and

for specific issues. Defining these triggers is an

inseparable part of planning for and responding

to droughts. Once these triggers are defined, a

region is much better able to estimate the costs,

expected frequency, and risks of drought

response.

4 National Drought Policy Commission Report

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.

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.

Drought Snapshots from

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.

The Commission has found that in reality,

drought is defined differently in different situations. For example, two months without rainfall

during the growing season may result in serious

drought conditions for farmers and homeowners

in the eastern half of the country. The same dry

period may be normal for those in the West,

where water users may be more concerned with

reservoir levels, which in turn are dependent on

winter snow pack levels.

In addition, the definition of what is drought has

different functions depending on the goals to be

achieved. For the purposes of planning and

proactive mitigation, communities, business

owners, and individuals need fact-based information that helps define strategies to lessen the

potential impacts of drought. The declaration

that “this is drought” triggers certain actions

such as restrictions on the availability of water to

users and activation of government response

programs.

National drought policy must therefore define

drought so that it meets the needs of diverse

water users and for diverse functions. It must be

flexible enough to include a variety of drought

situations. It must also be specific enough to

distinguish between those situations that are true

drought emergencies and those that are normal

cyclical conditions.
National Drought Policy Commission Report 5

20th Century America

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.

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.

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.

Because of the extremely diverse climates,

topographies, watersheds, water sources, and

water uses within this country, we find it impractical to define specific drought thresholds that

could act as triggers for drought actions for

various parts of the country. However, we recognize that a suite of objective triggers similar to

those used by the Australian Drought Policy

Review Task Force has the advantage of taking

much of the politics out of drought-response

decisions. As in Australia, these should be both

supply-type triggers, reflecting moisture deficiencies caused by acts of nature (lack of rain, excessive temperatures), as well as demand-type

triggers reflecting drought impacts.

National drought policy

must be flexible enough

to include a variety of

drought situations. It must

also be specific enough to

distinguish between those

situations that are true

drought emergencies and

those that are normal

cyclical conditions.

Examples of current supply-type triggers used in

general to define drought or trigger actions

related to potential drought include: precipitation less than 60% of normal for the season or

present water year (used by the National

Weather Service’s Western Region); precipitation

less than 85% of normal over the past six

months (used by the National Weather Service’s

Eastern Region); the Palmer Drought Index -2.0

or less; and consolidated drought indices at the

20th percentile or less (used by the Drought

Monitor). For federal action, more rigid triggers

such as 5th percentile drought might be appropriate, reflecting truly unusual circumstances.

Examples of demand (impact) based triggers

include water supply less than 60% of normal

(used by the National Weather Service’s Western

Region) and various crop loss thresholds used by

the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

“Stored Water” and

“Natural Water” Droughts

We note that the United States experiences two

types of drought. “Stored water” droughts occur

when large stores of water in man-made reservoirs, natural lakes, and groundwater aquifers are

depleted by very long, unusually low periods of

precipitation. “Natural water” droughts happen
6 National Drought Policy Commission Report

quickly and fairly frequently after just a few

weeks or months of below-normal rainfall.

Those who share stored water are rarely affected

by less than normal precipitation because the

systems are designed to provide water during

those times. But the very success of such systems

creates a new kind of vulnerability to drought

that was revealed in the Northeast during

drought in the 1960s, the 1976-1977 and 1987-

1992 droughts in California, droughts around

the country in the late 1980s, and the midAtlantic, southeastern, and northeastern drought

in 1999. Specific issues vary, but the pattern is

common.

People without enough stored water build

reservoirs or tap into surface or groundwater

storage.

Reliable water helps support greater populations and more diverse uses of water. Hydropower dams create popular fishing and

boating lakes and valuable lake view property. Reservoir operating policies are supposed to assure minimum flows for fish and

wastewater dilution when there would

otherwise not be enough water in the

stream. Cities and farmers increase their

withdrawals as they prosper and grow.

An unusually long dry period forces reservoir

operators to draw down these man-made

lakes to support withdrawals for cities and

farms, produce hydropower, and keep

enough water in navigation channels for

barges to float. But homes and businesses

around the lake now have views of mud flats.

Boat ramps no longer reach the water. Lake

fisheries suffer when releases are made for

riverine species.

No one can tell when it will rain enough to

reverse this trend, so water deliveries have to

be reduced, but to whom first and by how

much?

There may be a conflict between fairness and

good economic policy in making water

allocations. The newest water uses may

generate more income and tax revenue than

the oldest established uses. Such conflicts are

normally resolved on a case-by-case basis.

Public testimony at the Commission’s hearing in

Los Angeles and comments from the Army Corps

of Engineers pointed out that stored water

system managers develop drought contingency

plans that call for the staged curtailment of the

least important uses of water (such as lawn

watering) during droughts. Communities may

elect to accept these drought-related reductions

rather than add reservoir capacity to meet

growing needs.

Stored water managers consider the risks associated with the probability of system failure, the

uncertain effectiveness of drought curtailment

measures, uncertainty in estimates of drought

severity and duration, and the tolerance of utility

customers for water use curtailments. These

concepts are not routinely applied to manage

drought impacts on agriculture, but they could

be. As Guy Martin of the Western Urban Water

Coalition advised the Commission, “Overall, we

believe there is a missed opportunity to link the

resources of the urban water sector with the

agricultural sector. While the end water use may

be different, the techniques necessary to plan

for, conduct, assess, monitor and implement

conservation techniques to alleviate drought

impacts cover all sectors.”

Natural water droughts mostly affect people

such as farmers and ranchers, forest and woodlot

owners and managers, customers of many water

systems, and the owners of water-dependent

businesses who rely on direct precipitation or

unregulated stream flows. These people are

usually the first to feel the effects of drought.
National Drought Policy Commission Report 7

Farmers who do not have irrigation systems, for

example, take a risk when they plant crops,

assuming that there will be enough rain

throughout the growing season to produce a

successful harvest. For the most part, the risk is

based on how often there has been enough rain

in the past. Long-term predictions of precipitation are still too unreliable to reduce that risk

significantly.

At our hearings across the country, we were told

of several gaps among existing programs and

the needs of farmers and ranchers who do not

rely on irrigation:

Farmers and ranchers may lack information

about local climate and drought conditions

and predictions. Many also lack basic soil

information; a soil survey remains to be

completed for approximately 10% of the

country. These deficiencies can limit a

farmer’s or rancher’s ability to make timely

decisions on the types of crops to plant or

whether to reduce stocking rates on the

range.

Many farmers and ranchers do not have

access to available information and other

resources to develop and implement a water

conservation/drought plan. Less than 10% of

farmers and ranchers are receiving technical

assistance to help them develop and implement such plans, and an even smaller number are receiving cost-share assistance for

these plans.

Federal crop insurance covers only the

“primary” crops grown and does not extend

to other crops or to livestock. We learned

that during drought the price of transporting

feed after stored supplies are used up is

prohibitive in many cases, as is the price of

transporting water to livestock where ponds

have gone dry.

We heard too that when drought affects the

incomes of farmers and ranchers and the owners

of water-dependent businesses, it also affects the

incomes of nearby local businesses. Such economic impacts may extend further to nearby

cities.

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.”
8 National Drought Policy Commission Report

FINDINGS

Our assessments of federal, regional, tribal, state,

and local drought-related programs indicate that

there is broad-based understanding of the value

and benefits of drought preparedness. The

assessments also revealed that, overall, federal

drought assistance to states, local governments,

tribes, and individuals is primarily relief oriented.

Few federal programs are designed to provide

drought preparedness assistance. Furthermore,

public testimony strongly indicated varying

degrees of satisfaction with the federal programs.

Our deliberations have convinced us that this

country can and must do better to prepare for

drought in the future. At our public hearings,

more than one hundred people testified on

behalf of urban and rural water associations,

tribes, federal agencies, state and county governments, municipalities, livestock production and

farmer associations, and conservation groups

(Appendix B, File A). With respect to U.S. Department of Agriculture programs, we heard similar

criticisms from farmers, ranchers, and tribal

representatives in Austin and El Paso, Texas,

Atlanta, Georgia, Washington, D.C., and Billings,

Montana. These people expressed concern that

the application process for agricultural drought

assistance programs is too cumbersome, that it

takes too long to make decisions, and that

placing federal decision-making outside the local

level often results in disconnection among the

applicants and the programs. Livestock producers consistently pointed out that their operations

are excluded from agricultural assistance programs. Representatives from state, county, and

local agricultural agencies noted communication

and coordination challenges within the Department of Agriculture. On balance, we also heard

about successful programs in the Department of

Agriculture, the Bureau of Reclamation, and

other federal agencies.

This testimony, combined with written comments submitted independently, helped identify

gaps among federal, state, local, regional, and

tribal programs and the people those programs

are designed to serve. We also reviewed information and analyses prepared by the five Working

Groups—agriculture; environment; municipal

and industrial water; local government, community, and business; and monitoring and prediction—that we established to assist us in assessing

state, regional, local, tribal, and federal drought

programs and related laws (Appendix B, File B).

Nonfederal and federal experts in various aspects

of drought, including staff of the National

Drought Mitigation Center, formed the Working

Groups. The Interagency Contacts Group coordinated the Working Groups and worked with the

Commission’s staff to prepare this report. This

work also identified gaps in service delivery.

The discussion below summarizes our findings.

We emphasize that current programs may cover

gaps in service delivery partially in some cases

and more fully in some locations than in others.

Yet in many critical areas of drought preparedness, we heard that current federal programs do

not provide any measurable assistance. Collectively, the gaps are significant and merit attention and remedies.

The Commission met in

Los Angeles, California,

Scottsdale, Arizona, and

Washington, D.C., and

several times through

teleconference technology.

Public hearings were held

in Los Angeles, California,

El Paso and Austin Texas,

Atlanta, Georgia, Billings,

Montana, and Washington,

D.C. All meetings of the

Commission and all public

hearings were announced

in advance, according to

federal procedures, and

were open to the public.

More information on

the Commission’s findings

is available as described

in Appendix B.
National Drought Policy Commission Report 9

Drought Programs

States

We learned that as of June 1999, 30 states had

drought plans, with most of those oriented to

relief rather than preparedness (Appendix B,

File C). Two states had delegated drought planning to local authorities, and three states were

developing drought plans. In general, the states

with larger numbers of people and resources at

risk of drought tend to have more detailed state

programs.

Five states reported that they have some drought

funding mechanisms not tied to a federal administrative or presidential declaration of drought

emergency. For example, Texas has a Community Development Program Disaster Relief Fund

that can provide up to $350,000 in grant money

for small communities (less than 50,000 residents) to support their permanent water supply

infrastructure.

Our assessments pointed out that in most states,

drought responsibilities are normally located in

the agencies that house the functions of agriculture, natural resources, water management,

environment, or emergency management. Fewer

than five states reported that they have independent, designated drought coordinators, while

more than 20 have drought task forces. Wisconsin, for example, lacks a specific drought plan

but does use an ad hoc drought task force. In

Maine, representatives from the U.S. Geological

Survey and the University of Maine Water Research Program issued a report in January 2000

that recommended the Maine Drought Task

Force develop a master plan or vision. New

Mexico has completed a drought plan in conjunction with the Bureau of Reclamation, which

provided assistance in developing the plan.

Arizona and Hawaii are currently involved in a

similar process with the Bureau.

California has a well-developed process for

general water management planning through

the Central Valley Improvement Act and the

state’s Urban Water Management Planning Act.

These acts create a key link for water shortage

planning and coordination. The urban water

legislation, for example, requires water purveyors

serving more than 3,000 acre-feet annually or

more than 3,000 connections to prepare plans to

demonstrate how they would respond to cutbacks of up to 50% in their supplies in the event

of drought or natural disasters. The plans must

be updated every five years and are submitted to

the California Department of Water Resources.

Utah is one example of a state that approaches

drought from several angles. The state recently

completed a state drought plan that also included several counties and was funded by the

Bureau of Reclamation. In comments submitted

to the Commission, state officials noted that

state law related to flood control and drought

emergencies grants Utah counties the authority

to levy taxes and generate funds to aid in programs to increase precipitation. Utah’s Department of Agriculture and Food has a low-interest

loan program available to assist drought-stricken

farmers and ranchers. The loans help fund

measures such as installation of pipelines, tanks,

and troughs; construction and deepening of

wells; development of springs or seeps; construction of tail water recovery pits for irrigation

systems; and correction of conservation problems on farmland caused by severe drought.

Utah Department of Agriculture and Food officials suggested that federal assistance should be

available to transport resources from areas not

experiencing drought to areas that are in a

drought.

In written comments and through testimony

during the Commission’s public hearings, state

officials often noted that federal assistance could

go far to help localities and states prepare for

drought, including assistance for planning and

proactive mitigation measures. In their comments to the Commission, the governors of Iowa

and Missouri stated that “coordination among

the various existing federal programs is necessary, as is coordination between federal agencies
10 National Drought Policy Commission Report

and the states.” The two governors emphasized

that such coordination is preferable to “new

federal programs with regulatory authority over

the states.”

Regional Entities

There are several regional entities that either

focus on drought or include drought as a major

component of their work (Appendix B, File D).

The Western Drought Coordination Council, for

example, presented the Commission with a set

of potential actions that focus on drought planning, impact-reduction measures, and effective

response. And the Tarrant Regional Water District

(Texas) incorporates simulated drought exercises

as a training tool in its drought planning.

The Commission received a number of comments that encouraged regional drought planning or incorporation of drought concerns into

comprehensive regional water management

plans. The comments echoed earlier recommendations of the 1990 National Science

Foundation’s Drought Water Management

Workshop. Participants at the workshop concluded, “The real need is to institutionalize

drought management into improved overall

water management systems.” They stated that

attempts to understand and address drought

problems will be unsuccessful unless the larger

context of which they are an inseparable part is

also understood and addressed. The Army Corps

In 1999, Kentucky experienced the driest JulySeptember period in 105 years of record. Yet none

of the water systems in the state required outside

emergency assistance. Officials credit Kentucky’s

drought management planning program, adopted

in 1993—a program that paid off through predrought water conservation measures and better

preparedness for citizens and communities. The

state provided financial and technical assistance as

well as detailed guidelines to assist communities in

developing management plans. Those plans called

at a minimum for water systems to project future

water demand; evaluate the adequacy of water

supplies and infrastructure; and, where gaps

existed among current capabilities and future

needs, determine the best means and the associated costs to meet those needs.

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. Testimony at our

hearing in Los Angeles noted that

the District emphasizes citizen and

customer participation in water

conservation as well as long-term

water supply and resource management programs for a region

receiving 10 to 15 inches of

rainfall in an average year.

Metropolitan’s plans ensure reliable

water supplies for more than 16

million people (municipal, industrial, commercial, and agricultural

uses) despite weather, regulatory,

or disaster-based drought pressures.

The southern California region has

spent $8 billion for water conservation, recycling, and storage projects

since 1982, and those investments

appear to be paying off. The region

is using less water today than in

1975, even though the population

increased by 5 million people from

1975 to 1999.

The Denver, Colorado area boasts a

similar success. The Denver Water

Authority told us that their yearround water conservation program

“has reduced water demand over

the last 20 years. Even though the

population of our service area has

increased from 840,000 in 1980 to

970,000 in 1998, the total water

we deliver has stayed relatively flat

at around 77 billion gallons per

year. We attribute much of this to

our water conservation efforts.”

of Engineers drew a similar conclusion in the first

year (1989) of the National Drought Study.

The regional approach has been undertaken in

the past and survives today. On June 14, 1965,

during the height of the 1960s drought in the

Northeast, New York City stopped releases from

its Delaware River reservoirs to maintain its

withdrawal rate. With less fresh water flowing

past Philadelphia, there was a risk that salt water

would be drawn into Philadelphia’s water supply

system. In August, President Lyndon Johnson

convened a special meeting of governors and

mayors from the Delaware Basin that led to

emergency measures for managing the

Delaware. The President then asked Congress for
National Drought Policy Commission Report 11

funds to start the North Atlantic Regional Study,

a framework on which subsequent basin and

project justification studies in the North Atlantic

region would be based.

A month before the August meeting, the President had signed the Water Resources Planning

Act, which established the Water Resources

Council. The Act and the North Atlantic Regional

Study were the predecessors of the current

federal rules for water resources planning that

emphasize a basin perspective, multi-objective

assessments, public involvement, and risk assessment. Several federal/state river basin organizations were formed under Title II of the Water

Resources Planning Act, but supporting federal

funds were terminated in 1981. The organizations that survive take a variety of forms designed by their member states to address specific

issues, often including drought. Their diversity is

demonstrated in the following sample from the

northeastern quadrant of the country.

The Delaware River Basin Commission,

created in 1961, is active in drought management. The Commission informed us they

have coordinated efforts to negotiate

drought mitigation programs throughout the

Delaware River Basin. Such initiatives help

cities and states in the basin prepare for, not

simply respond to, drought. The programs

have been responsible for preserving billions

of gallons of reservoir storage while maintaining streamflows during drought periods.

The Susquehanna River Basin Commission,

created in 1970, was built on a statute similar

to that of the Delaware River Basin Commission and is likewise engaged in drought

management. The Commission presents the

opportunity for major water users and other

interested parties to assess the effectiveness

of drought management measures, list the

lessons learned in managing drought, and

compile and distribute the findings to key

decision makers. The Commission told us

that they recently developed a plan to coordinate drought management activities

among the signatory agencies in the river

basin. The next stage of the plan will develop

strategies to mitigate environmental impacts

resulting from drought. Those strategies

incorporate what the Commission described

as detailed instream flow needs assessments

that are cutting-edge technologies in environmental drought management.

Congress ratified an interstate compact for

the Potomac River, but the member states

did not sign it. They rely instead on the

Interstate Compact on the Potomac River

formed under the older (1940) Potomac

Valley Compact. This organization helped

broker a water supply agreement among

Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia that relies on joint operation and

annual drought exercises to assure dependable water supply. It has demonstrated that

coordination and management of water

resources on a regional multi-jurisdictional

basis during drought periods can allow a

major metropolitan area to sustain itself. This

group emphasized that its coordination

efforts involve “the development and maintenance of a drought preparedness plan and

the annual exercise of that plan.” The exercise is undertaken “to refine [the plan’s]

relevance and bring newly hired and replacement personnel from the several jurisdictions

and water suppliers up to date on this critical

issue of regional water resources management.”

The Ohio River Basin Commission, established in 1971, is an informal structure that

serves as a forum to discuss, study, develop,

and coordinate regional policies and positions on common interstate water issues.

Member states include Illinois, Indiana,

Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina, Ohio,

Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. The

Commission should not be confused with the

Ohio River Valley Sanitation Commission,

which was formed in 1948 under an interstate compact to manage water quality.
12 National Drought Policy Commission Report

Localities

A sample survey of county officials conducted by

the National Association of Counties (NACO) in

1999 indicated that county governments primarily rely on federal programs for drought assistance (Appendix B, File E). More than seventyfive percent of the 177 respondents indicated

that they use federal programs to respond

during drought emergencies. This represents a

small sample of the 3,066 counties across the

country. However, it is a starting place to understand local government needs.

Twenty percent of the 177 respondents have

county or city drought assistance programs or

regulations that include drought emergency

response as well as water conservation plans

incorporating drought contingency procedures.

Most counties have emergency procedures for

disasters, including drought, and communication

channels to get information to their populations.

County officials must try to manage fragmented

federal assistance programs to help their constituents. Links may exist between the U.S.

Department of Agriculture and farmers through

Cooperative Extension offices, the Department’s

Service Centers, and Resource Conservation and

Development Councils. But coordination and

communication may not be efficient, or extend

beyond traditional agricultural users, especially

during a drought emergency. The Commission

heard considerable testimony from county and

other local officials that these linkages are often

laden with bureaucracy, delays, and program

Examples of Localities with Drought-related Programs:

Thirty-five percent of the 177 counties that responded to the National Association of Counties’ 1999 sample

survey were from Georgia. Others included:

Graham County, Arizona Becker County, Minnesota Williamson County, Texas

Navajo County, Arizona Yellowstone County, Montana Gloucester County, Virginia

Yuba County, California Benson County, North Dakota Marion County, West Virginia

Bannock County, Idaho Muskingum County, Ohio Dane County, Wisconsin

Lake County, Indiana Lancaster County, Pennsylvania

We also heard about many drought preparedness measures developed by municipalities, including those in

New York City, Scottsdale, Arizona, and Denver, Colorado. More than 400 local agencies in California engage

in drought preparedness efforts, including agencies in the cities of Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Diego.

guidelines that do not reflect environmental,

resource, temperature, and climate variability

across the country. In Billings, Montana, for

example, the important drought-related factor of

wind is not included in the Department of

Agriculture’s assessment process. In addition,

many people testified to the significant lack of

weather and streamflow gages and data in

general that are needed to substantiate, review,

and make decisions about their applications for

agricultural assistance.

Counties, towns, and rural areas are facing

suburban growth and development. To provide

public health, safety, and welfare services, counties with increasing populations must be able to

plan for future needs. A local government’s

ability to plan for drought is dramatically improved if technical data, tools, and resources are

available.

Local governments must also inform and educate their constituents of the need for drought

planning, especially when an emergency is not

imminent. Many local governments have public

information programs on water resources that

could be supplemented with information about

drought.

Communities can plan to minimize impacts

when a drought reduces water supplies. With the

exception of the city of Santa Barbara and

surrounding communities in California during

the 1987-1992 drought, droughts have not

created a potable water emergency in large cities

since the 1960s. This is in part because of the
National Drought Policy Commission Report 13

At the Commission’s hearing in

Atlanta, Georgia, County Commissioner George Bird of Candler

County, Georgia, described the

Georgia Water Management

Campaign. The 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 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 the Georgia Environmental

Protection Division, Georgia

Environmental Facilities Authority,

and the Association of County

Commissioners of Georgia. As

Commissioner Bird said, “Water

issues are a developing priority for

local governments. Education and

public input are key to local

decision making.”

amount of planning large cities do. But emergency conditions—not enough water for minimal household uses—may still arise in small

communities when droughts are longer or more

severe than anticipated or when other factors

unexpectedly interrupt or pollute water supplies.

Some cities use data from the U.S. Geological

Survey and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in developing and implementing their plans. And federal water agencies

can sell space in existing federal reservoirs for

urban water supplies. In cities near such reservoirs, this may be the least expensive way to get

more water.

Small communities and the millions of “selfsupplied” Americans, who rely on their own wells,

are likely to have problems during prolonged

drought. Small water systems tend to be vulnerable because they have only one source of water.

Such systems may also face high per-customer

costs to meet the latest federal safe drinking water

standards. These factors have encouraged the

takeover of small systems by large systems where

it is economically feasible. But areas with very low

population density remain at risk. Some small

communities may be able to modify existing

watershed structures, initially designed only for

flood control, to provide storage for municipal

and industrial water.

George Bird,

Candler County

(Georgia)

Commissioner

at the

Commission’s

hearing in

Atlanta.
14 National Drought Policy Commission Report

Tribes

On tribal lands, dominant uses of water include

agriculture, recreation, municipal and industrial,

and social, cultural, and religious purposes.

Tribes also support water use for fish and wildlife

and other environmental goals.

There are approximately 560 federally recognized tribes within the United States—306 in the

conterminous 48 states, with 289 of those west

of the Mississippi River where 95 percent of all

tribal trust land is located. The Department of

the Interior notes that tribal lands, including

official reservations, currently cover about 55

million acres, or roughly three percent of the

country except for Alaska and Hawaii. The largest

area is the Navajo Nation, while some federally

recognized tribes have no land. The states with

the highest tribal populations are Oklahoma,

California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Alaska.

By any measure, the scope of tribal drought

issues in the West is immense. Tribes have experienced the vagaries of climate on this continent

for many thousands of years, and more recent

Andy Lipkis,

Executive

Director of

TreePeople.

The Commission was informed of various

proactive drought mitigation activities

developed at the local level, often in

partnership with state and federal agencies

through technical and financial incentive

programs. 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 citizens

and businesses in capturing storm water and

adjusting runoff patterns for residences and

commercial buildings. In these and other ways,

TreePeople reinforces the principle that locally

developed solutions can be effective.
National Drought Policy Commission Report 15

times have proved to be no exception. Flexibility

was the key to adaptation and relative selfsufficiency in earlier times. When the ability to

cope in one place was exceeded, tribes moved,

later returning when climate permitted. Since

the loss of many of their ancestral lands, however, such flexibility is no longer possible for the

tribes.

Some tribes are turning to planning as a viable

means of lessening the impacts of drought on

tribal lands and populations. But others expressed their concerns that criteria for national

drought policy might compromise their cultural

or religious beliefs, and they specifically asked

that this not occur. Some tribes were also reluctant to disclose water-related information because of ongoing negotiations over water rights.

They asked that any national drought policy be

sensitive to these issues and that the Commission

uphold the special relationship that tribes have

with the federal government.

As a result of our outreach effort, we found that

six tribes—the Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Nation,

Kaibab-Paiute Tribe, Navajo Nation, San Carlos

Apache Tribe, and Zuni Pueblo—are in the

process of developing drought contingency

plans through cooperative agreements with the

Bureau of Reclamation (Appendix B, File F).

Based on these experiences, developing drought

plans can cost from $25,000 to $200,000.

But in Billings, Montana, representatives from

seven tribes consistently reported frustration in

not being able to rely on the procedures and

processes associated with the “Government-toGovernment” Executive Order signed by President Clinton. They described the bureaucratic

quagmire associated with the Bureau of Indian

Affairs. Most tribal witnesses also explained that

eligibility criteria and cost-share rates in many

current drought-related programs must be

modified to address specific tribal situations.

They emphasized that such programs must be

adequately funded.

We learned from comments submitted by tribes

from Florida to Alaska and from the Intertribal

Agriculture Council that many tribal lands lack

current soil survey, streamgaging, and range

condition information. Such information is

critical to basic planning as well as drought

planning. Some tribes indicated that they lack

access to snow amount, soil moisture, and

stream flow information needed in planning and

for triggering emergency response efforts. Many

tribes noted the need for technical and financial

assistance to plan and implement conservation

measures such as wells, springs, and ponds for

Mike Tatsey, of the

Blackfeet Tribe, at the

Commission’s hearing in

Billings, Montana. Several

tribal representatives told

the Commission that the

basic information and tools

needed to prepare for

drought are not available

on tribal lands.
16 National Drought Policy Commission Report

livestock water; cross fences for grazing management; and other practices to enhance wildlife

and protect against wildfire. They emphasized

that this assistance must be easily and locally

accessible to tribal members.

Federal Government

We found that 88 drought-related federal programs were funded within the past ten years

(Appendix B, Files G and H). We classed those

programs into four broad program categories:

(1) preparedness, including planning and mitigation; (2) information, including monitoring/

prediction and research; (3) insurance; and (4)

emergency response. Seven of these programs

provide assistance for drought planning, 42 for

drought mitigation, 22 for drought-related

monitoring/prediction and research, and 47 for

response. These numbers total more than 88

because some programs cover more than one

facet of drought. For example, some of the

mitigation programs also contain drought

planning and response elements.

Planning. Many people who commented during

all of our hearings recognized the importance of

comprehensive long-term strategies that incorporate drought planning and plan implementation. We also heard often that drought should be

a consideration in comprehensive water management planning. In addition, Jennifer Salisbury,

the Cabinet Secretary of the New Mexico Energy,

Minerals, & Natural Resources Department,

urged us to consider forest resource stewardship

programs as drought preparedness and mitigation programs.

Many people

who commented

during our proceedings

recognized the importance

of comprehensive long-term

strategies that incorporate

drought planning and plan

implementation.

The three federal entities with the greatest

federal responsibilities when drought occurs are

the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Bureau

of Reclamation, and the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers. Title II of Public Law 102-250 (The

Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief

Act of 1991) authorized the Bureau of Reclamation to prepare or participate in the preparation

of cooperative drought contingency plans for the

prevention or mitigation of adverse effects of

drought conditions in consultation with other

appropriate federal and state officials (of all 50

states and U.S. territories); tribes; and public,

private, and local entities. Until very recently,

these efforts were funded from emergency or

supplemental funds. In its Fiscal Year 2000

budget, the Bureau of Reclamation requested

$500,000 for the program. Congress appropriated $3,000,000, but restricted use of those

funds primarily to the leasing of water. The

Bureau also requested $500,000 in its 2001

budget.

Public Law 92-251 allows the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers to develop water resource plans for

states, tribes, and territories. The plans can cover

any aspect of water and water-related land

issues, including drought preparedness if that is

what a state or tribe wants. Funding is limited to

$500,000 annually for each state or tribe. Individual studies (there may be more than one per

state or tribe per year) generally cost $25,000 to

$75,000, an amount that is split 50-50 between

the state or tribe and the Corps. The priorities of

the nonfederal sponsor determine which aspect

of water management will be studied. Topics of

studies conducted in recent years include water

supply and demand, water quality, environmental conservation/restoration, wetlands evaluation,

dam safety/failure, flood damage, flood plain

management, coastal zone management/protection, and harbors/ports. This Corps program

funded the preparatory work that preceded the

virtual drought exercise in Tarrant County, Texas

(see above, “Regional Entities”).
National Drought Policy Commission Report 17

The 1935 Soil Conservation Act authorized the

U.S. Department of Agriculture to provide

assistance for individual farmers and ranchers to

develop and implement conservation plans. This

legislation responded to the persistent drought

of the 1930s and the resulting “Dust Bowl”

caused by severe wind erosion. For 65 years,

hundreds of thousands of farmers and ranchers

have received technical and financial assistance

to address critical resource needs. Under this

voluntary program, assistance is provided at the

request of the farmer and normally for specific

needs such as erosion, water quality, or irrigation

problems that the farmer identifies.

Limited authorities and funds as well as lack of

coordination among and within federal agencies

hinder these planning efforts. For the Bureau of

Reclamation’s Drought Program, requests for

planning assistance far outweigh available funds,

and the program provides technical assistance

only, not direct grants. The Corps of Engineers

water resource planning program is not specifically targeted to drought needs, and drought is

not receiving much attention in these efforts.

Witnesses told us that there is too much program bureaucracy within the Department of

Agriculture. Tribal representatives expressed

appreciation for the Department ‘s current effort

to place offices on tribal lands, but stated they

are far behind their non-tribal counterparts.

We heard, too, that developing a drought plan

or incorporating drought concerns into a more

comprehensive water management plan is of

little value unless the plan is implemented.

Successful implementation of community

drought plans requires practice, particularly

when the people who are responsible for responding to drought may not be the same from

drought to drought. Enough time passes between droughts that the issues change, water

use changes, and professional staff members

retire or move to new jobs. Many of the entities

involved in drought response during the late

1990s, for example, were also involved in

drought response during the late 1980s, but very

few of the same people were still participating.

As the Army Corps of Engineers, the Denver

Water Authority, and the Interstate Compact on

the Potomac River told us, communities need to

prepare plans for drought and then exercise

them, like fire drills, to keep the plan up to date

and train new staff.

Several of these points were reinforced at the

Commission’s hearing in Atlanta, Georgia, by Dr.

Anne Steinemann, an assistant professor at the

Georgia Institute of Technology Graduate City

Planning Program. From her study of more than

100 drought plans in the Southeast, she concluded in part that “even the most technically

sophisticated and detailed plans with a lot of

data may be ineffective if water officials and

stakeholders can’t or won’t implement these

measures....” Dr. Steinemann also told the

Commission that drought planning often suffers

from lack of “agency staff experienced and

expert in drought” and that “drought plans can’t

be developed without consulting the people

who have institutional experience in managing

drought.”

During the Commission’s

hearing in Atlanta,

Georgia, Anne

Steinemann, Ph.D.,

described the findings

and conclusions from

her study of drought

plans in the Southeast.
18 National Drought Policy Commission Report

Mitigation. Mitigation is often associated with

actions taken after the fact to remedy damage

caused by human or natural disturbances. In the

context of this report, we use the term “mitigation” to describe actions taken prior to and

during drought events to reduce potential

impacts and thus reduce the costs of responding

to drought. As such, mitigation is an essential,

proactive element of drought preparedness.

Proactive drought mitigation comprises a broad

range of measures—from the installation of

livestock watering ponds on ranches and technologies and methods for capturing storm water

in rural and urban settings to state-of-the-art

wastewater treatment that allows reuse of water.

We learned during our hearings about many

mitigation measures aimed at water conservation

during our hearings, including testimony about

the “drought-proofing” value of installing ultralow flow toilets in residences in southern California. We note that attempts to repeal plumbing

fixture standards, which are important to the

success of ultra-low flow toilet programs, or

other long-term conservation standards in the

1992 Energy Policy Act should be considered in

the larger context of the need for drought

preparedness.

National Drought Mitigation Center

The National Drought Mitigation

Center, established in 1995 at the

University of Nebraska–Lincoln,

helps people and institutions

develop and implement measures

to reduce society’s vulnerability to

drought. The Center’s director, Dr.

Don Wilhite, has estimated that on

average 12% of the country is in

severe drought each year. The

Center emphasizes prevention and

risk management rather than crisis

management. This approach

promotes self-reliance to achieve

greater resilience to drought. The

Center maintains a continually

growing archive of droughtmonitoring and planning information on its web site (http://

enso.unl.edu/ndmc). That web site

also contains products that have

been developed with various federal

and nonfederal partners and

provides links to other droughtrelated materials. Center staff have

developed several drought workshops, both in the United States

and internationally, in partnership

with the Bureau of Reclamation and

other co-sponsors. Federal and

nonfederal drought professionals

serve as workshop leaders.

We heard from people at our public

hearings and in written comments

that the Center has been

helpful in providing assistance

with drought planning, devising

proactive mitigation measures,

and forming links with other

drought professionals. The

activities of the Center are

funded by an annual grant from

the U.S. Department of

Agriculture’s Cooperative State

Research, Education, and

Extension Service as well as with

supplemental funding through

cooperative agreements with

other federal entities or through

consulting agreements with

nonfederal entities.

We observed an example of state-of-the-art

technology at the Scottsdale Water Campus in

Arizona and heard about other wastewater

treatment and reuse programs from witnesses

during our Los Angeles hearing. These types of

measures may be aimed specifically at reducing

the potential impacts of drought. Or, they may

be used to expand water supplies for growing

populations, in which case the larger population

may still need to plan proactive mitigation of

drought impacts.

Within federal government programs, we found

that water supply and droughts are considered

together. As one example, the Bureau of

Reclamation’s 2001 budget includes significant

amounts for water delivery projects that can help

reduce the impacts of drought. These include

$65.3 million for the Central Valley Project in

California, $33.7 million for the Central Arizona

Project, $29.7 million for the Mni Wiconi Project

in South Dakota, and $21.3 million for the

Garrison Diversion Unit in North Dakota. The

budget also contains requests of $22 million for

water reclamation and reuse and $2.2 million for

the Bureau’s small projects loan program. In

addition, the Bureau’s water conservation program and guidance in the Bureau’s tiered pricing
National Drought Policy Commission Report 19

Scottsdale,

Arizona Water

Campus

(wastewater

treatment

facility).

handbook has helped several localities carry out

water conservation measures to reduce their

vulnerability to drought, including tiered pricing

strategies.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ total civil

works budget for Fiscal Year 2000 is $4 billion

(plus $332 million from nonfederal and trust

fund receipts). The budget includes $137.7

million for general investigations, nearly $1.4

billion for construction, and $1.9 billion for

operation and maintenance. The Corps addresses drought as part of the hydrologic spectrum in its design of projects, including environmental restoration projects, and in the operation

of its existing projects. But the Corps has no

authority or funding specifically for drought

mitigation.

A number of programs within the U.S. Department of Agriculture provide assistance for actions

that can lead to drought mitigation, although

none are specifically funded for this purpose. The

1954 Small Watershed Act, for example, gave

the Department authority to help rural communities address natural resource concerns in small

watersheds (less than 250,000 acres in size).

Eligible purposes include flood control, watershed management, water conservation, municipal and industrial water supply, recreation, and

fish and wildlife protection. Although the program has broad authorities, a high percentage of

the funding has gone to assist local communities

in installing flood control measures. There is

currently a backlog of requests for assistance

totaling nearly $1.4 billion. The annual appropriation is approximately $100 million.

In 1964, Congress passed the Resources Conservation and Development Act to assist local units

of government in addressing erosion problems,

water management problems, and economic

development needs. This program provides

technical and financial assistance, but available

funding has been limited to technical assistance

for the approximately 2,500 local Resource

Conservation and Development Councils. The

annual appropriation of about $36 million

provides each Council with a coordinator position and clerical support.

The 1985 Food Security Act directed the Secretary of Agriculture to enroll 45 million acres of

highly erodible lands into the Conservation

Reserve Program. This amount was reduced in

subsequent farm bills to 36.4 million acres as a
20 National Drought Policy Commission Report

cost-savings measure. Farmers receive technical

and financial assistance as well as an annual

rental payment for installing and maintaining

this land in permanent vegetative cover.

In 1996, Congress consolidated several of the

Agriculture Department’s cost-share programs

and created the Environmental Quality Incentives

Program. The primary purpose of this program is

to help farmers address their water quality

problems. But it also provides technical and

financial assistance for the installation of water

conservation measures as well as livestock watering facilities. Cost-share is provided through

long-term agreements that address an entire

farm’s resource needs. At the Commission’s

hearing in Billings, Montana, however, witnesses

said that the procedures related to this program

limit their ability to obtain financial assistance to

install proactive drought mitigation measures

such as cross fencing and livestock watering

developments.

We note that we did not develop specific recommendations for coordinating drought mitigation

measures among the different levels of government. We believe that regional intergovernmental groups must take responsibility for such

coordination if it is to be effective and accepted.

We do make recommendations, however, regarding coordination of federal drought mitigation and other drought-related programs to

increase their effectiveness in assisting regional,

state, local, and tribal drought planning and

mitigation efforts.

Monitoring/prediction and Research. About

22 federal programs have some responsibility for

drought monitoring/prediction and research. In

relation to monitoring and prediction, these

include programs that focus on weather patterns, climate, soil conditions, and streamflow

measurements. Examples are three networks—

the Department of Agriculture’s Soil Climate

Analysis Network (SCAN)/Snow Telemetry

Network (SNOTEL), the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration/National Weather

Service’s Cooperative Observer Network

(COOP), and the U.S. Geological Survey’s

streamgaging and groundwater monitoring

network. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers both

uses and supports non-Corps federal monitoring

systems and has developed its own remote data

sensing network to manage its reservoirs.

We heard, however, that such programs are not

always available in some areas such as on tribal

lands and in remote rural areas. A case in point is

the U.S. Geological Survey’s streamgaging and

groundwater monitoring network. This finding

echoes a conclusion reached by an external task

force recently assigned to review the Survey’s

Shirley Gammon, Montana

State Conservationist for

the U.S. Department of Agriculture, at the Commission’s

hearing in Billings. Ms. Gammon

described the Snowpack Telemetry (SNOTEL) network in

Montana, which consists of

123 automated sites that

measure the amount of snow

pack and the moisture content

of the snow. The Commission

heard 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.
National Drought Policy Commission Report 21

Federal-State Cooperative Water Program. The

task force’s report (1999) stated, “Current funding for the Cooperative Water Program is not

adequate to satisfy all of the needs identified for

additional streamflow data, regional groundwater information, updated hydrologic needs and

technical publications.”

Federal monitoring/prediction programs often

join with universities, private institutions, and

other nonfederal entities to provide information

needed for effective drought preparedness and

mitigation. For example, federal programs

provide the basic data used by private weather

services and other enterprises that play a vital

role in supporting farmers and others who are

vulnerable to drought. The private weather

services use the federally supplied data in detailed predictions that can be tailored to individual farmers and can cover varying time periods as needed. Some private services are using

remote-sensing technology that can show

farmers areas of crop stress, allowing them to

make more efficient decisions about applying

fertilizers or irrigating. Such programs should

help address the needs of farmers who told us

that they rely on irrigation systems and need

detailed, localized information (soil moisture,

temperature, wind, humidity, evapotranspiration rates) for irrigation scheduling.

As the Western Drought Coordination Council

stated in its comments to 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. The

current federal interagency effort to indicate

likely drought trends two weeks ahead of time

on the drought-monitoring map is a start. But

we heard that longer-term predictions would

improve services, including prediction maps of

drought locations in the medium range (ten days

or two weeks) and one to two seasons in advance. The Climate Prediction Center of the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has begun producing Seasonal Drought

Outlook maps, which schematically display likely

changes in drought over the next two seasons.

Proper use of this product, we were told, depends on a careful explanation of its limitations.

We also heard that the wealth of monitoring and

prediction information produced by federal

programs and in conjunction with nonfederal

partners creates a problem for some users. We

heard that drought information and data are

often complex and, for the most part, are not

currently 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 agencies. Many witnesses

at our hearings and written comments submitted

independently to the Commission indicated a

need for an accessible “gateway” (point of

contact) where high-quality, standardized,

comprehensible current information and historical data are managed.

In relation to research, we found that this country is blessed with a tremendous storehouse of

drought-related scientific and technical knowhow. Research programs of the National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of the

Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency,

numerous universities, and private institutions—

as well as work at the National Drought Mitigation Center—form the basis of knowledge

needed to monitor drought and address drought

impacts. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is

also involved in drought-related research. During

the National Drought Study (1989-1993), for

example, the Corps sponsored research and

experiments in many aspects of drought.

However, we often heard that the results of

research are not always disseminated in a timely

fashion or through easily accessible modes, a

criticism similar to that we received concerning

monitoring and prediction data and products.

Research results as well as technology transfers,
22 National Drought Policy Commission Report

we were told, are key to effective drought planning, proactive mitigation, emergency response,

and drought-related technical assistance and

training and therefore must be made readily and

widely available.

Exchanges of information among planners and

decision-makers have helped determine the

direction of drought-related research, and sharing of findings among research entities has

helped promote many of the advances in

drought-related research. The Commission heard

that there are various opportunities to expand

such collaborative and cooperative activities. We

also heard that research benefits greatly from

trained, skilled people who have a deep and

abiding interest in drought-related issues. As

technology and knowledge evolve, so does the

need for a new generation of trained, skilled, and

interested individuals.

Insurance. It is evident from the information we

received and assessments we conducted that

even the best preparedness and proactive mitigation measures will not adequately address

some drought-related risks. Small businesses

such as marinas and water-based recreation

enterprises, for example, are vulnerable to the

impacts of drought. In addition, 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. 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.

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 23

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

Insurance has been a central feature of U.S.

agricultural policy for decades. And while farmers

and ranchers are also among the first to feel the

impacts of drought, the federal crop insurance

program, as noted earlier, covers only major field

crops, not all vegetable and other crops in all

locations or livestock.

A variety of strategies were offered for the

Commission’s consideration. Some were variations on the crop insurance program but with

emphasis on self-help, extended coverage,

resource stewardship, and preparedness. Many

have been and are being discussed in a variety of

forums, including the U.S. Congress. In-depth

analysis of these strategies would require much

more time and many more resources than were

available to the Commission. We therefore

endorse none of the approaches but present the

following summary.

One approach called for incorporating all

crops and livestock into the crop insurance

program and for taking a “whole-farm”

approach to insurance. That means losses

from one crop or one type of livestock could

be offset by gains in a different crop or type

of livestock on the same farm.

Research at Work

Our analysis indicates that research has proved essential in

several drought-related areas. As

examples:

• Research that identified

germplasm and dominant

genes in naturally occurring

drought-tolerant plants has

benefitted the production of

non-irrigated crops and forages

that are totally dependent on

rainfall.

• Research has identified

characteristics of impacts

resulting from changes in

weather patterns such as El Niño,

La Niña, and the North Atlantic

Oscillation.

• Research has provided the

technological base needed for

long-range weather prediction

and the acquisition of improved

data on climate and weather

phenomena to improve the

accuracy of those predictions.

• Research provides information

needed by individuals, communities, states, and regions to

facilitate more efficient water

use. It has been 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. In

Florida, more than 100 desalination plants are in operation

(Water International, December

1999). Communities in California

are also using desalination

technology, as we learned at our

Los Angeles hearing.

Another approach discussed at the

Commission’s hearings in Austin, Atlanta,

and Billings would replace the current crop

insurance program with one based on the

cost of production. Under this program, all

crops and livestock would be included on a

whole-farm basis. The federal government

would subsidize premiums, but at different

rates than under the current program.

Payments would be made when income

is less than 90% of the documented cost

of production. Paid premiums would be

maintained in a national trust fund for

disbursement.

A third option was to base crop insurance

payments on the same criteria used to make

direct payments to farmers for resource

conservation measures under the Conservation Security Program proposed in the

Administration’s 2001 budget. The objective

is to recognize stewardship of farm and

range lands and water on farms and ranches,

which are valuable assets in addition to the

crops and livestock raised on those lands.

In counties of Florida, Michigan, Massachusetts, and several other states where farmers

often produce a variety of specialty crops, the

Department of Agriculture is testing the

Adjusted Gross Revenue model. This
24 National Drought Policy Commission Report

insurance plan incorporates the whole-farm

approach and uses a farmer’s historical

Schedule F tax form information as a base to

provide guaranteed revenue during the

period of insurance coverage. This model

provides an insurance safety net for multiple

agricultural commodities in one insurance

package.

A different approach stems from the Australian Drought Policy Review Task Force’s

report issued in 1990. The Task Force’s goal

was to achieve self-reliance among farmers

and recommended that only in extreme

circumstances—a one in 20- to 25-year

drought event that lasts 12 months—would

the government provide aid in the form of

debt subsidies and income support. The

respective roles for farmers and the government were clearly spelled out. Farmers would

assume greater responsibility for managing

risks arising from climate variability while the

government would help create an overall

environment conducive to this planning and

risk-management approach. The government

would increase funding for drought research

and training on drought risk management

and provide savings incentives and tax policy

changes. The Australian approach does not

include provisions for government crop

insurance.

Relief. Many comments we received recognized

the importance of moving away from the traditional approach to drought that is driven by

emergency relief to a new approach that emphasizes planning and proactive mitigation. At the

same time, we were cautioned that it will take

time to provide the training and technical assistance needed to help farmers, ranchers, local

businesses, communities, states, and tribes make

this transition. A safety net is needed, we were

told, to help overcome the impacts of extreme

occurrences of drought or the impacts of multifaceted disasters (for example, flood/drought or

hail/drought).

Approximately 47 federal programs have an

element of drought-related relief, primarily for

agricultural droughts. The U.S. Department of

Agriculture, for example, follows a “bottom up”

procedure for emergency disaster designations,

but the Commission recognizes that the process

needs to be streamlined. In every county in the

nation, there is a County Emergency Board

consisting of a representative from each of the

five Department of Agriculture agencies that

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.
National Drought Policy Commission Report 25

normally have offices in the county. A similar

structure exists at the state level. When a state

governor gets a request for a disaster designation

related to agricultural issues, such as drought,

the governor asks the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture to designate an administrative disaster. The Secretary sends the request to

the national office of the Farm Service Agency.

From there, it goes back to the State Emergency

Board, which works with the relevant County

Emergency Board(s) to analyze the situation and

determine whether or not conditions exist for

the disaster designation.

The Department of Agriculture also has several

ongoing and ad hoc programs that provide

financial relief to farmers who have suffered

drought-related losses. The Emergency Conservation Program, the Emergency Watershed

Program, the Non-insured Crop Disaster Assistance Program, and the Federal Crop Insurance

Program are examples. These and other emergency relief programs require congressional

action and are dependent on the appropriations

process or emergency supplemental appropriations. The funding for drought, floods, and

economic assistance approached $16 billion over

the past two years.

But many agricultural producers expressed

concerns about these types of responses. For

example, a farmer who testified at the

Commission’s hearing in Austin experienced a

significant drought during the summer of 1999.

He finished harvest in August, but the Farm

Service Agency could not take his application for

assistance until December. By February of 2000,

assistance was still not available. During the

1999 drought in the mid-Atlantic and southeastern states, the Department of Agriculture, under

the Secretarial disaster designation, could only

provide assistance through the Emergency

Conservation Program and take loan applications, pending congressional appropriations.

Comments from the Agriculture Department

note that once appropriations are received, the

tens and sometimes hundreds of thousands of

applications must then be processed within

existing personnel constraints. For these reasons,

assistance is often “too little and too late,” as we

heard time and again at our public hearings.

Public witnesses at the Commission’s hearing in

Billings said that documentation acceptable to

trigger federal response for one Department of

Agriculture emergency program was not sufficient to trigger other Department emergency

programs. They said that they often fail to get a

clear understanding of what additional information is needed to meet program criteria and that

this causes confusion for everyone, including the

agency staff administering the program. And

witnesses at several of the Commission’s hearings

said that they were frustrated by the

Department’s Emergency Conservation Program.

That program can help them develop emergency

livestock watering facilities in times of dire need,

but the program seldom provides timely assistance. This may be due in part to the fact that

the program is funded by supplemental appropriations from Congress after the fact.

Title I of Public Law 102-250 authorizes 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 so-called “Reclamation” states in the

West. Title I is the only federal law that authorizes water deliveries “from Federal Reclamation

projects and non-project water...on a nonreimbursable basis for the purposes of protecting

or restoring fish and wildlife resources.” Public

Law 102-250 is also the basis for the Bureau’s

drought planning and education assistance. All

of these activities must therefore share the funds

for this program.

Public Law 95-51 provides the Secretary of the

Army authority under certain conditions to

construct wells and transport water to farmers,

ranchers, and political subdivisions within areas

that the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil

Works determines to be drought distressed. Any

farmer, rancher, or political subdivision within a
26 National Drought Policy Commission Report

distressed area may submit a written request for

assistance. But Corps assistance is considered

only when nonfederal interests have exhausted

reasonable means for securing necessary water

supplies (within the limits of their financial

resources), including assistance from other

federal agencies. And Corps assistance is always

considered to be supplemental to state and local

efforts. For example, Corps assistance is not used

to provide drought emergency water where a

livestock owner has other options such as loans,

selling all or part of a herd even at deflated

prices, and relocating animals to an area where

water is available. As another example, Corps

assistance can be provided to construct wells,

but the Corps’ costs for construction must be

repaid. In addition, Corps assistance can be

provided to transport water for consumption.

The Corps covers the cost of transporting the

water, but the cost of purchasing and storing the

water is the nonfederal interest’s responsibility.

This water-hauling program, which seems to

offer assistance at first glance, is actually a program of last resort under the current law, with

very restrictive eligibility criteria.

The 1966 Flood Control Act allows the Corps to

contract with states, municipalities, private

entities, or individuals for surplus water that may

be available in any reservoir under the control of

the Department of the Army. Withdrawals are for

domestic and industrial uses. The preferred

approach in providing such surplus water is for a

state or subdivision of a state to enter into a

contract with the Secretary of the Army and

agree to act as wholesaler for all of the water

requirements of individual users. This places the

state or local government in a position to help

their citizens during difficult times and minimizes

the potential for problems that could arise if the

Secretary of the Army had to determine who is

entitled to shares of surplus water based on

assessments of local needs. All such withdrawals

require a fee for the service provided, even in the

case of a declared national disaster area.

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 of the factors

that makes this program successful is that the

Agency can draw monies from an annual appropriated fund to pay for disaster assistance. The

Agency can provide disaster unemployment

assistance, truck in water, and assist in replacing

or building infrastructure such as wells or pipelines for water transfers. The Stafford Act

authorizes only measures to protect health and

safety, however, and has rarely been used to

respond to drought-caused emergencies. In

addition, it takes a presidential declaration of

disaster before Stafford Act authority can be

activated. Not all drought events will be declared

disasters at the presidential level, although they

may well have adverse impacts.

Need to Coordinate

Drought-related Programs

As shown in much of the preceding discussion,

the array of state, federal, and other droughtrelated programs can be intimidating and frustrating for those who would like access to the

services the programs offer, but who do not deal

with government agencies on a regular basis. At

another level, the multitude of federal programs

can also cause problems for state, county, and

tribal governments that may be very used to

governmental transactions but still have to deal

individually with separate federal agencies for

any number of drought-related issues.

Service delivery networks exist for many

drought-related programs at all levels of government. However, we heard that they are not well

integrated, and the people who need information about the programs are not always well

served. People told us there is no central point of

contact concerning all federal programs and that

even within the same federal department, there

may be many drought-related programs and no

single contact point to advise people about what
National Drought Policy Commission Report 27

they may qualify for or how to access the programs. We also heard that the delivery time for

assistance in many cases is unsatisfactory, partly

because there is little coordination of programs.

The Western Drought Coordination Council

strongly suggested establishing a federal drought

coordinating body. The law that created this

Commission indicated a need to develop an

effective coordinated federal approach to

drought mitigation and response. The law

required us to determine if all federal drought

programs should be consolidated under one

entity.

In arriving at our recommendations, we considered the consolidation option and concluded it

would be impractical and ineffective. Drought

affects a wide array of constituents—among

them farmers, ranchers, non-farm businesses,

tribes, water districts, municipalities, and industry—as well as the environment. The federal

expertise required to address the needs of these

constituents and the impacts of drought on the

environment resides in many agencies. The

federal agencies currently involved in drought

programs report to multiple congressional

authorizing and appropriating committees,

making it difficult to restructure these authorities

in a timely manner.

We also considered three other options. The first

was a National Drought Council similar in

composition to the National Drought Policy

Commission, but that also includes a representative from the U.S. Department of Energy, a

representative from the Environmental Protection Agency, and a nonfederal, nongovernment

environmental representative. The second option

was a presidentially created federal drought

coordination body comprised of only federal

representatives from the appropriate federal

agencies. This entity would be directed to coordinate with state and local governments, tribes,

regional drought-related entities, and the private

sector in carrying out its duties. The third option

was to build on existing, less formal models such

as the Resource Conservation and Development

Councils or the Association of State Dam Safety

Officials.

In the end, we agreed that coordination would

be more effective if nonfederal participation were

explicitly established (see Recommendation 5.1).

Need for Public Education

We heard often during our deliberations that a

key element in successful drought preparedness

is public education. Many people are made

aware of the need for water conservation and

other measures during drought. But once

drought is over, old habits tend to dominate.

Most examples of successful public education

campaigns presented during our hearings

California Urban Water Conservation Council—14 Best Management Practices

1. Indoor and outdoor home water use survey.

2. Residential plumbing retrofit (low cost: faucet

aerators, shower heads, toilet dams, etc.).

3. Water utility system audits; leak detection and

repair.

4. Metering with commodity rates.

5. Large landscape conservation incentives (irrigation meters, etc.).

6. High-efficiency washing machine rebates (horizontal axis).

7. Public information programs.

8. School education programs.

9. Commercial/industrial/institutional water use

survey.

10. Wholesale water agency financial/technical

assistance to small retail agencies.

11. Conservation pricing—more water used, higher

the price.

12. Water Conservation Coordinator.

13. Water waste prohibition (do not allow gutter

flooding, non-recycling water fountains, etc.).

14. Residential Ultra-Low Flow Toilet Replacement

Program (rebates, installation, etc.).
28 National Drought Policy Commission Report

stemmed from local and state governmental

activity or from private and nongovernmental

entities. As an example, the California Urban

Water Conservation Council identified 14 best

management practices, three of which relate to

education, public awareness, and communications. One calls for organizations to identify a

“water conservation coordinator” as a single

contact point for information. Two others call for

development and implementation of coordinated public and school education programs.

Included in the education programs are workshops, newsletters, public service announcements, press releases, town hall meetings, school

curricula, bill stuffers for utilities, and interactive

participatory decision-making processes. These

techniques and others provide communication

links among organizations that provide assistance and the people whom they serve. Such

techniques also help increase awareness of the

value of preparedness to reduce costly impacts of

droughts.

There is little federal assistance available for such

programs, but there are a few examples of

federal public education efforts related to

drought. One is the National Weather Service’s

recent addition of drought concerns to its annual

spring media briefings on the water supply

outlook. For the March 13, 2000, presentation,

the Weather Service prepared a public document

to emphasize the importance of preparing for

drought. In addition, the Weather Service produced maps to show current drought areas

nationwide as well as seasonal drought outlooks

and provided a list of drought information

sources.

On another front, the National Disaster Education Coalition, a group of public and private

organizations that provides educational materials

and information on natural hazards, met in

February 2000 to discuss a plan for incorporating

drought into its ongoing efforts.

We were cautioned, however, that there is a

need to include the media in public education

outreach. Widespread but misinformed drought

alerts can do damage to state or regional tourism

and recreation economies when the actual

impacts may be confined to a small portion of

the state or region.

Need to Address

Environmental Concerns

As many people testified during our hearings or

through written comments, drought can have

devastating impacts on aquatic and terrestrial

environmental resources, as well as on human

users of water. Aquatic ecosystems are exceptionally vulnerable to the effects of drought

conditions, manifested as reductions in

streamflows, and populations of terrestrial

wildlife are placed under stress when severe

drought conditions develop. Habitat quality and

quantity gradually decline from lack of moisture,

increasing the competition for limited resources.

Wildlife species eventually suffer from lack of

drinking water, forage, and cover and from heat

stress. We heard that the biotic impacts of

drought are particularly acute for threatened,

endangered, and sensitive species of fish and

wildlife that are characteristically found in low

population densities. In many cases, such species

have already encountered damage to or destruction of their natural environments because of

factors such as suburban sprawl, conversion of

land to agricultural or industrial uses, and construction of large dams or other impoundments.

Environmental

resources often receive

inadequate attention during

drought emergencies and

in drought planning,

not so much because

of lack of concern

but because of lack

of expertise in this arena,

lack of adequate financial

resources, and sometimes

lack of awareness.
National Drought Policy Commission Report 29

We heard that in areas where large quantities

of water are stored behind dams, the dams

segment rivers and thus impede the movement

of fish and change the pattern of sediment

deposition. Dams also allow the regulation of

river flows, and the preference is generally for

moderate flows with no floods and no low flows.

Riverine ecosystems that evolved before the

dams were built and the life they sustain may be

eliminated. The most common examples are

anadromous fish that can no longer navigate the

river and riverine species whose food cycle

depends on the frequent flooding of riverbanks.

But dams also eliminate some of the effects of

severe droughts, so species that could not

survive as well in the natural hydrologic cycle

may now prosper. New species, welcome and

unwelcome, may be introduced. Reservoirs often

support popular game fish that would not have

been found in the natural river.

Drought also has repercussions on the morphology and hydrologic function of stream channel

networks and on the chemistry and water quality

of streams and lakes. On land, it can lead to

major episodes of tree mortality, initiate outbreaks of insects and disease in forests, and limit

an ecosystem’s productivity and ability to cycle

essential elements.

Witnesses noted that environmental resources

often receive inadequate attention during

drought emergencies and in drought planning,

not so much because of lack of concern but

because of lack of expertise in this arena, lack of

adequate financial resources, and sometimes lack

of awareness. Drought planners may fail to

determine which drought-related environmental

impacts can be tolerated and which cannot and

therefore would benefit from appropriate

drought impact-reduction measures. Larger

questions also remain to be answered, including

the degree to which humans should try to

eliminate the effect of drought on the environment if drought is a natural part of the environmental cycle.

Additional concerns center on use of water for

humans and the environment, including adequate stream flows for wildlife species, and

determination of preferences when one species

competes with another for water. Some people

suggested that during drought, environmental

regulations—ranging from those concerning

wildlife and wildlife habitat to those related to

safe drinking water—should be more flexible. On

the other hand, we heard that droughts are the

very times when enforcement of such regulations

is essential to protect environmental resources,

including drinking water supplies, that are

already stressed from factors not related to

drought. We heard too that addressing environmental concerns in relation to drought might

best be accomplished in the context of ecosystem management and restoration and as part of

planning for watersheds or river basins because

many of these concerns extend across humandrawn boundaries and borders.

The Commission appreciates the complexities of

these issues. As the Western Water Policy Review

Advisory Commission stated in its June 1998

report, “Today, there are a number of federal,

state, tribal and local agencies with competing

interests and missions related to water, but none

with a sufficient political or legal mandate to

override the concerns of the others. This means

that implementing any proposal, for almost any

When drought hits arid farmland

or fast-growing urban/suburban

regions, it can heighten tensions

over water use. This was the topic

of lead stories on the March 13,

2000, CBS and ABC prime-time

newscasts, which focused on

questions about who should get

water and for what purpose in the

Southeast and drought-stricken

Texas. A few days earlier on March

9, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer

reported on conflicts between the

City of Seattle and King County

over the county’s attempts to

involve all municipal jurisdictions

in the county—including Seattle—

in development of a regional

water resources plan that includes

considerations for salmon runs.
30 National Drought Policy Commission Report

purpose, requires working through a complicated web of laws, regulations, and constituencies.” The report cited the CALFED program in

the San Francisco Bay-Delta region of California

as a model for resolving complex water disputes,

noting that the program brought together

representatives of agricultural, business, environmental, and urban concerns “to guarantee more

reliable water supplies and improved water

quality for the environment, cities, and farms.”

The Western Governors’ Association, the National Governors’ Association, and the National

Association of Counties have adopted a set of

principles to guide their environmental management efforts. Called “Enlibra,” the principles

form the basis of a shared doctrine that “speaks

to greater participation and collaboration in

decision making, focuses on outcomes rather

than just programs, and recognizes the need for

a variety of tools beyond regulation that will

improve environmental and natural resource

management” (www.westgov.org).

We are encouraged by these and other examples

that incorporate a broad array of environmental

impacts and concerns into their processes to give

interested parties a chance to reduce conflicts.

We caution that in relation to drought, some

preparedness and proactive mitigation measures

may in and of themselves create unacceptable

impacts on the environment. For this reason, it is

doubly important that environmental resource

issues be included in drought preparedness

efforts.

Need to Address

Drought-related Wildfires

We heard that drought events often give rise to

increased risk of widespread wildfires. In turn,

wildfires can exacerbate the environmental

impacts of drought by consuming vegetation

already stressed from drought, by burning

protective streamside vegetation, and in severeintensity fires by changing soil composition and

properties. We were told, too, that in areas

where drought occurrences are rare, people are

often unprepared for wildfire. Even areas where

drought is more common may lack sufficient

resources for combating wildfire. Witnesses from

Oklahoma and Texas told us during our hearing

in Austin that they rely primarily on volunteer fire

fighters to control drought-related wildfire and

that they are in need of equipment and training

to do a better job and help ensure the safety of

the fire fighters. In written comments, New

Mexico’s state forestry division noted that accurate weather predictions are important to fire

managers for safety reasons. The comments also

said that the Palmer Drought Index, with its

emphasis on soil moisture, is not sufficient to

give fire managers the information they need

about fuel moisture, a statement that was

echoed in other comments we received.

A 1996 report of the Western Governors’ Association identified three major obstacles in suppression of drought-related wildfires:

the financial burdens to prepare for and fight

the fires,

a lack of proper training and resources, and

restoring forest and grassland health.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest

Service is authorized by the Cooperative Forestry

Assistance Act of 1978 to cooperate with states

in developing systems and methods for prevention, control, suppression, and prescribed use of

fires in rural areas. The goal is to protect human

lives, agricultural crops and livestock, property

and other improvements, and natural resources.

The Forest Service’s Fire Sciences Laboratory has

developed many tools to address fire danger and

fire behavior potential at national and local

levels. One tool to display broad-scale elements

of fire danger is the Wildland Fire Assessment

System, which is available on the Internet.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency

emphasized that wildfire is part of the wildland/

urban interface—no longer a phenomenon

concentrated primarily in large national forests
National Drought Policy Commission Report 31

Wildfire risks may

well increase with

drought—along

the suburban/

rural interface as

well as on

wildlands.

and parks or on vast expanses of agricultural

land. The Agency noted that the number of

requests it received from states for assistance

with wildfire increased from an average of five to

seven a year during most of the 1980s to 122 in

1998.

We learned also that the Resource Conservation

and Development Councils across the country

are encouraging and assisting in the installation

of “dry hydrants.” These relatively inexpensive

structures allow fire trucks to load water

from ponds on cooperating farms during

emergencies.

Need for Training and

Technical Assistance

Planning provides opportunities for the general

public to become involved and invested in

drought-related decisions—for example, adopting water conservation measures year round.

Planning also gives people a chance to learn

more about drought, leading to greater selfreliance and self-determination. And planning

emphasizes local solutions based on consideration of all affected entities and related issues,

including legal, economic, geographic, climate,

religious, and cultural differences; fairness and

equity; and environmental concerns. These

opportunities are lost where people are not

sufficiently trained to engage in drought planning or lack adequate technical assistance to do

so.

Hands-on training and technical assistance

programs can help people formulate and implement plans to mitigate human and environmental impacts. Such programs can help farmers

decide whether to include drought-resistant

crops, on-farm wells, crop insurance, conservation systems, restoration of wetlands and wildlife

habitat, and other important factors into their

risk-management strategies. They can help

farmers install water management practices and

gain a basic understanding of the soils and

climate conditions in their areas and the types of

crops and plants suitable to those sometimes

changing conditions. Such assistance can also

help them understand complicated marketing

options and other methods to manage risks.

Training and technical assistance programs can

help communities as they determine their own

priorities for incorporating drought concerns and

the need to protect environmental resources into
32 National Drought Policy Commission Report

ongoing community planning and comprehensive water management plans aimed at ensuring

safe, adequate drinking water (urban and rural)

as well as water needed to fight fires. They can

help drought planners decide whether they

would benefit from simulated drought-response

exercises like those conducted by the Army

Corps of Engineers.

We often heard that local governments know

their situations related to impending drought

better than anyone else. We were told that

cooperation and assistance from states and the

federal government through incentives, funding,

and technical assistance in drought planning

would go far to help small communities and

rural water systems prepare better for drought.

We learned that technical assistance and training

would be helpful as people gather droughtrelated information, devise drought impactreduction strategies, and prepare public education and involvement campaigns to develop

locally appropriate solutions. State climatologists

and researchers in university drought-related

programs, as well as federal experts, are potential sources for training assistance. In addition,

federal and state agencies often have had experience with the types of emergencies that can

occur and what measures were taken to respond

to the emergencies. Examples of such measures

are standard operating procedures for laying

emergency pipelines, trucking water, or identifying ponds in the areas where fire fighters can

obtain water to fight wildfires.

Experts and members of the public also advised

us that we should make greater use of innovative

water supply techniques. We saw practical

applications such as the Scottsdale system for

treating wastewater and injecting it into the

ground for later use. But we were unable to find

an authoritative guide that documents the

arguments for and against the full range of

“water-creating” methods such as desalination

and cloud seeding. Without such information, it

is less likely that water managers will fully consider these options. Even if the managers want to

learn more, they are on their own to study the

literature, which currently includes a great deal

about water-making methods but little about the

costs and impacts of these methods.

Need to Address International

Drought-related Issues

Because drought is a worldwide phenomenon,

the United States has the opportunity to share

drought experience and expertise with other

countries and to learn from them. We heard

from federal agency personnel that several

information-sharing projects are underway

through the United Nations and other entities.

In the arena of water supplies, the border between the U.S. and Canada cuts across natural

drainage basins. Thus, the actions of one country

can affect the other, and the impacts of drought

can cross the border. Although drought is a

serious issue in the Columbia River and Great

Lakes basins, the two countries have strong

working relationships on these issues. For example, droughts can lower the levels of the

Great Lakes and thereby reduce hydropower

generation, increase shipping costs, and make

the lakes less accessible to recreational boaters.

The primary response is to dredge more and to

extend boat ramps.

The International Boundary and Water Commission monitors allocation of water from the

Colorado and Rio Grande rivers between the

United States and Mexico. We heard that Mexico

currently owes the United States water from the

Rio Grande, but has not provided it. We also

heard from witnesses during our hearings in El

Paso and Austin that this has had negative

impacts on the drought-stricken lower Rio

Grande section of Texas. The witnesses told us

that there is a need for watershed planning of

the entire river basin, which is located in both

the United States and Mexico.
National Drought Policy Commission Report 33

CONCLUSIONS

From the preceding findings, we drew the

following conclusions:

The United States would benefit from development of national drought policy with

preparedness as its core.

Preparedness measures, particularly comprehensive drought planning and proactive

mitigation measures, can lessen the impact

of drought on individuals, communities, and

the environment. They can also reduce the

need for future emergency financial and

other relief.

Effective drought plans should have clearly

identified objectives and performance standards and a clear exposition of the vulnerability of a region to drought, given current

and expected water resources infrastructure

and water uses. They should be flexible to

avoid a “one size fits all” approach and allow

for social, cultural, and religious differences.

For both urban and rural communities, they

should consider the location of alternate or

supplemental sources of water, how this

water can be conveyed to the point of need,

and whether additional treatment is needed.

They should also be based on cost and

performance.

Effective plans should evaluate drought

programs to determine whether they identify

and address priority environmental impacts

and improve proactive mitigation of

drought’s impacts on the environment

through training, incentives, technical assistance, research, and public education. Effective plans should consider the allocation of

water to meet the need to protect the environment and to meet immediate human

needs.

The people and entities that are likely to

receive the greatest share of federal emergency assistance because of drought often

have the fewest personnel, information, and

financial resources to prepare for and reduce

the potential impacts of drought.

Individuals, businesses, local/county/state

governments, tribes, and nongovernmental

organizations with an interest in or responsibilities for drought management would

benefit from training and technical assistance

to plan for and reduce the impacts of

drought.

There are a number of success stories in

drought preparedness and proactive mitigation at the individual, local, state, regional,

and federal levels that would make excellent

models for use in training and technical

assistance. Among those cited in this report

are the nonprofit TreePeople’s “Second

Nature” program in Los Angeles, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California’s

“Integrated Resource” and “Water Surplus

and Demand Management” plans,

Kentucky’s drought management plan, the

Georgia Water Management Campaign, the

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s Drought Program, the Army Corps of Engineers’ simulated drought exercises, and the small watersheds assistance offered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture

Partnerships among nonfederal governments, the federal government, and private

interests can go far in developing the tools

and strategies for formulating and carrying

out appropriate drought preparedness

strategies.

Proactive mitigation activities such as water

conservation, science-based forest management, reuse of wastewater, desalination,

pricing strategies, and the identification of

back-up water supplies—when initiated

before an emergency—can reduce vulnerability to drought events.

In some parts of the country, there is insufficient area coverage or recorded history for

stream gage and climate data.
34 National Drought Policy Commission Report

Drought-related data can be better marshaled, interpreted, and disseminated to all

parties with an interest in drought, including

the media and public at large, so that citizens

and experts in drought management alike

can gain the knowledge they need to help

lessen the impacts of drought.

Drought-related research is the foundation of

many drought programs and is critical in the

production of high-quality innovations and

technology that lead to improved drought

preparedness.

Even the best preparedness measures may

not sufficiently reduce many risks associated

with drought nor eliminate the need for

emergency relief during severe droughts.

There is considerable sentiment among

farmers, ranchers, and tribes to make the

U.S. Department of Agriculture’s crop insurance more responsive to their needs by

extending coverage to include all crops and

livestock.

Disaster declarations are much less common

for severe urban droughts than for agricultural droughts. Like agricultural droughts,

however, they will occur despite the best

preparedness measures.

Federal drought-related programs lack a

coordinated approach so that delivery of

program services is less efficient, effective,

and timely than it could be. The U.S. Department of Agriculture and other federal agencies involved in assisting people with drought

activities need to improve their internal and

external coordination practices to provide

services more appropriately and expediently.

Some federal drought-related programs are

neither authorized nor funded at the level

needed to deliver effective services. Furthermore, their eligibility criteria and cost-sharing

requirements may restrict participation by

tribes, farmers and ranchers, and others who

may have limited resources.
National Drought Policy Commission Report 35

RECOMMENDATIONS

Policy Statement

The Commission believes that national drought

policy should use the resources of the federal

government to support but not supplant nor

interfere with state, tribal, regional, local, and

individual efforts to reduce drought impacts. The

guiding principles of national drought policy

should be:

Favor preparedness over insurance, insurance

over relief, and incentives over regulation.

Set research priorities based on the potential

of the research results to reduce drought

impacts.

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—especially drought planning, plan

implementation, and proactive mitigation—must

become the cornerstone of national drought

policy. This basic concept was the conclusion

reached by the Senate Task Force on Funding

Disaster Relief in March 1995, among other

entities. It was universally supported within the

Commission and by the overwhelming majority

of people who commented on the draft version

of this report.

We 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 is to ensure that the goals of national

drought policy are achieved. The goals are:

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.

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.

3. Develop and incorporate comprehensive

insurance and financial strategies into

drought preparedness plans.

4. Maintain a safety net of emergency relief that

emphasizes sound stewardship of natural

resources and self-help.

5. Coordinate drought programs and response

effectively, efficiently, and in a customeroriented manner.

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 heard

convincing testimony and reviewed expert

analyses that led us to conclude most levels of

government and most of the private sector are

not adequately prepared for drought. We believe

that coordinated drought preparedness programs will lessen the need for future emergency

financial and other assistance. Basic components

of preparedness include long-term planning,

implementation of proactive mitigation measures, risk management, resource stewardship,

environmental considerations, and public education.
36 National Drought Policy Commission Report

Common Components of Comprehensive Water Management/Drought Planning

• Analysis of past, current and

projected water demand,

instream flow needs for appropriate ecosystem protection,

water availability, and (from

these) potential water shortages.

• The basis for the design and

performance of the plan,

including the economic,

environmental, social, and

cultural goals and objectives of

decision makers and the public

at large and performance

metrics derived from those

objectives.

• Description of how shortages

would be met (for example,

planting of drought-resistant

species, temporary fallowing of

land, increased supply, leak

detection/elimination, water use

efficiency, demand management) and an estimate of associated costs.

• Description of interagency/

intergovernmental coordination

and public participation.

• Appropriate mitigation of

drought impacts on the environment.

• Monitoring and prediction

strategies.

• Methods for testing the plans.

• Mechanisms for updating the

plans.

• A decision-making body to

oversee and implement the

plans.

The Commission encourages

drought planning as a continuing

process and part of more comprehensive water management

programs.

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 Incentives 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.

Federal agencies that provide drought

planning assistance should consider the

elements shown in the box below.

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.
National Drought Policy Commission Report 37

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.

Our findings and conclusions point out the value

of observation networks, monitoring, prediction,

information gateways and delivery, and research

to drought preparedness. The National Drought

Council (see Recommendation 5.1) will coordinate a formal process—such as a drought data

monitoring, prediction, and research “summit”

of multi-disciplinary, geographically diverse

representatives—to ascertain the needs and

expectations of all interested parties as a first

step toward prioritizing recommendations.

Research priorities should address the impacts of

drought on non-irrigated systems, aquatic

ecosystems, wildlife, and other aspects of the

natural environment, including the potential

negative impacts of drought mitigation measures. Better coordination of governments and

private entities in international drought monitoring, prediction, research, education, water

conservation, and technology transfer is essential. The National Drought Council’s annual

Sample Public Awareness Activities

• Public involvement before,

during, and after the development of drought preparedness

plans: The planning entity

should seek broad community

input and support for the

planning effort. Participation

should be actively solicited

from a full spectrum of the

local population—all age

groups, all cultural and ethnic

groups, and all economic

levels.

• Public information: The public

needs to have access to understandable, informative materials

on all aspects of drought.

Examples of such materials

include: explanations of the

causes of drought, its impacts,

and the damage it causes;

descriptions of the value and

benefits of sound land stewardship to reduce the impacts of

drought and protect the environment; clear instructions for

appropriate responses to

drought (water conservation,

water reuse, and leak detection/elimination among

others); and requirements of

local ordinances or state law

during droughts. This information should be provided in as

many locations and as many

formats as possible, including

printed booklets or brochures,

telephone hotlines, public

service announcements, media

events, computer web pages,

and classroom presentations.

reports will include a description of the information products most needed to reduce drought

impacts (see Recommendation 5.4).

Better coordination

of governments and

private entities in

international drought

monitoring, prediction,

research, education, water

conservation, and

technology transfer

is essential.

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. The plan should

include cooperation with states, development and improvement of baseline historical

data sets, and recognition of the recommendations made by the National Drought

Council. Priority should be placed on filling

the gaps on tribal lands and in rural

America. Examples of critical observation

networks are in the box on the next page.
38 National Drought Policy Commission Report

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

observational network data and drought

monitoring, prediction, impact, assessment,

preparedness, and mitigation measures.

Links among federal and nonfederal sources

are critical.

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,

Examples of Critical Observation

Networks

• 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

regional, state, tribal, and local levels and to

the private sector and general public. The

systems should include near real-time data,

information and products developed at each

of these levels and integrated in an appropriate fashion to accurately reflect regional and

state differences in drought conditions. The

box below indicates some of the critical

participants in such a delivery system.

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. Areas of

research should include topics that will

either conserve water or make more water

available for needs during drought. Examples include alternative methods such as

brush control, cloud seeding, canal lining,

and desalination.

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.

Selected Critical Participants in an

Effective Drought Information

Delivery System

• Climate Prediction Center

• National Climatic Data Center

• Regional Climate Centers

• U.S. Department of Agriculture

• U.S. Geological Survey

• National Drought Mitigation Center

• State Climatologists

• Other regional climate centers

• Other water systems

• International partners
National Drought Policy Commission Report 39

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. As we heard,

however, that program does not cover all crops

nor does it cover livestock. In addition, payments

from the program are often “too little, too late”

and are administered differently across the

country. There is no similar program for others

who are at particular risk from drought. Assistance must be pieced together from various

sources or is simply not available. Time and

again, the federal government is asked to appropriate emergency relief that costs at least $500

million a year on average.

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. Still, we are convinced that

sound insurance and financial strategies are

essential if the country is to move away from

relying on 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.

During a

drought, the

incidence of soil

erosion may

increase.
40 National Drought Policy Commission Report

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.

4.2 Congress should amend the appropriate U.S.

Department of Agriculture’s emergency

programs to include livestock needs during

drought.

4.3 The 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.

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.

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.

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 the table on the next page
National Drought Policy Commission Report 41

concerning membership and the designation process). 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 cochair 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.

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

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*

Agency Rural water*

Tribal*

Small Business Agency head Environmental*

Administration Farm credit*

Agricultural producers*

Federal Emergency Agency head

Management Agency

* Designated by the

Secretary of Agriculture

based on nominations

from relevant broad-based

groups.
42 National Drought Policy Commission Report

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 non-traditional strategies.

Advocacy of drought-related educational training programs within universities, agencies, and public sector

programs.

The co-chairs should report to the President and

Congress annually on the progress of these

activities

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.
National Drought Policy Commission Report 43

Appendix A: National Drought Policy Act

Public Law 105-199

An Act

To establish an advisory commission to provide advice and recommendations on

the creation of an integrated, coordinated Federal policy designed to prepare for

and respond to serious drought emergencies.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of

America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``National Drought Policy Act of 1998''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--

(1) the United States often suffers serious economic and environmental losses

from severe regional droughts and there is no coordinated Federal strategy to

respond to such emergencies;

(2) at the Federal level, even though historically there have been frequent,

significant droughts of national consequences, drought is addressed mainly

through special legislation and ad hoc action rather than through a systematic

and permanent process as occurs with other natural disasters;

(3) there is an increasing need, particularly at the Federal level, to emphasize

preparedness, mitigation, and risk management (rather than simply crisis management) when addressing drought and other natural disasters or emergencies;

(4) several Federal agencies have a role in drought from predicting, forecasting,

and monitoring of drought conditions to the provision of planning, technical,

and financial assistance;

(5) there is no single Federal agency in a lead or coordinating role with regard to

drought;

(6) State, local, and tribal governments have had to deal individually and separately with each Federal agency involved in drought assistance; and

(7) the President should appoint an advisory commission to provide advice and

recommendations on the creation of an integrated, coordinated Federal policy

designed to prepare for, mitigate the impacts of, respond to, and recover from

serious drought emergencies.

SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION.

(a) Establishment.--There is established a commission to be known as the National Drought Policy Commission (hereafter in this Act referred to as the ``Commission'').

(b) Membership.--

(1) Composition.--The Commission shall be composed of 16 members. The

members of the Commission shall include--

(A) the Secretary of Agriculture, or the designee of the Secretary, who shall chair

the Commission;

105th Congress

July 16, 1998 - [H.R. 3035]

note

42 USC 5121 note

42 USC 5121 note

National Drought Policy Act

of 1998. note 42 USC 5121

note
44 National Drought Policy Commission Report

(B) the Secretary of the Interior, or the designee of the Secretary;

(C) the Secretary of the Army, or the designee of the Secretary;

(D) the Secretary of Commerce, or the designee of the Secretary;

(E) the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or the designee

of the Director;

(F) the Administrator of the Small Business Administration, or the designee of the

Administrator;

(G) two persons nominated by the National Governors' Association and appointed by the President, of whom--

one shall be the governor of a State east of the Mississippi River; and(ii) one

shall be a governor of a State west of the Mississippi River;

(H) a person nominated by the National Association of Counties and appointed

by the President;

(I) a person nominated by the United States Conference of Mayors and appointed by the President; and

(J) six persons, appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture in coordination with the

Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of the Army, who shall be representative of groups acutely affected by drought emergencies, such as the agricultural

production community, the credit community, rural and urban water associations, Native Americans, and fishing and environmental interests.

(2) Date.--The appointments of the members of the Commission shall be made

no later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(c) Period of Appointment; Vacancies.--Members shall be appointed for the life of

the Commission. Any vacancy in the Commission shall not affect its powers, but

shall be filled in the same manner as the original appointment.

(d) Initial Meeting.--No later than 30 days after the date on which all members of

the Commission have been appointed, the Commission shall hold its first meeting.

(e) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at the call of the chair.

(f ) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Commission shall constitute a

quorum, but a lesser number of members may hold hearings.

(g) Vice Chair.--The Commission shall select a vice chair from among the members who are not Federal officers or employees.

SEC. 4. DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION.

(a) Study and Report.--The Commission shall conduct a thorough study and

submit a report on national drought policy in accordance with this section.

(b) Content of Study and Report.--In conducting the study and report, the

Commission shall--

(1) determine, in consultation with the National Drought Mitigation Center in

Lincoln, Nebraska, and other appropriate entities, what needs exist on the

Federal, State, local, and tribal levels to prepare for and respond to drought

emergencies;

(2) review all existing Federal laws and programs relating to drought;

President

President

President

Deadline.

Deadline.
National Drought Policy Commission Report 45

(3) review State, local, and tribal laws and programs relating to drought that the

Commission finds pertinent;

(4) determine what differences exist between the needs of those affected by

drought and the Federal laws and programs designed to mitigate the impacts of

and respond to drought;

(5) collaborate with the Western Drought Coordination Council and other

appropriate entities in order to consider regional drought initiatives and the

application of such initiatives at the national level;

(6) make recommendations on how Federal drought laws and programs can be

better integrated with ongoing State, local, and tribal programs into a comprehensive national policy to mitigate the impacts of and respond to drought

emergencies without diminishing the rights of States to control water through

State law and considering the need for protection of the environment;

(7) make recommendations on improving public awareness of the need for

drought mitigation, and prevention; and response on developing a coordinated

approach to drought mitigation, prevention, and response by governmental and

nongovernmental entities, including academic, private, and nonprofit interests;

and

(8) include a recommendation on whether all Federal drought preparation and

response programs should be consolidated under one existing Federal agency

and, if so, identify such agency.

(c) Submission of Report.--

(1) In general.--No later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this

Act, the Commission shall submit a report to the President and Congress which

shall contain a detailed statement of the findings and conclusions of the Commission, together with its recommendations for such legislation and administrative actions as it considers appropriate.

(2) Approval of report.--Before submission of the report, the contents of the

report shall be approved by unanimous consent or majority vote. If the report is

approved by majority vote, members voting not to approve the contents shall be

given the opportunity to submit dissenting views with the report.

SEC. 5. POWERS OF THE COMMISSION.

(a) Hearings.--The Commission may hold such hearings, sit and act at such times

and places, take such testimony, and receive such evidence as the Commission

considers necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act.

(b) Information From Federal Agencies.--The Commission may secure directly

from any Federal department or agency such information as the Commission

considers necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.

Upon request of the chair of the Commission, the head of such department or

agency shall furnish such information to the Commission.

(c) Postal Services.--The Commission may use the United States mails in the same

manner and under the same conditions as other departments and agencies of

the Federal Government.

(d) Gifts.--The Commission may accept, use, and dispose of gifts or donations of

services or property.

Deadline.

42 USC 5121 note.
46 National Drought Policy Commission Report

SEC. 6. COMMISSION PERSONNEL MATTERS.

(a) Compensation of Members.--Each member of the Commission who is not an

officer or employee of the Federal Government shall not be compensated for

service on the Commission, except as provided under subsection (b). All members of the Commission who are officers or employees of the United States shall

serve without compensation in addition to that received for their services as

officers or employees of the United States.

(b) Travel Expenses.--The members of the Commission shall be allowed travel

expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, at rates authorized for

employees of agencies under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States

Code, while away from their homes or regular places of business in the performance of services for the Commission.

(c) Detail of Government Employees.--Any Federal Government employee may

be detailed to the Commission without reimbursement, and such detail shall be

without interruption or loss of civil service status or privilege.

(d) Administrative Support.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall provide all financial, administrative, and staff support services for the Commission.

SEC. 7. TERMINATION OF THE COMMISSION.

The Commission shall terminate 90 days after the date on which the Commission

submits its report under section 4.

Approved July 16, 1998.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 3035 (S. 222):

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 105-554, Pt. 1 (Comm. on Transportation and

 Infrastructure).

SENATE REPORTS: No. 105-144 accompanying S. 222 (Comm. on Governmental

 Affairs).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 144 (1998):

June 16, considered and passed House.

June 24, considered and passed Senate.

42 USC 5121 note.

42 USC 5121 note.
National Drought Policy Commission Report 47

Appendix B:

Information Available from the

National Drought Policy Commission

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
48 National Drought Policy Commission Report
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

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 Association 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 Secretary of the Army

Ralph Tabor

National Association of Counties

Bill Werick

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
“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